The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Announcements
An Orwellian Anniversary, and Allowing Email Subscriptions to Our Website
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Yesterday marked the 80th anniversary of Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union, which constituted the central turning point of the Second World War. Given the striking recent reversal by the bulk of our mainstream political and media establishment on the supposed origins of the Covid virus, I’d like to pass along another remarkable Orwellian backflip that just came to my attention a few days ago.

Although I first began writing the articles that now constitute my American Pravda series about a decade ago, the bulk of the material has been produced in the last three years, beginning in June 2018, with one of the earliest pieces being a lengthy presentation of the Suvorov Hypothesis. According to that theory, in 1941 Stalin had been on the verge of unleashing an enormous army of invasion to conquer all of Europe when Hitler’s sudden Barbarossa attack anticipated him, thereby saving Western civilization from suffering decades under the harsh Soviet yoke.

The author of that dramatic inversion of the long-accepted WWII narrative was Viktor Suvorov, then a prominent writer on Soviet military affairs and GRU defector living in Britain, and his book was originally released by a leading British publishing house in 1988. But although that English-language edition soon went out of print and became almost impossible to find, the translations of his seminal text went on to sell many millions of copies in Russian, German, and two dozen other languages, probably establishing Suvorov as the world’s most widely read military historian.

Yet even while international academic conferences were being held over the next three decades to debate the Suvorov Hypothesis, our own mainstream media and publishing industry of the Anglosphere maintained such a tight information boycott and blacklist of those revolutionary ideas that only the tiniest sliver of well-educated individuals in the English-speaking world ever became aware of them. I myself was quite shocked when I first encountered the theory in 2010, and this represented an important early step along the road to producing my comprehensive counter-narrative of World War II, the shaping event of our modern world.

Given this background, I was astonished to discover a further Orwellian twist to this story. During 2018, the Western media claimed that Russian military intelligence had attempted to poison the Skripals, a couple of defectors living in Britain, which provoked a major international controversy.

Seeking support for those accusations, the Guardian eventually turned to Suvorov, one of the most prominent former members of that organization living in the West, and Luke Harding, one of the newspaper’s leading foreign policy journalists, published a long and quite friendly interview in December of that year. The discussion included one short paragraph summarizing the historical work that had made the author famous throughout the world except in English-speaking countries:

Suvorov wrote one of the most influential books of the perestroika era, Icebreaker. When it was published in 1988, his argument was heretical: that Stalin had been secretly plotting an offensive against Hitler’s Germany, and would have invaded in September 1941, or at the latest by 1942…Russian liberals supported Suvorov’s thesis; it now has broad acceptance among historians. [my emphasis]

The Guardian is an influential establishmentarian media organ of the global Anglosphere, and Harding one of its stars, so his casual claim that Suvorov’s revolutionary theory now has “broad acceptance among historians”—whether accurate or not—represents an absolutely remarkable ideological reversal. Indeed, I suspect that one buried paragraph may constitute a longer discussion of the Suvorov Hypothesis than had ever been previously appeared in the pages of the Guardian during the three decades since Suvorov’s book was first published, and perhaps longer than had ever been found in any other major English-language newspaper as well.

Those few words suggested that our media elites had decided to reverse their position on a central historical controversy of World War II, suddenly elevating the Suvorov Hypothesis from a “crazy conspiracy theory” too radioactive to ever be mentioned in public to something already so widely accepted by ordinary historians that it hardly even required any lengthy discussion or defense.

A recent book by prominent mainstream historian Sean McMeekin has now further confirmed the reality of Suvorov’s bold theories of 1988, and those further interested can read the lengthy review we published last month that provoked an astonishing 270,000 words of comments, or my own remarks, grouped together on the different thread:

 

On a different matter, just over a year ago we were suddenly banned by Facebook and had everything on our website placed near the absolute bottom of all Google searches. Unsurprisingly, this has limited the reach of the content that we publish, though the negative impact has been less that expected. In recent months our traffic has only been 10-15% below the absolute peak that we had attained last year during the height of the Black Lives Matter protests and the heated presidential campaign, and we are still doing quite well relative to far more venerable or vastly better funded publications, which also suffer from none of those handicaps:

Still, there are advantages in establishing other means of distributing our alternative perspectives to interested readers, and I’ve just finished spending a few days incorporating a new subscription-based emailing system. Although for years we have distributed a Weekly Digest via email to those so interested, our existing provider recently became unreliable, so we switched to a different one, possessing much better capabilities. This now allows us to offer a wide range of different options.

Readers who are interested can still receive our Weekly Digest, though now provided in a much cleaner and simpler format. We also now offer a Daily Digest, summarizing our featured articles and those other columns or posts that have been published during the previous 24 hours. And in addition, users can separately subscribe to the work of any of our regular columnists or bloggers, each morning receiving any new material they may have published.

The main subscription page may be accessed via the top menu or through links provided in the body or comments of the articles of particular writers. A popup subscription window will also occasionally appear, reminding readers of that available option.

Finally, near the end of 2019 we had created a special category of “Notable Commenters,” whose remarks were distinguished by a star. From the very beginning, this feature had provoked some controversy, and the passage of eighteen months has also considerably changed the landscape. Commenters who are especially prolific and cogent during one period of time may sometimes reduce their involvement during a later one, or even take a general hiatus from activity, only to be replaced by others. Given this natural cycle of changes, I think the feature has now run its course and I have decided to deactivate it, possibly replacing it with some other approach in the future.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Hitler, Iosif Stalin, World War II 
Hide 76 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Thank you, Ron. I don’t know what I’d do without Unz Review.

  2. According to that theory, in 1941 Stalin had been on the verge of unleashing an enormous army of invasion to conquer all of Europe when Hitler’s sudden Barbarossa attack anticipated him, thereby saving Western civilization from suffering decades under the harsh Soviet yoke.

    Sean McMeekin says, in his book, that Stalin was expecting Hitler to attack and was going to use that to counter attack and strike deep into Germany.

    Neither side were good guys and it seems wrong to claim Hitler’s attack was pre-emptive. Hitler seems to have decided around December 1941 to attack Russia.

  3. @Peripatetic Commenter

    Hitler seems to have decided around December 1941 to attack Russia.

    Oops. McMeekan says Hitler had decided to attack Russia in December 1940.

  4. I agree with John Cronk’s comment up top, but that doesn’t mean I agree with your opinions all the time. Unless you mean to say that it was the full invasion of Europe, not just Germany, that is the new “revisionist” history, then I don’t agree. If that’s what you meant, I apologize for wasting your time with the rest of this comment…

    I hate to tell you, Mr. Unz, but it’s nothing new, the story of the German invasion of the USSR being planned due to the knowledge of an imminent Soviet invasion of Germany.

