Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The NKVD in Eastern Europe
Options
Comments
-
Who in the hell is Wheatcroft? And just because he can't do basic maths it doesn't mean 300,000 Poles died in labour camps. Right wing "historians" are constantly creating fictional people and then claiming they were murdered in gulags.
There are a lot of Poles in Kazakhstan who would disagree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_in_Kazakhstan0 -
-
Dannyboy83 wrote: »If the only Soviet aim was defensive i.e. to establish a buffer, why didn't they simply arm and reinforce Polish troops? (North Korea?)
That would have brought the Germans to a full halt and tied them up completely in the East & left them fully exposed to Allied forces in the West.
Didn't Hitler received a telegram of Congratulations after the Fall of France, from the Soviet Union?
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?
The Polish military dictatorship was extremely anti-soviet and refused all offers of military co-operation with the USSR. And there is no way the Polish Army would have stopped the blitzkrieg in 1939. It's delusional to suggest they would have if the soviets had given them some T-26 tanks or obsolete aircraft.
And I wouldn't read too much into a telegraph. That was just part of diplomacy aimed at keeping the nazis appeased until the USSR could re-arm and re-train. I can assure you that the fall of France caused great alarm and panic for the Soviets and destroyed their hopes for prolonged war in the west that would damage the German army.0 -
That doesn't even make sense.
You have such a one-sided view of things that its unreal.
How about you take the red shades off and do some readingAfter the Soviet invasion of Poland, another 150,000 Poles were deported from eastern Polish territories to Kazakhstan; 80 per cent of these were women and children, as the adult men of their community were typically absent due to army service. After the end of the war, people who had been Polish citizens before September 1, 1939 were allowed to repatriate to Poland; however, no provision was made for earlier deportees to leave Kazakhstan.[7] The 1970 Soviet census found 61,400 Poles (0.5 per cent of the population) in the Kazakh SSR, while the 1979 census found 61,100 (0.4 per cent) and the 1989 census 59,400 (0.4 per cent).[8] However, Polish scholars believe these numbers to be underestimates, due to the reluctance of Poles to register their true ethnicity in their official documentation and the relative ease of changing one's declared nationality to another, such as Ukrainian or Russian; they have given numbers ranging from 100,000 to 400,0000 -
But Poland and the Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact, which the Soviet Union violated when they invaded and occupied Eastern Poland:The Polish military dictatorship was extremely anti-soviet and refused all offers of military co-operation with the USSR.To normalize the bilateral contacts with the Soviet Union, talks were started in January 1926 to prepare a non-aggression treaty. The Polish-Soviet negotiations were resumed in Moscow, in 1931. The pact was finally signed on July 25, 1932, effective for a three-year period. Ratifications were exchanged in Warsaw on December 23, 1932, and it went into effect on the same day.
It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on January 9, 1933.
On May 5, 1934 it was extended to December 31, 1945 without amendment. Among other topics, both sides agreed to renounce violence in bilateral relations, to resolve their problems through negotiations and to forgo any armed conflict or alliances aimed at the other side.
On September 23, 1938, the Soviet Union sent a note to the Polish government informing it that the pact will be considered null and void in the case of Poland's participation in the occupation of Czechoslovakia.
However, this threat was not carried out, as the Soviet government stated on October 31, after Poland occupied Zaolzie area, that the pact remained in force.
It was reaffirmed by the two powers on November 26, 1938.
Finally the pact was broken by the Soviets on September 17, 1939, when the Red Army joined Nazi Germany's forces in their invasion of Poland, in accordance with the secret protocols of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
By your reasoning, you would interpret Germany as acting defensively when they launched Operation Barbarossa?And there is no way the Polish Army would have stopped the blitzkrieg in 1939. It's delusional to suggest they would have if the soviets had given them some T-26 tanks or obsolete aircraft.
They didn't have to stop the Blitzkreig or defeat Germany.
They just had to tie up German forces.
The Fall of France occurred as a direct result of Soviet collaboration with the Nazis.And I wouldn't read too much into a telegraph. That was just part of diplomacy aimed at keeping the nazis appeased until the USSR could re-arm and re-train.
You mean in spite of "The German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Demarcation"?0 -
Advertisement
-
BlaasForRafa wrote: »You have such a one-sided view of things that its unreal.
These views are neither held nor espoused by any of the Russian survivors I've spoken with, I don't believe they represent the Russian/Soviet side's views.
It's certainly one of the most unique historical interpretations I've heard however!0 -
Dannyboy83 wrote: »But Poland and the Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact, which the Soviet Union violated when they invaded and occupied Eastern Poland:
By your reasoning, you would interpret Germany as acting defensively when they launched Operation Barbarossa?
They didn't have to stop the Blitzkreig or defeat Germany.
They just had to tie up German forces.
The Fall of France occurred as a direct result of Soviet collaboration with the Nazis.
You mean in spite of "The German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Demarcation"?
This is no logic to any thing you post. It's ahistorical drivel.0 -
Dannyboy83 wrote: »The Fall of France occurred as a direct result of Soviet collaboration with the Nazis.
The most idiotic statement I have ever seen.0 -
-
The fall of France had disatorous consequences for Russia. Can you expand on the point quoted more to explain what you mean preferably with sources for information.Dannyboy83 wrote: »The Fall of France occurred as a direct result of Soviet collaboration with the Nazis.0 -
Advertisement
-
jonniebgood1 wrote: »The fall of France had disatorous consequences for Russia. Can you expand on the point quoted more to explain what you mean preferably with sources for information.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact forced the French and BEF to send all their mobile reserves into Belgium and leave the Ardennes undefended. Obviously.0 -
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact forced the French and BEF to send all their mobile reserves into Belgium and leave the Ardennes undefended. Obviously.
That's called hindsight.
This is the problem with Dogma.
In 1939, France had 40 divisions (500,000 troops) along the border, while Germany only had 15 (200,000 troops).
Germany were terrified of a French offensive in 1939. And that was as a single front war. France were within striking distance of the Ruhr.
Had the Nazis not been able to rely on Soviet collaboration, it's uncertain wheter the Nazis could have even have launched any significant offensive action in the West.
Instead of defensive actions, Allied forces would have been on the offensive & Germany would have been trying to garrison it's territory and spare troops for defensive actions, not to mention vulnerable to bombing.
France fell because the Soviet Union collaborated with Germany.
Imagine the Soviet Union had not been aggressive/expansionist, but instead fought a defensive war.
You've just conquered Poland.
Soviet Troops are closing from the East, with irredentist claims.
Do you cede the Eastern territory?
Can you risk it? What if they don't stop at Eastern Poland?
But ...French troops are swelling along you Western border, near your industrial heartland. And they will shortly be reinforced by the BEF.
You need troops to garrison your newly conquered territories.
What should you do?
If you throw all your forces against the West or East, you're wide open on your flank.
If you split your forces, you will be crushed. At best, a war of attrition, which you simply don't have the resources to fight.
Your fuel and ammunition reserves have been swallowed up in Poland.
Many of your troops are badly green.
Your 'ally' in the South sees it's a foregone conclusion and sides with the victors.
You're screwed.
.
.
Maybe it never even gets that far?
Maybe Hitler is overthrown before the war even kicks off?
It's the WW1 scenario/1944 scenario, except in 1939, before Germany was properly armed and far from full strength, and lacking in the raw materials which a defensive Soviet Union would never have supplied them.0 -
Dannyboy83 wrote: »That's called hindsight.
This is the problem with Dogma.
In 1939, France had 40 divisions (500,000 troops) along the border, while Germany only had 15 (200,000 troops).
Germany were terrified of a French offensive in 1939. And that was as a single front war. France were within striking distance of the Ruhr.
Had the Nazis not been able to rely on Soviet collaboration, it's uncertain wheter the Nazis could have even have launched any significant offensive action in the West.
Instead of defensive actions, Allied forces would have been on the offensive & Germany would have been trying to garrison it's territory and spare troops for defensive actions, not to mention vulnerable to bombing.
France fell because the Soviet Union collaborated with Germany.
Imagine the Soviet Union had not been aggressive/expansionist, but instead fought a defensive war.
You've just conquered Poland.
Soviet Troops are closing from the East, with irredentist claims.
Do you cede the Eastern territory?
Can you risk it? What if they don't stop at Eastern Poland?
But ...French troops are swelling along you Western border, near your industrial heartland. And they will shortly be reinforced by the BEF.
You need troops to garrison your newly conquered territories.
What should you do?
If you throw all your forces against the West or East, you're wide open on your flank.
If you split your forces, you will be crushed. At best, a war of attrition, which you simply don't have the resources to fight.
Your fuel and ammunition reserves have been swallowed up in Poland.
Many of your troops are badly green.
Your 'ally' in the South sees it's a foregone conclusion and sides with the victors.
You're screwed.
.
.
Maybe it never even gets that far?
Maybe Hitler is overthrown before the war even kicks off?
It's the WW1 scenario/1944 scenario, except in 1939, before Germany was properly armed and far from full strength, and lacking in the raw materials which a defensive Soviet Union would never have supplied them.
Stop spouting nonsense. The French or British could have stopped the nazis any time they liked between 1933 and 1938 but instead chose to sign the Munich agreement. It was as a result of the Britsh and french sell out at Munich that the Soviets sign the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany (up until that point the Soviets had been trying to build up an anti-nazi alliance with France and Britain). You are just so blinkered you want to blame the rise of the nazis on the USSR but it was supposed to be the French and British enforcing the terms of the Versailles Treaty. It was the british and French who turned a blind eye to the fascists overthrowing the democratic government in Spain. It was the British and french who allowed the Germans to re-arm and expand. It was the British and French who allowed the Germans to march into the Rhineland. It was the British and French who allowed Austria and Czechslovakia to be over-run. And it was the British and French who fought so pathetically and cowardly in 1939/40. But you think the USSR should be blamed for all that.0 -
And the relevance of that to the strategic situation in 1940?Stop spouting nonsense. The French or British could have stopped the nazis any time they liked between 1933 and 1938 but instead chose to sign the Munich agreement
The reality is simple: Nazi Germany could not have launched its campaigns to conquer Europe without the security and economic aid provided by the NAP. Simple as. It was Stalin's agreement that enabled the Nazis to concentrate in the West and, ironically, set the stage for their subsequent of the USSR. Everything that had gone before is of interest only as context/background to this collaboration
Or, in brief: previous Allied failures to confront Hitler don't excuse later Soviet collusions with the Nazis0 -
And the relevance of that to the strategic situation in 1940?
The reality is simple: Nazi Germany could not have launched its campaigns to conquer Europe without the security and economic aid provided by the NAP. Simple as. It was Stalin's agreement that enabled the Nazis to concentrate in the West and, ironically, set the stage for their subsequent of the USSR. Everything that had gone before is of interest only as context/background to this collaboration
Or, in brief: previous Allied failures to confront Hitler don't excuse later Soviet collusions with the Nazis
The German attack in May 1940 would have succeeded regardless of any trade agreement between USSR and Germany. The French strategy was fatally flawed and the British only sent a pathetic little force. That's why the western allies failed. Anyway Swedish iron ore was of much greater benefit to nazi Germany than anything from the USSR.
Why the USSR signed the NAP is not at all irrelevent. It came about as a direct reaction to the British and French signing the Munich Agreement which the Soviets believed was the Brits handing the nazis a free hand in eastern europe.
To blame the nazi conquest of France on the USSR is embarrassing revisionism.0 -
Perhaps, if one assumes that Nazi Germany left its entire eastern border undefended against a hostile (or potentially hostile) Soviet Union. But I don't see why anyone would do that. The value of the NAP to the Nazis wasn't in that they needed help defeating Poland (as if) but that it freed its armies to focus on and overwhelm FranceThe German attack in May 1940 would have succeeded regardless of any trade agreement between USSR and Germany. The French strategy was fatally flawed and the British only sent a pathetic little force. That's why the western allies failed
As I've said above, it's very questionable as to whether Hitler could have even carried his generals into such a suicidal strategic scenario. Certainly Germany would not have been able to deploy the forces that it did historically in Fall Gelb
WhataboutismAnyway Swedish iron ore was of much greater benefit to nazi Germany than anything from the USSR
And in return the Soviets offered the Nazis a free hand in the west. We know. That's pretty much the point. The logic that Moscow used to arrive at this position does not in the slightest detract from the damage that its collaboration caused all involvedWhy the USSR signed the NAP is not at all irrelevent. It came about as a direct reaction to the British and French signing the Munich Agreement which the Soviets believed was the Brits handing the nazis a free hand in eastern europe.
Had Moscow taken the radical course of, I don't know, not aligning itself with a fascist expansionist state then the Nazi Germany probably would not have conquered France and, subsequently, most of European Russia. This simple truth stands regardless of how miffed Stalin was of previous Allied diplomacy
The Nazi conquest of France had many causes and many politicians were to blame. Suggesting that the power that effectively gave Nazi Germany a free hand in the west is not amongst these is just silly. Coupling it with those old Stalinist cods of 'buying time' or 'buffer lands' or 'the Poles were nasty' goes beyond that and into apologismTo blame the nazi conquest of France on the USSR is embarrassing revisionism.0 -
Perhaps, if one assumes that Nazi Germany left its entire eastern border undefended against a hostile (or potentially hostile) Soviet Union. But I don't see why anyone would do that. The value of the NAP to the Nazis wasn't in that they needed help defeating Poland (as if) but that it freed its armies to focus on and overwhelm France
As I've said above, it's very questionable as to whether Hitler could have even carried his generals into such a suicidal strategic scenario. Certainly Germany would not have been able to deploy the forces that it did historically in Fall Gelb
Whataboutism
And in return the Soviets offered the Nazis a free hand in the west. We know. That's pretty much the point. The logic that Moscow used to arrive at this position does not in the slightest detract from the damage that its collaboration caused all involved
Had Moscow taken the radical course of, I don't know, not aligning itself with a fascist expansionist state then the Nazi Germany probably would not have conquered France and, subsequently, most of European Russia. This simple truth stands regardless of how miffed Stalin was of previous Allied diplomacy
The Nazi conquest of France had many causes and many politicians were to blame. Suggesting that the power that effectively gave Nazi Germany a free hand in the west is not amongst these is just silly. Coupling it with those old Stalinist cods of 'buying time' or 'buffer lands' or 'the Poles were nasty' goes beyond that and into apologism
It's not "whataboutism" to question how much the Germans actaully gained from the NAP.
If the USSR went to war with the Germans in 1939 they would have been slaughtered and the French and Brits would have done nothing whatsoever to help. Is that what you wanted to happen?0 -
No, it's whataboutism to throw up the actions of an entirely different party and declare 'what about...'. Sweden's iron exports to Germany have no relevance in evaluating the importance of, say, Soviet oil and grain shipments to Nazi GermanyIt's not "whataboutism" to question how much the Germans actaully gained from the NAP
So yeah, you didn't "question how much the Germans actaully gained from the NAP"
Yeah, Nazi Germany would have waltzed into the Soviet Union, destroyed almost the entire standing Red Army, occupied most of European Russia and reached the gates of Moscow... despite being far weaker militarily (than 1941), having an economy starved of the Soviet or European resources needed to keep it running* and with increasing numbers of Franco-British armies massing on the western borders :rolleyes:If the USSR went to war with the Germans in 1939 they would have been slaughtered and the French and Brits would have done nothing whatsoever to help. Is that what you wanted to happen?
I mean, Barbarossa failed with all the advantages that the Nazis had historically... but you think that Germany would succeeded despite the inferior conditions of 1939? That is, a scenario in which it couldn't draw on the resources of all Europe to stage a crusade against the Bolsheviks
*It was the seizure of industrial and financial stockpiles in Western Europe, plus aid from the Soviet Union, that kept the Nazi economy from collapsing after the first year of war0 -
No, it's whataboutism to throw up the actions of an entirely different party and declare 'what about...'. Sweden's iron exports to Germany have no relevance in evaluating the importance of, say, Soviet oil and grain shipments to Nazi Germany
So yeah, you didn't "question how much the Germans actaully gained from the NAP"
Yeah, Nazi Germany would have waltzed into the Soviet Union, destroyed almost the entire standing Red Army, occupied most of European Russia and reached the gates of Moscow... despite being far weaker militarily (than 1941), having an economy starved of the Soviet or European resources needed to keep it running* and with increasing numbers of Franco-British armies massing on the western borders :rolleyes:
I mean, Barbarossa failed with all the advantages that the Nazis had historically... but you think that Germany would succeeded despite the inferior conditions of 1939? That is, a scenario in which it couldn't draw on the resources of all Europe to stage a crusade against the Bolsheviks
*It was the seizure of industrial and financial stockpiles in Western Europe, plus aid from the Soviet Union, that kept the Nazi economy from collapsing after the first year of war
You are deliberately negating that the Red Army was in no position to fight in 1939 as the war against Finland proved. Nazi germany may have been weaker in 1939 than 1941 but the Red Army was much much weaker in 1939 than 1941. The USSR didn't even have the T-34 or the PPHs sub-machine gun. You are absolutely right that nazi germany became stronger with every year before 1941 and that's why the French and Brits should have done something in the 30s when they could have easily faced down Hitler. But in modern "history" it' not fashionable to criticise Britain, Chamberlain or Munich. Best to go for the safe option of attacking the USSR.0 -
No, I'm arguing that it's not a particularly important point and not one that outweighs the immense strategic benefits that Nazi Germany accruedYou are deliberately negating that the Red Army was in no position to fight in 1939 as the war against Finland proved
Which is particularly shocking in light of how badly the Red Army performed in 1941. Thanks Stalin. All those stocks of guns and armaments produced after 1939? Lost in 1941. All those men called up to the enlarged army? Lost in 1939. The shift in the industrial base towards the defence needs? Lost (temporarily) in 1941. The strategic mess that Stalin dragged the USSR into essentially wiped out any gains in the 'time bought' by collaboration with Hitler
(Interestingly, Glantz has argued that the organisational reforms of 1940, and concurrent second wave of purges, meant that the Red Army was in a state of high disorganisation in 1941. It was in a real trough of operational efficiency. Arguably it would have been better placed to face the Nazis in 1939 without the additional waves of reorganisation/chaos. Although if we're playing that game then we might as well go back and stop the Stalinists purging the army and throwing its doctrinal basis into the air in the first place)
Naturally. That's why Chamberlain made that rather bizarre appearance at the Olympics closing ceremony. As one would expect of one of the most venerated political figures of recent British history, the man whose foreign policy remains lauded to this day, the honourable...But in modern "history" it' not fashionable to criticise Britain, Chamberlain or Munich
... oh wait. That's not right. Chamberlain and appeasement have been largely lambasted by generations of historians and thoroughly discredited in popular culture. But then you wouldn't be one for humouring excuses about 'buying time' to rearm, would you?0 -
Advertisement
-
No, I'm arguing that it's not a particularly important point and not one that outweighs the immense strategic benefits that Nazi Germany accrued
Which is particularly shocking in light of how badly the Red Army performed in 1941. Thanks Stalin. All those stocks of guns and armaments produced after 1939? Lost in 1941. All those men called up to the enlarged army? Lost in 1939. The shift in the industrial base towards the defence needs? Lost (temporarily) in 1941. The strategic mess that Stalin dragged the USSR into essentially wiped out any gains in the 'time bought' by collaboration with Hitler
(Interestingly, Glantz has argued that the organisational reforms of 1940, and concurrent second wave of purges, meant that the Red Army was in a state of high disorganisation in 1941. It was in a real trough of operational efficiency. Arguably it would have been better placed to face the Nazis in 1939 without the additional waves of reorganisation/chaos. Although if we're playing that game then we might as well go back and stop the Stalinists purging the army and throwing its doctrinal basis into the air in the first place)
Naturally. That's why Chamberlain made that rather bizarre appearance at the Olympics closing ceremony. As one would expect of one of the most venerated political figures of recent British history, the man whose foreign policy remains lauded to this day, the honourable...
... oh wait. That's not right. Chamberlain and appeasement have been largely lambasted by generations of historians and thoroughly discredited in popular culture. But then you wouldn't be one for humouring excuses about 'buying time' to rearm, would you?
The troop deployments of the red army were questionable in 1941. However it was still advantageous to have several buffer zones that kept the Germans back from Soviet territory. It's not ridiculous to say that the Nazis may have captured Moscow had they been able to start their advance from the eastern borders of Poland rather than at the Bug River. And however poorly the Soviet performed in the early stages of the German attack it was still much improved from their performance against a poorly equipped Finnish force in 1939.
The recent efforts of right wing revisionist "historians" like Figes and Service have consciously tried to blame WW2 on the Soviets and the Mototov-Ribbentrop Pact and negate blame from the Munich Agreement, Chamberlain, Lord Halifax and the pro-fascist wing of the tory party.0 -
It's more than ridiculous, it's absurdIt's not ridiculous to say that the Nazis may have captured Moscow had they been able to start their advance from the eastern borders of Poland rather than at the Bug River
Despite having less men, guns and supplies; despite having outdated equipment; despite being unable to encircle the Soviets (what with having ten less Panzer divisions in France than they had in 1941); despite having a tottering economy; despite confronting a stauncher Soviet defensive line; despite the Soviets being better organised than they were in 1941; despite the Red Army not being crippled by Stalin's deployments; despite tensions within the German high command; despite the need to bolster the Western borders; despite the lack of resources from the rest of Europe; despite the Nazi economy being on the brink of collapse; despite... well, everything, you think that the Nazis would do better than they did historically?
No it wasn't. Was the entire Red Army wiped out by the Finns in 1939?And however poorly the Soviet performed in the early stages of the German attack it was still much improved from their performance against a poorly equipped Finnish force in 1939.
Snore. This has nothing to do with Figes or similar. Another irrelevancy raisedThe recent efforts of right wing revisionist "historians" like Figes and Service have consciously tried to blame WW2 on the Soviets and the Mototov-Ribbentrop Pact and negate blame from the Munich Agreement, Chamberlain, Lord Halifax and the pro-fascist wing of the tory party.0 -
It's more than ridiculous, it's absurd
Despite having less men, guns and supplies; despite having outdated equipment; despite being unable to encircle the Soviets (what with having ten less Panzer divisions in France than they had in 1941); despite having a tottering economy; despite confronting a stauncher Soviet defensive line; despite the Soviets being better organised than they were in 1941; despite the Red Army not being crippled by Stalin's deployments; despite tensions within the German high command; despite the need to bolster the Western borders; despite the lack of resources from the rest of Europe; despite the Nazi economy being on the brink of collapse; despite... well, everything, you think that the Nazis would do better than they did historically?
No it wasn't. Was the entire Red Army wiped out by the Finns in 1939?
Snore. This has nothing to do with Figes or similar. Another irrelevancy raised
Your logic is bizarre. So the nazis can improve and expand massively in 2 years but the Soviets can't?
And yes, the Red Army prefermed better in 1941 than 1939. They preformed better than the French for example and inflicted 750,000 German casaulties in the first 6 months of the war.0 -
I'm going to break this down for the last time:So the nazis can improve and expand massively in 2 years but the Soviets can't?- The advantages that the Nazis gained from the two year delay (conquest of Europe, stabilisation of the economy, expanded military capabilities, removal of France as a threat/front) far outstripped the Soviet gains over the same period (expanded armies, deterioration in organisation, adoption of a poor defensive line)
- Those gains that the Soviets did make, and the Red Army expansion was considerable, were squandered by the Stalinist government's failures, all of which (abandoning of the Stalin Line, deployment right along the border, refusal to allow divisions to react in the run up to invasion, etc) stem from the NAP-led decision to align with Nazi Germany
- This is not a simple Nazi/Soviet comparison. The simple existence of a hostile (even if passive) French army on the Western front would have prevented the invasion of Russia. And vice versa. Neither Barbarossa nor Fall Gelb could be staged without security on the other front. Soviet compliance in removing this threat in 1939/40 allowed the subsequent invasion of 1941
This is not difficult. Or am I secretly a right-wing revisionist historian (little joke there) who seeks to slur the Soviet Union?
What a stupid comparison. Really, that's a new low for this thread. Well done on topping the Nazi apologistsAnd yes, the Red Army prefermed better in 1941 than 1939. They preformed better than the French for example and inflicted 750,000 German casaulties in the first 6 months of the war.
In the first place, your statement that the "the Red Army prefermed [sic] better in 1941 than 1939" is completely unsupported by the following sentences. How does the French performance relate to the Red Army in the Winter War? Ditto with losses in Barbarossa: one would expect horrendous losses from any war involving millions of men across half of Europe. It says nothing about the difference in Soviet performances in 1939 and 1941. It's a figure that, in isolation, says little
Secondly, where you do lob in a random statistic it's highly disingenuous. 750k German losses? Impressive... until you consider that during the same period the Red Army suffered approximately 7 million casualties. That is, for every German casualty the Soviets lost ten men. A decent exercise would be comparing this with the loss ratio for the Winter War...
(...but you probably won't do that because the casualties in that conflict were only approx 1:4 in favour of the Finns. That is, less than have the rate of loss than Barbarossa. Which should not be a surprise)
So yeah, if you want to prove that the Red Army performed better in 1941 than 1939 then I'll expect you to, you know, prove it with something better than that0 -
I'm going to break this down for the last time:
- The advantages that the Nazis gained from the two year delay (conquest of Europe, stabilisation of the economy, expanded military capabilities, removal of France as a threat/front) far outstripped the Soviet gains over the same period (expanded armies, deterioration in organisation, adoption of a poor defensive line)
- Those gains that the Soviets did make, and the Red Army expansion was considerable, were squandered by the Stalinist government's failures, all of which (abandoning of the Stalin Line, deployment right along the border, refusal to allow divisions to react in the run up to invasion, etc) stem from the NAP-led decision to align with Nazi Germany
- This is not a simple Nazi/Soviet comparison. The simple existence of a hostile (even if passive) French army on the Western front would have prevented the invasion of Russia. And vice versa. Neither Barbarossa nor Fall Gelb could be staged without security on the other front. Soviet compliance in removing this threat in 1939/40 allowed the subsequent invasion of 1941
This is not difficult. Or am I secretly a right-wing revisionist historian (little joke there) who seeks to slur the Soviet Union?
What a stupid comparison. Really, that's a new low for this thread. Well done on topping the Nazi apologists
In the first place, your statement that the "the Red Army prefermed [sic] better in 1941 than 1939" is completely unsupported by the following sentences. How does the French performance relate to the Red Army in the Winter War? Ditto with losses in Barbarossa: one would expect horrendous losses from any war involving millions of men across half of Europe. It says nothing about the difference in Soviet performances in 1939 and 1941. It's a figure that, in isolation, says little
Secondly, where you do lob in a random statistic it's highly disingenuous. 750k German losses? Impressive... until you consider that during the same period the Red Army suffered approximately 7 million casualties. That is, for every German casualty the Soviets lost ten men. A decent exercise would be comparing this with the loss ratio for the Winter War...
(...but you probably won't do that because the casualties in that conflict were only approx 1:4 in favour of the Finns. That is, less than have the rate of loss than Barbarossa. Which should not be a surprise)
So yeah, if you want to prove that the Red Army performed better in 1941 than 1939 then I'll expect you to, you know, prove it with something better than that
You're deliberately misrepresenting the situation. You cannot possibly compare the Finns to the German Army as an effective fighting force. I have no doubt that the Soviets were much stronger in 1939 than 1941. Weapons like the T-34, KV-5, PPHs sub-machine gun and Shturmovik ground attack plane were all developed 1939-1941 as well as training a new officer corps. You can claim the USSR should have fought in 1939 but I think you're wrong to say the situation was more favourable then. You are entirely negating the improvements in the Red Army in those 2 years. And it's not irrelevent at all to compare the performance of the French army in 1940 to that of the USSR.
You are aslo guilty of taking Stalin's logic out of context. No military expert in the world expected the British and French to perform as poorly as they did in 1940. It was logical to let the French and British fight it out for 2 years and then attack Germany in the rear in 1942 when they would have been overwhelmed.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Gestapo would be a better comparison.
I believe the Gestapo was part of the SS, just not the Waffen-SS. The NKVD had a broader responsibility than the Gestapo and had its own combat formations.0 -
This is a good film that shows the NKVD and Red Army in combat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HOL5CDxiVA0 -
.This is a good film that shows the NKVD and Red Army in combat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HOL5CDxiVA
http://02varvara.wordpress.com/tag/muslims/The history of the defense of the Brest Fortress is the subject of many legends. One of them is about the last defender of the fortress. His name was unknown for a long time. Recently, the memoirs of Stankus Antanas, a Lithuanian national and former Waffen SS officer, were published in Ingushetia. He wrote that in July 1941, his regiment was ordered to “finish off” the remaining Soviet soldiers in the fortress. When the Nazis decided that no defenders had been left alive, a Waffen SS general lined up his soldiers on the parade ground to award them with decorations for capturing the fortress. Then, a tall and smart Red Army officer came out from the fortress’s underground bunker. “He was blind because of his wounds and walked with his left arm extended forward. His right hand rested on a gun holster. He walked along the parade grounds wearing a ragged uniform, but he held his head high. The entire division was shocked at the sight. Approaching a shell-hole, he turned his face toward the west. The German general suddenly saluted this last defender of the Brest Fortress, and the rest of the officers followed suit. The Red Army officer drew a handgun and shot himself in the head. He fell on the ground facing Germany. A deep-drawn sigh aired over the parade grounds. We all stood ‘frozen’ in awe of this brave man”. His documents identified him as a man called Barkhanoyev. Decades later, official records revealed it was Umatgirei Barkhanoyev from the Ingush village of Yandare.0 -
I believe the Gestapo was part of the SS, just not the Waffen-SS. The NKVD had a broader responsibility than the Gestapo and had its own combat formations.
This is true.
However in a broad stance I stand over my comment. The NKVD were the secret police of the USSR in the same period of time as the Gestapo were the secret police of Germany,0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement