The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Max Parry Archive
The EU Is Rewriting WWII History to Demonize Russia
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Last month, on the 80th anniversary of the start of World War II, the European Parliament voted on a resolution entitled “On the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe.” The adopted document:

“…Stresses that the Second World War, the most devastating war in Europe’s history, was started as an immediate result of the notorious Nazi-Soviet Treaty on Non-Aggression of 23 August 1939, also known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and its secret protocols, whereby two totalitarian regimes that shared the goal of world conquest divided Europe into two zones of influence; Recalls that the Nazi and communist regimes carried out mass murders, genocide and deportations and caused a loss of life and freedom in the 20th century on a scale unseen in human history, and recalls the horrific crime of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi regime; condemns in the strongest terms the acts of aggression, crimes against humanity and mass human rights violations perpetrated by the Nazi, communist and other totalitarian regimes.”

For 75 years, we have been told that the war started on September 1st, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, even though the Pacific Theater between Japan and China began two years earlier. Now we are to understand that it actually began eight days prior when the German foreign minister visited Moscow. Take no notice of the inherent doublespeak in the premise that a war could be the consequence of a peace agreement, which without any evidence provided is said to have contained “secret protocols”, not provisions. You see, unlike the other pacts signed between European countries and Nazi Germany — such as the Munich Betrayal of 1938 with France and Great Britain to which the Soviets were uninvited while Austria and Czechoslovakia were gifted to Hitler for the courtesy of attacking Moscow — Molotov-Ribbentrop was really a confidential agreement between Hitler and Stalin to conquer Europe and divide it between them.

This is pure mythology. The fact of the matter is that neither the Soviets or even Germany drew the dividing line in Poland in 1939, because it was a reinstatement of the border acknowledged by the League of Nations and Poland itself as put forward by the British following WWI. Even Winston Churchill during his first wartime radio broadcast later that year admitted:

“Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest. We could have wished that the Russian Armies should be standing on their present line as the friends and allies of Poland, instead of as invaders. But that the Russian Armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace.”

Yet according to the EU, even though Moscow was the last country to agree to a peace deal with Hitler, it was all part of a hidden plot between them. In that case, why then did Germany choose to invade the USSR in 1941? The EU leaves this question unanswered. Forget about its racial policies of enslaving slavs or that Hitler openly declared in Mein Kampf that Germany needed to conquer the East to secure the Lebensraum . Nevermind that in the Spring of 1941, less than two months before Operation Barbarossa, Stalin gave a speech to the Kremlin at a state banquet for recent graduates of the Frunze Military Academy to give warning of an imminent attack:

“War with Germany is inevitable. If comrade Molotov can manage to postpone the war for two or three months through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that will be our good fortune, but you yourselves must go off and take measures to raise the combat readiness of our forces.”

The EU has redacted that the entire reason for the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact in August 1939 had been to buy time for the Red Army’s attrition warfare strategy to adequately prepare its armaments against a future invasion by the Wehrmacht. The Soviet leadership well understood that Germany would eventually renege on the agreement, considering that in 1936 it had signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan and Italy directed at the Communist International. For six years, the USSR was thwarted in its attempts to forge an equivalent anti-fascist coalition and to collectively defend Czechoslovakia by the British and the French, whose ruling classes were too busy courting and doing business with Germany. It had been the Soviets alone who defended the Spanish Republic from Franco in the final rehearsal before the worldwide conflict and only when all other recourses had run out did they finally agree to a deal with the Hitlerites.

Joachim von Ribbentrop signing the Anti-Comintern Pact
Joachim von Ribbentrop signing the Anti-Comintern Pact

Just a week prior to the signing of the neutrality treaty, Stalin gave a secret speech to the Politburo where he explained:

“The question of war or peace has entered a critical phase for us. If we conclude a mutual assistance treaty with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off of Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western Powers. War would thus be prevented but future events could take a serious turn for the USSR. If we accept Germany’s proposal to conclude with it a non-aggression pact, Germany will then attack Poland and Europe will be thrown into serious acts of unrest and disorder. Under these circumstances we will have many chances of remaining out of the conflict while being able to hope for our own timely entrance into war.”

This latest resolution is part of a long pattern of misrepresentation of WWII by the Anglo-Saxon empire, but is perhaps its most egregious falsification that truly desecrates the graves of the 27 million Soviet citizens who were 80% of the total Allied death toll. Earlier this year, for the commemoration on the 75th anniversary of the Normandy landings, Russia and its head of state were excluded from the events in Portsmouth, England. As if the ongoing absence of Western European leaders from the May 9th Victory Day ceremonies held annually in Russia weren’t insulting enough, while it’s true that the Eastern Front was not involved in Operation Overlord, Russian President Vladimir Putin had previously been in attendance at the 70th anniversary D-Day events in 2014. No doubt the increase in geopolitical tensions between the West and Moscow in the years since has given the EU license to write out Russia’s role in the Allied victory entirely with little public disapproval, though many of the families of those who volunteered in the International Brigades were rightly insulted by this tampering of history and voiced their objection.

The EU motion‘s real purpose is to fabricate the war’s history by giving credit to the United States for the liberation of Europe while absolving the Western democracies that opened the door for the rise of fascism and tried to use Germany to annihilate the USSR. History itself should always be open to debate and subject to study and revision, but the Atlanticists have made this formal change without any evidence to support it and entirely for political purposes. Like the founding of the EU project itself, the declared aim of the proposal is supposedly to prevent future atrocities from taking place, even though the superstate was designed by former Nazis like Walter Hallstein, the first President of the European Commission, who was a German lawyer in several Nazi Party law organizations and fought for the Wehrmacht in France until his capture as a POW after the invasion of Normandy.

Rather than preventing future crimes, the EU has committed one itself by deceptively modifying the historical record of communism to be parallel with that of the Third Reich. Even further, that they were two sides of the same coin of ‘totalitarianism’ and that for all the barbarity committed during the war, the Soviets were equally culpable — or judging by the amount of times the text cites the USSR versus Germany, even more so. It remains unclear whether we are now to completely disregard the previous conclusions reached by the military tribunals held by the Allies under international law at Nuremberg of which all 12 war criminals sentenced to death in 1946 were German, not Soviet. The document doesn’t even attempt to hide its politicized direction at the current government in Moscow, stating that:

“Russia remains the greatest victim of communist totalitarianism and that its development into a democratic state will be impeded as long as the government, the political elite and political propaganda continue to whitewash communist crimes and glorify the Soviet totalitarian regime.”

This accusation does not stand up to critical observation, as Russia has since erected official memorials to those executed and politically persecuted during the so-called ‘Great Terror.’ However, the stark difference between the EU resolution and the Wall of Grief in Moscow is that the latter is based on evidence from the Soviet archives. It has become a widespread and ridiculous belief in the West that Stalin somehow killed as much as five times as many people as Hitler, an absurdity not reflected in the now disclosed and once highly secretive Soviet archives, which after two decades of examination show that over a period of three decades from the early 1920s to his death in 1953, the total recorded number of Soviet citizens executed by the state was slightly less than 800,000. While that is certainly a horrid number, how does it even begin to compare to an industrial scale extermination based on the race theory?

How can anyone believe Stalin killed tens of millions of people when even the most simple analysis of a population demographics chart shows that the Soviet population rate consistently increased each decade with the only reduction taking place during WWII as a result of their casualties? Socialists, who perhaps more than any other political tendency seem to suffer from autophobia, should defend their own history from such falsification. It is only when flaws occur under communist states that the entire political and economic system is to be denounced outright, but never capitalism which for five centuries has colonized half the world while enslaving and killing entire nations.

Most of the wildly exaggerated death figures stem from falsities written in The Black Book of Communism by a group of right-wing French academics in 1997 ,who did not conceal their apologism for the Nazi collaborationist self-proclaimed Russian Liberation Army (ROA) commanded by Gen. Andrey Vlasov who defected to Germany during the war:

“A singular fate was reserved for the Vlasovtsy, the Soviet soldiers who had fought under the Soviet general Andrei Vlasov. Vlasov was the commander of the Second Army who had been taken prisoner by the Germans in July 1942. On the basis of his anti-Stalinist convictions, General Vlasov agreed to collaborate with the Nazis to free his country from the tyranny of the Bolsheviks.”

The other highly cited work by the West for its overestimated portrayal of Soviet repression is the equally unreliable The Gulag Archipelago volumes by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who as historian Ludo Martens noted also attempted to provide justification for Vlasov’s treason in his best-selling 1973 work:

“And so it was that Vlasov’s Second Shock Army perished, literally recapitulating the fate of Samsonov’s Russian Second Army in World War I, having been just as insanely thrown into encirclement. Now this, of course, was treason to the Motherland! This, of course, was vicious, self-obsessed betrayal! But it was Stalin’s. Treason does not necessarily involve selling out for money. It can include ignorance and carelessness in the preparations for war, confusion and cowardice at its very start, the meaningless sacrifice of armies and corps solely for the sake of saving one’s own marshal’s uniform. Indeed, what more bitter treason is there on the part of a Supreme Commander in Chief?”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

The truth is located in the Soviet archives which indicate that Stalin’s successor, the Ukrainian-born Nikita Khrushchev, was as intent on absolving the entirety of the Soviet leadership as himself from any culpability in the purges of the 1930s so that blame for its excesses were placed squarely on his predecessor. In succession, Western historians like the British Foreign Office propagandist Robert Conquest followed his example and this account quickly became official doctrine. In hindsight, Khrushchev’s infamous 1956 secret speech, “On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences”, was what planted the seeds of self-doubt in the Soviet system that would eventually lead to its undoing decades later. To the contrary, what the historical records show is most of those who were purged in that period were not necessarily perceived as political threats to Stalin himself, but were targeted because of an overall systemic paranoia held by the entire Soviet government regarding internal sabotage and counter-revolutionary activity by a real fifth column getting inspiration from a certain traitorous former Bolshevik in exile and a potential invasion originating from outside the country.

Many forget that during the Russian Civil War, exactly such a scenario had occurred when the Allies of World War I, including the United States, collectively intervened on the side of the Whites only to be driven out by the Red Army, making such fearful instincts not entirely unreasonable. Not to mention, the rapid industrialization of the entire nation in a single decade while in preparation for the growing threat of war with Germany. When Hitler began his Masterplan for the East, their worst fears came to fruition when tens of thousands of Banderite turncoats enlisted in the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) in Ukraine to collaborate with the German occupiers in the slaughter of their fellow countrymen and after the war ended, continued their treasonous struggle during the 1950s with assistance from the CIA. So the saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you…

As for the accusation of “whitewashing”, it is true that recent polls indicate that 70% of Russians today hold a favorable view of Stalin — but just as many are nostalgic for communism itself and regret the breakup of the USSR on the basis that the socialist system ‘took care of ordinary people.’ Putin did once remark that despite Stalin’s legacy of repression, he doubted that the native Georgian statesman would have been willing to drop two atomic bombs on Japan like the United States, an atrocity that killed 225,000 innocent civilians (most of them instantly) which is more than a quarter of those capitally punished during the entire Stalin era. Was he wrong to say so? A significant amount of deaths also occurred in the Soviet-wide famines of the 1930s, but there is significantly more evidence to suggest that the British deliberately starved 3 million Bengalis to death then there is to support the Holodomor fraud concocted by the Ukrainian nationalist diaspora. If the West wants to talk about deliberate starvation, it should take a look at what the U.S. did with its economic sanctions in the 1990s killing half a million Iraqi children which former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously described as “worth it.”

This isn’t the first time the Anglosphere has historically omitted the Soviet role in the Allied victory or conflated the USSR with the Third Reich. On previous occasions the European Parliament has issued resolutions declaring August 23rd “a European day of remembrance of the victims of the Nazi-Soviet alliance.” This is all an attempt by the Atlanticists to depict communism as somehow worse than fascism while disconnecting the Nazis from the lineage of European settler colonialism whose racism was its source of inspiration. Why is that which befell the Jews not considered an extension of what was already done to the Herero-Nama tribes for which Namibia is now suing Germany a century later?

The neoliberal political establishment in Europe and its anti-EU populist opponents are fond of appearing dead-set against one another, but it seems they share the same fairytale beliefs about WWII that the Nazis and Soviets were equivalent evils as inscribed in this latest decree. It has always been ironic that the liberal billionaire “philanthropist” and currency manipulator George Soros is so derided by right-wing populists when it was his Open Society Institute NGOs which engineered the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Soros may be averse to the anti-immigrant brand of right-wing nationalism currently on the rise in Western Europe, but as a fanatical Russophobe he is willing to make strange bedfellows with ultra-nationalists in Kiev to undermine Moscow’s sphere of influence and that includes revising WWII history to a version favored by the Banderites which took power during the pro-EU 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine.

The Nazi junta regime in Kiev has since instituted Russophobic ‘de-communization’ laws erasing the remaining traces of Ukraine’s Soviet past while replacing them with memorials to their wartime foes. A recent example was the city of Vinnitsa renaming a street that paid tribute to the Soviet spy and war hero Richard Sorge to that after Omelyan Hrabetsk, a commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army which cooperated with Germany during the war and killed thousands of Poles and Jews. Sorge posed as a German journalist in Tokyo and famously provided timely intelligence to Moscow that Japan did not plan to attack the USSR, allowing Stalin to transfer essential reinforcements to the Battle of Moscow which proved to be a major turning point in the war. He was executed by the Japanese in 1944 and posthumously awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union.

Now the EU is ‘decommunizing’ history in its own legislation. Meanwhile, Soros’s influence over the EU cannot be overstated as his lobbying power has enabled him to provide direct council to its executive branch more than any official head of state in the political and economic union. The hedge fund tycoon made a fortune as an investor during Russia’s mass privatization in the 1990s after enlisting Jeffrey Sachs and the IMF to apply ‘shock therapy’ to its economy as it did in Poland and his native Hungary. Under Putin, however, Soros’s NGOs have since been barred from Russia. Perhaps the reason he can so cynically provide support to fascist elements in Ukraine to undercut Moscow is that he did so personally in his upbringing in Hungary.

Born Gyorgy Schwartz, during WWII he was a teenager from an affluent Jewish family which survived the Axis occupation by using their wealth to bribe a government official from the collaborationist Arrow Cross government who provided the Soros’s forged documents identifying them as Christians, while the adolescent by his own admission delivered deportation notices to other Jews. A short time later, the young Soros impersonated the adopted gentile son of an official who inventoried the stolen valuables and property from Jewish estates and even accompanied him during his work. One would assume as a Jew he would have been haunted by these experiences, but Soros has repeatedly stated he has no regrets and even disturbingly compared it to his future work as an investor.


SHOCKING: George Soros, a chief financial supporter of Antifa, was himself a Nazi collaborator and to this day has no regrets

Like Soros, the EU has no ideology except an unquenchable thirst for greed and is fond of Nazis when they are the kind that hate Russia. For its own political interests, it is willing to dangerously foster a version of history invented by a rebranded far right where the quislings who collaborated with the Axis powers elude guilt and the Soviets who courageously defeated them are maliciously slandered. Fascism was never fully eradicated only because the West continued to nurture it during the Cold War and even now that capitalism has been reinstated in Eurasia, it continues to do so to undermine a resurgent Moscow on the world stage.

As the world appears increasingly on the brink of WWIII, one is reminded of the expression by Karl Marx who famously stated that “history repeats itself…first as tragedy, then as farce” in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, when comparing Napoleon Bonaparte’s seizure of power in the French Revolution with the coup by his nephew half a century later which brought an end to the French Revolution. Equally fitting is the humorous line by the legendary writer and noted anti-imperialist Mark Twain who reputedly said, “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” Both are applicable to the unquestionable tragedy of WWII and the farcical mockery of its history by the EU whose policies continue to make another global conflict that much more likely.

Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His work has appeared in Counterpunch, Global Research, Dissident Voice, Greanville Post, OffGuardian, American Herald Tribune and more. Max may be reached [email protected]

 
Hide 395 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Tusk says:

    I think it is a bit backward to say that Stalins speech in Spring of 1941 of Nazi aggression is proof of Germany’s plan to invade the Soviets, but instead more likely telegraphing and preparing his troops for the offensive that he had planned himself.

    • Agree: Jett Rucker
  2. Vinnie O says:
    @Tusk

    Have you read NOTHING?? The ENTIRE basis of Hitler’s foreign policy, all the way back to “Mein Kampf”, was a massive German invasion to destroy international Bolshevism and seize Lebensraum (living space) for German colonization in Eastern Europe. The discussions with the Russians in 1939 were temporary, tactical diplomacy intended ONLY to stabilize the local situation during resolution of the “Polish Crisis”.

    • Replies: @fnn
    , @Tusk
    , @Alfred
  3. Vinnie O says:

    It is not possible to OVER-demonize Bolshevik Russia. Hitler didn’t need to make anything up. Have you read ANY of “Gulag Archipelago”?

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    , @Stefanov
  4. fnn says:

    Many forget that during the Russian Civil War, exactly such a scenario had occurred when the Allies of World War I, including the United States, collectively intervened on the side of the Whites only to be driven out by the Red Army, making such fearful instincts not entirely unreasonable.

    Morgenthau quoted by Moldbug:
    https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2010/03/world-war-ii-primary-sourcebook/

    America reciprocated when Russia was being threatened by an Allied force in Siberia in 1919. The United States troops were there more for the purpose of watching the Japanese than of fighting Russians. During the course of the peace conference, both Wilson and Lloyd George went home for a short time and in their absence the conferees were whipped up to a mood of more active intervention. Wilson heard of it in mid-ocean and, although thoroughly disliking the Communistic philosophy, promptly dispatched a radio message to the effect that the only course he would agree to was speedy withdrawal of all Allied troops from Russian soil.

    Herbert Hoover quoted by Moldbug:
    https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2009/04/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified_15/

    The British and French exerted great pressure on Mr. Wilson for Americans to join in a general attack on Moscow. General Foch drew up plans for such an attack. Winston Churchill, representing the British Cabinet, appeared before the Big Four on February 14, 1919, and demanded a united invasion of Russia.

    The Americans then experience a sudden change of heart. Not only that, they ponder the large war debts owed by their allies to them. In an internal note by Tasker Bliss:

    It is perfectly well known that every nation in Europe, except England, is bankrupt, and that England would become bankrupt if she engaged on any considerable scale in such a venture.

    I.e.: “Hey, can you guys really afford that?” Hoover himself supplies additional reasons, in a letter to Wilson (bear in mind that Hoover had considerable experience as an engineer in Czarist Russia):

    We have also to… consider, what would actually happen if we undertook military intervention. We should probably be involved in years of police duty, and our first act would probably in the nature of things make us a party with the Allies to re-establishing the reactionary classes. It also requires consideration as to whether or not our people at home would stand for our providing power by which such reactionaries held their position. Furthermore, we become a junior in this partnership of four. It is therefore inevitable that we would find ourselves subordinated and even committed to politics against our convictions.

    Thus Wilson guaranteed the victory of the Bolsheviks. The Brits and French pulled their support for the Whites.

    • Agree: anon19, byrresheim
    • Replies: @The Plutonium Kid
  5. fnn says:
    @Vinnie O

    Hitler met with Molotov in Nov. 1940 to try to prevent war with the Soviet Union. But Molotov pretty much spat in Hitler’s eye, and that was that.

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/2001/HW_Web_dl.pdf

    Not since his talks with the British before Munich, in , had Adolf Hitler heard such tough language as Molotov used on November  and .As Ribbentrop had done before him, Hitler harangued the Russian ministeras though he were at a Party rally: if Russia wanted to share in the booty as the British Empire fell apart, then now was the time to declare Soviet solidarity with the Tripartite Pact powers. He sympathised, he said, with Russia’s desire for an outlet to the high seas, and suggested that she should expand southward from Batum and Baku toward the Persian Gulf and India; Germany would expand into Africa. As for Russia’s interest in the Dardanelles, Hitler restated his willingness to call for the renegotiation of the Montreux Convention, which governed the straits, to bring it into line with Moscow’s defensive interests.
    The demands which Molotov stated were shockers. Russia wanted another stab at Finland – she intended to occupy and annex the whole country,which had, after all, been assigned her by the  pact which he had signed with Ribbentrop in Moscow. Hitler, however, needed Finland’s nickel and timber supplies. When Molotov announced Russia’s intention of inviting Bulgaria to sign a non-aggression pact which would permit the establishment of a Soviet base near the Dardanelles, Hitler ironically inquired whether Bulgaria had asked for such assistance; pressed later by Molotov for a reply to Soviet terms, Hitler evasively answered that he must consult Mussolini! Each of Molotov’s conferences with Hitler was terminated by the warning of approaching British aircraft, and his dinner at the Soviet embassy on the thirteenth ended abruptly for the same reason. Ribbentrop invited Molotov to the concrete shelter at his home; here the Soviet foreign minister revealed that Moscow could never entirely forgo an interest in the western approaches to the Baltic either – the Kattegat and Skagerrak. When Ribbentrop told his Führer of this, Hitler was stunned. ‘He demanded that we give him military bases on Danish soil on the outlets to the North Sea,’ Hitler was to recall in the last week of his life. ‘He had already staked a claim to them. He demanded Constantinople, Romania, Bulgaria, and Finland – and we were supposed to be the victors!’
    While the public was deliberately fed the impression that the formal Nazi–Soviet discussions had been harmonious and successful, within the chancellery there was no doubt that they had reached the parting of the ways. Irrevocable and terrible in its finality, the decision which Adolf Hitler
    now took was one he never regretted, even in the abyss of ultimate defeat.

  6. Tusk says:
    @Vinnie O

    Sure that’s why Stalin amassed all his units on the border and was talking about the necessity to fight Germany. You imply it was a one way street and that Hitler was to blame, but despite the love towards the commies in this article Stalin does bear burden for what happened too.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    , @Vinnie O
  7. Summary of article: Hatred on parade.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  8. ivan says:

    So in order to combat European revisionism, Parry gives us one long story about the Soviet Union’s honourable intentions towards its neighbours. One can hang any story onto the events preceding the invasion of Poland, but the fact is as General Manstein wrote about the Polish camapaign, the Poles were defeated before they started since they had to plan for war against all comers due their invidious situation. Stalin stepped into Poland a mere 17 days after the Germans. The Poles had no “hinterland” to retreat to. Under the hammer and anvil of the Nazis and the Commies the Poles perished.

    And Chamberlain like every one else in Europe understood that to effectively contain the Germans, the Soviet Union has to be part of a united front. But like the gentleman he was, he could not stomach the price that Uncle Joe wanted to extract, viz the extinction of the independence of the East European nations. That Hitler wanted Bolshevism destroyed is a no brainer, but Saint Stalin had his own plans to invade Europe picking up the pieces after the Europeans had duked it out. In the event the German speed caught everyone by surprise, including the bloody Stalin

    But the article has value : For much of the embroidery around the death camps came from Soviet accounts, and their later embellishments. Who knows, the same skepticism about the Soviet Union will later filter into Holocaust worship.

    • Agree: John Regan
    • Replies: @Franz
  9. anon19 says:

    The British pledge to Poland – and the Poles acceptance of it – is the greatest example of delusional insanity I can possibly think of.

  10. O. P. says:

    The US/UK and France (Rothschild) are demonising Russia, not the EU.

    The EU is probably under pressure to demonise Russia, however most EU countries are normally doing well with Russia, they are anti-US/UK, considering all the US-UK led NATO horrific crimes committed in the seven ME countries.

    Germany in the grip of Anglo-Saxon war policies?
    by Karl Müller
    {Excerpts}

    “The Europe of today is politically stable and well-off, it is capable of organising its own defence. The European states have failed to do that for much too long.” And: “By using the financial means, which the USA could spare this way, they could concentrate on Asia – a process, that was already under way during the Obama administration.” And finally: “In regard to Russia the USA need to pursue a new path of agreement, because otherwise we will be driving the Russians even closer towards China.”

    “On 22 August News Agency Reuters reported: “Germany, France and Great Britain rejected US President Donald Trump’s proposal to once again admit Russia to the Circle of G7 countries. On Wednesday evening, before meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Chancellor Angela Merkel said that in 2014 Russia had been excluded for definite reasons, and that those reasons were still valid […]. A few days before the G7 Summit in France President Emmanuel Macron declared his rejection of Russia’s re-admittance as well. “I believe that Russia’s unconditional return would be a sign of the G7’s weakness and a strategic mistake. Britain’s Prime Minister Johnson concurred in this opinion. […]”

    “Up to 2023 the USA are planning to invest another two billion dollars only in their bases in Rheinland Pfalz. Ramstein and Landstuhl have already been rebuilt and modernized for some billion dollars and cannot be substituted in the short and long term.”

    https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/numbers/2019/no-19-9-september-2019/germany-in-the-grip-of-anglo-saxon-war-policies.html

  11. This is an interesting yet complex issue. From my blog:

    May 1, 2017 – Must Ukraine Return Volhynia?

    Hillary Clinton’s State Department funneled $5 billion to orchestrate a “revolution” to overthrow the elected President of Ukraine in 2014. (See my June 7, 2016 blog post for details.) Ukraine’s President was ousted because he refused to support Ukraine joining the EU and NATO, and violence spread throughout Ukraine as CIA funded factions fought for power.

    Crimea was part of Russia for over a century until it was administratively attached to Ukraine in 1954 by a Soviet premier to promote Soviet solidarity. Russians are the majority people in Crimea and Russian is the common language, but they were not consulted. In 2014, after years of Ukrainian political turmoil and an American coup in Kiev, Russia accepted a request by the people of Crimea to rejoin Russia after 94% voted in favor. (See my Aug 8, 2016 blog post for details.) Russians and Crimeans were puzzled by intense American opposition to this reannexation, and rightly concluded the Americans really wanted “NATO” military bases in strategic Crimea.

    For those concerned about European borders and justice, they should address a truly outrageous annexation. In 1939, the Soviet Union invaded Poland and seized half of its land while Soviet police massacred 22,000 influential Polish POWs and civilians. This area was invaded by Germany two years later, which formed Ukrainian paramilitary units that murdered over 100,000 Poles during the war. Entire Polish villages disappeared as Ukrainians massacred everyone to include women and children, who were buried in mass graves. After the war, the Polish regions of Volhynia and Eastern Galicia were formally annexed by Soviet Ukraine after 1.5 million Poles were forcibly deported. Over the next decade, another 1.5 million Poles were deported by Ukraine to ethically cleanse these regions (noted in yellow below).

    The West did nothing about this brutality because it occurred within the powerful Soviet Union. However, that union broke up and Ukraine is weak and at odds with Russia. On July 22, 2016, the Parliament of Poland passed a resolution recognizing the massacres of ethnic Poles in Volhynia and Galicia as genocide. Poland is now part of NATO and American troops are based there. Thousands of Poles are still alive who were expelled from these regions. Homes and land were seized from millions of Poles. Ukrainian war criminals remain at large.

    This raises several questions. If Poland demands a return of its territory or compensation for Poles, will powerful NATO support its demand? Will sanctions be imposed against Ukraine for this genocide and illegal seizure of Polish territory? Since Crimea was attached to Ukraine without a democratic vote, and the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia, should sanctions against Russia be removed?

    Informed people know these issues will never be addressed because NATO does not exist to protect member states, but is a proxy arm of America’s neocon empire trying to conquer the world. However, as Poland’s military grows stronger and Ukraine struggles, this issue may arise, and crafty Russia may support a return of Poland’s, Slovakia’s, and Romania’s seized territories!

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @idealogus
  12. Gee, maybe Germany and Japan has imperial aims because the Brits and French led the way in gobbling up so much of the world.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @HEREDOT
  13. the so-called ‘Great Terror.’

    Wat

  14. dfordoom says: • Website

    It’s amazing. The problem with historical revisionism is that it develops a momentum. In this case the danger is that it can lead to exonerating Germany from responsibility for WW2, and ultimately to exonerating the Nazis.

    It’s the sort of thing that usually appeals only to the nutjob extreme Right. The Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd. It’s also the sort of thing that appeals to the “it was all a Jewish conspiracy” crowd. And the people who swallow Victor Suvorov’s revisionism hook, line and sinker.

    Maybe we’re heading towards a world where instead of it being OK to punch a Nazi, it will be OK to punch a communist.

    It’s also an indication that far from being run by a bunch of commies the EU is actually run (as you say) by neoliberals.

  15. Wally says:

    – Unhinged Communist Max Parry continues his nonsense in spite of being slapped silly at UR. Hey, we can all use a few laughs and Parry supplies them.

    – Parry’s in complete denial of the proven fact that Germany’s attack on the USSR was a preventative strike in lieu of the planned & nearly implemented massive attack by the USSR.

    Parry talks of Soviet archive “documents” to support his positions, but shows not a single one.

    Parry shows his Zionist side along with his Communism by touting the fake & impossible “holocaust” which has been utterly debunked at UR and elsewhere, and easily shown to be a Zionist / Communist propaganda scam. The claims made are scientifically impossible and the alleged millions upon millions of human remains said to be in known location simply do not exist.

    – It’s also noted that he alleges genocide by Germany against Slavs for which no proof exists either. The guy is simply an unhinged nutter with no proof for his absurd claims. And of course he presents no proof, he merely tries to bluff his way through. That won’t work when free speech is allowed.

    See Parry demolished here:. http://www.unz.com/?s=Parry&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    A few recommendations, also see the comments:

    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents: http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
    Roosevelt Conspired to Start World War II in Europe: http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/
    American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, by Ron Unz: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/
    “The Holocaust” Is a Myth That Conceals Our Shame: http://www.unz.com/kbarrett/the-holocaust-is-a-myth-that-conceals-our-shame/
    Teaching Holocaust, Don’t know much about history, by Philip Giraldi: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/teaching-holocaust/
    Babi Yar: The alleged Einsatzgruppen ‘Killings’: http://www.unz.com/article/babi-yar/

    • Replies: @Paw
    , @Leon
    , @Curmudgeon
  16. Franz says:
    @ivan

    For much of the embroidery around the death camps came from Soviet accounts, and their later embellishments. Who knows, the same skepticism about the Soviet Union will later filter into Holocaust worship.

    Exactly what I was thinking.

    Can’t very well blow off the Gulag, Holodomor, not to mention to eternally unmentioned mess Stalin made of Finland 80 years ago, which the Finns were able to hold off so there was no Arctic Massacre to commemorate but might have been.

    Like a dead WN put it: You know how many Jews they say died in WWII. Any idea how many of your own you lost?

    Or more bluntly: History ain’t written by the winners it’s written by the whiners.

    • Replies: @ivan
  17. @Counterinsurgency

    Quote: “Summary of article: Hatred on parade.

    Reply: Hatred works in mysterious ways…, but it’s always the ‘other’ who’s at fault….

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  18. The Soviet role in instigating WWII goes back much further. Hitler’s NSDAP couldn’t have come to power without Stalin directing the communist party of Germany to not ally itself with the German social democrats. The communists started to call the social democrats “social fascists”, no alliance came to pass, Hitler became chancellor and the rest is history.

    Europe correcting the history of WWII to a certain degree is actually good for Russia. It will force Russia to confront its past more honestly and ultimately throw off the Stalinist propaganda that still dominates the Russian mindset. Of course there was a Soviet role in instigating WWII, but the Soviets only stood for themselves and their foreign backers, not the Russian people. The Soviet takeover itself had been funded by foreign interests that felt threatened by Russian prosperity and geopolitical competition under tzarist rule. Britain already had had a Russian tzar murdered in a palace conspiracy during the time of Napoleon because he was making an alliance with Napoleon to invade India. Much of the same geopolitical thinking was at play during the Bolshevik revolution and has been ever since to this very day. Russia in whatever incarnation it momentarily appears cannot be allowed to prosper and always has to be pitted against other powers.

    Russia will hopefully go on the offensive by rewriting the history of WWII itself. For WWII wouldn’t have come about without Western scheming and conniving starting right when WWI came to a close. The treaty of Versailles lay the groundwork by virtually guaranteeing a burning German desire for correcting its wrongs. The allies also failed to address the issue of Germany’s internal war debts. It would have been so easy to decree that creditors, who were mostly landed nobility, the so-called Junkers, had to write off their claims. That did not happen and led to these Junkers supporting right-wing desperados, including Hitler, when the German state could not pay its dues. The list goes on and on. The process of rewriting the history of WWII will hopefully not stop before it has encompassed what currently are the greatest taboos of all. Russia has the nuclear option of opening up its archives and will hopefully make use of it.

    • Agree: jsigur
    • Replies: @Paw
    , @Curmudgeon
  19. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

    clickbait

  20. Romanian says: • Website

    If the shoe fits!

    The Soviet Union being the enemy of the enemy does not make them friends, especially in light of what happened before, during and after WW2.

    Neither do I think that acknowledging that the USSR was awful is or should be an attack on Russia(ns), though of course politics thrives on spurious associations. The Russians don’t have that many fans, historically, in Eastern Europe and never will, especially in light of their resurgence, but they weren’t batshit crazy either. They were just as much victims and prisoners of the USSR as other populations.

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
  21. Antares says:

    From 20,000,000 deaths to 800,000 deaths is quite a development. It is obvious that a number should never be trusted because it is written down.

    It is imaginable that some writers at UR are more on the side of the Americans and others more on the side of the former Sowjets, at least, as they see these sides themselves. It leaves the reader with the task of preparing a meal from ingredients he doesn’t know. Its taste will be unpredictable.

  22. @Vinnie O

    Gulag Archipelago is lies and you are a chump.

    • Disagree: Rich
    • Troll: Chris Mallory
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    , @Paw
  23. Yeah, yeah, right. The Soviet Union was so horrible that the people who lived there liked it.

