In 1990s, following the fall of the Iron Curtain, Western audiences were introduced to work of Vladimir Rezun, a.k.a. Viktor Suvorov. He claimed that Stalin had planned for an offensive war in 1941., only to be pre-empted by Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa.
Ideologically, this makes sense. Communism was just as aggressive ideology as Nazism, and Soviet Union had, in the 1917. – 1921. period, attempted to spread Communism across Europe by a combination of Red Army offensives and local uprisings. In fact, the entire purpose of the Soviet Union was to serve as a launch pad to the next global conflict – Soviets were planning to start World War 2 ever since 1917. – and install the dictatorship of the proletariat across the globe. But the first attempt at doing so was defeated in Eastern Europe.
But just the fact that something would be ideologically expedient does not mean it was really attempted. And in the Western Europe, Suvorov’s thesis appears to have been soundly debunked and discarded.
Eastern European research into Soviet war archives has provided a more complex picture. Yet English language publishers have shown no interest in translating these works, much like there is little interest in translating works on Yugoslav Partisans, and so more complex assessment is left to bloggers such as myself. Likewise, for a better look at Soviet plans, it is necessary to read Eastern European authors.
As a result of that as well as the smear campaign against Suvorov carried out by Gorodetsky and Glantz, post-1990 research on Soviet military posture in 1941. is basically unavailable in the West. Yet new research has uncovered significant evidence of Soviet offensive posture in 1941. These include Stalin’s orders to build the vast majority of new Soviet airfields, tank parks and petrol stations, roads and railroads in frontier districts abutting Hitler’s Reich in 1941, as well as his ever-more-intensive deployment of new warplanes and armor in those districts. Soviet weapons procurement in 1941. was ramped up significantly, and was primarily focused on tanks – including light, amphibious and air-dropped tanks that would not see much use in defensive war, but could be crucial in any offensive action. Soviets had also invested in tactical and dive bombers – Su-2, Pe-2 and Il-2, designed to provide close air support for advancing armies.
In January 1941., Soviet general staff carried out war games for invasion of Hitler’s Reich. Updated Soviet war planes, in both March and May 1941., emphasized a “powerful strike in the direction of Lublin” with the aim of cutting Germany off from its oil supplies in Romania. The May 15 plan in particular spoke of a “sudden blow” that was to deprive the German army of all initiative and attack it while it was still in the deployment stage. The idea of striking Germany first was the basis of Soviet military planning in 1940. and 1941., and no real defensive plans had been found. Red Army units deployed along the border in 1941. carried out no defensive preparations such as digging trenches and anti-tank ditches. It appears that, even if the aim was to defend, intent was always to perform an offensive action. Mikhail Metlyukov has covered five different Soviet plans, all of which were offensive in nature.
Actual Red Army deployment in September 1941. was in accordance with these offensive plans. All units had been moved up close to the demarcation line, despite many Soviet generals preferring to pull them back and concentrate to be better able to defend against German attack. Air bases, as noted, were essentially next to the border – ideal for offensive actions. Lastly, Red Army soldiers were – in March 1941. – issued Russian-German phrase books. This phrase book refers to place names in German-occupied Poland, and contains phrases stating that the Red Army will arrive any moment.
Of course, all of this could merely point to planning of a preemptive strike against expected German attack, but fact remains that Soviet Union was not merely planning for defense. Evidence for this is most easily found in Stalin’s (then-secret) speech to military academy graduates, held in the Kremlin on 5 May 1941. He outlined the change to the offensive doctrine, and the Communist Party propagandists were ordered to step up “Bolshevik indoctrination of the personnel of the Red Army…in the spirit of burning patriotism, revolutionary decisiveness, and constant readiness to go over to a crushing offensive against the enemy.”.
But all of this was thrown into disarray as evidence began to mount of impending German offensive. Orders were sent to camouflage Soviet air bases and tank parks to protect them from the attacks – but these orders were sent several weeks too late, and Germans attacked before these could be carried out. Even so, Soviets were not unprepared for German attack, and Stalin ordered a counterattack towards Lublin as had been planned. It was simply the speed of German advance that caught Soviets off-guard and prevented any counterattack from being carried out.
In the end, between Stalin’s conquest of buffer states in 1939. – 1941. and the deployment of best armor and warplanes on the German – Soviet frontier, it appears clear that some sort of offensive had been planned (defensively, you want to have a buffer between yourself and the enemy, and you also want to have second-rate units absorb initial enemy strikes while keeping elite formations in reserve). It was Soviet offensive posture that caused the debacle in 1941. – much like has happened to Egypt in the Six Day War. Clearest evidence of the Soviet offensive preparations in 1941. is the creation of so-called “Polish units”, which would have been used to legitimize Red Army occupation of Poland as “liberation”. This recipe had already been utilized during attempted conquest of Finland. These were deployed along the Soviet border in Spring 1941., indicating that offensive will have started in summer.
In fact, Meltyukhov had shown that the General Staff of the Red Army had already begun developing a plan for an assault on Germany in October 1939. Through 1940. and 1941., at least four different versions o the plan had been developed. In May and June 1941., Soviet preparations for invasion were entering the final stage. Soviet Union was planning to invade on 12.6.1941., as per the draft plan of 11th March 1941. While Soviet leadership did assess the potential German invasion, no defensive peparations were made nor were the plans adjusted to account for it. This clearly shows that Soviet preparations were not purely defensive in nature, and also mostly excludes the defensive counterattack as a possibility behind the Soviet plans. Overall, basic efforts were made without even considering the possibility of defense.
The basic idea behind the attack was similar to how Russian invasion of Ukraine began: concentration of forces under the guise of military exercises followed by a sudden attack. Operations will have begun with with the surprise blow by Soviet Air Force against airfields within 250 kilometers of the border, enabled by major Soviet superiority in aircraft. This will have facilitated Red Army ground maneuvers aimed at striking towards Prussia and Poland on one flank and Romania on the other. There were no defensive preparations either discussed or implemented by the Soviet troops near the border.
The attack was planned for 12 June 1941., but was delayed by flight of Rudolf Hess to Germany, as recalled by Molotov: “I don’t remember all the motives for cancelling this decision, but it seems to me that Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess’ flight to England played the main role there. The NKVD reconnaissance reported to us, that Hess on behalf of Hitler had proposed the United Kingdom to conclude peace and to participate in the military march against the USSR… If we at this time would have unleashed ourselves a war against Germany, would have moved forces to Europe, then England could have entered the alliance with Germany without any delay… And not only England. We could have been face to face with the entire capitalist world”. Under the new timetable, preparations for the attack will have been completed by 15th July 1941. These however were derailed when Germany invaded, hoping to crush the Soviet Union in order to win against Britain.
There is of course an issue with this argument. Namely, it was economically undesireable for the Soviet Union to attack Germany. This counterargument however ignores the fact that a) Soviet Union had already attempted westward expansion in the 1917. – 1920. period despite ongoing civil war and the extremely difficult economic situation and b) both Hitler and Stalin were aware that their economic cooperation is a temporary one, and that there would be a conflict sometime in the future. In terms of long-term strategic outlook, it is almost certain that had Hitler not attacked Stalin first, Stalin will have attacked Hitler.
What may be true is that Stalin had no immediate plans of attacking Hitler. Soviet Union had been heavily relying on cooperation with Germany for its economic development ever since the Imperial German government transported the Communists into the Imperial Russia. Economy in Ukraine had collapsed, and Soviet measures to restore order there – which mainly consisted of genociding any and all politically incorrect elements, from kulaks to Ukrainian nationalists – only made the issue worse. Stalin’s Five Year Plans further ruined Soviet economy, and to maintain order, Stalin had to resort to oppressive measures such as Gulag – a system of concentration and penalty camps where undesireables were sent to forced work as a means of essentially slow execution.
In order to restore the economy, Soviet Union had to allow trade with the West, and by 1934. it was understood this would be a regular thing. By 1939., Stalin had wanted to both revamp the economy through third Five Year Plan, and to allow new trade connections abroad to remedy what was obvious but the Soviet government would not accept: that centrally planned economy simply does not work. Especially important was purchase of industrial equipment. Trade with Germany was thus a necessity for Soviet Union, and by mid-spring 1939. Soviet Union was courting Germany for a deal. This was accepted, and Germany exported industrial machinery into Russia in exchange for raw materials. Soviet Union had shown significant committment to the deal: last shipment of raw materials crossed the border merely an hour before Wehrmacht invaded Soviet Union. Prior to invasion, Hitler in fact “hesitated to present demands to Russia because he suspected Stalin might agree to them”.
The economic argument however does not hold water, since there was a clear disconnect between Soviet political and military leadership. While Stalin dithered and did everything he could to appease Hitler, it is clear that the Red Army at least expected German attack, and even made preparations for a preemptive attack. Therefore, it is not enough to prove that Stalin himself had no plans to attack.
Conclusion may be made that 1) Soviet political leadership had no plans to invade Germany in the short term, 2) Soviet military leadership was in fact making plans for offensive warfare and an outright invasion, 3) Soviet Union was not ready for war yet 4) nature of Communism made invasion basically a certainty at some point in the future. Therefore, Operation Barbarossa was not a preemptive strike against an imminent Soviet invasion, as no such invasion would have taken place in immediate future. However, this conclusion is perhaps undeservingly charitable towards Soviet leadership, and it is even less clear that Germans were aware of that.
There are several main possibilities based on the above factors. First is that the Soviet leadership had no intention of invading Germany in 1939. or in short term (at least until 1942.) in general, and all preparations were purely defensive in nature. This conclusion however had been shown previously as clearly incorrect. Second is that Soviet political leadership had no plans for strategic offensive moves against Germany, but military leadership did envision possibility of an offensive in response to German invasion.
Last is that Meltyukhov is correct and both sides were preparing to invade each other at the same time. Germany was the main obstacle for expansion of Communism into Europe, especially after it had conquered most of the continent. USSR thus took steps to normalize relationship with western countries, and began preparing for the conflict.
In the long term, it is certain that Hitler and Nazi leadership saw it as a preemptive strike against future Soviet invasion, and they were almost certainly correct. Soviet behavior in the past (specifically, invasions of 1917. – 1922.) certainly gave them enough basis for such reasoning. Ideologically speaking, Communists did want to use war – first the First World War, as exemplified by aforementioned invasions, and then the Second World War – to spread Communism across Europe and the globe. The idea was to let Hitler and Western capitalists exhaust each other in a mutual struggle before invading and dictating terms to devastated enemies. But as Germany emerged as the main enemy, Soviet Union begun a programme of reapproachment with Western countries.
Thus, crushing the Soviet union before this could happen was a potential goal. In the short term however, Soviet troop concentrations aimed at defensive counterattack may have created an impression of a strategically offensive posture, as in operational and logistical term there is basically no difference between a first strike and a counterattack into enemy rear. So Hitler may have concluded that Soviets were planning an invasion. If so, he would have been correct – but for wrong reasons, and with an incorrect timeframe.
History and War 
List of countries that invaded Soviet Russia in the 2018-2019 period
Britain
France
US
Czech legion – special case though
Poland
Japan- largest force as they wanted to create a buffer state
Canada
Italy
and others Wikipedia Allied Intervention in Russia
1,500 French and British troops originally landed in Arkhangelsk[45]
14,378 British troops in North Russia[46]
1,800 British troops in Siberia[47]
50,000 Romanian troops belonging to the 6th Romanian Corps under General Ioan Istrate, in Bessarabia.[48]: 375–376 [49]: 167–168
23,351 Greeks, who withdrew after three months (part of I Army Corps under Maj. Gen. Konstantinos Nider, comprising 2nd and 13th Infantry Divisions, in the Crimea, and around Odessa and Kherson)[50]
15,000 French also in the Southern Russia intervention
40,000 British troops in the Caucasus region by January 1919[9]
13,000 Americans (in the Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions)[36][37]
11,500 Estonians in northwestern Russia[34]
2,500 Italians in the Arkhangelsk region and Siberia[51]
1,300 Italians in the Murmansk region.[52]
150 Australians (mostly in the Arkhangelsk regions)[53]
950 British troops in Trans-Caspia[8]
70,000+ Japanese soldiers in the Eastern region
4,192 Canadians in Siberia, 600 Canadians in Arkhangelsk[54]
2,300 Chinese troops in Vladivostok[11]
What was you said about a Communist invasion ?
LikeLike
I think you have the time period a bit off in your comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know, if you are going to comment bullshit, you might at least learn how to read first.
Post is about the World War 2, and the situation between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in 1941. Specifically, claims by some German generals post-war that the Soviet Union was planning to invade and thus the Operation Barbarossa was basically self-defense.
It has nothing to do with the intervention in Russia in 1919. Which I may write about sometime in the future, but when, I will see.
Also, Bolsheviks had invaded Ukraine already in 1917.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The claim was made in the article
‘ This counterargument however ignores the fact that a) Soviet Union had already attempted westward expansion in the 1917. – 1920. period”
The reality in that period was the ‘invasions’ by the long list of countries mentioned but you overlooked the actual taking of a large chunk of Ukraine by Poland – who ignored the borders in the east drawn up at Versailles and wished to claim the former Austrian Galicia ( mainly ukrainian but controlled by polish
rural nobility)
That territory gained by conquest by Poland was retaken by Stalin in 1939 – which brings us up to the story but with different facts to that claimed.
LikeLike
And? Soviet invasions were not exclusively aimed at Poland. They were in fact aimed at restoring the borders of the Russian Empire.
Yes, Poland did expand eastwards beyond the Versailles line. Yes, Soviets attacked Poland. They also invaded and destroyed Ukrainian People’s Republic in the war of 1917.-1921., invaded Lithuania in the war of 1918. – 1919., Latvia in 1918. – 1920. …
Fact is, Polish imperialism had little if no bearing on Soviet imperialism. Had Poland not attempted (and succeeded in) eastwards expansion, it would have still gotten invaded by the Soviet Union.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ukrainian peoples republic was an internal civil war event , Versailles specifically refused their claim to be an independent country.
Lithuania and Latvia may have had border disputes with Russia as Lithuania did with Poland but remained independent countries until the 1939 invasion by Stalin- hardly showing some grand design for conquest. Clearly the current events have rekindled the old ‘red peril’ scares
Thats a big jump to say that Poland would have been conquered by Russian in that 1920 period. Yes the communist ideology saw themselves as inevitable but I think it was seen as uprising by the working class or proletariat against the ruling class or some such thing, now long forgotten reasoning .
LikeLike
Red Army units had arrived into Ukraine to help establish Moscow-friendly government as early as 1917. So it is clear that Moscow would not suffer Ukraine’s independence, regardless of whatever was decided at Versailles.
Lithuania and Latvia remained independent because they fought off Soviets. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were all outright invaded in 1918. (Estonia 28 November, Latvia 5 December, Lithuania 12 December).
Yes, Soviets believed that there would be an uprising by the working class in the West that will bring Communism global victory. But they did not limit themselves to passively waiting for such. Not only did the Red Army conduct actual invasions with the aim of establishing Communist regimes (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Mongolia, as well as abortive offensive against Romania), but the Soviet Union provided direct and indirect support to Communist revolutionaries and uprisings in the West. That was, in fact, the entire purpose of the Comintern (founded in 1919.).
No wonder Nazis (and Fascists) had fertile ground to sow their poisonous ivy on…
LikeLike
“… Communism was just as aggressive ideology as Nazism, and Soviet Union had, in the 1917 – 1921 period, attempted to spread Communism across Europe by a combination of Red Army offensives and local uprisings.“
Well actually, yes, but only partially correct. To make such a statement we need to be able reconcile or rationalise the ‘official (victors’) narrative’ with what was actually said, written and practised …
Bolshevism was indeed an aggressive [international] ideology – that was its fundamental premise and is what the ’Intern’ stood for in Comintern.
“Bolshevism is explicitly determined on bringing about a revolution among all the nations. In its own essence it has an aggressive and international tendency. But National Socialism confines itself to Germany and is not a product for export, either in its abstract or practical characteristics. Bolshevism denies religion as a principle, fundamentally and entirely. It recognises religion only as an “opium for the people.” For the help and support of religious belief, however, National Socialism absolutely places in the foreground of its programme a belief in God and that transcendental idealism which has been destined by Nature to bring to expression the racial soul of a nation. National Socialism would give the lead in a new concept and shaping of European civilisation. But the Bolshevics carry on a campaign, directed by the Jews, with the international underworld, against culture as such. Bolshevism is not merely anti-bourgeois; it is against human civilisation itself.
In its final consequences it signifies the destruction of all the commercial, social, political and cultural achievements of Western Europe, in favour of a deracinated and nomadic international cabal which has found its representation in Judaism. This grandiose attempt to overthrow the civilised world is so much more dangerous in its effects because the Communist International, which is a past master in the art of misrepresentation, has been able to find its protectors and pioneers among a great part of these intellectual circles in Europe whose physical and spiritual destruction much be the first result of a Bolshevic world revolution.”
… Dr Joseph Goebbels in “Communism with the Mask Off” (13 September 1935)
As for Suvorov, he has only been ‘debunked’ insofar as the likes of snopes and wikipedophilia are concerned – of course such uncomfortable truths are always ‘debunked’ (or ‘snoped’).
Suvorov’s failing is that while presenting 990 irrefutable facts (per chapter), he will then make 10 rather unnecessary subjective interpolations, such as what the placement of certain ammunition factories actually meant strategically. Suvorov thus leaves himself open to be challenged on that small fraction of questionable conjectures and hence labelled as ‘debunked’ without reference to the other valid 990 facts.
Good article.
Please do read David L Hoggin’s “The Forced War”. I can’t help but wonder whether Germany and the Soviet Union would even have come into hot conflict if it had not been for Halifax (primarily) letting nothing stand in his way of igniting the global WWII in the first place, using the ‘concern for Polish sovereignty’ (over German Danzig) as a very weakly veiled pretext. Stalin was certainly craftily biding his time while the ‘capitalist’ countries weakened each other, but the stand-off might well have prevailed indefinitely. [Germany was socialist by the way, not capitalist, while Bolshevism was backed by the upper echelon of ‘Western’ capitalists/usurers]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Addendum (spelling correction Hoggan)
• The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. By David L. Hoggan
PDF plus 317 audio files (one per subsection) on archive channel hjsdv:
https://archive.org/details/tfrdw
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks!
LikeLike
Germany wasnt socialist . Having national- socialist in the name ( hence na-zi) didnt mean didly squat in that era as it was diametrically opposed to the actual socialist movement in germany at the time the SPD and KPD.
Hitler was actually asked by an american journalist about ‘socialism ‘ in the party name. And he refuted it was socialist in practice in his verbose convoluted way…look it up
As for the idea that nazism would be ‘contained in Germany’, if not for Britain/France, equally absurd . Ask the Austrians Czechs and Poles about that.
LikeLike
It wasn’t diametrically opposed. Nazi were in fact full socialists – I am currently writing a post about it though I will see whether I will send it somewhere else or publish it on this blog.
What Hitler was opposed to was Communism, which is a specific variant of international socialism and thus naturally opposed to Nazism, which is national socialism. But Fascism, Nazism and Communism were all socialist ideologies (as were the Ustashi).
LikeLike
Hitler himself disagreed with you on that .
This sort of revisionism is only in the last 20 years.
The common thread was totalitarianism, not socialism.
Our other friend about the poor German victims of WW1 and the peace loving Hltler has gone full revisionist.
The starvation occurred because of the conscription of labour for the two front war especially from the rural areas mean the agriculture output fell- not as mechanised as today. The people in small towns in countryside were fine, as the food was nearby, but some in the cities not so much. The other factor was prewar the German agriculture output was was more intensive per hectare than in say France , this was because of fertilisers. The blockade cut off fertiliser supply, which could also be used in munitions.
Fritz Haber invented the process to make nitrates synthetically , but again shell production was prioritised instead of feeding the city populations. This synthetic nitrate process alone meant germany avoided having to admit defeat as early as 1915.
Hardly the allies fault their enemy continued the war – to their ultimate disadvantage
Regarding blockades , at the start of the war the German Pacific squadron immediately went to the coast of Chile , the source of most of the worlds nitrates, to blockade the supply for the allies. Despite a victory off Coronel Chile von Spee, as expected was later defeated by the RN off the Falklands
LikeLike
Adolf Hitler negated Nazi links to contemporary socialists because socialists in question were nearly exclusively internationalists. That does not mean that Hitler and Nazis weren’t socialists otherwise.
“Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not.“
“We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.”
“National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.”
“There is a difference between the theoretical knowledge of socialism and the practical life of socialism. People are not born socialists, but must first be taught how to become them.”
“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.”
“Germany’s economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people.”
LikeLike
My goodness, you haven’t looked anything up at all have you? To begin your journey, you need to go look up the Diktat of Versailles and go from there …
• Military naval blockade to inflict genocide by starvation on some 700.000 innocent Germans, mostly women, children, the elderly and the frail in order to elicit German submission under duress to the Diktat of Versailles.
• The Diktat of Versailles itself – in complete violation of the most important principle of Wilson’s 14 points = that of the human right of self-determination. Who were the main characters chairing and presenting/negotiating – who did these delegations from various (stakeholder) countries really represent? Who drew up the maps to redraw and Balkanise Europe and in particular Germany?
• Saarland, Austria, Sudetenland and Danzig were the subjects of patient and peaceful negotiations for revision of the Diktat of Versailles abomination, which France (Poincaré) had previously belligerently violated thereby nullifying the Diktat.
• By ‘Poles’, I am sure you are referring to the plight of the Germans in Danzig as well as the minorities in Silesia – oppressed as second class citizens and ultimately many were physically displaced, tortured and murdered en masse.
• By ‘Czechs’, I am sure you mean ‘Sudeten Germans’ (also displaced by the Diktat of Versailles) who were similarly brutalised.
• Ask the Slovaks how they felt about being subject to a belligerent minority Czech rule – or the Ruthenians and Hungarians.
• And why did Poland (Beck et al) militarily invade the Tesin (Teschen) district on September 27, 1938?
…
LikeLiked by 1 person
As for Hitler’s interviews which he freely gave, look these up …
• Adolf Hitler – Ward Price – interview with Adolf Hitler – February 18, 1934
• Adolf Hitler – interview with Ward Price – August 5, 1934
“As far as Germany is concerned, there will be no new war. Germany knows the terrible consequences of war better than any other country. “Almost all of the members of the National Government know its horrors.
They know that it is not a romantic adventure, but rather an atrocious catastrophe. It is the conviction of the National Socialist Movement that war is of no use to anyone and can only result in ruin. We would not profit by a war.
For us, 1918 was a lesson and a warning. We believe that the problems of present-day Germany cannot be solved by war.
• Adolf Hitler – interview for Associated Press – April 4, 1934
“Fascism and National Socialism, both related in their basic Weltanschauungen, are called upon to blaze new trails to productive international cooperation. To comprehend their purpose and their nature means to promote peace in the world and, with it, the welfare of the nations.”
• Adolf Hitler – interview with Ward Price – January 1, 1935
• Adolf Hitler – interview at the Obersalzberg to the American journalist Pierre Huss – January 16, 1935
Question: Will the Social Democrats or Communists in the Saar and other non-National Socialist inhabitants of this territory who have cast their ballots for Germany have anything to fear in the future due to their former political leanings?
Answer: Sixteen years ago, I began my struggle for Germany with six men; that means my struggle for the German Volk. The number of my followers, towit, the followers of the National Socialist Movement of the new State, has risen to nearly thirty-nine million since then. Do you think that all these people did not belong to some other party before? No, at one time they were all part of some movement or another.
They have been won over to the National Socialist idea with labor and with time. And we will not give up this struggle for the soul of our Volk now.
Therefore, we never ask what an individual was in the past, but what he wants to be today. This is how we have succeeded in dissolving the feuding German parties and formed a true Volksgemeinschaft in which former Communists and adherents of the Center coexist, joined in their mutual struggle for the National Socialist State, the new Reich. But a part of this Reich is the Saar, and its inhabitants comprise a part of our Volk.
[…]
I have frequently stated that, after the return of the Saar to Germany, I would place no further territorial demands on France. I have repeated this statement definitively today before the whole world. In historical terms, it is a very difficult thing to renounce this as I am doing in the name of the German Volk. But I am making this most difficult sacrifice in order to contribute to the pacification of Europe. One cannot expect more from Germany. It is now up to the rest of the world to draw the consequences of such a decision. Never shall I-and never shall the new German Reich-consent to any limitations to the rights of our people. We wish to be a peaceful Volk, but under no circumstances without honor.
• Adolf Hitler – interview with Ward Price – March 9, 1936
• Adolf Hitler – interview with Ward Price – September 17, 1938
…
LikeLiked by 1 person
While you are looking those up …
• Hitler Democrat by Léon Degrelle
https://archive.org/details/hdblda
Start anywhere you like, but Chapter 14 is topical …
Audio Chapter 14 Hitler’s Social Revolution [29:30]
[audio src="https://archive.org/details/hdblda/Hitler+Democrat+by+L%C3%A9on+Degrelle/MP3/14.+Chapter+13.+Where+to+Find+the+Billions.mp3" /]
Clearly you have much looking up to do
LikeLiked by 1 person