World War II History vs. Modern Politics

Global Warming: are we handling it right?

2008-10-29T14:44:00.000-07:00

It seems since the 1960s when environmental concerns became an issue to be concerned with, that each decade we face and fight some major environmental disaster which threatens to inevitably kill us all, if we don’t do something about it. Back in the 1980s it was the Ozone hole… did they make us feel guilty for having a fridge, an A/C or using a deodorant? With time it turned out the gas in question was actually one of the main components needed for the formation of new ozone!!! Furthermore, it turned out that a simple volcano puffs out many times more of the same gas each time it decided to burp. It turned out that the hole was always there, growing bigger or smaller, and that we really had nothing to do with it. But a decade of talking, of changing, of adopting policies and legislations passed, together with billions of cash spent on scientific research, and what for? Basically, for nothing.

Today is the Global warming “disaster” we are faced with. First it were our cars responsible, now it is well acknowledged that it is yet again one of those natural processes that we cannot really control nor can we effect. By now however the Global warming has been well used for major international agreements, trillions go for more scientific research, and the whole story repeats itself again.

Personally, I have no problem with that, if some smart people found a way to use ignorance to make money, good for them. What worries me is if the fact that a natural process of gradual warming, which brings about (and will continue to do so) some changes in the flora and fauna in certain regions of our planet, is NOT taken into serious account! So far our response seems to be based on the presumption that if we do this or that or the other, we can actually prevail, and things will remain unchanged… which to my view is complete non-sense.

If science says that in X amount of time water levels will raise up with Y amount, is anything being done to relocate the settlements which one day might find themselves under water? If climate will change therefore preventing certain agricultural produce being grown, is anyone thinking what else could be done to replace this with something that will work under the new changed environmental conditions? Because if what the scientists are saying today is true, then people better start planning for the upcoming and inevitable changes of tomorrow, as to avoid any major economic or other disaster resulting from those changes.

Other issues which intrigue my mind are: if nature has decided to change, then what is it doing that for? Is it because the population is growing, and more fertile land is needed to feed that extra population? Or is it another natural phenomenon we cannot find a logical explanation to, so as usual we try to exploit it as a profitable financial speculation? Or is it that some Hegel devotees are trying to use such naturally occurring phenomenon for their own political aims?

Russia and The New World Order

2008-08-31T19:07:00.000-07:00

Are we witnessing a change of world order? Sure we are. Ever since the last conflict in South Ossetia, it became clear that Russia is no more a crippled left-over of the Soviet Union, but a new rising power. I think this was already clear in the past five years, but somehow it was never stressed publicly as it was done in this past month of August.

The general outcome largely formed by our western media seems to suggest that we are heading towards a new “Cold War.” Are we really? In my opinion, the answer is: definitely not!

The cold war rhetoric came back in fashion simply because we in the west yet again have failed to understand Russia, and our inexcusable ignorance could come up with nothing new but the old and worn “cold war” term. The global situation today however is far from what it was during the so called Cold War period in the last century. Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore; it is not living within its own communist world surrounded by minefields, border guards, walls, barb wire, radio and TV suppression. It is part of the world, heavily integrated economically and socially. What is more, Russia does not want to isolate itself, like old Soviet Union did. On the contrary, it seeks to integrate itself even more.

So, why the disagreement? The answer is simple: Russia refuses to accept the single polar international system, where basically the US takes the final decisions. “…the world must be multi-polar. Single polarity is unacceptable…" recently stated Russia’s president. Obviously, United States and its ruling elite could not be happy at all about that. Those of it, who could already see the so called New World Order taking over, are sure disappointed at the new realities. They will be forced to deal with Russia, and soon perhaps with some kind of a new economic or military bloc, formed by Russia and China, and perhaps also India. The prospects of ruling the world single-handedly have become smaller than ever.

So, what is next? Many might say, “well, depends on what the west will do next” but it really does not, as we have no choice but to adopt to the new realities and work with the Russians on par, rather than dictate them our commands in different ways and expect them to follow them obediently, as was the case in the 1990s. The fact that Russia today is an integral part of the world makes it even stronger, than the Soviet Union ever was. I will explain why.

Russia today is the main and irreplaceable source of energy to most of Europe. This tendency will grow even more so in the foreseeable future, due to the new energy links established between Russia and many EU countries, among which are some of the original EU member states. In other words, energy dependency on Russia is not solely spread among the new member states, mostly former Soviet “satellites,” but is also spreading over the countries of the former Western bloc. This was not the case back in the Cold war era.

Energy however is not the sole reason, Russia is a main source of all types of row materials, plus it is a fast growing market for the European made goods. Russia has large foreign investments in its economy, which despite the recent tensions keep on growing, and mind you the business community will not allow its investments being lost over some insignificant political quarrels, or the support of a little nationalist-frenzy state such as Georgia.

Capital or money to put it simply. Our western economy is heavily dependent on the large stacks of Russian money “stuffed” in western banks. During the 1990s Russia was heavily exporting energy and row materials, and most of the money for these exports remained and still do in the West. If Russia decides to pull them out, mark my words: we will be in DEEP trouble. We cannot really do much about that, if we “freeze” their funds, we face the prospect of having them melt again by the blasts of Russia’s mean nuclear war machine.

In terms of military terms, the situation had not changed an inch since the Cold war; Russia still has its nuclear potential, so war is really out of the question, since it will result in total world destruction. Even if nukes are not used, it is simply impossible to occupy Russia, as it is too BIG.

So, we cannot fight them, we cannot occupy them, we cannot isolate them, and what is left is the only real option available: we have to work with them. The faster our western leaders, especially those in the US realize that (no matter how bitter this truth might be) the better for us.

Norway – No Way!

2008-07-09T06:46:00.000-07:00

I had a trip to Norway, which was nice but also quite shocking! The nice part was the nature, the people were also very nice, and the food was great! As weird as it felt, I found a lot of similarities with Bulgaria, and other countries, most probably because of the same trees and nature over all, it felt quite familiar. I’d say it a great place to go for hiking and sleeping in generally relaxing in the nature around you. Food was also good, lots of great sea stuff, shrimps, fish, you name it. Last but not least, people were very friendly, always ready to help you, to show you, to explain, in two words very welcoming.

But it was the social system which was shocking for me, and made me sit and write those lines. Norway is basically cash-less society. I’d say 90% is credit/debit cards and 10% is cash. They all go around with their plastic cards and pay everywhere with them. You might see this as perfectly normal, but I do not. If they wish they can easily stop the rest of the cash in circulation even tomorrow. What is worrying here is: what is a person to do, if there was no cash, and for whatever reasons the government or the bank stops, blocks your plastic card? What is one to do? Just the thought that all your “money” and basically ability to live in society will be dependent on a bank or a government is scary enough!

The Norwegians do not seem to worry about such possibilities. They truly believe in their government and their system. This system in a very simple but totally effective way to control their lives fully! If the government does not wish its citizens to spend their money for particular things, they simply put enormous tax on those things (usually with some shallow but good intended motive) and there it is, people simply do not get the thing/s in question, because it becomes too expensive for them. If the government decides that its citizens should do this or the other, it starts throwing money at the citizens, and they go for it. In fact I was told that the government had officially announced to the people to spend their money for travel and culture, as this helps keep inflation in reasonable boundaries! So, the Norwegians started traveling.

The system leads and shapes the way people should live. It taxes single men of up to 82%, and single women with a kid of 23% only, while giving them apartment, extra money and kindergarten for the kid. As nice as this might look at first glance, this system is directly aimed against the traditional family as a unit in society. I still think that family is a result of natural need of the human beings, rather than thought necessity, and therefore do not agree with the idea that family should be abolished, as the infamous Marx and Engels did. However this modern system in effect does exactly that.

As someone born under communism, I will never ever trust any government. I do believe that people have brains to make decisions for themselves, and that the government should play as minimal role as possible in people’s lives. Norway’s way is some modern replica of our old totalitarian system, with which I want nothing to do. Norway, No way!

Italian Voters: Realists or Idealists?

2008-04-14T08:12:00.000-07:00

Today is yet another post-election, result-awaiting day in Italy. And yet again, I am left wondering: how much influence do real political and social changes have on their vote, and how much of it is influenced by pure idealism?

Well, as in most developed democracies the elections are usually a struggle between two main opponents. In Italy the two main figures are Berlusconi vs. Prodi. Or, right vs. left if you prefer.

For most Italians all of their politicians are simple crooks. But Berlusconi seems to be presented as the biggest one, probably because of his wealth. Berlusconi won elections back in 2001 and managed to sustain his full mandate, something very unusual for the Italian post-WWII political life. Most anti-Berlusconi voters, besides the usual apologetics about him being a crook and Mafioso, state that during his full term his government did not do anything for the people. Yet, taxes were not raised during Berlusconi’s rule!

Then came Prodi again, and the taxes went up again, with the dubious explanation, that by raising the taxes for all, his government would make sure that the rich would also pay their taxes. While in office, last December Italy was basically paralyzed by a huge strike, supermarkets were left without fresh food, no fuel in the gas stations, and basically all were affected, including the businesses, which lost huge profits because of this strike. As a Christmas surprise, Napoli was left buried under its own garbage, which besides endangering the health and life of millions of people, also resulted in 60% drop in tourism in Napoli, which is the main business of this important Italian city. Ironically, Napoli is known to vote left, that is Prodi!

Back in spring 2000, under Prodi, there was again a major strike which resulted in shortages of fuel, and days of forced economic stagnation and loss of money.

Somehow, these facts do not seem to affect the view of the left voters, and this is probably because a lot of them are dependant workers who live on monthly salary, rather than owners who run a private business.

From my experience, most private business owners in Italy vote right, they vote Berlusconi, and there is a logic to that, there is stability and less governmental influence on business under Berlusconi, while the left with its policies seem to only cause disruptions and huge loss of money to these businesses. Ironically the left-voters do not seem to grasp that if the business they are working for, and out of which they get their money is not doing well, their pay won’t rise, and even more, their jobs could be endangered.

It seems that people do not realize that the problems in Italy, are not directly connected to right or to the left, but are inherited. In fact many of them are considered “problems” only because the political forces have publicly identified them as such, without even analyzing them, if they are real problems.

Luckily, most voters in Italy seem to still prefer a relative stability, which allows them to work and prosper, rather than unjustified “reforms” which only result in total economic chaos and loss of money, which are also paid for these same common people, whose taxes were raised.

From Totalitarian to Civil Society?

2008-03-25T14:59:00.000-07:00

Recent news about Russia and talks about building up a civil society there made me think about this issue. At first, this sounds hilarious, especially to your average Joe from the Western world, and why shouldn’t it? After all, Democracy and civil society is somewhat reserved terms used to describe the political and social spheres of the developed Western countries, namely USA, EU, Canada, etc. Now, since the general view in these countries about Russia and its political and social system are overwhelmingly critical, it is but abnormal for the average Joe to see such plans as simple non-sense. What is shocking here, however, is that if you were to ask this same Joe what civil society is, he wouldn’t know what to answer!

In fact, what is civil society?

According to Wikipedia: “Civil society is composed of the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (regardless of that state's political system) and commercial institutions.” (To all of you political scientists, I do know that civil society is far more complicated, and I do know that there are tons of literature published on this issue, however, what is missing, is a simple and clear explanation of what civil society really is, i.e., one which would be understood by this same average Joe, that was why I chose to use Wikipedia’s definition.)

