By Rostislav Ishchenko
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard
cross posted with https://www.stalkerzone.org/the-plan-of-marcks-the-barbarossa-directive-and-banderism-in-wwii/
There is a false opinion that is popular in narrow circles of Rezun adherents that the “unfortunate peaceable” Fuhrer, having suddenly learned that the USSR concentrated too many troops in the Western Military Districts, scratched around, and with the incidental divisions found near at hand was forced to urgently attack the USSR in order to not be attacked himself.
In practice Hitler gave the order to prepare an attack on the USSR already on July 31st 1940 (France capitulated on June 22nd of the same year).
He motivated his position not at all by the fact that the USSR was preparing to attack him, but by saying that the disappearance of the last major (alternative to German) military force in Europe will deprive Great Britain of hope for a result of war that is positive for it, and London will agree to make peace on the terms of Berlin. I.e., Hitler planned to “heal” the war that was already launched by him via a new war only because his calculations on the tractability of England after the defeat of France failed.
Directive No. 21, which approved the “Barbarossa Option”, appeared only on December 18th 1940. It became the development of the “Ost” plan elaborated by the General Erich Marcks, who was considered to be the best specialist of the OKH (Oberkommando des Heeres) on Russia. Marcks presented his reasons in August, but they did not satisfy Hitler, and the “Ost” plan was improved on the basis of the instructions of the Fuhrer by the group under the leadership of the well-known in Russia – thanks to the Battle of Stalingrad – General Friedrich Paulus.
Here it is necessary to make the reservation of the rather personal qualities of General Paulus. All of his colleagues recognised him as a well educated officer who was brilliantly prepared for staff work. But at the same time they nevertheless noted his obedience. Paulus always unconditionally obeyed the person with a stronger character irrespective of whether the latter occupied in relation to him a leading position (like Hitler) or a subordinated position (like the chief of his headquarters in the 6th army Major General Arthur Schmidt). Paulus executed orders irrespective of whether he considered them to be correct or nhttp://thesaker.is/ending-a-cultural-revolution-can-only-be-counter-revolutionary-7-8/ot. Thanks to this quality of Paulus, the deployment of troops within the framework of the “Barbarossa Directive” happened as a part of three groups of armies, and not two, as General Marcks proposed.
The matter is that Erich Marcks, apparently, was not only a great expert on Russia, but also a sensible staff officer who perfectly acquired the principles of the adventurous strategy of blitzkrieg, which allowed Germany to win at the first stages of World War II. Blitzkrieg assumed a victory by the smaller forces of a stronger opponent due to a concentration of troops (including all mobile formations) in strategic directions unexpected for it. The created local superiority materialised into deep breaches. The mobile formations supported by aircraft destroyed the rear, provided a loss by the highest headquarters of the leadership of troops, after which the front units found themselves in numerous cauldrons, catastrophically losing their fighting capacity, the organised defence of the country collapsing, and the fighting was turning into an operation to clean up the area from the remains of troops of the opponent, already demoralised and incapable of resistance.
This approach justified itself in Poland, in France, and at the beginning (in 1941) in the USSR. In 1942 the success of German troops on the Eastern front was local and didn’t have such a catastrophic character for the USSR. In general in 1942, despite large-scale defeats on the Southern flank, the Staff of the General Headquarters retained control over the situation.
The strategy of blitzkrieg was dictated by the general weakness of Germany in comparison with its opponents. Without going on adventures that were dangerous and fraught with instant defeat, Germany could not count on victories. But an adventure on the verge of catastrophic defeat, if it was successful, led to a just as catastrophic defeat of the opponent. This method is expressed in a proverb today: “He who takes no chances drinks no champagne”.
In full compliance with the strategy of blitzkrieg, General Marcks made a plan that was extremely adventurous, but in the event it was triumphant it promised absolute success. The deployment of “Ost” was supposed to be carried out within the framework of two groups of armies operating to the North of the Polesia swamps. In the South, Romania and Hungary didn’t have to enter the war, which provided the impossibility of an attack of Soviet troops through their territory. And in order to defend the Carpathian passes leading to Poland, there were rather enough small forces. The Polesia swamps, extending from the border to Bryansk, had to cover the open Southern flank of the attacking group. It was supposed to control them also by rather small forces.
Thus, the Soviet troops concentrated in Ukraine (40% of all potential and 50% of mobile formations) had to switch-off from active fighting until the attacking German army appeared on the outskirts of Moscow, in the deep rear of the Ukrainian group of Soviet troops. At the second stage (after capturing Moscow and Leningrad) it was supposed to drive the Soviet troops concentrated in the South towards the Black Sea and the Caucasian ridge and to destroy them with the assistance of the Turkish army, which had to strike them in the rear.
It is unknown whether they would have succeeded to implement this plan, but specific battles of 1941 show that, despite all its adventurousness, it could’ve been realised in the condition of strict fulfilment. During this period of war the Soviet troops proved to be good in passive defence, but no so good at deep and difficult offensive operations, and the command was catastrophically late to react to the actions of the enemy. That’s why the isolation of the large group of Soviet troops in Ukraine in the specific conditions of 1941 is not something unreal.
