Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 5168
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Hektor » 1 year 11 months ago (Mon Jun 28, 2021 12:35 pm)

Mortimer wrote:A review of the book Stalin's War - A New History of World War II by Sean McMeekin. This author is in agreement with Viktor Suvorov on many points. The review is by Laurent Guyenot.
http://www.unz.com/article/barbarossa-s ... ainstream/

This seems to be an extremely difficult subject for Allied-dimwits
Yet, as Suvorov said, and as McMeekin leaves unsaid, it was probably thanks to Operation Barbarossa that Soviet troops failed to raise the red flag over Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Rome, Stockholm and possibly London.

They don't really know what to say when I point out to them that while the Wehrmacht couldn't ultimately defend Germany, it actually managed to prevent Western European countries from turning Communist. Not that they thanked the Germans in any way so far. Well, and it explains the vitriolic Germanophobia of the local Communists as well.


Image

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Werd » 1 year 11 months ago (Wed Jun 30, 2021 8:33 am)

Werd wrote:
NOTE: Just after posting this and linking to the Finnish source article, that site mysteriously removed the page containing the Letter to Mannerheim, so link is now broken and it takes you a different page. But I do have a copy of that page, but it is in Finish. My friend in Finland is trying to obtain a photocopy of the letter from the book. ~ J4G


Vesa says:
01/25/2015 at 9:00 pm
http://kriitikot.dy.fi/kritiikki/pohja2.php?v=2

justice4germans says:
01/25/2015 at 10:26 pm
Thank you for the new link

If you click that link, the contents of changed. Here is what I found via webarchive in a 2015 capture.

Yleisluonteiset kirjoitukset
Talvisodan loppuminen

08/12 2010 15:48
Saksan ulkoministeri Ribbentropin kirje Mannerheimille 7.3.1940 (lähteenä Hautamäen kirja).

Suomen marsalkka C. G. E. Mannerheimille

Saksan hallitus on vastaanottanut Teidän, herra Marsalkka, maaliskuun 2. päivänä 1940 Saksan johtajalle Adolf Hitlerille lähettämänne tiedustelun: "Mitä tarkoitti Hitlerin 9. helmikuuta 1940 päiväämä Marsalkka Mannerheimille lähettämä kirje Suomen ja Neuvostoliiton välisen sodan lopettamisesta, koska kirjeen lähettämisen jälkeen neuvostoliittolaiset ovat kohdistaneet enemmän kuin kaksinkertaisen paineen suomalaisia joukkoja vastaan?" Tämän johdosta ja kun muuttunut kansainvälinen tilanne on saattanut Saksan ja Suomen välisen politiikan toiseen valoon, ovat Saksan hallitus ja Saksan johtaja Adolf Hitler valtuuttaneet minut kertomaan Teille, herra Marsalkka Mannerheim, seuraavaa:

Ensiksi: Oheisena seuraa valokuvakopio osasta asiakirjoja, jotka saksalaiset saivat käsiinsä 9. helmikuuta 1940 lentokonekaappauksen ansiosta. Asiakirjassa on täydellinen selvitys sen sopimuksen täytäntöönpanosta, jonka Neuvostoliiton Stalin ja Englannin Churchill Englannin ja länsiliittoutuneiden puolesta ovat tehneet Moskovassa 15. lokakuuta 1939. Sopimus on asiakirja, jonka perusteella länsivallat yhdessä Neuvostoliiton kanssa aikovat kukistaa Saksan heti kevään 1940 annettua sotatoimille mahdollisuuden.

Vaikka Suomi ei ole Saksan liittolainen, asia kuitenkin koskee myös Suomea ja koko Skandinavian niemimaata sikäli, että englantilais-neuvostoliittolainen päähyökkäyssuunta Saksaa kohti on Baltian maiden ja Skandinavian niemimaan suunnalta sen lisäksi, että saksalaiset sotavoimat sidotaan hyökkäyksellä Ranskan suunnalta lännessä sekä idässä Neuvostoliiton ja Balkanin suunnilta. Operaatioon liittyvä karttavalokuva tämän kirjeen liitteenä.

