Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Werd » 2 years 8 months ago (Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:35 pm)

I find that youtube video statement from Andrei Fursov, regarding America's so called Congressional resolution to side with Germany if Russia attacks them, or to side with Russia if Germany attacks, to be very peculiar because of what I have already posted in this thread. Here is a quote from a wikipedia entry dealing with the reasonable "middleground" writings of Meltyukhov.
In a telegram to President Franklin D. Roosevelt from June 15, 1941, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill suggested providing the Soviets with every possible assistance in case a war between Germany and the USSR broke out. Roosevelt accepted this proposal without reserve on June 21. (Meltyukhov 2000:507-8)

Taking everything into account, Meltyukhov claims that though an "offensive by the Red Army would not have led to the immediate solution on the outcome of war, […] the Red Army could have been in Berlin no later than in 1942, which would have made it possible to gain much greater territory in Europe under the control of Moscow, than it really did in 1945." (Meltyukhov 2000:506)

So Andrei Fursov in his video could be correct about this Congressional resolution. I plead ignorance on the matter. As for the wikipedia summary of Meltyukhov, perhaps someone who knows better can indicate what is meant by the phrase "in case a war between Germany and the USSR broke out." Does it mean to imply that Meltyukhov is saying (with documentation) the US will support the USSR if Germany strikes first, or even if the Soviet Union strikes first? And if the US pledged to help the USSR no matter if they or Germany struck first, did Stalin know he would get this help? And therefore how reliable is this video from Andrei Fursov?
Last edited by Werd on Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Mulegino1 » 2 years 8 months ago (Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:41 am)

Werd wrote:I find that youtube video statement to be very peculiar because of what I have already posted in this thread. Here is a quote from a wikipedia entry dealing with the reasonable "middleground" writings of Meltyukhov.
In a telegram to President Franklin D. Roosevelt from June 15, 1941, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill suggested providing the Soviets with every possible assistance in case a war between Germany and the USSR broke out. Roosevelt accepted this proposal without reserve on June 21. (Meltyukhov 2000:507-8)

Taking everything into account, Meltyukhov claims that though an "offensive by the Red Army would not have led to the immediate solution on the outcome of war, […] the Red Army could have been in Berlin no later than in 1942, which would have made it possible to gain much greater territory in Europe under the control of Moscow, than it really did in 1945." (Meltyukhov 2000:506)

So Andrei Fursov in his video could be correct about this Congressional resolution. I plead ignorance on the matter. As for the wikipedia summary of Meltyukhov, perhaps someone who knows better can indicate what is meant by the phrase "in case a war between Germany and the USSR broke out." Does it mean to imply that Meltyukhov is saying (with documentation) the US will support the USSR if Germany strikes first, or even if the Soviet Union strikes first? And if the US pledged to help the USSR no matter if they or Germany struck first, did Stalin know he would get this help? And therefore how reliable is this video from Andrei Fursov?


I would say it's most likely that Stalin knew about this, since F.D.R.'s administration was crawling with communist spies and sympathizers.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Werd » 2 years 8 months ago (Sat Jan 03, 2015 5:13 pm)

From Andrei Fursov on youtube.

"In April of 1941 the United States Congress adopted a resolution stating that if Germany attacks the Soviet Union, the USA would help the Soviet Union. And if the Soviet Union attacks Germany they would help Germany. Therefore Joseph Stalin did everything to show Franklin D. Roosevelt, and not Adolf Hitler, that the Soviet Union doesn't have aggressive plans. Stalin saw correctly that Roosevelt was the only ally."

He doesn't state what this resolution was from April 1941. However, if one examines the Lend-Lease act, they see the Americans were using it to help Britian, France and even the Soviet Union to some extent.

The Lend-Lease bill became law with the signature of the President on March 11, 1941. Immediately thereafter the President requested an appropriation of $7,000,000,000 to accomplish the objectives of the act, and that appropriation was speedily made. (200)

In an address on March 15 President Roosevelt stated that the decision embodied in the Lend-Lease Act ended the urging that we get along with the dictators and ended the compromise with tyranny and the forces of oppression. When our production output was in full swing, he said, the democracies of the world would be able to prove that dictators could not win. The time element he considered of "supreme importance". Every plane, every other instrument of war, old and new, which we could spare would be sent overseas; the great task of the day, the deep duty which rested upon us, was to "move products from the assembly lines of our factories to the battle lines of democracies--Now!"

The President said that the Nazi forces were not asking mere modifications in colonial maps or in minor European boundaries; that they openly sought the destruction of all elective systems of government on every continent--including our own; that they sought to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers who had seized power by force.


The nation, he said, was calling for the sacrifice of some privileges but not for the sacrifice of fundamental rights. Referring to the four freedoms set forth in his January address, the President said that they might not be immediately attainable throughout the world but "humanity does move towards those ideals through democratic processes". If we failed and democracy were superseded by slavery, "then those four freedoms or even the mention of them will become forbidden things".

There was no longer any doubt, he said, that our people recognized the seriousness of the international situation. That was why they had demanded and obtained "a policy of unqualified, immediate, all-out aid for Britain, Greece, China, and for all the governments in exile whose homelands are temporarily occupied by the aggressors". Aid would be increased, he emphasized, "and yet again increased", until total victory had been won. (201)

From "Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy. 1931-1941." Chapter XII "European War 1941"
http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Dip/PaW/PaW-13.html

Here is a direct quote from that speech.
We know that although Prussian autocracy was bad enough in the first war, Nazism is far worse in this.

Nazi forces are not seeking mere modifications in colonial maps or in minor European boundaries. They openly seek the destruction of all elective systems of government on every continent—including our own; they seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers who have seized power by force.

http://millercenter.org/president/fdroo ... peech-3322

Sounds like by March 15, four days after the Lend-Lease act became law in 1941, Roosevelt had already decided that Germany was the menace. Let's see now how the USSR benefited from the Lend-Lease act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
The Lend-Lease policy, formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States, (Pub.L. 77–11, H.R. 1776, 55 Stat. 31, enacted March 11, 1941)[1] was a program under which the United States supplied Free France, Great Britain, the Republic of China, and later the USSR and other Allied nations with food, oil, and materiel between 1941 and August 1945. It was signed into law on March 11, 1941 and ended in September 1945. In general the aid was free, although some hardware (such as ships) was returned after the war.

And another.
President Roosevelt signed the Lend-Lease bill into law on 11 March 1941. It permitted him to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article." In April, this policy was extended to China,[13] and in October to the Soviet Union. Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain at the end of October 1941.

And another.
The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).[18]

Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2½ ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.[19]

There is even a section in the wikipedia article dedicated to a semi-detailed summary of what the US sent to the USSR for aid.
American deliveries to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:

"pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941 (paid for in gold and other minerals)
first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941), these supplies were to be manufactured and delivered by the UK with US credit financing.
second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)
fourth protocol period from 1 July 1944, (signed 17 April 1945), formally ended 12 May 1945 but deliveries continued for the duration of the war with Japan (which the Soviet Union entered on the 8 August 1945) under the "Milepost" agreement until 2 September 1945 when Japan capitulated. On 20 September 1945 all Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was terminated.

Delivery was via the Arctic Convoys, the Persian Corridor, and the Pacific Route.

The Arctic route was the shortest and most direct route for lend-lease aid to the USSR, though it was also the most dangerous. Some 3,964,000 tons of goods were shipped by the Arctic route; 7% was lost, while 93% arrived safely.[23] This constituted some 23% of the total aid to the USSR during the war.

The Persian Corridor was the longest route, and was not fully operational until mid-1942. Thereafter it saw the passage of 4,160,000 tons of goods, 27% of the total.[23]

The Pacific Route opened in August 1941, but was affected by the start of hostilities between Japan and the US; after December 1941, only Soviet ships could be used, and, as Japan and the USSR observed a strict neutrality towards each other, only non-military goods could be transported.[24] Nevertheless, some 8,244,000 tons of goods went by this route, 50% of the total.[23]

In total, the US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386[25] of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans);[26] 11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)[27] and 1.75 million tons of food.[28]

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.[29][30]

The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.[31]

So where is this April congressional resolution that vows to help Germany if Russia attacks, and to help Russia if Germany attacks? How could such a middleground resolution exist when America just passed something in March that was later extended to the Soviets in October, AFTER Barbarossa? Keeping in mind that four days AFTER Roosevelt signed the Lend-Lease act into law in early March, he was already engaged in anti German rhetoric? What the hell is Andrei Fursov talking about?

The Lend-Lease program was devised by President Roosevelt and passed by Congress on March 11, 1941. Originally, it was meant to aid Great Britain in its war effort against the Germans by giving the chief executive the power to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of" any military resources the president deemed ultimately in the interest of the defense of the United States. The reasoning was: If a neighbor was successful in defending his home, the security of your home was enhanced.

Although the Soviet Union had already been the recipient of American military weapons, and now had been promised $1 billion in financial aid, formal approval to extend the Lend-Lease program to the USSR had to be given by Congress. Anticommunist feeling meant much heated debate, but Congress finally gave its approval to the extension on November 7.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... o-the-ussr

And
Aid to the Soviet Union

At the time the Lend-Lease Act was debated in Congress, the sympathies of America were with Great Britain, which almost singlehandedly resisted the German offensive. Communist Russia, on the other hand, was looked upon with much distrust. After the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact in 1939, Russia was perceived by many as a collaborator and potential ally of Germany. But President Roosevelt believed Germany would sooner or later turn against Soviet Russia and sought language in the Lend-Lease Act that would to allow him to extend the program to other countries, including the Soviet Union. Shipments to Russia — at first paid for with Russian gold — started shortly after the German invasion in June 1941. By late 1941 there was a visible surge of support in America for the Soviet war effort and a growing respect for the sacrifice and determination of the Soviet people. The country was formally added to the Lend-Lease list in November 1941 and became the second largest recipient (after the British Commonwealth) of munitions and other materials valued at $11.3 billion. About a quarter of this aid was in the form of munitions and 75 percent consisted of industrial equipment, raw materials and food.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

The War of the Economies

World War II was a war of the economies as much as of people, tanks and destroyers. At the end of 1939 the combined GDP of anti-Nazi allies was double that of the Axis countries. In 1940, with many Western industrial centers in German hands and Soviet Russia bound by a nonaggression pact with Germany, that ratio dropped to less than 1.6. The Soviet Union’s entry into the war improved the balance again. But without massive U.S.-led economic mobilization and skillful use of all available resources, the situation of anti-Axis combatants in Europe would have been precarious at the least. Lend-Lease proved an effective tool of that mobilization. By the end of 1944 the Axis economic base was collapsing and the Allies’ economies had skyrocketed. In 1945 the Allied GDP was more than five times that of the Axis countries.

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/engl ... z3NncpvuNp


Again, I ask what is this American Congressional resolution adopted in April 1941 that Andrei Fursov is talking about which says America will attack Russia if they attack Germany or that they will attack Germany if they attack Russia? Where is the evidence of this so called middle ground?
In March of 1941, Roosevelt persuaded Congress to pass the Lend-Lease Act. The act allowed the U.S. to lend the Allies war materials in return for repayment after the war. FDR, understanding Britain's desperation, began Atlantic transshipment of materials days before signing the bill.

Using all of his political ingenuity, Roosevelt struggled against the constraints of neutrality. In April, he gave the Navy permission to attack German submarines west of 25 degrees longitude. That same month, the U.S. and Denmark agreed to place Greenland under American protection. In July, the U.S. occupied Iceland. On August 14th, the Selective Service Act, which allowed a peacetime draft, passed Congress by a single vote.

On September 4, 1941, the first clash came. The Greer, a U.S. destroyer, spotted a German submarine and called in a British plane to bomb it. The sub and the destroyer exchanged fire, with little result. But Roosevelt used the incident to further his intention to get America into the war. On October 17, German subs attacked the U.S. destroyer Kearney as it escorted a British convoy. Several crewmen were injured. On October 31, Nazi subs sank the U.S. destroyer Reuben James, killing 115 men.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperie ... r-foreign/

And this too:
11 April 1941: Roosevelt extends American naval patrols further into the Atlantic as German submarines continue to take a terrible toll on Allied shipping.

Myth and the Greatest Generation: A Social History of Americans in World War II By Kenneth Rose. Page xiv.

April 10: Rommel begins a siege of Allied positions at Tobruk, Libya.

The USS Niblack, a destroyer on a rescue mission off the coast of Iceland, drops depth charges near a German submarine. The incident is the first case of American hostile fire directed at a German ship.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/americ ... -bill7.htm

Does it really make sense, as President Roosevelt to sign a bill in April 1941 pledging protection to Russia if Germany attack them, or protection to Germany if Russia attacks, if America is already in hostile relations with German submarines? I think Andrei Fursov has a year or some other number mixed up, or he plain old lying.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Werd » 2 years 8 months ago (Sat Jan 03, 2015 9:25 pm)

What follows is a good article that I will make comments on regarding certain places. - Werd


Did Stalin plan to invade Germany before Operation Barbarossa?
(07 October 2007)
http://meritocracy.ucoz.org/index/opera ... rossa/0-54

The Russian military historian Mikhail Ivanovich Meltyukhov argued in his book Stalin’s Missed Chance(2000) that Stalin planned to attack Germany on 12 June 1941, ten days before Hitler’s launch of Operation Barbarossa. His work was based on a speculative theory proposed by Russian historian Viktor Suvorov. Meltyukhov used archive material and newly declassified information to put together a persuasive case endorsing Suvorov’s thesis. However, whereas Suvorov attempted to present Operation Barbarossa as a pre-emptive strike by Germany, Meltyukhov concluded that each side was entirely ignorant of the other’s intentions and both were independently preparing invasions.

Right off the bat, I would say that one should consider this post from codoh.

Did Soviet Spies in Germany Tip Off Stalin To Barbarossa?
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8774
by Mortimer » Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:44 am

Soviet spies in Germany definitely existed. http://en.wikipedia.org/Rote_Kapelle
It's true that Stalin was tipped off that Barbarossa was in preparation. But according to Igor Bunich it is also true that Hitler was tipped off about Operation Thunderstorm (Operatsiya Groza) which was the code name for the Soviet invasion of Germany. If you look at the following article there is info about a conversation between the German intelligence chief Schellenberg and the Soviet ambassador to Germany Dekanosov where over drinks the former admitted he knew about Operation Thunderstorm (Operatsiya Groza) and the latter admitted he knew about Operation Barbarossa. Moreover, plans for Operation Thunderstorm (Operatsiya Groza) went into preparation in September 1940 while Operation Barbarossa plans didn't begin until December 1940. Igor Bunich has written about this in his book on the planned Soviet attack which so far is only available in Russian language. It would be good if a revisionist publisher could get out a copy in English as soon as possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Bunich

Continuing on...

Traditionally, Western historians have dismissed the possibility that Stalin was planning an attack on Germany in 1941. So, how plausible is Meltyukhov’s case?

Pre-war USSR was inevitably regarded with hostility and suspicion by the Capitalist West. To an astute politician like Stalin, the conflict between the Western powers in 1940 presented him with a spectacular opportunity to expand the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence without interference. A bitter campaign between Germany and Italy on the one side and France and Britain on the other would allow the Soviet Union unprecedented scope to launch aggressive operations in Eastern Europe.

This was exactly what happened. Just before the French surrender in June 1940, Soviet forces marched into Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. At the end of June, the Russians compelled Romania to cede the provinces of Bessarabia and northern Bucovina. In July, the Soviet Government renewed its hostile stance towards Finland. These facts illustrate that whatever the condition of the Red Army following the Great Purge, Stalin was fully prepared to adopt an offensive posture, and was actively pursuing territorial acquisitions.

The big surprise of 1940 was the rapid collapse of France, one of the world’s great military powers. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact notwithstanding, the prospect of continental Europe being dominated by fascist Germany could not have been viewed with equanimity by Stalin. His ideal scenario was for a long, costly war to rage in the West, as it had in WWI. He no doubt authorised the non-aggression pact in order to ‘encourage’ Germany to engage in a war in the West that was likely to have just this outcome. In fact, Suvorov claimed it was always Stalin’s plan to use Nazi Germany as a proxy against the West.

Stalin and Hitler both unquestionably viewed the non-aggression pact as a temporary expedient, and both parties would have been in no doubt that a conflict between Nazism and Bolshevism was inevitable. The respective ideologies were diametrically opposed, and Hitler had never concealed his detestation of Bolshevism, his expansionist plans in the East, or his ferocious contempt for Slavs: üntermenschen, in his view. His position was explicitly stated in Mein Kampf.

If Germany were allowed time to consolidate its hold over continental Europe, its power would grow to a frightening level. Its military machine, already demonstrably formidable, would become even more fearsome. For Stalin, then, it was essential to decide on a time-frame for attacking Nazi Germany in order to defeat it before it became too strong. The summer of 1941 was exactly the logical time. With the Russian winter out of the way and the spring rains over, Soviet forces could rapidly deploy to the front lines in Poland. Significant German forces were at that time tied up in North Africa, the Balkans and in occupying a number of European nations, thus reducing the number of German armies available for resisting a Soviet offensive. A year’s delay might see Germany triumphant in North Africa and the Balkans, Britain on the verge of surrender and the resources of practically the whole of Europe harnessed by the Nazi war machine. Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania were already allied to Germany, Finland was a partner in the north, and Spain might also abandon its neutrality and declare its support for Germany. Germany would then be in a position to switch its attention to the USSR.

Stalin probably imagined the Soviet Union safe from attack in 1941 because Hitler surely wouldn’t contemplate an invasion until Britain was forced to come to terms. After all, Hitler asserted that it was the strain of having to fight a war on two fronts that had led to Germany’s defeat in WWI. Stalin received abundant intelligence that the Germans were assembling large troop formations near the Soviet borders, yet it seems he concluded that these were purely a means for Hitler to apply political pressure. He expected Hitler to issue an ultimatum, containing a large element of bluff, just as Hitler had done with the Western powers throughout the thirties.

Historians typically characterise the Red Army as lacking any state of preparedness on the eve of Barbarossa. However, Meltyukhov asserts that the Red Army General Staff began planning an offensive against Germany as early as October 1939. This was sensible given that the conquest of Poland had removed the buffer between Germany and the USSR. These invasion plans were subsequently refined through 1940 and early 1941. In May and June of 1941 the preparations for the Soviet offensive reached their final stages, and the full-scale deployment of troops to their starting positions commenced, disguised as military manoeuvres.

It is factually undeniable that the Soviets had large troop concentrations near the borders of Greater Germany. This has usually been taken to imply that the Red Army was aware of a potential German offensive and was making prudent defensive and counteroffensive preparations. However, if this were the case, why was it caught so dramatically off-balance? Both Stalin and the Red Army’s demeanour at the opening of Barbarossa indicate definitively that they had no expectation whatever of a German attack. Moreover, no sensible defensive and counteroffensive strategy would involve having so many men pushed so far forward along the borders. Instead, they would be held further back, ready to counterattack once the first wave of the offensive was exhausted. Massing men on borders is exactly what characterises offensive operations. Naturally, after the war, the Soviets were been keen to portray themselves as victims of aggression rather than aggressors themselves, so it was strictly forbidden for anyone to mention their thwarted offensive plans.

According to Meltyukhov, the Soviet invasion would have commenced with attacks by the Soviet Air Force on the Axis airfields of East Prussia, Poland and Romania. Ground forces would then have struck in two directions: West, through Poland and East Prussia, and South into Romania. The attack was supposedly scheduled for June 12 1941, but was postponed. This was said to have been a result of Stalin’s alarm at the notorious flight of Rudolf Hess to Britain on May 12 1941. Stalin allegedly feared that this might signal an Anglo-German reconciliation. This scenario seems improbable in the extreme. More probably, Stalin was advised that preparations had not been completed satisfactorily and more time was needed. Postponements are not unusual: Barbarossa itself was postponed.

The new date set for the Soviet attack was July 15 1941. Events on the ground overtook this, of course. One would expect Soviet surprise and confusion to be at a maximum if, instead of attacking as they were planning, they found themselves attacked. There would have been confusion even in the well-disciplined German lines if they’d suffered a full-scale attack on the eve of Barbarossa.

If the Soviets had attacked on 12 June, what impact would it have had on the war? If the Soviet airforce had performed well, immense damage would have been done to the massed German infantry, to the Luftwaffe and Panzer divisions. In all probability, the better-trained, better-led, better-equipped and more experienced German forces would have repelled the Soviet assault in due course, but might have sustained such losses as to prohibit their own invasion of the USSR, or to radically limit its scope.

Meltyukhov optimistically believed that a Soviet first strike would have seen the Red Army in Berlin some time in 1942. Most of Europe, he believed, would subsequently have fallen under Stalin’s control. Since this would be regarded in most people’s estimation as a catastrophic outcome, it might be considered a welcome fact that Hitler struck first. In fact, it could be regarded as disastrous for Europe that Germany lost the Battle of Stalingrad. Arguably, the optimal outcome of WWII would have been for the Germans and Soviets to fight themselves to a standstill on the Eastern Front while the Western Allies comprehensively defeated Germany in Europe, probably in 1946, and occupied all of Greater Germany. In these circumstances, the Iron Curtain and the Cold War would have been averted, and the sort of Europe we have now might have been realised decades earlier.

It’s a sobering thought that the Allies’ bombing campaign and strategic operations to relieve pressure on the Soviets, and their eleven billion dollars’ worth of lend-lease aid to the USSR, might all in hindsight be viewed as counterproductive, paving the way for the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and the Cold War.

As Kierkegaard observed, ‘Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.’

Meltyukhov is reliable and ignored by western historians, but his work only confirms the basic thesis of Suvorov, even if as already seen earlier in this thread, Meltyhkuov has a few minor issues with Suvorov.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Werd » 2 years 8 months ago (Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:29 pm)

Evidence of a secret Churchill-Stalin pact was found on board a British plane that crashed in Finland en route to Russia. The Oct. 2005 Finnish report is no longer available on the Liberty Forum site where I saw it. - Henry Makow

Here is something relevant.


http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showth ... -to-Stalin
Thread: Churchill sold Finland to Stalin – 1499 days old
Lemminkäinen
2010-11-26, 13:13

Dont understand me wrongly, my sympathies have always been western, but the truth is something else than I hope.

Stalin and Hitler made an agreement promising Finland to communists (molotov ribbentrop pact) , but they were not alone, also Churchill sold Finland to communists, obviously being afraid that Germany and Soviet could make an agreement and leave UK alone. So Churchill promised at least same as Hitler, perhaps more. Churchill sold Finland by a secret pact with Stalin.

But Finns knew all, this is the letter that Finland's field marshal Mannerheim and president Ryti sent to Churchill via Swedes 24.6.1941, just a day before the war between Finöand and Soviet.

Sorry about errors in the translate

Finnish to English translation
British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill

In Finland, we are aware that on 15 October 1939 signed an agreement to your secret war with the Soviet Union, Mr Stalin, Finland gave up the Soviet Union sphere of influence. Just as it took Germany 23 August 1939 in their contract with the Soviet Union.

- Yours, England, France and the Soviet Union - German anti-your actions and secret plans have failed for many reasons and gone crazy. Their discovery of the German and Finnish point at the time noticed its mistake, Germany is now trying to fix it and save the Finland of the Soviet Union out of the hands and the war. For its own ends, and plans in the context of Germany is now offered military assistance to Finland.

To find out, Finnish and German relations, we want to inform you, Mr. Prime Minister Churchill as follows:

- Finland is not a union with Germany, and does not intend to be the future.

- Even if Finland is forced to start with the Germans against the Soviet Union in Finland will make its defensive, and under the goal, how Stalin has asked us to do and how we have it for the Soviet Union have promised to do.

- Our agents through our v.1941 during four different times tried to talk with you on the situation in which the Soviet Union, Stalin, and you, Mr. Churchill, you are led to Finland. Twice have refused to take an agent against.

Twice you have consented to receive and their respective time indicated that Finland is imperative to listen to and obey their instructions to the Soviet Union and Stalin, oral, by letter or by radio to give instructions.

-The Soviet Union is, in the name of Stalin, radio gives the number of instructions and 28.toukokuuta 1941 signed letter to Stalin is also confirmed by the charter of the commission promises.

-Even if Finland can not be absolutely sure of the way of bonus promises, and you, Mr Churchill, your request will correct, then a neutral country and toivossamme seek peace we are trying in all possible ways to take your and Stalin's hopes in the fact that the front line and the accompanying military action in northern Arctic Ocean and the Gulf region is stopped by Stalin, the advice line.

Finland, thus fulfilling the common intent by freezing military action in the said line, and this measure of security Tessa Soviet Union, the Northern sea route-free stay, so we dare to expect that military conflict, after the end of the peace conference in Finland, the country's borders, respect, ethnographic ties and our nation's independence are safeguarded and guaranteed, as the Soviet Union, Mr. Stalin, the written promise of May 28.päivänä 1941 is telling us. This promise, as attached to you, Mr. Prime Minister Churchill, the English copy.



Helsinki, June 24 day of 1941



Ryti Mannerheim

President of the Republic Armed Forces chief. (93)

Last edited by Lemminkäinen; 2010-11-26 at 13:17.



alfieb 2010-11-26, 13:16
I'm guessing this is translated from Finnspeak, correct? Because, it makes little sense in English.


Lemminkäinen 2010-11-26, 13:24
Yes, translated by Google. But the main point is that also Churchill made a secret agreement with Stalin promising Finland to him. But Finns knew all.


alfieb 2010-11-26, 13:27
Gotcha.

I'd love to see Churchill's response, if there was one.

It's not too surprising. They sold out the Czechs, and would've done the same to Poland if they were a small country like Finland (population-wise, at least).


Lemminkäinen 2010-11-26, 13:36
Probably he didn't answer, because the war between Finland and Soviet started immediately and between Germany and Soviet was already going on from 22.6.1941.



Polako 2010-11-26, 13:48
That fat bastard sold Poland to Stalin as well.


alfieb 2010-11-26, 13:49
How? He had no way to keep it out of Communist hands after the war.


Karhunkynsi 2010-11-26, 13:52
I dont think there is anything especially new here.

1. Soviet Union and Third Reich were in alliance -> Threat to UK and France (Western Powers)
2. SU and TR agree on zones of influence at Europe.
3. SU attacks Finland, Winter War starts -> UK/France supports Finland, offers troops *1.
4. SU and Finland make peace. UK/France no likey likey *2.
5. TR launches attack on France, France surrenders immediately, UK is all alone.
6. SU and TR pact was crumbling -> Churchill bought SU against TR with offering Finland

1*

UK/France indeed had some 50.000 troops ready to be sent to Finnish front. Finland+SU were at this point allready negotiating about armistace and peace deal. Finns never really thought that the UK/France troops will arrive and used the SU-knowledge about these troops as negotiating tactic.

Infact without these troops I doubt SU would have had any interest to negotiate at all. In reality there was never any hope for these troops to arrive Finland as Sweden categorically denied them to pass through SSweden. Sweden was completely in the TR pocket and afraid of TR as hell.

Swedes fucked up Finnish negotiations by telling the world in public radio show that they will not allow the troops to pass, just on the eve of final Fin/Su negotiation. That costed Finns most of Karelian Isthmus and Hanko. Source: Väinö Tanner: Olin ulkoministerinä talvisodan aikana. (Väinö Tanner: I was the foreignminister during the Winter War).

*2

British and French aim was to enlarge the war at Finnish front, making it he main theatre of Great War. If this would have happened the warring parties would have been Frenchies-Finns-British vs Soviet-Nazis. This was obviously non-welcomed situation for Finns because it would have left the country even more war ravaged than what eventually happened. Main reason for Nazi occupation of Norway was first to stop any Western aid to Finland against SU. SU did not gave up their claim on Finland even after the Winter War. Eventually Norway obviously became launching zone and logistic hub for war against SU.


Sargon999 2010-11-26, 14:14
Originally Posted by Karhunkynsi View Post

In reality there was never any hope for these troops to arrive Finland as Sweden categorically denied them to pass through SSweden. Sweden was completely in the TR pocket and afraid of TR as hell.

I would not put any of the blaim on Sweden. Sweden as a country had to protect it's citizens, and do not forget that some prominent Swedish politicians at this time were Nazi affiliated albeit we had 400,000 troops ready on the front if Hitler would decide to attack the country.



Lemminkäinen 2010-11-26, 14:24
There is one ridiculous detail; Churchill and Stalin pact was done 15.10.1939 (later than the molotov ribbentrop pact) and the winter war between Finland and Soviet started 30.11.1939. For me it looks like Stalin had open auction rooms for German and UK during the summer 1939, and UK won. Stalin was selling his companionship in the coming war, Germany lost the auction, UK won. After that Soviet was free to hit to Finland. I think that Churchill was a very good actor and played his role well.


Lemminkäinen 2010-11-26, 15:11
So here is more about Chuchill-Stalin pact. Conspiracy again?

Evidence of a secret Churchill-Stalin pact was found on a British plane that crashed in Finland en route to Russia. The Oct. 2005 Finnish report is no longer available on the Liberty Forum site where I saw it

http://www.rense.com/general75/makk.htm

Well, looks like something happened... I dont now how reliable is this site, but following the hint could be interesting. Anyway, this supports what we can read in the letter from Ryti and Mannreheim to Churchill.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Werd » 2 years 8 months ago (Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:38 pm)

Tuohikirje 2010-11-26, 19:09
Chubby Churchill's own memoires, not the most objective point of view.

According to his war time colleagues, generals he was very moody, difficult person to work with, who kept his views and the most appalling man losses in the British army are due to his incapability to listen other expert's advices in warfare. He ignored all reasonable tactics and went ahead based on his authority only.[

http://www.amazon.com/Second-World-War- ... 039541055X
The Finnish attacks and success in this region were problematic to the Soviets. This advance threatened Leningrad and was seen as a very real threat to cut the Murmansk railroad. If this was done, supplies that were greatly needed by the Soviet Union would be cut off. This was so dire that if the railroad was cut off, the war might end with a German victory. Much of the allied aid going to the interior of the Soviet Union, as well as aid from a still non-combatant United States, was coming via this railway. A section of this railway had already been cut by the Finns in their attacks in Eastern Karelia.

Stalin began to pressure Churchill to assist in stopping the Finnish advance. He hoped the threat of Great Britain declaring war on Finland might halt the Finns. Churchill sent a personal letter to Mannerheim on December 1, asking for the Finnish advance to be halted. Churchill informed Mannerheim that unless the Finnish actions were stopped that England would be forced to declare war on Finland. While it is clear that Mannerheim both respected and liked Churchill, he felt the attacks had to continue to strengthen the Finnish positions. England declared war on Finland on December 6. Interestingly, the Finns were in the process of halting their advances when England declared war but, Churchill was not informed.

Mannerheim told the Germans that a Finnish attack on the Murmansk area was pending but, it seemed these plans were to be halted. The reasons were mainly political. The Finns were also faced with the fact the U.S. might declare war on Finland, which had been threatened if the Murmansk railway was cut. Mannerheim was also worried that if the Germans were to lose the war this advance might be costly later in terms of Finnish lives. On December 6, the Soviets started to counterattack the Germans which halted their advance towards Moscow and this did not encourage the Finns’ feelings about German success in the war. The Finns had done few joint military operations with the Germans up to this point and more joined actions seemed unlikely.


http://www.wfyi.org/fireandice/history/ ... tion41.htm

Churchill wanted to halt Finns to attack Soviet Union, as expressed by him.
In 1939 in late June Mannerheim threatened to resign from the Defence Council when the country wanted to go on with the preparations for the Olympic Games and defence expenditures were not increased enough. The fortifications in the Karelian Isthmus were not finished. His threat of resignation was forgotten when a Soviet bomber squadron attacked Helsinki on November 30, 1939. Marshall Mannerheim reported for duty. On the Karelian Isthmus six Finnish divisions fought against twelve or fourteen divisions, and to the north of Lake Ladoga, two divisions held a sixty-mile front against the Soviet Eight Army of seven divisions and a brigade of armor. During World War II Mannerheim commanded the Finnish forces in two wars against Soviet aggression: first in the Winter War in 1939-1940, and again in 1941-1944, when Finland joined the Germans. Before the war broke out in 1941, England's Prime Minister Winston Churchill sent a letter to Mannerheim, saying: "I wish I could convince Your Excellency that we are going to beat the Nazis. I feel far more confident than in 1917 or 1918. It would be most painful to the many friends of your country in England if Finland found herself in the dock with the guilty and defeated Nazis." Mannerheim answered on December 2, 1941: "I would regret if these operations, carried out in order to safeguard Finland, would bring my country into a conflict with England, and I will be deeply grieved if you will consider yourself forced to declare war upon Finland. It was kind of you to send me a personal message in these trying days, and I have fully appreciated it."


Yet they financed and supported Soviets.

Professor Richard Overy,
King's College London

Mr Overy says that for decades Soviet historians underplayed the significance of US and UK lend-lease in the Soviet Union's success, but that Russia has recently shown just appreciation.




Tuohikirje 2010-11-26, 22:50
Finland in the eye of the storm.
- Churchill and Stalin negotiated the starting of co-operation in a war of many fronts against Germany since April 1939. In July it was agreed that when Germany and the Soviet Union attack Poland, the declaration of war of the western allies would be focused only against German actions.

- On the 23rd of August 1939 Stalin and Hitler signed the so called Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Its secret extra protocol included the so-called concept of the sphere of interest that did not mean permission to conquer the Baltic states and Finland. It meant instead the right to demand strategic bases in case of war.

- On the 15th of October 1939 an agreement was signed between Stalin and Churchill (the allied forces). The core of it was the plan to destroy Germany both militarily and economically. Churchill’s old plan regarding the Scandinavian operation was also accepted.

- The winter war of Finland did not stop because of Stalin’s fear of a possible threat of western allies attacking to defend Finland. It ended when Hitler sent Stalin an edict that Stalin shall cease the acts of war against Finland, or Germany will bombard Soviet troops and fight for Finland unbidden. The Marshal received from Hitler information about this edict and copies of the plan of the western allies and Stalin concerning Finland.

- If this would have happened, the allied forces would have conquered Norway and Sweden in the name of Finnish aid. Simultaneously the Soviet Union would have conquered Finland. Finland would have drawn into war and Scandinavia would have been a front against Germany. Churchill and the allied forces thus sold Finland to the Russians.

- Holding the archives secret comes to mind. File S-32 (Mannerheim) has become secret or is destroyed. There are Finnish scientists who have been in Moscow, but all Stalin’s and NKVD’s archives are closed. No one is admitted to investigate the documents.

- The last airplane that left Berlin included Hitler’s secret archives. The Americans shot down the plane and nothing was left, everything disappeared. It was said that Hitler turned pale when he heard of this and said: “There went all the possibilities to witness that the things are otherwise than the winners will insist”.

- Under the negotiations of the Paris treaty the Finns were not allowed to present any details of File S-32. Churchill’s archives are closed at least until 2017. In Nürnberg the Germans were not permitted to render anything of the Churchill-Stalin materials, nor was that information given to the prosecution.

http://prokarelia.net/fi/?x=artikkeli&a ... &author=10

Finland's terms were harsh on territorial demands. In order to prove events, archives would have been critical.

Finland's territory is occupied still in 2010.


Lemminkäinen 2010-11-26, 23:26
It went a bit diffrently. If France and GB was going to help Finland, it wasn't because they wanted to do it, but because they wanted to have own forces in Scandinavia. Their plan was to prevent German occupation in Norway and Sweden. To help Finland was only a good expalantion for masses.

But what happened; the Soviet was so weak that it was not able to win little Finland in a moderate time. Stalin couldnt prolong to war because the big war was only a question of time and Stalin's little and unlucky war with Finns was shameful and disturbed Stalin's bigger plans. GB didnt succeeded in Scandinavia because the war in Finland was over and this moved the advance to Hitler who sent German forces to Norway to prevent the coalition later attempts to get forces to Scandinavia.



Tuohikirje 2010-11-26, 23:40
Looking at the 'big picture', it might appear like that.
But regarding decision about e.g. requested bombers.
There were different opinions and agendas, democratic political decision at the end (UK).

As the following document states.

THE PRIME MINISTER said that he would not have acceded to any request for the despatch of further fighters, since this would have meant a direct weakening of our own defences. Our bomber force on the other hand was only a deterrent to attack on this country. He therefore suggested that we might offer 50 bombers to the Finns.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR pointed out that to weaken our bomber force in this country might invite attack on us by the Germans. He would like to have an opportunity of consulting his technical advisers before coming to a final decision. Suppose that we sent these aircraft, and then after all the Finns collapsed a short time afterwards, we should have incurred grave risk to no purpose. He doubted whether, if the Finns managed to last out till April, they would then be able to hold on until July, during the period of the thaw. His own opinion was that the despatch of these aircraft would do nothing more than postpone the inevitable for about three weeks.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR said that Major Magill's report tended to confirm this view.

THE CHANCELLOR OP THE EXCHEQUER pointed out that the offer of 50 bombers would make a very big difference in the presentation of our case to the world. The Swedes would no doubt try to make out that we were only serving our own selfish interests and had no real desire to assist the Finns at all. But if we now offered 50 bombers, which we could ill afford, after the Swedes had refused to allow us to send an expedition to help the Finns, it would be clear that we had done everything possible to aid Finland. This was an important political consideration, which must be balanced against the risk we were running in denuding our bomber force in this country.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO observed that if we sent bombers, we must expect further demands from the Finns for other material, such as artillery, which they would say was essential to enable them to continue the struggle.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR said that one of the main reasons why the Finns wanted aircraft was for counter-battery work. We had no artillery to spare which were suitable for this purpose.

THE PRIME MINISTER suggested that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for Air and himself should draft a communication to the Finnish Government in the light of the discussion which had taken place.

Continuing, the Foreign Secretary gave the War Cabinet an account of an interview which Sir Alexander Cadogan had just had with the French Ambassador, who had informed him that, according to information in the possession of the French, the Finns had started negotiations with the Russians, but would not accept the terms which the Russians had offered. They were not prepared to give up Viborg, but would be willing to cede Hango, which the Russians rented as a naval base. They would not continue their negotiations with the Russians after the 12th March, and if they could not get the terms for which they were standing out, would turn once more to the Allies for assistance. The Swedes were pressing the Finnish Government very hard to make peace, but when asked if they would guarantee Finland against Russia, if the Russian terms were accepted, they had refused.

http://www.histdoc.net/history/BRCAB1940-03-07.html


Lemminkäinen 2010-11-26, 23:46
Originally Posted by alfieb View Post
I'd always heard that an Allied invasion of Scandinavia was imminent and that Hitler's pre-emptive strike was necessary.

Right. Hitler was aware about that plan in the west and took operation as soon as possible in Norway after the Winter War was over and before the Allies had a completely new plan for Scandinavia.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Werd » 2 years 8 months ago (Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:51 pm)

jhulst 2012-10-26, 21:28
Lemminkäinen,

I would be very interested in a link pointing to the Finnish original of this letter!
Hope you can help me.

jhulst,
Netherlands


Lemminkäinen 2012-10-26, 22:39
I have not any academic source for you, but here is at first link to Wikipedia where is mentioned the letter from Ryti and Mannerheim to Churchill, dated to 24th june 1941. Finns mantion in the letter that they are aware of the secret pact between Churchill and Stalin. They obviously wrote this to Churchill to apologise the Finnish-German pact because Finns had earlier trusted to Brits. Maybe they had also some political reasons to make clear that they knew.
Suomi oli nyt Saksan liittolainen, mutta Suomen johtajille oli tärkeä säilyttää mahdollisimman suuri liikkumavapaus tulevaisuudessa, sillä Saksankaan sotamenestys ei ollut varmaa. Tämä edellytti suhteiden säilyttämistä länteen. Englannin pääministeri Winston Churchill saikin kirjeen Suomesta, jonka presidentti Ryti ja Mannerheim olivat allekirjoittaneet 24. kesäkuuta 1941. Kirjeessä maan johto teki selväksi, että Suomessa oltiin tietoisia Englannin ja Neuvostoliiton salaisesta sopimuksesta.

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erillissotateesi

And here is the letter in Finnish. If you are a historian you can see the original letter in Finnish National Archive or in the place where it is stored.

The letter mentions that Stalin-Churchill pact was signed at 15th October 1939
Englannin pääministeri Sir Winston Churchillille
Suomessa olemme tietoisia siitä, että 15. päivänä lokakuuta 1939 allekirjoitettuanne salaisen sotasopimuksen yhdessä Neuvostoliiton herra Stalinin kanssa, luovutitte Suomen Neuvostoliiton vaikutuspiiriin. Aivan samoin kuin miten teki Saksa 23. päivänä elokuuta 1939 sopimuksessaan Neuvostoliiton kanssa.
- Teidän, Englannin, Ranskan ja Neuvostoliiton, - Saksan vastaiset toimenne ja salaiset suunnitelmanne ovat monista syistä epäonnistuneet ja menneet sekaisin. Niiden paljastuttua Saksalle ja sen huomattua tuolloin Suomea kohtaan tekemänsä virheen, yrittää Saksa nyt korjata sen ja pelastaa Suomen Neuvostoliiton käsistä ja sodan jaloista. Omien tarkoitusperiensä ja suunnitelmiensa toteuttamisen yhteydessä on Saksa nyt tarjonnut Suomelle sotilaallistakin apuaan.
Selvittääksemme Suomen ja Saksan välisiä suhteita, haluamme ilmoittaa Teille, herra pääministeri Churchill seuraavaa:
- Suomi ei ole liitossa Saksan kanssa, eikä aio olla vastaisuudessakaan.
- Vaikka Suomen on pakko lähteä liikkeelle saksalaisten mukana Neuvostoliittoa vastaan tulee Suomi tekemään sen defensiivisesti ja sellaisin päämäärin, miten Stalin on meitä pyytänyt tekemään ja miten olemme sen puolestamme luvanneet Neuvostoliitolle tehdä.
- Asiamiehemme välityksellä olemme v.1941 aikana neljä eri kertaa pyrkineet päästä keskustelemaan kansanne tilanteesta, jonka Neuvostoliiton Stalin ja Te, herra Churchill olette Suomelle aiheuttaneet. Kaksi kertaa olette kieltäytynyt ottamasta asiamiestämme vastaan.
Kaksi kertaa olette suostuneet ottamaan vastaan ja kumpaisellakin kerralla ilmoittanut, että Suomen on ehdottomasti kuunneltava ja toteltava niitä ohjeita, joita Neuvostoliitto ja Stalin suullisina, kirjeitse tai radiolla ohjeiksi antaa.
-Neuvostoliitto onkin, Stalinin nimissä, radioteitse antanut lukuisia ohjeita ja 28.toukokuuta 1941 allekirjoittamassaan kirjeessä Stalin on myöskin vahvistanut ohjeensa ja palkkiolupauksensa.
-Vaikka Suomi ei voi olla täysin varma siitä, millä tavalla annetut palkkiolupaukset ja Teidän, herra Churchill, kehotuksenne tulevaisuudessa pitäisivät paikkansa, niin puolueettomana maana ja toivossamme pyrkiä rauhaan yritämme kaikella mahdollisella tavalla toteuttaa Teidän ja Stalinin toiveita siinä, että rintamalinja ja sen mukana sotatoimet Pohjoisen Jäämeren ja Suomenlahden alueella pysäytetään viimeistään Stalinin neuvomalle linjalle.
-Suomen näin täyttäessä yhteisen tahtonne jäädyttämällä sotatoimet sanotulle linjalle ja tällä toimenpiteellä turvatessa Neuvostoliiton pohjoisen meritien vapaana pysymisen, niin rohkenemme odottaa, että sotaselkkauksen loputtua rauhankonferenssissa Suomen kohdalla maamme rajojen kunnioitus, etnografiset siteet ja kansamme itsenäisyys turvataan ja taataan, kuten Neuvostoliiton herra Stalin kirjallisessa lupauksessaan toukokuun 28.päivänä 1941 on meille ilmoittanut. Tästä lupauksesta seuraa liitteenä Teille, herra pääministeri Churchill, englanninkielinen jäljennös.

Helsingissä kesäkuun 24. päivänä 1941

Risto Ryti Mannerheim
Tasavallan presidentti Puolustusvoimien Ylipäällikkö. ( 93)

This is the most important text in the letter
Suomessa olemme tietoisia siitä, että 15. päivänä lokakuuta 1939 allekirjoitettuanne salaisen sotasopimuksen yhdessä Neuvostoliiton herra Stalinin kanssa, luovutitte Suomen Neuvostoliiton vaikutuspiiriin. Aivan samoin kuin miten teki Saksa 23. päivänä elokuuta 1939 sopimuksessaan Neuvostoliiton kanssa.

http://pelontorjunta.suntuubi.com/fi/Bl ... 2010-11-26

Now of course that is the Polish letter that was originally quoted in English thanks to a rough internet translation. However, that last part, deemed the most important, I will put into English.

"In Finland, we are aware of the fact that on 15 October 1939 signed your secret military agreement together with the Soviet Union, Mr. Stalin , Finland relinquished the Soviet sphere of influence. Just like how did Germany 23, August 1939 his contract with the Soviet Union ."


Tuohikirje 2012-10-26, 22:59
Interesting. I could not find the original online. It is found in Mannerheim's memoirs, National Archives of Finland or possibly Military Museum of Finland. There was also a reference to Finnish Magazine article Suomen kuvalehti 23.6.2011, page. 61.


jhulst 2012-10-26, 23:36
Thank you!

I was fascinated by what I could find about Errki Hautamaki, even ordered his book in Finnish. Started to scan it and wanted to use google translator but that did not work. Still not sure what to make of it. Would love if somebody could write the translation for this video where mr Hautamaki has a presentation of what I think is his work (4 parts, maybe 4 hours):

http://vimeo.com/album/1540905/video/12676278

But what I am really after is proof that Churchill and Stalin already had an understanding before September 1, 1939.
And some reference by Finnish officials that the Germans did intercept a plane in feb 1940, carrying proof of this understanding.

Again, here is a summary of Hautamaki's thesis:

http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2009/12/fi ... the-storm/

This interpretation of events make sense if you combine it with the work of Suvorov and Lunde:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Chief-Culprit ... 941&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Preemptiv ... 1351286894

And then there is David Irving and his 'Churchill's War' (online for free) where he refers to frequent meetings between Churchill and the Soviet ambassador in the years before the war.
They both deliver pieces of the puzzles, but Hautamaki comes with the overarching picture. And I think he is on to something.
But he also says that S-32 files are 'lost'. So how does mr Hautamaki know?

Will come back later.
At least I have something to discuss next time when I meet my Finnish friends.



jhulst 2012-10-27, 03:02
To my dismay I see that none of the links are functioning. So here I go again:
Errki Hautamaki's talk: vimeo.com - Talvisodan ja jatkosodan kielletty historia, osa 1/4 (4 parts)
Summary of the hypothesism which sets everything you thought you knew about WW2 upside down, google : "inconvenienthistory errki hautamaki Finland in the eye of the storm"
Amazon.com Lunde - Hitler's Preemptive War: The Battle for Norway, 1940
Amazon.com Suvorov - The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II

What I am really looking for is copies of real documents that confirm that there was a 'conspiracy' between Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt to destroy Germany, even before September 1, 1939.

The link you gave me, pointing towards the letter of Ryti/Mannerheim to Churchill is a nice start, thank you again.


Tuohikirje 2012-10-27, 07:43
But what I am really after is proof that Churchill and Stalin already had an understanding before September 1, 1939.
And some reference by Finnish officials that the Germans did intercept a plane in feb 1940, carrying proof of this understanding.

What I am really looking for is copies of real documents that confirm that there was a 'conspiracy' between Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt to destroy Germany, even before September 1, 1939.

Have to look at the matter further. There are several studies and personal memoirs.

What is interesting in the 24.6.1941 letter are the following comments by Ryti and Mannerheim to Churchill.
"Suomessa olemme tietoisia siitä, että 15. päivänä lokakuuta 1939 allekirjoitettuanne salaisen sotasopimuksen yhdessä Neuvostoliiton herra Stalinin kanssa, luovutitte Suomen Neuvostoliiton vaikutuspiiriin. Aivan samoin kuin miten teki Saksa 23. päivänä elokuuta 1939 sopimuksessaan Neuvostoliiton kanssa."

"Kaksi kertaa olette suostuneet ottamaan vastaan ja kumpaisellakin kerralla ilmoittanut, että Suomen on ehdottomasti kuunneltava ja toteltava niitä ohjeita, joita Neuvostoliitto ja Stalin suullisina, kirjeitse tai radiolla ohjeiksi antaa."

"In Finland, we are aware of the fact that on 15 October 1939 you signed the Treaty of your secret war with the Soviet Union, Mr Stalin, Finland relinquished the Soviet sphere of influence. Just like how did Germany on 23 August 1939 agreement, the Soviet Union."

"Twice you have agreed to meet, and announced that for Finland it is vital that we listen and obey the instructions which the Soviet Union and Stalin orally, in writing or by radio provide guidance."

6.12.1941 England declared war on Finland to satisfy demands of the Soviet Union. Churchill warned Mannerheim about the matter in advance with a letter, which is to be found in Imperial War Museum in England. Mannerheim replied.

Image

http://collections.europarchive.org/tna ... 956_19.pdf

http://collections.europarchive.org/tna ... 956_20.pdf

Some war documents online
http://www.histdoc.net/history/greatpower1939.html#brit



Lemminkäinen 2012-10-27, 10:46
Jhulst, thank you for this video links. It was new for me. Some short comments after watching it. The lecturer told that Mannerheim referred to many secret agreements between Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt in his personal diaries, but Manneheim said also that he had to lie in his after war memoirs for political reasons and M. was very sorry about it. The lecturer referred to these personal diaries.

What was interesting in his presentation, was names of high status Russian and German sources forwarding information for Finns before and during the war. Finns had high level secret friends in Russia and Germany and Finns were able to combine top secret information from both these sources. So Finns were aware of the game behind them, but of course it didnt give us million soldiers more.



Tuohikirje 2012-10-27, 12:40
Here is an article by ret. Major E Hautamäki that jhults referred to about the file S-32.

The whole story

10. Churchill and Stalin’s war operation agreements of October 15, 1939 in Moscow.
“Stalins double cover”
Translated by Wilfried Heink. Edited by Veronica Clark




Lemminkäinen 2012-10-27, 13:03
Sorry of demonizing Churchill too much. Of course talks between Soviets and British politicians were not in hands of two men. Churchill was however the man of power already when Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler.



jhulst 2012-10-27, 15:21
""In Finland, we are aware of the fact that on 15 October 1939 you signed the Treaty of your secret war with the Soviet Union, Mr Stalin, Finland relinquished the Soviet sphere of influence. Just like how did Germany on 23 August 1939 agreement, the Soviet Union.""


Yes! That's it. According to the official story evil Germany invaded the USSR in it's issatiable quest for Lebensraum, milking a quote from Main Kampf, where Hitler, shocked by the murder by the British of 1 million Germans through it's food blockade, right after the armistice of 1918 in a succesful attempt to bring down Germany on it's knees, considered it necessary from a view point of national interest to provide his people with enough agricultural land. But he wrote these words in the slammer, when Russia was down because of the civil war. When Hitler came to power in 1933 this whole idea of Lebensraum was never discussed in his government, as Russia in the mean time had become a superpower, with designs of it's own on Europe as the next logical step to achieve a red planet. Suvorov has described how the USSR was preparing to strike against Europe beginning july 1941 and all Germany could do was strike the first blow as the only way out of the situation. The decision to prepare for the attack was taken in November 1940 after the visit of Molotov to Berlin, where the latter came with outrageous demands, like Soviet military bases in Denmark. Hitler knew that the USSR was not interested in staying within the boundaries of the Molotov-Ribbentrop accord (it was 'exhausted' as Molotov cynically explained to Hitler).

It is quite telling that Suvorov now has access to places like the US Army War College to tell his story!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYSy80WlmWY
youtube: "Who Started World War II? by Viktor Suvorov"

This means that Suvorovs story, which is already mainstream in Russia, is now gaining ground in the US! But Suvurov does not provide the complete picture, Errki Hautamaki does.


takoja 2012-10-27, 15:35
Soviets tried to take over Finland, but weren't really going anywhere on the Finnish front. They were also in a bit of a rush to get to Berlin before yanks, so a deal was struck. The End.


Lemminkäinen 2012-10-27, 17:26
I would put this forth like all these players tried to conspire as well as it was possible and at the end Stalin and Churchill were winners. But you need only look at the European map and see who was the most possible loser being surrounded by others. One thing that we can learn of this is that ideologies have not much value when ultimate politics take place.
Originally Posted by Polako View Post
Well, Germans were criminals, so they had to be hunted down, eh? No choice really.

It is true that they made big crimes, but these crimes were not the reason for Stalin and Churchill to beat Germany. If we look decisions before the war we have to analyze existing motives, like I want Poland, Finland, Baltic countries or I want to rule Europe.



jhulst 2012-10-27, 17:49
I do not think that Hautamaki accuses the Germans of conspiring, only the Russians, British and French. According to Hautamaki, the Germans intercepted a plane flying from Britain to Russia on feb 1940 and found out about the conspiracy and decided to warn the Finns.

Finland and Poland were merely pawns in the great power game.



Qu84 2012-10-27, 18:06 #80
Originally Posted by Lemminkäinen View Post
I would put this forth like all these players tried to conspire as well as it was possible and at the end Stalin and Churchill were winners. But you need only look at the European map and see who was the most possible loser being surrounded by others. One thing that we can learn of this is that ideologies have not much value when ultimate politics take place.

That's right. They all were playing their own dirty games - we call it politics. Anyway, the UK, France, Poland were passive, none of these countries wanted this war. They were interested in keeping the status quo. That was the reason for the Kellogg–Briand Pact, consent to remilitarization of Rhineland, for Locarno, for Anschulss, Munich agreement and this whole "appeasement" approach. Unfortunatelly, Hitler wanted much more.....



Lemminkäinen 2012-10-27, 18:18
IMO, Churchill's history and speeches were rather military-like. We cannot describe him with any other words than hawk. He was the planner of Gallipoli battle where 200000 Brits and 250000 Turks were killed without any visible benefit, just following laws of war.



Qu84 2012-10-27, 18:38
He just understood ealier that appeasement leads nowhere but war (and he was correct) - ""You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."

Gallipoli? He made many mistakes, but definitely, he was right on Hitler.




jhulst 2012-10-28, 17:09
If you know the truth it is very difficult to 'demonize Churchill too much'.
Not Even Errki Hautamaki touches the whole truth, but he comes close, as he gives the operational plan that was carried out behind the scenes, namely the setting up of four fronts from which Germany was going to be attacked.
The 'Finnish intermezzo' only meant a delay in the original war plans, but the four front war (Scandinavia, Low Countries/France, Yugoslavia/Greece, USSR) came about eventually.

If you really want to know who the real dealers and shakers were behind Churchill, read:

Churchill, Hitler und der Antisemitismus: Die deutsche Diktatur, ihre politischen Gegner und die europäische Krise der Jahre 1938/39, by Stefan Scheil (in German) about the operation of the Focus group, which had as its explicit goal to bring Churchill to power in Britain, in which they succeeded in 1940, after which the group seized to exist.

P.S. how can I avoid wasting precious time because this adfoc.us intervenes unexpectedly all the time, eliminating half finished posts?



jhulst 2012-10-29, 13:07
Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me

It's been known for a while already.

Yes, but only via the 'internet underground'. In the official world of the media the old stories still reign supreme.
And the idea of a conspiracy between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin is hardly known at all.
But this could very well change as the internet is gradually marginalizing the MSM.
Look at what libertarian central lewrockwell.com published today:

http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/was-ww2-good-war.html

They at least fully acknowledge that the US was actively looking for war with Germany, unlike Germany.
It were the US and USSR, two globalist bullies who in reality wanted to conquer the world, where nationalists like Germany by definition do not want to conquer the world.
Germanies agenda was cristal clear and Hitler repeated this in every speech:
1) reverse Versailles and get Germany accepted as a major European power next to France and Britain
2) prevent 'jewish communism' from taking over Germany (when Hitler was member #6 of the NSDAP the communists already had members in the millions)
No mentioning of Lebensraum after 1933 whatsoever, neither in public, nor in government circles. The USSR by 1933 was already too mighty to even think of such an undertaking.

The consequence of item #1 was to get all the Germans back into Germany who had been placed outside Germany by the Versailles victors (Austria, Sudeten, Memel and Danzig).
And there was in fact nothing wrong with these aims. All the Germans mentioned wanted in vast majority back to Germany and the hypocritical allies, who professed to adhere to the principal of self-determination, denied these out-of-Germany Germans this right.




jhulst 2012-10-29, 20:51
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224830/Holocaust-denier-David-Irving-allowed-Germany--thanks-EU-rules-allow-free-movement.html

Look at the readers comments!

The internet is creating radical new facts. Nobody can obstruct an open and honoust debate about all aspects about WW1/WW2 any longer.
Anyone can say anything, but from now on has to defend statements with facts and historic documents or run the risk being ridiculed.
The time that we have permanently outsourced thinking about this subject to the Nuremberg tribunal, that is the Anglo-Soviet victors, is gone for ever.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Werd » 2 years 8 months ago (Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:29 pm)

Flashback:
Stalin’s 1937 Counter-Revolution Against Trotskyism
September 20, 2011
Dan Michaels
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/20 ... more-10502

ARMY PURGE

Proceeding then to Stalin's purge of the Red Army leadership and the NKVD, Burovsky finds much to be applauded. Although Generals Zhukov and Rokossovsky believed that Stalin's purge had broken the spine of the Red Army and was responsible for the losses in the first years of World War II, Burovsky leans more to the views expressed by Viktor Suvorov in his book The Purge,[5] namely that the purge or cleansing actually improved the Red Army by removing toxic and incompetent elements.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
[5] Suvorov uses the Russian word ischishchenie instead of the usual chistka for “purge.” The former has more the meaning of “cleansing” or the removal of toxic, dangerous elements; the later has more the meaning of total housecleaning. Robert Conquest preferred to use the expression The Great Terror rather than The Great Purge. Like so many of his contemporaries at Oxford, Conquest himself joined the Communist Party in “glorious 1937.”


http://americangoy.blogspot.ca/2012/05/ ... eaker.html
Anonymous said...

What I especially like about Suvorov is his pointed, insightful commentary about the Soviet system; even the so-called expert historian miss or hide the simple truth about for instance the 1937 Purge. All bemoan it but only Suvorov, to my understanding, explains it. The Purge wasn't strictly a result of "paranoia" as we read continuously. Rather, it was part of a change in policy. As Suvorov says, different eras need different leaders; the Civil War era needed bloodthirsty types unafraid to sacrifice their own people. However, the Aggressive Era, which was to commence with the attack upon Europe in summer 1941, needed new types. Soldiers wouldn't follow leaders with a history of mass murder of their own people. Stalin wanted generals untainted by such a history. Generals like Tukachevsky, previously valuable, were distinct liabilities in the Aggressive Era. What Westerners never understand, it seems, is the total commitment to expansion of the Communist World that Stalin had. The "Socialism in one country" was a slogan only and believed by Western dupes only.
August 2, 2014 at 11:05 AM


I would agree with this as well as with Suvorov.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Great_Purges
Purge of the army

The purge of the Red Army was claimed to be supported by Nazi-forged documents (said to have been created by Nazi spymaster Reinhard Heydrich) which were introduced through an intermediary, President Beneš of Czechoslovakia. It was claimed that this forged evidence purported to show correspondence between Marshal Tukhachevsky and members of the German high command.[5]

The claim is, however, unsupported by the facts, since by the time the documents were supposedly created, two people from the eight in the Tukhachevsky group were already imprisoned, and, by the time the document was purported to have reached Stalin, the purging process was already ongoing.[6] The actual evidence introduced at trial was obtained from forced confessions.[7] The purge of the army removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to 6 stars general), 13 of 15 army-commanders (then equivalent to 5 and 4 stars general), 8 of 9 admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts[8], 50 of 57 army corps generals, 154 out of 186 division generals, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars.[9]

Some observers think this made the armed forces disorganized and devoid of experienced commanders, and left the country vulnerable to invasion. Some believe that this impression may actually have encouraged Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany to launch Operation Barbarossa after they learned of the weakness of the Red Army.

Viktor Suvorov, in his The Cleansing (Очищение), writes that the impact of the purge on the Red army was not as severe as the later communist propaganda claimed to be. Of all the victims, not more than one third were actually army officials. The second third were comissars (political supervisors), and the other third were NKVD officials, who wore military ranks. For example, one of the most senior officers executed was the minister of navy affairs, former deputy minister of internal affairs (NKVD), Mikhail Frinovsky (М.П. Фриновский) who wore the rank of "Army-commander 1st rank," although he never served in the army.


One may also wish to watch this series. Start here. The March of the Liberators 1/6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOSPvp8Kgeg
The Polish 2009 documentary about Soviet offensive preparations in 1941 with Victor Suvorov. Original title: "Marsz Wyzwolicieli". Directed by Grzegorz Braun. For educational purposes only. No copyright infrigment intended.
WARNING: Some drastic scenes.


I also found this video of a 2009 CSPAN lecture from Victor Suvorov on his book THE CHIEF CULPRIT.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?283856-1/b ... ef-culprit

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Hektor » 2 years 8 months ago (Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:51 am)

Werd wrote:....
One may also wish to watch this series. Start here. The March of the Liberators 1/6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOSPvp8Kgeg
The Polish 2009 documentary about Soviet offensive preparations in 1941 with Victor Suvorov. Original title: "Marsz Wyzwolicieli". Directed by Grzegorz Braun. For educational purposes only. No copyright infrigment intended.
WARNING: Some drastic scenes.


I also found this video of a 2009 CSPAN lecture from Victor Suvorov on his book THE CHIEF CULPRIT.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?283856-1/b ... ef-culprit

Thanks, would love to have more downloadable video material including documentaries and presentations on this.
I found passages in several Hitler speeches as well. A portfolio of source material should be established and I could add some to that.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Werd » 2 years 8 months ago (Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:06 pm)

http://www.allworldwars.com/videos/Suvo ... vorov.html

Best-selling author and former Soviet Army itelligence operative Viktor Suvorov analyzes Joseph Stalin's alleged strategic design to conquer Europe and his reasons for supporting Nazi Germany. Suvorov debunks mainstream theories that Stalin was duped by Hitler and that the Soviet Union was a victim of Nazi aggression.

This interesting discussion was organized by Hudson Institute in Washington D.C. on February 2, 2009. Viktor Suvorov was joined by Andrei Piontkovsky and David Sutter and responded to many questions from the audience. Discussion was moderated by Richard Weitz, Director of Hudson's Center for Political-Military Analysis.

"Chief Culprit" by Victor Suvorov is available now for purchase at amazon.com and from all major booksellers. Chief Culprit summarizes 20-years Suvorov's findings and AllWorldWars recommends this book to everybody, interested in revisionist history of the World War II.


Video is embedded in the webpage.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Hektor » 2 years 8 months ago (Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:51 am)

Will have to have a download session soon.
Werd, in a nutshell, what's your take on this all?
Did the Soviet Union prepare a war to conquer Europe?
Was Barbarossa a preventive attack?

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Werd » 2 years 8 months ago (Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:41 am)

The Soviet Union did want to conquer Europe but they did want to wait a bit. However, as the Finnish historians have pointed out, and which even Henry Makow has had to accept, Churchill and Stalin (and eventually Roosevelt would join in their talks) were doing backroom deals as far back as 1939. Igor Bunich has pointed out that despite German and Soviet intelligence agents cross penetrating each other, both ended up knowing about each other's plan to attack. And the Soviets started to plan for their operation in September, while Hitler began planning in December. Can't argue with chronology.
Did Soviet Spies in Germany Tip Off Stalin To Barbarossa?

Stalin's early backroom deals with Churchill as documented by the Finnish historians, and admitted by Makow as I quoted earlier, combined with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in late August 1939, has led some to say Stalin was trying to please both sides in order to save the Soviet Union. Okay, sure. But only to buy time to attack. If Suvorov is correct about how Stalin could have attacked Poland the same day as Hitler (but just pretended at the last minute to not be ready for a few more days), then it further proves Survorov to be correct about Stalin's ambitions to unleash communism upon Europe.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Werd » 2 years 8 months ago (Thu Jan 15, 2015 7:38 pm)

The Soviet holocaust Story - Award-winning Documentary 1/4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ7QmSAHgVc

The Soviet holocaust Story - Award-winning Documentary 2/4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkVK5Uq8wGc

The Soviet holocaust Story - Award-winning Documentary 3/4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfMuWto7kBk

The Soviet holocaust Story - Award-winning Documentary 4/4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCHtwhiBNpk

avatar
Mortimer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 292
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Mortimer » 2 years 8 months ago (Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:30 am)

Qu84 2012-10-27, 18:38
He just understood ealier that appeasement leads nowhere but war (and he was correct) - ""You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."

Gallipoli? He made many mistakes, but definitely, he was right on Hitler.


For Churchill to accuse anyone of appeasement is a sick joke! Churchill appeased Stalin a lot more than Chamberlain appeased Hitler. Remember that Chamberlain did actually declare war on Germany. Churchill appeased Stalin to the extent that he was able to take over half of Europe including Poland which was the reason for going to war in the first place. Churchill didn't live up to his claim of fighting for the rights of small nations. People like the one who made this above comment complain about the 4 year nazi occupation of western Europe but say nothing about the 40 year soviet communist occupation of eastern Europe!
5 years after the end of world war 2 the end result of Churchill's support for Stalin - British troops being killed in Korea with arms and ammunition supplied to China and North Korea by the USSR - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Uni ... Korean_War

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

Postby Werd » 2 years 8 months ago (Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:35 pm)

Lemminkäinen 2012-10-27, 10:46

Jhulst, thank you for this video links. It was new for me. Some short comments after watching it. The lecturer told that Mannerheim referred to many secret agreements between Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt in his personal diaries, but Manneheim said also that he had to lie in his after war memoirs for political reasons and M. was very sorry about it. The lecturer referred to these personal diaries.

What was interesting in his presentation, was names of high status Russian and German sources forwarding information for Finns before and during the war. Finns had high level secret friends in Russia and Germany and Finns were able to combine top secret information from both these sources. So Finns were aware of the game behind them, but of course it didnt give us million soldiers more.


Image
Here is the youtube link. It is in Finnish of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDF4PnH ... pFogJuL5oq

What I would like to know is what was lied about. Especially after seeing this debate at axisthistory forum. Erkki Hautamäki

Sven-Eric » 23 Jul 2005, 15:10
I am curious to know if any of the Finnish members have read Erkki Hautamäkis book "Kansio S-32". In that book he claims that Stalin and the Western allies were in alliance already in October 1939.
Regards,
Sven-Eric


Sven-Eric » 25 Jul 2005, 11:28
Hautamäki bases his work on a folder by Mannerheim, "S-32" and also on a book by Viljo Tahvanainen released in 1971.

It is said that on 15 October 1939 the Soviets concluded a secret agreement with the Western powers signed by Churchill. In this agreement the Western allies accepted a Soviet occupation of Finland and the Baltic states in exchange for themselves to occupy Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The end purpose was then a mutual attack on Germany in the summer of 1940. The military help offered by the Allies to Finland during the Winter war was just a cover to make the occupation of Norway and Sweden easier and to take control of the Swedish ore fields, but also to establish contact with the Red Army and force Hitler to counteractions.

The purpose for the Allies was to keep the Swedish troops busy so they could not help Finland which at the same time would be occupied by the Soviets. According to Hautamäki found out about these plans in February 1940 when a Soviet aircraft on a secret mission to London on its way back to Moscow was forced to land on German territory and the Germans captured documents about these plans.

Personally I find this a bit too thick. Hitler and the Germans would most certainly have mentioned this after the outbreak of Barbarossa and it would have been essential in his war propaganda against the Allies. What do you people think?

Regards,
Sven-Eric


Mikko H. » 27 Jul 2005, 13:24
For me it's enough that Hautamäki bases his work on Tahvanainen's fantasies, which have been thoroughly discredited.


Juha Tompuri » 04 Nov 2005, 21:26
Same here.

Erkki Hautamäki wrote:
"- Punaisena lankana ovat Vilho Tahvanaisen Mannerheimin S-32-kansion sähkeistä ja raporteista tekemät kopiot, jotka olen käynyt läpi kronologisessa järjestyksessä. Sieltä löytyy totuus. Näiden asiakirjojen rinnalle olen kerännyt lisätietoa maailmankirjallisuudesta."


("The red line has been the copies of the telegrams and reports Vilho Tahvanainen has made from the Mannerheim's file S-32, of which I have read thru at chronogical order. The truth is found there. In addition to these documents I have gathered information from the world literature.") http://www.promerit.net/


The book ... is based on the contents of the so-called file S-32 of Marshal Mannerheim and is copied from there by the Marshal’s secret agent Vilho Tahvanainen

http://www.prokarelia.net/en/?x=article ... &author=10

Erkki Hautamäki wrote:"Kotoisempi salattu asia on Rovaniemen palon todellinen aiheuttaja lokakuussa 1944. Palonhan aiheutti suomalaisen tiedustelupartion räjäyttämä ammusjuna."

("Secret issue more domestic, is the true cause of the burn of Rovaniemi at October 1944. The burn was caused by a ammunition train, blown up by a Finnish recce unit.")
http://www.promerit.net/
Apparently Erkki H. has read the book of Erkki K:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ght=#88131

Uncle Joe wrote:
As for "not taken seriously qualified historians", well, whose soup you eat, his soings you sing. If qualified histoarians mean people like Narikka-Max J-son, they have devoted their life to propagandize on behalf of the winners. Truth means nada to them.


Max Jakobson wrote:
Finland went into the Continuation War on the coat-tails of the strength of Germany. It was believed that Germany would save us from the fate of the Baltic States. The brutality of the Nazi regime, the violations of the rights of small nations - all of these were swept under the carpet.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Throughout the ages this rule has been a guiding light for states and nations in moments of peril.
One typical case was the comment made by Winston Churchill when Germany attacked the Soviet Union "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."
From the Finnish point of view, Hitler had invaded Hell.

emphasis on mine.
http://www2.helsinginsanomat.fi/english ... 0031118IE7

Regards, Juha

A small most probably unintentional mistake:

...kun Mannerheimin aisamiehenä toimineen Vilho Tahvanaisen...

(...Vilho Tahvanainen, Mannerheim's hmmm...:oops: :oops: :oops: my dictionary doesn't have the correct expression... (asiamies = messenger)



Uncle Joe » 05 Nov 2005, 03:58
Ahh, quoting a review from Helsingin Sanomat, the leading forum of American propaganda in Finland. That review just confirmed how low Narikka-Max has sunk. Much more truthful review on Sana´s Ehrenburgian pamphlet can be found in Sotilasaikauslehti.


Juha Tompuri » 05 Nov 2005, 21:56

Ohto Manninen, Professor in the National Defence College, who also writes at Sotilasaikakauslehti, describes the main source/red line of Erkki Hautamäki, at his book "Stalinin Kiusa, Himmlerin Täi" (Nuisance of Stalin, Louse of Himmler) as:

"Tapaus Tahvanainen" kuuluu kaunokirjallisuuden agenttitarinoiden joukkoon. Siinä joukossa se ei liene huonoimpia, ja sen elinkyky Suomen julkisessa sanassa on kunnioitettava.

In English something like:

"Case Tahvanainen" belongs to the group of secret agent stories of fiction literature. It's not the worst at that group and it's ability to live at the public media of Finland is honoured."

Regards, Juha


Uncle Joe » 05 Nov 2005, 23:40
Juha, Manninen wrote that piece in 1995 (check the date at the end of the article) and based his comments on what was available to him at that time. Of course, the easiest way to prove/disprove Hautamäki´s thesis would be COMPLETE and UNLIMITED OPENING of ALL Russian, French, American and British archives. And this should be done by surprise without giving time for cleansing the docs by various interest groups. But apparently those who benefit from the status quo won´t allow that to happen for the foreseeable time.

Topspeed, most important contributors to Hesari include people like Tomi Ervamaa, Max J-son and Olli Kivinen who all are fanatic America lovers.


Juha Tompuri » 06 Nov 2005, 00:11
Joe,

Uncle Joe wrote:
Juha, Manninen wrote that piece in 1995 (check the date at the end of the article) and based his comments on what was available to him at that time.


Yes, for the first time. The book I quoted, as you know, was published three years ago. And after that no evidence of Tahvanainen being an "secret agent man" 8) have been brought up.

Uncle Joe wrote:
Hautamäki also admits the weaknesses of Tahvanainen as a source.


Even the Colonel Erkki Nordberg who had (been fooled to ?) wrote the preface to the Hautamäki book, didn't believe his theories:

"Mikäli kirjan perusteesi osoittautuu aikanaan oikeaksi..."

Translation:

"If the basis of your book proves in the future to be correct...

http://www.promerit.net/



Juha Tompuri » 07 Nov 2005, 23:08
O. Manninen at his book's preface wrote:...Luvuista suurin osa on ilmestynyt eri ammattilehdissä vuosina 1994 - 2002, osa on ennestään julkaisemattomia. Varhimmin julkaistuja lukuja on kuitenkin nyt täydennetty uusien tutkimusten pohjalta.

"Most of the articles have been published at various professional magazines between years 1994 - 2002 and some of them are unpublished before. The earliest publised articles have however now been updated from the basis of new studies"



Uncle Joe » 10 Nov 2005, 03:53
You have twisted the original meaning in your translation. Manninen preface does not have the the equivalent of "The earliest articles have been..." that suggests all articles have been updated when Manninen´s words have much different meaning. The only correct translation can be "Some earlier articles have been updated...". All other translations are misleading and propagandistic.


Juha Tompuri » 10 Nov 2005, 23:39
Joe,

Your translation is better than mine.
The only thing I agree with at your post.


Sven-Eric » 26 Nov 2005, 00:41
Hautamäki is said to release a part 2 of his book which will be dealing with the continuation war I think.

Best wishes,
Sven-Eric


Karppinen » 14 Feb 2006, 05:09
The title must be "More conforting fairytales for people who live in a ideological bubble".
Sorry, couldn't resist. I read Hautamäki's book, and it's nothing but fantasy. An interesting theory, nothing more.


Seppo Koivisto » 19 Jul 2013, 14:04
It looks part 2 of Hautamäki's book will be available soon.
http://www.promerit.net/2013/02/ennakko ... -2-osasta/


So supposedly, Mannerheim's memoirs which talk of Stalin's backroom deals with the west and backstabbing of Hitler have been edited, but we don't know in what capacity. Well Mannerheim who speaks Finnish probably clarifies but I can not understand Finnish in that youtube video unfortunately. Also, others are not believing in the authenticity of this S.32 file or even the claim of Tahvanainen being some sort of secret agent man who figured all this stuff out about Stain's attempt to betray Finland in order to satisfy Churchill. So there is some debate over small details. But recall that Hautamäki apparently uses more sources than Tahvanainen. As that one Makow article stated, that Finnish report that he saw on the old libertyforum.org in 2005 is nowhere to be found, but this agreement IS REFERENCED clearly in a letter already quoted from the forumbiodiversity topic I quoted.

I would also think that these two articles from justice4germans
http://justice4germans.com/2015/01/18/a ... ch-7-1940/
http://justice4germans.com/2015/01/13/f ... hill-pact/

have enough evidence in them about Stalin being two faced. In other words, Suvorov, Bunich, Meltyukhov and Solanin and a couple others already mentioned have hit upon something that should be regarded as true in the west but still largely is not.


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests