Just read Otto Skorzeny´s thoughts and he thinks that without the Eastern front 1941-1945 there would never have been a free Europe.

So on a large scale I think he means Russia would have attacked and crushed Germany and Italy in the end, maybe even tried to invade England as well, but would have conquered the continental Europe anyway by 1942-1943.

The communistic Europe? In a way I think Skorzeny has a point. Stalin was building a huge army 1. to protect himself and USSR 2. to conquer more countries.

What do you think? Did the 1941-1945 war stop Communism from spreading all over the Europe? With free Europe I think Skorzeny refers to West Germany, Italy, France etc and not the satellite nations Poland, the Baltic countries and so on.

__________________

Hmmm...I've considered this quite a bit over the last few months. Did the western allies choose the wrong enemies? Did the Russians expect to fight the rest of western Europe, hence the non-agression treaty with the Germans?

This is a real can of worms, so to speak. Could the western allies overlook the indiscretions (to put it lightly) of the Nazis in order to defeat the Russians?

I should probably start a new thread on this, and I might some time later, but what if France fought a 'preventative' war against Germany in the early '30s? How would that effect Russian foreign policy during subsequent years?

This is probably going from the realm of a probably what-if to one of total imagination.

Happy new year to everyone, too.

No. Stalin's territorial claims were made clear by Stalin to Molotov before his 1940 visit in Berlin. Actually Hitler - by starting and loosing the war against the USSR - gave Stalin more than he wanted.

And a "red" Western Europe is contrary to U.S. and U.K. interests. Strategically the "price" (war between USA/UK and USSSR) would be not worth the relatively small benefit of an "red" Western Europe to Stalin.

I mean, look at the 1945 map. Stalin got what he wanted (USSR "buffered" by satellite states), plus at least a part of Germany (naturally, as his country did the major part in defeating Germany it was about to occupy it).

Can't see that outcome for Stalin with an intact German Army and Britain and U.S.A. alive.

Cheers,

P.S: I'm not suprised that a strategical and political genuis like the nazi Otto Skorzerny sees this different. To him, the nazis were always right.

[ 30. December 2002, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

__________________
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"
(President Merkin Muffley in "Dr. Strangelove")

and with Hitler there would have been a free Europe

There is no actual proof from any reliable source that Stalin or the Russian military planned any such thing.
A favourite myth of neo-nazi's
Without Hitler,there is NO proof that Communism would have even spread to Poland, and the baltic states.

Its thanks to Hitler that Communism spread as far west as it did.

Otto Skorzeny was a self confessed Nazi, who was just making excuses for their actions

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

I would agree with Redcoat on this. Stalin only made his moves with the help of Hitler and was forced to take more because of Hitler's stab in the back attack. No solid proof that Stalin was actually 'building' an army for the sole purpose of taking Europe. On the contrary, he was still trying to intimidate the army to be loyal by using his purges so he was in no position to attack anybody as the war with Finland demonstrated. Good call Redcoat

[ 30. December 2002, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: PzJgr ]

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Communism is international revolution and this is what it says:

Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?
It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.


- 17 -
Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.


- 18 -
What will be the course of this revolution?
Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.

(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.

(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.

(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.

(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

(vii) Education of the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation -- all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.

(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother's care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.

(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.

(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.

(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.

(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.

It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country's productive forces.

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.


- 19 -
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries -- that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...1/prin-com.htm


It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

So either Stalin was a communist or then...he was not..he was just a dictator? But the idea of communism is here.Without Hitler or not it would move ahead. 20 000 tanks by 1941 and for defence purposes only?? Yeah, right. That still makes 20 000 tanks for Stalin and Hitler had some 3-4,000...

I would not want the free world of nazism and that is not what I meant. Nor Skorzeny.By the time in the 1930´s Stalin was busy cleaning his country of possible competitors and just getting ready for the big race...

By the way, Stalin and co always used the phrase "defensive measures " as he was talking about the attack in Finland 1939 and the plans for it. That was strategy. So how can we know what he actually had in mind for Germany in 1941. Was Winter War a defensive measure ..only? Well, the Finnish lakes are full of Russian defenders then...

__________________

Lies or facts?


"It is important to point out here that Stalin could have prevented war in 1939 by agreeing to support Britain and France in their "guarantee" of support to Poland, or simply by announcing that the Soviet Union would firmly oppose any violation by Germany of Polish territory. He decided instead to give Hitler a "green light" to attack Poland, fully anticipating that Britain and France would then declare war on Germany, making the localized conflict into a full-scale, Europe-wide war.

In this speech, Stalin laid out his shrewd and calculating view of the European situation:

The question of war or peace has entered a critical phase for us. If we conclude a mutual assistance pact with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off from Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western powers. War would be avoided, but down the road events could become dangerous for the USSR. If we accept Germany's proposal and conclude a non-aggression pact with her, she will of course invade Poland, and the intervention of France and England in that would be unavoidable. Western Europe would be subjected to serious upheavals and disorder. Under those conditions, we would have a great opportunity to stay out of the conflict, and we could plan the opportune time for us to enter the war.
The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough to seize power. The dictatorship of such a party will only become possible as the result of a major war.

Our choice is clear. We must accept the German proposal and politely send the Anglo-French mission home. Our immediate advantage will be to take Poland to the gates of Warsaw, as well as Ukrainian Galicia ...

For the realization of these plans it is essential that the war continue for a long as possible, and all forces, with which we are actively involved, should be directed toward this goal ...

Let us consider a second possibility, that is, a victory by Germany ... It is obvious that Germany will be too occupied elsewhere to turn against us. In a conquered France, the French Communist Party will be very strong. The Communist revolution will break out unavoidably, and we will be able to fully exploit this situation to come to the aid of France and make it our ally. In addition, all the nations that fall under the "protection" of a victorious Germany will also become our allies. This presents for us a broad field of action in which to develop the world revolution.

Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR -- the workers' homeland -- that war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French block. Everything should be done so that this drags out as long as possible with the goal of weakening both sides. For this reason, it is imperative that we agree to conclude the pact proposed by Germany, and then work that this war, which will one day be declared, is carried out after the greatest possible passage of time...

The Soviet leader's daring calculation to use Germany as an "icebreaker" for war was, von Thadden says, "Stalin's trap."

A version of this speech has been known since 1939, but for decades it has been widely dismissed as a fraud. However, in 1994 Russian historians found an authoritative text of it in a special secret Soviet archive, and quickly published it in a prominent Russian scholarly journal, as well as in an academic publication of Novosibirsk University. (note 7) Shortly after this August 1939 speech, von Thadden points out, Stalin ordered a two-year military mobilization plan, a massive project that culminated in the summer of 1941 with powerful Soviet forces poised to strike westwards against Germany and the rest of Europe.

On May 5, 1941, just seven weeks before the German attack, Stalin delivered another important speech, this one at a ceremonial banquet in the Kremlin to graduates of the Frunze Military Academy. Also attending were the members of Stalin's "inner circle," including Molotov and Beria.

During the war, von Thadden relates, the Germans reconstructed the text of this speech based on recollections of captured Soviet officers who had attended the banquet.

As von Thadden notes, a number of historians have predictably denied its authenticity, rejecting it as a product of German propaganda disinformation. However, several years ago Russian historian Lev Bezymensky found the text of a portion of the speech, which had been edited for anticipated publication, in Kremlin archives. He published this text in a 1992 issue of the scholarly journal Osteuropa.

In this speech, Stalin stressed that the recent peaceful policy of the Soviet state had played out its role. (With this policy, the Soviet Union had greatly extended its borders westward in 1939 and 1940, absorbing some 30 million people.) Now, Stalin bluntly announced, it was time to prepare for war against Germany, a conflict that would begin soon. He cited the tremendous buildup of Soviet military power, both in quantity and quality, during the last few years. The recent German "occupation" of Bulgaria, and the transfer of German troops to Finland, he went on, are "grounds for war against Germany."

Stalin said:

Our war plan is ready ... We can begin the war with Germany within the next two months ... There is a peace treaty with Germany, but this is only a deception, or rather a curtain, behind which we can openly work ...

The peaceful policy secured peace for our country ... Now, however, with our reorganized army, which is technologically well prepared for modern warfare, now that we are strong, we must now go from defense to attack.

In fully defending our country, we are obliged to act offensively. We most move from defense to a military policy of offensive action. We must reorganize our propaganda, agitation, and our press in an offensive spirit. The Red Army is a modern army, and a modern army is an offensive army.

The motto of a peaceful policy of the Soviet government is now out of date, and has been overtaken by events ... A new era in the development of the Soviet state has begun, the era of the expansion of its borders, not, as before, through a peaceful policy, but rather by force of arms. Our country has available all the necessary conditions for this.

The successes of the German army are due to the fact that it has not encountered an equally strong opponent. Some Soviet commanders have falsely overestimated the successes of the German army ...

Therefore, I propose a toast to the new era that has dawned in the development of our socialist fatherland. Long live the active offensive policy of the Soviet state!

In the face of all the new evidence that has become available in recent years, von Thadden contends here, obviously it will be necessary to reexamine the long-standing official interpretation of the war.

