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

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_482986687

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

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

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

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

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

ORDER IT NOW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORDER IT NOW

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORDER IT NOW

There are some exceptions. Several years ago, I came across a website debate on the topic, and one strong critic claimed that Suvorov’s theories had been totally debunked by American military historian David M. Glantz in Stumbling Colossus, published in 1998. But when I ordered and read the book I was sorely disappointed. Although purporting to refute Suvorov, the author seemed to ignore almost all of his central arguments, and merely provided a rather dull and pedantic recapitulation of the standard narrative I had previously seen hundreds of times, laced with a few rhetorical excesses denouncing the unique vileness of the Nazi regime. Most ironically, Glantz emphasizes that although Suvorov’s analysis of the titanic Russo-German military struggle had gained great attention and considerable support among both Russian and German scholars, it had been generally ignored in the Anglo-American world, and he almost seems to imply that it can probably be disregarded for that reason. Perhaps this attitude reflected the cultural arrogance of many American intellectual elites during Russia’s disastrous Yeltsin Era of the late 1990s.

ORDER IT NOW

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
• Category: History • Tags: American Pravda, Iosef Stalin, Russia, World War II 
The American Pravda Series
Hide 773 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Duglarri says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @RobinG
    Thanks for expressing this so well. Early in this essay, Ron leaves a huge clue -

    ....Viktor Suvorov, was a veteran Soviet military intelligence officer who had defected to the West in 1978 and subsequently published a number of well-regarded books ....
     
    What was his audience for this "hypothesis," and who regarded his books so highly?
    , @Anon
    So Stalin’s desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn’t happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt’s messages, the rebuff of Churchill’s warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge’s transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Like Stalin (as the excellent article points out) the allies expertly manoeuvred Germany into war. The West continues to wage war without declaration in countries like Libya and Syria whilst blaming its victims. It's a most revolting exhibition.
    , @Bendin of Poland
    It did not happened.
    Stalin planned to attack in around 25 June 1945.
    He had all indicators that he will roll over Germans in less than week time.
    Turns out tottaly demoralised by "the victory" in Finland Red Army decided to flee the next "Glorious" massacre.

    Suvorow is the military officer and part time pop-historian.
    Try this source - http://www.solonin.org/en
    , @jilles dykstra
    Blame is a subjective judgment.
    What Stalin wanted, as his grandson stated flatly in an interview, was world domination.
    The Comintern was for creating communist revolutions all over the world.
    The WWII problem was that also FDR wanted world domination, that Churchill hoped to keep world domination, and that Japan sought domination of a large part of Asia.
    Hitler just wanted to resurrect the Germany of before 1914.
    About Sorge, his mission was to find out if Japan would attack the USSR.
    He reported to Moscow that it would not.
    This made it possible to transfer troops from the east to the west after Hitler's attack.
    The Japanese were very naive about Stalin, even in 1945 they had the illusion that Stalin could be an honest broker between Japan and USA with GB.
    Robert J.C. Butow, 'JAPAN'S Decision to Surrender', Stanford, 1954
    F.W. Deakin and G.R. Storry, 'The case of Richard Sorge', New York, 1966
    , @Silva
    "The sneering response to Roosevelt’s messages, the rebuff of Churchill’s warning" - can you elaborate on those?
    , @Ron Unz

    So Stalin’s desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn’t happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt’s messages, the rebuff of Churchill’s warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge’s transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?
     
    Without being too rude, this is simply the "Saturday morning cartoons" version of World War II.

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

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

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

    But to make this claim that Stalin, and not Hitler, started World War II- is quite absurd.
     
    Indeed it is absurd, but it is not made as far as I can see. Perhaps I missed it.

    Even if Stalin was planning to initiate a war with Hitler
     

    Even if Hitler was planning to initiate a war with Stalin
     
    Potato, potato.
    , @jacques sheete

    But to make this claim that Stalin, and not Hitler, started World War II- is quite absurd.
     
    The Commie International, backed by millionaire Reds in New "Yoik" and London started the war.
    Pretty much the same bunch who started WW1 as well.

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

    Cui bono???
    , @AriusArmenian
    Duglarri took the words right out of my mouth. I had the same reaction.

    I also see this emerging thinking to put the blame for WW2 on Stalin as consistent with other actions of the US since the end of the Cold War: US support for fascists and jihadis in the Balkans, Chechnya, and Azerbaijan; US support for Al Qaeda and ISIS in the MENA; the US/CIA backed coup in Ukraine with western Ukrainian fascists; the US/EU/CIA use of jihadis against the Syrian people. The US itself has emerged from the Cold War as a fascist rogue state. The world wide struggle of the 21st century is how to deal with the US to neutralize, defeat, or exhaust it.
    , @AlexK
    It's simply amazing how many pundits out there are making outrageous claims supported by "factual data" (pulled out from their behinds) trying to turn upside down a common view on historical events...
    Completely agree with Duglarri that "...this claim that Stalin, and not Hitler, started World War II- is quite absurd"... I would add that it's not only absurd - it’s a LUNACY.
    , @Svigor

    But the claim that Stalin was responsible for World War II- wait, hadn’t that war already been in progress for close to two years when by this thesis Stalin’s initiation of the war was pre-empted by brave Adolf’s invasion?
     
    The Soviets were largely responsible for WWII, yes. They scared the living shit out of Europe, and rightly so. This was probably a necessary condition of Hitler's rise to power (the Soviets had murdered well over 12m people before Hitler even became chancellor). Hitler's warmongering was politically predicated on the Soviet monstrosity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. CanSpeccy says: • Website

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Managed to avoid, according to Hoggan, Bullitt told him in 1946 or so that FDR and Stalin already had a deal in 1933.
    It is also asserted that just the additional guarantee by FDR to Poland in August 1939 made the Poles decide to go on with provoking war.
    , @Anon
    To avoid having Britain and France declare war on Russia could hardly have been difficult. Britain and France undoubtedly hoped... to again have Russia as an ally... So obviously neither Britain or France was likely to declare war on Russia over Poland...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    As for Stalin's offensive military posturing in 1941 if indeed such as extensive...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    But if Stalin was probably genuinely surprised by events and ended up taking a good chunk of Europe by accident, FDR was very possibly not surprised by Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and used that as pretext to spread US hegemony over the Pacific. In the end, the US was far more expansive and hegemonic than the Soviets ever were. Even the Soviet expansion into Asia was accidental. The US requested it. Stalin was more than willing to keep his peace pact with Japan until the US tempted Stalin with spoils in Asia.
    , @jacques sheete
    Good points as usual.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. AKAHorace says:

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

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

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

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

    If the Sovs were so prepared for an aggressive invasion, how did they mess up their invasion of Finland so much ?
     
    The enormous difficulties the Soviet Army experienced in the 1939 Winter War against Finland has always been cited as powerful evidence of their terrible weakness, and I had always accepted that. But Suvorov very persuasively argues that this is a severe misunderstanding.

    The Finns had created one of the strongest defensive lines anywhere in Europe, strongly supplemented by the extremely difficult natural terrain and the harsh weather. Outside observers had argued that no army anywhere in the world could penetrate it. Yet the Soviets did, though at the expense of enormous casualties.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    And, it would have been an easy matter for the Soviets to seize the oil fields in Ploesti in the summer of 1941, and put a stranglehold on the Wehrmacht, vs. a winter invasion of Finland.
    , @Mikhail

    If the Sovs were so prepared for an aggressive invasion, how did they mess up their invasion of Finland so much ?
     
    They didn't take the Finns as seriously as they should've. Around the same time, the Soviets did much better against the Japanese, who were taken seriously on account of what transpired in 1905. In addition, the Soviets had overall better quality troops in the far-east, when compared to the ones that initially engaged against the Finns.

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

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

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

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

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

    , @Svigor
    Good question. The Finns mauled the Russians even worse than the Germans did, relatively speaking.
    , @Forte Shadesof
    A central thesis of the book is that the red army performed well in Finland and ideas to the contrary are wrong. They broke through the Mannerheim Line in 3 months in -40 degree weather.

    What other army could fight in that temperature let alone defeat entrenched defenders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. RobinG says:
    @Duglarri
    So Stalin's desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn't happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt's messages, the rebuff of Churchill's warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge's transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Eagle Eye says:

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lt. Greyman, NVA
    How about "200 Years Together" by Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, a book which analyzes the role the Jews (especially western jews) played in the horrors of the early soviet murders.

    Published in Russian and German, no English publishing house would do the translation because of its criticism of the jews.

    Favorite Quote: “We cannot state that all Jews are Bolsheviks. But without Jews, there would never have been Bolshevism. For a Jew, nothing is more insulting than the truth. The blood maddened Jewish terrorists have murdered sixty-six million in Russia from 1918 to 1957.”

    Good Book.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. ‘…Then at almost the last moment, Hitler suddenly realized the strategic trap into which he had fallen, and ordered his heavily outnumbered and outgunned troops into a desperate surprise attack of their own on the assembling Soviets…’

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Not to mention that documents pertaining to Generalplan Ost date back to at least 1939.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Duglarri
    So Stalin's desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn't happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt's messages, the rebuff of Churchill's warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge's transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor

    No, if Germany had not invaded Russia in 1941, it would not have been remembered as a World War. It would have been a limited European War. It was the invasion of Russia, plus Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, plus Hitler’s declaration on the US that made it a world war. So, WWII really began in 1941 but has origins in events in 39.
     
    This is silly. I often see this childish view that the USA had no choice but to invade German-occupied Europe and then Germany because "whelp, by golly, Germany declared war on us, and anybody who declares war on us gets invaded, goshdarnint."

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

    , @Svigor

    In retrospect, this makes sense. But prior to 1941, Stalin and USSR regime were hardly better than Nazi Germany. And they had, at least til then, killed many more innocent people.
     
    WTF? As you allude to, the USSR had murdered 12m people in the Holodomor alone before Hitler rose to power. "Hardly better"? The Nazis were friggin' angels compared to the Soviets. The USSR was consistently worse, right on through the war, and into the postwar period. The Nazis were never as bad as the USSR, at any point, unless one looks only through a misanthropic Jewish/communist lens.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Horst says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There is other evidence that I cannot find right now, that suggest Stalin was in regular contact with Western planning sources.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Anonymous[392] • Disclaimer says:

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

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

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

    Anyway, glad to see you posting articles again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Wally says:
    @Duglarri
    So Stalin's desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn't happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt's messages, the rebuff of Churchill's warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge's transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pay attention and get out more often.

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

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Agree: Curmudgeon
    • Replies: @DFH

    France and Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around, France & Britain started WWII.
     
    But Hitler declared war on Poland.
    , @Tyrion 2
    Britain tried to have peace with Hitler. We laid down a very clear boundary - the invasion of Poland - after appeasing him in various of his somewhat justified issues with the results of the Treaty of Versailles.

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

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

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

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

    And note that France and Britain did not declare war on the communist USSR who invaded Poland from the east.
     
    The Nazi attack came first and was met with Polish resistance. The Soviets didn't face as much resistance on account that many of the Polish citizens in that area, were non-Poles, who weren't so compelled to defend Poland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Also, GB had not delcared war on USSR because guarantee of Polish bordered specificied in a secret addendum that borders are guaranteed only against Germany.
    , @Curmudgeon
    Also note that France invaded Germany on September 7, 1939, but were pushed back. Germany did not invade France at that time, and offered peace.
    , @22pp22
    Timeline.

    Germany invades Poland.

    Britain and France threaten to declare war

    Britain and France do declare war.

    Russia invades Poland.

    Ergo. The invasion of Poland kicked off the war.

    , @AI
    USSR did not invade Poland, they only liberated and returned Belarus and the West Russian territories occupied by Poland after the WWI.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Are you sufficiently knowledgeable about International Law from time to time over the last 150 years or so, and which countries acknowledged relevant parts of it (unlike China in the South China Sea for example) tp be able tp say that there were clear legal rights and wrongs in the old Czarist Empire's territories circa 1918? When did the Bolshevik government back then have to be recognised, as a matter of law, as the lawful sovereign government of former Czarist territories (and which of them considering the number of escapes by Finland, Poland etc.)?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Zamyatin says:
    @Duglarri
    So Stalin's desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn't happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt's messages, the rebuff of Churchill's warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge's transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Indeed, there were plenty of other German areas in the east, which were highly beneficial to the host countries, and most of all, Germany wanted it's stolen land back, most of which was in the east.

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

    , @Anonymous
    So are you saying that, after the creation of the Turkish republic and the establishment of monarchies in Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Jordan inter alia, Hitler was thinking of Lebensraum in the Middle East and not in European Russia, Ukraine etc.? Really?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Duglarri
    So Stalin's desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn't happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt's messages, the rebuff of Churchill's warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge's transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    You mean 1941?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Duglarri
    So Stalin's desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn't happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt's messages, the rebuff of Churchill's warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge's transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @CanSpeccy

    Although Germany and Russia both invaded Poland, the latter managed to avoid being dragged into any war with Poland’s erstwhile allies.
     
    To avoid having Britain and France declare war on Russia could hardly have been difficult. Britain and France undoubtedly hoped, in the expected event of a renewal of the European civil war, to again have Russia as an ally who would do the bulk of the fighting and dying, as in the First World War. So obviously neither Britain or France was likely to declare war on Russia over Poland, a country of no importance to either of them.

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. I think Suvorov’s thesis is not likely to be correct.

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    In 1941 when the Germans invaded the USSR, they and their allies outnumbered the USSR forces by about 3.5 million to 2.5 million.
     
    Actually, the Soviet military forces probably numbered more like 5.5 million. But the ratio of bodies is far less significant than that of equipment. According to Suvorov, the Soviets tanks deployed along the border were far superior to anything the Germans possessed, and also outnumbered them more than 7-to-1. The Soviet advantage in warplanes was also enormous.
    , @Olorin
    The point of mechanized war is to replace troop numbers with machines.

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

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

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

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

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

    Let's use a less known example.

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

    All this in a nation of about 1 million people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    , @KenH

    In 1941 when the Germans invaded the USSR, they and their allies outnumbered the USSR forces by about 3.5 million to 2.5 million.
     
    That's not correct. The Germans only launched Barbarossa with two million men per most accounts. The Russians easily had 2-3 times that many especially with 2.5 million surrendering to the Germans in the first several months of the invasion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Although Germany and Russia both invaded Poland, the latter managed to avoid being dragged into any war with Poland’s erstwhile allies.
     
    To avoid having Britain and France declare war on Russia could hardly have been difficult. Britain and France undoubtedly hoped, in the expected event of a renewal of the European civil war, to again have Russia as an ally who would do the bulk of the fighting and dying, as in the First World War. So obviously neither Britain or France was likely to declare war on Russia over Poland, a country of no importance to either of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    On another point that you raise, Stalin appears to have miscalculated on when the Germans would attack the USSR. Soviet shipments of raw materials were going to Germany as the Nazis attacked the USSR.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. gT says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Given Europe's status today, I almost wish Stalin had taken all of Europe. That way, there would have been no mass invasion from Africa and Muslim nations. Communism would have smothered bad ideas like feminism. (Communist ideal of feminism for unity and equality between men and women, not an anti-male screed that is feminism in the West.) Also, leftist tyranny under communism would have turned almost all of Europe in the nationalist and rightwing direction... as happened in Poland and Hungary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. utu says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    But even if Stalin did intend to invade Germany, it was no less true that Hitler's ambition was to invade Russia. So, neither side was thinking defensively or reactively but offensive. Just like USSR and US were in the Space Race to outpace the other, maybe Hitler and Stalin were like two gunslingers in a Western itching to outdraw the other. It wouldn't have been offensive vs defensive but offensive vs offensive. So, Stalin's aggressive intentions, if indeed such existed, doesn't justify Hitler's equally aggressive intentions. So, even if Stalin had aggressive aims, so did Hitler. Hitler would likely have done what he did even if Stalin had no intention of attacking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. I would not dispute Suvorov’s claim, which clearly fits with the well known Red Army deployments, that Stalin did intend to attack Nazi Germany and conquer Europe, and had made his dispositions accordingly.

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    This I will dispute: “Hitler suddenly realized the strategic trap into which he had fallen, and ordered his heavily outnumbered and outgunned troops into a desperate surprise attack”.
     
    Suvorov argues that the key turning point in Hitler's perspective had been during 1940 when Stalin's new demands on Romania made him suddenly realize how enormously vulnerable his only substantial oil supply was to a Soviet attack. Without Romanian oil, Germany's entire war machine would have collapsed. Similarly, Stalin also had gained a potentially crucial choke-point over shipments of Swedish iron ore.

    To my knowledge there was no such sudden realisation by Hitler, the attack on the USSR was long planned and fitted to his established ideology just as much as Communist plans of global conquest.
     
    I'd strongly urge you to read David Irving's very detailed historiography on Hitler's goals and plans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla

    They invaded or opposed USSR to ‘fight bolshevism’ – that means., to fight for capitalism and Western Imperialism, and to pillage and cut a piece for themselves.
     
    Capitalism and Communism are not the only options. Just because one opposes Communism does not automatically make that person a Capitalism imperialist. After all, since Wall Street financed many Communist movements around the world including the Bolsheviks, Communism and Capitalism seem like good friends to me behind the scenes.

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

    , @Anon

    Fascist and quasi-fascist Finland
     
    Huh?

    Poland
     
    Not in 1941.

    Why in the West such a book was conceived, sponsored and promoted?
     
    As Ron points out, nobody in the Anglosphere paid much attention to it.

    vulture of Poland
     
    OK...

    later – the Marshall Plan
     
    Hitler was this thing called "dead" at that point.

    Fascism is a product of capitalism
     
    Actually, if you study Mussolini you'll find it's much more plausibly a product of Marxist theory.

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

    Otherwise you make some good points.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. I will wait for some expert to comment on this, but as a layman at first glance there are two things in these arguments that seem ridiculous to me – why would tanks that can simply shed their tracks or those that can cross bodies of water be useless in defense? In fact the second type seems like something very useful precisely for defending a territory like Russia. And is that 1 million soviet paratroopers figure a typo? Because it seems completely ridiculous and impossible on the face of it.

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    And is that 1 million soviet paratroopers figure a typo? Because it seems completely ridiculous and impossible on the face of it.
     
    Suvorov quotes that astonishing figure for government-certified parachutists directly from official Soviet sources, and indeed the Soviets had also produced the world's only line of air-mobile tanks.

    Even though I have Icebreaker and the other books in my parents’ library I’ve never read them, if only because of the name. Perhaps it’s too much prejudice on my end and his books are worth reading.
     
    I would strongly urge you to do so, and judge for yourself. But that book appeared 30 years ago, and spending $20 on his more recent 2008 version, incorporating a great deal of additional material, would probably be even better.
    , @Arioch

    a genius who served so many years over so many wars in Europe and didn’t lose a single battle.
    So someone replacing his (admittedly uncool) family name “Rezun” with “Suvorov”
     
    that was the surname.
    ....and his name on top of that hi changed to Viktor - "winner".

    So, total lack of tact and measure....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Never Again!

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

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

    There is a clear public health rationale for jew control.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Silva says:
    @Duglarri
    So Stalin's desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn't happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt's messages, the rebuff of Churchill's warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge's transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Silva says:

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. The book has been published (and extensively debated) in Russian, and the general consensus in Russia is that the data on military build-up/production cited doesn’t match up with their records.

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. “when Germany’s innovative tactics allowed it to achieve a lightening defeat the allied armies in France during 1940.”

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Brabantian says: • Website

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Czechoslovakia was an artificial state constructed at Versailles. Munich simply exposed this, as the Czech residual fell into chaos immediately. As this residual was geographically a dagger sticking into Reich territory, the Germans had little choice but to intervene.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Not persuasive. It is similar to Igor Bunich’s theses, which are nothing more than fiction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Bunich

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Erratum: lightening

    Hitler suddenly realized the strategic trap into which he had fallen

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. chris m says:

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. DFH says:
    @Wally
    Pay attention and get out more often.

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

    www.codoh.com

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

    But Hitler declared war on Poland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    If any Brit leader back to Henry VIII had done to and in Poland what Hitler did, the entire Anglosphere would chirp in unison that it was an act to help a small nation become free.
    , @Wally
    So did the USSR.

    www.codoh.com
    , @Curmudgeon
    Well, so he did. However, that was after all peace offerings were rejected, and the Polish Army had mobilized toward Germany.
    Try this on for size:
    http://www.tomatobubble.com/smigly_rydz.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @AKAHorace
    This is very interesting, I have enjoyed Suravovs books about the GRU.

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Ron Unz says:
    @AKAHorace
    This is very interesting, I have enjoyed Suravovs books about the GRU.

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    "Outside observers had argued that no army anywhere in the world could penetrate it. " - weak evidence. That sounds like a description of the Maginot Line.

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

    A possible comparison is Germany itself. What if Germany had conquered all of Europe in WWII? It seems they would have ended up as the dominant state in a confederation of semi-independent underling European states.
    , @Anon
    You will think I have parachutists on the brain but one thing I notice about the Winter War was the complete absence of significant airborne operations from the million-man Soviet paratroop army. This makes me think that Soviet "paratroopers" were intended to be used as general light infantry.
    , @Anarcho-Supremacist
    Question. Would the world really have been worse off if Stalin did launch this war?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @AKAHorace
    This is very interesting, I have enjoyed Suravovs books about the GRU.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    does not automatically make that person a Capitalism imperialist
     
    If you are either marching to the east with Nazi Germany, or pillage Easten Asia with Japan, or maintain your colonial Empire, or sponsor Hitler like J.P. Morgan and Rockfellers, General Electric, Ford, etc. - you are still capitalist, imperialist and fascist - whatever third, fourth and n-th ways you may tell us about. Their motto was like 'even together with devil, but against the Bolsheviks'. That means being: 1) with devil 2) against Russia - and that concept still stands in the West.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Bendin of Poland
    It did not happened.
    Stalin planned to attack in around 25 June 1945.
    He had all indicators that he will roll over Germans in less than week time.
    Turns out tottaly demoralised by "the victory" in Finland Red Army decided to flee the next "Glorious" massacre.

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

    You mean 1941?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Ron Unz says:
    @Spisarevski
    I will wait for some expert to comment on this, but as a layman at first glance there are two things in these arguments that seem ridiculous to me - why would tanks that can simply shed their tracks or those that can cross bodies of water be useless in defense? In fact the second type seems like something very useful precisely for defending a territory like Russia. And is that 1 million soviet paratroopers figure a typo? Because it seems completely ridiculous and impossible on the face of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Suvorov quotes that astonishing figure for government-certified parachutists directly from official Soviet sources
     
    There must have been something weird going on with Soviet paratroop certifications, because the figure makes absolutely no sense, especially for an army in such a wretched state (they did have great tanks though as I recall, and I may easily be wrong, training for tankers was severely flawed) as the Red army of 1940-1.
    , @Tyrion 2

    (*) During the early years of World War II, the Germans effectively utilized paratroops and air-mobile forces to seize key enemy targets far behind the front lines during a major offensive, and this was an important component of their victories against France in 1940 and Greece in 1941. Such units are necessarily lightly armed and no match for regular infantry in a defensive battle; hence their only role is an offensive one. Germany entered the war with 4,000 paratroops, a far larger force than anything found in Britain, France, America, Italy, or Japan. However, the Soviets had at least 1,000,000 trained paratroopers, and Suvorov believes that the true total was actually closer to 2,000,000
     
    If these are from government figures then those figures are of the "we pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us" variety. Paratrooper training is not for everyone. Most soldiers in modern professional armies are not even able to finish the training.

    Also, a key principal of defence is to maintain an offensive spirit. Paratroopers would have been perfectly useful in a defence in depth strategy of the Soviet Union.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Brabantian
    Bravo to Ron Unz for bringing to our attention, yet more significant research and thinking neglected by the Western media controllers

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @All we like sheep
    From the Axis-History Forum:
    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=34521
    The Czech army was indeed formidable for one.

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

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

    Skoda was a famous company which made guns and during ww1 they made one of the biggest guns in the war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Ron Unz says:
    @Jon Halpenny
    I think Suvorov's thesis is not likely to be correct.

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
    The historian Christer Bergstrom claims the Axis superiority was actually about 4.5 million against 2.3 million Soviet troops in the western districts. Obviously the Soviets had more troops in other districts. But if they had wanted to invade central Europe it seems obvious they would have deployed far more troops in the western districts. https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/operation-barbarossa-9-popular-myths-busted/
    , @DR-Montreal
    Numbers the Soviets had, but a close examination of the state of their forces June 1941 reveals a force struggling to become even tactically operational--lack of supplies, lack of prime movers to even move their artillery resulting in acquisition of local farm tractors, tank divisions and corps completely green and unable to operate effectively, tanks with poor or no optics and no radios etc etc.

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

    Defense in depth does not = imminent plans to attack.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Malla says:

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

    From

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

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

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

    ..snip….

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

    …snip….

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

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

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

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

    BTW check out Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa launch speech.

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Tyrion 2 says:

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. Ron Unz says:
    @Simon in London
    I would not dispute Suvorov's claim, which clearly fits with the well known Red Army deployments, that Stalin did intend to attack Nazi Germany and conquer Europe, and had made his dispositions accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    "Stalin’s new demands on Romania made him suddenly realize how enormously vulnerable his only substantial oil supply was to a Soviet attack."

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

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

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Rezun's opera are neglected and despised in Russia, and not because being regarded as traitor's evidence. People have historical memory, and no sane person in Russia remembers any grandpa telling how they dreamed of 'conquering Europe'. 'Conquering Europe' was simply unthinkable and by any standard not needed for USSR. It was surrounded by enemies - Nazi Germany, Fascist and quasi-fascist Finland, Romania and Poland, Imperial Japan - countries with military capability and recent military conflicts that were not so easy for USSR. To steamroll over all of them in 1930's - was a madman's idea. On top of that, France and England had plans to declare war to USSR and bomb or takeover it's oil fields in 1940-1941. And don't forget USSR kept millions in the East, awaiting for another attack from Japan until 1942.

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

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

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

    Fascist and quasi-fascist Finland

    Huh?

    Poland

    Not in 1941.

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

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

    vulture of Poland

    OK…

    later – the Marshall Plan

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

    Fascism is a product of capitalism

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

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

    OK…

    Otherwise you make some good points.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. After this, the war seesawed back-and-forth for four more years, until superior numbers and improved tactics …

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

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

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

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

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

    http://mises.org/daily/2592

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Good to see Ron’s nod to Joachim Hoffman. For those who read German, the clip below comes from German Wikopedia — with details of Hoffman’s career and discussion of his support for Sovorov.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    More on the cited Joachim Hoffman here:

    https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=Joachim+Hoffman

    Amazon here:
    https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-Extermination-1941-1945-Documentation/dp/0967985684

    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Ron Unz says:
    @Duglarri
    So Stalin's desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn't happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt's messages, the rebuff of Churchill's warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge's transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete, Rurik
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    As for Hitler’s overall plans you really should read David Irving, rather than watch more Saturday cartoons
     
    It's not like Hitler laid out his desires in something as easy to understand as a widely published book. Oh, he did? I grew up with it on the book shelf and am familiar. Quite exciting to have access to something as notorious as a child.

    "If land was desired in Europe, it could be obtained by and large only at the expense of Russia, and this meant that the new Reich must again set itself on the march along the road of the Teutonic Knights of old, to obtain by the German sword sod for the German plow and daily bread for the nation."
    , @Eric Zuesse
    By citing David Irving, you cite a Holocaust-denier and Hitler-apologist, who during the trial between David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt was shown definitely to have distorted and misrepresented crucial evidence, and to have relied also on some evidence which was bogus, and to have ignored evidence that was authentic and that disproved some of Irving's key assertions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Jake says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Silva
    "characteristically Germanic form: slaughter everybody who is not your tribe that it takes for you to make survivors into serfs or little better off than serfs."

    "characteristically Germanic"
    , @Hu Mi Yu

    the evil anti-Semite Austrian Colonel
     
    He was a "gruppenführer" (equivalent to corporal; second lowest rank). Sometimes translated as "squad leader." He was only a runner, but he loved the war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    They invaded or opposed USSR to ‘fight bolshevism’ – that means., to fight for capitalism and Western Imperialism, and to pillage and cut a piece for themselves.
     
    Capitalism and Communism are not the only options. Just because one opposes Communism does not automatically make that person a Capitalism imperialist. After all, since Wall Street financed many Communist movements around the world including the Bolsheviks, Communism and Capitalism seem like good friends to me behind the scenes.

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

    does not automatically make that person a Capitalism imperialist

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

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

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

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

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

    sponsor Hitler like
     
    It should be noted that these companies sponsored the USSR as well. What does that say about them?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Wally
    Pay attention and get out more often.

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

    www.codoh.com

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    I wish I had time to deal with this statement,

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

    It's important to note that Hitler wanted peace too since Germany had been starving and under Bolshie attack for decades, yet his pleas were ignored or even mocked. Japanese diplomats suffered similar sorts of humiliation in their efforts to stem the economic war being waged on them; hene the militarists there ascended and made a desperate bid to free themselves form the yoke of imperial slavery.
    , @Malla
    Not as simple as that. Hitler had sent many peace offers to Britain but the Churchill government kept that info away from the British public. Hell, the Germans even sent Rudolf Hess, one of the highest ranking German Government official to Britain.

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

    You should read his book sometimes

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

    From Admiral to Cabin Boy by Admiral Sir Barry Edward Domvile

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

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

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

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

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Duglarri
    So Stalin's desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn't happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt's messages, the rebuff of Churchill's warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge's transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Even if Stalin was planning to initiate a war with Hitler

    Even if Hitler was planning to initiate a war with Stalin

    Potato, potato.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Duglarri
    So Stalin's desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn't happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt's messages, the rebuff of Churchill's warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge's transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Cui bono???

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Jake says:
    @DFH

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    So Stalin’s desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn’t happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt’s messages, the rebuff of Churchill’s warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge’s transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?
     
    Without being too rude, this is simply the "Saturday morning cartoons" version of World War II.

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

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

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

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

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

    “If land was desired in Europe, it could be obtained by and large only at the expense of Russia, and this meant that the new Reich must again set itself on the march along the road of the Teutonic Knights of old, to obtain by the German sword sod for the German plow and daily bread for the nation.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Ron Unz

    In 1941 when the Germans invaded the USSR, they and their allies outnumbered the USSR forces by about 3.5 million to 2.5 million.
     
    Actually, the Soviet military forces probably numbered more like 5.5 million. But the ratio of bodies is far less significant than that of equipment. According to Suvorov, the Soviets tanks deployed along the border were far superior to anything the Germans possessed, and also outnumbered them more than 7-to-1. The Soviet advantage in warplanes was also enormous.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    Interesting statements on that page you linked to, but very little in the way of sources.
    , @Hamlet's Ghost
    If you read Suvarov's books, you will find him outlining the steps to an invasion. First, build up the ammunition and weapons stores, guarded by a relatively small skeleton guard. Machines don't need to be fed and all that. Only after most of your materiel stores are built up do you send in the men to take possession and assume their jump-off positions.

    He mentions in Chief Culprit how if the Japanese had launched an attack from Manchuria in July 1945, they could have grabbed an enormous windfall of Red Army weapons with few Red Army soldiers to stop them. By August it was too late, and the Red Army swept through Manchuria in a manner that Guderian would have envied.

    If Hitler had waited until July 1941 to strike, he would have missed his chance as well.

    Suvarov also mentions that some 5 million Russian-German phrasebooks were printed up, which gives a pretty good idea of the ultimate size of the invasion force.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Joe Hide says:

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. szopen says:

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Wow. I was discussing Suworow for so long that I couldn’t even imagine someone would not know about his theories in 2010s. Talk about culture bubbles.
     
    Exactly. Given that Suvorov is the most widely-read military historian in world history, it's hardly surprising that you're quite familiar with him.

    The real oddity is that after almost 30 years, he and his theories still remain almost totally unknown even to well-educated Americans...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Tyrion 2
    Britain tried to have peace with Hitler. We laid down a very clear boundary - the invasion of Poland - after appeasing him in various of his somewhat justified issues with the results of the Treaty of Versailles.

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

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

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

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

    I wish I had time to deal with this statement,

    Britain tried to have peace with Hitler.

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

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

    Read More
    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    He chose to dismember Poland. He chose war. He humiliated the peace-makers in the British parliament, including the prime-minister whose career and reputation he ruined.
    , @DFH

    It’s important to note that Hitler wanted peace too
     
    Then why did he declare war on Poland?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Malla says:
    @Anon

    does not automatically make that person a Capitalism imperialist
     
    If you are either marching to the east with Nazi Germany, or pillage Easten Asia with Japan, or maintain your colonial Empire, or sponsor Hitler like J.P. Morgan and Rockfellers, General Electric, Ford, etc. - you are still capitalist, imperialist and fascist - whatever third, fourth and n-th ways you may tell us about. Their motto was like 'even together with devil, but against the Bolsheviks'. That means being: 1) with devil 2) against Russia - and that concept still stands in the West.

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

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

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

    By contemporary standards, USSR was realy utopian and great and peace-loving. USSR had free healthcare, education, women votes and equal wages, no racial segregation etc. - all things unimaginable in the 1930-s and 1940-s West. So as a beacon and example of the just and fair society, USSR was enemy of the West, opposing imperialism and colonialism. USA had to deal with USSR only for money and in the times of urgent need.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @CanSpeccy

    Although Germany and Russia both invaded Poland, the latter managed to avoid being dragged into any war with Poland’s erstwhile allies.
     
    To avoid having Britain and France declare war on Russia could hardly have been difficult. Britain and France undoubtedly hoped, in the expected event of a renewal of the European civil war, to again have Russia as an ally who would do the bulk of the fighting and dying, as in the First World War. So obviously neither Britain or France was likely to declare war on Russia over Poland, a country of no importance to either of them.

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

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

    Good points as usual.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. JackOH says:
    @Ron Unz

    This I will dispute: “Hitler suddenly realized the strategic trap into which he had fallen, and ordered his heavily outnumbered and outgunned troops into a desperate surprise attack”.
     
    Suvorov argues that the key turning point in Hitler's perspective had been during 1940 when Stalin's new demands on Romania made him suddenly realize how enormously vulnerable his only substantial oil supply was to a Soviet attack. Without Romanian oil, Germany's entire war machine would have collapsed. Similarly, Stalin also had gained a potentially crucial choke-point over shipments of Swedish iron ore.

    To my knowledge there was no such sudden realisation by Hitler, the attack on the USSR was long planned and fitted to his established ideology just as much as Communist plans of global conquest.
     
    I'd strongly urge you to read David Irving's very detailed historiography on Hitler's goals and plans.

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Read Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution and Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton, will open eyes and minds, can be had on amazon.com.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. Tyrion 2 says:
    @jacques sheete
    I wish I had time to deal with this statement,

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Neville Chamberlain's career was ruined by a far more formidable adversary named Death.

    As to the rest I will let you and Mr. "Sheete" argue it out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Malla says:
    @Tyrion 2
    Britain tried to have peace with Hitler. We laid down a very clear boundary - the invasion of Poland - after appeasing him in various of his somewhat justified issues with the results of the Treaty of Versailles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You should read his book sometimes

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

    From Admiral to Cabin Boy by Admiral Sir Barry Edward Domvile

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Not wanting war and invading Poland under the threat of war are contradictory. I totally get that Hitler was not ill-disposed to the British Empire. But he was told that if he did something he'd get war, and then he did it anyway. It was all quite clear and reasonable by Britain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. DFH says:
    @jacques sheete
    I wish I had time to deal with this statement,

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

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

    It’s important to note that Hitler wanted peace too

    Then why did he declare war on Poland?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    There were many factors involved and the Germans were not completely blameless, but it is a blatant falsehood to paint the Poles as innocent victims in their dispute with Germany. The party who initiates hostilities is not necessarily the aggressor (HT Mulegino1).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Silva says:
    @Jake
    "Numerous other authors have published books in support or more often strong opposition, and even international academic conferences have been held to debate the theory. But our own English-language media has almost entirely blacklisted and ignored this ongoing international debate, to such an extent that the name of the most widely-read military historian who ever lived had remained totally unknown to me."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “characteristically Germanic”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    If the Sovs were so prepared for an aggressive invasion, how did they mess up their invasion of Finland so much ?
     
    The enormous difficulties the Soviet Army experienced in the 1939 Winter War against Finland has always been cited as powerful evidence of their terrible weakness, and I had always accepted that. But Suvorov very persuasively argues that this is a severe misunderstanding.

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @WHAT
    Winter War in Rezun and especially Isaev interpretation is actually a worthy read. "Hurr durr messed up" has about as much of a link to reality as "hurr durr every missile reached its(one of three lol) target".

    Then again, those in favor of "messed up" interpretation for some unexplainable reason consider Patton as some sort of capable commander as well, lol.
    , @Ron Unz

    Outside observers had argued that no army anywhere in the world could penetrate it. ” – weak evidence. That sounds like a description of the Maginot Line.
     
    However, France's Maginot Line *was* virtually impenetrable. That's why the Germans went around it, and won the war that way. From what I recall, the Maginot Line remained virtually unbroken until the defeated French government ordered its surrender.

    Meanwhile, in Finland, the Soviets had no way of "going around" the Mannerheim Line, which may even have been tougher because of the exceptionally difficult terrain and weather conditions. Suvorov devotes Chapter 22 to this issue, and it certainly seemed to explode the assumptions I'd had for decades.
    , @Curmudgeon
    You are making an assumption that Germany wanted to conquer all of Europe.
    From The Worm In The Apple by Friedrich Lenz


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

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

    , @pogohere
    Germany did win the war: the EU is patterned on governmental structures (cartels, a parliament with no power ruled by non-electeds) designed by Nazi lawyers to eliminate democracy in any form. See Farrell: The Third Way : The Nazi International, European Union, and Corporate Fascism
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AKAHorace
    This is very interesting, I have enjoyed Suravovs books about the GRU.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. anon[317] • Disclaimer says:
    @Horst
    No excuses for Duglarri's lack of reading incomprehension, or Canspeccy's confusing Trotskyism with Stalinism, and possibly Disneyism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Malla says:

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

    Hitler Meets Mannerheim Monologue (Subtitles)

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Wally
    Pay attention and get out more often.

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

    www.codoh.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen

    The Soviets didn’t face as much resistance on account that many of the Polish citizens in that area, were non-Poles, who weren’t so compelled to defend Poland.
     
    Actually, because Polish government ordered the military "not to fight with Soviets, unless they try to disarm you". The fights were carried by troops which did not get the orders or disobeyed them.

    Poland signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in 1934 and in 1938,
     
    POland signed a non-aggression pact with USSR in 1932. And I knew Ribbentrop offered renewal of the pact in 1938 (in exchange for Danzig going to Germany and some few things), but I do not think Beck agreed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. George says:

    “German Communist Party”

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla

    Off topic but the theory before the start of the war was that a German victory was impossible for lack of fuel and raw metals. The quick victory of Germany over France gave Germany just enough captured resources to keep going for a few years. But ultimately Russia was able to build superior tanks because they were using superior alloys. Russia also corrected the mistakes in the French tank designs. Japan in particular went to war with a crazy collection of aircraft carriers build on cruise ship hulls, no real tanks, and light but fast aircraft that lacked armour and flame suppression systems.
     
    Exactly!!! That is why the belief that Germany or Japan wanted a World War is idiotic to say the least. Germany and Japan wanting to conquer the world was just WW2 allied propaganda. Japan was cornered and forced to attack Pearl Harbour. The German and Japanese leadership were not crazy to want a war at that time. And Italy had even more military weaknesses than Germany or Japan. WW2 was definitely not in the interest of the Axis forces, it was in the interest of some other party.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Anon
    To avoid having Britain and France declare war on Russia could hardly have been difficult. Britain and France undoubtedly hoped... to again have Russia as an ally... So obviously neither Britain or France was likely to declare war on Russia over Poland...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    As for Stalin's offensive military posturing in 1941 if indeed such as extensive...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @DFH

    It’s important to note that Hitler wanted peace too
     
    Then why did he declare war on Poland?

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @kerdasi amaq
    The Polish government was confident that they could beat Germany. The fact that the war did not develop to their advantage; doesn't mean that this confidence was unjustified.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2
    He chose to dismember Poland. He chose war. He humiliated the peace-makers in the British parliament, including the prime-minister whose career and reputation he ruined.

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Ron Unz says:
    @szopen
    Wow. I was discussing Suworow for so long that I couldn't even imagine someone would not know about his theories in 2010s. Talk about culture bubbles.

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Agree: Simon in London
    • Replies: @kerdasi amaq
    I'd suspect that the reason for the West's disinterest in Suvorov's work is really simple. He's not telling them what they want to hear.

    Germans bad, Allies good.
    , @Andrew E. Mathis

    Given that Suvorov is the most widely-read military historian in world history
     
    According to whom?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    does not automatically make that person a Capitalism imperialist
     
    If you are either marching to the east with Nazi Germany, or pillage Easten Asia with Japan, or maintain your colonial Empire, or sponsor Hitler like J.P. Morgan and Rockfellers, General Electric, Ford, etc. - you are still capitalist, imperialist and fascist - whatever third, fourth and n-th ways you may tell us about. Their motto was like 'even together with devil, but against the Bolsheviks'. That means being: 1) with devil 2) against Russia - and that concept still stands in the West.

    sponsor Hitler like

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. szopen says:
    @Mikhail

    And note that France and Britain did not declare war on the communist USSR who invaded Poland from the east.
     
    The Nazi attack came first and was met with Polish resistance. The Soviets didn't face as much resistance on account that many of the Polish citizens in that area, were non-Poles, who weren't so compelled to defend Poland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    At the end of 1938 the British guarantee to Poland was already being negotiated.
    , @Mikhail

    Actually, because Polish government ordered the military “not to fight with Soviets, unless they try to disarm you”. The fights were carried by troops which did not get the orders or disobeyed them.
     
    Why was that unlike with the Germans? This repeated point makes sense and is in line with first hand accounts:

    The Soviets didn’t face as much resistance on account that many of the Polish citizens in that area, were non-Poles, who weren’t so compelled to defend Poland.
     
    What you say further above, serves to partly explain why Britain and France didn't declare war on the USSR unlike Nazi Germany. The French and Brits also felt somewhat betrayed when Hitler went beyond his Czecho-Slovak adventure, while possibly understanding Soviet reasoning. The Soviets entered Molotov-Ribbentrop with the Nazis having a greater position of strength.

    POland signed a non-aggression pact with USSR in 1932. And I knew Ribbentrop offered renewal of the pact in 1938 (in exchange for Danzig going to Germany and some few things), but I do not think Beck agreed.
     
    The 1934 Nazi-Polish pact came later in 1934 and was more relevant for a period thereafter. The Nazi, Polish and Hungarian dismemberment of Czecho-Slovakia (on pretty friendly terms with the USSR at the time) comes to mind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. szopen says:
    @Wally
    Pay attention and get out more often.

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

    www.codoh.com

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Agree: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Wally
    It's quite clear that Germany did not expect Britain & France to go to war for Polish land theft & Polish atrocities.

    www.codoh.com
    , @Wally
    The USSR attacked many countries and the Allies did nothing, Poland seized part of Czechoslovakia, the Allies did nothing.

    Responsibility for WW2
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7544
    recommended:
    https://shop.codoh.com/media/uploads/978-1-59148-072-3-whostartedwwii-cover_medium.jpg

    Who Started World War II: Truth for a War-Torn World
    by Udo Walendy
    Edition type: revised and newly translated
    Publisher: Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers
    Published in: 9/2014
    (Note: the US edition of this book as available from The Barnes Review, which has been printed from the translators' file without any editing or changes in layout, has a different title: Truth for Germany)
    https://shop.codoh.com/book/364/365
    , @jilles dykstra
    Von Ribbentrop had assured Hitler that GB would not declare war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. I acquired my Hamish Hamilton ‘Icebraker’ in 1990 for £16.99. $500 wouldn’t buy its dustjacket.

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Malla
    Not as simple as that. Hitler had sent many peace offers to Britain but the Churchill government kept that info away from the British public. Hell, the Germans even sent Rudolf Hess, one of the highest ranking German Government official to Britain.

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

    You should read his book sometimes

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

    From Admiral to Cabin Boy by Admiral Sir Barry Edward Domvile

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla

    It was all quite clear and reasonable by Britain.
     
    Why did Britain want to protect Poland exactly? Why the sudden Anglo Polish love?
    , @Malla
    And what about attacks on ethnic Germans in Poland? It is or even was no secret that Hitler was a nationalist who loved his people, ethnic Germans wherever they were. How long would such a person accept such a situation?
    , @jilles dykstra
    " Not wanting war and invading Poland under the threat of war are contradictory "

    Unless the provocations become unbearable, what they were.
    , @fnn

    It was all quite clear and reasonable by Britain.
     
    Kill 60 or 70 milion humans and basically destroy Western Civilization to save Poland and then, at the end of the process, sell out Poland to Soviet slavery. True, they didn't know that the kill total would be that high, but they could easily forsee a Soviet takeover when they decided to ignore the other partner in the Sep. 1939 division of Poland.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Mulegino1 says:

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. gwynedd1 says:

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. @Beefcake the Mighty
    There were many factors involved and the Germans were not completely blameless, but it is a blatant falsehood to paint the Poles as innocent victims in their dispute with Germany. The party who initiates hostilities is not necessarily the aggressor (HT Mulegino1).

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen

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

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

    Unless, of course, you refer to the years before Hitler's rearmament program, where, indeed, Germany was almost defenseless and Poland indeed could took Berlin on her own.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Ron Unz

    Wow. I was discussing Suworow for so long that I couldn’t even imagine someone would not know about his theories in 2010s. Talk about culture bubbles.
     
    Exactly. Given that Suvorov is the most widely-read military historian in world history, it's hardly surprising that you're quite familiar with him.

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

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

    Germans bad, Allies good.

    Read More
    • Agree: Ron Unz
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. WHAT says:

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. szopen says:
    @kerdasi amaq
    The Polish government was confident that they could beat Germany. The fact that the war did not develop to their advantage; doesn't mean that this confidence was unjustified.

    The Polish government was confident that they could beat Germany.

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Another book worth noting is John Koster’s Operation Snow. Koster argues that Soviet agents in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt (most notably Harry Dexter White) engineered policies that made conflict with Japan impossible to avoid.

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. WHAT says:
    @The Scalpel
    "Outside observers had argued that no army anywhere in the world could penetrate it. " - weak evidence. That sounds like a description of the Maginot Line.

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Ron Unz

    In 1941 when the Germans invaded the USSR, they and their allies outnumbered the USSR forces by about 3.5 million to 2.5 million.
     
    Actually, the Soviet military forces probably numbered more like 5.5 million. But the ratio of bodies is far less significant than that of equipment. According to Suvorov, the Soviets tanks deployed along the border were far superior to anything the Germans possessed, and also outnumbered them more than 7-to-1. The Soviet advantage in warplanes was also enormous.

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

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

    Defense in depth does not = imminent plans to attack.

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

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

    , @Sparkon
    It's a fine article by Ron Unz. I've been aware of this theory for some time that Hitler's attack pre-empted an impending westward attack by the Red Army. My opinion is that Stalin was working hard to make Hitler think he was about to attack. He would feint, he would posture, he would position, but would he actually attack?

    I think not, primarily because I see that the main and inviolable Allied pre-war strategy was to get the foe to strike the first blow, so the Allies could seize the moral high ground right from the outset of hostilities, and play the victim card from beginning to end, and beyond, as we've seen. It's a powerful psychological advantage to have the moral high ground in a war.

    A few comments.

    The Imperial Japanese Army fought WWII with WWI-era weapons, which may have been adequate for jungle warfare, or against the Chinese, who were even more primitively equipped, but against the Red Army, the IJA had no chance, and was crushed in Manchuria toward the end of the war.

    jilles dykstra says:
    June 4, 2018 at 7:01 am GMT • 200 Words
    @Duglarri

    About Sorge, his mission was to find out if Japan would attack the USSR.
    He reported to Moscow that it would not.
    This made it possible to transfer troops from the east to the west after Hitler’s attack.
     
    DR-Montreal says:
    June 4, 2018 at 3:56 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The last echelon of Siberians arrived from the east in December to smash the decimated and threadbare Wehrmacht. Hitler lost the war that December.
     
    I know this stirring account of the hardened Siberian divisions arriving in front of Moscow to save the day is a popular idea, but Nigel Askey shows convincingly that there was no significant movement of Siberians or Siberian divisions from Siberia, Trans-Siberia, or the Far East to the Western or Moscow Front between Sorge's alleged dispatch -- or even from the outset of the war -- and the defeat of Army Group Center in the Battle of Moscow in late 1941:

    In short, of all the divisions transferred west after August 1941, only three rifle divisions originated with Siberian personnel and only two went into the Western Front defending Moscow.
    [...]
    So the question is; who stopped the Germans in December 1941 if it couldn’t possibly have been hordes of newly arrived Siberian or East Front troops?

    The answer is a massive number of newly mobilised and deployed divisions and brigades. The Soviet land model shows that 182 rifle divisions, 43 militia rifle divisions, eight tank divisions, three mechanised divisions, 62 tank brigades, 50 cavalry divisions, 55 rifle brigades, 21 naval rifle brigades, 11 naval infantry brigades, 41 armies, 11 fronts and a multitude of other units were newly Mobilised and Deployed (MD) in the second half of 1941.

    If Mobilized and Not Deployed (MND) units are included then this list is considerably higher... There is no doubt that the 1941 Soviet mobilisation programme was simply the largest and fastest wartime mobilisation in history. The multitude of average Soviet soldiers from all over the USSR that made up these units saved the day, and definitely not the existing units transferred west after June 1941, or the mostly non-existent and mythical Siberian divisions.

     

    http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/

    There was no need to move any Siberians to the Moscow front because shortage of soldiers was never a problem for the Red Army, although shortage of weapons sometimes was in the early days of the war. Whatever the case, neither Stalin nor Stavka would be so foolish as to denude Red Army defenses in the Far East based on the report of a single spy, especially when Stalin had much better sources of information, witness the timing of the Moscow counteroffensive.

    In any event, the Red Army was not worried in the least about the IJA. When the time came, it would be crushed.

    At the outset of Barbarossa, the Red Army had well over 10 million reservists with at least basic military training, and uncountable numbers of these were called up and fed into the breach before Moscow in the most desperate and profligate manner in order to save the Soviet capital. Even if some of these units did not put up much fight, they nevertheless tied up German infantry and other resources to round them up, put them under guard, and arrange for their movement into captivity.

    It was the blood of millions of common Russian soldiers marching under the banner of the Red Army that defeated the Germans before Moscow, but only after the Wehrmacht had rather foolishly run itself ragged, needlessly inflamed the Ukrainians, and in the process, many fine units had been ground to a pulp by the Red Army, even before Zhukov launched his storied counteroffensive with the fabled but mythical Siberians on Dec. 6, 1941, about the same time Kido Butai was launching fighters and torpedo bombers for the "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor.

    It might have been a different story if the Wehrmacht had focused all its power on Moscow right from the outset of the war, stayed north of the Pripet, merely screened Leningrad, and drove on the Soviet capital with all the power it had in three army groups, with the plausible political goal of decapitating the Bolshevik leadership, and the practical military goal of seizing the vital Moscow railheads.

    The Germans may not have invented the term, but blitzkrieg was what the Wehrmacht did best, and was in fact all it could do simply because the Wehrmacht had inadequate weapons for a slugfest with the Red Army at the outset of Barbarossa. Certainly, when judged by the standards of armored formations and tanks that appeared later in the war, the Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941 with what amounted to cavalry formations.

    It was a big mistake, and Germany is paying for it still.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    And is that 1 million soviet paratroopers figure a typo? Because it seems completely ridiculous and impossible on the face of it.
     
    Suvorov quotes that astonishing figure for government-certified parachutists directly from official Soviet sources, and indeed the Soviets had also produced the world's only line of air-mobile tanks.

    Even though I have Icebreaker and the other books in my parents’ library I’ve never read them, if only because of the name. Perhaps it’s too much prejudice on my end and his books are worth reading.
     
    I would strongly urge you to do so, and judge for yourself. But that book appeared 30 years ago, and spending $20 on his more recent 2008 version, incorporating a great deal of additional material, would probably be even better.

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    There must have been something weird going on with Soviet paratroop certifications, because the figure makes absolutely no sense, especially for an army in such a wretched state
     
    Well, Suvorov devotes Chapter 13 of his book to the Soviet paratroops, and his claims seem quite persuasive to me. I don't read Russian, so perhaps all his references are totally fraudulent, but if so, would his books have sold millions of copies in that language and gained the support of numerous Russian historians? Would our Naval Academic Press have reprinted it, and invited him to speak?

