One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Discussions
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28560
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:33 am

David wrote: Well the televangelist only believes in one disappearing body,
you guys believe in 6,000,000 disappearing bodies. :D


Do you deny there are any photographs of dead jews at concentration camps, you stupid holocaust denier?

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby David » Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:03 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:David attempts to avoid backing up his own statement
David wrote: , I would like to talk about the material evidence. Where are the "various kinds of containers" and coins now?

Have you made an application to State Prosecutor of the District Court in Siedlce to discover this?

David wrote: Documents?, a vague term. a personal identity card. Where are they? Whose were they? What do they say?

Have you made an application to State Prosecutor of the District Court in Siedlce to discover this?

Try back up your own fundamental statement "Treblinka was a transit camp" first If you don't, it shows you are a lying holocaust denier and a coward whose words mean nothing, who knows nothing about Treblinka.


Hello Matthew- I can see that you are just leaping at the chance
to be constructive.
Seems that Lukaszkiewicz found lots of interesting evidence, none of
which seems available to researchers today.

What Lukaszkiewicz does mention is described in amazingly vague
or unclear terms. The only thing he is clear about is that
"During the work on the terrain, I found no mass graves"


Just like the Revisionists say!

Lukaszkiewicz also found two identity cards. Evidence that people
who arrived at the camp kept their identity cards.

Lukaszkiewicz's report was submitted at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
There seem to have been no attached map showing where the
various Soviet bombs had been set off. No samples of the earth.
None of the "documents."

Still, Lukaszkiewicz is useful.
I find his statement, "since the camp was liquidated early and the murderers had much time"
a humorous contradiction of your "excuse"
"The Germans failed to burn all evidence as they ran out of time" :lol: :lol:

Given that we know that months and months passed between
the closing of the station and the arrival of the Soviets, we know who is
correct.

Remember, Treblinka was a major propaganda icon by 1944.
When the Soviets arrived in summer 1944, they found a few small graves,
a few small cremation areas, fences, paths, roadways, building ruins, garbage
and nothing else. No mass graves.
Reporting the Truth would have gotten Stalin mad.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28560
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:56 pm

1) David makes up a new "Story"
David wrote: Seems that Lukaszkiewicz found lots of interesting evidence, none of which seems available to researchers today.

You are lying again! In your last post you demanded to know exactly what was written on documents Lukaszkiewicz found in burial pits at Treblinka. I suggested that you State Prosecutor of the District Court in Siedlce who appointed Lukaszkiewicz, and make an application to review the evidence. You didn't do anything but made up a new lie saying the evidence is not "available to researchers today" Did you make any attempt at all to see what evidence was held in Siedlce? No?....of course not...you are a holocaust denier. You lied and made up a little story. rather than look for evidence.

Do other members think David is lying? (Y/N)

2) David edits Lukaszkiewicz statement for the third time.
David wrote: What Lukaszkiewicz does mention is described in amazingly vague
or unclear terms. The only thing he is clear about is that "During the work on the terrain, I found no mass graves" Just like the Revisionists say!

I have informed you three times and only can only conclude that you are really stupid or lying on purpose because Lukaszkiewicz did not find mass graves because the bodies were dug up and burned. Lukaszkiewicz discovered burial pits in which the bodies were buried before being dug up and burned. Read his quotes yet again....
"we succeeded in determining the shape of the pit."
"its walls give recognizable evidence of the presence of a large quantity of ashes as well as human remains – was further excavated in order to discover the depth of the pit in this part of the camp"
"Numerous human remains were found by these excavations, partially still in a state of decomposition""In this mixture, one finds countless human bones, often still covered with tissue remains, which are in a condition of decomposition".


Do other members think David is lying again? (Y/N)?

3) David gets very confused about identity cards in transit camps
David wrote: Lukaszkiewicz also found two identity cards. Evidence that people who arrived at the camp kept their identity cards.

You complete idiot! If the identity cards are at Treblinka then the owners never left the "transit" camp did they! You are sooooo stupid. I have already informed you that the victims arrived, were stripped naked (315,000 overcoats, 26,000 childrens aprons etc collected and documented by the SS) they were then executed, gold and valuable taken from the bodies (18 to 36kg of gold a week collected and documented by the SS) and the bodies buried. The bodies are dug up again after Kursk and burnt to hide the evidence. The documents were simply discarded after the victims were executed. Lukaszkiewicz found two identity cards in a pit

4) David tells a complete lie to hide his lack of knowledge about Treblinka
David wrote: Lukaszkiewicz's report was submitted at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
There seem to have been no attached map showing where the various Soviet bombs had been set off.

Lukaszkiewicz wrote: "With the assistance of an expert land surveyor and witnesses, I made an exact inspection of the terrain. According to the measurements, the area of the camp is approximately 13.45 hectares and had the shape of an irregular quadrilateral.

So David, did you request a copy of the surveyors report from State Prosecutor of the District Court in Siedlce? Did the defence advocate at the IMT( Nuremberg) request a copy of the surveyor's report? Can you show me exactly in the IMT where the question of soviet bombs is even brought up?

Complete transcripts of IMT ( Nuremberg Trials) http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&text=overview

Do members think David is lying again?

5) David forgets the Red Army & when Action Reinhardt ended [
David wrote: I find his statement, "since the camp was liquidated early and the murderers had much time" a humorous contradiction of your "excuse" "The Germans failed to burn all evidence as they ran out of time"

Well that's because you are really stupid. After Kursk the entire Red Army was marching towards Poland from mid July 1943. The bodies were dug up and burnt to hide the evidence of mass murder and the camp closed in late November 1943 before the Russian arrived. Lukaszkiewicz is refering to the end of the final solution in Poland called "Action Reinhard" "Operation Reinhard" ended in November 1943" http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/reinhardintro.html

David wrote: we know who is correct.

So do I. Lukaszkiewicz and conventional historians, not some silly holocaust denier who only worked out that the bodies were buried and then burnt last week.

6) However David prefers to run away from his statements
You are a liar, a coward and a holocaust denier. I ask you yet again. Do you have any evidence at all to back up your claim that "Treblinka was a transit camp"? Either answer this question or piss off back to the Stormfront White Nationalist Community forum .

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby David » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:31 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: David wrote: Seems that Lukaszkiewicz found lots of interesting evidence, none of which seems available to researchers today.


You are lying again! In your last post you demanded to know exactly what was written on documents Lukaszkiewicz found in burial pits at Treblinka. I suggested that you State Prosecutor of the District Court in Siedlce who appointed Lukaszkiewicz, and make an application to review the evidence. You didn't do anything but made up a new lie saying the evidence is not "available to researchers today" Did you make any attempt at all to see what evidence was held in Siedlce? No?



Matthew, you are truly a goof ball.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is tell us where the documents
are. You are jacking off, wasting time with your stupid "make an application to review the evidence."

Nothing that Lukaszkiewicz found is part of the record about Treblinka. I wrote to the US Holocaust Museum.
They have 10 photographs from both the Soviet arrival and Lukaszkiewicz.
Nothing else.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby Blacksamwell » Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:23 am

Yup. David sure looks to be full of it.

Matthew, thank you for your work exposing David's brand of denial nonsense.
Last edited by Blacksamwell on Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9925
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby fromthehills » Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:19 am

I think David is full of it, as well. I don't profess to be well versed in the Holocaust, but the idea that it was a hoax, in the face of all the evidence, and the likelihood of a conspiracy of this magnitude is ludicrous.

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby David » Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:10 am

fromthehills wrote:I think David is full of it, as well. I don't profess to be well versed in the Holocaust, but the idea that it was a hoax, in the face of all the evidence, and the likelihood of a conspiracy of this magnitude is ludicrous.


I wouldn't put it past Stalin to brazenly create "history."
He did, after all, accuse the Germans of the Katyn killings.
The Soviets even hanged some Germans for committing the
crime.

But you miss what Revisionists are saying.
Not all history is wrong but it has been contaminated by
wartime propaganda. It is not about the Holocaust but
about all the propaganda claims.
Governments always lie in wartime...WWII was no exception.

An example are the new Majdanek figures.
The propaganda figure was 1.4 million dead.
The new figure announced by the Auschwitz State Museum is 78,000.

http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php? ... 4&Itemid=8

Still a horrible figure but a small fraction of the propaganda number.
Revisionists were right.

Here we are writing about Treblinka.
There were two Treblinka camps. They were not nice places.
A few hundred people died there. When the deportations to the
east stopped in 1943, the transit camp was shut down and
left. That is how it was found by the Soviets in 1944.


You are fully entitled to believe what I find unbelievable:
stories about people being killed with diesel exhaust, buried,
dug up, cremated without a trace, but some "forgotten," with
papers, buildings and all physical evidence being destroyed
not by the Germans but by the Soviets and Poles.


I have looked at the small number of Soviet photographs
from 1944 that have been released.
They show 10 to 20 bodies in graves, one or two skulls, a few bones scattered
on the ground. Some people leap at accepting these pictures as proof
that there are another million bones just out of camera range. :roll:
I think the photos shown
Just enough to indicate that the Germans did not
cremate the bodies but left them.
(They actually seemed to have
the same pattern of mixed cremation and burial in a set of small graves
that was found at Sobibor)

But the question for you, fromthehills, is should people be allowed to
discuss and argue about the evidence or lack thereof?
Not believing is a felony in parts of Europe...the Crime of Denial.
5 years in jail for not Believing.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9925
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby fromthehills » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:09 am

David wrote:But the question for you, fromthehills, is should people be allowed to
discuss and argue about the evidence or lack thereof?
Not believing is a felony in parts of Europe...the Crime of Denial.
5 years in jail for not Believing.


Good question, David. I agree with the point you are trying to make, here. Of course I believe people should be allowed argue over the evidence, one way or the other. And no, I don't feel that people should be imprisoned for their beliefs or lack of belief in anything, just so long as those beliefs aren't causing physical harm.

If, if the fringe element of Holocaust deniers had sound evidence that the routine extermination of a people was nothing but a grand hoax it couldn't go unrecognized. You folks have had multifarious opportunities to prove us believers wrong.

I do think that minimizing the Nazi's attempt at genocide during WWII is the equivalent of denying that the American South practiced slavery. I don't believe that someone should be imprisoned for denying the fact, but I would think they are wrong.

Cheney and Rumsfeld are trying to rewrite history in their autobiographies, now. I know that people try to obfuscate the facts that are unfavorable to their legacy, especially during war when they advocated for atrocities.

From the little I have read, and I admit: little, from your argument, I don't find anything compelling enough for me to go into it further. I just don't have the motivation that Matthew has for it. I believe that the Holocaust happened pretty much as written, just as 99.99% of Germans today believe it happened, and how all history except for the very fringe elements show that it has happened. For me, to discount this, for whatever reason, is to condone repeating it. For one to believe that it could have all been a hoax is to really not believe in actual evidence, start from a conclusion, and then work backwards in order to pick things that fit that conclusion.

I don't know you, David, but I think that you have been badly duped into pursuing a fruitless ideology. Aside from Matthew's ad hominem attacks, he has shown you to be quite flawed in your research and your thinking. I would really suggest questioning your position. Not for me, or Matthew, or anyone, but for yourself. At least practice what you are arguing for, giving the contrary evidence to your belief a chance.

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby David » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:08 pm

fromthehills,
Thank you for the thoughtful comments.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28560
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:32 pm

Revisionists look for all evidence according to David but David doesn't look at all
David is very confused. One week ago David was saying that "revisionists" gather all evidence.
David a week ago wrote: For a Revisionist, being constructive is gathering more and better evidence.

Today he is saying he won't gather more of the Lukaszkiewicz evidence held by the District Court in Siedlce
David today wrote: Matthew, you are truly a goof ball. All you have to do to prove me wrong is tell us where the documents are. You are jacking off, wasting time with your stupid "make an application to review the evidence."


The additional problem is that David is so stupid he doesn't understand that if all the passports and travel documents are found in rubbish pits at Treblinka death camp then his claim Treblinka was only a transit camp is complete rubbish.

