A review about the preventive war

[Schwalbe]

I don't give a damn how many German Generations have to pay for their nations war guilt, and is not so much the war as putting Women, Children, Elderly and anyone else they deemed enemies to death by Gas, or shooting or just bashing their brains out. That is the guilt. However this has not one thing to do with the topic nor post. Saying that Germany was only defending itself from USSR aggression is nonsense, perhaps the USSR would have invaded one day, but it had nothing to do with Germany making war in the East.

But it does give an explanation to why the Germans attacked. Your other remarks I don´t even bother to comment....

[Caldric]

I don't give a damn how many German Generations have to pay for their nations war guilt, and is not so much the war as putting Women, Children, Elderly and anyone else they deemed enemies to death by Gas, or shooting or just bashing their brains out. That is the guilt. However this has not one thing to do with the topic nor post. Saying that Germany was only defending itself from USSR aggression is nonsense, perhaps the USSR would have invaded one day, but it had nothing to do with Germany making war in the East.

But it does give an explanation to why the Germans attacked. Your other remarks I don´t even bother to comment....

It gives a possible theory on why the Germans attacked, you say it as though it is fact, when it is not.

And if you don't want to comment on something in the future don't bring it up.

[Schwalbe]

I´ve never said it´s a fact. As for not commenting, I usually don´t with people having en evident attitude problem....

[Caldric]

I´ve never said it´s a fact. As for not commenting, I usually don´t with people having en evident attitude problem....

No I am always like this.

At any rate I never made a comment on your post to start with. Nor did I call you a revisionist.

Stavinov actually just surprised me for posting something from IHR, knowing his opinions on most things it was very surprising and I was talking to him.

[Roberto]

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?

[Caldric]

And just so I don't look bad for calling a Nazi a Nazi here are some past post from forum member7:

member7 wrote:

So what? Russia was huge compared to Germany she could surely spare some territory.


I'm dead serious. As far as I'm concerened all Hitler was doing was evening things out a bit. The Russians had vast resources and territory and like I said before Russia could surely make do with a little less territory then she had before.

The USSR was a greedy giant sucking the lifeblood out of the baltic nations and trying to get more. Germany on the other hand was a nation that was overpopulated and in was deperate need for resources. I think of Hitler as a modern day Robin Hood. He was stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Any way Germany's problems with Russia did not concern the western powers who should have been minding their own business.

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... sc&start=0

[Oleg Grigoryev]

oh God... such a waste of talent - memeber7 could have been a great comics writer:)

[Roberto]

Germany had a far better case for going to war against the Soviet Union then Bush does for going to war in Iraq.

What case was that, Mr. Smith?

Curbing Soviet influence in Eastern Europe?

Breaking the strategic deadlock with Great Britain?

Gaining "living space" in the Russian East for the Master Race, at the expense of the Slav sub-humans who were to be left to starve, expelled to Siberia or turned into obedient slaves?

Or a combination of the three?

[….] The sudden expansion of Soviet territory westward, although conceded in principle in 1939, produced fresh anxieties in Berlin. The Soviet-Finnish war had left Germany in a difficult position, for her sympathies were with the Finns. After the end of the war German troops were stationed in Finland. The deliveries of machinery and weapons to the Soviet Union agreed upon in the pact were slow and irregular, in sharp contrast with the scrupulous provision by the Soviet side of materials and food. Despite constant Soviet complaints, the German suppliers dragged their heels whenever they could rather than allow the latest technology fall into Russian hands. From Hitler’s point of view the most unfortunate consequence of the pact was the rapid forward deployment of the Red Army in Eastern Europe. He was embroiled in a major war, which he had not wanted and which the pact had been supposed to avert. Now, instead of a powerful Germany dominating Eastern and Central Europe following Poland’s defeat, Germany was engaged in an unpredictable war against the British Empire, while the Soviet Union was free to extend its influence unchecked. The occupation of Bessarabia was a final blow. A few weeks later Goebbels wrote in his diary: ‘Perhaps we shall be forced to take steps against all this, despite everything, and drive this Asiatic spirit back out of Europe and into Asia, where it belongs.’
Hitler had anticipated him. On July 3 [1940],instructions were issued to the German armed forces, under the code name ‘Fritz’, to begin preliminary studies for an operation against the Soviet Union. At first the army believed that Hitler wanted to inflict only a local defeat on Soviet forces so as to push back the frontier between them and force Stalin to recognize ‘Germany’s dominant position in Europe’. The army told Hitler on July 21 that a limited campaign could be launched in four to six weeks. But Hitler’s ideas, which had at first been uncertain, hardened over the course of the month, as a stream of intelligence information came in showing how Soviet diplomats were now pushing into the Balkans in their efforts to spread Soviet influence. When Hitler’s Operations Chief, General Alfred Jodl, called together his senior colleagues on July 29, he had the most startling news. After making sure that every door and window in the conference room aboard a specially converted train was tightly sealed, he announced that Hitler had decided to rid the world ‘once and for all’ of the Soviet menace by a surprise attack scheduled for May 1941.
[….]
There can be no doubt that practical strategic issues did push Hitler towards the most radical of military solutions. But a great war in the East had always been part of his thinking. Here was the real stuff of Lebensraum – living space. Hitler’s plans assumed fantastic proportions. By August he had decided to seize the whole vast area stretching from Archangel to Astrakhan (the ‘A-A Line’) and to populate it with fortified garrison cities, keeping the population under the permanent control of the master race, while a rump Asian state beyond the Urals, the Slavlands, would accommodate the rest of the Soviet people. Planning moved forward on this basis. By the spring of 1941 comprehensive programmes for the racial, political and economic exploitation of the new empire had been drawn up. ‘Russia’, Hitler is reported as saying, ‘will be our India!’.
[…]

Source of quote:

Richard Overy, Russia's War pages 61/62.

[Caldric]

Have to like Overy and his book, one of the better ones I have read on the subject. Not saying it is the best since I have not read many of the other historians on the matter. But Overy seems to take the best of all the historians and creates an excellent guide for the interested into "Russia's War". I have had the book for several years now, and the excellent paper backing is slowing wearing off I refer to it so much for just quick information. Great book indeed, have you seen the documentary that was created around the books? I would like to see them.

Sorry for the quick diversion from the main topic.
.

[Scott Smith]

Caldric, I don't know what you are talking about. There have been a lot of different contributors to IHR articles. I even wrote a couple of movie reviews for them just for fun. I did not say they were not biased, of course, but your assessment that it is a neo-Nazi organization is way out of line. Of course, smear-labels do substitute handily for arguments, don't they?

Also, I never endorsed the Suvarov thesis because I don't think Stalin would have been ready until 1942 and he probably did not know yet himself exactly what he was going to do, but it certainly would not have eased German security concerns. My views are more in line with Mr. Mills that Germany acted to remove a growing threat--like Bush wants to do in Iraq--except that in 1941 Germany was at war in a deadlock and could be hurt from the Soviet Union, whereas I doubt that Iraq could even muster some suicide bombers to attack the U.S.

One of the most disturbing things about being the "policeman of the world" is that we cannot own-up or even recognize our mistakes. That is why I say it is jingoism. Yes, intervention in two world wars, a series of bad treaties that left half the world Communist, a long litany of "crimes," for lack of a better word; but no, this was unalloyed Goodness. Even Roberto doesn't seriously dispute the approximately two-million Germans killed in the Gruesome Harvest (after the war). World Peace through ethnic-cleansing...

Yeah, just give a boy a flamethrower and let him root out those dirty Japs in their ratholes!

[Caldric]

The you are blind Scott.

Take a look at their contents:

http://www.ihr.org/directory.html

And you did not write a review you wrote an opinion. A review is not biased.

The 2 million "harvest" as you put it, could have been avoided with surrender.

Yeah, just give a boy a flamethrower and let him root out those dirty Japs in their ratholes!

Sounds good to me, because those were some really dirty Japanese.

But what the United States has to do with Germany invading USSR is as always not the point. You are trying to get a rise off of my patriotism for my own country. That is ok I ignore it.

And actually it was world Peace through a hard fight against an aggressive and criminal government in Berlin and Toyko. Will leave the Italians out since they themselves were little more then just victims of Nazi's themselves.

[Scott Smith]

To the point I made that Caldric could not substantiate his belief that the IHR was a neo-Nazi organization,

The[n] you are blind Scott.

Take a look at their contents:

http://www.ihr.org/directory.html

There are some consistent rightwing and anti-Zionist themes but also libertarian, isolationist and other views. Nevertheless, you will see what you want to see. But my suggestion is to read some standard academic periodicals and expose yourself to some views that really differ from your own. Are they all just Commies? Yes, it is normal to be exposed to viewpoints that you don't necessarily agree with. This is part of academic maturity.

And you did not write a review you wrote an opinion. A review is not biased.

No, all reviewers are biased and have subjective reasons for what they like and don't like. They may be more accomplished at concealing their biases, however, and they might do it for a living, which sometimes entails dissembling scores of reviews, sometimes formulaicly [formulaically] or with faux objectivity. Yes, I never tried to conceal my opinion. I stated exactly what I liked and didn't like.

The 2 million "harvest" as you put it, could have been avoided with surrender.

It was done after the war on account of the treaties made by the Big Three. At what point would have surrender not led to ethnic-cleansing of the Germans to insure that the postwar border changes were not contested as they were after Versailles? I doubt the Germans could have surrendered soon enough--1914, perhaps.

Yeah, just give a boy a flamethrower and let him root out those dirty Japs in their ratholes!

Sounds good to me, because those were some really dirty Japanese.

A little racism and jingoism underneath the surface, perhaps?

And actually it was world Peace through a hard fight against an aggressive and criminal government in Berlin and Toyko. Will leave the Italians out since they themselves were little more then just victims of Nazi's themselves.

If anything, the world was a more dangerous place after 1945. Even extreme Rightwingers like Senator McCarthy were upset at how the "pax americana" had turned out; he argued that internal Communist subversion was necessarily responsible for such unthinkable failures of state-cognition--although McCarthy's real motive was to move American foreign policy to the Right and thus reap the hegemonic fruits of a victory already won. When the Soviets were sitting-pretty with their own A-bomb in 1949 it was clear that the Truman Doctrine was flawed.

But what the United States has to do with Germany invading USSR is as always not the point. You are trying to get a rise off of my patriotism for my own country. That is ok I [will] ignore it.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? That's what I object to with your provincialism, Caldric. I am not trying to ridicule you but make you see that the U.S. of A. doesn't have all the answers.

[Caldric]

To the point I made that Caldric could not substantiate his belief that the IHR was a neo-Nazi organization,

How much more do you need then the link I posted?

There are some consistent rightwing and anti-Zionist themes but also libertarian, isolationist and other views. Nevertheless, you will see what you want to see. But my suggestion is to read some standard academic periodicals and expose yourself to some views that really differ from your own. Are they all just Commies? Yes, it is normal to be exposed to viewpoints that you don't necessarily agree with. This is part of academic maturity.

Actually what I see is consistent anti-Jewish themes and anti-American themes also anti-Allied Themes. I do read some standard academic periodicals, but they do not include the Nazi IHR. Sorry I prefer to read things that at least try to hide their personal hatreds. I read things all the time that do not agree with me, but I do most of my reading on Marxist, so when I read something that goes against the grain then I cross check it with other work, if it is confirmed by a couple of historians then I must at least accept it on the surface and continue to state it is not true. Perhaps you should take your own advice, because you are eat up with Nazi-Defense. No matter the evidence you never admit any thing but the line that revisionist spew out.

No, all reviewers are biased and have subjective reasons for what they like and don't like. They may be more accomplished at concealing their biases, however, and they might do it for a living, which sometimes entails dissembling scores of reviews, sometimes formulaicly [formulaically] or with faux objectivity. Yes, I never tried to conceal my opinion. I stated exactly what I liked and didn't like.

Yes I agree, but a true review is without biased opinion. I would hate to buy a car on a biased review, even though I would not buy a car based solely on a review. You get the point, if he just happened to dislike Ford then he is doing a disservice by even opening his mouth on the subject, much less writing it down. Not my opinion of your review which was most likely truthful from the perfectionist point of view, I just do not put that much weight into movies.

Oh I also did a little correction in the brackets [] just to show it is not actually bad writing but just typo most of the time.

A little racism and jingoism underneath the surface, perhaps?

Aha, no not me. I will leave that for the more radical to deal with. I would have to have first hand knowledge before I could become racist to the "Japs" as you call them. However, if it takes burning the Japanese Soldiers out of holes to win the war then OK.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? That's what I object to with your provincialism, Caldric. I am not trying to ridicule you but make you see that the U.S. of A. doesn't have all the answers.

What I was stating is just what you stated, what does the USA have to do with invading the Soviet Union? ? Trust me when I say I get more information from sources other then the Ad Council of the United States.

[michael mills]

Roberto wrote:

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.

If I get time, I will look up the book at the library again, and give more details of the chapter referred to.

Of course, I would not place absolute reliance on the statements made by captured Soviet personnel under German interrogation. They may well have told their interrogators what they wanted to hear, in the same way as captured German personnel told their Allied interrogators what the latter wanted to hear. However, the testimony cannot be dismissed absolutely.

[Scott Smith]

To the point I made that Caldric could not substantiate his belief that the IHR was a neo-Nazi organization,

How much more do you need then the link I posted?

There are some consistent rightwing and anti-Zionist themes but also libertarian, isolationist and other views. Nevertheless, you will see what you want to see. But my suggestion is to read some standard academic periodicals and expose yourself to some views that really differ from your own. Are they all just Commies? Yes, it is normal to be exposed to viewpoints that you don't necessarily agree with. This is part of academic maturity.

Actually what I see is consistent anti-Jewish themes and anti-American themes also anti-Allied Themes. I do read some standard academic periodicals, but they do not include the Nazi IHR. Sorry I prefer to read things that at least try to hide their personal hatreds.

Well, it's because this is a dimension removed from PC versions of WWII history. I would not agree with them that it is "bringing History into accord with the facts," necessarily, as this is the goal of all historical revisionism in general, and it is always subject to a process of revision. However, these are the themes that the IHR feels are ignored in the historiography, especially from an American point-of-view, and are furthermore distorted by atrocity-propaganda. I disagree with some of the directions the IHR has gone, such as firing one of the more reasonable and moderate Revisionist editors, Ted O'Keefe. Nevertheless, your assertion that the IHR is a neo-Nazi organization is just an ill-informed smear.

I read things all the time that do not agree with me, but I do most of my reading on Marxist, so when I read something that goes against the grain then I cross check it with other work, if it is confirmed by a couple of historians then I must at least accept it on the surface and continue to state it is not true. Perhaps you should take your own advice, because you are eat up with Nazi-Defense. No matter the evidence you never admit any thing but the line that revisionist spew out.

I'm glad to hear that but I have read so many academic journals, mostly on liberal themes that I could easily argue those points with equal aplomb and then you would be calling me a Communist. My point is we don't have to agree, or disagree and then look for comfort from those who do agree to "check," because some things are just not going to be settled objectively.

So we should expose ourselves to different viewpoints to at least be familiar with them and then try to understand that person's views. If we can do that we might throw-out most of their views but we will respect that person and sometimes adopt some new ideas. This is the path of progress. It is not one of Moral Certitude or historical orthodoxy.

No, all reviewers are biased and have subjective reasons for what they like and don't like. They may be more accomplished at concealing their biases, however, and they might do it for a living, which sometimes entails dissembling scores of reviews, sometimes formulaicly [formulaically] or with faux objectivity. Yes, I never tried to conceal my opinion. I stated exactly what I liked and didn't like.

Yes I agree, but a true review is without biased opinion. I would hate to buy a car on a biased review, even though I would not buy a car based solely on a review. You get the point, if he just happened to dislike Ford then he is doing a disservice by even opening his mouth on the subject, much less writing it down. Not my opinion of your review which was most likely truthful from the perfectionist point of view, I just do not put that much weight into movies.

Right, if I had done a book-review one would expect more points of an objective nature, just like your hypothetical car-review. But it is still a subjective process.

Oh I also did a little correction in the brackets [] just to show it is not actually bad writing but just typo most of the time.

Thanks, I wish the spellcheck worked or one could conveniently use Word without getting chicken-tracks into the text. The reason I put some of your typos in brackets is because I didn't understand what you were saying when I first read the sentences.

A little racism and jingoism underneath the surface, perhaps?

Aha, no not me. I will leave that for the more radical to deal with. I would have to have first hand knowledge before I could become racist to the "Japs" as you call them. However, if it takes burning the Japanese Soldiers out of holes to win the war then OK.

Okay, thank you for your answer. I agree, although I do not relish the idea of burning "dirty little Japs" in their foxholes. In fact, I admire their bravery. I will use the words "Japs" or "Nips" in WWII context to make my points, even though I personally consider them to be offensive terms otherwise.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? That's what I object to with your provincialism, Caldric. I am not trying to ridicule you but make you see that the U.S. of A. doesn't have all the answers.

What I was stating is just what you stated, what does the USA have to do with invading the Soviet Union? ? Trust me when I say I get more information from sources other then the Ad Council of the United States.

Then why do you persist with the "you're only a Nazi apologist" banter? I've stated before that in the 21st century the important thing is OUR society and that we should learn from the mistakes of our collective history--not just the enemy's mistakes but especially OUR OWN. The pendulum has swung so far to one side, however, that I almost can't express a non-PC version of WWII in the English language. My keyboard is usually on the defensive, but I'm used to it.