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

    Incidentally, a large portion of his book is primarily focused on rebutting the "conventional wisdom" that the Red Army was in a wretched state, and I think he does that quite effectively.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. if anyone wants to download Suvorov`s books they are available on archive.org, in the link under these words.

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. Wally says:
    @DFH

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

    So did the USSR.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Wally says:
    @szopen
    No. Germany attacked Poland, fully knowing that it will trigger decalration of war by France (Polish ally) and UK. Therefore, Germany started the WW2.

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

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

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

    http://www.codoh.com

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

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

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Malla says:
    @Tyrion 2
    Not wanting war and invading Poland under the threat of war are contradictory. I totally get that Hitler was not ill-disposed to the British Empire. But he was told that if he did something he'd get war, and then he did it anyway. It was all quite clear and reasonable by Britain.

    It was all quite clear and reasonable by Britain.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Are you really trying to argue that Britain was responsible for the war because we defended Poland's liberty rather than Germany being responsible for swallowing it up despite being warned? Was Britain unreasonable to tell Germany not to end Polish sovereignty?
    , @jim jones
    Britain has always had a policy of stopping dominance of Europe by a single power
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Thanks for the interesting article about a subject that isn’t easy to discuss. Russian and French documents about their talks before WWI disappeared conveniently. Some years ago The Guardian wrote about a secret historical archive (or more than one) that had been found and about which historians didn’t know anything at all. Ian Cobain wrote a book about aspects of this question: The History Thieves: Secrets, Lies and the Shaping of a Modern Nation. (I haven’t read the book) I quote from amazon:

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @WHAT
    You may want to read Clark`s "Sleepwalkers". What led to WWI is quite well researched, not much is left actually secret there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Wally says:
    @szopen
    No. Germany attacked Poland, fully knowing that it will trigger decalration of war by France (Polish ally) and UK. Therefore, Germany started the WW2.

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

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

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

    Responsibility for WW2

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

    recommended:

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Crimson2 says:

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    And is that 1 million soviet paratroopers figure a typo? Because it seems completely ridiculous and impossible on the face of it.
     
    Suvorov quotes that astonishing figure for government-certified parachutists directly from official Soviet sources, and indeed the Soviets had also produced the world's only line of air-mobile tanks.

    Even though I have Icebreaker and the other books in my parents’ library I’ve never read them, if only because of the name. Perhaps it’s too much prejudice on my end and his books are worth reading.
     
    I would strongly urge you to do so, and judge for yourself. But that book appeared 30 years ago, and spending $20 on his more recent 2008 version, incorporating a great deal of additional material, would probably be even better.

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    After the Crete disaster, the paratroop era was over.
    Despite this in Sept 1944 a paratroop landing was tried near Arnheim in the Netherlands.
    A disaster.
    , @Anon
    According to Russian wiki, Советское командование, исходившее из наступательной стратегии будущей войны, не уделяло должного внимания разработке оборонительных операций, that is, The Soviet command, proceeding from the offensive strategy of the future war, did not give due attention to the development of defensive operations, supporting this with a quote from Zhukov: Обучение войск оборонительным действиям, встречным сражениям, отступательным действиям редко выходило из тактических рамок. Я не знаю ни одного оперативно-стратегического мероприятия, где оборона была бы разыграна или отработана в крупных оперативно-стратегических масштабах, где бы оборона противодействовала глубокому прорыву крупных бронетанковых группировок, взаимодействующих с крупными воздушными силами or The training of troops in defensive operations, counter battles, retreat actions rarely came out of tactical framework. I do not know of any operational and strategic measures where defense would be played out or worked out at large operative-strategic scales, where defense would counteract the deep breakthrough of large armored groups interacting with large air forces according to Google. The quotation actually goes on longer but I have cut it off.

    Anyway I am still suspicious about those paratroop numbers. Evidently paratroops in the USSR were not the well-trained elite troops they were elsewhere. For comparison in modern Russia less than 10% of the armed forces are airborne (60K / over 1M).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. The non-aggression pact, secret protocols notwithstanding, was not an alliance, but allocated spheres of influence. The occupation of Poland by the Soviets was (you might say, scrupulously) up to the post-WWI Curzon line, not really in accordance with the pact, but as a result of the German attack on Poland and the Polish government absconding to Romania, leaving Poland ungoverned. Either the Soviets moved in or the Germans would take the lot straightaway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen

    he occupation of Poland by the Soviets was (you might say, scrupulously) up to the post-WWI Curzon line, not really in accordance with the pact, but as a result of the German attack on Poland and the Polish government absconding to Romania, leaving Poland ungoverned.
     
    It's interesting that you forgot that (a) Polish government left to Romania AFTER Soviets attacked, and the decision to leave was a direct result of Soviet invasion (b) Poland was governed, and there were several hundred thousands Polish soldiers in those eastern territories, with intact Polish administration (c) Soviets were urged by Hitler to invade (d) Soviets were helping German invasion, for example by guiding Nazi Bombers attacking Warsaw.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. aandrews says:

    Hitler-Mannerheim Conversation (subtitles)

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

    [...]

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  103. @Beefcake the Mighty
    Czechoslovakia was an artificial state constructed at Versailles. Munich simply exposed this, as the Czech residual fell into chaos immediately. As this residual was geographically a dagger sticking into Reich territory, the Germans had little choice but to intervene.

    From the Axis-History Forum:

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

    The Czech army was indeed formidable for one.

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Indeed, this why historians wonder(ed) why Hitler was not attacked in 1938, when both the Polish and the Chech army still existed.
    The only explanation that makes sense is that FDR wanted a long war, in which the USA could participate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. WHAT says:
    @DR-Montreal
    Numbers the Soviets had, but a close examination of the state of their forces June 1941 reveals a force struggling to become even tactically operational--lack of supplies, lack of prime movers to even move their artillery resulting in acquisition of local farm tractors, tank divisions and corps completely green and unable to operate effectively, tanks with poor or no optics and no radios etc etc.

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

    Defense in depth does not = imminent plans to attack.

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Malla

    It was all quite clear and reasonable by Britain.
     
    Why did Britain want to protect Poland exactly? Why the sudden Anglo Polish love?

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla

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

    Was Britain unreasonable to tell Germany not to end Polish sovereignty?
     
    Not at all, it was very reasonable. It only became unreasonable when the lovely Soviets got involved. The same Soviets who were playing an active role in destroying the British Empire via their trained agents since it's inception.
    , @JMcG
    I think it was unreasonable to make a promise to Poland that couldn’t possibly be kept. France and England both knew they could not meaningfully help Poland in the event of a German attack. Also, remember that Poland was quite happy to acquire territory from Czechoslovakia after Hitler marched in.
    There were very few clean hands in the Second World War.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Malla says:
    @Tyrion 2
    Not wanting war and invading Poland under the threat of war are contradictory. I totally get that Hitler was not ill-disposed to the British Empire. But he was told that if he did something he'd get war, and then he did it anyway. It was all quite clear and reasonable by Britain.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    He'd already swallowed up half of Central Europe. He was told that enough was enough. Were he only concerned about the plight of the German minority in Poland there were many other options than that which he took. He clearly thought that France and Britain were decadent and would acquiesce. They already had in the cases of Austria and Czechoslovakia. He misjudged and the whole world suffered for his hubris.

    The previous partitioning of Poland, by Prussia, Austria and Russia, had long been considered an infamous tragedy. Repeating it was never going to be a popular move. Repeating it in the face of a clear threat of war was abject stupidity given that he didn't want a war to his west. If he cared more about the German people than his own over-weening ego, he would not have started a war that was entirely catastrophic for the Germans. It would have been easy to avoid. He need only have not destroyed a neighbouring country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. WHAT says:
    @UncommonGround
    Thanks for the interesting article about a subject that isn't easy to discuss. Russian and French documents about their talks before WWI disappeared conveniently. Some years ago The Guardian wrote about a secret historical archive (or more than one) that had been found and about which historians didn't know anything at all. Ian Cobain wrote a book about aspects of this question: The History Thieves: Secrets, Lies and the Shaping of a Modern Nation. (I haven't read the book) I quote from amazon:

    In 1889, the first Official Secrets Act was passed, creating offences of 'disclosure of information' and 'breach of official trust'. It limited and monitored what the public could, and should, be told. Since then a culture of secrecy has flourished. As successive governments have been selective about what they choose to share with the public,
     
    I think that Ilan Pappe also wrote recently about how restricted the access to archives in Israel is. Nick Turse told once how his professor offered to pay for him to photocopy a box of documents that he (N.T.) had just found. It seems that his professor was afraid that the documents might not be available if they discovered what they were about. Based on those documents Turse wrote his book about Vietnam.

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @UncommonGround
    Thanks, I have Clark's book but haven't had the time to read it yet. Maybe I read it soon. I have read other books about WWI. The book by Douglas Newton, The Darkest Days is very interesting and I think that it's a very important book. I know that meanwhile we understand WWI much better. That was not my point. I was only talking generally about the difficulty of discussing such themes. One of the reasons for that is the fact that access to archives isn't always so easy and in some cases some documents are simply not available like the ones about the talks between the French and the Russians before WWI. Neither the Russians nor the French kept them very safely. The surprising fact about WWI is that in the last years our understanding of the war changed so much after almost a 100 years. How is this possible? And what does this mean in relation to WWII?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Chris T. says: • Website

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. Ron Unz says:
    @Anon

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    One of the key mistakes intelligent and meticulous people make is that they assume that because certain things are easy for them those things must be easy.
    , @Anon

    I don’t read Russian, so perhaps all his references are totally fraudulent, but if so, would his books have sold millions of copies in that language and gained the support of numerous Russian historians? Would our Naval Academic Press have reprinted it, and invited him to speak?
     
    This is very interesting, but quite irrelevant to any point I was trying to make.

    Incidentally, a large portion of his book is primarily focused on rebutting the “conventional wisdom” that the Red Army was in a wretched state, and I think he does that quite effectively.
     
    Well, I suppose I'll have to read it. But the result of the first years of the war do not speak very well for Red Army effectiveness at that point, so I am somewhat predisposed to the view that its state as a fighting force was not comparable to that of the German army.

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

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


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

     

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

    Incidentally, a large portion of his book is primarily focused on rebutting the “conventional wisdom” that the Red Army was in a wretched state, and I think he does that quite effectively.
     
    I saw this was already shared by other commenters, but here it is again with some background how and who recorded the conversation:

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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oET1WaG5sFk

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Russian military historian Dr. Mikhail Meltiukhov of the Russian Institute of Documents and Historical Records Research, Russian historian M. Nikitin, V. A. Nevezhin, Colonel V. D. Danilov, Igor Bunich, Irina. V. Pavlova, V. L. Doroshenko, Boris Sokolov, B.N.Petrov, Vladimir Neveshin, M. Solonin, C. Pleshakov, Dr.Alexander Pronin, Prof. Dr. Maria Litowskaja, Colonel Kiselev, Dr. Dschangir Nadschafov, faculty director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, P. Bobylev, T. Bushueva, Y. Felshtinskiy...
     
    The fear of a 'great patriotic war implosion', this being recognized as the key national myth of the post-Soviet new Russia - but also already of the S.U as well - has even forced the Russian government not only to keep 100s of thousands of secret documents sealed but also to enact a "Memory Law" recently(2014), with fines & prison terms for "infringements on historical memory with regard to the events of WW2." reports Russian historian Nikolay Koposov, in the book Law and Memory: Towards Legal Governance of History.

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

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

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

    , @the Supreme Gentleman
    I find it exquisitely ironic that in a series entitled "American Pravda", Ron Unz is uncritically accepting ludicrous official Soviet figures about troop sizes.

    Look, if there were around two million Soviet troops with paratrooper training by mid 1941, the Red Army could have fielded about two hundred divisions of paratroopers! Even if only a quarter of those soldiers were actual paratroopers, the Red Army would have had a mind boggling 50 divisions of paratroopers! (You know how you've heard of the 82nd and 101st US airborne divisions and the 75th Ranger Regiment? That's because the US, despite being a very large country with a lavishly funded military, has had two divisions of paratroopers, plus smaller units of airborne special forces infantry, since WW2.)

    A much, much more plausible figure is given by the eminent military historian David Glantz in his 1984 book "the Soviet Airborne Experience", who you mentioned in the OP. (I assume that you would have eagerly mentioned any discrediting black marks in Glantz's record if you'd found any, so I figure that you will, even if reluctantly, accept him as at least as credible a source as "Suvorov", i.e. Rezun.) Glantz lists the Red Army as having 5 Airborne Corps ("corps" here being of ~10,000 men, so actually what is usually referred to as a division) in June 1941. This sounds like a pretty plausible figure to me.

    Was Glantz wrong by a factor of 40 in his estimation? That seems rather unlikely to me, much more so than that somehow the unbelievable figure that Ron Unz quotes is basically correct. (Regardless of whether the error is with Unz, Suvorov, the Soviet sources or some combination thereof.)

    Page 26 of the link: https://books.google.com/books?id=Ieci0eVv8EEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla
    Really? And the Soviets never invaded anything at all? And when the USA supported the Soviet Union with the Land Lease program, who was the devil in amongst them? Maybe both?

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

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

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

    Soviets never invaded anything at all?

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Never heard of LendLease ?
    , @Malla

    There was no Poland at the time, the country and the government collapsed and Red Army simply occupied Western Ukraine and Belarus to protect the people.
     
    Oh what a nice and cute excuse to take some Polish land. And the World was silent about it including the evil capitalist USA Britain. But wait, the Japanese moved into Vietnam because the French government had collapsed and the whole evil Capitalist world (evil USA in particular) went screaming and screeching. And maybe Germany was right to invade Poland to protect ethnic Germans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    By contemporary standards, USSR was realy utopian and great and peace-loving. USSR had free healthcare, education, women votes and equal wages, no racial segregation etc. – all things unimaginable in the 1930-s and 1940-s West.
     
    Soviet Russia during it's early days was a murderous hellhole. It only became a better place during it's later decades when unfortunately it was brought down by the USA using the Afghan conflict as one of the means.
    Utopia explains why they had to build walls to keep people in, like the Berlin Wall for example, and given the chance many people tried to escape from their communist 'utopia's' to escape to shitty non communist countries. Indeed Chinese people were attempting to escape from their PRC 'utopia' to escape into the Imperialist hellholes of HongKong and Macau. LOL. Ya rite, what do you smoke?
    Anyways I agree with you, pure cowboy Wall street capitalism is poison and socialism has it's positive points.

    opposing imperialism and colonialism
     
    By being imperialist itself and sending communist agents into other countries to cause trouble.
    , @j2
    "Everyone knew war was inevitable, and Finnland was on the wrong side. Moving border is not taking over the country, no one thought of ruling and conquering. "

    Maybe I have to comment. We have the Soviet plans and maps and the Soviet plan in the Winter War was to conquer the whole country. As for the before war offer of other area in Russian Karelia in compensation of the Karelian Isthmus close the Saint Petersburg, the countries, which agreed to such reasonable Soviet demands (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) were taken over by Soviets in a sort time. Finns did not want the same fate.

    Ron Unz, Thanks for an interesting article and setting up this site. I make some comments of the article and otherwise.

    Suvorov's hypothesis was embraced by the former president of Finland, Mauno Koivisto, who in pension was studying war history and was a frequent visitor in the Finnish National Defence University (but I did not meet him ever). Based on this, the argument that the Soviet troops were in attack formation before the Operation Barbarossa is well founded (that, is I trust his research in this issue). Hitler was planning an attack (Finnish forces were ready for an attack before it was started, as our records show), but he had to hurry as the Soviets were also planning an attack. It is not known to me how far the Soviets intended to go in their attack in Central Europe. Their attack plans in Finland are known. They were stopped by Finnish coordinated artillery, so they had to abandon their plans. Artillery, even more than the difficult forest environment, lead to Soviet problems. Their attack did not proceed as planned and become far too expensive.

    Yet, for Hitler's plans one needs to look at Mein Kampf. Hitler accepted the view that Germany needed colonies and that they would be from Eastern Europe (not Balkans or Turkey, but Baltics, Poland and Ukraine). Hitler also believed that international bankers tried to create another world war, but that it would be different than WWI and the Jews would suffer. All of this has lead me to think that for Hitler the main issue was pushing Jews out of Europe so that they would found Israel. Building a strong Germany or defeating Communism were only of minor concern to him. He knew the war was planned and Germany was to be the aggressor, but the main goal was Israel, as in the previous war Zionists had obtained a promise of a home land but Jews did not want to move there. What could have been Hitler's reason for destroying Communism in Russia, in the land of Slavic untermenchen? Nothing, he would have let them suffer there. What was the reason for a war in the West? Only to collect the Jews. The attack to Poland was essential as the Jews were there. Jews were not put to ghettos because they dominated German economy. They were put to ghettos in all occupied countries because Hitler's task was to collect them and to move them, not to Madagaskar, but to Palestine, only to Palestine.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Ron Unz says:
    @The Scalpel
    "Outside observers had argued that no army anywhere in the world could penetrate it. " - weak evidence. That sounds like a description of the Maginot Line.

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lauri Törni
    It still amazes me how people are completely unaware of the Finnish-Russo Winter War in 1939..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAOHa7BxLEs

    Or read a truthful description:

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

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

    But belittled, ridiculed, ignored and even blamed - that we get both by the West and Russia. But we know what happened in reality. Nobody ever asks us, so we don't tell.
    , @The Scalpel
    Thank you for the reply. I know you are very busy. I have not read Suvorov yet, but I intend to. The Mannerheim Line must have been very impressive indeed, and technically you are correct that the Maginot line was not "penetrated." It was soundly defeated - a result brought about by good military leadership.

    As I have just heard of Suvorov, perhaps you could indulge one more question on the work. Did the Soviet military leadership appreciate the difficulty of penetrating the Mannerheim line and consider bypassing it via airborne assault as in Operation Overlord (Normandy), or by sea such as at Inchon (Korea), or some other method? Or, did the Soviet military leadership at that time simply lack the insight, imagination, and competence to develop a strategy other than full speed ahead in a Pickett's Charge type fashion (admittedly successful in a Pyrrhic way)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. szopen says:
    @Wally
    It's quite clear that Germany did not expect Britain & France to go to war for Polish land theft & Polish atrocities.

    www.codoh.com

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    There must have been something weird going on with Soviet paratroop certifications, because the figure makes absolutely no sense, especially for an army in such a wretched state
     
    Well, Suvorov devotes Chapter 13 of his book to the Soviet paratroops, and his claims seem quite persuasive to me. I don't read Russian, so perhaps all his references are totally fraudulent, but if so, would his books have sold millions of copies in that language and gained the support of numerous Russian historians? Would our Naval Academic Press have reprinted it, and invited him to speak?

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. szopen says:
    @Shakesvshav
    The non-aggression pact, secret protocols notwithstanding, was not an alliance, but allocated spheres of influence. The occupation of Poland by the Soviets was (you might say, scrupulously) up to the post-WWI Curzon line, not really in accordance with the pact, but as a result of the German attack on Poland and the Polish government absconding to Romania, leaving Poland ungoverned. Either the Soviets moved in or the Germans would take the lot straightaway.

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

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

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

    Why before escaping Polish government ordered Polish troops not to engage Soviet soldiers? Because UK did not let them, because this was the plan. Poland was the British pawn to help to start the war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity of British Foreign Policy’, 1976, Oxford

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. You guys will believe anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  117. @Tyrion 2

    (*) During the early years of World War II, the Germans effectively utilized paratroops and air-mobile forces to seize key enemy targets far behind the front lines during a major offensive, and this was an important component of their victories against France in 1940 and Greece in 1941. Such units are necessarily lightly armed and no match for regular infantry in a defensive battle; hence their only role is an offensive one. Germany entered the war with 4,000 paratroops, a far larger force than anything found in Britain, France, America, Italy, or Japan. However, the Soviets had at least 1,000,000 trained paratroopers, and Suvorov believes that the true total was actually closer to 2,000,000
     
    If these are from government figures then those figures are of the "we pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us" variety. Paratrooper training is not for everyone. Most soldiers in modern professional armies are not even able to finish the training.

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    I completely agree that parachuting into combat has always been a silly idea. Nowadays it is more of an ethos of high fitness and aggression than a well-regarded tactical option. I'm also well-acquainted with the story of Arnhem and that was a sadly predictable disaster. I gather the French did some jumps in Mali in a fit of pointless showboating.

    Interestingly, a key component of the British Parachute Regiment's mythos is that it was entirely inspired by its equivalent in the Wermacht. We'd have been better off learning auftragtaktik quicker rather than poncing around with parachutes though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Hi Ron Unz!

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

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

    Thank you!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  119. @Anon

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

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

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

    Never heard of LendLease ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Malla
    And what about attacks on ethnic Germans in Poland? It is or even was no secret that Hitler was a nationalist who loved his people, ethnic Germans wherever they were. How long would such a person accept such a situation?

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @kerdasi amaq
    You're looking at history with post-war hindsight. Maybe, if Hitler knew in 1939 what you know now, would he have invaded Poland or would he have done a proper job of preparing for world war?

    Who can say?

    Although, thinking he had the war won in June 1940 could have been the biggest mistake Hitler ever made?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @All we like sheep
    From the Axis-History Forum:
    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=34521
    The Czech army was indeed formidable for one.

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    It would have made even more sense to attack the Germans when they first started to enlarge their army (in 1935 I believe) beyond the 100,000 men limit that had been imposed on them at Versailles. Why was this not done?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Tyrion 2
    Not wanting war and invading Poland under the threat of war are contradictory. I totally get that Hitler was not ill-disposed to the British Empire. But he was told that if he did something he'd get war, and then he did it anyway. It was all quite clear and reasonable by Britain.

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

    Unless the provocations become unbearable, what they were.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    There were no provocation, only those produced by Nazi propaganda, not to mention actual shootings on Polish border from German side. The actual Polish action directed at German minority were always a response to the Nazis actions directed at Polish minority, such as closing Polish schools in Germany, arresting Polish minority activists and so on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @gT
    Though Stalin was indeed a phycho and probably did want to attack Europe, the fact remains that Germany struck first, plus lost, and is therefor the guilty party. And lets not forget that Communism was virtually a 100% Jewish attempt to rule the world, just as is the current NeoCon NWO attempt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla

    Given Europe’s status today, I almost wish Stalin had taken all of Europe. That way, there would have been no mass invasion from Africa and Muslim nations. Communism would have smothered bad ideas like feminism. (Communist ideal of feminism for unity and equality between men and women, not an anti-male screed that is feminism in the West.) Also, leftist tyranny under communism would have turned almost all of Europe in the nationalist and rightwing direction… as happened in Poland and Hungary.
     
    I agree with you for a change. You do have a point.
    However feminism was a subset of cultural Marxism and was a darling of the left. Cultural Marxism comes from the same sever rat source from which comes Communism, Karl Marx.
    Anyways in the Communist Eastern black a cultural phenomenon arose later called 'Social Realism' which in many ways was the exact opposite of Cultural Marxism. Ironically with time, it were in Western Capitalist countries where traditional Euro culture saw the most destruction. But during the early days of Soviet Russia some of the same pathologies which would plaque the Western world later were present. Ugly Modern art, cultural destruction etc... It was only Social Realism which healed the cultural damage of the early Communist period.
    Anyways I agree with about the rest.
    , @gT
    Nice diversionary attempt, but Communism was most definitely a Jewish attempt to take over the world. Virtually all the early communist upper hierarchy in Russia in the 1917 Revolution were Jewish. Trotsky's (real name Lev Davidovich Bronshtein) plan was international communism.

    And Jews are still wrongheaded today, their Islamic-style Jihad mentality is still evidenced via Zionism and their attempt to root all the Palestinians out of Palestine, though they are encountering tough resistance in precisely those same areas even the Crusaders couldn't resolve in their time, like the Gaza strip.

    Jewish thinking hasn't changed one bit in thousands of years, if one tactic doesn't work for them they try another, sometimes multiple tactics at the same time, but alas, just like their Communist warping of Socialism didn't succeed in World domination, neither will their NeoCon warping of Capitalism succeed in World domination, and their Zionism can't survive with a strong Syria and Iran in the vicinity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @szopen

    The Soviets didn’t face as much resistance on account that many of the Polish citizens in that area, were non-Poles, who weren’t so compelled to defend Poland.
     
    Actually, because Polish government ordered the military "not to fight with Soviets, unless they try to disarm you". The fights were carried by troops which did not get the orders or disobeyed them.

    Poland signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in 1934 and in 1938,
     
    POland signed a non-aggression pact with USSR in 1932. And I knew Ribbentrop offered renewal of the pact in 1938 (in exchange for Danzig going to Germany and some few things), but I do not think Beck agreed.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    At the end of 1938 the British guarantee to Poland was already being negotiated.
     
    As the Brits and others (including the Poles) didn't mind Soviet/Russia friendly Czecho-Slovakia being broken up.

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

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

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @szopen
    No. Germany attacked Poland, fully knowing that it will trigger decalration of war by France (Polish ally) and UK. Therefore, Germany started the WW2.

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    I didn't know ribbentrop was British Foreign Minister.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu
    Did Germany made propaganda use out of the Soviet plan to attack Germany? They captured 80 Soviet generals. There must have been some who could corroborate Suvorov's theory?

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


    The German White Paper
    Full text of the Polish documents issued by the Berlin Foreign Office
    https://www.scribd.com/document/245802357/The-German-White-Paper-Full-text-of-the-Polish-documents-issued-by-the-Berlin-Foreign-Office-1940
    In 1963 Edward Raczynski, the Polish ambassador to London from 1935 to 1945, had his diary published under the title In Allied London. He wrote in his entry of June 20, 1940: "The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs . . . I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been destroyed. The documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part the Germans got hold of originals and not merely copies."
     
    I have never found Suvorov's theory persuasive. One may speculate on purpose of such disinformation by this GRU officer. Is it to vindicate Stalin and USSR?

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    Stalin’s aggressive intentions, if indeed such existed
     
    Did they exist or not? My question was about German usage this fact in propaganda? And since Germans did not use it as far s I know, I conclude that Suvorov is just unscrupulous lier which is what one may expect from GRU officer. And I am surprised he got such following including Ron Unz.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Malla says:
    @George
    "German Communist Party"

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Ron Unz

    Wow. I was discussing Suworow for so long that I couldn’t even imagine someone would not know about his theories in 2010s. Talk about culture bubbles.
     
    Exactly. Given that Suvorov is the most widely-read military historian in world history, it's hardly surprising that you're quite familiar with him.

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

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

    According to whom?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz


    Given that Suvorov is the most widely-read military historian in world history
     
    According to whom?
     
    Well, our friend "Andrew E. Mathis" is not only an ignorant activist-type, but also an extremely lazy one since he obviously didn't even bother to read the text of my article, in which I quoted this excerpt from the book review:

    In the years that followed, over five million copies have been sold, making Suvorov the most-read military historian in history.
     
    From what I've heard, sales of something like 50,000 copies are generally enough to get someone onto the NYT bestseller list, but very few military historians ever reach that distinction. So sales of 5M copies of military history books really does seem like quite a lot. Offhand, I can't think of any other military historian who's sold more than than 5M copies, but perhaps you can...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. szopen says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Von Ribbentrop had assured Hitler that GB would not declare war.

    I didn’t know ribbentrop was British Foreign Minister.

    Read More
    • LOL: utu
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    You dishonest idiot, you know that’s not what he meant by it. Morons like you deserve the leadership you get, then as now. Say hello to a reprise of Brest-Litovsk, asshole.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Tyrion 2 says:
    @jilles dykstra
    After the Crete disaster, the paratroop era was over.
    Despite this in Sept 1944 a paratroop landing was tried near Arnheim in the Netherlands.
    A disaster.

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Duglarri
    So Stalin's desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn't happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt's messages, the rebuff of Churchill's warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge's transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. hyperbola says:

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. szopen says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " Not wanting war and invading Poland under the threat of war are contradictory "

    Unless the provocations become unbearable, what they were.

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @DFH

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Wally
    Pay attention and get out more often.

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

    www.codoh.com

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    In an attempt to abide by the agreement to defend Poland should Germany attack -- it failed, but is considered a response to German aggression.


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


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

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. szopen says:

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  137. @The Scalpel
    "Outside observers had argued that no army anywhere in the world could penetrate it. " - weak evidence. That sounds like a description of the Maginot Line.

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Jake
    "Numerous other authors have published books in support or more often strong opposition, and even international academic conferences have been held to debate the theory. But our own English-language media has almost entirely blacklisted and ignored this ongoing international debate, to such an extent that the name of the most widely-read military historian who ever lived had remained totally unknown to me."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    the evil anti-Semite Austrian Colonel

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

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

    Hitler was a gefreiter (= Private First Class) in a Bavarian Regiment. Not an NCO, not a corporal, not entitled to command other men. The only order he could issue was for dinner in a restaurant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Malla says:
    @Tyrion 2
    Are you really trying to argue that Britain was responsible for the war because we defended Poland's liberty rather than Germany being responsible for swallowing it up despite being warned? Was Britain unreasonable to tell Germany not to end Polish sovereignty?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    _________________________

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla

    There is absolutely no doubt that the Soviets intended a global revolution, but there is little evidence said revolution was to or could be initiated by invasion. There primary primary was internal subversion of the polity. Cultivating communists from within and exploiting traditional or standing national governance vulnerabilities and errors. In fact, they employ many of the tactics so many accuse the jews of doing.
     
    Actually Stalin and Trotsky had serious difference of opinions on this issue. Trotsky preferred the internal subversion method which you just explained (and he was Jewish) while Stalin preferred conquests using the Red Army wherever possible. Post WW2 Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania became communist not by internal subversion but by the conquests of the Red Army.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Mike P says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Indeed, this why historians wonder(ed) why Hitler was not attacked in 1938, when both the Polish and the Chech army still existed.
    The only explanation that makes sense is that FDR wanted a long war, in which the USA could participate.

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @szopen
    I didn't know ribbentrop was British Foreign Minister.

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

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

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

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Curmudgeon
    Also note that France invaded Germany on September 7, 1939, but were pushed back. Germany did not invade France at that time, and offered peace.

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Yet Britain & France did not declare war on communist USSR for it's aggression against Poland.

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

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

    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. utu says:
    @Anon
    Did Germany made propaganda use out of the Soviet plan to attack Germany? They captured 80 Soviet generals. There must have been some who could corroborate Suvorov’s theory?

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

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

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

    Stalin’s aggressive intentions, if indeed such existed

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Did they exist or not? My question was about German usage this fact in propaganda? And since Germans did not use it as far s I know, I conclude that Suvorov is just unscrupulous lier which is what one may expect from GRU officer. And I am surprised he got such following including Ron Unz.
     
    Well, from what I think I remember reading here and there, the Germans did repeatedly declare that they had narrowly "preempted" a gigantic Soviet attack, but the Western media just ridiculed the claim as "lying Nazi propaganda." Perhaps this had something to do with the fact that the West was currently at war with Germany, certainly including America (an undeclared war). What neutral countries were to be the target of such German propaganda? Argentina and Turkey? For all I know, those countries did completely accept the German claims.

    Consider that just a couple of years later, the Germans provided scrupulously well-documented proof that the Soviets had massacred the entire Polish officer corps of POWs at Katyn, yet this was totally ignored by the Western media (though I think Irving claims that Churchill may have had Gen. Sikorski, the leader of the Polish government-in-exile assassinated as a consequence). And indeed the *Germans* were the ones charged with that crime at Nuremberg.
    , @L.K
    Oh boy, you really are a moron.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. szopen says:
    @Curmudgeon
    Well, so he did. However, that was after all peace offerings were rejected, and the Polish Army had mobilized toward Germany.
    Try this on for size:
    http://www.tomatobubble.com/smigly_rydz.html

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

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Ron Unz

    So Stalin’s desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn’t happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt’s messages, the rebuff of Churchill’s warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge’s transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?
     
    Without being too rude, this is simply the "Saturday morning cartoons" version of World War II.

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Troll: Mike P
    • Replies: @Wally
    What " crucial evidence" was "distorted"? Do tell.

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

    "Hitler apologist"? 'holocau$t' "denier"? Laughable and childish.

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

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
    - "holocaust historian" Raul Hilberg,
     
    www.codoh.com
    , @L.K
    You are a shill, Eric Zuesse, not only re WW2 but also 9/11.
    , @RudyM

    In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt, a rather ignorant and fanatic professor of Theology and Holocaust Studies (or perhaps “Holocaust Theology”) ferociously attacked him in her book as being a “Holocaust Denier,” leading Irving’s timorous publisher to suddenly cancel the contract for his major new historical volume. This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial held in British Court.

    That legal battle was certainly a David-and-Goliath affair, with wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side, allowing her to fund a veritable army of 40 researchers and legal experts, captained by one of Britain’s most successful Jewish divorce lawyers. By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel.

    In real life unlike in fable, the Goliaths of this world are almost invariably triumphant, and this case was no exception, with Irving being driven into personal bankruptcy, resulting in the loss of his fine central London home. But seen from the longer perspective of history, I think the victory of his tormenters was a remarkably Pyrrhic one.

    Although the target of their unleashed hatred was Irving’s alleged “Holocaust denial,” as near as I can tell, that particular topic was almost entirely absent from all of Irving’s dozens of books, and exactly that very silence was what had provoked their spittle-flecked outrage. Therefore, lacking such a clear target, their lavishly-funded corps of researchers and fact-checkers instead spent a year or more apparently performing a line-by-line and footnote-by-footnote review of everything Irving had ever published, seeking to locate every single historical error that could possibly cast him in a bad professional light. With almost limitless money and manpower, they even utilized the process of legal discovery to subpoena and read the thousands of pages in his bound personal diaries and correspondence, thereby hoping to find some evidence of his “wicked thoughts.” Denial, a 2016 Hollywood film co-written by Lipstadt, may provide a reasonable outline of the sequence of events as seen from her perspective.

    Yet despite such massive financial and human resources, they apparently came up almost entirely empty, at least if Lipstadt’s triumphalist 2005 book History on Trial may be credited. Across four decades of research and writing, which had produced numerous controversial historical claims of the most astonishing nature, they only managed to find a couple of dozen rather minor alleged errors of fact or interpretation, most of these ambiguous or disputed. And the worst they discovered after reading every page of the many linear meters of Irving’s personal diaries was that he had once composed a short “racially insensitive” ditty for his infant daughter, a trivial item which they naturally then trumpeted as proof that he was a “racist.” Thus, they seemingly admitted that Irving’s enormous corpus of historical texts was perhaps 99.9% accurate.

    I think this silence of “the dog that didn’t bark” echoes with thunderclap volume. I’m not aware of any other academic scholar in the entire history of the world who has had all his decades of lifetime work subjected to such painstakingly exhaustive hostile scrutiny. And since Irving apparently passed that test with such flying colors, I think we can regard almost every astonishing claim in all of his books—as recapitulated in his videos—as absolutely accurate.
     
    http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Malla says:
    @Anon

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

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

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

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

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

    BTW which of the countries of the Warsaw Pact actually voted their communist parties into power. Were they given an option to reject the Communist system?

    USSR had to move its border only regaining the Russian land lost to White Finns in 1918. Finns had swastikas (hakenkreuz signs)-wearing army just a few miles from Leningrad in 1939.

    And kicked the Karelian Finns out. If Swastika wearing Finns scared the commies in Moscow so much and it justified an invasion, that means if a non communist country sees hammer and sickle wearing partisans (basically thugs) and soldiers across the border, they would have the right to invade too. Right?

    US never supported USSR, it simply sold some weapons and stuff for gold

    Oh Really??? Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev did not think so. Having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, Khrushchev addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:
    “I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were “discussing freely” among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany’s pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so”

    According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:
    “On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany’s might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.”

    Major George Racey Jordan was an actual Land Lease officer in Alaska. Check out his book
    From Major Jordan’s Dairies about the enormous amount of help given by the USA to the Soviet Union whitout which the Soviet Union would have most probably collapsed.

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html

    On the contrary, Ford owned Volkswagen, GE – Siemens, not speaking of IG Farbenidustrie and Thyssen-Krupp (maker of zyclon gas) – all working for Hitler

    The Bolshevik revolution as well as many other communist revolutions around the world got a lot of financial help from Capitalist Wall Street bankers.

    By contemporary standards, USSR was realy utopian and great and peace-loving. USSR had free healthcare, education, women votes and equal wages, no racial segregation etc. – all things unimaginable in the 1930-s and 1940-s West.

    Soviet Russia during it’s early days was a murderous hellhole. It only became a better place during it’s later decades when unfortunately it was brought down by the USA using the Afghan conflict as one of the means.
    Utopia explains why they had to build walls to keep people in, like the Berlin Wall for example, and given the chance many people tried to escape from their communist ‘utopia’s’ to escape to shitty non communist countries. Indeed Chinese people were attempting to escape from their PRC ‘utopia’ to escape into the Imperialist hellholes of HongKong and Macau. LOL. Ya rite, what do you smoke?
    Anyways I agree with you, pure cowboy Wall street capitalism is poison and socialism has it’s positive points.

    opposing imperialism and colonialism

    By being imperialist itself and sending communist agents into other countries to cause trouble.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You spit anti-Russian myths all the way. Look on the map and learn history to see what belongs and belonged to Russia centuries ago. As for lend-lease, you cite someones' opinions, that may be as well biased. USA sold (and 'lend-leased') things for gold to USSR during war, for it's own benefit. USA invested in Hitler's Germany and its war machine BEFORE war, profiteering from war and making it possible. Having qui prodest, it is hard to counter the facts. Without Ford and General Electric there would be no Wehrmacht, and without JP Morgan and Rockfellers - no NSDAP and Hitler in power. The West made Hitler and WW2 possible. Their goal was and still is Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. szopen says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    You dishonest idiot, you know that’s not what he meant by it. Morons like you deserve the leadership you get, then as now. Say hello to a reprise of Brest-Litovsk, asshole.

    Go and read “Final Report” by Sir Nevile Henderson, when he reported how did everything in his capabilities to make Germans understand that Great Britain will honour her obligation towards Poland. Whatever Ribbentrop thought, was immaterial: what matters is what British diplomats were saying and thinking, and they were clearly saying that GB will fight.

    Moreover, you continue to ignore the fact that Poland and France were allies and had a treaty which obliged France to came to Polish aid in case of war with Germany (though, tbh, what constituted the “help” was IIRC rather vaguely stated). OTOH Czechs had alliance too..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. utu says:
    @szopen

    he occupation of Poland by the Soviets was (you might say, scrupulously) up to the post-WWI Curzon line, not really in accordance with the pact, but as a result of the German attack on Poland and the Polish government absconding to Romania, leaving Poland ungoverned.
     
    It's interesting that you forgot that (a) Polish government left to Romania AFTER Soviets attacked, and the decision to leave was a direct result of Soviet invasion (b) Poland was governed, and there were several hundred thousands Polish soldiers in those eastern territories, with intact Polish administration (c) Soviets were urged by Hitler to invade (d) Soviets were helping German invasion, for example by guiding Nazi Bombers attacking Warsaw.

    Polish government should have stayed in Poland and sign a surrender treaty with Germany just like Petain did. Instead they run away to Rumania and left civilian population in the state of war with Germany leading to horrible civilian casualties down the road. Most dishonorable behavior in the WWII.

    Why before escaping Polish government ordered Polish troops not to engage Soviet soldiers? Because UK did not let them, because this was the plan. Poland was the British pawn to help to start the war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Yup Poland was just the excuse to start a War against Third Reich Germany by the International banking elites. And Japan was used to get the American people into the war against Germany by cornering Japan with embargoes and sanctions.
    , @szopen
    Well, I have very low opinion on pre-war Polish government. They were in practice three power sources, which constantly bickered and fought for the influence.

    As for the order, the idiocy of Polish HQ is especially revealed - when Polish KOP units (Korpus Ochrony Pogranicza, The border protection corps) reported about fights with invading Soviets, they were ordered to sent an emissary, who would find out "what's the Soviets' purpose" because supposedly the HQ initially believed the possibility that Soviets may be entering POland to fight Germans (!!!!)
    , @CanSpeccy

    Poland was the British pawn to help to start the war.
     
    There is no proof of that. Is there? But it makes sense. In fact, the further one examines Britain's actions prior to, and during WW2, the more brilliant they seem.

    This is not understood by most commentators, who point to the fact that Britain ended the war in relative poverty. But the reality is that of the European nations, Britain was among those that suffered from the war least, with a death toll, civilian and military, less than a tenth of Germany's and perhaps one fortieth of Russia's. As for the fact that by the war's end Britain was no longer a great power, that was an inevitable consequence of the emergence of Russia and the US as greatly more populous continental powers.

    Prior to the war, Chamberlain, who as architect of the despised appeasement policy that led Germany into direct confrontation with Russia, put the British economy on a war footing, with something like one third of GDP committed to war preparation. As a result, when Germany attempted to knock Britain our of the war by aerial bombardment, the Brits had radar and the Spitfire, and thus were able to deflect the power of the Luftwaffe.

    That Chamberlain was the architect of British war policy is supported by the friendly relations that Churchill maintained with him when he replaced Chamberlain as Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Churchill's greatest initial preoccupation was getting the US into the war, declaring on the day of Pearl Harbor, that now the war could not be lost, i.e. that the US would inevitably join Britain in the war against Japan's German ally.

    Britain's own efforts to win the war were, however rather small, focusing mainly on the protection of its colonial possessions and attacking weak points of the axis such as Norway, Italy and Greece, but exasperating the Americans by their reluctance to launch a Western offensive that was expected to bring huge casualties.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Malla says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    First we don't calculate behavior based soley on pre-emptive moves against the supposed intentions of another. That's for revisionists who are uncomfortable with some aspects of objective reality. One making a acse for war based on the assumptions that another is going to start one based not on evidence, but mere speculation.
    \Given the long held anomisity between the germans and the Russians, if one is going to base war on speculative intentions -- it's a coin toss.

    But that is not really how history is measured. We examine actual events -- who did what and when.

    There is no really support that Russia steal reeling in the wake of economic chaos indicate as much. In all circumstances Germany is throwing the first punch. In the case of Poland, it's clear that Germany had every intention based on their behavior towards Poland of invading if diplomacy by coercion failed. This sounds like the mind reading tactics in which we give the police the benefit of the doubt -- as a conservative I am not so inclined to grant government "soothsaying accuracy" based on how they felt. of course Russia, Pres. Stalin felt threatened.

    Germany through the first punch. And Hitler had ever intention of forcing the Polish issue by force. Hid belief that if their must be war and blood, better do it and be done with it and everything Germany did reflected as much.
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    But of greater concern is the opening salvo against western press. Certainly, the western press in the US has a solid recorded history of denying other's research based on superficial qualities -- that is on the record. But in the case of this book, I don't see any evidence that the western press engaged in some manner if deliberate cover-up or blocked access to the material. Certainly not because they were in a conspiracy to hinder discussions on the war -- given the vast number of historians entertaining various discussion papers, debates, on warfare, even conferences east and west by historians in which counter-factual are a regular tool. all suggests that western historians have not been out to suppress anything. In fact, aside from the record of superficial quality suppression, the only whole sale practice of literary suppression of the magnitude required has been engaged by communists in the east block. There censorship to the point of death was almost routine.

    Furthermore, it is not uncommon for a counter narrative and this does seem to be all that counter save for who started the matter, to gain traction takes time.

    In essence it is in the same vein of arguments that lay the blame for the japanese attack on pearl harbor at the feet of the us.
    _______________________


    There is absolutely no doubt that the Soviets intended a global revolution, but there is little evidence said revolution was to or could be initiated by invasion. There primary primary was internal subversion of the polity. Cultivating communists from within and exploiting traditional or standing national governance vulnerabilities and errors. In fact, they employ many of the tactics so many accuse the jews of doing.
    ________________________


    While I certainly feel for the pole. There is no evidence that either France or Great Britain was in a condition to go go to war as much as they might have wanted to in Poland's defense. Whether or not they were in that position when Germany invaded Alsace - Lorraine is another matter. But by Poland, Germany was a war machine beyond their immediate response.

    _________________________

    There is absolutely no doubt that the Soviets intended a global revolution, but there is little evidence said revolution was to or could be initiated by invasion. There primary primary was internal subversion of the polity. Cultivating communists from within and exploiting traditional or standing national governance vulnerabilities and errors. In fact, they employ many of the tactics so many accuse the jews of doing.

    Actually Stalin and Trotsky had serious difference of opinions on this issue. Trotsky preferred the internal subversion method which you just explained (and he was Jewish) while Stalin preferred conquests using the Red Army wherever possible. Post WW2 Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania became communist not by internal subversion but by the conquests of the Red Army.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. AlexK says:
    @Duglarri
    So Stalin's desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn't happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt's messages, the rebuff of Churchill's warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge's transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

    The reports from the front, the response to the Soviet unit reporting they were under fire: "Are you mad? And why is your transmission not in code?"

    And so by this retelling, Hitler noticed in the nick of time that Russia was about to attack, and cleverly spent six months assembling three million men on the Russian border?

    Hitler's invasion of Russia was purely defensive in nature? Oh, and he never wrote in Mein Kampf that Germany's destiny was in the East, and the concept of "Lebensraum" is fictional as well?

    Russian troop dispositions on the eve of war may well have been offensive in nature. Stalin may well have been planning to attack Germany at some point.

    But the claim that Stalin was responsible for World War II- wait, hadn't that war already been in progress for close to two years when by this thesis Stalin's initiation of the war was pre-empted by brave Adolf's invasion?

    Even if Stalin was planning to initiate a war with Hitler- well, who could blame him?

    But to make this claim that Stalin, and not Hitler, started World War II- is quite absurd.

    It’s simply amazing how many pundits out there are making outrageous claims supported by “factual data” (pulled out from their behinds) trying to turn upside down a common view on historical events…
    Completely agree with Duglarri that “…this claim that Stalin, and not Hitler, started World War II- is quite absurd”… I would add that it’s not only absurd – it’s a LUNACY.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Malla says:
    @Anon
    Though Stalin was indeed a phycho and probably did want to attack Europe, the fact remains that Germany struck first, plus lost, and is therefor the guilty party. And lets not forget that Communism was virtually a 100% Jewish attempt to rule the world, just as is the current NeoCon NWO attempt.

    You know what's funny. This Stalin-as-villain Narrative would be useful to the current Neocon Narrative of Putin-as-the-new-Stalin-and-Hitler rolled into one. Neocons hate Putin so much that Obama and US puppet-allies didn't even attend Russia's celebration in 2015 of the victory in the Great Patriotic War. If there was a theory that Stalin had intended to strike any nation but Germany, I think Neocons would jump at the chance. But as much as Jews hate Stalin, they understandably hate Hitler more. So, it wouldn't be useful to make it seem as though Hitler was reacting to event than creating them with evil intentions.

    No, communism was NOT a Jewish attempt to rule the world. Unlike neocons, I think most Jewish communists were sincere even if ultimately wrongheaded about the justness of their cause. They were like early Christians but with Islamic-style Jihad mentality.

    Given Europe's status today, I almost wish Stalin had taken all of Europe. That way, there would have been no mass invasion from Africa and Muslim nations. Communism would have smothered bad ideas like feminism. (Communist ideal of feminism for unity and equality between men and women, not an anti-male screed that is feminism in the West.) Also, leftist tyranny under communism would have turned almost all of Europe in the nationalist and rightwing direction... as happened in Poland and Hungary.

    Given Europe’s status today, I almost wish Stalin had taken all of Europe. That way, there would have been no mass invasion from Africa and Muslim nations. Communism would have smothered bad ideas like feminism. (Communist ideal of feminism for unity and equality between men and women, not an anti-male screed that is feminism in the West.) Also, leftist tyranny under communism would have turned almost all of Europe in the nationalist and rightwing direction… as happened in Poland and Hungary.

    I agree with you for a change. You do have a point.
    However feminism was a subset of cultural Marxism and was a darling of the left. Cultural Marxism comes from the same sever rat source from which comes Communism, Karl Marx.
    Anyways in the Communist Eastern black a cultural phenomenon arose later called ‘Social Realism’ which in many ways was the exact opposite of Cultural Marxism. Ironically with time, it were in Western Capitalist countries where traditional Euro culture saw the most destruction. But during the early days of Soviet Russia some of the same pathologies which would plaque the Western world later were present. Ugly Modern art, cultural destruction etc… It was only Social Realism which healed the cultural damage of the early Communist period.
    Anyways I agree with about the rest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Malla says:
    @utu
    Polish government should have stayed in Poland and sign a surrender treaty with Germany just like Petain did. Instead they run away to Rumania and left civilian population in the state of war with Germany leading to horrible civilian casualties down the road. Most dishonorable behavior in the WWII.

    Why before escaping Polish government ordered Polish troops not to engage Soviet soldiers? Because UK did not let them, because this was the plan. Poland was the British pawn to help to start the war.

    Yup Poland was just the excuse to start a War against Third Reich Germany by the International banking elites. And Japan was used to get the American people into the war against Germany by cornering Japan with embargoes and sanctions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. szopen says:
    @utu
    Polish government should have stayed in Poland and sign a surrender treaty with Germany just like Petain did. Instead they run away to Rumania and left civilian population in the state of war with Germany leading to horrible civilian casualties down the road. Most dishonorable behavior in the WWII.

    Why before escaping Polish government ordered Polish troops not to engage Soviet soldiers? Because UK did not let them, because this was the plan. Poland was the British pawn to help to start the war.

    Well, I have very low opinion on pre-war Polish government. They were in practice three power sources, which constantly bickered and fought for the influence.

    As for the order, the idiocy of Polish HQ is especially revealed – when Polish KOP units (Korpus Ochrony Pogranicza, The border protection corps) reported about fights with invading Soviets, they were ordered to sent an emissary, who would find out “what’s the Soviets’ purpose” because supposedly the HQ initially believed the possibility that Soviets may be entering POland to fight Germans (!!!!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. 22pp22 says:
    @Wally
    Pay attention and get out more often.

    France and Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around, France & Britain started WWII.
    And note that France and Britain did not declare war on the communist USSR who invaded Poland from the east.

    www.codoh.com

    Timeline.

    Germany invades Poland.

    Britain and France threaten to declare war

    Britain and France do declare war.

    Russia invades Poland.

    Ergo. The invasion of Poland kicked off the war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Nope.

    Russia invades Finland, Poland seizes part of Czechoslovakia.

    Ergo, that started the war.

    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    Polish government should have stayed in Poland and sign a surrender treaty with Germany just like Petain did. Instead they run away to Rumania and left civilian population in the state of war with Germany leading to horrible civilian casualties down the road. Most dishonorable behavior in the WWII.

    Why before escaping Polish government ordered Polish troops not to engage Soviet soldiers? Because UK did not let them, because this was the plan. Poland was the British pawn to help to start the war.

    Poland was the British pawn to help to start the war.

    There is no proof of that. Is there? But it makes sense. In fact, the further one examines Britain’s actions prior to, and during WW2, the more brilliant they seem.

    This is not understood by most commentators, who point to the fact that Britain ended the war in relative poverty. But the reality is that of the European nations, Britain was among those that suffered from the war least, with a death toll, civilian and military, less than a tenth of Germany’s and perhaps one fortieth of Russia’s. As for the fact that by the war’s end Britain was no longer a great power, that was an inevitable consequence of the emergence of Russia and the US as greatly more populous continental powers.

    Prior to the war, Chamberlain, who as architect of the despised appeasement policy that led Germany into direct confrontation with Russia, put the British economy on a war footing, with something like one third of GDP committed to war preparation. As a result, when Germany attempted to knock Britain our of the war by aerial bombardment, the Brits had radar and the Spitfire, and thus were able to deflect the power of the Luftwaffe.

    That Chamberlain was the architect of British war policy is supported by the friendly relations that Churchill maintained with him when he replaced Chamberlain as Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Churchill’s greatest initial preoccupation was getting the US into the war, declaring on the day of Pearl Harbor, that now the war could not be lost, i.e. that the US would inevitably join Britain in the war against Japan’s German ally.

    Britain’s own efforts to win the war were, however rather small, focusing mainly on the protection of its colonial possessions and attacking weak points of the axis such as Norway, Italy and Greece, but exasperating the Americans by their reluctance to launch a Western offensive that was expected to bring huge casualties.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Ron Unz says:
    @utu

    Stalin’s aggressive intentions, if indeed such existed
     
    Did they exist or not? My question was about German usage this fact in propaganda? And since Germans did not use it as far s I know, I conclude that Suvorov is just unscrupulous lier which is what one may expect from GRU officer. And I am surprised he got such following including Ron Unz.

    Did they exist or not? My question was about German usage this fact in propaganda? And since Germans did not use it as far s I know, I conclude that Suvorov is just unscrupulous lier which is what one may expect from GRU officer. And I am surprised he got such following including Ron Unz.

    Well, from what I think I remember reading here and there, the Germans did repeatedly declare that they had narrowly “preempted” a gigantic Soviet attack, but the Western media just ridiculed the claim as “lying Nazi propaganda.” Perhaps this had something to do with the fact that the West was currently at war with Germany, certainly including America (an undeclared war). What neutral countries were to be the target of such German propaganda? Argentina and Turkey? For all I know, those countries did completely accept the German claims.

    Consider that just a couple of years later, the Germans provided scrupulously well-documented proof that the Soviets had massacred the entire Polish officer corps of POWs at Katyn, yet this was totally ignored by the Western media (though I think Irving claims that Churchill may have had Gen. Sikorski, the leader of the Polish government-in-exile assassinated as a consequence). And indeed the *Germans* were the ones charged with that crime at Nuremberg.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    the Germans provided scrupulously well-documented proof that the Soviets had massacred the entire Polish officer corps
     
    You mean, the Nazis provided the proof, created by Dr. Goebbels' institution. Today, UK provides the proof of Skripal poisoning, USA - of Russian election meddling, and the Dutch - of MH17 downed by Russia. It all traces back to the 1933 fire of Reichstag - old school of Goebbelsian ministry of truth.
    , @utu
    The eventual futility of German propaganda and example of its failure in case of Katyn (1943) does explain why Germany did not make greater effort to make claims that USSR was preparing an attack on Germany in 1941. They did use captured documents in Warsaw in 1939 in their propaganda effort in 1940. Whether they believed it was futile or not it is irrelevant. Why they did not create a meme of imminent Soviet attack that they had just preempted? They had 80 Soviet generals in captivity to corroborate this meme. I am sure if they tried to create the meme it would have survived in some fragmentary shape and some historians would consider it. Instead we had to wait till 1990 for some GRU officer who out of nowhere reveals USSR's plan to attack Germany in summer 1941. He did it while living in UK in some spy protection program w/o access to Soviet Archives for at least 12 years.

    Who benefits from the meme created by Suvorov? Obviously Hitler apologists because it justifies his attack on USSR but nobody really cares about Hitler. Most importantly it benefits Stalin apologists who can glorify Soviet militarization program and can explain away total indolence of Red Army in 1941. The great Red Army was not ill prepared , ill equipped with indolent officer corp but instead Red Army just lost the race with Hitler by few days. If the great Red Army won that race the Hitler would be defeated in 1941 and Holocaust would not have happened. Stalin was not incompetent bungler who trusted Hitler and insane murderer who wiped out his own officer corp but he was a great strategists who just did not have luck. He lost by being just few days late. Furthermore it reinforces the belief that you can't trust Soviets. When they talk peace and complain about aggressive American stance of installing Pershing missiles in West Germany by Reagan they are actually preparing for an offensive war. Soviets were not innocent victims of Hitler because they were never innocent victims. They always are plotting a sneaky attack. This was the message Suvorov was sending on behalf of his handlers and he as a double spy had two sets of handlers. It seems that he managed to satisfy both his Soviet and British/American handlers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    There must have been something weird going on with Soviet paratroop certifications, because the figure makes absolutely no sense, especially for an army in such a wretched state
     
    Well, Suvorov devotes Chapter 13 of his book to the Soviet paratroops, and his claims seem quite persuasive to me. I don't read Russian, so perhaps all his references are totally fraudulent, but if so, would his books have sold millions of copies in that language and gained the support of numerous Russian historians? Would our Naval Academic Press have reprinted it, and invited him to speak?

    The point is that this is merely one of many, many dozens of absolutely shocking factual claims that Suvorov makes. Are they all totally fraudulent? Offhand, that seems a bit implausible to me.

    Incidentally, a large portion of his book is primarily focused on rebutting the "conventional wisdom" that the Red Army was in a wretched state, and I think he does that quite effectively.

    I don’t read Russian, so perhaps all his references are totally fraudulent, but if so, would his books have sold millions of copies in that language and gained the support of numerous Russian historians? Would our Naval Academic Press have reprinted it, and invited him to speak?

    This is very interesting, but quite irrelevant to any point I was trying to make.

    Incidentally, a large portion of his book is primarily focused on rebutting the “conventional wisdom” that the Red Army was in a wretched state, and I think he does that quite effectively.

    Well, I suppose I’ll have to read it. But the result of the first years of the war do not speak very well for Red Army effectiveness at that point, so I am somewhat predisposed to the view that its state as a fighting force was not comparable to that of the German army.

    Supporting this view are the massive tank losses (the Red Army lost more tanks than the Germans ever had), which English-speaking historians (Zaloga etc.) attribute to inadequate training and mechanical and logistical problems. Russian wiki (my ability to read Russian historians is sadly limited) blames Недостаточный профессионализм командного состава , “insufficient professionalism of the command staff”. Rokossovsky describes a situation of utter panic in his memoirs, such as in this excerpt:
    Наблюдались случаи, когда даже целые части, попавшие под внезапный фланговый удар небольшой группы вражеских танков и авиации, подвергались панике… Боязнь окружения и страх перед воображаемыми парашютными десантами противника в течение длительного времени были настоящим бичом. И только там, где были крепкие кадры командного и политического состава, люди в любой обстановке орались уверенно, оказывая врагу организованный отпор.
    which according to Google describes cases of sudden panic and a general state of terror.

    Anyway this is at best a tangential issue to the idea that 1 in every 3 Soviet soldiers (using estimates of 2M paratroopers and your figure of 5.5M total) was a paratrooper ready to be dropped over Germany. This suggests not that Rezun’s sources are wrong but that, as I said, There must have been something weird going on with Soviet paratroop certifications. Particularly since not 1 in 100 of those “paratroops” were ever dropped anywhere.

    The point is that this is merely one of many, many dozens of absolutely shocking factual claims that Suvorov makes. Are they all totally fraudulent? Offhand, that seems a bit implausible to me.

    I don’t know. I never said they were. I didn’t even say this one was. As far as I can tell Rezun seems to be a serious and competent historian, certainly vastly more knowledgeable than me. All I said was there must be something weird going on with Soviet paratroop certifications, they couldn’t seriously have expected to drop any significant portion of one million or two million men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    There was no Poland at the time, the country and the government collapsed and Red Army simply occupied Western Ukraine and Belarus to protect the people.
     
    Oh what a nice and cute excuse to take some Polish land. And the World was silent about it including the evil capitalist USA Britain. But wait, the Japanese moved into Vietnam because the French government had collapsed and the whole evil Capitalist world (evil USA in particular) went screaming and screeching. And maybe Germany was right to invade Poland to protect ethnic Germans.

    BTW which of the countries of the Warsaw Pact actually voted their communist parties into power. Were they given an option to reject the Communist system?

    USSR had to move its border only regaining the Russian land lost to White Finns in 1918. Finns had swastikas (hakenkreuz signs)-wearing army just a few miles from Leningrad in 1939.
     

    And kicked the Karelian Finns out. If Swastika wearing Finns scared the commies in Moscow so much and it justified an invasion, that means if a non communist country sees hammer and sickle wearing partisans (basically thugs) and soldiers across the border, they would have the right to invade too. Right?

    US never supported USSR, it simply sold some weapons and stuff for gold
     
    Oh Really??? Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev did not think so. Having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, Khrushchev addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:
    “I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were “discussing freely” among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany’s pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so”

    According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:
    “On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany’s might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.”

    Major George Racey Jordan was an actual Land Lease officer in Alaska. Check out his book
    From Major Jordan’s Dairies about the enormous amount of help given by the USA to the Soviet Union whitout which the Soviet Union would have most probably collapsed.

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html

    On the contrary, Ford owned Volkswagen, GE – Siemens, not speaking of IG Farbenidustrie and Thyssen-Krupp (maker of zyclon gas) – all working for Hitler
     

    The Bolshevik revolution as well as many other communist revolutions around the world got a lot of financial help from Capitalist Wall Street bankers.

    By contemporary standards, USSR was realy utopian and great and peace-loving. USSR had free healthcare, education, women votes and equal wages, no racial segregation etc. – all things unimaginable in the 1930-s and 1940-s West.
     
    Soviet Russia during it's early days was a murderous hellhole. It only became a better place during it's later decades when unfortunately it was brought down by the USA using the Afghan conflict as one of the means.
    Utopia explains why they had to build walls to keep people in, like the Berlin Wall for example, and given the chance many people tried to escape from their communist 'utopia's' to escape to shitty non communist countries. Indeed Chinese people were attempting to escape from their PRC 'utopia' to escape into the Imperialist hellholes of HongKong and Macau. LOL. Ya rite, what do you smoke?
    Anyways I agree with you, pure cowboy Wall street capitalism is poison and socialism has it's positive points.

    opposing imperialism and colonialism
     
    By being imperialist itself and sending communist agents into other countries to cause trouble.

    You spit anti-Russian myths all the way. Look on the map and learn history to see what belongs and belonged to Russia centuries ago. As for lend-lease, you cite someones’ opinions, that may be as well biased. USA sold (and ‘lend-leased’) things for gold to USSR during war, for it’s own benefit. USA invested in Hitler’s Germany and its war machine BEFORE war, profiteering from war and making it possible. Having qui prodest, it is hard to counter the facts. Without Ford and General Electric there would be no Wehrmacht, and without JP Morgan and Rockfellers – no NSDAP and Hitler in power. The West made Hitler and WW2 possible. Their goal was and still is Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla

    You spit anti-Russian myths
     
    No I write anti COMMUNIST facts. I am quite philo Russian actually and love traditional Russian culture. Indeed I consider Russia the first victim of Communism. Though I agree that the Soviet Union became a much better place in the later decades when unfortunately it was destroyed. I wanted the latter Soviet Union to survive but I consider the Bolshevik globalist revolution as a disaster. By showing the facts about Land Lease, I am not saying that Russians (or other Soviet ethnics) were incapable of winning the war, but of the disaster that was communism. You consider my anti communist posts as anti Russian, which is a mistake on your part. Right now if there would a war in between the West and Russia, I would support Russia but I would not have supported the Soviet Union during WW2.

    Without Ford and General Electric there would be no Wehrmacht, and without JP Morgan and Rockfellers – no NSDAP and Hitler in power.
     

    Germany did not need any outside help to come back on it's feet from a technological point of view. It needed resources though.

    you cite someones’ opinions, that may be as well biased
     
    Like Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev??????
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Did they exist or not? My question was about German usage this fact in propaganda? And since Germans did not use it as far s I know, I conclude that Suvorov is just unscrupulous lier which is what one may expect from GRU officer. And I am surprised he got such following including Ron Unz.
     
    Well, from what I think I remember reading here and there, the Germans did repeatedly declare that they had narrowly "preempted" a gigantic Soviet attack, but the Western media just ridiculed the claim as "lying Nazi propaganda." Perhaps this had something to do with the fact that the West was currently at war with Germany, certainly including America (an undeclared war). What neutral countries were to be the target of such German propaganda? Argentina and Turkey? For all I know, those countries did completely accept the German claims.

    Consider that just a couple of years later, the Germans provided scrupulously well-documented proof that the Soviets had massacred the entire Polish officer corps of POWs at Katyn, yet this was totally ignored by the Western media (though I think Irving claims that Churchill may have had Gen. Sikorski, the leader of the Polish government-in-exile assassinated as a consequence). And indeed the *Germans* were the ones charged with that crime at Nuremberg.

    the Germans provided scrupulously well-documented proof that the Soviets had massacred the entire Polish officer corps

    You mean, the Nazis provided the proof, created by Dr. Goebbels’ institution. Today, UK provides the proof of Skripal poisoning, USA – of Russian election meddling, and the Dutch – of MH17 downed by Russia. It all traces back to the 1933 fire of Reichstag – old school of Goebbelsian ministry of truth.

    Read More
    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @Mike P
    Even Wikipedia ascribes the Katyn massacre to the Soviets, so Goebbels for once seems to have it right.
    , @Wally
    See detailed, verified, internationally witnessed information, with real photos, about actual excavations of the Katyn Massacres by the communist USSR below.*
    You won't see this sort of real work for the claimed & allegedly 'known' 'holocau$t' mass graves and the claimed immense human remains.
    This quote sums it up well:

    We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor, 34,000 at Babi Yar) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

     
    * Katyn facts: 'Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von Katyn'
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=758

    Cheers.

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Ron Unz says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Given that Suvorov is the most widely-read military historian in world history
     
    According to whom?

    Given that Suvorov is the most widely-read military historian in world history

    According to whom?

    Well, our friend “Andrew E. Mathis” is not only an ignorant activist-type, but also an extremely lazy one since he obviously didn’t even bother to read the text of my article, in which I quoted this excerpt from the book review:

    In the years that followed, over five million copies have been sold, making Suvorov the most-read military historian in history.

    From what I’ve heard, sales of something like 50,000 copies are generally enough to get someone onto the NYT bestseller list, but very few military historians ever reach that distinction. So sales of 5M copies of military history books really does seem like quite a lot. Offhand, I can’t think of any other military historian who’s sold more than than 5M copies, but perhaps you can…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Mike P says:
    @Jon Halpenny
    The historian Christer Bergstrom claims the Axis superiority was actually about 4.5 million against 2.3 million Soviet troops in the western districts. Obviously the Soviets had more troops in other districts. But if they had wanted to invade central Europe it seems obvious they would have deployed far more troops in the western districts. https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/operation-barbarossa-9-popular-myths-busted/

    Interesting statements on that page you linked to, but very little in the way of sources.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Tyrion 2
    He'd already swallowed up half of Central Europe. He was told that enough was enough. Were he only concerned about the plight of the German minority in Poland there were many other options than that which he took. He clearly thought that France and Britain were decadent and would acquiesce. They already had in the cases of Austria and Czechoslovakia. He misjudged and the whole world suffered for his hubris.

    The previous partitioning of Poland, by Prussia, Austria and Russia, had long been considered an infamous tragedy. Repeating it was never going to be a popular move. Repeating it in the face of a clear threat of war was abject stupidity given that he didn't want a war to his west. If he cared more about the German people than his own over-weening ego, he would not have started a war that was entirely catastrophic for the Germans. It would have been easy to avoid. He need only have not destroyed a neighbouring country.

    You’re looking at history with post-war hindsight. Maybe, if Hitler knew in 1939 what you know now, would he have invaded Poland or would he have done a proper job of preparing for world war?

    Who can say?

    Although, thinking he had the war won in June 1940 could have been the biggest mistake Hitler ever made?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Sure, sure, I don't want to fall into the teleological trap. Nonetheless, he could have just governed Germany rather than deleting poor Poland.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Ron, I haven’t been rude to you, so I’m unsure what your problem is here, but you don’t need to put my name in sneer quotes. That’s my actual name, just like Ron Unz is yours.

    I read your article, and I asked the question I did because your essay did not cite any authority on the idea of Suvorov being the most read military historian in history.

    But since you asked, Antony Beevor has likely sold more books than Suvorov. For one thing, he’s more prolific; for another, two of his books alone have sold more than three million copies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    I read your article, and I asked the question I did because your essay did not cite any authority on the idea of Suvorov being the most read military historian in history.
     
    It cited Andrei Navrozov. With block quotes and everything. That should have answered your question "According to whom?", which is quite apart from the question of fact, if you want to raise that too.
    , @Ron Unz

    I read your article, and I asked the question I did because your essay did not cite any authority on the idea of Suvorov being the most read military historian in history.
     
    Well, I'd explicitly cited the reviewer who made that claim, whose accuracy I admittedly can't guarantee.

    But since you asked, Antony Beevor has likely sold more books than Suvorov. For one thing, he’s more prolific; for another, two of his books alone have sold more than three million copies.
     
    Well, according to Wikipedia, Beevor has sold more than 6M total books as of today, which is admittedly far more I'd realized. However, a careful examination of the text I cited seems to suggest that Icebreaker *alone* had already sold 5M copies by 2010. Meanwhile, Suvorov has published something like 20+ total books, many of which have also sold extremely well. So I think it's quite plausible that the reviewer was correct, and he's the most widely read military historian in history. However, if you can find someone else who has sold e.g. 10M copies, then I'd be willing to admit that Suvorov is probably just #2.

    It's also possible that Suvorov was indeed #1 when the review was written, but someone else has subsequently passed him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. 1RW says:

    The arguments the author presents as supporting Suvorov’s thesis are flawed
    Soviets had massive numbers of tanks, but less than a thousand each of T-34 and KV-1. Most tanks were light tanks such as the BT series which were hopelessly inadequate against German armor. Furthermore, Red Army tank units were short of radios, only platoon commanders had them. This made it difficult to carry out large organized actions.
    The French also had more and better tanks than Germany, no one accuses them of starting WW2

    Soviet aircraft, while numerous, were also obsolete in large part.

    The Il-2’s initial lack of a tail gunner was a grave mistake by high ranking Soviet officers, not a signal of offensive intent. B-17s were strategic bombers as offensive a plane as any and were studded with defensive machine guns, as were the Ju-87 Stucka dive bombers which had a tail gunner

    The Germans and allies attacked with over 4 million troops in June 1941. The Red Army opposed them with 2 million – hardly overwhelming Soviet numerical superiority, the opposite in fact.

    The Soviets invaded Poland 6 weeks after the Germans, at a point when Polish troops were no longer able to offer meaningful resistance. This looks far less like being partners in crime and far more like the Soviets keeping the German border as far from Moscow as possible.

    The man who wrote as Suvorov is a traitor and his books are likely an MI6 pay op

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  166. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    (*) During the early years of World War II, the Germans effectively utilized paratroops and air-mobile forces to seize key enemy targets far behind the front lines during a major offensive, and this was an important component of their victories against France in 1940 and Greece in 1941. Such units are necessarily lightly armed and no match for regular infantry in a defensive battle; hence their only role is an offensive one. Germany entered the war with 4,000 paratroops, a far larger force than anything found in Britain, France, America, Italy, or Japan. However, the Soviets had at least 1,000,000 trained paratroopers, and Suvorov believes that the true total was actually closer to 2,000,000
     
    If these are from government figures then those figures are of the "we pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us" variety. Paratrooper training is not for everyone. Most soldiers in modern professional armies are not even able to finish the training.

    Also, a key principal of defence is to maintain an offensive spirit. Paratroopers would have been perfectly useful in a defence in depth strategy of the Soviet Union.

    According to Russian wiki, Советское командование, исходившее из наступательной стратегии будущей войны, не уделяло должного внимания разработке оборонительных операций, that is, The Soviet command, proceeding from the offensive strategy of the future war, did not give due attention to the development of defensive operations, supporting this with a quote from Zhukov: Обучение войск оборонительным действиям, встречным сражениям, отступательным действиям редко выходило из тактических рамок. Я не знаю ни одного оперативно-стратегического мероприятия, где оборона была бы разыграна или отработана в крупных оперативно-стратегических масштабах, где бы оборона противодействовала глубокому прорыву крупных бронетанковых группировок, взаимодействующих с крупными воздушными силами or The training of troops in defensive operations, counter battles, retreat actions rarely came out of tactical framework. I do not know of any operational and strategic measures where defense would be played out or worked out at large operative-strategic scales, where defense would counteract the deep breakthrough of large armored groups interacting with large air forces according to Google. The quotation actually goes on longer but I have cut it off.

    Anyway I am still suspicious about those paratroop numbers. Evidently paratroops in the USSR were not the well-trained elite troops they were elsewhere. For comparison in modern Russia less than 10% of the armed forces are airborne (60K / over 1M).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Mike P says:
    @Anon

    the Germans provided scrupulously well-documented proof that the Soviets had massacred the entire Polish officer corps
     
    You mean, the Nazis provided the proof, created by Dr. Goebbels' institution. Today, UK provides the proof of Skripal poisoning, USA - of Russian election meddling, and the Dutch - of MH17 downed by Russia. It all traces back to the 1933 fire of Reichstag - old school of Goebbelsian ministry of truth.

    Even Wikipedia ascribes the Katyn massacre to the Soviets, so Goebbels for once seems to have it right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Ron Unz

    Outside observers had argued that no army anywhere in the world could penetrate it. ” – weak evidence. That sounds like a description of the Maginot Line.
     
    However, France's Maginot Line *was* virtually impenetrable. That's why the Germans went around it, and won the war that way. From what I recall, the Maginot Line remained virtually unbroken until the defeated French government ordered its surrender.

    Meanwhile, in Finland, the Soviets had no way of "going around" the Mannerheim Line, which may even have been tougher because of the exceptionally difficult terrain and weather conditions. Suvorov devotes Chapter 22 to this issue, and it certainly seemed to explode the assumptions I'd had for decades.

    It still amazes me how people are completely unaware of the Finnish-Russo Winter War in 1939..

    Hundreds of foreign war reporters were stationed in Finland. Then all of a sudden nothing was written about it.

    Russians were too ashamed of their massive defeat (Stalin sent 1,5 million Russians to the Winter War. 1 million died in our forests.)

    The West was ashamed, because they had refused all help we begged from them. Even Sweden, our ‘ally’, betrayed us. Lots of empty promises, not one country sold weapons to us. Swedish schoolkids raised money to buy a fighter to Finland. Schoolkids!

    Volunteers were not given permission to come through Scandinavia or Germany to Finland. Until the war was about to end, so it was Finns fighting on the frontline – alone.

    When looking at the Russian POWs it’s clear they come from Siberia or other cold parts in Russia. The terrain cannot have come as a surprise, nor the cold weather. It was pure incompetence.

    All Russian tansk were blown up by ski patrols. For example the 44th division, a 30 km long convoy; when the whole convoy was on the road, Finns felled trees in front and behind the column. After that ski patrols jammed the tankers with a piece of wood and threw a Molotov Cocktail so that the tank exploded. (Molotov told the world that Russia is dropping food to the starving Finns, not bombs. Finns called the bombs ‘Molotov’s bread baskets’. And we gave him a drink to go with the food; Molotov Cocktail). When the convoy was trapped it was divided into smaller units and the massacre began.

    When Soviet’s elite 63. division was dispatched to help the 44th. division (which was already beyond any help), it travelled on the ice. Finns broke the ice – once the whole column was on ice – with machine guns, and you can guess the rest. Our lakes are filled with dead Russians.

    Due to West’s decision to silence and ignore the Winter War, they don’t learn anything from our masterful warfare. But Russians…. they have studied the Winter War and can defend their country from an invasion.

    Here you get some idea of what it was like for the Russian soldiers in the Winter War, and understand why we got more weapons from Russia than from all other nations combined:

    Or read a truthful description:

    http://ar.to/2010/08/red-blood-white-snow

    Nobody helped us when Stalin invaded Finland, so we did pretty good, didn’t we?

    But belittled, ridiculed, ignored and even blamed – that we get both by the West and Russia. But we know what happened in reality. Nobody ever asks us, so we don’t tell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Good for Finland. I’m very impressed by what Finland did in the winter war. I hate loathe and despise all communists and their liberal admirers.

    The great hero of the 20 th century is General Franco who whipped the communists out of Spain despite the fact that the empty sink liberal’s brains were full of communist propaganda about the Spanish was against the communists.

    While the useful idiot intellectuals were publishing their worshipful books and journalism about the Soviets Finland and Spain drive the communist invaders out of their countries.
    , @szopen
    (Stalin sent 1,5 million Russians to the Winter War. 1 million died in our forests.)

    Wikipedia claims 120-170 thousands plus 188-207k wounded.
    , @Anon

    But belittled, ridiculed, ignored and even blamed – that we get both by the West and Russia
     
    You deserve it all the way. Finns were granted independence by Russia in 1917, yet they took away Russian Pechenga and Vyborg a year later, with genocide of the Russian inhabitants. During Winter War of 1939, they mass-executed and tortured Russian POWs with ferocity uncommon even among modern Daesh. There exists mass forensic evidence. And, there were Finnish death camps, not better than Nazi death camps during WW2.

    That's why Finns were usually shot and rarely taken POWs during WW2. A complete Finnish division, encirled in 1942, was deliberately annihilated by incendiary munitions (termite bombs).
    , @1RW
    Uh, the Red Army won. Finland surrendered. The Mannerheim line was breached. Still not sure how you can call it a defeat for the Red Army. More like a surprisingly hard won victory.

    I mean the Finns did well with what they had, but they surrendered. And it’s not like the Soviets took away ancient Finnish homeland - it was all Russian Empire barely 20 years before.

    No one owed you help. If a country decides that it’s in its self interest to not help, as Germany did btw, then they won’t help. I know the British promised help, but it’s your fault for taking them seriously- Perfidious Albion has a funny way of helping.

    Finally, if anything, the West loves to talk about the Winter war as a victory for the plucky Finnish - counterfactual as the narrative is. I suppose it comforts them, just like they love to read and take at face value the memoirs of Wehrmacht generals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Ron, I haven't been rude to you, so I'm unsure what your problem is here, but you don't need to put my name in sneer quotes. That's my actual name, just like Ron Unz is yours.

    I read your article, and I asked the question I did because your essay did not cite any authority on the idea of Suvorov being the most read military historian in history.

    But since you asked, Antony Beevor has likely sold more books than Suvorov. For one thing, he's more prolific; for another, two of his books alone have sold more than three million copies.

    I read your article, and I asked the question I did because your essay did not cite any authority on the idea of Suvorov being the most read military historian in history.

    It cited Andrei Navrozov. With block quotes and everything. That should have answered your question “According to whom?”, which is quite apart from the question of fact, if you want to raise that too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Ron Unz says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Ron, I haven't been rude to you, so I'm unsure what your problem is here, but you don't need to put my name in sneer quotes. That's my actual name, just like Ron Unz is yours.

    I read your article, and I asked the question I did because your essay did not cite any authority on the idea of Suvorov being the most read military historian in history.

    But since you asked, Antony Beevor has likely sold more books than Suvorov. For one thing, he's more prolific; for another, two of his books alone have sold more than three million copies.

    I read your article, and I asked the question I did because your essay did not cite any authority on the idea of Suvorov being the most read military historian in history.

    Well, I’d explicitly cited the reviewer who made that claim, whose accuracy I admittedly can’t guarantee.

    But since you asked, Antony Beevor has likely sold more books than Suvorov. For one thing, he’s more prolific; for another, two of his books alone have sold more than three million copies.

    Well, according to Wikipedia, Beevor has sold more than 6M total books as of today, which is admittedly far more I’d realized. However, a careful examination of the text I cited seems to suggest that Icebreaker *alone* had already sold 5M copies by 2010. Meanwhile, Suvorov has published something like 20+ total books, many of which have also sold extremely well. So I think it’s quite plausible that the reviewer was correct, and he’s the most widely read military historian in history. However, if you can find someone else who has sold e.g. 10M copies, then I’d be willing to admit that Suvorov is probably just #2.

