Comments by "Horatio82" (@horatio8213) on "I agree with Christer Bergström's "Operation Barbarossa: 9 popular myths busted" article" video.

  1. I agree that T-26 is complicated subject. Vickers was one of the best tank of 1930's. Bigger problem was that was old tank in 1941. Heavly used by Red Army in early years, they just start falling because of age. Also Red Army was not that good in maintance of complicated equipment in 1941. As a one of the main tanks of Red Army it was still dangerous opposition to German Panzers, even to Panzer IV. Big portion of German tanks in 1941 was tanks like Pz 38(t), Pz II and Pz III with short 50 mm gun. Also soviet 45 mm was good support gun in useage against soft targets. Many T-26 was use with good effect against Japan's armies in 1945.
    6
  2.  @3ddevelopment979  Any german tank was easy to destroy by Soviet 45 mm gun. It is not fault of the T-26 tanks that they were so easy destroyed. Rather weakness of Soviet commanding staff and bad training of crew members.
    4
  3.  @nicolasheung441  Then look on Wehrmacht and German allies tanks. In 1941 basicly no of this tanks could be safe from soviet AT weapons, from AT guns to lighter infantry firearm like PTRD. In comparision only Panzer III and Panzer IV were better tanks than T-26. Rest of German tanks were worse or similar to T-26. Or you will claim that Pz II or Pz 38 (t) are so much better than T-26? Remeber that no German tank armor could defend against 45 mm gun.
    4
  4.  Dwarov 1  If you belive that USSR were wealthier and have better medical system than Germany in 1930's and 1940's, you just belive in soviet propaganda. Official Soviet data in both cases are unrealistic or just made up for propaganda perpous. On paper Soviet claim maybe looks good, but in reality was much worse. Paper wealth of country do not automaticly is a wealth of citizens. In reality standard if living in Third Reich was much highier than in USSR before 1941. Also German medical standard were better. It is just like USSR claim that Soviet standards of living were better than in USA in times of Cold War (which is just BS) . Third Reich and USSR destroy each other in attricion war. Demographic shows that even today. Both countries lose milion of soldiers, but dynamic of this losses was different in time. In 1941-1942 Soviet losses were much highier than German and their allies. But from 1943 level of this losses was much closer. Statistics show that German losses were close in the end to Soviet numbers. And 10:1 number made by some German sources is any way close to reality.
    3
  5.  @ang47  Not a problem I also think that mister D is loud troll.
    3
  6.  @KnightofAges  Yeah, if you look on vehicles based on Vickers E basis, T-26. Polish 7 TP, even whole family of Italian tanks or Finish version there were quite good tanks. Maybe little obselete in 1941, but T-26 with 45 mm canon was still very dangerous to most of German equipment.
    3
  7.  @Кремень-ц8ю  And to make it clear, German documentation is more open to study. Even data that are edited of falsefied they still could be compare with other sources. In case of USSR documentation and claims even today it is hard to get to the original. Soviet and Russia governments still keep big portion of documentation closed even for historians. People like Dwarow without any criticism use official soviet data and on this basis make stiupid claims. If we belive in soviet version of war, Wehrmacht and it's equipment was destroyed by Red Army in crazy number. But in archives on both sides we have lot of information that do not agree with official narration. USA and UK staatistic are open to criticism, Soviet not. That cause this crazy belive in "Soviets were the best in everything".
    2
  8.  @Кремень-ц8ю  "In precentage Germans get better traetment" According to the Mueller-Gillebrand Handbook, by the end of 44, about the same number of people were demobilized for health reasons as were killed. Actually, this is a monstrous sanitary loss. Soviet at least 2 times less. (too lazy to take reference books and write exact numbers)." Then take a notice that many Red Army soldiers died form wounds before evacuation and land in global number killed in action. That is one of the part of difference in level of dissproportion in losses in Red Army in comparision to other armies. In many books wrote by soviet veterans you can find information how low priority was put on evacuation from battlefield by commanding stuff. If you look on this statistics in this light it look like that Germans evacuate more effectivly even heavy wounded from battlefield. How important for Germans was this proces you can observe on Stalingrad airlift, when Germans use planes to evacuate wounded soldiers. Red Army never use planes in such action like that in WW2. Different priority. Great picture of reality of Soviet soldiers you can see in book like "Ivan's War" wrote by Catherine Merridale. But she is Westener and she can't be right by your argument. Then maybe "Nikolai N. Nikulin - MEMORIES from the WAR" could give some light about realities of Great Patriotic War. No one take bravery and skills from soviet medical servicemens and womens, but claims that Soviet regime care so much for medical service is just taken straight from propaganda. As a example how life do not agree with propaganda I give yoy simple case of war in Afganistan. Where 3/4 Soviet Army soldiers were hospitalized. Not even from wounds, but they were victimes of low standars of medic service. When in the same time as you claim USSR have best medical service in world! "Poor Cuba had better medicine than the super-rich USA ( on average for each person)" Ah myth of greate Cuban health service. Then why when Cuban medical service is so much better Americans live longer at averange? It is only few months but still numbers do not lie. And compare medical service for Cubans, not turists. Hospitals in Cuba are understaffed and have problems with lack of moder equipment and drugs. But noone can say that Cuban medical staff is bad, in education and practice they are on top level. "Using blund numbers without context do not prove nothing. Yes Germans in official data lies the same like Soviets." "First is just a problem of numbers of Soviets wounded and take that number in contex of whole war. Because with decline of quality of this service and fall of Germany in 1944-45 tip that numbers on their dissadvantage." You don't know what you're saying. The first half of the war - one continuous disaster for the red army (the attack on the unmobilized army), the second half - for the Wehrmacht. So what? Do you have a context for the Wehrmacht, but not for the red army? ))" Maybe you not understand that I see that both Red Army and Wermacht in time of crisis were not that effective in recovery of wounderd. But for Germans that situation was basicly last one and half year of war. When Soviet practice didn't change that much for whole war. And how Soviet saw value of own soldiers is best seen by issuing Order nr 227. Very humane. Or creation of penal battalions in Red Army, basicly suicide formations. Yes Red Army was most humane army, just after Japaness Imperial Army. "The USSR is not a rich country. A Northern country with the harshest climate on the planet can't be very rich at all." Maybe you forgott about Canada, Sweden, Norway or Finland. Countries with less resources butt much more developed than USSR and today Russia. They have better averange standards of living even without "soviet reforms". Do not mention first class medical service. ""Yes Germans in official data lies the same like Soviets." An example of a lie you call will be able to?" Example: Compare estimation on both sides battle of Kursk. Both sides claim much bigger casualities on enemy that were in reality it look different. Both German and Red Army historian for years spread false statistics. In their publications many times facts mix with fiction. Also official historic review done by Soviet Army historians were full of overestimation of German advantage over Red Army in 1941. Take a case of tanks, when Red Army have tanks like T-34 and KV, Germans have similar number of Pz III and IV which were weaker tanks. In pure numbers Red Army could operate over 23000 tanks versus 4000 Axis tanks! But in eyes of Soviets they were weaker side in any case! Because all soviet tanks were obselete and German tanks were superior, just like Pz II vs T-26 or BT-5 :) Also data about economic progress done by USSR in years befor WW2 are full of manipulation or propaganda. In reality even today is very hard to estimate real numbers. And maybe most controversial. Number of victimes of communist terror, like Great Purge or Holodomor. Do I have to give you more? "German documentation is more open to study." Is ridiculous. ))" Not really ridiculous, German archives were captured in the end of war and they were study for years by historians. Today you can without any problem go to Germany and study open archives.There is no problem with accses to them. In opposite many documents in Soviet and Russian archives were closed to reserchers and hisorians. Even today we hear that Russian administration restrict some documents, strange as you yourself tell 30 years after fall of USSR. Bunch of documents we knew because after 1991 in chaos after fall of USSR many historians go there and copy lot of documentation. Today is not that easy. Like few weeks ago, for political purpose Russian government relese secret reports about Poland, reports from before WW2! And other documents from archives from WW2. Documents that was keep in secret. Strange as youself stated, 30 years after USSR fall. Really strange. "The modern government of the Russian Federation is extreme anti-Soviets." You make me laugh here.... "I'm not even talking about the fact that the German losses have not been counted yet! ))) For some reason, you don't want to talk about it. ))" Why not, if wer can find also Soviet losse because here also there is lot of different numbers. There is lot of controversy here.
    2
  9.  Dwarov 1  You again spread Soviet propaganda. If German could fight one on one against USSR, Soviet economy would collapsed in 1942. In 1941 and 1942 producion drasticly fall. Not without reason main soviet tank production in 1942 was limited in first half of year and start rising in second part! All with conection in evacuation of industy and Lend Lease that boost failing soviet economy. USA nad UK provide war equipment, food , resources, high tech equipmet to bost soviet war production. Without this help most of later soviet successes in production was not possiable. But that is subject that offical soviet history not mention. Without american grain, meat and canned food, like famous Tushonka, population and Red Army would suffer devastating famine! Food production was much lower than before war because Germans captured Ukraine Leningrad and Stalingrad suffer isolation from other parts of USSR. Cooperative factories can't provide parts and equipment . In blocked Leningrad production of T-50 tank was stopped and other types were produced in limited numbers! That in any case was keeping pre war level of production! Without US trucks Red Army would be operating most of logistic like Wermacht on horse back! After war soviet economy need years to made to levels from before war! And maybe you do not know but USSR fail as a economic experiment. In 1991 USSR, this superpower fall, when can't even feed own nations.
    2
  10.  @Кремень-ц8ю  Reading you I am thinking that you do not notieced that USSR fall and people can refer not only to your opinion and only to source provided by USSR or Russian government.You negate communist crimes and basicly live in imaginary world of soviet propaganda. . 1 million tons per year with its own production in many tens -a hundred million?" My mistake.But you want to convince us that USSR produce so much food that even without Ukraine and Biealarus taken in middle of summer there were no food shortage? Yes and you can throw any number with soviet source that couldn't be crosschecked. ""Soviet production of food never was enough to avoid food shortage in USSR in the time of communism. " Are you drunk or an idiot ?" Food shortage was always problem in communist economy. Maybe you will claim that Holodomor and faimne in Kazahstan in 1930's never happened? "When Wehrmacht use smaller number. Then again you use manipulation to made Red Army weaker and Wehrmacht stronger. Wermacht use over 100 000 to 160 00 trucks in Barbarossa. (different sources, different estimations)" 100K?! LOL WHAT?! )) Dear idiot! :) On page 304 on the link provided by YOU it is written: total in the Wehrmacht 828К trucks 638К Barbarossa (estimates) 600 \ 450К It's a lot of fun when a person doesn't know what is written in their own link. )) I will add that ( in my opinion) this estimate of the number is made only for the "active field army" (about 1 \ 2 of the total number of the Wehrmacht). Because this is a typical Western manipulation-only take them into account. This happens from almost 100% of Western sources. I talked about it in the video. ))" You have problem with reading documents. Wehrmacht never in the same time use 500 000 truck. In the same time! Production of trucks is not the same as usage. Then how they can use only for Barbarossa 600 000 trucks? What with other fronts and occiupied territories? For whole war main field transport in Wehrmacht was provided by horse! On starategic level the same like in USSR by trains. You read text but you cut and use only what you think is true! "And if UK did not fought Third Reich when Hitler invade USSR, german economy would use oil, steel and othe materials that was used to create UBoots fleet to build tanks, planes and trukcs. That dramaticly would change numbers of this equipment in Wehrmacht. Do not mention lack of blockade provided by RN and trade done by Third Reich by sea." That is whole quote from that I wrote. If in 1940 or 1941 UK agree to sign peace with Hitler USSR would stand alone. No help from UK from USA would be send. Third Reich could buy oil like before war from South America and trade with many partners. In the same time there would be no need for building submarine fleet. Than much more German manpower and industrial output would be ready in 1941 to be used in war against USSR. That is the thing you do not understand! If you claim that in 1941 Red Army wasn't ready, that in this case mean that much better equiped and with better material situation Wehrmacht could operate much deper than was possiable in reality of 1941. Luftwaffe could move plane use in defence of Reich to Eastern Front and then WWS would get wors fate than in 1941. Whole war to 1943 would be different. I am finishing disscusion with you. What is the point to talk with some who is living in soviet propaganda bubble. If your arguments were close to truth that USSR today should be economical and military superpower, more powerfull than USA or China. Insted USSR is long gone. Why comrad? Because all that was lie and USSR destroyed itself and couldn't compete with reality.
    2
  11. There is interstesting thesis made by Mark Solonin that Stalin and communist leaders of USSR inflate numbers of killed Soviet soldiers and civilians. That was one of many ways to hide real numbers of victimes of Soviet terror done before WW2. http://www.solonin.org/en/article_fire-in-the-storehouse
    2
  12.  @ang47  You probably do not read what I wrote. I agree with TIK, because he got right picture. Soviet loses were horriable in 1941-42 in comparision to Germans and their allies. But that change in 1943. Ratio between Soviet and German loses was much better for USSR than in 1941, but still Germans bring hevy losses on them. Do you now understand? By the way it is funny when I am called communist and pro Western in the same time.
    1
  13.  @Кремень-ц8ю  I wrote about lies that USSR was wealthier and had better medicine than Germany before WW2. In precentage Germans get better traetment than most of Soviets. Soldiers and civilians. Of course that situation was changing. On frontlines situation was more dynamic. But still medical service in Wehrmacht was better organise than in Red Army. Only big dissadvantage of Wehrmacht was that the Allied and Soviets produce and provide much more advance drugs and equipment in wartime. That is one of asspects in war time cooperation and role of Lend Lease program. Many soldiers of Red Army wrote how traetment of wounded was low priority for command staff and how important was role of women Army members in keeping wounded alive. But still Soviet logistic do not care that much on providing medical service on frontlines, much better that work in the rear. Problem with claim that Soviet medicine returnes largest number of wounded is build on two asspects. First is just a problem of numbers of Soviets wounded and take that number in contex of whole war. Because with decline of quality of this service and fall of Germany in 1944-45 tip that numbers on their dissadvantage. Using blund numbers without context do not prove nothing. Yes Germans in official data lies the same like Soviets. But number of doctors or numbers of hospitals do not mean that Soviet medicine in USSR was better as whole. Because even if some fields Soviets made great discoveries That do not mean that was global standard of medicine in USSR. I discuss with lies about standard of living in that was state by Dwarow. Also there is difference on global level of service and incidents.
    1
  14.  @Кремень-ц8ю  Why you assume I am from lthe West? I am Pole and do not belive in good intentions of great powers like USA, Germany or Russia. We get that lesson in WW2 . They do not have morality, it is always a biznes and imperial ambitions. Just like Russia yesterday and today. If Russian government respect own neibors they would cooperate with it. No one want next war in Europe. That would be grave for us and Russia. Countries which I named do not have any imperial ambitions like Russia, they do not invade anyone for nearly 200 years. They were rather potencial victimes of stronger neibors. But they exist as a peacefull rich nations today. Small Finland beat Stalin and survive beeing invade in 1939. Sweden stay neutral and strong for last century (there even had militarny nuclear program but they resign from it). Canada exist even when USA as a neibor. Russia in own history treat own citizens poorly and early USSR was the worst of it. What is the sence of beeing powefull if your own citizens are starving and live in poverty. The greatest enemies of nations of Russia were people like Stalin and Lenin which killed more of own people then any invader. Russia is not strong today, if price of oil would fall whole Russian economy would fall again.Ans Thaat would put Russia again into the chaos. That is that power? Biggest country in the world that could not feed itself to the last years! Thanks to some reforms now you can do it. All that power and Russia economy is as "big" as small Netherlands. Such a potencial, such a waste of greate nation. West is the same in objectives like Russia. Which in own history have enslavment and imperial ambitions. Russia starts many wars and many times done worst things like genocide that you put blame on others. Your goverments are the same insane like US or other imperial powers from past. I do not have any regret to Russian, I pity you because your governments are destroying you faster than any external enemy. You are the first victimes of this insanity. Russia should be a economical giant, and that power would have great fundament. Rich Russia is good thing, you could be wealthier than USA but thx to your goverments you are becoming Chinesse colony. Greatest tragwdy of Russia came from own government not from outside. And today in science Russia is far behind countries like Japan and South Korea. Even China and India are building and that nventing more than Russia. They are powers of tommorow. And there is many things that made Russia part of this West that you hate in eyes of the Asian nation. China do not forget years of Russian domination, they just waiting to put knife in your back.
