The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
Reading the "Traitors" - a Good or a Bad Idea?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

There are two names which often trigger a very strong and hostile reaction from many Russians: Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Vladimir Rezun aka “Viktor Suvorov”. The list of accusations against these two men usually includes:

  • Alexander Solzhenitsyn: he made up numbers about 66 million people killed by the Soviet regime, he spoke favorably of General Andrei Vlasov, he was a CIA stooge, he was an anti-Semite, a Russian nationalist and a monarchist. Finally, there is a popular saying in modern Russia: “show me an anti-Soviet activist (“антисовечик”) and I will show you a russophobe” (which makes Solzhenitsyn a russophobe).
  • Vladimir Rezun: he is a traitor, he is the creator of the theory that Hitler only preempted a Soviet attack which Stalin was about to launch, he is a MI-6 front to spread russophobic theories.

What I like to do when I hear these opinions is to ask a simple question: how many books by Solzhenitsyn and/or Rezun have you actually read?

The answer is typically rather nebulous. They mostly refer to either one or two books (at most) and a number of articles (often articles not even written by either author, but paraphrasing, often rather “creatively”).

This reminds me of an old Soviet joke: “a Party official comes to some factory or office to deliver a political lecture and absolutely tears into Solzhenitsyn’s famous “Gulag Archipelago” calling it an ugly collection of lies. One of the workers present asks the Party official whether he read the entire book to which the Party official replies “I don’t read such anti-Soviet filth!”

There is much truth to that as I have rarely encountered Solzhenitsyn-haters who actually read at least a few books by him.

Well, it just so happens that I discovered Solzhenitsyn when I was 16 and that I continued to study his writings for the rest of my life. Over the next years and decades, I read every single book and article Solzhenitsyn wrote several times (at least twice, if not more). As for Rezun, I read all his non-fiction books (I don’t like his fiction at all), so I want to chime in here and share with you, the reader, my strictly personal opinion about these two authors and men.

First, I will begin with a couple of general comments.

For one thing, both Solzhenitsyn and Rezun are terrific writers and it is a crying shame not to read them! Their styles are, however, dramatically different: Solzhenitsyn is often compared to Dostoevskii, and rightfully so, even if this applies more to contents and worldview than style. I would say that Solzhenitsyn’s style is unique and very uneven. His masterpiece is, at least in my opinion, the “Gulag Archipelago” (the worst being his poems). Yes, I know, this is a non-fiction book and not one of his purely literary masterpieces (say like “The Cancer Ward” or “In The First Circle“), but I personally happen to find the Gulag Archipelago his most powerful book not only on contents, but also on style and language. His other masterpiece is, again in my totally subjective opinion, his immense cycle “The Red Wheel“, especially “August 14” and “October 16“. On the other end of the spectrum, I also love his short stories (“Крохотки”). By any halfway objective measure, the man is a literary giant on par with Tolstoy or Dostoevskii.

Nobody would say that about Rezun. His style could be described as “pedestrian” if not outright “yellow” (in the meaning of “yellow journalism”). But that is not a problem. What Rezun lacks in elegance and academic rigor, he more than makes up for with a very lively and entertaining writing style, some really catchy ideas and a lot of “creative nonsense”. I have no problem with somebody hating Rezun as a person and traitor, or hating his vulgar style, but don’t tell me that he does not write well: millions of people read his books with immense fascination and appreciation. The man has undeniable talent.

The above is just to point out that those who say that they have not read these authors because they hate their style are most likely not being very honest and it is much more likely that they did not read these authors because of the contents of their books. That is what we shall look into next. Specifically, I will look at Alexander Solzhenitsyn first, he is the more complex one of the two, and then at Rezun.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

The very first thing we need to remember is that Solzhenitsyn was born in 1918, which means that he was raised by a generation of Russians which remembered pre-1917 Russia. The second thing which we need to also keep in mind is that he was raised by a generation which remembered the chaos of the Kerenskii regime followed by the bloodbath of the Bolshevik coup which itself was following by the bloody orgy of the Russian civil war.

Why is that important?

Because his brand of anti-Sovietism was much more similar to what we would see in the White Guard or the First Generation Russian emigration (those roughly 2 million Russians who left Russia following the Bolshevik coup). For example, this is why Solzhenitsyn wrote so much about the role of Jews in the first Bolshevik governments: this is a topic which was central to the wordview of White Guard and First Generation Russian emigres.

It is also pretty clear that while Solzhenitsyn already had anti-Soviet feelings before he was arrested, it is nonetheless obvious that his incarceration first in a labor camp and, later, into a special jail for scientists exposed Solzhenitsyn to even more anti-Soviet individuals and ideas.

Of course, none of that excuses any false figures (or misguided political opinions) Solzhenitsyn might have had, but it does explain where they came from and why Solzhenitsyn deemed them as credible. Speaking personally, I was raised in exactly that “White Guard” and “First Emigration” political culture, and I can assure you that Solzhenitsyn’s views were really very much “mainstream” amongst those Russians who still remembered pre-revolutionary Russia.

Next, Solzhenitsyn himself described how he asked all his fellow prisoners (the “zeks” he speaks of in the Gulag Archipelago) to send him all the historical documents, memoirs, academic papers, etc. possible for him to write the history of the Gulag. Needless to say, the Soviet archives were not made open for this purpose, nor did the KGB offer to write an amicus brief to help Solzhenitsyn.

Thus, just to recap: what is important here were Solzhenitsyn’s sources of information:

  • Pre-1917 Russians who remembered the horrors of the revolution and civil war
  • White Guard & First Wave Emigre memoirs and articles
  • Exposure to those arrested for anti-Soviet activities (the famous Art 58), whether guilty or innocent, and who were incarcerated with Solzhenitsyn
  • Articles by western scholars, political figures, think tanks (aka “western propaganda”).

Is it a big surprise that Solzhenitsyn did get a lot of things wrong, especially when the Soviet state offered very little in terms of credible historical information?

Here I have to insert a rather lengthy side bar about the nature of the Soviet state. It is my opinion that over its history the Soviet regime changed rather often and rather dramatically. Personally, I would offer the following chronology:

  1. The early years: (1917-1922). The Bolshevik coup, then the civil war followed by the great Jewish terror of Iagoda, Frenkel, Ezhov, etc. the years of the so-called “war communism”, the NEP, and the collectivization, famine and “dekulakisation” (1932-1933). This period ended with the so-called “Stalin’s purges” (1936-1938).
  2. Stalin’s preparation for WWII: (1936-1941). During this period most of the Bolshevik “old guard” was either executed, or jailed or demoted and a completely new generation of commanders (“Stalin’s generals”), were put into all key military and civilian positions.
  3. The Great Patriotic War: (1941-1945). This dramatic period which saw the Russian nation fight for her very survival also saw a truly dramatic change in political culture: the former Bolshevik russophobia was replaced with praise for the heroic Russian nation, military ranks were fully reestablished (along with traditional Russian epaulets), churches were reopened and the repressions dramatically reduced.
  4. The post-war period and Stalin’s last years: 1945-1961. This period saw a quasi-miraculous rebirth of the Soviet Union from the ashes of WWII and a period of prosperity and stability. While Stalin was probably murdered by his entourage in 1953 and his main executioner (Lavrentii Beria) executed soon thereafter (also in 1953), their legacy of prosperity and stability lasted well beyond the 22nd CPSU Congress which saw Khrushchev make a 180 and suddenly denounce Stalin, the cult of his personality and the rehabilitation of millions of innocent Russians.
  5. The Great Betrayal (1961-1964): Khrushchev was the worst, most immoral, incompetent, hypocritical, inept and otherwise despicable Soviet leader ever (Eltsin was in the same league, imnsho). He was also a bloody tyrant. Yet, possibly to conceal his own incompetence and his rabid hatred for Stalin, he did liberalize the Soviet Union to a not-insignificant degree, yet just like in the case of Gorbachev’s “glastnost'” – his “new openness” did not help the Soviet Union, far from it. Eventually, Krushchev himself was overthrown by Brezhnev but by then it was already too late: while until 1961 most (or, at least, many) Russians did believe in the ideal of Marxism-Leninism and trusted their leaders, after the shock of the 22nd CPSU Party Congress a period of deep disillusionment gradually set in. (It would only really stop in 2000!).
  6. The slow-motion deconstruction of the Soviet state, followed by the inevitable collapse: 1964-1991. Most of us remember Brezhnev. Some probably also remember Andropov. Does anybody even remember Chernenko? Then came “Gorbi” and, for a few hours, Ianaev (of the GKChP 1991 coup) and then the Soviet Union was declared dead.

What is crucial to understand here is that each of these six periods generated a very different popular and political culture. Thus, while in the West you often would hear generalizations about “the Soviets”, the truth is that there never once was any one single monolithic Soviet culture. The perfect example of sharp contrast would be to compare the generation which went through the horrors of the Early Years period with the generation which defeated the Nazi war machine and then put the first man in space.

In the case of Solzhenitsyn he was very much a product of the Early Years and should be evaluated against this historical background and not under the kind of criteria a modern professional historian with full access to many preciously secret archives would have.

Next, we need to take a look at the accusation that Solzhenitsyn’s was an apologist for General Vlasov.

The short answer is that yes, Solzhenitsyn did justify General Vlasov’s betrayal of his oath by saying that the Soviet Union had betrayed Vlasov long before Vlasov betrayed the Soviet Union. Furthermore, there is no doubt that Solzhenitsyn did absolutely hate Stalin whom he considered as a vicious mass murderer. How could he not approve of somebody taking up arms against Stalin? Solzhenitsyn’s conclusion was that if the Russian people had not seized this opportunity to overthrow the Soviet regime, then they really would have proven to the world that they are passive slaves.

One of the goals Solzhenitsyn set for himself when he wrote the Gulag Archipelago was to debunk a popular western theory which goes something like this: “Russians have never known freedom and they don’t care about it. Russians have a slave mentality and all they want is some kind of dictator (Czar or Commissar – makes no difference to them) to rule over them with an iron fist“. One of the things which Solzhenitsyn set out to prove was that far from being passive or slave-like, the Russian people resisted the Bolshevik regime at least until 1946! What does he mean by that? He refers to the fact that between 1917 and 1941, the Soviet regime was constantly threatened by all sorts of enemies (from monarchists to Trotskysts) and that following the Nazi invasion of the USSR, the Russian people simply seized this opportunity to rise up again against the Bolsheviks. From this point of view, the entire Vlasov phenomenon is nothing else but a continuation of the civil war. To summarize, when western russophobos liked to gloat about Russians having a slave mentality (they did a lot of them, especially the so-called “Russian/Soviet area specialists” Solzhenitsyn’s intention was to debunk this calumny and reply “oh yes, we did resist, for all of 30 years! You (meaning the folks in the West), in contrast, not only presented very little resistance to the Nazis, most of you became faithful and obedient servants of Hitler! The reality is that we, Russians, are far more freedom loving than you are, this is why we cannot be occupied and why it is so hard to rule over us.

While I personally cannot justify Vlasov’s betrayal of his oath, I do fundamentally agree that the Soviet regime only achieved full power and security for itself after the end of the war.

Whatever may be the case, does that really surprise anybody that Solzhenitsyn had such views? Such views were, in fact, quite common amongst those who still remembered pre-1917 Russia. In many ways, Solzhenitsyn was a pure product of the political culture of the Early Years of the Soviet regime and I personally see him as culturally much closer to the pre-1917 Russians than to the Russians which were raised already under the Soviet regime.

That does not mean that Solzhenitsyn did not get some facts, even crucial ones, very wrong.

It is all well and fun to comfortably sit in our chairs and criticize those who have been wrong in their past, but fundamentally this is both logically wrong and morally hypocritical. The truth is that history, ALL history, very much including our recent history, is chock full with myths, generalizations, simplifications, rumors and, most of all, lies. We all know about 9/11, but that is hardly a unique example. Does anybody remember the “Timisoara massacre” or, even better, the “Srebrenica genocide”? Speaking of Srebrenica, how about the no less fake “massacres” in Markale or Racak? How about Colonel Gaddafi giving Viagra to his men to rape Libyan women? Or this innocent young nurse from Kuwait who reported about the Iraqis tossing babies out of incubators?

These were all lies.

And then, there are the much more serious cases, including the historical truth about the so-called “Holocaust”. Or, who carries the responsibility for starting WWII? How about the Nuremberg Trials which some hailed as a huge victory for civilized mankind, while many others called it a “kangaroo court” of victors. What about the Tribunal on the Former Yugoslavia? Do you feel that this was a superb example of justice, or a crude Serbian-nation bashing PR operation?

If we can’t even agree on our recent history, do you really expect people from very different time periods (as all Russians today are, depending on their age), to agree on history, even crucial history?

Of course not!

So what we need to do now is not “smoke out” this or that personality and accuse them of lying (that would be a typically *Soviet* thing to do: to denounce a supposed enemy and demand that he be punished and silenced). We first need to consider what this person knew and did not know at the time that he/she wrote/said what we now consider lies. To err is human, and is therefore excusable. To deliberately lie is something quite different.

In the case of Solzhenitsyn, there is absolutely no evidence of deliberate deception on his part. In fact, the 66 million number is not even his. As I already pointed out in the past:

Here is what he actually wrote in this famous Gulag Archipelago about Soviet terror:

According to estimates by exiled professor of statistics IA Kurganov, from 1917 to 1959, and excluding war losses, only from terrorist destruction, suppression, hunger, the high mortality in the camps, and including the subsequent low birth rate, cost us 66.7 million people” (” The Gulag Archipelago “, part 3, Chapter 1). And in an interview in 1976 Solzhenitsyn said: “Professor Kurganov indirectly calculated that from 1917 to 1959 only from the internal war of the Soviet regime against its own people, that is, the destruction of its famine, collectivization, peasant’s deportation to prisons, camps and simple executions – just from these causes we lost, together with our civil war, 66 million people”. These figures INCLUDE the bloody Civil War, the so-called “War Communism“, the numerous anti-Bolshevik insurrections (such as the one in Tambov), the deaths resulting from the so-called “Collectivization” and “Dekulakization“, the “pure” political repression under the infamous Article 58 of the RSFSR Criminal Code and even the subsequent low birth rate. So we are talking about a “grand max” estimate.

The first thing we can note here is that while Prof Kurganov tried to arrive at a “grand max” figure, the Soviet archives (which show dramatically lower numbers of people arrested and/or executed) only dealt with the number of people actually sentenced under Soviet law and does not include the specific events Kurganov chose to include.

Thus, directly comparing Kurganov’s figures with official Soviet documents is a case of apples and oranges.

Still, Solzhenitsyn clearly loathed the Bolsheviks and the Soviet regime and that most likely made him willing to accept facts and figures which he should have checked much more carefully.

There is also a lot of evidence that, ideologically speaking, Solzhenitsyn was a monarchist in the general line of Fedor Dostoevskii, Lev Tikhomirov or Prof. Ivan Ilyin (whom Putin seems to also quote very often…) and that he had an intense dislike, not only for Marxism or Leninism, but even for “moderate” social democracy (which he saw as unable to stand up to the Soviet Union and its allies). We also know for sure that Solzhenitsyn had nothing good to say about western democracies or the capitalist worldview. However, Solzhenitsyn was hardly a typical “reactionary” since he had very little good to say about the pre-1917 Russia, including its last Czar. In truth, Solzhenitsyn was a typical Russian idealist who combined rather liberal, and even modernist, views about the Russian Orthodox Church with a rather strong dislike of the political system put in place by Peter I (often called “The Great” by westernizers). In fact, I would argue that there are at least three different “Solzhenitsyns” which need to be considered separately:

Solzhenitsyn the author: here it is a matter of personal taste. He did get a Nobel in literature, but we all understand that the Nobel Committee is just a front for the AngloZionist PR machine. Personally? He is one of my favorite Russian authors along with, in a totally different style, Sergei Lukianenko.

ORDER IT NOW

Solzhenitsyn the historian: here every single word he wrote needs to be revisited and carefully evaluated in light of what we now think that we know. This is especially true of his Gulag Archipelago which Solzhenitsyn referred to as an “An Experiment in Literary Investigation” thus clearly indicating that this was, by definition, a work in progress, an experiment, and an investigation. As I recently wrote, there is no worthwhile history which is not revisionist, and with Solzhenitsyn being both so famous and so wrong, it is only natural that his writings are the object of a concerted barrage of criticisms and reevaluation.

Solzhenitsyn the philosopher: yet again a case for personal taste. I would argue that Alexander Solzhenitsyn is a giant standing on the shoulders of other giants such as Khomiakov, Dostoevskii, IlIlyinyin, Solonevich, Leontiev, Tikhomirov, Rozanov and many others. Right now his philosophical legacy is completely obfuscated by the historical discussions, but that pendulum will eventually swing the other way, and then his moral philosophy will be studied on its merits.

Right now, these are not good times for “Solzhenitsyn studies”, to say the least. In the West he is hated as Great-Russian nationalist and an anti-Semitic monarchist while in Russia is hated like a russophobic CIA stooge who calumniated his own people and who defended a traitor like Vlasov. These beliefs are ingrained way too hard for me to even bother trying to discuss them here. That discussion will happen, but only once the stridently anti-Solzhenitsyn haters will give way to folks with a better personal knowledge of what Solzhenitsyn actually wrote and what he actually meant. Right now most of his detractors are busy simply flaming the man, everything he wrote and all those who read him.

While he was in exile in Cavendish, VT, Solzhenitsyn once told a visiting friend of mine the following: “right now, we don’t have our own country under our feet, this is why it is too early to write on this topic (he was referring to a then still secret book of his which he eventually published after his return to Russia under the title “200 Years Together“), but as soon as Russia recovers her freedom, I will publish this book“. I will paraphrase this by saying that I believe that as long as the former Soviet elites and their off-springs occupy most of the key positions in modern Russia, no serious discussion about Solzhenitsyn will be possible, the level of emotional involvement is simply too high. But that too shall pass. There is already a generation of young Russians out there which does not even remember the Soviet era or the Cold War. It is *their* kids, and even grand-kids, who will, one day, give a fair historical evaluation of this intellectual giant. Right now, modern Russia still lives “in the shadows” of the former Soviet Union. But, sooner or later, Russia will come out from this shadow – that is when Solzhenitsyn’s views will become front and center again.

There is one more thing about Solzhenitsyn I want to share with you: in his pamphlet “Our Pluralists” Solzhenitsyn concludes his essay against Russian “liberals” and “democrats” (in the Russian meaning of the word) by the following words: “we thought you were fresh, but you are still the same“. I often think of this sentence when I read the writings of the Solzhenitsyn haters. During the Soviet period the Solzhenitsyn haters liked to refer to him as “Solzhenitser” (hinting that he might be a Jew). Nowadays, Solzhenitsyn haters in Russia refer to him as SoLZHEnitsyn (the letters “lzhe” means “lie” in Russian, suggesting that he is a liar). That tells you all you need to know about the degree of sophistication these folks are capable of…

Now let’s look at our other traitor,

Vladimir Rezun aka “Viktor Suvorov”
Vladimir Rezun aka “Viktor Suvorov”

Vladimir Rezun, who writes under the pen name “Viktor Suvorov”, also wrote a lot of books, but that is where his similarity to Solzhenitsyn ends. For one thing, Rezun is from a much later generation, he was born 30 years after Solzhenitsyn, and his formative years were in the 1960s, during Khrushchev’s “Great Betrayal”. Obviously, Rezun did not live through the war, nor during the glorious post-war years. The other big difference between the two men is that while Alexander Solzhenitsyn was forcibly sent into exile, Rezun defected and that defection was officially voluntary (there are some indirect signs suggesting that he was kidnapped in Geneva by the British – I consider both versions equally credible). Then he became a typical defector, let me explain what I mean by that.

I have met quite a few defectors in my life (and quite a few potential defectors who eventually decided not to defect). Here is the typical chronology of what happens to defectors (and here is the reason why I always strongly advised all Soviets against defecting):

  1. First, you are a “hot potato”. Usually, nowhere nearly as hot as you like to pretend as defectors all need to “sell” themselves to their new masters (that is, indeed, what western officials become for them) so they almost always grossly over-state their opposition to the Soviet regime, how important they were before they defected and how useful they will be now. This does not work very long as western debriefers pretty rapidly can establish who and what the new defector really was in the past and what he/she really knows. After that, these defectors are typically provided with some means of living and typically forgotten.
  2. Next, you try to impress the general public. The best way to achieve that is for you to write a best seller. Then another one, then one more. That very rarely works for a simple reason: whatever of interest the defector had to say typically comes out in the first, rarely in a second book. After that, the “publicity shock value” imagination tank is empty and defectors typically begin to make up nonsense. That nonsense typically gets worse with each subsequent book. Except for a few diehard commie-haters nobody takes these silly books seriously and the once “hot potato” defector becomes a total nobody, forgotten by all (here I think of that SOB Kalugin for example).
  3. Eventually, defectors experience a mental collapse, followed by years of substance abuse and, very often, suicide. They realize that nobody needs or cares about them; they realize that their former bosses have long forgotten about them, as have their new bosses too. They have no friends, mostly deeply dysfunctional love affairs which end in disaster, their families often turn away from them and, last but not least, they miss the people and country which they have betrayed and left.

In the case of Rezun he wrote his first best-seller in 1982 entitled “Inside the Soviet Army” which was very entertaining (he had another book before that, “The Liberators” 1981, but it was not that successful). Then, in 1985, he wrote “The Aquarium“, a rather bad and sensationalist book about the Soviet military intelligence service, the GRU. Then came 1987 and one of Rezun’s worst books: Spetsnaz, a collection of nonsensical invented stories which was a flop. By then, Rezun clearly had a problem. But being a very intelligent man, Rezun came up with a brilliant idea.

ORDER IT NOW

It all began with a short 1985 article followed, in 1988, by the Russian edition of his most famous book, “Icebreaker” (“Ледокол”) in which Rezun, writing as “Viktor Suvorov” claimed he has had evidence that Stalin was about to attack Nazi Germany and that Hitler had no choice but to strike first. His evidence? Lots of things, hundreds of claims, ranging from the somewhat credible to the outright silly. I won’t go into all of them here (lots of excellent historians have already done that – I think of Col. Ret David Glantz’s superb books). I will just mention one which I find particularly galling: Rezun claims that the Soviet military had plans to attack Germany and that various Russian units had even received special glossaries to allow them to speak to the folks they were planning on attacking: the Germans.

I am quite sure that the Soviets had plans to attack Germany. In fact, I am also sure that the Soviets had plans to attack most, if not all, of their neighbors. If not, the entire Soviet General Staff ought to have to been shot (again!). Why? Because that is what the military does in peacetime: prepare for war: including both defensive and offensive operations. Think for yourself: what if you were a Soviet general and you were suddenly summoned to Stalin’s late night working sessions and Stalin asked you “what are our plans to liberate the German workers and peasants from the Nazi regime and how long would such a war last if we attack first?“. Can you imagine yourself replying, “C omrade Stalin, we have no such plans!“? I think that you would die of shame, and possibly fear, even before meeting “your” firing squad. Remember the Soviet-Polish war of 1919-1920 or the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940? They are not exactly known for being stunning successes (though Rezun does have some very interesting views on the latter, but they are not within the scope of this article). So, OF COURSE, the Soviets did have plans for war against Germany, just as Russia today has a plan to destroy the US (which also has such a plan of its own!). The existence of such plans does most emphatically NOT prove that the leaders of Russia or the US have the actual intention to attack each other! As for “Russian-German” pocket glossaires, that is just what military linguists mostly do when not at war. Trust me, I used to be one such a linguist – a Sprachspezialist in German – and I even saw “German-Chinese” glossaries! Yet these hardly indicate that Switzerland was planning to invade China, right?!

Did Rezun successfully prove his case? Depends whom you ask, of course. I am not a military historian and I think that this issue should be researched by professional historians, not amateurs like myself. What I do emphatically state is that I think that Rezun’s books should be read and discussed. What I find plain stupid, is what a few Russian TV news shows have done: first, they denounce Rezun as a traitor which he probably was (unless he was kidnapped, of course), but which is also a total non-sequitur. Then they interview his former colleagues who describe his horrible personal character (incompetent, alcoholic, generally disliked) but they fail to explain how such a terrible person, and an incompetent one to boot, managed to get a position in one of the most prestigious GRU “rezidenturas” in the West (the Soviets also did exactly the same with Oleg Kalugin who was assigned to the KGB rezidentura in Washington, DC, no less!). Then, in what they probably imagine as a coup de grâce, they get on a soapbox and proclaim that Rezun’s views are extremely offensive and that he must be a MI6 agent which, whether true or not, is also entirely irrelevant as a book or a historical theory ought be judged on its intrinsic merits, or lack thereof, not on the character of its author.

This is especially true of Rezun for another, special, reason. Long AFTER he wrote his books about how Stalin wanted to attack Germany, Rezun wrote an absolutely amazing historical book entitled “The Purification” (“Очищение”) in which he not only revisits Stalin’s purges but in which he brilliantly defends them. If you understand Russian I urge you to read the book (you can download it in Russian and for free here). The key thesis of the book is as follows: Stalin understood that the first generation of Bolsheviks were superbly skilled at massacring innocent civilians in huge numbers, but as military commanders they were big fat ZEROs (including Marshal Tukhachevskii whom folks in the West always present as some kind of military genius – which he sure was not!). Furthermore, by the mid-1930s Soviet Russia was really cracking and almost collapsing due the hatred most Russians have for their persecutors and torturers, thus while the bloody purge of the Secret Police and Party was seen by these elites (and their Trotskyst supporters abroad) as a “horrible purge”, for most common people this purge must have looked like a liberation and justified execution of the worst of the worst of the Bolshevik monsters. Furthermore, Rezun makes very interesting comparisons between Stalin’s generals and Hitler’s – and he concludes that Stalin had a much better lot (towards the end of the war, Hitler agreed, by the way). I find that thesis very compelling and I hope that one day “The Purification” will be translated into English.

None of the above should be interpreted as a defense of Rezun or, for that matter, Stalin. In the case of Rezun, I am not defending him at all, I am only deploring that he is vilified and dismissed, rather than critically read. As for Stalin himself, I described my personal feelings about the man in my essay “The Controversy About Stalin – a “basket” of Preliminary Considerations“, so I don’t need to repeat myself here.

Conclusion: Vladimir Putin as an example to emulate?

Vladimir Putin is often accused of being nostalgic of the Soviet Union and of wanting to recreate it.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

It is true that Putin declared several times that the collapse of the Soviet Union was “the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” (“крупнейшая геополитическая катастрофа века”). What Putin was referring to was not some kind of nostalgia for the Soviet Union, but an acute realization of the unspeakable suffering the collapse of the Soviet Union meant for millions of people.

In fact, Putin has exactly *zero* nostalgia for the bad old USSR and he is not shy about speaking his mind about it, especially when he is confronted by those who now idealize the Soviet era. Not only that, but Putin has very publicly shown his immense respect for Solzhenitsyn. And the feeling was very mutual as we can tell from this photo:

Contrast this with Putin’s often publicly expressed disgust with defectors!

See, for example, what Putin declared during an interview with the British Financial Times: (emphasis added)

As a matter of fact, treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors must be punished. I am not saying that the Salisbury incident is the way to do it. Not at all. But traitors must be punished. This gentleman, Skripal, had already been punished. He was arrested, sentenced and then served time in prison. He received his punishment. For that matter, he was off the radar. Why would anybody be interested in him? He got punished. He was detained, arrested, sentenced and then spent five years in prison. Then he was released and that was it. As concerns treason, of course, it must be punishable. It is the most despicable crime that one can imagine.

By the way, this suggests that Putin does not share Solzhenitsyn’s sympathy for General Vlasov proving, yet again, that a critical mind can always separate the chaff from the wheat.

Vladimir Putin lays flowers on the grave of Ivan Illyin
Vladimir Putin lays flowers on the grave of Ivan Illyin

Then there is the way Putin likes to mention Ivan Ilyin in his speeches. It is pretty obvious to me that in terms of his personal views on history and politics, Putin is clearly an avid reader of both Ilyin and Solzhenitsyn (which creates a cognitive dissonance amongst Solzhenitsyn-haters who support Putin). However, that in no way implies that Putin endorses or agrees with everything Solzhenitsyn or Ilyin wrote or said. But it does show that not all minds in Russia are still “under the shadow of the Soviet Union”.

But change is inevitable.

First, the pendulum of history will swing the other way, and a lot of ideas which seem popular today are bound to gradually fade out, replaced by hopefully a much more careful evaluation of historical figures like Solzhenitsyn. Second, a lot of people who were raised in a blind hatred of “traitors” will simply pass away, while their descendants will not have the same knee-jerk reactions. Last, but most definitely not least, the future Russia will have to rediscover her historical, philosophical, spiritual and cultural roots, at which point the ideas of philosophers like Solzhenitsyn or Ilyin will automatically get center stage once again (though not necessarily be uncritically endorsed).

 
Hide 259 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Thank you. As always, this was an informative, interesting and well-written article, a useful antidote to the nonsense about Russia, created by the USA’s establishment and intelligentsia.

    • Agree: bluedog, YetAnotherAnon
  2. Sean says:

    While Stalin was probably murdered by his entourage in 1953

    He was found after one of the nights of heavy drinking that were so routine for him–even though he was 74–that no one thought he was seriously ill. The autopsy showed such serious hardening of the brain arteries that one of the doctors thought his mental faculties must have been affected. Russian men die relatively young because they kill themselves with alcohol and if Stalin was an exception it was only in how long he lasted. His constant heavy smoking could not have helped.

    Stalin was a prisoner of his ideology and thought the capitalist power would destroy each other leaving him to walk into Europe with his husbanded forces. They were close to the frontier and he even had airfield a few kilometers from the border; there is only one explanation for that. Once the German army attacked he told his army to stand and fight which was the worst thing they could have done. But then, they had not anticipated being on the defensive.

    CIA official site review of What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of Barbarossa

    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no1/9_BK_What_Stalin_Knew.htm

    Murphy reprints two secret letters from Hitler to Stalin that he found in the published Russian sources, hitherto unknown in the West. In these, the Führer seeks to reassure the Soviet dictator about the scarcely concealable German military buildup in eastern Europe. Hitler confides to Stalin that troops were being moved east to protect them from British bombing and to conceal the preparations for the invasion of the British Isles. He concludes with an assurance “on my honor as a head of state” that Germany would not attack the Soviet Union.[2] Some may question the authenticity of these letters, but they are difficult to dismiss out of hand. Assuming they are genuine, they add to what is perhaps the most bewildering paradox of the Soviet-German war: Stalin, the man who trusted no one, trusted Hitler.”

    It’s clear that Chamberlain hoped to encourage a conflict between the Soviet and Nazis. Of course that strategy was contingent on the Germans not achieving total success. But there was no reason in 1939 to think that the Germans would be capable of conquering Russia. Only after the fall of France did people understand power of the combination of Hitlers’s decisiveness and the German army . Stalin and Chamberlain both tried to pass the buck , or if you prefer, each wanted to set the Germans on the other. Bombing led to Germany’s defeat though not directly. The bombing forced a huge diversion of resources to the air defences, aircraft were very very expensive (and the Germans lacked the trained pilots to make the investment pay off) .

    He received his punishment. For that matter, he was off the radar. Why would anybody be interested in him? He got punished. He was detained, arrested, sentenced and then spent five years in prison. Then he was released and that was it

    Exactly, he was free and living abroad in the city where rich Russian have their bolt holes in relative luxury. They idea of skin contact poisoning him in the UK was to kill his daughter along with him, and thus deniably make it clear that relatives of traitors would be held accountable. Surely no one thinks it is a coincidence that they came for Skripal at the exact moment his daughter was visiting. She was the real target. If you are seriously trying to deter treachery, you kill the traitors’ family members.

    Is it a big surprise that Solzhenitsyn did get a lot of things wrong, especially when the Soviet state offered very little in terms of credible historical information?

    In the light of later history it is interesting what he wrote about the untamable Chechens, fearless Ukrainians, and dutiful Ethnic German prisoners of the Gulag.

  3. Alfred says:
    @Sean

    Surely no one thinks it is a coincidence that they came for Skripal at the exact moment his daughter was visiting. She was the real target.

    Nonsense. I suggest you read John Helmer’s book

    SKRIPAL IN PRISON – THE FIRST BOOK TO REPORT THE TRUTH

    • Replies: @Gerard2
  4. Sean says:

    Skirpal was doubtless in the process of drinking himself to death as is par for the course for Russians in late middle age . But if they wanted to kill him, Skripal was meeting with Russians from the London Embassy, he could have been poisoned like Litvinenko (a few months after he called Putin a paedophile) with a cup of tea. The use of a skin contact nerve agent on the front door knob of the home where the GRU knew his daughter was visiting with him, does not make sense except as a way to kill his daughter, ostensibly in an attempt on his life, but she would not have been collateral damage at all. And all Russians would have got the message.

    • Replies: @Poiuytrewq
  5. Tsigantes says:

    An article long needed. Especially the (glaring) point about what militaries do i.e.plan for every conceivable contingency re defence and attack. It is truly remarkable that so few Americans understand this.
    Thanks Saker!

  6. @Sean

    Sean, you are not intellectually equipped to discuss Russia or intelligence topics. Give it up.

    • Agree: Vojkan
    • Thanks: Alfred
    • Replies: @Sean
  7. vot tak says:

    I don’t look at either of these 2 celebrity writers as traitors. I see them as flawed historical writers who intertwined fiction with nonfiction. IE: what they wrote, and claim, is not a reliable source of factual information. It’s quite clear their individual biases took precedence over their judgement of what they present as factual material and it is also very clear their biases skewed the results.

    I grew up reading american historians who did this sort of thing ubiquitously and called it history. The use of propaganda and falsehoods in so much of american sourced historical work lead me to consider all american sourced historical work suspect unless collaborated by outside and unconnected sources.

    My point here is that if a source is inaccurate, why waste time with it. Unless one’s purpose is debunking or rebuttal. I know fox news, guardian, cnn and bellingcat are useless for serious news and don’t bother with such sources. They are unreliable. So I simply don’t use them. The same with historical analysis, once a source shows itself to be factually unreliable, I don’t use them. This is true for sources I once thought were accurate, but found later to be not accurate.

    • Agree: FB
  8. Patricus says:

    Thanks for the thoughtful article. This makes me want to dive into Russia’s modern history.

    • Replies: @Paw
  9. Sean says:
    @Poiuytrewq

    Putin was a counterintelligence specialist, so his mindset is Смерть шпионам. He probably ordered the death of Litvinenko, and decided to kill Skripal’s daughter as a stratagem similar to that of Trotsky making the families of Tsarist officers hostage.

    Eventually, defectors experience a mental collapse, followed by years of substance abuse and, very often, suicide.

    What is called suicide in the West is in Russia considered relaxation through a ‘mission’ of the type that means Russian men don’t die of cirrhosis, because they don’t live long enough. Skirpal could have been killed by just inviting him back to the land of alcoholic poisoning. The trouble with Russians is they don’t brew, sell and drink beer like the commercial successful communities of Germans, but instead swill down litres of vodka, which is why a quarter of all Russian men die before they reach their mid-fifties. Igor Sergun was only 59. Igor Korobov his successor as head of the GRU was a methuselah at 62 when he died discouraged a few months after the Skripal operation. He should have sent the Russian anti terrorist squad to England with orders to protect Skripal then they would have killed him, like they killed hundreds of innocent men women and children in the Moscow theatre siege and Beslan school siege though their ‘sledgehammers not only can be used for cracking nuts but that is what sledgehammers are designed to do’ mentality.

    Anatoly Golitsyn and his wife Svetlana at Coconut Grove in Los Angeles (1961)

    This is why Putin needs to instill worry (in those toying with the idea of selling information to the West) about what would happen to their families; he does not think exile in the West is a deterrent to Russians: more like an added attraction. The Saker has many similarities to Golitsyn, and those who believe the Saker are being duped by him because they are mentally weak like JJ Angleton.

    • Troll: bluedog, refl
  10. Alexander Solzhenitsyn is very relevant as a thinker even today. He was, if anything, an even more trenchant and insightful critic of liberal democracy and capitalism than he was of Soviet Communism. Any Western dissident who has not read his Harvard commencement speech, for example, should do so.

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

    In fact, this was what convinced me that he was the real deal, and not just another cheap money-grabber or CIA asset. When he came to the West, he did not preach to the choir. He started criticizing our degeneracy and tyranny, just as he had with the ones he had experienced at home. Solzhenitsyn wanted to tell the truth, not to please people.

    Incidentally, his novels are part of the great literature of the world. In my opinion, Saker is quite right about The Red Wheel, although it’s sadly underrated at least in the West.

    However, this article makes far too little of one of Solzhenitsyn’s most important works, 200 Years Together, which is only briefly mentioned. This is without doubt one of his bravest as well as most valuable efforts, the culmination of his relentless quest for accurate history. Furthermore, given how its contents have played a large part in the demonization campaign against him, it is surprising that it should not be examined in more detail here.

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

    • Agree: Robjil, anarchyst
  11. By contrast, Suvorov/Rezun always struck me as exactly the sort of publicity hound Saker describes. “Icebreaker” and its sequels were largely sensationalist books, more style than substance. It’s quite fair of academic historians to deprecate them on that account.

    However, even if they are ultimately unconvincing, they did perform a great public service in bringing the Soviet preventive war controversy (which is an interesting interpretation that actually has much to be said for it) to wider attention. That made it possible for other, more serious historians to examine the matter in depth, if only through the excuse that they were refuting the “Evil Nazi Apologist” Suvorov. (Much as happened with the British historian A. J. P. Taylor and his book on the origins of World War II, if anyone now remembers the controversies surrounding that.)

    So, Suvorov deserves a good amount of credit on that account. As a publicist, he has made excellent contributions to world history. As historiography, however, his books were never very good, and have also been superseded by the historians he inspired.

    For those who are interested in the issues he introduced, one might recommend (for example) the books by Gabriel Gorodetsky (“Grand Delusion”), Joachim Hoffmann (“Stalin’s War of Extermination”), Ewan Mawdsley (“Thunder in the East”) and Richard Raack (“Stalin’s Drive to the West”). A more popular account (which Saker probably wouldn’t like, due to its anti-Soviet bias, but sometimes insightful) is “Deathride: Hitler vs. Stalin” by John Mosier. These are all available in English. Unfortunately, many of the best books are written either in German or Russian, and almost never translated.

  12. The reality is that we, Russians, are far more freedom loving than you are, this is why we cannot be occupied and why it is so hard to rule over us.

    “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

    Спаси и сохрани.

  13. @Sean

    Sean, your attempt at showing knowledge really did not help: it just makes you look even MORE ignorant. I told you – give it up! Besides listing factoids does not make you sound any less clueless anyway, the opposite in fact 😉

    • Replies: @Sean
  14. @Sean

    Nah. Like I said at the time, Putin’s the consummate professional. If he wanted the Srkipals dead, they’d be dead.

  15. Mikhail says: • Website

    Simply calling Vlasov a traitor is simplistically inaccurate. See:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/12/14/czech-russian-relations-and-the-roa-conflicting-historical-narratives/

    Was Mihailovic a traitor? BTW, towards the end of WW II, attempts were made to unite Vlaov’s forces with Mihailovic’s.

  16. Bankotsu says:
    @Sean

    It’s clear that Chamberlain hoped to encourage a conflict between the Soviet and Nazis.

    You are completely correct on that.

    …the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe.

    In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine…

    …In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things:

    (1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia;
    (2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries; and
    (3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem.

    The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because…”

    http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/quigley/anglo_12b.html
    http://www.carrollquigley.net/books.htm

    • Thanks: S
    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
    , @ploni almoni
  17. trint says:

    I found “Two Hunderd Years Together” (German Version) to be even more compelling than “The Gulag Archipelago”, since it irrefutably documents the source of all the evil and misery which Russia was subjected to.

  18. Miro23 says:

    One of the best articles I’ve read on Unz. I don’t know much about Rezun (Suvarov) but I have read Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago”, “The First Circle” and “Cancer Ward” and agree with Saker.

    The sidebar on the nature of the Soviet state is a great summary/timeline.

    What is crucial to understand here is that each of these six periods generated a very different popular and political culture. Thus, while in the West you often would hear generalizations about “the Soviets”, the truth is that there never once was any one single monolithic Soviet culture.

  19. Sean says:
    @Poiuytrewq

    In many ways Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s views were typically Russian, as with his Nobel address in which he said that the West had become metastable and must collapse. However, I am of the opinion that collapses come, not from internal processes, but rather losing the competition with other entities. The Soviet Union’s elites lost faith in it because they were unable to keep up, not just with washing machines as with the Nixon–Khrushchev debate (actually a shouting match) but military power. China was supposed to suffer terrible civil unrest that would disrupt its development. Yet there is no sign of the supposed inevitability; nothing succeeds like success over against other countries.

    MOSCOW (Reuters) – Former Russian economy minister Alexei Ulyukayev, accused of extorting a bribe, told a court on Monday he thought a bag holding $2 million (£1.5 million) in cash which he took from Rosneft chief executive Igor Sechin held a gift of expensive alcohol [15Kg!].

    Free booze, the never ending quest for Russians, but at least they are no longer getting intoxicated on the cooling fluid for MIGs as a Cold War defector pilot alleged was common in his squadron.

    The fate of Ulyukayev shows what what advocates of free-market economics can expect if they try to introduce it into the energy sector, which is where much too many capable Russians are working. Russia is falling further and further behind technologically and the key sector of energy is becoming organisationally decadent as Rosneft controls more and more of it. Russia’s elite are being denied the opportunity to flourish in a free enterprise environment, and there are structural ‘Dutch Disease’ tendencies as well. The Russian elite (the natural elite, not Putin’s cronies) understand that being overtaken by China and relegated to a humiliated position is unnecessary but now inevitable. Russia supplying China is the biggest mistake since Stalin sent Hitler the oil for Barbarossa; this is short term thinking even if the official line is that Russia is getting access to a new market (they only sell the products of their extraction industries). China refuses to participate in nuclear arms reduction talks leaving Russia to be pressured by the USA. is now making for itself everything they were getting from the post Soviet rustbelt. Russian Bear as milch cow.

    The style of thinking that led JJ Angleton to be impressed by Anatoly Golitsyn is the same that believes the Saker’s wild speculations. Not all Russian emigres are clever and capable people held back by stultifying over centralisation in their homeland; Golitsyn was reprimanded for his sladash ways in the USSR, found it much easier to fool the CIA supposedly master of counterintel because he told Angleton what he wanted to hear. The Saker tells Americans that their country is rotting from the head down, and those of a conspiratorial caste of mind believe him. Like a Cold War relic leading Russia to disaster, Saker cannot see China except through the prism of Russia’s antagonistic relationship with the West.

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  20. S says:

    Suvorov’s thesis in Icebreaker, as described by Wiki, is just about identical to the thesis of Guido Preparata in his book Conjuring History . Preparata, though, has it that it is the Capitalist US/UK that was doing this, rather than the Communist Soviet Union.

    Preparata, like Suvorov, got a lot of criticism for writing what he did.

    However, it doesn’t have to be a case of one being right, and the other wrong, as both thesis can be correct.

    If a person looks at Capitalism and Communism as a Hegelian Dialectic, I submit a broadly controlled and guided one since 1776 and 1789, that their actions closely parallel each other shouldn’t be too surprisong. Gaining control of Germany, the center of power upon continental Europe, would be the ulterior motive for both ideology’s adherents.

    In theory, closely paralleling Capitalism and Communism should be wholly equal players as they march toward synthesis in the formation of a global super state/empire, and their creation of the new Multi-cultural Man.

    However, as this dialectic is manmade, and not naturally occurring, or spontaneous, and London has historically been it’s arbiter (and creator) since it’s late 18th century beginnings, it would make sense that the US/UK would have the edge and beat out Stalin in WWII in pushing Germany into doing it’s greatest harm to the Communist Soviet Union, rather than to the Capitalist US/UK. This would also explain the US/UK consolidation of its control over the whole of Germany, while pushing Russia ever eastward and out of Europe.

    Should things continue as they are, it would seem London (and now New York) along with powerful elements of Anglo-Saxon and Jewish elites, and their hangers on, and others involved to lesser extents, will come out on top when the world state/empire is formed.

    It’s not over until the fat lady sings, though, and the best laid plans of mice and men and all that.

    ..Stalin planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the “Icebreaker”) against the West. For this reason, Stalin provided significant material and political support to Adolf Hitler, while at the same time preparing the Red Army to “liberate” the whole of Europe from Nazi occupation.

    https://archive.org/details/ConjuringHitler/mode/2up

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
    , @Ron Unz
    , @S
  21. You have to be an utterly innumerate retard to believe that the Soviet policies led to the death of 66 million people!! That is more people dead than WW2!! Hello if that was true there would be no Russia today just a giant wasteland, no people, no industry, nothing, do you think that the rest of the world wouldn’t have noticed this catastrophic dieoff. How stupid do you have to be to believe in such retarded crap?

    • Agree: FB
  22. Sam J. says:

    I’ve read and enjoyed most of the non-fiction books of both authors. Thanks a great deal for writing this essay as it puts ideas in order and gives me insight into ideas that I didn’t even know existed. It’s very impressive as a map to understanding what was going on.

    If you consider total deaths, the Bolshevik war, babies not born, executions, death from overwork it’s not impossible that Solzhenitsyn’s numbers might not be too far off.

    “…Did Rezun successfully prove his case?…”

    There’s a lot of facts and conjecture in his book “The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II” but what impresses me most as making the case is the actual equipment packages that Stalin ordered to fight with. It was mostly offensive in nature. Over and over Suvorov gives the numbers of mostly offensive equipment numbers being built and also gives the numbers for and orders stopped for more defensive weapons. That there were plans for attack means nothing as you say but actual production of weapon systems means something. One of these was the immense numbers of paratroopers equipped for. If you read the book and pay attention to the equipment packages produced you can not help but be impressed by this detail.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  23. @Bankotsu

    It is all to do with the 19th-century “Great Game,” the Anglo-Russian rivalry over dominance of the Eurasian landmass. Halford MacKinder in 1904 provided an academic justification of England’s subsequent anti-German and anti-Russian policies.

  24. @S

    You’re right! And then there is also Erkki Hautamäki: Finland in the Eye of the Storm, in which he sustains there was an English-Russian agreement (Churchill-Stalin Pact) to attack Germany in the spring of 1940.

    As for Preparata: his academic career was destroyed as a punishment for writing his dissertation Conjuring Hitler. So much for academic freedom in the “West!”

    • Replies: @Armaggedon
    , @S
  25. According to estimates by exiled professor of statistics IA Kurganov

    As someone said there are lies, damn lies and statistics – this professor should be fired for such mind numbing incompetence and intellectual dishonesty, seriously why is there such a whiff of crackpottery surrounding Russian intellectuals?

  26. Truth3 says:

    Once again the Faker Saker utilizes his not quite talented enough sophistry to obfuscate and misdirect.

    If he wasn’t such an insufferable asshole in doing so his handlers would probably throw six shekels his way.

    Stalin clearly intended attacking Germany in July 1941.

    To ignore the numerous facts that can only point to that truth is truly absurd.

    The Red Army dispositions in the Bialystok Bulge… Zhukov’s attack proposal… the extensive Stavka War Games of 1941 that only can be described as offensive… Stalin’s two speeches on May 5 to apparatchiks and cadets… the mountain of actions that can only be described as preparing to attack Germany… are all ignored in this piece of shit thrown on the table by Faker.

    Mr. Unz… dump this clown.

    • Agree: kikl
    • Replies: @Truth3
  27. Truth3 says:
    @Truth3

    Excerpt of the May 5 Stalin speeches… from David Irving’s Hitler’s War… you can find it right here on https://www.unz.com/book/david_irving__hitlers-war/

    New tank models, the Mark 1 and 3, are on their way; these are excellent tanks, whose armour can withstand 76-millimetre shells. In the near future there will also be a new tank graced with my own name…Our war plan is ready, we have built the airfields and landing grounds, and the front-line aircraft are already there. Everything has been done by way of clearing out the rear areas: all the foreign elements have been removed. It follows that over the next two months we can begin the fight with Germany…We have to take our revenge for Bulgaria and Finland.

    • Replies: @Truth3
  28. These were all lies.

    Luckily, all the tales about German atrocities are true.

    Trust me!