Well, it seems to be a scale between “voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions” and “force-backed structures of a state… and commercial institutions.” So, according to the logic of this definition, the more voluntary organizations, the more civil the society is. I would add that those organizations have to be somewhat active and capable of real-life political lobbying, meaning that they could influence the decision-making process in the society, via the government. The idea is that through such organizations, the general public may have a better say over the decision-making process. I guess the idea came about, as the classic case of free parliamentary elections, proved to be unproductive, to say the least. That is, the idea that people choose their own representative or MP to parliament, so that he or she could represent their interests in the decision-making process and/or law-making process. At some point people realized that this formula works poorly, if at all. Hence, the voluntary organizations which seem to be used as means to mobilize the public and make it more present at the decision-making table. This is perhaps all too obvious for you, however, how many of you did you ever see this as failure of one of the main fundamentals of Democracy? I mean, we identify a problem, and we try to find a solution, which is all great, but did we stop for a moment and try to see the picture as a whole? Not really, most prefer to keep on believing in the system. In fact, how many of you have ever tried to observe these aspects in detail, and ask some questions? For example, how much real say do all those countless social organizations, non-profit organizations, etc. etc. actually do have in our modern society? And how much of this say is actually relevant to our way of life? What does it take for such organizations to be created?

I would say that an idea to fight for and finance are the two major parts needed for the creation of such voluntary organization. Hence, governments and business entities provide enormous finances for the creation of and subsidizing of such organizations. Someone once said, you only need a sensible idea and few funding applications to create a non-profit or voluntary organization. Sure, the organization might not make a profit, but it sure sustains its members financially, in the name of whatever its goal is. Again, nothing spectacular here, until we get beck to the fundamental idea of civil society: it is a scale! So, it turns out, instead of opposing or counterbalancing the business and governmental institutions in the decision-making, they rather assist them in the process, by adding more legality to the decisions taken by the government! In fact I would argue, that our modern Democratic system is nothing more but a curtain of smoke a camouflage over the reality, which provides the public with the illusion that decisions taken were somehow taken with their approval. OK, I know you might think that this is radical, however, what other logical conclusion could one make after examining the facts?

What might sound ridiculous today (i.e., building civil society in Russia) might turn out to be something innovative and more successful, than what we deem to be a developed civil society here in the west. Let me explain. The fundamental differences between us and the Russians are actually quite simple: they refuse to play by our whistle! In other words they are sovereign and able to decide their own way of development and society-building, which might or might not resemble our parameters of democracy. I would claim that even if the Russians actually achieve a high and acceptable, even to our standards, democracy, we would still criticize them, or claim they have not done it, simply because they will continue to take their own decisions, irrelevant of what we say. I’ve come understand this western attitude by simply observing how the west deals with other developing countries striving to build up their own democratic systems. The moment such countries begin to follow our policies, this is the moment, when our critique towards their questionable democratic systems suddenly stops, and is usually replaced by bouquets of compliments and words of support. Republic of Georgia is very fine example of such a practice at the moment. The point being, until Russia unconditionally surrenders her sovereignty to us, we would always criticize it, despite her real achievements in building democracy and civil society. Therefore, taking for granted our own western specialists’ views on Russia would be unserious to say the least, simply because they are bias. Hence, we should try and examine Russia independently, even if her future role would end up being again our enemy in a warmer version of the Cold War.

No matter what John McCain and others claim about Russia, there are few facts we need to understand and accept about Russian society today. Despite all of our criticism about Russia’s elections, today the majority or Russian people actually do support Putin, Medvedev and their party. And there is nothing surprising about that: after Yeltsin’s era of instability, economic and social chaos, drastic drop of standard of living, major war in Chechnya, and last but not least, out of hand crime rise, the Russian people for first time experienced return to normality, return of stability, slow but constant rise in living standard, social and political order, economic growth and in general better times. All of that was brought about by Putin and his party, by the people who took power in 2000 and continue to successfully rule the country. I often do not understand our own western perspective towards the Russians: when they suffer, when they are living in chaos, we fully support the policies of their government, and when they begin to recover, to live better, to get richer, we immediately start to criticize their government and its policies?! Why is that? Is it because our own political elite is still overstaffed with some conservative Cold War era airheads, who still want to “nuke the damn commies” and feel chest pain every time they see the Russians doing better? Well, I don’t know, but it makes me think about the origins of the Cold War, and how much of it was the responsibility of Stalin’s pre-WWII plans to conquer the world, and how much of our western interests and plans to basically do the same?

So, civil society in Russia?

Why not? The mentality of their society is very much open or even pre-conditioned if you wish for civil society practices. Most Russians believe in social justice, and by this I mean somewhat social equality, where they do care that the other people should have a better life, and they actually try to help achieve this common goal, not only morally believe in it as is the case with most of our western societies! This has to do with the massive equality propaganda which was ruling these people’s lives for decades during the age of Communism. Thus, today the government in Russia is very much heavily involved in running sectors of life, which in the USA are usually privately run. It is because of that, that the people are involved and are expected to be involved in the decision-making process within Russia, and it is this natural, in their case, need that requires them to speed up and build up a more developed and active civil society.

The past eight years have shown to everyone in Russia that the existing governmental and bureaucratic structures in the country were very much limiting the efficient and faster reconstruction of the country, and therefore it requires more than ever a heavier involvement of the public. Russia now has the money, and what it needs is structures to make use of them and turn them into usable infrastructure, usable for the people, not for one or another company, which is often the case in our own western system. Such move provides the government with both, the ability to faster build up the country, and as a result the moral and political support of its own people.

I hope that Medvedev will make a full use of this potential and despite what we say or think of them, the Russians will emerge as a healthy and functional civil society.

From USSR to Russia Today

2008-03-09T00:43:00.000-08:00

Almost 17 years passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and yet most people have no real clue how and why it happened. Nor do they suspect that the past 17 years leading to what Russia has become today, were all rooted to early 1980’s and the infamous Yurii Andropov, the longest serving chief of the KGB (1967-1982), and later a General-Secretary of the Politburo of the KPSS.

I will not go in details here, but will try to provide a short and general description of the whole process.

In 1980 Andropov under his own order received 10 independent analysis reports about the future of the USSR. All of them conclude the inevitable economic collapse of the economic and thus also the political system. Based on those news, Andropov with few individuals (almost all of them KGB, but also CIA operatives) draw up a plan, (which he signs before his death) to basically “dismantle” the existing political-economic system in the USSR and replace it with wild capitalism, which was aimed to discourage the Russian people from democracy and free market economy, and later use this as the fundamental to build up a new “modern socialism.”

Since the plan was radical to say the least, and could not have been officially implemented, Andropov and company recruited different individuals from the KGB, the party nomenclature and army to carry out this plan. From the information available today, it seems that while still alive Andropov personally met and instructed these individuals, no matter how low they stood in the hierarchy. The dismantling process was planned to take 10 years plus minus 2, and M. Gorbachev was chosen to be the last general-secretary to carry it out.

As we know now, the plan was carried out pretty much as planned, and only few unexpected events took place, with which the chosen people dealt with accordingly, thus assuring the successful result of it. The people in charge were also smart enough to use their “official” enemies US and Western Europe, to get even more money for doing what they were doing anyway. The US on the other hand, despite all the popular reports about the CIA plan to dismantle Russia into 10 or so smaller countries, did not want that for the two simple reasons: 1) it was easier to control and insure that no world nuclear catastrophe takes place involving the massive nuclear arsenal of the ex-USSR, in post Soviet Russia and 2) strong Russia was and still is needed as a counter balance to the US, thus insuring the survival of the US as a dominant world power (or empire if you wish).

Here the interests of the ex-Soviet elite and the US matched and they managed to sustain the unity of Russia, through the Yeltsin period, which was the period of the planned disillusionment of the people of democracy and capitalism.

Many political scientists in their criticism of Russian politics during the 1990’s forget that the opposition in Russia then was not the powers striving for democracy, but those striving for return of the old system and the resurrection of the USSR. These were powers made up of lower ranking nomenclature people, who were never informed about the whole plan, and in 1991 found out that they were unemployed. These were the people who stood behind the two unsuccessful tries to take power by coups d'état, in 1991 and 1993.

The era of introducing the “modern socialism” in Russia began with Putin coming to power in 2000. Ever since, he and his team (although to be correct, the team is not his, but he is part of the team) managed to stabilize the country, the economy, and to insure their being in power at least for the next eight years, now that Medvedev succeeded Putin as Russia’s president.

What is next for Russia?

Nothing spectacular, Russia is to become (already is in fact) the balancing world power, which the US needs as much. So, the recent reintroductions of military patrols by the Russian military forces, and the renewed show of muscles by Russia is very much needed and expected, as Russia’s role of a balancing power, which by the way also serves for strengthening the feeling of pride among the Russians, and thus unity and greater support for their government.

Why not western style democracy in Russia?

The ruling elite in Russia, and some of the foreigners who helped them, seem to believe that historically the Russian people always fought their rulers and their rulers always fought them back. The reason behind is explained with the pre-Russian state of social order among the Slavic people, who lived in harmony without a king. Thus, when it was introduced it sparked a constant “internal war” in Russia. How much of this is true, and how much of it is being used by those who rule Russia to keep their autocratic manner of power is unclear, but is certainly clear that it prevented a serious try to introduce a western style democracy in Russia after the collapse of the USSR.

What is the Conclusion?

I believe that we should stop constantly insisting from the Russians to adopt our system, and our version of democracy, which is dubious enough, but since a better alternative does not exist so far, we take it for granted! Most westerners do not understand the Russians, and have no clue of their traditions and beliefs, which by the way do not go hand in hand with ours!!! Nevertheless, the Russians have their right to choose the way they live, and today this is very much true, despite the critics from us about suppression of opposition and questionable election results in Russia. I would say, that by the next elections, provided that the government continues its current line of investment in the country and improvement of the standard of living of its citizens, it will not need to suppress anyone, since the majority of the people will vote for them anyway, due to the positive results they would experience in their private lives.

Besides, Russia today is very much a sovereign country both economically and politically, and most of all is an irreplaceable partner of the EU, especially as an energy provider. So, why bother business with useless political criticism? I mean, when was the last time anyone criticized the UAE for their lack of democracy, for example?

On Democracy Today

2007-12-15T07:39:00.000-08:00

Political science and the study of democracy in the West, reminds me more and more of what Marxism-Leninism studies used to be back in the communist era: a legal academic means of justifiably legalizing the political and social reality then. The ideology is different, but the goal and way of achieving it is the same. Instead of promoting some positive changes in the system, to make it “more democratic” or “transparent,” which in my view should be increased control of the public vis-à-vis the government and the policies which this government takes in the name of the public, what seems to be the case, is a simple but effective means of camouflaging the real politics, in some pseudo-rhetoric image of democracy, and celebration of its achievements.

Number of political scientists, directly link the economic welfare of the citizens to this system, which if nothing else, is done without a single proof: it taken for granted. This however is not the case, since there are enough examples of non-democratic states, which citizens enjoy even higher standard of living than those in the democratic world.

The question is: does anyone actually think of how to improve the existing democratic system, in order to bring it closer to what people claim it is, or it should be? So far, I only see endless articles of why should people and states adopt this system (or else), and not much about how should we change the system so, that democratically elected governments pay more attention to those who elected them, than merely see their democratic election as a justification to undertake policies, which in many cases are directly opposed by these same people who elected them!

About the MISSING tanks

2007-10-01T08:41:00.000-07:00

Perhaps you never realized while reading WWII history books or articles, but when it comes to the Soviets and tanks or weapons in general, most historians usually say that the Soviets were MISSING this or that amount of tanks, or aircraft, or whatever else. Yet, when they talk about Germany, Japan, US, UK, France, etc. they never say how many tanks or weapons did those countries MISS, in order to achieve their goals. Strange, isn’t it?

Well, it is actually a very simple trick, originating from official Soviet sources, and quoted thereafter by many. The Germans entered WWII with light tanks only, less than 2000 of them, and most of them with machine guns or 20mm guns, and today many historians do not hesitate to accuse the Germans of trying to conquer the world. The situation with the Brits, French, Americans, etc. is the same: they have these pitiful numbers of tanks, which were so outdated by the Soviet standards of the time that they should hardly count. But no historian writes about how many tanks did these countries MISS, and so it seems to the reader that they had enough. In contrast the constant bragging about the Soviets MISSING this or that amount of tanks and other weapons creates the illusion that they did not have enough. Or did they?

