Topitsch's book was met with criticism and controversy from many historians and scholars, who challenged his evidence, methodology, and conclusions. They argued that Topitsch ignored or distorted many facts that contradicted his thesis, that he relied on dubious or unreliable sources, that he failed to consider alternative explanations or motivations for Stalin's actions, and that he exaggerated Stalin's role and influence in the international arena. They also pointed out that Topitsch had a political agenda and a personal animosity towards communism and socialism, which biased his analysis.
In this article, we will examine the main arguments and evidence that Topitsch presented in his book, as well as the criticisms and counterarguments that his opponents raised. We will also evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Topitsch's theory and its implications for our understanding of the Second World War and its causes.
Topitsch's Arguments and Evidence
Topitsch's main argument was that Stalin had a grand design of world domination that he pursued relentlessly since he came to power in the Soviet Union. He believed that Stalin was a master strategist who manipulated and deceived his rivals and allies to achieve his objectives. He also claimed that Stalin had a secret alliance with Hitler, which he used to provoke a war between Germany and the Western powers, then intervene at the last moment to crush both sides and establish a Soviet empire in Europe and beyond.
Topitsch supported his argument with various sources, such as Stalin's speeches, Soviet military documents, diplomatic correspondence, and memoirs of former Soviet officials. He interpreted these sources to show that Stalin had a consistent and coherent plan of aggression and expansion, and that he orchestrated several events that led to the outbreak of the war, such as:
The Spanish Civil War: Topitsch argued that Stalin intervened in the Spanish Civil War to create a communist base in Western Europe and to test his military capabilities. He also claimed that Stalin provoked Hitler to intervene in Spain by sending Soviet volunteers and weapons to the Republicans, thus creating a conflict between Germany and the Western democracies.
The Munich Agreement: Topitsch argued that Stalin encouraged Hitler to annex Czechoslovakia by promising him Soviet support in case of a war with France and Britain. He also claimed that Stalin deliberately sabotaged the negotiations between the Western powers and Czechoslovakia by refusing to guarantee their territorial integrity. He suggested that Stalin wanted Hitler to occupy Czechoslovakia so that he could later use it as a pretext for invading Poland.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: Topitsch argued that Stalin signed the non-aggression pact with Hitler in 1939 not because he feared a German attack, but because he wanted to secure his western border and gain time to prepare for his own attack on Germany. He also claimed that Stalin agreed to divide Poland with Hitler as part of his secret plan to provoke a war between Germany and the Western powers.
The Winter War: Topitsch argued that Stalin attacked Finland in 1939 not because he wanted to secure his northern border, but because he wanted to test his military strength and weaken Finland's resistance. He also claimed that Stalin hoped to draw Britain and France into a war with the Soviet Union, which would then force Germany to declare war on them.
Topitsch's Critics and Counterarguments
Topitsch's book was met with criticism and controversy from many historians and scholars, who challenged his evidence, methodology, and conclusions. They argued that Topitsch ignored or distorted many facts that contradicted his thesis, that he relied on dubious or unreliable sources, that he failed to consider alternative explanations or motivations for Stalin's actions, and that he exaggerated Stalin's role and influence in the international arena. They also pointed out that Topitsch had a political agenda and a personal animosity towards communism and socialism, which biased his analysis.
Some of the main criticisms and counterarguments that Topitsch's opponents raised were:
The Spanish Civil War: Topitsch's critics argued that Stalin intervened in the Spanish Civil War not to create a communist base in Western Europe, but to support the legitimate government of Spain against the fascist rebels. They also argued that Stalin did not provoke Hitler to intervene in Spain, but rather tried to prevent a German-Italian intervention by appealing to the League of Nations and the Non-Intervention Committee. They suggested that Stalin's involvement in Spain was limited and cautious, and that he withdrew his support for the Republicans when he realized that they were losing the war.
The Munich Agreement: Topitsch's critics argued that Stalin did not encourage Hitler to annex Czechoslovakia, but rather tried to form a collective security system with France and Britain to deter Hitler's aggression. They also argued that Stalin did not sabotage the negotiations between the Western powers and Czechoslovakia, but rather offered to guarantee their territorial integrity if they joined the Soviet-led alliance. They suggested that Stalin was betrayed by the Western powers when they appeased Hitler at Munich, and that he lost his trust in them as potential allies.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: Topitsch's critics argued that Stalin signed the non-aggression pact with Hitler in 1939 not because he wanted to secure his western border and gain time to prepare for his own attack on Germany, but because he feared a German attack and wanted to avoid a two-front war. They also argued that Stalin did not agree to divide Poland with Hitler as part of his secret plan to provoke a war between Germany and the Western powers, but rather as a defensive measure to create a buffer zone between the Soviet Union and Germany. They suggested that Stalin was surprised and unprepared when Hitler invaded Poland, and that he delayed his own invasion until he was sure that Britain and France would not intervene.
The Winter War: Topitsch's critics argued that Stalin attacked Finland in 1939 not because he wanted to test his military strength and weaken Finland's resistance, but because he wanted to secure his northern border and protect Leningrad from a possible German attack. They also argued that Stalin did not hope to draw Britain and France into a war with the Soviet Union, but rather tried to avoid a confrontation with them by seeking a negotiated settlement with Finland. They suggested that Stalin underestimated Finland's military capabilities and resilience, and that he suffered heavy losses and international isolation as a result of his aggression.
 23aabf4b92