Stalin’s War? Mcmeekin v Irving

Although I finished reading David Irving’s controversial work a couple of months ago, I recently got my hands on Sean McMeekin’s new book Stalin’s War. This book is an excellent revisionist work, comparable in significance to Irving’s.

World War II is often viewed through the lens of the traditional narrative: a titanic struggle between the Allied forces and the Axis powers, with democracy and freedom triumphing over tyranny and aggression. However, revisionist historians such as David Irving and Sean McMeekin have challenged this conventional perspective, presenting provocative and often controversial interpretations of the conflict. By integrating insights from Irving’s and McMeekin’s works, a new narrative emerges, emphasizing the agency of individual leaders, the strategic calculations behind key events, and the broader geopolitical implications of the war.

Stalin’s Role in the Outbreak and Progression of the War

Sean McMeekin’s "Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II" reorients the focus of the war to Joseph Stalin, arguing that the Soviet leader was not merely a reactive participant but a strategic manipulator who played a central role in shaping the course of the conflict. McMeekin posits that Stalin’s geopolitical ambitions were instrumental in both the outbreak and the eventual outcome of the war. The Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939, which McMeekin highlights as a key moment, is emblematic of Stalin’s calculated approach. By allying with Hitler temporarily, Stalin secured time to build Soviet military capacity while enabling Germany to focus on its western campaigns.

David Irving’s works, including "Hitler’s War," provide a complementary perspective by delving into Adolf Hitler’s decision-making processes. Irving emphasizes Hitler’s initial reluctance to engage in a two-front war, suggesting that the pact with Stalin was a strategic necessity rather than a preferred alliance. This view aligns with McMeekin’s argument that Stalin was a proactive player who exploited Hitler’s vulnerabilities. Together, their insights reveal a more complex interplay between the two dictators, challenging the simplistic notion of a monolithic Axis threat and a purely defensive Soviet Union.

The Western Allies and the Question of Complicity

Both McMeekin and Irving critique the Western Allies’ policies during the war, albeit from different angles. McMeekin focuses on the extensive aid provided by the United States and Britain to the Soviet Union, particularly through the Lend-Lease program. He argues that this support, while essential for the Soviet war effort, ultimately empowered Stalin to consolidate control over Eastern Europe and expand Soviet influence globally. This raises moral and strategic questions about the Allies’ prioritization of defeating Nazi Germany over containing Soviet ambitions.

Irving’s critique centers on the Allies’ strategic bombing campaigns and their treatment of German civilians. He portrays these actions as excessive and sometimes unnecessary, suggesting that they reflect a moral equivalence between the warring sides. While McMeekin’s focus is on the consequences of aiding Stalin, Irving’s analysis underscores the ethical dilemmas inherent in the Allied war effort. Together, their perspectives invite a reevaluation of the moral high ground often attributed to the Western Allies.

Strategic Opportunism and the Shifting Alliances

One of the recurring themes in both Irving’s and McMeekin’s works is the opportunistic nature of wartime alliances. McMeekin illustrates how Stalin’s pragmatism allowed him to shift allegiances seamlessly, first aligning with Hitler and later with the Western Allies, always with the ultimate goal of Soviet expansion in mind. Irving’s portrayal of Hitler similarly highlights a leader driven by opportunism, albeit constrained by ideological commitments and miscalculations.

The Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam conferences serve as critical examples of this strategic maneuvering. McMeekin’s analysis of these meetings underscores Stalin’s skill in extracting concessions from Churchill and Roosevelt, who were more focused on immediate military objectives than on long-term geopolitical consequences. Irving, while less focused on Stalin, provides valuable context on Hitler’s increasingly desperate attempts to exploit divisions among the Allies, illustrating the high-stakes diplomacy that characterized the war.

Human Costs and Moral Ambiguities

Both historians grapple with the immense human costs of World War II and the moral ambiguities that accompanied it. McMeekin’s work highlights the atrocities committed under Stalin’s regime, including mass deportations, forced labor, and widespread famine, arguing that these actions rivaled or exceeded those of Nazi Germany in their scale and brutality. Irving, though criticized for minimizing the Holocaust in some of his writings, brings attention to the suffering of German civilians during the Allied bombing campaigns and the post-war expulsions of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe.

By examining these atrocities, both authors challenge the dichotomy of good versus evil that often dominates World War II narratives. Instead, they present a more nuanced picture of a conflict in which all major powers engaged in morally questionable actions, often driven by strategic imperatives rather than ethical considerations.

Post-War Consequences and the Cold War

The aftermath of World War II, as described by both McMeekin and Irving, set the stage for the Cold War. McMeekin’s emphasis on Stalin’s geopolitical gains—including the establishment of Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe—highlights the war’s role in transforming the Soviet Union into a superpower. Irving’s focus on the dismemberment of Germany and the imposition of punitive measures by the Allies complements this narrative, illustrating how the seeds of post-war tension were sown during the conflict itself.

Together, their works underscore the unintended consequences of the Allies’ strategies, which, while successful in defeating Nazi Germany, created a new global power dynamic that would dominate the latter half of the 20th century.

Conclusion

Integrating the insights of David Irving and Sean McMeekin offers a richer and more complex understanding of World War II. By shifting the focus from a binary conflict between good and evil to a multifaceted struggle shaped by individual agency, strategic opportunism, and geopolitical ambitions, their works challenge conventional narratives and invite a reevaluation of the war’s causes, conduct, and consequences. While their interpretations remain controversial and subject to debate, they serve as a reminder that history is never static and that reexamining the past can yield valuable new perspectives.