    I wish I could tell you the name of the book I read about Operation Barbarossa, but this over was 20 years ago when I was on a big history kick.. It was a mainstream book, not some new transplantation of a Russian with personal source material. (That doesn’t mean he didn’t get this part from Mr. Suvorov.) What I do recall of the book is that the reason the Soviet Army did not do well during the initial part of the invasion was that their fortifications were in place for the opposite, their invasion of Germany to come, within months or a half year, as I recall.

    Then there was, of course, the fact that Stalin had purged the best leaders in his army only a couple of years beforehand.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  5. Ron Unz says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I hate to tell you, Mr. Unz, but it’s nothing new, the story of the German invasion of the USSR being planned due to the knowledge of an imminent Soviet invasion of Germany.

    I wish I could tell you the name of the book I read about Operation Barbarossa, but this over was 20 years ago when I was on a big history kick.. It was a mainstream book, not some new transplantation of a Russian with personal source material.

    Suvorov’s seminal volume Icebreaker was published in 1988, over 33 years ago, so it seems rather likely that the book you read was ultimately based upon it.

    However, I’m pretty skeptical that it was a “mainstream” book. As I emphasized, Suvorov’s remarkable theory has been almost totally excluded from the mainstream historiography and journalism of the English-language world even while he sold millions of copies in Russian, German, and every other world language. It’s possible that you happened to find the very rare exception of which I’m unaware, but I tend to doubt it.

    I strongly suggest that you read my article on the subject before making any further, possibly ignorant remarks:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/

  6. Ron Unz says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    Sean McMeekin says, in his book, that Stalin was expecting Hitler to attack and was going to use that to counter attack and strike deep into Germany.

    Neither side were good guys and it seems wrong to claim Hitler’s attack was pre-emptive. Hitler seems to have decided around December 1941 to attack Russia.

    Suvorov developed his landmark theory more than three decades ago, and it’s hardly surprising that subsequent archival research has produced significant changes in his overall framework.

    What might be called the “Strong Suvorov Hypothesis” is that Hitler discovered that Stalin was about to attack, and Barbarossa was deliberately intended to preempt that move. The evidence provided by McMeekin and others suggests that this was probably incorrect. Hitler apparently believed that Stalin would eventually attack, but wasn’t sure about the particular timing. Moreover, he had absolutely no idea about the gigantic magnitude of the Soviet forces being positioned in attack-formation at the border, as discussed by McMeekin.

    However, the “Weak Suvorov Hypothesis” is that Stalin was indeed positioning his massive forces for an attack and conquest of Europe, possibly within a month or two or perhaps somewhat later. This generally seems confirmed by McMeekin’s findings.

  7. Charles says:

    Reading TUR, and particularly the “American Pravda” series, always reminds me of a passage from David Martin’s wonderful “Wilderness of Mirrors” (first published 1980). Martin states that as William Harvey – first in the FBI, then CIA – became ever-more enmeshed in his work, he found that his knowledge of the genuine world and its state of affairs not only conflicted, but was often the complete inversion, of what everyone – friends, family, media, the whole lot – believed the world to be. Also, TUR leads an astute reader to great books, Gus Russo’s “Supermob” being an example. I wouldn’t say TUR has made me happier, but Ron’s work has made me wiser.

  8. @Ron Unz

    However, the “Weak Suvorov Hypothesis” is that Stalin was indeed positioning his massive forces for an attack and conquest of Europe, possibly within a month or two or perhaps somewhat later. This generally seems confirmed by McMeekin’s findings.

    I think I can agree that is largely what McMeekin says.

    My only quibble is that Stalin seems to have been looking for a credible pretext. If Hitler had not attacked at the right time Stalin would probably have staged a false flag.

  9. saggy says: • Website

    Suvorov is probably right, especially when he says that Stalin played Hitler for a fool from the beginning, and signed the Ribbentrop pact so that Hitler would be emboldened to attack Poland and thereby start WW II. That argument is so obvious it doesn’t seem to warrant debate.

    But the takeaway from the whole Ribbentrop pact episode is that Hitler was truly a fool to sign that pact, and he sealed his fate when he did. He had preached against a 2-front war in Mein Kampf, and yet he set himself up for just that with the Ribbentrop pact. He made a deal with the devil and he, along with western civilization, paid a terrible price.

  10. McMeekin professes not to understand why FDR and Churchill sabotaged their own nations’ interests via their lopsided pro-Stalin extreme-anti-Hitler tilt. It is almost as if there were a mysterious force field in the Anglosphere generating extreme animosity for Hitler and obsequiousness for Stalin.

    • Agree: Ace
    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @saggy
    , @Carroll Price
  11. Right_On says:

    in 1941 Stalin had been on the verge of unleashing an enormous army of invasion
    As the Japanese Army had advocated an invasion of the Soviet Union from Manchuria (as an alternative to the Imperial Japanese Navy’s cunning plan to attack the USA), perhaps Stalin built up an ‘enormous army’ because he was himself worried about having to fight a war on two fronts.
    If Hitler’s Barbarossa had coincided with a Jap assault . . . well, you connect the dots.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
  12. saggy says: • Website
    @Kevin Barrett

    It is almost as if there were a mysterious force field in the Anglosphere generating extreme animosity for Hitler and obsequiousness for Stalin.

    It was noted by British man of letters Wyndham Lewis who in 1936 wrote a book ‘Left Wings Over Europe, or How to Start a War About Nothing’ …. quoting

    [MORE]

    As far as Great Britain is concerned, there is, in 1936, not a shadow of a reason for a war with anybody. It is because that there is no concrete reason that abstract reasons have had to be thought up and trotted out.

    Nationalism may be superseded by the issue between different forms of political structure, between parliamentarism, fascism, and Bolshevism. …. Parliamentarism and Bolshevism seem to feel a remarkable affinity for one another, if for no other reason than that they are both consumed with an equal hatred of fascism.

    No British statesman has ever desired a war with Germany. But they have apparently come to regard themselves as committed to a policy which is violently determined to rid Europe of Hitler. And they are well aware that that cannot be effected without the risk of another world-war. It is not so much ‘fascist dictatorship’ that excites them — for after all they left Mussolini in complete peace for a decade. Neither does Dictatorship , in itself, excite them so much as all that — even accompanied by a permanent Reign of Terror and the massacre of millions of people. For Soviet Russia has been left undisturbed. No, it can only be something about the internal regime of Adolf Hitler that excites in them this implacable mood.

    The Franco-Soviet pact has been ratified and it is highly probable that a Rumano-Soviet pact, on the lines of the military pact between the Soviet and Czechoslovakia, will be signed in the near future. The Austrian Government (which represents a fantastically small fraction of the people of Austria) seems to be moving towards an entente with the Little Entente. So the game of ‘encirclement’ goes on: and all these arrangements — carried on in every case over the heads and usually in contradiction to the wishes of the people — are made possible, and constantly stimulated by British and French gold. The remarks which I have quoted from the Morning Post mean, in plain language, that Great Britain is about to arm the Soviet against Germany. (Marshal Tukachevski stopped behind in England after the funeral of King George to go round the British armament factories to pick his tanks and guns.) There have constantly been rumours of a fifty million pounds British loan to France. That, too, in plain language, is Great Britain arming France against ‘the Hun’

    There is one country where the Englishman is certain of a warm welcome: there is one country whose government never ceases to proffer friendship, and to be accommodating and polite, and that is Germany. Year in and year out, like a love-sick supplicant, Herr Hitler pays his court to the haughty Britannia. Every insult that can be invented even by the resourceful Mr. Churchill is tamely swallowed, every rebuff of Mr. Baldwin’s, every sneer of Mr. Eden, is meekly accepted, by this pertinacious suitor!

