Who set Hitler against Stalin?. Nikolay Starikov

of the German nation for freedom. Considered purely militarily, in the event of a Germano-Russian war against Western Europe, which would probably, however, mean against the entire rest of the world, the relations would be simply catastrophic. The struggle would proceed not on Russian but on German soil, without Germany being able to get from Russia even the slightest effective support.

      After these reassuring words, the author again addresses his target audience – those in London, not in Berlin. Considering exactly who the following words are addressed to, one can’t but see the book in a different light.

      See to it that the strength of our nation is founded, not on colonies, but on the European territory of the homeland. Never regard the Reich as secure while it is unable to give every national offshoot for centuries his own bit of soil and territory.

      It seems Hitler has made his point quite clear already; basically, he owns that:

      • he stands for an alliance with Britain;

      • blessed by the English and French to rearm Germany, he is ready to attack and conquer the Soviet Union not only in the interests of Germany, but in those of other “forward-looking” nations;

      • he is prepared to withdraw claims to restore the former German territories that have been occupied by his Anglo-Saxon “friends”.

      Clear as it is, Hitler keeps harping on the same string of a British-German alliance, as if to make assurance double sure.

      The most important is first the fact that an approach to England and Italy would in itself in no way evoke danger of war. The only power which would come into question as opposing the alliance, France, would not be in a position to do so.

      Besides, why should France stand up against Hitler who, though calling France Germany’s enemy, is going to make his conquests in the direction of Smolensk and Kharkov and not Marseille and Toulon?

      A further consequence would be that Germany would be freed from its adverse strategic situation at one blow. The most powerful protection of the flank on one side, the complete guaranty of our supply of the necessities of life and raw materials on the other side, would be the blessed effect of the new order of States.

      In all events and circumstances, Hitler sees his alliance with Britain as a panacea for all the pains and aches of the German nation. A kind of balm on the wounds of the fatally injured country.

      But almost more important would be the fact that the new union of States comprises a capacity for technical performance which, in many respects, is almost mutually complementary. For the first time Germany would have allies who do not suck like leeches on our own economy, but which both could and would contribute their share to the richest completion of our technical armament.

      You are still in the dark about the proposed source of the technologies, money, and ammunition? About those with whose help Hitler could not dispense in his war plans? Why, he writes quite openly about it. The concluding chapters of Mein Kampf are one endless train of eulogy on the United Kingdom, page after page.

      The English mother country is really only the great capital of the British world empire <…>

      The greatest world power of the earth <England> and a youthful national State would constitute different premises for a struggle in Europe <…>

      England means everything for us Germans – that notion concludes Mein Kampf. The book having a total of fifteen chapters, we find that a seventh part of Hitler’s fundamental literary work is devoted to the blessings of a friendship between England and Germany.

      But the Anglo-Saxon rulers of this world do not easily extend their graces. “Of course, as I already emphasized in the previous chapter, the difficulties standing in the way of such an alliance are great”, Hitler stresses. One must prove one’s helpfulness, loyalty and malleability; only then the British intelligence bigwigs may condescend to notice the otherwise inconspicuous German politician.

      So Hitler expresses his readiness to make every effort for the alliance to come true.

      And this is possible the moment when, filled with warning need, one single course, conscious of its aim, is adopted and held, instead of the past decade’s foreign-policy aimlessness.

      What course is that? What is Hitler’s objective? These questions are simple to answer if you have read this chapter.

      The recovery and rearmament of Germany immediately followed by an intrusion into the wide expanses of Russia is the Nazi leader’s first and foremost goal. The one essential condition for it, the basis for the recovery of Germany’s economic and military strength is an alliance with Great Britain.

      How could one fail to notice, encourage and support this well-minded patriot?

      How could one leave such a helpful leader without a penny?

      How could one forbear to help this Anglophile politician to his power?

      Leon Trotsky – the Father of the German Nazism

      A state always is the first to fall, and economy follows it, never the other way round… Economy can’t prosper, if it isn’t protected by a powerful and prosperous state.

Adolf Hitler

      Strange though it may appear, being sovereign and conservative to the core at home, England always tended to patronize the most demagogic strivings in its foreign relationships, steadily encouraging every popular movement intended to weaken sovereign terms.

Report of Durnovo N.P. to Nicolas II, the Emperor. February 1914

      It is important to answer who brought the Hitlerite regimen to power to understand all the further tragic events. Incorrect estimate of the early Nazi period leads to misunderstanding of reasons of World War II. Mysteries and compelling issues multiply. According to books in history, political leaders act in spite of any logics and common sense. However, that is hardly possible. We have already mentioned that driveling idiots don’t normally stay at power. Statesmen act in the interests of states entrusted to them and follow their own logics at that. If a puppet is at power, it also follows demands of the state, though, it is not the state it belongs to. It is important to understand that every action is taken to provide political or economical dividends to the country. If the country’s sovereignty is phoney, every action is taken to bring dividends to the host-state. If after reading a research in history you get the impression that before World War II all states were led by fools, who didn’t understand simple things obvious even to the Reader, then the author of that research must have failed to comprehend that historic period!

      To judge actions of the World’s leading politicians correctly, one must go back in time and take a dive into the greasy midst of the Russian and the German revolutions. Let’s start with the latter, which is the German one. It broke out against hard struggle Germany was going through in every sphere. However, it can’t be explained with military defeat. Well, it can, if some of important facts are disremembered. It was in 1945 that the enemy completely occupied Germany, which had resisted to the last. When the revolution started in Autumn 1918, there wasn’t a single enemy soldier in the German lands. Germany didn’t suffer from carpet bombing, which could obliterate entire towns. It went through serious economical problems, but in 1918 Berlin and Hamburg didn’t starve like Leningrad in 1941. Why did the revolution happen, then?

      Because it was being prepared. The same powers which crushed the Russian Empire in February and October were doing it. At that time they were going to overthrow their second geopolitical rival, Kaiser Wilhelm. And they managed to do it! Artificiality of this crush in Germany provided the Nazi with splendid grounds for agitation.

      “I am telling you, if I come to power in a legal way, the Nazi Court shall be established, and the November revolution will be avenged, and many shall be decapitated in a legal way”[42], Hitler announced in the open. Might he have not been telling the truth or might he have been exaggerating stating that Germany had been backstabbed, or was it another trick of Goebbels’s propaganda?[43] Judge for yourself…

      When

42

Bullock, A. Hitler and Stalin. V.1. P. 278.

43

Curiously, General Malcolm, the Head of the British military mission in Germany was the first to pass the word about Germany having been “backstabbed” and thus having lost the war. (Preparata, G.D. Hitler Inc. How Britain and the USA created the Third Reich. P. 148.)