    It’s also possible that Suvorov was indeed #1 when the review was written, but someone else has subsequently passed him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Thanks for responding. I suppose it’s possible that Suvorov’s book sold five million copies in the 16 years since it was published in German when the review was published. It’s just frankly not likely.

    Der Vorleser by Bernhard Schlink was a bestseller in Germany the following year, but it only sold 500,000 copies, although it was among the top selling books for several years. You can choose to believe that Suvorov outsold this very popular novel, but it doesn’t seem true to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Wally says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    In an attempt to abide by the agreement to defend Poland should Germany attack -- it failed, but is considered a response to German aggression.


    Hardly an act of unprovoked war in immediate response to the agreements of alliances.


    by this time Germany was in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and nearly everything did would be considered an act of war. Whether Versailles was a cogent and fair deal or not -- Germany was in violation.

    Yet Britain & France did not declare war on communist USSR for it’s aggression against Poland.

    Nor did they challenge the communist USSR for invading numerous countries. Nor did they oppose Poland’s seizure of Czech land.

    Germany could not be in violation of Versailles, they had rejected it, withdrawn from it.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Mikhail says: • Website
    @szopen

    The Soviets didn’t face as much resistance on account that many of the Polish citizens in that area, were non-Poles, who weren’t so compelled to defend Poland.
     
    Actually, because Polish government ordered the military "not to fight with Soviets, unless they try to disarm you". The fights were carried by troops which did not get the orders or disobeyed them.

    Poland signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in 1934 and in 1938,
     
    POland signed a non-aggression pact with USSR in 1932. And I knew Ribbentrop offered renewal of the pact in 1938 (in exchange for Danzig going to Germany and some few things), but I do not think Beck agreed.

    Actually, because Polish government ordered the military “not to fight with Soviets, unless they try to disarm you”. The fights were carried by troops which did not get the orders or disobeyed them.

    Why was that unlike with the Germans? This repeated point makes sense and is in line with first hand accounts:

    The Soviets didn’t face as much resistance on account that many of the Polish citizens in that area, were non-Poles, who weren’t so compelled to defend Poland.

    What you say further above, serves to partly explain why Britain and France didn’t declare war on the USSR unlike Nazi Germany. The French and Brits also felt somewhat betrayed when Hitler went beyond his Czecho-Slovak adventure, while possibly understanding Soviet reasoning. The Soviets entered Molotov-Ribbentrop with the Nazis having a greater position of strength.

    POland signed a non-aggression pact with USSR in 1932. And I knew Ribbentrop offered renewal of the pact in 1938 (in exchange for Danzig going to Germany and some few things), but I do not think Beck agreed.

    The 1934 Nazi-Polish pact came later in 1934 and was more relevant for a period thereafter. The Nazi, Polish and Hungarian dismemberment of Czecho-Slovakia (on pretty friendly terms with the USSR at the time) comes to mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen

    The 1934 Nazi-Polish pact came later in 1934 and was more relevant for a period thereafter
     
    Have you ever heard about "policy of equal distances" pursued by Beck (ie. that Poland has to have the same relations with USSR and Germany)? The fact is that POland had non-aggression pacts both with Soviets and Nazis. As for dismemberment of Czecho-Slovakia, it was done without cooperation with Nazis; on contrary, it was done without their knowledge, to their surprise and pretty much against them. Contrary to Soviet-Nazi pact, there was no pre-agreed demarcation line.

    POland at that time was agaisnt any "concert of Powers" i.e. clubs of great powers whcih would dictate the lesser nations what to do. IIRC (but I might be mistaken) Poland wanted to be part of Munich, but when it was refused, and when Munich included ominous statement like "other issues will be resolved later", Poland decided to act against the Munich, to show that she does not recognize authority of "concert of Powers". Hitler immedietely recognizes great propaganda value of Polish move - but, once again, the move was not coordinated, discussed or coorganized with the Germans.

    It's not that I think Polish move was moral or ethical; it was not. It wasn't even smart or rational. As I have already written in this thread, I consider pre-war Polish government bunch of idiots. It just it was not alliance with Germany, or even a cooperation.

    Now, there are historians (earlier mentioned Górski) who think that indeed there was good understanding between Poland and Germany, an understanding which was destroyed by personal ambitions of Beck, but those are rather isolated opinions. Górski claims that Beck felt personally slighted because of Slovakia; because he indicated that Slovakia should be Polish protectorate, Hitler indicated he would agree, and later - under pressure from German military circles - Hitler suddenly changed his mind. Beck - again, according to Górski - felt betrayed and decided to show Hitler that Poland does not need Germany. I can't write more because I have just started reading Górski monography on the subject, and I do not have that much time to finish it.

    A sidenote: interestingly, Górski also claims that up to the 1938 Polish military had not thought highly about German capabilities and when Germany very quickly raised the army from 50 to some 70 or 80 divisions, Polish HQ was shocked, especially after new analysis of German military capabilities was written by (I think) Kutrzeba. In January-February 1939 Polish military decided to create new defensive plans - Górski writes that up until that time, no serious plan of war against Germany was considered (except some general studies), and all military planning effort went towards possibility of war with Russia. BTW there is nothing wrong about a country having military plans in case of war with any bordering country; the role of military is being prepared.

    The HQ's incompetence was so large that the plans were still not completely ready by the beginning of the war. Górski then argues that contrary to the official statements by the Polish planners from the HQ, the real plan was to wait for German attack - which would, as Rydz imagined, go into carefully prepared trap - and then German forces would be encircled and destroyed, and Polish army would then go on offensive. I do not think Górski's speculations are true (he even quotes statements which he does not see seem to contradict his own speculations); but nevertheless, his monography contains several interesting facts I did not know about - e.g. that in 1935 Polish army issued three studies, which discussed plans of quick action against East Prussia or Silesia and did not recognize any serious obstacles from German army - which, at that time, was still reasonable assumption.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Very interesting, thanks Ron. I always held the conventional idea that Hitler and Stalin just made an agreement to have a war and divide Europe up between Germany and Russia at the end.

    With Germany’s financial rule over the EU it looks like Germany won.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  174. Wally says:
    @Eric Zuesse
    By citing David Irving, you cite a Holocaust-denier and Hitler-apologist, who during the trial between David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt was shown definitely to have distorted and misrepresented crucial evidence, and to have relied also on some evidence which was bogus, and to have ignored evidence that was authentic and that disproved some of Irving's key assertions.

    What ” crucial evidence” was “distorted”? Do tell.

    What did he ‘rely on that was bogus’? Do tell.

    “Hitler apologist”? ‘holocau$t’ “denier”? Laughable and childish.

    There is Hitler with the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there is Hitler without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
    - “holocaust historian” Raul Hilberg,

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan K.
    As an indicator that I'm perfectly fine with counter-establishment so-called history, I am seconding this comment. I invite Mr. Zuesse to qualify what is so flawed with David Irving's study in Hitler's War and other books, and especially refer us to a single case when he actually denies "the holocaust."
    , @szopen
    It's interesting that you believe without hesitation Nazi propaganda about pre-war "Polish atrocities", while demanding much higher standard of proof when discussing Nazi atrocities.
    , @Eric Zuesse
    Find it in the links at https://www.hdot.org/trial-materials/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Mikhail says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra
    At the end of 1938 the British guarantee to Poland was already being negotiated.

    At the end of 1938 the British guarantee to Poland was already being negotiated.

    As the Brits and others (including the Poles) didn’t mind Soviet/Russia friendly Czecho-Slovakia being broken up.

    Explains why the Soviets were genuinely welcomed when they entered Prague towards the end of WW II. Prague as the last scene of Euro theater WW II fighting.

    Soviet policies (in 1948 and to a greater extent in 1968) contributed to a lessening of that pro-Soviet/pro-Russian sentiment in Czechoslovakia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Wally says:
    @Anon

    the Germans provided scrupulously well-documented proof that the Soviets had massacred the entire Polish officer corps
     
    You mean, the Nazis provided the proof, created by Dr. Goebbels' institution. Today, UK provides the proof of Skripal poisoning, USA - of Russian election meddling, and the Dutch - of MH17 downed by Russia. It all traces back to the 1933 fire of Reichstag - old school of Goebbelsian ministry of truth.

    See detailed, verified, internationally witnessed information, with real photos, about actual excavations of the Katyn Massacres by the communist USSR below.*
    You won’t see this sort of real work for the claimed & allegedly ‘known’ ‘holocau$t’ mass graves and the claimed immense human remains.
    This quote sums it up well:

    We’re talking about an alleged ’6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor, 34,000 at Babi Yar) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    * Katyn facts: ‘Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von Katyn’

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=758

    Cheers.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lauri Törni
    It still amazes me how people are completely unaware of the Finnish-Russo Winter War in 1939..

    Hundreds of foreign war reporters were stationed in Finland. Then all of a sudden nothing was written about it.

    Russians were too ashamed of their massive defeat (Stalin sent 1,5 million Russians to the Winter War. 1 million died in our forests.)

    The West was ashamed, because they had refused all help we begged from them. Even Sweden, our 'ally', betrayed us. Lots of empty promises, not one country sold weapons to us. Swedish schoolkids raised money to buy a fighter to Finland. Schoolkids!

    Volunteers were not given permission to come through Scandinavia or Germany to Finland. Until the war was about to end, so it was Finns fighting on the frontline - alone.

    When looking at the Russian POWs it's clear they come from Siberia or other cold parts in Russia. The terrain cannot have come as a surprise, nor the cold weather. It was pure incompetence.

    All Russian tansk were blown up by ski patrols. For example the 44th division, a 30 km long convoy; when the whole convoy was on the road, Finns felled trees in front and behind the column. After that ski patrols jammed the tankers with a piece of wood and threw a Molotov Cocktail so that the tank exploded. (Molotov told the world that Russia is dropping food to the starving Finns, not bombs. Finns called the bombs 'Molotov's bread baskets'. And we gave him a drink to go with the food; Molotov Cocktail). When the convoy was trapped it was divided into smaller units and the massacre began.

    When Soviet's elite 63. division was dispatched to help the 44th. division (which was already beyond any help), it travelled on the ice. Finns broke the ice - once the whole column was on ice - with machine guns, and you can guess the rest. Our lakes are filled with dead Russians.

    Due to West's decision to silence and ignore the Winter War, they don't learn anything from our masterful warfare. But Russians.... they have studied the Winter War and can defend their country from an invasion.

    Here you get some idea of what it was like for the Russian soldiers in the Winter War, and understand why we got more weapons from Russia than from all other nations combined:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAOHa7BxLEs

    Or read a truthful description:

    http://ar.to/2010/08/red-blood-white-snow

    Nobody helped us when Stalin invaded Finland, so we did pretty good, didn't we?

    But belittled, ridiculed, ignored and even blamed - that we get both by the West and Russia. But we know what happened in reality. Nobody ever asks us, so we don't tell.

    Good for Finland. I’m very impressed by what Finland did in the winter war. I hate loathe and despise all communists and their liberal admirers.

    The great hero of the 20 th century is General Franco who whipped the communists out of Spain despite the fact that the empty sink liberal’s brains were full of communist propaganda about the Spanish was against the communists.

    While the useful idiot intellectuals were publishing their worshipful books and journalism about the Soviets Finland and Spain drive the communist invaders out of their countries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. szopen says:
    @Lauri Törni
    It still amazes me how people are completely unaware of the Finnish-Russo Winter War in 1939..

    Hundreds of foreign war reporters were stationed in Finland. Then all of a sudden nothing was written about it.

    Russians were too ashamed of their massive defeat (Stalin sent 1,5 million Russians to the Winter War. 1 million died in our forests.)

    The West was ashamed, because they had refused all help we begged from them. Even Sweden, our 'ally', betrayed us. Lots of empty promises, not one country sold weapons to us. Swedish schoolkids raised money to buy a fighter to Finland. Schoolkids!

    Volunteers were not given permission to come through Scandinavia or Germany to Finland. Until the war was about to end, so it was Finns fighting on the frontline - alone.

    When looking at the Russian POWs it's clear they come from Siberia or other cold parts in Russia. The terrain cannot have come as a surprise, nor the cold weather. It was pure incompetence.

    All Russian tansk were blown up by ski patrols. For example the 44th division, a 30 km long convoy; when the whole convoy was on the road, Finns felled trees in front and behind the column. After that ski patrols jammed the tankers with a piece of wood and threw a Molotov Cocktail so that the tank exploded. (Molotov told the world that Russia is dropping food to the starving Finns, not bombs. Finns called the bombs 'Molotov's bread baskets'. And we gave him a drink to go with the food; Molotov Cocktail). When the convoy was trapped it was divided into smaller units and the massacre began.

    When Soviet's elite 63. division was dispatched to help the 44th. division (which was already beyond any help), it travelled on the ice. Finns broke the ice - once the whole column was on ice - with machine guns, and you can guess the rest. Our lakes are filled with dead Russians.

    Due to West's decision to silence and ignore the Winter War, they don't learn anything from our masterful warfare. But Russians.... they have studied the Winter War and can defend their country from an invasion.

    Here you get some idea of what it was like for the Russian soldiers in the Winter War, and understand why we got more weapons from Russia than from all other nations combined:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAOHa7BxLEs

    Or read a truthful description:

    http://ar.to/2010/08/red-blood-white-snow

    Nobody helped us when Stalin invaded Finland, so we did pretty good, didn't we?

    But belittled, ridiculed, ignored and even blamed - that we get both by the West and Russia. But we know what happened in reality. Nobody ever asks us, so we don't tell.

    (Stalin sent 1,5 million Russians to the Winter War. 1 million died in our forests.)

    Wikipedia claims 120-170 thousands plus 188-207k wounded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lauri Törni
    In Wikipedia you can see the Western-Russian propaganda in full colours. - and how the winners (The Western Coalition and Soviet Union) get the priviledge of re-writing history, so that it suits them.

    I really really recommend watching these clips if you want to know what really happened in the Finno-Russo Winter War in 1939:

    FIRE AND ICE: 1-4

    https://youtu.be/1Qd5roKfgqo?t=880

    https://youtu.be/SCfo3eTn_lQ?t=893

    https://youtu.be/VjfbJpZBi3Y?t=867

    https://youtu.be/oucteCvrg6w?t=728

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lauri Törni
    It still amazes me how people are completely unaware of the Finnish-Russo Winter War in 1939..

    Hundreds of foreign war reporters were stationed in Finland. Then all of a sudden nothing was written about it.

    Russians were too ashamed of their massive defeat (Stalin sent 1,5 million Russians to the Winter War. 1 million died in our forests.)

    The West was ashamed, because they had refused all help we begged from them. Even Sweden, our 'ally', betrayed us. Lots of empty promises, not one country sold weapons to us. Swedish schoolkids raised money to buy a fighter to Finland. Schoolkids!

    Volunteers were not given permission to come through Scandinavia or Germany to Finland. Until the war was about to end, so it was Finns fighting on the frontline - alone.

    When looking at the Russian POWs it's clear they come from Siberia or other cold parts in Russia. The terrain cannot have come as a surprise, nor the cold weather. It was pure incompetence.

    All Russian tansk were blown up by ski patrols. For example the 44th division, a 30 km long convoy; when the whole convoy was on the road, Finns felled trees in front and behind the column. After that ski patrols jammed the tankers with a piece of wood and threw a Molotov Cocktail so that the tank exploded. (Molotov told the world that Russia is dropping food to the starving Finns, not bombs. Finns called the bombs 'Molotov's bread baskets'. And we gave him a drink to go with the food; Molotov Cocktail). When the convoy was trapped it was divided into smaller units and the massacre began.

    When Soviet's elite 63. division was dispatched to help the 44th. division (which was already beyond any help), it travelled on the ice. Finns broke the ice - once the whole column was on ice - with machine guns, and you can guess the rest. Our lakes are filled with dead Russians.

    Due to West's decision to silence and ignore the Winter War, they don't learn anything from our masterful warfare. But Russians.... they have studied the Winter War and can defend their country from an invasion.

    Here you get some idea of what it was like for the Russian soldiers in the Winter War, and understand why we got more weapons from Russia than from all other nations combined:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAOHa7BxLEs

    Or read a truthful description:

    http://ar.to/2010/08/red-blood-white-snow

    Nobody helped us when Stalin invaded Finland, so we did pretty good, didn't we?

    But belittled, ridiculed, ignored and even blamed - that we get both by the West and Russia. But we know what happened in reality. Nobody ever asks us, so we don't tell.

    But belittled, ridiculed, ignored and even blamed – that we get both by the West and Russia

    You deserve it all the way. Finns were granted independence by Russia in 1917, yet they took away Russian Pechenga and Vyborg a year later, with genocide of the Russian inhabitants. During Winter War of 1939, they mass-executed and tortured Russian POWs with ferocity uncommon even among modern Daesh. There exists mass forensic evidence. And, there were Finnish death camps, not better than Nazi death camps during WW2.

    That’s why Finns were usually shot and rarely taken POWs during WW2. A complete Finnish division, encirled in 1942, was deliberately annihilated by incendiary munitions (termite bombs).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Ivan K. says: • Website

    I imagine well-educated Russians come to this thread, and starting an exchange with the author, Ron Unz. The words “With all due respect” would be followed by pointing out that Suvorov has been debunked. He’s been debunked various angles, time and again … in Russia. Years ago. Unz will be pointed to literature like the book “Antisuvorov,” – which have never been translated to English. … Impasse.

    https://www.e-reading.club/book.php?book=24391

    At that moment, I’d suggest that Google and Yandex Translate can be surprisingly helpful.

    ….

    This topic reminds me of Gavin Menzies’ bestsellers, 1421: The Year China Discovered America and its follow-up. On an online forum years ago, I was reading lengthy enthusiastic essays on 1421. by a highly articulate American with a penchant for history. After a couple of years, he came to the conclusion it’s a “well-written bunk.” Absolutely fascinating and informative at the same time, without dispute.

    If I were to say word-for-word the things that Andrei Martyanov et al. have said on Suvorov on your very website, multiple times, it’d be futile. I lack the intellectual authority. But since Martyanov can basically just refer you to reviews written by others, in Russian alas, why even bother with authority as a criterion. Go read and evaluate the arguments themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. Tyrion 2 says:
    @kerdasi amaq
    You're looking at history with post-war hindsight. Maybe, if Hitler knew in 1939 what you know now, would he have invaded Poland or would he have done a proper job of preparing for world war?

    Who can say?

    Although, thinking he had the war won in June 1940 could have been the biggest mistake Hitler ever made?

    Sure, sure, I don’t want to fall into the teleological trap. Nonetheless, he could have just governed Germany rather than deleting poor Poland.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Ivan K. says: • Website
    @Wally
    What " crucial evidence" was "distorted"? Do tell.

    What did he 'rely on that was bogus'? Do tell.

    "Hitler apologist"? 'holocau$t' "denier"? Laughable and childish.

    There is Hitler with the mythological '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and there is Hitler without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.
     

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
    - "holocaust historian" Raul Hilberg,
     
    www.codoh.com

    As an indicator that I’m perfectly fine with counter-establishment so-called history, I am seconding this comment. I invite Mr. Zuesse to qualify what is so flawed with David Irving’s study in Hitler’s War and other books, and especially refer us to a single case when he actually denies “the holocaust.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    David Irving refers to himself as a 'holocaust deviationist'.

    He claims that:

    1. There is evidence that the Polish Government itself said that up to 300,000 died at Auschwitz (although I have not found a cite of that evidence).
    2. That there is no chemical evidence that the oft-cited gas chambers existed.
    3. He claims that there _is_ evidence that small-scale gassing of Jews and other prisoners did occur at Auschwitz.
    4. He claims that there _is_ evidence that 1.24M Jews were killed at Riga and that their valuables were looted by the SS.
    5. He provides evidence in the book _Hitler's War_ that Hitler was opposed to killing of Jews but seemed unwilling to discipline subordinates who disobeyed this order, especially in cases where he politically needed those subordinates.

    It is notable that while Rudolf Höss 'confessed' to killing 2.5M Jews at Auschwitz and up to another 500,000 others, the New York Times quietly printed in 1994 details of the new plaque that claimed that up to 1.5M were killed at Auschwitz, and the number keeps going down.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. szopen says:
    @Mikhail

    Actually, because Polish government ordered the military “not to fight with Soviets, unless they try to disarm you”. The fights were carried by troops which did not get the orders or disobeyed them.
     
    Why was that unlike with the Germans? This repeated point makes sense and is in line with first hand accounts:

    The Soviets didn’t face as much resistance on account that many of the Polish citizens in that area, were non-Poles, who weren’t so compelled to defend Poland.
     
    What you say further above, serves to partly explain why Britain and France didn't declare war on the USSR unlike Nazi Germany. The French and Brits also felt somewhat betrayed when Hitler went beyond his Czecho-Slovak adventure, while possibly understanding Soviet reasoning. The Soviets entered Molotov-Ribbentrop with the Nazis having a greater position of strength.

    POland signed a non-aggression pact with USSR in 1932. And I knew Ribbentrop offered renewal of the pact in 1938 (in exchange for Danzig going to Germany and some few things), but I do not think Beck agreed.
     
    The 1934 Nazi-Polish pact came later in 1934 and was more relevant for a period thereafter. The Nazi, Polish and Hungarian dismemberment of Czecho-Slovakia (on pretty friendly terms with the USSR at the time) comes to mind.

    The 1934 Nazi-Polish pact came later in 1934 and was more relevant for a period thereafter

    Have you ever heard about “policy of equal distances” pursued by Beck (ie. that Poland has to have the same relations with USSR and Germany)? The fact is that POland had non-aggression pacts both with Soviets and Nazis. As for dismemberment of Czecho-Slovakia, it was done without cooperation with Nazis; on contrary, it was done without their knowledge, to their surprise and pretty much against them. Contrary to Soviet-Nazi pact, there was no pre-agreed demarcation line.

    POland at that time was agaisnt any “concert of Powers” i.e. clubs of great powers whcih would dictate the lesser nations what to do. IIRC (but I might be mistaken) Poland wanted to be part of Munich, but when it was refused, and when Munich included ominous statement like “other issues will be resolved later”, Poland decided to act against the Munich, to show that she does not recognize authority of “concert of Powers”. Hitler immedietely recognizes great propaganda value of Polish move – but, once again, the move was not coordinated, discussed or coorganized with the Germans.

    It’s not that I think Polish move was moral or ethical; it was not. It wasn’t even smart or rational. As I have already written in this thread, I consider pre-war Polish government bunch of idiots. It just it was not alliance with Germany, or even a cooperation.

    Now, there are historians (earlier mentioned Górski) who think that indeed there was good understanding between Poland and Germany, an understanding which was destroyed by personal ambitions of Beck, but those are rather isolated opinions. Górski claims that Beck felt personally slighted because of Slovakia; because he indicated that Slovakia should be Polish protectorate, Hitler indicated he would agree, and later – under pressure from German military circles – Hitler suddenly changed his mind. Beck – again, according to Górski – felt betrayed and decided to show Hitler that Poland does not need Germany. I can’t write more because I have just started reading Górski monography on the subject, and I do not have that much time to finish it.

    A sidenote: interestingly, Górski also claims that up to the 1938 Polish military had not thought highly about German capabilities and when Germany very quickly raised the army from 50 to some 70 or 80 divisions, Polish HQ was shocked, especially after new analysis of German military capabilities was written by (I think) Kutrzeba. In January-February 1939 Polish military decided to create new defensive plans – Górski writes that up until that time, no serious plan of war against Germany was considered (except some general studies), and all military planning effort went towards possibility of war with Russia. BTW there is nothing wrong about a country having military plans in case of war with any bordering country; the role of military is being prepared.

    The HQ’s incompetence was so large that the plans were still not completely ready by the beginning of the war. Górski then argues that contrary to the official statements by the Polish planners from the HQ, the real plan was to wait for German attack – which would, as Rydz imagined, go into carefully prepared trap – and then German forces would be encircled and destroyed, and Polish army would then go on offensive. I do not think Górski’s speculations are true (he even quotes statements which he does not see seem to contradict his own speculations); but nevertheless, his monography contains several interesting facts I did not know about – e.g. that in 1935 Polish army issued three studies, which discussed plans of quick action against East Prussia or Silesia and did not recognize any serious obstacles from German army – which, at that time, was still reasonable assumption.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Your aforementioned policy of equal distances fluctuated.

    The German move on Czecho-Slovakia very likely motivated the Hungarians and Poles to act similarly against a Czecho-Slovak nation that was on good terms with the USSR.

    I suspect that one reason why Czecho-Slovakia was willingly sacrificed was because of its relatively good relations with the USSR.

    You mention Poland being excluded from Munich. That was true of the USSR. The Poles to my knowledge did not seek better relations with the USSR at that point in time. Rather, they proceeded to follow the Nazi precedent regarding Czecho-Slovakia.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. szopen says:
    @Wally
    What " crucial evidence" was "distorted"? Do tell.

    What did he 'rely on that was bogus'? Do tell.

    "Hitler apologist"? 'holocau$t' "denier"? Laughable and childish.

    There is Hitler with the mythological '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and there is Hitler without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.
     

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
    - "holocaust historian" Raul Hilberg,
     
    www.codoh.com

    It’s interesting that you believe without hesitation Nazi propaganda about pre-war “Polish atrocities”, while demanding much higher standard of proof when discussing Nazi atrocities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    The sources do not indicate that they are "propaganda', vs. what Zionists try to pass of as facts.

    Do better next time.

    Cheers.
    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Malla says:
    @Anon
    You spit anti-Russian myths all the way. Look on the map and learn history to see what belongs and belonged to Russia centuries ago. As for lend-lease, you cite someones' opinions, that may be as well biased. USA sold (and 'lend-leased') things for gold to USSR during war, for it's own benefit. USA invested in Hitler's Germany and its war machine BEFORE war, profiteering from war and making it possible. Having qui prodest, it is hard to counter the facts. Without Ford and General Electric there would be no Wehrmacht, and without JP Morgan and Rockfellers - no NSDAP and Hitler in power. The West made Hitler and WW2 possible. Their goal was and still is Russia.

    You spit anti-Russian myths

    No I write anti COMMUNIST facts. I am quite philo Russian actually and love traditional Russian culture. Indeed I consider Russia the first victim of Communism. Though I agree that the Soviet Union became a much better place in the later decades when unfortunately it was destroyed. I wanted the latter Soviet Union to survive but I consider the Bolshevik globalist revolution as a disaster. By showing the facts about Land Lease, I am not saying that Russians (or other Soviet ethnics) were incapable of winning the war, but of the disaster that was communism. You consider my anti communist posts as anti Russian, which is a mistake on your part. Right now if there would a war in between the West and Russia, I would support Russia but I would not have supported the Soviet Union during WW2.

