Operation Barbarossa
In this essay from 2001, Reinhold Oberlercher interprets Operation Barbarossa and its historical implications, presenting a perspective that diverges significantly from mainstream analysis.
Sixty years ago, on 22 June 1941, the German Wehrmacht crossed the demarcation line of the Soviet sphere of influence along a broad front.
The German Reich thus responded to the subversive warfare directed by Stalin’s Communist International, which had already brought Germany to the brink of a Bolshevik overthrow in the 1920s.
The European dimension of this defensive battle against the Asian counter-revolution was evident in the large number of foreign volunteers in the Waffen-SS, which thus became the first and so far only European army fit for war.
The question of whether the German Reich was the aggressor or merely preempted a Soviet attack is of secondary importance because states have the right to wage war.
The German Wehrmacht saved Western Europe and the larger part of Germany from Bolshevism. However, it could not prevent the destruction of European culture through the Americanization of lifestyles.
As long as National Socialism represented the national principle, that is, the right of self-determination of every people, it was on the road to victory. When it became imperialistic in the East and disregarded the right of self-determination of peoples, the path to defeat began.
In the West, the Wehrmacht triumphed because it represented the National Socialist principle. In the East, however, it had become a fascist-antique power and was categorically incapable of winning over the Eastern peoples, so Stalin’s oriental despotism could ally with the liberal capitalist states of the Anglo-Saxon naval powers, thereby gaining a historical reprieve of half a century.
The shadows of oriental despotism and the Asian mode of production (centralized planned economy) will only recede from the new Russia when the German people (and with them the peoples of the West) have freed themselves from the dictatorship of capital. Only then will the sacrificial journey of the German Wehrmacht and the European Waffen-SS, which stopped Stalin’s new Mongol invasion, have found its historical fulfillment.
(translated by Constantin von Hoffmeister)
So Glad to have Read this!
It is congruent with most histories written today, particuarly Stanley Payne, John Mosier or Albert Seaton.
One point, however, is that the Axis Powers really had little choice in policy once they became conquorers and occupiers. Contrary to the popular view, nationalists like Stepan Bandera were of little use to an alliance already factious and as quarrelsome as between Hitler and Mussolini. Japan hardly cooperated with the West at all. Atracting allies from among the Western powers was one thing. Creating them from conquored peoples is something only America would do and not very successfuly.
Remember all the treachery during WW1.
As for planned econmy, Geramny had been doing that since Frederick the Great. Germans were just a lot better at it than Stalin or FDR. Germans had developed a class of indutrialists who were not government apparatniks but were also not "robber barons". They were pretty haughty characters, the typical continental-British heute bourgeosie who craved noble titles but the Germans were far more conservative and the "von" retained more noblesse oblige even among those not chosen.
The Germans also understood the "SPectre of 1789" better than most. No coincidence that that the Papal Rerum Novarum came out in 1891 calling out labor as the basis of money and fair wages as the basis of economy much as Henry Ford had seen i.e. that no one would sell anything to workers who couldn't afford to buy anything. Wages and markets were two faces of the same thing. Money was merely instrumental whether an economy was planned or not. In fact, it is natural fores that compel regulation as well as impinge on other natural forces, like Robespierre.
The article is nonsense. The USSR was prepared for war against Germany immediately after WW1. The dimension of the industrial efforts made by the USA is indisputable (3 books of A. Sutton are very clear about it). V. Suvorov confirms that it was only a matter of months before the USSR attacked Germany. A.Hitler was moved to attack to anticipate the barbarian hordes. WEHRMACHT welcomed and embraced by the Ukrainian people is the proof that the German soldiers were liberators and EISENTZGRUPPE were the vindicators of millions of poor Ukrainians assassinated with the famine. The people commissars were their target, no people randomly. Therefore, National Socialism could play a role in installing a socialism that was not Marxist but the defeat closed any opportunity of freedom and socialism. How National Socialism "... disregarded the right of self-determination..." is absurd, because in the occupied territories there was never any time to establish a political model of state: war was ongoing.