Suomelle varataan tilaisuus tutustua kaikkiin lentokonekaappauksen yhteydessä saatuihin asiakirjoihin ja karttoihin Saksassa milloin vain haluatte, herra Marsalkka. Toivomme, että tutustuisitte niihin heti.

Toiseksi: Kun Neuvostoliitto, jonka kanssa Saksalla on voimassa oleva kymmenvuotinen hyökkäämättömyyssopimus, on kolmantena sopimuspuolena ranskalais-englantilaisessa Saksan vastaisessa salaliitossa, niin Saksa katsoo nyt myös Neuvostoliiton vihollisekseen eikä voi enää pitää voimassa niitä neuvostoliittolais-saksalaisia sopimuksia, jotka ovat tähän saakka pitäneet Saksan Neuvostoliiton politiikkaa myötäilevissä siteissä.

Kun Neuvostoliitto Saksan tietämättä on muuttanut kansainvälisen politiikkansa ja saksalais-neuvostoliittolaisen yhteistyön mitätöimisellä tehnyt itsensä syypääksi mahdollisiin tuleviin seuraamuksiin, katsoo Saksa nyt itsensä vapaaksi Neuvostoliiton kanssa tekemistään sopimuksista ja lähtee kulkemaan Saksalle turvallisempaa omaa tietään.

Kolmanneksi: Edellä käsiteltyjen seikkojen perusteella Saksa katsoo suomalaisten vaikeudet omaksi asiakseen, ja turvatakseen Saksan pohjoispuolisen alueen ryhtyy varmistamaan sitä, että Skandinavian niemimaa ja Suomen alue pysyvät vapaina neuvostoliittolais-englantilaisista joukoista. Tämän tarkoituksen toteuttamista varten Saksan hallitus on

a) varhain aamulla 10. helmikuuta 1940 antanut Neuvostoliiton Saksan asiainhoitajan kautta Stalinille Hitlerin 9. helmikuuta 1940 allekirjoittaman kirjallisen määräyksen, että sotatoimet Suomea vastaan on lopetettava ja pyrittävä rauhaan.

Tämä asia on jo aikaisemmin ilmoitettu Teille, herra Marsalkka Mannerheim. Koska Saksan hallitus on huomannut, etteivät neuvostoliittolaiset ole ottaneet täydestä Saksan johtajan Adolf Hitlerin määräystä ja kun lisäksi Te, herra Marsalkka Mannerheim, kysyitte samaa asiaa johtaja Hitleriltä, niin

b) maaliskuun 3. päivän iltana 1940 johtaja Hitler antoi Neuvostoliiton Saksan asianhoitajalle seuraavan kirjallisen määräyksen: "Ellei Neuvostoliitto heti, viimeistään huomispäivänä 4.3.1940, lopeta sotatoimia Suomea vastaan, niin Saksa tulee antamaan suomalaisille aseellista apua ja ajamaan Neuvostoliiton sotavoimat pois Suomen alueelta". Tämän uhkavaatimuksen antoi Neuvostoliiton asiainhoitajalle Marsalkka Herman Göring, joka lisäksi ilmoitti samalla suullisesti, että mikäli Neuvostoliitto ei suostu vaatimukseen, ryhtyvät Saksan ilmavoimat heti toimintaan suomalaisten puolella ilman että Suomi sitä pyytäisi. Saksalle on Suomessa ilmaantunut valvottavaksi etuja, joista se tulee huolehtimaan.

Neljänneksi: Kun muuttunut kansainvälinen tilanne osoittaa, ettei yksin Saksa vaan myös Pohjolan kansat ja niiden mukana Neuvostoliittoa vastaan urhoollisesti taistellut Suomi ovat joutumassa kansainväliseksi sotatantereeksi, niin maittemme yhteisen edun takaamiseksi Saksan hallitus on päättänyt puolustaa Skandinavian niemimaata ja Suomea sekä tulee valvomaan, ettei maatanne ainakaan toistaiseksi miehitetä enempää neuvostoliittolaisilla kuin länsivaltojenkaan sotajoukoilla. Saksan valtakunnan johtaja Adolf Hitler pyytää lisäksi ilmoittamaan Suomelle, että mikäli tarvitsette nopeaa sotilaallista materiaali- ja ilmatukiapua torjuessanne neuvostoliittolaisten ylivoimaista hyökkäystä, niin pyydettäessä Saksa tulee antamaan sitä heti ilman mitään vastavuoroisuuden periaatetta.

Berliinissä maaliskuun 7. päivänä 1940

Joachim von Ribbentrop

Saksan valtakunnan Ulkoministeri

Translated:
General writings
End of the Winter War

08/12 2010 15:48
Letter from German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop to Mannerheim on March 7, 1940 (source: Hautamäki's book).

Marshal of Finland to CGE Mannerheim

The German government has received your inquiry, Mr. Marshal, to the German leader, Adolf Hitler, on March 2, 1940: "What did Hitler's letter to Marshal Mannerheim of February 9, 1940, about ending the war between Finland and the Soviet Union mean? double pressure against Finnish troops? " As a result, and as the changed international situation has shed light on German-Finnish policy, the German Government and German leader Adolf Hitler have authorized me to tell you, Mr Marshal Mannerheim, as follows:

First: Attached is a photocopy of some of the documents that the Germans received in their hands on February 9, 1940, as a result of a hijacking of an airplane. The document contains a full account of the implementation of the agreement reached between Moscow's Stalin and England's Churchill on behalf of England and the Western Allies in Moscow on 15 October 1939. The agreement

Although Finland is not an ally of Germany, it also affects Finland and the entire Scandinavian peninsula in that the main Anglo-Soviet attack on Germany is from the Baltics and the Scandinavian peninsula, in addition to tying German forces from France to the west and east to the Soviet Union. A map photograph of the operation is attached to this letter.

Finland will have the opportunity to inspect all documents and maps obtained in connection with the hijacking in Germany whenever you wish, Mr Marshal. We hope you get to know them right away.

Secondly, while the Soviet Union, with which Germany has a ten-year non-aggression pact, is the third party in the Franco-English conspiracy against Germany, Germany now also sees the Soviet Union as an enemy and can no longer maintain the Soviet-German treaties that have so far in compliant ties.

After the Soviet Union unknowingly changed its international policy and, through the nullification of German-Soviet cooperation, blamed itself for possible future sanctions, Germany now sees itself free from its agreements with the Soviet Union and sets out on a safer path for Germany.

Thirdly, on the basis of the above, Germany considers the difficulties of the Finns to be its own cause, and in order to secure the northern part of Germany, it will take steps to ensure that the Scandinavian peninsula and the territory of Finland remain free of Soviet-English troops. In order to achieve this goal, the German government

a) in the early morning of February 10, 1940, issued a written order to Stalin, through the German steward of the Soviet Union, signed by Hitler on February 9, 1940, that the hostilities against Finland be stopped and peace sought.

This matter has already been reported to you, Mr Marshal Mannerheim. Since the German Government has noticed that the Soviets have not taken the full order of German leader Adolf Hitler, and when you, Mr. Marshal Mannerheim, asked the same question from Director Hitler,

(b) on the evening of March 3, 1940, "Unless the Soviet Union immediately, no later than tomorrow, March 4, 1940, ceases hostilities against Finland, then Germany will provide armed assistance to the Finns and drive the Soviet military forces out of Finnish territory." This threat was made to the Chargé d'Affaires of the Soviet Union, Marshal Herman Göring, who also stated orally that if the Soviet Union did not agree to the request, the German Air Force would immediately take action on the part of the Finns without Finland's request. In Finland, benefits have emerged in Finland that it will take care of.

Fourthly, when the changed international situation shows that not only Germany but also the Nordic peoples and Finland, who fought valiantly against the Soviet Union, are becoming an international battleground, the German government has decided to defend the Scandinavian peninsula and Finland and to ensure that your country is not occupied more by the Soviets than by the forces of the Western powers. The leader of the German kingdom, Adolf Hitler, also asks to inform Finland that if you need rapid military material and air support to combat the overwhelming Soviet attack, Germany will provide it immediately upon request without any principle of reciprocity.

Done at Berlin, 7 March 1940.

Joachim von Ribbentrop

Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Germany

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Werd » 1 year 11 months ago (Fri Jul 02, 2021 12:44 am)

Werd wrote:
On May 5, 1941, Stalin made it perfectly clear to his generals that there would be a war with Germany and that the Soviet Union would be the aggressor. Suvorov means the May 5 Frunze speech.

Link.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p40_Michaels.html
On May 5, 1941, just seven weeks before the German attack, Stalin delivered another important speech, this one at a ceremonial banquet in the Kremlin to graduates of the Frunze Military Academy. Also attending were the members of Stalin's "inner circle," including Molotov and Beria. During the war, von Thadden relates, the Germans reconstructed the text of this speech based on recollections of captured Soviet officers who had attended the banquet.

As von Thadden notes, a number of historians have predictably denied its authenticity, rejecting it as a product of German propaganda disinformation. However, several years ago Russian historian Lev Bezymensky found the text of a portion of the speech, which had been edited for anticipated publication, in Kremlin archives. He published this text in a 1992 issue of the scholarly journal Osteuropa.

In this speech, Stalin stressed that the recent peaceful policy of the Soviet state had played out its role. (With this policy, the Soviet Union had greatly extended its borders westward in 1939 and 1940, absorbing some 30 million people.) Now, Stalin bluntly announced, it was time to prepare for war against Germany, a conflict that would begin soon. He cited the tremendous buildup of Soviet military power, both in quantity and quality, during the last few years. The recent German "occupation" of Bulgaria, and the transfer of German troops to Finland, he went on, are "grounds for war against Germany."

Stalin said:

"Our war plan is ready ... We can begin the war with Germany within the next two months ... There is a peace treaty with Germany, but this is only a deception, or rather a curtain, behind which we can openly work ...

"The peaceful policy secured peace for our country ... Now, however, with our reorganized army, which is technologically well prepared for modern warfare, now that we are strong, we must now go from defense to attack.

"In fully defending our country, we are obliged to act offensively. We most move from defense to a military policy of offensive action. We must reorganize our propaganda, agitation, and our press in an offensive spirit. The Red Army is a modern army, and a modern army is an offensive army.

"The motto of a peaceful policy of the Soviet government is now out of date, and has been overtaken by events ... A new era in the development of the Soviet state has begun, the era of the expansion of its borders, not, as before, through a peaceful policy, but rather by force of arms. Our country has available all the necessary conditions for this.

"The successes of the German army are due to the fact that it has not encountered an equally strong opponent. Some Soviet commanders have falsely overestimated the successes of the German army ...

"Therefore, I propose a toast to the new era that has dawned in the development of our socialist fatherland. Long live the active offensive policy of the Soviet state!"

In the face of all the new evidence that has become available in recent years, von Thadden contends here, obviously it will be necessary to reexamine the long-standing official interpretation of the war.

Otium

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Otium » 1 year 11 months ago (Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:06 am)

Werd wrote:On May 5, 1941, Stalin made it perfectly clear to his generals that there would be a war with Germany and that the Soviet Union would be the aggressor. Suvorov means the May 5 Frunze speech.


Interesting to note that Sean McMeekin most recently in his book Stalin's War (2021) and Stalin's most recent biographer Stephen Kotkin both agree that this speech is genuine. It's authenticity and basic impression is not in doubt, it was a war speech, and it was aggressive. McMeekin just takes Stalin's words more seriously than those like Kotkin who would rather pretend that the Soviets had no serious ideological motives when it comes to foreign policy. It'd be much less convenient to accept that they were serious about fermenting discord and producing a world revolution. Then they wouldn't be forced to admit that it was thanks to Hitler that a Soviet advance would've been quickly thwarted, even if Stalin managed to attack Germany first.

Otium

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Otium » 1 year 10 months ago (Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:16 am)

Last month the German historian Bernd Schwipper released a massive two volume work further definitively proving that the German attack on the Soviet Union was a pre-emptive strike. The work contains an evaluation of over 500 documents and totals 1120 pages (including Schwipper's previous book, the total is 1672 pages! By far the largest and most detailed work, by any author, on the pre-emptive war "thesis" which is actually fact).

Schwipper shows that the Germans knew the Russians were planning an offensive, contrary to the claims of orthodox historians who assert that the Germans had no idea about Stalin's intentions while they were planning for Barbarossa.
Die Aufklärung der Bedrohung aus dem Osten (The reconnaissance of the threat from the east)
Band I: 1939 bis Dezember 1940 und Band II: Januar bis 22. Juni 1941 | Link | Link

Bernd Schwipper - Die Aufklärung der Bedrohung aus dem Osten Band 1 & 2 .png


Book Description:

The fact that the Red Army was made ready for an offensive into Germany by Stalin in 1940/1941 and that the attack by the Wehrmacht was a pre-emptive strike has been conclusively proven by a large number of historians, most recently in 2016 by the author of the study "Deutschland im Visier Stalins" (Germany in Stalin's Sight).

Representatives of the established historiography, who have hardly any factual arguments to counter this, take refuge in the assertion that it could not have been a pre-emptive strike, since the German side had no idea of these preparations of the Red Army.

The author decisively counters this with his new study. In these two comprehensive volumes, he examines the profound results of the reconnaissance of the Red Army's offensive preparations, the systematic escalation of the threat from the East, Stalin's provocative actions on the northern flank (Scandinavia) and on the southern flank (Balkans) of the German Reich, the reconnaissance of the air threat increasing against Germany, and those indications that led to the expectation of a renewed encirclement of Germany.

In six chapters, the author presents several hundred documents and document extracts of the Wehrmacht in the two partial volumes. These come from the holdings of the German Historical Institute Moscow, a private archive and the MgFA Freiburg. The author backs these documents with quotations, expertly analyzes them in tables and graphs, and proves that the government and Wehrmacht leadership of the German Reich were fully informed, down to the last detail, about the attempts to encircle Germany and the preparations for the Red Army's attack.

Starting from Germany's original desire for peace after the Western campaign, the Wehrmacht's reactions, which became increasingly urgent as the threat situation in the East grew, are impressively presented, up to the execution of the preemptive strike.

The reconnaissance of three possible time windows for Stalin's offensive into Germany, the importance of the threat from the east for the dismissal of "Sea Lion" the results of the strategic operation for disinformation for Stalin's decision to attack as well as individual episodes of the Wehrmacht's actions are examined as well as their importance for the supply of Germany with raw materials from Petsamo and Ploesti.

Volume I looks at the Wehrmacht's reconnaissance documents and its reactions in the period 1939 to December 1940. Volume II examines and analyzes the main reconnaissance documents of the Wehrmacht and their reactions in the period from January 1941 to June 22, 1941.


Eduardo
Member
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 1:37 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Eduardo » 1 year 10 months ago (Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:04 am)

Great to know of this book! Thank you very much.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Werd » 1 year 10 months ago (Mon Jul 26, 2021 7:52 pm)

HMSendeavour wrote:Last month the German historian Bernd Schwipper released a massive two volume work further definitively proving that the German attack on the Soviet Union was a pre-emptive strike. The work contains an evaluation of over 500 documents and totals 1120 pages (including Schwipper's previous book, the total is 1672 pages! By far the largest and most detailed work, by any author, on the pre-emptive war "thesis" which is actually fact).

Looks like revisionists were always right about this one. When you have a lay historian like anti-communist Jew Mark Solonin in Russia getting enough documents from archives to prove his point, so much so, that ex KGB tried to frame him up for drugs but failed, you know you're close to the truth. :lol:

Mortimer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Mortimer » 1 year 5 months ago (Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:09 am)

"Did Stalin Prepare To Invade Germany ?" - this is the title of a recent article by Egbert Dijkstra which appeared at The Unz Review which is doing a very good job promoting the revisionist point of view. To answer the question the author came to the conclusion that it was true.
http://www.unz.com/article/did-stalin-p ... e-germany/
There are 2 sides to every story - always listen or read both points of view and make up your own mind. Don't let others do your thinking for you.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 5168
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Hektor » 1 year 2 months ago (Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:09 am)

Mortimer wrote:"Did Stalin Prepare To Invade Germany ?" - this is the title of a recent article by Egbert Dijkstra which appeared at The Unz Review which is doing a very good job promoting the revisionist point of view. To answer the question the author came to the conclusion that it was true.
http://www.unz.com/article/did-stalin-p ... e-germany/



Well, the evidence points to it. But that view is anathema for the guardians of the conventional narrative. It won't fit the "Hitler wanted to conquer the world"-pillar within the Myth. But there is more at stake of course. If that pillar is false... The immediate question is, why it was upheld for so long. And that would ultimately lead to more doubt about the Holocaust, too. So they have to try their best to maintain each facet of the Hitler Myth, even if that means they got to back-paddle or "admit mistakes" at times.

Mortimer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Mortimer » 2 months 3 weeks ago (Fri Mar 17, 2023 4:14 am)

John Wear reviews the book Stalin's War by Sean McMeekin. He concentrates on the massive amount of lend lease aid that the Soviet Union received from the United States. One thing that I found incredible was that it went unpaid - or the vast majority of it. The USSR did not pay for 98% of this military assistance. Therefore, FDR and his administration not only helped Stalin to stay in power but extended his dominion over half of Europe and flush with victory they were able to extend support to Mao Zedong which helped to also turn China communist. And the American taxpayer was left with the bill because the US government wrote off the debt in the early 1950s.
http://www.wearswar.com/2022/05/13/revi ... ld-war-ii/
There are 2 sides to every story - always listen or read both points of view and make up your own mind. Don't let others do your thinking for you.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 5168
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Hektor » 2 months 3 weeks ago (Sat Mar 18, 2023 6:03 am)

Mortimer wrote:John Wear reviews the book Stalin's War by Sean McMeekin. He concentrates on the massive amount of lend lease aid that the Soviet Union received from the United States. One thing that I found incredible was that it went unpaid - or the vast majority of it. The USSR did not pay for 98% of this military assistance. Therefore, FDR and his administration not only helped Stalin to stay in power but extended his dominion over half of Europe and flush with victory they were able to extend support to Mao Zedong which helped to also turn China communist. And the American taxpayer was left with the bill because the US government wrote off the debt in the early 1950s.
http://www.wearswar.com/2022/05/13/revi ... ld-war-ii/



The excuse would be that it is more convenient to get Russians killed, instead of precious Americans. Arguable, if that really aged that well.

What I would like to know about Allied support to the USSR is, whether that only started after Barbarossa. Or whether that was already a practice before that.

I recall that American Big Biz was already active with dealings with and in the USSR during the 1920s/30s.
That's odd, I thought the Soviets were Communist and hence anti-capitalist?! Of course the whole soviet project is kind of suspect. What I noticed is that now "the Kaiser" seems to be the target for blame. Apparently due to the Germans allowing Lenin to travel through to Russia and even giving him some pocket money... That didn't prevent the "Russian Revolution" of course, but it is completely insufficient how it got started, was organized, , financed and continued to be supported from then on. The American connection isn't talked about, neither is the Jewish connection. Although there are some authors that indeed did, and I don't talk about 'niche authors', but such with some 'Main-Stream Esteem".


BOLSHEVISM AND THE JEWS

I have now come to the most delicate and the most complicated aspect of my whole Russian argument— namely, the position of the Jews in relation to Bolshevism. I earnestly desire to avoid writing one single line which might tend to inflame a festering wound. But it is no use denying that the festering wound is there. And it is in the interest of the Jewish people themselves that we should make a close and impartial investigation of what must be admitted to be a painful and, indeed, a tragic problem. It would be both a dangerous, an unnecessary, and a futile policy either to ignore or to distort the truth. It would be a dangerous policy, because such a conspiracy of silence or such a conspiracy of lies would amount to a confession of guilt. It would be an unnecessary policy, for the mass of the Jewish people cannot be made responsible for the crimes of a small minority. They can no more be made responsible for the actions of Trotski and Zinoviev and Radek than the French people could be held responsible for the actions of Robespierre and Marat. It would also be a perfectly futile policy. It would be as futile to deny the predominant part played by the Jews in the world revolution as it would be to deny the predominant part which the Jews played in the diffusion of Christianity.
https://archive.org/details/charlessaro ... a/mode/2up



There is of course more explicit authors than this one. But I think his moderateness and even benevolence towards Jews makes him a far btter source on the matter.


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Otium and 2 guests