ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Darkstream: wrong about Hitler



My opinion had always been pretty orthodox in thinking that Hitler turned to the east and engaged in the Drang nach Osten because he couldn't get across the English Channel. You know, here he had this war machine and they didn't have the navy to get across to Great Britain; he'd already taken the entire continent of Europe, Western Europe, and it made sense with the whole Lebensraum and all that sort of thing so I'd never really questioned it. I'd never really thought much about it other than the fact that I always felt the idea that Hitler might have won, that Nazi Germany might have won if they had managed to take Moscow, was a really historically ignorant perspective.

When you consider that Napoleon did take Moscow, sat around waiting for the Russians to surrender, and then finally was forced to to retreat and left quite a bit of his army behind dead in the snow, you know, somebody made a comment "Hitler did nothing wrong." Well, I always thought that was a remarkably dumb thing to say. I mean I understand the rhetoric, but invading Russia was an insanely dumb thing to do, insanely dumb....

It's very clear when you look at what Suvorov was talking about, and what's interesting is he got interested in this when he was the equivalent of a high school senior, when he was at the special high school for for future intelligence officers and he actually did the equivalent of his senior thesis on it and he got access to some materials that had not been shown before, that people hadn't had access to before. And what's really remarkable is the reaction that people have had to his thesis and the way in which the critics have attempted to attack the evidence that that he's presented, but in my opinion it's almost irrefutable that not only was Stalin intending to attack, but I think that it is pretty persuasive that Stalin played Hitler badly, that all of World War II was a set up by Stalin in order to conquer Western Europe.

And you know, the evidence for this, like I said, is pretty overwhelming. Almost everything that you have heard about the situation with Operation Barbarossa and the situation leading up to it is completely false. I've heard all the stories about the outdated tanks, and the the officer purges, and all these other excuses for the poor performance of the Russian troops, and so the thing that was really interesting when you look at it was how significantly the Russian forces outnumbered the attacking German forces. The only reason that the Germans were able to be successful was because the Russians had their air bases set up right on the borders, they had all of these light tanks - they had about 6,000 light tanks which were either able to drive on highways which did not exist across the plains of the Ukraine and Russia, and not only that but they also had about 2,000 amphibious tanks -now you know, these tanks are obviously designed for a fast-moving offensive.

Not only that but they also had a tremendous amount, an incredible, incredible amount of ammunition that was stored going forward and also the aircraft that they had were predominantly air-to-ground light bombers. Now this is all stuff that you need for an attack, and this is all stuff that is relatively useless in defense, and so I thought that was really striking but the thing that convinced me more than anything else was something that I had known about, but I never really thought about before, and what that was was that only two years before, in 1939, Field Marshal Zhukov, who at the time was only a general, had used precisely these tactics and precisely the same sort of approach to destroy the Japanese Sixth Army on the other side of Russia at the Battle of Khalkin-Gol.

What's fascinating about it, and what a lot of people don't realize is that at the time of the German invasion in 1941, Russia had 5.3 million soldiers deployed, so they had been undergoing a full mobilization for two years.  Now, you may not realize but mobilizations are predominantly offensive, you don't mobilize just in case somebody might attack you, Now, I'm not saying that Hitler didn't want any war but he absolutely did not want war with Russia, with the Soviet Union, and the reason that he didn't want it is because he didn't think he could win. So the question is, why did he attack?

Because, absolutely, he did attack, and what I realized, and what is it is pretty clear - I haven't finished the book yet and Suvorov doesn't come right out and say it - but it's very clear that it was an act of desperation by Hitler and the Germans when they realized how badly that they'd been played. They realized that, and here's the important thing to understand, Stalin was not playing for Germany, Stalin was playing for all of Western Europe!

You see, Stalin was a master of playing "lets you and him fight" and what he did what he did was set up a situation where the Brits and the French thought that in 1939 that the Soviets were going to sign some sort of alliance with them -a lot of people forget, but France and Russia were historically allies  - but what Stalin did was he suckered Hitler and got him to agree to attack Poland, he basically bribed Hitler to attack Poland and the whole point of getting Hitler to attack Poland was to force Britain and France to declare war on Hitler, which they did. Now what was very clever was that Stalin was supposed to attack Poland at the same time that's what he committed to do in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that was signed in Moscow and the fascinating thing was that the Russians didn't do it.

The Russians did not attack when they were supposed to, when the Germans did, but what a lot of people don't realize is that German invasion of Poland was going to fail after two weeks. They had actually run out of artillery because Hitler didn't mobilize Germany properly until well into 1942 and so again the Soviets had to prop up the Germans by invading Poland at that point. They didn't want to even invade Poland at all because all they really wanted to do with Poland was to trigger war between France and Britain; they were successful in doing so and they were very pleased when Hitler managed to overrun all of France and Belgium and so forth. The original plan which was really  interesting was that Stalin had originally attempted to trigger a war between Germany on the one hand and France and Britain on the other in Spain but they couldn't do it so they managed to use Poland to do so.

Stalin managed to use Poland to trigger that war and the whole reason he wanted that war dates all the way back to Lenin, and Lenin realizing that the Treaty of Versailles was so unfair and so crushing to Germany that it was likely to spawn a seriously negative reaction. So that's why the Soviets were basically waiting from 1918 on for the opportunity to take over all of Western Europe and they finally got that chance 23 years later. One thing that you really come away with is a tremendous respect for the evil intelligence of Stalin, he was much, much brighter than Hitler.

You can buy the book to which I'm referring in the Darkstream, THE CHIEF CULPRIT by Viktor Suvorov, from Castalia Books Direct. If you have any interest in WWII or military history, I strongly recommend it. I'll also post a response to Suvorov's thesis from the expert on Operation Barbarossa whose books I referenced in the video later today.

Labels:

201 Comments:

1 – 200 of 201 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 12, 2018 8:15 AM  

I first heard about "Culprit" from a Russian writer expatted in Italy in the Chronicles magazine, and immediately bought it in hardcover.

About the only refutation that I have read came from the now deceased owner of the Weaponsman blog who had what seemed legitimate doubts about Suvorov himself.

Even if it is BS it is a fascinating book.

Blogger Resident Moron™ June 12, 2018 8:19 AM  

I read Suvorov’s Inside the Soviet Army in about 1984.

I’ve read various articles that talk about economic production evidence of Stalin’s plans for invasion but didn’t know Suvorov had a book about it.

Appreciate the tip.

Will also appreciate the other works referenced.

Blogger Dire Badger June 12, 2018 8:26 AM  

Every time traveler Kills Hitler. Now you have to wonder what if they killed Stalin instead?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 12, 2018 8:28 AM  

That the Wehrmacht saved Western Europe from Stalin is an especially sore point with the psycho (((ex-girlfriends)) of Russia.

The Russian writer mentioned in his article in Chronicles that a good Russian citizen in Moscow by the name of Applebaum (yes Applebaum) was especially sore about Suvorov's "Culprit" and was calling for someone to put a bullet into the novelist's head. The commentator here who labeled them as psycho ex girlfriends is the winner of this month's internet award.

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 12, 2018 8:28 AM  

If Stalin's grand plan was the military conquest of Western Europe, why did he keep demanding that the Americans and British open a Second Front? Why would he want a large, mechanized Western army in Europe? Seems like telling Roosevelt and Churchill "Don't worry, we got this" better befits someone who didn't really need Western assistance (trucks, canned food, etc.) to beat the Wehrmacht, and who hoped to cross the Rhine and roll on to the Atlantic.

Blogger insight June 12, 2018 8:30 AM  

"You see, Stalin was a master of playing "lets you and him fight"

How feminine. Expected nothing less from commie scum.

Blogger Adm Trell June 12, 2018 8:31 AM  

Hmmm, this kind of puts the collaboration between FDR & the Soviets in a clearer light, as well as the influences of the various Soviet agents in his administration. It also makes me wonder how much of this Ike may have known, and how it could have affected the European invasion strategy, considering Stalin's objectives

Blogger VD June 12, 2018 8:35 AM  

If Stalin's grand plan was the military conquest of Western Europe, why did he keep demanding that the Americans and British open a Second Front?

To relieve the pressure on him. You're forgetting that Hitler completely spoiled his plans by attacking first. Stalin knew the Germans were not ready to attack him and that they could not beat him. All they could do is what they did, which was to ruin his plans to conquer Western Europe.

Blogger Looking Glass June 12, 2018 8:36 AM  

Given the way the Soviets acted after WW2, it's perfectly logical to assume they were planning a full Western European invasion. The interesting question is the time-frame. Were the Soviets expecting to wait out the Germans, then attack them from the rear while their armies were engaged else where?

Would Russia have even been ready to invade Western Europe by Spring 1942? Given the nature of the campaign they'd have to undertake, it might have even been a 1943 plan, which would also point to the lack of preparation for defense by Russia.

Interesting all around, and completely plausible.

Blogger het1 June 12, 2018 8:37 AM  

> They didn't want to even invade Poland at all because all they really wanted to do with Poland was to trigger war between France and Britain

Poland after 1920 has occupied part of Ukraine and Belarus.
After September 1939 Stalin only returned these territories – to the line of Curzon (border of ethnic Poles).

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 12, 2018 8:38 AM  

"If Stalin's grand plan was the military conquest of Western Europe, why did he keep demanding that the Americans and British open a Second Front?"

We like to think that Russia was sort-of neutral to the USA in WWII, and that any cooperation was merely coincidental or otherwise simply necessary.

In reality, many of our leaders here in the USA had supported Stalin in the past and still supported him during and even after the war. Stalin was relatively unafraid of the USA and Britain because they were in bed with him.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 12, 2018 8:39 AM  

What's the major country that gained the most territory out of WWII?

Russia.

Blogger Red Bane June 12, 2018 8:40 AM  

Nice.

Is ICEBREAKER public domain now ? That would be cool to see in print again.

Blogger het1 June 12, 2018 8:45 AM  

Suvurov (it is a pseudonym) is a liar.
Stalin made all possible to avoid a war with Germany.
Molotov, Zhukov, Shulenberg (German ambassador in Moscow) and many others have wrote about it very clearly.

Blogger Harry Spitz June 12, 2018 8:45 AM  

@3
Those time travelers are doing it wrong.
Hitler gets an art scholarship. Stalin gets smothered in his crib.

Blogger The Lizard King June 12, 2018 8:52 AM  

That was a really interesting darkstream, VD. It really makes me wish that we could have a proper spiritual succesor to Red Alert 1 (be it a video game, novel or other).

Perhaps once Castalia House expands into video games?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 12, 2018 8:54 AM  

Wait till the right wing globalists such as Goldberg and Shapiro learn that Vox has taken to Suvorov, much denunciation might occur so much so that even Ed Driscoll sage of instapundit and of warm feelings for Goldberg's newest and greatest book ever will have to type out the usual cuckery.

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 12, 2018 8:55 AM  

To relieve the pressure on him. You're forgetting that Hitler completely spoiled his plans by attacking first. Stalin knew the Germans were not ready to attack him and that they could not beat him. All they could do is what they did, which was to ruin his plans to conquer Western Europe.

If you're the sort of bold gambler who plans massive blitzkrieg conquests, and if by 1944 you're clearly winning, what do you care about relieving pressure? You seize the moment and roll on over the Rhine to the Atlantic and the English Channel. Before Hitler invaded, and after WWII, Stalin's military moves were limited and cautious (relatively speaking), such as seizing the Baltic states and sending Kim into South Korea. Remember, these were communists who sincerely believed that the workers would revolt, everywhere, eventually. You don't need to be Genghiz Khan if history is on your side.

Stalin's actions, in my opinion, aren't consistent with someone who was planning the sort of attack you describe. I haven't read Suvorov, but on the surface it doesn't seem plausible. I can't see inside Stalin's mind, and probably wouldn't want to, but "Icebreaker" doesn't fit the pattern of his other moves.

Blogger Dire Badger June 12, 2018 8:57 AM  

Does anyone remember a short story about a Time traveller who was violently Opposed to humanity 'wasting' all of it's resources on Space Exploration in his time under the Influence of RAH books, so he goes back in time to when Heinlein was in the Navy and slips him a needle of antibiotics.... Only to return to his own time and discover he is like the Admiral of the space Navy and Exploration has proceeded at ten times the rate?

Not being able to remember the title or Author of the short story has hampered my ability to find it.

Blogger Mastermind June 12, 2018 8:59 AM  

So Stalin was building up an invasion force that he could use to... run away from the Germans for most of the war? I'm thinking it's more likely that the author is just a patriotic Russian trying to make Russia look better than it was.

Blogger de Ruyter June 12, 2018 8:59 AM  

According to David Irving Hitler wanted to attack only Leningrad and the oil fields in the south, while the generals favored Moscow.

When Hitler became very ill before Barbarossa, his staff added Moscow as a third target.In the end they didn't reach any of these goals.

What would have happened if Hitler didn't get sick during this time?

Blogger tuberman June 12, 2018 9:00 AM  

Your Darkstream, along with a similar source was very convincing. New info, with data that connects new dots makes this look like the world was wrong. Thanks!

Blogger Credo in unum Deum June 12, 2018 9:02 AM  

Not to defend Hitler, as you can't get away with that, it's obvious he saved about half of Europe from becoming communist when he attacked Russia. Love Suvorov's books.

Blogger Katusov June 12, 2018 9:04 AM  

The Russian army performed miserably against the Finns in the Russo-Finish war of 1940, despite having vastly more men and material. They eventually won but suffered heavy losses. The purges Stalin did to the armed forces, removing competent officers and replacing them with loyal yet less competent party members, showed its effect. An attack by Stalin on Europe would not have gone well for the Soviets prior to Barbarossa.

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 12, 2018 9:07 AM  

Would Russia have even been ready to invade Western Europe by Spring 1942? Given the nature of the campaign they'd have to undertake, it might have even been a 1943 plan, which would also point to the lack of preparation for defense by Russia.

This makes more sense than the idea that a Soviet invasion was imminent in 1941. What makes most sense to me is Stalin waiting opportunistically for weakness anywhere in the bourgeois and/or fascist world and taking advantage without taking too much risk. Stalin obviously underestimated the risk Hitler posed.

Blogger tuberman June 12, 2018 9:07 AM  

11. Azure Amaranthine

FDR was not a pure commie, but many on his team were full steam pro-commies. Useful fools in Stalin's eyes. "Uncle Joe," said it all.

Blogger Michael O'Duibhir June 12, 2018 9:09 AM  

"...all of World War II was a set up by Stalin."

Was he a Rothschild?

Blogger Chase June 12, 2018 9:10 AM  

I’ve not read the book or studied the history closely, so I don’t know anything other than the conventional propaganda I was taught in school (and that’s obviously what it is even if that is closer to the truth than this). But look at it this way: would you be able to garner anything from Trump’s patterns? No, he is a strategic genius; all you can do is be confused in the moment, then look back with hindsight and see he always seems to get exactly what he wanted. Look at the results of WWII. It seems the USSR ended up winning pretty bigly, no?

Blogger cheddarman June 12, 2018 9:15 AM  

Wondering what else we have been lied to in regards to history

Blogger cheddarman June 12, 2018 9:15 AM  

Wondering what else we have been lied to in regards to history

Blogger Red Bane June 12, 2018 9:22 AM  

Here's a thought. I remember seeing the interviews with the actual surviving soldiers portrayed in Band of Brothers. One fellow recounts the capturing of a high ranking German officer. This officer proceeds to divulge plans for the conquest and administration of the US. The officer claimed to have been receiving training for overseeing the New Jersey area if memory serves. Were Hitler and the Nazis simply megalomaniacs who were enjoying their own hubris a little too much? Could this account for the attack on Russia, at least in part? Surely a robust , more tightly defined and protected defensive position made much more sense?

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey June 12, 2018 9:26 AM  

Well there's a recording of Hitler having a private conversation, it's called the Mannerheim Conversation if you haven't heard of it. It's the only known private recording of Hitler. In it he's talking about the decision to go forward with Operation Barbarossa and the problems Germany faced. Yes, a very good case can be made that Hitler felt he had no choice, he had to jump on the USSR. He recognizes that they underestimated the Russian strength, but even they hadn't, he'd have still made the same decision. He did seem to believe his hand was forced:

http://fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Mannerheim/recording_040642_dt.html

Blogger VD June 12, 2018 9:42 AM  

Would Russia have even been ready to invade Western Europe by Spring 1942?

Yes. Without question.

So Stalin was building up an invasion force that he could use to... run away from the Germans for most of the war?

You're very stupid. And clearly far too Gamma to comment here. Go away now.

Could this account for the attack on Russia, at least in part?

No.

The Russian army performed miserably against the Finns in the Russo-Finish war of 1940, despite having vastly more men and material.

That's false. They managed to achieve what was widely considered to be impossible in breaking the Mannerheim Line in winter and they defeated the Finns. Most of their best commanders got invaluable experience there.

The purges Stalin did to the armed forces, removing competent officers and replacing them with loyal yet less competent party members, showed its effect. An attack by Stalin on Europe would not have gone well for the Soviets prior to Barbarossa.

Total nonsense. Stalin didn't get rid of competent officers. The Soviets would have rolled across all of Europe before 1942 was over, had they attacked in 1941.

Blogger VD June 12, 2018 9:42 AM  

You've already been banned for lying, Станислав Бартошевич. Don't comment here again.

Blogger veryfunnyminion June 12, 2018 9:48 AM  

Because making fun of lil Benji is never OT:

https://twitter.com/AlizeeYeezy/status/1006523629465669634

Blogger VD June 12, 2018 9:49 AM  

Stalin obviously underestimated the risk Hitler posed.

Not the risk, the desperation. Stalin didn't shoot or otherwise punish his intelligence officers who told him the Wehrmacht wasn't ready to invade... because it wasn't. The Germans didn't even have winter clothing prepared and they had a very small number of tanks without motorized transport to support them.

The Germans attacked because it was the best available defense against the massive offensive that was about to fall on them. The mutual preparations from December 1940 to June 1941 was a race that Hitler won, mostly because he had far fewer forces at his disposal that required setting up.

Blogger Hammerli280 June 12, 2018 9:52 AM  

Suvorov's books are well worth reading. I've read in other sources that both Hitler and Stalin were planning on attacking...it was always a matter of who would strike first.

I can also shed some light on Hitler's thinking. He was assuming that he could knock France out, make a peace with the British, and then turn to deal with the Soviets. A victory over the Soviets would give a German Empire the resources and immunity to naval blockade that would support the final struggle against the combined Anglo-American strength...which Hitler figured would probably be after his death.

The problem was that Churchill refused to play along. The British have long had a policy of intervening against the most powerful Continental state, on the grounds that any Continental power strong enough to build both a strong army and a strong navy would overwhelm the UK.

Then deliverance came...in the form of the Pearl Harbor attack, a German declaration of war, and FDR throwing the full might of the United States into the scales. Those Soviet Katusha rockets were mounted on American Studebaker trucks. 200,000 of them.

Blogger Othello June 12, 2018 9:58 AM  

Smart. What’s Russia’s endgame now?

Blogger szopen June 12, 2018 10:03 AM  

I've written this at the Unz and I will repeat it here: it's really amazing when you find out that theories you were pretty much raised with are completely unknown in the west.

I've spent a decent amount of time discussing Suvorow teories in high school and later on different history forums - well, later it was actually mostly _reading_, because when I started participating at forums I've find out most people know way more about WW2. I am absolutely no expert, but I've read enough arguments against Rezun's theory to know that while being plausible, it's not the only possible explanation: .e.g Stalin really destroyed the previous fortification lines - Stalin Line - but there were already new ones being built: Molotov Line, but then there are another explanations for the existence of Molotiv line compatible with Rezun's theory, for which then there are also counterarguments and so on.

Now, Stalin definetely _wanted_ to invade western europe, sooner or later. The only question is whether he wanted to do it in 1941; and some of things Rezun is using as an argument (e.g. wheels for the BT tanks) are wrong.

So, after years of discussions ( "Ice breaker" was pblished in Polish in 1992) an advice to all who have seen this theory for the first time: don't get too enamoured with Suvorow.

Blogger Dexter June 12, 2018 10:05 AM  

"Were the Soviets expecting to wait out the Germans, then attack them from the rear while their armies were engaged else where?"

Soviets expected WW2 to be a replay of WW1, i.e., Germans bogged down in grinding war of attrition in France.

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 12, 2018 10:07 AM  

The Germans attacked because it was the best available defense against the massive offensive that was about to fall on them.

The Germans were quite capable of doing foolish things for bad reasons. They (he) declared war on the USA. They didn't need a strategically reasonable justification for Barbarossa. By which I mean you can't assume Stalin was up to something, otherwise why would Hitler have attacked?

Haven't read Suvorov, so maybe the quantity, shape, and timing of Soviet deployments justifies belief in a planned Soviet blitzkrieg. I'm arguing the point with the hope I can be convinced to read his book, because reading about WWII is fun. Especially since it was 73 years ago and I don't have to ride a Sherman into the teeth of the 88s, or mop the oil and blood off a flight deck.

My problem is the idea doesn't seem to fit with the rest of Soviet actions.

Blogger c0pperheaded June 12, 2018 10:08 AM  

We went to the library the other day and my 8 and 10 year old boys wanted to get a book about WWII. I didn't really know what to tell them. Is there a good book that smart kids could read that isn't just full of muh holocaust shit? We wound up getting a Life: WWII in pictures book.

Blogger Azimus June 12, 2018 10:12 AM  

"that all of World War II was a set up by Stalin in order to conquer Western Europe."

Surely there were many players in the game trying to "take advantage of a crisis", but yes, the less I read about battles and equipment, and the more I read about the high level players, this is becoming plain. Diana West interviewed w/Molyneux last week, it is a nice companion to this post.

Blogger eyeslevel June 12, 2018 10:13 AM  

We have to look at the British here, too. They are supposed to maintain the balance of power in Europe to prevent any one power from controlling the whole continent thereby having the resources to threaten the British sea empire. They guaranteed Poland, but when the Soviet Union invaded Poland, they didn't declare war on the Soviet Union, just Germany. So they weren't interested in a balance of power any more, they were just determined to destroy Germany even if it meant Stalin might control all of Europe. The Soviet Union was at least as big a threat to the balance of power as Germany, but Britain completely ignored that.

Blogger Peter Gent June 12, 2018 10:14 AM  

Dire Badger wrote:Does anyone remember a short story about a Time traveller who was violently Opposed to humanity 'wasting' all of it's resources on Space Exploration in his time under the Influence of RAH books, so he goes back in time to when Heinlein was in the Navy and slips him a needle of antibiotics.... Only to return to his own time and discover he is like the Admiral of the space Navy and Exploration has proceeded at ten times the rate?

Not being able to remember the title or Author of the short story has hampered my ability to find it.

"The Return of William Proxmire" is a short story by Larry Niven first published in 1989 in the anthology What Might Have Been? Volume 1: Alternate Empires, edited by Gregory Benford. It was nominated for a Hugo Award for Best Short Story for 1990.
https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Return_of_William_Proxmire

Blogger qualitycontrol June 12, 2018 10:19 AM  

Viktor Suvorov doesn't mention this but the German war industry was sized down massively after they succeeded in France before they did a surprise attack on Russia.

This is especially remarkable when you consider the German desperation in making a peace deal with Britain in 1941. They had a very reasonable peace offer and no intervention in a soviet-german war.

@21. de Ruyter
I have read large parts of Irving myself and think he is a remarkable writer & historian. Sadly everyone focuses on his controversial opinion about 'the holocaust' and simply considers his different view on the war as discredited. However, after reading Icebreaker, a lot of his claims suddenly make a lot more sense.
To say something about your question. In 1941 the Heeresgruppe Mitte could have marched south instead of going after the Moskau and maybe/probably encircled another 1 to 2 million soldiers with minimal losses. Another factor is that the extremely early winter of 1941 wouldn't have caught the Wehrmacht as off-guard as it did. I cannot say if this would have changed the outcome but I would think that Germany would have had a much better chance at completing their southern objectives in 1942 than it did in reality.

There is a very interesting article on David Irving by Ron Unz: http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

Blogger Peter Gent June 12, 2018 10:30 AM  

c0pperheaded wrote:We went to the library the other day and my 8 and 10 year old boys wanted to get a book about WWII. I didn't really know what to tell them. Is there a good book that smart kids could read that isn't just full of muh holocaust shit? We wound up getting a Life: WWII in pictures book.

You will have to get two books at least. One on the European theater and one on the Pacific theater. If you are going for the personal touch try Beyond Valor and Into the Rising Sun by Patrick K. O'Donnell. The absolute best book on the war with Japan is long and sometimes technical and uses Midway as an argument for why Japan was destined to lose. It is Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway. This book completely redefined our understanding of the Japanese Navy and how their Bushido code and internal power struggles doomed them to failure and Japan to defeat.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 10:34 AM  

"... Lenin realizing that the Treaty of Versailles was so unfair and so crushing to Germany that it was likely to spawn a seriously negative reaction."

All Lenin had to do was read the newspapers at the time. Nearly every reporter present during the negotiations, MONTHS before the treaty was signed, had already concluded that the whole thing was setting up a another world war due to Germany seeking revenge for maltreatment at Versailles.

Wilson was the only one opposing draconian terms, but then he contracted the same worldwide pandemic flu which had devestated those in the 20-30 year age bracket (younger nurses collapsing at work, and taken to the morgue in less than 24 hours was becoming common). It is believed the middle aged and elderly were spared, due to genetic similarity between the 1917-1919 pandemic and the "Russian flu" pandemic of the late 1890s.

However, the author of book "The Great Influenza" (about the 1917 outbreak, which apparently originated in the Midwest, the author believes Missouri), says that Wilson never fully recovered -- his energy, stamina and persistence were greatly degraded, and so he was unable to keep France and England from imposing the draconian terms in the final document.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 10:43 AM  

@1

"I first heard about "Culprit" from a Russian writer expatted in Italy in the Chronicles magazine, and immediately bought it in hardcover.

About the only refutation that I have read came from the now deceased owner of the Weaponsman blog who had what seemed legitimate doubts about Suvorov himself.

Even if it is BS it is a fascinating book."


It is considered common knowledge in Poland that the Soviet Red Army was preparing to attack the German Army.

Up until that point, the Soviet Union had been supplying Germany with all sorts of raw materials and finished goods. Metals, food, fuel, ammunition, etc.

Due to differing rail guages, cargoes had to be transferred from Russian rail-guage cars (5 feet) to US/European standard rail-guage cars (4 feet 8.5 inches). This took place in Polish dual-guage rail-yards . The Polish say that just before Barbarossa kicked off, the Soviets started flooding the railyards with cargo, to the extent that the railyards became so overloaded as to be almost non-functional.

This was not generosity on the part of Stalin -- this was pre-stocking railyards inside German territory in preperation for an invasion in the immediate future.

In his diary, Hitler said that he HAD to attack the Soviet Union -- that there was no choice.

The Poles, who have no love for the Nazi Army, agree.

Blogger Resident Moron™ June 12, 2018 10:52 AM  

In Inside the Soviet Army, Suvorov discusses the Russian penchant for deception. He states that Operation Barbarossa was predicated on approximately 180 Russian divisions between occupied Poland and Moscow. In reality there were over 300.

IIRC he expressed some guarded admiration that the Wehrmacht made it as far as they did.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 10:58 AM  

@5

"If Stalin's grand plan was the military conquest of Western Europe, why did he keep demanding that the Americans and British open a Second Front? Why would he want a large, mechanized Western army in Europe? Seems like telling Roosevelt and Churchill "Don't worry, we got this" better befits someone who didn't really need Western assistance (trucks, canned food, etc.) to beat the Wehrmacht, and who hoped to cross the Rhine and roll on to the Atlantic."

1) More "Let's you and him fight"

2) Supply lines. Stalin probably figured that a 2,000 mile overland supply line isn't nearly as easy to cut as an 2000-mile over-water supply line.

3) I'm sure he also wasn't keen on the RAF and USAAF bombing all of those lovely German factories which would otherwise fall into his hands.

4) Just like in WW1, Britain was at its limits, with little more than a few weeks food supply on hand, and not doing very well with regards to industrial raw materials, either. They were building the Mosquito fighter-bomber out of wood and fabric to save the aircraft grade aluminum for Spitfires, Hurricanes, and heavy bombers. The primary strike aircraft on WW2 RN carriers was Fairey Swordfish biplane, which, while having a metal frame, was covered in fabric -- again, saving on aluminum (hence it's nickname on the carriers: "Stringbag"). This aircraft was in use for front-line duty in the Atlantic and Mediterranean all the way up until the spring of 1945. If Aluminum wasn't so scarce in Britain, i'm sure the Swordfish would have been retired much earlier, as fabric places, and especially the struts and wires of biplanes, puts limitations on aircraft speed.

Blogger justaguy June 12, 2018 11:00 AM  

There have been other scholars who have played with the thesis and done things similar such as analysis of the Russian forces at the time of invasions. However the thesis has never gotten any traction.Maybe the timing was too close to the end of the Cold War, or other cultural reasons.

While we may never know the truth absent smoking gun type details form Russian archives, it is always good to have what is generally thought as recent history and its and assumptions questioned. Too much of recent history has already been revealed as myth (think everything about JFK in White House) and hopefully at least a small part of the population that thinks instead of greedily sucking down the propaganda fed to them will question what history is telling them.

Blogger Looking Glass June 12, 2018 11:01 AM  

Resident Moron™ wrote:In Inside the Soviet Army, Suvorov discusses the Russian penchant for deception. He states that Operation Barbarossa was predicated on approximately 180 Russian divisions between occupied Poland and Moscow. In reality there were over 300.

IIRC he expressed some guarded admiration that the Wehrmacht made it as far as they did.


One should never underestimate the German perchance for killing far more effectively than you expect, or the Russian Winter. Somehow, both happened in 1941.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 11:02 AM  

@14

"Suvurov (it is a pseudonym) is a liar.
Stalin made all possible to avoid a war with Germany.
Molotov, Zhukov, Shulenberg (German ambassador in Moscow) and many others have wrote about it very clearly."

The Poles who witnessed the rail-road stockyards jammed full of Soviet re-supply material (food and fuel) for a would-be advancing Soviet Red Army disagree.

Actions speak louder than words.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 11:13 AM  

@20

"So Stalin was building up an invasion force that he could use to... run away from the Germans for most of the war? I'm thinking it's more likely that the author is just a patriotic Russian trying to make Russia look better than it was."

Vikto Suvorov DEFECTED from the Soviet Union in the 1970's.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 11:14 AM  

@21

"According to David Irving Hitler wanted to attack only Leningrad and the oil fields in the south, while the generals favored Moscow.

When Hitler became very ill before Barbarossa, his staff added Moscow as a third target.In the end they didn't reach any of these goals.

What would have happened if Hitler didn't get sick during this time?"

This is why historical wargaming/simulation exists.

Go buy "War Without Mercy" from Clash of Arms Games, and test it out for yourself.

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 12, 2018 11:15 AM  

1) More "Let's you and him fight"

2) Supply lines. Stalin probably figured that a 2,000 mile overland supply line isn't nearly as easy to cut as an 2000-mile over-water supply line.

3) I'm sure he also wasn't keen on the RAF and USAAF bombing all of those lovely German factories which would otherwise fall into his hands.

4) Just like in WW1, Britain was at its limits, with little more than a few weeks food supply on hand, and not doing very well with regards to industrial raw materials....


Do you mean Stalin figured an Anglo-American invasion of Western Europe wouldn't get anywhere, so why not encourage the capitalists to throw their lives away? There were, from the Soviet perspective, less threatening ways to do that, like invading Japanese-occupied China, or doubling down on the Italian front.

I think the Wehrmacht scared the hell out of them, dating from the fall of France in 1940.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 11:16 AM  

@23

"Not to defend Hitler, as you can't get away with that, it's obvious he saved about half of Europe from becoming communist when he attacked Russia. Love Suvorov's books."

While not a hero, Hitler was more right than wrong. His biggest error was trusting Commies.

Blogger VD June 12, 2018 11:18 AM  

The only question is whether he wanted to do it in 1941

Yes, that's the point on which some of the experts disagree with Suvorov. However, more information has come out from the Soviet-era archives which tends to support rather than disprove his theory.

some of things Rezun is using as an argument (e.g. wheels for the BT tanks) are wrong.

Perhaps, but it's pretty damn hard to explain away the position of the troops, the amphibious tanks, or the fact that the Soviets were pretty clearly setting up for a much larger scale repeat of Kalkhin-Gol with the same commander in charge.

Most importantly, it explains the bizarre German rush to attack while obviously unprepared. You may recall from Band of Brothers that German tactical doctrine called for attacking while the enemy was staging or regrouping.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 11:19 AM  

@26

"FDR was not a pure commie, but many on his team were full steam pro-commies. Useful fools in Stalin's eyes. "Uncle Joe," said it all."

They're actually gloating about it now:

"The Jew Who Defeated Hitler
Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR, and How We Won the War"

It's all about how Morgenthau manipulated Roosevelt into making Hitler (who never attacked us) the priority over the Japs who had just attempted to destroy the entire Pacific Fleet.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 11:20 AM  

@27

"Was he a Rothschild?"

No, but he was assisted by them.

Blogger Welsh Woodsman June 12, 2018 11:27 AM  

"Stalin played Hitler badly, that all of World War II was a set up by Stalin in order to conquer Western Europe."

It brings to mind a quip that was once made to me by an old Bircher. " WWII was fought solely to promote world communism"

His insights and words ring truer every day. Globalism is just communism without the breadlines and borders.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 11:29 AM  

@31

"Here's a thought. I remember seeing the interviews with the actual surviving soldiers portrayed in Band of Brothers. One fellow recounts the capturing of a high ranking German officer. This officer proceeds to divulge plans for the conquest and administration of the US. The officer claimed to have been receiving training for overseeing the New Jersey area if memory serves. Were Hitler and the Nazis simply megalomaniacs who were enjoying their own hubris a little too much? Could this account for the attack on Russia, at least in part? Surely a robust , more tightly defined and protected defensive position made much more sense?"


There are multiple reasons:

1) Feigning importance by making up a bunch of important-sounding bullshit -- "I can name names!!!"

2) He attended some sort of class as part of his training, in which administrating New Jersey was a continuous example of how to operate as an army of occupation. Using New Jersey would be great for OPSEC, without being alarming, because nobody in their right mind would consider Germany capable of even establishing a beachhead in the U.S. (Not even with a cooperate government in Mexico). Thus, the general problem can be discussed, and exercises done in practical detail, such that the student, once the actual conquest has come and gone, can apply the lessons to some European district or another.

I mean, what is learned in the Artillery School is applicable worldwide. If the class does map exercises using Korea, it doesn't mean that the same lessons can't be applied elsewhere.

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 12, 2018 11:32 AM  

@63 @31

Actually, "Send him to New Jersey!" was the last, ultimate punishment when "Send him to the Russian Front!" didn't work.

Blogger Welsh Woodsman June 12, 2018 11:36 AM  

The Russians were brutal. My matriarchal great grandparents were farmers in what was formerly Prussia. They survived the war quite nicely. They disliked the Nazi party but weren't bothered by them either. The war ends, Prussia was annexed and the Russian troops arrived. At 80 years of age they were forced at gunpoint off their farm and made to march. They couldn't keep up and were shot point blank. War is hell.

Blogger John Elvidge June 12, 2018 11:37 AM  

Yesterday I watched a few video’s about the Battle of Berlin and saw the Red Army using horses to move their artillery in the streets. This is 1945 and they still used horses. An interesting fact of WW 2, the vast majority of the Red Army’s wheeled vehicles were supplied in Lend Lease by the USA and UK. Almost 90% is the number I remember. Alger Hiss was a Soviet Agent, and there were many more all thought the State Department and in every government agency in the USA. There is absolutely no doubt that the USSR stole the plans and technology to build atomic weapons through ‘fellow travelers’ in the West. They didn’t even have to give them money, they did it for the cause. The unions in the UK refused to support the war effort until the USSR was attacked, Churchill noted in his history. The French Communists didn’t resist the Nazi’s until after the attack on the USSR by Germany. Don’t think Stalin wasn’t a cunning and ruthless man who himself wanted to ‘rule the world’, I wouldn’t put it past him.
I read the book “The Red Army” and never knew it was by Suvorov. A very interesting read. I’m going to order this book for sure. Remember that the same people as Hiss and his fellow travelers would still be running US diplomacy and be in positions to “form the narrative” after the war. If I had been alive then (the 1930’s) I would have bet that a repeat of WW 1 would have occurred and left the West in a shamble ripe for the “liberation” of the Red Army. Most would have agreed then too. With the infiltration of the union movement in the West by the Soviets and the most likely outcome a bloody stalemate that would bleed both sides dry it is a very interesting proposition for sure. The idea of the benign Communist is quite fashionable still today, even with the end of the Cold War and the irrefutable evidence of Soviet espionage against the West many still believe in the “innocence of the Rosenberg’s”. Shocking really.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 12, 2018 11:37 AM  

Fascinating. The claim that Operation Barbarossa was forced on Hitler because of a Soviet invasion was imminent was central to "The Greatest Story Never Told," but that film provided little evidence to support the claim other than Hitler's speech announcing the commencement of Barbarossa.

Blogger J Van Stry June 12, 2018 11:40 AM  

That makes a lot of sense actually.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 12, 2018 11:48 AM  

This also explains many of the foibles the Wehrmacht experienced during the invasion - the lack of adequate winter clothing and proper cold weather lubricants for heavy equipment and small arms. Oversights that not at all characteristically German.

Paul Schmidt's notes of the meeting between Hitler and Molotov is an interesting read that reveals that Hitler's posture was defensive by November 1940. The main thing he wanted from Russia was to leave Finland alone and Molotov indicated that they were unwilling to do that. I believe it's significant too that Hitler was meeting with the foreign minister rather than Stalin himself - it signals that Hitler was in the weaker position and Stalin knew it.

Blogger Orthodox June 12, 2018 11:49 AM  

This fits with the thesis of one of the articles in Riding the Red Horse, that the Soviet strategy in Asia was "let's you and him fight" with China and the USA. It happened in Korea and again in Vietnam. Nixon broke that strategy in the 1970s and Reagan cemented that change. The horrible trade deals with China have to been seen in that context, particularly as it happened simultaneously with the looting of Russia.

History is repeating again in the South China Sea (and in North Korea until this past week).

Blogger English Tom June 12, 2018 11:54 AM  

@C0pperheaded

Check out, Friendly Fire:the secret war between the allies by Lynn Picknett and others. The book examines documents released under the 60 year rule and lo and behold someone kept that war going for 2 years longer than it should have.

Also check out Henry Makow's website. He has some very interesting theories about Hitler and Stalin and others of the period and who they were working for.

Blogger Crew June 12, 2018 11:55 AM  

It is interesting that there seems to have been a convergence of comments around Suvorov recently.

Blogger bosscauser June 12, 2018 12:14 PM  

Hindsight is a great wat to waste a day or so...

Let's not forget Hitler ran out of U boats and their top commanders all died in 1940-42....

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 12:16 PM  

@38


"Smart. What’s Russia’s endgame now?"

Don't confuse the (((Soviet Union))) with +++Russia+++

Blogger Fernando Negro June 12, 2018 12:16 PM  

"he got access to some materials that had not been shown before, that people hadn't had access to before".

This is a very important thing to keep in mind. Because, the only way that one can truly understand what happens in the world of international politics is to be aware of what the secret societies that manipulate its History are - and have been - up to. And, having said that...

I don't know anything about Stalin's intentions, prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany. But, concerning everything that happened before, in Europe, I can tell you that a lot (or even most) of what it's told to people in the (Western) establishment media are fairy tales, with a lot of important omissions.

First of all, the Bolshevik Revolution was financed and supported by the West. And, both Lenin and Trotsky were Western puppets. This has been denounced by a great British historian, called Antony C. Sutton, who got access to documentation no one else had to before, and whose works are even recommended by an important visible lackey of the Western elites, called Zbigniew Brzezinski (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton).

Trotsky was supposed to have succeed Lenin in the leadership of the Bolsheviks. But, having Stalin got in the way of this, the Western plans for Russia were derailed. And, for that, Stalin has always been very much demonized by the West.

Second of all, the Nazi ascension to power was also financed and supported by the West. With this having been denounced, again, by Antony C. Sutton - whose credibility is undisputed, for being his conclusions solidly backed up by documents. The reason why Sutton is not a well-known figure is obvious. And, the reason why he's also not well-known among the alternative media is because he was warned that his findings and revelations were not received well by the elites. And so, he was forced to live the rest of his life in relative obscurity - having, nonetheless, given video interviews prior to this, that can be easily found on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=antony+sutton).

And, having made this two important notes,

[continues]

Blogger Fernando Negro June 12, 2018 12:17 PM  

[continuation]

Concerning WW2,

You can start with these 5 tweets I made, after a comment about Dunkirk:

https://twitter.com/BlackFerdyPT/status/861314311372902400
https://twitter.com/BlackFerdyPT/status/861314994067177473
https://twitter.com/BlackFerdyPT/status/861315833129312258
https://twitter.com/BlackFerdyPT/status/861327915375636485
https://twitter.com/BlackFerdyPT/status/861329486406615041

And, then proceed to read and listen to as much as you can from the great historian David Irving (again, not surprisingly, someone who is a lot demonized in the establishment media).

Irving will tell you a lot of what the *real* story of WW2 is (here's an example, of a video that can serve as an introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPiOTC6Nyvk) starting with the fact that, the reason why Hitler didn't invade Great Britain was because he was an admirer of the British Empire, and wanted to become and ally of the latter, instead. This having been also the reason why Rudolf Hess was sent to Britain, and the reason why Hess was never allowed to talk to anyone again, until he was killed when he was old. (Because, if people knew this, then they would realize that the whole War, on the British side, had been unnecessary - since that, Hitler didn't want war with Britain, and even offered peace to the latter.)

Two things that you say, though, are very much true.

1) "Lenin realizing that the Treaty of Versailles was so unfair and so crushing to Germany that it was likely to spawn a seriously negative reaction".

That's very much true. This having been the obvious reason why the West made the Treaty in such a way. So, that war would break out again, and Germany was destroyed even more. (If you ever get a chance, listen to what Alex Jones says, about early 20th century newspapers he read, concerning the so-called "German problem".)

2) "Stalin, he was much, much brighter than Hitler".

Stalin read 500 pages a day (https://twitter.com/EstulinDaniel/status/1003728330309267456). And, he was much more intelligent than people in the West think. Since, (unlike Hitler, when it comes to the Nazi ascension to power) Stalin was able to realize what had really happened in the Russian Revolution, and managed to get rid of all the traitors that were Western puppets. With the reason why people in the West have such a negative image of him being that (not only the number of people he killed internally is grossly exaggerated - https://twitter.com/search?q=Solzhenitsyn from%3AEstulinDaniel - but also that) he is constantly demonized by the Western media, for not having went along with the Western plans for Russia.

And, if you (really) want to know who Stalin really was, read what the Russian FSB Colonel, Daniel Estulin, says about him (https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=Stalin from%3AEstulinDaniel) - since that, being the latter a Russian intelligence officer, he's better informed than anyone else.

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 12, 2018 12:24 PM  

This is Greg Cochran's assessment of Suvorov's claim of the Soviets planning an attack in 1941:

"If the Sovs were within a couple of weeks of launching invasion, you’d think that they would have called up the deep reserves, bothered to get all of their tanks working, stockpiled fuel, run recon overflights, snuck sappers into German-occupied territory (to sabotage bridges and cut communications lines), finish reorganization of their tank corps, etc. etc.. – most of which the Germans did do, of course. None of which the Soviets did. The Soviet high command expressed great concern about their frontier about not giving Hitler an ‘excuse” for starting a war – like he needed one! Hitler may be the only person that Stalin really, truly trusted in his adult life: which must prove something."

If Cochran's wrong about the fuel, etc. I'll read Suvorov's book. Otherwise I won't bother. No fuel, no blitz. You know you want me to read the book. Keep me off the streets. My town has no midnight basketball, only Suvorov can save me from bad company.

see: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/various-crap/

Blogger Fernando Negro June 12, 2018 12:25 PM  

More.

(Concerning the "secret societies" I mention, that you have to be aware of, in order to truly understand world events...)

If you want an immensely curious book, that is simply the most mind-boggling one you'll ever/presently find in English language about the true nature of the Bolsheviks, check out "The Red Symphony", that has also been translated to English:

https://www.prisonplanet.com/makow111003.html
https://www.prisonplanet.com/makow111703.html

Blogger Publius June 12, 2018 12:28 PM  

John Mosier has been writing about this very subject for decades. His books Cross of Iron, The Blitzkrieg Myth, and Deathride: Hitler Versus Stalin fundamentally changed my understanding of WW2 especially in regards to Hitler's decision to invade Russia and the performance of the German military and equipment.

Stalin was getting ready to assault Germany, there is no doubt about that. His troops and air force were deployed far too close to the border for there to be any other rational explanation. I suspect he was just planning to do it closer to 1942.

The Germans never got less than a 2 to 1 kill ratio versus the Russians and in many cases they were closer to 5 to 1. Hitlers decision to invade was quite rational and he had every reason to believe he had a good chance of success.

Blogger het1 June 12, 2018 12:28 PM  

To Dirk Manly

Really, it is wonderful.
Hitler began the war.
Molotov (foreign secretary), Zhukov (chief of General Staff,), Shulenberg (German ambassador in Moscow), Hilger (counselor of German embassy) and myriad of others witnesses wrote (or speak) very clearly:

Stalin made ALL POSSIBLE to avoid a war with Germany

No one authoritative historian (right or left or neutral) - say Fest, Irvin, Barnes,… - made no hint about "Stalin's plans of aggression against Hitler's Germany".

But now come some Suvorov (Rezun) and speak: "believe me people, they all are wrong, i know the truth". And somebody believes him.

As for words of Poles about "rail-road stockyards jammed full of Soviet re-supply material" etc –
why not? Poland occupied part of Soviet territories after 1920, and feared counterattack from USSR, of course. But against Poland, not against Germany.

Blogger Fernando Negro June 12, 2018 12:30 PM  

Oops. Dead "Prison Planet" links. Here go some live (and original) ones, instead:

https://www.henrymakow.com/000275.html
https://www.savethemales.ca/000280.html

(Don't mind Henry Makow's possible wrong conclusions. Just, check out the contents of the book, and notice how it all fits with the undisputed historical findings from Antony Sutton.)

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 12:33 PM  

" Is there a good book that smart kids could read that isn't just full of muh holocaust shit? "

Submarine
Captain Edward L. Beach.
Typical Dewey Decimal Number is 940.54B

50% of it is his first hand accounts as a submarine officer in the Pacific. Early in the war, he was an officer on the USS Trigger (SS-237), then Executive Officer on USS Tirante (SS-420), and ended the war in command of USS Piper (SS-409) getting in one combat patrol before the war ended.. Later he was Commanding Officer on USS Trigger (SS-564), which was launched a couple years after SS-237 sunk.

Interspersed between his chapters are stories of the war patrols of other WW2 American Subs in the Pacific.

And it starts out with a wonderful poem...

The first stanza is

"I'm the galloping ghost of the Japanese coast
You don't hear of me or my crew.
But ask any man, on the coast of Japan
if knows of the Trigger Maru."

Blogger cheddarman June 12, 2018 12:34 PM  

Wondering what else we have been lied to in regards to history

Blogger Desdichado June 12, 2018 12:40 PM  

First of all, the Bolshevik Revolution was financed and supported by the West. And, both Lenin and Trotsky were Western puppets. This has been denounced by a great British historian, called Antony C. Sutton, who got access to documentation no one else had to before, and whose works are even recommended by an important visible lackey of the Western elites, called Zbigniew Brzezinski (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton).

Trotsky was supposed to have succeed Lenin in the leadership of the Bolsheviks. But, having Stalin got in the way of this, the Western plans for Russia were derailed. And, for that, Stalin has always been very much demonized by the West.


(((Trotsky))) and (((sorta-Lenin))) were (((Western))) puppets more than they were Western puppets.

Blogger het1 June 12, 2018 12:44 PM  

To Fernando Negro

We here in Russia know perfectly well, "who is m-r Stalin", and why "progressive West" so hate him.
Irving is a very good historian, but we need not his help to understand the greatness of Stalin.

Blogger Dire Badger June 12, 2018 12:47 PM  

Peter Gent wrote:Dire Badger wrote:Does anyone remember a short story about a Time traveller who was violently Opposed to humanity 'wasting' all of it's resources on Space Exploration in his time under the Influence of RAH books, so he goes back in time to when Heinlein was in the Navy and slips him a needle of antibiotics.... Only to return to his own time and discover he is like the Admiral of the space Navy and Exploration has proceeded at ten times the rate?

Not being able to remember the title or Author of the short story has hampered my ability to find it.


"The Return of William Proxmire" is a short story by Larry Niven first published in 1989 in the anthology What Might Have Been? Volume 1: Alternate Empires, edited by Gregory Benford. It was nominated for a Hugo Award for Best Short Story for 1990.

https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Return_of_William_Proxmire


Thanks Peter. Larry Niven. Explains why I was impressed by the story.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 12:56 PM  

Will also recommend Shattered Sword.

Also:
The Dambusters (RAF bomber squadron that bombed the Ruhr Valley dams). After reading, get them the movie -- it is accurate (because it's not a (((Hollywood))) movie, it's a British movie about British history when many of the participants were still alive to refute and criticize any gross misprepresentations)
By Paul Brickhill

Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sajer (a Wermacht teenage draftee who was made a truck driver despite never having driven in his life, and assigned to the eastern front).

The Great Escape (later made into the famous movie)
By Paul Brickhill

Reach for the Sky Biography of Douglas Bader, legless Spitfire Ace, 12th Fighter Group Commander, POW and 4-time prison camp escapee (WITH NO LEGS!!!)
The most inspiring book I have ever read.
By Paul Brickhill

Fly for your life: Larry Forrester

Any of the few books written by a German U-boat officer.

U-Boat Killer (Capt. Donald MacIntyre) -- Late war destroyer Hunter-Killer groups which operated independantly from the convoys.

Blogger Ronin F9 June 12, 2018 12:57 PM  

John Elvidge wrote:There is absolutely no doubt that the USSR stole the plans and technology to build atomic weapons through ‘fellow travelers’ in the West.

The (((Globalist))) FDR Regime gave the Soviets the plans and materials to build atomic bomb FACTORIES.

It is all detailed in the published diaries of the Air Force officer in charge of shipping the material to Russia via the air route over Canada and the Arctic to Russia.

https://archive.org/stream/FromMajorJordansDiaries-TheTruthAboutTheUsAndUssr/FromMajorJordansDiaries-TheTruthAboutTheUsAndUssr_djvu.txt

Here is another very interesting book regarding Stalin, the (((Globalists))) and the nature of WW2.

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

Is it fact or fiction? Who knows. But there is a very insightful line within it.

"Certainly, insanity in a lesser degree than in the case of Lenin, who dreamt of power over the whole world in his attic in Switzerland or the insanity of Stalin, dreaming of the same thing during his exile in a Siberian hut. I think that dreams of such ambitions are much more natural for the moneyed people, living in the skyscrapers of New York."

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 1:04 PM  

@57

"I think the Wehrmacht scared the hell out of them, dating from the fall of France in 1940. "

You replied to my post which began with

1) "Let's you and him fight"

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 12, 2018 1:08 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:@57

"I think the Wehrmacht scared the hell out of them, dating from the fall of France in 1940. "

You replied to my post which began with

1) "Let's you and him fight"


Yeah, I think Stalin wanted an Anglo-American invasion of Western Europe because the Wehrmacht was scary and he wanted people besides Russians to die fighting it. I also think he was scared of the Wehrmacht in 1941 and wanted to avoid a war.

Maybe we don't disagree.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 1:15 PM  

@62

> It brings to mind a quip that was once made to me by an old Bircher. " WWII was fought solely to promote world communism"

I came to the same conclusion myself about 5 years ago.

> His insights and words ring truer every day. Globalism is just communism without the breadlines and borders.

I started noticing by the late 1980's that EVERYTHING the Birchers predicted, all of which that the Buckleyites claimed was beyond the pale to mention and would never happen, was, in fact, coming true.

The Birchers had a very good grasp on reality.

William Buckley was last generations Jordan Peterson.

Blogger VD June 12, 2018 1:21 PM  

If Cochran's wrong about the fuel, etc. I'll read Suvorov's book.

He is.

Marshal of the Soviet Union S. K. Kurkotkin reported that in the beginning of June the “Soviet government, following a proposal by the General Staff, approved a plan to move 100,000 tons of fuel from the inland regions of the country.” In addition, “about 8,500 railroad cisterns with fuel [were] amassed at railroad intersections.” If the smallest 20-ton cisterns were being used, this would have meant much more than 100,000 tons. The most frequently used cistern in 1941 was the 62-ton. These 8,500 containers were at the stations waiting to be unloaded in the first days of the war. We also have to take into account all that was destroyed by enemy air raids at the railroad stations in the first minutes and hours of the war. Colonel General I. V. Boldin, deputy commander of the Western Front, related that the 10th Army (the most powerful army on the Western Front) had sufficient supplies of fuel in storage and in railroad containers, but lost everything in the first minutes of the war. On the eve of the war, this mass of cisterns was moving toward the borders, together with troops, military equipment, weapons, and ammunition.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 1:22 PM  

@65

"The Russians were brutal. My matriarchal great grandparents were farmers in what was formerly Prussia. They survived the war quite nicely. They disliked the Nazi party but weren't bothered by them either. The war ends, Prussia was annexed and the Russian troops arrived. At 80 years of age they were forced at gunpoint off their farm and made to march. They couldn't keep up and were shot point blank. War is hell."

The soldiers of the Wermacht foolishly raped their way into Russia. The peasant soldier of the Red Army was not amused, and was eager to take revenge on German citizens.

In the book "Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945" By Catherine Merridale, who went to Russia, searched through the archives, and spent years building rapport with old WW2 vets, she says that the Red Army vets believe that they believe that they didn't leave a single German woman un-raped within Soviet lines.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 1:25 PM  

@66

"Yesterday I watched a few video’s about the Battle of Berlin and saw the Red Army using horses to move their artillery in the streets. This is 1945 and they still used horses. An interesting fact of WW 2, the vast majority of the Red Army’s wheeled vehicles were supplied in Lend Lease by the USA and UK."

The German Army never succeeded in getting their dependance on horses below 50%.

Stalin was more interested in building tanks (which civilians couldn't use after the war) than in building trucks which would give the population freedom of movement if the plants continued building. Also, trucks are easier to transport across the ocean than tanks.

Blogger DonReynolds June 12, 2018 1:35 PM  

Speaking only in general terms, the vast majority of people in this world regard Hitler as pure evil incarnate. A small minority cast him in a more positive light and consider him a genius. It seems both exaggerate the man, beyond what he ever was in life. We should know he was a man and given to the extraordinary ability to plan the big victories as well as the big defeats.

German Federalism was never such a simple matter of national elections and thus, the Nazi party achieved power. German elections are no more neat and tidy than American elections, or French, or British. All end up as a mish-mash of competing interests, historical facts, and a variety of limitations. The people themselves, in each country, are at times both enabler and set the limit on the use of power and authority.

Even though Germany had very little experience with democracy, the elite knew that public sentiment was not to be ignored or dismissed. Persuasion and propaganda was as important as the beans and bullets. Positive investments were made in the mores of the people and it was important to tap into the already existing German ethos.

A series of wars on the European continent were a learning experience each time. Lessons learned in one war became the big mistakes of the next war. Weaknesses in one area were often corrected in time for the next war. Advantages sometimes turned into disadvantages, and vice versa. For example, the German in WWI had almost no interest in the tank but was largely dominant in the air war. By WWII, this same German had put more faith in the tank and gradually gave up mastery of the air.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 1:38 PM  

@71

From Amazon:

"Friendly Fire investigates the intrigue and treachery between—and within—the nations that were ostensibly allies during the Second World War. It asserts that the Allied war effort was more concerned with the balance of power in the postwar world than with the defeat of Germany and Japan. These machinations allegedly prolonged the duration of the war by as much as two years."


Let me refer you to an early 1950's movie, starring
Cary Grant, Werner Kemperer (of Commandant Klink fame), and Ray Walston (better known as My Favorite Martian)... The three of them are US Navy pilots on a 3-day leave in San Fransisco. Everyone wants them to do something (speak in support of War Bonds sales, etc.)

Newspaper Reporter: How's the war going?
Cmdr Crewson (Grant): Which war? The one between the Army and the Navy, the one between the Army and the Marines, or the one between the Navy and the Marines?
Reporter: Why, the one against the Japs, of cours?
Cmdr Crewson: Awww, nobody cares about them!


And it's true.

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 12, 2018 1:43 PM  

VD wrote:If Cochran's wrong about the fuel, etc. I'll read Suvorov's book.

He is.

Marshal of the Soviet Union S. K. Kurkotkin reported that in the beginning of June the “Soviet government, following a proposal by the General Staff, approved a plan to move 100,000 tons of fuel from the inland regions of the country.” In addition, “about 8,500 railroad cisterns with fuel [were] amassed at railroad intersections.” If the smallest 20-ton cisterns were being used, this would have meant much more than 100,000 tons. The most frequently used cistern in 1941 was the 62-ton. These 8,500 containers were at the stations waiting to be unloaded in the first days of the war. We also have to take into account all that was destroyed by enemy air raids at the railroad stations in the first minutes and hours of the war. Colonel General I. V. Boldin, deputy commander of the Western Front, related that the 10th Army (the most powerful army on the Western Front) had sufficient supplies of fuel in storage and in railroad containers, but lost everything in the first minutes of the war. On the eve of the war, this mass of cisterns was moving toward the borders, together with troops, military equipment, weapons, and ammunition.


Quick and dirty math tells me that's enough fuel to feed enough divisions to make trouble.

All right, I'll read the f***** thing. Better be worth it.

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 12, 2018 1:49 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:@66

"Yesterday I watched a few video’s about the Battle of Berlin and saw the Red Army using horses to move their artillery in the streets. This is 1945 and they still used horses. An interesting fact of WW 2, the vast majority of the Red Army’s wheeled vehicles were supplied in Lend Lease by the USA and UK."

The German Army never succeeded in getting their dependance on horses below 50%.

Stalin was more interested in building tanks (which civilians couldn't use after the war) than in building trucks which would give the population freedom of movement if the plants continued building. Also, trucks are easier to transport across the ocean than tanks.


Patton wanted some horses and mules. They dealt with mud better than vehicles. Maybe he was just a cavalry romantic. I think it's good to be at least minimally prepared for failing tech in any war scenario.

Blogger Hammerli280 June 12, 2018 1:55 PM  

@98: No, Patton knew what he was doing. I can well believe him wanting mules for the Sicilian campaign. Keep in kind that American forces wound up riding horses in Afghanistan...in 2002.

Blogger Sam June 12, 2018 2:09 PM  

Not this again.

Stalin was not planning to attack Hitler- he was an opportunist. He believed Germany and the allies would wear each other out fighting, after years of casualties communist revolutions would break out and the red army would be able to support them and conquer Europe.

Meanwhile the French and British wanted to get the USSR as an ally... so the Russians could do the bleeding for them. It was a three way standoff- does France/UK ally with Germany and attack the USSR? Does France/UK ally with the USSR and attack Germany? Or does Germany ally with the USSR and attack Poland? It turns out the Germans and the Soviets could offer each other the best deal and so Stalin went with Hitler.

As for the Soviet troop positioning, two things- 1) they were in the process of a massive reorganization. The original idea was to defend as close to the border as possible. When the Germans proceeded to encircle and destroy the Polish and French armies because they did that, the Russians started the switch to defense in depth. This was incomplete at the time the Germans attacked.

2) Soviet military doctrine was to counter the enemies initial thrust and then launch a counter-attack and push into their opponents territory. They attempted to do this when the Germans invaded.

As for the timing of the invasion, Hitler was constrained by raw materials. Stalin was shipping him more, but the Germans were paying in military equipment and technical plans- the longer the Germans waited, the stronger the Russians got. Stalin didn't need to invade Germany- if he turned off the tap, the German war machine would begin to slow down. So the Russians didn't need to be strong enough to conquer Europe to be a problem for Hitler; they just needed to be strong enough to hold off his army at the border.

Blogger pdwalker June 12, 2018 2:26 PM  

There Doctorate level thesis work here in this topic.

Blogger Andrew Pelham June 12, 2018 2:52 PM  

35,000 officers were removed by Stalin from 1937 to 1939. Including 11 of 13 Army Commanders, 57 of 85 Corps Commanders, and 110 of 195 Division Commanders. And that 35,000 includes some of the aforementioned replacements.
As a result of those deaths, the Soviet Army also undergoing a Army wide reorganization, and a doctrine change as well as most (if not all) of the Deep Battle Doctrine proponents were now dead or in a Gulag. Doing either of those at one time is hard enough, doing both is madness, but then this is Russia...
Manpower losses like that are going to affect any organization, and while there were capable replacements, the guys many of us history buffs know about got a lot of on the job training from 41 to 43, and there were quite a few failures as well.
To their credit, the Soviets learned quickly, it was a change of tactics that allowed them to break the Mannerheim line in 39, well, that and superior numbers and a better supply situation as the Finns were running low on most everything. But then the man in charge of that offensive, Timoshenko, lost his Army at Second Kharkov, and at the time he was regarded as one of the better Soviet Commanders.
The Soviet Army was in a state of flux in 1941, and many of the commanders "removed" in 1941-1942 would have been in command of a Soviet Offensive in 1942, which doesn't bode well for it's success in the short or mid term...

Blogger het1 June 12, 2018 2:54 PM  

> WWII was fought solely to promote world communism"

>I came to the same conclusion myself about 5 years ago.

Indeed. Especially if consider the foundation of World Bank and IMF, whose first director Harry White was Soviet agent:-))
(a sarcasm)

Blogger CarpeOro June 12, 2018 2:54 PM  

"may be the only person that Stalin really, truly trusted in his adult life"

And that is where you lost me. I never had the impression that anyone got a "trusted" pass from Stalin in anything I ever read about him.

In general, maybe I have too many things in my background that gave me incorrect impressions of reality but I haven't doubted Stalin's intent to grab as much as he could of Europe since I was a teen back in the 1970's. I served in intelligence around the end of the cold war, studied military, Russian and Soviet history and was a wargamer. Everything pointed toward ignoring the pro-communists and communists that proclaimed Stalin would have kept the peace.

From a strategic point of view placing as much of their forces that close to the border would have been a horrible defensive strategy - if you don't understand that I don't know if it is possible to get you up to speed. Honest.
Wargames are approximation of the events they depict, and things can be altered by the authors for "playabilty". That being said, sit down with a copy of Avalon Hill's "Third Reich" and the logic of a planned Soviet offensive was inevitable. Stalin wouldn't have sat out the war as someone else reshaped Europe.

Asking why the Soviet's would possibly want the Western Allies to invade Europe if they planned to take all of it... forget "you and him fight", that is a woman's strategy. It was simple calculation of watching enemies (even if allied that was what the USA and GB were no less than the Germans) weaken each other and burn through men instead of you doing so.

Blogger Hammerli280 June 12, 2018 2:57 PM  

@102: True...but we're talking Stalin here. Paranoid to a level that made Hitler look like a paragon of trust, combined with a callous murderousness that made Hitler look like a paragon of mercy.

Blogger Kallmunz June 12, 2018 3:19 PM  

Did Stalin want to invade Europe? In 1929 Stalin gave a speech to the Politburo where he said in effect: "Europe will be in another war and the Soviet Union must stay out of it, afterward we will liberate Europe." Stalin was counting on a repeat of WWI only this time he planned to simply walk in on a destroyed Europe. He had no idea that France would collapse, Britain would run, and Germany would attack.

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 12, 2018 3:22 PM  

@104

Yes, the commies wanted the whole world. The question is how did they propose to take it. I've played the hell out of Third Reich and other games, so I understand the logic of a Soviet first strike on Germany. The problem is, when did they ever take that kind of gamble?

Here are the wars they started:
Finnish Winter War & seizure of Baltic states. Low risk. Weak enemies with no powerful allies.
Invasion of Japanese Manchukuo in 1945. Low risk. Japanese beaten at sea and cutoff from home islands.
Invasion of South Korea by proxy. Again, low risk to own forces/territory.
Invasion of Hungary 1956. Sad story, but again low risk.
Invasion of Afghanistan. Turned out to be high risk, but incomparable to invading Nazi Germany in 1941.

They were commies. They thought the arc of justice and history bent towards worldwide communist revolution. Why take huge gambles when you got that going for you? Attacking a triumphant Germany in 1941 was a huge gamble.

That being said, I'll read Suvorov. Maybe his case is so strong it reveals Stalin doing something very uncharacteristic.

Blogger qualitycontrol June 12, 2018 3:24 PM  

@100. Sam
Please explain the reason for those high numbers amphibious tanks, tanks that drive 100 miles on highways and building airfields right at the border. Unless you give us a good reason for the existence of offensive military equipment and offensive soviet staging, your statement is meaningless.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 12, 2018 3:27 PM  

@100 "Stalin was not planning to attack Hitler- he was an opportunist."

At 23:20 Grigori Tokaev says, "We were told that the Red Army would never fight on its own territory." Does that sound defensive to you?

Blogger Sam June 12, 2018 3:38 PM  

@102
It is actually weirder then that.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/pogrom-of-the-commanders-the-factual-results-of-the-repressions-against-red-army-leadership.872308/#post-19692289

The numbers are overstated (although essentially all the top brass was replaced); many individuals were also reinstated. Additionally the Red Army apparently fired a significant chunk of its officer corps every year for drunkenness, moral degradation and embezzlement.

Blogger Peter Gent June 12, 2018 3:40 PM  

“He that walks with wise men shall be wise.” – Proverbs 13:30

One of the main reasons I frequent here...

Blogger Sam June 12, 2018 3:47 PM  

@108, 109
The Russian experience in WW1 and the Russian Civil War involved substantial mobility; Soviet military strategy was not based on total reliance on static defenses like the Maginot line, but was repel and counterattack.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 12, 2018 3:55 PM  

@112 Grigori Tokaev's account directly contradicts your claims. A policy of never fighting on your own territory cannot accurately be described as "repel and counterattack." Instead, what Tokaev describes is a policy of preemptive war.

Blogger DonReynolds June 12, 2018 4:06 PM  

@107 Ledford Ledford
"I understand the logic of a Soviet first strike on Germany. The problem is, when did they ever take that kind of gamble?"

The Russians took exactly that risk in 1914, invading Prussia from two directions, with two entire armies, which led to the brilliant German victory at Tannenberg.

Keep in mind, that the most recent experience the Russians and the Germans had to draw from before Operation Barbarossa was WWI itself. No doubt, the Germans noticed when the Red Army attacked Poland in 1922 and were defeated at the gates of Warsaw.

General "Winter" was a pretty good Russian but militarily there was little reason to give the Russian military much in the way of credibility, in spite of their huge numbers...add to that the Russian defeat in 1905 by the Japanese. European armies were not accustomed to defeat by Asiatics, and Russians are particularly sensitive about Asiatics, due to their own history.

Blogger westernman June 12, 2018 4:09 PM  

Does Suvorov discuss the German oil crisis?

Blogger qualitycontrol June 12, 2018 4:22 PM  

@112. Sam
How does it matter regarding the points I raised? The soviet military equipment was build for an invasion of Germany.

Blogger DonReynolds June 12, 2018 4:23 PM  

@110 Sam
"The numbers are overstated (although essentially all the top brass was replaced); many individuals were also reinstated. Additionally the Red Army apparently fired a significant chunk of its officer corps every year for drunkenness, moral degradation and embezzlement."

There was another element involved.

The Soviet system had very serious problems with having a standing military at all. It conflicted with Soviet Man and the Communist system. Their own experience with professional military castes had been the Czarist officer corps, which was incredibly reactionary and formed those determined White Russian armies the Red Army fought during the Russian civil war. Soviet man had little use for career military officers.

That same political resentment against standing armies and career military people even carried on in the modern ages. Soviet troops (nearly all) were limited to two years of service, then out. They simply did not have the career NCO corps you typically see in the American and West European military.

Blogger R Doom June 12, 2018 4:33 PM  

It's funny, back in the 80's and 90's I used to play very historically accurate war games, and I noted then that "The Russian troop deployments look like they're ready to attack Germany", based on some hex/counter game with historically accurate deployments.

I didn't know much in the way of history (beyond very shallow public school education), just assumed from the board that Germany was simply attacking a country which was clearly planning to attack Germany. So in casual dinner conversation, I mentioned something to that effect, and there was a history teacher at the table:

"Who told you that lie?"

I was too young to argue, but it's funny how eyeballs can override indoctrination at least sometimes.

Blogger Andrew Pelham June 12, 2018 4:33 PM  

@114: Poland and Finalnd in 39 don't count?

@110: Original estimates of 20-25% of the officer corps being removed were very wrong, IIRC the number was around 6 to 7%, but those were a critical 7%. Something like 25% of those officers removed were reinstated at some point, Rokossovsky being the best example IMO.

There was a lot of "behind the scenes" purges going on as well, right up until the start of Barbarossa. Starting in October of 1940 the NKVD went after several people in the Aviation, Ammunition and Armaments industries for a variety of imagined reasons. Then you had the Air Force Purge that started in April of 1941, which certainly didn't help either.

The graduation rates in that post from Paradox are misleading. Yes, a higher percentage of officers had graduated, but from schools who were affected by the purge as well in terms of the ever changing regulations and doctrines at the time. Yes, the officers had higher military education, but the education program itself at the time was below standards. An Officer graduating in 1940 had a lower quality education an officer graduating in 1936 did.

Blogger VD June 12, 2018 4:33 PM  

The problem is, when did they ever take that kind of gamble?"

Two years before, with the same commander, against the Japanese Sixth Army.

Blogger VD June 12, 2018 4:35 PM  

Stalin was not planning to attack Hitler- he was an opportunist.

You're completely wrong. He was planning to attack Germany and Western Europe before Hitler even took power.

Blogger Looking Glass June 12, 2018 4:39 PM  

Given the information discussed here, the Soviet's full intentions and the German read of them could have been wildly different. The deployment of further forces in a staging area for invasion, the beginning of material movement and the placement of competent generals in the type of action needed would, to the Germans, be a pretty clear pretext for a fairly imminent invasion.

Russia would also be coming with extensive experience in Winter Combat, after the Winter War, which started all of 18 months before Operation Barbarossa. If there was a rough winter in 1941 in the Carpathian mountains, the Russians could have cut the German Empire in half, convinced the captured countries to ally with them, then sweep into Germany fairly easily.

Actually, just some time looking at the lines of control in 1941 and a topographical map makes it pretty clear it was much easier for Russia to invade than defend. Germans would have had to control an absolutely massive amount of territory to actually defeat the Soviets.

Blogger The Fez June 12, 2018 4:45 PM  

It is doubtful that the Soviets would have been able to launch an invasion into Western Europe in the summer of 1941 or even by the summer of the following year. While Stalin's forces appeared to be quite formidable on paper, a large number of his corps in the west were under-strength and certainly not at a high level of combat readiness.

This was especially evident in the Red Army's mechanized corps, none of which had existed for any longer than a year (and only one of which had performed any training at the battalion level). The Soviets may have had a ludicrous 10,688 tanks deployed in the West, but it is clear from the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa that these formations were combat-ineffective and not prepared for imminent hostility.

Furthermore, of the tanks in the Red Army, the majority were T-26's and considered at the time to be totally obsolete. They were slow moving and especially vulnerable to light anti-tank guns (which could be fielded in much larger numbers). It was for this very reason that the Soviets were in the process of introducing the much more heavily armed and armored KV and T-34 series of tanks, of which they only had a handful in June 1941.

Stalin also had thirty of his best winter-fighting divisions located in eastern Russia for fear of a Japanese incursion into Siberia, and it was not until November of 1941 that they would even be recalled to the west. Were Stalin about to launch an attack in July (very late in the year for an offensives operation), it is unlikely he would have kept those divisions best suited for winter warfare literally thousands of miles away.

Taking these factors into consideration, it is extremely unlikely that Hitler preemptively staved off an imminent invasion in July 1941.

Blogger VD June 12, 2018 5:00 PM  

Furthermore, of the tanks in the Red Army, the majority were T-26's and considered at the time to be totally obsolete.

You need to do more research and compare those "obsolete" tanks to those the Germans used in their invasion.

Blogger O'RETY o'rety June 12, 2018 5:06 PM  

The interesting piece of the puzzle is how Stalin played Poland. Actually there are now some "rogue" Polish historians (e.g. Piotr Zychowicz) who dare to dismantle the years Soviet-built mythology on the way Poland behaved during the WW2 - that is they point to some little remembered facts like:
1. Poland had been considered a German ally almost up to a few months before the outbreak of WW2.
2. Hitler acquiring power in Germany marked the pivotal point in the bilateral Polish-German relations as he was Austrian and had nothing in terms on anti-Polish resentment so typical of the Prussian junkers, whose rule he put to end.
3. Even after the invasion Hitler still honored Pilsudski placing a ceremonial guard at his tomb.
4. The situation at the dawn of WW2 strategically very much resembled the Polish situation at the beginning of WW1. The same strategy that worked so well then could be easily followed in 1939. Poland should have joined forces with Germans and conquered the Soviets, which concerning the Polish experience of Polish-Bolshevik war of 20 yrs before (that the Poles decidedly won) and the fact that Poland was the only country to ever successfully occupy Russia, was very much feasible. After the Soviet collapse, Poles, exactly like during the WW1, could just leave Germans to dry in the bloody stalemate on the western front or openly switch sides.
5. Romania and Hungary, two of Polish natural allies made the right choice and allied themselves with Hitler, which then put their relations with Poland in a quite awkward position. Still both states managed to oppose the German pressure and act very decent towards Poles. Hungarian prime minister even answered that he would sooner blow up their own railways than join the offensive on Poland.

So why, considering all this, Poles still kamikazed their way into (this time almost final) demise of their country and nation, falling exactly into what was the best possible string of events for the British and the Soviets? We'll never know for sure but a wealth of national hubris (regaining independence after more than 100 yrs can be quite intoxicating) combined with some well-placed agents in the Polish government is probably the best bet.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 12, 2018 5:06 PM  

@123 ...but it is clear from the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa that these formations were combat-ineffective and not prepared for imminent hostility.

You're arguing with the benefit of hindsight. Knowledge of how his armor formations would later perform during Barbarossa was obviously not available to Stalin as he was preparing the Soviet invasion.

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 12, 2018 5:10 PM  

The problem is, when did they ever take that kind of gamble?"

Two years before, with the same commander, against the Japanese Sixth Army


Started with a series of border incidents that escalated when the Japanese launched a major assault. When Zhukhov had it won, Stalin told him to stop and dig in. It was a Japanese gamble, not a Soviet one. Both sides basically agreed to pretend it never happened.

You could argue Stalin backed off because he was planning an attack on Germany, but I don't see him behaving here as an adventurer.

Blogger David Power June 12, 2018 5:14 PM  

Geez, it's as though you people haven't even read this...

https://mk.christogenea.org/_files/Adolf%20Hitler%20-%20Mein%20Kampf%20english%20translation%20unexpurgated%201939.pdf

Blogger O'RETY o'rety June 12, 2018 5:18 PM  

het1 wrote
Poland after 1920 has occupied part of Ukraine and Belarus.

After September 1939 Stalin only returned these territories – to the line of Curzon (border of ethnic Poles).


So Poland occupied Belarus and Ukraine but USSR didn't? Also here's the truth about your "border of ethnic Poles"

Blogger The Fez June 12, 2018 5:25 PM  

"You need to do more research and compare those "obsolete" tanks to those the Germans used in their invasion."

This is a strange comment and one that doesn't address the central point that was being made: The Soviet Army was in the process of introducing modernized tanks into their mechanized corps, corps which were poorly equipped and poorly trained. Furthermore, it is not my personal opinion that the T-26 was obsolete, but that of Russian strategists who found its effectiveness lacking in the Winter War (which precipitated the development of the T-34 in the first place). It is a dubious theory that the Soviets would have initiated hostilities while A. in the process of modernizing their mechanized divisions, B. under-trained and unprepared.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 12, 2018 5:29 PM  

This is a strange comment and one that doesn't address the central point that was being made: The Soviet Army was in the process of introducing modernized tanks into their mechanized corps, corps which were poorly equipped and poorly trained.

Armies are constantly modernizing. What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that if the Soviets had been planning an invasion, they wouldn't have been modernizing? Or that modernization efforts cannot happen when a nation is at war - that war must necessarily wait until all planned modernization has been completed?

Blogger The Fez June 12, 2018 5:34 PM  

"You're arguing with the benefit of hindsight. Knowledge of how his armor formations would later perform during Barbarossa was obviously not available to Stalin as he was preparing the Soviet invasion."

That is true but ignores the tandem point being made: That those mechanized units that would be responsible for rapid assault into Western Europe barely had any training at the time Operation Barbarossa kicked off. Therefore, poverty in training and preparedness bore out in operation Barbarossa. Furthermore, the Red Army would have been well aware of aware of their own forces' combat effectiveness. Such as it was, many in the Red Army high command were well aware of how dismally prepared they were for war with Germany.

Blogger O'RETY o'rety June 12, 2018 5:41 PM  

Sam wrote:@102
The numbers are overstated (although essentially all the top brass was replaced); many individuals were also reinstated.


Read up on Rokossowski. Probably the best Soviet commander during WW2. This was a way to break them in and assure a hard to comprehend, inhuman levels of loyalty afterwards.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 12, 2018 5:42 PM  

That is true but ignores the tandem point being made

I ignored your other point because arguing that Stalin wouldn't have planned an invasion because Soviet troops were poorly trained - as evidenced by their dismal performance during the early months of Barbarossa - is also argument from hindsight.

Furthermore, the Red Army would have been well aware of aware of their own forces' combat effectiveness.

It's irrelevant what Red Army officers' collective assessments were. Stalin himself did not have an accurate picture of the Red Army's capabilities because most of those who displeased him by telling him the truth were shot.

Blogger Matamoros June 12, 2018 5:46 PM  

Some books you need to read to add to Culprit:

Icebreaker. WHO STARTED THE SECOND WORLD WAR? - Suvorov's first and perhaps best book on the USSR & WWII.

The Forced War, David Hoggan. How the Western Allies suckered Poland into starting the war.

Death Ride: Hitler vs. Stalin, 1941-1945, John Mosier - Debunks all the Soviet propaganda and explains why the "victor" lost 30 million men, and it was ultimately Hitler who caused the downfall of the Soviet Union.

Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny, R.H.S. Stolfi - a real examination of Hitler the man by professor emeritus at the US Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and retired colonel in the US Marine Corps Reserve.

Blogger Unknown June 12, 2018 5:48 PM  

Perfect! Just in time for Father's Day

Blogger The Fez June 12, 2018 5:59 PM  

"I ignored your other point because arguing that Stalin wouldn't have planned an invasion because Soviet troops were poorly trained - as evidenced by their dismal performance during the early months of Barbarossa - is also argument from hindsight."

I don't think you are reading into my arguments in good faith. I am not arguing that Stalin never *planned* to invade Germany or Western Europe. By all accounts this was his long-term goal. What I'm arguing is that the Red Army was not operationally prepared to initiate an offensive in 1941 - full stop.

Your contention is that a historical analysis of the Red Army's combat readiness preceding Operation Barbarossa can be dismissed as "hindsight" because Stalin didn't know and Stalin didn't care. It's not a very good one.

Blogger English Tom June 12, 2018 6:06 PM  

Thank you Dirk.

Blogger English Tom June 12, 2018 6:09 PM  

@Hammerli
Check out the book, At the court of the red tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore. Stalin and his crew were monsters.

Blogger John Best June 12, 2018 6:16 PM  

I think people are vastly downplaying Soviet strength at this point in history. The Russians were the dominant power in Europe from the end of the Napoleonic wars to their defeat in WW1. Strength like that doesn't go away. The Soviets were always going to invade Germany and Western Europe, the Germans beat them to it. WW2 was always going to happen, regardless of the Soviets tinkering and manipulation, the Germans had to break out and the Soviets had to attempt to sweep across Western Europe. The problems were the Polish and French, which the Soviets and Germans knocked out. I always thought Hitler was correct in everything he did strategically, just the Russians were too strong. He could have just been contented with regaining the Rhine, Austria and Czechoslovakia, but the reality is the French, Russians and Polish were all gaining in strength, he had to break out.

I am British, so people like to think we defeated the Germans or had a great impact on the war. Britain was nothing more than annoying for the Germans, we did small things around the outside and made things harder for them. That's all we did, the British lost the war after the failure in the Norway campaign.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 12, 2018 6:22 PM  

Your contention is that a historical analysis of the Red Army's combat readiness preceding Operation Barbarossa can be dismissed as "hindsight" because Stalin didn't know and Stalin didn't care. It's not a very good one.

That is a false characterization of my statements. My contention is simple: Stalin based his opinion of the Red Army on information that was available to him at the time. Not on the future outcome of Barbarossa.

Further, you are obviously failing to understand that armies being poorly equipped and trained does not prevent them from being sent to war.

Blogger VD June 12, 2018 6:28 PM  

This is a strange comment and one that doesn't address the central point that was being made.

There is nothing strange about it. And yes, it does. Now, stop arguing and do what you were told.

Blogger DonReynolds June 12, 2018 7:01 PM  

Noah B The Savage Gardener wrote:This is a strange comment and one that doesn't address the central point that was being made: The Soviet Army was in the process of introducing modernized tanks into their mechanized corps, corps which were poorly equipped and poorly trained.

Armies are constantly modernizing. What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that if the Soviets had been planning an invasion, they wouldn't have been modernizing? Or that modernization efforts cannot happen when a nation is at war - that war must necessarily wait until all planned modernization has been completed?


Very good, Noah. Military establishments are constantly upgrading and improving their equipment and never seem to be "ready" or "re-organized" quite yet. Hitler's own generals tried repeatedly to beg for more time, saying they would not be recovered from their losses in Poland until 1945 or later. The war in France and the low countries also cost more than they expected. They felt it was not possible to cobble together a sufficient force to invade the Soviet Union. The military are never "ready", but they will go when ordered.

Blogger SirHamster June 12, 2018 7:06 PM  

The Fez wrote:What I'm arguing is that the Red Army was not operationally prepared to initiate an offensive in 1941 - full stop.



Having insufficient competency to invade with the forces and material at hand does not preclude the leadership from ordering them to invade, using the material said leadership placed and prepared for invasion.

Blogger Harris June 12, 2018 7:23 PM  

I always believed that Hitler was almost forced to invade Russia because of his need for oil to fuel his war machine. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that has been my impression for years.

Blogger Dexter June 12, 2018 7:25 PM  

"back in the 80's and 90's I used to play very historically accurate war games, and I noted then that "The Russian troop deployments look like they're ready to attack Germany", based on some hex/counter game with historically accurate deployments."

What you also immediately notice, in any Barbarossa game with free set up, is that no Soviet player will ever replicate the historical deployment. A defensive deployment has only screening forces forward, and the main force behind the Dnepr in the South and on a line Gomel-Smolensk-Novgorod-Leningrad in the North.

Blogger tublecane June 12, 2018 7:33 PM  

I read the Chief Culprit a while ago. I'm not competent enough to judge it in whole, but must say I have always been suspicious of Official History's lack of interest in Soviet imperialism surrounding WWII. Especially considering we suddenly decided they wanted to conquer the world either at Yalta or whenever the Cold War started.

People know about the Nazi-Soviet Pact, but never interpret it as anything but the Nazis taking advantage of gullible Stalin. But what was Stalin's motive in seeking a pact? Could he have possibly been planning something himself?

"Naw, Stalin just wanted 'peace in our time.'"

Why invade Poland and Finland, then?

"Um, that was just old-style Tsarism. After all, the Romanovs had the Sphere of Influence."

What about conquering Eastern and parts of Central Europe, not to mention giant chunks of Asia, after the war?

"Oh, that's what any country would do after what they experienced. Hitler's fault."

Usually our ignorance of or disinterest in Russia's part in WWII, if acknowledged at all, is explained away as chauvinistic unwillingness to admit that we didn't beat the Nazis all by ourselves. But we did the heavy lifting against Japan, and American ignorance of Russia's role in the Asian theater is inarguably bigger.

How many Americans know fact one about China or Manchuria before, during, or after the war? How many know that Japan and the Soviets were imperial rivals? The way our historians tell it, it's like the story of King Arthur and Guinevere without Lancelot.

Blogger BCG June 12, 2018 7:37 PM  

VD wrote:You need to do more research and compare those "obsolete" tanks to those the Germans used in their invasion.

Yes, the German tanks were very much inferior to the T34 and KVs. They were also inferior to the French tanks that the Germans had defeated in June, 1940. At this point, the quality of the equipment was trumped by the quality of the German officer corps and by the superb training of the German soldier. The war turned around for the Russians only after the Germans had taught them how to use their superior armor. That's one of the problems when humans fight other humans: the dang creatures learn from each other!

As you know, the problem for the Germans was that they simply were not prepared for a protracted war. The German economy was not put into full war production mode until 1944 by Albert Speer. This makes the notion of Hitler as some sort of evil Mastermind with a Timetable for World Domination so ludicrous. Basically, he stumbled into World War II pretty much like everyone stumbled into the preceding installment of the War.

The German Army invaded the Soviet Union with no winter clothing because they believed the Russians could be beaten before the cold weather set in. Why did they believe this? I suspect it was self delusion based on fact--the fact that they had to win the war in a short time, or they would lose.

I don't think Stalin was a Mastermind with a Timetable either. They just don't exist. Though I fully agree that the disposition of the Russian Army in 1941 requires an explanation, that explanation may just turn out to be plain old incompetence.

Blogger The Fez June 12, 2018 7:46 PM  

"That is a false characterization of my statements. My contention is simple: Stalin based his opinion of the Red Army on information that was available to him at the time. Not on the future outcome of Barbarossa."

It is not a false characterization of your contention.

"Further, you are obviously failing to understand that armies being poorly equipped and trained does not prevent them from being sent to war."

I don't believe I have argued that ill-prepared armies cannot be sent to war. I believe I argued that the Soviets were not operationally prepared to to go to war and it is likely that they had no intention to do so in July of 1941. Would you like to provide evidence that the Soviets were planning to invade Germany in July of 1941?

Blogger Dexter June 12, 2018 7:47 PM  

" people like to think we defeated the Germans or had a great impact on the war. Britain was nothing more than annoying for the Germans, we did small things around the outside and made things harder for them. "

Read How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II by Phillips O'Brian for a different perspective.

If nothing else, Britain staying in the war to provide a base for U.S. forces had a huge impact on the war.

Blogger Matamoros June 12, 2018 7:48 PM  

By the way. For Kindle Unlimited readers two of Viktor Suvorov's books are free to read:

Icebreaker, noted above
and
The Truth About the Second World War

Blogger Matamoros June 12, 2018 7:57 PM  

The T-34 has been reevaluated after the Soviet mythology has been dropped and real data used.

WWII Myths - T-34 Best Tank of the war
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

Blogger DonReynolds June 12, 2018 8:02 PM  

During the entire war, there were two times when Stalin's own staff had to force him to accept the reality on the ground and adapt to changing circumstances.

The first time he refused to believe a major event was when the Soviet Union was invaded by the German military in Operation Barbarossa. He remained convinced that it was not an invasion but just a border incident and if the Soviets overreacted, it might provoke a war. He ordered everyone to stand down and hid out for a week.

The second time he refused to believe something was when his spies told him the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and not (again) invade Siberia. He refused to believe it, until it was already a fact. The attack by the Japanese on the Americans freed up 100 of the best Soviet divisions in the Far East to meet the German invasion from the West and they arrived in time to fight the battle of Stalingrad.

Blogger VD June 12, 2018 8:03 PM  

He ordered everyone to stand down and hid out for a week.

This is not true. They found his schedule. He was working 18-hour days and was in almost constant meetings.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 12, 2018 8:31 PM  

@152 Lots of good information there, thank you.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 12, 2018 9:35 PM  

@99

" Keep in kind that American forces wound up riding horses in Afghanistan...in 2002."

US Army also revived the mule-skinner school, because it turns out that pack mules are the best way to get supplies up to COP (Combat Outpost) several hundred meters up.

I ran into an old officer, and he recounts the story of a helicopter ride to a ledge a few thousand feet up, and then him and his team having to carry up hundreds of pounds of radio batteries, fuel cans, rations, water etc. up the side of the mountain, because the helos couldn't safely approach the COP any closer than that.

Blogger insight June 12, 2018 10:20 PM  

"By WWII, this same German had put more faith in the tank and gradually gave up mastery of the air."

That's because they got their asses handed to them by the USAF.

Blogger Brick Hardslab June 12, 2018 10:41 PM  

Would Germany have been better off stopping after they overran the Soviet forward positions and digging in? I can't see how grinding across Russia was a good idea.

Blogger Azimus June 12, 2018 10:51 PM  

This theory explains several of the great mysteries of the War:
1. Why was Japan the worst ally ever, pulling the US into the war and refusing to aid Germany and tie down those 100 Siberian Divisions?
2. Why did the US heavily sanction Japan for fighting Kuomintang China, then completely abandon Kuomintang in 1945?
3. Why did the US ignore Japanese surrender embassies, drop the atomic bomb, and accept their surrender only a few days later?
4. Why did Germany declare war on the US for no reason at all in 1941 when US Navy was attacking U-boats and they refrained from declaring?

Obviously there are many more questions, but the invisible hand of Soviet scheming does at least show that most of these curiosities happened to line up in USSR's favor...

Blogger Azimus June 12, 2018 11:06 PM  

That's because they got their asses handed to them by the USAF

Hmm. I'd have to see numbers, but my gut feel on this is that the US had unchallengable air superiority over the Germans for about 1yr from the intro of P-51 mid-1943 to the intro of the Me-262 in numbers in fall 1944. The allies had no answer, either technologically or tactically to the Me-262.

More likely I think the Germans turned to the tank because they were forced to make tough decisions on the most bang for the buck for their manufacturing base which, while advanced, had a far broader capability to build tractors with cannons on them than the ultra-delicate jet turbine engine.

Blogger Azimus June 12, 2018 11:07 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Azimus June 12, 2018 11:09 PM  

Would Germany have been better off... digging in?

Well this was Japan's strategy, how did it work out for them?

Blogger Angantyr June 12, 2018 11:12 PM  

@159
Interesting question, but I would venture to say "no" My reasoning is this: when the Germans were on the offensive, they often did very well, but when they hunkered down on the defensive, they got creamed by Soviet artillery (or, in the West, air power). It is very interesting to note that the Battle of Kursk, which was a strategic disaster for the Germans, was actually a massive victory from the strict standpoint of causalities inflicted vs. losses. Something like an 8:1 kill ratio for armor vehicles, ~3:1 for aircraft, and 4:1 for men killed/wounded. ***AND THIS EVEN THOUGH THE SOVIETS KNEW THE GERMANS WERE COMING, AND HAD PREPARED DEFENSES IN DEPTH***

One can only wonder how differently the Kursk battle might have turned out had the offensive not been delayed, and the Germans had stuck to mobile warfare.

Blogger Angantyr June 12, 2018 11:16 PM  

@163
Well, when their fleet came out to play it got sent to the bottom of the Pacific. When they sallied forth in Banzai charges, they got cut down en masse. But when the dug in really deep into tunnels, they inflicted overall causalities pretty much as good as they got, in spite of absolutely unchallengable U.S. air and naval superiority. Keep in mind that we dropped about an atom bomb's worth of ordnance onto Iwo and Okinawa, and did very little real damage to the Japanese. We had to go tunnel to tunnel, hole to hole with explosives and flame throwers to kill the bastards.

Blogger Dexter June 12, 2018 11:42 PM  

Would Germany have been better off... digging in?

Well this was Japan's strategy, how did it work out for them?


The Pacific War is the model that Stalin wanted to follow in Europe; wait until other nations have crippled his enemy, then attack in the closing days of the war to reap big geopolitical prizes on the cheap.

Blogger Stephen Saintonge June 12, 2018 11:43 PM  

24. The Russian army performed miserably against the Finns in the Russo-Finish war of 1940, despite having vastly more men and material. They eventually won but suffered heavy losses. The purges Stalin did to the armed forces, removing competent officers and replacing them with loyal yet less competent party members, showed its effect. An attack by Stalin on Europe would not have gone well for the Soviets prior to Barbarossa.

Yeah, and the Soviet economy didn't work so well, and lots of other things went wrong. SO WHAT?

The question isn't whether the attack would have succeeded, but whether Stalin was planning it. Soviet general Pyotr Grigorenko also believed Stalin planned to attack, as the border troop dispositions make sense for that, but not for defense. (See his MEMOIRS).

Russian historian Constantine Pleshakov believed Stalin was planning to attack, and confirms one of Suvorov's points from his own research: the troops at the border had special plans in sealed envelopes, not to be opened except by direct order from Moscow. When the German attack came, a few commanders did open them, but all they contained were various attack plans. (See Pleshakov's book STALIN'S FOLLY).

German historian Joachim Hoffman noted that many captured Red Army officers believed Stalin intended to attack. In his book STALIN'S WAR OF EXTERMINATION, he notes interrogations of said officers, who said the speeches Stalin made in the months immediately before the German invasion, in which he talked about how the Red Army was now a modern, offensive force, were taken as a 'Get ready for a war' by most of them.

Canadian historian John English believes Stalin was planning to attack. In his book ON INFANTRY, he notes how many Soviet memoirs explain that when the author heard of the invasion, his unit was moving West.

American historian Charles M. Fair didn't offer any opinion on what the USSR was planning, but in his book FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY, he notes something a German officer who took part in Barbarosa told him: there were huge supply dumps right up near the border, unguarded, out in the open, with only camouflage netting available to prevent them from being seen from the air.

And Stalin is well-confirmed as insisting that Hitler wasn't going to attack. Yet he had all those troops pressed against the border, and more coming. Troops that weren't dug in, didn't have minefields, and were otherwise unprepared for attack. Whatever for, if not for an attack? No coherent explanation ever gets offered.

So I think the evidence is good that Stalin intended to attack Hitler, but got preempted. I agree it wouldn't have gone all that well for the Red Army. Again, so what? Stalin blundered. Deal with it, fans of communism.

Blogger Dexter June 12, 2018 11:46 PM  

The allies had no answer, either technologically or tactically to the Me-262.

Sure they did. Tactically, they loitered near German airfields, and attacked the Me-262s as they were taking off or coming in to land.

Blogger Dexter June 13, 2018 12:00 AM  

Would you like to provide evidence that the Soviets were planning to invade Germany in July of 1941?

You mean other than their actual deployment, their purely offensive military doctrine, the fact that their troops in the field carried sealed orders which, when opened in response to the German attack, contained instructions to go on the offensive, and the fact that the Soviet high command only wargamed offensive options, never combat on Soviet soil?

If all that won't convince you, nothing will.

Blogger Stephen Saintonge June 13, 2018 12:05 AM  

59. (szopen in italic, VD in bold)

The only question is whether he wanted to do it in 1941

Yes, that's the point on which some of the experts disagree with Suvorov. However, more information has come out from the Soviet-era archives which tends to support rather than disprove his theory.

some of things Rezun is using as an argument (e.g. wheels for the BT tanks) are wrong.

Perhaps, but it's pretty damn hard to explain away the position of the troops, the amphibious tanks, or the fact that the Soviets were pretty clearly setting up for a much larger scale repeat of Kalkhin-Gol with the same commander in charge.

Most importantly, it explains the bizarre German rush to attack while obviously unprepared. You may recall from Band of Brothers that German tactical doctrine called for attacking while the enemy was staging or regrouping.


You have to be careful to distinguish between the question of whether an invasion was planned, and how well it would have gone. I don't believe the Red Army would have conquered easily unless they caught the Wehrmacht completely by surprise. See Roger Reese's book STALIN'S RELUCTANT SOLDIERS on the morale problems in the Red Army in 1941 as one reason.

But the evidence that Stalin intended to attack is massive. It makes sense of a mountain of information that can't be explained if you assume Stalin wanted peace to last through 1941.

Blogger BCG June 13, 2018 12:18 AM  

Another myth about WW2 is that the Germans invented a new kind of war called "Blitzkrieg". The attack on Poland was really fairly pedestrian; there was nothing particularly innovative about it. Minus the airplanes, a Napoleonic army could do the same thing. But beating France in six weeks...now that was something different. Right? For a demolition of the standard "Blitzkrieg" story, read The Blitzkrieg Legend by Karl-Heinz Frieser.

Really, it should never have worked; the Anglo-French forces should have won. Fundamentally, the conquest of France in 1940 was an audacious exercise in misdirection. The French and Brits were absolutely convinced that the Germans would proceed just as they had done in WW I--punch through Northern Belgium and try do the "Schlieffen" again.

They didn't. All the German activity in Holland and Northern Belgium was only a diversion, designed to reinforce Allied preconceptions. Meanwhile, a long line of panzers was slowly crawling through the constricted roadways of the Ardennes, easy prey to any Allied air attack. Yet they were not attacked. Why? Because the French did not believe they were there, the French could not see them. By belief are we blinded. Few French reconnaissance planes were sent over the Ardennes, and fewer returned. Some of those that did return had airframes perforated by bullet holes, and pilots who insisted they had seen a strong German force in the woods of the Ardennes mountains. But they were not believed.

When the German Army crossed the Meuse between Dinant and Sedan, the French kept right on thinking that this was a diversion. So this wasn't really a new method of warfare; deceit is an ancient tactic.

Blogger tublecane June 13, 2018 12:34 AM  

@160- Think about this for a minute: why would it be an invisible hand? The Soviet Union has fallen. We have access to their archives. This war is the founding event of the current ruling world order, and therefore of great interest. Shouldn't we have at least tried to know as much about the Russians as we know about ourselves or the conquered?

The Iron Curtain got in the way, of course. As did commie cunning and their knack for lying and forgery. Also, the useful idiot factor and the superficiality of the current Western intellectual class.

That being said, it's still scandalous we don't know more.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 13, 2018 1:04 AM  

I think that it is pretty persuasive that Stalin played Hitler badly, that all of World War II was a set up by Stalin in order to conquer Western Europe.

Yep. Of course, the Poles got played, too -- but not by the Soviets. They really thought the Brits and the French were going to get there in time to help out, and that they would be driving straight to Berlin.

Look at the documents that the Germans captured (100 Documents on the Origin of the War ) And what Forrestal and Joe Kennedy had to say about FDR and (((Bullitt)))'s role -- it wasn't just the French and the British pushing the Poles. FDR was pushing them... and pushing the Brits, too.

Who were the USSR's potential opponents near its borders, limiting its expansion, in 1939? Germany, Japan, and (to a lesser extent) Poland. You can argue that it was all just a big accident, but in terms of the results, it's impossible to dispute that WW2 was a (very successful) war of Communist expansion, that left the USSR with no significant enemy states anywhere near its borders.

Blogger great_o'rety June 13, 2018 1:39 AM  

Exactly. We, Poles, though pushed, had fallen due to our hubris. It was the nobodies that Piłsudski left after his death that ruled Poland. Every dictator surrounds himself with non-threatening mediocricity. We paid for this dealy

Blogger great_o'rety June 13, 2018 1:47 AM  

We also got played, even worse, after the fall during WW2. No capitulation, government in exile that was switched by the French and the inane struggle throughout the rest of the ge war that didn't do us a speck of good and only served as an aliied diversion on German back lines. That didn't even earn us not being (((accused today))) of co-inventing Holocaust with the Germans

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 13, 2018 2:27 AM  

The Fez wrote:I believe I argued that the Soviets were not operationally prepared to to go to war and it is likely that they had no intention to do so in July of 1941.

So it's acknowledged by all historians that the Wehrmacht, the mighty, performance-driven Wehrmacht, the greatest war machine of its time, invaded Russia when not properly prepared, but Russia, ideologically driven, certain of it's historical mandate, paranoid and in many ways structurally insane Russia could not have invaded Germany when not properly prepared?

Is that really the argument?

Cause it literally makes no sense.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 13, 2018 2:31 AM  

Mastermind wrote:My brain dick is much bigger than yours. I'm actually losing track of the times you've lashed out at me for crumbling your inane train of thought with a single sentence. I guess this time it really hurts because it's hard to sell a non-fiction book if the basic premise suffers from an obvious and irredeemable flaw.
Secret Genius DESTROYS Vox Day with ONE SINGLE SENTENCE!

Lil' Benjy has competition now!


But whatever. I'll stop commenting here, or even reading your blog. Consider another bridge burned because of your Napoleon complex.
I'll give 4-to-1 odds he's such a useless pathetic gamma that he'll be commenting here within a day, probably using a sock. The same sock he wanks into.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 13, 2018 2:35 AM  

@The Fez
Furthermore, of the tanks in the Red Army, the majority were T-26's and considered at the time to be totally obsolete.

