I am less interested in whether Hastings is "right or wrong", but rather that his understanding and insight far surpasses the overwhelming majority of Western intellectuals and amateurs.  I still don't think he has any better than a 10% to 50% understanding (view or perspective), depending on the theme, and perhaps his "advantage" is based on a recent, better Western understanding and growing awareness of the predominance of the importance of the Eastern front for the European theatre, and for what happened.  For example I was ignorant of the huge "Bagration" offensive that destroyed Germany's army group center, albeit I was quite aware of Kursk (and of course Leningrad, Stalingrad, Manchuria July1939, and the shifting of army groups from the Japanese theatre to Europe).   We only speak of D-Day in June, which certainly was important to open up a Western front after Sicily and Italy, but which frankly was almost a non-event compared to Bagration and a host of Soviet offenses.  The Americans never met the main strength of the German army & airforce, and had only to deal with seriously under-resourced "left-overs".

My current impression is that to understand WWII, one must depend on (and carefully interpret) Russian authors who can do the thinking, but of course don't ignore Western accounts.   Unfortunately, I doubt that the best of the Russian data and analysis is available to us.

Icebreaker -  Two books were the wellsprings of a growing [suspicion, hunch] of an alternative theme related to Hitler's rise to paper :

Edvard Radzinski "Stalin: the first in-depth biography based on explosive new documents from Russia's secret archives"  1996 Doubleday division of Random House, 1997 1st edition by Anchor Books, 607pp  ISBN 0-385-47954-9

which led to :

Jung Chang, Jon Holliday Nov06 "Mao: The unknown story" First Anchor Books Edition, Published by Random House in Canada, 801pp, ISBN-13: 978-0-679-74632-4

Both books emphasized Stalin's role in successfully developing and promoting Mao Tse-Tung's leadership of China, and of course Soviets were and basically picking all Soviet Bloc leadership - with some wiggle room for Tito.  
followed by my crazy hunch :  that perhaps Stalin had clandestinely selected Hitler.  Initially I had nothing to base this on, but I did get some great hints from : 

William L. Shirer 1959, 1980 “The rise and fall of the Third Reich: A history of Nazi Germany”  Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York, 1249pp, ISBN-13: 978-0-671-72868-7

which justified digging further.  I speak neither Russian nor German, and frankly wouldn't have time to go though limitless first-hand documentation.   Almost two years later I was stunned when a friend (a year after I fist posed the question to him) recommended :

Viktor Suvorov 1988 “Icebreaker : Who started the second world war?”  Translated by Thomas B. Beattie, Hamish Hamilton, London, first published in London 1990  ???web link? -Howell lost this May2013 ??  I do have an electronic file, though

I could have killed him for not telling me that a year earlier, as I had hit a wall. 

According to Suvorov, the Soviet intent, starting perhaps as early as the 1924 to 1927 period, was to help to [develop, finance, network, launch into power]  "Icebreaker(s)" (unofficial codename - which presumably applied to a number of hopeful candidates), which meant a designated German leader who would rise to power, declare war on the "Western Imperialist Nations", and weaken them all to the point that the Soviet Army would sweep through Europe, and eventually conquer the world.  Suvorov is now one of my favourite WWII analysts.  I have no "belief" that this is a truth, just that it is a plausible and meaningful interpretation that leads to many, many sensible explanations.   It is always important to accommodate other perspectives beyond the usually flawed and stale mainstream [fashions -cum- cults -cum- religions] of our often (perhaps mostly?) pathetic intellectuals.

My father and I worked on that theme (I started a video - one hour made so far - with six to go) a few years ago, but I had to shelve it two years ago due to other priorities, plus I found that doing computer animations for the film, even for crude simple stuff, was very difficult.  I do intend to return to that project, but that may take another couple of years. 

Of course, when walking the plank, one might as well go all the way - and the theme has interesting, crazy] extensions to Roosevelt (starting with his turning a serious recession into the Great Depression), and now even Churchill's leadership - exactly what Stalin needed for Icebreaker.   I don't have any feel for the Japanese leadership - having been crushed by Zhukov in Manchuria - it doesn't appear that they ever dreamt of going back to tackle the Soviets unless the Germans defeated them.  But perhaps even that was a product of "sublime Soviet influence" on their leaders (Richard Sorge and some other key spies were among the greatest of the war, who and what else don't we know about).

Barbarossa -  Perhaps the most perplexing point of the war that I cannot understand is :  Why didn't Stalin hit the Germans prior to the launching of Barbarossa, as he had already planned and prepared for that, and was ready before the Germans?  His top spies consistently reported the general Barbarossa date starting at least a year earlier, with very solid confirmations starting perhaps Oct1940, Richard Sorge in Dec1940, and a succession of top spies and informants in winter/spring 1941.  Enigma information (not complete or reliable by any means as it was coming out) certainly confirmed this.  So I don't buy at all the the suggestion that he was caught totally by surprise. ("Stalin" and "he" is a vast over-simplifying personification - of course many Soviets were involved).  A variety of reasons seem plausible - such as a feeling that the Germans weren't ready with winter clothing, that it was best to be attacked to assume the victim's role to switch sides and get Britain and the USA as allies, etc etc.  But all explanations that I can remember, even collectively, are vastly inadequate to me.  Most funny of all is a ghost story - that he disappeared for several days as the tomb of his favourite historical figure, Tamerlane or Timur Lenkh - had been found, so he was there to see it at the critical time.   A curse was associated with the tomb - that disaster would befall any desecrator 2 to 3 days later - which is when Barbarossa hit.  Seems far-fetched, but sometimes why let the truth get in the way of a good yarn?

As it was, the Soviets effectively won the war, and everything Roosevelt did he did at the right thing, at the right time, in the right direction not for [the American interests, Allied cause, free peoples of the war], but when and where Stalin needed their action the most.  I don't thing Roosevelt ever really understood the war or his own actions, and even Churchill seems to have missed the main themes, and probably set the wrong course.

Anyways, if you can shine any light on that, true or false, it would be interesting.


Bill Howell
Volunteer firefighter, 2016-2018 President Hussar Lion's Club
1-587-707-2027     www.BillHowell.ca
P.O. Box 299, Hussar, Alberta, T0J1S0


-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	Audio file
Date:	Tue, 2 May 2017 00:41:40 +0000
From:	Gordon Ball <>
To:	<>