ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, May 12, 2021

Did Hitler save Europe?

As more evidence concerning the buildup to Operation Barbarossa surfaces, historians are increasingly being forced to confront the case for a very politically incorrect conclusion about World War II.

Suvorov’s thesis can be summed up as follows: on June 22, 1941, Stalin was about to launch a massive offensive on Germany and her allies, within days or weeks. Preparations had started in 1939, just after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and had accelerated at the end of 1940, with the first divisions deployed to the new expanded Soviet borders, opposite the German Reich and Romania, in February 1941. On May 5, Stalin announced to an audience of two thousand military academy graduates flanked by generals and party luminaries that the time had come to “switch from the defensive to the offensive.” Days later, he had a special directive sent to all command posts to “be prepared on a signal from General Headquarters to launch lightning strikes to rout the enemy, move military operations to his territory and seize key objectives.” New armies were being raised in all the districts, with mobilization now reaching 5.7 million, a gigantic army impossible to sustain for long in peacetime. Close to one million parachutists—troops useful only for invasion—had been trained. Hundreds of aerodromes were built near the Western border. From June 13, an incessant movement of night trains transported thousands of tanks, millions of soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of tons of ammunition and fuel to the border.

According to Suvorov, if Hitler had not attacked first, the gigantic military power that Stalin had accumulated on the border would have enabled him to reach Berlin without major difficulty and then, in the context of the war, to take control of the continent. Only Hitler’s decision to preempt Stalin’s offensive deprived him of these resources by piercing and disrupting his lines and destroying or seizing about 65% of all his weaponry, some of it still in trains.

Suvorov displays an impeccable knowledge of the Red Army, and an acute expertise in military strategy. Regarding Stalin’s intentions, generally very secret, he produces numerous quotes from the 13 volumes of his writings. He sifted through mountains of archives and the memoirs of hundreds of Russian servicemen. It is not exaggerated to say that the “Suvorov thesis” has revolutionized World War II history, opening a totally new perspective to which many historians, both Russian and German, have now added details: among Germans can be mentioned Joachim Hoffmann, Adolf von Thadden, Heinz Magenheimer, Werner Maser, Ernst Topitsch, Walter Post, and Wolfgang Strauss, who has reviewed Russian historians on the topic.

Suvorov’s thesis has also generated much hostility. His opponents fall into two categories. Some authors reject completely his analysis and simply deny that Stalin was planning an offensive. When considering the symmetrical concentrations of the German and Russian armies on their common border in June 1941, they interpret them differently: German concentration proves German bellicose intentions, but the same movement among the Russians is interpreted as proof of the incompetence of Soviet generals for defense....

Just like Suvorov, and with the same sources, McMeekin shows that, despite his tactical pretense at “socialism in one country,” Stalin was unconditionally devoted to Lenin’s goal of the sovietization of Europe. His analysis of the way Stalin baited Hitler into a war on the Western front with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is totally in line with Suvorov. McMeekin attributes the same significance as Suvorov to Stalin’s announcement, on May 5, 1941, that “we must shift from defense to offence” (to which he devotes his “prologue”). His interpretation of Stalin’s simultaneous self-appointment as president of the Council of People’s Commissars exactly echoes Suvorov’s: “From this moment forward, all responsibility for Soviet foreign policy, for peace or war, for victory or defeat, lay in Stalin’s hands alone. The time for subterfuge was over. War was imminent.”[10] McMeekin repeats most of Suvorov’s evidence that Stalin’s war preparations were offensive and potentially overwhelming. He insists, like Suvorov, on the undefended air bases built near the border:

The most dramatic material evidence of more offensive Soviet intent was the construction of forward air bases abutting the new frontier separating Stalin’s empire from Hitler’s. The “Main Soviet Administration of Aerodrome Construction,” run by the NKVD, ordered the construction of 251 new Red Air Force bases in 1941, of which fully 80 percent (199) were located in western districts abutting the German Reich.

In view of the evidence, McMeekin believes that “the ideal launch date for the Soviet offensive … fell in late July or August.”

McMeekin even reinforces Suvorov’s argument that Hitler’s mobilization on the Eastern Front was a reaction to Stalin’s war preparations, rather than the opposite, by showing that, as early as June 1940, the Germans were receiving Intelligence reports that

the Red Army, capitalizing on the Wehrmacht’s concentration in the West, was preparing to march from Lithuania into virtually undefended East Prussia and German-occupied Poland. … On June 19, a German spy reported from Estonia that the Soviets had informed the departing British ambassador in Tallinn that Stalin planned to deploy three million troops in the Baltic region “to threaten Germany’s eastern borders.”

McMeekin uses the same archives as Suvorov, but never gives him credit for first bringing them into the light. The only exception is in a single endnote, where he mentions that one of Stalin’s reasons for believing that Hitler would not attack in June was that he had “learned, via spies inside Germany, that OKW had not ordered the sheepskin coats experts believed to be necessary for winter campaigning in Russia, and that the fuel and lubricating oil used by the Wehrmacht’s armored divisions would freeze in subzero temperatures.” The note says: “Not all of Suvorov’s claims stand up, but this one gels well with Stalin’s sanguine attitude toward reports of the German arms buildup.” In another footnote, McMeekin disputes Suvorov’s claim that Stalin ordered in spring 1941 the dismantlement of the “Stalin Line” of defense that would hamper the advances of his troops: it was not dismantled but simply “neglected”, says McMeekin, before adding: “Here, as elsewhere, Suvorov hurts his case by over-egging the pudding.” Such criticism would be fair, if McMeekin had also acknowledged the overwhelming mass of facts that Suvorov got right.

Apparently McMeekin thought it tactically wise, not only to snub Suvorov even when he proves him right, but also to endorse his most virulent opponent David Glantz (who, he says, was “right to emphasize how poorly prepared for war the Red Army was in reality”) even when he proves him wrong, with abundant evidence that in June 1941, the issue of the war “would be determined by who would strike first, gaining control of enemy airspace and knocking out airfields and tank parks.”

It is not difficult to guess the motive for McMeekin’s ostentatious contempt of Suvorov. Suvorov has crossed the line by suggesting that Barbarossa saved Europe from complete sovietization. Although he expresses no sympathy for Hitler, Suvorov agrees with him that, if he had not attacked first, “Europe was lost.” Suvorov has committed an unforgivable sin. It is an untouchable cornerstone of both Western and Russian historiography that Hitler is the embodiment of absolute Evil, and that no good whatsoever could ever have come from him. And so academic historians of the Eastern Front are expected to display their good manners by shunning Suvorov, and by not asking: What if Hitler had not attacked first? They must not suggest that Hitler ever told the truth, or that his military commanders were wrongfully hanged.

Well, if the price for bringing Suvorov’s revisionism into mainstream scholarship is to deny one’s debt to Suvorov, so be it. World War II historians must be smart: one careless phrase or reference can cost you a career and a reputation, as happened to David Irving (not in McMeekin’s bibliography, incidentally). Some obvious conclusions are better left for others to draw. There is no question that McMeekin’s book is a great achievement and it must be hoped that it will become a new landmark in the historiography of World War II. 

I asked one historian and expert on Operation Barbarossa about Suvorev's thesis back in 2018, and while he, too, agreed that Stalin had plans to attack Western Europe, he doesn't believe that the attack was planned for 1941 and is highly skeptical of Suvorev's case for it. 

But it doesn't really matter whether the attack was planned for 1941 or 1942, the conclusion is the same, as uncomfortable as it may make those who have assumed that Nazi Germany was the worstest evilist most invadery instigator that there ever was. I haven't read McMeekin's book yet, but you can be certain that I will do so in the near future, and I will share my thoughts on it.

Perhaps the most significant fact may be this: the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact gave two-thirds of Poland to the Soviet Union and one-third of it to Germany, despite the fact that Germany was reclaiming a sizable amount of Germany territory that contained German people, while the Soviet action was pure foreign conquest.

Of course, just to stack irony on top of irony, given the horrific state of Western Europe, it's possible that Hitler didn't save Europe by preventing Stalin from overrunning the entire continent, he left it to a worse fate by leaving it under the control of the neo-liberal world order. As awful as communism is for a nation, it's not anywhere nearly as destructive as free imports and free invasion.

Labels: ,

195 Comments:

Blogger Billy May 12, 2021 9:04 AM  

The latter

Blogger Timelines Flying Monkeys May 12, 2021 9:10 AM  

This is why I often frequent this blog. It's regularly overflowing with amazing gravy

Blogger George D. May 12, 2021 9:11 AM  

Plans to conquer all Europe predate Stalin. That was literally the function for which the Red Army was created by Lev Davidovich Bronnstein, aka Lev Trotsky(whose direct descendants are ruling over the US at this moment). In a lot of countries the Secret Services of the USSR assassinated the military leadership to pave the way(St. Sofia bombing for example)

Blogger Ken Prescott May 12, 2021 9:19 AM  

The big problem in Suvorov's thesis is that he mistakes both the Wehrmacht and the Red Army of 1941 for their 1945 counterparts.

The Red Army had to do two things to win the war: get much better at war fighting, and cut the Wehrmacht down to a manageable size. Those two tasks took roughly three years.

Blogger Some Guy May 12, 2021 9:21 AM  

This might also explain why Germans were so incredibly extreme with making sure all of the Jews in there country were contained. Considering that this massive invasion force was effectively led by a group of Jewish Communists.

Blogger Doktor Jeep May 12, 2021 9:21 AM  

Given that the only things we know about Bad Mustache Man and his deeds comes from people who have lied to us about every damned thing else...well I'll make my own conclusions based on observation.

On an entirely off topic and unrelated note, I notice that the people who claim the Germans did all kinds of discrimination and exclusions to them before trying to kill them all are now behind, funding, rooting for, covering up for, or cheering for, all kinds of discriminatory and exclusionary actions against one group and turning a deaf ear to any notice or announced intent by those who state they want to kill all of that targeted group.

Oh now I have a headache.

Blogger Grandpa Lampshade May 12, 2021 9:22 AM  

Academics: "Why don't the common people take us seriously? After all, we're the experts!"

Also Academics: Completely unable to study history objectively and instead demand a Hollywood good guys vs bad guys version.

While I don't pretend to be any sort of expert on history, I believe that the onset of the cold war so quickly after WWII is a pretty good indicator that if nothing else, Hitler bought the rest of Europe time and in this matter at least, was successful in spoiling Stalin's plans.

Blogger theartistformerlyknownasgeorge May 12, 2021 9:22 AM  

This ties to his hatred of jews, which wasn't ethnic so much as political hatred of commies, of which jew made up a disproportionate amount of and were made up of by a disproportionate amount.

But they had their claws too deep into Churchill and FDR for him to stand a chance.....although without the A-Bomb holocaust of Japanese civilians one has to wonder how things might have gone on that front.

The world lost WWII.

Blogger Seramer May 12, 2021 9:39 AM  

The thing is.. had Staling gotten all of Europe the USSR likely would have lasted alot longer and only God knows what would've happened.

Blogger Ogden Frost May 12, 2021 9:39 AM  

The neo-liberals are also responsible for the nazification of President Trump. I hate those guys.

Blogger thechortling May 12, 2021 9:41 AM  

>>But it doesn't really matter whether the attack was planned for 1941 or 1942, the conclusion is the same, as uncomfortable as it may make those who have assumed that Nazi Germany was the worstest evilist most invadery instigator that there ever was<<

Does this new information change that perspective?

What this seems to change is whether Hitler, the doe-eyed Bohemian of the 1920s, was an utter incompetent when it came to military strategy and overreach. History has portrayed him as a the two-front fool.

Blogger Hmm May 12, 2021 9:44 AM  

"As awful as communism is for a nation, it's not anywhere nearly as destructive as free imports and free invasion."

Communism would have led to free imports & invasions as well if not for communist jews moving to Israel, this gave the eastern european nationalists the opportunity to take over the communist party.

Blogger I don't think I like Conrad May 12, 2021 9:48 AM  

"Suvorov has committed an unforgivable sin. It is an untouchable cornerstone of both Western and Russian historiography that Hitler is the embodiment of absolute Evil, and that no good whatsoever could ever have come from him. And so academic historians of the Eastern Front are expected to display their good manners by shunning Suvorov, and by not asking: What if Hitler had not attacked first? They must not suggest that Hitler ever told the truth, or that his military commanders were wrongfully hanged."

Here is the rub. Acadummies are not allowed to cross past the "Willing Executioners" line. Hitler must stay the Devil incarnate, and every single German must be a minor devil ready and willing to do his work. That they were often, good, brave, and working under complex motives for their own benefit, and also, for the benefit of other peoples of Europe (as is allowed for Churchill &co.) is not permissible thought in acadummy circles.

