"Stalin's War of Extermination", by Joachim Hoffma

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
michael mills
Member
Posts: 8819
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

"Stalin's War of Extermination", by Joachim Hoffma

Post by michael mills » 01 Nov 2002 05:54

In a post on the thread "A Review about the Preventive War", Roberto claimed that the invading German forces had not been able to capture a single item of evidence indicating that the Soviet Union was preparing an offensive war, even though they had captured the headquarters of entire Soviet armies.

I then referred to work by the German historian, Joachim Hoffmann, indicating that quite a bit of evidence had been discovered. Roberto, in his usual aggressive and offensive way, challenged me to prove his statement wrong.

I have now obtained the English-language version, published only last year, of Hoffmann's "Stalins Vernichtungskrieg". That of course is what distinguishes me from a bullying propagandist like Roberto; I actually take the trouble to consult sources, rather than relying on selected and tendentious snippets of information fed to the monkey by the organ-grinder.

On pages 76-77, we find the following.

As early as May 1941, a large-scale propaganda campaign was initiated with the objective of adapting all human resources of the Red Army to Stalin's demands, both politically and ideologically, in accordance with the concept of an offensive war. Thus, the Department for Political propaganda of the 5th Army, in consultation with the Chief of the 7th Department of the GUPPKA [= Glavnoe Upravlenie Politicheskoi Propagandy Krasnoi Armii = Chief Administration of Political Propaganda of the Red Army], who was sent from Moscow, worked out a "Plan for Politically Securing Military Operations during the Offensive" (Plan politicheskogo obespecheniia voennykh operatsii pri nastuplenii) that reveals that Stalin's directives were being immediately implemented. This document was captured by German troops in the headquarters building of the 5th Army of the Kiev Special Military District in Luck, in addition to other important documents (my emphasis). [Source: BA-MA, RW 4/v. 329, (May) 1941; see also V. A. Nevezhin, "Vystuplenie Stalina 5 maia 1941 g. i povorot v propagande. Analiz direktivnykh materialov {= Stalin's emergence on 5 May 1941 and the turn in propagand. An analysis of directive materials}, in "Gotovil li Stalin nastupatel'nuiu Voinu {= Did Stalin prepare an offensive war?}, pp. 147-167]. The document contains detailed instructions by the Chief of POlitical propaganda of the 5th Army, apparently Uronov, for the political and propagandistic preparation and implementation of a surprise attack on the German Wehrmacht. This "Plan for Politically Securing Military Operations during the Offensive" was worked out on the directive of the GUPPKA ("On the Tasks of Political Propaganda...") on Stalin's orders, and apparently upon additional instructions from the emissary from Moscow. The plan states: "The German Army has lost the taste for a further improvement in military technology. A significant part of the German Army has become tired of the war".

Accordingly, a report from the Laeder for POlitical propaganda of the 5th Army from Rovno dated May 4, 1941, on the "Morale of the Population of the General Gouvernement" noted the "first indications of a collapse in morale in the German Wehrmacht" [Source: BA-MA, RW 4/v. 325, 4.5. 1941]. The German soldiers were said to be unsatisfied, and this dissatisfaction was said to find expression in "open and covert opinions against the war and against Hitler's policies", "in hostile statements", in "the distribution of Communist propaganda literature", in "drunkenness", "Quarrelsomeness", "suicides", "lack of enjoyment in doing service", and "desertion". In plain language, the "Plan for POlitically Securing Military Operations during the Offensive" says:

'It is necessary to deal the enemy a very hard, lightning-like blow, in order to quickly shatter the morale and strength of resistance of the soldiers......a lightning-like blow by the Red Army will undoubtedly have the consequence of a growing and deepening of the phenomena of decomposition already becoming perceptible in the enemy army...'

The "concentration of the army, the capture of lines of departure, and preparation to traverse the Bug [River]" were viewed as the "first" stage, and this formulation alone shows the preparation of an offensive war.


As a comment on the above, the material captured by the German Army strongly suggests that the Soviet forces were gearing up for a westward offensive at some time in the future. What is not clear is when that offensive was to take place, although if the Soviet Government really believed that Germany was on the point of collapse it may well have been prepared to risk an attack in the late summer of 1941.

In any case, the above passage refutes Roberto's boastful claim that the Germans captured not a single document showing Soviet preparations for offensive war. Of course, Roberto will most likely now shift the goalposts, and say that what he meant was an order signed by Stalin, commanding the Soviet forces to launch an attack on a given date etc etc.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 01 Nov 2002 06:44

Soviet military doctrine was offensive one by nature since the cornerstone was deep operation theory. Consequently this specific document does not really shows anything, as for late summer attack –as much as it amusing – it could not be done on the account of unfinished reform in Soviet tank forces (just 1 of the reasons)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 02 Nov 2002 11:40

michael mills wrote:
The document contains detailed instructions by the Chief of POlitical propaganda of the 5th Army, apparently Uronov, for the political and propagandistic preparation and implementation of a surprise attack on the German Wehrmacht.


That seems to be Hoffmann's own assessment, which in view of the man's attitudes and statements referred to on the thread alluded to by Mills, I wouldn’t trust without having seen the full text of the document itself.

michael mills wrote:
This "Plan for Politically Securing Military Operations during the Offensive" was worked out on the directive of the GUPPKA ("On the Tasks of Political Propaganda...") on Stalin's orders, and apparently upon additional instructions from the emissary from Moscow. The plan states: "The German Army has lost the taste for a further improvement in military technology. A significant part of the German Army has become tired of the war".

Accordingly, a report from the Laeder for POlitical propaganda of the 5th Army from Rovno dated May 4, 1941, on the "Morale of the Population of the General Gouvernement" noted the "first indications of a collapse in morale in the German Wehrmacht" [Source: BA-MA, RW 4/v. 325, 4.5. 1941]. The German soldiers were said to be unsatisfied, and this dissatisfaction was said to find expression in "open and covert opinions against the war and against Hitler's policies", "in hostile statements", in "the distribution of Communist propaganda literature", in "drunkenness", "Quarrelsomeness", "suicides", "lack of enjoyment in doing service", and "desertion". In plain language, the "Plan for POlitically Securing Military Operations during the Offensive" says:

'It is necessary to deal the enemy a very hard, lightning-like blow, in order to quickly shatter the morale and strength of resistance of the soldiers......a lightning-like blow by the Red Army will undoubtedly have the consequence of a growing and deepening of the phenomena of decomposition already becoming perceptible in the enemy army...'