    Yeah, right, the Russians themselves, the so-called “victims” of the Soviet Union are some of its worst demonizers: “It is true that recent polls indicate that 70% of Russians today hold a favorable view of Stalin — but just as many are nostalgic for communism itself and regret the breakup of the USSR on the basis that the socialist system ‘took care of ordinary people.’”

  24. I have heard Poles tell of the horror stories of long lines of people outside of pharmacies, unable to get their medicine, begging, in fact.

    When did this happen?

    After Poland turned capitalist. After the American-led coup that sent millions into abject poverty–and the ones who couldn’t get their medicine, into death.

    • Replies: @awry
  25. It had been the Soviets alone who defended the Spanish Republic ….

    Sure, we’ve entered the No-Spin Zone.

    As if the ongoing absence of Western European leaders from the May 9th Victory Day ceremonies held annually in Russia weren’t insulting enough ….

    My Russian girlfriend once asked me why we in the West celebrate VE-Day on the 8th of May, and even though I had once seen her almost glass a bartender for daring to serve her Smirnoff, I took my chances and delivered the punchline with a smile: “That’s the day we won the war, love.”

    The EU motion‘s real purpose is to fabricate the war’s history by giving credit to the United States for the liberation of Europe while absolving the Western democracies that opened the door for the rise of fascism and tried to use Germany to annihilate the USSR.

    Maybe the Western “democracies” are trying to cover a large body of evidence that suggests they had no small hand in provoking the facists into war. The Sovs were probably glad FDR was a Russian stooge, because there was little besides FDR keeping Churchill on a short leash and stopping the Brits from siding with the Germans to take on the USSR.

    Look, I get your take, and I agree with it: The Sovs were no angels, but that is no reason for the West to smear modern-day Russian for the West’s own shortcomings.

    • Agree: Daniel Rich
  26. Smith says:

    It’s simple, both Germany and the USSR invaded Poland in 1939.

    Yet the brits and french only declare war against Germany.

    The USSR is rightly demonized for their participation in their war against nationalist and nationalism (even if later on they help nationalists in Vietnam), there’s no going further around it.

    The world would be in a much better place if the Axis of Germany, Italy, Hungary and Japan have won. A renaissance of culture even.

    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @RI
  27. @fnn

    This is pure rubbish. Hitler had decided on war long before November 1940.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  28. Of course, anyone is entitled to their own opinion.

    In my opinion, this is one of the best ideological documents coming from otherwise stale & wishy-washy EU. The dominant cultural-ideological trend has been, until now: Nazis pure evil & guilty for everything under the sun, Holo…, Holo.., Holocaust only matters; Communists….so, so, after all they’d been our Allies & that system, true, had some bad traits, but nobody’s perfect.

    Now, equating those two regimes in historical perspective, as far as moral resonances are concerned- is not a good thing. It is simply -great.

    Whether it will have real repercussions in the public discourse or will remain just a bunch of hollow words, it remains to be seen. Essentially, post-1968 New Left (anti white male animus, deranged feminism, adoration of colored races & Islam, exultation of “sexual minorities”, war against nuclear family, war against national identity & nation-states, relativism, obscurantism, demonization of Western culture in past 500 years & of colonialism, hatred of European working & middle classes, nihilistic attitude toward national identity, war against normalcy, forced & unnatural idea of “equality” in any imaginable sphere, ….) which dominates EU & US public discourse (the media, immigration policy, suppression of national identities & freedoms of Euro historical populations,..) – this all are reverberations of the Left & not “Right”.

    For the first time, the Left is denounced as strongly as the Right
    . It remains to be seen if these are just empty words.

  29. GeeBee says:

    Orwell memorably observed in Nineteen Eighty-Four that ‘who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past’. Reading the excerpt from the EU resolution that appears at the beginning of this piece provides abundant proof of the truth of Orwell’s famous quote. Indeed it would be hard to think of a statement of little more than a hundred words that contained so many – and such egregious – distortions and lies. That it is put about by one of the world’s most important political entities is shocking, if not actually surprising. And yet Mr Parry, the author of this rather dismal piece, actually goes on to place himself in the role of a member of Orwell’s ‘Mini-True’, when he interprets its aim as being:

    …to fabricate the war’s history by giving credit to the United States for the liberation of Europe while absolving the Western democracies that opened the door for the rise of fascism and tried to use Germany to annihilate the USSR.

    While there can be little doubt that the potential for challenge to the Western powers’ continued peaceful existence lay with Stalin and his re-branded Bolshevism, it is absurd to claim that ‘the Western democracies…tried to use Germany to annihilate the USSR’. If so, these ‘Western democracies’ certainly went about this plan in a remarkably odd way. First they declared war on Germany, and then they provided massive aid to Stalin, thus handing the whole of eastern Europe on a plate to the very ‘totalitarian regime’ that actually posed the greatest threat to them. This in spite of the fact that Hitler wanted to work with the British Empire in order to stand firm against what he correctly regarded as the existential threat emanating from the east – and indeed the threat of equal magnitude (at least so far as their traditional European culture was concerned) from across the Atlantic. Thus, Europe was never ‘liberated’ by the USA, but rather enslaved by Zio-America, when FDR’s dream of crippling the British Empire and installing Uncle Samstein as the world’s major power had finally been achieved. The only crumb of comfort is that ‘the diseased monster in the White House’ (as Revilo Oliver often referred to FDR) didn’t live to see his foul and criminal scheme fulfilled.

    German ‘ethical socialism’ was a very different thing from Marxist-Leninism, not least because it enshrined a harmonious accommodation with both private enterprise and the natural division of humanity into three ‘classes’, a universal feature of all societies throughout history and therefore a part of nature itself. Marxist-Leninism is predicated on class war, and is thus anti-nature. Its result is well described in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four: ‘A boot stamping on a human face forever’. Not until ‘the people’ are allowed to understand what ‘fascism’ – and more especially National Socialism – is actually all about will there be the slightest chance of improvement to the moribund and degenerate ‘culture’ that has been ushered in by the loathsome victors of the tragic, unnecessary and criminal enterprise we know as World War Two. Indeed in this very piece we read that: ‘It had been the Soviets alone who defended the Spanish Republic from Franco’. Ah yes: to the Communist mindset, anything that prevents the triumph of ‘the permanent revolution’ and ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ is to be anathematised, and the bogeyman of fascism! must instantly be wheeled out to combat such heresy.

    Indeed this Pavlovian horror, which the dutiful dogs display whenever the word fascism is uttered, is fulsome testament to the success of the relentless propaganda campaign, waged since FDR first conceived of his plan to foment a world war in around 1936, whose dismal result has been to train ‘the people’ to hate their own salvation. This of course was recognised by Orwell: everyone in ‘Oceania’ was forced to conduct a daily ‘two minutes hate’ directed against Emmanuel Goldstein. The sickening irony is that he was actually their only hope of escape from the nightmarish dystopia in which they existed. Perhaps it is too much to expect that these same people will ever come to grasp that Emmanuel Goldstein and Adolf Hitler have much in common, and that the reviled ‘fascism’ was brought about to serve ‘the people’ rather than the tiny but triumphant Globalist elite. That same elite that wrote the drivel quoted at the beginning of this piece, and in whose loathsome shadow the homogenised and deracinated wretches we have become abjectly crawl.

    • Replies: @PhucQ
  30. gotmituns says:

    The best book on WWII is “Hitler’s Revolution.”

  31. Anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Why would those countries want that land back if it comes attached with millions of insane savage Ukrainians and none of their own people who were murdered and purged 75 years ago? Crimea and Donbass were different stories, the Ukie fascists haven’t thoroughly infested those regions to this very day, so they should be free to go… after the United States pays for all the damage it encouraged Ukraine to cause there.

    Maybe all those countries in the region should have high fences around them and not be allowed to socialize outside their own borders: the risk of malignant violence spreading from this locus is too great for the rest of the European landmass. (Trump’s idea about building walls around countries might have a much wider application than he can appreciate.) Though the EU foolishly seems to be amusing itself by gratuitously poking the Bear yet again, so it still has a way to go on the learning curve. I would really like to one day ask a passing space alien tourista whether the Earth is really a Galactic penitentiary or an insane asylum just dressed up to look like a pleasant resort.

  32. This article is a convoluted mess.

    • Replies: @awry
  33. …who did not conceal their apologism for the Nazi collaborationist self-proclaimed Russian Liberation Army (ROA) commanded by Gen. Andrey Vlasov who defected to Germany during the war:

    “A singular fate was reserved for the Vlasovtsy, the Soviet soldiers who had fought under the Soviet general Andrei Vlasov. Vlasov was the commander of the Second Army who had been taken prisoner by the Germans in July 1942. On the basis of his anti-Stalinist convictions, General Vlasov agreed to collaborate with the Nazis to free his country from the tyranny of the Bolsheviks.”

    If the “traitor” Vlasov and his allies had won the war instead of the “patriot” Communist commissars and the capital-A “Allies”, Russia today would not be a post-Communist hellhole of poverty, child prostitution and multiculturalism owned in fee simple by dual-citizenship oligarchs, where “Holocaust Denial” and “distortion of the Soviet Union’s role in the World War Two” is punished with lengthy prison terms.

    Nor would Germany, France and Great Britain have “Hate Speech” laws, Shariah police and transsexual surgery for children.

    The United States just possibly might be as badly off as in real life, since Germany never had any intention (or ability) to extend the war there, so FDR’s proto-globohomo regime would be left in place. It would have been up to Americans to clean up there, and, well, that has so far failed in history as it really turned out. Even so, however, the rest of the world would be infinitely better off even in that scenario.

    So is there any reason at all to hate Vlasov, other than the misguided false nationalism of the blinkered “patriot” who remains loyal to flags and governments even as they destroy his people?

    • Replies: @German_reader
  34. Realist says:

    There is nothing more current to rail at???

  35. Never even mentioned the Holodomyr.
    Yeah, those Jewish-Bolsheviks dindu nuffin’.
    Pathetic revisionist [email protected], just another lying Marxist.
    Capitalism bad. People power good. What a useful idiot. Lenin would have loved this moron.

  36. idealogus says: • Website
    @Carlton Meyer

    I am from Roumania.
    We have always been neighbors with Ukraine and Poland.
    The massacre of the Poles in Volhynia did not come out of the blue.
    Polish Catholics have held the Orthodox Ukrainian population in slavery for hundreds of years, applying the harshest methods of oppression.

    During the Uprising of Bogdan Hmelnitcki the population of Ukraine decreased in just 15 years with a quarter (4 milion people), the majority being massacred by Polish soldiers.
    For example, in the Battle of Beresteczko, Polish soldiers massacred 30,000 Ukrainians within a few hours, including many women and children who wanted to surrender, but the Poles wanted genocide.
    History is more than 100 years old, but Americans and Westerners believe it all started with them.

    If Poland wants reparations for the massacred Poles in Volhynia it must pay for the Ukrainians massacred by the Poles for hundreds of years and do not think they like it.

    • Replies: @Anon
  37. Anonymous[127] • Disclaimer says:

    I find it hypocritical how many on the right continually go on about Dresden as an example of how nasty the British supposedly are, yet completely ignore the Rape of Berlin committed by the Russians or even get angry if anyone mentions it.

    Condemning the Dresden bombing has become almost mainstream, yet to mention the Rape of Berlin remains highly taboo presumably because it’s ok to criticise the British but not the Russians.

  38. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:
    @fnn

    Why did Molotov behave so stupidly? I always felt the Soviets and Germans would be much better off cooperating than fighting. Germans and Russians fighting only benefited the Anglo-Americans.

  39. @Tusk

    “…Stalin amassed all his units on the border…”

    Wrong. Even a quick glance at basic and commonly accepted work of David Glantz will show this to be false.

    The Germans discovered this the hard way by August 1941.

    If you are going to tout propaganda in the cause of some narrative at least provide a map from Suvorov and maybe a source or two.

  40. An utterly silly article that tries to counter EU propaganda with Soviet propaganda. Not unlike the resident faction here who opposes US skullduggery in Asia by kowtowing to the Chinese Communist Party. And BTW, despite the fantasies of Team Russia, the Soviet Union was not identical with the Russian nation.

  41. Prior to that one, the official version was false : the victime of that terrible war was Germany.

  42. “from the early 1920s to his death in 1953, the total recorded number of Soviet citizens executed by the state was slightly less than 800,000.”

    Does this number include the Holodomor? This is absolute news to me. Can anyone else corrorborate this number? Could the real number be much greater than the “recorded” number?

    • Replies: @ivan
    , @Daniel Rich
  43. RouterAl says:

    I think we are long overdue a review of the causes and who did what in WW2. I think the UNZ review has published much of interest in the area but much more needs to be done. I’m a 1950’s child , I grew up with the good Brits , bad Germans , bad Japanese , brave Soviets, poor everyone else, late Americans. I now know this is nothing like the truth and that , and having read many recommended books from this site and other sources, I have a different time line .
    Most agree that WW2 started as a result of WW1 and the blame for mass hysteria being placed on Germany. To me the run up to WW2 started in 1933 with the Jews declaring a Trade War and international boycott on German goods. Things were escalated during the 30’s mainly by FDR and his Jewish cronies, they did not like Japanese state banking and German state banking it was a threat to Jewish usury globally so that had to go by fair means or foul. (1)
    It’s clear that FDR wanted rid of the British empire and colonialism so he worked on forcing Britain to issue the Polish Guarantee. Which allowed the Poles to think they could invade Germany and defeat her militarily . This allowed the Poles to start the ethnic cleansing of both Germans and Jews. Which forced the Germans into the invasion. (2)
    Once FDR had the British, French and the Germans at war he turned to Japan, who were bogged down in Manchuria and by cutting off their strategic minerals and oil virtually forced them to attack Pearl Harbour and enter the War.
    In the Soviet empire Stalin had been conducting the greatest military build up in human history, the size of the forces being built and assembled in the Urals was formidable. The single aim of this was to invade and conquer all of Europe. Unfortunately for Stalin after he had dismantled his defences ready for the attack , the Germans struck first and using captured Soviet supplies were able to make it to the gates of Moscow before the Winter stopped them. (3)
    I will leave you with a great passage from Suvorov from the Chief Culprit

    , it is written about Stalin during the first 7 days of Barbarossa when his armies have been crushed , he is alone in his villa outside Moscow when the Politburo turns up.

    “The members of the Politburo hadn’t come to arrest Stalin. They needed Stalin as a symbol, a flag around which the remnants of a crushed division would rally in battle. They talked of saving the country, but Stalin did not listen to them. Without taking Europe, without expanding the Soviet Union’s borders, the USSR would sooner or later crumble. Stalin had lost the country founded by Lenin. In 1941, only Stalin could appreciate the full weight of the German invasion. In 1941, the members of the Politburo could not fully understand that Hitler’s invasion meant death for the Soviet Union. The Politburo forced Stalin to resume power, and Stalin, with a careless wave of the hand, returned, fully aware that the cause he had worked for his whole life was dead.”

    Of course the Jews regrouped abandoned the Soviet experiment and moved into Cultural Marxism which has been even more impressive in destroying Western Civilisation, both in Europe and the USA.
    At wars end the Jewish hegemony was complete the USA was world number 1 by a long way , the Soviets were a global power , the British empire would soon be gone , along with all the colonial empires , America would become the world police man. Millions of Germans and others would die after the fighting had ended many at the hands of the Americans and the Soviets. The Jewish myths would begin to sprout like the Holocaust , the establishment by the USA and the UN of Israel meant there would never be peace in the middle east and America would spend the next 1/2 century fighting Jewish wars.
    In the mean time global debt would climb to unsustainable levels and vultures would pick the global economy to pieces.

    (1) The history of central banking by Stephen Goodson
    (2) The Forced War by David Hoggan
    (3) Icebraker and The Chief Culprit by Viktor Suvorov

    • Replies: @anonymous
  44. Tom Welsh says:

    “The EU has redacted that the entire reason for the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact in August 1939 had been to buy time for the Red Army’s attrition warfare strategy to adequately prepare its armaments against a future invasion by the Wehrmacht”.

    Ironically, the USA did exactly the same thing for the extraordinary period of 2 years, 3 months and a few days – although, unlike the USSR, it was in no danger whatsoever of invasion by Germany!

    The rationale for this US policy was explained, in terms as clear as day, by one of the highest possible authorities – the very next President of the USA.

    “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible…”

    – Senator Harry S Truman (1941)

  45. Lets not forget the Serb uprising that caused month postponement of Hitlers attack on Russia and saved the buts of allies.
    The Allies lead by Clintons with deep gratitude to Serbs bombed Serbs to smithereens.

  46. The real cause of WWII was the zionist bankers as proven the books Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. The zionist bankers funded the rise to power of both the communists and the nazis and the plan was to have a war in which both sides destroyed each other and weakened Germany and Russia and made the world a zionist prison colony and this was accomplished.

    Another book that proves Hitlers funders were zionists is Hitlers Secret Bankers by Sidney Warburg, the only winners in war are the zionist bankers, and this template has been used over and over right down to the wars in the mideast for Israel, where American lives are spent for the zionists , not to mention over 7 Trillion and counting in taxpayers money!

    • Replies: @John Regan
  47. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    Congratulations to Parry and Unz for the excellent article .

    It shows how the horrendous WW2 and WW1 , ( or Great European Civil Wars ) in the last century are still affecting negatively Europe and the USA , at least at the elite level .

    But for the common unimportant europeans like most of us , the document ” On the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe.” does not have the least relevance , most of us , most of the common unimportant europeans want to have good , human and economic , relations with Russia , as well as with the USA , China , Asia , Latin America and the whole world , And the Europarlament seems to be looking for uncecessary trouble with Russia with that silly document .

    No wonder England is leaving the EU .

    Why those eurocretins in Belgie/Belgique/Belgium , in Brussels/Bruxelles don`t make a document about the Belgian genocide in Congo ? In the second half of the 19 century Belgique/Belgie , under Leopold II , they exterminated and mutilated from 10 to 15 million native africans in Congo .

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

    Why he eurocretins do not make documents about English and French history of bloody
    colonialsm ? about English and French wars and masacres in Africa , in Asia , about the opium wars … just in the last couple of centuries .

    Why the eurocretins do not make a document about how France is still colonizing many african countries with the CFA ( community of french africa ) franc ?, about french and british interventions in Siria , Libia ….

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/world/africa/africa-cfa-franc-currency.html

    Why those eurocretins do not try , instead of making irrelevant documents , to abolish the commercial sanctions to Russia from the EU , imposed by the US , which are causing billions of losses to the EU , and the destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs ?

    So , the little common unimportant europeans we are nor very impressed by that Eurodocument .

    Tired also of who wanted to invade the other first , Germany or the USSR , Hitler invaded first that is a fact . If the USSR had wanted to invade first , and had been capable and confident to invade first , they would not have evacuated a lot of heavy industry from western USSR to the Urals and Siberia , fearful of the german invasion . More than 1.500 heavy industries with 15 million workers , which were located in western USSR were evacuated to the Urals and Siberia in 1941 to prevent germans to destroy them in case of invasion .

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

    Regarding Stalin backing the Spanish Republic , ideology apart , it was because the Republican spanish regime payed all the arms sold by soviets with all the spanish reserves in gold , what left Spain ruined , bussines are bussiness ( and by the way Stalin paid part of US military aid lend and lease with that gold ) . The Franco regime was backed not only by Germany and Italy but from England and the US . Franco had during the war all the oil he need from US
    company Texaco , on credit , thanks to the english mediation .

  48. The article is a complete waste. Germany invaded Poland to stop the Poles from invading Danzig, a city with a 97% German population. Lebensraum had nothing to do with it. Read G. Schultze-Rhonhof: The War That Had Many Fathers.

    https://books.google.com/books/about/1939_the_War_that_Had_Many_Fathers.html?id=gLSnAgAAQBAJ

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  49. Where to start. Pretty much at the beginning.

    This is pure mythology. The fact of the matter is that neither the Soviets or even Germany drew the dividing line in Poland in 1939, because it was a reinstatement of the border acknowledged by the League of Nations and Poland itself as put forward by the British following WWI.

    Allies knew of the existence of a Secret Protocol, attached to the Hitler-Stalin “Non-Aggression” Pact of Aug. 23, 1939 and signed by Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyascheslav Molotov. Even after Germany and Russia were engaged in a vast and bitter war, both sides had reason to bury proof of their former brutal friendship. But at war’s end, the Russian secret stood in danger of being exposed, as Nazi archives and prisoners fell into the hands of the Western Allies. Russia faced the threat that the Protocol would be revealed, and itself reveal Russian imperial ambition.
    What did the Secret Protocol to the Hitler-Stalin Pact say? That, “in event of any war,” Russia would be assigned “spheres of influence” in eastern Poland (40% of the country); . the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia; a free hand in Finland; and that portion of Romania abutting Soviet territory. Soviet actions after Hitler’s invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, showed how precisely the Soviets adhered to the Protocol’s terms. On Sept. 17, Russia invaded Poland from the east; on Sept. 18 Russian and German troops shook hands in Poland. Then, Moscow invaded Finland. Next, it took the Baltic states.
    Stalin was able, in conference with Britain and the United States (when they became his allies against Hitler), to present these actions as “defensive” against the Nazi threat. But the Secret Protocol would prove that, to the contrary, Russia had used the deal with Hitler to advance her ancient imperial designs on Europe.
    To this day, therefore, the Soviet Union denies the existence of the Secret Protocol, and claims its appearance after the war was an “anti-Soviet forgery. ”

    https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1987/eirv14n36-19870911/eirv14n36-19870911_053-what_moscow_has_to_hide_rudolf_h.pdf

    The reason Hitler had such great early success in his invasion of Soviet Russia is Stalin’s forces were massed on his western frontier, awaiting their orders to invade. Hitler was able to quickly incapacitate these forces or simply go around them and head for Moscow. Stalin was poised for invasion, not for defense of his homeland.

    Again, it was the Western Industrial Capitalist who funded and nurtured the Bolshevik Revolution and Soviet Communism. American Lend-Lease saved the Soviet Union from total annihilation.
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html

    • Replies: @Peter Grafström
  50. As I commented on another column: the only thing the EU does is obey.
    (The rewriting of history is done by who did the writing.)

  51. @anon

    You could say that of 90% of same-sex friendships, and 96% of romantic/married couples.
    And yet, stupidity easily wins over co-operation.

    Aside from pure stupidity, there’s the Prisoner Dilemma’s reality: basically, whoever behaves fairly and sincerely ends up paying a penalty. Therefore, every organism that passes the reproduction filters is adapted to avoid paying a penalty and “losing”; therefore you have a world without even the possibility of behaving sincerely and fairly. Instead, strategy one-for-all games are played, everywhere.

  52. ivan says:
    @Franz

    In response to the West European attempt to write out the Soviet Union and its successor state Russia out of WWII, Putin either introduced or strengthened the law against the thought crime of ‘Holocaust Denial’. In Russia Parry will get away by claiming that in the ‘police action’ to secure the Soviet Union only about 250,000 died, like some of the clowns here maintain. Apparently its all in the archives, swear to God, Guv’nr. But question the Holy Holocaust and he’ll punch his ticket to the Lubyanka.

    • Agree: John regan
    • Replies: @Franz
    , @Robjil
  53. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    During the Second World War, if Germany, Soviets, and the Japanese cooperated they would be unbeatable. The Italians were completely useless and should’ve just been taken over by Germany. Germany, USSR, and Imperial Japan together was the biggest nightmare of Anglo-Kike imperialists.

  54. WW2 history NEEDS correction. Delete the fake holocaust for one. Stalin was planning to take over all of Europe, but Hitler attacked him just before he could launch. Stalin had mostly offensive plans and no defensive plans. Read the latest books to confirm. Since the fall of the USSR, many have spilled the beans.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  55. @anon

    Because they thought they had Hitler in a bind. Which they did, but the calculating Stalin did not foresee that Hitler would rather stake it all on a bet rather than become dependent on the USSR.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  56. It’s clear that the Soviet Union would have been following its ideology by launching aggressive wars to spread Communism. Trotsky supposedly intended to launch an invasion of the west during the 20s. If Stalin opposed him it would have been out of fear of defeat. Hitler correctly identified the threat. It’s hard to say who was ‘the real aggressor’ or ‘at fault’ but what is more important is that TODAY the demonization of Russia is a two-sided coin for us on the right. On one hand it demonizes the Soviet system and its modernist values, which is good, and on the other hand it tends to demonize Putin, and his now-Christian, socially conservative, politically incorrect resistance to NATO, Soros, the EU, the Mafia, et al.

    For the right, the task is to promote the demonization of Communism while undermining the demonization of Putin and post-Soviet Russia.

  57. @DESERT FOX

    “Sidney Warburg” never existed. The book ascribed to him is a forgery by anti-Nazi activists in the 1930s, similar to the rubbish that says Hitler was secretly the illegitimate son of Baron Rothschild and all the other nonsense the Comintern and its affiliates peddled to smear the German regime. It has no historical value, or rather negative value for spreading disinformation.

    Anthony Sutton wrote books that are sometimes interesting and honestly quote some valuable sources, but our host Ron Unz has him correctly pegged in his posts on the topic. Sutton’s work is 1) eccentric to the point of crackpottery, and 2) carefully slanted to obviate the elephant in the room where Communism and subversion are concerned, instead presenting increasingly convoluted conspiratorial schemes blaming almost literally anyone and everyone else (Russians, WASP bankers, Nazis, probably the Knights Templar eventually if he’d kept writing) to avoid having to address the real issues. By all means, read his books, but please don’t take anything he writes as gospel.

    For a saner examination of Nazi-Zionist relations, see “The Transfer Agreement” by Edwin Black and “The Seventh Million” by Tom Segev. These books are written by Jews and have their own agendas in turn that one should be aware of, but they don’t embark on the flights of fancy Sutton does.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  58. onebornfree says: • Website

    “The EU Is Rewriting WWII History to Demonize Russia”

    Ker-rist! Whodathunk it?:

    This just in: Communism = collectivism. Nazism = collectivism.

    Nazism is merely a minor variation on the “grand theme” of communism/collectivism :

    “Was Adolf Hitler the Son of Karl Marx?”: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/10/lk-samuels/was-adolf-hitler-the-son-of-karl-marx/

    Hitler [apparently] originally dreamed up the EU.

    Which makes the EU these days, what, exactly? Communist? Fascist? Who gives a flyin’ fuck?

    It’s just a bunch of collectivists [ie commies and fascists] forever arguing about which version of collectivism is the superior model with which to run everyone’s life, and altering history in order to then reflect the supposed superiority of one over the other preferred economic system, when the fact is: both systems are essentially one system and “both” versions suck , and inevitably result in war and poverty for the masses in the countries where these collectivist, anti-capitalist policies are implemented.

    So what’s it gonna be, sucker slaves, murdering communism or murdering fascism? Take your pick, cos those are your only “choices” .

    Or you can ignore that “choice” entirely and choose to become distracted by the fact that the EU is trying to re-write history, as if no other government anywhere in the world is constantly engaged in doing exactly that.

    “Regards” onebornfree

  59. @Sven-Eric Holmström

    Based on which evidence?

    • Replies: @ivan
  60. ivan says:
    @Jud Jackson

    The figure maintained by historians who have actually combed the archives is around 20 millions.
    Please see :

    • Replies: @Jud Jackson
    , @Anon
    , @Ron Unz
  61. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @idealogus

    Good info , rumanian , the ” catholic ” polacks , and other ” catholics ” like croatians , are a shame for real catholics . Polacks always cause troubles . Polacks also killed soviet war prisoners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camps_for_Russian_prisoners_and_internees_in_Poland_(1919%E2%80%9324)

    The polack ” Pope ” Karol Woytila ( John Paul II ) destroyed the Catholic Church , he was kind of an actor . There is a joke about him : Pope Woytila filled the public squares ( with his massive theatric meetings with people in public squares ) , but emptied the Churches .

  62. ivan says:
    @Alexandros

    Based on his revanchist actions in the Rhineland, then Czechoslovakia, and all the provocations over the Danzig corridor, Whatever one thinks of Churchill, he had more or less intuited what Hitler and the Nazis represented and was willing to face the facts squarely. The Nazis wanted to create an empire based on the supremacy of German blood, all the the blather of his apologists notwithstanding,

    Everyone else took their horrendous losses and licked their wounds after the First World War. But not the precious Germans. The cardinal mistake the West committed at the end of WWI was not to have crushed the German Army once and for all when they had the chance. They did not repeat that mistake again in WWII.

    • Disagree: RadicalCenter, Bookish1
  63. How long before it becomes a criminal offence simply to question this version of history?

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  64. Fox says:

    There will have to be a lot of rewriting history in the future. Both the First and the Second War have been abused as propaganda tools to whitewash and justify the most atrocious measures and to give the current political, economical and imperial web connections a firm underground. However, a lie is a lie, and as the EU is now recasting its former professed convictions for primitive reasons of survival, perhaps for just a bit longer of a zombie life, the new lie is just as the old ones a disposable temporary presence, if so needed.
    As in the past, not a truthful and realistic account of history is the goal, rather an expedient to bolster the current policy decisions.
    Poor EU, you are going under, and many will not find this an unexpected, or undeserved fate.
    It is truly amazing how the victors of both wars did not make good use of their positions, but plunged the world into ever bigger crises. The wars and temporary settlements were both the fruit of a few very small men who had wormed their way into power, although they were quite incapable of such positions. And they were all the fruit of the ideology of Democracy.

    • Agree: Ilyana_Rozumova
  65. @John Regan

    I stand by what I said, and in my opinion Anthony Sutton told the truth in all of his books and I have 7 of his books and have the book Hitlers Secret Bankers which I believe states the facts no matter who wrote it.

  66. @Johnny Rico

    One Viktor Suvorov, Former GRU officer (Soviet military intelligence) tends to disagree with you.

    • Replies: @WHAT
  67. WHAT says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    There is a whole subgenre of russian historiography dealing with Rezun’s many falsifications. You were fed a narrative and you swallowed is all.

  68. I am amused by this article and by some of the comments. These are the facts. Hitler had every intention of destroying the Soviet Union, and every justification for doing so. The USSR was a messianic threat to the entire civilized world. The fact that Hitler had genocidal plans for the USSR is another issue. As for Stalin, he was not planning a defensive war. He fully intended to overwhelm an exhausted Europe after Germany got bogged down with The UK and France. The author of this article is a credulous, leftist fool.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  69. @ivan

    Thank you Ivan,

    I thought I was losing it for a second. It was as if someone just told me that Average Black American IQ was 110.

  70. @Daniel Rich

    Not more of this “other” stuff.

    The basic argument of the “other” theory is that humanity is divided into two parts:

    * Group 1: Those who know there is no “other”, everybody is the same, and there are no opposed interests between groups. Except that Group 1 believes that that there is an “other: Group 2

    * Group 2: The “other” for Group 1 is those who have the psychotic delusion that people differ, and there are opposed interests between groups. This second group is, of course, identical to everybody else except that they are dangerously insane (c.f. the World Wars of the West; do not compare to China’s behavior in Tibet or to any other civil war)

    It cannot be that everybody is identical, and that Group 2 is not identical. To hold that is to either lie or to by psychotic [1]

    It’s true that somebody has psychotic delusions, or at says that this makes them so bloody more moral than the second group that group 1 has the right and obligation to render the Group 2 powerless, enslave them (through taxes and forced labor), and ultimately deprive them of the territory the now inhabit.

    In other words, Group 1 is
    (a) lying so as to commit yet more of the massacres that claimed at least 10^8 people (100, 000, 000) during the 20th Century (all of which used the “other” theory to justify the killings), or
    (b) psychotic itself if it believes what it claims to know.

    So, Mr. Rich. We have two alternatives here:
    * You’re a morally despicable conman with homicidal intent and should be treated as befits one with homicidal intent.
    * You’re psychotic with homicidal intent, and should be treated as befits one with homicidal intent.

    Which alternative would you prefer?

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  71. Wally says:
    @dfordoom

    – Except that there is no proof that the Nazis did what is alleged and you have none. Given the period and what was going on worldwide, there really is nothing to “exonerate”.
    – I suspect you are really more interested in exonerating “that shitty little country”.
    – I note that you cannot refute Suvorov.
    The fact is that Russian and foreign historians: P. Bobylev, T. Bushueva, V. Danilov, V. Kiselev, M. Meltyukhov, V. Nevezhin, I. Pavlova, M. Solonin, Y. Felshtinskiy, J. Hoffmann, H. Magenheimer, W. Maser, B. Musial, R. Raack, S. Scheil, E. Topitsch, E. Mawdsley support Suvorov’s work. They are just the tip of the iceberg.

    recommended, a much larger and Growing List of Authors that have proven Suvorov right:
    at: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
    – On the whole you basing your statements upon false information and wishful thinking from which you have made false conclusions.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  72. Agent76 says:

    02.07.2016 The EU’s Architects: Nazis and Nazi Collaborators

    There is an old adage that pertains to the founding of the European Union «If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, again». And for the Nazis and Nazi collaborators of the Second World War, viewing the post-war European death and destruction brought about by Adolf Hitler and his «Third Reich» alliance of Italian fascists, French Vichy, and others, the immediate decision was to «try again» with a European Union that would establish the same European super-state envisaged by Hitler but with a decidedly «democratic» aura.

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/07/02/the-eu-architects-nazis-and-nazi-collaborators.html

    Jul 18, 2016 The European Union: Part of America’s Imperial Project

    The British people’s decision to leave the European Union shocked the political establishment across Europe and around the globe.

  73. Stefanov says:
    @Vinnie O

    It is possible to overdemonize Bolshevik Russia. There was a civil war. Each side attempted to exterminate the other. This is normal in a civil war. The devil or demons have nothing to do with civil wars.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
    , @Leon
  74. @WHAT

    Watch the video and please point out to me which statements by Suvorov(or whomever)are wrong. I will be patiently awaiting your answers.

  75. @ivan

    I’m not even going to answer your propaganda. Why the hell should I address your lies as if they had value? No, I’ll give the truth instead.

    Hitler wanted a Germany free from foreign and destructive influence. The destructive influence he talked about should be patently obvious to everybody living today as all white nations are heading for the abyss under “allied leadership”.

    Churchill was an imperialist, a racist. He hated the common man and said if he was ever made dictator, he would murder every scientist in the world. This is your hero. Your supporting witness.

    And when Germany, the only nation still with balls in Europe, decided to take a stand against this corrupt state of affairs, the whole world rose up against it. All I can say is that Hitler had the moral right to every move he made. Not only for Germany’s sake, but for all of civilized humanity. In 1950 it would no doubt be very easy to fool people that “the allies” were the good guys. Now we can see their government clearly. It is bad, it is corrupt, it is violent and it is evil. So if your argument is “Hitler tried to upset this state of affairs” my answer is a resounding GOOD!

    • Agree: Fox
    • Replies: @ivan
  76. @Stefanov

    Is that the “Dick and Jane” version of the Bolshevik revolution?

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  77. @dfordoom

    In this case the danger is that it can lead to exonerating Germany from responsibility for WW2

    That’s extemely unlikely and would certainly find no acceptance in Poland, which has no trouble being anti-German and anti-Russian because of WW2 at the same time.
    Anyway, the article is mostly garbage. Yes, it’s true that the victory of the Soviet Union was the lesser evil for the peoples of Eastern Europe and one certainly shouldn’t trivialize the suffering and sacrifice of Russians and other Soviet peoples in WW2. But for apologists of Soviet imperialism like this Max Parry this somehow always seems to morph into a whitewashing of Soviet crimes (the article doesn’t even mention Katyn or the mass deportations from the Baltic states) and a recycling of Bolshevik paranoia and propaganda about how the Western democracies supposedly supported Hitler because they wanted to destroy the Soviet Union and its wonderful socialism (if they really had wanted that, Britain and France would have encouraged Poland to become a German satellite, instead of guaranteeing Poland’s independence and declaring war on Germany, nor would there have been Lend-lease shipments to the Soviet Union).
    I suppose Ron Unz thinks stuff like this is necessary to provide some balance for his pro-Nazi articles…imo they’re both equally mendacious and repellent.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  78. glib says:

    I read as much as possible on this fine website, but this thing that the USSR was about to attack Germany, I never digested. Where is the motive? Countries undergoing rapid economic expansion, with plenty natural resources, do not go out and look for trouble. Globalist ideology had, presumably, gone to Mexico along with Trotsky. I perused the Unz article link posted above and there are only generic statements about Stalinism wanting to go global. Was Trotskism defeated in 1941 yes or no?
    I could understand the USSR wanting some borderland security buffer, but Germany? No.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
    , @Antares
  79. @John Regan

    If the “traitor” Vlasov and his allies had won the war

    Vlasov never got the support from the Germans that would have been necessary, Hitler, Himmler etc. had no interest in cultivating a genuine national Russian movement. Even if some of the more extreme plans might not have come to fruition, German war aims at least included the creation of protectorates (Reichskommissariate) in the Western areas of the Soviet Union, German settlement in some areas (e.g. there were plans of expelling all Russian inhabitants from Crimea, seen as a traditional Germanic region because of the Goths that had once lived there) and splitting up the rest of Russia into weak statelets under German control. That wasn’t an attractive programme even for anti-Bolshevik Russians.
    I don’t think Nazi aims regarding Poland and Russia at least can be defended, nor can the wholesale murder of the Jews. However I can understand why some people in the US and Western Europe feel Hitler had kind of a point or even was “Europe’s last chance”, given the likely endpoint of the liberal system we’re now living under.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @John Regan
  80. dfordoom says: • Website
    @WHAT

    There is a whole subgenre of russian historiography dealing with Rezun’s many falsifications. You were fed a narrative and you swallowed is all.

    Suvorov (or Rezun if you prefer) was a defector. So he was, by definition, a traitor. Only a fool takes anything said by a defector at face value. He’s also a man with an axe to grind. His books are pure propaganda but the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong brigade laps them up. Right-wingers love him because they think the Cold War never ended and that there are still commies lurking under the bed.

    As a historian he’s pretty much worthless.

    There’s historical revisionism, and then there’s propaganda, and then there are deluded fantasies. The fantasies seem to be very popular here.

  81. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @ivan

    One ‘Oleg Khlevniuk’ is a guy with Ukrainian ancestry living in Russia, i.e. feeling discriminated as a second rate Russian (minor Russians as opposed by ‘Greater’ Russians like Ivanovs and Sidorovs) just for the sake of his ‘wrong’ name, that’s why this ‘historian’ is yet another heavily anti-Russian biased fiction writer pretending to be a historian. Like Solzhenitsyn with his ‘Gulag arhipelago’ fables from the prison where he spend times for indecent behaviour (panicking and publicly criticizing the commanding officers) during the war.

    Much of ‘blame the Stalin now and forever’ (inverse trope of the prayer) comes not only from defeated Germans, collaborating French or not so heroic US folks. We owe the WW2 hatred to the glorious nations of Eastern Europe – who behaved like cowards at best during war. Most of them were Nazi collaborators, had plenty of deals with Hitler, supplied him with everything from ammo to brothels, or just served in SS. They actually did much of dirty work for Nazis – from burning the Jews alive to just reporting them to gestapo. Today these jovial hobbits, descending from despicable grandpas and Nazi concubines grandmas, try to blame Stalin who made them independent and self-sufficient, and Russians who brought them freedom on the golden plate.

    • Troll: John Regan
  82. Res1244 says:

    Both are applicable to the unquestionable tragedy of WWII and the farcical mockery of its history by the EU whose policies continue to make another global conflict that much more likely.

    Yes, a farcical mockery of history, not only by the EU, but also the British, the US, Canada, and GERMANY with its 1000 troops currently posted in ALBANIA. These countries, with the REMEMBERANCE DAY parades, SUPPORT the illegal independence (UN resolution 1244) of Albania and KLA (= USTASHAs).

    Remember HITLER who declared the independence of Albania to set fire in the Balkans?:

  83. dfordoom says: • Website
    @German_reader

    In this case the danger is that it can lead to exonerating Germany from responsibility for WW2

    That’s extemely unlikely and would certainly find no acceptance in Poland

    It’s certainly finding a lot of acceptance here. But of course UR is a bit of a lunatic asylum. Admittedly an often entertaining lunatic asylum. Where else can you find Hitler fanboys and libertarians in the same place? It’s like buying a bag of mixed nuts. Or mixed nutters.

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
    , @Wally
  84. @ivan

    Based on his revanchist actions in the Rhineland, then Czechoslovakia, and all the provocations over the Danzig corridor, Whatever one thinks of Churchill, he had more or less intuited what Hitler and the Nazis represented and was willing to face the facts squarely.

    What was objectively objectionable about restoring German sovereignty in the Rhineland or seeking the return of Danzig to Germany?

    I suppose one can say that dismantling Czechoslovakia wasn’t nice, but then again, the alternative was keeping a well-armed ally of the Soviet Union right in the middle of Germany, literally within marching distance from Berlin. Whatever rhetoric about independent small states one might embrace, in real life, no Great Power could tolerate a situation like that. Certainly the United States has been far less tolerant to Communist states much farther away from its own shores, which posed absolutely no credible threat to its own security. It has waged wars against such states that were infinitely more cruel (and killed far more people) than anything Nazi Germany did to the Czechs. And while people might like to gripe about the likes of Vietnam, most American patriots still don’t think the United States deserves to be bombed flat and occupied by the dregs of humanity for its actions.

    http://www.forost.ungarisches-institut.de/pdf/19350516-1.pdf

    Everyone else took their horrendous losses and licked their wounds after the First World War. But not the precious Germans. The cardinal mistake the West committed at the end of WWI was not to have crushed the German Army once and for all when they had the chance. They did not repeat that mistake again in WWII.

    Perhaps Germany’s discontent had something to do with everyone else using the war to fulfil their ambitions at German expense? For example, by annexing the Sudetenland, seizing Danzig and occupying the Rhineland? Or by plundering the German economy through murderous inflation and trillions in “war reparations” demands, to be paid almost literally for a hundred years (until 2010)? I’d be ashamed of Britain and France if they didn’t protests at least as much as Hitler did in a hypothetical scenario where they lost World War II and Germany treated them like that.

    Ron Unz has made available a very good book on Germany’s suffering under French domination after World War I. “Unfinished Victory” was written in 1940 by a British historian, the famed Sir Arthur Bryant, and so can hardly be accused of presenting German propaganda. It is very enlightening on just how desperate people became under this tyranny, and why Hitler became such a beloved figure when he started cleaning up at home and reasserting German power abroad.

    https://www.unz.com/book/arthur_bryant__unfinished-victory/

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @ivan
    , @Fox
  85. awry says:
    @obwandiyag

    You have no clue about what you are talking. Maybe you should stick to African politics and race baiting in the future.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  86. dfordoom says: • Website
    @German_reader

    I don’t think Nazi aims regarding Poland and Russia at least can be defended, nor can the wholesale murder of the Jews. However I can understand why some people in the US and Western Europe feel Hitler had kind of a point or even was “Europe’s last chance”, given the likely endpoint of the liberal system we’re now living under.

    It’s almost impossible to imagine something more evil and more destructive than nazism but the neoliberals are working on it.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @lavoisier
  87. Alfred says:
    @Vinnie O

    The reason why the German advance was initially so rapid and they were able to take so many prisoners was because Stalin had placed his armies in an attack formation – not in a defense formation. He planned to attack Hitler, but Hitler was quicker to the draw.

    None of Stalin’s generals who were involved in that collapse were punished by Stalin. They were following his orders. Georgy Zhukov would have been blamed but he was not.

    The fact that documents to prove this are not to be found is because they would have shown that the USSR was not quite the victim it portrayed itself to be. However, any staff officer studying the layout of the Soviet troops would realize that this was an attack formation.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  88. awry says:
    @Conscientious_Observer

    It’s just a regurgitation of Soviet propaganda from before 1991. I am old enough to remember it, having lived in the Soviet Bloc. It seems that Russia returned fully to these talking points, even going a bit further than the late Soviet Union by practically rehabilitating Stalin as a great leader (or “effective manager”). Probably they can’t find another source of national pride than the story of them singlehandedly defeating “fascism” and the glory days of the USSR as the superpower on equal terms with the US. Understandable, but it leads to a weird interpretation of history, that probably won’t attract many fans outside Russia except some real weirdos (tankies, conspiracy nuts etc.) and Serbs.

    • Agree: utu
  89. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Are you fucking joking? Try the British Empire or the Zionist USA. The Anglo-Americans have a tendency to make local situations worse and then turning them into global disasters.

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  90. @awry

    He’s our resident porch monkey. He and Corvinus should get a room.

    • Replies: @Realist
  91. Cyrano says:

    The best way to deal with socialist threat: Invade any socialist country that you can lay your hands on, auto-invade your own country with fake socialism as a sign of inability to contain your own kindness and preach democracy.

    It “worked” for Hitler, there is no reason why it shouldn’t “work” for the current ideology of multiculturalism. For the final touch – demonize Russia – in case anybody develops taste for the real thing.

    Not to worry, the west is full of brain-dead zombies. Hating Russia is sign of patriotism, the further back that you can reach by rewriting history and demonizing the Russian role – the greater patriot you are.

    Fake socialism didn’t save Hitler, and is not going to save you. The greatest sign of degeneracy is when to start to plagiarize something that you actually hate. Which one is it? Do you admire socialism or do you actually hate it? Make up your mind, time is running out fast.

    And no matter how much you demonize Russia and how further back into history you go in order to “prove” that Russia’s role in history was always negative – the fact remains – your socialism is always going to suck more than theirs ever did. So don’t blame them for your idiotic invention.

  92. Marcali says:

    The genocide and mass murder of the soviet communists (rolled):

    The Civil War period till 1922: 3,284,000
    The NEP period till 1928: 5,484,000
    The collectivization period till 1935:16,924,000
    The Great Terror period till 1938: 21,269,000
    Pre-World War II period till June 1941:26,373,000
    World War II period till 1945: 39,426,000
    Postwar and Stalin’s twilight till 1953: 55,039,000
    Post-Stalin period till 1987: 61,911,000
    (R. J. Rummel: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917, Transaction Publisher, 1990.)

    Who was the greater evil? Who had controlled more of the world? Who threatened the rest of the world more?

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Whitewolf
  93. Franz says:
    @ivan

    In response to the West European attempt to write out the Soviet Union and its successor state Russia out of WWII, Putin either introduced or strengthened the law against the thought crime of ‘Holocaust Denial’.

    I’ve heard that.

    But does Putin rule all Russia? Or the Federation for that matter?

    There’s been nasty rumors that Putin is surrounded by a coven of Lubavitcher operatives just like Trump. If that’s true then whoever takes their places will be no different, and all of us are screwed.

    And if either or both collapse, there’s the likes of Justin Trudeau, Boris Johnson, and oh so many more power pigs waiting in the wings. Is any world leader or wannabe working for his own people? Looks like no from here. Not good.

    • Replies: @Robjil
  94. @Julian of Norwich

    Never. Since it only occurs here. Once. It isn’t even really a version, just a makeshift quickly slapped together narrative for the alternative universe that UNZ can be sometimes.

  95. @Alfred

    “None of Stalin’s generals who were involved in that collapse were punished by Stalin.”

    This guy begs to differ. Oh no, wait…he can’t. He’s dead. Stalin executed him.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Pavlov_(general)

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  96. @obwandiyag

    To call you a troll is far too kind, you ignorant moron.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  97. @German_reader

    Vlasov never got the support from the Germans that would have been necessary, Hitler, Himmler etc. had no interest in cultivating a genuine national Russian movement. Even if some of the more extreme plans might not have come to fruition, German war aims at least included the creation of protectorates (Reichskommissariate) in the Western areas of the Soviet Union, German settlement in some areas (e.g. there were plans of expelling all Russian inhabitants from Crimea, seen as a traditional Germanic region because of the Goths that had once lived there) and splitting up the rest of Russia into weak statelets under German control. That wasn’t an attractive programme even for anti-Bolshevik Russians.

    Reichskommissariat was a temporary solution, an occupation government rather than a permanent settlement. In that way, it was rather similar to the Allied occupation of Germany, which was also partitioned into different zones under military rule before recombining in new permutations and attaining notional independence. The main difference would be that the Reichskommissariate were agencies of the civilian government, as opposed to OMGUS which was a military jurisdiction.

    The actual and planned Reichskommissariate in the USSR corresponded roughly to the ethnic divisions of the country: Baltic States (RK Ostland), Ukraine (RK Ukraine), Great Russia (RK Moskowien) and the Caucasus (RK Kaukasus). So if they were created according to plan and later converted to independent states as per the recommendations of Nazi occupation czar Rosenberg, these would by and large correspond to the post-Soviet map, with the borderlands inhabited by other ethnicities divorced from the Russian heartland and pulled into the orbit of the victor (in this case Germany, rather than the US/NATO/Globalist octopus). This would of course not be an attractive program for Russian imperialists, but it would not be an obviously worse outcome than what has actually happened to Russia in real life.

    German management would also protect Russia from the ravages of capitalism and democracy, which actually caused the Russian life expectancy to plummet lower in the 1990s than it had been under Stalin:

    I don’t think Nazi aims regarding Poland and Russia at least can be defended, nor can the wholesale murder of the Jews. However I can understand why some people in the US and Western Europe feel Hitler had kind of a point or even was “Europe’s last chance”, given the likely endpoint of the liberal system we’re now living under.

    I think that, if one examines the available evidence while trying to be as objective as possible, one can honestly say that German occupation might possibly, perhaps even plausibly have been better for the Russian people than the way things actually turned out. Almost certainly, it would for smaller Soviet peoples such as those of the Baltic nations. Of course, given the undeniable harshness of the historical German occupation, this is at least as much of an indictment of the Soviet Communists and their successors as it is a song of praise for the Germans. World War II really offered people in this region no good options, only choices between bad and worse. As does the present day, for that matter.

    If I personally had to choose between living under a government like historical Nazism, or a modern globohomo government run by the likes of G. W. Bush or Beelzebubba, the choice would not be hard. Then again, I would dearly prefer even good old Uncle Joe to these gentlemen. Stalin just might have me shot for writing a post like this, but even he wasn’t cruel enough to force diversity and transsexualism on my helpless children in school.

    • Replies: @Anon
  98. @Wally

    Hitler told his generals to prepare an invasion on July 31st, 1940. Again in December 1940. And then gave the final go-ahead for Barbarossa in March 1941.

    A thorough reading of the history will show Stalin was probably considering launching a war. You don’t need Suvorov or Gorodetsky to see this.

    But there is scant proof that he was going to do it in August 1940 and that that was behind Hitler’s plans. In fact, there is no proof or evidence that Stalin was planning an attack at all. And it makes little sense after the Finnish War. It is a totally screwy idea.

  99. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    No more wars , we have had already too many and too big

    • Replies: @Wally
  100. @Johnny Rico

    From your source:

    “ He was the only arrested commander of any Soviet front during Operation Barbarossa.”

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  101. @Jud Jackson

    “from the early 1920s to his death in 1953, the total recorded number of Soviet citizens executed by the state was slightly less than 800,000.”

    Sounds reasonable doesn’t it, having 66.4 people killed, every single day, for a period of 33 years…?

    Oh, even ‘slightly’ less…

    • Replies: @RI
  102. @Counterinsurgency

    Fortunately, I’m not from this planet.

    It’s interesting to study homo sapiens sapiens though, because all sides claim to be right, even if they’re left.

    That’s why I like ants.

    They make no choices.

    • Troll: Counterinsurgency
  103. This article is a liberal fever swamp.

  104. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Regan

    ne can honestly say that German occupation might possibly, perhaps even plausibly have been better for the Russian people than the way things actually turned out

    As well as American Natives commanding modern white US citizens in the upright ways of Chenghiz Khan according to the sacred Yasa. A little human sacrifice in Aztec way will hurt almost no one, I suppose. Or Atilla overseeing ancient Rome, or Darius the master of Athens.

    Almost certainly, it would for smaller Soviet peoples such as those

    Almost certainly as well, for Etruscans life under Brennus, or for Messenians under Xerxes. But yet with no Cicero, Socrates, or Yuri Gagarin in space.

  105. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johnny Rico

    Hitler told his generals to prepare an invasion

    Si vic pacem, para bellum. Any military should be ready for offense and defense, not too much to politicize.

  106. Cyrano says:

    What’s behind the current infatuation by the west with Russia? I would say that it’s the case of “look what you made us do”. Basically, they are trying to blame Russia for the woes of their phony ways.

    Same way that Hitler was blaming Russia for him turning “socialist”, the same thing now – the west is blaming Russia for their degeneracy. Their motto: The only thing worse than fake socialism is a real one, is actually upside down – the only thing worse than real socialism is a fake one.

    They are accusing Russia of becoming too strong and threatening the west. Russia is not becoming too strong, – you are becoming too weak. What’s Russia supposed to do? Artificially weaken themselves to please the western “democracies”? Booo, the bogymen Russia is out to get the compassionate western democracies.

    Every hundred years or so, the degeneracy in the west reaches a fever pitch and they look to Russia to put them out of their misery. Leave Russia alone. Pick on China this time. They can do the job just as well. They also “hate democracy”, so they will fit nicely into your propaganda story line. And you will be exonerated from any responsibility for destroying “democracy”. Blame it on China.

  107. HEREDOT says:
    @Priss Factor

    The ambitions of Germany and Japan will never end, but it is too late.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  108. Icy Blast says:

    Parry is engaged in the low, dirty, dishonest work of conflating Russia with the Soviet Union. There is no continuity here. Even Stalin himself wasn’t Russian. For Russia to live, the Soviet Union had to die. Imagine being one of those pathetic Sovok Boys on the internet, faced with the task of proving “Soviet Union good, NAZI Germany bad.” Obviously both regimes were evil!

    Parry is nothing more than a high-class Sovok Boy. He thinks like a simple-minded, ignorant American Exceptionalist: The world is divided into good and evil teams, and he is one of the Chosen few who knows the difference! Parry is just a trash-generating machine like Godfree Roberts, Cockburn, and a few others whom Mr. Unz publishes here for the sake of balance.

    If we want to know the truth about Russia during those dark decades, we can consult an actual Russian: The Great Solzhenitsyn! Parry has gotten so far down in the sewer of left-wing propaganda that he has even slandered this intellectual and spiritual giant. Parry is covered with the filth of his own lies, distortions, and slanders. Maybe Hillary will give him a job…

  109. Wally says:
    @Johnny Rico

    You really do need to actually read:

    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents: http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/

    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  110. Wally says:
    @Anon

    No more Communist propaganda, we have have already seen too much.

  111. slorter says:
    @Tusk

    Really! You should get a job in the west re-writing history they could use you!

  112. @dfordoom

    Do you have reason to doubt Suvorov?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Johnny Rico
  113. @Johnny Rico

    You are correct. He didn’t amass all of his units, only 160 divisions and half the air force. The well planned attack on the Soviet Union was supported by horse drawn supply lines, because that was really efficient.
    What have we found out about WWII?
    1) The Germans didn’t do Katyn, even though convicted by the Nuremberg Kangaroo Court.
    2) The wire cables about Polish duplicity, seized after securing Warsaw, were not propaganda, they were true.
    3) The Red Cross records showed an estimated 275,000 deaths in all concentration camps. The numbers are close to the seized German documents made available after the Soviet archives were opened.
    4) That Zyklon B is explosive in high concentrations. Homicidal gas chambers beside crematoria would have exploded.
    5) Nobody can find proof of shrunken heads, bars of soap, or geysers of blood.
    6) Hitler hating AJP Taylor concluded in 1950 that the German invasions of countries were in direct response to the Allied expansion of the war.

    The reality is that Britain and France, egged on by the international banking system wanted a war with Germany, which was kicking the shit out of their export trade by trading better made products for raw materials, thus demonstrating that Bank of International Settlements was a parasite. For the only time in history, the UK ceded the right of another country – Poland – to determine whether it would go to war. Given the psychotic nature of the Polish military dictatorship, was there any doubt where this would lead.
    The author of this article protests for the wrong reason. WWII didn’t start when Germany invaded Poland. It started when France and the UK declared war on Germany. Until then, it was a local conflict. The fact that France invaded Germany two weeks after the declaration is ignored. The fact that Germany offered peace to France and the UK, many times before 1941, is ignored. A two front war was what Stalin needed, and he had it. Germany understood a two front war was the reason for its “defeat” in WWI, and wanted to avoid it. Invading the USSR, the second front, was the last thing it needed.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    , @Johnny Rico
  114. Robert Dunn says: • Website

    From the early 20s until Stalin’s death the number of Soviets murdered was 800,000??? Is this some kind of joke??
    In Winston Churchill’s wartime memoirs he recalls his first meeting with Stalin. Stalin immediately started demanding ‘2nd front now!’ which became mockery of Churchill and Britain’s forces ‘Why are you so afraid of the Germans? We shoot them and they die just like anyone’!
    Churchill immediately launched into Stalin’s forced starvation of the Ukraine for supporting white Russians during the Soviets collection of all wheat (and the murder of ‘Kulucks’ or land owners) to the tune of TEN MILLION DEAD!!! Get it??? TEN MILLION DEAD!!!
    THEN came ‘The Great Terror’!! The hyper-paranoid pursuit of ‘enemies of the Revolution’ where arms appeared from walls and pulled you inside never to be heard of again as millions were herded aboard trains all headed North to the Gulag!!
    And finally, the Jewish Bolshevik bloodlust of Russia’s millions of Christians since it had been decided the New Testament was ‘Antisemitic’ and ‘Antisemitism’ was now a capital offense! The total number of Christians tortured/butchered? Certainly in the millions!

    800,000 indeed! You may as well read comic books as this article!

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  115. Vinnie O says:
    @Tusk

    Ah, you’ve read the crap by the ex-KGB guy.

    You need to read “Stumbling Colossus” by a US Army officer (a captain? a guy who still worked for a living and had not yet become a politician) who read THOUSANDS of pages of Russian Army reports when the archives were thrown open in the 1990s. Stalin had some insane interest in NUMBERS, so the Red Army continued to raise more divisions straight through the 1930s despite the fact that there weren’t any OFFICERS. In one year, 10,000 men were given commissions SOLELY because they were members of the Communist Party. Signal Corps officers had no idea how radios worked. Artillery officers had no idea how “indirect fire” worked. Etc., etc, etc. Most of the enlisted draftees spent their ENTIRE 2 years of service: 1) tending the vegetable gardens so they didn’t STARVE to death, 2) throwing together new barracks so they had someplace to sleep when the weather turned bad.

    There’s another book, documenting the ABYSMAL state of Russian manufacturing in the 1930s. One Soviet factory that allegedly produced “artillery” managed to achieve PERFECTION: 100% of the breech assemblies for an 1890s vintage field gun were CONDEMNED at the factory for obvious flaws. And the Soviets also managed to turn one of the 19th century Tsarist machineguns into a SIINGLE SHOT weapon: it jammed EVERY time it was fired. The Soviets also produced the modern miracle of ELIMINATING “interchangeable parts”: EVERY machinegun (and artillery piece and RIFLE…) required HAND tinkering simply to allow ASSEMBLY.

    Etc., etc.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  116. @Curmudgeon

    Yawn. It started whenever YOU want it to have started. And it matters not at all. Doesn’t make a damn bit of difference.

    The Soviet defence doctrine at the time, call it Stalin’s if you like, basically ordered that the Red Army was to stop an invasion and immediately drive back onto the enemy’s territory.

    This is the reason behind having so many armies deployed forward. Of these formations, they were arranged in three echelons. So they were NOT all up on the border.

    Stalin refused to allow commanders to react to masses of intelligence saying they were about to be attacked. For two months. The Red Army in the west was caught in the midst of a transition.

    Again, Red Army doctrine even on the defence was offensive. The double-speak is all Stalin’s.

    Germany and The Soviet Union were allies on June 21st.

  117. HEREDOT says:

    European vassals were bribed by usa. Europeans committed suicide. Hell is waiting for them.

  118. Remember most of the Soviet victims of the Second World War were soviet citizens for less than two years. Poles, balts, Romanians. Or Ukrainians.

  119. Ron Unz says:
    @Vinnie O

    You need to read “Stumbling Colossus” by a US Army officer (a captain? a guy who still worked for a living and had not yet become a politician)

    Well, I *did* read Stumbling Colossus by David Glantz, and found it totally worthless. Indeed, Glantz’s total unwillingness to refute the factual basis of the Suvorov Hypothesis persuaded me that the latter was very likely correct. After all, everyone on the Internet always claims that Glantz provides the strongest refutation of Survorov, and when I discovered those claims were totally false, there didn’t seem to be much left. Here’s how I described it:

    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.

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

    • Agree: Tusk, byrresheim
  120. @Wally

    I have. Those aren’t the only things written on the subject, you know? Right?…jus checkin 🙂

    • Replies: @Wally
  121. Stalin lovers are everywhere here. You are fools, just like Putin worshipers. Those who cannot see that what is happening to America is Sovietization, are also fools, and will rue the day you believed in this traitorous Commie bastard(Putin)…

  122. @Ron Unz

    Thanks Ron for an honest answer !!!

  123. @Johnny Rico

    Hitler was between a rock and a hard spot. He took what he considered his best option.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  124. Cyrano says:

    One of the main reasons for the Nazi Germany’s invasion of USSR was the lebensraum. Well, let’s see. At the time of the attack on the USSR, Germany had roughly 10 million people less than it has today, and about 130 000 km2 more land.

    Which means Hitler was wrong, Germany didn’t need more lebensraum. Today with fewer 130 000 km2, Germany is able to accommodate more than 10 million extra population (most of them non German).

    Which goes to show you that thanks to their overlords – US, – Germany is now the country that PROVIDES lebensraum for the 3rd world, without even the need to ask the unreliable Russians for help vis. a vis. lebensraum.

    In fact, thanks to the current arraignments, I wouldn’t be surprised if few more decades down the road, the Germans get nicely tucked away on reserves – a la – North American Indians, making more lebensraum for those who really need it – the 3rd world multiculturalists.

    • Replies: @ivan
  125. @HEREDOT

    You seem right that both those countries are finished as major military aggressors in the near to medium term.

    Since neither Germans nor Japanese have children, their native populations will keep getting older and smaller.

    So much smaller and older, SOON, that it will be difficult for them to occupy and hold any meaningful territory abroad, even with the aid of computers, drones, and soon robots.

    In any event, Germans will have a hard enough time reclaiming their own territory and culture from the Muslim Turks, Arabs, and Africans whom it has suicidally allowed to settle there in large numbers. “Germans” are a fatal threat to … themselves only, nowadays.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  126. @dfordoom

    Quote: “It’s like buying a bag of mixed nuts. Or mixed nutters.”

    Hey, d4doom,

    My name is Macadamia, and I wonder, what kind of nut are you?

  127. I thank the author for opening my eyes to another great historical lie. I just checked, with tacitus,nu, and the 1917 Soviet Union population was 184.6 million, and in 1950 it was 181 million. Nothing in the records indicate that 50-60 million were slaughtered/disappeared, as I formerly believed. A few years ago I looked at the population of Jews in Germany pre-WW2, and found it to be surprisingly low at 500,000. So I expanded outward expecting the population of Jews in Europe to support the 6 million holocaust number, and discovered it to be around 4 million, still not 6 million. That was when I became an holocaust denier, the math just didn’t add up. Recent checks of the same demographics, Jews in Europe pre-WW2, show a higher density than several years ago. I’m sure it’s the people today who have control of all Western history, that are slowly changing historical records to mathmatically fit their agenda.
    These folks who write our history have been after Russia for centuries, and they ain’t giving up. They are re-writing history in hope of gaining popular support for war against Russia. And guess what. They don’t care if it takes 100 years.

  128. Wally says:
    @Johnny Rico

    said: “Those aren’t the only things written on the subject, you know? Right?”

    No kidding, but they have all been debunked in the info. I posted. And that is your problem.

    I used to believe in the religious nonsense that you believe, but I grew up.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  129. Wally says:
    @dfordoom

    Thanks for explaining why you cannot refute them.

  130. ivan says:
    @Alexandros

    Oh? Undoubtedly Churchill was a racist by today’s standard. But Hitler and his ilk were from another planet. The documentation concerning the “irruption of a paganism” unseen in Europe for centuries.

    The hatred of the Jews led by a logical transi­tion to an attack upon the historic basis of Christianity. Thus the conflict broadened swiftly, and Catholic priests and Protestant pastors fell under the ban of what is becoming the new religion of the German peoples, namely, the wor­ship of Germany under the symbols of the old gods of Nordic paganism. Here also is where we stand to-day.

    [MORE]

    https://briefe-von-bernd.blog/2012/10/11/the-truth-about-hitler-churchills-famous-article-in-strand-magazine-nov-1935/

    The plans of the Nazis regarding the Jews, the Poles, the Russians, the French and indeed the whole human race is simply too well documented.

    The ideology:

    How it was in fact practiced:

    Its impact and incorporation into the Nazi doctrine of total war
    https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=adam+tooze&qid=1571875481&s=audible&sr=1-2-catcorr

  131. Parfois1 says:
    @glib

    Your brief summation is the most sensible and sane comment in this thread where proselytism and ignorance prevails. Hope others learn from your example.

  132. ivan says:
    @Cyrano

    Shitler is the gift that keeps giving.

    If some reactionary like I am on occasions thinks that women should stay at home, the immediate counter is : Oh but Hitler thought the same with his kinder kirche küche ideas.

    If on the other hand one thinks that the true wealth of a nation is in the productive capacity of its people and not financial shenanigans by Wall Street Jews, one is a Hitler in the making, for such verboten thoughts are in the Mein Kampf itself.

    The list is endless : For decades now, every defence of tradition has been taken apart by the refrain that Hitler thought the same.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @byrresheim
  133. Robjil says:
    @ivan

    Most people talk about Russia from their imagination. What is really happening Russia is more interesting.

    Here is article that examines the “denial” law in Russia and how it really works. It isn’t a denial law after all.

    https://russia-insider.com/en/history/holohoax-denial-not-illegal-russia-contrary-many-news-reports/ri27711

    Chabbad tried this law on Roman Yushov, a Russian Nationalist. After three trials he was acquitted.

    He had no fewer than three trials. Since this sort of case has never been tried in Russia before, the trial’s procedure was chaotic. The case was brought by the Perm branch of the Chabad Hasidic sect, who had been quietly colonizing this ancient region of Old Russia. The case was brought by Vladimir Kliner, an Israeli citizen, multi-millionaire and financier of Chabad. His final acquittal came on September 6 2018. His first trial ended in an acquittal, but the second yielded a conviction, for which he was given probation, while and the third overturned that. Today, he’s a free man.

    This law is a nothing burger in Russia now after this trial.

    The acquittal of Yushkov means that the touted “Rehabilitation of Nazism” law in Russia is a dead letter. The jury stated that no law may stop academic or journalistic research into a topic. His victory comes from the jury, but also the Russian press, the church and the local population.

    Furthermore, the nature of this law is completely different from how it was presented by most writers in the west. It was never a “Holocaust denial” law. The condemnation of “Putin” on this, as always, is based on rumor. It was Medvedev’s project, not Putin’s and, in addition, it wasn’t aimed at the Jews at all. It was a patriotic law – of a sort. Its condemnation in the west proves that.

    • Replies: @ivan
    , @Parfois1
  134. Bookish1 says:
    @ivan

    Dont forget that Hitlers revolution brought the greatest economic miracle in the history of the world.

    • Replies: @ivan
    , @Anon
  135. ivan says:
    @John Regan

    If Hitler were a Franco like character, what you write would make sense. A nationalist merely wanting his own back, just like Franco. And after that the rest of the world can take of itself. Who cannot understand this? Its like that lovable character in The Great Dictator, just a little bit of Poland, a little bit of Czechoslovakia …Most of the peoples of that era would have sympathised including Churchill himself. But the Nazis were convinced in their own minds that they either had to emerge on top or they would be at the bottom; they needed total war and they got it.

    • Replies: @Leon
  136. Robjil says:
    @Franz

    Not many websites talk about Russia’s expelling foreign rabbis. Look it up. This shows that Russia is quite different than western nations. It doesn’t allow any funny business anymore.

    https://worldisraelnews.com/putins-russia-systematically-expelling-foreign-rabbis/

    Russia has been expelling foreign rabbis, claiming they compromise the country’s security.

    At the time, Boruch Gorin, spokesman for Chabad’s Federation of Jewish Communities, said the problem was that around half the 70 rabbis in Russia are not natives.

    “The authorities wish to replace our foreign rabbis with Russian rabbis to head our communities in order to better control them,” he said, according to AFP.

    • Replies: @Franz
  137. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anon

    Are you fucking joking? Try the British Empire or the Zionist USA. The Anglo-Americans have a tendency to make local situations worse and then turning them into global disasters.

    You’ve seriously misunderstood my comments if you think I’m an admirer of the British Empire or the USA.

  138. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:

    I predict something similar to Sino-Soviet split happening again. All the military exercises, economic arrangements, and expressions of friendship between Russia and China seem unnatural and forced, as if they are actors trying to fool some other actors with their performance. If I were Russia, I would always keep my guard up against the the sneaky yellow bastards across the Siberian border as much as being on guard against the (((West))). Chinese have a long history of stabbing neighbors and “partners” in the back as soon as they get the upper hand.

  139. A significant component of modern pro-capitalist propaganda is the demonization of fascism. Consider the first two words of Germany’s National Socialist party name, and reflect on what is today placing the survival of life on this planet in jeopardy –international capitalism- and think about this for a while.

    The fascist critique of liberal democracy is hard to refute. They showed there can be no liberty in a culture whose fundamental economic premise is the exploitation of one class by another. The ideals of the Enlightenment – equality, individuality, democracy – simply collapse into institutionalized injustice under the all-pervasive directive of the primacy of the private accumulation of capital over all other concerns. Hitler argued that the absence of sufficient state controls in a democracy enables the wealthy class to manipulate the economy, the press and elected representatives for its own gain.

    Fascism rested on placing the needs of the national community above the selfish whims of powerful individuals. In so doing it gives to otherwise alienated individuals the sense of common purpose and connection to others that are so vital to human health. But fascism committed the unforgivable heresy of demonstrating exactly how capitalism and democracy are incompatible. By providing a viable alternative, free of the illusions of both ideologies, the fascist states found themselves inescapably in the gun sights of the “democracies” which always react with unrestrained murderous violence when their unjust status quo is threatened. The British and French empires, with their US and Soviet allies, outnumbered Germany by more than fifteen to one, yet Germany’s ferociously aggressive defense brought about the collapse of the two dominant empires that had slaughtered, exploited, and enslaved hundreds of millions in the Third World, and very nearly succeeded in wiping Stalin’s terrorist state right off the map.

    The idea that Germany’s entire philosophy and national purpose was based on hatred of Jews is absurd, quite like imagining that our Founders created the federal government solely to exterminate Indians and enslave Africans. Most Germans had in fact never even seen a Jew, since they made up one half of one percent of the population In any case Jews occupy an outsized place in the western imagination only because of the hateful role they were assigned in the mythology of Christianity, as the murderers of almighty god himself.

  140. Yee says:

    This is just an old trick of the Yankees…

    If you had paid attention to Asian international politics, you’d notice a similar trick being played in Japan. Only the Yankees play it more openly in Asia.

    Everytime China-Japan getting warmer to each other and talk about something like China-Japan-Korea economic zone, the Japanese Militarism leftovers would be mobilized to do something to sabotage the integration efforts… Russia and Germany are in the similar situation.

    Keep in mind that Europe and Asia without conflicts aren’t to US interests…

  141. dfordoom says: • Website
    @the cleaner

    Do you have reason to doubt Suvorov?

    Good heavens yes. He’s a traitor for starters so we already know he’s a man to whom loyalty or good faith mean nothing. He’s not an historian. He’s a propagandist. He starts with his conclusion, that it was all Stalin’s fault, and then cherry picks his evidence. That’s when he offers evidence. Mostly he just makes assertions. He tells us he has some reliable sources but can’t reveal them which is remarkably convenient.

    Suvorov is only taken seriously by right-wing western cranks. He’s not taken seriously in Russia.

    The fact that you read something in a book which confirms your prejudices does not make it true. Anyone can write a book and make outrageous claims. The world is full of cranks who’ve written books.

    • Agree: Cyrano
  142. @Wally

    Oh, I had no idea you used to be an altar boy. That’s fantastic.

    • Replies: @Wally
  143. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Is that the “Dick and Jane” version of the Bolshevik revolution?

    Yes it is. And it is the version we are all expected to agree with.

    Max Parry even wants us to believe that Alexander Solzhenitsyn cannot be trusted to tell the truth about what happened to Russia and the depth of the depravity of the Bolsheviks.

    Would it make any sense for a person who was imprisoned unfairly and who witnessed the horrors of the Bolsheviks up close and personal to lie about who was responsible for these horrors?? Such an individual would dedicate his life to telling the truth with the hope that perhaps justice might be served.

    I would trust the man who experienced these terrors over Jewish apologists at any time.

    It is because he was a reliable witness to the horrors of the Bolsheviks and named the culprits that the man was ostracized in the West before his death and his books marginalized.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  144. Fox says:
    @John Regan

    I agree with your concise summary. At the same time I want to add something relating to Czecho-Slovakia.
    This country was not “crushed”. After the secession -by international agreement- of the Sudetens, the Slovaks, tired of being dominated by the Czechs seceded in March of 1939, Ruthenia (in the very east of the Czecho-Slovakia of that time wanted to also secede). Czecho-Slovakia had ceased to exist. There was Czechia, Slovakia, Ruthenia was shortly thereafter incorporated into Hungary, and the Teschen area was occupied by Poland.
    After Czecho-Slovakia had fallen apart due to its internal dissension, Czechia remained isolated, and was occupied by German troops after President Hacha and Foreign Minister Chwalkowski had come to Berlin on their own initiative and given Czech assent to this step. There is no doubt that this step was taken only after Czechia was left isolated, insulated in the middle of Central Europe, friendless and realizing its dependence upon its closest neighbor, Germany, of which it had been a part for nearly 1000 years. It must also be remembered that it became a Protectorate, and was not incorporated into Germany. I think that it was especially bitter for the Czechs to realize that they had not been the “friends” of Britain, France or the US, but rather only a tool to renew the catastrophic encirclement of Germany that was supposed to lead to a fast and certain victory even before Christmas of 1914. After they were useless as such a tool, they were left alone with their neighbors of a thousand years.
    After the Occupation of Prague by the German military Chamberlain said that the original reasons for guaranteeing the integrity of Czecho-Slovakia did not apply anymore, and he did not see any need for hostile action. A day later, however, he said the opposite (perhaps Roosevelt was behind this change of opinion), and soon thereafter came the poorly thought-out guarantee to Poland.

    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @utu
  145. lavoisier says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    It’s almost impossible to imagine something more evil and more destructive than nazism but the neoliberals are working on it.

    Not difficult at all. It is called Bolshevism.

  146. @dfordoom

    I suppose one man’s defector is another man’s traitor. And I’m not sure how appealing to Russian sentiment has any relevance, given the ridiculous victory cult they have vis-a-vis the Soviet wartime experience.

  147. @Johnny Walker Read

    He had basically conquered Europe twice – in 1938, and then again in 1940. Serious successes.

    And then, with what you contend is his best option, he makes literally the biggest mistake any human has made in history, literally betrays and destroys Germany, AND is dead within 4 years because of it.

    Weird…but that’s YOUR version.

    Me? I don’t think he was as smart as a lot of people make him out to be. Or as talented.

    I think he had a really improbable run of good luck after weathering setbacks his whole life and then started to think he actually controlled things. Control is an illusion at best.

    It still amazes me that more Germans didn’t try harder to get rid of him before July 20th, 1944.

    Since Barbarossa failed so stupendously by August, 1941…Even from the grave the Nazis continue to convince people that they ever had a chance.

    They never had a chance. They didn’t have the gasoline. They had ENOUGH gasoline because they didn’t have any tanks left by February 1942.

    If they HAD HAD enough tanks, they WOULD not have had the gasoline.

    That’s why starting in the fall of 1941 into 1942 the focus was moved from Army Groups North and Center to Army Group South (now A and B).

    It was about the OIL which they did not have but were trying to get – Maikop/Cacausus/Grozny. And it was about blocking the OIL Stalin was getting from Grozny to power the shiny new airplanes and trucks Stalin was getting from the Americans and British and his own T-34s and KV-1s (better than the Mark IVs and there were more of them) – Stalingrad.

    Stalin understood this as well. Hence Stalingrad. This isn’t rocket science. It wasn’t back then either. Even a moron like Stalin who actually convinced himself Hitler wasn’t going to attack him could figure that out.

  148. @lavoisier

    Agree, also the book Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest tells about the bolsheviks liquidation of some 10 million in the Ukraine, and Solzhenitsyn was a hero and a truth teller and a great man!

  149. Thanks Parry, makes sense, so its probably true. No one knows what all happened, we’ll never know. We just have to read through all the propaganda and draw our own conclusions. I like to look at current events to make sense of all the things that happened in the past.

    I ran across this site recently, some may be intrested in, lists people who helped Hitler

    https://www.hist-chron.com/eu/3R/Hitlers-financiers-ENGL.html

    Message from our capitalist apologist sock puppets here at Unz: Capitalism is awesome! Stop complaining about your BS job that pays $9/hr, having no healthcare or your crowded, unaffordable shitty apartment. Capitalism is awesome! You have a fucking cell phone, frozen pizzas and video games you ungrateful fuck! Can’t afford a car, call Uber! You could be living in a box on the streets with the Veterans! You’re so much better off than that single income, 1960s middle class family living in a nice house in a nice neighborhood. I mean, back then that greedy husband had to pay union dues, strike on occasion, and was burdening his poor employer with all sorts of demands. Those poor poor billionaires… You on the other hand live in a right to work state and can go from one shit job to another, or go fuck yourself! You don’t even have to be a “real” employee, you can just be a temp. that way your poor employer isn’t burdened by all those needless things like health insurance, vacation pay, etc that your fathers used to take for granted! You even have the option of working 2 jobs, since your capitalist overlords outsourced your decent middle class jobs to the 3rd world, so you can still buy more stuff! You are truly living the dream. Now back to work slave!

    Heres another good article on the subject:

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/hitler-stalin-pact-august-23-1939/5687021?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_…

    As far as Solzhenitsyn and the gulags. Who were these people sent to the gulag? Traitors, spies, criminals, Zionist terrorists including Menachem Begin the infamous leader of the Irgun terrorist gang and Natan Sharansky another Israeli. So who is it producing all this propaganda on the Soviets and the Gulags? Could it be Zionist propaganda? CIA propaganda? I will assume so.

    Solzhenitsyn asked Reagan to bomb Moscow with nuclear weapons. Could this be considered treason? Sounds like something someone working for the CIA might request. He also thought the Vietnam war was a just war, remember the entire war was started on a false flag, a lie. Solzhenitsyn claimed to be a Christian, does a devout Christian call for the killing of millions of innocent Vietnamese civilians? I doubt it, Satanic terrorists do. He also though Pinochet was an awesome guy, guy who slaughtered thousands, including Christians, for no good reason. Keep in mind this type of mentality is what is driving the Latin American refugees to our border. This is the same behavior we see from Neocons like Elliot Abrams, John Bolton. You braindead idiots really believe Solzhenitsyn is someone to idolize?

    Like I said before I look at current events to figure out the propaganda and lies of the past. I’m going to call BS on the CIA and Zionist propaganda on the Soviets and super scary Bolsheviks.

    God bless our CAPITALIST and Zionist overlords! They dindu nuffin!

    • Agree: Max Parry
    • Replies: @Antares
    , @John Regan
  150. Jim Jones says: • Website

    This article is a rambling bunch of idiocy full of a few minor truths intermingled with half baked crack barrel nonsense

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  151. Max Parry says: • Website
    @lavoisier

    Are you the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover? Some of the comments here are so cringey.

  152. Uncle Sam says:

    I don’t believe that 27 million Russians or Soviets died during the Second World War. It is parallel to the 6 million Jews who supposedly died during that same war. No informed person believes the 6 million hoax. I believe the top figure for the Jews is 600,000 or 1/10th of the propaganda figure.

    I can recall during the early 1950’s the Soviet government asserting that the official death toll was 13 million. Then it gradually went up: from 13 to 15 million, from 15 to 18, from 18 to 20, from 20 to 22, from 22 to 25, from 25 to the present 27 Now there is even talk that it will go up to 30 million
    How can anyone take any of this seriously?

    My own belief is that the original figure of 13 million is the correct one.

    The Russians obviously exaggerate the number of deaths for propaganda purposes just like the Jews. In both cases I think the primary purpose is to create sympathy.

  153. ivan says:
    @Robjil

    Thank you. Interesting reading

  154. @Curmudgeon

    “At the start of the war, we reckoned on some 200 enemy divisions. Now we have already counted 360.”
    -Halder, August 11th.

  155. ivan says:
    @Bookish1

    After having inflated away the war reparations during the 1920s and completely repudiating the external debt in the 1930s, I suppose what is now called Keynesianism worked miracles in Germany. The other countries were in hock to their financial overlords, but Germany took the easy way out. One cannot argue against success.

  156. Ron Unz says:
    @ivan

    The figure maintained by historians who have actually combed the archives is around 20 millions.

    I know that lots of Soviet apologists have regularly denounced the gigantic death estimates of people like Solzhenitsyn and Robert Conquest, and I’ll admit I’ve never really investigated the matter. When I looked at a couple of conflicting books, all the footnotes were to Russian-language journal articles, so I guess I’m stuck. However, here are a couple of data-points I consider reasonably persuasive.

    (1) Putin praised Solzhenitsyn and pretty much gave him an official state funeral, while ordering that his Gulag Archipelago be made required reading in all Russian high schools. I’d say that Putin has better access to the old Soviet archives than I do, and this leads me to believe that Solzhenitsyn’s claims weren’t so totally absurd.

    (2) I recently added the archives of Prof. Stephen Cohen, an eminent Russian scholar, and someone of impeccable leftwing credentials, who was endlessly vilified as “pro-Soviet” during the 1980s. In listening to some of his broadcasts, he seemed to have a very high opinion of Conquest and his Soviet scholarship. Once again, Cohen is far more knowledgeable regarding the truth of the Soviet era, its executions, and its Gulag than I am.

    https://www.unz.com/author/stephen-f-cohen/

    Since Putin and Prof. Cohen seem to roughly agree, I’d need to see an *awful* lot of evidence on the other side before I’d reject something like a 20 million Soviet death toll…

    • Replies: @Max Parry
    , @ivan
  157. @the cleaner

    Have you read ‘The Chief Culprit’?

    It is horrible. It is difficult to flip through it and figure out what he is trying to say.

    I roll my eyes when I see mention of his “hypothesis.”

    He takes entire chapters to say what could be said in a paragraph. He truly loves to hear himself write.

    Imagine Cyrano here. But like tens of thousands of words about nothing except how smart he must be to figure this out which he cannot concisely explain.

    The whole thing seems to be based on his insistence that there is a document in the Russian archives that the Russians won’t make public. He’s seen it. So there is your proof.

    I’m gonna go dig my copy out now. So bad it is good. Haha. Entertainment. Not history.

  158. utu says:
    @dfordoom

    “Suvorov is only taken seriously by right-wing western cranks”. – And Ron Unz who last time I checked is not right-wing western crank.

  159. Seraphim says:
    @dfordoom

    It can lead to exonerating Germans from responsibility for WW1 as well. It led to the dangerous idea that one can attack anyone because he feels that the other has perceived bad intentions.

  160. FB says: • Website
    @fnn

    Hitler met with Molotov in Nov. 1940 to try to prevent war with the Soviet Union. But Molotov pretty much spat in Hitler’s eye, and that was that.

    Actually, the citation you posted from Irving’s book does not seem to support your statement of ‘spitting in Hitler’s eye’…

    As Ribbentrop had done before him, Hitler harangued the Russian minister as though he were at a Party rally…

    It certainly doesn’t sound like the one-way street you make it out to be…these were negotiations after all…but Hitler was the one who decided to act…

    Irrevocable and terrible in its finality, the decision which Adolf Hitler now took was one he never regretted, even in the abyss of ultimate defeat.

    Also, it would be helpful if you gave the page numbers when quoting from a 1,000 page book…

  161. utu says:
    @lavoisier

    Correct. Besides there would be no Nazism w/o Bolshevism. Bolshevism is the root of all evil. And Max Parry is its apologist.

    • Replies: @Max Parry
  162. Parry should have also mentioned Operation Gladio, the false flag terrorist attacks pulled off by European intelligence services, pinning the blame on “radical communists”

    This also shows how these a-holes will lie about anything to smear anyone, even kill innocent civilians of their own countries, do anything to discredit anyone who challenges the status quo of the ruling class.

    Lots of evidence of these events. Also note how this relates to the current “Islamic terrorism” events, and you might get a pretty good idea of who is behind them.

    RUSSIAN President Vladimir Putin has compared communism to Christianity and likened Bolshevik revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin to a “saint” in a revealing new interview.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/904717/Putin-communism-christianity-Russia-Lenin-saint-bolshevik-revolution-Stalin-atheism-news

    Putin claimed communist ideology has all the hallmarks of religion in that it is based on equality, brotherhood and it has its own “holy scripture”.

    Speaking in an interview for a documentary film called “Valaam”, a clip from which was broadcast by the Russia 1 TV channel, he said: “Faith has always accompanied us, it strengthened when our country, our people faced particularly difficult times.

    “There were such severe years of militant atheism during the Soviet period when priests were killed, churches were destroyed. But at the same time a new religion was being created — communist ideology, which is very similar to Christianity, in fact.

    “Freedom, equality, brotherhood, justice — all of this is enshrined in the Holy Scripture, it’s all there. And what about the Code of the Builders of communism? This is a sublimation, it’s really just a primitive excerpt from the Bible, nothing new was invented.”

    He also compared leader of the Bolshevik Party and of the Russian revolutions, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov – better known as Lenin – to Christian saints.

    When Lenin died in 1924, his body was embalmed and put on display in a mausoleum in Red Square, Moscow.

    Mr Putin added: “Look, Lenin was put in a mausoleum. How is this different from the relics of saints for Orthodox Christians and just for Christians?

    “When they say that there’s no such tradition in Christianity, well, how come, go to Athos and take a look, there are relics of the saints there, and we have holy relics here.”

    Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Ivan Melnikov said: “I think these words of the president very effectively and reasonably smooth out the acute angles around the theme of the mausoleum.

    “Communists and all the leftist patriotic forces in Russia understand that communism is close to Christianity as much as the form of capitalism that exists in our country and our economy today is far from Christianity.”

    The cult of Lenin was part of Soviet ideology but there is public debate about the possibility of giving Lenin’s remains a proper burial, which began in the early days of Perestroika – a political movement for Soviet reformation in the 1980s.

    A recent poll by the Levada Centre showed the country is split down the middle in terms of support for Lenin’s burial.

    The communist chief quoted Putin as saying: “As long as I sit here, there will be no barbarism in Red Square.”

    Mr Zyuganov said Putin dismissed allegations Lenin was not buried in accordance with Christian traditions.

    He quotes Putin as saying: “As far as the form of the burial is concerned, they used the one that is also used in Orthodox Christianity – he lies a meter and a half below the ground level. Sepultures and cave burials have been known for a long time.”

  163. Maybe you should check out this book Mr. Unz:

    Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s “Bloodlands Is False”

    https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Lies-Evidence-Accusation-Bloodlands/dp/0692200991

    I have’t read it, don’t really have much time to read, but I’ve heard many say he’s done his homework and come to the conclusion that ost of the stuff about Stalin and the Soviets was bunk. Apparently he’s written many books on it.

    Who knows?

  164. Max Parry says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    What is the criteria for this numerical determination, that any death which occurred for any reason is attributable to the state or Stalin? 20 million executions? Regardless this isn’t reflected in any population demographics chart I’ve seen which only shows a dip in the 1941-45 period because of their wartime casualties.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    , @Ron Unz
  165. Max Parry says: • Website
    @redmudhooch

    I’ve written about Gladio elsewhere and that BBC documentary is surprisingly amazing.

    • Replies: @redmudhooch
  166. utu says:
    @Fox

    In January 1939 Germany’s negotiations with Poland temporarily stalled. This lead Hitler to consider a possibility of war with Poland and thus the encirclement of Poland by breaking up Czechoslovakia by encouraging Slovaks and the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia became a new plan. Hitler gave two options to President Hacha: in which case the “entry of German troops would take place in a tolerable manner” and “permit Czechoslovakia a generous life of her own, autonomy and a degree of national freedom…” or face a scenario in which “resistance would be broken by force of arms, using all means.” President Hacha made the right decision under the duress but that he made this decision it does not justify Hitler’s action as you the Hitler fan boy want to spin it. Czechoslovakia has done nothing to deserve what has happened to her.

    This action by Hitler let British to issue guarantees to Poland 15 days after German tanks rolled into Prague which predictably made Poland less flexible in negations with Germany and then finally in August the Molotov-Robbentrop Pact made the war inevitable. Whether British and Americans wanted to instigate the war was irrelevant. The ultimate decision on starting the war was that of Hitler and then Stalin.

    • Replies: @Fox
  167. @Max Parry

    Ex Nazis like Klaus barbie were neck deep in these spook operations, like Operation Condor in Argentina, Bolivia and elsewhere. Even involved in the founding of the drug cartels. Again, the type of thuggery that is driving the refugees to our border nowdays

    It really all ties together, CIA, the Mafia, Ex-Nazis. Crazy stuff I have been studying lately.I find it hard to believe the Nazis are the angels some here think they are. Where are all the commies running drugs and committing genocide down south??? Seems to only be these fascists and capitalists as far as I can tell..

    keep up the good work Parry

  168. @dfordoom

    History is written by the victors. So after decades, truths are filtering out and we are getting what was hidden for 7 decades. Obviously some things are logically wrong, and we have to check their veracity. So much garbage was giving to us as ‘truths’. Although people are getting thrown in jails, for ‘revisionists’ they are giving as truths that the powers that be, are doing their best to suppress, and to keep it hiding from us. Like the jewel:

    ‘Did Six Million Really Die?’
    Report of the Evidence in the Canadian ‘False News’ Trial of Ernst Zündel – 1988
    Edited by Barbara Kulaszka, available for free on line.

    Arthur R. Butz
    The Hoax
    of the
    Twentieth Century

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  169. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Robert Dunn

    Churchill immediately launched into Stalin’s forced starvation of the Ukraine for supporting white Russians during the Soviets collection of all wheat (and the murder of ‘Kulucks’ or land owners) to the tune of TEN MILLION DEAD!!! Get it??? TEN MILLION DEAD!!!

    You are familiar with the concept of propaganda aren’t you? Propaganda is where you tell lies and you keep on telling them and if you tell them often enough people will start to believe you. Every country does it.

    Just because a claim is consistent with your prejudices doesn’t make that claim true. If the claim is made by someone’s bitter ideological enemies or by someone with a political axe to grind then you need to be particularly sceptical.

  170. Ron Unz says:
    @redmudhooch

    Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s “Bloodlands Is False”…I have’t read it, don’t really have much time to read, but I’ve heard many say he’s done his homework and come to the conclusion that ost of the stuff about Stalin and the Soviets was bunk. Apparently he’s written many books on it.

    Well, I’ve never heard of him, and since it’s published by Red Star Books, I assume he’s some sort of zealous Communist. One of his other books denounces Khrushchev’s anti-Stalin accusations and a third book claims that Trotsky was collaborating with Japan and Nazi Germany, so he seems like a pretty hard-core Stalinist.

    Personally, I tend to doubt that Trotsky was a Nazi agent, so I’d probably be skeptical of his other claims…

    So I think I’ll just stick with the (apparent) views of Putin and Prof. Cohen.

  171. Paw says:
    @obwandiyag

    Sure and the Mein Kampf was written by Stalin..

    • Replies: @Wally
  172. Paw says:
    @Thomas Klain

    NSDAP was far different from Wehrmacht. Good for Russia is only world with no wars !!

  173. Cyrano says:
    @Max Parry

    I think that the Russians are so diabolical that they might have been the first to construct the perpetuum mobile –ization machine. How else can you explain that despite losing 30 to the gulag, 20 million to starvation, and yet they were able to mobilize close to 50 million people during the course of WW2 – 27 of whom were lost. All this out of the original 170 million population that USSR had prior to WW2. There is no other answer – most likely the Russians invented the first perpetuum mobile-ization machine.

  174. Leon says:

    “because it was a reinstatement of the border acknowledged by the League of Nations and Poland itself as put forward by the British following WWI”

    Show us the maps and treaty to support your argument not a quote by that pig Churchill.

  175. Leon says:
    @Stefanov

    Only the Bolsheviks were on a massive extermination campaign not Germany.

  176. Ron Unz says:
    @Max Parry

    What is the criteria for this numerical determination, that any death which occurred for any reason is attributable to the state or Stalin? 20 million executions?

    I don’t think anyone has ever claimed 20 million Soviet *executions*. But I’m very skeptical of the 800K figure as well.

    For example, when rebellious elements were massacred, e.g. the Kronstadt sailors, I doubt their individual names ended up in the files. Same for the massacres of the peasant rebels like Tambov or in Central Asia. When “blocking detachments” machine-gunned retreating Soviet troops, did the names of the individual victims end up in the archives?

    As I recall, the Soviets abolished the death penalty during much of the 1920s and 1930s, and Solzhenitsyn mentioned that senior OGPU officials were always complaining to Stalin about all the record-keeping problems it created for them in carrying out their mass-executions. So I’m a little skeptical about the accuracy of the execution archives.

    But anyway, everyone knows that the overwhelming majority of the deaths weren’t due to executions. I think Gulag life-expectancy was pretty low, so if a couple of hundred thousand died every year, that would add up to many millions over the decades.

    For example, unlike in the US, black slave plantations in the Caribbean and Brazil were run like death-camps, with the typical slave only surviving 3-4 years, requiring constant new inflows. My impression is that during most of the Soviet era, many of the worse Gulag camps were run in similar fashion.

    Also, when whole populations were deported in cattle-cars to Siberia, enormous numbers may have died along the way or soon afterward. I vaguely recall reading that something like 1/3 or 1/2 of all the Chechens and Tatars died during their deportations, and huge numbers of other groups were deported as well.

    Conquest and other Western authors always claimed that many, many millions died during the Ukrainian Famine, the Collectivization, and the anti-Kulak campaigns, with a large fraction of those deaths being more or less deliberate.

    Didn’t Stalin supposedly execute most of the Soviet Census bureau for discovering a worrisome “shortfall” in the Soviet population?

    On controversial, contentious historical topics that are too difficult to easily investigate, I tend to rely upon what I consider reasonably credible authorities. And if Putin and Prof. Cohen seem to vouch for Solzhenitysn and Conquest, I think I’ll stick with them until sufficiently credible contrary evidence comes around.

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  177. Fox says:
    @utu

    I don’t recall that I wrote that I thought it was a good decision to make a protectorate; notwithstanding the fact that certain countries have not had and have no problem now with such arrangements with unwilling foreign entities, and it is quite willingly tolerated by the “international community” of ostriches with their heads stuck into the sand.
    Since the Poles had repeatedly brought up the topic of Danzig (1935, September 1938 -yes, in the middle of the Sudeten crisis), and the talks in October of 1938 were a continuation of these suggestions to come to a binding and agreeable conclusion, which was also the German wish, they were not surprised about the German suggestions. I understand that Beck was less than completely open about his intentions to either party, English or German, so that he might well have stirred events with a view of not considering any solution to the status of Danzig -more than 95 % German, in Beck’s view a minority of the Danzig population (is this Polish math?) and herding the British into his Polish barn.
    The Danzig question was not related to Czecho-Slovakia, it existed independently and needed its own resolution. I don’t care whether Danzig was in the year 1000 a Polish fishing village with a few hovels. in 1938 it was German city of nearly 400000 inhabitants with a Senate dominated by National Socialists who were democratically elected. I don’t understand what Democrats understand with the term Democracy, but it doesn’t seem to entail rule of the people.
    The exterritorial passage through the corridor would have been a good way to resolve tensions +, of course the return to Germany of the German city of Danzig. I well remember people telling about the sealed trains when they had to pass through the Korridor, as just another Polish chicanery. Adolf Hitler wanted to come to a solution that was sensible and as far as this could go, fair. Naturally, for a Pole who thinks that Nuremberg or Hamburg lie just across the border from Poland, “sensible” is like a red cloth to a bull. perhaps with Pilsudski, an amicable neighborhood between Poland and Germany would have been possible, with Beck not.
    To repeat:
    The Czech crisis has nothing to do with the Danzig question. The Poles profited from the dissolution of Czecho-Slovakia by occupying a piece of territory of this country when in dissolution, don’t forget the ethics behind that -and then to feign victim status the next moment, it’s quite remarkable, but entirely in line with expectation resting on experience. The establishment of the Protectorate is merely a welcome hiding corner for people who were intent on precipitating a crisis or did not want to ease tensions.

  178. Leon says:
    @Wally

    Wally here is another good one you may want to add.
    Soviet scorched Earth.
    https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p-91_Sanning.html

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  179. Wally says:
    @Johnny Rico

    There were no altar boys in my church.

    We left the altar boys to those like you.

  180. Wally says:
    @Paw

    Whose “translation” of Mein Kampf are you referring to?

  181. @dfordoom

    So He is lying about the amount and type of armaments Stalin had. Seems that would be easy to check. And of course it was suicide for Hitler to open a second front at that time. So I guess he must have been stupid or insane? It’s not Suvorov’s own integrity that his account rests on, but the sense it makes out of otherwise senseless facts. If he is lying about these then I would agree with you, but your ad hominem argument doesn’t convince me.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  182. Anon[244] • Disclaimer says:

    First, it needs to be stated that there exists zero confluence between modern Western Right Wing sympathies and anything that has to do with the USSR.

    This article seems to be printed here with an expectation that an audience with some crossover political sympathy with what seems to be modern Russian social values means that we would sympathize with the Russian communists and the historical USSR against the West, in any context.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Moreover it should be noted that anyone with any discernment, which includes a healthy number of Western Nationalists, will continue to be rightly and significantly suspicious of the modern Russian State.

    Being that the Russian Sate is a seeming but possibly not actual new entity, and possibly a continuation of a communist controlled State by a different name and strategy.

    In general, we do not sympathize with Max Perry’s views of history, his theoretical politics view, nor his geopolitical sympathies. We are wholly for the West against communism in all contexts and in all periods. We do not trust communist statements nor Perry’s statements in this obvious propaganda piece.

    Communism was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in it. When it lies, it speaks its native language, for it is a liar and the father of lies.

    This article, printed on this website, is serving a strawman to be used against the readers here. It can be used to paint us as sympathizers with Perry’s perspectives against the West. We reject the sentiments in the article and recognize the strawman effort.

    In a defining article series printed on this platform, Ron Unz has conclusively refuted the mainstream historical views on WWII and the Holocaust.

    These mainstream historical views are mainstream USSR views, mainstream modern Russian government views, and what Max is trying to defend with critiques of only minor instances of deviations from those views.

    Those deviations are why he is in apoplexy.

    He is defending the modern mainstream narrative that is the subtext for the destruction of the West, and doing nothing more.

    In contrast, I feel that Ron Unz’s conclusions about WWII are now understood and accepted subtext for any political pieces printed on this website. Why are pieces being printed that ignore that subtext? Reading and rebutting them is tedious and anachronistic.

    At the least, if there is disagreement by an author, then there should be a substantive rebuttal in the article. At this point, ignoring this step is like ignoring that the Earth is accepted as being round and instead assuming a Flat Earth subtext with no provided argument for that assumption.

    that the Russian Armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace.”

    The communists destroyed Russia in the October Revolution and what proceeded it, under a materialist theology that mandated that the entire world meet the same fate that demanded a destruction of all culture / ethnicity and national boundaries.

    Communism’s anti-German rot subsequently began to spread in Germany, and the Nazis were a natural reaction to that process.

    In sum, there would have been no Nazis without the communists. International communism explicitly calls for World domination and ethnic destruction. Which means that the only menace was that of the Communists. Any strong reaction to communism is what it is. The most appropriate response to any fatal political threat to a nation tends to be its opposite concept.

    Hitlerites.

    What a coward. You sound like Torah Jew Bill Kristol when he cites “Trumpism”. That’s the company that you keep in your anti-nationalist critique aimed at non-Jews.