    This book should be in the Unz archive.

    • Thanks: Polistra
  13. I recently stumbled upon a recording of Hitler discussing the Soviet threat, worried they had spent decades producing massive armaments, for what?

  14. SafeNow says:
    @Ron Unz

    “I strongly suggest that you read my article on the subject before making any further, possibly ignorant remarks” – Ron Unz

    I sincerely sympathize with your exasperation upon encountering a commenter who is not sufficiently familiar with your essays. This happens regularly. We commenters should do better. Nonetheless, “ignorant” seems too harsh; almost Blinken-at-Anchorage-ish. A Google synonym search of “ignorant” would generate alternatives that would get the message across in a way more consistent with the idea that we are family here at this pub. In fact, many of us are deplorables amongst friends and actual family, and see this place as a respite. Finally, although I would make this same comment irrespective of the identity of your offender, I will add that Achmed is one of the most knowledgeable and engaging commenters here. Thank you.

    • Agree: Carroll Price
    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  15. Ron, do you have any new American Pravda entries in the works?

  16. Wally says:
    @john cronk

    I concur.

    This site has become invaluable, especially for those who value free speech.

  17. @Ron Unz

    Dear Mr. Unz,

    Suvorov was not really the first to suggest that Operation Barbarossa was really a preventive attack. In 1985, Austrian philosophy professor Ernst Topitsch published a little book flawlessly arguing that Hitler beat Stalin to it. Two years later, an English translation of the book was published under the title Stalin’s War. A Radical New Theory of the Origins of the Second World War.

    The main criticism leveled against Suvorov by the historical establishment was that his sources were flimsy and circumstantial. No one actually had the guts to concede that even on the basis of this evidence, Suvorov’s logic was impeccable. He even did what no historian does, namely to personally try and experience the climatic conditions he wrote about (i.e. the Soviet-Finnish Winter War). That sort of thing will surely lead to vilification by the historical establishment, which is exactly what happened to Mr. Suvorov.

    In 2006, Topitsch ‘ and Suvorov’s thesis was corroborated by Dutch historian Marius Broekmeyer, when he published Bedrogen bedriegers. Stalin contra Hitler, a study based on thorough archival research based on everything that was then available. However since it is in Dutch and has not been translated, it has remained unknown in the Anglosphere.

    In 2015 Bernd Schwipper, a former general of the NVA, the East German army, holding a doctorate in war studies from te Soviet War Academy, published Deutschland im Visier Stalins, in which he used all the relevant Russian sources available at that time, many of them unknown before, to corroborate the “Suvorov Thesis.” The book has also not yet been translated into English, but since it is so overwhelmingly convincing that it is no longer possible for anyone with two functioning brain cells to reject the “Suvorov Thesis.” Schwipper has presented the historical establishment with a great number of truly “inconvenient truths.”

    In conclusion, allow me to call your attention to my own recently published history of Europe since 1880, a long overdue synthesis using materials such as the work by Suvorov, Schwipper, Preparata, Hautamaki, and a variety of sources in languages other than just English: How Europe Became American, published by Arktos (arktos.com).

  18. Ron, I noticed a missing entity in the daily subscription list, Andrei Martyanov,. He doesn’t submit his work to Unz anymore? Anatoly Karlin gave me a link to a site that collects his work a couple of weeks back, but damned if I can find it now. Martyanov”s assessments of military capabilities and intentions between Russia and the U.S. the past few years have always been top notch, most recently the Black Sea/U.S.
    Navy/NATO confrontation over Ukraine a few months back. Martyanov nailed it.

    Anyway, just wondered. And I believe I speak for all who read here, except our corrupt media overlords (they must be pissed), a mighty big thanks.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Ron Unz
  19. I find it odd that the article makes no mention of the Bolsheviks. Then I realise it’s not about the actual event, but only about Suvorov reporting on it. Fact remains is that so many people study and understand the power blocs of WW2 (and One, it was actually just one operation), yet I find so very few that actually see the one single thread that connects the whole shoot shebang: Bolsch! This is what reading the Unz Review has taught me:

    [MORE]

    1860’s, and America’s newspapers start informing the masses on the imminent demise of six million Jews in Europe. Over the next few decades, the exact location of this looming holocaust changes, but the myth of the Sixmillions is established.
    1913, Bolsch founds the (private) Federal Reserve Bank.
    1915, J.P.Morgan and his pals decide that buying up the 25 largest news offices in America will give them total control of the News.
    1917, and the Bolshevik coup in Russia sees the Bolsheviks in America and England send money and weapons. Germany is said to sink passenger ships loaded to the gunwales with guns, and ammo, and planes and tanks and bombs and…
    1918, and the News informs us that Europe is in need of liberation from the Hun. History from here on is almost pure fabrication. News is we defeated the Hun.
    1936-ish, and we learn that the Hun has arisen anew, and is causing undeserved prosperity in Germany, through a vicous and bankster-exclusionary practice known as National Socialism. War is declared on said National Socialism, with the expressed intent to “…remove from Man’s memory the idea of National Socialism…” or suchlike.
    1938, we learn that only America stands between the Jew and oblivion, and she sends twelve million empoverished men and boys, to go murder tens of millions of Europeans, to protect the myth of sixmillions.
    So we ‘progressed’ via Bretton Woods to today, where America is still sending soldiers to wherever the gospel of Bolsch is questioned. If we look at the world as a globe, with no East or West, the one single thread that goes through every modern regional conflict, pandemic of poverty, widespread poisoning of children, national bankruptcies, the Great Reset and Covidiocy, mass murders, is the Globalist/ Free Market/ Communist dogma of “Investor Confidence”. Looked at like that, the map suddenly has only two colours: The Bolsheviks, and the rest of us, and “the rest of us” must now proceed without the good people of America, because the Bolsheviks has turned the power of The Fed loose upon the American people, we can only hope they survive.
    It is a pity The Protocols of Zion are written so badly and difficult to scan. It should be much more widely read and understood…
    P.S. Maybe the “subscribe” button could be displayed more prominently, more often, more…er… moreish? And easier access to the “Agree etc” buttons? The restrictions on my account prevents me from ever using those. Thanks to a guy promoting rhino poaching, of all things.

  20. Ron Unz says:
    @Hans Vogel

    Suvorov was not really the first to suggest that Operation Barbarossa was really a preventive attack. In 1985, Austrian philosophy professor Ernst Topitsch published a little book flawlessly arguing that Hitler beat Stalin to it. Two years later, an English translation of the book was published under the title Stalin’s War. A Radical New Theory of the Origins of the Second World War.

    Sure. I’ve vaguely heard of Topitsch, but was not familiar with his work in detail. However, Suvorov had originally presented his main thesis in a 1985 issue of an academic journal, provoking quite a lot of controversy within the specialized community of military historians, so I think he and Topitsch probably share priority, with Suvorov obviously coming first in English.

    The basic idea is hardly a new one, given that Hitler and the German government widely made those public claims at the time of Barbarossa itself. And when I was an avid military board-gamer in the mid-1970s, the massive size and positioning of the Soviet forces certainly suggested a planned invasion, which was a regular topic of speculation among anyone who paid attention.

    • Replies: @JMcG
  21. Ron Unz says:
    @Jim Christian

    Ron, I noticed a missing entity in the daily subscription list, Andrei Martyanov

    The email subscription system only applies to our 30-odd regular columnists and bloggers, who publish frequently here, generally once a week or more. There’s a much larger group of occasional contributors including Martyanov, but setting up email subscription lists for all of those dozens of individuals would make the system too unwieldy.

    Perhaps I should add an option for “other writers,” but since we probably publish more or more such pieces every day, to some extent the functionality is already provided by our Daily Digest option.

    • Thanks: Jim Christian
  22. Ron Unz says:
    @SafeNow

    I sincerely sympathize with your exasperation upon encountering a commenter who is not sufficiently familiar with your essays…Nonetheless, “ignorant” seems too harsh…I will add that Achmed is one of the most knowledgeable and engaging commenters here.

    Actually, my characterization of him as “possibly ignorant” had little to do with his unawareness of my own writings, although this is my own website. Instead, he was making some seemingly “ignorant” comments on Suvorov’s important work, saying those ideas obviously weren’t new since he’d read similar things 20 years ago. Apparently he was entirely unaware that *millions* of Suvorov’s books had been published almost 30 years ago, probably establishing him as the world’s most widely read military historian.

    And I’m afraid your appraisal of the particular commenter is very different from my own. When I’ve occasionally encountered his comments, they’ve usually seemed like those of a typically-ignorant right-winger.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  23. Thanks for all your hard work Mr. Unz

  24. DaveE says:
    @john cronk

    Agreed. This site is essential reading for anyone doing their own “intel” on the happenings of our world(s!) these days.

    So much garbage out there, but UR manages to consistently assemble the best-of-the-best for those who want to “make up their own minds”.

    Thank you.

  25. BuelahMan says:

    Ron’s word usage was resoundingly low this go around. But he could have made the first part much, much shorter simply by writing what most of us knew LONG before 2010, that “Hitler was right”.

  26. @Ron Unz

    Did you even review your own post here before you wrote back, Mr. Unz? Your whole thesis above is this: The Soviets were prepared to invade the Germany at the time the Germans invaded the USSR, and for the next 3 decades after Suvorov released his book in ’88 (that’d mean till 3 years ago) this was hidden by the Anglo-sphere by a “tight information boycott and blacklist of those revolutionary ideas that only the tiniest sliver of well-educated individuals in the English-speaking world ever became aware of them.”.

    I just got done telling you that I read a book 20 years ago – I remember where I was at the time, so this narrows it way down – from Amazon. I don’t read Russian, so it wasn’t some obscure text, with a translation from ANY other language, The author was either American or English (though I guess Canadian or Aussie/Kiwi are possible, but unlikely). I’m not part of any special “sliver” of people – I was just a dude with time in the evenings to read history books. Perhaps in 2010 when you were “shocked”, it was because you hadn’t read this particular book or many others. I really don’t think anybody can read ’em all.

    The quote you have from Luke Harding says this idea was heretical in 1988. Sure, I don’t know. I hadn’t been on a history binge back then, having been turned off by lame-ass teaching of history in high school by the coaches. You maintain that it wasn’t till 3 years ago that the Anglo-sphere was released from this “tight information boycott”. Your timeline here is just screwed up.

    BTW, I don’t get this wording about Suvorov’s idea being “debated” back in 1988. I don’t mean there wouldn’t be discussion, but it wouldn’t have been just opinion – back in 1988 the years in question were 50 years back. There were still people around that had been there. Would they not have simply presented their experiences?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  27. I brought up the Luke Harding interview with Rezun in The Guardian as evidence against the idea that one could conceivably get “canceled” or “deplatformed” merely for endorsing the Suvorov Hypothesis (whereas in reality it doesn’t even get edited out from a prominent article in a major British newspaper). Continuing that discussion from the Open Thread, I recently had a look at Luke Harding's more recent output and discovered that he wrote a book called "Shadow State: Murder, Mayhem, and Russia's Attack on the West", published in 2020. I downloaded it and discovered that Rezun plays a very prominent role as a source there, with a Ctrl-F registering 29 matches on “Suvorov” and dominating most of Chapter 7 in particular.

    So it is likely that Luke Harding has a close journalistic relationship with Rezun, and has probably had one for quite some time (presumably since at least the aforementioned Guardian interview in December 2018). Almost inevitably, the “Suvorov Hypothesis” must have come up in the course of their conversations, and evidently it rubbed off on him, as Luke Harding doesn’t strike me as someone who has done much in the way of independent reading or study of World War II. (How do we know he’s ignorant on the topic? Because, no matter one’s views on the Suvorov Hypothesis, the claim that it “now has broad acceptance among historians” is flat out untrue, and even absurd on a logical level – it contradicts one of the central claims of Suvorov Hypothesis supporters, namely that it has been “suppressed” by mainstream historians). This is the context behind Harding’s off-hand and, so far as I am aware, one-off endorsement of the Suvorov Hypothesis. I don’t see how much can be read into it apart from Harding’s own personal ignorance on that entire topic.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  28. I always thought it was a shame Stalin didn’t succeed, late or early stage, in the liberation and conquest of continental Europe. It would have ended one day, but all the lingering US NATO puppet types would never have had a chance. All those powerful multinationals? The “cucked” European Union? Never existed.

    Then, when liberation from communism came, all of Europe would have been on the same playing field, and decidedly less awful. They might even have gone the path of China. A quicker war would also have been much less devastating for everyone involved.

    Of course, it’s impossible to say what would actually happen, but it certainly seems 50- years of various European People’s Republics would have been preferable to 6 years of war, 40 million deaths (continental Europe), and then 50 years of cold war and 80 years of this. The converse wouldn’t be the same, because German supremacist doctrine demanded the extermination of most Slavs, so Stalin’s conquests would still have had fewer overall deaths, as his totalitarianism only genocided (whole race, not just intellectuals) particularly recalcitrant minority populations.

    It’s not like the USSR was good. It was, however, better than the alternatives. Well, besides a peaceful Europe. I mean, a Nazi Germany with no war plans would probably have been fine.

  29. @Right_On

    You haven’t read McMeekin, have you?

    • Replies: @Right_On
  30. @Boomthorkell

    Then, when liberation from communism came, all of Europe would have been on the same playing field, and decidedly less awful.

    That’d be a big “if”, not “when”, BTK. Why would there not STILL have been a Cold War, this one with a greater advantage for the Communists? There would have, but this one could have been lost by the West or gone on maybe a century or two.

    IMO, WWII, as it went, could have been avoided by:

    1) The US not entering WWI, making it possible for some more equitable settlement, thus avoiding WWII.

    2) Failing (1), if the Western powers had made an effort to understand more about the legitimate grievances of Hitler and the German people. Perhaps, if they had not made such overreaching obligations/promises* and kept in a defensive mode through the Czech invasion.

    .

    * Reminding me of the ridiculous metastasizing of NATO since 3 decades ago. Trump said it should be disbanded. I agree, but as usual that was just his normal bullshitting voice…

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
  31. @Boomthorkell

    This was only possible if the Red Army was 10x as effective at “attacking” as it was at “defending” (putting aside for the moment that these are not binary concepts in warfare). But rejection of these premises is one of the main points of Suvorov Hypothesis critics. The USSR’s performance in the Winter War was a debacle, incurring 5 casualties for each one it inflicted, against a country that it did “get the jump on” and against which it did have technological superiority. And just a year later, according to SH proponents, it was supposed to casually smash the world’s finest-honed military force and race all the way to the English Channel (if not beyond) as if it was nothing?

  32. Richard B says:
    @john cronk

    Given all that it offers TUR is simply the best website in the history of the Internet.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  33. Vendetta says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The Red Army would not have been nearly as motivated to fight or to sustain the level of casualties they did in an offensive war against Germany as they were when Germany attacked first. Ironically, Germany’s best chance of defeating Russia may well have been through allowing Stalin to make the first move.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin, JackOH
    • Replies: @res
    , @Showmethereal
  34. @Anatoly Karlin

    Your thesis assumes what I’m pretty sure is an improbable level of internal coherence and honesty in the Soviet leadership through the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. Maybe Stalin thought he was only one more purge away from forging a really effective officer corps for the Red Army; while checking up on the decisive final battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939 I couldn’t help but notice all three generals earned the Hero of the Soviet Union award, but only Zhukov survived the 1941 purge, the other two arrested a few weeks before Operation Barbarossa.

    I’m woefully ignorant of this general topic, have only started studying it for real with the 1989 Moscow to Stalingrad: Decision in the East, but to quote someone on another forum, “Soviet strategy basically amounted to Stalin drag-box selected the entire red army and left clicked on berlin and went to bed.” With Hitler finally assuming total control of the military, it sure seems to be a story of mutual stupidity leading to a great deal of unnecessary losses on both sides, with Stalin having no idea whatsoever of the real capabilities of the Red Army for a very long period into the war. Also plenty more evidence of how the purges ruined its tactical art, in one case an order was send down telling officers they needed to concentrate their forces, a most basic principle they frequently weren’t following.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
  35. Ron Unz says:
    @Jim Christian

    Ron, I noticed a missing entity in the daily subscription list, Andrei Martyanov,. He doesn’t submit his work to Unz anymore?

    Actually, thinking it over, it probably makes sense to add an additional subscription option for articles by all the non-columnists such as Martyanov. It’s now available on the Subscription page, but since we probably publish 1-2 each day, it may become a little burdensome if you’re interested in just a single such writer.

    • Thanks: Jim Christian
  36. Right_On says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    No, I haven’t read McMeekin. I was responding to this article.

    Though the ‘Nomonhan Incident’, in the summer of 1939, saw the Japs given an ass-whooping by Zhukov, just two years later the Germans invaded. If Stalin’s earlier decision to build-up an enormous army had been prompted by his fear of facing a war on two fronts, then he may have thought it had been justified by events.

    He got lucky that Jerry/Japs didn’t coordinate their offensives.

  37. JMcG says:
    @Ron Unz

    When I read Suvorov’s book, his enumeration of the Soviet Airborne forces was dispositive for me. Paratroop formations have no role in defensive warfare. Their only use is in rapid, surprise, offensives.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  38. JMcG says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The Red Army needed only to capture the Rumanian oil fields. After that, it could make its own decision on a timetable for a leisurely conquest. Germany had only minimal synthetic fuel production capacity, as I’m sure you know.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  39. JMcG says:
    @Right_On

    McMeekin’s book is well worth reading. He discusses the way in which the IJN allowed free passage of US ships carrying supplies for the Soviets through the North Pacific, which is rarely mentioned. He also states that Soviet flagged tankers would trade US supplied Avgas for rubber at Japanese ports during the war. I’ve never seen this mentioned before, and have been looking for some corroboration.

  40. @JMcG

    Wrong.

    Hitler was expressing interest in synthetic fuels and meeting with industry leaders as early as 1932, and had launched a massive synfuels program by the mid-1930s, guaranteeing the industrial concerns involved 5% profits that were, in practice, ploughed back into further expansion, and even going so far as to tax fuel imports to provide even more support for this sector. It is unfortunate that one of Hitler’s most perspicacious strategic decisions is so little recognized, especially by some of his more ardent fans.

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
    , @JMcG
  41. @Achmed E. Newman

    Hard agree on number 1.

    #2 is a fair point as well, though I know there are…lots of weird data and facts feeding into the whole Nazi Germany era. US corporations doing investments with eyes to future expansion (and cheap labor) etc. which may very well have pushed for German expansion, etc. Still, it’s absolutely true that the political situation in the 1930’s was pushed to horrific extremes by British, French, and American decisions (with Poland of course being an annoying, slightly murderous dog that BFA felt was fine to allow to piss on the USSR and Germany’s leg, to future advantage, etc.)

  42. @Anatoly Karlin

    It’s remarkable some of the technological innovations these countries came up with to deal with resource deficiencies, and early on too.

    Japan made an objectively poor choice pushing for direct annexation of Manchuria (well, direct vassalization, I should say) and war with China, but nonetheless their research into coal gasification was impressive. Alas, quantity and quality, etc.

  43. @Anatoly Karlin

    This is fair. The Winter War was, indeed, a debacle. I’m pretty sure Stalin was hoping to have the Red Army fully armed with semi-automatics before launching a full-scale invasion anyway (I think though there were probably time scale changes involved, with the original ideal being 1944…basically a Soviet D-Day, ha ha), and tank legions fully in formation.

    Then again, if the early invasion was a genuine plan, it’s possible Stavka really did believe the reforms they made had made up for their earlier failures, and the sheer crushing weight of their military strength, combined with their new-and-improved offensive tactics and equipment would have won the day. It’s quite possible they may have been right. The alternative to a bloody offensive would be some kind of awful war of defense on Soviet soil that ends with a bloody offensive. I don’t believe though they would have been interested in attempting to cross the Channel (if they were interested in a run to the Atlantic), for the same reason the Germans weren’t: it just wasn’t worth it, even without the British Flaming Inferno Beach Doomsday devices.

    This does make a point though, that maybe the German invasion was actually necessary for their defeat. If the Soviet military in 1941 or even 1942 with preparations wouldn’t have been enough…though, I suspect by 1942 at least, they would have been fine, even if not fully equipped with that precursor to the SKS.

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
  44. Ron Unz says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I just got done telling you that I read a book 20 years ago – I remember where I was at the time, so this narrows it way down – from Amazon…I was just a dude with time in the evenings to read history books.

    That’s possible, but I tend to doubt it was any sort of “mainstream” book. Some writers associated with the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), best known for being the leading “Holocaust denial” organization, have been discussing the Suvorov Hypothesis for decades, and perhaps a very few others here and there. During the 1980s Suvorov had been a rather prominent author of military books dealing with the USSR, but as Anatoly Karlin demonstrated with Google NGram, after Icebreaker began selling millions of copies around the world his name soon almost vanished from English-language books.

    On a personal note, I’ve closely read the NYT, WSJ, and a couple of other newspapers nearly every morning for 40+ years, and I never once heard of his theory, and the same goes for the numerous magazines I also read, including TNR, NR, the Economist, the Nation, and several others. When I stumbled across the Suvorov Hypothesis about a decade ago and read his book a few years later, I hunted around for other works in English either supporting or opposing him, and found almost nothing. Everyone claimed that Glantz’s book demolished Suvorov, so I bought and read it, but it devoted only a couple of pages to attacking him, and turned out to be completely worthless. Hoffmann’s excellent book supported Suvorov, but it was translated from the German and published by a fringe IHR-type outlet.

    It’s possible that you somehow randomly stumbled across just about the only book in English discussing Suvorov, but I’d be very curious to know the title if you can somehow dig it up.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  45. res says:
    @Vendetta

    Ironically, Germany’s best chance of defeating Russia may well have been through allowing Stalin to make the first move.

    Has anyone expanded on that idea?

    One problem is it would probably have eliminated the possibility of making it as deep into Russia as they wanted (or even did, in reality) before winter set in.

  46. @Ron Unz

    No wait, the book didn’t necessarily discuss Mr. Suronov. I hope we are not writing past each other. I stated above that the book discussed the Soviet plans to invade. What I remember the most on this was the problem with the Soviet fortifications being set up for invasion, not defense, having miscalculated that theirs (USSR invading Germany) would happen first.

    I gotta admit that I usually don’t read references in footnotes or the back, so if this guy did reference Mr. Suronov’s writing, I could have missed that. It just read as if this was all pretty common knowledge. I could have been wrong that it was.

    It’s possible that you somehow randomly stumbled across just about the only book in English discussing Suvorov, but I’d be very curious to know the title if you can somehow dig it up.

    I tried to find it via recognition, but no joy so far. I’m sure I don’t have that same Amazon account as back then. I’m gonna look on some other shelves next …

    Thanks for the civil reply.

  47. Ron Unz says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    So it is likely that Luke Harding has a close journalistic relationship with Rezun…the claim that it “now has broad acceptance among historians” is flat out untrue

    Sure, that seems pretty plausible. But the point I was making was a different one.

    Whether you agree or disagree with the Suvorov Hypothesis, it completely overturns the conventional narrative of WWII and therefore is of the greatest possible importance. Despite decades of a near-total blacklisting in English, Suvorov has sold millions of copies and probably become the world’s most widely read military historian. Therefore, he’s a very big deal.

    Yet I strongly suspect that Harding’s one paragraph on the theory is more than the Guardian had ever previously published in 30 years, and perhaps even more than any of the world’s top dozen English-language newspapers during that same period. Find a few counter-examples if you think I’m mistaken.

    But if I’m correct, that’s an absolutely astonishing degree of intellectual/media censorship or “repression.” It’s comparable to the entire MSM and Tech giants strictly censoring the Hunter Biden laptop scandal just before the last election. Or the extreme “repression” and “disappearance” of David Irving, certainly one of the most important WWII historians, whose books had also sold in the millions, possibly establishing him as the most internationally successful British historian of the last 100 years.

    And over the years I’d discovered such extreme blacklisting/censorship has been quite pervasive in the Anglosphere, with my long American Pravda series providing dozens of important examples. Here’s a link to one of my articles focused on the topic in particular:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-great-purge-of-the-1940s/

    Since it’s absolutely undeniable that dozens of other top journalists and authors were “repressed” in America and Britain, it’s foolish to ignore that obviously applies in the case of Suvorov.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  48. @Boomthorkell

    Ah, not that I think Hitler really invaded the USSR just because he thought they were going to invade him. One can’t have a national policy based on Lebensrauming ones way to the Final Solution of the Slavic Problem and not be planning to invade the largest collection of Slavic populations in existence. If Hitler saw conveniently placed and sized troop formations and gave the order to invade in 1940, it just meant that he thought 1940 would be the best chance to pull off something he was going to do anyway.

    • Replies: @fnn
  49. Max Payne says:

    I only comment here because my interactions aren’t being commoditized. Yet.

  50. Emslander says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The Germans won all their reasonable objectives before they became bogged down outside of Moscow and Stalingrad. If the German Fuehrer hadn’t been under the care of a mad physician, he could have brought the war in the East to a standstill with all the colonization room the Germans needed and all the supplies of men and materials for a conquest of the West.

    When he stopped aiming for German objectives and started aiming for his own glorification, nationalism was dead.

  51. JMcG says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    If you believe that the Germans could beat the Soviets without a reliable source of natural oil, then I don’t know what to tell you. I’m assuming the US and UK would have come in on the side of the Soviets and found their way to bombing the synthetic fuel plants as they did, in fact.
    As I’m sure you know, German synthetic fuel research started during the Great War in response to the blockade by the Entente powers.
    If you are accusing me of being a Hitler fan, you are completely incorrect. If you can show a comment or remark I’ve made that implies that to be the case, please do so. I do believe that Stalin and the Bolsheviks were worse than Hitler and the Nazis. Stalin and his crowd were the original modern totalitarians, the ones who introduced mass murder and imprisonment and deliberate starvation on an industrial scale.
    And never forget, they decided to spend the first two years of “The Great Patriotic War” on the same side as Hitler and the Nazis.

  52. fnn says:
    @Boomthorkell

    Except that (for example) Hitler met with Molotov in Nov. 1940 to try to get the Soviets to join the war alongside the Axis. The deal only fell through because of outrageous demands made by the Soviets. It was in December that AH made the decision to attack the USSR.

