Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Stalin, Communism, and World War II




The standard, accepted story of World War II, especially for those in the west, goes as follows: Hitler wanted to take over the world; Japan committed an unprovoked and despicable act by bombing the US at Pearl Harbor.  The United States, minding its own business until the day that will live in infamy, was forced into war against all efforts of Roosevelt to the contrary.  The United States then saved the world from Nazi and Japanese tyranny, and then altruistically aided in the rebuilding efforts of former enemies.

It is a fantasy that lies behind the emotion shed at sporting event during the singing of the national anthem and the flyover of military jets; it undergirds countless July 4, veterans day, and memorial day parades.  It was the good war.

Over the years, I have worked to shed myself of this dream.  Much of that work is buried in dozens of posts in this blog.  One of the more complete, summary examples is here.  Most of my effort has been focused on the perspective of the west generally – the culpability of Britain, France, and the United States in the century of war.  Of course, there is much culpability to share amongst actors employed by these three states.

There are, of course, other viewpoints.  Perhaps the first one I looked into was one from Germany, through a book by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, “1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers.” I have written several posts on this topic; for those unfamiliar with this work and interested in the perspective, I offer my introductory post to this work.

So, now on to Suvorov.  His perspective is from the view of the Soviets and Stalin.  I will likely write several posts on this book and this topic; I will also use details from this book to update my running “Timeline to War.”  However, for now, I will offer the summary version of this book (in this summary, I will not go into detail from the book; I will develop this in subsequent posts).


Suvorov suggests that Stalin’s objective was conquest for the sake of expanding communism.  In this, Stalin followed a very cohesive strategy; ultimately, he achieved partial success, but not to the extent desired.

Stalin Prepares for War

During the 1930s, the Soviet Union produced the most advanced weaponry and military in the world.  This included heavy tanks and bombers – weapons scarcely (if at all) available in Germany at the time, for example.  Much of the focus was in producing weaponry and strategies for offense – defense was not contemplated as Stalin’s plan was to mop-up all of Europe after the western powers pummeled each other for a time.

Stalin Baits Hitler

Stalin required that governments in the west fight each other as prelude to his conquest.  He felt his best avenue was through instigating the Germans and Hitler.  Stalin took two paths: 1) he provided certain military technologies to the Germans during the time that such were prohibited due to the terms of Versailles, and 2) he urged Hitler to agree to the Molotov- Ribbentrob treaty regarding the division of Poland – thus ensuring that Britain and France would be drawn into war.  This, of course, occurred shortly after Germany invaded Poland (Stalin ensuring that Hitler went first).

The Soviet Union Invades Finland

Many point to the difficulties of this Soviet invasion of Finland as evidence of the lack of capability of the Soviet military; on the contrary, given the winter conditions and the elaborate defenses established, it was one of the most impressive offensive showings of the war.  Stalin demonstrated that he would pay any price to achieve his objectives.

Stalin Prepares for Attack

While still under treaty with Germany and after the partition of Poland and various other regions between Germany and Russia, Stalin positions the bulk of his military hardware and forces on the new borders in the west.  This positioning is offensive, not defensive – Stalin is preparing to attack after Britain and Germany have been in active combat for an extended period.

Hitler Fears for Romanian Oil

Due to various advancements of the Soviet military and other political actions, Stalin has control over certain regions of Romania.  Hitler is concerned regarding continued access to Romanian oil – a major source for the German military.  Hitler concludes that he must attack Russia in an attempt to protect access.

Stalin Caught by Surprise

As mentioned, Stalin by this time was preparing his own attack – the Germans, French, and British have softened each other up substantially.  Stalin knew that Hitler knew that a successful attack by the Germans against the Russians was impossible; Stalin therefore believed that Hitler would not attempt such folly.  Stalin did not adequately consider Hitler’s desperation regarding oil.

Hitler attacked while Stalin, not quite ready for his own surprise attack, was still bringing weaponry and troops to the border.  The offensive firepower was overwhelming: there was no Soviet preparation for defense; there were no secondary lines.  It wasn’t due to poor Soviet defenses, but the fact that there were purposely no Soviet defenses.

For these reasons, the Germans went quickly through the Soviet lines.  By the thousands, tanks, airplanes and ammunition were destroyed in place; and military personnel killed and wounded.  Further countless tons of weaponry, ammunition, and personnel were captured by the Germans, providing for additional capability in the coming weeks.

Stalin’s Objectives Thwarted

Certainly, the only state to gain substantial territory as a result of the Second World War was the Soviet Union – and more broadly, the communists (when considering Asia as well).  In this regard, Stalin was the sole “victor” of any of the combatants.

However, on the day of the German attack, Stalin knew his objective of conquering all of Europe and eventually bringing the entire world into war as required for global revolution was no longer in reach – too much of his military capability was destroyed or taken by the Germans, and no longer could a surprise attack be possible.

Summary

As mentioned, I intend to provide a more thorough review through several posts – perhaps following the outline above.  I also will consider this narrative in the context of actions taken by Churchill and Roosevelt – that they (especially Roosevelt) sided with Stalin in this conflict (as opposed to Hitler, or preferably neither side) was already a curious decision; in light of the evidence presented in this book – the substance of which could not have been totally lost to US and British intelligence at the time – the choice is even more astonishing.

Stalin’s objectives were to spread communism.  When it came to military might at the start of the war, the Soviets were far more capable of projecting power over distance than were the Germans.  When it came to murderous regimes, again Stalin had Hitler beat at the start of the war by perhaps 1000 to 1.

The pact to divide Poland was between the Germans and the Soviets, yet Britain and France declared war on only the Germans.  No action was taken against the Soviets even for the invasion of Finland.

Communists were present throughout the Roosevelt administration.  This fact was apparent to outsiders at the time – it could not have been lost on Roosevelt.

Did Britain (and ultimately the United States) choose Stalin so as to prevent the Soviets attacking the west once done with Germany?  Or did they look to increase the spread of communism for whatever reasons? 

Toward the stated objective, to combat tyranny, certainly Russia was a greater global threat than were the Germans – so the answer doesn’t lie here.

I have no further conclusions at the moment beyond what I have previously written on these speculations.  This is one reason I am developing the above-mentioned timeline.  Perhaps through it, there will someday come more clues.

16 comments:

  1. Two rather recent books that you should take a look at in this regard are:

    Deathride: Hitler vs. Stalin - The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 by John Mosier

    Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny by R. H. S. Stolfi

    ReplyDelete
  2. Matamoros,

    Thanks for the reference to Stolfi's book; I have not read it.

    BM,

    I've reached a tentative conclusion that the Holocaust might have been a USSR political fabrication to punish the Germans for their collective responsibility for the failure of the post 1918 German communist uprisings to transform Germany into the second socialist state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That may be true, but "the" Shoa was probably mostly war time propaganda designed to demonize the 'enemy."

      There is a lot of evidence that some Zionists were collaborating with the Nazis to encourage German Jews to leave, with their assets, and go to Palestine. The Brits did not want to lose Palestine, so needed to make the Nazis appear as the enemy.

      Also, the people in the camps were never bombed and were thus somewhat protected at least until they began starving due to the British blockade.

      Delete
  3. That book is a must read for details. This article is beyond outstanding and hits the main points beautifully.

    Bravo, bravo, bravo!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. It wasn't the U.S. but Britain that jumped to declare war on Germany over Poland. The U.S. didn't want another European war, and it was Germany that declared war on them first. Still, they saved Stalin from German victory by a massive supply effort, aided by the Brits. If there is any conspiracy, it seems to have been to make the U.S. the #1 world power by letting everybody else waste themselves. The Soviet Union proved a paper tiger, of course, but Communism seems resilient, and well-entrenched in the U.S. up to the White House. The outstanding question is what will happen with the Muslim World, will it be disintegrated via a Great Apostasy, used to weaken the U.S., or Europe, or draw the world into WWIII over Israel? And what about the New Kid on the Block, China?

    History is full of theories but the facts rule. Scope the complete history of WWII in your browser with my cool free WWII Historyscope and master more facts faster than before possible:

    http://tinyurl.com/ww2historyscope

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It wasn't the U.S. but Britain that jumped to declare war on Germany over Poland."

      The facts do not support this statement; see here:

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html

      "The U.S. didn't want another European war..."

      The facts do not support this statement; see here:

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/hoover-summarizes-his-magnum-opus.html

      Delete
  5. Good job Jonathan, too bad you can't sell your reviews as easily as the statists do. I don't buy the title but I've put it on my required reading list. Shows again how much oil had to do with the war, as is true of so many wars since.
    taxes

    ReplyDelete
  6. The scenario after the Brits won the air war over England looked to me like Hitler was embarrassed that he had spent so much time losing while Stalin was amassing forces at the border. Hitler realized that he lost too many planes and pilots over England, and was more or less naked in front of Stalin's forces. Hitler was incompetent regarding logistics, and had painted himself into a corner. If he had turned his attention towards Russia immediately after Dunkirk, he would have been prepared to face Stalin. After all, there was nothing to gain by occupying Britain after she was pushed off the continent, so he was free to concentrate all his forces on Russia at that time. And, as Showalter said, the only strategy available was to take the Russian oil fields and bomb all oil facilities throughout Russia, which would have required air superiority, to say the least. Of course, Hitler could have avoided Poland in the first place, and used Romania instead as a route to Russia, but his drug-induced maniacal rage precluded such logical thought by that time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't disagree more. Hitler was suing for peace with England after Dunkirk. He sent up to 20 correspondences with peace terms. He admired England and wanted to model Germany after it. At the same time he saw that Russia was amassing troops near the Romanian border. He HAD to attack Russia, because without Romanian oil, his war machine would starve. American history books to this day site Hitler as a lunatic for opening a 2-front war. In reality, Hitler knew they sooner or later they had to fight Russia. Really Stalin forced their hand.

      Delete
  7. Let me get this straight: you suport view that it was the "Allies" (written that way because before war it was quite different) refused to give to more Hitler's demands, especially territorial ones? I agree to the view of Poland being the "pawn" of West, but tell me: is the homeownew guilty of the home invasion because the police told him to lock all doors and windows and not let any thugs in? To say it's ridiculous is putting it mildly.
    Yes, all the Western countries goaded Poland to not to give to Germany's demands, but saying they are guilty of war by that is stupid.
    And I would be interested to know your opinion on Aschluss and take over of Czechoslovakia. Somehow I doubt they are depicted as "right decisions to avoid war"...

    However, I am in no small part on board with the opinion that Hitler wanted to avoid war with Poland. Had he won Poland as an ally, he would have horrific propaganda weapon. So he tried. But not hard. On the other hand I seem to have trouble finding on your blog mentioning Rapallo and then secred added protocol between Germany and Soviets, which was signed in 1925. Not 1939 - 1925... That says something about long term goals of Germany (which was waaaay pre Hitler and just after Stalins appointment).
    Another point of contention are two facts: that "total war" tried in Poland (bombings, attactking refugees, mass shootings of civilians like Bloody Sunday in Bydgoszcz etc. - simply put, terror) was DIRECT EFFECT OF PERSONAL ORDER OF Hitler. This order exists, there are proof of it. Second fact is that Poles were the ONLY ones who were forbidden to form SS units, In fact, they were denied acces to any form of armed service. Do you think it was by accident?

    I would say that while your assesment of the US involvement in the WWII is spot on the money (Roosevelt, swayed by Keynes, thought the war would be only way to get out of the Depression, which certainly was not ending in 1939), while depiction of European actors lacks, lacks and lacks.
    I'm currently reading books which are debunking your view of Hitler just reacting to Stalin's massing of troops to attack the west. This books, had they been translated in English, would blow your mind and would be source of way more posts than some German, who blames everyone but Germany for WWII. Author is Mark Sołonin and his books say, in essence, that Soviets could not resist Germans because at the same time they were attacking Finland, were way understrength, way underarmed, way more poorly led and most of all preferred German prison camp to Soviet freedom. And that most od the information about German First Strike, annihilating Soviets are myth built by those responsible for this defeat or are simple propaganda. There was nothing to annihilate, and the Soviet power was on paper only.

    Also, I would recommend familiarize yourself with - for example - combat history of the SSTV "Totenkopfverbande" and then SS
    "Totenkopf" in the topic of the Holocaust. Specifically I mention the actions of their Einsatzgruppen, which, based on GERMAN accounts, is responsible for over 100 000 murders of mainly Jewish civilians in the taken territories. All that in the scant weeks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Let me get this straight: you suport view that it was the "Allies" (written that way because before war it was quite different) refused to give to more Hitler's demands, especially territorial ones?”

      It would help if you could point to a passage where I wrote these words.

      “Yes, all the Western countries goaded Poland to not to give to Germany's demands, but saying they are guilty of war by that is stupid.”

      Hitler was the one to invade. He was guilty of this. Once the Germans had Hitler and the Soviets had Stalin, those who lived in between these two were living on dangerous ground. This does not absolve the western countries from their actions of getting involved or taking actions to stimulate the situation. To back Poland in a manner that was certain to result in Poland being overrun, and when there was no means to enforce the backing, is one of many actions for which western countries are guilty.

      “On the other hand I seem to have trouble finding on your blog mentioning Rapallo…”

      It is mentioned here:

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/p/timeline-to-war.html

      “…while depiction of European actors lacks, lacks and lacks.”

      I mention in this post what I have read of European actors, or more specifically, books written by those looking from this perspective. But we all have a limited life and limited brain; so our understanding of almost every subject lacks, lacks, and lacks.

      “I'm currently reading books which are debunking your view of Hitler just reacting to Stalin's massing of troops to attack the west.

      Write a blog; send me the link.

      “Author is Mark Sołonin…”

      I have read a synopsis of his work. He seems to agree that Stain was planning an offensive campaign, not defensive. His view is that Soviet troops had poor morale and this is why they lost to Hitler. It seems to me these two views are not mutually exclusive - therefore not dismissive of the possibilities presented by Suvorov.

      Delete
    2. Hi,

      "It would help if you could point to a passage where I wrote these words."
      Sorry, my bad. I red bit to fast, apparently: "So, perhaps, there is some truth in the claim by Schultze-Rhonhof." ticked me after my reading of the introduction to his work. I retract this statement.

      "Hitler was the one to invade. He was guilty of this. (...) is one of many actions for which western countries are guilty."

      Again, my statement was in connection of the alleged agreement of points made by Schultze-Rhonhof. I'm sorry. Another statement retracted. BTW - I do agree on the role of western countries and their actions.

      "I mention in this post what I have read of European actors, or more specifically, books written by those looking from this perspective. But we all have a limited life and limited brain; so our understanding of almost every subject lacks, lacks, and lacks."
      :) Agreed. But the WWII analysis rarely goes back more than 10 years, while it should be viewed as an act two of a WWI, really. This is why most of the views presented on the topic cannot be accurate. Except for the undying longing of Bolsheviks and after that Soviets to export revolution to the west. I agree that without Stalin WWII would never happen - he's THE playa. However, he would not be able to do that without more players whom he could play. :) So I will still maintain that European side of WWI could still use more depth.

      As for the Sołonin - his view is based on hard data in contemporary documents. And poor morale is only a part of an explanation. More important is, I think, that RKAA was in no shape to wage large scale war. And, last but not least, that at the moment the "Barbarossa" is launched, USSR attacks Finland. Again. What explains couple of days of delay on the part of the Stalin (famous silence of the Kremlin after the attack) and general headless-chicken-style-running-around of the RKAA leadership.
      Suworow makes a lot more assumptions and still works with a lot of propaganda information and maintains solid opinion that Hitler was first by couple of weeks/months. So while not mutually exclusive, both views differ rather radically. Sołonin in effect says that USSR was not able to attack Hitler in 1941. My personal view after reading both (and much more) is this was impossible before 1943, even 1944.

      Right now I'm after Sołonin's "On sleeping airfields" and in the middle of "23 june 1941 - Day M." (the latter i'm reading again and thoroughly, not in a bookstore and skimming). And like I said - fascinating.
      My blog is in polish and concerns economy. Maybe economic history. So... I can write about it and send you an email? Lemme know. I don't want to muddle things.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, I have to add: But, of course, knowing that in 1941 lying to your superiors is well-known tactics to staying alive in USSR (but smartly, of course), I would amend that to maybe end 1942, beginning of 1943. What Stalin knew surely weren't truth, Not even close. So based on known "facts" he was capable of starting the war on his own. But that's how the GI-GO works.

      Delete
    4. AcePL

      Thank you for clarifying.

      “But the WWII analysis rarely goes back more than 10 years, while it should be viewed as an act two of a WWI, really.

      If you look at my “Timeline of War,” you will see I am going back to 1795 – not in detail, but covering relevant events.

      “My personal view after reading both (and much more) is this was impossible before 1943, even 1944.”

      My overriding narrative is that the US certainly need not have been involved in any case. When Germany and the Soviets attacked, and by which side, is (for my overriding view) secondary. But I welcome understanding further why this is so.

      “So... I can write about it and send you an email?

      Yes; I will use google translate so I at least get some understanding of your viewpoints.

      Delete
  8. We need to get more stuff like this out to the sheeple, especially the young, who tend to be open-minded about heresy. The mythology surrounding America's two good wars--Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression and FDR's War to Make the World Safe for Stalinism--have laid a foundation for the American Imperium's unending homicidal humanitarianism. Only by smashing court history can we hope to bring some semblance of normality to U.S. foreign policy.

    ReplyDelete