> Milan seems to agree with me

I am not sure. It seems he simply wanted to know more about my attitudes to Stalin.

> No, actually I was in the Communist youth organization when I was a teenager. Like most of you, I guess.

Very good. This means that at school you learned more pro-Russian version of the history.

> I don’t give a damn about what "serious historians" say. They are all Jews and Jewish lackeys.

You must be a very happy man - you live in a simple and crystal clear world. All historians are Jews and all their books are Jewish. But there exist on this planet one paperback writer, Victor Suvorov, the one and only person who knows THE TRUTH.

As for me, this is an absurd vision.

By the way, have you ever seen Suvorov’s portrait?

“Victor Suvorov” (real name: Vladimir Rezun)

How many people would trust such a person in ordinary situations?

> How can they become "serious historians" if they are not promoted by the establishment?

Very simple. They must graduate from a university where they must be taught to apply scientific methodology to the study of history, e.g. to analyze archival documents.

Was your idol a historian at all? No. He was a captain of Soviet Army who deserted to Great Britain in 1978.

> "Serious historians" say that 6 million Jews were methodically exterminated with poisonous gas in the Nazi concentration camps. You believe that too?

No. I do not believe in 6 millions. But this is because I have read revisionist studies which satisfy the scientific criteria.

> I prefer to read the historians who are independent of them. Viktor Suvorov is one of the many such people.

Please do not confuse the anti-Holocaust revisionism with the anti-Russian ideological diversions.

>>The fact is that here in Russia, Suvorov's books and ideas are being propagandized first of all by liberals and jews! This shows that this theory is primarily anti-Russian, not anti-communist.
> I don’t know who propagandizes him in Russia…

I told you who. Agents of the NWO here in Russia.

> He shows as a fanatical anti-Communist and Slav Nationalist in every single book he writes.

No wonder. Do not forget that this diversion was prepared in the Cold War times. The goal of the NWO in that times was to shake the Communist ruleship in Russia. Of course, they used Russian Nationalism as an instrument in order to shake trust of masses to the government.

> Since Communism was invented and implemented by Jews and imposed with bloodshed on the Russians, how can he be anti-Communist and anti-Russian at the same time?

I have already told you that Russia (or USSR) is the main obstacle to establishing the NWO worldwide. Now USSR is over, Russia is made seriously weak, but it is still alive and it can resurrect. But they cannot sleep calmly until Russia will be completely destroyed, until “this terrible country” will be erased from the world maps.

In fact, the Cold War did not stop. The fire is still smouldering. They continue their anti-Russian work. One of their current goals is to rob Russians of their history. The nation without its great history will transform to a crowd. This is why they try to disseminate the idea that Russians were on the wrong side in the WWII, and that all their heroic sacrifices were vain.

> No, Stalin was more responsible. Hitler never wanted a world war, Stalin did. World war is the prelude to a World Communist Revolution as all Communists from Marx on preached.

Your main mistake is that you systematically confuse things that belong to different historical periods.

Yes, in 1918 Lenin hoped that the world war could be transformed to a world revolution. That did not happen. In 30s, Stalin officially rejected the idea of the world revolution.

It is strange to hear that Hitler did not want the world war. When he invaded Poland, he definitely hoped that the Western “democracies” will continue to stand aside, as it was when he invaded Elsas, Austria and Czechoslovakia. He miscalculated. 1 September 1939 became the beginning of the WWII. And it is Hitler who started it.

> 1) Please, this is an offense to all the small nations in the Baltic, Central Europe, and the Balkans. If Stalin didn’t export Bolshevism here, where did it come from? America? There is a difference between what Stalin was publicly saying and what he was secretly preparing for Europe.

Again, you confuse events that belong to different historical periods. Let’s consider the period from 31 January 1933 to 16 September 1939. We can see that during this period, Hitler invaded 4 countries, while at the same time Red Army never crossed the border.

> 2) I agree completely. He was as much willing to kill Slavs as Germans, and even his own Georgians. He was a monster. Hitler at least discriminated.

Yes, these Russians are a monstrous nation. All of them…

> 3) Prevent the war? Give me an example, please.

Stalin’s actions during the crisis around Czechoslovakia in 1938. (Sorry, no further details. Learn history. I have not a possibility to fill the gaps in your education.)

> Stalin supported Hitler from the moment he took power (or even before) until last day before the war, 21 June 1941.

Yes, of course. Stalin wanted Germans to kill all Russians. He was not only a monster, but a suicidal person as well…

> He gave the Nazis an ample supply of war materials, trained Nazi tank crews and fighter pilots in Soviet schools

Again, you confuse events that belong to different historical periods. Now you confuse 20s and 30s.

> he actually helped Hitler’s war in Poland!

The goal of Stalin in this campaign was to push the USSR border to the West at maximum. This is because he was not prepared to the war!

> I’m particularly interested how can his behavior in the autumn of 1939 be explained. He gave a green light to Hitler to attack Poland and assured him of his rear flank for attack on Western Europe. If Stalin wanted to prevent WWII, he should have supported Poland together with Britain and France.

Funny. Britain and France did nothing to help Poland. Why Stalin should alone fight against Germany in this situation? (By the way, Poland was very hostile to USSR before the war.)

> However, I liked what I read in Solzhenitsin’s "Arhipelag Gulag" about it. After the war, there were waves of prisoners to the concentration camps, Balts, Poles, West Ukrainians, Hungarians, even a few Bulgarians. There were also a lot of Vlasov’s soldiers and other "collaborators with the enemy". Solzhenitsin saw them all, they shared the miserable camp life together. He asks: What made these common people turn against their brothers? What made son fight against his father on the opposite sides of the front? What made them ally with the invader? Well, he says, the Bolsheviks allied with the same invader in 1917, too. Their goal was to take the power in Russia. What was the goal of Vlasov’s soldiers, or the Ukrainian Liberation Army, or the Estonian "Forest Brothers"? It was to liberate their people from the Communists. The Communists were behaving as occupators in Russia, fighting with their own people! Before you call somebody a traitor (or a hero), think what is his motivation.

An excellent point! After the WWII, everywhere in the “civilized world” collaborators with Hitler were prosecuted, imprisoned and in many cases executed. This took place in France, in Norway, in Belgium, in the Netherlands, in England etc. etc. And this is ok, because it conforms to the commonly accepted rules of the “civilized society”.

Why the same kind of traitors cannot be punished in Russia? Isn’t it a double standard?

>>Ja, ja! These Russians killed themselves. Germans are angels.
> Nein, mein freund. Germans were far form angels. I didn’t say that.

Yes, you didn’t say that literally. But all your writings have a goal to find an excuse to Germans and at the same time to demonize Russians. It is too obvious to discuss.

> What I said was that Stalin, Zhukov, and the rest of the gang didn’t care about their soldiers’ life. Soldiers were expended like bullets. They depopulated Russia of its men. After the war the ratio of women to men was significantly changed. Several times more Soviet soldiers died on the front than Germans. Why? Were they so bad, or poorly armed? What I said was that they were poorly led by their Communist generals. Attack at all costs. One step back and you are executed for desertion. Soldiers escaping from encirclement or from German capture were executed without trial. Am I inventing all this or is it true?

Ok. This is true in some aspects.

>>This is a curious thing, but there are a few lovers of Hitler among Russian nationalists. I believe they are German nationalists, not Russian.
>Hitler saved Germany from ruin and made it a respected country. National Socialism was much admired in the world before the war. I don’t see anything wrong in a Slav being a National Socialist. Hitler freed the German people from Jewish oppression. What’s wrong with trying to do the same in Russia? This great country is in a similar situation as Germany after the Great Depression and what Hitler did then can be an example now.

I am a member of the Russian National Socialist Party. However, a person who called us “untermenshen” and who wanted us to be the slaves of Germans cannot be our idol.

Then, the current situation in Russia has little in common with that in Germany in 30s. We develop our own version of the National Socialism. We even do not think Hitler was a true NS, his real practice was National-Capitalism.

>>Were Poles or Czechs Communists? Nevertheless, Hitler occupied their countries.
> Yes, he did. And the Poles and Czechs had every right to resist it. To the Germans however, it was most of all an act of revenge and defiance of the Versailes Treaty. German populated territories were unjustly given to Czechoslovakia and Poland and had to be brought back to their Fatherland. In the first country, there were Germans, Poles, Slovaks, and Hungarians who resented the Czech rule and Hitler gave them what they wanted. The Czechs were incorporated as a colony, or protectorate, to be slowly assimilated in the reich. So were the Polish in the general government. There is no question our Slav brothers suffered there. That happens often when small nations are close to big empires. They suffered later from the Russians, too.

Thanks for a word of sympathy, brother… We are very impressed…

>>The theory of Lebensraum was developed by Hitler in his Mein Kampf as early as in 1924. The WWII was the practical implementation of this theory.
> Yes, he wanted more territory and colonies for the German nation. How to get them? Attack the others and take their land, where else to go, Antarktida? Whom to attack then, Britain? No way, it’s the greatest empire in the world! America? Out of reach. France? This means war with Britain and America, too - out of question. Attack to the East was the only possible option for him.

Very good. If I like your house and your wife, have I the right to live in your house and sleep with your wife?

> Hitler said that there the chance presents itself because the great Russian Empire was crippled by Bolshevism.

What a quickwitted man!

> Bolshevism that tries to spread in Germany and bring the same "wanders" of Communism to that nation. It’s either us or them, sooner or later we have to fight. That’s why Nazi propaganda was pointed against Russia and the Slav people. There has been hostility between Russia and Germany from the WWI and the "Slav menace" image was brought back again. Everyone knows that Slavs are also Aryans, so the line adopted was that they are not real Aryans because of too much mixture of Jewish and Asiatic blood. Look at their leaders, they said, mostly Jews. Lenin had part Jewish and Tartar blood in him. Stalin was not a Slav either. Those Slavs close to Germany will be assimilated, the rest enslaved. He was wrong and the German people paid dearly for it. Slavs didn’t prove his expectations and fought for their freedom. And the Germans managed to become strong again without extra territories or colonies, but that’s a different topic.

Beautiful passage. After all, I did not understand, was the war necessary to Germany? And who began it? I guess, those were terrible and monstrous Russians…

> What Hitler was writing in Mein Kampf however, were plans for the more distant future.

However it may be, this “future” began in 1939.

> In 1941 he was not prepared for a war with Russia. You can’t have Blitz Krieg on such a vast territory.

However it may be, Hitler developed this plan of blitzkrieg, its name was “Barbarossa”, and it is well-known to all historians.

> Roads that turn into mud pits in the autumn and spring, winter colds that make your vehicles and weapons freeze, army that is many times bigger than yours...

Hitler hoped that the war would take six weeks. This is why German soldiers did not have winter clothing when the winter began.

> Strategically it was a suicide, with the Anglo-Saxons in his back. Why then he attacked?

Where were these Anglo-Saxons in 1941? In continental Europe? The rear of Germany was completely safe. Don’t you know that Anglo-Americans appeared in continental Europe only in 1944?!

> The only explanation that makes sense to me is Suvorov’s. A Russian attack on Romanian oil fields would be the end for Germany and the Red Army was concentrating on the Western border for the strike.

I hope I was able to explain you the alternative version.

>>"Russian atrocities" cannot be compared to German ones.
> What is there to compare? One million or 10 millions, an atrocity is an atrocity.

I prefer the quantitative approach. We are not in the church.

> Civilians should not be killed, deported, taken hostage, raped, pillaged, etc., that’s what the Geneva Convention says. I like such cases to be investigated and brought in public.

Oh, Geneva Convention… Anglo-American bombers destroyed Dresden to complete ruins and killed almost a half of its civilian population. The same took place in many other cities of Western Germany. And this is ok, because it conforms to the commonly accepted rules of the “civilized society”. But what is allowed to the “civilized countries”, is strongly prohibited to Russians. Isn’t it a double standard?

> It’s late to punish the perpetrators, for most of them are already dead, but at least we can punish them in our memory and history books. These books now deal only with the German atrocities and exaggerate them to absurdity. Like that Germans skinned their victims to make leather souvenirs or soup from human fat. Do you believe that?

No. But I believe that my country lost millions of its people thanks exclusively to Mr. Hitler.

> That’s why such stories should be treated carefully, not accepted on good faith. History is written by the victors.

Surely. But this is the job of historians, and not of paperback writers.

> Let us speak the truth at least among ourselves, OK?

I followed your advice in this message.

Regards,

BK

P.S. I would also suggest you the archived discussion on the same topic (“Germans and Slavs”, “Stalin and Hitler”, “Suvorov’s theory”): http://nationalism.org/forum/04/Germans%20&%20Slavs.htm

I like the saying of one of the participants: “Suvorov’s theory is perhaps credible, but not to anyone with an IQ above room temperature”.