My friends' grandpa got out from GuLag in 1942 and was sent to some Istrebitelnyi Batalion (Storming Batallion). He confirms the "MG behind the lines" motivation system being used.
Cheers
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Cheers
Penal bn aside, anyone has any documented of machinegun-behind-back usage after '42? Curiosity...
Other than those summary executions by politcal commissars and flying judge-jury-executioner squads, it would seem that almost all dictatorial systems would employ machinegun-behind-back approach when things are desperate. But when matters improved, they tend to ease up on such tactics and concentrate purely on individual "coercions", rather than large units. Iraq used that too during early part of the Iran-Iraq war when their frontlines were crumbling under the Iranian attacks. Just musing, I am not defending such tactics.
Other than those summary executions by politcal commissars and flying judge-jury-executioner squads, it would seem that almost all dictatorial systems would employ machinegun-behind-back approach when things are desperate. But when matters improved, they tend to ease up on such tactics and concentrate purely on individual "coercions", rather than large units. Iraq used that too during early part of the Iran-Iraq war when their frontlines were crumbling under the Iranian attacks. Just musing, I am not defending such tactics.
Most of the reports I have on that come from first-hand German participants, but it is also mostly from before 1943, so I will happily concede that it was a desperation tactic.Originally posted by Tequila_powered
I'm being neutral in this part of US/SU debate but just to correct facts IIRC the machineguns-in-the-back-thingy happened in the early part of Barbarrosa when things were real desperate for SU. But I dun recall reading any reports of this happening anymore towards later part of WWII. Other than the Hollywood "Stalingrad" movie(the only part of that movie I liked was the armored train..but i am digressing)
And of course, not every one of these folks was a rifleman. The US had enormous logistics and support departments on their units, because they could afford to do so.
Strikes me as a bit high as well, but let's remember that the US had a population of three times the entire Empire, excluding India.
I dunno, I tend to give a little more credance to anyone who actually references their website to real historical works.Who is this guy? Sorry, but I don't really trust that site. If you can provide me with another source, I'm willing to concede the point.
At any rate, John Keegan has American mobilization of 11.49 million in his Atlas of the Second World War. And if you don't trust Keegan, then there isn't much point in going on. There is a discrepancy between them of quite a bit, but I tend to lean more towards Keegan, myself, while still admitting that the other source could be right. I'm going to investigate the sources cited on that particular website during my offtime.
I'm not offended by those facts, but the implication of giving steel and blood as equal contributions. Here: Without Lend-Lease the Soviet Union might not have survived the war for survival against Nazi-Germany. Happy now? Now you say: Without all those losses inflicted on the Wehrmacht by the Soviets, casualties on the Allied side would have been way higher and D-day might have failed miserably.
You silly... That was the number of people that died in the war. Duh...
Still, you claim Communism is EVIL, although reasonbly normal lives were possible after Stalin, both for the people of Eastern Europe and the USSR. Maybe it would be better to state Stalin was evil? You might not get negative reactions because of oversimplification...
Evil fruit of an evil tree. If Nazi Germany had somehow endured to the present day, a state born and bred in mass slaughter of innocents is evil, and they would still be based on evil. Naziism is evil because it always demands the deaths of the underraces in order to establish and support itself. Communism is always evil, because it always demands the death of innocent upper and middle class types to establish itself, unless those people are willing to give away their property to the ignorant, lazy masses.Originally posted by Suvorov
Still, you claim Communism is EVIL, although reasonbly normal lives were possible after Stalin, both for the people of Eastern Europe and the USSR. Maybe it would be better to state Stalin was evil? You might not get negative reactions because of oversimplification...
Exactly. 27 million died in the war. I have never seen an estimate for Stalin's purges of less than 30 million, and some numbers as high as 60 million. Stalin, by himself, was more damaging to the Soviet Union than the Second World War.Originally posted by Suvorov
You silly... That was the number of people that died in the war. Duh...
Mmmm.... and all those innocent indians....? Wonder how the posters here would call the US? Not evil, probably....
Double standards, anyone?
And because of that, the sacrifices in WWII are in any way less? What are you saying?
Not really. Stalin is a prick, pure and simple.Originally posted by Suvorov
And because of that, the sacrifices in WWII are in any way less? What are you saying?
Yes, because killing tens of thousands of Indians in a war is perfectly equivalent to systematically slaughtering tens of millions. No dice.Originally posted by Suvorov
Mmmm.... and all those innocent indians....? Wonder how the posters here would call the US? Not evil, probably....
Double standards, anyone?
In a war? Yep, whatever you believe is true. It was conquest of Lebensraum, my friend. Lebensraum that was already occupied by others. How inconvenient....
Well, let's see. The middle classes have an education, as do the upper classes. Because of this, they are less ignorant than the lower classes. Moreover, because the middle classes have to work to earn what they have, they have to work damn hard to send their children through the proper education so that they can continue the family business, whatever that might be. How inclined would anyone be to simply give up all they own, simply because that the crazies in charge have decided that all of your hard work has made you evil.Originally posted by Suvorov
Someone is stereotyping here.... You sound like a 19th century Russian landlord.
All those people toiling in dump factories, or on the land to make sure their masters have caviar and champagne for breakfast. Yep, real lazy people. And ignorant? They were kept that way, Comrade! To keep 'em under control. Dumb people are not as dangreous as smart ones (not counting Mike Tyson, of course
)
As a sidenote: reasonably normal lives were not possible until 1989. After Stalin acceptably unnormal lives were possible, but noone can say that living in a country where there are food shortages all the time while the ham and grain is exported (Poland from 1945 onwards), where there is no toilet paper or soap to buy (again Poland from 1945 onwards), where the vast majority of educated people works in factories (Czechoslovakia after 1968), where only 4% of people are allowed to have a telephone - and so on, and so forth - is normal.Originally posted by Suvorov
Still, you claim Communism is EVIL, although reasonbly normal lives were possible after Stalin, both for the people of Eastern Europe and the USSR. Maybe it would be better to state Stalin was evil? You might not get negative reactions because of oversimplification...
Cheers
Originally posted by Suvorov
I'm not offended by those facts, but the implication of giving steel and blood as equal contributions. Here: Without Lend-Lease the Soviet Union might not have survived the war for survival against Nazi-Germany. Happy now? Now you say: Without all those losses inflicted on the Wehrmacht by the Soviets, casualties on the Allied side would have been way higher and D-day might have failed miserably.
You silly... That was the number of people that died in the war. Duh...
Ok, I'll buy both statements. The Allies certainly contributed to the Soviet struggle against the Nazis well before Stalingrad, starting in the dark days of '41 when Soviet survival didnt seem a foregone conclusion. Conversely, as you say, had Germany not been engaged with USSR, we wouldve faced vastly greater resistance in France (& likely North Africa as well) & D-Day wouldve been a bloody nightmare. Futhermore, had first UK & then USSR not held out while we mobilized, D-Day may have been impossible. I'll totally agree to that.
On 2nd paragraph, thats not what I meant. Check Neil's post. Point is that Stalin killed more people than the war did; a sickening fact, but IMO not one that reflects badly on the Russian soldiers who fought Hitler, but instead on Stalin's USSR.
No, I've never heard of those 2m poles or 8m ukrainians...
Ever been to Auschwitz? Ever seen how about a million kids, women, etc. That one killed 4m alone...
Believe me, Auschwitz is not the place you want to go. There's barracks as for as the eye can see, big crematories were bodies were burned, you can see all the human hair they'd cut off, their glasses, teeths (if gold), etc. The bathrooms were nothing but a hole in the ground, of course, all public. There weren't room for everyone either. It's horrible. Gulag must be a heaven compared to it.
When I was in Sachsenhausen I saw the laboratories where the "Doctors" where doing they're experiments... Evil experiments... like cutting of someone's leg, and try to make it fit on anothers body... of course without giving the poor jews (or whoever they used) drugs to help against the pain...