[cardguy]

I don't read many history books - but I am thinking of checking this book out.

The book came out last month:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Chief-Culprit-...and+design

Quote:

Bestselling author Victor Suvorov probes newly released Soviet documents and reevaluates existing material to analyze Stalin's strategic design to conquer Europe and the reasons behind his controversial support for Nazi Germany.

A former Soviet army intelligence officer, the author explains that Stalin's strategy leading up to World War II grew from Vladimir Lenin's belief that if World War I did not ignite the worldwide Communist revolution, then a second world war would be needed to achieve it.

Stalin saw Nazi Germany as the power that would fight and weaken capitalist countries so that Soviet armies could then sweep across Europe. Suvorov reveals how Stalin conspired with German leaders to bypass the Versailles Treaty, which forbade German rearmament, and secretly trained German engineers and officers and provided bases and factories for war.

He also calls attention to the 1939 nonaggression pact between the Soviet Union and Germany that allowed Hitler to proceed with his plans to invade Poland, fomenting war in Europe.

Suvorov debunks the theory that Stalin was duped by Hitler and that the Soviet Union was a victim of Nazi aggression. Instead, he makes the case that Stalin neither feared Hitler nor mistakenly trusted him.

Suvorov maintains that after Germany occupied Poland, defeated France, and started to prepare for an invasion of Great Britain, Hitler's intelligence services detected the Soviet Union's preparations for a major war against Germany. This detection, he argues, led to Germany's preemptive war plan and the launch of an invasion of the USSR.

Stalin emerges from the pages of this book as a diabolical genius consumed by visions of a worldwide Communist revolution at any cost--a leader who wooed Hitler and Germany in his own effort to conquer the world. In contradicting traditional theories about Soviet planning, the book is certain to provoke debate among historians throughout the world.

Sounds interesting!

[RexImperator]

Stalin killed more people than Hitler.

[cardguy]

What I find interesting about History - is that it is a subject that is literally alive.

By which I mean - anything you think you know - could be shown to be wrong tomorrow.

Even though the field covers the activities of dead people - our understanding of it is continually changing. Such that it feels like you are dealing with a living subject.

Very strange...

[RawGod]

Each rising generation of historians want to make their mark. Sometimes they make new discoveries. When they can't, they just spin things by emphasising a different thing.

One generation says the fall of Rome was due to X, the next generation says it was due to Y, or that this is not a meaningful question, and then back again. All of them are correct.

[Chaos]

Stalin didn't start it, he knew that they were in for a big conflict and a war with Germany would be invitiable. He always waited for Hitler to make the first move. But he was mistaken that Germany attacked USSR so soon. He was not prepared at the summer of 1941 and the Red Army was a mess.

[polymath]

I don't think they jumped into that war with enthusiasm for the spread of their ideology, especially after the heavy casualties suffered by the Russian Empire in WWI.

The Red Army suffered extremely heavy losses in WWII. Millions upon millions of Soviet people died. Operation Barbarossa was the largest invasion ever, point blank, period. Anyone who could have predicted that would have avoided it.

[Truth Teller]

Short answer, no. Long answer, he's not innocent, but he's not nearly as guilty as Hitler.

[Mage]

So westerners have this theory that Stalin used Hitler as a pawn to weaken Western Europe.

While Russians have this theory that West (Great Britain) used Hitler to weaken USSR.

I don't know for sure who used whom but it seems certain that Hitler was a pawn - Germany before him was weakened from WW1. How did he reform country and made it from a weakened war-torn loser who had to pay reparations into the Europe's strongest military and economic powerhouse in just a few decades? It is well known that he was not a brilliant economist or military commander, merely a fanatical ideologist and a good orator. Surely he got funding from one superpower to be used against another superpower. Some say this small, ugly and unremarkable man was not even the best orator or ideologist, but he was the most extreme and radical in in his views (an incel omega trait and his vibe gives away an omega not an alpha male don't you agree? )and therefore was chosen to be supported by the actual warmongers.

The real war was always between Great Britain (the Ruler of seas, USA nowadays) and Russia (The largest continental power). Between these two poles of power Germany got played as a pingpong granade in two World Wars and some believe that even France in Napoleonic wars played the same role.

I don't know who funded Hitler but from the limited facts that I know it is more likely that West did it to destroy Russia and not vice versa. Why? Because ultimately Hitler did a very stupid thing and invaded Russia, but Great Britain was not invaded. Sure it got attacked, but British overall losses were small compared to the millions of people Russians lost in war. Also Hitler's ideology contained prejudices against slavs, but not against brits. Hitler showed great cruelty against conquered slavs, very bad political move, because he didn't even pretend to be a liberator as most conquerors do to calm the conquered population.

Also many people in Russia today believe that Lenin was a British agent who was sent to create Revolution to weaken Russia. This is almost sure because he did live and receive education and money in west before moving to Russia and inciting Revolution. he was basically what Frankfurt school is in West right now. This move made Russia lose WW1. However Lenin was a double turncoat and stopped serving West and weakening country after disposing of Tsar and usurped power himself. He conceded many territories, which couldn't be held because country was weakened by Revolution but consolidated power in the remaining Russian territory. Stalin as his successor then went to reclaim what was lost in WW1 and more.

Basically Russians silently believe that Great Britain and it's successor USA uses indirect methods to destabilize situation in Russia for centuries (Revolution agents like Lenin, funded third-party superpowers like Hitler). Whether this is justified or not Russians are paranoid of Western covert attacks and they view Ukraine's Maidan as exactly this - the Anglosphere's covert attack to weaken Russosphere. Therefore in their opinion they are defending not attacking.

[Virtus]

Soviet army was not prepared in 1939,40,41, but in 42 it was equal to nazi and in 45 had enough power to take europe if they kept pushing. if stalin had prepared in 38 for war to take over europe then the army would be ready already. but what does he do. in 37 he kills all the officers .. yeah.. nah

[Que enspastic]

Stalin wanted war between the West and Nazi Germany, a WW1 bloodletting with Soviet Red Army waiting on sidelines until both sides were exhausted.

Soviets has some of the greatest doctrinal thinkers but the purges to Red Army left it in no state to take offensive measures in 1939.

[Orion]

No, Hitler started it, by attacking Poland in 1939.

[tylerdurden1993]

(06-02-2014 05:03 AM)Orion Wrote:  

No, Hitler started it, by attacking Poland in 1939.

Stalin also invaded Poland after Germany in the same month under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which saw them partition Poland.
So why did Britain and France not declare war on the USSR as well as they also violated polish sovereignty?

[Que enspastic]

^ Because UK and France weren't stupid.

[Chaos]

^ Same thing when USSR attacked Finland in November 1939.

[cardguy]

We helped an evil guy beat an evil guy in WWII.

And along the way we bankrupted our country and let America take over the world.

And what was the end result? A Europe controlled by Germany.

[Chaos]

^ like Churchill said after the war.
" It seems like we have butchered the wrong pig"

[cardguy]

Nice quote.

WWII provided cover for Hitler to carry out the holocaust.

Yet a lot of people walk around with the idea that the reason we went to war was to put a stop to the holocaust.

That is a very common misconception among dumb people.

[Chaos]

^ very true.
The same goes for a lot of people who believe that US&UK played the biggest role in defeating Nazi Germany.

[Que enspastic]

One of Hitler's original plans for Holocaust was to expel the Jews to Madagascar but after WWII that idea became unfeasible.

[cardguy]

True. I found this out a couple of years ago - I spent about 4 months studying the holocaust.

Interesting shit.

I shared some of it here:

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-33340.html

But I could have put together dozens more posts. There is just so much stuff of interest about the whole subject.

[Orion]

(06-02-2014 05:47 AM)tylerdurden1993 Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 05:03 AM)Orion Wrote:  

No, Hitler started it, by attacking Poland in 1939.

Stalin also invaded Poland after Germany in the same month under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which saw them partition Poland.
So why did Britain and France not declare war on the USSR as well as they also violated polish sovereignty?

Yes, but the end result was that Germans were 400 kilometers farther from Moscow. Crucial 400 kilometers that would have fallen in German hands were there not for the R-M pact.

[durangotang]

[YossariansRight]

National Socialism (Germany) vs. International Socialism USSR): two sides of the same coin.

The world would be a better place if both of them had completely annihilated the other.

[RexImperator]

By the time of Stalin it was "socialism in one country" and not so different from fascism. Instead of worshipping a particular race or nationality, they put the collective will on a pedestal. Both systems demeaned the individual.

[unbowed]

(06-02-2014 01:35 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

We helped an evil guy beat an evil guy in WWII.

And along the way we bankrupted our country and let America take over the world.

And what was the end result? A Europe controlled by Germany.

What about the Munich Agreement (Betrayal according to the Czechs) whom the British and French signed giving Germany the Czech Sudetenland?

Or FDR goading the Japanese with an oil embargo, knowing they had plans for attacking Pearl Harbor?

And just how could someone like Stalin come to power? Sure he was a ruthless opportunist, but why were the Communists a seemingly better alternative to the tsars?

And the Finnish and the Baltic partisans? They fought against the USSR and thus the Allies, but they were pawns on chessboards who wanted to jump out and live their lives. Geography told them no.

And then Poland being trapped between a rock and a hard place; while its bravest fought alongside the Allies only to be given back to Stalin.

It's interesting to trace the history farther back and see just how intertwined this game of thrones becomes.

WWII had many players playing for different reasons. What I find interesting these days is the events leading up to WWII; from WWI to the Great Depression to Futurist manifestos and cries of salvation from economic destruction.

Speaking of digging deep; I haven't read these yet but I'm told they are fascinating; maybe you'll beat me to them cardguy:

http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bolshe...190557035X
http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Hitler...0945001533

It seems the financiers are playing everyone for fools.

America emerged from the ashes richer and more influential than ever thanks to the bomb and having minimal home turf damage but as Lenin so eloquently said:

"Germany will militarize herself out of existence, England will expand herself out of existence, and America will spend herself out of existence."

We had a nice run of prosperity until the ending stages of the Vietnam War where America since then, is slowly being letted of its vitality.

And Germany may "control" Europe as you say ... but who controls Germany?