Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dowding on August 31, 2000, 10:23:00 AM
-
I couldn't think of anywhere better to post this, so it might as well be here. I'm particularly interested in the opinions of any Russians that might read this or indeed anyone who is more knowledgeable on the subject than I.
I've just finished reading Edvard Radzinsky's biography of Stalin. Having no real knowledge of the revolution(s) of 1917 and the how the Soviet Union was created, this was a great book to read. There were some real revelations to be had, one of them being that there is evidence to suggest that 'Uncle Joe' was planning a nuclear offensive against west, and only his death in 1953 prevented this.
Another is the warning given towards the end of the book about the resurgence of communism.
In a survey in 1998 one in six Russians said they saw Stalin as there greatest ever leader. He was SEVEN times more popular than Yeltsin. Gobachev didn't get enough votes to register. Can you imagine the controversy which would be created if one in six Germans said Hitler was there greatest leader of all time?
This all seems perverse when you look at what he did while he was in power; the intelligetsia repeatedly purged; whole ethnic and social groups destroyed. The figure for the number purged is estimated (conservatively) at 66 MILLION. This does not include the 28 million dead in WW2 (civilian and military). Based on demographic projections of population growth based on the population of Russia before 1917, Russia should have a popualtion TWICE the size it is today.
The upshot of all this is that I'd like to know what modern Russians think of Stalin themselves or the impression they get from people they know.
Cheers.
-
If what you I understand is true it makes Stalin the biggest mass murderer of all time. Paranoia, power, hostile neighbors, and a totalitarian state make for a very very bad combination.
Kodiak
-
You make a good point kodiak. What was interesting was the way he used the thought of hostile forces outside Russia, to repress within Russia.
The thing that amazes me is that all his henchmen did not lift a finger to overthrow him - they were too scared of the consequences if they failed. There was a sort of poetic justice to his purges of the the upper echelons of his government. The ones that were carrying out the purging were themselves purged later. It didn't end there. Those that had completed this latest mass murder, were themselves purged after a spell in power!! Why no-one thought that they wouldn't get in the end as they were consigning (usually innocent) people to a early death is beyond me! Probably something to do with ego, I guess. As Radzinsky says, they all 'found out there is a god in the end'. And one with a gross sense of humour...
All the time this was happening, Stalin portrayed himself as some kind of moderate and humanitarian. Following the arrest of some prominant citizen (which he had ordered), he would claim that they couldn't possibly be guilty and halt the investigation. They would think they were in the clear; meanwhile Stalin would wait until he invented some new threat to Russia and would have them rearrested. They would have a starring role in his new play (read trial). They would confess under torture, proclaim their guilt in one of Stalin's extravagant trials and portray Stalin as the trusting, but betrayed, all round good guy. The genius of the man is astounding.
It is fortunate for us all that he kicked the bucket when he did. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-02-2000).]
-
There is show on NTV russian channel with Radzinski. He is great as populizator of the history since, but he is not very strong as historian himself, so many questionable things in his books. Still, his books are perfect readings.
If you want another good reading about Stalin (and Hitler as well), try Alan Bullock's "Hitler and Stalin", very good one.
Concerning return of the communism. I do not think it will happen. Communists in Russia at the moment are nothing more than nationalists and populists -- they are not even close to the Marksism theory and just use the popular idea for making their way to the power. Communism is still popular in post-soviet, though it has small chances to win. But never say never again, it can be back any moment. Sovies Union political and economical system were terrible, but it was still 0% unemployment in the country, and it was not poor people at all -- almost all lived in the equal level of income, which were enough to eat, buy something (when it was in stores) and to go away on vacation with family once per year. Education and health care were free. It was a terrible price for that, but people did not want to know anything. Actually, most of the people around the world want "bread and fun", so that is why the ideology still popular in post USSR.
I do not advocate the system, it spoiled first 20 years of my life with all the ideological noncence, but I have to admit that there were good thing in it too.
Fariz
-
Heh.
In Sweden there's a party called Vänsterpartiet - roughly translated "the Left party". Until just a few years ago (coincidatlly about the same time the Soviety Union broke up), they were known as Left Party - The Communists.
They got 15.8% on latest poll. Combine that with the Swedish social democrats (you Americans haven't seen pinkos til you've seen a social democrat) and it's a bit of a scary development.
Vote libertarian (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
It's good to hear from someone who has lived in both the old and new Russias, Fariz. Reading this book has really opened my mind to news from Russia - I'll pay more attention in future. The Soviet Union's system did have its advantages, but free health care and education is available in Britain without the need for a communist system. The debate here is to whether they are any good (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
I went to Russia (Moscow and Leningrad) when I was 11 years old in 1990. Even then I found the loud speakers on the streets strange. Lenin's tomb was awe inspiring. I just wish I'd been a little older to appreciate it. I still remember how friendly the people were, and wish I had kept in contact with the friends I made there.
Radzinski makes the point that Stalin's Russia abandoned Marxist dogma in favour of policy more in keeping with the deposed Tsars. Stalin himself models himself on Ivan the Terrible. In the final part of the book, he remarks that Stalin could be more of a National-Socialist than Hitler. Interesting ideas.
I'm pretty left-wing myself, and come from an area of Britain that has always had a strong socialist identity (mining and steel industries in britian were centred around Sheffield). Until Margaret Thatcher destroyed this area in the 80s, but thats another story...
I wasn't aware of the political situation in Denmark, StSanta, but that sounds pretty interesting. How left-wing are the Social Democrats in Denmark? I find it hard to really see any left-wing policy in any American party, but maybe I haven't looked hard enough (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-04-2000).]
-
Something to point out here:
Being the most popular leader in your country usually has little to do with how well you did or accomplished and more onhow you presented yourself for later generations.
Stalin was hardly a nice guy- but he was an iron leader who had himself hero worshiped. And more importantly he had schools teach that hero worship to generations after. His reputation was much greater than himself because of this.
About Hitler- do that straw poll on germans older than 50. You would be pretty damned surprised at how many people think Hitler was the best chancellor germany ever had.
-
Dowding:
The social democrats is the working class/man/woman's party, with close ties to the major unions. It's leftish enough to enforce a 75% tax rate, it is parential enough to make decisions about your own safety for you (nooo, you might nmot dive that wreck, there *might* be unexploded warheads there. Even though you're the one risking death, we're not gonna allow that. Now go u to your room, bad boy" and they're large enough to dominate the political scene.
