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

ww2 in Russia

Discussion in 'The Library' started by Nashorn phpbb3, Jun 27, 2004.

  1. Nashorn phpbb3

    Nashorn phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utrecht , the netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
  2. m-7

    m-7 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Michigan, home of NASCAR's fastest track
    via TanksinWW2
    Any one else got a good site with memoirs, I find them very interesting.
     
  3. Canadian_Super_Patriot

    Canadian_Super_Patriot recruit

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    the sad thing about the russians is that they always took 4 or 5 times the losses that they needed too.
     
  4. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
  5. Isaac phpbb3

    Isaac phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Holyland
    via TanksinWW2
    interesting.... :smok:
     
  6. laszlo.nemedi

    laszlo.nemedi New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    your sources?

    I made some statistic and in the last years the Soviets(!) lost (only) 30% more than an American or Brit (or Canadian) forces facing with the same number of Germans.
    If you need my math I can post here, but before can you prove the 4-5 times?
     
  7. laszlo.nemedi

    laszlo.nemedi New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I am a little bit tired to read it all, but I found the good old preemptive strike.
    The funny side, there is no evidence in the German Archives on Barbarossa was pre-emptive, but Suvorov (a Russian) KNOWS Hitler started the war as pre-emptive.

    We don't know of course Stalin's intentions but Hitler planned the war against SU for a long time.

    Actually Zsukov mentioned the Red Army (same as all the Army in that time) never planned to wage a war in defensive style. They planned to attack AFTER the Germans attacks, which can be an explanation on the border position of the mobile forces. But again I don't know Stalin's intentions, but again it was NOT a preemptive war on the German side.

    To prove it, you have to present GERMAN archive documents not ex-Russian thoughts on Hitler.
     
  8. Isaac phpbb3

    Isaac phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Holyland
    via TanksinWW2
    It is controversial, true. AFAIK, hitler ordered plans of attack to be sketched after the liberation of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina in June 1940. As the Soviet border moved much closer to Romanian oilfields, Germany´s only source, and as USSR deliberately violated the 23 Aug ´39 pact, hitler must have felt threatened. The exact quality of his intelligence of Soviet buildup is unknown, but form various, also private, utterances, one may assume that hitler was very poorly informed. Only in the months prececing Barbaross, the info became more extensive due to aero recon. Still, in July, I think, hitler is known to have said (citat from memory): "If I knew how many tanks Stalin had, I would probably not have attacked".
    This is a puzzling utterance, if the man was seriously worried to lose all his oilfields. In the Reichstag speech after launching of Barbarossa, hitler explained (of course, one may add) that the war was preventive. The same (of course) maintained Jodl and Keitel in Nurnberg. I
    I think, one can safely conclude, that the war was, at least partly caused by concerns about security of oil supply primarily. The worries of Soviet aggression vs. Germany must have come later, if at all.

    Conc. Soviet plans of counterattack.
    It is known form soviet sources, that the January 1941 war games had the theme of "counterattack", without any preliminary game of stopping the primary attack. From my private sources, as well as form published Russian literature, based on newly opened archival sources, published memoirs and monographies, I understand that no such defensive training has ever taken place. All previously built and arranged defensive measures: Stalin Line and much much more, incl. removal of mines form numerous bridges and minefields) have been removed or destroyed, after Sept. 1939. The previously prepared depots for partisans, in the case of German or Polish aggression, were voided and the "partisan" units - disbanded or retrained and included in parachute saboteur/ desant units.

    One can therefore safely conclude, that the "counter-" in the theme was for purposes of disinformation. However, Germany had apparently no sources in Soviet officer corps whatsoever.
    The last being a testimony of Stalin´s effective counterintelligence measures (or/and German severe underestimation of Soviet potential).
     
  9. laszlo.nemedi

    laszlo.nemedi New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Seeing the German military intelligence maps on Soviet forces, it is very obvious they cannot recon many tank units mostly in the South (I will check it again...).

    I think Hitler agression on SU was coded in the system he made, he wanted expansion of the Reich, so it was only a question of time. We don't know about Stalin's intention, but I don't see any real intention:
    -he had oil, so there is no need for the Rumanian oil, anyway he did not need any resources as SU had almost everything he needed.
    -attacking the west (Germany) is a problem because their standard of living was higher than the SU, and can cause trouble in average people in SU. It was a problem in 1944-1945.
    -Living enemy is better than beated one, as the outside pressure makes the country stickier to the communism (we are not far from the red-white people war).
    -Beating a Germany which is in power in whole Europe is somehow unrealistic. It was only real option during the French-German war in 1940. But it lasted few weeks only, Stalin maybe hoped in a longer war (same as WWI).

    Again I don't know his personal intention, he could do anything even stupid things.


    What can you get from the opened Archives? I saw the doc of mentioned wargame at Eastview, but I don't really wanted to buy it. I have some contact to Tsamo, if you know specific docs which prove this wargame never happened, please let me know.
     
  10. Isaac phpbb3

    Isaac phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Holyland
    via TanksinWW2
    I´ll try to find the references to war games (afaik - I´m writing from my work) they took place on 2nd and 8th Jan, 1941.

    Why attack Europe? In order to spread the power of communism. A question of doctrine and a step towards the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics encompassing all the world. Look in the name: USSR. It says nothing about it´s boundaries (even USA says directly: of America). Any communist knew perfectly well, that this is the final goal: to liberate the oppressed proletarians of all the world and to strangle plutocrats, until they are no more. For the ruling Elite, it was simply a way of thinking: more power. USSR was a tool to achieve world power, no more. That is why Stalin did not hesitate killing millions, if it only furthered the plans. And the millions didn´t protest because they knew why things were being done, even if they did not why exactly citizen X had to be deported.
     
  11. laszlo.nemedi

    laszlo.nemedi New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I think the spreading of communism cannot be handled as direct threat. The WWII was very unique as Stalin could make direct attack without world protest. The spreading of communism was imagined more as indirect act. So the communists of a country take the power. SU/Stalin saw the world unity against the newly born SU, so he knew (I think) a direct agression could easily unite all the countries in the world. Later he was very happy to be a part of the Allied. It legitimated the territory grab.

    I think Stalin did not wanted more countries. He had the USSR which was big enough for him, the more country the more internal enemy he should handle. All he wanted is enough power to let him alone.
    The Baltic nations and Poland I think was really a bumper territory for him.

    Of course, again, I don't know his real intention, but it seems more logical for me.
     
  12. Isaac phpbb3

    Isaac phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Holyland
    via TanksinWW2
    I think (and I think I know for a fact) that you are wrong. It is a question of doctrine: he had to expand as a matter of principle. And since Marx and Engels, the doctrine was - to expand during or after big wars.

    Stalin was not interested in indigenous revolutions: they would have been too independent of him: look at Yougoslavia. He tried to make Tito his puppet, failed and excommunicated him.

    This is a way these people thought. Doctrine was more important than practical reasons and calculation. Call it their ersatz religion (with balmed Lenin as their Demigod).

    Can you imagine: Stalin let the most beautiful church in Russia, the Hram Krista Spasitela in Moscow dynamite in order to build a palace of republics instead, with places for very many new flags. On top of the building was planned a huge statue of Lenin with his traditional finger, rotating constantly. In the head, there was planned a conference room with big windows (or something like that). It was never built but many planswere competing and the work began in 1941, afair. All marble and best tree sorts. Precisely where the church, world class architecture, heavy with gold, marbles of 20 types, lapis lazuli....

    These people were bandits with an idé fixe. Try to think about it this way.
     
  13. laszlo.nemedi

    laszlo.nemedi New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    As I remember in 1943 in a official comittee of the US goverment made a recommendation for the after-war strategy on the spreading of the democracy which will help US to keep the high level economical production because democracy usually opens the the country's economic system for the foreign countries, and this will be the best opportunity for US.

    So I think the "force projection" is a usual way of thinking of every country, every people. The only thing which usually block it the fear of consecvencies. Some country found the way of indirect influences (e.g. beat music :)) Hollywood, etc.).

    Of course I don't want to defend Stalin, but thinking they were just plain stupid seems to me a mistake.
     
  14. Isaac phpbb3

    Isaac phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Holyland
    via TanksinWW2
    I never said anything like that, Laszlo. Bandits can be sophisticated too.
    Unless you consider being a gangster a proof of stupidity.
    This system was like a cancer on an emaciated body of Russia and later - Central/Eastern Europe. Sucking all juices in order to spread itself.
    Do you remeber the guy with theory of memes, I believe his name was Dawkins. Communism was a very aggressive meme. Very dangerous.

    Yes, one shouldn´t defend Stalin. Even if his adversaries both during and after WW2 had not always clean hands.
     

Share This Page