RUSSIA AT WAR

1941 1945

The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union

Dedicated to

The Blessed Memory of Those Millions of

Valiant Men, Women, Children and Old People

Who Gave Their Lives in the Sacred Fighting for

The Freedom and Independence of Our Motherland

During the Great Patriotic War in 1941 - 1945

Our Cause Is Right

The Enemy Will Be Smashed

Victory Will Be Ours!

Наше Дело Правое

Враг Будет Разбит

Победа Будет За Нами!

A PARADE OF GRIM DETERMINATION

In the louring morning of 7th November 1941, with the enemy having already approached
Moscow at a distance of only 15 miles, nevertheless, Stalin did intrepidly take a military parade
in the Red Square as usual to celebrate the 24th anniversary of the Great Revolution.

Having learnt of Stalin's speech broadcast during the parade, Hitler was infuriated with
Russia's sturdy defiance. Evidently, the Führer and his hangmen did not realize that nothing on
earth could daunt Russians. (M. Kuznetsov)

OPERATION BARBAROSSA:

A PART OF THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR

Operation Barbarossa (German: "Unternehmen Barbarossa") was the codename for Nazi
Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union during World War II that commenced on June 22, 1941.
The operation was named after the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of the Holy Roman Empire, a
leader of the Crusades in the 12th century: according to Nazi ideology the conquest of 'inferior
races' was similarly righteous.

It is not to be confused with the war on the Eastern Front in its entirety. Operation Barbarossa
lasted from June 1941 to December 1941, while the war on the Eastern Front – called by the
Russian people The Great Patriotic War – lasted from June 1941 to May 1945 when the Germans
surrendered.

The original German goal was the rapid conquest of the European part of the Soviet Union,
west of a line connecting the cities of Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan, often referred to as the AA
line. The failure of Operation Barbarossa arguably resulted in the eventual defeat of Nazi
Germany, and was a turning point for the fortunes of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich.

Operation Barbarossa opened up the Eastern Front, which ultimately became the biggest
theatre of war in human history, with some of the largest and most brutal battles, deadliest
atrocities, terrible loss of life and miserable conditions for Soviets and Germans alike.

The World's History has irrefutably proved it more than once – that any other potential
"conqueror of the world" is always doomed to disgraceful failure after he dares to assault Russia.

This given, it remains rather a great daze for us Russians to comprehend why such losers as
Napoléon and Hitler might have ever been reputed "great warlords" by some western historians,
while the decisive rôle of those real great warlords who inflicted a formidable defeat upon the
aggressors – Field Marshal Michael I. Kutuzov in 1812 and, accordingly, Marshal of the Soviet
Union Joseph V. Stalin in 1945 – have been deliberately depreciated by the same historians.
THE SLAVIC PARTING

Such godless scum as Napoleon and Hitler moronicly fancied that they could have ever
conquered Holy Russia. It was only wishful thinking on their part.

Because we Russians are invincible while the Lord God is with us!

All of the rabid murderous jackals who whenever try to invade Holy Russia become doomed to
a dire derout since the very moment they dare make the first step trespassing our sacred
borders.

Under the heavenly protection of our most Holy, most Pure, most Blessed and Glorious Lady,
the Birth-giver of God, and Ever-Virgin Mary, my country has always been, is and will remain
invincible for ever. Amen! (M. Kuznetsov)
THE LAST RESORT:

A BUNCH OF GRENADES

It was only our inborn sense of duty, self-sacrifice and dauntless courage that helped us
Russians to withstand the dire German onslaught during the first several months of the war. It
must be openly admitted that in the beginning of the Great Patriotic War the German
Wehrmacht was actually stronger than the then Red Army.

Hitler's generals initially were more competent in the science of warfare, and German troops
proved to be initially more skillful in tactics than Russian soldiers. Yet the principal difference
between us and our enemies has always been the fact that we Russians would study quickly and
eventually we would exceed our "teachers". (M. Kuznetsov)

THE BRITISH HISTORIAN'S BATTLE OF KURSK

OR THE NAZISM THAT CAME FROM THE WEST

By Alexander Krylov

9 May 2007

Certain noteworthy tendencies keep surfacing in the British and US historical studies of WWII
during the last several years. Until recently, the US and British scholars focused mainly on the
events related to the Western Front, e.g.: the Battle of El Alamein, the Normandy Invasion, the
Ardennes Offensive, etc. There was a reason behind their emphasizing the significance of the
operations carried out by the Western allies – this approach created the false impression among
the general public that Germany was defeated by the US and Great Britain. Amazingly enough, in
some cases there were found schoolchildren in Great Britain and the US who believed even that
Russia had been Germany’s ally in World War Two. #2

This interpretation of history became canonical in the West from the very beginning of the
Cold War, from the time when, adhering to a kind of “class approaching”, Winston Churchill
denigrated the crucial contribution of the Red Army to the victory over fascist Germany in his
memoirs.
ГОНЬ!

FIRE!

My grandfather was an artilleryman. He beat Germans bravely in 1914 – 1918, and then he
beat them again even more bravely and fiercely in 1941 – 1945.

All of my grandparents, as well as their siblings and children, defended our Motherland with
the utmost self-sacrifice and valour. I am very proud of my ancestors. They were true heroes. (M.
Kuznetsov)
STALIN'S ARTILLERY WAS

THE BEST IN THE WORLD

Later on, the Western historical thinking was largely influenced by the writings of former fascist
officers who were employed to process the Nazi military archives, and by numerous memoirs left
by the Wehrmacht generals. As a rule, the authors of this kind tended to justify themselves and
the German army on the whole, presenting it as a purely professional entirety separate from
Hitler or any ideology. The reminiscences of Hitler’s dogs of war also reflected a lot of their caste
arrogance and hurt pride, which further distorted the picture of the recent past. On the other
hand, the memoirs of the Soviet military and political leadership typically failed to serve as a
scholar and ideological “counterbalance” opposing the flow of literature written by former
Hitlerites. The war-time recollections published in the USSR were subject to an ideological
censorship so severe that oftentimes they lost any value as sources of historical knowledge.
 The first attempts to assess in a more realistic way the respective roles of the Eastern and
Western Fronts were made in the West nearly 30 years after the end of World War Two. John
Erickson, a British historian, was among the first to move in this direction – in his books “The
Road to Stalingrad” (1975) and “The Road to Berlin” (1983), he demonstrated the magnitude of
the actual contribution of the Eastern Front to the rout of fascist Germany. Next, David M.
Glantz, a US military historian, wrote several books about the war on the Russian front. In 1989-
2006, he published 16 works including "When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped
Hitler."
HOLD ON, BROTHER!

OUR HEROICAL RUSSIAN WOMEN

WERE INDISPENSABLE BOTH IN ACTION ON THE FRONT LINE

AND ON THE HOME FRONT

My grandmother was a military medical officer. She used to treat not only Russian wounded
soldiers, but also German prisoners of war.

Out of my grandmother's five brothers, three gave their lives in the sacred fighting for the
independence and liberty of our Motherland, and only two of them returned home heroes. Or
rather they returned to the ruins that had remained of the once thriving town where their home
used to be before the war. (M. Kuznetsov)

DURING THE WAR SOVIET MEDICAL CORPS

BROUGHT BACK TO THE ACTIVE SERVICE

71% OF THE WOUNDED AND 91% OF THE SICK

 Hundreds of works by British and US scholars focused on various particular aspects of the
operations on the Eastern Front such as the treatment of the prisoners of war, the war-time
ethnic purges, the role of NKVD - i.e. the Soviet Ministry (then Commissariat) of the Interior, the
economy and the food supplies, etc. Those publications were not meant for mass audience.
Therefore, for decades the perceptions of mass readers in Great Britain and the US were shaped
primarily by the memoirs left by W. Churchill and other Western statesmen, who presented the
Western Front as the main theatre of WWII. This traditional assessment started to erode only
during the recent years. In this respect, “Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory” by
Norman Davies, a British historian, had played a special role.

Norman Davies is a popular author in Great Britain and the US, and justly so. He became
famous after the publication of “The Isles. A history” (1999), an extensive and captivating
treatise on the British past. His “Europe. A History” (1996) and “Europe at War 1939-1945: No
Simple Victory” (2006) were no less successful. In the latter book, Davies clearly, and with the
emotionality untypical of a British scholar, condemns the pathological narcissism of the US. He
finds especially harsh words for those US authors who continue stupidly to convince their
countrymen that it was the US who stopped fascism and ultimately defeated Hitler.
WESTWARD!

My father was a bomber pilot. He had been bombing the German invaders from the outbreak
of the Great Patriotic War in June 1941 through to the hard-won Great and Glorious Victory over
Nazi Germany in May 1945. He proved to be a real hero. I am very proud of him.

Every member of my family – men and women, and even teenagers who could bear arms –
fought the damned Nazis fiercely defending our Motherland. I am very proud of my dauntless
forebears. Two thirds of them fell in action and never saw the Victory Day. (M. Kuznetsov)

THE SOVIET AVIATION

BECAME THE BEST IN THE WORLD

According to Norman Davies, fighting went on between 400 German and Soviet divisions on the
Eastern Front for four years. The front itself spanned 1,600 km. In the meantime, the fighting on
the Western Front involved 15-20 divisions at most. The German army suffered 88% of its
casualties on the Eastern Front. It was the Soviet troops who broke the will and the capacity of
the German army to carry out massive front offensives in 1943. The Battle of Kursk – that is the
name historians must remember! Norman Davies writes that the key role of the Soviet army in
WWII will be so obvious to future historians that they will merely credit the US and Great Britain
with providing a vitally important support.

Nevertheless, discussing the crucial contribution of the Red Army to the triumph over fascism,
Norman Davies fails to avoid the invariable ideological cliche concerning the “clash of the two
totalitarianisms”: in his view, the most bestial regime in the history of Europe was crushed not by
democracies, but by another bestial regime. In other words, a tyrant got defeated by a tyrant.

Recognizing the decisive contribution of the Soviet Union to the victory in WWII, Norman
Davies ignores entirely the fact that German Nazism, which historical Russia, then in its USSR
incarnation, crushed in 1941-1945, was an extremely aggressive and inhuman product of the
Western civilization. At the same time, N. Davies acknowledges the personal role of Stalin in the
victory of Russians. Geoffrey Roberts, another historian, concurs with this view. In his “Stalin’s
Wars. From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953”, he writes that rising from the ashes after so
many mistakes and leading the country to the greatest victory was an incomparable triumph,
and that the world was saved for democracies by Stalin.

The truth is that the world was saved by the Russian people, led by Stalin’s genius. Stalin
admitted this in 1945 – in his toast “to the Russian people” during a reception for the Red Army
commanders in the Kremlin. For Russians, this war will always be Great and Patriotic, as well as
holy, since for our people it was a deadly fight against the absolute evil – the Nazism that came
from the West.

RUSSIA AT WAR 1941 - 1945

Head of the Soviet State

Generalissimo Joseph V. Stalin

It was Marshal Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (Generalissimo since June 27, 1945), the Supreme
Commander-in-Chief of the Red Army, who led the Soviet Union through the Great Patriotic War
(1941 - 1945) to the hard-won Victory.

The Great Victory in May 1945 was achieved in glorious military alliance with the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America, over the juggernaut of the so-called
Axis: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Militarist Japan, and their satellites: Slovakia, Hungary,
Romania, Finland, and Bulgaria. The Axis states were supported by all the manpower, industry
and resources of almost all Continental Europe, North Africa, and South-East Asia under their
control.

But it was we who won with God's help!

OUR CAUSE IS RIGHT

THE ENEMY IS SMASHED

VICTORY IS OURS!

Victory!

God is with us!

Berlin in May 1945:

The Reichstag captured

Nazist Germany is prostrated

Holy Russia has proved invincible!

MARSHAL STALIN'S ORDER OF THE DAY

Moscow, May 1, 1945

Comrades Red Armymen and Red Navymen!

Sergeants and Non-commissioned Officers, Officers of the Army and Navy!

Generals and Admirals!

Working people of the Soviet Union!

Today our country is celebrating May First – the international holiday of the working people.
This year the peoples of our Motherland are celebrating May Day in the conditions of the
victorious termination of the Great Patriotic War.

The hard times, when the Red Army fought back the enemy troops at Moscow and Leningrad,
at Grozny and Stalingrad, are gone, never to return. Now our victorious troops are battering the
enemy's armed forces in the center of Germany, far beyond Berlin, on the Elbe River.

Within a short time Poland, Hungary, the greater part of Czechoslovakia, a considerable part of
Austria and her capital, Vienna, have been liberated. At the same time the Red Army has
captured East Prussia – spearhead of German imperialism, Pomerania, the greater part of
Brandenburg, and the main districts of Germany's capital, Berlin, having hoisted the banner of
victory over Berlin.

As a result of these offensive battles fought by the Red Army, within three or four months the
Germans lost over 800,000 officers and men in prisoners and about one million killed. During the
same period, Red Army troops captured or destroyed up to 6,000 enemy airplanes, up to 12,000
tanks and self-propelled guns, over 23,000 field guns, and enormous quantities of other
armaments and equipment.
Two hundred captive German military banners and standards were chosen out of many, and
prepared to be flung down at the Victors' feet during the Great Victory Parade in the sacred Red
Square in Moscow on the 24th of June 1945

It should be noted that in these battles, Polish, Yugoslav, Czechoslovak, Bulgarian and
Rumanian divisions successfully advanced against the common enemy side by side with the Red
Army.

As a result of the Red Army's shattering blows, the German command was compelled to
transfer dozens of divisions to the Soviet-German front, baring whole sectors on the other
fronts. This circumstance helped the forces of our Allies to develop a successful offensive in the
West.

Thus by simultaneous blows at the German troops from East and West, the troops of the Allies
and the Red Army were able to split the German forces into two isolated parts and to effect a
junction of ours and the Allied troops in a united front. There can be no doubt that this
circumstance means the end of Hitlerite Germany.

The days of Hitlerite Germany are numbered. More than half her territory is occupied by the
Red Army and by the troops of our Allies. Germany has lost her most important vital districts.
The industry remaining in the Hitlerites' hands cannot supply the German army with sufficient
quantities of armaments, ammunition and fuel. The manpower reserves of the German army are
depleted. Germany is completely isolated and stands alone, if one does not count her ally –
Japan.

In search of a way out of their hopeless plight, the Hitlerite adventurers resort to all kinds of
tricks, down to flirting with the Allies in an effort to cause dissension in the Allied camp. These
fresh knavish tricks of the Hitlerites are doomed to utter failure. They can only accelerate the
disintegration of the German troops.

The mendacious fascist propaganda intimidates the German population by absurd tales
alleging that the Armies of the United Nations wish to exterminate the German people. The
United Nations do not set themselves the task of destroying the German people. The United
Nations will destroy fascism and German militarism, will severely punish the war criminals, and
will compel the Germans to compensate the damage they caused to other countries. But the
United Nations do not molest and will not molest Germany's peaceful population if it modestly
fulfills the demands of the Allied military authorities.

The brilliant victories won by Soviet troops in the Great Patriotic War have demonstrated the
heroic might of the Red Army and its high military skill. In the progress of the war our
Motherland has acquired a first-rate regular army, capable of upholding the great socialist
achievements of our people and of securing the State interests of the Soviet Union. Despite the
fact that the Soviet Union for four years has been waging a war on an unparalleled scale
demanding colossal expenditures, our socialist economic system is gaining strength and
developing, while the economy of the liberated regions, plundered and ruined by the German
invaders, is successfully and swiftly reviving. This is the result of the heroic efforts of the workers
and collective farmers, of the Soviet intellectuals, of the women and youth of our country,
inspired and guided by the great Bolshevik Party.

The World War unleashed by the German imperialists is drawing to a close. The collapse of
Hitlerite Germany is a matter of the nearest future. The Hitlerite ringleaders who imagined
themselves the rulers of the world have found themselves ruined. The mortally wounded fascist
beast is breathing his last. One thing is now required – to deal the death blow to the fascist
beast.
 Soldiers of the Red Army and Navy! The last storming of the Hitlerite den is on. Set new
examples of military skill and gallantry in the concluding battles. Smite the enemy more heavily,
skillfully break up his defense, pursue and surround the German invaders, give them no respite
until they cease resistance. When beyond the border of your native land, be especially vigilant!
Uphold the honor and dignity of the Soviet soldier as heretofore!

Working people of the Soviet Union! By persistent and indefatigable work, increase the all-
round assistance to the front. Swiftly heal the wounds inflicted on the country by the war, raise
still higher the might of our Soviet State!
The triumph of good over evil. 200 captured Nazi banners were tilted down in dishonour in the
Red Square, Moscow

Comrades Red Army men and Red Navy men, sergeants and petty officers, officers of the Army
and Navy, generals and admirals! Working people of the Soviet Union! On behalf of the Soviet
Government and of our Bolshevik Party I greet and congratulate you on May First!

In honor of the historic victories of the Red Army at the front and of the great achievements of
the workers, collective farmers and intellectuals in the rear, to mark the international holiday of
working people, I hereby order:

Today, on May First, a salute of twenty artillery salvos shall be fired in the capitals of the Union
Republics: Moscow, Kiev, Minsk, Baku, Tbilisi, Erevan, Ashkhabad, Tashkent, Stalinabad, Alma-
Ata, Frunze, Petrozavodsk, Kishinev, Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn, as well as in the hero cities of
Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sevastopol and Odessa.

Long live our mighty Soviet Motherland!

Long live the great Soviet people – the Victor people!

Long live the victorious Red Army and Navy!

Eternal glory to the heroes who fell in the battles for the freedom and independence of our
Motherland!

Forward to the final rout of Hitlerite Germany!

(Signed) Supreme Commander-in-Chief,

Marshal of the Soviet Union,

JOSEPH STALIN
Captive German military banners and standards are being flung down in dishonour at the
Victors' feet after the Great Victory Parade in the Red Square in Moscow on the 24th of June
1945

STALIN'S ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE

Moscow, May 9, 1945

Comrades!

Fellow countrymen and countrywomen!

The great day of victory over Germany has arrived. Fascist Germany, forced to her knees by
the Red Army and the troops of our Allies, has admitted defeat and has announced her
unconditional surrender.

On May 7 a preliminary act of surrender was signed in Rheims. On May 8, in Berlin,

representatives of the German High Command, in the presence of representatives of the
Supreme Command of the Allied troops and of the Supreme Command of the Soviet troops,
signed the final act of surrender, which came into effect at 24 hours on May 8.
 Knowing the wolfish habits of the German rulers who regard treaties and agreements as
scraps of paper, we have no grounds for accepting their word. Nevertheless, this morning, the
German troops, in conformity with the act of surrender, began en masse to lay down their arms
and surrender to our troops. This is not a scrap of paper. It is the actual capitulation of the
armed forces of Germany. True, one group of German troops in the region of Czechoslovakia still
refuses to surrender, but I hope the Red Army will succeed in bringing it to its senses.

We now have full grounds for saying that the historic day of the final defeat of Germany, the
day of our people's great victory over German imperialism, has arrived.

The great sacrifices we have made for the freedom and independence of our country, the
incalculable privation and suffering our people have endured during the war, our intense labours
in the rear and at the front, laid at the altar of our motherland, have not been in vain; they have
been crowned by complete victory over the enemy. The ago-long struggle of the Slavonic
peoples for their existence and independence has ended in victory over the German aggressors
and German tyranny.

Henceforth, the great banner of the freedom of the peoples and peace between the peoples
will fly over Europe.

Three years ago Hitler publicly stated that his task included the dismemberment of the Soviet
Union and the severance from it of the Caucasus, the Ukraine, Byelorussia, the Baltic and other
regions. He definitely said: "We shall destroy Russia so that she shall never be able to rise again."
This was three years ago. But Hitler's insane ideas were fated to remain unrealized – the course
of the war scattered them to the winds like dust. Actually, the very opposite of what the
Hitlerites dreamed of in their delirium occurred. Germany is utterly defeated. The German
troops are surrendering. The Soviet Union is triumphant, although it has no intention of either
dismembering or destroying Germany.

Comrades! Our Great Patriotic War has terminated in our complete victory. The period of war
in Europe has closed. A period of peaceful development has been ushered in. Congratulations on
our victory, my dear fellow countrymen and countrywomen!

Glory to our heroic Red Army, which upheld the independence of our country and achieved
victory over the enemy!

Glory to our great people, the Victor people!

 Eternal glory to the heroes who fell fighting the enemy and who gave their lives for the
freedom and happiness of our people!

STALIN'S SPEECH

AT THE RECEPTION IN THE KREMLIN

IN HONOUR OF

THE COMMANDERS OF THE RED ARMY

Moscow, May 24, 1945

Comrades, permit me to propose another toast, the last one.

I would like to propose that we drink to the health of the Soviet people, and primarily of the
Russian people. (Loud and prolonged applause and cheers.)
 I drink primarily to the health of the Russian people because it is the most outstanding of all
the nations that constitute the Soviet Union.

I drink to the health of the Russian people, because, during this war, it has earned universal
recognition as the guiding force of the Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country.

I drink to the health of the Russian people, not only because it is the leading people, but also
because it is gifted with a clear mind, a staunch character and patience.

Our government committed no few mistakes; at times our position was desperate, as in 1941-
42, when our army was retreating, abandoning our native villages and towns in the Ukraine,
Byelorussia, Moldavia, the Leningrad Region, the Baltic Region and the Karelo-Finnish Republic,
abandoning them because there was no other alternative. Another people might have said to
the government: "You have not come up to our expectations. Get out. We shall appoint another
government, which will conclude peace with Germany and ensure tranquillity for us".

But the Russian people did not do that, for they were confident that the policy their
government was pursuing was correct; and they made sacrifices in order to ensure the defeat of
Germany. And this confidence which the Russian people displayed in the Soviet Government
proved to be the decisive factor which ensured our historic victory over the enemy of mankind,
over fascism.

I thank the Russian people for this confidence!

Marshal Stalin on the Mausoleum

At the Great Victory Parade in the Red Square in Moscow

24 June 1945
German Captured Banners Flung Down In Dishonour

At the Great Victory Parade in the Red Square in Moscow

24 June 1945

STALIN'S PRE-ELECTION SPEECH

WHY WE EMERGED VICTORIOUS

IN THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR

Moscow, February 9, 1946

Our victory means, first of all, that our Soviet social order has triumphed, that the Soviet social
order has successfully passed the ordeal in the fire of war and has proved its unquestionable
vitality. [...]

[...] The point now is that the Soviet social order has shown itself more stable and capable of
enduring than a non-Soviet social order, that the Soviet social order is a form of organisation, a
society superior to any non-Soviet social order. [...]

Of course, victory cannot be achieved without gallantry. But gallantry alone is not enough to
vanquish an enemy who has a large army, first-class armaments, well-trained officer cadres, and
a fairlygood organisation of supplies. To meet the blow of such an enemy, to repulse him and
then to inflict utter defeat upon him required, in addition to the matchless gallantry of our
troops, fully up-to-date armaments and adequate quantities of them as well as well-organised
supplies in sufficient quantities.

But that, in turn, necessitated having – and in adequate amounts – such elementary things as
metal for the manufacture of armaments, equipment and machinery for factories, fuel to keep
the factories and transport going, cotton for the manufacture of uniforms, and grain for
supplying the Army.

Can it be claimed that before entering the Second World War our country already
commanded the necessary minimum material potentialities for satisfying all these requirements
in the main? I think it can. In order to prepare for this tremendous jib we had to carry out three
Five-Year Plans of national economic development. It was precisely these three Five-Year Plans
that helped us to create these material potentialities. At any rate, our country's position in this
respect before the Second World War, in 1940, was several times better than it was before the
First World War, in 1913. [...]

Such an unprecedented increase in production cannot be regarded as the simple and usual
development of a country from backwardness to progress. It was a leap by which our
Motherland was transformed from a backward into an advanced country, from an agrarian into
an industrial country. [...]
 By what policy did the Communist Party succeed in providing these material potentialities in
the country in such a short time?

First of all, by the Soviet policy of industrializing the country.

The Soviet method of industrialising the country differs radically from the capitalist method of
industrialisation. In capitalist countries industrialisation usually begins with light industry. [...]

[...] Naturally, the Communist Party could not take this course. The Party knew that a war was
looming, that the country could not be defended without heavy industry, that the development
of heavy industry must be undertaken as soon as possible, that to be behind with this would
mean to lose out. The Party remembered Lenin's words to the effect that without heavy industry
it would be impossible to uphold the country's independence, that without it the Soviet order
might perish.

Accordingly, the Communist Party of our country rejected the "usual" course of
industrialisation and began the work of industrialising the country by developing heavy industry.
It was very difficult, but not impossible. A valuable aid in this work was the nationalisation of
industry and banking, which made possible the rapid accumulation and transfer of funds to
heavy industry.

COLD WAR ...

WHAT COLD WAR?

Since the end of WWII the Americans used to suffer from the "Duck & Cover" idiotic drills
generated by the notorious silly "Red Scare" paranoia.

To find more about the "Duck & Cover" drills click on the right picture.
 At the same time we Russians used to live a tranquil life, being busy restoring to life our
beloved country after the dire war, and considering the US, Britain, and France to be our Combat
Allies.

We Russians used to be concerned little, if at all, about the so-called "Cold War". We had
never had anything like the ridiculous "Duck & Cover" paranoic drills, or any other moronism of
the kind. We had never had either fear or hatred, because we did NOT consider the West to be
our enemy.

Evidence?

Below is shown a HUGE BRONZE MONUMENT erected in the center of Moscow, the capital
city of Russia, to commemorate our Russian Red Army combat fraternity with the American,
British, and the Free French forces.

I don't think that a memorial like this could have been erected in honour of one's enemy. Of
course, people would always make monuments to be dedicated to their friends, not foes.

WE REMEMBER OUR COMBAT FRATERNITY

WITH THE AMERICAN, BRITISH AND FRENCH WARRIORS

The Great Patriotic War Memorial Complex

on the Poklonnaya Gora Hill in Moscow

In the forefront:

a Monument to the Anti-Hitlerite Coalition Countries

The Monument to the Anti-Hitlerite Coalition Countries

erected in the center of Moscow, the Russia's capital city:

The Victorious Allies, Brothers-in-Arms

the French, the Russian, the American and the British Soldier

I wonder if there is any monument like this

anywhere in Washington, New York, London, or Paris?

THE FAMOUS MEETING ON THE ELBE RIVER

On April 25, 1945 Soviet and US forces linked up near Torgau, Germany, on the Elbe river. The
historic Elbe link-up involved advanced units of the 58-th Guards rifle division serving with the
First Ukrainian front's Fifth Guards Army and the First US Army's 69-th infantry division.

The 3 rubles Russian coin

issued in 1995 to commemorate the famous meeting

of the Soviet and US forces on the 25th of April 1945

on the Elbe river, near Torgau, Germany

RUSSIAN VICTORIES

IN THE WORLD'S HISTORY

Why Operation Barbarossa Was Doomed to Fail

MEET THE RUSSIANS

The Russians: Who Are We?

Part One

By Michael Kuznetsov

We all, both the Russians and the Westerners, live in a virtual world of myths and stereotypes
widely circulating within our societies regarding other nations, the neighbours' history, their
mindset and intentions. This fancy world of delusions has been built up mainly by the mass
media, then percieved through the prism of each nation's own historically determined world-
view, and finally entagled with the specific national mindset in every given moment of history.

The determination to create this webpage came into my mind rather long ago. The main
reason for that was my gradual coming to the understanding of a very strange fact, which I
discovered, that the Western public had had quite a vague idea not only about our Russian way
of life, our habits and customs, but even of what we Russians look like.

I believe that to comprehend the Russian ethnical character and peculiarities is vitally
important for the West so that to better understand Russia's foreign and domestic policy, as well
as to predict Russia's steps, views, approaches and reactions.

I must emphasize here also that the Russians (as a distinct ethnos) constitute the
overwhelming majority in our native country, there being about 116 million of Russians, i.e. 82
per cent out of the total 142 million strong multi-ethnic population of the Russian Federation.
Plus another 25 million of the Russians living now in the "Near Abroad".
 Thus, it should be noted that when I use the term "Russians" here I mean the Russians as an
ethnos, to the contrary of the Western understanding of the same word as "all people living in,
belonging to, or coming from, Russia."

By the way, to the trivial question which used to be so sensitive for us some fifteen years ago:
If we Russians are Europeans or not, at the present time I can absolutely definitely say that we
are not Europeans.

Praise be to God, we are Russians!

One may ask: Why is there a priest portrayed in the photo above, and a Russian couple during
the Orthodox wedding, in the right photo?

For two reasons: First, they have absolutely typical Russian features; second, to be a Russian,
in fact, means to be an Othodox Christian.

Since 989 A.D. we Russians have been keeping our One Holy Orthodox Faith inviolate and
undamaged for the last millennium.

So, these photos seem to be quite relevant here to represent typical Russian faces.

Now, let's talk a little about a usual expession of countenance that we can see on Russian
faces, particularly in public places, on the transport, in the street, etc.

Since we do rarely grin in public, if ever, most of the Westerners tend to call us stolid, even
sullen.

Not at all.

From the average Russian's point of view the faces in the pictures above look very friendly,
quietly confident, and contemplative. There is absolutely no bad mood, nor angry on them. We
Russians do not like to shout or talk too loudly in the street because we respect the people
around us, and we do not want them to be disturbed. We do not grin broadly in public without
any evident cause, lest the others consider us to be drunk or crazy.

Surely, there is no tinge of timidity in all that being outwardly restrained – simply put, we
prefer staid behaviour and composed manners.

Perhaps, a good term for all this would be: a state of EUPATHY.

Many of my Western friends used to tell me that they would smile automatically every time
when the camera would be pointed at them.

Although, not every time, as we can notice...

Look at these brave American soldiers depicted on the TIME 2003 Person of the Year cover.
They are not smiling. Why? Evidently because they feel the seriousness of the moment, and that
their usual broad smiling would hardly be appropriate here.

We Russians feel the same seriousness all of the time, not at a certain moment. Probably, this
is because the striking difference between our countries is that America is lucky to be spared
invasions. No single enemy's boot has ever trod upon the American soil, and no single enemy's
bomb was ever dropped from the sky on the American children.

The Americans do not know what is a Real War.

We Russians do.

And thank God for all things.

The Russian Character:

Intrepidity, Commiseration, Perspicacity

Now I would like to dwell on some peculiarities of the Russians. Everything is cognized in
comparison. Having examined a huge lot of information, such as innumerable western mass
media publications on the Internet, as well as private blogs, travelogues and essays about Russia,
I have learnt to discern the main differences between the West and my country.

INTREPIDITY

The first special trait of the Russian national character to be mentioned, in my opinion, is
INTREPIDITY. This means that we have never been daunted, nor we are intimidated by, nor afraid
of anything or anyone, but the Lord God.

Otherwise, we would have not elementarily survived through all the invasions, bloody
struggles, disasters and tribulations during our millennium-long history. Moreover, in my
opinion, FEAR is not at all the proper word if applied to Russia. When we Russians are in danger,
I would rather use the terms INDIGNATION, DETERMINATION and DEFIANCE, but never FEAR.

Indeed, fear is the mind-killer and leads to immediate defeat, while Russia has always
emerged victorious.

Recently, when browsing on the Internet and breaking through lots of lies and insinuations
about my country, I found a remarkably stupid posting, the key phrase of which expressed in full
measure all of the author's imbecility. It read: " Stalin won (in the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945,
M.K.) because his soldiers were way more afraid of the NKVD than the Nazis".

When I was reading that sheer codswallop – I laughed until I cried!

It is deplorable, however, that the author of the said inane article – a "War Nerd" as he calls
himself – seems to be unable even to imagine such an obvious thing that we Russians do always
fiercely fight against whatever enemy because we follow the dictates of our heart to defend the
native country.

Not out of fear, stupid!

A REST AFTER BATTLE

Look at these dauntless Russian warriors:

only a complete idiot could suppose that the Russians

– the bravest of the brave soldiers in the world –

might have performed their heroic exploits and

have smashed the formidable German Wehrmacht

simply out of fear of the Stalin's NKVD. Ridiculous!

Don't be mistaken: The Red Army soldiers esteemed and trusted their Supreme Commander-
in-Chief, Marshal Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, who resolutely led them forward to the Great
Victory.

Alexander Werth, a Sunday Times war correspondent and BBC commentator wrote: "Stalin is
modest and talks low, with few gestures. In public speeches he uses notes for data material only.
He is not an exciting speaker, but makes each word count ... His greatest qualities are
perseverance and cool judgement of men and things. "

Said Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, who met Stalin at the Teheran conference in 1943: "Most
of us, before we met him, thought he was a bandit leader who had pushed himself to the top of
his government. That impression was wrong. We knew at once that we were dealing with a
highly intelligent man. . ."

Said President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States: "Altogether, Marshal Stalin is quite
impressive, I'd say."

Said Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill of Great Britain: "Stalin left upon me an impression of
deep, cool wisdom and absence of illusions," added that he had "a very captivating manner
when he chooses . . . "

President of the United States Harry S. Truman noted in his diary: "I can deal with Stalin," who
is "honest – but smart as hell." Others agreed, among them Eisenhower, Leahy, Harriman, and
Byrnes.

To say the truth, the overwhelming majority of the Soviet people were not afraid of Stalin.
Many loved and esteemed him, while some were in awe of him, true. All those false scary tales
about the 'bloody maniac' and those mythical 'tens of millions of his innocent victims' – the
fables deliberately concocted to demonize Stalin – were generated by the Cold War western
propaganda, as well as by Nikita Khruschev's smear campaign against Stalin. We are going to
discuss this topic in full detail later elsewhere on this website.
 Meanwhile, I would like only to quote now one American (sic!) woman in this regard:

"Stalin was not just Russia's leader (or dictator), Stalin was Russia's Father. ... He was a leader
when Russia needed him most; he was not the greatest battle strategist, but Stalin was what
unified the country in order to survive the Great Patriotic War. Without Stalin, Russia today
might only be those lands located in Siberia.

Stalin was a harsh Father to his people, but no matter how cold the History Channel paints this
one man, they can never capture the pride the Russian people had in Stalin at the time. He held
before the Russian people the Grail of the times and I think there are very few wars in the
history of modern times when the citizens of a country were so unified and sacrificing in battle
and war times.

"Russia came too close to losing herself in that war. Dissidence could not be afforded at that
time"

Original source: Myths and Legends of Soviet Russia, by Lindsay Kosarev

This is a rarely correct evaluation of the state of affairs, especially surprising because it was
made by a foreigner!

A REST AFTER BATTLE

(A fragment of the picture above)

Sitting with a red tobacco pouch in the left hand

and entertaining his comrades-in-arms with jokes

here is depicted a legendary Russian warrior

Private Vasili Tyorkin.

Being the embodiment of an average Russian soldier, having proved to be valiant in battle,
while always good-humored and well-disposed during the rare lulls, Private Vasili Tyorkin
became the main hero of the most popular work of literature among Soviet soldiers during the
Great Patriotic War, written by Aleksander Tvardovsky – the poem Vasili Tyorkin: A Book About a
Soldier.

Published by installments between 1942 and 1945, it presented a new folk hero who was
everything a Soviet soldier could ever hope to be – clever, witty, inventive, thoughtful,
resourceful, dependable, courageous, loveable, fun-loving, and calm under fire.
 Vasili Tyorkin fought Germans hand-to-hand, was wounded several times, slogged through
marshes, swam across a freezing river to rescue his comrades, shot down a German plane with
his rifle, settled arguments with wisecracks and even could play the accordion.

The poet Alexander Tvardovsky had created so verisimilar character of a Russian warrior that
most Soviet soldiers came to believe that Tyorkin was a real person; many even recalled
(mistakenly) having encountered him within their military units.

On this picture (above right) Vasili Tyorkin is depicted rolling a cigarette and holding his
favourite tobacco pouch. Flung over Tyorkin's left shoulder, as usual, is his greycoat ro

GOD IS ALWAYS WITH RUSSIA

THE GLORIOUS VICTORY IN 1945

GERMANY PROSTRATED – BERLIN CAPTURED

THESE HEROES FIERCELY STORMED BERLIN

– THE HITLER'S HIDEOUS LAIR –

SAVING THE WORLD FROM THE NAZI PLAGUE

Determination, endurance, self-sacrifice and derring-do

This is what we can read on their true Russian faces

"I wish I could join your ranks, my glorious, intrepid heroes!

You are the best, you are the bravest of the brave!"

True, it is simple to realize that abject FEAR paralyses the will and inflicts a defeat to the faint-
hearted. If we Russians had ever been afraid of Napoleon or Hitler, we would have never
withstood their formidable onslaught on us.

But we have always won, win, and shall win, with God's help!

On the contrary – the spirit of righteous INDIGNATION, defiance, determination, and

concentration of the will and strength redound greatly to victory. Which is why the Russians do
always emerge victorious.

After having smashed up all such godless murderous scum as the notorious Napoleonic
Grande Armée or the criminal Hitlerite Wehrmacht, and then having chucked their piteous
remnants out of our beloved Holy Russia, with God's help, the Russian Army (or the Red Army,
no difference) would triumphantly enter, as usual, the enemy's capital – Paris in 1814, and Berlin
in 1945, respectively.

THE TRIUMPH OF GOOD OVER EVIL:

BERLIN, 1945

RUSSIAN VICTORS AT THE REICHSTAG

"Keep the Orthodox Christian Faith, bros,

in all things courage, and no substitute for Victory!"

There is no greater joy, there is no higher reward for us than to have won a direful war, with
God's help, against the best army in Europe – or rather againt the whole of Europe under the
sway of Hitler – and to have proved again that the Russian soldier – tough as death and hard as a
flint – is the best warrior in the world.

Russia has always been and still is like an immensely powerful spring of steel – the stronger is
the initial brunt of assault on my country, the stronger will be her deadly backlash eventually.

And what is worth special mentioning is that we Russians do never stop on the border after
having scoured the invaders from within the native land. We Russians do always deal the final
blow to the enemy in his own hideous lair – in the aggressor's capital – wherever and however
far away from Moscow it may be situated. Because half measures would never be enough to
safeguard the State security of Holy Russia.

If, say, another one aggressor appears to be mad enough as to arrive to conquer Russia even
from the Moon (or from Mars), his incursion would end up, as usual, in the following way: after
the Lord granteth us victory, the act of the lunatic's unconditional surrender will be signed right
in his lunar lair.

Or upon Mars, no difference.

In late 1941, when German hordes had approached Moscow, Walter Duranty wrote:
 "When the Russo-German War began, there were self-styled experts on Soviet affairs who
professed to doubt whether the Russians would fight at all, and at least one of my former
colleagues from Moscow committed himself to the statement that 'only two blows would be
struck: first, Hitler hitting Stalin, second, Stalin hitting the floor.' I treated this rubbish with scorn,
because it was clear that resistance depended in the first instance upon morale – the morale of
the Kremlin, the morale of the Red Army, and the morale of the Soviet people; and I had no
cause to detect weakness in any of the three."

After having lived in Russia for many years, Walter Duranty knew Russian people very well,
which is why his comments and reports were always absolutely correct.

Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for a set of stories he wrote in 1931 as The New York
Times' Moscow correspondent. Although he died in 1957, it is owing to the western post-war
russophobic hysteria that his good name and professional works have been – even to the
present day – under the permanent pressure of a dirty campaign of diffamation in the West.

RUSSIAN HEROIC BLACK SEA MARINES

Heroes of Odessa, Sevastopol, Novorossiisk and Kerch

They were especially feared by the Germans

who used to call our Marines "The Black Death"

The three brave Marines (above) are smiling. It's just a case when their smile forecasts nothing
else but dire revenge to German invaders. The Red Navy Marines' traditional battle-cry
"Polundra!" – being shouted just before every attack, when our guys were still fixing the
bayonets and getting ready their bowie knives [pronounce: po-LOON-drah] – sounded so
horribly intimidating that frequently it made the enemies flee in disorder even before the actual
bayonet charge began.

THE "BLACK DEATH" IN ACTION:

RUSSIAN MARINES RUSHING AT THE GERMANS

IN A MORTAL BAYONET ATTACK

There can hardly be imagined anything more terrifying on earth than a real thunderbolt of an
attack charged by Russian Marines – called The Black Death – "Die schwarze Tod" – owing to
their black naval uniform. Those men of unparalleled valour and grim courage had this motto:
"No quarter!"

They went in for bayonet charges, and would throw a dead Nazi over their shoulder like a sack
of straw ... Even if encircled, they went on fighting, and would die crying: "For Motherland and
Stalin! But we shall never surrender!"

The Russian Marines had never been taken prisoners – for they would fight either to win or
die!

BORNE TROOPS

AT A REHEARSAL OF

THE VICTORY DAY PARADE 2009

To defend the Motherland is our sacred duty. These brave Russian Christian soldiers are
worthy successors to their heroic forebears. Another 30 million of Russian men (not women!)
have been in the trained military reserve and are ready at any moment to join again the Russian
Armed Forces and to fight fiercely to the last drop of blood for the sacred liberty and
independence of Holy Russia.

And no substitute to Victory!

The modern Western science of warfare suggests mainly the striking of unpunished blows,
from a safe distance, preferably at an unarmed opponent, with minimal own losses. All this
sounds very good and reasonable in theory.

But we Russians know that a complete and indisputable victory over whatever formidable
adversary can only be achieved, eventually, by those who dare rip the enemy's guts out in the
final deadly bayonet fighting.

Only Russians and Serbs can fight intrepidly in a hand-to-hand combat to death. As to the
'safe' distance, this notion has become very deceptive nowadays. And what is essential: we know
how to shorten whatever long distance very quickly, always to the adversary's final great
surprise.

It should be noted here, by the way, that the once-vaunted Waffen SS-men, who were also
armed with cold steel, did not like the bayonet fighting. Neither the Wehrmacht soldiers were
ready to fight one-to-one with us. They prefered rather to use their daggers against unarmed
Russian civilians. German murderous bastards used to jab out the eyes of our women after the
brutal raping.

Such was their USUAL abhorrent practice, being especially rife in the occupied Belorussian,
Ukrainian and Russian lands BEFORE the Stalingrad's derout of Germany in early 1943.

There is a great deal of documentarily proved evidence of SUCH sadistic murders committed
by the Germans in the USSR. I hope that none of those pigs returned home. They deserved only
one fate: to become the manure for our fields.

THE PARTISANS:
RUSSIAN GUERRILLA WARRIORS

For us Russians there does not exist

such a stupid notion as the "cost" of victory

We are not westerners – we do not calculate much

FREEDOM AND VICTORY

ARE ALWAYS PRICELESS FOR US!

It Does Not Matter

How Many Times You Get Knocked Down

But How Many Times You Get Up

What Does Really Counts

Is The Final Crushing Blow That You Deliver

To Knock The Adversary Out!

" . . . Their native patriotism, the primaeval love of "Mother Russia", . . . will power, and
fatalism, and that readiness to accept terrible sufferings that are essentially Russian qualities,
would all be needed to the full in the first dreadful weeks of the German assault."

" . . . The Russian soldier loves the fight and scorn death. He was given the order: 'If you are
wounded, pretend to be dead; wait until the Germans come up; then select one of them and kill
him.

Kill him with gun, bayonet, or knife. Tear his throat with your teeth. Kill him by all means. Do
not die without leaving behind you a German corpse' . . ."

From the book Barbarossa, by Alan Clark, New York, Morrow, 1965, pages 42 - 43.

In their war-time accounts, the Germans noted that the Russians terrified them by their
apparent disregard for their own lives; by their ferocious attacks; by their famous habit of
blowing themselves up with hand grenades when wounded, playing dead and waiting for a
German to approach first.

RUSSIAN UNPARALLELED FORTITUDE

"The Bear was dead, but he would not lie down"

". . . If, as Hitler claimed to believe, the Will was all-important, the Germans had already lost
the war. For what could they put against the Russians' grim determination to defend the
Motherland? Greed for territory and "Sklaven", a contrived doctrine of racial "superiority", some
muddled prejudices against "Bolshevism". These things were valueless against the deep
patriotism of the Russians . . ."

From the book Barbarossa, by Alan Clark, New York, Morrow, 1965, page 162.

NONE !

For example: the once magnificent (but godless!) France has faded away FOR EVER as a great
country since Napoleon's suicidal invasion of Russia. As is well known, the Corsican Ogre's
600,000 strong 'Grande Armée' did not comprise even a single priest. Since those times 'la belle
France' has never resurged from the abyss of her godless apostasy.

The same thing can be said about the ill fate of the once formidable (but again godless!)
Germany, after Hitler's insane Barbarossa plan to invade Russia, which scheme was a complete
fiasco.

Our beloved native country Russia wins always, with God's help. Which fact should be well
noted and remembered by all potential aggressors. The only way to remain safe and sound for
them is NOT to touch Russia at all.
 SI VIS VIVERE – NOLI RUSSIAM TANGERE

Warning:

Some of the images below are harrowing!

Commiseration and Magnanimity

MEET THE RUSSIANS

The Russians: Who Are We?

Part Two

By Michael Kuznetsov

After INTREPIDITY, described earlier, another special trait of Russian mentality, another
peculiarity of our national character, in my opinion, is:

COMMISERATION

First, some facts. As is widely known, the total number of the Russians who were killed IN
ACTION on the Eastern Front was ALMOST EQUAL to that of the Germans. According to the
recent researches conducted by Col.-Gen. G. Krivosheyev – the Wehrmacht's losses were about 7
million troops killed in action, while the Red Army's losses were about 8.6 million troops who
were also killed in action.

Thus, the combat losses ratio was 1 : 1·2 – or about so – slightly in Germans' favour.

But the TOTAL numbers of the dead people on the both combatant sides differ appallingly. The
reason is also widely known – the inhuman policy of extermination which was carried out by the
Nazi pigs. The numbers are approximately as follows: The Soviet CIVIL losses were about
13,000,000 people, while the German CIVIL losses (caused mainly by the Anglo-American
massive bombing raids) were about 1,223,000 people. Thus, the civil losses ratio was more than
1 : 10 – or about so – in German's favour. Terrible!

Now, I ask a question:

What if that 'very bad guy' Stalin would have ordered his men to treat the German prisoners-
of-war (POWs) and civilians as much cruelly as the Nazis treated OUR people, could then a
'balance of deaths' or a parity in the 'body count' be achieved?

My answer is: Yes, easily and very quickly!

HOW WE TREATED THE GERMAN POWS

JULY 1941: A RED ARMY NURSE ATTENDING TO

A WOUNDED GERMAN PRISONER-OF-WAR

"Between 1941 and 1945, a total of 3,576,300 Wehrmacht and SS soldiers were captured by
the Soviets. Of this total, 551,500 were immediately released in May 1945, and the remainder
were sent to be interned. A total of 220,000 Soviet citizens in Wehrmacht service and 14,100
Germans branded as war criminals were sent to special NKVD camps, and another 57,000 men
died during transportation to POW camps. Out of a total of 2,733,739 Wehrmacht soldiers held
in Soviet POW camps, 381,067 died, and 2,352,672 were repatriated to Germany" ("Barbarossa"
by Christer Bergstrom, pg. 120).

Original source: WW II and Other Book Reviews by Kunikov

This means that 86 percent of the German prisoners-of-war returned home from Russia safe
and sound in due course of time.

It should be added here that a good amount of those that died would have to include those
soldiers taken at Stalingrad, their condition prevented the Red Army and Soviet Union from
being able to save a large amount of them since they were malnourished and practically dying as
they went into captivity.

The overwhelming majority of the German prisoners-of-war were contained not in the
Siberian camps, but they were working on the reconstruction sites in the European part of the
USSR, just in the cities and towns which were badly destroyed by the Germans during the war.

Compare these figures with the cruel fate of the Soviet POWs: out of a total of 4,559,000
Russian prisoners-of-war – 3,300,000 died in German captivity.

This means that only 28 percent of the captured Red Army soldiers remained alive in German
hands by the day of their liberation.

WE REMEMBER :

During the Great Patriotic War in 1941 – 1945, by the godless German invaders were
completely devastated 1,700 cities and towns, as well as 70,000 villages in the temporarily
occupied territories of the U.S.S.R., namely in the Ukraine, Belorussia and the western part of
Russia.

RESPECT TOWARD THE ENEMY

A shot down German pilot ace is being saluted by the Red Army commander who has taken
him prisoner.

To save as many lives as possible, thousands of leaflets issued by the Red Army Command (like
this one shown below) were suggesting that the Germans should surrender.

A RUSSIAN LEAFLET FOR THE GERMANS

Take notice of the respectful form of the leaflet: this was the way we depicted our mortal
enemies.

Those who can read German may also enjoy even the text here expressed in verse.
DEUTSCHE SOLDATEN ! LASST EUCH RATEN:

RUFT DEN RUSSEN ZU AUS DER WEITE:

"SDAJUS, TOWARISCH, NE STRELAJTE".

DAS HEISST, DAMIT ES ALLE WISSEN:

"ERGEBE MICH, KAM'RAD, NICHT SCHIESSEN!"

Compare it with the most gruesome and derogatory way the Germans used to depict us
Russians (right picture). The inscription Der Untermensch means "the Subhuman".

Hitler believed that the Russian soldier was a racially inferior Slavic "Untermensch", and that
one German soldier was worth ten of them.

Now everybody knows that he was gravely wrong in all of this.

Pride goes before a fall.

Period.

Hitler's Aryan "Supermen" turned out to bleed just like the Russian "Untermenschen", who
turned out, greatly to Hitler's surprise, to be at least as brave and at least as bold as the
Germans. The "Subhumans" recovered from the initial Blitzkrieg in less than a year, and from
then on never stopped slaughtering the Germans until the victorious Red Flag was flying over
the Reichstag and the Fuehrer's body was being incinerated in a shell crater.

In World War II the German forces, in the beginning, were better led, but the Russian fought
better, at least, more tenaciously. That was because we Russians were defending our own land
against invaders. That was because we were fighting for our hearth and home, as usual in our
thousand-year-long history.

One of the most serious mistakes of German propaganda on the Eastern Front was the legend
of the "Soviet Sub-Humans".

After the war winter of 1941 – 1942, it was no longer credible, at least within the Wehrmacht.
But its negative effects were reflected long afterwards through brutal treatment of the Russian
population by the German administration in the temporarily occupied Belorussian, Ukrainian
and Russian territories.
THE HITLERITE WEHRMACHT'S

HEINOUS CRIMES IN THE EASTERN FRONT

DURING WORLD WAR TWO IN RUSSIA

THE REGULAR GERMAN ARMY ATROCITIES

IN THE SOVIET UNION

These sadistically tortured and hanged Russian men were not partisans. They were Red Army
soldiers, common prisoners-of-war captured by the Wehrmacht.

Take notice that they were tortured and murdered not by the SS or Einsatzgruppen, but by
regular German troops near the front line. On the right photo above: this barbarically mutilated
Russian soldier was found crucified and frozen to death near Stalingrad, after the city had been
liberated.