  53. @Ron Unz

    https://archive.org/stream/RedSymphony/RedSymphony_djvu.txt

    THE QUESTIONING OF THE ACCUSED CHRISTIAN GEORGIEVITCH RAKOVSKY BY GAVRIIL GAVRIILOVITCH KUS’MIN ON THE 26TH JANUARY, 1938

    So Stalin was aware of Globalist/Illuminati plans January 1938. Does this have anything to do with the events under discussion? ???? At that time the Illuminati wanted to take Communism, which they had installed in Russia, more international via Trotsky who was supposed to take over, not Stalin. Stalin wanted to preserve himself and only wanted to focus on Russian Communism. ???? But later made a deal with the money powers??????

    See Red Symphony by J Landowsky

    But in a lot of ways history does not matter … When no one is doing anything about current events, which at this time are again of Biblical Proportions. Once again see Pike’s Plan for Three World Wars, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and The Bible – Revelation

  54. @Ron Unz

    You seem far removed from the conventional facile narrative of Stalin bad, Hitler bad, US saves the day, plucky Brits did well.

    I mention this because I don’t see how the Suvorov hypothesis threatens this, nor why something that would make the USSR look more expansionist would be suppressed during the Cold War – where every effort was made to make the USSR look as expansionist as possible.

    Just as an aside, Luke Harding is a well-known idiot.

    In November 2017, Harding published Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win on the subject of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. The book examines the dossier by former British spy Christopher Steele, and alleges that Trump was the subject of at least five years of “cultivation” by Soviet/Russian intelligence services prior to his election, and possibly by the KGB as soon as 1987.

  55. @fnn

    I am ignorant on this subject, but it seems odd to me that Hitler, the self-styled crusader against Judeo-Bolshevism, would be looking to make a permanent pact with what he denounced as the great evil. I know they had made a pact earlier, but I always thought that was just the jockeying between rivals that kicks off more serious competition. “Let’s deal with the minnows, then we both can square off.”

  56. @JMcG

    This is something I do know about. There is no such thing as forces that are only suitable for a defensive war. Even competent small scale defences will utilise offensive action. Nevermind during an entire war!

    It wasn’t successfull, probably because airborne operations are generally pretty stupid, even if they seem cool, but the USSR lost almost their entire airborne force in the Vyazma Airborne Operation.

    It took place on Russian soil and was to support an attempt at encirclement. Theoretically it was a great tool for a defensive war. That theory relying on dropping men out of planes to ~25% casualties, and destroying your own command and control, ever being a good tool, of course.

    I get the weird impression that people on the internet think that a country defending itself in war will just rely on some sort of static line, with fallback positions. Rather than using as much offensive action as possible, to try to take the initiative. It is so strange.

    It is kind of like saying that body armour is a tool only for defensive wars and rifles are only for offensive wars.

    • Replies: @JMcG
  57. Ace says:
    @Ron Unz

    Icebreaker states that German aerial surveillance observed that Soviets units were positioned offensively. I can only remember one fact he presented, namely, that some units were located in front of water obstacles rather than behind them. I do also recall that surveillance revealed that the Soviets had begun to cut the wire in front of their positions. I’m sorry I don’t remember more specifics but I think Suvorov listed other evidence that indicated that a Soviet offensive was imminent not likely to occur at some vague later time.

    Given the fact of German aerial reconnaissance, it’s hard to believe that massive formations would have gone unnoticed. I don’t know how effective German human intelligence was but if there was even minimal competence it’s hard to believe such massive troop movements and deployments would have gone unnoticed.

  58. JMcG says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    That Airborne operation was part of the Soviet Winter Counteroffensive of 1941. It was meant to take ground, or re-take ground if you prefer. Nobody goes to the trouble of training and equipping Airborne forces for defensive operations. Their very raison d’etre is to be dropped behind enemy lines and await reinforcement and resupply by conventionally armed forces with artillery and armor. That was especially true in the thirties and forties.
    I do agree that large Airborne formations were a terrible waste of men and resources and that they are anachronistic in today’s world.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  59. @JMcG

    You have offensive operations in a war of national defence and you have defensive operations in a war of aggression. The same applies as regards missions and tasks within operations, right down to individual TTPs.

    An airborne force is theoretically useful for defending your country.

    Their very raison d’etre is to be dropped behind enemy lines and await reinforcement and resupply by conventionally armed forces with artillery and armor

    This means that if someone invades your country, you can cede ground in a layered defence, then drop your airborne forces behind enemy lines and attempt to encircle them when they are stretched out and at their most vulnerable.

    • Replies: @JMcG
  60. @Right_On

    McMeeking points out how Stalin negotiated separately with the Japanese and redirected them to the Pacific and a possible attack on the US.

    This freed up Soviet forces from their far east and allowed Zhukov to move west.

    • Replies: @Right_On
  61. @fnn

    McMeekin points out that Hitler decided in December 1940 to attack the Soviet Union!

    So, I agree with that part of what you said.

  62. Right_On says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    Thanks for responding. Stalin was a cunning old fox.

    On the Japs and the Reds having already sealed a neutrality pact: the Germans and the Soviets also had a non-aggression pact; that didn’t faze Adolf.
    And the Russians themselves declared war on Japan on 8 August 1945.

    Neutrality pacts? All’s fair in love and war.

    (WWII is destined to be re-fought on the internet for all eternity.)

    • Agree: JMcG
  63. According to that theory, in 1941 Stalin had been on the verge of unleashing an enormous army of invasion to conquer all of Europe when Hitler’s sudden Barbarossa attack anticipated him

    So the same excuse the Israelis always use, color me shocked!

    thereby saving Western civilization from suffering decades under the harsh Soviet yoke

    Oh, thank god! Things are going great!

    Viktor Suvorov, then a prominent writer on Soviet military affairs and GRU defector living in Britain

    Yes, defectors have always been known for their honesty and totally non-biased opinions.

    C’mon Randy, you know Putin will probably throw you in gulag for this right?

    I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure Hitler/NSDAP made clear through all of their speeches, and writing their goal was to crush the Bolsheviks/communists and conquer some territory for the Aryan master race, haha.

    Actions of USSR/Stalin before and after the war are the opposite. Bolsheviks won by promising to get out of WW1. Why would they want to start a new one?

    Germany was clearly the aggressor towards USSR. Doesn’t even make sense.

    • Disagree: JMcG
  64. JMcG says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I suspect we are talking past each other. I think we agree that a tactical offensive can support a strategic defense. However, paratroopers are, or were, used to seize ground for later occupation by conventional forces. That is certainly an offensive role.
    I don’t believe that the Soviets developed and trained an airborne force to be used in a war of national defense. I believe that they, like the Germans, the US, the UK, and Japan; did so in order to add an additional offensive component to their armed forces. It’s telling that the Soviets and the Germans were the earliest to experiment with, and establish, Airborne formations.

  65. Yngvar says:

    The Guardian is an influential establishmentarian media organ of the global Anglosphere, and Harding one of its stars, so his casual claim that Suvorov’s revolutionary theory now has “broad acceptance among historians”—whether accurate or not—represents an absolutely remarkable ideological reversal.

    Well, we’ll see. I’m not seeing it.