Blogger Jon W May 12, 2021 9:49 AM  

When I try to talk to people about the fact Stalin would have invaded if Germany hadn't they always look at me funny.

Blogger MKW May 12, 2021 9:49 AM  

Well, communists and globalists are basically the same party. They kidnap the given country to use it for their power projection. In 20th century it was USSR, in 21th it is USA.

Blogger Just So May 12, 2021 9:50 AM  

Your last 2 sentences are the most thought provoking and are a complete indictment of the post WWJ world that we live in.

Blogger WITCHOUND May 12, 2021 10:01 AM  

Victory has defeated us.

Blogger Joe May 12, 2021 10:02 AM  

I read "Ice Breaker" and "The Main Enemy" years ago, I believe they were by Suvorov (maybe by someone from his school).
I remember being impressed with the sheer volume of circumstantial evidence, both micro and macro, everything from the sudden interest in gliders by the population (needed for blitzkrieg), to foreign policy (invasion of Poland).
Icebreaker quotes Zhukov as saying, "Hitler beat us by a few weeks."

Blogger VD May 12, 2021 10:08 AM  

Does this new information change that perspective?

Yes, without question.

Blogger John Best. May 12, 2021 10:09 AM  

It is amusing listening to old socialist like George Galloway saying how the Soviet's saved Europe from Hitler, when its actually the other way round. It makes perfect sense though, Hitler clearly wasn't an idiot, but he got out played my Stalin and the soviets. Then they put down the post-war narrative and brought the NAZI's into the fold in the deep state. The people who lost were the people of Germany. Being genocided and mass raped, and then invaded by mass migration forced upon them by the deep state which is heavily influenced by the NAZI's.

Blogger IAMSpartacus0000 May 12, 2021 10:12 AM  

One should not mistake your liberator as being your friend. Sometimes it's just two wolves disagreeing over who gets to eat the sheep.

Blogger The Lab Manager May 12, 2021 10:15 AM  

I have to wonder whether my distant Czech cousins would have been better off under a Nazi hegemony than the brutality of communism. I'm guessing that would have been the case; at least they would have eaten better.

I've been reading Campaign in Russia by Leon DeGrelle. And interesting perspective and graphics descriptions of the realities and brutalities of war.

Blogger Canadian Warlord May 12, 2021 10:16 AM  

One thing I've never looked into is the USSR order of battle along the border. They did have some T-34s as they were used to counter-attack and blunt Wehrmacht advances.

Tanks are a funny subject in warfare, they're not really supposed to be used against each other. USA Sherman's aren't meant to stand up to Tigers, they're supposed to break through lines and move through territory quickly. Yet we're treated constantly to useless comparisons between tanks head-to-head.

Isn't the "STUG" the leading tank-buster for the Wehrmacht despite not being a tank, but artillery?

Was the USSR force on the border full of larger slower tanks better-used in the muck of Eastern Europe? Or was it full of smaller, maybe wheeled tanks useful on the bridges and cobblestones of the West? Might be a factor in their stunning losses the first days.

Blogger The Masked Menace May 12, 2021 10:20 AM  

For those of us familiar with strategic wargaming, it's generally not a good idea to destroy a buffer state between your country and the most powerful country on the board. It's a much better strategy to support the buffer state.

It never made sense to me why Hitler would make a deal with the Bolsheviks to destroy Poland (a country that defeated the Bolsheviks in the early 1920s). If Hitler was baited into the attack on Poland, then he's guilty of one of the greatest strategic blunders in history.

Blogger S1AL May 12, 2021 10:20 AM  

Given that the British had reacted to every attempt at continental conquest, by any continental power, with wholesale war... No, not really. Barbarossa was an inevitable consequence of the invasion of Poland and of Germany's middle-term territorial designs, and the war on the Eastern front guaranteed there would be nobody else to fight the USSR and that many countries would join the Russian pact, even if grudgingly.

Does anyone think that the Poles would have not rebelled against the Russians the way they did against the Germans in the Warsaw Uprising?

One does not get credit for attempting, but failing, to stop a bad situation one created by previous actions. Unless one is Hitler, apparently.

Blogger The Masked Menace May 12, 2021 10:23 AM  

@17
A wise observation. "Nothing fails like success" is something I've observed in business.

Blogger B.R. May 12, 2021 10:27 AM  

"the gigantic military power that Stalin had accumulated on the border would have enabled him to reach Berlin without major difficulty"


This part is just silly.

Blogger Sean Carnegie May 12, 2021 10:30 AM  

Ken Prescott wrote:The big problem in Suvorov's thesis is that he mistakes both the Wehrmacht and the Red Army of 1941 for their 1945 counterparts.

The Red Army had to do two things to win the war: get much better at war fighting, and cut the Wehrmacht down to a manageable size. Those two tasks took roughly three years.


Not only that but the Red Army was still affected by the Great Purge of its leadership and was facing a 1941 Germany that steamrolled all comers. I think Barbarossa only happened because Hitler thought that the West was pretty much won since he wasn't going to invade England.

The real mistake was Japan bringing America into the war and answering Roosevelt's prayers to do so.

Blogger Brother Deke May 12, 2021 10:31 AM  

@6

I almost applauded, as it is almost Jeramiah-tier Truth.

Blogger The Masked Menace May 12, 2021 10:44 AM  

@23
The STUG was one of the two most produced German tracked vehicles during the war.

Blogger rcocean May 12, 2021 10:44 AM  

Time was on Stalin's side. And he was shooting for 1942 attack. The t-34's and modern fighter aircraft had gone into production and were being issued to Front line units. Trucks were being churned out at 100,000 per year, and armament production as a whole was skyrocketing.

Geography was also on Stalin's side. A *relatively* small advance would give the Romanian oilfields and Finland's nickel mines. Whether Hitler would've done better to wait till 1942, is a good question. The stronger Red Army MIGHT have been balanced off by peace with England. MIGHT.

Blogger The Masked Menace May 12, 2021 10:45 AM  

@27
I can think of something much more silly than that. His initials are B.R.

Blogger Meanoldbasterd May 12, 2021 10:54 AM  

B.R. they're talking about the case where Hitler's armies are tied up in the West... Stalin's PLAN hinged on the French lasting MUCH longer than 6 weeks... These plans became irrelevant after the fall of Paris and dunkirk

Blogger ZhukovG May 12, 2021 10:55 AM  

Decades ago, when I started war gaming, I always wondered why the Soviets were deployed in such a forward posture, rather than defensively. I admit that I assumed it was incompetence, on the Soviet's part, rather than that they intended to attack first.

But the Suvorov Thesis makes far more sense.

Blogger VD May 12, 2021 10:55 AM  

I think Barbarossa only happened because Hitler thought that the West was pretty much won since he wasn't going to invade England.

What part of "don't opine in ignorance" have you failed to grasp here? You obviously haven't read either Suvorov or McMeekin's books.

This part is just silly.

No, you're just incredibly stupid and ignorant. It took the Red Army less than three months to go from Warsaw to Berlin in 1945. It would have taken even less time in 1941 given their massive advantage in tanks at the time.

That's probably why Hitler was able to get the jump on Stalin. The Soviets didn't need to attack as soon in order to have a reasonable shot at taking the Germany capital.

Blogger binks webelf May 12, 2021 10:56 AM  

Indirect confirmation of this thesis? In volume one of his diaries, Victor Klemperer mentions the Soviet threat to Romania & the related military build-up, pre-Operation Barbarossa.

Since he was living in the midst of the regime's endless propaganda, he wasn't sure if such reports were more bellicose pretext & bluster, or based on facts.

Blogger English Tom May 12, 2021 10:57 AM  

Whilst Suvorov's thesis may be correct, given the pitiful performance by the Soviets against Finland, could we really expect the Soviets to have been successful. As someone mentioned upthread, it took 2 to 3 years before the Soviets could actually seize and hold the initiative (Stalingrad then Kursk).

And Stalingrad and Kursk happened because Hitler became exceedingly inflexible.

Blogger RandyJJ May 12, 2021 10:58 AM  

@24 Masked Menace

It never made sense to me why Hitler would make a deal with the Bolsheviks to destroy Poland (a country that defeated the Bolsheviks in the early 1920s). If Hitler was baited into the attack on Poland, then he's guilty of one of the greatest strategic blunders in history.

Hitler was trying to unify the German people of Europe. Up on the Baltic was the German city of Danzig, cut off from Germany by a slice of [what used to be Germany but was now] Poland filled with ethnic Germans. Both Hitler and Poland wanted this slice of land--Hitler, for access to Danzig; Poland, for access to the Baltic. Hitler tried cutting deals with Poland, even proposing that the people in this slice vote on who they wanted to join, with Hitler getting rail lines to Danzig if they went with Poland and Poland getting a seaport w/accompanying rail lines if they went with Germany. But Poland was backed by promises from France/Britain that it would be protected if it came to war, so basically told Hitler to pound sand. It is theorized that Hitler's pact with Stalin was intended to intimidate France/Britain into NOT declaring war upon the invasion of Poland, thereby avoiding an escalation. If that is true, it obviously didn't work.

That's the [simplified] story as I know it. A blunder on Hitler's part; but not a nonsensical one.

Blogger Elder Son May 12, 2021 11:02 AM  

Germans: Last thing we need is the Russians lebensraum'ing Europe.

Russians: Last thing we need is the Germans lebensraum'ing Europe.

Life would have been so grand under communism.

Life would have been so grand under Nazism.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 12, 2021 11:02 AM  

I can tell the detractors of this thesis have not read Suvarov's books. "Chief Culprit" is a remarkable book even if the author was wrong. From what I remember the author hypothesized that the attack would sweep in from Hungary put the main armored forces in the plains between a couple of main river sheds and drive into Germany that way.

And how many detractors here knew that not only did the Soviets beat the Finns to a point but had also over ran the Japanese like they were stuck in the mud? I did like the part about the sheepskin coats as being Stalin's deciding factor even though it was said Nazi Germany was riddled with Soviet spies at the time and all the mouthy Nazi big wigs probably could not keep a secret from their mistresses.

And Yockey turned out to be right in his book "Imperium" the American Empire would be the worst in the long run.

Blogger Unknown May 12, 2021 11:05 AM  

Even before ww2 Europe was doomed, WW1 did it far more thoroughly than Hitler or Stalin ever did. They were just icing on the cake. And while Western European corpse was allowed to rot and infect with all kinds of patogens, Eastern Europe was in deep freeze for 50 years. But it's been unfrozen as we speak, and it's a corpse just as West Europe is.
PS: death of nations starts when they lose their religion, after that nihilism sets in, with declining birth rates and general depression...

Blogger Joe May 12, 2021 11:13 AM  

As I recall, author of "Ice Breaker" contended:
The Russian Revolution destroyed the existing Marxian metanarrative. The revolution was supposed to occur in the most capitalistic state (where exploitation was supposed to be the highest), instead, it occurred in an economic backwater, Russia.
Lenin and his followers believed war, and the suffering spring from it, would be the means for further revolution (it's what brought them to power after all).
Hence, the Russian withdraw from WWI (increased war length equals more suffering and greater probability for revolution).
The Russians tried to invade a war ravaged Europe in 1920, Poland rose to the challenge and defeated them.
With that defeat, the need for WWII arose.
The Polish defeat of the Russians was not forgotten, the Russians murdered the Polish officer corps when they eventually conquered Poland.

Blogger Dice May 12, 2021 11:14 AM  

Hitler had to attack, both because of a ‘42 or ‘43 Soviet attack(I think ‘41 was wishful thinking; too many of their better units were still guarding against the Japanese in summer ‘41) and due to oil shortages.

Blogger Some Guy May 12, 2021 11:15 AM  

"could we really expect the Soviets to have been successful."

Hindsight is fantastic, but Germany may or may not have known how professional the Soviet forces were. Treating the threat as credible is always the best move when you are dealing with a buildup of that scale.

Blogger S1AL May 12, 2021 11:17 AM  

"Time was on Stalin's side. And he was shooting for 1942 attack. The t-34's and modern fighter aircraft had gone into production and were being issued to Front line units. Trucks were being churned out at 100,000 per year, and armament production as a whole was skyrocketing.

Geography was also on Stalin's side. A *relatively* small advance would give the Romanian oilfields and Finland's nickel mines. Whether Hitler would've done better to wait till 1942, is a good question. The stronger Red Army MIGHT have been balanced off by peace with England. MIGHT."

--

The error wasn't in going on the offensive. Stalin had just finished a long purge of Russia's officer corps (to the tune of appr. 25,000 veterans) and had functionally crippled the capacity of the Russian military to fight a modern war in the short term. The error was in not stopping operations at a reasonable front during the winter and waiting to resume later. Heck, just scorched-earth the entire Russian front and pull back. Anything except attempting to finish the job during a Russian winter.

But this merely compounded the larger strategic errors made by creating enemies of every major power on the planet. Remember that Churchill's government came to power in 1940... as a RESULT of Poland. Invading Poland was one of the most absurd political-strategic errors made in the last couple of centuries.

It was further compounded by the idiotic Japanese plan of pushing the US into the war. But it's questionable if the USSR could have actually beaten Germany in the long-term, anyhow, given this:

The United States and the British Commonwealth provided 55 percent of all the aluminum the Soviet Union used during the war and more than 80 percent of the copper. ... In addition, almost half of all the rails used by the Soviet Union during the war came through Lend-Lease.

But either way, attempting the conquest of the greater part of Europe was going to provoke Britain (and France, had they not been the first target) regardless. WW2 was merely Charlemagne part 6, in the long view.

Blogger Albert May 12, 2021 11:30 AM  

Huh. I thought everyone who stayed awake in history class knew that Stalin would have invaded Germany if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia first. Suvorov's thesis that Stalin's army would have managed a total victory, that part's new to me.

An alt-history where that happens could get interesting, especially given how much FDR approved of Stalin.

Blogger The Masked Menace May 12, 2021 11:32 AM  

@41
Agreed. At this point it certainly appears the end of the Old Order was the end of Europe.

Blogger Crew May 12, 2021 11:33 AM  

Does it matter? Of course it matters.

Understanding the lies we have been told should help understand why we are where we are and what to do about it.

Blogger The Masked Menace May 12, 2021 11:35 AM  

@38
Thank you for the response. I don't think Hitler would have been a good war gamer. He didn't seem to understand cost/benefit/risk/reward. Danzig wasn't worth the risk.

Blogger Stilicho May 12, 2021 11:37 AM  

It has never been subject to reasonable dispute that Nazi Germany saved Western Europe from the Soviets. No amount of Jewish/communist propaganda ever made a dent in that fact. Lately, however, such propaganda is getting a boost from a left (even anti-Jewish leftists) which was indoctrinated from birth with the idea that socialism (both Soviet and Chicom varieties) is the primary source of good in the world while the right are Nazis and therefore evil. Actual Nazis, ipso facto, must be reviled as the ultimate evi so that the right can be tarnished by the association concocted by the left.

Meanwhile, the left has abandoned the working class proletariat it once purported to champion in favor of the uber-bureaucrat allies it has found with a common goal of rebuilding Babel while replacing the proles with diversities (POX) as the "class" they purport to represent. Their ultimate goal of establishing a world-wide totalitarian state with themselves at the top has never changed and never will. It is, after all, what their master demands.

Blogger Stilicho May 12, 2021 11:39 AM  

But it doesn't really matter whether the attack was planned for 1941 or 1942, the conclusion is the same, as uncomfortable as it may make those who have assumed that Nazi Germany was the worstest evilist most invadery instigator that there ever was.

Precisely correct.

Blogger Ostar May 12, 2021 11:41 AM  

Historians have the same issue as Archaeologists - the old guard needs to die/retire before the dominant paradigm can be finally admitted to have been wrong decades after it has been proven to be so.

Blogger The Masked Menace May 12, 2021 11:43 AM  

"That's probably why Hitler was able to get the jump on Stalin. The Soviets didn't need to attack as soon in order to have a reasonable shot at taking the Germany capital." - VD


Precisely. The Soviets never expected France to fall as quickly as it did. Hell, nobody did. Hitler was a lucky gambler until his luck ran out.

Blogger KC May 12, 2021 11:45 AM  

I continue to be as disturbed by cancel culture within history studies today as I was 30 years ago when my self described "Atheist Jewish" history professor refused to approve the research project of a classmate; a study of the German experience on the Russian front as described through interviews with one of the German survivors - his grandfather. No reason at all was given by this professor, he just looked uncomfortable and sheepishly said, "naaaah." It should have been an amazing interview, but (I surmise) God forbid one ever look at a German soldier serving in the Nazi-led army as anything less then an inhuman monster, and who wants to read about that, right?

Blogger SupersonicG May 12, 2021 11:45 AM  

Free trade and freedom of movement are just tools of the communists (AKA the beast system, that was, is not, and is to come). Other tools include cultural Marxism, destruction of the financial system, via unfair measures of currency.

But I haven't seen free trade cause mass starvation, like the Holodomor. I haven't seen immivasions cause millions of deaths of the Great Purge or the Red Terror, or the Cultural Revolution and famine of China, or the deaths seen in Vietnam and North Korea.

You'll get a chance to experience communism, complete with organized famine, if you are spared, and I am sure you'll long for the days of liberalism and free trade.

Blogger LES May 12, 2021 11:56 AM  

For an excellent, readable overview of WW1 and WW2 there is Pat Buchanan’s
"Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World"

Blogger Glen Sprigg May 12, 2021 11:58 AM  

I remember this book (Icebreaker) at the public library back in the 1990s. The thing that shifted my paradigm on WWII was the Russian paratroopers at the front lines. Paratroopers aren't defensive troops; they're an invasion force.

It was a fascinating read, but absolutely nobody I spoke with about it was interested in the slightest. I'm glad to be in excellent company with the Supreme Dark Lord, at least on this matter.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 12, 2021 12:00 PM  

English Tom wrote:Whilst Suvorov's thesis may be correct, given the pitiful performance by the Soviets against Finland, could we really expect the Soviets to have been successful. As someone mentioned upthread, it took 2 to 3 years before the Soviets could actually seize and hold the initiative (Stalingrad then Kursk).
The question is not whether the Red Army was capable, the question is whether Stalin thought the Red Army was capable.
Would Stalin's generals have known their troops weren't capable, before they were tested? Had they known, would they have dared to tell Stalin their troops weren't capable?

Blogger The Gaelic Lands May 12, 2021 12:02 PM  

McKeekin's book `History's Greatest Heist'is also a must read. Names the names of the jews involved in laundering all the Russian treasure stolen by the Bolshies. He's a very brave man!

Blogger Eugenius BEar May 12, 2021 12:02 PM  

@38 Hitler was a romantic.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat May 12, 2021 12:03 PM  

People need to embrace the power of "and". Go watch Tik's videos on YouTube: Hitler's invasion East was rational and dictated by his beliefs in Shrinking Markets and a refusal to buy food and oil on the open market. By the time Germany came to Poland, they were on a one-way slide to economic collapse. They had to have the Caucuses oil and food from the Ukraine by the end of 1942, or their economy was going to collapse. (They didn't, and it did.)

(The oil hypothesis also helps explain Hitler's dismissal of England and the two-front war. He didn't believe that England would stand for Poland, because they hadn't before, but it didn't matter. He needed Poland to go east, and even a war with England and France couldn't stop that need to get Ukrainian food and Caucuses oil.)

The Russians made no secret that they wanted to bring the glorious People's Revolution westward. Stalin gearing up for war shouldn't be all that surprising. Germany and Italy were already socialist and suffering from faltering economies, ripe for the conversion to Communism from the USSR view.

Stalin's coming west, Hitler knows it. Hitler's coming east, and Stalin should have known it. Perhaps each would have wanted a bit more time to prepare, but Hitler knew his clock was running faster. Whether it was the USSR about to invade or Old Man Oil, Hitler knew he was on a timer.

Blogger Johnny May 12, 2021 12:07 PM  

If what I have read in other places is accurate, and I think it is, during the glasnost (openness) period it largely got confirmed that Stalin was gearing up to attack Germany. By his time table it would have taken another year or two. That combination of events accounts for way Russia's losses were so heavy in the early period. There were too many troops positioned too far forward for a defensive formation, and at the same time they were not prepared to attack. That combination caused the Russians to have huge numbers of troops overrun in the first few weeks of the war.

As for Hitler's competence, in war being aggressive usually requires risking a defeat. Hitler was a man ready to roll the dice, take the chance. When it worked out he looked brilliant, and when it didn't, he looked the fool. That was at strategy. At tactics, he was usually inept. He would have been well advised to leave the details to the generals.

US military doctrine in WWII stressed the avoidance of tank against tank battle. Hitler stressed tank against tank, and was probably correct. The drift was toward larger, heaver tanks of the sort needed for tank against tank battle.

A lot of this stuff is just churning. In any academic profession the need is to come up with something new. So, you come up with something, perhaps a different and unlikely interpretation of the available information.

Blogger Jack Amok May 12, 2021 12:20 PM  

"the gigantic military power that Stalin had accumulated on the border would have enabled him to reach Berlin without major difficulty"

I'm sure Stalin thought this. Likely even Hitler and his generals thought it, they were always worried about the Russian hordes overrunning them. The dismal performance of the Red Army in 1941 argues against it. Nobody plans their great offensive assuming their Army is full of the incompetent and the unwilling.

Interesting to speculate though if the USSR would still have gotten Allied support if they'd attacked first. Probably, the commie spies were earning their pay in most every western government.

Blogger OneWingedShark May 12, 2021 12:25 PM  

Unknown wrote:Even before ww2 Europe was doomed, WW1 did it far more thoroughly than Hitler or Stalin ever did. They were just icing on the cake. And while Western European corpse was allowed to rot and infect with all kinds of patogens, Eastern Europe was in deep freeze for 50 years. But it's been unfrozen as we speak, and it's a corpse just as West Europe is.
PS: death of nations starts when they lose their religion, after that nihilism sets in, with declining birth rates and general depression...

I've thought for a while that the US joined the wrong side in WWI, though it would have been far better to let Europe take care of Europe than get involved at all.

Blogger Shane Bradman May 12, 2021 12:27 PM  

Ken, that is incorrect because the only reason Germany pushed Russia back so far is that Russia was not prepared for an attack, and the abandoned supplies fueled Germany's advance. Individual skill of soldiers is vastly overrated by some historians and many Veterans. Supply lines and strategy trump skill every single time.

Blogger IamDevo May 12, 2021 12:38 PM  

This debate is a lot like the one over whether Han or Greedo shot first. Interesting, but now irrelevant. At the end of the day, Patton was right about the Nazis and the Russians.

Blogger Jeff aka Orville May 12, 2021 12:40 PM  

Well that puts the German's lack of winter gear into a different light. The German's may have been rushed to attack first to beat the Stalin to the punch.

Blogger The Masked Menace May 12, 2021 12:40 PM  

@63
Dismal performance or was the Soviet army caught offensively deployed instead of defensively deployed?

Blogger Rattlesnake_Kid May 12, 2021 12:44 PM  

It is true that the western liberal order has turned out worse than having lived under communism, but it's also true that the US may have lost it's struggle against the Soviets if they had taken western Europe. Would have, in my opinion

How anyone comes to a conclusion other than Barbarossa being a preemptive strike when they found massive amounts of light bombers and light tanks massed on the border is hilarious to me. Denial much?

Blogger The Masked Menace May 12, 2021 12:45 PM  

@60
You should win a prize. Anyone who sits through hours after hours of Wagner is someone who I would speculate would have difficulty separating fantasy from reality.

Blogger rumpole5 May 12, 2021 12:45 PM  

I believe that Franco in Spain and Pinochet in Chile demonstrate that Fascism has a much better track record for preserving the ultimate wealth, culture, and well being of those under its rule than does Communism.

Blogger Matamoros May 12, 2021 12:45 PM  

The enemies of Europe, and Whites everywhere, keep up the shrill hate of Hitler every day, it never abates. All evil in the world is due to Hitler, (oh, and of course the Catholic Church – their archenemies).

Yet, after 75 years the standard history is fraying badly as real historians such as Viktor Suvorov write truth instead of wartime propaganda. Indeed, if Stalin could have invaded first, all of Europe would have experienced Katyn massacres to kill off the intelligentsia and best of the West – just as the Cheka/NKVD did to Russian middle and upper classes and then in Eastern Poland.

A great book documenting the real causes of the War from direct diplomatic sources is “The Forced War” by David Hoggan. Once one understands that war was going to be no matter what Hitler did in order to maintain the international financial status quo (which his new financial system was threatening), one can proceed to David Irving’s books. They detail how Churchill was bought and paid for and the war predetermined, although Hitler was only trying to right the wrongs of the Versailles Treaty.

