by Michael » Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:31 am
This is of course a debate that has gone on for a long time, ie, did the war actions of the National Socialists in Germany ultimately empower firstly the original Soviet political group, and secondly world Marxism? This is a very large subject, and Bill and others here at Christogenia have discussed it at length and from many different angles.
My personal opinion is the following:
Germans had long historical links with the Russian territories. By the time of the 1917 Revolution, there were millions of ethnic Germans living in Russia and Ukraine, mostly being Protestants that moved there for religous freedom from about the time of Catherine II, setting up agricultural businesses on the steppes. Of course also the Romanov Dynasty were also German. Therefore, those back in Germany knew very well what the Soviets were doing to these people from 1917 onwards, ie, killing them without mercy. Indeed, out of approximately 2 million germans in 3000 villages in Russia before 1917, almost all were killed. Approximately 230,000 made it to the US, and settled mostly in the Dakotas and Kansas. The Germans back in Germany were of course under no illusion as to who was behind the killing, and of course behind the ideology of Marxism.
So when the Marxist agitation started during the economic trouble in Germany post WWI, the Germans reacted. It was certainly by no means easy going for the Nationalists, as many Germans first supported the Communist ideas. However, ultimately they supported Nationalism, as I believe Nationalism represents true working together for an end goal. Whereas communism feeds off inter-citizen jeolousy, greed, laziness, and lack of individual responsibility. Evidence of this is the fact that the original Soviet states of Russia, Ukraine, and Belorussia today are unable to pull themselves out of corruption and rampant crime. If the people that remained there post Soviet slaughter were folk that could work together honestly, they would have quickly developed Russia and Ukraine. But they can't. So this shows the type of individual, family, and community ethics and morals that survived Soviet Russia, and indeed underpinned communism itself.
The real question is of course, with communism beaten in Germany and Middle Europe, why did they invade Russia? Bill has to my knowledge done at least one podcast on this question in particular. My personal opinion is that they firstly had military intelligence correctly showing that the Soviets had been amassing military capability, and this situation was only going to get worse if they delayed an attack, and they thought they could strike while Germany was strong. Socondly, they believed that the earlier they did it, the more chance they had of support from the local population in Ukraine and Russia, given that the highest amount of killing of Russian and Ukrainian citizens was only a few years hitherto, and so support from the general populace was likely to be strong. Indeed, they did have that support to a considerable degree, however, the size of Russia, ithe fact that they could never reach the military production facilities, combined with the support the Soviets were recieving from the US and the Allies with military hardware, and the second front in the West, and Japan attacking other Asian neighbours instead of Russia in the East, undid them.
In my opinion the Soviet victory did help communism in the immediate term, but ultimately helped to rid communism in its overt form from Europe earlier then would otherwise be the case had the German led coalition not invaded. It helped communism not in so much as any grand world ideological scheme, but firstly in the minds of the locals in Russia and Ukraine, as the leadership used the victory as a point of pride, and the locals bought into it, (the ones that didn't of course wound up in Gulags). Secondly, a pliant local population allowed the production process in Russia/Ukraine/Belorussia to greatly expand, and this then allowed them to genuinely look beyond their borders and provide physical economic support for Asian and African states, with food, fuel, and arms the most common support. Importantly however, could they have provided this support to other states if Germany had not invaded? The answer is obviously yes, just perhaps a bit slower than occurred.
These states in Africa and Asia, by the very nature of the races there, support collective living, and are not industrious peoples. Yes, I know Asia has huge industry there, but none of the technology is their own invention, and they survive only because we fools in the West buy their products. Why do I mention this? Because the Communists were never really successful in imposing comminism in the states that they took over in Middle Europe, as the Soviets were so busy expanding in Asia and Africa, that they did not carry out the liquidation process to the same extent that they had done on their original ethnic Russians and Ukrainians (save as to Romania where the liquidation post-WWII mirrored that of pre-WWII Russia). Thus, in these areas populations started acting against the Soviet Union, and combined with a failed campain in Afganistan, as well as under provision of food for the local population due to sending so much to Asia and Africa, and communist inside jew's expectations of privatising state assets to themselves and their families, and the fact that the West had moved towards Marxist thinking anyway, the need for an openly omnipotent military communist control mechanism was gone.
Would the Soviet Union have disbanded if the people in Middle Europe had not been so active in opposing it? I think certainly not as early as it did. So herein lies an interesting point. If Germany had not invaded, the original Soviet states would still have found favour in Asia and Africa, and gained support there, as well the UK and America were well on their way to marxist liberal political bias before WWII anyway. However Germany did invade, and lose, and Middle Europe was occupied, and the opposition to communist rule in Middle Europe helped fasten the decline of the Soviet Union as a political entity.
The same set of circumstances are occurring in respect to the UK, France and the USA presently. Years of trying to conquer the Middle East is destroying these states, that were corrupt a long time before these military campaigns were instigated. The loss in these campaigns however is hopefully hastening the end to the corrupt leadership of these states. Certainly the difficulties facing American, British, and French folk is making them seek knowledge. Whatever the case, it all has to be to Yahweh's plan.
Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Matthew 7 16-19 KJV
