I’ve done some searching, and I can find no real evidence that the USSR was anywhere near attacking the Third Reich. So saying it was “preemptive” is mere speculation at best, and of course this is often cited by Neo-Nazis as a means to apologize for Hitler’s stupidity of attacking East while the British were still alive and when his Ost Heer wasn’t really ready for extended combat operations…
Could a mod separate this thread as most of the posts above are off-topic.
Cheers.
I believe that a couple of us have already placed a disclaimer of “we’ll never know for certain” because “evidence” is hard to come by. You’re not the only to have done some searching. However, “evidence” of that sort would be indeed hard to get if it existed because it isn’t the kind of information that Russia and the Allies would have wanted spread around. It sure would have gone against all their propaganda. We wouldn’t want to change the image of “poor Russia” who got invaded by “evil Nazis”, especially in view of the Soviet Union’s “non expansionism” after the war. If we don’t have all the “evidence” and information regarding Hess’ trip to the UK, what makes you think that evidence about such things as Russia eventually planning to attack should or would be available to us?
As for the referrence to Neo-Nazis, let me assure you that I’m no such thing. My suspicions about the Soviet Union may be speculation, but I find it ridiculous to think that Stalin’s expasionism wouldn’t eventually include East Prussia and Germany, especially since fascism and communism are like vinegar and water. I don’t think that Stalin was a bad guy before the Germans invaded Russia, became a good guy right before Barbarossa remaining that way throughout the war, and became bad again after the war was over.
I don’t think this because I’m a Neo-Nazi, but because I refuse to swallow everything that we’ve been told about this war (or any other war) without questioning it. While I think that the US did some reproachable things in WW2 and that the war of “good against evil” wasn’t that black and white, I’ve served this country and was willing to put my life on the line for it! So, please refrain of comparing my statements to Neo Nazi ones. Their reasons to put those statements out there are completely different from mine, even if it may seem that we agree on some things. My choice of avatar and signature has more to do with personal matters than any alliance with Nazi ideology, by the way.
“The pursuit of critical enquiry is not well served by emotional demands that historians desist from explaining and accusations that to explain is to
condone.” Dr. Jill Stephenson, Generations, Emotions, and Critical Enquiry: A British View of Changing Approaches to the Study of Nazi Germany German History, Vol.26, No 2
Was Stalin an Expansionist and Opportunist? Absolutely – I don’t think anyone who looks at his track record in Finland, Latvia, etc. could argue otherwise with a straight face.
Would there eventually be a conflict between Nazi Germany and the USSR, if Barbarossa had not happened? I have no doubt such a conflict would occur; the question being only “when.” Both political doctrines were expansionist, and both thought in terms of global dominance. But are we talking about a conflict in a few years – or a few decades? IMHO, the USSR was more “laid-back” about global domination than the Germans: IIRC, Marxist doctrine posited that their victory was inevitable, as all workers everywhere would eventually rise up against their capitalist oppressors. Since it’s inevitable, what’s the hurry? That attitude also jives nicely with Stalin’s opportunism: you take when and where fortune allows, and as for the rest, you just need to wait for fortune to smile again.
Is there any credible evidence that the USSR was planning an attack westwards in 1941? 1942? 1943? Absolutely none that I am aware of. And there is actually quite a bit of evidence that suggests the opposite, IMHO.
Would it make any SENSE for the USSR to attack Germany in the period 1941 to, say 1943? Not from where I’m sitting. Stalin recognized his military was weak: he had just stubbed his toe “big-time” in tiny Finland, and that made him realize party loyalty was not necessarily the best criterion for selecting military officers. He was very much still in the throes of “undoing” his earlier purges when Hitler struck. Hitler’s attack undoubtedly hastened Stalin’s implementation of a changes for a stronger military leadership, by attrition if nothing else – and it still took him a while to find something that started to look and act competently. Point being: you don’t willingly start a major war while in the midst of a major re-organization, nor until the dust after the re-organization had a chance to settle. And then of course, there’s the planning that has to be done – didn’t somebody above mention the Germans were planning Barbarossa for about a year before they expected to launch it? Would the Soviets spend any less time in their planning, provided they had the competent (well, maybe “functional” would be a better word) leadership Stalin was trying to create? And what about the re-training such competent officers would wish to implement for their poorly-performing armies? Add another couple of years… Nor, in terms of production or material was Stalin in a position to launch a major war against a power that controlled all of western Europe. Actually, he was instead in the process of fortifying his new (thanks to Poland, forced concessions from Romania, etc) eastern borders. You don’t pour your limited scarce resources into defensive fortifications if you’re thinking those fortifications are soon going to be hundreds of miles behind the fighting of your westward-moving troops. Hell, I recall “hearing” that many Soviet units in the initial days of Barbarossa didn’t even have ammo for their weapons. At least to me, that doesn’t sound much like the forward deployment of ammo stocks that would be required for launching an invasion. Everything I see points towards Stalin trying, with questionable success, to put his military house in some kind of order; there seems to be a near-total lack of any evident preparations for an offensive, and none that were overtly “offensive.”
As I recall, Hitler’s own stated “immediate” purpose in launching Barbarossa was to deprive England of her last hope in the war. His more long-range reasons included the “living room” for his German race, etc. I can’t see any talk of Hitler’s concerning Barbarossa being a “preemptive” strike against an imminent Soviet invasion being anything but a propaganda smoke screen. Against a more far-off Soviet attack? Maybe – but “let’s finish off the war we have before worrying about that one” seems a more rational approach if that was indeed Hitler’s main motivation. Instead, as alluded above, he used the existing war as his reason for the invasion.
Returning to the original topic:
If his plan -convincing the british leadership to cease the fightings- had succeeded, millions upon millions victims of war would have survived, numberless towns of ancient culture and villages of peaceful living would have been spared, like Breslau (Wroclaw), Königsberg (Kaliningrad), Cologne and Würzburg but also St. Petersburg (Leningrad), Warsaw, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The global hazard of Bolshevism would have been banned, the downfall of the occident and world civilization slowed down.
The above is pure twaddle. Stopping a war on Tuesday is hardly an assurance it wouldn’t resume on Thursday, destroying all those same nice cultures and villages, killing all those millions of people, just as thoroughly, or even more so. War and domination was at the heart of Nazi ideology, and that leopard simply wasn’t ever going to change those spots.
Was the Hess mission sanctioned by Hitler? I don’t know much more about that than what I’ve seen in a few History Channel-type documentaries. What those shows presented at least made it sound plausible – but that’s a long way from convincing me that is what happened.
I do think that Hess mission was sanctioned by Fuerher too.
Hitler was sure that Britain is not more to pose a threat for GErmany( otherwise, why did he order the preparation of Barbarossa, while Britan still resisted?)
Let’s look what did have Hitler to lose?
If Hess mission was succesfull - it should be a great diplomatic succes of GErmany, that now migh more carafully concentrate on Crusade to the East.
If Hess mission was failed - Hitler losed nothing except …semi-lunatic Rudolf Hess:)
But why not to try?
You right but it wasn’t just ideological point.
Stalin FEARED to give germans any chance to provoke the Germans attack.
It’s a very known fact for historians that Stalin specially ordered not to answer for possible GErman provocations. That has played an evil joke - WHen Attack actually has began , some of of Soviet commanders were unable to face it properly.
Many commanders and soldiers were on the vacations, troops have been displaced on the summer rest position , far from front line. ( it has happend on Soviet Western front 22 june, commander General Popov). There is no any actual evidece that Soviet eve try to plann an attack the same time.
That two more years should give to Stalin not GErmany but ,…resisting France…
The idea-X of Stalin , his point was indeed very clear toward GErmany- to keep USSR out of war with superior GErmany as it long as it was possible. His plan was to wait the well moment for attack would has come.That moment would has appeared when GErmany will tied on the western front- with France and BRitain.
The all is going right till the 1939 but whhen Frenchs accidentaly losed the war …for 6 weeks. It was a real shock for Stalin.This was mean only two things - the West has gone out of active continental war in Europe, and the next aim of GErmany …Would be USSR. As soon as GErmany might prepear.
And Hitler didn’t even wish to give Stalin two additional years.
His pocessed idea of Eastern Lebensraum makes the War with USSR inevitable from most begining of his carier.
Just don’t try to say that the ONLY GErmany and USSR had an expansionist doctrine at that time:)
The British empire owned a very brightly expressed colonian doctrine, as well as USA As well as Colonian France.
The other matter thtat GErmans feels lack of colonies:)( The reason why the ww1 was started)
The expansionist doctrine , as you might know , don’t make the countries to DIRECT attack each others.
Untill the 1939 the GErmany and USSR cooperated enought well, till the most moment when the GErmany has eliminated last their continental threat in Europe- France.
The GErmany was needed for its colonies, but where did they might to take it?The country that didn’t has no such a great fleet like Britain?Where they migh take its’ colonies?
In East and probably in Africa.
They might piss off on what?
On their history?
All of them got independence in 1918-19 beeing re-concuered by foreigners ( Bessarabia- by Polish-French troops, Baltic states by Germany)
They didn’;t fight for their independence , like Finland.
BTW the Latvians pretty added to Bolshevic terror in Russia see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Riflemen#Red_Latvian_Riflemen
SO IMO harldy they might piss off to their best friends boslhevics:)
Who presented them “independence” for their support of Bolshevics regime in 1918:)
I guess the strife for independance and liberty of the Baltic States goes far more back in time than the 20th century.
Just don’t try to say that the ONLY GErmany and USSR had an expansionist doctrine at that time
I didn’t.
I don’t believe Hess was a nutter at all, though I agree his responses at Nuremberg portray him so.
I can tell you this: Hess’s Me110 did not come down in Scotland at all. That was, is, remains an outright lie.
Hess’s Aircraft landed in Yorkshire, about half a mile from a farm on which a now deceased neighbour of mine was a labourer, having been told he was not medically eligible for enlistment. My neighbour saw the aircraft land, and as he arrived to see what was happening, was turned back at gunpoint by British troops in unmarked uniforms. He was Ordered to never reveal what he had seen.
Which was Hess exiting the Me.110.
When Hess’s picture appeared in the newspapers during the Nuremberg trials, he instantly recognised Hess, who had removed his flight helmet as he went to jump from the wing of the landed aircraft to the ground.
My neighbour has been safely dead a few years. I feel it reasonable to tell of what he told me. He had no reason to try deceit, and no reason to alter any truth he had witnessed, so, for what it’s worth, I believe him. I leave other folk to make their own opinions in the matter, noting only that in war, as in other human endeavours, truth is often stranger than fiction.
Regards, Uyraell.
A very good surce on Hess’s personality can be found in the memoirs* of Albert Speer.
The memoirs of Speer tells us many funny stories about Hess and his Hypocondric personality, as well as many quite personal conversations between Hess and Spear while Scrubbing the floors together in the Spandau prison.
In Spandau both Hess and spear was frozen out by the other prisoners, lead by the fanatical Nazis Admiral Doenitz and Von Shirach, as they where both considered traitors of both Hitler, and Germany.
As far as I remember did Hess never tell Speer anything about Hitler being involved in his attempt on passing information over to the British, so I think we have good reasons to believe that Hess acted alone.
If Hess didn’t act alone I am sure that he would have told Speer, as he was the only person who was close to him in the 20 years they spent toghether in Spandau, so I think this story tells us more about the differences in attitude and thinking, between Rudolf Hess and the British than anything else.
- Spandau Diaries ISBN 978-0-02-612810-0
- Also the books by Joachin Fest on Albert Speer, cast new light on these subjects
Freyir33, I have a small but pertinent question.
Your use of the word Hypocondric. (And no, this isn’t a “dig” or “jab” over inaccurate English.)
My question is this: am I to take the meaning of Hypocondric as Hypochondriac (being: given to the usage/consumption of large amounts of medicines) or am I to take the meaning of Hypocondric as Hypocondritic (being: given to an ongoing succession of perceived ailments/illnesses deriving in the main from external causes with rare inclusions from internal causes?)
The reason for the question is this: while the two psychological states manifest broadly similar external behavioural symptomology, they each have a very different effect in the functioning of the mind within the personality.
Clearly, the above has much bearing on Rudolf Hess, in terms of the ways in which a researcher should most accurately perceive him.
Respectful Regards, Uyraell.
What Speer describes in his memoir is, that Hess often led under a state of what wicky describes as Hypochondriasis, a state where you are constantly aware of your health. The paradox is that Hess achieved the age of 92, before he died in 1987
Many Thanks freyir_33.
That puts the second meaning into place.
I appreciate the clarification.
Kind Regards, Uyraell.