1941: THE GERMAN WEHRMACHT SOLDIERS'

ROUTINE ENTERTAINMENT IN THE EASTERN FRONT

DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR

HOSEN AT RANDOM FOR THE DAILY GRISLY FUN

THESE THREE CAPTURED RUSSIAN MEN

ARE FORCED TO DIG A GRAVE FOR THEMSELVES

WAITING FOR THE DEATH:

A FEW MOMENTS BEFORE BEING SHOT AND KILLED

BY THE GERMAN ARMY CRUEL BUTCHERS

JUST FOR SADISTIC AMUSEMENT AND SOUVENIR PHOTOS

FTER THE PIT IS DUG DEEP ENOUGH FOR THREE

THE TWO RUSSIAN SOLDIERS AND ONE CIVILIAN MAN

PICKED BY THE GERMAN INVADERS

FOR THE DAILY HIDEOUS ENTERTAINMENT

ARE WAITING WITH GRIM DIGNITY FOR THE DEATH

These harrowing photographs were found in the pocket of a killed German soldier. Such
"souvenir" pictures had been found by the thousands in the pockets of the killed or captured
German Wehrmacht soldiers, among their belongings, as well as in their letters home in Nazist
Germany.

Evidently, it was not enough for the German brutes just to kill the captured Russian people.
The Hitler's Wehrmacht soldiery wanted a special bloodcurdling show to be performed so that to
extend the sadistic relish of the heinous murders, and to take a lot of murky photos for a
keepsake . . .
 The Note from People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Vyacheslav Molotov, dated 25
November 1941, contained the following appalling details:

"Members of the Soviet Red Army, when being captured by the German Wehrmacht, were
tortured with red-hot irons, their eyes were put out, legs, arms, ears and nose were cut off, their
stomach slit open, they were tied to tanks and torn to pieces . . . "

BURNING RUSSIAN CIVILIAN PEOPLE ALIVE

The mass burning alive of peaceful, non-combatant

peasant Russians: women, children, and elderly people

locked up in their wooden huts, barns, granaries, or churches

used to be a favourite "game" of the barbarian German soldiery

"... Confident in approaching victory, the Germans took a sadistic pleasure in the repression.
How agreeable to combine duty and sport; to bask in the glow of the crusader while enjoying
the particular physical pleasure which so many Germans derive from the infliction of pain. In the
long summer evenings "man hunts" used to be organised on the slightest pretext, villages
surrounded, set alight, and the inhabitants "beaten" like rising game birds and cut down in the
streets.

Then it was rewarding to loot the dwellings for "souvenirs" and to send these, and
photographs of the scene, to friends and the family back in Germany. Accompanied, for instance,
with such an inscription as this one: '... here is a lock of hair from a Russian girl. Before the death
she fought like a wild-cat and was quite subhuman (Untermensch) . . .' "
 From the book Barbarossa, by Alan Clark, New York, Morrow, 1965, page 154.

ANOTHER INNOCENT VICTIM, ONE OUT OF 13 MILLION

A RUSSIAN BOY MURDERED BY GERMAN OCCUPANTS

JUST FOR FUN IN ROSTOV, 28 NOVEMBER 1941

This Russian boy with a dove in his hand, Vitya (Victor) Cherevichkin by name, was killed by
German soldiers just for nothing in Rostov, 1941 . . . The Wehrmacht "warriors" used to commit
their heinous crimes simply out of the feeling of impunity and for sadistic pleasure.

Before killing him, the German pigs had cruelly beaten and mutilated Vitya Cherevichkin. They
were kicking the boy in the head with their heavy boots so that his face became difficult to
recognize when his mother found him dead among the other victims on the next day in the city
park.

Obviously, at the final moment of his life Vitya Cherevichkin decided to release his favourite
dove that was hidden in his bosom . . . But it was too late – in the next second the boy and his
dove were shot and killed by the smiling Wehrmacht soldiers.

Which is just another one reason why we Russians hate moronic smiles!

When on 14th February 1943 Soviet troops liberated the city of Rostov-on-Don they found
that 40,000 civilian inhabitants had been killed by the Germans, while another 53,000 Russian
people had been deported to the forced labour camps in the Third Reich. Totally, during the
occupation, the German brutes murdered 13,000,000 peaceful Russian civilians: women,
children and old people.

A monument to Vitya Cherevichkin was erected in Rostov-on-Don near the site of his
martyrized death.
 ". . . The atrocities of the 'Death's Head' (Totenkopf) units of the SS which systematically
murdered schoolchildren and poured gasolin over hospital inmates were the expression of a
deliberate policy of terror, 'justified' by half-baked racial notions, but implemented with a
perverse and sadistic relish . . ."

From the book Barbarossa, by Alan Clark, New York, Morrow, 1965, page 417.

THE MASS KILLING OF RUSSIAN CHILDREN

WAS A SPECIAL SADISTIC RELISH FOR THE GERMANS

RUSSIAN CHILDREN TORTURED TO DEATH

BY THE GODLESS MURDEROUS GERMAN INVADERS

GERMAN WEHRMACHT SOLDIERS

MERCILESSLY KILLED MILLIONS OF OUR BABIES

A MOTHER AND HER CHILDREN MURDERED

BY THE GODLESS GERMAN RUTHLESS BRUTES:

HER TWO-MONTH-OLD BABY, AMONG OTHERS

IS LYING DEAD ON HER BREAST

На груди у матери двухмесячный убитый младенец

Будьте вы прокляты, немецкие изверги!

Those German bastards used to call us Russians "subhuman"

We have seen them to be NOT human beings at all . . .

THE GERMAN SOLDIERS

WERE SADISTIC SAVAGES TOWARDS THE RUSSIANS

THE MOTHER IS ALREADY MURDERED

HER CHILD IS NOT YET

While the treatment of POW's by the Germans was extremely harsh, it was not as bad as the
treatment of Russian civilians, who for the most part had not even fought the Germans.
 Nazi propaganda had convinced the men in the Wehrmacht to view the Russians as a
"conglomeration of animals." The Germans under their Nazi leaders were insanely bent upon
the enslavement or butchery of all "Untermenschen" – "subhumans".

This policy was implemented in the criminal orders which provided the German army with a
blank cheque for the mass killing of civilians. And this they did.

A resident of Leningrad at the time noted that the Germans "killed without regarding age or
sex." No safety was guaranteed to refugees. By late July 1941, the German army went as far as to
start shooting all refugees. Russian civilians were also shot for such reasons as breaking curfew
or being caught outside without a pass. In an effort to hamper partisan activity, houses in which
the Germans thought partisans were hiding were burned with the occupants inside.

RUSSIAN CIVILIAN REFUGEES

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS

OF RUSSIAN PEACEFUL REFUGEES

WOMEN, CHILDREN AND ELDER PEOPLE

FLED TO THE EAST TRYING TO ESCAPE DEATH

THE SLAUGHTER – NO ESCAPE

НАШИ МИРНЫЕ БЕЖЕНЦЫ

РАССТРЕЛЯНЫ НЕМЦАМИ ИЗ ПУЛЕМЕТА

THESE RUSSIAN PEACEFUL CIVILIAN REFUGEES WERE

CHASED, SHOT AND KILLED WITH MACHINE-GUN FIRE

BY THE GERMAN WEHRMACHT SOLDIERS

 " . . . [ During the occupation ] if a German thought, as he passed you in the street, that you
had given him a dirty look, that was enough. To kill a human being – it was as easy as stepping on
a worm and squashing it! . . . "

From the book Russia At War, 1941-1945, by Alexander Werth, London, Pan Books Ltd., 1964,
page 794.

DISTRAUGHT WITH GRIEF

A RUSSIAN MOTHER WITH HER DEAR LITTLE DAUGHTER

KILLED BY THE DAMNED GERMAN BUTCHERS

GERMAN SOLDIERS KILLED MILLIONS OF RUSSIAN BABIES

"The instruction for a German soldier in Russia" which was in use by Wehrmacht's personnel,
read:

'You should not either to take things to heart or to worry.

Forget your sympathy and compassion.

Kill any Russian or Soviet citizen.

Do never stop at anything, whether you see an old man, or a woman, or a boy, or a girl in front
of you.

Kill!

It will save you from death.

It will provide your family with a future.

It will bring eternal glory to you.'

Source: http://www.khatyn.by/en/genocide/belarus/treb/
See also: Conduct of Troops in Eastern Territories

http://www.h-net.org/~german/gtext/nazi/reichenau-english.html

A German Field Marshal Instructs the Wehrmacht on Its Role in the Soviet Union.

WE REMEMBER :

Apart from 8.6 million Russian soldiers slain in battle, the German invaders slaughtered also 13
million Russian peaceful civilians.

To kill such a huge amount of people "BY HAND" (not by the mass destruction weapon –
MDW) was such a formidable task that neither the SS, nor the special detachments
(Einsatzgruppen) alone could have ever fulfilled it.

It was only with the "assistance" of the regular German Army – Die Wehrmacht, on a daily
basis, that the damned murderous German occupants managed to have killed thirteen million
Russian civilians: 13,000,000 innocent WOMEN, CHILDREN and OLD PEOPLE.

NO MOMMY, NO DADDY

NO SWEET HOME ANY LONGER

RUSSIAN CHILDREN SUFFERED IMMENSELY

FROM THE GERMAN WEHRMACHT ATROCITIES

MILLIONS OF RUSSIAN BABIES BECAME ORPHANS

When winter came, the Ukrainian, Belorussian and Russian peasants were really at the mercy
of the unmerciful German soldiers. Many peasants were marched into woods or fields when the
temperature was as low as 40 degrees Fahrenheit, stripped of their clothes, and left to freeze to
death.

DEAR MOMMY IS DEAD, ALL IS RUINED

THE GERMAN ARMY – DIE WEHRMACHT

MERCILESSLY KILLED MILLIONS OF RUSSIAN MOTHERS

Collective measures were also used against civilians. For instance on January 30, 1942, after a
German sled had driven on some mines in the vicinity of the village of Novye Ladomiry, the
whole male population of the village was shot and the houses burned down as a 'collective
measure'. With the Germans treating the peaceful civilian population like this it is no wonder
they quickly deserved profound hatred.

ROUTINE PUBLIC EXECUTIONS BY THE WEHRMACHT

IN RUSSIA, BELORUSSIA AND THE UKRAINE

ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE GERMAN OCCUPATION

THE STREETS OF EACH CAPTURED RUSSIAN TOWN

AND OF EACH CAPTURED RUSSIAN VILLAGE

USED TO LOOK THIS HARROWING WAY

Immediately after another one Belorussian, Ukrainian or Russian town being captured, the
first action invariably taken by the Wehrmacht (I emphasize: by the Wehrmacht!) was mass
public executions – usually the summary hanging from the main street balconies, and
everywhere around the town, of several dozens of local inhabitants, caught at random in the
streets and branded as 'communists', just to intimidate the rest of the population and to show
them clearly who was to be from now on a 'New Master' here.

As a rule, all the hanged innocent victims' corpses were to remain dangling from the ropes
along the streets for a week's time, or so. In order to enforce and prolong the intimidation effect
the Germans would not allow to remove and bury the hanged people until their bodies would
begin to decompose.

ROUTINE PUBLIC EXECUTIONS BY THE WEHRMACHT

IN ORDER TO TERRIFY THE LOCAL POPULATION

BELORUSSIA, MINSK UNDER GERMAN OCCUPATION

CIVILIAN PEOPLE HANGED IN THE STREET

FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTIMIDATION

Now, a bit of terrible arithmetic.

If we accept the minimum number of the people hanged by the German invaders in each
newly captured Russian TOWN as 12 persons only, and the minimum number of those hanged in
each newly captured Russian VILLAGE as 6 persons, then we shall come to the following figures:

1,700 captured Russian towns multiplied by 12 = 20,400 hanged persons.

70,000 captured Russian villages mulitplied by 6 = 42,000 hanged persons.

The total sum is 62,400 peaceful Russian civilian people hanged in each Russian town and
village on the FIRST DAY OF THE GERMAN OCCUPATION just only for the purpose of intimidation.

Remember: this total of 62,400 hanged innocent people is ONLY the number of "the first day
victims", without counting all the other innumerable deliberately merciless, sadistic and
systematic murders of Russian civilians during the whole period of the German occupation in
1941 – 1944, which eventually resulted in a total of 13 million Russian civilian non-combatant
innocent martyrs.
 Terrible!

A "NEW ORDER" HAS COME

TO THE U.S.S.R. FROM NAZI GERMANY

PEOPLE HANGED BY THE WEHRMACHT SOLDIERS

IN THE STREETS OF THE CITY OF KHARKOV

JUST TO FRIGHTEN THE INHABITANTS

" . . . The public executions of 'communists' and other 'suspects' – usually branded 'partisans' –
were common practice in the towns and villages occupied by the Germans. Since these
executions frequently took place 'on the first day' of the occupation, they were apparently the
work not of any special detachments under Himler, but of members of the Army itself . . . The
fact that executions were carried out by the Army is persistently denied by German generals,
but, according to the Russian eyewitnesses I saw in 1942, it was 'ordinary soldiers' who did the
hanging . . . "

From the book Russia At War, 1941-1945, by Alexander Werth, London, Pan Books Ltd., 1964,
page 348.

A SOUVENIR PHOTO FROM A WEHRMACHT SOLDIER

SENT TO HIS MOTHER IN GERMANY:

WITH A RUSSIAN BIRCH AND A HANGED NURSE

THE GERMAN GHOULISH SMILE

RUSSIAN CIVILIANS HANGED BY THE GERMANS

JUST TO MAKE A GHOULISH "SOUVENIR PHOTO"

TO SEND TO THE FAMILY AT HOME IN GERMANY

Such kind of hangings as this – performed outside settlements – used to be made not for the
intimidation purpose, but just for special pleasure of the Wehrmacht sadists. Thousands of
photos like this one were found in the pockets of the German Army soldiers, NCOs and officers,
both killed or taken prisoners, as well as inside their letters to the families in Germany.

As I have already said, it was not enough for the German brutes just to kill the captured
Russian people. The Hitler's Wehrmacht soldiery wanted a special bloodcurdling show to be
performed so that to extend the sadistic relish of the heinous murders, and to take a lot of
murky photos for a keepsake . . .

I repeat:

Thousands of such harrowing photos were found in the letters by German soldiers from the
Eastern Front to their mothers, wives and children in the Third Reich!

Verily, German women and children must have been special creatures so that to be fond of
such horrific "souvenirs" from their husbands and fathers from the Eastern Front!

At the same time, I cannot imagine a Russian mother who would have ever received such an
appalling "souvenir" from her son who is being in the Red Army fighting the German invaders.

It is absolutely unthinkable!

We Russians are unable to comprehend all the Germans' brutal barbarism, vandalism, and
especially their strong sadistic inclination to enjoy the particular physical pleasure derived from
the infliction of pain, sufferings and death on the helpless Russian prisoners-of-war and peaceful
civilians.
COMPARE WITH THIS:

WHEN IN THE DEFEATED NAZI GERMANY

WE RUSSIANS LOVED TO MAKE SOUVENIR PHOTOS, TOO

A YOUNG RUSSIAN SOLDIER POSES

FOR A SOUVENIR PHOTO FROM BERLIN 1945

TO SEND TO THE FAMILY AT HOME IN RUSSIA

Technically, of course, there was not a big problem to find a good piece of proper rope in the
defeated Berlin and to quickly hang this captured German officer on the nearest tree or a
lamppost, just to provide an "impressive" background for the photo, as the Wehrmacht sadists
used to do so with the Russian prisoners-of-war on an every-day basis.

But such a bestial idea

could not even have come

into the Russian soldier's mind

Russians are not Germans!

For the last twenty years of my research, I have NOT found even a single photo that would
have featured Russian soldiers hanging Germans.

Not one!

Simply put, such photos do not exist at all, because we Russians are not Europeans, which fact
means that we are not "civilized" enough as to enjoy the infliction of pain, sufferings and death
even on the murderous invaders.

When we kill enemies – we do so out of necessity

Not for sadistic pleasure

As a New-York-based historian, T. Kunikov, correctly writes:

"The worst atrocities, committed on both sides on the Eastern Front, were official policy on
the German side, and spontaneous acts of disobedience on the Soviet side."

"This is very important to understand when viewing the differences of both army's and
governments. It was the POLICY of the Wehrmacht and the Third Reich/Nazi Party/Hitler to let
their armed forces/soldiers commit atrocities on the Eastern front, the same simply cannot be
said for the Red Army."

Source: Kunikov Blog

OUR HEARTS

ARE FRAUGHT WITH

INCONSOLABLE SORROW:

WE REMEMBER ALL !

Although it is almost inconceivable a task

but please attempt to visualize this hellish picture:

13 MILLION BRUTALLY MURDERED RUSSIAN CIVILIANS

13 million deadly maimed breathless corpses

of innocent children and of old people,

of pregnant women and of disabled persons . . .

THE DEAD MUTILATED BODIES

OF ALL THOSE WHO FAILED TO FLEE IN TIME

THE BLOODY SURGE OF THE GERMAN INVASION

13 MILLION

RUSSIAN CIVILIAN PEOPLE

WERE MERCILESSLY KILLED

BY THE GERMAN INVADERS

IN 1941-1944!

WE WILL NEVER FORGET!

WE WILL NEVER FORGIVE!

May God damn you, German ruthless brutes!

МЫ НИКОГДА НЕ ЗАБУДЕМ!
МЫ НИКОГДА НЕ ПРОСТИМ!

Будьте вы прокляты, немецкие изверги!

Nowadays Nazism is revived and virulent

The present-day Nazis hate Marshal Stalin for our Victory

ALAS, THE GREAT LEADER IS NO MORE WITH US

There is no more a kind-hearted great man like him

who would treat the vanquished invaders so mercifully as

to save them from the only condign punishment : DEATH

So, next time don't count on Stalin's excessive clemency

NO QUARTER TO ANY AGGRESSOR EVER MORE!

Be sure, next time there will be no more of

our Russian inborn commiseration and mercy

on the damned godless murderers of Russian children!

EXPECT NO MORE QUARTER!

ПОЩАДЫ БОЛЬШЕ НЕ ЖДИТЕ!

СТАЛИНГРАД

РОДИНА-МАТЬ ЗОВЕТ

THE BATTLE OF

STALINGRAD

IT WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST

RUSSIAN VICTORIES

The Battle of Stalingrad began on 17th July 1942 and ended on 2nd February 1943.

German losses at Stalingrad were staggering. The Sixth Army, under the command of Field
Marshal Friedrich Paulus, began its campaign with 600,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers. There
were also a great many of their allied troops: Italians, Romanians, Hungarians, Slovaks and
Croats. Thus the total was about 800,000 invaders fighting at Stalingrad against us.

On 31st January 1943 German Field Marshal Paulus surrendered. On 2nd February the last of
his remaining 91,000 troops turned themselves over to the Soviets. Of them only about 5 or 6
thousand returned home after the war.

Why so few?

In this regard, the mentioned above New-York-based historian, T. Kunikov, writes the following:

"I would like to add that a good amount of those [German soldiers in Russian captivity] that
died would have to include those soldiers taken at Stalingrad, their condition prevented the Red
Army and Soviet Union from being able to save a large amount of them since they were
malnourished and practically dying as they went into captivity."

Source: Kunikov Blog

 I emphasize: When the Red Army captured those 91,000 of German soldiers under Paulus
command, they had been already MALNOURISHED and practically DYING owing to the Hitler's
order not to surrender.

After the battle, the Soviets recovered 250,000 German, Romanian, and other corpses in and
around Stalingrad. The TOTAL Axis losses (Germans, Romanians, Italians, Hungarians, Slovaks and
Croats together) during the Stalingrad Battle were estimated to be more than 800,000 dead.

БОЙНЯ

ЗАСЛУЖЕННОЕ НАКАЗАНИЕ ЗАХВАТЧИКАМ

THE CARNAGE

A CONDIGN PUNISHMENT FOR THE INVADERS

AFTER THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD

Hundreds of thousands of German invaders' dead bodies

strewed the endless fields around the city of Stalingrad

after the fierce many-day-long fightings had ended there

THE BLOODCURDLING SIGHTS WERE

EVERYWHERE FOR FIVESCORE MILES AROUND

WITHOUT END UP TO THE DISTANT HORIZON

They came to kill us, to enslave our children and wives

These damned godless murderous invaders well deserved

their ghastly fate to remain here as the manure for our fields

AFTER THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD

OUR BOUNDLESS FIELDS WERE LITTERED WITH

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THE KILLED

GERMANS, ITALIANS, ROMANIANS, HUNGARIANS . . .

This stone-like dead hand stiffened up by the frost

will never more be able either to hang peaceful civilians

or to torture and murder our Russian women and children

THOSE MURDEROUS INVADERS

WELL DESERVED THEIR GHASTLY FATE

THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD LEFT

MOUNTAINOUS HEAPS OF THE MANGLED CORPSES

OF THE GERMAN, ITALIAN, ROMANIAN, HUNGARIAN

AND OTHER HEINOUS CRIMINAL INVADERS

REALLY CARRION DEATH!

THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD LEFT ALSO

THOUSANDS OF HOOVES AND HORSESHOES

Starving German soldiery devoured all the horses

that the Huns had taken by force from their allies:

the Romanians, having marooned the latter to die first

AFTER THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD

This is all what remained of the Romanian cavalry:

thousands of saddles, hooves and horseshoes

and almost nothing more . . .

AFTER THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD

Thousands of the Wehrmacht steel helmets

with no more German dumbheads to put them on

When planning his suicidal Operation Barbarossa

the Nazi Germany's Führer Hitler had learned no lesson

from the ghastly fate of another great loser – Napoleon

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

Congratulations to Marshal Stalin on the Russian Victory at Stalingrad

February 4, 1943

"As COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, I
congratulate you on the brilliant victory at Stalingrad of the armies under your supreme
command. The 162 days of epic battle for the city which has forever honored your name and the
decisive result which all Americans are celebrating today will remain one of the proudest
chapters in this war of the peoples united against Nazism and its emulators."

"The commanders and fighters of your armies at the front and the men and women who have
supported them in factory and field have combined not only to cover with glory their country's
arms, but to inspire by their example fresh determination among all the United Nations to bend
every energy to bring about the final defeat and unconditional surrender of the common
enemy."

GOD IS WITH US!

THERE WERE NO ATHEISTS ON THE FRONT LINE

ON THE RUSSIAN-SOVIET SIDE

By Marshal Stalin's order the ancient Holy Miracle-working Kazan Icon of the Mother of God was
taken to Stalingrad, where people constantly were praying before it for victory and remembering
the fallen.

The Theotokos of Kazan Holy Icon had been brought always to the most dangerous sections of
the front line, where the situation was critical, and where our offensive was being planned. It
stood among our Russian forces on the right bank of the Volga, sometimes at a distance of only
two hundred yards from the enemy's positions, and the German murderous godless invaders
could not cross the Volga River, no matter how hard they tried.

The famous Battle of Stalingrad began with the prayerful Orthodox service before the Holy
Miracle-working Icon of the Kazan Mother of God, and it was only after these prayers had
completed that a signal was given to our Russian forces to launch the final all-out attack. The
Russian soldiers were blessed with holy water, and they felt like being immortal and invincible
before the bloody mortal fight!

THE TAMED BRUTES

AFTER THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD

German prisoners drag themselves along:

the rest of the ever vaunted "invincible" Wehrmacht

91,000 Germans survived Stalingrad and were captured

Now they looked like those poor Russian "babushkas"

whom the Westerners treat with so much of scorn:

the Aryan "master race" presented a sorry spectacle

STALINGRAD, FEBRUARY 1943

A RUSSIAN WARRIOR GIVING TOBACCO AND A LIGHT

TO THE CAPTIVE GERMAN WEHRMACHT SOLDIERS

THE STALIN'S EXCESSIVE CLEMENCY:

GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR RECEIVING BREAD ...

INSTEAD OF A NOOSE

Instead of a bullet in the forehead, or a noose on the neck, or a bayonet in the stomach, which
all of them had well deserved, these German war criminals, when captured after the Stalingrad
defeat, used to receive from us hot food, bread, medical aid, warm shelter, and even tobacco!

When for the first time I had a look at this photo of the German prisoners-of-war dividing the
bread given by us Russians out of sheer commiseration after their defeat in Stalingrad, it was just
for a short while that I felt a fit of anger towards Stalin for his excessive clemency. But in the next
moment I calmed down, having come to understanding that we Russians must never become
such bestial barbarians as Hitler's German Army soldiers.

Otherwise the Lord God wouldst have cast us out of His sight.

HAPPY SURVIVORS OF STALINGRAD

These two young German prisoners-of-war, among others, feel happy to have survived
through the Stalingrad ordeal, where Hitler's Sixth Army was marooned and annihilated.

Evidently, the Red Army soldiers appeared to be different from what Dr Joseph Goebbels – the
Third Reich's champion at telling lies – used to harp upon...

NICHT SCHISSEN, KAMERAD, HITLER KAPUTT!

DON'T SHOOT, COMRADE,

WE SURRENDER!

Nothing on earth could have saved the German invaders from the condign retribution, but the
usual Russian commiseration. Marshal Stalin in particular, and the Red Army troops in general,
showed innumerable examples of excessive clemency toward the defeated enemy.

I repeat and emphasize this: EXCESSIVE CLEMENCY.

Apart from our white skin, praise God, we have nothing else in common with the Germans.
We are not Europeans at all. Glory to God – we are Russians!
 We Russians cannot feel angered for a long time, we cannot nurse rancour against our
enemies too long, after the hostilities are over.

Which is why the photo above that features a Russian soldier giving tobacco and a light to the
just captured Germans – is absolutely a common pattern of normal Russian behaviour.

If a Russian has not managed to kill the enemy in the heat of the battle or immediately after,
he would cool down quickly and in a short while he can easily shift even to the making friends
with his just defeated foe.

This national trait of ours, I am convinced, whether you deem it good or evil, is the reason why
there exists not a single photo in which Russian soldiers would have been hanging captured
German soldiers.

Not one!

While the opposite scenes are abundant in the thousands (sic!) of extant German wartime
photos – in which the Wehrmacht soldiery are smiling while being busy hanging Russian
prisoners.

Being myself a genuine 100 percent Russian, I can easily imagine and visualize how I could
personally shoot a captured bastard on the spot, if angered.

Or even stab him in the stomach with my bayonet – here and now – if being infuriated very
much.

But to hang a prisoner . . . Oh, NO!

Simply put, while a Russian soldier would search for a rope, then for an appropriate tree, then
would be making a good noose and then preparing of the unfortunate captive for the proper
hanging – all of those long preparations would take too much of the time for a normal Russian to
keep enough of anger.
 We Russians cannot kill people and simultaneously smile for the camera as the German
Wehrmacht pigs used to do when hanging our people in the Eastern Front.

As to the Russian civilians' attitude towards the German POWs, I have known a lot of examples
(both oral and written) how Russian "babushkas" used to feed the poor German "sons", sharing
with the prisoners their miserable war-time portion of bread – simply out of sheer Russian
commiseration.

THE TAMED HUNS

THE CAPTIVE GERMAN BARBARIANS

DRIVEN THROUGH MOSCOW STREETS

IN A MARCH OF DISHONOUR

THE VANQUISHED:

GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR IN THE MOSCOW STREETS

Immensely huge columns of German POWs, without end to the horizon, were driven through
the Moscow streets in 1943 and 1944. Hundreds of thousands of losers . . .

Or lucky ones to remain alive?

THE VANQUISHED:

GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR IN THE MOSCOW STREETS

Each German prisoner-of-war in Russia received his daily food ration equal to that of a Soviet
industrial worker, that is even bigger one than some other categories of the Soviet Union
population (sic!) used to receive during the war, e.g. pensioners, children and dependants.
Which is why, eventually, many of the German POWs changed their erstwhile scornful attitude
towards Russians, whom the Nazis considered as 'subhumans'. Our treatment of captured
enemies was very humane – excessively humane, I would add – despite all the appalling crimes
committed by the Germans in the occupied Soviet territories.

THE VANQUISHED:

GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR IN THE MOSCOW STREETS

German prisoners of war never-ending columns were passing by the famous Belorussky
Railway Station in Moscow. Thousands, thousands, and thousands...

Now, at last, they could have a look at Moscow, the heart of our Mother Russia ... Although
not just in the way Hitler had expected them to. Noticeably enough, it was exactly from the
Belorussky Railway Station that the Red Army troops used to leave the capital for the front line.

THE VANQUISHED:

GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR IN THE MOSCOW STREETS

In stony silence Muscovites stared at the passing by columns of the captured Germans. No
hatred, no rancour was expressed overtly by our people toward the mortal enemies. Typically
Russian restraint.

Arrogant and ruthless initially, presumptuous and assured of their own 'superiority' over
Russian 'barbarians', those formerly invincible German invaders were to find themselves – to
their own great surprise – unexpectedly routed, captured and prevented from committing their
heinous crimes any longer in the lands of Holy Russia.

THE DEFEATED GERMANS

DRIVEN THROUGH THE RUSSIAN STREETS

It was only due to our Russian national inborn sense of

commiseration, magnanimity, and Stalin's excessive clemency

that 2 million 904 thousand German prisoners-of-war

remained alive and returned home after the war

WASHING THE MOSCOW STREETS

AFTER GERMANS POWS HAD BEEN DRIVEN THROUGH

Hundreds of thousands of German POWs were driven through Moscow, as well as through
some other Russian cities and towns, in 1943 and 1944.

These soldiers of the once-vaunted Wehrmacht happened to remain alive and then to return
home in due course of time, unlike those millions of their ill-fated brothers-in-arms, who became
the dung for Russian boundless fields.

A German military cemetery, one out of a great many those discovered in the vicinity of
Moscow after the Soviet counteroffensive in December 1941.

THE END

These invaders have met their deserved end near Leningrad

Such is the doom of whatever aggressor who dare assault Russia. It would happen always in
one and the same way, indiscriminately either a thousand years ago, or two hundred years ago,
or during the last century. The invaders' end has always been, is and will be one and the same:

Either death or captivity. Tertium non datur.

 ". . . And, after visiting East Prussia (in early 1945, M.K.), Ilya Ehrenburg (a famous Russian
writer of Jewish stock, M.K.) wrote:

' The Niezschean supermen are whining. They are a cross between a jackal and a sheep. They
had no dignity . . .

A Scottish army chaplain, a liberated prisoner-of-war, said to me:

"I know how the Germans treated their Russian prisoners in 1941 and 1942. I can only bow to
your GENEROSITY now." ' . . . "

From the book Russia At War, 1941-1945, by Alexander Werth, London, Pan Books Ltd., 1964,
page 864.

Here is another interesting excerpt from the book Russia, by Donald Mackenzie Wallace
(although regarding the Crimean War 1854-1856):

"Prince Gortchakof's saying, 'La Russie ne boude pas, elle se recueille', was more than a
diplomatic repartee – it was a true and graphic statement of the case. Though the Russians are
very inflammable, and can be very violent when their patriotic feelings are aroused, they are,
individually and as a nation, singularly FREE FROM RANCOUR and the spirit of revenge. After the
termination of hostilities they really bore little malice towards the Western Powers ... "

A RUSSIAN LIEUTENANT SHARING HIS CIGARETTES

WITH GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR. GULAG 1944

Despite the grim fact that his near relatives

have suffered immensely from the German invaders

the Lieutenant shows usual mercy to the vanquished

because his innate Russian commiseration prevails

over the natural willing to take vengeance on the enemy

Unlike the German soldiery who would enjoy the infliction of pain, sufferings and death, our
Russian warriors would rather gladly show mercy to their captive enemies, after the battle is
over and the foe is defeated.

We Russians feel good when we do good to somebody. Verily.

Such a striking difference between our national characters could not but prompt me to repeat
it over and over again that although we are Whites like other Nordic peoples, but mentally we
Russians are not Europeans.

We are the White Russian Orthodox Christians – the WROC.

Germany, May 1945

A Red Army guard leads a column of German POWs

Who said the Russians do never smile?

We Russians are no angels, of course. But, being a genuine Russian myself, and having deeply
understood the Russian soul peculiarities, I feel always very much indignant at all those false and
scurrilous accusations of "Russian atrocities" which were committed, allegedly, towards "poor
German bunnies", when we had expelled the Nazi invaders from within the sacred borders of
Russia.

Then, as usually in our thousand-year-long history, we kept chasing the sworn foes farther and
farther west, until we had driven them right into their own hideous lair – Berlin – where the final
blow was dealt to Nazism.

Thank God for all things!

RUSSIAN INGENUOUS KINDNESS

THE RED ARMY IN BERLIN, MAY 1945:

RUSSIAN TANKMEN AND A GERMAN BOY

On May 31, 1945, Decree No. 080 was issued by the first Russian Commandant of Berlin, Col. -
Gen. Berzarin, to the effect that Berlin's German children be provided with a daily milk ration.

THE VICTORS' COMMISERATION AND MAGNANIMITY

RUSSIAN SOLDIERS AND THE CONQUERED GERMANS

MAY 1945, BERLIN

We Russians do always respect our enemies and consider them seriously. Hence we can study
quickly how to defeat ANY formidable foe.

For example, one of Marshal Stalin's most emotive and revealing outbursts about Germany
and the Germans was contained in a statement to a visiting Czechoslovak delegation in March
1945:

"Now we are beating the Germans and many think the Germans will never be able to threaten
us again. This is not so. I hate the Germans. But that must not cloud one's judgement of the
Germans. The Germans are a great people. Very good technicians and organisers. Good,
naturally brave soldiers. It is impossible to get rid of the Germans, they will remain. We are
fighting the Germans and will do so until the end. . . . [But we] must be prepared for the
Germans to rise again against us".
 Thus spoke Stalin.

The Soviet Leader, Marshal Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, used to say repeatedly that "Hitlers
come and go, but the German people go on forever". The Red Army Supreme Commander-in-
Chief issued a number of strict orders for the Soviet troops to treat the Wehrmacht POWs and
civilians of the fallen Germany with the maximum clemency. There exist a lot of official
documents in this regard that have been already published both in Russia and abroad.

Berlin, May 1945

the Red Army's field kitchen hot food distribution

to German populace by order of Marshal Joseph Stalin

"... In May 1945 the Russians had saved Berlin from starvation. Every person received 3/4 lb. of
potatoes a day, but the other rations among five categories varied greatly: bread from 20 oz. to
10 oz., meat from 3 oz. to 2/3 oz., sugar from 1 oz. to 1/2 oz. Some food even had to be brought
from Russia..."

From the book Russia At War, 1941-1945, by Alexander Werth, London, Pan Books Ltd., 1964,
page 886.

Berlin, May 1945

the Red Army's field bakery bread distribution

to German populace by order of Marshal Joseph Stalin

On the 11th of May 1945, the first Soviet Military Commandant of Berlin, Hero of the Soviet
Union, Col.- Gen. Nikolai Berzarin issued Decree No. 063 to the effect that Berlin's German
populace to be supplied with nourishment by the Red Army logistics. On May 12, 1945, Decree
No. 064 was issued to the effect of the restoration of public utilities in Berlin. On May 31, 1945,
Decree No. 080 was issued in order to provide Berlin's German children with a daily milk ration.

Colonel General Nikolai Berzarin

the first Soviet Commandant of Berlin – Germany, May 1945

In May 1945, as first aid to the starving inhabitants of the captured German capital, the Soviet
Government urgently dispatched from the Soviet Union to Berlin the following products: 96,000
tons of grain, 60,000 tons of potatoes, up to 50,000 head of cattle, as well as tens of thousands
tons of sugar, animal fat, vegetable oil, and other necessary goods.

Such are historical facts.

Berlin, May 1945

the Red Army's field kitchen hot food distribution

to German populace by order of Marshal Joseph Stalin

Just think of it: Trains loaded with food – by order of Marshal Stalin – running from the
starving devastated Russia to the defeated Germany just to feed up our recent mortal enemies!

– Oh, that "horrible tyrant" Stalin!

– Oh, those "beastly barbaric" Russians!

Berlin, May 1945

the Red Army's field kitchen hot food distribution

to German populace by order of Marshal Joseph Stalin

The victorious Red Army in Austria, May 1945

Food for starving Vienna arrived from remote Russia

by order of Marshal Joseph Stalin

Could we even try to compare the generous behaviour of Russian victors with that of German
occupational authorities who used to "provide" Russian population either with a bullet or with a
gallows' halter only?

As a former student of an Orthodox Christian Seminary in his youth, Marshal Joseph Stalin
knew the Holy Bible very well, especially The New Testament almost by heart.

Frequently, when discussing with his subordinates the fate of the German prisoners-of-war,
Stalin used to recall these words from the Holy Scripture:

"If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap
coals of fire on his head." Romans 12:20
HITLER APPEARED TO BE THE GREATEST LOSER

OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

WHILE STALIN BECAME THE GREATEST VICTOR

Out of all Adolf Hitler's promises, prophecies and pledges only three were fulfilled ever.
Although, those three were fulfilled in quite a bizarre manner.

First, in 1935 Adolf Hitler solemnly declared: "In 10 years from now you will not recognize the
city of Berlin!"

Yes, indeed, just in ten years, by May 1945, Berlin had become utterly unrecognizable. Now
the once great and beautiful city was completely in ruins.

Second, in the autumn of 1941 Hitler told his soldiers that soon they would be marching along
the streets of Moscow.

Yes, indeed, after a short while, a huge number of infinite columns of German prisoners-of-
war were driven – or "marching" under convoy of the Red Army guards – along the ancient
majestic Moscow streets, boulevards and avenues.

Third, during the great Stalingrad Battle Hitler announced this: "From where once the German
soldier plants his foot, he never withdraws!"

Yes, indeed, millions of killed German invaders left forever to lie dead in the boundless Russian
lands whither they dared once put their foot.

None of all the other Adolf Hitler's numerous prophecies, promises and pledges were fulfilled
ever. Not one more.
 At the same time, out of all what Marshal Joseph Stalin had ever pledged and promised –
everything was entirely fulfilled in the long run.

The most inspirational Marshal Stalin's pledge was this:

OUR CAUSE IS JUST

THE ENEMY WILL BE SMASHED

VICTORY WILL BE OURS!

НАШЕ ДЕЛО ПРАВОЕ

ВРАГ БУДЕТ РАЗБИТ

ПОБЕДА БУДЕТ ЗА НАМИ!

And we emerged victorious!

WE WON BECAUSE

A GREAT NATION WAS LED BY A GREAT STATESMAN

No! We are definitely not Europeans.

Thank God, we are Russian Orthodox Christians!

GERMANY HARPS ON COMMUNIST CRIMES

TO HUSH UP NAZI ATROCITIES, SAYS WAR VETERAN

 Nazi war against the Soviet Union was a criminal warfare since the day it broke out, Professor
Gerhard Dängler, 87, World War II veteran, said to RIA Novosti, Berlin, Germany, 21 June 2001.

He was taking part in the Battle of Stalingrad as an artillery captain (Hauptman) of the German
Wehrmacht.

As Professor Dängler sees it, today's German rulers refer more willingly to the Berlin Wall and
other crimes of East Germany than to SS and Wehrmacht atrocities in occupied Russian,
Belorussian and Ukrainian areas.

"I remember all too well an order read in front of the ranks in June 1941. It doomed every
Soviet military officer and political propagandist POW to be shot on the spot."

Not Hitler nor Himmler had signed the order but Wehrmacht commanders, who did not
acknowledge ever after that army units were involved on a par with the SS in incredible
atrocities in the occupied part of the then Soviet Union.

"I parted ways with Hitler in the blood-stained snow of Stalingrad," says Herr Dängler. He had
been previously engaged in fighting in France, Poland and the Battle of Moscow, in which "we
beat a retreat to abandon our cannon stuck in the sleet." Captain Dängler was wounded several
times before the Battle of Stalingrad.

He was with the 6th Army, under Colonel General von Paulus' command, when it was
encircled in winter between Kalatch on the Don and Stalingrad on the Volga. He saw his soldiers
go mad with hunger, cold and despair.

Many soldiers did not flinch from cannibalism to roast liver and kidneys they slashed out of
their dead comrades' bodies after they ate all cats and dogs in the area.

"We shall not surrender for high strategic reasons, but the initiative has now passed into junior
officers' hands," Captain Dängler heard General von Paulus say a mere three days before the
Führer promoted him to Field Marshal.

The captain got the message, and led his unit to surrender to Russian soldiers.
 He will never forget Dr. Vassilevskaya, an army surgeon, who treated him in the Russian POW
camp – a Jewish woman whose family perished by the German firing squad in Kiev before her
eyes. After they died, a soldier pierced her arm with a bayonet, and the limb had to be
amputated.

All of his surviving comrades-in-arms remember him, and write him letters opening with an
address, "Geehrter Herr Professor Hauptman Dängler."

Original source: http://www.cdi.org/russia/159.html##3

IN RUSSIAN CAPTIVITY

Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus in Russian captivity, 1945

The Daily Telegraph

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

Letters to the Editor

Re: Lies and Insinuations

Date: 25 January 2002

SIR – As a citizen and Ambassador of Russia to Britain, I refuse to believe that the article
headlined "Red Army troops even raped Russian women as they freed them from camps"
(report, Jan. 24) could be authorised by any of your responsible colleagues with a minimal
knowledge of the history of the Second World War.
 I have absolutely no intention of taking part in any debate on these obvious lies and
insinuations. It is a disgrace to have anything to do with this clear case of slander against the
people who saved the world from Nazism.

The article appeared on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day, which transforms its publication
into an act of blasphemy, not only against Russia and my people, but also against all countries
and the millions of people who suffered from Nazism.

I think that millions of those who were saved by the Russian army and the heroism of Russian
soldiers will undoubtedly agree with me.

Grigory Karasin

Ambassador of the Russian Federation

London W8, UK

The Daily Telegraph, 25 January 2002, From Grigory Karasin, Ambassador of the Russian
Federation, London W8

requently, I have been asked:

"If the topic of your website is being the examination of Russian ethnic peculiarities, then why
do you dedicate so much of space to the Great Patriotic War?"

My answer is:

This is because all of the main fundamental features of any nation's character, both strong and
weak, would manifest themselves most evidently just during the hectic times of overcoming a
deadly danger and inconceivable sufferings.

Simply put, the WAR is always the Moment of Truth for any nation – a real, yet horrible chance
to prove its own worthiness in the world.

– Michael Kuznetsov –

SINCE TIMES IMMEMORIAL

THROUGH OUR THOUSAND-YEAR-LONG HISTORY

MY GREAT NATION –– THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE

HAVE PROVED TO BE SUPERIOR IN BATTLE

OVER WHATEVER FOE IN THE WORLD

IN THE LONG RUN.

PERIOD

RUSSIAN VICTORIES

IN THE WORLD'S HISTORY

Understanding Russia

The Theotokos and the Saviour

Russian Orthodox Diptych Icon

Since 988 A.D.

Our Orthodox Faith has been the Pillar and Ground of the Truth

to Save and Preserve Russia during the Last Thousand Years

СВЯТАЯ РУСЬ

НАША ЛЮБИМАЯ ЗЕМЛЯ

САМАЯ ЛУЧШАЯ СТРАНА В МИРЕ

HOLY RUSSIA

OUR BELOVED LAND

THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD

Sir Winston Churchill once said: "Russia is a riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma". His
words offer a remarkable example of the so-called Cognitive Dissonance.

Indeed: It is "common knowledge" in the West that the Russians have always been and remain
to be dark barbarians, coarse and more than a little mad. The Russians' backwardness and
submissiveness, weakness and aggressiveness are well "known" to all the civilized world.

Yet, if we indulge in the examination of some historical facts we shall soon come to discover
that all the above said are absolutely false cognitions and wrong perceptions. For instance: How
could those "barbaric and submissive" Russians defeat overwhelmingly the best armies in the
world, that of Napoleon in 1812, and respectively that of Hitler in 1941-1945?

Terribly enigmatic, to say the least!

Moreover, how could those "backward and drunk" Russians, whose country was still lying in
ruins in most parts after the terrible war, how could they manage to launch in Space the first in
the world sputnik (an artificial satellite) on October 4, 1957? And soon after that eventuated
even more breathtaking triumph in Cosmos – Cosmonaut Number One, Yuri Gagarin – who
became the first man in history to orbit round the planet Earth on April 12, 1961!

Even more enigmatic and unbelievable.

It is especially so, if one would keep sneering at the Russians as at somewhat docile and
intimidated dullards. But we Russians are not such pity creatures, believe me.

In this regard I recall my conversation once with an American friend of mine, a professor of
Russian history from Alabama. He told me that they in America had been greatly astonished with
the Russian sputnik and then with the first manned orbital flight of the Russian spaceship
Vostok: How could those funny Russian "babushkas" and the drunkards produce such wonderful
things?!

Sadly enough, there exists the extreme reluctance of the Western public to hear anything but
ill of Russia. As a result – ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to fury, and fury results in another
one invasion.

And if such is the case, the Russians would again recall the words uttered once by our great
ancestor, St Prince Alexander Nevsky, in the 13th century, who said: "Whosoever shall come to
us with the sword shall perish by it. Upon this stood and stands the land of Russia".

His words have proved to be absolutely true for all times; now and always, and unto ages and
ages. Amen!

This website is meant to denounce and dispel most of the myths, stereotypes, prejudices and
misunderstandings that are rife about Russia in the West. My aim is also to explain why Russia
has always been and remains invincible, yet peace-loving. A nation like Russia, that has
experienced so many disasters and invasions during its 1000-year-long history, needs and seeks
peace before all other values.

But FREEDOM has ever been and remains to be of paramount importance for us Russians.
Nothing can be higher than our country's liberty and independence.

So, help us God!

A View on Russia from Overseas

Here you can see a screenshot taken in March 2006 from a dynamic swf advertisement by the
British TV channel More4, which was posted on the website www.telegraph.co.uk.

This is the plight of Russia as visualised, evidently, from the shores of the Misty Albion. The
dynamic swf image had been posted on the said website only for a short period of time, just
before March 20, 2006, but we were lucky enough as to manage to preserve it here as a
screenshot.

The image of the trapped and dying Russian Bear looks rather impressive. Of course, no
offence intended and none taken. Simply put, we are going to show eventually that the rumour
of Russia's premature death is greatly exaggerated.

Instead, we would like to offer here another allegorical picture, which we consider to be more
appropriate for the present state of affairs, anyway.

By the way, what do you think is the stuff there in the barrel on the Bear's back?

It's honey, of course!

The Russian Bear is not an aggressive beast, for he likes honey rather than flesh.
 But we Russians do always hate those uninvited "guests" who would frequently come with
weapons upon our beloved land – Holy Russia. Such enemies like Napoleon's Grande Armée,
Hitler's Wehrmacht together with the SS, Einsatzgruppen, and a great lot of other godless scum.

As is widely known, we do always convert the great bulk of the invaders eventually into the
manure for our boundless fields.

Any kind of them and always.

At least during the last 600 years' period of time.

That is why, evidently, Russia has been erroneously reputed as an aggressive country. Hardly
can anything else be further from the truth. Because in fact we wish only one thing:

Let us alone!

P.S. I have just found a witty remark on the Globe and Mail website. In his comment a reader,
James P. from Spruce Grove, Canada, writes: "I'd say leave Russia alone. They are a smart bunch.
Plus the more we let them be, the less they want to nuke us."

Absolutely so!

ALL OF US RUSSIANS ARE

NORDIC WHITE CHRISTIAN PEOPLE

WE ARE ONE GREAT FAMILY

The Youth of Russia

In the Moscow Streets, November 2007

President Vladimir Putin and Russian children

ALL OF US RUSSIANS ARE KITH AND KIN

Russian women are like flowers

PEERLESS RUSSIAN BEAUTIES

We do not consider women to be equal to men. Nor did we ever think that way.

They are not like us men. They are much better.

We Russian men do positively adore our incomparable Russian women!

And what is most essential is that our Russian women expect us Russian men to love, to
cherish, to cosset, to defend and to protect them, our dear tender ones.

Unlike the Western men who have been badly intimidated by the embarrassing and stupid
political correctness, as well as by the aggressive feminism, we Russian men do not fear to gently
love and to gallantly court our beautiful Russian women. We are fond of kissing their tender
hands, we prefer to open doors before them, and we are happy to present our ladies with
flowers.
 Thus, as a rule, Russian men would act as valiant knights, while Russian women would act as
charming dames. Those dull, bizarre ideas of the notorious feminism can cause nothing else but
laughter among Russian women. They do not want to become equal to men. They are happy to
remain Ladies, upper case.

"A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband."

Proverbs 12:4.

"Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she
reverence her husband."

Ephesians 5:33.

RUSSIAN BRIDE WITH A BOUQUET

RUSSIAN BEAUTIES

ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD

A RUSSIAN BEAUTY IN BLUE

THE BLESSED DAYS OF SUMMERTIME

A RUSSIAN PEASANT GIRL

THE WONDERFUL WINTER-TIDE

A RUSSIAN PEASANT GIRL

CALMLY WAITING FOR SOME MILK

A RUSSIAN PEASANT CAT

Regarding Russian women, we offer here below an excerpt from one interesting story narrated
by Jonathan, an American man who has been married to a Russian woman for several years
already:
THE CHARM OF CHRISTIAN CHASTITY

IS THE TRUE EPITOME OF

THE RUSSIAN SOUL

Russian women tend to be much more family-oriented than their American counterparts.
While many successful American women seem to put their jobs first, Russian women consider
their jobs only as a means to support the family. Their husbands and children come first.

Russian women do not think it is wrong to believe that women and men are different. Not that
one is better or worse than another, but equal in different ways. They are not slaves, but equals.
Russian women believe that men and women have different roles in life, and these roles seem to
reflect the roles which existed during the 1950's here in the US. They want to keep the house,
cook the meals, etc.

Russian women are less materialistic than many Americans. As long as they have a roof over
their heads, and, surprisingly enough, a car (not necessarily a good one, but anything), that is
enough.

Russian women do not care about a man's appearance and are more willing to accept large
age differences. Russian women want "nice" guys. The same physical characteristics which might
make American women shun many men do not matter in the least to a Russian. It is the heart
which matters. They also are wary of men too young as they fear a young man might still want to
sow his oats. They prefer men more mature.

Russian women are really quite adaptable. Yet they never lose their basic characteristics which
attracted the men in the first place. Russian women are, as a rule, well-educated and capable
women. They do need to rely solely on the husband but are able to contribute to the family.

Russian women are feminine, loving, sweet, and traditionally minded. They can be your best
friend, your lover, your partner. They can be the answer to your prayers.

But they are not for everyone. They are not slaves or servants. They will not accept you only
for your wallet. And they are not for men who are hidebound in their ways.
The full story can be read HERE

MARIA SHARAPOVA – TENNIS PRINCESS

МАРИЯ ШАРАПОВА

ALEXANDRA KOSTENIUK – QUEEN OF CHESS

АЛЕКСАНДРА КОСТЕНЮК

Beauty and brains is a blessed combination, and Russian chess grandmaster Alexandra
Kosteniuk has had them both.