    1
  15.  @Кремень-ц8ю  1) First Germany take Austria, later Czehoslovakia! You are sure your knowledge? 2) Nobody murdered Soviet POW from war of 1919-21. They were the same victimes of epidamies and faine that struck also polish civilians at the same time! Red Cross reports kill tah myth very easly: https://www.msz.gov.pl/pl/ministerstwo/historia/wydarzenia/jency_radzieccy_w_polsce_archiwalia_miedzynarodowego_komitetu_czerwonego_krzyza_i_ligi_narodow About soviet tanks in 1941. In whole Red Army were over 23 00 tanks. Over 14 00 were concetrated in western border befor 22nd June of 1941. Bigger part were in units. Rest was put in repair stations, mobilisation storage, etc. By Soviet reports from this time over 80% was fully operational and ready to fight. The how much is 80% from 23 00? 18 400! In fights in half of the 1941 year Red Army lose 20 500 tanks. Loses were taken in combat and by mechanical failure or crew s just abandon them. Many causes, effect was the same. For many years USSR claim tha Germans have more and better tanks. Let see: Germans attack with allies having around 4000 tanks. Also not all of them at front in the same time. Best German tanks were Pz IV and Pz III. Early versions with thin armor and weak arrament. Short barrel 75 mm and 50 mm cannons. Around 1200 of German tanks were this models. Rest of German tanks were tanks like Pz 38(t) or Pz II. First with 37 mm gun, second with 20 mm automatic gun. Or French H 35/39, R 35/40 or Souma S35. At Soviet side 900 T-34 and 500 KV-1 nad KV-2. Modern and dangerous tanks. Armed with deadly 76 mm and 152 mm (!) guns and armored in that way that only few German guns could destroy them. Rest of soviet tanks were good enough to compare with most German counterparts. Only light tanks like T-37/38/40 were light armed with 12.7 MG or 20 mm canon. Tanks like BT-5/7 or T-26 in most cases were armed in very good 45 mm canon. Sources (just few of them) 1)N.P.Zolotov and S.I. Isayev, "Boyegotovy byli...", Voenno-Istorichesskiy Zhurnal, N° 11: 1993, p. 77 2)Nic dobrego na wojnie (Нет блага на войне) Mark Solonin 2011 (Rebis)  3)Pranie mózgu. Fałszywa historia Wielkiej Wojny (Мозгоимение. Фальшивая история Великой войны) Mark Solonin 2013 (Rebis) 4) https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/ww2_Soviet_Tanks.php 5)Zaloga, Steven J.; James Grandsen (1984). Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two. With more time I can bring you more examples and primary sources from my press and books colection. It would be hundreds of articules with bibliography that I read from 1990's to today. Aslo you wrongly assume that i do not know russian history. That I do not agree with you do not mean that i do not know facts.
    1
  16.  @Кремень-ц8ю  Multiply reporting, no physical evidence of execution. Red Cross, Leuage of Nations and other Third parties investigate Soviet accusation. Dear. "Commrad" even today Russian governmental historia send to sites of POW camps and Graves do not find any evidence supporting this lie. You can check that only source of this accusations are based on "eye witness" without any material evidence. I provide you link to reports and relations. But as I susspect any evidence do not convince you, because you are biased. And where are your evidence? Let talk about tanks. For first not only Russian historians that work with documents prove that Red Army was well equiped in tanks. German relations were in the same way discribing soviet equipment of this type. Not mention German's shock when they meet T-34 and KV tanks. And it is just funny because multiply sources do not confirm your staements. All Red Army staatistic lie? Then how I can belive in any soviet claim, how you can use them if in this case militarny statistic were proven be authentic. Falsification was done in later publications to make Red Army weaker than it was in reality. And to hide real reasons of disaster of first months. Lets go with number. What mean that Red Army could operate 23 000 tanks? That mean that is global number of this Type of equipment in Red Army. No army use 100% of own tanks. As mechanical device tanks also can breake but also repaired. Second case some of this tanks were in units stationed in Far East and some of them stay there. But not all. Some of them were transfered and fought on front with Germans. Next thing you claim that historians do not understand soviet system of statistic use to describe a state of army. As a person trained in statistic I agree that you have to knoq how to read and understand them. Then first thing. Red Army system use 4 category for describing combat readiness in 1941. 1. New produce models of tanks that were delivered, check and ready for combat. In 1941 that were T-34 and KV. 2. Older models that were ready to be used by units or were in storage, but can be transfer to combat units and in days send to fight. 3. Tanks in repair, not ready to service without check in factory or special repair service Army stations. But after repair and refurbishment ready to service. 4. Tanks with serious breakage, old units sent for evaluation or to be scrap for parts. Many of them were repair and use or post as a improvised strong points. In logistic maner most of them could be use to supply parts or be scraped for war material. Even tanks send to scrap could be combat usefull in many ways. But in end how it looks at day 1st June of 1941? Because there is central report from Red Army command we. Know that in service, ready to useage were around 80% ( first two categories), third and fourth are contain around 20%.Then even not counting tanks in repair USSR could deploy against Axis forces 80% of own tanks. Including production from time of start of campaing and Battle of Moscow Red Army losses around 20 500 in fight with invaders. Few things that undermine your narration. 1) more mechanical problems were observed in newer model than in old ones. Old T-26 fight in 1945 at East without an signifcant malfunctions. Also BT tanks do not show problemsthat propaganda put on them. 2) With proper use tanks like KV or T-34 in single number stop for days German advance. Do I have to wrote examples? 3) Most captured by Germans tanks were in good shape, with simple to fix manfulctions or without fuel. Rest in majority of greate number were damaged by crews before were leaved or were destroyed in fight. 4) Most of disadvantage of soviet tank forces was lack of radio equipment, bad doctrin, weak command staff and low number combat expirence tankers. There is lot more of problems, but that is subject for a other discussion. And I see that all critics of USSR are for you Solzenicinist. Cross checked documents, even straigh from Soviet sources are not enough for you. I
    1
  17.  @Кремень-ц8ю  "@Horatio82 "no physical evidence" I have never been interested in this topic, so I do not keep ready-made reliable links at hand. Maybe later. But you "didn't see"the main thesis. This level of mortality simply did not happen anywhere, except for the Nazi extermination camps, and these Polish camps. That in itself speaks of the deliberate destruction." Again: Red Cross reports, Leauge of Nations (USSR was a member of Leauge) and foregin (independent from Poles) observers made clear that there were no planned extermination of POW in polish custody. High mortality rates never were on level that was stated by accusers. There is lot of eye vitness relations that made this accusation false. Number provide by accusers were in 80 000 to 165 000 dead. Problem is that number of POW was around 85-80 000 and sadly around 16-20 000 died in custody They died in epidemics and because of food shortage that were the same as that what hit polish civilians in the same time. In comaprison only around 50% of 51 000 Polish POW back from bolsheviks custody. Which made mortality in Bolshevik camps twice bigger than in Polish. And Poland did not claim that was any extermination done by Bolsheviks. Yekaterina Peshkova was even decorated for her help for Polish POW in Bolshevik's custody! I hope you know who she was. Because she help in transfer of POW from I again give you link to reports of Red Cross and Leauge: https://www.msz.gov.pl/pl/ministerstwo/historia/wydarzenia/jency_radzieccy_w_polsce_archiwalia_miedzynarodowego_komitetu_czerwonego_krzyza_i_ligi_narodow About tanks: "not only Russian historians that work with documents" Name a couple of Western historians who work with documents! )) Especially Soviet documents. )) I'll laugh! Beevor, perhaps? )) Whose name has long been synonymous with a liar and an idiot? )) Waiting for examples!" 1) Canadian military historian Peter Samsonov, in last year he wrote greate book about development and test of T-34. "Designing the T-34: Genesis of the Revolutionary Soviet Tank" 2) Robert Michulec, Mirosław Zientarzewski , Polish authors wrote series books on T-34, to harsh for this tank in my eyse but still valid positions. 3)Stephen Kotkin, historian and expert in Stalin and hist rule. Probably best Western biographer of Stalin. 4)Anne Applebaum "Gulag: A History" 5)Michał Fiszer. Polish officer and millitary specialist create publications about modern and historic weapons and military operations. That is just 5 names that I operate from my memory. There is thousends historians that work with soviet documentation and have own opinion how much stronger in numbers and quality of them was Red Army against Wermacht. You probaly have problem with translation, because simple comaprision of text you provide with mine show that basicly they arev the same. Evidence: You after original translation done by you: "2nd category — former (located) in operation, completely serviceable and suitable for use for its intended purpose. This also includes property that requires military repairs (current repairs)." Me: done by my on words from memory: "2. Older models that were ready to be used by units or were in storage, but can be transfer to combat units and in days send to fight. " - that means tank in service of fronline units and mobilisation storage. Also tanks in repairs in units own workshops, not intended to send to stationary workshops at rears. Then what is the difference? Because meaning is exacly the same, just in different words! That mean you do not understand English or your translation is bad! Lets go further: ""Because there is central report from Red Army command we. Know that in service, ready to useage were around 80% " Link to the report. ))) You will be looking for a non-existent document for a very long time. ))) Or it will turn out the same as with category 2. ))) Report of general head of the GABTU Lt. Gen. armored forces Yakov Fedorenko from June of 1941. Report states that 9.3% tanks need meduim repairs and 9.9% capital repairs. That mean that from 23 000 tanks in Red Armies over 80% were operational. “ O stanie zaopatrzenia Armii Czerwonej w sprzęt samochodowy i pancerny.” (About the supply of the Red Army with car and armored equipment.) Centralne Archiwum Ministerstwa Obrony Fedreacji Rosyjskiej (Central Archives of the Russian Defence Ministry ) d. 38. r.11373, t. 67, kk. 97-116 Document mention in books and many articles. Here you go that is the name of report with nr you need to apply to Russian MoD archives to get this documents. There is also bunch of other documents from other sources. I do not have time and will spend my time to waste to try to convince you. Because with other cases you just claim that authors lie or they do not understand documentation. “Next thing you claim that historians do not understand soviet system of statistic use to describe a state of army." Once again, carefully re-read what I wrote. Historians know. Western historians - idiots (or demagogues) whose opinion you use-don't know. And ordinary people don't understand anything at all. “ Personal bias without arguments not make you right.Do you ever try to read this are you call tem “Western-historians idiots”? “"bad doctrin" You don't know what you're talking about. "weak command staff and low number combat expirence tankers" and they will not be, with such a low engine life and a constant lack of fuel for training before the war. “ About “Bad doctrin”: Soviet tanks were conetrated in to oversized formations. That casue problems in commanding them as a organizated force. The same problem Germans had in first campanigs like in Poland and France. After consideration they scale back in numbers of tanks in own units and change their organisation and composition. Most of problems and loses in Soviet tank units was cause by wrong doctrin and problem with commanding staff. When they start fighting with German veterans they were in worst position because of this disandvantage. Similar to French and British in 1940. Bad organisation, lack in training and mistakes done by commanders were main reasons why Red Army tanks perform that badly. Problems with logistic just made that effort very hard against Germans which were more expirience and better commanded. Why is so hard to understand? “And I see that all critics of USSR are for you Solzenicinist. Cross checked documents, even straigh from Soviet sources are not enough for you. " What documents can these solzhenitsyns have? )) Give an example. )) “ Ok, not the problem: First two just from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre#/media/File:Katyn_-_decision_of_massacre_p1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#/media/File:Great_Purge_Resolution_of_Central_Committee.jpg Other sources with photocopies: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intn.html#reps http://www.ibiblio.org/pjones/russian/ https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/52/mitrokhin-archive I think you should study this documentation. There is much more in other sources, but I am pretty sure that you will claim that all of that are fake or we non-Russians can understand Russia and USSR. Whatever you claim is enough evidence to not belive in communist propaganda about USSR and WW2. Crimes like Holomodor or Great Purge were reality and they take place. Everything what was done in USSR is today seen in Russia as a root cause of many russian problem of today and tommorow.
    1
  18.  @Кремень-ц8ю  And if you are convince yourself that when in 1941 single KV and T-34 were not good enough to stop or even slow down German advances. Even in hands of profesional tankers trained before war, they maybe when used in proper way in great numbers could be remedium on German tanks. That what a suprise the same tank could be use with succsses againts much more advance than in 1941 German tank forces at Kursk in 1943. The same soviet tanks basicly serve in mass to the second half of the 1944. when they were replaced by more modern versions, or replaced like KV by IS line. Is very clear that there is much more to this, but in 1941 500 KV and 900 T-34 were used in wrong way. And Germans with only lesser tanks win whole campanig to battle of Moscow using lesser tanks. You want to claim that I do know nothing, ok you can. But how is possiable that 4000 lesser in quality tanks win with 1400 more advance soviet tanks, supported by over 21 000 tanks that was as good as German tanks? Because in the end that is the number of soviet tanks at start of Barbarossa. Nice number 23 000 of tanks in hands of Red Army.
    1
  19.  @davidhimmelsbach557  I read some relations from many sources, veterans, intelligence oficers and journalist. They state that deassises like cholera were decimating Soviet Army. Poor higene and low level of medical made this problem very hard to crack. Mortality was low but that was still problematic for Soviets. In memoreis of Oleg Zakirov, former KGB officer are realtions how appaling was this problem.
    1
  20.  @davidhimmelsbach557  Maybe you are right. But thaat not mean that in field soldiers do not were strike by dissieses that would be avoided by competent medical staff. Drugs or not, if you do not care about higiene you will catch some nasty staff.
    1
  21.  @davidhimmelsbach557  Even that terrain is one of the worst for invaders, imagine how low Goes soviet standard if you compare them to armies from WW2. Even soviet medical core operate more effectivlyin WW2 on local level. Not that effective as some claim here but still better than in 1989's in Afganistan.
    1
  22.  @Кремень-ц8ю  I provide you multiply sources that proof that in 1941 in tanks number and quality Red Army beat Germans many times. Number 23 000 is correct and it's used even by russian historians like Isayev. Manipulations starts later when for propaganda reasons people like you claim that there were broke, obselete or any reason that make this number in your eyes false. And lot of Russian historians do not agree with you. Any one can read what we wrote. I do not agree with you argumentation and assesment, because I use multiply sources and I am not biased like you to everything that was written outside USSR. Your claims are biased and created on position that Red Army was much weaker than in reality, just to prove that the Stalin didn't plan invading Hitler in 1941 or 1942. (which he start planing in the same moment he agree to cooperation with Hitler and was created R-M Pact.) ""Without american grain, meat and canned food, like famous Tushonka, population and Red Army would suffer devastating famine!" 1 million tons per year with its own production in many tens -a hundred million? ( for exact numbers, go to the statistical reference book ) Funny. ))" You again use only number provide by Soviet side. Two problems, even in Russia are historians that make claims about much gretaer role of LL in USSR war economy. Few examples: "In 1944, we received about one third of the ammunition powder from the Lend-lease. Almost half of TNT (the main explosive filler for most kinds of ammunition) or raw materials for its production came from abroad in 1942–44." https://www.anews.com/p/67498308-krasnaya-armiya-zadavlivala-zhelezom-a-ne-zavalivala-trupami/ Other estimates make number over 50% soviet production of explosives dependent from US and UK supply. 300 000 to 400 00, depend of source. Grate ammount of locomotives that were produced in USSR in time of war in marginal numbers. https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-13-how-shall-lend-lease-accounts-be-settled-(1945)/how-much-of-what-goods-have-we-sent-to-which-allies Food was provided in over 4 000 000 tons, not 1 750 000 as you claim. Problem with understanding this number to situation in USSR is deeper than you claim. Soviet production of food never was enough to avoid food shortage in USSR in the time of communism. And loseing Ukraine and Bielarus in firts months of 1941 war with Germans made that problem much worse! You want claim that without most productive agricultural area USSR stil produce enouh food, when even before USSR have problems with food production? Food rationing was standard in USSR. And in comparision even in 1941, at the first day of Barbarossa Red Army in whole USSR could use over 200 000 trucks (there are even bigger estimations). https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dcAgT_2uiYgC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=trucks+in+red+army+1941&source=bl&ots=g2OZO4Z7XC&sig=ACfU3U1q-389SOVotfmxgSn2mf2uPAA8eQ&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizt7ahsvnnAhVUUBUIHVyoDpgQ6AEwEnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=trucks%20in%20red%20army%201941&f=false When Wehrmacht use smaller number. Then again you use manipulation to made Red Army weaker and Wehrmacht stronger. Wermacht use over 100 000 to 160 00 trucks in Barbarossa. (different sources, different estimations) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UmwwBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA305&lpg=PA305&dq=trucks+used+in+wehrmacht+in+operation+barbarossa&source=bl&ots=2QxEFl8DDq&sig=ACfU3U1V_L0FDk-rucx_x-XK_iUR1t8b1g&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbx9bRtfnnAhVRqHEKHQhiAS4Q6AEwGHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=trucks%20used%20in%20wehrmacht%20in%20operation%20barbarossa&f=false And if UK did not fought Third Reich when Hitler invade USSR, german economy would use oil, steel and othe materials that was used to create UBoots fleet to build tanks, planes and trukcs. That dramaticly would change numbers of this equipment in Wehrmacht. Do not mention lack of blockade provided by RN and trade done by Third Reich by sea. "You still remember the idiotic myth about the lack of fuel, make me laugh even more. ))" If you precise I can respond. Maybe you want say that Soviet produced fuel was much worse that that provided by USA and UK industry. It was observed in soviet airforce logistic. WWS was main taker of fuel part of LL program.   Basicly again you prove how in today's Russia Lend Lease is subjected to manipulation to make it less improtant to USSR war effort!
    1
  23.  @Кремень-ц8ю  You have problem with imagunation. 1) many soviet sources claim that after German invsasion food shortage was seen everywhere. You can claim whatever you want , problem is that 1941 and 1942 were hunger years in USSR. 2) You take source, manipulate number for your thesis: 800 000 or 600 000 claime by your missinterpretation never were used n whole Wehrmacht in all German controlled teritorries! You can't understand numbers and context. That is your problem. Isayev wrote simple and plain articule that show explenation of number of tanks in Red Army service in 1941 and you claim that he is to stiupid to understand what he is writing. The same with portion of LL help for USSR provide by UK and USA. 3) I try to undertsand you position, by reading your "facts" and numbers is really clear that you are not interested in critical look on USSR and reality of WW2.  ""For whole war main field transport in Wehrmacht was provided by horse! On starategic level the same like in USSR by trains." you're very stubborn donkey But I have a question. Please respond. I'm really interested. Where did this idiotic statement come from? Source? I want to know." Maybe you do not know but most German divisions were using horses to logistic and transport! Wehrmacht never use more than 500 000 trucks in the same time at whole operations. Eastern front was only one of many fronts with German operations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n0BpQj9jqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBAoW0PWNUw Both video give you multiply sources. "Especially for idiots, I explain. If the Reich had won or agreed with its enemies, the USSR would have had no options but to strengthen the army. In my very first comments, I said that children do not understand adult words like "mobilization readiness" and so on. And I was right, as always. You don't understand. I'll explain it some day. Not now. And you will understand what an idiot you were. Or will not understand, maybe so. :) Well, it's funny to listen to idiotic statements from a person who knows nothing about the industry at all. )" From 23rd August 1939 to 22nd June 1941 Stalin and Hitler were allies, they supply eachother with resources and technology. Provide military support and cooperation. If you do not see that you are blind or just lie. Stalin was preparing Red Army to offensive war from at least 1935 and in 1941 he do not count that Hitler will attack him. Because that in any rational calucation was insane, but in this situation Hitler was insane! He ignore all logistic handicaps of Wermacht! He belive that Slavs are sub-humans and that cause that he underestimate strenght of USSR. But that not mean that Stalin was interested in peace. And first mobilisation Red Army done in 1939 against Poland. After that there was few new waves of mobilization. There was no real reason why USSR can't prepare to repel Operation Barbarossa! Only mistakes made by Stalin and his generals. And you can't understand there is no reason to talk to you? You act like you won but that is your opinion and I am not interested in insults from someone who can't read simple source. " ( However, I do not rule out that there is a common schizophrenia or mental retardation ) These figures are no secret, they have long been known. Even for Western "historians", what's the funniest thing! )) Why this idiotic donkey's insistence on denying reality? The number of vehicles is known from Western sources. )))" You like offend even if you are wrong. That is sad and show how deep you are in you own bubble. Not all Western historians are idiots, the same not all Russian historians. But in funny way anyone who do not agree with you is idiot or propagandist. In reality, I work for years in industry and trade. I understand importance of working economy and logistic. That is why I never buy this myth of communism superiority in economy. I live long enough to see last years of communism in Europe and USSR. And I see how positive was that change for people living there. Only former countries of USSR keeping party members at power and do not investing anything in reforms now still suffer problems in comaprition to countries like Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic or Slovakia. Even countries of former Yougoslavia after years of civil war are in better shape than Russia. One of the biggest country and military power with GDP of three combined small countries, Belgium Netherlands and Luxemburg.
    1
  24.  @continentalgin  Zukhov was not that genius as he portrayed himself. Many of so called "his" operation were planed and executed by someone else. Just look on two battle, Staingrad and Kursk. His participation in planning and commanding in both cases was at least minimal. Others propose and planned, Zukhov just stole glory.
    1
  25.  @Nutcrackercs  He was so brilliant that his two battles which he planned and executed himself was just bloodbath for Red Army. Look on hiss performance in Operation Mars and Battle of Seelowe Hights. In both he basicly burn his units in frontal attacks. He lose Mars, but win in 1945 because Wehrmacht was on last legs. Rest of his so called victories is just stolen valour. He pin on himself succsses of others, like Rokosovsski or Watutin.
    1
  26.  @nottoday3817  But he claim that Kursk was his idea. He was very selfish and vain perosn. On Moscow it is very controversial, because Germans were weakened long march from border and Soviet attack just push them back. More was on side of german logistic failure than Soviet counterstrike. About Berlin, just read how bloddy was attack on Seelowe Hights. Unnesessery bloodbath just for Zukhov vanity. His luck was that the Wermacht was dying in this time and Red Army could do it without big operational rsk.
    1
  27.  @СергейРублев-т7я  Maybe not with the title. But noone prove him wrong. His works are based on documents and facts. Have you get any evidence that his thesis are wrong, or just you just play name calling to dis credit him?
    1
  28.  @СергейРублев-т7я  And I am pretty sure that everything what do not agree with official Soviet/Russian history it is for you propaganda. If you just claim that Solonin is not profesjonał in his works, because you probably didn't read them.
    1
  29.  @СергейРублев-т7я  Let star with the simple one: "The Red Army did not want to fight for the Stalinist regime" He never wrote that all soldiers act like that, but he shows how many of them do not want to fight for Stalin. He just on many examples show how communism was weak in soviet society and how much power for communist came with legend of Great Partiotic War. His reserch and work show how many lies is put in official soviet history. "- The USSR provoked neutral Finland into a war against him in 1941." Then how you can understand foregin policy of USSR agaist Finland for whole mid war period? Why Stalin give no choice Fins and invaden them in 1939? Do you think that they have any choice in 1941 stuck between Hitler and Stalin? He provide lot of soviet documentation and diplomatic corespondency that prove that final goal of Stalin was to made a Finland next communist country. Fins in 1939-41 try to stay neutral, but Hitler and Stalin d not let them to keep their neutrality. "- No blockade of Leningrad has ever existed." That is your manipulation. He never wrote that. He claim in his work that blockade wasn't working in 100% and transport to Leningrad was possiable all the time of siege. In many ways transports get to city and there is lot of evidence that by lack of interest civilians were ignored. Starvation was just effect of lack of action, not lack of transport capacity! Communist regime were more interested in supplying army than feeding civilians, even when that was possiable. All data and numbers are in his book. German siege was tragedy, but famine was created by mistakes or just ignoring a problem by soviet regime. "- The USSR planned to invade Germany in 1941, etc." Because it was Stalin's plan to strike Hitler when USSR would be ready and Third Reich would be weaken by war with Allied. There is nothing shamefull in that. Shamefull is cooperation with Third Reich. Solonin claim that was plan for 1941, other historians think that was more possiable for 1942. Nobody today belive that Stalin was interested in peace with Nazi Germany. There is to many documents to disprove that Stalin didn't plan this war. Main evidence for Stalin's plan is tottal lack of deffensive plans set up of Red Army in 1941 and tottal lack of this plans in archives. For 80 years USSR and Russia claims that there were defence plans. But they do not exists! No one see them and even today Russia do not want show any evidence of that! There is nothing that prove that USSR was planning defence in 1941! In opposition there is so called relation about Operation Storm ( There are so called „Мобилизационный план 41 (МП-41)”/ Mobilisation Plan 41), which is plan of attack on Third Reich by Red Army. Then I do not agree with you accusation that Solonin lie or manipulate data. He give all his sources and he always want to speak and disscuss his thesis. Not like most so called historians in Russia.
    1
  30.  @СергейРублев-т7я  Then you basicly keep official soviet narration for WW2. Solonin show facts and documents, for you that is manipulation, for me it is new look on facts that were neglected. We can disscuss but I prefer to inform about his works, then people can read themself Solonin and make them own assumption. In moment you wrote about that Finland was attacked because could be used by Hitler (because any one else could do it), you forget that Stalin agree with Hitler that Finland is in Soviet sphere after 23rd August of 1939 in Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact. Also Solonin do not take blame from Germans on invasion on USSR. In case of Leningrad he show that fault of soviet regime is clear because Germans never cut supply from outside. He made his case clear. No manipulation. Communist let starve civilians and do not care about them. About "active defence", can you show me any "defensive plan"? Because I ask you about it and you still do not give me any example (hint you can't because it dose not exist). No body show that plans, even 30 years after fall of USSR! About evacuation you are mistaken, because evacuation starts much later, after few weeks when fights came to Charkov, Kiev and Stalin understand that he have to evacuate industry. Action was started in August.
    1
  31.  @СергейРублев-т7я  1) Then you not deny that Hitler and Stalin agree that USSR can invade Finland in 1939. Then why you are suprise that Fins in 1941 were forces to take German protection? Hitler do not agree that Stalin could take parts of Romania, which was in German sphere as was qgreed in Pact. That mean that Stalin first make aggressive move in this bandit Pact.
    1
  32.  @СергейРублев-т7я  2) City was not cut from Lake Ladoga, which provide enough place and time even in night to supply city. Blokade never was that tight to lock that rout. 3) Then what was the name of this planes? Because even 30 years after USSR fall nobody can show thisa planes. Then were are they?
    1
  33.  @СергейРублев-т7я  "1. "The sphere of influence does not mean that the USSR plans to invade. This means that Germany has no right to poke its nose into the Soviet sphere of influence (and vice versa) and gives its consent in the pact." Do you read this Pact and grasp what it means for Hitler's and Stalin's plans? Invading Poland and Finland in 1939 was not aggression? Very brave statment. "The USSR did not threaten Finland after the winter war, therefore, she did not need the protection of Germany." Are you even follow what happened after this war, how Finlad was disarmed by lose of border fortifications and soviet base in Hanko? Basicly in any moment USSR could attack Finland and there is no way that this time Fins could fight so long! "Bessarabia was in the Soviet sphere of influence. The German sphere of influence was not violated." Here you are right, my memory fail me. But the fact was that Hitler afraid that after taking Bessarabia USSR will invade rest of Romania and cut oil supply to Reich. That was one of rerasons why Hitler push Barbarossa Plan in life. "2. I spoke about the land isolation of the city of Leningrad. The Soviet army made sea isolation impossible. This is not the kindness of Germany." What do not change a fact that with transport capacity and storage place in city was no serious operations to feed city population. When in the same time ammunition and other war materials were provided for city garrison. Which show how regim was interested in providing relief for civilians. "3. The plan for covering the state border" That is not the anwser. Because I ask about military operation and it name. You do not provide nothing. Which is simple because there were no such plans. If I am mistaken, what was the name of this plans (every armmy give a plan a name, even unofficial!). Germans create Plan Barbarossa, then what was the Soviet plan?
    1
  34.  @СергейРублев-т7я  We can disscus about interpretation of historical facts but in this case is pointless. But points 5 and 6 make me pretty sure that you are not objective about works of Solonin. It clear that you not read his works. Why I claim that? Point 5. You claim that he put false thesis. Lets say you are right, then where are this defence plans? Any names, documentation or can give me a source of you statment. Because I never find any scrap of documentation or source with names and descriptions of this defence plans. It like that plans never exist. No codenames, no names of personel responsiable for this preparations. Nothing as a scientific source. Only empty claims with words "belive me". I do not belivEM I need evidence open to criticism. In regard to Solonin, he use documentation and facts. Do he falsified any of this? I never find any evidence on this. You claim he do it because he provide controversial for you thesis. I am more open to his assesment. Point 6. is your big mistake. His short articule "Fire in storehouse" is exacly in line with thesis that USSR take lot less than 20 millions losses in WW2 in combat and as a effects of German occiupation and terror. He is closer to number 17-18 millions caused by German invasion and few milions of Stalin's terror. You claim totaly different case, what make me thinking that you never read this aritcule, rather it's second hand review. And poor one because he in this case agree with your assesment that soviet losses were under 20 milion! "But nobody uses such data in other countries (only direct losses), therefore it is correct to use the number 16 million, not 27. Solonin also lies here." Here you can read this articule and check what you claim what he wrote and what you claim that he wrote by your opinion. http://www.solonin.org/en/article_fire-in-the-storehouse
    1
  35.  @СергейРублев-т7я  1) If you claim that plan exist but do not give any evidence that mean that they do not exist. Any army plan have a codname. For secrecy and for operation al reasons. Bagration, Barbarossa or Husky, for enemy this names give nothing. That is problem with that nobody provide no codname or even original documentation. You this way claim that something exist when in same time you have no evidence. Solonin or not, that way your claim have no science value. Nearly 80 years after war and you can't give me nothing. Then you can prove that plan or they do not exist, that is pure logic. Then where I can find this plans? 2) You prove again that you didn't read his articule. He wrote about historians that push higher number than 20 milions and name them. Rest is in articule. You have link and you still lie about it. Solonin wrote about his estimation and give his sources. He came on number lower than 20 milions and you claim othervise. Then you didn't read him or you just lie. 3) I will no even start disscuse negationism of communist terror. They are documents with Stalin and others signatures ordering mass killings. Milions relations from eyevitnesses and mass graves. Pictures and information about Soviet camps. There is basicly the same amout of proofs that mass terror in USSR was norm like existing of Holocaust. We know that Hitler order genocide, from documentation and relations. In Stalin's case we have lists of death sentences with his signature. How much you want to claim, this crimes exist and claiming othervise put you in same spot like David Irving, men who claim that Holocaust never happen.
    1
  36.  @СергейРублев-т7я  1)You not provide any documentation or codename for this operation! Nothing that is proof of existing of this. You claim you did but you not. Now you are lying and manipulating facts. Show link or name source. 2)You criticise something you never read. Because your thesis what is in articul are not the same at what is in articule in reality! He basicly wrote that casualities are smaller than claims of propaganda and he agree that new resarch is much more accrate! Not the lie you are telling. 3) The explain me why so called Polish Operation is not genocide. 200 000 Soviet citizens polish of nationality murderd at Stalin order just before WW2? They were murdered just because they were Poles, even pro-Stalinist communist were murdered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD Or why Holodomor is also not planned genocide? Why only criteria of deportation on Crimea in 1944-45 was nationality of victimes? Thousends of Crimean Tatars, whole families were send out from penisula, even families of war heros fighting for Red Army! And why was no death camps in USSR. That is simple, Lenin and Stalin belives that even man send to death could be used as a slave labour. You do not ned death camp if prisoners are dying likes flys. Red Army liberate Auschwitz, but just after liberation camp was use to imprision people that Red Army and NKVD arrested as a enemies. The same thing happened in other "liberated" camps! Even in Germany.  You just do not respond on questions. You are just putting propaganda. You even do not know what is in articles and books what you attack! Spre me propaganda, just give anvsers.
    1
  37.  @СергейРублев-т7я  Dear negationist of soviet regime crimes. Polish Operation was in 100% genocidal. Goal was exterminate as much of Poles as possiable. You can't spin that as a just legal operation, that was ethinc cleansing done by soviet government. I do not have time and will to prove you how much you live in the world of communist propaganda. My nationality is polish and that not have nothing to case. I can't be objective because of nationality? That is stiupid and make your arguments more idiotic than you can imagine. I read lot of pre-1989 books and even there old communist criticise Stalin for his crimes. People that survive his rule and could tell about him. Thanks today we can exchange information with people and look into archives. There is no way that Stalin's crimes against own people will be forgott. Maybe you are some one who claim that Germans kill Polish officer in Katyn? "The USSR did not use German death camps to kill people, it used technical (non-military) equipment from these camps to improve living conditions in Soviet camps." You just lie. They use this camps as a detencion centers. They put there anyone who they see as an enemy. Even people that fought against Germans! Soviet betray them and many of them were killed there. It is just discusting how you lie about it. And this is just evidence how much you live in dilusional state. For me it is pointless to care about this disscusion. You basicly prove that you are not interested in real conversation. In the ned I want just poinyt that you still not give any evidence that in 1941 USSR have any defencive plan. "The Soviet defense plan does not have a code name. You ask me to give it, but it does not exist. You can continue to believe that the USSR enters the war without defensive plans (and by some miracle won in her), but this is mistake." I do not to belive in existing anything what is proven to be real. You claim whatever you want, but claiming that for defence of USSR exist plan but there were no codname for itjust prove that you do not know what you talking. Army planing operation always use some of form codenamig. I ask how Red Army coild use names Saturn, Uran and Bagration as a codnames in war operations, but forgett give name most important plan of defence! It is simple anwser fot that, no operation and no codename! Such defensive plan never was prepared!
    1
  38.  @СергейРублев-т7я  1) Genocide is act of murdering whole or part of the population, where ethnicity is main reason of selecting victimes. That is a definiition of this term. Then that action was by definiition genocide, you do not need kill whole nation. By the way NKVD in the same time take action against other nations living in USSR. Sorry but you are defending crime against humanity. By the way I See killings of any larger group as a this crime. Biggest victimes of communist crimes were for first Russians. And not only Hitler but also Stalin ordered persecution and murdering Polish citizens in WW2. Or maybe you are one of this freaks who still blame only Germans for that? Murdering and mass relocation by Soviets also took place. 2) That the most historians do not agree with official Russian narration do not mean they are mistaken. For first Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact is not the cause of WW2. Rather fact that Germany and Soviet Russia and later USSR want to reshape Europe and outcome of WW1. Which both countries practicly lose. First step was Rapallo Treaty with secret militarny and economic cooperation. That is real star of Soviet-German preparations to new war, in 1922! Hitler stop that for few years, but he need Stalin as a allied. Why? Because Poland refuse invade USSR! And what Stalin did in this situation? He offered Hitler a deal. Then Poland by not getting part in German planes to invade the USSR become victimes of Hitler and Stalin deal. Accusing Poland in this case that cause WW2 is just hipocrisy and revisionism. Hitler would lose war much faster if not Stalin active help for him in 1939. Stalin mistake cost USSR milions of dead citizens. Whole case of Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact is the best example. You claim that was nothing bad to make arrengment with Hitler. That way you agree that Stalin give Hitler green light to invade Poland and other countries. You also confirmed that by this Pact USSR make itself an aggressor by invading Poland, Finland and Baltic State. And all of that because in this so called non-aggression Pact were secret protocols about agreement what countries become victimes of Hitler and which were Stalin's. And later both countries send each other resources and technology to fight war against Allied. USSR even open own territory for German military operations. And all of about secret protocols were strongly rejected as a lie by USSR to 1991. Even exsistence of this protocols were claim by communists as a lie, by them them were no secret protocols. Then who is rewriting history? The same about co operation of Gestapo and NKVD. Both services coordinate actions against Polish resistant movement. They even exchange Polish oficers by their place of living before aggression. The Germans get that from their sphere of control, Soviets get that from own controled land. And what was done with this prisoners? Germans keep them as a POW to end of the war. Soviets murdered them most cases and buried in places like Katyń or Kharkov. And thank you that you confirm that USSR control Poland for 45 years and Polish People Republice was no independent state. There is so much more topics which USSR suppress because they show try nature of communism.
    1
  39.  @СергейРублев-т7я  Annonymous "profesional historian", book with bogus name that you even do not read. And you claim that you give anwser? Are you even understand how weak it is? First question is who is you so called profesional historian? Second is, how he can name plan that no other historians, even RUSSIANS, do not named in publications? No such documents was provides by Russian DoD to this date! Russian militarny historians do not give a name, officers so not know that name, when that should be basic element of there training in military academies! No other army never study this plan because nobody see it! You claim that USSR use plan without codname, without variants and peocedures of implementation in case of German attack? Because that is exacly what happened. There is no Zukhov order with any mention od central defence plan, or rather implementation of existing procedure for Red Army from 22nd June 1941 and later days! Then you claim that USSR have a plan called "Study..... Blalabla" and do not used this plan when was nessesary to used it? Only existing Zukhov order show that there was no plan. He make some instruction and even do not precise which version of your so called plan should be implemented! That is such a tragedy that 1st of German invasion what was expected by Soviet Commanders ( your and their claims) they do not act like proffesionals!
    1
  40.  @СергейРублев-т7я  That still do not prove anything. I do not belive you, because you claim something, not providing any evidence.
    1
  41.  @СергейРублев-т7я  Do you read what I wrote? You again are using some text without connection to question. I am start thinking that you do not read with understanding. Taht is not any close to anwser to my question. You are basicly spamming with random bullshit. I will give you example: Germans use codname Fall Weiss as a name for operation against Poland in 1939. In the same time Polish defence plan was named Plan Zachod (Plan West). German codname for invasion on France, Fall Gelb when Allied defence plan use codname Dyle Plan/Plan D. German invasion on USSR. Opertion Barbarossa.... And on soviet side nothing! No codname, no plan? Armies use codename for informing field commanders that they should open proper sealed documents to activate war plans. Plans for operational usage and to coordinate action in all comannd structures. Military staff is obssesed by operational plannning and any armie that exist plann different operations! Anywhere in case of Red Army in 1941 that proces was not observed! No central defence plan. Zukhov do not ordered any pre planned operatio!. There is no information about any defencive plans that were execute by Red Army in first days of Barbarossa. If that plan exist, Zukhov would give one order and whole Red Army just open sealed documents and start execution of this plan. But reding Zukhov orders, you can't find nothing like that. Field commanders also report that they had no plans or orders o execute in this da. Then you want to tell me that commanding staff of Red Army was so stiupid that had a plan and forgott to use this plan. Because only idiots do not go with plan when there is prepared himseld. You stil do not provide right anwser.
    1
  42.  @СергейРублев-т7я  There we go. Problem with "Storm" is that even today MoD of Russia do not show this document. In strange understanding of todays Russia plan from 1940's is still state secret. And not only so called by you non-professionals say that is in reality plan of Stalin to beat Germany by offensive. Things we know about this plan from relations basicly show that was no defence intention in USSR. Even if you take as a valid argument that was defence plan,why wasn't executed when Germans strike? Why after 2 yeeas of prepararion to defend USSR failed in this. Any of Hitler's enemies do not spend and do not have that much time at defencive prepararion. Ther is two possibilities. One that Stalin and USSR top politician with all military, powerfull industry and whole resources of biggest country of the world could not prepair for war with Germans. If as you claim that whole history USSR was not interested in nothing that in defence what happened 22nd June of 1941? How Red Army with years of (as you claim) years of defensive planning end without working plan? This way you made Stalin, Zhukov and whole communist party od USSR bunch of morons. They invade Poland, Finland and take Bessarabia to defend themselfs and that just end with biggest strategic faliure of human history. Gigantic loses and nearly USSR lose that war. Or as claim many historians there were no defence plans. And whole policy of Stalin was spreading communism with force. Because that was whole idea around existing of communist party and USSR. World revolution. Then all Stalin's planning was aim to weaken his opponents and "liberation of Europe" from capitalism. But that make all his actions from 1930's and 1940's tottaly different case than that is claimed by official history of USSR. You basicly do everything to disscredit historians and fact that destroy myths of Uncle Joe defending freedome against his pal Hitler. That is why you didn't want use codname od this operation. Because whatever you want to spin taht operation do not look like defence plan and was not even named by official soviet history.
    1
  43.  @СергейРублев-т7я  Problem with your narration is that either Mobilisation Plan-41 or "Considerations on the Strategical Deployment of Soviet Troops in Case of War with Germany and its Allies" were offensive plans not defencive. About you calling a Mikhail Meltiukhov. There is a thing he stated: Note that, due to the fact that Soviet archives were (and in some cases still are) inaccessible, in some cases exact figures have been difficult to ascertain. The official Soviet sources generally overestimated German strength and downplayed Soviet strength, as emphasized by David Glantz (1998:292). Some of the earlier Soviet figures claimed that there had been only 1,540 Soviet aircraft to face Germany's 4,950; that there were merely 1,800 Red Army AFVs facing 2,800 German ones, etc. In 1991, Russian military historian Meltyukhov published an article on this question (Мельтюхов М.И. 22 июня 1941 г.: цифры свидетельствуют // История СССР. 1991. № 3) with figures that differed slightly from those of the table here, though with similar ratios. Glantz (1998:293) was of the opinion that those figures "appear[ed] to be most accurate regarding Soviet forces and those of Germany's allies", though other figures also occur in modern publications." Funny how you own historians do not agre with your claims. http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/index.html Next thing,you attack qualification of Victor Suvorov. Suvorov/Rezun is former Soviet Army officer and intelligence operator. He is well qualified to understand and analyse military plans. Historians are less qualified to this. Ataccking someones knowledge is quite funny if you have no evidence for it. About Stalin intentions, by his own words "As we know, the goal of every struggle is victory. But if the proletariat is to achieve victory, all the workers, irrespective of nationality, must be united. Clearly, the demolition of national barriers and close unity between the Russian, Georgian, Armenian, Polish, Jewish and other proletarians is a necessary condition for the victory of the proletariat of all Russia. " "The only real power comes out of a long rifle." "If any foreign minister begins to defend to the death a 'peace conference', you can be sure his government has already placed its orders for new battleships and airplanes." There is no sence even take on rest of your's claims. Again I remind you: 1) you still do not show any evidence on existing any defence plans for war with Third Reich in 1941. 2) You still do not adress you false claim to Solonin thesis about real level of Soviet losses in WW2. You claim basicly that he wrote opposite to that he wrote in reality. You accuse him to inflation of numbers when he claim that losses were smaler than official stated! Not mention that if Stalin inavde Poland in 1939 to protect USSR and you claim that he start doing that weeks before 22nd June 1941. You are can't agree with yourself. Nearly two years of war in Europe and Stalin still need to prove that Hitler is aggressor? 2 years to prepare army and Red Army start mobilisation in last days. You maker Stalin grnius and idiot in one sentence. Decide which version is better!
    1
  44.  @СергейРублев-т7я  You post a oponinion of professional historian and late you accusse him for beeing revisionist. Where is you logic? He read documentation, show his thesis but you do not like it. Then he is wrong, you are right? Not all profeaional historians agree with Suvorov, but not all of them reject his main thesis. You just claim that they are fringe or revisionist. Rest is basicly personal attack not argumentation.
    1
  45.  @СергейРублев-т7я  "You completely ignore my big answer. I give you the last chance to get the feedback correctly." That is rather comical. You bring on yourself claim that we today have documents that prove aggressive deployment prepared in plans and in dislocation of Red Army, but in the same time without any evidence you claim that Soviet offensive plans were nothing more than form of defence. I'm shocked, that mean that Hitler and Wermacht in years 1939-43 were in deep defence. That make sence if offensive plans are in reality defencive one. That is mos deep discovery of communist war science. We are defending in attack and atacking in defence. But beeing seriuos, how I can treat your claims with respect when you make some non-coherent stance. For you, evidence provided by historians and documents from archives are missunderstood, but you quote historians without context because that qoute is making your case . You bring opinion of historian only in part that is making your argument valid. But when the same historian is making argument against you opinion he make mistake and he is non real historian. 2. I f you look how Stalin forbid any cooperation between socialis and German communist in time when Hitler rise to power that thesis is coherent. Communist as a one of the biggest parties didn't do nothing to cooperate with socialdemocrats and block NSDAP in Reichstag. They do that in line of Stalin decision that Komintern would oppose socialdemocratic movments as they claim "socialfascism". Thanks to that Stalin basicly help NSDAP gain inffluence and suppport. The same policy was implemented against in whole Europe. And in 1939-40 French communist party on Moscov orders sabotage war against Third Reich. For Maybe Stalin did not elect Hitler but he help him, by isolating KPD. 3. Red Army was after mobilization even before 17th September 1939. Later was next waves of mobilisation. Do you claim that Red Arny just attack Poland without any plam amd randome forces. MAybe you should check facts before you again start cliaming that there were no moblisation before 1941! Please stick to facts that you can prove. " I do not blame Mr. Solonin for inflation of numbers. I say that he misunderstands what these numbers mean. For example, the official number of dead Soviet citizens is 26.6 million. Solonin says this is an artificially high number. But in reality, it is correct, it simply includes the categories of indirect losses (unborn people). Thus, Mr. Solonin mixed up these two categories and simply named the correct numbers in his opinion. But in reality, the numbers 26.6 and 16+ are correct. Thus, Mr. Solonin’s article does not make sense." " I don’t need to spend time additionally studying his articles because this makes no sense." That is your own words from four dats ago! You do not read his article and you attack him, now you are claiming that he do not understand numbers! When he wrote about rejecting that manipulation hiddeen in "unborn people" category and provide his numbers step by step! And it is true that official numbers of soviet losses in WW2 are still highly inflated over 20 milions dead! You are mixing facts. Unborn people is non-exicting number, this is just statistc trick to add number that have no sence in reality. How you can provide number of "unborn" people? Using this method 6 milions of polish victimes of WW2 you can claim that in reality Polish losess should be counted in 8 to 10 milions because in this time we lose unborn childrens! Or even more. Solonin state what he see as a correct number and name some historians that made claims that number is much higher! Where he is wrong! Because you do not make his claim false! ou just make character assasination!
    1
  46.  @СергейРублев-т7я  Do you are dumb or you just try to act like it. BOTH INVASION ON POLAND AND FINLAND WAS DONE AFTER MOBILISATION OF RED ARMY! MOBILISATION WERE DONE BEFOR NOT AFTER THE BOTH AGGRESSION! THAT IS NOT DEFENCE IT IS AGGRESSIVE. Next case. In 1941 Red Army forces were deployed on the line of border. There was no depth of space need for absorb first German strike! In comparision defending armies always use scouting and shielding forces to recognise direction of enemy attack. In 1941 main forces of Red Army were concetrated without depth need to react. In first minutes they were in range of German artillery and they were attacked by invading Wehrmacht. In first minutes of attack! Not after few hours! In case of Polish Army in 1939 main Polish defence line were put few kilometers from border. In front line on border were shielding force of border guard and Polish cavalry (which was Redy to reatret if main German forces would attack. The same was done by Fins in 1939 before soviet attack. Border line was evacueted and main defence lines were located in depth. In case of Red Army units do not prepaeed any shielding or delaying positions. It is like Red Army was only army in the world not knowing basis of tactic and strategy in defence. Not mention that soviet planes were standing in rows in airfields, just i aiting to be destroyed! No masked field landing sites, in army which is known for maskirovka ( I hopee you known that term). We have films from attacking German planes that shows airfields with planes waiting in lines. Easy to locate and destroy. In comparision Polish air forces left based before German aggression and in secrecy deploy on hidden positions. That was suprise for Germans, because they were convinced that they bombed Polish air force aout from war in first strike. Do I need make more examples and reasons why Red Army deployment was not defencive!
    1
  47.  @СергейРублев-т7я  And every case of you examples of defence plan show tahta in case of invasion whole Red Army would attack on enemy territory! No defence, just from begining. As you claim Soviet defence was based on assumption of avtibe and aggressive posture when Germans strike. You provide this quotes yourself earlier!
    1
  48.  @СергейРублев-т7я  1 not only Suvorov. You post yourself document that show that ll called by you defencive plans lack of procedures on the case of enemy attack. What you can see in 1941. Where are this reatret plans? Where are orders to execute any plan? You show that? No, you just claim that plan exist but they can't be executed because Germans strike before Red Army was ready. Even this is disshonest, army without any emergency plans? Then Red Army was really that bad? 2) Really, now you have problem with me making simple mistakes when I am writing on phone keyboard?
    1
  49.  @СергейРублев-т7я  1) Read fragments that you yourself put. Because there you have your anwser. If you need more just back to varianta of MP-41. 2) Defence plan without variants including reatret from position to more defenseable. That is first time I heard about such bold plan for weaker side. Mobilisation and putting all forces at border line, without any reatret plan.
    1
  50.  @nicolasheung441  I agree, but your first comment that way was just aa half of picture. Nothing personal in this, just in reality T-26 was in 1941 much better tank than people say.
    1
  51.  @nicolasheung441  Lesser known tank, T-50 was designed as a replacment for T-26 family. It was basicly smallest brother of T-34 with 45 mm canon. But too small numbers were provided before Barbarossa. After that line T-60/70 was created as a stop gap to replace all soviet tanks, even T-34 and KV. In 1942 this line was main soviet production, cheap, small, not that effective and only in late 1942, T-34 and KV production was enough to replace this family ob front. T-60/70 was not great tank, in many ways worse than T-26.
    1
  52.  @SaulKopfenjager  That is simple example how Soviets were planning modermisation of tank force. T-50 replace T-26, T-34 was replacment for BT series and KV was as you put for new generation of heavier types. This evolution was even seen in development of T-34, when it get lot of complains at strat and there was project to replace it with never modification called T-34M other known as A-43. Model with new suspention, turret and other changes. But Barbarossa came and tottaly destroy this plans. Reason why T-50 wasn't produce in greate number is that T-34 was more effective at basicly the same price.
    1
  53.  @nottoday3817  KV in any way in 1940-41 was stop-gap. In this time that was most powerfull heavy tank in the world. No tank before was so modern in conception and in design. Yes tank was problematic in production and expencive. Had some technical problem, but that is a nature of heavy tanks, that is why they now belong to past. KV series was analyzed by Soviets and evolved into IS hevy tank series. And expirience fromT-34 evolve in T-44, which give line T-54/55. In this case Panther was dead end, Leopard 1 was tottaly different conception and construction.
    1
  54.  @nottoday3817  B1 and Char 2 C were no real treat for KV tanks. Only problems with KV was it's high production cost and technical difficulties with new construction. Also problem with mechanical readiness. But still KV tanks were in this better than any tank in the same time. And over 500 of them were ready in 1941. Hell, even Tiger tanks have more technical problems than KV. And I agre that in most cases soviet intendent effects were no close to reality. That is classical problem of communism. Reality do not work well with it.
    1
  55.  @nottoday3817  In 1941 there were no competition to KV. Maybe it had some problems, but was best hevy tank before Tigers arrive in greater numbers.
    1