The "concentration of the army, the capture of lines of departure, and preparation to traverse the Bug [River]" were viewed as the "first" stage, and this formulation alone shows the preparation of an offensive war.


All very wonderful, but the step from preparations, considerations and recommendations of a political propaganda department to an order and a plan of the Soviet high command to initiate military preparations for an all-out attack on the enemy is a big one, if you consider i.a. the state of readiness of Soviet military industry:

Harrison E. Salisbury wrote:The strongest support for the conclusion that Stalin remained confident even on the eve of war in his ability to prevent its outbreak is provided by the fact that on June 6 [1941] he approved a comprehensive plan for the shift-over of Soviet industry to war production. This timetable called for completion of the plan by the end of 1942! [emphasis author’s] It was an excellent detailed schedule, calling for the conversion of large numbers of civilian plants to military purposes and the construction of much-needed defense facilities.


Source of quote:

Harrison E. Salisbury, The 900 Days, 1970 Avon Books New York, page 90.

So Stalin may indeed have had an attack on Germany in mind – after the end of 1942.

michael mills wrote:As a comment on the above, the material captured by the German Army strongly suggests that the Soviet forces were gearing up for a westward offensive at some time in the future.


An even stronger suggestion in that sense is Stalin’s approval of a comprehensive plan for the shift-over of Soviet industry to war production until the end of 1942, see above.

michael mills wrote: What is not clear is when that offensive was to take place, although if the Soviet Government really believed that Germany was on the point of collapse it may well have been prepared to risk an attack in the late summer of 1941.


What a shame, for Hoffmann’s thesis of a German preventive attack stands and falls with his ability to identify a date for the Soviet attack close to that of the German aggression.

Mills’ speculation that the late summer of 1941 may have been the chosen date stumbles i.a. on the above mentioned timing for the shift-over of Soviet industry to war production, in the light of which the documents invoked by Hoffmann may also be seen as supporting the impression that the Soviets considered time to be working in their favor: the longer they waited and the better they prepared themselves, the greater the edge they would eventually have in terms of morale, material and military technology – the latter considering the German army’s supposedly having “lost the taste for a further improvement in military technology”.

By the way, Hoffmann doesn’t provide evidence that Hitler even thought in terms of prevention when planning and launching the attack on the Soviet Union, does he ?

michael mills wrote:In any case, the above passage refutes Roberto's boastful claim that the Germans captured not a single document showing Soviet preparations for offensive war. Of course, Roberto will most likely now shift the goalposts, and say that what he meant was an order signed by Stalin, commanding the Soviet forces to launch an attack on a given date etc etc.


Mills obviously expects the audience to rely blindly on his somewhat less than honest assertions instead of looking up the previous thread, where it becomes clear that I was referring to Soviet preparations for an all-out attack on Germany in 1941.

My post of Oct 24, 2002 12:09 pm on the thread

A review about the preventive war
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... 3826a9ddb7

explains this so clearly that it's not surprising that Mills chose to open another thread, obviously counting on the audience’s laziness and/or hoping that I might drop dead in the meantime and he would thus be allowed to smear around at will:

Roberto wrote:
michael mills wrote:Roberto wrote:
If that is Hoffmann's assessment, then Michael Mills' statement:

michael mills wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Quote:
Could Mr. Michaels or any of his fans tell us, for instance, why the German troops, although they captured the staffs of whole Soviet armies and army groups during the great encirclement battles in 1941, did not come upon a single element of evidence hinting at a Soviet attack in the making?


In the book "Zwei Wege nach Moskau" there is a whole chapter on Soviet military planning before the German attack. It contains a number of examples from material collected by German investigators after the attack, including captured documents and the results of the interrogation of captured Soviet personnel. The conclusion of the chapter was that the material collected supported the view that there was some Soviet planning for a westward attack.


(emphases added)

was more than a little misleading, for in conjunction with my own statement referred to and in the context of the discussion if was bound to convey to the unwary reader the impression that Mills' source found evidence to a Soviet attack scheduled to take place in 1941, at about the same time as the German attack.

Which in turn means that my statement about the absence of evidence to a Soviet attack scheduled to take place in 1941 has a very good chance of being correct.


michael mills wrote:Roberto is here indulging in his normal practice of distorting what someone has posted, and then making a show of refuting the distorted version.

In this case, he has even distorted what he himself wrote!

Roberto did not write that no evidence was found of preparations for a Soviet attack in 1941; he did not nominate a date at all. He simply referred to failure to find evidence for a Soviet attack "in the making"; that could be interpreted to mean an absence of evidence for any Soviet attack at any time.

When Roberto uses the words "my statement about the absence of evidence to a Soviet attack scheduled to take place in 1941", he is simply falsifying his actual statement, which did not specify a date and subtly implied that there was no Soviet preparation for a westward attack at all.

My own comment on Roberto's original statement did not mention a date either, ie I did not say that there was any proof of a Soviet intention to attack in 1941. I informed readers that Hoffmann's conclusion, expressed in the book referred to, was that the material collected by the German investigators supported the view that there was some Soviet planning for a westward attack. That statement by me was very moderate and cautious; it left it open to readers of this forum to consult the chapter by Hoffmann and decide for themselves whether his conclusion was justified on the basis of the material quoted by him.

Roberto accuses me of insanity. I do not think he is insane; merely wilfully dishonest, and spoiling for a fight.


I’m beginning to feel honestly sorry for poor Mills.

Roberto wrote:
Starinov wrote:Here is an interesting review of the German-Soviet conflict.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n6p59_Michaels.html


Looks like the old Suvorovian cream cheese.

Far-fetched speculations based on nothing other than Soviet troop movements and rhetorical propaganda statements, which all by themselves may mean a lot or nothing at all.

