Also the point was kind of overdone and could have been condensed into something shorter. But hey I would rather read it at great length than not have read it at all.
I would still argue Barbarossa was preventative. Not because the Soviets were on the verge of attacking. Even if they were, Hitler himself said after the operation started that if he knew how big the industry of the USSR really was he probably wouldn't have invaded so obviously they didn't think an attack was happening any time soon.
Preventative because a war between Nazi Germany and the USSR was inevitable. Not only because of the ideological differences and the history of conflict between ethnic Germans and ethnic Russians but also because they were two rising land powers who were vying to be global powers and who wanted to dominate and control Eastern and Central Europe.
Much how like ww1 was heavily caused by Germany becoming scared of growing Russian Industry and Russian territorial expansion, I think the same applies to ww2. As of 1941, Germany was at it's strongest it would ever be relative to the USSR. From that point on it would only get weaker because of it's war with Britain and it's Blockade whilst the USSR would only get stronger. The main advantages the Germans had over the Soviets was their troops had higher morale and their General leadership class was much better.
As the war would go on these advantages would dissipate . Soviet military doctrine would become more effective, Soviet industry would grow enabling the USSR to enlist a greater percentage of fighting age males into it's military, a big threat to Germany as the USSR had about a 3-1 advantage over Germany in this age rage. Germany was dependent on Romanian Oil and Romanian oil fields were susceptible to a USSR invasion.
This isn't to say Nazi Germany's intentions were moral. They planned to colonize the western parts of Ukraine and Belarus and wanted to weaken and destroy Russia as a state but I'd say their invasion of the USSR followed sound geostrategic logic. If it wasn't for lend lease, if Hitler was more willing to work with Russians and Japan wasn't embargoed by America there was a decent chance they could've won, or at least forced the Soviets to sign a peace deal.
Thats all fair enough. The main point of this whole long review I wrote was that the physical mechanics of the Soviet defeat in the opening weeks of Barborassa prove absolutely nothing whatsoever as to whether or not the USSR was going to invade Europe at some vague point in the future. However the disposition of the Soviet troops on the Western Frontier do indicate that the USSR had no plans to initiate an attack anytime soon. Eventually Ill write up a review of the chapter that covers German General Staff planning for Barborassa and not to spoil it but the German General Staff were not planning as if they were launching a preventive attack. Of course that doesn't prove that in a general sense Germany didnt view Barbarossa as preventive since eventually war was inevitable anyway.
The thing is though there is a significant difference between “the Soviets were literally in attack positions when Germany preemptively struck” and “well war was inevitable anyway so you know it was still preventive”. The later which I can theoretically agree is possible removes the implied negative moral/ethical implications thrown at the USSR and Russia and Russians by proxy and that implied moral/ethical slander is the whole point of Suvorovs book.
Fair enough. I’ve never found the Icebreaker thesis persuasive because I remember when I first read about it , there were multiple examples given where Suvorov had been extremely misleading with the evidence (also Hitler’s quote refutes the whole argument) so I never really trusted him. In saying that, the question of whether Barbarossa was preventative (as in preventing a nearing Soviet attack) and was the USSR planning to attack Germany are two different questions. The latter can be true without the former. There’s a book by this Russian historian who argues that Stalin was planning to invade Germany but by mere chance the Nazi’s invaded first. I never got around to reading it but I think there’s a good chance of the theory being correct. The author was a relatively pro Stalin and pro Russian historian so he didn’t have the anti Soviet/Russian bias Suvorov had.
Two things I would like to state. Firstly, Soviet forces that were moved west were not set up in defensive positions, but rather were set up as in preparation for movement even further west as if invading territory to the west. Secondly, the German intelligence system was aware of this troop and supply movement to the western border. What would it have suggested to any military planner with the situation becoming more extreme? WW2 is very likely simply another example of creating a war to kill populations and enable more strict control of populations and to allow the take over of territory and to enable predators to get rich. Trying to understand what evolved is greatly affected by a persons bias and point of view. Germany was never considering conquering Europe. To see them as a world threat is ridiculous. The winner writes the history books. Those that control the present control the past. Those that control the past control the future. I realize what a lie war actually is, having served as a clueless soldier in Vietnam. I forgot about what I saw there, then 30 years later I started educating myself after the obvious 9-11 lie.
What do you mean exactly when you say that Soviet units positioned in the West weren't positioned for defense but rather as if there preparing to move further West? Serious question because as Isaev details the Soviet formations on the Western border didn't have enough density to even protect against a determined attack in the first place. If they werent dense enough to defend than they were in absolutely no state to attack in the immediate future. This is important because there is a huge difference between just say "moving" West as if in peactime and attacking because the latter requires density to overcome enemy resistance and the Soviet border Armys had no density whatsoever relatively speaking.
My comment is simply that, a comment, I do not desire to tell anyone what to think or believe. After long investigation my belief is that Germany and the Soviet Union did not trust each other and were actively communicating while simultaneously preparing to wage war against each other. Germany did not desire to fight a two front war, but the Soviet Union was desirous of new territory to the west. I believe that Germany saw offense as the best possible defense. There is too much to mention here. Why was war not declared by Britain and France against the Soviet Union for their invasion of Poland? The more you understand about WW2, the more you discover there is to learn. To return to your question, the Soviet Union had stock piled military equipment and munitions in concentrations along their western border. These places were not in any way defensible, that is why they lost so much equipment and territory in the initial phase of this war. My take is that WW2 was orchestrated by the same people that have orchestrated all wars for hundreds of years, the predators who control the creation of money.
Read some of the accounts of German veterans who were actually there on June 22nd, 1941 in the first minutes of the offensive. Hans-Ulrich Rudel’s account in Stuka Pilot describes his aerial observations of miles and miles of Soviet mechanized units and tanks and over 196 airfields just over the Reich border, which is also corroborated by General Leon Degrelle’s account who spent almost 4 years on the Eastern Front. Degrelle’s family also has currently, all of his wartime documents including minutes from the Soviet High Command with explicit intentions expressed to invade Europe no later than Summer 1942.
German intelligence was not the sort of agency to “make things up” despite 80 years of jewish propaganda depicting them to do so. Both of these men lived long after the war and had their accounts unmolested by allied victory propaganda.
This Isaev guy is detail heavy, but inherently is another anti-European Russophile with his conclusions. The best Russians are the Slavic Rus and their Nationalists who don’t fall for these brotherly divisionary tactics. We need all elements of the antipodal Bolshevism/Hypercapitalism/Communism/Usury and their agitators gone from our lands forever.
Dude I have read more first hand accounts from German grunts than I can count at this point. Look, bring me one single document from when the German General Staff was planning Barborassa where they even remotely hint that they are planning a preemptive attack. Just one. Isaev covers the German General Staffs Barborassa planning and they didn't plan as if they were making a preventive strike. By all means though if you can find German General Staff document pertaining to Barborassa that indicate the contrary please bring them. Ill eat my hat.
Comments like this make me seriously consider following through with writing a part 2 that covers exactly what German intelligence said about the Red Army prior to Barbarossa and the relevant planning from the German General Staff. In any case Im glad you are pro European and anti Bolshivek and all that but your “the best Russians piss on their great fathers who died in WW2” is gay AF and why most Russian Nationalist cant stand Western rightwingers.
Otto-Ernst Remer (August 18, 1912 – October 4, 1997): a highly respected German Wehrmacht officer who played a decisive role in stopping the July 20, 1944 plot against Adolf Hitler. During the war he was wounded nine times in combat and ultimately promoted to Generalmajor (brigadier general). After the war he co-founded the Sozialistische Reichspartei (SRP). He remained a fervent National Socialist until the end of his days and is seen as a 'Godfather' in the postwar underground. The enemies of mankind sought to imprison him for denying the jewish 'holocaust'. Here is an interesting quote from a 1990 interview with General Otto Ernst Remer by Stephanie Schomen:
Schomen: Is it true that the Germans referred to the Russians as "subhuman"?
Remer: 'Nonsense! The Russians are human beings just like everyone else. Your question, whether we called the Russians "subhuman," is nonsense. We had a first-class relationship with the Russian people. The only exception, which was a problem we dealt with, was with the Soviet Commissars, who were all Jews. These people stood behind the lines with machine guns, pushing the Russian soldiers into battle. And anyway, we made quick work of them. That was according to order. This was during a war for basic existence, an ideological war, when such a policy is simply taken for granted.'
Continued on Barbarossa:
Remer: 'Regarding the military campaign against the Soviet Union: First of all, it should be clearly understood that at the time of the Balkans campaign in Yugoslavia and Greece in early 1941, when we had ten divisions on the entire length of the Soviet border, the Russians had stationed 247 major military formations on our border. After the conclusion of the Balkans campaign, we then quickly placed at most 170 major military units on the border with the Soviet Union. The Russians had readied themselves for an attack.
The initial successes of our forces against the Soviets were due to the fact that the Russians were not stationed in defense positions, but were instead positioned right at the front for attack, which made it possible for us to quickly encircle large Soviet forces. Thus, in the first weeks of the war, we were able to capture more than three million prisoners of war as well as enormous quantities of war equipment, all of which was on the frontier, positioned for attack.
That's the truth of the matter, which can be proven. I recently spoke with a Mr. Pemsel, who was a long-range aerial reconnaissance pilot. In the period before the beginning of the Soviet campaign, he flew as far as the Don River and observed and reported on this enormous concentration of Soviet forces on the border.
I also know from my own experience in the Russian campaign, and with the Russian prisoners, about the preparations by the Soviets for an imminent attack against Europe. The Russians were hoping that we would move against Britain so that they could then take advantage of the situation to overrun Europe.'
In regards to the other quips you made, it seems people forget many of the myriad of details that are expunged from the narrative on purpose.
There were quite literally millions of volunteers who joined the German side against the USSR within Russia proper, whether as auxiliaries or as soldiers and the eventual ROA. I know what they say about Vlasov here, but he wasn’t the only one. Ivan Konomov who headed a Cossack regiment defected to the Axis. General Andrei Shkuro organized anti-Soviet Cossack unit from Soviet POWs. Russian General Pytor Krasmov did the same. Then there’s Bronislav Vladislavovich Kaminski, the Russian commander of the S.S. Sturmbrigade (R.O.N.A.). Helmuth Von Pannwitz and the men under his command had such a bond with the Cossacks that they decided to fight and die with them.
The inverse did not happen, millions of Axis troops and peoples did not switch sides to fight with the raping mongols. Listen, most of the real Russians were killed properly between 1917 and 1937. What remained, the giant biomass of Asiatic mongoloidal soup that migrated westward under the whips of the jewish commissars was not “Russian”. The masses were waiting to revolt against Stalin at the first sign of Guderian’s tanks rolling into Moscow, which unfortunately did not happen.
Listen to what other Russians have to say about these Soviet commanders and their strategies.
Daniil Granin (January 1, 1919 - ), a famed Russian author and veteran of WWII, said:'The Germans fought better, much better than our soldiers. Moreover - we've managed to win that war only by human flesh!'
Russian Writer Viktor Astafyev (May 1, 1924 – November 29, 2001), who was on the Soviet-German front for the entire war, from 1941-1945, had this to say: 'The Germans fought much, much better — in all respects! The Communists chose to shed rivers of Russian blood literally in order to win the war. The Soviets won over Germany only by their extreme brutality and inhumanity!'
Astafyev also said this about the alleged great Russian General Georgy Zhukov: 'Honest Russian patriot? Ha! This bastard covered half-Europe [with] millions of Russian corpses by his extremely sadistic personal kind of war waging! He deserves neither honor, nor respect, never!'
Famous Russian writer Boris Shiryaev also propagandized against Trotsky in the 1910s and 1920s and had the chance to write editorials for the Axis in 1942 when German and Romanian troops occupied Stavropol. His written works are too many to name here.
No one ever mentions the Union of Russian Youth, who took SS oaths. The armband of a Russian 'SS Pupil' air field assistant had the national colors of Russia and the St. Andrew's Cross.
I’ve not seen anyone here mention the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia (KONR), a Russian organization formed by both military and civilian anti-communists.
Not one mention of the 1st Sinegorsk Cossack Ataman Regiment formed in the winter of 1942-1943 from Cossack volunteers from the village Sinegorskaya on the Don. Or the 1st Cossack Division (1. Kosaken-Kavallerie-Division)
I’ve also not seen you or Rurik ever mentions the 100,000+ White Russians who fled to Manchukuo to fight with Japan against communism in China after they were defeated in the Russian civil war. Konstantin Vladimirovich Rodzaevsky was the leader of the Russian Fascist Party which he led in exile from Manchukuo. Russians hate communism, those who try to whitewash it are not learned in history or disconnected from their roots.
