Thursday, 22 June 2017

STICKING IT TO STALIN


Operation Barbarossa and the Saving of the West

by Daniel Barge

Today is the anniversary of the German invasion of Russia, known to history by the name Operation Barbarossa. This was the start of what was undoubtedly the most titanic struggle in human history, between two incredible fighting machines, the German Wehrmacht and the Soviet Red Army.

Typically it is presented as a simple German act of aggression in pursuit of something called Lebensraum, and no doubt it was, but it was much more than that. It was also part of a great ideological and geopolitical struggle, and an event that had an enormous and unexpected impact on the world.

Those on the alternative right tend to view Hitler's decision to attack Russia as an unfortunate event, both because it was a war in which White man killed White man, and because it laid the foundations of the globalist, anti-White world we live in now. It is difficult not to sympathize with that position and to have wished that Hitler had never made his ill-fated decision to launch three million men and three thousand tanks against the numerically superior Red Army. But if Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union, how would the world have been different?

When hostilities commenced exactly 76 years ago today, Germany was already involved in the occupation of France and several other countries as well as an unresolved war with the British Empire that it had no simple way of winning. The Soviet Union meanwhile had revealed itself to be an entirely ruthless and expansionary nation itself.

To view Nazi Germany as the only brutal and voracious state in Europe is clearly a mistake. In 1939, the Soviet Union had participated in the same invasion of Poland that had involved Germany in war with Britain and France. That same Winter the Red Army launched a massive, unprovoked attack against Finland, which bravely resisted. After heavy losses, this resulted in gains that the Russians continue to hold to this day. 1940 also saw the Soviet invasion of the peaceful Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

In each of these cases, whenever the Red Army rolled into town, the NKVD was not far behind. Tens of thousands of innocent people were arrested, tortured, and "disappeared," as with the executions of Polish officers and other elites at Katyn Forest.

Blokhin without his leather apron.
The chief Soviet executioner, Vasily Blokhin, personally dealt with a quota of 300 executions a night. Dressed in a leather apron and leather gloves, he would wait in a soundproof room, painted bright red with a sloping floor and drain, and shoot the prisoners as they were brought in one-by-one in the base of the skull. For these and other heroic services he was awarded the Order of the Red Banner, twice (1940, 1944), the Order of the Red Banner of Labour (1943), the Order of Lenin (1945), and the Order of the Patriotic War, 1st class (1945). Blokhin and his master, Stalin, typify the kind of regime that the Soviet Union was.

The idea that nothing would have happened if Hitler had sat still seems extremely unlikely. There is every indication that Stalin had plans to expand further West. The rapid German successes of 1940, when France unexpectedly fell and the British retreated to their home island, no doubt upset his calculations. Stalin’s plan was to allow Germany and the Western powers to exhaust themselves in the West, while he built up his strength in the East. This strategy was revealed in a speech he gave six months before WWII, when tensions were high following the German occupation of Czechoslovakia:
"Nonintervention represents the endeavor... to allow all the warmongers to sink deeply into the mire of warfare, to quietly urge them on. The result will be that they weaken and exhaust one another. Then... (we will) appear on the scene with fresh forces and step in, naturally 'in the interest of peace,' to dictate terms to the weakened belligerents."

Stalin quoted in Stalins Falle by Adolf von Thadden
It is a remarkable fact that when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, the Red Army had a three-to-one superiority in tanks and aircraft, and they were already mass producing their main battle tank of the war, the T-34. This was not some peaceful Ruritania cruelly invaded by the fascist jackboot.

Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, a Soviet intelligence officer who defected to the UK in 1978, wrote a famous book Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? under the pen name Viktor Suvorov. This contends that Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike by the Germans against a Soviet invasion that was planned for July 6th. While this date seems a little too precise and Rezun's thesis over-dramatic, the essence of his claims are far from preposterous.

Military expansion was in high gear well before the Germans even invaded Poland. By 1941, the Red Army surpassed 5 million men. According to historian Roger Reese:
"There were 198 rifle divisions in 1941, compared to fewer than 30 in 1927; 31 motorized rifle divisions in 1941 and none in 1927; 61 tank divisions in 1941 and none as late as 1939."

It is often said that the bloody nose the Red Army received from the Finns in the Winter War, in which they suffered over 300,000 casualties, persuaded Stalin to avoid war with Germany for as long as possible. This is not entirely believable.

Firstly, the Winter War was fought under unusual conditions that would not be repeated in a Summer war with Germany; secondly the Red Army was concentrating much of its build-up on offensive weapons like tanks and planes, and believed in a theory of offensive warfare; and, thirdly, when the Germans struck, much of the Red Army was exposed by being placed too far forward in positions more suited to attack than defence. This last reason also accounted for the extremely high number of Red Army casualties in the opening months. Soviet officers, like Major General Pyotr Grigorenko commented on the large concentration of Soviet forces near the German frontier in occupied Poland:
"More than half the troops of the Western Special Military District were stationed around Bialystok and to the west, therefore in territory extending like a wedge deeply into that of the probable enemy. A troop arrangement of this kind would only have been justifiable... if these troops had been earmarked to launch a surprise attack. Otherwise, half of them would have been surrounded in a moment."

Quoted in Unternehmen Barbarossa by Walter Post
But whatever the exact details of the military situation, it is clear that Stalin believed war with Germany was inevitable, and was hoping to pick the moment, preferably after Germany had been weakened by other conflicts, and intended to fight it on advantageous terms with a great superiority of force. If the Germans had not attacked, you can sure that the Red Army would have done so, at least within a few years.

Preemptive war?
But surely none of this is important, some will say. After all, Germany lost the war anyway, and all of Eastern Europe fell under Communist tyranny for 40 years. Yes, that’s true but think of the difference between a war of Stalin’s own choosing and the one foisted upon him by operation Barbarossa.

In the first case, the Red Army would be starting from the line of the Vistula and advancing in full strength against a Germany involved in war with Britain and possibly America. Victory would have meant the conquest of not only Eastern Europe, but probably also Central and even Western Europe, with Germany and France falling into the Stalinist orbit. We can guess what kind of job opportunities this would have created for the likes of Vasily Blokhin.

Instead of this scenario, however, the Red Army got the stuffing kicked out of it and started its advance from the Volga. By the time they reached Berlin, they had lost around 14 million servicemen dead and many millions more wounded. They were a much weakened and demoralized force that was incapable of going much further against organized resistance, and could only be impelled forward by the prospect of raping German women.

Operation Barbarossa was also a major factor in bringing America into the war, both by raising the stakes and by making American involvement in a war against Germany an easier burden to bear. Without an Eastern Front, the US would have faced the full brunt of German power in the Battle of the Atlantic and North Africa, the likely point of engagement. It is unlikely that the US would have relished that. Operation Barbarossa made American involvement in the European war a much easier proposition, and was thus the reason that the Americans were in Europe at the end of WWII, armed with nuclear weapons, and able to keep the Red Army at bay.

Operation Barbarossa was many things, including a brutal grasp by the Nazis for living space, but it was also a historical event of overwhelming importance that, in the dislocation of Stalin’s evil plans for World dominance and the damage it inflicted on the Red Army, was the main reason that Western Europe remained free to make its own mistakes in the post-war period.

Connected Articles:
The Myth of the Great Russian Victory
Bombing Germany, Russia, and America in One Night




17 comments:

  1. What is this? Alternative Right rags on the Neo-Nazi antics of Andrew Anglin but then posts this Hitler-Apologist nonsense.

    Yes, the Soviets could be murderous. Btw, so were the British, French, Japanese, and Americans. Any people could be murderous, and their history is filled with horrors. So, using that logic, ANY attack can be justified on grounds that, hey, the other guys are bad too. So, maybe Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor could be justified on grounds that US took land from Indians, enslaved blacks, stole land from Mexico, and took Philippines. We can play this game forever. Japanese could also justify their invasion of China based on Chinese history of imperialism and barbarism.

    Also, no one is contesting that the USSR under Stalin wasn't a ruthless totalitarian tyranny. And no one is contesting that USSR attacked Finland and grabbed territory and carried out other limited acts of aggression. Germans were also expansionist, grabbing Czech territory and half of Poland(in plot with USSR). Germany also took Norway to preempt the Brits. So all sides are equally guilty there.

    So, why was the German attack on USSR so evil?

    1. USSR kept the peace with Germany. And without solid evidence or smoking gun, I don't wanna hear the canard about how Stalin was about to invade first. It's nonsense. Anyway, whatever Stalin did or didn't do, he kept the peace with Germany. It was Hitler that broke the peace. Also, Stalin's actions in Finland and Baltic States were limited in scope and couldn't escalate into major wars. Likewise for German moves on smaller territories and nations, like invading Greece as a favor to Mussolini. Also, when it came to secret police and use of terror, Nazis were just as brutal as the Soviets in the East.

    Anyway, WWII didn't really begin in 1939. Had Hitler NOT invaded USSR, it would have been a limited war. As all of continental Europe was either under Germany or USSR(or neutral), there was a possibility for peace. Britain was the ONLY holdout, and it had no means to defeat Germany. So, if Germany had played for time, the UK would have had to come to the table for some kind of peace. Instead, Hitler invaded USSR, and that set off WWII. He not only had a two-front war, but it was an existential war. If he lost this one, Germany could be ground into dust. He risked the entire German people for his vainglory as man of destiny. Worse, German advances in USSR convinced Japan that USSR would fall. So, Japan planned the attack on Pearl Harbor and that would bring the US into the war.

    2. Another reason why Hitler's invasion was so terrible was it was a war of extermination and enslavement. This was different from past wars. Napoleon conquered territory for power and to spread Revolutionary ideas. In his view, he was a liberator. He didn't see other Europeans as subhuman or innately inferior. There had been many wars among France, Germany, Russia, and etc, and things got nasty, but there was no grand design to exterminate or enslave another people.

    Even when Europeans conquered territory in Asia, Africa, and Middle East, there was no design to exterminate or enslave the population. Whites may have seen non-whites as racially inferior, but they didn't see them as subhuman. But German invasion of Russia was different. This was not like WWI where the various powers were fighting for territory. In the Great War, despite the ugly propaganda, there was still the sense that all involved were human beings. No power was trying to exterminate or enslave another people in WWI or in any war in the 19th century.

    But that was Nazi Germany's aim in Russia. Nazi ideology condemned Eastern Slavs to either extermination or enslavement. Hitler himself estimated that around 30 million would have to be killed to make room for German settlers.
    At least when the Anglos took over America, the land was mostly empty, like vast Siberia. In contrast, Germans were trying to destroy of high civilization with a deep culture and history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ttle at times. In contrast, Nazism said certain races could and SHOULD be treated like cattle. Thus, if inhuman treatment of people was a means to an end in communism, the inhuman treatment of certain races was the END GOAL of Nazism.

      Soviets, like Americans and Christians, could go out on a limb and do terrible things. People do ruthless things in revolutions and wars. But their ideology still acknowledged the humanity of all peoples. In contrast, Nazism didn't even acknowledge the humanity of certain races and ethnic groups. The superior race could treat them anyway it wanted. And that was the sheer horror of Nazism. Hitler's war on Russia was something new in modern European history. It was a war of total annihilation. It wasn't just a case of atrocities and terror, as happened in French Revolution or Carpet Bombing of Germany, cases of violence that got out of hand in the heat of struggle. Nazi Plan was cold and calculated. It wasn't driven by fury and passion unleashed by war but dictated by a blueprint of eradication of another race and culture.

      The truth: If Germans had won in the East, they would have exterminated tens of millions of people and enslaved the rest into helots and serfs. That was the ideology of the Nazis.

      Now, Soviet prevailed and took over Eastern Germany and all of Eastern Europe. While Soviets carried out purges, ruthlessly employed their secret police, and ruled with fear, the fact remains that they recognized all Eastern Europeans(and even Germans with whom they bitterly fought) as fellow human beings. Soviets never regarded other peoples as less-than-human or subhuman. Even when Soviets did horrible things and treated people like cattle, they still subscribed to the view that all people are humans and eventually deserving of respect and dignity. So, once the radical phase passed, even people who'd been victimized were later rehabilitated and allowed to work their way up the Soviet ladder.
      In contrast, Nazi Germans not only treated certain peoples in subhuman manner but believed that they were less-than-human and could be treated like cattle forever on the basis of ideology.

      That makes all the difference.

      Now, there were ways in which National Socialism was better than communism. As purely a national ideology, it made more sense and was more humane. But outside German territory, it was bound to be dangerous because it regarded certain peoples as less-than-human, and this could even result in genocide. Now, not all fascist movements were the same. Italian Fascism wasn't hung up on racial supremacism. And to be sure, there were German National Socialists who preferred mutual respect and peace with Russians. But Hitler was a pathological visionary and had other ideas.

      I think there were good and admirable things about National Socialism, and those qualities need to be examined and addressed apart from what happened in WWII. Even though Hitler had plenty of assistance in the events that led to WWII, the fact is the whole mess could have been avoided if Hitler had been more like Ataturk or even Stalin(on foreign policy).

      After all, he was allowed to take back Rhineland, unite with Austria, and take Sudetenland. He was even forgiven for taking Czech territory. But he didn't know when to stop. He kept pushing the envelope. When he took Poland with USSR as partner in crime, he was faced with UK and France. He defeated France, and he had another chance at peace. He could have worn out the clock against UK that was isolated and unable to defeat Germany. Instead, the fool attacked Russia and thew it all away, along with 50 million lives. Since Hitler was most responsible for WWII, he is the biggest killer of the 20th century.

      Delete
    2. I have to sort-of agree with this, it's impossible who was the bigger douche bag Hitler or Stalin, but they did have radically different ideologies even though their methods where almost the same.

      I think in the end we got the worst possible outcome, as in both Germany and Russia where effectively defeated by each other, a much preferable outcome would have been either a total win by Germany over the Soviets or the Soviets over Evrope. As fewer Whites would have died and after a few decades we would have most likely got our independence back

      Delete
    3. Nope, this is a terrible misunderstanding of the history.

      This article is about tactical matters and the end results.

      These comments are bleeding-heart whines about who was the good guy and who was the bad guy, a disney-style understanding of the world.

      Delete
    4. I'm pretty much in agreement with Andrea's take on this. Had the US not intervened, Britain and Russia probably still would have won, but it would have taken much longer as it did with Napoleon. But let's suppose that Stalin had attacked and just rolled over Germany and all of Europe. Not good of course, but formerly Stalinist occupied Eastern Europe, including Russia itself, is in better spiritual shape today than Western Europe with its on-going American occupation and cultural colonization. Andrea is also right about the Nazis. Had they won, there would have been nothing in it for anyone but genetically pure Nordics but death or degrading slavery. And if you were a genetically pure Nordic, there would have been nothing in it for you but endless campaigns of extermination and enslavement against other races and that does not strike me as a happy life.

      Delete
    5. I hear that Russia and Eastern European are in better Spiritual shape than Western Europe or USA- becuase .....USA occupation. I believed this too. Until I go to look and make a study - then i see that it turned out to be outrageous Russian propaganda. I was disappointed because i was very excited about that and wanted it to be so. I wanted there to be at least one place in the White world like that. I wasn't even particular about what version of Christianity they practiced. even if it wasn't my own.

      Delete
    6. Could you be more specific and detailed? I'll admit that my own impressions of parts of post-Communist Eastern Europe (Prague and Budapest) were too brief and touristy to be of much use. Still, you hear various former East Bloc countries such as Hungary, Poland and Russia criticized for such things as resistance to the LBGT agenda and Moslem immigration and new restrictions on abortion. You also hear of upswing in religious practice, including religious vocations, and rebuilding of churches. Is all of this just Russian propaganda? If so, it seems to have taken in the cultural Marxists who rule the West, since they seem to desire Russia's destruction as much as Hitler ever did.

      Delete
    7. That's all fine and good. and some of it is very good.

      but you are doing massive Russian propaganda. and anti- American and anti-European propaganda that is not based on facts. It has been going on for longer than I have been alive and i am tired of the Russian bullshit and the Westerners who help them. More damage has been done to Europe and my country by extension- and the world- for that matter because of it.

      Russia has a higher numbers of Atheists and muslims than USA. Fewer practicing Christians. Islam is one of the 'Official religions'. of Russia. They need to pass all these official laws about things like that- because they are fragile and don't trust thier people or themselves.. They have a much higher murder rate, suicide rate, serious corruption rate, drug abuse rate, general crime rate than Western Europe and even- USA with all it's black and mestizo crime.

      Russia has major immigration problems and muslim problems. It is selling itself to China. It allowed Chinese boots to march in it's Square. It has more muslims than all of Europe put together. It has very lax attitudes to prostitution and vice laws compared to most Americans- even now -as low as we have sunk..
      It prefers muslims and Chinese-instead of fellow Europeans and Americans.


      Now I am not going to fight World War Two again with any of you. I agree with Letania's general view. With extras that I will keep to myself.

      Eastern Europe is Russian Federation, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Belarus, Ukraine, Albania, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia,.Lithuania, Estonia, Lavita.

      And what i view as stolen Western European People of Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic.
      I dont want to hurt their feelings. The live in very pretty countries and with rich histories and cultures to be very proud of. But they know that they are suffering from some problems. And most of it is due to spiritual separation.


      They have serious corruption problems. Cynicism. Drug problems. Suicide problems. Crime. Many have low rates of human development comparatively. Mafia problems. Major issues. Major ones. Health problems. Prostitution problems. Issues with the youngsters.

      and it sucks there for alot of the average person and so is having emigration problems. They want to go live in the West- USA, Canada,Australia, New Zealand Britain and Germany and France in particular. Or anywhere but there.





      Delete
    8. For Russia and thier propagandists it's about "front". Not about reality. About the outside world's impression of it. If it can get everyone out there to believe something about it. That will somehow make it so.
      Russia was wrong about alot of things. ti spread it bullshit around the world and cost the lives of millions. Creating long detours in the trajectory of human development. Wasting people's time and minds on any cockamamie thing or ideology that comes down the pike. Going from one thing to another. and somehow believing that if it can get everyone else to believe too- then it will be proven right. If you anti- american propagandists want to get rid of USA from Western Europe faster-you Russians- first you have to cut the bullshit.

      Delete
    9. The very concepts of "Cultural Marxism" that you guys keep repeating- is one of the many intellectual "gifts" that keep on giving - like gum stuck to our shoes we can't get off- from Russia and Germany.... not USA.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Always defending






    Always excusing russia

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kudos. Can anyone seriously doubt that the world would be a better place today if the good guys had won World War 2? The Anglo-Jewish menace is the single greatest threat humanity has ever faced, and it is just as true today as it was then, perhaps more so. That the United States helped the Anglo-Jewish Hegemony deliver half of Europe into the hands of Communism is a sin that will not be blotted out for many, many generations.

    ReplyDelete
  5. FDR was mainly responsible for WW2. He encouraged (mainly through Bullitt) Poland not to negotiate with Germany and pushed the Brits to make the March 1939 blank check guarantee. No reason for the German-Polish conflict to become WW2. Especially when Britain could do nothing to help Poland.

    Hitler tried to come to terms with Britain many times between end of the Polish conflict and the start of Barbarossa . Britain refused to negotiate because they expected US to come to the rescue. Especially true of Churchill, who had been in secret communication
    with FDR starting well before he became PM. John Lukacs and Tooze say that AH attacked USSR because Britain refused his peace overtures and it was assumed that FDR would eventually find a pretext to get the US into the war. Lukacs says that Brits expected SU to flip and Tooze says the Axis needed more of SU's vast resources (especially oil) to be able to compete against the American Cornucopia. Remember that Hitler met with Molotov in Nov 1940 to get the Sovs to become full Axis partners and Molotov pretty much spat in his eye.

    Some refs:
    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.it/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1G7H48SQQAXD8/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1557780218
    http://spartacus-educational.com/SSkentT.htm






    ReplyDelete
  6. Alternative history is always rather fun, even if professional historians roll their eyes. Hitler's attack and the "Eastern Plan" to basically exterminate or enslave Slavs in Byelorussia, Ukraine, Eastern Poland, Russia etc. was a highly immoral and geopolitically unwise action. Would the USSR have eventually attacked Germany? My opinion is that it probably would have, sometime in or after 1943. But to me the interesting tactical/operational lesson of the Russo-German War was German prowess in defense. A German Army on the strategic defensive without the huge losses of 1941-1943 and the extended lines of communication, and taking advantage of natural and constructed defensive obstacles would have had little difficulty defeating the Red Army, despite the latter's numerical superiority. Repeated defeats around the German border might even have undermined the legitimacy of the Soviet leadership and led to its replacement. Germany knocked Russia out of WWI without capturing either Moscow or St. Petersburg.

    Great Britain, after the collapse of France, had no viable way of intervening on the continent until after Germany suffered the vast casualties in the campaign against the USSR, and even then it needed the support of the vast industrial power of the United States. I think it would have been difficult to convince the American public to intervene against Germany if Germany was responding to a Red Army attack.

    Speculation all; fun but perhaps pointless. My main take is that Europeans simply cannot fight wars like this. We're just too damned good at killing each other. It has to stop. No more brothers' wars!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. They're still hunting down German prison guards. When will the people who forced that evil Communist system down everyone's throats be brought to justice? Communism murdered way more people than Naziism. Where's the Nuremburg for Communist thugs like Blokhin? There are still thousands of them running around free. They went way too easy on those criminals when Communism collapsed. If criminals are not brought to justice that tells them there's no downside to crime. So they'll probably get another tyranny in Eastern Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lol. Alt-kikes turn neo-Nazi only when it is about bashing Russia. The true Aryan virtues of family, folk and soil were represented by Russia not Germany, that's why they won. Nazi Germany was actually even more anti-western, nice try from "Muh West" retards to be associated with something beyond fag parades and funding radical Islamists.

    ReplyDelete

SWEDISH BLEEDING

Not sure if victim of "diversity rape" or toxic feminism. by Duns Scotus It's really hard to know what's going o...