[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
History See other History Articles Title: Who Started WW2? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: People's Attorney / Volks-Anwalt Wolfram Grätz Date: Jul 11, 2005 4:46 AM Subject: Who Started WW2 ? To: ---- Original Message ----- From:Mel Fowler Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 3:19 PM Subject: Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? by Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun) London: Hamish Hamilton, 1990 Suvorov's book appears to be absolutely unavailable in the United States, even though, in the fifteen years since it's first printing it has gone through 87 editions in 18 languages! Someone really doesn't want the American public to learn what that book contains. I have been trying for several years to find a copy - with no luck. The obvious fact that Jewish organizations have gone to great lengths to prevent Suvorov's book from being read by the American public tells me that they see the information in Suvorov's book as very dangerous to them and their programs. It doesn't take a genius to see that they are absolutely right about that. Indeed, that information has the power to undo them down to their socks! If we fail to use this opportunity to deal the enemy a great blow, we can blame only ourselves. Reviewed by Joseph Bishop It sometimes happens that the most significant historical works are virtually ignored by the mainstream press, and consequently reach few readers. Such is the case with many revisionist studies, including this important work by a former Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the West in 1978. Even before the appearance of this book, he had already established a solid reputation with the publication of five books, written under the pen name of Viktor Suvorov, on the inner workings of the Soviet military, and particularly its intelligence operations. In Icebreaker Suvorov takes a close look at the origins and development of World War II in Europe, and in particular the background to Hitler's "Operation Barbarossa" attack against the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. Since its original publication in Russian (entitled Ledokol) in France in 1988, it has been published in an astonishing 87 editions in 18 languages. In spite of its importance to the historical record, Icebreaker has received very little attention in the United States. The few reviews that have appeared here have been almost entirely brief and dismissive -- a shameful treatment that reflects the cowardice and intellectual irresponsibility of a "politically correct" scholarly establishment. According to the conventional view, Hitler's perfidious attack abruptly forced a neutral and aloof Soviet Russia into war. This view further holds that a surprised Stalin had naively trusted the deceitful German Führer. Rejecting this view as political propaganda, Suvorov shows Stalin's personal responsibility for the war's outbreak and progression. Above all, this book details the vast Soviet preparations for an invasion of Europe in the summer of 1941 with the goal of Sovietizing central and western Europe. Suvorov is not alone in his view. It is also affirmed by a number of non-Russian historians, such as American scholar R. H. S. Stolfi in his 1991 study Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted (reviewed by me in the Nov.-Dec. 1995 Journal). In spite of rigid Soviet censorship, Suvorov has succeeded in digging up many nuggets of valuable information from publicly available Soviet writings that confirm his central thesis. Icebreaker is based on the author's meticulous scouring of such published sources as memoirs of wartime Soviet military leaders, and histories of individual Soviet divisions, corps, armies, fleets, and air units. 'Second Imperialist War' A central tenet of Soviet ideology was that the Soviet Union, as the world's first Marxist state and bulwark of "workers' power," would eventually liberate all of humanity from the yoke of capitalism and fascism (the "last resort of monopoly capitalism"). While Soviet leaders might disagree about the circumstances and timing of this process of global liberation, none doubted the importance of this objective. As Suvorov notes:For Lenin, as for Marx, world revolution remained the guiding star, and he did not lose sight of this goal. But according to the minimum program, the First World War would only facilitate a revolution in one country. How, then, would the world revolution take place thereafter? Lenin gave a clear-cut answer to this question in 1916: as a result of the second imperialist war ... Initially the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" was made up of only a handful of constituent republics. Lenin and the other Soviet leaders intended that more republics would be added to the USSR until it encompassed the entire globe. Thus, writes Suvorov, "the declaration accompanying the formation of the USSR was a clear and direct declaration of war on the rest of the world." Hitler understood this much better than did the leaders of Britain, France or the United States. During a conversation in 1937 with Lord Halifax, one of Britain's most important officials, he said: "In the event of a general war [in Europe], only one country can win. That country is the Soviet Union." In Icebreaker, Suvorov explains how in 1939 Stalin exploited the long-simmering dispute between Germany and Poland over Danzig and the "Polish Corridor" to provoke a "second imperialist war" that would enormously expand the Soviet empire. Stalin anticipated a drawn-out war of attrition in which Germany, France and Britain would exhaust themselves in a devastating conflict that would also spark Communist uprisings across Europe. And as the Soviet premier expected, "Icebreaker" Germany did indeed break up the established order in Europe. But along with nearly everyone else outside of Germany, he was astonished by the speed and thoroughness with which Hitler subdued not only Poland, but also France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece. Dashing Kremlin expectations that a "second imperialist war" would quickly usher in a Soviet Europe, by July 1940 Hitler was effectively master of the continent. Soviet Preparations Throughout history, every army has had a basic mission, one that requires corresponding preparations. An army whose mission is basically defensive is accordingly trained and equipped for defensive war. It heavily fortifies the country's frontier areas, and employs its units in echeloned depth. It builds defensive emplacements and obstacles, lays extensive minefields, and digs tank traps and ditches. Military vehicles, aircraft, weapons and equipment suitable for defending the country are designed, produced and supplied. Officers and troops are trained in defense tactics and counter-offensive operations. An army whose mission is aggressive war acts very differently. Officers and troops are trained for offensive operations. They are supplied with weapons and equipment designed for attack, and the frontier area is prepared accordingly. Troops and their materiel are massed close to the frontier, obstacles are removed, and minefields are cleared. Maps of the areas to be invaded are issued to officers, and the troops are briefed on terrain problems, how to deal with the population to be conquered, and so forth. Carefully examining the equipping, training and deployment of Soviet forces, as well as the numbers and strengths of Soviet weaponry, vehicles, supplies and aircraft, Suvorov establishes in great detail that the Red Army was organized and deployed in the summer of 1941 for attack, not defense. Peculiar Tanks Germany entered war in 1939 with 3,195 tanks. As Suvorov points out, this was fewer than a single Soviet factory in Kharkov, operating on a "peacetime" basis, was turning out every six months. By 1941 everyone recognized the tank as the primary weapon of an army of attack in a European land war. During this period, Suvorov shows, the Soviets were producing large quantities of the well armed "Mark BT" tank, predecessor of the famed T34 model. "BT" were the initials for the Russian words "high speed tank." The first of this series had a top speed of 100 kilometers per hour, impressive even by today's standards. But as Suvorov goes on to note, this weapon had a peculiarity: Having said so many positive things about the numbers and quality of Soviet tanks, one must note one minor drawback. It was impossible to use these tanks on Soviet territory ...Mark BT tanks could only be used in an aggressive war, only in the rear of the enemy and only in a swift offensive operation, in which masses of tanks suddenly burst into enemy territory ... The Mark BT tanks were quite powerless on Soviet territory. When Hitler began Operation Barbarossa, practically all the Mark BT tanks were cast aside. It was almost impossible to use them off the roads, even with caterpillar tracks. They were never used on wheels. The potential of these tanks was never realized, but it certainly could never have been realized on Soviet territory. The Mark BT was created to operate on foreign territory only and, what is more, only on territory where there were good roads ... To the question, where could the enormous potential of these Mark BT tanks be successfully realized, there is only one answer: in central and southern Europe. The only territories where tanks could be used, after their caterpillar tracks were removed, were Germany, France and Belgium ... Caterpillar tracks are only a means for reaching foreign territory. For instance, Poland could be crossed on caterpillar tracks which, once the German autobahns had been reached, could then be discarded in favor of wheels, on which operations would then proceed ... It is said that Stalin's tanks were not ready for war. That was not so. They were not ready for a defensive war on their own territory. They were, however, designed to wage war on others. Airborne Assault Corps Similarly designed for offensive war are paratroops. This most aggressive form of infantry is employed primarily as an invasion force. Germany formed its first airborne assault units in 1936, and by 1939 had 4,000 paratroops. And the USSR? Suvorov explains: By the beginning of the war [1939], the Soviet Union had more than one million trained paratroopers -- 200 times more than all other countries in the world put together, including Germany.... It is quite impossible to use paratroopers in such massive numbers in a defensive war.... No country in history, or indeed all countries in the world put together, including the Soviet Union, has ever had so many paratroopers and air assault landing sub-units as Stalin had in 1941. As part of the planned invasion, in early 1940 orders were given for large-scale construction of airborne assault gliders, which were produced in mass quantity from the spring of 1941 onward. The Soviets also designed and built the remarkable KT "winged tank." After landing, its wings and tailpiece were discarded, making the KT instantly ready for combat. The author also describes a variety of other offense-oriented units and weapons, and their deployment in June 1941 in areas and jumping-off points right on the frontiers with Germany and Romania. All these weapons of offensive war became instantly useless following the Barbarossa attack, when the Soviets suddenly required defensive weapons. Suvorov tells of a secret meeting in December 1940 attended by Stalin and other Politburo members at which General Pavel Rychagov, deputy defense minister and commander of the Soviet air force, discussed the details of "special operations in the initial period of war." He spoke of the necessity of keeping the air force's preparations secret in order to "catch the whole of the enemy air force on the ground." Suvorov comments: It is quite obvious that it is not possible to "catch the whole of the enemy air force on the ground" in time of war. It is only possible to do so in peacetime, when the enemy does not suspect the danger. Stalin created so many airborne troops that they could only be used in one situation: after a surprise attack by the Soviet air force on the airfields of the enemy. It would be simply impossible to use hundreds of thousands of airborne troops and thousands of transport aircraft and gliders in any other situation. Suvorov also reports on the dismantling in June 1941 of the Soviet frontier defense systems, and the deployment there of masses of troops and armor poised for westward attack. Stalin Preempted During the period just prior to the planned Soviet invasion, the USSR's western military districts were ordered to deploy all 114 divisions, then stationed in the interior, to positions on the frontier. Thus, remarks Suvorov, June 13, 1941, "marks the beginning of the greatest displacement of troops in the history of civilization." Such a massive buildup of forces directly on the frontier simply could not be kept secret. As Suvorov notes, Wilhelm Keitel, Field Marshal and Chief of Germany's armed forces High Command, spoke about the German fears during a postwar interrogation: All the preparatory measures we took before spring 1941 were defensive measures against the contingency of a possible attack by the Red Army. Thus the entire war in the East, to a known degree, may be termed a preventive war ... We decided ... to forestall an attack by Soviet Russia and to destroy its armed forces with a surprise attack. By spring 1941, I had formed the definite opinion that the heavy buildup of Russian troops, and their attack on Germany which would follow, would place us, in both economic and strategic terms, in an exceptionally critical situation ... Our attack was the immediate consequence of this threat ... In 1941, Admiral N. G. Kuznetsov was the Soviet Navy minister, as well as a member of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party. In his postwar memoirs, published in 1966, he recalled: For me there is one thing beyond all argument -- J. V. Stalin not only did not exclude the possibility of war with Hitler's Germany, on the contrary, he considered such a war ... inevitable ... J. V. Stalin made preparations for war ... wide and varied preparations -- beginning on dates ... which he himself had selected. Hitler upset his calculations. Suvorov comments: The admiral is telling us quite clearly and openly that Stalin considered war inevitable and prepared himself seriously to enter it at a time of his own choosing. In other words, Stalin was preparing to strike the first blow, that is to commit aggression against Germany; but Hitler dealt a preventive blow first and thereby frustrated all Stalin's plans ... Let us compare Keitel's words with those of Kuznetsov. Field Marshal Keitel said that Germany was not preparing an aggression against the Soviet Union; it was the Soviet Union which was preparing the aggression. Germany was simply using a preventive attack to defend itself from an unavoidable aggression. Kuznetsov says the same thing -- yes, the Soviet Union was preparing for war and would inevitably have entered into it, but Hitler disrupted these plans with his attack. What I cannot understand is why Keitel was hanged [at Nuremberg], and Kuznetsov was not. Suvorov believes that Hitler's preemptive strike came just two or three weeks before Stalin's own planned assault. Thus, as Wehrmacht forces smashed Soviet formations in the initial weeks of the "Barbarossa" attack, the Germans marveled at the great numbers of Soviet tanks and other materiel destroyed or captured -- an enormous buildup sufficient not just for an assault on Germany, but for the conquest of all of Europe. Suvorov writes Hitler decided that it was not worth his while waiting any longer. He was the first to go, without waiting for the blow of the "liberating" dagger to stab him in the back. He had begun the war in the most favorable conditions which could possibly have existed for an aggressor; but given the nature of Stalin's grand plan, he could never have won it. Even in the most unfavorable conditions, the Red Army was able to "liberate" half of Europe ... As devastating as it was, Hitler's assault was not fatal. It came too late to be successful. "Even the Wehrmacht's surprise attack on the Soviet Union could no longer save Hitler and his empire," Suvorov writes. "Hitler understood where the greatest danger was coming from, but it was already too late." With great effort, the Soviets were able to recover from the shattering blow. Stalin succeeded in forming new armies to replace those lost in the second half of 1941. As Suvorov repeatedly points out, the widely accepted image of World War II, and particularly of the roles of Stalin and Hitler in the conflict, simply does not accord with reality: In the end ... Poland, for whose liberty the West had gone to war, ended up with none at all. On the contrary, she was handed over to Stalin, along with the whole of Eastern Europe, including a part of Germany. Even so, there are some people in the West who continue to believe that the West won the Second World War. ... Stalin became the absolute ruler of a vast empire hostile to the West, which had been created with the help of the West. For all that, Stalin was able to preserve his reputation as naive and trusting, while Hitler went down in history as the ultimate aggressor. A multitude of books have been published in the West based on the idea that Stalin was not ready for war while Hitler was. A Soviet Europe? An intriguing historical "what if" is to speculate on the fate of Europe if Stalin, and not Hitler, had struck first. For example, a less rapidly successful German campaign in the Balkans in the spring of 1941 could have forced the postponement of Barbarossa by several weeks, which would have enabled Stalin to strike the first blow. Could German forces have withstood an all-out Soviet assault, with tens of thousands of Soviet tanks and a million paratroopers? With the advantage of striking first, how quickly could Stalin have reached Berlin, Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris, Rome and Madrid? Suvorov writes: It would be a mistake to underestimate the enormous strength and vast resources of Stalin's war machine. Despite its grievous losses, it had enough strength to withdraw and gather new strength to reach Berlin. How far would it have gone had it not sustained that massive blow on 22 June, if hundreds of aircraft and thousands of tanks had not been lost, had it been the Red Army and not the Wehrmacht which struck the first blow? Did the German Army have the territorial expanse behind it for withdrawal? Did it have the inexhaustible human resources, and the time, to restore its army after the first Soviet surprise attack? Partially answering his own question, Suvorov states: "If Hitler had decided to launch Operation Barbarossa a few weeks later, the Red Army would have reached Berlin much earlier than 1945." Suvorov even presents a hypothetical scenario of a Soviet invasion and occupation of Europe, replete with Stalinist terror and oppression: The [Soviet] troops meet endless columns of prisoners. Dust rises on the horizon. There they are, the oppressors of the people -- shopkeepers, bourgeois doctors and architects, farmers and bank employees. The Chekists' [NKVD] work will be hard. Prisoners are cursorily interrogated at every stopping place. Then the NKVD investigates each one in detail, and establishes the degree of his guilt before the working people. But by now it has become necessary to expose the most dangerous of the millions of prisoners: the former Social Democrats, pacifists, socialists and National Socialists, former officers, policemen and ministers of religion. Millions of prisoners have to be sent far away to the east and the north, in order to give them the opportunity, through honest labor, to expiate their guilt before the people ... In Suvorov's scenario, a camp called Auschwitz is captured early on by the advancing Soviets. In response to the question, "Well, what was it like in Auschwitz, pal?," a Red Army man replies: "'Nothing much, really' The worldly-wise soldier in his black jacket shrugs his shoulders. 'Just like at home. Only their climate is better'." Actually, "what if" historical speculation is normally uncertain because key factors are often simply imponderable. In this case, one such factor is Soviet morale. While it is certainly true that Soviet troops fought bravely and tenaciously in 1941-1943 defending their home territory, they may not have fought with the same fervor and morale in an invasion of Europe. The tenacity and endurance shown by Red Army troops in Hungary and Germany in 1944 and 1945 is not necessarily indicative, because these soldiers were bitterly mindful of more than two years of savage fighting against the invaders, and of stern occupation, on their home territory. Another imponderable is the response of Britain and the United States to an all-out Soviet invasion of Europe. If Soviet forces had struck westward in July 1941, would Britain and the United States have sided with Stalin and the USSR, or would they have sided with Hitler and Germany, Italy, France, Romania, Finland, Hungary, Denmark, and the rest of Europe? Or would Roosevelt and Churchill have decided to remain aloof from the great conflict? Anyway, when Hitler did launch his preemptive strike against Soviet Russia, Roosevelt and Churchill immediately sided with Stalin, and when the Red Army took half of Europe in 1944-45, neither the British nor the American leader objected. What can now be stated with certainty -- thanks to the work of Suvorov and other revisionist historians -- is that in smashing the great Soviet military buildup in 1941, Hitler dashed Stalin's plan to quickly conquer Europe, and that, in spite of his defeat in 1945, Hitler saved at least the western half of Europe, and tens of millions of people, from the horrors of Soviet subjugation.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Zoroaster, Starwind, Arator, zipporah (#0)
And a related reminder from 1933 : JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY JEWS OF ALL THE WORLD UNITE BOYCOTT OF GERMAN GOODS MASS DEMONSTRATIONS http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/ jdecwar. html
Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
Oh where to being with this; Carefully examining the equipping, training and deployment of Soviet forces, as well as the numbers and strengths of Soviet weaponry, vehicles, supplies and aircraft, Suvorov establishes in great detail that the Red Army was organized and deployed in the summer of 1941 for attack, not defense. And would these be the same Sovciet forces that the Germans helped build up with joint training and weapons delevlopment programs in the 1930's? Germany entered war in 1939 with 3,195 tanks. As Suvorov points out, this was fewer than a single Soviet factory in Kharkov, operating on a "peacetime" basis, was turning out every six months. Ah yes, the good old "tractor factories" that produced 4 tanks for every tractor. All of those factories were pre-built in the US in the 1930s and shipped the USSR. Where there were assembled by teams of American and German engineers. Oops. Amazing how much German made equipment found its was into pre-war Soviet factories. ...Mark BT tanks could only be used in an aggressive war, only in the rear of the enemy and only in a swift offensive operation, in which masses of tanks suddenly burst into enemy territory ... Of course, before 1942, any Soviet Army officer than dared to suggest any operational plan that even resembed blitzkrieg was taken out and shot. The idea of massive combined arms warfare had been denouced as a "tactic of fools and capitalists" by Stalin himself. The vets of the Spanish civil war, who had the most experence in mass tank warfare, were mostly killed in the purges of 1938. Which led to the USSR's "steller" preformance in Finland the following year. In June of 1941 the Red Army was one of the worst led, worst equiped, and worst trained Armies in all of Europe if not the world. With a 10 to 1 numbers advantage in men and tanks plus almost total control of the air they could not subdue tiny Finland (Who Germany had suspened arms sales to upon the outbreak of the winter war while the UK, USA, Sweden, and France were sending men and arms.) The Soviets had no logistical tail or any understand of modern moble warfare. Throughout the war they were 100% reliant on US made trucks to support their attacks. Before that, they sent 1000s of tanks and million of men into combat only to be annilated days later when spare parts, food, and ammo ran out when they out paced their suppply system. On top of all that you still had the NKVD officer (who had no military training) standing over the field commanders shoulder ready to blow is head off if he didn't show enough "zeel" in his battle plans. I.E. One officer in Finland wanted to attempt to break his trapped unit out of encirclement. His NKVD officer shot him on the spot for cowardness and took command of the unit, which was later annilated to the last man by the Finns. Had Hilter simply hunkered down, shared his military knowledge and equipment with the surrounding countries, and taken a strong public anti-soviet stance, come to Poland's aid instead of invading, and built up his army, any Soviet assault into europe would have resulted in a Soviet defeat and possible counter-revolution in the satallite states. P.S. It should be noted that at the end of the War. Devistated Finland only became all the more anti-communist with that political party shrinking away to almost nothing in the polls.So much for the grand worker's revolution. In the end ... Poland, for whose liberty the West had gone to war, ended up with none at all. On the contrary, she was handed over to Stalin, along with the whole of Eastern Europe, including a part of Germany. Even so, there are some people in the West who continue to believe that the West won the Second World War. That's one part I can't argue with. Why Americans had to spent time and blood defending a nation that had sworn the destruction of our way of life is beyond me. Japan came a lot closer to the "fight them there or here" condition than the Germans ever did.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
Gen. Patton was curious about that, as well.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
very interesting article. And I commend the historian Suvorov who did so much quality work. But Hitler started WW2 with his invasion of Poland, and then his subsequent invasion of many other countries. As the article above acknowledges. Historian Anthony Sutton identified extremely important information when he showed that both the communists of Russia and the nazis of germany were helped greatly by the clique of capitalists in America identified by Sutton. There were evil people with great power and money who fanned both the nazi and communist movements. The peoples of Russia and Germany did not spontaneously produce this.
So the Germans attacked the Russians because they thought the Russians were going to attack them? And, pray tell, who was in charge of Russia during this time, that the Germans were so concerned?
Well, it's available at Amazon: Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? At $236 (hardcover) it's a bit pricy (but not overly so for books of its genre), but I also notice it has been translated. Perhaps when originally published (1990) it was untranslated? I dunno. That and $236/pop would tend to diminish its marketability, but it's available now. Wbales, here is a corrected link to your article: The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany - The Economic Boycott of 1933 I'm not historian enough to know with a certainty what all the factors were in Post-WWI Germany's (Weimar Republic) fall, the rise of Hitler, and the start of WWII. But here is the larger context as I understand it: Some Jewish groups have a stupid knack for making themselves targets (the ADL excels at this today), and just as our current leadership is (and will) blame China for our self-wrought economic woes, Hitler blamed the Jews for Weimar Germany's self-wrought hyperinflation disaster. There is enough blame to go around. But the Jews themselves clearly are not the sole cause of WWII, but they did play a role, as did everyone else. That said, I think both articles are reasonably truthful on the facts they do present, but as suggested above there are more facts equally germane that were not presented. The "Zionists" via the boycott and transfer agreement did indeed contribute to bringing German anti-semitism upon themselves. But they were not responsible for the economic conditions of Weimar Germany, nor the cause of WWII.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
BTTT
Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
While there's little doubt that Hitler beat Stalin to the punch with Operation Barbarossa, it does nothing to enhance Hitler's place in history. If not for Hitler’s “master race” theory, the war on the Eastern Front might have been a Nazi victory. Indeed, the Germanic racial supremacy doctrine adopted by Hitler in Mein Kampf is more akin to the “Chosen People” theme espoused in the Talmud than it is to, say, Nietzsche, who liked to say he was descended from Polish nobility. When the Wehrmacht entered the Ukraine, June 1941, women and children threw flowers before the invading tanks, welcoming the Germans as liberators. At this point, if Hitler had organized and armed the anti-Communist males in the conquered territories, as many of his top advisors urged, and promised they would have assured their country’s independence in Hitler’s new Europe, his war against Stalin might have been easily won. In the eyes of Hitler, however, the Slavs were sub-humans. Anger at the stupidity of racial bigotry often gave rise to bitterness among Hitler’s generals, who argued the war could only be won if people such as the Ukrainians were granted autonomy and allowed to fight at the side of the Germans against the Soviet enemy. Hitler’s policy of conquest and naked force, coupled with a master/slave relationship between the German and Slavic peoples eventually roused the slaves to resist their masters. In 1943, in the face of increasing Soviet success, Hitler retreated from his sub-human ideology and Balts, Ukrainians and Russians were recruited into the war effort. But it was too late, for the war on the Eastern Front had already been lost, Russia and Eastern Europe were to face another fifty years of Communist tyranny. Hitler was aware, of course, of the rumors that his grandfather was Jewish. Although the answer to the mystery may never be known, I can’t help wondering if the ghost of Hitler’s grandfather played a role in his great strategic blunders of World War Two.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
interesting post, Dave.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||