A great reappraisal of Hitler himself is “Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny” by R.H.S. Stolfi, professor emeritus at the US Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and retired colonel in the US Marine Corps Reserve. The blurb notes: “This fascinating and richly detailed new biography of Hitler reinterprets the known facts about the Nazi Fuehrer to construct a convincing, realistic portrait of the man. In place of the hollow shell others have made into an icon of evil, the author sees a complex, nuanced personality.”

Blogger Crew May 12, 2021 12:47 PM  

@59: Thus their desire to loot Russia again.

Blogger Ken Prescott May 12, 2021 12:48 PM  

Hitler's smart move on December 8th would've been to declare war on Japan for its unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor.

Japan's smart move would have been to only attack Singapore and the Dutch East Indies. Going to war on behalf of European colonial empires was politically impossible in 1941 America.

Blogger B.R. May 12, 2021 12:49 PM  

"the gigantic military power that Stalin had accumulated on the border would have enabled him to reach Berlin without major difficulty"

Despite all the name-calling and insults directed at me, this part remains silly.

In reality it took the Red Army YEARS to march to Berlin.

The idea that they would march to Berlin "without major difficulty" in 1941 is just dumb.

Blogger Gregory the Tall May 12, 2021 12:50 PM  

@63 read the book by Suvorov, he says the Red Army did not perform well in 41 because the Germans initially destroyed all their offensive equipment which was stored near the Polish and Romanian border ready to go.
@37 Suvorov, writes that the Red Army did not perform dismally against the Fins, but the Fins had set up a very comprehensive and efficient defence system that caused unforeseen problems for Stalin.

Blogger Matamoros May 12, 2021 12:53 PM  

"Deathride: Hitler vs. Stalin - The Eastern Front, 1941-1945" by John Mosier is also a must-read. He goes beyond the hype and propaganda, deconstructs it, and notes that it was Hitler’s strategy that killed 30 million Soviets at low cost to the Germans. The Generals wanted big battles, but Hitler put a defensive strategy in place using several super-divisions to slaughter the Soviets. Even David Irving admits that the Soviets were on their last legs when they limped into Berlin.

Mosier also, in his final chapter, notes that it was Hitler and his strategy that ultimately brought down the Soviet empire because of the destruction wrought in Western Russia, the hardpanning of Ukrainian agricultural areas, and the problems with moving Soviet industry into Siberia.

Well worth a read.

Blogger The Masked Menace May 12, 2021 12:55 PM  

If France didn't fall so quickly I seriously believe in the possibility that the Soviets would have been in Berlin by the end of 1941.

Blogger Ken Prescott May 12, 2021 12:55 PM  

I seem to recall a minor contretemps in Finland that might have led all concerned to have concerns about the capabilities and limitations not the Red Army...

If you play that badly against a Pop Warner team, maybe you might want to hold off taking on the 1970s Steelers Dynasty. Just sayin'.

Blogger Crew May 12, 2021 12:57 PM  

Am I being hypersensitive to notice things like this?

She alleged that in the same breath, he singled out for extensive discussion “Jewish Bolsheviks” among the leadership of the USSR, as well as insisting that a number of “pedophiles” were active within its ranks.

https://www.rt.com/russia/523616-st-petersburg-tour-guide-praising-hitler/

Blogger VD May 12, 2021 1:03 PM  

Despite all the name-calling and insults directed at me, this part remains silly.

No, you're just astonishingly stupid.

In reality it took the Red Army YEARS to march to Berlin.

From MOSCOW. You moron.

It took the Red Army three months to go from Warsaw to Berlin in 1945, which reasonably approximates what the challenge would have been in 1941. If they'd attacked in August 1941 as McMeekin suggested they were planning, Berlin would have fallen in October or November.

Blogger Matamoros May 12, 2021 1:04 PM  

Hitler also had to fight not only the Allies, but also many within the officer corps who thought they could cause Germany to lose and pick up the pieces themselves - http://www.renegadetribune.com/traitors-in-the-armed-forces-of-the-third-reich/

Blogger RonG May 12, 2021 1:05 PM  

Better to have tow tyrants than just one.

Blogger Pathfinderlight May 12, 2021 1:11 PM  

Much of the territory Germany ceded to Poland as a result of WW1 was that of small West Slavic nations, rather than Polish nation. The exceptions to that were East Pommern and Danzig, which were ethnic German by this point.

For those of you in Europe, American schools typically portray this issue as being strictly about land grabs, while neglecting to educate Americans on why letting go of land is so horrifying to Europeans.

Blogger Mamabear37 May 12, 2021 1:13 PM  

Well great. Now I just added at least 3 more books to my impossibly insurmountable reading list...

Blogger Wadly May 12, 2021 1:14 PM  

I have always wondered about just how strong the Soviets really were in May 1945 and immediately after. Patton had the right attitude about them (IMHO), but could we really have beaten them in a shooting war at that time? Obviously the atomic bomb would later change the game, but I have always wondered about how such a war would have gone assuming no a-bombs were available.

Blogger Johnny May 12, 2021 1:17 PM  

If France didn't fall so quickly... Given available resources, victory over France was a spectacular victory. Germany was not all that ready to go to war. If France had not been taken down quickly, Hitler could have lost this initial campaign. Well who knows, but Russia was probably also not ready for war, and they would have to roll through Poland to get to Germany, putting them at odds with England.

Blogger peacefulposter May 12, 2021 1:22 PM  

Where would the West be today if they had sided with Hitler instead of the communists?

Blogger Imposta May 12, 2021 1:31 PM  

Wasn't both of there goals too ambitious? I cannot imagine that you can conquer all of that land and peoples and manage to keep it together for more than a decade

Blogger OneWingedShark May 12, 2021 1:36 PM  

Wadly wrote:I have always wondered about just how strong the Soviets really were in May 1945 and immediately after. Patton had the right attitude about them (IMHO), but could we really have beaten them in a shooting war at that time? Obviously the atomic bomb would later change the game, but I have always wondered about how such a war would have gone assuming no a-bombs were available.
I think we could have.
And if we had, it would have been a much better world; much of the apparatus used to bolster the lies surrounding WWII would have been torn out at their roots without the ability to let the lies take root. It also might have done a lot to destroy [semi-preemptively? I seem to recall the 50s being when they really started worming their way in, see William Buckley] the Trotskyite infestation in the US.

Blogger Damelon Brinn May 12, 2021 1:50 PM  

If Hitler stopped (or delayed) the Communist takeover of Europe, it's no wonder the Jews hate him so much.

Blogger ThatWouldBeTelling May 12, 2021 1:59 PM  

@67 Jeff aka Orville:

Well that puts the German's lack of winter gear into a different light. The German's may have been rushed to attack first to beat the Stalin to the punch.

They weren't even vaguely equipped to handle the Russian winter, be it locomotives or lubricants that would keep their equipment going, or perhaps the latter is akin to the clothing problem. I'm reading Moscow to Stalingrad: Decision in the East by Ziemke and Bauer and it says they did have winter clothing ready for their troops, but it got held up at the rail heads in the massive mess that started with the November rasputitsa. Hitler's previously mentioned aggressive instincts played a role in this, continuing to push forward when that resulted in massive losses, especially to equipment they couldn't entirely replace.

@72 Matamoros:

Indeed, if Stalin could have invaded first, all of Europe would have experienced Katyn massacres to kill off the intelligentsia and best of the West – just as the Cheka/NKVD did to Russian middle and upper classes and then in Eastern Poland.

Indeed, one of the high level defectors from the Warsaw Pact mentioned in an interview with a French media organization, I think it was Paris Match, that the KGB was maintaining up to date lists of "future war criminals" in case of war between them and NATO, about 10,000 for France.

@86 Wadly:

I have always wondered about just how strong the Soviets really were in May 1945 and immediately after. Patton had the right attitude about them (IMHO), but could we really have beaten them in a shooting war at that time? Obviously the atomic bomb would later change the game, but I have always wondered about how such a war would have gone assuming no a-bombs were available.

Prior to knowing the atomic bomb worked, we couldn't because we had unfinished business with Japan. On Truman's first trip as President to the east for the Potsdam Conference his ship passed three full US divisions going back home to rest, refit, and then invade Japan. Only one project had a higher priority than the Manhattan Project and it was a super Mulberry for the invasion of the Kantou plain which include Tokyo. Plus between Communist agents to useful idiots the US government was pretty close to being controlled by the Soviet Union, something that when it came to light Truman considered to be a political problem for the Democratic party, not a matter of national security.

And we didn't know that strategic atomic bombing would prompt the Japanese to surrender until it happened, and what we've learned since then tells us it was no sure thing. This theater was also looking grim because everyone but MacArthur realized Operation Olympic as planned (Nov 1st) was marginal at best, because for once Japanese intelligence had came through and based mostly on logistics constraints had figured out roughly when and where we were going to invade Kyuushuu, and had moved nine divisions onto the island.

Those who didn't know about the Manhattan Project were planning liberal use of chemical weapons, this was after the Bataan Death March et. al. had been revealed. Those who did earmarked atomic bombs starting with the third for use on the island north of the invasion beaches. MacArthur was right about one thing when he ordered a fourth of the Purple Hearts he thought we'd need, so many we're still using that batch.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer May 12, 2021 2:10 PM  

Patton had the right attitude about them (IMHO), but could we really have beaten them in a shooting war at that time?

It wasn't politically feasible. The American public had been fed a steady stream of "good old Uncle Joe" propaganda for 4 years and would not have stood for it. And the GIs may well have mutinied. There was already a fear of that because the troops in Europe did not want to be shipped to the Pacific where they would probably die. But even if that wasn't the case, you are still invading Russia. That is never going to end well.

Blogger Rattlesnake_Kid May 12, 2021 2:11 PM  

Being a post-communist country ala Poland is clearly preferable to being a western liberal country ala the USA, but it doesn't seem to me that is the likely outcome of Stalin taking western Europe. America would have been squaring off against the Soviets with no NATO, no Gladio, no Marshall plan, the Soviets would have gotten the German rocket scientists instead of us, etc. It seems America would have been steamrolled. Would we be post-communist by now had that been the case? I mean, sure, we're a lot farther down the road to open communism than nearly anyone would like to admit, but at least they can't gulag us yet.

Blogger Noah B. May 12, 2021 2:21 PM  

"Geography was also on Stalin's side. A *relatively* small advance would give the Romanian oilfields and Finland's nickel mines."

Jackpot. Germany was in a very precarious position. Meanwhile the Soviets had extensive industry far enough east in the Urals that it was safe from any immediate German attack.

Blogger B.R. May 12, 2021 2:30 PM  



"It took the Red Army three months to go from Warsaw to Berlin in 1945, which reasonably approximates what the challenge would have been in 1941. "



This is colossally stupid. In 1945, the German army barely existed. The Luftwaffe didn't exist at all, and it still the Red Army 3 months to get to Berlin from Warsaw.

And you think they would have done the same against a full-strength, fully-armed, rested, supplied, and experienced German army in 1941??

LOL

Blogger Christopher May 12, 2021 2:40 PM  

I wonder about the assertion, made at least once in the Unz comment thread, that once started, the Germans had no choice other than basically going all the way to Moscow, Leningrad, the Caucasus.

Is that valid from the strictly military perspective? Politically? Geopolitically?

Cause it feels like that poker phrase or excuse "pot committed." I understand there can be a statistically sound reason for making those further bets even after you discover your odds are much worse --the good 'pot committed.' But there is also the bad way, which is 'throwing good money after bad' or the 'sunk coat fallacy.'

Now I realize this is somewhat off topic, but with regards to Barbarossa, why not 'fold' after the first few 'cards'? Was going for Moscow worth it? What if they'd halted after Kiev? September 9th?

Militarily that gets cleaner lines, consolidation, etc.

Politically --especially given the fact of catching massive amounts of Russian men and equipment, it helps sell the propaganda line about pre-emption.

Geo politically, does it maybe put Japan on the spot and change their strategy?

Blogger lynnjynh9315 May 12, 2021 2:49 PM  

it's possible that Hitler didn't save Europe... he left it to a worse fate by leaving it under the control of the neo-liberal world order. As awful as communism is for a nation, it's not anywhere nearly as destructive as free imports and free invasion.

This. Ex-Soviet countries look fine compared to the West.

Blogger Unknown May 12, 2021 2:51 PM  

a lot of you Yanks have a tourist board view of places like Poland, in reality their spawn fill up UK prisons, their population is aging/dying off, their national IQ is approaching African, they sell their daughters to whorehouses and Arabs as rape slaves, they have huge debt and lied to get into the EU, a Marxist organisation hinting at wealth taxes, when surveyed the reason for one the LOWEST birth rates in Europe is that the women just don't want to breed.... or they'd rather have one child but spoil it rotten. Do not trust Polish men, who lie out of ego, look at the data. It's just as degenerate as places like Italy, it's better at hiding it. White people can well be vulgar by ourselves, other races aren't strictly necessary but simply speed it up. Do not believe the Slav propaganda, they're thinking of offering couples money to breed but without encouraging marriage first that'll accomplish nothing.

