No Kursk ,No battle of Berlin in 45??????

Yes Za that I agree. Its scary to think about what one man in charge off a powerfull country can do to the whole world.

 

I think Stalin summed this rather well: " Bigger countries have bigger needs!" which explains why for example Finland was always wrong trying to hold onto its land areas (before the Winter War)which the USSR demanded and Stalin could not understand that. A small country should always give in because its needs are not important according to this. Once I read about and understood this theme I realized you cannot try to make any sense into any dictator´s demands or such because there probably might not be any. And trying get rid of those demands by any explanations won´t work.

 

Personally I think Mr Uhler is mixing matters to make his article more interesting. How can you bring up cold war issues on "Ivan" by the US when we are talking about WW2 period in the article really. We definitely know that after WW2 both sides said rather nasty things about each other for "some reason". And that has nothing to do with WW2 facts. Also he slams the book because no such book on the US troops is made (??).

I read the book and considered it rather good and telling of the feelings and life of men at the front. And who says it shatters "the myth of Ivan"?? I can only see MR Uhler say that, BTW, so why does the site print his article? Looks like shooting yourself in your own foot to me.

Comments on the book elsewhere:

http://www.holtzbrinckpublishers.com/henryholt/book/BookDisplay.asp?BookKey=1536066

"Unprecedented in its approach, Catherine Merridale’s research into the lives of Red Army soldiers combined with her perception makes this a most fascinating and important work.”
—Antony Beevor, author of Stalingrad

“Merridale’s new book is excellent. This unique, strikingly original account of the Red Army in World War II is a first-rate social history
as well as an important military study, and a stellar example of the combination of oral history with standard archival research. It makes the
soldiers of the Red Army come alive.”

—Stanley Payne, Hilldale-Jaume Vicens Vives Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison


Ivan’s War is a marvelous book. All of Catherine Merridale’s virtues are on display: remarkable research (based in this case on literally hundreds of interviews with survivors and witnesses); a clear, unpretentious style that belies the complexity of her material; comfortable historical command of a dauntingly large theme; and a rare compassion and empathy for her subjects.
—Tony Judt, author of Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945

“This is an inventively researched and evocatively written study of the Soviet soldier on the blood-ridden Eastern Front. Using freshly available archival materials, as well as sparkling interviews with a vanishing generation of veterans, Merridale has provided an empathetic and realistic portrait of the men and women who, more than any other combat soldiers, brought down the Third Reich.”

—Norman M. Naimark , author of The Russians in Germany and Fires of Hatred

---------

Just one question: Why did Stalin make the pact in Aug 1939 with Hitler? If anything this piece of paper unleashed WW2 into full flames! A pact against Hitler would have guaranteed that Hitler could never have started the war!

 

i will definatly need to read that

 

Yes, Kai I agree with you that Ivan's wae is a great book but im not sure that Uhler is dicrediting her information,it sounded to me like he was agreeing with the big picture but just mentioned that some aspects that she didnt like desertion and cowardness and a few others which every military in the world suffers during a conflict. And the reason i believe that he brought up the cold war was because even today ( and I know this because I went to school in America ), teachers would only talk about how the U.S. won the war and by the way they talked, you wouldnt even know that Russia was involved.
I find this a little offensive as would any other Russian or European. And the cold war comparison would come with today's teachings in which not much has changed and as a result a very large majority of Americans believe that America won the war and Russia helped a little bit. In reality it was the other way around. Even with England doing more.

 

Just had to check more "interesting" articles by Mr Uhler...just check the headlines. Not very pro-America ( or Bush actually ), is he? I am not saying that is a bad thing but you need not be that "psychotic" about it...

http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/

 

Sorry Sloniksp,

you have to tell Hollywood about that then...

 

I wouldn say that he's not pro american. He did work for the NSA and Department of Defense if your not pro-american your not woking in those positions ( you just wouldnt pass a polygraph exame ) However I have to agree about the fact that he is not pro Bush, in fact I dont know many intelligent people that are! lol

 

couldnt agree more! lol

 

Bump! Interesting thread too

 

If Kursk had not happened then something else definitly would have. This may be subject to debate but neither side suffered a debilitating/crushing blow at Kursk, they essentially fought one another to a standstill. At the end of the day the Germans had to remove troops from the Eastern front while the Russians had whole armies champing at the bit to get in the fight.

Once the horde was unleashed, it was going to go sosmewhere

 

I beg your pardon? Even before the Kursk battle was finished the Red Army was already launching Op. Rumiantsev in the North shoulder of the salient aimed at 9th and 2nd Pz Armies, in the general direction of Orel.

This would be followed soon by Op. Kutuzov in the South shoulder, generally aimed at Belgorod-Kharkov.

Consider the battle of Kursk in two phases, defensive and offensive. Both reached their objectives.

 

Agreed with Za. Hitler did think that this major battle would at least create a breather until 1944 if did not succeed. However, Stalin had other ideas.

The maps:

Maps WWII Eastern Front 1942-1943

 

Seems to me that Kursk drained the strength of German armored forces to a point they never really recovered from. The Germans at Kursk accomplished very little for the amount of forces they lost, whereas the Russians had enough reserves to be ready to go again right afterwards (noted by Za).
Production levels continued to increase after Kursk, but the pool of armored reserves lost wasn't easily replaced.

The Russians and Germans did more or less fight each other to a standstill at Kursk- a standstill that doubled as a major defeat for the Germans, given the circumstances.

:cheers:

 

Sorry, I can't agree with you on the standstill part. The Soviet idea was take a defensive stance to try and stop the German attack, and then move over to a counter-attack. As such it does not make sense saying the Sovs were fought to a standstill as they were not attacking.

The Germans were doing all the attacking, in the North by Model's 9th Army - which managed to penetrate some 18km and then could proceed no further, and in the South by v.Manstein's 4th Pz Army.

4thPzArmy was already feeling some difficulties and its component II SSPzKps was already veering towards Prokhorovka as the direct Oboyan-Kursk axis was found to be too difficult. In order to relieve the pressure on the Southern shoulder of the Kursk salient, Stavka started Op. Rumiantsev, an all-the-way counter-attack by the forces that had already fought off 9th Army in the North shoulder, and which were ordered to "come as you are" instead of having a couple of weeks for rest and refit.

Later on, after the German Southern prong was "fought to a standstill" (per your words and this time correctly), then was op. Kutuzov launched as a counter-attack on the Southwestern direction, towards Bielgorod, Kharkov and beyond.

 

Kursk was flawed more so when Hitler stripped the rest of the line for this madness which was a bad omen. I bet Hitler was taken back when the Russians went over to offensive operations, for the Russians they knew they could stop the Germans (Moscow) and win a major battle (Stalingrad) now they knew after Kursk they could win the war.

Funny thing is this, Russia could had taken longer to be a major military power than they did. When Hitler's army came crashing in to Russia in that summer of 41 was to turn a battle damaged Soviet army in to a major army for many years after WW2.

 

Well, the Soviets also stripped the rest of the line to ammass all in the Kursk salient and back...

 

They could afford to do it, Hitler was crap at poker.

And yet he would go on to play a few more hands before the end.

 

Yes, when he had run out of chips