    At least have the guts to name your ideologies. Instead of soft peddling them with neologisms that serve to allow you to circumvent having to defend your opinion that ethnic national interest is wrong on a website with a readership that is clearly nationalist.

    [MORE]

    but is perhaps its most egregious falsification that truly desecrates the graves of the 27 million Soviet citizens who were 80% of the total Allied death toll.

    You are asking for sympathy for communist soldiers? We have no sympathy. Especially for the vast number who willingly took up the mantle of World-imperialist, murderous communism that was the originating cause of the destruction of Europe in the WWII era and is the political cause of its destruction today.

    Any one one of those soldiers who was a true believer desecrated his soul before his death. Further desecration of their body isn’t possible. As any Jew would tell you about the body of a desecrated soul, which they consider to be the state of all non-Jews and that they hold to desecrate the body that impure soul inhabits.

    In the Jewish faith, which started your political theology of choice, the death of a person with a desecrated soul (any non-Jew) purifies the World.

    If you are an actual communist, then your appeal to grave desecration is incongruous nonsense as the grave of non-living matter carries no spiritual nor other significance for a communist. You can’t even appeal to grave desecration in a nationalist sociopolitical context as communists are anti-nationalist. So go fuck yourself on the topic of grave desecration. You out yourself as a politically non-serious manipulator on this topic alone.

    Earlier this year, for the commemoration on the 75th anniversary of the Normandy landings, Russia and its head of state were excluded from the events in Portsmouth, England.

    The commemoration of a War with a fraudulent mainstream history is not politically meaningful except to perpetuate fraud.

    No one cares about Russia being slighted other than Russians and hardcore communists such as yourself. And it couldn’t matter less. If you weren’t politically invested in a fraudulent history, you wouldn’t care either.

    those who volunteered in the International Brigades were rightly insulted by this tampering of history and voiced their objection.

    The EU motion‘s real purpose is to fabricate the war’s history

    Communists calling anyone else “liar” on any topic is the rankest hypocrisy. It stinks so bad that one can hardly stand to be in the same room with it.

    The Communist view is the Jewish view, the Jewish view is the fraudulent view. See my prior paraphrase from the Book of Matthew.

    The EU, as a rough political mirror of the USSR, and the USSR and its successor are in agreement as to the vast majority of the (fraudulent) account of the history of WWII.

    The mainstream history is the fraudulent history. That is the history that you are trying and failing to defend.

    tried to use Germany to annihilate the USSR.

    You stink like desperation in addition to lies. In what Universe and by what logic would a proxy army be attacked on the opposite front by the entity using it as a proxy?

    for the liberation of Europe

    “Liberation” of Europe from what? The army trying to keep it for Europeans and against Judeo-communist destroyers (destroyers per their own Torah)? The notion contradicts itself and is Orwellian in nature.

    Was Europe “liberated” to free it to be open to destruction by Judeo-communist social values that are allowing Africa to flood into it and are specifically designed to destroy peoples?

    National Socialist Germany attempted to “Free Europe” from those who wanted to destroy it. Which is what they said and is what is obvious now to anyone with a room temperature IQ given the modern state of Europe.

    Modern social strife and degeneracy has risen in lock step with the rise of the Jews and communist participation in modern life. That isn’t debatable.

    but the Atlanticists have made this formal change without any evidence to support it and entirely for political purposes.

    The history of Judaism and communism is to make unsubstantiated charges born of historical lies: entirely for political purposes and without any evidence to support those charges. Its even in the Jewish theology to do so. See Psalm 69 and the Jewish Yom Kippur scapegoat ritual. You have no credible platform from which to accuse others of false charges.

    Like the founding of the EU project itself, the declared aim of the proposal is supposedly to prevent future atrocities from taking place, even though the superstate was designed by former Nazis like Walter Hallstein, the first President of the European Commission, who was a German lawyer in several Nazi Party law organizations and fought for the Wehrmacht in France until his capture as a POW after the invasion of Normandy.

    So, the Super-State “created by former Nazis” endorses an unceasing flood of Africans and Muslims into Europe?

    Your spin would be funny if it wasn’t sad due to poor craftsmanship, and didn’t attempt to inject what amount to lies into the discussion surrounding into dire issues. Your tendency to spin communist led European dispossession and destruction as “freedom” is one of many possible examples that speak to why no communist should have a voice in regard to the fate of the West.

    Rather than preventing future crimes, the EU has committed one itself by deceptively modifying the historical record of communism to be parallel with that of the Third Reich

    The third Reich tried to save Europe from Judeo-communists. Those communists tried to destroy Europe, a task that they continue today and are succeeding in precisely because Germany lost the Second World War.

    You are correct that communism is not parallel to the Third Reich. Communism is unadulterated evil with no moral conscious that is apart from a slavery ethic dressed up so that the slaves willingly consume it and destroy themselves. Communism targets the morality, family life, culture, ethnicity, nation, and all identity apart that which is defined and therefore can be controlled by the purse strings. The perfect slaves. By design, Judeo-communists target primary political defenses against slavery and national destruction. The Third Reich was a defensive reaction to that and therefore, by definition, a force of Good.

    Even further, that they were two sides of the same coin of ‘totalitarianism’ and that for all the barbarity committed during the war, the Soviets were equally culpable — or judging by the amount of times the text cites the USSR versus Germany, even more so. It remains unclear whether we are now to completely disregard the previous conclusions reached by the military tribunals held by the Allies under international law at Nuremberg of which all 12 war criminals sentenced to death in 1946 were German, not Soviet.

    Equally culpable? The Soviets are one hundred percent culpable, as they existed only due to the illegal regicide that was a result of a fanatical ideology invented by a Jew to forward Jewish-Torah World slavery and gentile destruction aims. The Third Reich was only born due to a necessary reaction of Good to the existence of such Jewish madness.

    The document doesn’t even attempt to hide its politicized direction at the current government in Moscow, stating that:

    “Russia remains the greatest victim of communist totalitarianism and that its development into a democratic state will be impeded as long as the government, the political elite and political propaganda continue to whitewash communist crimes and glorify the Soviet totalitarian regime.”

    Communism is an existential threat to all nations and is political in nature. There can be no quarter for it, and as long as there is you can not rightfully complain about “political” responses to its apologists.

    This accusation does not stand up to critical observation, as Russia has since erected official memorials to those executed and politically persecuted during the so-called ‘Great Terror.’

    So, you complain about “politicized” responses only to label communist facilitated ethnic cleansing and political assassinations as “so called”. If your aim is to be persuasive least of all through rhetorical consistency, you’re a joke.

    It has become a widespread and ridiculous belief in the West that Stalin somehow killed as much as five times as many people as Hitler, an absurdity not reflected in the now disclosed and once highly secretive Soviet archives, which after two decades of examination show that over a period of three decades from the early 1920s to his death in 1953, the total recorded number of Soviet citizens executed by the state was slightly less than 800,000.

    “Because the communists said so” is not a successful revisionist argument.

    While that is certainly a horrid number, how does it even begin to compare to an industrial scale extermination based on the race theory?

    1. The moral-calculus of genocide only depends on a numbers competition in the minds of people whose best fate would have been to be cleaned up with a towel after dribbling down their mother’s thigh.

    2. Your “industrial scale extermination” claims have been widely debunked, least of all by an article series authored by the publisher of this website. As such, that it didn’t happen serves as the subtext of this site and you need more than an assertion that it did to change that subtext. Which I doubt you have the intellectual chops to provide.

    How can anyone believe Stalin killed tens of millions of people when even the most simple analysis of a population demographics chart shows that the Soviet population rate consistently increased each decade with the only reduction taking place during WWII as a result of their casualties? Socialists, who perhaps more than any other political tendency seem to suffer from autophobia, should defend their own history from such falsification.

    First, the variables that you ask us to evaluate do not constitute a “simple” data evaluation. Second, you provide zero citations for the data that you ask us to evaluate. Which means that you are a hack. Third, I suspect that your data is Soviet in origin. Genocidal regimes covering their tracks is not uncommon.

    The communists genocided tens of millions across the world in the twentieth century. That fact isn’t remotely debatable. You are a morality-by-numbers guy, and so those numbers should have you running from your chosen ideology. It won’t, but if you were consistent and not a deceitful liar it would.

    Most of the wildly exaggerated death figures stem from falsities written in The Black Book of Communism by a group of right-wing French academics in 1997 ,who did not conceal their apologism for the Nazi collaborationist self-proclaimed Russian Liberation Army (ROA) commanded by Gen. Andrey Vlasov who defected to Germany during the war:

    1. You provide no citations or analysis of your disagreement with communist genocide numbers. Therefore, your rebuttal is irrelevant in any reasonable context (academic publishing, journalistic, rhetorical, high school, middle school, elementary school, etc).

    2. The numbers are widely accepted and there is hard proof for the numbers across the world in any place where the communists operated a significant genocide. For example, the China numbers fall within an estimate range that takes into account unknown variables and error but the bottom of that range is high enough to condemn communism on its own (especially when the reason for the killings is taken into consideration).

    Not that you are an actual morality-by-numbers guy as you claim (communism would be okay with you no matter the numbers), but if you were then you would need to acknowledge that the communist murder numbers have been conclusively shown to dwarf even the fake official Nazi number that is constantly refuted even by Jewish Power (before the ledger is inevitably rebalanced to 6 million: an ability that is specific to anyone writing fiction with a keyboard).

    held by the entire Soviet government regarding internal sabotage and counter-revolutionary activity by a real fifth column getting inspiration from a certain traitorous former Bolshevik

    You’re too much of a pussy to openly condemn nationalism, and too much of a pussy to name a Jewish communist. Got it. You’re an equal opportunity intellectual coward.

    When Hitler began his Masterplan for the East, their worst fears came to fruition when tens of thousands of Banderite turncoats enlisted in the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) in Ukraine to collaborate with the German occupiers in the slaughter of their fellow countrymen and after the war ended, continued their treasonous struggle during the 1950s with assistance from the CIA

    Since communism is inherently anti-national, it is conceptually impossible to be treasonous against it in the context of any nation or “countrymen”. The defeat of communism will always be synonymous with patriotism, because patriotism is opposite in concept to the aims of communism. In other words, you can not have your Red Cake and eat it too.

    As for the accusation of “whitewashing”, it is true that recent polls indicate that 70% of Russians today hold a favorable view of Stalin — but just as many are nostalgic for communism itself and regret the breakup of the USSR on the basis that the socialist system ‘took care of ordinary people.’

    If the Russian people want to become a moral people who reject Judeo-communism and all of its forms, we are okay with the Russian people. If they do not, we are okay with treating them as we have been for a long time now. But forgive us if we don’t take the word of an inhuman lying communist before we approve of or condemn the Russians. They’ve suffered enough at your hands. My prediction is that we will come together, eventually, to rid the world of you so thoroughly that it will be impossible for future generations to even remember you.

    Holodomor fraud

    Holocaust fraud
    Communist political fraud
    Jewish political fraud
    Communist historical fraud

    See. I can play word association games as well.

    his Open Society Institute NGOs which engineered the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Soros may be averse to the anti-immigrant brand of right-wing nationalism currently on the rise in Western Europe, but as a fanatical Russophobe he is willing to make strange bedfellows with ultra-nationalists in Kiev

    We get it. Disavowing your agents is a tired means of plausible deniability, and its transparent. The collpase of communism was necessary to create the neo-communist EU superstate. In other words, to slowly communize Europe. Which would have been impossible without the pseudo collapse of communist power Russia by extension Eastern Europe. Its logically and observably clear and in adition was described by a defected Russian agent some time ago.

    The Nazi junta regime in Kiev has since instituted Russophobic ‘de-communization’ laws erasing the remaining traces of Ukraine’s Soviet past while replacing them with memorials to their wartime foes.

    There is no such thing as Russiaphobia as long as there is any suspicion of communist influence left in that State. De-communization is God’s work everhwere in the World. It is certainly beneficial everywhere in Eastern Europe.

    Born Gyorgy Schwartz, during WWII he was a teenager from an affluent Jewish family which survived the Axis occupation by using their wealth to bribe a government official from the collaborationist Arrow Cross government who provided the Soros’s forged documents identifying them as Christians, while the adolescent by his own admission delivered deportation notices to other Jews. A short time later, the young Soros impersonated the adopted gentile son of an official who inventoried the stolen valuables and property from Jewish estates and even accompanied him during his work. One would assume as a Jew he would have been haunted by these experiences, but Soros has repeatedly stated he has no regrets and even disturbingly compared it to his future work as an investor.

    Again, disavowing your agents. Even those who have pledged loyalty to communist social ideals. If you ahd any credibility, this would further erode it.

    Like Soros, the EU has no ideology except an unquenchable thirst for greed and is fond of Nazis when they are the kind that hate Russia. For its own political interests, it is willing to dangerously foster a version of history invented by a rebranded far right where the quislings who collaborated with the Axis powers elude guilt and the Soviets who courageously defeated them are maliciously slandered.

    The first half of that is florid bullshit hardly suited for a middle school term paper. The last statement is foundationally false, as there is no honor possible in the Judeo-communist ideals that aim for the destruction of all nations and the enslavement of its peoples to Jewish Power. Per the Torah. Every communist deserves what he or she gets.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  183. Leon says:
    @ivan

    I agree but take it a step further. Germany knew what Lenin and Stalin had been doing and the insane numbers of people being taken into the Gulag Systems for forced labor, millions had perished before WW2 started. Germany did not believe they would be on the bottom Germans believed they were being exterminated.

    • Replies: @ivan
  184. dfordoom says: • Website
    @in the middle

    History is written by the victors. So after decades, truths are filtering out and we are getting what was hidden for 7 decades.

    As Scully remarked to Mulder on one occasion, “The Truth Is Out There…But So Are Lies…”

    Some historical revisionism is undoubtedly correct. Some is partly correct. Some historical revisionism is based on dubious and tendentious interpretations. Some is based on wishful thinking. Some historical revisionism consists of plain old-fashioned fantasies believed by unstable or unhealthily obsessed people. Some of it may be true or it may be false since it relies heavily on interpretation

    And some historical revisionism is out-and-out lies.

  185. Parfois1 says:
    @Robjil

    Thanks Robjil for another debunking. Almost anything said in the “West” about USSR/Russia is based on slanderous Chinese whispers. Recently, the old Bolshevik law incurring the death penalty for the crime of anti-Semitism was plastered here at UR as another big lie, no such law ever existed. They pile lies upon lies and the sheep echo blah, blah.

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @anon
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
  186. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bookish1

    No miracle at all with US investments and technologies granted from JP Morgan, General Electric, GM e tutti quanti. Like US and British engines in first Messerschmitts, or most motor transportation of Wehrmacht using GM lorries. Hitler was provided piles of money not just because of great depression, but with clear intent to wage war and kill millions in Europe. Nazism was only a tool for international capitalism, to play a role, and then quit and be condemned, and today even forgotten.

  187. Franz says:
    @Robjil

    Russia is quite different than western nations.

    Then they have a chance. It’s good to know somebody does.

  188. @Tusk

    Yeah, I thought that was the official Unz Review line!

  189. Antares says:
    @glib

    Why do you ask for a motive if the Soviet Union was inundating Germany with communists? Germans were enticed to move to Russia for study where they were turned into Max Parry’s that were then unleashed onto German territory. There were street battles with armour between German patriots and Communists in German cities. They (the communists) were already there! That was before the Nazis came to power, they already knew how the deck was shuffled. It could even be that this was the exact reason why the Nazis came to power. Everything was better than the communists. They could see that with their own eyes.

  190. Whitewolf says:
    @Marcali

    That was just the Soviet flavor of communism. There was also Chinese plus others like Pol Pot. They all had their own mass killing sprees to create worker’s paradises where you needed machine gun towers and barbed wire to keep the people in.

  191. Antares says:
    @redmudhooch

    You are very right about the nutwing opinions of Solzhenitsyn. But here you make the terrible mistake of confusing one’s work with one’s opinions. Solzhenitsyn could be wrong on any political point but still completely correct as a historian.

    Of course only Max Parry agreed with your line of thinking.

  192. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:
    @Parfois1

    How do Chinese influence perception of Russia/USSR in the West? I thought it was mainly jews that influenced that perception?

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  193. Contrary to the claims in this article, WW2 in Europe began when Britain and France made a choice to start a war with Germany to enforce their Polish guarantee as Germany and the Soviet Union invaded and partitioned Poland. Britain and France chose to war against one of these countries and became allies with the other. Absent this action, there would have likely been a war between Germany and the Soviet Union in time, but no World War. Obviously, the Polish guarantee did not help Poland in the slightest, but I am not deluded into believing that helping Poland was ever the goal of the guarantee. Britain in particular has been starting European wars for centuries to stop would be European hegemons going back to Philip of Spain, Louis XIV of France, the War of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Years War, and the Wars against revolutionary France, and the Crimean War. World War 2 was more of the same–Britain (and France) trying to slap down a would be rival.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  194. @Parfois1

    Where was it refuted? I recall you simply didn’t like the evidence presented, which is a very different matter.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Parfois1
  195. @redmudhooch

    re: Operation Gladio

    These revelations and “evidence” all came after the events. I’m not convinced that this wasn’t all fabricated later to discredit the revolutionaries who had taken up armed struggle so that in the future people will all think that such struggle is CIA directed. It’s kind of bearing fruit. Almost every time people rise up somewhere it’s now labelled a colour revolution backed by the CIA. Of course they will use such colour revolutions against regimes they want to bring down but it doesn’t mean that people don’t have genuine grievances against said governments. And of course intelligence agencies will want to have their fingers in every pie, even, or especially, revolutionary movements. By associating the CIA with every revolutionary movement they will try to discredit all revolutionary activity so the elites can rest easy and continue plundering the world. They definitely want to throw suspicions at such movements so that people will not link up their struggle with that of others elsewhere even though they may all be facing the same problem, the rule of international capital and the tyranny of those who profit from it.

  196. ivan says:
    @Leon

    I agree that part of the impulse that triggered Nazism can be seen as a reaction to the Communist depredations. The Communists spent all the inter-war years sowing the dragon’s teeth. It is no surprise that when those who suffered under the depredations of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin rose up to welcome the Germans as liberators. Nazism itself seems to have been nurtured by the White Russians who lost out to the Commies as written in this book by Michael Kellogg :

    https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Roots-Nazism-Socialism-1917-1945/dp/0521070058

    Having said that the Nazis had they truly intended to liberate say the Ukranians, who had initially welcomed them, they would not have treated them as subsequently did : at best hewers of wood and drawers of water. They could have made a greater success of Vlasov’s forces had they treated the subject peoples of the Soviet Union as their equals

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  197. Kikl says:
    @dfordoom

    “Maybe we’re heading towards a world where instead of it being OK to punch a Nazi, it will be OK to punch a communist.”

    In a sane world, punching anybody would not be o. K. Punching communists is nogoog and punching nazis isn’t any goog.

  198. @redmudhooch

    You braindead idiots really believe Solzhenitsyn is someone to idolize?

    Although I object to the characterization, the answer is an unabashed yes. Solzhenitsyn was without doubt one of the great men of the 20th century.

    To see why, you would do well to read his 1978 Harvard commencement address. Rarely has a public figure told the world so much truth in the years after World War II.

    https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/alexandersolzhenitsynharvard.htm

    Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within Western countries, exceeding that of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Yet one would like to ask: According to what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the Communist East, a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has voted Western journalists into their positions of power, for how long a time, and with what prerogatives?

  199. dfordoom says: • Website
    @the cleaner

    So He is lying about the amount and type of armaments Stalin had. Seems that would be easy to check.

    That’s irrelevant. The United States has immense military forces and they’re sure as hell not all defensive. Does that prove that the US intends to invade Canada?

    And of course it was suicide for Hitler to open a second front at that time.

    Nonsense. That’s not how Hitler would have seen it at all. France had been knocked out of the war. Britain’s army had been thoroughly defeated in 1940. Britain’s ability to launch any kind of military operations on the Continent in 1941 was absolutely zero. The war against Britain had become a very minor sideshow. From Hitler’s perspective it was an ideal time to invade the Soviet Union.

    So I guess he must have been stupid or insane?

    Not necessarily. He was wildly and ludicrously over-confident. He believed Germany could crush the Soviet Union before the winter of 1941. He was misled by faulty intelligence and over-confidence. The Germans saw the Winter War against Finland as proof of the Soviet Union’s weakness. They drew the wrong conclusions from that episode.

    If the German intelligence assessments of Soviet weakness had been correct, and had the Germans not overrated their own capacity to win a quick victory, then the invasion would have seemed like a very attractive proposition.

    Which still means that Hitler started the war against the Soviet Union and should be held accountable for it.

    It’s not Suvorov’s own integrity that his account rests on, but the sense it makes out of otherwise senseless facts.

    I think I’ve just demonstrated that those otherwise senseless facts actually make perfect sense if one accepts the conventional view that Hitler was responsible for the war.

    Revisionist history is very seductive. The idea that the official story is just a cover-up but now we know the true facts that had been hidden is incredibly appealing. It’s even more seductive if the revisionist history aligns with our own political views. But that doesn’t make revisionist history correct.

    Where Suvorov is misleading (possibly deliberately but not necessarily) is in his claims that the official version doesn’t make sense. In fact the official version makes perfect sense.

    And Hitler’s hostility towards the Soviet Union went back a long way and it was a passionate hostility.

    As for Suvorov’s own integrity, even in a court of law an obvious bias on the part of a witness will tend to discredit his testimony in the eyes of a jury. But even if Suvorov’s own integrity is unimpeachable he can still be wrong and the weight of the evidence suggests that he is wrong.

    • Replies: @the cleaner
  200. ivan says:
    @Ron Unz

    Putin once compared the position of Joseph Stalin to Oliver Cromwell. He seems to mean that these men were part of history, and that there is no use trying to airbrush them out, in the name of decency. Now Cromwell is well described as England’s greatest mass murderer, but nonetheless he continues to be a revered figure in some British circles. Putin is a Russian nationalist and seems resigned to accepting that Stalin is in the line of of great Russians such as Peter the Great and Nicholas I who expanded the boundaries of Mother Russia. Joe Stalin himself though Georgian, was a Russian chauvinist. As Lenin said of him : (There can be) no greater chauvinist than an aborigine.

    Robert Conquest’s figure of over 60 million seems to be an exaggeration, but as Solzhenitsyn said let “them” open the archives. The archives have spoken : 20 millions. And this apparently excludes all the under the radar murdering activities in the “Bloodlands” which should account for many more.

  201. Kikl says:

    I commend Mr. Unz for posting this revision of ww2 history in favour of the Ussr. We should listen voices from the Ussr too.

    However, I think this post has a very low quality.

    Claiming that the Hitler/Stalin pact was merely a defensive treaty given that the secret protocol divided Europe into zones of influence, that’s completely Absurd. Why did Stalin attack and conquer the Baltic States Finland and parts of Poland and Romania in response and in accordance with the secret protocoll? I could rip apart most of what is written here easily. But, it is a waste of time, because most of it is blatantly absurd.

    So next time a pro soviet author writes about ww2, I wish he gave us some interesting food for thought. Don’t waste your bits and bites on this trash.

    This is my opinion.

    All the best and goog luck to the unz review.

  202. @Ron Unz

    I wanted to give this post a “LOL”, but for whatever reason the software won’t let me. But it really is funny, isn’t it, when the imposing dragons of Narrative turn out to be paper tigers like that? It happens often enough that it becomes a pattern.

    The crowning example, of course, is the lemming-like braying that David Irving is a falsifier of history, and all his books worthless, backed up with vague references to the 2000 libel trial. This when, as has been pointed out not least here at the Unz Review, the trial record actually proves the exact opposite instead.

    My conclusion: The establishment propagandists simply count on people being too lazy to check their citations. Sadly, all too often they are right to do so. It has worked out for them so far. Credit is to be given all those, here and elsewhere, who are trying their best to put at least some dents in the walls of denial and willful ignorance. Their efforts are sorely needed.

    As for the 1941 pre-emptive war controversy specifically, in my opinion the best book that still champions the orthodox, anti-Suvorov interpretation is “Grand Delusion” by Gabriel Gorodetsky. At any rate, certainly he is better than the hack Glantz, and might be of interest to you if you want to keep on examining the matter further from all angles. He doesn’t really directly engage with much of Suvorov’s argument either, but he does provide a lot of very interesting information on the general political context and German and Soviet strategic considerations in 1940-41.

  203. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Henry Sulla

    Contrary to the claims in this article, WW2 in Europe began when Britain and France made a choice to start a war with Germany to enforce their Polish guarantee as Germany and the Soviet Union invaded and partitioned Poland.

    By 1939 Chamberlain in particular had come to the conclusion that it was not possible to negotiate with Hitler. Hitler had given ample evidence of bad faith. Germany had a legitimate grievance against Czechoslovakia but when that grievance was removed Hitler went ahead and carved up the entire country. After that it was obvious that Hitler was not agreement-capable.

    Hitler’s invasion of Poland proved that Chamberlain’s assessment had been correct.

    Britain and France had come to the conclusion that a stand had to be made. They did not start the war. Hitler could have avoided war by not invading Poland. The British and French had made their position crystal clear. Hitler chose war.

    Just as Hitler chose war against the Soviet Union in 1941.

    Defending Hitler is a very poor choice of a hill to die on.

    • Replies: @Henry Sulla
  204. @Jim Jones

    “half baked crack barrel”

    nice.

  205. A pox on all their houses! The bastards all wanted war.

    Hitler – Scheming for Lebensraum in the east.
    Stalin – Scheming for world revolution and expansion of the Soviet Empire.
    Churchill – Bought off by foreign interests. Scheming for a general war to contain Germany.
    FDR – Scheming for a European war to cripple all the major powers.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  206. @Curious Cat

    An excellent book on Roosevelts tricking the US into war with Japan is Day of Deceit by navy officer Robert Sinnett.

    Another good book is The Crime and Punishment of I. G. Farben by Joseph Borkin, and also Trading With the Enemy by Charles Higham, these books can be had on amazon, I have them.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  207. AP says:

    The most useful thing about this article is that in it Max Parry has publicly exposed himself as an apologist for Stalin and defender of Bolshevism. All of his claims about the past and present events in Eastern Europe can be considered with this in mind.

  208. Pandour says: • Website

    An ubelievably disgusting and historically illiterate article which has no place in the Unz Review.For one,by conservative estimate Stalin executed 158,000 of his own troops on the mere suspicion of disobedience or desertion.The figure does not include thousands of conscripts shot by the roadside as alleged traitors.At Stalingrad 13,500 were shot in the space of a few weeks.Stalin is responsible for the murder of several million Soviet citizens during the war.Over one million Soviet citizens served in the German forces in WW II as a response to Stalinist terror.Stalin killed more Ukranians than Hitler killed Jews,not to mention other nationalities in the Soviet Union.Of 1,836,562 Soviet prisoners who returned from captivity 226,127 were sent to the Gulag or executed-the total does not include millions of repatriated civilians.No one denies the major role played by the Soviet Union in the defeat of Nazi Germany,but it never would have happened if not for the participation of the Allies-without food aid alone from the West,the Soviet Union would have fallen.Patton in 1945 stated-we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them,but we have failed in the liberation of Europe,we have lost the war-.Stalin is universally ranked as the 2nd biggest mass murderer in history after Mao,but to the author this is of no importance.

    • Replies: @ivan
  209. Sparkon says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Correct. It wasn’t refuted.

    On July 17, 2019, under Philip Giraldi’s UR article “Teaching Holocaust,” in response to an unsupported assertion by Parfois, I posted here Stalin’s written response to a query from the Jewish News Agency in the United States about anti-semitism in the Soviet Union.

    In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.

    J. Stalin
    January 12, 1931

    https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/teaching-holocaust/#comment-3336032

    Parfois’s response?

    “Poor attempt, only showing your ignorance. Still waiting and wearing my hat on my head.”

    In place of any citation, argument, or facts to refute Stalin’s own words, we got only Parfois’s hot air of denial, just because he said so.

    In contrast to many commenting here at UR, I commonly provide a citation to back up any potentially contentious assertions I make.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  210. Hitler and Stalin were two scorpions in a bottle. Each wanted to conquer the other when the time was right. Stupid Brits and French (and Americans) got in the middle of things.

    Hitler:

    Turning to the Soviet Union, he [Hitler] addressed these remarkable words to his privileged little audience: ‘The present national [Bolshevik] government in Russia is a danger to us. As soon as the Russians can, they slit the throats of those who have helped them to attain power. That’s why it will be vital to splinter the Russian empire and to divide up her territories and soil, to be
    settled by German settlers and tilled by the German plough. Then … if we were on good terms with Britain we could solve the French problem without interference from Britain.’

    Hitler in a private meeting with two of his Party’s
    financial backers, Prince Wrede and Consul General Scharrer, in the
    plush Regina Palace hotel in Munich, on December 21, 1922
    David Irving, Hitler’s War, p. 5
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/2001/HW_Web_dl.pdf

    Stalin:

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

    Stalin in the August 19, 1939 “secret speech” cited by Max Parry in this article.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20060520110755/http://www.carlonordling.se/ww2/stalin_speech_complete.html

  211. 4U says:

    The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a masterstroke that dismantled Poland that was trying to join Hitler and instead made it his enemy, returned territories to the USSR annexed by Poland from Russia during the revolution, and required Germany to give the USSR credit for machinery in exchange for oil, iron ore and grain. As a result, the USSR received over 30,000 pieces of modern manufacturing machinery valued many times more than the consumables it provided to Germany. To fill the orders for these machines (that were used by the USSR to prepare for war) diverted German rearmament efforts and delayed Hitler’s plans for the start of the war with the USSR. As a result, this nonaggression pact is branded as an evil deed responsible for WWII, instead of British who started the process when they gave Austria to Hitler, and then betrayed Czechoslovakia at Munich, while Poland prevented the USSR from coming to the aid of Czechoslovakia. At which point the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed. In the end Poland failed to unite with Nazis, the way Romania and the rest of Europe did. But then Poland, along with Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, willingly hosted the concentration camps, and went out of their way, without any help from Germany, killing people by the thousands.

    But what drove Hitler to sign this pact? For that we need to consider the situation after the WWI. Unlike all prior wars that brought wealth to the victor, after the WWI the wealth flowed to the Wall St. instead of London that was the hegemon of the time. And then a new social system came to power in Russia to challenge the West. Thus Britain was facing two challengers to its dominance. An economic power of the USA, and a radical social system of the USSR spreading across the World. This was the problem Britain was facing then. And so they devised a (new) plan to capture Russia in order to use its vast resources to then deal with the USA. The plan they formulated after the WWI, was to rearm Germany and get it to fight the USSR to the point of exhaustion. And then use the French army (the most powerful army after the WWI) to claim the prize. So when Hitler came to power, Britain gave him Austria and then Czechoslovakia. At the same time Britain assured Poland that they would support Poland in a war against Germany, thus preventing Poland from settling a territorial dispute with Germany, sealing its fate. At the same time, Britain signed a nonaggression pact with Japan that was marauding in China. In this pact, Britain instigated the Japanese war against the USSR.

    This is when Hitler rearranges the deck. He decides to attack France, but he needed assurances from the USSR that was already fighting a proxy war in Spain and was willing to fight Germany over Czechoslovakia. This is why Hitler agreed to give the USSR such a good deal in return for assurance of nonaggression. In one stroke, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact brought about an end to the British Empire. To counter this, British convinced French into attacking the USSR. The Operation Pike was a joint British and French plan to attack the USSR’s Baku oil fields from Iran. The plan was to start a war with the USSR before Germany would attack France thus forcing it to join the war against the USSR but on British terms. However Germany captured these plans and two days before the start of this operation, the German army crossed the Maginot Line. At this point Britain had no choice but to ally with its enemies, the USSR and the USA.

    However British were not done yet. Immediately after the war, they tried to get their enemies to fight among themselves by attempting to persuade the USA in to nuking the USSR. When that failed, Britain created, NATO, EU, Euro, and its banking empire is now running the World. And they are still plotting…

  212. @obwandiyag

    If you could see these doddering old relics of Soviet times, laboriously counting out their rubles to buy some worshipful government rag, waddling home to eat sugar-bread and onion soup while watching reruns on an archaic TV, waiting for the next visit from single mom Svetlana with her two rambunctious, ineducable brats, Dima and Nastya; their only adventure in life weekly trips to the state hospital and cutting in line to get in to see the doctor first … you’d understand they’re simply nostalgic for their better years, not for Communism as such.

    No one but septuagenarians and Duginites care about Stalin or the old days.

  213. Gast says:

    This article shows that it leads only to confusing statements and even more confusing discussions when you leave out the real agents of history – the jews. It is a total farce to treat the governments of the nations as independent agents in the 20th century when jews were in firm control of all nations (including Germany, whose famous “Nazi” episode was just a masquerade to get a major war going). And since no comprehension of the historic events can be achieved with that method the awarding of sympathy and antipathy is quite arbitrary and so heated discussions or more correctly fierce “sound and fury” is guaranteed till everybody gets bored and another nonsensical article appears.

    So Parry throws his lot with Russia for reasons which remain unclear, and since Russia was governed by the Soviets at that point in history, he is an apologist of the Soviet-Union. But although the Russian Revolution was the takeover of Russia by the jews, these potent agents of history get no mention. And that WW2 was only scripted by jews and acted out along the script that these jews could establish that “homeland” or fiefdom Israel can never enter the mind of Parry. So his interpretation of all the events in WW2 are more or less nonsensical.

    The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was essential although so improbable for the people who take ideologies serious (those fools!). The wet dream of the jews was that the two nations that the jews hated most would kill each other off. You can only do that if you have a common frontier. So the most improbable of all alliances was arranged (together with nonsensical “explanations” by “historians”).

    Interestingly enough, the Soviets actually helped the Germans of the Weimarian Republic to circumvent the restrictions of Versailles when they let the Wehrmacht train with forbidden weaponry on the territory of the Soviet Union. So the Soviets trained their later killers. For superficial observers they were short-sighted. No, they were jews! But for Parry this is all a confusing play. But somehow he likes the Russians and not the Germans. But why should we care for the feelings of Parry?

    • Replies: @Gast
    , @Gast
  214. Gast says:
    @Gast

    Correction: The German army during the Weimar period was called “Reichswehr”, not “Wehrmacht”.

  215. Gast says:
    @Gast

    To solidify my point how absurd Parry’s method is to treat the governments of the nations as representative agents of the nations, I should add that the Soviets could win WW2 against Nazi-Germany only because they were secretly armed by their “enemies” in the USA (in reality another bunch of jews) during a lengthy period between the wars as Anthony Sutton has established with his books on the technology transfer from the USA to the Soviet Union.

    https://archive.org/details/AnthonySuttonTriologyOfWesternTechnologyAndSovietEconomicDevelopment1917To19301930To19451945To1965

    So “lend and lease” during the war was only the tip of the iceberg of a long established cooperation which took place when the USA and the Soviet Union was official ideological enemies with no diplomatic ties.

  216. @DESERT FOX

    A Time for War by Thompson is also excellent.

  217. @lavoisier

    It is probably true that neoliberalism is worse than both, however.

  218. anonymous[290] • Disclaimer says:
    @RouterAl

    Russians and Communists are not synonymous.

  219. Max Parry says:
    @utu

    There is only one Karl Marx and I am his prophet

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty

  220. “And if anyone asks you, then naturally say that we set you free”

  221. ivan says:
    @Pandour

    Stalin’s crimes against the soldiers of the Red Army is well documented in

    It appears that the majority of the Uncle Vanyas and Uncle Moshes had to be encouraged to fight with the threat of a bullet in the back of the head.

    If Hitler had been half-way decent with the soldiers who fought under the banner of the Soviet Union, had not unleashed the Gestapo onto the conquered territories, had not let his obsession with destroying the Jews occupy all mind, he may well have defeated the Soviet Union by 1942. But stupid is as stupid does.

  222. @Wally

    You forgot this one.

    MADE IN RUSSIA THE HOLOCAU$T
    https://www.cwporter.com/partone.htm

    Also ignored, is that it was France that began intervening in Spain on the side of the Popular Front parties (Republicans). They were warned that by doing so, it was likely that the National Front would turn to Germany and Italy for (superior) weapons.
    While winning many more seats, the Popular Front received 47.3% of the popular vote, less than 1% more than the National Front. The narrative has always been how much more popular the Popular Front was. So, Mr Parry, just what was being saved? One could easily argue the priests and nuns, who were being murdered in Spain, just as the Bolsheviks had done in Russia.
    Let’s re-write more history. Germany was blamed for WWI, even though the Kaiser asked his cousin the Tsar, to stop mobilization of his army, because Germany wold be required, through Treaty, to do the same, which would almost certainly lead to war.
    Poland invading the Tesin area of Czechoslovakia was perfectly OK. Germany entered the Sudetanland after a plebescite was not OK. The Munich Agreement addressed Poland’s seizure of Tesin. Poland threatening Lithuania into annexation was OK, as was their incursion into the Free State of Danzig, which was under international jurisdiction. The refusal to acknowledge that Danzig, a 98% German city, had voted to rejoin Germany, was OK. The ethnic cleansing of Germans in disputed territory was OK. Mobilizing the Polish Army to invade Germany, was OK. The Poles, like organized Jewry, are perpetual victims. They have never done anything to warrant reprisals or be disliked.

    WWII did not start with the non-aggression pact, and it didn’t start when Germany invaded Poland. It started when France and the UK declared war on Germany. Some say it started when the World Jewish Congress declared war on Germany in 1933. If Germany was guilty of starting WWI for living up to treaty obligation, then France and the UK are guilty for living up to theirs.

    As I have posted many times previously, all wars are economic wars. Germany was demonstrating that the international banking system was irrelevant to economic success. That could not be allowed to continue.

    • Agree: Daniel Rich
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  223. Gast says:
    @ivan

    @Ivan

    All these alternative histories are BS, because both sides are controlled by the same power, and the outcome is scripted years in advance. So there is no way Germany could have won the war.

    And that you mention “Uncle Wanya” and “Uncle Moshe” in the same breath, shows that you have no clue who are the agents in history.

    • Replies: @ivan
  224. Seraphim says:
    @ivan

    That the Germans had no intention whatsoever to ‘liberate’ Ukrainians (or any Russians, for that matter) is perfectly illustrated by the fact that the whole leadership of OUN (ritually denounced nowadays as Nazi stooges and collaborators) was arrested and interned in German camps when they proclaimed the “Restoration of the Ukrainian state”.

    • Replies: @Gast
    , @ivan
    , @byrresheim
  225. @Thomas Klain

    It would have been so easy to decree that creditors, who were mostly landed nobility, the so-called Junkers, had to write off their claims.

    That is too simplistic.
    The reparations Germany paid were much more than what was credited.
    https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/reparations/wgptv00.html
    The currency collapse during the Wiemar Republic was planned by the banking cartel.
    https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/hyperinflation-e.html
    German industries were being bought up by Jewish interests for next to nothing. That created resentment across society. The Junkers were opposed to Hitler and the NSDAP on many things, particularly when he guaranteed farmers their land, and the employment reforms that required employers to meet with their workers and address their concerns. That alone, moved huge numbers of former communists into the NSDAP camp. The entire situation was a delicate balancing act.
    The reality is that it was going to be either the NSDAP or communism under Bolshevi/Soviet control. The Bolsheviks had already benefited from the largess of the international bankers, while the NSDAP weren’t prepared to play by their rules.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  226. Seraphim says:
    @Curmudgeon

    The World War of the 20th century started with the attack of Japan on Russia, at the behest of the Anglo-American cabal, in 1904.

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
    , @byrresheim
  227. Gast says:
    @Seraphim

    At least the German soldiers didn’t rape the Ukrainian women en masse like the Russians did with the German woman during their “liberation”. And not to speak of all the English and American firebombings and lootings during their “liberation”.

    But yeah, be passive aggressive with the Germans, the real losers of all the jewish machinations.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  228. @obwandiyag

    Put some context to that. When the USSR broke up, they were “helped” by the usual suspects to “reform” their economy. In the process, millions became unemployed, lost their life savings, were starving, and saw industry and natural resources, which they believed were theirs, given to (((oligarchs))) at less than cents on the dollar.
    That happened to millions of 40 year olds who are now 70 year olds. Why wouldn’t they think the old system was better?
    People in North America wonder why the millenials are like they are. Go back 30-40 years and see what was happening. Parents losing jobs to offshoring, homes being lost due to astronomical interest rates, and more. Is it not just possible that young people growing up, understood that their parents’ loyalty to their employers, meant nothing? Why be loyal if it means nothing? All of the rah-rah crap at the Walmarts of the world means absolutely nothing. They understand the system is rigged against them.

  229. @Max Parry

    Don’t you mean profit (see what I did there)?

    • LOL: Max Parry
  230. Parfois1 says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    “Where was it refuted? I recall you simply didn’t like the evidence presented, which is a very different matter.”

    Good powers of recall Beef, but not perfect.

    I got sick and tired of reading about the Jews being the protected pets of the Bolsheviks and, having a not-so-modest background in jurisprudence, knew that the Criminal Codes, as a general rule, do not give special protection to a particular group of people. I researched the Soviet Criminal Code and the “offending” Article 59 under the heading of Crimes Against the State is the closest one can find to anything approaching the alleged anti-Semitism law.

    I posted the full Article 59.7 ( Provoking National Hatred), with some additional comments regarding its ambit. It is somewhere here at UR. In my research I did not find a single instance of the death penalty being imposed under that law.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  231. ivan says:
    @Gast

    Jews tend to have big mouths and some of them are needlessly arrogant. But that does not mean that they are “the secret agents” behind all history.

    • Replies: @Gast
  232. @ivan


    [MORE]

    Many Russians aspired to be freed from Stalin by Hitler https://doctrinanacionalsocialista.blogspot.com/2019/01/muchos-rusos-esperaban-que-hitler-los.html

    THE LIBERATION OF UKRAINE BY GERMANS https://doctrinanacionalsocialista.blogspot.com/2017/07/la-liberacion-de-ucrania.html

    Comparisons between the rich lifestyle enjoyed by the people of the Reich and the misery suffered by their contemporaries in the United States, Great Britain, and Bolshevik-occupied Russia. https://www.osentinela.org/ramon-bau/25-anos-sem-degrelle/?unapproved=28893&moderation-hash=7f8f11bf77dd365087228d7266211bac#comment-28882

    Communism closed borders for 60 years,

    Paradoxically, German National Socialism came to power by the ballot box and yet it is defamed by the leftist media as a violent ideology. In the six years of N-S rule in Germany in peace, there were almost very few executions, exacerbately smaller than in the first six years of French democracy and Russian communism. https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/07/for-israel-war-is-no-longer-an-option-it-is-a-way-of-life/#comment-26590

    “(Hitler) writes about the days of 1918,” that in defending myself against the Jews I am doing the work of the Lord. ” https://nationalvanguard.org/2019/09/tennessee-jews-did-9-11-on-free-speech-wall-jews-demand-action/#comment-26470

    All those writers who misuse the false term Nazi — consciously or not — are on the side of those now turning the world into a giant prison, in which the dead will outnumber the living. https://www.osentinela.org/patrick-joseph-buchanan/quem-ganhou-quem-perdeu-segunda-guerra-mundial/?unapproved=29028&moderation-hash=8a64b6d2e83cf2c6dec4cd13e55ac674#comment-29028

  233. ivan says:
    @Seraphim

    That was the problem : Nazi racism would not countenance any independence for the Slavic peoples, be they Russians, Ukrainians or Poles. Their alloted place was to be “hewers of wood, and drawers of water”, in the Nazi Empire. Their chickenhawk, Himmler, who had a chin to match, made sure of that.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  234. Seraphim says:
    @Anon

    The ‘Russian State’ is… the Russian State for over 1000 years. It might have been weakened at times, but never destroyed.

  235. Gast says:
    @ivan

    I disagree.

    Obviously there is a hierarchy. So some jews are more agents than others, but in my view world history in the last 200 years is the product of a jewish plot. That explains why jews are on top in nearly every country today and control politics, banking, justice and media in all those countries. But be my guest, be an open critic of jews in your country, and you will see who calls the shots in your country.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @ivan
    , @ivan
  236. Parfois1 says:
    @Sparkon

    Please see my reply to Beef, #234.

  237. @Parfois1

    I’m really not sure what you mean by “protected pets” here, because the critical role of Jews in the early Soviet government (not limited to their over-representation) is beyond dispute. A much more interesting question is Stalin’s relationship to this power bloc, the purges of the 30’s, and his eventual mysterious death. But that really doesn’t hinge on legalistic wranglings over the clear beneficiaries of a law against “racial hostility”.

  238. Seraphim says:
    @Gast

    How do you know they didn’t?

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Gast
  239. Fox says:
    @Seraphim

    The Wehrmacht didn’t have an Ilya Ehrenburg to call its soldiers to have fun with killing, breaking the racial pride of women in the occupied areas and seek entertainment by killing at least one non-German a day so as to not waste it. Yet this was the tone of Ehrenburg’s call for blood, death and murder. You won’t find such degrading brutality in any German speech or announcement.
    On the contrary, each Wehrmacht soldier had in its Soldbuch -the soldier’s ID- twenty rules for the behavior of the German soldier. One of them stated that “The German soldier respects women in the occupied areas”.
    The High Command issued on occasion reminders of these rules.
    Offenders faced the firing squad.
    If I remember correctly, about 5000 Wehrmacht soldiers were shot for offences. You’ll find in any military the same people you pass on the street, i.e., there are very few saints and very few beasts, and a lot of people inbetween.I think there were altogether over time about 18 million people in the Wehrmacht, so that the rate for serious offences would indeed be very small when counting the 5000 death sentences. I don’t of course accept the post war tales invented to dishonor the German soldier and honor the followers of Ehrenburg and similar hate mills.

    There is a difference between encouraging soldiers to behave against all decency and common sense, as was done by Ehrenburg in an official capacity, or looking officially the other way, or, as with the Wehrmacht, inculcating into soldiers rules of decent, soldierly behavior.
    Of course I know that many, and I believe that it was the majority, Red Army soldiers, did not follow Ehrenburg’s incitements, one of them was Solshenytsin. Likewise I read in Hans von Luck’s Panzer Commander. I just believe that most people are basically decent.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  240. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Is it fair to still consider them as Jews once they had converted to the religion (or anti-religion) of communism? It would seem though that many stayed secret Zionists or later converted to Zionism once Israel was established. And they were anti-Russian only so far as they were pro-Soviet, i.e. for all the peoples on the territory of the USSR equally. I know there are quotes equating Judaism with communism but still? Considering that the two main ideologies at the time were Communism on the one hand and Fascism/Nazism on the other, it is not surprising that most Jews would have gravitated to communism given the anti-Semitic rhetoric and actions of the latter.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  241. @Seraphim

    How about the Franco-Prussian war of 1870/1871 in which the German states defeated France?

    The result: a remarkable shift in Europe’s [continental] powerhouses.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  242. ivan says:
    @Gast

    I live largely in Singapore and sometimes in India. There is no Jewish cabal in control here. From what I have seen of the West, its problem is that its leaders have no sympathy for the people as they actually are, hence all the hatred for the likes of Trump and Orban. Now in Asian countries, no matter if one is from the Right or the Left, or that the leaders may all be corrupt wankers, they do not despise their own people. It seems to be more of a class thing in the West than anything else. For no Asian leader, whatever be his religion or race will throw open his country to foreigners in the manner of Angela Merkel. We have the common sense to understand that if you throw open your borders to men from tough backgrounds, and in their 20s, the local young women are going to have a difficult time . That Angela Merkel could not see it seems to be more a product of her naivete about the nature of human beings than any machinations from the Jews.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  243. ivan says:
    @Gast

    Further if you are going down the route of claiming that the last 200 years was the product of some 3D chess from the high IQ Jews, you have to realise that in that case the rest of us are just bit players in some vast cosmic conspiracy dreamed up by the Jews. That is the greatest back hand compliment, if ever there was one.

    • Replies: @Gast
  244. Seraphim says:

    OK, but that does not explain why the Germans arrested their ‘collaborators’ ready to fight for them against the Moskali.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  245. Parfois1 says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    A much more interesting question is Stalin’s relationship to this power bloc, the purges of the 30’s, and his eventual mysterious death. But that really doesn’t hinge on legalistic wranglings over the clear beneficiaries of a law against “racial hostility”.

    From my readings on Stalin’s private life, he would make derisory remarks about the Jews in the Commissariat for their separateness, a group apart from the home-grown Soviets, which he dubbed as “the club”. He was known for not mincing words and used blunt language freely on those whose morals were below his austere life style.

    Gradually, starting with Trotsky, during his tenure he removed the Jews from the leadership and other Soviet institutions, namely the education system, through the imposition of admission quotas; so much so that he incurred the wrath of organized Jewry at home and abroad.

    On a previous post (I don’t keep records) I quoted and provided a link (?) to a contemporary article in a Jewish publication where Stalin was vilified (honoured, in my parlance) as another anti-Semite. There are suspicions (as you are aware) that his death – coinciding with the investigation he ordered concerning the mysterious deaths of some high-ranking apparatchiks (The White Gowns Case) – may have been murder. It has been reported that Khrushchev and another Central Committee member attended the dasha where Stalin was dying and they told the guards “not to disturb him for he was resting”, probably their sarcasm for the final rest.

  246. Gast says:
    @Seraphim

    This is a frivolous question and you are an asshole. Take pride in the actions of the raping Soviet soldiers!

  247. @RadicalCenter

    Germans actually never were a fatal threat to anything but the vanity of British imperialists.

    Said imperialists, led by St Winston preferred to destroy their empire rather than let Germany prosper.

    If they had to throw Eastern Europe to the wolves, so be it.

    Luckily, the pirates’ empire has autodestructed and they will have a hard time reclaiming their country from all the third worlders they invited the better to supress the wages of their indigenous working class.

  248. @Seraphim

    True.

    And the British Empire came to its sorry but well deserved end when the British betrayed their Japanese attack dogs to the Americans.

    Perfidious Albion too clever by half.

  249. Pandour says: • Website

    There is an old line-Caesar crossed the Rubicon and conquered Rome-did he do it all by himself.The claim that the Soviets are solely responsible for the defeat of Hitler is mere conjecture.For one,several million Germans were killed or captured in North Africa,Italy,France and Germany,not to mention wounded.On the Western front alone between D-Day and March 31 1945 2.8 million German soldiers surrendered on the Western Front and 1.5 million surrendered in April 1945.The number of German soldiers taken prisoner in the West in March and April 1945 was over 1,800,000,more than double the 800,000 German soldiers who surrendered to the Russians in the last four months of the war.The total number of German prisoners in all theaters taken by the Western Allies in all theatres of war by April 30 1945 was over 3,150,000,rising in northwest Europe to 7,614,790 after the end of the war.The Western Allies took 134,000 German prisoners in North Africa and at least 220,000 in the Italian campaign.There are numerous other factors to consider,amongst them the fact that that Hitler was obsessed with the Allied invasion of Norway and kept the entire German 20th Mountain Corps of several hundred thousand men there throughout the war.At least 70 per cent of German airpower ws destroyed in the West and hundreds of thousands of troops were tied down in Germany and elsewhere in an anti-aircraft role.The Wstern Allied effort entirely changed the strategic picture-Italy,Hungary,Finland and other Axis Allies would probably not have opted out of the war if not for Western efforts.What I find most disgusting in the article is the belittlement of a moral giant,Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.There is something definitely amiss with the authors moral compass,and this decades after the fact.Perhaps one can forgive him and say that historical illiteracy is to blame.

  250. @Seraphim

    True, but somehow completely ignored by the bolshie-sympathizers. One wonders why that might be.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  251. @ivan

    Wow, sounds a lot like Jewish “Chosenism”, if that is possible..

  252. @Commentator Mike

    Of course it is, because “Jew” is a racial/national category, not religious.

  253. @byrresheim

    Yes, a large number of “comrades” seem to fill the comments section here.

  254. @Pandour

    Soviet exaggerations (and outright lies) notwithstanding, 80% of Wehrmacht casualties were on the Eastern Front. Not that the Russians really need their vanity flattered on this issue, but it remains true that the Soviet war effort and sacrifices far surpassed anything by the Anglo-Americans.

  255. Seraphim says:
    @Seraphim

    This reply was addressed to #243.

  256. Cyrano says:
    @Pandour

    In the European theater of the war, the mega stars were the Russians, the Germans had the supporting roles, and the Americans were ushers and ticket scalpers. Anybody who has different ideas, must have been attending the theater of the absurd.

    • Replies: @Pandour
  257. dfordoom says: • Website
    @ivan

    It seems to be more of a class thing in the West than anything else.

    Totally. The amount of class hatred, and the viciousness of it, is staggering. It’s mostly the privileged classes hating the non-privileged classes although the non-privileged classes do reciprocate the hatred to a considerable extent.

    Whether the members of the privileged classes are Jew or Gentile makes zero difference. They all hate the lower classes and the hatred is based on class interests.

    But no-one notices this class war because they’re kept distracted by racial and gender issues. To the extent that there’s any conspiracy it’s a conspiracy by the ruling classes, not a Jewish conspiracy.

    • Agree: Cyrano
  258. RI says:
    @Smith

    Can you point on the map which lands USSR invaded in 1939? Or just take a look ?
    Thanks

    • Replies: @Smith
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  259. RI says:
    @Daniel Rich

    Having civil war in the 20s and the subsequent banditism, it is not that much.

  260. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pandour

    of a moral giant, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Rather a petty writer of BS propagda tales like ‘Archipelago’ pretending to be a ‘moral giant’ and teach fellow Russians. He was not a hero during the war, and no moral person would ask foreign power to nuke his fellow citizens.

    2.8 million German soldiers surrendered

    They surrendered to the fellow Westerners to avoid punishment for major crimes in Eastern Europe, or just to avoid ‘Judo-Bolsheviks’ as they were told by Nazi propaganda. Waffen SS even fought through Russian lines to reach the Western Allies and surrender.

    • Replies: @Flint Clint
  261. L.K says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Hello Beef,

    More like 70-75% of the losses were on Eastern Front, which is still huge of course.

    Still, Pandour’s statements in this connection stand, and much more could be added to them.

    For instance, consider what the 10s of thousands of US jeeps and trucks did in terms of improving mobility for the Soviets; this would have a huge impact on battles that took place in the summer of 1944.

    Fact is, the Soviets did not win the war against Germany all by themselves, and it is doubtful they would have been able to do it alone.

    Cheers

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  262. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    What is the criteria for this numerical determination, that any death which occurred for any reason is attributable to the state or Stalin? 20 million executions?

    Indeed, this is either a straw man or complete ignorance on the part of Max Parry.

    One of the leading Russian historians on the Stalinist period, Oleg Khlevniuk, a senior researcher at the State Archive of the Russian Federation in Moscow, wrote in his book “Stalin: new biography of a dictator”, regarding the victims of the regime:

    Between 1930 and 1952, some 20 million people were sentenced to incarceration in labor camps, penal colonies, or prisons. During that same period no fewer than 6 million, primarily “kulaks” and members of “repressed peoples,” were subjected to “administrative exile”: forced resettlement to a remote area of the USSR. On average, over the more than twenty-year span of Stalin’s rule, 1 million people were shot, incarcerated, or deported to barely habitable areas of the Soviet Union every year.

    Furthermore, in addition to the 26 million who were shot, imprisoned, or subjected to internal exile, tens of millions were forced to labor on difficult and dangerous projects, arrested, subjected to lengthy imprisonment without charges, or fired from their jobs and evicted from their homes for being relatives of “enemies of the people.” Overall, the Stalinist dictatorship subjected at least 60 million people to some sort of “hard” or “soft” repression and discrimination.

    To this figure we must add the victims of periodic famines or starvation, which during 1932–1933 alone took the lives of between 5 and 7 million people. The Stalinist famine was largely the result of political decisions. In its campaign to break peasant opposition to collectivization, the Stalinist government used famine as a means of “punishing” the countryside. All opportunities to relieve the situation—such as purchasing grain abroad—were rejected. Starving villages had their last stores of food expropriated.

  263. @L.K

    This is true. However important material aid really was, ultimately the main Soviet requirement – the opening of a second front – was the back breaker. This is not to say the Germans would have defeated the Soviets if the Normandy landings didn’t take place, but the outcome/settlement in the East would have been very different.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  264. @dfordoom

    Britain and France had come to the conclusion that a stand had to be made. They did not start the war. Hitler could have avoided war by not invading Poland. The British and French had made their position crystal clear. Hitler chose war.

    Hitler chose war with Poland. Britain and France chose war with Germany and thus started WW2 and in doing so, did not help Poland at all. As for negotiating in bad faith with Chamberlain, this presumes that what Germany did to resolve the Danzig situation was any of Britain’s business. I’m not dying on any hill in saying this, but just stating simple truth and fact of who started wars with whom. I also put it in a larger context of the history of British perfidy regarding Europe which is more a matter of interpretation and opinion.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  265. Cyrano says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Let me tell you something about second fronts. In WW2 there were 2 second fronts. The western second front – 1944 – decided nothing, if it was in 1941-42 could have made a difference. In 1944, the objective shifted – from helping the Soviet allies, to preventing them from overrunning Europe.

    The 2nd, second front, on the other hand – the Eastern Second front – was the one that the Americans begged the Russians to open, in order to defeat the imperial army of Japan. This despite the Americans already possessing nuclear bombs – of which they were unsure how much impact they would have, since they were primarily terror weapons designed for use against civilians. The 2nd second front dwarfs in importance the 1st second front. Russians could have defeated the Germans on their own, not so sure about the Americans defeating the Japanese without Russian help.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  266. Gast says:
    @ivan

    You are right, my views on the jews are quite a compliment for their abilities (not for their morality, although even this is doubtful since there is no moral in the struggle for life). I certainly don’t belong to those “anti-semites” who view jews as dumb parasites without an ounce of creativity. Jews are very good in chess and they are very good and experienced in the 4d-chess of politics. I know that my claims sound a bit fantastical for people who go through life with a Sancho-Panza-attitude. Our views are certainly too divergent for a constructive discussion.

    And you lived in an area where the jews are better hidden than elsewhere (though they are there: think of the Sassoons, the opium wars, the jews behind Mao). But if you are not very old you will live to see the veil on them in Asia lifted soon enough.

    Regards

  267. Parfois1 says:
    @Pandour

    Another one whose view of the world has not been freed from primary school propaganda. The “moral giant” was a creation of Western anti-communism as Pasternack was for Jewry. They both served a historical role as traitors for their homeland by serving its enemy.

    As to belittling the Soviet war effort, it is akin to the EU declaration equating Communism with Nazism as the twin ideologies responsible for WWII. For starters, WWII was the resumption of hostilities suspended by the Armistice, that is, before Fascism becoming a functional ideology and Communism finding a homeland.

    As to the so-called “Suvorov hypothesis” – another traitor fostered by the capitalist West as cold war patsy ammo and now adopted by Nazi revanchists – it only serves as proof of the intellectual and moral dishonesty of its adherents. They glibly enshrine the crappy self-serving idiocy of one man, who had more than an one axe to grind in the process, as the truth that eluded the multitude of historians, soldiers and politicians who had investigated or had been actors and witnesses in those events. It’s like a sect cult – you only need the word of a crackpot to have a following of broken pates.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  268. Gast says:
    @Parfois1

    “Nazi revanchists”

    You are an old jew still living with the vocabulary of the cold war? IIRIC, you claimed that you are a high ranking official in the UK. Funny and sad if true.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  269. Parfois1 says:
    @anon

    How do Chinese influence perception of Russia/USSR in the West? I thought it was mainly jews that influenced that perception?

    My apologies for overlooking your question and my occasional use of idioms learned in childhood which may not be appropriate in a forum of intercontinental dimensions. Please note the hint.

  270. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Henry Sulla

    Hitler chose war with Poland.

    Having been told that the result would be war with Britain and France. He was a gambler and he lost but it was a gamble he made of his own free will. The invasion of the Soviet Union was another gamble that Hitler made of his own free will. The war came about as a direct result of Hitler’s decisions. Which means he, and he alone, was responsible for the war.

    • Troll: L.K
  271. Smith says:
    @RI

    Poland.

    Thank you very much.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @RI
  272. Seraphim says:
    @Fox

    We can’t say how many have been ‘raped’ in exchange for ‘ bacon, butter, sugar, candles, canned meat’. If you believe (and of course you shouldn’t necessarily) the notes of a Russian officer, many women in Berlin were joking that “better a Russky on top than a Yank overhead” (bombing)

    • Replies: @Gast
  273. Gast says:
    @Seraphim

    And those gang-raped to death were happy too because your glorious Soviets did it! What an asshole you are (I repeat myself)!

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  274. Seraphim says:
    @Leon

    If one would take the pain to read the link, he would realize what sort of war the Russians were preparing to fight.
    The speed at which the flawless evacuation of industries, rolling material, power stations, foodstuff and millions of people from the directions of German advance beyond the Urals presupposes that the Soviet leadership had laid plans long before the war to put the entire Soviet economy on a war footing overnight, expecting the attack of which they had certainly detailed foreknowledge. It was a gigantic operation which entailed an enormous planning. It was the 1812 war redux. Hitler fell into the same trap as Napoleon. He didn’t listen to Bismarck and to his generals who were trying to dissuade him knowing that they were no match for the Russians.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  275. Fox says:
    @Smith

    The map leaves out the attack of the SU on Finland in late 1939.

  276. Parfois1 says:
    @Seraphim

    Good point. The problem for the revisionists claiming the “Suvorov hypothesis” is the old Russian historical doctrine of “deep defence” which paid handsome dividends during previous invasions.

    Yes, the relocation of industrial plants was also a massive dislocation of human and material resources so unparalleled in history that no country with offensive designs would even contemplate carrying out. Whatever the anti-communist brigade may say, that effort (as well as the herculean industrialization during the preceding decade) demonstrates the superiority of Socialism in mobilizing and galvanizing the nation in its hours of need.

    The old Bolsheviks knew it would come soon or later since the days when the “German Revolution” fizzled out in 1918 and got a taste of it with the French, British and USA (a and Canadians and Australians!) interventions on the side of the Whites against the Reds. It’s the same old story being repeated allover again: if you turn to Socialism, the international bankers and capitalist barons will strangle you… unless you get ready for the inevitable onslaught.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  277. Seraphim says:
    @Gast

    G(h)astly, isn’t it?

    • Replies: @Gast
  278. @dfordoom

    That’s irrelevant. The United States has immense military forces and they’re sure as hell not all defensive. Does that prove that the US intends to invade Canada?

    This non-sequitor makes me wonder if you even read Suvorov.

  279. Pandour says: • Website
    @Cyrano

    It looks like you did not read my comment-take the time to consider all the numerous other factors at play-a good start would be to read up on the lend-lease program.

  280. Anonymous[180] • Disclaimer says:

    The author of this piece conveniently left out key figures from the archives.

    No mention of those who died in the camps/gulag and deportations.

    The Soviet famine of 1930s is brushed aside.

    The Blackbook of Communism also included the Civil War and another earlier famine of 1921 (so before Stalin came to power).

    And what about those murdered by the Soviets in neighboring countries?

    So getting to 15-20 million is not impossible for the whole Communist time frame.

    • Replies: @Pandour
  281. Pandour says: • Website
    @Parfois1

    You known nothing about me and yet you associate me with high school propaganda.I speak several languages and read German.I have probably spent more time in archives the world over than all of the pro-Soviet clowns on this forum.The jury has been in for decades-Marxism is the most murderous and destructive ideology in human history.Here is a translation from a speech given by the communist Moša Pijade at the 1st Yugoslav communist Partisan convention-AVNOJ-acronym for Antifašističko Viječe narodnog oslobođenja Jugoslavije-The Peoples Antifascist Liberation Council of Yugoslavia, on November 26th 1942 in Jajce,Bosnia.It reads as follows-It is necessary to create as many homeless as possible so that these become the majority in the country.Thus we have to burn.We will shoot and then withdraw.The Germans wont find us,but will burn villages in revenge.Then the peasents,who have no roof over their head,will join us and we will become masters of the situation.Those who have neither home,nor land,nor livestock will quickly join us.Thus we will pass through all regions.The peasent ,who has a house, land and livestock ,the worker who receives pay and has bread,is worth nothing to us.From them we have to create the homeless,proletarians.Only the unfortunate become communists,thus we must create misfortune and throw the masses into despair,we are deadly enemies, of every prosperity,order and peace-.The document can be found in the VII-Vojnoistotriski Institut-Military History Institute in Belgrade in the file Štab Vrhovne Komande-JVUO-Supreme HQ JVUO under k-12,30-12.

  282. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Parfois1

    Yes, the relocation of industrial plants was also a massive dislocation of human and material resources so unparalleled in history that no country with offensive designs would even contemplate carrying out. Whatever the anti-communist brigade may say, that effort (as well as the herculean industrialization during the preceding decade) demonstrates the superiority of Socialism in mobilizing and galvanizing the nation in its hours of need.

    And it’s worth pointing out that both Britain and the United States sustained their war efforts through a program of War Socialism. They even adopted the wicked communist doctrine of central planning! There were no free markets in wartime Britain or the US. No-one in those countries believed that the invisible hand of the market could win the war.

    This was one of the arguments advanced by Orwell in one of his essays – that British and American War Socialism proved that in the modern industrialised world only socialism can cope with dire emergencies, and therefore socialism is the better system. Orwell never called himself a communist but he was so far to the left that he was, to all intents and purposes, so close to being a communist as to be practically indistinguishable from one although he cherished the belief (or rather delusion) that it could be achieved through parliamentary democracy.

  283. Gast says:
    @Seraphim

    Yeah, how ghastly of me not to share your view that Russians did the German women a favor in raping them. And you had a folksy piece of wisdom too ( “better a Russky on top than a Yank overhead” (bombing)”). Holy mother Russia indeed. Asshole!

    And not return to your bottle of Vodka and play the armchair general without the slightest knowledge of the backgrounds (you would profit from reading the Sutton trilogy, but reading is not your thing, I guess).

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  284. Interesting perspective that in essence is very true: the EU is doing everything in its power trying to rewrite history. One may disagree with the details of Max Parry’s line of argument, but not with the thrust, which I believe is correct. The EU is falling in line with Anglo-American policies dictated a century ago by MacKinder and recently regurgitated by Zbigniew Brzezinsky (whose texts are briskly sold in Russia), and that amount to a permanent enmity with Russia.

    The White Madhouse (irrespective of the tenant) does not want its European vassals to be friendly with Russia.

    I wonder why so often those who deign to comment here, feel compelled to name-calling, enclosing themselves in their own little world of precious truths, and apparently afraid of other points of view.

    Of course, Suvorov is mentioned by some, but other than that, hardly anyone seems to have read anything outside the mainstream.

    Without reference to serious scholarship and relevant documents, no true discussion is possible. Without wanting to sound patronizing, I would therefore recommend the commenters to start reading authors like Preparata (Conjuting Hitler), Anthony Sutton, Lebedev, Hautamäki etc. etc. Even Kaputt by Malaparte is a good starting point.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  285. @dfordoom

    Having been told that the result would be war with Britain and France. He was a gambler and he lost but it was a gamble he made of his own free will. The invasion of the Soviet Union was another gamble that Hitler made of his own free will. The war came about as a direct result of Hitler’s decisions. Which means he, and he alone, was responsible for the war.

    Yes Hitler was a gambler. Yes, he lost. But don’t try to continue the outrageous con that Britain and France who had a choice and made a choice to start another war with Germany as a result of Germany’s actions in the east had no agency in this affair–were mindless automatons in this affair. They made a choice and a gamble as well. While they were on the winning side, it is looking more and more like both of these countries lost their gambles as well. Europe lost WW2 much as it did WW1.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  286. @Cyrano

    Yes, and we all know the Russo-Japanese war doesn’t count, Afghanistan was a tie, etc. More chest-thumping from Team Russia.

  287. @Gast

    Basically, yes. He seems to be an old-fashioned leftist who thinks the WASP robber-barons are still in charge.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
    , @Gast
  288. @dfordoom

    Hitler’s decision was not the wisest, but ultimately it was Britain who chose to set in motion a war they could not win on their own. It needs to be emphasized that Britain never defeated the Germans (in two wars) without American assistance. And at the end it cost them their empire. Germany will eventually ally with Russia (as they should), while Britain will continue to sink into the status of Orwellian hell-hole. Who’s the bigger fool, the man who perhaps rashly tried to redress the errors of Versailles, or the man who pushed for an unnecessary world war from a local dispute?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  289. Pandour says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    As far as neighboring countries are concerned-Tito until 1948 was the most fanatical Stalinist in Europe who also ardently supported the Soviet invasion of Finland,amongst other Stalinist crimes.The Yugoslav secret police OZNA was modelled after the Soviet Secret police NKVD and its cadres trained its Yugoslav equivalent during te WW II.In a speech given in the Parliament in Belgrade and carried in the Yugoslav communist daily Politika of Feb.1st 1951,the head of the OZNA,Aleksandar Ranković stated the following-Trough our jails from 1945 there passed three million and 776,776 persons and we liquidated 568.000-five hundred and 68 thousand enemies of the people.That number does not include at THE VERY LEAST several hundred thousand murdered up to September 1945-murdered en masse and cast into rivers,ditches,buried and tossed alive into mine shafts,nor tens of thousands who were murdered in transit camps in 1945 nor over 80.000 members of the German and Hungarian minority,civilians,including thousands of children,who perished in post-war camps.As a MINOR microcosm, I will just cite the case of the Huda Jama mine where the Slovenian State Commission up to 2016 exhumed the remains of 1,416 victims who were murdered by the Yugoslav Stalinists between May 25th and June 6th 1945.Twenty per cent of the victims were women and girls,mostly Croatian civilians.It is estimated that at least another 1,000 victims are in other shafts in the mine but due to financial costs,further exhumations have been called off.

  290. Sean says:

    戊戌变法 was the key policy. By sacking a third of the army (to buy better weapons) it filled the countryside with disaffected soldiers and created the anti missionary and Manchu uprising by Han that morphed into the patriotic Boxer rebellion. Britain was unable to meet the requirements for troops and so allowed the Japanese to represent their interests in the punitive military expedition to punish the Chinese government

    Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902 was the piviotal treaty. Japan’s defeat of Russia knocked it out of the balance of power and without an easter deterrent made Germany a potential hegemon, The military understandings between France and Britain quickly followed. Raymond Poincaré inveigle the Russians into entanglement, even though the British were annoyed by Russian diplomatic aggression in Persia.

    Germany began WW1 with a diffused system and regions that were anti Prussian and anti high tax for defence. A less democratic and more centralised Germany would have devoted more resources to defence and Weimar did in fact make alterations for greater centralised revenue authority , which was an important reason for why when Hitler came to power he was able to draw on more of Germany’s reserves of strength, and coming astoundingly close to winning a war that hardly anyone in 1939 thought he had a chance of victory in.

    If we conclude a mutual assistance treaty with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off of Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western Powers. War would thus be prevented but future events could take a serious turn for the USSR

    Yet as a Marxist, Stalin was convinced the nature of capitalism would lead to countries with that system war, and so the capitalist powers would fight each other. He expected a WW1 Western front type stalemate between Germany and France/Britain, and planned to stay out of it. The dispositions of the Soviet army when Hitler attacked were far more balanced between attack and defence then would have been the case if Stalin anticipated Barbarossa and witnesses reported Stalin as devastated and paralyzed for several days, which is conclusive in my opinion. Some big airfields in particular were not built far enough back to make sense.

    It is a little unfair to blame either Chamberlain or Stalin for not wanting their own country to do the heavy lifting of fighting Germany to a standstill. Chamberlain was very much a political moderate. The Conservatives who wanted to confront Germany in the 30’s on were on the far right of the party and were the same ones who wanted to keep India irrespective of the what Indians thought, like George Lloyd, 1st Baron Lloyd. Hitler he thought Germany was capable of winning WW2 and becoming a superpower, and as it turned out he was quite correct. It took the whole wide world to beat Germany in WW2, no one has the right to claim they did it alone or threw the first punch at Hitler.

  291. This is pro-Soviet propaganda. Stalin was a fanatic communist who poured over communist literature, and made no secret of his desire to conquer Europe. He aided Germany so that there would be war between Germany and France and Britain, so that he could then invade the weakened nations.

    The author Max “forgets” Stalin’s attack on Finland, and the invasion of the Baltic states. And Stalin forcing Romania to hand over a northern province. Poor innocent Soviet Union!

    Stalin massed his armies on the border to invade Germany. The conscripts were far west of their normal fortified positions. The tanks were west of rivers, not behind them. The airplanes were on fields close to the border for bombing Germany, out in the open – instead of back at their bases.

    Germany noticed this planned attack and attacked first. Germany had no intention of attacking the Soviet Union before that, which is shown by their very low number of tanks, compared to the many thousand of Soviet tanks.

    That Germany had no intention of attacking the Soviet Union is also shown by the fact that they asked the Soviets to join them as allies in the Axis. But for this Stalin demanded that they allow him to invade Finland, Romania and Yugoslavia. Hitler did not reply to this outrageous demand. Instead, Finland, Romania and Yugoslavia joined Germany as allies in attacking the Soviets.

    Also, as usual, no mention of communist Roosevelt handing over as much as he could to Stalin. After Churchill had handed Stalin a Crusader sword at Yalta. When the U.S. invaded Italy, Roosevelt alone insisted in turning the army west, to attack southern France. This had no strategic value, and southern France was heavily fortified. It was only meant to weaken the U.S. forces while handing over Eastern Europe to Stalin.

    Everyone else wanted to turn east to the Balkans after taking Italy. Only communist Roosevelt, surrounded by communist (((advisors))), insisted on turning to southern France.

    Poor Russia losing 27 million soldiers! After having amassed the army on Germany’s border for an invasion. And how were so many lives lost? Many millions no doubt exaggerated by Stalin, who killed 60 million Russians – unmentioned here. As for the rest, the communists sent peasants UNARMED against the Germans at night, with just a few rifles here and there. So the Germans would run out of bullets.

    That’s how those “27 million brave Russian soldiers” died. Most of them were anti-communist and wanted to be freed from Stalin’s tyranny. He had destroyed their villages.

    Max Parry also doesn’t mention Stalin’s plan of exterminating the Baltic peoples, and replace them with Russians. They were going to be moved to Siberia and the Caucasus, spread out so they would cease to exist. Those who weren’t massacred.

    When the Germans came to liberate the Baltics, Stalin’s commissars went into the countryside to rape any woman they could find. They cut off their breasts and burned them alive. They tortured men, women and children to death, as many as they could before the Germans came to stop them. It is no wonder the Baltics, like the Ukrainians of which 14 million had been killed, allied with Germany. As did Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania, and even Arabs and Black officers under the British in northern Africa.

  292. @Carpenter88

    Good comment, but Yugoslavia would not have been a participant in Barbarossa (maybe Croatia, I can’t remember).

  293. @Hans Vogel

    Opposing EU neoliberalism should not require embracing Stalinist agit-prop.

  294. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Henry Sulla

    Europe lost WW2 much as it did WW1.

    That’s certainly true. The United States was the main beneficiary. At a comparatively small cost in casualties they got a very profitable war and global empire. The Soviet Union paid the price in blood, the US got the profit in power and in dollars. US global hegemony was Hitler’s legacy.

  295. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    while Britain will continue to sink into the status of Orwellian hell-hole

    I have no real sympathy for Britain’s fate.

    As for WW2, there were no good guys. The Germans were simply the worst of the assorted bad guys. The British were fools and the French were odious but they were morally right to oppose Hitler. The Americans fought for their own interests. The Soviets were perhaps the least contemptible.

    The British decision to make the guarantee to Poland was rash given that they had only the French as allies. The could have had the Italians but they behaved in a very silly way over Ethiopia and alienated Mussolini. The Italians behaved badly in Ethiopia but no worse than the British and French had behaved in countless cynical imperial adventures. Without Italy as an ally the British and French needed to ally with Stalin. Then they would not have needed the Americans and keeping the Americans out of Europe would have been a good thing. In the long run it would have been better for the US as well. The US might have developed into a normal nation.

  296. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Carpenter88

    Germany noticed this planned attack and attacked first. Germany had no intention of attacking the Soviet Union before that,

    Hitler had decided to attack the Soviet Union in late 1940.

    which is shown by their very low number of tanks, compared to the many thousand of Soviet tanks.

    German intelligence grossly underestimated Soviet strength. That’s why Hitler decided to attack – he thought the Soviet Union was weak and ripe for the plucking. Hitler also ludicrously overestimated the capacities of the German army, and ludicrously underestimated the difficulties of invading Russia. Hitler expected to be in Moscow long before winter.

    Hitler expected the Soviets to collapse the way the French collapsed. He didn’t realise that a blitzkrieg was not going to work when the distances involved were so vast. He didn’t realise that the German tanks were going to start breaking down. He had no idea that the Soviets had tanks that were better than the German tanks.

    The mighty German war machine was an illusion. It was terrifyingly effective against second-rate opponents, not so good against a first-rate opponent. By the end of 1941 Hitler had lost the war. That’s where arrogance and recklessness gets you. The ease with which Germany defeated the Poles and the French and the British fooled him. He decided he could crush the Soviet Union and he would then have a free hand in central and eastern Europe.

    • Replies: @L.K
  297. L.K says:
    @dfordoom

    As the obvious propagandist that you are, you are falsifying the context by both what you say as well as by what you do not say.
    Many Russian historians’ – such as M. Meltyukov, B. Sokolov, B.N. Petrov – research into the then( after 1991) partially opened Soviet archives, confirmed that the Soviet General Staff had been working, with Stalin’s approval, on plans for attack against Germany already from the fall of 1939. According to Mikhail Meltyukov, the general staff of the Red army had begun a plan for war against Germany in October 1939. After revision, this plan was approved by the Soviet regime on 14 October 1940. Furthermore a mobilization plan was also developed; it called for the provision of 9 million men, 37.800 tanks & 22.000 aircraft.

    Despite all Soviet provocations & suspicious behavior in the summer of 1940, while Germany had been fighting the Western powers, Hitler gave the go-ahead to Ribbentrop to try to bring the Soviet Union into a ‘continental bloc’ of Germany, Italy, Japan and the USSR in order to face the Anglo-US threat. In November 1940, Molotov was sent to Berlin to negotiate the terms for the Soviet Union to join the Axis.
    During this visit, with Germany and Italy facing an increasingly difficult strategic/military situation, Stalin – via Soviet foreign minister Molotov – delivered Germany a series of demands which amounted to extortion. The demands were absurd and even included territory that Germany had no control over and boiled down to another huge expansion of the Soviet ‘sphere of influence’.
    It was only after the complete failure of the Molotov visit in November of 1940, that the Barbarossa directive no.21 for an attack on the USSR was initiated on 18 Dec. 1940.

    Even then, the decision to go to war against Soviet Russia was NOT final or irrevocable, as made clear by the directive’s paragraph IV, which clearly stated that those were precautionary measures in the case the USSR changed its policies towards Germany.
    As German-Soviet relations continued to deteriorate with the 1941 crisis in Yugoslavia, Hitler finally opted to strike. At the same time, the Stalinist regime was in an advanced state of preparing an invasion of its own.

  298. L.K says:
    @Parfois1

    As to the so-called “Suvorov hypothesis” – another traitor fostered by the capitalist West as cold war patsy ammo and now adopted by Nazi revanchists – blah, blah

    I find it “amusing” that trolls pile up on Suvorov, while ignoring the MANY other Russian historians, who live in Russia, several of whom former Red Army or intel officers, who have reached the conclusion that Stalin was indeed planning an offensive against NS Germany in the summer of 1941.

    For example, Albert Weeks is a US historian & former Professor of International Affairs, fluent in Russian, who has closely followed the Russian historians’ disputes which arose [after the fall of the Soviet Union and the partial opening of archives] over the Stalin regime’s offensive war plans against NS Germany. Despite being very ignorant of the German side, basically repeating the usual anti-Hitler line, professor Weeks nevertheless concedes that several Russian historians and former Red Army and intel veterans have reached the conclusion that Stalin was indeed planning to attack.
    Not only that but several of these Russian historians and military people have/had connections to the Russian Ministry of Defense and some are of a pro-Soviet inclination:

    Nevertheless, what the researchers have produced is a pattern of Red Army deployments and concentration of troops along the Soviet western frontier in spring 1941 that strongly suggests that the General Staff and Stalin were planning eventually to get the preemptive jump on the Wehrmacht. The fact that in addition to Russian historians a number of informed ex–Red Army or security officers make this allegation cannot be ignored. As it turned out, of course, the Germans got the jump on the Soviets.

    It is significant and worth recognizing that a number of “new” Russian historians are opting for the offensist interpretation as to Stalin’s and the Red Army General Staff’s war planning on the eve of Barbarossa. In the meantime, it is unhelpful to assume, as some Western writers have, that these Russian historians take the positions they do, like the notions proffered so vehemently by émigré Viktor Suvorov, because they blindly hate Stalin or for some other reasons unrelated to the facts and documents that they have collected.
    Note that some of the historians of the offensist persuasion are connected with the Russian Ministry of Defense. Others (unlike the much despised Suvorov) show pro-Soviet tendencies in their interpretations of events. Yet they hew to the offensist thesis concerning Stalin war planning.15
    It behooves Western specialists and observers to pay attention to the Russian historians’ latest findings as well as to their interpretations of their findings. The Russian historians say that they will keep on pressing the authorities for more archives to be opened because, they insist, additional top-secret information from the period of 1939–41 continues to be kept concealed. …

    Source: Stalin’s other war

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  299. L.K says:

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

    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.[…]
    In 1967, Strauss relates, he was the first leading Soviet figure to advance the revisionist arguments, 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: Sean
  300. @L.K

    It could easily be said that Suvorov’s theory is ripped off from David Irving’s chapter “The Big Decision,” pages 133-151 of you know what book.

    Interesting how all these narratives have the same title. “The Chief Culprit,” “The Grand Delusion,” “The Big Decision.”

    Know what I mean, jellybean?

    And also, your favorite word is propagandist. So there’s that.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @dfordoom
  301. @Beefcake the Mighty

    This is a testament to the efficacy of the Wehrmacht relative to that of its opponents on a tactical level, especially in retreat.

    The number should probably be higher, above 95%, given the division-months the Wehrmacht deployed on the Eastern front versus all the other theatres.

    Throughout the war it looks like it took between 3 and 10 Soviet dead to get a dead German in return.

    The flip side is that the Germans were by many accounts (but not all) scraping the bottom of the barrel as early as September 1941. High Command knew Barbarossa had become a failed war of attrition by this point but persisted in the delusion of ultimate victory past Stalingrad and all the way until Kursk.

  302. Parfois1 says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Basically, yes. He seems to be an old-fashioned leftist who thinks the WASP robber-barons are still in charge.

    Not quite right, Beef. He’s more of a structuralist. The personages are less important than the roles allocated by the prevailing economic system and political culture. The old robber barons have been replaced in the pecking order by the financial sharks, mostly a Jewish preserve.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  303. @fnn

    Thank you ever so much for this excellent post!

  304. RI says:
    @Smith

    Where are the Polish territories object of the Soviet aggression in 1939?
    I see only Belorussian , Ukrainian and Lithuanian territories east of the German occupation zone. At the new border with Germany are cities like Bialistok, Grodno, Lvov and Vilno, which have never been Polish. In fact Soviets moved to liberate those territories and the living there Belorussians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Russians from the Polish occupation. Before WWI they were part of the Russian Empire.

    In 1939 Soviet Union did not invade proper Poland, but only liberated/ occupied/annexed (name it as you like ) the previously occupied by Poland after the WWI non Polish lands. And all speculations about Soviet aggression against Poland in 1939 should stop here.

    Who does not believe, take some old and new maps and check themselves whose were those territories before the WWI and for centuries, what were the nations that lived there, whose are those territories now and who lives there now.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  305. Lagertha says:

    Russia is not the problem – You are.

  306. Fox says:
    @Johnny Rico

    You are pretending that this is all just theory, but the actions of the SU leading up to June 22, 1941, as well as the state in which the Red Army was overrun in, its armaments, disposition, the sheer number of its personnel, and the maps found in possession of the officers, German phrase books, all of this suggests readying for action, offensive action, that is. What Suvorov said was said before by the German High Command from such direct evidence, and if Irving said it before Suvorov, does that mean that Suvorov plagiarized him, or even the German High Command? Of course, it would be preferable to choose the title of a book on the subject with a more neutral tone than >The Grand DelusionEvidence of a SU Troop Build-up for an Attack on Western Europe in Summer of 1941Uncovering The Reasons for the Massive Red Army Concentration Along The Line of Demarcation Beginning in Summer of 1940 in The Light of Expansive SU Ideology, Policy and Previous Action<, et cetera.

    • Replies: @L.K
  307. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Johnny Rico

    And also, your favorite word is propagandist. So there’s that.

    Indeed.

    Propagandist means “someone who disagrees with me” – it’s interesting just how many words we now have that mean the same thing. Fascist, Nazi, communist, Bolshevist – they all mean “someone who disagrees with me” and while the word troll once had a specific meaning it’s now increasingly used to mean “someone who disagrees with me” as well. Other words that mean “someone who disagrees with me” are shill, hasbara troll, zionist, racist, anti-semite and cuck.

    The quick and dirty rule is that if someone throws these words around as insults they probably don’t have a very good argument.

    • Replies: @L.K
  308. Seraphim says:
    @Gast

    It becomes laughable. Accusation of mass rape, ghastly atrocities, committed by the ‘barbaric’ enemy are staple food of any war propaganda of all parties. They have to be taken with a ‘pinch of salt’ (rather buckets).
    What has Sutton to do with the ‘mass rape’ of the gentle Aryan women is anyone’s guess. But I know that you hate Russia and the Russians.

    • Replies: @Gast
  309. @RI

    так точно!

    • Replies: @RI
  310. PhucQ says:
    @GeeBee

    Ingrained dogmas are impossible to delete. How many manpower did Wehrmacht lose in the USSR and during scuffles with the UK/US? How many tanks/guns/planes did Germans lose on the Eastern Front and in the West? It was not Germany, it was Europe fighting the USSR.

    Can you explicate on your words “First they declared war on Germany, and then they provided massive aid to Stalin”? They declared war, so what? They waited for the warring parties’ attrition only to jump on the bandwagon in 1944 when it appeared that against all odds the Russian could defeat Hitler and stay in Europe.

    History repeats itself. Always. In the 1940s the European Union headed by Germany invaded the USSR to finally grab the Heartland (look at the map of who attacked the USSR – the same EU minus Sweden). After a few decades another onslaught is being cooked. As always, its starts with propaganda, and judging by the comments, the soil is fertile – Russia was an will be an abomination.

    I meant to post a picture of German servicemen laughing heartily at the sight of a beautiful young Russian woman apparently raped an killed by them but I am afraid the moderators will censor it as it might hurt the refined feelings of the western civilised visitors to the site. But we, Russians, do remember. Once you see it once, you will never forget. It is ingrained in one’s mind much more solidly than your dogmas.

    You may instead look at some photos found in the pockets of killed Nazi soldiers. Not top quality but quite telling. So after reviewing them carefully you can make some conclusion of how good Europe was (it actually did not change much) towards Russia.

    https://www.ruexpert.org/news/mnogie-fotografii-byli-naydeny-v-karmanah-ubityh-nacistov

    Hey, Europe, this is what you are!

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  311. Gast says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    It is strictly off-topic, but since you mentioned the “WASP robber-barons”: There is a very interesting contemporary book which explains quite convincingly that the robber-barons were only the glorified agents of the money-power which was seated in London at that time. This book is by some completely forgotten guy and you can read it here:

    https://archive.org/details/TheGreatRedDragonOrLondonMoneyPower/page/n2

    If Woolfolk is right (and I have no doubt), he helps explaining the great mystery of US history: How could the power in American politics shift completely from the WASPs to the jews without a civil war, without a single shot fired, without much moaning even. All the moaning is in retrospect by people who are completely removed from power: “How could our ancestors drop the ball?” The answer is: They never had the ball. There was no power shift. The jews were always in control.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  312. RI says:
    @Hans Vogel

    Die Warheit reist langsam, kommt aber immer an.

    • Replies: @Gast
  313. Gast says:
    @Seraphim

    Oh, now you are changing your tune, asshole. From fondly remembering the mass rape and even making fun of it now you are suddenly denying it as some kind of atrocity propaganda. I have read too many autobiographies of Germans not working in the propaganda business and just plainly describing their experiences with the horrendous behavior of the Red Army to know that this must be true. Gang rapes to death were not uncommon. You might try the memoirs of fighter pilot Erich Hartmann if you want to read about this disgusting subject.

    And your basic reading with comprehension abilities are lacking as well. I recommended the lecture of Sutton not for studying the mass rape of German women by Russian soldiers but as background for your other idiotic claims that the Russians could built a new industry beyond the the Ural while retreating from the initial devastating blows from the German army. In fact this industry was built with Western help long before. This proves that the script of WW2 was written long before the first shot was fired by powers you seem not to know. But masturbate over your tale of the great Soviet soldiers. Some people cannot reach more depth of understanding history than a common soccer fan. Yes your team won. Brag about it, mock the defeated as much you want, the powers behind your “victory” were devouring you nonetheless. And the Russians were not able to sustain themselves after the war and were dependent on food deliveries by their alleged enemies to survive. So much for the glorious Soviet Union. Perhaps you must behave as an asshole here to compensate for your miserable life.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  314. Gast says:
    @RI

    That is pure wishful thinking. We wouldn’t live in a completely falsified world if this saying was even remotely true.

    “Lügen haben kurze Beine”

    This is also very untrue. I find it very ironic that the Germans who are so easily deceived have such untrue popular sayings concerning the triumphant truth.

  315. RI says:

    Not all Germans are so easily deceived, the Germans are not easily deceveid all the time. This applies to all others, too.
    The lies have short legs, indeed.

    • Replies: @Gast
  316. Gast says:
    @RI

    Well, you must live in a completely different world. Lucky you. I am quite envious.

  317. @PhucQ

    Good point about the EU fighting Russia. However, most people in the “West” do not realize that Russia is part of Europe and that Russians are Europeans. The English, however, ar NOT Europeans, nor the Americans.

    As for the atrocities you are referring to, as well as the talking points of many commenters here, I am afraid there is no people or race that has a monopoly on atrocities and war crimes. It is my understanding that throughout the war the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS were always the best-disciplined force. Their very success against great odds and often being outnumbered attests to their strict discipline. And as you will know, rape and crimes against civilians are incompatible with discipline. The Red Army was also a well-disciplined force, except perhaps for the penal battalions and perhaps construction units. Same probably goes for the German army. Those doing the raping and plundering (and taking pictures) were probably not front line soldiers.

    Finally, you must realize that the English and Americans do not want Western Europeans to be friends wth the Russians; That would hurt their business interests and “national security”.

    As for Western Europe, it i s being ruined big time by tourist hordes, political correctness, family destroying gender fluidity, feminism, and millions of “asylum seekers” and “refugees.”

    Russia is now the true Europe.

    • Replies: @Gast
    , @Parfois1
  318. Gast says:
    @Hans Vogel

    The gang-rapes to death were almost exclusively done by front-troops. They were encouraged to do so by Ilya Ehrenburg and his ilk, so it was not a matter of ill discipline either.

    • Agree: L.K
  319. The Soviet Union was not Russia, it was a genocidal regime run by Jews and other Asiatics who used millions of drunk, stupid Russians as cannon fodder in their war against Europe.

  320. L.K says:
    @dfordoom

    Listen, telling an anti-German propagandist that he is a bloody propagandist is merely calling a spade a spade!
    You wrote above “The Germans were simply the worst of the assorted bad guys.”
    Your idiotic and completely FALSE statement tells me all I need to know about you.

    And arguments? Which bloody arguments? Your comic-book style talking points???
    Stop blowing yourself out of proportion, buddy.

  321. L.K says:
    @Fox

    You are pretending that this is all just theory, but the actions of the SU leading up to June 22, 1941, as well as the state in which the Red Army was overrun in, its armaments, disposition, the sheer number of its personnel, and the maps found in possession of the officers, German phrase books, all of this suggests readying for action, offensive action, that is.

    Absolutely.

    The huge scale and momentum of the offensive-postured Red Army military deployments cannot be explained by military manouvers or as a “mere” threat to force Germany into making further concessions in regards to new expansions of the Soviet “sphere of influence”.

    But even if we’d consider the completely unlikely scenario of those huge Soviet forces being used as “just” a blackmail device, we would still have to conclude from it that such moves alone gave the German leadership real, serious worries and reasons to attack and eliminate such a threat.

    Germany was at war with Britain and knew the US government was looking for a way to join in, all the while the “neutral”, “peaceful” Soviets used this to blackmail Germany. The actions against Rumania in the summer 1940 alone as well as their timing, while Germany was busy in the Western front, was more than enough reason for any leadership in similar conditions to be quite worried about Stalin’s intentions.
    By way of comparison, It is interesting to note modern Russia’s angry – and rightly so – reactions towards US led small scale NATO military exercises near the Russian frontiers.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  322. Anonymous[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alexandros

    That’s right. The Russians thought they had Hitler backed into a corner, as ‘everybody knew’ the Germans would never start another two-front war.

  323. Cyrano says:

    Here is why I don’t understand the long standing obsession with Russia by the west. We have already established that we – the Slavs are subhuman (someone might say, speak for yourself) – either way, let’s say that we agree with that honorable status that we are subhuman.

    Where is the glory in trying to get the upper hand on us – the “subhumans”? Why don’t you – the superhumans of the west have another go at each other – to establish once and for all who is the supreme among the super humans?

    That’s where all the glory lies – to prove that you are better than other superhumans. There is no point in proving your superiority over us. Just have one final go at each other – you, the degenerates of the west – to make benefit the 3rd world. And leave us alone, we are not worthy, we are not worthy.

  324. Khrushchev was not Ukrainian born, he was Russian born. He was born on 15 April 1894, in Kalinovka, a village in what is now Russia’s Kursk Oblast, near the present Ukrainian border. His parents, Sergei Khrushchev and Xeniya Khrushcheva, were poor Russian peasants.

  325. @Cyrano

    Who here has said that Slavs are “subhuman”?

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Johnny Rico
    , @Cyrano
  326. Seraphim says:
    @Gast

    Yours is the typical reaction of the bad looser. Like the boxer who punched his opponent all the rounds, only to be knocked-out in the last round, but arguing that he should be granted the title because his technique was superior, that he scored more ‘points’, that he sent to the floor his opponent more times and that his knock out was due to a moment of inattention when the floored opponent raised from the floor and caught him off guard. He would even argue that the victory was his, because the winner had to be hospitalized for months as a result of the blows he had to sustain.
    But war is not a sporting event between ‘teams’.
    BTW Erich Hartmann himself said (about his commander): “He was fighting a war against a superb enemy, not holding a political rally”. He shows some respect and even some admiration for the Russian soldier. But it is interesting what he said about mass rapes when he described such a scene (at which the Americans who handed over to the Russians the prisoners who surrendered to them were present and did not move a finger): “Soon a Russian general came and issued orders for all of this to stop. He was serious because some of the Russians who did not stay away and came to rape were executed on the spot by their own men by hanging”.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Gast
  327. Seraphim says:
    @Daniel Rich

    The Franco-Prussian war was still a localized European skirmish of the 19th century. The war of the 20th century was the war against Russia on a grander scale which involved extra-European powers.

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  328. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    Yours is the typical reaction of the bad looser. Like the boxer who punched his opponent all the rounds, only to be knocked-out in the last round, but arguing that he should be granted the title because his technique was superior, that he scored more ‘points’, that he sent to the floor his opponent more times and that his knock out was due to a moment of inattention when the floored opponent raised from the floor and caught him off guard.

    Yep. Hitler was like a guy who walks into a bar and starts picking fights with everybody. Then he sees this Russian guy. So he walks up to the Russian and throws a punch at him. The Russian goes down, then gets up again and proceeds to beat the daylights out of poor Adolf. And then Adolf’s fans start crying because their hero was exposed as a loser. It’s not fair they wail, that Russian guy fought back.

    You know the old saying. Winners can laugh, and losers can please themselves.

  329. Parfois1 says:
    @Hans Vogel

    It is my understanding that throughout the war the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS were always the best-disciplined force. Their very success against great odds and often being outnumbered attests to their strict discipline. And as you will know, rape and crimes against civilians are incompatible with discipline.

    “Discipline” has many meanings. A good fighting force may have excellent military discipline, yet short on the moral discipline. The Mongolian hordes are a topical example, who served as the model for the “Huns” caricature of WWI.

    You need to look at the cultural context and Russia was historically perceived by the West as a backward and uncivilized country. Add to that the “Bolshevik menace” and you have the basic ingredients to instill in the population and, therefore the military, the image that the Russian enemy is a lesser being, hence fair game .

    Now, we are not dealing only with the customary enemy portrayed by “our side”, who is always vilified before the shooting begins, as Hitler did to the Poles or Churchill to the Germans. One of the major features of the Nazi regime was its idealization of the German race as being superior to any other to foster the sublimation of a culture of entitlement and justification for its deeds no matter how base. Attacking the USSR/Russia was a crusade as well as the promised land of Lebensraum.

    Compare that to the Russians’ perception of Germans and you see a huge difference. Germans had been for many generations part of the Russian population, Germany and the USSR were both “victims” of Versailles, became partners during the Weimar Republic and, instead of inflating the superiority of the Soviet man, was all for international solidarity and co-operation.

    I have not searched for particular instances of the Soviet leadership indulging in the demonization of Germans but I am quite certain anyone who may attempt it will have a hard time indeed.

    Given all that background, and the severe discipline of Soviet institutions, one may rightly draw the conclusion that the German soldier would more likely perpetrate atrocities against the civilian population of occupied lands and the historical records testify to that fact. Although it may sound callous to the feminists here but it is rank stupidity to believe that rape is comparable to murder and many women in occupied Europe, from France to the outskirts of Moscow, were grateful for the former, not the latter.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Hans Vogel
  330. Fox says:
    @Parfois1

    Wasn’t Ehrenburg acting as the mouthpiece of the Soviet Leadership? If his orgiastic indulgence in “demonization of Germans” was just his private affair, why was he published in the Red Army paper, and how could a normal army be run if some private agitator were allowed to excite its soldiers to atrocities, distractions from front line duty, if such agitation were not in the name of the leadership. He waxes all about the (German) fascist beast, the breaking of the racial pride of German women, having fun with killing Germans (“a day in which you have not killed at least one German is a lost day”, “nothing is funnier than killing a German”, “Kill! Kill!”, you get the point, ).
    Given the fact that each German soldier carried in his Soldbuch (his ID) also the twenty rules of behavior of the German soldier, which had as one of its commands to respect the women in enemy country, I don’t know where you draw your conclusions from. von Manstein issued such reminders to his soldiers on the Eastern Front, and I don’t know of accusations of rape in France, rather the opposite, as the frequent love affairs between German soldiers and French women attest. Likewise in Norway, where several thousand children from such love affairs resulted, who, however were put into institutions after the war and treated as feeble-minded or insane.
    Rapists had to expect execution. Was that the case for the Red Army, the French Army?
    About ten years ago some woman in a higher position at the UN was making it an official tenet of this institution that the Wehrmacht was committing mass rape. Is that where you get your basic belief from?

  331. @Ron Unz

    I don’t think anyone has ever claimed 20 million Soviet *executions*

    One example…

    Nikolai Vavilov

    Vavilov began to criticize the non-Mendelian concepts of Lysenko…As a result, Vavilov was arrested…his sentence was commuted to twenty years’ imprisonment; he died of starvation in prison in 1943

    [Roll safe meme]
    You don’t need to execute sameone if they starve to death in prison.

  332. Cyrano says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    I guess the point I was trying to make is that the Slavs are not your real enemies (some of them are such a butt-kissers that they are only enemies of their own dignity – but that’s another story).

    Your enemies are not the anti-liberals and anti-progressives (US has no real liberals or progressives, they are all phonies). Also, your enemies are not the deplorables among yourselves, not even the 3worlders and the multiculturalists.

    Your enemies are not even the nouveau-Nazis (I wanted to make them sound classy). Your enemies may well turn out to be the ones who are telling you who are your enemies.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  333. @Beefcake the Mighty

    80% of Wehrmacht casualties were on the Eastern Front

    LOL. Not counting the West defeating the Luftwaffe and the strategic bombing campaign; not counting destroying the German battleship raiders and U-boats; not counting the blockade at sea cutting off Germany’s access to foreign oil; not counting Lend Lease supply convoys propping up the Soviet Union’s inefficient Communist economy.

    Not to mention that 1 September 1939 to 22 June 1941 is 1 year, 9 months of the West fighting Germany while the Soviet Union sits it out, even providing Germany with supplies of strategic resources they lacked; and that they only joined the side of the Allies when they got invaded by Germany.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  334. @Seraphim

    I agree with your grander scale notion.

    To me, the Franco-Prussian war was a wake up call to illustrious Empirical Britain, to let them know a new powerhouse [a unified Germany] was in the making and about to fully rear its roaring head, and that, in return, triggered a necessity to let it [Germany] trip first and cripple next. Others happily joined in.

    King George V [UK], Tsar Nicholas II Russia] and Kaiser Wilhelm II [Germany] were first cousins, obviously, family relations didn’t matter much in preventing the mass slaughter about to be unleashed in 1914

    It happened twice [The Great War + WWII], yet Europe’s powerhouse is still Germany.

    [a grab from wiki – not the best, I know]: “The economy of Germany is a highly developed social market economy. It has the largest national economy in Europe, the fourth-largest by nominal GDP in the world, and fifth by GDP (PPP). In 2017, the country accounted for 28% of the euro area economy according to the IMF.”

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  335. @RI

    Can you point on the map which lands USSR invaded in 1939?

    Uh…Poland.
    Soviet invasion of Poland

  336. @Parfois1

    As to the so-called “Suvorov hypothesis” – another traitor fostered by the capitalist West…

    …capitalist stooge imperialist running dogs…

  337. @Parfois1

    The entire atrocities issue, as you correctly point out, is wrought with hearsay, circumstantial evidence, (as to the veritable perpetrators), conjecture, assumptions, and many other phenomena that have been drawing a foggy blanket over the true facts for three quarters of a century now.

    Of course rape and other crimes were committed on a massive scale, especially at the Eastern Front, where 90% of all the fighting (see Norman Davies) in Europe took place.

    As Israeli historian Omer Bartov has shown, the German army was the best-disciplined, largely because infractions were ruthlessly punished (60.000 German soldiers shot for disciplinary reasons from 1943 to 1945).

    Leaving aside the Mongols, about whom, as for all medieval topics there is precious little detailed and reliable evidence allowing for a scholarly comparison with modern European situations, there can be no doubt that in a splendid fighting force such as the Wehrmacht and the Red Army, systematic rape cannot be tolerated since it erodes discipline. Of course zealots like Ilya Ehrenburg or a German counterpart like perhaps Alfred Rosenberg may have incited soldiers to behave like animals, but I find it very hard to believe that front-line soldiers doing all the fighting would heed such exhortations.

    Incidentally, one place where mass rape and murder did occur was Italy. Not by Germans, but by the Moroccans in the French army. Used to slaughtering sheep in their Riff hideouts and living a troglodyte existence, these men, especially the mule drivers, subjected entire villages to what has come to be known as marocchinate, Moroccan misdeeds. These men were certainly not first-rate combat forces, but rather a bunch of butchers and terrorists. The kind of troops that may come in useful, but do not decide the outcome of battles.

    I suggest the same kind of riffraff was largely responsible for the excesses on te Eastern Front. On both sides.

    • Replies: @Gast
  338. Gast says:
    @Seraphim

    Well, as I have said, you have the maturity of schoolboy who sees wars as some kind of sport. I used the soccer metaphor, you use the boxing one. But wars are a bit more complex than than. I am German and I am certainly not cheering for the Wehrmacht when I read accounts of the war against France (let alone rubbing it in when I am conversing with Frenchmen) because I know this was scripted by the same background forces which scripted the Russia campaign. But I know now very well that I am conversing with an idiot and asshole, so I wont waste my time with you by repeating explications about the backgrounds that you willfully ignored again.

    And it is telling for your general dishonesty that you only cited Hartmann when he described how the Soviets suddenly ended their rape orgy not how the whole horrendous event lasted.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  339. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Nice deflection. There’s no doubt that western aid was very important to the Soviet war effort, but wars are won by destroying armies, and it was the Red Army that destroyed the Wehrmacht, not the RAF (which mainly terror-bombed civilians anyway). It’s also worth remembering that the ONLY time the Americans faced German forces at anything like equal strength, they were nearly driven back to sea. The German high command may have respected American air power, but they had a very low regard for American soldiers.

  340. Gast says:
    @Hans Vogel

    Yeah, Russian mass rapings confirmed by countless memoirs are just “hearsay”, only the mass rapings in Italy were true. What a phony “German” patriot you are who happily agrees with the snake-like jew @Parfois who has clearly an Anti-German agenda. With “patriots” like you who needs enemies? “Vogel” is a jewish name too.

    • Replies: @Gast
    , @Hans Vogel
  341. Gast says:
    @Gast

    Wasn’t the jewish top jurist in the DDR a “Vogel” too?

  342. @Gast

    Reading, thinking and arguing are hard skills to master, aren’t they?

    • Replies: @Gast
  343. Gast says:
    @Hans Vogel

    Yeah, lying jew, don’t answer specific points of critique, just pretend to hold the moral high ground with babbling without any content. This tactics must be part of your Talmud training.

  344. mark3383 says:
    @dfordoom

    the best evidence there was no holocaust is that 91 year old grandmothers are thrown into jail for questioning it.

    • Agree: Iris
  345. Seraphim says:
    @Gast

    It was obvious that you are German by your knee-jerk reaction to those who don’t fall for your national myths, like denial of any responsibility for provoking two world conflagrations out of grandiose ideas they made about themselves. Germans posses admirable qualities, no doubt, but at times they can be such dullards (Dummkopfs) that it appears to be their national characteristic. It is probably due to their eating habits. Too much Kraut, Wurst, Bier dulls the mind and dampens the spirit. Try Vodka, it’s more ‘spiritual’!

    • LOL: Parfois1
    • Replies: @Gast
  346. Gast says:
    @Seraphim

    Yeah, I know that you are full of that “spirit” which must have killed most of brain cells. Normally I cannot get triggered when someone is Anti-German. But when a special asshole like you says that the Russians did the German women a favor by raping them, I can get angry. Honestly you are one of the worst assholes I have met on the internet. No shame, and dishonest with every sentence. Disgusting.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @L.K
  347. @Johnny Walker Read

    You should be aware that the document you cite was from 1987. That was a time when Larouche was very strongly critical of the USSR. I dont know the precise reason but there is a risk that at that time it would be politically convenient for Larouche to have a bias like that.
    Further it isnt the only rumour about a secret pact with the USSR involved. Mannerheim of Finland left a secret dossier he wasnt allowed to use in his memoirs, but which was later read by the veteran Erkki Hautamäki who tells of a secret pact between Britain and the Ussr one month after the M/R pact concerning a division of Scandinavia by Britain France and the Ussr.
    There is yet another theory also involving Rudolf Hess’ flight to Britain.

    [MORE]

    Sylvain Laforest suggests that Hess was held captive and was never allowed to publish anything because he knew about a genuine pact between Britain and Nazigermany to share the world after Hitler conquered the Ussr. Laforest argues that this made Hitler dare the eastern attack.
    Nikolai Starikov, from a different angle argues in a related manner about Hitler being denied any peace agreement with Britain unless he fulfilled the condition to outdo the Ussr.
    He believes the Hess flight and later isolation of Hess was to hide Britains duplicity.
    Be any of that true or untrue, but it is perfectly clear that Britain forced the M/R pact by refusing to make any deal with Stalin. The French for which the representative delegates were authorised to sign a deal confirmed that the British delegate general Drax lacked such authorisation. And Britain stalled in other ways as well, choosing a slow transport to leave as little time as possible for any deal to emerge. Britain was the only party which eagerly sought to have that eastern war. Hitler might have settled for a peace if Britain had offered it.
    Stalins priority unlike Trotsky’s was not to spread communism but to preserve the integrity and survival of Russia and the rest of the union. This meant that just like Germany had a contingency plan before WWI, so did every other country having military might. But contingency planning doesnt imply aggressive intent.
    And yet Germany’s Schlieffen plan is taken as evidence of german war guilt for WWI by the victors.
    But of course the russians knowing about Hitlers announced intent since over a decade did consider several options to figure out the optimum way to deal with it. Stalin held a speech ten years before Hitlers invasion where he anticipated it although he didnt know that Germany alone would attack. The Uk/Us knew that the soviets desperately needed machines for the industrialisation and for a period those anglosaxons demanded payment in grain for their exports of vital industry equipment. And they denied the soviets to pay in gold.
    That is one of the lesser known aspects of the starvation in Ukraine: that the anglosaxons deliberately tried to make it worse!
    Returning to the problem of Stalins intentions. Let us judge from how he went about the planned joint attack on Poland, where Stalin fooled Hitler by breaking his promise to attack simultaneously, and instead waited for weeks. This made it possible for Stalin to argue that he was liberating Poland rather than dividing it with Germany. Knowing this you have to agree that Stalin would not have wanted to offer the anglosaxons the gift of being the one who struck first in the eastern war even if he could have contemplated it.
    The whole scenario with Land lease might have turned out differently if Stalin had done what exiles like Rhezun (Suvorov) claims.
    Land lease came way to late anyway. The Soviets defended themselves without much of it in the decisive early phases according to what I have seen. But Shukov complained about the Soviet tank T74 in the beginning and american consultants helped to plan how to improve it.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  348. Seraphim says:
    @Gast

    To much Kraut makes you fart, but don’t confuse that with thinking. It’s no less disgusting.

  349. Seraphim says:
    @Daniel Rich

    It is significant that the Japanese-Russian war (the Japanese started it) coincided with the formulation of the ‘Geographical Pivot of History’ theory of Halford Mackinder, summarized in the formula: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.” Mackinder’s Heartland was the area then ruled by the Russian Empire.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  350. L.K says:
    @Gast

    Gast to the worm ‘Seraphim’

    But when a special asshole like you says that the Russians did the German women a favor by raping them, I can get angry.

    It appears to be a trait and a badge of honor for “team Russia” members to make these types of statements;

    Two lowlives upthread, one FB and the nutcase Cyrano have both cracked so many jokes about the mass rapes – often followed by murder – of German women at the hands of the Red Army under other articles.

    Real nice chaps….

    Even more pathetic is that some of them ain’t even Russian, like this ‘cyrano’… but they really, really want to come… even if it has to be with someone else’s dick.

  351. Parfois1 says:
    @Peter Grafström

    Very good and balanced comment, also a lesson on how to present and discuss an argument with clarity and concision.

  352. @Johnny Walker Read

    I personally met with Mr Rezun (aca Victor Suvorov). Many of comments here keep his parahystorical fiction in high esteem. Remind you, he was defector from the Intelligence Agency that hardly provided its members with thorough knowledge of anything but spying and killing, and certainly didn’t teach these power greedy people fundamentals of scholarship and research.

    If you like me would have chance to see him and talk to him in person you wouldn’t be so sure in his trustworthiness. Short, fidgety man, rather “clickbait” type of journalist desperate for cash. Personality of author always imprints itself in every word he types. My strong and proved belief.

    Good that I’ve red his Icebreaker series before meeting him. In original language. Hype and sensationalism I felt in his articles which flood reader with massive and redundant information and zillions footnotes matched perfectly the vulnerability bordering paranoia and total luck of self confidence I felt in this poor man.

    Just personal impressions.

    Dear lemmings, in your endless left-right punches you so generously give each other commenting this piece, you soon run to the proverbial cliff. And restless souls of hundreds of civilians killed in this War will gladly give you last push down to abyss. And there below you meet yet again with the Juggernaut Wheel of another bloody conflict that will run squashing your little helpless bodies. War, if you forget it for a moment, is about the death or survival. When it starts, ideological disputes about liberties and democracies and human rights and totalitarian regimes versus democracies vanish in thin air in no time. The disputes who was worse despot: Hitler or Stalin was already solved by millions of men who lost their lives killing each other. Hunger, filthy clothes, lice in hair, fear of rape, imminent painful death and psychological trauma caused by killing. Hardly leave large place in your mind for ideological doctrines.

    Humble advice. Don’t waste you already shrinking brains reading this author or Suvorov or another historian with agenda. Try Tolstoy instead. After all he wrote about exactly War and Peace. You will learn better from him, trust me. Even about such a technicality as the causes of both World Wars.

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  353. @Seraphim

    Yes. The British (and by extension Americans) have gone to any means (including war) to prevent a German-Russian alliance.

    • Agree: Iris
  354. @Cyrano

    You could always go back home and give our land back.

  355. @L.K

    Yes. Some of these guys have a Rachel Dolezal thing going on, a bit weird.

  356. BULLSHIT ..MAX PARRY

    There have been 2 REAL HOLOCAUSTS in Modern times in Europe

    1. The ZIO BOLSHEVIK HOLOCAUST of the RUSSIAN PEOPLE and the EAST EUROPEANS
    in the Vasal states under ZIO BOLSHEVIK RULE
    2.The HOLOCAUST perpetraded on the GERMAN PEOPLE inflicted against Germany and Europe
    by the United States, Great Britain and the former United Soviet Socialist Republics
    —all with Jewish spiritual, medial and financial backing and support

    More than 2 Million Russians fought on the side of Germany during WW 2
    They did NOT fight against their Country
    They fought FOR their Country .. for MOTHER RUSSIA …against FANATIC , MEGALOMANIAC and GENOCIDAL ZIO BOLSHEVIKS, many of these not even Russians.
    Later after WW2 especially from the 50ties these MURDEROUS EGOMANIACS fled from their Atrocities.because the Earth started burning under them .. the Russian people had had ENOUGH ! They fled to Israel , to the USA and WEST EUROPE … claiming they had been persecuted by “the System” … when the TRUTH was .. THEY HAD BEEN THE SYSTEM.
    Well arrived in the West they transformed from having been Fanatic BOLSHEVIKS into Rabbid NEO CONS and Exploitative CAPITALISTS… Approximately 3 Million Jews fled from their NOMENCLATURA Existence in the SOVJET …giving Russia the breathingspace to rise like FOENIX from the ZIO BOLSHEVIK ASHES. Unfortunately for the West they settled down there and continued their DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR .. the results of which anyone can wittness … today…

  357. Cyrano says:
    @L.K

    You beasts were responsible for close to 40 million Slavic deaths in WW2, and I am supposed to feel sorry for few thousand German geishas? You must be out of your mind. When you start feeling compassion for those dead Slavs, that’s when I’ll start feeling empathy towards the Krauts. Which by the looks of it – it will be – never.

    I’ve said it few times before, and I’ll repeat it – the Russians were too kind towards you. When they got there, the ovens were still warm from your Jewish victims, the Russians should have just continued using them with you as biofuel – turning all of you into air pollution.

    Many on this site speculate that the holocaust was a lie. It wasn’t, but if it is – you know what would have been the reason? The reason why they would have made up the holocaust story (which they didn’t) would have been because without the Jews as main victims of WW2, next in line would have been the Slavs with close to 40 million dead.

    As much as lot of people find the Jewish suffering in WW2 raised to the level of sainthood unjustified, the thought of awarding the same status to the Slavs would have been unbearable. I think that the Jews deserve the status of saints for their suffering in WW2 – not because of the absolute numbers, but because of the way they died. As for you Krauts, you don’t deserve any sympathy in any shape or form, ever.

    • Replies: @Gast
  358. The Slavic capacity for self deception is impressive. First you let a Jewish Dictatorship take over the country. Then you starve and kill your own citizens to build a world conquering army, seeking to impose the basest tyranny on the whole world. Then, when a brave European nation tells you ‘nein!’, the oy veying begins.

    Don’t worry, we neither expect nor need sympathy from people like that. We only expect death.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  359. Gast says:
    @Cyrano

    Now I know why you threw your passive aggressive hissy fit earlier. Because you really are an assholish Untermensch. Mind you, not all slavs are that in my opinion and normally I don’t think in that categories but you certainly are as well as @Seraphim (and deep down you seem to know).

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  360. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    …a thirst for greed…

    Boy, that sounds pretty bad.

    Me, I’ve got greed aplenty, but never does my greed ever assuage my thirst. Maybe I’m doing it wrong.

  361. Jett Rucker says: • Website
    @L.K

    What made the Soviet rapes crimes where Americans (British, French) doing quite similar things to German women was not (a crime) is that the Soviets didn’t pay for their victims’ cooperation, such as it was.
    Of course, the Soviets couldn’t pay, at least not like the Americans could (and did). But that was no excuse for brutalizing, even killing, their victims. Probably just intense guilt feelings …
    Poverty is embarrassing – and often as well a threat to those around you.

  362. Cyrano says:
    @Gast

    Let me tell you something about you Krauts – because you seem to be a member of that “elite” group. Those few Krauts that I’ve meet left me with impression that your kind is dull and unimaginative.

    That’s why you look for “messianic” leader to lead you, because most of you are clueless. That messianic leader used to be Adolf, and then you were lost for a while.

    Now instead of messianic leader to lead you, you have messianic foreign power to lead you. The result is going to be the same as with the Adolf. But I have no sympathy for you. You deserve it. You see, human society functions only when it finds a balance between selfishness and benevolence.

    You Krauts tend to gravitate more toward selfishness. That’s why you are so in love with the system that promotes it. Adolf was supposed to save that system from communist “barbarians”. Didn’t turn out too well. And now the nation that’s probably more in love with that system than you are – is supposed to show you the way. The result is going to be the same. Because you have no brains to think things through on your own.

    • Replies: @Gast
  363. Stalin deserved 30% of the blame. Hitler deserves 70%.

    If Hitler had not attacked the USSR, Stalin would have given support to Nazi domination of Europe.

    • Replies: @Gast
    , @RI
  364. Gast says:
    @Cyrano

    Funny that someone like you speaks of “brains to think things through on your own”. You are just hopeful that the jews could use you as a rape-dog like your ancestors, but somehow you popped too late out of some miserable womb. And while they are teasing you with their WW2 porn, they are shipping slavic women to whore houses in Israel. Yeah “big brain”, you really see the big picture.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  365. Gast says:
    @Priss Factor

    Ok, movie buff, if you say so, it must be mathematically correct. Stick to Hollywood.

    • Agree: L.K
  366. Cyrano says:
    @Gast

    No, you can see the big picture. That’s why neither the followers of the previous messiah – the Adolf, nor the followers of this one – a nation, far, far away, can tell the difference between loyalty to a country and loyalty to a system. In their phantasmagoria – those 2 are the same. They are not. The Adolf cared more about the system than the country – of course he couldn’t tell the difference either. If communism was an evil Jewish invented system, how do you explain that after close to 5 decades under that system, the Soviets left a German nation in such a pure state like it was in the 16th century. Look at the part that was under the rule of the current “messiahs” and the mess that they made. Who did more damage to the Germans, the “Jewish” system or the “democratic” one. When you figure that one out – let me know.

    • Replies: @Gast
  367. Gast says:
    @Cyrano

    If I can decode your stream of consciousness I must say that you are building your “arguments” with brazen lies:

    You seem to say that your opponents take the position that the Western system which was formerly known as “Capitalism” is untouched by the jews while only Communism is jewish. Nobody has ever taken this insane position! The standard position is that Capitalism and Communism were two side of the jewish coin.

    Another brazen lie is that Eastern Germany under Communist rule was flourishing. One could argue that it wasn’t as hellish as the current rule of Germany since the integrity of the German gene-pool wasn’t attacked, and if the race is intact there is hope for the future, while the current system makes sure that there will be no hope left very soon. But in the end the rule of middle Germany (aastern Germany was raped into oblivion because the devilish deeds of your ancestors made the East Germans flee their ancient homes) was jewish exploitation nonetheless which didn’t let the German culture and the Germans thrive. Your sentence about the “pure state like it was in the 16th century” is so insane that I won’t comment further on it.

    But what is most repulsive, is the fact that your comment is so dishonest. With all that hard to decode nonsense you only wanted to deflect from your evilness which was at display in your earlier comment in which you justified the mass rape of German women (“krauts” in you lingo). You have no shame and honesty. And I don’t see any point to “discuss” with such a subject.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
    , @Cyrano
  368. RI says:
    @Priss Factor

    Stalin 30, Hitler 70. All other particiants in the meet grinder inocent?

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  369. @RI

    Certainly.

    All others innocent, and those 30 % for Dshugashvili are way too much, after all – apart from killing ten times more Slavs than Hitler did, what did he do wrong?

    /sarcasm.

  370. @Gast

    In all probability he is a “kraut”.
    And a troll to boot.

    • Replies: @refl
  371. @ivan

    Fun fact: Kinder, Küche, Kirche is not what national socialists had in mind for women.

    Spot the error …

    • Replies: @Gast
  372. @Alexandros

    Indeed, Slavs have internalized their wartime experience to an extent almost as pathologically as Jews have:

    https://inconvenienthistory.com/2/1/1919

    Which is kind of pathetic, since unlike Jews they haven’t really benefited from this (in the sense of being able to shake down out-groups).

  373. Cyrano says:
    @Gast

    What Jews man, are you totally retarded or something? Do you realize that it’s you – the Krauts who invented the concept of fake socialism, not the Jews. The very same concept that is currently ravaging capitalism – excuse me – “democracy”. I guess your Anglo-Saxofon cousins got so enamored by the idea that they decided to copy it. It was never a great idea, and it still isn’t. But you and your clever cousins have a history of cross-referencing each other’s propaganda techniques. And then blame the Jews for everything. How original. It’s not the Jews. It’s you and your current masters. Start taking responsibility for your own degeneracy.

  374. refl says:
    @byrresheim

    He definitively is. He makes mistakes that point to a German speaker and he does not misuse the definite article, as all Slavs do at least occasionally.

    Besides, a Slav might call a German a Fritz or whatever, but never a Kraut. That would be self-insulting, as slav kitchen makes even more – and great – use of Kraut then Germans do.

    It is a pity that these threads have been invaded by an ever rising number of people who have nothing serious to say.
    Myself, at least I manage to shut up most of the time.

  375. Gast says:
    @byrresheim

    Really? He has written in this very thread “we – the Slavs”. But I am well aware that there are some miscreants out there who even lie about their basic identity while trolling every thread and feeding off negative emotions. Probably these are the worst trolls and are best completely ignored. But I as a German will at most suspend belief and not belief that @Cyrano is some German although he might have a German passport(and I don’t even have a very high opinion of most of my co-patriots).

    • Replies: @L.K
  376. @4U

    That sounds reasonable, especially since the French Army in Syria was commanded by general Weygand who was one of the few French generels who took part in fighting Bolsheviks during a large scale operation (Weygand is one of the few suspecsts regarding the Polish battle plan of 1921, however I am on the side of general Tadeusz Rozwadowski). Do you know more about this operation Pike? It could explain a strange lull which descended on the West front after Poland’s capitulation. As for this lull, the most interesting question is what did it make end? Your theory would explain the sudden Blietzkrieg against France in 1940.

    The official theory that Poles inflicted such great losses on Wehrmacht that it temporariy was unable to fight, doesn’t really glue with the general Wehrmacht resilience during WW2. However it was true that the Greeks inflicted such incapacitating losses on Italians. Well, unfortunately there were not enough Italians for everyone to fight them. By the way, the Greeks used a lot of Polish weaponry, so it shows that Poland wasn’t without a chance in a single front defensive battle. A single front plan was to shorten a defense line to Vistula, centering it around Modlin fortress which was packed with weaponry for such a case, among else, piles of so needed new armour-piercing rifles.

    One must say that the explicit, timed British guarantees turned out really bad for Poland, since Polish military strategists took for granted the promised French-British offensive in TWO weeks. This promised offensive became the cornerstone of Polish startegy, since Polish army decided that it would really have to fight just 2 weeks. The previous, more realistic defense plan proposed the immediate withdrawal from Western Poland, skipping the border battle entirely, and dugging in along Vistula and Carpathian mountains, as well as around the insular Hel peninsula, offering a beachhed for an allied intervention. Unlike Czechoslovakia, which fortified only Sudeten, Poland did fortify the Vistula line and Hel peninsula as well, which were to become either the first or the second line of defence (the latter in the case of the border battle plan). The Vistula line plan also expected military intervention of allies, but WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC deadline. In fact, it accounted for the fact that Poland maybe would be forced to fight alone even for 6 months. And that was realistic, not a 2-weeks offensive, as proved by the preparation time of French-British intervention forces for Finland (were sent to Norway, finally).

    As much as it may appear strange today, the main argument for the unrealistic border battle plan was the fact that the immediate withdrawal to Vistula could be later interpreted by the Great Powers as Polish renunciation of its Western territories, and they could therefore stay German even after Germany losing a war (sic!!!!). Remember, those were ‘lost’ German territories.

    If you analyze the 1939 September campaign, you notice that the cohesion of Polish army kind of disintegrates after two weeks, despite putting a pretty good fight earlier (better than the French later; during night attacks – for protection from German airpower – in a man against man fight, the Polish infantry thrashed several German infantry divisions, among them SS division “Germania”), with only Hel continuing the staunch resistance until 2.10.1939 in the vain expectation of ‘Allied landing’. This is the testimony to the fact that the Polish army expected to fight alone only 2 for weeks. Even the ever-wary Stalin waited for the French-British offensive; this is why Soviet troops entered Poland only on 17 September (17= 14 + 3). This very fact is also a small consolation for Poles since it shows that even the cunning Uncle Joe was so befuddled by British/French diplomatic chicanery that he wasn’t really sure what was going on. That are also slightly exonerating circumstance for the Soviets, since it shows that they weren’t really so intent on attacking Poland after all, and rather just took the advantge of opportunity, in the way Poland did in 1938, taking part in the partition of Czechoslovakia. Poles did it to the Czech, Soviets did it to Poles, but Germans started it all.
    Against Soviets speaks the fact that Soviet Union and Poland had the clear non-aggression treaty, valid until 1944. And this treaty, by the way, barred Poland from joining Germany against Soviet Union. So in this way, Soviet Union betrayed the clearly stated Polish good faith, even though the Soviets denied any attack, claiming that they only “entered Polish territory due to the collapse of the Polish state in order to protect Belarusians and Ukrainians (sometimes they love Chochols, you see)”.

    Surely Stalin did learn something from the fate of Poland, when after 1941 he harrassed Anglo-Americans with incessant demands of a second front ‘Now! Show me your attack plans! Now!!!’. This is what Poland should have done, too. No plans – words were empty. Well, romantic Poles surely were guilty of wishful thinking as hell.

  377. @4U

    Danzig. To understand the Danzig problem from the Polish perpsective, it is instructive to look a bit further into the past, as far as to the war of Danzig with the Polish king Stefan Batory in the 16th century. Danzig prospered only because the Polish trade with Western Europe was being moved by Vistula; you could compare Danzig to Rotterdam and Vistula to Rhine, or even better, Danzig of 1939 to Hong Kong 2019.
    So if Danzig were to become German, that would naturally rise Polish fears that later time would come for taking Poland itself, i.e. Vistula area, since Poland is “Lebensraum” of Danzig. However, Poland was ok with the international status quo of Danzig since it built the port of Gdynia to sidestep Danzig if necessary. The construction of Gdynia essentially removed the necessity of taking Danzig over. So, no, a plan to conquer Danzig ONLY did not exist. The Danzig offensive was to be executed only as a part of a general war with Germany, in order to secure this port for Western supplies and reduce a danger for Gdynia (they were very close); taking Danzig was a necessity of war, not a necessity of peace. In the end Danzig issue became a matter of prestige rather than necessity for Poland, unfortunately.
    In fact, Danzig plight had worsened after Gdynia construction – Danzig became a port without land, so to say. The very special status of Danzig after WWI reflected this conundrum – of German population economically dependent on Poland.
    The Germans of Danzig found themselves in the impossible situation of hating Poland, yet being dependent on it for their prosperity, Hong Kong – like. It is well known that German mindset has serious problems with accepting ambiguity and cognitive dissonance, in the Danzig case, of being dependent on their ‘inferiors’, Slavs, so in the end NSDAP was very sucessful there.

    However, I would like to stress that the very efficient construction of a maritime port from the scratch, Gdynia, does show the best side of Poland, namely the Polish aptitude for visionary thinking and constructive rather than destructive way of solving problems.

    • LOL: L.K
  378. Gast says:

    ” namely the Polish aptitude for visionary thinking and constructive rather than destructive way of solving problems”

    Now I have heard it all, I guess.

  379. L.K says:
    @Gast

    Cyrano has claimed to be Serbian b4.

    What is certain tough, is that ‘cyrano’ is a depraved troll and a total nutcase.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  380. @4U

    The only thing that is not true is that Poles somehow ‘welcomed’ concentration camps. If anything, that were Jews (as long as they did not know that that were concentration camps). There is a theory that at the beginning Germans peacefully ‘invited’ the construction of ghettos by selling it to Jews as a fulfillment of a long-cherished Jewish dream about ‘autonomy’ and ‘exterteritoriality’. This is why inside ghettos were essentially garrisoned by Jewish police, neither Germans nor Poles. What is now depicted as the perverse necessity of the time – Judenräte and their Jewish police – originally was seen by Jews as a PRIVILEGE, a kind of liberation from Poland and its laws, autonomous goverment at last…
    Later, of course, Jews realized that the German candy wasn’t sweet at all. Unfortuantely, they had already eaten the candy….
    This is an interesting theory which at least explains some paradoxes of Jewish “willing victim attitude”, but it is of course a fringe theory of a Polish historian, Ewa Kurek, since one of it premises is that Jews, at least at the beginning of German occupation, did not act under duress. The theory is somehow supported by Ringelblum archive, where there is not much trace of Jews ‘waiting’ for Polish help (since they did not want to live with Poles, they do not wait for their coming). One of theory unwelcomed corollaries is also the impression that Jews – sort of – were duped by their own culture, the culture of slavish obedience to their “Elders”, so to say. The theory also explains – sort of – Polish passivity towards Jewish suffering: the Jews brought that, literally, upon themselves, by having eagerily jumped on German propositions. It is too much to expect that Poles were to save Jews from themselves if Jews willingly built their own walls…. But of course many Poles did have compassion for Jews, as showed by the famous poem of Czeslaw Milosz, Campo di Fiori. Now, how many poems on Jewish or Slavic suffering were written by Germans during the Third Reich? Not a one, which does support thesis about the exceptional selfishness of Germans, as well that that Germans are tacitly convinced that they are the final measure of anything.

    The entire Ringelblum archive, the archive of Warsaw ghetto, has recently been published in both Polish and Jiddish, with some parts available in English, too (the English translation project is going on, albeit much more slowly than the previous translation from Jiddish to Polish) – this is a mine of what daily living in a ghetto was like, in thousands and thousands pages. In short, enforced cheerfulnees with confusion & despair everywhere as a subtext. This is an archive not only of official documents, but above all, documenting cultural, political and economic life of ghetto, discussion about Palestine and Jewry.
    There were cabarets, theaters, restaurants, political parties, newspapers etc…. the ghetto social life was rich. Its founder, Emmanuel Ringelblum was a librarian in his pre-war time, and decided to continue this collecting activity in ghetto, with a team of helpers.
    However, American donors do not seem to be very interested in bringing out this treasure of the wartime Jewish social life into English, the only full editions up to date being the Polish one and the Jiddish one, the latter only in the electronic form. A bit strange, I would say; so much Jew trashing around and here thousands and thousands of pages of REAL ghetto documents, completely unlike some Eli Wiesel-like memories. The online versions of documents have been recently taken down, too.

    https://www.jhi.pl/en/ringelblum-archive/book-series-rigelblum-archive

    I really think that Jews should give a pass to Poland: the Polish saved the highest number of Jews, the Polish did help in those very few instances when ghettos took upon arms (two, Warsaw and Bialystok) and started to shoot at Germans, the Polish commemorated Jewish suffering in literature, the Polish pretty early did inform the Allies about the Jewish plight, the Polish undergorund state did create a special department charged with helping Jews (Żegota), the Polish underground state did shoot at Polish collaboreteurs and schmalcovniki; well, compare that to the joyful Arisierung in German lands. It was Arisierung as der Wirtschaftsfaktor (economic policy) that was the main vehicle of persecution of Jews by ordinary Germans since Arisierung policy created interest in persecution of Jews on the side of common Germans. Arisierung is still almost total tabu in Germany and Austria, since the majority of arised assets have never been returned; this is why German Vergangenheitsbewältigung propagates the picture of SS-crimes, and maybe of Wehrmacht, (from time to time) but totally sidesteps ordinary Germans, since acknowledging Arisierung would go against the standard idea of Germans ‘temporarily getting mad between 1933-45’ since Arisierung was a policy of creating economic gain for ordinary Germans through Jews persecution.

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

    Ewa Kurek book:

    Milosz poem:
    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/49751/campo-dei-fiori

  381. Realist says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    He’s our resident porch monkey.

    We have more than one…we have a plethora of them.

  382. Johan says:

    Russia being one of the last bastions, already affected by Western liberalism, when the strongman leaves the stage, they will jump on it like power hungry wolves and hyenas. Whereas for now, they are moving around their prey, spitting out lies and framing. They know that being a democracy is what makes Russia vulnerable, democracy allows them to take over, to fool the sleepwalking masses, to divide and rule the politicized people, to disrupt and control is their game, so they must associate Putins strongman’s Russia with totalitarian regimes.

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 become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Max Parry Comments via RSS