Alexandra Kosteniuk became a chess grandmaster at the age of 14. Now, in 2008, she is 23-
years-old and is already the 'Queen Of Chess' after having won the Women's Chess
Championship in Russia.

ALEXANDRA KOSTENIUK

THE RUSSIAN QUEEN OF CHESS

KSENIA SUKHINOVA – КСЕНИЯ СУХИНОВА

In December 2008, in Johannesburg, South Africa

Ksenia Sukhinova won the title of Miss World 2008

THE KREMLIN'S MOST BEAUTIFUL WEAPON

A Russian Beauty at the Mirror

Russian Beauty Victoria

By the way:

In the USSR, models also appeared – by Stalin's decree, when he approved the opening of the
First Fashion House in 1944. In spite of the Iron Curtain, the world was aware of Russian models.

Paris Match magazine said they were the Kremlin's most beautiful weapon.
THE MYSTERIOUS CHARM

OF RUSSIAN BEAUTY

A RUSSIAN BEAUTY

WITH A FARAWAY LOOK

A CHARACTERISTIC RUSSIAN

EXPRESSION OF COUNTENANCE

THE RUSSIANS ARE KNOWN WORLDWIDE TO BE

ONE OF THE STRONGEST, SMARTEST, INGENIOUS

KIND-HEARTED AND RESILIENT NATION ON EARTH

RUSSIA THE MILITANT

WE ARE AT EVERY MOMENT READY

TO MAKE MINCEMEAT OF ANY AGGRESSOR

THIS RUSSIAN GIRL IS NOT A SOLDIER

BUT, AS MILLIONS OF US, SHE IS ALWAYS READY

TO DEFEND THE MOTHERLAND FIERCELY, IF NECESSARY

You will never see Russian women to be ranking shoulder to shoulder with men, marching past
during our military parades, terrifying the faint-hearted foreign onlookers with the thundering
measured tread, when, out of the infinite alignment of troops in square formations, each next
unstoppably moving past monolyth of an ideally squared battalion makes the cobblestone
pavement tremble and resound as during an earthquake.

Words can hardly describe all the feelings of delight and ecstacy that seize us Russians at a
military parade. Not at the insipid, indolent "goose-stepping" western one, but at the REAL
Russian military parade.

This unparagoned manifestation of military mightiness and national unity does always leave a
highly inspirational and indelible impression on its participants, as well as on the spectators,
surpassing all imagination!

THE GOOSE-STEP IS NOT A GERMANE WORD

TO DESCRIBE THE MIGHTINESS OF RUSSIAN PARADES

THE THUNDER-STEP IS JUST THE RIGHT TERM

 It would be a shame for us Russian men to allow our beloved wives and sisters to serve in the
Army and to die in action. For the last thousand years of Russian history we have had a tradition
that it is a men's job, privilege and duty to rip the enemy's guts out in the final fierce bayonet
fighting.

Surely, it would be also a great insult for Russian women to be treated like men. They are our
national treasure, our beloved ladies, whom we Russian men love, cherish and protect, first and
foremost!

But, IF NECESSARY, every Russian girl and every Russian woman will take weapons in her hands
and will stand up for the defence of Holy Russia.

IN THE PAST THERE EXISTED

TWO GREAT NATIONS OF INBORN WARRIORS:

THE GERMANS AND THE RUSSIANS

One of our greatest thinkers, IVAN ILYIN, once calculated that since 1368 to 1893 Russia had
experienced 525 years of war, and only 329 years of peace, the ratio being almost 2:1. Since
1893 the years that have followed until the present day appeared to be no less turbulent and
bloody.

When considering the Russian Bear's alleged "aggressiveness", it is very important to

remember the fact that 90 per cent of all those wars were waged on OUR own territory. This is
an irrefutable proof of the fact that we have always been DEFENDING our country.

Verily, there does not exist a more peace-loving, yet indomitable nation in the world than we
the Russian people.

AFTER HITLER'S SUICIDAL INVASION OF RUSSIA

GERMANY IS DONE, AND WE REMAIN SECOND TO NONE

The Russian Bear used to make his military sorties beyond his natural borders rather rarely,
mainly 'by invitation'.

By the way, do you remember why and how did the Red Army appear in Berlin in 1945? – The
right answer is: by personal invitation of Uncle Adi (aka Adolf Hitler).
RUSSIAN SOLDIERS

ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD

NOT ONLY A TEAM BUT A TRUE BROTHERHOOD

"ONE FOR ALL – ALL FOR ONE!"

Чужой земли мы не хотим ни пяди,

Но и своей вершка не отдадим!

We do not want a single foot of any foreign land,

Yet we will never give away a single inch of our own!

Russian Officer Corps at Parade

ALL OF US RUSSIANS ARE

ONE GREAT MANY MILLION STRONG FAMILY

OF THE NORDIC WHITE CHRISTIAN PEOPLE

RUSSIAN AIRBORNE TROOPS ARE THE MOST

ROBUST, INTREPID AND POWERFUL IN THE WORLD:

THE PRODDING OF THE RUSSIAN BEAR

IS LETHALLY DANGEROUS

TROOPING THE GLORIOUS COLOURS

SANCTIFIED BY THE SPILT BLOOD OF HEROES

AND THE TIME-HONOURED RUSSIAN VICTORIES

THE RUSSIAN SOLDIER IS

TOUGH AS DEATH AND HARD AS A FLINT

RUSSIAN KALASHNIKOV

IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD!

A UNIQUE ARMY OF THE REAL MEN:

RUSSIAN SOLDIERS TRAINING

GOD IS ALWAYS WITH US:

RUSSIAN SOLDIERS MOVING TO WAR

REMEMBER THE GHASTLY FATE OF

NAPOLEON, HITLER AND OTHER GODLESS SCUM:

NEVER GET INVOLVED IN AN ARMED CONFLICT

WITH HOLY RUSSIA

RUSSIAN NAVY CADETS:

THE FUTURE COMMANDERS OF

THE FORMIDABLE NUCLEAR SUBMARINES

The very words 'military service' engender different notions among Russians and Americans.

We Russians used to be defending our own land against invaders, we used to be fighting for
our hearth and home.

While the Americans, who have been lucky enough to spare any invasions, and who have had
no single year of a real war on their own territory, used to conceptualize their own military
service as tours of duty somewhere very far overseas, their homes and families remaining intact
and prosperous.

Evidently enough, you and we, the Americans and Russians have got absolutely different
historical experience, and hence we have got absolutely different mindset.

The Orthodox Cross

GOD, MOTHERLAND, FAMILY

TO BE A RUSSIAN

IS TO BE AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN
The Russian Orthodox temple is

the Home of God on earth

There is no pewage there, for we Russians daren't sit

in the invisible presence of our Lord and Creator

The sacrament of baptism:

A new Russian Orthodox Christian is born

"All those baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. Alliluia!"

After the sacrament of Orthodox baptism

is completed, our prayer continues as always:

O Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God

by the prayers of Thy most pure Mother

and all the Saints, have mercy on us

Amen!

The Russian boys' prayer:

O Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God

have mercy on us!

The Russian girl's prayer:

O Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God

have mercy on us!

The Russian maiden's prayer:

O Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God

have mercy on us!

The Russian warrior's prayer:

O Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God

have mercy on us!

It is most important for us Russians

that the President and the Prime Minister

are both Russian Orthodox Christians:

Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin at the Paschal liturgy

in the Christ the Saviour Cathedral, Moscow, 19 April 2009

Russian Orthodox Wedding:

Waiting for the Archpriest to enter

"WE" IS THE MAIN WORD IN RUSSIA

The most important thing one should know and remember in order to understand many
questions related to Russia is that we Russians see and comprehend ourselves – and the rest of
the world – differently from what the Westerners see and comprehend.

The key point is this:

Russia is not simply a territory, but OUR COMMON HOME.

Naturally enough, my own private home (or my flat or apartment) is being confined within its
walls, but as soon as I step out over the threshold and go outdoors I find myself immediately in
another but much bigger HOME – my beloved town, and beyond its limits, farther on – in my
sacred beloved Great Home – our Holy Russia.

A genuine Russian man would never say "this country", but always: "our country."
 The Russians are NOT a huge mass of various individuals happened to have arrived from
somewhere to inhabit this certain territory, but one great integral Family having been living here
for the last thousand years.

Unlike the Westerners, who comprise a society of ATOMIZED individuals, aliens to each other,
being foreigners and strangers of different places, races and religious denominations, as they are
in their interrelations, we Russians do always feel like being one great family of one and the
same stock and of one Holy Faith.

DISUNITY in the West, and INTEGRITY in Russia, the atomistic approach to the civil society in
the West, and the holistic approach to the ethnic society as a great family in Russia. This is the
only true clue to a clear understanding of the Russian phenomenon.

ALL OF US RUSSIANS ARE KITH AND KIN.

A Russian boy in the street may normally call an unknown Russian man "Uncle", or a woman
"Auntie".

A young man in the street can normally ask me: "I say, Father, how can I get to the nearest
library, please?"

An old woman in the street may normally be addressed as "Grandmother" – "Babushka" in

Russian. And so on. And so forth.

We all Russians feel like being BROTHERS AND SISTERS within ONE GREAT FAMILY.

Hence, we regard each current head of state (disregarding his formal name of the office –
either Tsar, or Emperor, or General Secretary, or President – no matter) as OUR GREAT COMMON
FATHER.

If the FATHER of the Russian Nation is good enough, we see no reason to elect another Father
of the State. It would be a silly action.

If he is bad, the PEOPLE-FAMILY will not obey his orders, and soon the bad ruler will disappear
from the throne (in this or that manner), because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RULE RUSSIA WITHOUT
PEOPLE'S SUPPORT.
 Another important point one should always bear in mind is that we Russians comprehend
ourselves inseparably together with all of our thousand-year-long HISTORY as a whole
INDIVISIBLE INTEGRITY.

I'll tell you a little story in this regard.

Once upon a time, as I remember, many many years ago, when I was a schoolboy, during a
history lesson our teacher (not of Russian stock, by the way) asked a pupil: "Who won the great
battle at the Kulikov Field in 1380?"

For any occasion I remind the readers that it was a great decisive battle between the Tartars
and the Russians, which led eventually to the liberation of Russia from the Tartar yoke.

The pupil sincerely responded: "WE did".

And all the other pupils nodded affirmatively and joyfully.

"What?!!!" – exclaimed the teacher – "Who WE?! Why on earth WE!?" – she shouted – "You
should not say WE! The battle was won – some 600 years ago! – by the medieval united Russian
host, not by YOU, children!"

Although she was a real good professional, nevertheless, our history teacher failed to
comprehend the feelings of Russian boys and girls.

Being a non-Russian, she could not feel what all of us Russians used to feel then, and what we
feel always, namely:

The Russian warriors who defeated the Tartars in 1380 and the present-day Russians have
always been and remain to be for ever one and the same Great Organism, inseparable and
indivisible.

Indeed:

It was WE who routed the Teutonic Knights on the ice of Lake Chudskoye in 1242!
 It was WE who won the great battle on the Kulikovo Field in 1380!

It was WE who expelled the Polish schismatic invaders from Moscow in 1612!

It was WE who derouted King Karl XII's Swedish army at Poltava in 1709!

It was WE who defeated the godless Napoleon's "Grande Armée" in 1812!

It was WE who defended our beloved country from the German invasion in 1941 – 1945!

It was WE who launched the first satellite – the famous Sputnik in 1957!

It was WE who launched the first in the world's history manned spaceship with Russian Major
Yuri Gagarin aboard in 1961!

THIS MAJESTIC MONUMENT

TO THE DEFENDERS OF THE RUSSIAN LAND

ILLUSTRATES THE CONTINUITY OF OUR HISTORY

"ЗАЩИТНИКАМ ЗЕМЛИ РОССИЙСКОЙ"

The monument represents defenders of the Russian land of different epochs: to the left, the
dauntless medieval Russian warrior with a sword and targe; in the center, the glorious Russian
Imperial soldier with a rifle and bayonet who defeated Napoleon in 1812; and finally to the right,
the victorious Soviet soldier with a submachine gun who derouted Hitler's Nazi Germany in
1941-1945.

The uniforms, banners, weapons and equipment would change significantly through the ages,
but the Russian unbending spirit would remain one and the same forever.

We Russians do never change!

So, I repeat: "WE" is the main word in Russia.

Now, you will understand that the medieval Russian host was OURS, the Imperial Russian
Army was OURS, the Red Army was OURS, the Soviet Army was OURS, and the present-day
Russian Army is OURS, too, of course.

We feel and consider our Holy Russia to be NOT simply a territory, not simply a land where we
live in, but OUR BELOVED SWEET HOME during the last thousand years.

We feel and consider all the past and present generations of Russian people – both the dead
and the living – as OUR ONE GREAT FAMILY during the last thousand years.

Accurately put, we have been "WE" uninterruptedly during the last 1021 years – since 988
A.D. That is since the Great Year when Ancient Rus was baptized.

A RUSSIAN GIRL PRAYING

FOR ALL OF OUR ANCESTORS

The Orthodox Cross

GOD IS WITH US

This most beautiful and impressive church Pokrova-na-Nerli was built by us Russians in 1165,
that is 844 years ago.

Since those ancient times through until the present days, we have been praying the Lord God,
when at the divine liturgy in this church, as well as in all the other innumerable churches across
Holy Russia, using the same solemn Old Slavonic language in accordance with exactly one and
the same Canon, as our forebears used to do during the past millennium.

Thank God – our Holy Orthodox Christian Faith has been unshakeable for the last 1021 years.
APPEARANCE OF THE HOLY TRINITY IN RUSSIA

A unique miraculous appearance of the Holy Trinity to St Alexander of Svir occurred in

Northern Russia in 1508. Saint Alexander Svirsky the Wonder-worker was the only man on earth,
apart from the forefather Abraham, who became privileged to see the Holy Trinity with his own
eyes.

HOW OLD IS THE ORTHODOX FAITH?

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic
Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the
year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to re-marry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year
1560.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in
1582.

If you are Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England,
founded by Samuel Senbury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in
Amsterdam in 1606.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed Church, you recognize Michelis Jones as founder because he
originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in
1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New
York, in 1829.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in
1865.

If you are Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and
to Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
 If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as "Church of the Nazarene,
Pentecostal Gospel," "Holiness Church," or "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the
hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past hundred years.

If you are Roman Catholic, your church shared the same rich apostolic and doctrinal heritage
as the Orthodox Church for the first thousand years of its history, since during the first
millennium they were one and the same Church. Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke
away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (which include Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem), by tampering with the Original Creed of the Church, and considering
himself to be infallible. Thus your church is 1,000 years old.

If you are ORTHODOX Christian, your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the
Son of God. It has not changed since that time. Our church is now almost 2,000 years old. And it
is for this reason, that Orthodoxy, the Church of the Apostles and the Fathers is considered the
true "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." This is the greatest legacy that we can pass on to
the young people of the new millennium. Amen.

We Russians have been keeping our One Holy Orthodox Faith inviolate and undamaged for
the last millennium, since the Great Year 988 when the Ancient Rus' was baptized.

Frank Schaeffer of Huffington Post rightly asserts:

"It takes a special breed of a-historical American president who is steeped in the Protestant
idea of denominationalism; wherein Methodists, Presbyterians, Southern Baptists etc., all do
their thing and somehow get along, to so thoroughly misunderstand the fact that Russia is
reemerging first and foremost as a country reconnecting with its Orthodox historical imperial
roots. We (Americans) just have no concept of blood ties, soil and holy tradition in America.
Since we don't take tradition seriously we can't believe that anyone else does.

We Americans have forgotten that ties of faith and history have not been overwhelmed by
modernity elsewhere, as they have been in America. The world is not a melting pot. Nor is every
culture as frivolous and forgetful as ours.

We shop for church experiences as we shop for everything else folding religion into our
consumer culture. The average American (who is religious) changes churches six or seven times
during a lifetime, even changes religions."
 Frank Schaeffer continues:

"For us Americans the bottom line is always expediency and 'what works'. But in other parts of
the world national pride is tied to a continuity of historic tradition . . ."

Source: Huffingtonpost.com

The Orthodox Cross

THROUGH TERRIBLE ORDEALS

DESPITE DISASTERS AND TRIBULATIONS

WE HAVE PRESERVED OUR HOLY ORTHODOX FAITH

HOLY RUSSIA

ENCOUNTERING CHRIST

The Russian Orthodox Creed

THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CREED

(English translation)

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible
and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all
ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father,
by Whom all things were made; Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven,
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified
for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again,
according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the
Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose kingdom
shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father; Who with
the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the Prophets.

And in one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission
of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Orthodox Cross

CHRIST IS RISEN FROM THE DEAD

TRAMPLING DOWN DEATH BY DEATH

AND UPON THOSE IN THE TOMBS

BESTOWING LIFE!

Having beheld the Resurrection of Christ, let us worship the holy Lord Jesus, the only Sinless
One.
 We venerate Thy Cross, O Christ, and we praise and glorify Thy holy Resurrection; for Thou art
our God, and we know no other than Thee; we call on Thy name.

Come all you faithful, let us venerate Christ's holy Resurrection. For, behold, through the Cross
joy has come into all the world.

Let us ever bless the Lord, praising His Resurrection, for by enduring the Cross for us, He hath
destroyed death by death.

Amen

You would better understand us Russians if you are aware of the following chapters and verses
of the Holy Bible, which are especially guiding for us:

The Orthodox Cross

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil
against you falsely, for My sake.

Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great is your reward in heaven.

St. Matthew 5:3-12

The Orthodox Cross

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them:
for this is the law and the prophets.

St. Matthew 7:12

The Orthodox Cross

He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it.

St. Matthew 10:39

The Orthodox Cross

Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided
against itself shall not stand.

St. Matthew 12:25

The Orthodox Cross

Every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

St. Luke 18:14

The Orthodox Cross

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

St. John 15:13

The Orthodox Cross

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

Colossians 3:18-21

The Orthodox Cross

God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

I St. Peter 5:5

The Orthodox Cross

Go to now, ye rich men, sweep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your
riches are corrupted, and your garnments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and
the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have
heaped treasure together for the last days.
 St. James 5:1-3

The Orthodox Cross

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten; be zealous therefore, and repent.

Revelation 3:19

The Orthodox Cross

IF GOD BE WITH US

WHO CAN BE AGAINST US?

Romans 8:31

THE CHRIST IS OUR TRUE GOD

THE RUSSIAN WARRIOR IS

ALWAYS VICTORIOUS WITH GOD'S AID

As our thousand-year-long glorious History explicitly shows, the Holy Russia's sacred
PREDESTINATION in the world during the last millennium has been and is to serve as an adamant
Rock of Fate onto which the Lord God smasheth the stupid heads of the Proud who have
become obsessed by ridiculous delusions of self grandeur, and who have become afflicted with a
foolish sense of self superiority.

Torrents of Asiatic nomadical hordes from the East, as well as the Teutonic knights' "Drang
nach Osten" from the West in Medieval Ages; Polish schismatic invaders in the early 17th
century; King Karl XII of Sweden's invasion of Russia in the early 18th century; the godless French
Napoleonic Grande Armée's invasion of Russia in 1812; the formidable Hitler's German Army –
"die Wehrmacht" – together with the bloody war criminals of the SS – "die Schutz-Staffel" – in
1941-1945 . . .

. . . to name but a few of all the abominable enemies of God – a huge lot of the heinous
godless scum that had incensed the Omnipotent Creator.

All of the invaders proved to be the scum of the earth and the filthy damned murderous
bastards who had incurred the God's wrath, and who were severely punished by the Lord with
the Russian victorious arms, eventually.

Each time, after having trespassed on the sacred bounds of Holy Russia, all of the invaders
would be inexorably derouted and then, subsequently, they would cease to exist as mighty
nations ever after.

While, on the contrary, Russia would always become even stronger and stronger, mightier and
mightier after the beating off each new bitter enemy's invasion.

The true conclusion is the following: Those whom He wisheth to punish and destroy, God first
depriveth of their mind and then He sendth the Proud Morons into Holy Russia to perish here
horribly and infamously.

In other words, Holy Russia has been permanently serving as the final formidable stopper to
all those idiots who would strive conceitedly for the global domination.

At the same time, it must be specially emphasized that we Russians have never yearned to
rule the world.

Never.
FEAR YE GOD, AND KEEP OFF RUSSIA!

THE MILLENNIUM OF THE RUSSIAN STATE MONUMENT

Erected in 1862 in Novgorod Veliky by Emperor Alexander II

it features 129 human figures of the Russian prominent

monarchs, statesmen, warriors, scientists, poets, artists

THE MILLENNIUM OF THE RUSSIAN STATE MONUMENT

Height 52 feet, gross weight 300 tons, bronze casts 65.5 tons

The monument was disassembled by the German invaders

in December 1943 during their occupation of Veliky Novgorod

Reconstructed in 1944 by Marshal Stalin's order

THE MILLENNIUM OF THE RUSSIAN STATE MONUMENT

At the Apex: An Angel with a cross blessing Russia

Unveiled on September 8, 1862, the Monument to the first Millennium of Russian History was
the work of a team of sculptors, headed by Mikhail Mikeshin. This grandiose and complex bronze
sculpture on a granite pedestal displays 129 human figures, whose selection was personally
approved by Emperor Alexander II.

The historical figures are placed in three tiers symboling the three basic Russia's principles:

ПРАВОСЛАВИЕ, САМОДЕРЖАВИЕ, НАРОДНОСТЬ

Most frequently these three words have been translated into English this way:

ORTHODOXY, AUTOCRACY, NATIONALITY

Yet, the translation seems to be rather misleading.

The true meaning of the word ПРАВОСЛАВИЕ is the RIGHT WORSHIP, or even more precisely:
the RIGHT GLORIFICATION OF GOD. Although, the term Orthodoxy may also be acceptable here.

The true meaning of the word САМОДЕРЖАВИЕ is SOVEREIGNTY, not a kind of "arbitrary rule,
dictatorship, despotism, or tyranny" as many in the West tend to comprehend the term
"Autocracy."

The true meaning of the word НАРОДНОСТЬ is FOLKWAYS, that is a UNIQUE IDENTITY,
ORIGINALITY, INTEGRITY and SOLIDARITY of the Russian people. Not a kind of "nationalism" or
"chauvinism" as it is erroneously understood in the West.

Thus, the Russian National Idea, the famous Russia's idealogical TRIAD:

ПРАВОСЛАВИЕ, САМОДЕРЖАВИЕ, НАРОДНОСТЬ

should be correctly translated into English as follows:

ORTHODOXY, SOVEREIGNTY, FOLKWAYS

 The most important message of the Monument to the first Millennium of Russian History –
Orthodoxy – is embodied at its apex, where upon an imperial orb an angel blesses a kneeling
woman who symbolizes Russia. The outline of the whole Monument suggests a church bell.

Around the imperial orb are depicted six scenes central to Russian history (Sovereignty): the
founding of the state with the coming of the first prince Riurik in 862 (the date is on his shield),
the adoption of Christianity by Prince Saint Vladimir in 988, the victory over the Tatars by
Moscow Prince Dmitry Donskoy in 1380, the unification of the Russian lands under Grand Prince
Ivan III at the end of the 15th century, the establishment of the Romanov Dynasty with Michael
Romanov being defended by Minin and Pozharsky in 1613, and Peter the Great's westernizing
transformation of Russia at the beginning of the 18th century. The victors trample on those they
defeat – Vladimir stands on pagan idols, Dmitry Donskoy on a defeated Tatar, and Peter lords
over a defeated Swede. Empress Catherine the Great is surrounded by her brilliant ministers.

The base of the monument has a frieze (Folkways) depicting famous individuals
connected somehow with Russian history and culture and grouped thematically: enlighteners,
writers and artists, military heroes, etc. The earliest are the apostles to the Slavs, SS. Cyril and
Methodius, the chronicler Nestor (11th century) is in the company of St. Sergius of Radonezh
(14th century), Maksim the Greek (16th century) joins Patriarch Nikon (17th) and Feofan
Prokopovych (early 18th). The prominent names in Russian culture in the eighteenth and first
half of the nineteenth century are there: Lomonosov, Karamzin, Krylov, and finally Pushkin,
Gogol' and Glinka.

During the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany in 1941 - 1945,
during the German occupation of Veliky Novgorod, it was in winter 1943 - 1944, that the
Monument was crudely disassembled by the Nazist vandals, and hastily prepared for the
transportation to the Third Reich as a piece of their loot.

But the barbaric German invaders had never managed to complete their heinous scheme. On
the 20th of January 1944 the town of Veliky Novgorod was liberated by the advancing Red Army
troops, who stormed into the town just to find that all of the churches and monasteries all
around, as well as 2509 houses out of a total of 2532 buildings within the town of Veliky
Novgorod (that is 99.1 percent!) were reduced to ashes by the murderous godless German
Wehrmacht bastards.

By the way, it is relevant here to remind the historical fact that when in 1862 we Russians
celebrated the Millennium of our Russian History, at the same time Germany as a united country
had not yet existed at all. The German Empire first appeared only in 1871.
 The Monument to the first Millennium of Russian History soon was reconstructed from the
ruins according to Marshal Stalin's special order by the end of 1944.

Emperor Alexander the Second's medal, struck in 1862

to commemorate the Millennium of the Russian State

The 5 rubles Soviet coin

issued in 1988 in the USSR to commemorate

the Millennium of the Russian State Monument

We Russians feel and see the History of our country Russia as an Integral Continuity of
historical time, terrene space, and of all the past, present and future generations of our Russian
people, who have ever lived, been living, and will live here in Holy Russia through centuries.

We Russians feel ourselves as being permanently involved into the infinite string of historical
events. We feel like being ourselves an integral part of our common Russian history.

This means that instinctively we feel, say, the Battle of Borodino (1812) to occur very recently,
almost as if it were yesterday. If you would ask any individual Russian in the street: "Who won
the Battle of Poltava in 1709?" – a quick spontaneous answer would be most likely this: "We
did!"

Note the "WE". Not Tsar Peter the Great's army, but WE did! It's because we feel right this
way. We feel constantly our own mental presence at, and spiritual participation in, every past
event of our long great history.

This Integral Continuity of Russia's history has never been perceived by us Russians as
interrupted by whatever political upheavals. Neither by the 1917 Socialist Revolution, nor by the
bourgeois counter-revolution in 1991, for instance.

Our beloved Holy Russia remains always one and the same Motherland of ours, disregarding
whatever official name she might have borne during the centuries: either Kievan Rus, or
Muscovite Principality, or Russian Tsardom, or Russian Empire, or the Union of the Soviet
Socialist Republics, or finally the present-day Russian Federation. No difference.

RUSSIA IS ALWAYS RUSSIA

OUR DEAR BELOVED MOTHERLAND

THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD

AMEN!

The Orthodox Cross

THE RUSSIAN NATIONAL IDEA

The famous Russia's idealogical TRIAD:

ПРАВОСЛАВИЕ, САМОДЕРЖАВИЕ, НАРОДНОСТЬ

if being correctly understood as

FAITH, INDEPENDENCE, FRATERNITY

has ever been, is, and will always remain to be valid

for all the times and epochs in our Holy Russia

because it represents the very core of the Russian Soul

In other words, as opposed to

the amorphous, secular and deceptive

Liberal Democracy

that has been prevailing in the West nowadays

the Russian fundamental idea can be defined as

PATRIARCHAL CHRISTIAN COLLECTIVISM

which proved to be the only ground and pillar

for the Russian State to exist

the absolutely indispensable condition for our survival

and the sole prerequisite for us Russians

to overcome and to be always emerging victorious

through all the disasters, ordeals, sufferings and tribulations

which we were honoured and privileged to be tested with

by the Lord Our God during the past centuries

And glory be to the Almighty for all things!

The First 1000 Years of Russia Monument

Novgorod Veliky: Present Days

Russian Winter
The Orthodox Cross

DO NOT TOUCH US, DO NOT TEACH US

WE RUSSIANS HAVE BEEN GOING

OUR OWN WAY

Some cerebrally challenged survivors of political correctness may call this Russian man (above)
a melanin impoverished monocultural individual forcing his way through a thicket of botanical
companions.

But we Russians retain a clear mind and a free will. We feel sick of such socially misaligned
politically correct rubbish and prefer to call a spade a spade.

WE RUSSIANS ARE

A FREE WHITE CHRISTIAN NATION

WE FEAR NO ONE ON EARTH, BUT ONLY

THE LORD GOD ALONE IN HEAVEN

We cannot accept the modern Western political correctness (PC), for it seems to be frequently
a sheer distortion of the truth and a mockery of the common sense, and sometimes even a
brazen denial of the Holy Scriptures.
 First of all, we do by no means suffer from the Western White Man's Guilt Complex, because
we are Russian Orthodox Christians and therethrough we have NEVER committed either such
disgraceful and horrible crimes as notorious Slave Trade, or the lynching of Negroes, or the
slaughtering of the North American Indians.

We used to live in brotherly concord with all of our non-Russian neighbours within the Russian
Empire, as well as within the Soviet Union. We used to live well together even with those rather
restive and rebellious tribes of the Imperial Borderlands who had initially been forced by us to
learn to coexist peacefully.

After all, although some of them proved to be rather dangerous troublemakers, nevertheless,
all of those numerous borderland tribes have remained extant to the present day, with their
populace being significantly increased. Also, it must be specially emphasized here that none of
the said minorities have ever been eliminated in Russia, unlike the sad case, for example, with
most of the North American Indian tribes who were ruthlessly annihilated.

Which is why Russia is being frequently called a "multiethnic" country. However, this is an
erroneous assumption, because a state with the homogeneous population exceeding 80 per cent
(in fact, 82 – 85 per cent in Russia's case) should be unequivocally ascribed to monoethnic
countries, according to generally recognized norms of international law.

We Russians are One Great Family. I myself feel absolutely comfortably at home in any place of
Russia among 141 million of my Russian brothers and sisters. Wherever I would travel across my
native country, even at a distance of thousands of miles far away from Moscow in any direction,
everywhere I would find the same kind-hearted Russian people, the same Russian mother
tongue spoken, the same One Holy Orthodox Christian Church revered, the same brotherly white
faces being all around, together with the usual Russian sincere hospitality, benevolence and
commiseration.

We have not had here in Russia a western-style colossal host of lawyers, because we do not
have a nasty habit to sue our brethren around for every trifling or funny pretext merely for the
sake of cavil.

Nor have we got a huge army of psychotherapists, if at all, in contrast to the case in the West,
simply because the overwhelming majority of us are very sane people, since we have been living
quietly amidst our Russian brothers and sisters – the people of the same race, of the same one
unshakeable Holy Orthodox Christian Faith, of the same mindset, and of the same thousand-
year-old Russian tradition of how to discern good and evil.

It is absolutely a stunning thing for us the Russian people to find and to observe how
amazingly gullible, docile, wieldy, and even volatile can the Westerners be.

The notorious Political Correctness encourages offence to be taken where none is intended,
encourages the re-writing and re-thinking of history along with the abandonment of pride in
country, is a serious threat to free speech and, despite being portrayed to be in the name of
tolerance, is completely intolerant of anyone who does not act in a politically correct fashion.

Basically it's a form of censorship and tries to bully people into conforming with a certain point
of view which usually defies common sense.

We the Russian people despise the hypocritical and sickening Political Correctness of the West
because we are a true free-thinking nation.

We Russians worship only the All-Holy Trinity in heaven. For our only hope is the Father, our
only refuge is the Son, our only shelter is the Holy Spirit : O Holy Trinity our God, glory to Thee!

The Lord Jesus Christ is our true God and Saviour. We do revere and observe only His Divine
Laws, not the dirty western politically correct rubbish.

Our beloved country Holy Russia has always been and remains to be under the protection of
the All-Holy Theotokos, our most Holy, most Pure, most Blessed and Glorious Lady, the Birth-
giver of God, and Ever-Virgin Mary.

Hence our Russian special reverence for women.

Above all the possible things on Earth we do always value and cherish our Sacred God-given
Freedom of Thought.
So help us God!

The WASP and the WROC

Russia is a superpower, whether you like it or not. Which is why I believe that to comprehend
the Russian ethnical character and peculiarities is vitally important for the West so that to better
understand Russia's foreign and domestic policy, as well as to predict Russia's steps, views,
approaches and reactions.

I must emphasize here also that the Russians (as a distinct White Nordic ethnos) constitute the
overwhelming majority in our native country, there being more than 116 million of Russians,
that is about 82 per cent out of the total 142 million strong multi-ethnic population of the
Russian Federation. Plus another 25 million of genuine Russians living now in the "Near Abroad."

Thus, it should be noted that when I use the term "Russians" here I mean the Russians as a
distinct White Nordic ethnos, to the contrary of the Western understanding of the same word as
"all people living in, belonging to, or coming from, Russia." The latter notion, namely: any citizen
of the Russian Federation, disregarding his or her ethnicity – should be correctly rendered as
"Rossiyanin."

By the way, to the trivial question which used to be so sensitive for us some fifteen years ago:
If we Russians are Europeans or not, at the present time I can absolutely definitely say that we
are not Europeans. Praise be to God, we are Russians!

Further to the above given reasons why the West should gain the true knowledge of us
Russians, I believe the following idea to be quite relevant here.

First, a quotation from one book:

 ". . . as a cultural designation, WASP – White Anglo-Saxon Protestant – refers to all Americans
who have adopted "the way of the WASP," the basic outlines of which were established in early
America. "The WASP character is the American character," Brookhiser writes. "It is the mold, the
template, the archetype, the set of axes along which the crystal has grown. Without the WASP
America would be another country altogether. Without the continuing influence of his values, it
is sure to lose its way."

End of quotation from the book:

The Way of the WASP: How It Made America, and How It Can Save It, So to Speak

by Richard Brookhiser (The Free Press, 164 pp.,). Source HERE

I do believe that absolutely the same cultural designation can be applied to the WROC – the
White Russian Orthodox Christian – when we examine the Russian History.

Indeed, using the Brookhiser's impressive chain of definitions, we can safely argue that the
WROC character is the Holy Russia's character. It is the mold, the template, the archetype, the
set of axes along which the crystal has grown. Without the WROC Russia would be another
country altogether.

Absolutely so!

Waiting for the guests:

Russian bride with her niece

Frequently, people would ask me:

"Why do you write about the Russians only? Why don't you mention other ethnoses that live
in Russia, for instance: the Tatars, the Jews, the Kalmucks, and many others?"

"Are you a racist?"

My response is very simple and clear:

 I write about what I have known for sure. I am a Russian myself and thus I know the Russian
Soul, the Russian mindset very well from inside. I write about what I feel in the deep of my own
heart and my stories go about what I have learnt from my own long lifetime experience of living
among the Russians in Russia.

Together with all the other Russians, I do highly respect the feats accomplished, and the
sacrifices made, by those numerous truly glorious heroes who were not ethnically Russian, for
example:

Mussa Jalil (1906 - 1944) who was a great Soviet Tatar poet and resistance fighter; executed
by the Nazis in captivity; Hero of the Soviet Union (posthumously). A great man, in my opinion.

Major Caesar Kunikov (1909 - 1943) who was born to a Jewish family. He was Commander of
the legendary Red Army Marine Detachment that made the daring landing attack on the famous
Malaya Zemlya (the Lesser Land) near the port of Novorossiisk in February 1943; fell in action;
Hero of the Soviet Union (posthumously). A great man, too.

There are also many other heroes of non-Russian stock whom we Russians do remember and
glorify. Because the Soviet Union was really a great Family of Nations.

But, as I have said above, here on this website I write only about what I know. I am not a Tatar,
and I do not know much about the Tatars traditions, about what the Tatars think and feel. Which
is why I do not write about the Tatar Soul. Similarly, I think that I have no right to describe the
Jewish Soul, the Jewish mindset because I am not a Jew. In my opinion, it would be absolutely
incorrect on my side to write about what I do not know for sure.

So, I believe the reason why I portray here mainly the Russians can be clearly understood.

Thus, dear Readers, there is not the slightest tinge of racism on this website of mine.

The Orthodox Cross

GOD IS WITH US
REMEMBER:

TO BE A RUSSIAN MEANS

TO BE AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN

WE RUSSIANS ARE ONE GREAT FAMILY

OF THE WHITE CHRISTIAN PEOPLE

ALL OF US ARE KITH AND KIN

WE HAVE PRESERVED OUR ORTHODOX FAITH

AND BEEN LIVING FOR THE LAST MILLENNIUM IN

HOLY RUSSIA

OUR SACRED HOME ON EARTH

THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD

ONE FOLK, ONE FAITH, ONE COUNTRY!

The Orthodox Cross

OUR GREAT ANCESTOR

THE PATRON SAINT OF THE RUSSIAN MILITARY

THE GRAND PRINCE

The Flag of the Russian Federation:

the Emperor Peter the Great's Tricolour

The Flag of the Russian Armed Forces:

the Russian Tricolour presented as St Andrew's Saltire

The Flag of the Russian Navy:

the Old Glorious St Andrew's Saltire

The Flag of the Russian Air Forces

A few lines from the Russian National Anthem:

Russia is our Holy Power!

Russia is our beloved country!

Be glorious, our free Fatherland,

We are immensely proud of Thee!

Thou art unique in the world,

Our Native Land protected by God!

OUR SACRED UNITY

OF THE ARMY, THE PEOPLE, AND THE CHURCH

IS THE PLEDGE OF RUSSIA'S VICTORIES

WITH GOD'S HELP NOW AND EVER

AND UNTO AGES OF AGES

THE REGIMENTAL PATRON SAINT ICON

AT THE CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX SACRAMENT

OF THE BLESSING THE TROOPS

BLESSING THE TROOPS

WITH THE PATRON SAINT ICON

THE REGIMENTAL ORTHODOX PRIEST

BESPRINKLING RUSSIAN WARRIORS

WITH THE BLESSED WATER

OUR PATRON SAINT PRINCE ALEXANDER NEVSKY'S

GREAT ICON AND HIS SACRED RELIQUARY

DISPLAYED BEFORE THE TROOPS

RUSSIAN WARRIORS AT THE RELIQUARY

VENERATING THE SACRED RELICS OF

THE GRAND PRINCE ST ALEXANDER NEVSKY

A RUSSIAN ORTHODOX PRIEST ON A TANK:

HIS FATHERLY SPIRITUAL GUIDANCE

IS AT PEACE AND AT WAR WITH HIS SOLDIERS

The Orthodox Cross

RUSSIAN WISDOM

Reverend Elder Monk Anatol the Junior of the Optina Pustyn' (Opta's Reclusive Friary), in the
very first days of the Revolution, in February 1917, made a prophecy on the future of Russia:

"There will be a storm. And the Russian ship will be smashed to pieces. But people can be
saved even on splinters and fragments. And not everyone will perish. One must pray, everyone
must repent and pray fervently. And what happens after a storm? ... There will be a calm."

At this everyone said: 'But there is no more Russian ship, it is shattered to pieces; it has
perished, everything has perished.'

"It is not so," said Batyushka (Reverend Sire), "A great miracle of God will be manifested. And
all the splinters and fragments, by the will of God and His power, will come together and be
united, and the Russian ship will be rebuilt in its beauty and will go on its own way as
foreordained by God. And this will be a miracle evident to everyone."

We are living in the time of this miracle! This is obvious even to us in the U.S., here outside of
Washington, DC and there in New York!

– Ioann, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

From The Readers' Comments to an article on the Russian Orthodox Church, published in The
New York Times, 24th April 2008.

Thus, it is quite obvious that we the Russian people are not, have never been, nor ever shall
be, a part of the West.

Thank God – we are Russians!

We can well coexist with the West peacefully and profitably. We can even make friends with
you, but please do neither lecture us, nor interfere with our affairs. Amen.

WHAT WAS THE LIFE IN THE USSR LIKE

Part One

by Michael Kuznetsov

THE PEOPLE'S DREAMS HAVE COME TRUE!

 First of all, I deem it wise to emphasize the following three points.

First, all what I write on this website is my personal feelings and views, although I am
convinced that the similar feelings and views have been shared by millions of my compatriots.

Second, it is important to remember that I personally have never been a member of the
Communist Party.

Third, I am not going either to promote whichever political ideals, or to defend, praise or
detract whatever political system.

I DO ONLY PROVIDE YOU WITH AN INSIGHT.

Some 20 years ago, when the Iron Curtain was still hindering personal contacts and the free
exchange of information was hampered, we common people in the Soviet Union had
constructed – of course! – our own set of stereotypes about the West.

Since one of the conspicuous traits of our ethnic Russian character has been a tendency to
romanticize the foreigners – especially the Europeans – so our stereotypes about the West were
very "rosy".

Excessively rosy, I would say.

During the so-called Cold War period, we Russians (or Soviets if you will) used to consider
Western Europe to be almost a paradise, while the United States of America to be a complete
paradise on the Earth.

At the same time, our "Red Propaganda Commissars" used to teach us about the following:

1. That, allegedly, there was unemployment in the West – We common Soviet citizens would
laugh at that silly idea: What unemployment could ever exist in a paradise (the West)? So, we did
not believe in that, especially because since 1932 in our country we had had no unemployment
at all.

2. That, allegedly, there were homeless and poor people in the West – We did not believe in
that, either, because by the mid-1950s we had already re-built almost all of the 1,700 (one
thousand and seven hundred) cities and towns, as well as 70,000 (seventy thousand) villages
entirely devastated by the German invaders during the Great Patriotic War. Just only think of it: if
we Russians had no homeless people here, how could those wretched persons exist in the rich
and affluent West? Unthinkable!

3. That, allegedly, there were a lot of people in the West who cannot afford the proper
medical care – We laughed especially loudly at this commies' assertion, because all of us
Russians had always free medical care, including complicated surgical operations. Free of charge,
I repeat!

4. That, allegedly, the Higher Education in the West was very expensive – Since we in the
Soviet Union had FREE Higher Education, so we did not believe that anything in the rich western
'paradise' might be anyhow worse than that with us here.

And so on, and so forth.

Since the Iron Curtain has fallen and we have got free access to the immediate information
from abroad, we have changed dramatically our stereotypes about the West.

Now we can clearly see that there is no paradise at all there . . .

It is a great disappointment . . .

Now, a few words about the word "Communism". Strictly speaking, that Communism which
was proclaimed by Karl Marx, has never existed on the Earth. What we had in the Soviet Union
was Socialism.

Walter Duranty – a British-born American correspondent who had lived and worked in the
USSR in the 1930s – wrote in his book I Write As I Please (ed. N.Y., 1936, page 339):

"... Socialist system is the abolition of the power of money and the profit motive and of the
possibility for any individual or group of individuals to gain surplus value from the work of
others. This and this alone is the true foundation of Socialism".

In fact, what we had in the Soviet Union I would rather call a 'State Capitalism with elements
of Socialism' than 'pure Socialism'. The notion of social equity has always been very close and
dear to the Russian people's Orthodox Christian mentality. Which is why most of our people
accepted Socialism in their heart.

Well, let's compare some figures.

 Today, in the USA the top managers of great companies have been getting an income which is
600 times bigger than that of an average worker. Imagine!

While in the USSR there existed the following scale of incomes (approximately):

Let's take the lower-paid worker's income for 100 percent. Then, an ordinary engineer
received 200 percent, a very skilled worker received 300 percent, a manager (boss) of a factory
received 400 percent, a very big 'industrial boss' received 500 percent, and finally a State
Minister received 600 percent.

So, the ratio between the lowest and the highest salary was 1 : 6, not 1 : 600 as in America.

Feel the difference.

It is incredible!

HOMELESS CHILDREN IN AMERICA

It is incredible for any Russian like myself

to learn about poor homeless people in the West,

and especially about homeless children in America

because formerly we used to consider the USA to be

the wealthiest and happiest country in the world

Obviously, we were wrong in thinking thusly

Friends, I must admit that despite being myself

quite a hardy, tough, and experienced man, as I am

nevertheless

I could not hold back my bitter tears

when I was watching this

extremely heartbreaking video

Click on the picture to watch it yourself

No true Christian can ever watch this video

without tears in the eyes!

Now, you will have to realize

why we Russians love and esteem Stalin:

This is because

Stalin denied the Soviet children

the "freedom" to be homeless

he denied all of us the "freedom"

to sleep and perish in the street

as in America

IN THE SOVIET UNION

NO ONE HAD THE "RIGHT"

EITHER TO BE HOMELESS, OR UNEMPLOYED

OR TO LIVE AND DIE IN THE STREET

HELPLESS AND ABANDONED

AS IN AMERICA

ALL OF THE SOVIET PEOPLE

WERE DENIED SUCH WESTERN "HUMAN RIGHTS"

BY THE STALIN'S REGIME

In this regard I suggest that

you should have a look at the shrewd observations

by an American expat now living in Russia:

click HERE

IS THE WEST HELL?

NO, IT IS NOT HELL

THE WEST IS TERRIBLE HELL

With all its benignity and peoples' fraternity

inasmuch as the former Soviet Union used to serve

so today's Russia continues to serve as an open rebuke

to the Western infernally inhuman and godless way of life

And this is the only true reason

why Russia has been hated, defamed and reviled so much

by the West's ruling class and the media under their control

No wonder!

In the USSR the most acute was THE HOUSING PROBLEM

Small wonder!

When the Great Patriotic War ended in 1945, there were in the Soviet Union 25 million
absolutely homeless people who had to take shelter in dug-outs.

Literally in dug-outs, because 1,700 cities and towns, as well as 70,000 villages were burnt to
the ground by the two-legged animals – the German invaders!

The whole of Belorussia, the Ukraine, and the western part of Russia were reduced to
ashes . . .

ON THE RUINS OF THE FORMER SWEET HOME

The orphan and the cat:

All the family is killed, the settlement is destroyed

by the damned German invaders

MILLIONS OF SOVIET CHILDREN

BECAME DESPERATE HOMELESS ORPHANS

DURING THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR 1941 -1945

During the Great Patriotic War against Nazi Germany

25 million Soviet people became homeless

In August 1945, General Eisenhower flew from Berlin to Moscow and "did not see a single
house standing intact from the Russian-Polish border to Moscow. Not one."

The Soviet Union, with Stalin's leadership, made an extraordinary recovery from unparalleled
devastation.

When looking at this sad picture (above) of the poor women with children sitting in great
sorrow amidst the ruins of their home, you should remember that it was those same Russian
people who in the next 10 years' period of time had managed to restore our devastated country
to life without any help from abroad (no "Marshall Plan"), and to launch the first Sputnik in
Space (on 4 October 1957) and soon afterwards the first in history Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin (on
12 April 1961), having left behind the wealthiest country in the world – the U.S.A.

What a miraculous Nation!

How could those moronic bastards, Napoleon, Hitler, and other godless murderous scum, plan
to conquer us Russians?

Never!

There is no force on earth that could defeat us – while the Lord God is with us!

DADDY'S COME BACK HOME FROM THE WAR!

ALIVE ! ALIVE !! ALIVE !!!

Recently, I was really stunned to find in a reputable Western edition this shocking phrase :

". . . The victory over Nazi Germany was achieved through the lives of millions of Soviets, who
for reasons that defy logic made the ultimate sacrifice . . ."

I struggled to understand if that was a bad joke, or what – "for reasons that defy logic." Verily, I
am afraid that we shall hardly ever positively comprehend the West . . .

Look at the photo above:

According to Russian logic every father has always been determined without hesitation to give
his own life for the life of his children. And every mother, too, if necessary.

Our logic is to defend our beloved Motherland – which we consider to be our Great Family –
by all means to the last drop of blood. This is what we call Russian patriotism.

Isn't this enough logical for the Westerners?

For us it is a great honour to die for Holy Russia. But, of course, it is even much better to
smash the enemy, to save the Homeland, and to come back home alive!

IN 1945 AFTER THE WAR 25 MILLION SOVIET PEOPLE

HAD TO LIVE IN DUG-OUTS LIKE THIS

WE THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE ARE A UNIQUE NATION

OF INFLEXIBLE WILL AND OF UNBENDING SPIRIT

What can we see in the photo above?

The location is the recently liberated Stalingrad. The time is most likely the early Summer of
1943. Like other survivors all around, a Russian family live in a dug-out. The mother and her
daughter are waist-high visible standing on the earthen steps leading down to their underground
dwelling. The daughter is cooking some food on a kerosene stove. The mother is producing
something wrapped in a white handkerchief, maybe a few slices of bread. Waiting for the meal,
the father is having a rest sitting on a stool, evidently, the only piece of furniture the family
possess. He is remarkably enjoying the sunshine.

Do they feel sorrow? Of course, they do.

But, at the same time, the members of the family look absolutely quiet, confident, and in the
deep of their heart they are happy. They are really happy and full of joy because of the fact that
the Red Army has just won the greatest battle at Stalingrad, and that from now on OUR ultimate
Glorious Victory is a forgone conclusion.

From the very first day of the Great Patriotic War in June 1941 through to its last salvo in
glorious May 1945, during all of the long 1418 days of the terrible war, it was NOT for a single
second that any one of us Russians would have ever got the slightest doubt in the final Glorious
Victory over the godless murderous scum – the German invaders.

Not for a second!

I cannot but repeat it over and over again that the Stalingrad family shown above, as well as
their neighbours and all the others, are the very same Russian people who, in the next 10 years'
period of time, would restore our devastated country to life without any help from abroad (no
"Marshall Plan", etc), and who would launch the first Sputnik in Space, and the first Cosmonaut
Yuri Gagarin, having left behind the mightiest country in the world – the United States of
America.

This is what we call the unbending Russian Spirit and the inflexible Russian Will.

So, help us God.

Another grave issue connected to the housing problem, apart from the ubiquitous
devastations caused by the murderous German invaders, was of course the harsh Russian
climate. While, say, in England you can build a house with its walls of only one-brick-layer width,
at the very same time in Russia the walls MUST be made of, at least, three brick layers.

Plus the intense heating, which has been absolutely necessary during six of each twelve
months a year.

Plus doubled window framing, doubled doors, etc.

Simply put, this means that a common average house in Russia has always been about three
times more expensive than a common average house in England.

It is self-evident that in the USSR the common people's income could not be big enough as to
buy a house, the more so that no mortgage existed.

But the Soviet Authorities used to allocate cosy and warm DWELLINGS, flats or apartments
with all affordable amenities, to the Soviet citizens FREE OF CHARGE, the monthly rent for a
state-owned flat not exceeding 5 or 7 percent of the average worker's monthly salary.

People were really happy to move from dug-outs

into blocks of flats like these, erected in place of ruins

NO HOMELESS PEOPLE EXISTED IN THE U.S.S.R.

 NO UNEMPLOYMENT (since 1932)

NO STARVING PEOPLE

NO BEGGARS IN THE STREETS

A 28-DAY FULLY PAID HOLIDAY (VACATION) A YEAR

NO MORTGAGE EXISTED – HENCE NO FINANCIAL BONDAGE

FREE EDUCATION, INCLUDING THE HIGHER

FREE MEDICAL CARE, INCLUDING COMPLICATED MAJOR SURGICAL OPERATIONS

FREE SANATORIUM VOUCHERS, BED & FOOD INCLUDED, UP TO 14 DAYS A YEAR

NO DRUG ADDICTION (NARCOMANIA)

SPORADIC, MINIMAL STREET CRIME

A typical Russian urban block of flats:

Not being lapped in luxury but quite comfortable,

cosy, warm, and with all modern amenities inside.

Millions of us have been living happily this way

Neat but not gaudy:

The interior of a typical Russian flat in the early 1970s

A view of a typical Russian street

Russian cities and towns are very green

A typical Russian urban residential district landscape

Russian cities and towns are very beautiful and safe

A typical Russian sanatorium for the working class

By Stalin's order in the U.S.S.R.

each worker enjoyed the right to have a two-weeks' rest

and medical treatment free of charge every year

The Moscow Metro (Subway) remains to be the best in the world

Its construction began in the 1930s by Stalin's order

St. Petersburg, the Winter Palace Front Staircase

The magnificent Imperial Winter Palace – the Hermitage

was restored and preserved by Stalin's order

VODKA

Yes, it is true, we Russians can drink much more of vodka than the Westerners, who prefer to
sip alcohol beverages deluted with something. Perhaps, it is because we have a stronger
stomach, a better health, and a more severe climate.
 Anyway, the story of 'Russian alcoholism' is greatly exaggerated. The 'drunkards' could have
never managed to launch the first Cosmonaut in Space, it is absolutely evident.

Russian Vodka is the best in the world

We Russians do neither drink vodka without eating some exquisite spicy "zakuska" which you
can see on this table, nor do we ever mix strong beverage with some ice, soda-water, or
whatever of the kind.

Indeed, it is a wild idea to drink vodka with ice after having returned home from the frosty
iced street, isn't it? The same reason is behind our habit to drink very hot and strong tea with
much of sugar.

When visiting Russia, you are sometimes expected to drink vodka (cognac, whisky, brandy,
rum, etc) straight, draining each time at least a full two-ounce glass at one gulp, immediately
after each one of the numerous toasts is proposed, which events occure rather in a close
succession during the initial phase of the party. After each bout you are to help yourself lavishly
with some extremely delicious "zakuska" which is usually prepared in abundance on the festal
table.

Yet, if you are not seasoned enough so that to follow the Russian way of drinking vodka –
there is no problem. Your own ethnic customs and habits, the state of health, disposition, as well
as your individual physical abilities are to be met, as a rule, with the hosts' full understanding.

We Russians prefer better to have our foreign guests sitting erect and talking vigorously, than
to observe them lying prostrate and unconscious under the festal table richly laden with food
and drinks, especially when all the merry revels are only still going to begin in good earnest.

Here is a remarkable excerpt from a book in proof of my observations:

"On November 7, 1943, the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, threw a sumptuous
party. It was later reported to be the most opulent of the war. Soviet officials were dressed in a
newly designed pearl-grey uniform, hung with gold braid."

"The atmosphere was lush, the drink plentiful, so mush so that the British ambassador fell
face-first onto the table, cutting himself. Other foreign diplomats were carried out unconscious.
Endless toasts were drunk to the success of Allied armies, and to international goodwill. The
mood was reported to be exuberant, even bohemian."

From the book: Russia's War by Richard Overy, Penguin, 1997, pages 219-220.

The following two pictures may help to visualize the Kremlin's Party mentioned above by Mr.
Richard Overy.

Main Courses Russian Festal Table

Dessert Courses Russian Festal Table

The best "zakuska" is caviar

Remember this rule!

A typical Russian party: the hosts and their guests

are sitting brotherly close, shoulder to shoulder

at the big festal table richly laden as usual

with delicious food and exquisite drinks

A typical Russian family together:

Christian love and concord

of several generations

Each one of us Russians is not an individual human being separated from the others, but a
tiny "cell" of one common colossal Organism of the Russian Nation.

Our brotherly cohesion, Christian love and spiritual integrity constitute Holy Russia's supreme
values and chief assets, as well as the true source of our invincible power for centuries.

The Western society has long since become utterly atheistic, with the notorious "political
correctness" and the rigorously individualist "human rights" being above all.

At the same time, we Russians consider our Holy Orthodox Christian Faith and the common
good to excel all things mundane and individual.

Which is why we Russians do not consider ourselves to be Europeans any longer, despite the
obvious fact that racially, of course, we stem from the same stock as the Germans, Britons, and
other Nordic White peoples.
RUSSIAN BEAUTY WITH A ROSE

So, to conclude the first part of my recollections, I would like to say that the life of the
ordinary people in Soviet Russia was quite normal and stable, frequently rather pleasant.

In reality, it had nothing to do with that scary lunatic way of life which has been absolutely
wrongly imputed to us Russians by the insane imagination of some Hollywood producers.

What is most essential: We Russians used to live a tranquil life during the peacetime, without
any fears or nervousness.

In other words: We are a great family-like white Christian nation with a strong confidence in
the Lord God's Providence about our Holy Russia. We have been living quietly in a charming
calmness of our beautiful boundless lands. Amen.

Be safely assured of this!

WE RUSSIANS ARE MADE OF SPECIAL STUFF

Never compete with the Russians in the fighting, drinking, or swimming in a riverine ice hole, lest
you perish for nothing.

Never try to drink 96 percent pure alcohol straight, which we Russians can effectively do in
some special situations, lest you immediately collapse and die.

To survive through the centuries in the extremely harsh conditions we Russians are made of
special stuff, different from that of the Westerners, to say nothing of the Asiatics or Africans.

Please note: I do not say "better" or "worse", but "different." Verily: "What is good for a
Russian, is often lethal to a German."
RUSSIAN FIGHTER FEDOR EMELIANENKO

IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD

The Undisputed Mixed Martial Arts

World Heavyweight Champion

Russian Fighter Fedor Emelianenko

 "Thanks Russian Orthodox for Their Prayers!"

On Saturday, November 7, 2009 during the Strikeforce-M1 fight at the Chicago's Sears Centre
Arena, Fedor Emelianenko knocked out the undefeated Brett Rogers. When asked about the
reasons of his victory, Fedor answered: "Millions of Russian Orthodox Christians prayed for me. It
is their victory, not mine."

The fable-like Russian fighter is a loving father, strong Russian Orthodox Christian believer, and
the most dangerous heavyweight fighter in world history. Full story HERE

I repeat: we Russians are made of special iron-hard stuff. Which is why we would always laugh
out loud at all those ridiculous attempts to portray us so disparagingly in various movies
produced in the West.

For example, according to the opinion of those Russians who have watched a recent (2001)
movie Enemy at the Gates, in which Jude Law, an English actor, plays our famous sniper Vassili
Zaitsev, in fact, the actors resemble real Russian warriors as much as hamsters resemble
sabretoothed tigers.

Not a distant resemblance!

If we Russians had been such silly, intimidated automatons – as the Red Army soldiers have
been usually portrayed in various dull Hollywood movies – we should have never smashed the
strongest Army in Europe: the formidable German Wehrmacht, together with their numerous
allies rallied from all over Europe.

But we won!

Although, for justice' sake, it must be noted that there was no comparison between the
Germans as really strong soldiers, and their weak allies: all those Italians, Romanians, Finns,
Hungarians, Slovaks, Croats, Belgians, Spaniards, Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Norwegians, and all
those who also participated in the Second World War on the Nazi Germany's side against us
Russians.

Poor stupid losers! They durst invade Holy Russia! We made sheer bloody mincemeat of them
all, and of their German masters, too. As usually we do so with any aggressors. Always.

In fact, the German soldiers were the sole really strong and dangerous foes who could fight
on par with us Russians.

During the Great Patriotic War, Marshal Stalin used to say about our sworn German enemy
the following:

"The Germans are a great people. Very good technicians and organisers. Good, naturally brave
soldiers."

No doubt, the Germans were the best soldiers in Europe at the time. But we Russians
appeared to be even much stronger: able to trounce whatever enemy. In other words, the Soviet
Red Army warriors proved to be the best in the world.

Because finally, with God's help

we Russians derouted the Germans undisputably!

THE NAZI GERMAN ARMY – THE WEHRMACHT

WAS THE STRONGEST ARMY IN EUROPE AT THE TIME

REMEMBER:

On June 22, 1941, German armed forces consisting of 153 divisions, including 21 armoured
(Panzer divisions) and 14 motorised ones, invaded Holy Russia. Their overall strength was
5,500,000 troops. Plus 39 divisions with more than 900,000 soldiers representing the Western
allies of Nazi Germany – Italians, Spaniards, Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Finns, Romanians,
Hungarians, Slovaks, and others. Their aggression was supported by 4,300 tanks and self-
propelled mountings, 4,980 airplanes, 47,200 guns and mortars.

The Russian armed forces consisting of five Western Frontier Military Districts and three
Fleets, opposing the aggressor, had half of the personnel as compared with the enemy – only
about 3,000,000 troops. The first echelon of our Russian armies had only 56 rifle and cavalry
divisions, which made difficult for them to vie with armoured divisions of Germans. Also, the
aggressor had a big advantage in artillery, tanks and airplanes of the latest design.

The German onslaught on Russia in 1941 seemed unstoppable:

the Juggernaut of the Wehrmacht and the SS once reached

even the outskirts of Moscow – the heart of Holy Russia

What a daunting task it really was

to stop and to destroy the hordes of mortal foes

but with God's help and under the wise Stalin's guidance

WE RUSSIANS WITHSTOOD AND WON THE WAR!

Anyway, it does not matter

how many times you get knocked down

but how many times you get up!

What does really counts is the final crushing blow

that you deliver to knock the adversary out!

This is what the Red Army made of the Germans and their allies:

THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE
AS HABITUALLY, WE RUSSIANS MADE BLOODY MINCEMEAT

OF ALL THOSE BASTARDS WHO DURST INVADE HOLY RUSSIA

IN 1941-1945 AT THE EASTERN FRONT IN RUSSIA

SEVEN MILLION GERMAN SOLDIERS WERE KILLED

AND TENS OF MILLIONS WERE MAIMED AND INJURED

DURING THE SAME PERIOD THE RED ARMY LOST

EIGHT MILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND SOLDIERS SLAIN

AND TENS OF MILLIONS WERE INJURED AND MAIMED, TOO

After the long 1418 days of mortal fightings, in the Spring of 1945

the victorious Red Army smashed the enemy undisputably

captured Berlin and won the Great Patriotic War

HOISTING THE VICTORIOUS RED BANNER

IN THE CAPTIVE BERLIN, GERMANY, MAY 1945

The German Eagle is vanquished and disgraced

The glorious Stalin's Red Army has emerged victorious!

Everyone who dares to insult us Russians

is always to pay a very dear price

Fear ye God, and keep off Russia!

RUSSIA'S MILITARY MIGHT

Russia The Puissant

Topol-M (SS-25 Sickle)

Road Mobile Launcher

As of January 1, 2007, Russia possesses 927 nuclear delivery vehicles and 4,279 nuclear
warheads for strategic offensive weapons, while the United States owns 1,255 and 5,966,
respectively, according to the Russian Defense Ministry's department for contract compliance
control.

On the 19th of January 2008, Russia's military chief of staff says Moscow would use nuclear
weapons in pre-emptive strike if it felt threatened. General Yuri Baluyevsky said there were no
plans "to attack anyone" but reasserted Russia's right to defend itself.

"To defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will
be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons," four-star General
Baluyevsky said.

U.S. and Russia Still Unrivaled

In Global Power Projection

by Martin Sief, UPI

Dec. 1, 2008

No other nation in the world can come close to rivaling either the United States or Russia in
its capability to deploy strategic nuclear, air force, naval or powerful, heavily armored and fast-
moving ground forces across such a widespread proportion of the Earth's surface.

In terms of global conventional and space-based power, Russia still falls behind the United
States. But it remains far ahead of everyone else. Neither rising China nor economically super-
prosperous Japan can dream of projecting surface sea power around the world the way the
United States – and, to a lesser degree, Russia – can. The United States operates 11 super-carrier
task forces. Britain, Spain and Italy each deploy only two carriers, and none of them is a super-
carrier.

No other nation in the world, not even the United States, has a supersonic bomber that can
remotely rival the Russian Tu-160 Blackjack.

For the full text click: HERE

The Russian Supersonic Strategic Bomber

Tupolev TU-160 White Swan

NATO designation Blackjack

is the best in the World

The Russian Strategic Bomber

Tupolev TU-95

NATO designation Bear

Topol the Formidable

In the Red Square in Moscow

On the Victory Day Parade 9 May 2008

Topol-M mobile ICBMs – NATO designation SS-27 Stalin

The Admiral Kuznetsov

Russian Aircraft Carrier

Russian Naval Aircraft SU-33

Landing on the Aircraft Carrier's Deck

Take notice of St. Andrew Russian Navy Flag

depicted at the cockpit

Typhoon Project 941 Russian Submarine

Granit Project 949 Russian Submarine

Delta Project 667 Russian Submarine

The Moskva

Russian Heavy Missile Cruiser

MIG 29 Fulcrum
SU 35 Flanker-E Russian Aircraft

the Best Multi-Role Fighter in the World

RUSSIA IS A SUPERPOWER

WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT

MARSHAL STALIN

AND THE REVIVAL OF

THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

By Michael Kuznetsov
 From personal experience I know that it was a very hard, an almost impossible task for a
common person to obtain a copy of the Holy Bible in my country during the years before the
dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. But evidently, not all readers are aware of the fact that it
was NOT Stalin, but Nikita Khruschev, who introduced such an evil order, that it was Khruschev
who attempted to suppress religion in Russia.

On the contrary, it was Stalin who, after having finished with his enemies – the so-called Fifth
Column – in the second half of the 1930s, slowly began to revive the Russian Orthodox Church
(ROC). Then in 1943 Marshal Stalin initiated the re-establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate of
the ROC and permitted the re-opening of a great number of seminaries, monasteries and
cathedrals all over the USSR. And what is especially remarkable, it was personally Stalin who
advised to begin publication of The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, a monthly clerical
magazine, which has been published since 1943 until the present day.

One recalls also that as a youth Stalin studied in the Tiflis Orthodox Christian seminary. His
first words in a famous RADIO ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE on 3rd July 1941 were: Comrades,
Citizens, BROTHERS AND SISTERS! . . .

The full version of Stalin's appeal see here: /appeal.htm

In the terrible autumn of 1942, by order of Marshal Stalin the ancient miracle-working Kazan
Icon of the Most Holy Mother of God was taken to Stalingrad, where people were constantly
praying before it for victory over the murderous German invaders, and where they were
remembering the heroes fallen in the bloody fightings for Stalingrad.

And we won!

The Theotokos of Kazan Holy Icon had been brought always to the most dangerous sections of
the front line, where the situation was critical, and where our offensive was being planned. It
stood among our Russian forces on the right bank of the Volga, sometimes at a distance of only
two hundred yards from the enemy's positions, and the German murderous godless invaders
could not cross the Volga River, no matter how hard they tried.

The famous Battle of Stalingrad began with the prayerful Orthodox service before the Holy
Miracle-working Icon of the Kazan Mother of God, and it was only after these prayers had
completed that a signal was given to our Russian forces to launch the final all-out attack. The
Russian soldiers were blessed with holy water, and they felt like being immortal and invincible
before the bloody mortal fight!

For this and other cases that proved Stalin's inner Christianity (under the guise of
communism) see here:

http://www.vor.ru/English/Victory/vict_09.html

As to my own copy of the Holy Bible, the most cherished thing in my family, it once belonged
to my great-great-grandmother. My forebears lost EVERYTHING during the Great Patriotic War,
literally, yet the only precious heirloom that was saved from the flames was the Holy Bible,
which is now in my possession.

THE BOLSHEVIKS:

A MISLEADING TERMINOLOGY

Under One Common Label "The Bolsheviks"

Were Disguised Two Mortally Antagonistic Groups:

Destructivists and Constructivists

The Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Civil War is too vast a topic to be discussed here in full
detail. Perhaps, we shall dwell on this very important theme elsewhere at some later time.

Meanwhile, I would like to offer here a few brief considerations.

1. All the anti-Russian revolutionary activities, initially suppressed by Alexander III after the
assassination of his august father, Emperor Alexander II, resumed in 1895, just after the untimely
death of Emperor Alexander III the Peacemaker.

2. If the strong and wise reign of Emperor Alexander III had continued, or if his son and
successor, Emperor Nicholas II, had been as resolute and firm as his father – there would hardly
have been a revolution.

3. The main blunder Emperor Nicholas II made – in my opinion – was permitting the
establishment of a Duma (Russian Parliament).

4. Instead of having all the revolutionaries hanged, Emperor Nicholas II naïvely allowed them
to undermine and spoil Russian Power on a permanent legal basis.

5. It should be clearly understood and remembered that many, if not all, of the White
Generals were those traitors who forced Emperor Nicholas II to abdicate in February 1917.

6. It should also be kept in mind that almost all of the so-called "White Guards" during the
Civil War were not struggling for the restoration of the Monarchy.

7. The Red Guards (Communists) enjoyed vast support by the poor – who constituted the
overwhelming majority of the nation – because of the Reds' slogans of social equality.

8. The yearning for the Brotherly Equality and Justice has always been and remains to be the
core of Russian Christian mentality, at least for the last thousand years.

The Russian Civil War was one of the most important and complex events of the twentieth
century. The collapse of the Tsarist regime and the failure of the Kerensky Provisional
Government nearly led to the complete (though temporal) disintegration of the Russian state.
What followed was a painful and costly reconstruction of Russian power under the Bolshevik
regime within its shrunken borders.

The Russian Civil War shaped the mentality of the Communists more than any other event in
its history. The infant Soviet regime faced large 'White' armies of anti-Communist Russians,
Anarchist mutineers, break-away nationalist minorities and invading armies of most of the major
powers of the First World War. The murderous Civil War with huge casualties left the Soviets
with a lasting mistrust of the outside world, which remained in force until the end of the regime
65 years later.
SAINT ROYAL MARTYRS ICON

THE RUSSIAN IMPERIAL FAMILY

MURDERED IN 1918

BY THE BOLSHEVIK DESTRUCTIVISTS

Troparion to the Royal Martyrs:

Meekly didst thou endure the loss of thine earthly kingdom, the bonds and divers sufferings
inflicted upon thee by those opposed to God, and didst bear witness for Christ even unto death,
O great passion-bearer, divinely crowned Tsar Nicholas; wherefore, Christ God hath crowned
thee in the heavens with a martyr's crown, together with thy queen, thy children and thy
servants. Him do thou beseech, that He have mercy upon the Russian land and save our souls.
Amen.

From the mid 1920s through the 1930s, Joseph Stalin and his group of the "Constructivists"
(Patriots) struggled fiercely within the Communist Party against the "Destructivists" (Aliens) who
operated under the guidance of Leon Trotsky, a notorious enemy of everything Russian and
Christian. The overwhelming majority of the Russian people within and without the Party
supported Stalin's constructive-positivist drive with his very progressive slogan "Socialism in One
Country!" in opposition to the destructive-nihilist Trotskyite gang's drive under the aggressive
slogan "Permanent Revolution All Over the World!"

The Russians did not want to conquer the world and to die for Trotsky and his alien godless
clique's yearning for the world domination. We Russians had a lot to do within the borders of
our Homeland, including Collectivization and Industrialization, which were absolutely necessary
in order to secure the revival and development of our country, and the preparations for the
military defense of the USSR.
The ruins of the Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow, blown up by the Bolshevik
Destructivists in 1931.

Before Stalin concenrated the state power in his hands in the late 1930s, the enemies of the
Russian people – the so-called "Lenin's Guard" or the "Old Bolsheviks" – had managed to inflict a
great damage to the country's economy, and caused the Christian people much of grief.
Thousands of Russian Orthodox churches and monasteries were demolished, a great number of
Russian Orthodox Christian believers, church hierarchs, priests, and monks were either exiled, or
imprisoned, or shot and killed by the godless Trotskyites.

Eventually, step by step, Stalin visited retribution on all the torturers of the Russian people
and on all the bestial killers of the Russian Imperial Family. The sworn enemies of everything
Russian – the so-called "Old Bolsheviks": Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov, and a number of
others – were duly tried in a series of open legal proceedings and executed. And justly so.

Stalin also managed to discover and liquidate the most dangerous military plot by a narrow
margin just on the eve of their coup-d'état that was scheduled by the chief traitor Marshal
Mikhail Tukhachevsky in the early Summer of 1937. Those heinous military Trotskyite
conspirators were tried and executed, too.

The so-called "Stalin's Purges" were in fact a bitter struggle between the Constructivists and
Destructivists, during whose violent struggle, unfortunately, a lot of innocent people also
perished. Although, the number of the victims (both guilty and innocent) did never exceed
700,000 persons in total.

NOT MILLIONS!

Strictly put, since 1921 till 1954 (that is for the whole period of 33 years) in the Soviet Union –
according to the official archives of the NKVD, Ministry of the Interior, and of all other state
prosecuting organs – there was found and documentarily confirmed the following total number
of repressed persons. Namely:

Executed: – 642,980 persons

Imprisoned: – 2,369,220 persons

Compare with this Study: 7.3 million in US prison system in 2007

Exiled: – 765,180 persons

Thus, the Fifth Column of the traitors in the U.S.S.R. was liquitated shortly before the War.
Soon afterwards, in 1943, Stalin disbanded also the notorious Comintern (the Communist
International also known as the Third International), an aggressive revolutionary organisation
that was established in 1919 to foment revolution in other countries all over the world.
 The great Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin and his true friend and loyal comrade Marshal Kliment
Voroshilov in the Kremlin, Moscow, 1938. How to secure the defence of the Motherland, that
was their principal concern all of the time.

Not only did Stalin restore the former mightiness of the Russian Empire, but he also managed
to have developed the U.S.S.R. into a highly industrialized country, so that we succeeded in
withstanding of the German onslaught, and eventually we emerged victorious in the Great
Patriotic War in 1941 - 1945. Thanks to Stalin, during the War we had the best tanks, the best
planes, and the best artillery in the world.

The Red Army morale and the fighting spirit were extremely high under the guidance of
Marshal Stalin when we were fighting the murderous German invaders. The Leader of the Soviet
State restored our glorious millennial history in all of its splendour, remembering all of Russia's
saints and heroes from the past centuries. Under Stalin's rule our beloved country Russia
became a superpower!

Marshal Stalin re-introduced the old Russian military ranks, as well as the imperial uniform
with golden braids and epaulettes, and even several imperial institutions, such as the Cadet
Corps, the Order of St Alexander Nevsky (right picture), and most impressive military parades.
 It goes without question that Stalin's majestic architectural style (called sometimes the
"Russian Empire style") and the Moscow Metro (Subway) proved to be the best in the world.

But of course, the most important of all exploits he performed was that Stalin revived the
Russian Orthodox Church – the true Soul of the Russian Nation.

Small wonder that Holy Russia's enemies and ill-wishers continue to hate the Great Stalin
even to the present day.

THE STALIN SPORTS PARADES:

A Healthy Mind In A Healthy Body

"Citius, Altius, Fortius!"

CHILDREN ARE THE FAMILY'S FORTUNE

CHILDREN ARE THE NATION'S FUTURE

BE HAPPY, DARLING!

Russia Has Always Been

A Traditionally Oriented Society:

MOTHERLAND, FAMILY, CHILDREN

ABORTION, SODOMY
AND OTHER ABOMINATIONS

WERE STRICTLY FORBIDDEN IN THE USSR

UNDER STALIN`S RULE

In her exceptionally interesting article The New Soviet Union: America and the West, the author
Linda Kimball wrote:

"Behind radical feminism, same-sex marriage, the androgyny theme, gay pride, and the
overall pattern of degeneration at all levels of society throughout America and the West lies a
revamped international Communist revolution. Being it shuns the Communist label and instead
disguises itself as " "Separation of church and state, pornography, easy divorce, open borders,
extreme sex education, abortion, gay pride, same-sex marriage, androgyny, political correctness,
speech codes, the wreckage of the traditional family, and hate crime laws – all were imported to
the Christian West from the Soviet Union. We did not recognize it as Communism because we
believed Stalin's modified version to be the original communism". [ . . . ] "Like falling
dominoes, the collapsing family led to the fall of social order, culture, and then the economy,
unleashing a tidal wave of crime, corruption, sexual debauchery, and chaos. anti-
StalinistMulticulturalism and Political Correctness.

pre-Stalinist

When Stalin came to power, he took immediate steps to restore order. The family and ethics
were restored, abortion and divorce made difficult to obtain, and sodomy, gender-bendering,
etc. were re-criminalized.

In taking these steps, Stalin destroyed the Bolshevik's 'revolution,' for which they hate him to
this day".

For the first time in the Russian history legal abortion was allowed by the Destructive Bolsheviks
in Russia in 1920. After Joseph Stalin succeeded in suppression and liquidation of most of that
godless scum – the notorious "Lenin's Old Guard" – by the mid-1930s, (punishable by 2-years'
term of imprisonment) by the Soviet Government Decree, dated 27 June 1936. Soon after the
Stalin's death, his "successor," Nikita Khruschev (a disguised Trotskyite) again legal abortion on
23 November 1955. which had been strictly forbidden by the Bolsheviks immediately after the
Revolution in 1917, and the Russian children would again receive Christmas presents from
Grandfather Frost (the Russian for Santa Claus). As is known, in the mid-1930s, despite the
rabid opposition of the "Old Bolsheviks." Stalin's efforts resulted in 1943 in the establishment of
the Moscow Patriarchate. During the Great Patriotic War Stalin concluded his daily Stavka (Staff
Headquarter) meetings and briefings with his marshals and generals with these words: and
After Stalin's death, initiated severe persecutions of the Russian Orthodox Church again,
impudently promising that by 1980 there would remain no single Orthodox priest in the USSR.

Stalin made abortion in the USSR strictly forbidden

allowed

Stalin re-introduced Christmas Tree in 1936,

it was Stalin who began to revive the Russian Orthodox Church"So help us God!""Go and be
victorious with God!"

the notorious traitor Nikita Khruschev

THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR 1941-1945 OF THE U.S.S.R. AGAINST NAZI GERMANY WE RUSSIANS
WON A BITTER WAR WITH GOD'S AID UNDER STALIN'S GUIDANCE

On June 22, 1941, consisting of 153 divisions, including 21 armoured (Panzer divisions) and 14
motorised ones, invaded Holy Russia. Their overall strength was Plus 39 divisions with more than
900,000 soldiers representing the Western allies of Nazi Germany – Italians, Spaniards,
Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Finns, Romanians, Hungarians, Slovaks, and others. Their aggression was
supported by 4,300 tanks and self-propelled mountings, 4,980 airplanes, 47,200 guns and
mortars. The consisting of five Western Frontier Military Districts and three Fleets, opposing
the aggressor, had half of the personnel as compared with the enemy – only about The first
echelon of our Russian armies had only 56 rifle and cavalry divisions, which made difficult for
them to vie with armoured divisions of Germans. Also, the aggressor had a big advantage in
artillery, tanks and airplanes of the latest design. When Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet
Union (pictured below right), acting as the Locum Tenens of the Russian Patriarch, wrote a which
read: German armed forces5,500,000 troops.

Russian armed forces3,000,000 troops.

on June 22nd 1941, Metropolitan SergiusMessage to the pastors and congregations of the
Russian Orthodox Church,

"Our Beloved in Christ Brothers and Sisters! The fascist brigands have attacked our
Motherland. They trampled underfoot all treaties and pledges, and treacherously fell on us, and
now Russian soil is being soaked with the blood of peaceful civilians. The times of Batu Khan,
German knights, the Swedish King Charles XII and Napoleon seem to have returned. The
wretched descendants of the enemies of Orthodox Christianity are again set on using untruth
and brutal violence to bring our people to their knees and make them sacrifice the good and
territorial integrity of the Motherland, our ancestors' behests to love our country. But it's not for
the first time that the Russian people have had to live through the time of trial. This time, too,
our Lord will help us to defeat the enemy force, the Nazis. Our forefathers had to face much
worse situations, but they never lost courage because they prayed not for their own lives, but for
their sacred duty to their Motherland and their faith, and they emerged victorious. Can we, the
Orthodox people, allow their names to be put to shame, we, who are related to them in flesh
and faith? The Church of Christ gives its blessing to all the Orthodox believers on defending the
sacred borders of our Motherland. "

God will grant us victory!

In the face of the great danger the Russian Orthodox Church did not blame Stalin's
government for the destruction of numerous churches and persecution of thousands of
believers committed by the godless Trotskists. Those heinous enemies of the people – the
godless aliens, Destructivists – had been mainly destroyed already by Stalin during the purges in
the second half of the 1930s. The Russian Orthodox Church called for national accord, for a
pooling of efforts to fight the Nazi invaders. It blessed the nation's Patriotic War, and the blessing
was approved by Heaven.

In the Great Patriotic War against Hitler's German invaders in 1941-1945 our helped us
through Her wonder-working icon of the Mother of God of Kazan.most Holy, most Pure, most
Blessed and Glorious Lady, the Birth-giver of God, and Ever-Virgin Mary

Icon of the Mother of God of Kazan

This is what our contemporary, the highly esteemed clergymen wrote in his memoirs:
"When the Great Patriotic War began, addressed all Christians of the world with a plea for
material and spiritual help for Russia. At the time our country could boast of precious few true
friends. There were also great zealots of devout prayer like () who stood on a rock for a
thousand days and nights praying for the salvation of the country and our people. And what is
more, it was God's will that one of our country's few friends, from the Patriarchate of Antioch,
was chosen to deliver the Lord's intent regarding the destinies of Russia. The Metropolitan
realised what Russia meant for the world, and prayed for our country's salvation and the
spiritual enlightenment of our people. Metropolitan Elias Karam went underground, where no
sounds could penetrate the stone walls, a bare place with the exception of the icon of the
Mother of God, and wilfully shut himself up there. He accepted neither food nor drink, did not
sleep, and remained kneeling praying to the icon of the Mother of God, lit by a lamp. Every
morning the Metropolitan received news from the front regarding the number of casualties and
how far the Nazis had advanced. After three days and nights of vigil, the and announced to him
that he had been chosen to make known the Lord's instructions for our country and its people. If
everything contained in the instructions were carried out to the letter, the country would not
perish. The Mother of God announced that monasteries, churches, seminaries, and
theological academies should be opened throughout the country. Clergymen should be
summoned back from the front and the prisons, and church services begun. said the Holy
Virgin. Metropolitan Elias Karam made contact with representatives of the Moscow
Patriarchate and the secular Soviet Government, and passed on to them the Lord's decree. The
archives still contain the various telegrams and letters that Metropolitan Elias Karam sent to
Moscow. The Soviet Leader, Marshal Joseph Stalin, summoned Metropolitan Sergius
Stragorodsky, the head of the Moscow Patriarchate, and Metropolitan Aleksey Simansky of
Leningrad and promised them that everything Metropolitan Elias Karam of the Lebanon Hills had
conveyed would be fulfilled. Stalin could see no other way of saving the situation. Everything
happened just as it was predicted. The icon of the Mother of God of Kazan was carried in a cross-
bearing procession around the city of Leningrad, and the enemy did not seize it, despite a harsh,
long, and pitiless siege. Moscow was saved in a similar way. This was a miracle, for the
Germans were within 30 kilometres of the Kremlin. The defeat of Hitler's army on the outskirts
of Moscow became the end of the Nazi victories. Afterwards, the Kazan icon of the Mother of
God was taken to Stalingrad, where people constantly prayed before it, remembering the fallen.
The icon stood among our forces on the right bank of the Volga, and the fascists could not cross
the river, no matter how hard they tried. The famous Battle of Stalingrad began with prayers
before the icon of the Kazan Mother of God, and only after these prayers was the signal given to
our forces to launch an offensive. The icon was brought to the most difficult sections of the
frontline, where the situation was critical, and where an offensive was being planned. The
soldiers were blessed with holy water, and they responded with sincere joy!" In his memoirs,
narrates a story he heard from one officer-veteran of the Great Patriotic war, who fought on the
approaches to Koenigsberg. The following events amazed him. "This story happened during
the storming of Koenigsberg in 1944. Our troops were exhausted, while the Germans, on the
other hand, were still a force to be reckoned with. We were suffering huge losses and a terrible
defeat seemed imminent. Suddenly, we saw the Commander of the front arrive, accompanied by
clergymen carrying an icon. The clergymen said prayers and with the icon headed straight for
the frontline. We watched them bewildered. There they were, walking tall, fearless of being
shot! In the meantime, a barrage of fire was coming from the German side. Yet, the clergymen
calmly walked towards the fire. Suddenly, the firing from the German side ceased, as if cut short.
Then our command gave the signal to begin the storming of Koenigsberg from land and from
sea. The Germans surrendered by the thousands. Afterwards, the prisoners said that right before
our assault 'the Madonna appeared in the sky', that is how they referred to the Mother of God.
It was visible to the entire German Army, and everyone's weapons failed, they could not fire a
single shot". In 1947, Stalin made good on his promise and invited to Russia. He was accorded
a gracious welcome. Profoundly moved, Metropolitan Elias Karam said, "It gives me great
pleasure to witness the revival of the Orthodox Faith on the territory of Holy Rus, and see that
the Lord and the Mother of God have not forsaken your country, but rather have displayed
particular benevolence towards it". The right photo shows Patriarch Alexy I and Mitropolitan
Elias Karam (right) in Moscow, 1947. The Metropolitan was sent off with precious gifts, a copy
of the icon of the Mother of God of Kazan, a cross and a small pectoral icon of the Mother of
God encased in precious stones from all regions of our country. Thus, the entire country
contributed to a gift made by the most skilled of jewelers. One can continue narrating the
various miracles that have occurred and are still occurring from prayers said before the icon of
the Mother of God of Kazan. For more information see this site: Being an Orthodox
Christian by education in his youth, and having lived among the Russians for many years, Stalin
knew that Orthodoxy was the Russian people's main spiritual basis. It was not by chance that he
called the Soviet citizens "Brothers and Sisters" in his famous radio broadcast appeal on July 3,
1941. Archpriest Vasily Shvetz

Patriarch Alexander III of Antioch

St Seraphim of Vyritsa,right photo

Metropolitan Elias Karam of the Lebanon Hills,

Holy Virgin Herself appeared before the Metropolitan in a pillar of fire,

'Right now there are plans in action regarding the surrender of Leningrad','It must not be
surrendered! Let them take my Kazan icon and carry it in a solemn cross-bearing procession
around the city, then, the enemy shall never set foot on its holy ground. This city is a chosen one.
A church service before the Kazan icon should be conducted in Moscow, too. Then, it should be
in Stalingrad, which should not be surrendered at any cost. The Kazan icon should accompany
the troops right to the country's borders.'

Archpriest Vasily Shvetz

That was the icon of the Mother of God of Kazan.

Metropolitan Elias Karam of the Lebanon Hills

In spring 1942 Stalin insisted that the Soviet Government allow nation-wide with all the bells
chiming across the country for the first time in many years!Paschal (Easter) celebrations,
 On the 4th of September 1943 Stalin invited the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church –
Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow, Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) of Leningrad,
and Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) of Kiev – to the Kremlin to discuss the need for reviving
religious life in the USSR and the speedy election of a Patriarch. It was decided to convene an
All-Russia Council of the Orthodox Church on the 8th of September 1943 that Thus, in 1943
Sergius became the first elected Patriarch since the times of Emperor Peter I who abolished the
Moscow Patriarchate in 1700.

elected Sergius Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

during the war years. Marshal Stalin the re-opening of a number of and cathedrals all over the
USSR. It was Stalin personally who advised to begin publication of a monthly clerical
magazine, still published today. And what was especially remarkable – the of the Russian
Orthodox Church were personally invited by Marshal Stalin in the Red Square, Moscow, on the
24th of June 1945.20,000 Orthodox churches were openedpermittedseminaries, monasteries

The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate,

Highest Hierarchsto attend the Victory Parade as honorary guests

This is a still from a documentary film that shows a new Patriarch Alexy I (since Patriarch
Sergius died in 1944) together with the other Russian Orthodox Church Dignitaries before the
beginning of the in Moscow on the 24th of June 1945. Note the Soviet military medals "For the
Victory over Germany" proudly displayed on the "cordial side" of the breast of each Clerical
Hierarch. proceeding to their seats on the honorary guests tribune in the Red SquareVictory
Parade
WE STAND FOR PEACEAND ADVOCATE THE CAUSE OFPEACE IN THE WORLD!

THE MUDSLINGING CAMPAIGN AGAINST STALIN

The plot and the purpose of the "millions of Stalin's victims" is very simple. Let's examine
point by point the scheme of the dirty campaign against Stalin. Stalin was allegedly a very
"bad man", a "crazy monster" who "killed" millions of Russians. In reality, only and real enemies
of the state were executed during the space of time of but who cares. See: Amazingly
enough, the Russians loved and revered Stalin, such a "bloody dictator" as he was. The
Russians loved "despotic murderous" Stalin because they have always been and remain to be
"obtuse morons" and Now the final and the of the whole hoax: Since the Russians are
"slavish morons" so the Western civilized soldiers will be able Thus, this is the way how the in
the West have been duped so that the NATO leaders could make of them As simple as that.
The is a usual practice before every assault on Russia. Recall, for instance, what Napoleon and
Adolf Hitler used to say about us Russians. I am a genuine 100 percent Russian, I was born in
Russia and I have lived for many years in Russia. I have got dozens, even hundreds of friends, and
thousands of acquaintances in Russia. But I have encountered anyone of those people whose
relatives were "repressed" by the "murderous tyrant" Stalin. During my lifetime I have
encountered one single person in Russia who did have at least one member of the family killed
by the German invaders. In other words, For instance, as I have said elsewhere, during the
Great Patriotic War. At the same time – I emphasize this over and over again – of my family
members or any of my acquaintances' families were "killed" by Stalin. This is my own lifetime
experience.
First.642,980 criminals33 (sic!) years,

/faq.htm

Second.Why?

Third."inborn slaves".

MAIN POINT

Fourth. to easily defeat the barbaric Russian Bear.

common peopleblind cannon fodder.

demonization

never

notnot

in Russia there is not a single family left intact by the Great Patriotic War in 1941-1945.

8 out of 12 members of my own family were killed by the German invaders

none
– Michael Kuznetsov

Stalin's Gravein the Red Square at the Kremlin Wallhas been daily laid with fresh flowers Eulogy
of Patriarch Alexy I in the Patriarchal Cathedral on the Stalin's funeral

"The Great Leader of our people, Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin, is no more. A great force has
disappeared, both a moral and civic one; a force by which he was guided in his constructive
efforts and measures. There is not an area into which the Great Leader did not penetrate. People
of science were amazed at his scientific knowledge in the most varied disciplines, his
generalizations were of genius; military people – by his military genius; people of all different
types of labor unfailingly received from him great assistance and valuable advice. As a man of
genius, he discovered in each matter that which was invisible and unreachable for the common
mind. About his concerns, struggles and exploits during the Great Patriotic War, about his
direction of military actions, which led us to victory over a powerful enemy and against fascism
in general; about his multi-faceted unbounded everyday labors in administration, in the directing
of governmental affairs, it has been widely and convincingly written in the press, and expressed
during today's final departure at his funeral, by his closest associates. His name, as a fighter for
peace in the whole world and his glorious deeds will live into the ages. We, also, who have
gathered here for prayer for him, cannot pass under silence his benevolent, participatory
attitude about our ecclesiastical needs. There was not one question that we directed to him that
was refused by him; he satisfied all our requests. And the government did much that is good and
beneficial for the Church, thanks to his high authority." "In these days that are so sad for us,
from all parts of our Fatherland, from hierarchs, clergy and the faithful, as well as from abroad
from the Heads and representatives of Churches, both Orthodox and heterodox, I continue to
receive a large number of telegrams, in which are reported prayers for him and expressions of
condolences on the occasion of this loss, so sorrowful for us. We prayed for him when we
received word of his grave illness. And now that he is no more, we pray for the peace of his
immortal soul. Yesterday, a special delegation, consisting of the Most Reverend Metropolitan
Nikolai; the representative of the hierarchy, clergy and faithful of Siberia, Archbishop Palladiy;
the representative of the hierarchy, clergy and faithful of the Ukraine, Archbishop Nikon, and
Protopresbyter Fr. Nicholas, placed a wreath at his coffin and bowed down before his remains in
the name of the Russian Orthodox Church. Prayer filled with Christian love rises up to God. We
believe that our prayers too about him will be heard by the Lord. And to our beloved and
unforgettable Iosif Vissarionovich we prayerfully, with deep, fervent love intone 'Memory
Eternal'."

(Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1953, No. 3)

THE POISONOUS MYTHS OF THE EASTERN FRONT By Anatoly Karlin, 9 May 2009

VICTORY DAY SPECIAL

За нас, за вас, и за десант, и за спецназ!

The Red Army was the single greatest contributor to the defeat of Nazi Germany sixty-four
years ago, a truly evil empire based on slavery and oppression, and responsible for the genocide
of millions of Slav civilians, Jews, Soviet POW's and Roma by gas, bullets and starvation. Yet
ever since the first days of the Cold War, there has been a concerted campaign to whitewash the
Wehrmacht of participation in war crimes and to rehabilitate the generals who participated in it
as enthusiastically as Hitler and the upper echelons of the Nazi Party. This resulted in the
promulgation of many poisonous myths about the Eastern Front that are only now being laid to
rest. I already wrote about several of these myths in my . Heroic Americans with their British
sidekicks won World War Two, while the Russian campaign was a sideshow. Although Western
Lend-Lease and strategic bombing was highly useful, the reality is that the vast majority of
German soldiers and airmen fought and died on the Eastern Front throughout the war.
Rüdiger Overmans in Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg estimates that from
the Polish campaign to the end of 1944, 75-80% of all German armed forces personnel died or
went missing in action on the Eastern Front up to the end of 1944. According to Krivosheev's
research, throughout the war, the vast majority of German divisions were concentrated against
the Soviet Union – in 1942, for instance, there were 240 fighting in the East and 15 in North
Africa, in 1943 there were 257 in the East and up to 26 in Italy and even in 1944 there were more
than 200 in the East compared to just 50 understrength and sub-par divisions in the West. From
June 1941 to June 1944, 507 German (and 607 German and Allied) divisions and 77,000 fighters
were destroyed in the East, compared to 176 divisions and 23,000 fighters in the West. The two
pivotal battles, Stalingrad and El Alamein, differed in scale by a factor of about ten. This is not
to disparage the Western Allied soldiers who fought and died to free the world from Nazism. In
particular, the seamen who enabled Lend-Lease, at high risk of lethal submarine attack, to
transport indispensables like canned food, trucks and aviation fuel to Russia, possibly played a
crucial role in preventing its collapse in 1941-42. And the bomber crews massively disrupted
Germany's war potential at the cost of horrid fatality ratios, significantly shortening the war
(albeit it is currently fashionable to castigate them for killing 600,000 people who by and large
had no problem with waging a war of extermination responsible for tens of millions of deaths on
the Eastern Front). The Russians just threw billions of soldiers without rifles in front of
German machine guns. The vast majority of German soldiers were killed, taken POW or
otherwise incapacitated on the Eastern front. The Soviet to Axis loss ratio was 1.3:1 and the
USSR outproduced Germany in every weapons system throughout the war. According to
meticulous post-Soviet archival work (G. I. Krivosheev in Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses),
the total number of men (and in the Soviet case, about 1mn women) who passed through the
armed forces of the USSR was 34,476,700 and through Germany's was 21,107,000. Of these, the
"irrevocable losses" (the number of soldiers who were killed in military action, went MIA,
became POWs and died of non-combat causes) was 11,285,057 for the USSR, 6,231,700 for
Germany, 6,923,700 for Germany and its occupied territories, and 8,649,500 for all the Axis
forces on the Eastern Front. Thus, the total ratio of Soviet to Nazi military losses was 1.3:1.
Hardly the stuff of "Asiatic hordes" of Nazi and Russophobic imagination (that said, also contrary
to popular opinion, Mongol armies were almost always a lot smaller than those of their enemies
and they achieved victory through superior mobility and coordination, not numbers). The
problem is that during the Cold War, the historiography in the West was dominated by the
memoirs of Tippelskirch, who wrote in the 1950's citing constant Soviet/German forces ratios of
7:1 and losses ratio of 10:1. This has been carried over into the 1990's (as with popular
"historians" like Anthony Beevor), although it should be noted that more professional folks like
Richard Overy are aware of the new research. Note also that cumulatively 28% and 57% of all
Soviet losses were incurred in 1941 and 1942 (Krivosheev) respectively – the period when the
Soviet army was still relatively disorganized and immobile, whereas for the Germans the balance
was roughly the opposite with losses concentrated in 1944-45. The idea that there were two
soldiers for every rifle in the Red Army, as portrayed in the ahistorical propaganda film Enemy at
the Gates, is a complete figment of the Russophobic Western imagination. From 1939 to 1945,
the USSR outproduced Germany in aircraft (by a factor of 1.3), tanks (1.7), machine guns (2.2),
artillery (3.2) and mortars (5.5), so in fact if anything the Red Army was better equipped than the
Wehrmacht (sources – Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won; Chris Chant, Small Arms). Though
the Wehrmacht fought with honor and dignity on the Eastern Front, the Russians killed all the
German POW's and raped and looted East Germany when they conquered it. The Great
Patriotic War was an absolute war that was more brutal than anything seen in the West by
orders of magnitude throughout its entire length. The hundreds of thousands German civilian
and POW deaths at Soviet hands, though tragic, pale besides the up to 15-20mn Soviet civilian
dead and the 60% mortality ratio of Soviet POW's in German camps. Set against these numbers,
the Red Army rapes in east Germany seem almost irrelevant. One of the greatest crimes in
Western Europe was the massacre of Oradour-sur-Glane, in which 642 civilians were murdered
by a Waffen-SS battalion. But just one region in the East, Belarus, with 20% of France's
population, experienced the equivalent of more than 3,000 Oradours – some 2,230,000 people
were killed in Belarus during the three years of German occupation, or a quarter of its
population. At least 5,295 Belorussian settlements were destroyed by the Nazis and more than
600 villages like Khatyn were annihilated with their entire population under the cover of anti-
partisan operations.

Top 10 Russophobe Myths

MYTH I:

REALITY:

MYTH II:

REALITY:
MYTH III:

REALITY:

A poignant memorial to Nazi genocide in Khatyn – the one flame among three birch trees
symbolizes the quarter of the Belarussian population who died in 1941-44. Furthermore,
The Russian Academy of Science in 1995 reported civilian victims in the USSR at German hands,
including Jews, totaled 13.7mn dead, 20% of the 68mn persons in the occupied USSR. This
included 7.4mn victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 2.2mn deaths of persons deported to
Germany for forced labor; and 4.1mn famine and disease deaths in occupied territory. There
were an additional estimated 3.0 million famine deaths in the USSR not under German
occupation. This was all part of a Nazi scheme, Generalplan Ost, which called for the
extermination of the Slavic intelligentsia and most of their urban populations, as well as the
helotization or exile to Siberia of their peasants. Confirmed by internal documents and
numerous quotes from high Nazi officials: The war between Germany and Russia is not a war
between two states or two armies, but between two ideologies-namely, the National Socialist
and the Bolshevist ideology. The Red Army must be looked upon not as a soldier in the sense of
the word applying to our western opponents, but as an ideological enemy. He must be regarded
as the archenemy of National Socialism and must be treated accordingly. – General Hermann
Reinecke. We must break away from the principle of soldierly comradeship. The communist
has been and will be no comrade. We are dealing with a struggle of annihilation. – Adolf Hitler.
Some 3.3mn Soviet POWs died in the Nazi custody out of 5.7mn (USHMM), the vast majority of
them from July 1941 to January 1942 (i.e. when the Germans still thought they'd win quickly so
no consequences for their own POW's). This death rate of around 60% can be contrasted with
the 8,300 out of 231,000 British and American prisoners who died (3.6%) in Nazi hands, or even
the 580,548 out of 4,126,964 Axis servicemen who died as Soviet POW's (Krivosheev), that is
around 15%. (The question of how many German POW's died in Western camps is hotly
disputed. Though they ostensibly followed the Geneva conventions and cited numbers are
typically low, of the roughly 1,000 U.S. combat veterans that historian Stephen Ambrose
interviewed, roughly 1/3 told him they had seen U.S. troops kill German prisoners. The
controversial historian James Bacque claims that Allied Supreme Commander Dwight
Eisenhower deliberately caused the death of 790,000 German captives in internment camps
through disease, starvation and cold from 1944 to 1949, and that 250,000 perished in French
camps in similar conditions). The Red Army gets bad press for its behavior during the final
invasion of Prussia, in which they are frequently described as drunk looters and rapists. The
consensus seems that although formal orders were against such activities, in practice most
turned a blind eye to it. Yet while tragic, it is completely understandable and does not deserve
the centrality placed on it by too many anti-Communist (or frequently plain Russophobic)
pseudo-historians. Consider what the typical Red Army soldier experienced before getting to
Berlin: years of brutal fighting with a very high risk of death and almost certain to be wounded
one time or another; hearing the stories of murdered Soviet POW's; the sight of thousands of
burned villages and massacred women, children and old men in Western Russia, Belarus, the
Ukraine and Poland; the death camps of Auschwitz and Treblinka; and finally, the (seemingly)
decadent luxury of the conditions in which German citizens themselves lived (who, let us not
forget, democratically elected Hitler and who with just a few honorable exceptions like the
White Rose passively or even enthusiastically accepted Nazism). This was, in the words of
German leaders themselves, a war of extermination. Set against German atrocities in the East, or
even the frequently brutal postwar ethnic cleansing of millions of Germans from countries like
Poland and Czechoslovakia, it is at best wrong-headed and at worse racialist in the Nazi style to
give such centrality to the rape of Berlin. Many accounts allege that the Soviets sent all their
returned POW's to the Gulag, if they didn't shoot them for treason. Actually, according to
Krivosheev, 233,400 were found guilty of collaborating with the enemy and sent to Gulag camps
out of 1,836,562 Soviet soldiers that returned from captivity. The mainstream Western
narrative on the Eastern Front during the Second World War was formed by academic historians
and is fundamentally fair and objective. The exigencies of the Cold War, coupled with
traditional US anti-Communism, meant that many Americans sympathized with the German
narrative of the war. In particular, the Wehrmacht officers talked, networked and wrote about
how the German military was not complicit in Nazi war crimes so as to cement West Germany
(not to mention their own careers) into the Western alliance on equal terms. The complexities
and compromises of military involvement in genocide in the East was whitewashed into a kitschy
image of the German soldier as a patriot braving the odds to defend family and Heimat from the
Bolshevik hordes. The US military and politicians were just fine with this, because they faced an
ideological struggle and possible land war with the Soviet Union. Though there is serious and
reasonably objective Western academic work on the Eastern Front, popular culture is still
dominated by German memoirs and a-historical romanticizers. I've long been skeptical about
the way Russians were portrayed in accounts of WW2. Although some (generally recent) work is
sympathetic and appreciative of the combat capabilities of the Red Army (e.g. Chris Bellamy),
most stress the German side of the conflict. The latter typically distinguish themselves by traits
like: admiration for the supposed brilliant of German generals like von Manstein and Guderian,
who'd have won if not for Hitler's interference; constant reference to the supposed vast
numerical superiority and callous disregard for casualties of the Soviets; emphasize "Russian"
war crimes (offensives, etc, are however "Soviet"), while attributing all German crimes to
"Nazis", usually focusing on groups like the Einsatzgruppen and SS and avoiding discussing
Wehrmacht complicity, etc. Thankfully, two authors, Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies,
recently wrote a book, The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in Popular Culture,
which finally collates and authoritatively confirms these strong suspicions about the
objectiveness of Western popular historiography on the subject into an accessible, well-argued
narrative. Most of what follows is drawn directly from the book, in chronological order. Before
WW2, many Americans had deeply ambivalent attitudes towards the Soviet Union. Though
bloggers generally consider the Russophile-Russophobe dichotomy in contemporary terms, this
division was as stark and relevant in the 1930's – John Scott in Behind the Urals (BTW, though
considered by some a Soviet apologist, it is in fact fairly objective and certainly not a pro-Soviet
propaganda tract by any stretch of the imagination) writes, "In talking with people in France and
America I was impressed by the interest in the Soviet Union and the widespread misinformation
about Russia and all things Russian. Everyone I met was opinionated [aren't we all lol!]. The
Communists and their sympathizers held Russia up as a panacea . . . Other people were
steeped in Eugene Lyons' stories and would not concede the possibility that Russia had produced
anything during recent years except chaos, suffering and disorder. They dismissed the industrial
and material successes of the Russians with an angry wave of the hand. Any economist or
businessman should have been able to see that the tripling of pig-iron production within a
decade was a serious achievement, and would necessarily have far-reaching effects on the
balance of economic and therefore military power in Europe". So basically there was (much like
today?) a hardcore Communist / Russophile fringe, a sizable anti-Communist bloc and a majority
that were mostly apathetic but overall disapproving. The exigencies of war against a common
enemy, Nazi Germany, necessitated a rehabilitation of the Soviet Union in American eyes. In
contrast to the "dirty, ignorant, brutalized peasants of Nazi mythology" and traditional
stereotypes of Russians as "mechanically inept and stupid", Americans began to emphasize the
scale of industrial modernization in the Soviet Union, their growing religiosity (helped by Stalin's
rehabilitation of the Church) and their focus on family – according to Life Magazine, Russians
now "look like Americans, dress like Americans and think like Americans". The Red Army was
lauded for its growing technical and operational competence, with its soldiers portrayed as
decent, ordinary folks defending their families and Motherland from Nazi depredations, who did
not want to die but were not afraid to do so if called upon. Americans built "bridges" to ordinary
Soviet workers such as writing letters to people in similar occupations and organizing
humanitarian relief efforts to supply food and consumer durables to needy Russians. As the
war drew to a close, even the American population, which suffered relatively few war casualties
and whose homeland remained untouched, thirsted for vengeance. Tentative plans (Morgenthau
Plan) were drawn up for the coercive deindustrialization of Germany and its fragmentation into
several demilitarized states – according to the aforementioned James Bacque, parts of this plan
were actually carried out after 1945 though gradually eased in the late 1940's as the US realized
it needed a strong German ally during the Cold War. Aided by traditional American
ambivalence towards Bolshevism and Slavs in general, memories of Russian friendship froze over
under the emerging Cold War, to be "replaced by a pro-German version, one that stressed
Russian atrocities, German heroism, and even a superhuman sacrifice to defend Western culture
from the Eastern hordes". From the 1950's Americans became very receptive to the German
view of the conflict (as constructed by the German officers who wanted to rehabilitate the
Wehrmacht from complicity in war crimes so as to set the new Bundeswehr and the Western
alliance in general on firmer footing), viewing the German soldier as a simple patriot in a
Romantic "lost cause" defense of family, Church and Fatherland from red tyranny. Though the
prospect of a land war with Russia is long gone, this romantization continues unabated, little
affected by academic research from the 1970's which questioned the myth of the "clean
Wehrmacht" and the opening up of Russian archives and personal accounts in the 1990's.
However, as covered above much of this narrative was simply false. As early as November 1942
the USSR assembled the Extraordinary State Commission to examine German war crimes, with
early trials held in Kharkov and Krasnodar. The complicity of the German generals in atrocities
emerged in the postwar Nuremberg Trials, in which military men Keitel and Jodl were hanged for
planning aggressive war and participating in crimes against humanity, incriminated by their
signatures on things like the Commissar Order (immediate execution of all captured Communist
military commissars), the Jurisdictional Order (suspending traditional military laws on proper
conduct of troops in the Eastern Front), the Hostage Order (allowing for the killing of 50-100
hostages for every German soldier killed by Soviet partisans), the Night and Fog Order (allowing
for disappearance of undesirable elements in the occupied territories) and the Commando Order
(immediate execution of captured commandos behind German lines). According to Rode,
major-general of the Waffen-SS, "the military commanders…were thoroughly cognizant of the
missions and operational methods of these units. They approved of these missions and
operational methods because, apparently, they never opposed them", and admitted that it was
clear to him that "anti-partisan warfare gradually became an excuse for the systematic
annihilation of Jewry and Slavism". To the US prosecutor Rapp, who was conducting trials of
German military personnel, a key concern was the "prevention of legends" about the non-
complicity of the German military in war crimes, lest they again retain their reputation, as after
WW1, as "gracious, old, highly educated fine gentlemen". Ironically, this is exactly what
happened in the 1950's. Many Americans found it hard to rationalize German atrocities. The
original US GI's who liberated Western Europe were replaced by new soldiers who hadn't fought
Germans, loved the German hospitality, generally held them blameless and even accused their
superiors of anti-German propaganda. This fed into deep-seated American attitudes, which were
common to much of the West, of anti-semitism, antislavism, and cultural prejudices against the
East in general. Germans with their Church, families and similar material culture looked more
wholesome than the Russians, who were perceived to be arrogant and crude unlike the newly
subservient Germans. The Germans reinforced these perceptions with stories of Russians as
cruel, bestial sexual predators. Policies on interacting with German civilians were gradually
loosened in the US, whereas in the Soviet occupied zone they were tightened from 1947 when
Red Army soldiers in East Germany were confined to their barracks. With the Cold War
heating up, first with the Berlin airlift and then with the Korean War, the Americans realized they
needed the Germans as friends instead of as prostrate slaves or even clients. Similarly, the
former Wehrmacht officers wanted to rescue their careers, continue the good struggle against
Bolshevism to preserve Western civilization, and to salvage the reputation of the German
officers corp. Under American auspices they started re-writing history with three main goals –
establish a "lost cause" myth of the German military as honorable, apolitical and supremely
competent, serving Fatherland not Führer, advise the Western Alliance on how to win a land
war with the USSR and dehumanize Russians in the interests of Cold War solidarity. This
process can be illustrated in the life story of Franz Halder, a German general who became chief
of the Operational History (German) Section, a project that collated some 2,500 lengthy
manuscripts from 700 former Wehrmacht officers that were tightly edited to fit the three goals
above. In his 1949 work Hitler als Feldherr, Halder made the following points: he didn't
support war against the USSR didn't lay plans for an attack on the USSR before Hitler ordered
him to was concerned about a pre-emptive Soviet strike, d) was unaware of the racial nature
of the war as envisaged by Hitler didn't participate in POW or civilian genocide and was
skeptical about Hitler's assumptions of easy, early victory. Yet his personal war diaries tell a
somewhat different tale. The German military had been thinking of expansion and continental
hegemony since at least the middle of the First World War. See the "Great Plan" of 1924-25
which called for Teutonic hegemony in Europe, albeit it had not yet been based on explicitly
racialist terms. It was resurrected after the Sudetenland crisis of 1938. After the defeat of
France in May 1940, Hitler was considering large-scale demobilization, but Halder wanted a war
with the USSR and had his staff draft "Operation Otto", a precursor to Barbarossa, on his own
initiative in June 1940. In February 1941, Halder felt a Soviet attack was "completely
improbable". Under a heading in his diary tellingly entitled "Colonial tasks", he wrote, "We
must forget the concept of comradeship between soldiers. A Comrade is no friend before or
after the battle. This is a war of extermination. If we do not grasp this, we shall still beat the
enemy, but 30 years later we shall against have to fight the Communist foe…This war will be very
different from the war in the West. In the east, harshness today means lenience in the future.
Commanders must make the sacrifice of overcoming their moral scruples." In the margin, he
added, "embody in the ObdH (Army High Command) order". The reality of the war in the East
became clear after the invasion of Poland, when the SS and Security Police started annihilating
the Polish intelligentsia. Though many German officers expressed reservations, non were
forthcoming from Halder or von Brauschitsch. Later, he actually negotiated responsibilities for
maintaining order in the front and rear with Einsatzgruppen commanders, and knew of and was
completely indifferent to Soviet POW deaths. His own staff drafted the aforementioned
Commissar Order and Jurisdictional Order – in effect, the German military high command
translated the views of leading Nazis into policy. Though some officers like Hassell objected, the
vast majority went along with the generals. Halder more than shared Hitler's optimism,
considering the Germans would need just 80-100 divisions against an estimated 50-75 Soviet.
(Ultimately, 152 German divisions were unleashed in Barbarossa against what were actually
more than 300 Soviet divisions). Since progress was initially smooth, he constantly revised the
timescale of victory down – "not even Hitler was as confident as his generals". You can tell
you're damning yourself when you give off such a strong impression of mendacious duplicity
that you almost portray Hitler in a good light. And funnily enough the F?hrer presumably shared
this impression – he bribed his generals by secretly doubling their salaries, conditional on their
loyalty and obedience. Though a mitigating factor is that Halder was arrested for suspected
involvement in the July 1944 bomb plot against Hitler, it should be noted his accommodations
and provisions were quite OK (certainly far from death camp rations) and it was only in January
1945 that he was formally dismissed from the military. One gets the idea that the opportunist
was simply hedging his bets, for by that time the war was already obviously lost. According to
Smelser / Davies, "Franz Halder embodies better than any other high German officer the
dramatic difference between myth and reality as it emerged after World War Two, particularly
with regard to the war in the east". Though under suspicion of being a war criminal, he was
officially released from Western Allied custody in 1947. He ingratiated himself with the US Army
and was made chief of Operational History (German) Section in summer 1948 - the
aforementioned project to rewrite history by rehabilitating the Wehrmacht and cementing
Germany into the Western alliance (not to mention rescuing the careers of former Wehrmacht
officers). In October 1948 he was tried by a German denazification court and was cleared. The
prosecution then got hold of his incriminating war diaries and demanded a retrial, but by then
the Americans had taken him under their wings, claiming him as indispensable. The court was
forced to throw out all further charges in 1950. As director of this project, he solicited and
vetted some 2,500 manuscripts from 700 former Wehrmacht officers, by now a mix of serving
Bunderwehr officers, celebrity veterans and suspected war criminals. Many of them
transliterated Nazi mythology on Russians for an American audience – Halder himself wrote,
"frequent insensate cruelty is found coupled with attachment, fidelity and good nature under
proper [presumably Germanic?] handling"; many were worse, citing the supposed bestial, cruel,
morose, instinctual and primitive nature of the Red Army soldier (though they lauded him for
bravery). The more important part of the project however was teaching how to win, or at least
not lose, a land war to the Soviet Union. German officers criticized American plans to mount a
line defense on the Rhine, instead stressing the "mobile defense" concept developed by von
Manstein in 1943-44. They also pointed to the importance of military education, training and
officer independence to their military successes. Given such valuable information and
propaganda material, the Americans gave the former Wehrmacht officers leeway to further their
careers and whitewash their war records. Einsenhower flip-flopped from writing things such as
"the German is a beast" to his wife in 1944, to apologizing to Wehrmacht officers for defamation,
claiming by the early 1950's that "I do not believe the German soldier as such has lost his
honor". General Matthew Ridgeway urged pardons for war crimes committed on the Eastern
Front (only!), with the curious justification that he had issued the same orders in Korea for which
the German generals were rotting in jail for. And although the Red Scare was passing away by the
mid-1950's, by this time the myth of the "lost cause" – patriot Germans fighting for family and
Heimat against the Bolshevik hordes - was fast becoming entrenched. German officers
networked with Americans. German generals, gracious, old, highly educated fine gentlemen like
Guderian and von Manstein (both of whom knew of Hitler's plans for the Soviet peoples),
published self-serving memoirs. From the 1970's, they would be further supplemented by
popular accounts of the Eastern Front from ordinary German soldiers, showing their human side.
Reenactments became popular, in which enthusiasts combined a painstaking attention to
historical detail like uniforms and ranks with a plain painful minimal attention to placing their
heros in the larger historical context of Wehrmacht complicity in Nazi crimes. Though
academic historians from the 1970's increasingly challenged this narrative, the popular culture
was unaffected, having long since been taken hostage by images of Stuka dive-bombers and
Tiger tanks and the writings of the German generals. It took until the last ten years or so, with
the popularization of this more academic work, as well as the opening of the Soviet archives and
accounts from the Russian side, to add greater perspective. Yet as the myths above prove, there
is still lots of work to do – not least, fully exposing the distorted historiography of the Great
Patriotic War to the general public. To close this with an idea – there are many, many Russian
accounts and memoirs of the war, but too many of them remain untranslated into English. This is
unacceptable and we should look into ways to change this state of affairs. Suggestions?
Sources: R. Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. G. I.
Krivosheev. Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. R. Smelser & E.J. Davies. The Myth of the
Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture. The source of this article is
here:

A PATH TO PEACE IN THE CAUCASUS

By Mikhail Gorbachev, 12 August 2008The Washington Post

MOSCOW - The past week's events in South Ossetia are bound to shock and pain anyone.
Already, thousands of people have died, tens of thousands have been turned into refugees, and
towns and villages lie in ruins. Nothing can justify this loss of life and destruction. It is a warning
to all. The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to
abolish South Ossetian autonomy. This turned out to be a time bomb for Georgia's territorial
integrity. Each time successive Georgian leaders tried to impose their will by force – both in
South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, where the issues of autonomy are similar – it only made the
situation worse. New wounds aggravated old injuries. Nevertheless, it was still possible to find
a political solution. For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The
peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and
ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common
ground. Through all these years, Russia has continued to recognize Georgia's territorial
integrity. Clearly, the only way to solve the South Ossetian problem on that basis is through
peaceful means. Indeed, in a civilized world, there is no other way. The Georgian leadership
flouted this key principle. What happened on the night of 7th August 2008 is beyond
comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinval with
multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it
of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of
humanity. Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic
consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian
leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more
powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its
sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the
promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get
away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia. In other words, Georgian President Mikheil
Saakashvili was expecting unconditional support from the West, and the West had given him
reason to think he would have it. Now that the Georgian military assault has been routed, both
the Georgian government and its supporters should rethink their position. Hostilities must
cease as soon as possible, and urgent steps must be taken to help the victims – the humanitarian
catastrophe, regretfully, received very little coverage in Western media this weekend - and to
rebuild the devastated towns and villages. It is equally important to start thinking about ways to
solve the underlying problem, which is among the most painful and challenging issues in the
Caucasus – a region that should be approached with the greatest care. When the problems of
South Ossetia and Abkhazia first flared up, I proposed that they be settled through a federation
that would grant broad autonomy to the two republics. This idea was dismissed, particularly by
the Georgians. Attitudes gradually shifted, but after last week, it will be much more difficult to
strike a deal even on such a basis. Old grievances are a heavy burden. Healing is a long process
that requires patience and dialogue, with non-use of force an indispensable precondition. It took
decades to bring to an end similar conflicts in Europe and elsewhere, and other long-standing
issues are still smoldering. In addition to patience, this situation requires wisdom. Small
nations of the Caucasus do have a history of living together. It has been demonstrated that a
lasting peace is possible, that tolerance and cooperation can create conditions for normal life
and development. Nothing is more important than that. The region's political leaders need to
realize this. Instead of flexing military muscle, they should devote their efforts to building the
groundwork for durable peace. Over the past few days, some Western nations have taken
positions, particularly in the U.N. Security Council, that have been far from balanced. As a result,
the Security Council was not able to act effectively from the very start of this conflict. By
declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a
sphere of its "national interest," the United States made a serious blunder. Of course, peace in
the Caucasus is in everyone's interest. But it is simply common sense to recognize that Russia is
rooted there by common geography and centuries of history. Russia is not seeking territorial
expansion, but it has legitimate interests in this region. The international community's long-
term aim could be to create a sub-regional system of security and cooperation that would make
any provocation, and the very possibility of crises such as this one, impossible. Building this type
of system would be challenging and could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the
region's countries themselves. Nations outside the region could perhaps help, too – but only if
they take a fair and objective stance. A lesson from recent events is that geopolitical games are
dangerous anywhere, not just in the Caucasus. Source:

The writer was the last president of the Soviet Union. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in
1990 and is president of the Gorbachev Foundation, a Moscow think tank.

PENTAGON PREPARING FOR WAR WITH RUSSIA By Rick Rozoff, 14 May 2009 Some say we are
five minutes to a new Cold War This is a false assertion

ARE YOU READY FOR NUCLEAR WAR?

To read the article click on the picture

In fact the World is One minute to a Thermonuclear War

ARE YOU READY FOR NUCLEAR WAR? The Mindlessness is Total

By Paul Craig Roberts, August 19 2008

Nothing real issues from the American press, which is about demonizing Russia and Iran,
about the vice presidential choices as if it matters, about whether Obama being on vacation let
McCain score too many points. The mindlessness of the news reflects the mindlessness of the
government, for which it is a spokesperson. The American media do not serve American
democracy or American interests. They serve the few people who exercise power. When the
Soviet Union collapsed, the US and Israel made a run at controlling Russia and the former
constituent parts of its empire. For awhile the US and Israel succeeded, but Putin put a stop to it.
Recognizing that the US had no intention of keeping any of the agreements it had made with
Gorbachev, Putin directed the Russian military budget to upgrading the Russian nuclear
deterrent. Consequently, the Russian army and air force lack the smart weapons and electronics
of the US military. It is obvious that American foreign policy, with its goal of ringing Russia
with US military bases, is leading directly to nuclear war. Every American needs to realize this
fact. The US government's insane hegemonic foreign policy is a direct threat to life on the planet.
The post-Soviet Russian government has sought to cooperate with the US and Europe. Russia has
made it clear over and over that it is prepared to obey international law and treaties. It is the
Americans who have thrown international law and treaties into the trash can, not the Russians.
In order to keep the billions of dollars in profits flowing to its contributors in the US military-
security complex, the Bush Regime has rekindled the cold war. As American living standards
decline and the prospects for university graduates deteriorate, "our" leaders in Washington
commit us to a hundred years of war. If you desire to be poor, oppressed, and eventually
vaporized in a nuclear war, vote Republican. The full version can be read here:

When the Russian army went into Georgia to rescue the Russians in South Ossetia from the
destruction being inflicted upon them by the American puppet Saakashvili, the Russians made it
clear that if they were opposed by American troops with smart weapons, they would deal with
the threat with tactical nuclear weapons. The Americans were the first to announce
preemptive nuclear attack as their permissible war doctrine. Now the Russians have announced
the tactical use of nuclear weapons as their response to American smart weapons.

Russia has made no threats against America.

RUSSIAN BEAR WILL GROWLTHEN BITE DEADLY – IF PROVOKED

Well, what else did the West expect? Any self-respecting bear will growl first as a sign to
ward off attackers, then pounce and maul them deadly, if provoked sufficiently. Remember the
ghastly fate of Napoleon, Hitler, and all the other bloody murderous scum who dared to insult
Holy Russia. The Russian Bear is confident and proud and looking more for respect in
international affairs rather than a fight. But we Russians are always ready to make mincemeat of
any aggressor. With 4,237 strategic Russian warheads, approximately 2,000-3,000 operational
tactical warheads, and approximately 8,000-10,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads
Holy Russia is being remarkably well equipped to defend herself and her allies. A unique
country in the world, which possesses all of the necessary reliable means in order to
impregnably defend itself, a unique country which can even make a new channel, or rather a
whole new sea, for example, between Mexico and Canada in a 20 minutes' space of time after
the start of serious hostilities (God save us from such an apocalyptic event), we believe a country
like that –

Russia – is worth being heard and understood.

RUSSIA IS A SUPERPOWERWHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!

Excerpt:

"Today, many argue that Stalin was worse than Hitler. This obviously has little to do with
reality. Whether you like Stalin or not, you should have the decency to acknowledge the facts as
they are. Stalin faced perhaps the most daunting task in history of dragging the country he led
from the backyard of the world almost overnight, and catching up with leading nations to reach
a level which enabled Russia to win the Second World War."

"If Soviet Russia had failed to rise from its knees, it would have been eliminated. Many
innocent people suffered during Stalinґs rule. One thing is, however, clear: under his leadership,
Russia, which previously tilled its land with wooden ploughs, became a nuclear superpower. That
speaks for itself."

For the full text and comments click on the picture above.

Americans regard us Russians in the following way (I quote here one internet discussion):
 "How could a defeated and demoralised ex-superpower face down the world's greatest states
over a principle . . .?" (Bobbitt).

"Easy Mr Bobbitt. It all comes down to military power. A cursory glance at the Arms Control
Association's website will tell you how. With 4,237 strategic Russian warheads, approximately
2,000-3,000 operational tactical warheads, and approximately 8,000-10,000 stockpiled strategic
and tactical warheads the "defeated and demoralised ex-superpower" (Russia) seems
remarkably well equipped to "face down" anyone it chooses."

"As for the "greatest states" – who are they? Surely greatness comes from power, and, more
importantly, the ability to project that power. The only Western state capable of projecting
power on a similar scale to Russia is the US, so "greatest state" might have been more accurate.
When it comes to fighting wars against 'worthy' adversaries, noisy – but ultimately pacifistic,
windbags like the EU are, as Putin clearly understands, simply irrelevant and are best ignored."

End of quotation.

The possible induction (God forbid!) of Georgia or the Ukraine into NATO will inevitably lead to
a NUCLEAR WAR.

Inevitably.

Why?

The answer is simple and evident:

We Russians cannot live with a gun aimed point-blank at our temple.

Nobody would.

RUSSIA AT WAR 1941 - 1945

The Patriarch
PASCHAL MESSAGE

of His Holiness Patriarch KIRILL of Moscow and All Russia

to the Archpastors, Pastors, Monastics

and All Faithful Children of the Russian Orthodox Church

Dear and beloved in the Lord your graces the archpastors, the all-honourable presbytery and
diaconate, God-loving monks and nuns, and all faithful children of the Church,

Christ is risen!

It is with this joyful exclamation that we now greet each other anew. Paschal rejoicing fills our
hearts, for Christ's resurrection is the foundation of a life that has conquered death, sin and
corruption. We are called to relive Pascha as the triumph of life not only on this day: every
Sunday reveals to us the majesty of the Saviour's feat, liberating us from death and destroying
the fetters of sin which separate man from God. Moreover, each minute of the true Christian is
to be replete with Paschal joy.

'I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he
live' (John 11:25). Christ's resurrection has granted to us genuine freedom and filled man's
existence with meaning and hope. The most important thing is that it has opened up the way to
Life Eternal to every one who believes in Christ and who lives in the Church. Therefore there can
be no cause for despair, despondency and fear for those who love Christ and follow him in all
circumstances of their earthly path, for 'Christ is risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits
of them that slept' (1 Cor. 15:20). The Paschal triumph of life embraces the whole world, all of
divine creation, bringing it to life with grace. 'Christ is risen, and life reigneth,' says St. John
Chrysostom in his Paschal homily. The divine gift of life, trampled upon and defiled by the falling
away of the old Adam, is again revealed to us in its plenitude by Christ the new Adam.

Having communicated with the plenitude of this generous revelation of divine mercy, let us,
my dear ones, value and preserve this gift. Where blood is shed and people suffer, where the
image of God is trampled upon in pursuit of greed, conflict and selfishness, let us come to the
defence of this image by fulfilling our Christian vocation. May our knowledge of Christ's Truth be
a firm foundation for bearing witness to the risen Christ before our neighbours and those afar so
that they may find life eternal. May the Almighty Lord strengthen us in knowledge of God, in
mutual love and in deeds of compassion and charity. Let us zealously endeavour to ensure that
not only our individual lives but the life of all society be constructed according to God's
commandments, for it is only in fulfilling them that we will be granted the fullness and harmony
of being. It is precisely in this way that we can testify to our love for God, for as He said, 'If ye
love Me, keep My commandments' (John 14:15).

In these difficult times let us reveal our Christian vocation through deeds, let us support each
other so that no one feels himself humiliated, abandoned, poor or denigrated. I desire that you
all strive unceasingly towards heaven in all your thoughts, actions and intentions by recalling the
words of the apostle: 'If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where
Christ sitteth on the right hand of God' (Col. 3:1). Full of joy in Christ who has trampled down
death and torn asunder the bonds of hell, I would in particular like to appeal to our young
people faced with the broad field of labours, hopes and achievements. Before you lies the task
of creating through your own endeavours the future of our nation and our Church. May the
powers, talents and abilities given to you by God be used for the good of your neighbours, for
the fulfillment of your vocation and for the attaining of God's holy will.

My beloved! On this 'chosen and holy day' I embrace and greet each one of you, sharing my
joy with all who confess the name of Christ and with each who is ready to accept into his heart
the joy of the Paschal greeting:

Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!

† Kirill,

Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia

Pascha 2009
THE BEREFT RUSSIAN PEOPLE

ARE FULL OF GRIEF

FOR THEIR DECEASED SPIRITUAL FATHER

A great sorrow has befallen our nation, our society – the death of Patriarch of Moscow and All
Russia Alexy II. He was an outstanding religious figure and true spiritual leader, and he was also a
great Citizen of Russia, a man whose destiny reflected all the great trials and upheavals that our
country traversed in the twentieth century, a critical time in our country's history. He was a true
pastor and an example of spiritual steadfastness and noble acts throughout his life. He was with
his flock during the days of persecution and during the revival of faith.
 He played a direct part in the Russian Orthodox Church’s revival and in the genuine
affirmation of the principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, and helped
establish civil peace and concord in this multiethnic and multi-faith country that is Russia.

The Patriarch’s force of character has had a huge impact on Russian society’s spiritual life and
moral state. He preached the unifying and universal values of humanism, goodness and
compassion. He called for mutual respect, tolerance and trust between people of different faiths
and traditions. He initiated dialogue between churches and peoples. Through his words and acts
he wisely reconciled conflicting views and worked to unify the entire Russian nation.

Under his direction the Russian Orthodox Church became one of the country’s most
influential institutions and engaged in fruitful cooperation with the state. The Moscow
Patriarchate gained respect and authority not only in Russia but also in the international
religious community.

From the moment he became Patriarch, Alexy II sought to mend the tragic split in the Russian
Orthodox Church and return the Church to its fullness and greatness. That this reunification has
taken place is to his enormous personal credit.

Selflessly shouldering his pastoral duties, the Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia was
conscious of his responsibilities not only before the Church but before the entire nation. We are
all deeply grieve at his passing. This is a great loss for me personally too. We will always
remember his spiritual assistance, wisdom and his endless devotion to his country and people.

We will always feel his support. May his memory live forever.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV

President of the Russian Federation

5 December 2008 Patriarch Alexy II (his secular name was Alexei Mikhailovich Ridiger) was
born on February 23, 1929, in Tallin (Estonia).

In the summer of 1990, he was elected Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, the fifteenth
Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church since the Patriarchate was introduced in Russia.

MESSAGE

by His Holiness

Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia

On the Occasion of the 60th Anniversary

of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War

Beloved Ones in the Lord!

From the bottom of my heart I wish you a happy 60th anniversary of the Victory of our people
in the Great Patriotic War. We all share this very dear holiday. The calamity which befell our
country in the 1940s united our people, which unanimously stood up for our Motherland. The
soul of the nation was purified and seasoned during the trials and tribulations. As it had
happened many times in our history earlier, examples of highest self-sacrifice and selfless
devotion to our Motherland were shown to the world. In difficult times many people turned
back to the faith of their fathers – Holy Orthodoxy, the treasures of which provided them with
strength and courage. They made Christ's teaching a reality: "Greater love hath no man than
this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (St. John 15:13).

The Russian military glory reached its peak through the feats of arms and endless labour of
our people in the years of the Great Patriotic War. Centuries earlier our warriors also showed the
true heroism, courage and valour: under the leadership of Saint Princes Alexander Nevsky and
Dimitry Donskoy, citizen Minin and Prince Pozharsky, great warlords Suvorov and Kutuzov, Saint
Blessed warrior Admiral Feodor Ushakov and Admiral Pavel Nakhimov. Russian warriors defeated
powerful enemies that seemed unconquerable. However, the War of 1941-1945 turned out to
be an unprecedented ordeal.

The whole country stood up to defend the borders of our Motherland. The war was not only
at the fronts – it came into every house, every family through grief and losses, "killed in battle"
notices and bitter sufferings. The victory was won at the cost of enormous efforts and sacrifices.
It was achieved not only by spirited military accomplishments of Commanders and warriors, who
took up arms to defend their Motherland, but also due to the exploits of those who, showered
by bullets and shells, took the wounded away from the battlefields and nursed them back to
health in the frontline and rear hospitals; who, working at factories round-the-clock without
days-off, brought the Victory closer with their labour; who worked on the land, scorched by the
war, so that to provide warriors, and their wives and children with food. In the days of hardships,
having united into one family, casting off national, religious and ideological differences, the
peoples of our country showed the remarkable unity of the spirit and will.

Our warriors were joined by one lofty goal. They defended not only their Fatherland, their
families and homes, they defended the whole world from the deadly threat. A strong and cruel
enemy, armed by the anti-Christian ideology of Nazism, waged war for world dominance. In the
bloody war for the salvation of mankind from total subjugation we suffered the most severe and
numerous losses. We bow our heads in memory of those who fell in battles of the Great Patriotic
war at the fronts and in the enemy's rear, those who died of wounds and hunger, died in the
siege and were tortured to death or killed as captives.

The Russian Orthodox Church firmly believed in the coming Victory and from the first day it
blessed the Army and all the people to defend their Motherland. Our warriors were guarded not
only by the prayers of the wives and mothers, but also by everyday church prayers about the
Victory. Summoned by the Church millions of believers took part in collecting donations for
creating the "Dimitry Donskoy" tank unit, and the "Alexander Nevsky" airplane squadron.

Many people acquired or strengthened their faith in the fiery hardships. Some warriors,
having done their military duty for the Motherland, have commenced to serve God and the
country as clergymen after the War.

My beloved ones in the Lord!

The common past unites us, and we must be worthy of the selfless exploits of our fathers and
grandfathers in the years of the war. We must not forget what the cost of our Great Victory was,
and that we won it fighting shoulder to shoulder, so that our children and grandchildren lived in
peace and friendship. New generations must keep the fraternity that was passed to us, sealed
with blood shed on battlefields. No matter how many years pass from that distant past, the
memory must live in the people's heart, so that the continuity of times would not be broken. I
appeal to our young people to be worthy of the memory of their fathers and grandfathers and
learn courage and loyalty from those who stood through all the war hardships and trials and won
the peace for the whole world.

On this great day I address those, who lived and fought in those violent years with special
feelings. Dear veterans! You have showed a heroic example of the selfless service to the
Fatherland and your own people. Let the Lord give you many more years in strength and good
health, to make your family and all of us happy. We all with gratitude honour your labours and
feats.

† ALEXY

Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia

Moscow, May 6, 2005

The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia

with Hierarchs in the Christ the Saviour Cathedral

Colonel Glantz

American Perspectives on

Eastern Front Operations in World War II

Part One

By Colonel David M. Glantz

Foreign Military Studies Office

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Introduction
 One's view of historical reality is inevitably flawed. While most historians strive to preserve or
recreate an objective picture of historical forces and events, a variety of factors affect their work
all of which tend to warp objective reality and produce a subjective view of history. This process
is inevitable, and it poses to the historian the principal challenge of his profession, a challenge
which he seldom totally overcomes. #1

One of the most potent factors affecting objectivity is that of parochialism – in its milder form
simply limited perspective – a narrowness of view produced by a natural concern for one's own
history and reinforced by the remoteness of events occurring in distant lands. Parochialism on
the part of historians also responds, in part, to demand – the demand of their reading public
who are parochial in their own right and who seek information concerning their own past.
Cultural and ideological differences that exist between governments and peoples exacerbate this
tendency. These differences color the interpretation of events and tend to stifle understanding
between peoples already separated by space and time.

The availability of sources upon which to base historical accounts contributes to the
emergence of a parochial view. A historian must use what sources are available to him, and if
those sources are limited, so also will his perspective be limited. Good historians will
acknowledge those limitations as they reconstruct the events of the past.

A more extreme form of parochialism or limited perspective is bias, which can be either
unintentional or intentional. Unintentional bias is a result of the same forces that produce a
parochial view. Intentional bias can be a manifestation of the historian's own internal beliefs or
the product of ideological or political influence on the historian from external institutions, such
as governments, religious bodies, or economic entities. Bias, especially in the deliberate form,
creates a more twisted, and hence more harmful, view of historical events than simple
parochialism. While parochialism implies that a historian was unable to tap a wide variety of
sources, bias indicates that a historian selected the sources he would use and ignored those
which did not fit into his preconceived notion of past events. In the former case, distortion of
history, although regrettable, is natural and often hard to detect. In the latter case such
distortion is unnatural, reprehensible, and usually obvious to the discerning reader.

Few twentieth century events have escaped the effects of parochialism and bias. Among the
more important periods most severely affected by these phenomena is that of the Second World
War, in particular the war on the Eastern Front – the Russo-German War. Diverging perspectives,
parochialism, and outright bias from all quarters have obscured or distorted the history of the
war and helped to produce long-standing misunderstandings and animosities. In fact, it is safe to
say that we are still far from achieving an objective picture of the war, if in fact such a picture is
achievable. The lack of objectivity has left a legacy of misunderstanding concerning the political
and military events of the war. More important, since perceptions and policies of the present are
based, in part, upon a correct understanding of the past, many of those perceptions and policies
are founded on less than solid ground.

This paper focuses on only a narrow segment of World War II experiences – experiences on
the Eastern Front – within the context of the war in general. In particular, it describes the U.S.
perspective on the war and how events on the Eastern Front fit into that overall view of war.
Further it surveys the forces (sources) that have shaped the current American perspective on
that important segment of World War II combat, specifically what Americans have been taught
or have read about the war. Finally the paper investigates the accuracy of that perspective in
light of existing source materials. Thus, in essence, this is a critique of Eastern Front war
historiography, a critique which will hopefully broaden the perspective and understanding of
American and foreign readers and historians alike.

The American View Of World War Two

The American view of the war reflected the circumstances surrounding U.S. involvement in
the war as well as long term historical attitudes toward European politics in general. Despite
strong public sentiment for assisting beleaguered Western democracies, after war broke out in
1939 equally strong neutralist sentiments blocked active U.S. participation in the war. As the
American public noted with growing concern the fall of France in 1940, the expulsion of British
forces from the continent at Dunkirk, and the struggle for supremacy in the air over Great
Britain, the U.S. government was able to lend assistance to England short of actually joining the
war. The German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, while lamented as an extension of
the war, in some quarters was also viewed positively as it clearly diverted German interest from
Britain toward what most assumed would be a more formidable opponent for the hitherto
undefeated German war machine to deal with. Additionally, Germany now faced a two-front
war, and Anglo-Soviet war cooperation against Germany was bound to ensue. In a sense, the
German decision to attack the Soviet Union strengthened the hand of American neutralists who
could point to the reduced need for U.S. intervention, an argument quickly silenced by the
extensive German advance in the East, which for a time seemed to threaten the viability of the
Soviet Union. The war itself in the East was a shadowy affair signified by maps of the Soviet
Union overlaid by large arrows and clouds of black representing advancing Nazi forces. Little
detail of the conflict was available, setting a pattern which would endure during the future years
of war.

Only the brash Japanese surprise attack on U.S. facilities at Pearl Harbor overcame this initial
American reluctance to become actively involved in war. This act unleashed American's emotions
to an extent that earlier American lukewarm commitment to the survival of the western
democracies was converted almost overnight into a broad American commitment to rid the
world of the menace posed by the Berlin-Tokyo axis. While early in the war the U.S.
government's principal concern was for assisting in the defeat of Nazi Germany, the very fact
that the Japanese surprise attack had catalyzed American war sentiments led to ever increasing
U.S. attention to the war in the Pacific, a war which soon dominated U.S. newspaper headlines.

The combination of the U.S. government's focus on defeating Germany "first" and the reality
of fending off Japanese advances in the Pacific set the tone for the U.S. perspective on the war
and focused as well the attention of the U.S. press and public on those two themes. Hence U.S.
military strategy involved the attaining of footholds on the European continent as a means for
achieving the ultimate destruction of Germany while the realities of war in the Pacific and the
overwhelming public sentiment to crush the nation which had provoked the hostilities in the first
place drew American forces inexorably across the Pacific. The competing aims of America's two-
front war, in the end, diluted the government's efforts to first deal with Nazi Germany and
perhaps attenuated the achievement of victory in Europe. At a minimum, it made the
establishment of a "second front" in Europe a more formidable task and led to the series of
Allied operations in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy, preceded by a sobering test of Allied
capabilities to land directly in France, conducted at Dieppe in August 1942. Military planners and
the general public alike were transfixed by foreign locales such as Tobruk, El Alamein, Oran,
Kasserine, Palermo, Salerno, and Anzio where America's military strategy unfolded.

Driven by popular demand and the inertia of ongoing operations, America's war in the Pacific
in the summer of 1942 changed in nature from a defensive one to an offensive one complete
with alternative strategies for the defeat of Japan. The names Guadalcanal, Midway, New
Guinea, and a host of hitherto obscure islands dominated U.S. awareness – governmental and
public alike.

It is axiomatic that where one's forces operate, one's attention follows; and where one's
father, husband, or son fights and possibly dies, dominates a families thoughts. Human ties
usually dwarf geopolitical considerations, and the piece of the mosaic of war with which a
government or a public is involved naturally becomes the dominant piece. The remainder of that
mosaic, for most remains a shadowy context of one's own struggle recognized as important only
by the most perceptive of observers.

Thus, America's perspective on war remained riveted to the path undertaken by American
forces in Europe and across the Pacific. To the earlier place names of combat were added the
names Normandy, Falaise, Metz, and Aachen in Europe and Iwo Jima, the Philippines, and
Okinawa in the Pacific. As U.S. military efforts increased in scope, and as Axis power diminished,
the impact of those operations on the American public's memory increased. Throughout this
process the war elsewhere, the real global context for American military operations, remained
cloudy and obscure, the obscurity reinforced by a lack of specific information as to what was
occurring, in particular at the public level.
 The war on the Eastern Front, however unfairly, was a part of this shadowy context. It is clear
Americans knew in general about the war in the East. They knew it was a massive struggle with
vast implications for the success of Allied strategy in the West. The names Leningrad, Moscow,
Stalingrad, and Kursk were familiar ones, and Americans could appreciate the impact of Soviet
victories at each location. But that was perhaps of the sum of American understanding. Certainly,
there was little in the American military experience to condition Americans to conceive of
operations as large as those occurring in the East, and what is not experienced cannot be fully
appreciated. Hence, the tendency of Americans (and others) to equate Stalingrad with El
Alamein and Kursk with Anzio. The comparison in terms of result (victory) masked the issue of
the contrasting scale and scope of these operations. As the issue of the second front became a
focal point of dispute among the wartime allies, this context plus the real allied difficulties in
effecting such a landing made the Allied decision to open such a front in France in 1944
reasonable and understandable to the American public.

During the last year of war the American public's (and government's) attention was captured
by the successful Normandy operation and the ensuing breathtaking advance across France.
Likewise, the German counterstroke in the Bulge and the 1945 Allied advance into Germany
dominated American public awareness. Concurrent and massively successful Soviet operations in
Belorussia, Rumania, East Prussia, Poland, and Hungary were noted as part of a continuous, slow,
but inexorable Soviet advance toward Germany. As before, details of the Soviet operations were
lacking, hence they tended to recede into the background as an adjunct to successful Allied
operations in the West and in the Pacific as well. In a sense, America's attentions were focused
on the two great oceans and operations adjacent to them. The struggle in continental Europe
remained remote, geographically and psychologically. The same tendency helped to relegate to
obscurity Soviet participation in the final stages of the war with Japan (the Manchurian
operation).

Thus the war on the Eastern Front was acknowledged but never fully appreciated in wartime
by the bulk of Allied public opinion. Initially the war served the function of distracting German
military attentions from England eastward. Later the Red Army locked the German Army in a
struggle which enabled the other Allies to reestablish themselves on continental Europe.
Ultimately, the Red Army joined in the final victory assault on the German Reich. The American
public appreciated the role played by the Soviet people; and, in fact, genuine feelings of warmth
resulted. Americans, likewise, seemed to understand the suffering involved in such a struggle.
Yet, despite these feelings, the details of those operations in the East remained obscure; and,
hence, a full realization of their importance was lacking. This tendency persisted into the
postwar years when it combined with other factors to create a sort of mythology surrounding
the events of the war in the East.

American Perspectives on

Eastern Front Operations in World War II

Part Two

By Colonel David M. Glantz

Foreign Military Studies Office

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Postwar American Perspective

On Eastern Front Operations

If American wartime impressions of combat on the Eastern Front were vague and imprecise,
there was some improvement in that picture during the first decade and a half after war ended.
However, during that period a new tendency emerged that colored almost all future works
describing events on the Eastern Front. That tendency was to view operations in the East
through German eyes and virtually only German eyes. From 1945 to 1958 essentially all works
written in English or translated into English about events on the Eastern Front were written by
German authors, many of whom were veterans of combat in the East, works moreover, based
solely on German sources. #1

This German period of war historiography embraced two genre of works. The first included
memoirs written during those years when it was both necessary and sensible to dissociate
oneself from Hitler or Hitler's policies. Justifiable or not, the writers of these memoirs did just
that and essentially laid blame on Hitler for most strategic, operational, and often tactical
failures. Thus, an apologetic tone permeated these works. Officers who shared in the success of
Hitler's armies refused to shoulder responsibility for the failures of the same armies. Only
further research will judge the correctness of their views.

The first of the postwar memoirs to appear in English was the by now classic work, Panzer
Leader, by Heinz Guderian. Guderian's work, which casts considerable light on strategic and
operational decisions while Guderian was a panzer group commander in 1941 and later when he
became Chief of Staff in 1944, set the tone for future treatment by German generals of Hitler's
leadership. Guderian laid at Hitler's feet principal responsibility for all failures of the German
Army and for the dismantling of the German General Staff. The German General Staff was
portrayed as both used and abused by Hitler throughout the war. Guderian's message was best
conveyed by the chapter heading he chose for the section of the Polish War of 1939 which read,
"The Beginning of the Disaster." As in most subsequent works, Guderian included little Soviet
operational data.
 One of the most influential postwar German war critiques was General von Mellenthin's
Panzer Battles published ln English in 1956. Mellenthin's work, an operational/tactical account of
considerable merit, echoed the criticism of Hitler voiced by Guderian and showed how Hitler's
adverse influence affected tactical operations. Beyond this, Mellenthin's work adopted a didactic
approach in order to analyze operations and hence educate officers. Throughout the book are
judgments concerning military principles and assessments of the nature of the Soviet fighting
men and officers, most of which have been incorporated into the current "body of truth" about
Soviet military capabilities. Hence, Mellenthin made such judgments as these: the Russian
soldier is tenacious on defense, inflexible on offense, subject to panic when facing unforeseen
eventualities, an excellent night fighter, a master of infiltration, a resolute and implacable
defender of bridgeheads, and neglectful of the value of human life. As was in the case of
Guderian, Mellenthin's experiences against the Red Army encompassed the period before spring
1944 and reflected impressions acquired principally during years of German success.

Mellenthln's work, written without benefit of archival materials, tended to treat tactical cases
without fully describing their operational context. Opposing Soviet units, as in Guderian's work,
were faceless. Mellenthin's classic account of XXXXVIII Panzer Corps' operations along the Chir
River after the encirclement of German 6th Army at Stalingrad stands as an example of the
weaknesses of his book. In it he describes the brilliant operations of that panzer corps in fending
off assaults by Soviet 5th Tank Army's units which included first the 1st Tank Corps and later 5th
Mechanized Corps. On 7-8 December 1942, 11th Panzer Division parried a thrust of 1st Tank
Corps at State Farm 79, while on 19 December, 11th Panzer checked the advance of 5th
Mechanized Corps. Despite the vivid accounts of these tactical successes, Mellenthin only in
passing describes the operational disaster that provided a context for these fleeting tactical
successes. For, in fact, while Soviet 5th Tank Army occupied XXXXVIII Panzer Corps' attention, to
the northwest Soviet forces overwhelmed and destroyed the Italian 8th Army and severely
damaged Army Detachment Hollidt. Moreover, Mellenthin did not mention (probably because
he did not know) that Soviet 1st Tank Corps had been in nearly continuous operation since 19
November and was under strength and worn down when it began its march across the Chir.

Similar flaws appear elsewhere in Mellenthin's work, many of which result from a lack of
knowledge of opposing Soviet forces or their strengths. #2

Of equal importance to Mellenthin's work, but written from a higher level perspective, was
the memoir of Eric von Manstein entitled Lost Victories. An important work by an acknowledged
master at the operational level of war, Manstein's book viewed operations from 1941 to early
1944 at the strategic and operational level. Manstein's criticism of Hitler reflected active disputes
which ultimately led to Manstein's dismissal as Army Group South commander. Manstein's
account of operations is accurate although again Soviet forces are faceless, and opposing force
ratios are in conflict with those shown by archival materials of Fremde Heeres 0st (Foreign
Armies East), Gehlen's organizations, and of the OKH (the Army High Command). Again Soviet
superiorities are overstated.

These three basic memoirs dominated historiography of World War II in the 1950's and
continue to be treated as authoritative works today even as unexploited archival materials
challenge an increasing number of facts cited in the three works. Other works appeared in
English during this period but were generally concerned with individual battles or operations.
Whether coincidental or not, most of these unfavorable accounts of Soviet combat performance
appealed to an American audience conditioned by the Cold War years. Notably, few German
commanders of the later war years, a period so unpleasant for German fortunes, wrote
memoirs; and the works of those who did (for example, General Heinrici) still remain as
untranslated manuscripts in the archives.

The second genre of postwar works included the written monographs based upon debriefings
of and studies by German participants in operations on the Eastern Front. For several years after
war's end the Historical Division of USEUCOM supervised a project to collect the war
experiences of these veterans relating to all wartime fronts. Literally hundreds of manuscripts
were assembled on all types of operations. All were written from memory without benefit of
archival material. The Department of the Army published the best of these short monographs in
a DA pamphlet series in the late forties and early fifties.

These pamphlets were of mixed quality. All were written from the German perspective, and
none identified Soviet units involved in the operations. Some were very good, and some were
very inaccurate. All require collation with actual archival materials. All are still in use and are
considered to be as a valuable guide to Soviet operational tendencies. A few examples should
suffice to describe the care that must be employed when using these sources.

In 1950 a DA Pamphlet appeared assessing Allied airborne operations. The distinguished

group of German officers who wrote the pamphlet were directed by Major General Hellmuth
Reinhardt. The pamphlet critiqued German and Allied airborne experiences. In its chapter on
Allied airborne landings in World War II was a subsection entitled, Reflections on the Absence of
Russian Air Landings, which began with the following statement:

"It is surprising that during World War II the USSR did not attempt any large-scale airborne
operations. . . its wartime operations were confined to a commitment of small units.... for the
purpose of supporting partisan activities and which had no direct tactical or strategic effect."

The study went on to mention a rumored air drop along the Dnieper in 1943 but could provide
few details of the drop.

A little over a year later Reinhardt discovered his error and put together another manuscript
describing the extensive airborne operations the Soviets conducted within the context of the
Moscow counteroffensive and adding details to his description of the abortive Soviet Dnieper
airborne drop in 1943. Recently the Office of the Chief of Military History republished the
original pamphlet describing the lack of Russian airborne activity. Reinhardt's revised manuscript
remains unpublished.

A DA pamphlet entitled German Defensive Tactics against Russian Break-throughs contained

similar errors. In a chapter describing a delaying action conducted between 5-24 August 1943
the authors mistakenly stated that German forces abandoned the city of Khar'kov on 18 August
when, in fact, the correct date was 23 August. Such errors intermixed with accurate date cast
serious doubt on the validity of these works as a whole. Despite these errors, most the
pamphlets have been reprinted; and they remain one of the basic sources of data about the Red
Army. Moreover, they provided impressions of the characteristics of the Russian soldier which
have become an integral part of our current stereotype of the Soviet soldier.

One of the principal deficiencies of all genres of German postwar accounts of fighting on the
Eastern Front written during the 1950's was the almost total absence of Soviet operational data.
The forces German army groups, armies, corps, and divisions engaged appeared as faceless
masses, a monolith of field grey manpower supported by seemingly endless ranks of artillery
and, by the end of the war, solid columns of armor.

The facelessness of these Soviet masses, lacking distinguishable units and any individually
concerning unit mission or function, reinforced the impression conveyed in these German works
that Soviet masses, inflexibly employed in unimaginative fashion, simply ground down German
power and finally inundated the more capable and artfully controlled German forces. The Soviet
steamroller plod into eastern Europe leaving in its wake endless ranks of dead and wounded.

That psychological and absolutely distorted image of the Soviets portrayed in German works
has persisted ever since. Moreover, this panorama of operations against a faceless foe clouds the
issue of correlation of forces and enables the writers to claim almost constant overwhelming
enemy force superiority, whether or not it really existed. All of these memoirs and pamphlets
appeared before German archival materials were available, hence they were written without
benefit of the rich archival data on Soviet forces and operational methods found in these
wartime archives.

In the 1960's reputable trained historians began producing accounts of action on the Eastern
Front. These works were better than the earlier ones but still lacked balance. They were based
primarily on German sources but did contain some material on the Soviets obtained from
German archival sources. Some were written by individuals who spent considerable time in the
Soviet Union during the war.
 Alexander Werth drew upon his experiences in the wartime Soviet Union to produce Russia at
War and a number of shorter works. Although these writings contained little operational data
they did present the Soviet perspective as they focused on the suffering and hardship endured
by the Russian people and on the resulting bravery as they overcame those conditions.

Alan Clark's survey account of the war in the East, entitled Barbarossa, contained more
operational detail. However, it still lacked any solid body of Soviet data. Moreover Clark
displayed a tendency others would adopt - that is to cover the first two years of war in detail but
simply skim over events during the last two years of war. In fact, of the 506 page book, over 400
pages concern the earlier period. This reflected an often expressed judgment that there was
little reason to study operations late in the war because the machinations of Hitler so perverted
the ability of German commanders to conduct normal reasonable operations.

The U.S. Army Center for Military History made a commendable effort to correct this
imbalance by publishing Earl Ziemke's work entitled Stalingrad to Berlin. This work, given the
available source material, was a sound and scholarly one. Ziemke surveyed operations from
November 1942 to the close of war, generally from a strategic and high level operational
perspective. While relying on German sources, he based his research on German archival
materials and did include material from the, by now, emerging Soviet accounts of operations. In
so doing Ziemke expanded the American view of the war in the East and began to dispel some of
the more serious errors found in earlier German accounts.

Ziemke and others who followed him with writings on the Eastern Front were helped
immeasurable by Soviet historians work on the war – work which began in the late 1950's and
accelerated in the 1960's. Those new works, about which I will have more to say later, although
of mixed quality, added a new but essential dimension to historiography of the war. Most good
historians took cognizance of them in their work. By the 1970's enough of these works existed to
provide a more balanced vision of the war.

In the early seventies Paul Carell, a German author writing under a pen name, finished
publication of a two volume study of Eastern Front operations entitled Hitler Moves East and
Scorched Earth. These works, written in appealing journalistic style, contained more German
operational detail and tapped numerous accounts by individual German officers and soldiers
who served in tactical units. Although Carell's works were heavily German in their perspective,
they did contain an increased amount of Soviet materials. Their lively narrative form has made
them influential works among the reading public.

In a more scholarly vein, Col. Albert Seaton published two works, The Russo-German War and
The Battle of Moscow which projected Ziemke's work down to the tactical level. By exploiting the
official records of particular German divisions Seaton added a new dimension to the descriptions
of war at the tactical level. Like Carell, Seaton tempered his German perspective somewhat by
using data from a limited number of Soviet sources.

The works of John Erickson have been the most influential ones to appear since 1960. They
have broken the stranglehold which the German perspective had over Eastern Front
historiography and have integrated into that historiography a comprehensive description of the
Soviet perspective on the war, particularly at the strategic and operational levels. His first work,
the Soviet High Command, for the first time shed light on the events of the summer of 1941. His
subsequent two books, The Road to Stalingrad and The Road to Berlin, recounted in considerable
detail the course of war from June 1941 to May 1945. The principal value of these works derives
from the fact that they distill information from literally thousands of Soviet works on the war and
create from that information a detailed, sometimes frenetic, account of operations in the East.
The overwhelming impact of the narrative on the reader reflects the overwhelming scale and
scope of war in the East.

Erickson's works critically assess the Soviet sources and reject those that conflict with the
most influential and accurate German records. The magnitude of Erickson's research efforts
precluded his checking on the accuracy of every tactical detail found in Soviet accounts.
Therefore, in some instances, Erickson's details do conflict with reputable German accounts. In
addition, Erickson has accepted Soviet data concerning correlation of forces which, in some
instances, have been inflated, in particular regarding German strength. Dispute these minor
faults Erickson's effort to produce a Soviet view of the war has accomplished the major feat of
providing readers with more balanced sources upon which to reach judgments concerning
combat in the East. Unfortunately the size and complexity of Erickson's works precludes their
appeal to a broad readership among the general public. Future historians will have the task of
integrating Erickson's view with those of the host of other memoir writers and historians who
wrote from the German perspective.

Across the span of time from 1945 to the present, despite the work of Erickson and a few
others, the German view of war on the Eastern Front has predominated. In part, this has
resulted from a natural American parochialism that tended to discount or ignore the importance
of operations in the East in the overall scheme of war. During the earlier postwar period the
German view prevailed by default. Numerous German accounts appeared, and nothing in the
way of Soviet material appeared to contradict them. By the 1960's, when Soviet accounts began
to appear, the German view was firmly entrenched. Moreover, the cold war atmosphere often
prompted out of hand rejection of the Soviet version of war. The German view, sometimes
accurate, often apologetic or accusative, and usually anti-Soviet, prevailed. As a result, this view
was incorporated into high school and college textbooks and into the curriculum of U.S. military
educational institutions. Most important, it provided a context within which to judge the
contemporary Soviet military. Only today is that view increasingly being challenged. Those
challenges are made possible by intensified Soviet publication efforts, efforts that are slowly
raising from obscurity details of Soviet operations on the Eastern Front. These Soviet publication
efforts, however, must overcome serious barriers if they are to produce a view which can
complement the German perspective and produce a more balanced picture of war on the
Eastern Front.

merican Perspectives on

Eastern Front Operations in World War II

Part Three

By Colonel David M. Glantz

Foreign Military Studies Office

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Soviet Sources: Perceptions And Reality

American perceptions of the war on the Eastern Front have been shaped in part by the course
of Soviet historiography on the war. As stated earlier, the Soviet reticence of address operations
in detail during the immediate postwar period left the field open for the German perspective,
which in turn predominated. Soviet efforts to set the record straight began in the late 1950's and
continue today but have only partially tempered that German view. #1

Three principal barriers exist to block or inhibit Soviet historical efforts from influencing the
American perspective. The barriers are, in sequence: a lack of knowledge in the West concerning
Soviet historical work, the language barrier, and a basic distrust of the credibility of Soviet works.
The first two of these barriers are mechanical and can be easily addressed. The third is more
fundamental and more difficult to overcome.

Most Americans and Westerners are soon unaware of the scope of Soviet historical efforts.
They assume that the Soviet reticence to talk openly of operational matters, characteristic of the
period prior to 1958, continues today. In fact, Soviet historical efforts have increased
geometrically, and Western audiences need to be educated to that fact. The fact that most of
these works are only in Russian inhibits that education. To remedy this problem more Americans
need to learn Russian (an unlikely prospect), or more Soviet works will have to appear in English.
Increased research by American military historians using Soviet sources can also contribute to
overcoming this first barrier. The second barrier is a physical one regarding language. If a source
cannot be read, it makes little difference whether or not it is available or, for that matter,
credible. The only remedy to this barrier is more extensive translation and a publicizing of Soviet
sources by their use in more detailed historical monographs.

The third barrier, involving credibility, is more fundamental. It is, in part, an outgrowth of
ideological differences which naturally breed suspicion on the part of both parties. It is also a
produce of the course of Soviet war historiography which itself is subject to criticism, depending
on the period during which the Soviet sources appeared.

In the immediate postwar years, from 1945 to 1958 few Soviet military accounts appeared
about operations on the Eastern Front. Those that did appear were highly politicized and did not
contain the sort of operational detail which would make them attractive to either the casual
reader or the military scholar. Indeed, they were of little use to the military student (Soviet or
foreign), which may, in part, explain their paucity of accurate detai1.

Beginning in 1958 more accurate and useful accounts began appearing in a number of forms.
From its inception, Soviet Military History Journal has brought to publish high quality articles on
relevant military experiences at all levels of war. The journal after 1958 immediately began
investigation of a series of burning questions, perhaps the most important of which was an
investigation of the nature of the initial period of war, (Nachalny period voiny), a topic noticeably
ignored in earlier Soviet work. Military History Journal has since focused on practical, realistic
questions within a theoretical context. It has personified the Soviet penchant for viewing military
affairs as a continuum within which individual issues must be viewed in a historical context.

In 1958 the first Soviet general history of the war appeared, Platonov's History the Second
World War. This volume, for the first time, addressed Soviet wartime failures which had been
almost totally overlooked in earlier years. For example, it openly referred to the abortive Soviet
offensive at Khar'kov in May 1942, a subject hitherto apparently too sensitive to talk about.
Platonov offered few real details of these failures but did break the ice regarding a candid
reference to failures in general which represented a quantum leap in the candor of Soviet
sources.

At the same time Soviet authors resumed a wartime tendency to teach by use of combat
experience. Kolganov's Development of Tactics of the Soviet Army in the Great Patriotic War,
published in 1958, contained a thorough review of wartime tactics by combat example. This
didactic work sought to harness experience in the service of education and did so by drawing
upon a wealth of tactical detail, some of it relating to failure as well as success. Kolganov's
accounts, although fragmentary, seemed to affirm a Soviet belief that one learns from failure as
well as success; and, if one is to be educated correctly (scientifically), details must be as accurate
as possible in both cases.
 After 1958 a flow of memoir literature, unit histories, and operational accounts began that
has continued, and, in fact, intensified, to the present. The Soviets have sought to capture the
recollections of wartime military leaders at every level of staff and command. These include
valuable memoirs of individuals at the STAVKA level (Shtemenko, Vasilevsky, Zhukov), front level
(Rokossovsky, Konev, Meretskov, Yerememko, Bagramyan), army level (Moskalenko, Chuikov,
Krylov, Batov, Galitsky, Grechko, Katukov, Lelyushenko, Rotmistrov), and at the corps level and
below. Soviet military historians have logged the experiences of many Soviet units including
armies, tank armies, corps (tank, mechanized, and rifle), divisions, and even regiments and
separate brigades, although with a few notable exceptions. Memoir literature has also extended
into the realm of the supporting services (air, naval, engineer, signal, etc).

Over time some excellent operational studies have appeared focusing on major operations
(Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Belorussia), on lesser operations (Novgorod-Luga, Eastern
Pomerania, Donbas), and on specific sectors in larger operations. Written by academic historians
(Samsonov) or military historians (Zhilin, Galitsky, Sidorenko) many of these are first rate works
containing massive amounts of, for the most part, accurate detail. Building upon the memoirs,
unit histories, and operational studies were valuable functional works which distilled the sum
total of those experiences. These studies included general military histories and histories of
operational art (Semenov, Strokov, Bagramyan, Krupchenko), operational and tactical studies
based on combat experiences (Radzievsky, Kurochkin), studies on the use of armored and
mechanized forces (Rotmistrov, Babadzhanyan, Radzievsky, Losik), treatices on operational art
and tactics (Sidorenko, Savkin, Reznichenko), and studies on numerous other topics relating to
combat support.

New general histories of the Great Patriotic War and World War II have appeared since 1960.
A six volume history of the war in the East provided a more candid view of political issues of the
war than earlier war histories and added some operational details hitherto not revealed. Its size,
however, limited coverage of lower level operational or tactical detail. An eleven volume history
of World War II was politically less candid but did add another measure of detail to accounts at
the strategic and operational levels.

Thus it is apparent that massive amounts of Soviet military data concerning operations on the
Eastern Front do exist. Moreover, the sum total of that information, as Erickson has
demonstrated, forms an impressive picture of operations in the East. On balance much of that
information is accurate as well.

There are however, some problems with these sources, just as is the case with German
sources, that must be critiqued if one wishes to prevent creating a Soviet bias similar to the
earlier German bias I described.
 First, Soviet works tend to contain a high political or ideological content. In essence, they are
intended to indoctrinate as well as teach. In theory, of course, war, in all its detail, is a continuum
of the political and, hence, ideological context. Thus the political content is understandable, if
not obligatory. A critical reader must recognize what is political and what is not and must not
allow his judgment of the one to affect his judgment of the other. He must also realize that many
of these works, especially the briefer and more popular ones, are written to inspire. Thus,
interspersed with operational and tactical fact are inevitable examples of individual or unit self
sacrifice and heroism (which may or may not be accurate). The tendency of the Western reader
is to note the often romanticized single act and reject also the account of action surrounding it.

Soviet military works written before 1958 were highly politicized and focused heavily on the
positive role of Stalin in every aspect of war. Correspondingly, operational and tactical detail was
lacking. After 1958 the political content of military works diminished as did emphasis on the
"cult of personality," leaving more room for increasing amounts of operational and tactical
detail. Since that time the political content of military works has varied depending on the nature
of the work and the audience it intended to address. Hence the briefer the article and the less
sophisticated the audience, the higher was the political content. First-rate operational and
tactical studies limited political coverage to the role of the party structure in planning and
conducting operations.

Soviet military writers also have tended to accentuate the positive, to cover successful
operations in more detail than unsuccessful ones. Thus, until recently, little was written about
the border battles of June-July 1941, about the Khar'kov and Kerch operations in May 1942,
about the Donbas and Khar'kov operations of February-March 1943, and about the warning
stages of many successful operations. Likewise, few unit histories have appeared of armies which
operated on secondary directions in the period 1943-1945.

The Soviets in the early sixties began noting these failures, saying, for example, that in May
1942 Soviet forces launched an offensive at Khar'kov but the offensive was unsuccessful. This is
certainly correct but not very helpful to one who wishes to learn from failures. As time has
passed more material has appeared concerning these failures (for example, a chapter from
Moskalenko's On the Southwestern Direction (Na yugozapadnom napravlenii) provides
considerably more detail on the Khar'kov disaster.

A similar pattern emerged in Soviet treatment of their own airborne experiences, which were
notable for their lack of success. There were few references to those failures prior to 1964. Yet
by 1976 most of the unpleasant details were public, although romanticized a bit.

Very naturally Soviet interpretation of operations have often differed sharply from the
German. In fact, over time differences in interpretation have appeared within the circle of Soviet
military writers. In the case of memoir material this takes the form of debates over the rationale
for and the outcome of operations – debates conducted by competing memoirs.

One is struck in Soviet accounts by the accuracy of facts, principally concerning unit, place,
and time. Soviet sources in this regard invariable match up with the operational and tactical
maps found in German (or Japanese) unit archives. It is apparent in some cases that Soviet
military historians have made extensive use of such German archival materials in preparing their
own studies. Less unanimity exists over what actually occurred at a given place and at a given
time. Just as is the case in some German accounts, towns abandoned by the enemy were "taken
after heavy fighting," and units driven back in disarray simply "withdrew to new positions."

Especially striking are those frequent cases where low level Soviet accounts precisely match
German accounts. In a history of the 203rd Rifle Division the author described the operations of
that unit in the frenetic post-Stalingrad days of December 1942 when Soviet forces pressed
German units southward from the Don and Chir Rivers toward the rail line running from
Tatsinskaya to Morozovsk. The 203rd Rifle Division was ordered to advance by forced march
about 50 kilometers, cross the Bystraya River, and reach an encircled Soviet armored force at
Tatsinskaya. The author described the action as the worn division, by now running short of
ammunition, reached the ridge line north of the Bystraya. There it confronted an advancing force
of German armor and infantry dispatched north of the river. The German force, estimated at 15
tanks, struck two regiments of the 203rd Rifle Division which, because of ammunition shortages,
were forced to withdraw several kilometers. Just as he was fearing for the fate of his division the
Soviet divisional commander contacted a nearby antitank company which provided the division
supporting fire. Miraculously the German force broke contact and withdrew south of the river.
This Soviet account did not mention the designation of the German unit.

In a casual interview with a former lieutenant from 6th Panzer Division, which fought along
the Bystraya River in late December 1942, I asked the lieutenant about his unit's operations on
the day of the events described by the Soviet account. He responded that 6th Panzer dispatched
an armored kampfgruppen north of the Bystraya with about 15 tanks and supporting infantry in
order to disrupt the Soviet advance to and across the river. He was in the task force. The force
struck a Soviet unit, elements of which withdrew after desultory firing. The German unit pursued
a short distance until it came under fire from an undetected Soviet artillery unit, fire which
stripped the infantry away from the tanks. Fearing the loss of critical armored assets left
unprotected by infantry, the Germans withdrew south of the river.

This isolated incident is often typical of the complementary nature of Soviet and German (and
Japanese) accounts regarding unit, place, and time. It also vividly underscores the necessity, or at
least the desirability of having both sides of the story.
 A major discrepancy between Soviet and German sources concerns the number of forces at
the disposal of each side. Examination of both sources and German archival material indicates
several tendencies. First, Soviet accounts of their own strength seem to be accurate and reflect
the numbers cited in documentation of Fremde Heeres 0st. Conversely, Soviet sources tend to
exaggerate the strength of German forces they opposed. Moreover, Soviet exaggeration of
German strength regarding guns and armor is even more severe than in regards to manpower. In
part, this results from the Soviet practice of counting German allies, auxiliary forces, and home
guards (Volksturm) units. But even counting these forces, Soviet estimates of German strength,
when compared with the strengths shown by OKH records, are too high. Just as the Germans
exaggerate when they cite routine Soviet manpower preponderance of between 8:1 and 17:1, so
also do Soviet sources exaggerate Soviet-German strength ratios as being less than 3:1 and often
2:1 up to 1945 when higher ratios were both justified and recognized by Soviet sources. For
example, the Japanese armored strength of about 1500 tanks cited in Soviet works on
Manchuria exceeded tenfold the actual Japanese armored strength, which, in addition, was
comprised of armored vehicles scarcely deserving of the name (and apparently, for that same
reason, never used in the operation).

Soviet sources also adversely affect their own credibility with regards to wartime casualty
figures. The earlier practice of totally ignoring casualties has begun to erode, but one must look
long and hard to find any loss figures, indicating that this is still obviously a delicate question for
Soviet writers. Gross figures do exist for large scale operations (Berlin, S.E. Europe, Manchuria),
and one can infer casualties from reading divisional histories which sometimes give percentages
of unit fill before and after operations and company strengths. Comprehensive coverage of this
issue, however, does not exist and the reader is left to reach his own conclusions (One of which
is that the Soviet author has something to hide).

Thus, in addition to the general American (and Western) ignorance of the existence of Soviet
source material and the presence of an imposing language barrier, Americans question the
credibility of Soviet sources. While this questioning was once valid, it is increasingly less valid as
time passes. Soviet sources have some inherent weaknesses; but these weaknesses, over time,
have been diminishing. Unfortunately, the American perception of Soviet sources remains
negative; and, hence, the American perception of the Eastern Front has changed very little. Only
time, more widespread publication of candid operational materials (some of it in English), and
more extensive use of those materials by American military historians will alter those
perceptions. That alteration will likely be painfully slow.

Conclusion:

The Reconcilation Of Myths And Realities

The dominant role of German source materials in shaping American perceptions of the war on
the Eastern Front and the negative perception of Soviet source materials have had an indelible
impact on the American image of war on the Eastern Front. What has resulted in a series of
gross judgments treated as truths regarding operations in the East and Soviet (Red) Army combat
performance. The gross judgments appear repeatedly in textbooks and all types of historical
works, and they are persistent in the extreme. Each lies someplace between the realm of myth
and reality.

In summary, a few of these gross judgments and erroneous interpretations are as follows:

• Weather repeatedly frustrated the fulfillment of German operational aims. – Not so.

• Soviet forces throughout the war in virtually every operation possessed significant or
overwhelming numerical superiority. – Not so.

• Soviet manpower resources were inexhaustible, hence the Soviets continually ignored
human losses. – Not so.

• Soviet strategic and high level operational leadership was superb. However, lower level
leadership (corps and below) was uniformly dismal. – Not so.

• Soviet planning was rigid, and the execution of plans at every level was inflexible and
unimaginative. – Not so.

• Wherever possible, the Soviets relied for success on mass rather than maneuver.
Envelopment operations were avoided whenever possible. – Not so.

• The Soviets operated in two echelons, never cross attached units, and attacked along
straight axes. – Not so.

• Lend lease was critical for Soviet victory. Without it collapse might have ensured. – Not so.

• Hitler was the cause of virtually all German defeats. Army expertise produced earlier
victories (a variation of the post World War I stab in the back. legend). – Not so.

• The stereotypical Soviet soldier was capable of enduring great suffering and hardship,
fatalistic, dogged in defense (in particular in bridgeheads), a master of infiltration and night
fighting, but inflexible, unimaginative, emotional and prone to panic in the face of uncertainty. –
Not so.

A majority of Americans probably accept these erroneous judgments as realities. In doing so

they display a warped impression of the war which belittles the role played by the Red Army. As
a consequence, they have a lower than justified appreciation for the Red Army as a fighting
force, a tendency which extends, as well, to the postwar Soviet Army. Until the American public
(and historians) perception of Soviet source material changes, this overall perception of the war
in the East and the Soviet (Red) Army is likely to persist.

Close examination of Soviet sources as well as German archival materials cast many of these
judgments into the realm of myth. Recent work done on Eastern Front operations has begun to
surface the required evidence to challenge those judgments. Continued work on the part of
American historians, additional work by Soviet historians, joint work by both parties, and more
extensive efforts to make public Soviet archival materials is necessary for that challenging
process to bear fruit.

It is clear that no really objective or more complete picture of operations on the Eastern Front
is possible without extensive use of Soviet source material. Thus definitive accounts of
operations in the East have yet to be written. How definitive they will ultimately be depends in
large part on the future candor and scope of Soviet historical efforts.

In the interim it is the task of American historians, drawing upon all sources, Soviet and
German alike, to challenge those judgments and misperceptions which are a produce of past
historical work. It is clear that the American (Western) perspective regarding war on the Eastern
Front needs broadening, in the more superficial public context and in the realm of more serious
historical study. Scholarly cooperation among Soviet and American historians, research exchange
programs involving both parties, and expanded conferences to share the fruits of historical
research would further this end and foster more widespread understanding on both sides.

On The Eve Of The War

RUSSIA'S BALTIC POLICY

BEFORE WORLD WAR TWO

By Dr. Valentin Falin

May 30, 2005

The Baltic Lands Resumed

Without making references to events of the Middle Ages or even the rule of Emperor Peter
the Great in Russia, it is worth starting on Russia's Baltic policy with some historical background.
#1

The development of state interests in the Baltic region proceeded for nearly a thousand years,
taking the form of armed fighting and dynastic deals. For example, Russian Empress Catherine
the Great bought Livland, a Baltic province, from the Danish crown. For a century before World
War I, the situation in the region did not change much.

During World War I, Kaiser Wilhelm's troops occupied Lithuania and a number of Latvian
regions. Acting on the order of General Paul von Hindenburg, the Eastern Protectorate was
created in Belarus, Lithuania and Courland occupied by Germans in June 1915. The Baltic
Germans proclaimed it a zone of German colonization. Land taken from Letts in Courland was to
be handed over to about 60,000 families of German settlers.

In Lithuania the occupiers established the Lietuviu Tarybos (Lithuanian Council) led by
Antanas Smetona in October 1917. On December 11, the council proclaimed the "restoration of
Lithuanian statehood" and adopted an act of eternal allied relations between the Lithuanian
State and Germany, which were to be reinforced by a military covenant, a customs union and a
common currency, the Reichsmark. Yielding to public pressure, the council issued a new act "On
the Independence of Lithuania," on February 16, 1918, which did not mention the military
covenant with Germany. Instead, it called on Germany and Russia to recognize the restoration of
the Lithuanian State, which should become, according to the council's decision of July 4, 1918, a
monarchy ruled by Prince Wilhelm of Urach, Count of Wurttemberg.

Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin and Marshal Klim Voroshilov in the Kremlin, Moscow, 1938. How to
secure the defense of the Motherland, that was the principal concern at the time. As always...

Latvia was only partially occupied by the Kaiser's troops; the occupied territories were ruled
by German military commandants. Russia's tsarist officials fled the unoccupied areas of the
Livland Province and Courland after the 1917 February revolution. The Riga Council of Workers
ordered provisional government leader Kerensky's henchmen to be expelled from the republic.

German troops had not reached Estonia when the tsarist regime fell in Russia. Several
nationalist parties that sprang to life there after the 1917 February revolution, called for
autonomy within Russia. Representatives of the top classes were to form the core of the
gubernatorial council that was created at the time.

The situation in Latvia and Estonia changed dramatically in August 1917, when General
Kornilov surrendered Riga to the Germans and a group of Estonian officers of the tsarist army
helped the adversary to take the islands of Saaremaa and Muhu. The leaders of the
gubernatorial council (the future dictator Konstantin Pats and Jaan Tonisson and Jaan Poska)
supported Kornilov's revolt but were pushed out of power. In November 1917, the councils of
workers' and peasants' deputies proclaimed the creation of the Worker Commune of Estland,
which became the government of Estonia.
 Pats entered a conspiracy with the Kaiser's Germany and ordered the opening of the front to
the Germans, who wanted control over Tallinn, Parnu and other centers. At the same time, Pats
and his team established contacts with the Entente, including in Murmansk, where British and
American intervention troops were creating an Estonian Legion.

In February 1918, the Germans launched an offensive along the front from the Baltic to the
Carpathians. The task of the northern group of forces was to seize Pskov and Narva and create a
bridgehead for a strike at Petrograd. By February 23, the aggressor had occupied the Baltic
region, Belarus and the Ukraine.

This endangered the existence of Russia as a state and a nation. The Soviet republic did not
have the military resources to repel the threat of the developing interventionist coalition. To
survive, it had to sign the cabal Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, under which Germany retained
control of the regions of the former Russian empire it had occupied by that time.

On March 8, 1918, the Kurland Landtag was convened at the initiative of the occupation
forces in Mitava (Jelgava). Made up mostly of Baltic Germans, the Landtag proclaimed the
creation of a Duchy of Courland under the rule of Wilhelm II, the German Emperor and King of
Prussia.

A month later, the Council of Baltic Lands was created according to the same scenario. It
proclaimed the secession of Latvia and Estonia from Russia and the establishment of the Baltic
Duchy of Livland, Estland and Courland. The duchy, ruled by Wilhelm's brother Prince Heinrich
Hohenzollern, created a personal union with Prussia. Parties, trade unions and public
organizations were prohibited and local newspapers and magazines were closed down in the
Baltic Duchy. German was proclaimed the one and only official language at the workplace and in
schools. The duchy pursued a policy of accelerated Germanization of the Baltic region and its
incorporation into the Reich.

The collapse of the German empire put an end to the Baltic Duchy and everything else that
could be associated with the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Moscow cancelled the peace treaty
but the Entente soon provided a replacement. Under the Compiegne truce of November 11,
1918, the Germans were obliged to stay on the territories of the former Russian empire they had
occupied, including Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, for maintaining order there. The Treaty of
Versailles confirmed this settlement. The act of November 19, 1918 transferred civilian authority
to the provisional governments of Augustinos Valdemaras (Lithuania), Karlis Ulmanis (Latvia) and
Konstantin Pats (Estonia).

German and British troops were used to suppress mass protests against the intervention
powers and their puppets. On February 18, 1919, the nationalist governments of Latvia and
Estonia, acting on the prompting of Entente military missions, agreed to form a military union
against Soviet Russia. Latvia and Lithuania signed a similar agreement on March 1. On August 26,
the Entente signed an agreement with Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia on joint actions against
Soviet Russia. The U.S. and Britain started delivering arms under this agreement.

A campaign was launched in late 1918 in the Latvian regions occupied by Germany to form a
Russian Western Army. By early October 1919, it had about 55,000 troops, including 40,000
Germans. Its formal commander was General Bermondt-Avalov but all commanding posts were
taken by officers from the corps of Ruediger von der Goltz. Avalov refused to remain subordinate
to Yudenich and shamelessly flirted with Germans, who played their own game in Latvia. The
Entente demanded that all German troops be pulled out of Latvia and Lithuania, which was done
by mid-December 1919.

That decision had negative consequences for Britain and France, who supported and incited
Pilsudski to prepare for an offensive against Kiev and Moscow in 1919-1920. At the same time,
the French and British generals expected to encourage German troops to move against Soviet
Russia via the Baltic region, disguised as the Western Army under the command of Avalov. But
Berlin proved smart and cautious enough to refrain from this opportunistic project.

The Soviet government offered peace treaties to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia even before the
German troops had pulled out. Estonians launched talks with the Soviet government on
September 17, 1919 but were in no hurry to get down to business. They waited to see the
outcome of Yudenich's offensive against Petrograd, in which Estonian nationalists took part.
Yudenich was routed and Estonia signed the peace treaty in Tartu on February 2, 1920.

Despite the resistance of the Entente, Latvia signed a peace treaty on August 11, 1920. A
month before that, on July 12, the Soviet government signed a peace treaty with Lithuania,
which recognized Lithuania's claims to Vilnius and the Vilnius region.

Peace treaties with Latvia and Lithuania were signed at the height of the Polish-Soviet war.
The recognition of the secession of the Baltic republics was the price Russia paid for their non-
participation in the new policy of intervention and a pledge not to provide their territory for the
military actions of other states against the eastern neighbor.

It cannot be said that the obligations of the Baltic governments always matched their policy,
but the peace treaties with Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania marked the first major breach in "the
strategy of democracies," which Winston Churchill described by saying that Soviet Russia should
be separated from Western Europe by a cordon of states that despised Bolshevism.
 The Entente more than once reminded the Baltic states about their "disloyalties" of 1919 and
1920. When conflicts with Germany or Poland threatened the Balts, Britain and France usually
took the side of the former. But this did not prevent the security services of Britain, France, the
U.S., Germany, Sweden, Finland and Japan from establishing intelligence networks in Latvia,
Lithuania and Estonia. Since late 1935, Germany became the predominant influence on the
domestic policy of the Baltic states and started using their territory against the Soviet Union's
interests.

Admiral Canaris and other senior figures in the German intelligence community had visited
Estonia regularly, once a year, since 1936. Alfred Rosenberg, a notorious Nazi ideologist,
supervised Latvia. German's relations with Lithuania were strained by the problems of the
Vilnius region and Memel (Klaipeda).

Reacting to Britain's probing, Estonia (and subsequently Finland) categorically protested

against accepting guarantees against external threats if the Soviet Union would be involved in
the guarantees in any form. The signing of the non-aggression pacts between Estonia, Latvia and
Germany in summer 1939 formalized that position of the Baltic states.

The situation with Lithuania was somewhat different. On March 22, 1939 it accepted von
Ribbentrop's ultimatum and "ceded" the Memel region to Germany. In May that year, Lithuania
demanded that Germany return the Vilnius region as compensation for Memel in the event of a
German-Polish war. There is no documentary proof that Germany granted the demand, but the
signing of the treaty of defense between the German Reich and the Lithuanian Republic
(September 20, 1939) is quite explicit. The treaty stipulated the ensurance of "mutually
complementing interests of the two countries" and Lithuania's agreement to accept "the
protection of the German Reich."

That deal was soon rendered impotent by the so-called Border (Boundary) and Friendship
Agreement signed by Germany and Soviet Russia on September 28, 1939. Under it, Lithuania
was included in the zone of Soviet interests.

The Soviet-German non-aggression pact (the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) signed in the night of
August 23/24, 1939 was precipitated long before that fateful night. If it had had a choice,
Moscow would have teamed up with Britain, France and other countries in the struggle against
the Nazi threat. But the available documents show that the Soviet leadership tried in vain to
convince London and Paris to abandon the policy of appeasing the aggressor. Britain hoped to
put Russia and Germany against each other and come out unscathed, U.S. Secretary of the
Interior Harold Ickes wrote in his diary.
 In March 1939, London promised Poland to help in case of any threat, direct of indirect, to her
sovereignty. The real value of our [British] guarantee to Poland is that it gives Poland a chance to
come to terms with Germany, Sir Neville Henderson, Britain's ambassador to Germany, said at an
August 26, 1939 session of the government.

The real goal of the talks with Moscow, which London at long last agreed to hold, was to
prevent Russia from establishing any ties with Germany, Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax said.
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was even more direct, saying he would sooner resign than
sign an alliance with the Soviets.

What should Britain do if the logic of events forced it to sign a military agreement with the
Kremlin? Sir John Simon, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said at a Cabinet session on July 10, 1939,
that the country should ensure freedom of maneuver, so that it could tell Russia that it was not
obliged to enter the war [in the event of a Nazi aggression] because it did not accept her
interpretation of the facts.

The invasion of Poland was to begin before September 1, 1939 – Moscow and London knew
this for sure. The Soviet leadership faced a difficult choice: To swim with the tide, remaining an
aloof observer, or accept Berlin's offer of a non-aggression pact similar to the ones Germany had
with Poland, Britain and France? Had the Soviet Union rejected the offer at a time when it did
not have effective mutual assistance agreements with the Western democracies, Germany could
have made a casus belli (a pretext for a war) of it at any opportune moment.

Even Polish researchers, who do not regard Russia in a friendly manner, admitted in the 1980s
that the situation at that tragic period deprived Moscow of any chance to maneuver. They even
admitted that the pre-war leadership of Poland was to blame for the failure of the attempts to
create a collective security system in Europe jointly with Moscow. But the modern attempts to
rewrite history are similar to the striving to find in the past a justification for a new fit of Polish
haughtiness. In principle, the mutual obligation "to desist from any act of violence, any
aggressive action, and any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other powers"
(see Article 1 of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of August 23, 1939) was a positive achievement.
But it is much more difficult to correctly interpret the secret protocols signed by the two men on
August 23 and September 28, 1939.

It were these protocols, and not the non-aggression pact with Germany, that were recognized
as null and void in December 1989. The USSR Congress of People's Deputies denounced them as
incompatible with the Leninist principles of Soviet foreign policy. The initiative by Vytautas
Landsbergis, then chairman of the Lithuanian reform movement Sajudis, to qualify the protocols
as contradicting the norms of international law was rejected as unsubstantiated. Secret
agreements as regards the third countries were a widespread form of political relations in the
20th century used by Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the U.S.

Besides, the protocols speak of the demarcation of 'the spheres of interests', rather than 'the
zones of influence'. This is not a case of pure semantics but an attempt to set a limit to
Germany's expansion, which Moscow was forced to tolerate in that situation. It was with good
reason that Winston Churchill described the Soviet Union's actions at the time as the
development of the eastern front. In their secret protocol of August 23, 1939, Russia and
Germany recognized "the interests of Lithuania with regard to the Vilnius region."

The protocols, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiations in general, did not cover the future
status of the Baltic states. In June 1940, Berlin was pondering the possibility of using the
annexation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to the Soviet Union as a pretext for attacking it
immediately, and soon after the French campaign. But the Generals discouraged Hitler.

When Germany crossed the Soviet border on June 22, 1941, the incorporation of the three
Baltic states in the Soviet Union was one of the main complaints to Moscow, which Berlin
accused of violating the 1939 agreements and hence provoking the conflict.

The reasons for the decision of the Soviet leadership to replace control of the Baltic states
with annexation are a separate subject. However, it is apparent that Moscow was guided not by
ideology or nostalgia for its imperial past, but by a desire to push back the defense lines as far
west of its vital areas as possible.

RUSSIA AT WAR 1941 - 1945

Operation Barbarossa

For the Motherland! For Stalin!

1941: YEAR OF THE TRUTH

By Dr. Valentin Falin

June 21, 2006

Nazi Germany's Invasion Of The Soviet Union

June 22, 1941 came down in modern Russian history as its most tragic day.

It also became as a watershed of global history: that much is clear if we turn a deaf ear to
biased propaganda and sheer calumny, and subject the facts to an in-depth analysis. #1

The human race has been suffering from wars since times immemorial. The German invasion
of the Soviet Union came as not merely another war; in fact, it was not a war in its usual sense.
As the aggressor country prepared for that war, it waved aside all conventions, in every meaning
of the word - human customs and international instruments alike. As Hitler bid farewell to his
predatory troops departing for the Eastern Front, he urged them to forget conscience and mercy;
not to spare the old or the young as they would clear the Lebensraum from Untermenschen for
Aryans. The Fuehrer's "supermen" were determined to perpetrate crimes more heinous than
what this world had ever known. Truly, humans had never plotted crimes with such blood-
curdling precision and on such a grand scale as when the Nazis plotted eradicating the nations of
Slavic origin.
Operation Barbarossa Map

In the first days and months of the war, when defeat appeared a close prospect, Russians
wondered in anguish how it could be that the aggressor had caught their country unawares,
utterly unprepared politically, economically and psychologically. What was it that made Stalin
shrug off intelligence reports, with their precise and detailed information about Germany's
aggressive plans and invasion forces deployed all along the Soviet borders from the Barents Sea
to the Black? Was the Soviet Army's inadequate battle-readiness alone to blame? Or was the
dictator, with his opportunity to see the hidden workings of world history, out to deceive the
Fates by playing on the enemy's weak points – an old trick of his?

In his six-volume The Second World War, Sir Winston Churchill devoted a special section
headed "The Soviets and the Nemesis" to developments related to Hitler's Drang nach Osten – a
characteristic title, with a gloating touch to it, implying that Russia was punished for its
trespasses. It would be apt for Sir Winston here to look back at his own past, at how he spared
no effort in 1918-22 to have Civil War-ridden Russia sliced into spheres of action, and how he
called countries that fiercely hated the Bolsheviks to encircle Russia once their military
intervention failed. A mad hater eventually appeared-but, whatever would be done to appease
and flatter him, his blow was delivered not only east but west.

The immeasurable Russian losses and crushing defeats of the summer and fall 1941 have
every reason to be put down, as they were and are now, to blatant miscalculations by the
nation's rulers, mainly by Joseph Stalin, and to the narrow-minded survivors of the bloodbath
through which Stalinist reprisals took the Soviet military elite in 1937-40. There is no way to deny
it all unless we give no thought to the future and are out to desecrate martyrs' memory.

The Fortress of Brest's inner walls bore numerous graffiti, scratched by the heroical defenders.
This one reads (left column): "I am dying but not surrender! 20 / VII - 41", (right column):
"Farewell, Motherland" #3

The Soviet Union nearly lost the war. Decades later, it collapsed, to the detriment of vital
national interests, to squander and pilfer the people's wealth stored by many generations' labor.
All that came as proof of how pernicious it is to replace democracy with autocracy, even when it
is believed to have God's blessing, or with the will and volition of a ruling political party.

But then, we cannot see the whole truth if we limit our historical appraisals to looking for
scapegoats. Such limitations make us play into the hands of the West as it cunningly encourages
our masochistic trends in reviewing the causes and effects of 20th century upheavals. In our
flagellation, we whitewash all those who, at that time, were writing political scripts and
appointing the cast.

The truth will out – a saying that is always true, though with certain reservations. Some day,
researchers will be admitted to the heart of British and American archives, which are meanwhile
guarded heavier than Fort Knox with its U.S. gold reserves. However, even the scraps of
information we currently have allow the correct representation of 20th century developments –
and never mind that hard facts may force us to revise many household truths and throw many
historical idols down from their pedestal.

As they divide history into chapters, politicians and their academic epigones tear the link of
times to make studies more convenient. They ignore the fact that any beginning is a continuation
or a rejection of the past. What, for instance, was World War I to Britain? A continuation of the
Crimean War, as Churchill himself admitted in a conversation with Chancellor Otto von
Bismarck's grandson. Or what made the United States join World War I? These were ambitions
for the Pax Americana. Even though things took a different turn from the expected, London,
Washington, Tokyo and other powers did not radically change their doctrines and related plans.
What, now, was the basis of their policies – a basis on which democracies lived under one roof
with regimes that had no use for whatever democratic disguise? After all, they eventually
clashed not over ideals but with a collision of their great power interests. They found common
language as long as they reckoned with each other's spheres of influence, and coexisted without
use of force on each other, though third countries occasionally were victim to their violence.
Providing that common language was none other than Russophobia, which changed its name to
anti-Sovietism following the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917.

Would the West have embraced Russia had it stopped at its previous, democratic revolution
of February 1917? Possibly, headlong intervention in Russia's domestic affairs would have been
mollified if the successors to the Russian monarchy had never failed to supply their allies with
cannon fodder. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson even pondered whether to recognize the Soviet
government if it disavowed the Russo-German Brest peace treaty. Historians are not sure to this
day whether the president was more anxious to retain partnership with Russia or drive in a
wedge between the Bolsheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries.

Things were far clearer with Japan and Britain, who discerned a chance to rob Russia of its
grandeur with the fall of the monarchy and the dire unrest that followed. They played first fiddle
in provoking a civil war in Russia, and were principal organizers of military intervention. In that,
they meant far more than backing the White Guard.

Having failed to subdue Soviet Russia at once, its enemies started a long, patient siege. They
were sure a country walled off from the world would never cope with its economic dislocation
after World War I and the Civil War, the working age population shrinking by several hundred
thousand with war casualties and post-revolutionary emigration. They expected Russia never to
recover sufficient might to stand up for its honor and interests. But man proposes while God
disposes. Things took a turn different from what politicians had expected.

Japan attacked China to occupy Manchuria in 1931. That spelt the start of World War II, on
the correct estimation by Henry L. Stimson, U.S. Secretary of State in the Hoover Administration
and Secretary of War under Franklin D. Roosevelt. Why, then, did the United States prefer to stay
an observer in the ominous developments, and Britain oppose sanctions against Japan even
after the League of Nations qualified its attack as aggression? What was making them so lenient
toward the aggressor country? Was it that they knew the secret Tanaka Plan, on which the
seizure of Manchuria and China's north was to provide Japan a bridgehead eventually to gain
control of the Soviet Far East and Siberia? There are many more questions to ask, too.
 The answer can be found, in particular, in the Arita-Craige agreement of 1939, in which Britain
recognized Japanese interests in China and so accepted Japanese expansion – at a time when
Khalkhin-Gol fighting was at its peak and involved several tens of thousands as the Soviet Army
clashed with Japan's Kwantung Army. The agreement was signed just when Tokyo was
persuading Berlin to adopt a formula that would automatically draw Germany into warfare on
Japan's side in case of a Soviet-Japanese armed clash. Germany, on its part, was actively
preparing to attack Poland, as was known in London. All that gives ample food for thought.

Even more information appears when we come back to Europe. I have no intention to delve
here into who, and how, brought Hitler to power in January 1933. The heart of the matter lies in
the word "reaction," a short word yet so rich in content. A mere six weeks later, London, with
Mussolini's mediation, offered the Nazi leader a draft pact, on which Britain, France, Germany
and Italy would form a quartet to manage European affairs at their own disposal, without the
slightest attention to anyone else's interests. Soviet interests would be ignored worse than
anybody's. Pointed parliamentary opposition in France buried the idea, and it did not have any
notable influence on the developments.

Piece after piece was bitten off the Versailles arrangement as Germany ostentatiously ignored
its military restrictions. The Versailles guarantors never gave it a deserved rebuff. On the
contrary, they rewarded Germany as they put up with the stabbing of the Spanish Republic, the
annexation of Austria and the division of Czechoslovakia. Why such tolerance? Why were the
democracies so generous at that time? An outspoken reply came from Lord Halifax, then
Britain's foreign secretary, as he told Hitler that the West approved of the way Nazis were
making short work of the Communists, and Hitler could count on their benevolent
understanding if he behaved similarly on the undesirable forces in other countries, especially in
Eastern Europe.

Soviet initiatives for collective security and joint rebuff to Nazi attacks were doomed in
Europe, the way it was those days. We can say so today with absolute certainty. The European
democracies were pursuing different ends: to channel German energy into an armed conflict
with the U.S.S.R. Poland's plight put an end to those expectations. London and Paris went so far
as to declare war on Germany, the one that came down in history as Phony War.

The democracies made pretence of fighting while actually sitting on the fence. What were
they waiting for? What was Washington trying to dissuade Berlin from? Into what was it
persuading Britain and France in February and March 1940? Casting aside fine words, the U.S.
was telling those obstinate Europeans: "Enough of your home squabbles! Get down to business
– attack Russia all together!" That was how history repeated itself. Not that it made a beeline – it
moved in zigzags, by fits and starts. The Soviet Union made a contribution, too, yet the West
continued to cling to its general stance, which ruled out Soviet coexistence with the
democracies.
 But then, one can say, warnings about German aggressive preparations reached Moscow from
London and Washington in spring 1941. That is true – but the Soviet dictator knew full well what
was behind the British advice. Britain could not be sure until June's first ten days that Germany
was really determined to make war on the U.S.S.R., so London was insistently calling Moscow
not to wait for Nazi hordes to flow over the Soviet frontier but make a preventive blow on the
Wehrmacht, for instance, to help Yugoslavia, then invaded by German panzer forces. Stalin
clearly saw it would be a suicidal move in spring 1941. If the first shots came from Soviet guns, it
would have been even more difficult for the U.S.S.R. to establish an alliance with the United
States.

According to certain sources, the German government did not rule out sangfroid failing
Moscow to enable Berlin to pass Operation Barbarossa as a defensive move to prevent
aggression from the East. I wonder what messages were coming to Berlin from Washington
those days.

To pile calumny on Great Britain and the U.S. is the last thing I want. More than that, I admit
that their fate was also at stake, so every plausible alternative had to be pondered in London and
Washington. But as we analyze facts and British and American documents, we cannot accept the
Western concept of recent history without reservation. That concept is overly off-handed as it
divides the involved parties into the "clean," i.e., those known as democracies, and the
"unclean," that is, all the rest. The concept passes the "clean" for aloof registrars of
developments that came out of a clash between elements out of their reach. Those historians
are too modest. Carried too far, such modesty is by no means to their credit, considering the
tragedy that started on June 22, 1941.

The sword of Damocles hung over the entire nation. Germany and Japan were, at that time,
so close to global lordship that America had not properly realized even by the end of WWII on
what a thin thread the fate of the United Nations was hanging, and justice demanded to
acknowledge that what the U.S. was doing those days to prevent the disaster did not do it credit.
That was what General George C. Marshall, top military adviser to President Roosevelt, wrote
about the years 1941 and 1942 in December 1945, a time when it was not yet customary to turn
things upside down.

Soviet Russia was doomed. Only few in Washington and London doubted it. Lawrence A.
Steinhard, U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, expected Russia's death throes to last a mere
week. The secretary of war was more optimistic. The U.S.S.R. would hold out for a month or
even three, he told President Roosevelt. British prophecies were equally gloomy. They
complimented Roosevelt on his politics of backing the U.K. to make Hitler turn east. Western
political experts advanced another argument: the deeper Germans got into the Russian
quagmire (as Americans put it), the further they got into the Russian heartland (the British
wording), the better things would turn.

In a nutshell, German aggression against the Soviet Union was a godsend, and all its fruit was
to be reaped to build up defenses in the western hemisphere.

Britain was weighing up how to reinforce its far reaches on the Middle East while Germany
trampled the Soviet Union underfoot. No one was planning any tangible assistance to the
U.S.S.R. London was thinking how to "encourage Russia" with political demonstrations and the
psychological effect of handshakes. The White House was tarrying.

Only one thing could save the Soviet Union – to thwart Hitler's plan, which envisaged routing
it with the very first blow, leaving it with no army and no way to manufacture weapons and
replenish casualties. The U.S. and Britain did not care much whether Russia would remain on the
political map. U.S. documents of that time presented the survival of the British Empire as top
priority. As for Russia, they prescribed aid to the army in the field, at best.

On August 12, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Sir Winston Churchill signed the
Atlantic Charter. As Britain's prime minister described it at the time, the instrument determined
certain general principles on which the signatory countries based their hopes for a better future
for the world. A present-day reader who has an interest in history may wonder how it could be
that the charter never made even a brief reference to German aggression against the Soviet
Union and Japanese against China. It failed to express, even indirectly, solidarity with the Soviet
and Chinese nations fighting for their motherland. So Moscow was free to engage in guesswork
on the role of the pivotal democracies: were they partners (as the contacts of that time were still
far from a full-fledged alliance) or would-be executors of its last will and testament.

An explanation can be derived from what Harry Lloyd Hopkins, President Roosevelt's closest
adviser and confidant, said to Stalin on July 31, 1941. Neither the U.S. Administration nor the
British government intended to offer Russia heavy weaponry, such as tanks, aircraft and AA guns,
before the three countries made an all-embracing and far-reaching alliance, and coordinated
among themselves the goals of the war and the postwar world arrangement. As Hopkins added
in his report to the president, it would be pointless to convene a strategy-coordinating
conference earlier than October 15, 1941, that is, before it would be clear just where the Eastern
Front would stretch and whether there would be such a front at all.

As the document shows, the Soviet Union fought single-handed in the bitterest period of the
war, while the U.S. and Great Britain played rather a symbolical part to prevent the disaster to
which General Marshall was referring.
 Who was it, then, to save the world from the disaster? Let my country not crown itself with
laurels. Better to refer to Cordell Hull, then U.S. Secretary of State. Though no great sympathizer
of the Soviet Union, he acknowledged while summing up World War II that it was the Soviet
people's valor that prevented the United States and Great Britain from making a shameful
separate peace with Germany, a peace that would have ushered in another Thirty Years' War.

The year 1941 brought the U.S.S.R. the first of its victories in an epoch-making battle against a
man-hating power. The Blitzkrieg doctrine, with which Germany aspired to gain global
domination, met a fiasco. Nazis had no other strategy blueprinted to wage the war, and
possessed no manpower, material resources and stamina sufficient for lasting position warfare.

If only the U.S. and Great Britain were fully true to their allied duty, the European and world
war could have ended in 1942 or the following year, at the latest. The Western great powers'
policies were alone to blame for World War II being so long. The British tried to advance the
political purport of the war into the foreground after the Battle of Moscow. The United States
offered no resistance to that strategy.

Why Not In 1943?

THE WAR COULD HAVE ENDED IN 1943

By Dr. Valentin Falin and Victor Litovkin

March 22, 2005

The Wiles of the West

RIA Novosti is continuing to publish conversations between Valentin Falin, who has a Ph.D. in
historical sciences, with the agency's military commentator Viktor Litovkin. They have spoken of
the little known pages in World War II that were previously classified and sometimes had a
decisive influence on the progress and outcome of the hostilities. #1

Question: World War II's modern historians have different opinions about its final stage. Some
experts maintain that the war could have ended much earlier, as Marshal Chuikov wrote in his
memoirs. Others argue that it could have dragged on for another year. Which of them is closer to
the truth? And what is the truth? What is your personal opinion?

Answer: Modern historians are not the only ones who argue about this question. The war's
length and end were even discussed during the war itself. They have been constant since 1942.
Or, to be more exact, this question worried politicians and the military since 1941, when an
overwhelming majority of statesmen, including Roosevelt and Churchill, did not believe that the
Soviet Union would hold out for longer than four to six weeks. Only Benes believed and
maintained that the Soviet Union would do what it did and finally defeat Germany.

Q.: As far as I remember, Eduard Benes was President of Czechoslovakia in exile. After the
Munich deal of 1938 and the country's occupation, he was in Britain, right?

A.: Yes. Then, when these assessments and evaluations of our viability proved wrong, when
Germany suffered its first strategic defeat under Moscow, the opinion changed drastically. The
West began voicing concerns that the Soviet Union could emerge too powerful out of the war.
And if it became too powerful it would determine the future face of Europe, according to Adolf
Berle, the then US Assistant Secretary of State, who coordinated the work of American
intelligence. This view was shared even by people around Churchill, including very respectable
people who before and during the war worked on the doctrine of the British armed forces'
operations and the overall British policy.

This, in large part, explains why Churchill was against opening the second front in 1942,
although Lord Beaverbrook and Sir Richard Stafford Cripps in the British leadership and,
especially, Dwight Eisenhower and other designers of US military plans believed that there were
technical and other preconditions to defeating Germany in 1942. They took advantage of the fact
that most German forces were deployed in the east and the 2,000-km coast of France, the
Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Germany itself was open for the allies' intervention. At that
time the Nazis did not have any permanent defense facilities along the Atlantic coast.

Moreover, the American military insisted and tried to persuade Roosevelt (there are several
memorandums written by Eisenhower on the issue) that the second front was necessary, it was
possible and its opening would make the war in Europe short and would force Germany to
capitulate if not in 1942, then in 1943 at the latest.
 Yet this did not suit Britain and numerous conservative figures on the American Mount
Olympus.

Q.: Who do you mean?

A.: Well, the whole State Department headed by Cordell Hall was extremely unfriendly
towards the Soviet Union. This explains why Roosevelt did not take Hall to the Tehran
Conference and the Secretary of State received the protocols from the Big Three meetings only
six months after Tehran. The irony is that the Reich's political intelligence brought the same
protocols to Hitler in three or four weeks. Life is full of paradoxes.

After the Battle of Kursk in 1943, where the Wehrmacht was defeated, American and British
chiefs of staff, as well as Churchill and Roosevelt, held a meeting in Quebec on August 20. They
discussed whether the United States and Britain should withdraw from the anti-Hitler coalition
and unite with Nazi generals for a joint war against theSoviet Union.

Q.: Why?

A.: Because the ideology of Churchill and those in Washington who shared it maintained that
"these Russian barbarians should be held up" as far as possible in the East, weakening the USSR
as much as possible, if not defeating it, first of all, with German hands. This is how the task was
set.

It was Churchill's very old plan. He developed the idea in his conversations with General
Kutepov back in 1919. The Americans, British and French failed and could not suppress Soviet
Russia, he said. This task should be given to the Japanese and Germans. He gave similar
instructions to Bismarck, the first secretary of the German embassy in London in 1930. In the
first world war the Germans behaved like idiots, he maintained. Instead of concentrating on
destroying Russia, they began war on two fronts. If they dealt only with Russia, England would
have neutralized France.

For Churchill it was not so much war against the Bolsheviks as it was the continuation of the
Crimean war of 1853-1856 when Russia, for better or for worse, was trying to impede British
expansion.
 Q.: In Transcaucasia, Central Asia, and the oil-rich Middle East...

A.: Naturally. Consequently, talking about different variants of waging war against Nazi
Germany, we should not forget about the different attitudes towards the allies' philosophy,
towards England's and America's obligations to Moscow.

I will digress from the issue for a second. In 1954 or 1955, Ghent hosted a priests' symposium
devoted to the question of whether or not angels kissed each other. After many days of debates,
the symposium concluded that they did, but without passion. Relations within the anti-Hitler
coalition were somehow similar to this whim of the angles, if not the kiss of Judas. The promises
were given without commitments or, worse, to mislead the Soviet partner.

Let me recall that this tactics disrupted the talks between the Soviet Union, Britain and France
in August 1939, when something still could have been done to contain the Nazi aggression. Yet
they defiantly left no choice for the Soviet leaders, but to sign a non-aggression treaty with
Germany. They left us exposed to the Nazi military machine, which was getting ready to strike. I
can quote a directive formulated in Neville Chamberlain's office that said that if London could
not avoid an agreement with the Soviet Union, the British signature should not mean that, if the
Germans attacked the USSR, Britain would come to help the victim and declare war on Germany.
He said that they should have an opportunity to say that Britain and the Soviet Union had
different interpretations of facts.

Q.: There is a well-known historical example, that, when in 1939, Germany attacked Poland,
the British ally, London declared war on Berlin, but did not take a single serious move to really
aid Warsaw.

A.: In our case, not even a formal declaration of war was at issue. The Tories assumed that the
German machine would go as far as the Urals, leveling everything on its way. And no one will be
left to lament England's wile.

These ties between times and events existed during the war and gave food for thought. And I
believe this thought was not all too optimistic for us.

Q.: Let's get back to 1944-1945. Could we have ended the war before May?

A.: Let's put the question this way: why was the allied landing planned for 1944? No one
focuses on this issue. Yet the date was not randomly chosen. The West took into account our
huge losses of soldiers, officers and weapons in Stalingrad. Losses in Kursk were also big. We lost
more tanks than the Germans.

In 1944 the country was conscripting 17-year-olds. The villages were almost empty. Boys born
between 1926-1927 were not drafted only if they worked at defense plants - their directors did
not let them go.

The American and British intelligence assessed the outlook and agreed that by spring 1944,
the Soviet Union would have exhausted its offensive potential. It would have run out of human
resources and unable to deal the Wehrmacht a blow comparable to the battles of Moscow,
Stalingrad and Kursk. It meant that by the time of the allied landing we would be stuck in
confrontation with the Nazis and cede the strategic initiative to the United States and Britain.

Even conspiracy against Hitler was planned to coincide with the landing. The generals brought
to power in the Reich were to dissolve the Western Front and allow the Americans and British to
occupy Germany and "liberate" Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia
and Austria... The Red Army was to be stopped within the 1939 borders.

Q.: I remember that America and Britain even made a landing in Hungary, near Balaton, in
order to seize Budapest, but the Germans destroyed all of them...

A.: That was not so much a landing force, but more a contact group to establish connections
with Hungarian anti-Nazi forces. However, this was not the only failure. Hitler survived the
attempt on his life, Rommel was severely wounded and got out of the game, although the West
had counted on him. Other generals lost their nerve. And what happened - happened. America
did not get an easy march across Germany to triumphant music. They got involved in battles,
sometimes intense ones, for example, the Ardennes operation. Nevertheless, they were
progressing towards their goals. Sometimes very cynically.

Let me give you a specific example. U.S. troops approached Paris. A rebellion broke out there.
The Americans stopped 30 km from the city and waited for the Germans to destroy the rebels,
because most of them were Communists. The number of the victims there were from 3,000 to
5,000 people, according to different sources. But the rebels gained control and only then did the
Americans take Paris. The same happened in the south of France.

But let us get back to the period we began with.

 Q.: The winter of 1944-1945.

A.: Yes. In the autumn of 1944 several meetings took place in Germany, chaired by Hitler and
then on his order by General Alfred Jodl and Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. The main idea was as
follows: if they could give the Americans a good whipping, the United States and Britain would
become very interested in the talks that had been held secretly from Moscow in 1942-1943.

Berlin planned the Ardennes operation not to win the war, but to spoil relations between the
West and the Soviet Union. The United States was to understand how strong Germany still was,
how important it was for the Western powers in their confrontation with the Soviet Union. And
that the allies did not have enough strength or will to stop the Red Army when it came close to
German territory.

Hitler emphasized that no one would speak to a country in trouble, only when the
Wehrmacht would have shown that it was powerful would talks begin.

Suddenness was the trump card. The allies took the winter quarters, believing that Alsace and
the Ardennes mountains were a perfect place for a vacation and a bad one for hostilities. The
Germans, however, intended to break through to Rotterdam and to cut the Americans off the
Dutch ports. This circumstance was to determine the western campaign.

The launch of the Ardennes operation was postponed several times. Germany did not have
enough forces. And it began in the winter of 1944, when the Red Army fought its hardest battles
in Hungary, near Balaton and Budapest. At stake were the last sources of oil - in Austria and
some in Hungary, which were controlled by Germany.

This was one of the reasons why Hitler decided to defend Hungary despite everything. And
why in the thick of the Ardennes operation and immediately before the Alsace operation he in
fact began withdrawing forces from the West and sending them to the Soviet-Hungarian front.
The main force of the Ardennes operation, the SS 6th tank army, was withdrawn from the
Ardennes and sent to Hungary...

Q.: To [the town of] Hajmáskér.

 A.: In fact, the redeployment began even before Roosevelt's and Churchill's panicked address
to Stalin, when they, if we translate the diplomatic language into common terms, begged: help,
save us, we are in trouble!

And we have evidence that Hitler thought that if our allies had so often left us exposed and
obviously waited to see whether Moscow would hold out and the Red Army survive, then we
could do the same. In 1941 they waited for the Soviet capital to fall, in 1942 not only Turkey and
Japan, but also the United States waited for us to surrender Stalingrad to reconsider their
policies. The allies did not even share with us such intelligence information as the German plans
of onslaught via the Don towards the Volga and on to the Caucasus, and so on.

Q.: If I'm not mistaken, we received this information from the legendary Rote Kapella.

A.: The Americans did not give us any information, although they even knew the dates and
times, including the preparations of operation Citadel at the Kursk Bulge.

Of course, we had tangible reasons to see how our allies could wage a war, how much they
wanted to wage it and how ready they were to promote their main plan for the operation on the
continent, the plan called Rankin. It was not Overlord that was the main one, it was Rankin,
which envisaged the establishment of British-American control over alloy Germany and all East
European states in order not to admit us there.

When Eisenhower was appointed commander of the second front, he was ordered to prepare
Overlord, but always bear Rankin in mind. If there were favorable conditions for Rankin, he was
to cancel Overlord and send all forces to Rankin. The revolt in Warsaw was spurred in
compliance with this plan, as were many other things.

In this sense, the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945 were moments of truth. It was not a
war on two fronts, but a war against two adversaries. Formally, the allies wereengaged in
hostilities, which was very important for us as they did distract some part of the German forces.
Yet their main scheme was to stop, if possible, the Soviet Union, as Churchill said or, as some
American generals put it more rudely, "to stop the offspring of Genghiz Khan."

By the way, Churchill formulated this idea in an openly anti-Soviet way in October 1942, when
our Nov. 19 counter-offensive under Stalingrand had not yet begun. "We should stop these
barbarians as far as possible in the East."
 When we talk of our allies, I in no way want to or can undermine the deeds of their soldiers
and officers who fought as we did, knowing nothing about political intrigues and their leaders'
schemes, they fought honestly and bravely. I am not undermining the help we got under the
lend-lease, although we never were the main recipients of it. I am just trying to show how
complicated, controversial and dangerous the situation was for us throughout the war till the
victory salute. And how difficult it sometimes was to make a decision. We were not simply
misled, but over and over left exposed to the enemy's blow.

Q.: Does this mean that the war could indeed have ended much earlier than May 1945?

A.: If I may be absolutely frank, it could have. Yet it is not our country's fault that it had not
ended in 1943. It is not our fault. If our allies had been faithful to their allies' duty, if they had
fulfilled the commitments to the Soviet Union in 1941, 1942 and in the first half of 1943... But
they did not, and the war lasted for another one and a half or two years.

Most importantly, if it had not been for these delays with the opening of the second front,
there would have been 10-12 million fewer victims among the Soviet people and the allies,
especially in occupied Europe. There would not even have been Auschwitz, for it began working
actively only in 1944...

J.T. Dykman
For Our Motherland!

The Soviet Experience in World War Two

By J.T. Dykman

The Eisenhower Institute, Washington, D.C.

Overview

Americans have little conception of the Soviet Union's experience in World War II. No cities in
the United States were besieged, not a single bomb was dropped by an enemy airplane on any
of our 48 states, no part of our population was enslaved, starved or murdered, and not one
village, town or city was completely destroyed or even heard a shot fired in anger. #1

About the only way we can begin to understand is through imagination. The distance between
Moscow and Berlin is about the same as that separating New York City and Atlanta. Imagine
twenty million people being violently killed between those two American cities in four years. The
Eastern Front in the war wound like a serpent from Sevastopol on the Black Sea to Leningrad on
the Baltic. Including the twists, bulges and turns of the line of battle at the height of German
penetration, November 1942, the line would have stretched from Baltimore to Cheyenne,
Wyoming. In place of Leningrad, can you fathom Chicago under bitter siege and constant shelling
for 900 days?

Is it possible for us to mentally picture thousands of dead bodies lying on the frozen streets
between Lake Shore Drive and Evanston? Could we endure seeing a million people die, mostly
from starvation, during the Chicago siege or begin to fathom our own citizens engaging in
cannibalism for profit? At the same time of the Chicago siege think of Cincinnati becoming a
battleground such as Stalingrad where not a single structure was left habitable and several
hundred thousand soldiers killed each other in the process of leveling the city. Mentally switch
names such as Smolensk, Karkov, Minsk, Kiev and Rostov for American cities and picture them
destroyed and silenced. If such images are possible for us to even conceive, we can begin to
understand why Americans refer to the conflict as World War Two, but the Russians universally
refer to it as the Great Patriotic War.

The Numbers

The populations of the United States and the USSR were about the same, 130,000,000, when
both nations went to war within six months of each other in 1941. To Americans, we were
sending our boys to fight a foreign war that we'd never experience. To the Soviets, it was an up
front and personal war of monumental savagery. America would lose slightly more than 400,000
soldiers (killed or missing) and almost no civilians during World War II and the USSR, depending
on which historian you believe, would lose at least 11,000,000 soldiers (killed and missing) as
well as somewhere between 7,000,000 and 20,000,000 million of its civilian population during
the Great Patriotic War.

Looking only at Anglo-American forces engaged against German soldiers on our two fronts,
northwest Europe and Italy, the United States lost 139,380 soldiers (killed and missing) during
the conflict. General Eisenhower had just over 3,000,000 men under his command, with about a
third of them safely in England, and faced a German Army of less than 1,500,000 of which our
forces killed 834,314. At the same time, Soviet armies in excess of 20,000,000 soldiers #2 were
fighting German armies totaling 5,700,000 at their strongest and killed 2,415,690 of them as
they fought their way out of Russia and on to Berlin.

These are the numbers that make Russians bristle when they hear Americans say to each
other that we won the war in Europe. For every American soldier killed fighting Germans, eighty
Soviet soldiers died fighting them. On the other hand, Americans deeply resent Soviet textbooks
telling their children their version of history with passages such as: "In June, 1944, when it had
become obvious that the Soviet Union was capable of defeating Hitler's Germany with her forces
alone, England and the USA opened the second front."
 "On 6 June, 1944, the Allied forces, commanded by General Eisenhower, landed in Normandy
(Northern France). The Anglo-American forces met with practically no opposition from the
Hitlerites, and advanced into the heart of France."

Studied without bias born of the Cold War, one can understand the Soviet description of the
facts. Some historians of World War II suggest that by mid 1944 the USSR was strong enough to
defeat Germany eventually, without any Anglo-American second front. With respect to the
"practically no opposition" propaganda phrase it is also true that the Soviets, who routinely
faced battles involving several hundred thousand soldiers on both sides, did not regard the
67,000 Germans defending Normandy on June 6th as serious opposition. To the Soviets, fighting
390,000 Germans in the area of a single city (Stalingrad) was meeting serious opposition

The Savagery

"Subhuman" Russian children tortured to death

by the brave German Wehrmacht soldiers

Beyond the quantifiable numbers of people killed and missing, the Great Patriotic War was a
much different war than that experienced in the West.

Hitler's occupation of countries such as Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, and France was
harsh, but was not aimed at inflicting widespread depopulation (with the exception of the Jews)
on those nations. The Germans looted huge amounts of raw materials, machinery, art, gold and
even wine from their European conquests, but they left the people with enough food to prevent
starvation and saw to it that some form of the civilian rule of law remained in force in those
countries during the war. Almost all the French, English and American soldiers captured by the
Germans were housed and fed at or above the subsistence level and repatriated after the war.
The same was true of German soldiers captured by the Allies. In the west, most of the putative
"rules of war" were observed at some level.

The war in the east was entirely different. The results of Hitler's beliefs concerning the Jewish
populations is widely known because of the Holocaust, but his dark convictions concerning
peoples he called Slavs are much less well known in the west. Every reputable biography of Hitler
and his own writings and speeches confirm that he regarded them as subhuman. He saw
everything east of Poland as the ideal place to provide extra living space for the Aryan race and
all that was necessary to provide it for them was to push the "Slavic subhumans" out or
exterminate them if they failed move.

Unlike his earlier conquests, Hitler ordered his generals in 1941 to conduct the war against
the USSR as one of annihilation rather than capture and coercion. He wanted the populations
out or dead. The German invasion of the Soviet Union was the only attack during the war
employing the concept of Einsatzgruppen (tasks forces) which followed just behind the attacking
forces with specific orders from Hitler to kill, "… all potential leaders of society (meaning to wipe
out the intelligentsia), all communists, Jews, Gypsies, guerrillas, saboteurs and those capable of
resistance." This written policy of annihilation was also given to three million German soldiers
just before the attack on June 22, 1941.

When Hitler`s troops marched into Russian territory that June they were often greeted as
liberators by village populations weary of Stalin's rule. That soon changed as the people began to
witness the treatment inflicted on them by the Einsatzgruppen. The Germans emptied the land
and moved on. All communists, everyone with an education and the Jews were murdered. Grain,
farm animals, equipment and anything of possible value were stolen or sent back to Germany.
Villages and homes were torched. Objecting civilians were slaughtered and the rest left to starve.
This was not just the looting of art or precious metals that went on in Europe; this was stripping
the land for depopulation by starvation.

One little known aspect of the massive effort to perform what today might be called ethnic
cleansing, concerned Wehrmacht (German Army) horses. The typical infantry division table of
organization included 12,352 officers and men and 4,656 horses. The vast majority of German
artillery and supplies were horse drawn. Although much has been made of the notion of
Blitzkrieg (lightening war) the fact of the war was that no German army could move faster than
its horses could pull its equipment behind it. Depending on the weather and distance traveled,
each division needed up to 55 tons of feed per day. During the invasion of the nations of
northwest Europe, feed for the horses was generally carried with the army or taken to it by
supply trains from Germany. The Wehrmacht made few such plans for its invasion of the USSR.
There were more than 750,000 horses in the attacking force in June of 1941 and they required
16,350 tons of feed per day, much of which was to be confiscated from the Russians.

As the towns and villages experienced murder and the torch, their granaries were emptied
and their horses stolen for replacements. The mass starvation of peasants in the coming winter
was attributable, in fair measure, to the empty grain bins between the Volga and Moscow. Like
everything else about the Great Patriotic War, the scale is difficult to conceive. The German army
causality losses during the 1941-45 period exceeded 6,700,000 horses (26,000 of which were
eaten by starving German soldiers during the battle of Stalingrad) and no one can calculate the
number of Russian lives lost because the horses consumed the grain that could have supported
human life.

As the conquered people began to understand their apparent fate, the stronger of them
began to form Partisan groups. These organizations did not necessarily come together out of
loyalty to Mother Russia, but out of desperation to stay alive and of hatred to revenge the
butchery of their relatives.

Contrary to popular myth, the Partisans were never strong enough to affect the movement or
combat readiness of the German armies. As they increased in numbers they robbed German
supply trains and brutally murdered any small enemy unit they could catch. Word of mutilated
dead comrades to their rear spread both terror and hatred throughout the advancing German
armies and increased their willingness to inflict even more violence on the populations they
encountered. By early 1942, the civilians and soldiers knew that the invasion had become a
dreadful life or death struggle for everyone on both sides. Becoming a prisoner of either side
provided little hope of survival. The Germans captured more than 3,500,000 Soviet soldiers
during their invasion and sent them all to slave labor camps where most eventually died from
malnutrition or unattended disease. The Soviets captured about 90,000 German soldiers at
Stalingrad alone and less than 5,000 made it back to Germany after the war.

What separates the battle histories of the war east of Berlin from the war west of it is the
level of savagery. In the major western battles, such as Falaise and The Bulge, the Anglo-
American generals used tactics designed to encircle and capture their adversary. In the eastern
battles there was mainly direct frontal attack with brute force that didn't stop short of
annihilation. Even the numbers reflect the difference. In the west, the 3,000,000 man Allied
army killed 834,314 German soldiers and, through the strategic bombing campaigns, about
250,000 civilians. In the east, where neither side had a strategic bombing force, less than six
million Germans killed eleven million Soviet soldiers and at least seven million civilians … all of it
face-to-face and on the ground. Even General Eisenhower, no stranger to war-damaged towns
and cities, was appalled by the extent of depopulation and wrote in his memoir:
 "When we flew into Russia, in 1945, I did not see a house standing between the western
borders of the country and the area around Moscow. Through this overrun region, Marshal
Zhukov told me, so many numbers of women, children and old men had been killed that the
Russian Government would never be able to estimate the total."

The best that most historians have been able to do in telling the tale of war on the eastern
front has been to simply say that the level of mass barbarity was indescribable.

The Differencies Between

The War In The East And The West

In Europe Hitler's goal was to conquer and subjugate populations. In the USSR his written goal
was annihilation of everyone suspected of being capable of resistance and depopulation of the
rest by starvation.

For every American soldier killed fighting the Germans, eighty Soviet soldiers died fighting
them.

The USSR was the only theatre of war in which Einsatzgruppen task forces were used to follow
the combat troops and kill civilians.

People, measured in the millions, were forced to starve because their livestock was sent to
Germany and their grain was used to feed the 6.7 million horses needed to transport
Wehrmacht artillery and supplies.

In the west, prisoners were generally fed and housed by both sides. In the USSR both sides
killed their prisoners by forced labor, malnutrition and unattended disease.

In the west, the generals, on both sides, usually tried to use tactics of encirclement with the
goal being to capture the enemy. In the war in the east the tactics were predominately frontal
assaults on the ground with the only goal being to kill the enemy.

Many historians, from Liddell Hart to Harrison Salisbury, have speculated that the
unprecedented savagery of the war fought in the USSR between 1941 and 1945 led to the
national paranoia – the "never again" mentality. For those who remembered the war, any cold
war policy that would repel any future aggressor on their soil – or discourage any group of
nations from contemplating it – was an acceptable sacrifice. It was not until the first-hand
memory of the Great Patriotic War had faded among the ruling elite that the country was
capable of contemplating perestroika and a new strategy for integrating a new Russia into the
international community.

"General Winter"

Forward to Victory!

Fighting the Russians in Winter

(Abridged)

By Allen F. Chew

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

The Russian winter defeated Napoléon, as every Frenchman knows. It also defeated Hitler, as
most Germans know. Many Americans share that "knowledge" – which is false in both cases!
Those popular myths illustrate the uncritical acceptance and perpetuation of rationalizations
designed to obscure the fact that those "invincible" Western military paragons were humbled by
the "inferior" Russians.

This paper #1 will not discuss either of those ill-fated campaigns in detail. However, in
regard to the claims of "General Winter," it should be noted that the main body of Napoléon's
Grande Armée, initially at least 378,000 #2 strong, diminished by half during the first eight
weeks of his invasion before the major battle of the campaign. This decrease was partly due to
garrisoning supply centers, but disease, desertions, and casualties sustained in various minor
actions caused thousands of losses. At Borodino on 7 September 1812 – the only major
engagement fought in Russia – Napoléon could muster no more than 135,000 troops, and he lost
at least 30,0005 of them to gain a narrow and Pyrrhic victory almost 600 miles deep in hostile
territory. The sequels were his uncontested and self-defeating occupation of Moscow and his
humiliating retreat, which began on 19 October, before the first severe frosts later that month
and the first snow on 5 November.

Hitler's plans also miscarried before the onset of severe winter weather; he was so confident
of a lightning victory that he did not prepare for even the possibility of winter warfare in Russia.
Yet his eastern army suffered more than 734,000 casualties (about 23 percent of its average
strength of 3,200,000 troops) during the first five months of the invasion, and on 27 November
1941, General Eduard Wagner, the Quartermaster General of the German Army, reported that
"We are at the end of our resources in both personnel and materiel. We are about to be
confronted with the dangers of deep winter."

Although the plans of both of those would-be conquerors of Russia failed before the arrival of
winter, there is no denying that snow and severe frost contributed greatly to the magnitude of
their subsequent problems and casualties. This study addresses those aspects of warfare in the
vicinity of European Russia. The harsh climate of that region can be an indiscriminate killer, and
the successful army must adapt to winter conditions. In the following examples, all illustrating
combat in northern and subarctic European Russia, both Russians and their opponents paid the
ultimate price when they overlooked this reality.

Before turning to specific operations, it may be useful to list some of the pertinent
environmental factors and their military ramifications.

The obvious special conditions encountered in the northern latitudes are:

• Extreme cold

• Deep snow

• Short days

• Dense coniferous forests – in most subarctic locales

• Sparse population and consequently few ready-made shelters

• Poor and widely separated roads.

Their military corollaries are also readily apparent:

• Mobility and logistical support are restricted

• Roads and runways can only be kept open by plowing or compacting the snow

• Cross-country transport – if possible at all – requires wide-tracked vehicles or sleds

• Infantrymen moving through deep snow rapidly become exhausted

• Extended marches require skis or at least snowshoes

• Without special lubricants firearms and motors may freeze up and become inoperative at
subzero temperatures

• Human efficiency and survival require adequate shelter. If not available locally, portable
shelter must be provided

• Frostbite* casualties may exceed battle losses unless troops wear proper clothing, including
warm gloves and footgear

• Speedy removal of the wounded from the battlefield to shelter is essential to prevent even
minor wounds from resulting in death from exposure.

*Frostbite is damage resulting from low temperatures. Severe cases involve not only the skin
and subcutaneous tissue but also deeper tissues, sometimes leading to gangrene and loss of
affected parts. Persistent ischemia, secondary thrombosis, and livid cyanosis mark severe
frostbite cases.

In the following three case studies, examples drawn from recent history illustrate these and
other distinctive aspects of winter warfare in the Russian environment.

Pertinent Aspects of Nazi-Soviet Warfare

During the Winter of 1941 - 1942

During the fifteen-month interval between the Winter War and Hitler's invasion of Russia, the
Red Army profited from its experience in Finland. In addition to making general organizational
and tactical changes, the Soviets paid more attention to winter clothing, equipment, and training
including that of ski troops-in marked contrast to their future opponents.

Many of the combat problems the German Army encountered in European Russia during the
winter of 1941 - 1942 resemble a greatly amplified playback of the Arkhangelsk campaign of
1918 - 1919. The Germans paid an exorbitant price for ignoring the lessons of those, and other,
earlier winter campaigns. General Dr. Waldemar Erfurth noted that before 1941 the German
General Staff had never been interested in the history of wars in northern and eastern Europe.
No accounts of the wars of Russia against the Swedes, Finns, and Poles had been published in
German. "The older generation which had been brought up in the tradition of von Moltke ...
considered it sufficient to study the countries immediately surrounding Germany ... the northern
regions of Europe remained practically unknown to the German soldier."

The devastating results of the decision to expose German troops to combat in the latitude of
Moscow – the same as that of Hudson Bay in Canada – without appropriate clothing and
provisions were so widespread that it is impossible to single out one particular battle as the best
example. Accordingly, the observations that follow are generalizations applicable to a very wide
front.

Weather

In 1941 winter weather arrived in Russia earlier* than usual. Initially, that was not entirely
detrimental to German operations, because it cut short the autumn rasputitsa, the period of
heavy rains which twice a year turns the unpaved roads of central and northern Russia into an
impassable morass of mud. The temperature dropped sharply at the beginning of November,
causing the roads to freeze, thus allowing the movement of trucks and tanks.

*In normal years, snows begin in central European Russia about mid-November and severe
cold sets in during the latter half of December.

Although there is general agreement concerning weather conditions on the Russian front
through October 1941, there are many conflicting versions of the severity of temperatures
during the weeks and months that followed. For example, Field Marshal von Bock, commander
of Army Group Center, recorded in his war diary on 5 November 1941 that the mercury dipped
to -29°C (-20°F), and Albert Seaton reported that around 24 November it was a steady -30°C (-
22°F). In contrast, Marshal Zhukov, then responsible for defending the approaches to Moscow,
stated that during the November general offensive the temperature on the Moscow front
remained stable at -7° to -10°C (+19° to +14°F). In a work specifically refuting German accounts,
another Soviet spokesman cites the Meteorological Service records of the minimum
temperatures for the Moscow area in late 1941: October, -8.2°C (about +17°F); November,
-17.3°C (+1°F); December, -28.8°C (-20°F). There were also many reports of temperatures as low
as -40° during that exceptionally cold winter, and at least one report of -53°C (-63°F).

In terms of casualties, the precise temperatures are virtually meaningless, because a poorly
clothed soldier exposed to the elements is susceptible to frostbite even at temperatures warmer
than -18°C (O°F). As previously noted, the Allies suffered more frostbite casualties during the
fighting around Bolshie Ozerki from late March through early April 1919 – when the lowest
temperature was only -20°C (-4°F) and daytime thawing caused wet boots – than they
experienced during the coldest periods of that winter.

There had been some snowfall as early as October 1941, and heavy, cumulative snows began
about 7 December. Strong winds and blizzards followed, creating massive drifts. The exceptional
cold caused the snow to remain unusually powdery and deep long after it had fallen. Marshal
Emerenko estimated the winter's lasting snow cover in the region between Moscow and
Leningrad at .7 to 1.5 meters (28-59 inches). This snow cover greatly restricted German mobility,
but it also hampered the Red Army. One German source frankly states that the fate of the
overextended Army Group Center would have been even worse had there been less snow,
concluding that "complete collapse [of the German units] was prevented ... especially by the
deep snow, which constituted a major obstacle [to the Soviet counteroffensive]." Discussing the
plight of about seven divisions that were cut off in January 1942, a German commander
observed that "the deep snows protected the encircled German troops around Demyansk from
annihilation. Even the Russian infantry was unable to launch an attack through those snows."

Weather-Related Casualties

Hitler's overconfidence immeasurably compounded the inevitable hardships of a winter

campaign in Russia. Expecting victory by autumn, he had intended to withdraw two-thirds of his
divisions from Russia and to leave the remainder as an occupation army. Winter clothing,
procured on the basis of the occupation force, arrived very late because of the breakdown in
transportation. On 30 November von Bock informed Field Marshal von Brauchitsch, the Chief of
Staff of the German Army, that his men still had not received winter coats, although the
temperature was -45°C (-49°F). Nearly three weeks later the angry General Heinz Guderian,
commander of the Second Panzer Army, confronted Hitler with the stark facts that none of the
winter clothing had yet arrived in the forward areas and that he had lost twice as many men
from frost as from enemy action. That conversation led to the Nazi Party's Christmas drive
among German civilians to collect winter clothes and skis, few of which reached the front before
February 1942. The freezing German troops were reduced to removing clothes from enemy
corpses, improvising straw boots, and taking other emergency measures.

It is no wonder that thousands of Germans froze to death that winter. By the turn of the year
they had suffered about 100,000 cases of frostbite, more than 14,000 of which required
amputations. By the end of that terrible winter the number of frostbite victims exceeded a
quarter of a million, and more than 90 percent were second- and third-degree cases. To these
must be added thousands of cases of pneumonia, influenza, and trenchfoot.

The impact of those non-battle casualties was tremendous. Although the Red Army had lost
millions in dead, wounded, and captured by December 1941, Russia was able to muster
replacements from its vast manpower resources. In contrast, by 26 November German losses of
about 375,000 dead, missing, and permanently disabled were virtually irreplaceable. By April
1942 the German deficiency on the Russian front had reached 625,000 men. In the words of a
German officer who survived that grueling winter, those casualties meant that "the actual loss of
the war in the East merely had been postponed."
 The Red Army was far better prepared for winter warfare than were its opponents. For
example, Siberian troops who attacked the shivering Germans of the 35th Infantry Division near
Moscow on 5 December 1941 wore padded jackets and trousers, fur caps, and felt boots.
Nevertheless, the unseasonable cold of early November caught many Russian units by surprise.
On 9 November Marshal Kirill Meretskov, then commanding both the Fourth and Seventh
Armies, personally checked the condition of the troops who had lost the town of Tikhvin the
previous day. He found the troops still in summer uniforms. A week later a German attack on a
hill north-east of Rzhev succeeded because the Soviet sentries, who had not yet received winter
clothes, were too cold to be alert. However, winter uniforms were available at Russian supply
points, and distribution was soon accomplished.

Nevertheless, Soviet troops also suffered weather-related casualties. The diary of a Red Army,
field surgeon contains the 27 January 1942 notation that "the first frostbite cases have made
their appearance. We amputated two feet and will probably amputate many more." The main
cause of such losses was the Soviet counteroffensive that began early in December and
continued throughout the coldest months of the winter. General Ironside's observations in 1919
about the superiority of the defense over the offense in such weather remained valid. A German
officer who witnessed persistent Soviet attacks near Shuvaevo in mid-January 1942, when the
temperature reached -40°, reported that "the Russians suffered even more [than the Germans]
from the cold despite their winter clothing, since they were out in the open."

Logistics and Mobility

The ubiquitous, shaggy, hardy Russian ponies once more proved indispensable for transport in
bad weather. Many of the larger horses that the Germans had brought from western Europe
died from the cold, but the native breed could survive in the open at almost any temperature if
merely sheltered from the wind. The Germans called those small, patient animals panje horses, a
term they also applied to the native carts and sleighs. German accounts were full of praise for
those seemingly anachronistic vehicles and horses.

General Rendulic wrote: "The light native carts (sleighs), and the small, strong, and
undemanding native horses are absolutely indispensable for the trains of infantry units. They are
equally indispensable for the supply of motorized troops during the muddy season and in the
winter, whenever military operations grind to a halt. Before long, even the German motorized
and armored divisions had such trains of horse-drawn vehicles at their disposal. I cannot imagine
how the German Army could have fought and lived through four years of war against Russia if it
had not made use of these carts, sleighs, and horses."
 In the opinion of another German officer, panje sleighs were not only the best means of
transport in winter, but in the open fields and on the miserable secondary roads they were the
only vehicles that afforded complete oversnow mobility. By early 1942 some panzer divisions
employed as many as two thousand panje horses, while hardly any of their motor vehicles
remained serviceable. Those panzer units were given the ironic nickname panje divisions. Even
the Luftwaffe had to resort to panje transport in Russia.

Naturally, the Russians relied upon the same horse-drawn transport, but they also employed
cavalry in combat. A German source even reported a quixotic mounted cavalry attack against a
German tank company in January 1942. For security and reconnaissance missions, the Soviets
used cavalry units extensively. At times these troops fought dismounted. They also cooperated
with armor in major offensive operations.

Russian tanks, especially the T34, KV1, and KV2, were effective even in deep snow because of
their wide tracks and good ground clearance. These features gave them a marked advantage
over the tanks that the Germans employed during the first winter, tanks which became stuck
because of their narrow tracks and limited ground clearance. The Soviets frequently used T34s
to break paths through the snow for the infantry.

Another advantage the Russians enjoyed was the number of ski troops. Profiting from the
lessons of the Winter War against the Finns, both Soviet military and civilian authorities
emphasized skiing during the peacetime winter of 1940-41. Special ski units, trained in Siberia
and committed on the Finnish front during the new war, proved almost as skillful as the Finns.

The Soviets employed ski troops in units up to brigade size. In January 1942 a force of three
ski battalions was operating behind the German Fourth Army. On the night of 23 November 1941
about three hundred skiers, including female Komsomol students and Party workers, executed a
daring raid on 12th Corps headquarters, killing nineteen Germans and wounding twenty-nine.
Although their casualties were heavy, 80 percent of the skiers made their way back through the
woods.

Other ski units were not always that lucky. A ski brigade of the 39th Guards Army that made a
dawn attack on the rear of the 114th Panzer Grenadier Regiment in late March 1942 was
virtually annihilated. It failed to surprise the Germans partly because they clearly heard its
approach over the snow, for sound travels a great distance in cold weather. (Powdery snow tends
to reduce the sound of movement, but that is not true of the heavy crusted snow common by
early spring.)

Russian ski units were more successful in combination with other arms. When the Third
Panzer Army was retreating west of Moscow in December 1941, a Russian force of ski troops,
cavalry, and sleigh-mounted infantry cut off the 6th Panzer Division, which was the rear guard of
the LVI Panzer Corps.

Although the mobility of well-trained ski units was a significant asset, not all of the Russian ski
troops employed in that first wartime winter were sufficiently experienced to exploit that
advantage. General Meretskov noted that he often saw men of the hastily formed Second and
Fifty-ninth Shock Armies proceeding on foot, dragging their skis behind them.

The Germans found it even more difficult to muster effective ski troops, which they did not
employ in units larger than battalions. Within Army Group Center, accounts of one regiment
reveal that it had only ten sets of ski equipment per company in January 1942. Another regiment
could equip only one platoon per unit, barely enough for patrol, messenger, and similar duties.
When a corps was finally able to organize one ski battalion in March 1942, the men had to be
selected on the basis of their skiing ability. Because many were from support units – with no
combat experience – their effectiveness was limited.

Weather-Related Failures of Arms and Machines

It could only have been in total ignorance of the Arkhangelsk campaign more than twenty-two
years earlier that the German Army in 1941 could be "surprised" (as General Rendulic expressed
it) that because of the extreme cold the mechanisms of rifles and machine guns, and even the
breech blocks of artillery, became absolutely rigid. The recoil liquid in artillery pieces also froze
stiff, and tempered steel parts cracked. Strikers and striker springs broke like glass.

One can only conjecture the number of tactical defeats such surprises caused. Even General
Halder took notice of an encounter near Tikhvin when the temperature was -35°C (-31°F) and
only one of the five German tanks could fire. Sentries in the German 196th Infantry Regiment
discovered at the inopportune moment of a Soviet night attack in January 1942 that their
machine guns were too frozen to function.

Soviet weapons were designed for winter, and they used appropriate lubricants. The Germans
preferred the Soviet submachine gun to the model originally issued to them. During the first
winter the Germans had to improvise by lighting fires under their artillery, and by either wiping
off all the lubricants from weapons or experimenting with substitutes. Kerosene worked, but it
was not durable and thus had to be renewed frequently. Sunflower oil proved quite effective,
but it was available only in southern Russia. (By the second winter of the war the Germans had
suitable lubricants on hand.)

Deep snow greatly reduced the effectiveness of mortar shells, and even of artillery smaller
than 150-mm. caliber. The best antitank weapon was the gun of a heavy tank, for regular
antitank artillery could not be used in deep snow. Mines proved unreliable under heavy snow or
ice, especially when there was some thawing, because their pressure fuses would not function
when cushioned by deep snow or covered with an ice crust.

As noted, the oversnow capabilities of Soviet tanks were superior to those of the German
models employed in 1941. The Germans also encountered constant problems with most of their
motor vehicles. At first they tried to start frozen machines by towing, which badly damaged
motors and ripped differentials to pieces. It proved necessary to apply heat for up to two hours
before moving. During alerts motors were frequently kept running for hours. (Only the panje
horse started without a warming up period!)

Weather's Impact on Local Operations and Tactics

Because shelter was essential to survival, villages became the focal points of local battles
during the winter of 1941-42, just as they had been in 1918-19. During the Soviet
counteroffensive General Rendulic, commander of the 52d Infantry Division, initially tried to
conduct an orthodox defense which included holding open terrain. That, however, led to so
many frostbite casualties that he had to restrict his lines to populated points and their
immediate environs. When the Russians penetrated the gaps between the German-held villages
and fanned out laterally to threaten the roads leading to the rear of those villages, the Germans
were forced to retreat again. Where the Soviet forces had sufficient ammunition and passable
roads, they also attacked the villages. Whenever they failed to capture them during the day, they
usually withdrew to the nearest friendly village for the night.

Whenever the Germans were able to take the initiative, they faced the same problem, though
aggravated because of their inferior clothing. On 28 December 1941 the 4th Armored Infantry
Regiment of the 6th Panzer Division successfully counterattacked Russian units that had broken
through the German positions on the Lama River. By evening they closed the gap in their line by
making contact with the 23d Infantry Division, and they sheltered that night in nearby villages
and farmhouses. The plan for the next day was to surround the enemy and regain the Lama
River positions. Again the 4th Infantry, in an attack coordinated with the division's motorcycle
battalion, attained its objectives: by noon the Soviet breakthrough force was encircled. The
nearby villages had been destroyed, however, and the former positions were buried deep in
show. Without shelter, and faced with freezing to death in the nighttime temperature of -30° to
-40°, the Germans had to abandon the encirclement and withdraw to a distant village. The
Russians then broke through again and eventually forced the entire German front in that area to
withdraw. Battlefield success had turned to failure because the Germans were not equipped for
the weather and could not find local shelter.

Occasionally even a destroyed village offered protection from the cold. The Russians generally
tried to surround a German-held village before the garrison could escape and set it on fire.
When they failed and the village burned, they usually arrived before the fires had died down,
and they could begin at once to dig shelters in the ground thawed by the heat.

Sometimes there was an alternative to shelter in villages, even when the ground was too hard
for digging. Conducting defensive operations in open country around the turn of the year, the
6th Panzer Division was sustaining about 800 frostbite casualties a day. It had some five tons of
explosives on hand, however, and on 3 January 1942 its engineers blasted enough craters to
accommodate all of the combat elements. Covered with lumber and heated with open fires,
each crater sheltered three to five men. New frostbite cases immediately fell from eight hundred
to four a day. With minefields, antitank obstacles, and paths trampled between and behind the
craters, the position held out for ten days and was only abandoned when outflanked. Eventually,
in order to free them from dependence on the engineers, the Germans trained both combat and
service units to use 100-gram cartridges for blasting shelters.

The Germans soon learned how to prevent wood smoke from revealing their field positions.
In contrast to fresh firewood, charcoal burns with little smoke and its manufacture was
improvised widely.

Deep snow hampered movement on foot. In one instance a unit of the 52d Infantry Division
required nine hours to advance two and one-half miles – unopposed – through five feet of snow.
Consequently, trampling lateral and rearward paths assumed tactical significance. For example,
the German commander of Company G, 464th Infantry, realized on 15 January 1942 that his
positions would soon become untenable. He therefore detailed a few men with minor wounds
to trample a path from the village held by the company towards a nearby forest. During the
ensuing Soviet offensive, that path prevented his unit from being trapped by the enemy.

Distinctive lessons which may be drawn from this chapter include:

• Sound travels farther in very cold weather. On the Russian front in World War II the noise of
troops advancing over heavy, crusted snow deprived them of the advantage of surprise.

• Horses provided the most reliable transport on the Russian front in winter. The small but
acclimatized native horses proved superior to larger breeds accustomed to the milder climate of
Western Europe.
 • Mines often failed in winter. This was true when the snow was sufficiently deep to cushion
the fuse and when alternating melting and freezing created an ice bridge over the detonator.

• Charcoal was better than wood for heating because it created less smoke to reveal troop
positions.

• Soviet wide-tracked tanks had better over-snow mobility than the early German models
because of their lighter ground pressure.

• Explosives were useful for constructing foxholes and larger shelters in frozen ground.

• Finally, perhaps the most important lesson is simply the folly of ignoring the pertinent
lessons. A former Luftwaffe officer, Lt. Gen. H. J. Rieckhoff, concluded a discussion of the
problems encountered by the ground components of the German Air Force in winter with the
observation that the highest German commanders were slow to profit from Russian examples
because of their feeling of superiority, and some refused to learn until they went down in defeat.
There may be a message for others in that conceit.

Conclusion

These cases illustrate common lessons, even though they span almost a quarter of a century,
cover a broad geographic area, and concern arms ranging from bayonets to modern tanks.
Foremost among these lessons is that troops fighting in severe winter weather must have
appropriate clothing, weapons, and transport for that harsh environment. Acclimatization and
pertinent training are also essential.

Two of the three campaigns clearly demonstrated the superiority of the defense over the
offense in such weather conditions. The exception, the destruction of the 44th Division, does not
invalidate that generalization: the attacking Finns enjoyed concealment and warm shelter in the
woods, whereas the Russians were defending a hopeless position, an exposed roadway without
sheltering villages. Most of the weather-related casualties of 1941-42 need not have occurred
had the commanders fully appreciated the experiences of 1918-19. Most of those lessons will
probably be valid as long as Russian winters remain frigid. Surely "General Winter" will always be
a formidable foe to an unwary army fighting in Russia.

RUSSIA AT WAR 1941 - 1945

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin

Head of the Soviet State

STALIN`S RADIO ADDRESS

Moscow, July 3, 1941

Comrades!

Citizens!

Brothers and sisters!

Fighters of our army and navy!

It is to you that I am appealing, my friends!

The perfidious military attack by Hitler Germany on our Motherland, begun on June 22, is
continuing. In spite of the heroic resistance of the Red Army and although the enemy's finest
divisions and finest air units have already been shattered and have met their doom on the
battlefield, the enemy continues to push forward, hurling fresh forces into the fray. Hitler's
troops have succeeded in capturing Lithuania, a considerable part of Latvia, the western part of
Byelorussia and part of the Western Ukraine. The fascist aircraft are extending the range of their
operations, bombing Murmansk, Orsha, Moghilev, Smolensk, Kiev, Odessa, Sevastopol. Grave
danger overhangs our country.

How could it have happened that our glorious Red Army surrendered a number of our cities
and districts to the fascist troops? Are the German fascist troops really invincible as the braggart
fascist propagandists are ceaselessly trumpeting?

Of course not!

History shows that there are no invincible armies and that there never have been. Napoleon's
army was considered invincible, but it was beaten successively by the troops of Russia, England
and Germany. Kaiser Wilhelm's German army in the period of the first imperialist war was also
considered an invincible army, but it was defeated several times by Russian and Anglo-French
troops, and was finally routed by the Anglo-French troops. The same must be said of Hitler's
German fascist army today. This army has not yet met with serious resistance on the continent of
Europe. Only on our territory has it met with serious resistance. And if as a result of this the
finest divisions of the German fascist army have been defeated by our Red Army, it shows that
Hitler's fascist army can also be and will be defeated as were the armies of Napoleon and
Wilhelm.

That part of our territory has nevertheless been seized by the German fascist troops is
explained chiefly by the fact that the war of fascist Germany against the U.S.S.R. began under
conditions that were favourable for the German troops and unfavourable for the Soviet troops.
The point is that the troops of Germany, a country at war, were already fully mobilized, and the
170 divisions which Germany hurled against the U.S.S.R. and brought up to the frontiers of the
U.S.S.R. were in a state of complete readiness, only awaiting the signal to move into action,
whereas the Soviet troops had still to be mobilized and moved up to the frontiers. Of no little
importance in this respect was also the fact that fascist Germany suddenly and treacherously
violated the non-aggression pact she had concluded in 1939 with the U.S.S.R., ignoring the fact
that the whole world would regard her as the aggressor. Naturally, our peace-loving country, not
wishing to take the initiative in breaking a pact, could not resort to perfidy.

It may be asked: How could the Soviet Government have consented to conclude a non-
aggression pact with such perfidious people, and such fiends as Hitler and Ribbentrop? Was this
not an error on the part of the Soviet Government?

Of course not!

A non-aggression pact is a pact of peace between two states. It was precisely such a pact that
Germany proposed to us in 1939. Could the Soviet Government decline such a proposal? I think
that not a single peace-loving state could decline a peace treaty with a neighbouring country
even if that country is headed by such monsters and cannibals as Hitler and Ribbentrop. But
that, of course, only on the one indispensable condition that this peace treaty did not
jeopardize, either directly or indirectly, the territorial integrity, independence and honour of the
peace-loving state. As is well known, the non-aggression pact between Germany and the U.S.S.R.
was precisely such a pact.

What did we gain by concluding the non-aggression pact with Germany? We secured our
country peace for a year and a half and the opportunity of preparing our forces to repulse fascist
Germany should she risk an attack on our country despite the pact. This was a definite
advantage for us and a disadvantage for fascist Germany.

What has fascist Germany gained and what has she lost by perfidiously tearing up the pact
and attacking the U.S.S.R.? She has gained a certain advantageous position for her troops for a
short period of time, but she has lost politically by exposing herself in the eyes of the entire
world as a bloodthirsty aggressor. There can be no doubt that this short-lived military gain for
Germany is only episode, while the tremendous political gain of the U.S.S.R. is a weighty and
lasting factor that is bound to form the basis for the development of decisive military success of
the Red Army in the war with fascist Germany.

That is why the whole of our valiant Red Army, the whole of our valiant Navy, all the falcons of
our Air Force, all the peoples of our country, all the finest men and women of Europe, America
and Asia, and, lastly, all the finest men and women of Germany – denounce the treacherous acts
of the German fascists, sympathize with the Soviet Government, approve its conduct, and see
that ours is a just cause, that the enemy will be defeated and that victory will be ours.
 In consequence of this war which has been forced upon us, our country has come to death
grips with its bitterest and most cunning enemy – German fascism. Our troops are fighting
heroically against an enemy heavily armed with tanks and aircraft. Overcoming numerous
difficulties, the Red Army and Red Navy are self-sacrificingly fighting for every inch of Soviet soil.
The main forces of the Red Army are coming into action armed with thousands of tanks and
aeroplanes. The men of the Red Army are displaying unexampled valour. Our resistance to the
enemy is growing in strength and power. Side by side with the Red Army, the entire Soviet
people is rising in defence of our native land.

What is required to put an end to the danger which overhangs our country, and what
measures must be taken to crush the enemy?

Above all it is essential that our people, the Soviet people, should appreciate the full
immensity of the danger that threatens our country and cast off complacency, carelessness and
the mentality of peaceful constructive work that was so natural before the war, but which is fatal
today, when war has radically changed the situation. The enemy is cruel and implacable. He is
out to seize our lands which have been watered by the sweat of our brow, to seize our grain and
oil which have been obtained by the labour of our hands. He is out to restore the rule of the
landlords, to restore tsarism, to destroy the national culture and the national existence as states
of the Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Uzbeks, Tatars,
Moldavians, Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijanians and the other free peoples of the Soviet
Union, to Germanize them, to convert them into the slaves of German princes and barons. Thus,
the issue is one of life and death for the Soviet State, of life and death for the peoples of the
U.S.S.R., of whether the peoples of the Soviet Union shall be free or fall into slavery. The Soviet
people must realize this and cease to be careless; they must mobilize themselves and reorganize
all their work on a new, war footing, where there can be no mercy for the enemy.

Further, there must be no room in our ranks for whimperers and cowards, for panic-mongers
and deserters; our people must know no fear in the fight and must selflessly join our Patriotic
War of liberation against the fascist enslavers. Lenin, the great founder of our state, used to say
that the chief virtues of Soviet men and women must be courage, valour, fearlessness in
struggle, readiness to fight together with the people against the enemies of our country. These
splendid Bolshevik virtues must be acquired by the millions and millions of men of the Red Army
and of the Red Navy, by all the peoples of the Soviet Union.

All our work must be immediately reorganized on a war footing, everything must be
subordinated to the interests of the front and the task of organizing the rout of the enemy. The
peoples of the Soviet Union now see that German fascism is untamable in its savage fury and
hatred of our country, which has ensured for all its working people free labour and prosperity.
The peoples of the Soviet Union must rise to defend their rights and their land against the
enemy.
 The Red Army, the Red Navy and all citizens of the Soviet Union must defend every inch of
Soviet soil, must fight to the last drop of blood for our towns and villages, must display the
daring, initiative and mental alertness that are characteristic of our people.

We must organize all-round assistance to the Red Army, ensure powerful reinforcements for
its ranks, ensure the supply of everything it requires, organize the rapid transport of troops and
military freight and extensive aid to the wounded.

We must strengthen the Red Army's rear, subordinating all our work to this end; all our
factories must work with greater intensity, produce more rifles, machine guns, guns, cartridges,
shells and aircraft; we must organize the guarding of factories, power stations, telephone and
telegraph communications, and organize effective air-raid protection in all localities.

We must wage a ruthless fight against all disorganizers of the rear, deserters, panic-mongers
and rumour-mongers; we must exterminate spies, sabotage agents and enemy parachutists,
rendering rapid aid in all this to our destroyer battalions. We must bear in mind that the enemy
is crafty, cunning, experienced in deception and in the dissemination of false rumours. We must
reckon with all this and not allow ourselves to be deceived by provocateurs. All who by their
panic-mongering and cowardice hinder the work of defence, no matter who they are, must be
immediately haled before a Military Tribunal.

In case of a forced retreat of Red Army units, all rolling stock must be evacuated; not a single
engine, a single railway car, a single pound of grain or gallon of fuel must be left for the enemy.
The collective farmers must drive off all their cattle and turn over their grain to the safekeeping
of the state authorities for transportation to the rear. All valuable property, including non-ferrous
metals, grain and fuel that cannot be withdrawn, must be destroyed without fail.

In areas occupied by the enemy, guerilla units, mounted and foot, must be formed, sabotage
groups must be organized to combat enemy units, to foment guerilla warfare everywhere, to
blow up bridges and roads, damage telephone and telegraph lines and set fire to forests, stores
and transports. In occupied regions conditions must be made unbearable for the enemy and all
his accomplices. They must be hounded and annihilated at every step, and all their measures
frustrated.

The war with fascist Germany cannot be considered an ordinary war. It is not only a war
between two armies; it is also a great war of the entire Soviet people against a German fascist
army. The aim of this people's Patriotic War against the fascist oppressors is not only to avert the
danger that is hanging over our country, but also to aid all the European peoples who are
groaning under the yoke of German fascism. In this war of liberation we shall not be alone.

In this great war we shall have true allies in the peoples of Europe and America, including the
German people which is enslaved by the Hitlerite misrulers. Our war for the freedom of our
motherland will merge with the struggle of the peoples of Europe and America for their
independence, for democratic liberties. It will be a united front of the peoples who stand for
freedom and against enslavement and threats of enslavement by Hitler's fascist armies. In this
connection the historic utterances of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, regarding aid to
the Soviet Union, and the declaration of the United States Government signifying readiness to
render aid to our country, which can only evoke a feeling of gratitude in the hearts of the people
of the Soviet Union, are fully comprehensible and symptomatic.

Comrades! Our forces are countless. The overweening enemy will soon be convinced of this.
Side by side with the Red Army many thousands of workers, collective farmers and intellectuals
are rising to fight the enemy aggressor. The masses of our people will rise up in their millions.
The working people of Moscow and Leningrad have already begun to form a people's volunteer
guard of many thousands to support the Red Army. Such a people's volunteer guard must be
raised in every city which is in danger of enemy invasion; all the working people must be roused
to defend with their lives their freedom, their honour, their country in our Patriotic War against
German fascism.

To ensure the rapid mobilization of all the forces of the peoples of the U.S.S.R. and to repulse
the enemy who has treacherously attacked our country, a State Committee of Defense has been
formed in whose hands all power in the state has now been concentrated. The State Committee
of Defence has entered on the performance of its functions and calls upon all our people to rally
around the Party of Lenin and Stalin, around the Soviet Government, to render self-sacrificing
support to the Red Army and Red Navy, to crush the enemy and achieve victory.

All forces for the support of our heroic Red Army and our glorious Red Navy!

All forces of the people for routing the enemy!

Forward to victory!
Commander-in-Chief

The Supreme Commander-in-Chief

Head of the State Defense Committee

Marshal of the Soviet Union Joseph V. Stalin

STALIN AS WARLORD

By Prof. Gerhard Rempel

Western New England College

On June 22, 1941 Molotov broke to the Russian people the grim news about the German
attack. Stalin, as if embarrassed by the disastrous collapse of his hopes, shunned the limelight.
He did not utter a single word in public for almost two weeks. He apparently waited to see what
the results of the first battles would be, what the attitude of Great Britain and the United States
would be, and what the feeling in his own country would be. Locked up with his military leaders,
he discussed measures of mobilization and strategic plans. #1

Stalin divided the enormous front into three sectors and put Voroshilov in command of the
northern sector, Timoshenko of the center, and Budienny of the South. He himself assumed the
supreme command. His chief of staff was General Shaposhnikov, who had served on the General
Staff since before the revolution and had been reputed a scholarly, hard-working, but not
original strategist. The supreme direction of the war effort was concentrated in the State
Defense Committee, which consisted of five members: Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov, Berya, and
Malenkov. Molotov was to conduct diplomacy. Berya was in charge of domestic policy.
Voroshilov was to ensure liaison between the armed forces and the civilian authorities.
Malenkov, one of Stalin's assistants at the General Secretariat, represented the party. Stalin
himself presided over the Committee.

Although Stalin made many miscalculations, he was not unprepared to meet the emergency
created by his enemy-ally Hitler: He had armed his country and reorganized its military forces.
He was not committed to one-sided strategy like the French dependence on the Maginot Line
and the concept of static defense. He could rely on Russia's vast spaces and climate.

He had achieved absolute unity of command, the dream of the modern strategist, but these
advantages were balanced by some serious disadvantages: The Red Army's morale was still
uncertain. Only ten years had passed since the peasantry revolted against collectivization.
Memories of the purges were even fresher. First reports from the front gave a confused and
contradictory picture: Here divisions crumbled and dissolved in chaos and vast hauls of prisoners
taken by the Germans indicated an alarming lack of fighting spirit. Elsewhere formations,
surrounded and cut off, defended themselves stubbornly, delaying the enemy's advance.
Elsewhere again, under overwhelming pressure, troops retreated in good order, saving strength
for future battles. But everywhere, Hitler's armies advanced irresistibly. Behind the fighting lines,
rumor, confusion, and panic began to spread.

On July 3, 1941 Stalin finally broke silence to offer guidance to this bewildered nation. In a
broadcast address he spoke of the "grave danger." His voice was slow, halting, colorless. His
speech was, as usual, laborious and dry. It contained none of those rousing words which, like
Churchill's promise of "blood, toil, tears and sweat," pierce the mind of people. His style was
strangely out of keeping not only with the drama of the moment, but even with the content of
his speech, with his own appeals and instructions which reflected his unbreakable and
unbendable will to victory. In his speech he

– made apology for his pact with Hitler – to save time he said – but of course he got territory as
well;

– said Hitler was out to germanize and enslave Russians;

– called for a scorched-earth policy;

– compared Hitler with Napoleon.

Russia was to sell space for time; the space sold was to be made unusable to the enemy; and
a merciless price was to be exacted for it. This was the only way in which, after all his errors and
miscalculations, Stalin could meet the conqueror of Europe. He confronted him with superior
will-power.

But is it true, as it has been asserted, that he never lost his confidence, ever for a moment?
Not really!

– He told Harry Hopkins to tell FDR that he would welcome American troops on "any part of the
Russian front under the complete command of the American army." Was he despairing? Hitler's
troops had covered more than 450 miles in less than a month when he said this.

– In September, after Budienny's disastrous defeat on the Dnieper, two other visitors, Harriman
and Beaverbrook, noticed signs of depression in Stalin; and Stalin then inquired whether the
British would send some of their troops to the Ukrainian front.

– Later in the autumn, when the Germans were approaching Moscow, he betrayed his anxiety to
Sir Stafford Cripps. He told the British Ambassador that Moscow would be defended to the last,
but he also envisaged the possibility that the Germans might seize it. He went on to say that if
Moscow fell, the Red Army would have to withdraw from the whole territory to the east of the
Volga. He believed that even than the Soviets would be able to go on waging war, but that it
would take many years before they could strike back across the Volga.

So, in the first months of war uncertainty must have gnawed at Stalin's mind, even though to
the world he showed only an iron mask. He wore that iron mask with amazing fortitude and self-
mastery. Perhaps, indeed, that mask was his most powerful weapon. It gave his will to victory an
heroic, almost super-human appearance.

Stalin knew, of course, that to him, personally, more than to any one of Hitler's adversaries or
victims, hesitation or weakness spelt an inglorious end. Self-preservation made him behave as
he did. And now, more than ever before, his personal interest was at one with the interest of the
nation. This is at once the strong and the weak point of any totalitarian regime--that at certain
moments the entire fate of a mighty nation seems to depend on the nerve of its dictator, whose
break-down or effacement would create a void which hardly anyone could fill.
 Many allied visitors who called at the Kremlin during the war were astonished to see on how
many issues, great and small, military, political, or diplomatic, Stalin personally took the final
decision. He was in effect his own commander-in-chief, his own minister of defense, his own
quartermaster, his own minister of supply, his own foreign minister, and even his own protocol
chief.

The Stavka, the Red Army's headquarters, was in his offices in the Kremlin. From his office
desk, in constant and direct touch with them commands of he various fronts, he watched and
directed the campaigns in the field. From his office desk, too, he managed another stupendous
operation, the evacuation of 1,360 plants and factories from western Russia and the Ukraine tot
he Volga, the Urals, and Siberia, an evacuation which involved not only machines and
installations but millions of workmen and their families. Between one function and the other he
bargained with, say, Beaverbrook and Harriman over the quantities of aluminum or the caliber of
rifles and anti-aircraft guns to be delivered to Russia by the western allies, or he received leaders
of guerrillas who had come from German-occupied territory and discussed with them raids to be
carried out hundreds of miles behind the enemy's lines.

At the height of the battle of Moscow, in December 1941, when the thunder of Hitler's guns
hovered ominously over the streets of Moscow, he found time enough to start a subtle
diplomatic game with the Polish General Sikorsky, who had come to conclude a Russo-Polish
treaty. In the later days the number of foreign visitors, ambassadors, and special envoys from all
parts of the world grew enormously. He entertained them usually late at night and in the small
hours of the morning. After a day filled with military reports, operational decisions, economic
instructions, and diplomatic haggling, he would at dawn pore over the latest dispatches from the
front or over some confidential report on civilian morale from the Commissariat of Home Affairs,
the NKVD.

The NKVD report might also contain, say, a detailed record of the things that the general in
charge of the British Military Mission in Moscow had said, the previous day, about Russia, about
her allies and their plans, and about Stalin himself in the privacy of his office, for the office of the
British general was "infected with well concealed microphones" which recorded every word of
his. Thus he went on, day after day, throughout four years of hostilities – a prodigy of patience,
tenacity, and vigilance, almost omnipresent, almost omniscient.

In October Hitler formally opened the battle of Moscow, "the greatest offensive ever known."
Leningrad had been cut off and blockaded. Nearly the whole of the Ukraine and the coast of the
Azov Sea had been conquered by the Wehrmacht. Budienny's armies had been routed – the
Germans took half a million prisoners on the Dnieper. Stalin dismissed both Voroshilov and
Budienny from the command. The "N.C.O.s," as Trotsky used to call them, were not equal to this
motorized warfare. New commanders, Zhukov, Vassilevsky, Rokossovsky, were soon to replace
them.

In November the Germans made an all-out attempt to encircle Moscow. Their vanguards
advanced to within twenty to thirty miles of the capital. At one point they were only five miles
away. All the Commissariats and government departments were evacuated to Kuibyshev on the
Volga. In Moscow officials were burning the archives that had not been carried away.

On November 6, the anniversary of the revolution, the Moscow Soviet assembled, as usual,
for a ceremonial meeting, but this time the meeting was held underground, at the Mayakovsky
station of the subway. Stalin addressed the assembly in calm words, although he made the
alarming admission that Russian troops "had several times fewer tanks than the Germans."

The next day he stood at the top of the Lenin Mausoleum to take the parade of troops and
volunteer divisions of the people's guards, marching straight from the Red Square to the front at
the outskirts of the city. He appealed to the soldiers to draw inspiration from the memories of
the civil war, when "three quarters of our country was in the hands of foreign interventionists
and the young Soviet Republic had no army of its own and no allies. The enemy is not so strong
as some frightened little intellectuals picture him. The devil is not so terrible as it is painted...
Germany cannot sustain such a strain for long. Another few months, another half a year, perhaps
another year, and Hitlerite Germany must burst under the pressure of her crimes."

He finished with a strange, unexpected invocation to the saints and warriors of Imperial
Russia: "Let the manly images of our great ancestors--Alexander Nevsky, Dimitry Donskoy, Kuzma
Minin, Dimitry Pozharsky, Alexander Suvorov, and Mikhail Kutuzov inspire you in this war!"
(Note: Nevsky against the Teutonic Knights; Donskoy against the Tartars; Minin and Pozharsky
against the Poles in the "Time of Troubles"; Suvorov against the Turks under Catherine II;
Kutuzov against Napoleon at the Battle of Borodino.) This was the first time he so invoked the
shadows of the past which the revolution seemed to have covered with contempt and banished
for ever. "May the victorious banner," he added, "of the great Lenin guide you."

The news of the evacuation of the government shook the people of Moscow. Psychologically,
this was a moment of supreme danger. The decision of any government to leave its capital in the
middle of a war tends to sap the moral strength of a fighting nation and to add impetus to
centrifugal forces. So it was in France in 1940 when the government, thrown out of its traditional
seat of power, became as vulnerable as a snail divested of its shell. The more centralized the
government, the more is its stability and authority rooted in familiar landmarks of power, nearly
all of which are in the capital.

The evacuation of the government from Moscow was followed by riots and disorders. People
thought that the city had been given up. Crowds stormed food stores. Members of the party
destroyed their membership cards and badges. Anti-communists prepared to settle accounts
with Communists and to win favor with the invader. Symptoms of anarchy appeared in many
places all over the area between the fronts and the Volga.

People who spent those days in Moscow described later the salutary effect of Stalin's action.
The news that Stalin had not left with the rest of his government affected the mood of the
Muscovites, who saw in it evidence that the will to victory, personified in Stalin, was unshaken.
His presence in the Kremlin at this late hour was indeed a challenge to fate. It was as if the
fortress of the world had been balancing on the towers of the old fortress. To both Stalin and
Hitler the Kremlin became the symbol of their ambition, for while Stalin was refusing to leave its
walls, Hitler issued an order that "the Kremlin was to be blown up to signalize the overthrow of
Bolshevism."

It was in the setting of the Kremlin that Stalin's figure had grown to its present stature. He had
become one with that setting and its historical associations and he was as if afraid of detaching
himself from it. At least part of his power had lain in his remoteness from the people. If he had
left, the spell of his remoteness might have been broken. He might have appeared to the people
as a dictator in flight. This is not to say that he could not have conducted the war from some
retreat in the country. But to leave Moscow was for him a step awkward and humiliating enough
to make him shrink from it to the end.

He remained thus voluntarily immured in the Kremlin throughout the war. Not once, so it
seems, did he seek direct personal contact with his troops in the field. Trotsky in the civil war
moved in his legendary train from front to front, exploring, sometimes under the enemy's fire,
advanced positions and checking tactical arrangements. Churchill mixed with his soldiers in the
African desert and on the Normandy beaches, cheering them with his idiosyncrasies, with his
solemn words, his comic hats, his cigars, and V-signs. Hitler spent much of his time in his
advanced field headquarters. Stalin was not attracted by the physical reality of war. nor did he
rely on the effect of his personal contact with his troops. Yet there is no doubt that he was their
real commander-in-chief.

His leadership was by no means confined to the taking of abstract strategic decisions, at
which civilian politicians may excel. The avid interest with which he studied the technical aspects
of modern warfare, down to the minute details, shows him to have been anything but a
dilettante. He viewed the war primarily from the angle of logistics. To secure reserves of
manpower and supplies of weapons, in the right quantities and proportions, to allocate them
and to transport them to the right points at the right time, to amass a decisive strategic reserve
and to have it ready for intervention at decisive moments – these operations made up nine-
tenths of his task.
 In the first phase of the war the army paid a heavy price for, among other things, the loss of
self-reliance which its commanding staffs had suffered as a consequence of the purges. The
lesson was not, however, wasted on Stalin. He had the sense to give back to his generals their
freedom of movement, to encourage them to speak their mind, to embolden them to look for
the solution of their problems by way of trial and error, and to relieve them from the fear of the
boss's wrath, a fear which weighed so heavily on Hitler's generals.

He punished his officers with draconian severity for lack of courage or vigilance; he demoted
them for incompetence, even when the incompetents happened to be Voroshilov and Budienny;
and he promoted for initiative and efficiency. Hitler's generals had a shrewder appreciation of
Stalin's method than Hitler himself when they said that the top rungs of the Russian ladder of
command "were filled by men who had proved themselves so able that they were allowed to
exercise their own judgment, and could safely insist on doing things in their own way."

It is nevertheless true that, like Hitler, Stalin took the final decision on every major and many a
minor military issue. How then, it may be asked, could the two things be reconciled: Stalin's
constant interference with the conduct of the war, and freedom of initiative for his
subordinates? The point is that he had a peculiar manner of making his decisions, one which not
only did not constrict his generals, but, on the contrary, induced them to use their own
judgment.

Hitler usually had his preconceived ideas – sometimes it was a brilliant conception,
sometimes a bee in his bonnet – which he tried to force upon a Brauchitsch or a Halder or a
Rundstedt. For all his so-called dilettantism, he was a doctrinaire in matters of strategy,
impatient with those who could not see the merits of his particular dogma or plan. Not so Stalin.
He had no strategic dogmas to impose upon others. He did not approach his generals with
operational blue-prints of his own. He indicated to them his general ideas, which were based on
an exceptional knowledge of all aspects of the situation, economic, political, and military.

But beyond that he let his generals formulate their views and work out their plans, and on
these he based his decisions. His role seems to have been that of the cool, detached, and
experienced arbiter of his own generals. In case of a controversy between them, he collected the
opinions of those whose opinion mattered, weighed pros and cons, related local viewpoints to
general considerations and eventually spoke his mind. His decisions did not therefore strike his
generals on the head – they usually sanctioned ideas over which the generals themselves had
been brooding. This method of leadership was not novel to Stalin.

In the early twenties he came to lead the Politburo in an analogous way, by carefully
ascertaining what were the views of the majority and adopting these as his own. Similarly, the
generals were now receptive to his inspiration, because he himself was receptive to their
thoughts and suggestions. His mind did not, like Hitler's, produce fireworks of strategic
invention, but his method of work left more room for collective invention of his commanders
and favored a sounder relationship between the commander-in-chief and his subordinates than
that which prevailed at the "Oberkommando der Wehrmacht".

This is not to say that Stalin simply followed the majority of his commanders. Even that
majority was, in a sense, of his own making. In the depth of defeat he radically renewed and
rejuvenated the high commanding staffs.

Marshal of the Soviet Union Joseph V. Stalin

The death conveyor was to grind into dust a hundred million human beings. That conveyor
would never have stopped for an instant if valiant Soviet soldiers had not met the horde in arms.
Heroic war effort workers in the rear stood behind Soviet troops, inspired by Russia's martial
glory.

It is amazing how rarely it occurred to German generals, lower rank military officers,
policemen and soldiers to wonder what doom would await the native land of those cold-
blooded killers, rapists and marauders if the war they had unleashed on catch-as-catch-can rules
crossed the German border to invade their home. After all, fortune is whimsical, and one cannot
rob another of his rights without the risk of losing those rights oneself. The murderous frenzy
would pass - and what next?

The war against the U.S.S.R. was unprecedented in terms of forces assigned to crush the
enemy in one fell swoop. The aggressor committed more than five million officers and men.
Germany did not attack the Soviet Union on its own: it was supported by the entire enslaved
Central and Western Europe. Fighting side-by-side with the Wehrmacht were units from Italy,
Hungary, Romania, Finland, Spain, Slovakia and Croatia. Meanwhile, no one but Yugoslav
guerrillas and Mongolia were helping Soviet troops in their desperate defense of the summer
and fall of 1941.

The Yalta Conference

The Big Three at Yalta

THE CRIMEAN CONFERENCE:

A CHANCE THE WORLD MISSED

By Dr. Valentin Falin and Victor Litovkin

February 2, 2005

Yalta

On February 4 - 11, 1945, the leaders of the three Allied powers – Joseph Stalin, Franklin
Roosevelt and Winston Churchill – met in the Livadia Palace outside Yalta, Crimea, to coordinate
their plans for defeating Nazi Germany and Japan, determining their attitude to the two
countries after their unconditional surrender, and mapping the key principles of their common
policy in the post-war world. #1

The world did not greet the decisions of the Yalta Conference unanimously, and opinions of its
significance for the future of the world differ to this day. Dr. Valentin Falin (History) shared his
opinion with RIA Novosti military commentator Viktor Litovkin.
 Viktor Litovkin: Experts have at least two opinions about historical events. Some say they
cannot be regarded outside the context in which they took place and hence should be analyzed
with due regard for it. Others claim that we can only understand and assess past developments
with modern experience. What do you think of this problem? And what is your opinion of the
results of the 1945 Yalta Conference?

The 'Big Three' at the Yalta Conference: Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill of Great Britain,
President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States, and Marshal Joseph V. Stalin, Premier of the
Soviet Union.

Valentin Falin: Any international event, especially major ones, should be viewed from a
historical perspective. No event should be regarded outside the context in which it formed and
happened, and the expected or actual consequences. The Yalta Conference stands out in this
respect. That is why reports on it included distorted information back in 1945, let alone during
the cold war. And these distortions have not disappeared but continued to multiply.

To illuminate the assessments of the Yalta Conference by those who like to "rewrite" history, I
will refer mostly to American sources and direct participants, namely President Roosevelt and his
secretary of state, Edward Stettinius Jr.
 Mr. Stettinius, an industrialist and influential man in the US business and political
communities, held the post until President Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945 and was succeeded
by Harry Truman. He left highly interesting memoirs with crucial information about the
conference, which he witnessed and attended.

The secretary believes that Yalta was the summit of US cooperation with the Soviet Union and
partly with Britain, when an atmosphere of trust was created between the three powers after
Tehran and the opening of the Second Front. The days of Nazi Germany were numbered and the
Soviet Union pledged to join the war against militarist Japan. The Americans and their allies
faced the task of winning over the post-war world and precluding a repetition of such calamities
as WW II.

In my opinion, again confirmed by Mr. Stettinius's recollections, the bulk of decisions made in
Yalta were based on US, not Soviet, proposals. The final communique, the secretary said, was a
purely American idea to which the Soviet delegation did not make any amendments, while the
British delegation only worked on its style. Those who claim that Stalin outplayed Roosevelt or
used his failing health to his advantage should know that their claims are completely
ungrounded.

V.L.: Why did President Roosevelt need the meeting in Crimea so much and respected Stalin's
concern over the future world?

V.F.: Roosevelt more than once returned to the idea voiced during a meeting with Molotov in
Washington in June 1942 that he saw the post-war world as a demilitarized one. This provoked
the description of the world as the domain of three to four policemen. According to Roosevelt,
only the Soviet Union, the US, Britain, and possibly China should have had limited armed forces,
while all other countries, including the aggressor nations Germany, Japan and Italy, their
satellites, and anti-Axis states (France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and all others) were to be fully
disarmed and demilitarized. As Roosevelt said, a healthy world economy is incompatible with an
arms race.

The remaining armed forces of three or four powers were to be used only with common
consent of everyone and never against anyof the three to four powers. They should be used only
to prevent a potential war or nip aggression in the bud, the US president stressed.

President Roosevelt relied on the experience of WWI and WWII, when the arms race led to
and was the forerunner of aggression, which it begets in seven to eight out of ten cases. The
latter is proved statistically. Only very rarely did a war begin without an arms race – there are
examples of this in history.

V.L.: I cannot understand some things. Roosevelt was not a naive man; he was bound to see
deep-rooted contradictions between the US and the Soviet Union, between communist ideology
and the ideology, principles and practice of democracy. Hence, he should have known that an
alliance of these two extremes could be only temporary. Why then did he suggest a demilitarized
post-war world? Was not it an impossible utopia?

V.F.: Roosevelt was not naive politically. He was a military man and a deputy naval minister
during WWI, which the US fought on the side of the Entente. He accumulated a wealth of
experience during that service, which, I would say, was not devoid of the American hegemony-
seeking aspirations that marked America's development in the 20th century. Next, Roosevelt
understood Stalin very well; he saw that Stalin, while outwardly acting according to Marxist-
Leninist principles, was in fact a die-hard pragmatist. For Stalin, ideology was a cover, a
camouflage, if you want. And there is documentary proof, in particular in the documents of
Churchill, Roosevelt and even Hitler, that the US did not view Stalin as a communist. The issue of
ideology as such was important for the public, but was always of secondary significance for
taking fundamental historical decisions. Do you know what Roosevelt said while welcoming
Stalin to Teheran?

V.L.: No.

V.F.: Roosevelt said he was delighted to have the Russians as "new members of the family
circle." In a manner, Roosevelt was more critical of Churchill than of Stalin, especially because of
Churchill's tendency to engage in saber rattling at anyone who did not suit him for whatever
reason. The American president had a very negative attitude to the excessively harsh use of
British troops, which resulted in huge losses, against Greek guerrillas who did not want to
surrender to British occupation. The Greek guerrillas liberated their country before the British
came and wanted to have a democratic government rather than the king whom London was
forcing on them.

Knowing all of this now, we should use ideological cliches very accurately.

Before he recognized the Soviet Union in the early 1930s, Roosevelt, then a governor, had a
passing interest for socialist ideas. He visited groups that discussed these ideas and was the only
US president to be guilty of this "sin". He changed his attitude to Stalin and the Soviet Union in
the mid-1930s, when the show trials were held. This made him change dramatically his stand
with regard to the Soviet government.
 In December 1939 and January 1940, after the so-called Winter War between the Soviet
Union and Finland was provoked, he even pondered the possibility of severing diplomatic
relations with the Kremlin and revoking his recognition of the Soviet Union, and held talks with
Kerensky on the creation of a Russian government in exile.

If we take all of this into account (though there were other crucial events, such as Roosevelt's
attempts in early 1940 to create an anti-Soviet front under the pretext of assisting Finland, which
was to include Germany, Italy and all Western democracies; the plan fell through because
Germany decided to attack France and Washington learned of the plan), we will see that
Roosevelt cannot be painted only in one color, that he was a liberal who almost fell in love with
the Soviet Union.

He was a sober and far-sighted politician who thought that America's economic might, even in
the absence of strike forces, would ensure his country the leading role in the world. Indeed, the
US produced 60-70% of the global output then. Washington controlled global finance and trade
and was working to gain control of the main oil fields (by a plan adopted in 1943) and deposits of
fissionable materials. We must understand this, because otherwise we will not understand
subsequent developments.

Secretary of State Stettinius wrote that the US was within a hairbreadth of catastrophe in
1942. If the Russians had lost faith at Stalingrad, if the battle on the Volga proceeded according
to Hitler's plans, Germany would have conquered Britain, established full control of Africa and
the oil-rich Middle East, and seized Latin America. This would have had extremely negative
consequences for the US. This is what the Americans thought during the war, and so the alliance
between Stalin and Roosevelt was no accident.

Roosevelt came to Yalta in 1945 under the impression of (a) the defeat of the American troops
in the Ardennes-Alsace campaign; (b) the fact that Stalin had saved them by launching an
offensive on the Eastern Front ahead of schedule, thereby forcing Germany to redirect a third of
its divisions from the Western Front. And lastly, he saw through Churchill's promises about
putting Germany in the Anglo-Saxon pocket and leaving Russians in the cold, stopping them at
the Vistula or the Oder, at the most. It was not a practical policy but fantasy; it was better for
America not to sever relations with Russia but to continue cooperation with it, so that the post-
war world would be foreseeable and predictable, without the threats America was facing at the
time. Roosevelt wanted a post-war world that would correspond to at least some of his views of
democracy and human and social justice.

V.L.: Let's get back to the Yalta Conference. Who suggested the idea of the United Nations,
which the Conference approved? And who thought of dividing the post-war world into zones of
influence along the "Curzon Line"? Poland and the Baltic states never tire of accusing Stalin...

V.F.: Roosevelt advanced the idea of the UN; it was voiced back in Teheran and formalized in
Yalta. Stalin demanded that the UN be headquartered in New York. Why? Because the Americans
refused to support the League of Nations and Stalin thought they might repeat the trick, saying
that they changed their mind. He hoped that if the UN were headquartered in the US, the
Americans would not be able to stay out international cooperation or hide in the bush, knowing
that all seats had been taken.

The general reaction of the US media to the Yalta Conference was highly positive and even
complimentary to President Roosevelt, though some writers criticized him, upon encouragement
from Churchill. They demanded the termination of cooperation with the Soviet Union and
establishment of American domination in the world, saying that the Red Moor had done his bit
and should leave the scene.

Aware of these sentiments instigated in London, President Roosevelt wrote in his report to
Congress on March 1, 1945 that the faithful fulfillment of the allied agreements reached in
Tehran and Yalta was "a great decision which will determine the fate of the United States, and I
think therefore of the world, for generations to come. There can be no middle ground here,"
Roosevelt wrote. "We shall have to take the responsibility for world collaboration, or we shall
have to bear the responsibility for another world conflict."

Documents dated March 1945 show that the State Department, though Mr. Stettinius was the
new secretary, retained the old staff of anti-Soviet Secretary Cordell Hull, who used to speak
about "the so-called Yalta agreements." Some members spoke derogatorily about "statements"
and "declarations," apparently trying to bring down their importance. Harry Truman, who came
to power on April 23 and did not know that the Americans had an A-bomb, said: We cooperated
with the Russians; now we should move to a new stage. His proclaimed goal was to make Yalta
non-existent.

What was Churchill doing at the time? Experts will recall the striking letters he wrote to Stalin,
thanking him for Soviet assistance and support to the Allies in January that saved them from
new shocks, and hailing the magnificent Red Army whose glory would shine forever. Take his
greetings on the occasion of Red Army Day (February 23, 1945). At the same time, the British
premier ordered the collection and storing of German weapons for the eventuality of a conflict
with the Soviet Union. In March 1945, he ordered his War Cabinet to draw up contingency plans
for an offensive against Stalin, code-named Operation Unthinkable. The offensive was to be
waged by a combined group of British, American, Canadian, Polish and German (sic!) forces.
 The British controlled ten German divisions, which had surrendered to the Western Allies at
the last stage of the war, were formally disarmed and kept at hand in Schleswig-Holstein, where
they trained daily, possibly for new exploits in the East. The new war was set for July 1, 1945.

One would be wrong to assume that only the British were guilty of such mean deception. US
General Patton, who commanded the US armored forces, called for troops to march on across
the lines marked by Washington, Moscow and London all the way to Stalingrad – to root out not
communists or the Soviet Union, but "the descendants of Genghis-Khan."

Churchill believed that the Russian barbarians should be stopped as far east as possible. He
was still thinking in terms of Operation Rankin, which had been conceived to replace Operation
Overlord (the Second Front), so that the British and American troops, supported by Germans,
would assume control of Berlin, Hamburg and other cities in Germany, as well as Warsaw,
Prague, Budapest, Vienna, Bucharest, Sofia and Belgrade.

There is documentary proof of these plans of the Allies. They did not happen not because the
Allies decided against them but because the Soviet Union and the Red Army did not allow them
to pursue their plans.

When the Yalta agreements are denounced, I see this as the denigration of the main author of
those documents, Franklin D. Roosevelt. The letter he wrote to Congress that I mentioned earlier
was his political will. He wrote about what the world and the US needed, and what had to be
done for justice to triumph and new wars prevented. Commitment to the Yalta agreements
could have become a new chance for the world. Regrettably, we missed it.

V.L.: You did not say who suggested dividing the post-war world into zones of influence along
the "Curzon line"?

V.F.: There were no zones of influence, and the decision on the Curzon Line was made back in
1919 at a conference attended by Britain, France and the US. The three countries drew the line
on the ethnographic principle, dividing territories into those populated mostly by Ukrainians and
Belarussians and those with a predominant Polish population. The decision was sealed as the
line of division of the "spheres of interest" of Stalin and Hitler in September 1939.

The British claimed during talks with the Soviet Union that the line passed east of Lvov, but
the Soviet delegates put a map on the table where the line had been drawn, and the issue was
removed from the agenda. When the Soviet Union tried to restore neighborly relations with
Poland during and after the war, the line was amended, so that some cities and towns, in
particular Belostok, were turned over to Poland. It was done to show that Poland could get some
concessions from the Soviet Union, but not on the main issue.

When Stalin discussed the Curzon Line with Roosevelt, he did not speak about creating a
satellite government in Poland. We want a Polish government that will be friendly towards its
eastern neighbor, Stalin said, so that Poland will not become another bridgehead or corridor for
strikes at Russia, which it had been in the Middle Ages, during Napoleon's era, and in WW I and
WW II.

V.L.: But the Big Three discussed the Baltic countries in Yalta, whose incorporation into the
Soviet Union the US had never recognized.

V.F.: The Baltic countries are a special issue. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were torn away from
pre-Soviet Russia, and occupied by Germans. Puppet governments were created there and, as
planned, begged to become German protectorates. It happened in September 1917. After the
Bolshevik revolution in Russia, Soviet-like or plain Soviet governments spontaneously appeared
in the Baltic countries – this is a historic fact that cannot be denied. They promptly suppressed
the German troops deployed in their territory.

Under the Treaty of Versailles, German troops were to be withdrawn from all territories
outside Kaiser's Germany. But the allies actually obliged the Germans to keep their troops in
Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as a guarantee that "the mob" would not come to power
there, that those countries would have rulers that suit the allies.

In 1921, Jozef Pilsudski began an offensive on Kiev, which had been prepared by the French
with the assistance of the British. He was expected to advance to Moscow, while the Western
democrats tried to force the following idea on Germany: to provide a group of forces to launch
an offensive at Petrograd from the Baltic countries. Officially, the expedition was to be led by
General Bermont-Avalov, though in fact German generals were to command the attack.

The Germans saw through the allies' plans and refused to comply. And so, Pilsudski's
combination failed without support from the north. This led to the conclusion of the Riga peace
treaty in 1921, designed to preclude any possibility of opportunism in the Baltic states. Russia
recognized the independence of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and the US did the same two
years later. (Before they did, the Americans, who did not think about the Baltics' sovereignty, had
supported the demands from Kolchak and other White Guard leaders for the restoration of a
"great and indivisible Russia.")
 V.L.: But why did America accept the incorporation of the three Baltic countries into the Soviet
Union after the war?

V.F.: It never did, and the issue was never raised at the Yalta Conference. Roosevelt once
suggested to Stalin, possibly in Tehran: Let's hold a plebiscite [in the Baltics]. If they vote in favor
of joining the Soviet Union, we will recognize their new status. If not, we will respect their
decision. Stalin replied: The plebiscite has been held and there is no need to stage another.

Roosevelt had been pressing for a separate meeting with Stalin since 1942. I think the Soviet
leadership made a gross mistake by refusing to grant it. According to Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's
unofficial emissary to Stalin and Churchill, Stalin would have been surprised how far Roosevelt
was prepared to go to meet the legitimate interests of the Soviet Union.

But Stalin avoided the meeting, under plausible pretexts, always saying that it would be best
for all three leaders to come together and suggesting a conference of their representatives.
There could have been an objective reason for such unwillingness in 1943 - Stalin had a minor
stroke and could not work for several months, which nobody was allowed to know. But,
according to secret data, Stalin was put against Roosevelt by misinformation fed by Churchill
through various channels. The British premier claimed that he had called on the Americans to
recognize the Soviet Union's borders of 1941, when it incorporated the three Baltic countries,
but the Americans refused to do so.

The Americans were against this idea not so much because they liked the Baltic nations but
because immigrants from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were a considerable part of Roosevelt's
electorate. He needed their votes, which kept him on a short leash.

V.L.: What was the main result of the Yalta conference? That we lived 60 years without
another world war? And what are its lessons for modern politicians?

V.F.: Before answering these questions, I will tell you about one more, major detail about the
talks in Yalta, which nobody writes about: Roosevelt promised Stalin a loan of $4.5 billion for
post-war reconstruction. Why? Though the US president was told that Stalin was a communist
dogmatic and die-hard socialist, he knew that Stalin offered the Americans a vast number of
concessions and exceptionally good investment conditions, and was pondering the idea of
creating a market economy in the Soviet Union. The dream did not become reality only because
Roosevelt was succeeded by Truman, a man who ordered Eisenhower on the way from the
Potsdam Conference to draft a plan of a nuclear war against the Soviet Union, called Totality.
 The first draft was ready in December 1945 and was soon followed by many other military
contingency plans, including Operation Dropshot that envisaged the dismembering of the Soviet
Union into 12 states, none of which would be able to solve its economic and defense tasks
independently.

As for the global significance of the Yalta Conference, it was the best chance which
humankind had in its recorded history, or at least since Jesus Christ, "to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war," as the UN Charter promises to do. But we missed the
chance, and the responsibility for this rests above all with Washington.

James Byrns, Truman's first secretary of state, returned from Moscow, where he attended a
conference of foreign ministers, in December 1945. He said in a radio address to the Americans
on December 30 that talks with Stalin had convinced him that a fair world in the American
understanding of the word was possible. On January 5, President Truman sent him a letter,
writing that Byrns had been talking complete nonsense, that America did not need a
compromise with the Soviet Union. What it needed was a Pax Americana that would 80% suit US
interests.

January 5, 1946 can be viewed as the formal beginning of the cold war. We know what came
later.

The main lesson of the Yalta Conference is that, given a reasonable approach and readiness to
develop the world on a balance of interests of all its members, solutions satisfying the world
could have been found much sooner than today. This goal has become much more difficult
today; the world is oversaturated with weapons, and much depends on chance, on unintended
circumstances both human and heavenly.

In the past, US B-52 bombers carried four H-bombs on board, 25 megatons each, and had
three accidents. One plane crashed outside Chicago, and 11 of the bombs' 12 safety fuses did
not work. I cannot imagine what would have happened to the world if the 12th had failed.

We can calculate how many times the world was on the brink of disaster, and only some
Higher Reason saved humankind and all biological life on earth from self-destruction. This is why
all states without exception, must scrutinize their tiniest move for its ability to make this world a
safer, and hence more just and more united place to live.
Churchill on the Question of Poland

STATEMENT

by Prime Minister Winston Churchill

to the House of Commons

27 February 1945

[ ... ]

The Crimea Conference finds the Allies more closely united than ever before, both in the
military and in the political sphere. Let Germany recognise that it is futile to hope for division
among the Allies and that nothing can avert her utter defeat. Further resistance will only be the
cause of needless suffering. The Allies are resolved that Germany shall be totally disarmed, that
Nazism and militarism in Germany shall be destroyed, that war criminals shall be justly and
swiftly punished, that all German industry capable of military production shall be eliminated or
controlled, and that Germany shall make compensation in kind to the utmost of her ability for
damage done to Allied Nations. On the other hand, it is not the purpose of the Allies to destroy
the people of Germany, or leave them without the necessary means of subsistence. Our policy is
not revenge; it is to take such measures as may be necessary to secure the future peace and
safety of the world. There will be a place one day for Germans in the comity of nations, but only
when all traces of Nazism and militarism have been effectively and finally extirpated. #1
 On the general plan, there is complete agreement. As to the measures to give effect to it,
much still remains to be done. The plans for the Allied Control Commission will come into
operation immediately on the defeat of Germany; indeed, they are far advanced - advanced, as I
have said, to the point where they could be instantly made effective. On the longer-term
measures, there are many points of great importance on which detailed plans have yet to be
worked out between the Allies. It would be a great mistake to suppose that questions of this
kind can be thrashed out, and solutions found for all the many intractable and complex problems
involved, while the Armies are still on the march. To hurry and press matters of this kind might
well be to risk causing disunity between the Allies. Many of these matters must await the time
when the leaders of the Allies, freed from the burden of the direction of the war, can turn their
whole or main attention to the making of a wise and far-seeing peace, which will, I trust, become
a foundation greatly facilitating the work of the world organisation.

I now come to the most difficult and agitating part of the statement which I have to make to
the House - the question of Poland. For more than a year past, and since the tide of war has
turned so strongly against Germany, the Polish problem has been divided into two main issues -
the frontiers of Poland and the freedom of Poland.

The House is well aware from the speeches I have made to them that the freedom,
independence, integrity and sovereignty of Poland have always seemed to His Majesty's
Government more important than the actual frontiers. To establish a free Polish nation, with a
good home to live in, has always far outweighed, in my mind, the actual tracing of the frontier
line, or whether these boundaries should be shifted on both sides of Poland further to the West.
The Russian claim, first advanced at Teheran in November, 1943, has always been unchanged for
the Curzon Line in the East, and the Russian offer has always been that ample compensation
should be gained for Poland at the expense of Germany in the North and in the West. All these
matters are tolerably well-known now. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained in
detail last December the story of the Curzon Line. I have never concealed from the House that,
personally, I think the Russian claim is just and right. If I champion this frontier for Russia, it is
not because I bow to force. It is because I believe it is the fairest division of territory that can in
all the circumstances be made between the two countries whose history has been so chequered
and intermingled.

The Curzon Line was drawn in 1919 by an expert Commission, of which one of our most
distinguished foreign representatives of those days, Sir Eyre Crowe, was a member. It was drawn
at a time when Russia had few friends among the Allies. In fact, I may say that she was extremely
unpopular. One cannot feel that either the circumstances or the personalities concerned would
have given undue favour to Soviet Russia. They just tried to find out what was the right and
proper line to draw. The British Government in those days approved this Line.

[ ... ]
 We speak of the Curzon Line. A line is not a frontier. A frontier has to be surveyed and traced
on the ground and not merely cut in on a map by a pencil and ruler. When my right hon. Friend
and I were at Moscow in October Marshal Stalin made this point to me, and at that time he said
that there might be deviations of 8 to 10 kilometres in either direction in order to follow the
courses of streams and hills or the actual sites of particular villages. It seems to me that this was
an eminently sensible way of looking at the problem. However, when we met at Yalta the
Russian proposal was changed. It was made clear that all such minor alterations would be at the
expense of Russia and not at the expense of Poland in order that the Poles might have their
minds set at rest once and for all and there would be no further discussion about that part of the
business. We welcomed this Soviet proposal.

THE CURZON LINE

The Curzon Line and the changes of Poland's borders after the Second World War. In grey are
shown West-Belorussian and West-Ukrainian lands that were resumed by the Soviet Union. In
light green are shown the former German lands that were transferred to Poland according to
Marshal Stalin's proposal and by the consent of the Allies.

One must regard these 30 years or more of strife, turmoil and suffering in Europe as part of
one story. I have lived through the whole story since 1911 when I was sent to the Admiralty to
prepare the Fleet for an impending German war. In its main essentials it seems to me to be one
story of a 30 years' war, or more than a 30 years' war, in which British, Russians, Americans and
French have struggled to their utmost to resist German aggression at a cost most grievous to all
of them, but to none more frightful than to the Russian people, whose country has twice been
ravaged over vast areas and whose blood has been poured out in tens of millions of lives in a
common cause now reaching final accomplishment.

There is a second reason which appeals to me apart from this sense of continuity which I
personally feel. But for the prodigious exertions and sacrifices of Russia, Poland was doomed to
utter destruction at the hands of the Germans. Not only Poland as a State and as a nation, but
the Poles as a race were doomed by Hitler to be destroyed or reduced to a servile station. Three
and a half million Polish Jews are said to have been actually slaughtered. It is certain that
enormous numbers have perished in one of the most horrifying acts of cruelty, probably the
most horrifying act of cruelty, which has ever darkened the passage of man on the earth. When
the Germans had clearly avowed their intention of making the Poles a subject and lower grade
race under the Herrenvolk, suddenly, by a superb effort of military force and skill, the Russian
Armies, in little more than three weeks, since in fact we spoke on these matters here, have
advanced from the Vistula to the Oder, driving the Germans in ruin before them and freeing the
whole of Poland from the awful cruelty and oppression under which the Poles were writhing.

In supporting the Russian claim to the Curzon Line, I repudiate and repulse any suggestion
that we are making a questionable compromise or yielding to force or fear, and I assert with the
utmost conviction the broad justice of the policy upon which, for the first time, all the three
great Allies have now taken their stand. Moreover, the three Powers have now agreed that
Poland shall receive substantial accessions of territory both in the North and in the West. In the
North she will certainly receive, in the place of a precarious Corridor, the great city of Danzig, the
greater part of East Prussia West and South of Koenigsberg and a long, wide sea front on the
Baltic. In the West she will receive the important industrial province of Upper Silesia and, in
addition, such other territories to the East of the Oder as it may be decided at the peace
settlement to detach from Germany after the views of a broadly based Polish Government have
been ascertained.

Thus, it seems to me that this talk of cutting half of Poland off is very misleading. In fact, the
part which is to be East of the Curzon Line cannot in any case be measured by its size. It includes
the enormous, dismal region of the Pripet Marshes, which Poland held between the two wars,
and it exchanges for that the far more fruitful and developed land in the West, from which a very
large portion of the German population has already departed. We need not fear that the task of
holding these new lines will be too heavy for Poland, or that it will bring about another German
revenge or that it will, to use a conventional phrase, sow the seeds of future wars. We intend to
take steps far more drastic and effective than those which followed the last war, because we
know much more about this business, so as to render all offensive action by Germany utterly
impossible for generations to come.

Finally, under the world organisation all nations great and small, victors and vanquished will
be secured against aggression by indisputable law and by overwhelming international force. The
published Crimea Agreement is not a ready-made plan, imposed by the great Powers on the
Polish people. It sets out the agreed views of the three major Allies on the means whereby their
common desire to see established a strong, free, independent Poland may be fulfilled in co-
operation with the Poles themselves, and whereby a Polish Government which all the United
Nations can recognise, may be set up in Poland. This has become for the first time a possibility
now that practically the whole country has been liberated by the Soviet Army. The fulfilment of
the plan will depend upon the willingness of all sections of democratic Polish opinion in Poland
or abroad to work together in giving it effect. The plan should be studied as a whole, and with
the main common objective always in view. The three Powers are agreed that acceptance by the
Poles of the provisions on the Eastern frontiers and, so far as can now be ascertained, on the
Western frontiers, is an essential condition of the establishment and future welfare and security
of a strong, independent, homogeneous Polish State.

The proposals on frontiers are in complete accordance, as the House will remember, with the
views expressed by me in Parliament on behalf of His Majesty's Government many times during
the past year. I ventured to make pronouncements upon this subject at a time when a great
measure of agreement was not expressed by the other important parties to the affair. The
Eastern frontier must be settled now, if the new Polish administration is to be able to carry on its
work in its own territory, and to do this in amity with the Russians and behind their fighting
fronts. The Western frontiers, which will involve a substantial accession of German territory to
Poland, cannot be fixed except as part of the whole German settlement until after the Allies have
occupied German territory and after a fully representative Polish Government has been able to
make its wishes known. It would be a great mistake to press Poland to take a larger portion of
these lands than is considered by her and by her friends and Allies to be within her compass to
man, to develop, and, with the aid of the Allies and the world organisation, to maintain.

I have now dealt with the frontiers of Poland. I must say I think it is a case which I can outline
with great confidence to the House. An impartial line traced long ago by a British commission in
which Britain took a leading part; the moderation with which the Russians have strictly confined
themselves to that line; the enormous sacrifices they have made and the sufferings they have
undergone; the contributions they have made to our present victory; the great interest, the vital
interest, which Poland has in having complete agreement with her powerful neighbour to the
East – when you consider all those matters and the way they have been put forward, the
temperate, patient manner in which they have been put forward and discussed, I say that I have
rarely seen a case in this House which I could commend with more confidence to the good sense
of Members of all sides. #2

But even more important than the frontiers of Poland, within the limits now disclosed, is the
freedom of Poland. The home of the Poles is settled. Are they to be masters in their own house?
Are they to be free, as we in Britain and the United States or France are free? Are their
sovereignty and their independence to be untrammelled, or are they to become a mere
projection of the Soviet State, forced against their will by an armed minority, to adopt a
Communist or totalitarian system? Well, I am putting the case in all its bluntness. It is a
touchstone far more sensitive and vital than the drawing of frontier lines. Where does Poland
stand? Where do we all stand on this?

Most solemn declarations have been made by Marshal Stalin and the Soviet Union that the
sovereign independence of Poland is to be maintained, and this decision is now joined in both by
Great Britain and the United States. Here also, the world organisation will in due course assume
a measure of responsibility. The Poles will have their future in their own hands, with the single
limitation that they must honestly follow, in harmony with their Allies, a policy friendly to Russia.
That is surely reasonable. [Interruption]

The procedure which the three Great Powers have unitedly adopted to achieve this vital aim
is set forth in unmistakable terms in the Crimea Declaration. The agreement provides for
consultation with a view to the establishment in Poland of a new Polish Provisional Government
of National Unity, with which the three major Powers can all enter into diplomatic relations,
instead of some recognising one Polish Government and the rest another, a situation which, if it
had survived the Yalta Conference, would have proclaimed to the world disunity and confusion.
We had to settle it, and we settled it there. No binding restrictions have been imposed upon the
scope and method of those consultations. His Majesty's Government intend to do all in their
power to ensure that they shall be as wide as possible and that representative Poles of all
democratic parties are given full freedom to come and make their views known. Arrangements
for this are now being made in Moscow by the Commission of three, comprising M. Molotov,
and Mr. Harriman and Sir Archibald Clark Kerr, representing the United States and Great Britain
respectively. It will be for the Poles themselves, with such assistance as the Allies are able to give
them, to agree upon the composition and constitution of the new Polish Government of
National Unity. Thereafter, His Majesty's Government, through their representative in Poland,
will use all their influence to ensure that the free elections to which the new Polish Government
will be pledged shall be fairly carried out under all proper democratic safeguards.

Our two guiding principles in dealing with all these problems of the Continent and of liberated
countries have been clear: While the war is on, we give help to anyone who can kill a Hun; when
the war is over we look to the solution of a free, unfettered, democratic election. Those are the
two principles which this Coalition Government have applied, to the best of their ability, to the
circumstances and situations in this entangled and infinitely varied development.
 [ ... ]

The agreement does not affect the continued recognition by His Majesty's Government of the
Polish Government in London. This will be maintained until such time as His Majesty's
Government consider that a new Provisional Government has been properly formed in Poland,
in accordance with the agreed provisions; nor does it involve the previous or immediate
recognition by His Majesty's Government of the present Provisional Government which is now
functioning in Poland. We are awaiting. [Interruption]

Let me remind the House and those who have undertaken what I regard as an honourable
task, of being very careful that our affairs in Poland are regulated in accordance with the dignity
and honour of this country – I have no quarrel with them at all, only a difference of opinion on
the facts, which I hope to clear away. That is all that is between us.

Let me remind them that there would have been no Lublin Committee or Lublin Provisional
Government in Poland if the Polish Government in London had accepted our faithful counsel
given to them a year ago. They would have entered into Poland as its active Government, with
the liberating Armies of Russia. Even in October, when the Foreign Secretary and I toiled night
and day in Moscow, M. Mikolajczyk could have gone from Moscow to Lublin, with every
assurance of Marshal Stalin's friendship, and become the Prime Minister of a more broadly
constructed Government, which would now be seated at Warsaw, or wherever, in view of the
ruin of Warsaw, the centre of government is placed.

The Right Honourable

Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Moscow