    Without Ford and General Electric there would be no Wehrmacht, and without JP Morgan and Rockfellers – no NSDAP and Hitler in power.

    Germany did not need any outside help to come back on it’s feet from a technological point of view. It needed resources though.

    you cite someones’ opinions, that may be as well biased

    Like Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev??????

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    I would support Russia but I would not have supported the Soviet Union during WW2.
     
    So you fell victim of Western anti-Russian narrative. WW2 was a venture of the West against anti-Western system impersonated by Russia. It was Hitler's experiment, in some way like Napoleon's experiment before, but with almost global, systemic capitalist support. They had plans to wipe the land from Russians etc. and own the land.

    Like Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev
     
    He was anti-Stalin populist and may have claimed whatever false facts - e.g. 'million casualities' of Winter War with Finnland, or millions executed, or even that Stalin himself claimed that he was standing on a running steam locomotive and while standing - killed the enemies with his saber. Just to frame Stalin.

    And thank you for citing Nazi 'facts'. They had been proven to have proper noses and ears, and massacred nobody themselves, so how could they mistake?
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    What's your opinion of the Indian Bollywood cinema industry? Do you think it has the potential to ever be internationally competitive?

    How would you compare the Chinese and Indian cinema industries?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    There must have been something weird going on with Soviet paratroop certifications, because the figure makes absolutely no sense, especially for an army in such a wretched state
     
    Well, Suvorov devotes Chapter 13 of his book to the Soviet paratroops, and his claims seem quite persuasive to me. I don't read Russian, so perhaps all his references are totally fraudulent, but if so, would his books have sold millions of copies in that language and gained the support of numerous Russian historians? Would our Naval Academic Press have reprinted it, and invited him to speak?

    The point is that this is merely one of many, many dozens of absolutely shocking factual claims that Suvorov makes. Are they all totally fraudulent? Offhand, that seems a bit implausible to me.

    Incidentally, a large portion of his book is primarily focused on rebutting the "conventional wisdom" that the Red Army was in a wretched state, and I think he does that quite effectively.

    Incidentally, a large portion of his book is primarily focused on rebutting the “conventional wisdom” that the Red Army was in a wretched state, and I think he does that quite effectively.

    I saw this was already shared by other commenters, but here it is again with some background how and who recorded the conversation:

    The Hitler and Mannerheim Recording in Finland, June 4, 1942 (Subtitles)

    The Hitler and Mannerheim Recording refers to the secret voice recording of a private conversation between Adolf Hitler and Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim in 1942. The Finnish engineer of the broadcasting company YLE, Thor Damen, succeeded in recording the first 11 minutes of Hitler’s and Mannerheim’s private conversation. Since Hitler never allowed anyone to record him off-guard, it had to be done secretly. Damen’s original purpose was to record official birthday speeches and Mannerheim’s responses. However, Damen decided to continue recording after the conversation switched from official to private.

    The SS realized that Damen was recording the conversation, and they immediately demanded to have it stopped. The SS were furious, but YLE was allowed to keep the tape hidden away, never to be opened. The tape was given to head of the state censors’ office, Kustaa Vilkuna, returned to YLE in 1957, and made publicly available a few years later. It is the only known recording of Hitler speaking in an unofficial tone and one of the very few recordings in which Hitler may be heard delivering a narrative without raising his voice.

    The conversation is about Hitler explaining the failure of Operation Barbarossa, Italian defeats in North Africa, Yugoslavia, and Albania, armaments in the Soviet Union, and Romanian petroleum wells.

    Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
    Hitler Meets Mannerheim Monologue (Subtitles)
    Hitler Speaking Normally (Subtitles)
    Hitler secretly recorded in Finland, June 4, 1942
    Only known recording of Hitler speaking in an unofficial tone
    Finnish radio to air unique Hitler recording
    Private Hitler Conversation
    The Hitler-Mannerheim conversation

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    I became aware of this recording/conversation a little over two years ago, and there is another interesting anecdote connected to this private/secret meeting:

    There is an unsubstantiated story that during his meeting with Hitler, Mannerheim lit a cigar. Mannerheim supposed that Hitler would ask Finland for help against the Soviet Union, which Mannerheim was unwilling to give. When Mannerheim lit up, all in attendance gasped, for Hitler's aversion to smoking was well known. Yet Hitler continued the conversation calmly, with no comment. In this way, Mannerheim could judge if Hitler was speaking from a position of strength or weakness. He was able to refuse Hitler, knowing that Hitler was in a weak position, and could not dictate to him.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_Emil_Mannerheim#Visit_by_Adolf_Hitler

    But maybe Hitler simply did not want to be impolite since it was Mannerheim's 75th birthday, and he likely knew Mannerheim was a (cigar) smoker and was therefore prepared for that particular inconvenience/annoyance.

    Mannerheim Smoking Cigar

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duqH9hbV06Y

    Marshal of Finland Gustaf Mannerheim smoking cigar during Continuation war in Finland

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. The end of a lie

    In 2015, a small German publisher publishes a book by Dr. rer. mil. Bernd Schwipper, Major General a. D of the East German Army (NVA): “Germany in the sights of Stalin”.

    Dr. Schwipper has studied at military academies in the GDR and in the Soviet Union and was most recently commander of an air defense division.

    His study is based on acts of the Soviet General Staff, which were temporarily accessible in the era of President Jeltzin.

    The operation, mobilization, infrastructure plans, etc., prove that Stalin planned the attack on Germany with the operational plans of 19 August 1940 (!), 18 September 1940, 11 March 1941 and 15 May 1941. All plans were purely offensive. It was preceded by wars of the Soviet Union against Poland, Finland, the Baltic States and Romania.

    Because of the strong border fortification in the east of Germany and the rapid German victory over France, the plans from 1940 were not implemented.

    The preventive attack of the German Wehrmacht on June 21, 1941 came only a few days before the Soviet attack. The Soviet Union would have attacked Germany at the latest around July 10, 1941.

    The losses of the Red Army in the early days were enormous because of unprecedented defensive measures.

    From today’s point of view and knowledge of the published documents one must say, yes, the attack of the German army was preventive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    Thanks for posting this. Here is a review of Schwippmann's book (in German) that fully endorses it, written by another German general. So it seems Suvorov is not alone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Wally
    What " crucial evidence" was "distorted"? Do tell.

    What did he 'rely on that was bogus'? Do tell.

    "Hitler apologist"? 'holocau$t' "denier"? Laughable and childish.

    There is Hitler with the mythological '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and there is Hitler without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.
     

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
    - "holocaust historian" Raul Hilberg,
     
    www.codoh.com

    Find it in the links at https://www.hdot.org/trial-materials/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    I do not see it there.

    again:

    What ” crucial evidence” was “distorted”? Do tell.

    What did he ‘rely on that was bogus’? Do tell.

    Or don't you even know?

    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Mike P says:
    @Nightingale
    The end of a lie

    In 2015, a small German publisher publishes a book by Dr. rer. mil. Bernd Schwipper, Major General a. D of the East German Army (NVA): "Germany in the sights of Stalin".

    Dr. Schwipper has studied at military academies in the GDR and in the Soviet Union and was most recently commander of an air defense division.

    His study is based on acts of the Soviet General Staff, which were temporarily accessible in the era of President Jeltzin.

    The operation, mobilization, infrastructure plans, etc., prove that Stalin planned the attack on Germany with the operational plans of 19 August 1940 (!), 18 September 1940, 11 March 1941 and 15 May 1941. All plans were purely offensive. It was preceded by wars of the Soviet Union against Poland, Finland, the Baltic States and Romania.

    Because of the strong border fortification in the east of Germany and the rapid German victory over France, the plans from 1940 were not implemented.

    The preventive attack of the German Wehrmacht on June 21, 1941 came only a few days before the Soviet attack. The Soviet Union would have attacked Germany at the latest around July 10, 1941.

    The losses of the Red Army in the early days were enormous because of unprecedented defensive measures.

    From today's point of view and knowledge of the published documents one must say, yes, the attack of the German army was preventive.

    Thanks for posting this. Here is a review of Schwippmann’s book (in German) that fully endorses it, written by another German general. So it seems Suvorov is not alone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max

    Incidentally, a large portion of his book is primarily focused on rebutting the “conventional wisdom” that the Red Army was in a wretched state, and I think he does that quite effectively.
     
    I saw this was already shared by other commenters, but here it is again with some background how and who recorded the conversation:

    The Hitler and Mannerheim Recording in Finland, June 4, 1942 (Subtitles)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oET1WaG5sFk

    The Hitler and Mannerheim Recording refers to the secret voice recording of a private conversation between Adolf Hitler and Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim in 1942. The Finnish engineer of the broadcasting company YLE, Thor Damen, succeeded in recording the first 11 minutes of Hitler's and Mannerheim's private conversation. Since Hitler never allowed anyone to record him off-guard, it had to be done secretly. Damen's original purpose was to record official birthday speeches and Mannerheim's responses. However, Damen decided to continue recording after the conversation switched from official to private.

    The SS realized that Damen was recording the conversation, and they immediately demanded to have it stopped. The SS were furious, but YLE was allowed to keep the tape hidden away, never to be opened. The tape was given to head of the state censors' office, Kustaa Vilkuna, returned to YLE in 1957, and made publicly available a few years later. It is the only known recording of Hitler speaking in an unofficial tone and one of the very few recordings in which Hitler may be heard delivering a narrative without raising his voice.

    The conversation is about Hitler explaining the failure of Operation Barbarossa, Italian defeats in North Africa, Yugoslavia, and Albania, armaments in the Soviet Union, and Romanian petroleum wells.

    Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
    Hitler Meets Mannerheim Monologue (Subtitles)
    Hitler Speaking Normally (Subtitles)
    Hitler secretly recorded in Finland, June 4, 1942
    Only known recording of Hitler speaking in an unofficial tone
    Finnish radio to air unique Hitler recording
    Private Hitler Conversation
    The Hitler-Mannerheim conversation
     

    I became aware of this recording/conversation a little over two years ago, and there is another interesting anecdote connected to this private/secret meeting:

    There is an unsubstantiated story that during his meeting with Hitler, Mannerheim lit a cigar. Mannerheim supposed that Hitler would ask Finland for help against the Soviet Union, which Mannerheim was unwilling to give. When Mannerheim lit up, all in attendance gasped, for Hitler’s aversion to smoking was well known. Yet Hitler continued the conversation calmly, with no comment. In this way, Mannerheim could judge if Hitler was speaking from a position of strength or weakness. He was able to refuse Hitler, knowing that Hitler was in a weak position, and could not dictate to him.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_Emil_Mannerheim#Visit_by_Adolf_Hitler

    But maybe Hitler simply did not want to be impolite since it was Mannerheim’s 75th birthday, and he likely knew Mannerheim was a (cigar) smoker and was therefore prepared for that particular inconvenience/annoyance.

    Mannerheim Smoking Cigar

    Marshal of Finland Gustaf Mannerheim smoking cigar during Continuation war in Finland

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lauri Törni
    My late Grand-dad was the person, who secretly recorded the Hitler-Mannerheim -discussion. We were told about his heroic act, how the SS-officers nearly killed him when they found him recording the discussion, how an agreement was made, that the tape is sealed for 50 years etc.

    But Grand-dad had taken a copy of the tape - while recording the discussion. We always knew about the tape in our house, but nobody thought it was a big deal. As a child it was more interesting to hear about how Hitler's plane nearly exploded when landing in Finland, how Hitler's PR-department went to lengths to erase the incident from photographers films, how pissed Mannerheim was when Hitler arrived - uninvited - to his Birthday, probably even more pissed when hearing Hitler suddenly 'defend' Finland in the private conversation; you can hear on the tape how strained and irritated Mannerheim is. And of course we children loved to look at all the photos taken that day, especially the decorated trainwagon (Grand-dad hid the microphone near the ceiling and recorded outside).

    We had no choice back then, Finland was either going to be occupied by Germany or given free passage to Soviet Union. Mannerheim did was what best for the small Finnish population. Stalin was also going to occupy us.

    Dad told me a few years ago, when I asked him why we allied with Hitler, with sadness and sorrow; "Germany was the only nation that was helping us. The only nation."

    But Mannerheim warned Hitler, that if the Germans touch even one Jew in Finland, Finns will chase the Germans out of Finland. Hitler was forced to comply with the demand. Mannerheim wanted to shove it up in the face of Germans soldiers, by ordering Finnish Jews to stay next to the German soldiers. German soldiers watched when Jews held prayers in their 'field synagogas', but did not touch them.

    Another thing; The Finnish Intelligence Service had intel from months prior to Hitler's attack, that Stalin was sending weapons and troops to the Finnish border, gearing up for an imminent attack. Railroads were built and the trains went back and forth 24/7, so we also knew that Stalin was again going to attack Finland, this time wipe us out completely.

    I could rant about this forever, it is not often the tape of Hitler and Mannerheim is discussed on forums ;)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. fnn says:
    @Tyrion 2
    Not wanting war and invading Poland under the threat of war are contradictory. I totally get that Hitler was not ill-disposed to the British Empire. But he was told that if he did something he'd get war, and then he did it anyway. It was all quite clear and reasonable by Britain.

    It was all quite clear and reasonable by Britain.

    Kill 60 or 70 milion humans and basically destroy Western Civilization to save Poland and then, at the end of the process, sell out Poland to Soviet slavery. True, they didn’t know that the kill total would be that high, but they could easily forsee a Soviet takeover when they decided to ignore the other partner in the Sep. 1939 division of Poland.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    You spit anti-Russian myths
     
    No I write anti COMMUNIST facts. I am quite philo Russian actually and love traditional Russian culture. Indeed I consider Russia the first victim of Communism. Though I agree that the Soviet Union became a much better place in the later decades when unfortunately it was destroyed. I wanted the latter Soviet Union to survive but I consider the Bolshevik globalist revolution as a disaster. By showing the facts about Land Lease, I am not saying that Russians (or other Soviet ethnics) were incapable of winning the war, but of the disaster that was communism. You consider my anti communist posts as anti Russian, which is a mistake on your part. Right now if there would a war in between the West and Russia, I would support Russia but I would not have supported the Soviet Union during WW2.

    Without Ford and General Electric there would be no Wehrmacht, and without JP Morgan and Rockfellers – no NSDAP and Hitler in power.
     

    Germany did not need any outside help to come back on it's feet from a technological point of view. It needed resources though.

    you cite someones’ opinions, that may be as well biased
     
    Like Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev??????

    I would support Russia but I would not have supported the Soviet Union during WW2.

    So you fell victim of Western anti-Russian narrative. WW2 was a venture of the West against anti-Western system impersonated by Russia. It was Hitler’s experiment, in some way like Napoleon’s experiment before, but with almost global, systemic capitalist support. They had plans to wipe the land from Russians etc. and own the land.

    Like Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev

    He was anti-Stalin populist and may have claimed whatever false facts – e.g. ‘million casualities’ of Winter War with Finnland, or millions executed, or even that Stalin himself claimed that he was standing on a running steam locomotive and while standing – killed the enemies with his saber. Just to frame Stalin.

    And thank you for citing Nazi ‘facts’. They had been proven to have proper noses and ears, and massacred nobody themselves, so how could they mistake?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Olorin says:
    @Jon Halpenny
    I think Suvorov's thesis is not likely to be correct.

    In 1941 when the Germans invaded the USSR, they and their allies outnumbered the USSR forces by about 3.5 million to 2.5 million.

    If the Soviets had been preparing to invade Europe, they would surely have deployed many more soldiers.

    The point of mechanized war is to replace troop numbers with machines.

    The point of propaganda war is to replace battles with psychological and social manipulation/defeat.

    Behind it all, global bankers fight their financial war, which is now just nanobips and technobops of electrons dancing to the music supplied for them by programmers.

    This is one big reason why Talvisota/The Winter War was such a shock to USSR’s leaders. Finland had very few troops and very few machines. Their very few people had something else: shared genetics and customs honed in both harsh climate and harsh geopolitical forces.

    Why do you think that the war reparations of Finland consisted mostly of machinery manufacture? One might almost conclude that the magnificent efficient modern Communist apparatus was not equal to producing anything material in the amounts needed for the kind of conflict or domination Communist leaders or Stalin had in mind.

    Also a hefty segment of the vaunted Red Army was conscripts. Literally cannon fodder.

    Let’s use a less known example.

    When the Soviets absorbed Estonia, they sent about 10,000 Estonians to the gulag and conscripted about 30,000 more. In response, about 40,000 Estonians joined up with the Germans to fight the Red Army. USSR won, an additional 80,000 Estonians left for Germany and Sweden…and then the USSR in the late 1940s sent another 20,000 Estonians to Siberia.

    All this in a nation of about 1 million people.

    The Soviets did this–conscription and gulagization–to all other Finno-Ugric indigenous people as well.

    After 1945, the Soviets brought hundreds of thousands of immigrants into Estonia, collectivized the farms, and began a program that is still ongoing today of destroying Estonian native culture. Soviets began a purge of both public and private libraries.

    Over a thousand Soviet military bases squatted on, polluted, and destroyed the land and wildlife of Estonia.

    As early as the 1920s it was widely recognized that mechanization, not numbers of infantry, would be key in war.

    I’d like to recommend that Mr. Unz add Murray Leinster’s short story to the library; it appears to have passed into the public domain:

    Tanks

    https://librivox.org/tanks-by-murray-leinster/

    In 1946 Leinster wrote about another phenomenon he called “Tanks”: we would call them computer servers on the Internet. He’s credited with being one of the first SF writers to envision and describe the distributed/networked asynchronous global information technology we take for granted. (“A Logic Named Joe.”)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Now, an Estonian theme park version of history with yet another anti-Russian cycle of victimization myths. Estonians were a pagan, mostly illiterate village nation with islands of city culture founded and inhabited by Germans and Russians who brought them schools, basic hygiene, and industry together with ports and railways. In 1918 it gained independence from Russia - when ethnic cleansing and robbing of Germans and Russians followed. Estonians betrayed and disarmed Russian White Guards who defended them from Red Army, placing thousands to die in concentration camps. During WW2 they formed Nazi SS batallions and invaded Russia (e.g. waffen SS 1st estnishe division, all formed with volunteers). Estonia was home to Nazi death camps e.g, notorious Klooga camp, maintained by Estonian SS. If you claim that mass killing Jews, using slave labor and making lab experiments on children is only 'in response', than Gulag may be a better place for you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. KenH says:

    Phenomenal article by Ron Unz. He covered all the bases and expertly summarized all the main elements of Suvorov’s thesis. I’m fortunate to have the book but am only half way through it and set aside years ago, but will now attempt to finish it. This book was being promoted in “far right” and white nationalist publications in the mid to late 1990′s which is how I managed to obtain a new copy.

    Regarding the Red Army’s great difficulty in breaching the formidable Finnish defenses I recall Suvorov said that the Soviet offensive was conducted in almost two feet of snow which put the Red Army at even more of a disadvantage. I believe Suvorov also talked about the preparations and training of civilians for partisan warfare. Even half way through the book one comes away with the impression that Stalin’s Russia was on a war footing with a highly militarized citizenry much more so than the Germans were who court historians and self styled third Reich experts tell us were planning to dominate the world and bent on murdering Jews and anyone who didn’t have the requisite Nordic phenotype.

    What’s not in the book is the Sorge spy network, based in Japan, tried to alert Stalin to the impending German invasion but he brushed it off believing that he had Hitler wrapped around his finger. The Sorge spy network saved Stalin when they informed him that Japan was not planning an invasion of the USSR via Manchuria since they were preparing for war with the USA. This freed up large numbers of Siberian troops who were specially trained and equipped to fight in extreme winter conditions to defend Moscow in 1941 without which it may have fallen to the Germans. Stalin and top communist officials were preparing to flee Moscow for Siberia until they received this news.

    The establishment gave this book the silent treatment for as long as they could but it became an underground classic on the racialist right and started to attract attention and contradict long cherished claims about the origins of WWII. So court historians emerged from underneath their rocks to protect the narrative and debunk Suvorov’s claims, but in my opinion they’ve mostly failed in their quest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  195. Wally says:
    @22pp22
    Timeline.

    Germany invades Poland.

    Britain and France threaten to declare war

    Britain and France do declare war.

    Russia invades Poland.

    Ergo. The invasion of Poland kicked off the war.

    Nope.

    Russia invades Finland, Poland seizes part of Czechoslovakia.

    Ergo, that started the war.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Moronic. Poland annexed Czechoslovak territory in 1938, and no one batted an eye about it. The USSR didn’t invade until months after Germany invaded Poland.

    Face it. Your beloved Nazis did something wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Wally says:
    @Zamyatin
    "Lebensraum" was simply a stock part of German political rhetoric originating in the 19th century. It is closely affiliated with the "Drang nach osten" advocacy of imperial Germany. Dranch nach osten referred to the proposition that German colonies should be created in the "East" in the territories of the collapsing Turkish empire, in Persia and around the Black Sea, it had nothing whatsoever to do with Russia, which lies in the North East. The claim that Lebensraum refers to the conquest of Russia is deliberate misinformation.

    Hitler did, of course, expect a showdown with Communist Russia, in fact, the sole purpose of National Socialism, Italian Fascism and Spanish Christian monarchism, was to protect Western European civilization from its destruction at the hands of Communism. National Socialism was reactive not proactive.

    Like Stalin (as the excellent article points out) the allies expertly manoeuvred Germany into war. The West continues to wage war without declaration in countries like Libya and Syria whilst blaming its victims. It's a most revolting exhibition.

    Indeed, there were plenty of other German areas in the east, which were highly beneficial to the host countries, and most of all, Germany wanted it’s stolen land back, most of which was in the east.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Wally says:
    @Stephen Paul Foster
    Good to see Ron's nod to Joachim Hoffman. For those who read German, the clip below comes from German Wikopedia -- with details of Hoffman's career and discussion of his support for Sovorov.

    [V]ersuchte Hoffmann die Präventivkriegsthese mit seinem Buch „Stalins Vernichtungskrieg“ (1995) zu untermauern. Zwar sei Stalins damaliger Angriffsplan auf das Deutsche Reich weder Grund noch Anlass für Hitlers Entschluss zum Überfall auf die Sowjetunion gewesen. Aber beide Diktatoren hätten unabhängig voneinander einen Krieg vorbereitet, und Hitler sei Stalin nur zuvorgekommen. Die Stalinrede vom 5. Mai 1941 im Kreml vor den Absolventen der sowjetischen Militärakademien (deren Echtheit allerdings wegen uneinheitlicher Quellen umstritten ist) belege, dass Stalin einen Vernichtungskrieg gegen Deutschland geplant habe.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    [This sort of very bad behavior may get all your future comments trashed if it continues.]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Wally says:
    @szopen
    It's interesting that you believe without hesitation Nazi propaganda about pre-war "Polish atrocities", while demanding much higher standard of proof when discussing Nazi atrocities.

    The sources do not indicate that they are “propaganda’, vs. what Zionists try to pass of as facts.

    Do better next time.

    Cheers.
    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Wally says:
    @Eric Zuesse
    Find it in the links at https://www.hdot.org/trial-materials/

    I do not see it there.

    again:

    What ” crucial evidence” was “distorted”? Do tell.

    What did he ‘rely on that was bogus’? Do tell.

    Or don’t you even know?

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Wally
    Nope.

    Russia invades Finland, Poland seizes part of Czechoslovakia.

    Ergo, that started the war.

    www.codoh.com

    Moronic. Poland annexed Czechoslovak territory in 1938, and no one batted an eye about it. The USSR didn’t invade until months after Germany invaded Poland.

    Face it. Your beloved Nazis did something wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Incitatus says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    the evil anti-Semite Austrian Colonel
     
    He was a "gruppenführer" (equivalent to corporal; second lowest rank). Sometimes translated as "squad leader." He was only a runner, but he loved the war.

    “He [Hitler] was a “gruppenführer” (equivalent to corporal; second lowest rank). Sometimes translated as “squad leader.” He was only a runner, but he loved the war.”

    Hitler was a gefreiter (= Private First Class) in a Bavarian Regiment. Not an NCO, not a corporal, not entitled to command other men. The only order he could issue was for dinner in a restaurant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    Hitler was a gefreiter (= Private First Class) in a Bavarian Regiment. Not an NCO, not a corporal, not entitled to command other men. The only order he could issue was for dinner in a restaurant.
     
    Yes, I was confused about the name for the rank, but it was the second lowest rank. And he was a runner.

    He was certainly not a colonel, which was my point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Wally
    More on the cited Joachim Hoffman here:

    https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=Joachim+Hoffman

    Amazon here:
    https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-Extermination-1941-1945-Documentation/dp/0967985684

    www.codoh.com

    [This sort of very bad behavior may get all your future comments trashed if it continues.]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. 1RW says:
    @Lauri Törni
    It still amazes me how people are completely unaware of the Finnish-Russo Winter War in 1939..

    Hundreds of foreign war reporters were stationed in Finland. Then all of a sudden nothing was written about it.

    Russians were too ashamed of their massive defeat (Stalin sent 1,5 million Russians to the Winter War. 1 million died in our forests.)

    The West was ashamed, because they had refused all help we begged from them. Even Sweden, our 'ally', betrayed us. Lots of empty promises, not one country sold weapons to us. Swedish schoolkids raised money to buy a fighter to Finland. Schoolkids!

    Volunteers were not given permission to come through Scandinavia or Germany to Finland. Until the war was about to end, so it was Finns fighting on the frontline - alone.

    When looking at the Russian POWs it's clear they come from Siberia or other cold parts in Russia. The terrain cannot have come as a surprise, nor the cold weather. It was pure incompetence.

    All Russian tansk were blown up by ski patrols. For example the 44th division, a 30 km long convoy; when the whole convoy was on the road, Finns felled trees in front and behind the column. After that ski patrols jammed the tankers with a piece of wood and threw a Molotov Cocktail so that the tank exploded. (Molotov told the world that Russia is dropping food to the starving Finns, not bombs. Finns called the bombs 'Molotov's bread baskets'. And we gave him a drink to go with the food; Molotov Cocktail). When the convoy was trapped it was divided into smaller units and the massacre began.

    When Soviet's elite 63. division was dispatched to help the 44th. division (which was already beyond any help), it travelled on the ice. Finns broke the ice - once the whole column was on ice - with machine guns, and you can guess the rest. Our lakes are filled with dead Russians.

    Due to West's decision to silence and ignore the Winter War, they don't learn anything from our masterful warfare. But Russians.... they have studied the Winter War and can defend their country from an invasion.

    Here you get some idea of what it was like for the Russian soldiers in the Winter War, and understand why we got more weapons from Russia than from all other nations combined:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAOHa7BxLEs

    Or read a truthful description:

    http://ar.to/2010/08/red-blood-white-snow

    Nobody helped us when Stalin invaded Finland, so we did pretty good, didn't we?

    But belittled, ridiculed, ignored and even blamed - that we get both by the West and Russia. But we know what happened in reality. Nobody ever asks us, so we don't tell.

    Uh, the Red Army won. Finland surrendered. The Mannerheim line was breached. Still not sure how you can call it a defeat for the Red Army. More like a surprisingly hard won victory.

    I mean the Finns did well with what they had, but they surrendered. And it’s not like the Soviets took away ancient Finnish homeland – it was all Russian Empire barely 20 years before.

    No one owed you help. If a country decides that it’s in its self interest to not help, as Germany did btw, then they won’t help. I know the British promised help, but it’s your fault for taking them seriously- Perfidious Albion has a funny way of helping.

    Finally, if anything, the West loves to talk about the Winter war as a victory for the plucky Finnish – counterfactual as the narrative is. I suppose it comforts them, just like they love to read and take at face value the memoirs of Wehrmacht generals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lauri Törni
    Just remember, that Finland owes nothing to the West either.

    The real fun - from a Finnish perspective - starts when Russia decides to invade Europe. We are not going to lift a finger to defend Europe. Officers know where Finland's 'new' borders are if that happens. Sweden and Norway will be Russia's new neighbors, so it will be their responsibility to defend Europe.

    Finland will defend only Finland and stay neutral, just like the West did in WW2. Funny how US had a mega year in 1939-1940, due to the massive amount of weapons they sold to Soviet Union. We tried to buy weapons, but the American president told us how he is neutral and does not want to get involved...

    Stalin suffered a massive moral defeat and he knew it. Both Stalin and Hitler complained, because foreign people were furious over the attack to Finland and the lack of help we got.

    It didn't sit well with their PR-image, hence Russia suffered a major defeat. And that is why you get to read Stalin's and the Western Coalition's 'official facts' about the Winter War.

    Lol, when Finns had to bury the masses of killed Soviets they tried to offer the Russian bodies to Soviet Union. But SU said that they will only take 250.000 bodies, because according to the official agenda that was all the fighting Russians in the Finnish War.

    So we had to bury the rest of them, around 750.000.

    The West likes only to talk about how They helped the Finns, taking our credit to themself. Which infurates every Finn, because we know exactly what kind of 'aid' we got from the West.

    Finns are now prepared for a new invasion. All male Finns know their exact duties in wartime and they spend months in the forests during their conscription. Without food or comfort. Every year all regiments arrange a 'final war', loppusota, where they are put into a test and evaluated according to their behaviour. Funny thing is, that foreigners usually quit the army a.s.a.p., the Finnish army is too tough for them.

    So you can think about who Finland trusts today, and also ponder if we are trained to stop an invasion from the West, in co-operation with Russia. Can you take us?:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8SUlX44IMc
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @Ron Unz

    I read your article, and I asked the question I did because your essay did not cite any authority on the idea of Suvorov being the most read military historian in history.
     
    Well, I'd explicitly cited the reviewer who made that claim, whose accuracy I admittedly can't guarantee.

    But since you asked, Antony Beevor has likely sold more books than Suvorov. For one thing, he’s more prolific; for another, two of his books alone have sold more than three million copies.
     
    Well, according to Wikipedia, Beevor has sold more than 6M total books as of today, which is admittedly far more I'd realized. However, a careful examination of the text I cited seems to suggest that Icebreaker *alone* had already sold 5M copies by 2010. Meanwhile, Suvorov has published something like 20+ total books, many of which have also sold extremely well. So I think it's quite plausible that the reviewer was correct, and he's the most widely read military historian in history. However, if you can find someone else who has sold e.g. 10M copies, then I'd be willing to admit that Suvorov is probably just #2.

    It's also possible that Suvorov was indeed #1 when the review was written, but someone else has subsequently passed him.

    Thanks for responding. I suppose it’s possible that Suvorov’s book sold five million copies in the 16 years since it was published in German when the review was published. It’s just frankly not likely.

    Der Vorleser by Bernhard Schlink was a bestseller in Germany the following year, but it only sold 500,000 copies, although it was among the top selling books for several years. You can choose to believe that Suvorov outsold this very popular novel, but it doesn’t seem true to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Who said anything about sales in German specifically? Perhaps you should read more carefully.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. L.K says:
    @Eric Zuesse
    By citing David Irving, you cite a Holocaust-denier and Hitler-apologist, who during the trial between David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt was shown definitely to have distorted and misrepresented crucial evidence, and to have relied also on some evidence which was bogus, and to have ignored evidence that was authentic and that disproved some of Irving's key assertions.

    You are a shill, Eric Zuesse, not only re WW2 but also 9/11.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Svigor says:

    [Suvorov] is arguing with every book, every article, every film, every NATO directive, every Downing Street assumption, every Pentagon clerk, every academic, every Communist and anti-Communist, every neoconservative intellectual, every Soviet song, poem, novel and piece of music ever heard, written, made, sung, issued, produced, or born during the last 50 years. For this reason, Icebreaker is the most original work of history it has been my privilege to read.

    The most interesting thing about Rezun’s thesis is not Rezun’s thesis, but the reaction from the ruling classes of the West. They have so much invested in blaming Hitler and ignoring Stalin that they can’t accept his thesis. They can’t even give it a hearing. It doesn’t have much traction at this point, so we’ve only seen the ignore/laugh response from the leftists. But if it gains real traction, have no doubt that leftists will be screeching about it forever.

    First, although there was been a widespread belief in the superiority of Germany’s military technology, its tanks and its planes, this is almost entirely mythological. In actual fact, Soviet tanks were far superior in main armament, armor, and maneuverability to their German counterparts, so much so that the overwhelming majority of panzers were almost obsolescent by comparison.

    It’s not widespread among grognards or history buffs. In those circles pretty much everyone acknowledges that the Wehrmacht’s human capital was far and away its greatest asset, that Soviet tanks were better than German, and far more numerous.

    There is also little evidence that the quality of Soviet officers or military doctrine fell short.

    The extended ass-kicking they received at the hands of the Wehrmact is pretty good evidence. The element of surprise and disadvantages in starting position seem like pretty thin excuses for months and months of getting your ass kicked. And even after the Germans’ rapid advance ended, it took a Hell of a long time for the Russians to turn the tide, despite their huge numerical and technological advantages. One successful campaign against the Japs (no military geniuses or great soldiers, either) doesn’t amount to much of a counterargument.

    Stalin and his war-planners had seemingly banked on possessing near-total air supremacy during the entire course of any conflict, an assumption plausible only if the German luftwaffe were destroyed on the ground by a surprise attack on the very first day.

    That’s a really stupid plan.

    Suvorov notes that treaties or pacts are traditionally named for the city in which they are signed—the Warsaw Pact, the Baghdad Pact, the Munich Agreement—and thus the so-called “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact” signed in August 23, 1939 by which Hitler and Stalin agreed to the division of Poland should more properly be called “the Moscow Pact.” As a direct result of that agreement, Stalin gained half of Poland, the Baltic States, and various other advantages, including a direct border with Germany. Meanwhile, Hitler was punished by declarations of war from France and Britain, amid worldwide condemnation as a military aggressor. Although Germany and Russia both invaded Poland, the latter managed to avoid being dragged into any war with Poland’s erstwhile allies. Thus, the primary beneficiary of the Moscow Pact was clearly Moscow.

    The Narrative puts the blame on Hitler because he rolled into Poland 2 weeks before Stalin did. Stalin “only invaded Poland as a defensive measure, a reaction against Hitler’s aggression.”

    ***

    One thing that has always irked me about historians is their tendency to not give actors the benefit of the doubt. I.e., the tendency to think they can see everything through hindsight, that nothing is hidden from their sight. I tend to give historical actors the benefit of the doubt, and assume they had a lot of information that we may not know they had. This is why I’ve always looked askance at the common, dearly-held assumptions that this or that act by Hitler or Stalin was stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  207. Svigor says:
    @Duglarri
    So Stalin's desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn't happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt's messages, the rebuff of Churchill's warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge's transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

    The reports from the front, the response to the Soviet unit reporting they were under fire: "Are you mad? And why is your transmission not in code?"

    And so by this retelling, Hitler noticed in the nick of time that Russia was about to attack, and cleverly spent six months assembling three million men on the Russian border?

    Hitler's invasion of Russia was purely defensive in nature? Oh, and he never wrote in Mein Kampf that Germany's destiny was in the East, and the concept of "Lebensraum" is fictional as well?

    Russian troop dispositions on the eve of war may well have been offensive in nature. Stalin may well have been planning to attack Germany at some point.

    But the claim that Stalin was responsible for World War II- wait, hadn't that war already been in progress for close to two years when by this thesis Stalin's initiation of the war was pre-empted by brave Adolf's invasion?

    Even if Stalin was planning to initiate a war with Hitler- well, who could blame him?

    But to make this claim that Stalin, and not Hitler, started World War II- is quite absurd.

    But the claim that Stalin was responsible for World War II- wait, hadn’t that war already been in progress for close to two years when by this thesis Stalin’s initiation of the war was pre-empted by brave Adolf’s invasion?

    The Soviets were largely responsible for WWII, yes. They scared the living shit out of Europe, and rightly so. This was probably a necessary condition of Hitler’s rise to power (the Soviets had murdered well over 12m people before Hitler even became chancellor). Hitler’s warmongering was politically predicated on the Soviet monstrosity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. L.K says:
    @utu

    Stalin’s aggressive intentions, if indeed such existed
     
    Did they exist or not? My question was about German usage this fact in propaganda? And since Germans did not use it as far s I know, I conclude that Suvorov is just unscrupulous lier which is what one may expect from GRU officer. And I am surprised he got such following including Ron Unz.

    Oh boy, you really are a moron.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Thanks for responding. I suppose it’s possible that Suvorov’s book sold five million copies in the 16 years since it was published in German when the review was published. It’s just frankly not likely.

    Der Vorleser by Bernhard Schlink was a bestseller in Germany the following year, but it only sold 500,000 copies, although it was among the top selling books for several years. You can choose to believe that Suvorov outsold this very popular novel, but it doesn’t seem true to me.

    Who said anything about sales in German specifically? Perhaps you should read more carefully.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Svigor says:

    Ran across the “Hitler was a terrible artist” thing while searching up background related to this article.

    Well,

    it’s not (((Piss Christ))),

    buuuuttt…

    Leftists are too stupid to understand that lying all the time undermines their legitimacy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  211. Svigor says:
    @AKAHorace
    This is very interesting, I have enjoyed Suravovs books about the GRU.

    If the Sovs were so prepared for an aggressive invasion, how did they mess up their invasion of Finland so much ?

    Good question. The Finns mauled the Russians even worse than the Germans did, relatively speaking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Incitatus
    "He [Hitler] was a “gruppenführer” (equivalent to corporal; second lowest rank). Sometimes translated as “squad leader.” He was only a runner, but he loved the war."

    Hitler was a gefreiter (= Private First Class) in a Bavarian Regiment. Not an NCO, not a corporal, not entitled to command other men. The only order he could issue was for dinner in a restaurant.

    Hitler was a gefreiter (= Private First Class) in a Bavarian Regiment. Not an NCO, not a corporal, not entitled to command other men. The only order he could issue was for dinner in a restaurant.

    Yes, I was confused about the name for the rank, but it was the second lowest rank. And he was a runner.

    He was certainly not a colonel, which was my point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    He was a decorated combat veteran whose understanding of military matters has been praised by no less than John Keegan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Svigor says:
    @Anon
    So Stalin’s desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn’t happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt’s messages, the rebuff of Churchill’s warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge’s transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

    If Stalin was psyched for an attack, he wouldn't have worried about a German attack. And he was so reluctant to believe in a German attack was because he so certain that Germany had learned the lesson of WWI: No Two-Front War.

    If Stalin meant to invade Germany -- and I'm not convinced myself that was the case --- , he needed a surprise attack. He had to make Germany believe that it was still on good terms with USSR.
    Stalin may have thought FDR and Churchill's messages were meant to undermine German-Soviet relations. If undermined and if USSR broke the alliance with Germany, then Hitler would have readied for war with USSR. So, Stalin needed to make it seem like all was hunky dory.

    But the claim that Stalin was responsible for World War II- wait, hadn’t that war already been in progress for close to two years when by this thesis Stalin’s initiation of the war was pre-empted by brave Adolf’s invasion?

    No, if Germany had not invaded Russia in 1941, it would not have been remembered as a World War. It would have been a limited European War. It was the invasion of Russia, plus Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, plus Hitler's declaration on the US that made it a world war. So, WWII really began in 1941 but has origins in events in 39.

    Even if Stalin was planning to initiate a war with Hitler- well, who could blame him?


    In retrospect, this makes sense. But prior to 1941, Stalin and USSR regime were hardly better than Nazi Germany. And they had, at least til then, killed many more innocent people.

    No, if Germany had not invaded Russia in 1941, it would not have been remembered as a World War. It would have been a limited European War. It was the invasion of Russia, plus Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, plus Hitler’s declaration on the US that made it a world war. So, WWII really began in 1941 but has origins in events in 39.

    This is silly. I often see this childish view that the USA had no choice but to invade German-occupied Europe and then Germany because “whelp, by golly, Germany declared war on us, and anybody who declares war on us gets invaded, goshdarnint.”

    It’s just so stupid; I hope, for the world’s sake, the world doesn’t declare war on us tomorrow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sarah Toga
    Our globalist ruling class already has a policy entangling us in endless war. As if war has become a Public Utility that must be kept running at all times, like water, sewer, electricity.

    "Invite the world - invade the world - in hoc with the world"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Antiwar7 says:

    If Suvorov is correct, why didn’t Hitler stop after capturing or destroying all that forward-deployed weaponry of Stalin’s?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    It’s pretty obvious, no? To finish off the mortal threat once and for all. The Soviets had vast amounts of resources on which to base a recovery and future restart of the war. Which is why, at the time, the Germans made the right decision to rebuff Stalin’s offers for cessation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Svigor says:
    @Anon
    So Stalin’s desperate, last-minute efforts to avoid war with Germany didn’t happen? The sneering response to Roosevelt’s messages, the rebuff of Churchill’s warning, and the dismissal of Richard Sorge’s transmission of the exact date of the German attack- none of this happened?

    If Stalin was psyched for an attack, he wouldn't have worried about a German attack. And he was so reluctant to believe in a German attack was because he so certain that Germany had learned the lesson of WWI: No Two-Front War.

    If Stalin meant to invade Germany -- and I'm not convinced myself that was the case --- , he needed a surprise attack. He had to make Germany believe that it was still on good terms with USSR.
    Stalin may have thought FDR and Churchill's messages were meant to undermine German-Soviet relations. If undermined and if USSR broke the alliance with Germany, then Hitler would have readied for war with USSR. So, Stalin needed to make it seem like all was hunky dory.

    But the claim that Stalin was responsible for World War II- wait, hadn’t that war already been in progress for close to two years when by this thesis Stalin’s initiation of the war was pre-empted by brave Adolf’s invasion?

    No, if Germany had not invaded Russia in 1941, it would not have been remembered as a World War. It would have been a limited European War. It was the invasion of Russia, plus Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, plus Hitler's declaration on the US that made it a world war. So, WWII really began in 1941 but has origins in events in 39.

    Even if Stalin was planning to initiate a war with Hitler- well, who could blame him?


    In retrospect, this makes sense. But prior to 1941, Stalin and USSR regime were hardly better than Nazi Germany. And they had, at least til then, killed many more innocent people.

    In retrospect, this makes sense. But prior to 1941, Stalin and USSR regime were hardly better than Nazi Germany. And they had, at least til then, killed many more innocent people.

    WTF? As you allude to, the USSR had murdered 12m people in the Holodomor alone before Hitler rose to power. “Hardly better”? The Nazis were friggin’ angels compared to the Soviets. The USSR was consistently worse, right on through the war, and into the postwar period. The Nazis were never as bad as the USSR, at any point, unless one looks only through a misanthropic Jewish/communist lens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    WTF? As you allude to, the USSR had murdered 12m people in the Holodomor alone before Hitler rose to power. “Hardly better”? The Nazis were friggin’ angels compared to the Soviets. The USSR was consistently worse, right on through the war, and into the postwar period. The Nazis were never as bad as the USSR, at any point, unless one looks only through a misanthropic Jewish/communist lens.

    No, the Ukraine Famine likely cost around 3.5 million lives. Maybe 4 million. But not 12 million.

    Up to 1939, the Nazis killed far fewer people. But there was no need to. National Socialism wasn't as radical as communism in its economic plan. Communism waged class war on entire categories of people: bourgeoisie, nobility, and 'kulaks'. The result was mass killing, mass exile, or mass imprisonment. Also, as Soviet Union had to industrialize, Stalin had to use brutal force to get people to build modern industry as a massive scale. Also, the Soviet Union was very diverse, and that meant lots of division and distrust along ethnic, cultural, and religious grounds. Stalin had to use extreme violence to send a message that Soviet power was here to stay.

    In contrast, Nazi Germany was mostly homogeneous. So, there was less diversity, and less division.
    Also, National Socialism sought to bridge the upper classes with middle classes with working classes. Also, German industry was already developed, and Hitler didn't need to use mass slave labor for rapid industrialization. Thus, its economic policy wasn't as radical and violent. But that was up to 1939.

    Once Nazism went into imperialist mode, its power no longer ruled over a homogeneous population deemed as fellow Germans. It ruled over non-Germans, and here Nazi policy ranged from tolerant, even lenient, to totally insane and murderous. It all depended on Nazi racial policy. So, Nazis could go easy on French IF they didn't make too much trouble. Nazis could treat fellow Germanics and Nordics pretty well as racial brethren. But when it came to the Slavs of USSR, it was hell on earth. Hitler's ultimate plan for Slavs, esp Russians was slavery and extermination. And that is what makes Nazism worse in the end. Soviets were brutal(like Americans could be), but they ultimately believed that all humans were humans. After the rape and pillage of Germany by Soviet Union, the USSR did treat Germans as fellow humans. If Nazis had won over Russia, the native Slavs would have been seen as subhuman and killed by 10s of millions. Rest would have been kept illiterate and used as slaves. And Germany in imperialist mode used Poles as slave labor. Brutal treatment with extremely high rates of fatality.

    As for the Jews, Nazis carried out what was race-based mass-killing. The 6 million is probably a stretch, but it could easily be around 4 to 5 million. Even Irving came around to admitting of the genocide. The gassing of Jews was exaggerated, but there were lots of killings by gunfire.

    So, in national mode, National Socialists were better than the Soviets and even inspiring in certain ways. But in imperialist mode, especially in the East, it was totally insane. If Hitler had stopped after Sudetenland and then pressed for Danzig(rightfully German) and not gone into imperialist mode, he would have been one of the great German leaders. But he threw it all away. Phil Collin's song applies to Hitler.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiHb2uKrGSk
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    Did they exist or not? My question was about German usage this fact in propaganda? And since Germans did not use it as far s I know, I conclude that Suvorov is just unscrupulous lier which is what one may expect from GRU officer. And I am surprised he got such following including Ron Unz.
     
    Well, from what I think I remember reading here and there, the Germans did repeatedly declare that they had narrowly "preempted" a gigantic Soviet attack, but the Western media just ridiculed the claim as "lying Nazi propaganda." Perhaps this had something to do with the fact that the West was currently at war with Germany, certainly including America (an undeclared war). What neutral countries were to be the target of such German propaganda? Argentina and Turkey? For all I know, those countries did completely accept the German claims.

    Consider that just a couple of years later, the Germans provided scrupulously well-documented proof that the Soviets had massacred the entire Polish officer corps of POWs at Katyn, yet this was totally ignored by the Western media (though I think Irving claims that Churchill may have had Gen. Sikorski, the leader of the Polish government-in-exile assassinated as a consequence). And indeed the *Germans* were the ones charged with that crime at Nuremberg.

    The eventual futility of German propaganda and example of its failure in case of Katyn (1943) does explain why Germany did not make greater effort to make claims that USSR was preparing an attack on Germany in 1941. They did use captured documents in Warsaw in 1939 in their propaganda effort in 1940. Whether they believed it was futile or not it is irrelevant. Why they did not create a meme of imminent Soviet attack that they had just preempted? They had 80 Soviet generals in captivity to corroborate this meme. I am sure if they tried to create the meme it would have survived in some fragmentary shape and some historians would consider it. Instead we had to wait till 1990 for some GRU officer who out of nowhere reveals USSR’s plan to attack Germany in summer 1941. He did it while living in UK in some spy protection program w/o access to Soviet Archives for at least 12 years.

    Who benefits from the meme created by Suvorov? Obviously Hitler apologists because it justifies his attack on USSR but nobody really cares about Hitler. Most importantly it benefits Stalin apologists who can glorify Soviet militarization program and can explain away total indolence of Red Army in 1941. The great Red Army was not ill prepared , ill equipped with indolent officer corp but instead Red Army just lost the race with Hitler by few days. If the great Red Army won that race the Hitler would be defeated in 1941 and Holocaust would not have happened. Stalin was not incompetent bungler who trusted Hitler and insane murderer who wiped out his own officer corp but he was a great strategists who just did not have luck. He lost by being just few days late. Furthermore it reinforces the belief that you can’t trust Soviets. When they talk peace and complain about aggressive American stance of installing Pershing missiles in West Germany by Reagan they are actually preparing for an offensive war. Soviets were not innocent victims of Hitler because they were never innocent victims. They always are plotting a sneaky attack. This was the message Suvorov was sending on behalf of his handlers and he as a double spy had two sets of handlers. It seems that he managed to satisfy both his Soviet and British/American handlers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    Suvorov is not alone - others have come to the same conclusion. Nightingale posted a link to one such book (in German unfortunately). So, dismissing Suvorov as a paid agent doesn't change too much.

    Why they [the Germans] did not create a meme of imminent Soviet attack that they had just preempted? They had 80 Soviet generals in captivity to corroborate this meme. I am sure if they tried to create the meme it would have survived in some fragmentary shape and some historians would consider it ...
     
    A "meme" needs a medium to spread. Should the Germans have taken out ads in the NYT? Written little notes and put them in drift bottles? Fly banners behind their V1 rockets? After the war, Germany lay prostrate, and everyone was too busy trying to survive and staying out of trouble vis-a-vis the victors who brooked no dissent in implanting their fabricated version of history.
    , @Ron Unz

    This was the message Suvorov was sending on behalf of his handlers and he as a double spy had two sets of handlers. It seems that he managed to satisfy both his Soviet and British/American handlers.
     
    I think you're being ridiculously conspiratorial about Suvorov...

    If powerful Britain/American elites were behind him, why did they then totally prevent republication of his book for decades and also absolutely blacklist his ideas from the English media. If they ensured that virtually no one in the English-language has ever heard of him or this theories, why did they order him to write the book?

    As for the pro-Soviet types, they've always been overwhelmingly hostile to Suvorov's ideas, and some of them have been on this very thread denouncing his book and pointing me to various Russian-language refutations of his hypothesis. Supposedly, a maverick publisher released his book in Russia in 1992 after the Soviet system had totally collapsed, and that's how it sold millions of copies there, soon also catching on with various other non-establishment historians. Add to that the death sentence Suvorov had received for defection and all the previous books he'd published generally critical of Soviet military institutions, and the notion that he was a Soviet mole all along seems rather implausible.

    Maybe Suvorov is wrong or maybe he just wrote his book in hopes of getting rich, but I very much doubt he's spent the last thirty years being "run" by either British/American intelligence or Soviet intelligence, let alone both of them simultaneously.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Outside observers had argued that no army anywhere in the world could penetrate it. ” – weak evidence. That sounds like a description of the Maginot Line.
     
    However, France's Maginot Line *was* virtually impenetrable. That's why the Germans went around it, and won the war that way. From what I recall, the Maginot Line remained virtually unbroken until the defeated French government ordered its surrender.

    Meanwhile, in Finland, the Soviets had no way of "going around" the Mannerheim Line, which may even have been tougher because of the exceptionally difficult terrain and weather conditions. Suvorov devotes Chapter 22 to this issue, and it certainly seemed to explode the assumptions I'd had for decades.

    Thank you for the reply. I know you are very busy. I have not read Suvorov yet, but I intend to. The Mannerheim Line must have been very impressive indeed, and technically you are correct that the Maginot line was not “penetrated.” It was soundly defeated – a result brought about by good military leadership.

    As I have just heard of Suvorov, perhaps you could indulge one more question on the work. Did the Soviet military leadership appreciate the difficulty of penetrating the Mannerheim line and consider bypassing it via airborne assault as in Operation Overlord (Normandy), or by sea such as at Inchon (Korea), or some other method? Or, did the Soviet military leadership at that time simply lack the insight, imagination, and competence to develop a strategy other than full speed ahead in a Pickett’s Charge type fashion (admittedly successful in a Pyrrhic way)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    As I have just heard of Suvorov, perhaps you could indulge one more question on the work. Did the Soviet military leadership appreciate the difficulty of penetrating the Mannerheim line and consider bypassing it via airborne assault as in Operation Overlord (Normandy), or by sea such as at Inchon (Korea), or some other method?
     
    Well, I'm really no expert, but my impression is that the extremely difficult forested terrain and the terrible weather conditions would have made an airborne assault totally impossible, and the same for any sort of sea-landing, since I'd guess the waters were mostly frozen.

    I'd think that Stalin was just tremendously overconfident since his forces were so vastly superior to the Finns in numbers and armament, and at the end he didn't really care that it cost him well over a hundred thousand dead to win the war.
    , @Anon
    The Soviets did bypass it.
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Winterwar-december1939-soviet-attacks.png
    Here you see their plan of attack. Note that only the VII Army is directly attacking the Mannerheim Line. While that line covered the most important theatre of operations, it was far from the only theatre.
    , @JMcG
    The Airborne assaults which were part of Overlord were not designed to bypass enemy defenses. They were planned to secure the flanks of the beachheads from immediate defensive response. Certain other missions were also assigned, e.g. the capture of the Orne River bridge.
    The majority of allied airborne troops were not dropped near their respective LZs. They caused a great deal of confusion, but achieved very little of military value. Another commentor has made the point, correctly I think, that Crete was the death knell for large Airborne operations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. KenH says: