Guido Preparata's website

[Peter Presland]

The great weakness of Preparata's Conjuring Hitler is the extent to which it downplays the US establishment's involvement in the watercolourist's rise. The US elite were anything but the dupes and playthings of the British clubs

Fursov briefly alludes to US and British financial establishments' creation of Hitler - but not before referencing Allen Dulles' ambition to scupper the British empire via WWII, an ambition, Fursov notes, shared by the USSR (3 mins 26 sec - 3 mins 39 secs):

I judge Fursov to be a solid indicator of current Russian establishment thinking - on both historical events and current geo-politics - but that does not mean I take him as gospel; far from it. For example, I regard his assertion that "we had an enemy that wanted not just to defeat Russia but to annihilate the Russian people in principle" (1:05) as absurd - but fully consonant with the fundamental post WWII dogma of "Hitler and Nazi Germany as evil incarnate".

I find it dispiriting indeed that Russia appears unable (or maybe that should be unwilling) to rise above that dogma to an acceptance that what really motivated Hitler in his relationship with the Soviets, was his perception that Bolshevik communism was the creation of "international Jewry", staffed and cadre'd largely by non-Russians, and had little, if anything, to do with the Russian people per se.

The problem with this de-rigeur orthodoxy is that it is held by both Russia and Anglo-US-NATO with both hurling the same hysterical 'Hitler-Nazi' epithets at each other, such that rational analysis of the underlying causes is prevented and they remain very effectively hidden.

That, in and of itself, ought to give pause to anyone with a serious wish to understand what is going on here; but of course this Post WWII orthodoxy is enforced by such overwhelmingly powerful taboos that open, honest debate becomes next to impossible - and that, it seems to me, is the precise intent behind enforcement of those taboos.

I do think that Fursov is quite correct in stating that the real history of WWII has not yet been written; but frankly, I have my doubts as to whether he is prepared for what that real history, if and when it is ever written, will show.