The twentieth century was the age of the Great Dictators, Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, and, of course, the Greatest of the Great Dictators, the ex-seminarian and Georgian, Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, known to us all as Josef Stalin. As a former college professor of Russian History, I must admit my fascination in Stalin, a man whom one of my university-chosen Russian History textbooks rather stupidly and lamely characterized as "a great statesman"! Such is the moral morass of modern American "education"!

There is a new theory, coming out of Russia and from circles in that country that still lionize the Great Dictator, that Stalin's death was not the death by natural causes from a stroke and brain hemorrhage that we have all been told in the history books. I link this intriguing pdf file below:

Why Josef Stalin was Assassinated

The thesis of this article is rather breathtaking, and hints that Stalin's notorious purges, particularly those that occurred after World War Two, may have been motivated by something more than Stalin's well-known paranoia: "Just as President Eisenhower had warned of the danger of a 'military-industrial complex' assuming excessive power in the United States, Stalin feared that a 'military-party complex' threatened to usurp all power in the Soviet Union and took steps to thwart it.... After Waorld War II Stalin made a second, more drastic move to reduce the power of party bosses by attempting to separate the party from the governance of the Soviet Union." (p. 6, Emphasis added).  I must confess, when I read those lines, I was stunned, for as a Russian history professor years ago, I had stressed over and over to my students the nature of the Communist Party as a parallel bureaucracy to that of the Russian state, at all levels, and even pointed out the virtual merger of the two in the Stalinist "constitution" of 1936. The idea that Stalin would seek to undo the relationship to me was, at first glance, staggering.

The Russian authors believe, however, that Western intelligence aided Khrushchev and Marshal Zhukov in overthrowing Stalin, and their reasons for maintaining this should send a shudder through anyone: Stalin and his council of ministers decreed "As of 1 March 1950 to end basing the exchange rate of the ruble relative to foreign currencies based on the dollar and to change it to a more stable gold standard based on the gold content of the ruble."(p. 7). Additionally, Stalin was refusing to use and price Russia's international trade in dollars. In short, Stalin was breaking away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency.(p. 8). The fact that "medical aid was delayed or withheld for the dying dictator" convinced the Russian authors that Stalin's death was intentional, and they speculate that Khrushchev and Marshal Zhukov had assistance in the plot from exiled Trotskyites and Western Intelligence. (p. 10). In short, everyone had something to gain by Stalin's death...except, of course, the Russians themselves.

The pattern is eerily familiar by now, brutal, murderous dictators, who, nonetheless, have the savvy to "smell a rotten fish" in the global financial and currency racket, and who took steps to do something about it.

Can we all say Saddam Hussein, and Mohamar Qaddafi?

Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. marcos anthony toledo on November 25, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    The belief Stalin was offed is not new but reason I have read was he was planning another of his purge like in the thrities and his potential targets struck first beating him to the punch.

  2. Jay on November 25, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Wait I never said that Stalin didn’t want to attack Hitler, particularly in Poland. I said I didn’t buy that Stalin had provoked Hitler into invading most of Western Europe and Scandinavia so Stalin could then invade atop Hitler’s invasion, therby taking Europe to the English Channel.

    Suvorov makes claims about military hardware without providing any evidence that said hardware was ever produced in any quantity—that autobahn only tank is huge example.

    I will not learn Russian to read the memoirs and documents which Suvorov should have as English endnotes in the English editions of his books.

    • ILJA on November 25, 2011 at 12:31 pm

      1) “Suvorov makes claims about military hardware without providing any evidence that said hardware was ever produced in any quantity—that autobahn only tank is huge example.” Again, you ignored what I said earlier: it’s not the matter of ” what Suvorov claimed” or “what Suvorov didn’t claim”. Speaking on the matter of “hardware” Suvorov himself investigates and relies on the books in the Russian by different authors whose feelings towards Suvorov and his version are highly negative. So if you (unfortunately) can’t read it, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Today the old irrelevant views of the “backwardness” of the Red Army (produced by the Soviet propaganda with the help of those persons in the West countries that felt in love with the Soviet regime or those that by some other reason – hatred to the Soviet Union or the russians – accepted this cliches about obsolete non-technologichal russians that were saved by the Communist party in “the Holy Patriotic War” (soviet version) or the generous and mighty Western allies ( allied version) ) are being revised. In his later works Suvorov refers to the number of technical papers on the Red Army’s equipment, inventory etc. released by Russia’s Ministry of Defence, particularly “the Statistics Summary N 1”, published in 1994 with regard to every niuance as to on what factory, when every entity was made, how many and to what location it was later to be staged and loaded. In 2000 the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia officially recognized the loss of nearly 20 000 tanks and sorry but didn’t remeber exact number in the respect to artillery and aircraft, but it is of the same significance.
      2) As for Stalin’s plans to occupy Europe up to the Channel, well Stalin openly declared that in almost every speech (prior to the ’39) that were accurately collected and published in the years of his reign in the form of collection of his works and I personally have read it. Also the sources that confirmed his thinking were a number of Communistic leaders inside and outside the USSR (Communistic International, especially Dimitrov, who fixed it in his Diary, german, european, world communists later to become “the leaders puppets” in their countries), who recalled that type of his logic in his declarations that appeared repeatedly and which main thought was: let the capitalists fight among themselves, then the Red Army will come with the fresh forces and liberate them from the capitalistic yoke. He thought strategically long before the WW 2 broke out, he for example pointed out at the significanse of the controle of the oil (Ploesti oil fields in Romania), the Baltic Sea ( blocking access to the nickel and iron minery of Sweden and Finland to the Germany) and so on and on that found its materialization in the offensive plans (that are again available) against not only Germany, but also Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Iran.

      • ILJA on November 25, 2011 at 12:39 pm

        Sorry, while writing I lost my mind, I intended to write this: In 2000 the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia officially recognized the loss of nearly 20 000 tanks in the fall of 1941 year alone and sorry but didn’t remeber exact number in the respect to artillery and aircraft, but it is of the same significance.

        • Jay on November 25, 2011 at 1:14 pm

          Were the autobahn only tanks built in any quantity? By the tens of thousands? (These tanks are big part of Suvorov’s argument.)

          Lots of leaders make speeches about crushing enemies: GW Bush, Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein.

          • ILJA on November 28, 2011 at 6:55 am

            1)Sometimes, I’m crashed by people’s deafness to arguments they’re being told. Once again, I’m forced to cite from what I have written myself in a post above: “that found its materialization in the offensive plans (that are again available) against not only Germany, but also Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Iran.” A military plan is something that operates by concrete categories and is not just “speeches”. What’s the most important is that it had been in the process of REAL performing, in regard to the troops’ dislocation, training maneuvers,its disposition, character of equiping of engineering positions, the geographic location for the military plants, the presence of topographical maps of the regions of Germany and occupied territories of Poland, Chechoslovakia printed in every small detail and so on and so on. Plus the clear indication of targets and thouroghtful categorization of it by importance and the order of military realization: “the nearest goal, the First strategic goal” in regard to the terms (“by the day 30, by the day 15”) of realiztion etc. There’s not an opportunity here to speak of all the aspects for it has already been covered by manu other authors, INCLUDING SUVOROV,
            2) “Were the autobahn only tanks built in any quantity? By the tens of thousands? (These tanks are big part of Suvorov’s argument.)” – No, this is not true. The arguments, regarding the material base for military planning was only a PART of Suvorov’s argumentation. As for “authoban” tanks, he makes clear of what model does he talk: BT series that Soviet Union had by 1941 about 7000 entities, much more sophisticated than the tanks of other great countries, incluiding Germany not speaking of quantity (as much as twice than Germany had its tanks of ALL models). And that’s of only one series, exluding T (26,34, 35,40), KV (1,2).And that is speaking just of TANKS. And where would you hide Air Forces, Navy, Landing Parties (1 000 000 trained soldiers that led to form 2 corpses by the June of 1941 and remarshaled later to numerous combined arms units up to size of the division during the rest of the war with Germany till its end in 1945)?

          • Jay on November 28, 2011 at 9:25 am


            So you still haven’t dealt with the missing quantities of autobahn-only tanks.

            Iran and Turkey are not part of Western Europe. You don’t appear to be aware of what was called the “Great Game”; whereby the Tsars and the English fought for influence in Central Asia. Big deal Stalin continued the Tsars plans; not news.

            Big deal the Soviets wanted to invade Finland, well in the 1920s the US and the UK had troops in Poland and probably Finland fighting a war with the Soviets.

            Did the Tsars have plans to invade Holland, and did Stalin, and did Stalin have the material forces, and supply line capacity (ie fuel trucks)? Those are Suvorov’s assertions, and he makes such assertions while not citing any extra texts at any length.

            I’m not arguing that Stalin was some peaceful autocrat.

          • ILJA on November 28, 2011 at 12:06 pm

            Jay, you’re killing me 😀 😀 😀 😀 Our arguments are not crossing at any place, cause we’re talking on different topics as it seems. Why are you so in love with these damned “authoban-tanks”? they determines nothing in the general concept, and to reduce all the subject to discussing merely one thing (and one tank) is rather stupid and unproductive and you are ignoring the rest of what I wrote. It seems, Jay, that your own knowledge base of the Russia’s history seems quite narrow (that’s quite understandable for where could you learn it from when the vast ocean of the literature on the original language is unavailable fro you and the like not the least because of absence of Russian understanding skills), because where I deliver concrete, detailed arguments, your own are 1) repeating 2)too general and theoretical.

            ” well in the 1920s the US and the UK had troops in Poland and probably Finland fighting a war with the Soviets.” – the exact source of this knowledge would be appreciated greatly. Also, I admire the word “probably” : so “probably” ar “exactly”? There were some troops in former cities and locations of the defeated Germany right after WW 1, including the city of Memel (now Lithuanian Klaipeda): the question for what purposes were they held there, did they have some plans of invasion to the Soviet Union and was it enough to arrange that action? Ask that Jay. And know what is the most ridiculuos? That we exactly know that the revolutional Soviet government by Lenin invaded the former western provinces of the dissapeared Russian Empire and tried to make a movement to the West through the Poland (the Soviet-Polish ar og 1920/21) under the openly declared war-cries OFFICIALLY FORMALIZED AS THE ORDER (forgot its number) about “the corpse of the white Poland” thorugh which the flag of the Red Army should be brought to the Germany and further to the rest of weakened unstable politically Europe,and the mass revolutions were expected that would help the Red Army, and they really planed to do so. after Finland became independent it faced the threat of being sovietisized right in 1918 when the Red parties occupied the south of the country. After this war Finland anticipated the next war with USSR and built “The Mannerheim’s Line”. In the mid 20’s leon Trotsky, a founder of the Red Army suggested a plan of invasion to the India usin the 30 000 cavalry troops. So, Jay, strongly reccomend you to read more materials.

      • legioXIV on November 28, 2011 at 2:54 pm

        G’day IlJA,
        Here’s a link giving a general explanation for the allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.
        The Intervention was a bit more involved than you think, The allies had troops in North Russia, around Archangel.
        In the south including the Crimea and also had a Siberian front.

        • ILJA on November 29, 2011 at 9:18 am

          legioXIV, I’m aware of the allied intervention very well, and in the soviet time we were taught in the school that those bad guys from Antanta were full of desire to strangle the “young soviet republic” during the time of the RUSSIAN CIVIL WAR but that CAN’T BE CALLED A CLASSICAL INVASION AGAINST NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, because de-jure Russia ceased to exist with the declaration of the formation of the Soviet republic in 1917 and with the dissolution of the state in the subsequent period of time to the numerous independent and half-independent formartions all through the territory of the former Empire and because the numerous anti-bolsheviks forces that seeked to overthrow the tyrannical regime of what they considered to be”the anti-national” would like to see UK, US, France as allies that could help restore the country ang get rid off the bolsheviks. If the they wone the firght then we had no WW 2 and the seas of blood inside and outside Russia. However the scale of this help to white forces (counterstriking the reds) was heavily exaggerated. In fact all this intervention was reduced as always to the seeking of private interests of each of the allies, that 1) were not interested the whites had a big luck 2) were EXHAUSTED in the WW 1 and couldn’t afford the new big war. As a result, the whites were poorly equiped and even worse were helped and all the “intervention” ended with no result, as it was – contrary to the bolsheviks that by drastic measures of total mobilization of all available resources, introducing the Red Terror – badly organized and had no such impact to the destiny of the Civil War in Russia (I’m not speaking here of other aspects of the outcome of the war attributed mostly to specifical aspects of interior russian matters). The main conclusion: the Intervention was predoomed to fail and the resources used by the allies to involve in the Civil War was behind those used in WW 1. However, in the sence of war with the bolsheviks that were striving for the political destabilization throughout the Europe and were constant threat to the rest of the world that I mentioned earlier (the revolutional Soviet government by Lenin invaded the former western provinces of the dissapeared Russian Empire and tried to make a movement to the West through the Poland (the Soviet-Polish ar og 1920/21) and further to the rest of weakened unstable politically Europe,and the mass revolutions were expected that would help the Red Army. After Finland became independent it faced the threat of being sovietisized right in 1918 when the Red parties occupied the south of the country. After this war Finland anticipated the next war with USSR and built “The Mannerheim’s Line”. In the mid 20′s Trotsky, a founder of the Red Army, suggested a plan of invasion to India using the 30 000 cavalry troops”) – the intervention itself was fully justified for it didn’t have a character of a direct agression but was viewed by those who had been fighting with the bolsheviks as a real hope to the national destiny of Russia and was a part of the interior conflict in the country.The main point is that with the victory of Communisst the russians themself lost. It’s worth mentioning that the bolsheviks’ regime had not gained a full respect and support from the wide spectrum of the population and when the Soviet-German war in 1941 began many saw the hitlerites as “the Liberators” from the bolsheviks yoke, the mass uprisings began in the Baltic States, Ukrain and Belorussia and all thorugh the Volga region in 1942. However when I wrote this I did have in mind not the Russian Civil war but the period after the withdrawal of the allied and white forces. The first years after it in ’20s Bolsheviks used incredible amount of the resources (expropriated worth of all the classes of the society) to stir up revolutions in every part of the world by sending money and equipment (guns), political literature of a disruptive nature with numerous emisars and the agents of GPU (future NKVD\KGB) and the military intelligence: in addition to the fantastic projects of exporting the revolution to the Western Europe (by revolutionizing Poland and Germany with the adequate help of the Red Army) Afghanistan and India, they were trying to overthrow the governments and start the revolution in Bulgaria (the unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Tsar Boris) in the Latin America,anywhere where they thought they would succeed. So, all this long list is to understant that the allied intervention in no way could be compared to the scale of the actions and plans of the bolsheviks to get a control of the wholly world and it can be hold of much more of defensive character than the actions of the bolsheviks during had after 1918/20. The more so, if to talk about the great plans of Stalin that that were carefully and meticulously put into practice by long-time efforts. The one thing what one’s declaring, the other – what one is doing and Stalin was of the sort of people that chated with a minimum of words and did maximum.

        • legioXIV on November 29, 2011 at 1:47 pm

          Absolutely understand what you are saying ILJA. The intervention of the allied powers has always taken on an element of farce for me. As Tigranes of Armenia said of the army of Lucullus, it was “too small for an army, too large for an embassy”. The whole thing seems to have been a spur of the moment thing with no clear objective. the removal of the Tsar and his family seemed to make the whole thing null and void.
          You’re quite right about the desire to export the revolution in the 20’s, very similar to the French Revolution with the desire to export the revolutionary fervour to other countries. So i am aware of that especially the troubles in the early Weimar Republic.
          I am also very much aware of the reception that German forces received in the early stages of Barbarossa. If Hilter and his cronies hadn’t of been so blind and frankly stupid in their racial dealings, they could have enlisted millions from those countries alone. They would have made great fighters because of the hatred they felt for the Moscow regime. Yet another missed opportunity. Not that I believe that a German victory was a good thing, far from it actually. Unfortunately i think that Facism did win in the end if you look at the western world today, but that’s another story.
          Yet as we know the Stalin regime wasn’t much better and the very ironic thing was that without it we would have lost the war. Most westerners are very uncomfortable with this idea but nonetheless it is true. The western armies were inadequate in their doctrine, equipment and fervour. I would point out Max Hastings work Armageddon: the battle for Germany 19944-45 and Overlord: The battle for Normandy for what is in my opinion is an excellent and accurate critique of the forces of the Western Allies. The truth is that we needed Stalin to win, someone had to do the hard yards to grind down the Wehrmacht and suffer the frightful casualties to do so. Only another politically indoctrinated army under a absolute dictatorship could have achieved this. Democracy could not. Anyway that’s my opinion, have a nice day

          • ILJA on November 30, 2011 at 6:54 am

            And it’s interesting that the situation was mirroring: when the preventive strike of Germany in June of 1941 forced Stalin, who himself had been taking quit arrogant position towards the allies by literally every question before the Soviet-German war, to go on his knees tearfully before the allies to have them sent a couple of divisions (and the more of it, the better it will be) to the estern front instead of unreliable soviet parts that showed considerable reluctance to fight with the germans for alien interests of “Velykij Vozhd’ “. Interesting, though, that it had been begun to form the anti-Hitler coalition prior to the German strike: it was suspected that Soviet Union would start the war with Germany with the all possible and various help from the allies 🙂 the first party of the allied supply arrived to Murmantsk in the 12th of June of 1941. Stalin was genius indeed: to have the friendly world, HELPING HIM VOLUNTARILY TO CARRY OUT IN PRACTICE HIS PLAN OF AGRESSION AGAINST GERMANY AND THE CERTAIN SOVIETIZATION OF THE PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED (BY NAZIS) EUROPE, with the nations of the occupied countries praying for him to do this (i.e. “liberate”) – what he actually would achieve later unfortunately (for him) only for the one part of Europe!

  3. ILJA on November 25, 2011 at 9:32 am

    That Stalin didn’t want to believe in the German assault is not a sufficient proof at all of him not having plans to offend the Germany. He refused to believe because he had its’ own Perfect Plan (as he considered it) and it was a shock for him that it was not him who made the first step, what he’d been planning for decades to realize. Also, your reference to the one fragment of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” show you’re thinking of stereotypes: have you read it all? Do you know from what place, from what chapter it’s extracted? Do you know EXACTLY what this book is about? If no, then….. Further. The arguments in favor of the Soviet gun quality that you attributed to Suvorov is not what he stated actually and by eliciting them you showed that you have not understood the topic properly. In almost every of his books he scrupulously goes into the analysis of every minor and major aspect of armament, technical tactical characteristics of the soviet tanks, plans, artillery, of different fighting arms of the Soviet Army. As for mentioned by you, it’s worth remember the context of the section. Suvorov from the standpoint of a professional war agent (he worked for GRU – the military intelligence), deals with many aspects of his research, points of the analysis, made by GRU correlators, had been studying the economical and military situation in Germany, that he was told in the time of his training course at the Academy of GRU during the lectures! I don’t wan’t to speak too much on this now, however it’s clear that you misinterpreted or missed the main point. Suggest, you read it as well as other valuable sources on the Russian, there is written and analyzed much and in depth on how Stalin did plan sovietization of the Europe, for what reasons and what means he was going to use for this.

    • legioXIV on November 25, 2011 at 4:42 pm

      I have tried to read Mein Kampf on quite a few occasions but found it to be tedious excrement written by an Austrian bore.

      • ILJA on November 28, 2011 at 6:58 am

        No comments on this. There’re still those who have.

      • legioXIV on November 28, 2011 at 2:38 pm

        G’day ILJA,
        The references you wanted re Hitlers intention to attack the Soviet Union at the earliest opportunity:
        “For centuries Russia drew nourishment from the Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata. Today it can be regarded as almost totally eliminated and extinguished. It has been replaced by the Jew…. He himself has no element of organization, but a ferment of decomposition. The giant empire to the east is ripe for collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state.” Hitler Mein Kampf pp 741-743, from english translation
        “We National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our prewar period. We take up where we left off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and the west, and turn our gaze towards the land in the east…. If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.” Hitler Mein Kampf pp741-743. from English translation.
        “The destruction of Russia with the help of England would have to be attempted. Russia would give Germany sufficient land for German settlers and a wide field of activity for German industry”. Jackel and Kuhn p773 Hitler and the quest for World Domination.
        “Everything that I undertake is directed against Russia. If those in the West are too stupid and too blind to understand this, then i shall be forced to come to an understanding with the Russians to beat the West, and then, after its defeat, turn with all my concerted force against the Soviet Union.” Hitler speaking to Carl Burckhardt, Swiss commissioner to the League of Nations.
        “With Russia smashed, Britain’s last hope would be shattered. Germany then will be master of Europe and the Balkans. Decision: Russia’s destruction must therefore be made a part of this struggle. Spring 1941….If we start in May 1941, we would have five months to finish the job.” Colonel General Franz Halder War diaries, attributed to Hitler on 31 July 1940 in a meeting with his Generals on the Berghof.
        That’s just a few examples of Hitler’s recurring statements to destroy the Soviet Union and the so called Jewish-Boshlevik conspiracy he felt ran the country.

        • ILJA on November 29, 2011 at 9:58 am

          I’ll come back to reply to this 🙂 Sorry if it may seem written in a confused manner it’s just because I’m writing to quickly, I hope you understand well.

        • legioXIV on November 29, 2011 at 1:24 pm

          no worries mate

    • Jay on November 28, 2011 at 2:20 pm

      The source for US troops in fighting the Soviets from Poland in the 1920s is a bio documentary of the producer/ director of the original King Kong movie. He was there in Poland fighting for the USA, and the Soviets captured him.

      It’s no great secret that the US and the UK back the White Russians in places like Finland in the 1920s.

      “Probably” only applied to US and English troops in Finland in the 1920s and that’s how I wrote it.

      Suvorov, in “Ice Breaker” most certainly hangs a lot on those autobahn-only tanks. And then Suvorov never provides production figures for them. Suvorov most certainly repeats this kind of sloppiness, that you don’t notice tells me either you have better information you haven’t shared, or you’re reading with an exact conclusion in mind.

      You could do the world a favor by translating and posting these Russian documents you’ve seen, read, seen note.

      • ILJA on November 29, 2011 at 9:56 am

        Read what I replied above to legioXIV, this post of yours applies to that too. As for “The Ice Breaker” Suvorov wrote, if am not mistaken, somewhat around 23 chapters. This magical words “autoban tanks” he used in the very beginning. Could you please tell me how the rest of the chapters are entitled and what he’s arguing about in it? Have you actually read it ALL and not only the one where he deals with these “authoban tanks”? Also, I must appologize for I didn’t undeerstand from the first look your problem with the quantity of these tanks, I just mentioned that the USSR had 7000 enities of the tanks that had an index BT: BT means the word “Bystrochodnyj” on Russian (Быстроходный – in original russian shape) that could betranslated into the English as “fast-speed”, the major part of the BT series tanks BT 7M had a capacity of 500 horse-power (specific output about 40 horse power to the 1 tone of weight!) and a fuel distance of 700 km (without filling up), recommend to compare ti to the analogical german tanks’ characteristic. This ability would enough to cover sighnificant distances of the European . This is a very informative topic and I of course could display all the concrete arguments, but I have no time enough because there’s enormous amount of info and it would take a lot of time to provide it all. However, I promise according to my free-time ability to give some links or write on it here gradually.

        • Jay on November 29, 2011 at 10:59 am


          with the autobahn-only tanks problem.

          This is about “fast speed”.

          Much of the rest of “Icebreaker” is about the perfect competence of Soviet forces.

          It is you who don’ t appear to have read that book in any detail.

          • ILJA on November 29, 2011 at 12:07 pm

            “Much of the rest of “Icebreaker” is about the perfect competence of Soviet forces” – oh, so what where it’s at 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 why the very thought of the competence of the Soviet forces are so annoying to you? 😀 Aren’t it cause you got accustomed to the cliches that all others – the Germans, Americans, French, British have been for so long time described by themselves is the perfectly competent in contrast to “the Russians”(though I disagree with this definition as not correct in the historical context) i.e. the Soviets that had long been viewed as unprepared, non-technical, stupid, incompetent and so on and Suvorov makes quite radical shift of this long-established dogma what is disliked by you? 😀 Now, all is clear to me: well, what I have to say is that whatever arguments would be delivered you will simply reject because it doesn’t fit your state of mind. If having read his book “in any detail” resulted for you in getting out of it the impression of the high competence (whether even you dislike it) of the Soviet force and the outburst of irritation and envy then Suvorov (who himself predicted and described that kind of psychological reaction) can fully be congratulated with the victory 😀 ! I read his book and could make its’ long retelling without missing of every nuance, however it’s not the right place to do this here and don’t see much sense.

          • legioXIV on November 29, 2011 at 1:23 pm

            Hi Jay and ILJA,
            I would agree that the soviet forces were much more sophisticated than is generally allowed in Western historical works. Especially in the early 30’s when Mikhail Nikolayevich Tukhachevsky, marshal of the Soviet Union was in command. He was a proponent of industrial war and deep operations similar to the highly successful German doctrine. Tukhachevsky was a brilliant commander and if it wasn’t for the purges of 37 then the soviet response to the German invasion would have been much better orchestrated and more successful. With the elimination of Tukhachevsky came too the temporary elimination of the mans ideas. Temporary because they were to be readopted circa 42 and used later to great success especially with the combined arms divisions and corps that ILJA has mentioned

  4. Terry Lamb on November 24, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    I see a great Novel here! Unleash the Beast, Joe! You are the MAN!

  5. HAL838 on November 24, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    I’ve heard something about that before, so it isn’t surprising to hear again,
    but not just as a rumor, this time textbook changing.

    It was capitalism that supported those dictators and the former USSR.
    You think their leaders didn’t know it ???

  6. Robert Barricklow on November 24, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    Makes perfect cent$.
    All targeted for maintenance of currency control.
    Exterminate those pests like Abraham Lincoln, “Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity”, is their #1 priority.

  7. legioXIV on November 24, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Hi Dr Farrell,
    Stalin certainly was an interesting man. I have just finished reading Simon Montefiore’s Young Stalin and have started Stalin: Court of the Red Tzar by the same author. Both well worth a read. Though i understand your list of reading is quite extensive at this time as mine is, JPF’s books among many others.
    I have come across the theory that Stalin was offed before and if he was going to implement the schemes this article says then it makes sense. It would seem that Stalin was more dangerous than previously thought, but dangerous to whom becomes the interesting thing

  8. Jon Norris on November 24, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    Stalin always maintained that Roosevelt had been assassinated by slow poisoning (many pesticides and their derivatives produce symptoms exactly like polio), and feared the same for himself. Given the nature of the world and Russia at the time, was he paranoid or merely realistic?

    The banksters are completely amoral and will use anyone or anything for their purposes, and then shaft them when done with them. We have seen this time and time again, and I would not be surprised if many or most of the deaths of powerful people like Stalin were “assisted.”

  9. Citizen Quasar on November 24, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    He was offed, Stalin.

  10. Hermes on November 24, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Wicked good stuff…

    Now check out a supposed lawsuit filed yesterday that claims to be the first public stake into the heart of the “cabal” and it’s ties back to Marcos gold but contains more than that…cicvil case # 8500 in southern district of NY. I can’t find it yet but holidays and all might delay online posting…I want to see the brief first though.

    • Hermes on November 24, 2011 at 10:56 am

      Are you effin serious. I just read this PDF and it cites On pg 8 middle section the world systems through the IMF would be based on ownerless gold. Nazi gold, Jew gold etc! This is part n parcel in Fulfords link! The amounts are ridiculous when you do the math though. They are talking tens of thousands of tons and the US has supposedly 8k metric tons and the largest hoard.

      It explains the nazi gold stolen behind allied lines that Patton was investigating before he died. The yamashita/Marcos gold and the Chinese gold/silver I started crossing over earlier this year. The Italian Japanese Kennedy bonds are papers tied to some of all of this. Basically it sounds like western elites screwed the eastern ones in a round about way and these families tried to resolve this for a couple generations to no avail so now it’s getting into an endgame where they try to retain their status as they out everyone. Interesting times doesn’t even cover the greatest history we haven’t known!

  11. Thomas Marz on November 24, 2011 at 9:58 am

    If his financial policy was going to be such that a new backing of the ruble was immeninent and to not use the dollar as a basis would be a big alarm bell for the Anglo-American elites in the west.

    They had just spent years and years in bloody conflict with one regime and I doubt they wanted another one.

    • legioXIV on November 24, 2011 at 1:41 pm

      oh they wanted another one desperately, that’s why during the war the official policy was that the soviet union was our great friend and old uncle Joe was a nice fellow. However as soon as the war was ended, communism became the new great enemy after the nazis were “defeated”.

    • legioXIV on November 24, 2011 at 6:41 pm

      The elites, who run the Industrial military Complex, absolutely thrive on wars or the threat of one, hence the red threat and now the terror threat

  12. Jay on November 24, 2011 at 7:05 am

    But this is a book review of a new book from Viktor Suvorov, the author of “Ice Breaker”.

    In “Ice Breaker”, Suvorov argued that in the late 1930s Stalin planned to invade the whole of western Europe, similar to the way that Stalin tried to invade Finland. And because Suvorov believes this, Suvorov sees Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union as explainable.

    Some problems with the Suvorov book, “Ice Breaker”: In the 1920s, the English and Americans did have troops on the ground in Poland (probably in Finland and the Ukraine too) at war with the Soviets. So there’s a reason the Soviets would see immediate neighbors as enemies. Suvorov claims all sorts of exotic invasion-only tank construction planning by Stalin, but never provides production information or confirmation.

    Also Suvorov never adequately explains why Stalin would destroy all of the defensive positions Stalin had ordered built across the western Soviet Union. Yes then Soviet troops would have to stand and invade the west with nowhere to run, but that presupposes perfect success, perfect planning, and perfect Soviet troop supply and deployment. (All of this is similar to the mistake Hitler made when he invaded Russia.)

    Suvorov, at least in English, is published without real footnotes, he’ll just refer to some Soviet general’s memoir in the middle of his text, a memoir only available in library in St. Petersburg or Moscow. Suvorov could solve this problem by heavily quoting the memoir, with exact references, in footnotes or endnotes.

    Suvorov’s books feed the idea that Hitler was just defending Germany, thereby excusing a lot of Hitler’s behavior (somehow, according to Suvorov, Stalin incited Hitler to invade France, Norway, Belgium and Holland so as to weaken all of western Europe for a Soviet invasion).
    And somehow, according to Suvorov, the Soviet armies, including basically slave armies from the gulag, are extraordinarily competent and very motivated to invade all of western Europe.

    Suvorov is most certainly not a holocaust denier, and Suvorov makes some interesting technology points about Soviet and German technoloy in World War Two. For example the Germans brought the wrong gun oil for Russian winter fighting and Stalin knew this in advance. Stalin also knew from the price of mutton that the Germans weren’t prepping winter coats in advance.

    Re; This new book, “Chief Culprit”, of course Stalin was upset by the value of the US dollar after World War Two. And it would be good to see Suvorov’s sourcing on the thug Beria’s actions after Stalin died.

    • legioXIV on November 24, 2011 at 2:33 pm

      Hi Jay,
      I have heard about this work as well and quite frankly it has me in two minds about the German/Soviet war 1941-45.
      It is certainly true that Stalin and the leadership were wary of everyone to the west of them. As you say many of the Western nations post WWI had sent contingents and supplies to support the white armies, even Australia sent troops. It is also true that Stalin had a deep hatred for the Poles and Poland, hence his joyful acceptance of Hitlers proposal to ally and carve Poland between them (as well as the Soviet’s annexation of the Baltic States).
      As for Stalin inciting Hitler for the invasion of the west I am not so sure. It was certainly in his interest for Hitler to do so but it was also in Hitlers interest to knock the old enemy France out as quickly as possible. The theory being that peace could be made with England, which if you read Max Hastings: Finest Years Churchill as Warlord and Ian Kershaw: Making Friends With Hitler and Fateful Decisions, that peace was very much on the cards. Hitler had a lot of support in England from the royal family on down and in my opinion the installment of Winston Churchill as prime minister in May 1940 was the main occurrence that blocked that move.
      As for operation Barbarossa, you get numerous references that Hitler intended to invade the Soviet Union ASAP.
      General Franz Halders diary recalls many instances of Hitler expressing the desire to do so and giving orders to draw up plans for the event, and all for the timetables of summer 1941. The reason why the Germans were so confident was because of Stalins Finland fiasco. Plus there is the fact that Hitler had always stated that he would got war with the Soviet Union for lebensraum and to end the “Jewish-Boshlevik” conspiracy.
      However there was the strange deployment of the Soviet army on the frontier with Germany. The German army was heavily outnumbered in all departments on June 22 1941, troops, tanks, aircraft etc. It is always stated that Stalin did not believe that Hitler would attack him, despite warnings from his intelligence officers and frontier scouts.
      If so then why the massive build-up? Now if these soviet forces were in defensive positions,incidentally having 18 months to prepare, then the Germans would have had a harder time of it, I point out the example of the defense of the Brest fortress, June 22-30, as an example of this. However if the Soviet armies were deployed in an offensive posture, preparatory to an attack, then they would have been vulnerable to a preemptive strike. Especially as Soviet offensive doctrine called for the maximum amount of mass delivered to the point of impact, as opposed to the more open order defense in depth. This could help to explain how the Germans were able to relatively easily carve up a superior enemy.
      So could what we have here was a preemptive strike against a preemptive strike against a planned strike. Could Stalin have believed the reports that the Germans were coming and secretly prepared for a strike of his own all the while feigning ignorance? And finally, could the Germans have learnt of this and rushed forward the timetable for Barbarossa before being fully prepared?

      • Jay on November 24, 2011 at 5:35 pm


        Possibly Stalin was ready to attack the Germans in Poland, however it is Suvorov’s assertion that Stalin had plans, including material preparation, to conquer the entirety of western Europe that I don’t accept.

        Read the one very negative Amazon review of Suvorov’s “Chief Culprit”.

      • legioXIV on November 24, 2011 at 6:38 pm

        I agree with that assessment, I don’t believe that Stalin had serious plans drawn up for that. However he was interested in grabbing what he could at the end of the war, witness Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the Balkan states to name a few. Opportunism not planning was his motivation i think.

        • ILJA on November 25, 2011 at 8:51 am

          As the one who’s of the Russian origin 🙂 I have perhaps more possibilities than you to read russian sources: it’s a vast topic. However, Suvorov isn’t the only author who implies this idea, there are numerous other scientists and researchers in and out of Russia that brought seriuose evidences of Soviet offensive plans that were diclassified in the beginning of ’90s. The offensive character of Soviet war doctrine was never a mystery for even censored soviet generals-participants in their “memoires” admitted that offensive and agressive mind of the war on the enemy’s territory prevailed both in propaganda, affecting the psychology both of civils and military, and training. Many commanders of different levels had a number of concrete instructions on what to do after the signal was to be received from higher institutions. The planning of military operations against Germany began immediately after the common border with Germany had been established in the ’39 after the defeat of Poland and till the spring of ’41 there 5 versions of the GENERAL war campaigh planwere developed. They WERE DICLASSIFIED EITHER in ’92 and publicated in Military History Journal. ALL OF THEM provided active actions in a territory of the enemy from the very first minutes of war and according to that all the military building was carried out including the structure of industry with the predominance of the military one, the system of producing weapons and so on. The strategic view were only accepted if it reflected the official war doctrine of “the minor blood war on the enemy’s territory” (similarity to Blietzkrieg easily can be noted). The “defensive” one were condemned and accompanied with accusations of wrecking and imprisonment (that’s for the best, the execution also was real threat) . Learn the Russian and read Meltiuchov, Sokolov, Solonin, Beshanov, Danilov (a Let. Col. of the Joint Staff ), Nevezhin, Pavlova, Hoffman, and many-many with them. Suvorov refers to the multitude of the documents and sources in a Russian edition,

        • legioXIV on November 25, 2011 at 4:40 pm

          Ok fair enough Jay,
          Unfortunately i can only rely on what is translated into english not being able to speak russian, and even then that is hard to get in Australia.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events