Blogger Unknown May 12, 2021 2:57 PM  

Ask any Englishman what the Polish colonies are like, they're just like the Africans. They take over an area, send so much welfare back in remittance they drain the economy, only shop at Polish shops, cause a lot of organised crime including burglaries as covers for rape. Proof broken window theory applies to low IQ whites. A century ago we didn't consider them true whites for this reason, they refuse to bloody behave.

Blogger English Tom May 12, 2021 3:02 PM  

@Ominous Cowherd

Maybe, but Stalin would have had the same problem the Germans had, extended supply lines and partisan activity affecting said supply lines.

Blogger Joe May 12, 2021 3:02 PM  

@55 Free trade starved the Irish. The English exported food as the Irish starved. Foreigners could pay a better price than the dirt poor Irish, so they starved to death

Blogger Richard May 12, 2021 3:04 PM  

This is certainly an interesting thread. I read Suvorov’s book a while back. It touched off intense controversy in Russia (I am inclined towards Owen Benjamin's opinion of World War II: There were no good guys).

Recently a beautiful Russian Orthodox cathedral was built for the Russian military that includes prominent commemoration of the Soviet triumph in World War II. Also, the annual Victory Day parade is prominent. Both of these play to, and support a resurgent Russian nationalism.

But a cynical voice in the back of my head asks, “What if this is all just to distract the Russian people away from looking (in moral judgment) at their own government’s culpability in that war?” The Germans performed that moral judgment (they had their noses rubbed in it good and hard). That moral judgment has not occurred in Russia, England, the United States or Japan. Is Putin using Russian nationalism/religion as just another political tool to acquire/maintain political power (similar to Stalin, who according to Solzhenitsyn, brought the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church out of the gulag to bless troops being sent to the front and then promptly threw him back in jail).

How many monuments are raised around the world to distract people from questioning their rulers’ actions? The globalists won the blood soaked wars of the twentieth century, but there is no guarantee a twenty-first century nationalist triumph will less horrific. Every system is susceptible to subversion by evil people. I believe that every political division (labor/capital, white/minority, socialist/free market, white/minority, globalists/nationalists & etc.) is simply a way that the devil tempts us to rage and distracts us from the real issue:

As a follower of Jesus Christ, are you going to be your brother’s keeper?

Blogger Jack Amok May 12, 2021 3:10 PM  

read the book by Suvorov, he says the Red Army did not perform well in 41 because the Germans initially destroyed all their offensive equipment which was stored near the Polish and Romanian border ready to go.

I'm sure a former Soviet military intelligence officer would not overestimate the capabilities of his parent's generation or come up with excuses for their failures. Russians are known for their humility and self-reflection after all...

It took the Red Army three months to go from Warsaw to Berlin in 1945, which reasonably approximates what the challenge would have been in 1941. If they'd attacked in August 1941 as McMeekin suggested they were planning, Berlin would have fallen in October or November.

Both the Red Army and the Wehrmacht of '45 were significantly different organizations than their '41 counterparts, so I don't think the performance of one is comparable to the other, and I don't think the Soviets would have overrun Berlin in '41. But, we'll never know, maybe they could have. Whatever the outcome of a Russian first attack though, it would have made for a different world, and the basic premise of Stalin being an expansionist is undeniably true. It's astonishing how badly Hitler misplayed things from Germany's standpoint.

Blogger Imposta May 12, 2021 3:29 PM  

@103 Why would a leader want to throw guilt upon his people? Especially when the people had no say and no choice
Forgive them for they know not what they do

Blogger Joe May 12, 2021 3:30 PM  

@96
Don't LOL.
Both the Russians and Germans had a tremendous amount of men and material forwardly deployed.
Germany made great gains because the captured massive amounts of Russian material.
If the Russians had jumped first much the same situation would of existed but favoring the Russians.
The Russians would also have to cover less ground and would not be under attack by Mother Russia.
Stalin waited too long.

Blogger English Tom May 12, 2021 3:30 PM  

@ThatWouldBeTelling

The Japs were making surrender overtures to the US before the atom bombs were used. It is true an invasion would have been especially bloody, but the Japs were already beaten.

Blogger Ken Prescott May 12, 2021 3:35 PM  

The armies of 1945 were not the armies of 1941. The Wehrmacht was at its zenith in 1941, and the Red Army wasn't that far from its nadir.

It took the Red Army nearly three years--from Barbarossa to Bagration--to learn how to fight the Wehrmacht beyond "throw lots of bodies at them."

They got good at operational art, but their professional education was definitely the War College of Hard Knocks.

Blogger Ken Prescott May 12, 2021 3:40 PM  

Best bet was the Moscow Option. That was the single point of failure for the Soviet Union in 1941.

Blogger Some Guy May 12, 2021 3:45 PM  

@96

Germany didn't know what the Soviets were truly capable of, only that there was a massive buildup. Look at it from the perspective of the Germans in 1939 and your whole opinion piece falls apart.

Blogger papabear May 12, 2021 3:49 PM  

@103

" I believe that every political division (labor/capital, white/minority, socialist/free market, white/minority, globalists/nationalists & etc.) is simply a way that the devil tempts us to rage and distracts us from the real issue:

As a follower of Jesus Christ, are you going to be your brother’s keeper?"

No, it is not that reductionistic, because the order of charity is real. Do you have a people to whom you really belong? Because if you don't, that is your first practical problem.

Blogger Bezzle May 12, 2021 3:54 PM  

@103. Richard May 12, 2021 3:04 PM
I am inclined towards Owen Benjamin's opinion of World War II: There were no good guys)

Well, there were those who died young.

Blogger Countrylawyer May 12, 2021 4:00 PM  

Even on this site, it seems myths die hard.

1) The in incompetence of the Red Army has been greatly exaggerated. No army on earth would have done as well as the Russians did against the Finns. It was an attack in the near Artic conditions in the winter against an enemy who hated your guts and had been expecting an attack since the early 1920s.

2) The ONLY logical reason the Red Army was so forwardly deployed was that it was planning a relatively imminent attack.

3) If Hitler let himself be manipulated into war by Stalin, Stalin gravely underestimated how big of a gambler Hitler was. Knowing he was beaten in the end if he did nothing, Hitler was willing to risk it all RIGHT THEN.

4) Hitler WAS NOT originally planning to attack Russia so soon. Else he would not have demobilized divisions after the fall of France and taken the economy out of a wartime footing.

5). Hitler actually did quite well in many instances as a tactician. His stand and fight at all costs order in the winter of 1941 was undoubtedly the right call. Any attempted retreat or redeployment in the face of the winter and the fresh Siberian divisions would have surely resulted in a replay of Napoleon’s retreat a hundred years earlier.

6). The Russians fought well FROM THE START. The resistance was stubborn and despite their massive gains of territory and huge hauls of prisoners, the Germans were thrown off their necessary timetable almost from the start by stubborn resistance from Russians who should have by all rights surrendered or stopped fighting.

Blogger Countrylawyer May 12, 2021 4:01 PM  

Even on this site, it seems myths die hard.

1) The in incompetence of the Red Army has been greatly exaggerated. No army on earth would have done as well as the Russians did against the Finns. It was an attack in the near Artic conditions in the winter against an enemy who hated your guts and had been expecting an attack since the early 1920s.

2) The ONLY logical reason the Red Army was so forwardly deployed was that it was planning a relatively imminent attack.

3) If Hitler let himself be manipulated into war by Stalin, Stalin gravely underestimated how big of a gambler Hitler was. Knowing he was beaten in the end if he did nothing, Hitler was willing to risk it all RIGHT THEN.

4) Hitler WAS NOT originally planning to attack Russia so soon. Else he would not have demobilized divisions after the fall of France and taken the economy out of a wartime footing.

5). Hitler actually did quite well in many instances as a tactician. His stand and fight at all costs order in the winter of 1941 was undoubtedly the right call. Any attempted retreat or redeployment in the face of the winter and the fresh Siberian divisions would have surely resulted in a replay of Napoleon’s retreat a hundred years earlier.

6). The Russians fought well FROM THE START. The resistance was stubborn and despite their massive gains of territory and huge hauls of prisoners, the Germans were thrown off their necessary timetable almost from the start by stubborn resistance from Russians who should have by all rights surrendered or stopped fighting.

Blogger Hammerli 280 May 12, 2021 4:04 PM  

I also read Suvorov's book when it came out. And his other books...he's a VERY interesting writer (GRU defector).

But it didn't come as a surprise. Hitler and Stalin loathed each other. The agreement to conquer and partition Poland eliminated a buffer state and made direct conflict inevitable. The only question was who would attack first. You can debate the exact timing of the planned Soviet offensive...but the fact that one was planned is not in serious dispute.

Blogger Hammerli 280 May 12, 2021 4:06 PM  

One fact that must be remembered is that the modern Left is dominated by Communists. Who are most unwilling to admit that Stalin and Molotov should have been tried at Nuremberg and hanged alongside the Nazis. Because they were equally guilty.

Blogger ZhukovG May 12, 2021 4:07 PM  

@B.R.: You are making the fundamental error of assuming that the Soviet 1941 army would be fighting the German 'Operation Barbarossa' Army in the scenario described.

Realistically, if Hitler had not realized the peril Germany was in he would have had significantly less forces in the East and essentially be missing all of Army Group South.

I am a little more optimistic about German chances, but still would expect Berlin to fall within 18 months depending on whether or not the Soviets were stalled on the Vistula for the 41/42 winter.

Blogger papabear May 12, 2021 4:15 PM  

@99 @100

Interesting observation about the Poles in the UK. I am curious which Polish political party they would have supported in recent elections.

Blogger wgmeisheid May 12, 2021 4:21 PM  

Re: "As a follower of Jesus Christ, are you going to be your brother’s keeper?"

Yes, I am commanded to be, but not my neighbor's or the sojourner's.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 12, 2021 4:29 PM  

"Given that the only things we know about Bad Mustache Man and his deeds comes from people who have lied to us about every damned thing else..."

For a fair while I have been increasingly leaning toward the conclusion that, from the recorded historical perspective, Hitler's greatest mistake was simply not winning. The history of Operation Barbarossa would, in the balance, actually be one of the least straws present on that camel's back. Yes, there were many earlier mistakes that lead to not winning, but it is the victory itself that determines the nature of the recorded histories after the fact.

"Given that the British had reacted to every attempt at continental conquest, by any continental power, with wholesale war..."

Except for their own. It is also rather magical how self-serving their definition of the matter was. You are also assuming that Britain would be strong enough to do so on the turn of a dime, which is doubtful considering they had needed to drag the USA into even the earlier Great War in order to win.

"Does anyone think that the Poles would have not rebelled against the Russians the way they did against the Germans in the Warsaw Uprising?"

People only rebel when they either think they can succeed, or otherwise just intend to kill themselves because they cannot bear it anymore. In addition, even if Warsaw by itself could succeed, that does little and less for the rest of Europe.

"One does not get credit for attempting, but failing, to stop a bad situation one created by previous actions."

Created by what previous actions? It takes two to tango, unless one is Stalin, who according to some, never dances.

"It was further compounded by the idiotic Japanese plan of pushing the US into the war."

Ah, no, that one was AT LEAST as much the other way around. Thanks to the banksters and our two-faced lying scum of a president at the time, our government wanted into that war no matter what and was getting into it no matter what. It was just a case of manifesting a casus belli that the common people would accept, since the common people wanted none of it.

"But either way, attempting the conquest of the greater part of Europe was going to provoke Britain (and France, had they not been the first target) regardless."

Do you really believe Britain was that strong at that time? It wasn't. It might have been able to defend its own territory, but that would be about it.

Left to its own devices, Germany was putting a serious hurt on France and Britain, since you apparently wish to take them together. How much more a Soviet force so strong as to be able to steamroll Germany as a precursor?

Regardless, even without total conquest of the westernmost powers on the continent that weren't Spain, Russia, from Asia, would have crossed the greater part of Europe by that point. It would still be accurate to say that Germany saved Europe.

"People need to embrace the power of "and"."

This in spades. The fog of war is fairly thick 70-80 years after the fact, how much more so at that time? No one short of a prophet is really very good at all at predicting complex outcomes, simply a bit better or a bit worse that everyone else.