You may have read a lot of German military accounts, including of the German High Command, but so many of them have been doctored post-war to fit the narrative of Axis aggression we have been spoonfed since birth. My point being that the accounts which were not molested have higher veracity because the legitimacy of Barbarossa is still an unwelcome subject and historians who propose otherwise are deemed “revisionist” by the projectors of lies themselves. This is because undoing the lies of Barbarossa is a step into holobunga “denial” the more one presses for details on all the lies surrounding it (like Stalin’s Torchmen to blame Germans for atrocities and the Abwehr leaks and traitors leading to defeats not German military incompetency).
Real Russian Nationalists don’t hate Europeans as much as you think. Did you know Tesak or any of the Restruct movement or other Russian Nationalist groups which were proscribed under Putin/Shelomova? They and other Slavic Nationalists are some of the most oppressed groups of them all. Most of these writers are westerners and not Russian themselves, and not even European but American, Canadian, or Aussies.
Russian’s also thank the Axis collaborators with their aims to rid Bolshevism from Russia, as seen by this Kaminski banner on May 9th where they normally “thank their soldiers" for fighting against Germany:
It reads “Thank you grandpa, for an attempt” as in an attempt to destroy Bolshevism.
Why were Russian troops defecting by the hundreds at Stalingrad before the German surrender, even as close to days before? Perhaps they saw better hope in the battered Axis troops than to be a slave to communism monsters.
There are far more questions than answers when it comes to the intricacies of Barbarossa, which contemporary ideologues try to simplify down to layman’s terms. Barbarossa, in one form or another was necessary, though it ended tragically for the world. Were it not for two factors, US & England Lend-Lease, and sabotage by traitors against the Axis, every ethnicity of Europe and Asia would be living in a more just world without the centurial shadow of bolshevism.
Impressive essay (except -again- for the flawed grammar making it doubly tough to read, on top of its inherent difficulty), worthy of a full thesis. I acknowledge the hard work you've done here, and appreciate it, so this comment is mostly for encouragement. I confess having skimmed the 'bead counting' parts, too technical (and, well... boring) for the average Substack reader such as myself, and interesting only -I reckon- for scholars or those knowledgeable ones enormously interested in such details. I also admit this is the first time I read anything at all about Barbarosa. But the conclusion seems clear: Germany's was not a preemptive attack. Which, as you say -and perhaps this is for me the key point-, does not disprove that Stalin was all the bad things many people accuse him of.
Ok, interesting, though a bit of a straw man for me as I had never heard the claim that Barbarossa was a pre-emptive spoiler attack, so it didn’t need debunking. Anyway the logic in the critique you are citing does seem totally sound.
As I am a masochist for this kind of stuff I will hang around for your discussion of Stavka.
Just Google Icebreaker by Victor Suvorov if you want to see exactly what Isaev is arguing against. His theory is like Holy Scripture for many Western Rightwingers.
Rurik, I have to admit that I didn't read all your piece as it was way too long. Call me a retard, but, hey. I do have an idea that Khabad Lubavitch was acting in a similar way, supporting the Austrian painter then, as they support today ie Trump and Orban and possibly Putin, against the Yevsektsiya of von der Leyen, Starmer, Zelensky...
I want to come to the point, in order not to be as endless as you: could it be that you are lost? I agree that it is difficult, but what about just simply defending our kin in a way Joe Shmoe gets it and is on the side of our people, instead of going into minute details, which might even be right, but don't help our cause?
FYI friend this isn't Ruriks blog or work. Dr Livci wrote this wall text for Ruriks blog originally but its appearing here since Rurik never had a chance to edit it. As for it being heavy on details that are of no help to our people the fact of the matter is Dr Livci is much more of a Russian Nationalist than a pan European one. So accordingly this blog here will be much more niche than Ruriks.
Thanks for the explanation. I do not frankly care these days if someone is a Russian, German, French, Afrikaaner or American nationalist (all acting on the behalf of the same people). What I do care about is that the message should be understood by our people in a way that brings our case forward. Yes substack is an intellectual playground, but shouldn't it be something our people can profit from? Like honing and drafting messages instead of going into the minutes of everything? Don't get me wrong, I think your work is important. But I think that this is the time to bring our message forward to the ordinary people.
Why Poland was “caught” off guard. AKA it was a setup.
Britain (and France) were cautious and ambiguous in their warnings to Poland about the full extent and immediacy of the German threat in 1939, and in some ways downplayed or softened the likelihood of an invasion.
🔹 1. British Assurances — But No Urgency
But this guarantee was vague — it promised help in case of an attack, but didn’t specify how quickly or effectively that help would arrive
🔹 2. Underestimating Hitler’s Timeline
British diplomats — especially Ambassador Sir Howard Kennard — did not forcefully warn Polish leaders that an invasion was imminent, even as German preparations became clear in August 1939.
Some in the British government believed Hitler was bluffing or hoped he could be contained without war.
🔹 3. Diplomatic Focus on Negotiation
Britain continued to encourage diplomatic solutions, even sending missions to Germany and the USSR in August 1939 — this may have falsely signaled to Poland that there was more time.
Even after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Aug 23, 1939), which clearly isolated Poland, British warnings to Warsaw remained cautious and diplomatic.
Britain did in fact discourage Poland from building fortifications along its western border in the months before the German invasion.
Poland had a long western frontier with Germany — mostly flat, difficult to defend, and especially vulnerable after the remilitarization of the Rhineland and Germany's annexations. Poland considered building fortifications (like France’s Maginot Line) to slow a potential German advance.
British diplomats and officials warned Poland that building heavy fortifications might be seen as "provocative" to Germany.
They feared it would escalate tensions, giving Hitler a pretext for aggression or war — a classic example of Britain’s appeasement mindset during the late 1930s.
Instead, Britain pushed for restraint and diplomacy, hoping to avoid provoking Hitler while negotiations were still in motion.
As a result of both British pressure and Poland’s own political strategy (trying not to provoke either Germany or the USSR), few serious fortifications were built on Poland’s western border.
When Germany invaded on September 1, 1939, Poland lacked both defensive structures and time to prepare properly.
1) If Stalin trusted Hitler and strictly kept to the treaty, Why did he feel the need to take over half of Poland to “ prevent Germany from taking it” ?
2) Why didnt the Allies declare war on the USSR, like they did on Germany, when it also invaded Poland ?
Asking why the USSR didn't let Germany have all of Poland is kind of silly with all due respect. The arguement being made in the article isn't that the USSR didn't have its own imperial ambitions, it's that Barborassa wasnt a preventive strike
Obviously if the allies had declared war on the USSR that might very well have led to the USSR and NS Germany seriously becoming Allies for real and the M/R pact lasting for a long time. Honestly I wish allies had declared war on the USSR because it might have forced Hitler and Stalin to work out their differences.
The point is the USSR had purposely invaded Poland , not as reaction to the Germans like the Loons of Alabama and others spout. Furthermore, Germany was allowed to succeed initially because, just like Poland, it was being setup to fail eventually. This is why no one declared war on the USSR, as it was in on the game. When Hitler finally realized he was being double crossed, he attacked first. Then the allies pumped massive amount of supplies to the Russians so they could do a majority of the dying while destroying the German nation. This was scripted soap opera to destroy the two groups the small hats hate the most, Germans and Slavs.
“ At a dinner toast with Allied leaders during the Tehran Conference in December 1943, Stalin added: “The United States … is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.”
Nikita Khrushchev, who led the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964, agreed with Stalin’s assessment. In his memoirs, Khrushchev described how Stalin stressed the value of Lend-Lease aid: “He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war.”
High times for someone to point out that the Germans (germanic people) and Russians (slavs) are the two people (((they))) hate most. My take on it is mainly jealousy: during centuries of living close to them they saw the qualities of those people (((them))) will never have.
Ukraine shelled its eastern provinces for 7 years killing 15,000 civilians before Russia invaded Ukraine. I still believe that the war was/is orchestrated with both sides following a predator agenda with the same masters.
It is said that figures don’t lie, except that liars can figure too. How many deaths in Gaza would you say? Depends on where you get your data and what you want to believe. I was not there, and the media is known to promote lies. How about the hollow cost? Are you sure?
You would be correct. The shelling needed to happen to give a pretext for the Russian side. Russia could’ve responded to the shelling in a multitude of ways without resorting to an invasion.
Why Poland was “caught” off guard on the Western Border. In other words, it was setup.
Britain did in fact discourage Poland from building fortifications along its western border in the months before the German invasion.
Poland had a long western frontier with Germany — mostly flat, difficult to defend, and especially vulnerable after the remilitarization of the Rhineland and Germany's annexations. Poland considered building fortifications (like France’s Maginot Line) to slow a potential German advance.
British diplomats and officials warned Poland that building heavy fortifications might be seen as "provocative" to Germany.
They feared it would escalate tensions, giving Hitler a pretext for aggression or war — a classic example of Britain’s appeasement mindset during the late 1930s.
Instead, Britain pushed for restraint and diplomacy, hoping to avoid provoking Hitler while negotiations were still in motion.
After Germany annexed Czechoslovakia in March 1939, Britain and France guaranteed Polish independence (March 31, 1939).
But this guarantee was vague — it promised help in case of an attack, but didn’t specify how quickly or effectively that help would arrive.
British diplomats — especially Ambassador Sir Howard Kennard — did not forcefully warn Polish leaders that an invasion was imminent, even as German preparations became clear in August 1939.
Some in the British government believed Hitler was bluffing or hoped he could be contained without war.
🔹 3. Diplomatic Focus on Negotiation
Britain continued to encourage diplomatic solutions, even sending missions to Germany and the USSR in August 1939 — this may have falsely signaled to Poland that there was more time.
Even after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Aug 23, 1939), which clearly isolated Poland, British warnings to Warsaw remained cautious and diplomatic.
Finally:
Soviet Invasion of Poland — 1920
When: The main Soviet offensive into Poland occurred in spring and summer 1920, peaking in July–August 1920.
Why: The Bolsheviks aimed to:
Regain territories lost after the collapse of the Russian Empire.
Spread the Communist revolution westward, hoping it would trigger uprisings in Germany and beyond.
“From the Communist historians we receive quite the paradox, Stalin conducted the biggest regrouping of troops in the history of mankind to prevent an attack, the possibility of which he considered impossible.”
According to Solonin no surprise at all, Stalin was preparing to roll over war torn Europe in the long anticipated worker’s assault on the capitalists. After the start of Operation Barbarossa Hitler was absolutely flabbergasted that the Soviets had over 34,000 tanks, more than 34,000 because the advancing Wehrmacht destroyed some 34,000 tanks and they kept coming. Operation Barbarossa was in response to Stalin’s western buildup but Hitler finally realized that Stalin had been preparing for conquest of Europe all along.
Lol okay dude, "the USSR had more tanks than Hitler thought thetefore the Soviet Union was about to attack Germany". Absolute weak sauce. If you are going to try and pick holes in Isaevs analysis bring something better.
I think it was over this post, which to me was fairly neutral (about how Ukrainians had failed their repeated offensives at Kursk despite the predictions otherwise).
I can’t see your articles in my subscriptions, only as a post which you can only read with the Substack reader, it’s happening to a few people i’m subscribed, is it a bug or deliberate ?
Also the point was kind of overdone and could have been condensed into something shorter. But hey I would rather read it at great length than not have read it at all.
Thanks for the honest feedback. In further articles Ill try and condense things as much as possible.
I appreciate you are dealing with difficult source material, ie, an autistic pedantic history nerd. 😁
I would still argue Barbarossa was preventative. Not because the Soviets were on the verge of attacking. Even if they were, Hitler himself said after the operation started that if he knew how big the industry of the USSR really was he probably wouldn't have invaded so obviously they didn't think an attack was happening any time soon.
Preventative because a war between Nazi Germany and the USSR was inevitable. Not only because of the ideological differences and the history of conflict between ethnic Germans and ethnic Russians but also because they were two rising land powers who were vying to be global powers and who wanted to dominate and control Eastern and Central Europe.
Much how like ww1 was heavily caused by Germany becoming scared of growing Russian Industry and Russian territorial expansion, I think the same applies to ww2. As of 1941, Germany was at it's strongest it would ever be relative to the USSR. From that point on it would only get weaker because of it's war with Britain and it's Blockade whilst the USSR would only get stronger. The main advantages the Germans had over the Soviets was their troops had higher morale and their General leadership class was much better.
As the war would go on these advantages would dissipate . Soviet military doctrine would become more effective, Soviet industry would grow enabling the USSR to enlist a greater percentage of fighting age males into it's military, a big threat to Germany as the USSR had about a 3-1 advantage over Germany in this age rage. Germany was dependent on Romanian Oil and Romanian oil fields were susceptible to a USSR invasion.
This isn't to say Nazi Germany's intentions were moral. They planned to colonize the western parts of Ukraine and Belarus and wanted to weaken and destroy Russia as a state but I'd say their invasion of the USSR followed sound geostrategic logic. If it wasn't for lend lease, if Hitler was more willing to work with Russians and Japan wasn't embargoed by America there was a decent chance they could've won, or at least forced the Soviets to sign a peace deal.
Thats all fair enough. The main point of this whole long review I wrote was that the physical mechanics of the Soviet defeat in the opening weeks of Barborassa prove absolutely nothing whatsoever as to whether or not the USSR was going to invade Europe at some vague point in the future. However the disposition of the Soviet troops on the Western Frontier do indicate that the USSR had no plans to initiate an attack anytime soon. Eventually Ill write up a review of the chapter that covers German General Staff planning for Barborassa and not to spoil it but the German General Staff were not planning as if they were launching a preventive attack. Of course that doesn't prove that in a general sense Germany didnt view Barbarossa as preventive since eventually war was inevitable anyway.
The thing is though there is a significant difference between “the Soviets were literally in attack positions when Germany preemptively struck” and “well war was inevitable anyway so you know it was still preventive”. The later which I can theoretically agree is possible removes the implied negative moral/ethical implications thrown at the USSR and Russia and Russians by proxy and that implied moral/ethical slander is the whole point of Suvorovs book.
Fair enough. I’ve never found the Icebreaker thesis persuasive because I remember when I first read about it , there were multiple examples given where Suvorov had been extremely misleading with the evidence (also Hitler’s quote refutes the whole argument) so I never really trusted him. In saying that, the question of whether Barbarossa was preventative (as in preventing a nearing Soviet attack) and was the USSR planning to attack Germany are two different questions. The latter can be true without the former. There’s a book by this Russian historian who argues that Stalin was planning to invade Germany but by mere chance the Nazi’s invaded first. I never got around to reading it but I think there’s a good chance of the theory being correct. The author was a relatively pro Stalin and pro Russian historian so he didn’t have the anti Soviet/Russian bias Suvorov had.
Interesting, I would be interested in reading that book if you can remember what its called.
Stalin's Missed Chance by Mikhail Meltyukhov.
Two things I would like to state. Firstly, Soviet forces that were moved west were not set up in defensive positions, but rather were set up as in preparation for movement even further west as if invading territory to the west. Secondly, the German intelligence system was aware of this troop and supply movement to the western border. What would it have suggested to any military planner with the situation becoming more extreme? WW2 is very likely simply another example of creating a war to kill populations and enable more strict control of populations and to allow the take over of territory and to enable predators to get rich. Trying to understand what evolved is greatly affected by a persons bias and point of view. Germany was never considering conquering Europe. To see them as a world threat is ridiculous. The winner writes the history books. Those that control the present control the past. Those that control the past control the future. I realize what a lie war actually is, having served as a clueless soldier in Vietnam. I forgot about what I saw there, then 30 years later I started educating myself after the obvious 9-11 lie.
What do you mean exactly when you say that Soviet units positioned in the West weren't positioned for defense but rather as if there preparing to move further West? Serious question because as Isaev details the Soviet formations on the Western border didn't have enough density to even protect against a determined attack in the first place. If they werent dense enough to defend than they were in absolutely no state to attack in the immediate future. This is important because there is a huge difference between just say "moving" West as if in peactime and attacking because the latter requires density to overcome enemy resistance and the Soviet border Armys had no density whatsoever relatively speaking.
My comment is simply that, a comment, I do not desire to tell anyone what to think or believe. After long investigation my belief is that Germany and the Soviet Union did not trust each other and were actively communicating while simultaneously preparing to wage war against each other. Germany did not desire to fight a two front war, but the Soviet Union was desirous of new territory to the west. I believe that Germany saw offense as the best possible defense. There is too much to mention here. Why was war not declared by Britain and France against the Soviet Union for their invasion of Poland? The more you understand about WW2, the more you discover there is to learn. To return to your question, the Soviet Union had stock piled military equipment and munitions in concentrations along their western border. These places were not in any way defensible, that is why they lost so much equipment and territory in the initial phase of this war. My take is that WW2 was orchestrated by the same people that have orchestrated all wars for hundreds of years, the predators who control the creation of money.
Read some of the accounts of German veterans who were actually there on June 22nd, 1941 in the first minutes of the offensive. Hans-Ulrich Rudel’s account in Stuka Pilot describes his aerial observations of miles and miles of Soviet mechanized units and tanks and over 196 airfields just over the Reich border, which is also corroborated by General Leon Degrelle’s account who spent almost 4 years on the Eastern Front. Degrelle’s family also has currently, all of his wartime documents including minutes from the Soviet High Command with explicit intentions expressed to invade Europe no later than Summer 1942.
German intelligence was not the sort of agency to “make things up” despite 80 years of jewish propaganda depicting them to do so. Both of these men lived long after the war and had their accounts unmolested by allied victory propaganda.
This Isaev guy is detail heavy, but inherently is another anti-European Russophile with his conclusions. The best Russians are the Slavic Rus and their Nationalists who don’t fall for these brotherly divisionary tactics. We need all elements of the antipodal Bolshevism/Hypercapitalism/Communism/Usury and their agitators gone from our lands forever.
Dude I have read more first hand accounts from German grunts than I can count at this point. Look, bring me one single document from when the German General Staff was planning Barborassa where they even remotely hint that they are planning a preemptive attack. Just one. Isaev covers the German General Staffs Barborassa planning and they didn't plan as if they were making a preventive strike. By all means though if you can find German General Staff document pertaining to Barborassa that indicate the contrary please bring them. Ill eat my hat.
Comments like this make me seriously consider following through with writing a part 2 that covers exactly what German intelligence said about the Red Army prior to Barbarossa and the relevant planning from the German General Staff. In any case Im glad you are pro European and anti Bolshivek and all that but your “the best Russians piss on their great fathers who died in WW2” is gay AF and why most Russian Nationalist cant stand Western rightwingers.
Certainly.
Otto-Ernst Remer (August 18, 1912 – October 4, 1997): a highly respected German Wehrmacht officer who played a decisive role in stopping the July 20, 1944 plot against Adolf Hitler. During the war he was wounded nine times in combat and ultimately promoted to Generalmajor (brigadier general). After the war he co-founded the Sozialistische Reichspartei (SRP). He remained a fervent National Socialist until the end of his days and is seen as a 'Godfather' in the postwar underground. The enemies of mankind sought to imprison him for denying the jewish 'holocaust'. Here is an interesting quote from a 1990 interview with General Otto Ernst Remer by Stephanie Schomen:
Schomen: Is it true that the Germans referred to the Russians as "subhuman"?
Remer: 'Nonsense! The Russians are human beings just like everyone else. Your question, whether we called the Russians "subhuman," is nonsense. We had a first-class relationship with the Russian people. The only exception, which was a problem we dealt with, was with the Soviet Commissars, who were all Jews. These people stood behind the lines with machine guns, pushing the Russian soldiers into battle. And anyway, we made quick work of them. That was according to order. This was during a war for basic existence, an ideological war, when such a policy is simply taken for granted.'
Continued on Barbarossa:
Remer: 'Regarding the military campaign against the Soviet Union: First of all, it should be clearly understood that at the time of the Balkans campaign in Yugoslavia and Greece in early 1941, when we had ten divisions on the entire length of the Soviet border, the Russians had stationed 247 major military formations on our border. After the conclusion of the Balkans campaign, we then quickly placed at most 170 major military units on the border with the Soviet Union. The Russians had readied themselves for an attack.
The initial successes of our forces against the Soviets were due to the fact that the Russians were not stationed in defense positions, but were instead positioned right at the front for attack, which made it possible for us to quickly encircle large Soviet forces. Thus, in the first weeks of the war, we were able to capture more than three million prisoners of war as well as enormous quantities of war equipment, all of which was on the frontier, positioned for attack.
That's the truth of the matter, which can be proven. I recently spoke with a Mr. Pemsel, who was a long-range aerial reconnaissance pilot. In the period before the beginning of the Soviet campaign, he flew as far as the Don River and observed and reported on this enormous concentration of Soviet forces on the border.
I also know from my own experience in the Russian campaign, and with the Russian prisoners, about the preparations by the Soviets for an imminent attack against Europe. The Russians were hoping that we would move against Britain so that they could then take advantage of the situation to overrun Europe.'
In regards to the other quips you made, it seems people forget many of the myriad of details that are expunged from the narrative on purpose.
There were quite literally millions of volunteers who joined the German side against the USSR within Russia proper, whether as auxiliaries or as soldiers and the eventual ROA. I know what they say about Vlasov here, but he wasn’t the only one. Ivan Konomov who headed a Cossack regiment defected to the Axis. General Andrei Shkuro organized anti-Soviet Cossack unit from Soviet POWs. Russian General Pytor Krasmov did the same. Then there’s Bronislav Vladislavovich Kaminski, the Russian commander of the S.S. Sturmbrigade (R.O.N.A.). Helmuth Von Pannwitz and the men under his command had such a bond with the Cossacks that they decided to fight and die with them.
The inverse did not happen, millions of Axis troops and peoples did not switch sides to fight with the raping mongols. Listen, most of the real Russians were killed properly between 1917 and 1937. What remained, the giant biomass of Asiatic mongoloidal soup that migrated westward under the whips of the jewish commissars was not “Russian”. The masses were waiting to revolt against Stalin at the first sign of Guderian’s tanks rolling into Moscow, which unfortunately did not happen.
Listen to what other Russians have to say about these Soviet commanders and their strategies.
Daniil Granin (January 1, 1919 - ), a famed Russian author and veteran of WWII, said:'The Germans fought better, much better than our soldiers. Moreover - we've managed to win that war only by human flesh!'
Russian Writer Viktor Astafyev (May 1, 1924 – November 29, 2001), who was on the Soviet-German front for the entire war, from 1941-1945, had this to say: 'The Germans fought much, much better — in all respects! The Communists chose to shed rivers of Russian blood literally in order to win the war. The Soviets won over Germany only by their extreme brutality and inhumanity!'
Astafyev also said this about the alleged great Russian General Georgy Zhukov: 'Honest Russian patriot? Ha! This bastard covered half-Europe [with] millions of Russian corpses by his extremely sadistic personal kind of war waging! He deserves neither honor, nor respect, never!'
Famous Russian writer Boris Shiryaev also propagandized against Trotsky in the 1910s and 1920s and had the chance to write editorials for the Axis in 1942 when German and Romanian troops occupied Stavropol. His written works are too many to name here.
No one ever mentions the Union of Russian Youth, who took SS oaths. The armband of a Russian 'SS Pupil' air field assistant had the national colors of Russia and the St. Andrew's Cross.
I’ve not seen anyone here mention the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia (KONR), a Russian organization formed by both military and civilian anti-communists.
Not one mention of the 1st Sinegorsk Cossack Ataman Regiment formed in the winter of 1942-1943 from Cossack volunteers from the village Sinegorskaya on the Don. Or the 1st Cossack Division (1. Kosaken-Kavallerie-Division)
I’ve also not seen you or Rurik ever mentions the 100,000+ White Russians who fled to Manchukuo to fight with Japan against communism in China after they were defeated in the Russian civil war. Konstantin Vladimirovich Rodzaevsky was the leader of the Russian Fascist Party which he led in exile from Manchukuo. Russians hate communism, those who try to whitewash it are not learned in history or disconnected from their roots.
You may have read a lot of German military accounts, including of the German High Command, but so many of them have been doctored post-war to fit the narrative of Axis aggression we have been spoonfed since birth. My point being that the accounts which were not molested have higher veracity because the legitimacy of Barbarossa is still an unwelcome subject and historians who propose otherwise are deemed “revisionist” by the projectors of lies themselves. This is because undoing the lies of Barbarossa is a step into holobunga “denial” the more one presses for details on all the lies surrounding it (like Stalin’s Torchmen to blame Germans for atrocities and the Abwehr leaks and traitors leading to defeats not German military incompetency).
Real Russian Nationalists don’t hate Europeans as much as you think. Did you know Tesak or any of the Restruct movement or other Russian Nationalist groups which were proscribed under Putin/Shelomova? They and other Slavic Nationalists are some of the most oppressed groups of them all. Most of these writers are westerners and not Russian themselves, and not even European but American, Canadian, or Aussies.
Russian’s also thank the Axis collaborators with their aims to rid Bolshevism from Russia, as seen by this Kaminski banner on May 9th where they normally “thank their soldiers" for fighting against Germany:
http://www.mourningtheancient.com/truth-kaminski13n.jpg
It reads “Thank you grandpa, for an attempt” as in an attempt to destroy Bolshevism.
Why were Russian troops defecting by the hundreds at Stalingrad before the German surrender, even as close to days before? Perhaps they saw better hope in the battered Axis troops than to be a slave to communism monsters.
There are far more questions than answers when it comes to the intricacies of Barbarossa, which contemporary ideologues try to simplify down to layman’s terms. Barbarossa, in one form or another was necessary, though it ended tragically for the world. Were it not for two factors, US & England Lend-Lease, and sabotage by traitors against the Axis, every ethnicity of Europe and Asia would be living in a more just world without the centurial shadow of bolshevism.
Impressive essay (except -again- for the flawed grammar making it doubly tough to read, on top of its inherent difficulty), worthy of a full thesis. I acknowledge the hard work you've done here, and appreciate it, so this comment is mostly for encouragement. I confess having skimmed the 'bead counting' parts, too technical (and, well... boring) for the average Substack reader such as myself, and interesting only -I reckon- for scholars or those knowledgeable ones enormously interested in such details. I also admit this is the first time I read anything at all about Barbarosa. But the conclusion seems clear: Germany's was not a preemptive attack. Which, as you say -and perhaps this is for me the key point-, does not disprove that Stalin was all the bad things many people accuse him of.
I remember reading Suvorov’s book years ago and it never felt right to me. Thank
you for clearing this up for me.
Incredible and awesome writing. My investment in Rurik is paying off.
Ok, interesting, though a bit of a straw man for me as I had never heard the claim that Barbarossa was a pre-emptive spoiler attack, so it didn’t need debunking. Anyway the logic in the critique you are citing does seem totally sound.
As I am a masochist for this kind of stuff I will hang around for your discussion of Stavka.
Just Google Icebreaker by Victor Suvorov if you want to see exactly what Isaev is arguing against. His theory is like Holy Scripture for many Western Rightwingers.
Cheers.
Rurik, I have to admit that I didn't read all your piece as it was way too long. Call me a retard, but, hey. I do have an idea that Khabad Lubavitch was acting in a similar way, supporting the Austrian painter then, as they support today ie Trump and Orban and possibly Putin, against the Yevsektsiya of von der Leyen, Starmer, Zelensky...
I want to come to the point, in order not to be as endless as you: could it be that you are lost? I agree that it is difficult, but what about just simply defending our kin in a way Joe Shmoe gets it and is on the side of our people, instead of going into minute details, which might even be right, but don't help our cause?
FYI friend this isn't Ruriks blog or work. Dr Livci wrote this wall text for Ruriks blog originally but its appearing here since Rurik never had a chance to edit it. As for it being heavy on details that are of no help to our people the fact of the matter is Dr Livci is much more of a Russian Nationalist than a pan European one. So accordingly this blog here will be much more niche than Ruriks.
Thanks for the explanation. I do not frankly care these days if someone is a Russian, German, French, Afrikaaner or American nationalist (all acting on the behalf of the same people). What I do care about is that the message should be understood by our people in a way that brings our case forward. Yes substack is an intellectual playground, but shouldn't it be something our people can profit from? Like honing and drafting messages instead of going into the minutes of everything? Don't get me wrong, I think your work is important. But I think that this is the time to bring our message forward to the ordinary people.
Chabad lubovich talmund 👹 they control west end east to they . Same people from Johan revelations!!!!
Now you know why millions of military aged subhumans were imported into Europe.
Weapons from Ukraine will flood Europe – report
Western-supplied arms will likely fuel a wave of crime across the continent, a study has warned -
https://www.rt.com/russia/617785-weapons-from-ukraine-will-flood-europe/
Why Poland was “caught” off guard. AKA it was a setup.
Britain (and France) were cautious and ambiguous in their warnings to Poland about the full extent and immediacy of the German threat in 1939, and in some ways downplayed or softened the likelihood of an invasion.
🔹 1. British Assurances — But No Urgency
But this guarantee was vague — it promised help in case of an attack, but didn’t specify how quickly or effectively that help would arrive
🔹 2. Underestimating Hitler’s Timeline
British diplomats — especially Ambassador Sir Howard Kennard — did not forcefully warn Polish leaders that an invasion was imminent, even as German preparations became clear in August 1939.
Some in the British government believed Hitler was bluffing or hoped he could be contained without war.
🔹 3. Diplomatic Focus on Negotiation
Britain continued to encourage diplomatic solutions, even sending missions to Germany and the USSR in August 1939 — this may have falsely signaled to Poland that there was more time.
Even after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Aug 23, 1939), which clearly isolated Poland, British warnings to Warsaw remained cautious and diplomatic.
Britain did in fact discourage Poland from building fortifications along its western border in the months before the German invasion.
Poland had a long western frontier with Germany — mostly flat, difficult to defend, and especially vulnerable after the remilitarization of the Rhineland and Germany's annexations. Poland considered building fortifications (like France’s Maginot Line) to slow a potential German advance.
British diplomats and officials warned Poland that building heavy fortifications might be seen as "provocative" to Germany.
They feared it would escalate tensions, giving Hitler a pretext for aggression or war — a classic example of Britain’s appeasement mindset during the late 1930s.
Instead, Britain pushed for restraint and diplomacy, hoping to avoid provoking Hitler while negotiations were still in motion.
As a result of both British pressure and Poland’s own political strategy (trying not to provoke either Germany or the USSR), few serious fortifications were built on Poland’s western border.
When Germany invaded on September 1, 1939, Poland lacked both defensive structures and time to prepare properly.
Are you saying Britain wanted Germany to invade Poland?
WW 2 was an intentional setup which was designed to lead directly to the world we have today.
Two points:
1) If Stalin trusted Hitler and strictly kept to the treaty, Why did he feel the need to take over half of Poland to “ prevent Germany from taking it” ?
2) Why didnt the Allies declare war on the USSR, like they did on Germany, when it also invaded Poland ?
Asking why the USSR didn't let Germany have all of Poland is kind of silly with all due respect. The arguement being made in the article isn't that the USSR didn't have its own imperial ambitions, it's that Barborassa wasnt a preventive strike
Obviously if the allies had declared war on the USSR that might very well have led to the USSR and NS Germany seriously becoming Allies for real and the M/R pact lasting for a long time. Honestly I wish allies had declared war on the USSR because it might have forced Hitler and Stalin to work out their differences.
The point is the USSR had purposely invaded Poland , not as reaction to the Germans like the Loons of Alabama and others spout. Furthermore, Germany was allowed to succeed initially because, just like Poland, it was being setup to fail eventually. This is why no one declared war on the USSR, as it was in on the game. When Hitler finally realized he was being double crossed, he attacked first. Then the allies pumped massive amount of supplies to the Russians so they could do a majority of the dying while destroying the German nation. This was scripted soap opera to destroy the two groups the small hats hate the most, Germans and Slavs.
“ At a dinner toast with Allied leaders during the Tehran Conference in December 1943, Stalin added: “The United States … is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.”
Nikita Khrushchev, who led the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964, agreed with Stalin’s assessment. In his memoirs, Khrushchev described how Stalin stressed the value of Lend-Lease aid: “He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war.”
High times for someone to point out that the Germans (germanic people) and Russians (slavs) are the two people (((they))) hate most. My take on it is mainly jealousy: during centuries of living close to them they saw the qualities of those people (((them))) will never have.
Germany 1941: We have to preemptively attack Russia because they are concentrating troops on the border.
Russia 2022: We have to preemptively attack Ukraine because they are concentrating troops on the border.
Yeah anyone still claiming Ukraine was about to invade Donbass in February of 2022 is retarded.
The LoonsOfAlabama would like a word with you.
Ukraine shelled its eastern provinces for 7 years killing 15,000 civilians before Russia invaded Ukraine. I still believe that the war was/is orchestrated with both sides following a predator agenda with the same masters.
It is said that figures don’t lie, except that liars can figure too. How many deaths in Gaza would you say? Depends on where you get your data and what you want to believe. I was not there, and the media is known to promote lies. How about the hollow cost? Are you sure?
The death count was around 3-4000 civilians. The 15000 includes dead militants on both sides.
You would be correct. The shelling needed to happen to give a pretext for the Russian side. Russia could’ve responded to the shelling in a multitude of ways without resorting to an invasion.
Why Poland was “caught” off guard on the Western Border. In other words, it was setup.
Britain did in fact discourage Poland from building fortifications along its western border in the months before the German invasion.
Poland had a long western frontier with Germany — mostly flat, difficult to defend, and especially vulnerable after the remilitarization of the Rhineland and Germany's annexations. Poland considered building fortifications (like France’s Maginot Line) to slow a potential German advance.
British diplomats and officials warned Poland that building heavy fortifications might be seen as "provocative" to Germany.
They feared it would escalate tensions, giving Hitler a pretext for aggression or war — a classic example of Britain’s appeasement mindset during the late 1930s.
Instead, Britain pushed for restraint and diplomacy, hoping to avoid provoking Hitler while negotiations were still in motion.
After Germany annexed Czechoslovakia in March 1939, Britain and France guaranteed Polish independence (March 31, 1939).
But this guarantee was vague — it promised help in case of an attack, but didn’t specify how quickly or effectively that help would arrive.
British diplomats — especially Ambassador Sir Howard Kennard — did not forcefully warn Polish leaders that an invasion was imminent, even as German preparations became clear in August 1939.
Some in the British government believed Hitler was bluffing or hoped he could be contained without war.
🔹 3. Diplomatic Focus on Negotiation
Britain continued to encourage diplomatic solutions, even sending missions to Germany and the USSR in August 1939 — this may have falsely signaled to Poland that there was more time.
Even after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Aug 23, 1939), which clearly isolated Poland, British warnings to Warsaw remained cautious and diplomatic.
Finally:
Soviet Invasion of Poland — 1920
When: The main Soviet offensive into Poland occurred in spring and summer 1920, peaking in July–August 1920.
Why: The Bolsheviks aimed to:
Regain territories lost after the collapse of the Russian Empire.
Spread the Communist revolution westward, hoping it would trigger uprisings in Germany and beyond.
“From the Communist historians we receive quite the paradox, Stalin conducted the biggest regrouping of troops in the history of mankind to prevent an attack, the possibility of which he considered impossible.”
According to Solonin no surprise at all, Stalin was preparing to roll over war torn Europe in the long anticipated worker’s assault on the capitalists. After the start of Operation Barbarossa Hitler was absolutely flabbergasted that the Soviets had over 34,000 tanks, more than 34,000 because the advancing Wehrmacht destroyed some 34,000 tanks and they kept coming. Operation Barbarossa was in response to Stalin’s western buildup but Hitler finally realized that Stalin had been preparing for conquest of Europe all along.
Lol okay dude, "the USSR had more tanks than Hitler thought thetefore the Soviet Union was about to attack Germany". Absolute weak sauce. If you are going to try and pick holes in Isaevs analysis bring something better.
https://www.solonin.org/en/book_june22
If you want i can review the chapter on mobilization
Could you please tell Rolo/Rurik to unban me? I would share with him the exclusive secret of the runes of one Russian cult.
Sure Ill ask him. What did you do?
I think it was over this post, which to me was fairly neutral (about how Ukrainians had failed their repeated offensives at Kursk despite the predictions otherwise).
https://substack.com/profile/139472871-adunai/note/c-84893745
Have you ever read about Operation Pike, supposedly France and Britain almost bombed the Soviet’s oil fields in 1940 :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pike
https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Pike-1939-1941-Contributions-Military/dp/0313313687
I can’t see your articles in my subscriptions, only as a post which you can only read with the Substack reader, it’s happening to a few people i’m subscribed, is it a bug or deliberate ?