Log in

View Full Version : Europe: Anti-Communist "History" Unraveling



chebol
6th October 2005, 06:14
Just wondering what people thought of this......

New pages in European history
http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/sv/08history.html

Communists and others have long argued that the real motivation for the Second World War was to smash the Soviet Union. British, French and US imperialism hoped that fascism would defeat socialism, and in the process weaken itself, which would then allow the western allies to finish it off.

Recently new evidence has emerged that shows this to have been the case. When the Red Army defeated the German fascist forces at the Battle of Stalingrad, Winston Churchill, head of the British government, travelled in 1943 to Turkey to have secret talks with Hitler, to seek “peace” and to see what could be done in the light of the war turning in the Soviets’ favour.

Recent research has shown that the British government—no doubt with the knowledge and agreement of the United States—encouraged remnants of the German army to attack Soviet forces, even before the end of the war, in countries already liberated by the Red Army.

It has further emerged that more than 35,000 Soviet soldiers were murdered by Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Ukrainian and Belorussian fascists, with arms and other material assistance they received from the western allies, from May to December 1945, that is, after the war had ended and at a time when they were supposed to be allies of the Soviet Union. These same fascist forces were the remnants of the White Russians and their allies in the civil war against the Bolsheviks that followed the Russian Revolution. They had not abandoned the struggle against Soviet power.

Many of the same forces and their collaborators remained intact and continued to work against Soviet power long after the war. They never gave up the dream of returning to power, which they finally succeeded in doing in 1989.

New research is slowly debunking much of the history constructed about the origins and the outcome of the Second World War by the western allies. All those who continue to drag up the “Hitler-Stalin Pact” must take into account these new facts that continue to emerge. Then they might just begin to see how and why the Second World War started, the reasons for it, and why such temporary pacts might just have some basis in the needs and the reality of the time.

Black Dagger
6th October 2005, 06:20
This is interesting, but it needs to be sourced. Where is this new information from? The article doesn't mention any historical source material or investigating historians. Any ideas?

enigma2517
7th October 2005, 00:13
This would be very interesting indeed, if only we could verify it somehow.

I second that source request.

ComradeOm
7th October 2005, 12:06
I'm sorry but I find this very hard to believe. Despite Stalin's paranoia and the best efforts of the German command (minus Hitler), there were never any signs of an alliance between Axis and Allies was in the works. Churchill was smart enough to realise just what Stalin was up to when the Red Armies covered half of Europe but his hatred of Nazism was the one thing greater than his fear of communism.

I'd go so far as to say that all the facts known to date uphold the traditional version of events. The US sent huge amounts of supplies to the Russians which were key in the Red Army's rapid advance. By the same token Churchill was perfectly willing to sit down with Stalin and divide up Europe in the infamous Percentages Deal. Every request Stalin made was honoured by the Allies with General Bradly going so far as to hand over a map showing the position of every US division in Europe to his Russian counterpart. Stalin made no such gestures in return.

In short, its a nice theory but I don't see it holding up. i'm a great believer in history and I try not to believe every story simply because its from a Marxist viewpoint.

OleMarxco
7th October 2005, 12:57
Well, I know atleast I've never thought that. Whose kind'o Commies are'at? Those I've never met ;)

I, as one, think the World War I was a bit staged, but more like a 'stage of random consequences'. Alot people made "secret plan's" against each-other - but conscience...fate has another meanin', always. It didn't turn out as 'spected for everyone...but I think it was more a war to regain German's greatness again. And I 'spose I can see that, after the FIRST one :hammer:

The Grey Blur
7th October 2005, 21:33
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 12:38 PM
Well, I know atleast I've never thought that. Whose kind'o Commies are'at? Those I've never met ;)

I, as one, think the World War I was a bit staged, but more like a 'stage of random consequences'. Alot people made "secret plan's" against each-other - but conscience...fate has another meanin', always. It didn't turn out as 'spected for everyone...but I think it was more a war to regain German's greatness again. And I 'spose I can see that, after the FIRST one :hammer:
A brilliant point, clearly and concisely made.....WTF?!?!!?!?

praxis1966
8th October 2005, 08:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 07:38 AM
Well, I know atleast I've never thought that. Whose kind'o Commies are'at? Those I've never met ;)

I, as one, think the World War I was a bit staged, but more like a 'stage of random consequences'. Alot people made "secret plan's" against each-other - but conscience...fate has another meanin', always. It didn't turn out as 'spected for everyone...but I think it was more a war to regain German's greatness again. And I 'spose I can see that, after the FIRST one :hammer:
I'm not sure why you brought up WWI. But, while we're on the subject, I'd like to mention that the whole thing was a sham. It had nothing to do with spreading democracy. It was simply an overcooked attempt at the Western powers to gain new colonies, controlling areas which contained valuable natural resources, and extend their existing empires. There wasn't a thing noble about it, period.