DON’T BLAME HITLER ALONE FOR WORLD WAR II
September 07, 2009
History is the propaganda of the victors. Accordingly, Germany’s Adolf Hitler has been assigned total blame for starting World War II in Europe, history’s deadliest conflict in which 50 million died.
Interestingly, the 70th anniversary of World War II has reopened old wounds and ignited an ugly battle of words between Russia and its unloving neighbors, Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states. The latter two accuse Moscow of having stabbed them in the back in 1939 by becoming a partner with Nazi Germany.
The European parliamentary assembly (OSCE)  recently held the USSR and Germany `equally responsible for World War II.’  After 70 years, it’s about time.
 
`A flat-out lie,’ angrily retorted Russia’s president, Dimitry Medvedev.  The war cost the Soviet Union  25 million dead. Russians are quite right in believing that they,  not the US and British Empire, defeated Hitler’s Germany.  Russians fought with incredible heroism, suffered unthinkably casualties and damage, and ground Nazi Germany into dust.  The Allies played an important but comparatively far less important  role in Europe against an already defeated and ruined Germany. 
 
Underlining Moscow’s worrying rehabilitation of Stalin,  Medvedev claims the Soviet dictator saved Europe from Hitler and rejects all attempts to equate him with Hitler.   
 
But the facts say differently. Stalin was an even worse mass murderer than Hitler by a factor of three or four.  Stalin was also a much cleverer strategist, war leader and diplomat than Hitler, who stumbled into a war that Germany could not possibly win and for which it was woefully unprepared.  
 
Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin admitted the 1939 Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact that partitioned Poland between Germany and the USSR,  handed the Baltic states and Romania’s Bessarabia to the Soviets, was `immoral.’ 
 
But Putin correctly asserted that the 1938 Munich Pact signed by Britain and France with Hitler that returned Czechoslovakia’s ethnic German Sudaten region to German-Austrian ownership was equally immoral. He reminded Poland of its unsavory role in carving up bleeding Czechoslovakia.  He blasted East European critics as `collaborators with Fascism.’
 
Interestingly, we know that Hitler was determined to undue the pernicious effects of the post-World War I `peace’ treaties  that cruelly dismembered the German Reich, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.  He was set on restoring the 1914 borders. 
 
But it is little understood that Stalin was also bent on historic and geographic rectification.  He sought to erase the effects of the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, imposed on defeated, revolution-torn  Russia by the German-led Central Powers.
 
The draconian treaty tore away a quarter of Russia’s population and industry, and vast swathes of Russian-ruled territory: Poland, the Baltic States, Belarus, Ukraine, Crimea, Bessarabia and Finland.  Like Hitler, Stalin was determined to regain lost territories.   This he largely did from 1920-1939.  The 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the final act in the restoration of the old Russian Tsarist Empire.              
 
A fascinating book,  `The Chief Culprit’ by Viktor Suvorov (US Naval Institute Press), the pseudonym of a defector from Soviet military intelligence GRU, makes explosive new revelations about Stalin’s role in igniting World War II.  My old friends at KGB despise the GRU.  But it was GRU that got 2-3 high level agents into Franklin Roosevelt’s White House and shaped America’s wartime foreign policy.
 
Suvorov’s argument is simple. Stalin cleverly lured Hitler into war by offering to divide Poland.  This act, Stalin knew, would prompt  Britain and France to declare war on Germany. Stalin expected to pick up the pieces.  
 
Stalin also knew Germany was no match for the USSR. Hitler had only 3,332 tanks, most of them light vehicles armed with machine guns or 20mm cannon.  Contrary to our images of a motorized blitzkrieg, 75%  of German  transport was horse-drawn (think how much hay and how many hay wagons are needed to feed 750,000 horses.)  The Wehrmacht had no winter uniforms.  The German High Command expected to win the war against Russia in only three months – before winter set in.
 
Most important, Germany had no raw materials save coal. Its sole sources of oil were Romania and Russia. Germany had only enough oil for a two-month campaign against the Soviet Union.   It had no motor lubricants suitable for Russia’s -20 to -30 F winter weather.
 
From digging in GRU files, Suvarov asserts that in the spring of 1941, Stalin was poised  to launch 170 divisions, 24,000 tanks and thousands of warplanes in a surprise blitzkrieg  against Western Europe, supported by mountains of munitions and more reserve armies from Asia and the Far East.  The first target was Ploesti, Romania, Germany’s sole source of oil.  Germany was also Italy’s sole source of oil.  Losing Ploesti would have knocked both Axis powers out of the war.
 