Guess what: we're humans. Everyone was "the bad guy" just as everyone is "the bad guy" today. You don't move an entire country without crushing some innocent toes in the process. Winner gets to write their version of the story, and dishonest winners will cast the largest threat to them as the most evil entity evar.

Hitler did at least some good things, and everyone else did at least some horrifically evil things. It's astronomically improbable that anything else be the case. Get over it.

Blogger Rattlesnake_Kid May 12, 2021 4:31 PM  

Unknown wrote:a lot of you Yanks have a tourist board view of places like Poland...

It's crystal clear you haven't spent time in modern Poland. The likes of the waves of Polish immigrants seeking employment in the 90s bares little resemblance to the Polish people within their country now, which is very high in morale. I'd rather be poor in Poland than wealthy in the UK as things currently stand.

Blogger map May 12, 2021 4:32 PM  

Suvarov's account is astonishingly valuable. Yes, why is Stalin massing offensive troops and equipment in Soviet-controlled Poland? Why, for that matter, is there a Soviet-controlled Poland to begin with? The Allies declared war on Germany for invading Poland but they did not declare war on the Soviets for invading as well, especially when the Soviets were providing raw material for the German military.

Why?

To what extent were Roosevelt and Churchill duped into WWII? How extensive was the Soviet penetration of the American and British governments? We also know that Stalin was fighting an internal civil war with all the factions that backed Lenin and Trotsky. This means that he was also fighting with the Jews. What was Jewish internal migration like in the 1930's? Were they pushed out of Moscow into places like Ukraine? Was the Ukrainian Holodomor designed to finally starve out the Jews or put them in a position eventually being captured by Hitler?

Basically, the whole history of WWII needs to be rewritten.

Blogger Ostar May 12, 2021 4:40 PM  

So could the Nazis have beaten the Soviets?
Yes, but it would have meant changing their basic character.
Few realize how hated the Soviets were inside Russia at that time. The Ukrainians and many others treated the invading Germans as liberators at first. If the Nazis had exploited that and created puppet states they could have had millions of soldiers with captured equipment to fill in the gaps on the front lines. As well as friendly supply lines with few partisans.

But the SS followed behind the troops and started preparing to get rid of the current occupants prepping for German living space. The Nazis created the resistance by their own brutal behavior.
Stalin then cleverly turned it into the Great Patriotic War for Mother Russia.

Blogger SupersonicG May 12, 2021 4:41 PM  

@102,

Do you know that England and Ireland are separate nations? Perhaps not. Egit.

Blogger Some Guy May 12, 2021 4:43 PM  

@122

This

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 May 12, 2021 4:51 PM  

Are we to believe this action *saved* Europe? I'm not sure I buy the idea that the USSR was so militarily capable as to be able to sustain a major invasion of industrial Europe. If Soviet roads and agriculture were any indication, it simply wasn't feasible.

Now, did Hitler *believe* this? Sure, I can buy that. But how true it was is a very different question.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 12, 2021 4:51 PM  

"but it's also true that the US may have lost it's struggle against the Soviets if they had taken western Europe. Would have, in my opinion"

Considering that Trotsky was trained by, financed by, and shipped from parties in the USA, while we might not have lost against Soviets, it's very fair to say that it would only be because we would have already lost to (((whoever))) was controlling them.

"Hitler's smart move on December 8th would've been to declare war on Japan for its unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor."

That's more comical than anything else. Insulated from it by thousands of miles of hostile countries in any direction, it would be like us today declaring war on Sirius. "We declare war on Sirius!" *Proceeds to sit on hands and cast occasional unfriendly looks in that general direction.*

Well, and for the fact that Germany was not *nearly* in any sort of mutual defense compact with the USA at the time.

Blogger Unknown May 12, 2021 4:59 PM  

@118 Labour strongholds, they vote for gibs. Places like Slough, one of the most diverse and degenerate places in the country and a frequent terror threat. They're Churchians, falling back on the excuses for laziness to be with 'family'.

@121 it's crystal clear you overlooked the points I made about where they end up (prison), how their infrastructure is crumbling, how low their GDP is, how their population is dying off but they're very, very good at hidng it? They are optimistic because they believe the EU has bailed them out, but that's a deal with the Devil himself and they fail to realise they'll pay it back and then some. I do wonder what will become of Poland once we deport them all, and their anchor babies. I doubt Poland wants back its rapists and thieves but the police find them useful 'Whites' to shame the local population about a crime rate we were never responsible for. It's the See? Whites commit crime too! of their rhetoric.

Blogger Ken Prescott May 12, 2021 5:01 PM  

I am not talking about the skill of individual soldiers
I am talking about the relative skills of entire organizations, including strategy, operational art, and staff work.

The Wehrmacht, as an army, was at the top of its game in 1941; the Red Army was at its nadir.

Three years later, the Wehrmacht was pretty thoroughly battered, but still tough; but the Russians were tough, too. As an organization, the Red Army gained experience in operational art to the point where they executed Operation Bagration, also known as "The Destruction of Army Group Center."

But gaining that experience and skill took three very bloody years. They weren't ready to play in the big leagues in 1941.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 12, 2021 5:06 PM  

"As a follower of Jesus Christ, are you going to be your brother’s keeper?"

I would agree wholeheartedly, right after the single qualification that it be my actual brother, and then anyone with any other further degree of relation to me, before it is some foreigner that some dips*** is calling my brother. At that point, we'll see if I still have any time or resources left, and I probably won't.

Blogger xevious2030 May 12, 2021 5:07 PM  

"Winner gets to write their version of the story"

Just 40 years ago, George Washington was a near Saint. Now he's that evil, white supremist white guy nearly rubbing elbows with Hitler. Speaking of Hitler. A year before WW II, Hitler was almost as great as George Washington, very near being a Saint.

That's the way the game is played. And that's the mailability of the material you're playing with.

Blogger xavier May 12, 2021 5:08 PM  

@Ken Prescott
And tons of Lend Lease supplies. Without the trucks and other stuff, the Red army would'd ground to a halt on 1942

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 12, 2021 5:09 PM  

"Do you know that England and Ireland are separate nations? Perhaps not. Egit."

Nation does not equal polity or country. Now does not equal then.

Blogger xavier May 12, 2021 5:17 PM  

I suspect this thesis will also provoke a reassessment of German intelligence capabilities as well as the Soviets. I've always been skeptical of how astonishingly effective the Soviet spy cells were.

Blogger S1AL May 12, 2021 5:19 PM  

Just as a random side note, Operation Unthinkable.

Everybody had plans for taking on the Soviets, but nobody implemented them. Granted, everyone who *made* the plans was dead or out of power by 1948, so there's that.

Blogger Unknown May 12, 2021 5:27 PM  

@121 Assuming you want the data, I found a little?
I am not amused by your ignorance. They're socialists, they're just thirty or so years behind. Proof:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/opinion/2012/06/14/poland-aging-and-the-economy
"In parallel, more people need to work within the working-age age group. What economists call “labor force participation” (those in working age who have a job or are actively looking for one) remains low in Poland, in particular for the young , the women, and those over 55. The difference between Poland and other EU countries is greatest in the case of older workers (in large part because of generous rules for early retirement until recently): only 35 percent of persons aged 55 to 64 are economically active in Poland compared with the EU average of 51 percent, 58 percent in Chile, and 62 percent in Korea. There is hence a significant scope to mitigate the demographic decline by increasing labor participation. Efforts to that effect are underway in many countries. Providing child care or long-term care for aging relatives makes it possible for women not to stay home. Developing flexible working arrangements, including part-time or telecommuting, brings into the workforce people who would otherwise not have been able to join. Helping workers, especially older works, develop and retain the “right” skills and qualifications will help them find and keep a job. There is now a wealth of experience on what works well, what works not so well and even more important on how to make it work in practice."
When the EU leaves them to their own devices, they'll fail catastrophically and no amount of propaganda can un-bury them from their Boomer-esque debts. They're twice as socialist as Korea, ffs. They got in trouble with the EU (their rulers) trying to allow early retirement for judges, they are Marxists. The expats will be drained to pay for it, by all means live there. Mark my words. They celebrate golden handcuffs.
The whole EU has hinged on the Boomer ponzi of retirement, it's the carrot dangled for obedience to Political Correctness and white genocide.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/10/03/the-pension-storm-is-coming-to-europe-it-may-be-the-end-of-europe-as-we-know-it/
But mathematically, most people must be on the bottom of the pyramid working, to support the retired and the numbers simply don't exist, thanks to contraception, less marriage and more abortion. Nowhere is exempt, that I have seen. I'm sure someone can come up with a "every person working pays for X retired" figure for each nation, and Poland is demographically doomed as everyone. There is no utopia.
They only need to chip in trivial sums for 20-25 years to fund double that in dotage once you add in increased life expectancy. Never indulge in usury.
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1124&langId=en&intPageId=4726 QED
It's impossible mathematically. In 2017 they further REDUCED retirement age for Boomers. They are Marxists, deal with it.

Blogger Valar Addemmis May 12, 2021 5:36 PM  

Johnny wrote:Russia was probably also not ready for war, and they would have to roll through Poland to get to Germany, putting them at odds with England.

The English and French defense agreement with Poland would not have been triggered if Russia invaded Poland (rather obviously, as they didn't declare war on Russia when it rolled into Poland as permitted under Molotov/Ribbentrop). The pact was only in case of German aggression.

Blogger Noah B. May 12, 2021 5:37 PM  

"Basically, the whole history of WWII needs to be rewritten."

When it is, it needs to include Wall Street's role in funding both the Nazis and Soviets.

Blogger roundeye May 12, 2021 5:43 PM  

I am admittingly not a scholar or WW2 or the eastern front (Beevor is as far as I go) but this has somewhat unmoored me. A basic fact of history I thought I knew - The Nazis meant to turn their eastern neighbors into Helots, may not be true.

Well, this will cause some thinking.

Blogger Gareth Cooke May 12, 2021 5:55 PM  

"Of course, just to stack irony on top of irony, given the horrific state of Western Europe, it's possible that Hitler didn't save Europe by preventing Stalin from overrunning the entire continent, he left it to a worse fate by leaving it under the control of the neo-liberal world order. As awful as communism is for a nation, it's not anywhere nearly as destructive as free imports and free invasion." Perhaps, but thats the western allies fault if you ask me

Blogger John Rockwell May 12, 2021 6:08 PM  

The "Allies" only offered token assistance to the Anti-Bolshevik side during the Russian Civil War.

And went all in when supporting the Soviet Union. Wonder why.

Blogger Ken Prescott May 12, 2021 6:08 PM  

By loudly standing with the US, Hitler makes maintaining any portion of a "Germany First" strategy impossible for the US. Lend-Lease gets killed outside of the Far East theater, that means the Atlantic is effectively closed. What the U-Boats could not accomplish, one Fuehrer rant does. England leaves the war, and Germany has a free hand in the East.

Blogger RedJack May 12, 2021 6:13 PM  

AJ Taylor had some insight into this.

As someone who enjoys a little historical heresy, I read his books and others.

Stalin was planning to invade Europe. He was joking about using German goods to to do it. That used to be "common knowledge" when and where I grew up. Not quite the IceBreaker theory, but that both Hitler and Stalin were looking to drop the pretense of the nonagression pact, and Hitler moved first.

The numbers of Soviet divisions eliminated and/or captured show that.

Some how, over the last 40 years, it went from common knowledge to a hate crime to suggest that.

Blogger Ken Prescott May 12, 2021 6:16 PM  

One thing to remember about Suvorov: he was an intelligence officer.

The first question that should enter your mind when an intelligence officer tells you something--whether or not he works for you--is, "Why is he telling me this?"

And that goes double if you're at all inclined to believe what he's telling you.

Blogger RedJack May 12, 2021 6:23 PM  

@97

After the sinking realization of just how many dang Soviet divisions there were, the German generals had to keep going.

That and oil. Germany needed the oil and other resources. Hitler needed Japan to start a war with the Soviets just to take some heat off, but Japan wasn't that stupid (they had their hands full with the US).

A lot of "what ifs?" in WWII.

Blogger Boaty Bear May 12, 2021 6:48 PM  

"Got out played by Stalin and the Soviets"

What?
So the countless British lives lost in the "Arctic Convoys" resupplying a failing Stalin had nothing to do with it?

Churchill was a Traitor!

Kept silent re: "The Morganthau Plan" (Patton assassinated for opposing it!) & received the "Charlemagne Prize in 50s for keeping quiet!


Blogger Middle American Water Tower Man May 12, 2021 6:48 PM  

"The Greatest Story Never Told" not sure it is the most accurate historically but it does a good job of showing the mindset of the some of the men who fought under Hitler.

Blogger shadohand (akuma sock account# 7373636 ...crazy only responds to crazy) May 12, 2021 6:49 PM  

What about the other European Nations? Remember before Operation Barbarossa, Hitler had to bail Mussolini out in Greece. If Stalin had launched his attack it would have been Russia vs All of Europe. That means all The European Nations would have been unified against Russia. Especially Finland, and the other Scandinavian Nations.

This also means Rommel probably would have recalled from Egypt to fight on the Eastern Front. At that point the Japanese may have attacked Russia from east as well, which means possibly no Pearl Harbor.

The only reasons Berlin was taken so quick was because The Allies were in the West, and the Fins had refused to help close the Ladoga Pocket. The latter of which meant Hitler had to starve Leningrad out with a seige. That meant no troops from Army Group North to reinforce Army Group Center. If the Ladoga Pocket had been closed Moscow would have been taken. Stalin would have never surrendered and eventually pushed back the Wehrmacht, even if the Allies had not launched D-Day.

Blogger Joe May 12, 2021 7:04 PM  

@124 Actually, 1847 to 1852, the time of The Great Hunger England ruled Ireland.
Trevelyan ruled Ireland and oversaw the death of millions.
Lady Wilde wrote a poem about it, The Famine Year, look it up, ejit.

Blogger Gregory the Tall May 12, 2021 7:16 PM  

@104 Jack Amok wrote: "I'm sure a former Soviet military intelligence officer would not overestimate the capabilities of his parent's generation or come up with excuses for their failures. Russians are known for their humility and self-reflection after all..."

That is no answer to what I wrote. Suvorov says the Russian military was extremely strong, and when Hitler noticed that he realised Stalin was about to unleash hell on Poland and Germany. So Hitler attacked first to prevent the Russian attack and destroyed enormous amounts of equipment stored along the Western borders of Russia.

Blogger KingKrawFish May 12, 2021 7:20 PM  

If true this overturns the conventional wisdom on Hitler’s ‘insane’ invasion of Russia.

Germany may have had no better option, but once the initial surprise attack delivered such a crushing blow to the Red Army were they necessarily committed to “going all the way” or could they have stopped st and/or retreated at some point to a better defensive position?

Also how does this new narrative of Barbarrosa jive with thyreports of Stalin refusing to believe initial reports of the preemptive attack and brewing disaster on his Western front?

Blogger John Rockwell May 12, 2021 7:40 PM  

World War I was a manipulation of Nationalism in order for Nationalists to fight each other in a horrific War.

Globalists ended up with the league of Nations as a result.

World War II was similar. The UN was created.

They want the same pattern for the next war if they go that route in order to further consolidate Globalism.

Blogger John Rockwell May 12, 2021 7:47 PM  

@Azure Amaranthine

War has no good guys except for Noah and the Patriarchs. Moses, Elijah and the rest of the Saints and Christ and his Church.

We are the good guys by the transformation of the Holy Spirit.

And we well know that even we cannot conduct War like the Nations around us in terms of wanton brutality. But to go only so far as necessary and no more.

As God is our Judge and we are held to account. As they are and end up in the 2nd Death.

Blogger Elder Son May 12, 2021 9:08 PM  

@John ... except for? So, "wanton brutality" is okay, if you are them, but only them?

God was, and is, a warrior. And God used His people on occasion to commit "wanton brutality". God has not changed. Perhaps you will preach the gospel as your wife/daughter are being raped, assaulted, murdered by war? Maybe when America is invaded by foreign forces, you will have a "nice war", a "nice defense", with nice hand-to-hand Christian combat? "Wait! Wait! Have you had enough yet?" Or, "Let me know when when my "wanton brutality" has crossed the line of "wanton brutality". War is war, whether it is mano-to-mano or up to nations on nations. If you want to see "wanton brutality", pray you are here when Christ returns.

Just go flog yourself and nail yourself on a cross already. Do you think when the thief attempts to bind the strongman, the strongman is obligated to be nice? "Let me know when I have committed wanton brutality!"

FFS. I never knew war could be nice. We are to strive to live in peace, does not mean live in peace at all costs.

Anyhow, looks like Russia is up to its old Soviet tricks again.

https://www.unian.info/war/taran-def-ministry-expects-escalation-on-border-with-russia-at-any-moment-11417437.html

Sounds familiar.

Blogger Countrylawyer May 12, 2021 10:00 PM  

Germany had no choice but to win completely and had to keep going. If you read the accounts of German soldiers, almost from the beginning they had a sense of foreboding. The deeper they went into Russia, the more uneasy they became.

Stalin like not believe Hitler had attacked because he knew the Germans could not win. He knew they weren’t ready for war with Russia. He knew they had demobilized a substantial number of divisions after France. He knew that they had not made adequate winter preparations. So, in Stalin’s mind, there was no way Hitler would be foolish enough to attack. But he had not realized how much of a gambler Hitler was. Hitler determined that his position would only get worse and decided to throw the punch right then. Stalin was shocked...once.

In the summer of 1943 the Russians accounted for Hitler’s propensity for reckless attack and baited him into a trap at Kursk.

Blogger I don't think I like Conrad May 12, 2021 10:16 PM  

# 24 (The Masked Menace)

The German's claimed at the time that the Poles were committing atrocities (slaughter) against the ethnic Germans living in Poland. There were official reports generated with gruesome photographs of mutilated/dismembered bodies. The official commission that was sent to look into this claimed that there were many victims (I don't remember the numbers--hundreds, thousands?!). There have been books written about this that are now out of print. If you are interested I can search to link a PDF. The German high command used this as the official reason to invade Poland and bring the ethnic Germans living in Poland into the fold. Of course, this has since been written off as German propaganda, as a pretense to invasion. Who knows what really happened.

Blogger Unknown May 12, 2021 10:33 PM  

In his war-time biography "Stuka Pilot", Hans-Ulrich Rudel recounts his pilots' astonishment at the immensity of the Soviet forward build-up. There was no question in their minds that their missions were preemptive strikes. The Third Reich's most decorated warrior, he survived to command the Cold War Luftwaffe and was consulted in the development of the A-10.

Blogger Jack Amok May 12, 2021 11:00 PM  

That is no answer to what I wrote. Suvorov says the Russian military was extremely strong, and when Hitler noticed that he realised Stalin was about to unleash hell on Poland and Germany. So Hitler attacked first to prevent the Russian attack and destroyed enormous amounts of equipment stored along the Western borders of Russia.

Of course it's an answer to what you wrote, it's a direct answer. Whatever Stalin's plans, the observable facts are that in 1941 the Wehrmacht put the Red Army on roller skates and drove it back nearly a thousand miles in not very many weeks. The conventional explanation for how they were able to do that is that the Soviets in '41 were poorly led, poorly trained, poorly equipped and had poor morale. In other words, pretty much incapable of carrying their own offensive to Berlin.

Suvorov says they could have.

Fine. But that means he must reject the conventional explanation for the 1941 defeats of the Red Army. You pointed out he did! Naturally, he had to, otherwise his thesis would be absurd.

I don't believe Suvorov’s thesis, but I'm not saying it is impossible or even implausible. Perhaps you mistakenly thought I was saying that. I wasn't. What I was saying is it is convenient for a Russian who to believe the Soviet defeat in 1941 was due to something other than Russian martial failure. The crux of the whole argument here is whether or not the Red Army in 1941 was a considerably more effective fighting force than the results of the Finnish war and Operation Barbarossa imply.

Blogger thechortling May 13, 2021 1:51 AM  

Jack Amok wrote:

Both the Red Army and the Wehrmacht of '45 were significantly different organizations than their '41 counterparts, so I don't think the performance of one is comparable to the other, and I don't think the Soviets would have overrun Berlin in '41. But, we'll never know, maybe they could have. Whatever the outcome of a Russian first attack though, it would have made for a different world, and the basic premise of Stalin being an expansionist is undeniably true. It's astonishing how badly Hitler misplayed things from Germany's standpoint.


The Unz article makes an interesting point about the Soviet effort even in '45 (was it purely because of the loss of materiale available in '41?)

Arguably, Hitler might have prevailed and conquered the Lebensraum of his dream, had Stalin not been saved by Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease Aid: more than ten billions—equivalent to trillions today— worth of airplanes and tanks, locomotives and rails, construction materials, entire military production assembly lines, food and clothing, aviation fuel, and much else. Through four dense chapters, McMeekin makes it abundantly clear (as Albert Weeks before him in Russia’s Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II, 2010), that without U.S. help, the Soviet Union could not have pushed back the Germans, let alone conquer Eastern Europe in 1945.

Blogger Andrea Daley Utronebel May 13, 2021 2:26 AM  

Or, this book could be an anti-Russian operation, aka Russians were just as bad as the Germans.

It would have been better if Hitler didn't attack.

If USSR attacked first, Germany would have had the moral high ground.

Also, would Europe be worse today if Stalin conquered it all?

I don't see that. Eastern Europe that was under communism is saner than Western Europe that is run amok with PC.

Blogger Ranger May 13, 2021 4:18 AM  

Except neither of those were Fascists, just traditional right-wing military authoritarian rulers.

Blogger kerdasi amaq May 13, 2021 7:57 AM  

Genius, blame the modern state of the Western world on Hitler for the actions of Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and their progressive liberal(communists) backers.

If you want to blame Hitler, though, the only blame he deserves is for losing the war.

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella May 13, 2021 8:31 AM  

I had a question about Hitler that took ten years to answer. That's even with people with military history backgrounds and near constant documentaries rolling on television. I wanted to know if he knew about the Soviet takeover of Russsia, and if he knew about what had happened in Armenia.

It turns out he knew, and the journalist who told him died in his arms during a protest before Hitler rose to power. That is what drove Hitler: he knew what would happen if he lost.

Blogger DonReynolds May 13, 2021 10:42 AM  

There is an old expression in Europe...The Russian is a perfectly delightful fellow, until he tucks his shirt into his pants. The point being that a Russian is fine until he starts pretending to be a European.

When I was in college, I wrote an essay on how Hitler was twice betrayed in a major way that changed the outcome of the war. It has always been nearly impossible to treat any subject related to Hitler with even a dram of objectivity or even confusion, that might prevail in the fog of war. So the essay was not well received, to say the least.

How was Hitler "twice betrayed"?
He was first betrayed by German intelligence, which estimated the manpower of the Soviet military at 5 million men. This was a serious understatement. During the first few months of the war, Germany already had 5 million Soviet prisoners of war.

The second betrayal of Hitler was by Japan, his close ally. They were expected to invade the USSR from the East, as they had during the 1920s, occupying AGAIN the vast Siberian territory. (General Leonard Wood led the American expedition, with the Japanese.) At the very least, they were expected to tie down the best 100 Soviet divisions (and generals) on the border with Manchuria. They did that, until the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor, thus releasing those divisions for action at Stalingrad.

I have no reliable explanation for why so many people refuse to believe that the Soviet Union had plans of their own, and that those plans would include a major offensive against all of Western Europe. They had tried it before, in the 1920s, and overwhelmed the Poles by sheer numbers until they were stopped on the outskirts of Warsaw. Trotsky, himself, led the invasion, which intended to "liberate" Warsaw, Paris, and London, before it was over. It is seldom mentioned in the histories of the period. When the Soviets were allowed to invade and occupy two-thirds of Poland in 1939, it must have seemed like an open invitation to "liberate" the rest of Europe.

Blogger Gregory the Tall May 13, 2021 1:00 PM  

@Jack Amok
Please make room in your head for the possibility that Suvorov wrote what he wrote because he had access to soviet archives, not because he was looking for excuses for the initial losses of the Red Army.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 13, 2021 1:24 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:Of course it's an answer to what you wrote, it's a direct answer. Whatever Stalin's plans, the observable facts are that in 1941 the Wehrmacht put the Red Army on roller skates and drove it back nearly a thousand miles in not very many weeks. The conventional explanation for how they were able to do that is that the Soviets in '41 were poorly led, poorly trained, poorly equipped and had poor morale. In other words, pretty much incapable of carrying their own offensive to Berlin.
All that conventional explanation might be true, who knows? It is pretty apparent that Stalin didn't believe any of that, and was prepping to attack the West.

Whether or not the conventional explanation is true, the fact remains that most of the Red Army's front line units were poised on the border, and were easily in range of the Stukas and the panzers. Once the head was broken off the Soviet spear, it's no surprise the rear echelons were driven back.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 13, 2021 1:44 PM  

Ariadne Umbrella wrote:It turns out he knew, and the journalist who told him died in his arms during a protest before Hitler rose to power.
Ariadne, you're making me curious. Can you give us some details?

Blogger map May 13, 2021 2:06 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:Of course it's an answer to what you wrote, it's a direct answer. Whatever Stalin's plans, the observable facts are that in 1941 the Wehrmacht put the Red Army on roller skates and drove it back nearly a thousand miles in not very many weeks. The conventional explanation for how they were able to do that is that the Soviets in '41 were poorly led, poorly trained, poorly equipped and had poor morale. In other words, pretty much incapable of carrying their own offensive to Berlin.

The Wehrmacht pushed back the Red Army because the Soviets were caught by surprise.

The Wehrmacht had attacked when the Red Army was still staging its assets, before everything was adequately manned and operated. Vast stockpiles of fuel, ammo, weapons and equipment was lost when the Germans attacked. Without that equipment, the Red Army had vastly diminished means to fight war and had to compensate with hasty manufacturing, lend-lease, and throwing lots of bodies.

War is logistics, after all.

We are still back to the same problem. WWI and WWII were both basically fought to make the world safe for Communism. There was no allied support for the anti-Bolseviks, but lots of support for the Revolution, the arming of the Soviets, the defense of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union taking over half of Europe.

Blogger Countrylawyer May 13, 2021 2:10 PM  

Suvorov talked about how hard it was to get access to those archives as that most were stored at the individual Red Army unit level instead of being centralized. It took a number of years traveling from place to place to research his books and he had to be very secretive about his purpose.

Blogger map May 13, 2021 3:00 PM  

Countrylawyer wrote:Suvorov talked about how hard it was to get access to those archives as that most were stored at the individual Red Army unit level instead of being centralized. It took a number of years traveling from place to place to research his books and he had to be very secretive about his purpose.

It just dawned on me that Russia is a bearer of very important secrets, secrets about the 20th century that lots of people want buried.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 13, 2021 4:45 PM  

"We are the good guys by the transformation of the Holy Spirit."

Ideally yes. Historical perspective however leads me to conclude that there will be bad guys in our ranks no matter what until the final winnowing. At best, we'll keep their affect to a minimum, but it will still be there.

"The German high command used this as the official reason to invade Poland and bring the ethnic Germans living in Poland into the fold. Of course, this has since been written off as German propaganda, as a pretense to invasion. Who knows what really happened."

The Poles I've talked to at least are strongly of the opinion that the ethnic Germans in Poland were mainly or entirely from an earlier conquest-colony by Germany. Likely the truth is somewhere in between.

"If USSR attacked first, Germany would have had the moral high ground."

The moral high ground of the year, on top of precious little of the normal ground of the centuries. An extraordinarily poor trade.

"If you want to blame Hitler, though, the only blame he deserves is for losing the war."

Certainly he deserves plenty of other blame, but that would be the head of his primary failing, yes.

"The Wehrmacht pushed back the Red Army because the Soviets were caught by surprise."

This a thousand times.

It's amazing how many people comment in such a way that their reading comprehension of the piece in question could not have been greater than perhaps 50-60%.

The Soviets expected the Wehrmacht to be in the west of Germany, or even in France. They also did not have the bulk of their logistics or even personnel in place. They were caught almost literally with their pants down by the premier German force.

You can argue about the quality of the Soviet forces until your faces turn blue, but the quality doesn't matter much when they weren't even present or equipped, and what equipment they were even shipping --much of which was captured-- was typed and proportioned for an offensive rather than a defensive.

Blogger Eugenius BEar May 13, 2021 5:09 PM  

@163 Perhaps at the Final Judgement it will be revealed Hitler was called to the Priesthood to become a champion of anti-communism, but uncontrolled zeal and impatience with the Holy Spirit led to....where it led.

Blogger Unknown May 13, 2021 5:34 PM  

I want a book about the degeneracy of Weimar and why the Germans were so angered by it. Publish that, Vox. I know many who'd buy.

Blogger Jack Amok May 13, 2021 6:27 PM  

Please make room in your head for the possibility that Suvorov wrote what he wrote because he had access to soviet archives, not because he was looking for excuses for the initial losses of the Red Army.

and make room in yours that he may have been seduced by an explanation that salvaged something of his people's military pride.

Also, if we're talking about getting things in our heads, get it in your's that it's entirely possible for me to disagree with Suvorov's hypothesis and still think it is plausible. I'm not slinging around insults like that B.R. guy, I'm not saying you or Vox or anyone who believes Suvorov is an idiot, I just think you're wrong. That shouldn't be a big deal.

Blogger Jack Amok May 13, 2021 6:32 PM  

The Wehrmacht pushed back the Red Army because the Soviets were caught by surprise.

The Wehrmacht had attacked when the Red Army was still staging its assets, before everything was adequately manned and operated. Vast stockpiles of fuel, ammo, weapons and equipment was lost...


On the other side of the equation though is the Wehrmacht's performance against the French and the Red Army's performance against the Finns the year before. The German's early 40's army overran two different major military powers, while the early 40's Russian army stumbled against a minor power and were overrun by a major one.

Blogger American Kiwi Bear May 13, 2021 8:09 PM  

I am currently reading Suvorov"s "The chief Culprit" and another, complimentary book, "Germany's War" by John Weir. Your view of the history surrounding Germany, the Soviet Union and who the "Allies" will never be the same if you read these. I forgot which, but at least one of these books is available free on the Unz site. John Weir's book is loaded with footnotes to primary sources.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 13, 2021 9:52 PM  

"On the other side of the equation though is the Wehrmacht's performance against the French and the Red Army's performance against the Finns the year before."

Those aren't very similar oppositions. The Wehrmacht practically laughed and walked around the end of France's Titanically-fated main defensive wall of overconfidence. The Finns on the other hand were layered into their homeland like styrofoam against the heat of Russia, whom they saw as a very real threat.

Let's draw a better other side of the equation:

1: Germany caught an unprepared and overconfident France with their pants down, and pushed their sh** in.
2: Then Germany turned around and caught an unready Russia, which had been banking on France lasting a long time, with their pants down too, and did the same thing to them.

Lesson? Don't let blitzkrieg-focused Germany catch you with your pants down where they can blitz your butt off.

Blogger Colonel Blimp May 14, 2021 2:35 AM  

It's much easier to kill dwindling numbers of child soldiers in 45 than to go toe to toe with the machine in 41. Still blitzkrieg is a term well known for a reason. Without it Germany is no where near as potent and would have been bogged down quickly by a russian invasion. Even in 41 with England on its backside and France to pacify, there was not much doubt about the outcome unless the German struck out and fast.

Blogger Eugenius BEar May 14, 2021 4:54 AM  

@177 .....So what you are saying is Germany didn't nock before entering the bathroom.

Blogger N.Schuster May 14, 2021 9:00 AM  

I read that Stalin purged any competent officer from the Red Army. They weren't ready for any invasion.

Hitler was all about race. He wrote that the Aryans were the midt highly evolved race, so it was just natural that they would dominate the other races. He viewed Eastern Europe as leibensraum for the master race.

Blogger Jack Amok May 14, 2021 1:13 PM  

Let's draw a better other side of the equation:

The French weren't unready, they'd had months of the "Sitzkrieg" to prepare. France's real problem was poor leadership and poor morale. They didn't get caught unprepared, they got steamrolled by a better led, higher morale army.

Blogger Gareth Cooke May 14, 2021 1:57 PM  

@20 Seriously John Best? You think Nazis are part of the deep state? Please don't bother with such nonsense. Yeah sure, the Nazis are in the deep state, which is why they make themselves the ultimate evil of history!

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 14, 2021 2:26 PM  

"So what you are saying is Germany didn't nock before entering the bathroom."

The heart and soul of Blitzkrieg.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 14, 2021 2:31 PM  

"The French weren't unready, they'd had months of the "Sitzkrieg" to prepare."

To prepare the Maginot Line. Which the Germans literally walked around the north end of.

The French were woefully unready, they just didn't recognize it. That is almost the dictionary definition of overconfidence.

Blogger Jack Amok May 14, 2021 6:42 PM  

Azure, you do realize that I am saying the French were poorly led, right? Which is also what I am saying the Red Army in 1941 was.

Blogger Bezzle May 14, 2021 7:26 PM  

The "purpose of the war" was to kill as many European whites as possible, with a genocide of non-Khazarian Jews enacted for cover.

____
https://qalerts.app/?n=142
Nov 12, 2017 12:16:24 PM EST
Q !ITPb.qbhqo ID: 99LpGawB No. 149122955
How did Soros replace family ‘y’?
Who is family ‘y’?
Trace the bloodlines of these (3) families.
What happened during WWII?
Was Hitler a puppet?
Who was his handler?
What was the purpose?
What was the real purpose of the war?

What age was GS?
What is the Soros family history?
What has occurred since the fall of N Germany?
Who is A. Merkel?
What is A. Merkel’s family history?
Follow the bloodline.
Who died on the Titanic?
What year did the Titanic sink?
Why is this relevant?
What ‘exactly’ happened to the Titanic?
What ‘class of people’ were guaranteed a lifeboat?
Why did select ‘individuals’ not make it into the lifeboats?
Why is this relevant?
How do we know who was on the lifeboats (D or A)?
How were names and bodies recorded back then?
When were tickets purchased for her maiden voyage?
Who was ‘specifically’ invited?
Less than 10.
What is the FED?
What does the FED control?
Who controls the FED?
Who approved the formation of the FED?
Why did H-wood glorify Titanic as a tragic love story?
Who lived in the movie (what man)?
Why is this relevant?
Opposite is true.
What is brainwashing?
What is a PSYOP?
What happened to the Hindenburg?
What really happened to the Hindenburg?
Who died during the ‘accident’?
Why is this relevant?
What are sheep?
Who controls the narrative?
The truth would put 99% of people in the hospital.
It must be controlled.
Snow White.
Iron Eagle.
Jason Bourne (CIA/Dream).
Q

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella May 15, 2021 1:16 PM  

OC: RealThomas777 who just got banned on Twitter wrote about it. He has a Gab, and a substack and is on various podcasts.

He dresses up like a street rat, but he's got a law degree, and he writes novels. He's mentioned the guy a few times, so he definitely knows his name.

I don't remember the name.I am sorry, I am terrible with names in general. But- he covered the Armenian genocide and the Russian Revolution. Americans got lied to by John Reed while the Nazis got told the truth. He was in some street protest, arm in arm with Hitler, and he was injured and died in Hitler's arms.

Blogger kerdasi amaq May 16, 2021 3:59 PM  


Was Hitler a puppet?

Yes.

Who was his handler?

Martin Bormann

What was the purpose?

To ensure that the Allies didn't lose the war.

What was the real purpose of the war?

For Roosevelt: it was to eliminate the British Empire.

For Churchill: it was to slaughter the wrong pig.

For Stalin: it was to seize control of Germany and with Angela Merkel, as Chancellor, has succeeded there.

For the Zionists: it was the establishment of the Zionist entity.

Blogger Akulkis May 18, 2021 9:25 PM  

I recently saw a biography of Morganthou, titled, "The Jew Who Defeated Hitler."

Apparently, he was playing FDR.

Blogger Akulkis May 18, 2021 9:31 PM  

"They did have some T-34s as they were used to counter-attack and blunt Wehrmacht advances."

T-34s were all in storage facilities in Siberia, where no spies would find, see, and report on them.

The German army secretly got their tank training in Russia during the ban on German armor after WW1.

Blogger Akulkis May 18, 2021 10:46 PM  

Danzig wasn't the goal, it was a stepping stone.

Blogger Kingkong May 19, 2021 8:00 AM  

I made this point a while back in the youtube comment section of Indy Niedell's World War 2 channel. Him or one of his employees actually responded to it. They dismissed it out of hand as a "debunked conspiracy theory," yet didn't address or debunk a single claim I made using Suvorov’s argument points.

Blogger Akulkis May 19, 2021 8:16 AM  

>> a full-strength, fully-armed, rested, supplied, and experienced German army in 1941??

The German Army in 1941 wasn't very experienced. Poland was overwhelmed purely by numbers, and France was overwhelmed by the incompetence of their own generals and years of cabinet level ministers of war.

Blogger Akulkis May 19, 2021 11:53 AM  

It's still illegal in Russia to even research how many Russians civilians and Red Army personnel became casualties at Stalingrad.

Let that sink in. Stalin made it illegal to even investigate.

Blogger Akulkis May 19, 2021 12:00 PM  

>> I read that Stalin purged any competent officer from the Red Army.

Stalin viewed competent military officers as a threat to both his political power and his personality cult.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts