Comments by "Андрей Борцов" (@Mentol_) on "Top 7 Red Army Myths - World War 2" video.
-
10
-
9
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@angiolinobenedetti1678
1. Suvorov’s goal is to prove his theory. What's the problem here? He cites facts in favor of his theory (often false), and he simply ignores those that contradict it. If your task is to research history, then you check all available facts and carefully analyze them.
2. Hitler decided to destroy Poland in April 1939. The Molotov Pact did not change the German plan. This pact did not contain anything at all about military actions against Poland or an alliance with Germany. But Soviet intervention shortened the duration of the war in Poland.
3. The common border between Germany and the USSR was created after the defeat of the Polish army. Even if the Red Army does not begin an operation in Poland, the Wehrmacht still wins and receives a common border, but to the east.
4. A world war is a coalition conflict. The USSR declared its neutrality in such a conflict. The operation in Poland was an intervention without full resistance from the Polish army. The war in Finland was a two-way conflict that was not part of the Second World War.
The USSR was returning territories that had previously been part of the Russian empire, but did not want to become a participant in a coalition war. The return of former territories is not an invasion of Europe, but a matter of Soviet security and influence.
5. The USSR had military cooperation with the Weimar Republic. The Third Reich and Weimar Germany are states with different ideologies. When Hitler gained power, military cooperation was stopped.
Soviet trade with Hitler was beneficial to the USSR because it gave it German technologies that strengthened Soviet industry. Trade does not violate neutral status in a European war.
6. If you want to understand why Hitler started World War II, then you need to study German documents. For example, transcripts of Hitler’s meetings with the generals on November 5, 1937, May 23, 1939 and August 22, 1939. Suvorov ignores this information.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. You did not provide evidence of the existence of the Soviet suicide order (no details or order numbers).
2. The war of annihilation creates a different morality. This is not a fight for human rights. The more brutal orders are created, the greater the likelihood that your state will survive in this war. Thus, cruel orders are a good during a war of annihilation, not a crime against morality. That is why I consider the modern projection of liberal values on an old history a big mistake.
In reality, it was a war of two different systems and worldviews, but modern liberal morality interprets this war as a battle of two totalitarian regimes, which is also a mistake and violates the historical context. These countries did not consider themselves totalitarian (this is a system for Mussolini, not for them).
3. I do not understand your extensive argument about the immorality of the filtering procedure. In the first message, I showed you detailed statistics where it can be seen that there were a minority of soldiers arrested after filtering. Thus, I see no reason for your reasoning about immorality. The procedure should be carried out so that the state feels safe. This is a matter of state security, and not the fate of individual innocent people. Another context.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
> Poor tactics created manpower shortages.
Among all the continental enemies of Germany (Poland, France, Yugoslavia, Greece), the USSR had the best loss coefficient in comparison with the Wehrmacht. You can't win a war relying on bad tactics, it's just a myth. The reality is that the USSR turned out to be stronger than Germany in all aspects (military, industrial, moral), and therefore won. That is, this is not an accidental, but a natural victory.
1
-
> That's irrevelant because none of these countries had the human/material ressources of the USSR
For example, France and his western allies had (in May 1940) 3,785,000 people against Germany which had 3,300,000. Moreover, having numerical superiority and “good tactics”, they lost the campaign, and the USSR, which had 3,881,551 (in June 1941) and “bad tactics” against Germany and its allies who had 5,042,100, won the campaign (strategically) and the war as a whole. Of course, the USSR had more material and human resources than France alone, but if the Western allies could stop the Wehrmacht, their economic and human potential would have approximate parity with Germany. And this is even without the United States.
> and were ultimetately defeated on a strategic scale allowing Germany to bag up large numbers of PoW
My numbers of losses for France (1.5 million) do not include prisoners taken after surrender. You can calculate how much they had in the beginning of the war + mobilization + something left after.
> Apologists of the USSR are eager to use any kind of lies and distortions to prove their point, comparing Greece's performance to the USSR's in one of them.
I’m only talking about the fact that if the indicators of other countries are worse than the USSR, but in relation to these countries no one says that they use bad tactics (an element of the information war), as for the USSR, then this is obviously propaganda (as your old thesis that the USSR created a “fake country and fake history” = bias).
> You can't win a war relying on bad tactics, it's just a myth.
> The USSR proved that's possible.
He did not prove it, and you simply believed it based on demonization. In other words, you believed in a dead concept. First you must prove the correctness of your concept (looking for rational factors, but demonization is not such), then you should get consensus from other people and only after that you will have a moral right to say that this is true.
> "Natural" because Germany faced the USSR + USA + British Empire.
The forces of the United States and Britain have nothing to do with the balance of forces (military and economic) on the eastern front. Moreover, the USSR produced more weapons than Germany in the first half of 1941, that is, before the war began. This refutes the myth that it is only thanks to the Lend-Lease of the USSR to produce more weapons than Germany. By the way, German documents (for example, Alfred Jodl’s report of November 7, 1943) also refute your thesis that "Germany waged the main economic war against the USA, and not against the USSR." The report explicitly states that it was only thanks to the large-scale military production of the USSR that Germany was forced to start a total war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@angiolinobenedetti1678
1. The military reason for Hitler’s attack on the USSR is described in the diary of France Halder dated July 31, 1940. Briefly: it was an attempt to deprive England of the last hope of victory in the war. Suvorov ignores this fact.
2. Bessarabia was part of the Russian Empire. Romania annexed it in 1918. Bukovina was not part of Russia, but Ukrainians lived there, which Molotov warned the German side about.
3. According to statistics, the percentage of Soviet oil in Germany’s overall balance in 1940 was 12%.
4. In the USSR, the Polish political regime was officially called fascist. This regime refused to create a military coalition against Germany. From a certain moment, Stalin decided that there was no point in trying to come to an agreement with England and France, but it was better to conclude a pact with Germany and liquidate Poland. The liquidation of the fascist state and the long war between capitalist countries were beneficial for the USSR. But this is not an argument in favor of Suvorov’s theory because the initiator of the war is Hitler, and the USSR remains neutral and benefits from trade with Germany.
5. You need to take information about Soviet airfields from Soviet documents, not from Suvorov’s book. Much of the facts in this book are incorrect.
6. If you open the field manual of the Red Army 1939 (which is available in Russian), you will see that the Red Army can use both defense and offense. Here Suvorov is wrong. The book goes on to say that the Red Army gives preference to the offensive because it allows you to maintain the strategic initiative and defeat the enemy. Static defense is used primarily in secondary sectors of the front.
7. Any weapon can be used offensively or defensively. Suvorov is misleading his readers here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@angiolinobenedetti1678
1). The bulk of documents are always aimed at describing internal processes in the state. The government uses this data to run its country properly. A minority of documents are created for propaganda purposes. If you say that all Soviet documents are false, then this means that the Soviet government does not have accurate information about how to manage its economy, army, NKVD and other institutions.
2). I don't need to read American propaganda to know Hitler's goals. All I need to do is read the words of Hitler himself.
Hitler's "table talks", recording dated September 17, 1941.
“The outcome of the struggle for hegemony in the world will be decided in favor of Europe through the possession of Russian territories. And then Europe will become an impregnable fortress, safe from all threats of blockade. All this opens up economic prospects, which, one can believe, will persuade the majority of liberal Western democrats to the new order. At this time, the most important thing is to conquer. After that, everything else will simply be a problem for the organization."
Entry dated October 26, 1941.
“My task is to use the advantages of continental hegemony. It’s funny to think about world politics if you haven’t achieved control over the continent. The Spaniards, the Dutch, the French, and we ourselves learned this from our own experience. If you are the master in Europe, it means you dominate the world. There are 130 million in the Reich, 90 million in the Ukraine. Add to this the other countries of New Europe, and we get 400 million, compared to 130 million Americans."
3). Was Germany economically strong enough to realize such ambitious goals? Well, we have statistics to verify this. For example, let's take the industrial potential of the USSR.
Data of 1939.
Steel (million tons).
Germany - 22.3, USSR - 17.6;
Cast iron (million tons).
Germany - 19.7, USSR - 14.5;
Coal (million tons).
Germany - 233.7, USSR - 146.2;
Electricity (billion kW / h).
Germany - 66.3, USSR - 43.3.
As we see, Germany has superiority in the field of basic indicators of industrial potential over the USSR. As for England, its industrial potential is even lower than the Soviet one. The USSR and England have many natural resources, but England cannot fight against Germany on equal terms without a continental ally, and the USSR has its own weak points in the economy, such as the production of aluminum and gunpowder.
1
-
@angiolinobenedetti1678
1. The problem is that you constantly quote people who are not professional historians. If I refute one of their arguments, then you will simply bring a new one, but will not change your source of information.
2. The number of tanks or aircraft has nothing to do with a political act of aggression. This number only shows what concept of technology the military doctrine of this country uses. France had more tanks than Germany and it even carried out an offensive operation in September 1939. But this operation was not a political act of aggression. Finland had fewer tanks than the USSR, but it also had two options for a plan - passive defense or an offensive operation if the situation allowed.
Weak countries may consider passive defense because they do not have the strength to fight an active war. Strong countries rely mainly on the offensive plan because it allows them to enter the war profitably and maintain the initiative.
The Soviet operation was not created as part of an act of aggression. The Soviet plan was only an outline of the first operations in a potential war and was not worked out for the complete destruction of Germany. The Soviet plan could be implemented even if Germany initiated the war. But the Soviet plan did not assume that Germany could attack immediately with a full mobilized army without a period of deployment and political requirements.
3. There are German documents that say that after the defeat of France, the air and sea war against England was not a big problem for the German economy. Germany had at least 2 years to destroy the USSR before England and Usa could attack in western Europe.
4. To understand the balance of forces, you need to look not only at the number of tanks, but at the balance between tanks/trucks/infantry/artillery. Tanks do not fight on their own, but are part of the organizational structure of the army. The USSR had more tanks and aircraft, but fewer cars, motorized infantry, and worse artillery tractors. The USSR did not have armored personnel carriers. Tanks cannot fight without normal infantry and artillery support. The Wehrmacht completed mobilization and had it, but the Red Army did not have mobilization and did not have time to complete its deployment on the western border. As a result, German divisions with a balance of infantry and equipment defeated Soviet divisions, which had many tanks and little support.Germany had fewer aircraft, but used them several times more intensively (per day), which gave the German army superiority on the battlefield.
5. The principle of strategy says that in order to achieve superiority in the right place, you weaken forces in secondary areas. After the defeat of France, the main potential front for Germany became the Soviet one. The air operation against England was an improvisation.
Hitler's speech at a meeting with generals on March 30, 1941.
“Now there is an opportunity to defeat Russia having a free rear. This opportunity will not come again so soon. I would be a criminal before the German people if I did not take advantage of this.”
Diary of Frans Halder. Entry dated March 30, 1941.
“Only subject to the final and complete solution of all land problems will we be able to fulfill the tasks facing us (in terms of equipment and personnel) in the air and at sea over the next two years.”
Entry dated March 28, 1942 - “the outcome of the war is being decided in the east.”
The absence of a second front in Europe allowed Hitler to use 85% of the ground army and 2/3 of the aviation against the USSR. In the West, Germany went on the defensive, and in Africa, on active defense. Therefore, to understand the German strategy, you need to look at the priority of their fronts, and not at the cost of individual types of weapons, as some publicists do. For example, the cost of a submarine is more than that of a tank, but this does not mean that Germany is delivering its main blow in the west.
6. In any case, you can not answer the previous points, but simply admit that Hitler’s strategy was different from what Suvorov says about it? I brought you several documents, but I see no point in continuing the dialogue until you admit Suvorov’s mistake. The error of his entire concept, and not of individual facts.
1
-
@angiolinobenedetti1678 I cannot ignore your response because you continue to spread misinformation. You ignore the existence of German documents whose authenticity has long been established. Some of these documents were used for the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials.
Anyone can find information that the Wehrmacht used 577,000 vehicles and 680,000 horses in Operation Barbarossa. The Red Army had 148,000 vehicles and 246,000 horses (before mobilization).
Above I quoted Frans Halder's diary, but you simply ignored it. This shows that studying history does not interest you. But I also have another source and I will quote it for those people who will read our dialogue. Your denial of German sources should not mislead other people.
Diary of Joseph Goebbels, entry dated June 15, 1941:
“We must attack Russia also in order to get people. Unbeaten Russia forces us to constantly maintain 150 divisions, the personnel of which we urgently need for our military industry. Our industry must work more intensively so that we can fulfill our program for production of weapons, submarines and aircraft, then the USA will also not be able to harm us in any way. There is material, raw materials and machines to work in three shifts, but not enough people. When Russia is defeated, then we will be able to demobilize several age categories and then build, arm and prepare. Only then can an attack on England from the air on a large scale be launched. An invasion of England by land is hardly possible under all circumstances. Thus, other guarantees of victory must be created."
"We must realize that we have more production capacity, they much larger than in 1914-1918" - Hitler (Meeting with generals, August 22, 1939).
"Today we have superiority over the enemy, as well as numerical superiority in the West, behind the army is the most powerful military industry in the world." - Hitler (Meeting with generals, 23 November 1939).
According to statistics, Germany had 1,707,000 industrial machine tools in 1938. This is the first place in the world.
For comparison.
USA - 827,000 (1940).
USSR - 710,000 (1941).
England - 521,000 (1941).
That is, Germany had more machine tools than England and the USSR together, but it had problems with a shortage of labor and natural resources. After the implementation of Plan Barbarossa, Hitler planned to obtain Soviet resources and give his industry more workers.
1
-
1