by Scott Humor
from my History Files
Particular attention should to be paid to the fact that it was the Anglo-Saxons that in 1943 set up several temporary occupation zones in Germany. It was them, also, who were making plans of fragmentation of Germany into a number of mini states. In fact, their idea of the post-war Germany was to repeat the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, that for over three hundred years eliminated Germany as a single nation from the European history.
The principled position of the Soviet Union in relation to unified Germany, Joseph Stalin made on February 23rd 1942 in the ORDER of the PEOPLE’S COMMISSAR OF DEFENSE OF THE USSR #55 Moscow
“The foreign press says sometimes that the Red Army aims to exterminate the German nation and destroy the German state. This, of course, is a silly nonsense and stupid slander against the Red Army. The Red Army can have no such idiotic purposes.
The Red Army aims to expel the German occupiers from our country and to liberate the Soviet lands from the German fascist invaders. It is very likely that the war for the liberation of Soviet lands will lead to the expulsion and destruction of Hitler’s clique. We would welcome such outcome. But it would be ridiculous to identify Hitler’s clique with the German people, with German country. The knowledge of history shows that the “hitlers” come and go, but the German people and the German state remains.”
The second most important public statement showing that the Soviet Union position was a preservation of Germany was made by Joseph Stalin on May 9, 1945, in his radio address to the Soviet people on the Victory Day over Germany. The text was published by newspaper Pravda on May 10th, 1945. It’s known as the Speech of the Supreme Commander J. V. Stalin on May 9, 1945
“Three years ago Hitler publicly declared his goals including a dismemberment of the Soviet Union and separation from it the Caucasus, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and other regions. He stated bluntly: “We will destroy Russia, so that she will never be able to rise up, ever again”.
It was three years ago. But the mad ideas of Hitler were not destined to come true, the course of the war scattered them to the winds. In fact, something completely opposite took place to what the Germans raved. Germany is defeated. The German troops surrender. The Soviet Union is celebrating victory, although it does not intend to dismember or destroy Germany.”
Quoted by the edition of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, The Complete Collection of works, Volume 15
The Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers of the USSR, USA and Great Britain from 19 to 30 October, 1943.
On October 25th, 1943, during the discussion of the Allies’ plan presented by Cordell Hull “Basic Principles Regarding German Surrender.”
My translation of the official transcript of conversation between Anthony Eden and Molotov
“Eden: In relation to the permanent status of Germany. We would like to have a division of Germany into separate states. Particularly, we would like to separate Prussia from the rest of Germany. We would therefore encourage… the separatists movement in Germany… It would be interesting to know an opinion of the Soviet government on this issue.”
“Molotov: I say to Mr. Eden and Mr. Hull: In all measures of the allies aimed at maximizing the neutralization of Germany as an aggressive state, the Soviet government supports the UK and the United States of America. Is this enough or not enough?”
“Eden. I would like to know what You, Mr. Molotov, think about this question that we are discussing. In London… we came to the conclusion that it would be exclusive to know Your opinion and an opinion of Marshal Stalin concerning dismemberment of Germany… the challenge presented here is whether we should try to use force…”
“Molotov: “The Soviet government is most likely behind in studying of this issue… Our leaders are now busy with military problems”.
Who divided Germany in 1945: What should Germans and Russians remember, by Sergey Brezkun, a Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences.
The Tehran Conference between Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill, 28 November to 1 December 1943
On December 1, Roosevelt, during the conversation with Stalin face to face during the breakfast said, “Shall we discuss the partition of Germany?”
Stalin replied: “I don’t mind”. [He meant that he didn’t mind to discuss the question. S.H.]
When the official discussion started, Roosevelt immediately declared that he would like to discuss the questions of Poland and Germany.
Stalin asked, if there were some other topics for a discussion.
Roosevelt immediately responded: “the Dismemberment of Germany.”
According to the stenographic record:
“Churchill: I am for the dismemberment of Germany. But I would like to consider the question of the dismemberment of Prussia, also. I’m for the separation of Bavaria and other provinces from Germany.”
“Roosevelt: I would like to state that I compiled by myself two months ago a plan for the dismemberment of Germany into five states.”
“Churchill: The root of evil in Germany is Prussia.”
“Roosevelt: Prussia must be weakened and reduced in size…… the second part… must be enabled in Hanover and North-Western regions of Germany. The third part of Saxony and a district of Leipzig. The fourth part is the Hessian province, Darmstadt, Kassel and the areas located to the South of the Rhine and the old town of Westphalia. A fifth of Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg. Each of these five parts will represent an independent state. In addition, the part of Germany should be allocated to the areas of the Kiel canal and Hamburg…”
“Churchill: What You have stated is just a mouthful… I believe that there are two issues: one destructive and the other constructive. I have two thoughts. First is the isolation of Prussia…; the second is the separation of the southern provinces of Germany — Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg, Palatinate, from the Saar to Saxony inclusive… I think that the southern province is easy to tear from Prussia and to include into the Danube Confederation…”
Stalin remained silent during this exchange.
“Stalin: I don’t like the plan for new associations (Stalin had in mind, of course, a collection of small artificial states. S.H. ). No matter how we approached the question of the dismemberment of Germany, it is not necessary to create a stillborn Association of the Danube countries. Hungary and Austria must exist separately from each other…”
“Roosevelt: I agree with Marshal Stalin…”
“Churchill: I don’t want to be interpreted as if I am not for dismemberment of Germany. But I wanted to say that if you divide Germany into several parts, then, as Marshal Stalin said that the time will come when the Germans will unite.”
“Stalin. There are no measures that would eliminate the possibility of the unification of Germany.”
“Churchill. Marshal Stalin prefers a divided Europe?”
“Stalin. What does Europe have to do with all this? I don’t know whether to create four, five or six independent German States. This issue needs to be discussed. But it is clear to me that it is not necessary to create new unions of states.”
Sergey Kremlev, The Myths about 1945, Moscow. Publishing House Eksmo, 2010.
Кремлёв Сергей. Название: Мифы о 1945 годе. … Издательский дом: Яуза : Эксмо. Год издания: 2010
The Potsdam Conference
From The Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. Georgiĭ Konstantinovich Zhukov.
“A serious discussion we had of the question that was brought up, yet again, by the delegations of the United States and England, on the dismemberment of Germany into three States: 1) Southern Germany; 2) Northern Germany; and 3) the Western Germany.
The first time this question was raised by them at the Crimean Conference, which was rejected by the Soviet delegation.
In Potsdam, the head of the Soviet government again dismissed the question of the dismemberment of Germany.
J. V. Stalin used to say: “We should not allow in relation to the German people this historical injustice. The German people would never agree with artificial dismemberment of their homeland. This proposition we reject, it is unnatural. What we have to accomplish is not to dismember Germany, but to make it democratic and peace-loving state.”
The Soviet delegation at the Potsdam Conference insisted on an inclusion of a provision into the Potsdam conference final document a provision on the establishment of Central German administrative departments.
However, because of the opposition of the representatives of the Western powers, this decision was latter breached and discarded. The central government departments have not been established, and the unification of Germany on a peaceful and democratic basis, as envisaged in Potsdam, was not achieved.
It was Stalin who insisted during the Potsdam Conference that the Resolution of the Potsdam Conference included the following statement:
“The allies are not going to destroy or cast into slavery the German people. The allies intend to give to the German people the opportunity to prepare to continue to implement the reconstruction of their life on a democratic and peaceful basis.”
“THE POTSDAM CONFERENCE: 17 July to 2 August 1945.
THE MESSAGE OF THE BERLIN CONFERENCE OF THE THREE POWERS
Tehran – Yalta – Potsdam, Collection of documents, compiled by: W. P. Sanakoev, B. L. Cybulski. 2nd edition. Moscow.: Publishing house “International relations”, 1970. – 416 p.
On the last day of the Potsdam Conference Stalin twice spoke directly about a need for “a central administrative apparatus for Germany”, without which “the general policy against Germany is difficult to conduct”. [From Stalin’s point of view, the central administration for Germany could prevent the Allies from dividing the country, as they insisted. S.H.]
On the same day, talking about the preservation of the Ruhr industrial area in Germany, Stalin proposed in the final document of the Conference to make a record that the Ruhr area was to remain a part of Germany.
When the British foreign Minister Ernest Bevin asked, why Stalin even mentioned this question, Stalin said that “the idea of a separate Ruhr area has emerged initially from the thesis of the dismemberment of Germany,” and further said:
“After that there has been a change of views on this issue. Germany will remain a united country. The Soviet delegation asks this question: do you agree that the Ruhr area was left in Germany? That’s why this issue is brought up here.”
Truman agreed. Bevin whose government wanted to get their control over Ruhr, said that he needed to consult his government. He also said: “We offer not to create any central German government for some time.’
The History Of Germany . Volume 2. From the creation of the German Empire until the beginning of the XXI century
History of Germany : textbook : in 3 volumes / ed. by Y. V. Galaktionov. — Moscow: KDU, 2008.
On the first day of the Yalta conference, 4 February 1945
In response to Churchill’s offer to discuss “namely, on the future of Germany and if it even will have any future,” Stalin briefly and sternly answered: “Germany will have a future.”
When the discussion started in Yalta, Stalin said that “if the allies intend to dismember Germany, so it is necessary to say so.”
On February 5, 1945 Roosevelt stated that “under current conditions” he “doesn’t see any other ways out for Germany, but dismemberment”.
Stalin with his usual dark humor asked: “How many parts? Six to seven or less?”
This principle position to be against the dismemberment of Germany Stalin maintained until the end of the war. And this became the official position of the USSR.
THE POSITION OF THE USSR was against THE MORGENTHAU PLAN
Although, the Soviet Union suffered more than anyone else at the hands of German fascism, it, however, took a humane position.
Prior to May 9th, the US and Allies undertook numerous attempts to push the USSR cooperation on the division of Germany.
First Stalin was presented with the Hans Morgenthau plan of division of Germany, which was approved by Churchill and Roosevelt. Stalin rejected this plan.
The Morgenthau plan included the dismemberment of Germany, the transition of important industrial areas under international control, elimination of heavy industries, demilitarization and transformation of Germany into an agrarian country.
This second Morgenthau plan was proposed on September 1944 at the 2nd Quebec conference, which was attended by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. Stalin didn’t attend this conference. At the conference a Memorandum was signed, according to which Germany was supposed to become a predominantly agrarian country.
Latter, due to the opposition of the USSR the plan in its original form was rejected, however, in post-war Germany, the American administration has taken a number of measures to limit economic development (in particular, Directive JCS 1067).
On March 26, 1945, when, in accordance with the decisions made at the Yalta Conference, the commission on the dismemberment of Germany began its work in London, the Soviet representative at the Commission, F. T. Gusev, on behalf of the Soviet government sent to the Chairman of European Advisory Commission Anthony Eden a letter with the following statement:
“The Soviet government sees the decision of the Crimean Conference on the dismemberment of Germany as not a mandatory plan for the dismemberment of Germany, but as a possible perspective for the pressure on Germany to protect the USSR in case other means should prove insufficient”.
From this statement on any actual discussions of the dismemberment of Germany with the participation of the Soviet Union had stopped.
After the WWII
from the Interview of I.V. Stalin to the Moscow correspondent of the Sunday Times Mr. Alexander Werth, from September 17, 1946.
Source: Stalin I. V. Works. – Vol. 16. – Moscow.: Publishing house “Pisatel”, 1997. P. 37-39.
“In short, the policy of the Soviet Union in terms of the German question comes down to the demilitarization and democratization of Germany…. The demilitarization and democratization of Germany are one of the most important guarantees of lasting and sustainable peace.”
——————
Scott Humor
Director of Research and Development
author of The enemy of the State
In case you have forgotten what happened in Ukraine, this book should refresh your memory with the incredibly precise and humorous chronicles: ANTHOLOGY OF RUSSIAN HUMOR: FROM MAIDAN TO TRUMP
Another really interesting article from Scott.
Notably, the US, French & British military zones in post-war Germany unified their currencies and excluded Russia & the Russian zone, I vaguely recall.
and that was the “wall” . 1948
Some time ago I saw the movie “Ich war neunzehn” (I was nineteen), which depicts the advance of a young soldier (nineteen) of the Red Army, German-born, that, as a German speaking, had to make announcements, talks, and act as a temporary major of German towns, try to convince German soldiers to surrender instead of stubbornly die.
Well, what struck me was not that much the story (even if it was a completely untold one from this side of the information curtain) but the Love and Faith in the future.
Never EVER did I feel something similar from a West movie about WW2.
In West movies, Germans are depicted as mere figurants, or even simply stupid. Or, in case of the West-Germany made movies, as poor souls that just lived passively a great tragedy, without any possibility to make their own destinies (like in the West-German made “Stalingrad”).
“I was 19” was very different. There were Germans with free will (the young protagonist, but also some others), able to make though but meaningful choices.
Also, the relationship of Germans (soldiers, civilians) and the soldiers of the Red Army were depicted very differently than in the West-Propaganda.
In West propaganda the Red Army were a bunch of illiterate savages that destroyed, raped, and looted, with heartless officers that send waves to the death just to enjoy the spectacle of a bloodbath.
In “I was 19” you see humanity; You see soldiers that know what they endured, but that also know that they have won, and act benevolently. They don’t see the vanquished as subhumans to splat, but as their brothers in Mankind, that had been terribly lost and need help.
After What I had learned from Russia (and this article from Scott is just another piece), I’m convinced that the view of “Ich war neunzehn” is much more closer to the reality of what happened then in 1945, and the way the soviet soldiers felt.
Yes, that’s absolutely true. Another personal example in contrast to western propaganda: my grandma had six little children after end of WWII in the Soviet zone. My grandpa left his family alone and went to the west. Beside the house where they lived was a soviet military camp. Without the food given by the soldiers my mother and her brother and sisters wouldn’t have survided and had died of hunger.
Brits trying to stay relevant by sponsoring movies like Dunkirk and Churchill.
Even advertising Churchill in kids movies.
Angry birds cartoon character inspired by Churchill?
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71VRPMGPL3L._SY355_.jpg
I say YES! :D
The Nazi ideology could never take hold if it wasn’t already accepted by the populace. It is ingrained in the German DNA.
That is a racist statement as defined by moderation policy #4 (/moderation-policy/)
I am therefore removing the rest of the comment
The Saker
“It is ingrained in the German DNA”. Good point! That is exactly what some people say about the Jews so it must be true.
Exactly. Multi-century behavioral patterns are extremely hard to change.
So, I called it “ingrained in the DNA”, some might call it “part of this and that soul”.
No bad intentions on my part. Anyways, truth cannot be denied and we shall soon see
how things develop.
As the Russian the German would have been peace loving peoples. It was all about destroying Germany and Russia – a truly demoniac plan of some Anglo-zionist daemons. They first destroy Russia through the Bolshevik revolution https://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/10/31/trotsky-the-wall-street-thug/
Then they put Hitler in place in Germany and drive him to war as they drive the Soviet-Union to war against Germany. It was all about destroying and weaken both country and at the end of WWII crush Germany. See https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/14/hellstorm-the-documentary/
Remember the following photos and think: endless!
http://i.imgur.com/3cDHOIu.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/bb/a4/01/bba401da28219896eb01614bd62d1bcc–nuremberg-rally-nazi-party.jpg
Those shouldn’t violate any moderation policy.
if we would have lived in Germany at that time we could have been there also. do not forget that Germany and the German people were in an extremely bad shape and that Hitler drastically improved living conditions. most people are followers everywhere.
LOL, and what an apologist!
So lets debunk each claim 1 by 1:
1) “Germany and the German people were in an extremely bad shape”
They surely didn’t had it any worse than other European peoples.
Many nations faced dark times, for instance Russians after the break-up of the Soviet Union,
yet noone rallied around a genocidal maniac.
Btw, Germans were just butt-hurt for loosing WW1. Their Empire-building failed,
the Berlin-Baghdad railroad was stopped. And lets not forget…
“The British military historian Correlli Barnett claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was “extremely lenient in comparison with the peace terms that Germany herself, when she was expecting to win the war, had had in mind to impose on the Allies”. Furthermore, he claimed, it was “hardly a slap on the wrist” when contrasted with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany had imposed on a defeated Russia in March 1918, which had taken away a third of Russia’s population (albeit of non-Russian ethnicity), one-half of Russia’s industrial undertakings and nine-tenths of Russia’s coal mines, coupled with an indemnity of six billion marks.[120] Eventually, even under the “cruel” terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany′s economy had been restored to its pre-war status.”
(taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles)
…but butt-hurt Germans will forever cry about unfair Treaty of Versailles’ conditions.
2) “Hitler drastically improved living conditions”
He sure did for the Germans, but he did so by enslaving other European peoples and
taking all their resources and productive output for free.
And the German peoples loved it. So they were complicit with the Nazi mass-murdering thieving elite. And this elite, didn’t come out of nowhere or out of space, no, they have risen up from the populace. Never forget.
You ought to read David Icke’s “Children of the Matrix” and then you just might start to question some of your incredibly one-sided beliefs.
Eye witness H K Smith analyzed the mooted claims about nazi and Hitler improvements in conditions. I have read that analysis, and you may do so too. Smith got his PhD from Heidelberg…
Smith noted that the improvements were the result of Wiemar actions, not nazi actions…and that the nazis had lowered living standards in real objective material terms, as well as suspending law.
Do not recall false claims as fact except in magical thinking fairytales.
It may be that many matters are encoded into DNA, but that an ideology could be held in DNA is frankly absurd, as ideologies are by definition social constructs and immediate situational methods of seeing in the social or political arena… and DNA exists in the wet warm cell nucleus, not the stage and audiences of Nuremberg… No material agency, Comrade.
Scott has done a great job.
Some may see similar strains in the arguments of today between the “partners”…over just about everything.
““Three years ago hitler publicly declared his goals including a dismemberment of the Soviet Union and separation from it the Caucasus, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and other regions. He stated bluntly: “We will destroy Russia, so that she will never be able to raise [rise] up, ever again”.” – Who gave hitler that idea? It is so very close to the USG’s position regarding Russia – and not forgetting that dumb moron camoron, the former British p m, who stated he wanted to see the eu up to the Urals… – of keeping it weak and unable to rise up to challenge the USA, as stated in the original jewish neocon doctrine of wolfowitz, and furthered in PNAC. Also, morgenthau was a jew…
As the USG plan is to turn ukraine into an agricultural country, despite it not being a war aggressor against other nations, like the evil US Empire is, they would quite possibly like to do the same to Russia, as well as making it a GMO country, where they can experiment on GMO crops there and use either/both countries as a testing ground.
This is not far-fetched, as the USAF wanted to collect DNA samples from Russians, withOUT asking them or Putin, which is yet more proof of the satanic nature of washington dc.
“We will destroy Russia, so that she will never be able to raise [rise] up, ever again”.” – Who gave hitler that idea?
I find the books by Antony Sutton and Nikolai Starikov very interesting and persuasive, even if a lot of what they say is conjecture. Both authors cover the same issues and come to similar conclusions, Sutton from a Western perspective, and Starikov from a Russian point of view, especially on the question of “Who gave hitler that idea?”
You can do an internet search to find these books, I’ve been reading them online from free internet sources. It was actually a commenter here named Paul who clued me into Starikov, and I’ve been aware of Sutton for quite some time, but have only recently began to study his work.
Yes, keep on pimping that Starikov book that was revealed long ago
as Nazi revisionism.
Hmmm, a pro-Russian, pro-Stalin book is Nazi revisionism? Sutton and Starikov do not defend Hitler’s crimes, they only shed light on who secretly supported him and helped him get into position to commit those crimes.
Maybe you are confusing Starikov with Suvorov, an entirely different author whose book “Icebreaker” did in fact “defend” Hitler while defaming Russia and Stalin.
(I used to be very anti-Stalin from growing up in the west during the cold war, but while I’m sure he was no angel, wisdom of age and more information is causing me to re-evaluate many of my long held beliefs. And it is the influence of western authors such as Antony Sutton that has made more impact than Russian ones, or at least shown that the claims of Russian authors such as Starikov are plausible.)
This is true, Stalin was for a neutral, non-aligned, non-socialist but “popular” (somewhat of transition mixed-economy model) Germany in Europe. Lavrenti Beria was fully supportive of that. Even German Communist Party was moving to an alliance with Social democrats to foster a Popular Front to compete in the political game of the future country.
USSR did not want to create de DDR-GDR. They created AFTER Atlanticists created BND-FRG, whichwas sennas a threat.
This account of Stalin supposedly standing up for the rights of the German people against the dark plans of United States’ President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) [1] and Winston Churchill is not consistent with my understanding of the Second World War.
Throughout the war, German people as a whole were demonised by Soviet propagandists, the most notorious of which was Ilya Ehrenburg (see Appendix below).
Whilst humanity is indebted to the Red Army for defeating Nazi Germany, this cannot excuse its treatment of conquered Germans, both military and civilian, after 1944.
From my reading of books about the war on the Eastern Front, many Red Army soldiers acted on Ilya Ehrenburg’s advice in the Appendix below. Paradoxically, this almost certainly made the already terrible Red Army Death toll even higher[2] as many German soldiers rightly feared the consequences of the Red Army’s conquest of Germany.
Appendix: From Ilya Ehrenburg’s leaflet “Kill” which incited Soviet soldiers to treat Germans as sub-human
“The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day … If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another — there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German — that is your grandmother’s request. Kill the German — that is your child’s prayer. Kill the German — that is your motherland’s loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill.”
Footnotes
[1] For all his shortcomings, I believe that FDR is the one person whose actions spared humankind from enslavement by Nazi Germany and its allies.
Prior to Pearl Harbour, Americans, understandably opposed entry into the Second World, following their partcipation in the fratricidal slaughter of the First World War in which they lost 117,465 lives (which was less than a third of what they were to lose by September 1945).
FDR’s seemingly Macchaevellian ploy of getting the Japanese to ‘fire the first shot’ at Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941 (see “Day of Deceit – the Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbour” (2001) by Robert Stinnett), convinced the vast majority of American public to support America’s entry into the war against Japan and then Nazi Germany. This utimately cost 419,400 American lives. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths . As terrible as this death toll was, it was still only a small fraction of the 25 million lost by the Soviet Union – see Footnote [2].)
[2] The loss of so many Red Army lives is hardly less terrible than the Jewish Holocaust. According to one televised documentary I saw years ago in the 1970s, of every 200 Red Army soldiers alive on 22 June 1941, only 3 lived until the end of the war. Some Russian historians try to obfuscate this terrible tragedy by claiming that most of the dead were civilians – as if a country’s armed forces is not supposed to protect the lives of of its people. Given that the distinction between civilians and resistance fighters is not clear, this breakdown is questionable.
One reason that so many Red Army soldiers died was Stalin’s 1938 purge of the Red Army, which left it with only a fraction of the capable leaders that it had prior to the purge. (See “An Army Without Leaders: the Purges of the Red Army Officer Corps, 1937-38″(10/12/2001) by Professor Pollock at http://www.lindsayfincher.com/papers/hist101paper_red_army_purges.pdf).
No, I don’t think the millions of refugees fleeing the Soviet Army, many of which were incinerated in the Allied holocaust of German civilians characterized by the Dresden firestorm – were victims of propaganda. I tend to believe the stories told of multitudes of rapes of Berlin women by the occupying Soviet Army. It is factual that the ethnic cleansing of Germans from the East after WW2 compares to the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Poland during WW2. The death rates in the camps of German refugees immediately after WW2 compares to the death rates in the German camps at the end of the war without the excuses that the Germans had.- the almost complete destruction of the transportation and distribution services by Allied bombing. Both sides committed war crimes of monstrous dimension.
” the excuses that the Germans had ” – yes, the Germans were very good at excuses.
The barbarity diplayed by Germans in the Nazi era was the culmination of generations of Teutonic and Prussian militarism.
The monetary costs demanded by the Versailles Treaty were less than Germany had spent on its war effort.
They were willing to pay for war but unwilling, but able, to pay for peace.
The USSR may have opposed splitting Germany but I have a hard time believing this was principled. This is the same Stalin, after all, who was perfectly happy liquidating Soviet societies such as the Chechens or Tartars.