Stern paid the price for publishing fake material, the documents de classified are not fakes, and they support the inability of the SU to undertake the proposals that Rezun puts foreward.
Hanny
Hanny
-
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.
I wasn't saying that Glantz & co. made forgeries, I was saying that the Soviet themselves may have done fake documents in the 1940's, and then destroyed (or kept classified in a forgotten archive) the originals. We must remember that forgery of photos was the hobby of Stalin, why didn't he made also more important fakes? (well, he did: Katyn is the best example)
And, even if the documents are true, the Red Army was not building defences, had airfileds and supply depots too near the borders, had an offensive dislocation, had sappers in first line, had a chief who wanted an attack (Zhukov: not an idiot) and a national leader who knew perfectly the German menace.
You do know about the plan Z puts forward, where the attacks are to come from and goto?, thats what is at question, and nothing you have said has any bearing on it. If that plan can be shown to be unworkable, rezun has even less credability.
Do you have any idea of the numbers of doc your talking about?, for a plan never put into effect, youd think the secret service would have enough to do in the SU than that.
==============================================
I wasn't saying that Glantz & co. made forgeries
==============================================
Just of the top of my head, Alan Bullock, David M. Glantz, Richard Overy, Harrison E. Salisbury, Alexander Werth, J erickson, Gerd Überschär and even Russian historians Dimitrij Volkogonov, Vladimir Karpov and Valerij Danilov would be the "others", who are all of the same opinion, that the documents are not fakes.
Hanny
Do you have any idea of the numbers of doc your talking about?, for a plan never put into effect, youd think the secret service would have enough to do in the SU than that.
==============================================
I wasn't saying that Glantz & co. made forgeries
==============================================
Just of the top of my head, Alan Bullock, David M. Glantz, Richard Overy, Harrison E. Salisbury, Alexander Werth, J erickson, Gerd Überschär and even Russian historians Dimitrij Volkogonov, Vladimir Karpov and Valerij Danilov would be the "others", who are all of the same opinion, that the documents are not fakes.
Hanny
I don't have to know the plan by Zhukov: also you have said that Zhukov put foward a plan for an attack in spring 1941.
Yes, I know the number of documents. And I know that Stalin had 12 (1941-1953) years to make every kind of forgery he wanted to make.
Ok, good list: what have you demonstrated? The Soviet troops were not having a picnic along the borders: or they were going to attack or they were going to defend. They hadn't a defensive displacement, and not a single document explains why they hand't built defensive structures, etc. The documents tell only: the Soviet Army was terribly backwards. And the historians say: since the Red Army wasn't ready, according to the precious Soviet documents, Stalin didn't want an attack in 1941.
Certainly I've not convinced you and you have not convinced me; we are only wasting our time, I'll stop posting in this thread.
Originally posted by Wido
============================================================================================
I don't have to know the plan by Zhukov: also you have said that Zhukov put foward a plan for an attack in spring 1941.
============================================================================================
Im sorry but if you dont know about it, then you wasting my time because without an understanging of it your ignorant of Suvarovs contention. You have read his contention?, because that plan is central to his thesis.
Originally posted by Wido
============================================================================================
Yes, I know the number of documents. And I know that Stalin had 12 (1941-1953) years to make every kind of forgery he wanted to make.
============================================================================================
Hundreds of such documents would be required, all would need to be done at the time,( showing stunning foresight) else they would also be shown to be fakes as happened to the Stern magazine in the 80s that published the hitler diarys, only to destroy there reputation, along with some historians who were taken in at first. Stalin involment with the plan is indicated by the fact that his name is typed in on it, not signed, in the SU methodolgy, that means he had not personally read it, only been made aware of its contents.
Originally posted by Wido
============================================================================================
Ok, good list: what have you demonstrated? The Soviet troops were not having a picnic along the borders: or they were going to attack or they were going to defend. They hadn't a defensive displacement, and not a single document explains why they hand't built defensive structures, etc. The documents tell only: the Soviet Army was terribly backwards. And the historians say: since the Red Army wasn't ready, according to the precious Soviet documents, Stalin didn't want an attack in 1941.
Certainly I've not convinced you and you have not convinced me; we are only wasting our time, I'll stop posting in this thread.
============================================================================================
Ive demonstrated that the western historians discount Rezun. Anyone reading him ought to do the following,For each rezun's claim, do the following:
1. Find the source. You'll find out that despite rezun's claims to the contrary, most of his statements are not substantiated. You have no way to determine if they're true or he's making them up.
