Interview for the project
Fascism-XXI at your door
July 26, 2012.
A spectre is haunting Europe and the world -- the spectre of a new, previously unknown global Fascism. What are the root causes and preconditions for the resurgence of Fascism/Nazism in Europe and the West in general?
Video part 1
The background of Fascism and Nazism revival in Europe is the same as the one of their origin: the demographic problems after World War I, economic and social issues.
The fact is that at first glance Nazism suggests an efficient answer to the demographic problems. One can cut off part of the population from the country and distribute the basic wealth among those who belong to the titular ethnic group.
Fascism allows of more efficient use of human resources. That is, on the surface, the benefits of Fascism / Nazism in a situation of demographic and social problems are obvious.
This is the main cause of Nazism revival in Europe and of its popularity growth. But the main reason is that it makes it possible, in principle, for the Europeans to feel like the elite and race of the chosen. Purely based on the fact that they are European by birth.
What is your attitude towards the attempts to transfer the historical guilt of Fascism onto other subjects...?
Video part 2
The real problem is not even in the transfer of the historical guilt of Fascism and Nazism to other subjects. It is in the use of the term "historical guilt".
The fact is that Nazism carries no historical guilt whatsoever. For instance, it makes no sense to blame a particular cannibal that he had eaten a particular person. He is not guilty of eating someone in particular, but he is guilty of eating people.
This is why the first attempt to shift the blame of Nazism on something else and find other subjects that will be charged with crimes, is to limit the problem of Nazism to a specific historical crime, a historical guilt.
Nazism, even if it had not started the Second World War, inevitably leads to war, it inevitably leads to genocide, and it inevitably leads to the stratification of society on the principle of separating it into humans and subhumans. Because a "second class" human being, an inferior human being is, in fact, not a human being.
And the very ideology in this case is criminal. Regardless of whether Hitler attacked Poland or not.
What does legitimacy of western governments rest on?
Video part 3
Well, in fact, the legitimacy of the governments in the West rests on the democratic myth. That is, on a constantly declared involvement of the European people in the management of their states, and of the united Europe.
Why is it just a myth? Well, because representative democracy based on media advertisement cannot be precisely the ruling of the people. That is, the only really working democratic institution that is left in Europe is the popular referendum1 (nation-wide referendum), which is used to pass laws in Switzerland.
All the other options are quite far from a real participation of the people in the state management. In general, this is what illustrated by the recent events in Europe, such as numerous strikes and protests of the people against their own governments.
To legitimize this authority it is not necessary to specifically distort the image of Russia. Some kind of enemy is just needed; some evil forces which harm Europe and the European nations, and that must be fought.
Russia is suited for this image quite well. But it does not have to be Russia. That is, the enemy can change.
Can one say that in our time the society through anti-communism necessarily comes to a kind of new Fascism, it is not so much national or Nazi, but social (segregation into casts without any possibility of social mobility)?
Video part 4
It is possible to say so. Moreover, anti-communism, militant anti-communism, that is, a struggle directed against the Communist countries, or the pronounced communist ideology inevitably leads to Fascism and Nazism.
Not on a new social basis, but on the same one, it is still Nazism; it still divides people on ethnic or racial grounds. Formerly caste division also existed under Nazism. Well, rather, it is formed first as a social segregation, and then the formation of castes further solidifies the social stratification.
So one cannot say that the new Nazism has a new face. It can use new ideological cliches, it may try to appeal to some new variety of values, but the very essence of Nazism is the same. It is built on the idea of superiority of some people over the others just by the very fact that these people belong to this nation.
Can you explain why rehabilitation of Fascism must necessarily begin with humiliation of the USSR?
Video part 5
Actually, the rehabilitation of Fascism really implies the necessity to not just humiliate but to smear both the Soviet Union and in general all really active anti-fascist forces, that is, those forces that fundamentally opposed Nazism and Fascism from the start. Humiliation of those forces, for example, that tried to stop Fascism in Spain during the Civil War.
Without this the very restoration of Fascism is impossible. Why? Because, if one does not try to show that the Germans were fighting the evil, then one cannot justify the sacrifices that Fascism / Nazism has made. So the main thing that is done by those who are trying to rehabilitate Fascism / Nazism is to show that it was fighting another evil. Not the lesser and perhaps the greater one. Therefore, any attempt to equate Hitler and Stalin, any attempt to equate communism and Nazism – all are aimed at whitewashing Nazism that is at blurring of total unacceptability of the very picture of Nazism for the normal development of mankind.
The question is about comparing Hitler and Stalin, Nazi and the Soviet regime. The accentuation is on the “Holodomor”2, as a deliberate extermination of the Ukrainian people.
Recently, it has become trendier to compare the acts of Hitler and Nazi regime with the acts of Stalin and the Soviet system. Thus to justify such comparison, Stalin is often incriminated the "Holodomor" as deliberate extermination of the Ukrainian people. So the famine of 1932-33 is being deliberately politicized. How would you comment on this as a historian?
Video part 6
The attempt to ascribe deliberate genocide of the Ukrainian people to the Soviet Union and Stalin in the form of a famine certainly doesn't make any sense.
To begin with, in those years the famine occurred in Poland and the United States. It is difficult to imagine that Stalin had extended his reach that far. In addition, in the Soviet Union the famine spread far beyond Ukraine, into the Volga region and Kazakhstan. The highest percentage of victims of famine was actually in Kazakhstan.
It is also hard to imagine that the Soviet government confused the Kazakhs with the Ukrainians.
And finally, let’s take a look at the measures taken by the Soviet leadership to fight hunger. For example: discontinuation of the export of grain, attempts to purchase grain abroad, blocked by the Western powers, mostly England.
Finding ways out of crisis, providing seed funding for peasants - all this concludes that there was no deliberate genocide. There was, on the contrary, an attempt to deal with the famine, which was caused by mismanagement and most importantly by two consecutive years of poor harvests.
Additionally, those who were to blame for the irrational, poor economic management, which in turn, exacerbated the problem of the "Holodomor", were punished.
For example, the perpetrators of "Holodomor" in Northern Kazakhstan were executed. That as well can hardly be attributed to the genocide of the Ukrainian people.
In the Latvian film "The Soviet Story" there’s information that "in the period from 1937 to 1941 in the Soviet Union 11 million people were repressed".
Well, a little less people were repressed, although the figures are comparable: about 9 to 10 million people.
The issue is not how many people were repressed, but the fact that people misinterpret the meaning of "repression."
Repressions are extrajudicial measures taken on formal grounds against some social groups.
What is it, speaking in simple language? If, say, the person gets drunk behind the wheel, he/she is permanently deprived of a driving license. This is a repression, because it happens outside of court jurisdiction. The person just may appeal this in court.
If pedophiles are banned from working in school this is also a repression. That is, he potentially poses a threat to children - he is banned from the profession. This is a repression.
And there are a lot of repressions like that. They are always there.
It’s often portrayed that "Stalinist repressions" consisted in killing people. But the thing is that even though 9 to 10 million people were repressed, the number of those executed was significantly smaller. Throughout the so-called Stalinist Soviet Union era there were 800,000 (eight hundred thousand) death sentences issued, of which 680,000 (six hundred eighty thousand) were actually carried out. However, most of these sentences had no relation to repressions.
So those who were executed were criminals. Thus the highest measure of social protection was implemented.
They shall not be equated to the repressed ones.
Now let’s say, people who by social background or due to having been engaged in anti-Soviet propaganda, received employment ban or prohibition to live in the capital – they did get repressed, those were repressions.
A few millions were repressed without even being imprisoned. That is, the majority of the repressed are the people whose rights have been curtailed for belonging to a certain social group.
Video part 7
In addition, repressions were used not only in the Soviet Union, they have been used extensively in almost all countries of the world. For example, during the famous McCarthyism in the postwar United States over five million people were repressed. Strictly speaking, the number is comparable with the whole Stalinist period, but it refers not to more than twenty years, but to just over two years.
The staff members were subjected to polygraph clearance. If they answered at least one question from the list incorrectly, they were fired. 4.5 million government employees were verified. Members of the Communist Party of the United States were banned from exercising their professions. For instance, they could not engage in public service and could not teach.
These were repressions as well. Moreover, the repressions were massive and strictly for political reasons.
In a Latvian film "The Soviet Story" it is asserted that "Stalin refused to join the anti-Hitler coalition." Please tell us what was the case in reality?
Video part 8
Actually, the Soviet Union could not refuse to enter into the coalition before the Second World War, because such coalition did not exist.
Rather, there was a large enough club of venerators of Nazi Germany and Hitler.
And those countries, that became the enemies of Nazi Germany in 1939, were its ardent friends in 1938. For example, the very Poland, which is depicted as a victim, participated jointly with Nazi Germany in the partition of Czechoslovakia in 19383. Just as well as Hungary had its share.
Great Britain, which is often shown as the main center of the struggle against Nazi Germany, signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement4 with Hitler in 1935, which allowed Germany to circumvent Versailles restrictions5 in terms of navy armaments and to build more powerful and more modern fleet than the French Navy.
At this point talking about some kind of “anti-Hitler coalition” is absurd.
The only country that actually appealed to the establishing of the anti-Hitler coalition was the Soviet Union, which attempted to create a security system in Europe – the collective security.
At some point, the Soviet Union was supported by France, but the French prime minister6, who, in fact, was a major adherent of the idea, was assassinated.
In the future, all the talks initiated by the Soviet Union to establish a collective security system were wrecked. And there was the infamous mission of Lord Drax7 (Admiral Drax became Lord by a royal decree, when he received in addition to his last name a family name of his maternal grandfather, so the clan would not break for the lack of male heirs. But he was not a member of the House of Lords or a Lord by birth. Note by B.V.Yulin) to the Soviet Union, when the representatives of British and French delegations were not authorized to sign concrete agreements, and preposterous position of Poland, which, in spite of the threat looming over it in the first place, categorically refused to allow the passage of Soviet troops through its territory for war with Germany.
Therefore, to say that the Soviet Union refused to join the anti-Hitler coalition is simply nonsense: since it’d be impossible to understand what exactly it refused to join.
Video part 9
It’s rather surprising to hear constant moaning of the Baltic republics about the Soviet Union depriving the sovereignty of their young people's democracies in 1940; that it was purely occupation, which stopped their democratic way.
In this case the fate of the very Estonia is a great example.
Konstantin Päts8, who participated in governance of Estonia, since 1918, arranged the military coup in 1934 that ended the activities of the Sejm9, banned all political parties and since 1937 declared himself a protector of Estonia.
If this is democracy, then it’s impossible to understand why they dislike the Soviet Union.
At the time when the Second Front was opened how many troops (divisions) were there on the Eastern Front, and how many confronted the Anglo-Americans in Normandy?
Video part 10
In fact, the opening of the Second Front was launched when the Germans were not able to stop any strategic attacks of the Soviet troops in the East.
Namely, the famous "Ostwall"10 of Germany, built on the Dnieper was breached; the German forces were defeated in Ukraine,
Soviet troops reached the former borders of the Soviet Union. And in that moment in 1944, the Allies opened the Second Front in Europe - Normandy11.
Why did they do it? Actually, it really decreased the number of victims of the Soviet Union; it accelerated the liberation of Europe and hastened the fall of the Nazi regime.
But at this point the fall of the Nazi regime was absolutely inevitable, and until the end of the war the main Nazi forces were aimed against the Soviet Union.
The British and the Americans opened the Second Front in 1944, in my opinion, to a large extent in order to just take part in the post-war division of Europe, that is, to ensure spheres of influence, to protect their interests.
Initially, they committed to open the Second Front as early as 1942, but refused, claiming to be unready. That is, they had conducted landing near Dieppe12, which ended in failure, and referring to it, refused to open the Second Front.
Then they promised to open the Second Front in 1943 and also didn't follow through. They did conduct strategic landing operations, and, moreover, with large forces. There were operations in Northern Africa, landing in Sicily, but those were all secondary sectors, such actions improved the positions of the forces of England and France without serious risks and major battles.
Therefore to compare in general the role of the Second Front and the role of the Eastern Front for Germany is virtually impossible. Germany was crushed exactly in the war against the Soviet Union.
What are the Soviet army casualties and, separately, casualties among civilians of the USSR? How much civilian casualties exceed those of the army and the navy? What is the ratio to German and its allies’ similar casualties (soldiers and civilians)? Why did it happen?
Video part 11
Actually, the total casualties of the Soviet Union are well known. They are about 27 million people. Among them nearly 20 million were civilians, non-soldiers.
Soviet military casualties are approximately 8.5 million people.
The fact that a lot of our prisoners of war were killed in German captivity caused a significant part of our casualties even military.
As for the civilian population, the Germans practiced genocide against the Soviet population during the years of the war, although the main genocide, of course, they’d intended for the period after their victory.
For example: the SS and the German occupation authorities solely in 1941 reported on extermination of more than 300,000 Jews only in Ukraine; nearly 1.5 million people died or were killed by artillery fire in the besieged Leningrad;
Germans are accountable for extermination of 1.5 million partisans and 4 million of their supporters.
So civilian casualties of the Soviet Union are huge. And they are incomparably heavier than those of Germany, when Soviet troops were conducting operations in Germany or of other countries when German troops were fighting on their territories. Well, when it comes to Western countries.
The population of Poland, for example, has been reduced significantly, that is, the Germans practiced genocide in Poland as well.
Is it a true statement that not only Germany, but the whole united Europe was against us?
Video part 12
The statement that not only Germany, but the whole united Europe was fighting against us is not quite true. I mean, yes: we fought against not only the Germans. A significant part of the German forces consisted of allies of Germany. Quite a lot of people of other European nationalities were in the SS units: Norwegians, Danes, French, and Belgians.
But it was not the operation of the united Europe against the Soviet Union. This was the use of the resources of the occupied territory, resources of vassal nations to conquer those who were not under the control yet.
This is a common practice since ancient times, and the resources are always used this way.
It cannot be said that the united Europe invaded the Soviet Union. The fact is the united Europe did not exist back then and, actually, not all of Europe was Fascist or Nazi.
That is to say, there was quite powerful communist anti-fascist movement in Europe at the same time.
Which territory was occupied, and why it was occupied? What were the new methods of mobile war, Blitzkrieg13, used by Wehrmacht to take over the whole Europe, before going against the Soviet Union? How long did it take Germany to conquer the whole Europe in general, and the most powerful European opponent - France in particular? Why did it happen that way?
Video part 13
By the time of the attack on the Soviet Union, Hitler was able to occupy or make allies the most of continental Europe.
Namely, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, northern France, Yugoslavia, Poland, Greece were occupied. Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Italy were allies with Germany. Spain and Portugal maintained friendly relations with Germany.
That is to say, there were two countries in Europe officially neutral – Switzerland and Sweden and one country that was at war with Nazi Germany - the United Kingdom.
Everything else was under the power of Nazi Germany.
Germany was able to occupy vast territories in a rather short period of time, sustaining light casualties, through the strategy of Blitzkrieg. So they were, in fact, at the time the wars of a new generation.
Using mobile units and a higher level of organization of troop command, the Germans disorganized enemy command and control, seized supremacy in the air, and intercepted communications, depriving the enemy of supply. Because of this they were able to defeat the enemy before he’d be able to use all military and industrial potential.
In fact, there is no really serious fight with the enemy. The opponent is out of the war before the use of all of the resources.
This strategy worked well against Poland and the same strategy worked well against France.
France was defeated in two months, Poland – in one month.
Casualties were, shall we say, quite trifling. Actually, the casualties in Poland barely exceeded numbers of one division.
Nazis used the same strategy against us.
What stood in the way of its realization? Actually, nothing: it was implemented. That's why our troops have suffered such heavy casualties in taken prisoners, lost a huge amount of equipment, because again, command and control was disorganized, the enemy seized supremacy in the air, destroyed our headquarters, and took over the main communication hubs. Therefore, ours lost equipment that was left without fuel and ammunition, troops, deprived of command and control, lost heart and surrendered. This is a common picture of defeat in any war.
There are always great casualties in taken prisoners, always disorganization in command and control in case of a military defeat.
What was different from the common picture in the Soviet Union? The fact that time after time the Soviet command pushed forward new forces, that soldiers continued to fight with courage and fortitude, so it did not spin out of control into a total demoralization of the army. And step by stepwe managed to stabilize the front.
Near Kiev and Smolensk we were able to delay Germans for quite significant time. The Germans had to restart their Blitzkrieg again and again.
The Germans expected to end the war on the territory of the Soviet Union in October. And still by October they had not even been able to break through to really strategically important centers of the Soviet Union, that was the time when they just started planning operation "Typhoon" for an attack on Moscow.
In other words, despite heavy losses, despite severe battles, the Red Army was able to thwart the plans of the Germans and was able to change the character of the war into protracted one. A lengthy war was absolutely unpromising for Germany, so its defeat became inevitable and, actually, the inevitability of this became obvious after the Germans had been defeated in the battle of Moscow14, that’s when it became clear that the Germans could not smash the Soviet Union promptly.
That is to say, the battle of Moscow that took place in the winter of 1941-1942 was the turning point of the Second World War; it was then when rapidly expanding Third Reich, this successful German aggression, was stopped.
In its turn that gave the opportunity to the opponents of Germany to fight already at full power.
Why modern Jewish organizations are not fighting against neo-Nazis, SS marches in the Baltics states, why they are not raising the alarm, and where did all the passionate unrelenting Nazi hunters of the 50s-80s go?
Video part 14
They are not fighting, most likely, because modern neo-Nazis do not declare the Jews to be the chief evil, and do not call for the elimination of Jews specifically.
And those who fought Nazis in the 50s-80s – they were specifically fighting those who killed Jews. Modern Nazis are not killing, yet.
What would be the consequences of equating communism and fascism for Europe and the world?
Well, equating communism and fascism has a well-defined objective – to make it possible to ban the communist ideology.
Unlike the Nazi ideology, communism is a grave danger to the capitalist world. Outlawing it, making it criminal by definition makes fighting it easier, facilitates further development of capitalism, and affects more efficient stratification of people by ownership status, property qualification.
And it is not really being done just to whitewash Nazism. This equation, it has a distinct goal – to fight specifically against the communist ideology.
That is, according to the West, communism cannot be allowed in principle.
By the way, for that reason multiple communist movements are being created that have nothing to do with communism. That’s how, for example, a communist Kwasniewski15 for a certain time happened to be a president of completely capitalist Poland.
What is your take on the UN General Assembly resolution that is put to the vote each year – “Inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance“16 and that each year more and more countries vote against that resolution?
Video part 15
Well, this is completely natural. The thing is that the biggest problems Europe (and not only Europe) is facing now are demographic problems. That is, problems of illegal immigrants, migrants from other countries. Under the current policies of multiculturalism17 and tolerance that actually emerged in the post-war period it is basically impossible to limit their influx, their entry into the Western society.
But as they say, the pie is small; there won't be enough for everyone. That is, the more people arrive from Africa or Asia to, say, France or Germany, the more people have to get their share of all the plentiful material goods that Western Europe has, thanks to its control of a considerable part of the rest of the world.
If it is divided amongst a larger number of people, then everyone gets less, and European population is not happy about it. Namely the old, indigenous population.
Besides, they are very unhappy that newcomers have their own cultural traditions, their particularities that are often incompatible with Europeans’ ideas of civilized behavior.
This, in principle, can be understood. But you can reeducate people, you can educate their children. Or you can proclaim them to be inferior and not allow them into the country.
It is much easier and much quicker. That’s why nationalistic parties are becoming more prominent, and more countries vote against the resolution aimed at xenophobia.
“This is the second Pearl Harbor. I don’t think that I overstate it” – Chuck Hagel, Sen. NE (1997–2009).18
Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was the impetus that allowed US to enter the WWII, and not as an aggressor, but rather as a victim of aggression. Tragic events of 9/11 were called the second Pearl Harbor. Are there any grounds to say today that the tragedy that Americans call 9/11 that led to deaths of many hundreds of people19, was the second Reichstag fire20 of sorts, but on a global scale?
Video part 16
No. I do not think that there is a ground to compare the events of 9/11, i.e. destruction of twin towers in New York with the Reichstag arson. But you could compare it to Pearl Harbor.
The thing is that the United States wanted to enter the WWII. They needed it. They imposed sanctions against Japan. They had put Japan in a position with no way to get out of sanctions peacefully. That is, they needed to provoke an attack from Japan because American public opinion was against the war.
In other words, Pearl Harbor was an American provocation that the Japanese fell for so that United States could take part in the war and keep face. We are innocent victims of aggression, we are only responding in kind.
Events of 9/11 are the same. These very events allowed Untied States to occupy Afghanistan, for instance, although Afghanistan itself and the Taliban movement had nothing to do with the events in New York.
Afterwards Americans attacked Iraq and occupied it, using the same events as the pretext.
In other words, thanks to these events they received a free hand to attack various countries, to occupy them under a guise of peacekeeping, anti-terrorist operation, establishing there puppet governments.
So in this sense the analogy with Pearl Harbor is quite correct, and although Americans think of it in a positive way, both incidents show American aggressiveness.
Is there any ground to look at the Third Reich as brutal laboratory of the Western elites for testing specific models of a new society?
Video part 17
Basically it is reasonable. The Third Reich was, indeed, testing an optimal, by Western measures, society of the future.
But we can hardly call this a new society. Actually, societies like that had existed since times immemorial. The only thing is that according to Western elites they had to be adapted to a modern form, a more modern society, which also is somewhat infected with humanist ideas which did not exist, say 3000-4000 years ago.
So it was, really, an experiment. A terrible experiment, but at the same time it cannot be specifically attributed to creation of a new society. It’s an attempt to reanimate an old society on a new soil. A very old and very scary society, ancient Assyria, for example.
Are there any tools in the international legal system that can stop replication and imposition of historical falsehoods by the media? Or are we helpless in face of such information terrorism? Is it possible to make such propagandists-terrorists liable for their actions, including criminal charges?
There are no tools within the international legal system that can prevent imposition of historical falsehoods by the media. First of all, because as always and everywhere, international law is a sword law. I.e., the law works only if there is somebody who can enforce that law.
If the United States and governments of Western European countries are set to rehabilitate Nazism and ban communism everywhere, that is, to turn it into a criminal ideology, nobody can stop them. There are no legal levers to do that.
The only way to fight against it is to open people’s eyes. And it is not just the only way; it’s also not very effective. Why? Because one has to oppose the mass media that is skilled, well-equipped and uses time proven methods.
So the only way to fight against it is to open people’s eyes to what it all leads to.
And for the majority it leads to an unimaginable nightmare. Because the society that is divided by caste, by nation, will inevitably lead to genocide and to wars. Nobody has ever managed to escape that.
Really, the popularity of the Golden Billion21 idea in the West is the same thing. It’s the same kind of Nazi idea. One billion must live well by robbing and exploiting other billions.
For those who belong to that Golden Billion it looks quite attractive, quite interesting: we shall live in spacious, comfortable countries where there are no unwanted people. We shall use all benefits of the civilization.
But afterwards these people will not understand why sub-humans who do not belong to the Golden Billion put them on pitchforks and hang them from the lampposts.
So, what forces really attacked the major adversaries of Germany in Western Europe? What forces attacked the Soviet Union?
Video part 18
When Germans attacked France, they had about 3 million soldiers on the Western front.
The forces of England, France, Belgium and Holland had altogether more people, about 4 million.
Besides, these forces were based behind “Maginot Line”22 - the strongest line of fortifications in the world. “Maginot Line” had its French part alongside the border of France and Germany and the Belgian part.
Well, then so called “Belgian Maginot Line” is a line of fortifications between the fortress of Liege23 and Namur24. Onward it abutted so called “Fortress Holland”25, which relied on the vast area of artificial flooding26.
Having air supremacy, the Germans stroke with smaller forces against well-fortified adversaries, with whom they’d been in state of war for a year then.
With all that “Fortress Holland” surrendered on the tenth day. It was enough for the Germans to bomb Rotterdam to suppress any will to resistance of the Dutch.
Belgium lasted a little longer. France was brought to its knees in a couple of months and surrendered completely.
Britain managed to withstand just because it had supremacy on the sea, was situated on the island and separated from the continental Europe by the English Channel. The Germans simply could not use their ground troops. That was German campaign in the West.
The Germans attacked the Soviet Union with much bigger forces, the troops of Germany and its allies directed against the USSR had more than 5 million people.
The headcount of the Red Army at the time of German invasion was 2 900 000 people. The fortifications of the Soviet-German border were not finished, the Germans attacked suddenly and without formal declaration of war.
This means that Germany treated the Soviet Union as much more powerful opponent than all Western countries put together and more rigorously prepared for the invasion.
During the entire war Germany constantly kept a force of 5-6 million men on Eastern front – its own and its allies.
Bear in mind, the forces of German allies were quite substantial too. For example, in the battle of Stalingrad, out of 5 armies of the group “B” (the main German force in Stalingrad battle), there were 2 German armies, 2 Romanian armies, one Italian army and some Hungarian troops.
This indicates the participation of other nations in this remarkable battle of The Great Patriotic War27.
So, Germany always concentrated its main forces against us. Besides, there is such a popular myth, that Soviet Union allegedly buried the Germans under dead bodies of its people, in other words, used huge manpower to fight small number of skilled and well-armed Germans. This is one of the vilest and at the same time the most dangerous myths.
The thing is that, despite of its large territory, which can be observed by looking at the map, the population of Soviet Union was only slightly larger than of Germany.
As of the summer 1941, the population of the Third Reich was 114 million people. This accounts only for the territory of the Third Reich itself, without allies and occupied territories, from this population they could draft people into the army.
The population of Soviet Union was 190 million, looks like it was considerably larger, but, if we take into account the German allies, the proportion of forces will somewhat even out. However, the greatest disaster for the Soviet Union was the fact that the significant share of the territory was occupied in the very beginning of the war and altogether up to 78 million people were under occupation.
In other words, throughout most of the war, especially during those years when the Soviet Union was fighting alone against Germany, the manpower of Germany and its allies was higher than the one of the USSR.
This is why the Soviet Union technically could not win by burying Germans under dead bodies.
We had to fight desperately, skillfully, incurring terrible casualties, but we had to really fight!
So, what is actually Fascism and what is Nazism?
Video part 19
Here we should start from explaining what actually a nation is as such. The nation is the highest form of survival of a society. A single individual is completely helpless, defenseless; any wolf occasionally running by can eat a solitary person.
If people are united in a family, they can withstand certain problems together, they can hunt down large animal, defend themselves against the very same wolf, build a house.
But they are still helpless if the problems get bigger, they cannot confront the attack of other people, cannot withstand natural disasters, not even a fire.
If people are united into a clan, they can withstand the most of the disasters, but they are still not able to do much against severe natural catastrophes or defend against mass attacks of other people.
A tribe is capable of resolving almost every issue, but the tribe is powerless against a nation. If the nation effectively utilizes big manpower and material resources, it puts man above nature. It puts people living in the nation above those living outside of it in tribes and clans.
Note that, the nation itself as the highest form of survival of a society could be structured different ways, some nations are more resistant and robust and some are less.
The most effective nations are the ones capable of utilizing production surpluses to the maximum extent, the ones capable of accumulating manpower, financial and material resources.
This was the reason for a rapid economic growth of the Soviet Union. The socialist nation used communist ideology and non-market resource distribution system; this approach provided huge manpower and material resources for the projects of national importance. Owing to that we had large scale construction projects, housing development, electrification of the country and the creation of a powerful industry.
The West faced this issue during World War I, i.e. limited capability of accumulating the needed resources, later it faced such phenomena as fast economic growth of the Soviet Union. The only answer the West had to that challenge was Fascism.
Note that the fascism was not born in Germany. It comes from Poland and Italy.
The word “fascism” comes from Italian “fascio”, meaning the “bundle of rods”, it was carried by the “lictors”28 - the officers of the court in Ancient Rome, they demonstrated the power of Roman Consul, by escorting him. This was the judiciary of the Roman Republic.
The main slogan of fascists was very similar to the slogans of communists and socialists: “The people united will never be defeated”. That means that anybody could easily break a single rod, but when it comes to “fascio”, even the strongest man cannot break it.
But what was the difference between fascist and communist ideologies? Fascism was based on the individualism of every single person, but this person was included into the group according to his status, this group was subordinated to a specific leader, selected from the group or appointed from outside. The main feature of fascism is the ruling of leaders at every level, the “Fuhrers” from the lower layer up to the top.
This is absolutely not a republican form of governance, no collective decisions, no nothing. Fuhrers decide everything for us.
The organizations also form the hierarchy according to the status. Every local Fuhrer has his own Fuhrer in a higher organization.
So, nobody cares about equality of people. All this is just about superiority of state over a man.
Nazism is a kind of merging of related to each other nationalism and racism – the same grade discrimination of people depending on their origin. The whites is the race of masters, the blacks is the race of slaves. This is old school racism.
Nazism has a very similar concept: there’re people of highest grade, people of first and second grade etc. and human garbage, for example, the Jews.
In this context we can say that Nazism is an extreme form of racism, it reduces number of the highest grade people, the real people, even more than racism does.
And Nazism combined with fascism gave birth to what we know as the Third Reich, the Nazi Germany. The organizational structure – fascism, the ideology – Nazism.
What the Nazism gave to the common Germans, as a matter of fact? It brought the feeling of deep satisfaction – if you are born German, if you have German father and German mother, then 'a priori' you are a human of superior quality.
Besides, it justified various actions against other nationalities. For example, after anti-Jewish pogroms29 all property of some German – or rather non-German, but Jewish shoemaker or baker would go to the real German citizen.
It created the opportunity to racketeer someone else's business, seize other people's property. Why? Because those people are subhumans, they betray interests of Germany and all their possessions ought to belong to real Germans.
This is exactly a core characteristic of National Socialism. By the way, National Socialism may not be considered a real socialism at all, because National Socialism provides social justice only for people of its own nation at the cost of redistribution of resources of other nations, but the real socialism achieves social justice using redistribution of resources within the entire society, so all members of the society are included and there is no need to rob someone who has been proclaimed subhuman.
This is why National Socialism does not have any relation to the communist ideology, nor to socialism. There are just certain elements of formal resemblance.
This is the same type of resemblance as between an edible fungus and foot fungus. It might seem that we have a fungus here and a fungus there, but, actually, these are completely different things.
What are the perils of Nazism? Given that it proclaims relatively small group of people as superhumans and exists at the cost of redistributing resources from subhumans to superhumans, i.e it provides high living standards for superhumans by depriving subhumans of essentials. That inevitably leads to wars and genocide. Moreover, the defeat of Nazis becomes inevitable too, because those they’ve declared subhumans will always outnumber them.
So the perils are imminent wars and inevitably bloody and devastating defeat of Nazism. Someone who turns to the ideology of Nazism, should, so to speak, accept it with all implied “bonuses”, including war and impending defeat.
1 A popular referendum provides a means by which a petition signed by a certain minimum number of registered voters can force a public vote on an existing statute, constitutional amendment, charter amendment or ordinance, or, in its minimal form, to simply oblige the executive or legislative bodies to consider the subject by submitting it to the order of the day. It is a form of direct democracy.
2 The Holodomor was a famine in the Ukrainian SSR between 1932 and 1933. In spring 1933 the famine spread over Western Siberia, the Urals, the Middle and Lower Volga, Central Black Soil District. But the situation in Ukraine, the North Caucasus and Kazakhstan, was the most severe.
Part V of the treaty begins with the preamble, "In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air clauses which follow." German armed forces will number no more than 100,000 troops, and conscription will be abolished. Enlisted men will be retained for at least 12 years; officers to be retained for at least 25 years. German naval forces will be limited to 15,000 men, six battleships (no more than 10,000 tons displacement each), six cruisers (no more than 6,000 tons displacement each), 12 destroyers (no more than 800 tons displacement each) and 12 torpedo boats (no more than 200 tons displacement each). No submarines are to be included. The import and export of weapons is prohibited. Poison gas, armed aircraft, tanks and armoured cars are prohibited. Blockades on ships are prohibited. Restrictions on the manufacture of machine guns (e.g. the Maxim machine gun) and rifles (e.g. Gewehr 98 rifles). German armed forces were prohibited from entering or fortifying any part of German territory west of the Rhine or within 50 kilometers east of the Rhine.
6 Jean Louis Barthou; 25 August 1862 – 9 October 1934) was a French politician of the Third Republic who served as Prime Minister of France for eight months in 1913. In 1934 he served as Foreign Minister.
7 Admiral the Hon. Sir Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax. Sir Reginald was the British half of the Anglo-French delegation sent to Moscow in August 1939 to discuss a possible alliance with the USSR. As an indication of the low priority the Allied Governments put on the mission, it was sent by sea. The Soviets did not take the delegation seriously because Sir Reginald did not have any power to make decisions without the approval of the British government, rendering him next to powerless.
8 Konstantin Päts (23 February [O.S. 11 February] 1874 – 18 January 1956). During the 1920s and early 1930s, Päts led the most right-wing party of the major political parties of the time – Farmers' Assemblies that eventually merged into the United Farmers Party in 1932. Päts was the speaker of the Riigikogu (1922–1923) and served five times as State Elder (1921–1922, 1923–1924, 1931–1932, 1932–1933 and 1933–1934). During his last term in 1934, he organized a coup d'etat to succumb the right-wing populist Vaps Movement. He was supported by the army and the parliament. His authoritarian regime is known as "Era of Silence". The phrase "Era of Silence" describes the silencing of all opposition to Päts' governing circle. However, it also reflects an apparent "national conspiracy" to go along with the suppression of civil and political rights in the interests of "order" after a decade of political turmoil.
10 The Panther-Wotan Line was a defensive line partially built by the German Wehrmacht in 1943 on the Eastern Front. The first part of the name refers to the short northern section between Lake Peipus and the Baltic Sea at Narva.
11 On 6 June 1944, the Allies began Operation Overlord (also known as "D-Day"). The deception plans, Operation Fortitude and Operation Bodyguard, had the Germans convinced that the invasion would occur at the Pas-de-Calais, while the real target was Normandy.
13 Blitzkrieg describes all-motorized force concentration of tanks, infantry, artillery, combat engineers and air power, concentrating overwhelming force at high speed to break through enemy lines, and, once the lines are broken, proceeding without regard to its flank. Through constant motion, the blitzkrieg attempts to keep its enemy off-balance, making it difficult to respond effectively at any given point before the front has already moved on.
17 Multiculturalism. As a descriptive term, it usually refers to the simple fact of cultural diversity. As a normative term, it refers to ideologies or policies that promote this diversity or its institutionalization; in this sense, multiculturalism is a society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit.”
18 Bush to Address Nation; Explosions Reported in Afghanistan By Charles Babington washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Tuesday, September 11, 2001; 5:52 p.m.
19 The September 11 attacks resulted in 2,996 immediate (attack time) deaths: 2,977 victims and the 19 hijackers. A total of 372 foreign nationals (excluding the 19 perpetrators) perished in the attacks, representing just over 12% of the total. The immediate deaths include 246 victims on the four planes (from which there were no survivors), 2,606 in New York City in the World Trade Center and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. About 292 people were killed at street level by burning debris and falling bodies of those who had jumped or fallen from the World Trade Center's windows. All the deaths in the attacks were civilians except for 55 military personnel killed at the Pentagon. Some immediate victims were not added to the list until years later.
21 ideas of Thomas Malthus, in that emphasis is placed on the scarcity of natural resources. The main idea behind this term was taken from The Limits to Growth (1972) - a book commissioned by the Club of Rome that echoes some ideas of Thomas Malthus in An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) and shows impossibility of development for all mankind according to the Western model.
22 The Maginot Line (Ligne Maginot), named after the French Minister of War André Maginot, was a line of concrete fortifications, obstacles, and weapons installations that France constructed along its borders with Germany during the 1930s. The line was a response to France's experience in World War I and was constructed during the run-up to World War II. A similar line of defenses, called the Alpine Line, faced Italy.
25 The Battle of the Netherlands (Slag om Nederland) was part of Case Yellow (Fall Gelb), the German invasion of the Low Countries (Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) and France during World War II. The battle lasted from 10 May 1940 until the main Dutch forces surrendered on the 14th. Dutch troops in the province of Zealand continued to resist the Wehrmacht until 17 May when Germany completed its occupation of the whole nation.
26 The Hollandic Water Line (Hollandse Waterlinie) was a series of water based defenses conceived by Maurice of Nassau in the early 17th century, and realized by his half-brother Frederick Henry. Combined with natural bodies of water, it could be used to transform Holland, later together with Utrecht, almost into an island.
28 The lictor was a member of a special class of Roman civil servant, with special tasks of attending and guarding magistrates of the Roman Republic and Empire who held imperium, the right and power to command; essentially, a bodyguard. They carried rods decorated with fasces and, outside the pomerium, with axes that symbolized the power to execute.
29 Pogrom is a violent mob attack generally against Jews, and often condoned by the forces of law characterized by killings and/or destruction of homes and properties, businesses, and religious centers. The word is now also sometimes used to describe attacks against non-Jewish ethnic or religious groups.