New Books on Eastern Front

[dsf]

First, let's be clear. They are not "Suvorov's claims", they are Adolph Hitler and Joseph Goebbel's claims. The claim that Russia was about to attack Germany originates in Hitler's speech announcing the invasion of Russia by Germany, to the German public. It remained a staple of German propaganda throughout the war. Suvorov invented nothing, he just sided with German wartime propaganda in an excess of dislike for Stalin. The reality is the claim whitewashes Stalin in another respect, because Stalin never saw the German attack coming, and it was the greatest strategic blunder of his life. Stalin who trusted no one, trusted Hitler; Hitler who deserved no rational man's trust, was trusted fully by Stalin.

Suvorov (Rezun) gets credit because it was his book resurrecting the claim that the USSR was about to launch a preemptive attack on Nazi Germany that started the whole controversy.

We know this because we know all the successful Russian intelligence that tried to tell Stalin that Germany was about to attack. We know the western intelligence that also understood this and tried to convey it to Stalin. We know the wall of distrust, as supposedly British misinformation and provocation, that Stalin showed to all such reports, extending to violently calling for everyone telling him such things to be arrested, tortured and killed.

Just who was arrested, tortured and killed for conveying this information? Names? Dates?

There is a chapter in Glantz's book Stumbling Colossus describing the successes and failures of Soviet intelligence and Stalin's unwillingness to countenance any action that might be taken by the Germans as a provocation. Gorodetsky also describes the situation in Grand Delusion, both English-language accounts based on Soviet source documents.

Trains carrying important industrial supplies and food continued to roll across the border from Russia into Germany right up until the day of the invasion. Stalin not only forbade Russian military aviation from scouting the German build up, he forced them to ignore and allow deep German reconnaissance flights into Russian territory.

That much is true.

He relieved of command aviation officers who so much as reported such incursions.

Can you provide documented examples, or is this simply Cold War mythology?

Stalin convinced himself in 1939 that the Ribbentrop Molotov Pact was a diplomatic masterstroke on his part. He believed he had successfully deflected Germany west, into a war against the capitalist status quo powers. He expected that war to last a long time, and to weaken both parties.

Maybe. I'm sure he saw the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as a diplomatic coup, but it was already evident in August 1939 that Hitler was about to invade Poland, possibly provoking a conflict with the other capitalist powers. Stalin did not need to encourage Hitler. He needed only to reassure him that Germany's eastern frontier would be secure.

There is also anecdotal evidence that as early as May 1940, Stalin anticipated that the USSR would become part of a coalition against Nazi Germany that included both Great Britain and the USA. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, or rather the trade agreements it was attached to, were a way to keep Hitler at arm's length, dependent upon Soviet imports while he waged war on France and Great Britain.

His military ambitions westward were all contingent on the possibility of a German defeat in that war. He was perfectly willing to contemplate and prepare for conquering Europe in the wake of a German collapse, but he had no intention of fighting heavily to cause that collapse himself.

This is pure speculation. According to source documents, Stalin was preparing to wage war on Nazi Germany sometime after 1942. Period. There is nothing to indicate he was going to wait for a German attack. There is nothing to indicate he had any aspirations on Western Europe, ever! Rather, the expectation was that Germany, France and Great Britain would become embroiled in a long war of attrition which would reduce Germany's armed forces while the USSR prepared for war. It has been said, that while Germany and the Allies totaled their losses in different columns, Stalin tallied them all in the same column.

He further thought it was unthinkable for Germany to attack him because he thought it would be a blunder on Germany's part. He thought they would never leave Britain unconquered in their rear to take on a two front war. He readily believed the German misinformation campaign that told him that all rumors of war preparation in Germany directed at Russia were British provocations, stemming from Britain's desperation and need for a continental ally to do their fighting and bleeding for them. He wasn't wrong that it was reckless and a blunder for Germany to attack him. He was hopelessly naive in his estimate of Hitler's (entirely imaginary) rationality and risk aversion.

Agreed. It was completely irrational for Hitler to start a two-front war.

Molotov's reaction to the declaration of war was to complain to the Germans themselves that "surely we have not deserved this" - a moral complaint of one capo to another that they had done everything to keep faith. Stalin was worse - he locked himself away for days and refused to see anyone....

This is simply not true, an allegation made by Zhukov during the Khushchev era when Stalin was being actively defamed by the new regime. The Kremlin appointment diary shows Stalin was on the job, receiving many ranking officers and members of his cabinet throughout that day (June 21) and the days that followed.

All the historians looking for ways to salvage conscious lies that excuse the mistakes of tyrants melt into insignificance when you look at the direct evidence of the actions and private explanations and reasoning of those tyrants themselves. There is no mystery in it, we know exactly why they actually did what they did. Later revisionism can't change that.

You paint with a very broad brush. I do not believe that there are any reputable historians "looking for ways to salvage conscious lies", at least not any Russian historians. That may still be the case with Anglophone historians, who have yet to embrace the research that has been done by Russian scholars in the last decade. Many of them are still wedded to the myths promulgated in the years following the Second World War, when there was a political agenda that had to be supported.

Sometimes there is a reason for revisionism, like when the documentary record suddenly becomes available. The debate prompted by Suvorov's claims has resulted in numerous rebuttals by Russian historians who have delved deeply into Soviet archives. The information is there, for those who read Russian. Unfortunately, that information has yet to replace the politically inspired hogwash passed off as history in mainstream Anglophone accounts of the Second World War.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[JasonC]

Dsf - you need to read David Murphy's "What Stalin Knew". The particulars on Russian intel efforts before the attack, assessed by a professional US intelligence analyst, with chapter and verse on every channel and source warning of the attack beforehand, and Stalin's reaction to every scrap of it.

[dsf]

Dsf - you need to read David Murphy's "What Stalin Knew". The particulars on Russian intel efforts before the attack, assessed by a professional US intelligence analyst, with chapter and verse on every channel and source warning of the attack beforehand, and Stalin's reaction to every scrap of it.

I'm not convinced. I learned a long time ago not to rely on anything US intelligence had to say about the USSR. This review would suggest that Murphy is still writing from afar, without direct access to source documents. I note the paucity of those he has used, in particular, and the date of publication (2006) is also a factor. Much has happened in the intervening years to spark further debate among Russian historians. I doubt that Murphy brings anything new to the table.

Moreover, this comment is a red flag. From the review above:

Murphy can be accused of excessive speculation throughout his work. Analysis is suspect if it is largely held together by qualifiers such as: "this report must have been rejected by the boss [stalin]," "such minutia was probably typical of the reports ... sent to their case officers," an official "would surely have learned" and he was "probably also shown two reports," "it seems likely that ... [an] arrest was related to," and "so it must have been suppressed," etc. (pp. 102, 115, 192, 205, 201, 208).

For too long western "experts" have papered over the gaps in their knowledge with speculation, hearsay and myth. I appreciate that Murphy made an attempt, but he was still writing with no knowledge of what was in Soviet archives. That's important, IMHO, and unnecessary in the wake of research by Russian scholars.

Кремль. Ставка. Генштаб.

Собирался ли Сталин напасть на Гитлера?

Антисуворов

За линией советско-германского фронта

There are many other relevant articles there.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[kevinkin]

http://onmilitarymatters.com/pages/dfindex.php

I sent this years ago and the shop is still in business and the listings

are good.

Kevin

[JasonC]

Dsf - you transparently haven't read a word of it. Check back after doing your homework.

[dsf]

Dsf - you transparently haven't read a word of it. Check back after doing your homework.

Do I need to?

The author's thesis, as described in the review, is nothing new. In fact it's old news, very old news. Moreover, the paragraph I quoted from the review is telling, even damning. According to the reviewers, he makes his case with innuendo and insinuation, with scant reference to source documents, so my conclusion is that this is opinion more than history. That's to be expected, considering the author is not an historian. If you read into his background, he was a CIA officer in Berlin until 1961 (still the Khrushchev Era), when he was recalled to the USA. His only other book is on Cold War spies. I would certainly not pay money for this book.

As I said before, eight years is a long time in the world of Russian history. There have been hundreds of books published in the intervening years by Russian historians who DO work from source documents, many of which were not available when Murphy was penning his manuscript. This is an old book that does little more than repeat old conclusions based on myths, fragmentary information and a lot of Cold War spin.

A case in point: after Stalin's death, during the anti-Stalin campaign launched by Khrushchev, Zhukov wrote in his memoirs that Stalin disappeared for days following June 21, 1941. You yourself repeated this story. In fact, Zhukov's tale is a totally fabrication, invented to curry favour with the incoming regime. This link goes to Stalin's appointment book for 1941. On June 21, Stalin received visitors all day, including Zhukov, as well as Molotov, Voroshilov, Beria (twice), Voznesenski, Malenkov, Kuznetsov, Timoshenko, Budënny and Mekhlis. On June 22 he had twenty-six appointments. So much for that famous story that Stalin ran away and hid under his bed, eh? That's one of the most famous myths of the Second World War, the kind that people like Murphy cling to and repeat ad nauseum.

I have maintained for many years that the Anglo history of the Soviet Union during the Second World War is tainted and overdue for revision. The Russians have been busy doing just that for two decades now, but Glantz remains a voice in the wilderness among American historians. Rather than addressing that challenge, people like Murphy keep coming out with the same-old same-old, reinforcing the old myths instead of dispelling them. I cannot endorse that. You may regard Murphy as some kind of sage, but I see him as just another hack writer out to make a buck. He and Suvorov belong on the same shelf in the fiction section.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[Apocal]

Кремль. Ставка. Генштаб.

Собирался ли Сталин напасть на Гитлера?

Антисуворов

За линией советско-германского фронта

There are many other relevant articles there.

Regards

Scott Fraser

Why would you link a Russian-language source on an English language forum to poster who's never claimed to be able to read Russian?

[76mm]

Why would you link a Russian-language source on an English language forum to poster who's never claimed to be able to read Russian?

Presumably because all of the most recent and relevant sources on this topic are in Russian? I guess dsf could either have said "take my word for it" or posted whatever cititations are available--I know which approach I prefer.

Besides, people are doing wonders these days with Google translate...

[JasonC]

Yes, you need to. Currently your history grade is an F.

[dsf]

Why would you link a Russian-language source on an English language forum to poster who's never claimed to be able to read Russian?

Maybe in the hope that some people can read Russian? Some people do.

The people who know the most about the Red Army are the Russians. The links are to articles by prominent Russian historians who challenge Suvorov, for one reason or another, after reviewing the documents held in TsAMO and other archives. Suvorov's allegations sparked considerable debate in Russia, with the result that people went looking to see what proof there might be among documents of the time. These articles are part of the result. They are there for anyone who can read them.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[dsf]

Yes, you need to. Currently your history grade is an F.

Why is that, Jason? Because I don't subscribe to the Cold War version of history? Is it because I believe Suvorov is a charlatan? Or is it because I discount the book you recommend after reading a critical review that concludes the author is making things up?

I read Russian and German. I learned both languages so I could use Russian and German documents when I research the war between the Russians and Germans. That way I don't have to rely on interpreters and spin doctors and can draw my own conclusions from the historical record. As far as I'm concerned, that is a much better modus operandum than relying on the suppositions of some spook halfway around the world.

By the same token, I am also skeptical when I read books on the Nazi-Soviet War written by people who do not have those language skills. That is not to say they are wrong, but they are not as close to the truth as those who do have those skills.

It's all about proximity, Jason. When the people in the trenches (the Russians) are reporting something different from what we (Anglophones) were taught thirty years ago, it is worth taking note. As it transpires, what we have been told differs from what the Russians are discovering after poring over old documents, significantly, in some respects. It is certainly food for thought, and sometimes it puts events in a completely different light. Is it revisionism? Sure, but history is a living thing, and it is changing constantly as we discover new facts and form more conclusions. Every grad student writing a dissertation is trying to bring new insights to an old story. Revisionism is the norm. Eventually the new Russian history will be absorbed and incorporated into our own history, but that will be decades from now. For the moment, all we have is the collective work of David Glantz.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[John Kettler]

dsf,

I'm curious on what you make of the video interview some years ago with Stalin's telegrapher? He says that twice, before Stalin decided that Moscow would be held, come what may, he was sent to Stalin's private train to await his arrival before Stalin left Moscow as part of the evacuation of the government. I found the telegrapher's mien and account to be highly credible. That same program (don't recall title or channel) showed evidence the Russians made two separate efforts to obtain peace with Germany. One such effort went through the Swedes, and the other, I believe, Through Turkey. The second attempt was made in the summer of 1942. Bellamy, in Absolute War, deems there may have been a peace feeler put out wanting to know what kind of territorial concessions it would take to get Hitler to stop the war, but then he says it may really have been a disinformation effort against Hitler. The program showed the docs associated with the feeler through Sweden.

Regards,

John Kettler

[dsf]

dsf,

I'm curious on what you make of the video interview some years ago with Stalin's telegrapher? He says that twice, before Stalin decided that Moscow would be held, come what may, he was sent to Stalin's private train to await his arrival before Stalin left Moscow as part of the evacuation of the government. I found the telegrapher's mien and account to be highly credible.

There's no reason to disbelieve him. There were certainly preparations to move the government to Kuybyshev, but Stalin stayed in Moscow. The Kremlin appointment logs make that clear.

That same program (don't recall title or channel) showed evidence the Russians made two separate efforts to obtain peace with Germany. One such effort went through the Swedes, and the other, I believe, Through Turkey. The second attempt was made in the summer of 1942.

I've read that the Soviets tried to reach the Germans through the Swedes in the wake of Barbarossa and it went nowhere. IMHO, anything in 1942 would be disinformation. Once the USA was in the war, it was a fight to the finish. In one of the articles I linked, Stalin is quoted as saying in 1940 that there would eventually be a coalition with Great Britain and the USA that would crush Germany. Once Germany declared war on the USA, that coalition became a reality. I think that would completely remove any incentive to sue for peace. Compounding that, by 1942 the brutality of German occupation policy was known and it was already a fight to the death.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[JasonC]

Why is that is because you have failed to do your homework, as as a result you continue to believe and relate manifest untruths about a serious historical work you have not read, written by a man who knows far more about the subject than you do. For inability to learn and unwillingness to work at it, you get a failing grade. Warning everyone not to take a word you say on any historical subject seriously, ever, until your attitude and actions change.

Those who know, know because they worked at it, not because they have ideologically approved prejudices or can regurgitate ignorant snark off an Amazon review. Go do your homework. And in the meantime, here is a big glass of STFU.

[dsf]

Why is that is because you have failed to do your homework, as as a result you continue to believe and relate manifest untruths about a serious historical work you have not read, written by a man who knows far more about the subject than you do. For inability to learn and unwillingness to work at it, you get a failing grade. Warning everyone not to take a word you say on any historical subject seriously, ever, until your attitude and actions change.

Those who know, know because they worked at it, not because they have ideologically approved prejudices or can regurgitate ignorant snark off an Amazon review. Go do your homework. And in the meantime, here is a big glass of STFU.

Grow up, dude. History is about facts. Clearly you didn't bother to read the review of Murphy's book on History-Net, or you would know it was not "snark off an Amazon review" but an objective, if critical assessment by a reputable historian. There are many useful reviews there.

Suvorov is old news. His claims have been refuted many times by Russian historians who have been through the archives. I have posted links to several Russian articles that are online, and have recommended two books that have been published by reputable Anglophone historians with far more credibility than either you or I can claim, including David Glantz, generally considered to be one of the most knowledgeable people in the world regarding the Red Army in the Second World War. If you truly believe Glantz is somehow a charlatan, I fear there is no hope for you.

That said, this thread is about books. Suvorov is off-topic.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[LukeFF]

] And in the meantime, here is a big glass of STFU.

Totally uncalled for, and quite ironic that you tell him he shouldn't be taken seriously until he has an attitude change. The only person I'm seeing in this topic who needs an attitude adjustment certainly doesn't go by the handle of dsf.

[Battlefront.com]

And JasonC now has an infraction for being out-of-the-ordinary abusive even for his normally condescending and aggressive posting style. Another infraction in the next 30 days means a ban, JasonC, so take your own advice about putting a sock in it. Except you really need to.

Steve