The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
American Pravda: When Stalin Almost Conquered Europe
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_482986687

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

For many years I maintained far too many magazine subscriptions, more periodicals than I could possibly read or even skim, so most weeks they went straight into storage, with scarcely more than a glance at the cover. But every now and then, I might casually browse one of them, curious about what I had usually been missing.

Thus, in the summer of 2010, I happened to leaf through an issue of Chronicles, the small-circulation flagship organ of the marginalized paleoconservative movement, and soon began reading a blandly-titled book review. But the piece so astonished me that it immediately justified all the many years of subscription payments I had sent to that magazine.

The reviewer was Andrei Navrozov, a Soviet emigre long resident in Britain, and he opened by quoting a passage from a previous 1990 book review, published almost exactly twenty years before:

[Suvorov] is arguing with every book, every article, every film, every NATO directive, every Downing Street assumption, every Pentagon clerk, every academic, every Communist and anti-Communist, every neoconservative intellectual, every Soviet song, poem, novel and piece of music ever heard, written, made, sung, issued, produced, or born during the last 50 years. For this reason, Icebreaker is the most original work of history it has been my privilege to read.

ORDER IT NOW

He himself had written that earlier book review, which ran in the prestigious Times Literary Supplement following the original English publication of Icebreaker, and his description was not overblown. The work sought to overturn the settled history of World War II.

Icebreaker‘s author, writing under the pen-name Viktor Suvorov, was a veteran Soviet military intelligence officer who had defected to the West in 1978 and subsequently published a number of well-regarded books on the Soviet military and intelligence services. But here he advanced a far more radical thesis.

The “Suvorov Hypothesis” claimed that during the summer of 1941 Stalin was on the very verge of mounting a massive invasion and conquest of Europe, while Hitler’s sudden attack on June 22nd of that year was intended to forestall that looming blow. Moreover, the author also argued that Stalin’s planned attack constituted merely the final act in a much longer geopolitical strategy that he had been developing since at least the early 1930s.

Following the Bolshevik Revolution, the new Soviet regime had been viewed with extreme suspicion and hostility by other European countries, most of which also regarded their own domestic Communist Parties as likely fifth columns. So to fulfill Lenin’s dream and carry the revolution to Germany and the rest of Europe, Stalin somehow needed to split the Europeans, and break their common line of resistance. He allegedly viewed Hitler’s rise as exactly such a potential “icebreaker,” an opportunity to unleash another bloody European war and exhaust all sides, while the Soviet Union remained aloof and bided its strength, waiting for the right moment to sweep in and conquer the entire continent.

To this end, Stalin had directed his powerful German Communist Party to take political actions ensuring that Hitler came to power and then later lured the German dictator into signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to divide Poland. This led Britain and France to declare war on Germany, while also eliminating the Polish buffer state, thereby placing Soviet armies directly on the German border. And from the very moment he signed that long-term peace agreement with Hitler, he abandoned all his defensive preparations, and instead embarked upon an enormous military build-up of the purely offensive forces he intended to use for European conquest. Thus according to Suvorov, Stalin ranks as “the chief culprit” behind the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and the updated English edition of his book bears that exact title.

To my great surprise I discovered that Suvorov’s remarkable theories had gained enormous worldwide prominence since 1990, and had been widely discussed almost everywhere except in America and the other English-speaking countries. As Navrozov explained:

[The English edition of the] book sold 800 copies.

Some months later, a German edition of the book, under the title Der Eisbrecher: Hitler in Stalins Kaulkul, was published in Germany by a smallish house, Klett-Cotta, to timid and gingerly reviews. It sold 8,000 copies. In 1992, Suvorov’s manuscript was delivered to a maverick publisher in Moscow, and at last the book saw the light of day in the original Russian, quickly selling out its first print run of 100,000 copies. In the years that followed, over five million copies have been sold, making Suvorov the most-read military historian in history.

And yet, in the nearly 20 years that have elapsed between Icebreaker‘s launch in England and the present publication of The Chief Culprit, no British, American, Canadian, or Australian publisher saw fit to exploit potentially global interest in the drifting Icebreaker—or to so much as touch Suvorov with a barge pole—despite the fact that the almost unobtainable $20 copies of the long-out-of print Hamish Hamilton edition have been changing hands on the internet for upward of $500.

ORDER IT NOW

Since 1990, Suvorov’s works have been translated into at least 18 languages and an international storm of scholarly controversy has swirled around the Suvorov Hypothesis in Russia, Germany, Israel, and elsewhere. Numerous other authors have published books in support or more often strong opposition, and even international academic conferences have been held to debate the theory. But our own English-language media has almost entirely blacklisted and ignored this ongoing international debate, to such an extent that the name of the most widely-read military historian who ever lived had remained totally unknown to me.

Finally in 2008, the prestigious Naval Academy Press of Annapolis decided to break this 18 year intellectual embargo and published an updated English edition of Suvorov’s work. But once again, our media outlets almost entirely averted their eyes, and only a single review appeared in an obscure ideological publication, where I chanced to encounter it. This conclusively demonstrates that throughout most of the twentieth century a united front of English-language publishers and media organs could easily maintain a boycott of any important topic, ensuring that almost no one in America or the rest of the Anglosphere would ever hear of it. Only with the recent rise of the Internet has this disheartening situation begun to change.

 

Determining Stalin’s true motives and the basis of his foreign policy during the 1930s is hardly easy, and his statements and actions are subject to multiple interpretations. Therefore, the theory that the dictator spent all those years deftly preparing the outbreak of World War II appears quite speculative to me. But the other central claim of the Suvorov Hypothesis—that the Soviets were themselves on the verge of attacking when the Germans struck—is an extremely factual question, which can be evaluated based on hard evidence. I find the case quite compelling, at least if the facts and details that Suvorov cites in support are not totally spurious, which seems unlikely with the Naval Academy Press as his publisher.

The Eastern Front was the decisive theater of World War II, involving military forces vastly larger than those deployed in the West or the Pacific, and the standard narrative always emphasizes the ineptitude and weakness of the Soviets. On June 22, 1941, Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, a sudden, massive surprise attack on the USSR, which caught the Red Army completely unaware. Stalin has been regularly ridiculed for his total lack of preparedness, with Hitler often described as the only man the paranoid dictator had ever fully trusted. Although the defending Soviet forces were enormous in size, they were poorly led, with their officer corps still not recovered from the crippling purges of the late 1930s, and their obsolete equipment and poor tactics were absolutely no match for the modern panzer divisions of Germany’s hitherto undefeated Wehrmacht. The Russians initially suffered gigantic losses, and only the onset of winter and the vast spaces of their territory saved them from a quick defeat. After this, the war seesawed back-and-forth for four more years, until superior numbers and improved tactics finally carried the Soviets to the streets of a destroyed Berlin in 1945.

Such is the traditional understanding of the titanic Russo-German struggle that we see endlessly echoed in every newspaper, book, television documentary, and film around us. But even a cursory examination of the initial situation has always revealed strange anomalies.

Many years ago, while in Junior High, I became an avid war-gamer with a strong interest in military history, and the Eastern Front of World War II was certainly a very popular topic. But every reconstruction of Operation Barbarossa always noted that the Germans owed much of their great initial success to the very odd deployment of the huge Soviet forces, which were all massed along the border in vulnerable formations almost as if preparing for an attack, and some writers casually suggested that this might have indeed been the case. But the sheer volume of supporting evidence amassed by Suvorov goes far beyond this sort of idle speculation, and he produces a historical picture radically different than what our standard accounts have always implied.

First, although there was been a widespread belief in the superiority of Germany’s military technology, its tanks and its planes, this is almost entirely mythological. In actual fact, Soviet tanks were far superior in main armament, armor, and maneuverability to their German counterparts, so much so that the overwhelming majority of panzers were almost obsolescent by comparison. And the Soviet superiority in numbers was even more extreme, with Stalin deploying several times more tanks than the combined total of those held by Germany and every other nation in the world: 27,000 against just 4,000 in Hitler’s forces. Even during peacetime, a single Soviet factory in Kharkov produced more tanks in every six month period than the entire Third Reich had built prior to 1940. The Soviets held a similar superiority, though somewhat less extreme, in their ground-attack bombers. The totally closed nature of the USSR meant that vast military forces remained entirely hidden from outside observers.

There is also little evidence that the quality of Soviet officers or military doctrine fell short. Indeed, we often forget that history’s first successful example of a “blitzkrieg” in modern warfare was the crushing August 1939 defeat that Stalin inflicted upon the Japanese 6th Army in Outer Mongolia, relying upon a massive surprise attack of tanks, bombers, and mobile infantry. And Stalin apparently thought so highly of many of his top military strategists in 1941, that despite his huge initial losses, many of them remained in command and were eventually promoted to the highest ranks of the Soviet military establishment by the end of the war.

Certainly, many aspects of the Soviet military machine were primitive, but exactly the same was true of their Nazi opponents. Perhaps the most surprising detail about the technology of the invading Wehrmacht in 1941 was that its transportation system was still almost entirely pre-modern, relying upon wagons and carts drawn by 750,000 horses to maintain the vital flow of ammunition and replacements to its advancing armies.

Meanwhile, major categories of Soviet weapons systems seem almost impossible to explain except as important elements of Stalin’s offensive plans. Although the bulk of the Soviet armored forces were medium tanks like the T-28 and T-34, generally far superior to their German counterparts, the USSR had also pioneered the development of several lines of highly specialized tanks, most of which had no counterpart elsewhere in the world.

(*) The Soviets had produced a remarkable line of light BT tanks, easily able to shed their tracks and continue on wheels, achieving a top speed of 60 miles per hour, two or three times faster than any other comparable armored vehicle, and ideally suited to exploitation drives deep into enemy territory. However, such wheeled operation was only effective on paved highways, of which Soviet territory had none, hence were ideally suited for travel on Germany’s large network of autobahns. In 1941 Stalin deployed almost 6,500 of these autobahn-oriented tanks, more than the rest of the world’s tanks combined.

(*) For centuries, Continental conquerors from Napoleon to Hitler had been stymied by the barrier of the English Channel, but Stalin was far better prepared. Although Stalin’s vast USSR was entirely a land-power, he pioneered the world’s only series of fully amphibious light tanks, able to successfully cross large rivers, lakes, and even that notoriously wide moat last successfully traversed by William the Conqueror in 1066. By 1941, the Soviets deployed 4,000 of these amphibious tanks, far more than 3,350 German tanks of all types used in the attack. But being useless in defense, they were all ordered abandoned or destroyed.

(*) The Soviets also fielded many thousands of heavy tanks, intended to engage and defeat enemy armor, while the Germans had none at all. In direct combat, a Soviet KV-1 or KV-2 could easily destroy four or five of the best German tanks, while remaining almost invulnerable to enemy shells. Suvorov recounts the example of a KV which took 43 direct hits before finally becoming incapacitated, surrounded by the hulks of the ten German tanks it had first managed to destroy.

Other evidence of the scale and intent of Stalin’s armies in the summer of 1941 are equally telling:

(*) During the early years of World War II, the Germans effectively utilized paratroops and air-mobile forces to seize key enemy targets far behind the front lines during a major offensive, and this was an important component of their victories against France in 1940 and Greece in 1941. Such units are necessarily lightly armed and no match for regular infantry in a defensive battle; hence their only role is an offensive one. Germany entered the war with 4,000 paratroops, a far larger force than anything found in Britain, France, America, Italy, or Japan. However, the Soviets had at least 1,000,000 trained paratroopers, and Suvorov believes that the true total was actually closer to 2,000,000.

(*) Sometimes the production decisions of major weapon systems provide strong hints of the broader strategy behind their development. The most widely produced military aircraft in history was the heavily armored IL-2, a powerful Soviet ground-attack bomber that was originally designed as a two-man system, with the rear gunner able to effectively defend the plane against enemy fighters during its missions. However, Stalin personally ordered the design changed to eliminate the second man and defensive armament, which left the bomber extremely vulnerable to enemy aircraft once the war broke out. Stalin and his war-planners had seemingly banked on possessing near-total air supremacy during the entire course of any conflict, an assumption plausible only if the German luftwaffe were destroyed on the ground by a surprise attack on the very first day.

(*) There is considerable evidence that in the weeks prior to the German surprise attack, Stalin had ordered the release of many hundreds of thousands of Gulag prisoners, who were issued basic weapons and organized into NKVD-led divisions and corps, constituting a substantial part of the Second Strategic Echelon located hundreds of miles from the German border. These units may have been intended to serve as occupation troops, allowing the much more powerful front-line forces to press onward and complete the conquests of France, Italy, the Balkans, and Spain. Otherwise, I can find no other plausible explanation for Stalin’s action.

(*) The planned invasion and occupation of a large country whose population speaks a different language requires considerable logistical preparation. As an example, prior to their attack the notoriously methodical Germans printed and distributed to their troops large numbers of German-Russian basic phrasebooks, allowing effective communication with the local Slavic villagers and townsmen. Ironically enough, at around the same time, the USSR seems to have produced very similar Russian-German phrasebooks, allowing conquering Soviet troops to easily make themselves understood to German civilians. Many millions of these phrasebooks had been distributed to Soviet forces on the German border during the early months of 1941.

Suvorov’s reconstruction of the weeks directly preceding the outbreak of combat is a fascinating one, emphasizing the mirror-image actions taken by both the Soviet and German armies. Each side moved its best striking units, airfields, and ammunition dumps close to the border, ideal for an attack but very vulnerable in defense. Each side carefully deactivated any residual minefields and ripped out any barbed wire obstacles, lest these hinder the forthcoming attack. Each side did its best to camouflage their preparations, talking loudly about peace while preparing for imminent war. The Soviet deployment had begun much earlier, but since their forces were so much larger and had far greater distances to cross, they were not yet quite ready for their attack when the Germans struck, and thereby shattered Stalin’s planned conquest of Europe.

All of the above examples of Soviet weapons systems or strategic decisions seem very difficult to explain under the conventional defensive narrative, but make perfect sense if Stalin’s orientation from 1939 onward had always been an offensive one, and he had decided that summer 1941 was the time to strike and enlarge his Soviet Union to include all the European states, just as Lenin had originally intended. And Suvorov provides many dozens of additional examples, building brick by brick a very compelling case for this theory.

The book is not overly long, running perhaps 150,000 words, and $20 plus a few mouse clicks on Amazon will provide you a copy to read and judge for yourself. But for those who desire a simple summary, Suvorov’s 2009 lecture at the Eurasia Forum of the Annapolis Naval Academy is conveniently available on YouTube, though slightly hindered by his weak English:

And also his C-SPAN Book TV lectures at the Woodrow Wilson Center:

Controversial theories, even if backed by seemingly strong evidence, can hardly be properly evaluated until they have been weighed against the counter-arguments of their strongest critics, and this should certainly be the case with the Suvorov Hypothesis. But although the last three decades have seen the development of a large secondary literature, much of it sharply critical, nearly all this international debate has taken place in Russian, German, or Hebrew, languages that I do not read.

ORDER IT NOW

There are some exceptions. Several years ago, I came across a website debate on the topic, and one strong critic claimed that Suvorov’s theories had been totally debunked by American military historian David M. Glantz in Stumbling Colossus, published in 1998. But when I ordered and read the book I was sorely disappointed. 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. Most ironically, Glantz emphasizes that although Suvorov’s analysis of the titanic Russo-German military struggle had gained great attention and considerable support among both Russian and German scholars, it had been generally ignored in the Anglo-American world, and he almost seems to imply that it can probably be disregarded for that reason. Perhaps this attitude reflected the cultural arrogance of many American intellectual elites during Russia’s disastrous Yeltsin Era of the late 1990s.

ORDER IT NOW

A far superior book, generally supportive of Suvorov’s framework, was Stalin’s War of Annihilation, by prize-winning German military historian Joachim Hoffmann, originally commissioned by the German Armed Forces and published in 1995 with an English revised edition appearing in 2001. The cover carries a notice that the text was cleared by German government censors, and the author’s introduction recounts the repeated threats of prosecution he endured from elected officials and the other legal obstacles he faced, while elsewhere he directly addresses himself to the unseen government authorities who he knows are reading over his shoulder. When stepping too far outside the bounds of accepted history carries the serious risk that a book’s entire print-run will be burned and the author imprisoned, a reader must necessarily be cautious at evaluating the text since important sections have been skewed or preemptively excised in the interests of self-preservation. Evaluating scholarly debates on historical issues becomes difficult when one sides faces incarceration if their arguments are too bold.

 

Can we say whether Suvorov is right? Since our information gatekeepers of the English-language world have spent the last three decades closing their eyes and pretending that the Suvorov Hypothesis does not exist, the near-complete absence of any substantial reviews or critiques makes it very difficult for me to come to any definite conclusion. But based on the available evidence, I believe it is far more likely than not that Suvorov’s theories are at least substantially correct. And if so, our current understanding of World War II—the central formative event of our modern world—is entirely transformed.

Suvorov notes that treaties or pacts are traditionally named for the city in which they are signed—the Warsaw Pact, the Baghdad Pact, the Munich Agreement—and thus the so-called “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact” signed in August 23, 1939 by which Hitler and Stalin agreed to the division of Poland should more properly be called “the Moscow Pact.” As a direct result of that agreement, Stalin gained half of Poland, the Baltic States, and various other advantages, including a direct border with Germany. Meanwhile, Hitler was punished by declarations of war from France and Britain, amid worldwide condemnation as a military aggressor. Although Germany and Russia both invaded Poland, the latter managed to avoid being dragged into any war with Poland’s erstwhile allies. Thus, the primary beneficiary of the Moscow Pact was clearly Moscow.

Given the long years of trench warfare on the Western front during the First World War, almost all outside observers expected the new round of the conflict to follow a very similar static pattern, gradually exhausting all sides, and the world has shocked when Germany’s innovative tactics allowed it to achieve a lightening defeat the allied armies in France during 1940. But at that point, Hitler regarded the war as essentially over, and was confident that the extremely generous peace terms he immediately offered the British would soon lead to a final settlement. As a consequence, he returned Germany to a regular peacetime economy, choosing butter over guns in order to maintain his high domestic popularity

Stalin, however, was under no such political constraints, and from the moment he had signed his long-term peace agreement with Hitler in 1939 and divided Poland, he ramped up his total-war economy to an even higher notch. Embarking upon an unprecedented military buildup, he focused his production almost entirely upon purely offensive weapons systems, while even discontinuing those armaments better suited for defense and dismantling his defensive lines of fortifications. By 1941, his production cycle was complete, and he made his plans accordingly.

And so, just as in our traditional narrative, we see that in the weeks and months leading up to Barbarossa, the most powerful offensive military force in the history of the world was quietly assembled in secret along the German-Russian border, preparing for the order that would unleash their surprise attack. The enemy’s unprepared airforce was to be destroyed on the ground in the first days of the battle, and enormous tank columns would begin deep penetration thrusts, surrounding and trapping the opposing forces, achieving a classic blitzkrieg victory, and ensuring the rapid occupation of vast territories. But the forces preparing this unprecedented war of conquest were Stalin’s, and his military juggernaut would surely have seized all of Europe, probably soon followed by the remainder of the Eurasian landmass.

Then at almost the last moment, Hitler suddenly realized the strategic trap into which he had fallen, and ordered his heavily outnumbered and outgunned troops into a desperate surprise attack of their own on the assembling Soviets, fortuitously catching them at the very point at which their own final preparations for sudden attack had left them most vulnerable, and thereby snatching a major initial victory from the jaws of certain defeat. Huge stockpiles of Soviet ammunition and weaponry had been positioned close to the border to supply the army of invasion into Germany, and these quickly fell into German hands, providing an important addition to their own woefully inadequate resources.

The enormous and fully-militarized resources of the Soviet state, supplemented by the contributions of Britain and America, did eventually turn the tide of battle and lead to a Soviet victory, but Stalin ended up with only half of Europe rather than its entirety. Suvorov argues that the fatal weakness of the Soviet system was its total inability to compete with non-Sovietized states in the peacetime production of civilian goods, and because such states had still survived after the war, the Soviet Union was doomed to eventual collapse.

Navrozov, the Chronicles reviewer, is a Russian Slav and therefore hardly favorable to the German dictator. But he closes his review with a remarkable statement:

Therefore, if any of us is free to write, publish, and read this today, it follows that in some not inconsequential part our gratitude for this must go to Hitler. And if someone wants to arrest me for saying what I have just said, I make no secret of where I live.

 
• Category: History • Tags: American Pravda, Iosef Stalin, Russia, World War II 
The American Pravda Series
Hide 781 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Duglarri says:

    So Stalin’s desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn’t happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt’s messages, the rebuff of Churchill’s warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge’s transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

    The reports from the front, the response to the Soviet unit reporting they were under fire: “Are you mad? And why is your transmission not in code?”

    And so by this retelling, Hitler noticed in the nick of time that Russia was about to attack, and cleverly spent six months assembling three million men on the Russian border?

    Hitler’s invasion of Russia was purely defensive in nature? Oh, and he never wrote in Mein Kampf that Germany’s destiny was in the East, and the concept of “Lebensraum” is fictional as well?

    Russian troop dispositions on the eve of war may well have been offensive in nature. Stalin may well have been planning to attack Germany at some point.

    But the claim that Stalin was responsible for World War II- wait, hadn’t that war already been in progress for close to two years when by this thesis Stalin’s initiation of the war was pre-empted by brave Adolf’s invasion?

    Even if Stalin was planning to initiate a war with Hitler- well, who could blame him?

    But to make this claim that Stalin, and not Hitler, started World War II- is quite absurd.

  2. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Although Germany and Russia both invaded Poland, the latter managed to avoid being dragged into any war with Poland’s erstwhile allies.

    To avoid having Britain and France declare war on Russia could hardly have been difficult. Britain and France undoubtedly hoped, in the expected event of a renewal of the European civil war, to again have Russia as an ally who would do the bulk of the fighting and dying, as in the First World War. So obviously neither Britain or France was likely to declare war on Russia over Poland, a country of no importance to either of them.

    That Stalin anticipated a renewed European war seems evident from the Russia’s massive industrialization and military preparation throughout the 30′s, (aided by American industrialists such as Armand Hammer and Fred Koch). And since Hitler made little secret of his intention to create the Eastern empire that Bismark had envisaged, Stalin would have been totally incompetent not to prepare for war with Germany.

    Furthermore, the Soviets were intent on a global Communist revolution, which was unlikely to be achieved through internal subversion of the capitalist countries. Renewed conflict between Russia and Germany was thus inevitable, so the question of who fired the first shot seems largely academic.

  3. AKAHorace says:

    This is very interesting, I have enjoyed Suravovs books about the GRU.

    If the Sovs were so prepared for an aggressive invasion, how did they mess up their invasion of Finland so much ?

  4. RobinG says:
    @Duglarri

    Thanks for expressing this so well. Early in this essay, Ron leaves a huge clue –

    ….Viktor Suvorov, was a veteran Soviet military intelligence officer who had defected to the West in 1978 and subsequently published a number of well-regarded books ….

    What was his audience for this “hypothesis,” and who regarded his books so highly?

  5. Eagle Eye says:

    Thank you, Mr. Unz, for sharing this fascinating outline.

    One wonders what OTHER materials and discussions are being kept from the Anglosphere by our gatekeepers of bien pensance despite being the object of prominent debates, e.g., in Chinese fora.

    • Replies: @Lt. Greyman, NVA
  6. ‘…Then at almost the last moment, Hitler suddenly realized the strategic trap into which he had fallen, and ordered his heavily outnumbered and outgunned troops into a desperate surprise attack of their own on the assembling Soviets…’

    Not exactly. Hitler in fact began planning and issuing orders for Barbarossa in the summer of 1940 — nearly a year in advance of the actual date of his attack.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
  7. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Duglarri

    So Stalin’s desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn’t happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt’s messages, the rebuff of Churchill’s warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge’s transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

    If Stalin was psyched for an attack, he wouldn’t have worried about a German attack. And he was so reluctant to believe in a German attack was because he so certain that Germany had learned the lesson of WWI: No Two-Front War.

    If Stalin meant to invade Germany — and I’m not convinced myself that was the case — , he needed a surprise attack. He had to make Germany believe that it was still on good terms with USSR.
    Stalin may have thought FDR and Churchill’s messages were meant to undermine German-Soviet relations. If undermined and if USSR broke the alliance with Germany, then Hitler would have readied for war with USSR. So, Stalin needed to make it seem like all was hunky dory.

    But the claim that Stalin was responsible for World War II- wait, hadn’t that war already been in progress for close to two years when by this thesis Stalin’s initiation of the war was pre-empted by brave Adolf’s invasion?

    No, if Germany had not invaded Russia in 1941, it would not have been remembered as a World War. It would have been a limited European War. It was the invasion of Russia, plus Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, plus Hitler’s declaration on the US that made it a world war. So, WWII really began in 1941 but has origins in events in 39.

    Even if Stalin was planning to initiate a war with Hitler- well, who could blame him?

    In retrospect, this makes sense. But prior to 1941, Stalin and USSR regime were hardly better than Nazi Germany. And they had, at least til then, killed many more innocent people.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    , @Svigor
  8. Horst says:

    No excuses for Duglarri’s lack of reading incomprehension, or Canspeccy’s confusing Trotskyism with Stalinism, and possibly Disneyism.

    However, the UK and French appeasement — an inexcusable and intentional abrogation of treaty obligations, giving Czechoslovakia up to Hitler — gets a very interesting treatment in (pro-Stalin) Russian historian and political theorist N. Starikov. (Find him in Korybko’s sphere, humorless, term-paperish, but not to be ignored.)

    According to Starikov, Hitler became a villain in the Western powers’ propaganda apparatus only after — and against their intended plan — he failed to take the bait and roll on into Transcarpathian Ruthenia (read: USSR), following the seizure of southern Slovakia.

    Never known for a lack of thoroughness, the same Western powers reneged on further treaty obligations by hollowly declaring war upon Germany — and not the USSR, because reasons — following the invasion of Poland. War was declared, and, right in the nick of time, France and Britain gave zero assistance to Poland, hence the “Phoney War” as it was known.

    Starikov’s larger arc posits that both world wars were instigated through British perfidy, with the intention to bring Russia and Germany into a mutually destructive conflict. Clearly, in the 1910s, and in the 1930s, and today, “we” can’t have the German industrial and financial dynamo allied with Russia’s vast, nearly unlimited supply of raw materials.

    This thesis and Suvorov’s position do not appear to be mutually exclusive.

    • Replies: @anon
  9. Anonymous[392] • Disclaimer says:

    Wow, no where else do I learn such things. Kudos to you Unz.

    If I may make one request. I would like to see you do a long form interview on video with Joe Rogan. Right now you aren’t going to get a fair shake with any mainstream media.

    But I think if you spoke out in the alternative media with one of it’s most popular shows, you could really elevate your views to a whole new level.

    Anyway, glad to see you posting articles again.

  10. Wally says:
    @Duglarri

    Pay attention and get out more often.

    France and Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around, France & Britain started WWII.
    And note that France and Britain did not declare war on the communist USSR who invaded Poland from the east.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Agree: Curmudgeon
  11. Zamyatin says:
    @Duglarri

    “Lebensraum” was simply a stock part of German political rhetoric originating in the 19th century. It is closely affiliated with the “Drang nach osten” advocacy of imperial Germany. Dranch nach osten referred to the proposition that German colonies should be created in the “East” in the territories of the collapsing Turkish empire, in Persia and around the Black Sea, it had nothing whatsoever to do with Russia, which lies in the North East. The claim that Lebensraum refers to the conquest of Russia is deliberate misinformation.

    Hitler did, of course, expect a showdown with Communist Russia, in fact, the sole purpose of National Socialism, Italian Fascism and Spanish Christian monarchism, was to protect Western European civilization from its destruction at the hands of Communism. National Socialism was reactive not proactive.

    Like Stalin (as the excellent article points out) the allies expertly manoeuvred Germany into war. The West continues to wage war without declaration in countries like Libya and Syria whilst blaming its victims. It’s a most revolting exhibition.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Anonymous
  12. @Duglarri

    It did not happened.
    Stalin planned to attack in around 25 June 1945.
    He had all indicators that he will roll over Germans in less than week time.
    Turns out tottaly demoralised by “the victory” in Finland Red Army decided to flee the next “Glorious” massacre.

    Suvorow is the military officer and part time pop-historian.
    Try this source – http://www.solonin.org/en

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  13. @Duglarri

    Blame is a subjective judgment.
    What Stalin wanted, as his grandson stated flatly in an interview, was world domination.
    The Comintern was for creating communist revolutions all over the world.
    The WWII problem was that also FDR wanted world domination, that Churchill hoped to keep world domination, and that Japan sought domination of a large part of Asia.
    Hitler just wanted to resurrect the Germany of before 1914.
    About Sorge, his mission was to find out if Japan would attack the USSR.
    He reported to Moscow that it would not.
    This made it possible to transfer troops from the east to the west after Hitler’s attack.
    The Japanese were very naive about Stalin, even in 1945 they had the illusion that Stalin could be an honest broker between Japan and USA with GB.
    Robert J.C. Butow, ‘JAPAN’S Decision to Surrender’, Stanford, 1954
    F.W. Deakin and G.R. Storry, ‘The case of Richard Sorge’, New York, 1966

  14. @CanSpeccy

    Managed to avoid, according to Hoggan, Bullitt told him in 1946 or so that FDR and Stalin already had a deal in 1933.
    It is also asserted that just the additional guarantee by FDR to Poland in August 1939 made the Poles decide to go on with provoking war.

  15. I think Suvorov’s thesis is not likely to be correct.

    In 1941 when the Germans invaded the USSR, they and their allies outnumbered the USSR forces by about 3.5 million to 2.5 million.

    If the Soviets had been preparing to invade Europe, they would surely have deployed many more soldiers.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Olorin
    , @KenH
  16. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    To avoid having Britain and France declare war on Russia could hardly have been difficult. Britain and France undoubtedly hoped… to again have Russia as an ally… So obviously neither Britain or France was likely to declare war on Russia over Poland…

    Also, Germany was a far nearer threat geographically. And, Hitler had grown more reckless and dangerous. It’d been one thing to take back Rhineland and demand Sudetenland. But Hitler also gobbled up Czech nation. He was forgiven for that, but then he made trouble in Poland, and that was the last straw for UK and France. In contrast, Stalin was a mass killer but inside the USSR. He hardly moved outside his own sphere. Stalin got more aggressive only after Hitler made the pact. But even then, he picked weaker targets.

    That Stalin anticipated a renewed European war seems evident from the Russia’s massive industrialization and military preparation throughout the 30′s, (aided by American industrialists such as Armand Hammer and Fred Koch). And since Hitler made little secret of his intention to create the Eastern empire that Bismark had envisaged, Stalin would have been totally incompetent not to prepare for war with Germany.

    Also, the communist economy wasn’t good for much but heavy industry and military. That’s the nature of a command economy. It doesn’t think in terms of cosmetics and consumer goods. It thinks in terms of machinery and tanks that are seen as real assets of power.
    Also, it was a sign of the times. We are in the information age, but back then, national power was measured in terms of factories and heavy industry. Progress simply meant more steel and coal.
    As Russia had been regarded as backward and agricultural, prestige depended on more industrial production.

    Furthermore, the Soviets were intent on a global Communist revolution, which was unlikely to be achieved through internal subversion of the capitalist countries. Renewed conflict between Russia and Germany was thus inevitable, so the question of who fired the first shot seems largely academic.

    Ideologically yes. But realistically, no. The USSR and its many ethnic groups was enough trouble for the Soviets. The idea that they wanted to conquer the world is unrealistic. Even Trotsky’s internationalism wasn’t really that. He just lacked faith in Russians as ideal prole material for creating an industrial nation. So, Trotsky banked the future of communism on Germany that already had an established industrial base. I highly doubt if Trotsky was much interested in nations like Greece or Romania. He thought communism needed to succeed in a powerful nation like Germany to have a future. He saw Russians as useless lazy drunkards.
    In contrast, Stalin did believe Russia could industrialize on the basis of National Communism. And he was right.

    The problem was Stalin didn’t much care for communists in other nations. He feared they might go separate paths in ideology and interests. In Spain, he preferred that the Left lose to Franco than have rival factions such as socialists and anarchists gain the upper hand over communists. In China, he sent his own minions to wrest power from Mao, but he failed. And Stalin never got along with Mao and insulted him.

    Also, the idea that Stalin, who had so much trouble with Finland, was about to start a war with Germany that had handily defeated France seems a stretch.
    Besides, if USSR had attacked Germany first, there’s no telling what might have happened internationally. Many nations might have come to the defense of Germany. Even if FDR preferred USSR to Nazi Germany, a full-scale Soviet War on Germany may have brought forth many Americans calling for US aid to Germany against Godless commies. Even America First Isolationists might have called for US aid to Germany.

    As for Stalin’s offensive military posturing in 1941 if indeed such as extensive…

    Maybe they were not so secret and meant to be noticed. Maybe it was a bluff against Germany. If Soviets placed its military defensively, Hitler would it seen as sign of fear and anxiety on the part of the Soviets. But if Soviets put on an offensive posture, it would have sent a message, “I’m ready when you are”, thus giving Hitler second thoughts about a war with Stalin. It’s like a boxers in a standoff before the fight starts. They stand face to face, as if to say, “I’ll knock you out before you knock me out.”

    Stalin could have taken even more territory in WWII but didn’t. He could have taken all of Finland. And if Stalin really did want more of Germany, especially as the Soviet juggernaut seemed unstoppable, he wouldn’t have asked for US and UK to do more on the Western front. But in fact, Stalin was begging the US and UK to enter the war faster and do more against Germany.

    Also, during the Cold War, the Soviets had little to do with most Marxist insurgencies. More often than not, Soviets felt compelled to lend support because the local yokel revolutionaries claimed to be Marxist-Leninist. Soviet involvement in Cuba really took off AFTER Castro came to power.

    And the Soviets were more than willing to betray fellow communists in other nations if they could form an alliance or peaceful relationship with non-communist regimes. Soviets had no interest in pushing for communism on India or certain Arab nations because they were willing to work with the Soviets. In the end, Soviets had better relations with India than with communist China.

    Also, it just seems out of character that Stalin would have carried out something as bold and reckless as a surprise on Germany. Stalin’s instincts were closer to that of scavenger than a predator. More an opportunist than an initiator. He was a counter-puncher than a puncher. More bear than tiger.

    And then, there was the element of paranoia.
    Hitler trusted his cohorts and generals enough to come up with one bold plan after another. In contrast, Stalin came to power in a state of paranoia with endless purges as that was the nature of Bolshevism: distrust and subversion. He was so anxious about his own people and those around him(which is why he purged and eliminated even some of the most loyal people) that the bulk of his energies were expended on waging war on fellow comrades and peoples who might be his enemies. Also, vastly diverse Soviet Union required a lot of effort to keep everything together… unlike homogeneous Germany that was united in purpose.

    Accounts of Hitler say he was often bored and had time to kill. Germany, a nation of homogeneous and capable people, was making economic gains and humming along. Hitler grew increasingly bored as Germany climbed out of the Depression and began working again.
    In contrast, accounts of Stalin show a man who was overloaded with work on a daily basis as there so many tasks and difficulties facing the USSR. The idea that Stalin, with so much to do, would have decided to risk all by invading all of Europe sounds outlandish. I just don’t buy it… even if Stalin had lots of tanks and planes.

    I think Stalin was really surprised by the German attack.
    Emboldened by his victory over France and USSR’s troubles in Finland, Hitler may have been tempted to succeed where Napoleon failed. He was a dark romantic. And he would have read Stalin’s mind, i.e. Germany learned from WWI to never fight a two-front war. As long as war raged between UK and Germany, Stalin would have felt an attack from Germany would have been unlikely, almost impossible. And that was precisely why Operation Barbarossa was so effective. It was mad, but because it was so mad, no one thought Hitler would do it.

    The sheer scope and scale of the attack suggest Hitler had grand plans. If he attacked first just to pre-empt a Soviet attack, Hitler’s strategy would have been more conservative. He would have taken some territories and then secured them for defense. And the Germans would have treated the locals nicer to win them over against the Soviets. They would have won over collaborators as there were plenty of Slavs who’d come to hate communism. But German brutality suggests they were conquering for real. To stay and to rule.

    But if Stalin was probably genuinely surprised by events and ended up taking a good chunk of Europe by accident, FDR was very possibly not surprised by Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and used that as pretext to spread US hegemony over the Pacific. In the end, the US was far more expansive and hegemonic than the Soviets ever were. Even the Soviet expansion into Asia was accidental. The US requested it. Stalin was more than willing to keep his peace pact with Japan until the US tempted Stalin with spoils in Asia.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  17. gT says:

    Though Stalin was indeed a phycho and probably did want to attack Europe, the fact remains that Germany struck first, plus lost, and is therefor the guilty party. And lets not forget that Communism was virtually a 100% Jewish attempt to rule the world, just as is the current NeoCon NWO attempt.

    And to apply Suvorov’s reasoning to today’s situation, Russia has nuclear weapons pointed at the US, therefor Russia is planning to nuke the US, therefor the US must strike first to prevent its own
    destruction from the dastardly Russia. And North Korea is also planning to attack (defend itself) against the US, as is Iran, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc).

    And even today Russia has superior tanks to NATO, more tanks than NATO, lots of amphibious tanks and apc’s capable crossing that “notoriously wide moat last successfully traversed by William the Conqueror in 1066″, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

    Oh my God, Russia is planning to start WW3, a pre-emptive strike is definitely needed to avert the situation and to wipe out the Untermensch sub-humans there in Russia completely.

    • Agree: Arioch
    • Replies: @Anon
  18. utu says:

    Did Germany made propaganda use out of the Soviet plan to attack Germany? They captured 80 Soviet generals. There must have been some who could corroborate Suvorov’s theory?

    In 1939 in Warsaw Germans captured documents supporting their claim that America and Britain were pushing for the war with Germany.

    The German White Paper
    Full text of the Polish documents issued by the Berlin Foreign Office

    In 1963 Edward Raczynski, the Polish ambassador to London from 1935 to 1945, had his diary published under the title In Allied London. He wrote in his entry of June 20, 1940: “The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs . . . I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been destroyed. The documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part the Germans got hold of originals and not merely copies.”

    I have never found Suvorov’s theory persuasive. One may speculate on purpose of such disinformation by this GRU officer. Is it to vindicate Stalin and USSR?

    • Replies: @Anon
  19. I would not dispute Suvorov’s claim, which clearly fits with the well known Red Army deployments, that Stalin did intend to attack Nazi Germany and conquer Europe, and had made his dispositions accordingly.

    This I will dispute: “Hitler suddenly realized the strategic trap into which he had fallen, and ordered his heavily outnumbered and outgunned troops into a desperate surprise attack”.

    To my knowledge there was no such sudden realisation by Hitler, the attack on the USSR was long planned and fitted to his established ideology just as much as Communist plans of global conquest. There was of course massive under-estimation by the Nazis of Soviet strength; but from the German POV they were engaging on a well planned invasion with every prospect of success against a large but inferior foe.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  20. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:

    Rezun’s opera are neglected and despised in Russia, and not because being regarded as traitor’s evidence. People have historical memory, and no sane person in Russia remembers any grandpa telling how they dreamed of ‘conquering Europe’. ‘Conquering Europe’ was simply unthinkable and by any standard not needed for USSR. It was surrounded by enemies – Nazi Germany, Fascist and quasi-fascist Finland, Romania and Poland, Imperial Japan – countries with military capability and recent military conflicts that were not so easy for USSR. To steamroll over all of them in 1930′s – was a madman’s idea. On top of that, France and England had plans to declare war to USSR and bomb or takeover it’s oil fields in 1940-1941. And don’t forget USSR kept millions in the East, awaiting for another attack from Japan until 1942.

    Single arguments like ‘amphibious tanks’ etc. are ridiculous – there are not so many roads but yet many rivers in Russia – that’s why even today any Russian IFV and APC is amphibious. That is DEFENSIVE, for homeland use. Etc. etc. – Rezun’s arguments are as stupid as ‘Russian medlling’ in USA or notorious Sripal case.

    Why in the West such a book was conceived, sponsored and promoted? Conquering Europe is Trotskyism (permanent revolution) and that opposes Stalin. But removing the guilt for waging war from the West and putting it on Russia is plain fascism. World War Two was started by the collective West. By Germany and Italy, sponsored by USA with credits and raw materials. By England and France, who signed the Munich Pact with Hitler and rejected alliance with USSR. With a little help of Hitlers central European henchmen, like vulture of Poland rejecting help of USSR but welcoming Hering and Goebbels as dear guests and having its chunk of Chech land from Hitler in 1938. And by the conquered rest – Nazi own proto-European Union – who sent their troops against Russia or served in SS divisions or worked in MIC, or just provided flesh to Nazi brothels and firewood for their death camps. Today they all try to portray Hitler a madman, a kind of Sauron operating Finland, Romania, Italy, even Poland and France like nazguls. This is not correct. Their participation was a deliberate act. They invaded or opposed USSR to ‘fight bolshevism’ – that means., to fight for capitalism and Western Imperialism, and to pillage and cut a piece for themselves.

    Hitler was nothing more than a tool of the Collective West, and any tool has its master. Qui prodest? Who invested in Nazi military? Who offered him credits, and later – the Marshall Plan for the remnants of Europe? The plan was not to conquer Europe, but to kill millions of Europeans, and that master plan was fulfilled. Fascism is a product of capitalism, and WW2 was started by capitalist West to solve the problems of capitalism by means of another global war.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Anon
  21. I will wait for some expert to comment on this, but as a layman at first glance there are two things in these arguments that seem ridiculous to me – why would tanks that can simply shed their tracks or those that can cross bodies of water be useless in defense? In fact the second type seems like something very useful precisely for defending a territory like Russia. And is that 1 million soviet paratroopers figure a typo? Because it seems completely ridiculous and impossible on the face of it.

    Even though I have Icebreaker and the other books in my parents’ library I’ve never read them, if only because of the name. Perhaps it’s too much prejudice on my end and his books are worth reading.

    But imagine, Mr. Unz, that you were a military historian writer and you chose “Ron Patton” or “Ron Eisenhower” as your pen name. Would anybody take you seriously? In fact it’s even much more ridiculous than that, because there is no figure like Suvorov in American military history – a genius who served so many years over so many wars in Europe and didn’t lose a single battle.
    So someone replacing his (admittedly uncool) family name “Rezun” with “Suvorov” and using such a pen name to write about military history just does not expire confidence.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Arioch
  22. Never Again!

    “I thought about something just now: The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish,” Putin said June 13 during a visit to Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin said that at least 80 percent of the members of the first Soviet government were Jewish.
    Jerusalem Post
    http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Putin-First-Soviet-government-was-mostly-Jewish-317150

    There is a clear public health rationale for jew control.

  23. Silva says:
    @Duglarri

    “The sneering response to Roosevelt’s messages, the rebuff of Churchill’s warning” – can you elaborate on those?

  24. Silva says:

    I’ve considered “both were preparing to attack each other, and Germany got a large advantage on a country actually not much inferior (or not at all) for going first” plausible. However:

    1) can someone elaborate on the difference between what’d be an expected offensive and an expected defensive deployment (position-wise – unit-type-wise’s fairly clear) for the USSR?

    2) how am I supposed to believe (if I read correctly) that near 1% of the USSR had paratrooper training?

  25. The book has been published (and extensively debated) in Russian, and the general consensus in Russia is that the data on military build-up/production cited doesn’t match up with their records.

    Also, the issue of whether it was possible to “build Communism in one country” as opposed to requiring a “global Communist revolution” is EXACTLY the issue that divided Stalin and Trotsky. Stalin was on the “one country” side of the argument and we know where Trotsky with his “global Communist revolution” was by 1941. So, the core thesis about what would have been driving Stalin seems more than a bit off.

  26. @Ron Unz

    “when Germany’s innovative tactics allowed it to achieve a lightening defeat the allied armies in France during 1940.”

    That’s more Pravda Unz. The Germans used old fashion Prussian tactics. Time magazine coined the term “Blitzkrieg” in September 1939 and it stuck in the English speaking world.

  27. Brabantian says: • Website

    Bravo to Ron Unz for bringing to our attention, yet more significant research and thinking neglected by the Western media controllers

    Viktor Suvorov’s ‘Icebreaker’, important as it is, even if quite spot-on regarding Stalin’s preparations to overwhelm Europe military, still just somewhat alters details of a view many have long had – that Hitler and Stalin were both conquistadores

    The Hitler-rehabilitation revisionism, begins foundering on the events of March 1939, when Hitler rolled into Prague and, for the first time, subjugated a non-German-speaking population … when he should have honoured the Czech request to guarantee Bohemian-Moravian independence, now shorn of both the Sudentenland and Slovakia … that occupation by Hitler of Slavs, triggered the run-up to the Sep 1939 events in Poland and all that followed

    From another angle, the so-called ‘internet conspiracy’ crowd often says, ‘both Hitler and Stalin were illuminati tools, creating the desired war to destroy the brave ones among Europe’s populations’ … leaving weaker surviving post-world-war Europeans, to submit to the ‘new world order’

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  28. Not persuasive. It is similar to Igor Bunich’s theses, which are nothing more than fiction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Bunich

  29. Erratum: lightening

    Hitler suddenly realized the strategic trap into which he had fallen

    Superficially, this more satisfying than the common notion that Hitler was consumed with a Napoleonic death wish.

  30. chris m says:

    Interesting article
    however it does seem a bit of a stretch to believe that “Stalin had directed his powerful German Communist Party to take political actions ensuring that Hitler came to power ”

    however you would be able to believe that if you also believed that perhaps the Germans did the same thing with respect to Russia during WW1 to ensure that Lenin came to power
    during the Bolshevik revolution.

    (however i really did find it impossible to believe that ” the Soviets had at least 1,000,000 trained paratroopers, and Suvorov believes that the true total was actually closer to 2,000,000.”

    in what way could you say that these personnel were actually “trained” to any degree or level?

  31. DFH says:
    @Wally

    France and Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around, France & Britain started WWII.

    But Hitler declared war on Poland.

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Wally
    , @Curmudgeon
  32. @AKAHorace

    The Finns were the second-best soldiers in the war, defending their country under extremely harsh conditions that favored them. The Soviets, as was their wont, fed conscripts to the meat grinder, but after initial setbacks, they adapted and recovered and forced the Finns to cede territory that amounted to 10% of Finnish economic resources. It was a definite victory for the Soviets.

    And remember the Soviets imposed more demands on the Finns when Molotov delivered their ultimatums to Berlin in late 1940. The Soviets were hardly chastised or concerned about their experience earlier. The idea that the Soviets were “exposed” by “small, weak”’ Finland is just another official myth of WW2.

  33. Ron Unz says:
    @AKAHorace

    If the Sovs were so prepared for an aggressive invasion, how did they mess up their invasion of Finland so much ?

    The enormous difficulties the Soviet Army experienced in the 1939 Winter War against Finland has always been cited as powerful evidence of their terrible weakness, and I had always accepted that. But Suvorov very persuasively argues that this is a severe misunderstanding.

    The Finns had created one of the strongest defensive lines anywhere in Europe, strongly supplemented by the extremely difficult natural terrain and the harsh weather. Outside observers had argued that no army anywhere in the world could penetrate it. Yet the Soviets did, though at the expense of enormous casualties.

  34. @AKAHorace

    And, it would have been an easy matter for the Soviets to seize the oil fields in Ploesti in the summer of 1941, and put a stranglehold on the Wehrmacht, vs. a winter invasion of Finland.

  35. Malla says:
    @Anon

    They invaded or opposed USSR to ‘fight bolshevism’ – that means., to fight for capitalism and Western Imperialism, and to pillage and cut a piece for themselves.

    Capitalism and Communism are not the only options. Just because one opposes Communism does not automatically make that person a Capitalism imperialist. After all, since Wall Street financed many Communist movements around the world including the Bolsheviks, Communism and Capitalism seem like good friends to me behind the scenes.

    The truth is there are three movements moving ahead like flowing rivers, they may seem enemies to each other and for lower level cadres of each movements they may very well be but all the three the connected at the top, working together to achieve a ‘Jew World Order’…. er sorry, forgive me, ‘A New World Order’. The three rivers have the same source and the same destination at the end. The three movements are Zionism, Communism and Globalism.

    • Replies: @Anon
  36. Ron Unz says:
    @Spisarevski

    And is that 1 million soviet paratroopers figure a typo? Because it seems completely ridiculous and impossible on the face of it.

    Suvorov quotes that astonishing figure for government-certified parachutists directly from official Soviet sources, and indeed the Soviets had also produced the world’s only line of air-mobile tanks.

    Even though I have Icebreaker and the other books in my parents’ library I’ve never read them, if only because of the name. Perhaps it’s too much prejudice on my end and his books are worth reading.

    I would strongly urge you to do so, and judge for yourself. But that book appeared 30 years ago, and spending $20 on his more recent 2008 version, incorporating a great deal of additional material, would probably be even better.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Tyrion 2
  37. @Brabantian

    Czechoslovakia was an artificial state constructed at Versailles. Munich simply exposed this, as the Czech residual fell into chaos immediately. As this residual was geographically a dagger sticking into Reich territory, the Germans had little choice but to intervene.

    • Replies: @All we like sheep
  38. Ron Unz says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    In 1941 when the Germans invaded the USSR, they and their allies outnumbered the USSR forces by about 3.5 million to 2.5 million.

    Actually, the Soviet military forces probably numbered more like 5.5 million. But the ratio of bodies is far less significant than that of equipment. According to Suvorov, the Soviets tanks deployed along the border were far superior to anything the Germans possessed, and also outnumbered them more than 7-to-1. The Soviet advantage in warplanes was also enormous.

    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
    , @DR-Montreal
  39. Malla says:

    One more thing to remember is that Stalin had a friendship alliance with the Japanese Empire as well. And after the defeat of Germany, Stalin broke the alliance and suddenly attacked the Japanese Empire.

    From

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Japanese_Neutrality_Pact

    PACT OF NEUTRALITY BETWEEN UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS AND JAPAN[2]

    The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, guided by a desire to strengthen peaceful and friendly relations between the two countries, have decided to conclude a pact on neutrality, for which purpose they have appointed as their Representatives:

    ..snip….

    Article one: Both Contracting Parties undertake to maintain peaceful and friendly relations between them and mutually respect the territorial integrity and inviolability of the other Contracting Party.
    Article two: Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the duration of the conflict.

    …snip….

    London, Aug., 8, 1945 – Foreign Commissar Molotov’s (sic) announcement of the declaration of war, as broadcast by Moscow, follows:

    “On Aug. 8, People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R. Molotov received the Japanese Ambassador, Mr. Sato, and gave him, on behalf of the Soviet Government, the following for transmission to the Japanese Government:

    ‘After the defeat and capitulation of Hitlerite Germany, Japan became the only great power that still stood for the continuation of the war.

    LOL So much for ‘Uncle Joe’ Stalin the honest Communist leader who would have honoured his pact with Third Reich Germany until the evil Nazi Hitler broke the pact and Stalin was taken by surprise and it broke his heart about how Hitler had stabbed him and his peace loving Soviet Union in the back. Ya rite!!! I cannot believe people are so dumb to believe this. LOL.
    And guess what, Hitler had predicted during his last months that Stalin WOULD break the pact of neutrality with Japan and well, it came true.

    BTW check out Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa launch speech.

    It matches Suvorov’s theory perfectly. Germany as well as several other European countries like Romania were deeply concerned about massive Soviet military build up on her Western Border. So Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike before Soviet tanks get a chance to get on the German Autobahns. BTW Operation Barbarossa was not only Germany but a total of 6 European armies attacking the Soviet Union. 30,000 Spaniards volunteered for the invasion, after they had seen commie terrorists in the Spanish Civil War burning down churches full of villagers and nuns.

  40. Tyrion 2 says:

    I studied with a German Professor of Military History in the UK. A lot of this was mentioned and is circumstantially plausible. Scylla and Charybydis were probably always going to fight. It would have benefited us to stay out of the way.

    Having said that, I think the first reply on this thread contains an exceptionally pithy and compelling rebuttal.

    Also, I think you rather over-egg the controversiality of this thesis. I was always brought up half believing this but not seeing why it mattered. Stalin and Hitler were both monsters but at least Hitler built decent roads. It seems that those talking of censorship and controversy were as much trying to gain attention and hype as articulating real concerns.

  41. Ron Unz says:
    @Simon in London

    This I will dispute: “Hitler suddenly realized the strategic trap into which he had fallen, and ordered his heavily outnumbered and outgunned troops into a desperate surprise attack”.

    Suvorov argues that the key turning point in Hitler’s perspective had been during 1940 when Stalin’s new demands on Romania made him suddenly realize how enormously vulnerable his only substantial oil supply was to a Soviet attack. Without Romanian oil, Germany’s entire war machine would have collapsed. Similarly, Stalin also had gained a potentially crucial choke-point over shipments of Swedish iron ore.

    To my knowledge there was no such sudden realisation by Hitler, the attack on the USSR was long planned and fitted to his established ideology just as much as Communist plans of global conquest.

    I’d strongly urge you to read David Irving’s very detailed historiography on Hitler’s goals and plans.

    • Replies: @JackOH
  42. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Fascist and quasi-fascist Finland

    Huh?

    Poland

    Not in 1941.

    Why in the West such a book was conceived, sponsored and promoted?

    As Ron points out, nobody in the Anglosphere paid much attention to it.

    vulture of Poland

    OK…

    later – the Marshall Plan

    Hitler was this thing called “dead” at that point.

    Fascism is a product of capitalism

    Actually, if you study Mussolini you’ll find it’s much more plausibly a product of Marxist theory.

    WW2 was started by capitalist West to solve the problems of capitalism by means of another global war.

    OK…

    Otherwise you make some good points.

  43. After this, the war seesawed back-and-forth for four more years, until superior numbers and improved tactics …

    And also massive support from the “freedom loving ” West.

    Unfortunately I don’t have time for a detailed comment, but this seems to be another excellent piece authored by a true seeker of truth.

    Anyone who doubts any part of this article would do well to begin educating themselves by reading another classic…

    “… this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.
    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler’s Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Time
    Mr. Rothbard was an American Jew and an historian of the very highest caliber.

    http://mises.org/daily/2592

    In my view the Nazis tried to save Germany from Bolshevism (and those Bolshies were ultra nasty) as well as from being raped and occupied by the largest empires in the world (who were also ultra nasty). The Germans never had a chance nor did the Japanese.

    Anyone who knows how the Israeli government has been acting all along should have some idea of what the Nazis were up against. They didn’t want to have to go through what the Arab people of Palestine have been suffering with for nearly a century.

    And Suvorov’s works are a must read for all people who question these things.

  44. Good to see Ron’s nod to Joachim Hoffman. For those who read German, the clip below comes from German Wikopedia — with details of Hoffman’s career and discussion of his support for Sovorov.

    [V]ersuchte Hoffmann die Präventivkriegsthese mit seinem Buch „Stalins Vernichtungskrieg“ (1995) zu untermauern. Zwar sei Stalins damaliger Angriffsplan auf das Deutsche Reich weder Grund noch Anlass für Hitlers Entschluss zum Überfall auf die Sowjetunion gewesen. Aber beide Diktatoren hätten unabhängig voneinander einen Krieg vorbereitet, und Hitler sei Stalin nur zuvorgekommen. Die Stalinrede vom 5. Mai 1941 im Kreml vor den Absolventen der sowjetischen Militärakademien (deren Echtheit allerdings wegen uneinheitlicher Quellen umstritten ist) belege, dass Stalin einen Vernichtungskrieg gegen Deutschland geplant habe.

    • Replies: @Wally
  45. Ron Unz says:
    @Duglarri

    So Stalin’s desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn’t happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt’s messages, the rebuff of Churchill’s warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge’s transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

    Without being too rude, this is simply the “Saturday morning cartoons” version of World War II.

    I’d strongly urge you to spend $20 and read Suvorov’s book. Suvorov’s books have sold in the millions and his theories are known everywhere in the world not totally controlled by the English-language MSM. I certainly can’t guarantee that they’re correct, but they seem very plausible.

    Stalin had amassed the largest concentration of tanks in the history of the world right along the German border, perhaps 50x more tanks than everything Churchill and Roosevelt possessed. Why would he care what nonsense they said?

    As for Hitler’s overall plans you really should read David Irving, rather than watch more Saturday cartoons.

    • Agree: jacques sheete, Rurik
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @Eric Zuesse
  46. Jake says:

    “Numerous other authors have published books in support or more often strong opposition, and even international academic conferences have been held to debate the theory. But our own English-language media has almost entirely blacklisted and ignored this ongoing international debate, to such an extent that the name of the most widely-read military historian who ever lived had remained totally unknown to me.”

    Solzhenitsyn discerned that the West was enslaved by a unique form of censorship of ideas. The governments did not issue strict censorship laws; instead, private owned publishing houses and other media companies as well as universities collectively decided which ideas were not to be discussed – and those ideas were not discussed. Those who persisted in trying to air them would be ostracized as too much a krank, a total kook, to be allowed to be a journalist or professor. Serious scholars/teachers and journalists simply do not waste any time with such things, which means that if you do wish to research and teach those things , then you will be cut off.

    What links all the ideas that have been deemed too kooky for Anglosphere discussion is that they could poke holes in the way that peoples have been led to perceive the WASP world as easily the best, the one that should control the entire globe.

    For example, my stressing that WASP culture is the direct fruit of a Judaizing heresy (in fact, the most overtly money-worshiping and violence sanctifying, and linguistically and culturally genocidally nascent, Judaizing heresy produced during the crazy century and a half of Reformation) is something that simply is to be seen as too kooky, too kranky to be discussed in any venue. If people accepted that in order to fully grasp what drove the British Empire to become the largest empire in world history, as well as why it did what it did in dominating the globe, and what likewise drove the winners of America’s Civil War so that they were ready as WASP Elite Part 2 to take over from WASP Elite Old World, they must understand theology and also the pre-Reformation thrust of basic Anglo-Saxon (as opposed to Anglo-Norman) culture, they would come to many conclusions different from the ones that now are seen as settled across the Anglospehere.

    As is all but a given for any culture determined by a Judaizing heresy, WASP culture tells itself that is uniquely virtuous, and that being uniquely virtuous, it not only has a right, but a responsibility, to boss the world, for that is the only way that world can reach its potential. The direct WASP alliance with Jews brought together the post-Temple Jewish form of that Globalist imperial faith (to work behind the scenes as secretly as possible, amassing wealth and power, until even kings are your debtors) with the characteristically Germanic form: slaughter everybody who is not your tribe that it takes for you to make survivors into serfs or little better off than serfs.

    The WASP-Jewish alliance, sealed by archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell, is the single most important event in the world becoming what is DC/NYC/Hollywood/London suzerainty.

    And yet that very possibility is not to be discussed in the Anglosphere.

    As for this book, which I have not read: obviously the Anglosphere, the fruit of Judaizing heresy, must demand that all ‘serious’ scholars and journalists see WW2 exclusively as about the evil anti-Semite Austrian Colonel wishing to harm the innocent Jews.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Silva
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  47. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    does not automatically make that person a Capitalism imperialist

    If you are either marching to the east with Nazi Germany, or pillage Easten Asia with Japan, or maintain your colonial Empire, or sponsor Hitler like J.P. Morgan and Rockfellers, General Electric, Ford, etc. – you are still capitalist, imperialist and fascist – whatever third, fourth and n-th ways you may tell us about. Their motto was like ‘even together with devil, but against the Bolsheviks’. That means being: 1) with devil 2) against Russia – and that concept still stands in the West.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Anon
  48. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Wally

    Britain tried to have peace with Hitler. We laid down a very clear boundary – the invasion of Poland – after appeasing him in various of his somewhat justified issues with the results of the Treaty of Versailles.

    He invaded so we had to declare war. His invasion brought down Chamberlain’s government.

    Did we have to give a red line at Poland? Us not enforcing earlier red lines had caused Mussolini to switch from our side to what he perceived to be the strong horse. No option was perfect but it’s clear to all except the Hitler fanatics that, had he left Poland alone, there’d have been ‘peace in our time.’ At least for Britain.

    Obviously, he thought we would shy away again. He misjudged. We might not have needed more land, we had a lot, but you don’t hold into a huge and global empire by continually looking weak. Not that the empire was necessarily a good idea but shrugging it off was not politically feasible at the time.

    As for whether Stalin wanted this. He almost certainly did. Just as Iran almost certainly wanted our invasion of Iraq. It’d be faintly plausible to argue in either of the cases that this was the critical factor, but then we are in the impossible to pin down area of counter-factuals where almost any opinion is as good as another.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Malla
  49. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Duglarri

    But to make this claim that Stalin, and not Hitler, started World War II- is quite absurd.

    Indeed it is absurd, but it is not made as far as I can see. Perhaps I missed it.

    Even if Stalin was planning to initiate a war with Hitler

    Even if Hitler was planning to initiate a war with Stalin

    Potato, potato.

  50. @Duglarri

    But to make this claim that Stalin, and not Hitler, started World War II- is quite absurd.

    The Commie International, backed by millionaire Reds in New “Yoik” and London started the war.
    Pretty much the same bunch who started WW1 as well.

    Anything else is pure BS…old, obsolete war propaganda. This should be crystal clear, to even the densest, by now especially with the benefit of a century of hindsight.

    Cui bono???

  51. Jake says:
    @DFH

    If any Brit leader back to Henry VIII had done to and in Poland what Hitler did, the entire Anglosphere would chirp in unison that it was an act to help a small nation become free.

  52. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    As for Hitler’s overall plans you really should read David Irving, rather than watch more Saturday cartoons

    It’s not like Hitler laid out his desires in something as easy to understand as a widely published book. Oh, he did? I grew up with it on the book shelf and am familiar. Quite exciting to have access to something as notorious as a child.

    “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 along the road of the Teutonic Knights of old, to obtain by the German sword sod for the German plow and daily bread for the nation.”

  53. @Ron Unz

    The historian Christer Bergstrom claims the Axis superiority was actually about 4.5 million against 2.3 million Soviet troops in the western districts. Obviously the Soviets had more troops in other districts. But if they had wanted to invade central Europe it seems obvious they would have deployed far more troops in the western districts. https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/operation-barbarossa-9-popular-myths-busted/

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @Hamlet's Ghost
  54. Joe Hide says:

    This was good, really good. Mr Unz, you have a gift for writing. Of course other commenters may emotionally moan about one part of your article, or say that another part is factually inaccurate, but those kind of comments just go with writing about out-of-the-mental-box concepts. This was a great read. Keep it up.

  55. szopen says:

    Wow. I was discussing Suworow for so long that I couldn’t even imagine someone would not know about his theories in 2010s. Talk about culture bubbles.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  56. @Tyrion 2

    I wish I had time to deal with this statement,

    Britain tried to have peace with Hitler.

    but suffice it to say that elements in Britain did try to have peace with Hitler, while other elements did not. Guess who prevailed? Neither Britain nor any other political entity is monolithic, so a statement like that makes no sense whatsoever.

    It’s important to note that Hitler wanted peace too since Germany had been starving and under Bolshie attack for decades, yet his pleas were ignored or even mocked. Japanese diplomats suffered similar sorts of humiliation in their efforts to stem the economic war being waged on them; hene the militarists there ascended and made a desperate bid to free themselves form the yoke of imperial slavery.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @DFH
  57. Malla says:
    @Anon

    Really? And the Soviets never invaded anything at all? And when the USA supported the Soviet Union with the Land Lease program, who was the devil in amongst them? Maybe both?

    So let me get this straight, evil Nazi German Capitalist pigs as well as Soviet Communist heroes both invade Poland but evil capitalist imperialist Britain and evil capitalist imperialist France declare war on evil capitalist imperialist Nazi Germany but not on the humanitarian peace loving Soviet Union. Whaaaat??? How did that happen?

    The evil capitalist imperialist United States of America puts sanctions on the evil capitalist imperialist Japanese Empire (when Japan desperately needed oil) but supports the Great humanitarian Utopian Soviet Union with the land lease program. Whaaaat??? How did that happen?

    What iz goin on???? Your childish propaganda theory of a great struggle in between evil exploitative Western Capitalism and Utopian humanitarian Communism is full of B.S.

    • Replies: @Anon
  58. JackOH says:
    @Ron Unz

    “Stalin’s new demands on Romania made him suddenly realize how enormously vulnerable his only substantial oil supply was to a Soviet attack.”

    Yep. If my memory’s correct, Roosevelt’s James F. Byrnes made the same observation after WWII about that specific demand on Hitler, at a time, of course, when large numbers of German troops were in occupation in the West, and Stalin in the East was pressing Hitler with an array of other demands. That certainly may have given Hitler the idea he was being “handled” by Stalin.

    That Navrozov review is a shocker for its pointedness. I don’t think the Anglophone world is ready to handle the idea of WWII and WWI as having a strong Slavic Ascendancy component to them.

  59. Read Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution and Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton, will open eyes and minds, can be had on amazon.com.

  60. Tyrion 2 says:
    @jacques sheete

    He chose to dismember Poland. He chose war. He humiliated the peace-makers in the British parliament, including the prime-minister whose career and reputation he ruined.

    • Replies: @Anon
  61. Malla says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Not as simple as that. Hitler had sent many peace offers to Britain but the Churchill government kept that info away from the British public. Hell, the Germans even sent Rudolf Hess, one of the highest ranking German Government official to Britain.

    You must have not heard of Admiral Sir Barry Edward Domvile, an Admiral in the British Navy who tried to expose the fact that the Germans did not want war with Britain but it that there was an influential war party in Britain who were pushing the British public via propaganda into an unnecessary with the Third Reich. Obviously Churchill had him arrested, an admiral in the British Navy.

    You should read his book sometimes

    https://archive.org/download/DomvileBarryEdwardFromAdmiralToCabinBoy/Domvile_Barry_Edward_-_From_admiral_to_cabin_boy.pdf

    From Admiral to Cabin Boy by Admiral Sir Barry Edward Domvile

    From the link, an introduction to Sir Domvile, to get you an idea of the kind of person who was trying to bring the truth to the British people that the Germans did not at all want war but it was a war party around Churchill who wanted the war. The kind of person Churchill got arrested for expressing his freedom of expression in a ‘democratic’ Britain, which was fighting evil fascists to save democracy in the World. LOL.

    “Barry Edward Domvile, son of the late Admiral Sir Compton Edward Domvile, G.C.B., G.C.V.O., started a brilliant career brilliantly . Born in 1878, in 1892 he passed first into H.M.S. Britannia, and, two years later emerged in the same coveted position. From 1894 to 1897 he served as a Midshipman under sail and steam. Sub-Lieutenant in 1898, he became, by special promotion. Lieutenant in the same year. Lieutenant and Gunnery-Lieutenant from 1898 to 1909, in 1906 he was awarded the Gold Medal of the Royal United Service Institution.

    During 1910 and 1911, Domvile was in command of destroyers, and, when the first World War loomed on the horizon, was appointed Assistant Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence during war preparation. Throughout hostilities he commanded successively “Miranda,” “Tipperary,” “Lightfoot,” “Arethusa,” “Carysfort,” “Centaur” and “Curacao” — destroyers, flotilla leaders and cruisers of the Harwich Force. For the three years preceding 1919, he served as Flag Captain to Admiral Sir Reginald Tyr whitt. ”

    Does not seem like a ‘traitor’ kind of fellow to me.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  62. DFH says:
    @jacques sheete

    It’s important to note that Hitler wanted peace too

    Then why did he declare war on Poland?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  63. Silva says:
    @Jake

    “characteristically Germanic form: slaughter everybody who is not your tribe that it takes for you to make survivors into serfs or little better off than serfs.”

    “characteristically Germanic”

  64. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    “Outside observers had argued that no army anywhere in the world could penetrate it. ” – weak evidence. That sounds like a description of the Maginot Line.

    Also, more importantly, your article raises the question – How do you believe things would have been different if the Suvorov Hypothesis is correct, and Stalin had gained all of Europe? Would things be any different? Better? Worse?

    A possible comparison is Germany itself. What if Germany had conquered all of Europe in WWII? It seems they would have ended up as the dominant state in a confederation of semi-independent underling European states.

  65. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AKAHorace

    If the Sovs were so prepared for an aggressive invasion, how did they mess up their invasion of Finland so much ?

    They didn’t take the Finns as seriously as they should’ve. Around the same time, the Soviets did much better against the Japanese, who were taken seriously on account of what transpired in 1905. In addition, the Soviets had overall better quality troops in the far-east, when compared to the ones that initially engaged against the Finns.

    As for Stalin and the start of WW II circa 1930s, he was primarily concerned with the building socialism in one country concept over unreasonably aggressive acts elsewhere.

    He actually offered the Finns a land exchange for the purpose of averting war. The Finns as was their right refused. Long term, Stalin reasonably saw Finland as a future Nazi ally against the USSR. Hence, his land swap proposal to the Finns.

    From a Soviet perspective, Molotov-Ribbentrop was a practical recognition of a certain reality concerning Nazi aims and strength, relative to the Soviet position at the time. The Soviets essentially agreed to Warsaw becoming Nazi occupied – a city which had been part of the Russian Empire.

    It has been said that Stalin was reasonably wary of fighting the Nazis too soon – keeping in mind what happened to Russia in WW I.

    In short, the Soviets weren’t so well prepared to militarily confront the Nazis in 1941 and beforehand.

  66. anon[317] • Disclaimer says:
    @Horst

    I agree the thesis and Suvorov’s are not mutually exclusive; they do seem to be interlaced?
    Germany’s downfall was planned by the bankers and their corporate empires in France and London in late 1800s, because Germany made the road for oil deal with Ottoman Baghdad w/o consulting them. Deny Germany because a part of the 1897 organizing event (Zionism, Switzerland, 1897, Hertzl) where the strategy to use Jewish immigration as a weapon to take the oil from the Arabs took its first organized roots. The pharaoh chiefs who control Zionism decided, Germany was to be used to help the Zionist plan to use propaganda to exploit the plight of the highly dispersed Jewish people; riding undercover of devote Jewish interest, was the story line that could allow psychologically adjusted propaganda to make it a Jewish duty to migrate, to make migration to Arab oil rich lands a part of Jewish Heritage.

    There is other evidence that I cannot find right now, that suggest Stalin was in regular contact with Western planning sources.

  67. Malla says:

    Check out Adolf Hitler’s private conversations where he shows great concern of news of a great Soviet tank build up and how the Third Reich Germany had nothing of the sort at the moment. Of Soviet workers being worked like animals to build tanks. He also admits that German tanks at the time of this conversation were built for a West European wars and not for Eastern European conditions.

    Hitler Meets Mannerheim Monologue (Subtitles)

    Notice Hitler’s shock (in his voice) about how the Soviet workers are being worked like animals by the Communist authorities and were living lives worse than animals.

    This is a must watch and supports Suvorov’s theory and this great article by Mr. Unz.

  68. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Wally

    And note that France and Britain did not declare war on the communist USSR who invaded Poland from the east.

    The Nazi attack came first and was met with Polish resistance. The Soviets didn’t face as much resistance on account that many of the Polish citizens in that area, were non-Poles, who weren’t so compelled to defend Poland.

    The not so Russophile historian Orest Subtelny, suggests that the Soviets missed out on an opportunity to win over much of the Polish ruled Ukrainians by being too heavy handed.

    Poland signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in 1934 and in 1938, joined Nazi Germany and Hungary in the dismemberment of Czecho-Slovak territory. The West (particularly France) didn’t take up the Soviet offer to jointly defend Czecho-Slovak territory.

    In addition, some in the West were hoping for a Soviet-Nazi confrontation, with the West left out. This particular Western mindset was hoping that the Nazis and Soviets would weaken each other.

    It’s no small wonder why Molotov-Ribbentrop came about.

    • Replies: @szopen
  69. George says:

    “German Communist Party”

    According to Wikipedia the German CP was destroyed before WWII started. The destruction started earlier than Hitler with Rosa Luxembourg drowned by German Secret Police in a canal. Hitler might have been installed as Chancellor to placate capitalists fear of a communist resurgence.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany#Weimar_Republic_years

    What exactly was Stalin thinking when he decided to deploy his forces on an narrow strip on the Nazi Germany – USSR border? It seems like there are 2 kinds of people. Those that when in power deploy their troops on the border and those that deploy their troops in depth. Both France and the USSR succumbed to the idea of deploying troops on the border. In both cases it might have worked but neither was able to maintain air superiority. The Soviet troops in particular had a very poor logistics system especially at the border. In effect German railroads beat Soviet dirt roads. It is fun to talk about WWII tanks but the single biggest determinant of WWII victory was air superiority at land and sea. The Blitzkrieg Myth is an interesting book on the subject.

    Off topic but the theory before the start of the war was that a German victory was impossible for lack of fuel and raw metals. The quick victory of Germany over France gave Germany just enough captured resources to keep going for a few years. But ultimately Russia was able to build superior tanks because they were using superior alloys. Russia also corrected the mistakes in the French tank designs. Japan in particular went to war with a crazy collection of aircraft carriers build on cruise ship hulls, no real tanks, and light but fast aircraft that lacked armour and flame suppression systems. It worked only because the Europeans were using WWI technology, as their bankrupt Empires could not afford to modernize and downsizing the colonies was out of the question.

    • Replies: @Malla
  70. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Anon

    Towards the end of WW II, the USSR was militarily well entrenched in Austria. Stalin could’ve broken his understanding with the West on how Austria was to be geopolitically structured. Somewhat similarly, he didn’t go all out to make Finland a full fledged Soviet ally. His support for the Greek Communists was limited, on account of what was agreed to with the West (especially Britain) on that score.

    On another point that you raise, Stalin appears to have miscalculated on when the Germans would attack the USSR. Soviet shipments of raw materials were going to Germany as the Nazis attacked the USSR.

  71. @DFH

    There were many factors involved and the Germans were not completely blameless, but it is a blatant falsehood to paint the Poles as innocent victims in their dispute with Germany. The party who initiates hostilities is not necessarily the aggressor (HT Mulegino1).

    • Replies: @kerdasi amaq
  72. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Neville Chamberlain’s career was ruined by a far more formidable adversary named Death.

    As to the rest I will let you and Mr. “Sheete” argue it out.

  73. Ron Unz says:
    @szopen

    Wow. I was discussing Suworow for so long that I couldn’t even imagine someone would not know about his theories in 2010s. Talk about culture bubbles.

    Exactly. Given that Suvorov is the most widely-read military historian in world history, it’s hardly surprising that you’re quite familiar with him.

    The real oddity is that after almost 30 years, he and his theories still remain almost totally unknown even to well-educated Americans…

    • Agree: Simon in London
  74. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    sponsor Hitler like

    It should be noted that these companies sponsored the USSR as well. What does that say about them?

  75. I read Icebreaker when it came out. Brilliant! History as it should be written. Upon reading Icebreaker, I thought, “he builds his case, brick by brick, stick by stick”. I fancy myself a military historian have read about 250 books in the field and thousands of articles. But Icebreaker stands alone. You write, “Suvorov provides many dozens of additional examples, building brick by brick a very compelling case for this theory”. Yes!
    If anyone is curious, I suggest carefully studying the “Miracle of Dunkirk”. I say there wasn’t one.
    The interested reader might also look at FDR’s role in WWII. I believe FDR wanted Stalin to gobble up as much of Europe as possible.
    I also agree, Hitler wanted to end the war with the fall of France.

  76. szopen says:
    @Mikhail

    The Soviets didn’t face as much resistance on account that many of the Polish citizens in that area, were non-Poles, who weren’t so compelled to defend Poland.

    Actually, because Polish government ordered the military “not to fight with Soviets, unless they try to disarm you”. The fights were carried by troops which did not get the orders or disobeyed them.

    Poland signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in 1934 and in 1938,

    POland signed a non-aggression pact with USSR in 1932. And I knew Ribbentrop offered renewal of the pact in 1938 (in exchange for Danzig going to Germany and some few things), but I do not think Beck agreed.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @Mikhail
  77. szopen says:
    @Wally

    No. Germany attacked Poland, fully knowing that it will trigger decalration of war by France (Polish ally) and UK. Therefore, Germany started the WW2.

    If Russia would attack Latvia (member of NATO) and then USA would honor its obligations and declare war on Russia, the war would be stills started by Russia.

    Also, GB had not delcared war on USSR because guarantee of Polish bordered specificied in a secret addendum that borders are guaranteed only against Germany.

    • Agree: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Wally
    , @jilles dykstra
  78. I acquired my Hamish Hamilton ‘Icebraker’ in 1990 for £16.99. $500 wouldn’t buy its dustjacket.

    Useful? Yes, I’ve known since then that Official Narrative WWII court historians are schmucks.

  79. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Malla

    Not wanting war and invading Poland under the threat of war are contradictory. I totally get that Hitler was not ill-disposed to the British Empire. But he was told that if he did something he’d get war, and then he did it anyway. It was all quite clear and reasonable by Britain.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @jilles dykstra
    , @fnn
  80. Mulegino1 says:

    The massive Soviet deployments on the western frontiers of the USSR- particularly in the Lvov and Bialystok salients- are crucial to understanding the situation in 1941. If the Soviets had been making defensive preparations, they would never have had such massive forces in such vulnerable positions, nor would they have had the bulk of their forward air forces (almost totally destroyed on June 22, 1941) sitting on their tarmacs wingtip to wingtip in close proximity to the border.

    The Soviet forces were not massing for summer maneuvers, or for defensive purposes. There was no way that Stalin was going to tie up the railroads for massive western deployments- and civilian evacuations from the forward military districts- only to bring them back in the fall- as the rail system would be needed for transporting the grain from the harvests in the Ukraine to the east.

    None of this makes sense from a defensive perspective. Every indication- including Stalin’s famous speech to the new officers on May 5th of the same year that the Soviet grand strategy was henceforth to be an offensive one- pointed to a massive offensive for the summer/early fall of 1941. Only this can explain the enormous encirclements and netting of vast numbers of prisoners of war achieved by the German army in the first few weeks and months of Barbarossa. If the Germans had faced forces deployed in strong defensive positions- as at Brest- the outcome would have been different.

  81. gwynedd1 says:

    If this was his plan then it appears to me that it would have to be scraped with Germany’s easy victory over the European continent. Britain was contained . If anything Germany may have created a unified front by eventually defeating Britain. Also ,the US, as we know now, would have up ended the apple cart in any number of ways.

  82. @Beefcake the Mighty

    The Polish government was confident that they could beat Germany. The fact that the war did not develop to their advantage; doesn’t mean that this confidence was unjustified.

    • Replies: @szopen
  83. @Ron Unz

    I’d suspect that the reason for the West’s disinterest in Suvorov’s work is really simple. He’s not telling them what they want to hear.

    Germans bad, Allies good.

    • Agree: Ron Unz
  84. WHAT says:

    Now that Ron has mastered Rezun, it’s high time for Isaev. Sheds some light on why Rezun is actually not well regarded in WW2 research circles.

  85. szopen says:
    @kerdasi amaq

    The Polish government was confident that they could beat Germany.

    Nope. Polish gvt was confident it can defend Poland until allies will defeat Germany. It was overconfident and overoptimistic, but it had not expected it could beat Germany.

    There was of course a decent amount of propaganda, but propaganda directed at the population (or even, at the army) in order to raise the morale is not indication of any opinion held by government.

    Unless, of course, you refer to the years before Hitler’s rearmament program, where, indeed, Germany was almost defenseless and Poland indeed could took Berlin on her own.

  86. Another book worth noting is John Koster’s Operation Snow. Koster argues that Soviet agents in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt (most notably Harry Dexter White) engineered policies that made conflict with Japan impossible to avoid.

    A point in favor of this argument is that, while the Soviet Union had to fight only on the eastern front of the European theatre, the United States and Britain were in addition drawn into the Pacific theatre. The Soviets were not involved in the war with Japan until after the conclusion of the war in Europe. Under the cover of neutrality with respect to Japan, they consequently were free to pursue their own designs in Asia, which included aiding the Chinese Communist Party, awaiting the opportunity to recover territories lost in the 1905 Russo-Japanese war, and pursuing the age-old “Great Game” along the northwest frontier of India.

    George Hill, in his book Proceed to Peshawar, describes a combined British and American intelligence mission during World War II into this long-contested area in an effort to counter the activities of a local Muslim insurgent, the “faqir of Ipi,” who in the pursuit of his own anti-British purposes was acting as a proxy both of the Nazis and the Soviets. That the Soviets were supporting such a character is typical of their opportunism in the Asian theatre.

    Acting on a secret agreement at the Yalta conference in February 1945, Stalin abrogated the USSR’s Neutrality Treaty with Japan and declared war on the Japanese on August 9, 1945. It seems likely that Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9 was at least in part motivated by a desire to bring the war to conclusion before the Soviets had an effective chance to enter it.

  87. WHAT says:
    @The Scalpel

    Winter War in Rezun and especially Isaev interpretation is actually a worthy read. “Hurr durr messed up” has about as much of a link to reality as “hurr durr every missile reached its(one of three lol) target”.

    Then again, those in favor of “messed up” interpretation for some unexplainable reason consider Patton as some sort of capable commander as well, lol.

  88. @Ron Unz

    Numbers the Soviets had, but a close examination of the state of their forces June 1941 reveals a force struggling to become even tactically operational–lack of supplies, lack of prime movers to even move their artillery resulting in acquisition of local farm tractors, tank divisions and corps completely green and unable to operate effectively, tanks with poor or no optics and no radios etc etc.

    The Soviet dispositions were in echelon. The Germans carved up and smashed the first on the frontier, then moved to engage the second echelon Dvinsk-Vitebsk-Gomel-Vinnitsa, then the pause in front of the third exchelon that had assembled east of Smolensk and Vyazma-Bryansk-Kiev. The last echelon of Siberians arrived from the east in December to smash the decimated and threadbare Wehrmacht. Hitler lost the war that December.

    Defense in depth does not = imminent plans to attack.

    • Replies: @WHAT
    , @Sparkon
  89. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Suvorov quotes that astonishing figure for government-certified parachutists directly from official Soviet sources

    There must have been something weird going on with Soviet paratroop certifications, because the figure makes absolutely no sense, especially for an army in such a wretched state (they did have great tanks though as I recall, and I may easily be wrong, training for tankers was severely flawed) as the Red army of 1940-1.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  90. if anyone wants to download Suvorov`s books they are available on archive.org, in the link under these words.

    https://archive.org/search.php?query=Viktor%20Suvorov

  91. Wally says:
    @szopen

    It’s quite clear that Germany did not expect Britain & France to go to war for Polish land theft & Polish atrocities.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @szopen
  92. Malla says:
    @Tyrion 2

    It was all quite clear and reasonable by Britain.

    Why did Britain want to protect Poland exactly? Why the sudden Anglo Polish love?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @jim jones
  93. Thanks for the interesting article about a subject that isn’t easy to discuss. Russian and French documents about their talks before WWI disappeared conveniently. Some years ago The Guardian wrote about a secret historical archive (or more than one) that had been found and about which historians didn’t know anything at all. Ian Cobain wrote a book about aspects of this question: The History Thieves: Secrets, Lies and the Shaping of a Modern Nation. (I haven’t read the book) I quote from amazon:

    In 1889, the first Official Secrets Act was passed, creating offences of ‘disclosure of information’ and ‘breach of official trust’. It limited and monitored what the public could, and should, be told. Since then a culture of secrecy has flourished. As successive governments have been selective about what they choose to share with the public,

    I think that Ilan Pappe also wrote recently about how restricted the access to archives in Israel is. Nick Turse told once how his professor offered to pay for him to photocopy a box of documents that he (N.T.) had just found. It seems that his professor was afraid that the documents might not be available if they discovered what they were about. Based on those documents Turse wrote his book about Vietnam.

    In Germany the situation is a bit different (but the results are similar). After loosing two world wars which caused an incredible amount of destruction, Germans were traumatised and in a state of coma. At least they didn’t want to make the same mistakes again. They had been defeated twice by the US, so proximity to the US was now the supreme aim (also special relations to Israel). Ideological questions became very important. You cannot really question such matters freely. When two rappers recently got a traditional music prize based on the sole fact that their music had sold very well there was a storm in Germany because there was a line where they mentioned Ausschwitz. There were journalists crying on the streets because of this lack of respect (mentioning Ausschwitz). As a result the whole prize doesn’t exist anymore. Commentaries by readers in the mainstream press about some themes are strictly controled. A few days ago there was a commentary by a politician, Gauland, which was considered offensive. What he had said amounts to saying that the 12 years of Hitler are not very important in German history. A German-Turkish politician had said that there is no German culture, only a German language at most. He told her to go back to Anatolia. This was considered an unacceptable offense. A former judge wrote a long article telling how he, Gauland, should be put to trial. And the comments from German readers in newspapers showed an incredible amount of negative feeling towards Germany. Almost every German (who told that their families had been in this area for many centuries at least) agreed that there is no German culture. You cannot even mention something that you find in wikipedia in a comment (my own experience recently).

    After the war Germany became a very crowded country which had lost important territories for Germany in the East. You see nowadays Germans leaving the country the whole time. There are people who get the most expensive and best public education for 20 or 25 years (from Kindergarten to Post graduation studies) and after that leave the country to Argentina, US, Australia, Brazil, South Africa, Russia, even China. Boris Becker lives in London, Steffi Graff in the US, Michael Schumacher in Switzerland. When Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg who was a minister got a problem he just left and now he lives in the US and doesn’t want to come back. There were one or two German Nobel prizes who also live there. In Germany horizonts are very immediate. What counts a la longue is the right ideology which must be kept and cannot be questioned. Of course, some times there are cognitive dissonances. People are aware that they cannot tell their opinions about some themes, about Israel for instance. Elisabeth Murry wrote 2 days ago: “During our ports of call in Germany, visitors to Al-Awda told us that many German politicians as well as ordinary Germans are reluctant to speak out against human rights abuses against Palestinians because they say that if they do, they will be branded as anti-Semitic and possibly have their lives and careers ruined by this smear.”

    But in spite of that sometimes you may also see different perspectives. Years ago I read reviews about the book by Martin Allen about Rudolf Hess. Allen’s thesis was apparently that Hess made his flight to the UK in order to seek a peace agreement. One such review about the book laughed about him saying that it had been shown that the documents that Allen used were falsifcations. It seems that he had been ridiculized as a fool and his book wasn’t taken seriously. Years later German television (ARD or ZDF) made a documentary about Rudolf Hess and what did they say? That they had found documents in Russia which showed that Rudolf Hess had made his flight in order to seek peace. They also said that there was no reason to think that the documents which they had found in Russia was false. Usually such documentaries are made by competent historians. Martin Allen wasn’t mentioned in the documentary. Were the documents that they found the same that Martin Allen had found? What is the truth? In a certain way it doesn’t matter because they aren’t going to change the whole picture even if no part of it fits together. What I wanted to say: it also isn’t easy to discuss such matters very easily in Germany.

    • Replies: @WHAT
  94. Wally says:
    @szopen

    The USSR attacked many countries and the Allies did nothing, Poland seized part of Czechoslovakia, the Allies did nothing.

    Responsibility for WW2

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7544

    recommended:

    Who Started World War II: Truth for a War-Torn World
    by Udo Walendy
    Edition type: revised and newly translated
    Publisher: Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers
    Published in: 9/2014
    (Note: the US edition of this book as available from The Barnes Review, which has been printed from the translators’ file without any editing or changes in layout, has a different title: Truth for Germany)

    https://shop.codoh.com/book/364/365

  95. Crimson2 says:

    The idea that these ideas were suppressed is actually laughable. The fact that you have resorting to using Rezun’s books as an example of “American Pravda” then I am actually more confident in our freedoms.

    I know your Holocaust denying readers lap up this nonsense, though. Got to appeal to your core audience.

  96. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    (*) During the early years of World War II, the Germans effectively utilized paratroops and air-mobile forces to seize key enemy targets far behind the front lines during a major offensive, and this was an important component of their victories against France in 1940 and Greece in 1941. Such units are necessarily lightly armed and no match for regular infantry in a defensive battle; hence their only role is an offensive one. Germany entered the war with 4,000 paratroops, a far larger force than anything found in Britain, France, America, Italy, or Japan. However, the Soviets had at least 1,000,000 trained paratroopers, and Suvorov believes that the true total was actually closer to 2,000,000

    If these are from government figures then those figures are of the “we pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us” variety. Paratrooper training is not for everyone. Most soldiers in modern professional armies are not even able to finish the training.

    Also, a key principal of defence is to maintain an offensive spirit. Paratroopers would have been perfectly useful in a defence in depth strategy of the Soviet Union.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @Anon
  97. The non-aggression pact, secret protocols notwithstanding, was not an alliance, but allocated spheres of influence. The occupation of Poland by the Soviets was (you might say, scrupulously) up to the post-WWI Curzon line, not really in accordance with the pact, but as a result of the German attack on Poland and the Polish government absconding to Romania, leaving Poland ungoverned. Either the Soviets moved in or the Germans would take the lot straightaway.

    • Replies: @szopen
  98. aandrews says:

    Hitler-Mannerheim Conversation (subtitles)

    Hitler: “…they had the most immense armaments that people could imagine….”

    [...]

    Hitler: “If somebody had told me a nation could start with 35,000 tanks, then I’d have said: ‘You are crazy!’”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_and_Mannerheim_recording

  99. @Beefcake the Mighty

    From the Axis-History Forum:

    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=34521

    The Czech army was indeed formidable for one.

    The Czechs had an army of 42 divisions and two brigades – more than 600 000 men and 4 air regiments. The Czechs had 350 tanks and 73 tankettes, along with about 70 armoured cars.
    The Czech army had the world’s highest amount of automatic weapons per soldier (1/7 soldiers) in September 1938 and plenty of excellent artillery.

    http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=30130

    Skoda was a famous company which made guns and during ww1 they made one of the biggest guns in the war.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  100. WHAT says:
    @DR-Montreal

    Rezun is interesting in this regard, especially if you augment him with Isaev for actual numbers and documents. Tractors were requisitioned as per mobilization plan of 1940, if memory serves, not out of on the spot thinking, making Red Army one of the most motorized armies on the planet.
    You don`t want to use this metric anyway, as Wehrmacht starts to look like a 19th century napoleonic army then with huge overreliance on horses. It`s no big secret germans repaired and put in service every captured soviet tractor and/or artillery piece they could.

    The most important of Rezun`s points is mobilization anyway. I don`t remember if it was expounded on in Icebreaker or some of his later books, but he has an actually good argument there, basing in on what Shaposhnikov wrote long before the war and how various facets of mobilization were actually implemented, especially demographically-wise.

  101. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Malla

    Are you really trying to argue that Britain was responsible for the war because we defended Poland’s liberty rather than Germany being responsible for swallowing it up despite being warned? Was Britain unreasonable to tell Germany not to end Polish sovereignty?

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @JMcG
  102. Malla says:
    @Tyrion 2

    And what about attacks on ethnic Germans in Poland? It is or even was no secret that Hitler was a nationalist who loved his people, ethnic Germans wherever they were. How long would such a person accept such a situation?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  103. WHAT says:
    @UncommonGround

    You may want to read Clark`s “Sleepwalkers”. What led to WWI is quite well researched, not much is left actually secret there.

    • Replies: @UncommonGround
  104. Chris T. says: • Website

    For those interested in Stalin’s offensive plans there is a very interesting article about Soviet intentions in 1940-41 by Professor Evan Mawdsley.

    Specifically in the ‘International History Review’: Crossing the Rubicon: Soviet Plans for Offensive War in 1940–1941

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/40110360?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

  105. Ron Unz says:
    @Anon

    There must have been something weird going on with Soviet paratroop certifications, because the figure makes absolutely no sense, especially for an army in such a wretched state

    Well, Suvorov devotes Chapter 13 of his book to the Soviet paratroops, and his claims seem quite persuasive to me. I don’t read Russian, so perhaps all his references are totally fraudulent, but if so, would his books have sold millions of copies in that language and gained the support of numerous Russian historians? Would our Naval Academic Press have reprinted it, and invited him to speak?

    The point is that this is merely one of many, many dozens of absolutely shocking factual claims that Suvorov makes. Are they all totally fraudulent? Offhand, that seems a bit implausible to me.

    Incidentally, a large portion of his book is primarily focused on rebutting the “conventional wisdom” that the Red Army was in a wretched state, and I think he does that quite effectively.

  106. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    Soviets never invaded anything at all?

    Yes, never invaded. There was no Poland at the time, the country and the government collapsed and Red Army simply occupied Western Ukraine and Belarus to protect the people. The same goes for Finland – USSR had to move its border only regaining the Russian land lost to White Finns in 1918. Finns had swastikas (hakenkreuz signs)-wearing army just a few miles from Leningrad in 1939. Everyone knew war was inevitable, and Finnland was on the wrong side. Moving border is not taking over the country, no one thought of ruling and conquering.

    but supports the Great humanitarian Utopian Soviet Union with the land lease program.

    US never supported USSR, it simply sold some weapons and stuff for gold – nothing was for free. On the contrary, Ford owned Volkswagen, GE – Siemens, not speaking of IG Farbenidustrie and Thyssen-Krupp (maker of zyclon gas) – all working for Hitler, and directly sharing profits of war even before it started. JP Morgan and Rockfellers had not sponsored Communist party, but only NSDAP campaign. All this capitalists have waged WW2 with Nazi Germany being a part of the world capitalist system.

    By contemporary standards, USSR was realy utopian and great and peace-loving. USSR had free healthcare, education, women votes and equal wages, no racial segregation etc. – all things unimaginable in the 1930-s and 1940-s West. So as a beacon and example of the just and fair society, USSR was enemy of the West, opposing imperialism and colonialism. USA had to deal with USSR only for money and in the times of urgent need.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @Malla
    , @j2
  107. Ron Unz says:
    @The Scalpel

    Outside observers had argued that no army anywhere in the world could penetrate it. ” – weak evidence. That sounds like a description of the Maginot Line.

    However, France’s Maginot Line *was* virtually impenetrable. That’s why the Germans went around it, and won the war that way. From what I recall, the Maginot Line remained virtually unbroken until the defeated French government ordered its surrender.

    Meanwhile, in Finland, the Soviets had no way of “going around” the Mannerheim Line, which may even have been tougher because of the exceptionally difficult terrain and weather conditions. Suvorov devotes Chapter 22 to this issue, and it certainly seemed to explode the assumptions I’d had for decades.

    • Replies: @Lauri Törni
    , @The Scalpel
  108. szopen says:
    @Wally

    There was no POlish land theft (Poland got back lands which were mostly majority Polish according to GERMAN CENSUSES, and mostly were stolen from Poland during the partitions), and no Polish prewar atrocities. Stop believing Nazi propaganda. But then, you are linking CODOH, so probably there is no point for saying that.

    And besides, Poland and France WERE ALLIES. You are saying Germany attacked one of the allies and expected the other one will not honour hers alliance obligations?

  109. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    One of the key mistakes intelligent and meticulous people make is that they assume that because certain things are easy for them those things must be easy.

  110. szopen says:
    @Shakesvshav

    he occupation of Poland by the Soviets was (you might say, scrupulously) up to the post-WWI Curzon line, not really in accordance with the pact, but as a result of the German attack on Poland and the Polish government absconding to Romania, leaving Poland ungoverned.

