Author Topic: I hate russia.  (Read 7841 times)

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
I hate russia.
« Reply #240 on: July 19, 2007, 07:03:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Elfie
I didn't put words in your mouth. It is YOUR argument that the invasion of Finland was the fault of Finland herself for not wanting to trade chunks of land.


We use different definitions of "fault". It wasn't Finland's "fault", they behaved bravely but silly, I mean - their government. Please understand that I think in Russian and have to find closest English words that don't always have exactly the same meaning. Add different mind-set too.

Quote
Originally posted by Elfie
Again, you blame others for the actions of your country. In August of 1939 the Allies didn't want war with Germany, were still hoping it could be avoided. So why would they deploy forces against Germany? They wanted peace.


Negotiations were on an exact subject: upcoming war in Europe between Germany and Poland. USSR had all plans ready, ready to deploy 100+ divisions against nazis, while "allies" failed to answer any questions from Voroshilov, mumbling something about "a couple of divisions in no less then three months". Protocol quotes are available in Mosley's book, see link above.

Quote
Originally posted by Elfie
If Stalin hadn't purged his military officers the Red Army would have been in a much better position to defend Mother Russia when the Germans did invade.


Let me have my own opinion on this subject, my Grand-Father was a cavalry Brigade commander in the 30s. People like Marshall Bluher were incapable of commanding in modern conditions. Bluher was executed for screwing up a border-conflict with Japan in 1938, when he was drinking himself dead and waving his sable from a tank turret instead of organizing his troops. It's just one example of incompetence. People"purged" were partisan squad commanders of the Civil War, anarchic and uneducated.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
I hate russia.
« Reply #241 on: July 19, 2007, 07:15:15 AM »
The story of the Russian betrayal of the Poles is heartwarming. The Russians didn't want to screw the Poles but sadly, they just couldn't resist..er... I mean they had to do so.

Enjoy this tidbit from a previous thread:

When the Soviet Union invaded Poland there were in effect the following treaties and agreements between the governments of Poland and the Soviet Union:

The Peace Treaty between Poland, Russia and the Ukraine signed in Riga, on March 18, 1921, by which the Eastern frontiers of Poland were defined.

The Protocol between Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Rumania and the USSR regarding renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, signed in Moscow on February 9, 1929.

The Non-Aggression Pact between Poland and the USSR signed in Moscow on July 25, 1932.

The Protocol signed in Moscow on May 5, 1934 between Poland and the USSR, extending until December 31, 1945, the Non-Aggression Pact of July 25, 1932.

The Convention for the Definition of Aggression signed in London on July 3, 1933.

Fine Fellows, don’t you think? Trustworthy, admirable, worthy of adulation.


Wait, don’t decide yet…there’s more “good deeds” to recount before we get to the sacrifice of the Soviet Union in fighting the Germans.


http://members.spree.com/ojoronen/eastbalt.htm


“On June 17th and 18th of 1940, hundreds of thousands of Red Army troops crossed the frontiers and took over the Baltic States.

Between July 14th and July 17th, "elections" were held in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Stalin had so many Baltic Communists killed in purges in 1936 and 1937 that he had trouble finding candidates. However, the Communist majorities were 92.8%, 97.8% and 99.19% respectively. Finally on August 5th, the Supreme Soviet very generously agreed to admit the three republics as constituent members of the USSR In this way three independent, prosperous and civilized countries vanished from the map of Europe.

Stalin was now in a position to implement 0RDER N 0. 001223. During the first year of Soviet occupation of Estonia more than 60,000 persons were killed or deported (on the night of June 13-14, 1941 more than 10,000 people were removed in a mass deportation). During 1941-1944 the Nazis occupied Estonia.

Before the Soviets returned in 1944, over 60,000 Estonians managed to escape from the country. In 1945-1946 Stalin deported another 20,000 people. On March 24-27, 1949, 70,000 more persons were deported.
These were mainly farmers who resisted collectivization.

