The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II
"In The Chief Culprit, Victor Suvorov probes newly released Soviet documents and reevaluates existing historical material to analyze Stalin's strategic design to conquer Europe and the reasons behind his controversial support for Nazi Germany. A former Soviet army intelligence officer, the author explains that Stalin's strategy leading up to World War II grew from Lenin's belief that if World War I did not ignite the worldwide Communist revolution, then a second world war would be needed to achieve it. Stalin saw Nazi Germany as the power that would fight and weaken capitalist countries so that Soviet armies could then sweep across Europe." "Suvorov reveals how Stalin conspired with German leaders to bypass the Versailles Treaty, which forbade German rearmament, and secretly trained German engineers and officers and provided bases and factories for war. He also calls attention to the 1939 non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Germany that allowed Hitler to proceed with his plans to invade Poland, fomenting war in Europe." "Suvorov debunks the theory that Stalin was duped by Hitler and that the Soviet Union was a victim of Nazi aggression. Instead, he makes the case that Stalin neither feared Hitler nor mistakenly trusted him. Suvorov maintains that after Germany occupied Poland, defeated France, and started to prepare for an invasion of Great Britain, Hitler's intelligence services detected the Soviet Union's preparations for a major war against Germany. This detection, he argues, led to Germany's preemptive war plan and the launch of an invasion of the USSR. Stalin emerges from the pages of this book as a diabolical genius consumed by visions of a worldwide Communist revolution at any cost - a leader who wooed Hitler and Germany in his own effort to conquer the world."--BOOK JACKET.
88 pages matching Hitler in this book
Results 1-3 of 88
What people are saying - Write a review
LibraryThing ReviewUser Review - LibraryThing
Suvorov makes a very persuasive case that the Red Army, far from being the bungling, ill-equipped force overrun by the Germans in their surprise attack on the Soviet Union, was in fact in possession of weapons that surpassed those of the Germans (indeed anyone in the world) in both quality and quantity. It also had large numbers of highly trained, specialized troops. The problem was that all of their weapons and training were offensive rather than defensive. They had vast numbers of dive bombers very similar to those used by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. These planes are attack planes, with little armor or defense capability. They are designed for surprise attack when they can catch their enemies unprepared and on the ground. They had huge numbers of very high quality tanks, more than Hitler had at his disposal at the time. They even had amphibious tanks at at time when no one else had any. If you are fighting a defensive war, you have no use whatsoever for amphibious tanks. You simply fortify yourself on one side of the river and repel all comers. They had artillery which was unexcelled in the world, including the Katyusha rocket launcher. These were mobile artillery units designed for offensive mobility. They had a million highly trained paratroopers. Paratroopers are assault troops; you don't have a use for them in a defensive war. Why then did the Germans overrun the Red Army so easily in the early weeks of the war? Suvorov's argument, well documented, is that Stalin planned a surprise attack on the Germans and indeed the order for mobilization for attack had already been given. Troops were converging, or had already arrived, at the border. Those which had arrived prepared no defensive positions; their mission would be to attack and fight on the enemy's soil not their own. Planes were lined up wingtip to wingtip awaiting the order to scramble for attack. These resources were coming from all over the Soviet Union, but the largest numbers were coming from the East beyond the Caucausus. These are huge distances. The effort failed because Hitler had only to move his troops relatively short distances to put them in attack position on the Eastern Front. He attacked first and the rest is history. I expect this book will be savaged by professional historians as acceptance of its basic arguments would require a complete rethinking and rewriting of much of the history of World War II in which many of them have a vested interest; indeed, for some of them a life's work. The theses are too important and too persuasively put forth to be quietly set aside. They should be aired and debated.
Suvorov's Methodology by J. R. Nyquist
The West is always slow to understand Russian strategic thinking. The Hitler-Stalin pact was about dividing and conquering. It was aimed at the West. And today, the bosses in the Kremlin continue to aim at the West. By giving nuclear and missile technology to Iran, the Russians prepare a new “icebreaker.” But today, there are many strategies on many continents: there is Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the North Koreans, and the rapidly arming Chinese.
Strategy is not always about fighting. It is about long-range consequences. If you unloose X, then you unleash Y. Therefore, strategy is psychological and sociological. Consider the strategic outcome of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. Thousands of Americans were killed and the U.S. president responded by invading two Islamic countries – Afghanistan and Iraq. These invasions exposed the U.S. administration to withering criticisms from the Left. As long wars invariably prove unpopular, the discrediting of Bush and the Republican Party became a foregone conclusion. In this case, the “icebreaker” of the revolution was al Qaeda. The result of Bush’s overreaction spelled defeat for the Republican Party and victory for the American Left. And now the Americans have elected a president who wants to get rid of 80 percent of America’s nuclear arsenal.
The Americans never reckoned with the fact that their real enemy sits in Moscow. And so, America has been played off against the Islamic world. The Republican Party has been defeated. The American people have turned to the Left, and the American economy is being “socialized.” Here is a disastrous outcome, and one that promises worse violence to the future. What will happen when American troops leave Iraq? What will happen to the world economy as the American’s spend trillions they haven’t got? Will there be communist revolutions? Will the United States continue as a great power?
Suvorov asked the question: who really started World War II. Perhaps, before it’s too late, we should ask who started the “war against terror.” Was Osama bin Laden the mastermind, or was it the KGB agent, Ayman al-Zawahri? (Before his death, the assassinated FSB/KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko publicly stated that al-Zawahri was working for Moscow, and that Russia was behind the global terror campaign.)
Suvorov’s methodology is to look at facts that haven’t been properly analyzed. When asked by a journalist why so many historians missed the role that Stalin played in starting World War II, Suvorov responded: “Are you asking why they are all so brilliant?” If someone asks today why the CIA and FBI haven’t grasped Moscow’s role in 9/11, I must give Suvorov’s answer. It is an amazing truth, that most events aren’t properly examined after the fact. Myths are propagated and false interpretations become set in stone. This is because normal people don’t question first impressions. They are superficial in their analysis. That is the way the world works. To question a myth, one has to have a questioning mind. Facts speak truth only to the few. As Suvorov points out, “Poland was divided not in the Imperial Chancellery, but in the Kremlin.” We might also recall that modern terrorism wasn’t invented in Baghdad or Kabul, but in Moscow.
The Struggle for Peace and Its Results
First Attempts to Unleash a Second World War
The First Contact
47 other sections not shown