barbarrossa
Posts: 359
Joined: 3/25/2004
From: Shangri-La
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: aspqrz
As I said, the problem with your statement was, is, and remains, that it implies that the only accepted understanding of Russian mobile operations in WW2, for the whole of the war, is basically, to paraphrase, brute force and ignorance ... whereas it is clear that, as I said, not all historians agree with such a position.
Which you tenaciously, and with what can only be termed -- intellectual dishonesty ---continue to claim no matter what I say to the contrary, assigning words to me that I haven't used.
quote:
Which means, as I said, all I have to do is present one historian who disagrees ... which Glantz and House certainly do, despite your unique spin on their statements.
By all means, since you have an extensive library of books on the topic, feel free to peruse all those you have by Glantz and/or House and find where they specifically contradict what I pointed out ... in a work dated later than WTC, of course ... and then we will both be happy.
You set your own goal posts, then claim I said the Soviets never, ever, never, ever, made anything but a mass frontal attack. Then you erect this ridiculous hoop for me to jump through. Can't be anyone else it has to be the Col! Nothing else will do, it will just be ignored. And... and.... and... and it must be subsequent to WTC! Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket yeah!
Only a healthy dose of intellectual dishonesty allows you to do this. You put words in my mouth and construct straw men for me to knock down, and, then, without ever addressing the how's and why's of where this whole thing started, construct what I must do to convince you using your rules and your parameters -- borderline impossible.
But you already know that. That's why you came up with them. Clever.
So your contention, following your logic, is that, When Titans Collided is the penultimate work concerning the Russo-German war 1941-45, trumping all others. If I was as intellectually dishonest as you, and followed the same smarmy tactic, this is what I would say.
But here, we are again. I'll play your silly game.
I suppose this is someone else just flying off at the lip with nothing to back it up, (Walter S. Dunn, Soviet Blitzkrieg -- The Battle for White Russia 1944, 2000) "Most Soviet victories were the result of overwhelming the Germans with superior numbers of men and machines in frontal attacks, which were demanded by the need for quick results..."
More blather: Tony Le Tissier, Zhukov at the Oder, The Decisive Battle for Berlin, 1996) "The Russian style of fighting basically still involved using troops on a massive scale, flooding the battlefield with men in successive waves, advancing shoulder to shoulder, attacking time after time with complete disregard for casualties until the objective was gained. In the latter part of the war they were also able to use tanks in the same manner and to prepare the way with earth shattering bombardments from massed artillery and rocket launchers."
Still, even more irrelevance: Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., The German Defeat in the East 1944-1945, 2001)"Then came the ground assault. The Soviets struck along a three hundred mile front with fourteen armies -- 118 rifle divisions in all. On the front line, they faced only thirty-four understrength German divisions. Although they struck all along the front, they focused on six break-in sectors, where they concentrated seventy-seven divisions. In thses sectors, the Red committed a rifle division along every mile and a half to two miles of front --an average of 1,210 infantrymen per mile.The Germans met them with 131 men per mile. At the front, the Soviets had an infantry superiority of between nine and ten to one in infantry, thirty-five to one in artillery, and fifty-eight to one in fighter aircraft. Their superiority in armor was nearly as great."
Some clown named Max Hastings in Armageddon, The Battle for Germany 1944-45, 2004, "Soviet generals persisted with assaults after losses that would have caused any Anglo-American operation to be broken off."
quote:
Until then, as I said, it would have been better if you understood that it is rare, if not unheard of, in historiography to find any issue on which there is no revisionist or dissenting point(s) of view ...
A little patronization for kicks.
quote:
Your statement requires you prove every historian agrees with your claim, all I have to do ... and what I have done, despite your constant waffling on about supposed straw men ... is to show that there is at least one historian who does not agree with your claim.
So you say. My statement stands, the Soviets hit and hit hard when breaking the front open, that's all I've ever said.
When I asked you for something contrary, you trotted out Glantz et al (gotta laugh at that, but it makes you sound smart, somehow) with some contextless example of a batallion or two's worth of infantry infiltration of the more than likely thinly-held line and you say this disproves my contention that the Soviets hit with everything.
It's going to take a lot more than that.
quote:
So far, G/H in WTC do not, which makes your claim invalid ... the rest is mere puffery ... 
And a little insult at the end. Class.
< Message edited by barbarrossa -- 2/9/2012 4:18:50 PM >
_____________________________
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe
"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
|
Printable Version
RE: OIL - 
). 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread