The Hitler Military Record, Volume One

[EB.]

So, some poster says that what I say about the Allies not wanting to cooperate with the Soviets against the Germans in the late 1930's is "utter nonsense" and that I obviously do not know about the negotiations between the Soviets and the Allies during that time period. I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Not only do I "know" about those precise negotiations, but I have researched the very transcripts of those negotiations, all of the background diplomatic documents, as well as the memoirs and memoranda to file from the main negotiators, Soviet and Western. I have read word for word (in Russian and in English) the very transcripts of those meetings for which you claim I do not know the existence of. And again, based upon heavy research which is almost definitely greater than what you yourself have done (or the authors whom you read as experts, I can repeat my basic point here: the Allies were not interested in cooperating with the Soviets but only in staying out of the war and letting the Soviets and Germans destroy each other. Not only is this perfectly documented for anyone who cares to check, but it also makes perfect sense. My God, in the 1930's, the Soviets were literally begging the West to help against Germany, but the West absolutely refused to comply. How can you argue with that? Have you even heard of collective security or united front politics? Admittedly, not everyone can study international law, but surely some American political science or history courses at least mention these things. Again, I am shocked and bewildered at how little Americans study or know about history.

I find again and again that I say something so simple and true beyond argument like "most German casualties were caused by the Soviets on the Eastern Front" and then a team of six or so jackals jumps in screaming "how can you make such an unfounded statement?! obviously you know nothing about history! you only read Pravda! what crazy propaganda!" Now I am sure that I am correct on these points, and if you want to have a showdown concerning grades or intelligence or articles published or classes taught or whatever, then I would probably win. Please understand that I would NEVER make a firm comment about an historical issue unless I researched the issue in tremendous detail. I don't just read pamphlets and idiotically repeat lines, not at all. I do original research with real documents, and I use logic. The problem with my attackers is that they only want to repeat Western propaganda without thought and without their own research. Any parrot can do that.

Now very briefly on Soviet economic policies. I will explain how the economic policies of Stalin were in fact wise and ultimately very successful. This is not mindless repeating from some pamphlet but carefully considered and well thought-out analysis based upon original research.

First off, you must not believe the arguments that Stalin was crazy or delusional or paranoid. His economic and political policies were very rational. Mobiliization of available resources to optimize achievement of state goals and interests. Very rational. Those who deny this are merely repeating old lies without any thought. Examples of these types are Trotsky, Khrushchev, Hitler, Gorbachev--list could go on.

In the 1920's, the USSR faced a severe grain crisis throughout the country. This was a direct result of the New Economic Policy (NEP) which the Soviets had in the 1920's. This policy allowed a great deal of economic liberalization, a lot of market forces allowed to work--in short, a big move back to a capitalist economic system in Russia. In the city, businessmen called Nepmen flourished by cheating and corruption. In the countryside, wealthy peasants called kulaks grew even richer off of the labor of poorer peasants. Both the Nepmen and kulaks were almost entirely non-Russian in their ethnic origins. Consequently, most ordinary working Russians hated them.

Specifically, the grain crisis of the late 1920's occurred because the kulaks began a systematic policy of HOARDING their grain. This made perfect economic sense to them, because it made grain prices skyrocket. The result was that grain was kept from the cities and what grain was sold was at an extremely high price. Terrible for the Soviet government because they could not have a sufficient number of working population in the cities to have industrialization because there was just not enough food.

That is the key to collectivization of Soviet agriculture by Stalin--it gave the Soviet government CONTROL over grain production and ensured a stable, controllable grain supply for the cities--precisely what was lacking in the NEP system and precisely what was an absolute necessity for Stalin's next major step, rapid industrialization. That is a whole other article, but suffice it so say that Soviet industrialization was a tremendous success, with the highest growth rates in heavy industry ever achieved in the history of the world. This creation of the Soviet heavy industrial base allowed for tremendous production of armaments during the war. And of course that is the main reason that the Soviets won the war--military production.

Now another fellow criticizes Stalin for destroying Bukharin, the "genius". Let me share with you what Bukharin's economic plan was. While Stalin wanted Russia to build up its OWN industrial potential by investing in heavy industry, Bukharin had a far more elaborate plan:

Bukharin's plan was to appease the kulaks. He wanted the Soviet government to invest NOT in heavy industry (capital) but in light industry (consumer goods). He wanted to trade consumer goods to the kulaks in return for grain--at the kulaks' prices. This was obviously a losing bargain for the Soviets, plus they would not CONTROL the grain supply--it would remain in the hands of the anti-Soviet kulaks. He even actively encouraged the kulaks "to enrich themselves". Then Bukharin's plan was to take the grain and trade on the international market to obtain high-priced Western armaments with which to defend the Soviet Union. Of course, grain prices are always low compared to armaments. Plus, again, you see that with the Bukharin method, the Soviets would have been tying their fate to others, relying upon things that would not be within their control.

Stalin understood this lesson very well: RELY ONLY UPON WHAT YOU CONTROL. Bukharin did not. if the Bukharin policies were chosen, then ultimately, the Soviets would have lost the war. By strengthening the Soviet Union's own industrial base and grabbing control of the country's own destiny from the hands of others, Stalin charted the path to victory. If this were 1941, we could argue freely about whether this was wise or not, but now that we see who ultimately won the war, it is quite obvious that Stalin had the right plan.

[daystrom]

EB: I think that some of the flak you are getting over your posts is that some people are taking from them the idea that you believe that Stalin was a moral and just man heading a benevolent regime. You could probably clear this all up by just stating your position on that. For example, when you mention that the Soviets took Eastern Poland and that it was a wise strategic move to secure a buffer zone (a fact I will not dispute) you neglect to mention that they (Stalin and his Soviet regime) were responsible for horrendous war crimes while there. Now I am certain that you do not condone these heinous acts (like the Katyn forest as one example) and you could probably silence all of this controversy by pointing that out.

regards,

Ray

[dgaad]

Originally posted by daystrom:

EB: I think that some of the flak you are getting over your posts is that some people are taking from them the idea that you believe that Stalin was a moral and just man heading a benevolent regime. You could probably clear this all up by just stating your position on that. For example, when you mention that the Soviets took Eastern Poland and that it was a wise strategic move to secure a buffer zone (a fact I will not dispute) you neglect to mention that they (Stalin and his Soviet regime) were responsible for horrendous war crimes while there. Now I am certain that you do not condone these heinous acts (like the Katyn forest as one example) and you could probably silence all of this controversy by pointing that out.

regards,

Ray

Daystrom : actually, EB's position is not that Stalin was moral, but that he was "absolutely correct" to "find and destroy enemies of the people". Morality doesn't enter into it, which, Daystrom, you will ultimately learn is precisely the problem with EB.

Read his comments in the "Things that would make SC a Great Historical Sim - Long" post.

[ October 16, 2002, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

Bukharin's plan was to appease the kulaks. He wanted the Soviet government to invest NOT in heavy industry (capital) but in light industry (consumer goods). He wanted to trade consumer goods to the kulaks in return for grain--at the kulaks' prices. This was obviously a losing bargain for the Soviets, plus they would not CONTROL the grain supply--it would remain in the hands of the anti-Soviet kulaks. He even actively encouraged the kulaks "to enrich themselves". Then Bukharin's plan was to take the grain and trade on the international market to obtain high-priced Western armaments with which to defend the Soviet Union. Of course, grain prices are always low compared to armaments. Plus, again, you see that with the Bukharin method, the Soviets would have been tying their fate to others, relying upon things that would not be within their control.

Stalin understood this lesson very well: RELY ONLY UPON WHAT YOU CONTROL. Bukharin did not. if the Bukharin policies were chosen, then ultimately, the Soviets would have lost the war. By strengthening the Soviet Union's own industrial base and grabbing control of the country's own destiny from the hands of others, Stalin charted the path to victory. If this were 1941, we could argue freely about whether this was wise or not, but now that we see who ultimately won the war, it is quite obvious that Stalin had the right plan.

And, of course, it was also necessary to execute Bukharin as a traitor to the people, and put most of the rest of his family in the Gulag. Stalin was absolutely right to do this. Thank God, er I mean, Thank providence that Stalin had the great Bolshevik Beria working to root out and exterminate all vestiges of Trotskyism, Zinovievites, Rightists, and anyone else who didn't follow Comrade Stalin's General Line.

ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS!!!

[ October 16, 2002, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[dgaad]

Originally posted by daystrom:

EB: Now I am certain that you do not condone these heinous acts (like the Katyn forest as one example) and you could probably silence all of this controversy by pointing that out.

regards,

Ray

Here is the Stalinist Response :

Everyone knows that the Katyn Forest was a piece of German propaganda. Those were Polish soldiers captured by the Germans and executed, and then quickly buried north of Minsk, and then supposedly uncovered by the Germans. This was a propaganda ploy.

Everyone knows that Stalin didn't execute any Polish soldiers that surrendered, because of course the Poles didn't "surrender" to the Russian troops, they were welcomed with open arms. The Soviets had no Polish prisoners to execute. This is proven in many many studies conducted into the issue.

It may be true that Stalin had a few Polish kulaks and other Polish-fascist saboteurs killed, usually in the act of sabotage against Soviet industry, but this is no different than the West executing traitors.

[EB.]

Well, if they were not physically eliminated, then there is too much of a real chance that they could come back to attempt to overthrow the regime. Read Trotsky's books and articles, if you do not believe this. To the very end, he was trying his best to remove Stalin. Trotsky's devoted followers tried their best to unseat Stalin. Their traitorous efforts tended to cease when they were shot. Trotsky's articles and anti-Soviet propaganda machine (I have seen his royalty checks from New York bank accounts) tended to stop when he received that involuntary cranial surgery.

So, if your point is whether it was wise to remove enemies permanently, then I would say yes in the Soviet dictatorship. This rule of course does not apply to Washington DC where winners congratulate the losers and vice versa. Soviet politics is not that nice. There can be only one dictator in a dictatorship. And destruction of families is a common Russian practice in history. if you want evidence, just look at how Khrushchev's son behaves--becoming a US citizen, selling out entirely, spouting anti-Soviet propaganda in American Masonic lodges for pocket change. What a dirty traitor. Like father, like son.

[daystrom]

Here is the Stalinist Response :

Everyone knows that the Katyn Forest was a piece of German propaganda. Those were Polish soldiers captured by the Germans and executed, and then quickly buried north of Minsk, and then supposedly uncovered by the Germans. This was a propaganda ploy.

Everyone knows that Stalin didn't execute any Polish soldiers that surrendered, because of course the Poles didn't "surrender" to the Russian troops, they were welcomed with open arms. The Soviets had no Polish prisoners to execute. This is proven in many many studies conducted into the issue.

It may be true that Stalin had a few Polish kulaks and other Polish-fascist saboteurs killed, usually in the act of sabotage against Soviet industry, but this is no different than the West executing traitors.

Yes, I am reading some of his "greatest hits" now. Some of this is quite shocking. I would suggest he take a look at a book by one of his own countrypersons, namely Nataliya Lebedeva, "The Tragedy of Katyn," International Affairs (Moscow), June 1990

This particular work was based largely on original NKVD documents between Stalin, Beria and the rest of his cohorts. There are documents signed by Beria to Stalin recommending the execution of Polish soldiers in the east. But I suppose that these documents would be fabricated by CIA agents who penetrated the Kremlin (Operation Debunk Joe) in the last days of the Soviet Union or other such rubbish.

Ray

[dgaad]

Well, unfortunately Daystrom, EB is a "true believer". Every aspect of the truth will be re-explained and twisted around his own conception of the world, and he will do this until the day he dies. He will not be a very happy person, either, and in fact I pity him.

There is some redemption for us, however, Daystrom. It seems to me like you might actually know something about Russian / Soviet history in a more scholarly sense. In this context, its actually a learning experience to talk to a real live Stalinist. I've never met one before and it gives a much better sense of the manner of thinking, wording, and conceptualizing that took place during the 30s, 40s, and 50s in Stalinist Russia. I mean this in all seriousness.

[ October 17, 2002, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

So, if your point is whether it was wise to remove enemies permanently, then I would say yes in the Soviet dictatorship. This rule of course does not apply to Washington DC where winners congratulate the losers and vice versa. Soviet politics is not that nice. There can be only one dictator in a dictatorship. And destruction of families is a common Russian practice in history. if you want evidence, just look at how Khrushchev's son behaves--becoming a US citizen, selling out entirely, spouting anti-Soviet propaganda in American Masonic lodges for pocket change. What a dirty traitor. Like father, like son.

And lets not forget Krushchev's traitorous act of releasing all those people from the Gulag, except for the ones working on the Glorious Soviet Space Program. And the 20th Party Congress . . . for shame.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

Well, if they were not physically eliminated, then there is too much of a real chance that they could come back to attempt to overthrow the regime.

I take issue with this Comrade.

Are you saying that Stalin had the Polish officers killed? This is absolutely untrue, and a Western / German lie. In the first place, there were no Polish prisoners held by the Soviet Union. In the second place, how DARE you imply that the Glorious Soviet Revolution could be overthrown by a small group of elitist officers who are puppets of the West / Fascist conspiracy. These were Polish men who were not prisoners, had no position in the Soviet Apparatus, and were being held in Welcoming and Re-Education Centers. They had no opportunity to establish a Western saboteur network, so its absolutely insulting to the Soviet People that they were any threat.

[EB.]

On Katyn forest killing of Polish officers and bourgeois citizens: this was quite obviously a SOVIET act. I never said or believed anything different. This was not done by the Germans, though the Germans were the first to try to exploit its anti-Soviet potential in international political propaganda--which worked, by the way, because the West hated the Soviets anyway.

So, please don't put words in my mouth--the Soviets did the killing, and it was no mistake but all on Stalin's direct orders. No big mystery there. The Soviet government openly lied about the incident because FDR did not want the many Polish ethnic citizens of the USA to turn against American intervention in the war and the Soviets did not want the Germans to use this for propaganda against the Soviets. As a purely propaganda exercise, it was a Soviet failure to lie, because nobody believed them anyway. the Germans (Goebbels specifically) turned it into a masterful trick. Germans won that whole game there. The biggest loser of the affair, unluckily, was poor FDR, who had to spend a lot more political points to counter the justifiable outrage by Polish Americans.

So: Soviets did it. Soviets lied. Germans used it. FDR was hurt by it. Soviets continued to lie about it to the world.

Now, on the other hand, from the Soviet point of view, please realize these things:

1. almost everybody in the USSR knew exactly that the Soviets were guilty--they would not admit it to foreigners, of course, but they knew it exactly

2. after the war, the Soviets also continued to lie about the incident because they didn't want to cause extra disturbance to their shaky client regime in Poland--although I think that everybody in Poland knew the real truth anyway, despite official lies--so this lying was unnecessary too

3. BIG POINT--because those shot were Polish military officers, landlords, Catholic priests, and capitalists with a long and well-documented history of anti-Soviet and anti-Russian beliefs and acts from 1917 to 1939, these people were justifiably shot in terms of Soviet political morality and logic--that is, they were anti-Soviet enemies of the people--that means that they get shot. And the real kicker is that ordinary Russians would gladly support shooting such people--so the lying was not necessary at all in terms of internal Soviet politics--the lying way only for foreign consumption (particularly in the West) and it failed anyway--check out Soviet newspapers in the 1930's and you will see all about enemies of the people being shot--no surprise to the Soviet people that the Poles were destroyed like that too--same with the Chechens, by the way--Russians would simply say "of course they should be shot"--you may disagree, but don't forget that it was these same Polish officers who attacked, destroyed, and raped deep into Soviet territory during the Russian Civil War. Do you think that Stalin or the Russian people would forget such things? Or to allow them to pass unpunished when the opportunity for punishment arose? Well, of course not.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

On Katyn forest killing of Polish officers and bourgeois citizens: this was quite obviously a SOVIET act. I never said or believed anything different. This was not done by the Germans, though the Germans were the first to try to exploit its anti-Soviet potential in international political propaganda--which worked, by the way, because the West hated the Soviets anyway.

So, please don't put words in my mouth--the Soviets did the killing, and it was no mistake but all on Stalin's direct orders. No big mystery there. The Soviet government openly lied about the incident because FDR did not want the many Polish ethnic citizens of the USA to turn against American intervention in the war and the Soviets did not want the Germans to use this for propaganda against the Soviets. As a purely propaganda exercise, it was a Soviet failure to lie, because nobody believed them anyway. the Germans (Goebbels specifically) turned it into a masterful trick. Germans won that whole game there. The biggest loser of the affair, unluckily, was poor FDR, who had to spend a lot more political points to counter the justifiable outrage by Polish Americans.

So: Soviets did it. Soviets lied. Germans used it. FDR was hurt by it. Soviets continued to lie about it to the world.

Now, on the other hand, from the Soviet point of view, please realize these things:

1. almost everybody in the USSR knew exactly that the Soviets were guilty--they would not admit it to foreigners, of course, but they knew it exactly

2. after the war, the Soviets also continued to lie about the incident because they didn't want to cause extra disturbance to their shaky client regime in Poland--although I think that everybody in Poland knew the real truth anyway, despite official lies--so this lying was unnecessary too

3. BIG POINT--because those shot were Polish military officers, landlords, Catholic priests, and capitalists with a long and well-documented history of anti-Soviet and anti-Russian beliefs and acts from 1917 to 1939, these people were justifiably shot in terms of Soviet political morality and logic--that is, they were anti-Soviet enemies of the people--that means that they get shot. And the real kicker is that ordinary Russians would gladly support shooting such people--so the lying was not necessary at all in terms of internal Soviet politics--the lying way only for foreign consumption (particularly in the West) and it failed anyway--check out Soviet newspapers in the 1930's and you will see all about enemies of the people being shot--no surprise to the Soviet people that the Poles were destroyed like that too--same with the Chechens, by the way--Russians would simply say "of course they should be shot"--you may disagree, but don't forget that it was these same Polish officers who attacked, destroyed, and raped deep into Soviet territory during the Russian Civil War. Do you think that Stalin or the Russian people would forget such things? Or to allow them to pass unpunished when the opportunity for punishment arose? Well, of course not.

I'm confused now, Comrade. I can accept that perhaps the Soviets executed a few Polish officers, but you yourself justified it by saying that they had to be physically eliminated or they would be a threat to the regime. So, let me be correct in understanding you : the failure was not the physical elimination of these kulaks, but attempting to cover it up? In fact, if I understand you correctly, the correct Soviet course would have been to physically eliminate all threats to the regime, such as the landlord kulak Polish officers, and then tell the absolute truth about it with Bolshevik Pride? I must say, this would have been a bold course, and one that Stalin himself would have praised.

[Jeff Heidman]

This is really quite amazing. It's like taking a hike in the woods and stumbling upon a dinosaur. I really thought all the Stalinist apologist were long since extinct.

I never thought I would see someone who could give Holocaust revisionists a run for their money.

Jeff

[Hubert Cater]

OK guys, this seems better suited to the General Forums, please feel free to continue this discussion there...

Hubert