The only country which was prepared for the Second World War was the Soviet Union. A simple comparison of the state of the military development, production, technology and last but not least weapons accumulation between the Soviets and other states, would demonstrate this simple fact. It is precisely for this reason that the Soviet propaganda came up with this trick about MISSING weapons. Simple but effective trick, as time has proven.

Today it is still largely used by shameless “historians” such as G.Gorodetsky, to try and persuade the unsuspecting and uninformed reader that because the Soviets were missing this or that tank, they were unprepared to attack Germany in the summer of 1941. So, if we follow this Soviet-Zhukov-Gorodetsky logic, and try to input the real numbers, we will inevitably end up with this result: On June 21, the Germans had less than 4000 tanks, tankettes, and self-propelled guns, 80% of which were light and old, and the other 20% were a bit better but still incomparable to the Soviet models. So, the Germans, conclude the historians, were obviously on their way to conquer not only the USSR but the rest of the world as well.

On June 21, the Soviets had 28000 tanks, yes: TWENTY EIGHT THOUSNAD, and according to Zhukov, they were MISSING 16000 tanks!!! Not bad of a strategy to cover up and mislead the reader! So, if Hitler was about to conquer the world with his pitiful collection of obsolete junk-yard machines, who some call “tanks” then what was Stalin about to do with his 28000 modern and unmatched tanks? Perhaps conquer the Universe? Or is it that the Russians were stupid, so they needed many times more tanks to achieve what the smart Arian Germans could achieve? You would be surprised, but many people actually think so, and truthfully believe it, while at the same time they continue to lecture on modern Democracy, Human rights, equality of men, political correctness, etc. And all because they failed for the cheap Soviet propaganda tricks, which were successfully, picked up by Western historians and used until the present day.

I would say, it is time to wake up and finally face the facts and numbers, and ask some questions.

Revision?

2007-08-08T06:54:00.000-07:00

The question of revising history of WWII is somewhat misappropriate. Revising suggest that something is being slightly changed or adopted. However, the case of WWII historiography is really far from a simple revision. A historiography which had been written based on completely wrong information, provided by years of Soviet’s intentional propaganda misinformation campaign does not need a simple revision. This historiography must in fact be completely re-written.

The major role which the Soviet Union actually played before the start and during the years of the war was being skillfully diminished to fairytales about fear, desire for peace, and lack of preparation for war. These incorrect facts were then reinforced and explained with further incorrect assumptions and fairytales about decapitated Red army, obsolete weapons, incompetent population, poor quality production, etc., on one hand, and on the other by modern, mechanized, skillful, large and powerful German army, innovative German technology, intelligent population, severe Russian winters, large endless spaces, and last but not least the overwhelming Western aid to the Soviet Union.

When analyzing this invented historiography, one cannot stop wondering at the shameless continuation of NAZI propaganda. Today, we are told that the theory of racial superiority was nothing more than NAZI political propaganda tool, however, our very own historiography of WWII is actually based exactly on this same theory: the Russians were stupid and incompetent peasants, while the Germans were smart, skillful and intelligent Arians. Hence, the Russians had obsolete weapons, and those which were modern, they could not really operate because they were incompetent fools. Since the German Arians were smart and intelligent, they built this invincible modern army, invented the Blitzkrieg and almost took over the world, hadn’t been the terrible Russian winter and the will of freedom which let the west into a decisive victorious battle against the evil NAZI forces.

Now, compare the above “historiography” to the real historic facts, which we know today were:

The Soviets built the largest and most modern army in the world;

The Red army possessed overwhelming quantitative and qualitative superiority in every aspect compare to any other army;

The Soviet military theoreticians developed the concept of swift offensive operations and the Red army successfully used it in Khalkhin Gol in August 1939 against the Japanese;

The Soviets built the largest and most modern military industry of the time;

The Soviets invented, built and armed with some of the finest weapons, unmatched by others;

Despite the worst case scenario beginning of the German-Soviet war, the Red army occupied Berlin and half of Europe;

The Soviet communist philosophy openly aims for world domination;

The Germans, despite their Arian intelligence and superiority, were apparently unaware of the sever Russian climate and the size of the Soviet territories, so they failed to prepare for them;

The world renowned German industry and engineering, failed to invent and produce modern weaponry;

Despite the clear Versailles treaty revision set as the main agenda for Germany, it was later claimed as being “world domination aim”, and the Germans were decades behind from being prepared for the successful execution of either of them;

Despite understanding the impossibility of war on two fronts, Hitler opened a second front, with the attack on Soviet Union;

As you can clearly see, the historical facts and events fail to match the orthodox historiography, and the reason is because this historiography was not written based on these facts and events, but was invented with post-war political aims in mind.

That is why, a simple revision will not be sufficient. Rather, a real history needs to be written, this time based on the real historic facts and events. Only then would the people of this planet begin to understand what really went on back then.

Fundamentals of Western Understanding of the Soviet Union

2007-07-25T12:43:00.000-07:00

The basis of today’s western historiography of the Soviet Union is the enormous propaganda campaign launched by the Soviet Union during Khrushchev’s era. The 20^th Party Congress was seen as a major turning point by the western observers. They were so amazed by the fact that Khrushchev and other high-ranking leaders of the USSR were openly criticizing Stalin, that they missed the whole point of this congress. They failed to see that this criticism came only after Stalin had died, and was aimed solely to transfer all the misfortunes of the Soviet people to him, thus clearing Khrushchev and the party from responsibility.

Khrushchev’s era was a crucial turning point for WWII history as well. The propaganda was highly intensified and enriched by more false assumptions, all aimed at showing how unprepared the Soviet Union was for war. Khrushchev himself was screaming how there was only one rifle per three soldiers available. Most prominent figures that were executed during the Great Purge were rehabilitated in 1956. Part of this rehabilitation included the launching of new books and articles about them, re-publishing some of their works as well. Since the central point of the new propaganda campaign was to show Stalin as a stupid and blood-thirsty dictator, all these rehabilitated people, were presented as great military minds, statesmen, and intellectuals who had fallen victims to Stalin’s blind terror. Since, (according to the Khrushchev’s propagandists) Stalin was stupid and he knew that, he was afraid of anyone smarter or more intelligent than him, thus he eliminated them. By doing so, he decapitated the Red army, and caused the enormous losses at the start of the German invasion.

Since, Tukhachevsky was the “genius” to suggest to Stalin that the Red army needed modernization and more tanks, but he, just like many, had been purged, he was chosen to be the leading figure in this absurd campaign. This all fitted well with the main goal of Soviet propaganda, which was hiding and denial of any responsibility for World War II. The Soviets were stupid, unprepared peasants, all the smart people were purged by Stalin, and thus they became an innocent victim to the German world domination aggression. Doesn’t it sound wonderful?

The problem is that this propaganda was basically swallowed by the thirsty western historians. Once swallowed, they continued to build upon it, to publish “milestone” works and to build careers. After years of doing so, however, times changed, the Soviet Union went down, and leaked enough information in the process to basically write off 90% of what has been published so far.

The situation is so controversial, that instead of people asking the established historians, where is their proof of all the assumptions they have based their works upon, we have people asking if we have enough archival evidence for revising the historiography! Who in his right mind would imagine possible that the entire literature published for half a century is complete non-sense? As always is, such news are difficult to swallow, since they represent the historic truth, and not the pre-constructed propaganda which the Soviet Union so generously offered to the world.

To all of you who believe that freedom of speech and democracy is a system which would automatically protect you from propaganda, I strongly suggest: think again!

The Great Purge: NKVD vs. the Red army

2007-07-17T14:34:00.000-07:00

Now, contrary to the orthodox beliefs, the Great Purge affected mainly the NKVD (i.e., old name of KGB) and not the Red army. Reading through one of the more recent FSB self-published book called Lubyanka 2, that stands for the address on Lubyanka square (ex-Djerdjinsky square) No.2 in Moscow, where the main KGB and now FSB building is located, I stumbled upon some interesting numbers concerning the purge among the NKVD during those years.

Here is the numbers published on page 204, which concern the GUGB of NKVD, which was the highest division responsible for the security of the government, among other tasks. They were so special, that even their military ranks were higher than the normal military ranks. So as of 1 October 1936 up to 1 January 1938 there were 5898 officers executed, out of total 24500 of which constituted the staff of GUGB.[1] That is a LOT, especially keeping in mind that the height of the Great Purge was in July 1938, and after that it started to dramatically decrease. So we can state that only during the first part of the first half of the Great Purge about 24% of the GUGB officers were executed. This could be described as decapitation, if only partial.

I am sorry there are no further numbers for the rest of the NKVD, but we know that more of its staff was arrested and executed after January 1938, a lot more in fact, including its boss the Narkom Ezhov. This is something that historians should be looking into and describing as decapitation of, not the Red army. In fact a lot of the officers executed during the Great Purge and who were then serving in the Red army, were actually NKVD people, who’s job had nothing to do with the military side of things, they were military prosecutors, political commissars etc. Hence, they were people, who in fact deterred the military work of the Red army, and thus by their cleansing from the army, Stalin in fact strengthened and enforced the fighting capability of his army.

As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, there was not a real purge in the Red army, as often believed. Here are the exact numbers, for the disbelievers:

As of February 1937 the total number of officers in the Red army was 206000.[2] The number of discharged officers for 1937 was 20643, and those for 1938 were 16118. From the discharged in 1937 we have 5811 who were arrested, and from those discharge in 1938 we have 5057 who were arrested.[3] Among those discharged were simply officers who went into retirement, or were discharged for health reasons or for crimes, etc. reasons which are normal in any army.

From a report by vice-Narkom of the defense Shchadenko, we also learn that by 1 May 1940 all officers who were unjustly discharged from the army were reinstated back and their number was 12461.[4] Hence, they reinstated not only discharged but also discharged and arrested officers back in the Red army. We also know that large number of arrested and imprisoned officers were released in the first half of 1941 and were reinstated as commanders of the newly formed Gulag armies, also known as the “black armies”, since they used their black Gulag clothes. So, let us do the calculations here: we have 10868 officers who were arrested during the Great Purge, out of 206000 total officers staff, which is roughly 5.3%, and then few months later we have 12461 officers reinstated back in the army, which probably included most of the originally 10868 arrested officers, since those who went into retirement, were not arrested, and could not have been reinstated as being too old. Part of the arrested officers who were charged with actual crimes, also remained behind bars, so at the end I would even doubt if even a full 1% of the total officers’ staff of the Red army was actually executed. Especially when we keep in mind that large numbers of officers were released and reinstated in the first half of 1941!

How are we supposed to believe the historians who tell us about the bloody Great Purge which decapitated the Read army, and left the rest of the officers in fear? Fear which was so great that they were unwilling to fight the German aggressor three years later! Well, we simply do not believe them, and instead continue to research into the issue of the first hours of the German invasion, to find the real reasons for what had actually happened.

[1] Lubyanka 2, Sobelev V.A. (editor), Moscow 1999 p. 204

[2] K.E.Voroshilov’s speech before the Central Committee of that year.

[3] Voenno- Istoricheskii Zhurnal (Vol.1 1993, p.56)

[4] Report by vice-Narkom Shchadenko of 5 May 1940 to the head of the department of commanding staff of the Red army

On Soviet’s Plans to attack Germany, Romania and Iran

2007-07-14T06:48:00.000-07:00

No matter how much work historians put in studying and explaining the events taking place in the Soviet Union during the 1930s, and especially in the first half of 1941, the sworn protectors of the orthodox historiography, would neither listen, nor as it turned out, would even bother to read! Those not so much involved in the dispute, and whose knowledge nevertheless had been received through introductory books and history classes, usually ask: Well, are there any existing plans of the Soviets intention to attack?

The answer is very simple: there exist ONLY plans for attack, and not even one single one which discusses defense as a concept.

Ever since these plans, or rather the different versions of the same single and ONLY plan of the Red army, have been published the proponents of the orthodox theory wrote books and articles, with hilarious explanations of why this plan was not be trusted as evidence. I would not even bother to waste time and space to describe their absurd claims here; they are not even worth mentioning.