<WARNING: RANT FOLLOWS. SOME WILL BE WILDY INACCURATE. OTHER PARTS WILL BE OFFENSIVE TO LEFT WINGERS>
Socialism in Europe is purely sick. Out of 14 of the leaders from the more wealthy countries, 12 are socialists. No wonder we're lagging behind the US in terms of technology and keeping unemployment rate down.
Socialism has its good sides, and I firmly believe in a welfare state. The question, however, how it will be implemented.
Like now, i.e let the responsible pay for the less responsible at all times, and make going on welfare only slightly less profitable than working (depending on number of kids, age and stuff like that). Where hard work is not really rewarded 1:1 and long academic careers only make you lag behind in terms of money? (For instance, in DK, the average doc is 50 years old before he's made as much money as a carpenter. After taxes that is. After 50, he earns more.
taxes should be there to provide the same opportunity for everyone in terms of success - level the playing ground. Therefore, education should be free adn even subsidized. Society gets that investment back in the form of better trained workers, which means better competitive edge, which means more money to the state through taxation of higher salaries. That's how I justify being more of a libertarian while still reaping benifits from free education. Our health care system only gets about 8% of the total taxes, so we could throw that in for good measures. A *vast* amount goes into our social security system. It's so overbureaucratized, easy to abuse and even unfair to both receivers and payers it's laughable. It should help you survive and live an ok life, but it shouldn't be there to provide you with cable tv and gas for your car. If I as a student can get by on $5600 (some of which are taxed) in a country that is substantially more expensive to live in than in the US, so can others. If people are stupid enough to get kids they cannot support, it's their own damned fault. Sure, they might lose a job and be in an unpredicted situation, but that's where survival help comes in. No one ever said being unemployed for more than a year should be comfortable. Oh, the social democrats did.
My father is a doc, yet I grew up in a family with few money, living in cramped conditions inheriting all my clothes from my older brothers. Why? Because my father paid an awful lot of taxes to pay for the mistakes of others. Of course, his liking of new cars was a factor too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif), but had we lived in a country with less taxes, he'd been able to upgrade every 6 months with no real consequences for the rest of the family.
But, it (welfare) should *not* be there as an attempt to give everyone the *equal* opportunities - that is a utopia! We're all different in motivation, drive and capabilities.
Removing the incentive to *use* those capabilites won't do the country as a whole any good. Why the hell bother to study if I don't have to? Why let the state decide how you spend 75% of how you earn?
Why the hell are we keeping up the image of countries like Denmark being "worker's countries" - most aren't workers anymore. They are a small % of the population; workers have as technology and society has advanced been converted into service people, because, quite basically, we need fewer workers to produce more goods now.
The only reason those damned social democrats have so much power is because the average Dane is a squealing idiot who is afraid of change and is so damned conservative and security obsessed he or she doesn't dare to take his or her life into his or her own hands.
The normal retort I get when discussing these with some of my leftish friends (yeah, I have quite odd friends) is either a rant about why socialism is the great equalizers (normally from the 20-25 year old pseudo-intellectuals) or "if ya want something, it costs". Heh, a hamburger costs money, but I'd be pretty squealing upset if I had to pay $40 for it.
Single young guys like me (in the future) are the ones who lose out. People with lots of kids and about average incomes win more, because of benefits for having those ugly screaming pointless results of ill conceived moments of bad thought (I don't need protection, honey) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Bah. You do whatever you want with your cash, but don't force me to pay for your mstakes. I don't expect you to pay for mine. If I did, I'd make a whole lot more of 'um.
Another reply is the "you're an egoist" one. Well, I'll be damned oh al-squealing-right, that is true. I am an egoist for wanting everyone, including myself, to face the consequences, good or bad, of ones actions.
America sounds better and better for single people with an education. Wonder if there's a place there with low taxes, low crime rate and with a software house where I can work. Preferrably, also permitting the carrying of concealed weapons.
Man, now I am pissed. Moron social democrats. Kill 'em all. Stop the disease.
</RANT MODE>
Man, that felt good. I should vent more often. It's fun, too.
Now I just have to hope I can get through this education, so I don't have to face the consequences of walking the walk from the flip side of the coin (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
C'mon Americans. Join the effort! Stop the social democrats! BOYCOTT DENMA...eh, uh...
Never mind (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Wish I'd never asked Santa.
Only joking (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
You make some good points, and I agree there has to be a balance when approaching the Welfare state. I'm sorry you feel so strongly against the family, but I believe the formation of families has to be supported - its the only way a secure future for a country can be guaranteed. I think refusing to help the family or even penalizing it is a bad idea. A country full of single people (with no incentive to form a family) will be a toejamty place to live, IMO.
As for the welfare state being a haven for scroungers and scum who can't be arsed to work I can only comment on the British system. Its true that in any system there will be abuse, but I think this is always hyped in comparison to the number of people who are actively seeking work and need the money to exist.
I come from an area that was ravaged by the right wing policies of Margaret Thatcher (Read: Satans Right Hand Woman or squeak). The community where I grew up was surrounded by some of the largest coal mines in Europe. Then in 1984, Mrs. Thatcher attacked the unions, shut down mines (which were profitable) and plunged the whole area into economic and social depression. Men who had worked all their lives in dangerous conditions were suddenly unemployed. Untrained in any other work, many were tossed on the scrapheap with no prospects. While Thatcher preached the virtues of self-support (applauded in the South and especially London) the North of England suffered; there was no prospect of self-support in my area, where one industry had been predominant. A mining village near where I lived became a no-go area after 6p.m. at night because of youths throwing bottles at buses etc. These are the generation created by the right wing policies of the Thatcher government. As long as London was happy, why give a shreck about anyone else?
Look where all the right-wing politicians have got us in this world. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco... and Stalin was as much a Nationalist as Hitler.
Proud to be left-wing.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-04-2000).]
-
Well, as far as families go:
I don't think they should be penalized. As you say, families are the backbone of any society.
On the other hand, adults who breed knowing they cannot support their offspring deserve nothing but my contempt. They're putting a child to the world and giving it very bad odds, all for their selfish reasons.
I do not believe it is the role of the state to ensure that its citizens can afford having kids, BMW's or swimming pools by way of distributing the earnings of others.