In Lithuania, on the night of June 14-15, 1941, 30,455 members of the Lithuanian intelligentsia (national guard, civil servants etc.) were deported to Siberia. When the Germans advanced in 1941, Stalin had the approximately 5,000 political prisoners still held in Lithuanian jails executed. When the Nazis took over, approximately 170,000 Jews were exterminated. Before the Soviets returned in 1944, approximately 80,000 Lithuanians managed to escape, but 60,000 were deported to Siberia. In 1945 - 1946 approximately 145,000 Lithuanians were deported. Another 60,O00 were deported in March of 1949 because of collectivization.

During the Winter War the Finns lost 25,000 people fighting the Soviet Union. If they had given in to the Soviet demands, like the three other Baltic States, the chances are that they would have had over 400,000 people killed. It seems that they made the right decision, and at the same time saved the N K V D officers a lot of work.”

Wait! Don’t form an opinion yet! There’s more before the Soviets resist the evil Germans!

Remember Poland? There was a place called Kaytn Forest….

http://members.spree.com/ojoronen/eastbalt.htm

“Fifteen thousand Polish prisoners of war were taken illegally to the Soviet Union and kept in three camps, Kozielsk, Starobielsk and Ostashkov. Many of these people were officers. There were also many reserve officers consisting of University professors, surgeons, engineers, lawyers, teachers, journalists, etc…

When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June of 1941, the Soviets suffered several military defeats. Their attitude towards the western allies and to Poland therefore changed. A Polish-Soviet treaty was signed in July of 1941 and the organization of a Polish Army in the Soviet Union was immediately begun. A thorough search was made for all Polish prisoners, but about 14,500 could not be found. They were not found until several of them were found by the Germans in mass graves at Katyn, near Smolensk, in April 1943….

The International Commission consisted of doctors from twelve different countries. The Findings were that 4,145 bodies were found in eight mass graves. All of them had been shot in the back of the head. The bodies still had on them personal belongings such as diaries, letters, newspapers, and other items all indicating that the crime took place in the second half of March or in April 1940. The evidence was overwhelming that it had been carried out by the NKVD under direct instructions from Moscow….

All the bodies found at Katyn were of people who came from the camp of Kozielsk. But what happened to the 10,000 or so other prisoners from the other two camps? There is no solid evidence, i.e. no bodies were found, but the inmates of the camp at Starobielsk are believed to have been taken to a place near Kharkov and murdered. The inmates from the camp of Ostashkov are believed to have been taken to the White Sea, put aboard two barges, towed out to sea, and the barges sunk.

Altogether the Soviets arrested 250,000 Polish soldiers. When the NKVD moved into Poland, using their usual methods, an estimated 1,500,000 Poles were deported, and within two years 270,000 were dead.”

Want a bit more? This is the same regime that aided the hated Nazis right up until the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

http://members.spree.com/ojoronen/eastbalt.htm

“Probably Stalin's most successful propaganda coup of all was the propagation of the myth that Soviet territorial acquisitions in 1939 were designed to establish a forward strategic line in case of a German attack. This tale has received wide acceptance, but eighteen months later when Hitler launched his invasion, virtually nothing had been accomplished in the way of fortifications, defensive lines or military airfields to exploit ground gained by the Nazi-Soviet Pact. In fact, the national armies of Finland, Romania and the Baltic States would have protected Stalin's flanks. As it was, Finland and Romania were turned into effective allies of the Germans, and the Baltic States provided Hitler with excellent troops.

Hitler gained a great deal from the pact. Provision was made for the supply from Russia of a million tons of grain for cattle, 900,000 tons of mineral oil, 100,000 tons of cotton, 500,000 tons of phosphates, 100,000 tons of chrome ore, 500,000 tons of iron ore, 300,000 tons of scrap iron and pig iron, and numerous other commodities vital to the German war effort.

While Hitler was fighting Britain and France, the Soviet Union was supplying him with his raw materials. Not only that , but they were helping Hitler to break Britain's blockade by supplying rubber and other essential supplies by transporting them on the Trans-Siberian Railway. It is interesting to note that while Stalin was supplying Hitler with thousands of tons of grain, his own people were starving.

While the Soviet Union held back from joining Germany as a belligerent, she furnished Germany with military co-operation far beyond that which the United States was giving Britain at that time. The German navy was allowed facilities at Murmansk on a scale which contrasts favorably in many ways with restrictions placed on Allied use of the same port between 1941 and 1945.

The German liner "Bremen" found refuge there, as did a succession of blockade-breaking vessels; and measures violating international law were adopted by the Soviet authorities to allow the Germans to escape with a captured American merchant ship, "City of Flint".

German auxiliary cruisers were equipped at Murmansk for raids on British shipping.

More than this, the Soviets actually allowed Germany her own naval base on Soviet soil near Murmansk. It proved to be a valuable base for U-Boats operating in the North Sea, and played an important role helping supply Hitler's invasion of Norway. The Soviets helped a German raiding cruiser, "Schiff 45", to make her way through the ice around Siberia to the Pacific, where she sank and captured 64,000 tons of allied shipping. In this and other ways the Soviet Government lent enormous assistance to the otherwise extremely vulnerable German Navy.”

Of course, this is also the same regime that signed the 13 April 1941 Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact. Perhaps the Japanese should have talked to the Poles first?

Just in time though, because on June 22, the “two thieves” fell out. Hitler’s Germany turned upon Stalin’s Soviet Union and the Soviets glorious chance to stop helping and start fighting the Germans finally arrived.

Eventually, the Soviets decisively beat the Germans.

When it was all over, this is the same regime that Poland, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria came to know so well. But that’s another story.

Glorify who you will. Admire who you will. If this Regime is heroic to you, so be it.

Perhaps you can ignore the true nature of that Regime simply because when the “two thieves” finally had a falling out, one set of thieves and murderers helped defeat the other set of thieves and murderers that started the Second World War.





There are some really great Boroda threads. For great entertainment value, check out one called "Fifty Years" in the O-club. Comedy gold.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
I hate russia.
« Reply #242 on: July 19, 2007, 08:00:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda

Let me have my own opinion on this subject blah blah


LOL now you are defending the purges?

Let me tell you one thing about the consequences of the purges. They are directly responsible for the abysmal performance of the soviet army in 1941. And the purges are directly responsible for the horrendous losses the red army took in ww2.

Let me elaborate some on this point.

In the Soviet army, small unit tactics and flexibility was not really a big thing. Two factors controlled how soviet units behaved. We can call these two factors "blame" and "necessity".

Necessity.
(these are general observations, there were of cource, as always, exceptions to the rule)

The soviet army was filled with very incompetent leaders. Nowhere was the Peter-principle more apparent than here. It is quite easy to understand why really. First you take the purges and you remove the leadership of the army. Then war comes and during the first 6 months you lose 90% of the standing army.

What happens to the leadership? Basically you have to promote people to positions they would never reach otherwise. The officer corps in 42 is filled with people who are barely litterate. This is why you have such a focus on larger units in the soviet union. Basically if we try to do a translation of intelligence/knowledge/ability between armies, a British sergeant is about as able as a soviet colonel.

There are occations in the early war where entire Soviet tank corps are lost in counterattacks in a way that really dont make any sense, until you look at that fact. The corps starts out intact and at full strenght, the reasons behind the attack is sound, they are advancing into the flanks of the German panzergruppe, they meet little resistance. And then 48 hours later, the entire corps is gone, taken out of action. Earlier these losses were attributed to various factors like Stukas and superior German tactics etc, but when you really look at what happened you note that these units...simply ran out of fuel.

Ok, so why is that? Well, suddenly we realize just how primitive the early soviet army is in its command structure, and how weak the officer material is. A German corps staff contains a G2 with a huge staff filled with colonels, majors, captains and NCOs who are well educated, and with loads of experience from rising through the ranks. They know what is required to have a panzercorps moving, they have calculated distances between fuel dumps, they know how many trucks they have moving from point A to B at any time, Things work like a well-oiled machinery.

On the soviet side, you have a colonel responsible for the same thing, he was a lieutenant perhaps a year ago. His staff consists of four guys, pretty recently taken from some backwater farm deep in the ukraine. They are barely litterate. They dont have any tools other than a few pencils and some sheets of paper. This group are supposed to handle all the supply planning for the tank corps. Its not that there is a shortage of fuel, its not that there is a shortage of trucks to transport the fuel, or a shortage of manpower. It fails for these reasons.

Which is why the soviet army becomes very standardized. After a few months of this, central planning at STAVKA takes over and issues specific orders that cover everything. If you are to attack a position, you will need these units, they will do these fire missions, at H Hour, these units will advance in this fashion, etc. It is necessary, it is very rough, very unflexible, but it works, at least better than before.

The soviets did alot of stuff in a very peciuliar manner. Nowhere is this more apparent than when looking at their offensive operations. Forget the human waves and blocking detachments. Those things were not as common as some people want you to believe, and they rarely took place outside some very desperate and/or incompetent counterattacks in 41.

As I have outlined earlier, the soviet army became heavily dependent on standardized rules and regulations. This was a really smart move by the soviets because of the general inaptitude of its officer corps, but it had the rather unfortunate side effects that it practically removed initiative, and it worked much like a wet blanket when it came to evolving tactics in the later period of the war. Also soviet units became very unable to handle surprises.

There were two main parts of the red army, the rifle forces and mechanized forces. Rifle forces were dominant and provided the structure of lines and provided mass for attacks. On their shoulders also fell the task of making breaktrhroughs. Mech (tank) forces were numerically much smaller, by an order of magnitude smaller, but much better equipped. They did most of the attacking after the first break in, and a fair portion of the defensive fighting as reaction reserves.

There were all sorts of specialist unit types, which were generally put into the formations they were supposed to work with as attachments, each an echelon level smaller than the unit they supported. So an anti-tank brigade was attached to a rifle division, an artillery division was attached to an army...etc.

But to a much greater extent than other armies, they also pooled these an echelon level or two higher, and then assigned them to larger formations than usual, to bump up their combined arms ratio in this or that category.

This was effectively a method of centralizing the force composition decision at a higher level, typically army. Thus, for example Anti-Aircraft would be organized in divisions of 4 regiments, where each regiment had enough guns to protect a single division sector, by pushing their battery subcomponents down to regiments.

So why did the do this? Back to the inability of the soviet officer corps. By using anti-aircraft in a division-scale, you effectively put the decision "where does the AA go?" in the hands of the army commander or his chief of staff. He might delegate regiments to each of his divisions but he might instead concentrate it on a single sector or use most of it to cover artillery positions or supply routes etc. But the important thing is ITS HIS CALL. Someone at least somewhat competent makes the desicion. The same was done with AT formations, 120mm mortar formations, rocket formations, larger caliber artillery formations, motorcycle recon formations, etc.

blame

Now here comes the beautiful part. Or maybe more correctly, the logical conclusion of whats been said before.

The red army offensive was simply put, very simple and very strict. The one "tactic" on the offense was to assume column formation on the lower elements and then attack forward in echelon waves. This does not mean "human wave", no, it means probe on a narrow front with a full strength unit, typically matching or outnumbering the defenders.

The attacking units move as close to the enemy as they can. When they are halted by fire they take what cover they can and fire back, as well as calling for all forms of support.

The next wave then tries on the same portion of the front. Repeat until the enemy is defeated or there is only one attackwave left. The last wave does not attack, but digs in and holds whatever is safely captured after the earlier waves.

Now, this "tactic" amounts to something that is generally frowned upon...reinforcing failure. The German regarded it as the height of mindless stupidity, idiocy, wanton disregard of human life, folly, retardedness, stubborness, you get the idea. Any reading of German military leaders after the war will give you the same picture...those retarded but brave soviets.

The tactic is really a basic attrition tactic, adapted to modern combined arms conditions. But why was this good for the red army? Well, again, because this demanded very little from the officers involved from division level and down. Attacks were planned from the rear at a high level, and expected to produce definite results that the rest of the plan depended on.

Now, here is where the blame game comes into play.

It was not acceptable in such plans for various units to report that comrade, the situation does not look good in this sector, maybe we should try somewhere else. Nor could a successful lower unit call everyone to follow him and expect to be listened to, or even heard.

The high level commander was responsible for giving his units doable missions and for providing them the mix of weapons they would need to succeed...in theory. The lower commander was responsible for something aking close to laying his ship alongside the enemy...that is, fight as hard as he can on the terms given by his superior.

A plan needed both to work, but the difference in responsibility is crystal clear, and very strictly enforced. This means, to put it plainly that the lower commander who failed to attack, or pulled back would be shot. While a higher commander who gave a crappy order which really was not achievable with the forces he had provided would be stripped of rank, relieved or shot.


Now here comes the beautiful part with this system.

The lower commander was not responsible for success but for making the attempt. This guy only had to try. And to prove that he had tried hard enough, all he had to do was present a large casualty figure. That, absurdly enough, excused failure, and shifted the responsibility for that failiure up one level in the hierarchy of command up to the guy who ordered the attack.

On the lower level, success was always welcome in the red army, but not really a prerequisite. Failure in the mission without debiliating losses to explain why the attempt had failed or to demonstrate that it had been undoable, was inexcusable though, and quite lethal.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2007, 08:05:08 AM by Hortlund »

Offline Suave

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2950
I hate russia.
« Reply #243 on: July 19, 2007, 08:08:22 AM »
I find Boroda as amusing as anybody, but why was a thread titled "I hate Russia" allowed to be started in the oclub in the first place. We can ignore the oclub rules now ?

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
I hate russia.
« Reply #244 on: July 19, 2007, 08:09:55 AM »
Enemy turned to flooding. Last resort.

Hortlund, what is the source for the hallucinations you posted? "Human waves and blocking detachments" - next please.

Everyone picturing a "blocking detachment" shooting attacking soldiers in the back is a sick propaganda victim. Go jerk off on "Enemy at the gates" one more time.

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
I hate russia.
« Reply #245 on: July 19, 2007, 08:11:21 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Suave
I find Boroda as amusing as anybody, but why was a thread titled "I hate Russia" allowed to be started in the oclub in the first place. We can ignore the oclub rules now ?


Hating Russia is OK, especially for semi-literate Swedes who still miss their Finnish slaves.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
I hate russia.
« Reply #246 on: July 19, 2007, 08:17:56 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
Enemy turned to flooding. Last resort.

Hortlund, what is the source for the hallucinations you posted? "Human waves and blocking detachments" - next please.

Everyone picturing a "blocking detachment" shooting attacking soldiers in the back is a sick propaganda victim. Go jerk off on "Enemy at the gates" one more time.


Read the entire post Boroda. Im actually saying that human wave attacks and blocking detachments were not really that common at all. But they did happen on some occations, especially in 1941.

I suppose I should not have expected the decensy from you to actually read my post before you call me names, but to the rest of you participating in this thread, please read it, its quite interesting, it explains alot about the performance of the soviet army...and it took almost an hour to type.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
I hate russia.
« Reply #247 on: July 19, 2007, 08:19:45 AM »
Another thing to remember is that the soviet offensive doctrin even in the mid- and late war meant that an attack must have looked like a human wave-attack to the defender.

Simply because the doctrin calls for a massed infantry attack on a narrow front.

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
I hate russia.
« Reply #248 on: July 19, 2007, 08:39:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hortlund
Another thing to remember is that the soviet offensive doctrin even in the mid- and late war meant that an attack must have looked like a human wave-attack to the defender.

Simply because the doctrin calls for a massed infantry attack on a narrow front.


Sources please. I'd prefer quotes from Soviet field regulations.

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
I hate russia.
« Reply #249 on: July 19, 2007, 08:45:37 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hortlund
Read the entire post Boroda. Im actually saying that human wave attacks and blocking detachments were not really that common at all. But they did happen on some occations, especially in 1941.


Order 227, with an idea of "blocking detachments" was issued in Summer 1942. Supreme Command simply copied German experience with blocking detachments, it's mentioned in that order.

JFYI: Blocking detachments were used to catch deserters who left their positions without weapons. "Blooby NKVD" shooting soldiers in the back is a typical Western hallucination. If you watch that famous scene from Enemy at the Gates, you'll probably wonder why NKVD bastards (BTW, why NKVD? They were regular Army troops) will be lifted on bayonets in a matter of seconds after they start shooting.

Quote
Originally posted by Hortlund
I suppose I should not have expected the decensy from you to actually read my post before you call me names, but to the rest of you participating in this thread, please read it, its quite interesting, it explains alot about the performance of the soviet army...and it took almost an hour to type.


So it's just a work of your imagination? You type quite fast, WTG.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
I hate russia.
« Reply #250 on: July 19, 2007, 09:00:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
Sources please. I'd prefer quotes from Soviet field regulations.


I cant pin point a source just like that since this knowledge comes from reading a ****load of books about the eastern front. Frankly Im quite surprised that you are trying to deny or stonewall this, since its pretty common knowledge once you pass a certain point of knowledge on ww2 on the eastern front.

I can however give you examples from history to give you an idea what a late-war soviet offensive looks like.

Lets take this one, since I happen to know quite a bit about it.  

Iasi-Kischinjow offensive, August 1944
, 3rd Ukrainian Front (under Gen Tolbuchin)

Main effort is in the sector of the 37th Army. The 37th Army has a 4km wide breakthrough frontage assigned to it. It is divided in two groupings, two corps at the front, one corps in reserve. According to plan, it is supposed to break through the depth of the German/Romanian defense in 7 days, to a distance of 110-120km, with the distance to be covered in the first four days 15km each.

66th Rifle Corps consis of two groupings (61st Guards RD, 333rd RD up, 244th RD reserve). Attached are 46th Gun Artillery Brigade, 152nd Howitzer Artillery Regiment, 184th and 1245th Tank Destroyer Regiment, 10th Mortar Regiment, 26th Light Artillery Brigade, 87th Recoilless Mortar Regiment, 92nd and 52nd Tank Regiment, 398th Assault Gun Regiment, two Pioneer Assault Battalions, and two Light Flamethrower Companies.

Lets look at this Corps. It has a frontage of 4 km. Its breakthrough frontage is 3.5km, divided into 61st RD 1.5km and 333rd RD 2km. This gives:


Densities per kilometer of frontage:
Rifle battalions 7.7

Guns/mortars 248
Tanks and assault guns 18

And in hindsight we can note that the soviet superiority here is:
Infantry 3-1
Artillery 7-1
Tanks and assault guns 11-1

There is no man-power information for the divisions, so we expect them to have between 7,000 - 7,500 men each, 61st GRD maybe 8,000-9,000. The soldiers were prepared over the course of August by exercising in areas similar to those they had to attack, and being brought up to speed on special tactics needed to overcome the enemy in their sector.

And then we look at their units
61st GRD sector
per kilometer of frontage:
Rifle battalions 6.0
Guns/mortars 234
Tanks and assault guns 18

Density in 333rd RD sector per kilometer of frontage:
Rifle battalions 4.5
Guns/mortars 231
Tanks and assault guns 18
[/B]

So, we are looking at 6 battalions of infantry per kilometer of front-line. Im sure you can appreciate what that attack looks like to the German/Romanian defenders when it comes. 5-800 men per batallion gives 4 800 men per kilometer...or ~5 guys/meter. Naturally they will attack the normal soviet fashion in waves, meaning we divide this by three. But still we get more than one guy/meter. Along a 3,5 kilometer wide section of the front...you do the math Boroda.  





And then you can ponder over this:
Quote

About an hour later the scene that lay before me and my subordinates changed sharply, transposed into something one could not imagine in his worst nightmare. Small groups of soldiers appeared in the buckwheat field some 900 meters ahead. They were running towards us, clearly intending to seek cover in the forest... One did not have to be a genius to understand that a Soviet Army infantry unit, unable to withstand the powerful enemy attack, had abandonded it's positions. This was the first time I had witnessed such an unusual event. I had no idea what to do in this situation.

Several minutes later I recieved categorical instructions: Fire at the retreating Soviet troops! I broke out in a feverish sweat. How could this be? Shoot at our own troops? The battalion commander came running up to my tank, and again he ordered, "Fire! Fire with machine-guns!"

An order is an order. It has to be carried out. With breaking voice I gave the command. "First platoon, fire over the heads of the infantry! Second platoon, set up a fire screen in front of the retreating soldiers!"

It came to me reflexively that we could create a situation where the fleeing soldiers would be forced to stop running and hit the ground...

Six Bren coaxial machine-guns tore the air with long bursts. The stream of tracer bullets whistled over the unorganized formation of retreating troops... In front of the fleeing troops was a 'fence' of mangled greenery and clods of dirt that had been created by the machine-gun bursts. To fall into the beaten zone would be a quick and certain death...

In the blink of an eye the panicked troops were forced to take cover by falling flat on the earth... I commanded, "Cease fire!" Quiet ensued; then suddenly several soldiers stood up and once again plunged toward the rear. First platoon's Brens barked in short bursts. The running soldiers flopped down in the buckwheat. Several minutes passed with no signs of movement in the field... The infantry commanders appeared on the scene and barked out brusque orders. The infantrymen got up and made their way back toward the river in a straggling formation.

As we discovered later, the tank machine-gun fire had struck seven soldiers, whom we left at their last, inglorious frontline position. This is the kind of death that came to some of the Soviet soldiers in that war.

My nerves were frazzled, and my head ached. I would not wish such a condition on my enemy. Half a century has passed since that incident, but every moment of the experience is deeply etched into my memory. By the will of fate and the order of Stalin, we had to execute the role of barrier detachment: We were forced to use our weapons against our fellow soldiers.

Lt. Dmitriy Loza, 233rd Tank Brigade, 1st Batt., 1st coy. (mounting Lend Lease Matilda II's), near Kirov, 13 August 1943; recounting an incident from his first day of actual combat.

Offline 68ROX

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
I hate russia.
« Reply #251 on: July 19, 2007, 10:20:00 AM »
You probably won't see it in Soviet field regulations....


While NONE of the nations of WWII were ANGELS (Even British & American troops)


But the following is very sad...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the Red Army advanced toward her in 1945, the city of Berlin had become a city virtually without men. Out of a civilian population of 2,700,000, 2,000,000 were women. It is small wonder that the fear of sexual attack raced through the city like a plague. Doctors were besieged by patients seeking information on the quickest way to commit suicide, and poison was in great demand.

In Berlin stood a charity institution, the Haus Dehlem, an orphanage, maternity hospital, and foundling home. Soviet soldiers entered the home, and repeatedly raped pregnant women and women who had just given birth. This was not an isolated incident. No one will ever know how many women were raped, but doctors' estimates run as high as 100,000 for the city of Berlin alone, their ages ranging from 10 to 70.

On March 24, 1945, our "noble Soviet allies" entered Danzig. A 50-year-old Danzig teacher reported that her niece, 15, was raped seven times, and her other niece, 22, was raped fifteen times. A Soviet officer told a group of women to seek safety in the Cathedral. Once they were securely locked inside, the Soviets entered, and ringing the bells and playing the organ, "celebrated" a foul orgy through the night, raping all the women, some more than thirty times. A Catholic pastor in Danzig declared, "They violated even eight-year-old girls and shot boys who tried to shield their mothers."

The Most Reverend Bernard Griffin, British Archbishop, made a tour of Europe to study conditions there, and reported, "In Vienna alone they raped 100,000 women, not once but many times, including girls not yet in their teens, and aged women."

A Lutheran pastor in Germany, in a letter of August 7, 1945, to the Bishop of Chichester, England, describes how a fellow pastor's "two daughters and a grandchild (ten years of age) suffer from gonorrhea, [as a] result of rape" and how "Mrs. N. was killed when she resisted an attempt to rape her," while her daughter was "raped and deported, allegedly to Omsk, Siberia, for indoctrination."

The day after our noble Soviet allies conquered Neisse, Silesia, 182 Catholic nuns were raped. In the diocese of Kattowitz 66 pregnant nuns were counted. In one convent when the Mother Superior and her assistant tried to protect the younger nuns with outstretched arms, they were shot down. A priest reported in Nord Amerika magazine for November 1, 1945, that he knew "several villages where all the women, even the aged and girls as young as twelve, were violated daily for weeks by the Russians."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stories just like this were confirmed to me by my neighbors who as refugees, found there way to my hometown near Chicago.

One ex-Berliner I worked with at Johnson/OMC outboards in Waukegan, IL, was a rape victim...her story is too sick to repeat on this board.

In the course of human events, I pray that atrocities like that NEVER happen again.


68ROX
« Last Edit: July 19, 2007, 10:27:28 AM by 68ROX »

Offline Neubob

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
      • My Movie Clip Website
I hate russia.
« Reply #252 on: July 19, 2007, 10:45:49 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
Look, I have told my opinion on current state of affairs. I understand your opinion. I am not in any way a fan of comrade Putin.

My point is: both systems were equally good or bad. Now it's history, and I don't want people who planned to burn us with cold blood (and I am absolutely sure they'll never hesitate if they'll see a 50% probability of success) throw **** at my Counrty, at the people who defeated nazis and then built up our country from ashes to face the threat of a nuclear holocaust only because they wanted to live their own way.


Nobody likes **** thrown at their country, Beard, especially by an outsider whose practical understanding of the deeper condition of your people, their tragedies, their struggles and their approach to history, is hopelessly outweighed by his bitterness. Anybody that wishes for the evaporation of your ethnicity, or for anarchy to descend upon the streets that you walk every day is probably not worth the breath you're going to waste trying to rebut him.

That being said, as a Russian, and as a free-thinking person in general, I tend to disagree with your perspective on things. As I mentioned earlier, my grandfather, also named Pavel, is the only one I've ever met in person who would agree with your support of the old ways. But then, he is about 70 years older than you, and 73 years older than me. His thinking, as sharp as it remains, is outdated and more than slightly deluded.

I've lived in the States for most of my life, and thus will never call my place of birth 'home'. But Russia will always be my Rodina. It, and its people, as flawed as they are, will always occupy a place in my heart. I have sympathy for them and their situation, even though my own family felt the wrath of the very system which turned Russia into a Superpower. If anything, having the Russian experience thoroughly engraved in my mind helps to give perspective when approaching other nations and ethnicities.

What I do not understand is the systematic filing and comparison of attrocities in an effort to prove who was the worst ever. One person gives examples of Russian attrocities on Germans, another retorts with German attrocities on Russians. What's the point? Can anybody here say, with a straight face, that there's a group of innocent people that suffered more than the Russians in WWII? More than the Jews? More than the Germans? More than the Japanese? Is the suffering of any one group more significant, more meaningful than that of any other? And conversely, do any of the attrocities committed by the Russians, Germans, Japanese, or anyone else involved fall short of extreme?

Suffering and death, as well as cruelty, of that magnitude, is horrendous to the maximum degree. All aforementioned parties  endured 100% of what a group of humans could or should ever have to endure. All oppressors oppressed to an equal degree. There is no worse thing. Comparing 100,000 raped and murdered against 120,000 raped and murdered in an effort to see who won or lost the game of 'less cruel aggressor' is a futile mockery of everyone who lived, or died there.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2007, 11:02:09 AM by Neubob »

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
I hate russia.
« Reply #253 on: July 19, 2007, 11:05:00 AM »
Again, I think the point is that there is nothing but denial.

Way back in this thread it was about shooting down aircraft in international airspace.

Ask any American about the Vincennes/Iran Air incident and they will tell you it was a terrible mistake, that our military screwed the pooch, that we wish it had never happened and that procedures should be taken to try and ensure it never happens again.

Ask a Russian about KAL 007 and you either hear crickets or you hear those bastards were in our sacred airspace and deserved to die. The same is said about aircraft that were clearly NOT in the sacred airspace but in international airspace.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Neubob

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
      • My Movie Clip Website
I hate russia.
« Reply #254 on: July 19, 2007, 11:10:04 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
Again, I think the point is that there is nothing but denial.

Way back in this thread it was about shooting down aircraft in international airspace.

Ask any American about the Vincennes/Iran Air incident and they will tell you it was a terrible mistake, that our military screwed the pooch, that we wish it had never happened and that procedures should be taken to try and ensure it never happens again.

Ask a Russian about KAL 007 and you either hear crickets or you hear those bastards were in our sacred airspace and deserved to die. The same is said about aircraft that were clearly NOT in the sacred airspace but in international airspace.


Kal 007 was a terrible mistake, and if it wasn't a mistake, it was a crime for which those responsible deserved and deserve punishment. Airspace is not more important than human life, and national pride is not more important than justice.

These are the words of a Russian.