Jan Olof Bengtsson

Mer om Michael J. Carleys “revisionism”. Förutom Jackson Hinkles, Glenn Diesens, och Pascal Lottaz’ kortare intervjuer med honom under hösten stod den australiensiske historikern Jeff Rich för en större introduktion av honom för en vidare internationell publik som han själv hänvisar till, i form av en lång, i många delar uppdelad intervju på sin kanal The Burning Archive (han har också en substack med samma namn och även en annan nätplats). Rich har tidigare flera gånger intervjuats av Lottaz om dagens geopolitiska situation och utveckling. Så här beskriver han sin Carley-serie:

“Deep dive interviews with Professor Michael Jabara Carley on the failed 1930s diplomacy that led to World War Two. Why did leaders in Europe and the Soviet Union fail to prevent the war they feared? We dive into his three books based on deep archival research in Russia, Britain and France – Stalin’s Gamble, Stalin’s Failed Alliance and Stalin’s Great Game.”

Här är serien i sin helhet, med Richs korta beskrivande texter om varje avsnitt. Men se också min tidigare kommentar om Carley och intresset för honom.

Is Stalin to BLAME for WW2? The true story from the Soviet Archives

The true story of how the West and the USSR failed to stop the threat of fascism in the 1930s is NOT what you think. Prof. Michael J. Carley gives a masterclass in the history of the failed diplomacy (“appeasement”) that led to the outbreak of World War Two and the disaster of the German invasion of the Soviet Union. From Munich 1938 to Churchill’s Operation Unthinkable – be prepared to change how you see the origins of World War Two and the history of the Cold War in the twentieth century.

How Stalin’s Gamble to Form an Anti-German Alliance FAILED 

In this deep dive history interview, Prof. Michael J. Carley gives a masterclass in how the Western powers – Poland, Romania, Italy, USA, France and, of course, Britain – rebuffed Stalin’s offer of a defensive alliance against Germany. The divided societies of the West were tempted by fascism. The USSR fell into the 1930s Terror. By 1936, war broke out in Spain, Germany marched into the Rhineland, and the Purges and other disasters devastated the Soviet Union. Was World War Two “precisely the war Stalin wanted” (Sean McMeekin, Stalin’s War)? Not according to leading historian Prof. Michael J. Carley. The story from the archives of how the world fell into this crisis of war is not what you have been told.

Poland and the Failed Alliance before World War Two 

What was Poland’s role in the start of World War II and the failed diplomacy of 1930s Europe? Victim of an aggressive Germany and USSR? Or did Poland bear some responsibility for the failure to form an alliance against Germany? According to leading historian Prof. Michael J. Carley, the story from the archives is not what you have been told. This segment comes from the extended interview with University of Montreal professor, Michael J. Carley on his book, Stalin’s Gamble: The Search for Allies against Hitler, 1930-1936.

France’s Political Chaos Failed Europe and Fuelled War in the 1930s 

In this section of a deep dive history interview, Prof. Michael J. Carley explains how France failed to make peace and form a defensive alliance against fascist Germany in the 1930s.

Did Stalin want World War 2 and the Red Famine, REALLY?

Was Stalin’s Russia or Soviet Union one of the initiators of the Second World War? Or did Stalin try everything to form a defensive alliance against 1930s Germany? In this deep dive interview, historian of international relations, Prof. Michael J. Carley tells the true history from the archives of Stalin’s failed gambles of the 1930s to make peace with the West and to purge his enemies within.

The Soviet Peace Britain Rejected Before WW2

European diplomacy failed in the 1930s, leading to Munich 1938. In this deep dive interview, historian Prof. Michael J. Carley gives a masterclass on the tragedy of collective security in Europe that caused World War Two. Who is most to blame for the failure to confront Nazi Germany? Soviet Union? France? Or Britain? Some of the most counterintuitive findings from archival research shared by historian Michael Jabara Carley in this video are:

– The Soviet alliance offer that Britain rejected in April 1939
– The real reasons behind the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
– Key Soviet diplomat Litvinov’s dismissal for giving up on Western cooperation
– Munich 1938’s true dynamics beyond Chamberlain’s appeasement
– Poland’s rejection of Soviet assistance
– The importance to the USSR of the war in China in 1937
– France’s crucial role in the Czechoslovak Crisis

Stalin’s UNWANTED Plan B: Molotov Ribbentrop Pact

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact 1939) is controversial. Were Stalin and Hitler secret allies? Or was the Pact an unwanted Plan B for the Soviet Union after years of seeking an alliance with the West against Nazi Germany? In these clips from a deep dive interview, historian Prof. Michael J. Carley explains the real reasons behind this notorious agreement on the eve of World War Two.

EU’s Kallas vs China & the Historians on WW2 in Asia

EU Foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas says it is “something new” that China and Russia fought together to defeat Nazis in WW2. History teaches a different lesson. In this clip from a deep dive interview, historian Prof. Michael J. Carley explains how China and Russia (USSR) were fighting fascists together in 1937 before the West (USA and Europe) joined World War Two.

Munich 1938 and Europe’s WW2 Betrayal of Czechoslovakia

What really happened at Munich 1938? You have heard of appeasement, Chamberlain and how it ended in World War Two. But who was to blame? In this clip from a deep dive interview, historian Prof. Michael J. Carley explains what really happened during the Czechoslovak Crisis of 1938 and its disastrous “Peace for our Time” end in the Munich 1938 conference. Based on research in Soviet/Russian, British and French archives, this video gives you the authoritative answer to the question: What really happened at Munich 1938?

Stalin’s Great Game. Part 1. Winter War to Phoney War

In this deep dive interview, historian Prof. Michael J. Carley explains how Stalin stumbled at the start of World War Two. USSR and Finland fought the Winter War. Britain and France played at Phoney War. And Germany planned Operation Barbarossa.

Why Didn’t Stalin Believe Germany Would Attack?

Historian Prof. Michael J. Carley tells the story of World War Two from the Soviet archives – from the fall of France to Stalin’s failure to heed warnings of an imminent German invasion.

After Operation Barbarossa nearly destroyed USSR Churchill planned Operation Unthinkable

Historian Prof. Michael J. Carley tells the story of World War Two from the Soviet archives – how Operation Barbarossa nearly destroyed the Soviet Union, how the people of the Soviet Union resisted the onslaught, and how before the war was over British PM Winston Churchill planned Operation Unthinkable to do it all again.

Jackson Hinkle, Glenn Diesen och Pascal Lottaz har alla nyligen gjort kortare intervjuer med kanadensiske historikern Michael J. Carley vid Université de Montréal om hans forskning om västs förhållande till Ryssland och Sovjetunionen, och särskilt om Stalin och andra världskriget, med allehanda för dagens kritiska historiska och politiska situation kanske relevanta perspektiv.

Han har senast publicerat en stor trilogi om Stalin: Stalin’s Gamble: The Search for Allies against Hitler, 1930-1936 (2023), Stalin’s Failed Alliance: The Struggle for Collective Security, 1936-1939 (2024), och Stalin’s Great Game: War and Neutrality, 1939-1941 (2025). Tidigare böcker är Silent Conflict: A Hidden History of Early Soviet-Western Relations (2014) och 1939: The Alliance That Never Was and the Coming of World War (2019).

Carley har uppfattats som Stalinrevisionist, ja en ledande revisionist ifråga om Sovjetunionens utrikespolitik under mellankrigstiden Han är långt mindre radikal än Furr, och i själva verket gäller revisionen bara den inte sällan extrema västerländsk-kapitalistiska kalla-krigs-historiografin, vars sanning och objektivitet aldrig framstått som i sin helhet trovärdig.

Googles AI-översikt sammanställer källor som säger att han utmanade “the narrative that Stalin actively sought war, instead portraying him as a realist desperately trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance with the West that was rebuffed, shifting focus from Western guilt to shared responsibility for WWII’s outbreak”, “uses extensive archival research to argue Stalin’s attempts to secure collective security were genuine, countering the common view of Stalin as solely aggressive”, “details Stalin’s attempts to build a grand alliance with Britain, France, and others against Hitler in the years leading up to WWII, highlighting this often-overlooked diplomacy”, “argues against the idea that WWII was inevitable or primarily Stalin’s fault, presenting a more complex picture where Western powers were reluctant to engage with the USSR”, “draws on extensive research in Soviet, French, British, and American archives to provide a balanced, dual-perspective view”, och “portrays Stalin as a pragmatic, realist leader seeking security and peace, rather than purely aggressive expansionism.”

Att detta knappast är särskilt kontroversiellt bekräftas av Grok: Carley bygger på “extensive multi-archival research (Soviet, British, French, and American sources)”, argumenterande att “Stalin genuinely pursued collective security and alliances with Britain and France to contain Nazi Germany” men att “Western anti-communism, appeasement policies (e.g., by Chamberlain), and distrust thwarted these efforts”. Molotov-Ribbentrop-pakten “is portrayed as a desperate last resort after Western rejection, not Stalin’s preferred outcome”. Carley “challenges Cold War-era narratives that depicted Stalin as ideologically driven toward world revolution or secretly preferring a deal with Hitler”; han “counters what he and supporters call the ‘demonization’ of Stalin’s foreign policy, emphasizing his pragmatism and realism”.

En recensent har anklagat honom för “excessive sympathy for the Soviet perspective, downplaying Stalin’s domestic brutality (purges, etc.), or overstating Western culpability while underplaying Soviet distrust or aggressiveness”, men andra har noterat att “Carley does not condone Stalin’s internal repression and focuses primarily on diplomacy”. Han är inte “a ‘Stalinist’ apologist in the sense of defending the regime’s crimes overall; his revisionism is specific to foreign policy debates, aligning with a scholarly tradition (e.g., influenced by post-1991 Soviet archive openings) that portrays Stalin as a cautious realist seeking to avoid war until 1941.”

Det finns mycket att säga om detta (tills vidare kan ju varken Google eller Grok själva läsa Carleys böcker och bilda sig en egen uppfattning, men de får fram åtskillig tillförlitlig information om hans reception). Vad det nya kalla krigets högerhistoriker säger behöver ingen sväva i tvivelsmål om. Det finns fortfarande punkter där de har rätt i sin allmänna kommunismkritik. Men i ljuset av de andra punkter där de har fel, där de senaste 50 åren har visat att de har fel, är det mer intressanta bedömningen och förståelsen av innebörden av Carleys revisionism i sammanhanget av den alltfort pågående striden mellan stalinister och trotskister, som efter så lång tid och i en i så mycket ny och förändrad världshistorisk situation ofta framstår som grotesk i sin ömsesidigt fanatiska, rigida oförändradhet.

Trotskisterna fördömer ju Stalin just för att ha dragit sig tillbaka från världsrevolutionen, medan stalinisterna förkastar Trotskij för att han förhindrade den genom att motarbeta Sovjetunionen och dess uppbyggnad av socialism i ett land, och liera sig med dess motståndare i väst. Vad är det som intresserar Hinkle, Diesen och Lottaz i Carleys revision? Att han tydligt pekar på Stalins bemödanden för allians med väst mot Hitler på 30-talet, på hans och hela Sovjetunionens konstanta vilja till fredlig samexistens med väst när väst primärt var intresserat av att Hitler skulle krossa dem, och på att när Hitler misslyckats med detta väst omedelbart – redan innan kriget var slut – började planera för att överta denna uppgift från Hitler.