2. If the source is given, look it up and compare rezun's quote with the original. In 50% of the cases, it is either out of context or completely perverted. For example, the quote rezun attributed to the well known Soviet military theorist T.S.Isserson: "It is necessary that the effect of surprise would be so overwhelming that the enemy would find himself without the material ability to organize his defense. In other words, entry into the war should assume the character of a stunning and overwhelming attack." Seemingly, this shows the aggressive doctrine of the Red Army. What did Isserson write in reality? Just this: "...German military press wrote: 'The strategy of tomorrow must aim at concentrating all available forces in the first days of war. It is necessary that the effect of surprise would be so overwhelming that the enemy would find himself without the material ability to organize his defense.' In other words, entry into the war should assume the character of a stunning and overwhelming attack, as Seckt wrote, 'using every ounce of strength'." Isserson was quoting Germans, and rezun made it sound as if Isserson was postulating the Red Army doctrine.
3. Finally, understand the difference between aggressive war and offensive operations. Every time rezun demonstrates that the Red Army was preparing for offensive actions (correctly or incorrectly), it does nothing to prove his main idea that USSR was planning to attack Germany on 6 July 1941. It has been well established that the Red Army would go on the offensive in case of war. If you open the field manual (PU-39), you'll see in the very beginning the quote that goes something like "the Red Army will be the most offensive army of all time". But does that prove that USSR was actually planning to start a war? Of course not!
In general, the above 3 tests are sufficient to destroy practically every claim rezun ever made.
Try reading here for J Erickson:
http://c1.zedo.com/ads2/i/3853/255/221000002/0/i.html?e=i;s=0;b=;z=0.43838111647396993
You talk of defensive or offensive displacement,although it sounds good, it dont match the facts.. You mention the 9th Army, according to the doctrine, normal defensive front of a rifle division is 7-10 km, and offensive front -- 2-5 km. What kind of an offensive deployment is it if the density is insufficient even for defense?, when you look at the disposistion of 9th army. Which army btw had less to do than the 6th, 21st, and 26th, in the proposed plan, i suppose all the docs for those armies were forged as well. Perhaps if i email a copy of the plan it might help?, oh i rember its a fake....
Hanny
============================================================================================
I don't have to know the plan by Zhukov: also you have said that Zhukov put foward a plan for an attack in spring 1941.
============================================================================================
Im sorry but if you dont know about it, then you wasting my time because without an understanging of it your ignorant of Suvarovs contention. You have read his contention?, because that plan is central to his thesis.
Originally posted by Wido
============================================================================================
Yes, I know the number of documents. And I know that Stalin had 12 (1941-1953) years to make every kind of forgery he wanted to make.
============================================================================================
Hundreds of such documents would be required, all would need to be done at the time,( showing stunning foresight) else they would also be shown to be fakes as happened to the Stern magazine in the 80s that published the hitler diarys, only to destroy there reputation, along with some historians who were taken in at first. Stalin involment with the plan is indicated by the fact that his name is typed in on it, not signed, in the SU methodolgy, that means he had not personally read it, only been made aware of its contents.
Originally posted by Wido
============================================================================================
Ok, good list: what have you demonstrated? The Soviet troops were not having a picnic along the borders: or they were going to attack or they were going to defend. They hadn't a defensive displacement, and not a single document explains why they hand't built defensive structures, etc. The documents tell only: the Soviet Army was terribly backwards. And the historians say: since the Red Army wasn't ready, according to the precious Soviet documents, Stalin didn't want an attack in 1941.
Certainly I've not convinced you and you have not convinced me; we are only wasting our time, I'll stop posting in this thread.
============================================================================================
Ive demonstrated that the western historians discount Rezun. Anyone reading him ought to do the following,For each rezun's claim, do the following:
1. Find the source. You'll find out that despite rezun's claims to the contrary, most of his statements are not substantiated. You have no way to determine if they're true or he's making them up.
2. If the source is given, look it up and compare rezun's quote with the original. In 50% of the cases, it is either out of context or completely perverted. For example, the quote rezun attributed to the well known Soviet military theorist T.S.Isserson: "It is necessary that the effect of surprise would be so overwhelming that the enemy would find himself without the material ability to organize his defense. In other words, entry into the war should assume the character of a stunning and overwhelming attack." Seemingly, this shows the aggressive doctrine of the Red Army. What did Isserson write in reality? Just this: "...German military press wrote: 'The strategy of tomorrow must aim at concentrating all available forces in the first days of war. It is necessary that the effect of surprise would be so overwhelming that the enemy would find himself without the material ability to organize his defense.' In other words, entry into the war should assume the character of a stunning and overwhelming attack, as Seckt wrote, 'using every ounce of strength'." Isserson was quoting Germans, and rezun made it sound as if Isserson was postulating the Red Army doctrine.
3. Finally, understand the difference between aggressive war and offensive operations. Every time rezun demonstrates that the Red Army was preparing for offensive actions (correctly or incorrectly), it does nothing to prove his main idea that USSR was planning to attack Germany on 6 July 1941. It has been well established that the Red Army would go on the offensive in case of war. If you open the field manual (PU-39), you'll see in the very beginning the quote that goes something like "the Red Army will be the most offensive army of all time". But does that prove that USSR was actually planning to start a war? Of course not!
In general, the above 3 tests are sufficient to destroy practically every claim rezun ever made.
Try reading here for J Erickson:
http://c1.zedo.com/ads2/i/3853/255/221000002/0/i.html?e=i;s=0;b=;z=0.43838111647396993
You talk of defensive or offensive displacement,although it sounds good, it dont match the facts.. You mention the 9th Army, according to the doctrine, normal defensive front of a rifle division is 7-10 km, and offensive front -- 2-5 km. What kind of an offensive deployment is it if the density is insufficient even for defense?, when you look at the disposistion of 9th army. Which army btw had less to do than the 6th, 21st, and 26th, in the proposed plan, i suppose all the docs for those armies were forged as well. Perhaps if i email a copy of the plan it might help?, oh i rember its a fake....
Hanny
Last edited:
So, the arguments supporting the theory that the SU was preparing for an attack in 1941 are:
1) Soviet forward placement of troops.
2) More specifically, this humongous 9th Army, and the presence of sappers practically in the frontline.
3) Some Soviet high-ranking officers (Zhukov) suggested an attack that year.
4) The fact that there is no supporting documentation for this theory proves nothing, as they could have been hidden or replaced by forgeries.
My replies:
1) This argument shows an enormous lack of political sophistication. Poland in 1939 had to defend borders for political reasons that were practically suicidal. Yet nobody thinks that they were planning an attack on Germany, “based on their dislocation and a glance at a map”. The Soviets were in a similar situation, in part thanks to the fact that they had absorbed the Baltic Republics, as well as half of Poland and parts of Finland and Romania. These new borders gave greater protection to Leningrad and Moscow. Besides, Soviet military doctrine postulated a forward defense in depth, with the goal of stopping the enemy at the borders, and powerful counterattacks as soon as possible, in order to take the war to enemy territory. This was common knowledge in the mid 1930s.
2) A formation like the 9th Army would have been necessary in order to rapidly regain the initiative and counterattack. The same argument applies to sappers.
3) Given the extremely centralized nature of the Soviet dictatorship, and the cult of personality embodied in the figure of Stalin, it would have been inconceivable to think that somebody other than Stalin could have decided to go to an offensive war. Besides, armies routinely plan both offensive and defensive scenarios, such as the one attributed to Zhukov.
4) This is a paranoid argument worthy of Stalin. Taken to the extreme, it means that Soviet documents are worthless. Why comb the archives looking for a “smoking gun”? Obviously, those who postulate this argument have to somehow justify the fact that there is no supporting evidence to their "theory". Never mind that after the defeat of Germany the Allies captured mountains of paper that documented every single atrocity perpetrated by the Nazis. But somehow the Soviet dictatorship was even better than Orwell's nightmarish dystopia "1984". BTW, Soviet falsifications were routinely unmasked at the time, like the attempt to make Trotsky and others "disappear" from the historical record ("The Vanishing Commissar").
1) Soviet forward placement of troops.
2) More specifically, this humongous 9th Army, and the presence of sappers practically in the frontline.
3) Some Soviet high-ranking officers (Zhukov) suggested an attack that year.
4) The fact that there is no supporting documentation for this theory proves nothing, as they could have been hidden or replaced by forgeries.
My replies:
1) This argument shows an enormous lack of political sophistication. Poland in 1939 had to defend borders for political reasons that were practically suicidal. Yet nobody thinks that they were planning an attack on Germany, “based on their dislocation and a glance at a map”. The Soviets were in a similar situation, in part thanks to the fact that they had absorbed the Baltic Republics, as well as half of Poland and parts of Finland and Romania. These new borders gave greater protection to Leningrad and Moscow. Besides, Soviet military doctrine postulated a forward defense in depth, with the goal of stopping the enemy at the borders, and powerful counterattacks as soon as possible, in order to take the war to enemy territory. This was common knowledge in the mid 1930s.
2) A formation like the 9th Army would have been necessary in order to rapidly regain the initiative and counterattack. The same argument applies to sappers.
3) Given the extremely centralized nature of the Soviet dictatorship, and the cult of personality embodied in the figure of Stalin, it would have been inconceivable to think that somebody other than Stalin could have decided to go to an offensive war. Besides, armies routinely plan both offensive and defensive scenarios, such as the one attributed to Zhukov.
4) This is a paranoid argument worthy of Stalin. Taken to the extreme, it means that Soviet documents are worthless. Why comb the archives looking for a “smoking gun”? Obviously, those who postulate this argument have to somehow justify the fact that there is no supporting evidence to their "theory". Never mind that after the defeat of Germany the Allies captured mountains of paper that documented every single atrocity perpetrated by the Nazis. But somehow the Soviet dictatorship was even better than Orwell's nightmarish dystopia "1984". BTW, Soviet falsifications were routinely unmasked at the time, like the attempt to make Trotsky and others "disappear" from the historical record ("The Vanishing Commissar").
I know about it, I don't know the particulars.
Now a thing: I've agreed with you often, but sometimes you should remember that people must not always agree with you. We are not here to argue, but to explain our ideas: I've explained that I don't think that those reports about Soviet Army's inefficiency, even if not false, are enough to demonstrate that USSR wasn't going to do an attack in 1941. And I still think that the fact that Zhukov supported a preemptive attack explains that it wasn't so foolish.
Hanny, I've written that it's possible that the documents showing the backwardness of the Red Army may be fakes made by Stalin himself. It's obviuos that they would look like the true ones. But my point wasn't only this: I say that they may be false, not that they are false. And, I repeat, I don't say that Glantz & co. have faked them.
That demonstrates only that many western historians disagree with him, nothing more.
If you had posted these 3 point before, we would have avoided a lot of problems. I think that the points 1 and 2 are extremely interesting, the first evidences that Suvorov may be wrong. But your quote from Isserson isn't clear: why was he quoting von Seek? Because Isserson simply wanted to explain German theory in his book, or because he was using it as an example or a support of his own theory? In the 1st alternative you are perfectly right: Suvorov has done a wrong quotation, in the 2nd alternative instead Suvorov is right.
The 3rd isn't important: that statement of the PU-39 doesn't demonstrate a Soviet attack, although it demonstrates an attitude towards offensive of Red Army, but certainly it doesn't demonstrate the opposite, in other words it isn't an evidence of the lack of a Soviet plan for an attack in summer 1941. That passage is simply neutral.
I've tryed, but the link doesn't work.
Your points are interesting; again, if you had posted them instead of that meaningless list of historians (there may be 100 historians that don't agre with a theory, but this doesn't mean that that theory is wrong), we would have avoided a lot of problems. Now I agree less with Suvorov, thanks.
Does the fact that parts of Poland and Romania were seized by USSR mean that they had to move most of their troops there? Maybe.
But where is the second line, all those armies ready to counterattack? If Stalin wanted to follow the defensive-offensive plan, he must've prepared some extra divisions behind his lines, right? Maybe there is something wrong with my maps, but as far as they are concerned, there is no second line. For instance what are the troops that could've backed up the Southwestern Front (Kirponos)? Southern Front (Tiuleniev) had most of its' troops placed along the romanian border, so it is not available. What are we left with? 8'th Infantry Division stationed in Kiev and II Airborne Corps in Harkov. That's it.
According to Zhukov, "In the area immediately behind the front and up to three hundred kilometers east of the border, between the tactical and operational echelons in the intermediate zone, were another fifteen divisions and two brigades, making a total of around sixty-three divisions for the forces that would come into contact with the Germans during the first few days of the war.". Fifteen divisions being a reserve for whole, 2000km long front?
These maps I have must be really wrong since 9'th army is printed on them as the one guarding the Romanian border.
You missed here. Legions of people were forging documents and other data in the Soviet Union during whole its existence. Someone here already brought-up the Katyn' case - it's a good example. Not only single people disappeared from Russias' history - 21.000 polish officers were simply erased. When the mass graves were discovered by the Germans, SU prepared lots of documents to prove that it's been another of Nazi attrocities. Of course, many of those forgeries have been unmasked. How many of them weren't?
Most of Soviet documents on the early stage of Barbarossa and soviet army of that time are still classified. We have no proof that those published are real and reliable. Neither can we prove that they have not been taken out of context. BTW, imagine publishing all of Russian documents on that era. It'd be like saying "All what we've been basing our patriotism on is rubbish".
Cheers
I will only reply to this point, as I think that map reading is just that, map reading, not evidence, much less proof.
Obviously, Stalin was one of the most adept practitioners of the art of "historical revisionism". Yet the fact remains that the idea that the Soviet Union was preparing to attack Germany in 1941 rests on some very flimsy circumstantial evidence, and zero hard documentary evidence. I know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but until the official documents are shown to be forgeries and the "real" ones surface, I think it's idle to affirm that the SU was preparing to attack in 1941.
BTW, everybody knew that the alliance between Germany and the SU was temporary and both parties wanted to break it at the earliest opportunity. Hitler knew it, Stalin knew it. It's interesting, though, that the SU made efforts up to the last minute to appease Germany, including special deliveries of raw materials, as the evidence of the German military buildup became increasingly menacing. Why send strategic raw materials to an enemy that you intend to attack so soon? It sounds more plausible to think that the SU would have attacked in 1942 if the second echelon was as weak as you yourself point out.
Pretty strange, that. You're interested in the subject? Go out there and read and sift the arguments and decide for yourself. I just posted the info, I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything. But I hope I sparked someone's curiosity. For a curious person, thousands of indications of imminent Soviet attack will become apparent after some research.
That's a bit of an advance, since you skipped even asking for arguments and gave the advance on the accusation that nobody has any
And that is a lot of supposing, any way you look at it. Say, Germany was not equipped with winter clothing or heavy tanks or anti-tank guns capable of dealing with Soviet armor, so they were not going to attack Soviet Union in 1941 then?
Something interesting I found in one of Hannibal's links (my compliments). Glantz's book is apparently all about Soviet unpreparedness for war, so he concludes they could not attack. This link is all about Russian unpreparedness for war, and it describes a war they started. See my point?
http://call.army.mil/fmso/fmsopubs/issues/yrusfail/yrusfail.htm
http://call.army.mil/fmso/fmsopubs/issues/yrusfail/yrusfail.htm
What difference does it make really? Germany was first to attack no matter how you twist it and try to pose as as "necessary" or "self-defense". And even if there were such a plan (for which there is nor prove whatsoever apart from traitor Rezun ("Suvorov")'s argument, which was refuted countless times both in Russia and abroad, but is still supported by conspiracy theorists), wouldn't it be JUSTIFIED by Germany's previous actions? I think it was understood by many at the time that the war was inevitable - it was only a matter of time. Germany was the first to strike and they lost.
There was such a plan (there are always offensive and defensive plans) by Zhukov. Was it to be realised - it's a different story. And Russian offensive would be justified by USSR's previous actions. Remember? Poland, Finland, Pribaltica...
I can't tell whether the whole theory is true or not. But it's probable whereas the idea that the biggest country in the world with the biggest, most modern and best equipped army in the world was virtually defenceless is not. If the war was inevitable, the firs person to know everything about it would be Joseph Stalin. This guy simply didn't commit a single mistake in his whole life. He didn't believe his own komissars and officers. Do you think that he believed Hitler?
As I stated before, I cannot tell whether the whole thing is true or not. But I get really upset when I hear you saying something like "Germany was to atack first because Germany was to atack first". It's not very constructive, is it.
Cheers
I don't understand your point. Do you think it is more constructive to discuss something that never happened as opposed to something that did happen? Germany attacked first - they are the agressor. Discussing "what if" scenarios may be interesting and intellectualy stimulating, but completely pointless.
are you being serious or trying to provoke me? Obviously, Hitler was #1 friend of the countries that you mentioned
Why pointless? Finding a proof of what V.B. Rezun states would turn around the whole point of view on WWII in the east. And, IMO, we are discussing something that might have happened. What good is discussing something easy, logical, and something that can vbe found on every corner of the street?
I'm being serious (maybe provocative a little, but still..). Believe it or not, USSR was an aggressive country, especially under Stalins rule. For each and every German aggression you'll find Soviet one.
Poland - Poland
France - Finland
Yugoslavia - Pribaltika
Russia - ????
But replying to your statement: let alone Poland, Hitler was the best friend of the two other regions you mentioned. He was allied to Finland (and helped it survive) and (although his rule over Pribaltica was really heavy and harsh) many people found it reasonable to join for instance Latvian Waffen-SS. I'm not pulling your leg, really. Soviet Union was not a peaceful country.
Cheers
what I meant is that it would be incorrect to seek justification for Hitler's attack on the SU.
You mean there was no justification at all? He prepared Barbarossa just for fun? Hitler was a psycho, but not that much. Following the rule that even the worst theory is better than none, I'd accept idea of German preemptive strike rather than admitting that there was no logic behind Hitlers deeds.
Or maybe I just got you wrong?
Cheers