Prospect (UK): Should Great Britain have fought with Stalin the same way as with Hitler? | Science | Inosmi

Prospect-magazine, UK
Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin during a historic conference in Moscow on September 13, 1942

© AP Photo, Newsreel

The well-known English historian, former director of the Churchill National Archives, calls the American scientist McMeekin’s regret that England did not go to war with the USSR, as with Nazi Germany, as “absurd”. He considers this idea a “revision” of history, and evaluates the new work of the American as “essentially erroneous.”

Piers Brendon

During World War II, Churchill and Roosevelt teamed up with one assassin dictator to defeat another. In his revisionist historical work Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II, historian Sean McMeekin (Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II) argues that after the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939, Britain had to oppose both Hitler, and against Stalin. The bombing of the Baku oil fields by Britain, which provided fuel for the brutal conquests of both dictators, should have turned this war into a “principled battle against totalitarian aggression.”

McMeekin also argues that, having missed this chance, Western democracies were absurdly generous in providing Russia with Lend-Lease goods. Indeed, it presents an overwhelming inventory of the means by which capitalism has supported communism. After Stalin restored the tsarist military shoulder straps to the Soviet army, Lend-Lease aid included, among other things, about three million yards of gold braid worth $ 7 million. In addition to weapons, the United States supplied oil to the Soviet Union in such huge quantities that it was rumored that the Russians were using it to lubricate their boots. Meanwhile, American housewives had to settle for margarine.

According to McMeekin, Roosevelt was so magnanimous that “it is difficult to shake off the impression that Soviet agents of influence then took over the White House.” And in exchange for these generous gifts, McMeekin argues, the West “never received anything.” In fact, the Russians paid for this help in blood. Democratic leaders were not in the least deceived about Stalin, but even they were aware of the colossal sacrifices that Russia suffered on the Eastern Front, where Germany had 80% of all its losses on the battlefields of World War II.

As you can see from these numbers, the idea that in 1940 Britain had to challenge the Red Army, like the German Wehrmacht, is completely absurd. It would, of course, be noble to go to the aid of the valiant Finns, but it would lead to our sure defeat. Of course, the Kremlin tyrant was disgusting, and no one understood the full horror of Moloch of Bolshevism better than Churchill. He and Roosevelt made forced concessions to Stalin, but thereby achieved the destruction of Hitler.

While Sean McMeekin’s book is not always accurate in detail (General Brooke was not Churchill’s “Air Chief”), it is based on fairly extensive research.

But, like the previous work of this historian from Bard College (a prestigious private liberal arts university of liberal arts and sciences, located in the state of New York, USA – ed.), In which Russia was unjustifiably accused of unleashing the First World War, it completely erroneous in essence.

READ  Brexit News: Italian fishermen angry as UK seizes EU tuna quota | Policy


Pierce Brandon is a former director of the Winston Churchill Memorial Archives (Britain’s largest historical and documentary archives center in Cambridge, British National Treasure – ed.), And is currently a Senior Fellow at Churchill College at the University of Cambridge.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign mass media and do not reflect the position of the Inosmi editorial board.

Follow us on Twitter and receive translations of materials from foreign media every hour.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.