To shore up the beleaguered "establishment" view of the Hitler-Stalin clash, a group of concerned scholars met at an international conference in Moscow in 1995. Historians from Europe, Israel, the United States and Canada met with their Russian counterparts to coordinate the "official" line, in both Russia and the West, on the German-Russian clash and its origins. These historians simply ignored most of the abundant and growing body of evidence for the revisionist view of this chapter of history, including the Stalin speeches and other evidence cited by von Thadden, or the recent substantiating findings of Russian historians.

To show that even "establishment" scholars can change their view about this chapter of history, von Thadden cites French historian Stéphane Courtois. (note8)

I work for a reevaluation of Stalin. He was the greatest criminal of this century. But at the same time he was the century's greatest politician: its most competent and most professional. He understood best of all how to utilize all means in the service of his goals. From 1917 onwards, he had a global vision, and sticking to his project, he achieved it ... Of course, one can easily say that Hitler unleashed the war. But the evidence of Stalin's responsibility is shattering. Stalin wanted to eradicate anyone who opposed the Marxist-Leninist social order."

From

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p40_Michaels.html

Stalin was early devoted to this principle of Bolshevism, which was proven by his well-known speech before the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (b) in July 1925. At that time, Stalin declared: "Should the war begin, we will not stand by inactively; we will enter the war, but we will enter as the last belligerent. We shall throw a weight on the scales that should be decisive." This "Stalin Doctrine," as Alexandr Nekrich has shown with admirable clarity, and regardless of statements to the contrary, was never abandoned .It retained its force, and the effort to "incite fascist Germany and the West against each other," as stated by author Viacheslav I. Dashichev, became a genuine idee fine with Stalin. In 1939, when the Red Army found itself increasing in strength due to a rapidly growing gigantic armaments program, Stalin believed that the time had come to intervene as a belligerent in the crisis of "world capitalism." Both the British Ambassador, Sir Stafford Cripps, and the American Ambassador, Laurence F. Steinhardt, warned that Stalin wanted to bring about a war, not only in Europe, but in East Asia as well, as early as 1939. Recently revealed documents of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs (Narkomindeo offer sufficiently clear information in this regard ."The conclusion of our agreement with Germany," according to the Narkomindel on July 1, 1940, to the Soviet Ambassador in Japan, "was dictated by the desire for a war in Europe." In regard to the Far East, a telegram from Moscow to the Soviet Ambassadors in Japan and China on July 14, 1940, accordingly states: "We would agree to any treaty that brought about a collision between Japan and the United States." Undisguised in these diplomatic instructions is the mention of a "Japanese-American war, which we would gladly like to see." M. Nikitin transcribes Moscow's attitude with the following words: "The Soviet Union, for its part, was interested in distracting British and American attention from European problems, and in Japanese neutrality during the period of the destruction of Germany and the 'liberation' of Europe from capitalism."

On August 19, 1939, there was a surprise secret meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee, which included the participation of the members of the Russian section of the Communist International. During the meeting Stalin announced, in a programmatic speech, that the time had now come to apply the torch of war to the European powder keg. Stalin declared flatly that "if we accept the German proposal for the conclusion of a Non-Aggression pact with them," it was to be assumed that "they would naturally attack Poland, and the intervention of France and England in this war would be inevitable." The resulting "serious unrest and disorder" would, as he remarked, lead to a destabilization of Western Europe, without "us," i.e., without the Soviet Union, being initially drawn into the conflict. For his closest comrades, he drew the conclusion, already proclaimed in 1925, that, in this way, "we can hope for an advantageous entry into the war." In Stalin's vision, a "broad field of activity" now opened up for the development of the "world revolution." In other words, for the achievement—which had never been abandoned—of the Sovietization of Europe and Bolshevik domination. He concluded with the call: "Comrades! In the interests of the USSR—the homeland of the workers—get busy, and work so that war may break out between the Reich and the capitalistic Anglo-French bloc!"

http://home.att.net/~genocides/Stalin.htm

__________________

Well, think of it this way:

No Hitler.

Would Stalin still commit his actions to Russia alone? 20 000 tanks, T-34´s , new politically obedient oficers to Stalin ( no questions asked ),
all old politburoo enemies destroyed in the 1930´s.
As he called the men in arms in June-July 1941 the number of men counted was some 15 million (!) if I remeber right (incl age groups 17-40?)in the whole of USSR...And that was just the beginning.

This kinda army in the hands of "peaceful" dictator...I don´t see peace written on its back, I am afraid.

And in the end Stalin=Hitler no matter what the political background sounds like or propaganda gives the image, and in this case Two´s a crowd...

__________________

"Following the end of the First World War, Lenin concluded that the war had been just a prelude to further imperialist wars, which would eventually lead to the final victory of socialism world-wide. In a speech given in 1920, Lenin outlined how Germany and Japan could be used to provoke another war within the "capitalist camp"...

Stalin pursued Lenin's strategy. The Hitler-Stalin Pact of August 1939 -- which granted Hitler cover by the Red Army on the Eastern Front -- was intended to encourage Hitler to open hostilities. Stalin was delighted with the German invasion of France. The "imperialist war" had finally broken out in earnest; Stalin stepped up deliveries of raw materials to Germany. Topitsch observes that, "In the Kremlin it was at first expected that there would be long-drawn-out battles with a heavy rate of attrition -- as in the First World War -- in the course of which the two sides would go on destroying each other until general exhaustion brought about a revolutionary situation." However, Germany's stunning victory over the Low Countries and France -- within a matter of weeks -- came as a real shock.

A new situation now presented itself to Stalin if the German Army were defeated, the Soviets could be masters of Europe. As the author points out, given the inaccessibility of Kremlin archives, "it cannot be stated exactly when the decision was made to embark on this strategy." Topitsch is convinced that Stalin set out to provoke Hitler to attack the Soviet Union, just as Franklin Roosevelt maneuvered Japan into "firing the first shot."


Topitsch is a graduate of the University of Vienna, a member of the Paris Institute of Philosophy, and a professor at Graz University in Austria

STALIN'S WAR: A RADICAL NEW THEORY OF THE ORIGINS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR, by Ernst Topitsch. Translated by A. and B.E. Taylor. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987, 160 pages, $19.95, ISBN: 0-312-0989-5.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p222_Smith.html

__________________

I have not read these books but certainly will now that I have the names!

Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? by Viktor Suvorov (London: Harnish Hamilton, 1990); 364 pages; $22.95.


throughout the 1930s, the Nazi and Soviet leaders had accused each other of being the greatest evil on the face of the earth. Most historians have argued that Stalin had come to the conclusion that the Western powers could not be relied upon in case of war. Rather than face the German army on his own, it was better to sign a non-aggression pact with the Nazi devil and have the extra time to defensively prepare the Soviet Union for the attack that Stalin knew would eventually come from Nazi Germany.

Viktor Suvorov a former Soviet army officer who has written extensively on the Soviet military and intelligence network, argues that the Nazi-Soviet pact was not a defensive action on Stalin's part. Instead, it was part of Stalin's Marxist strategy for revolutionary victory in Europe.

During the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Soviets assisted the Nazis in destroying the Weimar Republic in Germany. "Icebreaker,, was the Soviet code name for Hitler — the man who Would "break the ice "bring about another world war, and create the opportunity for the destruction of capitalism in Europe and the victory of socialism under Soviet leadership.


http://www.fff.org/freedom/1191d.asp

__________________

Ohmygod, the ol' "Icebreacker"-myth!

Kai-Petri, I suggest that nazi-sites like the IHR ain't that of a reliable source...ever checked the various "There was no Auschwitz / It#S all the Jew's fault"-pamphlets there?

As for "Victor Suvorov" (his real name is Vladimir Rezun): His works had been mostly debunked by now, as he fails to back up his thesis with sources and had been proven to quote selectivly and even liying (flying tanks !) in his work.

Feel free to post any proof suggesting that Stalin had the ideotic plan of attacking Germany in 1941.

Cheers,


P.S: As for the so-often mentioned 23,200 Soviet tanks; that's a impressive number, but anybody cared to have a look of how many of them were actually operational (14,700) how many of those were deployed on the Western border (62%) and finally how many of those were superlight T-26s or obsolete BT-7s and T-35s?

Guess you'll arrive on a considerably lower number of "real" (meaning excluding the T-26s) and operational tanks.

[ 02. January 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

__________________
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"
(President Merkin Muffley in "Dr. Strangelove")

Ok, Thanx Andy,

I´ll take your word for it!

As I am studying the net ( again ) what do you think of this time table? Just for curiosity and more what if´s...

March 18 1939

The Soviet Commisar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, suggests to British Ambassador Sir William Seeds that delegates from the UK, Soviet Union, France, Poland, and Romania should meet to discuss collective action in the event of war with Germany.

March 19

British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax replies to Soviet Commisar Litinov, saying they were examining an alternative scheme to a five-country pact in the event of war with Germany.

March 27

At a Foreign Policy Committee meeting of the British Cabinet, the Ministers decide to side with Poland, rather than try for a multi-nation agreement involving the Soviet Union

http://users.commkey.net/fussichen/otdw239.htm

(3) On 16th April, 1939, the Soviet Union suggested a three-power military alliance with Great Britain and France. In a speech on 4th May, Winston Churchill urged the government to accept the offer.

Ten or twelve days have already passed since the Russian offer was made. The British people, who have now, at the sacrifice of honoured, ingrained custom, accepted the principle of compulsory military service, have a right, in conjunction with the French Republic, to call upon Poland not to place obstacles in the way of a common cause. Not only must the full co-operation of Russia be accepted, but the three Baltic States, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, must also be brought into association. To these three countries of warlike peoples, possessing together armies totalling perhaps twenty divisions of virile troops, a friendly Russia supplying munitions and other aid is essential.

There is no means of maintaining an eastern front against Nazi aggression without the active aid of Russia. Russian interests are deeply concerned in preventing Herr Hitler's designs on eastern Europe. It should still be possible to range all the States and peoples from the Baltic to the Black sea in one solid front against a new outrage of invasion. Such a front, if established in good heart, and with resolute and efficient military arrangements, combined with the strength of the Western Powers, may yet confront Hitler, Goering, Himmler, Ribbentrop, Goebbels and co. with forces the German people would be reluctant to challenge.


---------

The day after he signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Joseph Stalin explained to Lavrenti Beria, his Commissioner for Internal Affairs, why he had reached an agreement with Hitler.

Of course, it's all a game to see who can fool whom. I know what Hitler's up to. He thinks he's outsmarted me, but actually it's I who have tricked him.

6) Nikita Khrushchev was the secretary of the Moscow Regional Committee in 1939. Khrushchev who was with Stalin when the Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed, wrote about these events in his autobiography, Khrushchev Remembers (1971)

I believe the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of 1939 was historically inevitable, given the circumstances of the time, and that in the final analysis it was profitable for the Soviet Union. It was like a gambit in chess: if we hadn't made that move, the war would have started earlier, much to our disadvantage. It was very hard for us - as Communists, as anti-fascists - to accept the idea of joining forces with Germany. It was difficult enough for us to accept the paradox ourselves.

For their part, the Germans too were using the treaty as a maneuver to win time. Their idea was to divide and conquer the nations which had united against Germany in World War I and which might united against Germany again. Hitler wanted to deal with his adversaries one at a time. He was convinced that Germany had been defeated in World war I because he tried to fight on two fronts at once. The treaty he signed with us was his way of trying to limit the coming war to one front.


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSnazipact.htm

__________________

I'd have to fully agree with Andy and Redcoat on this one.
First off, on the tank numbers, Andy is definetely right 20,000 tanks may sound nice... But I'm rather sure that less than 150 even were T-34s- I need to check some sources, but I'm pretty sure that the russians produced under 200 T-34s in all of 1941. So obviously they would have very few ready in early 1941. And the rest of their tanks were largely outdated small tanks with little or no real combat value.

And this whole "theory" does leave a rather nasty taste in my mouth... Hitler "saved" the west from communism? No evidence of russian plans, nothing like that... and yet some want to cast Hitler in the light of "saving" the rest of Europe???

Kai, did you actually look at any of the other "articles" on that IHR site?? The Myth of the Holocaust? "Debunking Genocide"?
"How the Jewish-Zionist Grip on American Film and Television..."???

Hmmm... methinks maybe we should check our sources a bit, eh?

I also tend to look very sceptically at political speeches as evidence. As an example- looking back in 50 years, would you take Bush or Hussein's speeches at face value, and use them as "historical evidence"?

http://users.commkey.net/fussichen/otdw239.htm
Hmmm... a website with 9 sections. 8 "Jokes of the Day" and a chronology section.
Reliable???


Although some of the "Redneck Jokes of the Day" are pretty damn funny!!

The web is definetely a good source for info, but said sources need to be examined just as much as books. Just because someone writes something does not make it true or reliable!

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

I have to agree with PzJgr's assessment, although no doubt that Stalin was an opportunist, and signed the Non-aggression pact with a wait and see attitude, I doubt he had any real timetable.

The speeches cited all sound like ramblings and rhetoric, that both Stalin and Hitler were prone to do, but I do not buy into the Neo-Nazi view that Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike. The Nazi's believed communism to be there main enemy.

Another idea that crossed my mind...

If we make the assumption that Stalin was planning an offensive of his own in the late 1930s/early 40s, what about China? There seems to be the assumption that Stalin would have gone after Germany; but what about his other neighbors? If communism is a "universal revolution" in Stalin's eyes, wouldn't he have wanted to conquer China as