The Red Army and Air Force were deployed in vulnerable offensive formations hard on the new German-Soviet border.  Stalin ordered all 1,000 plus defensive casemates of the formidable Stalin Line defending the USSR’s western border destroyed.
 
But Hitler struck first.  Learning of the Soviet threat, Hitler secretly massed his armies and attacked on 22 June, 1941.  Operation Barbarossa caught the Russians flat-footed: warplanes on the ground, tanks on rail cars, munitions in the open.  Soviet ground forces were quickly enveloped, cut off and destroyed in vast numbers.   Had they been positioned in defensive deployments behind the Stalin  Line, this rout would not have happened. 
 
Soviet propaganda later tried to cover up Stalin’s plan to attack Europe, claiming his forces were outmoded and unprepared, and generals incompetent.  This view still prevails today.
 
Not so, claims Suvarov. His view will infuriate mainstream historians.  I poured through Suvarov’s meticulous military analysis. To me, as a veteran military analyst, his figures appear to confirm that Stalin was just about to attack when Hitler pre-empted him.   
 
By 1945, Stalin’s Red Army had taken half of Europe.  But, contends Suvarov, had Hitler not attacked first in 1941, Stalin’s thirty-million man army, backed by mammoth industrial production, would have overwhelmed all of Europe in a 1941 surprise blitz.
 
Suvarov’s unstated conclusion: Hitler saved Western Europe from Stalin.  He asserts, less convincingly, that Hitler’s offensive into Russia led to the inevitably downfall of the Soviet Union in 1991 – and the real end of WWII.  
 
In the author’s view, if Poland had given back German-populated Danzig to Germany, war might have been avoided.  The British Empire collapsed because of its fatal decision to go to war with Germany in 1939 over Poland, a nation it could not possibly defend.   
 
All this is grand heresy.  We need to clear away the lingering clouds of wartime propaganda and begin understanding what really happened.     
 
Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009
 
 
moleculo
Monday, September 07, 2009 10:45 AM

Wow!......and Winston Churchill knew all this ?
alfred
Monday, September 07, 2009 1:10 PM
Hello Eric,
Your title suggests that Suvorov convinces you, even though you hedge in the last sentence.

You say that he has been digging thru GRUs archives. The most funny thing is though that his first and most important book, "The Icebreaker" (1990) where he spills all the beans, and later books on the same subject have been written without use of any archives - he was then, as now (as far as I remember) officially a traitor and faces prison in Russia. He used exclusively open sources.
He is very talented and extremely convincing. His prose (in Russian) is exhilarating. I laugh at every page.
However, he is a somewhat uncritical appologist of Stalin: he seems to love his genius. Suvorov describes Soviet power in bombastic and proudly nationalistic terms. In his eyes Hitler is just a jerk, an idiot chewing carpets when angry, and German generals - amateurs.

He also persistently underplays the substantial help for USSR from the US.

Suvorov´s view of the world is a good comedy but a little too simplified.However, the general idea, including Hitler saving half of Europe from communism seems valid. It can be that the funny stuff and style was reserved for Russian public. I haven´t read this book.

The question how much the Western intelligence knew about Soviet preparations is very interesting. Probably a lot, as almost all large tank and airplane factories had been supplied by the Western companies - see Antony Sutton (Wall St. and the Rise of Stalin, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy)
BAK
Wednesday, September 09, 2009 2:31 AM
@ alfred, I honestly like your analysis. You are correct in pointing out Western assistance to the USSR, in fact detailed study clearly shows that the 'Red Revolution' itself was actually financed by the West. As to what the motives were, that is a very different and a very long story. However, to sum it up, I like you point of view.

Regards
cleesburg
Monday, September 07, 2009 1:21 PM
Wow! Sounds much like the Spring and Autumn War Period before grand unification in Chinese history happened over two thousand years ago...maybe European unification is real.
Patrick
Tuesday, September 08, 2009 7:52 AM
Eric:

History is written by the victors.......this is so true. There was an old axiom that history shouldn't be written until a 100 years after the events when all participants and children have passed from the scene. As we we pass the seventh decade of this truly terrible war, the truth is starting to emerge. Keep up the courageous writing. Patrick
A Taxpayer
Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:40 AM
I would be tempted to buy the assumption that "had Hitler not attacked first in 1941, Stalin’s thirty-million man army, backed by mammoth industrial production, would have overwhelmed all of Europe in a 1941 surprise blitz" if it wasn't for the Winter War between Finland and the USSR. On Nov 30 1939, the USSR attacked Finland with overwhelming forces and were stopped in their tracks by a very "inferior" but highly motivated Finish army.

That the Soviets planned to attack with the aforementioned forces is one thing. That they were going to overwhelm all of Europe is questionable.
igor
Wednesday, September 09, 2009 1:29 PM
I think you may be right in saying that Stalin might not have been able to take over Europe, but not for the reason that you mentioned. As a matter of fact, Finish army did not stop RKKA in its tracks. Rather, the Soviet army broke through the Mannerheim line and then stopped its advance, which was a political decision and not because the Finnish army stoped it in its tracks.

As for Stalin taking over Europe, Suvorov does make an argument that it was indeed the plan. Would have been possible? Probably not, simply because the people of Soviet Union might not have wanted to fight. There is a brillian book on the topic (for those who read Russian), written by Mark Solonin.

In responce to alfred: I wonder if Western intelligence agencies knew much about Soviet preparations. First of all, if they did know about it, why would Churchill plead with Stalin to start a war with Germany, and promise to support him, while Britain was under siege (i.e. didn't really have means to support Stalin)? Had Churchill known about these preparations, he wouldn't have had to bribe Stalin.

Second of all, Soviet Union started a second war with Finland (happened on July 22, 1941), but it seems to have gone unnoticed.
A Taxpayer
Thursday, September 10, 2009 12:56 PM
Igor, true and there again the Soviets were unable to overrun Finish defences
alfred
Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:22 PM
Igor,
I think it is not so important now whether Stalin was able to take whole Europe or not but the fact that he was planning to do so. Which, together with the pact with Germany in August 1939 and sharing Poland and other East European countries, make him no less responsible for WW2 that Hitler.

Which does not mean that the Russian People share that responsibility. They have been the greatest victims of Stalin and communism, not culprits of WW2. It is very tough for me to say so, as a German, but no matter how many German women got raped by Russian soldiers in Silesia and Prussia, no matter how many German civilians and POWs have been kidnapped to USSR never to be heard of again, I will never blame the Russians for anything in WW2.

As for the Winter War, yes, you are right and Suvorov makes his point very convincingly. The Mannerheim Line was a horrible obstacle and RKKA took it in wintertime - an impossible feat.
The second attack on Finland started on 22 June ´41 not July, but it doesn't matter.

Why Churchill wanted Stalin to attack Germany? You know why. Even if he had an idea about the scope of Stalin's preparations he probably believed that the Germans would take the blunt of Soviet invasion and in due course the US would come to the rescue of Britain, if threatened by USSR. He did not bribe Stalin with anything. Only when Moscow was threatened, Churchill began to send convoys to Russia, paid in gold.
MarkR
Friday, December 04, 2009 4:15 AM
Finland was defended behind impossible frozen terain of boulders forests and ice covered lakes plus fortifications similar to the Maginot Line (for the taking of which it was a rehearsal in my view). The Soviets had hundreds of thousands of paratroopers and thousands of amphibious armoured vehicles, all designed for offensive war in Europe. Read the book, it will completely revolutionise your understanding of history.
GeoJoe3
Friday, September 11, 2009 6:46 AM
Historians like to consider themselves as purists; they do not like to acknowledge
that the victors of war write history. The U.S., the U.K and Russia wrote the history
of WWII.

Did Germany and Russia collude to divide Poland? Did Germany and Russia despise
each other? Yes to both questions. Was Stalin an unimaginable monster, who confis-
cated the entire crops of the Ukraine, prior to WWII and starved 9 million Ukrainians? Yes,
again. Was Hitler deranged?--Yes. Was Patton wrong in saying that the Allies should
rearm the remnants of the defeated German Army, and march into Russia to completely
destroy the bastard ideology of communism?-- No, He was competely right, but politically
incorrect for his time.

I personally despise the leaders of America, the U.K and the USSR for distorting history.

Joseph L. Gause
MarkR
Friday, December 04, 2009 4:18 AM
Roosevelt was a Communist, he had several known Communists in his Government. Also coluded in giving the H Bomb to the Soviets.

Also, the real reason for nuclear bombing of Japan was to remove the Pacific threat from the Soviets.
EvaLisa
Friday, September 11, 2009 7:14 AM
One correction: in 1938, Finland was not Russian controlled territory. Finland had declared its independence from Russia in 1917.
Maynard
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:30 AM
Eric may I recommend ' Icebreaker" by Viktor Suvorov - his other defining work- see also " Stalin's war of Extermination' by Hoffman - a book so taboo that the the German author could not get it published in Germany. Re- confirms my view that if Hiter had not attacked Stalin- we would all be speaking Russian now.
peter
Neil
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:15 PM
Eric, very informative column. A book related to this column would be " Blood of Victory" by Alan Furst. Have you read it?
There are currently 15 comments
Comments Commentaries
Currently Ordered By:
Commentaries by Category