Stalin's Blindness
Stalin's BlindnessWHAT WAS JOSEPH STALIN THINKING when he allied himself with Adolf Hitler for nearly two years at the beginning of World War II? Historians have grappled with these questions ever since foreign ministers Joachim von Ribbentrop and Vyacheslav Molotov signed the infamous Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact on August 23, 1939, and the subsequent German attack on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. The German invasion blindsided Stalin and came closer than most people realize to achieving its aim of inflicting a swift, mortal blow to his country. In What Stalin Knew, David E. Murphy, a former CIA agent provides the most thorough answers to date. The Soviet leader was enthusiastic about dividing the spoils of Poland and the Baltic states. And, most tellingly, he slipped quite comfortably into the role of defending Germany and vilifying the British and the French. Murphy offers the first English translation of a speech Stalin allegedly made on August 19, 1939, right before formalizing his agreement with Hitler. In it, he argued that if the West defeated Germany in a long war, that country would be ripe for Sovietization; but if Germany won in a long war, it would be too exhausted to threaten the Soviet Union, and a Communist takeover would be likely in France. Hence a win-win situation for the Soviet Union, and his conclusion that "one must do everything to ensure that the war lasts as long as possible in order to exhaust both sides." Discussing the war "between two groups of capitalist countries, he asserted: "We see nothing wrong in their having a good fight and weakening each other." From Berlin, a source code-named Ariets reported on September 29, 1940, that Hitler intended to "resolve problems in the east in the spring of next year." Stalin reacted by ridding himself of Ivan Proskurov, the head of military intelligence who had consistently refused to buckle to his pressure to deliver better news. Murphy's book should put to rest the myth that Stalin was the brilliant savior of his country. Before he saved it, he almost destroyed it, when he had every opportunity to prepare his troops for the worst and at least limit their losses. In the end, 27 million Soviet citizens perished during "The Great Patriotic War."
Why didn't Hitler use WMD's?
The Allies were already baying for his blood; and that of his top cronies, so on that score he didn’t have much to lose. As for fearing that they (WMD’s) would have been used against his own forces and population centres, that doesn’t seem to wash either. He doesn’t exactly have a reputation for overly protective for either his fighting men, nor of the suffering of his civilian population. So the question remains why didn’t he use them? There were a few times when they could have been battle winners; especially during sieges. Like Leningrad,, Stalingrad (the early stages) and Sevastapol. The troops tied up there could most certainly have been put to a better use elsewhere. The one explanation that I have come across was that it was personal phobia with him. Albert Speer in his memoirs "Inside the Third Reich" writes that Hitler drew a line. No gas warfare as he had personally experienced the gas attack in WW-1.
posted by Unknown @ 10:21 PM
10 Comments:
Fjordman, when are you going to do something about that bad mannered blogger? Robertinarabia is entitled to an opinion without being insulted.
Jeez. I just thought Robertinarabia was being facetious!
"Fjordman, when are you going to do something about that bad mannered blogger? Robertinarabia is entitled to an opinion without being insulted."
Well, calling Hitler a civilized person seems rather strange to me and about 50 million dead people, unless it was a jest. But you're right, theBadMonkey shouldn't throw insults at others. Not everybody here agrees with all of your comments, either.
I personally think the argument presented, that using gas on the battlefield was too emotional for Hitler as a WW1 soldier, sounds plausible.
"I respect the fjordman's courageous resistance to the unremitting propaganda in favor of destroying European communities by means of government supported importation of foreigners of different races, cultures and creeds."
I am against Islam, but not all forms of immigration. Don't have any specific problems with most Chinese or Indians I meet here. But I still think it must be properly regulated, to absorb the numbers.
"Recently I visited the World War II exhibit at Les Invalides in Paris. They described it as the War of German Aggession. They omitted to mention that it was France and Great Britain that declared war on Germany in 1939."
Are you for real? The Germans invaded Poland and got proper warnings in advance. If anything, the Allies should have declared war much earlier as Hitler broke treaties. You seem to have some pro-Nazi hang-up. If that is the case, you don't belong in this website. I don't like fascists, that's why I don't like Islam. Go somewhere else.
Goodbye.
"I can respect views that are different from my own that are logically expressed."
So do I. There is no logic in claiming Germany was a victim of aggression after they without warning attacked Poland, and later without warning attacked the Soviet Union, despite the non-aggression pact. It's cheap Nazi propaganda.
The impending British invasion of Norway & Sweden was to aid the Finns against the Soviets. It was called off after the Finns & Soviets signed a peace treaty.
Although they were ostensibly neutral, both Norway and Sweden had given Britain ample reason for action by continuing to supply iron ore to Germany. Norway had also provided escort within its territorial waters to a German ship carrying British prisoners; in that case the British did attack & rescue the prisoners.
After the German invasion, the British & Free Polish armies fought with the Norwegian army and were winning until the evacuation at Dunkirk, at which point the British withdrew from Norway.
I am against Islam, but not all forms of immigration. Don't have any specific problems with most Chinese or Indians I meet here. But I still think it must be properly regulated, to absorb the numbers. - Fjordman
This is a dangerous game you intend to play, if you had full control of immigration for Norway. The Chinese and Indians are pleasant enough when dealt in small numbers, however small numbers get bigger and bigger over time. Even the law abiding Chinese and less so Indians will want and demand THEIR interests to be respected in a country that has no genetic interest with them. Needless to say, I completely disagree with immigration of non-proximate genetic peoples immigrating into any European country. It serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Europe, the homeland of white peoples needs to remain a homeland and not a hodgepodge of foreigners. Having a homeland is as important as having an identity. Once your identity is lost, then so is the soul and the people. The argument is less convincing for the New Worlds, however an argument CAN be made there as well. Though with Europe, it is absolutely critical and needs to be fought for, tooth and nail.
As an addendum to my post above, Europe is quite socialist in mentality and practice. Since socialism, in my opinion, is an untenable ideology, the reason it has lasted and relatively flourished in certain European countries is because of the proximate, homogenous ethny that are found in these countries. With more and more of a mix happening, especially in countries like Sweden, you see what happens when there is a clash of "cultures". Can anyone find me a Chinese, Indian, or Muslim that is willing to pay 70% tax in order for their money to help others of other ethnies, especially white? Out of several billion people, you would be hard pressed to find many who would be willing to go along with such anti-self preservation policies.
"Since socialism is an untenable ideology, the reason it has lasted and relatively flourished in certain European countries is because of the proximate, homogenous ethny that are found in these countries. With more and more of a mix happening, especially in countries like Sweden, you see what happens when there is a clash of "cultures". Can anyone find me a Chinese, Indian, or Muslim that is willing to pay 70% tax in order for their money to help others of other ethnies, especially white?"
That is a valid point. The only reason why the Scandinavian welfare states have even partially worked is because the countries have been extremely ethnically homogeneous. This won't last with continued immigration. Which means that the argument that "immigration is needed to finance the welfare state" is wrong.
Fjordman my friend, my first post/point is even more valid. Though unfortunately it sounds more "racist" thanks to the times we find ourselves in. My first point gets down to the actual result of all this non-proximate immigration, namely race replacement of the native peoples and eventual genocide of native Europeans in their countries of origin and their respective cultures. In essence, that will be the result of all this. All we need to do is see what has happened and is currently happening in Sweden to get a flavor of allowing immigration of peoples who have nothing in common with the native culture, both genetically and culturally. The illogic with this genocidal policy is mind-boggling and the perpetrators of this policy should be treated with the same harshness as anyone else in history that has inflicted murderous ideologies on their people. The elite of Sweden are no better than an Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe. They inflict great misery on their people and their politics will lead to their eventual extinction of a country and culture.
Will Sweden still be Sweden with no Swedes and 100% full of Turkish Muslims? I think not. Will it still be Sweden with 60% Swedes and 40% Muslims/Africans? No. Anything more than a smidgeon (<5%)of non-proximate immigrants will lead to changing of a country culturally, genetically, and politically. I am not in favor of ANY non-proximate immigration, period. Europe is for Europeans.
Post a Comment
<< Home