  29. Bukowski says:

    I have read The Chief Culprit by Suvorov/Rezun and I agree with him that the USSR was going to attack Germany in 1941. Stalin gave a speech in 1941 clearly stating that the Soviet Union was about to engage in offensive war.
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/04/Stalin_plans.html
    Straight from the horses mouth! And by the way Suvorov/Rezun isn’t the only author to say that Stalin was going to do this. There are many others including David Irving, Igor Bunich, John Mosier, Constantine Pleshakov, Mark Solonin etc
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

    • Agree: kikl
  30. @Hans Vogel

    The “pact” in 1940 was Operation Pike and it was not with Stalin. Churchill hated the communists so much that Operation Unthinkable too was elaborated.

    Please stop reporting lies as truth. It is obvious that in 1941 CCCP was not ready for war.

    Only have a look at the reason of Operation Pike, and you will stop reporting Hautamäki’s lie.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  31. Imparfait says:

    Article très subtil qui masque une énigme historique, le fameux traité Germano-Soviétique et ses clauses secrètes, cela démontre que l’histoire ne peut en aucun cas être compris sous un seul poins de vue, il faut la pluralité des poins de vue et Antony Sutton avec ses deux livres sur l’Allemagne et la Russie ( Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (1974, 1999)
    Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (1976, 1999) ) montre bien que l’on bien affaire à une histoire beaucoup plus complexe qui confirme les hypothèses de Viktor Suvorov dans son livre : Le Brise-Glace, Orban, 1989. Une autre hypothèse toutes les citations des dirigeants soviétiques qui émaille les têtes de chapitre de ce livre sont tels fausses ?
    C’est une question qui mérite d’être poser avant de faire un procès à cet auteur?
    Quand a Alexander Solzhenitsyn après avoir lue presque sa totalité de ses ouvrages, ce n’est pas un vieux Russe qui parle a travers ces écrits, mais bien un Russe par la souffrance qui a endurer qui à transmuté sa souffrance en espérance qu’un jour la Russie sorte de l’Enfer. Le dernier livre qui a écrit la Russie sous l’avalage montre est un appel à l’âme du peuple Russe à renaître et à préparer un nouveau avenir. La question qui se pose es que la Russie le veut?

    • Agree: kikl
  32. @Sam J.

    The “Suvorov hypothesis” dovetails well with contemporaneous German accounts and what is common knowledge in military circles.
    – It is impossible for an air force to lose over 2000 planes in one day unless struck in an attack posture.
    – The comments on the BT-7 and T-34 tanks and especially the W-6 diesel engine being the most advanced in the world are correct.
    – The railcars full of Central European maps were there, and Soviet commanders complaining about lack of Russian ones were common.
    – Much has been made of the glossaries, but they amount to little; I have a
    German(-Russian) and an American(-German) one, and they are hilarious (“Where is your Kommissar/Ortsgruppenleiter/whatever?”).

    So far, so simple. Anybody could have cobbled that together in a few weeks.
    However I´m not too sure about the central part of his argument, the fabled
    “ten airborne divisions”. Known is as much as the Soviets did regiment-size winter landings with heavy equipment in 1928, so they sure had the know-how …

  33. Truth3 says:
    @Truth3

    From the Military publication in Russia militera.lib.ru…

    In the course of the operational-strategic games held after the December 1940 meeting of the Red Army’s senior command in January 1941, it was revealed that the Soviet offensive on the fortified area of ​​East Prussia would most likely fail. Therefore, in the updated strategic deployment plan of March 11, 1941, preference was finally given to the main attack in the south-west direction, supported by the invasion of Romania. It was noted: “The deployment of the main forces of the Red Army in the West with the grouping of the main forces against East Prussia and in the Warsaw direction causes serious fears that the struggle on this front may lead to protracted battles.”

  34. Guilty of not having read everything on the list 😀

    I found Solzhenitsyn a bit too Russian for my refined Volga German tastes –
    more Tolstoi than Dostojewskij.
    However his idea that meaningful social change only accrues from lost wars does merit broader consideration.

    So should one read traitors? Most definitely yes.
    As Wittgenstein said of his own, the value is not in the writing but in what you take away from it.

  35. refl says:

    The truth is that history, ALL history, very much including our recent history, is chock full with myths, generalizations, simplifications, rumors and, most of all, lies.

    That is the starting point for all revisionist history.
    But one thing has to be added here: As the leading international media are owned by the Anglozionists, as anglophone historical writing is the gold standard of worlwide scholarship and as the language of international discorse is necessarily english, the Anglozionist western empire necessarily has the edge in spreading its myths.
    This even makes me wonder, why the current propaganda they are spreading is just that bad.

    My perspective is, that while for Russia there is today a relevant counterforce that can correct the black propaganda of a whole century, I do not see anything like this for the other victim of Anglozionist black propaganda, which is Germany – I cannot imagine a writer to correct the sick lies about the relations between Germans and Jews, or for the serious – though possibly wrong ideas behind Germany’s warfare in WWII.
    More exactly, the books are even there, but to discuss them openly is next to impossible.
    The German public is the first to indulge in the most intense selfhatred, so much so that once the truth sinks in, it has to be the end of the world as we know it.

  36. Saggy says: • Website

    Question for Saker or anyone familiar with most of Solzhenitsyn’s work … What are the chances that this quote is accurate? Is it consistent with other statements he made?

    You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.

    • Replies: @Truth3
    , @Robjil
  37. Stupid Americans, buying into the lie Putin is a nationalist who loves all people, even Christians and is the most moral leader in the world. It’s time for a wake up pill. Quit buying the lies.
    WILL VLADIMIR PUTIN SAVE THE WORLD?
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/eBkizFMueSKt/

    • Replies: @Wavelength
    , @FB
  38. Truth3 says:
    @Saggy

    Ask David Duke… Solzhenitsyn spoke these words to him.

  39. Robjil says:
    @Saggy

    It is accurate.

    Look at what is happening today in the Middle East.

    Mad Albright said 500000 Iraqi children dying of ZUS sanctions is OK.

    Anyone is an Amalek who gets in the way of Zion uber alles.

    It is the way it is and still is.

    Freedom of the press is the only way to end this madness since 12.23.1913.

  40. Hart says:

    Rezun, Icebreaker Hitler pre-empted Stalin.

    Please explain why H. Liddell Hart in his interviews with German generals:

    The German generals talk

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/German-generals-talk-Berkley-Books/dp/B0007ESISK/

    Which was revised as:

    Other Side of the Hill: Germany’s Generals, Their Rise and Fall, with Their Own Account of Military Events, 1939-45

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Other-Side-Hill-Germanys-Generals/dp/0330253417/

    These generals never hint at any of this nonsense.

    It is pure shameless invention to please Rezun’s new masters.

    Consider the following, does it sound like Germany was in a rush to invade Russia ? Yes, there was a small window of time – after the winter thaw and before the next winter freeze. That was part of what motivated Germany. Stalin’s imminent invasion is complete B.S.

    [MORE]

    Hitler’s gamble in Russia failed because he was not bold enough. He wobbled for weeks at the critical phase, losing time he could never regain. After that he ruined himself, and Germany, because he could not bring himself to cut his losses. There, in a nutshell, is the sum of the evidence I gathered from his generals.

    Here is the most startling of all. What saved Russia above all was, not her modern progress, but her backwardness. If the Soviet regime had given her a road system comparable to that of western countries, she would probably have been overrun in quick time. The German mechanized forces were baulked by the badness of her roads.

    Preliminary to the issues of the Russian campaign itself is the question whether the Greek campaign caused a vital delay in its launching. British Government spokesmen have claimed that the despatch of General Wilson’s force to Greece, though it ended in a hurried evacuation, was justified because it produced six weeks’ postponement of the invasion of Russia.

    It is of historical interest, however, to discover whether the campaign actually had such an indirect and unforeseen effect. The most definite piece of evidence in support of this lies in the fact that Hitler had originally ordered preparations for the attack on Russia to be completed by May 15th, whereas at the end of March the tentative date was deferred about a month, and then fixed for June 22nd. Field-Marshal von Rundstedt told me how the preparations of his Army Group had been hampered by the late arrival of the armoured divisions that had been employed in the Balkan campaign, and that this was the key-factor in the delay, in combination with the weather.

    But it was not the Greek campaign that caused the postponement. Hitler had already reckoned with that commitment when the invasion of Greece was inserted in the 1941 programme, as a preliminary to the invasion of Russia. The decisive factor in the change of timing was the unexpected coup d’état in Yugo-Slavia that took place on March 27th, when General Simovich and his confederates overthrew the Government that had just previously committed Yugo-Slavia to a pact with the Axis. Hitler was so incensed by the upsetting news as to decide, that same day, to stage an overwhelming offensive against Yugo-Slavia.

    • Agree: Miro23
  41. Solzhenitsyn was a giant and he helped to bring down the USSR.

    His claim that 66 million people were slaughtered is no more difficult to believe than the six million jews that were lampshaded by the most evil man in history.

    “The Gulag Archipeligo” is a must read…..the brutality and stupidity of the communists is laid bare for all to see. The book is unforgettable, hard to get through, but worth every minute of effort.

  42. Hart says:

    Also, in above mentioned book, not one word is mentioned about vast Russian supplies being seized by the German invaders.

    Seems that Rezun was pranking his patrons: “How dumb are these people ? Will they believe anything ?”

  43. Adûnâi says:

    > “It is my opinion that over its history the Soviet regime changed rather often and rather dramatically.”

    This recap of historical periods is something people generally do not do. They think in black-and-white terms (not races). It reminds me of how gamers rave about the Activision-Blizzard merger in 2008, but the history of Blizzard in fact has encompassed quite a few epochs in 1991-2020.

    > “Does anybody even remember Chernenko?”

    My mom does, she says her step-dad called him “Chernushkin”.

    > “which goes something like this: “Russians have never known freedom and they don’t care about it. Russians have a slave mentality and all they want is some kind of dictator (Czar or Commissar – makes no difference to them) to rule over them with an iron fist“”

    Does it not require a strong will to oppose liberalism that promises freedom and with it – moral decay and mortal decadence? Do you not need freedom to obey?

    > “We all know about 9/11, but that is hardly a unique example.”

    Please, don’t tell me that you believe in conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.

    > “And then, there are the much more serious cases, including the historical truth about the so-called “Holocaust”. Or, who carries the responsibility for starting WWII?”

    Germany started it by foolishly attacking Poland.

    > “cost us 66.7 million people”

    Why did Solzhenitsyn say nothing of the evils of the modern genocidal Russian Judaeo-Christian regime under Yeltsin and Putin?

    > “Sergei Lukianenko”

    My favourite modern Russian writer is Viktor Pelevin. Especially his later works (not the earliest!).

    > “During the Soviet period the Solzhenitsyn haters liked to refer to him as “Solzhenitser” (hinting that he might be a Jew). Nowadays, Solzhenitsyn haters in Russia refer to him as SoLZHEnitsyn (the letters “lzhe” means “lie” in Russian, suggesting that he is a liar). That tells you all you need to know about the degree of sophistication these folks are capable of…”

    Russians are notorious for being the Niggers of the White race and unable to conduct a rational discussion. Check out this childish Little Russian video by Toronto TV aimed against one YouTuber supersharij – it is full of “funny” in-group jokes and nothing else! Nothing else!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-__D9Biw7cs

    > “famous book, “Icebreaker” (“Ледокол”) in which Rezun, writing as “Viktor Suvorov” claimed”

    You missed two commas here.

    > “Depends whom you ask; due the hatred”

    Prepositions on and to, respectively, are missing.

    > “Khrushchev was the worst, most immoral, incompetent, hypocritical, inept and otherwise despicable Soviet leader ever”

    Whom did Khrushchev betray? Was it not Stalin? Did he not betray Stalin just like the Russian people would later go on to betray their own Soviet Union, just as America betrayed its mother Germania, just as Clovis betrayed his Germanic gods?

    • Replies: @Wavelength
  44. @Robert Dolan

    It is the Soviet equivalent of Night and The Diary of Anne Frank

  45. Have the book The Gulag Archipelago and refer to it in regards to what is happening here in the ZUS.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  46. Trinity says:

    Hmm, I will have to find out if Andrei Vlasov is related in some way to the great 1960’s Soviet olympic weightlifter and writer, Yury Vlasov. Yury entered politics after retiring from olympic weightlifting but wasn’t nearly as successful in the political field as he was at hoisting heavy iron over his head. The bespectacled Vlasov was legendary in the sport of weightlifting, holder of both gold and silver medals in olympic weightlifting in the 1960 and 1964 olympic games. He was certainly not the stereotypical meathead. He cited the Jew in several of his writings and perhaps that is why he never gained much mileage in his political career.

  47. Robjil says:
    @Robert Dolan

    He never said 66 million. He said millions. That 66 million is not his words. I never read that in his “200 years together, Jews and Russians” book. It is always millions were tortured and slaughtered by the Amalek obsessed Jews who took over Russia in 1917.

    Here is a reprint of a quote from Saggy in #36. It sums up the thesis of Solzhenitsyn’s “200 years together book. I noticed that Solzhenitsyn published this book in 2001/02. Perhaps, he was warning the world about nine eleven, another Zion psych ops.

    You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.

  48. Hart says:

    Solzhenitsyn concludes his essay against Russian “liberals” and “democrats” (in the Russian meaning of the word) by the following words: “we thought you were fresh, but you are still the same“.

    Refer to:

    The Leopard Paperback by Giuseppe di Lampedusa

    The [lad’s} eyes began smiling again. “For the King, yes, of course. But which King?” The lad had one of those sudden serious moods which made him so mysterious and so endearing. “Unless we ourselves take a hand now, they’ll foist a republic on us. If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change. D’you understand?” Rather moved, he embraced his uncle.

  49. I wonder why SAKER leaves KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, author of New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception off his list of “traitors”?

    Could it be that Golitsyn’s claim that Communism faked its own death in 1991 is true? Could it be the Berlin Wall was torn down and the Warsaw Pact dissolved for reasons of deception? Could it be Putin is in all actuality an old ex-KGB party member still loyal to Soviet style Communism and is playing a very good game of perestroika deception? Could it be these truth’s don’t fit the narratives we are being bombarded with now?

    Who is Vladimir Putin, and why does he behave the way he does? Much has been written, but little has been revealed. It has been said that Putin represents a return to Bolshevik rule. But what does this mean? Part of the answer may be found in “The Bolshevik Code,” the operational value system of the Soviet leadership before the fall of communism in 1991. Putin is a 21st Century incarnation of The Bolshevik Code, and his conduct is better understood with reference to this Code.

    https://www.europeaninstitute.org/index.php/251-european-affairs/ea-april-2015/2017-perspectives-understanding-putin-the-bolshevik-code-provides-clue

    Another “traitor” left off of SAKERS list is Yuri Bezmenov, also a Soviet defector who was trying to warn us of the “deception” game.

    People worship at the alter of Russia Today (RT) where even the likes of Ron Paul goes to pronounce America bad, Russia good on a 24/7 basis, yet nobody ever questions the fact that it is nothing more than a state owned propaganda mill for pushing the Russian(Soviet) agenda.

    • Replies: @Robjil
    , @Hart
  50. sally says:

    What bothers me about this conversation is that everyone waits on the power of the leaders of the nation state to decide and to act.. What the hell there are millions of citizens who should be a part of these decisions..

    The nation state system is responsible for the many wars.. Its a failure that should be completely outlawed and eliminated from its current position as nemesis to mankind.

    Clearly the oil and gas owned, petrodollar controlled, nation state system put Germany into a vice, and tried its best to squeeze the life out of it.. German people rose to defend.. their identity <= what they should have done was round up all of the leaders of all of the nation states and put them on a one way rocket to the moon. .

    Humanity is menaced by the power of the nation state in the wrong hands. If does not matter if the victim is Germany, Russia, Iran, China,, Netherlands, Austria, Hungry or Venezuela the result is the same, the humanity captured within the nation state container will be made to suffer the consequences brought on by the unilateral decision of a very few people. Its those few people who are to made to leave the earth, not the people who are trying to live a descent life.

  51. Robjil says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    In Yuri’s video at the end, he sums up what makes a nation strong. It is believing in something abstract like a religious concept. The lack of any religious concept destroys nations.

    That is not deception. It is reality. Zionists have a extremely strong religion obsession that they carried for centuries. Sadly for humanity, it has worked wonders for them. Purim themed wars in the middle East since 1991 is one example of it at work.

    WWI and WWII was the work of Zionist Jewish Advisors. The names of them are available in “The controversy of Zion” by Douglas Reed.

    Russia of today does have a strong love for the people of its land. That is the “national abstract religious concept” that makes Russia strong today. ZUS rulers are doing the opposite. They are hating the history and people who made the USA, invading or coup-ing other nations and inviting conquered peoples in.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  52. @Sean

    Please! Do not be so pessimistic. Russia has enough money to buy the newest and best machinery from Germany and Switzerland. Russia is probably already building up its consumer oriented industries.

  53. @Robjil

    Russia is not out friend, just as Israel is not our friend. They are both doing all they can to see America destroyed. Quit buying the “Putin is a hero” B.S.

    • LOL: bluedog
  54. Hart says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    The account of a real defector:

    https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Illusions-Dossier-Reveals-Stalins/dp/0517588501

    A loyal, effective, unapologetic, Soviet operator even while in exile in the US.

    Soviet master spy Alexander Orlov (1895-1973), who defected to the U.S. in 1952 to denounce Stalin’s crimes, was eulogized in the U.S. Senate for helping America fight the Cold War. But this astonishing report–an unprecedented collaboration between British historian Costello and former KGB officer Tsarev, press consultant to the Russian Intelligence Service–persuasively argues that Orlov played a game of wits with the CIA and FBI, feeding them half-truths and trivialities while concealing the identities of former colleagues and Soviet agents he had recruited. Using a trove of declassified Russian intelligence files and FBI and CIA documents, the authors establish that Orlov masterminded the notorious Cambridge spy ring and the recruitment of British moles Kim Philby, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean. They also reveal that KGB agents held secret meetings with Orlov in 1969 and 1971, inviting him to return to Moscow as a hero.

    On the evidence of his dossier, moreover, Orlov was considered a hero of the Soviet Union well before his death in 1973.

  55. @Armaggedon

    Gee, what a relief that you know the truth!

  56. Robjil says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Russia is not doing anything to the US.

    ZUS is doing many things against Russia.

    There is no USA anymore. It is ZUS.

    USA has not existed since 12.23.1913.

    Russia at least is trying to get back its sovereignty with Putin.

    This is why the widespread hatred of Putin in ZUS led lands.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  57. @Johnny Walker Read

    Russia has returned to being a Christian nation and the ZUS has become a diabolical, demonic, draconian, satanic enemy of Christians, this is the zionist satanic plan to destroy Christianity and America!

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  58. Ron Unz says:
    @S

    Suvorov’s thesis in Icebreaker, as described by Wiki, is just about identical to the thesis of Guido Preparata in his book Conjuring History . Preparata, though, has it that it is the Capitalist US/UK that was doing this, rather than the Communist Soviet Union.

    Well, I found the Preparata book almost totally worthless, filled with conspiratorial theories that had virtually no evidence behind them. Just because someone comes up with an outlandish historical hypothesis doesn’t mean it’s necessarily correct.

    By contrast, the Suvorov Hypothesis seems quite likely to me, and backed by an enormous quantity of persuasive circumstantial evidence. Moreover, the fact that it’s been almost totally ignored by virtually all Anglosphere MSM organs for three decades hardly supports the silly claim that it was fabricated in service of the CIA or MI6. A few people had repeatedly claimed that Glantz effectively rebuts it, so I read the Glantz book and found that this was entirely untrue, with Glantz almost totally ignoring Suvorov’s claims, and just repeating the conventional story of Barbarossa that I’d seen 100 previous times.

    So, overall, I’d argue that it’s far more likely than not that Suvorov is more or less correct in this analysis of the circumstances leading up to the outbreak of the Russo-German phase of the war:

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

    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @Truth3
    , @Begemot
    , @L.K
    , @S
  59. Reading is always a good idea. Believing everything you read is a bad idea.

  60. The true nature of history–Implants…

  61. Truth3 says:
    @Ron Unz

    All Nail and no Thumb when Unz swings the Hammer.

  62. Alfred says:
    @Sean

    Putin … probably ordered the death of Litvinenko, and decided to kill Skripal’s daughter as a stratagem similar to that of Trotsky making the families of Tsarist officers hostage.

    Not only can you read the mind of Putin but you tell us that he also kills his putative hostages. Remarkable!

    Am I to understand that Skripal and his daughter are imprisoned like Julian Assange for their own safety? 🙂

    The book I referred to above points out many of the glaring inconsistencies in the official, every changing, narrative. A sort of MH-17 on steroids.

    You are an embarrassment. Please take your drivel elsewhere!

    • Agree: Desert Fox, Nonny Mouse
  63. Begemot says:
    @Ron Unz

    Glantz … just repeating the conventional story of Barbarossa that I’d seen 100 previous times.

    If all you have is the truth to state, then you are bound to repeat yourself.

    • Replies: @kikl
    , @Ron Unz
  64. kikl says:
    @Begemot

    “If all you have is the truth to state, then you are bound to repeat yourself.”

    Well, if he is in possession of the truth, then why didn’t he address the main arguments supporting the theory that Barbarossa was a preemptive attack? Knowledge is not acquired by repeating the purported truth like a religious dogma. It is acquired by adressing arguments.

    I recommend this book because it is written by a former General of the communist East German Army who was trained in Russia.

    https://www.amazon.de/Deutschland-Visier-Stalins-europ%C3%A4ischen-vergleichende/dp/3806112495

    In particular, the military analysis of the line-up and concentration of the USSR’s troops is outstanding.

  65. Ron Unz says:
    @Begemot

    If all you have is the truth to state, then you are bound to repeat yourself.

    Maybe you should actually read my linked article. Here’s what I said about Glantz:

    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.

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

    • Replies: @Begemot
  66. Epigon says:

    Soviet Union was preparing for an offensive war in Spring of 1942.
    The introduction of new frontline tank models (A-43/T-34M, KV-3, T-50), fighters, bombers, artillery, small arms and the training for the expanded RKKA were all scheduled to end by Winter of 1941/1942.

    The now famous T-34 was meant to be a stopgap prototype run, discontinued in July-November of 1941 to make way for definite version.

    Polikarpov biplanes and obsolete fleet of light tanks and tankettes of 1930s? Riiiight, sounds about right for offensive of Summer 1941

    • Replies: @Truth3
  67. L.K says:

    Saker:

    So, OF COURSE, the Soviets did have plans for war against Germany, just as Russia today has a plan to destroy the US (which also has such a plan of its own!).

    Typical sophistry by the Saker. Or is it just plain ignorance of all the facts? Doubtful since the Saker pretends to have at least read “The Chief Culprit”. Of course, what proves Stalin was planning an offensive against Germany in the summer of 1941 is not merely the war plans themselves, but the FACT they were clearly acted upon, including the nature of the gigantic and OFFENSIVE Soviet troop deployments near the Soviet-German demarcation line.

    Already in 1967 in the USSR, the decorated Soviet war veteran Major-General Petr Grigorenko, who had fought in the battles of Khalkhin Gol and later commanded troops in the early battles following 22 June 1941 against the Germans, submitted an article to the Soviet journal Voprosy istorii KPSS, pointing out that Soviet military forces vastly outnumbered German forces in the summer of 1941 and that the Red Army deployments could only be explained by the Soviet regime attempt at a surprise attack on the Germans.

    Former Red Amy Major-General Petr Grigorenko, who commanded troops in initial battles following June 22, 1941, complained in his memoirs that “there could be only one reason for [the heavy deployment of Red Army offensive troops in the West], namely, that these troops were intended for a surprise offensive. In the event of an enemy attack, these troops would already be half encircled. The enemy would only need to deal a few, short blows at the base of our wedge and then encirclement would be complete.”13 Encirclement became the hellish fate for many units of the Red Army in the opening weeks and months of the war.

    source: Albert Weeks, ‘STALIN’S OTHER WAR’.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  68. Anyone promoting Solzhenicin and Souvorov aka Rezun should not be considered a serious expert on Soviet union and his opinion on anything USSR russia related should be ignored.
    Here is the man who was not born in the Soviet union and who never lived there dares to express his worthless opinion about the country.
    Considering however who the readers are it is understandable but among public who was born and lived in USSR Sacker would have been considered a clown he is.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  69. E_Perez says:

    The best arguments for Suvorov comes from military experts:

    Excellence alone cannot explain the stunning advances of the German army. The Soviet forces were superior by an estimated factor of six in every area: troops, aviation, tanks and artillery.
    The Germans could never have entered Soviet territory by more than 50km facing such a tremendous superiority … if the Soviets were in any normal configuration, especially if in defense against the Germans, who Stalin supposedly feared so much.

    But, as Suvorov explains, they were not in defense positions but caught in the middle of an immense offensive build-up, with most military personnel on the move – sitting in trains to the west and their equipment out of reach.

  70. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    Furthermore, focusing only on Suvorov the way the Saker does, a softer target for obvious reasons, while completely ignoring the large body of literature in Russian and German, 2 languages the Saker has command of, available now for nearly 30 years, shows tremendous bad faith. I can find no excuse for such behavior.
    There are many Russian historians, who live in Russia, including academic ones and former soldiers, who have reached the conclusion that the Stalin regime was INDEED in an advanced state of offensive preparations against Germany when Hitler preempted his plans with an offensive of his own.

    For example, Albert Weeks is a US historian & former Professor of International Affairs, fluent in Russian, who has closely followed the Russian historians’ disputes which arose [after the fall of the Soviet Union and the partial opening of archives] over the Stalin regime’s offensive war plans against NS Germany. Despite being very ignorant of the German side, basically repeating the usual anti-Hitler line, professor Weeks nevertheless concedes that several Russian historians and former Red Army and intel veterans have reached the conclusion that Stalin was indeed planning to attack in 1941.
    Not only that but several of these Russian historians and military people have/had connections to the Russian Ministry of Defense and some are of a pro-Soviet inclination:

    Nevertheless, what the (Russian)researchers have produced is a pattern of Red Army deployments and concentration of troops along the Soviet western frontier in spring 1941 that strongly suggests that the General Staff and Stalin were planning eventually to get the preemptive jump on the Wehrmacht. The fact that in addition to Russian historians a number of informed ex–Red Army or security officers make this allegation cannot be ignored. As it turned out, of course, the Germans got the jump on the Soviets.

    It is significant and worth recognizing that a number of “new” Russian historians are opting for the offensist interpretation as to Stalin’s and the Red Army General Staff’s war planning on the eve of Barbarossa. In the meantime, it is unhelpful to assume, as some Western writers have, that these Russian historians take the positions they do, like the notions proffered so vehemently by émigré Viktor Suvorov, because they blindly hate Stalin or for some other reasons unrelated to the facts and documents that they have collected.

    Note that some of the historians of the offensist persuasion are connected with the Russian Ministry of Defense. Others (unlike the much despised Suvorov) show pro-Soviet tendencies in their interpretations of events. Yet they hew to the offensist thesis concerning Stalin war planning.15
    It behooves Western specialists and observers to pay attention to the Russian historians’ latest findings as well as to their interpretations of their findings. The Russian historians say that they will keep on pressing the authorities for more archives to be opened because, they insist, additional top-secret information from the period of 1939–41 continues to be kept concealed. …

    Source: Stalin’s other war

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Thanks: John Regan, Vaterland
    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  71. Adûnâi says:
    @Robjil

    USA has not existed since 12.23.1913.

    What a moronic statement. So you have no problem with the America that gave its Negroes the rights equal to those of the Whites? Only when a big scary bank took power, only then America suddenly became bad?

    And four years later, they entered the war against Germany! Four years! What a great case of swift corruption of an honest innocent nation by a big scary elite!

    And you, of course, take no issue with the fact that American Aryans prayed and still pray to a dead Jewish angel Jesus.

    • Replies: @Robjil
    , @Desert Fox
  72. Robjil says:
    @Adûnâi

    12.23.1913 was the first Zion century.

    We are in the second Zion century.

    Guess what date that started on?

    12.23.5671 in the Jewish Calendar. In our calendar, it was 9.11. 2001.

    Money talks. Money is the reason WWI happened so soon after the FED was started up.

    Jewish Advisors talked up WWI and WWII. No mercy allowed to Amaleks, anyone who is against Zion.

    Money still is talking. Israel gets a free pass to bomb Gaza and Syria without any “guilt”.

  73. @Adûnâi

    In 1913 the zionist banking kabal took over the creation of the US currency which was unconstitutional, and from that point on the currency was created out of thin air and was a debt and interest creation with the zionist bankers benefiting from the debt and interest and this became the template for all the ensuing wars, fought for the bankers, who were the agent provocateurs in every war since the creation of the FED.

    The zionists have ruled America ever since.

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @Franz
  74. On the Icebreaker thesis — yeah, it’s probably nonsense, and it generally seems to be advanced by advocates of the ‘Saint Hitler’ school.

    Most of the evidence offered simply demonstrates that yes, the Russians did have a war plan, and — go figure — that war plan relied on the principle that the best defense is a good offense.

    However, I’ve never read any convincing evidence that the Russians actually planned to strike in 1941. If anything, that they were so grossly unprepared demonstrates the opposite. After all, an army planning to attack in 1941 would have had to have been ready to go by no later than July or August. If so, how is it that they were so grossly unready by June 22nd? There were masses of artillery — but without trucks to tow it; tanks without fuel, etc. Many of the Soviet Mechanized Corps almost literally collapsed as soon as they started to move. This was not an army that was about to leap into action.

    Now, one interesting theory I’ve read is that Stalin was indeed planning to attack — but in 1942, not 1941. So he was frantically reorganizing and reequipping — but was caught in the middle of it all. Certainly a Red Army left to complete its reorganization and reequipment could have been a far more formidable force by 1942.

    Seen in this light, Stalin’s almost pathological insistence on avoiding any response to German provocations starts to make a great deal of sense. It wasn’t that war wasn’t to happen; it was that it was to happen in accord with Russia’s schedule, not Germany’s.

    • Agree: bluedog
    • Troll: L.K
  75. @Desert Fox

    The world has indeed been turned upside down. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, a career apparatchik in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and a loyal agent of the Soviet secret police, the KGB (and head of its successor, the FSB), now not only proclaims himself to be a Christian, but has donned the mantle of global protector of Christianity and morality — to the rejoicing huzzahs of many Christians and conservatives in the West.

    However, before bestowing Defender of the Faith accolades on Vladimir the Pious, we would do well to look carefully behind and beneath the highly contrived Christian image being spun by the Kremlin’s public relations department and gullible Christians with short memories in the West.

    Sadly, the quotations noted are not unique, nor restricted to wild outliers.

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/19162-putin-defender-of-christian-faith-and-morality

    I can post this stuff until I’m blue in the face, and I’m sure it will change very few minds on the worship of Putin here at UR. That being said I will leave one more link to evidence it’s all a big, fat LIE. So follow on comrades, like a good little Soviet should.

  76. Saker’s articles always challenge me. I find myself researching names and places he mentions, which leads to even more discoveries.

    To me, that is what a good writer is about. If you read something and it doesn’t challenge you in any way, why read it? The more I read the more I realize just how little I know and how much propaganda is out there.

    If anyone has a good article on the Srebrenica genocide, which would refute the official narrative (which states that almost all the bodies have been identified), please leave me a link. I would like to learn more about that. Saker referenced that as one of many official narratives that is a lie. thx

    • Replies: @Robjil
    , @Anonymous
    , @Mikhail
  77. @Johnny Walker Read

    My perspective: Putin is not our friend, but he is the enemy of at least some of our enemies. Sometimes we have common interests, sometimes not. We should look at any interactions between us pragmatically and dispassionately, according to the situation at hand. That is certainly what he does on his end.

  78. @Bankotsu

    Trolls usually agree with each other. The more sophisticated ones appear to agree with the mark.

  79. @Sergey Krieger

    Truth be told, the Saker does not pretend to have any first-hand knowledge of Russia or the USSR. His opinions often sound weird to those who have that first-hand knowledge. Not in so many words, but he honestly admits that Solzh’s views are obsolete, the product of the reaction to the first period of Soviet history. I don’t know why he believes that they will ever become relevant. Then again, he is not unique in this, people believed all sorts of ridiculous things for millennia. He demonstrates an unhealthy Putin-worship. Whatever Putin believes does not make it true. His literary perspective is also strange. From artistic standpoint, “One day in life of Ivan Denisovich” is Solzh’s best, even though it is not faithful to the truth. It betrays the fact that Solzh never was in a normal camp where most prisoners were, only in VIP ones. This is consistent with him being an NKVD informer, although does not constitute proof. “August 1914” that the Saker praises is simply a pathetic attempt to ape Tolstoy. Reminds one of the proverbial frog that wanted to be as big as a bull.

    As far as Soviet realities are concerned, the Saker is clearly ignorant and clueless. But there are shades of grey: compared to the ignorance of an average commenter here, he is an expert.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  80. @Johnny Walker Read

    In all their spare time (when not playing golf or watching old movies) Reagan and George W were clearing brush on the ranch.

  81. Franz says:
    @Desert Fox

    In 1913 the zionist banking kabal took over the creation of the US currency…

    The zionists have ruled America ever since.

    That’s it. Few want to see it.

    Who has the power of the purse decides everything. It decides the wars, the graft, the fate of the founding race, the fate of relations between women and men, all of it.

    From 1913 on, we gradually ceased to be a Republican Democracy and instead became a Capitalist Plutocracy. The proof is all around everyone. And the butt of jokes among travellers to the States who go back home to real nations.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  82. @Johnny Walker Read

    I stand by what I said, and Putin and Russia are saving Syria from the terrorists created and funded by the ZUS and Israel and ZBritain.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  83. To ‘The Saker:’

    Have you ever thought of doing a translation of Two Hundred Years Together into English? There still isn’t a decent translation out there, and you would seem to be qualified.

    Within limits, if anyone ever dreamed up a crowd-funding scheme to entice you into this, I’d consider taking part. The work needs to be done.

  84. niceland says:
    @Colin Wright

    You wrote:

    On the Icebreaker thesis — yeah, it’s probably nonsense,

    What follows is argument to the contrary. For Hitler the question wasn’t when Stalin would attack, this year or the next. I bet he was contemplating; when would the enormous Red army in his backyard be ready to fight? It’s clear he struck before that happened. Isn’t that the basis for the Icebreaker thesis?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  85. Robjil says:
    @freedom-cat

    Here is a good article about Bob Baer, the CIA officer that was part of the program to destroy Yugoslavia in the 1990s. He explains how the Srebrenica incident was a created incident to get NATO to dismantle Yugoslavia for ZUS.

    https://katehon.com/940-croats-bosnians-serbs-you-have-been-manipulated-war-was-staged-former-cia-officer.html

    When asked about Srebrenica, Baer said that from 1992 he had been in Bosnia again. This time, he said, they trained military units representing Bosnia, the new state which only just had declared its independence. Srebrenica is an exaggerated story, he said, many people have been manipulated by it. He said the numbers of people killed were part of political marketing. His boss, he said, had previously been in the U.S. Senate and told him several times that at some point there would be a big con in Bosnia. Only a month before Srebrenica happened, said Baer, his boss told him this town would be known around the world and agents, Baer among them, had been instructed to inform the media. When Baer asked why, he was told he will see. After that they received an order to attack houses and people of Srebrenica with newly formed Bosnian army, Baer said. Serbs followed as they had also been paid and told to the same thing, Baer said.

    Baer said that the deaths in Srebrenica had been due to Bosnians, Serbs and Americans, but the blame was laid at the feet of Serbs. He said that many of the victims had been buried as Muslims and yet they were Serbs or other nationalities. He said that few years back, a friend of his, former CIA employee, currently working in the IMF, had told him that Srebrenica was a product of an agreement between the U.S. government and Bosnian politicians. Srebrenica was sacrificed because after the alleged crimes of Serbs, America had been given a reason to attack.

    • Replies: @freedom-cat
  86. @Sean

    Anything related to the truth about Putin, the now perceived “prince of peace” and supporter of all things moral will not be tolerated in this Soviet style chat. Keep it up and you will find yourself imprisoned in the digital “Gulag Archipelago” here in UR comments section. Be very, very careful comrade, and chose your words wisely.

  87. @Desert Fox

    It’s all part of the globalist plan to destabilize and then carve up Syria.

    During a six-hour meeting at the Black Sea resort of Sochi on Tuesday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin effectively carved up northeastern Syria between themselves, after the abrupt withdrawal of U.S. troops paved the way for a bloody Turkish incursion across the border. The United States was not present at the meeting.
    In his comments, Trump seemed to wash his hands of not just Syria but all of America’s wars in the Middle East. “Let someone else fight over this long-bloodstained sand,” he said.

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/23/turkey-russia-northern-syria-erdogan-putin/

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  88. melpol says:

    Writers have great imaginations and facts bore them. Books concerning historical events are written by the most imaginative of writers. They write interesting narratives without the least bit of supporting evidence. Some use footnotes to support their imagination. But those footnotes are from writers who also write from their imagination. Russian defectors who wrote best selling novels during the cold war were thought by readers as written truth. But they were written to stimulate the imaginations of Russia Phobes. The written word is no more reliable than the spoken word. The reliable witness is hard to find. Only God knows truth but remains silent.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
  89. @Johnny Walker Read

    Trump has not washed his hands of Syria, ZUS troops are still there , take a look at some sites like veteranstoday.com and southfront.org, and Russia is wining the war in Syria, do some research, and Putin did not carve up Syria, and Erdogan is a warmongering fool.

    • Replies: @anon
  90. Adûnâi says:
    @Franz

    Who has the power of the purse decides everything. It decides the wars, the graft, the fate of the founding race, the fate of relations between women and men, all of it.

    Gold did not save Jews from Auschwitz. Political will trumps economics.

    Otherwise, you are speaking like a Marxist.

  91. utu says:

    Who does really like the Icebreaker Hypothesis by Suvorov? Actually everybody on the margins:

    (1) Hitler fanboys can explain Hitler’s stupidity in attacking the USSR. That Hitler was really trying to save the Western Civilization from the Judeo-Asiatic hordes who under the Bolshevik banners were about to overrun Europe. That poor Hitler had no choice. Not only Poland attacked him in 1939 and them England and France started the War but also the Bolsheviks were about to break the nonaggression pact that for Hitler like all other treaties was sacred. But then he had no choice; he had to preempt the treacherous Stalin.

    (2) Stalin fanboys are reassured that Stalin was not Hitler’s bitch who was giving to Hitler everything Hitler wanted since the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact only to be then betrayed by Hitler’s sneaky attack and be caught w/o pants. Instead Stalin was more cunning than Hitler but just was not lucky with timing because the cowardly balkanoid Greeks and Yugoslavs did not fight hard enough to keep Wehrmacht busy for longer. Just one more month and the history could have been different and Stalin would have saved the world from Hitler already in 1941. That the shameless Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was just a tactical stratagem on part of brilliant Stalin who was playing for time and thus had to make a deal with a devil which by attacking Poland in 1939 also allowed Stalin to move Red Army further West in preparation for the conquest/liberation of Europe. The alleged offensive positions of the Red Army troops suppose to explain the easiness with which Wehrmacht cut into Russia like a knife into butter and stop us from thinking about poor leadership , low morale and general ineptitude of military in the USSR after Stalin purges and terror of late 1930s.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
  92. @niceland

    I had a whole long erudite answer laid out — and my splinted finger hit some key.

    Fucking reality…

  93. @Adûnâi

    ‘Gold did not save Jews from Auschwitz. Political will trumps economics…’

    Gold did save some Jews from Auschwitz. Economics can also trump political will.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  94. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    Erdogan is a fool for betraying Russia. Turkey will regret not continuing to cooperate with Russia in good faith.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  95. The Ussr was connected to the Uk/Us from the beginning since the revolution was the result of a special operation funded by the western elites.

    This was impossible for the leaders to undo without also undermining the industrial strength.
    Therefore there were complicated dependencies.
    The Lend-lease was another one of those dependencies.

    Stalin expected to be attacked from the west ten years before it happened.

    Not just by Hitler, and when Barbarossa began , Britain and France were just weeks from attempting an aerial assault.

    There were very strong reasons for Stalin to make sure the Ussr wouldnt start it.

    That would have an effect on the willingness to provide lend lease since FDR was clearly against Hitler.
    As aggressor Stalin might have risked a breakown of FDRs resolve concerning Hitler.

    FDRs vice president Truman in 1941 made the giveaway that they balanced Germany and the Ussr so they would kill as many as possible om each side.

    That doesnt sound like there was a strong alliance with the Ussr.

    There might have been a motive for a Soviet deception in order to provoke Hitler to make the first move, if it would be rendered obvious who began.

    However if so, it would seem plausible that they hade been better prepared than they turned out to be.

    Or is it conceivable that the Ussr would deliberately let things go bad in the initial phase in order to demonstrate who was the evil side beyond doubt?

    In my view that, although improbable, would at least be a logical possibility.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  96. @anon

    Agree, Putin saved Erdogans life in the coup, and then this stupid bastard goes and supports AL CIADA aka ISIS and so Russia is blowing the hell out of the tanks and howitzers etc. that Erdogan is sending into Syria, this is a shooting gallery for the Russian airforce.

    Russia came into Syria in September 2015 at Syria request and is kicking AL CIADA’s ass!

    • Replies: @anon
  97. Paw says:
    @Patricus

    In Russia , desire for the world with no wars won in 1917 , by whole population of the peacefull Slavs and was hijacked by group of fanatical bandits.
    Emptiness of imperialism found its fulfilment in hatred and in fanaticism of anticomunism..

  98. @Robjil

    Robert Baer is a self-professed propagandist, though. It’s hard to trust someone like him. Sure, many of these CIA types put out some truth, but it’s usually with mixed signals.

  99. Hard to take a guy seriously that thought America should continue our genocide in Vietnam, where kids today are still being born disfigured, horrific birth defects from all the poison our overlords dumped on them. Claiming to be “Christian” yet supports the murder of millions of people that he doesn’t like, sounds like our wonderful “Christian Zionists” here.

    Solzhenitsyn also a fanboy of Pinochet and his murderous goons. The same ideology that is driving the refugees to our southern border today.

    Asked Reagan to drop a nuke on Moscow. Why oh why would they want to throw him in the gulag? He was the Juan Guaido of his time. The Joshua Wong or Bana Alabed of Russia. Lol

    Solzhenitsyn was a neocon. I’m sure he was probably on the CIA payroll, everything points to that. How anyone can take anything he says as truth is beyond me. No need to read his books, might as well read a book by Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Bremer or some other scumbag.

    Not surprising that many Nazi fanboys here love him. Guess thats what happens when Nazis, Nazi collaborators write your history and run the media. Nazis were a product of the same folks behind the CIA as well.

    The Germans lost but the fascists won. Fact.

  100. @Colin Wright

    So, you basically acknowledge the main point of the “Saint Hitler” crowd (whatever the hell that is), except nitpicking over the precise date?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  101. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:
    @redmudhooch

    Agreed. A lot of right-wing fools don’t realize it was the Soviets who stood at the forefront against cultural degeneracy and unlimited plutocracy that many associate with Zionism. Why they talk so much about scary communism is beyond me, Jews may have infiltrated communism in order to sabotage it, but Jews are fundamentally capitalist parasites. Trotsky and his followers were simply saboteurs working for international finance to derail Soviet socialism.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  102. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    Strategically, Turkey under Erdogan reminds me of Hitler’s Third Reich. The same way Hitler betrayed the USSR by breaking the non-aggresion pact and attacking Russia.

  103. Seraphim says:
    @Colin Wright

    Gold did save very many Jews from Auschwitz. Schwartz György (aka George Soros) is a case in point. Would someone ask why Rezső Kasztner (aka Rudolf Israel Kastner) was assassinated (in Israel) in 1957? Heard about the “Kasztner train”?

  104. @Beefcake the Mighty

    ‘So, you basically acknowledge the main point of the “Saint Hitler” crowd (whatever the hell that is), except nitpicking over the precise date?’

    I wouldn’t say that.

    Hitler’s attack on Russia was ‘over-determined,’ if I understand that term correctly.

    Yes, Russia had made it obvious that she had further aggressive designs; in November 1940, Molotov had gone so far as to demand bases in Denmark (!). Germany had already felt it necessary to send troops to Romania to forestall further Soviet demands on that country. So certainly it was clear that the Soviet Union posed a threat.

    On the other hand Hitler’s grand design had always involved carving out a German empire in the East. He was quite prepared to reach an accommodation in the South, West, and North; in the East, there would eventually have to be war.

    Finally, absent some change, Hitler was going to have to demobilize some of that huge army he’d assembled. The conflict with Britain simply wasn’t sufficient reason to keep half of Germany’s available manpower under arms. Either there would need to be a major continental campaign soon or some large portion of all those mobilized reservists would have to be allowed to return to civilian life.

    Hitler almost certainly was going to want to strike East at some point; Stalin’s aggressive moves combined with the fact that victory in the West meant he had a huge but suddenly unemployed land army under arms simply made it easier for him to reach the decision to do it now.

    The central point is that at least some in Hitler’s fan club would have it that an otherwise peacefully-inclined Fuhrer was simply responding to Russia’s threats.

    This misstates the situation. There was no peacefully-inclined Hitler; he’d always wanted to wage a war of conquest in the East, and Stalin and the general situation combined to make the decision to do it now easier.

  105. @redmudhooch

    ‘…No need to read his books…’

    Well, a lot of them are pretty good books. I’d particularly recommend August 1914 (I’ve read it twice) and The First Circle. Among his short stories, ‘Incident at Kretchetovka (sp?) Station’ stands out in my memory.

    I don’t think there’s much question Solzhenitsyn is one of the outstanding Russian writers of the twentieth century. I’m not familiar enough with either Nabokov or Bulgakov to go further than that.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
  106. Dmitry says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Saker is clearly ignorant and clueless… compared to the ignorance of an average commenter here, he is an expert.

    Lol your argument is apparently in the style of “compared to an average cockroach, a locust is beautiful” Or “compared to cancer, HIV is enjoyable”. Besides it is wrong, as even the lower-average commentator on this site are writing more intelligent and coherent comments, than Saker. And moreover, Saker knows less about Russia, Russian politics, Russian history, or Russian language – than I know about municipal politics of Mumbai or Manilla.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  107. I read “The Gulag Archipelago” and ended with zero belief in the veracity of its contents. I read “August 1914”, compared it with actual historical accounts of the Battle Of Tannenberg, and concluded that Solzhenitsyn was talking through his hat. I read “One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich” and had the exact same reaction to Elie Wiesel’s “Night”, to wit, it’s nonsense written to please a western market. Overall I have absolutely no reason to consider Solzhenitsyn to be anything more than a bad joke. I have not read Rezun directly so I can’t say anything about him except that the idea that the 1941 Soviet armed forces, based around obsolete I 15 biplane and I 15 fighters, SB 2 bombers with so many design defects that Stalin was appalled, and with tanks distributed among infantry divisions and so unable to conduct blitzkrieg offensives, could even think of invading Germany is something only the militarily illiterate can believe.

    Whenever I encounter people attempting to defend the likes of Solzhenitsyn, I am reminded of the Iraqi traitors in exile like the “poet” Kanan Makana, which claimed to be thrilled by every bomb that dropped on Baghdad. “Good writing” as an apologia for imperalist water carrying? Come off it.

    • Disagree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Robjil
    , @vot tak
  108. Seraphim says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    You read more obsolete Soviet (and Sovok) propaganda than Solzhenitsyn, to be sure. Nobody can believe that these are your own thoughts.

    • Agree: utu
  109. Vojkan says:

    Putin: treason is “the most despicable crime one can imagine”. Yep. Traitors are despised by both those they betray and those for the benefit of whom they betray. The Skripal hoax is a case in point and all the arguments used to accuse Russia in that affair are more a matter of psychological projection than a matter of facts.

  110. Robjil says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    His book “Two hundred years together – Jews and Russians” is based on documents not his story.
    This is the reason that it has not been translated into English.

    It was published in 2001-02, soon after nine eleven. This is when he realized that the west is the real trouble maker of our time. His anti-Soviet and pro-western stuff before this was similar to of all of us in the west, most of us fall for the razzle dazzle “democracy” Zion MSM of the western world.

    Nine Eleven opened his eyes to the Zion uber alles mentality ruling the west. So he published “Two hundred years together – Jews and Russians”, he hoped to open the eyes of the west about what is happening to it. The west just ignored it. It did not translate the book.

    He changed his ways. St. Paul was Saul who persecuted Christians. Should we ignore St. Paul’s writings because he was Saul before he was St. Paul? The same applies to Solzhenitsyn.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
  111. RouterAl says:

    In isolation I suppose that you could dismiss Icebreaker and The Main Culprit. As some one who has actually read both books as well as followed up in greater depth many of the great articles on this site.The contents of these two books strike me as very plausible. I would be interested to know how many of the posters have actually read the books. There is also Stalin’s War of Extermination by Joachim Hoffmann which covers the Soviet build up in a similar manner.
    The first source most people should be aware of is The History of Central banking by Stephen Goodson, this details the moves by the USA and Great Britain to put an end to Germany’s and Japan’s state debt free banking systems. The Forced War by David Hoggan details the moves by FDR to bully the British into giving a guarantee to Poland which more or less started WW2. The arrest and imprisonment of Tyler Kent by the British for the duration of the war for trying to alert the American Congress to all the back channels being used by FDR and Churchill to start a war in Europe and get America into it, for the benefit of Jewish bankers. The economic war being waged by America against Japan in order to get them to attack America and the deliberate weakening of American defences in order to get a pre-emptive attack against either Midway or Hawaii to facilitate a war neither people wanted.
    All that is wrong with the West today stems from WW2 and the Holohoax , until we can get an open discussion about the causes , who promoted these causes and who benefited from it the West will continue to decline spiritually and morally. Here in Britain we lost big time , we lost all our Gold and convertible currency reserves , we lost all our financial interests in the USA at fire sale rates, we lost 400k men , the empire was on the road out and ended up with 4 billion dollars of debt to the USA and 1.2 billion to Canada which we only repaid in 2006. Here in Britain the Jewish media still reveres Churchill while to me he should suffer the same fate as the other British traitor Cromwell at the hands of Charles II , his body should be dug up and his skull stuck on the spike on London bridge as a warning to other traitors.

    • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
  112. Truth3 says:
    @Epigon

    Polikarpov biplanes and obsolete fleet of light tanks and tankettes of 1930s? Riiiight, sounds about right for offensive of Summer 1941

    Yes, they did have small tanks. The Germans had Pz II and Pz 38 models as the bulk of their forces too. But the Red Army had 25,000 tanks, the Heer 3,000.

    Polikarpov planes in abundance? Yes, and they would have caused plenty of trouble if the Luftwaffe had not massacred them on the ground on June 22. The Red Air Force also had growing numbers of advanced fighters… The Yak-1 and MiG-1 were being delivered in squadron quantities weekly.

    Deep Offensive action requires Bombers and Ground Attack aircraft… lots of them. They act as advanced breakthru forces artillery and suppression of flank threats… bombing targets the Tanks or Panzers encounter or slip by. Did the Red Air Force have large Bomber Fleets ready for attack? Darn right… the Luftwaffe was outnumbered before their lightning strike on the first day.

    By the way… the Israelis learned that lesson well… they destroyed nearly the entire Egyptian Air Force on the outset of their blitz called the Six Day War.

    Try not to be so stupid in your offhand smart ass analysis.

    The Red Army was a real threat until Hitler broke their back in June & July 1941.

    The German mistake? Allowing their Army to be wasted by the Winter attempt to capture Moscow. This was the greatest military mistake in history. The campaign around Yelnya should have made the German General Staff aware that digging in for a long multi-year fight was required.

    You cannot fight a war of movement in mud and ice, without roads, hundreds of miles deep in enemy territory and supplies being hauled by panje wagons.

    Their only hope… dig in, and allow the Red Army to thoroughly exhaust themselves in frontal attacks endlessly.

    Hitler said in 1942… If I do not get the Caucusus Oil I must end this war.

    He might have gotten and kept Baku with a wholly different strategy. But in real time, these decisions are not so easy to see.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    , @Quartermaster
  113. Why do we believe “declassified documents” and such from the CIA or the Former Soviet Union?

    It strikes me as similar to believing a liberal American academic (sociologist or social historian let’s say) on the trans Atlantic slave trade…

  114. I like this quote:

    “Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened”

    “Solzhenitsyn – Voice from the Gulag,” Eternity, pp. 23–24

    • Thanks: SeekerofthePresence
  115. @Dmitry

    Yes, Saker has a lot of delusions and weird views. Not surprising from a person who never lived in the USSR and post-Soviet Russia. Besides, his Putin worship appalls me. But in one thing you are wrong: he does speak Russian fluently. This just shows that speaking the language is woefully insufficient for understanding the realities you never experienced first-hand.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  116. @Johnny Walker Read

    I don’t dislike Putin, but….this is so, should we say- gay?

  117. With regard to the original question: sure, you should (if you have spare time) read people you disagree with. Solzhenitsyn is a significant writer; as regards Suvorov, I haven’t read him, but Igor Bunich is, perhaps, not too different, and I liked it.

    What normal people should avoid is memoirs of US presidents & literary diarrhea of American “pundits” (left, center, right) which are, give or take, torrents of excrement.

  118. S says:
    @S

    Suvorov’s thesis in Icebreaker, as described by Wiki, is just about identical to the thesis of Guido Preparata in his book Conjuring History .

    LOL! Naturally, that should read Conjuring Hitler.

    While I was a little tired when I wrote that I don’t know if I was that tired.

    Auto spell corrector gone haywire, or, a moderator having a bit of fun with the spelling, perhaps? 😉

  119. @Adûnâi

    Having gold and having the power to issue money are not the same.
    Having the power to issue money allows one to finance propaganda, to sell war bonds, etcetera ad nauseum.

    Dec. 23, 1913 is a seminal date in U.S. history. It is the date where the money power ascended to run the Congress as opposed to the Congress issuing money. Money being issued by a private central bank taking a cut versus a national bank legislated by the Congress are two very distinct things. Anyone who fails to understand this fails to understand the History of the 20th century.
    The United States helped to build Germany as a bastion against communism then later colluded with Stalin to destroy it. They then set up Western Europe as Vassal powers. This has been a status quo to this very day.
    The German High Command had incredible balls. They attacked the Soviets, knowing full well they were at a 5:1 disadvantage in numbers and equipment. I believe they had no choice. The Saker would have us believe every army has plans for all sorts of stuff. Sure Saker, whatever you say.

    • Thanks: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  120. Franz says:
    @Adûnâi

    Otherwise, you are speaking like a Marxist.

    Absolutely! Groucho is my muse and guiding star.

    Although a soft spot for Harpo is inevitable, since I actually studied harp for awhile.

    Political will trumps economics.

    This is the stumbling block of the modern mind. Politics IS economics. Politics IS religion. We have created boxes around aspects of the same bundle.

    Nature is not amused. Whatever humans do is about power. Your armies, wealth, and gods can be knocked over by anybody building a stronger version of any of the three. It is nature, human nature.

    • Replies: @bike-anarkist
  121. S says:
    @Hans Vogel

    Yes, Preparata and Suvorov displeased a lot of powerful (and not so powerful) people, in particular those who still adhere and strongly believe in their respective corresponding ‘progressive’ Capitalist or Communist cause.

    However, as this centuries old, contrived, controlled, and increasingly decrepit Hegelian dialectic moves forward towards final synthesis in global Multiculturalism, likely heralded by WWIII, it makes sense we would find out more and more of it’s past hidden secrets along the way, in books by people such as Preparata and Suvorov.

    Both Capitalism, with it’s artificial hyper-individualism, and, a closely paralleling Communism, with it’s artificial hyper-collectivism, are bad, spiritually lifeless, and anti-human systems of thought, as is their convergance and synthesis in global Multi-culturalism.

    If they lied to us in the past about the supposed wonders and doings of Capitalism and Communism, such as in WWII as described by Preparata and Suvorov, why shouldn’t they also be lying to us now about the Rosemary’s baby like child of these two nefarious anti-life ideologies, Multi-culturalism?

    Humanity has been being played since 1776 and 1789 by the City of London.

    The answer, of course, is to stop believing and being influenced by this hatred driven dialectical madness, and to choose life.

  122. Epigon says:
    @Truth3

    You’re an imbecile lecturing me to not be stupid, while unironically claming that Soviets fielded 25 000 tanks on June 22nd, 1941.

    • Replies: @Truth3
  123. @S

    Reminds me of a joke:
    – What is the difference between a spy and an intelligence officer?
    – Their intelligence officer is a spy, whereas out spy is an intelligence officer.

    • Replies: @S
  124. @Bardon Kaldian

    Not me “Hero”. Posted that pic for all the Putin worshipers here. A quart of vodka and and this image should make all my fellow comrades here feel all warm and fuzzy.

    • Disagree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  125. @Franz

    This is the stumbling block of the modern mind. Politics IS economics. Politics IS religion. We have created boxes around aspects of the same bundle.

    Simple and emphatic statement without self-projection, angst and hubris.
    Thank you.

  126. @S

    Reminds me of my favorite movie scene of all times.

    • Replies: @S
  127. @RouterAl

    Thanks for those references. I will be trying to get those books.

  128. Truth3 says:
    @Epigon

    The Red Army tank park on June 22, 1941, was…

    On the one hand, the Red Army was huge – having added four million men to its ranks in the previous three years and with a tank park of 23,106 vehicles in June of 1941.

    According to the lowest source I could find.

    Just one source.

    Others have it as high as 30,000+.

    I was in the Soviet Union for years, were you?

    I studied the GPW my entire life, did you?

    I read thousands of pages of Red Army documents after they were declassified, did you?

    SJSTFUAF.

    Decode that, AHDH.

    • Thanks: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Epigon
  129. S says:
    @Ron Unz

    Well, I found the Preparata book almost totally worthless,

    I found it rather valuable and useful.

    filled with conspiratorial theories that had virtually no evidence behind them.

    Hmmm. I wonder if we read the same book? I didn’t see it that way at all. Seemed well thought out to me.

    Just because someone comes up with an outlandish historical hypothesis doesn’t mean it’s necessarily correct.

    If someone really believes in Capitalism, that the Capitalist US/UK was doing exactly the same thing (as posited by Preparata) that it’s purported ‘arch enemy’, the Communist Soviet Union was doing (per Suvorov), it would potentially be quite disturbing. [Vice versa if one believes in Communism.]

    A person might not want to even accept the possibility.

    I take it, then, that Preparata may have offended certain sensibilities you may have about the Capitalist US/UK bloc and it’s actions prior to WWII?

    By contrast, the Suvorov Hypothesis seems quite likely to me, and backed by an enormous quantity of persuasive circumstantial evidence…So, overall, I’d argue that it’s far more likely than not that Suvorov is more or less correct in this analysis..

    Some might argue that ‘circumstantial evidence’ is about the same difference as ‘virtually no evidence’, per your statement regarding Preparata, however, I won’t pursue that here.

    My point regarding Preparata was not that he was right, and Suvorov wrong, but, rather that both authors were correct…ie the Capitalist US/UK was doing virtually exactly the same thing as Suvorov alleges the Soviets were doing, ie each was attempting to bludgeon the other using Germany as a pawn to do so. The US/UK was much more succesful in this endeavor.

    The cynical ulterior motive for both Capitalist and Communist powers in this was to gain control of Germany, Europe’s center of power, and thus to gain control of Europe, and then the world…dwarfing any empire the Germans may have been attempting to construct at the time.

    In the decades prior to 1914 Britain turned more and more against Germany as a real potential threat to it’s empire’s hegemony over much of the world, and British journalism during that time reflected that in their writing.

    Similarly, I’ve posted on the 1853 US/UK geo-political New Rome book multiple times, and excerpts from it can be found in my archives.

    Those excerpts include the quote from the book describing how a future US/UK united front would unleash a ‘world’s war’ upon the Earth when it made it’s move to conquer Germany. This in turn would bring about a global struggle between the US and Russia for the obtainment of total world power.

    So, I find Preparata’s (and Suvorov’s) thesis quite believable.

    Some of the disbelief in the idea of both Preparata and Suvorov being right stems from the power of the Big Lie I think.

    How can it be possible that Capitalism and Communism are two closely paralleling and ultimately complimentary ideologies, when we’ve been led to think otherwise by our respective leaders?

    That Anglo-Saxon ‘Founding Fathers’ of the Capitalist United States, ie Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and apparently Ben Franklin as well, were also quite involved with the French 1789 Communist Revolution as well,

    and,

    that London was where both the Capitalist defacto ‘manifesto’ (Adam Smith’s famous 1776 work) and Marx’s 1848 Communist Manifesto, were both first published, each of these events having ties to the City of London, should cause ‘true believers’ in Capitalism and Communism to pause everywhere.

  130. S says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Good joke.

    I’ve always found the Spy vs Spy meme to be rather amusing.

  131. Adûnâi says:
    @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    The German High Command had incredible balls. They attacked the Soviets, knowing full well they were at a 5:1 disadvantage in numbers and equipment.

    An absolute and shameless lie. The German and allied forces had a advantage of 1.3:1 in June 1941. And by the population total, Germany and her allies did not lag that far behind.

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

    Money being issued by a private central bank taking a cut versus a national bank legislated by the Congress are two very distinct things. Anyone who fails to understand this fails to understand the History of the 20th century.

    Can you not think for yourself? All you are saying is regurgitated garbage spewed as if by a robot.

    The Congress was and is full of Jesus-worshippers who sold their race in 1861, in 1941 and in 1964. Why should I care whether their herd of animals issues their cursed Jewmerican paper, or a bunch of Jews from the Federal Reserve does? It’s all the same.

    • Replies: @vot tak
    , @L.K
  132. S says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    That is a great movie I’ve seen many times.

    With it’s sympathetic portrayal of Confederates one wonders if it could be even made today.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  133. Mikhail says: • Website
    @freedom-cat

    This is a good, brief counter-point to the anti-Serb BS pertaining to Srebrenica:

    http://silentcrownews.com/wordpress/?p=4712

    • Thanks: freedom-cat
    • Replies: @freedom-cat
  134. Adûnâi says:
    @S

    Both Capitalism, with it’s artificial hyper-individualism, and, a closely paralleling Communism, with it’s artificial hyper-collectivism, are bad, spiritually lifeless, and anti-human systems of thought, as is their convergance and synthesis in global Multi-culturalism.

    Are you not suffering from a case of Eurocentrism? Last time I checked, multiculturalism was only spreading in the West. Turkey, Iran, India, China – all of them are quite entrenched in their own values are are having none of the Western rot.

    Humanity has been being played since 1776 and 1789 by the City of London.

    Let me guess… The City of London inherited its money from Venice?

    Either way, it’s all childish. The real world is not about money. The real picture is being painted with ideas – namely, the Christian axiology of the love towards the poor and the retarded. No wealth in the world will make a White man vote to give Negroes rights, and yet here we are.

    Moreover, the power of the West and of multiculturalism is waning already – the Aryan stock is being depleted and drained, and the other three regions of the world have increasingly been turning towards radicalism – Turkey and Iran to its empires, India to radical Hinduism, China to its historical trade routs. Those “nefarious London elites” must be pretty suicidal in political matters, and pretty subservient to the dead Jew on the cross in questions spiritual.

    If those elites had existed, they would have murdered all non-Whites by 1930 to begin with…

  135. anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    [I can post this stuff until I’m blue in the face, and I’m sure it will change very few minds on the worship of Putin here at UR. ]

    Good. The ignorant ‘whites’ have surrounded around a FAKE leader, Putin, since they have NONE of their own. His ‘white’ skin and his fake Christianity attracts many fools.

    In fact, what Putin has done is nothing but being a good boy for his zionist masters, Rothschild family, like other zionist stooges, Trump, Modi, Erdogan, Emmanuel Macron, where all are in bed with the baby killer Netanyahu, and repeating the Jewish mafia slogan came out of his dirty mouth of an ASSASSIN and a anti Muslims racist, Modi, the other day in India where the zionist media calls it “the greater democracy’, which is laughable.

    All these racist zionists stooges that ignorant people call ‘leaders’ are working for the zionist mafia thieves where should be destroyed.

  136. @Seraphim

    That’s a very cogent response. How many brain cells did you expend coming up with that?

  137. vot tak says:
    @redmudhooch

    “Hard to take a guy seriously that thought America should continue our genocide in Vietnam, where kids today are still being born disfigured, horrific birth defects from all the poison our overlords dumped on them.”

    Definitely. Fanaticism never results in honest or accurate analysis.

  138. vot tak says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    “Whenever I encounter people attempting to defend the likes of Solzhenitsyn, I am reminded of the Iraqi traitors in exile like the “poet” Kanan Makana, which claimed to be thrilled by every bomb that dropped on Baghdad. “Good writing” as an apologia for imperalist water carrying? Come off it.”

    There is a description of those who favor the propaganda of their country’s enemies. I can’t quite recall the word for it… ;-D

  139. vot tak says:
    @Adûnâi

    “who sold their race in 1861, in 1941 and in 1964”

    Have you tried alprazolam?

  140. vot tak says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    “this is so, should we say- gay?”

    The zionazi-nazi wing of the right is obsessed with the male figure. Go figure. 😀

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  141. @Anonymous

    Thx. I didn’t realize he had an article on it. I’ve just recently started reading his stuff.
    I appreciate your response.

  142. @Mikhail

    I really appreciate your response and the article. I shall be reading this. Thank you!

  143. @Johnny Walker Read

    Putin the showman. No biz like Czar biz.

  144. Epigon says:
    @Truth3

    I was in the Soviet Union for years, were you?

    I studied the GPW my entire life, did you?

    I read thousands of pages of Red Army documents after they were declassified, did you?

    All that time and effort, and apparently you were unable to find:

    – the number of tanks/AFVs in the Western Military districts which were the only ones engaged by Axis in Barbarossa.

    – the breakdown of said inventory by type, age

    – the breakdown of that inventory by fighting condition

    Apparently, the expert you failed to read Shein’s book on this particular subject

    Here is a nice guideline for tards like you – June 1941 saw 25392 tanks in Soviet inventory.
    13981 were in western districts

    12223 regular tanks (discounting chemical, engineer, special purpose)

    Of these, only 337 KV-1, 132 KV-2, 635 T-34 without radio and 197 with radio.

    275 KV-1 ready for action, 124 KV-2 ready for action, 599 T-34 ready for action and 195 radio-equipped ones ready for action.
    Those are modern, 1940 and later designs. The rest are tankettes, light tanks, cavalry tanks, amphibious and scout tanks.

    What this doesn’t include is the lack of trained crews fit to operate the modern tanks – these were in short supply as well.

    Overall, the on-paper strength quickly drops down when a deep dive is performed into individual models – T-26, BT-7 – so the overall combat-ready AFV strength of Soviets facing the Axis was around 7000. They were opposed by a concentrated, well supplied and led force of 3658 tanks and 377 SPGs.

    The main reason of Soviet actual strength being lower is both wear and tear (T-26 were old) and lack of spares, fuel due to chronic shortage of tractors, tracks and oil tanker trucks.

    There were 3 T-26 in need of light repairs and maintenance for each T-26 ready for action ( 696 vs 2391) and just 6 of BT-7 were combat ready while 1020 BT-7 needed maintenance and repairs.

    The beauty of archive records and statistics. So next time you want to start claiming you’re an expert and have read documents, do yourself a favour and keep your mouth shut.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Replies: @Truth3
    , @Truth3
  145. lobro says: • Website

    ABOUT TIME for some truthful revisionism.
    Too long have the hordes indolent, intimidated or incapable of any critical thought or absorbing new and potentially heretical information run roughshod over any divergent argument, ratcheting up profanities and ad-hominem to a deafening pitch.
    And it always comes down to this:

    Who are you to dispute the magical St. Solzhenitsyn?
    How many Nobel prizes did you win?
    He is seconded by FIVE-STAR (count them) historians like Robert Service and Robert Conquest, who cares if they can’t speak Russian and are paid by neocon think tanks and mass media to spew hateful innuendo and drivel against Putin and Trump?
    We represent widely disseminated and approved viewpoint, our sources are acknowledged as respectable by the huge majority of the population—AND THUS, TRUE!

    Because quantity implies quality, the more people subscribe to a claim, the more true it is according to their math, the tyranny of mediocrity.
    And these are the more refined and civil statements I encountered, don’t ask me what the rest have been.

    NB: I agree with most of the Saker’s past views but also disagree with some, and when I did, I was attacked by the same bleating crowd as described above, swap Saker for Solzhenitsyn.
    Wonder what would they say now—if impossible to ignore this article, they will instantly switch allegiance (because that’s all they go by, personal allegiances and animosities) and attack the Saker like some satanic deviant for having dared to run counter to the received dogma.

    It is best summarized by the Protocol 15(6), of immortal, almost supernatural wisdom, I never tire of quoting it, to the general apathy:

    by so much as ours disregard success if only they can carry through their plans, by so much the “goyim” are willing to sacrifice any plans only to have success.

    A goy pursuing independent thought is a precarious existence, caught between a rock and a hard place.

  146. Truth3 says:
    @Epigon

    Here is a nice guideline for tards like you – June 1941 saw 25392 tanks in Soviet inventory.

    So… you now confirm the 25k Tanks in the Red Army inventory… as if it was your fact.

    Sophist prick.

    Apology accepted asshole.

  147. Truth3 says:
    @Epigon

    You’re an imbecile lecturing me to not be stupid, while unironically claming that Soviets fielded 25 000 tanks on June 22nd, 1941.

    Your own words asshole.

    Choke on them.

    When you were shown to be an ass, you decided to be the sophist to cover it up.

    Simple words. Simple Truth.

    Asshole lying sophists like you can’t handle the Truth.

    I again state the same as before…

    The Red Army had 25k Tanks on June 22, 1941.

    Your sophistry only confirmed it.

    I didn’t say 25k T-34’s… KV-I’s, or KV-II’s.

    I said 25k Tanks.

    By the way, have you ever sat in a BT-5?

    A T-28?

    Think they are not Tanks?

    • Replies: @Epigon
    , @Korenchkin
  148. Epigon says:
    @Truth3

    In the context of Barbarossa, RKKA having 10 000 tanks in Caucasus, Siberia and Far East is irrelevant and you deliberately tried obfuscating the fact.

    Furthermore, out of 13 000 tanks positioned to contest the Axis, almost half were not combat-ready and not deployed to combat. Let me guess – you think Soviets sent all those 1920s and 1930s dinosaurs into combat at some point?

    Pilling on top of it, you now present 3000, when in reality there were 4000 Axis AFVs which were concentrated, prepared and ready to descend upon dispersed Soviet AFVs arranged in peacetime echelons behind the border.

    Voila – your initial claim of 25 000 Soviet tanks facing 3000 German is gone – it was a case of 4000 German tanks deployed in focused spearheads surprising 7000 (1000 modern) Soviet tanks.

    Symptomatic of Western mongoloids, you readily bundle scout and amphibious tanks, tankettes and 1930s Vickers 6-ton derivates (T-26) in order to make your case stronger.
    Since German armoured halftracks and armoured cars perform much of the same duties as Soviet scout and amphibious light tanks – why not add them to German armour strength? That’s right – because your narrative breaks down.
    The same is true if prime mover, heavy tractor and light vehicle comparison is made between Wehrmacht and RKKA.

    In reality, most of Soviet AFV losses were due to abandonment, destruction by own crew, capture coming from lack of fuel and ammunition and strategic encirclement, not due to destruction in combat. Especially in case of (the only) modern Soviet designs at the time – KV and T-34

    You think you’re the first fanboi trying to parrot the nonsensical account of 20 000 destroyed Soviet tanks in 1941? Since you have been found out and called out, you will now assume a smug stance and insist on semantics and sophistry.
    I really like the “I sat in BT-5 therefore I am an expert and not a mong caught pushing a false narrative”

    Germans had local and absolute army numerical superiority in Barbarossa. Fact.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Troll: L.K, John Regan
    • Replies: @Truth3
  149. @Truth3

    The Red Army had 25k Tanks

    Half of them were never even going to be used
    And the strategy of “digging in” would never have worked as time would then be overwhelmingly on the Soviets side because they had the capability of outproducing the Germans in everything
    The Germans knew this, which is why they came up with the insane plan to take Kiev, Moscow and Leningrad within a few months

    And the idea that Soviets would attack in 1941 just after they’ve finished purging their staff and haven’t even found replacements is so idiotic in it’s face that only Werhaboo retards would believe it

    PS you only need to press “enter” once, dear Redditor

    • Replies: @Truth3
  150. @L.K

    This article speaks to Stalin’s supposed “defensive only” posture. It proves he was poised to invade Poland and ally with Hitler: What Moscow has to hide: Rudolf Hess and the Secret Protocol

    When World War II ended, no one among the Western Allies knew of the existence of a Secret Protocol, attached to the Hitler-Stalin “Non-Aggression” Pact of Aug. 23, 1939 and signed by Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyascheslav Molotov. Even after Germany and Russia were engaged in a vast and bitter war, both sides had reason to bury proof of their former brutal friendship. But at war’s end, the Russian secret stood in danger of being exposed, as Nazi archives and prisoners fell into the hands of the Western Allies. Russia faced the threat that the Protocol would be revealed, and itself reveal Russian imperial ambition.

    What did the Secret Protocol to the Hitler-Stalin Pact say? That, “in event of any war,” Russia would be assigned “spheres of influence” in eastern Poland (40% of the country); . the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia; a free hand in Finland; and that portion of Romania abutting Soviet territory. Soviet actions after Hitler’s invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, showed how precisely the Soviets adhered to the Protocol’s terms. On Sept. 17, Russia invaded Poland from the east; on Sept. 18 Russian and German troops shook hands in Poland. Then, Moscow invaded Finland. Next, it took the Baltic states.

    Stalin was able, in conference witlll Britain and the United States (when they became his allies against Hitler), to present these actions as “defensive” against the Nazi threat. But the Secret Protocol would prove that, to the contrary, Russia had used the deal with Hitler to advance her ancient imperial designs on Europe.

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

    • Replies: @vot tak
  151. Gerard2 says:
    @Alfred

    Surely no one thinks it is a coincidence that they came for Skripal at the exact moment his daughter was visiting. She was the real target. If you are seriously trying to deter treachery, you kill the traitors’ family members.

    Just a reminder that Lugovoi – the main suspect in the killing of Litvinenko -was visiting the UK at the time with his wife, son, daughter and her boyfriend/husband. A hastily arranged family holiday seems a strange time to be ordered to do an assassination on behalf on the state. A family holiday with (unwitting?) family menders seems a pointless ruse.

    It is claimed by the Comedy Club British Intelligence services that in the presence of his 8 year old son right next to hi, he slipped some Polonium into Litvinenko’s teapot in some cafe or Pub in central London.

    I might be wrong here – but his ex wife ( mother to that 8 year old) may have been living in London also, with joint custody of the kid. Could very possibly be wrong here – but if true there was no mention at all of the boy or the ex-wife and their property being tested for traces of Polonium …which in itself was BS scientifically in regards to claims traces were found on the plane and some hotel bathroom

    To me it seems you are just reversing logic here – these circumstances with the family of both Skripal and Lugovoi..together with the “suicide” of that pig Berezovsky suggest the british intelligence framing Russia ( several theories about why they wanted to do so)

    BTW I dont know how reciprocal it is – but immensely nice ( or up to something?) of VVP and the Russian authorities to allow Skripal’s dead wife and son’s coffins to be sent to Salisbury for burial. If I was President I would never have allowed it.

  152. The “preemptive strike” idea has been debunked by historians who have studied Soviet and German military operations right before and during the war. This video, made by youtuber TIK, delves into this “Icebreaker” book and analyzes the claims with official historical records, troop numbers etc.

    Also, one must take into consideration that for a long time, during the cold war, the Soviet records were not accessible to the public, while the German records were. A lot of captured German officers, soldiers etc, wanted to sell themselves to the western allies, in the coming cold war with the USSR. So they often stated myths about the USSR. Only after the collapse of the USSR, did the Soviet records became public, and are now offering a counter narrative to the “official” German-influenced narrative.

    • Troll: L.K, Vaterland
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    , @L.K
  153. @Johnny Walker Read

    “Vigilante_Intelligence” aka Johnny Gat (Ziony Rat) is an anti-Russia propaganda channel, pretending to be “based anti-zionist”, while spreading his J MSM approved anti-Russia drivel. A lot of people distrust the MSM today, so they’re trying a new tactic: pretend to be alternative media, and try to sway people into being anti-Russian.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  154. @Wavelength

    There is nothing even remotely “open” about access to Soviet archives. Not even Glantz claims to have had open access.

    • Replies: @Epigon
  155. @Adûnâi

    The video you referenced is not Russian, but Ukrainian. They speak Ukrainian there, and it is written in Ukrainian. But I guess, you not being able to speak Russian, don’t know the difference huh.

  156. Wielgus says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    That picture of Putin reminds me of a key difference between him and Yeltsin.
    Yeltsin was a pudgy alcoholic who sometimes appeared drunk on TV, and was a physical wreck. Putin seems to have decided to do physicality stunts like this to emphasize that he is different.

  157. Truth3 says:
    @Epigon

    Amazing.

    Obtuse.

    Obstinate.

    I stated a simple fact.

    The Red Army had 25k Tanks in June 1941.

    It is Truth.

    Your own words even confirmed it.

    Now… after insulting me with your comment that the Red Army did NOT have 25k Tanks, and being firmly spanked for it… you turn Sophist Extraordinaire.

    Are you pure 100% asshole?

    Now you try to pivot to an argument that I never made… as if I did.

    What a total dickhead you are.

    Jew characteristics, all the way, by the way.

    Check your bloodline. 23 & Me will out you that way too.

    • Troll: vot tak, Korenchkin
  158. Truth3 says:
    @Korenchkin

    And the strategy of “digging in” would never have worked…

    We’ll never know.

    But we do know this… going for Moscow (Operation Typhoon) didn’t work.

    So… you obviously never studied logic or critical thinking.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
  159. Epigon says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Decades passed since then.
    Btw both Glantz and Krivosheev are brainlets.
    Protip: Try adding their Soviet AFV loss claims together and subtractring it from Soviet starting inventory and production figures, then compare it to inventory at the end of war.

    What do you mean you get a negative number while in reality Soviets were drowning in tanks at the war’s end?

    Yep, they are THAT foolish.

    • Replies: @L.K
  160. @Wavelength

    So far it is the only place you will hear the Russian propaganda print and video rag known as Russia Today exposed for what it is.
    Think there is only fake news in America? Think again comrade.
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/aivGGQlHSon3/

  161. Saker,

    Should the veracity of “200 years together” be questioned?

    A believer

  162. L.K says:
    @Wavelength

    I know I’m dealing with a know-nothing bullshitter when the best you can do is name some youtuber nonsense to make your case, which tells me you NEVER studied the issue in any depth and never read the literature.

    So they often stated myths about the USSR. Only after the collapse of the USSR, did the Soviet records became public, and are now offering a counter narrative to the “official” German-influenced narrative

    The above is another dead giveaway that you have ZERO idea what you are talking about.

    The official “history” about the German-Soviet conflict has always been and largely continues to be the propaganda version that the peace-loving Soviet Union was suddenly and treacherously attacked by a Hitler in search for an Empire in the East.

    The partial opening of Soviet archival materials, closed again by the Russian government, allowed many Russian ( as well as some Germans)historians to reach far different conclusions about the true nature of the conflict.
    This is precisely the reason why the Russian government closed the archives and passed legislation punishing dissenting historians. So perhaps the Saker should spare us all the BS about how free Russians are to explore inconvenient truths.
    This extensive body of work in Russian and German has been largely ignored in the West and most of it has never been translated into English, greatly limiting its reach.

    In the 2018 book ‘Law and Memory: Towards Legal Governance of History’, chapter 14( Defending Stalinism by Means of Criminal Law ), Russian historian Nikolay Koposov writes:

    On 5 May 2014, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin signed a law that introduced criminal liability for ‘infringements on historical memory with regard to the events of the Second World War’. That law added the following article to the Penal Code of the Russian Federation:
    Article 354.1 Rehabilitation of Nazism
    The denial of facts established by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the trial and punishment of major war criminals of European countries of the Axis, the approval of crimes established by the above-mentioned Judgment, as well as dissemination of knowingly false information on the activities of the USSR during the Second World War, committed publicly, are punishable by a fine of up to three hundred thousand roubles… or by deprivation of liberty for up to 3 years.”
    The law also increases the punishment to up to 5 years of imprisonment if ‘the same deeds[have been] committed with the use of one’s official position or through the mass media, as well as with an artificial fabrication of prosecution evidence
    ‘.
    This law is commonly known as the Yarovaya Act, since Irina Yarovaya, a State Duma deputy from ‘United Russia’, the party in power, …

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

    • Thanks: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Wavelength
  163. L.K says:
    @Epigon

    Epigon, you are so typical of the Team Russia shills and propagandists, pushing propaganda and disinfo on the Internet, and it shows…

    Here is what armor specialist and military historian, Steven Zaloga, writes about the situation and the “obsolete” Soviet tanks at the beginning of Barbarossa:

    … Many histories of Operation Barbarossa deprecate the Soviet tanks as old and obsolete, other than the new T-34 medium and KV heavy tanks. This was not the case, and the BT-7 was clearly better than the majority of German tanks such as the PzKpfw I, PzKpfw II and PzKpfw 35(t). On the other hand, the BT-7 was inferior to German medium tanks such as the PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV. …

    The two tank types that are the focus of this work are the German PzKpfw 38(t) and the Soviet BT-7. Both types were comparable in technical terms with similar levels of armour and firepower, making them a reasonably close technical match. …

    However, out of the 3,400 German tanks & assault guns available for Barbarossa, only around 1,400 were PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV.
    Consider that just the first strategic echelon of the Red Army had close to 1,000 T-34s and more than 500 KVs when the campaign started.
    Zaloga again:

    The largest tank battles in history took place as part of Operation Barbarossa during June–August 1941 in the western border region of the Soviet Union, with more than 13,000 Soviet tanks pitted against 3,400 German tanks. In spite of the Red Army’s enormous quantitative advantage, its tank units were smashed in a series of violent confrontations.
    Nearly 12,000 Soviet tanks were lost in less than three weeks of combat; German tank losses were about 400. …

    • Agree: John Regan
    • Replies: @Epigon
    , @Korenchkin
  164. L.K says:
    @Adûnâi

    You are another know-nothing relying on this youtuber tik & spreading nonsense.

    The German and allied forces had a advantage of 1.3:1 in June 1941. And by the population total, Germany and her allies did not lag that far behind

    The Germans did not have any numerical superiority in June 1941 and it didn’t take that long for them to find themselves in numerical inferiority, despite the gigantic losses they inflicted on the Soviet forces, which is telling about who really was preparing for total war and which side had a larger population base, even more so since Germany was not facing only the Soviets.

    Between the Baltic und Black Seas, the Wehrmacht possessed 148 divisions of all types, included rear security units and HQ reserves.
    The initial strike force though, was made up of only 120 div. 3.580 tanks and assault guns, less than 2.100 operational aircraft.

    Facing them, in the Soviet Western military districts, the 1º strategic echelon had 170 divisions plus brigades, increasingly supported by the deploying 2º strategic echelon with 80 divisions.
    They had 15.000 tanks, 34.700 artillery pieces and some 9.000 operational aircraft.
    Given that the German units were larger and that not all of the Soviet units had been fully manned when Barbarossa began, the Germans initially had a parity in manpower and numerical inferiority in all other major items.

    Source: Various, see Die Militärstrategie Deutschlands 1940-45: Führungsentschlüsse, Hintergründe, Alternativen by Heinz Magenheimer, 2002.

    The economics of World War II – Six great powers in international comparison
    edited by Mark Harrison

    How important were these economic factors in deciding who won the war, and who lost? In answering this question it has always made sense to distinguish two periods of the conflict.
    In the first period, economic considerations were less important than purely military factors. This was the phase of greatest success for the powers of the Axis, and it lasted roughly until the end of 1941 or into 1942 (the exact turning point differed by a few months among the different regional theatres). In this first period, the advantages of strategy and fighting power enabled Germany and Japan to inflict overwhelming defeats upon an economically superior combination of powers. The factors of strategic deception and surprise, speed of movement, skill in the concentration of forces and selection of objectives, martial tradition, and esprit de corps were all on their side.

    In the second period of the war, which began in 1942, economic fundamentals reasserted themselves. The early advantages of the Axis were dissipated in a transition period of stalemate. A war of attrition developed in which the opposing forces ground each other down, with rising force levels and rising losses. Superior military qualities came to count for less than superior GDP and population numbers. The greater Allied capacity for taking risks, absorbing the cost of mistakes, replacing losses, and accumulating overwhelming quantitative superiority now turned the balance against the Axis. Ultimately, economics determined the outcome.3

    • Replies: @Epigon
  165. Epigon says:
    @L.K

    You’re an idiot for assuming I’ve never read Zaloga.

    You’re an imbecile for presenting Zaloga, who has never accessed Soviet archives and primary sources, as God-given.

    Quick exercise for you and Zaloga: these 12 000 “lost Soviet tanks” were crewed by how many tankers and were part of which formations? How many casualties did Soviet tankers suffer?

    Another quick exercise: how many Soviet tanks, of those “lost”, were destroyed in combat by Germans?

    The fact that Zaloga presents Barbarossa as a series of tank vs tank battles which saw destruction of 12 000 Soviet tanks is telling.
    Newsflash – German tanks accounted for a small proportion of Soviet tank losses in Barbarossa. Mechanical breakdown due to lack of spares, abandonment due to lack of fuel and ammunition (all due to encirclements, chaos, confusion and inadequate logistics) followed by ATGs were the main cause of losses. Mechanized corps suffered the most when trying counterattacks and breakthroughs – attrition during movement followed by running into German PaKs and Panzerjägers.
    “Losing” broken, untracked, obsolescent, waiting-for-maintenance and otherwise non-combat deployed tanks sitting in depots and bases that were overun by Axis – I guess it makes you Wehraboos feel warm.

    Just like doing actual analysis and focusing on important aspects of war (logistics, artillery concentration and ammo expenditure) makes your head hurt.

    BT-7 and TNHP did not have similar performance and characteristics. Ridiculous.

    I really despise this whole pop history and war nerd culture – all consequence of gaming industry and retarded Wehraboos.

    Now comes the part where I ask you to name TOP 10 incorrect and nonsensical claims and statements from Zaloga’s books.
    I look forward to the discussion.

    PS: 400 German AFV losses in Barbarossa claim you quoted is actually not near the top. There are much worse idiocies published.

  166. Epigon says:

    “Germans lost 400 tanks” This statement immediately caught my eye – no doubt expert Zaloga must have serious sources backing this claim,
    right?

    As it turns out – no, he doesn’t.

    Army Group Centre alone had 641 Total Write Offs until September – that is – the only loss category Germans counted.
    Adding 131 and 174 losses by North and South Panzergruppen – well, what do you know? Expert Zaloga is dead wrong.
    Those are burned up, ammoracked, disintegrated (find pictures of Pz III or Pz IV hit by 122 mm and 152 mm HE shells) tanks that no amount of depot and factory repair work could make combat ready.

    Germans being on the strategic offensive could claim the battlefield afterward – so every Soviet tank was a total loss, while only total write offs were German losses.

    Guess how this went once Soviets were on the offensive and German Big Cats were all but unsalvageable due to a combination of weight, lack of recovery vehicles, hostile skies and rapid pace of Soviet advances. Combined together, all these facts contributed to the fact that German K:D tank ratio dropped once Big Cats were introduced.
    Correlation, but not causality.

    And here we have our expert Zaloga claiming that all 4 German Panzergruppen had 400 losses between them.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Replies: @L.K
  167. Epigon says:
    @L.K

    Wow, you’re an even worse idiot than I imagined.
    You unironically claim that concentrated, fully manned and equipped invading German divisions didn’t have local numerical superiority across the frontline?

    They were facing Soviet divisions in peace time configuration, not fully manned, personnel on leave, deployed in a dispersed, echeloned pattern in depth. Not at all concentrated.

    Again, you quote incorrect and bogus numbers at the same time.
    A tank or a plane without a crew or not fit for combat service is not an asset. A mortar or gun storaged and not issued with ammo, deployed in a firing position is not an asset.

    Insisting on these empty numbers and comparing Soviet division and German division count (amateur hour, those are vastly different sized formations within differing OOBs) just shows how disingenuous and ignorant you are.

    But please, do explain how Germans advanced boldly not due to force concentration (Schwerpunkt) and opposition unpreparedness, 3+:1 superiority on the offensive, but instead due to Teutonic spirit and Kruppstahl superiority over Asiatic and Mongoloid Soviets.

    This would be the point where I introduce comparison of electric energy generation, coal, iron ore, steel, bauxite, aluminum, sulphuric and nitric acid production for USSR and Reich, and Reich+Ostfront allies.

    Then do the same for population of USSR minus occupied areas vs Reich.

    If you weren’t a degenerate Wehraboo Internet “expert” and c/p aficionado, you would have never brought this subject up.

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @vot tak
  168. @Peter Grafström

    Certainly, Stalin had to arrange to be attacked first, for the same reasons that FDR had to induce Japan to attack Pearl Harbor (even though the US was already fighting Japan covertly in Burma with the “flying tigers” who had German Luftwaffe shark’s teeth painted on their planes.) Even once attacked, the Red Army was not too enthusiastic to defend Stalin, and had to be encouraged with machine gunners at their backs to shoot anyone who retreated. That is why Stalin ignored all warnings of the impending attack. He had to let the Germans go first or risk losing control of his own people. As it was, when the Germans did attack, thousands threw down their tools and cheered. And joined the Germans.

  169. @AnonFromTN

    Plenty of people are completely wrong about realities they experienced first hand.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  170. @anon

    You two make a lovely couple.

  171. @Sean

    If you secretly assassinated Stalin and did not want to be discovered, you would try to make people think that he died from heavy drinking, wouldn’t you? Well, at a meeting with Germans before the war, heavy drinking was being encouraged. Stalin himself was drinking heavily from his carafe of vodka. A suspicious German officer deliberately poured himself some vodka from Stalin’s carafe and instead of vodka tasted water. Stalin smiled. Those heavy drinking parties were to get the others drunk and then observe them. But you know that.

  172. @ploni almoni

    True enough. One of the German writers (don’t remember which, I think it was Max Frisch, so actually a Swiss writer writing in German) expressed it best: “a person has experienced something and is now looking for his story”.

  173. vot tak says:
    @Epigon

    Been enjoying reading your demolitions of the boy scouts here. 😀

    Nice work.

  174. vot tak says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    La roach, LOL.

    At thesaker.is there is a trumpette psywar sales critter calling itself bro93 who posts a lot of la roach rubbish. Apparently la roach is a likudite approved reference. 😀

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  175. @Truth3

    We’ll never know

    We do know, since the Soviet Union destroyed them (at heavy losses, true) even when the Germans lucked out massively with total element of surprise in 1941
    The USSR lost it’s industrial core, Kiev, Minsk, Stalingrad, Donetsk, Sevastopol and so many other cities, yet the Germans still failed to cause they breakdown of the Soviet Government like they hoped (basing it on their experience in WW1 when the Tsarist Government faltered)
    Digging in would just give Soviets time to produce, produce and produce until the Germans eventually drowned

    • Replies: @Truth3
    , @Seraphim
  176. @L.K

    typical of the Team Russia shills and propagandists, pushing propaganda and disinfo on the Internet

    Did I step into 4Chan instead of Unz by mistake?
    Read the posts of the people you’re replying to before organizing them in your fantasy strawmen categories

  177. @ploni almoni

    thousands threw down their tools and cheered

    Thousands (!)
    This was a war of millions
    Had the Germans not acted like violent subhumans towards the Slavic population they probably could’ve created three new army groups out of the “liberated” peoples
    It would’ve been the easiest thing, re-opening churches, bringing back white emigres, etc.
    Oh well

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  178. The main conclusions I drew from Suvoros are summarised in the following paragraphs from his book:

    For Stalin, German Nazism was an instrument which would break a path for the revolution through the solid ice – an icebreaker. German Nazism could begin the war and the war would lead to revolution. Let the icebreaker break Europe! Hitler could do what it did not suit Stalin to do. Stalin stated in 1927 that the second imperialist war was quite unavoidable, just as unavoidable, in fact, as the entry of the Soviet Union into that war. However, he did not want to take part in it himself from the first day. ‘We shall move, but we shall be the last to move, in order to throw our weight on to the scales and tip the balance.

    From 1927 onwards, Stalin made every effort to support the Nazis who were then striving for power, although he did not of course do so publicly. After 1933, Stalin would do everything possible to push the Nazis towards war. When they entered the war, Stalin
    would order communists living in democratic countries temporarily to become pacifists, to demoralize the armed forces of the Western countries, to open the way for the Nazis and to capitulate to them with demands that the ‘imperialist war’ should be stopped, while at the same time undermining the war effort of their own countries and governments.

    Considering the West may have had the same intention to use the Nazis against the Soviet Union, how else should have Stalin reacted?

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @S
  179. @ploni almoni

    Need I remind you that Stalin (who I believe was partly trained in London in his younger years, like London has been housing countless islamic terrorists since then rendering London the Londonistan title) inherited the mess from the british aristocrats who caused the revolution and who aided the reds to defeat the white armies.

    Now what was anybody in the leadership to do?

    Dump communism?

    Britains proxies, you know who, would hardly have allowed any leader in the USSR to do that.
    And many sincere russian socialists wouldnt have allowed it either.

    Stalin barely managed to outmanoever the old guard and then the Trotskists.

    It would have been impossible to top it off by completely changing to some kind of more traditional regime.

    Like you imply communism, nurtured and imposed by the british aristocracy, wasnt much loved.

    And the background with all the previously invading armies and the ravaging of the land and poverty contributed just as much as the hardhanded leadership.

    Further the method of shooting deserters wasnt atypical under war conditions.
    What do you think the americans did during their civil war?

    Stalins troops for that purpose shot about tenthousand, while the Ussr lost 27 million people in all, so those tenthousand probably saved tens of millions or more. And saved the slavs from being pushed beyond the Ural.

  180. @L.K

    Just calling it “bullshit” because you don’t like what you’re hearing doesn’t make it so. The vast majority of the German-influenced version of the war comes from Franz Halder specifically, and his “mad man Hitler!” theory, along with these: “it was the winter!”, “there were too many of them we were simply outnumbered!”. All of these claims have been debunked.

    It was necessary for the Germans to portray themselves as the good guys to the western allies to sell themselves, and to portray the Soviets as the epitome of evil to make the Germans seem less guilty, often by exaggerating or just lying and making up crimes the Soviets have committed. To do that, they tried to distance themselves from Hitler, make it seem as if everything is solely his fault (“mad man Hitler!”), that the supposedly “professional” German army, who were still using horses for their transport by the way, didn’t commit any crimes in eastern Europe, or that all the German strategic failures are simply the result of mad man Hitler, “being outnumbered!” and “snow!”, and not the incompetence of the German generals.

    But you are right to say that for most of the time, Hollywood was portraying the war not positive to the Germans.. why would they? But they have, and still are portraying the war from an AMERICAN/WESTERN point of view! They are under the impression that WW2 was this one big anti-Semitic operation, stopped only by the Americans and the Brits.. which is absurd. They hardly ever mention the role USSR played, which had the biggest role in stopping the Nazis, or what was happening in eastern Europe, Lebensraum, attempted eradication and enslavement of the Slavic peoples, etc.

    While the notes and memoirs of captured Germans, like Halder, served as a source for many history books, documentary shows, etc. because the Germans got the story out first. And for a long time it couldn’t be challenged/debunked. So my original argument that the USSR couldn’t get the word out, and the official narrative remained heavily influenced by the Germans (combined with Hollywood Western narrative), still stands.

    The Russian archives have been open since the 90s, if one wants to know the truth, one will study both sides of the narrative, and decide for himself.

    And as for your:

    closed again by the Russian government

    statement.. it’s untrue:

    https://www.rt.com/news/478610-russia-fight-history-distortion-putin/

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    , @L.K
  181. @vot tak

    Worship on, my little Putin puppet..

    • Replies: @vot tak
  182. @Korenchkin

    Yep those WWII Bolsheviks were so wonderful, many of them joined the German army in their fight against Stalin.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
  183. Special Report: Vladimir’s Venezuela – Leveraging loans to Caracas, Moscow snaps up oil assets
    CARACAS/HOUSTON (Reuters) – Venezuela’s unraveling socialist government is increasingly turning to ally Russia for the cash and credit it needs to survive – and offering prized state-owned oil assets in return, sources familiar with the negotiations told Reuters.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-russia-oil-specialreport-idUSKBN1AR14U

    Tell me again how Putin is such a wonderful guy and not at all like those filthy American capitalist.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  184. @Johnny Walker Read

    Putin is saving Syria from the terrorists created by the ZUS and Israel and ZBritain, and the worst terrorists wear suits in Tel Aviv and NYC and London, and you mock the man who is standing in the way of the NWO?

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  185. S says:
    @Commentator Mike

    When they entered the war, Stalin would order communists living in democratic countries temporarily to become pacifists, to demoralize the armed forces of the Western countries, to open the way for the Nazis and to capitulate to them with demands that the ‘imperialist war’ should be stopped, while at the same time undermining the war effort of their own countries and governments.

    True, both the Capitalist US/UK and the Communist Soviet Union were attempting to use National Socialist Germany as a deadly pawn with which to bludgeon the other with.

    Below is a pic of the April 19, 1940 ‘peace strike’ at the University of California at Berkeley. The student pictured is an ROTC officer and the button he is wearing says ‘the Yanks are not coming’.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Peace_Mobilization

  186. Adûnâi says:
    @Wavelength

    > “The video you referenced is not Russian, but Ukrainian. They speak Ukrainian there, and it is written in Ukrainian. But I guess, you not being able to speak Russian, don’t know the difference huh.”

    Little Russian is a dialect of Russian. You should have known that. Unless we are being here politically correct to my irrelevant pygmy nation of pseudohistorians and witches.

    https://old.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/f65rwb/why_do_so_many_educated_ukrainians_believe_in/

    > “didn’t commit any crimes in eastern Europe”

    Do you consider gassing Jews a crime?

    > “Hollywood was portraying the war not positive to the Germans.. why would they?”

    Because Germans and Americans are of the same racial stock and have no grudges against each other?

    > “But they have, and still are portraying the war from an AMERICAN/WESTERN point of view! They are under the impression that WW2 was this one big anti-Semitic operation, stopped only by the Americans and the Brits.. which is absurd.”

    True, Americans view wars not as international fights, but as some weird anarchist struggle for absolute good. Americans have no notion of being a country (as they live on an island). Their propaganda never concerns itself with states, only individuals. Compare Batman to the DPRK propaganda. Batman is one superhuman policeman fighting robbers in a big city, whereas Koreans are a collective of factory workers, farmers, intelligentsia and soldiers battling foreign invaders shoulder to shoulder.

    https://www.koreareaders.com/2020/01/dprk-posters-headon-breakthrough.html

    > “They hardly ever mention the role USSR played, which had the biggest role in stopping the Nazis, or what was happening in eastern Europe, Lebensraum, attempted eradication and enslavement of the Slavic peoples, etc.”

    What’s so bad about civilizing Slavdom? Wouldn’t you take it as a price for exterminating Jewry, Christianity, and saving the Nordic race?

    Although I will be the first to admit the German foolishness for not preparing for total war before February 1943, for not recognizing the Ukraine in Lemberg and Kiev, and for preferring Christtard Melnykians to Banderians.

  187. @Desert Fox

    You are being played my friend. It’s time to take a reality pill.
    ROTHSCHILD’S MAFIA THE NEW WORLD ORDER & THE RING THAT BINDS THEM ALL
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/YxzUyJ5jF2YQ/

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  188. @Johnny Walker Read

    Russia is returning to Christianity and Putin is a Christian and Russia is the only nation standing in the way of the zionist greater Israel agenda and the NWO and this was predicted by Edgar Cayce decades ago,

    If not for Russia , Syria would have been lost, God bless Putin and God bless Russia.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  189. L.K says:
    @Wavelength

    The Anglo-Americans have produced their propaganda “version” of the war and so have the Russians and I don’t care for either.

    That you seem to believe the Russian archives are open since the 90s is clear proof of how deluded you are.
    For the record, I will repeat; the archives were PARTIALLY opened after the fall of the Soviet Union and after the so called “new Russian historians”, not to mention foreign ones, started to find a lot of documents that were “harmful” to the established propaganda version of the so called ‘Great Patriotic War”, the archives have largely been closed again. They are closely supervised, and only Court historians that can be trusted to perpetuate the approved story have better access. This is the case, for instance, with the Israeli Gabriel Gorodetsky.

    The situation is so bad that full access to independent Russian historians to the archives in order to determine exactly how many irrecoverable military losses the Soviets suffered has been made nearly impossible by the Russian authorities.

    This is because even the issue of Soviet casualties have been heavily politicized in Russia, a situation Russia inherited from the Soviet Union and did not change.
    Soviet and now Russian court historians have greatly downplayed the Soviet military losses while grotesquely exaggerating those of their Axis opponents, the Germans in particular.

    Russian military historians Boris Kavalerchik and Lev Lopukhovsky, both former Soviet officers, with Lopukhovsky having taught at the Frunze Military Academy & later becoming a professor in the Russian Federation’s Academy of Military Sciences, discuss in their book “The Price of Victory – The Red Army’s Casualties in the Great Patriotic War”, the difficulties to access the archival data. For ex, they write:

    …Russia’s military history must be liberated from the false dogmas and stratification resulting from the ideological tenets of the Central Committee of the CPSU. …

    For this, it is necessary to create the appropriate conditions: first and foremost, to open the remaining closed archive collections, particularly the General Staff collection; to digitize all archive materials for better storage and ease of access for all; and to actively continue to publish collections of archive documents.
    Unfortunately, those participating in the creation and reanimation of myths about the Great Patriotic War are hindering in any way possible the publication of the most important documents about the war, including those that concern casualties.

    Now, right after the end of the war, with the beginning of the Cold War, Stalin would have had objective reasons not to disclose how badly the Red Army had been bled. But now, it seems it is basically just HUBRIS.

    If at present, the Russian authorities cannot be transparent even on something as the number of casualties the Red Army incurred, clearly they are not when it comes to what really matters, i.e, the responsibilities of the Stalin regime in making a war with Germany all but impossible to avoid, its expansionist policies, etc.

  190. Truth3 says:
    @Korenchkin

    Once again, you don’t have a clue about logic and critical thinking.

    We’ll never know.

    That is an absolutely truthful and factual statement.

    Why? You might ask…

    Because history works that way.

    How do you know the absolute outcomes of a turn in a historical fork in time?

    You don’t.

    So… again.

    You don’t know squat about logic or critical thinking.

    Save that for those intelligent enough to know what they do not know.

    Because those guys are problem solvers at the highest level.

    Did that for three decades plus. Was usually the third or fourth, but always the last, engineer hired.

    Now I know why I never bumped into you.

  191. L.K says:
    @Epigon

    Is that you, Martyanov?

    Your 3 idiotic posts attacking me are just pure sophistry, obfuscation, distortion, misrepresentation… plus the usual propaganda. Truth3 really is quite correct about you.

    It is quite funny how you erect a bunch of strawman arguments & then proceed to knock them down!

    You do the same for Zaloga. Zaloga was referring only to the border battles during a period of less than 3 weeks from 22 June and as for the several hysterical objections you raise to Zaloga, it clearly shows that you have either NOT read him or that you are simply misrepresenting his positions, since Zaloga covers many of the points you raise. For just one example:

    The critical difference between the German and Soviet experience was that after the border battles, the Wehrmacht controlled the battlefield, so PzKpfw 38(t) tanks that broke down remained in German hands and could be recovered and serviced. Soviet BT-7 tanks that broke down or ran out of fuel remained behind enemy lines and so were total losses.

    Soviet tank losses for the full year of 1941 were higher than 20.000.

    The real problem with the Soviet armored forces in the early period of the war, and for the Red Army in general, was not that their equipment was obsolete. It was the human dimension.
    As Russian military historian Boris Kavalerchik recognizes, technical indicators don’t cover these problems:

    doesn’t reflect such critical qualitative characteristics as staffing levels, the level of combat training, the qualifications of the command staff, combat experience, and so on; in these criteria, the Red Army at the beginning of the war was noticeably inferior to the Wehrmacht.

    The Soviets improved slowly but never really caught up, and this is why even late in the war, the Red Army would still suffer painful tactical defeats.

    Russian military historian B. Kavalerchik notes that even though the Soviets had already detected the many inadequacies of their armored formations in terms of the operational art, tactics, training, as well as the advantages the Germans had in those regards, as early as August 1941, the same problems continued to plague the Red Army at the end of 1942.

    The inadequacies of the use of Soviet tanks, which are criticized in the aforementioned NKO Order No. 325 from 16 October 1942, ‘On the combat use of tank and mechanized units and formations’, look particularly sad against this backdrop: ( a very long list of these problems is given )

    Kavalerchik then comments

    It is even more frustrating that such mistakes continued to occur even after the accumulation of a year’s experience of intensive combat operations, acquired at the cost of the heaviest losses. After all, many of these failings had been mentioned as early as 21 August 1941 in his order to the troops of the Reserve Front No. 005 ‘On the shortcomings of using tanks and measures to eliminate them’ from its commander, General of the Army G.K. Zhukov

    In fact, as I said, the problems were never entirely solved.
    The Drive on Moscow 1941 – Operation Taifun and Germany’s First Crisis of World War II
    By Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson

    ..At the end of September, the Soviet defenders did not suffer from numerical inferiority, but there were other weaknesses to consider, the most fundamental of which was the lower combat power of the Soviet units, which resulted from inferior tactics, training and junior leadership.13( This difference would persist until the end of the war. We have discussed it previously, for example in N. Zetterling and A. Frankson, Kursk 1943—A Statisical Analysis (London: Frank Cass, 2000). …

  192. @Johnny Walker Read

    Bolshevik awfulness is testimony to the Germans failure to get more anti-Bolshevik fighters on their side
    800 000 vs 12 million+

  193. @L.K

    You’re not even addressing what he wrote, Germans lost more then 400 tanks and the other part is after 1941
    Stop screeching and read the posts

    • Troll: L.K
  194. @L.K

    And one other point you failed to address
    How did the Soviets supposedly lose so many tanks from 41 to 45 yet end up with such a large surplus at the end of the war

  195. Epigon says:
    @L.K

    Zaloga was referring only to the border battles during a period of less than 3 weeks from 22 June

    So, in those 3 weeks German Panzers encountered 12 000 Soviet tanks in combat and destroyed them?
    Or Germans overall encountered 12 000 Soviet tanks in combat and destroyed them?

    Holy shit, the delusion! How I am supposed to debate this level of idiocy?

    Soviet tank losses for the full year of 1941 were higher than 20.000.

    Oh FFS I am done.

    • Replies: @Truth3
    , @L.K
  196. Seraphim says:
    @Korenchkin

    People overlook the speed and precision of the massive evacuation of industries ( 2,593 industrial enterprises) and population (10 million at least), livestock (2,393,300 heads) from June 1941 to December 1941, beyond the Urals. It is a proof that they were prepared to meet the attack (in fact it was the time honored tactic of ‘scorched earth’ that broke the neck of Napoleon). It is impossible to believe that an operation on such massive scale was an ‘ad-hoc’ one and was not planned well in advance. The Germans were deprived of the use of Soviet industries, rolling stock, food stocks. Hitler fell into the same trap as Napoleon, with the same consequences.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
  197. Adûnâi says:
    @Desert Fox

    > “Russia is returning to Christianity and Putin is a Christian and Russia is the only nation standing in the way of the zionist greater Israel agenda and the NWO and this was predicted by Edgar Cayce decades ago,”

    How can you pray to the god of the Jews and oppose Israel?

    > “If not for Russia , Syria would have been lost”

    And?.. Why would any White man care about some shithole MENA country?

    North Koreans care – because they have a clear agenda of hurting the US geopolitical interests for the sake of their own proud nation. But you? You don’t hate America. You have nothing against the American people. You don’t even hate the Jews. You merely oppose the state of Israel because of the brown Palestinian children (who the cucked Israelis don’t actually dare to exterminate like the vermin they are).

    Christian anti-semitism strikingly resembles the anti-White whining of the Negroes. Neither Christians nor Negroes have built a country of their own. Both Christians and Negroes will only stop their incessant scowling when they return to the inanimate matter from which they came.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
    , @Korenchkin
    , @anon
  198. Truth3 says:
    @Epigon

    Be Gone, Sophist. Take your Korn Muncher with you.

  199. Vaterland says:
    @melpol

    Breaking news: Not so subtle Jewish supremacist informs audience that we shall never know the historical reality of the Soviet Union. It all comes down to collections of wonderful, imaginative stories.

    Spot on! It’s complicated, Rabbi: Some things happen, but are not true. Others never happened, but are the unquestionable truth.

    • Replies: @melpol
  200. vot tak says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Hey, you’re the one searching for and then posting shirtless photos of Putin. 😀

    Why do you rightwingers obsess so much about male bodies? (rhetorical question, btw, since the answer is obvious…)

  201. Vaterland says:
    @utu

    No, you are dead wrong. For most of my life, I hated and feared Hitler and loved the United States more than any other country on earth. I believe it to be the shining city on a hill destined to carry the light of democracy and liberation into all corners of this world. The other part was crushing ‘German guilt’ which works quite effectively in psychologically breaking a nation.

    I am however, step by step, revising my views on a lot of things. And weak counter-“arguments” such as yours, certainly don’t help your case. You bring ad hominems and strawmen, but do not refute any of Suvorov’s or Hoffman’s actual proposals or data.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  202. Vaterland says:
    @redmudhooch

    Yes, clearly a man on the CIA pay roll would write 200 years together, publicly condemn and criticize “the godless materialism of the West”, speak out against the NATO war against Serbia and be black listed by the entire Anglosphere MSM after the Gulag Archipelago while actually appreciated by Putin. That is also why the Gulag became part of the Russian curriculum. Makes perfect sense!!

    What I do see is a lot of Team Russia, or rather Team Red fanboys freaking out that we aren’t buying their crap, after we have rejected Uncle Sam’s poison. Get used to it, Comrades.

    Back to Mr. S. in his own words:

    SPIEGEL: Thirteen years ago when you returned from exile, you were disappointed to see the new Russia. You turned down a prize proposed by Gorbachev, and you also refused to accept an award Yeltsin wanted to give you. Yet now you have accepted the State Prize which was awarded to you by Putin, the former head of the FSB intelligence agency, whose predecessor the KGB persecuted and denounced you so cruelly. How does this all fit together?

    Solzhenitsyn: The prize in 1990 was proposed not by Gorbachev, but by the Council of Ministers of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, then a part of the USSR. The prize was to be for “The Gulag Archipelago.” I declined the proposal, since I could not accept an award for a book written in the blood of millions.

    In 1998, it was the county’s low point, with people in misery; this was the year when I published the book “Russia in Collapse.” Yeltsin decreed I be honored the highest state order. I replied that I was unable to receive an award from a government that had led Russia into such dire straits.

    The current State Prize is awarded not by the president personally, but by a community of top experts. The Council on Science that nominated me for the award and the Council on Culture that supported the idea include some of the most highly respected people of the country, all of them authorities in their respective disciplines. The president, as head of state, awards the laureates on the national holiday. In accepting the award I expressed the hope that the bitter Russian experience, which I have been studying and describing all my life, will be for us a lesson that keeps us from new disastrous breakdowns.

    Vladimir Putin — yes, he was an officer of the intelligence services, but he was not a KGB investigator, nor was he the head of a camp in the gulag. As for service in foreign intelligence, that is not a negative in any country — sometimes it even draws praise. George Bush Sr. was not much criticized for being the ex-head of the CIA, for example.

    https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/spiegel-interview-with-alexander-solzhenitsyn-i-am-not-afraid-of-death-a-496211.html

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
    , @S
  203. Anon[423] • Disclaimer says:

    Wait — why does the Saker think that Krushchev was a bad leader, let alone the worst Russian leader ever, which seems insane? He exposed Stalin’s crimes and 1954-64 appear to have been a relatively peaceful and prosperous time for the USSR?

  204. @S

    Yes indeed, we are being lied to and the fact that the antithesis was fake is indeed becoming apparent.

    As for multiculturalism, that is such an obviously sterile and nonsensical concept that any thinking person with a modicum of intelligence ought to see right through it from the outset.

    The best remedy against credulity is still (and will probably remain so) a sound education, based on the Greek and Roman classics. That is precisely the reason why the educational system in the “West” has been demolished since the 1960s and at a more accelerated pace since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    • Replies: @S
  205. @Seraphim

    It is impossible to believe that an operation on such massive scale was an ‘ad-hoc’ one and was not planned well in advance

    It is perfectly believable when you read how they went about it
    Piles of factory parts lying in the grass with scavengers sent to find what was needed at the moment, train cars carrying factory parts and their contents and destination marked with chalk on the outside that got erased by the snow and rain so they had to do guesswork where it was intended, etc.

    This was very likely a worse case scenario plan that was never to even be used (kinda like Operation Unthinkable)
    I seriously doubt anyone in the high command expected to surrender Kiev or Sevastopol, although it’s possible those that did likely ended up in a gulag

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  206. @Adûnâi

    Neither Christians nor Negroes have built a country of their own

    Genesis of Slavic Eastern European countries is thoroughly Christian, right down to the alphabet which was created to convert them to Christianity
    Several American countries exist thanks to Christian missions aswell, although that influence is largely is lost today

  207. melpol says:
    @Vaterland

    Placing Jews as leaders of Soviet atrocities is false history. Jews by their innate Nature fear violence because it might be directed against them. Bolsheviks were supporting a free market economy by helping disband Czarist monopolies. Free markets is the dream of all Jews not equality of outcome. Jews support a Meritocracy not governments where the slow minded earns the same income as the smart and clever.

    • Troll: Lol just lol
  208. @Vaterland

    What I do see is a lot of Team Russia, or rather Team Red fanboys freaking out that we aren’t buying their crap, after we have rejected Uncle Sam’s poison. Get used to it, Comrades.
    Exactly..

    [MORE]

    • Disagree: Desert Fox
  209. S says:
    @Hans Vogel

    The best remedy against credulity is still (and will probably remain so) a sound education, based on the Greek and Roman classics.

    Sounds like a good plan, particularly if one is of Euro stock.

    The only thing I might add to it, as part of ‘a sound education’, is people need to start understanding, and then walking away, lock, stock, and barrel, from this manufactured and controlled Hegelian Dialectic that’s been at play since 1776 and 1789.

    Of course, it’s on the back of every other person’s mind that this whole Right vs Left, etc, dialectic might not be real, but we’ve all been conditioned (crimethink) to not think it, let alone speak it, which to do so are two truly revolutionary acts in today’s paradigm.

    People need to start thinking and speaking it though, and leave that burdensome dialectical ‘bad trip’ behind in the waste bin of history, where it should of been placed over two hundred years ago.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  210. S says:
    @Vaterland

    publicly condemn and criticize “the godless materialism of the West”

    I’ve read the transcript of Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard speech where he spoke about ‘a world split apart’ between Capitalism and Communism. I think he pretty quickly saw through the entire establishment ‘progressive’ Right/Left dialectic for the fraud it was.

    I recall how the US/UK corporate media were happy to cynically attempt to use him during the ‘Cold War’, after his defection to the West. Got to make the ‘fight against Communism’ at least look real

    I saw also upon his death how the BBC disgraced itself, by turning against him, and attempting to besmirch him when he of course then couldn’t respond.

    As imperfect as he may well have been, Solzhenitsyn truly cared about his people, the Russian people, which in so doing allowed him to display a certain real empathy towards others.

    He didn’t sell out.

    In the inverted world of Multi-Culturalism, that’s what they call ‘hate’.

    • Agree: John Regan
  211. Seraphim says:
    @Vaterland

    What you should revise is your view that the United States are the ‘city on the hill’ destined to carry democracy…, same-sex marriage, LGBTQ rights around the world, etc. The hill is obviously the ‘New Zion’ destined to rebuild Sodom, which resulted in 250 years of revolutions, wars, massacres, misery inflicted on the ‘unenlightened’.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
  212. Seraphim says:
    @Korenchkin

    You wouldn’t, on the other hand, expect such a massive operation not to have some shortcomings, mistakes and setbacks. It was for sure a worse case scenario. Sure, it did not plan every detail in advance, but I can’t think it was thought that it would never be used. That’s to pay tribute to the idea that Stalin did neglect defense only because he was prepared to invade Europe. In fact the Soviet leadership begun to devote considerable attention and resources (admittedly not enough) to the rapid development of a second major industrial complex in the eastern regions of the USSR at least in the late 30s. The fact that a Council for Evacuation under the Council of People’s Commissars was formed on the 24 June with large mandate suggests that the Soviet leadership switched immediately to the ‘worse case scenario’. Hitler understood better the importance of capturing the industries and resources, when he delayed the attack on Moscow.

  213. L.K says:
    @Epigon

    The figure of Soviet tank losses for the year of 1941, which is given as 20.500, derives from the research of the Russian military historian, Col Krivosheev & his team, p.252-253. The worst year for Soviet tank losses was actually 1943.

    Krivosheev and his team have done much research in the Russian archives and produced what is generally seen as a semi-official Russian account of Soviet losses in WW2.
    Their work is highly biased in that K and his team greatly downplay Soviet irrecoverable losses while ridiculously exaggerating those of the Germans and their allies
    Therefore Krivosheev is certainly not providing grist for my mill.

    Russian military historians B. Kavalerchik and L. Lopukhovsky state the following re the work of Krivosheev and his team:

    Thus, we discover a constant and clear attempt on the part of Krivosheev’s team to reduce the USSR armed forces’ irrecoverable losses so as not to exceed the number reported by the Central Committee of the CPSU: 11,444,100.

    The opposite trend can be seen in their determination of the enemy’s irrecoverable losses, above all those of the Red Army’s main adversary, the Wehrmacht. Here the authors of the statistical study indulged in increasing the irrecoverable losses of the German armed forces in any way they could.

    It becomes all too clear why you cut and ran, after throwing a tantrum and hiding behind your usual smokescreens… as always, you had egg on your face… so off with Martyanov’s “clone”, the clown ‘Epigon’.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    , @Korenchkin
  214. @S

    Actually, the “left-right” dichotomy has been a manifest fake since the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the and the collapse of “real existing socialism” between 1989 and 1991. From that moment, all European “social democratic” parties have adopted neoliberalism. Same in China, where a neoliberal capitalist economy was created under the guidance of a “Communist” party.

    Of course between 1776 and 1848 the Ancien Régime was killed and buried in the “West”, as part of a process that ended in 1917 in Russia.

    Once there was the notion of “noblesse oblige” which, although certainly not heeded by all of the nobility, did serve as a kind of internalized impediment to all kinds of abuse. During the Ancien Regime, nobles were educated in line with this adage. It taught them that power and privilege came at a price and that there was always a chance the populace would one day rise in rebellion if they felt cheated.

    Modern elites don’t even know that valuable principle and that is why we are in such a mess today. When you are truly rich and truly powerful, you can get way with anything. Maybe not just yet in China, which in turn might explain its recent successes, maybe not in Russia under Putin, but certainly the US, Western Europe and the rest of the US empire. On the contrary, it is there that one achieves success with the most abject deeds, witness for instance the trail of dead bodies ‘all “suicides”) behind the Clintons.

    • Replies: @S
  215. Epigon says:
    @L.K

    Boris Kavalerchik is neither Russian, nor historian, especially not a Russian historian.

    How do you manage to fail at such simple things?
    How retarded are you?

    I have already advised you to seek professional help.

    1. Krivosheev exaggerated Soviet AFV losses.

    2. If you don’t trust me, post the balance between tanks manufactured, received under LL on one, and losses claimed by Krivosheev on the other, then compare it to Soviet tank inventory at the end of the war.

    The simpleton Krivosheev literally takes each supposed end of the year total armor strength, adds a newly produced armor figure for that year, and arrives at his next year’s January 1 available figures. This is mind-boggingly stupid for obvious reasons, and wrong.

    Whenever I encounter delusional tards of your breed, I am prompted to insist on EXACT, PRECISE discussion of YEARLY PRODUCTION and YEARLY LOSSES, BY AFV TYPE.

    So, Wehraboo slime, lets do the Soviet AFV inventory balance sheet, year by year. Think you’re up to the task? Lets see which excuse, strawman, goalpost shifting and non sequitur will you to resort to this time.

    • LOL: L.K
    • Troll: Beefcake the Mighty
  216. S says:
    @Hans Vogel

    Good point about the demolition of the Berlin Wall, and as you allude, the corresponding ‘Fall of Communism’ between 1989-91, and the resulting rise of ‘neo-liberalism’.

    As with the example you provide, there have been plenty of other hints something was amiss. One would be the ‘untimely deaths’/murder of ‘true believers’, such as Patton, Forrestal, Trotsky, amongst likely others, who believed too strongly and fought too hard for the actual triumph of either Capitalism, (or Communism) over the other closely paralleling ideology, rather than their global convergance/synthesis as promoted by tptb.

    As for the utterly surreal Berlin Wall itself, and the just too pat symbolic (and otherwise) division of Europe between Capitalism and Communism, perfectly and ever so (too) neatly right down the middle of Europe, that should have been a strong hint in and of itself that this Hegelian Dialectic was not ‘spontaneous’ or naturally occurring.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
    , @Korenchkin
  217. @S

    Well, yes, but that division also meant that common folk, the workers and lower middle classes in Eastern Europe, had a very decent life, free education and free health care, and a secure life as pensioners. That is why the US through the CIA sponsored the social democratic parties in Europe, because they were the best defence against the spread of communism in the “West.” It meant that therefore workers and the lower middle classes in the “West” were also given decent conditions (the Welfare State).

    Once the Wall had fallen, there was no need to retain the facade and the social democrats betrayed their electorates. Hence the rise of “rightwing populism” in Europe since the 1990s.

    The right-left dichotomy is fake alright, but the elites still don’t realize they cannot be too selfish and need to engage in “Christian” charity and benevolence towards their fellow human beings

  218. @L.K

    Dude, how do they physically destroy 12000 tanks in 3 weeks??

  219. @S

    Trotsky, amongst likely others, who believed too strongly and fought too hard

    There is no proof that Stalin and his cohorts weren’t true believers, even in private they still talked about the proleteriat, world communism and other nonsense
    As for the fight. Trotsky managed to install Communism into one country, Stalin got it into about two dozen encompassing a good chunk of the global population and almost half of Eurasia
    His successors continued his work and the dominos kept falling
    Then they got old and senile and when the younger generation got the reins they decided it didn’t work
    Gorbachev was the first General Secretary who had never lived in a capitalist system, total indoctrination from birth failed to produce the Soviet man they had desired and so it all fell apart

    The Berlin wall seems surreal to you, but the further East you go the more retarded Communism got, you should try checking out Maoism and the Khmer Rouge

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  220. Begemot says:
    @Ron Unz

    I’ve been highly skeptical of this Suvorov business, but I decided that I would look at Suvorov’s writing directly to see if he can make a convincing case on his own. I located a PDF copy of Icebreaker that was published in 1990 by Hamish Hamilton Ltd (( https://archive.org/details/ViktorSuvorovIcebreakerWhoStartedWorldWarTwo/mode/2up )

    You state in your essay:

    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.

    So we will look at the facts Suvorov presents. I got to Chapter 3, Why Arms for the Communists? and encountered Suvorov’s discussion on the BT tanks.

    You yourself talk about this in your essay on Suvorov, so it is an important part of Suvorov’s case: the nature and purpose of the BT tanks. I will use this as a gauge for assessing if Suvorov should be trusted as a reliable source of information.

    In your essay you say:

    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.

    From Suvorov’s Icebreaker:

    The Mark BT is an aggressor tank. In all its characteristics, it is remarkably similar to the small but completely mobile cavalry warrior who emerged from the countless hordes of Ghenghis Khan … [who] destroyed his enemies … by swift manoeuvre in depth. Ghenghis Khan did not need slow, sluggish knights, but hordes of light, fast-moving troops, capable of covering vast distances, fording rivers and moving deep into the rear of enemy territory.

    Curiously, this notion is also in the concept behind the British cruiser tank:

    The cruiser tank (also called cavalry tank or fast tank) was a British concept of the interwar period for tanks designed as modernised armoured and mechanised cavalry … The cruiser tank concept was conceived by Gifford Le Quesne Martel, who preferred many small light tanks to swarm an opponent … [British] Armoured division theory emphasised the speed of cruiser tanks and independent action to protect flanks, attack the opponent’s flanks and rear, to counter-attack and conduct pursuit operations.

    When gaps had been forced through the opponent’s front by the infantry tanks, cruisers were to penetrate to the rear and attack lines of supply and communication centres in accordance with the theories of J.F.C. Fuller, Percy Hobart and B.H Liddell Hart.

    [The] Czechoslovak Army in 1930’s divided its tank[s] into three categories: light tanks – cavalry, light tanks – infantry and medium tanks. The cavalry category was analogical to the cruiser-tank concept. The cruiser-tank concept was also employed by the Soviet Union in the 1930s, as exemplified by the BT tank series (Russian: bystrokhodniy tank, [fast tank]).

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

    So what Suvorov seems to be implying as a unique and sinister Soviet idea of a light cavalry/deep penetration/exploitation tank was common in the period between WW1 and WW2. Thus, Suvorov’s conclusion:

    Mark BT tanks could only be used in an aggressive war, only in the rear of the enemy and only in a swift offensive operation, in which masses of tanks suddenly burst into enemy territory, bypassing his centres of resistance and racing into the depth of his heartland, where there were no enemy troops, but his towns, bridges, factories, aerodromes, ports, depots, command posts and communications centres were situated.

    This accusation of aggressive war intention could then be hung onto the British as well as any forward thinking armored war theorists of the period. The deep armor penetration that Suvorov is describing above is what became known as blitzkrieg, the ideal of armored war theorists.

    Is Suvorov unaware of this or is he ignoring inconvenient facts to enhance his case?

    Suvorov makes much of the capability of the BT tanks to shed their treads and use their road wheels as regular wheels but he claims that the BT’s wheels were only capable of being used on paved roads:

    The strikingly belligerent qualities of the Mark BT tank were also achieved by means of a unique system of tracks and suspension. On unmade [British for unpaved] roads, the Mark BT operated on … tracks, but on a good road, the tracks were discarded and it shot ahead on wheels, like a racing car. It is, however, well known that speed is not compatible with crosscountry performance. The choice is therefore between, on the one hand, a high-speed car which will go only on good roads, or on the other, a slow moving tractor, which will go anywhere … Thus, the Mark BT tanks were quite powerless on Soviet territory. When Hitler began Operation Barbarossa, practically all the Mark BT tanks were cast aside. It was almost impossible to use them off the roads, even with caterpillar tracks. They were never used on wheels … The Mark BT was created to operate on foreign territory only and … only on territory where there were good roads …

    Most of the Soviet Union’s roads were dirt at the time the BTs were active. So if wheeled vehicles couldn’t use these roads then very little vehicular transport could function in the Soviet Union. But we know, because there are numerous photos that show it, that not only tanks but trucks (both German and Soviet) could travel these dirt roads (more difficult in the rasputitsa periods, of course). So why would a BT not be able to use its wheels on a Russian dirt road, but a German or Russian truck or cart could?

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpbeyecandy.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F07%2F30%2Fbt-artillery-tank%2F&psig=AOvVaw2fXpVRWYns6h9yGJNWLJN9&ust=1583015227520000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCNCz7b2l9ecCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

    Above is a picture of a BT sans tracks in a field. Looks like a BT could move about on wheels without pavement under its wheels.

    Is Suvorov unaware of this or is he ignoring inconvenient facts to enhance his case?

    Given the above, therefore, Suvorov’s claim that the BT tank could only be used in central or southern Europe seems nonsensical.

    Now, Suvorov claims:

    When Hitler began Operation Barbarossa, practically all the Mark BT tanks were cast aside.

    Well there are lots of pictures of BT tanks being or having been used by the Red Army in 1941.

    According to an article on militaryfactory.com ( https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=347 ):

    With the BT-7’s role all but completed in the West, Soviet authorities rerouted the tank for use in the August 1945 Soviet invasion of Manchuria in operations against the Japanese Army along the Russian border …

    This would be the last recorded combat actions for all BT tanks …

    Thus it seems the BT tanks were not “cast aside” very quickly if they were still being used in 1945.

    So how does Suvorov stand to me so far? On this topic I think Suvorov has proven unconvincing in his treatment of the BT tanks, and even dishonest with the truth. This doesn’t disprove his larger thesis, but it suggests to me that he is to be approached with great caution and great skepticism.

    Onwards.

    • Replies: @Simpleguest
    , @Ron Unz
    , @FB
  221. Adûnâi says:
    @Korenchkin

    > “Gorbachev was the first General Secretary who had never lived in a capitalist system, total indoctrination from birth failed to produce the Soviet man they had desired and so it all fell apart”

    Well, that’s because Communism was built by the White man – everything built by White men turns to dust. Is the Capitalist West faring any better? At the precipice of oblivion currently.

    Why has the DPR of Korea then succeeded in producing a man faithful to his country? Why is Kim Jong Un upholding Juche? Because traitors are rarer in the Korean race, yet the fidelious are uncommon among the Aryans.

    So funny to see you discuss the matters of ideologies when all you have seen is European cucks. When you have shit fundamentals, no wonder everything turns to shit. It is deeply ingrained in the European psyche to pray to foreign gods and to despise our own blood.

  222. @Adûnâi

    We Slavs are not white, please do not associate us with Honkeys

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  223. @Begemot

    The Mark BT is an aggressor tank. In all its characteristics, it is remarkably similar to the small but completely mobile cavalry warrior who emerged from the countless hordes of Ghenghis Khan … [who] destroyed his enemies … by swift manoeuvre in depth. Ghenghis Khan did not need slow, sluggish knights, but hordes of light, fast-moving troops, capable of covering vast distances, fording rivers and moving deep into the rear of enemy territory.

    Yep. Totally convincing.
    No doubt, pesky Soviets were just about to invade Europe and conquer it all the way to Paris.

    No matter the issues of supplies and logistics required by a dreadnought Soviet army fighting a war, say, just 500 km from the Soviet border.

    No matter the total lack of any air-superiority on the Soviet side. This, on its own, would have made Soviet logistics impossible.

    No matter a plethora of “bellow the radar” issues, like difference between Soviet and European rail gauges etc.

    You know, things very relevant to 20th century warfare.

    But hey, what’s that compared to the ultimate proof: Ghengis Khan and his 14th century war strategy that Soviets planned ti implement.

    Comedy staff. This guy Suvorov must be laughing his pants off.

  224. Ron Unz says:
    @Begemot

    Your very long comment seems rather confused:

    (1) No one claims that the BT was a uniquely “sinister” weapon, merely that it was an obviously *offensive* tank, designed for armored thrusts on paved roads. Russia had no paved roads, while Germany and the rest of Western Europe did. The British and French had some numbers of light, high-speed tanks for the same reason, to be used in armored offensives.

    (2) After the Germans attacked, the BTs were far less effective on defense, but the Russians were absolutely desperate, so they obviously used them, along with everything else they had. They were mostly destroyed, along with all the other Soviet tanks, which were enormous in number.

    For more than a quarter-century the Suvorov Hypothesis has been hotly debated in military academic circles, but since the English-language MSM has refused to admit it existed, the debate has almost entirely been conducted in Russian and German.

    Upthread, L.K. brought to my attention a 2000 book by American Prof. Albert Weeks on the topic, which I ordered a few days ago, and have now read. Although the book is rather short, he reviews some of the key Russian academic articles from the late 1990s, and generally comes down in favor of the Suvorov Hypothesis.

    The Hoffman book, by a leading German military scholar, takes much the same position in far greater detail. So far, I have seen absolutely no effective refutation of any of the vast number of arguments advanced, and I’d say it is far more likely than not that the Suvorov Hypothesis is essentially correct.

    • Agree: Lol just lol, John Regan
    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @L.K
  225. FB says: • Website
    @Sean

    Wow…you are probably the most seriously ill mental patient on this website…

  226. FB says: • Website
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Stupid Americans, buying into the lie Putin is a nationalist who loves all people…

    I guess you’d rather have Pete Buttplug…?

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  227. FB says: • Website
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Russia is not out friend, just as Israel is not our friend. They are both doing all they can to see America destroyed.

    America is destroying itself…and guess what, brainwashed sheeple like you are playing the lead part…

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  228. “No one claims that the BT was a uniquely “sinister” weapon, merely that it was an obviously *offensive* tank, designed for armored thrusts on paved roads. Russia had no paved roads, while Germany and the rest of Western Europe did. The British and French had some numbers of light, high-speed tanks for the same reason, to be used in armored offensives.”

    Every weapon under the sun can be used for both offense and defense.
    An army can be used for both offensive and defensive operations.
    The real question is: has an army been used in an act of aggression or not.

    So, hypothesizing about the posture of Soviet Armies in June of 1941 within the Soviet borders is meaningless and an exercise in futility.

    I would concentrate my search for answers in previous “track records” of both parties.
    In 1939 – 1941 Nazi Germany:
    – annexed Czechoslovakia
    – attacked and conquered Poland;
    – attacked and conquered France;
    – attacked and conquered Greece and Yugoslavia;
    – was at war with Great Britain;

    In 1941, Soviet Union, having previously annexed parts of Poland and the Baltics, was not at war with anyone.

    In June of 1941, at it’s western frontiers, the Soviet Union was facing the German Wehrmacht, experienced, confident and in its prime, as well as the combined armies of German allies, Romania and Hungary. Attacking the Wehrmacht under these circumstances would have been plain suicide.

    So no, I definitely don’t find any offensive intent in positioning 3 million or so Soviet solders and 12000 or so tanks towards the western border.

    Furthermore, in June of 1941, Nazi Germany was faced with an existential strategic dilemma: what to do next?

    While Soviet Union had all the time in the world, Nazi Germany had to act quickly: in 2 or 3 years time Great Britain would recuperate and the Soviet Union would grow much stronger.
    And the two could possibly align against Germany.

    So, Nazi Germany decided not to wait and to strike first and to the East.
    The rest is, as they say, history.

    • Troll: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @FB
  229. FB says: • Website
    @Begemot

    Thanks Begemot…

    I see that the serious ‘historian’ Ron Unz was able to answer your very factual and insightful discussion about light tanks with a wet noodle…LOL

    A very interesting exchange…it seems Mr Unz is quite ‘knowledgable’ about tanks and even roads…

    • Troll: L.K
  230. FB says: • Website
    @Simpleguest

    Excellent comment…but fear not, the simple method of deductive reasoning is something that our eminent host here on this site is still learning…LOL

  231. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    While it is known that the German leadership underestimated Soviet war capacities, it is less known that Stalin overestimated Soviet military capabilities and underestimated those of the Germans.

    The newspaper Pravda, an organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, stated as much in May, 1991:

    Unrealistic [Soviet] plans of an offensive nature were drawn up before the war as a result of an overestimation of our own capabilities and an underestimation of the enemy’s. In accordance with these plans we began deploying our forces on the western frontier. But the enemy beat us to it.

    On May 5, 1941, Stalin delivered a speech at a ceremonial banquet in the Kremlin to graduates of the Frunze Military Academy, which underscores the points made in the 1991 Pravda article:

    “Our war plan is ready … We can begin the war with Germany within the next two months … There is a peace treaty with Germany, but this is only a deception, or rather a curtain, behind which we can openly work …

    “The peaceful policy secured peace for our country … Now, however, with our reorganized army, which is technologically well prepared for modern warfare, now that we are strong, we must now go from defense to attack.

    “In fully defending our country, we are obliged to act offensively. We most move from defense to a military policy of offensive action. We must reorganize our propaganda, agitation, and our press in an offensive spirit. The Red Army is a modern army, and a modern army is an offensive army.

    “The motto of a peaceful policy of the Soviet government is now out of date, and has been overtaken by events … A new era in the development of the Soviet state has begun, the era of the expansion of its borders, not, as before, through a peaceful policy, but rather by force of arms. Our country has available all the necessary conditions for this.

    “The successes of the German army are due to the fact that it has not encountered an equally strong opponent. Some Soviet commanders have falsely overestimated the successes of the German army …

    “Therefore, I propose a toast to the new era that has dawned in the development of our socialist fatherland. Long live the active offensive policy of the Soviet state!”

    Of course there was NOTHING peaceful about Soviet policy, as underscored by their invasion of Poland, grabbing more than half of that country, invasion of Finland, annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well as Bessarabia and Bukovina from Romania…

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  232. FB says: • Website
    @L.K

    This is what happens when amateurs decide to delve into professional matters of military planning…

    Every scenario is considered…when to go on the offense and when to concentrate on defense…

  233. a.hall says:

    The Saker is a Moron; Kruschev and JFK stopped the US Joint Chiefs from launching World War 3 over the Cuba Missile Crisis. They both had seen Heavy Combat Casualties in Stalingrad and the American War in the Pacific against the Japanese. Curtis LeMay talked about 40 Million acceptable American Deaths in a Nuclear Exchange with Russia.

  234. but we all understand that the Nobel Committee is just a front for the AngloZionist PR machine.

    This true only if by “we all” you are speaking of the willfully obtuse. People like you Saker.

  235. @L.K

    Of course there was NOTHING peaceful about Soviet policy, as underscored by their invasion of Poland, grabbing more than half of that country, invasion of Finland, annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well as Bessarabia and Bukovina from Romania…

    In my previous post I missed to include in Soviet’s “score” the war with Finland and annexation of Bess./Bukovina.
    At the same time I also missed to include in Germany’s score the occupation of Belgium, Denmark, Holland and Norway.

    Now, I will argue that all actions taken by the Soviet Union were defensive in nature – they all resulted in providing some additional buffer zones against any potential invader:
    – Finnish war resulted in expanding the security zone around the city of Leningrad. It even ended with a formal piece treaty between SU and Finland, which I think the latter did not violate even when Germans were at the doorsteps of Leningrad.
    – The annexed parts of Poland, Baltics and Bessar./Buk. provided the same thing but in other strategic directions. All were annexed without a fight.

    This is very different then a full blown German invasion and occupation of total of 9 countries.
    I will not argue that Soviet Union’s actions were peaceful, but I will argue that they were defensive in nature.

    Re. Stalin’s speech, I doubt that any statesman would utter such words in public, even at (presumably closed?) ceremony for military cadets.

    • Replies: @Bukowski
  236. @Truth3

    The German mistake was Hitler directing Guderian’s Panzer Army to the south to assist Army Group South. The Germans had the ability to completely invest Moscow in August, and had they done that, Stalin would have been in their arms as he had already stated that he would not leave Moscow. It would also have cut communications across the Soviet Union as Moscow was, and still is, the communications hub of the empire. That also would have made mobilization of more troops far more difficult. By the time the rasputitsa rolled around, Germany had lost the war.

    • Replies: @FB
    , @Korenchkin
    , @Epigon
    , @Truth3
  237. Saker despises Suvarov because Suvarov tells the truth, which Saker has a serious problem with.

  238. Truth3 says:
    @L.K

    Truth. Hated by Jews and Morons everywhere.

    Truth. It’s a wonderful thing.

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  239. @Truth3

    Neocon truth is a bullet in somebody else’s head.

    • Replies: @Truth3
  240. @Korenchkin

    Yes, Slavs are the niggers of Europe, no doubt.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
  241. FB says: • Website
    @Quartermaster

    The Germans had the ability to completely invest Moscow in August, and had they done that, Stalin would have been in their arms…

    Hey Fartstain…your ‘woulda coulda shoulda’ analysis is most entertaining…

    Here’s a more interesting ‘what if’ scenario…

    If ‘Quartermaster’ had been born with a functional brain, he would not be the object of guffaws and ridicule in public fora such as this…LOL

  242. @L.K

    Of course there was NOTHING peaceful about Soviet policy

    Nothing peaceful about German policy either
    As underscored by their invasion of Poland, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, etc.
    None of these were Communist countries, in fact Yugoslavia was a massive White Emigre haven (Belgrade was 1/6th Russian at one point), so the crusade against Bolshevism meme is really tiresome

    And further more, Japanese, British and Italian policy wasn’t all that peaceful either, all of them were fighting wars and invading countries in the run up to 1939, trying to portray the Soviets as somehow special in this sense is disingenuous

    Ofcourse all of their propaganda portrayed them as peaceful, Soviets were building the Socialist paradise, the Japanese were liberating Asia from the white devils and creating the co-prosperity sphere the Italians and British were civilizing the Arabs and Africans etc.
    In reality they were committing various degrees mass murder, but that’s part and parcel of building strong empires
    Yet for some reason clowns here fall for the “Germans were just fighting a crusade against Mongol Bolshevism” propaganda talking points, Germans were acting under real-politik just like everyone else
    Hitler was willing to cooperate with Stalin until it stopped being useful just like Churchill, except Churchill had the ultimate peacemaker on his side (well the Americans did anyway) the Atom bomb

  243. @Quartermaster

    Their supply lines were already stretched paper thin by the time they reached Moscow, so much so that the winter clothing wasn’t arriving to the frontline on time, how were they supposed to support Guderian?
    If they started an offensive with too small of a force and allowed it to be destroyed then they’d be back to square one by the time more troops arrived, and if they waited for the supply lines to catch up then the Soviets would either have time to dig or would sabotage their efforts with more counter-offensives

  244. Epigon says:
    @Quartermaster

    Why yes, Germans should have ignored Ukraine, Kiev and Southwestern front, leave a 800 000 man strong salient in their deep rear to enter urban combat in a city several several times larger than Stalingrad, with extensive metro and sewer system underground.

    They would *definitely* capture Moscow, their logistics overstreched and exposed (Ukraine is bypassed), especially seeing how they *easily* won at Stalingrad.

    Cringe.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  245. Seraphim says:
    @Epigon

    Hitler was right in diverting troops to Ukraine and South-East, because conquest of Ukraine with its endless cornfields and coal mines and iron ore, Crimea, Caucasus and the Caspian with its petrol, was the real aim of the invasion. Had the Germans firmly secured these regions first, Germany would have had all the resources to end the war sooner.
    Napoleon ‘conquered’ Moscow and we know the consequences. He realized quickly that he has fallen into a trap and rushed to leave Russia. German generals were not as quick witted as Napoleon.

    • Agree: Epigon, John Regan
  246. Truth3 says:
    @SeekerofthePresence

    It ain’t Truth. It’s Lies… when (((Jew Neocons))) use their sophistic talents to bury truth.

  247. balkan says:

    i’m still reading the article I’m half way down to end and I had to jump to write a comment already. I’m a serb from hard communist family and I salute you writer of this article you are smart and decent man. You don’t need me to tell you but I had a need for that. Thank you

  248. Truth3 says:
    @Quartermaster

    The German mistake was Hitler directing Guderian’s Panzer Army to the south to assist Army Group South.

    No.

    The mistake was Operation Typhoon. OKH wanted Moscow.

    The supply lines were too thin (horse drawn mostly) to support a broad front advancing War of Movement with colossal expenditures in heavy ammunition for 30,000 guns and fuel for 1,500+ panzers and 200,000+ other vehicles and supplying 3 million men with all manner of supply requisitions and small arms ammo and supply for 500,000 horses over a 2,000 km front in mud and snow nearly 1,500 km from their own Capitol.

    What were OKH orders? Guderian was tasked with attacking south of Moscow torwards Gorki. In the November words of Guderian’s Chief of Staff… “This is not the month of May, and we are not fighting in France!”

    The losses the Wehrmacht took in November 1941 thru March 1942 meant that Germany could only achieve local superiority in 1942.

    Digging in on a line Narva – Pskov – Vitebsk – Orsha – Dnepr would allow the troops to shelter and conserve strength for a new summer campaign. OKH (& Hitler) gambled, and lost.

  249. Bukowski says:
    @Simpleguest

    You also left out the invasion of Iran by USSR which happened in August 1941 2 months after the start of the Soviet-Nazi war. The British also took part.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12152

    • Replies: @Simpleguest
  250. Seraphim says:

    Occupation of Iran suggests that the Soviets were aware that the real goal of the invasion was the oil fields of the Middle East.

  251. @Bukowski

    You also left out the invasion of Iran by USSR which happened in August 1941 2 months after the start of the Soviet-Nazi war. The British also took part.

    Indeed I have. As you yourself say it, this is 2 months after Germany attacked SU.
    Per Wikipedia:

    The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, also known as the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Persia, was the joint invasion of Iran by the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union in August 1941.
    The invasion began exactly two months after the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union’s subsequent alliance with the United Kingdom. The invasion’s strategic purpose was to ensure the safety of Allied supply lines to the USSR (see the Persian Corridor), secure Iranian oil fields and limit German influence in Iran (Reza Shah was considered friendly to Nazi Germany).

    So 2 things:
    – it was an Anglo-Soviet allied undertaking;
    – it was aimed to block any real or perceived moves by Nazi Germany in that region.

    Not peaceful but definitely a defensive (or preemptive if you like) move taken.
    By the way, WWII witnessed some very bizarre things done in preemption, like the destruction of the French fleet in French Algeria by the British. But that’s war. Once started, it has a mind of its own.

Current Commenter
says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS