Guest Writers

06

May

2012

Stalin's War - A book review

Written by Andrew Holden

Stalin’s War by Professor Ernst Topitsch- A Review From a Nationalist Perspective of the Harsh Reality of Ideological Power Politics:

English Language Translation by Arthur Taylor (1987) St. Martin’s Press, New York.

If the basis of nationalism is the running of a country in the most efficient manner possible, that being in the interests of the nation as one people united by a common interest, then the book here under review is invaluable in informing on any future foreign policy of a Nationalist government.  Aside from it’s obvious connection with foreign policy, as a read it is highly informing on the nature of International Marxism and that ideology’s ruthless use of ‘moral’ positions from which to increase it’s influence and power.  Some would say this could be limited to Stalin although that of course fails to appreciate the influence on Stalin of Marxist dialectical theory, and also of the influence of that figure who first applied theoretical Marxism to practice; that of Lenin.

The common belief with regard to the Second World War is that the Soviet Union was the victim of an aggressive National Socialist Germany.  This belief is largely justified by the view, which in many circles is beyond criticism, that supposedly everything about National Socialism in that country was evil and based on a desire to enforce a totalitarian ideology on the world.  Whether this view was true or not, in terms of total strategy one cannot ignore that it is a dogmatic view unable to notice other evils on an equal footing, or evils perhaps even far worse.  Evils capable of destroying our entire civilisation as we know it.  This blindness to other contemporary evils may be observed as an objective of the psychology of International Marxism; a political tool invaluable to achieving Marxism’s ends.  In terms of strategy, the world and the balance of power is ever changing and the only bedrock one can have is the nation, and the immediate priority of the national interest.

The dogmatic, one sided prejudice against German National Socialism was invaluable in allowing Stalin to enforce the ideology of his Soviet state on half of Europe after 1945.  As this book argues, if the Soviet Union had not signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on the 23rd August 1939, then it is likely Adolf Hitler would have listened to the Anglo-French ultimatum and reversed the German claims over Poland in order to avoid having to fight on two fronts.  The Soviet Union is ascribed with a passive, almost apathetic attitude in this matter by modern historians; but the reality is that with the guarantee of no war on two fronts Germany was given a free hand to fight the western allies.  The leaders in Moscow knew that this would mean another ‘imperialist’ war and as such would make, in their eyes, the western world ripe for Communist Revolution.

The real enemy of the Soviet Union was never Germany.  As a landlocked nation and as politically isolated as it was at that time, it would never have been able to withstand a full attack of a Soviet Union fully mobilised for war. For the Soviets the true enemy was the Anglo-Saxon world, the continental power of the United States and the latent power of that neglected Empire which nonetheless covered a quarter of the world’s surface, that of Great Britain.  Professor Topitsch demonstrates in this book an admirable degree of political intelligence when he demonstrates that, following the German invasion, Stalin’s calls for a Western Second Front to be set up as soon as possible were in reality a sly means to advance Soviet interests.  Given the strain on British forces and the inadequate build up of American war material, an allied attack against German occupied territory would more or less be doomed to failure. Stalin’s intentions here were to play the hand of the Allies early, so that they would be weakened when it came to the ultimate contest of saving as much of Europe as possible from Soviet tyranny.

On the 13th April 1941 the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Japan.  The result of this was to give Japan the security that allowed for the diversion of resources to attack Anglo-Saxon interests in the Far East.  This had the ultimate result of destabilising the colonial territories of the British Empire fostering the ‘independence’ movements which too often came under the Soviet influence.  It is no coincidence that British Imperial forces in Malaya had to face a communist insurgency just three years after the end of the Second World War.

The evidence that professor Topitsch has collected firmly indicates that the Soviet Union had aggressive intentions against Germany and it’s satellite nations, as well as the rest of Europe.  For example, the Soviets constructed vast numbers of airbases near the border with German occupied territory, bases which would have been undefendable in the event of a German attack.  The vast Soviet losses in the first months of the German invasion were due to vast troop concentrations in a pocket of land protruding into German occupied territory.  Such a concentration would have made no sense if the Soviet Union had the pacifist intentions so widely ascribed to it by the ‘politically correct’ historian of today.  Perhaps the longest nail to go into the coffin of the illusion of a pacifist Soviet Union were the discussions between the foreign ministers of the two rivals in an air raid shelter in Berlin on the 13th November 1940.  It is clear from the evidence brought together on these discussions that the Soviets had aggressive intentions towards Romania, Finland and German occupied Poland.  Perhaps these demands, and the build up of Soviet forces outlined above prompted Adolf Hitler into hoping (and probably praying) that the previous Blitzkrieg campaigns could be reproduced in Russia.

An element of psychology covered in this book, and something highly pertinent to the behaviour of the left today is the behaviour of the Soviet Minister Molotov during the talks held on the 13th November.  It was the view of the Professor whose book is here under review that the behaviour of Molotov towards Adolf Hitler was part of a psychological game with the intent of triggering a German attack on the Soviets; allowing the latter to claim the moral high ground which is an essential part of the power struggle of contesting ideologies.  It is completely ignored today that French Communists collaborated on many occasions with the German secret service in espionage activities against the French Army and munitions works.  Why would Communists support those ‘Nazi scum’ they are supposed to hate with such an ardent passion?

This brings us to the part of this issue which will probably be of most interest to nationalist activists, the reality of the far left as the means to advance the interests of particular elites as opposed to the interests of others.  With the world economy becoming ever more globalised, it is in the interests of the financial power to support a society that is ever more globalised, a society where local customs are broken down in the interest of the globalist consumer society with it’s higher ‘Gross Domestic Product’.

Like Stalin, who provoked a German invasion as a means to justify the advance of Bolshevism into the heartland of Europe, we have a far left that craves for moral high ground from this social construct of ‘anti racism.’   To nurture the conditions of future ethnic and racial tension, by promoting the very existence of a society with many conflicting racial group interests is somehow a means to a peaceful, harmonious society.  The masquerade has to be kept up at all purposes, even when racially motivated attacks by the descendants of immigrants become national news.  Even when race riots (or attacks on whites) are blatantly started by ‘Unite Against Fascism’ rallies such as in Oldham and Burnley in 2001 and 2004 respectively, the establishment, indoctrinated into far left ideas can only use it as an excuse to attack nationalist groups.  Alike did Stalin make every possible squeal and cry for help in order to obtain a moral superiority as the ‘victim’ of National Socialist Germany.  The real purpose hidden in a manifestation of a complex psychology invoked for the sake of the long term objectives.

Little has it appeared to the delinquents of the far left, as can be expected given they are quite bereft of statesmanlike qualities of vision and historical relativity, that the society they are fighting to create will be in the long run repeat the horrors of the Balkans.  Ideology seeking to suppress ethnicity, thanks to the absence of any historical relativity among the dregs of the left, a willing blindness to the consequences of years of war and bloodshed.  Little has it appeared to the ‘anti racist’ that previous attempts at using ‘nurture’ to dominate ‘nature’ have failed grotesquely, and that further attempts at forcing their utopian view on our people have wrecked the European values at the heart of our society.

If white people have been oppressing the coloured races for all these centuries, what is it that makes leftists think that when those coloured races obtain an equal or greater influence in our society that the ‘racism’ our race has apparently showed won’t be reproduced by the coloured races?  Why is the coloured person some ideal of peace and harmony and whites aren’t?  As their ideology is so negative in every conceivable way, what will become of the ‘anti racist’ brigade?

As described by Professor Topitsch in reflecting the ruthlessness of Marxist leaders in attaining their ends, the ‘anti fascist’ front of the 1930’s was nothing else than a puppet of Soviet Russia.  All over Europe it was an essential part in turning the western nations against the ‘Fascist’ states; laying the groundwork for the war which the Soviets had hoped would lead to a worldwide Bolshevik Revolution. It does seem quite incredulous today that so many would attack regimes that had carried out no atrocities before 1939, whilst completely endorsing and supporting a regime which had murdered thirty million people in it’s first twenty years of power.  Many Russian ‘anti fascists’ spent their last days in Siberian concentration camps once they had served their purpose in advancing the strategic interests of Moscow.  If from the immigrant populations a combined Islamic/Marxist Revolution is launched in this country’s future, many of us can already guess the fate of those born into our race that have abandoned it.  They will have served their purpose to advance the interests of the globalist financial bloc that guides the hand of the far left.

On that we return to the essential point of this book under review, that what matters in the world is not the frothings of propaganda, the venom of lies, the terror of false moral systems such as ‘political correctness.’  What matters is the end result of the struggle of two contesting ideologies.  Whether we are victorious and our racial heritage is preserved for future generations, or whether the alliance of globalism destroys the beauty of our civilisation for the sake of material greed.

Professor Topitsch ended his postscript to the English language edition by saying that given the illusions of the Soviet Union popularly held, particularly in the British mind, that his expose of the realities of Bolshevism and Stalinism was more for the English reader than the German one.  Let us hope that our people awake to the life and death struggle of our age in a similar manner by seeing through the propaganda and psychology of the far left.

Share this post