Instead I would like to ask the following question, which had been asked before me as well: Dear professional historians, some of you had the pleasure to be aided by the Russian government in recent years, in allowing you full access to before unseen archival materials, as you claimed, so how come you nor the official archival personnel did not find a single defense plan of the Red army?

For the rest of you the answer is: Because there are not such plans, because they were never made or even discussed, because the fundamental military strategy of the Red army was offensive one, which was only logical since it went hand in hand with the official Soviet political doctrine, which was world revolution followed by a world communist domination.

The Origins of the “Soviet Fear” in Western Literature and its Devastating Effect

2007-07-12T12:37:00.000-07:00

The issue of fear and its affect on Stalin and the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is another fundamental point vastly discussed in the western literature. For what it was worth, fear became the ultimate presumption used by western historians in understanding Stalin and the Soviet Union. Jonathan Haslam, a renowned British historian, uses fear as the basis of his studies on the Soviet foreign policy. According to him, fear of western intervention during the early days of the Bolsheviks and the Civil War in Russia, later continued to be felt as fear from possible capitalist attack on the young, unstable and war thorn socialist state, and then the constant fear of Japanese attack, to be later increased by the fear of the imminent German treat.[1]

Furthermore, fear was the motive for Stalin’s unexpected change of foreign policy on 19 August 1939, which resulted in the well known signing of the Soviet German non-aggression treaty, on 24 August 1939. Fear by Stalin of having to face alone the German treat, made him strike the deal with Hitler, in order “appease” him, by giving him some more lands to the East, and at the same time earning precious time for preparation for the imminent war with Germany. Fear was the reason for Stalin’s reaction to the news of the German invasion on June 22, 1941, Stalin’s fear of the war, a reason Zhukov stated in his memoirs, to describe the disastrous beginning of the German-Soviet conflict for the Red army. In effect, fear was in the heart of everything, concerning the Soviet Union and its leader, according to the older western literature.

Since fear is such an important fundamental, let us try and find the origins of this fear. Where did it come from, and why?
Fear was the main pillow of Soviet internal propaganda. Most have seen the now trendy copies of Soviet propaganda posters from the 1920s onward, with slogans such as, “Don’t gossip! The enemy does not sleep!” etc. The Soviet society was soaked in this propaganda, and there was a reason for that. By doing so the regime could indirectly explain all the misfortunes of the people in the Soviet Union. There is hunger—it is enemy’s fault, there are many arrests—the enemy has infiltrated our society, so be quite and stay quite or else the bourgeoisie will take over and exploit you like it does with the workers in the rest of the world. This propaganda with time was swallowed by the western press and observers to such an extend that they believed that the propaganda published in the Soviet press was in fact real, and therefore felt just as well by those in Kremlin.

Fear could be traced back to many newspaper and magazine articles released back in the days of the establishment and later development of the Soviet Union as a communist state. Then it continued to be used by western journalists and observers as a tool to explain the internal developments within the Soviet Union, such as the rapid collectivization and later industrialization policies were, as well as the foreign policy behavior of the Soviet Union. The basic assumption being, that these policies were necessary for insuring the protection of the Soviet Union against the above mentioned presumed fears. Any researcher interested in the topic that spent some time reading over such articles published in the western press in the 1920s, 1930s, and early 1940s, will inevitably spot this tendency.

The birth of fear as means of explaining the Soviet wonder at the time was only natural and possible because of the lack of information in the western world about its development. What leaked out of the country as information was so unusually brutal in its contents that it was simply difficult to be readily accepted by many in the west, not used to the existence of such authorities. On the other hand, the official Soviet publications were overloaded with glorification propaganda, which aim was to show to the rest of the proletariat how wonderful life was under the new communist regime. Faced with such controversial information about the Soviet Union, the usual cautious western approach was adopted, which among other speculations, came up with the conclusion that fear of its existence was most probably the driving force behind the policies which the communist party was undertaking within the country.

This assumption, however, contradicted with the fundamentals of communism expressed in its ultimate goal to become the new world order, and finally topple the oppressive regimes of the bourgeoisie in the rest of the world. Hence, the information about change of policy in Kremlin, with the famous “socialism in one country,” was seen as the sign that the Bolsheviks had given up on their goal to conquer the world by setting up what they called the world revolution. Instead, the western world decided to see the Soviet Union as this new socialist sate, which judging from their press wants a peaceful coexistence with them.

As additional evidence for this point of view was seen the failed Soviet attempt to occupy Poland in 1920, which it seemed to the westerners, must have persuaded the Kremlin leaders to give up on the idea of world domination. This was also seen as the proof that the Soviet states was weak and exhausted from war, and by demonstrating this weakness to the world with the failed Polish campaign, they must indeed fear for their sole existence, in the face of the mighty capitalist world.

Such point of view, not only delivered, satisfactory and reasonable to the westerners, explanation of the Soviet wonder, but also allowed them to underline their supremacy in terms of political and economic status quo and consecutively in military sense as well. Little did the western world know about the real agenda discussed in Kremlin, and even when they did learn of it from occasional information leaks, they simply refused to believe it.

This western perspective was well understood in Kremlin, and Stalin, as history showed, made the best of it for his own use. Taking advantage of the self-imposed blindness of the western world, he continued to feed it through the official Soviet publications and through his international subsidiaries, the communist parties and movements abroad. Meanwhile, he subdued the country and began a massive import of know-how and technologies from the capitalist states. More interested in selling and earning money, the west eagerly provided the Soviet Union with the latest innovations and industrial achievements, allowing Stalin to quickly build up the largest and most modern military industry.

Meanwhile, the west was preoccupied with mocking at the Soviet’s poor production quality, plan and agricultural failures. They simply absorbed the information published in the official Soviet press such as Pravda and Isvestiya, especially selected and published there for its own propagation interests towards both, the Soviet people and the westerners as well. Preoccupied with sneering, the west failed to see the vast preparations which were going on in the Soviet Union. The massive industry was outputting in unbelievable numbers the finest and most sophisticated examples of military weaponry. The Red army was steadily growing in numbers, but the most the westerners could see was the brutal terror Stalin imposed on his army, and certainly made the appropriate conclusions about it to what they saw, not to what actually was happening.

Fear again found a comfortable nest in the western perception of the Soviet Union, this time describing the obvious feeling that must have been felt among the Red army’s commanding staff, faced with the possibility of being arrested, send to prison, or simply executed. Failure to closely and deeply examine the actual events taking place in the Soviet Union left the west yet again with self-created understanding, rather than actual and objective one.

With Hitler’s coming to power in Germany, and his shift against the pre-established Versailles treaty status quo, the west began to identify a possible future treat in the face of Germany, tired of the harsh conditions it was left in after the end of the World War and the signing of the humiliating for her Versailles treaty. The beginning of the new era for the German army, with its gradual strengthening and modernization through development and armament with heavier weaponry, such as tanks, and the establishment and development of the air force, was quickly overblown in size by the western observers. Ironically, what they failed to see being developed in the Soviet Union, they labeled on the Germans, hence creating another misconception for themselves, in terms of the actual might of Germany and its army.

What part did this western misconception took in the shaping of their foreign policy towards Germany in the late 1930s is difficult to say. Difficult because, any attempt to understand it, might result in being a simple speculation of its own right. What we could easily say is that the policy of appeasement used by the west could have been a direct consequence of their reluctance to begin another war, especially with the mighty enemy, which they seemed to believe Germany actually was. As logic as it might sound, such presumption assumes that the western governments and their intelligence services had also failed into the same trap, in which the press and the general public of the west had fallen earlier.

Assuming, that the governments of the western powers knew better, than what the free press speculations ended up being, it could be said that they probably searched for a better possibility in resolving this upcoming crisis, than having to face Germany alone, and thereby willingly or not, provide Uncle Joe with the chance to enter the war in the best possible for him circumstances, and take over war thorn Europe in a single massive swift operation, especially if the governments were aware of what was being prepared in the Soviet Union, or at least aware of the existing Soviet power, which by definition would allow it to undertake such a an opportunity.

I am more inclined to believe, that the governments of the western powers knew at least partially the real situation and real Soviet potential and power, as well as the real German impotence military wise. If this is true, then the inevitable question of why did not the western powers attack Germany during its preoccupation with the Polish campaign in the early days of September 1939, comes into the agenda.

Possible answers could be the west’s fear of possible future German-Soviet alliance or response, which they were simply unable to resist militarily. Or perhaps they were buying time in hope that this would allow for a possible future German-Soviet conflict, which would then allow the west to deal with both serious treats in the face of NAZI Germany and communist Russia, by mathematically canceling each other out, and allowing the west with minimum efforts and casualties to keep its rule over the old continent. This is to a large extend what actually happened during the Second World War, although the Soviet preparation for the war was so serious, that despite the massive losses inflicted by the German army, they still managed to occupy half of Germany and Europe, and as a consequence the west had to deal with the Cold War for another 45 years to come.

In any case, what should be remembered is that fear was never a part of the Soviet internal or foreign policy, after 1919, when the Bolsheviks had finally gotten the upper hand in the Civil War in Russia. The intend to use fear as means of explaining the Soviet wonder, suggests nothing more than complete ignorance or deliberate dismissal by the author on the history and development of the Soviet Union.

[1] See J. Haslam’s works or his book review in International Affairs on G. Gorodetsky’s book Grand Delusion (1999).

The State of the Literature

2007-07-11T14:55:00.000-07:00

Born in newspaper and magazine articles of the late 1930s the orthodox understanding of World War II, was later confirmed by Stalin, only hours after the German invasion had began, and decorated with especially selected evidence, thanks to the exhausting work done by the Soviet propaganda machine. This understanding is another example of the Western failure to understand Stalin. An example of their reluctance to see and recognize that Stalin at the time, despite all possible negatives one could find in his system and his army, was independent and powerful enough to have his own foreign policy plans, which in no way depended on the opinion of Britain, France or Germany, as they were only given small and insignificant roles in Stalin’s war plans.

The orthodox thesis came about only naturally as a result of journalists’ honest try to come to possible explanation to Uncle Joe’s sudden and unexpected foreign policy maneuver which brought about the non-aggression treaty signed with Germany and consequently the beginning of what turned out to be the bloodiest war in human history. Their motives are clear and understandable, they lacked all the information, which we have today, and to their best knowledge they tried to offer possible speculations, which was fair enough.

This thesis is based on the western understanding of the situation then, which practically excluded any knowledge of the Soviet Union, unless we count the propaganda information found in the official Soviet publications, and later swollen by the western journalists; true, not without questioning it, but nevertheless swollen by them. Luckily for most of us, the Soviet Union collapsed, and in the process leaked some vital information of its bloody history. Based on this information, many historians wrote in-depth studies of this evil state.

Hence, the state of the literature today consists of protecting by any means this speculative thesis against the massive historic works on the Soviet Union released (especially) during the past 15 years, which not only question, but simply repute it. The political and career aspects involved unfortunately in this otherwise academic dispute forces many of the authors behind those studies to either refrain from commenting on this point, or to introduce some hilariously absurd conclusions at the end of their works, in order to try and link their results with the above described thesis, even though these conclusions contradict their own works!

Signs of Improvement

2007-07-09T13:01:00.000-07:00

Despite being hindered by politics historiography has in fact shown signs of improvement and continuation. What only 10 years ago was seen as the isolated ‘camp of revisionists with their preposterous claims’ now has turned into a main stream of historian scientists trying to research and further clarify the era of the Second Wold War and the mysteries of Soviet history.[1] They have taken into account the new evidence and information and have continued to unveil this dark period of human history, rather than loose pace by continues debate with the conservative old school historians. In fact, after 17 years Viktor Suvorov has been allowed back into the debate and is about to publish his second book in English language this July 2007.[2] It is now those historians who fail to recognize or consider the new information available who are running the risk of being isolated from the main stream historiography.