Thirdly David doesn't understand logic. If David believes the passports and travel papers have "There was no holocaust" printed on them, then it is up to him to produce this evidence. Notice that David is unable to string a sentence together saying what his current fantasy about the documents is.

David is a liar and lied about "Treblinka is a Transit Camp"
David is a liar and a coward. He refuses to back up his personal fantasy that Treblinka was a transit camp. I have asked him six times to explain this. David, the lying holocaust denier, simply pretends he can't read this question.

It is no wonder the cult died out if David is representing holocaust denial. My cat could do a better job.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28560
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

David tells two lies in one post.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:12 pm

David has lied to FromtheHills twice in this one post.

LIE No1#
David wrote: Here we are writing about Treblinka. There were two Treblinka camps. They were not nice places. A few hundred people died there.

Over 800,000 people were executed there. There is an SS document stating that 713,555 were executed there before 30th December 1942. It was discovered by the British and is called the Hofle Telegram. The camp was closed in November 1943.
The camp's commanding officer during the executions was Franz Stangl. David is forgetting to mention that Stangl confessed to the crimes in 1971. For example, conventional historians match the evidence of clothing being taken from the victims before execution between SS clothing documents and Stangl's confession "it was always a huge mass...they were naked, packed together, running, being driven by whips. David pretends there were no execution although Stangl says ""I remember Wirth standing there, next to the pits full of black-blue corpses. (Please remember that the Nazis dug up the bodies and burnt the evidence when the russians started winning and advanced towards Poland. This is why we talk about human ash detailed in the Lukaszkiewicz report from Poland).

The next CO was Kurt Franz, who closed the camp in November 1943 stated during his testimonies: "The gassings had stopped........ It was decided to shoot the last of the Jewish prisoners and shut down the camp. However David refuses to look at these confessions as holocaust deniers are not allowed to look at hard evidence.
http://www.suite101.com/content/franz-s ... z1DPUJ67up

LIE No2#
This is David's most common lie, that "Treblinka was a transit camp". Watch David make the satement and then refuse to provide any evidence in the slightest to back up this claim.
David wrote: When the deportations to the east stopped in 1943, the transit camp was shut down and left. That is how it was found by the Soviets in 1944.

David is simply making this fantasy up on the spot and refuses to debate with anyone on this stupid claim. David knows he is lying which makes this claim even funnier.

Lie No3#
David wrote: all physical evidence being destroyed not by the Germans but by the Soviets and Poles.

I have already quoted Kurt Franz, the German CO saying he destroyed the camp and planted lupins ( trees) to hide the evidence, three times. David refuses to comment against hard evidence.

David's sub-cult fell apart. His bumchum, fellow holocaust denier, David Irving, now agrees Treblinka was a death camp. David can't post on holocaust denier websites because he still claims that Treblinka was a transit camp and the Krege Report was not a hoax. He is laughed at by the few elderly holocaust deniers that remain in the main denial cult. That is why David posts here.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28560
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:23 pm

fromthehills wrote: Aside from Matthew's ad hominem attacks, he has shown you to be quite flawed in your research and your thinking. .


You are correct about ad hominen attacks on David. David fakes evidence as he is a neo-nazi. The Nazis killed millions and millions and millions of innocent people. Words are not enough for David and his fellow scum. I should simply use evidence and continue to assist others in ensuring the ongoing demise of holocaust denial and remove another "appeal for members" from modern neo-nazis.

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby David » Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:53 am

[quote="Matthew Ellard"]

The additional problem is that David is so stupid he doesn't understand that if all the passports and travel documents are found in rubbish pits at Treblinka death camp then his claim Treblinka was only a transit camp is complete rubbish.

Maybe you should go read the report again. Two passports were
found....so you are 899,998 passports short, Matthew.
Any explanation of the facts?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28560
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:29 am

David wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
The additional problem is that David is so stupid he doesn't understand that if all the passports and travel documents are found in rubbish pits at Treblinka death camp then his claim Treblinka was only a transit camp is complete rubbish.

Maybe you should go read the report again. Two passports were
found....so you are 899,998 passports short, Matthew.
Any explanation of the facts?


Poor little holocaust denier. Not having a good day are you? "All the passports found by Lukaszkiewicz in rubbish pits at Treblinka after the german burned the evidence". As you know no one sent to Treblinka ever went further east. Have any of your holocaust denier, fellow liars, ever found anyoneone from Treblinka further east? No? That's because they were all executed at Treblinka.

So David...you still believe Treblinka was a transit camp? Give me your evidence and stop running away.

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby David » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:24 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:As you know no one sent to Treblinka ever went further east


Want to put some substantial money where your
mouth is Matthew? I am talking $10,000 US.
Dip into your boot fund.

Someone who was sent to Treblinka II camp and
then transported onward.

Make it worth my time.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby Blacksamwell » Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:09 pm

David wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:As you know no one sent to Treblinka ever went further east


Want to put some substantial money where your
mouth is Matthew? I am talking $10,000 US.
Dip into your boot fund.

Someone who was sent to Treblinka II camp and
then transported onward.

Make it worth my time.

Good grief! So much for interest in the truth for truth's sake.

David, if you've had evidence to support your claim all along why hold out and suddenly demand cash for its disclosure? Your behavior is absurd.

But if this wager is to be fair, wouldn't you have to pay Matthew $10K for each lie of yours he's exposed so far? You're in the hole for a princely sum already.
Last edited by Blacksamwell on Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28560
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:52 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
David wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:As you know no one sent to Treblinka ever went further east


Want to put some substantial money where your
mouth is Matthew? I am talking $10,000 US.
Dip into your boot fund.

Someone who was sent to Treblinka II camp and
then transported onward.

Make it worth my time.

Good grief! So much for interest in the truth for truth's sake.

David, if you've had evidence to support your claim all along why hold out and suddenly demand cash for its disclosure? Your behavior is absurd.

But if this wager is to be fair, wouldn't you have to pay Matthew $10K for each lie of yours he's exposed so far? You in the hole for a princely sum already.


Well David? Are you now saying you charge money for telling lies?

Are you going to quote that silly old post on CODOH where a holocaust denier found someone in Belarus with the same name as a Treblinka victim but then couldn't explain how he knew the name of someone at Treblinka in the first place? Please bring it on!

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby David » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:28 am

Blacksamwell wrote:
David wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:As you know no one sent to Treblinka ever went further east


Want to put some substantial money where your
mouth is Matthew? I am talking $10,000 US.
Dip into your boot fund.

Someone who was sent to Treblinka II camp and
then transported onward.

Make it worth my time.

Good grief! So much for interest in the truth for truth's sake.

David, if you've had evidence to support your claim all along why hold out and suddenly demand cash for its disclosure? Your behavior is absurd.

But if this wager is to be fair, wouldn't you have to pay Matthew $10K for each lie of yours he's exposed so far? You're in the hole for a princely sum already.



Hello Blacksamwell-
I don't think that people who believe in millions and millions
of magically disappearing bodies as the basis of
their belief to be very rational. Here I include you too.

And You seem to have the same nasty suspicious nature
of Matthews. Lawdy there is something about you Believers!


Anyway it is nice you are playing Touchstone to get Mathews out of
his pickle but you you missed what, "Make it worth my time"
means.

It means I have to go get the cite. So, if you were even half as
smart as you are insulting.... you would be a Revisionist.

Let's see if Matthew will put his money where his mouth is!





Because I know you and Matthew are two Believers
who wouldn't admit the Truth if it bit you in your
fat asses, I don't want to waste my time on you.
You want to learn, you pay.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28560
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:08 am

David wrote: And You seem to have the same nasty suspicious nature
of Matthews. Lawdy there is something about you Believers!
That because you have been caught out telling lies non-stop. You lied about Soviet munitions at Treblinka. You lied about 5,000 people working at Treblinka 2, You lied abou Nazis never making human soap and now you are lying about Treblinka2 being a transit camp. Face it mate.....you are a liar!

David wrote: Anyway it is nice you are playing Touchstone to get Matthews out of
his pickle but you you missed what, "Make it worth my time" means.
It means you don't have any document or citation to back up your claim that Treblinka was a transit camp.

David wrote: It means I have to go get the cite.
How interesting? So in other words you didn't have any citation on hand when you made the claim that Treblinka was a transit camp. Well suprise suprise! ( You are so stupid you just admitted you have no evidence, you complete idiot!!!)

David wrote: Because I know you and Matthew are two Believers who wouldn't admit the Truth if it bit you in your fat asses, I don't want to waste my time on you.
You want to learn, you pay.
David, you don't know anything! You make stuff up and you got caught lying. You are just a senile old man who wants his cult to stop being a laughing stock suck eggs
.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:50 pm

David wrote:[...]you missed what, "Make it worth my time"
means.

It means I have to go get the cite.[...]

You mean you don't plan to simply fabricate this one? I suppose that would take a bit more effort than you're used to. Still, I can't imagine what citation you'd be seeking that couldn't be gotten via a Google search, an Amazon order, or simply a visit to your closest library.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28560
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:30 pm

Blacksamwell wrote: Still, I can't imagine what citation you'd be seeking that couldn't be gotten via a Google search, an Amazon order, or simply a visit to your closest library.


This is going to be very amusing. There is no "citation" or "evidence" on the internet, nor any book, nor anywhere else that states, any inmates from Treblinka were settled in the east. David probably started his first "fishing" exercise for evidence two days ago and has come up empty handed so he will continue to delay for ever. David fabricated the statement without any evidence infront of him at all two years ago. .

I did look at all the arguments and evidence a couple of years ago. There is evidence that approximately 1500 skilled labour inmates were transfered from Treblinka 1 back to Majdanek concentration camp ( as both these camps had industrial sub camps)
However Treblinka 2 was just for executions. Some holocaust deniers stated that the little jewish boy in the photo with raised hands from the Warsaw Ghetto was still alive in New York. This is true but he was sent to Belsen concentration camp and not Treblinka 2. Most holocaust deniers now agree that Treblinka 2 was a camp for mass executions.

David's "old style holocaust denial" options are now limited to
1) Avoiding the subject by demanding $10,000 for his new fabrication
2) Blaming the "Hiwis" ( Ukrainian workers who did the work at Treblinka 2)
3) Stating that the onus is on us to prove no Treblinka 2 inmates were resettled in the east.
4) Claiming a massive Soviet propaganda cover up.
5) Changing his argument and pretending we are misquoting him.
6) Saying Hitler never knew about this criminal activity.

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby David » Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:45 am

Blacksamwell wrote:
David wrote:[...]you missed what, "Make it worth my time"
means.

It means I have to go get the cite.[...]

You mean you don't plan to simply fabricate this one? I suppose that would take a bit more effort than you're used to. Still, I can't imagine what citation you'd be seeking that couldn't be gotten via a Google search, an Amazon order, or simply a visit to your closest library.


Hey, why don't you put your money up too?
I can expose two Believers as idiots at the same time and make some
money


Matthew Ellard wrote: Blacksamwell wrote: Still, I can't imagine what citation you'd be seeking that couldn't be gotten via a Google search, an Amazon order, or simply a visit to your closest library.

This is going to be very amusing.


Sure will be. Why don't you and Blacksamwell say you are up for the
bet? I will go pull my cite.
We define the terms of what is a "proof", get an escrow open. We make the bet.
Put up our money. Then you clowns weep.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28560
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Feb 18, 2011 5:35 am

David wrote: Hey, why don't you put your money up too? I can expose two Believers as idiots at the same time and make some money


If you had anything you would have posted it two years ago when I first asked you to back up your statement "Treblinka 2 was a transit camp" .(You didn't think about that did you? tsk tsk tsk.)

You recently became so embarrased about lying so much that you made up your "$10,000 or I won't back up my statements" bet last week. You are simply digging youself into a bigger hole. You are a bit slow aren't you?


I imagine you in your motorised wheelchair going into various public bars, wiping your nose on your sleeve, going up to strangers and saying "Give me $10,000 and I can prove the holocaust didn't happen" before the doorman asks you to leave.

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby David » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:38 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
David wrote: Hey, why don't you put your money up too? I can expose two Believers as idiots at the same time and make some money


If you had anything you would have posted it two years ago when I first asked you to back up your statement "Treblinka 2 was a transit camp" .(You didn't think about that did you? tsk tsk tsk.)

You recently became so embarrased about lying so much that you made up your "$10,000 or I won't back up my statements" bet last week. You are simply digging youself into a bigger hole. You are a bit slow aren't you?


I imagine you in your motorised wheelchair going into various public bars, wiping your nose on your sleeve, going up to strangers and saying "Give me $10,000 and I can prove the holocaust didn't happen" before the doorman asks you to leave.


Matthews, if Revisionists had 1000th of the money you Believers blow,
your sick ugly myths would be in the garbage, where they belong and
the World would be a better place.
You know that, which is why there are vicious laws punishing discussion
of the matter. That is also why you won't put your money where your
mouth is and say you will bet.

You also know that Revisionists don't say "the holocaust didn't happen."
We say that real tragedies were exaggerated and exploited by Soviet, British and American for propaganda purposes.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28560
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propagand

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:50 am

David wrote: You also know that Revisionists don't say "the holocaust didn't happen."
Apparently they now say "Pay us $10,000 to back up our ridiculous propaganda claims"

Go away you silly holocaust denier.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Jeff_36 » Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:32 am

Suvorov was is and always will be a discredited crank. David Glantz, an accomplished military historian, absolutely savaged him, demonstrating that the Red Army in 1941 was short on officers, communications equipment, had very few trained aircrew and was badly organized. In fact, Suvorov ignored the fact that the red army was going through a reorganization period that was not scheduled to end until mid-1942. Why the {!#%@} would they invade in the midst of a reorganization cycle. Glantz could not rule out the chances of Stalin planning an invasion of Poland in 1943 or 1944, but the notion of an impending Soviet attack in 1941 was farcical.

Several German historians found that the German high command was of the opinion in early 1941 that the chances of a Soviet attack were `totally improbable``. A General in charge of planning Barbarossa opined on record that ``The Russians will not give us the courtesy of attacking.`` It was an aggressive war that the Germans waged.

Furthermore, 38% of all VVS aircraft in 1941 and nearly a majority of their fighter aircraft were slow, obsolete, stupid I-16`s, which were vastly inferior to the German ME-109`s.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28560
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:12 am

Jeff_36 wrote:Suvorov was is and always will be a discredited crank.
The BT-5 "Fast tank" used Christie suspension, an American invention. It's a brilliant suspension system. Somehow, the Russians get blamed for using a sensible suspension system as "aggressors", whereas, in reality, the USA military should be spanked for not keeping up with developing and testing new types of military technology.
4_chris_1.jpg



Soviet-Light-Tank-BT-5-Zvezda-3507.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Jeff_36 » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:26 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:Suvorov was is and always will be a discredited crank.
The BT-5 "Fast tank" used Christie suspension, an American invention. It's a brilliant suspension system. Somehow, the Russians get blamed for using a sensible suspension system as "aggressors", whereas, in reality, the USA military should be spanked for not keeping up with developing and testing new types of military technology.
4_chris_1.jpg



Soviet-Light-Tank-BT-5-Zvezda-3507.jpg


That thing was a tin can. Hardly useful for ``argressive war``

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1801
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Balsamo » Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:10 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:Suvorov was is and always will be a discredited crank. David Glantz, an accomplished military historian, absolutely savaged him, demonstrating that the Red Army in 1941 was short on officers, communications equipment, had very few trained aircrew and was badly organized. In fact, Suvorov ignored the fact that the red army was going through a reorganization period that was not scheduled to end until mid-1942. Why the {!#%@} would they invade in the midst of a reorganization cycle. Glantz could not rule out the chances of Stalin planning an invasion of Poland in 1943 or 1944, but the notion of an impending Soviet attack in 1941 was farcical.

Several German historians found that the German high command was of the opinion in early 1941 that the chances of a Soviet attack were `totally improbable``. A General in charge of planning Barbarossa opined on record that ``The Russians will not give us the courtesy of attacking.`` It was an aggressive war that the Germans waged.

Furthermore, 38% of all VVS aircraft in 1941 and nearly a majority of their fighter aircraft were slow, obsolete, stupid I-16`s, which were vastly inferior to the German ME-109`s.


Actually, David Glantz is not that convincing either. As he focus too much on the weaknesses of the Red Army and turn his eyes of its strengths. The only good point, he and the others who attacked Suvorov made, is the timing.
I personnally do not believe that the USSR was about to strike Germany by the summer of 1941, but that is about it.
As i said before, Stalin turned all his efforts into making a war possible for Germany. Without the Ribbentrop-Molotov pacts, there are reasons to doubts that Hitler would have launched his offensive against Poland.
I had the list of the supplies given by Stalin to Hitler, more fuel than he could dream of, food, materials, commodities, everything...
The level of supplies was so great that it confirms that Stalin expected long war between Germany and the Western Allies. It turned out much faster, and Russia was then basically providing the fuel and commodities that would made Barbarossa feasable.

Anyway, this issue alone is mostly ignored, and that would be my first question: why? Why would Stalin give Hitler the means to lead a war in a first place?
Glantz loves to describe the Red Army of 1941 as a total mess. But he missed the formidable tank production (T 34) which was already by far superior to any German tank production. Not only had the Red Army already about 1800 of them by 1941, but the output of tanks was like ... sorry i don't have the number in mind ... but far superior than the Germans...

Glantz also ignore the switch operated by the Red Army from a defensive to a offensive doctrine. (Stalin 5th of may 1941 speech, Jukhov plan, etc)
It turns his eyes from the fact that the Red Army increased from 1.8 to almost 5 millions soldiers, its overhelming superiority in Artillery.

he gladly insists on the outdated russian airforce, but the luftwaffe lost most of its best pilots and aircraft during the battle of England, and that beside the famous Bf 109, the rest of the fleet was pretty outdated too.

The Battle of Kursk clearly shows that if the Red Army had been on the defensive, Barbarossa would not have succeeded from day one. Truth is the Red Army was obviously not on the defensive by June 41.

Another important point is that by providing the essential means for Hitler's war, the Soviets knew very well the weakeness of Germany, and its lack of supplies. So as the victories of the western front did not lead to peace, Hitler had no choice but 1. to stay Stalin's hostage 2. to get those supplies sources by force. The same way, had Stalin decided to cut the supplies, Germany faced with a world war would have lost any chance to win against a well supplied Great Britain. So the definition of "preventive strike" is crucial at this point.
I personnally don't think any of them - Hitler or Stalin - were complete idiots. And that both new from the start that a confrontation between them would take place. Both just placed different bets, and ironically, both lost their bets. Hitler for sure underestimated the Red Army, Stalin was caught by surprise in the middle of his own plans - which i do not date at summer 1941, but rather during winter 42 or later. Stalin certainly hoped that Hitler would not risk his only source of supplies while dealing with the western allies.

Anyway, nothing is black and white here, and the fact that Suvorov is speculating a lot, does not mean his adversaries are completly right and unbiased. And you don't have to be a denier to point out the contradictions of both thesis.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Jeff_36 » Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:31 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:Suvorov was is and always will be a discredited crank. David Glantz, an accomplished military historian, absolutely savaged him, demonstrating that the Red Army in 1941 was short on officers, communications equipment, had very few trained aircrew and was badly organized. In fact, Suvorov ignored the fact that the red army was going through a reorganization period that was not scheduled to end until mid-1942. Why the {!#%@} would they invade in the midst of a reorganization cycle. Glantz could not rule out the chances of Stalin planning an invasion of Poland in 1943 or 1944, but the notion of an impending Soviet attack in 1941 was farcical.

Several German historians found that the German high command was of the opinion in early 1941 that the chances of a Soviet attack were `totally improbable``. A General in charge of planning Barbarossa opined on record that ``The Russians will not give us the courtesy of attacking.`` It was an aggressive war that the Germans waged.

Furthermore, 38% of all VVS aircraft in 1941 and nearly a majority of their fighter aircraft were slow, obsolete, stupid I-16`s, which were vastly inferior to the German ME-109`s.


Actually, David Glantz is not that convincing either. As he focus too much on the weaknesses of the Red Army and turn his eyes of its strengths. The only good point, he and the others who attacked Suvorov made, is the timing.
I personnally do not believe that the USSR was about to strike Germany by the summer of 1941, but that is about it.
As i said before, Stalin turned all his efforts into making a war possible for Germany. Without the Ribbentrop-Molotov pacts, there are reasons to doubts that Hitler would have launched his offensive against Poland.
I had the list of the supplies given by Stalin to Hitler, more fuel than he could dream of, food, materials, commodities, everything...
The level of supplies was so great that it confirms that Stalin expected long war between Germany and the Western Allies. It turned out much faster, and Russia was then basically providing the fuel and commodities that would made Barbarossa feasable.

Anyway, this issue alone is mostly ignored, and that would be my first question: why? Why would Stalin give Hitler the means to lead a war in a first place?
Glantz loves to describe the Red Army of 1941 as a total mess. But he missed the formidable tank production (T 34) which was already by far superior to any German tank production. Not only had the Red Army already about 1800 of them by 1941, but the output of tanks was like ... sorry i don't have the number in mind ... but far superior than the Germans...

Glantz also ignore the switch operated by the Red Army from a defensive to a offensive doctrine. (Stalin 5th of may 1941 speech, Jukhov plan, etc)
It turns his eyes from the fact that the Red Army increased from 1.8 to almost 5 millions soldiers, its overhelming superiority in Artillery.

he gladly insists on the outdated russian airforce, but the luftwaffe lost most of its best pilots and aircraft during the battle of England, and that beside the famous Bf 109, the rest of the fleet was pretty outdated too.

The Battle of Kursk clearly shows that if the Red Army had been on the defensive, Barbarossa would not have succeeded from day one. Truth is the Red Army was obviously not on the defensive by June 41.

Another important point is that by providing the essential means for Hitler's war, the Soviets knew very well the weakeness of Germany, and its lack of supplies. So as the victories of the western front did not lead to peace, Hitler had no choice but 1. to stay Stalin's hostage 2. to get those supplies sources by force. The same way, had Stalin decided to cut the supplies, Germany faced with a world war would have lost any chance to win against a well supplied Great Britain. So the definition of "preventive strike" is crucial at this point.
I personnally don't think any of them - Hitler or Stalin - were complete idiots. And that both new from the start that a confrontation between them would take place. Both just placed different bets, and ironically, both lost their bets. Hitler for sure underestimated the Red Army, Stalin was caught by surprise in the middle of his own plans - which i do not date at summer 1941, but rather during winter 42 or later. Stalin certainly hoped that Hitler would not risk his only source of supplies while dealing with the western allies.

Anyway, nothing is black and white here, and the fact that Suvorov is speculating a lot, does not mean his adversaries are completly right and unbiased. And you don't have to be a denier to point out the contradictions of both thesis.


Look, Stalin was supplying the Germans with materiel right up to the day of the attack, that is a fact. The Germans were convinced that the Soviets were not going to attack, and framed their war as a war of aggression, that is a documented fact as well. Whattever the Russians had coming down the pipe in 1943 is irrelevant, we are discussing the Suvorov thesis: the notion of a planned Soviet attack in 1941. What I am saying is that here was no attack coming in 1941 and that the Germans did not launch Barbarossa as a defensive strike against this non-existent attack.

If Stalin was planning an attack in 1941, why the {!#%@} would he order a reorganization of the Red Army that was not to be finished until mid-1942?Why would he order a defensive deployment in summer 1941?

It is also documented that Stalin shifted into full appeasement mode in Winter/Spring of 1941, making numerous concessions to Hitler. He also refused to hear reports of the impending German attack in the days leading up to it.

Like I said, Glantz could not disprove a Soviet attack in early 1943 or so, but the notion of an attack in 1941 is comical, as is the notion of the German strike as defensive. Had it been defensive they would not have stated confidently that the Soviets were not a threat and that an attack from them was not imminent.

You claim that the Luftwaffe was depleted in 1941, you are referring to the same airforce that had smashed it's competition in the Balkans not much earlier. The Russians had few trained pilots and most of their fighters were the I-16, an aircraft that was demonstrably inferior to it's counterpart.

The Soviet communications were still using peacetime codes, not an indicator of an army that was gearing up for war in just a few weeks.

I don't know what your thesis is, but you are an idiot if you think that the Germans were consciously defending against an imminent invasion. By their own documented admission they were not.

As for what the Soviets were intending, there is no way they had anything planned for 1941. I cannot rule out what they had planned for 1943 but Stalin was very much focused on the M-R alliance in 1941.

You mention the Zhukov plan, but that was a hypothetical strategy and Zukhov stated in 1965 that Stalin threw it out. There are likely a dozen hypothetical plans to attack Iran in a secure vault in the Isreali High Command right now, but that doesn't mean that they're gonna do it on New Years Eve for {!#%@}'s sake!

Anthony Beevoir, a historian that you have cited in the past If I'm correct, rejects any notion of a planned Soviet attack in 1941.

Give it up. It's {!#%@} like this that makes me wonder if you're Michael Mills in disguise.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Jeff_36 » Tue Dec 22, 2015 10:38 pm

The only good point, he and the others who attacked Suvorov made, is the timing.


That's far from the only good point that they made (It was a pretty one sided argument IIRC), and you miss that fact that when we discuss Suvorovist nonsense timing is everything.

The entire argument of Suvorov's was that a) Hitler was acting defensively and that b) the Soviets were planning an attack in 1941. Both of those points were demonstrably wrong and proven so. That's the entire foundation of the "preventative war" thesis and when a table's legs are removed it falls to the ground.

There is really no denying that both partners were planning to go to war with each other. However you cannot deny that all evidence indicates that Stalin was not planning such a move for some years (If he was planning it at all) and was still thinking himself an ally of Hitler when the attack was launched. You also cannot deny that the German attack was aggressive in nature and that they did not expect any Soviet attack at all.

This the core of the Suvorov thesis (Blameless defensive Hitler/1941 invasion plan) is refuted for all time. End scene.

******I might remind you that Glantz is a respected military historian who has extensive knowlege of Soviet primary sources. Suvorov was a failed spook who basically pulled a wacko theory out of his ass and din't do so much as a half second of archival work. Who has more credibility?

You neglect to mention that the goal of Galntz was to prove Soviet capabilities were not up to par in 1941 and that he fulfilled that mission if the reviews of his book are any indication. As a former high ranking millitary officer he has a great deal of knowlege on staging attacks an the like. You can have a billion T-34's but with no trained crews, no air force to speak of, peacetime comms that could be intercepted, and a severely depleted officer class you cannot stage an attack anymore than you can magically sprout wings and fly at will.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22242
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:12 pm

Stalin was dutifully supplying the Third Reich - as Balsamo says - under the terms of the Non-Aggression Pact, right along. How on god's green earth could he have been doing so - and as Balsamo says, helping Germany build its overall capabilities through this fulfillment - and planning war with Germany at the same time? That's what I've never understood about the preventive war thesis.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1801
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Balsamo » Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:02 am

Actually, this is why i said that Glantz and friends were essentially right on the timing. I also said that i agreed that Stalin did not plan to attack on June 41. So Suvorov is wrong on the timing, but what i contest in the global rejection of all the elements he proposed is the suspiscion that it would somehow rehabilitate the Nazi regime...Well that is what some deniers hope to find, and they understand it that way. But this is non-sense from both side, raisong the idea that Stalin had an agenda does not mean that Hilter had none, pointing out the responsibilities of Stalin in the start of WW2 does not discharge Hitler's ones.

I personnally do not defend the idea that Hitler launched Barbarossa just because he feared an attack, but it is not what i recall from reading Icebreaker - but that was a couple of years ago, so i am not sure - as it focus more on what was happenening on Stalin's side. But again, he comes the amalgam considering that one Agenda eradicate the other, the misleading idea that both cannot co-exist.


But on the other hand, the tendency to see Stalin as a big naive who was surprise by a treacherous attack while he had only wanted peace and time to develop`his country is also absurd.
I have read Glantz's Barbarossa, and can't prevent myself from nodding at some ageless "cliche"... Stalin's fear of being dragged in the war by Great Britain, Stalin organizing the "defense" at the time of the attack, Stalin misunderstanding Hitler to the level of blindness, etc. Ok, there might be some truth in those assertions, but again, the whole work starts at the wrong time.
Stalin European policy does not start in June 1941.

The "diplomatic and military" situation by January 1941 was unexpected for both Hitler and Stalin.
Hitler achieved victory in the west but no peace, a blockade, a a huge territory to occupy.
Stalin was shocked by the speed of France's defeat - like anyone else - and therefore was also confronted with a bad and unexpected situation.

Hitler's main objectives have always been in the East, and anyway, there was no way he could hope to win without getting his hands on the commodities available in the USSR. So Barbarossa was the natural next step.

Stalin's objective had always been the west. He started reorganizing the Red Army in 1937 with the purge - which is often described as a mistake, while i am not sure it was one. The Red Army was Trotsky's creation and full with former Tzarist officiers, quite unreliable in Stalin's eyes. Modernization of its equipments also started before 1939, with some gems like the formidable T-34 was already mass-produced by the end of 1940,
by june 1941, most of Russian industry was already dedicated to war economy, etc.

Again, Suvorov might be wrong on his assertion that an attack was planed for July 1941, he might have some disputable methods, but on the other hands, i am still waiting for an explanation for why were the Russian Airforce so closed to the border which allowed the Luftwaffe - which had only a small range of action - to destroy most of its planes on the ground.
To sum it all to the datation - did or did Stalin planned to attack on July 41 - is the wrong question which allows to avoid some other issues.

I am not on my personal computer so i have not my notes on hands.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Jeff_36 » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:00 am

i am still waiting for an explanation for why were the Russian Airforce so closed to the border which allowed the Luftwaffe - which had only a small range of action - to destroy most of its planes on the ground.


Stalin had two threats. One in the east and one in the west. It made sense to put his air-force where the threat was.

Stalin did indeed make concessions to Hitler in Spring 1941, and continued to ship materiel to him. His deployment was defensive in nature and the official docs say so.

Yes there was a hypothetical invasion plan that was likely half put into place as a pre-emptive measure, long after the Barbarossa machine was rolling. But Stalin's rejection of the plan and the subsequent ordering of defensive deployment brought it to a close.

Furthermore he had engineers at the border building fortifications and setting up landmines.

Yes they both ad agendas, but in the short term Stalin saw the USSR as being part of the pact and did not plan on any action against the Germans for some time.

You fail to understand that his forces were incapable of attack due to their lack of supplies and key personnel and that they would not have been fully ready for some considerable time.

You also fail to consider that Suvorov's thesis is utterly depandant on a) Hitler's attack being purely defensive (which is was not) and b) the Germans attacking only because of the imminent Soviet invasion in 1941. That is what Suvorov argued and that is what is being played out on RODOH today by the likes of Blake and Rollo the {!#%@}.

without those two key elements (defensive nature of attack and 1941 planned invasion) the moral guilt shifts back to the Germans and {!#%@}'s thesis goes down in flames.

I do not contest the two powers both having agendas, I contest that the 1941 attack was defensive and that the Soviets were a threat to anyone in 1941 (they really were not, if they were then why were they undergoing the extensive reorganization?)

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1801
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Balsamo » Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:03 am

Stalin had two threats. One in the east and one in the west. It made sense to put his air-force where the threat was.


Well, not exactly true...in the Srping of 1939, the Red Army defeated the Japanese who signed a cease-fire and a non agression pact was signedin 41. Japan had other projects, and was buisy conquering China. Japan was into the fourth years of war and had been crushed in Mongolia. Some russian divisions were kept there of course, but that is it about eastern "threat". Curioulsy this victory over the Japanese 6th army ( no joke here) is rather overloocked by those tenants of the dislocated and inefficient Red Army..

I of course not blame Stalin for having put his airforce in the west where the threat was real and known. My question is why so close to the border. I am not a great fan of Suvorov, but he quotes many veterans memoirs testifying of huge concentrations of planes including bombers like 30 km from the border. Knowing the short range capabilities of the Luftwaffe, a defensive aberration

.
You fail to understand that his forces were incapable of attack due to their lack of supplies and key personnel and that they would not have been fully ready for some considerable time.


I do not fail in anything, you just put your trust in Gantz which starts most of his works in the wrong dates.

You also fail to consider that Suvorov's thesis is utterly depandant on a) Hitler's attack being purely defensive (which is was not) and b) the Germans attacking only because of the imminent Soviet invasion in 1941. That is what Suvorov argued and that is what is being played out on RODOH today by the likes of Blake and Rollo the {!#%@}
.

As i said, that is Denier's interpretation of Suvorov which makes me wonder if you actually read his two books. I do not remember exactly Icebreaker, but i still own "the chief culprint" in which he does not affirm anything like point B, not even point A. And i am not defending any of those assertions anyway. I do not read Rodoh anymore, as it is a waste of time. And i even think that Nessie should leave them to their silly club on their own, as it is not even funny anymore. Now it reminds me of those silly anti HC blogbuster's blogs...close to insanity to put it politely.

without those two key elements (defensive nature of attack and 1941 planned invasion) the moral guilt shifts back to the Germans and {!#%@}'s thesis goes down in flames.


We are not talking about a ping pong game, here. Moral guilt can be shared for various thing. Stalin is of course not responsible for the murderous policies led by Himmler in Russia, this was also "to come", but that does not mean that Stalin was not responsible for the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Poles, that he had no intention to play his own aces in this murderous game.

And forget about the deniers for a minutes.

I do not contest the two powers both having agendas, I contest that
the 1941 attack was defensive and that the Soviets were a threat to anyone in 1941 (they really were not, if they were then why were they undergoing the extensive reorganization?)


Tell that to the Balts, the Fins, the Romanians, the Poles. And the half of Europe occupied four years later.
And of course, when you produce more tanks in one years than all your opponents in four, you are not a threat for your neighboring countries, when you policy it to fund and maintain Bloshevik movements and communist parties all around the world, you are not a threat...The Spanish will appreciate...
Strange thing the so called " free world" concluded otherwise as soon as 1945...up to today.

I you feel to get into more details, i am ready for it. But please, do not assimilate me to Rodoh's deniers or whatever.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:51 am

Balsamo wrote:
Stalin had two threats. One in the east and one in the west. It made sense to put his air-force where the threat was.


Well, not exactly true...in the Srping of 1939, the Red Army defeated the Japanese who signed a cease-fire and a non agression pact was signedin 41. Japan had other projects, and was buisy conquering China. Japan was into the fourth years of war and had been crushed in Mongolia. Some russian divisions were kept there of course, but that is it about eastern "threat". Curioulsy this victory over the Japanese 6th army ( no joke here) is rather overloocked by those tenants of the dislocated and inefficient Red Army..

I of course not blame Stalin for having put his airforce in the west where the threat was real and known. My question is why so close to the border. I am not a great fan of Suvorov, but he quotes many veterans memoirs testifying of huge concentrations of planes including bombers like 30 km from the border. Knowing the short range capabilities of the Luftwaffe, a defensive aberration


Well there you go. The air force was where the threat was. The proximity of the aircraft would enable them to scramble and meet the waves of Stukas right away. Considering the legendary speed and altitude deficiencies of the I-16 that seems logical.

I do not fail in anything, you just put your trust in Gantz which starts most of his works in the wrong dates.

Glantz is far from the only historian, or the first one for that matter, to bring the massive deficiencies of the Red Army to light. Recall that I do not rule out a possible attack on Poland in mid-late 1942, all I say is that it makes no sense to launch an invasion in the middle of a military restructuring cycle.

As i said, that is Denier's interpretation of Suvorov which makes me wonder if you actually read his two books. I do not remember exactly Icebreaker, but i still own "the chief culprint" in which he does not affirm anything like point B, not even point A. And i am not defending any of those assertions anyway. I do not read Rodoh anymore, as it is a waste of time. And i even think that Nessie should leave them to their silly club on their own, as it is not even funny anymore. Now it reminds me of those silly anti HC blogbuster's blogs...close to insanity to put it politely.

I have not read Suvorov but I have read enough deniers spamming his materiel and boasting about how he proved that Hitler was a "great humanitarian" to know what he argued. I read Glantz and a number of others, including Gareev who dealt with his BS in detail.

We are not talking about a ping pong game, here. Moral guilt can be shared for various thing. Stalin is of course not responsible for the murderous policies led by Himmler in Russia, this was also "to come", but that does not mean that Stalin was not responsible for the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Poles, that he had no intention to play his own aces in this murderous game.

And forget about the deniers for a minutes.

The fact is that the Red Army was in the middle of a retooling cycle that was not scheduled to end until mid-1942. They had no aircrew, their comms were not set to wartime codes, most of their best General officers were dead and had been replaced by a pack of yes-men and losers. They could not have invaded your front yard in 1941 (which is when Suvorov said they were gonna do it)


Tell that to the Balts, the Fins, the Romanians, the Poles.

The Balts and the Poles were invasions that were done only because Hitler gave his accent in the Warsaw pact. The Finns kicked their asses and made them look like imbeciles, this prompting a restructuring.
And the half of Europe occupied four years later.

Apples and Oranges. They had gotten their {!#%@} together majorly by then.

And of course, when you produce more tanks in one years than all your opponents in four, you are not a threat for your neighboring countries, when you policy it to fund and maintain Bloshevik movements and communist parties all around the world, you are not a threat...The Spanish will appreciate...

Blah Blah Blah.
When I say "a threat" I mean an immediate, present threat, they had long term goals for sure but there was no imminent invasion that the oh so valiant Nazis staved off by a few months. :roll: That is Suvorov in a nutshell. IHR published a lot of his screeds back in the day.

You fail to get the difference between long term threat and immediate threat. The difference between Putin and ISIL basically. They could have had all the tanks in the world (and the T-34 was not all that great, they lost a ton of them - not to mention that they did not have any ready until December of 1941 after rushing production. Before then they mostly made due with slow under-armed KV-1's), but with an officer corps comprised of idiots, no aircrew for your outdated 1935 era fighters, no proper assault aircraft (remember that the legendary Sturmovik was barely being produced in mid-1941 and was not scheduled to have been fully adopted until early 1942. They only got them airborn in late 1941 by rapidly speeding up production and even then they were not effective because the pilots had no training at all), and peacetime communications, you won't be able to launch an invasion of any real scale.

I you feel to get into more details, i am ready for it. But please, do not assimilate me to Rodoh's deniers or whatever.

It will be difficult, this is an argument used by every denier and semi-denier out there.

Basically my thesis is as follows

1. The German attack was not a defensive one against an impending, imminent invasion.

2. There was no invasion planned in 1941.

The facts are on my side as pertains to those two points. I am not discussing long term ambitions by either side, but rather the allegations made by Pure Suvorovites which are that there was an imminent invasion planned for 1941 and no later, and that the German invasion was defensive.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1801
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Balsamo » Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:32 pm

Jeff:

I have not read Suvorov but I have read enough deniers spamming his materiel and boasting about how he proved that Hitler was a "great humanitarian" to know what he argued. I read Glantz and a number of others, including Gareev who dealt with his BS in detail.


I thought so.

And here lies the problem. “judging books” through how deniers used them is maybe not the best approach. They also used Browning and other scholar’s books in their cheats to play with apparent contradictions, in order to make a bogus point. It is common denier’s strategy.
It does not mean those works should be “disqualified”. Anyway, had you read both Icebreaker and the Chief Culprint, you would not find any assertion that Hitler attacked Russia as a self-defense strike, as the motivations were of course much more complex. Suvorov mainly insists on Stalin only. Now I am aware, and everyone should be, that Suvorov is not a scholar, his books are not academic works, and one have to his books for what they are…Books from an former intelligence officer. As he focuses mainly on the Soviet side, he of course, overlooks some crucial aspects of the Nazi policies, motivations. But the points he raised – mainly based on the problematic of resource and global geostrategy – are nevertheless worth consideration. Struggle for resources and geopolitical considerations have their place in any military history.

Had you read those two books, you would realize that Glantz basically ignores and does not address most of Suvorov’s points, and in my opinion what is worse, he basically used new sources to repeat what he is saying from day one (that his from his first publications). A clear example is the - in my opinion wrong conception – that one of the reasons of the Red Army disaster was the purge. One hears that claim since Kroutchev came to power…and everyone just agrees. It is so obvious, right? Well it is not that simple.

The red Army was indeed Trotsky creation, it was still full of former tzarist officers...If you decide to double or triple its effectives, well you have to be sure that it is indeed reliable. It all started in 1937, before the Anschluss...

By focusing only on what went wrong with the red army, you are basically missing some points as those weaknesses – which are denied by no one – only appears AFTER the first engagements. Considering that an international Actor would act or not act depending on those results – unknown at the moment of decision – can be misleading. Such an approach would exclude Mussolini as an actor of World War 2.

That being said, I do not want to seem to demolish Glantz work as whole. His Stumbling colossus contains a hell of very pertinent information, but on specific points – the core of his work – that is the defects of the Red Army, but in fine there are many points he just ignores so one cannot consider them as rebutted at all.
The same way, Suvorov being a spy, he concentrates too much one what makes sense to him, ignoring more general plans Hitler had for the East as a whole. As a whole, I personally don’t see any contradictions between the two works – if one filters a little those information contained in both works, and especially the perspectives in which they are given.

I personnally have a great opinion on Browning "Origins..." although i find its conlucions very weak, to say the least. It is nevertheless a must have in any library on the Holocaust.

“Glantz is far from the only historian, or the first one for that matter, to bring the massive deficiencies of the Red Army to light. Recall that I do not rule out a possible attack on Poland in mid-late 1942, all I say is that it makes no sense to launch an invasion in the middle of a military restructuring cycle.”


Well, as I said, timing is not really what matters. I mean if one takes the example of the Holocaust, debates about the timing does not affect the global policy which eventually took place.
In the case of Hitler or Stalin, the confrontation was inevitable and this was an evidence for both, for different reasons and with different objectives in mind. Each Actors behavior has to be considered independently from their origins to the confrontation. In the case of World War 2, one still has the feeling that everything should be considered through Hitler’s actions alone. And there is still this feeling that if anyone analyzes another actor’s actions, and that those actions ALSO would have led to a war, then it is a heresy. Such an attitude is close to absurdity.

You mention a “military restructuring cycle”… What does that means exactly?

This cycle clearly started in 1937 with the Purges, and continued for the next 4 years or what? To raise the effective from 1,5 to 5,6 million is just a restructuration? To turn its industry into war production (as soon as1939) (what the Nazi only did in 1942) is only part of a restructuration? The tremendous advance in both artillery and tanks was a matter of luck? Was the war against Finland just an exercise? The mobilization of half a million troop and thousands of tanks at the Romanian borders just for fun and the annexation of Bessarabia motivated by the nice countryside? Turning the Baltic States into military districts was also part of the global training?

Sorry, but I do not adhere to theories based on “they were all bunch of idiots”, nor Hitler nor Stalin were idiots. But both were caught with an unexpected situation by 1940-41.

I unfortunately have Stumbling colossus on hands – I lost it – but how can a country (the USSR) producing ten times more tanks, guns, planes than its opponent, be ill equipped? When country with no resource problems at all - while Germany never had enough fuel, had no rare resource at all and barely had enough food - get his ass kicked, well there might be more than just a few obvious defects.
The main problem I have is at the source and the assumption that Russia was on a defensive mood, while “restructuring”. Some stupid questions maybe, but
- why did Stalin sign the Ribbentrop-Molotov pacts, which got Russia involved in WW2? Why destroy by annexation the three Baltic States which would have been a great buffer zone?
- Is igniting a conflict at your borders common among “defensive doctrines”?
- If the goal was to gain peace time to “restructure” (note that one usually calls it “rearmament”), Stalin could have prevented any Nazi military initiative by simply guaranteeing Poland, or by signing with Great Britain and France.

And of course, there is this more fundamental question: would Nazi Germany have engaged itself into a conflict which could degenerate into a world war if it had to count on its own resource in Oil, metals, food.? Would there have been a world war without the Pact? Depending on your answer to this question, everything that follows changes.

If like me, your answer is “probably not”, then the whole “Stalin wanting to be at peace on his own” and "Hitler overide a Red Army in a peace time mode" collapse.
And this should be the starting point of a global analysis. I do not say you have to say “probably not”, but then again, I would just say, look at the industrial production stats and the resource at Germany’s disposal.
Something that has been rarely done. Most of the time, the invasion of Poland is enough.

Same approach have long existing when explaining the French debacle. The French who hate using foreign word adopted one and are still using it as if it explained everything. This world is “PANZER”! the Panzer crushed the French army which still saw itself as in world war 1…Basically, you could not win against those terrible “Panzerdivisions”…

Every Nation tries hard to explain disasters like May 40 or Barbarossa the best they can. Blaming leadership and ennemy’s superiority in the first case, Stalin and his insane lost for blood in the second. The decisive role of Panzer in the first case, the purge in the second…two concepts which explain or are supposed to explain everything.

Don’t dig into details of course. In the case of France, do not point out that out of the 2000 thousands Panzers engaged, only 278 (Panzer IV) were able to destroy one the 400 B1 or even one of the 430 Samoa in combat; that those very Panzers never really won Tanks to tanks battle without the help of the Stucka’s…And of course, given the level of the disaster, France refused to play any role on the international scene, they would not declare or participate in any war because they knew that they would lose in three weeks. But do not neither point out that the Germans suffered even more casualties in those three weeks than on the eastern front, that the Blitzkrieg was – although very efficient – quite resource hungry…resource Germany did not have.

In the case of Russia, we have to accept that of course the Purge killed the most talented of generals of the great Red Army which could not have recovered in 4 years, that those who were left…the Jukov, the Konev, the Vlassov, the Timochenko were all stupid “yes sayer”… That the Red Army was badly equiped although there are claims that the Germans destroyed no less than 20.000 tanks in 1941 alone (tanks being known as the main defensive weapons), that Russia was surprised and unprepared although it managed to build 12.000 tanks in 1942 alone (The German build 25.700 tanks during the whole war), that no one among those indoctrinated russian peasants knew how to drive those tanks, although the USSR had like a 5 years lead over every other nations in tanks conceptions and productions…That the first T-34 was already under production in 1940 (at a time when Germany had only 278 Pz VI)…Of course given the reliablities of the Soviets source, there were”only” between 900 and 1800 units ready in 1941…but other statistic will tell that the Germans destroyed 2000 T-34 in 1941…And of course, we have to ignore all the testimonies from officers, generals to soldiers, all the sources gathered by some dickheads like Suvorov, because – not worth a reading – some elements are used by Deniers.
Or am I missing something?

I have read many of Glantz works – not all of them as there are too much of them – but he makes you feel like Sir Basil is a revolutionary military historians, almost a philosoph. I like some of them, especially Stumbling colossus, but it is hard to find less “conventional”. And the fact that he proved in Stumbling what he was already saying a couple of decades ago in Barbarossa…well…

Here are some quotes from Glantz' Barbarossa, which i have next to me. Most of the book is just like "please, pay attention and get your maps ready as you'll need to draw some arrows on it to follow what i am saying", so let's go straight to some of his conclusions:

He has never been afraid of contradictions either, so when he concludes in Barbarossa that

“The Red Army’s occupation of Poland, Bessarabia and the Baltic States in 1939 and 1940 undermined the coherence of Soviet strategic defenses, and new defenses were incomplete when the German Army struck.”


Come on, how are we supposed to take this:
- Of course, it undermined the defense, but then maybe, just maybe it was because defense was not the priorty.
- Everyone knows that between 1 and 2 years is not enough to build defense…It tooks only months to turn Kursk into a dead hall, but that was during the war, so in peacetime everything is more difficult.
- Bessarabia was just 180 km from the main source of Oil for Nazi Germany…just a coincidence.
- Turning the Baltic States into military districts were of course not motivated by the additional Ports on the Baltics.

All in all, Hitler had to appreciate that the Red Fleet could interrupt his sources of iron by sea and Oil by land within hours. Of course, not very useful in a purely defense logic, but then Stalin was stupid, i guess, so he did it nevertheless, still with only defensive projects in mind.

Ok one last quotes from Glantz:

Finally, Stalin’s policy of accommodation with Germany, whether or not it was designed to gain time to prepare the country for war, provided the prerequisites for the Wehrmacht’s achievement of strategic, operational and tactical surprise. Even though Stalin was cautious enough to mobilize the Red Army partially in April 1941, the tyrant in him never allowed for the possibility that Hitler, his brother tyrant, might betray him…”


Accomodation?
“Ok have a go in destroying Poland, I’ll take half of it and the Baltic States. Don’t worry about supplies, in case the Royal Navy does its usual blockade, we have plenty resources for you…GO.”
Stalin did it only to preserve peace for his people. As a side note, the PACT was signed in Moscow, not in Berlin and bears Stalin’s signature, not Hitler’s…But let’s call that “a policy of accommodation”… peaceful persons giving through accomodation the means to a "tyrant" to engage a war is called what?

Whether or not it was to give Stalin time to prepare for war? He asked…
Not that he cares, maybe maybe not, maybe he did it only to be polite…unanswerable question it seems…Oh, here we learn that he only mobilized in 1941?
Partially, over 5 million men and thousands (upto 20.000) of tanks…good thing to be cautious…
And the final touch, Stalin had so much trust in Adolf that he could not imagine any betrayal from this trustful guy…And of course, he knew nothing, the Red Orchestra and the Soviets very efficient spy network is only a fantasy in western minds, or if it existed, logically he chose to keep his faith in Adolph who had proven that his "diplomatic word" was sacred.

Ok, i leave it there...

Merry Xmas to your all, guys.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Jeff_36 » Fri Dec 25, 2015 10:09 pm

You are correct that Glantz did not speak of the tank build up, but that is about it to be honest. I came away from reading "Stumbling Colossus" with the impression that Suvorov was a nitwit who did next to no archival research and was falt out wrong on a number of points (the pre emptive nature of the Zukhov plan for one, the non-factor that was the recon tanks).

The fact is that the restructuring cycle was not due to end until 1942, the Russians had yet to train their new tank crews, had a piss poor airforce, and had no attack aircraft of their own. In my opinion, Gantz has obliterated any notion of a 1941 attack at all. And that is what I am arguing - that there was no attack pending in 1941, not that Stalin was some peacenick.

Stalin did it only to preserve peace for his people. As a side note, the PACT was signed in Moscow, not in Berlin and bears Stalin’s signature, not Hitler’s…But let’s call that “a policy of accommodation”… peaceful persons giving through accomodation the means to a "tyrant" to engage a war is called what?


It's called an alliance, and Stalin was sending {!#%@} of materiel to Hitler on the eve of Barbarossa. If an invasion was pending in 1941 you would see these shipments curtailed and then stopped altogether. Common sense man.

- Of course, it undermined the defense, but then maybe, just maybe it was because defense was not the priorty.


Stalin ordered a defensive deployment and was building fortifications at the time of Barbarossa.

Everyone knows that between 1 and 2 years is not enough to build defense…It tooks only months to turn Kursk into a dead hall, but that was during the war, so in peacetime everything is more difficult.


Maybe he was not expecting am attack so soon? Recall that he refused to believe reports about the incoming attack.

- Bessarabia was just 180 km from the main source of Oil for Nazi Germany…just a coincidence.


Oh I'm not denying that he was prepared for eventual war, but not in 1941. Suvorov {!#%@} up when he focused on the very short term. An unforgivable error as he missed an incontrovertible tide of evidence against his thesis.

-Turning the Baltic States into military districts were of course not motivated by the additional Ports on the Baltics.

It was a border area, such a move makes sense. Also see above.

And the final touch, Stalin had so much trust in Adolf that he could not imagine any betrayal from this trustful guy…

He could not imagine a betrayal from his ally to be so soon all accounts show that he was trying to continue the pact in 1941. Preparing for eventual war in the long run =/= staging an immediate invasion. That's a point that sailed over Suvorov's head and yours too.

In the case of Russia, we have to accept that of course the Purge killed the most talented of generals of the great Red Army which could not have recovered in 4 years, that those who were left…the Jukov, the Konev, the Vlassov, the Timochenko were all stupid “yes sayer”…


Iona Yakir and Mikhail Tukachevsky, two architects of the offensively inclined "deep operations theory" were food for the crows. Of the names you mention only Zukhov was at the very top and he was if anything an exception to those around him.

Konev was commander of the 19th Army, and would not be at the command of a front until later.

Ditto Vlasov, and he would dramatically {!#%@} up at Leningrad, get captured, and join the Nazis...... you're still trying to prove your point right?

Timoshenko would {!#%@} up brutally on a number of occasions, and he was not yet in command of his front at the time of Barbarossa - it was Semyon Budonyy, a colossal dunce.

You also neglect to mention that the second best (if not the best) Soviet General of WWII, Konstantin Rossokovsky, was rotting away in a GULAG at the time of Barbarossa, a victim of the Purges.

The mobilization of half a million troop and thousands of tanks at the Romanian borders just for fun and the annexation of Bessarabia motivated by the nice countryside?

Apparently Stalin asked Hitler in a negotiation session in late 1940 to be permitted to annex Romania. Hitler refused. The build up that you mention was likely for the planned annexation, with Stalin anticipating that Hitler would give him the go-ahead. Hitler's refusal left it in limbo, the mobilization half-completed. Not proof of a planned 1941 invasion at all.

Was the war against Finland just an exercise?

Don't be daft, they got their asses kicked in Finland, they were if anything exposed for what they were - a sheep in wolf's clothing.

This cycle clearly started in 1937 with the Purges, and continued for the next 4 years or what? To raise the effective from 1,5 to 5,6 million is just a restructuration? To turn its industry into war production (as soon as1939) (what the Nazi only did in 1942) is only part of a restructuration?

It was a process of building up the obsolete Red Army after the purges, a long term project, spurred by the long term eventuality of war with Nazi Germany. The simple fact is that it was not scheduled to end until 1942. I will say it for the last time you cannot launch an invasion in 1941 when the rebuilding is not supposed to end for at least a year it's literally impossible.

If like me, your answer is “probably not”, then the whole “Stalin wanting to be at peace on his own” and "Hitler overide a Red Army in a peace time mode" collapse.

Not really peacetime mode but they were the literal furthest thing from war ready. Hitler needed resources and he attacked what he knew to be an easy target. He knew that the Soviets were in the midst of a rebuild and that they were not going to attack in 1941 (the German General staff said as much - the main planner for Barbarossa opined that "The Soviets will not give us the courtesy of attacking).

You must remember that the key plank in Suvorov's house of cards is that the Soviet attack was to begin in 1941 - and given the evidence that has been shown to you so far I cannot help but say that as far as i'm concerned that theory has been relegated to the dustbin of history.

In the end there is a difference between gearing up for an imminent attack, and building your army up into a massive threatening force for the eventuality of war down the line. The Soviets were still very much in incubation in 1941. They could not have attacked any more than I can read your mind. All signs point to their wishing to extend the Pact a few years. So {!#%@} no to 1941.

And that's just Glantz. I have yet to factor in Beevoir, Gareev, ect. ect.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1801
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Balsamo » Sun Dec 27, 2015 9:20 pm

Jeff:

It's called an alliance, and Stalin was sending {!#%@} of materiel to Hitler on the eve of Barbarossa. If an invasion was pending in 1941 you would see these shipments curtailed and then stopped altogether. Common sense man.


Not really an alliance in the full sense of such a treaty. And again the timing of June 1941. Stalin would of course not interrupt the shippments – which were bilateral by the way (they were German ships in Russian harbors as well) – as it was his only hope that Hitler would not attack in 1941.

One important thing is that Stalin knew his country could not be attacked in the winter – the Wehrmacht had no winter equipment and the Russians certainly knew that – so only a couple of weeks or months delay – even one – would have saved the year 1941, and gave him enough time to get his huge army ready.
On the other hand, the weather was not a decisive factor for an invasion of the west – even Poland.
Again, Stalin had or hoped to have something Hitler did not: Time!

Here is a very important statistic: The first column is (in thousands tons) the level of Russian exportation to Germany… (Germany had military reserves of 1,6 million tons of oil in 1939); The second column is the stock that Nazi Germany had in June 1941 (before Barbarossa) so one can see that the two third of the oil that fueled the invading Panzer had been given by Stalin. The third column is what the German’s stock in October 41 would have been without the Russian exports (so one can see what had been consumed during the 4 months campaign, and basically the needs of those commodities by the Wehrmacht), the fourth is the stock in october 41, the fifth what would have been the stocks without the Russian contributions (column 1 – column 5)

Petrole /oil 912 1 350 438 905 -7 (1)
Rubber/ c 18,8 13,8 -4.9 12.1 -6.7
Manganèse 189,5 205 15,5 170 -19.5
Food/wheat 1 637,1 1 381 -256.1 761 -876.1



Without Stalin and his “attitude” since 1939, Hitler would not have been able to sustain any war against anyone, but Poland, and certainly not over a long haul. You can build 25.000 tanks, but without gas they are pretty useless.
As one can see, Barbarossa ate 450.000 tons of Oil between June and October 41, that is more than Germany reserve available in June 1941 (without the Russian Oil)…Basically that would have been it: The Wehrmacht stuck in the middle of Russia, immobilized forever. As one can see, the problematic was even greater for a much more vital commodity: FOOD.
On the other hand, Germany delivered Coal, machine tools, a half finished war vessel, the plans of the Bf-109, etc. Small stuff in comparison.

Hitler was very dependent on the USSR, if at any time, those supplies were to be terminated, Nazi Germany would have been in a very bad situation within matter of days. I think it is not foolish to state that both Stalin and Hitler were aware of this situation. Without the deliveries, Hitler would have had to attack anyway, the sooner the best.

Let’s imagine a scenario where by mid-September 41 or in October 41, Stalin issues a message saying that the transport of supplies could no longer be delivered, well, Nazi Germany would have been {!#%@}, as no offensive could have been lauched until spring/summer 1942, meanwhile the Red Fleet – although discreet – was stronger than the Kriegsmarine and could have cut the Iron route from Sweden and the red army could have obliterated the Romanian oilfields within a day or two.

Just to compare, USSR output of oil for the sole year of 1940 was 34 million tons!

Again, nor Hitler nor Stalin were “stupid” in this regard.

A peace deal with Great Britain would have – of course – changed everything as the blockade would have been lifted and oil available from other sources, he then would have the means to strike the USSR at his will. But given the “NO” opposed by Churchill, Hitler had no other choice, the funny part – as the statistic shows – that Hitler could dream of Barbarossa since day 1, he HAD to wait for the Russian oil to be stockpiled before he could think of the invasion. Stalin knew it, and counted on that, as any German attack past July 41 (and this proved to be too late anyway) would have been suicidal and therefore highly improbable.
So All Stalin needed was a couple of weeks or months. In this logic, the communist “coup” in Yugoslavia – turning an Axis friend into a foe and basically forcing Hitler to intervene – makes more sense. Again, the German victory was too fast; but basically long enough to make Barbarossa impossible to achieve.

So yes, my guess is that Stalin was expecting the attack, but could not change his own plans, and hoped to gain enough time to be ready. I think the Germans were quite aware of all that and just HAD to strike. And this what the main Nazi project was anyway. The British refusal of any peace negotiations just determine the year of the attack. It HAD to be in 1941. It was supposed to start in May, but the “case of Yugoslavia” delayed the operation.

This specific issue might raise the question of who was the colossus with clay feet? Who, in fine, held the aces, in this “alliance”. Who was in a hurry to act? Who was other’s hostage?

In Peace time, Nazi greater German Reich had a yearly deficit of oil of 2 million tons (12 million barrels), a deficit which could grow to 10 million tons in case of full mobilization. It had similar deficit in chrome (he had none), rubber and manganese, and if it only needed to import 10% of its wheat, had to import 40% of its nutritional fats (oil). The problem increased even more after its victory in the west – which consumed 12 million barrels of fuel – or 1,8 million tons, having to occupy non producing countries with basically the same resource which were not enough of Germany alone. The situation was slightly compensated by the capture of those countries own reserves. And because of the blockage, the only supply route that was left was through the USSR, and the main oil supply reduced to sole Romania.

And this source was clearly under threat with the Russian occupation of Bessarabia (again a very stupid decision if only concerned about defense), a move which was quite close to a provocation. Stalin could not ignore Hitler dependency on his good will, except if one buys the “complete idiots theories” that are still to be found in some approaches.

“Maybe he was not expecting am attack so soon? Recall that he refused to believe reports about the incoming attack.”


That is indeed one of the main arguments, but as I said and for the reasons I explained above, it relates too much on those “Idiots theories”. It all comes down whether or not the defensive posture of the Red Army is valid or not. Another proposition might be that when it was clear that Germany was about to attack, it was too late to take real efficient defensive measures anyway, so all Stalin could do is to keep sending and fulfilling his economic “obligations” and hope that Hitler would in fine not give the ultimate order.

“It was a border area, such a move makes sense. Also see above.”


Not really, no sorry. And Stalin should have known that given the winter’s war. An efficient defense is put in place behind a buffer zone, like the Mannerheim line. Or you transform the border into a fortress like the Maginot line, but even then, airports a well behind, and certainly not within the range of field artillery or short range dive bombers like the Stuckas.
As Suvorov points out, a defensive logic would have been to increase the pre-existing fortifications of the original borders, and using occupied Poland as a buffer zone. Stalin had almost two years for that, but he didn’t, instead he chose to improve roads and railroads, to keep all the bridges intact and not even ready to be blown up just in case, he dismantled large portions of the above original defensive lines to open huge gaps, etc. Why is that?
Had the Russians learned – and I believe they had – as Glantz argues from the winter war, he would have done exactly what the Finns did. The change of borders should not have changed anything, quite the contrary. Again Stalin’s decision to transfer the fortification lines can only be understood as the decision of a mad man and an idiot (what I call the “idiots theories” quite favored), or there was something else or something more under the table which we do not know.

Another logical choice would have been to keep the Baltic States independent, so that Hitler would have had to invade all three (or at least two) before getting in contact with the Red Army.

Again, I am not defending that he intended to strike in June 41 – any dating is pure speculation – and I have to repeat that contrary to what is said everywhere, the “Chief Culprint” (795 pages) does not defend the idea that the German attack was a pre-emptive and defensive strike – even though he says rightly that it was presented and justified as such by Hitler. Suvorov main mistakes in this regard, is that he only explains the attack through valid but reducing geo-strategical consideration, and seems to relegate other important German motivations (colonial aspiration, will to destroy Judeo-Bolshevism) to the bin. Unfortunately, just like with Glantz, Icebreaker as well as Stumbling colossus books must be somewhere but not here (lost in the transatlantic moving).

“Don't be daft, they got their asses kicked in Finland, they were if anything exposed for what they were - a sheep in wolf's clothing.”


Ah the winter’s war. Another classic. It is also said that it influenced Hitler to strike Stalin by convincing him that the Red Army was a Joke. I won’t argue that because of its little importance.
But a good question would be what army could have done better given the circumstances?

The main lesson of this winter war is the efficiency of a good defense strategy. Mannerheim knew his weaknesses. He did not mass his scarce troops along the border; instead he fortified the Karelian Isthmus where the nature of the terrain was the most appropriate, along rivers, lakes, in the woods, so the alert could be given in time as soon as the Russians crossed the border. He blew up all the bridges, and sabotaged those who were left standing. The Finns used the inhospitality of their country just the way the Russians will later against the Germans during the winter and through the partisan warfare.

Suvorov dedicates one chapter on that war. His argument is that Stalin did not really believe Finland would reject his “military supported” diplomatic deal. What Russia wanted was the Karelian Isthmus which was too close to Leningrad. The deal was an exchange of land.
The USSR would have given twice as much territory in the North in exchange of that little piece of land. Suvorov argues that no real campaign (strategy) had been deeply thought in case of a rejection of the proposal, a possibility that had not been taken seriously.
When the proposal was rejected, the USSR prestige was at stake and motivated a hushed offensive with the troops available. The offensive took place during a special hard winter against a people who are even more used to those terrible conditions, and well equipped with winter cloths, and camouflage. Even the Wehrmacht never really attempted a winter campaign.

71% of Finland is covered by forests and woods, not ideal for tanks and great maneuvers, but ideal for partisan warfare, especially during the winter with temperature falling 20 to 40 degrees below zero.


Again, it seems to me like an easy argument. Of course, lessons had or should have been learned from this traumatic experience. Especially when it comes to defensive strategies – had the Russians wanted one – but again, niet… But indeed many reforms followed, but not in a defensive perspective. Nevertheless, it certainly emerged stronger after this disaster, they certainly learned how partisan warfare could annihilate entire divisions. And the threat eventually posed by Finland greatly reduced.
To reduce the Red Army on the basis of this ill prepared campaign is like reducing the Wehrmacht capabilities on how it performed at Stalingrad.
But as everyone does it, it must be valid.

It is to be noticed though that in fine, even after the slaughter, the Red Army prevailed and got what it wanted, that is 12% of Finland, and the Karelian Isthmus.
Still, had the Russians wanted to implement a real defensive strategy in order to prevent an invasion, it would/should have copied what they encountered in Finland…They just didn’t…Instead Stalin continued his “military supported” diplomacy with the Baltic States and Romania… Those States did not refuse like finland.

To sum up at this stage, I will just repeat that whether Stalin intended to attack in 1941 or 1942 does not really matter as he had the time on his side, something Hitler had not. If one considers that his plan A was a WW1 like struggle between Germany France and Britain, then even time was not a problem, he would have win. Things turned bad in this regards, so plan B was to gain time, “accommodating” with Hitler as long as possible, knowing that without the Russian supplies, Hitler’s great Germany was an empty egg.
Had Stalin managed to retard Barbarossa for only one more months, he would have succeeded earlier as the Wehrmacht was not equipped to lead winter campaigns in the East – and that was well known. Contrary to his “brother tyrant” as Glantz call them, he did not HAVE to strike in 1941, but he could as soon as he was ready, whatever the date.

Despite his victories, Hitler was in a very bad situation in 1940. Many people see Stalingrad as the turning point of the war. I have always considered the turning point to be October/December 1941. Suvorov being a little provocative dates the Nazi’s defeat on the 3 of September 1939. It might seem a bit extreme, but after thoughts, it is less stupid than it seems. His victories in the west brought him little of what he needed: resource and especially oil, chrome and wheat, and important, not the lebensraum he was looking for (except Poland).

Status quo was not a viable option at all as he would have lost through attrition. Occupied Europe was not self-sufficient in food, he had no navy to seriously challenge the Royal Navy and strike Great Britain, and not enough fuel to supply even his army for a long time; most of his supply routes being cut by the blockade. His economy was not in a full war production, mainly because of that situation. Up to now, he basically used up what he captured from other countries (a third of the Panzers used against France were Skoda’s from the Czech Army), after May 1940 he could count on the materials left by the Brits and France’s stockpiles. But as shown by the statistic above, that was far from being enough, and basically Hitler was depending on Stalin for almost everything. I have no doubts that Hitler was aware of those weaknesses, and of course, so was Stalin.

Basically, Hitler had to strike the USSR and get all its resources in 1941. As we have seen, the first four month of Barbarossa consumed 450.000 tons of Oil/fuel, one third of Greater Germany stockpile. That was the huge cost of the famous Blitzkrieg, a very nice doctrine but that Germany could by itself not afford. Just as a side note, Hitler starts his 1942 campaigns with only 797.000 tons of fuel...

As I have said before, Germany’s military reserve of oil before the war was barely over 1,6 million tons, barely enough for a campaign against Poland and France as they came out (that is unexpectedly fast and successfully, we have seen that 1,8 million tons had been used from 1939 to 1940). So to imagine that Hitler would have declared a world war without guarantee over supplies is highly improbable. A guarantee that was given by Stalin before the war…not really an attitude of a peaceful leader only obsessed by his national security and wanting to peacefully restructure his army.

On the other hand, Stalin was well aware, and maybe over confident, of his superiorities: he was producing more tanks in a year than Germany in five, he had no oil problems, no manpower issues, did not care much of famine of its people, he was not at war with the USA or Great Britain, and as a cherry on a pie, the brutal Nazi policies within occupied territories (especially in Poland) would have made the people acclaiming the “liberation” by the Red Army. This is basically what is at the core of Suvorov’s “Chief Culprit”, and whatever the Deniers do with it, it does not lack of arguments or sources.

The issue over Finland was not just a play or some kind of rehearsal. Finland was close to Germany since its independence…most of their uniforms were of German origins…Germany supported Finland independence during world war 1 as in the context of its fight against Imperial Russia. An alignment of those Vikings to Germany would have posed a threat to the USSR, but only in the case of a Soviet offensive in the West (it would have forced Russia to keep troops in the Leningrad area). The same way Bessarabia had no vital importance except that it was at 180 km from Nazi Germany main oil source. The same way, the Baltic States offered additional ports so the Red fleet would have been able to cut the Iron route much faster…All those actions were done during this bogus “alliance”… Those actions are most of the time ignored or lousily explained.

Again, as I do not want to lose my box of cohiba, I repeat as a conclusion that any hypothesis promoting that Barbarossa was a pure pre-emptive strike is absurd for all the reasons I gave.
Hitler not only wanted the Ukraine especially but the whole East, not only did he wanted its ressources, But he needed them from day 1 (sept 39).

Peace with Britain would have given him more time and means to launch an attack on what always had been his primary target.

What I do not agree with are all those “Idiots theories” about Stalin, who – because he was not an idiot – had all the reasons to organize a preemptive strike against the Nazis (which is also what Beevor concedes in his second world war, by the way); the use and over-use of the purges and the winter war as universal and uncontestable explanations for the Red Army disaster, the denial that Bolshevism had the “world revolution” written in its book, that Stalin was not only “restructuring” the Red Army, but was rearming like no other State had ever rearmed in history (maybe the USA), that the USSR had a technological advance in Tanks of years compared with the so famous “Panzers”, an industry able to build up tanks five time as fast as Germany, that Stalin knew that he had everything the Nazis did not have (oil, raw materials, iron ore, etc).

Of course, he did one big mistake: he really thought that Hitler would refrain from engaging a close to suicidal attack against him as long as he would provide what Nazi Germany needed the most. On the other hand, it takes a great deal of capacity to disregards essential facts – or to turn them into “idiotic action from an idiotic dictator” – to defend the thesis that “defense” was the primary strategy and motivation behind his actions since 1939, that he conquest Poland and signed the Pact out of fear and for pure national security concerns, or to gain time, etc. – although he knew very well that Germany without his help would not have had the means to launch such an ambitious attack as Barbarossa, not even considering a world war) without his help

Now if one have to close our minds and to refuse any second thoughts about all those points, just because it might help some lunatics to "believe" Hitler could be rehabilitate in any way, then it is indeed very scary.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: One of the grand myths of World War II Soviet propaganda

Postby Jeff_36 » Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:59 pm

Not really an alliance in the full sense of such a treaty. And again the timing of June 1941. Stalin would of course not interrupt the shippments – which were bilateral by the way (they were German ships in Russian harbors as well) – as it was his only hope that Hitler would not attack in 1941.


As I have pointed out a dozen times, every examination of Red Army capabilities in 1941 shows that they could not invade that year. Stalin seemed to trust that Hitler would not attack.

Without Stalin and his “attitude” since 1939, Hitler would not have been able to sustain any war against anyone, but Poland, and certainly not over a long haul. You can build 25.000 tanks, but without gas they are pretty useless.
As one can see, Barbarossa ate 450.000 tons of Oil between June and October 41, that is more than Germany reserve available in June 1941 (without the Russian Oil)…Basically that would have been it: The Wehrmacht stuck in the middle of Russia, immobilized forever. As one can see, the problematic was even greater for a much more vital commodity: FOOD.
On the other hand, Germany delivered Coal, machine tools, a half finished war vessel, the plans of the Bf-109, etc. Small stuff in comparison.


You don't prop up and support a country that you plan on invading in the next few months. Thank you for supporting my (and the majority of historians who have studied the issue) stance.

Hitler was very dependent on the USSR, if at any time, those supplies were to be terminated, Nazi Germany would have been in a very bad situation within matter of days. I think it is not foolish to state that both Stalin and Hitler were aware of this situation. Without the deliveries, Hitler would have had to attack anyway, the sooner the best.


We agree that the invasion was motivated by resource issues, yes. But even a cursory examination of military plans on either side demonstrates that there was no Soviet invasion planned for 1941.

Let’s imagine a scenario where by mid-September 41 or in October 41, Stalin issues a message saying that the transport of supplies could no longer be delivered, well, Nazi Germany would have been {!#%@}, as no offensive could have been lauched until spring/summer 1942, meanwhile the Red Fleet – although discreet – was stronger than the Kriegsmarine and could have cut the Iron route from Sweden and the red army could have obliterated the Romanian oilfields within a day or two.


Wrong. Hitler needed three months to get deep into the Soviet union. Had he invaded in September he could have made it to, say, Orel by December and then held there for winter.

The "Red Fleet" had a minuscule role in the war and IIRC lost many ships to the (far superior) U boats.

Also, the notion of a Soviet attack in September 1941 is absurd due to the fact that their military build up was not to be completed until Summer of 1942 (and that's without factoring in delays, which were inevitable in any communist country). So if a Soviet invasiopn was coming it would have came in Mid 1942 or thereafter. I admit that we will never know what Stalin had planned for 1942-1944, but we know for a fact that he was not planning anything in 1941. The military strength reports all support this conclusion.

just to compare, USSR output of oil for the sole year of 1940 was 34 million tons!

It could very well have been 90 million tons, but without proper comms, without trained pilots, without proper trucks, without trained tank crew, and without proper assault aircraft they could not have done it. You have to look at the whole picture.

Do you really think that Stalin was going to attack without his Sturmoviks and Katayushas?


Again, nor Hitler nor Stalin were “stupid” in this regard.


Hitler outsmarted Stalin here.


So yes, my guess is that Stalin was expecting the attack, but could not change his own plans, and hoped to gain enough time to be ready. I think the Germans were quite aware of all that and just HAD to strike. And this what the main Nazi project was anyway. The British refusal of any peace negotiations just determine the year of the attack. It HAD to be in 1941. It was supposed to start in May, but the “case of Yugoslavia” delayed the operation.


No. All insider accounts from the Kremlin speak of his being shocked and stunned.

You imply that the Germans saw their attack as pre emtive in nature which is not true at all. Recorded minutes of OKW conferences of the period show the planners of the invasion framing it as an aggressive war. On three occasions German generals with intimate knowledge of Soviet deployments explicitly discount any notion of an impending Russian attack.

So the moral blame bounces back to them: even if the Russians were planning an invasion in 1941 (which they were not), the Germans did not see their attack as defensive and were sure that there was no Red Army invasion coming in 1941.


And this source was clearly under threat with the Russian occupation of Bessarabia (again a very stupid decision if only concerned about defense), a move which was quite close to a provocation. Stalin could not ignore Hitler dependency on his good will, except if one buys the “complete idiots theories” that are still to be found in some approaches.


I have already addressed the occupation of Bessarabia - Stalin was likely under the impression that he would be allowed to occupy Romania and asked this from Hitler at a meeting in late 1940. Hitler refused. Thus his troops in Bessarabia were left all dressed up with nowhere to go.

That is indeed one of the main arguments, but as I said and for the reasons I explained above, it relates too much on those “Idiots theories”. It all comes down whether or not the defensive posture of the Red Army is valid or not. Another proposition might be that when it was clear that Germany was about to attack, it was too late to take real efficient defensive measures anyway, so all Stalin could do is to keep sending and fulfilling his economic “obligations” and hope that Hitler would in fine not give the ultimate order.


See my above description of his surprise. The "Idiot Theory" is in my opinion correct to a degree. You have to understand that Stalin was not very logical. He had killed two of the best military minds of his generation (Yakir and Tukachevsky) and replaced them with a pack of dumbasses. Yes Tukachevsky was hostile to Stalin but Yakir was a loyal and devoted Stalinist and being a native Bessarabian would have proved invaluable in the invasion of that area. Yakov Smushkevich, the commander of the VVS and the mastermind behind the Soviet arial victory in Mongolia had been purged two {!#%@} weeks before the attack. It is hardly logical do do these things. Alternately - he felt free to purge a commander of the rank and caliber of Smushkevich so close to the attack because he did not belive one was coming.



Not really, no sorry. And Stalin should have known that given the winter’s war. An efficient defense is put in place behind a buffer zone, like the Mannerheim line. Or you transform the border into a fortress like the Maginot line, but even then, airports a well behind, and certainly not within the range of field artillery or short range dive bombers like the Stuckas.


Again - I make no arguments as to his long term intentions. My arguments are strictly related to 1941. He indeed had began the construction of fortifications at the time of the attack. As for the buffer zone argument - Stalin, having no military experience of his own (unlike Mannerhiem), was not the best strategist and was known to overrule his Generals to catastrophic effect (The Battle of Kiev for instance). Such a move would be in character.

Another logical choice would have been to keep the Baltic States independent, so that Hitler would have had to invade all three (or at least two) before getting in contact with the Red Army.


We are getting into the very long term strategy here. Estonia has historically been very close to Finland and would have sided with Germany anyway in all likelihood. You must remember that Stalin was something of a Russian nationalist who had dreams of expanding into the territory of the old empire. The Baltics were part of that Hubris.

the “Chief Culprint” (795 pages) does not defend the idea that the German attack was a pre-emptive and defensive strike – even though he says rightly that it was presented and justified as such by Hitler.


Incorrect. As said before, the planners of Barbarossa explicitly and clearly denied in meetings that the Soviets were planning an impending invasion.

Suvorov main mistakes in this regard, is that he only explains the attack through valid but reducing geo-strategical consideration, and seems to relegate other important German motivations (colonial aspiration, will to destroy Judeo-Bolshevism) to the bin.


He is daft. He repeatedly insists on a 1941 date despite the buckets of evidence to the contrary.

Ah the winter’s war. Another classic. It is also said that it influenced Hitler to strike Stalin by convincing him that the Red Army was a Joke. I won’t argue that because of its little importance.
But a good question would be what army could have done better given the circumstances?

LOLWUT

When the Soviets came back four years later with a rebuilt and well led army, they absolutely cleaned house. There was a night and day differnece between the Winter War and continuation War in terms of Russian ability.

To reduce the Red Army on the basis of this ill prepared campaign is like reducing the Wehrmacht capabilities on how it performed at Stalingrad.
But as everyone does it, it must be valid.


Stalingrad was one Army of the Wehrmacht. The Winter War was symbolic of the Red Army as whole. You neglect to mention that the 6th Army had an upper hand at Stalingrad and was winning the Battle until the damage inflicted on them became too much. The Red army in the Winter War lost dramatically in every theater of the war, in every battle, everywhere.

It is to be noticed though that in fine, even after the slaughter, the Red Army prevailed and got what it wanted, that is 12% of Finland, and the Karelian Isthmus.

yadda yadda. They got exposed and learned nothing.


To sum up at this stage, I will just repeat that whether Stalin intended to attack in 1941 or 1942 does not really matter as he had the time on his side, something Hitler had not. If one considers that his plan A was a WW1 like struggle between Germany France and Britain, then even time was not a problem, he would have win. Things turned bad in this regards, so plan B was to gain time, “accommodating” with Hitler as long as possible, knowing that without the Russian supplies, Hitler’s great Germany was an empty egg.


He hardly held the cards. His plan in 1941 was to make concessions, form a defensive deployment and then bide his time. Whatever he had planned was years in the future. Hitler could have counted on Stalin's continued delivery of resources for at least a few more years, knowing that the Red Army was still in piss poor overall shape.

Had Stalin managed to retard Barbarossa for only one more months, he would have succeeded earlier as the Wehrmacht was not equipped to lead winter campaigns in the East – and that was well known. Contrary to his “brother tyrant” as Glantz call them, he did not HAVE to strike in 1941, but he could as soon as he was ready, whatever the date.


In sum - no. He could have continued his African campaign, defeated the British there and then advanced into Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Iran, taking advantage of anti-British sentiment there and accessing the oil. With that oil in hand Hitler would have held the cards. He had many, many, many options in 1941.

Status quo was not a viable option at all as he would have lost through attrition. Occupied Europe was not self-sufficient in food, he had no navy to seriously challenge the Royal Navy and strike Great Britain, and not enough fuel to supply even his army for a long time; most of his supply routes being cut by the blockade. His economy was not in a full war production, mainly because of that situation. Up to now, he basically used up what he captured from other countries (a third of the Panzers used against France were Skoda’s from the Czech Army), after May 1940 he could count on the materials left by the Brits and France’s stockpiles. But as shown by the statistic above, that was far from being enough, and basically Hitler was depending on Stalin for almost everything. I have no doubts that Hitler was aware of those weaknesses, and of course, so was Stalin.


But he knew that Stalin had no plans for the coming year. He could have kept on taking his goodies, continued with the middle eastern campaign, and gotten enough oil to tell Stalin to {!#%@} off. His Generals were telling him that the Red Army was not going to attack in 1941. He could have waited. But no, he just had to get him some lebensraum



On the other hand, Stalin was well aware, and maybe over confident, of his superiorities: he was producing more tanks in a year than Germany in five,

No trained crews.

no manpower issues


Gaping leadership issues and a serious problem with hardware.




Again, as I do not want to lose my box of cohiba, I repeat as a conclusion that any hypothesis promoting that Barbarossa was a pure pre-emptive strike is absurd for all the reasons I gave.


Well That is exactly what Suvorov does and his supporters too.


Peace with Britain would have given him more time and means to launch an attack on what always had been his primary target.


Stalin would have waited until Hitler was finished with Britain and worn out. That was years down the road.

What I do not agree with are all those “Idiots theories” about Stalin, who – because he was not an idiot – had all the reasons to organize a preemptive strike against the Nazis (which is also what Beevor concedes in his second world war, by the way);


Beevoir also states that the German attack was aggressive in nature and that the Soviet attack would have come in 1942.


Of course, he did one big mistake: he really thought that Hitler would refrain from engaging a close to suicidal attack against him as long as he would provide what Nazi Germany needed the most. On the other hand, it takes a great deal of capacity to disregards essential facts – or to turn them into “idiotic action from an idiotic dictator” – to defend the thesis that “defense” was the primary strategy and motivation behind his actions since 1939, that he conquest Poland and signed the Pact out of fear and for pure national security concerns, or to gain time, etc. – although he knew very well that Germany without his help would not have had the means to launch such an ambitious attack as Barbarossa, not even considering a world war) without his help


I dispute none of that. However it is a matter of basic fact that his plans were long term in nature and that the Nazis were unaware of them - they framed their invasion among themselves as an aggressive one and rejected any notion of a Soviet attack coming their way.

It is documented that Stalin was freaked out by the ease with which the Germans had conquered Europe and had no confidence in his own Generals given their performance in Finland. Thus his mission in 41-42 was to buy time and appease the Germans. Hitler knew this and was apparently concerned that the huge concessions Stalin was making would make it tough for him to justify the attack to the German public. That is not what a man planning a Six Day War esque defensive attack does. LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now if one have to close our minds and to refuse any second thoughts about all those points, just because it might help some lunatics to "believe" Hitler could be rehabilitate in any way, then it is indeed very scary.


Suvorov's points do not help his thesis. There was no attack coming in 1941 and Hitler's Generals were not concerned by such an attack. That contrasts with the two main points of Suvorov's thesis (or at least how it was presented by Ernst Nolte that fascist freak).

The problem with Suvorovists is that they make no distinction between immediate plans and very, very long term aspirations. That and their apologeticness for the worst genocidal invasion in history.


Return to “Holocaust, Genocide, and Mass Violence”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Balmoral95, Balsamo and 1 guest