Did Stalin Want War With Germany in 1941?

Announcing Revisionist History Newsletter issue no. 82

 (An editorial follows this announcement)

Did Stalin Want War With Germany in 1941?
Hitler's Struggle against the Moloch of the Soviet Union: Options and Consequences

Michael Hoffman’s controversial new study of Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union

Topics include: The Communist-Nazi Alliance, 1939-1941; The Role of Exterminationism in Leninism-Stalinism; NKVD Operations During Barbarossa, 1941-1942; The Commissar Order; Critique of Viktor Suvarov’s Stalin Attack Thesis; Adolf Hitler: British Agent?; Hitler, the German High Command and the Attempt to Conquer Moscow; Hitler’s Götterdammerung Fatalism; The German Defeat in Russia; and more.

Buy this issue as a single copy • or: Subscribe and begin your subscription with this issue no. 82

The following editorial was mailed to our subscribers with this issue:

Preserving Our Independence 

By Michael Hoffman

With our current issue no. 82, “Did Stalin Want War With Germany?,” we again trespass in a forbidden border-region ruled off-limits by true believers who call themselves revisionists. 

Though it is seldom applied to people on our side, the culture of victimhood is rife in our ranks. When we published Revisionist History newsletter no. 74, “Right Wing Myths with an Endless Shelf Life”, Belloc-Catholics were appalled that we had “victimized” them and their paragon, Hilaire Belloc. 

When in issue number 80 we vindicated Gregor Strasser from the charge that he had conspired in the violent overthrow of Adolf Hitler, and showed that Hitler was guilty of having this eminent German assassinated, Hitler’s fans howled. We had victimized their demigod. 

In both cases mature people who pride themselves on their ability to reason, joined the infantilized culture of victimhood which undermines the traditional virtues of comity and amity among scholars, marked by good-faith disagreement. 

When our research turned up the fact that Mr. Belloc was an atrocious historian, and that Hitler had snuffed out one of the most virtuous German National Socialists of his generation, the victimhood culture sprang into action, as it does on liberal college campuses and among the politically correct; how ironic that it manifests even in our ranks.

None of those who felt victimized have offered any surfeit of evidence to overturn our research. Reactions ranged from “How dare you!,” to citing Leon Degrelle’s sadly absurd disinformation, Hitler Democrat, wherein the author libels his fellow Catholic Gregor Strasser, according to the dictates of the oft-recycled mendacity concerning Strasser’s murder. This is revisionist? 

A substantial minority of our readers (in some cases, they are now former readers) crave, indeed seem to demand, disinformation when their own myths would otherwise be threatened by alternative data. They are deeply offended when we don’t play along. How does this attitude differ from the self-inflicted deception so prevalent in the rabbinic world? 

Our editorial mission is to cultivate strong individuals of character who are motivated by truth-seeking as the highest aspiration of their lives, not a herd who process reality through a lens of Hitlerism, or Catholics who can’t spot their own transformation into a rabbinic simulacra. Those who come to us seeking vindication of their most revered historical and religious illusions, will be bitterly disappointed.

In place of mutual dogmatic denunciation and ideological rancor we recommend the standard of disagreement in good faith, with mutual good will toward those who dissent from our own cherished beliefs (we all have them, whether we are aware of it or not). 

This good-faith disagreement should not be a tall order for revisionists, but it seems that some people pose as freethinking revisionists when they are actually Hitlerian or papalolatrous enthusiasts exploiting revisionism to advance their cultism. 

We have no patience for such dissembling when it raises its head among Zionists, why then should we avoid exposing it in our own camp? 

When challenged by facts, an authentic revisionist dutifully revises his or her views in the face of the new information. If he or she believes the challenge to be less than persuasive, the revisionist nevertheless graciously acknowledges the obligation of fellow revisionists to issue challenges to sacred cows. The genuine revisionist supports further research and exploration of taboo topics without limits on what can or cannot be expressed. 

There are other publications which cater to the heavy baggage of the true-believer. Those who feel victimized by our dissenting truth mission are welcome to embrace those publications and writers more comforting to their delicate belief systems. We seek overcomers willing to face the future armed with facts that can withstand the assault of the enemy, not clichés and stereotypes useful mainly for preaching to the choir, with little potential for persuading those who are not already in the fold. 

Throughout the history of rabbinic Talmudism, Judaic heretics who revealed anomalies in the rabbinic dogma were beaten, banished or killed. In the recent history of this newsletter, as we revealed anomalies in Right wing dogma, we have escaped beatings and death, but not boycotts, calumniating whispering campaigns and “exile” in the form of subscription cancellations and withdrawals of support. 

It’s remarkable that so many alleged opponents of Judaism exhibit unmistakable rabbinic attitudes of hostility toward advancements in learning. What should be our response? Preserve our financial bottom line by tailoring our work to suit this mentality, or risk everything to advance research independent of any agenda? 

At this juncture it is appropriate to acknowledge and thank our base of steadfast subscribers who are committed to sharing and sustaining our voyage of discovery. It is due to their dedication and support that we have been able to continue to publish this newsletter, which was founded as an organ for the rejection of processed thinking, and an entrée to a universe of audacious exploration that may yet yield a winning ideological strategy and political formula.

With our current issue no. 82, “Did Stalin Want War With Germany?,” sub-titled, “Hitler’s Struggle Against the Moloch of the Soviet Union: Options and Consequences,” we again trespass in a forbidden border-region ruled off-limits by true believers who call themselves revisionists. 

Since last autumn, when we announced our forthcoming study of Operation Barbarossa (the code name for Hitler’s invasion of Russia), readers have written letters and sent us books and articles, mostly in an effort to persuade us that the 1941 invasion was prudent, and absolutely necessary to the survival of NS Germany. Patently, readers care about what we think and what we publish, and that in itself is something. We in turn have read or at least perused everything that was sent, in addition to the research material which we gathered. Our conclusions will be found in issue 82. 

Whether we have pleased or disappointed, delighted or enraged, is no concern of ours. Our hard core supporters value our independence; that’s why they subscribe and renew their subscriptions year after year — because learning pays dividends and truth matters — or at least the pursuit of it, when that pursuit refuses to tailor itself to an agenda.

We are weary of defeat, deception and delusion. To break free is the purpose of our writing. Such freedom is not easily won. It comes at great cost, like all that is precious and exquisite in this life, foreshadowing eternity.

Copyright©2016

___________________