    All as this may be, Operation Barbarossa can in no shape or form be called an defensive war.

  66. Sparkon says:

    By 1941, the Red Army was entirely incapable of large-scale offensive operations, as it had neither the training, leadership, equipment, nor states of readiness to go on the offensive against the Wehrmacht.

    A well-trained force with a high degree of readiness is capable of pivoting quickly from offense to defense and back to offense again. That’s what war is all about. A well-trained military force is ready for all contingencies. The Wehrmacht was capable of these quick transformations in 1941, while the Red Army was not.

    Nevertheless, virtually all of the military equipment lost by the Red Army in the early days of Barbarossa was obsolete or nearly obsolete weapons like the T-26 light tank, which was by far the most numerous tank in the Red Army by June 1941.

    The Germans assessed the Red Army’s deployments in 1940 as strictly defensive. The author of the first draft of the operational plan, Operation Draft East, for Operation Barbarossa, Gen. Erich Marcks, noted “…since the Russians will not do us the favor of attacking us…”

    But in retrospect we know that Adolf Hitler was determined to attack eastward into the Soviet Union, for lebensraum, ideology, insanity, hidden agenda, or for whatever reason, that was his plan, and he stuck to it, dragging Germany to devastation and ruin in the process.

    During the war, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the beneficiary of an extremely generous largess from the United States of America in the form of the Lend Lease giveaway. where there was an enormous transfer of strategic materials and secret technical information from the “Arsenal of Democracy” to the Communist state.

    Also during the war, and using it for cover, Zionists were able to strengthen and expand upon their foothold in Palestine.

    • Agree: Miro23
    • Thanks: Olivier1973
  67. @Hans Vogel

    Je vois que vous adoptez allègrement la théorie de Hitler pour justifier son opération Barbarossa. Dans vos références bibliographiques, je constate malheureusement une lacune majeure et hautement significative: le Mein Kampf. Pourtant tout y est annoncé.

    Wir stoppen den ewigen Germanenzug nach dem Süden und Westen Europas und weisen den Blick nach dem Land im Osten. Wir schließen endlich ab die Kolonial- und Handelspolitik der Vorkriegszeit und gehen über zur Bodenpolitik der Zukunft.
    Wenn wir aber heute in Europa von neuem Grund und Boden reden, können wir in erster Linie nur an Rußland und die ihm untertanen Randstaaten denken.

    La résurgence de cette thèse révisionniste vient à point nommé quand la Russie est accusée de vouloir (à nouveau bien sûr!) envahir les autres pays européens. Renouveler cette accusation est la plus sûre préparation idéologique de l’opinion occidentale à une nouvelle opération Barbarossa menée cette fois par l’OTAN. Soyez remercié pour votre contribution à cette future guerre mondiale.

    I see that you are blithely adopting Hitler’s theory to justify his Operation Barbarossa. In your bibliographical references, I unfortunately note a major and highly significant oversight: Mein Kampf. Yet everything is announced there.

    We will stop the eternal Germanic migration to the south and west of Europe we have seen in the past and look toward the land in the east. We will finally end the colonial and trade policy of pre-war times and move forward into the land policy of the future. However, when we say territory and soil today in Europe, we can only think about Russia and the border-states under her control.

    The resurgence of this revisionist thesis comes at the right time when Russia is accused of wanting (again of course!) to invade other European countries. Renewing this accusation is the surest ideological preparation of Western opinion for a new Barbarossa operation, this time led by NATO. Be thanked for your contribution to this future world war.

    • Thanks: Iris
  68. @Hans Vogel

    Many thanks for this Hans. I look forward to reading your book, and the other books recommended here.

  69. @Vendetta

    Very true. That is why even if Stalin was going to attack Germany – Hitler was crazy to try to invade Russia. A wise man would have dug in and defended Germany if/when the attack came.

  70. @Ron Unz

    Well Ron, I read your columns for content rather than style but I did like this:

    before making any further, possibly ignorant remarks:

    I’m always on the lookout for a new way to nudge someone in the nuts and I’ll be using that.
    Thanks.

  71. Oh no! You mean we’ve been lied to all of our lives? The standard WWII history taught in school is complete bullshit? NO! SAY IT AIN’T SO! /sarc.

    I once saw an interview of surviving German Wehrmacht soldiers. They were in their seventies, and all of them had no regrets whatsoever. Their justification? “We had to stop the communists and save Europe.”

  72. anon[307] • Disclaimer says:

    the other theory is that hitler thought the ussr would be easy and so did everyone else.

    so it wasn’t that hitler was crazy…everyone was wrong about the economic strength of the ussr.

    american douchebags used to call it “upper volta with nukes”.

    i expect the same prejudice prevailed in 1941.

    hitler himself is on tape talking about how amazed he and everyone was when they came across a soviet tank factory.

    like iraq. like afghanistan. “we’ll be greeted as liberators.” of course unlike the americans, the nazis were actually so greeted by many.

    • Replies: @JackOH
  73. JackOH says:
    @anon

    Germany’s position in historiography sort of has me thinking of those police departments and prosecutors who arrest and convict a criminal, then announce: “Joe Badguy is believed to be responsible for a bazillion other crimes the last thirty years.”

    The idea I’m getting at is an old one: he who accuses, excuses. Or, he who directs [attention to another], deflects it from himself.

    Blame Joe Badguy for police and prosecutorial inefficiency and corruption. Blame Germany, and you’re off the hook for your own rottenness. Edvard Benes’s scheme for expelling and expropriating without compensation the Sudeten Germans after 1945 seems to me little different in motivation than Herr Hitler’s obsessive nursing of ethnic grievances.

    Plus, America has its race hustlers, both White and Black, who’ve used legitimate grievances to propel their own career success at the expense of a whole lot of innocent folks. They wouldn’t recognize their kinship with Herr Hitler either, because Germany has to play the perpetual bogeyman whom no one else can approach.

    I’m pretty sure my thinking breaks down fairly quickly on close examination, but, well, there it is.

  74. Big Daddy says:

    As I have stated previously it is quite probable that Hitler’s loyalty to Mussolini for his support of Hitler cost Hitler the war.

    First Hitler wasted men and materiel in north Africa trying to bailout the Italians. Then bailing out Mussolini in the Balkans pushed the Russian invasion from May 15 to June 22.

    Given five more weeks the Russians might have been beaten. Would Hitler have gotten behind the Urals and seized or at least disrupted the gigantic materiel supplies Stalin had accumulated there?

  75. JimDandy says:

    I have a couple of suspicions. 1.) The theory has been elevated to “widely accepted” as part of the general recent demonization of Russia by Neocons/Never-Trumpers/Globalist-“liberals,” etc. 2.) Despite being promoted by these forces for propagandist reasons, the theory is correct.

  76. @Kevin Barrett

    Pardon and correct me if I am misinterpretending your comment, but surely you would know that the “mysterious force field in the Anglosphere” was none other than the Jewish banking system that controlled (and continues to control) both England and the United States.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS