RE: Soviet Barbarossa (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

Telemecus -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/12/2018 6:04:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

..... denier?



You might want to be careful throwing that word around.


No. I won't. What do you think of that?

Very uncool to call me names. [:)]

Since when is that "a name". Explain.


Since the post you made with that reference to me and not to what I said.

I think the best thing to say is it was a mistake, a misunderstanding online and we can forget about it. Then we can get back to talking about an interesting topic and not me.



Telemecus -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/12/2018 6:08:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

I don't know the answer, but has anyone looked to see what kind of plans and orders existed for the Winter War and Bessarabia on the Soviet side? Suggesting that the Soviets were using some standard military protocol in their offensive operations isn't convincing to me unless it can be shown this was how they normally behaved. I.e., "their normal course of business".


I am guessing what you are saying is that countries did not normally make plans to invade each other. My evidence would be that up to the 1930s they actually did and this is how they normally behaved to one another. You can read all the published war plans the USA had for going to war with Britain in the 1930s and vice versa for instance. The period from the 1950s onwards when every country did not have at least some plans for going to war with its neighbours is the anomaly. No one that I know of thinks that a war was a serious prospect between Britain and the USA in the 1930s. So the conclusion has to be war plans do not imply a commitment to go to war.

You could argue that Soviet Union was different from other countries in that regard - but then have to justify why?



Stelteck -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/12/2018 6:38:55 PM)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyANHGWbUHA



No idea -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/12/2018 7:47:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

I don't know the answer, but has anyone looked to see what kind of plans and orders existed for the Winter War and Bessarabia on the Soviet side? Suggesting that the Soviets were using some standard military protocol in their offensive operations isn't convincing to me unless it can be shown this was how they normally behaved. I.e., "their normal course of business".


I am guessing what you are saying is that countries did not normally make plans to invade each other. My evidence would be that up to the 1930s they actually did and this is how they normally behaved to one another. You can read all the published war plans the USA had for going to war with Britain in the 1930s and vice versa for instance. The period from the 1950s onwards when every country did not have at least some plans for going to war with its neighbours is the anomaly. No one that I know of thinks that a war was a serious prospect between Britain and the USA in the 1930s. So the conclusion has to be war plans do not imply a commitment to go to war.

You could argue that Soviet Union was different from other countries in that regard - but then have to justify why?


The USA certainly had war plans against all their possible (and almost impossible) rivals. Those included Japan (war plan orange) Britain (war plan red iirc), war plan black against Germany and even a war plan Emerald against Ireland (ˇˇˇ)

I would bet 10 to 1 that all other powers had similar plans. I know for sure that pre 1914 the major european powers had plans against each other. In fact, and contrary to what is sometimes thought, Germany had war plans against Russia only, but it wasnt updated since 1910, iirc. It would have been instresting to see what might have happened (and how the world would be today) had they updated their war plan against Russia only.



Telemecus -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/12/2018 7:50:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stelteck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyANHGWbUHA


Excellent video - and spot on about thinking critically. I think he does make the same mistake of making assertions from facts that do not follow - such as military plans implying political intentions. But I guess he would be the first to agree when he realises that. Ultimately you can only put theories out and not expect them to have to be right, but just see if they survive the critical tests by others.



Aufklaerungs -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/12/2018 7:50:32 PM)

You may just want to issue a denial, mon Capitaine[8|][sm=00000436.gif]



Kull -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/12/2018 8:22:00 PM)

I'll spare others from losing 45 minutes of their lives - the video is a straw man that basically debunks Suvorov's use of quotes from Keitel to support Suvorov's own extreme position - specifically a book arguing that the Soviets started WW2. But the video makes it's own extreme argument, by poking holes in Keitel's statements (hardly difficult) and using THAT as evidence that the Soviets were NOT planning to attack in the West.

Just because you can prove that one side really did have serious aggressive intent (and who here is arguing that Germany did not?), it doesn't mean the other side wasn't making similar plans. It IS possible for both Bob and Tom to wear a blue shirt.



Aufklaerungs -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/12/2018 8:48:22 PM)

Completely agree. Why drag Keitel memoirs and Suvorov/Rezun theories in to muddy up the waters? They're both usual suspects, not reliable sources.



whalus -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/12/2018 10:43:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
Just because you can prove that one side really did have serious aggressive intent (and who here is arguing that Germany did not?), it doesn't mean the other side wasn't making similar plans. It IS possible for both Bob and Tom to wear a blue shirt.


I think most have indicated they agree that offensive plans were being made by both sides here. As far as actually being serious about conducting an offensive campaign in 1941 the evidence seems to point more to Hitler than it does Stalin. And I do find it hard to believe that the possibility of Stalin launching an attack first played much, if any, role in Hitler's decision to invade Russia when he did.



Capitaine -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/13/2018 1:24:55 AM)

@whalus - Do you have authority for your comments or is that just your "feelings"? Hitler is one of the most lied about men in history.



Kull -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/13/2018 5:54:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: whalus

I think most have indicated they agree that offensive plans were being made by both sides here. As far as actually being serious about conducting an offensive campaign in 1941 the evidence seems to point more to Hitler than it does Stalin. And I do find it hard to believe that the possibility of Stalin launching an attack first played much, if any, role in Hitler's decision to invade Russia when he did.


I completely agree that the "Stalin provoked Hitler" argument is baseless. There's more than enough evidence that Hitler was planning this from the beginning - after all, it's a core element in Mein Kampf. However, I haven't heard ANYBODY in this thread try to make that case. The question is, was Stalin planning an offensive against Germany, and was that plan independent of a preliminary German attack (i.e. the "counterattack plan theory"), and was there likewise no plan whatsoever for a "defensive alignment"? And according to the evidence from Soviet archives, as gathered and published by reputable historians (such as Pleshakov and Mikhail Ivanovich Meltyukhov, author of "Stalin's Missed Chance"), the answer is a categorical "yes".

I think many here are relying on old scholarship, and simply aren't aware of how much new information came out once the Soviet Union collapsed and researchers gained access to a treasure trove of Stalin-era documents (Suvorov's book came out in 1989 and uses none of this). The May 15th Zhukov plan is not imaginary. It's a real document that lays out the specifics of the assault plan, and it makes no reference whatsoever to a preliminary attack by the Germans.

Edit: As to the timing of the Stalin plan, Meltyukhov makes the case that it definitely was set to go in 1941. I haven't read his book, and so feel less confident in promulgating his ideas than those of Pleshakov. But he does have some interesting points (at least as summarized on various web sites).



whalus -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/13/2018 2:30:24 PM)

Capitaine,

Are there any histories of WW2 that deny Hitler intended from the beginning to attack Russia?

What lies are you referring to?



whalus -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/13/2018 2:34:28 PM)

Kull,

David Glantz is well familiar with the latest documents that have become available. He doesn't think the view you are advocating here is very credible.



Kull -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/13/2018 3:54:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: whalus

Kull,

David Glantz is well familiar with the latest documents that have become available. He doesn't think the view you are advocating here is very credible.


I'll rely on the guys who are investigating the actual archives. There's always been plenty of third hand information to suggest that Soviet deployments were extremely odd from a defensive perspective, but the fact we now have actual documentary evidence seals the deal in my mind.

In addition to some very good scholarship in it's own right, Glantz has also focused on rebutting Suvorov's claims, but I have not seen anything in writing from him which counters the documents unearthed by Pleshakov or Meltyukhov.

Feel free to post something in that vein, but please spare us the anti-Suvorov stuff.



postfux -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/13/2018 7:15:33 PM)

It is a fact that in 41 Germany started acting agressivly against (interests of) the SU.

It would be very surprising if there wasnt some aggressive planning in the SU starting at least 41. I would go so far that agressive planning that startet in 41 is if not proof than a least evidence pointing towards a lack of strategic thinking to conquer Western or Central Europa (aka attacking Germany). That the SU wanted to expand her area of influence in Southwestern Europe towards the Med is well established. Attacking Germany doesnt play in the same league, it isnt even the same sport.

Everyone who is advocating that the SU intended to attack Germany has to offer evidence towards the existence of a greater strategy why they would think this is a good idea.

Germany invaded the SU with the aim to destroy the Red Army and conquer or destroy their industrial resources so that they couldnt put up organized military resistance anymore and Germany could divert resources towards the West. They expected to achieve their goals before the West could use their industrial and military resources to full extend. Success would most likely win the war for Germany and grant them control over Europe for "1000 years".

I do not understand why the SU should attack Germany while it was in a stalemated war against the British Empire without waiting for the next developments or seeking some informal alliance. The whole world would have seen this as a war of conquest for Europe with incalculable reactions most likely not favorable to the SU. What for? Why now?

Offensive military planning alone cannot prove an intend to attack Germany. I admit I dont have enough knowledge to claim to have a halfway comprehensive picture about the persons involved in German or Soviet decision making and do not want to dismiss anyone who offered an informed opinion but nobody did point out what the SU wanted to achieve by attacking Germany and offer some evidence that Soviet decision makers had such lines of thinking.



Aufklaerungs -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/13/2018 7:57:13 PM)

Whalus

It would be helpful if you would cite a Glantz reference from the last five years, or since he was able to access/exploit troves of NKVD archived material circa 2009. His complaints against dubious "revelations" made back in the 1990s are a little dated.

Thanks

quote:

Are there any histories of WW2 that deny Hitler intended from the beginning to attack Russia?


Consensus of credible historians is that Hitler first formed/stated intention to invade Russia during the period between the end of Stalin's Winter War ágainst the Finns (March 1940) and the capitulation of France (June 1940). In Mein Kampf (1924) Hitler proposed his nationalist vision (in Landsberg prison) of the need for German expansion to the east in order to become a great world power. He predicated his vision on the ideas of Manifest Destiny settlement of the American west.



Kull -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/13/2018 8:16:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux

Everyone who is advocating that the SU intended to attack Germany has to offer evidence towards the existence of a greater strategy why they would think this is a good idea.


The fact is that the Soviet Union HAD a plan, fully fleshed out, to attack Germany, and to do so in the 1941-42 time frame. I've provided the names of historians and their books, both of whom developed their theses AFTER reviewing Stalin-era documents that only became available following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

You can either read what they present (and draw your conclusions accordingly) or continue to rely on "pre-archive" historical works. I will say that both historians do address the "why", which is your largest concern, but just be aware that Stalin's "why" may not pass your particular logical muster. But then that's probably in keeping with many of his other actions.



Capitaine -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/14/2018 11:21:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: whalus

Capitaine,

Are there any histories of WW2 that deny Hitler intended from the beginning to attack Russia?

What lies are you referring to?

I believe there are very few conformist histories that accurately and/or truthfully describe what Hitler intended in WWII. It's all approved propaganda of the Allies.



tomeck48 -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/14/2018 10:26:32 PM)

Springtime for Hitler?



Telemecus -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/15/2018 12:37:26 PM)

Autumn for Poland and France? [:D]



Capitaine -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/15/2018 2:32:04 PM)

If your history is enforced by law, only one thing is certain: It is a lie.



Ridgeway -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/15/2018 5:43:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine


quote:

ORIGINAL: whalus

Capitaine,

Are there any histories of WW2 that deny Hitler intended from the beginning to attack Russia?

What lies are you referring to?

I believe there are very few conformist histories that accurately and/or truthfully describe what Hitler intended in WWII. It's all approved propaganda of the Allies.


And there it is.

Always nice to spot a real-life neo-Nazi in the wild.



Capitaine -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/15/2018 6:12:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine


quote:

ORIGINAL: whalus

Capitaine,

Are there any histories of WW2 that deny Hitler intended from the beginning to attack Russia?

What lies are you referring to?

I believe there are very few conformist histories that accurately and/or truthfully describe what Hitler intended in WWII. It's all approved propaganda of the Allies.


And there it is.

Always nice to spot a real-life neo-Nazi in the wild.

And once again, you have no argument. You can only try to smear, as is your wont.



Stelteck -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/15/2018 7:39:29 PM)

Hitler was not so bad, after all he is the one who killed hitler !!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

If your history is enforced by law, only one thing is certain: It is a lie.


The history enforced by law in Europe is genocide denial [X(]

It is funny how some people assume that because we enjoy wargame and history, we probably enjoy the ideologies behind the counter and will be friendly to them.



tomeck48 -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/15/2018 9:40:34 PM)

What I've enjoyed about this forum over the last year or so is the lack of trolls. People here want to increase their knowledge and enjoyment of the game. I also enjoy sharing the game experience and discussion with a group that is probably quite diverse but the only agenda here is the game.

Is there some way we can vote that clown off the island?



Stelteck -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/16/2018 8:19:54 AM)

It is what the report button is for.



Capitaine -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/16/2018 12:47:39 PM)

Never fails.. whenever someone disturbs any aspect of WWII dogma the slack-jawed heads start exploding. Why not just face it that your "most sacred" beliefs are built upon the quicksand of the times.

Challenging Allied propaganda (the winners write the history) doesn't "make one a Nazi", even if my facts would tend to shine a better light on them. Everything and everyone deserves accurate history, even the devil. Unless, of course, you yourselves have an agenda, in which case it would seem to be you who are the "devils".



Stelteck -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/16/2018 12:59:07 PM)

"the winners write the history" is such a stereotype, and is a very lazy and ultimately harmful way to introduce the concept of bias.

There are tons of example in history where it is not true at all. No serious historian would say that.

It is really funny to speak about it here because it do not apply to the eastern front of WW2 at all as for a very long time after the war, the sources about world war two in the east were mostly coming from retired and bitter german generals.



Ktonos -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/17/2018 11:51:01 AM)

Soviet Union has been accused for the entirety of her post war life for collaborating with Hitler. Soviet Union's name has been dragged to the mud because the Luftwaffe flew over London to drop bombs using Soviet oil.

Yet there was a 1941 "Soviet Barbarossa" and it hasn't been brought out for 5 decades by Soviet propaganda to defend their name? To say "here dummies, we were going to attack all along, here are the 1941 plans".

On another note, it has been a month. Has this historian announced the "evidence" of a 1941 Soviet invasion?



Capitaine -> RE: Soviet Barbarossa (4/17/2018 1:43:31 PM)

No, he never spoke to the imminence of the reveal. I'm not even sure now, actually, that "new" information is anticipated. He did suggest the July 15th date which inferred to me that it would be new, but rereading his message over again made me wonder about this. His actual phrasing was more that "Germans are beginning to realize that their invasion of Russia was to preempt a Russian attack," and then he proceeded to list the facts I cited in the OP. So... this could be some of the existing facts we've broached here as well that are already known. (N.B. I hadn't been familiar with this idea prior to my sources message, so I'm new to all this.) But it could be new information too; I just never followed up on that and it's too late now to ask.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.703125