Originally Posted by Imperial
Shouldn't they have shown more caution by saying "based on the evidence we have he had no plans to conquer Europe"?
A redundancy, surely, Imperial.
A reputable historian writing for a reputable publisher is always writing based on the evidence, no?
There's no documentation about Stalin's orders to land paratroopers on Leicester Square or drive BT-5s through the Champs d'Elysee.
Nor do any witnesses say he wanted to either - and there are plenty of people who were free to speak after his death, including Krushchev, and who did fess up to lots of other evil deeds.
To suggest he was going to invade Western Europe is speculation without evidence - and as biographers point out, inconsistent with both his "socialism in one state" policies and cautious frame of mind.
In addition, he was much too busy consolidating brutal rule over his own country. A tyrant's work is never done ... so many names to cross off the list!