[1] See for example, Osers E. (Editor), Germany and the Second World War: Volume IV: The Attack on the Soviet Union (Oxford University Press, 1999), Hoffmann, J., Stalin's War of Extermination (Capshaw, AL: Theses & Dissertations Press, 2001), Edwards J.B., Hitler: Stalin’s Stooge (Aventine Press, 2004), Ziemke E.F., The Red Army, 1918-1941: From Vanguard of World Revolution to America's Ally (Frank Cass, 2004), Weeks A.L., Stalin's Other War: Soviet Grand Strategy, 1939-1941 (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003), Weeks A.L., Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II (Lexington Books, 2004), Pleshakov, C., Stalin's Folly: The Tragic First Ten Days of World War Two on the Eastern Front (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005).

[2] See Suvorov V., The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II (Potomac's Military Controversies, 2007)

On the Initial German Success and the Motives Behind

2007-07-09T08:46:00.000-07:00

The initial successes of the German army in operation Barbarossa can be attributed to the strategic and military advantage of a surprise attack and the total lack of any effective defense preparations by the Red Army. Since Red Army units were distributed in expectation of an offensive war “with less blood, on enemy territory”, the construction of all defense lines and projects was cancelled, and the defense structures build earlier (like the Stalin defense line for example) were dismantled, all bridges, roads, and passages were cleared of mines, bunkers and defense positions were destroyed or left in ruins. This was all done after the beginning of WWII, under the orders of Stalin himself, and despite this fact, we still have historians claiming that Stalin was afraid from a German aggression! If he was, why did he order his defenses to be destroyed?

None of the Red Army forces, that were deployed on the western border were dug into the ground in a defensive manner, nor was their military equipment set-up for a defensive battle. It could not have been, since they were preparing for an offensive operation. Furthermore, since the preparation for the attack (again, regardless of its originally planned goals) was still continuing, the tactical surprise of the German army attack, rendered many of the Soviet forces incapable of effectively using their immense military superiority. These factors, combined with the late and completely false (strategically wise) orders not to fight back (which came hours before the German invasion had began), clearly explains the initial success of the German Army during Operation Barbarossa.

Instead of further studying the first hours and days of the invasion, professional historians tell us stories about the Red Army being decapitated during the Great Purge of 1937-1938, and that if military experts such as M.N. Tukhachevsky was (according to them), and was still alive, the battle was going to take a different turn. They write such non-sense, probably because they failed to read Tukhachevsky’s works as well just like many others, which by the way, explicitly talk about an offensive deep penetration operations, or exactly the same strategy which the Red army was about to use towards Germany, had German forces not prevented it from doing so by invading earlier.

The same goes for the motives behind the German invasion. Completely overlooking the major strategic treat which the Red army posed to Germany’s main oil source in Romania, by invading Bessarabia in 1940, professional historians point to us Hitler’s book Mein Kampf, where according to them was the real motive for the invasion. The only problem with such explanation is that it completely ignores Stalin’s consistent strategy since 1927, which basically includes all the developments within the Soviet Union, it also fails to explain Hitler’s sudden change of policy in 1940, when after the Soviet invasion of Bessarabia, he began to think of possible invasion of Russia, despite the fact that this would mean a war on two fronts for Germany, which Hitler himself wrote against in this same book called Mein Kampf.

I think that instead of digging for more “new material” in the archives, it is time to re-evaluate and put into a logic order the massive information which we already have.

On Stalin's Speech of 19 August 1939

2007-07-08T16:00:00.000-07:00

On August 19, 1939, Stalin held a meeting with his Politburo. At this meeting Stalin delivered a speech, about his decision and the motives behind to sign the non-aggression treaty with Germany. Leaks of the speech appeared as soon as 26 August 1939 in The Times, London. A bit later in the Swedish press, and few months later in the Swiss press as well. TASS (the official Soviet News Agency) came out with denial announcement about this information as being untrue, of course. Ever since, the Soviet mighty propaganda has not forgotten to mention here and there that there was no Politburo meeting held on 19 August 1939.

This propaganda had been picked up by many western historians and repeated in their works as well. The reason is simple: in that speech Stalin explained his motives for signing the pact. The motives were logic and simple (Stalin’s typical style), and did nothing sensational, except to reaffirm what Stalin has been talking about ever since 1925, or namely: to start another major European war, as a repetition of WWI, where the imperialist states would exhaust each other in fighting, while the Soviet Union would await the perfect moment to enter the war fresh, with fully prepared Red Army and country to evoke the further continuation of the world revolution.

These motives and aims however, place Stalin and the Soviet Union at the top of the list of responsibility for the beginning of World War II. And neither modern Russia, nor the western historians who (willingly or not) had missed the whole point, and therefore had published numerous works with complete non-sense, are either willing to accept it or discuss it.

So instead they either ignore it, like G. Gorodetskey usually does, or claim it was a forgery like John Lukach does. The information about the speech was reinforced by a publication in the Russian Novi Mir journal, in the early 1990s. All these sources, including the diary of the Comintern general secretary G. Domotrov reinforce the authenticity of the speech. In fact the archival number of the file where it could be found was published, except the so called Spetzialniya Papka archive, is still top secret and inaccessible today.

For further and detailed information on this topic, and for the full text of the speech, please go to:

http://www.carlonordling.se/ww2/stalin_speech_complete.html

Did they?

2007-07-05T07:16:00.000-07:00

One fact that always struck me as interesting is the attitude professional historians have towards Viktor Suvorov. Since they failed to even remotely question his thesis, they usually attack his personality. It is never forgotten that he was a defector, and that he is not a “professional” historian. Then, they tend to accuse his style of writing as being not methodologically sound.

It is funny to hear such accusations, for the professionals seem to forget that Suvorov defected from a regime, which today has been recognized as one of the bloodiest in human history. The mere fact that Suvorov became the most controversial and celebrated defectors from the Cold War era, suggests that he must have inflicted the most damage to the Soviet regime. Instead of praising him for that, the western historians accuse him of that, as if they served the Soviet communists, and not their own democratic countries. Or did they?

Ever since Suvorov defected to the United Kingdom back in 1978, he has been among other things a lecturer of military history in one of the UK military academies (the exact name is undisclosed for security reasons, I suppose). So, if we are to believe that he is an amateur, as claimed by the top brass professionals, than we must also agree that the government of the UK seems to have hired the wrong guy to teach their commanding stuff military history. Or did they?

The style of writing Suvorov uses is very different than what the top brass professionals use. There is a reason why, however! Suvorov is trying to reach the masses of people, who in their majority are not used to read and understand high class scientific language, which is usually appreciated among a handful of “specialists” who seem to get a kick out of it, believing that it sets them apart from the rest of humanity as being intellectuals. Or does it?

The basic truth is, language in any form is a means of communication of thoughts, ideas, analysis, etc. Even the most complicated language organized in a methodologically sound form, cannot hide incompetence, lack of logic, and misunderstanding, which is what the works of the “professionals” are full of. I believe that the real intellectual should be the person able to clearly and understandably to all communicate his/hers ideas and thoughts, otherwise they are useful to no one! Suvorov does exactly that, but there is another reason why he does so, as well. He is simply so knowledgeable on the subject that instead of filling his books with basic stories, he uses his time to publish the analysis of all this gained knowledge through research and experience. He is also a professional analyst, which makes him much more competent than the professional historians, for he is able to spot things which they (judging by their published works) would miss. Suvorov is able to read between the lines, like no other historian I have read could. No wonder, the government of the United Kingdom hired him for the job, and left the professional historians to bark in vain out of envy.

This whole situation makes me wonder: should I trust what the free-lance professionals say, or should I trust what a guy who teaches the commanding stuff of the Royal army and navy has to say? Well, I have made my choice; I will go with what the UK government chose this time.

Mr. Stone and his Conclusions

2007-07-05T03:24:00.000-07:00

Another book and another puzzle! Mr. David R. Stone’s book Hammer and Rifle: The Militarization of the Soviet Union, 1926-1933, sheds a lot of light on the outcome of the first 5-year plan. Mr. Stone figured out that the Soviets managed to produce so much armaments by the 1933, that, “In a sense, the Soviet Union rearmed for the World War II six or seven years too early. By producing so much ordnance during the early and mid-1930s, the Soviet Union began the Great Fatherland War burdened with tens of thousands of obsolete tanks and planes.” (p.216) The question here is: Mr. Stone, if you are not a tank specialist, why do you bother to call Soviet tanks “obsolete”? Obsolete compared to what, Mr. Stone? Compared perhaps to the non-existent tanks of Germany, Britain, France, Japan and the US?

Mr. Stone goes on and says that the Soviet designs were superior to all existent other tanks around the world, and yet hypocritically states that they were at the same time obsolete?! Why is that Mr. Stone? Furthermore, he says that at the break of war in 1939, the Germans had 3200 tanks, which were less than what the Soviets produced in one year, and then goes on and states that the Soviets had more than 20,000 tanks, and then he even describes how many of each type. Well, Mr. Stone, if you did the same description of the “German 3200 tanks” you would be shocked to find out that most of them were obsolete right from the start, right from the moment they were designed, simply because the rest of the world, and mostly Germany were lacking so much behind in military industry and research and development, especially in tanks and planes, compared to the Soviet Union!

Instead of asking logic questions, Mr. Stone tries to fit his study into the existing historiography of the WWII, despite the fact that his own study disproves it, and rightfully questions it! Why didn’t you write conclusions such as, for example: According to my study the Soviet Union was well rearmed and most powerful militarily as early as 1933, thus it is very doubtful that Stalin was fearful of Hitler and the German military might, simply because the German military looked like a fly compared to the Soviet military elephant!?

Each and every study done of the Soviet Union inevitably shows the clear and massive militarization of the Soviet Union ever since 1927. It is so much and so modern, that it simply could not be compared with any prototypes which any other country had at that time, the Soviet Union was that much advanced! Yet, instead of taking these findings and put them into context, many historians, willingly or not, understandingly or not, end up disgracing their own studies with completely illogical and untrue conclusions, aimed at one goal only: to make them fit with the orthodox version of WWII historiography, rather than rightfully question it!

Sadly, this is how low today’s WWII historiography has fallen to!

The WWII Framework

2007-06-28T02:08:00.000-07:00

WWII history has unfortunately fallen victim of the post war politics. Today many believe that the responsibility for the war falls entirely on Germany and on Hitler personally. Any historical study, which in its own right might even suggest otherwise, is quickly classified as a conspiracy theory, and its author as an anti-Semitist. It seems that a general “politically correct” framework had been created, within the limits of which anyone can study history. What happens if the study of the events suggests that the framework had been wrongly set? Do we change the framework, or do we ignore the study? I believe the framework must be changed so that it can become the result of the fruits of real historic science, rather than a pre-planned political limitation, which therefore prevents people from knowing the realities as they did actually happen.

The Professionals vs. Suvorov

2007-06-27T02:12:00.000-07:00

In order to understand the heart of the problem within WWII historiography we need to examine the recent past, and its origins. The beginning of it all could be traced back to the late 1980’s, when a defected ex-spy of the GRU (i.e., Soviet Military Intelligence) Vladimir Rezun, under the pseudonym Viktor Suvorov published his book The Ice-Breaker: Or who started the Second World War? His book was the first major explosion in the, until then peaceful, international historian community dealing with the issues of the Second World War. Suvorov’s book established the fundaments of the so called revisionist camp and caused the beginning of a world-wide debate on the history of the Second World War, which continues until the present day. Suvorov suggested that it was Stalin who meticulously planned another major European war, which would weaken the imperialist states, and give the opportunity for the Soviet Union to invade and sovietize the old continent and its colonies. Something Lenin and the Bolsheviks had failed to achieve during the First World War. Suvorov argued that Stalin needed Hitler to serve as the “ice-breaker” of his grand plan to spread the “world revolution” and expand by another step the communist hegemony. Thus, argued Suvorov, the German invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 was a pre-emptive strike on the part of Hitler, who had no other means of stopping Stalin’s major offensive planned for July 6 1941. The scale to which Suvorov’s claims shook the world were so great, that instead of using the momentum to actually revise the history, and try to put it in order, the so called “professional historians”, especially in the Western world, vigorously fought Suvorov’s ideas. When their professional and intellectual resource failed to produce convincing arguments for a final dismissal of Suvorov’s book, a simple but fruitful censorship on the author’s further books was introduced in the West in the early 1990’s. Ever since, Viktor Suvorov published six more books on this issue mainly in Russia and some of the East European countries. Until now, when finally Potomac Books is about to publish his new book in English language, The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II. After 15 years the English speaking public would have the chance once again to read Suvorov, rather than be limited to only the books of those who oppose his point of view!

It is time now to shed some light on the “professional historians” I refer to here so often. Who are they? Well, to my best understanding, it seems there is a group of friends at the top including, David Glantz, John Erickson, Gabriel Gorodetskey, Jonathan House, among others, who seem to be the core of the anti-Suvorov resistance. This core is also highly supported by other famous names, such as Jonathan Haslem, Robin Edmonds, Roger Reese, John Lukacs, among many others. If you read their works, their articles, their interviews you will immediately notice their tendency to praise each others works. Those from the outer circle, usually not military historians, would contribute by a praising book review of their works in renowned journals, such as Foreign Affairs is.

The most striking trade of their resistance is the complete failure to deliver any reasonable work which takes Suvorov’s arguments, and logically disproves them. Hitherto, no one had done so! Why? I would say, because it will be quite impossible. But unlike most of these gentlemen, I took the time to read all of Suvorov’s works, as well as most of their works. This experience showed me and persuaded me, that most of these men, had either partially read, or not read at all Suvorov’s books. The best they could come up with in their criticism was nothing more than cheap political statements, or even easier, complete ignore of Suvorov and his claims. Let us hear David Glantz, for example, since he seems to enjoy it a lot, “I am indeed refuting Suvorov's thesis. There is enough new about the war to write about without having to invent new theories, especially one that absolves Germany of guilt for the war and inflames historical passions in a most uncertain age.”[1] Coming out of a “professional historian” this kind of language could only impress an uninformed fool. Mr. Glantz seems to forget that not all people are fools. It is even more ironic, if one rerads a note to a recent paper by Glantz where he stated, “For example, see Viktor Suvorov (ne Rezin), Ledokol (Icebreaker) and Den'-M (M-Day), whose preposterous claims about blame for the war pervert history for political purposes and profit.”[2] I would go further and suggest to Mr. Glantz instead of filling up his work’s introductions, covers, and notes with unfounded political statements, to start filling the main text with real academic work, which would suggest he must read Suvorov first, and read him very carefully, then take his arguments, and explain to us the readers, where did Suvorov go wrong, and why? Until then, Mr.Glantz I would refuse to take your works for granted, and consider you a “professional”, because if this type of attitude is what you deem as being “professional” then the World Elite historians of WWII are in deep crisis! As to Glantz’s political statements, they only go to show that he had failed to read Suvurov himself. Because if he did, he would not have said the words he did! There is not a word or even a mild suggestion in Suvurov’s works about a theory “… that absolves Germany of guilt for the war…”, so please Mr. Glantz, do not over-react by fantasizing, as this is not a virtue of a “professional historian”.

There are some moderate examples among them, such I would consider to be Jonathan Haslem. Once Suvorov’s Icebreaker came out in 1990, Haslem understood that there was a real serious problem with the orthodox historiography of WWII. He refused to publish more books from the series he had begun earlier, and limited his efforts to only support those who continued the fight. That is one way to do it, or another is what Alan S. Milward did. He moved to EU historiography, and stayed away from this battle.

In my own experience, I find reading the works of these professional historians tedious and funny. Anyone who had read Suvorov’s works would probably feel the same. The books by the “professionals” look like methodologically organized kindergarten material compared to what Suvorov has published so far. And I mean that, this is not an exaggeration or overwhelming support for Suvorov, this is how strikingly wide the gap is between those, claimed by some to be the professionals in history, and an ex-military spy, who never claimed to be a professional historian. Suvorov’s extend and depth of research knowledge and understanding is so far beyond any of those who claim to be the professionals, that it is easy to understand why they had failed to understand so many things. Add to this the fact that Suvorov is a native Soviet born professional military officer and complete WWII and Soviet history freak throughout his life, and compare it with the professionals, who are first foreign, and most not professional military men, and even if they were they did not serve in the Red Army.

This is not a Suvorov propaganda article here, my point is simple: In case you want to understand the historiography of WWII, make sure to read BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY and make up your own mind about it! Only then you will begin to understand the whole complexity of the problem.

[1] http://www.consimworld.com/newsroom/archives/morenews/glantz.19981001.gen.html

[2] http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/failures.htm See first end note.

Decapitation of the Red Army?

2007-05-28T22:21:00.000-07:00

It is astonishing to see today, how historiography has completely overshadowed the terrible tragedies and real terror against millions of people in the Soviet Union, in favor of the Great Purge of 1937-1938. This so called purge had been chewed upon for decades, and the final conclusions of which are as wrong as they can be. The Great Purge was the time when Stalin cleansed the party and those who had taken prominent part in the elimination of millions of people. In other words, Stalin eliminated those with whose help he managed to subdue the country. Without lessening Stalin’s responsibility for these atrocities against the people of the Soviet Union, let us state clearly that the Great Purge was the time when some of the bloodiest executors were executed.

Those who since the revolution in 1917 were continuously involved in bloodshed, and in one way or another stimulated the terror machine, finally met their own death. In fact some of the most prominent figures, who felt victims, had built their careers on bloodshed, among which Tukachevsky and Dibenko for example. Today historiography sheds tears for them, finds more and more evidence on how they were tortured before their trails, instead of shedding more light on their crimes against humanity, and perhaps how their own actions let to their own elimination.

But no, the road set by historians such as Robert Conquest will mislead us for decades to come. Why would we care for the millions of masses killed, when we could tragically talk about the unjust deaths of those handfuls of executors who actually significantly contributed to the terror against the masses? History is so twisted by now, that evidently it argues in favor of the most prominent criminals of the 20^th century. Those on whose bloody hands stand the wasted lives of millions of human beings.

The more one digs into this twisted history, the more one understands how powerful the propaganda machine of the Soviet Union actually was. What incredible damage it had done to history, to the past, present and future generations. It was so powerful that it caught in its net the most prominent western historians to such an extend, that today they have to basically ignore evidence, ignore historical events, and continue to plug the ever growing holes of the sinking boat of traditional historiography, hoping to save their careers and escape the shame of what they (willingly or not) had contributed to: the legalization of the Soviet propaganda history into the free western world! Congratulations dear professional academics! It just goes to show how incompetent many of you actually are, and how much more you need to study, not the publications of your friends and brothers in arms, but the evidence and the historical events, which you are writing about.

Next time any of you considers mentioning the Great Purge as the decapitation of the Red Army and it being the reason for the initial failure to respond to the German invasion, and before quoting the fantasies of your colleagues in order to boost the sales of their books, try to actually be real historians for once and study the evidence which has been available ever since 1993. Instead of quoting the tragic number of the supposedly killed 40000 officers, and then go on and fantasize about the fear among the rest of the officers, try and double check where this number came from. I know it had been published thousands of times in books and articles, but still, can anyone tell me the origins of it? If you can, then you will also know that document this number came from, also provided other numbers, which completely disprove any large scale terror against the Red Army commanding staff.

Yes, I am talking about the report from September 19, 1938, which clearly states that the total number of discharged officers during the period of June 1937 to September 1938 was just under 37000 officers. And it also clarifies that only fewer than 11000 of those discharged were actually arrested (which does not necessarily mean killed). Then let us remember that as of February 1937, the officer’s staff of the Red Army was consisting of 206000 people according to the narkom of defence K.E. Voroshilov, and also that as of May 1940, over 12000 of those officers who were unjustly discharged were reinstated back in the Red Army, (according to the report by Schedenko from May 1940) part of them were officers whom were arrested, and part were officers who were discharged but not arrested. Now, do the calculations yourselves, but even if we assumed that all 11000 arrested officers were actually shot (which they were not), this would still give us less than 5% of the total officers, which is by far an insignificant number to use as a claim that the Red Army was decapitated, isn’t it?

Could anyone of you decapitation propagandists tell me, why do you keep on writing nonsense, even though the numbers and evidence disproving the decapitation argument have been published for over 13 years now? Do you actually believe that repetition of such outdated and wrong arguments would contribute to your image as professional historians? I hope not, because sooner rather than later, history will change its course, and it already is doing so, simply because until recently your writings were harmless to no one, except those individuals who carefully read your books and saw the numerous omissions, lack of logic and evidence in them. Now the political wind has changed, and modern Russia completely brainwashed by its own and your version of history is already attacking the cyber space of the EU and NATO, and since nobody wants to start a 3^rd world war, there will be a need for a proper response, one of which will be the gradual but final demolition of this propaganda, which includes your works as well. Remember, had this propaganda been fought with from the beginning, today we would not have the problems with Russia, which we experience at the moment. Too bad many analysts failed to realize that earlier; nevertheless later is still better than never!

On M.N. Tukhachevskey

2007-05-28T20:59:00.000-07:00

M.N. Tukachevseky has become a very prominent figure among the Red Army commanding staff, although this had happened after he had been eliminated, and more precisely after Krushchev came to power. It is astonishing how authors talk about “his theory of deep operations” as if it really was his theory! Such observation only goes to show, how ill informed many academics actually are! How they had failed to study the actual Soviet military thought and those who actually created it and wrote about it and formed it. Let me say that M.N. Tukhachevseky had absolutely nothing to do with this theory.

Traindafilov and Shaposhnikov were prominent Soviet military strategists and tacticians, while Tukhachevskey was, if anything, a prominent political propagandist in the army, and nothing more. The evidence is Tukhachevskey’s own books and articles which include nothing more than the standard political propaganda phrases of the time. To those who have a doubt, I propose that they read Traindafilov for example, and then read any of Thukachevskey’s published works in order to understand the difference between a real military strategist and a Soviet military propagandist. There is no need for an extensive military training in military strategy for any historian, in order to understand that Thukhachevsky was not such. His articles on modernization of the Red Army could only impress an incompetent reader, and shock anyone who has a slight idea of the significance of numbers and their implication vies à vie the army and the military industry. Tukhachevsky’s own suggestions for modernization of the Red Army were nothing more than a proposition for Red militarism, of which he was rightfully accused towards the end of his life.

It is frustrating to observe how many historians continue to gather information on the tragic end of Tukhachevsky, and fail to even question the sole fundamental of his representation as a prominent Soviet military strategist and a commander. The evidence of his Civil War experience represents some of the most outrageous orders for terror against the civilian population, while his real combat experience as a military commander represents his personal failure as such, and his responsibility for the defeat of the Red Army by the Polish regular army in 1920. Yet, we have authors who either ignore the evidence, or simply fail to study it at all, and continue to publish self created stories about the great military strategist and commander fallen as an innocent victim to Stalin’s blind terror. Could anyone show me any evidence of Tukhachevsky’s ingénues military strategy? Could anyone explain how realistic exactly was his suggestion to modernize the Red Army? Anybody?

Myths, Realities, and Speculations

2007-05-18T04:19:00.000-07:00

The myth describing Germany as a “strong and powerful military might before WWII” today is being taken as something granted, as something obvious and logical. Just think of it: Germany managed to invade France, among other European states, it managed to successfully start an invasion against the Soviet Union, and it took few years until Germany was finally defeated and occupied. Such initial success must mean that Germany was in fact a mighty country with powerful army.

As obvious as it might sound, these claims are nothing but a myth, created by historians. A quick look at the diaries of the German military commanders would quickly disintegrate any such vision and would turn it into nothing more than a wishful thinking. Wishful indeed, since the realities were rather different back then and the closer one looks into this subject the more it becomes apparent how lucky was Germany on one hand, and how incompetent were the military commanders of France and Britain, and how stubborn was Stalin on the other. These facts alone provided Germany with its initial successes, NOT the created illusion of their supposedly strong army.

After WWI Germany was left with almost no army, and thus it had to resort to the generous help provided by the Soviet Union in terms of military bases, technology, know-how and training. It was then and there during the late 1920’s when the German military was slowly and secretly being restored in the Soviet Union. As much as this fact is known, it somehow always struck me that it was not given a proper importance by modern historiography, nor was it ever properly questioned: why did the Soviet Union help Germany rebuild its military? Why would the Soviets help its BIG imperialist enemy restore its military?

The reason for not asking these questions is rather obvious: such questions indirectly question the traditional historiography, which claims that the Soviets were “scared” by the surrounding imperialist enemies who were only awaiting the chance to attack them the destroy them. Yet, instead of focusing on building their defense from that “supposed” imperialist treat, the Soviets on the contrary were helping one of them to rebuild its own military forces. Since, it would be impossible to understand the Soviet behavior within the context of the traditional historiography; professional historians simply ignore this important fact, and go on writing their own version of history, which in any way does not fit with the historical events which took place during that period.

It is true that after Hitler took power in Germany, he focused its resources into rebuilding the German military; however, this fact does not in any way prove that as of September 1939 Germany was anywhere near in achieving any major progress in this endeavor. The first two weeks into the Polish campaign and Germany was out of fuel, bombs, among many other necessary military supplies. It was the Soviet invasion of Poland from the east which made this campaign successful for the German army. Had the Soviets kept out of it for longer, the Polish army was most probably going to bring the German invasion to a halt, and thus eliminate any hopes of swift Blitzkrieg victory for the Germans. Since they were not prepared for a prolonged conflict, this could have turned into an unexpected nightmare for Germany. The same would have been true, had the French and British troops attacked Germany to the west.

There are many milestone question marks of the way WWII began, and its tedious but deadly continuation until 1945. The motives behind the actual occurrence of each event forwarded by historians are not usually fully sensible or concrete. The lack of Franco-British attack by land after they officially waged war on Germany is one of those events, which leads to number of possible explanations or perhaps even speculations.

Was it really militarily impossible for the French and British to attack Germany? Not really, it was still September and the weather was perfect for such operation. In fact any attack on Germany, even on a limited scale, would have been most probably deadly for Germany at this early stage of the war, given their complete lack of preparation for a major conflict. The assumption that France and Britain were trying to avoid another war is simply an impossible one, since they did wage war against Germany anyway. Were the Franco-British hoping to have an early conflict and eventually a war between the Germans and the Soviets? This could have been a possible assumption by the Franco-British coalition, but rather unfounded one.

There is also a possibility that after the German-Soviet pact, the French and British were afraid of possible German-Soviet retaliation to a possible land attack on Germany! As strange as it might sound, there is much more logic to such a speculation, then there is to the one preached by the official historiography, that Stalin was afraid of a “joint German-British attack on the Soviet Un ion!” This is simply crazy to assume, let alone to try and believe it. While in September 1939, the French-British coalition was aware that they were “politely sent back home by Stalin” a month earlier, and instead with them, Stalin stroke a deal with Nazi Germany, they were aware of the view the Soviets had about them, which was nothing more than the standard “exploiting imperialists” which had to be eliminated in the name of communism. On the other hand they had seen before their eyes, how Stalin had allowed Hitler to fulfill his territorial goals in Poland and were witnessing it, while wondering what to do, bound to their treaty with Poland.

Possible entrance of the Soviet Union into the Axis was a possibility which Stalin kept evident until the German invasion of June 22, 1941. The British and the French knew about it as well, and must have been worried by such a possibility. A Soviet entrance into the Axis would have meant the end for Britain and France, and the status quo in Europe. Unlike the professional historians, the French and the British governments and their military were aware of the Soviet military potential, and must have feared it: which way would this giant red armored fist strike its next blow?

The Soviet industry was build mainly by UK, France, US and of course Germany and any other nation which could have offered anything new and innovative in the military industry. It was not a secret that the Soviet Union had created the biggest military industry in the world. If we believe the professional historians, who claim that Stalin was afraid of German aggression and that was why he was basically forced to sign the non-aggression pact with Germany, then according to this version, the governments of the West were complete fools, who were blind and had no information whatsoever about the Soviet Union its military potential and what went on there in general. I would assume that it was the professional historians who failed to understand, since the western countries knew well what was building up in the Soviet Union, simply because they directly helped the Soviets in building it, by selling technologies, building factories, and providing their latest military achievements to them.

I think that the reasons behind the Franco-British abstention from attacking Germany by land in 1939 have much to do with their fear of possible German-Soviet coalition against them. Such claim will require an extensive research naturally, but in any case is much more credible, than the claim that the Soviets were afraid of possible British-German coalition against them in 1940-41, when Britain and Germany were at war with each other. Such preposterous claim could be found in the books written by Gabriel Gorodetsky, for example.

As you can see, a simple change in the way one views the Soviet Union and its military potential at the time, could raise a whole new series of questions about the motives which let to the events of that period. Yet number of historians is prepared to accept the new data which shows the Soviets as a major power, rather than scared and unprepared state, but are unwilling to reassess the standard historiography, which was build entirely on the wrong assumptions, such as the myths of a” weak Soviet Union, and a mighty Germany” are.

Distortion of History and the Effects of it Today

2007-05-15T14:36:00.000-07:00

I might be conservative here, but I still believe that history should be the result of studying events of the past, understand them, analyze them and then write down the result of this process. Traditional historiography so far has not been accumulated by such means. I would guess that part of the fault could be explained by the lack of competence of many historians on specific spheres of life. For example, studying events with heavy military presence, such as wars or battles, requires much more knowledge and training of the historian in the military sphere, than a simple diligence and heavy gathering of information, which then was written in a particular methodological manner. Gathering and reading information is one thing, understanding this information is something different, but vital for the outcome of any research project, be it an article or a book. I believe that many historians simply misunderstood, or failed to understand completely the information they gathered, because they lacked the training in the particular filed needed for such comprehension.

Another part explaining the failure of traditional historiography to present the origins of WWII and the numerous events which let to its beginning could be the specific limits of information sources historians were forced to cope with. The Soviet archives only partially opened their doors to scholars just 15 years ago. Some vital German archives captured by the Soviets are still closed and unavailable for research. This circumstance must also be kept in mind.

The greatest reason, in my own view, however, was the political interests of the victors in the WWII. It was these interests which opened the way for massive misrepresentation of the events, their severe twisting and as a result the wrong analysis. The political interests represent the basic need to hide the “dirty laundry” of the victors and their own responsibility for the occurrence of WWII and its destructive effect on mankind. The result is known today: the Soviets fought their so called “Great Patriotic War” rather than their own expansionist objectives, and of course were the victim of the Nazi aggressor, not the cause for this aggression; the British fought fascism in Europe, rather than for their own strive to keep their empire intact and their influence on the main land geopolitics; the United States helped the fight against Nazism and against imperialist Japan in the name of Democracy, rather than for their own opportunistic plans, and Germany and Hitler wanted to conquer the world and were the greatest evil of all and responsible for all the misery and tragedies brought by the war! Anyone who questions this status quo is blamed to be a Nazi or an anti-Semitist… and life goes on.

Years and years this dummy historiography was propagandized the world over, shamelessly hiding terrible atrocities, the real reasons for millions of lives being lost, and directly or indirectly pardoning massive crimes against humanity, and misleading billions of people about one of the most tragic events in the history of human kind. To those who question or disapprove of the strong stance taken by the Jewish people since the 1960’s in remembrance of and responsibility for the Holocaust, I have one thing to say: They could not be more right in doing so! If we are to understand what went on back then, and to prevent its reoccurrence, we must do exactly the same and uncover to the end all other crimes, convict them and make sure that the future generations remember them and oppose them. Only this way could we prevent their reoccurrence, albeit in another political context. The freshest example being the scandal with the removal of the Red Army memorial in Estonia, which if history was not twisted so much over the years, was not going to occur and be an issue at all! History however presented the Red Army’s invasion of independent and sovereign states as “liberation from fascism” and here is the result, the modern Russian Federation and the majority of its people are protesting against the removal, instead of offering their apologies to the Estonians and removing this memorial on their own expense out of Estonia. Well, dear professional historians, what have you got to say about this now? The usual strategy, ignore and continue creating untrue versions of history for your own interest or the one of your governments? After all what do you care for a small nation such as Estonia, right? Your career does not depend on it!

Historiography and the Tragedies It Hides

2007-05-14T00:53:00.000-07:00

The problem with the orthodox version of WWII history, is not the over-exaggerated guild of Germany and its crazy leader, but the fact that it had been used as a camouflage net to cover up the responsibilities of other states, armies, commanders, and political leaders! For example, everyone knows the awful story of the Holocaust, and yet almost no one asks why didn’t the Allies do anything to prevent or limit this terrible tragedy, while it was still going on? Nobody asks how many Jews became victims of Stalin’s terror over the peoples of the ex-Soviet Union. Nobody asks why Stalin began his own Holocaust after the end of WWII.

Experience shows, that the moment someone asks such questions he or she is usually blamed of being an anti-Semitist or being a Nazi. In fact this method had been in use so much, that it sparked a whole new wave of revision of the Holocaust itself. I really cannot understand how a person could be an anti-Semitist if this person is searching for, and trying to uncover more information about Jewish people who felt victim to the Soviet anti-Semitism? Perhaps someone wants to claim that murdering Jewish people in the Soviet labor camps was acceptable? I certainly hope NOT!

The question however does not end with the atrocities committed against the Jews, it only begins here. The victims of the Soviet Union include a wide group of ethnicities. The fundamental difference between the motives behind eliminating Jewish and other people between the National Socialism in the face of Germany and the International Socialism in the face of the Soviet Union was that according to the National socialists Jews were the rich exploiting class, which needed to be eliminated, while the International socialists claimed that it was not only Jews in that rich exploiting class but others as well, so they eliminated them all. May I ask here how come the International socialists were pardoned their international Holocaust while the National socialists were the only ones blamed for their international Holocaust? You may argue that the Soviets were not pardoned in what they did, but the fact remains that they still do not share the same “prison bench” together with the Nazis for the crimes they did against Jews and other people! This fact alone is enough to consider the Soviet atrocities “pardoned” simply because unless their atrocities are treated the same way as the Nazi atrocities, in our modern world this means nothing else but a “pardon”. This is an awful shame for our historiography; it is an inexcusable way to treat the memory of millions of people who felt victim to the International socialists.

On the Cavalry

2007-05-10T16:35:00.000-07:00

Cavalry is another particular kind of military force, which many thought had no place in the WWII. Some regarded it as morally and tactically old to be used in the modern warfare where tanks and armored vehicles were the order of the day. I am really amazed at such claims! If you think of it closely, why would a cavalry be useless or worst means of warfare than the common infantry? Is the simple infantry man faster than a cavalry soldier? No. Can the infantry move swiftly through forest terrains, through smaller rivers, lakes or swamps? No. So why is it that some experts think otherwise?

The Red Army had the largest cavalry forces before and during the WWII. According to Stalin himself, “Cavalry has not lost its meaning in the modern war. She is important, especially when the enemy has been repulsed from their positions, in order to pursue it and disallow it the possibility to fortify itself on new positions.” (Stalin’s toast for the Red Army delivered in the Military Academy in the evening of May 5, 1941 as recorded by G. Dimitrov head of the Comintern, in his diary). The Soviet cavalry gained its fame by the numerous successful operations she executed during the war.

Yet, we take for example the book written by Steven J. Zaloga and Leland S. Ness Red Army Hand Book and we begin to wonder. Going through the pages, full of really nice pictures, we will notice this great picture of Soviet cavalry in action during training. The comment of the picture is to put it mildly a mockery one. The authors are tying to suggest that the Red Army was so far behind that they still used old methods of warfare. In fact the whole book has been written in the same manner, on one hand specific expert information and on the other mocking commentary of this information. Zaloga is renowned for his competence on weaponry, and is perhaps the top western specialist in this field, so I assume that his part was to provide the information, and Mr. Ness’s part was to go along and write completely unfounded and stupid comments, making sure that the reader does not get the idea that the Red Army was actually mighty, modern, and organized and thus question the established line of historiography by the professional historians. These commentaries really diminish the value of the book, and the otherwise interesting information gathered in it. But as I discussed earlier there is an image to be kept, a school of thought to be defended, and many careers to be saved. It is a petty that such an expert as Mr. Zaloga must also follow this ridiculous campaign set by few historians.

From the Memories of an Old Man

2007-05-10T15:21:00.000-07:00

Back in the mid 1990’s when I was going to University, something cool happened one day. It was the usual late winter morning in the café next to the University. All tables were full except one chair at our table; students smoking their time away with coffee, beer, or juice and awaiting their next lecture. At some point I noticed this really old man, who was walking around with a cup of tea in his hand trying to find a place to sit. Since, the only place available was at our table, I called him, and invited him to sit with us. Soon enough we were talking, and after he found out that I was interested in the Second World War, he told me his story.

I am still sorry that I did not have any gadget with me to record it right away. It turned out that he was a student of engineering in Berlin during the war, and some extraordinary things had happened to him while residing in Germany. In August 1943, he went to Munich to visit friends, when time came for him to return back to Berlin, his friends came along to the train station to say a proper good-bye. When the train arrived, they were all speaking and shouting loudly. He got into the train and went to his place. Soon after the train parted, a German army officer showed up and asked him to come along. In the next luxury wagon he was invited to sit and have a coffee with Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel, who happened to be traveling in the same train, and the loud shouting in foreign language by his friends at the train station caught his attention. After he realized it was a Bulgarian language they were speaking, he sent his aid to invite the young man for a coffee. It was few days after the death of the Bulgarian King Boris III, so Rommel expressed his condolences, and invited him for coffee. I mean how, many people had the chance to meet with someone who had personally seen and communicated to Rommel! Not that I approve of his competence as a military leader, in fact I do not, but still I think it was quite incredible. I was sitting there in the café listening to the old man in disbelief!

Another interesting point he shared with me was how truly the German people believed in their leader. How they would gather and wait for hours at places where it was rumored he will appear and speak. Also how much they hated the British. He told me how his landlady, who lost 2 of her 3 sons on the front line, and her third son, was handicapped in wheelchair, again due to wounds on the front, had told him that as long as she was sure that the British will fail, she would send her handicapped son to fight again! All of this made me think, that there must have been some viewpoint shared among the German people that it was Britain’s fault for the on-going war and rising death toll, simply because they failed to agree to peace with Germany. It is fascinating to observe the different perspectives of the same events, which people had depending on where they lived, and the nationality they belonged to.

I found it extremely interesting to listen to a man, who was later in his life sent to a concentration camp in Bulgaria, because he had been a student in Berlin. He was very apolitical, which made his story very neutral, even the way he spoke was one of an observer. He spent his life after the concentration camp, working agricultural work in one of the many Kolkhoz farms in Bulgaria, never being allowed to pursue his career as an engineer. I thought this was really a fortunate circumstance for me to meet him by chance and speak to him. Thus, I decided to share this story with you, as I still believe it was very interesting.

On the Question of Soviet "Fear"

2007-05-10T00:54:00.000-07:00

The standard historiography of the international situation in the 1930’s in Europe has the tendency to assume that the Soviet Union feared Germany. Any description of the events which took place then, and the treaties which were signed spin around the unfounded assumption that Germany was strong, and the last thing Stalin wished for was to face her alone! To add to these assumptions, historians go further by explaining that the Soviets feared a war on two fronts, reminding us of the hostilities between them and the Japanese. They give as an example the battle of Khalkhin Gol in the summer of 1939, when Red Army detachments literally executed the first real Blitzkrieg operation, and destroyed the 6^th Japanese army. For unclear motives, the battle is being used by historians as an additional proof of how dire the situation was for the Soviet Union: on the west a mighty and aggressive Germany, on the east the strong Japan.

It would be difficult to speculate what motives let historians to assume such a perspective, but it seems that somewhere in the center of the cacophony called “historiography of WWII”, is a tendency to over-estimate Germany’s real power. Why would anyone do that? Well, by doing so, historians are cleverly trying to explain the complete failure of the French and British military in the spring of 1940, when they managed to loose France in a matter of weeks. Showing Germany as this enormous military might gives the impression that even the joint forces of France and Britain were unable to resist. The truth, however, lies in the false strategy and tactics, which the commanding staff employed and the grave mistakes they made in commanding their forces. It simply tries to hide the plain incompetence of the Franco-British commanding staff.

At the same time, keeping Germany’s image as a mighty military power also provides space for creating the illusion of the weak and worry, and even “scared” Soviet Union. It also allows historians to deny the fact that the European geopolitics at that time was severely manipulated by Stalin, and France, Britain and Germany were simply puppets in his plans. For proud nations such as these three, swallowing the truth is an intolerable shame. It is also here where the interests of them and those of the ex-Soviet Union overlapped. Showing Germany mighty helps the Soviets explain the catastrophe of the first months of the German invasion, and aides them in hiding the real reasons for this catastrophe, which by the way had nothing to do with Germany’s military might, or actually the lack of it!

Today after so much evidence had come out, showing exactly the opposite of their writings, the situation remains unchanged. The fact that Stalin was imperturbable, and had no sign of worry, let alone fear, is comfortably ignored by these historians. Instead of examining the battle of Khalkhin Gol, and draw the correct conclusions, which would explain to a great extend Stalin’s unabashed and calm behavior, even during the first hours and days after the German invasion, historians continue to spread their own version of what actually had happened. The battle of Khalkhin Gol was in no way a sign of Japanese danger to the Soviet Union; it was clear example of the elimination of such a possibility by the Soviets. After Khalkhin Gol Japan gained the courage to start up a war against the United States, but never again against the Soviet Union, even at the most alarming times for the Soviets in the summer of 1941. Furthermore, the Japanese signed a treaty with the Soviets, which the Soviets broke in 1945 with their lightening Blitzkrieg operation against the Japanese forces in Asia.

So how could have the Soviet Union been endangered by a two front war after the Khalkhin Gol operation is completely unclear and not understandable. How could have the Soviet Union been endangered by a war to the west, when there was no border between Germany and the Soviet Union? The Germans had much trouble occupying Poland, and some recent research suggests that had not it been for the Soviet help by invading Poland to the east, Poland might have been actually able to withhold the German invasion. The question about the Soviet invasion of Poland is also very much missing from the historiography. Germany was as much responsible for this act of aggression as the Soviet Union was, especially after the final publishing of the secret protocols of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of 1939, which basically showed how the two aggressors had divided Poland among other countries for themselves. The silence could partially be explained as a gesture by the West for the later Soviet struggle and aid in the battle against Germany, however, it is gestures such as this one which twist history to such an extend, that we will probably need another 100 years to finally figure it all out!

Either We or Them! A's&B's of Communist History in 20th Century

2007-05-08T13:33:00.000-07:00

The first thing everyone should know about communism, is that its fundament of existence is to topple capitalism! Many people get carried away in speculating what had been, what could have been done differently, how feasible it is as a system, or how much of it is a utopia. What they seem to forget is that in order to exist, communism must constantly fight and try to overtake the world. In its own dialect this process was called The World Revolution, which must be carried out until all states and territories on the globe become communist; in other words, until total communist globalization had been carried out. This is the fundamental of communism which does not change.

How a world revolution should be carried out was an issue, which was debated by many infamous communists, from the fathers Marx and Engels, to the titans Lenin and Trotsky. Generally, Trotsky stood for a constant world revolution, where at any time at any place all forces must be mobilized to try and spark a revolt, overtake a government, fight an “imperialist army” whatever needed to eliminate the capitalist system. Lenin, on the contrary believed in organized and prepared revolt which should take place during or at the end of a major war. The logic behind it being that in tragic calamity such as war, any regime is weakened: its military and police forces are concentrated on fighting the enemy outside the state; its population is exhausted and brought to misery and poverty by the war, the economy is weak. In precisely such circumstances Lenin and his band of Bolsheviks took the power in Russia, with the aid of Germany. Once the Bolsheviks gained the upper hand in the following civil war, the question of what next came up on their agenda. Trotsky insisted on continued efforts to expand into war thorn Europe, and it was the Polish army which saved the day, by stopping the Red Army, under the command of M.N. Tukhachevsky.

This was the turning point when Lenin realized that Russia was too weak to undertake such serious steps. Lenin realized that Russia its economy and army must be rebuild first, and only then to prepare another major step in spreading the world revolution further. So socialism in one country was adopted as the next step in the new Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The idea behind it was to rebuild the country and the military and prepare for the next opportunity to expand the world revolution. Such opportunity was another major European war, which after the Versailles treaty seemed to be a very plausible possibility.

Many historians take socialism in one country as the definitive sign that the communists had given up on the world revolution. There is no proof of this, but there is a proof of the fact that communism cannot exist together with capitalism. Such was the view of the fathers of communism Marx and Engels, and of their followers. The logic behind their viewpoint is clear and simple: communism was a system which foresaw the mobilization of the entire society into labor camps, abolishment of family, among other inhumane plans, all of which were against basic human nature! Communists understood that better than anyone, and thus had no choice on giving up the world revolution, even if they wished so. Socialism in one country was a necessary step which the Bolsheviks were forced to take if they stood any chance in expanding communism further. And expanding communism further was their only ticket to survival according to their own philosophy.

Stalin was a follower of Lenin. He had clearly understood Lenin’s plan and was prepared to carry it out. Anyone who took the time to explore the history of the Soviet Union after Lenin and before the German invasion would see one and one thing only: the turning of a major country into a huge military camp with its own military industry. This was so true, that the Soviet Union until its end in 1991 was capable of producing some of the finest arms and general military products in the world, but was severely lacking behind in any civil technology had it been TV sets, automobiles, or cosmetic products. As a result of its dogma, the Soviet Union massed the largest quantities of tanks, aircraft, artillery, rockets, and what not in the military sphere.

During the course of establishing communism in one country it became apparent that Marx’s formula on mobilizing society into labor camps and abolishing family was quite undoable. Stalin was forced to balance between traditional and communist values, and even with such moderate formula, tens of millions of people had to be eliminated. Trotsky on the other hand was more conservative and insisted on following the original recipe provided by the fathers of communism. The difference between Stalin and Trotsky were so fundamental, that Stalin was forced to kick Trotsky out of the country, and ordered his elimination only after Trotsky failed to keep quite on the future plans of communism.

Trotsky was very popular then and had his followers up in the communist elite, whom Stalin had to remove from power in order to assure that his plans and orders would not be sabotaged by Trotsky sympathizers, as a means of protest against Trotsky’s removal from both the power and the Soviet Union. Most of these high ranking Bolsheviks were eliminated during the Great Purge of 1937-1938. Along were purged a great number of NKVD (later known as KGB) employees, and some military personnel. Today the traditional line of Soviet historiography claims that the Great purge was mainly aimed against the Red Army, and therefore the army was left decapitated, which is also claimed to be one of the reasons for the Red Army’s poor performance in the first months of the German invasion. The issue got cleared by the publishing of the lists of the purged, which clearly showed the majority of those purged to be staff of the NKVD, rather than of the Red Army. Some historians just cannot let go, and keep on claiming the standard old assumption about the Great Purge despite the existence of clear evidence of its incorrectness! A purge which was mainly aimed against NKVD, was a purge which could be claimed left the NKVD decapitated, but why the Red Army?

Blog Dedicated to WWII History and Its Complications

2007-05-08T01:15:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone. That’s my new blog where I would be posting some of my thoughts on WWII, the debate about its historiography and the effects of it all to our present day modern world. You are probably aware that as of now the history surrounding WWII is so unclear and so diverse that it would be unserious to assume that we know much about it already! Despite the numerous publications for the past six decades, the fundamentals of the history drastically differ from one another. Thus, here I will be posting my own view of it, based on my own research, understanding and facts which I found. Hope you will enjoy it.