    It’s interesting that you forgot that (a) Polish government left to Romania AFTER Soviets attacked, and the decision to leave was a direct result of Soviet invasion (b) Poland was governed, and there were several hundred thousands Polish soldiers in those eastern territories, with intact Polish administration (c) Soviets were urged by Hitler to invade (d) Soviets were helping German invasion, for example by guiding Nazi Bombers attacking Warsaw.

    • Replies: @utu
  111. Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity of British Foreign Policy’, 1976, Oxford

    Lawrence R. Pratt, ‘East of Malta, West of Suez’, London, 1975

    These two books explain excellently how GB provoked Hitler’s attack on Poland, because GB was unable to realise it could no longer maintain an empire.
    The despised Chamberlain had the illusion that in 1939 Britain would be ready for far.
    He did not want war, he cried in a cabinet meeting after he had to declare war.

    Colonel Roderick Macleod, D.S.O., M.C., and Dennis Kelly, ‘TIME UNGUARDED The Ironside Diaries 1937- 1940′, New York, 1963

    My hope is that Trump is more realistic than Chamberlain was.

  112. You guys will believe anything.

    Who cares how widely read Rezun/Suvorov is? Steven Jay Gould, just as an example, was widely read, ya know.

    Oldest BS rhetorical trick in the world, appeal to authority.

    And the idea that these ideas are being repressed by some shadowy anglophone masters is equally ludicrous.

    It doesn’t make sense, guys, because according to the people on Unz that same illuminati caste views Russia as inimical to their goals and is now unfairly portraying them as bent on the destruction of the west, etc, pussy riot, facebook ads.

    So why wouldn’t this theory be part of the the current anti-Russia campaign being waged by some in the west. Rather, they repress it?

    Explanation: There is no “they”, it is just a bullshit theory. Germans and Russians are famous pendants, you can always find tons of them willing to discuss, dissect, and, most importantly, argue about fantastical minutiae. I’ll bet you can find lots of other things argued about in foreign languages that never make it to the anglosphere.

    English speaking nations have much more practical things to do with their time, seems like.

    The idea that somehow Hitler turned on a dime from a defensive posture and in a few months organized what was the largest military invasion in history is childish invention, no understanding of military logistics, operations, training, planning, the whole deal.

    Also, 1,000,000 (or 2,000,000) is another fantasy. Do the arithmetic just for the airplane hours to train so many paratroopers. Sounds to me like all the wildly unrealistic figures Soviet bureaucracy used to protect itself from higher ups, all those record harvests while people are starving for example.

    And even if this fairy tale were true, in the words of a perennial Unz favorite, “At this point, what difference does it make?”

  113. @Tyrion 2

    After the Crete disaster, the paratroop era was over.
    Despite this in Sept 1944 a paratroop landing was tried near Arnheim in the Netherlands.
    A disaster.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  114. Hi Ron Unz!

    Christmas Day, 2016, as a gift, a dear friend gave me a paperback copy of Suvorov’s “The Chief Culprit.”

    Whether U.R. readers / commenters like it or not,
    your “When Stalin almost conquered Europe” will be the most educationally important article they will ever encounter.

    Thank you!

  115. @Anon

    Never heard of LendLease ?

  116. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Malla

    He’d already swallowed up half of Central Europe. He was told that enough was enough. Were he only concerned about the plight of the German minority in Poland there were many other options than that which he took. He clearly thought that France and Britain were decadent and would acquiesce. They already had in the cases of Austria and Czechoslovakia. He misjudged and the whole world suffered for his hubris.

    The previous partitioning of Poland, by Prussia, Austria and Russia, had long been considered an infamous tragedy. Repeating it was never going to be a popular move. Repeating it in the face of a clear threat of war was abject stupidity given that he didn’t want a war to his west. If he cared more about the German people than his own over-weening ego, he would not have started a war that was entirely catastrophic for the Germans. It would have been easy to avoid. He need only have not destroyed a neighbouring country.

    • Replies: @kerdasi amaq
  117. @All we like sheep

    Indeed, this why historians wonder(ed) why Hitler was not attacked in 1938, when both the Polish and the Chech army still existed.
    The only explanation that makes sense is that FDR wanted a long war, in which the USA could participate.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  118. @Tyrion 2

    ” Not wanting war and invading Poland under the threat of war are contradictory ”

    Unless the provocations become unbearable, what they were.

    • Replies: @szopen
  119. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @gT

    Though Stalin was indeed a phycho and probably did want to attack Europe, the fact remains that Germany struck first, plus lost, and is therefor the guilty party. And lets not forget that Communism was virtually a 100% Jewish attempt to rule the world, just as is the current NeoCon NWO attempt.

    You know what’s funny. This Stalin-as-villain Narrative would be useful to the current Neocon Narrative of Putin-as-the-new-Stalin-and-Hitler rolled into one. Neocons hate Putin so much that Obama and US puppet-allies didn’t even attend Russia’s celebration in 2015 of the victory in the Great Patriotic War. If there was a theory that Stalin had intended to strike any nation but Germany, I think Neocons would jump at the chance. But as much as Jews hate Stalin, they understandably hate Hitler more. So, it wouldn’t be useful to make it seem as though Hitler was reacting to event than creating them with evil intentions.

    No, communism was NOT a Jewish attempt to rule the world. Unlike neocons, I think most Jewish communists were sincere even if ultimately wrongheaded about the justness of their cause. They were like early Christians but with Islamic-style Jihad mentality.

    Given Europe’s status today, I almost wish Stalin had taken all of Europe. That way, there would have been no mass invasion from Africa and Muslim nations. Communism would have smothered bad ideas like feminism. (Communist ideal of feminism for unity and equality between men and women, not an anti-male screed that is feminism in the West.) Also, leftist tyranny under communism would have turned almost all of Europe in the nationalist and rightwing direction… as happened in Poland and Hungary.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @gT
  120. @szopen

    At the end of 1938 the British guarantee to Poland was already being negotiated.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  121. @szopen

    Von Ribbentrop had assured Hitler that GB would not declare war.

    • Replies: @szopen
  122. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    Did Germany made propaganda use out of the Soviet plan to attack Germany? They captured 80 Soviet generals. There must have been some who could corroborate Suvorov’s theory?

    Maybe Stalin emphasized military spending not so much because he intended to invade Germany but out of abject fear of Germany. He surely remembered how Germany fought a two-front war in WWI and may well have won… if not for US entry into the war. Also, the war broke the Tsar and the Provisional Government. It could also break Stalin’s grip on Russia. While a war can initially unify a nation, if it drags on for too long with too many setbacks, central authority loses legitimacy.
    Also, Stalin must have known that Germans are better soldiers and better at Russians at just about everything. Thus, if Russians can’t compete in quality, they had to win in sheer quantity.

    During the Cold War, the USSR spent huge sums to place massive amounts of military along NATO borders. But it was always defensive. The most Soviets ever did was move tanks into Hungary and Czechoslovakia. But even there, they were slow to act and allowed events to reach a point of full rebellion against communism.

    But even if Stalin did intend to invade Germany, it was no less true that Hitler’s ambition was to invade Russia. So, neither side was thinking defensively or reactively but offensive. Just like USSR and US were in the Space Race to outpace the other, maybe Hitler and Stalin were like two gunslingers in a Western itching to outdraw the other. It wouldn’t have been offensive vs defensive but offensive vs offensive. So, Stalin’s aggressive intentions, if indeed such existed, doesn’t justify Hitler’s equally aggressive intentions. So, even if Stalin had aggressive aims, so did Hitler. Hitler would likely have done what he did even if Stalin had no intention of attacking.

    • Replies: @utu
  123. Malla says:
    @George

    Off topic but the theory before the start of the war was that a German victory was impossible for lack of fuel and raw metals. The quick victory of Germany over France gave Germany just enough captured resources to keep going for a few years. But ultimately Russia was able to build superior tanks because they were using superior alloys. Russia also corrected the mistakes in the French tank designs. Japan in particular went to war with a crazy collection of aircraft carriers build on cruise ship hulls, no real tanks, and light but fast aircraft that lacked armour and flame suppression systems.

    Exactly!!! That is why the belief that Germany or Japan wanted a World War is idiotic to say the least. Germany and Japan wanting to conquer the world was just WW2 allied propaganda. Japan was cornered and forced to attack Pearl Harbour. The German and Japanese leadership were not crazy to want a war at that time. And Italy had even more military weaknesses than Germany or Japan. WW2 was definitely not in the interest of the Axis forces, it was in the interest of some other party.

  124. @Ron Unz

    Given that Suvorov is the most widely-read military historian in world history

    According to whom?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  125. szopen says:
    @jilles dykstra

    I didn’t know ribbentrop was British Foreign Minister.

    • LOL: utu
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  126. Tyrion 2 says:
    @jilles dykstra

    I completely agree that parachuting into combat has always been a silly idea. Nowadays it is more of an ethos of high fitness and aggression than a well-regarded tactical option. I’m also well-acquainted with the story of Arnhem and that was a sadly predictable disaster. I gather the French did some jumps in Mali in a fit of pointless showboating.

    Interestingly, a key component of the British Parachute Regiment’s mythos is that it was entirely inspired by its equivalent in the Wermacht. We’d have been better off learning auftragtaktik quicker rather than poncing around with parachutes though.

  127. @Duglarri

    Duglarri took the words right out of my mouth. I had the same reaction.

    I also see this emerging thinking to put the blame for WW2 on Stalin as consistent with other actions of the US since the end of the Cold War: US support for fascists and jihadis in the Balkans, Chechnya, and Azerbaijan; US support for Al Qaeda and ISIS in the MENA; the US/CIA backed coup in Ukraine with western Ukrainian fascists; the US/EU/CIA use of jihadis against the Syrian people. The US itself has emerged from the Cold War as a fascist rogue state. The world wide struggle of the 21st century is how to deal with the US to neutralize, defeat, or exhaust it.

  128. hyperbola says:

    Not so long ago Unz told us that he was associated with the NeoCons in the 1990s (at least). Perhaps the appearance of this “article” at this point in time reflects the “refocussing” of the ZionCons on attacks on Russians?

  129. szopen says:
    @jilles dykstra

    There were no provocation, only those produced by Nazi propaganda, not to mention actual shootings on Polish border from German side. The actual Polish action directed at German minority were always a response to the Nazis actions directed at Polish minority, such as closing Polish schools in Germany, arresting Polish minority activists and so on.

  130. @DFH

    Well, so he did. However, that was after all peace offerings were rejected, and the Polish Army had mobilized toward Germany.
    Try this on for size:

    http://www.tomatobubble.com/smigly_rydz.html

    • Replies: @szopen
  131. @Wally

    Also note that France invaded Germany on September 7, 1939, but were pushed back. Germany did not invade France at that time, and offered peace.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  132. szopen says:

    Now here is something which some might find interesting, as it is somewhat related. Recently (in 2017) one Polish historian, prof. Grzegorz Górski, self-published a book, with a circulation of 100 (this is not a mistake: really, one hundred), “Wrzesień 1939 – nowe spojrzenie” where he argued that – contrary to everything Polish officials stated in 1939 and later – the location of POlish armies in 1939 was also offensive and is supposed to mirror POlish plans from 1921 battle of Vistula. I have not read the book (remember, circulation 100!), so I only know it from the reviews and discussions. Górski argues that Rydz really thought Poland could defeat Germany on its own, that this is why there were no fortification in the west, magazins were close to the border and that’s why Rydz refused Kutrzeba pleas to start battle of Bzura, since he still thought he will use the needed armies in an brilliant offensive.

    Now, personally I think the idea is ridiculous. There were no fortifications on the western border, because Poland has no plans of war with Germany, and all army was prepared with an idea that next war will be with USSR. We built fortification in the east, we kept huge cavalry forces, we had navy with units which would be only useful with war with the USSR, and we had only war plans with USSR – the final plan was prepared in the last possible moments and was quite chaotic. The orders for the armies were also to defend the positions and then to slowly fall back. I think Rydz and Stachiewicz were idiots, because they thought Polish army would be able to stop Germans in their tracks and they it would be able to fight few months before western offensive – but not that they were insane.

    But still, this was Górski’s idea and I hope I have reported it correctly.

  133. @The Scalpel

    You are making an assumption that Germany wanted to conquer all of Europe.
    From The Worm In The Apple by Friedrich Lenz

    Ambassador Abetz who was very critical of Hitler, wrote in his book Das offene Problem:

    “This was also the time of that particular one of Hitler’s public speeches that first shook my distrust of him and convinced me of the sincerity of his professed love of peace. ‘A medium-sized modern shell,’ he set out before a large assembly, ‘costs 3,500 Mark. A small single-family home for a working-class family also costs 3,500 Mark. To arm my country, I would need at least 10 million shells. These will then lie in storage in the arsenals, and no-one will thank me for them. But if I build 10 million homes for working-class families, I will have the gratitude of the greatest part of my nation. So how could I not want the others to disarm, that I may save myself arming in turn? But at the heart of a Europe armed to the teeth, Germany cannot be the only one to remain unarmed.’ – I must admit that the simplicity and logic of this argument impressed me deeply. I began to believe Hitler’s claim that he desired to put all the means at his disposal at the service of the social cause, and to achieve Germany’s reconstruction through works of peace.”

  134. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Jake

    the evil anti-Semite Austrian Colonel

    He was a “gruppenführer” (equivalent to corporal; second lowest rank). Sometimes translated as “squad leader.” He was only a runner, but he loved the war.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  135. Malla says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Are you really trying to argue that Britain was responsible for the war because we defended Poland’s liberty

    No I am not arguing anything of that kind. However what exactly happened to Poland after WW2? Oh yes, it was forced to become a vassal state of the Soviet Union (a British ally in WW2) and Communism was forced upon the hapless Polish population (they never voted for it). And suddenly Britain’s interest in defending the LIBERTY OF THE POLISH PEOPLE disappeared. How interesting is that? So Britain entered WW2 to save the liberty of the Polish people only to have the same Polish people enslaved under Communism and now a vassal state of the Soviet Union and in the process set in motion the dismantling of her Empire and become a second rate power. Very smart. Very very smart. Talk about suicidal tendencies.

    Was Britain unreasonable to tell Germany not to end Polish sovereignty?

    Not at all, it was very reasonable. It only became unreasonable when the lovely Soviets got involved. The same Soviets who were playing an active role in destroying the British Empire via their trained agents since it’s inception.

  136. First we don’t calculate behavior based soley on pre-emptive moves against the supposed intentions of another. That’s for revisionists who are uncomfortable with some aspects of objective reality. One making a acse for war based on the assumptions that another is going to start one based not on evidence, but mere speculation.
    \Given the long held anomisity between the germans and the Russians, if one is going to base war on speculative intentions — it’s a coin toss.

    But that is not really how history is measured. We examine actual events — who did what and when.

    There is no really support that Russia steal reeling in the wake of economic chaos indicate as much. In all circumstances Germany is throwing the first punch. In the case of Poland, it’s clear that Germany had every intention based on their behavior towards Poland of invading if diplomacy by coercion failed. This sounds like the mind reading tactics in which we give the police the benefit of the doubt — as a conservative I am not so inclined to grant government “soothsaying accuracy” based on how they felt. of course Russia, Pres. Stalin felt threatened.

    Germany through the first punch. And Hitler had ever intention of forcing the Polish issue by force. Hid belief that if their must be war and blood, better do it and be done with it and everything Germany did reflected as much.
    ———————————————————–

    But of greater concern is the opening salvo against western press. Certainly, the western press in the US has a solid recorded history of denying other’s research based on superficial qualities — that is on the record. But in the case of this book, I don’t see any evidence that the western press engaged in some manner if deliberate cover-up or blocked access to the material. Certainly not because they were in a conspiracy to hinder discussions on the war — given the vast number of historians entertaining various discussion papers, debates, on warfare, even conferences east and west by historians in which counter-factual are a regular tool. all suggests that western historians have not been out to suppress anything. In fact, aside from the record of superficial quality suppression, the only whole sale practice of literary suppression of the magnitude required has been engaged by communists in the east block. There censorship to the point of death was almost routine.

    Furthermore, it is not uncommon for a counter narrative and this does seem to be all that counter save for who started the matter, to gain traction takes time.

    In essence it is in the same vein of arguments that lay the blame for the japanese attack on pearl harbor at the feet of the us.
    _______________________

    There is absolutely no doubt that the Soviets intended a global revolution, but there is little evidence said revolution was to or could be initiated by invasion. There primary primary was internal subversion of the polity. Cultivating communists from within and exploiting traditional or standing national governance vulnerabilities and errors. In fact, they employ many of the tactics so many accuse the jews of doing.
    ________________________

    While I certainly feel for the pole. There is no evidence that either France or Great Britain was in a condition to go go to war as much as they might have wanted to in Poland’s defense. Whether or not they were in that position when Germany invaded Alsace – Lorraine is another matter. But by Poland, Germany was a war machine beyond their immediate response.

    _________________________

    • Replies: @Malla
  137. Mike P says:
    @jilles dykstra

    It would have made even more sense to attack the Germans when they first started to enlarge their army (in 1935 I believe) beyond the 100,000 men limit that had been imposed on them at Versailles. Why was this not done?

  138. @szopen

    You dishonest idiot, you know that’s not what he meant by it. Morons like you deserve the leadership you get, then as now. Say hello to a reprise of Brest-Litovsk, asshole.

    • Replies: @szopen
  139. @Curmudgeon

    In an attempt to abide by the agreement to defend Poland should Germany attack — it failed, but is considered a response to German aggression.

    Hardly an act of unprovoked war in immediate response to the agreements of alliances.

    by this time Germany was in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and nearly everything did would be considered an act of war. Whether Versailles was a cogent and fair deal or not — Germany was in violation.

    • Replies: @Wally
  140. utu says:
    @Anon

    Stalin’s aggressive intentions, if indeed such existed

    Did they exist or not? My question was about German usage this fact in propaganda? And since Germans did not use it as far s I know, I conclude that Suvorov is just unscrupulous lier which is what one may expect from GRU officer. And I am surprised he got such following including Ron Unz.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @L.K
  141. szopen says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Well, you say about POlish mobilisation (unofficial partial started in August 24, official started in Aug 31st – actually first 29, but after pressure from the west, the mobilisation was delayed by two days). Earlier some single units were mobilized. Now what about this:

    Belgium announced mobilisation August 23 1939 (before Poland). Netherland: Aug. 28. Switzerland: August 29 1939 (partial), September 2(full). The first order on attack on Poland : August 24, which was then withdrawn by Hitler, but one small Abwehra unit had not get the orders and attacked Poland in nigh 24/25 August (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jab%C5%82onk%C3%B3w_incident). When Germany attacked, Polish mobilization has not finished.

    German army was mobilizing constantly through 1938 to 1939 (see for example here: http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/145-germany-heer/heer-unsorted/3420-the-german-mobilization-1939). Moreover, google tells me in 1938 German army had already 600.000 soldiers while in March 1939, Poland still had only 282 thousand soldiers (Poland finally mobilized in 1939 less than million).

  142. @Ron Unz

    By citing David Irving, you cite a Holocaust-denier and Hitler-apologist, who during the trial between David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt was shown definitely to have distorted and misrepresented crucial evidence, and to have relied also on some evidence which was bogus, and to have ignored evidence that was authentic and that disproved some of Irving’s key assertions.

    • Troll: Mike P
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @L.K
    , @RudyM
  143. Malla says:
    @Anon

    There was no Poland at the time, the country and the government collapsed and Red Army simply occupied Western Ukraine and Belarus to protect the people.

    Oh what a nice and cute excuse to take some Polish land. And the World was silent about it including the evil capitalist USA Britain. But wait, the Japanese moved into Vietnam because the French government had collapsed and the whole evil Capitalist world (evil USA in particular) went screaming and screeching. And maybe Germany was right to invade Poland to protect ethnic Germans.

    BTW which of the countries of the Warsaw Pact actually voted their communist parties into power. Were they given an option to reject the Communist system?

    USSR had to move its border only regaining the Russian land lost to White Finns in 1918. Finns had swastikas (hakenkreuz signs)-wearing army just a few miles from Leningrad in 1939.

    And kicked the Karelian Finns out. If Swastika wearing Finns scared the commies in Moscow so much and it justified an invasion, that means if a non communist country sees hammer and sickle wearing partisans (basically thugs) and soldiers across the border, they would have the right to invade too. Right?

    US never supported USSR, it simply sold some weapons and stuff for gold

    Oh Really??? Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev did not think so. Having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, Khrushchev addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:
    “I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were “discussing freely” among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany’s pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so”

    According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:
    “On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany’s might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.”

    Major George Racey Jordan was an actual Land Lease officer in Alaska. Check out his book
    From Major Jordan’s Dairies about the enormous amount of help given by the USA to the Soviet Union whitout which the Soviet Union would have most probably collapsed.

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html

    On the contrary, Ford owned Volkswagen, GE – Siemens, not speaking of IG Farbenidustrie and Thyssen-Krupp (maker of zyclon gas) – all working for Hitler

    The Bolshevik revolution as well as many other communist revolutions around the world got a lot of financial help from Capitalist Wall Street bankers.

    By contemporary standards, USSR was realy utopian and great and peace-loving. USSR had free healthcare, education, women votes and equal wages, no racial segregation etc. – all things unimaginable in the 1930-s and 1940-s West.

    Soviet Russia during it’s early days was a murderous hellhole. It only became a better place during it’s later decades when unfortunately it was brought down by the USA using the Afghan conflict as one of the means.
    Utopia explains why they had to build walls to keep people in, like the Berlin Wall for example, and given the chance many people tried to escape from their communist ‘utopia’s’ to escape to shitty non communist countries. Indeed Chinese people were attempting to escape from their PRC ‘utopia’ to escape into the Imperialist hellholes of HongKong and Macau. LOL. Ya rite, what do you smoke?
    Anyways I agree with you, pure cowboy Wall street capitalism is poison and socialism has it’s positive points.

    opposing imperialism and colonialism

    By being imperialist itself and sending communist agents into other countries to cause trouble.

    • Replies: @Anon
  144. szopen says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Go and read “Final Report” by Sir Nevile Henderson, when he reported how did everything in his capabilities to make Germans understand that Great Britain will honour her obligation towards Poland. Whatever Ribbentrop thought, was immaterial: what matters is what British diplomats were saying and thinking, and they were clearly saying that GB will fight.

    Moreover, you continue to ignore the fact that Poland and France were allies and had a treaty which obliged France to came to Polish aid in case of war with Germany (though, tbh, what constituted the “help” was IIRC rather vaguely stated). OTOH Czechs had alliance too..

  145. utu says:
    @szopen

    Polish government should have stayed in Poland and sign a surrender treaty with Germany just like Petain did. Instead they run away to Rumania and left civilian population in the state of war with Germany leading to horrible civilian casualties down the road. Most dishonorable behavior in the WWII.

    Why before escaping Polish government ordered Polish troops not to engage Soviet soldiers? Because UK did not let them, because this was the plan. Poland was the British pawn to help to start the war.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @szopen
    , @CanSpeccy
  146. Malla says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    There is absolutely no doubt that the Soviets intended a global revolution, but there is little evidence said revolution was to or could be initiated by invasion. There primary primary was internal subversion of the polity. Cultivating communists from within and exploiting traditional or standing national governance vulnerabilities and errors. In fact, they employ many of the tactics so many accuse the jews of doing.

    Actually Stalin and Trotsky had serious difference of opinions on this issue. Trotsky preferred the internal subversion method which you just explained (and he was Jewish) while Stalin preferred conquests using the Red Army wherever possible. Post WW2 Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania became communist not by internal subversion but by the conquests of the Red Army.

  147. AlexK says:
    @Duglarri

    It’s simply amazing how many pundits out there are making outrageous claims supported by “factual data” (pulled out from their behinds) trying to turn upside down a common view on historical events…
    Completely agree with Duglarri that “…this claim that Stalin, and not Hitler, started World War II- is quite absurd”… I would add that it’s not only absurd – it’s a LUNACY.

  148. Malla says:
    @Anon

    Given Europe’s status today, I almost wish Stalin had taken all of Europe. That way, there would have been no mass invasion from Africa and Muslim nations. Communism would have smothered bad ideas like feminism. (Communist ideal of feminism for unity and equality between men and women, not an anti-male screed that is feminism in the West.) Also, leftist tyranny under communism would have turned almost all of Europe in the nationalist and rightwing direction… as happened in Poland and Hungary.

    I agree with you for a change. You do have a point.
    However feminism was a subset of cultural Marxism and was a darling of the left. Cultural Marxism comes from the same sever rat source from which comes Communism, Karl Marx.
    Anyways in the Communist Eastern black a cultural phenomenon arose later called ‘Social Realism’ which in many ways was the exact opposite of Cultural Marxism. Ironically with time, it were in Western Capitalist countries where traditional Euro culture saw the most destruction. But during the early days of Soviet Russia some of the same pathologies which would plaque the Western world later were present. Ugly Modern art, cultural destruction etc… It was only Social Realism which healed the cultural damage of the early Communist period.
    Anyways I agree with about the rest.

  149. Malla says:
    @utu

    Yup Poland was just the excuse to start a War against Third Reich Germany by the International banking elites. And Japan was used to get the American people into the war against Germany by cornering Japan with embargoes and sanctions.

  150. szopen says:
    @utu

    Well, I have very low opinion on pre-war Polish government. They were in practice three power sources, which constantly bickered and fought for the influence.

    As for the order, the idiocy of Polish HQ is especially revealed – when Polish KOP units (Korpus Ochrony Pogranicza, The border protection corps) reported about fights with invading Soviets, they were ordered to sent an emissary, who would find out “what’s the Soviets’ purpose” because supposedly the HQ initially believed the possibility that Soviets may be entering POland to fight Germans (!!!!)

  151. 22pp22 says:
    @Wally

    Timeline.

    Germany invades Poland.

    Britain and France threaten to declare war

    Britain and France do declare war.

    Russia invades Poland.

    Ergo. The invasion of Poland kicked off the war.

    • Replies: @Wally
  152. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Poland was the British pawn to help to start the war.

    There is no proof of that. Is there? But it makes sense. In fact, the further one examines Britain’s actions prior to, and during WW2, the more brilliant they seem.

    This is not understood by most commentators, who point to the fact that Britain ended the war in relative poverty. But the reality is that of the European nations, Britain was among those that suffered from the war least, with a death toll, civilian and military, less than a tenth of Germany’s and perhaps one fortieth of Russia’s. As for the fact that by the war’s end Britain was no longer a great power, that was an inevitable consequence of the emergence of Russia and the US as greatly more populous continental powers.

    Prior to the war, Chamberlain, who as architect of the despised appeasement policy that led Germany into direct confrontation with Russia, put the British economy on a war footing, with something like one third of GDP committed to war preparation. As a result, when Germany attempted to knock Britain our of the war by aerial bombardment, the Brits had radar and the Spitfire, and thus were able to deflect the power of the Luftwaffe.

    That Chamberlain was the architect of British war policy is supported by the friendly relations that Churchill maintained with him when he replaced Chamberlain as Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Churchill’s greatest initial preoccupation was getting the US into the war, declaring on the day of Pearl Harbor, that now the war could not be lost, i.e. that the US would inevitably join Britain in the war against Japan’s German ally.

    Britain’s own efforts to win the war were, however rather small, focusing mainly on the protection of its colonial possessions and attacking weak points of the axis such as Norway, Italy and Greece, but exasperating the Americans by their reluctance to launch a Western offensive that was expected to bring huge casualties.

  153. Ron Unz says:
    @utu

    Did they exist or not? My question was about German usage this fact in propaganda? And since Germans did not use it as far s I know, I conclude that Suvorov is just unscrupulous lier which is what one may expect from GRU officer. And I am surprised he got such following including Ron Unz.

    Well, from what I think I remember reading here and there, the Germans did repeatedly declare that they had narrowly “preempted” a gigantic Soviet attack, but the Western media just ridiculed the claim as “lying Nazi propaganda.” Perhaps this had something to do with the fact that the West was currently at war with Germany, certainly including America (an undeclared war). What neutral countries were to be the target of such German propaganda? Argentina and Turkey? For all I know, those countries did completely accept the German claims.

    Consider that just a couple of years later, the Germans provided scrupulously well-documented proof that the Soviets had massacred the entire Polish officer corps of POWs at Katyn, yet this was totally ignored by the Western media (though I think Irving claims that Churchill may have had Gen. Sikorski, the leader of the Polish government-in-exile assassinated as a consequence). And indeed the *Germans* were the ones charged with that crime at Nuremberg.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @utu
  154. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    I don’t read Russian, so perhaps all his references are totally fraudulent, but if so, would his books have sold millions of copies in that language and gained the support of numerous Russian historians? Would our Naval Academic Press have reprinted it, and invited him to speak?

    This is very interesting, but quite irrelevant to any point I was trying to make.

    Incidentally, a large portion of his book is primarily focused on rebutting the “conventional wisdom” that the Red Army was in a wretched state, and I think he does that quite effectively.

    Well, I suppose I’ll have to read it. But the result of the first years of the war do not speak very well for Red Army effectiveness at that point, so I am somewhat predisposed to the view that its state as a fighting force was not comparable to that of the German army.

    Supporting this view are the massive tank losses (the Red Army lost more tanks than the Germans ever had), which English-speaking historians (Zaloga etc.) attribute to inadequate training and mechanical and logistical problems. Russian wiki (my ability to read Russian historians is sadly limited) blames Недостаточный профессионализм командного состава , “insufficient professionalism of the command staff”. Rokossovsky describes a situation of utter panic in his memoirs, such as in this excerpt:
    Наблюдались случаи, когда даже целые части, попавшие под внезапный фланговый удар небольшой группы вражеских танков и авиации, подвергались панике… Боязнь окружения и страх перед воображаемыми парашютными десантами противника в течение длительного времени были настоящим бичом. И только там, где были крепкие кадры командного и политического состава, люди в любой обстановке орались уверенно, оказывая врагу организованный отпор.
    which according to Google describes cases of sudden panic and a general state of terror.

    Anyway this is at best a tangential issue to the idea that 1 in every 3 Soviet soldiers (using estimates of 2M paratroopers and your figure of 5.5M total) was a paratrooper ready to be dropped over Germany. This suggests not that Rezun’s sources are wrong but that, as I said, There must have been something weird going on with Soviet paratroop certifications. Particularly since not 1 in 100 of those “paratroops” were ever dropped anywhere.

    The point is that this is merely one of many, many dozens of absolutely shocking factual claims that Suvorov makes. Are they all totally fraudulent? Offhand, that seems a bit implausible to me.

    I don’t know. I never said they were. I didn’t even say this one was. As far as I can tell Rezun seems to be a serious and competent historian, certainly vastly more knowledgeable than me. All I said was there must be something weird going on with Soviet paratroop certifications, they couldn’t seriously have expected to drop any significant portion of one million or two million men.

  155. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    You spit anti-Russian myths all the way. Look on the map and learn history to see what belongs and belonged to Russia centuries ago. As for lend-lease, you cite someones’ opinions, that may be as well biased. USA sold (and ‘lend-leased’) things for gold to USSR during war, for it’s own benefit. USA invested in Hitler’s Germany and its war machine BEFORE war, profiteering from war and making it possible. Having qui prodest, it is hard to counter the facts. Without Ford and General Electric there would be no Wehrmacht, and without JP Morgan and Rockfellers – no NSDAP and Hitler in power. The West made Hitler and WW2 possible. Their goal was and still is Russia.

    • Replies: @Malla
  156. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    the Germans provided scrupulously well-documented proof that the Soviets had massacred the entire Polish officer corps

    You mean, the Nazis provided the proof, created by Dr. Goebbels’ institution. Today, UK provides the proof of Skripal poisoning, USA – of Russian election meddling, and the Dutch – of MH17 downed by Russia. It all traces back to the 1933 fire of Reichstag – old school of Goebbelsian ministry of truth.

    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @Wally
  157. Ron Unz says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Given that Suvorov is the most widely-read military historian in world history

    According to whom?

    Well, our friend “Andrew E. Mathis” is not only an ignorant activist-type, but also an extremely lazy one since he obviously didn’t even bother to read the text of my article, in which I quoted this excerpt from the book review:

    In the years that followed, over five million copies have been sold, making Suvorov the most-read military historian in history.

    From what I’ve heard, sales of something like 50,000 copies are generally enough to get someone onto the NYT bestseller list, but very few military historians ever reach that distinction. So sales of 5M copies of military history books really does seem like quite a lot. Offhand, I can’t think of any other military historian who’s sold more than than 5M copies, but perhaps you can…

  158. Mike P says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    Interesting statements on that page you linked to, but very little in the way of sources.

  159. @Tyrion 2

    You’re looking at history with post-war hindsight. Maybe, if Hitler knew in 1939 what you know now, would he have invaded Poland or would he have done a proper job of preparing for world war?

    Who can say?

    Although, thinking he had the war won in June 1940 could have been the biggest mistake Hitler ever made?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  160. Ron, I haven’t been rude to you, so I’m unsure what your problem is here, but you don’t need to put my name in sneer quotes. That’s my actual name, just like Ron Unz is yours.

    I read your article, and I asked the question I did because your essay did not cite any authority on the idea of Suvorov being the most read military historian in history.

    But since you asked, Antony Beevor has likely sold more books than Suvorov. For one thing, he’s more prolific; for another, two of his books alone have sold more than three million copies.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Ron Unz
  161. 1RW says:

    The arguments the author presents as supporting Suvorov’s thesis are flawed
    Soviets had massive numbers of tanks, but less than a thousand each of T-34 and KV-1. Most tanks were light tanks such as the BT series which were hopelessly inadequate against German armor. Furthermore, Red Army tank units were short of radios, only platoon commanders had them. This made it difficult to carry out large organized actions.
    The French also had more and better tanks than Germany, no one accuses them of starting WW2

    Soviet aircraft, while numerous, were also obsolete in large part.

    The Il-2’s initial lack of a tail gunner was a grave mistake by high ranking Soviet officers, not a signal of offensive intent. B-17s were strategic bombers as offensive a plane as any and were studded with defensive machine guns, as were the Ju-87 Stucka dive bombers which had a tail gunner

    The Germans and allies attacked with over 4 million troops in June 1941. The Red Army opposed them with 2 million – hardly overwhelming Soviet numerical superiority, the opposite in fact.

    The Soviets invaded Poland 6 weeks after the Germans, at a point when Polish troops were no longer able to offer meaningful resistance. This looks far less like being partners in crime and far more like the Soviets keeping the German border as far from Moscow as possible.

    The man who wrote as Suvorov is a traitor and his books are likely an MI6 pay op

  162. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    According to Russian wiki, Советское командование, исходившее из наступательной стратегии будущей войны, не уделяло должного внимания разработке оборонительных операций, that is, The Soviet command, proceeding from the offensive strategy of the future war, did not give due attention to the development of defensive operations, supporting this with a quote from Zhukov: Обучение войск оборонительным действиям, встречным сражениям, отступательным действиям редко выходило из тактических рамок. Я не знаю ни одного оперативно-стратегического мероприятия, где оборона была бы разыграна или отработана в крупных оперативно-стратегических масштабах, где бы оборона противодействовала глубокому прорыву крупных бронетанковых группировок, взаимодействующих с крупными воздушными силами or The training of troops in defensive operations, counter battles, retreat actions rarely came out of tactical framework. I do not know of any operational and strategic measures where defense would be played out or worked out at large operative-strategic scales, where defense would counteract the deep breakthrough of large armored groups interacting with large air forces according to Google. The quotation actually goes on longer but I have cut it off.

    Anyway I am still suspicious about those paratroop numbers. Evidently paratroops in the USSR were not the well-trained elite troops they were elsewhere. For comparison in modern Russia less than 10% of the armed forces are airborne (60K / over 1M).

  163. Mike P says:
    @Anon

    Even Wikipedia ascribes the Katyn massacre to the Soviets, so Goebbels for once seems to have it right.

  164. @Ron Unz

    It still amazes me how people are completely unaware of the Finnish-Russo Winter War in 1939..

    Hundreds of foreign war reporters were stationed in Finland. Then all of a sudden nothing was written about it.

    Russians were too ashamed of their massive defeat (Stalin sent 1,5 million Russians to the Winter War. 1 million died in our forests.)

    The West was ashamed, because they had refused all help we begged from them. Even Sweden, our ‘ally’, betrayed us. Lots of empty promises, not one country sold weapons to us. Swedish schoolkids raised money to buy a fighter to Finland. Schoolkids!

    Volunteers were not given permission to come through Scandinavia or Germany to Finland. Until the war was about to end, so it was Finns fighting on the frontline – alone.

    When looking at the Russian POWs it’s clear they come from Siberia or other cold parts in Russia. The terrain cannot have come as a surprise, nor the cold weather. It was pure incompetence.

    All Russian tansk were blown up by ski patrols. For example the 44th division, a 30 km long convoy; when the whole convoy was on the road, Finns felled trees in front and behind the column. After that ski patrols jammed the tankers with a piece of wood and threw a Molotov Cocktail so that the tank exploded. (Molotov told the world that Russia is dropping food to the starving Finns, not bombs. Finns called the bombs ‘Molotov’s bread baskets’. And we gave him a drink to go with the food; Molotov Cocktail). When the convoy was trapped it was divided into smaller units and the massacre began.

    When Soviet’s elite 63. division was dispatched to help the 44th. division (which was already beyond any help), it travelled on the ice. Finns broke the ice – once the whole column was on ice – with machine guns, and you can guess the rest. Our lakes are filled with dead Russians.

    Due to West’s decision to silence and ignore the Winter War, they don’t learn anything from our masterful warfare. But Russians…. they have studied the Winter War and can defend their country from an invasion.

    Here you get some idea of what it was like for the Russian soldiers in the Winter War, and understand why we got more weapons from Russia than from all other nations combined:

    Or read a truthful description:

    http://ar.to/2010/08/red-blood-white-snow

    Nobody helped us when Stalin invaded Finland, so we did pretty good, didn’t we?

    But belittled, ridiculed, ignored and even blamed – that we get both by the West and Russia. But we know what happened in reality. Nobody ever asks us, so we don’t tell.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @szopen
    , @Anon
    , @1RW
  165. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    I read your article, and I asked the question I did because your essay did not cite any authority on the idea of Suvorov being the most read military historian in history.

    It cited Andrei Navrozov. With block quotes and everything. That should have answered your question “According to whom?”, which is quite apart from the question of fact, if you want to raise that too.

  166. Ron Unz says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    I read your article, and I asked the question I did because your essay did not cite any authority on the idea of Suvorov being the most read military historian in history.

    Well, I’d explicitly cited the reviewer who made that claim, whose accuracy I admittedly can’t guarantee.

    But since you asked, Antony Beevor has likely sold more books than Suvorov. For one thing, he’s more prolific; for another, two of his books alone have sold more than three million copies.

    Well, according to Wikipedia, Beevor has sold more than 6M total books as of today, which is admittedly far more I’d realized. However, a careful examination of the text I cited seems to suggest that Icebreaker *alone* had already sold 5M copies by 2010. Meanwhile, Suvorov has published something like 20+ total books, many of which have also sold extremely well. So I think it’s quite plausible that the reviewer was correct, and he’s the most widely read military historian in history. However, if you can find someone else who has sold e.g. 10M copies, then I’d be willing to admit that Suvorov is probably just #2.

    It’s also possible that Suvorov was indeed #1 when the review was written, but someone else has subsequently passed him.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  167. Wally says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Yet Britain & France did not declare war on communist USSR for it’s aggression against Poland.

    Nor did they challenge the communist USSR for invading numerous countries. Nor did they oppose Poland’s seizure of Czech land.

    Germany could not be in violation of Versailles, they had rejected it, withdrawn from it.

    http://www.codoh.com

  168. Mikhail says: • Website
    @szopen

    Actually, because Polish government ordered the military “not to fight with Soviets, unless they try to disarm you”. The fights were carried by troops which did not get the orders or disobeyed them.

    Why was that unlike with the Germans? This repeated point makes sense and is in line with first hand accounts:

    The Soviets didn’t face as much resistance on account that many of the Polish citizens in that area, were non-Poles, who weren’t so compelled to defend Poland.

    What you say further above, serves to partly explain why Britain and France didn’t declare war on the USSR unlike Nazi Germany. The French and Brits also felt somewhat betrayed when Hitler went beyond his Czecho-Slovak adventure, while possibly understanding Soviet reasoning. The Soviets entered Molotov-Ribbentrop with the Nazis having a greater position of strength.

    POland signed a non-aggression pact with USSR in 1932. And I knew Ribbentrop offered renewal of the pact in 1938 (in exchange for Danzig going to Germany and some few things), but I do not think Beck agreed.

    The 1934 Nazi-Polish pact came later in 1934 and was more relevant for a period thereafter. The Nazi, Polish and Hungarian dismemberment of Czecho-Slovakia (on pretty friendly terms with the USSR at the time) comes to mind.

    • Replies: @szopen
  169. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Very interesting, thanks Ron. I always held the conventional idea that Hitler and Stalin just made an agreement to have a war and divide Europe up between Germany and Russia at the end.

    With Germany’s financial rule over the EU it looks like Germany won.

  170. Wally says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    What ” crucial evidence” was “distorted”? Do tell.

    What did he ‘rely on that was bogus’? Do tell.

    “Hitler apologist”? ‘holocau$t’ “denier”? Laughable and childish.

    There is Hitler with the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there is Hitler without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
    - “holocaust historian” Raul Hilberg,

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Ivan K.
    , @szopen
    , @Eric Zuesse
  171. Mikhail says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    At the end of 1938 the British guarantee to Poland was already being negotiated.

    As the Brits and others (including the Poles) didn’t mind Soviet/Russia friendly Czecho-Slovakia being broken up.

    Explains why the Soviets were genuinely welcomed when they entered Prague towards the end of WW II. Prague as the last scene of Euro theater WW II fighting.

    Soviet policies (in 1948 and to a greater extent in 1968) contributed to a lessening of that pro-Soviet/pro-Russian sentiment in Czechoslovakia.

  172. Wally says:
    @Anon

    See detailed, verified, internationally witnessed information, with real photos, about actual excavations of the Katyn Massacres by the communist USSR below.*
    You won’t see this sort of real work for the claimed & allegedly ‘known’ ‘holocau$t’ mass graves and the claimed immense human remains.
    This quote sums it up well:

    We’re talking about an alleged ’6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor, 34,000 at Babi Yar) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    * Katyn facts: ‘Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von Katyn’

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=758

    Cheers.

    http://www.codoh.com

  173. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lauri Törni

    Good for Finland. I’m very impressed by what Finland did in the winter war. I hate loathe and despise all communists and their liberal admirers.

    The great hero of the 20 th century is General Franco who whipped the communists out of Spain despite the fact that the empty sink liberal’s brains were full of communist propaganda about the Spanish was against the communists.

    While the useful idiot intellectuals were publishing their worshipful books and journalism about the Soviets Finland and Spain drive the communist invaders out of their countries.

  174. szopen says:
    @Lauri Törni

    (Stalin sent 1,5 million Russians to the Winter War. 1 million died in our forests.)

    Wikipedia claims 120-170 thousands plus 188-207k wounded.

    • Replies: @Lauri Törni
  175. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lauri Törni

    But belittled, ridiculed, ignored and even blamed – that we get both by the West and Russia

    You deserve it all the way. Finns were granted independence by Russia in 1917, yet they took away Russian Pechenga and Vyborg a year later, with genocide of the Russian inhabitants. During Winter War of 1939, they mass-executed and tortured Russian POWs with ferocity uncommon even among modern Daesh. There exists mass forensic evidence. And, there were Finnish death camps, not better than Nazi death camps during WW2.

    That’s why Finns were usually shot and rarely taken POWs during WW2. A complete Finnish division, encirled in 1942, was deliberately annihilated by incendiary munitions (termite bombs).

  176. Ivan K. says: • Website

    I imagine well-educated Russians come to this thread, and starting an exchange with the author, Ron Unz. The words “With all due respect” would be followed by pointing out that Suvorov has been debunked. He’s been debunked various angles, time and again … in Russia. Years ago. Unz will be pointed to literature like the book “Antisuvorov,” – which have never been translated to English. … Impasse.

    https://www.e-reading.club/book.php?book=24391

    At that moment, I’d suggest that Google and Yandex Translate can be surprisingly helpful.

    ….

    This topic reminds me of Gavin Menzies’ bestsellers, 1421: The Year China Discovered America and its follow-up. On an online forum years ago, I was reading lengthy enthusiastic essays on 1421. by a highly articulate American with a penchant for history. After a couple of years, he came to the conclusion it’s a “well-written bunk.” Absolutely fascinating and informative at the same time, without dispute.

    If I were to say word-for-word the things that Andrei Martyanov et al. have said on Suvorov on your very website, multiple times, it’d be futile. I lack the intellectual authority. But since Martyanov can basically just refer you to reviews written by others, in Russian alas, why even bother with authority as a criterion. Go read and evaluate the arguments themselves.

  177. Tyrion 2 says:
    @kerdasi amaq

    Sure, sure, I don’t want to fall into the teleological trap. Nonetheless, he could have just governed Germany rather than deleting poor Poland.

  178. Ivan K. says: • Website
    @Wally

    As an indicator that I’m perfectly fine with counter-establishment so-called history, I am seconding this comment. I invite Mr. Zuesse to qualify what is so flawed with David Irving’s study in Hitler’s War and other books, and especially refer us to a single case when he actually denies “the holocaust.”

    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
  179. szopen says:
    @Mikhail

    The 1934 Nazi-Polish pact came later in 1934 and was more relevant for a period thereafter

    Have you ever heard about “policy of equal distances” pursued by Beck (ie. that Poland has to have the same relations with USSR and Germany)? The fact is that POland had non-aggression pacts both with Soviets and Nazis. As for dismemberment of Czecho-Slovakia, it was done without cooperation with Nazis; on contrary, it was done without their knowledge, to their surprise and pretty much against them. Contrary to Soviet-Nazi pact, there was no pre-agreed demarcation line.

    POland at that time was agaisnt any “concert of Powers” i.e. clubs of great powers whcih would dictate the lesser nations what to do. IIRC (but I might be mistaken) Poland wanted to be part of Munich, but when it was refused, and when Munich included ominous statement like “other issues will be resolved later”, Poland decided to act against the Munich, to show that she does not recognize authority of “concert of Powers”. Hitler immedietely recognizes great propaganda value of Polish move – but, once again, the move was not coordinated, discussed or coorganized with the Germans.

    It’s not that I think Polish move was moral or ethical; it was not. It wasn’t even smart or rational. As I have already written in this thread, I consider pre-war Polish government bunch of idiots. It just it was not alliance with Germany, or even a cooperation.

    Now, there are historians (earlier mentioned Górski) who think that indeed there was good understanding between Poland and Germany, an understanding which was destroyed by personal ambitions of Beck, but those are rather isolated opinions. Górski claims that Beck felt personally slighted because of Slovakia; because he indicated that Slovakia should be Polish protectorate, Hitler indicated he would agree, and later – under pressure from German military circles – Hitler suddenly changed his mind. Beck – again, according to Górski – felt betrayed and decided to show Hitler that Poland does not need Germany. I can’t write more because I have just started reading Górski monography on the subject, and I do not have that much time to finish it.

    A sidenote: interestingly, Górski also claims that up to the 1938 Polish military had not thought highly about German capabilities and when Germany very quickly raised the army from 50 to some 70 or 80 divisions, Polish HQ was shocked, especially after new analysis of German military capabilities was written by (I think) Kutrzeba. In January-February 1939 Polish military decided to create new defensive plans – Górski writes that up until that time, no serious plan of war against Germany was considered (except some general studies), and all military planning effort went towards possibility of war with Russia. BTW there is nothing wrong about a country having military plans in case of war with any bordering country; the role of military is being prepared.

    The HQ’s incompetence was so large that the plans were still not completely ready by the beginning of the war. Górski then argues that contrary to the official statements by the Polish planners from the HQ, the real plan was to wait for German attack – which would, as Rydz imagined, go into carefully prepared trap – and then German forces would be encircled and destroyed, and Polish army would then go on offensive. I do not think Górski’s speculations are true (he even quotes statements which he does not see seem to contradict his own speculations); but nevertheless, his monography contains several interesting facts I did not know about – e.g. that in 1935 Polish army issued three studies, which discussed plans of quick action against East Prussia or Silesia and did not recognize any serious obstacles from German army – which, at that time, was still reasonable assumption.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  180. szopen says:
    @Wally

    It’s interesting that you believe without hesitation Nazi propaganda about pre-war “Polish atrocities”, while demanding much higher standard of proof when discussing Nazi atrocities.

    • Replies: @Wally
  181. Malla says:
    @Anon

    You spit anti-Russian myths

    No I write anti COMMUNIST facts. I am quite philo Russian actually and love traditional Russian culture. Indeed I consider Russia the first victim of Communism. Though I agree that the Soviet Union became a much better place in the later decades when unfortunately it was destroyed. I wanted the latter Soviet Union to survive but I consider the Bolshevik globalist revolution as a disaster. By showing the facts about Land Lease, I am not saying that Russians (or other Soviet ethnics) were incapable of winning the war, but of the disaster that was communism. You consider my anti communist posts as anti Russian, which is a mistake on your part. Right now if there would a war in between the West and Russia, I would support Russia but I would not have supported the Soviet Union during WW2.

    Without Ford and General Electric there would be no Wehrmacht, and without JP Morgan and Rockfellers – no NSDAP and Hitler in power.

    Germany did not need any outside help to come back on it’s feet from a technological point of view. It needed resources though.

    you cite someones’ opinions, that may be as well biased

    Like Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev??????

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @JohnnyWalker123
  182. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Incidentally, a large portion of his book is primarily focused on rebutting the “conventional wisdom” that the Red Army was in a wretched state, and I think he does that quite effectively.

    I saw this was already shared by other commenters, but here it is again with some background how and who recorded the conversation:

    The Hitler and Mannerheim Recording in Finland, June 4, 1942 (Subtitles)

    The Hitler and Mannerheim Recording refers to the secret voice recording of a private conversation between Adolf Hitler and Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim in 1942. The Finnish engineer of the broadcasting company YLE, Thor Damen, succeeded in recording the first 11 minutes of Hitler’s and Mannerheim’s private conversation. Since Hitler never allowed anyone to record him off-guard, it had to be done secretly. Damen’s original purpose was to record official birthday speeches and Mannerheim’s responses. However, Damen decided to continue recording after the conversation switched from official to private.

    The SS realized that Damen was recording the conversation, and they immediately demanded to have it stopped. The SS were furious, but YLE was allowed to keep the tape hidden away, never to be opened. The tape was given to head of the state censors’ office, Kustaa Vilkuna, returned to YLE in 1957, and made publicly available a few years later. It is the only known recording of Hitler speaking in an unofficial tone and one of the very few recordings in which Hitler may be heard delivering a narrative without raising his voice.

    The conversation is about Hitler explaining the failure of Operation Barbarossa, Italian defeats in North Africa, Yugoslavia, and Albania, armaments in the Soviet Union, and Romanian petroleum wells.

    Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
    Hitler Meets Mannerheim Monologue (Subtitles)
    Hitler Speaking Normally (Subtitles)
    Hitler secretly recorded in Finland, June 4, 1942
    Only known recording of Hitler speaking in an unofficial tone
    Finnish radio to air unique Hitler recording
    Private Hitler Conversation
    The Hitler-Mannerheim conversation

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  183. The end of a lie

    In 2015, a small German publisher publishes a book by Dr. rer. mil. Bernd Schwipper, Major General a. D of the East German Army (NVA): “Germany in the sights of Stalin”.

    Dr. Schwipper has studied at military academies in the GDR and in the Soviet Union and was most recently commander of an air defense division.

    His study is based on acts of the Soviet General Staff, which were temporarily accessible in the era of President Jeltzin.

    The operation, mobilization, infrastructure plans, etc., prove that Stalin planned the attack on Germany with the operational plans of 19 August 1940 (!), 18 September 1940, 11 March 1941 and 15 May 1941. All plans were purely offensive. It was preceded by wars of the Soviet Union against Poland, Finland, the Baltic States and Romania.

    Because of the strong border fortification in the east of Germany and the rapid German victory over France, the plans from 1940 were not implemented.

    The preventive attack of the German Wehrmacht on June 21, 1941 came only a few days before the Soviet attack. The Soviet Union would have attacked Germany at the latest around July 10, 1941.

    The losses of the Red Army in the early days were enormous because of unprecedented defensive measures.

    From today’s point of view and knowledge of the published documents one must say, yes, the attack of the German army was preventive.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  184. Mike P says:
    @Nightingale

    Thanks for posting this. Here is a review of Schwippmann’s book (in German) that fully endorses it, written by another German general. So it seems Suvorov is not alone.

  185. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max

    I became aware of this recording/conversation a little over two years ago, and there is another interesting anecdote connected to this private/secret meeting:

    There is an unsubstantiated story that during his meeting with Hitler, Mannerheim lit a cigar. Mannerheim supposed that Hitler would ask Finland for help against the Soviet Union, which Mannerheim was unwilling to give. When Mannerheim lit up, all in attendance gasped, for Hitler’s aversion to smoking was well known. Yet Hitler continued the conversation calmly, with no comment. In this way, Mannerheim could judge if Hitler was speaking from a position of strength or weakness. He was able to refuse Hitler, knowing that Hitler was in a weak position, and could not dictate to him.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_Emil_Mannerheim#Visit_by_Adolf_Hitler

    But maybe Hitler simply did not want to be impolite since it was Mannerheim’s 75th birthday, and he likely knew Mannerheim was a (cigar) smoker and was therefore prepared for that particular inconvenience/annoyance.

    Mannerheim Smoking Cigar

    Marshal of Finland Gustaf Mannerheim smoking cigar during Continuation war in Finland

    • Replies: @Lauri Törni
  186. fnn says:
    @Tyrion 2

    It was all quite clear and reasonable by Britain.

    Kill 60 or 70 milion humans and basically destroy Western Civilization to save Poland and then, at the end of the process, sell out Poland to Soviet slavery. True, they didn’t know that the kill total would be that high, but they could easily forsee a Soviet takeover when they decided to ignore the other partner in the Sep. 1939 division of Poland.

  187. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    I would support Russia but I would not have supported the Soviet Union during WW2.

    So you fell victim of Western anti-Russian narrative. WW2 was a venture of the West against anti-Western system impersonated by Russia. It was Hitler’s experiment, in some way like Napoleon’s experiment before, but with almost global, systemic capitalist support. They had plans to wipe the land from Russians etc. and own the land.

    Like Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev

    He was anti-Stalin populist and may have claimed whatever false facts – e.g. ‘million casualities’ of Winter War with Finnland, or millions executed, or even that Stalin himself claimed that he was standing on a running steam locomotive and while standing – killed the enemies with his saber. Just to frame Stalin.

    And thank you for citing Nazi ‘facts’. They had been proven to have proper noses and ears, and massacred nobody themselves, so how could they mistake?

  188. Olorin says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    The point of mechanized war is to replace troop numbers with machines.

    The point of propaganda war is to replace battles with psychological and social manipulation/defeat.

    Behind it all, global bankers fight their financial war, which is now just nanobips and technobops of electrons dancing to the music supplied for them by programmers.

    This is one big reason why Talvisota/The Winter War was such a shock to USSR’s leaders. Finland had very few troops and very few machines. Their very few people had something else: shared genetics and customs honed in both harsh climate and harsh geopolitical forces.

    Why do you think that the war reparations of Finland consisted mostly of machinery manufacture? One might almost conclude that the magnificent efficient modern Communist apparatus was not equal to producing anything material in the amounts needed for the kind of conflict or domination Communist leaders or Stalin had in mind.

    Also a hefty segment of the vaunted Red Army was conscripts. Literally cannon fodder.

    Let’s use a less known example.

    When the Soviets absorbed Estonia, they sent about 10,000 Estonians to the gulag and conscripted about 30,000 more. In response, about 40,000 Estonians joined up with the Germans to fight the Red Army. USSR won, an additional 80,000 Estonians left for Germany and Sweden…and then the USSR in the late 1940s sent another 20,000 Estonians to Siberia.

    All this in a nation of about 1 million people.

    The Soviets did this–conscription and gulagization–to all other Finno-Ugric indigenous people as well.

    After 1945, the Soviets brought hundreds of thousands of immigrants into Estonia, collectivized the farms, and began a program that is still ongoing today of destroying Estonian native culture. Soviets began a purge of both public and private libraries.

    Over a thousand Soviet military bases squatted on, polluted, and destroyed the land and wildlife of Estonia.

    As early as the 1920s it was widely recognized that mechanization, not numbers of infantry, would be key in war.

    I’d like to recommend that Mr. Unz add Murray Leinster’s short story to the library; it appears to have passed into the public domain:

    Tanks

    https://librivox.org/tanks-by-murray-leinster/

    In 1946 Leinster wrote about another phenomenon he called “Tanks”: we would call them computer servers on the Internet. He’s credited with being one of the first SF writers to envision and describe the distributed/networked asynchronous global information technology we take for granted. (“A Logic Named Joe.”)

    • Replies: @Anon
  189. KenH says:

    Phenomenal article by Ron Unz. He covered all the bases and expertly summarized all the main elements of Suvorov’s thesis. I’m fortunate to have the book but am only half way through it and set aside years ago, but will now attempt to finish it. This book was being promoted in “far right” and white nationalist publications in the mid to late 1990′s which is how I managed to obtain a new copy.

    Regarding the Red Army’s great difficulty in breaching the formidable Finnish defenses I recall Suvorov said that the Soviet offensive was conducted in almost two feet of snow which put the Red Army at even more of a disadvantage. I believe Suvorov also talked about the preparations and training of civilians for partisan warfare. Even half way through the book one comes away with the impression that Stalin’s Russia was on a war footing with a highly militarized citizenry much more so than the Germans were who court historians and self styled third Reich experts tell us were planning to dominate the world and bent on murdering Jews and anyone who didn’t have the requisite Nordic phenotype.

    What’s not in the book is the Sorge spy network, based in Japan, tried to alert Stalin to the impending German invasion but he brushed it off believing that he had Hitler wrapped around his finger. The Sorge spy network saved Stalin when they informed him that Japan was not planning an invasion of the USSR via Manchuria since they were preparing for war with the USA. This freed up large numbers of Siberian troops who were specially trained and equipped to fight in extreme winter conditions to defend Moscow in 1941 without which it may have fallen to the Germans. Stalin and top communist officials were preparing to flee Moscow for Siberia until they received this news.

    The establishment gave this book the silent treatment for as long as they could but it became an underground classic on the racialist right and started to attract attention and contradict long cherished claims about the origins of WWII. So court historians emerged from underneath their rocks to protect the narrative and debunk Suvorov’s claims, but in my opinion they’ve mostly failed in their quest.

  190. Wally says:
    @22pp22

    Nope.

    Russia invades Finland, Poland seizes part of Czechoslovakia.

    Ergo, that started the war.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  191. Wally says:
    @Zamyatin

    Indeed, there were plenty of other German areas in the east, which were highly beneficial to the host countries, and most of all, Germany wanted it’s stolen land back, most of which was in the east.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

  192. Wally says:
    @szopen

    The sources do not indicate that they are “propaganda’, vs. what Zionists try to pass of as facts.

    Do better next time.

    Cheers.
    http://www.codoh.com

  193. Wally says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    I do not see it there.

    again:

    What ” crucial evidence” was “distorted”? Do tell.

    What did he ‘rely on that was bogus’? Do tell.

    Or don’t you even know?

    http://www.codoh.com

  194. @Wally

    Moronic. Poland annexed Czechoslovak territory in 1938, and no one batted an eye about it. The USSR didn’t invade until months after Germany invaded Poland.

    Face it. Your beloved Nazis did something wrong.

  195. Incitatus says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “He [Hitler] was a “gruppenführer” (equivalent to corporal; second lowest rank). Sometimes translated as “squad leader.” He was only a runner, but he loved the war.”

    Hitler was a gefreiter (= Private First Class) in a Bavarian Regiment. Not an NCO, not a corporal, not entitled to command other men. The only order he could issue was for dinner in a restaurant.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  196. @Wally

    [This sort of very bad behavior may get all your future comments trashed if it continues.]

  197. 1RW says:
    @Lauri Törni

    Uh, the Red Army won. Finland surrendered. The Mannerheim line was breached. Still not sure how you can call it a defeat for the Red Army. More like a surprisingly hard won victory.

    I mean the Finns did well with what they had, but they surrendered. And it’s not like the Soviets took away ancient Finnish homeland – it was all Russian Empire barely 20 years before.

    No one owed you help. If a country decides that it’s in its self interest to not help, as Germany did btw, then they won’t help. I know the British promised help, but it’s your fault for taking them seriously- Perfidious Albion has a funny way of helping.

    Finally, if anything, the West loves to talk about the Winter war as a victory for the plucky Finnish – counterfactual as the narrative is. I suppose it comforts them, just like they love to read and take at face value the memoirs of Wehrmacht generals.

    • Replies: @Lauri Törni
  198. @Ron Unz

    Thanks for responding. I suppose it’s possible that Suvorov’s book sold five million copies in the 16 years since it was published in German when the review was published. It’s just frankly not likely.

    Der Vorleser by Bernhard Schlink was a bestseller in Germany the following year, but it only sold 500,000 copies, although it was among the top selling books for several years. You can choose to believe that Suvorov outsold this very popular novel, but it doesn’t seem true to me.

    • Replies: @Anon
  199. L.K says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    You are a shill, Eric Zuesse, not only re WW2 but also 9/11.

  200. Svigor says:

    [Suvorov] is arguing with every book, every article, every film, every NATO directive, every Downing Street assumption, every Pentagon clerk, every academic, every Communist and anti-Communist, every neoconservative intellectual, every Soviet song, poem, novel and piece of music ever heard, written, made, sung, issued, produced, or born during the last 50 years. For this reason, Icebreaker is the most original work of history it has been my privilege to read.

    The most interesting thing about Rezun’s thesis is not Rezun’s thesis, but the reaction from the ruling classes of the West. They have so much invested in blaming Hitler and ignoring Stalin that they can’t accept his thesis. They can’t even give it a hearing. It doesn’t have much traction at this point, so we’ve only seen the ignore/laugh response from the leftists. But if it gains real traction, have no doubt that leftists will be screeching about it forever.

    First, although there was been a widespread belief in the superiority of Germany’s military technology, its tanks and its planes, this is almost entirely mythological. In actual fact, Soviet tanks were far superior in main armament, armor, and maneuverability to their German counterparts, so much so that the overwhelming majority of panzers were almost obsolescent by comparison.

    It’s not widespread among grognards or history buffs. In those circles pretty much everyone acknowledges that the Wehrmacht’s human capital was far and away its greatest asset, that Soviet tanks were better than German, and far more numerous.

    There is also little evidence that the quality of Soviet officers or military doctrine fell short.

    The extended ass-kicking they received at the hands of the Wehrmact is pretty good evidence. The element of surprise and disadvantages in starting position seem like pretty thin excuses for months and months of getting your ass kicked. And even after the Germans’ rapid advance ended, it took a Hell of a long time for the Russians to turn the tide, despite their huge numerical and technological advantages. One successful campaign against the Japs (no military geniuses or great soldiers, either) doesn’t amount to much of a counterargument.

    Stalin and his war-planners had seemingly banked on possessing near-total air supremacy during the entire course of any conflict, an assumption plausible only if the German luftwaffe were destroyed on the ground by a surprise attack on the very first day.

    That’s a really stupid plan.

    Suvorov notes that treaties or pacts are traditionally named for the city in which they are signed—the Warsaw Pact, the Baghdad Pact, the Munich Agreement—and thus the so-called “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact” signed in August 23, 1939 by which Hitler and Stalin agreed to the division of Poland should more properly be called “the Moscow Pact.” As a direct result of that agreement, Stalin gained half of Poland, the Baltic States, and various other advantages, including a direct border with Germany. Meanwhile, Hitler was punished by declarations of war from France and Britain, amid worldwide condemnation as a military aggressor. Although Germany and Russia both invaded Poland, the latter managed to avoid being dragged into any war with Poland’s erstwhile allies. Thus, the primary beneficiary of the Moscow Pact was clearly Moscow.

    The Narrative puts the blame on Hitler because he rolled into Poland 2 weeks before Stalin did. Stalin “only invaded Poland as a defensive measure, a reaction against Hitler’s aggression.”

    ***

    One thing that has always irked me about historians is their tendency to not give actors the benefit of the doubt. I.e., the tendency to think they can see everything through hindsight, that nothing is hidden from their sight. I tend to give historical actors the benefit of the doubt, and assume they had a lot of information that we may not know they had. This is why I’ve always looked askance at the common, dearly-held assumptions that this or that act by Hitler or Stalin was stupid.

  201. Svigor says:
    @Duglarri

    But the claim that Stalin was responsible for World War II- wait, hadn’t that war already been in progress for close to two years when by this thesis Stalin’s initiation of the war was pre-empted by brave Adolf’s invasion?

    The Soviets were largely responsible for WWII, yes. They scared the living shit out of Europe, and rightly so. This was probably a necessary condition of Hitler’s rise to power (the Soviets had murdered well over 12m people before Hitler even became chancellor). Hitler’s warmongering was politically predicated on the Soviet monstrosity.

  202. L.K says:
    @utu

    Oh boy, you really are a moron.

  203. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Who said anything about sales in German specifically? Perhaps you should read more carefully.

  204. Svigor says:

    Ran across the “Hitler was a terrible artist” thing while searching up background related to this article.

    Well,

    it’s not (((Piss Christ))),

    buuuuttt…

    Leftists are too stupid to understand that lying all the time undermines their legitimacy.

  205. Svigor says:
    @AKAHorace

    Good question. The Finns mauled the Russians even worse than the Germans did, relatively speaking.

  206. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Incitatus

    Hitler was a gefreiter (= Private First Class) in a Bavarian Regiment. Not an NCO, not a corporal, not entitled to command other men. The only order he could issue was for dinner in a restaurant.

    Yes, I was confused about the name for the rank, but it was the second lowest rank. And he was a runner.

    He was certainly not a colonel, which was my point.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  207. Svigor says:
    @Anon

    No, if Germany had not invaded Russia in 1941, it would not have been remembered as a World War. It would have been a limited European War. It was the invasion of Russia, plus Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, plus Hitler’s declaration on the US that made it a world war. So, WWII really began in 1941 but has origins in events in 39.

    This is silly. I often see this childish view that the USA had no choice but to invade German-occupied Europe and then Germany because “whelp, by golly, Germany declared war on us, and anybody who declares war on us gets invaded, goshdarnint.”

    It’s just so stupid; I hope, for the world’s sake, the world doesn’t declare war on us tomorrow.

    • Replies: @Sarah Toga
  208. Antiwar7 says:

    If Suvorov is correct, why didn’t Hitler stop after capturing or destroying all that forward-deployed weaponry of Stalin’s?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  209. Svigor says:
    @Anon

    In retrospect, this makes sense. But prior to 1941, Stalin and USSR regime were hardly better than Nazi Germany. And they had, at least til then, killed many more innocent people.

    WTF? As you allude to, the USSR had murdered 12m people in the Holodomor alone before Hitler rose to power. “Hardly better”? The Nazis were friggin’ angels compared to the Soviets. The USSR was consistently worse, right on through the war, and into the postwar period. The Nazis were never as bad as the USSR, at any point, unless one looks only through a misanthropic Jewish/communist lens.

    • Replies: @Anon
  210. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    The eventual futility of German propaganda and example of its failure in case of Katyn (1943) does explain why Germany did not make greater effort to make claims that USSR was preparing an attack on Germany in 1941. They did use captured documents in Warsaw in 1939 in their propaganda effort in 1940. Whether they believed it was futile or not it is irrelevant. Why they did not create a meme of imminent Soviet attack that they had just preempted? They had 80 Soviet generals in captivity to corroborate this meme. I am sure if they tried to create the meme it would have survived in some fragmentary shape and some historians would consider it. Instead we had to wait till 1990 for some GRU officer who out of nowhere reveals USSR’s plan to attack Germany in summer 1941. He did it while living in UK in some spy protection program w/o access to Soviet Archives for at least 12 years.

    Who benefits from the meme created by Suvorov? Obviously Hitler apologists because it justifies his attack on USSR but nobody really cares about Hitler. Most importantly it benefits Stalin apologists who can glorify Soviet militarization program and can explain away total indolence of Red Army in 1941. The great Red Army was not ill prepared , ill equipped with indolent officer corp but instead Red Army just lost the race with Hitler by few days. If the great Red Army won that race the Hitler would be defeated in 1941 and Holocaust would not have happened. Stalin was not incompetent bungler who trusted Hitler and insane murderer who wiped out his own officer corp but he was a great strategists who just did not have luck. He lost by being just few days late. Furthermore it reinforces the belief that you can’t trust Soviets. When they talk peace and complain about aggressive American stance of installing Pershing missiles in West Germany by Reagan they are actually preparing for an offensive war. Soviets were not innocent victims of Hitler because they were never innocent victims. They always are plotting a sneaky attack. This was the message Suvorov was sending on behalf of his handlers and he as a double spy had two sets of handlers. It seems that he managed to satisfy both his Soviet and British/American handlers.

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @Ron Unz
  211. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Thank you for the reply. I know you are very busy. I have not read Suvorov yet, but I intend to. The Mannerheim Line must have been very impressive indeed, and technically you are correct that the Maginot line was not “penetrated.” It was soundly defeated – a result brought about by good military leadership.

    As I have just heard of Suvorov, perhaps you could indulge one more question on the work. Did the Soviet military leadership appreciate the difficulty of penetrating the Mannerheim line and consider bypassing it via airborne assault as in Operation Overlord (Normandy), or by sea such as at Inchon (Korea), or some other method? Or, did the Soviet military leadership at that time simply lack the insight, imagination, and competence to develop a strategy other than full speed ahead in a Pickett’s Charge type fashion (admittedly successful in a Pyrrhic way)

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Anon
    , @JMcG
  212. KenH says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    In 1941 when the Germans invaded the USSR, they and their allies outnumbered the USSR forces by about 3.5 million to 2.5 million.

    That’s not correct. The Germans only launched Barbarossa with two million men per most accounts. The Russians easily had 2-3 times that many especially with 2.5 million surrendering to the Germans in the first several months of the invasion.

    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
  213. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    Mr. Unz, as you pointed out, many other Russian historians arrived at similar conclusions.
    People here pretending otherwise are either ignorant or simply lying.

    With the fall of the Soviet Empire there was a partial opening of Soviet archives(closed again), & many Russian historians have refined the evidence for Stalin’s aggressive aims. An incomplete list of such Russian historians/researchers include:

    Russian military historian Dr. Mikhail Meltiukhov of the Russian Institute of Documents and Historical Records Research, Russian historian M. Nikitin, V. A. Nevezhin, Colonel V. D. Danilov, Igor Bunich, Irina. V. Pavlova, V. L. Doroshenko, Boris Sokolov, B.N.Petrov, Vladimir Neveshin, M. Solonin, C. Pleshakov, Dr.Alexander Pronin, Prof. Dr. Maria Litowskaja, Colonel Kiselev, Dr. Dschangir Nadschafov, faculty director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, P. Bobylev, T. Bushueva, Y. Felshtinskiy…

    The fear of a ‘great patriotic war implosion’, this being recognized as the key national myth of the post-Soviet new Russia – but also already of the S.U as well – has even forced the Russian government not only to keep 100s of thousands of secret documents sealed but also to enact a “Memory Law” recently(2014), with fines & prison terms for “infringements on historical memory with regard to the events of WW2.” reports Russian historian Nikolay Koposov, in the book Law and Memory: Towards Legal Governance of History.

    The new law also increases the punishment to up to 5 years of prison time if ‘the same deeds have been committed with the use of one’s official position or through the mass media…’

    Not very encouraging for Russian historians to be independent now, is it?

    Law and Memory: Towards Legal Governance of History

    https://books.google.com.br/books?id=0-w0DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=russian+memory+law+to+punish+offenders+with+up+to+5+years+prison&source=bl&ots=tk_dfOOqVJ&sig=tC1eGnZP5qUJJ9xNVyKO_4ygeTQ&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqtaWrqrvbAhWElJAKHclDCXEQ6AEITTAE#v=onepage&q=russian%20memory%20law%20to%20punish%20offenders%20with%20up%20to%205%20years%20prison&f=false

  214. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    You will think I have parachutists on the brain but one thing I notice about the Winter War was the complete absence of significant airborne operations from the million-man Soviet paratroop army. This makes me think that Soviet “paratroopers” were intended to be used as general light infantry.

    • Replies: @JMcG
  215. L.K says:

    In fact, before Suvorov, there was decorated war veteran, Major General Pyotr Grigorenko…

    As D.W.Michaels wrote:

    One of the earliest Russian revisionists of World War II history was Pyotr Grigorenko, a Soviet Army Major General and highly decorated war veteran who taught at the Frunze Military Academy.[…]he was the first leading Soviet figure to advance the revisionist arguments, which became well known during the 1980s and 1990s, on Stalin’s preparations for aggressive war against Germany. In an article submitted to a major Soviet journal (but rejected, and later published abroad), Grigorenko pointed out that Soviet military forces vastly outnumbered German forces in 1941. Just prior to the German attack on June 22, 1941, more than half of the Soviet forces were in the area near and west of Bialystok, that is, in an area deep in Polish occupied territory. “This deployment could only be justified” wrote Grigorenko, “if these troops were deploying for a surprise offensive. In the event of an enemy attack these troops would soon be encircled.” Which is exactly what happened.

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  216. Mike P says:
    @utu

    Suvorov is not alone – others have come to the same conclusion. Nightingale posted a link to one such book (in German unfortunately). So, dismissing Suvorov as a paid agent doesn’t change too much.

    Why they [the Germans] did not create a meme of imminent Soviet attack that they had just preempted? They had 80 Soviet generals in captivity to corroborate this meme. I am sure if they tried to create the meme it would have survived in some fragmentary shape and some historians would consider it …

    A “meme” needs a medium to spread. Should the Germans have taken out ads in the NYT? Written little notes and put them in drift bottles? Fly banners behind their V1 rockets? After the war, Germany lay prostrate, and everyone was too busy trying to survive and staying out of trouble vis-a-vis the victors who brooked no dissent in implanting their fabricated version of history.

    • Replies: @utu
  217. Iris says:

    The obvious and fatal flaw of the thesis exposed in this book is that it does not indicate a plausible causality between WW1 and WW2.

    WW2 was the continuation of WW1.
    WW1 occurred for many different reasons historians still disagree upon, which is a euphemism for saying that the victors’ agenda cannot be openly discussed.
    What is certain is that on the eve of WW1, Britain, the most formidable empire of modern times, was on decline, and the British Pound was losing its status as world currency.

    In 1904, the father of modern geopolitics, Briton Sir Halford Mackinder, devised his ground-breaking geopolitical theory of “The pivot of History”, whereby the rise of the Heartland (Germany and Russia) will cause the ineluctable demise of the “World Island” (Britain and USA).

    As a logical consequence, Germany had to be crushed: WW1 was started by parts of the British establishment, with the consent of power elites in the US.
    The goal was partly achieved: Germany was defeated and further crushed with unpayable debt reparations .
    The remorse and worries (hypocritically) expressed by President Wilson during the Versailles Treaty meetings bending Germany to its knees are well documented.
    Germany’s situation became even more tragic in the context of the 1929 Great Depression and increasing debt interest payments.

    Meanwhile, Mackinder had refined his doctrine, and concluded that the industrialisation of Russia would sign the demise of the “World Island”.
    Russia realising up to 70 000 km of rail track by 1928 came up as a dreadful prophecy come true. With the help of the French (Weygans), Mackinon set up to (1) contain both Russia and Germany, using Poland as a “cordon sanitaire”, (2) cut Russia from the rest of the British Empire (ME & India), (3) and even provoke a secession of Ukraine/Donbass, the basket bread without which Russia would starve to death.

    The containment did not work: Germany and Russia broke it, and both invaded Poland in 1939.

    Interestingly, the Germans also had a genius geopolitical analyst, Karl Haushofer, who promoted exactly the same doctrine, but for the opposite purpose: against Hitler’s opinion, he wanted to unite the Heartland (Germany, Russia, Japan) against the Anglo-Saxon world.

    As the saying goes “War is the continuation of politics by other means”.
    WW2 did not come out of the blue, neither out of Hitler’s, nor of Stalin’s mind, but because of more immutable geopolitical agendas, in which the British establishment played a fundamental role.

    Europe has complex history and geopolitics, which reasons go far back in time.
    Mackinder’s doctrine is overtly based on the opposition between the West and the Orthodox world. He was consciously fighting Orthodox Russia, not the USSR, not the communists.

    Nothing has changed. The same doctrines are promoted against the same perceived foe: Russia.

  218. Anon[121] • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor

    WTF? As you allude to, the USSR had murdered 12m people in the Holodomor alone before Hitler rose to power. “Hardly better”? The Nazis were friggin’ angels compared to the Soviets. The USSR was consistently worse, right on through the war, and into the postwar period. The Nazis were never as bad as the USSR, at any point, unless one looks only through a misanthropic Jewish/communist lens.

    No, the Ukraine Famine likely cost around 3.5 million lives. Maybe 4 million. But not 12 million.

    Up to 1939, the Nazis killed far fewer people. But there was no need to. National Socialism wasn’t as radical as communism in its economic plan. Communism waged class war on entire categories of people: bourgeoisie, nobility, and ‘kulaks’. The result was mass killing, mass exile, or mass imprisonment. Also, as Soviet Union had to industrialize, Stalin had to use brutal force to get people to build modern industry as a massive scale. Also, the Soviet Union was very diverse, and that meant lots of division and distrust along ethnic, cultural, and religious grounds. Stalin had to use extreme violence to send a message that Soviet power was here to stay.

    In contrast, Nazi Germany was mostly homogeneous. So, there was less diversity, and less division.
    Also, National Socialism sought to bridge the upper classes with middle classes with working classes. Also, German industry was already developed, and Hitler didn’t need to use mass slave labor for rapid industrialization. Thus, its economic policy wasn’t as radical and violent. But that was up to 1939.

    Once Nazism went into imperialist mode, its power no longer ruled over a homogeneous population deemed as fellow Germans. It ruled over non-Germans, and here Nazi policy ranged from tolerant, even lenient, to totally insane and murderous. It all depended on Nazi racial policy. So, Nazis could go easy on French IF they didn’t make too much trouble. Nazis could treat fellow Germanics and Nordics pretty well as racial brethren. But when it came to the Slavs of USSR, it was hell on earth. Hitler’s ultimate plan for Slavs, esp Russians was slavery and extermination. And that is what makes Nazism worse in the end. Soviets were brutal(like Americans could be), but they ultimately believed that all humans were humans. After the rape and pillage of Germany by Soviet Union, the USSR did treat Germans as fellow humans. If Nazis had won over Russia, the native Slavs would have been seen as subhuman and killed by 10s of millions. Rest would have been kept illiterate and used as slaves. And Germany in imperialist mode used Poles as slave labor. Brutal treatment with extremely high rates of fatality.

    As for the Jews, Nazis carried out what was race-based mass-killing. The 6 million is probably a stretch, but it could easily be around 4 to 5 million. Even Irving came around to admitting of the genocide. The gassing of Jews was exaggerated, but there were lots of killings by gunfire.

    So, in national mode, National Socialists were better than the Soviets and even inspiring in certain ways. But in imperialist mode, especially in the East, it was totally insane. If Hitler had stopped after Sudetenland and then pressed for Danzig(rightfully German) and not gone into imperialist mode, he would have been one of the great German leaders. But he threw it all away. Phil Collin’s song applies to Hitler.

  219. Unz is erecting a strawman here. It’s been the standard historigraphical view that Stalin viewed a good offense as a best defense. All the “evidence” he cites to support Stalin’s “aggressive” posture is entirely consistent with this mainstream view. And much of it is crap nonetheless.

    “The Soviets had produced a remarkable line of light BT tanks, easily able to shed their tracks and continue on wheels, achieving a top speed of 60 miles per hour, two or three times faster than any other comparable armored vehicle, and ideally suited to exploitation drives deep into enemy territory. However, such wheeled operation was only effective on paved highways, of which Soviet territory had none, hence were ideally suited for travel on Germany’s large network of autobahns. In 1941 Stalin deployed almost 6,500 of these autobahn-oriented tanks, more than the rest of the world’s tanks combined.”

    They could also go on city roads, just as effective in defense as in offense.

    “For centuries, Continental conquerors from Napoleon to Hitler had been stymied by the barrier of the English Channel, but Stalin was far better prepared. Although Stalin’s vast USSR was entirely a land-power, he pioneered the world’s only series of fully amphibious light tanks, able to successfully cross large rivers, lakes, and even that notoriously wide moat last successfully traversed by William the Conqueror in 1066. By 1941, the Soviets deployed 4,000 of these amphibious tanks, far more than 3,350 German tanks of all types used in the attack. But being useless in defense, they were all ordered abandoned or destroyed.”

    Why weren’t they used when the Soviets went on the offensive after 1942? Answer: they were pieces of crap, useful only in training. That had becomes rather obvious to the Soviets after the invasion of Poland and the Winter War.

    “Sometimes the production decisions of major weapon systems provide strong hints of the broader strategy behind their development. The most widely produced military aircraft in history was the heavily armored IL-2, a powerful Soviet ground-attack bomber that was originally designed as a two-man system, with the rear gunner able to effectively defend the plane against enemy fighters during its missions. However, Stalin personally ordered the design changed to eliminate the second man and defensive armament, which left the bomber extremely vulnerable to enemy aircraft once the war broke out. Stalin and his war-planners had seemingly banked on possessing near-total air supremacy during the entire course of any conflict, an assumption plausible only if the German luftwaffe were destroyed on the ground by a surprise attack on the very first day.”

    Yet the Soviets continued producing this type of aircraft during the war when it was clear they would NOT have air supremacy. Sure, the IL-2 was vulnerable to enemy fire, but it made up for it in its ability to carry much heavier bombing loads. The Soviets were not the only force to make this kind of trade-off: see the Japanese Zero.

    “(*) The planned invasion and occupation of a large country whose population speaks a different language requires considerable logistical preparation. As an example, prior to their attack the notoriously methodical Germans printed and distributed to their troops large numbers of German-Russian basic phrasebooks, allowing effective communication with the local Slavic villagers and townsmen. Ironically enough, at around the same time, the USSR seems to have produced very similar Russian-German phrasebooks, allowing conquering Soviet troops to easily make themselves understood to German civilians. Many millions of these phrasebooks had been distributed to Soviet forces on the German border during the early months of 1941.”

    Such phrasebooks would also be useful in interrogating prisoners, something which could be expected in either an offensive or defensive war.

    “Suvorov’s reconstruction of the weeks directly preceding the outbreak of combat is a fascinating one, emphasizing the mirror-image actions taken by both the Soviet and German armies. Each side moved its best striking units, airfields, and ammunition dumps close to the border, ideal for an attack but very vulnerable in defense.”

    We know now that it was stupid of Stalin to have moved so much to the front, but hindsight bias must be considered. At the beginning of the war, all the powers, including Germany, expected a return to World War I style trench warfare. Many thought the Battle of France was an anomaly resulting from France’s decision to move its forces into Western Belgium where they could be trapped by the Germans.

    “But at that point, Hitler regarded the war as essentially over, and was confident that the extremely generous peace terms he immediately offered the British would soon lead to a final settlement. As a consequence, he returned Germany to a regular peacetime economy, choosing butter over guns in order to maintain his high domestic popularity”

    This is not true. He made a few orders to draw-down production in the hope that the war with Britain would soon be over, but swiftly reversed them once it became clear he would have to invade Britain and then, after he put his plan on hold, the Soviet Union. Germany was on less of a war footing than Britain or the Soviet Union, but this was the case before France had been defeated, and was due to Hitler’s fear of German workers revolting as they did in 1918.

    “Embarking upon an unprecedented military buildup, he focused his production almost entirely upon purely offensive weapons systems, while even discontinuing those armaments better suited for defense and dismantling his defensive lines of fortifications.”

    The Stalin Line was indeed dismantled, but this was due to the fact that it was now 100 miles from the Soviet frontier as a result of the occupation of Poland. The Molotov Line along the border with Germany was in the process of being constructed.

    “There is also little evidence that the quality of Soviet officers or military doctrine fell short.”

    Eisenhower would have performed a lot better had Roosevelt imprisoned him and ripped his nails out.

    ” Indeed, we often forget that history’s first successful example of a “blitzkrieg” in modern warfare was the crushing August 1939 defeat that Stalin inflicted upon the Japanese 6th Army in Outer Mongolia, relying upon a massive surprise attack of tanks, bombers, and mobile infantry. And Stalin apparently thought so highly of many of his top military strategists in 1941, that despite his huge initial losses, many of them remained in command and were eventually promoted to the highest ranks of the Soviet military establishment by the end of the war.”

    Unz forgets to mention that Stalin was so happy with the results of this “blitzkreig” that he ordered two out of the three generals responsible for the battle shot. Real strategic genius he was.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @dfordoom
  220. Thirdeye says:
    @Colin Wright

    Not to mention that documents pertaining to Generalplan Ost date back to at least 1939.

  221. 36 ulster says:

    The figure of 2 million trained paratroops–or even 1 million–seems rather high, but I’ve read about the license-construction of the famous C-47 Dakota (designated Li-2), several thousand of which were built for the Soviet Air Force. Construction seems to have begun in 1940 or thereabouts, after some Douglas-built planes were delivered. Seems that Douglas never received a penny in royalties. (I know, I’m shocked–shocked!). Courtesy of RT, one photo of Yuri Gagarin undergoing parachute training shows two Dakotas in the background.

  222. @Antiwar7

    It’s pretty obvious, no? To finish off the mortal threat once and for all. The Soviets had vast amounts of resources on which to base a recovery and future restart of the war. Which is why, at the time, the Germans made the right decision to rebuff Stalin’s offers for cessation.

  223. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @White Trashionalist

    They could also go on city roads, just as effective in defense as in offense.

    Not written by someone familiar with Russia in 1941.

    they were pieces of crap

    Largely true. Obviously the Soviets didn’t realize that at the start of the war.

  224. Ron Unz says:
    @The Scalpel

    As I have just heard of Suvorov, perhaps you could indulge one more question on the work. Did the Soviet military leadership appreciate the difficulty of penetrating the Mannerheim line and consider bypassing it via airborne assault as in Operation Overlord (Normandy), or by sea such as at Inchon (Korea), or some other method?

    Well, I’m really no expert, but my impression is that the extremely difficult forested terrain and the terrible weather conditions would have made an airborne assault totally impossible, and the same for any sort of sea-landing, since I’d guess the waters were mostly frozen.

    I’d think that Stalin was just tremendously overconfident since his forces were so vastly superior to the Finns in numbers and armament, and at the end he didn’t really care that it cost him well over a hundred thousand dead to win the war.

  225. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Scalpel

    The Soviets did bypass it.

    Here you see their plan of attack. Note that only the VII Army is directly attacking the Mannerheim Line. While that line covered the most important theatre of operations, it was far from the only theatre.

  226. Thirdeye says:

    The supposed fearsome mass of Soviet armor waiting to pounce on Germany was a chimera. Most of the Soviet tanks were obsolete T-26es and they were dispersed among infantry – clearly a deployment for a defensive role. The BT fast tanks would have had no advantage over the Panzers on the Polish frontier and they were also outmoded. Production of the T-34 was just beginning and there were no large formations of T-34s. The first massed tank battle was the battle of Kiev, well away from the front in the first days of the war. The Soviet tanks in that battle were mostly T-26es.

    Most of the Soviet fighter forces were Polikarpov I-15s and I-16s – good fighters for the early 1930s but clearly not fighters that could attain air supremacy against the much more modern Bf-109s that they would have to face. Claiming that the removal of defensive armament on the Il-2 reflected the belief that the Soviets would have air supremacy is essentially claiming that Soviet planners were insane. They were a bumbling lot, but they were not insane. The Il-2 was the most heavily armored ground attack aircraft of WWII and the weight of the defensive gun was a big issue. Armor for the rear gunner’s seat was dispensed with until the Stavka realized that a dead rear gunner meant a downed plane.

    • Replies: @Unzerker
  227. @Ron Unz

    I find it exquisitely ironic that in a series entitled “American Pravda“, Ron Unz is uncritically accepting ludicrous official Soviet figures about troop sizes.

    Look, if there were around two million Soviet troops with paratrooper training by mid 1941, the Red Army could have fielded about two hundred divisions of paratroopers! Even if only a quarter of those soldiers were actual paratroopers, the Red Army would have had a mind boggling 50 divisions of paratroopers! (You know how you’ve heard of the 82nd and 101st US airborne divisions and the 75th Ranger Regiment? That’s because the US, despite being a very large country with a lavishly funded military, has had two divisions of paratroopers, plus smaller units of airborne special forces infantry, since WW2.)

    A much, much more plausible figure is given by the eminent military historian David Glantz in his 1984 book “the Soviet Airborne Experience”, who you mentioned in the OP. (I assume that you would have eagerly mentioned any discrediting black marks in Glantz’s record if you’d found any, so I figure that you will, even if reluctantly, accept him as at least as credible a source as “Suvorov”, i.e. Rezun.) Glantz lists the Red Army as having 5 Airborne Corps (“corps” here being of ~10,000 men, so actually what is usually referred to as a division) in June 1941. This sounds like a pretty plausible figure to me.

    Was Glantz wrong by a factor of 40 in his estimation? That seems rather unlikely to me, much more so than that somehow the unbelievable figure that Ron Unz quotes is basically correct. (Regardless of whether the error is with Unz, Suvorov, the Soviet sources or some combination thereof.)

    Page 26 of the link: https://books.google.com/books?id=Ieci0eVv8EEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @JMcG
  228. Ron Unz says:
    @utu

    This was the message Suvorov was sending on behalf of his handlers and he as a double spy had two sets of handlers. It seems that he managed to satisfy both his Soviet and British/American handlers.

    I think you’re being ridiculously conspiratorial about Suvorov…

    If powerful Britain/American elites were behind him, why did they then totally prevent republication of his book for decades and also absolutely blacklist his ideas from the English media. If they ensured that virtually no one in the English-language has ever heard of him or this theories, why did they order him to write the book?

    As for the pro-Soviet types, they’ve always been overwhelmingly hostile to Suvorov’s ideas, and some of them have been on this very thread denouncing his book and pointing me to various Russian-language refutations of his hypothesis. Supposedly, a maverick publisher released his book in Russia in 1992 after the Soviet system had totally collapsed, and that’s how it sold millions of copies there, soon also catching on with various other non-establishment historians. Add to that the death sentence Suvorov had received for defection and all the previous books he’d published generally critical of Soviet military institutions, and the notion that he was a Soviet mole all along seems rather implausible.

    Maybe Suvorov is wrong or maybe he just wrote his book in hopes of getting rich, but I very much doubt he’s spent the last thirty years being “run” by either British/American intelligence or Soviet intelligence, let alone both of them simultaneously.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @utu
    , @Anonymous
    , @Anon
  229. JMcG says:
    @Tyrion 2

    I think it was unreasonable to make a promise to Poland that couldn’t possibly be kept. France and England both knew they could not meaningfully help Poland in the event of a German attack. Also, remember that Poland was quite happy to acquire territory from Czechoslovakia after Hitler marched in.
    There were very few clean hands in the Second World War.

  230. Ron Unz says:
    @the Supreme Gentleman

    A much, much more plausible figure is given by the eminent military historian David Glantz in his 1984 book “the Soviet Airborne Experience”, who you mentioned in the OP…. Glantz lists the Red Army as having 5 Airborne Corps (“corps” here being of ~10,000 men, so actually what is usually referred to as a division) in June 1941.

    Well, look, I don’t claim to be an expert. You cite a 1984 book by some American without access to the Soviet archives and I cite a 2008 book by a former Russian military intelligence officer, including exact references to the Soviet archives, which obviously weren’t open to American military researchers in 1984.

    For example, Suvorov states that 427,000 parachutists were trained in the Ukraine *alone* between 1934 and 1936.

    Maybe Suvorov is just lying and all his precise references are fraudulent. Who knows? I’m certainly not going to travel to Moscow to check the archives, and anyway I don’t read Russian.

    You and other skeptics should just read his book and decide for yourself.

  231. Gadzooks, but I do love these articles in the American Pravda series. Some of the best stuff on the internet. Please keep writing them!

  232. I have quite a bit to say about this post, but for the sake of comprehensibility and ease of discussion I’ll try to split my thoughts into digestible chunks.

    I wrote a comment above criticizing what I saw as the totally ludicrous, given both other credible sources and common sense, figure of 1-2 million Soviet paratroopers ready for action in 1941. As a corollary, I want to note some other grounds on which I’m highly skeptical of the implications of the following paragraph:

    During the early years of World War II, the Germans effectively utilized paratroops and air-mobile forces to seize key enemy targets far behind the front lines during a major offensive, and this was an important component of their victories against France in 1940 and Greece in 1941. Such units are necessarily lightly armed and no match for regular infantry in a defensive battle; hence their only role is an offensive one. Germany entered the war with 4,000 paratroops, a far larger force than anything found in Britain, France, America, Italy, or Japan. However, the Soviets had at least 1,000,000 trained paratroopers, and Suvorov believes that the true total was actually closer to 2,000,000.

    So, the idea here is that the Soviet Union posed a massive threat on the offense to Nazi Germany in 1941, but, because clever and brave old uncle Adolf struck first, they were rendered useless, thus disguising the true strength of the Red Army circa June 1941.

    The (rather, a) problem with this is that the Soviet Union did fight an offensive war with Germany—after the Battle of Kursk in mid 1943. Yet, as far I know, there were very few major Soviet airborne operations even during the offensive stages of the war. For instance—and feel free to correct if I’m wrong—I don’t think that, despite the use of many inventive tactics, paratrooper deployments were a significant part of Operation Bagration. And one of, if not the biggest single, Soviet airborne operations was during the early 1942 Battle of Rzhev. It was a total disaster, with the Soviet units taking very heavy casualties and failing to break through the German lines. (Which I suppose is a pretty evergreen description of the ostkrieg for the first year and a half or so.)

    So: if the Soviet Union had 1-2 million paratroopers, who posed a gigantic threat to Germany in 1941, why did it conduct so few airborne operations later in the war, with at least one of the operations being a total failure? If the Red Army truly had this awesome weapon of dozens of divisions of paratroopers, a dagger pointed straight at the heart of Germany, why did it not use it after the German offensive had been reversed to utterly crush the Wehrmacht?

    I suppose you could say that the Soviets suffered huge losses in terms of aircraft and troops in the early months of the German invasion. Perhaps, but they managed to recover similar losses in terms of standard infantry, tanks and aircraft by the end of the war. Yet the gigantic Soviet paratrooper army never reappeared?

  233. an issue of Chronicles, the small-circulation flagship organ of the marginalized paleoconservative movement

    The Rockford Institute and the Howard Institute next door look a little shabby today. Can somebody send them a check so they can touch up their signage? TRI’s is almost unreadable.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  234. Mike P says:
    @Ron Unz

    Re high number of parachutists: Here is an interview with a former German soldier who participated in the invasion. Aside from confirming the view that the Soviets were prepared for offence, not defence, he also mentions (after 1 min 50 sec) that “paratroopers” were trained by letting them jump off wooden towers, not airplanes. This might explain the large numbers of men, but only provided very basic training.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @Tyrion 2
  235. utu says:
    @Mike P

    Are you trying to be funny? Try harder.

    Germans in 1940 published The German White Paper of Polish documents which was available in the US and in 1943 they publicized Katyn pretty well. These propaganda efforts (which in bot case reported truth) did not have impact during the war, though possibly it got gen. Sikorski killed, but after the war they were available to historians and certainly helped to bring the truth about Katyn though not yet the truth about America and British push for the war from the Polish documents.

    If Germans made similar effort with Soviet plan to attack we would not need Suvorov to do it 49 years later. My thesis is that Germans did not do it because there was no evidence of Soviet preparations so it is safe to assume that Suvorov is a liar.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  236. Sparkon says:
    @DR-Montreal

    It’s a fine article by Ron Unz. I’ve been aware of this theory for some time that Hitler’s attack pre-empted an impending westward attack by the Red Army. My opinion is that Stalin was working hard to make Hitler think he was about to attack. He would feint, he would posture, he would position, but would he actually attack?

    I think not, primarily because I see that the main and inviolable Allied pre-war strategy was to get the foe to strike the first blow, so the Allies could seize the moral high ground right from the outset of hostilities, and play the victim card from beginning to end, and beyond, as we’ve seen. It’s a powerful psychological advantage to have the moral high ground in a war.

    A few comments.

    The Imperial Japanese Army fought WWII with WWI-era weapons, which may have been adequate for jungle warfare, or against the Chinese, who were even more primitively equipped, but against the Red Army, the IJA had no chance, and was crushed in Manchuria toward the end of the war.

    jilles dykstra says:
    June 4, 2018 at 7:01 am GMT • 200 Words
    @Duglarri

    About Sorge, his mission was to find out if Japan would attack the USSR.
    He reported to Moscow that it would not.
    This made it possible to transfer troops from the east to the west after Hitler’s attack.

    DR-Montreal says:
    June 4, 2018 at 3:56 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The last echelon of Siberians arrived from the east in December to smash the decimated and threadbare Wehrmacht. Hitler lost the war that December.

    I know this stirring account of the hardened Siberian divisions arriving in front of Moscow to save the day is a popular idea, but Nigel Askey shows convincingly that there was no significant movement of Siberians or Siberian divisions from Siberia, Trans-Siberia, or the Far East to the Western or Moscow Front between Sorge’s alleged dispatch — or even from the outset of the war — and the defeat of Army Group Center in the Battle of Moscow in late 1941:

    In short, of all the divisions transferred west after August 1941, only three rifle divisions originated with Siberian personnel and only two went into the Western Front defending Moscow.
    [...]
    So the question is; who stopped the Germans in December 1941 if it couldn’t possibly have been hordes of newly arrived Siberian or East Front troops?

    The answer is a massive number of newly mobilised and deployed divisions and brigades. The Soviet land model shows that 182 rifle divisions, 43 militia rifle divisions, eight tank divisions, three mechanised divisions, 62 tank brigades, 50 cavalry divisions, 55 rifle brigades, 21 naval rifle brigades, 11 naval infantry brigades, 41 armies, 11 fronts and a multitude of other units were newly Mobilised and Deployed (MD) in the second half of 1941.

    If Mobilized and Not Deployed (MND) units are included then this list is considerably higher… There is no doubt that the 1941 Soviet mobilisation programme was simply the largest and fastest wartime mobilisation in history. The multitude of average Soviet soldiers from all over the USSR that made up these units saved the day, and definitely not the existing units transferred west after June 1941, or the mostly non-existent and mythical Siberian divisions.

    http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/

    There was no need to move any Siberians to the Moscow front because shortage of soldiers was never a problem for the Red Army, although shortage of weapons sometimes was in the early days of the war. Whatever the case, neither Stalin nor Stavka would be so foolish as to denude Red Army defenses in the Far East based on the report of a single spy, especially when Stalin had much better sources of information, witness the timing of the Moscow counteroffensive.

    In any event, the Red Army was not worried in the least about the IJA. When the time came, it would be crushed.

    At the outset of Barbarossa, the Red Army had well over 10 million reservists with at least basic military training, and uncountable numbers of these were called up and fed into the breach before Moscow in the most desperate and profligate manner in order to save the Soviet capital. Even if some of these units did not put up much fight, they nevertheless tied up German infantry and other resources to round them up, put them under guard, and arrange for their movement into captivity.

    It was the blood of millions of common Russian soldiers marching under the banner of the Red Army that defeated the Germans before Moscow, but only after the Wehrmacht had rather foolishly run itself ragged, needlessly inflamed the Ukrainians, and in the process, many fine units had been ground to a pulp by the Red Army, even before Zhukov launched his storied counteroffensive with the fabled but mythical Siberians on Dec. 6, 1941, about the same time Kido Butai was launching fighters and torpedo bombers for the “sneak attack” on Pearl Harbor.

    It might have been a different story if the Wehrmacht had focused all its power on Moscow right from the outset of the war, stayed north of the Pripet, merely screened Leningrad, and drove on the Soviet capital with all the power it had in three army groups, with the plausible political goal of decapitating the Bolshevik leadership, and the practical military goal of seizing the vital Moscow railheads.

    The Germans may not have invented the term, but blitzkrieg was what the Wehrmacht did best, and was in fact all it could do simply because the Wehrmacht had inadequate weapons for a slugfest with the Red Army at the outset of Barbarossa. Certainly, when judged by the standards of armored formations and tanks that appeared later in the war, the Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941 with what amounted to cavalry formations.

    It was a big mistake, and Germany is paying for it still.

  237. JMcG says:
    @The Scalpel

    The Airborne assaults which were part of Overlord were not designed to bypass enemy defenses. They were planned to secure the flanks of the beachheads from immediate defensive response. Certain other missions were also assigned, e.g. the capture of the Orne River bridge.
    The majority of allied airborne troops were not dropped near their respective LZs. They caused a great deal of confusion, but achieved very little of military value. Another commentor has made the point, correctly I think, that Crete was the death knell for large Airborne operations.

  238. JMcG says:
    @Anon

    The German parachute regiments fought very well indeed during the latter part of the war. That they made excellent light infantry doesn’t negate the fact that such was not their original purpose. I remember reading that both the US and German Airborne forces were modeled after Soviet examples and wondering why those forces had never been used.

  239. @Ron Unz

    For example, Suvorov states that 427,000 parachutists were trained in the Ukraine *alone* between 1934 and 1936.

    This probably means something like, “100,000 troops were sent to paratroop training in the Ukraine, listed as 427,000 in the official Soviet figures. Of the 100,000, 20% passed the training, which was probably less rigorous than in a country like America or Germany. Some fraction of the remaining 20,000 frittered away, and 15,000 troops were sorted into 3 paratrooper divisions, which suffered from serious equipment deficiencies.”

    As opposed to: “the USSR trained 42 divisions worth of paratroopers between 1934-1936 that were at least 75% as battle ready/competent as German paratroop units.”

    You and other skeptics should just read his book and decide for yourself.

    If you were just a random citizen, such agnosticism would be appropriate. But you wrote an article of over 4,000 words attacking the Anglo-American media and academic establishment as totally incompetent, dishonest, et cetera, for not at least considering “Suvorov”‘s theories, of which you say:

    I believe it is far more likely than not that Suvorov’s theories are at least substantially correct

    Thus, I think it is entirely reasonable of commenters to challenge points that Rezun makes that you favorably and uncritically cite.

    Indeed, it find it a bit strange that you’re making an argument along the lines of: “Okay, I can’t contest the common sense points you raise criticizing this writer. But did you know that this writer is well respected by other writers, and that their books have sold many copies? How could they have done this if they made such obvious errors?”

    The central thesis of the American Pravda series—which to be clear I’ve very much enjoyed— is that the mainstream media perpetuates absurdities that are contrary to available evidence and common sense. And that, accordingly, when dealing with issues like the question of American POWs in Vietnam or flight MH17 one cannot simply say “of course the official narrative is correct; if there were errors, wouldn’t someone have noticed them?” One must evaluate these things on the basis of the evidence, and not assume that popular writers are always correct.

    Thus, the fact that Rezun has sold a lot of books does not convince me that the Red Army had almost 200 divisions worth of paratroopers at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. (Indeed, as you are a very mathematically skilled former wargamer, I’m surprised that you didn’t seem to at least blink at that gigantic figure.)

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  240. JMcG says:
    @the Supreme Gentleman

    The 101st hasn’t been Airborne for 50 years. They are airmobile or air assault or something now.

    • Replies: @the Supreme Gentleman
  241. Mikhail says: • Website
    @szopen

    Your aforementioned policy of equal distances fluctuated.

    The German move on Czecho-Slovakia very likely motivated the Hungarians and Poles to act similarly against a Czecho-Slovak nation that was on good terms with the USSR.

    I suspect that one reason why Czecho-Slovakia was willingly sacrificed was because of its relatively good relations with the USSR.

    You mention Poland being excluded from Munich. That was true of the USSR. The Poles to my knowledge did not seek better relations with the USSR at that point in time. Rather, they proceeded to follow the Nazi precedent regarding Czecho-Slovakia.

  242. JMcG says:
    @the Supreme Gentleman

    I don’t believe the Soviets ever had air superiority over the eastern front. You can’t fly Airborne divisions without it.

    • Replies: @the Supreme Gentleman
  243. There’s a possibly curious fact that I want to note that may challenge Rezun/Unz’s thesis, but may not if there’s some context that I’m missing. So I invite more knowledgeable commenters to correct me if I’m missing something here.

    Stalin hastily reformed the Stavka, the Russian high command/general staff, in the frantic days after the 6/22/41 invasion. This fits with my understanding that Stalin wanted to pick up the pieces of an intra-European conflict, and possibly wanted to go to war with Germany later in the 1940s, but definitely didn’t want to attack Germany in 1941, and nor did he expect a German attack so soon.

    If he had been planning a massive invasion of Europe imminently in 1941, wouldn’t a Soviet military high command have been meeting and planning very frequently for it at least a year or so beforehand? For instance, the OKW was formed in early 1938, and as I understand the German high command was frequently meeting and planning prior to the German invasion of Poland.

    Of course, I could just be ignorant of some important detail here, so I leave this as more of a genuine question than a “gotcha”.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  244. Ron Unz says:
    @the Supreme Gentleman

    So: if the Soviet Union had 1-2 million paratroopers, who posed a gigantic threat to Germany in 1941, why did it conduct so few airborne operations later in the war, with at least one of the operations being a total failure?

    Suvorov’s claim is that in the very desperate days of 1941 and 1942, all the trained parachutists were sent straight into the defensive front lines as regular infantry. There’s how so many brand new “Guards Rifle divisions” suddenly appeared seemingly from nowhere even after all the regular reserves had been exhausted, and helped turn the tide of battle.

    Suvorov states: “Using paratroops to fight against tanks is the same as transporting bricks in a Ferrari race car—expensive and ineffective. But it was necessary…”

  245. @JMcG

    Are you sure? I’m happy to accept correction if you provide a source, but I’d always heard them referred to as such, and their official website describes them as the “101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).” : http://www.campbell.army.mil/Pages/Default.aspx/official

    • Replies: @JMcG
  246. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Mike P

    Aside from confirming the view that the Soviets were prepared for offence, not defence

    What does this mean? They were prepared to take and hold ground but not prepared to merely hold it? Or cede it and retake it and then hold it?

    The above is a nonsensical statement. As is the idea that a military could be competent to conduct a very large-scale invasion but not to hold its own territory. One might as well claim that you can only run but not walk.

    Is knowing the ground and operating among a friendly population to be considered a disadvantage?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Mike P
  247. @JMcG

    Not in the early days, sure, but what about 1944 and 1945? I don’t know if the Soviets ever had total air superiority, but I do think that the Luftwaffe had its hands full with and was getting completed decimated by Anglo-American air forces, while the Soviets were producing massive quantities of aircraft.

    And if you really need total air superiority to conduct effective paratroop operations, it seems to undermine the thesis that Soviet paratroops were a huge threat to German forces in 1941. Maybe the postulated Soviet offensive could have gotten a huge first strike on German air bases; but, even then, could Soviet planners have counted on it producing a greater advantage than they had IRL by late 1944 or so, when they didn’t in fact conduct major airborne operations?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  248. Tyrion 2 says:
    @the Supreme Gentleman

    If he had been planning a massive invasion of Europe imminently in 1941, wouldn’t a Soviet military high command have been meeting and planning very frequently for it at least a year or so beforehand? For instance, the OKW was formed in early 1938, and as I understand the German high command was frequently meeting and planning prior to the German invasion of Poland.

    Planning exercises centred around potential conflicts are a staple of military of life. For those posted to staff roles in headquarters at any operational level, conducting such exercises and playing them out, essentially are your job outside of active operations.

    It’d be gross incompetence by the Soviet High Command if they thought that there was any chance that they’d invade Germany and hadn’t exercised it to death.

    In the contemporary context, it’d be bizarre if they hadn’t done this even with no intention to invade Germany whatsoever.

  249. Ron Unz says:
    @the Supreme Gentleman

    This probably means something like, “100,000 troops were sent to paratroop training in the Ukraine, listed as 427,000 in the official Soviet figures. Of the 100,000, 20% passed the training, which was probably less rigorous than in a country like America or Germany.

    Well, I only devoted a sentence or so to the number of Soviet paratroops, and now have written maybe 50x as much in the comments, so this will probably be my last response.

    Suvorov had merely stated that the Stalin possessed one million (or possibly even two million) trained parachutists, *not* that they were necessarily all mustered into actively serving paratroop units. The figure referred to the total number of Soviet men who had passed parachute training over the years, whether or not they were still currently serving in the regular infantry, armor, artillery, or actual paratroop units. Presumably, the number of actual, active paratroop units was just a fraction of the massive 1-2M figure.

    But meanwhile, the Soviets had also developed a gigantic glider force, and in 1939 alone there were 30,000 individuals training as military glider pilots. They had even developed a unique line of air-mobile “flying tanks.”

    My key point is that such parachute/air-mobile units are almost solely useful for offensive purposes, and it is indicative that the Soviets had put *vastly* greater emphasis and resources into that particular military arm than did the Germans or any other country in the world.

  250. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Olorin

    Now, an Estonian theme park version of history with yet another anti-Russian cycle of victimization myths. Estonians were a pagan, mostly illiterate village nation with islands of city culture founded and inhabited by Germans and Russians who brought them schools, basic hygiene, and industry together with ports and railways. In 1918 it gained independence from Russia – when ethnic cleansing and robbing of Germans and Russians followed. Estonians betrayed and disarmed Russian White Guards who defended them from Red Army, placing thousands to die in concentration camps. During WW2 they formed Nazi SS batallions and invaded Russia (e.g. waffen SS 1st estnishe division, all formed with volunteers). Estonia was home to Nazi death camps e.g, notorious Klooga camp, maintained by Estonian SS. If you claim that mass killing Jews, using slave labor and making lab experiments on children is only ‘in response’, than Gulag may be a better place for you.

    • Replies: @Olorin
  251. anonymous[420] • Disclaimer says:

    From what I recall, communist doctrine asserted that war would break out amongst the imperialist-capitalist countries first. This came to pass. The unexpected part was the quick victory of the Germans over the French and British. It was Stalin’s intent to hold back and let them exhaust each other after which he would be in a stronger position and able to act forcefully if desired. However, he needed more time to build up a capable officer class after the stunning mass murder of the existing officers in the recent purges. Stalin had turned the USSR into one vast arms factory since he knew war was inevitable and was racing to have that eventuality take place under favorable conditions. Although the German surprise attack smashed what the Soviets had built up and drove inwards much fighting raged and the Germans kept taking losses all the while. It wasn’t just winter weather that stymied the Germans but a Soviet offensive that pushed them backwards before Moscow that halted their drive. They then settled there as both sides geared up for another go-around but this is where the Germans lost their momentum.
    Stalin did not make any moral distinctions between the western countries and would engage with any of them as the M-R pact shows even as he was suspicious of them all. The part of Poland occupied by the Soviets had a majority Ukrainian population so Stalin could present himself as a unifier and liberator of the Ukrainians whilst enlarging their state. Suvorov seems to ascribe more to Stalin than is warranted but much of it appears to have been the logical approach to the complicated situation in Europe and the rest of the world at the time.

  252. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Mike P

    he also mentions (after 1 min 50 sec) that “paratroopers” were trained by letting them jump off wooden towers, not airplanes. This might explain the large numbers of men, but only provided very basic training.

    Jumping out of a plane is only the beginning of your problems as a paratrooper. Nor is it either the most worrisome or taxing part. Just as being able to shoot straight as a sniper is obviously a requirement, but it is very far from being the hardest or most specialised part of the job.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Mike P
  253. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    See my reply to you above (too lazy to find it; you can do a search for “Zhukov” or “Russian wiki”).

    Soviet doctrine in 1941 was apparently extremely flawed, with a monomaniacal focus on the offensive. Of course this did not mean that actual offensives and counterattacks would be successfully carried out! The situation seems to me somewhat reminiscent of the French in 1914.

    Now to bed.

  254. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    If powerful Britain/American elites were behind him, why did they then totally prevent republication of his book for decades and also absolutely blacklist his ideas from the English media. If they ensured that virtually no one in the English-language has ever heard of him or this theories, why did they order him to write the book?

    The irony of calling someone else conspiratorially-minded while assuming that because a hokey work of military history wasn’t translated to English and published in America, there must have been a…conspiracy.

    Now it is a bit strange if those sales figures are correct. Nonetheless, what would myth would that conspiracy of publishers be trying to protect? That Stalin was an all-round top bloke? Orwell and others had already exposed that as a lie quite some decades before, and it’s not like Hitler having his hand forced in the invasion of Russia suddenly makes him a cuddly peace maker. Ask anyone in the West what Hitler’s main crimes were – I bet the invasion of Russia is mentioned around the same time they mention his tarnishing of the fine grooming option of the toothbrush moustache.

    The book might be true. Clearly, some of it is crazily sensationalized but it is hardly hidden knowledge that Stalin was less than a perfect humanitarian…

    • Agree: Crimson2, syonredux
  255. both Nazi Germany and Red Russia were preparing to have at each other;

    Hitler simply struck first and, but for Hitler’s incompetence as War Lord (specifically, the fatal halt order after Army Group Center broke through just east of Smolensk in late July ’41), the Nazis might well have won.

    in any case, the Russo-German War was the LEAST important of the two major theatres of WW2:

    because this struggle was merely about hegemony on the Eurasian continent.

    the Pacific War, in sharp contrast, was the struggle that decided who, Japan or America, was to succeed Britain as global hegemon on a world whose surface is 75% water. And, in late 1941, the Japanese navy was roughly equal to the U.S. navy in quantity and superior in quality, particularly in carrier-based aviation and night battle tactics and weaponry. Fortunately for the Americans, Nimitz and Fletcher out-admiraled Yamamoto and Nagumo by a wide margin during the desperate months of January-September, 1942. For which I’m thankful: Japanese is a ferociously difficult language.

  256. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    I think you’re being ridiculously conspiratorial about Suvorov…

    And I think that I am right dismissing Suvorov and that you are being taken for a ride and wasting your time. But I agree that my insinuation about the inspirations and motives of Suvorov are just insinuations but they point to a very important issue, i.e, the author’s character. You may not overlook the fact that he was a GRU officer. Some animals just can’t be trusted, period.

    I think that using Suvorov’s book as an example to illustrate your correct thesis how media and publishers control what feed is put in our troughs is rather misguided.

    Finally in 2008, the prestigious Naval Academy Press of Annapolis decided to break this 18 year intellectual embargo and published an updated English edition of Suvorov’s work. But once again, our media outlets almost entirely averted their eyes, and only a single review appeared in an obscure ideological publication, where I chanced to encounter it. This conclusively demonstrates that throughout most of the twentieth century a united front of English-language publishers and media organs could easily maintain a boycott of any important topic, ensuring that almost no one in America or the rest of the Anglosphere would ever hear of it.

    Lack of interest can be explained by the fact that Suvorov’s theories are considered to be outright scientific fraud by many historians.

    Perhaps more explosive and probably more inconvenient to our establishment and much less known than Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? is Herbert Hoover book on origin of WWII

    Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath

    https://www.hoover.org/research/freedom-betrayed-herbert-hoovers-secret-history-second-world-war-and-its-aftermath

    And here is from German White Papers report of 21 November 1938 that Ambassador Potocki sent to Warsaw which discussed in some detail a conversation between himself and Ambassador Bullitt:

    About Germany and Chancellor Hitler he spoke with great vehemence and strong hatred. He said that only force, and ultimately a war would put an end to the insane future German expansionism.

    To my question asking how he visualized this coming war, he replied that above all the United States, France and England must rearm tremendously in order to be in a position to oppose German power.

    Only then, when the moment is ripe, declared Bullitt further, will one be ready for the final decision. I asked him in what way a conflict could arise, since Germany would probably not attack England and France first. I simply could not see the connecting point in this whole combination.

    Bullitt replied that the democratic countries absolutely needed another two years until they were fully armed. In the meantime, Germany would probably have advanced with its expansion in an easterly direction. It would be the wish of the democratic countries that armed conflict would break out there, in the East between the German Reich and Russia. As the Soviet Union’s potential strength is not yet known, it might happen that Germany would have moved too far away from its base, and would be condemned to wage a long and weakening war. Only then would the democratic countries attack Germany, Bullitt declared, and force her to capitulate.

    In reply to my question whether the United States would take part in such a war, he said, ‘Undoubtedly yes, but only after Great Britain and France had let loose first!’ Feeling in the United States was no intense against Nazism and Hitlerism, that a psychosis already prevails today among Americans similar to that before America’s declaration of war against Germany in 1917.

    From Ambassador Potocki’s report of 12 January 1939

    The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible — above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited — this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe.

    Right now most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and Nazism as the greatest evil and greatest danger threatening the world. The situation here provides an excellent platform for public speakers of all kinds, for emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia who don’t spare any words to incite the public here with every kind of slander. They praise American liberty which they contrast with the totalitarian states.

    It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on the side of Red Spain.

    Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war, America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans of freedom and democracy in the world.

  257. Dmitry says:

    Actually I think Suvorov isa very well known, very famous, revisionist writer.

    I know he is popular with oppositionists like Mikhail Veller, Yulia Latynina.

    And of course his hatred of Putin and predictions of Putin’s deposition is something popular in Ukraine.

    • Replies: @Anon
  258. jim jones says:
    @Malla

    Britain has always had a policy of stopping dominance of Europe by a single power

  259. utu says:

    Review of Gabriel Gorodetsky. Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999

    https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=7659

    Gorodetsky’s substantial research easily refutes Suvorov’s thesis: there is no indication that Stalin was planning to go to war against Germany in the summer of 1941. On the contrary, Gorodetsky’s Stalin was a cautious and increasingly timid leader, trying to protect the Soviet Union’s national security interests while desperately hoping to delay a war with Germany, until at least 1942 or preferably even 1943 when Stalin believed the Red Army would be truly capable of dealing with the Wehrmacht.

    Thus Gorodetsky places the decision to go to war squarely on Adolf Hitler. Although the Germans perceived that Soviet actions in the Balkans were interfering with their plans, they did not believe that the Soviets posed a military threat to those interests. Neither Hitler nor his generals even contemplated the possibility of a Soviet attack. Hitler’s declaration that Barbarossa was really a pre-emptive strike was made after the invasion took place, but it certainly was not a part of the initial justifications for the invasion. Gorodetsky cites General-Major Erich Marcks, one of the planners of Barbarossa, as saying that the Red Army would not give the Germans ‘the courtesy of attacking’

    His in-depth analysis of Red Army deployments throughout the first six months of 1941 reveals an army leadership uncertain of German intentions and their possible invasion routes, and unable to persuade the civilian leadership (i.e. Stalin) to take the full, necessary measures to mobilize the armed forces. While the Nazi subjugation of Yugoslavia convinced Stalin that some military precautions had to be taken, he ordered the Red Army’s Marshal Timoshenko and General Zhukov to deploy their forces away from the German-Soviet border to avoid provocations or accidental incidents. Although Zhukov did propose a pre-emptive strike on 15 May 1941, Stalin did not approve this plan. The next day Zhukov ordered a defensive deployment, which remained largely unchanged until 22 June. As the signs of the coming German attack were becoming impossible to ignore, Stalin refused to allow army units to assume combat positions, although he did permit some limited reinforcements.

    As the German army deployed east during this period, Stalin desperately, and recklessly, clung to his belief that the Germans did not really want to attack the USSR, and that if they did, they would first offer an ultimatum, giving him some advanced warning–and the possibility of coming to terms with Hitler. Hence Stalin pursued a policy of appeasement, hoping to pacify the Nazis, or at the very least trying to buy more time to prepare Red Army for an eventual conflict. Thus, Gorodetsky contends that Stalin negotiated the Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact, signed in April 1941, not to protect his Asian flank, but rather as a means to draw closer to the Axis powers as a prelude to negotiations with Germany. Similarly, he argues that in the spring of 1941, Stalin considered dissolving the Comintern, and in fact, told its representatives to loosen their ties with Moscow, because the Soviet leader believed that these actions would increase the possibility of successful negotiations with Germany.

    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @Mike P
  260. @Ron Unz

    Question. Would the world really have been worse off if Stalin did launch this war?

  261. utu says:

    Perhaps this book should be translated:

    Protiv Viktora Suvorova.
    Isaev, A. V. (Alekseĭ Valerʹevich)
    Book, 2010.

    From history.stackexchange.com. on Isaev

    https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/825/is-there-any-research-explicitly-contradicting-facts-in-suvorovs-icebreaker-b
    Isaev claims that the Hvalei quote I mentioned above isn’t an isolated incident, rather that Suvorov’s books are full of falsifications and quoting out of context. I must say that I didn’t actually believe that. However, over the past years I had to check a bunch of quotes used by Suvorov – and realized that every single one of them has been modified to better support his theories.

    As I said, it seems that all “facts” listed in the books got the same treatment. That explains why real historians scoff at them – it is hard to take somebody seriously who has to invent things in order to support his claims.

  262. gT says:
    @Anon

    Nice diversionary attempt, but Communism was most definitely a Jewish attempt to take over the world. Virtually all the early communist upper hierarchy in Russia in the 1917 Revolution were Jewish. Trotsky’s (real name Lev Davidovich Bronshtein) plan was international communism.

    And Jews are still wrongheaded today, their Islamic-style Jihad mentality is still evidenced via Zionism and their attempt to root all the Palestinians out of Palestine, though they are encountering tough resistance in precisely those same areas even the Crusaders couldn’t resolve in their time, like the Gaza strip.

    Jewish thinking hasn’t changed one bit in thousands of years, if one tactic doesn’t work for them they try another, sometimes multiple tactics at the same time, but alas, just like their Communist warping of Socialism didn’t succeed in World domination, neither will their NeoCon warping of Capitalism succeed in World domination, and their Zionism can’t survive with a strong Syria and Iran in the vicinity.

  263. @KenH

    Historian Christer Bergstrom claims the Axis forces outnumbered the Soviets by 4.5 million to 2.3 million at the start of Barbarossa. https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/operation-barbarossa-9-popular-myths-busted/

    • Replies: @KenH
  264. utu says:

    From 2014 interview with Suvorov (real/fake?)

    https://charter97.org/en/news/2014/11/28/128451/

    The writer gives a very critical estimate of Vladimir Putin, who is a threat to the world, according to the writer.

    Viktor Suvorov has totally disagreed with the evaluation of Russia’s president as “a brilliant strategist”.

    - Where are signs of a genius here? Where are achievements? There is oil, gas, gold, uranium, aluminium here. Everything is present here, and the country is dying. Yes, he is really a genius, — the Russian writer says ironically

    However, Viktor Suvorov has some more serious terms of reproach against Vladimir Putin. I the conversation he recalls blasts of residential buildings in Russia, which 15 years ago were a pretext for incursion into Chechnya, as well as demolition of Malaysian plane in Ukraine.

    - Putin has blood on his hands. He is immersed in blood completely. These were awful crimes, which cannot be forgiven, — the writer says.

    Viktor Suvorov does not believe that Vladimir Putin will be able to restore the empire. On the contrary, the writer is convinced that Russia faces disintegration, and its president – removal from power. A continuing economic and social degradation confirm that.

    - A speedy decline of Russia is going on. A surprising coup or its unanticipated break-up into parts could happen any moment. It won’t outstay longer than a year, — Viktor Suvorov adds.

    According to the former Soviet military intelligence officer, despite the painful losses, Kyiv is going to overcome the Russian-Ukrainian crisis and fight through every hardship.

    - Ukraine has already won strategically, as the nation has awakened, — Suvorov summed up.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  265. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Jumping from the wooden tower (few storeys high, with the rope) doesn’t make you a paratrooper. Such towers were installed in many parks, for amusement of the youth. If we count all of them as paratroopers (you jump, they give you a certificate) we may certainly have 1 mln paratroopers. And if you get a teddy bear for being good at the park’s shooting range, you will be the one from our 2 mln-strength sniper corps. And if you once ride a pony, welcome to the RED COSSACKS ARMY!

  266. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    Are you sufficiently knowledgeable about International Law from time to time over the last 150 years or so, and which countries acknowledged relevant parts of it (unlike China in the South China Sea for example) tp be able tp say that there were clear legal rights and wrongs in the old Czarist Empire’s territories circa 1918? When did the Bolshevik government back then have to be recognised, as a matter of law, as the lawful sovereign government of former Czarist territories (and which of them considering the number of escapes by Finland, Poland etc.)?

  267. Dan Hayes says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Reg Caesar:

    Unfortunately both Chronicles magazine and the Rockford Institute became more than physically shabby when Tom Fleming its long-time head was jettisoned.

    • Replies: @SOL
  268. @the Supreme Gentleman

    Yet, as far I know, there were very few major Soviet airborne operations even during the offensive stages of the war.

    First of all, read your own Glantz. He writes (I stole this off of Wikipedia, admittedly)

    “After the extensive airborne activity during the winter campaign of 1941–42, [the] airborne forces underwent another major reorganization the following summer. Responding to events in southern Russia, where German troops had opened a major offensive that would culminate in the Stalingrad battles, the ten airborne corps, as part of the Stavka strategic reserves, deployed southward. Furthermore, the Stavka converted all ten airborne corps into guards rifle divisions to bolster Soviet forces in the south. Nine of these divisions participated in the battles around Stalingrad, and one took part in the defense of the northern Caucasus region.”

    Someone else in this thread linked Mark Solonin, a Russian historian. Most of his works have not been translated into English, and those that have been seem to have been translated by him, a bit roughly. But he adds to Rezin by making the point that Stalin both planned an aggressive war and over-estimated the capacity – especially morale – of his armed forces to fight.

    We will never know exactly, though, what plans Stalin made. Zhukov seems to have clearly lied in some of his memoirs, for example. This was a state built upon deceit for self-preservation and promotion. But luckily, Stalin loved the pretense of bureaucratic form – it was why he demanded confessions – even forged confessions – to back up his killings. So a surprising number of records remain. You just can’t trust any of the participants’ first-hand memoirs. Have to be scrupulous.

  269. j2 says:
    @Anon

    “Everyone knew war was inevitable, and Finnland was on the wrong side. Moving border is not taking over the country, no one thought of ruling and conquering. ”

    Maybe I have to comment. We have the Soviet plans and maps and the Soviet plan in the Winter War was to conquer the whole country. As for the before war offer of other area in Russian Karelia in compensation of the Karelian Isthmus close the Saint Petersburg, the countries, which agreed to such reasonable Soviet demands (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) were taken over by Soviets in a sort time. Finns did not want the same fate.

    Ron Unz, Thanks for an interesting article and setting up this site. I make some comments of the article and otherwise.

    Suvorov’s hypothesis was embraced by the former president of Finland, Mauno Koivisto, who in pension was studying war history and was a frequent visitor in the Finnish National Defence University (but I did not meet him ever). Based on this, the argument that the Soviet troops were in attack formation before the Operation Barbarossa is well founded (that, is I trust his research in this issue). Hitler was planning an attack (Finnish forces were ready for an attack before it was started, as our records show), but he had to hurry as the Soviets were also planning an attack. It is not known to me how far the Soviets intended to go in their attack in Central Europe. Their attack plans in Finland are known. They were stopped by Finnish coordinated artillery, so they had to abandon their plans. Artillery, even more than the difficult forest environment, lead to Soviet problems. Their attack did not proceed as planned and become far too expensive.

    Yet, for Hitler’s plans one needs to look at Mein Kampf. Hitler accepted the view that Germany needed colonies and that they would be from Eastern Europe (not Balkans or Turkey, but Baltics, Poland and Ukraine). Hitler also believed that international bankers tried to create another world war, but that it would be different than WWI and the Jews would suffer. All of this has lead me to think that for Hitler the main issue was pushing Jews out of Europe so that they would found Israel. Building a strong Germany or defeating Communism were only of minor concern to him. He knew the war was planned and Germany was to be the aggressor, but the main goal was Israel, as in the previous war Zionists had obtained a promise of a home land but Jews did not want to move there. What could have been Hitler’s reason for destroying Communism in Russia, in the land of Slavic untermenchen? Nothing, he would have let them suffer there. What was the reason for a war in the West? Only to collect the Jews. The attack to Poland was essential as the Jews were there. Jews were not put to ghettos because they dominated German economy. They were put to ghettos in all occupied countries because Hitler’s task was to collect them and to move them, not to Madagaskar, but to Palestine, only to Palestine.

    • Replies: @Anon
  270. @1RW

    Just remember, that Finland owes nothing to the West either.

    The real fun – from a Finnish perspective – starts when Russia decides to invade Europe. We are not going to lift a finger to defend Europe. Officers know where Finland’s ‘new’ borders are if that happens. Sweden and Norway will be Russia’s new neighbors, so it will be their responsibility to defend Europe.

    Finland will defend only Finland and stay neutral, just like the West did in WW2. Funny how US had a mega year in 1939-1940, due to the massive amount of weapons they sold to Soviet Union. We tried to buy weapons, but the American president told us how he is neutral and does not want to get involved…

    Stalin suffered a massive moral defeat and he knew it. Both Stalin and Hitler complained, because foreign people were furious over the attack to Finland and the lack of help we got.

    It didn’t sit well with their PR-image, hence Russia suffered a major defeat. And that is why you get to read Stalin’s and the Western Coalition’s ‘official facts’ about the Winter War.

    Lol, when Finns had to bury the masses of killed Soviets they tried to offer the Russian bodies to Soviet Union. But SU said that they will only take 250.000 bodies, because according to the official agenda that was all the fighting Russians in the Finnish War.

    So we had to bury the rest of them, around 750.000.

    The West likes only to talk about how They helped the Finns, taking our credit to themself. Which infurates every Finn, because we know exactly what kind of ‘aid’ we got from the West.

    Finns are now prepared for a new invasion. All male Finns know their exact duties in wartime and they spend months in the forests during their conscription. Without food or comfort. Every year all regiments arrange a ‘final war’, loppusota, where they are put into a test and evaluated according to their behaviour. Funny thing is, that foreigners usually quit the army a.s.a.p., the Finnish army is too tough for them.

    So you can think about who Finland trusts today, and also ponder if we are trained to stop an invasion from the West, in co-operation with Russia. Can you take us?:

    • Replies: @Anon
  271. kikl says:

    There exists another book that supports Suvorov’s Thesis.

    The author is former Communist General of the East German Army who was trained in the Soviet Union, peaks Russian fluently, Bernd Schwipper. He received a PHD in military science. The book is called “Germany in Stalin’s vizor”, or “Deutschland im Visier Stalins”.

    Unfortunately, the book is out of print. If you can get a used copy and read German, then I highly recommend it. The evidence is so overwhelming.

    https://www.amazon.de/Deutschland-Visier-Stalins-europ%C3%A4ischen-vergleichende/dp/3806112495

    The book was reviewed by one of the most prestigious German Newspapers, FAZ, and naturally, it was heavily criticized. The rest of the mainstream press chose to remain silent.

    This is a talk that Schwipper’s held:

  272. @FKA Max

    My late Grand-dad was the person, who secretly recorded the Hitler-Mannerheim -discussion. We were told about his heroic act, how the SS-officers nearly killed him when they found him recording the discussion, how an agreement was made, that the tape is sealed for 50 years etc.

    But Grand-dad had taken a copy of the tape – while recording the discussion. We always knew about the tape in our house, but nobody thought it was a big deal. As a child it was more interesting to hear about how Hitler’s plane nearly exploded when landing in Finland, how Hitler’s PR-department went to lengths to erase the incident from photographers films, how pissed Mannerheim was when Hitler arrived – uninvited – to his Birthday, probably even more pissed when hearing Hitler suddenly ‘defend’ Finland in the private conversation; you can hear on the tape how strained and irritated Mannerheim is. And of course we children loved to look at all the photos taken that day, especially the decorated trainwagon (Grand-dad hid the microphone near the ceiling and recorded outside).

    We had no choice back then, Finland was either going to be occupied by Germany or given free passage to Soviet Union. Mannerheim did was what best for the small Finnish population. Stalin was also going to occupy us.

    Dad told me a few years ago, when I asked him why we allied with Hitler, with sadness and sorrow; “Germany was the only nation that was helping us. The only nation.”

    But Mannerheim warned Hitler, that if the Germans touch even one Jew in Finland, Finns will chase the Germans out of Finland. Hitler was forced to comply with the demand. Mannerheim wanted to shove it up in the face of Germans soldiers, by ordering Finnish Jews to stay next to the German soldiers. German soldiers watched when Jews held prayers in their ‘field synagogas’, but did not touch them.

    Another thing; The Finnish Intelligence Service had intel from months prior to Hitler’s attack, that Stalin was sending weapons and troops to the Finnish border, gearing up for an imminent attack. Railroads were built and the trains went back and forth 24/7, so we also knew that Stalin was again going to attack Finland, this time wipe us out completely.

    I could rant about this forever, it is not often the tape of Hitler and Mannerheim is discussed on forums ;)

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @j2
    , @FKA Max
  273. Mike P says:
    @Tyrion 2

    What I meant is that the Soviet troops which the Germans initially encountered had been deployed in preparation for an imminent attack; they had not been digging in, erecting fortifications, or distributing artillery in expectation of a German attack.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  274. Mike P says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Jumping from an airplane may not be the most taxing part, but a necessary one; and it probably would also have been the bottleneck in the training of large numbers. The shooting and other parts of the training could be done on the ground.

    I’m not saying that this kind of training was comparable to that of German or British paratroopers; I was merely trying to make sense of this fantastically large number of Soviet “paratroopers” that is being bandied about.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  275. @szopen

    In Wikipedia you can see the Western-Russian propaganda in full colours. – and how the winners (The Western Coalition and Soviet Union) get the priviledge of re-writing history, so that it suits them.

    I really really recommend watching these clips if you want to know what really happened in the Finno-Russo Winter War in 1939:

    FIRE AND ICE: 1-4

  276. @utu

    “Lack of interest can be explained by the fact that Suvorov’s theories are considered to be outright scientific fraud by many historians.”

    Well, that settles it, then.

  277. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Mike P

    I think the tighter bottleneck would be physical fitness and fieldcraft.

    For example, working out where you have landed at night using a map is a crucial skill for someone in that role.

    Even a basic classroom-based resection can be frustratingly difficult for many to learn.

    Factor in stress, lack of light, wetness and a lot weight being carried and it is not something that comes to most easily. Even wih months of instruction.

    Trained, professional infanteers continually get lost during simple night navigation exercises on known and friendly ground.

    I suspect if this Russian bloke wasn’t just making stuff up to sell a lot of books like the Da Vinci Code then the Russian definition of paratrooper was basically any idiot they could throw out of a plane and hope for the best.

  278. kikl says:

    Since there appear to be some Fins here , I think the secret recording of Hitler’s discussion with the Finish General Mannerheim is quite enlightening.

    Hitler is not entirely honest, because he has to conceal why Germany initially didn’t help Finland after Stalin’s attack on Finland, namely the secret protocol of the Hitler-Stalin pact. Mannerheim probably knew about this.

    Nevertheless, the document shows Hitler’s reasons for attacking the USSR. He was convinced that Stalin was planning to attack him.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Anonymous
  279. Mike P says:
    @utu

    This is pretty much the conventional story of Stalin as the prevaricating bungler.

  280. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dmitry

    You are Russian, the argument that he was mostly ignored was made about Anglosphere sources.

  281. JMcG says:
    @the Supreme Gentleman

    It’s not often the case, but I’m sure. The 101st was reorganized as airmobile in the 60s and Air Assault in the 70’s. They were allowed to keep the Airborne flash over the divisional patch because they ride to battle in helicopters. After all, many units of the original airborne divisions were transported by glider.
    They are not permitted to wear the red beret of paratroop formations.
    Wikipedia is an ok source in this case.

  282. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Mike P

    That makes sense but since in contemporary warfare you may switch between offensive and defensive operations as much as a few times a day, I don’t think it would greatly disadvantage them.

    Now, if they were not operationally ready at all, that’d make a big difference.

  283. Mike P says:
    @Lauri Törni

    I could rant about this forever,…

    Please do, it is not often that one can read about the war from the perspective of the smaller European countries, which had to try their best to survive the storm.

  284. Mike P says:
    @utu

    In your original post, you said:

    Why they did not create a meme of imminent Soviet attack that they had just preempted?

    A “meme” is not just a white paper. Wikipedia says “A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture.” What I was trying to point out is that the Germans had no way to start and spread “memes” outside their own population. If that is not what you meant, you should not have used this fashionable but often misused term.

    The Germans may not have documented the evidence of offensive Soviet strategy simply because, at the time, they did not expect an advantage from that. In the Katyn massacre situation, they probably had come to realise that they would lose the war if they could not somehow sway the Western allies to switch sides, so the propaganda effort was back on. In any case, since several military researchers have independently confirmed from the Soviet archives that indeed the Soviet’s own plans in 1941 had been offensive, the question of German messaging about it carries little weight.

    • Replies: @L.K
  285. j2 says:
    @Lauri Törni

    I have several times heard of this tape (done without Hitler’s knowlege) of the discussion between Mannerheim and Hitler. I was told that Hitler talks with normal voice and does not appear insane at all. Is this true, Lauri Törni (how do I know this name, and it was not one million Russians killed in the Winter War, see Ohto Manninen’s books, they are correct, I knew him, reliable). But le me add as many people believe the mass media, both attacks by Soviets to Finland first made a breakthrough, but then were stopped, so Soviets could not occupy the whole country in either time. It was not kindness by the Soviets that Finland was not occupied.

    • Replies: @Lauri Törni
  286. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lauri Törni

    when Russia decides to invade Europe

    Dear, that ship has sailed. Russia would not invade the rest of Europe. There is nothing in non-Russian Europe that we Russians do not have at home, and in larger quantities. Next time we will simply obliterate everyone. Knowing this, just relax. There is a Russian joke: Belgium? What Belgium, we have already pressed the button!

  287. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    We have the Soviet plans and maps and the Soviet plan in the Winter War was to conquer the whole country. As for the before war offer of other area in Russian Karelia in compensation of the Karelian Isthmus close the Saint Petersburg, the countries, which agreed to such reasonable Soviet demands (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) were taken over by Soviets in a sort time. Finns did not want the same fate.

    You may speak of the operative plans with borders of maximal Soviet troop advancement, but not of the plans to take over Finnland and terminate its independence. Finns were headed by fascist anti-Russian and anti-Soviet general Mannerheim, wore swastikas like Nazis and had their plans for ‘Greater Finland’ including St-Petersburg and Murmansk. The malignancy of Finnish nationalist state was evident, and one can see why France and England were reluctant to send help. As for Baltic states, taking them over was a right thing before the German invasion – the border was moved to the West, and Russia was saved. Any literate person familiar with Tolstoy, Gagarin or Mendeleev understands that it is absolutely immaterial, how many Estonians, Latvians etc. may be sacrificed to keep Russia on the map.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  288. The Suvorov controversy is something I lived with from the times of being a graduate student of Russian History at Princeton. I attended many conferences in Germany and Russia on this subject. The most powerful part of Suvorov’s argument is the structure of Soviet forces, the positioning of tanks and air force on the border. However, that is not enough to produce a thesis that Stalin wanted to invade and conquer all of Europe. It suffices to suggest that he may have considered offensive operations in Germany.
    There are many arguments that weaken Suvorov’s thesis. I shall start with the one that strengthens it.
    At Princeton I studied under Professor Robert Tucker who wrote a three volumes psychological biography of Stalin. Tucker argues that Stalin throughout the 1930s had what could be called ideal scenario of the coming war: That is that France and Germany exhaust each other, in a replay of WW1 and then Soviet troops would plunge into Germany and make not conquest but Communist revolution.
    That was the dream not reality. The big blow to that dream was the defeat of France in June 1940. According to Tucker, Stalin did not know what to do next. He was scared of Hitler by this point, as getting too powerful.
    Another factor that you omit entirely but the one that had enormous influence on both Stalin and Hitler is the Soviet Finnish war of end of 1939 and early 1940. It was a total disaster for the Soviets and it was that war that convinced Hitler that the Germans could defeat the Red Army easily.
    The Finnish war showed world war one riffles, enormous casualties of hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops. A million and half is the largest estimate I read about. Stalin knew about Soviet performance in the Finnish campaign and he knew he was not ready to attack Germany even if he wanted or hoped to do that.
    Another factor that no one is taking into account is German Polish relations. Everybody is plain silent on this subject. What I know is that the Poles offered to the Germans territorial concessions and in Germany there were plans to enlist Poland as an ally against Soviet Russia. Stalin may have known about these plans and offers.
    In other words outward offensive structure of Soviet army does not in itself prove Stalin;s intention or a plan of action especially in view of collapse of France and Soviet defeat in Finland.
    And finally it is common knowledge among historians of the war preceding Suvorov thesis that the field commanders in the Red army on the eve of the war had all orders to –transfer hostilities to emery territory. This is a widely known fact. This most likely has to do not with a grand plan to conquer Europe but with a replay of August 1914. In August 1914 Russian troops crossed the East Prussian border and at first had a serious success that could have led to a loss of East Prussia to the Russians. The Colonel Ludendorf showed his military genius and overturned the tables on the Russians and won the campaign and then the war on the Eastern front. The Russians remembered the lesson and prepared much better the second time and may have contemplated a much better prepared attack on East Prussia this time around.

    • Replies: @kikl
    , @Anon
  289. There is a significant difference between the work of a professional historian and history written by non-historians. The historian starts with the evidence and allows that to determine the conclusion; whereas, the non-historian starts with the hypothesis, selects the evidence which supports it and the hypothesis morphs into the conclusion.

  290. There has always been the speculation that, with these two powerful states and two ruthless dictators, it was just a matter of time before one attacked the other. But that was speculation. The fact is Hitler literally felt himself destined to invade Russia, and Stalin had a gigantic job on his hands inside the USSR.

    There is no evidence that Stalin was planning to invade Europe. None.

    Stalin had enough problems at home without setting out on any fantastic venture, a venture which, by the way, would have brought him into direct conflict with the United States, which would never allow Europe to go under, just as it did not allow it to go under the Germans in WWI.

    Not only that, but an invasion by Stalin would give the United States an excuse it would welcome to end the Soviet Union.

    Stalin was actually in many ways a far more cautious man than many realize. Even though the USSR at this time had some of the world’s best spy networks abroad, owing to idealistic motivations of some educated foreigners in the 1930s, Stalin was so cautious, he often rejected really good intelligence brought to him for fear it was planted.

    He was always ready to take advantage of a favorable opportunity right before his eyes, but he wasn’t one to go seeking titanic new problems abroad. Russia, for example, had had enough problems in its war with Finland, a comparatively small, but very tough and determined, country.

    Stalin did fully understand that Hitler would one day attack – how could he not with Hitler always talking of it? – and he prepared for it. His preparations were part of what stopped Hitler. German intelligence much underestimated the extent of things like Soviet armor reserves.

    Under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, a treaty which surprised the world in 1939, Stalin worked very hard to deliver on promises and any shipments of resources Germany requested. It looked odd to be assisting the enemy you expected would invade one day, but Stalin was buying time, time to keep intense preparations going for the eventual invasion.

    Stalin had massive reserves of tanks in the East. They weren’t the best quality, as compared to Germany’s best stuff, but they proved to more than make up for the fact in their sheer numbers. Some of the Germans’ most sophisticated equipment proved difficult and costly to maintain and repair – and especially given long supply lines and winter – whereas some of the Soviet equipment could almost be viewed as disposable.

    We know Hitler’s single biggest dream was always – going clear back to writing “Mein Kamp”’ in the 1920s – the conquest of Russia. He basically saw it as an act which could make Germany competitive with the United States in terms of amount of agrarian lands and bigger markets and space in which to grow in the long term.

    He only got entangled in many of the conquests in Europe – apart from the early consolidation of Germany with re-occupying the Rhineland and seizing Czechoslovakia and the merger with Austria – because western leaders were not willing to give him a free hand with his dream mission.

    By the way, if he had stopped at this early stage of consolidating a larger Germany, he might have gone down as one of the great German Chancellors, one who successfully enlarged Germany in the very heart of Europe, but, no, there was always the fantastic dream of Russia and new lands in the East. He actually did see himself as on a kind of mystical Teutonic religious crusade.

    His diplomacy, over and over emphasized to the West, that they should allow Germany to move East and crush Communism, and his view did have supporters in the West. Remember, countries like Britain and the United States actually had sent some troops to Russia to intervene in the early days of the USSR. They were inadequate and unsuccessful, but the effort reveals the hostility the West felt. A hostility Hitler constantly tried to exploit.

    But the prospect, some years down the road, of facing such an enlarged Germany was not a welcome one for many leaders in the West.

    Hitler had nightmarish notions of clearing large parts of Russia for Germans and reducing Russian populations to mass slavery to serve the Reich. His visions were on such a scale that, even if he had been given a free hand, likely in the end, he would have created a mess. What a vast population and territory to try holding in subjugation and slavery.

    What the author has effectively done here is to revive the Hitlerian argument to the West about Russia. That seems most unfortunate, but of course it comes at a time of intense American anti-Russian hysteria.

    If readers want a little background on what the invasion actually did, see:

    https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/john-chuckman-comment-russian-victory-day-parade-ignorantly-called-defiant-russias-wwii-experience-has-no-parallel-in-all-human-history-dwarfing-american-and-french-and-british-losses-now-a/

  291. Sorry, Ron, but there is nothing true in Suvorov theory.
    Russians and Stalin were completely surprised.
    See General Piotr Grigorenko book ” Memoirs “, he was there, Suvorov was not.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  292. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    anti-Russian … Mannerheim

    You’re not all that familiar with Mannerheim, are you?

    Any literate person familiar with Tolstoy, Gagarin or Mendeleev understands that it is absolutely immaterial, how many Estonians, Latvians etc. may be sacrificed to keep Russia on the map

    OK.

    Look, you seem to be well-informed about Russia. When you stick to what you know you contribute really valuable information.

  293. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Steve Hayes

    There is a significant difference between the work of a professional historian and history written by non-historians. The historian starts with the evidence and allows that to determine the conclusion; whereas, the non-historian starts with the hypothesis, selects the evidence which supports it and the hypothesis morphs into the conclusion.

    Some professional historians have done what you claim of non-historians. One doesn’t have to necessarily be a professional historian to provide a more accurate accounting.

    A number of academic settings have subjective influences as noted:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/10/11/slanting-against-russia-us-establishment-pastime.html

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/12/countering-anti-russian-propaganda.html

    Thomas Weber qualifies as a professional historian. He’s by no means alone.

  294. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    I’m certainly not going to travel to Moscow to check the archives

    There’s the difference between the history buff and the historian. A historian, Barbara Tuchman held, should not cite another historian, they should go to the source and make their own judgement, taking into account the mass of detail that primary research reveals.

  295. @j2

    You probably know the name Lauri Törni from Larry Thorne? He was a Finnish war hero, hated communists, went to fight with the Germans after Finland’s wars, was deemed a ‘war criminal’ by Soviet Union, Britain, France and US. Brits captured him, sent him to jail. He escaped from the jail twice, fled to Sweden, went to US – he jumped off the boat and swam to the shore – worked as a carpenter and lived in the Finnish community in New York. Other Finnish ‘war criminals’ who had fled to the US and were hired by the US Army, talked him into joining them.

    He changed his name to Larry Thorne and began teaching US Green Berets about guerilla warfare. From a Finn’s perspective the training was normal training in the Finnish Army, but not in US. Larry was probably pretty famous in the US Army, especially among the special forces?

    Finns remember him to this day – as Lauri Allan Törni. He was a real badass during the Winter War, he was in command of the Detachment Unit, these guys operated behind the enemy lines. I’m proud to say, that our former president Mauno Koivisto was in Lauri Törni’s unit during the war. Törni accepted only the toughest guys in his unit. He never told about the unit’s mission, because if one of them was captured by Russians, he couldn’t rat them out.

    As for the Hitler-tape again, as a kid I always thought it was Mannerheim who spoke with a voice full of honey and Hitler with the harder voice (I didn’t understand German at the time). It was only later when I found out, that it was Hitler who talked with the voice of honey.

    And when listening to Hitler’s normal voice – which was forbidden to be recorded by anyone – it is clear that he uses it to manipulate the listener. He was practically having his own monologue, selling his agenda – without even having the decency to apologize for his own role in the Winter War.

    Finns were forbidden to even discuss about the war, all veterans had to destroy or hide their diaries and photos. Hence their wounds were passed on from generation to generation, without anyone ever giving a name to it.

    Most of the veterans woke up screaming every night until they passed away. They relived the horrors from night to night. They were forced to commit a massacre in order to keep their families and homes and homeland free from invaders. After that they were treated as ‘war criminals’, for defending their country.

    There are heartbreaking stories, how the veterans talked about the war in a sauna and cried. One young veteran broke to tears when he said: “I saw a Russian’s eyes before killing him”.

    As for authors, even Finnish authors, one cannot trust them. They are selling a narrative, not the truth.

    Here is one soldier’s diary from the Winter War, which gives only his perspective during the war, but it is a truthful perspective:

    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=214544

    • Replies: @Wally
  296. Che Guava says:

    Mr. Unz,

    You make a better sumamary of Suvorov’s claims than any other I have read. I suspect, from the timing that you mention, that you were first reading of them on the same supposedly disreputable site as I.

    An article from a round table exchange among the Saker, Andrei Martynov, and Anatoly Karlin on this topic would be very interesting, but doubt that any but Andrei would be willing, although all would know of the writing, or have read it.

    American Pravda, this has little to do with America, so not a good classification.

    Historical Pravda?

    One point that at least one among several hundreds may have raised, Suvorov’s narrative explains why an, at that time still rational in the sense of strategic thinking, Hitler, already with trouble bailing out the Italian adventure in the Balkans if I recall the sequence correctly, would move against the USSR at that specific time without a sense of imminent threat.

    The standard narrative is that he was simply a fool.

    Could write many more relevant words, but thread too long, nobody will read, so stoppimg here.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Ron Unz
    , @Anatoly Karlin
  297. ohmy says:

    It is refreshing to read this essay as the topic of WW2 needs breathing room along with critical historical reviewing. Previously the only material I have found which bolsters Suvorov’s theory was at CODAH.com. It’s funny how I feel a slight cringe of guilt every time I visit CODAH. Less so with the Unz Review. That the information contained herein remains available at all, and to a growing public audience, is also refreshing.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  298. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Suverov’s book sold by the million, but only in post-Soviet Russia. Why? Because it Russians wanted an explanation of the horrors of the Soviet era, and that, Suvorov’s book provided.

    Stalin was not a genius who saved the nation, so Suvorov’s book revealed, but a brutal tyrant too dumb even to avoid being double crossed by the intended victim of his own double cross.

    By thus portraying Stalin not as the wise, if stern, father of the nation, but an incompetent scoundrel, Suvorov provided hope that under the great and gloriously drunk Yeltsin, Russia had finally embarked on a more secure and prosperous future.

  299. kikl says:
    @Vladimir Brovkin

    “The most powerful part of Suvorov’s argument is the structure of Soviet forces, the positioning of tanks and air force on the border. However, that is not enough to produce a thesis that Stalin wanted to invade and conquer all of Europe.”

    You forget the type of weapons – offensive weapons – the concentration of the troops, the numerical and technical superiority in particular in term of tanks, the Russian maps of German territory as well as the guides for speaking in German with the local population given to the soldiers. The secrecy that was used to deploy these troops. The airfields in proximity of the border… It goes on and on and on and on…

    None of this makes any sense if the Russians were planning to defend themselves against a German surprise attack. They were planning to fight on German territory.

    For a military analyst, all of this information is sufficient in order to deduce the intentions of the Soviet leadership, they were planning to attack Germany.

  300. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Vladimir Brovkin

    Except with the stuff about Poland which no longer existed in 1941 you make very good points.

  301. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Che Guava

    Is it possible that Hitler was wrongly convinced Stalin was about to invade immediately? Most of the evidence that is real that Rezun has gathered would probably have been available to him. I don’t advance this theory as true, I’m just throwing it out because I don’t know if it has been brought up.

    The other thing that surprises me is the way the Soviets were blindsided by the German attack. Wasn’t the Soviet intelligence system superb? I know about the Sorge ring of course but there must have been other sources of information– weren’t the Soviets often available to provide precise information on targets they wanted the Western Allies to bomb? There is something I’m missing here.

    • Replies: @kikl
    , @Che Guava
  302. kikl says:
    @Anon

    “The other thing that surprises me is the way the Soviets were blindsided by the German attack. Wasn’t the Soviet intelligence system superb?”

    Really? We do not know anything about the German intelligence other than that it was really bad. The reason for this is probably that any successful German intelligence operation has been cleansed from the records and files by the allies.

    How could Stalin be fooled by Hitler?

    1. Stalin believed that Hitler would never open a second front and fight the UK and USSR simultaneously. That would be insane. Hitler would defeat the UK before trying to attack the USSR. Sounds like common sense, doesn’t it?

    2. Hitler sent several personal letters to Stalin secretly informing him about his plan to launch a large scale attack on the British Isles in the summer of 1941. Any troops concentrated close to the Soviet border were merely meant to deceive the British that he was planning to attack the USSR.

    Stalin fell for this lie. The evidence for the existence of these letter is mentioned on page 375 of “Deutschland im Visier Stalins” by Bernd Schwipper. Schwipper is quoting from Igor Bunitsch, Operation GROSA and Lenski, the land forces of the Soviet Union…

  303. Unzerker says:
    @Thirdeye

    Most of the Soviet tanks were obsolete T-26es

    Outdated: yes. Obsolete: definitely not.

    The T-26 was an excellent all-round light tank from the thirties. For the time it combined good mobility, decent armor and an outstanding 45 mm gun. Even in 1941 that 45 mm gun could take out almost any German tank.

    The T-26 failure has more to do with the way they were deployed and the lack of maintenance than the quality of the tank itself.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  304. Ron Unz says:
    @Che Guava

    American Pravda, this has little to do with America, so not a good classification.

    But one of my central points was the fact that although the remarkable Suvorov Hypothesis has been massively debated almost everywhere else in the world for nearly thirty years, it was been totally ignored by the media in America and other English-speaking countries, so much so that virtually no one here has ever heard of it. I consider myself a very well-read individual, and if not for my happening to stumble across that lone review in a small-circulation magazine, I certainly would have remained completely unaware. That’s the “American Pravda” angle in my title.

    However, I probably should have made this point much more explicitly in my article.

    • Replies: @kikl
    , @Anonymous
    , @Che Guava
  305. Wally says:
    @Lauri Törni

    said:
    And when listening to Hitler’s normal voice – which was forbidden to be recorded by anyone – it is clear that he uses it to manipulate the listener. ”

    So, is that why there are recordings of Hitler’s normal voice?

    You watch too many ‘movies’.

    I agree though, war is hell.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Lauri Törni
  306. Arioch says:

    It is funny that Rezun/Suvorov got mentioned here.
    Just few days ago it was mentioned in the comments at http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/05/was-gehlen-a-fraud-by-patrick-armstrong.html

    Granted, the original “Icebraker” was deconstructed line by line and found to be, at best, a collection of rumours Solzhenytsyn-style. But it is in Russian.

    Personally, I remember Rezun’s later books, where he described Soviet/Japanese clashes at Khalkin Gol, and he “calculated” the total fuel consumption as mere ration of the distance (from Moscow to the battle area) to the average track fuel rate. IOW the trucks for him had unlimited capacity, capable to carry 10 times more fuel that their own weight, plus carrying military equipment. Guess at that time Rezun just went totally lazy.

    BTW, critics say that Poland had plans and dispositions to “attack Germany” too.
    Just a geist of times, everyone was sre of their superiority, so they envisioned enemies easily defeated by board guards and then the Plans of offensive revenge would be enacted.

    > it was been totally ignored by the media in America and other English-speaking countries, so much so that virtually no one here has ever heard of it

    This is remarkable, maybe. Because Rezun was writing for the English benefactors.

    I can only think that the primary goal for Anglosphere is “saving private Ryan”. Anglocitizens should have no hint of suspense, that UK+USA effort in WW2 was not the only one worth mentioning. Unless they visit Europe and do it with attention to learn the background and culture, not to mere take selfies at iconic places, americans don’t even have a nidea how many people perished in Europe then.

    So, my guess is that Rezun’s books are for export, and are perhaps a “Plan B” for those marginal in Anglosphere, that by some chance learn there was Eastern Front not only Western one..

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  307. kikl says:
    @Ron Unz

    I wouldn’t say that it has been “massively debated” in Germany. It has indeed been debated in Germany a lot in closed circles behind doors. But, the public debate goes like this:

    1. Conspiracy Theory;
    2. Hitler apologist;
    3. Nazi;
    4. Absurd,
    5. Disproved a thousand times, …

    The people who do debate these matters are a small minority. The mainstream deals with this unpleasant issue by smearing the debaters.

    The knowledge of this is very gradually moving to the mainstream. There is one German historian who is member of the conservative party “Alternative fuer Deutschland”, who has published small booklets on this matter. These short books sum up the arguments in a very concise and convincing manner. “Stefan Scheil”;

    https://www.amazon.de/Stefan-Scheil/e/B001K1V9CG

    But, all of this is still a large taboo. Hardly anyone dares to talk about this in public although it has not yet been outlawed to question the official version of world war II.

  308. Arioch says:

    Napoleonic Wars BTW show that Russia is worse to Eurpeans in war tactics, but is better with strategy.

    > The Russians initially suffered gigantic losses, and only the onset of winter and the vast spaces of their territory saved them from a quick defeat.

    “only” implies that normally there is some other Russia, without winters and spaces. I wonder where there is one?…

    Alternatively it implies that Soviets knew the size and climate at their lands – and accounted for it in their strategy. Was it wrong?

    And that Third Reich of Europe did not know it.
    Frankly, the later “Suicide” book of Rezun is exactly about that – about Hitler’s total lack of information which land he wants to conquer by “lightning war”, that Wehrmacht LITERALLY knew less about Ussr than German geography teachers in schools did.

    If you started your first dates with Rezun – find and read that book too.

    Before that you can do a simple calculation: calc the average speed Wehrmacht invasions featured in Europe and in USSR. Just calculate days/hours before Wehrmacht crossing the borders of state X and the shortest line from the X borderline to their capital city. Then divide distance by time.

    Suddenly, Wehrmacht’s speed in USSR was significantly less than in European states.
    So the whole idea of “their obsolete equipment and poor tactics” falls apart. It was not “only vast spaces” that mattered.

    Bluntly, while Red Army in 1941 performed poorly comparing to Wehrmacht, it performed much better than ANY other Hitler’s opponent. So, why should had Stalin punish his generals?

    > Although the bulk of the Soviet armored forces were medium tanks like the T-28 and T-34….
    > The Soviets had produced a remarkable line of light BT tanks, easily able to shed their tracks and continue on wheels

    Funny. The said T-34 is actually the next model in BT line.
    Many european armies then were toying with wheeled tanks. Reason was simple – no one knew how to produce reliable tracks. So less tracks – less problems.

    USA still does – see Stryker. Sweden made such tanks in 1960-s. Sweden prepared to conquer the world?

    > such wheeled operation was only effective on paved highways

    ….except that in 1930-s hundred of BT tanks rode on wheels through the vast flat steppes with no roads at all. Yes, they had jobs inside USSR too.

    > almost 6,500 of these autobahn-oriented tanks

    The very concept of “autobahn-oriented tanks” stems from Rezun’s interpretation of “A-32″ project name of the T-34 tank. Rezun does not report that “A-xx” was the state designation of Kharkov Plant research projects. But Rezun readily reports the RUMOUR that “A-32″ name of T-34 tank means “autobahn”.

    So, just like Solzhenytsin, Rezun is collecting and reporting the rumors that fit his idee fixe. Or his benefactor’s one.

    > Continental conquerors from Napoleon to Hitler had been stymied by the barrier of the English Channel

    Fearporn for UK. After getting the Europe Stalin would have a lot more troubles to digest what he bitten that to diverge across the sea.

    > the Soviets deployed 4,000 of these amphibious tanks

    ….which almost all fallen to Hitler. Rezun himself shows photo of Hitler walking through the field full of T-37/T38 tankettes ( machine guns, tinfoil thin armor – they hardly were tanks ).

    So, if they were such a brilliant tool to invade and conquer UK – why did not Hitler used them?
    Maybe because UK sea fleet was so dominant that only submarines could survive in the seas, and them – by hiding, not by warring ?

    > many thousands of heavy tanks, intended to engage and defeat enemy armor, while the Germans had none at all. In direct combat, a Soviet KV-1 or KV-2 could easily destroy four or five of the best German tanks

    1) Many thousands of KV ??? O’RLY ????
    2) KV-2 is howitzer, not tank. It would be a funny experience to target a moving panzer with a mortar, twice so for “badly trained” soviet grunts.
    3) Europeans armies back then sternly supposed to avoid tank vs tank clashed and to deploy specialized tank destroyer corps.
    4) Sure, Pz.3 could not hit KV-1 – but it would just outrun it. Blitzkrieg is not about two heavy tanks starting bouncing one another. Blitzkrieg is about fast tanks circling around defense points (heavy tanks) and raiding into enemy’s backyard. Suddenly Rezun conveniently forgot what blitzkrieg is….

  309. @Wally

    I don’t know the reason why Hitler strictly forbid his normal voice ever to be recorded, but he did that.

    Wow, I have never googled it, but it is even mentioned in Wikipedia, lol:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_and_Mannerheim_recording

  310. @Arioch

    This is remarkable, maybe. Because Rezun was writing for the English benefactors.

    Or benefactors merely wrote it themselves using Rezun, who provides a rather grim, non-intellectual, impression as a figurehead. Excellent comment, finally. I recall Rezun also mentioning some matrices related to the movement of Soviet railroad transport which somehow “proved” that USSR was about to “invade”. As was expected-no matrices, numbers or methods of this mysterious mathematical proof were ever disclosed.

    So, my guess is that Rezun’s books are for export, and are perhaps a “Plan B” for those marginal in Anglosphere, that by some chance learn there was Eastern Front not only Western one..

    Not quite, albeit this too, I must, I have to go here with Glantz and House who long ago, from 1995 to 2015 editions of their seminal work defined consistently, and correctly, Rezun’s efforts as playing for the benefit of the so called Russia’s “liberals” in 1990s who would promote anything as long as it was serving discrediting Soviet Union and its system. Generally, Rezun is Solzhenitsyn but with military education. I deliberately omit here Russian supremely militarily and historically competent works on this issue.

    • Replies: @Arioch
    , @Arioch
  311. Arioch says:

    Suvorov recounts the example of a KV which took 43 direct hits before finally becoming incapacitated, surrounded by the hulks of the ten German tanks it had first managed to destroy.

    So we have clear evidence here that Hitler was not planning pan-European conquest because his soldiers were stupid, badly trained, and lacked the wonderwaffe equipment. At least if we would apply Rezun’s logic to himself.

    > However, the Soviets had at least 1,000,000 trained paratroopers

    …..and those very amphybious tankettes that Rezun said were made in thousands for English Channel crossing. However they were transported by the very same heavy bombers, that transported paratroopers.

    near-total air supremacy during the entire course of any conflict, an assumption plausible only if the German luftwaffe were destroyed on the ground by a surprise attack

    1. Then why USSR spent all the efforts to emergently hack together air fighters modelled after Bf-109? Let’s remember spring 1945. Germsny introduces turbojet fighters, a miracle! All allied piston-powered fighters became obsolete. And… Nothing. Because Allies had that air dominance those futuristic fighters became but high value prey to hunt in packs.

    2. Just revert to the prior quote from Rezun where he told USSR had few times more tanks and airplanes than Third Reich. Is it not enough to dominate skies? Remember UK and TR ocean fleets. UK had more ships and dominated the ocean. German ships no matter how large and advanved were hiding in harbours.

    So, even if “global air domination” was envisioned by Stalin – the sudden strike at airfields is not the only mean. And Stalin could hope for local domination, in the very few square miles where the mission is carried. IL-2 shoots the tanks and hive of LaGGs and MiGs dominates the air around them for an hour.

    There is considerable evidence that in the weeks prior to the German surprise attack, Stalin had ordered the release of many hundreds of thousands of Gulag prisoner

    And Solzhenytsyn says that was long after the war started, when Red Army collapsed and economy was bombed out or conquered by Third Reich invasion. So basically Kremlin had little food to feed those prisoners and their guards, while being very shory of cannon fodder. That explanation seems more reasonable.

    BTW the total amount of people arrested (for any crime or suspicion, including things like road traffic accidents) in those Great Purges of 1937/8 was about 1.5 million. So, hundreds of thousands in Gulag?.. BTW Solzhenytsyn is adamantly agains the concept of “1937 horrors”, he claims those years in Gulag were not special in numbets, instesd he claims those years saw initiators and perpetrators of Red Terror finally landed themselves in the camps they built for next door Joes in prior years. Neo-stalinists say the same, despite their contempt to Solzhenytsyn.

    > The planned invasion and occupation of a large country whose population speaks a different language requires considerable logistical preparation

    And Hitler run out of ammo and fuel just a week after he invaded Poland, Rezun claims. If not for Soviey reclamation of Cursone line, he argues, Hitler was already effectively defeated in Poland.

    This Rezun’s thesys leaves us two options.

    1. Third Reich with their Blitzkrieg fundamentalism could invade and conquer without logistics preparations.
    2. Third Reich did not invade Poland. It was Poland who attacked Germany but was defeated.

    Make your choice…

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  312. @Arioch

    Before that you can do a simple calculation: calc the average speed Wehrmacht invasions featured in Europe and in USSR. Just calculate days/hours before Wehrmacht crossing the borders of state X and the shortest line from the X borderline to their capital city. Then divide distance by time.

    BTW, Solzh did it in a number of his “works” in which he was lamenting “Wehrmacht covering hundred kilometers a day” on the heels of retreating Red Army. Obviously he never elaborated on the issue why it took this advancing Wehrmacht 4+ months to reach the gates of Moscow which was only about a 1000 kilometers from the Soviet Western border but I guess for all those “experts” such as Rezun or Solzh the issue of a momentum and of basic D=v*t (or t=D/v etc.) with the use of basic operational (or strategic) map measuring wheel is beyond their knowledge in a basic course of military topography.

    • Troll: L.K
  313. @Arioch

    Fearporn for UK. After getting the Europe Stalin would have a lot more troubles to digest what he bitten that to diverge across the sea.

    > the Soviets deployed 4,000 of these amphibious tanks

    ….which almost all fallen to Hitler. Rezun himself shows photo of Hitler walking through the field full of T-37/T38 tankettes ( machine guns, tinfoil thin armor – they hardly were tanks ).

    So, if they were such a brilliant tool to invade and conquer UK – why did not Hitler used them?
    Maybe because UK sea fleet was so dominant that only submarines could survive in the seas, and them – by hiding, not by warring ?

    Well, Rezun is “sapog” (sorry for that) and is not well-versed in even basics of naval operations, nor, obviously, he is well acquainted with details of Bolero or Overlord operation whose anniversary we all going to celebrate tomorrow. Should he have been even remotely acquainted with issues related to amphibious operations of such a scale he would have avoided writing strategic and operational delirium altogether, but this can not be changed.

  314. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Lauri Törni

    Amazing,

    your grandfather was Thor Damen?

    I just realized that yesterday was the 76th anniversary of that recording: https://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2018/06/04/hitlers-secretly-recorded-conversation-in-finland

    One of my godmothers is Finnish, their family is from Lahti, and Toni Nieminen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toni_Nieminen was one of my childhood idols :-)

    • Replies: @Lauri Törni
  315. Arioch says:

    Suvorov’s reconstruction of the weeks directly preceding the outbreak of combat is a fascinating one, emphasizing the mirror-image actions taken by both the Soviet and German armies

    Which he interpretes that Germany was mirroring USSR.
    However the real history shows USSR fatally and persistently lagged behind.
    So it was Germany leading this process, and USSR trying to catch up and emergently land preemptive blow against imminent and planned Third Reich invasion. And that is at best for Rezun’s theory.

    > The Soviet deployment had begun much earlier,

    Says Rezun after analyzing

    > the weeks directly preceding the outbreak of combat

    My, my….
    BTW does he mentiom that many Soviet artillery units were stripped of cannons two weeks before that outbreaks?

    > they were not yet quite ready for their attack when the Germans struck

    Hitler started paper planning Barbarossa in summer 1940
    According to Rezun, Stalin’s intelligence knew everything that Hitler (or Roosevelt, BTW) said and written.

    So, the whole year was not enough for Red Army to ready itself for the German strike?
    Rezun’s theses contradict one another here.

    > All of the above examples of Soviet weapons systems or strategic decisions seem very difficult to explain under the conventional defensive narrative

    1. Even if so, they do not say WHEN Stalin intended to strike. The said “autobahn” tanks, imcluding self-propelled mortar KV-2, were developed in 1939 and put to service in 1940. But USSR did not strike Germany in 1940.
    2. USSR indeed bragged how his army was “strongest from Taiga to British seas” and how it would trump over any enemy, like “falling down were the samurais under pressure of steel and fire”. So was saying Polish army. So says US army today. So what?

    • Replies: @kikl
  316. kikl says:

    “Bluntly, while Red Army in 1941 performed poorly comparing to Wehrmacht, it performed much better than ANY other Hitler’s opponent…”

    How many Soviet Armies were completely destroyed in a matter of months? The performance of the Red Army in 1941 was such a crushing defeat that it has no parallels in history.

    “Frankly, the later “Suicide” book of Rezun is exactly about that – about Hitler’s total lack of information which land he wants to conquer by “lightning war”, that Wehrmacht LITERALLY knew less about Ussr than German geography teachers in schools did.”

    Not really, the Wehrmacht wanted to prevent the Soviet troops concentrated on the German border from retreating into the vast Russian territories by encircling them. In this manner, the Red Army was supposed to be defeated without having to move the German forces all the way to Wladiwostok. That was never an option. But, this failed.

    “USA still does – see Stryker. Sweden made such tanks in 1960-s. Sweden prepared to conquer the world?” No, but Sweden has a dense network of paved roads where these vehicles make sense. The USSR didn’t.

    “….except that in 1930-s hundred of BT tanks rode on wheels through the vast flat steppes with no roads at all…” Vast flat terrain is also present in the low countries, Poland and Northern France. All theatres of war. Moving tanks on wheels across “flat steppes” is not effective at all.

    Let me quote Wikipedia:

    “The BT tanks were “convertible tanks”. This was a feature designed by J. Walter Christie to reduce wear of the unreliable tank tracks of the 1930s. In about thirty minutes, the crew could remove the tracks and engage a chain drive to the rearmost road wheel on each side, allowing the tank to travel at very high speeds on roads. In wheeled mode, the tank was steered by pivoting the front road wheels. Soviet tank forces soon found the convertible option of little practical use; in a country with few paved roads, it consumed space and added needless complexity and weight. The feature was dropped from later Soviet designs.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_tank

    So the Russians built thousands of tanks and didn’t recognize that they were practically useless on their terrain? Hmmmm…

    • Replies: @Arioch
    , @Arioch
  317. Arioch says:

    Now the last point, and most important one.

    Ron Unz says he was shocked and inspired how a topic important and well known around the world is efficiently and uniformly shunned in 5 Eyes nations.

    Having that said he instantly forgets about it and spends rest of the article retelling key points of “Icebreaker” about how USSR was attacking Germany and how Germany was defending itself by mirroring Soviet actions ( but not other way around, of course ).

    Interesting that so does Rezun himself.

    He claims that he was shocked and inspired that USSR constructed nazism in Germany since early 1930-s in order to destroy “free world” by proxy. Yet his book, after that being said, forgets this announced primary claim and focuses on detailing few last years before 1941. Rezun in details discusses how USSR and Third Reich were or were not preparing to their final battle. He assesses who was doing it voluntarily and who was defending themselves. He collects rumours and entertain reader with jokes (and he does great, he is a talented fiction writer!).

    What Rezun however skips completely was his initial claim that Hitler was created for Stalin with the specific far-reaching purpose.

    Indeed, UK and France are universally blamed for Phoney War. That they did not invaded Germany.
    Then why should we blame USSR if it planned to do exactly that???

    Rezun claims that Hitler suddenly awoke to having strong agressive neighbor and started preparing offensive war to preempt it.
    Let’s just mirror Rezun and say that Stalin suddenly awoke to having strong agressive neighbor and started preparing offensive war to preempt it.

    And all the pathos of the Icebreaker falls to pieces.

    What Rezun did was very talentedly diverting reader’s attention from the made claim into tangent details, interesting and thrilling per se but rarely relevant to the claim he makes.
    A confidence trick… Masterfully executed.

    BTW, when Hitler invaded France in 1940 – he literally was repelling French agression: France did declared war on Germany, not other way around. And by reacting to France’s war Hitler proved he is bad boy and uncalled bully.

    At the same token, when Hitler year later pledged war on USSR which, apart from France, did not declared war on Germany, he suddenly is a good boy defending his people. Go figure…

    • Replies: @utu
  318. @WHAT

    Thanks, I have Clark’s book but haven’t had the time to read it yet. Maybe I read it soon. I have read other books about WWI. The book by Douglas Newton, The Darkest Days is very interesting and I think that it’s a very important book. I know that meanwhile we understand WWI much better. That was not my point. I was only talking generally about the difficulty of discussing such themes. One of the reasons for that is the fact that access to archives isn’t always so easy and in some cases some documents are simply not available like the ones about the talks between the French and the Russians before WWI. Neither the Russians nor the French kept them very safely. The surprising fact about WWI is that in the last years our understanding of the war changed so much after almost a 100 years. How is this possible? And what does this mean in relation to WWII?

    • Replies: @kikl
  319. kikl says:
    @Arioch

    “So it was Germany leading this process, and USSR trying to catch up and emergently land preemptive blow against imminent and planned Third Reich invasion…”

    So now you are claiming that the USSR was not surprised by the German invasion. No, they knew it was coming all along and prepared for a preemptive attack. So now we no longer have to debate whether the USSR was planning to attack Germany but whether they were planning to attack preemptively. The will to attack is no longer controversial.

    If this is the case then Stalin and all of the Soviet leaders were lying through their teeth when they stated for decades that they were surprised by the German attack.

    “However the real history shows USSR fatally and persistently lagged behind.”

    If this is the case, then please explain the following to me: How could the USSR achieve a huge numerical superiority of troops and a large concentration immediately at the border to Germany, if they began troop concentration after the Germans. Keep in mind that the USSR has a far inferior infrastructure and a much lager territory. Therefore, it should take much longer for the USSR to concentrate troops. They would have to play catch up although they are much slower! Under these circumstance, it is impossible to achieve a superior troop concentration.

    This is the final blow to your history!

    The only reason why the USSR suffered such immense losses in the opening months of the war is: They were taken by completely by surprise. No other explanation makes any sense. Therefore, the theory of a Soviet preemptive attack is indefensible.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  320. Arioch says:
    @kikl

    “Bluntly, while Red Army in 1941 performed poorly comparing to Wehrmacht, it performed much better than ANY other Hitler’s opponent…”

    How many Soviet Armies were completely destroyed in a matter of months?

    How many non-Soviet armies in Europe were NOT “destroyed in a matter of months” ?
    Tell me a single army that delayed the siege of theur capital for at least 4 months after Thurd Reich invasion start? Awful and incompetent Red Army did for 6 months.

    “Frankly, the later “Suicide” book of Rezun is exactly about that – about Hitler’s total lack of information which land he wants to conquer by “lightning war”, that Wehrmacht LITERALLY knew less about Ussr than German geography teachers in schools did.”

    Not really, the Wehrmacht wanted to prevent the Soviet troops concentrated on the German border from retreating into the vast Russian territories by encircling them. In this manner, the Red Army was supposed to be defeated without having to move the German forces all the way to Wladiwostok. That was never an option. But, this failed.

    1. This your answer frankly is not relevant to what i was talking in your quote. My link above to another forum links to russian text of the Suicide book. While reading through auto-translators is not pleasant, but unless you can find English text i have little other option than manually translating you two whike chapters from that book. And that i will not. Just one basic and rather shallow consideration from many mentioned by Rezun:

    2. You start that Hitler planned to encircle and destroy the specific Soviet units amassed at western border. And you end with Hitlers destroying all the red army, entirely. Those are not the same. Actually the winter 1941 counteroffense is related with Red Army units from eastern borders moved to Moscow. So, again, we have a weird options set.

    a) Hitler did not know that Red Army battled Japanese army in 1937 and 1939 and he genuinely thought there is no any Red Army units in the whole USSR except for those at German border
    b) Hitler did expect to destroy all Red Army units all through USSR withough caring a bit about logistics, because he did not know USSR is large and he did not know between autumn and spring sometimes come winters.
    c) Hitler did expect that after he desintegrates “Soviet troops concentrated on the German border” all other Soviet troops would stop defeating at once, because why bother and who cares. Worth noting is that Wehrmacht itself despite officially capitulated May 1st 1945 had some units of the German Army that ignored it and kept fighting until May 9th.

    No, but Sweden has a dense network of paved roads where these vehicles make sense. The USSR didn’t.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA-I

    By that logic this family could not exist. But it did.

    USSR had enough of paved roads and even rigid enough non-paved roads for wheeled armor to make sense.

    BTW those very BT tanks were defeating Japanese army in 1939 Mongolia. By this logic Mongolia in 1939 had dense network of paved roads compared with 1960s Sweden.

    Again, the whole “concept” of “autobahn tank” was born solely from misinterpreting T-34 factory name. And that T-34 while being direct BT-7 descendant could no more drive on wheels.

    So he we have, by Rezun’s logic, the following picture:

    1. Before 1939 autumn USSR produced lots of “paved road only” tanks, to employ them agressively in “dense paved rosd network” of Mongolia
    2. In autumn 1939 USSR obsoletes all wheeled tanks and replaces them with new lineage of tracks-only tanks.
    3. Those tracks-only tanks, in contrast with prior wheeled tanks, are now called “autobahn tanks”.
    4. Because they tracks tanks were designed to take advantage of German autobahns which obsoleted wheeled tanks could not do.

    Sounds legit.

    BTW, blueprints for BT tanks were purchased by USSR in USA in 1930s. About same years Christie designs were licensed by Poland and UK.

    So, by Rezun’s logic the gang of Poland+UK+USSR in 1930 conspired to take advantage of Germans autobahns built by Speer/Hitler in… In WHAT year, huh???

    • Replies: @Anon
  321. kikl says:
    @UncommonGround

    “The surprising fact about WWI is that in the last years our understanding of the war changed so much after almost a 100 years. How is this possible? And what does this mean in relation to WWII?”

    You are probably talking about Clark’s book sleepwalkers. I highly recommend reading it.

    It is possible because Clark chose to break a taboo. It was not his intellectual superiority that lead to his insights. He was just braver than most of his fellow historians.

    WWII is much greater taboo than WWI. This means that the history of WWII will be revised. The present version of this history won’t survive.

  322. @Unzerker

    Outdated: yes. Obsolete: definitely not.

    Really? Definition of obsolete is here:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obsolete

    Let’s get to the relevant part:

    2. Outmoded in design, style, or construction: an obsolete locomotive.

    So, this thus makes sense, doesn’t it?

    But despite a clear superiority over the German Panzer I, II and some parity with the Czech-built Panzer 35(t) and 38(t) fielded by the Wehrmacht, they were no match for the 50 mm (1.97 in) and 75 mm (2.95 in) armed Panzer III and IV which formed the main part of every Panzer Division. Their relatively thin armor could withstand Pak 36 gunfire, but not any other German antitank gun.

    http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_T26.php

    I could go on here with elaboration on the concept of Battle-cruisers in WW II but I will not.

    • Replies: @Unzerker
  323. I suspect Ron Unz adherence to the (in my view)low quality work of ‘Suvorov’ is a sign of how now even altmedia people belonging to the anglosaxon camp, (I mean culturally) fear and regret the possible downfall of the Us/Uk hegemony. So anything that gives some hope for pumping up revanchism against Russia in Germany would be an attractive proposition.
    It remains to be seen if the trend I think I have spotted, against China etc, is a temporary setback or if the sofar refreshingly honest truthseeking will last even when anglosaxons face changes towards multipolarity with perhaps some hardships along the way.
    Nikolai Starikov, wasnt foreign to see the predicaments on the German side. He wrote that Hitler had a war economy meaning that there was limited time if war was deemed a necessity. As the British played a con-game with respect to Rudolf Hess and therefore prevented him from telling the truth for the rest of his life, according to Starikov, Hitler had been promised a separate peace on condition he fought Russia. I dont know if that hypothesis is correct but it seems possible since the British had a much stronger influence over the nazis and Hitler and had (still unknown to most) worked themselves into such a role for the duration of a century and having tacit understanding between those two parties was undoubtedly ongoing in several passages before and during the war. Another Historian Erkki Hautamäki adds some more clues to what might have led Hitler to the fatal eastern campaign. Hautamäkis material points to a secret meeting between Britain and the USSR a month after the M/R pact, where a joint allied occupation of Scandinavia was to take place. Hautamäki used Mannerheims classified dossier which among other things relied on insiders with access to the German side.

  324. @Jon Halpenny

    If you read Suvarov’s books, you will find him outlining the steps to an invasion. First, build up the ammunition and weapons stores, guarded by a relatively small skeleton guard. Machines don’t need to be fed and all that. Only after most of your materiel stores are built up do you send in the men to take possession and assume their jump-off positions.

    He mentions in Chief Culprit how if the Japanese had launched an attack from Manchuria in July 1945, they could have grabbed an enormous windfall of Red Army weapons with few Red Army soldiers to stop them. By August it was too late, and the Red Army swept through Manchuria in a manner that Guderian would have envied.

    If Hitler had waited until July 1941 to strike, he would have missed his chance as well.

    Suvarov also mentions that some 5 million Russian-German phrasebooks were printed up, which gives a pretty good idea of the ultimate size of the invasion force.

  325. @Arioch

    Make your choice…

    You left a trail of superb comments, sadly my hiatus from Unz discussion boards doesn’t allow me to put “agree” on most of those written by you here.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  326. Tunden says:

    Suvorov’s claim is correct, though much of the supporting ‘evidence’ is not:
    1) Were Soviet tanks “far superior?” Only the T34 and KV tanks performed better than the panzers; they had just begun production in 1941 and were far too few to hold back the German PzIIIs and PzIVs.
    2) The Soviets possessed more tanks than the Wehrmacht, but almost all were obsolete types: cavalry tanks too lightly armored and armed, small and with too few crew; or monstrously designed ‘heavies’ like the T-28 which could hardly get out of its own way. This was the makeup of all Western armies’ armored components except Germany, and isn’t in itself remarkable.
    3) Interwar armored doctrines all presupposed usable road systems. Tanks then and now cannot run cross-country indefinitely. BT tanks utilized the Christie suspension system and convertible drive, developed in the US in the 1920s, long before the interstate highways were built. British tanks also used them before motorways. Again, not remarkable or indicative of much.
    4) Only the British armored divisions were fully motorized by the outbreak of war, and this was only possible because the army was so small it only had two of them. Given that the Red Army and the Wehrmacht deployed some 500 divisions between them, horse drawn transport was simply a fact of life on the Eastern front.
    5) Operational use does not equate to strategic intention. Both tanks and paratroops can be used in counter-offensives. Amphibious tanks had scope for use in the Pripyat marshes and Masurian lakes, but were probably given up as impractical in the event. Nor would it make sense to deploy them forward in Poland, if they weren’t to be used until the English channel.
    6) The Il-2 began production in late 1941, when the RAF’s Fairey Battle and Boulton Paul Defiant with the same rear turret configuration had already been decimated by Luftwaffe fighters. Probably a decision for increased speed/maneuver IN the presence of enemy fighters.

    Nonetheless it is correct that Stalin had plans for an offensive into central Europe once Germany was mired in another Western front with Britain and France. The shock of the fall of France, and the efficiency of the Wehrmacht forced consideration of a defensive war. The wargames of January 1941 presented Stalin with the awful truth of the Red Army’s deficiencies. It was decided that the Bialystok salient would remain in place with its obsolete equipment and fortifications – commanded by Tukhashevski protege Pavlov – as a sacrifice to slow down the German advance until winter. Even then, the speed of the collapse and German encirclements shocked the Soviet command. Only Zhukov kept his head, and it should be remembered that he was just as ruthless as Stalin with troops’ lives.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    , @L.K
  327. Anonymous[488] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    I think you’re being ridiculously conspiratorial about Suvorov…

    Frankly, it seems ridiculous to me not to at least consider the cui bono aspects of this, i.e. which factions of deep politics in the West would consider Suvorov’s narrative beneficial. I infer that this is what you mean by being “conspiratorial”.

    If powerful Britain/American elites were behind him, why did they then totally prevent republication of his book for decades and also absolutely blacklist his ideas from the English media.

    Well, presumably, the political faction that was promoting Suvorov’s work would not be the same people as those suppressing it. You seem to be tacitly assuming that the Deep State is one unified entity rather than possibly consisting of multiple different factions with differing agendas.

  328. utu says:
    @Arioch

    Good that you came here. I appreciate your comments. I do not agree with few points you made but I have a similar take on Suvorov that it was fiction with intent of disinformation and I find it really surprising that it was successful as many comments here indicate. Suvorov wrote his book in late 1980s during the final phase of Reagan anti-Soviet initiative of which the fear mongering was a big part and thus presenting USSR as always plotting invasions while talking peace was very useful. But some Soviets also got something from his book. Mainly that Stalin was on top of things and not a bungler who misread Hitler, mismanaged and devastated arm forces and who was completely taken by surprise. Instead from Suvorov they got Stalin who was just unlucky missing by few days or weeks. If he was more lucky he would defeat Hitler sooner and prevent Holocaust from ever happening. Furthermore Suvorov glorifies Soviet armaments and power which may please many Russians.

    A fiction will be effective if it can seduce people instead of antagonizing them. Suvorov as GRU officer and double agent was qualified to pull it off. Was it a team effort arranged by his handlers?

    Now, why the absurd story of Hitler and Nazism being the creation of Stalin? To vilify communism and Stalin and to obscure the identity of actual puppet masters.

    Do not get me wrong. I am not defending Stalin or communism.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  329. Arioch says:
    @kikl

    “The BT tanks were “convertible tanks”. This was a feature designed by J. Walter Christie to reduce wear of the unreliable tank tracks of the 1930s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_tank

    So, we are throwing wikipedia at one another now, great game.

    Because large road wheels and “slack track” are characteristic of the Christie suspension, other designs with these features are sometimes misidentified as such. The real Christie suspension was used only[citation needed] on a few designs, notably the Soviet BT tanks and T-34, the British Cruiser tanks, including the A13′s: Cruiser Mk III, Cruiser Mk IV, Covenanter, Crusader, Cromwell and the Comet, as well as some experimental Polish and Italian designs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_suspension

    The first prototype (A13-E1) was delivered in 1937. Following the testing of two prototypes, the A13 was ordered into production

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser_Mk_III

    Ergo – back in 1937 UK planned to invade and conquer all the Europe taking advantage of German autobahns.
    So did Poland and Italy, jsut they were a bit slow on uptaking and did not finished their designs of autobahn tanks in time.

    Now read it again.

    “The BT tanks were “convertible tanks”. This was a feature designed by J. Walter Christie to reduce wear of the unreliable tank tracks of the 1930s.

    And again.

    to reduce wear of the unreliable tank tracks of the 1930s.

    And look at this horror:

    Basically it was very simple back in early 1930-s.

    1) you tanks move at heavy tracks (USSR had none until Lend-Lease) and railcars (dense network of railways is not about USSR, would you agree)
    2) your tanks move about 50-100 km and then halt with broken tracks
    3) your tanks move at their own wheels – with all the terrain limitations, but they at least CAN move now.

    So the Russians built thousands of tanks and didn’t recognize that they were practically useless on their terrain? Hmmmm…

    Even if so – it could be due to domestic political struggles and Tukhachevsky’s megalomania.
    USA today builts nuclear Air Carriers and Yak-derived F-35s, which have little practical use in 21 century.

    But it was not useless. Overpriced and complex it was. Halting domestic indigenous design exeriments it was. But useless? Tell it to Kwantung Army, that was defeated over “dense paved road network” of 1939 Mongolia.

    BT tanks did run hundreds miles through summer steppes of USSR during drills.
    They were problematic. They potentially were outreaching. Still that does not make them useless.

    – here we perhas can see “dense paved roads network” without which BT tanks alelgedly just could not move fast. BTW, at last scene there – 01:50 – there is shown another feature of Christie that your Wikipedia quote lacks – huge swinging movement of the wheels that no other suspension of the time could provide. It was required for fast movement on tracks. One of the maybe reasons while no-wheels-anymore “autobahn tank” T-34 still retained that suspension.

    • Replies: @Anon
  330. j2 says:
    @kikl

    Thanks for this recording. Very interesting. Hitler sounds like talking the truth, which implies that he was sure the Soviet Union would attack any day, and then he used a trick to move troops close to the eastern border and attacked first. That makes sense, Soviets were in attack positions and that’s why they lost a few armies in the beginning. And it also explains why Stalin ignored the warning of the German attack, he just though Hitler would not start a war on two fronts and it was false news to hide Hitler’s attack plan to the GB. So, Soviets were putting hard demands to Germany. But it does not follow that the Soviet Union was trying to conquer Europe. I would imagine they would prefer to foment revolutions instead of trying military invasions, apart from Germany.

    What Hitler is saying of Finland seems like Soviets were going to attack Finland also, so there was no way for Finland to avoid the war, but that part Hitler of course may have invented.

    I remember hearing that after Hitler’s visit to Finland, Finnish generals thought that Germany will lose the war. The recording does indeed sound like Germans were having troubles, 34,000 Soviet tanks destroyed and there still were coming more all the time. Hitler attacked too late. But it shows that he was determined to attack in any case, it was just a question of the correct time.

  331. Anonymous[488] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    That’s the “American Pravda” angle in my title.

    Well, another angle you could have explored IMHO is a comparison of this situation to the Bush doctrine of “preventive war” that was used to invade Iraq in 2003. It was not being claimed by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was at that point in time a threat to the U.S. but that, at some point, in the future, it could be. Something like that…

    Of course, the idea that Iraq could ever be a threat to the U.S. was always patently absurd really. However, if the theory behind the German invasion of the USSR was roughly the same theory of “preventive war”, of course, the German belief that the USSR could eventually be a threat to Germany (even assuming that Suvorov’s hypothesis that a Soviet attack was imminent is untrue), by comparison with the Bush administration claims about Iraq, was a perfectly reasonable thing for the Germans to think!

  332. L.K says:
    @Mike P

    Hello,

    Since you read German, I’d recommend that you try to get hold of a copy of Unternehmen Barbarossa und der russische Historikerstreit by Wolfgang Strauss.

    As Daniel W. Michaels states in a review of it:
    This book’s greatest contribution may well be to highlight for non-Russians the research of Russian revisionists. Strauss is very familiar with this important work, which has been all but entirely ignored in the United States. The most important publications cited by Strauss in this regard are two Russian anthologies, both issued in 1995: “Did Stalin Make Preparations for an Offensive War Against Hitler?,” and “September 1, 1939-May 9, 1945: 50th Anniversary of the Defeat of Fascist Germany.”

    Strauss lists (pages 102-105) the major findings and conclusions of Russian revisionist historians, derived mostly from the two major works cited above. Some of the major findings:

    - Stalin wanted a general European war of exhaustion in which the USSR would intervene at the politically and militarily most expedient moment. …

    - To ignite this, Stalin used the [August 1939] Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact, which:
    a) provoked Hitler’s attack against Poland,
    and b) evoked the declarations of war [against Germany] by Britain and France.

    - In the event Germany was defeated quickly [by Britain and France], Stalin planned to “Sovietize” Germany and establish a “Communist government” there, but with the danger that the victorious capitalist powers would never permit a Communist Germany.

    - In the event France was defeated quickly [by Germany], Stalin planned the “Sovietization” of France. “A Communist revolution would seem inevitable, and we could take advantage of this for our own purposes by rushing to aid France and making her our ally. As a result of this, all the nations under the ‘protection’ of a victorious Germany would become our allies.”

    -From the outset Stalin reckoned on a war with Germany, and the [Soviet] conquest of Germany. To this end, Stalin concentrated on the western border of the USSR operational offensive forces, which were five- to six-times stronger than the Wehrmacht with respect to tanks, aircraft and artillery. …

    -Troop contingents were to be brought up to full strength in all the western military districts; airfields and supply bases to support a forward-strategy were to be built directly behind the border; an attack force of 60 divisions was to be set up in the Ukraine and mountain divisions and a parachute corps were to be established for attack operations.

    -The 16th, 19th, 21st, 22nd and 25th Soviet Armies were transferred from the interior to the western border, and deployed at take-off points for the planned offensive. …

    -Stalin intended to attack in July 1941, although Russian historians disagree about the precise date. Suvorov cites July 6, [Valeri] Danilov [a retired Soviet Colonel] gives July 2, while Meltiukhov writes: “The Red Army could not have carried out an attack before July 15.”

    After the list of findings is presented, Russian historian I. W. Pawlowa is quoted; she states that from an objective POV, the German attack cannot be denied its preventive character.

    • Agree: Mike P
  333. ondrej says:

    Read Fighting in Hell

    https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Hell-German-Ordeal-Eastern/dp/0804116989

    under redaction of Franz Halder – chief of German general staff

    there Germans argue with Fins about Soviet-Finish war.
    If I recall from book correctly, it was referring to some Goring speech about that war it was biggest bluff in military history.

    I would argue, it was training war, soviet military did quite a lot of changes in equipment and tactics and rules of conduct after that.

  334. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Arioch

    1) you tanks move at heavy tracks (USSR had none until Lend-Lease) and railcars (dense network of railways is not about USSR, would you agree)
    2) your tanks move about 50-100 km and then halt with broken tracks
    3) your tanks move at their own wheels – with all the terrain limitations, but they at least CAN move now.

    Strangely enough, other Soviet tank designs, including further evolutions of the same design, did not use this feature, which was abandoned on the one major design that did use it, because it turned out to be utterly useless in context.

    Evidently there was no great need for it.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  335. @Tunden

    Suvorov’s claim is correct, though much of the supporting ‘evidence’ is not:

    So, in a normal sane world that makes the claim either:

    1. Wrong in a face of shoddy argumentation (evidence) or
    2. Makes it an ideological anti-scientific statement with objectives having nothing to do with truth, which is knowable.

    • Replies: @Tunden
  336. kikl says:

    “How many Soviet Armies were completely destroyed in a matter of months?

    How many non-Soviet armies in Europe were NOT “destroyed in a matter of months” ?”

    So this is your argument for the Soviet Armies great performance and even superior performance relative to the allies?

    “The Battle of Białystok–Minsk was a German strategic operation conducted by the Army Group Centre during the penetration of the Soviet border region in the opening stage of Operation Barbarossa lasting from 22 June to 3 July 1941. Its goal, the encirclement and destruction of the Red Army’s Western Front forces around Minsk, was accomplished. All major Soviet counter-attacks and break-through attempts failed and the defenders were defeated, allowing for the Wehrmacht to take many Soviet prisoners[4] and to further advance into the Soviet Union at a pace so swift that some believed the Germans had effectively won the war against the Soviet Union already.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bia%C5%82ystok%E2%80%93Minsk

    Let me see: The third, fourth and tenth armies of the SU were destroyed in the battle of Bialystok and Minsk. The Germany army destroyed more Russian tanks than they had at their own disposal. The battle was over on within less than two weeks. This shows you the level of troop concentration of the Red Army. A clear and unambiguous sign of the will to attack.

    And you claim that the Red Army performed well?

    • Replies: @Arioch
  337. Arioch says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    >> This is remarkable, maybe. Because Rezun was writing for the English benefactors.

    > Or benefactors merely wrote it themselves using Rezun, who provides a rather grim, non-intellectual, impression as a figurehead.

    Depends on you interpretation of “wrote”.

    Rezun’s Russian language is VERY cunning and moving, he does have a talent for writing.
    Or at least some other native Russian had, if we consider Rezun being mere figurehead.
    But Occam’s razor…. Why to suppose two russian turncoats where one is enough.

    Though i agree that Rezun’s book in a hindsight shares two hallmarks of Western propaganda methods with, for example, the Western story about EuroMaidan and Russian aggression.

    But i also think that people reading his books for the first time would get infatuated with him (he is VERY good storyteller; plus that “you are chosen one, hence Truth shall be revealed to You” vibe). So i do not want to attack Rezun’s personality and intentions.

    Afterall it is irrelevant for discussing the meat of his theories. Good propaganda is based on truths and so are works by people with idee fixe. Whether Rezun’s bias is sincere and genuine or paid for and ordered just does not carry much weight to discuss particular claims he makes.

    > defined consistently, and correctly, Rezun’s efforts as playing for the benefit of the so called Russia’s “liberals” in 1990s

    Interesting, is it available online ?

    However, “playing for Russian pseudo-liberals” is synonymous with “playing for 5 Eyes hegemony”.

    > as it was serving discrediting Soviet Union and its system.

    Among whom? Among westerners maybe. But domestically Rezun was catering to USSR resentiment instead. He was playing “Stalin’s USSR was strong and smart and this and that” counter-melody. But here we come to one of the two “hallmarks of western propaganda” which i said above i do not want to bring into dicsussion of Rezun’s hystorical correctness (or lack thereof).

    Last thing, USA today seems to be much of late rotting USSR. In particuar, it more and more relies on heavyhanded blunt censorship of alternative points of views. This stupidity(or sabotage) on USSR part was one of the things that gave Rezun and Solzhenytsyn cult following in 1990s. Which they have no more as people are freed from false “Soviet official or anti-Soviet” 1-dimensional gauge. But USA seems to fall into the same tramp now, feeding all the conspirologists in effect. Even those who would never be appreciated much in free society…

    > Well, Rezun is “sapog” (sorry for that) and is not well-versed in even basics of naval operations

    That. Or he correctly assumed that his target audieence would be even less versed, so after he got their sympathis by “Valiantly Revealing The Covers” in the first chapters he can just go one and fed his readers but anything. Contrick.

  338. Arioch says:
    @Anon

    Strangely enough, other Soviet tank designs, including further evolutions of the same design, did not use this feature, which was abandoned on the one major design that did use it, because it turned out to be utterly useless in context.

    Evidently there was no great need for it.

    There are quote gaps between “great need”, “measured need” and “no use at all”.
    There also were everchanging pressing factors.

    For example, in 1945 turbojet airplanes were not defining air battles and their existense was rightfulyl ignored. But in 1955 there was no siginificant military that still relied on piston engines for their dogfighter. Times they are changing.

    So were tanks – and anti-tank measures – in 1930-1940.

    1. Tracks technology enhanced a lot. From dozens of miles before breakage – to hundreds, and then perhaps even thousands. The primary press for no-tracks drive was gradually removed by steel industry development.

    2. Armor-piercing technology enhancement led to requirement for more and more heavily armored tanks, that wheels just could no more bear. The choice between A-30(convertible descendant of BT-7) and A-32(the T-34 tracks-only BT continuation) was largely made because A-32 provided for much thicker armor.

    This does not mean BT line was useless in early 1930-s, like the invention of trubojet engine did not mean piston-powered fighters were useless in 1945.

    Additionally i want to repeat it yet again:

    1. USSR did NOT invaded Germany and did NOT conquerred Europe in 1930-s when “autobahn-only” BT tanks where mass-produced

    2. When USSR allegedly planned to invade Germany in 1941 – it had wheeled tanks oboleted for two years and replaced with tracks-only T-34

    3. The very idea of “autobahn tank” is based solely on the factory codename of no-wheels-tracks-only T-34 tank being “A-32″. And if it was – then EVERY non-wheeled tank of the era was “autobahn tank” as well, why not?

    4. USSR purchases BT technology in America in 1930. What “autobahns” could Hitler ever build in 1930 Germany? It was Weimar republic and would remain so for years to come!

    5. Poland and Italy purchased Christie suspension too. UK was mast producing Christie suspension based tanks since 1937. If having licensed Christie blueprints is a proof of conquer-them-all plans, then necessirily UK had the same “invade and enslave Europe” plans since 1937 and USA planned to do so since late 1920-s

    • Replies: @kikl
  339. @Arioch

    Interesting, is it available online ?

    I think one can get 2015 edition which (unlike 1995) dedicates several pages specifically to this issue on Goodreads.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/164875.When_Titans_Clashed?from_search=true

  340. Unzerker says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Really? Definition of obsolete is here:
    [..]
    2. Outmoded in design, style, or construction

    It’s interesting that you don’t give definition 1: “1. No longer in use”
    Mirriam-Webster gives for obsolete”
    a : no longer in use or no longer useful

    No longer useful was what I was thinking about, when writing “obsolete”. The 10.000 T-26 tanks are often dismissed as useless by calling them obsolete. They certainly weren’t.

    The design was solid and the tank was still useful in 1941. It’s gun could penetrate any German tank from the front, outside of maybe a minority of late model Panzer-3 and 4, that had 30mm of extra armor bolted to the front.

    Even if it was just as a mobile platform for the 45 mm gun it was still worth having.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  341. Arioch says:
    @utu

    > Do not get me wrong. I am not defending Stalin or communism.

    With all the information that uncovers recenty it makes me thing that Stalin was indeed the least of evils at that specific time and place.
    Of course we can dream about magic ponies, and how their could rule with much less blood – but there were no ponies. There was Stalin, there was Trotsky, there were (in emigration mostly) pro-western liberals, who destroyed “backward tzarism” and in just few months drove the whole Russian Republic into the ground.
    But we here today, enjoying luxuries of all-Earth internet and knowing nothing about mass starvation, are free to boo them.

    > it was successful as many comments here indicate.

    Rezun is GREAT fiction writer. At least in Russian. When you read him for the first time – you do get infatuated. In late 1990s his books created the “secondary market” in Russia, the books critisizing Rezun. But before that he proliferated from the dumbness of Soviet censorship as The Great Revealator Of Hidden Truth. Which he no more can in Russia. Seems that censorship in Anglosphere just made the same effect – people en masse are having their first date with his books and there is few available popular criticism. That is like a flue – you would eventually catch it each winter once, so just let it take its week and then pass over.

    What i read it though is my earlir “Plan B” hypothesys. If Anglosphere before was shunning Rezun’s theory and if in 2008 it started promoting it (even if specialized media), then it may hint their Plan A (no Eastern front, Hitler was defeated by US Army) was already falling apart then.

    > A fiction will be effective if it can seduce people instead of antagonizing them

    And Rezun’s book managed to seduce both westerners and soviets. Masterpiece.

    You may believe him being a genius marketeer or working from basic outlines of a genius Perception Warfare officers :-D

  342. Arioch says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    > You left a trail of superb comments,

    It is amazing and amusing when we agree on military topics :-D

    But thank you :-D

  343. @Arioch

    Rezun’s Russian language is VERY cunning and moving, he does have a talent for writing.

    This in no way reflects both intellectual capacity nor the volume of knowledge (not to be mistaken with information), which inevitably translates into competence. Rezun is incompetent militarily and technologically. Transfer to GRU and military-diplomatic (intelligence) work, especially that early shows in his (???) “writing”. This is not to mention a huge volume of his citations being simply fraudulent–I believe the list of those totally made up “documents” and even “newspaper articles”can easily be found in Isaev’s and others’ works on him.

  344. @Unzerker

    it was still worth having

    There is a gigantic difference between “worth having” and contingency planning based on fighting doctrine which saw completely new and on orders of magnitude more modern and capable tanks coming by the start of war in the East. Unless, of course, Soviet High Command was completely oblivious to own R&D and procurement plans–which, I think, wasn’t the case at all. T-26 was a late 1920s design, T-34 76/85 was a completely different generation of MBTs. I omit here those popular discussions on tactics.

    It’s interesting that you don’t give definition 1: “1. No longer in use”

    I gave you a direct hyperlink to ALL variants. The one most relevant was #2. In reality it is #1 + #2, or more precisely #1 unified with #2.

    • Replies: @Unzerker
    , @Unzerker
    , @Arioch
  345. Arioch says:
    @kikl

    > And you claim that the Red Army performed well?

    compared to whom ???

    Like i said above, it performed much worse than Wehrmacht.

    At the same time it did not deserted the battlefield like ALL of UK soldiers in 1940 at Dunkirk.

    Did Norwegian army defended their land for 4+ months after Third Reich invasion started? Polish army ? French army ? Greek army ? Yugoslavian army ? Czechoslovakian army? Austrian army?

    WHO in the whole Europe gave Third Reich any run for their money before 1941 ???

    To quote myself: https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/39zf01/poland_can_into_vilnius/cs8w6em/

    RE: [Soviet] armed forces numbered 5 million troops

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France

    * ” France had mobilised about one-third of the male population between the ages of 20 and 45, bringing the strength of its armed forces to 5,000,000″
    * ” Dutch and Belgian manpower reserves amounted to 400,000 and 650,000, respectively ”
    * ” The British ….. 1,650,000 by June 1940. In May, it numbered only 500,000 men”

    5 000 000 + 400 000 + 650 000 + 1 650 000 = 7 700 000

    They all reported to the single Commander-in-Chief so where the joint military forces.

    Not only that is more than the 5 millions that you attributed to Soviet forces, but you have to account that when later invading USSR Hitler had increased his strength with the resources of the aforementioned Netherlands and Belgium and of the huge part of France and he also added to his stack yet one more military ally: Finland.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  346. Tunden says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    It makes his argument exceedingly weak. But the claim can find support elsewhere. The doctrine of the operational offensive which dominated the Red Army through the 30s was intertwined with the political doctrine of the revolutionary offensive. It was evident in the war with Poland in 1921, when the Soviet leadership was prepared to sweep into Germany after crushing Pilsudski’s army. And it was still evident when Stalin seized Eastern Europe after Germany’s defeat in 1945.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  347. kikl says:
    @Arioch

    “For example, in 1945 turbojet airplanes were not defining air battles and their existense was rightfulyl ignored. But in 1955 there was no siginificant military that still relied on piston engines for their dogfighter. Times they are changing.”

    Their existence was not ignored at all!! When they were first encountered they made a huge impression.

    They were not defining battles because the battle for air superiority had already been lost, most experienced German pilots were dead and the allies had a huge numerical superiority. No other country could mass produce turbojet engines. So the only reason that piston engines aircraft were not useless was that except for the Germans they were the only aircraft available to the allies.

    “This does not mean BT line was useless in early 1930-s, like the invention of trubojet engine did not mean piston-powered fighters were useless in 1945.”

    Oh they were indeed useless in the 1930-s, because “Soviet tank forces soon found the convertible option of little practical use; in a country with few paved roads, it consumed space and added needless complexity and weight. The feature was dropped from later Soviet designs.” unless of course they were meant to be used in countries with lots of paved roads like Germany.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  348. @Steve Hayes

    More often than not, the professional historians are court historians. Their words are purchased by the crown.

  349. @Tunden

    And it was still evident when Stalin seized Eastern Europe after Germany’s defeat in 1945

    Well, somehow FDR’s Unconditional Surrender at Casablanca in January 1943, where both he and Churchill were (wrongly) terrified of USSR concluding a separate peace with Hitler is never mentioned in all these spacious and “tactical” arguments. I know Rezun (and his British handlers) have a bad memory (and competence–as Skripal affair so demonstrated) but real military-diplomatic facts are well known and in the open. USSR was calling for the Second Front till June 1944, with a short lull after Stalingrad and Kursk which also terrified Western Allies. The fact that Eastern Europe was liberated (after all The Telegraph wrote that at Stalingrad Western Civilization was saved) from Nazi scam is being (quite expediently) forgotten. But, I guess, everyone has their own idols. But I have to agree with Saker, Poland should have been bypassed by the Red Army if any such possibility existed. They should have been allowed to enjoy their “freedom” under the Third Reich to a full extent.

  350. kikl says:

    “At the same time it did not deserted the battlefield like ALL of UK soldiers in 1940 at Dunkirk.”

    Hundreds of thousands deserted the battlefield by surrendering to the Germans. The Brits never surrender in these numbers, they fled in order to fight for another day. The number of Soviet Forces that surrendered far exceeded the number of Brits that fled from Dunkirk. If the Brits had performed as abysmally as the Red Army, the UK would have been occupied by Hitler.

    “Did Norwegian army defended their land for 4+ months after Third Reich invasion started? ”

    The Norwegian army? ;-) So now you equate the Norwegian Army with the Red army? The French and British troops performed immensely better than the Red Army.

    I don’t think that you are capable of thinking rationally.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  351. @FKA Max

    Yes, my Grandfather was Thor Damen.

    He said, that the only reason for him to secretly record the conversation was his patriotism. He heard Hitler mention Finland and immediately got alarmed., he never meant to seek for any publicity or even publish the recording.

    Dad inherited his stuff since he was the oldest son. Our garage was filled with golden and silver microphones, tape recorders, tapes (including the Hitler-taped) and other stuff from the Radio Company, as well as all his photo albums. It made me uneasy that we had a photo album with original photographs of Hitler, Göring, Himmler, SS-planes and of course lots of photos from Hitler’s visit to Finland.

    Dad doesn’t like publicity either – it runs in the family, lol. When Germany got the tape they sent a film crew to Finland to interview dad. We, his children, found out about it when the German documentary was shown on TV. There was dad sitting in his living room, talking and showing the photo album and we were like WTF is DAD doing on TV?!

    He didn’t think it was a big deal, so he didn’t share it with his children. He said that BBC had also contacted him and wanted to come and interview him in Finland, but he refused. “Too much noise over nothing”, he told us.

    Wow, so you have ties to Finland, cool! Toni Nieminen – the ski jumper?

    Thank you for the links ;)

  352. Ron Unz says:

    I might as well point out one considerable irony that seems to have been almost completely missed in this very long comment-thread…

    Under the conventional narrative, Stalin and his top military advisors were total idiots and incompetents, whose stupidity left their country completely vulnerable to Hitler’s attack, thereby costing many millions of lives and nearly resulting in the destruction of the USSR.

    But under Suvorov’s contrary reconstruction, Stalin ranks as a geopolitical genius, who easily manipulated both Hitler and his capitalist opponents, and finally came within a hairsbreadth of fully fulfilling Lenin’s great dream by conquering and Sovietizing all of Europe, and perhaps the entire Eurasian landmass.

    Now it’s obvious why a totally exhausted USSR in 1945 required the former story, and surely would have Gulaged anyone who said otherwise. But from our greater historical distance, wouldn’t Stalin today much prefer the establishment of the latter account, so shouldn’t pro-Soviet voices be proclaiming Suvorov’s verity from every rooftop, whether they actually believe him correct or not?

  353. L.K says:
    @Tunden

    Tunden: “1) Were Soviet tanks “far superior?” Only the T34 and KV tanks performed better than the panzers; they had just begun production in 1941 and were far too few to hold back the German PzIIIs and PzIVs.
    2) The Soviets possessed more tanks than the Wehrmacht, but almost all were obsolete types…”

    They were not far superior but neither were they obsolete, as you claim.

    By late June 1941 the Soviets had over 1800 T34s and KVs in their first 2 strategic echelons.

    Only 1400 out of the 3266 German tanks at the beginning of Barbarossa were Pz.kpfw. III and IV, and these were the early variants, including 259 Pz.kpfw. III still armed with a 3.7cm gun, and the Panzer IV was, at the time, armed with a short low velocity 7.5 cm gun.

    The rest of the German tank force was composed of Pz.kpfw. 38(t), Pz.kpfw. 35(t), Pz.kpfw. II and even the Pz.kpfw.I(MG only).

    So, if most Soviet tanks were ‘obsolete’, then the same applies to the Germans.

    • Replies: @Arioch
    , @Tunden
  354. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    I see your point, but the answer, from their perspective, is no, since, in that case, they would be admitting to the fact that the Soviet regime bears a lot of responsibility for WW2 and for the German-Soviet conflict that followed and all the misery that it entailed.
    Given how crucial the national myth of the great patriotic war is to Russia, the current Russian authorities, pro-Soviet or NOT, will never admit to that. Same goes for the internet shills.

    The Anglo-Americans, also very much responsible for the war, cannot throw their former Soviet ally under the bus either, since the Soviets played a major role in defeating the Axis and there are many documents which demonstrate the reality that the Anglo-Americans knew very well what kind of a regime the Stalinist regime was.
    For instance, the post Soviet Russian government released documents showing that the US and the Brits knew very well at the time that the massacre at Katyn was the work of the NKVD.

    In fact, not even the current German elite desires to objectively look into WW2 for obvious reasons…
    The German military historian you mentioned, Joachim Hoffmann, described how after he arrived at conclusions similar to those of Suvorov and others of the so called ‘new Russian historians’, he was reminded by some German bigwigs that it did not matter and he should not pursue that path, since it might exonerate Hitler.

  355. Arioch says:
    @kikl

    > So now you are claiming that the USSR was not surprised by the German invasion.

    I am applying Rezun’s logic to Rezun’s claims, just to the other side of the coin.
    If his claims are useful to distinguish USSR from other lands ( Third Reich, Poland, UK, etc ), then applyign his patterns with swapped “names” should instantly show the difference. But it does not.

    And surely, it was World War. Everyone knew they would be attacked. But hardly anyone guessed exactly when where and how.

    > whether the USSR was planning to attack Germany but whether they were planning to attack preemptively. The will to attack is no longer controversial.

    In 1945 USA begged USSR to attack Japan. Would USSR refuse to do – the allies would be very surprised and upset about USSR renegading their “common fight”.

    Third Reich claimed their persistent need of “Lebensraum”, claimed that Slavs are subhumans, animals to be made extinct.

    Poland and Third Reich were aiming at joint invasion into USSR, just like they jointly invaded Czechoslovakia.

    So, sure, everyone knew Third Reich would attack USSR. But when? With what technology? With which allies? By what routes? Would it attack USSR before attacking France or would it attack France before USSR?

    You wuill die. Eventually. You know it. Equally i know it about myself. But we do not know when and how it would happen.

    Winter War could be averged if Finland agreed to lease one uninhabited island to USSR.
    USA invasion insto Syria was in 2013 averged by surrendering all the chemical weapons.

    USSR made claims upon southern Slavic lands like Bulgaria and Bosphors. Third Reich denied those claims.
    Like WW1 started around Serbs and conflicting agendas aof Russia and Austria+Germany about them.
    Like dyplomatic and military allies Poland and Third Reich falen apart over the claims over Dantzig/Gdansk access.

    The primary point that Rezun makes – and then “forgets” was that Third Reich was created by USSR (and by extension – the whole European part of WW2).

    The secondary point of Rezun is that by June 1941 the Third Reich saw immediate and imminent danger. That could not be delayed. Could not be talked through, etc. Rezun claims that in June 1941 the Third Reich had no any option left then IMMEDIATE invasion. Hitler could not appease Stalin by giving him Bosphor and Bulgaria, for example. No any concessions Third Reich could made would even slightly delay USSR bloodlust.

    To prove the latter Rezun hacks together a list that has little time implications. He lists the points that show that USSR was training and readying to offensive operations. It was. Everyone was at that time. However there is nothing proving that Soviet offense was set in July 1941, nor that it could not be cancelled by Hitler’s diplomacy. And without it the very concept that Hitler’s invasion was preemptive and forced is hanging from a thread. The very alleged Soviet invasion then would be no less preemptive and forced.

    To prove the former Rezun…. does nothing in Icebreaker and in later books he just mentions in passing some third party book, totally refusing to defend his primary claim himself.

    And summinng that up, we see Rezun’s theory being “Stalin’s USSR was evil and bloody because it intended to attack Hitler”. Okay, then Roosevet’s USA was evil and bloody cause it intended to attack Japan. And France and UK were much worse than both USSR and USA for they DID declared war on Third Reich.
    And what does that Grande Revelation brings us too?

    > How could the USSR achieve a huge numerical superiority of troops and a large concentration immediately at the border to Germany

    1) did it had “huge numerical superiority” ?
    2) USSR did a number of westward expansions since 1939. Curzone line between Ukrane and Poland. Baltic states. Romania. Of course lot of Soviet armies would be where they just led offensives.

    More so, would had “Allies” finally remembered their obligations toward Poland and from “Phoney War” finally switch to real war on Hitler (which Hitler did preempted, but because France and UK were too slow) – then most probably USSR would be invited to the joint attack.

    > Keep in mind that the USSR has a far inferior infrastructure

    than Poland ? Than Romania ?

    > and a much lager territory

    so what? Most of Soviet population was in Eastern part of the land. Huge swaths of Siberia forrest do not matter – there was no draft, no training grounds, not factories, nothing. It is still mostly the same even today.

    > They were taken by completely by surprise

    Completely? IOW no one in USSR thought there ever would be war in Germany? Even after fighting Germany in Spain ? Even after ordering new airplanes to match Bf-109?

    The “completely” is way too strong a word.

    > Therefore, the theory of a Soviet preemptive attack is indefensible.

    It is neither worse nor better than theory of Third Reich preemptive attack.

    The latter theory says:

    Hitler managed to see that USSR would attack on 06th July and so he had scrambled his preparations to attack 22th June. Would Hitler miscalculate and think USSR would attack later in August – then Third Reich woud inevitable by caught “with their pants down”.

    Just reflect the claim.

    Stalin could manage to see that Third Reich would attack on 22th June and then he could had scrambled his preparations to attack 08th June. But Stalin miscalculated and thought Third Reich would attack later in July – which made USSR caught “with their pants down”.

  356. L.K says:

    Following the publication of Stalin’s speech in Novy Mir, historians at Novosibirsk University undertook a major revisionist study of the immediate prewar situation. The results of this scholarly seminar were published in April 1995.
    Russian historian I. V. Pavlova, stated bluntly in her seminar contribution that for decades Communist Party historians worked to bury the background, origins and development of the Second World War, including Stalin’s August 1939 speech, under a mountain of lies.

    Another of the participating scholars, V. L. Doroshenko, said that the new evidence shows that “Stalin provoked and unleashed the Second World War.” Suggesting that Stalin and his regime should have been on trial at Nuremberg, Doroshenko went on explain:

    … Not just because Stalin helped Hitler but because it was in Stalin’s own interests that the war begin. First, because of his general goal of seizing power in Europe, and, second, because of the immediate advantage of destroying Poland and taking over Galicia. But Stalin’s most important motive was the war itself … The collapse of the European order would have made it possible for him to establish his dictatorship [over all of Europe].

    To this end, Stalin wanted for the time being to stay out of the war, but only with the intention of entering it at the most favorable moment. In other words, the nonaggression pact freed Hitler’s hands and encouraged Germany to unleash a war [in Poland]. As Stalin signed the Pact, he was already determined to break it. Right from the outset he did not intend to stay out of the conflict but, to the contrary, to enter the war directly at the most advantageous moment.

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n6p28_Michaels.html

  357. Iris says:
    @Ron Unz

    shouldn’t pro-Soviet voices be proclaiming Suvorov’s verity from every rooftop, whether they actually believe him correct or not?”

    No, they shouldn’t. Pro-Soviet, or pro-Russian commenters, whatever you call them, are not preoccupied with delusion of grandeur, or with promoting Stalin’s image.

    We are preoccupied with understanding what and who REALLY caused WW2, so we can, perhaps, have a tiny, minuscule chance to avoid the occurrence of WW3.

  358. Arioch says:
    @Ron Unz

    > But under Suvorov’s contrary reconstruction, Stalin ranks as a geopolitical genius, who easily manipulated both Hitler and his capitalist opponents

    And that is why his books were so popular in collapsed USSR with people hungry for both resentiment and anti-soviet revelations. Rezun managed to deliver both in one book.

    However…

    > it’s obvious why a totally exhausted USSR in 1945 required the [innocent idiots] story

    and it is totalyl obvious why exhausted UK+USA today require their own “innocent idiots” story that Rezun theory delivers.

    See, it is just mirrored. Projection.

    • Troll: L.K
  359. L.K says:

    Painful History

    In her Novy Mir article Bushuyeva writes of the pain that Russians must now endure in acknowledging that much of what they have believed for decades about the “Great Patriotic War” is wrong….
    Writes Bushuyeva: “The entire depth of the tragedy that befell our five-million-man army in June 1941 must be plumbed. The evil that the rulers of the Soviet Union had planned for others suddenly, by some inscrutable fate, struck our own country.”

    It would be easy, Bushuyeva continues, to curse those who “are rewriting” history, and to continue to believe in the familiar contrived myths and symbols that appeal to our national pride — to the patriotism of the Russian people. “Yes, it would be possible to go on as before,” she writes, “if it were not for one peculiar circumstance. Man is so constituted that the truth, however painful, is more important in the final analysis than the spurious bliss of living in lies and ignorance.”

    Suvorov likewise acknowledges that many Russians despise him for his revelations. He writes:

    I have challenged the one sacred thing the Russian people still cling to — their memory of the “Great Patriotic War.” I have sacrificed everything dear to me to write these books. It would have been intolerable to have died without telling the people what I have uncovered. Curse the books! Curse me! But even as you curse me try to understand.

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n6p28_Michaels.html

  360. Arioch says:
    @L.K

    > The rest of the German tank force was composed of Pz.kpfw. 38(t), Pz.kpfw. 35(t),

    Which probably were practically better than Pz.3 and Pz.4

    And which were given to Germany when UK and France coerced Czechoslovakia to surrender without fight and were rewarded by Chamberlaine-Hitler non-agression pact.

    • Replies: @L.K
  361. Arioch says:
    @kikl

    > The Brits never surrender in these numbers, they fled in order to fight for another day.

    year, good justification to desert from the battlefield: “let idiots fight and die now, our lives are valuable and we would save them for another day”. It is never wrong and always rings true.

    > If the Brits had performed as abysmally as the Red Army

    English Channel and English sea fleet.
    Brits and other allies did “performed abysmally”: they totally lost the Battle for France, having more soldiers than USSR had, having their industries in place, facing forces of Third Reich one year weaker than when it invaded USSR.

    > The French and British troops performed immensely better than the Red Army.

    So, loosing the war and defecting is now “performing immensely better” than winning the war.
    Perhaps i really am not capable of this kind of rationality.

    > So now you equate the Norwegian Army with the Red army?

    1. i do not equate but compare
    2. i do not compare “now” but always did

    My comment #315:

    Bluntly, while Red Army in 1941 performed poorly comparing to Wehrmacht, it performed much better than ANY other Hitler’s opponent. So, why should had Stalin punish his generals?

    • Replies: @utu
  362. L.K says:
    @Arioch

    ‘Which probably were practically better than Pz.3 and Pz.4′

    Nonsense.

  363. There are many interesting commentaries above and maybe some of them answer the questions that I had before (which maybe were quite banal as I’m far from knowing as much about this theme as most people writing comments here). In any case: The experience of WWI was in 1941 not very far away. Germans had seen what it meant to fight a war in several fronts. They had also seen that the US would take the side of England and that this meant that at this point a war was practically lost. Germans had seen the collapse of the front in 1918 because of a war that had lasted too long. Germans knew that things could go wrong.

    In 1941 the war had lasted already for 2 years. It seemed to have no end. Germany had had to occupy several countries which were not enemies of Germany. The cause for that was war necessity. Germany had to occupy Holland and Norway in order to keep the British away. In 1941 it seemed that Germany could do a lot of things but not defeat England. If the war lasted much longer at some point the US would intervene. All those things seemed to be quite obvious. So, why would Hitler decide to attack the Soviet Union at this point? If he couldn’t defeat England, how could he hope to defeat England and the Soviet Union together. It even seems that Germany was open to peace negotiations with England. Germans seemed to notice that the war couldn’t go on, that there wasn’t very much to win anymore but a lot to loose. So, why did they attack the Soviet Union? If there was no very strong reason for that the attack was irrational. Either Hitler was completely stupid or completely crazy. Attacking the Soviet Union could not be a mistaken calculation. The reasons against the attack were very clear and obvious. They couldn’t think that the US wouldn’t intervene if the war lasted much longer, or if England had serious difficulties.

    So, either Hitler was really stupid and completely crazy, or there were strong reasons for an attack like fearing an innevitable attack from the Soviet Union or thinking that defeating the Soviet Union would make it easier to reach an agreement with England. But of course, it could be the case that Hitler was simply stupid and also the German generals around him.

    • Replies: @Arioch
    , @j2
  364. Mike P says:
    @Ron Unz

    I don’t see these two theses as contradictory. Stalin’s overall strategy was brilliant, but the Red Army’s training and command were wholly inadequate. With the Germans, it was the opposite.

  365. Arioch says:
    @L.K

    The Anglo-Americans, also very much responsible for the war, cannot throw their former Soviet ally under the bus either, since the Soviets played a major role in defeating the Axis

    So what ? UK pressed for nuclear attack on USSR in 1946 already. USA warred against pro-Soviet regimes in Korea and Vietnam.

    “The service already delivered has value no more ”

    And that “major war” is denied by mass propaganda. Waffen SS are celebrating in the streets of Baltic States. Waffen SS monuments are all through Toronto city. Monuments of Soviet victory over Third reich are universayl vandalized or demolished or hidden over Europe.

    “Cannot throw under the same bus twice” was what you probably meant to say.

    documents which demonstrate the reality that the Anglo-Americans knew very well what kind of a regime the Stalinist regime was.

    There are documents showing what Saudi regime or Israeli regime “really” is.
    There are documents showing that back in 2012 USA government “knew very well” that “Syrian opposition” are Wahhabi terrorists.

    So what? Who in USA/UK gives a loaf about those documents?

    For instance, the post Soviet Russian government released documents showing that the US and the Brits knew very well at the time that the massacre at Katyn was the work of the NKVD.

    So you say that US+UK did throw USSR under the bus w.r.t. Katyn but could not do the same about Hitler. Really?

    And w.r.t. documents in countries fallen into vassalitet to US+UK

    Iraq: https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp28.pdf
    Catastrophe: destruction of Iraq past.

    Ukraine: http://russialist.org/kiev-history-museum-looted-during-night-of-chaos/

    Yugoslavia: http://illyria.proboards.com/thread/668/bosnia-loses-original-dayton-accords and then http://www.dw.com/en/bosnian-serb-arrested-with-copy-of-dayton-peace-accord/a-41200505

    Afterall George Orwell after working for BBC documented the experience in “1984″ fable.

    • Agree: Iris
  366. Tunden says:
    @L.K

    Yes, 1800 out of 23,000. Stahel also says the older types were too lightly armored and prone to breakdown, and that no Soviet tanks were equipped with radios. Like all the Wehrmacht’s early opponents, the Soviets found that tanks that cannot communicate to maneuver effectively as a unit are hopelessly outmatched by those that can. Also, their 3-man crews meant that the gunner or commander loaded the main gun, lowering the effectiveness of either. In this way the Soviets were outclassed by the Germans, as evidenced by the result.
    The fact is, the Germans’ advantage lay in their tactical doctrine and their operational employment of armor and CAS, both arrived at through a correct evaluation of the modern weapons of WWI. In other words, staff work.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  367. JackOH says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, if Suvorov is correct, then Hitler presents with the appearance of a not irrational leader responding to the pressures and opportunities of the moment, rather than a madman working from the Mein Kampf playbook, written when he was a provincial politician. I’ve not read Suvorov, and can’t judge his veracity. But, to state the obvious, there’s a lot of emotional and political vesting in the conventional narrative, and Suvorov shakes that up. He deserves a fair shake in the Anglophone world.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  368. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Anon

    (Finns) wore swastikas like Nazis

    No, they did not. The Finnish swastika was a marking for their airplanes only. Their air force began with the gift of an airplane from a Swedish nobleman. He painted it with a swastika, and the Finns kept the symbol for distinguishing their planes. Their swastika was a mirror image and rotated 45 degrees from the German one. This didn’t keep poorly trained Soviet spotters from reporting Finnish planes as German. Finns absolutely did not wear swastikas. Look at the videos and photographs.

    • Replies: @j2
  369. Arioch says:
    @kikl

    > When they were first encountered they made a huge impression.

    Mona Lisa makes a huge impression on me. But does not affect my everyday life.

    > They were not defining battles

    That is it. Their existence caused little change in air battles. Bombers were not grounded. Fighters were not recalled. No specific antii-jet techinique (like Thatch’s Weave against Zero) was imposed upon all pilots. Practically ignored.

    > and the allies had a huge numerical superiority

    So had USSR air force against Luftwaffe, if to believe Rezun. And we should ad UK RAF to Soviet AF too, as in 1941 RAF was fighting Luftwaffe already.

    > So the only reason that piston engines aircraft were not useless was …. they were the only aircraft available to the allies.

    Interesting.

    You say that “weapon becomes useless when you – not your adversaries but you – get a better one.
    I concur. Weapons are useless or useful to pledge wars on your adversaries. Consequently it is your adversaries level not your one that defines when your weapon becomes useless.

    > So the only reason that piston engines aircraft were not useless was …. they were the only aircraft available to the allies.

    So if Russian/American/Chinese/etc army tomorrow would fly their jets to bomb some savages who have no weapons but spears and arrows, then “the only reason that bows and arrows would not be useless” (to repell strategic bombers of R/A/C/e, a-ha) would be “they were the only projectiles available to those savages”.

    But as for me, they would still be useless. Because it is not relevant if those savages would have anything better than arrows or not. Relevant would be whether those spears and bows can down Tu-160 and B-52 or not.

    > Oh they were indeed useless in the 1930-s, because “Soviet tank forces soon found the convertible option of little practical use;

    really? Well, if some anoynmous says so in Wikipedia in 2018, then it definitely was so in 1930

    > in a country with few paved roads,

    So, there were roads. Even if those roads were required (not mrerely recommended) it is still a vague idea what is “few” or “enough”.

    > it consumed space and added needless complexity and weight.

    Every decision is a compromise between what we want and what we can.

    It neededly added complexity and weight for the needless goal of tanks being able to move on their own, not merely on heavy trucks (that USSR did not have).

    > The feature was dropped from later Soviet designs.”

    Christie suspension – and the “consumed space” problem – was dropped in T-54 tank. How many T-54 tanks were used to invade Third Reich ?

    > unless of course they were meant to be used in countries with lots of paved roads like Germany.

    You meant like Mongolia. There is no other land that had so many paved roads as Mongolia had in 1939.

    On the contrary, in 1930-s Germany there were no paved roads at all.
    That is the only reason that Stalin made thoussands of wheeled tanks with their sole purpose to invade Germany – and never used them to invade Germany.

    In 1939 Stalin finally understood that there would never be any worthy quantity of paved road in Germany and ordered production of tracks-only T-34, which was “autobahn-oriented tank” because it could not more drive on wheels, so it finally could be used to invade the roadless Germany.

    Jeez! It was so much easier in Mongolia, the state that introduced the concept of paved road network to the rest of the world!

    • Replies: @kikl
  370. Unzerker says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Look, English isn’t my native language, and I might be wrong, but I’ve always understood “obsolete” to mean in everyday language: “no longer useful”. And it certainly was meant that way to dismiss the extremely large number of Soviet tanks with their very useful 45 mm guns, so I wasn’t wrong in this respect.

    According to your logic the entire tank fleet of the Germans was obsolete, as they were inferior in almost every respect to the KV-1 and T-34. And I certainly haven’t heard it ever being mentioned this way.

    This probably would also be a good moment for you to elaborate the semantic argument on why the lightly armored open-topped mobile anti-tank guns/tank destroyers in WW2 were completely useful and contemporary, while the fully armored T-26 with a powerful gun for the time can be dismissed as useless and obsolete. But you will probably omit that part…

  371. KenH says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    Bergstrom tries to bust myths by creating myths of his own. The Germans launched Barbarossa with approximately 150 divisions. Divisional strength ranges from 10K to 20K. If each German division was comprised of 15K men then that’s a total of 2.25 million. If 20K then 3 million. The German allies who numbered roughly 400-600K did little actual fighting and usually guarded the rear and the flanks or were in a supply capacity.

    The Russians had an equal number of divisions but had vastly more reserves totaling 360 divisions:

    https://www.britannica.com/event/Operation-Barbarossa

    This source claims Stalin had 5 million men arrayed against the Germans as well as 23,000 tanks:

    https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/operation-barbarossa-and-germanys-failure-in-the-soviet-union

    This is very believable considering the vast numbers of Russians the Germans killed or took prisoner in the first 3-4 month. German generals would remark how they would kill or capture 500K Russians and 500K more would appear out of thin air or something to that effect.

    It’s counterintuitive and illogical for people to claim on the one hand that Russia had vastly more tanks, planes, artillery and ammunition then on the other to claim that Russia was undermanned and outnumbered.

    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
  372. Arioch says:
    @Tunden

    > no Soviet tanks were equipped with radios.

    Soviet radios were inferiors to German. No doubt.
    But….

    Almost all tanks produced since late 1930s had radio receiver.
    And commander’s tanks had both receiver and transmitter.

    Which made commander’s tanks have that distinct turret with a specialized antenna running around it.

    See 01:40 at

    The video also claims that the white paint across the turret was intentionally made to distinguish “main tank” for the grunts. But i never heard about such painting habit before.

    This antenna then provided German anti-tank crews to easily distinguish commanders from grunts and knock them out.

    • Replies: @Tunden
  373. Unzerker says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I would also like to quote L.K. (comment 360) on this subject.
    He says what I remember reading in the past, but could not easily find.

    They were not far superior but neither were they obsolete, as you claim.
    [..]
    Only 1400 out of the 3266 German tanks at the beginning of Barbarossa were Pz.kpfw. III and IV, and these were the early variants, including 259 Pz.kpfw. III still armed with a 3.7cm gun, and the Panzer IV was, at the time, armed with a short low velocity 7.5 cm gun.

    The rest of the German tank force was composed of Pz.kpfw. 38(t), Pz.kpfw. 35(t), Pz.kpfw. II and even the Pz.kpfw.I(MG only).

    So, if most Soviet tanks were ‘obsolete’, then the same applies to the Germans.

  374. Arioch says:
    @UncommonGround

    And that is the part for conspiracy and speculations.

    BTW the fairy tales like “Hitler was geinus and Stalin was idiot” and mirrored “Stalin was geinus and Hitler was idiot” are serving to distract from any attempts to rationally understand the actors.

    So, one of the ideas to think about is Sitzkrieg aka Phoney War.

    UK+France declared war on Germany but did not actually shoot a salvo.
    nstead they playes soccer together, reportedly.

    Why ?

    My paranoia suggests to look at the Phoney War that USA “pledged” against ISIS.

    But that is of course nonsense and someone wuld cam with another rational explanation for UK+France willfully providing Hitler with absolutely legal case to attack them and insisting upon it for months and months until Hitler bought the bait and did the attack.

    • Replies: @Iris
  375. @JOHN CHUCKMAN

    “Not only that, but an invasion by Stalin would give the United States an excuse it would welcome to end the Soviet Union.”

    Stopped reading there. You are clueless.

  376. @ohmy

    Why? Codoh is a very useful source of information. True, some contributors are a bit too apologetic towards Nazism, but that’s far preferable to the permanent state of hate we’re expected to publicly engage in.

  377. L.K says:

    Another piece of the puzzle might be what is addressed by Finnish author Erkki Hautamäki, in his book ‘Finland i stormens öga’( Finland in the eye of the storm).The book seems to be available only in Swedish.

    …It is based on the contents of the so-called file S-32 of Marshal Mannerheim and is copied from there by the Marshal’s secret agent Vilho Tahvanainen, who worked with him during the war.
    The central hypotheses concerning and changing the writing of the history of Finland are as based on his book:
    - Churchill and Stalin negotiated the starting of co-operation in a war of many fronts against Germany since April 1939. In July it was agreed that when Germany and the Soviet Union attack Poland, the declaration of war of the western allies would be focused only against German actions.
    - On the 23rd of August 1939 Stalin and Hitler signed the so called Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Its secret extra protocol included the so-called concept of the sphere of interest that did not mean permission to conquer the Baltic states and Finland. It meant instead the right to demand strategic bases in case of war.
    - On the 15th of October 1939 an agreement was signed between Stalin and Churchill (the allied forces). The core of it was the plan to destroy Germany both militarily and economically. Churchill’s old plan regarding the Scandinavian operation was also accepted.
    - The winter war of Finland did not stop because of Stalin’s fear of a possible threat of western allies attacking to defend Finland. It ended when Hitler sent Stalin an edict that Stalin shall cease the acts of war against Finland, or Germany will bombard Soviet troops and fight for Finland unbidden. The Marshal received from Hitler information about this edict and copies of the plan of the western allies and Stalin concerning Finland.
    - If this would have happened, the allied forces would have conquered Norway and Sweden in the name of Finnish aid. Simultaneously the Soviet Union would have conquered Finland. Finland would have drawn into war and Scandinavia would have been a front against Germany. Churchill and the allied forces thus sold Finland to the Russians.
    - Stalin played simultaneously an ally of Germany and the western allies. His goal was to get the western allies and Germany to wear themselves down in their fighting against each other. After this he would conquer a weakened Europe. …

    Full @ http://prokarelia.net/en/?x=artikkeli&article_id=667

  378. dfordoom says: • Website
    @White Trashionalist

    They could also go on city roads, just as effective in defense as in offense.

    What made the BT tanks purely an offensive weapon was their thin armour. They were intended for exploiting breakthroughs for which purpose armour didn’t matter.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  379. @L.K

    Yes. As you’ve noted here as well, there is a strong Slavic attachment to the Holocaust myth as well. It does not speak well of Slavs collectively that they cannot or will not realize that this latter myth is completely off-limits to them in the New World Order.

  380. @JackOH

    What is so “mad” about Mein Kampf? Sure, lots of it is rubbish (but far more palatable than a memoir by, say, Hillary or McCain), but there are some brilliant insights there as well. Which is exactly why we’re not supposed to actually read it.

  381. hrk1 says:

    One of the best articles I’ve ever read, so much more to explore from here.

  382. Arioch says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    > T-34 76/85 was a completely different generation of MBTs

    Nitpicking

    The first MBT was T-64, and it was radically different from Christie/BT/34/54/55/62 family.

    T-10 was produced until 1966

  383. utu says:
    @Arioch

    Bluntly, while Red Army in 1941 performed poorly comparing to Wehrmacht, it performed much better than ANY other Hitler’s opponent. So, why should had Stalin punish his generals?

    Is this a talking point you guys came up at Frunze Military Academy that you keep repeating that every child in USSR knew since he was 8 years old? You know it is a BS. It all depends what metrics are used to calculate and there are many reasonable ones but they are mutually incongruent metrics. Should it be killed and POWs per square km or per day and so on or capture territory per day or losses per day? If France or Poland had extra 1000 mile deeper territories and extra 20-30 divisions the picture would be different for them.

    No army ever conquered as many square miles and took as many POW’s in as short time as Wehrmacht in 1941 and later. Subsequently soon 5-10% of all German forces personnel were former citizen of the USSR. The defeat was colossal.

    I thought that you were a reasonable guy who came to correct nonsense peddled by Suvorov but you are also a peddler (look at your string of comments) who replaces one BS with another BS.

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Arioch
  384. AI says:
    @Wally

    USSR did not invade Poland, they only liberated and returned Belarus and the West Russian territories occupied by Poland after the WWI.

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
  385. Anon[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    I can figure a scenario where revusky bets you some $5000 that he’ll prove Suvorov is a synthetic. figure, or at least his renowned book is

  386. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Under the conventional narrative, Stalin and his top military advisors were total idiots and incompetents, whose stupidity left their country completely vulnerable to Hitler’s attack, thereby costing many millions of lives and nearly resulting in the destruction of the USSR.

    Not exactly. Russia had several million soldiers along the frontier, but the frontier was several thousand kilometers long, so whether organized offensively or defensively, they had no more than a thousand troops per km if evenly distributed, and they were assaulted at three widely separated points by a total of 90 German divisions plus ten Rumanian divisions and a bunch of Hungarians.

    The Germans had the advantage of surprise. Moreover the operation began in pleasant summer weather that made travel across the unroaded portions of Belorus and Ukraine easy going. But things had turned around by Christmas, when it was necessary to light bonfires under German tanks to liquefy the lubricants before they could be started, and Berliners were being asked to donate their overcoats for the troops, still clad in light summer gear, facingwarmly dressed Siberians on skis.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  387. L.K says:
    @utu

    It takes a bullshitter to know another bullshitter, eh, boy?

  388. L.K says:

    Stalin’s Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav M. Molotov’s statement before the Supreme Soviet on October 31, 1939:
    A single blow against Poland, first by the Germans, and then by the Red Army, and nothing remained of this misbegotten child of the Versailles Treaty, which owed its existence to the repression of non-Polish nationalities.’

  389. dfordoom says: • Website
    @the Supreme Gentleman

    by late 1944 or so, when they didn’t in fact conduct major airborne operations?

    Maybe by that stage the Soviets had simply decided that airborne operations were a foolish and wasteful idea? Why undertake such expensive and risky operations when you’re already winning the war and final victory is already a certainty?

    Airborne operations appeal mostly to armchair strategists. By 1944 the Soviet war effort was in the hands of hardened professionals.

  390. @AI

    Which is basically what the Germans sought to rectify as well, no? Why did the British object to the Germans reclaiming territory, but the not the Soviets? It couldn’t be because the British Empire was duplicitous, could it?

  391. kikl says:
    @Arioch

    “…You meant like Mongolia. There is no other land that had so many paved roads as Mongolia had in 1939.

    On the contrary, in 1930-s Germany there were no paved roads at all…”

    Sounds like you are willing to invent any absurd story. I don’t think an honest discussion is possible with you.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  392. This was a very interesting set of comments, more so as it appeared there were some real attempts at miss-information by folks from ye olde Russia, or so it appears.

    I have read “The chief culprit” and a few facts no one has mentioned:

    1) All of the soviet plans were offensive, the archive documents that. There were no defensive plans, nor was the Stalin line being worked on, instead it was being disassembled.

    2) The deployment of forces on Romania, North of East Prussia and in the Minsk area correspond with the pre war offensive plans. Clever ones at that, you have to read the book to get it.

    3) The black corps (of political prisoners) showed up not after a month or so, but in the Minsk encirclement, the first 10 days. The obvious reason for arming political prisoners was Stalin intended to use them as initial assault cannon fodder, much like the did with penal battalions all throughout the war. In preparations for a defensive war one does not use such unreliable troops to hold a sector or for reserves, they are used as initial throwaway troops whose death is not to be lamented.

    4) The existence of a large number of paratroop trained infantry is indicative of a offensive mind, not a defensive one. The expense of training, even from towers when those labor/training hours could have been involved in a erecting defense in depth is a indication of how offensive mined the Soviets were. No one mentioned they were used in the first days of the Dec 5 counter offensive, pretty disastrously it might be pointed out.

    5) The dispositions of the light aircraft were within 20 KM of the frontier, which indicates they were assembled for close air support. Only an offensive operation would have dictated such deployment. This was the exact same deployment used against Japan in the 1939 Mongolia assault.

    6) The classic story of how Stalin hid for 2 weeks was wrong (spread by Khrushchev) . The author found not the record of Stalin’s conferences, but the appointments, and Stalin was involved in war conferences around 14 hours a day the first 10 days.

    7) Stalin was surprised because he assumed the German build up was defensive. He knew from all of the aerial recon that the Germans were building up, he thought it was defensive as they were not buying cold weather lubricants nor were the prices of wool reflecting the what would occur if the Germans were buying cold weather clothing for winter. Soviet intelligence was pretty good, but they were too clever for themselves in that instance.

    I could go one, but the point is made (I hope) The book is very well researched and Mark Solvin’s work is even more in depth of specifics. Not every conclusion of the author is absolutely assured, but a lot of folks here are engaging in deliberate disinformation, or are ignorant.

    as proof: the real size of the Russian Army in June 1941: source “When Titans Clashed” Glantz, House, University Press of Kansas, 1995. The figures come from the Russian archives:

    Tanks on hand, 22 June 1941: 22,000
    Field forces: 14,000
    Losses June-Dec 1941: 20,500

    1941, average monthly strength: 3,334,000 Losses to end of year 2,933,803 (total) with 1,314,291 sick or wounded (total losses) 4,308,094. The above is the Red army alone, not including the naval forces. The soviets had a pool of well over 12 million reservists to draw from, with 5.5 million in the army as of June 1941, with all the losses this rose to 7.4 million enrolled by 11 September, of which 3.463 million were at the front. Despite the losses the front line strength continued to rise (with a few dips after the Kiev pocket and the November encirclement) On 1 Dec 1941 the Soviet army had 4,167,000 at the front.

    In the first quarter of 1942 they had an average monthly strength of 4,186,000 men, so June 1941 to Jan 1 1942 a minimum of 8.45 million men plus were under arms, likely more as German capture figures show higher number of prisoners than soviets records (likely local reservists not entered on Moscow’s books) , not 2 million as stated by some on this thread who should know better.

    • Replies: @kikl
    , @Arioch
    , @jilles dykstra
  393. pogohere says: • Website
    @The Scalpel

    Germany did win the war: the EU is patterned on governmental structures (cartels, a parliament with no power ruled by non-electeds) designed by Nazi lawyers to eliminate democracy in any form. See Farrell: The Third Way : The Nazi International, European Union, and Corporate Fascism

    • Agree: Arioch
    • Troll: Mike P
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @Philip Owen
  394. Anonymous[235] • Disclaimer says:
    @kikl

    Has anyone done a detailed scientific analysis of “Hitler’s” diction in this recording, compared to his public speeches?

    WWII remains the center of much international attention – who controls the present, controls the past, etc. It would not be surprising to find that some party at some point found it useful to concoct this recording.

    The story about the SS guards threatening to liquidate the recording engineer sounds a tad contrived.

    • Replies: @kikl
  395. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Not really. In this alternative narrative, Stalin is basically evil and incompetent. He’s both held as responsible for WWII and for causing utter death and destruction in the Soviet Union in the process.

  396. kikl says:
    @Bobs your Uncle.

    “This was a very interesting set of comments, more so as it appeared there were some real attempts at miss-information by folks from ye olde Russia, or so it appears…but a lot of folks here are engaging in deliberate disinformation, or are ignorant.”

    I second that. Some people appear to be spreading lies and purposely obfuscating the debate it seems. Reasonable arguments are answered by making up absurd lies.

  397. Arioch says:
    @utu

    Armies exists to defend their lands from the enemy army.
    That is the metric.
    All other metrics are secondary, to clarify how exactly an army succeeded or failed to do its primary job.

    Allied army had more manpower than Soviet army – but miserably failed to win war for Europe against less strong Third Reich than what came for USSR.

    Bordeax was closer to Berlin than Vladivostok? But Wehrmacht did not made its way to Vladivostok, also it took Wehrmacht several times longer to its most eastern advancement than it took to the western shores of Europe. Additionally it is any army responsibility to use underlying geography to its advantage. If allied armies were incapable of using Europe’s geography to further boost their manpower advantage – that does not mesn Red Army failed, quite the opposite. Yeah, there was no Siberia in north-west Europe. And there was no Maginaut line in USSR.

    Wehrmacht took less POWs in the West? Indeed, when the WHOLE British army deserts from the battlefield – taking them prisoners is hard. If Red Army would keep fleeing instead of fighting – there would be less POWs too. And in those lands like Austria that capitulated without fight there was no POWs at all. By this metric those armies were most successful that surrendered before shots were fired. I can only agree that such a metric would be mutually incongruent with the backward metric of fighting off the enemy and defeding one’s homeland?

  398. Arioch says:
    @kikl

    I just land your claims from abstract fantasy world into real history.

    You claim BT tanks could only be used to invade countries with “dense paved road network” – and the land where BTs were operated in large offensive is Mongolia.

    You claim BT tanks could not be used in lands lacking “dense paved road network” – and the land where BTs were not operated is Germany.

    You claim BT tanks were mass produced exclusively for autobahn invasions, and we know Mongolia was the only real example of such invasion while Germany was not.

    If real history that actually happenned suits you less than imaginary abstract disconnected slogans – then don’t blame me

  399. Che Guava says:

    Thanks for the reply, and point taken. I was missing the relevance because I also knew of the main points of Suvorov’s writing liked your summary, and am not myself a US person, thus the perhaps misguided comment re. AmPrav.

    Also good to see you bring up and support Irving, he was almost the epicentre of the ‘no-platform’, watching that from afar, knowing of his rep. as a brilliant historian and having read a few, and once having seen activists try to shut him down when studying overseas, sure was a crucial step in making me see that the western trotskys and new left had nothing to do with the old left.

    Must check if Suvorov was published in Japanese.

    Thank you for running a great site.

  400. j2 says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    The swastika of the Finnish air forces (still used by the air force school) was not a mirror image. It was the same way as the Nazi swastika but standing on one leg (45 degrees turned, but Germans also used it that way sometimes). It was painted in blue on a plane from von Rosen and was a known good luck symbol with Aryan (Indo-European) associations. The swastika in Finnish medals (still used) is from Gallen-Kallela, a Finnish national romantic painter, much before Nazis. The plane was obtained in 1918. Hitler designed the Nazi swastika 1920. But von Rosen founded the Swedish Nazi party later and his sister married Göring, so finally this swastika goes to the same Aryan thinking of that time (but not for Finns). The planes with blue swastikas on wings were Finnish, Nazi planes had a black double cross and only a small swastika in the tail. It should have been very easy to distinguish the planes. Finns were not Nazis during the war and protected Finnish Jews, who also fought in the Finnish army against the Soviet Union. Finns handed over Jewish war prisoners (some 100) to Germans (and were given Finnish-origin POWs by Germans), but they were not killed in German POW camps in Lapland during the war. It is not known what happened to them, probably they were taken to Norway when Germans withdrew.

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  401. Tunden says:
    @Arioch

    You’re right, I’m wrong. But I believe the point still holds. German after-action reports describe Russian tanks clumping around their leaders “like chicks around a hen.” Indicates poor training/communication.
    Given an inventory of 23,000, it’s not unreasonable to suspect a great many were never fitted with radios.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  402. Arioch says:
    @Bobs your Uncle.

    > attempts at miss-information by folks from ye olde Russia, or so it appears.

    Any criticism of your religion of choice appears dis-information.
    That is good. Few centuries ago it would have appeared heresy and witchcraft instead.

    > 1) All of the soviet plans were offensive, the archive documents that.

    Indeed, USSR hawks considered the very question of strategic (country-wide) defense operation a mere defeatism.
    So did Polish hawks.
    No “defensive plans” were presented for Czechoslovakia as well.

    USA had multitude of plans for nuclear bombing and invading USSR.
    There is no American plans for strategic defense against invasion and nuclear bombing of USSR.
    And America did developed nukes and strategic bombers and did deployed them to those plans.
    One such deployment even triggered Cuban Crisis.
    Does it prove America invaded USSR? no. Despite of readying half dozen of plans, both on paper and in forces deployment, USA did not actually engaged any of those.

    Existence of Soviet plans to attack Germany is the same thing, mere existence of plans.

    > 3) The black corps (of political prisoners) showed up not after a month or so,

    How do you know they were *political* prisoners? Solzhenytsyn claims they were ALL the available prisoners.
    How do you know they were typical situation, not a rare occasion, that surprised people so much, that the rumours lived through decades until Rezun came to collect them in 1970-s?

    Any corps, wearing black coats, are prisoners, more so, political prisoners, just because rumours say those are the only people wearing black coats.

    > but in the Minsk encirclement, the first 10 days.

    Here it is. In the fatal encirclement and because of it. Where “normal battle order” would warrant defeat. So, what had the Soviet government in Minsk to do with the prisoners? Give them away to Germans, so Germans would use them as their cannon fodder against USSR? Kill them all? What practical choices did they have?

    Everyone blames USSR for alleged killing of political prisoners in Katyn. But at the same time you blame USSR of alleged non-killing political prisoners in Minsk. Go figure.

    Unless you would say that creating Minsk encirclement was part of Stalin’s devious plan to conquer Europe.

    > In preparations for a defensive war one does not use such unreliable troops

    …..when command has choice and has abundance of “reliable troops”.

    By the same logic Hitler’s creation of Volksturm was part of his offensive. No one uses unreliable children and oldmen to hold important sectors. So, it was made for the offense.

    > they are used as initial throwaway troops whose death is not to be lamented.

    1. For blitzkrieg-type war it is crucial to have an unexpected and most professional strike in the first hours. If the shattering strike succeed, then the exploration phase may go worse or better. If the strike is repelled – then no exploration phase happens at all.

    If using “political prisoners” in the first – crucially important, defining the outcome – strike is feasible strategy, then Stalin should not be the only one using such a strategy. So, who else?

    For example, using tanks was a feasible strategy. And we see tanks in USSR, in Third Reich, in France, in UK, in Italy, even in USA.

    Who else used political prisoners to execute the most crucial most secret most hard part of strategic offenses?

    > The existence of a large number of paratroop trained infantry is indicative of a offensive mind, not a defensive one.

    “with little blood shed, on the enemies lands”

    basically, when today Putin claims “Russia would not allow the war being pledged on Russian soil” he repeats the wishful thinking of 1930-s USSR, and Poland, and UK, and France, and everyone.

    How such a mind proves that the offensive at Third Reich was imminent at exactly 06 July 1941 – is beyond me. But perhaps you would tell me which date the planned imminent Polish invasion of Germany was upon.

    > The expense of training, even from towers

    ….was part of medical prophylactics and talented sportsmen sieving among other things.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_for_Labour_and_Defence_of_the_USSR

    > when those labor/training hours could have been involved in a erecting defense in depth

    ….like building few more unarmed concrete boxes on the Soviet-German borderline.

    > No one mentioned they were used in the first days of the Dec 5 counter offensive, pretty disastrously it might be pointed out.

    As paratroopers ? Or as regular riflemen ?

    Also, they who ? In this paragraph you mix together specialized and highly trained military paratroopers corps – with nation-wide sports education that included kind of parachute jumps. I can go to a shooting range, pay a bit and shoot few targets for fun. Or purchase an air gun and shoot some crows. That does not make me professional military sniper, though would definitely help to assess my talents to become one if need arises.

    > The dispositions of the light aircraft were within 20 KM of the frontier, which indicates they were assembled for close air support.

    There is no CAS missions in defense operations?

    Also, aircrafts are the most mobile military forces of all.

    Sure, pedestrians can not move fast and should be amassed in advance.

    Food, medicine, ammo, fuel – this can be brought by railways and trucks, which are faster than pedestrians.

    Airfields should be constructed in advance too (those in ww2 the airfields were just flat lawns, but at least those lawns should had been found, marked on the maps and cleared of bushes).

    But why move the aircrafts before the actual offensive?

    On 30 September 2015, the upper house of the Russian Federal Assembly, the Federation Council, granted the request by Russian President Vladimir Putin to deploy the Russian Air Force in Syria.
    The first series of air strikes took place on 30 September 2015 in areas around the cities of Homs and Hama.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#September–October_2015

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/14/russias-military-action-in-syria-timeline

    See? Ammo and fuel was transferred for at least two months before. But the aircrafts arrived the same day as they, being refueled and armed, started the offensive.

    BTW, year ago there was a huuuuge story how the crazy Kim of North Korea moves his ICBMs to the very Russian borderline, which indicates Russia is in an imminent danger of North-Korean invasion. No, for real, that was the MSM story for at least a week. It would be hard today to find it, it all is flushed into the memory hole by the multitude reports of China and Russia moving forces towards Korean border.

    And hardly anyone can argue that ballistic nuclear missiles are offensive weapons.
    So, did Kim moved them to the very edge of Russia because he planned to attack Russia? Or because he considered Russian borderline the most secure and safe place for Korean weapons?

    > Stalin was involved in war conferences around 14 hours a day the first 10 days.

    Important fact per se, but does not prove there was USSR attack against TR planned on July 06, nor that Nazism itself was created by Stalin.

    > Stalin was surprised because he assumed the German build up was defensive. He knew from all of the aerial recon that the Germans were building up

    So, let me make it sink.

    1) Stalin mirrored Hitler’s buildup, even with a light delay. Stalin did everything the same that Hitler did other side of the borderland.
    2) Stalin considered Hitler’s formation (which was a copycat of Soviet formation and vice versa) defensive ones

    This necessarily implies that Stalin considered Soviet formations – which were mirroring Third Reich formations according to Rezun – equally defensive ones.
    Or, if he new Soviet formations were offensive, then Stalin did know the German formations equal to Soviet ones were equally offensive.

    Make your choice.

    > he thought it was defensive as they were not buying cold weather lubricants

    Preparations for long-time wars are one thing, the character of formation is another.

    By this logic – that formations character is determined not by the formation itself but by external unrelated factors in the state economics – Soviet formations were defensive too, because Stalin did not amassed yet modern air fighters, did not received from USA tonnes of aircraft fuel yet, did not produced hundred of thousand of “Ivan” glider-bombers Rezun talks about, did not produced hundreds of thousands of “Katyusha” multiple launchers yet, had not yet Germany bled dry by UK RAF, had not completed replacement of obsoleted light and wheeled tanks with T-34, had not produced millions of French-Russian and Flamand-Russian and Italian-Russian and all other non-German-European-languages dictionaries yet. IOW Red Army was no better ready to pan-European conquest than Wehrmacht was for Russian Winter.

    > The book is very well researched

    ….as a brainstorming session logs thatwrites down hundreds of absurdities to uncover 3-4 non0trivial unconventional gems.
    A good and comprehensive collection of rumours, that were not sieved through fact-checking.

    > as proof ….. The soviets had a pool of well over 12 million reservists to draw from

    Which is a proof of USSR having 200 millions population. Just that.

    Unless you would argue that having reservists pool is never required for defensive wars and reservists can only be used for offensives.

    > with all the losses this rose to 7.4 million enrolled by 11 September 1941

    Yes, two consecutive males year-generations were totally wiped out.
    The demographic wave of it made another comeback to Russia (and probably other ex-USSR states)just 5 years ago.

    How does it prove USSR was to imminently attack Third Reich on July 06 1941 ?

    The “genius Stalin’s attack” theory implies that Red Army losses would have be limited and this amount of cosignatories would not be required.

    However there is an even more wicked question we Slavic subhumans may ask.

    > with all the losses this rose to 7.4 million enrolled by 11 September 1941

    ….except that those 7 Millions were mostly CIVILIAN losses, not military ones.

    Documents from the Extraordinary State Commission prepared in March 1946 not but published until the 1990s listed 6,074,857 civilians killed, 3,912,283 prisoner of war dead, 3,999,796 deaths during German forced labor and 641,803 civilian deaths during Siege of Leningrad[156] The Soviet general staff in July 1945 put losses at 7,660,000 dead and missing, however the General Staffs figures were not published at that time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

    So, it is just impossible that June to September 1941 had 7.4M of military losses and then September 1941 to May 1945 only 250K was added.

    So, this “proof” becomes the thesis that 7M of *mostly civilian* losses could only happen because USSR was decided to launch an attack on Third Reich on July 06. Sounds legit.

    Rezun’s paralogical framework is simple:

    1. USSR “had offensive mind” an had plans of attacking Germany, which could be enacted at some point in time, but were not
    2. which proves USSR settled to attack on 06 July 1941 exactly and Third Reich in 1941 had no ways to prevent or delay it
    3. which proves USSR created Nazism and Hitler and engineered European part of WW2 by proxy

    Rezun then makes a lot of arguments towards #1, very few arguments towards #2 and none towards his #3 primary claim

    It is religion, not history.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  403. Arioch says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Generally, Rezun is Solzhenitsyn but with military education

    Interesting detail to remember, that Rezun across his books makes different statements about what event, when and where did strike his mind and caused his crushing moment of epiphany.

    Cynically speaking, those turning points are emotionally binding, making readers sympathize with the narrator. So, the more different turning points, the better. Turning like a fan may win you more fans, to hack together a bad pun.

    However in his magnum opus AFAIR Solzhenitsyn also has two non-matching descriptions of his arrest. Along his with his apology to war rapes.

    But who of Solzhenytsyn cultists did attentively read their prophet holy scriptures?..

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  404. @Bobs your Uncle.

    F.W. Deakin and G.R. Storry, ‘The case of Richard Sorge’, New York, 1966
    Sorge informed Moscow of the exact date of Hitler’s attack.
    He never got any reply, and was very angry that apparently Stalin did nothing.
    He never knew, Japan executed him in 1944, that he died for nothing.
    Stalin was already preparing his attack, I suppose there was nothing more Stalin could do.
    Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008
    Contrary to the Germans the Russians were bad planners, when the Wehrmacht attacked the Red Army still was in disarray.
    Russian railway transportation, and/or military planning, had made a mess.
    BTW, the Sorge book explains why Hitler wanted Moscow and Stalingrad, the latter city is on the Wolga.
    Japan had promised to attack Russia if the Germans had taken Moscow, and were at the Wolga.
    I must add that this information did make it possible for Stalin to move large numbers of troops from east to west.
    So in this respect Sorge did not die for nothing.

    • Replies: @Arioch
    , @Arioch
  405. Arioch says:
    @JOHN CHUCKMAN

    > Stalin had enough problems at home without setting out on any fantastic venture

    Interesting to note, that there was one ardent communist who fiercely insisted on conquering all of Europe and all the world after Europe.
    He called it “Permanent Revolution”.
    Name is Leo Trotsky.
    Position was the second in rank after Vladimir Lenin and the top USSR leader after Lenin’s death (same position that Gaddafi held in Libya).

    Stalin organized a slow-running coup against Trotsky, chased him out of USSR, and finally assassinated him, when Trotsky did not stop to demand USSR conquering all the world for him.

    Many leftists still see Stalin a renegade and appeasers of capitalism and Trotsky as a slayed hero of infinite war. People in ex-USSR in contrary mostly see Trotsky for fanatic intended to smash Russia/USSR against the wall to make 2-3 steps towards his dream grandiose and Stalin for pragmatic opportunist that saved USSR/Russia from the total annihilation planned by Trotsky.

    It is funny though how Trotsky – the man who persistently called to communistic conquering of all the world – is seen romantic hero in today West, and Stalin – the man who prevented this conquest – is made into a boogieman. Idiocy? Hypocrisy? Whatever….

    > Under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, a treaty which surprised the world in 1939

    What I never understand is this alleged “surprise”.

    Poland invented those bilateral unguarded pacts in 1934 or 1935.
    UK signed their pact in 1938 as a reward for helping to conquer Czechoslovakia (best military factories of then Europe).
    In between half dozen of European states signed non-aggressions with Third Reich.

    But in 1939 “the world surprised” when USSR did the same.
    What is that surprise born out of ???

    1) Surprise that stupid Slavic savages calculated that such a pact could be advantageous for them, catching up to “white man’s” civilized wisdom?
    2) Surprise that Slavic subhumans dared to enter the game only civilized European nations were destined to play?
    3) Surprise that Hitler refused the Polish dream of joint attack at USSR, despite the very successful joint attack at Czechoslovakia just a year before ?

    What ever there was to be surprised with ?

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @kerdasi amaq
  406. j2 says:
    @UncommonGround

    “So, either Hitler was really stupid and completely crazy, or there were strong reasons for an attack like fearing an innevitable attack from the Soviet Union or thinking that defeating the Soviet Union would make it easier to reach an agreement with England. But of course, it could be the case that Hitler was simply stupid and also the German generals around him.”

    People are too fond of a lone crazy man theories. The problem of Hitler’s motivation for the war cannot be (in my opinion) solved by the method of historical research for two reasons: firstly, historians must publish their work, which means that they cannot say the unthinkable, secondly, historians support their arguments by documents, but for Hitler’s decision to go to the war there are only few documents that are not propaganda. I would start from Mein Kampf and the situation after WWI.

    There was the threat of Communism in Germany and whole Europe. Communists were usually Jewish. Zionists controlled the USA, as WWI showed, England had made a deal with Zionists over Palestine. Germany could not win a two front war. Germany was weak after the war. Whole Russia cannot be conquered. From these facts one can deduce: the Soviet Union must be crashed, which means a war in the East and there should be a coalition. Jews must be removed from Europe and as the USA is ZOG and Zionists want Palestine, Eastern European Jews can only be transported to Palestine, else they make Communistic revolutions. This can be possible, since Zionists in the USA and in England want them there. Germans need a reason for the war. It could be Protestant Christianity, but it is not any more a powerful ideology for a war, so something more modern: it can be obtaining colonies from East Europe and social darwinism with Ubermensch-concept. To do this Germany must attack first Poland. If France declares a war, it can be beaten. England may not declare a war, but if it does, it cannot be beaten, but there is no real reason for a war between Germany and England if Germany collects the Jews to Palestine, which Zionists want. An attack to the Soviet Union would have to be made, but it should aim at overthrowing the Communists, collecting the Jews (killing the Commie Jews) and gaining some areas for the war to make sense. It seems true that Hitler was forced to attack in 1941, but he would have started the war anyway. This seems like a plan for saving Germany and Europe from Communism but to realize it was needed unpleasant Nazi ideology and concentration camps for Jews.

    I do not see that this is “the case that Hitler was simply stupid and also the German generals around him.” We are maybe talking about an existential threat, not expansionism.

  407. szopen says:
    @Arioch

    Surprise that Hitler refused the Polish dream of joint attack at USSR, despite the very successful joint attack at Czechoslovakia just a year before ?

    What? Do you even know that it was Hitler who actually DID propose Poland to joint attack at USSR and Poland refused?!

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Arioch
  408. Arioch says:
    @Tunden

    USSR was badly behind in optics and communications.

    In a sense, the catastrophe of the first days of Third Reich invasion was exactly the communication loss all through an army, which lead to army being in fact degraded to guerilleros with heavy weapons. Including the sad show of KV family heavy tanks trying to chase yesterday rumors of “panzers were seen here” – until out of fuel or broken or ambushed by FlaKs.

    P.S. In 1941 T-34 was trialled against captured Pz4 and they were deemed equal. Because strong points of T-34 were compensated by more crews (less overload) and radio and optics in Pz.4
    Providing for more versatile and flexible use of the German tank.

    Granted, with USSR population being just 20 years out of total illiteracy – it is a very big question if some imaginary hi-tech tank instead of somewhat crude T-34 would provide better results. Big cannon and thick armor might be used by everyone. Sly battle schemes using radios and what not – require a lot of education and experience. Anyway, Soviet industry was incapable of mass-producing optics and radio of quality comparable to Germany, then hi-tech leader.

  409. kikl says:
    @Anonymous

    “The story about the SS guards threatening to liquidate the recording engineer sounds a tad contrived.”

    It could be exaggerated. The SS guards probably told him to stop immediately.

    According to Wikipedia, “The BKA (German Federal Criminal Police Office) later examined of the tape, and Head of Frequencies Dr. Stefan Gfroerer declared that it is “very obvious to us that this is Hitler’s voice.”[5]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_and_Mannerheim_recording

    To me it sounds authentic. I can clearly recognize Hitler’s voice and also Mannerheim’s voice who spoke German fluently. You can tell that Hitler is asking for help. Mannerheim probably sensed that things were not going well.

    “Before deciding to accept the Soviet demands, Mannerheim wrote a missive directly to Hitler:[50]

    Our German brothers-in-arms will forever remain in our hearts. The Germans in Finland were certainly not the representatives of foreign despotism but helpers and brothers-in-arms. But even in such cases foreigners are in difficult positions requiring such tact. I can assure you that during the past years nothing whatsoever happened that could have induced us to consider the German troops intruders or oppressors. I believe that the attitude of the German Army in northern Finland towards the local population and authorities will enter our history as a unique example of a correct and cordial relationship … I deem it my duty to lead my people out of the war. I cannot and I will not turn the arms which you have so liberally supplied us against Germans. I harbour the hope that you, even if you disapprove of my attitude, will wish and endeavour like myself and all other Finns to terminate our former relations without increasing the gravity of the situation.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_Emil_Mannerheim#End_of_war_and_presidency

    The German forces had to leave Finland. Major fighting occurred in Lapland – northern Finland – which the Germans wanted to control because of the Nickel reserves.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War

    The Fins were true heroes during the second world war. No other nation of equal size fought as bravely for their freedom.

  410. @Arioch

    “Everyone blames USSR for alleged killing of political prisoners in Katyn. ”

    No wonder the Poles hate you guys.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  411. Arioch says:
    @jilles dykstra

    > Sorge informed Moscow of the exact date of Hitler’s attack.

    And about dozen exact days that Hitler did not actually attack.

    So did other spies.

    In the end all the spies were seemed “crying wolf”.

    The one thing that Hitler’s intelligence did well – creation of lots of phantoms of invasion date.

    “How to steal a million” movie, in a sense.

  412. The case of Denmark and Norway ist interesting (information taken from wikipedia in German, Operation Weserübung). Großadmiral Erich Raeder tried more than once since October 1939 to persuade Hitler to occupy both countries. The reasons that he gave for that were purely military reasons. The idea did’t come from Hitler. France wanted that the allies open another front in the North. Quisling had visited Germany and told the Germans that the Norwegian government might allow the British to use the country against Germany. What the article in wikipedia makes clear is that the Germans, or Hitler, were led gradually to decide to take Norway and Denmark because of what was happening militarily. As the Danes didn’t cause any problem they kept everything, their government, even the control of their army and marine. The Germans didn’t take back territory that had gone to Denmark after 1918. It seems that since 1939 German operations happened generally because of military considerations. The question is whether the case of the Soviet Union is completely different, whether after two years, when it was clear that Germany couldn’t defeat England, they would decide to conquer the Soviet Union because it was fun to do that (it wasn’t, even taking Norway had been much more difficult than thought and about everything happened differently than planed. Attacking Russia was a huge risk).

    • Replies: @kikl
  413. Arioch says:
    @jilles dykstra

    > did make it possible for Stalin to move large numbers of troops from east to west.

    Rezun narrates that story a bit different : https://foto-history.livejournal.com/9769311.html
    He quoted Grigorenko’s memoirs: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/grigorenko/20.html

    According to G&R the marshal in charge of Soviet Far East immediately understood the catastrophe and started acting. He de facto removed special services and civil officials from power (which was legally quite okay in war time, but required courage to actually step out and do) and started extracting prisoners from GULag en masse.

    So the army was not “moved” – but actually the trained soldiers were.
    Then those army units were in place refilled from prisons, those released prisoners were given a crash course, cured a bit, and sent to Moscow, as the next refill was selected among the adjacent GULag camps.

    Basically Opanasenko created a pipeline converting prisoners into the soldiers, maybe of poor quality, but constantly and quickly.
    Consequently, Hitler “saw” never-ending stream of reinforcements coming from Far East to his frontlines. Yet Hirohito “saw” powerful Red Army units standing in defense positions and not going away. Hitler and Hirohito fallen out with both parties feeling being cheated.

    Interestingly that despite telling this story and praising Opanasenko for this crucial and risky unauthorized invention, Rezun simultaneously tells the “black coat” rumour that Stalin converted “political prisoners” into “cannon fodder” months before the war.

    C – consistency.

  414. Arioch says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    They always did.

    They however do not hate themselves for concentration camps they set for Soviet POWs decade before, where conditions were worse than in Hitler’s camps.

    Polish idea of history starts with 16th century, where they conquered “orthodox savages” and brought “light of civilization” for them by forcing the peasants under hired Jewish “managers” total power. That also manifests in Poles and Jews still being widely hated in Ukraine. The existence of Russia before 16th century is ignored as savages fairy tales.

    Their obsession to anyhow tag Kachinsky’s crazy decision to land heavy plane in storm weather on disfunctional closed airfield to some devious Russian plan – is also Katyn’s memory?

    Frankly, whatever.

    http://thesaker.is/how-russia-should-deal-with-the-pilban-syndrome-pbs

    • Replies: @szopen
  415. j2 says:
    @szopen

    Hitler’s offer to the Poles was not real. You can read from Mein Kampf that Hitler says that he did not dislike Poles in any way (I do not know it he was a social darwinist or only thought it might be a good ideology for waging a war) but that the Polish state cannot exist and Poles (like Finns would have) objected to these conclusions. I cannot understand Polish Neo-Nazis, have they not read Mein Kampf, “Poland cannot exist” does not quite agree with “we are not ducks, we have our own language”.

  416. Arioch says:
    @szopen

    Go tell us which exact terms and when exactly Hitler offered ?

    In 1938 Poland celebrated helplessness of Soviet diplomacy and glorious victory of Polish and German weapon over Czechoslovakia.

    What exactly changed in the few next months ?

    Before in March 1939 Poland and Germany fallen out over Danzig ?

    http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/fyb/part_4.html#83

    Or perhaps we should count up to October 1938 ?

    1. On October 24, 1938, Ribbentrop told Polish Ambasssador Jozef Lipski (1894-1958, Minister, then Ambassador in Berlin, 1932-39, later in the West), that Germany could offer Poland a “general settlement” of all outstanding questions. Ribbentrop proposed that: (1) Poland agree to the abrogation of Danzig’s status as a Free City and its return to the Reich, while preserving all its rights there, also to a German extra-territorial highway and railway through the Polish Corridor to Danzig and East Prussia; (2) Poland would join the “Anti-Comintern Pact.”* In return, Germany would guarantee the Polish-German frontier and extend the Declaration of Nonaggression of 1934 for 25 years.

    http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/hist557/lect16.htm

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Andrei Martyanov
  417. @Arioch

    But who of Solzhenytsyn cultists did attentively read their prophet holy scriptures?..

    Reading and comprehension are not necessarily same things. It is important for majority of people , and overwhelming majority in Anglophone world, completely removed from any realities of warfare and its consequences to emote. When one cannot grasp scales and violence of say WW II (which is reduced in US, as an example, to a Hollywood caricature) one has to have some constant emotional prodding (call it Oprah Effect) and that is where Solzenitsyns, Rezuns and others of this level of literary “abilities” come in–evil plans, trillions of dead, designs for galactic domination, all this becomes a pivot of narrative and a great supplier of adrenaline. In the end, there is very little conceptual difference between Rezun and, say, National Enquirer.

    Again, as I said not for once–it is impossible to explain to a layman such rather simple operational realities as the front and depth of a division in defense or on offensive and what is required for that, forget discussing it within, say Biddle’s models. Especially within current fighting doctrinal realities. Now imagine doing this within a framework of what in the West has the title of Big Strategy, that is combination of state political, economic, ideological, military realities–this is not easy even for professionals, forget about laymen. Hence–National Enquirer, or generally a tabloid based approaches, they sell.

    Interesting detail to remember, that Rezun across his books makes different statements about what event, when and where did strike his mind and caused his crushing moment of epiphany.

    He makes a large number of references to non-existent, literally made-up “sources”, but I think I mentioned it already.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  418. @KenH

    KenH, you seem to misunderstand the argument. The only question that is relevant is how many troops did the USSR have in its western districts on June 22 1941. It’s not relevant to bring into the argument divisions which were rushed from other sectors after the German attack.

    Also, you state that German allies did little real fighting. Google the Siege of Odessa.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    , @KenH
  419. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Arioch

    blueprints for BT tanks were purchased by USSR in USA in 1930s

    Not BT, but still early raw models of Christies, and Vickers from UK. These were proto-proto-types for indigenous designs of BT.

    Just to compare, USA sold many war patents to Nazi Germany in 1930-s. E.g. the deadly Ju-87, Stuka, had, mostly American design (patents from Pratt-Whitney and Douglas).

    • Replies: @Arioch
    , @Arioch
  420. kikl says:
    @UncommonGround

    Operation Weserübung was devised as a reaction to the Franco/British plan to occupy Norway and Sweden in order to cut off Germany from the supply of Swedish Ore. This plan leaked due to German intelligence.

    Wikipedia actually is quite blunt about this and explains this very well:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4

    The irony of the event is that although Churchill was responsible for the Norwegian disaster this led to the demise of Chamberlain and Churchill became prime minister.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_Debate

  421. szopen says:
    @Arioch

    They however do not hate themselves for concentration camps they set for Soviet POWs decade before, where conditions were worse than in Hitler’s camps.

    (1) The joint Polish-Russian commission already has examined the evidence and came to conclusion that while conditions were dire, there was no systemic policy aimed to extermination of Soviet POWs; on the contrary, Polish government made efforts (succesful) to reduce the mortality
    (2) You forgot that at the same time there were Soviet camps for Polish POWs with similar or even larger mortality.

  422. szopen says:
    @Arioch

    There were no concrete proposals. There were vague promises that in the form, from memory, “why you insist on Danzig so much? Odessa is a port too”. The point is that Poland HAS NOT offered a joint attack on USSR; and we refused tproposals from Hitler, even if those were quite vague.

    • Replies: @Arioch
    , @j2
  423. @Jon Halpenny

    Also, you state that German allies did little real fighting. Google the Siege of Odessa.

    Googling Sevastopol (and Crimea 1941-42) or Stalingrad may help too.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  424. Arioch says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Interesting detail to remember, that Rezun across his books makes different statements about what event, when and where did strike his mind and caused his crushing moment of epiphany.

    He makes a large number of references to non-existent, literally made-up “sources”, but I think I mentioned it already.

    It is one thing to insert made up references that few readers in 1980 would and could fact-check.
    Those references would cover different events, real or imagined, and would not interfere.

    Another hubris it is to give conflictive narratives about efficiently the same event.

  425. Arioch says:
    @Anon

    and Opel Blitz was basically American car, General Motors or Ford I do not recall.

    but that is another question.
    what I was pushing that BT was in no way unique, and if it was – then its uniqueness started in 1930, not in 1941.

    however the simple request to measure all the Christie-based tanks with the same ruler is met with passionate denial, with frustration. Credo quia absurdum.

  426. @Arioch

    Or we may add this conclusion from one of England’s most important historians.

    • Replies: @Arioch
    , @kikl
  427. Che Guava says:
    @Ron Unz

    I replied to you, comment 409 on this thread, but wrote the first part last night, too tired, left this page open in the browser, went to sleep, then finished it after work this afternoon.

    There is a time-out so that the reply link is lost if a reply is left pending too long, it seems.

    409 is an auspicious number, far from their best song, but a Beach Boys title.

  428. @Arioch

    Granted, with USSR population being just 20 years out of total illiteracy – it is a very big question if some imaginary hi-tech tank instead of somewhat crude T-34 would provide better results.

    You are quoting my book here;-) Agree, a crucial point. I may add, however, Krivosheev and his highly regarded team’s data about June 22, 1941. For people with even modicum of understanding of pre-deployment and concentration of forces, not to mention generally Naryad Sil (Force Required in general) required for some “Icebreaking” those numbers will speak volumes. Sadly, I have no time to translate remarks about TOE and maintenance in the Red Army.

  429. Arioch says:
    @szopen

    There were no concrete proposals.

    oh?
    But I did not talk about “concrete proposals”.

    Arioch #415

    3) Surprise that Hitler refused the Polish dream of joint attack at USSR, despite the very successful joint attack at Czechoslovakia just a year before

    I agree though that my wording it as if Hitler could “refuse a dream” was ugly. I am not a native speaker and was typing hastily.
    However I was talking about dreams, not “concrete proposals”.

    Then I got a bit confused whether there was proposal or not.

    szopen #417

    Do you even know that it was Hitler who actually DID propose Poland to joint attack at USSR and Poland refused

    More importantly,

    from memory, “why you insist on Danzig so much? Odessa is a port too”

    So, Hitler was not offering “joint invasion”, Hitler was offering to buy Danzig plus the Corridor lands and the said invasion was merely a price he wanted to pay for the city. The offered price was not enough for Poles and Germans did not offered any better price, calculating that ultimatums and war would be cheaper for them. Bargaining failed.

    Compare this with joint invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Hitler did not tell “give us the city and we would pay you with a chunk of Czechoslovakia” then. Hitler just said “let’s go and take what we can” without weaving that adventure with other issues.

    Basically, in 1939 Hitler had to prioritize what he wants more – to get Dantzig and the lands around it, or to get the war against USSR together with then ally. Hitler decided he needs Danzig more than he needs Polish army. And he demanded the city at all costs. Would he instead, like with Czechs, just offer the joint war against bolsheviks without pressing German claims on Polish Corridor I do not think Warsaw would hesitate a moment.

    • Replies: @szopen
  430. @Arioch

    In a sense, the catastrophe of the first days of Third Reich invasion was exactly the communication loss all through an army, which lead to army being in fact degraded to guerilleros with heavy weapons. Including the sad show of KV family heavy tanks trying to chase yesterday rumors of “panzers were seen here” – until out of fuel or broken or ambushed by FlaKs.

    The slogan which met visitors to Communications War College (in Soviet time–for some reason this Academy was named after Budennyi, why–is a complete mystery) was and still remains:

    “Poterya Svyazi–Est Poterya Upravlenia”–The Loss of Communications is a Loss of Control.

    In other words issues of C2 are MORE important than discussions on some technical military trinket.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  431. j2 says:
    @szopen

    Declining the offer to attack Russia, very clever of you, we went with Hitler. Whoever claimed that Polacs are stupid, they are certainly not. And with Napoleon, that is fine as there was no Poland at that time. Poles are OK.

  432. Arioch says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    This interpretation might explain events leading to September 1939.
    However it does not explain Sitzkrieg itself.

    The situation: Hitler actually invaded Poland. Already did. 01 September.
    Then 03 September UK declares war on Germany,
    What for? If there was time Hitler hesitated and his balance could be tipped – it was befor the September. As soon as Wehrmacht committed to the invasion it was all or nothing for Germany. Consequently it was all or nothing for UK too. Either declare war and pledge it, or do neither.

    “Chamberlain attempts to propel Hitler” ended on September 01, when Hitler chosen his course, write or wrong, and stepped into that road by overt actions.
    Additionally, declaring war is no more “threatening him with war”.

    So, no, this explanation might be very true for events up to August 1939, but it does not hold water w.r.t. events happened since German invasion started September 01.

    More so, UK’s alleged fear of fighting and military weakness is also very questionable.

    At the Nuremberg Trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that “if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions.” General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in force in September 1939 the German army “could only have held out for one or two weeks.”

    Apart of engaging into coincidence theories the only rational explanation should be that UK at this point had more sympathies towards Germany than towards Poland. And call it conspiracy or anything.

    Personally I feel it as a snobbish British humor, as a revenge for Polish repeated sabotaging Anglo-Franko-Soviet attempts to contain Third Reich together.

    I feel that in 1938 Munich UK gave up and decided “So, you Poles are grown ups now? Then bring your fate upon yourself”. Cheered Poland to invade Czechoslovakia “like a big boy”. And signed Poland-invented “non-aggression pact” with Hitler. “Peace for our times”. Then they “played by the book”. Declared war as required by their treaty with Poland – and refrained from aggression as required by their treaty with Germany. Lawyerish joke. Or semantic manipulation.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  433. kikl says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    From which book are you quoting?

    Polish obstinacy is correct. But, Poland was unwilling to negotiate a deal with Germany because the UK and France had given them a blank cheque in case of war. Check out this enlightening talk about the outbreak of WWII entitled, the war that had many fathers.

    You will find that Germany, Poland, France and the UK share responsibility for the outbreak of WWII.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  434. Arioch says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Also, you state that German allies did little real fighting. Google the Siege of Odessa.

    Googling Sevastopol (and Crimea 1941-42) or Stalingrad may help too.

    Or Hungary and Voronezh, if we are at it. http://ya-russ.ru/bitva-za-voronezh-madyar-v-plen-ne-brat

    Perhaps we should stop being all-encompassing and found our own “institute of national memory” finally.

  435. Arioch says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    In other words issues of C2 are MORE important than discussions on some technical military trinket.

    and here we go directly into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop :-D

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  436. Mulegino1 says:

    Perish the thought! The British Empire duplicitous? Never!

    1/4 of the globe versus a sausage factory in Tanganyika!

  437. @Arioch

    and here we go directly into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop :-D

    I knew this would come up eventually;-)

  438. Arioch says:
    @Anon

    Not BT, but still early raw models of Christies

    BT-2 was mostly the Christie tank as is, except for the turret, that Christie failed to deliver.

    BT-3: same as BT-2, produced according to metric system (instead of Imperial system as used for BT-2). In official documentation referred to as BT-2.

    BT-5/7 and then T-34/44/54/55/62 were indigenous derivatives of BT-2=M1931

    Just for the record.

  439. Che Guava says:
    @Anon

    Nobody can answer your first question, except Adi himself and a few associates and agents, and Joe himself and a few associates and agents.

    Since first reading of the Suvorov hypothesis last decade, it makes much sense, true or not. The only question is if it was for a kind of detente or for invasion.

    Their disgusting poet (Ilya Ehrenburg), do not knowing his (((true name))) is making it pretty clear.

    Sure, Soviet intelligence through the west was superb, but not always in the top circles in the USA.

    Sorge is still a hero to me, and to some other old-left in Japan, in the same way as many other heroes of lost battles.

    You should watch the movie, Spy Sorge, the swan-song of a great director.

    However, it is widely believed that, bet