However, Hitler, who was always much more careful than his Generals, stated that he cannot fight without Ukrainian bread, coal, and metal, etc. He demanded the development of an operation taking into account the need to occupy Ukraine. Conscientious Paulus developed the “Barbarossa” plan, within the framework of which over 30% of German military power as a part of the “South” army groups had to operate to the South of the Polesia swamps (in Ukraine). At the same time, expeditious collaboration between the “Centre” and “South” army groups would be achieved only after arriving at the Smolensk-Chernigov line. This would reduce (although it didn’t completely remove) the general operational risk, but would also sharply reduce the chances of success.
The specific peripeteias of fighting in the Great Patriotic War were repeatedly parsed. The critical, on the verge of a Soviet defeat, situation of 1941 came to an end with the victorious battle of Moscow, after which it was a question only of what year, with what forces, and with what losses will the USSR crush Germany. But for us the transformation of the “Ost” plan into the “Barbarossa” plan is important due to the fact that if it wasn’t for the German occupation of Ukraine, we would not face such a phenomenon as civil war during the Great Patriotic War.
Traitors and collaborators were everywhere (in Western and Eastern Europe, in different regions of the USSR). On Russian territories there was a “Lokot republic” of Kaminsky, and besides Vlasov’s Russian Liberation Army, the 15th SS Cossack Cavalry Corps of Lieutenant General Helmuth von Pannwitz worked in the structure of the German army, and there was also the Baltic and Caucasian “SS legions”, even in Belarus there were its own homegrown henchmen, although the most part had to be sent from Ukraine and from the Baltics. However, in any region, including the Baltics, the amount of the local population that was at war as a part of the Red Army exceeded (some by orders of magnitude, and some by percentage, but all the same exceeded) the number of those who went to serve the enemy.
In Ukraine there was a cardinally different situation. In its central and its Southeast regions the picture was approximately the same as the average for the Union. But the Western regions, generally Galicia, were on the side of the enemy almost in full strength. It’s not a coincidence that after war the USSR couldn’t cope with banderism for a long time. UPA enjoyed the support of the local population. Even Banderist terror would be impracticable if it wasn’t for the support of the local population.
During the war about 1,200,000 Soviet citizens served in different military and auxiliary formations of the Wehrmacht, the SS, and police. From them, according to the data of the German command, 400,000 were Russians and 250,000 were Ukrainians. However, according to the same data, over half a million (nearly a half) from all collaborators lived on the territory of Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic before the war. The Germans simply considered as Ukrainians mainly Galicia residents or those people who officially adopted the ideology of Ukrainian nationalism.
Moreover, as was said above, collaborators from Ukraine and from the Baltics alone (three small republics gave in total 230,000 collaborators) were used to maintain order in other regions (in the regions of Belarus, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and Eastern Ukraine, where their own collaborators were lacking in numbers). There was one essential difference between the Ukrainian and Baltic collaborators. A considerable part of the latter indeed fought at the front. The former mainly committed atrocities in the rear. The actions of Baltic police battalions outside the actual territory of the Baltics aren’t as known (there are several cases in Belarus). But the Ukrainian (Galician) punishers “glorified themselves” for both Khatyn and atrocities committed while interrogating members of the Young Guard in Krasnodon. Henchmen from Galicia were brought to Kiev, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Donbass, as well as to the regions of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic bordering with Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (Rostov, Belgorod), and also to Belarus.
I draw your attention to the fact that in the area of actions of Galician collaborators, 2/3rds of spaces are occupied by the Southeast and central regions of Ukraine, where their own collaborators were lacking in numbers. It is precisely this that grants us the right to say that during the Great Patriotic War the occupied territory of Ukraine became the arena of civil war between the Russian population of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (which became partisans) and the Galician collaborators. Banderism, suppressed after war, only went underground. In new conditions, with the collapse of the USSR, this civil war resumed, and rather quickly went through a cold stage and since 2014 has acquired open character.
However, there is also an even more important detail. During the Great Patriotic War the Ukrainian collaborators, performing punitive functions on the territories of the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic and Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, already tried to transfer civil war beyond the border of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic – to set fire to all the USSR. Now, by talking about their “war” with Russia and about their readiness to carry out saboteur work against it, trying to establish ties with Russian marginal opposition and to create a terrorist underground on its foundations, modern Banderists again try to solve a problem that was not solved by their predecessors – to transfer civil war from the territory of Ukraine to Russia and to destroy the Russian State.
The defeat of Germany in war became a condition for a victory over banderism after the Great Patriotic War. The condition of a victory over modern banderism is a victory in the hybrid war launched by the US against Russia and now also China.
Hitler was a tool of the Anglo-German elite. Bolsheviks too. Their purpose was to kill off a massive generation of talent in Europe and the Soviet Union primarily. Of course there was the usual skulduggery by British aristocrats, financiers, intelligence but all together they killed 25 to 50 million mostly young men and secured Anglo-American hegemony.
Once you know the back story everything else, especially about today, falls nicely into place. The only war that matters is the class war perpetrated by a genocidal elite who now have the technological means to selectively destroy whomever they dislike.
That is indeed correct. What is the difference between Napoleon and Hitler ? None. Both were proxy fighters.
In 1812 Napoleon invades Russia with the biggest Army he ever assembled. His Russian campaign is well known. However, one thing was never explained by historians, and that is the question of the money that available to him. Who payed for his campaign ? Answer: The Rothschilds.
In 1941 Hitler invades the Soviet Union (Russia). He, like Napoleon, assembles the largest Army of his war. Historians, again, fail to explain the money factor, namely where Hitler got the money, not only for the Russian invasion, but for the entire war. Answer: From the Rothschild’s, and from Wall Street, with Wall Street even building up German industry after World War One. Yes, Hitler theatrically closed down three Rothschild’s banks in Germany after assuming power, giving the impression that he was “not” under Rothschild’s control. However, historians are again “forgetful”, ignoring the fact that Wall Street in 1931 opened the Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, right next to the German border. It was this bank which financed Hitler, who in 1945 “commits” suicide. Or did he ? Historians are yet again “forgetful”. In their writings they fail to mention the fact that Hitlers bunker in Berlin had four escape tunnels. In Japan and Argentina it’s common knowledge that he escaped.
Since both Napoleon and Hitler failed as proxy fighters in their invasions of Russia, that honor was bestowed to NATO. However, as far as I see, NATO cannot count on Europe, which does not wish to be turned into a battlefield for a third time. The impression is that even the Germans have grasped the fact that on two previous occasions they had been played, turned into pawns for the bankers.
“Historians, again, fail to explain the money factor, namely where Hitler got the money, not only for the Russian invasion, but for the entire war. Answer: From the Rothschild’s, and from Wall Street, with Wall Street even building up German industry after World War One. ”
– This logic fails to explain their own failure in building up a strong, modern and fully motorized German military, if the intentions of Hitler was to wage a large scale war. Probably Hitler was an idiot in matters of economics and probably his military strategists were also idiots who haven’t learned the lessons from the previous war regarding the stocks and preparedness of the army and country for any eventuality, moreover for a perpetrated, long war. The German Intelligence also failed to give the right numbers of military related production in the supposed foe countries for which they planned the war ? Germany as a whole, was not prepared for war, probably something escaped from their imagination : the reality.
After WW1, Germany had no more colonies, had to import a lot of goodies which were basics for the military (rubber and oil among others). The Rotschields did nothing in that sense to ameliorate the German needs, like saying ” ok, I give you the money but I close the market for you”. What kind of business is that ? was Hitler and his economists indeed so stupid ? The German economic production reached its highest only in 1943, already in war and in retreat and under daily bombardments. If somebody has a plan of a wide military adventure, it has to get prepared well in advance, at least for the basics. How can you conquer a huge landmass with an army which has only 30% motorized units and 70% horse-tracked wagons, artillery and supply units ? The blitzkrieg strategy may have functioned against the Poles, even against the French and British troops with such an army because of shorter distances, but in the former Soviet Union everything is clear, they needed just to look at the map (as in the picture above), but probably they were in trans. The initial victories of 1941 were all due to the tactical surprise and they were a great achievement when you look at the whole German military structure. The depth of the territory and prolonged supply lines came in quickly as a huge problem…and begun the battle with time…and time begun to tick and bite.
Conclusion : if the Rotschilds and the world Bank gave the money, they did a bad business from start, or, they gave with one hand and took it with the other – in which case, Hitler was an idiot.
I wonder to what extent the actors saw (see) themselves as, well, actors. Hitler is busy being Hitler while Warburg, Schiff et al ( I rather imagine) command large sums of Money and Brown Brothers Harriman acts as the conduit.
Add mimesis and rivalry(madness) to the mix and you get a regular witches’ brew; rationality becomes an afterthought.
The point is that Hitler, backed by the bankers, had no choice but to attack in 1941, and for two reasons. First of all, a huge military could not be financed permanently. Look at the US military. Huge amounts of money spent on it at the expense of infrastructure. Secondly, Stalin in 1941 had barely finished with his industrialization plans, and Russia could not be permitted to grow any stronger. Some ten years back, he said the famous prophetic words:”We have ten years to catch up with the West, or else they will crush us”. Remarkable foresight. The West did indeed attack. NATO has now taken over from Hitler.
The best way (IMO) to look at the Rothschilds and their gang of affiliated bankers, is to view them as a pack of wolves. Wolves that scatter the herds and then go in for the kill (usually in the form of power over the resources). The financial support is just a tool to get the herds moving. Politics or religion is completely irrelevant, other than as a tool to get the herds moving.
What is missing from the picture, and is sorely needed, is for some competent shepherds and good sheepdogs to protect the herds, but unfortunately the politicians are cheap and put their own interests first, or they don’t rise to “leadership” positions.
Britains elites through their creation of the angloamerican establishment have controlled the propaganda-activity called History. Therefore important pieces of the puzzle are hidden. Your thinking spots the absurdity. And you need to consider Britains past conspiracies during the 19th century and even before to decode the later development. Both the romantic era and Britains worldwide youth organisations played a role in winning hearts and minds for various oppositional projects both lean and extreme. Lean like encouraging Germans to oppose and detest the apparent french dominance in literature; and extreme like revolutionary activities. The fact that Britain undisturbed by any scrutiny by widely read historians have been able to play all their rivals like pawns is part of the reason for the later phases.
The fact that Britain undisturbed in a similar manner was able to set both zionism and nazism in motion without wellplaced experts even mentioning it adds to the explanation. Since masonic networks are involved it is no surprise that there existed loyalties to rely on among the conspirators.
Moreover German funding of Hitler partly hided that those germans, like Thyssen, were simply conduits for american financiers.
In both world wars the victors and simultaneously the masterminds, had ample opportunity to access and remove from sight national archives from the rival nations. And to buy exclusive rights for recording the history. The Rockefellers purchased such rights.
Regarding the Rothschilds. They without exception were always aligned with the aristocracy, which protected the Rs and thus their specific skills in funding both sides of wars could play out in full.
And despite this loyalty to the aristocracy at the expence of the common people, the jews were collectively backstabbed by the aristocracy in order to secure the close relation with the jewish financial networks.
This double-play by Britain ought not to be too difficult to uncover in an internet world where deception is often exposed. But the mainstream among altmedia still dont get it or dont admit it.
Britain benefitted from using jewish networks and simultaneously covertly backstabbing them so they had no other partner than the angloamerican elites.
This double-play is still running undisturbed by any intelligent scrutiny on the altmedia. I dont question the honesty of many of those who fail to see it. To an extent it could be related to priorities: That americans primarily want to put an end to the current foreign policy and that they dont want to loose momentum by defending the jews but would rather eliminating their influence altogether. Since that influence was long ago organised by the British in parallell with Britains Israel project there is reason to see the origin of jewish influence in the Us as a proxy for the British empire. By only considering the proxy there is something missing. When the Integrity Initative was exposed, the Trump government didnt say much about it.
Likewise the altmedia havent used it much either.
So Britain is still given special treatment despite the freedom of speech on the web.
History shows that napolien got his money from the sale in 1803 of the louisana purchase, bonds that america got from borrowing money from the brits and the dutch, this was no mystery but to the speculators.
Good thread. Both Napoleon & Hitler were gay, cryptoJewish polit-actors in service of the Jewish Mafia – like their contemporary counterparts Macron & Merkel. Enough said.
Napoleon gay? That’s a new one! Hitler was sexually perverted with an emphasis on coprophilia, a rare disturbance.
Quite correct. In my opinion, any history book that ignores where the money came from in any conflict is not a history book at all. It is a sham.
The Rothschilds and the Warburgs financed both sides of all these European conflicts. With the winner, their assets went up tenfold. Their losses on the losing side are relatively little.
It is really about time some real historians wrote the history of Europe with the flows of funds described. Everyone knows that today the USA woud not be able to have 800 military bases worldwide if they were not able to invent an almost unlimited number of dollars. As soon as the dollar crashes, which it won’t do for many years, all these soldiers will have to find their own way home.
Follow the money as they say. Also you should mention the role the Zurich gnomes played in the financial schemes. By the way some years ago I watched a document series – The Secret History of USA. A very well balanced series touching questions and issues which are totally forbidden in the media. You maybe will find it interesting.
“The Secret History of USA” ??? You need to tell us more. There is a book – not a series – with that name, or “The Secret History of the United States: Conspiracies, Cobwebs and Lies” by Peter Kross, but really we are just batting at cobwebs here. If this material is worth posting a mention, it’s worth getting the needed details. Also, a few sentences about the content of whatever this is, would either save readers’ time by skipping it, or would cause a flood of motivated readers.
Sorry Cosimo. My bad. I messed the title. The series are named ‘The untold history of the United States’. Here is a wiki link -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Untold_History_of_the_United_States
Also you can still find the series in you tube.
The Soviets during the war seem to have formed effective groups (Smersh ,”Death to Spies” being one) to counter the traitors.And countered them without mercy.After the war there was wrong headed thinking that it would be better to spare the remnants of the traitors remaining.Because of that error today we have the banderites back again committing unspeakable crimes against the peoples of Rus. This time if they are defeated there should be no remnants spared.Those that commit those crimes and do not surrender before defeat must feel the full weight of justice.No matter who or where they are,nor how many they are.Don’t make the same mistake again,and let another generation have to fight them once again.
Believe it or not, the Russian population was much more afraid by the banderites than by the German soldiers, the difference lays in the amplitude of hate and terror. These groups had no mercy nor remorse, acting with a cruelty equal to those committed by the Huns. Many German units have complained to their superiors (you won’t find such documents today) because these banderites were wearing also German uniforms with a small insignia, fighting on their side, thus being considered de facto as part of the German Army. As a consequence, the responsibility for any atrocities committed felt on the German side in the terms underlined by the Geneva Convention of 1929.
It only takes a tiny proportion of Evil psychopaths to create a death-squad regime. The death-squads that rampaged across Latin America in the 70s and 80s, or in Yugoslavia, comprised but a few hundred or thousand butchers, backed by the rich, compradore, parasite elites in thrall to Thanatopia. The populace lived in terror, or supported the carnage, having no choice, but would be capable of being persuaded that the brutality was wicked.
The root of this Evil lies in the psychopathic elites that rule in the West. The use of death-squads by the Real Evil Empire goes back centuries, certainly since the Monroe Doctrine declared Latin America to be the possession of the USA, and its people irrelevant ‘useless eaters’. This doctrine was also used in Korea and Indochina, with stooge death-squad regimes and armies created there to terrorise the people. Similar regimes exist in utero, so to speak, throughout the West itself, just awaiting the circumstances of widespread popular revolt and threatened overthrow of elite rule to be mobilised, as in Chile in 1973, a society that considered itself ‘Western’ and ‘civilized’ at that point.
The death-squad activities in the Western heartlands are somewhat disguised, and act indirectly, through brutal austerity, one-sided class warfare, mass incarceration, epidemics of highly profitable opioid drug addiction, racial and religious discrimination etc, all leading to lower life expectancy, premature deaths and impoverished life conditions, materially and spiritually-a sort of living death, imposed on the ‘useless eaters’ by the parasite elites. Meanwhile throughout the Middle East, in Libya, Syria, Gaza, the West Bank, Yemen, Iraq etc, the traditional death-squads terrorise the populations in service to their Masters and creators in Thanatopolis DC, Ten Aviv and Riyadh. Murder Incorporated exists to kill and its business is Death, and business is good and getting better.
This is an interesting article, the proposition that germany might have succeeded had they bypassed the Ukraine is also interesting.
“He motivated his position not at all by the fact that the USSR was preparing to attack him, but by saying that the disappearance of the last major (alternative to German) military force in Europe will deprive Great Britain of hope for a result of war that is positive for it, and London will agree to make peace on the terms of Berlin. I.e., Hitler planned to “heal” the war that was already launched by him via a new war only because his calculations on the tractability of England after the defeat of France failed.”
Actually, hitler had plans to germanize eastern Europe long before he started WW2.
“Motivations for Invading USSR
As early as 1925, Adolf Hitler vaguely declared in his political manifesto and autobiography Mein Kampf that he would invade the Soviet Union, asserting that the German people needed to secure Lebensraum (“living space”) to ensure the survival of Germany for generations to come. On February 10, 1939, Hitler told his army commanders that the next war would be “purely a war of Weltanschauungen…totally a people’s war, a racial war.” On November 23, once World War II already started, Hitler declared that “racial war has broken out and this war shall determine who shall govern Europe, and with it, the world.” The racial policy of Nazi Germany viewed the Soviet Union (and all of Eastern Europe) as populated by non-Aryan Untermenschen (“sub-humans”), ruled by “Jewish Bolshevik conspirators.” Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf that Germany’s destiny was to “turn to the East” as it did “six hundred years ago.” Accordingly, it was stated Nazi policy to kill, deport, or enslave the majority of Russian and other Slavic populations and repopulate the land with Germanic peoples, under the Generalplan Ost (“General Plan for the East”). The Germans’ belief in their ethnic superiority is discernible in official German records and by pseudoscientific articles in German periodicals at the time, which covered topics such as “how to deal with alien populations.”
Expanding east and erradicating the nazi/fascist/capitalist enemy of socialism/communism/”the left” was hitlers, and his facilitators, primary motive for starting the war. Their conquest of western Europe was to remove the possibility of having to fight both in the east and in the west at the same time. Hitler opted to knock out western Europe and solidify it under german control before going after “the big one”, the USSR. A practical and logical strategy.
I.e., Hitler planned to “heal” the war that was already launched by him via a new war only because his calculations on the tractability of England after the defeat of France failed.”
– Where is the logic here ? if you have an enemy in your face, you let him undefeated and turn your face to another, much bigger and try to defeat him – with less chances – while leaving the first one left in your back to recover, knowing, the both will shake hands against you. The cake is but when the first enemy also turns to his much bigger old friend overseas for help against you. Then you have now a coalition of the world biggest armies with the biggest economy behind them.This is the logic of a suicide story, even the Lebensraum theory cannot sustain.
A couple of things. First, hitler was on a tight schedule. Western Europe in 1940, Eastern Europe and Western Asia in 1941-2. The UK screwed things up by not surrendering by 1941. Germany had to begin war on the USSR in 1941, or else it faced a much stronger USSR in 1942. The internal situation in the USSR, the late 30s purges, the disorder they caused, opened a window of opportunity, but the window was fast closing, even by 1941. Probably, an attack in 1942 would bog down too soon due to a much better prepared USSR.
Second, I agree hitlers strategy, taking on everyone, was suicide. But things obviously didn’t go as planned. Partly, germany was set up. Contrary to what you claim, there was no guarantee the usa would enter the war against germany. As it was, they didn’t till Dec. 1941, well after the uk’s close call in 1940. If the usa were hellbent to save britain, the summer of 1940 was the time.
The usa was supporting both the uk and germany and emphatically wanted to see germany take on the USSR. By not coming to britain’s defense in 1940, it is clear the americans were willing to sacrifice the uk in order to have germany then invade the USSR.
The support among the american oligarchy for germany was obviously well known by the nazis. They were not expecting the usa to declare war due to that support and the anti-war mood there. In fact it took the Japanese Pearl Harbor attack to get the americans to declare war. Without that attack, it is doubtful the usa would have declared on germany.
It even took more than that. Hitler’s Germany honoring their Axis treaty with Japan actually declared war on the US.Even though the US might have declared war on Germany anyway later.Germany declaring war on them made the war much easier to sell to the US population. Had they not done that it might have been a while before Germany and the US were at war.How that would have effected the war is unknown.
The cost of uncertainty is rising.
If the USA had stayed out of the European theatre, the Red Army would have reached the Atlantic.
The Us just made a rockade changing directors with some other european subsidiaries and continued with business ass usual in Nazigermany helping Hitler in the war effort against themselves which illustrates how wrong it is to focus on military strategic aspects when it was all about the cartel profits.
On the other hand, Hitler the dupe, indoctrinated by the British, would obviously consider it strategically in so far as his competence allowed but that wasnt much.
Had Hitler not been played so successfully by the British he would never had hoped for any partnership with Britain. But Britain had been skillfully preparing the ground for generations.
The lack of attention to the British role is a consequence of their power over all branches of opinionmaking which Carroll Quigley pointed out in his marginalised scrutiny of the angloamerican establishment.
Neither Stalin or Roosevelt were fans of Britain’s Empire. The US was surprisingly pro-Communist in WW2, even in WW1 at the top political level, e.g. the President. US entry into WW1 probably had more to do with the creation of Israel and getting a say in post-war settlements than anything else, at that point in history the US had had several wars against England, zero wars against Germany and was making a fortune out of all the combatant countries while building up their industrial base.
Having said that, the decision to enter both WW1 and WW2 were probably came more from the multinational financiers than the politicians. An interesting “what if” is what if Roosevelt hadn’t died when he did? which we’ll never know as he died and Truman took over.
“Expanding east and erradicating the nazi/fascist/capitalist enemy of socialism/communism/”the left” was hitlers,”
That got messed up. What I meant was:
Expanding east and erradicating the socialism/communism/”the left” enemy of the nazi/fascist/capitalists was hitlers,
“Effectivity” of armed forces having losses 14,600,000 deceased own military persons in 1941-45 (according new study by Lev Lopukhovsky, Boris Kavalerchik and Harold Orenstein,numbers backed by David Glantz)?
WW2 was disaster for USSR. Price of victory was absolutely too high. Russian army would never repeat failuries of 1939-45.
On 27 September 1940 , Germany, Italy and Japan signed the Tripartite Pact which stipulates :
ARTICLE 1. Japan recognizes and respects the leadership of Germany and Italy in the establishment of a new order in Europe.
ARTICLE 2. Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan in the establishment of a new order in Greater East Asia.
ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.
(even the term “new world order” is already there, at that time – nothing new under the sun)
Who might be those powers, the article 3 refers to ? Soviet Russia, USA and Great Britain.
In the mid 30’s everybody knew that a war is approaching, there were many signs, among them the Anti-Comintern Pact which was signed on November 25, 1936 between Japan and Germany.
Here’s the text (extract) : ” .. recognizing that the aim of the Communist International, known as the Comintern, is to disintegrate and subdue existing States by all the means at its command; convinced that the toleration of interference by the Communist International in the internal affairs of the nations not only endangers their internal peace and social well-being, but is also a menace to the peace of the world desirous of co-operating in the defense against Communist subversive activities…”
Another extract from Wikipedia about this Pact : ” At about a year after the Munich Agreement, in August 1939, Germany broke the terms of the Anti-Comintern Pact when the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed between the Soviet Union and Germany.On September 25, 1940, Ribbentrop sent a telegram to Vyacheslav Molotov, the Soviet foreign minister, informing him that Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan were about to sign a military alliance. Ribbentrop tried to reassure Molotov by claiming that this alliance was to be directed towards the United States and not the Soviet Union.”
The political playing around has gone wild in those years, a naval agreement was signed between Germany and Great Britain, a non aggression agreement was signed between Germany and Poland, a secret agreement between Great Britain and Italy under Mussolini (who feared about Austria joining the Reich) meanwhile putting his hands on Ethiopia), and so on, At a given stage, even the USSR wanted to join the Tripartite Pact ( I wonder why ? to by time of course ) A clear mistrust among the actors (as chimmy noted) gave the colors and shape of what was in the air.
Not sure what your point is there. Perhaps it’s my advanced senility. ;-D
What I’m saying is that the mistrust was obvious between and among all parties in those years before the beginning of open hostilities, that being the case even among the so called Axis Powers, everyone wanted to fry its own portion of bacon, the several pacts and mutual documents signed in that time between various parties were more or less constrained by circumstances. It was the time of positioning. It was a hard decision for Germany and Italy under Mussolini to be partners when in the first world war they were enemies, Italy annexed south Tirol from Austria, Austria became part of the German Reich, Slovakia became independent and a client state of Germany, Hungary annexed part of Transylvania from Romania after a dictate signed by Italy and Germany, meanwhile Romania has lost Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, and the Hertza region after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet invasion of Finland on 30 November 1939 and the swallowing of the Baltic states by Soviet Union which is related to the same Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
(a sideline : when I visited Soviet Union in 1984, being in Leningrad, the guide said the following : “we made pact with the Devil in order to avoid the war and we were punished later” and somebody added : “yes, but you have peace now, you won the war and freed Europe from fascism”, the guide continued :
” indeed, but the price we payed is tremendous…and Europe is still hating us…that’s the Russian fate, folks…”
Thanks to the author for this informative article.
There is always something to learn on this site, comments are usually also very informative
I wonder about the lack of Germany getting Japan to attack the Russians after Germany launched their invasion. There would have been no reinforcements from Siberia for the battle of Moscow. It would then have been the Soviet Union fighting a two front war. It may be the Japanese had no taste for fighting the Soviet Union after having been soundly defeated by Zhukov in 1939. I have read nothing about any attempts by the Germans to persuade Japan to attack. Yet Ggermany declared war on the United States when the US went to war against the Japanese.
To understand this, we have to begin with the end of story, that is, with the battle for Moscow in 1941,with the Soviet counter-attack dated December 5, 1941. But well before this, here is what happened (from Wikipedia) :
“The Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, also known as the Japanese–Soviet Non-aggression Pact, was a neutrality pact between the Soviet Union and Japan signed on April 13, 1941, two years after the brief Soviet–Japanese Border War. This treaty would allow both Japan and the Soviet Union to avoid fighting on multiple fronts. The treaty was signed in Moscow on April 13, 1941, by Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka and Ambassador Yoshitsugu Tatekawa for Japan and Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov for the Soviet Union.
On the same day, the same people also signed a declaration regarding Mongolia and Manchukuo. The Soviet Union pledged to respect the territorial integrity and inviolability of Manchukuo, while Japan did the same for Mongolia.
Later in 1941, Japan, as a signatory of the Tripartite Pact, considered denouncing the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, especially after Germany invaded the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa), but made the crucial decision to keep it and to expand southwards invading the European colonies in Southeast Asia instead. This had a direct bearing on the Battle of Moscow, where the absence of a Japanese threat enabled the Soviets to move large forces from Siberia and throw them into the fighting against the Germans.”
Having her back assured, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 (Soviet counter-attack : 5 December 1941)
Jumping in time : ” On April 5, 1945, the Soviet Union denounced the pact, informing the Japanese government that “in accordance with Article Three of the above mentioned pact, which envisaged the right of denunciation one year before the lapse of the five-year period of operation of the pact, the Soviet Government hereby makes known to the Government of Japan its wish to denounce the pact of April 13, 1941.” The wording of the denunciation suggested that the Soviet Union wished to see the treaty go out of effect immediately, and Time magazine reported that the Soviet Foreign Commissar’s tone indicated that the Soviet Union might go to war with Japan soon. However, the text of the treaty clearly stated that the pact remained in force until April 1946. When pressed by the Japanese Ambassador Naotake Sato, Molotov confirmed that the treaty did remain in force until April 1946.
On August 9, 1945, just after midnight Manchurian time, the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria. The declaration of war followed nearly six hours later. Because of the time zone difference of 7 hours, the declaration of war could be still dated August 8, 1945, being presented to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow at 11 p.m. Moscow time. ”
“This had a direct bearing on the Battle of Moscow, where the absence of a Japanese threat enabled the Soviets to move large forces from Siberia and throw them into the fighting against the Germans.”
This is a myth. The following essay debunks that myth thoroughly:
The ‘Siberian’ Divisions and the Battle for Moscow in 1941-42
The number of units transfered from Siberia were small in number, were insignificant compared to the number of units existing and newly created and very few were in fact defending Moscow.
I wish people would stop using wikipedia as a source for historical discussion. They are not very accurate, full of bias, and a waste of time.
It is not about numbers of troops transferred from eastern Siberia back to Moscow offensive, rather the simple fact – which is not negligible – that hostilities in east have ceased, the Japanese were heavily involved in south-east Asia and a new powerful enemy for Japan appeared on the horizon, the USA, by targeting Pearl Harbor. The Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact had a great impact, otherwise, Stalin wouldn’t have approve it. Those troops, newly trained in Siberia were able to participate in the counter-offensive at Moscow instead of being sent eastward. This fact, does not alter the Soviet scope in winning the war, even contrary, it was a necessary step. Stalin was one of the greatest political chess-players.
I don’t know on how much Wikipedia is biased or not but what I posted by referring to it was the Pact itself and it seems accurate to me.
The non aggression accord did relieve the tension, but the USSR never depended upon it for their defense in the far east. They maintained sizable forces there throughout the war. Large enough to defeat japan should they break it. In armour, this amounted to keeping around 1500-2000 afv’s there, something like one fifth of their armour. Keep in mind germany invaded poland with approximately 2000 afv’s. Later in the war, once it became clear japan was on the defense and could not afford another war front, the USSR reduced the Siberian forces to match the potential japanese threat.
The non aggression accord reduced the tension, but not the potential threat from japan, that had to be factored in to the defense of the USSR.
“what I posted by referring to it was the Pact itself and it seems accurate to me.”
Well, if you prefer propaganda, cherry picking of facts, and pop history distortions, wikipedia does provide “accurate” historical material. On the plus side, they do manage to get the names and dates right most of the time. :-D
Wherever you search, the text of that Pact is the same, why should be propaganda ? it’s a historical document which can be found (in its original form), in Russia.
Through Twitter last year I received some links to an animation of the East Front, in 3 parts covering June 1941 to December 1943 with a narrative and figures. I wonder to what extent these front dynamics do indeed confirm the thesis that the diversion of Nazi forces into the Ukraine eventually caused their demise as well as the rise of Banderism.
On another (related) note, there were about 20.000 Norwegians who joined as a Nordic force with the Nazi’s and there were many thousand of Dutchmen who joined similar corpses or joined the German ‘Arbeiteinsatz’.
Ik wacht nog op 1944, Russische opmars naar Berlijn.
Germany could have defeated the USSR by not splitting up their forces to go down into the Caucuses to seize the Baku oil fields which would not be operational for a long time after being captured. To add insult to injury, this army group sidetracked itself to take Stalingrad which had no strategic value and became Germany’s death knell. If the Wehrmacht focused on Moscow which they almost captured, they would have cut off the USSR’s railway system and the USSR would not be able to deploy troops and armaments to Eastern Europe and would not be able to retake that territory.
And the Soviets would not have been able to build new railways, obviously.
LOL, logic and rationality be damned, we got “talking points” to spam.
to destroy them with the assistance of the Turkish army, which had to strike them in the rear.
I find this very debatable. After a most unpleasant experience in WWI (we should remember that all the islands were taken from Turkey at the end of the Great War, as well as Syria and Iraq plus high human losses in the war with Russia on Caucasus), I sincerely doubt their leadership would have decided to enter the war once again on German side. Staying neutral, as it turned out, was the most prudent choice.
Looking from this time distance, I also doubt Germany could have defeated USSR. The taking of Moscow would not have meant the end of the war, just one phase in it. Soviet huge production capacity [tanks, aeroplanes, artillery] as well as human resources surpassed German war industry, besides, Allied aid [lend-lease] added the most demanding products [trucks, jeeps, radars, aeroplanes, food, footgear]. Gen Halder, OKH chief of staff writes that ‘We have underestimated Russia. We reckoned with 200 divisions, but we have already identified 360…'[in September 1941]
In addition to British industry fully oriented on war production, when immense US capacities were added to Allied cause, the result could have been only the one history has shown
Finally, one should always remember and quote field marshall Montgomery: Rule 1, on page I of the book of war, is: “Do not march on Moscow”.
@ vot tak
The non aggression accord did relieve the tension, but the USSR never depended upon it for their defense in the far east.
You are correct. Accords relieve the tension indeed, but should never be believed implicitly, as Hitler has shown on June 22nd, 1941. Therefore, USSR had to keep substantial forces in the Far East. During preparations for Moscow offensive, owing to Sorge’s valiant work and Soviet codebreakers, STAVKA could afford to transfer 8 tank brigades, 15 rifle divisions and 3 cavalry divisions from the Far East to Moscow front, still leaving troops to confront and if need arise contain possible Japanese offensive.
vot tak and BF are right, Hitler had a window of opportunity in 1941 – he knew it earlier in April but the dear Italian allies were in danger of getting a bate by the Greeks, so the Germans had to intervene in that battle by attacking Yugoslavia (we know the story which is also interesting in itself, even or moreover from Soviet point of view, regarding the delay in Barbarossa) who first approved and then denied the free alley for German troops. You are right in saying – at a comment above – that even if the Germans took Moscow, the war would have continued anyway, but then are a lot of “If”‘s in it. That would have mean a prolonged war, which means time and time means also that Germany would have developed a nuclear weapon , dropping it in Ural region or elsewhere in Siberia…history would be totally different. Regarding Turkey : that country was no more the same as in time of the first world war, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist, a new, modern Turkey came on the stage, with other world views, much pragmatical. The wanted to have good relations with Soviet Union and the west, this war was not their.
but then are a lot of “If”‘s in it.
-Indeed there are, as in every ‘what if ‘ scenario
time means also that Germany would have developed a nuclear weapon , dropping it in Ural region or elsewhere in Siberia
– I do not believe they would have succeeded in that enterprise [of developing a nuclear weapon], as the Allies found out about heavy water factory in Norway [Ryukan, if I remember correctly] in time, and duly stopped production owing to Norwegian SOE agents. As for transporting a nuclear weapon, we know that USA needed the largest [and the only truly strategic] bomber of WWII, that is, a B-29 to carry a bomb due to it’s size and weight. Luftwaffe did not have any comparable carrier, and finally I believe Soviet excellent intelligence agencies/agents placed highly in German army ranks would have found out about this in time and presumably take appropriate steps to counteract.
Finally, about Turkey, of course, you may probably be correct, but then again I believe the memories of WWI would have still been fresh in Turkish leaders’ minds as well.
P.S. Much as I have often previously heard Yugoslav [as it was then, meaning communist] historians claim that Hitler may have lost the war by attacking Yugoslavia and thus postponing Barbarossa, I find this wishful thinking only, although this made Yugoslav front very significant in 1941. The whole operation was just ‘a sideshow’ for Barbarossa. Regardless of weather conditions [this is of course a favourite point of German historians and especially German generals in their memoirs], the main reason for Nazi defeat [or, more correctly, unfulfillment of designated goals] was Red army resistance