No documentary or other evidence that there was a Soviet intention to embark on an all-out war of aggression and conquest, or that what British historian Richard Overy called "a desperate gambit to obstruct German mobilization against the Soviet Union" - the plan for a pre-emptive attack produced by Zhukov and Timoshenko on 15 May 1941 - ever received a "go ahead" from Stalin.

No documentary or other evidence that poor Adolf was in any way concerned with an imminent Soviet attack or even the threat of a potential future attack, let alone that such considerations in any way influenced his decision.

Instead the usual compilation of half-truths and downright lies, decorated with inevitable and telling crap such as "Jews were very much involved in murderous assignments during the war".

I don't see what can be interesting about such a "review", which notably includes only the view of such historians who can be presented as supporting the author's view. What about Graml, Ueberschär, Hillgruber, Wette, Müller, Benz, Overy and others who consider the theories of Suvorov et al to be untenable?

Could Mr. Michaels or any of his fans tell us, for instance, why the German troops, although they captured the staffs of whole Soviet armies and army groups during the great encirclement battles in 1941, did not come upon a single element of evidence hinting at a Soviet attack in the making?


The last paragraph of the above post was the one that Mills commented on, and it should be obvious that it referred to an article in the “Journal of Historical Review” where, unless I completely misunderstood it, the contention is propagated that Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union anticipated an all-out Soviet attack that was to take place in 1941.

That my statement was made in this context and with this meaning also becomes apparent from the source I referred to:

Graml wrote:Bei genauerem Zusehen stellt sich nämlich heraus, daß “Suworow” keine plausiblen Argumente und erst recht keine dokumentarischen Beweise für seine Thesen vorzulegen vermag. In den Kesselschlachten des Jahres 1941 haben ja die deutschen Truppen, obwohl ihnen die Stäbe von Armeen und Heeresgruppen in die Hände fielen, nicht ein einziges Schriftstück erbeutet, das auf Stalinsche Präventivkriegspläne gedeutet hätte, und dieser Mangel ist bis heute gegeben.


My translation:

Graml wrote:A closer look reveals that “Suvorov” cannot provide plausible arguments let alone documentary evidence in support of his theses. This is not surprising given that in the encirclement battles of 1941 the German troops, although the staffs of armies and army groups fell into their hands, did not capture a single document that would indicate plans by Stalin for a preventive war, and such are lacking to this day.


which clearly addresses the contentions of “Suvorov” that a Soviet attack was in the making at the time Hitler staged his own attack, i.e. in mid-1941.

Of course Mills knows this very well, as he knows how easily I can demonstrate the fallacy of his contentions.

Which means that the persistent accusations of intellectual dishonesty he levels against me, which achieve nothing other than demonstrating his own, could also lead one to question Mills’ intelligence.


Mills’ clumsy attempt to attack me on the present thread has lent even more weight to the question about his intelligence.

Last but not least, as it seems that Mills has in the meantime looked up Mr. Hoffmann’s tendentious screed, maybe he can confirm that the following statements quoted by Hoffmann’s professional colleague Wigbert Benz, already referred to in my post of Thu Oct 24, 2002 10:27 am on the above mentioned thread, are indeed to be found in Stalin’s Vernichtungskrieg:

Hoffmann wrote:Hitler (ist) nur knapp einem mit Hochdruck vorbereiteten Angriff Stalins zuvorgekommen. Der 22.Juni 1941 war so ziemlich der letzte Termin, um überhaupt noch einen ‚Präventivkrieg’ führen zu können.

[…]

Nicht am 22.Juni 1941 wurde Stalin von einem Schock getroffen, sondern (...als) klar wurde, dass die Deutschen im Kampf eben doch die Besseren waren.[…]


My translation:

Hoffmann wrote:Hitler only narrowly anticipated an attack that Stalin was preparing with high pressure. 22 June 1941 was about the last date on which such a 'preventive war' could still be waged at all.

[…]

Not on 22 June 1941 was Stalin his by a shock, but (…when) it became clear that the Germans were, after all, the better fighters.[…]


In view of statements like the above, it is not surprising that Hoffmann's book is held in high esteem by one of Mills' more radical brothers in spirit:

Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:Keep the Faith fellow revisionists. The Nazis and the SS were the good guys--but the anti-Nazis and the anti-revisionists dare not admit it for fear of losing their fabulous, ill gotten gains from the war. Read also: "Stalin's War of Extermination" by Joachim Hoffmann.


The above statement, as well as my response thereto:

Cortagravatas wrote:<<Keep the Faith fellow revisionists. The Nazis and the SS were the good guys--but the anti-Nazis and the anti-revisionists dare not admit it for fear of losing their fabulous, ill gotten gains from the war. Read also: "Stalin's War of Extermination" by Joachim Hoffmann.>>
1. I thought that Faith was the hallmark of those who Revisionists like to label as “Believers”. I’m elated to learn that, after all, Faith is a Revisionist characteristic.
2. I thought that Revisionism had nothing to do with making the Nazis look better. At least that’s what Cat Scan told me, and it seems to me that he believes in what he wrote. But there are obviously some who have other ideas as to the purpose of Revisionism. Very instructive.
3. As to Joachim Hoffmann, I have run across the fellow in a discussion with Michael Mills on another forum under the link
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... D=79.topic
Michael Mills presented him as a critic of Christian Streit’s Keine Kameraden: Die Wehrmacht und die sowjetischen Kriegsgefangenen 1941-1945, and I posted the original wording and a translation of Streit’s response to that criticism in the 1997 edition of his book. See my post # 1062 (12/11/01 10:45:04 am) under the above mentioned link. The image of Hoffmann that emerges from Streit’s response is not exactly a favorable one. A scholar who states that another scholar is proven wrong by certain documents but refrains from showing such documents is not exactly intellectually honest, and his behavior warrants the suspicion that the documents he invokes do not even exist. So Hoffmann is not a scholar that I would rely on. But I reckon that his writings give arguments and moral support to those who strive to “keep the Faith”.


can be found under the link

http://www.codoh.org/dcforum/DCForumID9/10

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 01:17
Location: Houston, Texas

Post by walterkaschner » 02 Nov 2002 21:56

I find it interesting that the English translation ("Stalin's War of Extermination") of Joachim Hoffmann's "Stalin's Vernichtungskrieg", so heavily relied upon by Michael Mills in his posts above, was published by Castle Hill Publishing, an obscure publishing house owned by Germar Rudolph (or whatever he is calling himself these days).

As I'm sure many members of this forum already know, Germar Rudolph was expelled from the Max Planck Institute and later convicted by a German court and sentenced to prison in 1995 on three counts of inciting racial hatred. He fled to Spain, then to the UK and (when it appeared the Brits were preparing to extradite him) then to the US, where he is now seeking asylum as a political refugee. He is given heroic acclaim by IHR, CODOH, the Zundelsite and others of like ilk.

As far as I can ascertain Castle Hill has published only two books other than Hoffmann's: one, by Jürgen Graf, is "The Giant with Feet of Clay", which purports to be an exposé of Raul Hilberg's standard work on the Holocaust; the other, "Dissecting the Holocaust", is a collection of essays (including one by Joachim Hoffmann) by a number of notorious "revisionists" and edited by one "Ernst Gauss" - which is one of Rudolph's many pseudonyms. If I recall correctly (and my memory is admittedly vague on this) the latter book was ordered banned and destroyed by a German Court - a judgement, however, that I do not necessarily agree with.

Certainly Germar Rudolph has every right to publish whatever he wishes in the United States (libel or pornography excepted), but Mr. Mill's criticism of Roberto for being unfamiliar with Rudolph's preferred material does strike me as a bit disingenuous.

Regards, Kaschner

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Joachim Hoffmann

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Nov 2002 00:36

I fail to see why Hoffmann's book should not be read by Roberto since the English version is published by Rudolf or one of his associates, particularly being as Roberto aspires to become a Genocide-historian.

Would any such book be avoided because it were published by a Jewish firm?

Joachim Hoffmann, Stalin's War of Extermination 1941-1945: Planning, Realization and Documentation.
Theses & Dissertations Press, 2001; ISBN: 0967985684.

The book is available from Amazon to support this very site ONLY by clicking my icon below!

CLICK! Image

The Library of Congress bibliographical information for the German versions are as follows:

Hoffmann, Joachim, 1930-
Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945.
2., durchgesehene Aufl.
München : Verlag für Wehrwissenschaften, 1995.
336 p. ; 25 cm.

Hoffmann, Joachim, 1930-
Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945: Planung, Ausführung und Dokumentation.
5. überarbeitete und erg. Neuaufl.
München : Herbig, 1999.
400 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.

And the English version:

Hoffmann, Joachim, 1930-
Stalin's war of extermination, 1941-1945 : planning, realization, and documentation
1st English ed.
Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945. English
Capshaw, Ala. : Theses & Dissertations Press, 2001.
415 p. : ill. ; 25 cm.

According to the LOC, Joachim Hoffmann (1930- ) has published a few other books:

Hoffmann, Joachim, 1930-
Berliner Mission des Grafen Prokesch-Osten, 1849-1852.
[1959]
165 p. ports. 21 cm.

Hoffmann, Joachim, 1930-
Die Ostlegionen 1941-1943 : Turkotataren, Kaukasier u. Wolgafinnen im dt. Heer.
1. Aufl.
Freiburg [Breisgau] : Rombach, 1976.
197 p. : ill. ; 21 cm.

Hoffmann, Joachim, 1930-
Die Geschichte der Wlassow-Armee.
Freiburg im Breisgau : Rombach, c1984.
468, xviii p. of plates : ill. ; 21 cm.

Hoffmann, Joachim, 1930-
Istoriia Vlasovskoi armii.
I. Khoffmann ; perevod s nemetskogo E. Gessen.
Parizh : YMCA-Press, 1990.

Hoffmann, Joachim, 1930-
Kaukasien 1942-43 : das deutsche Heer und die Orientvölker der Sowjetunion. 1. Aufl.
Freiburg [im Breisgau] : Rombach, c1991.
534 p., [17] p. of plates : ill. (some col.) ; 21 cm.

Hope this helps!
:)

Dan
Financial supporter
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 03 Nov 2002 01:14

Valuable posts by all.

After the St. Martins Press blackmailing episode, I can hardly blame well known publishers for not printing books that the Jewish community disaproves of.

Thanks to Mills for the extra effort. The knowledge and experience of Mills, Roberto, Scott and Mr. Kaschner are enough to make a simple farmer somewhat envious!

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 01:17
Location: Houston, Texas

Post by walterkaschner » 03 Nov 2002 03:49

Scott Smith wrote:

I fail to see why Hoffmann's book should not be read by Roberto since the English version is published by Rudolf or one of his associates, particularly being as Roberto aspires to become a Genocide-historian.

Would any such book be avoided because it were published by a Jewish firm?


IMHO Roberto - or anyone else for that matter - should certainly be free to read anything he wishes. I myself would like to at least take a peak at it , but it is not available in the Houston Public Library and its $45 price at Amazon strikes me as quite a bit more than I care to pay to satisfy my idle curiosity, particularly given its sponsorship.

And yes, were a book published by an obscure Jewish firm with credentials similar to Germar Rudolf (alias Germar Scheerer, and allegedly also alias Ernst Gauss, Dr. Manfred Gerner, Manfred Köhler, Gerhard Körner, Dr. Werner Kretschmer, Dr. Christian Konrad, Dr. Lennard Rose, Dr. Dr. Rainer Scholz, Heiko Schwind, Jakob Sprenger, Wilhelm Schlesinger, Tuisco) I would probably myself choose to avoid it, neither my time nor my purse being inexhaustible.

But the point of my post simply was that in evaluating the merits of a purportedly scholarly work the nature and agenda of its sponsorship seem highly relevant, and I found it somewhat curious to berate someone for failing to have read a relatively obscure book published (IMHO) by a highly controversial, if not thoroughly disreputable, source.

And finally a note for Dan. I agree that the St Martins Press episode was shameful. But anyone who commands as many languages as you, who has your breadth of travel, experience and interests and the depth of your beliefs, who has grasped the mysteries and pleasures of beekeeping and who can deal expertly with a family the size of yours - and yet hides behind the facade of a "simple farmer" - there is a very dangerous adversary indeed! And, although we differ on many points, one whom I greatly admire and respect.

Regards, Kaschner

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Nov 2002 04:20

walterkaschner wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:I fail to see why Hoffmann's book should not be read by Roberto since the English version is published by Rudolf or one of his associates, particularly being as Roberto aspires to become a Genocide-historian.

Would any such book be avoided because it were published by a Jewish firm?

IMHO Roberto - or anyone else for that matter - should certainly be free to read anything he wishes. I myself would like to at least take a peak at it , but it is not available in the Houston Public Library and its $45 price at Amazon strikes me as quite a bit more than I care to pay to satisfy my idle curiosity, particularly given its sponsorship.

That's very true, and I don't know why it is so expensive, like Kogon, Langbein, and Rückerl's English version of Nazi Mass Murder: A Documentary History of the Use of Poison Gas. (Yale University Press: 1994), which is available from Amazon (to support this very site only by clicking my icon) for a whopping $92.44 to $104.92!
8O

CLICK! Image

In any case, both titles are available for FREE from the reference desk of any public or academic library via Interlibrary Loan, at least in the USA.

I presume that Roberto can get the German version similarly from a good library in Lisbon.

I found it somewhat curious to berate someone for failing to have read a relatively obscure book published (IMHO) by a highly controversial, if not thoroughly disreputable, source.

Perhaps so, but Roberto uses the quotation of F. P. Berg (above) so often that he therefore obviously knows about Hoffmann's work, so Berg's recommendation to read it (and Mr. Mills' beration) is not invalid, especially if Roberto pretends to know the genre. It cannot be said that Roberto does not have strong views, so he should certainly be well-read, and not just what "fits his bubble" (as he would say himself).

The same criticism would apply to me about the Kogon book above, although I do intend to read it eventually.

Best Regards,
Scott

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Joachim Hoffmann

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Nov 2002 04:30

walterkaschner wrote:"Dissecting the Holocaust", is a collection of essays (including one by Joachim Hoffmann) by a number of notorious "revisionists" and edited by one "Ernst Gauss" - which is one of Rudolph's many pseudonyms. If I recall correctly (and my memory is admittedly vague on this) the latter book was ordered banned and destroyed by a German Court - a judgement, however, that I do not necessarily agree with.

Here is a link to that essay by Joachim Hoffmann:

[url=http://www.codoh.com/found/fndHoffmann.html]"Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (Foundations of Contemporary History) : Expert Report,"
by JOACHIM HOFFMANN.
[/url]

Image

Joachim Hoffmann, Ph.D., born on December 1, 1930 in Königsberg, Prussia as of 1951, course of studies, first natural sciences, then recent history, eastern European history, and comparative ethnology at the University of Hamburg and the Free University of Berlin in 1959, doctorate with dissertation titled Die Berliner Mission des Grafen Prokesch-Osten 1849-1852 in 1959/1960, scholarship from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to research a topic of Austrian eastern politics since 1960, member of the Militärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt of the Bundeswehr, Academic Director. Publications include books and periodical articles on political, diplomatic and military history of the 19th century and on the history of the German-Soviet war. Awarded the Dr. Walter-Eckhardt-Prize for Research in Contemporary History in 1991 and the General Andrej Andrejevich Vlasov Cultural Prize in 1992.


michael mills
Member
Posts: 8819
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 03 Nov 2002 04:50

Roberto wrote:
By the way, Hoffmann doesn't provide evidence that Hitler even thought in terms of prevention when planning and launching the attack on the Soviet Union, does he ?


No, he does not, for the reason that he does not claim that the Germans knew of an impending Soviet attack, and launched their own invasion solely for the purpose of pre-empting it.

Hoffmann's thesis is that both Germany and the Soviet Union were, independently of each other, preparing to attack each other, and that Germany managed to achieve a tactical advantage by striking first. (If that was the case, then Germany was simply observing the age-old strategic principle, "Twice armed is he that hath his quarrel just, but thrice armed he that gets his blow in fust").

What Hoffmann is attacking is not the thesis that Germany planned its own invasion of the Soviet Union, but the propagandistic image of a peace-loving Soviet Union that was taken totally by surprise by an unprovoked German attack.

It is only dishonest propagandists who claim that Hoffmann is justifying the German invasion as a purely defensive measure. Hoffmann is saying that the German invasion, planned for its own reasons, happened to pre-empt an impending Soviet attack, by accident as it were.

Here is what Hoffmann writes in his conclusion (pp 330-331):
The German-Soviet war was inevitable. The only open question was which of the two competing powers would strike first to preempt its adversary. The rapidly increasing superiority and strength of Soviet armaments, especially in tanks, aircraft, and artillery, over the troops of the Wehrmacht, dispersed over all parts of Europe, led the Germans to view June 1941 as the last possible opportunity for German initiation of preventive war. Further delay would have eroded the only factor favouring the Germans, which was their level of training. The most recent discoveries in Soviet archives illustrate the extent to which Soviet military preparation and deployment had in fact already been completed. To all apppearances, Stalin moved the attack date forward from 1942 to the months of July-September 1941. This would offer a plausible explanation of Stalin's desire to postpone the initiation of hostilities "even if only for....a month, a week, or a few days", to complete his own military preparations - without the slightest fear of German attack. Soviet research has also arrived at the conclusion that the "military struggle against Germany might have begun in July 1941". [Source: M.I. Mel'tiukhov, 'Spory vokrug 1941 goda: opyt kriticheskogo osmyshleniia odnoi diskussii' {=Controversies concerning the year 1941: an attempt at a critical analysis of a discussion}, in: Gotovil li Stalin nastupatel'nuiu voinu {= Did Stalin prepare an offensive war?}, p. 104 ff].

.................................................This does not, of course, constitute a justification of the politically and morally detrimental methods employed by Hitler in Russia (and Poland). Hitler planned a war of conquest, too. The National Socialist war on the Soviet Union was conducted in the spirit of a statement once made by Benjamin Disraeli, the Earl of Beaconsfield: "The racial question is the key to world history". It should be boren in mind, in this regard, that, by the very nature of things, no conflict between the National Socialist German Reich and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, could possibly resemble an "ordinary" war; the war was inevitably fated to acquire extraordinary features from the very outset. Militarily speaking, the great initial successes of the troops of the Wehrmacht and their rapid penetration of Soviet territory resulted in an underestimation of Soviet strength and powers of resistance which ultimately proved fatal.


The quote from Harrison Salisbury is not conclusive in itself. It shows that the Soviet Government planned to have shifted to full war production by the end of 1942, and had only approved that plan in June 1941.

When did Germany originally plan to be fully prepared for war? It was about 1943, as I remember. And when did it shift to full war production? It was at the beginning of 1943, after the Stalingrad disaster, and after the appointment of Speer.

Would Roberto argue from those facts that, since Hitler originally planned to be ready for war in about 1942 or 1943, the outbreak of war in 1939 cannot have had anything to do with Hitler's actions?

When Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, in the full knowledge that thereby it risked war with Britain and France, it was nowhere near fully prepared for war, in fact well behind Britain and France. Nevertheless, it went to war against Poland and risked the outbreak of a general European war because of the situation in which it found itself, with the strategic situation beginning to move against it (a movement that was temporarily offset by the sudden agreement with the Soviet Union).

So it is entirely possible that the Soviet Union was planning for war with Germany by 1942, but brought its planning forward in response to strategic developments, perhaps its awareness of German preparations. That seems to be the nub of Hoffmann's thesis.

Roberto wrote:
Mills' speculation that the late summer of 1941 may have been the chosen date ..........


That in fact is Hoffmann's speculation. I am saying that Hoffmann's speculation may possibly be correct, but it is not certain.

Hoffmann also quotes a number of Russian sources in support of his position, mainly interrogations of captured Soviet officers (pp. 83-85).

Captain Krasko, Adjutant of the 661st Infantry Regiment of the 200th Infantry Division, declared on 26 July 1941: "In May 1941, among the officers, the opinion was already expressed that the war would begin right after 1 July".

Major Koskov, Commander of the 24th Infantry regiment of the 44th Infantry Division, testified:
"In the view of the Regimental Commander, the justification - namely the evacuation of the Western Ukraine, 'because the Soviets were allegedly attacked without preparation' was in no way true, because Soviet lilitary preparations had been underway for a long time, and, in accordance with the extent and intensity of these military preparations, the Russians would have attacked Germany of their own accord in two to three weeks at the latest".

Colonel Gaevsky, Regimental Commander of the 29th Armored Division, declared to the Germans on 6 August 1941:
"Among the commanders, there has been a lot of talk about a war between Germany and Russia. There was the opinion that the war would break out on approximately July 15, 1941, upon which date Russia would assume the role of the attacker".

Lieutenant Kharchenko of the 131st Intantry Division stated on 21 August 1941:
"That large-scale preparations for war with Germany were underway since the spring of 1941. The general opinion was that war would have broken out at the end of August or the beginning of Septemebr at the latest, ie after the harvest, if Germany had not premepted us. The intent to conduct the war on foreign soil was obvious. All these leadership plans were upset by the outbreak of the war inside Russia".

Major Solov'ev, Chief of Staff of the 445th Infantry Regiment of the 140th Infantry Division, stated:
"Properly speaking, we expected the conflict with Germany only after the harvest, about the end of August or the beginning of Septemebr 1941. The over-precipitate troop movements in the last weeks before the outbreak of hostilities toward the western border could only be explained by the assumption that the Soviets had shifted the attack date forward"
(The second sentence was in response to a claim by the German interrogators that they had captured documentation clearly showing that the Soviet Union wished to attack Germany in the beginning of July).

Lieutenant Rutenko, Company Chief in the 125th Infantry Regiment of the 6th Infantry Division, stated on 2 July 1941 that hostilities would have been initiated by the Russians on 1 September 1941, and that all preparations were made with reference to that date.

Lieutenant-Colonel Liapin, Chief of the Operations Branch of the 1st Motorised Infantry Division, stated on 15 Septemebr 1941 that a Soviet attack had been expected in the Autumn of 1941.

Lieutenant-General Masanov declared with certainty that Stalin would have begun the war with Germany in the autumn of 1941.

An unnamed Lieutenant-Colonel and commander of an artillery regiment declared on 26 July 1941 that Germany had "unilaterally broken the Non-Aggression Pact and attacked us", but added:
"But I admit that the concentration of the Red Army on your eastern border constituted athreat to Germany: after all, it was being said that the Germans could expect us to attack them in August of this year".

On 11 September 1945, Major-General Malyshkin, at that time Chief of Staff of the 19th Army [presumably the Vlasov army], stated to Filed-Marshal Ritter von Leeb: "that Russia would have attacked Germany in mid-August with approximately 350-360 divisions". Hoffmann remarks that those numbers are accurate.

Hoffmann also refers to the book "Stalin Means War", published in London in 1951, and written by Colonel G.A. Tokaev, former Chief of the Aerodynamics Laboratory of the Aur Force Academy in Moscow. On page 34, Tokaev stated, with reference to the Commissar of War, General Klokov:
"The Politburo expected the Soviet-German war to start in very early August. That was the time that Stalin and Molotov considered most favorable to attack their friends Hitler and Ribbentrop".

The range of dates given by the various Russian sources indicates that as of 22 June 1941 no target date for a Soviet attack had yet been communicated to the field ranks of the Red Army. That may be because the Soviet Government had not yet decided on a date, or that it had decided a date but kept knowledge of it restricted to the highest levels.


Roberto wrote:
Mills obviously expects the audience to rely blindly on his somewhat less than honest assertions instead of looking up the previous thread, where it becomes clear that I was referring to Soviet preparations for an all-out attack on Germany in 1941.


Roberto is being less than honest here. In his post to which I originally responded, he did not nominate the date 1941 at all. Nor did I mention 1941 at all. The issue was whether, as Roberto claimed, the Germans failed to find "a single element of evidence hinting at a Soviet attack in the making" (Roberto's own words). Roberto was clearly trying to give the impression that absolutely NO evidence of Soviet preparations for an attack was found. My original response, and the material I have subsequently quoted, shows that, contrary to Roberto's rash assertion, Hoffmann was able to demonstrate that such evidence was indeed found.

Roberto wrote:
Last but not least, as it seems that Mills has in the meantime looked up Mr. Hoffmann's tendentious screed, maybe he can confirm that the following statements quoted by Hoffmann's professional colleague Wigbert Benz, already referred to in my post of Thu Oct 24, 2002 10:27 am on the above mentioned thread, are indeed to be found in Stalins Vernichtungskrieg:


On what basis does Roberto call Hoffmann's work a "tendentious screed", since it is obvious that he has not even read it. Of course, lack of knowledge has never prevented Roberto from opening his mouth to pour forth filth: that is why I have dubbed him the Borborygmite from Bogota.

Here are the only portions of text that I have been able to find that resemble the snippets quoted by Roberto:

First, from the translation of the preface to the 1995 edition:
As can be proven, with certainty, that the German-Soviet war - considered by Hitler to be inevitable following the fateful Molotov mission in November 1940 - just barely preempted a war of conquest that was planned and prepared under high-pressure by Stalin, even more historical facts can be demonstrated today. This is confirmed by ever historical evidence today. Thus, it was not just Hitler, as a certain school of contemporary historigraphy would continue to have us believe, but Stalin, who, from the very outset, in his political and military leadership of the Red Army, employed methods of outrageous brutality that vastly surpassed anything that had ever previously occurred. A myth was widely disseminated in Germany of the alleged possibility of waging "humane" warfare, and that this possibility only vanished due to Hitler's alleged refusal to consider humane methods of waging war. This myth is refuted by the fact that practically in the first days of the war, the members of the Red Army were systematically goaded toward violence and were, furthermore, incited to feelings of infernal hatred against all soldiers of the invading enemy armies. The collision between two dictatorially led socialist military powers obviously left little room, from the very beginning of the war, for considerations of humanity. Nor was there even respect for the laws and provisions of the International Conventions - which were, moreover, recognized by the German Reich, while the Soviet Union had strictly refused ratification.


The second is on page 87:
With such an attitude, neither Stalin nor the Politburo itself, on June 22, 1941, doubted even for a moment that they would be successful in dealing Hitler the defeat that he deserved. General Sudaplatov, Chief of the Reconnaissance Service, even spoke of the "Big Lie of a panic in the Kremlin [Source: Pavel A. Sudoplatov, "Erinnerungen und Nachdenken des Chefs des russischen Aufklaerungsdienstes", a document in Hoffmann's own archives, "21: Beginn des Krieges"]. Stalin was not surprised on June 22, 1941, but, on the contrary, as Colonel General Volkogonov stresses, the shock set in only several days later, ie when the illusions evaporated and catastrophe was looming on the front line, a catastrophe in which it finally became clear that the Germans were, nevertheless, superior in combat [Source: Dimitriy Volkogonov, "Triumf i tragediia. Politicheskii portret J.V. Stalina", Moscow 1989, pp. 50, 154].


Unless the English translation deviates markedly from the German original, the snippets torm out of context by Wigbert Benz do not appear to have been reproduced with total accuracy, although they are not complete distortions. Benz' offence is to have taken the words out of their context, in which I have replaced them.

Roberto wrote:
In view of statements like the above, it is not surprising that Hoffmann's book is held in high esteem by one of Mills' more radical brothers in spirit:


Dear oh dear! Another attempt to smear me (and Hoffmann) through guilt by association. Does Roberto not have any better arguments? Can he not address the data underpinning Hoffmann's theses?

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8819
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 03 Nov 2002 05:40

Walter Kaschner wrote:
I find it interesting that the English translation ("Stalin's War of Extermination") of Joachim Hoffmann's "Stalin's Vernichtungskrieg", so heavily relied upon by Michael Mills in his posts above, was published by Castle Hill Publishing, an obscure publishing house owned by Germar Rudolph (or whatever he is calling himself these days).



If Walter Kaschner wishes to smear Joachim Hoffmann through guilt by association, then he should at least get his facts right.

The english translation of May 2001 is published by Theses & Dissertations Press, PO Box 64, Capshaw, Alabama, according to the publication information.

In the preface to the English edition, Hoffmann states that Theses and Dissertations Press is a subdivision of Loewe Belfort Projects Inc.

In the penultimate paragraph of the above preface, Hoffmann writes:
"On this occasion I want to cordially thank the Director of Theses and Dissertations Press, Dr. Robert H. Countess, for his intensive interest in my book and for his decision to make the content of it available in English to the interested reader in the United States, in Great Britain and elsewhere in the English speaking world. My warmest thanks also go to his Assistant Director, Mr. Pepter Webber, who is responsible for the entire project, to the translator, Mr. William Deist, to the editorial reviser, Mr. Robert Berkel, and last but not least to all other persons involved in the publication of this extraordinarily exact English edition."

I have seen the name of Countess mentioned before, but I know nothing about him. It may be that it is a pseudonym for Rudolf, although it is not one of those mentioned by Walter Kaschner.

In any case, Walter Kaschner's objections relate only to the publication of the English translation. The German original was published in 1995 and again in 1999 by F.A. Herbig Verlagsbuchhandlung GmbH, Thomas-Wimmer-Ring 11, Munich.

Will Walter Kaschner also claim that the above publisher is disreputable?

So far as I know, the German original, "Stalins Vernichtungskrieg", has not been banned in Germany, so obviously it has not been judged as in breach of the laws that prohibit "denial".

Walter Kaschner should address the material contained in the book, rather than attack it because of the publisher of the English edition, and to get it wrong at that. Such a premptory dismissal of the book suggests an unwillingness to come to grips with theses outside one's own ideological bubble.

As to the publication history of the book, Hoffmann has the following to say in the preface to the English edition:

The intention of this book is to conclude my decades long research into the history of the Red Army and Stalin's methods of warfare. Even though it was written as part of an official assignment by the Miltitaergeschichtliche Forschungsamt der Bundeswehr (Military Research Office of the German Armed Forces), the head of this office, Brogade General Dr. Guenther Roth, preferred not to publish this book as an official document, but to allow me a private publication. Considering the expected "huge public attention" of this book, this decision by Brigade General Dr. Roth was quite understandable. Since its first appearance in 1995, new editions of this book became necessary in short intervals. As of today, no less than seven German language editions have appeared in two different revisions.


In the final paragraph of the 1995 preface, Hoffmann writes:
In contrast to the spirit and letter of "freedom of research" as proclaimed under the German Basic Law, it is, unfortunately, advisable today to have many passages of historiographical text revised for "criminal content" prior to publication - an almost disgraceful situation. This awkward task was undertaken, tactfully and amicably, by Court Vice-President Johann Birk of Freiburg; heartfelt thanks in this regard are due to him at this point.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Nov 2002 06:07

michael mills wrote:I have seen the name of Countess mentioned before, but I know nothing about him. It may be that it is a pseudonym for Rudolf, although it is not one of those mentioned by Walter Kaschner.

No, Germar Rudolf is NOT the same person as Countess. But ROBERT H. COUNTESS, Ph.D. of Huntsville, Alabama, the Director of Theses & Dissertations Press, which publishes the English edition of Hoffmann's treatise, is on the Editorial Advisory Committee of the Institute for Historical Review. However, that certainly does not discredit Hoffmann's work.
:)

Photo of Dr. Robert H. Countess from an article written about Revisionists by journalist John Sack, in the February, 2001 issue of Esquire magazine called "Inside the Bunker."

Esquire wrote:"Page 98. Inside the Bunker
Invited to address a convention of people who deny that the Holocaust happened, the author, a Jew, went to meet the enemy. Only that's not what he found. By John Sack."

Image

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 15:48
Location: Germany

Post by Hans » 03 Nov 2002 11:20

Scott Smith wrote:No, Germar Rudolf is NOT the same person as Countess. But ROBERT H. COUNTESS, Ph.D. of Huntsville, Alabama, the Director of Theses & Dissertations Press, which publishes the English edition of Hoffmann's treatise, is on the Editorial Advisory Committee of the Institute for Historical Review.


In other words, also Countess is a Holocaust Denier!

Anyway, Rudolf, who denies the gassing of Jews, claims that Hoffmann worked together with him "intensively" for the publication of the english version and that Hoffmann wrote in a private letter complacent that "Wenn bestimmte Kreise in Deutschland wüßten, daß Herr Germar Rudolf nun Verleger bei Theses & Dissertations Press ist, so würden diese sich gewaltig ärgern".
And then Hoffmann has written this positve "expert" report for Rudolf's "Grundlagen der Zeitgeschichte", a publication that can hardly be considered a scientific work. For instance, the author of the chapter about Babi Jar failed to mention all Einsatzgruppen reports that document the massacer or simply omits their incriminating content, but instead quotes dozens of relatively irrelevant pieces of evidence compared to these reports, such as Newspaper snips and resistance reports. See my posts in the thread "Holocaust mass graves?". How could Hoffmann, the specialist on recent and East European history with decades of professional experience and practice in the academic service of the Federal Republik of Germany, have overlooked these flaws?

It appears to me that, after he left the reputative military research institute in Freiburg (where he had still the opinion that Stalin "sich über die Fortdauer des Nichtangriffspaktes Illusionen hingab und mit der Möglichkeit eines kriegerischen Konfliktes nur für den Fall rechnete, daß man auf "Provokationen" etwa von Seiten der "siegestrunkenen deutschen Generale" hereinfiel."- Boog et al. "Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion", Fischer 11008, page 848), Hoffmann had developed himself to a kind of German issue of David Irving, who looked for vicinity of "revisionist" circles.

By the way, Hoffmann died early this year.

User avatar
wildboar
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: 17 Mar 2002 12:15
Location: India

Re-Stalin's war of extermination

Post by wildboar » 03 Nov 2002 12:46

michael mills
while i have no doubt that stalin was worst butcher in entire human history and his foreign policy was based on grabbing the territories on small and weak neighbours but i have doubt that stalin would had planned for direct military offensive against germany for multiple's of reasons.

oleg
Agreed with your analysis. but where there any capable officer's left in red army to carry such modern military operations.?infacts stalins purges of officer's core of red army had weakened it such a extent that it was not fighting fit force but just hugh mob of unruly and poorly trained soldiers.
also all the persons who replaced the great officers who were removed during purges were only appointed for political correctness and they were not professional military officers and they owed there alligance personally to mr stalin & mr beria. how can such weakned force carry out such sophisticated military operation as suggested by mr mills.

Roberto,
While i agree with you to large extent that stalin was not planning to launch any offensive against germany but your are missing following vital points -
1-Red army was weakned as result of stalins purges of officer core of red army and details of which i have mentioned above in response to oleg's reply.
2-according to dissident indian communist scholar soviet economy at the time of proposed offensive by stalin against germany was in doldrums and bad shape due to stalins faulty policy
3-Soviet union at that time was technologically a backward nation and stalin had signed moltov-ribbenstrop in his attempt to get access to german technology.

Keeping in mind all the interlinked factors it was highly impossible for stalin to plan for offensive against germany here i agree with large extent with roberto

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Holo-McCarthyism...

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Nov 2002 14:05

Hans wrote:In other words, also Countess is a Holocaust Denier!

Regardless of what you call Countess and his work, his publishing Hoffmann's work in English does not in any way invalidate that work.

Surely you would not argue that if a Jewish publishing house published a title in English that this alone would make it caveat, would you?

Such would be an intellectual McCarthyism, of which the Bundestablishment is full of these days, it seems, in spite of Hoffmann actually making it past the German Holo-censors.
:)

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”