There is no absolute definition for "obsolete." You know that, right? It always matters what the enemy has. Or perhaps you do, and you're assuming that the German armored forces were entirely made up of... what, Tiger tanks? M1 Abrams? Meanwhile, back in the real world, you might wish to read -- and learn.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Panzer_I

The Panzer I's performance in combat was limited by its thin armor and light armament of two machine guns [i.e. NO MAIN GUN]. As a design intended for training, the Panzer I was not as capable as other light tanks of the era, such as the Soviet T-26. Although weak in combat, it formed a large part of Germany's tank forces and was used in all major campaigns between September 1939 and December 1941

And (of course), the German in 1941 had nothing even close to comparable to the Soviet T-34. Or the KV.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 13, 2018 2:52 AM  

@great_o'rety

We also got played, even worse, after the fall during WW2. No capitulation, government in exile...

Then, after seeing how few came back from Kolyma and the other camps, and especially after Katyn, they started to see what had happened, but it was far too late.

David irving's Accident: The Death of General Sikorski was interesting.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 13, 2018 3:12 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 13, 2018 3:15 AM  

Vox - while you often tout your intelligence, I believe your scrupulous honesty is an even more impressive quality. I do mean this with all sincerity and it's a key reason why I enjoy reading this blog.

I doubt that many regular readers would disagree.

Blogger tublecane June 13, 2018 3:59 AM  

@173- Forrestal, first to preside over the War Department when it Orwellianly became the Department of Defen, then mysteriously went crazy and killed himself.

Joe Kennedy, whose son became president and some say was murdered by the Deep State for plotting to break the "intelligence community" into a million pieces, or however he put it.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 13, 2018 4:10 AM  

As far as books on WW2 go: it's too big a topic to really cover in a singe book, of course. You have to go with either superficial surveys of the whole thing, personal accounts (hopefully with some context, or focus on particular areas.

I think the original question was for 8-10 y.o. boys. This probably isn't great for that age, but the Osprey Publishing "Campaign" series was OK for the individual campaigns. Decent illustrations and maps. Also the "Battle Orders" series from the same publisher.

Some quirky recommendations, looking at the war from different perspectives:

Into the Darkness , Lothrop Stoddard (yes, that Lothrop Stoddard)

The author's personal account of his travels through Germany and Central Europe from October 1939 to early 1940 -- the period of the Phony War. He fluent in German and was able to interview a number of Nazi leaders, but also devoted a lot of time to observing and talking with the ordinary people he met.

Onward Christian Soldiers , by Donald Day
Dorothy Day's brother, A reporter for the Chicago Tribune 1920 - 1940s, stationed in Latvia for many years prior to the war, tells of his experiences in the Baltic (including the Soviet invasion of Latvia) and Scandinavia before and during the war.

Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath
Completed in 1963, not published until almost 50 years later. Interesting revisionist viewpoint from someone who was a very establishment figure at the time.

Blogger VD June 13, 2018 4:11 AM  

I'll stop commenting here, or even reading your blog. Consider another bridge burned because of your Napoleon complex.

Good. Stay gone.

Blogger tublecane June 13, 2018 4:21 AM  

@31- I don't give any credence to the idea that Germany actually wanted to conquer the world. There was no real chance of them making it over here in the event they had won in Europe, anyway. At least not for a generation or more.

Think of it this way: there must be files sitting in drawers in Washington right now containing plans for conquering and administering every country on earth. But we don't actually plan to do so. Not that certain people wouldn't enjoy trying.

They are contingency plans.

Blogger tublecane June 13, 2018 4:31 AM  

@37- Deliverance is one way to look at it. But in another sense, Britain saved itself. Intelligence operations can be as decisive as anything in warfare, and Britain pulled off a massive one in this country prior to Pearl Harbor. You know,the whole Man Who Was Intrepid thing.

The commies of course had spies deep within our leadership, too.

Blogger tublecane June 13, 2018 4:49 AM  

@60- Hitler was already the priority before Pearl Harbor, and our eagerness to jump into war against him is the reason Pearl Harbor happened. We didn't want that attack, exactly, but we conspired to allow AN attack to stir up the public.

We were already basically at war, considering we were giving Germany's enemies war material for free and shooting at them on the high seas. But the Nazis restrained themselves. The Japs didn't.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 13, 2018 6:43 AM  

"Furthermore, of the tanks in the Red Army, the majority were T-26's and considered at the time to be totally obsolete."

Oh, as in contrast to the PzKw I and PzKw II, which were little more than armored cars with treads...

Blogger Dirk Manly June 13, 2018 6:45 AM  

"1. Poland had been considered a German ally almost up to a few months before the outbreak of WW2."

I was surprised to find out that Poland participated in the German invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1937. Strange how that has been totally ignored since 1945.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 13, 2018 7:09 AM  

@137

"I don't think you are reading into my arguments in good faith. I am not arguing that Stalin never *planned* to invade Germany or Western Europe. By all accounts this was his long-term goal. What I'm arguing is that the Red Army was not operationally prepared to initiate an offensive in 1941 - full stop.

Your contention is that a historical analysis of the Red Army's combat readiness preceding Operation Barbarossa can be dismissed as "hindsight" because Stalin didn't know and Stalin didn't care. It's not a very good one."

This completely ignores that point that during the years that the "Germany can't have any armor" component of the Treaty of Versailles was actually being observed, the German army was receiving it's tank training FROM THE SOVIET RED ARMY.

Given typical 2-year service for conscripts, prior to the start of the war, the Red Army NEVER had a well-trained armor force. Just as a soldier would really start to become proficient as a tank crewman, his term of service would end, and he would be replaced by a novice.

Also, the T-34s already existed in large numbers. They were being held on the other side of the Urals, out of sight, so that nobody knew they existed.

When the T-34 showed up, it wasn't dribs and drabs as you would expect from a new model just going into production -- it was a sudden onslaught of hundreds of these things showing up nearly all at once. The Germans were EXTREMELY surprised, because, due to their on-going training programs with the Red Army, they thought they knew all of the Red Army's equipment, especially armor.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 13, 2018 7:14 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 13, 2018 7:19 AM  

@141

> That is a false characterization of my statements. My contention is simple: Stalin based his opinion of the Red Army on information that was available to him at the time. Not on the future outcome of Barbarossa.

> Further, you are obviously failing to understand that armies being poorly equipped and trained does not prevent them from being sent to war."

To further reinforce Noah the Savage Omnicomposter's point:


Interviewer: "Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up armor our vehicles, and why don't we have those resources readily available to us?

Donald Rumsfeld: As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe -- it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.
-- "Troops put Rumsfeld in the hot seat". CNN. 2004-12-08. Retrieved on 2006-04-07

Blogger Dirk Manly June 13, 2018 7:31 AM  

@149

"
I don't think Stalin was a Mastermind with a Timetable either. They just don't exist. Though I fully agree that the disposition of the Russian Army in 1941 requires an explanation, that explanation may just turn out to be plain old incompetence."

They had already seen what the Germans did to the Polish Army, of which the majority was on the Polish-German border rather than on the eastern shore of the Vistula River, which is the natural line of defense (and also the natural border of Poland).

Blogger het1 June 13, 2018 7:44 AM  

To Dirk Manly

@188

> I was surprised to find out that Poland participated in the German invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1937. Strange how that has been totally ignored since 1945.

W. Churchill wrote about this in his memories, and he compared Poland in this incident with "hyena".

Better to read primary sources instead of secondary and tertiary:-).
See sign #5 in the list of "The Seven Signs of the Charlatan":-))
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/seven-signs-of-intellectual-charlatan.html

Blogger Peter Gent June 13, 2018 8:07 AM  

Azimus wrote:Would Germany have been better off... digging in?

Well this was Japan's strategy, how did it work out for them?


Actually, according to the book Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway the Japanese didn't attempt this until after they had lost their large carriers which made any attempt at a picket defense all but impossible.

Blogger Gapeseed June 13, 2018 8:15 AM  

A very interesting here, but Vox has a throwaway piece of rhetoric where he says (paraphrasing) the American Lend-Lease program had absolutely no effect on Russia’s success during the war. That’s almost certainly dead wrong. The Soviets were far more centralized under Communist rule than the Tsar. All roads led to Moscow (almost literally) and political control over the army was no sure thing without heavy centralized control in place. This state of affairs was not as prevalent as during the time of Napoleon. Thus, Napoleon could capture Moscow and not collapse Russian resistance. Given how close Germany got to Moscow, it is likely American equipment proved decisive in denying the Nazis Moscow and with it the collapse of Soviet command that would have necessarily followed.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 13, 2018 8:16 AM  

@159

"1. Why was Japan the worst ally ever, pulling the US into the war and refusing to aid Germany and tie down those 100 Siberian Divisions?"

The Japanese conducted ZERO long-term plannning.

After the Pearl Harbor attack, they were just running around attacking things, with no real long-term goal.
Then the Doolittle raid spooked them, so they reacted by coming up with the Midway Operation, which, even if they had succeeded in taking Midway, would have been a Pyrhhic victory that just sucked up resources (large amounts of resupply would have ended up at the bottom of the Pacific due to USN subs) with no real gain. Midway was also within range of B-17s based in Oahu.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 13, 2018 8:26 AM  

@171

"Think about this for a minute: why would it be an invisible hand? The Soviet Union has fallen. We have access to their archives. This war is the founding event of the current ruling world order, and therefore of great interest. Shouldn't we have at least tried to know as much about the Russians as we know about ourselves or the conquered?"

We have better access to the KGB archives than we have access to the WW2 military archives.

For instance, it is still law in Russia that is is absolutely FORBIDDEN to conduct any research into the number of Red Army and/or civilian casualties at Stalingrad.

Read Ivan's War by Catherine Merriweather. She describes the great difficulty in getting access to the wartime archives.

Blogger Unknown June 13, 2018 11:41 AM  

The USSR and German military had a close relationship since the 1922 Treaty of Rapallo. Remember, it was the German military who brought Lenin back to Russia and funded his Bolsheviks. This played out in the massive Soviet spy networks and betrayal of high level German intelligence to the Soviets. Post WWI USSR was Germany's largest trading partner.
The was even talk of a joint German-USSR invasion of that 'monstrous bastard of the Treaty of Versailles' (Poland) after USSR's humiliating ass kicking by Poland during The Polish–Soviet War. A war comrade Stalin was cited for insubordination by the People's Commissar of Military and Naval Affairs of the Soviet Union, Leon Trotsky.

A two front war with Poland and Japan was to be avoided at all costs. Getting Germany to do the heavy lifting in Poland allowed Zhukov to build a force that outnumbered the Kwantung Army by a 10:1 ratio in all facets (men, tanks, aircraft, trucks, fuel, etc.) ensuring victory at Khalkhin Gol. USSR intelligence were well aware of impending US/Britain oil embargo against the Japanese forcing the military to prepare to go south. The (Kwantung Army) Japanese Sixth Army 23rd Division was least trained, equipped, no fuel, no supply lines, were basically abandoned.

The Russians did not attack when they were supposed to, when the Germans did?
On 14 September, with Poland's collapse near, the Soviet press began making ominous statements about Poland. The undeclared war between the Soviet Union and the Empire of Japan at the Battles of Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan) in the Far East ended with the Molotov–Tojo agreement between the USSR and Japan which was signed on 15 September, with a ceasefire taking effect on 16 September. On 17 September, Molotov delivered a declaration of war.

Germans running low on ammunition?
Germans predicted they will use 1/6 of their ammunition reserves during the September Campaign and they were close to surpass that level. That's the reason of the myth that Wehrmacht was running out of ammunition. In fact they had huge reserves and kept producing.


The reason the Red Army invaded Finland and stopped where they did.
Finland had been a source of strategic concern to the Soviet Union because of its proximity to the densely populated, industrialized zone centered on the Soviet Union's second largest city, Leningrad.
Soviets developed the suspicion that Finland would allow Germany to use its territory as a base from which to invade the Soviet Union.
The Finns did little to allay them. In 1937 a German submarine flotilla visited Helsinki, and it was greeted warmly by the people and by the government. In May 1938, the Finnish government presided over two great celebrations, marking the twentieth anniversary of the entry of German troops into Helsinki and of the entry of Mannerheim's forces into Helsinki, events that numerous prominent Germans attended. The Finns were also allowing a German naval squadron to visit Helsinki. 1939 the German army chief of staff, General Franz Halder, was received by the government in Helsinki and viewed Finnish army maneuvers on the Karelian Isthmus.
1939 Stalin in person started negotiations to conclude a military agreement.
Soviet demands included the installation of Soviet military facilities on Finnish soil, these negotiations went nowhere even though a land exchange greater and more resource laden were offered to the Finns.


Yes the Finns manhandled the Red Army it was no 'faking Hitler out' ruse. USSR poured in Soviet troops totaling about one million men attacked Finland on several fronts.
Overwhelmed Finns made peace (the Treaty of Moscow) on Soviet terms on March 12, 1940, agreeing to basically the original negotiations, the cession of western Karelia and to the construction of a Soviet naval base on the Hanko Peninsula.

Considering both Germany and USSR were horse and wagon armies, I'm quite sure those 400,000 trucks alone from America made a big difference.

Blogger Azimus June 13, 2018 1:20 PM  

167. Dexter June 12, 2018 11:46 PM
Sure they did. Tactically, they loitered near German airfields, and attacked the Me-262s as they were taking off or coming in to land.


Sounds great. Why not just use this method on every plane? Makes the war so simple.

But seriously, is this a viable tactic? The Germans are pretty smart, one would think they would set up AAA to protect their airfields at some point. Or radar to warn of approaching planes. Or CAP. The countermeasures are plentiful to counter the "Surprise attack, got 'em!" tactic.

The Allies' only effective countermeasure was numbers. 40 Me-262's on an interceptor mission sounds intimidating, until you realize they are intercepting a 1200 bomber and 700 fighter raid.

From the production numbers it looks like Messerschmidt was retooling most of their production for 262's, producing about 40-50/wk in 1945. Depending on battlefield losses, Germany might've had 3,000 Me262's flying by the end of 1945. That would've been a problem for Allied air superiority.

Blogger Azimus June 13, 2018 1:55 PM  

196. Dirk Manly June 13, 2018 8:16 AM
The Japanese conducted ZERO long-term plannning.


In China/Burma, I agree. But the attack on the Western colonies was extremely well coordinated and timed: going from memory, Hawii, Wake, Guam, Phillipines, Hong Kong, Singapore, Netherlands East Indies (an archipelago the size of Europe), all attacked in a coordinated way within weeks sometimes hours of each other.

1 – 200 of 201 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts