Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The Great Patriotic War: 1939-1943

Discussion in 'Eastern Europe October 1939 to February 1943' started by Comrade General, Mar 18, 2018.

  1. JJWilson

    JJWilson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,411
    Likes Received:
    456
    Location:
    Arizona U.S.A
    I agree, Poland was doing nothing provocative in 1939, but when they decided to attack the Young Soviet Union in 1919, that is absolutely playing with fire, they almost didn't survive the war first off, secondly, there aggression towards Russia was not forgotten, and Stalin was more than happy to invade Poland with Hitler because of this.
     
    Comrade General likes this.
  2. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Still, Tamino, even if you here try to State that the Poles were resistance fighters and get what they reserved. Why the Poles in the RAF tried to help them By droppping military help and guns and Food. The Red Army stopped in your works and wait tili they were strong enough. They would have helped if it had been possibile but Stalin refuses that help. What happened to the troops in the Karelian Isthmus? Why did they not come to aid? On paper they did.Because they were annihilated. Or where were they sent? In Warsaw the Totenkopf counterattacked. And stopped the massive worn out Red Army attack. Btw how after a long time you reappeared? More Russia power? And to answer the first Question. You would prefer to sacrifice the Poles both on the resistance or your side as known both were fighting there and you let the Germans kill them. If you sent all forces to destroy the Volksturm after you said Berlin is not your aim how come you sent all the troops to kill as we know Hitlerjugend and Volkssturm? What was the problem with Poland??
     
    Comrade General likes this.
  3. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Tamino,
    In your case how dare Stalin demand a second front if he suddenly can decide when he can attack or not since 1941? I would expect he would continue attacking southwards if he could not go against Poland and Warsaw. What he did. Nothing.
     
    Comrade General likes this.
  4. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,645
    Likes Received:
    305
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Good morning Keneralii,

    Let me begin this with something different but deeply related: Rescue action of encircled Badanovs' 24th Motorized Brigade after storming Tatinskaya. In December 1942 Stalin reminded Vatutin repedietly to ‘remember Badanov, do not forget Badanov, get him out at any cost’. Because Badanov and his men have deserved to be rescued at any cost by storming Tatinskaya on December 24th 1942. They have well deserved to be rescued.

    And what the Poles did? Since the Stone Age they hated Ukrainians, Russians,, Byelorussians, Czechs, Jews, Lithuanians... Poles hated Germans too, pathologically. They hated and undermined each and every nation bordering on them. Have they done anything to deserve a single drop of Russian blood to be sacrificed for the interest of Poland?

    The Red Army arrived to the gates of Warsaw unintentionally. That wasn’t planned. Taking Warsaw was not on the schedule. The scale of success of Operation Bagration was complete surprize. Now, should they repeat the Kharkov mistake by going beyond their capabilities, with supply lines stretched beyond any reasonable limit? Enemies were well prepared and waiting. They had good reason to stop, recover and regroup.

    You need substantial motivation to expose yourself to such a risk. Let me reiterate Guderian before Kursk: ‘why should we attack at all?’ And Warsaw 1944 was a potential reverse Stalingrad for the Red Army. There are times when complete inaction is the best choice, if you can afford it.

    And what have the Poles done to deserve the Red Army to bleed for them? They’ve literally begging to be let down.

    Regarding the reasons for my departure and the comeback: there was something different but entirely unrelated to Russia. Quite the contrary. You shouldn't assume that anyone with honest view on Russia is a 'Stalinist'. I'm just a honest Christian. Nothing else.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2018
    Comrade General likes this.
  5. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    What do Poles have anything whether he attacks or not. You had Polish units in your Army. Does that not mean you try to help the Polish communists everywhere? Oh yes they were teleased from concentration camps to fight for Poland. An offer you cannot refuse?And why send political propaganda to Warsaw to stand up and fight and then let them Die? Let the Germans do the dirty work.
     
    Comrade General likes this.
  6. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,645
    Likes Received:
    305
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Ah, I see now. This exactly is an obstacle situated between you and historic reality. Digging dirt after the war on the former ally isn't respectale behaviour.

    I can understand you: Karelia is quite large chunk of land for Finland and so insignifficant gain to Russia. That may hurt but you can get over it if you try to see the world from the brighter angle.

    Let us rather try to examine what kind of burden has the Red Army removed from the Western Allies with Operation Bagration? Has Stalin kept his promise to coordinate attack with Churchill and Rosewelt? What impact had the entire Operation Bagration on quicker liberation of Concentration camps? We could also investigate the impact of Lend Lease trucks on combat readyness of Red Army. Bright side.

    Poles are just a small part of the entire picture. Why exaggerate Poles and Warsaw or the infamous Goebels' Katyn, if you want? Perhaps because they best serve the purpose of propaganda?
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2018
    Comrade General likes this.
  7. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Then how come the USSR made the pact to share Europe with Nazi Germany? For whose better future? For the 'little people? Or why nazi Germany made the pact. Ain't it Weird for Germany it was World Consulting. För the USSR just a small thing called politics.still Killing people for the better future but not the same. Never. Stalin said in spring 1945 they were not interested in Berlin. Somehow through it was a race to the city for the Red Army. How come the bad axis part is about to Lose the war and gets the sympathy and Allied military etc help....
     
  8. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,645
    Likes Received:
    305
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Dear Kai-Petri, let me recall you that you went insanely offtopic. You could provoke anger among moderators.
     
  9. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Talk about propaganda. Overly simplistic and certainly one sided as well.
    Were they? and would all of the possible ways of granting aid have stressed them? I seem to recall the Western allies suggested shuttle missions which wouldn't have impacted the Soviets much if at all but these were rejected.
    Were they?
    Perhaps but were there not also good reasons to provide what aid they could?
    True but is it relevant in this case? Some of the suggested responses by the Red Army most would consider not worth the risk but certainly not all.
    Did the Soviets encourage the Poles to resist? If so then there is your answer. If you ask someone to bleed for you then there's a bit of a mutual obligation.
    Ah ... I think you have it right asking the Soviets to behave in a civilized and reasonable manner was asking to be let down.
    So you are saying trying to understand history isn't respectable if it turns up data that doesn't conform to your world view?
    I think perhaps that you are underestimating the importance of Poland. That's where the war in Europe started and it started because of the actions of Nazi Germany and the USSR. The " Goebels' Katyn" comment is not only clearly propagandistic on your part it leads to the impression that you think the Germans were in some way responsible for the massacre.

    This thread has been bloated with propaganda from its inception and most if not all has been pro Soviet propaganda.
     
  10. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Really? I don't see that he has wandered off topic at all certainly not insanely so. No where near some of the drifts I've seen in other topics.
     
  11. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    If I recall correctly the Germans were Suprised how long it took for the Red Army ti start the offensive in Poland. Just wanted to cut their losses Nothing bad about it. However the pact was made to share Europe between Germany and the USSR. This is a BIG plan not a little detail. The Germans had their broadcast attack for a reason to start tge war. The Red Army the Mainila shots which were in 1991 agreed by Russia they shot these. It was a calculated cause for you do not gather 500 000 men with artilery and other units all along the 1000km Finnish front. The talks in autumn 1939 were not meant to lead anywhere even in late 1940 Molotov was demanding to have Finland but Hitler at the time refused the Soviet attack.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2018
  12. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Was it Stalin himself who Lost the battle of Warsaw in the 1920's? No wander he had things against the Poles.
     
  13. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Talking about the country who made a pact to share the Eastern Europe and then cried for help when the other party of the pact attacks them.
     
  14. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,645
    Likes Received:
    305
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    That's Churchils' hoax. The real 'big' problem was the British Empire itself. Churchill has protected Empire so fiercely and that enterprise has resulted in 50+ milion dead. I am not talking of actual responsibility in particular but about the real origin of the Evil.
    But let's get back to Bagration:
    Overy has stated about Operation Bagration:
    "...the Red Army had swept everything before it in two weeks, the Western Allies remained mired in a narrow bridgehead..."
    At the end of July 1944, the first Red Army units were approaching Warsaw. At the same time, the Western Allies have finally managed to break out of the Normandy beach-head. Invasion without the Red Army efforts might have easily failed. Therefore, credit for the succes of Overlord does not belong to the Western alies alone. This fact is often downplayed if not entirelly dismissed by the official western narrative. That's unfair, modestry speaking.
     
  15. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Churchill's Hoax? or Hitler and Stalin's Truth...One and the same.

    If it is unfair that the Soviets do not get any credit for the success of D-Day, then it is also unfair that the Western Allies do not get any credit for the success of Bagration.

    Odd, that neither Tamino, Overy, or the Soviets/Russia has given the Western Allies said credit for the success of Bagration, but only complain that the Soviets do not get any for the success of D-Day...Fair is fair after all.

    Hidden Agenda much?

    Gotta love clumsy attempts at Soviet Agitprop. They so funny.
     
    Kai-Petri likes this.
  16. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,645
    Likes Received:
    305
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Let’s get back to the origins of Bagration: in Teheran, Stalin promised Churchill and Roosevelt to launch a major offensive simultaneously with the Allied invasion. Neither the Western allies nor Stalin have disclosed where their operations would take place, just approximate timing was disclosed and coordinated. Mutual interests and benefits have existed without any doubt. I am not even remotely attempting here to dismiss efforts of the Western allies. However, what seems to be rather odd is an absolute dismissal in western sources of the importance of Operation Bagration and denigration of the contribution of Soviet soldiers to the common case. The present day narrative is more concerned with: rapes, vodka, Katyn, Poles, Ukrainians, Warsaw, purges, commies...

    When the Allies at the west started really fighting in Normandy, majority of the Axis forces at the East were either obliterated or encircled. There was virtually nothing left to the Axis at the east to use to relieve the Western front. Army group center ceased to exist, Army group North remained entrapped until the end of the war.

    Western allies had no direct military impact at the east at all. They couldn’t even if they wished, the Rooskies were quicker and rather through. To be fair, however, incessant bombing of Germany has helped the Red Army. Vehicles delivered through the Lend&Lease were indeed indispensable to provide much greater mobility. There must be something that I have omitted, not deliberately, rather the lack of knowledge is to blame.

    I do not claim that the Red Army has single handed defeated the Axis. Just, the present day narrative is claiming and taking credits away from the Red Army for own armies whilst denigrating the most important participant of the war – the Red Army.

    Germans have bled white and were virtually beaten when by the Soviets when Churchil hastened troops over the Channel to divide Europe according to his percentages. That was his real objective, not benefit for Europeans. He was the latest true defender of the Empire.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  17. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Was that the the true plan of Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiations? You sure fooled me. Kph
     
  18. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,645
    Likes Received:
    305
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Good morning Keneralii,
    You're replying again in wrong thread. Wake-up dude.
     
  19. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Ok, now I am confused...

    If the Germans in the East are already finished, and there is nothing left to reinforce Normandy with before the landings began...then Bagration had no effect on the outcome of the Normandy fighting.

    I can only ponder Tamino's motives at continuing to insist that Bagration helped the West win in Normandy.
     
  20. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Tamino: you could at least answer properly. When were the western Allied truly starting fighting in the West? We could say when the Red Army truly started fighting in the east. You are saying now Nobody but you fought.
     
    Takao likes this.

Share This Page