The socialist system does not encourage productivity, as we've seen in the numerous tates who've had a go at it. It does not create an incentive or drive, nor does it add responsibility to the individual.
What it does is *remove* some responsibility, along with a fair amount of freedom. Individuals can take actions that will result in them being dependent on others - and many do. "Can we afford as third kid? Well, we'll get $xx a month from the state, with that and me at work, we can". Can I as a senior afford to live in this expensive place? Well, the state pays 60% of my rent, so sure.
The ones that earn the least on a social system are the high income people, the single ones with jobs, and also the unemployed single. I know of families where both parents are on welfare, yet they receive more than twice the amount my mother (who is a social worker) earns. This ain't right. A friend of mine between studies (3 months with no money) was told to borrow money in the bank to get by. So, there's a great unfairness to the system, but various advocates claim that this is the best possible solution. If it is, it sucks.
Infrastructure, military, schools, universities and hospitals cost money, and plenty of it. They're all essential for an advanced society. Welfare is, I believe, also needed - a society *must* be able to support its citizens to such a degree they get a chance to get back up.
The question is: how far should society go? And at what price? My economics professor claims that unions actually reduce the competitiveness of a company, which in turn leads to less jobs, and higher unemployment. His argument was much more detailed than this but I can not recall much of it (I do not like economics much, lol)
In 1998, Denmark spent the following tax money:
Defense: 8.9 billion (I guess, only says 8.9 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))
Health care: 9.2
Education: 13.6
Police: 1.7
Roads and communication: 3.8
Welfare: 42.7
And some other relatively minor costs.
Sort of an eye opener, no? The social democrats like to say that "defense, medical care, roads and education COST!", They sure do, all together 37.2 billion Danish crowns. Which is less that the welfare system.
I'm not trying to rip the bread away from under an unemployed, nor am I suggesting not paying for his or her getting a new education/training. What I *am* suggesting is that there is a big discrepancy between what the working person pays in taxes and what he gets back.
Also, big states tend to go all bossy and parential on its citizens, referring to them as "subjects", almost. In a relatively small country, it can be controlled somewhat. In a larger one...well, look at the US, and the government there is relatively weak compared to ours.
I wouldn't want to be in the US as a poor uneducated person. Had I lived in the US, I'd been one; I blew my first pass at the university due to general lethargy, apathy and lack of motivation. Here, I got a second chance and I am doing what I can to take it.
On the other hand, the US have had for quite some time a much lower unempolyment rate than most if not all European countries. Their economy has steadily been improving and is in a much better state than European ones. Working class citizens can afford air conditioning, two cars, a few kids (even saving up for their college) and generally have about 30% more purchasing power than the average Dane. Of course, there are also great social injustices in the US.
I'd like to see a compromise; taking the best from both systems. While the concept of the American Dream has more holes in it than that B-17 I hit, at least there's an incentive for the individual - and he is forced to take responsibility. OTOH, due to pricey education and whatnot, he isn't getting the same chance as someone richer.
So, offer possibilities. Give the starving man a fishing rod instead of a fish.
As far as Thatcher goes, I agree fully with you. What a Witch Queen From Hell, serving it up to those who didn't need while backstabbing the hard working low to middle income man/woman.
it's just that 75% taxes + various fees don't sound good to me - especially because as far as the government is concerned, teeth aren't really part of the body, so you must pay for that yourself, or get an expensive insurance. Unfortunately, when I knocked my front teeth out 1.5 months ago, I didn't have one. So that's 20k crowns I've had to borrow from the bank.
It's these small injustices that irritate me. True, I am looking on it from the ground up, and am probably losing an overview over it. But the numbers I've seen also suggest that a lot of tax payers money is wasted into pointless social projects.
Worst of all; only one party believes it is possible to lower income tax; the conservatives. And I ain't voting for them. Yet.
I understand fully where you come from and to a very large degree, I agree with you. But ya gotta admit that there are serious flaws in both the British and Danish welfare system, flaws that should be corrected. Encouragment and help to self help sure beats pity and dependency in my book.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Dowding, did any money or clothes or just ANYTHING we collected for English coal-miners in mid-80s reach your hometown?
Answer is simple: British communists just stole it.
Well, I can believe in communism, but communism as a political force is a gang of party officials who usually dont give a damn about the "people" or "working class".
From this point of view (compared to modern "communists") - Stalin was a great man.
BTW, Putin is just a little KGB freak who tries to be a new Stalin, but can't.
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Santa, after reading your posts, above, you would be declared a Republican in the U.S.A.
<S> and welcome to the party! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Ripsnort(-rip1-)
=CO= VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~
"Know your limits and then go beyond.."
Click here for VMF-323 Death Rattlers info (http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/vmf323inquirer.html)
Click here for 15th Panzer info (http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/panzerinquirer.html)
(http://ripsnort60.tripod.com/ripsnort323.gif)
I spare no class or cult or creed,
My course is endless through the year.
I bow all heads and break all hearts,
All owe homage-I am Fear.
-------------General Patton
-
Thanks for the reply boroda.
My family didn't get any clothes from Russia, but I remember hearing about people who did. I think we were lucky in that my father found work pretty quickly after the miner's strike, but alot of others didn't. My uncle visited Russia in '85 as part of the interaction between mining unions and the Communists in Russia.
I don't know anything about the communist party in the UK, but perhaps the government had a hand in the 'redistribution' of clothes from the USSR. After all, they did declare the strikes illegal (arresting my uncle and sending riot police against the picket line at the mine nearby).
I share your sentiments about communism, that it cannot work in practise; in trying create a classless society it succeeds in simply bringing the same system into the party - the upper echelons of the organisation lived markedly different from the ordinary man in the street.
Your comments about Stlain are intriguing; on what basis do you consider Stalin a great man without considering the suffering he caused while he was alive? Did you yourself live in his era? I'd be very interested in your reply. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Outsiders tend to see Stalin as nothing more than a murderer. While he was a terrible taker of life, the phenomenon of Stalin is much deeper than that. What Stalin gave Russia was a sense of place in the world. Through his ruthless acts he propelled Russia into the 20th century, then when Germany struck he led the country in its struggle for survival. Much can be quibbled about concerning 'who' among the Soviets actually led the way to victory, but the fact remains that Stalin was CinC.
Russia has always had a tough time getting respect from the West, whether that was western Europe, or the USA in more recent times. The fact that it was subjugated under Mongolian rule for 200 years has much to do with that, since that time under the 'Tatar Yoke' was a period of stagnation for Russia (or the Muscovy Principalities, to be more precise). This resulted in a late start into the Renaissance for Russia. Also, the peculiarity of Russia's location created an identity crisis of sorts, because of the mixture of East and West. All of these things Russia has had to cope with throughout its long history. What Stalin did was to put his country on the map as a country of significance, a country of power - much like Hitler did for Germany after WWI. However, the difference from Germany is that not since Peter the Great had Russia known such a period of power. Thus, what Stalin did for Russia in that respect was a long time coming, so to speak. For the Russians, this point is most important.
That Stalin was sadistically cruel, and was responsible for the deaths of many millions is very true. But this can also be said of a number of tsars, more or less. In fact, what Stalin did was take Soviet communism and put the Tsar back in charge of it all. Absolute rule has been a staple of Russia's history for as long as it has existed as a state, and even before that. Thus, for Russians changing one form of totalinarianism with another was not as big a problem as it was for many non-Russians who lived in more democratic societies.
What I've typed here is an attempt to explain the phenomenon of Stalin, and why he holds such a high place among many former Soviets still. It was not meant as a justification for cruelty, oppression, or murder. Stalin was many things to many people, but for many citizens of the former Soviet Union there is a unique love/hate relationship for 'Uncle Joe'. When Stalin came to power in the USSR it was a weak agrarian state, but when he died in 1953 the Soviet Union was a superpower. Such exalted status came at a terrible cost in lives, but for the Russians tragedy, and overcoming loss, has long been an historical national characteristic.
-
Leonid, very well said! Thanks!
My personal attitude to Stalin is very uncertain (if I can say this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)) My family suffered a lot in his time, grand-grandfather executed, grandfather (a Tsar's cavalry officer who joined Red Army in 1917) spent a few years building BAM in the 30-s... But only such a personality as Stalin could lead the country to the Victory. There were many examples when it was only his tremendous will that held the things together.
If you'll read some books that are printed here you'll see that there realy is a lot of roadkill about Stalin in media and public opinion. With my attitude (never to believe any officials or any other propaganda) I see a contradiction between the myth about "60 million murdered" (hehe, almost half of the population of the USSR) and official documented information that appeared from classified archives opened only in 90-s. They say that population of GULAG was over one million only in 1940. Should i believe an official point of view (in fact just a copy of Western stereotypes adopted during "perestroyka") or the other one, that is employed by modern communists and bastards that wear swasticas and shout "zig heil!"?
I think that even if Stalin was a monster - he is a part of my country's history, just like Alexander Nevskiy or Peter the Great.
Another thought: Look at Finland. Before the October Revolution it was one of the most backward provinces of a Russian Empire (To Finns: sorry to say this). It must give you an idea of what could become of Russia without bolsheviks.
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Look at Finland now, and compare it to Russia (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Stalin's succes in building up his country came with a huge price, both in terms of human life, but also in cultural loss and communism effectively slowed down development in the society to a halt compared to the western countries.
Wasn't that long ago western democracies weren't democratical. Russia is struggling now (the Kursk incident, with Russian divers not being trimix equipped, which is SOP in Europe and the USA illustrates this) but they will rise. They've always had. Unlike westerners,. Russians ain't whiny buggers; they'll take whatever hardship is thrown their way and just gradually overcome it.
So, soon the US will have to start another arms race (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Originally posted by leonid:
then when Germany struck he led the country in its struggle for survival.
There is evidense to suggest that Stalin prompted Hitler into attacking Russia. If you examine the preparation required for the opposed large scale invasion of a country, any action is two-fold:
a)concentrate your forces near the frontier
b)locate your airfields as closely as possible to the front line.
According to the official spin on the events before Barbarrosa, Stalin had committed two very grave mistakes, he had:
a) concentrated his best units near the frontier
b)located his airfields smack bang on the boundary in occupied Poland.
Any similarity between theory and reality? Stalin was preparing to attack Hitler.
Hitler for all his insanity, surely would not attack on two fronts, especially Russia at that time of year. Attacking in mid-June would mean that the Germans would have to be prepared for a winter offensive, in order to make any sizable territorial gains. The Germans were patently not ready for winter warfare; soldiers had no winter clothing, vehicles were not prepared for it. So why did Hitler make the first move? He was forced into it - Stalin might hve attacked at any time.
In years preceding the hostilities, it was war that Russia was being prepared for. Stalin sent both of his sons to military school and the arts glorified the armed forces.
As soon as the non-aggression pact was signed with Hitler, Stalin began re-deploying his forces to the western front. An air-raid shelter was built under the Kremlin, with workers on the site around the clock. He speeded up military training and called for a 17-18% expansion of industrial capacity (war industry). At a banquet for Red Army officers in May 1941, he openly said that 'There will be war, and the enemy will be Germany'. I do not see these the actions of a man who was to lead a peaceful Russia. These are the actions of a man who wanted war, and furthermore saw war as a means to achieving his 'Great Dream' of global revolution.
The common held view, is that Stalin was a heroic war leader, on a par with Churchill or Roosevelt etc. I think the Russian people triumphed in spite of Stalin and the regime he created, NOT because of him. Reports on enemy and friendly troop concentrations were routinely doctored so as to appear favourable to Stalin, by his closest advisors. To do otherwise would be a grave risk. Stalin was making decisions based on eroneous information, even by the standards on modern warfare. It was only the bloody determination of the Russian people (and the ill-prepared German forces) that destroyed Hitler's hope of conquering the USSR.
On the question of whether Stalin was a 'great' man, of course his success in dragging Russia into the 20th century must be considered. But surely greatness is not measured by economic progress, especially that gained at any cost? How can anyone justify the bloodshed in the wake of Stalin's 'Great Dream', just on the basis of figures on a monthly production report? It is true that the Tsars were oppressive tyrants, but Stalin equalled their actions - and sometimes exceeded them. He introduced powers that the Tsars of old could only have dreamt of.
If people can deem Stalin a great man, then surely Hitler allows falls into this rather dubious catergory.
Thanks for the replies guys - very interesting. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
St.Santa, your starting to piss me off with all your anti-American crap.
Udie
-
Dowling, looks like you read "Icebreaker" by Victor Suvorov. Forget it all. It's all roadkill. USSR could never start the war first. English is not my native language and it's hard for me to tell you all the counter-arguments to Suvorov, but believe me: less then a half of this book is true.
Then: Stalin never dreamed of global revolution. Maybe you meant Trotskiy?
As for "dragging Russia into the 20th century" - it was done after a complete intentional destruction of the world's fastest developing economics of the early century. But Stalin had no choice: power up or die.
Again: it's my country's history...
BTW, I never knew that Soviet aid to miners was distributed by the government! Thought that it all came through communists.
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Woah, Boroda!! I wasn't trying to be personal or trying to dictate to you your countries history! I'm sure you know it alot better than I do.I was just putting forward my opinions based on what I'd read.
I haven't read anything by Suvorov. My information comes from Radzinsky's biography of Stalin. His writings aren't a re-working of old well-known documents, but are drawn from the previously closed (to westerners) Presidential Archive. He also had access to KGB archives (which contained information from all its fore-runners) and Stalin's library, for instance a copy of Das Kapital annotated by the man himself.
I do think that Stalin wanted global revolution - why did he want his piece of territory after WWII? You could say it was to reunite the Slavic peoples, but that doesn't explain Eastern Germany. He also supported the communists in many countries around the world, particularly China. Surely if he had no designs on the rest of the world, then why effectively annexe East Germany? Although it had its own German government, we know who was really pulling the strings.
In your comment 'Power up or die' do you mean Stalin as a political entity or the USSR? This may be a valid point, but do you believe so many had to die and suffer for it to be achieved? If so, how common is this view in Russia today?
As for the miners aid from USSR, it had to get past customs and I'm sure the security services in the UK knew what was going on. I can see how the UK communists might steal the money, but I don't see what good stealing clothes would do them. Anyway, I'm going to talk to my relatives about this.
BTW, I'd like to read Volkogonov's biography of Stalin, if I can get hold of an English translation - have you read it?
-
Dowding:
Some of the things you say are absurd:
Stalin had no concentrations of troops along the border of any note. Most were border patrols and light infantry. He deliberatly avoided any provocation to Germany with strict orders and by ignoring increasingly hysterical commanders who saw the GERMAN buildup across from them.
When the war started Stalin left strict orders to not attack or attempt to engage the enemy and went to his winter retreat for a week. After that week he realized the attack was real and started to build up his army and defenses.
As for the buildup- your facts are giving an incorrect impression. Hitler had made it very clear he intended to attack as early as 1939. Stalin was not a fool- he had a weak army and no leadership. When he gained control the army he had was mostly trained and fought with Trotsky. This is the biggest reason we can surmise that the great "purge" occurred. Stalin was not stupid- he knew he had to remove any military leaders he could not count on the loyalty of. Unfortunatly this left the red army with almost NO officers or experienced men close to her home. He was in the process of rebuilding his army and training it when Hitler attacked. This is why so much of the equipment the red army had was experimental (heavy tanks etc etc) and sparsly deployed.
As for Hitler- he WAS that stupid....
He believed that the Waffen SS would sweep the red army aside like toys. And he had no reason at the beginning to believe they wouldn't. The army swept through south russia like a firestorm. It was not until it was too late and they ran into the troops brought back from the east that they realized it was going to last through winter.
Oh- and BTW there is no conclusive evidence that the Germans had problems with winter equipment. Some had less some had more but the majority had plentiful amounts of it. The biggest problems was that Panzers had severe engine problems in cold weather and their skinny treads became stuck easily in slippery roads.
It was only the bloody determination of the Russian people (and the ill-prepared German forces) that destroyed Hitler's hope of conquering the USSR.
This is patently untrue. It was Hitlers interference with his Generals, his idiotic belief that the Waffen SS was unstoppable and the poor design of the tanks for winter conditions and the emergence of experienced motivated and well led troops by the time he reached moscow that doomed his hopes.
OH and btw Stalin was a great deal more effective and better general and CinC than hitler- if anything else he knew how to listen to his generals and not interfere with good strategies.
-
udie:
Uh, what did I say now?
Was it:
So, soon the US will have to start another arms race ?
If so, this is not an anti-US comment at all. Rather, it's meant as a complementary one about Russians. Meaning they'll get their toejam together, and be able to compete with the US again. And they have aspirations to become a major power once more, which could lead to another arms race.
Udie, sorry I've gotten under yer skin. About my anti-US comments; just good poking fun. Me and Toad has been dishing it out too, and he gives more than he receives (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Maybe I should start trashing the French again, but there aren't so many of them around. What's the second largest customer group in AH, anyone?
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Ok I tried being mad, but it doesn't last long with me normaly, unless your a spikey HOTAS.
Udie
-
Dowding,
Stalin did indeed plan to attack Germany, but not until 1942 at the very soonest. Suvorov and Radzinsky are not historians by profession, and their works have been generally refuted among Russian/Soviet historians, but they are great reads nonetheless (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
As to Stalin wanting a global revolution, that is untrue. By war's end, the bolshevik dream of global revolution was pretty much shelved. What was much more important to the Soviets was security. The destruction wrought by the Germans upon the Soviets left an indelible mark upon their psyche. Add to this the fact that the USA, UK, and France sent troops into Russia when the Bolsheviks overthrew the interim Russian government, and one can understand their fear of invasion. And historically, invasion has always been a part of Russian history. The prime reason the Warsaw Pact came into being was to be a buffer zone against any subsequent invasion of Russia. And, in fact, a major reason for the fall of the Soviet Union was their obsession with possible invasion. It drove them into maintaining an economic war footing during peacetime conditions, something that no country can do for too long without danger of national bankruptcy.
This fear of invasion may sound trite to westerners, but if one looks at it from the Russian point of view then one sees a different picture. When the Bolsheviks took over Russia in 1917, most capitalistic nations condemned the action, and America, Britain and France sent troops into Russia to aid the non-Bolshevik 'Whites' (this fact is something most Russians have never forgotten). From that time forward most capitalistic nations viewed the Soviet Union as a threat to their economic well-being, a fomenter of worker rebellion. Couple that with Fascist Germany's view of the Slavs as untermenschen, or subhuman, and one can see that the Soviet Union was pretty much at odds with the industrialized world from its birth. When war ended, the fact that the Soviet Union was now a superpower only increased the political chasm between Soviet communism and Western capitalism. With all this friction and already two invasions since its inception, the Soviet Union had good reason to fear continued hostility from the outside.
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 09-08-2000).]
-
udie:
LOL! Sorry bud, I'll start attacking the frog eaters with pointless and erroneous comments (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Anyone heard the battlecry of the French troops?
"Isurrendér"
<tadaboom>
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Santa,
There you go again. You see the thing is I'm from Louisiana, therefore I am a cajun. Which means I AM a frog eater! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/mad.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Udie
-
Originally posted by Udie:
Santa,
There you go again. You see the thing is I'm from Louisiana, therefore I am a cajun. Which means I AM a frog eater! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/mad.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Udie
There's only two places I want to visit in the South: Mississippi Delta and New Orleans. I love Cajun food! They know their peppers (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
LOL udie SORRRY!
Dammit!
Maybe the Italians won't mind a few comments.
Don't tell me yer part Italian (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]:
Dowding:
Some of the things you say are absurd
Well I am sorry if you think that, I didn't realise I was in the company of such a great Soviet historian, as your good self seems to be. I've stated throughout this thread that what I've written here is purely my opinion based on what I've read (ONE book). Perhaps I didn't say it, but this implies that I'm not exactly an expert on the subject. If we want to keep this discussion civilised, I suggest Sorrow that we refrain from labelling people's opinions as absurd.
On the subject of troop concentrations at the border and the forward airfields, the accepted version of events is that these were mistakes by Stalin. Even if the troops on the border are elite - if they are not ready for combined arms assault, it doesn't matter how good they are, they will not be able to provide an organinised defence against a well organised enemy. There are many examples in history of an inferior army routing a superior army, because of the element of surprise. I think this and Stalin's disbelief of the situation accounts for the rapid must contribute to the early success of Hitler's forces.
I've read elsewhere that Stalin was planning to attack Germany in 1942, Leonid. But surely this would involve the deployment of troops to the border, and the setting up of forward airfields, in the previous year? Its not such a tenuous extension of argument, to suppose that Hitler saw this (and all the other changes Stalin had made in the previous 5 years) and made a pre-emptive strike. He could see that an attack by Stalin was not so distant.
On the subject of Stalin's disappearance at the start of Barbarossa, there's an interesting theory. Why would a man whos was so energetic in his work (his holidays were nothing of the sort and he regularly worked 15+ hour days) suddenly take a week off at such a crucial time? Stalin was always playing for the long game, thinking several moves ahead - this allows no time for a 'rest'. Even if he was reeling from the Nazi's attack. If you look at his behaviour before the war, he would often resign from some position, knowing full well that he would be begged to return. This was his way of showing his henchmen that they could not operate without him. Shortly before his retreat to the nearer Dacha, he paid a visit to the People's Commissariat for Defence, where he found Zhukov amongst others. Stalin demanded information on the situation at Minsk. Timoshenko replied that he didn't have the information at hand yet, to which Stalin accused Timoshenko of being afraid to tell the truth. At this comment, Zhukov flared up angrily "Comrade Stalin, have we permission to get on with our work?" We must appreciate that such a response was unheard of.
At this point Beria has an angry confrontation with Zhukov, which is cut short by Stalin "You are making a crass mistake in trying to draw a line between yourselves and us..." Adding "...let them get it sorted out themselves first. Let's go comrades."
The unprecendented outburst by Zhukov must have confirmed Stalin's fears; they were no longer afraid of him. Now he does something that is strangely reminiscent of Ivan the Terrible, whom Stalin is infatuated. Ivan used to pretend to be dead, to see how his henchmen behaved, rise from his death bed and punish them all as an example. He also had a habit of dissapearing to remind his followers how helpless they were without him. Stalin himself described HIS closest followers as "blind kittens".
It seems he had chosen his closest comrades carefully, because they soon made a pilgrimage to the Dacha. He plays his favourite card here - he claims that there "...may be more deserving candidates [for leadership]." They duly loudly stated that there were none more worthy.
Soon afterwards he returns to the Kremlin and makes a glorious speech to the people.
Of course this is one interpretation of the events, and as Leonid points out, Radzinsky is not an Historian by profession. But his sources are primary and I think his theories here are plausible.
As for the winter preparation of German troops, if they were prepared for a winter campaign, why did so many freeze to death and why did Hitler's armies extend themselves to the point that supply lines were overstrtched? If they were prepared for winter conflict why did they die in their thousands?
On the question of the "bloody determination of the Russian people", Sorrow, are you saying that this wasn't a major factor in the victory of the Soviet forces? I've read eyewitness German accounts of a Soviet attack, which would receive "unheard of" losses but repeat the same attack, using the same route time and time again. At this point, the only thing that halted the attack was the mountain of Russian dead and burned out tanks blocking the way. If this is not bloody determination, then what would you call it, expertly executed tactics?
BTW guys, what books would you recommend on the subject of Stalin and the war etc. Cheers.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-08-2000).]
-
StSanta, watch out !!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/mad.gif)
You are not protected by an ocean, i can jump in my car and chase you, it's easy to find a red dressed man with white barb in a little country. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Well, interesting discussion (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Dowding, sorry, you misundrstood me. It's my usual problem, maybe different national mentality (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) "My country's history" was related to attitude, NOT trying to supress your opinion. Usually Westerners know Russian history much worse then you do (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
In 'Power up or die' I meant USSR, not Stalin himself. How many people died - I told you that there is NO point of view that I can subscribe to. I watched Radzinskiy's "lectures" on TV, it's interesting, and please note that he respects Stalin too.
Hehe, I think I'll buy a Volkogonov's book and read it ASAP. When it was first published here in late 80s I was 15-16 years old, and Stalin was my hero, maybe just as a protest to the official view. So I didn't bother reading it, just some extracts in "thik" magazines made me think that it is absolutely anti-stalinist. As I got older - I changed my mind. You know, people grow up...
Sorrow, there WAS a determination of all Soviet people. The case is that Stalin did his best to organise and use it. He revived the traditions of the old Russian army, employed Tsar time's heroes and slogans... He even supported the Orthodox church!
StSanta, do you really think that Russians want to start a new arms race?!
Leonid, thanks again for your wise posts! BTW, Zhukov's memoirs still wait at my bookshelf to be sent to you. It is getting dusty (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Udie, hehe, I wish you never see my angry posts at AGW. I try not to be anti-American, but some people just make me mad...
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Dowding:
Good discussion here btw (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Re: German pre-emptive theory
I also believe that Hitler made his attack as a pre-emptive measure. In fact, I'm sure both Germany and the Soviet Union were very aware of the overwhelming likelihood of war, even when they signed the non-aggression pact. It really was a matter of who would strike first, and Germany was ready before the Soviets. What I don't believe is that the Soviet Union was planning an offensive operation against Germany in 1941 - all evidence shows the Soviets in the midst of massive transition. An interesting side note is the STAVKA's theories on any offensive operation against them. Basically, the STAVKA believed that any attack upon the Soviet Union would be a rather slow affair as units were mobilized into position, then moved up to the front. The reason they thought this had to do with WWI, the only other major war that such experiences could be used as a gauge. So, even though STAVKA knew the Germans were deployed along the Soviet border, it was commonly believed that it would be days before serious action would ensue once the Germans attacked. A nasty surprise it was when the Blitzkrieg came blasting across the border.
Re: "bloody determination of the Russian people"
The subject of human wave attacks committed by Soviet forces in WWII is very muddled, and full of half truths. In the beginning of the war such attacks were indeed done, and were usually the result of poor leadership skills. The reason Soviet officers possessed such deplorable skills had to do with the fact that many officers had been promoted from battalion to division and corps commands within very short time spans. This was done because there were very few senior level officers in the Red Army, and the reason for that is the purge of 1937. As the STAVKA collected war experience and distributed combat regulations during the war incidents of human wave attacks decreased, though they never ceased.
One reason why they never ceased had to do with the 'styles' of certain generals. For example, Zhukov. Operationally, he was a brilliant commander, and was known for his iron will and his willingness to never call it quits. Tactically, though, Zhukov was a slugger. His method was to initiate operations by commencing attacks all along his sector, and using massive artillery support. If an area was proving stubborn, then more reserves were pressed into the attack. On the one hand, this technique usually bled the German defenders white, forcing a retreat. But on the other hand pressing the attack so forcefully into defensive positions resulted in heavy losses for the Soviets. From the Khalkin Gol until the Zeelowe Heights(?), Zhukov was always known for his heavy losses. Zhukov's Operation Mars is a stark example of what happens when things go terribly wrong during one of his attacks. It was such a horrendous loss of Soviet lives and equipment that it was effectively 'forgotten' by STAVKA and omitted from the history books until Glantz uncovered it last decade. I think Patton was sometimes referred to as 'old Blood 'n' Guts', but I think it would be much more apt for Zhukov. Not all commanders were like this, Rokossovsky being an excellent example, but there were a few who were (another that comes to mind is Konev).
As the war progressed STAVKA issued combat regulations each year, and these regulations were the result of combat experiences up until that point. Effective tactics were developed from these experiences, then codified in the regulations, resulting in higher proficiency among Soviet commanders of all levels. By wars end, the Red Army was a highly effective blitzkrieg army, relying on maneuver, both tactically and operationally, for attainment of its objectives. While not as tactically skilled as their German opponents, they were equals operationally.
As a last point I should say that many German accounts are only from 41-42, which might also lead one to believe that human wave attacks were the norm in the Red Army.
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 09-09-2000).]
-
6 million soliders dead, 14 million injured.
Must have some truth to it, no?
Jerries lost some 3.2 million.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
StSanta,
There is definite truth to it, but you have to look at the comparative casualty figures from a yearly basis to see what I'm talking about. I'll post those figures as soon as I can find them in my 'library'. That being said, I must also say that German tactical expertise was second to none.
-
Dowding said:
>>>
I'm pretty left-wing myself, and come from an area of Britain that has always had a strong socialist identity (mining and steel industries in britian were centred around Sheffield). Until Margaret Thatcher destroyed this area in the 80s, but thats another story
>>>
Then you need to re-read history. The heavy industries in Britain were destroyed by the unions and their restrictive practices. Mrs Thatcher was the only one with the guts to take on the unions. Britain is now far more prosperous than it was in 1979.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Well I am sorry if you think that, I didn't realise I was in the company of such a great Soviet historian, as your good self seems to be. I've stated throughout this thread that what I've written here is purely my opinion based on what I've read (ONE book). Perhaps I didn't say it, but this implies that I'm not exactly an expert on the subject. If we want to keep this discussion civilised, I suggest Sorrow that we refrain from labelling people's opinions as absurd.
Thats a little harsh considering. I am not a "great historian" but I do read all that I can on the topic. The absurdity was where some of the facts came from and how you use them. They just didn't make sense. Like I pointed out- Stalin was in no way shape or form capable of making an attack in 1941, he was trying his hardest to rebuild some kind of experienced leadership core in his army. To say the soviet was going to make a great attack and the germans pre-empted it smells of revisionist history.
On the subject of troop concentrations at the border and the forward airfields, the accepted version of events is that these were mistakes by Stalin. Even if the troops on the border are elite - if they are not ready for combined arms assault, it doesn't matter how good they are, they will not be able to provide an organinised defence against a well organised enemy. There are many examples in history of an inferior army routing a superior army, because of the element of surprise. I think this and Stalin's disbelief of the situation accounts for the rapid must contribute to the early success of Hitler's forces.
Leonid pointed out clearer than I can why Stalin was in disbelief at the reports of the attacks advance. As for the buildup- I still do not follow you. There was no real "elite" troops there. Stalin had sent those across the Urals until he had a core army group built again at home. And he specifically kept the greatest part of his army well away from the border to escape provocation in the face of the german buildup, and to keep the germans from knowing how big it was. A tactic BTW that worked- germans were in disbelief at the amount of men they had captured exceeding the amount of divisions they even knew existed.
I've read elsewhere that Stalin was planning to attack Germany in 1942, Leonid. But surely this would involve the deployment of troops to the border, and the setting up of forward airfields, in the previous year? Its not such a tenuous extension of argument, to suppose that Hitler saw this (and all the other changes Stalin had made in the previous 5 years) and made a pre-emptive strike. He could see that an attack by Stalin was not so distant.
The airfield in poland was a clear sign of the beginning of this- but it's also abundantly clear that Hitler had no concept of what there was of the red army. His generals were astounded by the amount of men they ran into in barbarossa. This indicates the germans had no idea of what build-ups there had been in Russia before they attacked. Plus account in the fact that they moved into Russia as soon as the bulk of their equipment arrived from the invasion of France. It seems to me at least, that the late start and this fact was a sign that Hitler wanted to attack Russia as soon as he could to prevent any build up of stalins army. Hitler knew of the Purge and assumed the red army could not stand before his Waffen troops. None of this indicates that he knew or cared of Stalins build-ups when he planned his offensive.
{much deleted- I basically agree with most of it. but Stalin also had an odd idiosynchrasy- He put trust and faith in generals who were totally unafraid of him. I think he was looking for such men on purpose, knowing they would do their job well despite of him and that they could be disposed of after :! }
As for the winter preparation of German troops, if they were prepared for a winter campaign, why did so many freeze to death and why did Hitler's armies extend themselves to the point that supply lines were overstrtched? If they were prepared for winter conflict why did they die in their thousands?
They died because of they horrific breakout they suffered when the attack on moscow broke down. The supply lines were not just stretched- they were gone by the time they reached that far. Mud had swallowed every road to the front lines. Their equipment was immobile due to cold it had never been designed or tested under. During this point the Russians broke through and engulfed the army and struck behind german lines at will. This destroyed much of the equipment that was close enough to be used immediatly. Thus troops were left scrambling back to try and restablish a defensive line. However as soon as the trucks rolled again all troops had access to these coats uniforms and weapons. They were there- they troops were just unable to access them while under attack. It was not a case of being unprepared- just unable to distribute quickly enough.
As for why the lines were so stretched- look into the final push on moscow. Hitler believed that with moscow taken the war was over. This push was against the most experienced and well led in the red army of the time. The Waffen troops sufferred horrific casualties trying to stop them. But ironically enough if you look at pictures you will see that during the breakout those troops are in winter camoflauge. The equipment was there, just not quickly enough or widely enough.
On the question of the "bloody determination of the Russian people", Sorrow, are you saying that this wasn't a major factor in the victory of the Soviet forces? I've read eyewitness German accounts of a Soviet attack, which would receive "unheard of" losses but repeat the same attack, using the same route time and time again. At this point, the only thing that halted the attack was the mountain of Russian dead and burned out tanks blocking the way. If this is not bloody determination, then what would you call it, expertly executed tactics?
Leo once again answred this one better than I could. It was more due to lack of awareness in the leadership that WWI was over and the tactics needed changing.
It WAS a factor- never have I read of a more determined and motivated people than the red army. It was fueled by German atrocities in Ukraine- it was taught by political officers and ingrained into the people who fought. Never forget, it says, that russian people are indomitable. But was it the ONLY thing? I have to disagree because thats what you implied. It was more due to the ability of the troops to move through impassable terrains, the low estimation of them in the germans eyes and the unmatched quality of their ground equipment they used. Yes- unmatched! Something that floored me as I read about the GPW was how much we in the west are ignorant of the armor and weapons they used. Most of the tanks that terrified us in france came from lessons the russians taught the germans- who improved them and refined them.
In all dowding- one thing to remember about the eastern front- is that you just cannot believe one side of anything. I look forward greatly to every new publication that shows up from russia. As more is revealed to us every time to help us put into perspective what we read from the German side of the conflict.
Hmm books- one that is very interesting (I haven't recieved it yet but am waiting for my copy) is:Black Cross Red Star
http://www.blackcross-redstar.com/ (http://www.blackcross-redstar.com/)
look for it!
-
Damn- almost forgot:
http://www.skalman.nu/bookstore-ww2-eastern.htm (http://www.skalman.nu/bookstore-ww2-eastern.htm)
This page helped me alot- I am only missing 3 of their books. Good stuff to learn history of what hapenned- some of the info is iffy though- Russian stuff put into a different perspective.
-
leonid:
vv, I understand. Will be interested in reading anything ya got (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Sorrow, Dowding - your posts can be printed in a textbook called "strange foreign views on Soviet history".
Hehe, very funny to watch how it looks from aside!
Something completely different from official Soviet POV or German POV that was expressed in "Weltkrieg 1939-1945".
;-)
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Thanks for all your posts guys - very informative, and I'll be sure to do some more reading around the subjects discussed here. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Sorrow - Stalin was rebuilding his armed forces, that much is true. What is also true is that he himself destroyed the leadership in 1937. To remedy this he encouraged the rapid training of a new officer core, who equipped poorly to lead in battle. It follows from this that some of the mistakes made at a tactical level must be attributed to these poorly trained officers. As the war went on, of course, this state of affairs would change, experience coming into play and officers and men becoming more battle-hardened.
As others have already said here, I believe Hitler did attack pre-emptively. I think war between two leaderships with such ideologies was inevitable, especially considering their proximity. I do believe Hitler wanted to hit Russia before she could rearm, and in doing so, was in a way figting for self-preservation.
Thx for the links by the way Sorrow - will be checking them out asap.
Qts - have you been to South Yorkshire EVER?! Or how about the Durham area (where I've just finished Uni. after 4 years)? I don't want to make any unjust assumptions but you are what many would call 'a southerner' (I have many friends who would fit this description). Do you have family who you can talk to about the state of South Yorkshire before and after Thatcher gained power? Please, I really do want to know. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) It certainly wasn't a change for the better, for my area and the generation born during Thatcher's reign.
Britain more prosperous now than in 1979? In London maybe. 'Down South' maybe. But you come and look at the state of the old mining communities around here and let me know if you think they are more prosperous. Or check out Newcastle and its environs - no more coal industries, Ship-building, steel industry. The only way people have survived is because of their own resourcefulness and strength - fortunately they were used to getting short-changed by London. And don't try to tell me there isn't a North-South divide - I've seen it for myself.
It is true that the unions were their own downfall, but to somehow imply that Thatcher's reign was good for Britain is ludicrous!!! Check out the trains - have you caught one recently? They are over-crowded, over-priced and frequently delayed. Some services are worse now than when they were under BR's control.
Bucks. may be more prosperous but surely you don't think that the whole country is better off since Thatcher?
Please get back to me on this one, I'd be very, very interested in your reply.