Youtube comments of Horatio82 (@horatio8213).
-
523
-
118
-
72
-
46
-
46
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
41
-
40
-
38
-
31
-
28
-
27
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
trainbomb
" LOL, "Holdomor" was not a genocide. Bs propaganda.
Parts of my fam survived that famine.
Nice myth though."
Why I see a Holodomore as a genocide:
1)Famine was cause by planned extraction grain and livestock from Ukraine, rest of USSR did not suffer that much, but still many other agrarian centers were push int famine, like Kazachstan,
2) so called "colectivization" was forced by state, basicly that was state land grab and recreation of servitude. Pesants were keep to work on land by force. No migration was allowed,
3)most succesfull farmers were targeted as enemy of state, they were first to be robbed from land and treat as a fellons and send to prisons or labour camps,
4)when famine struck in 1931-1932 USSR sell more grain than any time before,
5) when famine strike on Ukraine, USSR government do not stop force confiscations, food was taken from areas that were starving,
6)Any other region of USSR was struck that hard as Ukraine and that proces take 2 years. If Soviet government was interseted in helping Ukranians, why that famine was so long? It was two years? Not months but years!
7) Stalin need grain and live stock to export them and push his industralization plans. He knew what would happen and he still decide to go along with his plans,
8)There is no way to claim that only nature cause famine in 1932-1933. If that was true why grain export was in the same time so extencive? Why other nations living outside USSR do not suffer it in the same time?
9) And argument about so called sabotage.Who in right mind belive that pesants starve themself? Maybe if you do not count that all food wa taken from them by state?.....
13
-
13
-
13
-
It's simple. Two states make a agreement to scratch other nations. After that they made cooperation, in military, economy, science and even both secret police NKVD and Gestapo have cooperate. That is full allaince. In case of economic cooperation it's simple, Stalin sell everything that German lack to fight with France and UK. When you compare peace time trade to help warmonger your logic is flaw. To beat Hitler, Stalin can just seat and wait, France and UK will beat him, because Germany has not any crucial resources, your genius USSR sell him everything. Do you know a treaty called: German–Soviet Trade and Credit Agreement? By that agreement USSR and Germany sanction cooperation to fight against democratic states like UK and USA. We know everything about it because soviet archive were opened after 1991 and the nazi papers was intercept in 1945. Stalin and Hitler were allies and eve. 1st date of soviet invasion of Poland was 1st September 1939 but as you know then they were fighting with Japan, that why Stalin decide to wait, also he want see a reaction of the Wwest on Hitler attack on Poland. After meeting in Abeville he knows that he can attack without risk.
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@sarjim4381 You are comapring two different generations of radar. Type 22 and Type 13 were much worse than latest and mass used allied counterpart, IJN radas can spott and observe target with low resolution and accuracy mesured in kilometers, in oposition to american radars ( which was integrated with FCS, option not included in japaness device!) with accuracy range count in meters! There is a difference in operational use of radar with FCS that use wavelength of centemeters, not like japaness use wavelength of meters! It is totally diffrent level of technology. Japan have the worst electronic equipment from main axis members, Germany and even Italy in cooperation were still behind USA nad GB in naval radars after 1941. In war condition 2-3 years of development is a disaster for side that is behind in that development and production!
Even using your data there is no proff that Yamato can use radar to shoot targets that can't be see by human eye. Yamato FCS based on optical and only optical systems! For american useage of radar you have night battle in Surigao Strait, where american BB scores hits in first salvo on enemy! Using only radar!
In the rain, low visibility condition and using swarm tactic with smoke screens Yamato can be torpeded to death by swarm of Fletchers! Each Fletcher use radar set integrated with modern FCS and that is fact, not fiction.
You also claim: "The Japanese were constantly monitoring our radar emissions. They had excellent electronic knowledge and developed transmitters in the VHF and UHF ranges specifically to jam our radars. It wasn't until the introduction of centimetric radar that the Japanese, like the USN, weren't able to produce effective jammers until the end of the war." That is totally wrong (and im really interested what is source of your claims?), Japan Army and Navy didn't have any real opptions to jamm allied rardars, they even have limited option to observe usage of radar by enemy on mass. There were no real jamming equipment for japaness fleet and army(bye the way in Japan there were no factories providing jamming device, only some prototypes, not in mass production!) Even much more advance Germans have big problems with allied electronical warfare!
Difference between US Navy and IJN was so greate, that even high train in night fight crews of IJN can't keep fight against US Navy (ships equiped in radar) in this conditions!
Maybe you don't understand what Drachinifel said in video, but in short that was simple: Yamato have obeselete radar, flagship of IJN can detect enemy, but that is all .... Yamato can't hit targets without optical observation of target! Any evidence that is not true?
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@alexatlantov4569 You have very strange logi. In one case you wrote:
"Russia was attacked by Poland at its weakest moment, i.e. in the middle of the civil conflict, but that justifies Poles how? "
But in the same time you claim:
"Actually, in 1920 the so-called Reds WERE, in effect, state power. They commanded almost all the territory and the civil conflict was played out mostly on the country’s peripheries, and mainly due to the multiple interventions in the conflict of foreign powers, Poland included. "
Reds were in your opinion weak and strong in the same time.
For your enlighment you should know that at 29th August 1918 (even before Poland was independent at 11th November 1918) Lenin declare that Soviet Russia decide to annulment Partition Treaties that liquidate Poland. As such that mean Soviet Russia resign from lands taken in that process from 1772-1795.
The same day also Lenin declare Finland's right to independece.
As reality Soviet Russian did not control this lands, but that still mean Lenin recreate Polish-Russian border from 1772! The same way works Soviet declaration from 1917 that they recognise independent Ukraine. Then Lenin that way legitimise existing independent Ukraine, but in reality in the same time Bolsheviks try to capture power in Kiev. But they failed. That is real genesis war between Poland, Soviet Russian and Ukraine. In the Lenin's and Bolshevik mind they gve independence this countries, but in reality they planned conquest of them right from the start. There was no good will on Bolshevik's sides. They clearly declare that they want connect Russian Revolution with German and Hungerian Revolutions!
"How Russia can’t have a claim on its own territory? Poland wasn’t part of Russia, but Ukraine was. It’s populated by Russians, not by Poles so why Poles should have any claim on it?"
Because as Lenin declare recognision of Ukraine independent and in the same time send Red Army on Ukraine, just when Germany capitualated in WW1 is real show of true intention of Bolsheviks.
And most Ukraine was populated by Ukrainians on the East and mix on the West. Russians were in minority. Then how they could claim that Ukraine was a part of Russia? Culture and language were different. Not without the reason in 1930's russification was one of priority for Stalin. He murdered milions by starvation and place greate numbers of Russian into this part of USSR. The same strategy was executed after incorporation of Western part of Ukraine in 1939-1941 and after 1945.
"LMAO! This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard! Revolution was successful only, and only,because it was supported by 90% of the population. That’s why the Reds won the war in the first place. They outnumbered their enemies by a factor of almost 10!!! Whites and Petluras and other separatists were left without soldiers, common people simply didn’t support them. Now, the level of modern brain-washing of the western people is astounding!"
I think that rather you are brainwashed. At only free election to under Bolsheviks give them in 1917 only 25% of votes! 25% against 40% for Socialist Revolutionaries!
That is so hilarious that your 90% of support si taken from Bolsheviks imagination and propaganda. That is why they liquidate Russian Constituent Assembly and create dictatorship.
Way that Bolsheviks won Civil War was simple. Red Terror and that they enemies were divided. Franco win in Spain without majority suport.
You call Petrula separatist, when for Ukrainians he is one of fathers of todays Ukraine. Not Bolshevik's puppets.
"Excuse me but that’s as to say that in 1994, in Chechnya Russian Federal troops were one of the many sides of the conflict."
Indeed Russian Federation use also in fight some parts of anti-Dudayev opposition forces. In the same time at Dudayev side were coalition of different indpendent poltical forces. There were volontueers from whole Caucasus!
And Russia lose that war and in the next use Kadyrow's family to pacificate Chechnia. The in that case Russia was one of sides in that complicated war.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@gothamgoon4237 You totally wrong and about Tiger i don't know who sell you that myth. In the early stages of war to 1943 that was maybe true, but later that was not that easy. They can move and repair fast a Panzer III and IV, even Panther, but not the Tiger. First problem, Germans don't have usefull numbers of recovery vehicles to move Tigers from battlefields, when it stuck in the rough terrain it took a lot of work to move it enywhere. You have to use 3 or 4 heavy halftrack to even move Tiger, if you try use another Tiger to tow broken one, you end up with two broken Tigers! After few days of action 60-70% Tigers just broke down and land in special repair units, this units stuck with a lot of tanks in the repair depot and no way to repair them fast. That's you never see any big numbers of Tigers in action in the same time. Whole time lack of spere parts and large numbers of broken Tigers was a biggest problem for heavy tank battalions, they stole the parts from other Tiger units, just to keep runnig this 40-30% operational tanks! Even Russian know that Tiger is very hard to repair, that's why they teach anti-tank gunners to shoot front wheels of Tiger just to damage them, because they knew that repair will take lot of time for Germans! The large numbers of Tigers were lost becuase there were no fast way to repair them or move them to rear, even when German have time to do it. When Tiger stuck and they were going to lose terrain in few days, they just blow up Tiger in field! Russians can recover T-34 even under enemy fire, they use special version of T-34, US and allies can do the same with M4. On logistic point of view Tiger was disaster. Even simple repair of Tiger was time consuming procedure, simple example, how "easy" was to change tracks from "transport-narrow size" to "normal" version, that was "favorite" procedure for tank crews of Tiger units. Some of then even didn't do it and risk beeing stuck in offroad terrain.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@alexatlantov4569
"Are you in second grade? It’s childish. Strongness isn’t an absolute concept. Compared to their enemies in the civil war (like Whites) the Reds were strong,mostly because they were overwhelmingly supported by ordinary people, and that is why they ruled the country and its affairs. But on the international arena the country was week due to the disarray of the revolution and the war. Industrial, agricultural and financial systems were in shambles and needed years to be repaired. As a result the Red army was extremely underfed, underclothed, undersupplied etc. Extreme shortage of munitions was the case. Especially artillery. While at the same time the Whites and the Poles were abundantly supplied by the West,but still disgracefuly lost the war."
Civil War take nearly 6 years! For most time that was dynamic conflitc. If Poles want to help Whites they would struck at autumn of 1919. When Reds were in the worst possiable position. Surrunded by attacking Whites and with mass rebelions at rears. Yes Soviet were not loved as you claim. They were on road to disaster. Then Poles stop ofensive, when there was any significant forces of Reds against them. In the same time France and UK try force Poles to attack and finish Bolsheviks. But Pilsudski didn't agree. He prefer wait and do not help Whites, because they were biggest treat for Poland.
And Polan also was destroyed by war and German-Asutrian occupation.
"1917 only 25% of votes! 25% against 40% for”
Lol.This is toooo simple even for a second grader. In 1917 nobody new Bolsheviks that’s why they got 25%. And even 25 is rather much under such light. But the real election started when it was for people to decide for whom,out of multiple sides, to join the fight in the civil war. Most people chose Bolshevik – by then everyone already knew them – and that is REAL and the only one legitimate election. People were free to go to fight for Whites, for Petlura, for Kolchak,Denikin, Wrangel, for whomever they liked, but they chose REDS. You are again in the water, my friend"
Not simple, but significant. In only real free election Bolsheviks were only with 25% of votes. AGAIN 40% FOR SOCIALIST REVOLUTIONIST. That is why Bolsheviks disband Russian Constituent Assembly. Bolsheviks like many before and after them recognise only election that they win. Calling civil war an from of election is so stiupd that need comment. Using your logic Franco won because he was choose majority. Or Pilsudski in 1926 won because he was so popular? There is so many examples in history when "good dictator" become ruler because he disband instututions and claim will of the people. Just like Napoleon and Hitler......
Bolsheviks won because they dowhatever they need to do to keep them in power. Unrest like Tambov Rebellion 1918-1921 or Kronstadt rebellion proves that Soviet were hated for their terror and dictatorship.
"You’re so incompetent I don’t even have words!!! No,Russia didn’t lose the war. Grozny had been taken at least three times. The problem with civil wars that it’s not enough to win them militarily,you have to heal the deep civil wounds, and that is much more harder to do,and the opportunity popped up only when Kadyrov family came up. What do you think we should’ve done in 1996? To kill 100% chehens? To nuke them? Of course anglo-saxons would’ve done exactly that! But Russians are not beasts. We chose to reconcile, so the problem had been just frozen in 1996, and was solved three years later.It was wise and humane."
Taking Grozny? First attack was dissaster. Later operations of federal army were tottaly mockery of warfare, Warcimes, genocide of Chechens. Destrucion of infrastrucure of reoublic. All that only in first war which Russia lose. vidence was that federal army reatreat from republic.
Second war was started under false pretence that Chechens commit terror attacks. In reality that was false flag operations done by FSB! Agents of FSB were captured by militia on one of site where attack were done in city of Ryazan! FSB claim that were exercises!
How look both wars we can read from relations of brave journalist like Anna Politkovskaya. Murdered by writing truth about war crimes in Chechnia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/05/russia.chechnya
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/who-really-did-kill-russian-journalist-anna-politkovskaya-9535772.html
Russia Army act in Chechnia like nazi, killing civilians and commiting other war crimes. I have chance o talk with soldier frim Russian Army and he said that was genocide and he is haunted by attrocieties he see in this war done by federal army.
There is multiply evidence and testimonies from Chechens, Russians that sow how Putin's administration sanction genocide of citizens of Republic. Then do not claim that federal forces act with no contempt for life of civilians.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lukebruce5234 For simple debunking your lies:
1)That is not true. The deal Czechoslovakia had with the USSR was different. The deal was the USSR had to help militarily if France helped. The USSR in 1938 did not have a military force strong enough to fight on its own.
In this line you hide two lies. One is that soviet-chehoslovakian agrement was directed against countries like Poland and Romania. But Chehoslovakia can use that also against Germans, but need cooperation with transit of soviet forces. Still that was formal allaince and there is no notion that France was included in it. In the same time France was allied with Chehosloavakia, but they need help from UK. USSR try to use France to force Poland to open borders for Red Army, but everybody knows that was impossiable because if you let soviet troops on your territory, that mean you will go under soviet rule ( look Baltic States in 1940).
2) The Soviets cut the sale of grain once the famine began. The West boycotted the USSR so it could not use gold to trade. They had to use grain. Kulaks were persecuted because of the wide scale sabotage they engaged in when they refused to give up their property.
They have to cut sale,because there were drop in production. You can't sell grain that you don't have!
And again you blame victimes for genocide.
"Kulaks were persecuted because of the wide scale sabotage they engaged in when they refused to give up their property." That mean: we good Soviet will take all your grain, you will die or if you resist we will take all your grain and you will die. What is your logic? Jews gas themselves? Germans only provide camps?
Even in 1930' world was inform about real scale and sources of famine in USSR. You just repeat old propaganda.
3)Again you are wrong here. Ford was ideologically pro-Nazi and would even print anti-Semtic propaganda. Also Ford would donate the profit he made to the Nazi Party.
Yes Ford was antisemite, but still that not mean that he didn't build biggest factories of cars for USSR. ZiS cars are license copy of Ford products. USSR buy technology and material from around the world! You disprove nothing with that.
4)The Germans spent 213 billion (in 2000 dollars) in 1940 on their military. The USSR spent 62 billion. The British spent 100 billion.
Nice comapration, but still you forgott mention that soviet economy was created to put its production for army. Only few procents of industrial output in USSR was for civilian use, even in the peace time befor WW2/ Also you try to hide that USSR from 1930' start massive arrament production. In 1940 armies of UK and III Reich cant compete with Red Army with numbers of tanks, artilery and warplanes. Biggest lie is in simple use quotas of money, because money in communist economy are pure number. All resources, industrial power and manpower is own by state. Nice try but next fail.
5)The Soviet Union was clearly preparing for the war since it was threatened since its inception but it no way could compete with Germany in neither spending nor technology.
Next blunt lie. From 1920' and to 1933 USSR and Germany cooperate with creation of new kind of weapons and tactics. Soviets exacly knew what was in german arsenal.
If you claim that thousend sT-34 and KV-1 come from sky in 1941 i don't belive you. Compare that tanks to german Panzerkampfwagen II/III/IV. Problem was low quality of soviet production and lack in command structure after Great Purge. But what i know about soviet peacfull Red Army.
6)The problem was that the Soviets had around 20 million soldiers and that Europe was largely pro socialist at the time knowing what capitalism has done (two World Wars, the Great Depression etc). Nobody back then blamed socialism for WW2 like TIK does. The USA had nuclear bombs but it would not win the propaganda war at the time. If they started nuking cities murdering millions the people of Europe would back the USSR.
That is real pearl. Noone in democratic West want war with USSR in 1945. (Excluding Churchill that was decide to stop communis). Because evreybody just fought one with III Reich. Communism was maybe popular, but not that much you think. But even with this massive Red Army USSR was broken and can't fight with USA, UK and France. Why? Because economy in USSR can't stand new war. Middle Europe was still in turmoil and need be suppresed. And im curious how this time USSR will convince world that agressors were Western Allied? You belive in power soviet propaganda, I see power of industry that dwarf USSR economy and power of atomic bomb! RAF and US airforce wil just slaughter soviet airforce. Navies of both countries will blokade USSR and that will be the end of communism. That is way Stalin didn't try his luck in 1945. He need time to get a A-bomb.
7)That is false. The fate of Eastern Europe was sealed at Yalta. By the way the Czechs voted the communists in.
Then you admit that Stalin see in captured conutries only spolis of war and just want to create communist satelites, not real independent allies for USSR. Because you forgott that the key part in Yalta agreement was that the Soviet will obey the will of the citizens in this countries. In each of then Soviets and local communist stage "democratic election" that was in reality cover up for capturing power by communist. You wrote about election in Chehosklovakia, election with one party and all strucures of power in hands of communist. And suprise communist wins. Tha is real face of soviet democracy.
And last but not least:
Westerners commonly deny the native American genocide, the mass murder and enslavement in their many colonies and even the responsibility for wars in Iraq, Vietnam and so on.
Today everyone in world know how brutal were wars between Indians and USA (you use term genocide). Then you need to know that is understand about this part of history in the world's view. Only some your 's american counterparts try to lie about it. The same way you forgott why Americans leave Vietnam. That is all well undesrtand history in the West. If you use the same standards for USSR we can treat you with any regard and respect. But you take all respect from yourslef with one sentence. I wrote:
Even Hitler with his policy can't beat Stalin and Mao in cruelty and body count.
You respond: That is just a cold war zinger and a false one.
Cold War is long gone. Whatever you claim people saw enough evidence that put your claims in the same spot with people claiming that there were no Holocaust and Hitler didn't know nothing. You can't burried past under lies and propaganda. Communism produce biggest evil in history and killed more than enybody else. Lenin, Stalin, Mao. Pol Phot and others were mass murderes that make Hitler just a one of dictators in XX century. And not the worst one.
In regards for your blunt lies i end with hope that some day you open your eyes and learn some real history. Not short soviet version of propaganda.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@peterlawler2201 If you don't belive me. Belive Hitler's words and actions. Here you have some quotes:
"Our fight is with money. Work alone will help us, not money. We must smash interest slavery. Our fight is with the races that represent money."
Speech at the hall of Zum Deutschen Reich (December 18, 1919), quoted in Thomas Weber, Becoming Hitler: The Making of a Nazi (Basic Books, 2017), p. 138. Police report of DAP meeting, SAM, DPM/6697
"Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism. "
"Why We Are Anti-Semites," August 15, 1920 speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus. Speech also known as "Why Are We Anti-Semites?" Translated from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 16. Jahrg., 4. H. (Oct., 1968), pp. 390-420. Edited by Carolyn Yeager.
"Since we are socialists, we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism… How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist!"
"Why We Are Anti-Semites," August 15, 1920 speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus. Translated from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 16. Jahrg., 4. H. (Oct., 1968), pp. 390-420. Edited by Carolyn Yeager.
"To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil. "
Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed., “First Interview with Hitler, 4 May 1931,” Secret Conversations with Hitler: The Two Newly-Discovered 1931 Interviews, New York: John Day Co., 1971, pp. 31-33. Also published under the title Unmasked: Two Confidential Interviews with Hitler in 1931, published by Chatto & Windus in 1971
"What matters is to emphasize the fundamental idea in my party's economic program clearly; the idea of authority. I want the authority; I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: 'Benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual.' But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. "
In 1931, as quoted in Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy (1990), by Avraham Barkai, pp. 26–27
You can find more this"right-wing" stuff on wiki and other sources. I'm not dilusional about some NSDAP tactis to get support from wealthy and powerfull. Suppot to get power. The same tactic use bolsheviks before October Revolution. But say that Hitler was on right side is so far from reality as you can get . For years communist propaganda call him that. Yes, some his policy was based on right-wing ideas, but in core he act and talk about himself as socialist.
Quotes are taken from:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
Read yourself Mein Kampf, don't belive people that claim that is bad to know it. It is bad to belive that this stiupid and shallow book can make you Hitler's fan. He was evil in pure state, no deep thoughts in this weak publications. Read and understand how disconnected he was with reality with his ideology. The same problem is people quote Marx without understanding how he was wrong in his works. Th same you can see in Lenin and Stalin works, not titans but dwarfs of philosophy and intellect.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kingslayer2981 For your consideration, I just said that not all "damned soldiers" were heros. Many of them were acting like bandits, but that was marginal number. In comaprition communist kill milions of innocent peoples.
And I not claim that your ancestors didn't suffer from that wrong actions of this people .But in real numbers most of them fight against Germans and Soviets. Both regimes named them all as bandits, but Soviets many times use provocation to blame them for attrocieties that was made by NKVD. Even Solzenicyn in his works wrote about that. That actions were soviet speciality for the rest of the war. The same tatcic was used by local polish communist special forces to blame opposition for terror attacks. After that they gain support from local population to destroy anticommunist partisants. There is many relation about soviet soldier posing as a opposing forces. That was very popular method. If you have any doubs read about soviet terrorist operation against Poland after the end of war in 1921 and later. Diversion, killing polish citizens and civil servants. Even in peace time soviet army and special forces attacks polish border! Read about place Stolpce and what happen there in 1924. The same situation take place ta soviet-finish border. Both countries create special border units to stop that.
In case of my family, both german and soviet occupation were tragedy, but most wrongdoing we suffer from UPA, only my grandmother survive from her family. She never want to spoke about that tragedy. Also she never talk bad about all Ukrainian, but she can't stand calling UPA as a heros.
If you try compare situation people living insde and outside USSR and you claim that life in USSR were better, just don't know nothing about history or just lie. Even with stiupid polish asimilation ploitics no one in Poland murder bielarusian inteligence. From 1927 bielarusian language was taught in local schools. Just before war that change for worse and that was mistake of polish goverment. Still noone force to ban that language in Poland between 1918-1939. Poland maybe was harsh place to build national culture, but USSR was much more worse.
Officialy in USSR Bielarusian people have rights to own cullture. But in reality bielarusian inteligence was killed by soviets or run to West, russian was only language you can use. No independent culture can be created in Bielarus under soviet rule. I don't know what is official history in Bielarus today, but Soviets destroy for years bielarusian culture and even today Russian claims that Bielarus is not real independent nation and country.
But biggest misunderstanding is in your claims about sovietization in connection with russification. Official all nations were equal part of USSR, but in reality new conquered territories were heavly and mostly colonizated by Russian. Local nations were deported in mass to other parts of USSR. You can see that in Poland (West Bielarus and Ukraine) after 17.09.1939. and in Baltic States after 1940. Removing local population was connected with mass migration and most of them were ethnic Russians. That was not anyway a case of normal migration. That was central planned force relocation, just state operated ethic cleansing. Local languages were banned, georaphic names were change to russian. In fact in soviet logic all border population were potencial enemies, that was the main cause to remove them and replace them with trusted population. Population that was educated and formed in USSR. Same proces you can see in Crimea or East Prussian after WW2, in place of local population that was removed you have dislocation of USSR citizens, which most are Russian. You claim that wasn't a Stalin's plan to secure this lands. In case it was not russian nationalism, but communist useage of dominating culture and population in USSR. That also is no way blaiming Russian for tragedy of communism. They should know how they were used for Stalin's dreams of ruling the Europe. But problems of that barbaric relocation is still with us today.
Problem is that in USSR everyone was slave of communism. There were no freedome of movement, any liberties at all. USSR was just totalitarian regime, just like III Reich. I can't still understand how you can defend that evil empire.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ВячеславСкопюк Finland was neutral before and after Winter War, USSR force bases for Red Army in Hanko and block defence pact between Sweden and Finland. Take bunch of teritories and block trade, excluding only vital trade with Germany. By the way Germany was only other source of food for Fins, take it to consideration. Also everybody knows what happen when USSR places bases in Baltic States. Only way to keep balance, was take (forced by trade embargo) german offer of laeasing the bases and tranist rights on Fininland's teritory. Second options was just waiting for next soviet attack and do nothing. Stalin was outraged because Moscov treaty didn't say anything about german presence in Finland and Fins were not a part of soviet-german arragments and do not have to any obligations to obey them . If soviet units in Finland didn't mean that Finland was soviet ally, that what logic support your claim that german units broke this neutrality? Portugal stay neutral even aften leasing bases to UK and USA on atlantic islands in WW2. The same neutral USA in 1940 and 1941 place military bases on british teritories! Do you need more examples? Fins just stay between two bloody tyrants and manage to use them against eachother.
Next false claim. Sweden didn't stay so neutral at all. At the time of invasion on Norway in 1940, Germans forced transit of materials to Narvik. The same happend after invasion on USSR in 1941. Transport from Norway goes to Finland by swedish railways! That cause power shift in swedish politics. On the other side soviet submarines also have no problem with attacking neutral swedish merchant ships.
Next point is soviet protest was based on Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, which state Finland as a part of USSR "sphere of interest". That also mean that finish goverment wasn't any part of this agrement! That was only imperial politics between Moscov and Berlin. Noone ask Fins about that! In any way they did not been obligated to do whatever Stalin and Hitler decide.
I'm not claiming that Stalin was wrong in 1941-41 preparing to strike Hitler! It is sure today that Stalin's plan in 1940-41 was attack Germany and capture or destroy romanian oilfields! Stalin taking Besarabia and Bukovina give Hitler hint of his plans! There is many more evidence of that offensive preparation. Movement and preparations of soviet units long before german deployment to Barbarossa! The biggest lie is that USSR was preparing to defence! Where is that mythical defence plan for Red Army for 1941? There is no such plan, because it was never existed. Nearly 80 years ago Red Army prepare attack on III Reich and we know the name of plan, it is MP-41! Today also we know layout of sowiet armies but we still hear about mythical defence plan that noone seen till today! I ask you where is that soviet defence plan for german invasion? Can you give me source for that plan?
The most stiupid claim you make is that when both countries (USSR and III Reich ) were enemies. Not really befor 22.06.1941. Using your logic Hanko base was enemy target for Germans! In that base was over 20 thousand of soldier and base was heavly fortified! When Soviets have base in Hanko and place large forces on finish border, Germans use economical means to put small forces in Finland. In the same time Stalin and Hitler talk about formal alliance and were cooperating in war against UK!
About bombing on Finland, USSR were not at war in this time with Fins! Soviet or Fins didn't declare it! The same "accident" happen to city in Slovakia, then part of neutral Hungary! The same day, 25 June 1941!Maybe that was soviet mistake, but i don't belive in that. Formaly Finland and Hungary were still neutral in war between USSR and III Reich! But both of this countries never have problems with other countries neutrality, like Germans invading Belgium or Stalin "helping" Baltic States. But you will claim that befor 22.06.1941. Hitler and Stalin was enemies. Yeah right. And this enemies just politly slice half of Europe together.
Final case is that Fins didn't claim or retake any teritory that wasn't finish property before 1940! They stoped on 1940's border! That was one of the many reason why Stalin didn't fully conquere Finland after 1944.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lukebruce5234 Yes I'm Polish but what that change? Probably you will accuse me of some bias against Russia. Do you belive that I can't be objective because of that?
But only bias I got is against lies.
" I don't blame you as the Poles are the funniest falsifiers of history." I am curious what part of mine claims are false. Because I give you sources.
Most soviet tanks were operational at 22nd June 1941. No big problems in this part of Red Army.
Most T-26 and BT were armed in 45 mm cannon that could destroy every german tank. KV-1 and T-34 use 76.2 guns much more better than any german tank including Panzer III and IV. When armor of KV and T-34 were shock for Germans. 37 mm PAK 36 can't do nothing to this tanks. 50 mm guns were very rare and not always effective.
Yes soviet tanks were in some ways inferior to Panzers. But 26000 is still much more than 3700. Even if half of soviet tanks were broke you still get for times more than Germans get. Sorry but you are using old soviet exccuse to blame backwardenes as a biggest cause of soviet defet.
In reality main tanks of Wermacht was Pz II with 20 mm cannon, Pzkpfw 35 and 38 with 37 mm guns. Only Pz III and IV were modern, but this types were still smaller part of german tank forces. They even use Pz I! Armed with two MG!
"The Soviet army wasn't particularly strong in 1941."
Official soviet data from show that in numbers of soldiers, tanks, artillery, planes, trucks Red Army was better equiped than Wermaht. All that was lost in few first months of war. Because of mistakes made by Stalin and his generals.
5 millions men, 26000 tanks, how you can claim that is small and weak army.
"There is no half truth. In the late 30s the British and the Germans outspent the Soviets in military expenditures. The USSR spent a lot throughout the 30s but that is to be expected from a country which is so massive and is barely industrialized. The armed forces needed a build up and it paid off. "
Still miss the point. Soviet economy was different in many ways than any economy. Profit, payment and price are just empty word in this economy. Only goal to industralisation was creating heavy industry to produce everything what Red Army need. This process bring soviet citizens poverty and famine. Maybe you will claim that Holodomor or Great Purge are anti-soviet propaganda?
About UK and Third Reich overspending USSR. Both nations still operate in peace time economy. They must pay bills. USSR is totalitarian dictatorship where state is owner of every bit of property. Then whatever you claim USSR starve own citizens to build weapons factories, not for benefit of civilians.
UK was world wide empire with costly fleet.(First fleet i the world). In 1930's build air defence system and din't starve noone to achive that.
Germans rebuild army in twice short time that soviet regime create own forces. That is very costly proces, but still in numbers noone can compare to USSR in land forces.
"By the way the Soviet economy was larger than the one of the UK, it took the entire British Empire to get above the USSR."
You really don't know any real numbers about interwar economy. German and UK (that mean whole empire) economy were much larger than USSR. Official soviet economical data were just straight lies. After 1991 when soviet archives were open, many of USSR official claims become laughing stock to reality.
"Penal labor was normal at the time everywhere in the World. Calling it slave labor just because you don't like the USSR is stupid. "
I name it that becuse when state take your basic rights and send you to force labor that is slavery. In USSR citizens were whitout any rights. When you were late 3 times to work you were send to Gulag.
No other country in 20th century before 1939 use so much slave labor than USSR.
Do I like USSR or not, facts are facts. Soviet citizens were just slaves in own countries. Even Tsar give more rights to his subjects. How many greate projects of USSR can't exist without slaves? I think more than you can named. Soviet industry was build on bones and blood of victimes of Stalin.
"You just made that up on the spot. Given the fact Poland was allied with the British and the French it is pretty much impossible the Soviets would risk a war against the majority of European powers just to occupy You just made that up on the spot. Given the fact Poland was allied with the British and the French it is pretty much impossible the Soviets would risk a war against the majority of European powers just to occupy the most worthless part of Europe (Poland).
I will give you few evidence that you are mistaken.
1) Soviet invasion on Poland 17th September 1939 as a result of pact between Stalin and Hitler.
2) Attack on Finland the same year.
3)Anexation of Baltic States in 1940.
4)If Stalin didn't want Poland why to soviet army keep units there to 1993?
5)Stalin after WW2 captured half of Europe when he promise to allowe for democratic elections. Never happend and noone attack USSR because of that.
Main reason to help against Geramny in 1939 was to get sphere of influence in middle Europe. That was Stalin's plan, one way or another he get what he want. But to do it he sacrifise 20 milions of soviet citizens.
Again i prove to you that in 1939-41 Stalin and Hitler were in alliance.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Frontier_Treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovsk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks
For all that facts we have today documents from german and soviet archives. I'm sure that you will claim tha I as a Pole I invent things. But I'm sorry for you because today people can read multiply sources and discover that all your arguments are based on soviet propaganda and lies.
Fact is simple Stalin was dictator, USSR enslave and kill millions to spread communism. But as we can see that only bring fall of this sick ideas.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@simplicius11 just reconize and understand that simple facts. From 22nd June to end of 1941 (!) Red Army losses were colossal. Look on planes and tanks, artillery and transport, it was just fast decreasing numbers. Most of produced tracks were lost. Production of trucks and others vehicles was halted and soviet industrial capacity was redirected on weapons production. It's the same reason why they didn't modernize T-34 before late 1942. Little joke about state of mobilization in USSR, it was ending in the June of 1941, just because Soviets were prepering to attack Germans from months. One of biggets lie is that Operation Barbarossa was any secret for Stalin. Both sides were prepering to offensive strike in 1941.
Next fact is that soviet trucks was copies of older models bought on licence, look on ZiS trucks, just simplified and much poorer models of western trucks from early 1930s. Obsolete in comparation with standard german models like Opel Blitz. It is also problem with quality of soviet production, you can seriously claim that you can compare quality and performance of this trucks to western counerparts. Not even close to compare 1940s USA production standards.
Halftrack or armoured trucks/carriers were essential to create formation like Panzer Grenadiers or mechanized infantry. Red Army have no units like it, only in recon/scout formation. That was reality of soviet resources. Because of low numbers in production everything connected to motorization, simple and easy to understand. Not enough trucks even for first line formation, just enough for logistic effort.
We can disscuse about opinions, but facts are brutally clear, after disaster of half of 1941 year USRR need 3 years to rebuild with enourmous allied help transport capacity in truck fleet. Trains were important, but you need fast way to transport supply from end stations to front line units. Less trucks mean slower buildup of offensive capibilites of Red Army.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@valterskye7934 "@Horatio82 Why are you believe in all that's bullsht you post here? whats bad in communism?"
Well every thing that Hitler and nazist do, eralier was don by communist. People claim that most evil men in history was Hitler. I disagree, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Phot are communist that done things much more worse than done by Hitler. And most of this things were done to own nations!
I know that many people support communism because belive propaganda. But I am old enough to remember how communism destroy economy of my country, how communist forbbiden to ask question about communist crimes.
Millions killed by commnism in 20th century is enough to know that communism is the same evil like nazism. Do you ever heard about Gulags, Great Purge, Holodomor or Polish Operation of NKVD in 1930's? And that is just a peak of pill of communist crimes.
Do you know that the same day when Auschwitz was liberated by Red Army, the same Red Army put there a "enemies of communism". The same was done in place like Majdanek, other nazi camp! Putin is pride of liberation, but do not speak what happened there after liberation!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ruthlesstruth8639 "Sweden supplied Germany with ore, bearings and other goods. These are military goods and a legitimate target for attack. Inspection in those conditions was impossible. Thus, Sweden fought on the side of Germany."
Some attacks were done inside Swedish teritorial waters. That mean that Soviet submarines don't even care what was a destination of shipment. Second thing Sweden traded with all sides as a neutral country.
And you shoot this one yourself "Thus, Sweden fought on the side of Germany." Basicly you admit that USSR fought on side of Third Reich.Swedish trade with Third Reich was much smaller that Soviet.
Adn Sweden never declare war on USSR, as USSR do not declared war on Sweden.
" If you are talking about the Nord base. This is not the base. This is a bay without piers and buildings. There was a German tanker and a German submarine seemed to be entering it. That is, the cooperation was limited. "
Fact is that base helped in invasion on Norway and provide operation support for submarines and merchant raiders of Kreigsmarine. There is no distincion between base with land infrastrucure or not equiped that. But you are liying because Germans build basic infrastrucur there with Soviet help.
"How do you compare this with the surrender of Czechoslovakia in the face of the German-Anglo-French alliance?"
You are really delusional. Maybe you forgott that USSR was ally of Czehoslovakia and do nothing to help Prauge.
"The USSR traded with Germany, like all countries. I don’t deny it. This helped us prepare for war and defeat Germany."
Curious, Germans gain everything needed to wage war from USSR, without that in 1941 they would ne much weaker. You basicly point on illogic of Soviet policy, because insteed weaken Germans and made USSR stronger Stalin helped Hitler to made Werhmacht stonger and worsen Soviet chances in war with Germans. Without Soviet oil, ores and other trade German economy would suffer badly. Then how selling that to Germans helped USSR?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In reality NSDAP abolished private property, the change that in so called Weimar Constitution which still was base of law in Nazi regime. Then by law and practice Nazi Germany were as Left wing as you can go.
And I do not agree thath in whole Europe political doctrins have the same ramification. You can see that quite visable between Western and Central-East Europe. Many philosophers and politicak scientist in Central-East Europe pointed that Comunism, Fascism and Nazism share many characteristics. But all of them also came from Socialism and modernism. But in the same time for propaganda reasons all eegimes were using elemwnts od past as founding atone of their iseology, communist in USSR loved to claim tat any society in he past qas representtion of oppresive elites against "proto-ploretariat", even in ancient times. Fascism and Nazism ofent showed past as soucw of their core values, but in reality all of those were for post-modern model of humanity. New man thay will be shaped onmy by state and Party. Even family will become part of state socialisation. Kids will be property of state qnd parents will lost all their parental rights.
Going even farther communists do not have any problem to operate as nationalistic movement, USSR after WW2 became basically emanation of Russin shauvinism and nationalism, all non-russin cultures were targeted to Russification. Vietnam and North Korea also became very nationalistic. Even China in the core do not recognise any deviation from maistreem communist version of Chinese culture. Tibet and Uygurs are examples of this effect. There is no Tibetan communism, it is just Chinese eradication of Tibetan culture.
It is going so far that communist countries fought againat eachother, Vietnam fought both Rouge Khmers and Mao's China. China fought USSR.
I am not saying that authoritarism is not possiable as a Riht Wing regime. But I will point that Totalitarism is Left Wing phenomenon. It is based on important basis of Left Wing ideology. Individual rights are always beind collective ones, property rights are hevku regulated or removed by ruling regime. Goal of colectivism is creation of new man that is more perfect than "old man" of previous eras. When Right wing always will put private property as basic right. Family as basic social strucure with oarental control over kids, which do not mean that state will not force some sort of state ideology on families. And Right as dogma do not look for creatooj of mew man, himan beeing is always the same for Right wing, product od his time and society.
Yes both sides can be undemocratic, but there are always differences on basic level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr Diesle or not when transmission and gearbox are not designed or not produced in proper way, you not gonna use this power. That is case of T-34. Gearbox and transsmition were from start very heavy to operate, plus easy to break. That why drivers use only one settig and push engine to maximum when they can. Which cause problems with overloading the engine. The same problems was seen in KW series for the most time. Transsmision and gerabox was one of weakest points of T-34 design. Aberdeen trails state that T-34 was equiped in obselete and very fragile gearbox and transmission which can't use properly whole power of engine.
All claims about that transmission and gearbox in T-34 were reaible are just false. Transmission and gearbox were first part of this tank which were modernise in war production vehicles. From 1942 Soviets start producing never models with new gearbox, but still that was far behinde transmission and gerboxes of M4, which also was modernize.
I see that you to undermine your opponent arguments you put comparison that way, that you compare the newest T-34/85 to older models of M4 or Pz IV. You use this rhetoric to undermine arguments. When i talk about comaprision of ealry M4 to T-34/76, you jump to T-34/85 and just "forget" what about was argument and disscussion.
The same was with LaGG 3 and La 5. I said that LaGG 3 was bad plane in many ways. You jump nad "shout" but La 5 was good. When my point was that the without proper standars of production that plane from prototype to production plane change into worst soviet fighter. Argument show that when project of T-34 in many ways was good, but need modernisation of many parts of it. Like cramp turret. Transsmition and gearbox. Suspenssion from Christy Type to torssion bars. Whole that argument you cover "shouting" "but La 5 was greate". That is not the point of this argument.
About M3 and F-34 guns, muzzle velocity and weight of ammunition, that is important part of penetration problem, but also you should remeber that type of shell and materials are very important. You can't just throw away argument like velocity and mass are only two parts of penetration.
Simple example HEAT or HESH rounds use tottaly diffrent approach to penetration. In case of this two types is better use slower shell.
Plus if you wrote about ammunition you should mention that when they test T-34 in Aberdeen Americans noticed that muzzle velocity is lower then catalog values. Soviets claim that is not true but documents claim othervise. Next you have test in Kubinka when Soviets shoot to Tiger II using all guns they use and guns from vehicles from Lend Lease. They observe that F-34 was worse than M3. That is in CAMD RF 38-11377-129 report which is made after trails. The two independent sources, which are tank institutes claim tha F-34 was worse in anti-tank firepower then M3. What can I say.
About comaprision I made, when i made them I use models from the same time.
M4A1 vs Pz IV F2 or G vs T-34/76 model 1941 or 1942.
M4A1 (76)W or M4M4A3E8/M4A3(76)W HVSS vs Pz IV H or J vs T-34/85.
That is proper way to compare this tanks.
Next your trick is changing subject when you can't respond.
What with CAMD RF 38-11377-129 report or other reporth that claim that T-34 wasn't in any way superior to other tanks from era, rather othervise. Good in elements but as a whole design much more prone to mechanical faliure.
What with problems in quality of soviet production?
Evacuation is not only reason that it happened, that was one of the vices of communism.
About soviet tankers on M4:
Loza talk much about this tank and praise it. Talk about weakness and strong point, he even said that in comparision when M4 burn he observe that ammo didnt explode and lot of crews survive this. But when T-34 start burning they always try to run far away because when it's start burning ammo explode.
Praise M4 for internal space, mechanical efficency. Things that T-34 tanks were lacking.
https://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/
You ponit my mistakes but you can't admit to yours.
That is not really honest disscution. You turn disscusiom from points that you can't respond and point to other way. Yes I made mistakes but I can correct them. You can't.
Simple example you claim that frontal plate of T-34 was in any way weaken by driver's hatch. But that is not true, every specialist will tell you that if you made a huge cut in structure you make it weaker.
You claim that Kwk 37 7.5 cm L/24 couldn't penetrate frontal armor of T-34, when with HEAT round it could!
https://panzerworld.com/7-5-cm-kw-k-l-24
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr "T-34 was a lot better off road, because it had bigger wheel(so it goes better over large obstacles), and long travel suspension, on top of that wider tracks and lower center of gravity"
Really? When in the most cases T-34 drivers can use only one gearbox setting! Even when in T-34/85 they fix more of this problems, still drivers very fast were tired because of great force need to operate gearbox, they even have to use hammer to change gearbox setting!
How you can praise whole tank if only engine was good element there (in any competition best tank engine in WW2).Try to go stop and fast start in war production T-34 and you just destroy gearbox! Thats why for the most time soviet tankers even didn't try to do it with T-34. Whole transmision and suspention was obselete and poorly made. Christie suspension was big and very noisy. Didn't work very well for crew and tank. This tank was known for problems with suspention, that is one of most common named disadvantage of this tank! Thats why after T-34 in USSR they resign from Christy suspension. IS or T-44 use torsion bar suspention because of T-34 problems! If you claim are true, then why in Korea and Arab-Israeli wars Shermans in anyway shown this disadvatage? Also test done by Soviets, Germans and Americans show that difference on paper don't match real performance. T-34 on paper was better but in reality, suspension and gearbox killed that "advantage".
About quality. Evacuation was done in summer of 1941. When the tanks produced in 1940 and before Barbarossa were dying in great numbers from mechanical faliures. Big portion of T-34 was lost in 1941 because of it! Not just from enemy fire!
That mean that production standards wasn't so great from start! M4 never had this problems, from start of production it was easy to produce and maintain tank, not like T-34. Yes after war T-34/85 get great modification program, but tha was after the war! If that was so food tank before, why USSR done this basicly after the war!
Yes 85mm was better as a soft target killer, but for that M4 with 75mm or 105mm was keep in fight. And tank warfare is not one tank versus one! Soviet adress that building assalute guns like SU-76, SU/ISU122 and 152. Also 75mm from M4 was very good AT gun. Only german tanks that was protected from front against it was Tiger, Elefant and Panther family. Up to distance of 1000 meters this gun can destroy from front tanks like Pz IV and T-34 whithout any problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_M2/M3/M6
You forget that in 1941 was one more model of T-34, T-34/57 because Soviet decide build tank with better AT gun than F-32 gun! Then they just did the same as Americans, whole your argument is false that way.They resign because Germans didn't get better armored tanks in Barbarossa.
Shermans 76mm M1 gun was better in destroying hard targets, look again to Kubinka's report about gun and ammunition performance against Tiger II tank. Soviets admit that M1 was better than 85mm tank gun.
Sorry but still your claims miss the point that paper performace is not the same like real life action.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr Well, I guess now you don't claim that La 5 is a new design, but you did before, right? Maybe qoute? I wrote many times that LaGG 3 and La 5 are different plane in performance not in basic project! La 5 was redesign of fuselage used to produce LaGG 3. That mean that was modification for new engine and new instalation! Not just engine swap!
"Needless to say, this was not a simple task. For one thing, the Shvetsov engine was a full 18 inches (46 centimeters) wider than the Klimov. Moreover, the M-82 was 550 pounds (250 kg) heavier than the M-105, meaning that the new engine would significantly shift the aircraft’s center of gravity forward. Nevertheless, Alekseyev’s team was able to make the necessary adjustments to the LaGG-3’s airframe to allow for the large radial engine to be installed on the narrow fuselage. In order to attach the M-82 to the airframe, Alekseyev’s team bonded plywood skirting to the outer forward fuselage, which helped ease the cumbersome radial engine’s transition onto the LaGG’s airframe. Two variable cooling flaps were installed on both sides of the fuselage, which allowed the 20 mm ShVAK cannons to be mounted above the M-82 (however, this later led to significant problems with the aircraft overheating, since the top cylinders frequently did not benefit from the cooling flaps). Work on the prototype was completed in February 1942 at Plant No. 21 in Gorky, and its inaugural flight of the new aircraft, designated the LaGG-3 M-82, was made the following month. "
You just concetrate on final product of modification. Then time was from 7 December 1941 to February 1942. That was final work done by Lavochkin. But there is a catch...
"Interestingly, the installation of an M-82 to an LaGG-3 had already been attempted by Mikhail Gudkov, one of the LaGG-3’s original designers, in the summer of 1941. Gudkov took the nose section of a Sukhoi Su-2 light bomber, which also housed an M-82, and attached it to the airframe of an LaGG-3. The resulting aircraft, which was known as the Gu-82, made its first flight in September, and reached a top speed of 360 mph (580 km/h). Though the aircraft did have a number of issues, specifically regarding its stability, initial flight tests showed promise, and it was certainly an improvement over the LaGG-3. In October 1941, Gudkov wrote to Soviet leader Josef Stalin, “Currently, I am carrying out complex developments that give me reason to believe that I will be able to increase the speed of my machine to 600 km/h, without taking into account the elimination of defects in the mass production [of LaGG-3s]… after staying at the front, I distinctly imagine that we need to have an airplane with an air-cooled engine since the use of fighters with liquid-cooled engines in air battles and especially in ground attack against the enemy brings a great percentage of losses in pilots and material, because of the great vulnerability of the water system of the engine… proceeding from these considerations, I ask you, in order to gain time, without waiting for the end of flight testing, to allow me to introduce my aircraft with the M-82 at one of the production plants that produce the LaGG aircraft.” However, Gudkov did not immediately receive a response, and by the time he did, the LaGG-3 M-82 project was already underway, and the Gu-82 was not further pursued. While it is unclear why, exactly, the LaGG-3 M-82 project was chosen instead of the Gu-82, especially since the latter was several months ahead of the former, historians believe that it was due to Lavochkin’s close relationship with members of the Soviet leadership. "
Hmm, two designers that create LaGG 1 and 3 try in the same time put the same engine on the same plane. But wait Lavochkin do it in only few weeks, what a genius. Something that Gutkov start doing 6 moths earlier. And that is why I think that wasn't true. Works was done with other trials to modify LaGG, Lavochkin just benefit from both desings and thats why officially he created his plane so fast. Because him and Gutkov were working about that from start when LaGG was produced. Nopthing new in design and plane production.
But I'm sure that your version is closer to truth because that is claim of official soviet sources (yes that is sarcasm).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr Still you not see difference between development from year 1940/1941 to 15 days? Todays sources are more reailble becausethey work with a lot more materials than older one. When you compare our knowledge about WW2 to knowledge from 1970 there is stagering difference. I understand you don't want to admit to mistake. Modern sources show that road from LaGG to La starts between 1940 to 1941. Lavochkin and Gutkov take different ways to reach the same point, change of engine. Lavochkin after moths of work on modifing LaGG, turn to engine change and chabges in construcion of plane in case of this modernization. You will sick with 15 days, ok that is the legend. Facts show something else. You probaly don't grasp that development of this plane was done earlier and 15 days is just time when prototype was completed and tested. That is not he same like R&D process.
"Semyon Lavochkin, desperate to get the LaGG-3 flying right, focused on re-engining the type. He initially tried the improved Klimov M-107 vee-12 engine, but engine overheating proved a chronic problem; every flight of the test aircraft resulted in an emergency landing. However, engine designer Akady Shvetsov had come with a new, powerful 14-cylinder two-row air-cooled radial engine, the "M-82" -- a derivative of the US-made Wright R-1820 Cyclone -- with aircraft designers investigating the powerplant to see what it could do for them. Re-engining the MiG-3 and Yak-7 with the M-82 provided no real improvement, leaving Shvetsov with no demand for the engine.
Lavochkin was having an analogous problem in early 1942, being faced with phase-out of LaGG-3 production; he focused on the M-82 as a potential salvation. Gudkov had tinkered with fitting the new powerplant to the LaGG-3, but had been sidetracked to other tasks, so the Lavochkin design team was starting from scratch. Adapting the LaGG-3 to the new powerplant was not trivial, since it was wider and heavier than the M-105P inline; it also had no provision for a motorcannon, meaning the armament scheme had to be rethought. The engineers threw themselves into the task, designing a mounting scheme for the engine, and fitting twin 20 millimeter ShVAK cannon in the upper cowling. "
https://www.airvectors.net/avlagg.html#m2
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr You don't belive me then read this:
"Needless to say, this was not a simple task. For one thing, the Shvetsov engine was a full 18 inches (46 centimeters) wider than the Klimov. Moreover, the M-82 was 550 pounds (250 kg) heavier than the M-105, meaning that the new engine would significantly shift the aircraft’s center of gravity forward. Nevertheless, Alekseyev’s team was able to make the necessary adjustments to the LaGG-3’s airframe to allow for the large radial engine to be installed on the narrow fuselage. In order to attach the M-82 to the airframe, Alekseyev’s team bonded plywood skirting to the outer forward fuselage, which helped ease the cumbersome radial engine’s transition onto the LaGG’s airframe. Two variable cooling flaps were installed on both sides of the fuselage, which allowed the 20 mm ShVAK cannons to be mounted above the M-82 (however, this later led to significant problems with the aircraft overheating, since the top cylinders frequently did not benefit from the cooling flaps). Work on the prototype was completed in February 1942 at Plant No. 21 in Gorky, and its inaugural flight of the new aircraft, designated the LaGG-3 M-82, was made the following month. "
"Nevertheless, the aircraft’s operational performance, in general, left much to be desired, prompting Semyon Lavochkin to search for ways to increase the LaGG-3’s power. Indeed, the aircraft’s poor service record in the summer of 1941 caused Lavochkin to fall out of favor with the Soviet leadership, and in the fall, factories that had previously been assigned to LaGG-3 production were turned over to building Yakovlev Yak-1s and Yak-7s. In December, Deputy Commissar of Aviation Industry Pyotr Dementyev told Semyon Lavochkin, “the storm is coming down on you. Your days are numbered. Now you must take extraordinary steps to completely change the attitude of the military and the government toward the LaGG-3.”
https://vvsairwar.com/2016/08/18/the-development-of-the-lavochkin-la-5/
Then how about this 15 days?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr "And you really don't read what iI wrote! I wrote about LaGG 3 you mention La! That is two different planes in reality." -- Quite contrary, and I gave you measured answer, which you have a hard time figuring out."
LaGG 3 use liquid cooled engine, La 5 use air cooled. La 5 get so many changes in construcion and internal design that there were very similar plane but not the same. That was like Ki-61 and Ki-100, in theory one construcion but with changes two different planes.
""And when i wrote about some models i think about contemporary models: Like early La 5 vs P-51 B or early model D." -- So, how does that work per your theory does P-51 models A and B is the same aircraft as model D? Or since Spitfire Mk-XII use different engine, should it be called something else? How about air cooled FW-190 A, and liquid cooled FW-190"Dora" is that the same aircraft or different aircraft in reality? "
Really? I set boundries to contemporary! That mean use in the same time! Which model of Mustang you mean D, razorback or with bubble canopy? A,B and D were different planes, but still with bettter performance as CONTEMPORARY MODELS of La 5. Do I claim that LaGG 3 nad La 5 are the same plane or you?
AND I STILL WAS TALKING ABOUT PERFORMANCE OF LaGG 3! You try to spin it with "proof" that La 5 ios the same plane!
Plus some hint about JAK's, the had very weak integral construction. And had many operational losses (officialy unkown cause, but in reality planes killed more pilots than Germans). That why Jakovlew aftrer war was kicked from his position in soviet government.
"There is a "story" proliferated by Russian trolls, that top Soviet ace Ivan Kozhedub in his La-7 shut down two P-51D, that attacked him, when mistaken for FW-190. I don't believe this story since it was not from Ivan Kozhedub himself, and a lots of facts just don't make sense, but its out there..."
That story never get confirmation in any allied documentation. Kozhebub is known for inflatiing his score. Ther is not that much evidence that he shoot that much planes. Soviet aieforce were inacurate in confirming that scores. Lot of claims of soviet aces in 1990's was disproof by comapration of documents in soviet archives. This story is one of this "claims".
"here were shortages of aluminum thought WWII in Soviet Union," About that. W2 engine was build from? Yes from aluminium, you need lots of it to build thousend of them. Thats why aluminium was shortage exist in USSR.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr Oh you still claim that only soviets can design tanks with modern technology. I wrote you many times what was the biggest flaws of T-34. As a design and production features. You will claim othervise.
"T-34 was getting progressively better throughout the war. Things improved for T-34 as the war progressed. "
Maybe late 1943 and into T-34/85 that was good tank, but earlier quality production kill that values. That is fact.
"Oh, hello! After Simen Lavochkin put Shetsov's radial air cooled engine on that plain, it(La series fighters) produced most of Allied highest scoring aces in WWII, 5 out of 10 top scoring Allied aces flew better part of the war Lavochkin's fighters. Its just a fact! "
Yes nicer half-truth, because we wrote about two different planes. LaGG 3
was dissaster. La-5 was better. Engine and much more better quality of production, But still that wasn't in line with moder fighters from both sides. Still the best soviet fighter was La 5 not LaGG 3.
Pilkots called LaGG 3 "guaranteed lacquered grave". Worst soviet fighter of WW2.
"" You now the letter (primary source) then you have to bring evidence that that trials never get to this conclusion. " -- What "letter", what are you talking about?"
Letter form Yakov Nikolayevich Fedorenko to Voroshylov.
" Изучение последних образцов иностранного танкостроения показывает, что наиболее удачным среди них является немецкий средний танк “Даймлер-Бенц- Т-ЗГ”. Он обладает наиболее удачным сочетанием подвижности и броневой защиты при небольшой боевой массе — ок. 20 т . Это говорит, что указанный танк при сравнимой с Т-34 броневой защите, с более просторным боевым отделением, прекрасной подвижностью, несомненно более дешевый, чем Т-34, и потому может выпускаться большой серией.
Согласно особому мнению тт. Гинзбург, Гаврута и Троянова, главным недостатком указанного типа танка является его вооружение из 37-мм пушки. Но согласно сент. с.г. разведобзора, эти танки уже модернизируются путем усиления брони до 45-52 мм и вооружения 47-мм или даже 55-мм пушкой.
Считаю, что немецкая армия в лице указанного танка имеет сегодня наиболее удачное сочетание подвижности, огневой мощи и броневой защиты, подкрепленное хорошим обзором с рабочих мест членов экипажа...
Необходимо не медля ни минуты продолжить работы по танку “126” с целью доведения всех его характеристик до уровня немецкой машины (или превосходящих ее), а также внести в конструкцию других наших новых танков наиболее удачные решения немецкого танка, как то:
1. конструкция эвакуационных люков;
2. схема охлаждения двигателя;
3. конструкция КПП;
4 схема питания с размещением двигателя и топливного
бака за герметичной выгородкой от команды;
5. командирской наблюдательной башенки;
6. размещение радиостанции в корпусе.
Прошу принять решение по проведению доработки конструкции новых танков в виду вновь открывшихся обстоятельств...
Федоренко 13/1Х-40”
https://www.e-reading.club/book.php?book=99552
"Soviet documentation don't agree with you about conclusion about "greatness" of T-34. I don't have to belive you i belive soviet trails." -- Again what trails are you referring to? Do you got any links to the trails you are talking about?"
Kubinka trial of capturerd Tiger II. Firepower of both T-34/76 and T-34/85 were in AT role worse than M4 with 75mm and 76mm in comparition.
Just look on documentation about trails in Kubinka on captured Tiger II. I read long articules with documentation.
Report with designation: CAMD RF 38-11377-129 report.
"But you can put that turret on the same hull. Not like in T-34." Can you quote me please, so I can see what are you talking about? T-34-85 went on the same hull, with only one difference of enlarged turret ring. "
To put new turret they change turret ring for bigger! You can't put turret from T-34/85 no unchanged hull of T-34/76. Not that simple modification if take 3 years( sarcasm). Really that was possiable but you have to modify hull. And little photo for you:
https://www.google.pl/search?biw=1491&bih=925&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=mafFXPDkC9LrxgPA_abACg&q=m4+with+m26+turret&oq=m4+with+m26+turret&gs_l=img.3...437922.445254..445590...0.0..1.127.1126.17j1......2....1..gws-wiz-img.....0..35i39j0i67j0j0i30j0i19j0i8i30i19j0i5i30i19.nfNax2aI8-s#imgrc=t_WqYdrEfue4tM:
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr Ahh Zukhov as a great commander. He was responsiable for defet of Red Army at the first months of Barbaossa more then Stalin. He preper with his staff all plans, offensive and deffensive. How it goes for Red Army under his command?
What with operation "Mars" when Stalingrad was succses, he with larger forces get slaugthered. Mass defat whitout any succsess. Operation that cos Red Army great numbers in equipment and soldiers.
A liitle catch, nowhere in documents is no evidence that he preper plans for Stalingrad or Kursk battle. He just pinpoint on himself as a USSR saviror in his own eyes.
At last his final battle to captured Berlin and disaster on Seelowe Hights. He won because in this moment Germans didn't have any reservs. But he lose whitout any good reason thousends of soldiers. There was one reason, he want to be first in Berlin.
Tujachevske died because he knew that Stalin was responssiable for defet in 1920 with war with Poland. He also was knew that Trotsky was responissable for succsess of first moths of revolution, not Stalin! Third reason Stalin don't need him anymore, hi wasn't usefull any more. He was a treat for Stalin's power.
I do not say that soviet scientist vere not behind T-34 succsess. But all things you mention were well knowed in 1930's. Shipbuilders and tank designers were aware of all advantages of different armor scheme. About metalurgy and material craftsmen. All that knowledge was there. But building tank with sloped armor, welded or casted was very costly in 1930's. That why only France and USSR build before WW2 tanks like that. Other countries prefer cheaper technology, but when war starts, cost lose with speed of production and in the end welding became cheaper even casting.
I always hear that T-34 was great tank, yes it was good combination of many things. But in overall in 1941 it was true, but in 1942/43 this was long past. And its falws then cause that from one of the best tanks it became mediocer. Much thanks from soviet industry. This story is very similar with story of LaGG fighters, great prototypes and failed plane in war. Nothing of this problems was seen in M4. Yes it wasn't perfect tank, but other side without flaws that was in T-34 project and production.
And about speed of T-34 and Panzer III in soviet trials. That is the biggest problem that was soviet trials and how you gonna spin this, that was SOVIET TRAIL. Then bias was to be more into soviet construction. You now the letter (primary source) then you have to bring evidence that that trials never get to this conclusion. The same is with conclusion from testing firepower of M4 with 75 and 76mm against T34/76 and T34/85. Soviet documentation don't agree with you about conclusion about "greatness" of T-34. I don't have to belive you i belive soviet trails.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nks406 Just look on this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ
Around 27 min you have part about production of tanks.
M4A3 became main model because it was cheaper in production. Welding is easier and cheaper than casting because of many reasons. Workforce, tools, amterials, etc. Just logistic and economy of war. The same happend whit T-34 and IS series.
Sloped side armor of T-34 was easly penetrated by even 50mm Pak 38. That not mean that was worse, but just uneffecive like 38 mm Sherman plate. Simple truth, side armor never gona protect you that god like frontal, thats why you have to avoid open flanks! Look on Panther armor layout and problems with it.
Next you still claim that fuel make tank less likely to burn. Sorry but statistics don't match that conclusion. T-34 burn like candle after penetration. Oil, lubricants, ammuniton, crew equipment, all that burn before fuel. That is why wet storage was very effective, because protect crew from imidetly casualities from explosin and fire (first types of ammunition in Shermans were from high flammable gun powder). That was a reason why so many crew members of M4 survive hit and why so many T-34 tankers die inside the tank.
Plus if you talking about luxury in M4, you probaly talk about thins like:
- Seats for crew,(thing that was a big problem in T-34 in war production)
- Radio set in all tanks,
- internal comunication system
- fire extinguisher
- and lot small thing that make tanka as a wepon efective.
Then i prefer buy a tank with working gearbox and transmission. With seats and radio in each tank. Because that way i can use it to fight and manueuver not for blind charges in blocks like T-34 was been used in first years of war.
1
-
@RussianThunderrr "-- I think 69.7 Km/h(43.3 mph or almost double its maximum speed) is unrealistic even from a step downhill(that you won't find in Kubinka), and they claiming, that Pz-III was faster then BT tank without tracks... "
Then you don't know that Panzer III on start was designed to get to 70 km/h. Later Wermacht generals decide that to resign from this speed. Everything about that is in history of development of Panzer III. Then they mount mechanical blockade into Pz III, you have the same feature in M1 Abrams, unlock this and Abrams can go even over 80 km/h but that will cause massive consumsion of fuel and damage suspension. Also that was Soviet trials, then your claim have to be adressed to RKKA comanders. In some way at start Pz III was like soviet BT tank series on tracks only. Also you have problem witg noise that was generated by suspension in T-34, that was very noisy tank.
And if you claim that 3 man turret was that problematic to mount on T-34 orginal hull... Then that hull wasn't that wide, hmmm.... That was caused by sloped sides :) Plus for Sherman, The even could mount turret from M26 on original Sherman hull (not that good idea in reality).
https://www.google.pl/search?q=sherman+with+m26+turret&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=t_WqYdrEfue4tM%253A%252Cbcmtkh3W0_oPdM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kScBOrrf_Ry0PacnSHljOHvkQbiYQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2iJqPy97hAhXLzKQKHTTMCj4Q9QEwAHoECAkQBA#imgrc=t_WqYdrEfue4tM:
Then look on tanks like T-34M (A43) and T-34/85. After this trails 2 man turret was critisied. There was more there, like every Pz III was equiped in radio. Pz III was shock in case of how easy was to product that tank (that was Soviet conclusion!). That was cause why projects of T-50 were very similar in construction to Pz III. Suspension and other design feauters.
http://armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2//galleries/T-50/T_50_bp.htm
Little thing like ventilation, something that was problem even in T-34/85.
Also Pz III long 50mm gun wasn't that bad, but as a main tank gun in 1942/43 was obselete. Not enough power in HE shells. But with problems to produce more Panthers and Panzer IV cause nessesity to produce Panzer III with biggest gun they (Germans) could build into original turret.
Basicly that trails was wake up call for T-34 project. After modification this tank could be much better. But that happen much later because of Barbarossa and Stalin's decision to concetrate on production not modernisation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr Ok, let me give you few example of tanks with spoled armor build before T-34:
FCM36
Souma S35
Christie prototypes in USA
Char B1bis
M2 medium tanks
That is evidence that sloped armor is well konw conception before T-34. In realty that conception was taken from naval warfer. Nothing revolutinary in that.
M4 for all production time keep high standards of quality and field usage. No big mechanic problems there.T-34 before T34/85 model was unreliable mechanically because of soviet standars in industry and maitance. Even in T-34/85 gearbox was weakest part of tank.That was first change in post-war modification.
You really try to spin facts. I wrote about trails in Kubinka when they shoot to captured Tuger II. They use whole arsenal of tank and AT guns. F32 from T-34/76 was worse than 75mm M3 from Sherman. Proably that was caused by worse quality of ammunition, next problem with soviet production. L11 wasn't tested ther because in this time noone use it. That was effects of soviet trails, then no bias against F32! But the same effects were observed when american 76mm M1A1 gun was comapred to soviet 85 mm DT5 was used. Using standard (taken from production line) AT ammunition soviet guns have lower effectivness n comparision to US produced guns and ammunition.
Problem with discusing with you is that you try skip contradiction in your statments. T-34/76 was produced from 1940 to 1944 and even with modification in thi time, still was unreliable mechanically. That model fought most defensive and offensive action in 1941 to 1944. Thats why I think you push T-34/85 as a example. To the end of production (for years in war) T-34/76 never became good product. After introducing T-34/85 biggest problem of T-34 was adressed, but still gearbox and transmition were weakest ponit of this construction. Yes they were better than previous models, but still not close enough to paper value that was official for this tank. I saw both tanks in Bovington in move and i didn't see in T-34 nothing special better than M4. And in this case that was post-war produced T-34/85 and Sherman was from war production series. In reality if I have to choose, my choice is M4A1 or M4A2 against T-34/76 (even with never turrets) and M4A1(76)W or M4A3E8 against T-34/85. They are in many ways better, but not perfect. Every tank have some weaknes.
What i mean about "soviet" books? To 1991 legend of T-34 was undispiuted in USSR, today that is litte different but still Russians are biased angainst everything that is not with soviet label. Your arguments sound like taken straight from this books. You always point to T-34/85 as a better tank, but still it wasn't in comaparision as good as contemporary Shermans. Then tell me what you thik about this trails between T-34/76 and Panzer III? Not that good for T-34.
1
-
@nks406 "As for early shermans, they had cast hulls and gigantic "shoot me here" bulges for the driver and the radio operator, and they also lacked a turret hatch for the loader, not a very impressive design if you also consider that the manufacturing process for the sherman was much more expensive than for the T-34 which is a very similar tank in overall capabilities. "
"Weak hull" as you named it, when both welded and casted hulls were similar in protection, casted were just thicker to compansate to welded. Hatches were on top of hull in any way making frontal armor weaker. In T-34 that was huge hatch in front plate. That make it less effective than any Sherman's. There is no way to make plate whit big hole as much tough like full plate.
Also in any way Sherman was more expensive than T-34. You can't just claim that from air. Cost is based on numbers, workforce and material cost. If that was so expensive why was build in such large numbers like T-34?
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/data/sherman_production.html
In comparison you have T-34 numbers. Not that impessive if you know whole picture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II.
"As for petrol, it is in fact a weakness especially when compared to the less flammable diesel which is harder to ignite. There is a reason why many cold war era tanks with diesel fuel had conforming ammo racks filled up with diesel effectively creating wetracks. "
Reason why diesel is dominating is not because it is "is harder to ignite", because that is not true. Temperatures and surrounding elements in tank cause fire whatever iquid fuel you use. First lubricants start fire, do soviet diesel use other "fire resistant" lubricants?
Next you have high temperature shell hitting hot surfaces of engine and fuel, enough ro ignate even diesel. You really don't know nothing about how fire starts in tank after hit.
Plus statistic of destroyed tanks do not support your claim. Most of them were burned, but Shermans wasn't in any way worse in that T-34. M4A2 burn the same like T-34, both use diesel. Ammo storage and lubricants was main cause of fire, not gas or oil.
"As for wet ammo stowage, they came a bit late to be really relevant, although if the ammunition didnt detonate from a direct hit, it could give a real chance for the crew to escape."
That was point of using them, protecting life of crew members. Also this modification was use from February 1944 and was easy to implement in line tanks. That was important because most fighting Sherman did in West Europe into 1944/1945 and that modification did good job. Then not much irrrelevant as you claim.Easier is replace tank than crewman. Different than in USSR, where life of soldier didn't have value for commanders.
1
-
@RussianThunderrr 1. All claim about "better range, a lot faster and more maneuverable tank" are based on catalouge values of T-34, not real life perfomance. Faulty transmition, weak gearbox cause that war production T-34/76 never get close to speed and maneverabilty that was possiable with W2 engine. Reality was that soviet production standards make T-34 unreliable as a vehicle. You can't finde it in soviet books because of censorship, after 1991 we can check that in soviet war documents and that was a shock for T-34 fanboys.
2) Poor communication inside and outside. Each M4 get radio and internal communication. That was key in cooperation on battlefield! T-34 have no communication for whole crew, you just use own voice. Radio only in 20% of tanks!
3) 5 crewmembers can work much more effective, than 4 in T-34.They spot enemy faster, fire ratio is much higher and coordinatin thanks to communication advantage was in Sherman on higher level.
4) Both tanks ( M4A2 vs T-34/76 model 1942) frontal armor was around 90mm effectivnes (slope and relative thickness, quality of steel), but in T-34 you have huge hole with driver hatch. No such weakness in Sherman. Then which plate is better? I'm sure that M4 is in advantage here. Side plates, yes T-34 with slope armore have some advantage. But in reality guns like Pak 38 5cm and Pak 40/ Kwk40 7.5 cm didn't have any problems with penetration. Reality is that M4 and T-34 side plates were match for 37mm guns,even Panther have this problem with it's 40,, side plates.
5) Main guns were tested by Red Army and conclusion was that M3 75mm is better as a AT gun than F32 gun from T-34 in ratio 1.5 to 1. Check raport from Kubinka about fire test against Tiger II.
6)Here you will get information about trails between T-34 and Panzer III. Conclusion is up to you.
"[....] летом 1940 года над Т-34 начали сгущаться тучи. Дело в том, что на полигон в Кубинку поступили два танка Pz-III Ausf.G, купленные в Германии после подписания пакта о ненападении. Результаты сравнительных испытаний немецкого танка и Т-34 оказались неутешительными для советской боевой машины.
Т-34 превосходил «тройку» по вооружению и броневой защите, уступая по ряду других показателей. Pz-III имел трехместную башню, в которой были достаточно комфортные условия для боевой работы членов экипажа. Командир имел удобную башенку, обеспечивавшую ему прекрасный обзор, у всех членов экипажа имелись собственные приборы внутренней связи. В башне же Т-34 с трудом размещались два танкиста, один из которых выполнял функции не только наводчика, но и командира танка, а в ряде случаев и командира подразделения. Внутренней связью обеспечивались только два члена экипажа из четырех — командир танка и механик-водитель.
Немецкая машина превзошла Т-34 и по плавности хода, она оказалась и менее шумной — при максимальной скорости движения Pz-III было слышно за 150 — 200 м, а Т-34 — за 450–500 м.
Полной неожиданностью для наших военных явилось и превосходство «немца» в скорости. На гравийном шоссе Кубинка-Репище Pz-III разогнался на мерном километре до скорости 69,7 км/ч, в то время как лучший показатель для Т-34 составил 48,2 км/ч. Выделенный же в качестве эталона БТ-7 на колесах развил только 68,1 км/ч.
В отчете об испытаниях отмечались и более удачная подвеска немецкого танка, высокое качество оптических приборов, удобное размещение боекомплекта и радиостанции, надежные двигатель и трансмиссия."
Source:
http://www.battlefield.ru/t34/stranitsa-4-razvitie-t-34.html
That was reason why A43 /T-34M was designed.
Whole problem with T-34 is that on paper is a great tank. But in reality quality production, bad layout, crew coordination inside and other problems cause that from good design you get weak and less effective tank.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr Just check history of development A43. And history of development of T-34 is well documented, later in war production and modernisation is problematic to folow. In case of A43, that was final product of early development of T-34. That was tank with 3 man turret, turret with coupola, torsion bar suspension. And lot of other changes taken from test with Panzer III vs early T-34 done before Barbarossa. If you look on T-50 development you can see how this trails influence soviet design before Barbarossa. T-34, T-50 and KW were new "triplex" for Red Army.
If you look on specification of IS it was more like Panther, weight, protection, mobility, only arrament was unusual. But in many ways IS was rathee medium or even MBT in conception. Traditional doctrine of nameing tanks was problematic for tanks like Panther, IS and M26. This three were point of road to MBT. In this term Panther also should be named as a hevy tank.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RussianThunderrr Most fighting was done by man with rifle and artillery, tanks and planes still do much but not that much alone. Big numbers of T-34 starts showing into 2nd half of 1942, before that this tank didn't do so much in war effort. Before that T-60 was the most common tank of Red Army. Peak of efficency was done in 1943, later only big numbers give that tank significant.
"Well, hmmbeef, there is a good reason why Soviets experimented with additional frontal armor on earlier T-34 tanks, but decided that it would be a lot more prudent to increase caliber of the main gun to the size of Tiger I, which will enhance not only its fighting capability of fighting other tanks, but also infantry support(Tiger I was excellent infantry support tank, while Tiger II was more of the tank destroyer), while remaining the most agile tank on the battlefield, turret armor also increased in T-34-85 where it matter."
Soviets make huge mistake when they put that big hatch for driver in frontal armor! Sherman armor didn't have this weakness. First that was big target for AT guns( even 50 mm Pak 38 could penetrate or just shatter this hatch), second that mean armor is much more weaker because this big hole in plate. Next,original 2 man turret was dissaster, changed later into T34/85. Yes T-34/85 was good tank but still not that good in many ways like Sherman with 76mm. T-34 was so problematic that in 1941 Soviets made decision to skip it to modernisation called T-34M (A43). Basicly T-34 with few conceptions taken from tested in this time Panzer III. Much better tank in 1944/1945 for Red Army was IS-2 (probaly version with 100mm gun was much better option but they decide to 122mm), T-34 was produced because putting any new tank into soviet industry will take too much time, that's why they produce what they can. Also when Tiger II was tested in Kubinka soviet trails conclude that in comparisoin, AT ammunition of 75mm and 76mm of shermans was better in ratio 1.5 to soviet 76.2mm and 85mm (look on documents from trails). I think you downplay Cheiftan video, because he shown reasons why Sherman was such a good weapon. In any aspect Sherman was worse then T-34, if you take overall quality of production and reabilty T-34 was lesser evile for Soviets. Because A43 was much better tank, in some way T-44 can appear in early 1944 as a evolution of it. But Stalin decide othervise, becuse he didn't belive in option of creating new good quality tank before 1944.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@СергейРублев-т7я Reading your response I can now tell that you are hardcore communist. No evidence or even realtions from vitnesses can't convince you.
1) Even with pohtos and relations are not evidence for you. Typycal claim is that they show something else. Historians spends years o analyse of them and there is no doubt that there are from join parade, not two different times and places!
There are even photos of Victory Arches that hail win over common enemy!
https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/ingwar_lj/11031373/323443/323443_original.jpg
Or how friendly were German and Soviet soldiers to eachother:
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q4e0PYwTZAQ/WgNZU7OAZ2I/AAAAAAACEx4/h-U_xJXp8JgX7PmjiP4bl__VrGTFuRe2QCLcBGAs/s1600/Brest-Litovsk_worldwartwo.filminspector.com_1.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKUY-GVXkAAZh0N.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovsk#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-121-0012-30,_Polen,_deutsch-sowjetische_Siegesparade,_Panzer.jpg
2) Like that the most of Soviet industry was captured or in evacuation to rears in 1941! Thta is why so important was Stalingrad in 1942, because rest factories were in Moscow, Leningrad or evacuated on East!
Fight still were taken by Polish Army and important materials were in the Eastern part. Whole inventories of uniforms, weapons and ammunition were taken by Red Army when they disarm polish sodiers which were send to mobilisation centers.
Soviets gather so many polish weapons that they were use in defence of USSR in 1941! I saw photos of RKM wz.28 (Polish version of BAR) and other polish originated firearms in hands of Workers Militia in defence of Moscow in 1941!
Poland still have soldiers in field fighting Germans and USSR give them many times false prromise of help and when they agree on Soviet terms, they were disarmed. Polish Army do not have ammunition because Soviets captured most of reserves on East part of Poland! How army could have them if Soviet get them!
3) He stated that Gemrans and Soviets destroy Poland. Plain and simple.What evidence you need? More is in historic books with information form German Ambassadore in Moscow to Berlin. He report every exccuse that Soviets give after not invading Poland in first days of September. One of his description give information that Soviets will attack Poland and demand that Germans do not cross demarcation line because from start soviet airfoce will bomb polish targets and that could lead to friendly fire! Straight from polish historic book translation of it.
"Mołotow oświadczył, że wystąpienie zbrojne Związku Sowieckiego nastąpi zaraz, być może nawet jutro (...) Stalin przyjął mnie o drugiej w nocy w obecności Mołotowa i Woroszyłowa i oświadczył, że Armia Czerwona przekroczy dziś rano o godzinie szóstej granicę sowiecką na całej długości od Połocka do Kamieńca Podolskiego. Dla uniknięcia nieporozumień prosił usilnie, aby lotnictwo niemieckie od dzisiaj nie przekraczało na wschód linii Białystok-Brześć-Lwów. Samoloty sowieckie rozpoczną już dzisiaj bombardowanie terenów na wschód od Lwowa."
Friedrich-Werner von der Schulenburg, Ściśle tajne, nr 371[
J. Łojek, Agresja 17 września 1939, s. 71.
There are also recolections of Polish officers that wee transfer from Soviets to Germans as POW.
Cooperation of Gestapo and NKVD in destroying polish ressistance movment.
4) Not one Uboot, but much more, also ships from Kreigsmarine that supply Germans invading Norway. That is much more than friendly help! It is military assistance!
Minsk radiostation send signal that was agreed with Luftwaffe! Not just warning. It was crucial for German navigation over Poland!
When USSR invade Finland, Third Reich block transit of weapons and food to Finland! It was with mutual agreement between USSR and Third Reich.
5) "5. You did not understand my position. The USSR was neutral in relation to Germany, but hostile to Poland. The murder in Katyn is the murder of the enemies of the Soviet system. The deportation of Poles, Ukrainians, Baltic states in 1936-1941 is not ethnic cleansing (the USSR is an international state), but a fight against spies, armed rebels and their social base (families). After the deportation of families, the intensity of the rebel resistance sharply decreased because they have no hope of success. Thus, deportation is a struggle for one's own security, not a terrible plan of genocide."
That what Germans did before 22nd June 1941. Holocaust and mass genocide starts from 1942 as a planned action! Before was only smaller actions compared with what USSR did in the same time. They planned this earlier but they did not more than USSR in the same time in numbers of victimes! When German did it is genocide, but when USSR did it is...elimination of enemies? Stranh=ge logic.
Mass deportation, executions of local leaders of population, not only Poles, but also Ukrainians and Bielarussians. Murdering polish POW in Soviet hands!
Even Germans after campaign in Poland in 1939 they relise most of POW, they only keep officers. And even many with incidents of war crimes in battles of 1939 they did not murder most of officers in thier captivity. USSR did in 1940!
Basicly I admire you honesty that you don't claim that USSR did not do it and blame Germans.
Genocide is genocide whatever you will called it. Even claiming that USSR as a inernational country do not commit genocide and ethnic cleansing, then USA also can't do it by your definition. And in response on point 6. Your silly claim that 1980's USSR fall because of treachery is just stiupid. 1970 era was full of signs of comming fall. Social and economic. But with censorship and propaganda USSR keep truth hidden. From start communism was disaster for people livining in Soviet Rusia and later USSR.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@СергейРублев-т7я Parade in Brest Litovsk. Movies show full cooperation and participation of German and Soviet army. Myth my ass:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eGo-NEcEVI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QspnYAYGJ04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lhsTMErZuc&t=28s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tk48pwvf1s
Plus some photos:
https://www.google.pl/search?q=parade+in+brest+litovsk&sxsrf=ALeKk00O1fRvO8egUJj6nReTcpDWu1i8KQ:1584791443964&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK2b2YwKvoAhVEQEEAHaPmBJQQ_AUoAXoECBAQAw&biw=1488&bih=925#imgrc=U7ZTxPrTFnTt1M:
What is the point to talk with some who is claiming non-existenz of fact even proven by movie, iconography and other sources!
Parade was done under command fro German side General Heinz Guderian and KombrIg (Commanding officer of the brigade) Semyon Krivoshein.
"3. Lol. The text of the secret protocols contains a sphere of influence, not a plan for the destruction of Poland. The new border in the center of Poland is the border of the sphere of influence, and not part of the military plan. The exchange of Polish prisoners is not a sign of a military alliance, but part of a new treaty on friendly neutrality."
Really?
"Article II
In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.
The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish state and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.
In any event both governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement. "
That is whole article from R-M Pact that prove that is planned invasion by Germany and USSR.
But one part is important as a evidence:
"The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish state and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments."
Any problems with understanding simple text?
Not mention that secret part of protocole was a secret and was denied by USSR basicly to the end of USSR. Around 1989 starts first changes in this area. 50 yeras later!
Not mention that part contaning this article was obligatory keep out of public in secrecy by both sides, Germany and USSR!
That whole article was even then illegal in international law and with obligations that USSR still have in Riga Peace Treaty and Non-Aggression Pact with Poland.
Specially Non-Agression Pact from 1932 was still obligatory with part that state. On May 5, 1934, it was extended to December 31, 1945 without amendment. 17th September 1939 USSR break it attacking Poland fighting with Germans.
Article 2 stricly forbid entering into cooperation or aiding any help to third party that will be hostile against Poland or USSR!
Even creation of secret protocoles in R-M Pact was hostile action against Poland done by USSR to aid Germans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@СергейРублев-т7я 1/2/3/4)Germans were so weaken after campanig in Poland that whole high command of Werhmacht oppose attack on France in 1939!
German military was dissapointed because German plan do not account for campanig longer than 7-10 days. That is why Germans push for Stalin that he should join to war earlier than 17th September. And that is not the myth. Germans not without reason wait for spring 1940 to attack.
Main trade Germany operate by Atlantic with USA and South America. Without oil from there Ronamian and Hungary trade can't support German economy. In case of blockade Germans have only reserves of oil to 1941-42 and in other materials it was more grim.
Hitler "reforms" made german economy falling apart. Lack of trade and cut from oil and other resources would make fall much faster. Soviet help did not replace that, but made this period much longer.
It made possiable for Germans even invade USSR later in 1941! Lenin was right, but in the same time wrong. Soviets sell the string that Germans nerly hang them.
5) Poland try to repair diplomatic relationship with Czechoslovakia. But Prauge count on France and USSR and reject polish proposition. How it ends. USSR and France do nothing to stop Hitler. And now you blame Poland? USSR was bounded by military alliance with Prauge! Even some Czech generals propose alliance with Poland against Hitler but president Eduard Benesz reject that because he belive that USSR and France will save them!
6) Thousend tanks, trucks and planes in Red Army was produced by USA and UK. Crucial war materials came from this countries too.
USA and UK fougth with allied with Germany, Italy and Japan in the same time! WW2 was not only land war.
Without strategic bombing German industry would produce more than produce in reality. Germans fleet keep great portion of resources that could be used in war with USSR,
I understand that USSR want claim that won war alone, but it is not even close to truth. USSR was a part of big alliance fighting against other block.
If Japan strike in 1941 on eastern part of USSR, who knows maybe war coukd take different way for Soviets. Hitler underestimate USA and UK. And he pay price for it, as he made this mistake with USSR.
7)
Few examples, not even economic just military cooperation:
Luftwaffe coordinate navigation by cooperation with soviet radio station in Minsk. Usage of this radio was done to help with navigation over Poland in 1939.
Basis Nord- German naval base existing in USSR in tears 1939-1940. Used mainly to German fleet against Norway in 1940. After this operation base was close by Germans.
German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk in 1939 as a official ending German-Soviet operation against Poland.
8)
" 2. In the event of a territorial and political transformation of the territories belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of interest of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula and San.
The question of whether the interests of both parties make the maintenance of an independent Polish state desirable and how the frontiers of this state should be drawn can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.
In any case both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly understanding."
Basicly what that mean by you like not agreement to invade Poland?
And for this cause this part was claimed by USSR as a non-existing. By USSR there were no secret protocols!
If there was no war, why Soviets take polish POW an even exchange them with Germans? Some of people taken by Germans to captivity land in Soviet hands and were killed by NKVD later in 1940. That is neutrality?
1
-
@СергейРублев-т7я "The Soviet General Staff never considered Soviet politics in 1939-1941 an act of aggression. This is the opinion of Eastern Europe after the collapse of socialism and the rewriting of history, but this is not the opinion of the USSR on which it officially relies. Try to show me Soviet sources who say that the USSR was planning to "occupy and enslave Europe." Soviet historiography said that the Red Army liberated Bessarabia from the Romanian occupation, western Ukraine from the Polish occupation, and the Baltic states from the pro-fascist dictatorship. Thus, we should always use the opinion of the government that pursues its policy, and not the opinion of their enemies."
I will give you some quote and documents from history and maybe you will grasp how much you "opinion" is rewrithing history. Because you should ad that before 1989-1991 any criticism of USSR was treat as a crime and was punished by prison. In todays Russia criticism of USSR is still punished by government!
"One blow from the German army and another from the Soviet army put an end to this ugly product of Versailles."
Vyacheslav Molotov
— Statement after the fall of Poland, as quoted in Legitimacy and Force (1988) by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, p. 49
Official stand of Molotov confirming German- Soviet invasion on Poland! Not mention of separate action, it is clear that is confirming a fact of military invasion that was coordinated!
In 1920's Soviets prepared cooperation with Weimar Republic against Poland. Long before Hitler and Stalin. Rapallo Treaty was in first place targeting Poland as main enemy for Soviets and Germans.
First time was talked about partition of Poland between Soviets and Germany.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gQfUB0CXBO4C&pg=PA302&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
And maybe Ribentrop-Molotov Pact is not enough evidence. Specialy one of the parts from secret part:
" 2. In the event of a territorial and political transformation of the territories belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of interest of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula and San.
The question of whether the interests of both parties make the maintenance of an independent Polish state desirable and how the frontiers of this state should be drawn can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.
In any case both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly understanding. "
Two countries agre to dismantle country wich both plan to invade.
Straigth from Pact which was Soviet officail document.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@СергейРублев-т7я "1. A political party is part of the social class, and the USSR had a classless society, so it does not need a multi-party system. Find Stalin's interview for Roy Howard on March 1, 1936 to find out the details."
Facts are different, USSR never became classless.... even if whole communisty party claim that. You can belive in utopia, but that never happened. USSR society still was build like hiererchy. Party members on top, thats why they sell lie about clasless state. And one party system is totalitarism, people can have different opinion even in "clasless society".
"2. Paranoia is a myth. The Bolsheviks were pragmatists."
Do not dissagree with that. But Stalin as a man probably was paranoid, I read in interview with old revolutionists that Lenin ordered evaluation, but after his death Stalin destroy documentation.
Probably he also kill his wife, because her death was very suspicious and claimed as suicide.
There is too many relations about his behavior that points to heavy paranoia.
"3. Only some Russian nationalists say that the Ukrainian and Belarusian nations do not exist. This is not the opinion of the entire Russian nation. The Bolsheviks were internationalists and supported the culture of all their nations. Some Russian nationalists even accuse the Bolsheviks of artificially creating the Ukrainian nation. That is why I do not take your words seriously about the fact that the Bolsheviks suppressed all nations except the Russian (lol). The USSR was never a Russian nation state, but it used Russian workers to improve production indicators in other non-Russian republics (not only the Baltic states, but also Asia, etc.)."
I do not claim that Russians weren't suppress. Facts are that russian language and culture were forced on other nations in USSR and satelite states. You can put tons of documents claim in official language that every nationality was equal. But that is no connected with reality. As Orwell wrote, All animals are equal. But some animals are equal more.
That was nothing new, from 19th century russian nationalism was used to oppress other nations.
Even in geopgraphy you can see how bolsheviks were internatinalist. There were plaves like Vipuri that become Выборг/Wyborg just to remove finish name! The same with Königsberg/Калининград/Kaliningrad.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1439&context=mjil
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZH9nkBOxrZQC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=how+soviets+use+russification+for+own+goals&source=bl&ots=sgw8s87tK6&sig=ACfU3U1umo2ueAcYLLSpd1x21c8nwonCZg&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWvaP1nqfoAhWgURUIHXlDAZwQ6AEwDnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=how%20soviets%20use%20russification%20for%20own%20goals&f=false
"4. You need to find the transcript of the 10th Congress of the Bolshevik Party and read it carefully. Stalin says there that the urban population of many European countries is a legacy of colonialism. That is why the Poles were deported from Lvov etc."
Curious because many times Soviets do one thing and claim othervise. Simple examples:
Poland and USSR had Non-Agression Pact from 1932 which was still in action at 23rd August 1939 and at 17th September 1939. When Molotov sign pact with Ribbentrop USSR without notification to Polish side break in secrecy this document. Also that was betrayal of Riga Peace Treaty between Poland nad USSR.
Next in 1942 was sign Treaty Sikorski-Mayski that declare restoration to Poland lands taken by USSR in 1939 with cooperation with Hitler in R-M Pact!
But in the end Stalin take by force this land breaking his own treaties. Then for me any soviet declaration have no value, more than paper that this declaration cover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Riga
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorski%E2%80%93Mayski_agreement
Then I do not belive in any peacefull and official declaration of Stalin and communist party of USSR. Because everytime they broke this declarations. What ios the point belive in any of soviet lie to be lied again?
Also there were no such thing like as you cliam, polish colonisation, that was for centuries land which was part of polish state. From 1387 to 1772 was in polish possesion, and again from 1920 to 1939 was part of Poland! City was in majority polish but was taken with brealking by Stalin and USSR many treaties and force relocation of Poles and some Ukrainians!
USSR hve no right t this city, historicly or geographicly it was Polish city! It is one more crime done by USSR. Thamks to history now is in independent Ukraine that do not want to join again to Russia and want to be independent state.
"5. Yes, the official state language of the USSR was Russian, but non-Russian republics had their own regional languages, which were enshrined in the constitution. You do not need to use the opinion of Russian or Ukrainian nationalists about Soviet politics because they seek to rewrite history. Russian nationalists say that the Bolsheviks gave too many privileges to non-Russian nations in the USSR to the detriment of the Russian. But Ukrainian nationalists say that the Bolsheviks used the Russians to suppress their national culture. Both options are false. You need to find the originals of Soviet documents and party meetings."
Take a look on higer parts. Do I have to write it again. Officialy USSR was paradise of equality. In reality was totaliterian and later authoritaeriaian state. Constiusion, declarations and conference mean nothing if reality is different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bakters " bakters
Wyróżniona odpowiedź
bakters
2 godziny temu
@Horatio82 TIK wrote: "One, your tanks need to be able to fight enemy tanks, because they may run into them and there's no guarantee there will be a friendly AT gun around to help. [emphasis mine] "
Basically, "Idunno, just in case." He truly believed, at least back then, that AT guns are for fighting tanks, while tanks should just act as mobile artillery. There are people who think that tanks mostly shoot other tanks, TIK recognized them to be wrong, so the opposite is obviously true, isn't it?"
You still miss the point. Example was Matilda II in North Africa. Tank with 2pdr gun (40 mm) which was good in AT role, but was weak in killing targets like German AT guns or infantry. For that you need more that 40 mm shell. That is why there was a need for bigger gun that could destroy targets like that and be good as a AT because "there's no guarantee there will be a friendly AT gun around to help".
It is so simple. Tank need a gun to kill infantry and other soft targets. AT gun is usless in this without proper ammunitiuon, great example is KwK 42 from Panther tank. Great in killing tanks but very weak in killing infantry. And in WW2 AT guns were one of the bigger tank killers, at Kursk soviet AT guns were more effective than tanks.
"There are people who think that tanks mostly shoot other tanks, TIK recognized them to be wrong, so the opposite is obviously true, isn't it?"
No at all, TIK said that you need both this atributes but in balance shifted to support role, but with AT making killing enemy tanks possiable. You wrongly think that he underestimated AT values in tank gun, but he don't. He recognize this and place this role as important, but second in tank arrament. Whole this is pointeless because you missunderstand TIK. And he stated that clear as it could be possiable. You basicly do not understand of context of usage of Matilda II and this tank as a example. And tanks mostly shoot to other targets than enemy tanks. Armored warfare is much more complex that only tank vs tank.
"Actually, Chieftain claims that you mostly fire your MG, but whatever."
No he is not. Nicolas Moran said about MG as a suppersion (not killing) tanker tool. Main gun with proper ammo is main weapon to kill targets om battlefield! Great fabular example is in scene from movie Fury when M4 tanks suppress with MG's German infantry and open way for infantry. Main targets are killed by gun, just like enemy AT guns and infantry in fox holes. MG just keep them suppressed.
The same is with air force. As a killer of tanks is not that effective. But it destroying logistic, suppres movment of tanks. Because if you do not hide your tank in case of air attack, in the end air attack will destroy your tank. But when you are hiding you can't move.
Role of air strike was rather slow down moving enemy, tanks, AT guns and even artillery were much more effectie in eliminating enemy tanks.
Here is video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t2cRZTv14o
That is evidence that rather you made wrong assumption even with presented data.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dwarov 1 I live in 1991 and I remember how dilussion Party members and KGB officers try form a junta to capure power and keep USSR running. But in this time USSR was just zombie keep in life on last legs. Economical bancrupt with republics fighting for freedome from Moscov. Empty shops, protesting population and communist politician that to get power dismantle this corps of fallen empire. Do not make fool from yourself. USSR was disaster for nations living in it.
"Yea almost as bad as the Vietnam war massacres causing 3 million civilian deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes"
And what I do not defend USA for that. But for years USSR lie that Germans killed that Poles, not NKVD. But later archeological diggs and NKVD own documentation proof that they did it for Stalin's and Beria's order. You want to claim that not NKVD killed that Poles?
"You mean reports like Burdenko CAomission falsified to blame Germans for Katyn Massacre. Or in other way reports that prove tha NKVD killed this officers?"
No, but reports like the Reiter's report which confirmed that citizens in the USSR ate more than in Germany, France or the UK for example
"Mass graves with thousends of communist victimes are not evidence that you give numbers are to small. Just some examples of that material evidence.
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2018/08/31/a-mass-grave-from-the-soviet-era-resurfaces-as-a-modern-day-russian-political-scandal
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-victims-of-stalin-era-purges-unearthed-in-siberia/a-51058957
https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/fr/document/kurapaty-1937-1941-nkvd-mass-killings-soviet-belarus.html"
"Yeah so succesfull that New Economic Policy (NEP) rescue communism for years (1921-28) in Soviet Russia/USSR."
Lmao you mean the same policy which never became active in the USSR and even the proposed period ended in 1922? Fucking idiot xD
"But Uncle Joe starve to death millions to made rest a slaves in industrial military power. Nice improvment."
Lol, "starved".
Yes you are right he starved them to create his beloved child, hevy industry.
"That explains the US dustbowl and the imports of soviet food for 7 years xD. Slaves my ass. The USSR had an 8 hour work day. The USA had 12. The USA had state funded minimum wage, pansions and healthcare syste. The USA does not until this day. So much better than the USSR, right xD?"
When USSR export food it was done by cost of soviet pesants. Stalin knew that selling that was death sentence for soviet pesants.
"You understand that in USSR in Stalin's era worker can't travel or change work without Party decision."
Yes you could. My grandfather did not work for the party or government and worked in 4 different cities and under 6 different jobs. Nice try. Did you know that people in the USA could not even afford medical treatment and could not afford to change jobs due to lack of worker's protection laws? They can't do so today except if you work for a government institution."
"Nice paradise, where if you are late three times to work you land in Gulag. "
HAHAHAH, source xD? Never heard so much bullshit in my life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag"
In new law created by Stalin from 12 June 1940 for beeing late to work 3 times you were send to Gulag. In the same time worker was forbiden to change job without Party authorisation. Travel was impossiable without special document which was provided only with Party agreement. Yeah I think that USA was not that bad in comparision to USSR. And level of life standars in USA was always higher than in USSR. Even when leaders of USSR claim that as a fact.
Plus 8 hour work day was fiction. Beating norms, cretaing new records that was reality. Try to not agree, Gulag was waiting for you. Not without reason Orwell hated USSR under Stalin rule.
"Pesant in Star Russia in 1914 had more rights than soviet worker in 1937!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/labour_movements_trade_unions_and_strikes_russian_empire
https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/1982-624-11-Madison.pdf"
Yes that Tsar system was so horriable that Stalin many times run from prisons and nobody was trying kill Lenin when he was on emigration! We know how Stalin kill his enemies in USSR and outside, like Trotsky or White Army Officers. Pesants could travel and work in cities. With reforms of PM Stolypin Russia was going to be industrial power greater than Germany not later than 1920. War and revolution make it impossiable.
"And how looks like in reality Gulag you should read biographic book A World Apart: The Journal of a Gulag Survivor by Gustaw Herling-Grudziński. He land ther thx to soviet terror against Poles and barly survive it. Eye witness, not your fantasy. "
He literally confirms what I said and completely debunks your brainwashed US fantasy bs xD. Try reading "The Gulag Archipelego" and you'll see how full of shit you are."
You probaly never read this book. It is much more harder accusation than Solzenicyn's books.
Gustaw Herling-Grudziński show truth of soviet force labour system and high death ratio in this camps. And he wasn't only one. Many foreginers land in Gulags but survived to wrote about that "paradise on Earth".
And official reason why he was arrest were that his last name in russian sounds like Goering and he was by NKVD German spy! Really nice logic.
You will spin, lie and made stiupd claims. But fact is that "great USSR" died under absurdal ideology and economics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukebruce5234
"I am using estimates which are supported by modern day history. Show alternative data or prove historians really have no clue about the population as you claim. Otherwise what you are saying is just a cop out and a rejection of real data."
Some as you claim false source of my information:
https://web.usd475.org/school/jchs/staff/garvey/SitePages/How%20Many%20People%20did%20Joseph%20Stalin%20Kill.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin
Need more? Numbers from yours to even higher than 2 mln. You just assume that TIK lose, but you can't undesratnd that you give real data. To many sources kill your claim.
"Stalin claimed he victimized people. When? Where? Also what does it matter what the non-historian Western puppet Gorbachev said when we have got historians and statistical data?"
Nope, wrong asumption on your side. Stalin claim much lower number of soviet victims in WW2 than Gorbatshev. Victims of german invasion! And Hitler start war with help of Stalin!
"Yeah around 40 million or so that died in Europe"
Still not all of then were just Hitler's victimes, some of them were Stalin's too.
Historians still are not sure who as a leader kill more. But communism killed much more than fasism.
"1946 - the communist party won the free parliamentary elections. "
Not really, they get 114 from 300 seats in Chehoslovakian parliament. They need other in coalition to rule. Not like they rule alone. Even when biggest pre-war party was ruled out from this elections in 1946. That is not democratic and free election.
Communist need coup in 1948 to get power. That give any backing to your claim that they were so popular to get power whitout terror.
"So far you have shown 0 data. I on the other hand quote real historians and primary data."
Look up, maybe you will see them! Or try read other sources than only official soviet.
"If USA as you claim done genocide of Indians, So you are denying it right? then what Russian and USSR did in Crimea, Chechnya and other many places with orginal population living there. The population was moved further from the front as it was pro-Nazi. Not a genocide. "
Wow. I mean all russian conquest of this places.Because if american indians fall under genocide, that mean Russian Empire, USSR and todays Russia comitt also mass murders in that conquest. And you blaim people for beeing pro-Nazi, yes that was real reson of mass deprtation in XIX and in XX century before and long after WW2 (sarcasm) In reality both historic events are just story of brutal frontier wars!
For your information things done by hispanic and portugal conquerers were much brutal than american conquest of West. And yes high numbers of populations of South America also died out from desisess. Problem is that genocide wasn't in any way used to fight with Indnians. There were brutal actions, but in real numbers that wasn't genocide. Indians were just pushed by much larger and better organise wave of european colonisation. Yes land was taken from them, but even in the worst years of colonisation genocide wasn't a fact. Only some ideological claims are based on it, not real estimates. And population of South American Indians was much higher in numbers than Northen American Indians.
"So far it's been the opposite. They used to say Stalin killed 60 million, then 40, then 20 and now Timothy Snyder, the chief anti-Russian propagandist came up with 6 to 9 million. "
That mean you belive Snyder when he wrote something good about USSR? Or he is still in wrong?
Because not only Snyder accuse communist of genocide. There is many well documented publications about real sclae of soviet crimes. I give you many diverse sources but you still lie that they not real one. Not my fault that you had dilussions.
You still do not repeat nothing about KATYN (probably you will claim that was Germans) Then here you have source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
Next is secret part of Ribbentrop-Maolotov Pact, part that kill all claims about neutrality of USSR in first years of war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
I can do it all the time. You have you "sources" i can give you counter. Readers can check both of us. I'm sure about my sources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukebruce5234 You cherrypick examples whotout contex.
First. Chehoslovakia was also in allaince with Soviet Union, using your logic they also betray it. USSR also were part of Munich Pact, but for propaganda reson claim that they not supporting it!
Second. Holodomor was created because at least two reasons. First was need to sale grain for money to buy in West technology for industralization. Second main reason was extermination of kulaqs. Third that way Stalin starts his colectivization.
As example Ford and Junckers build factories in USSR, that mean that West also help USSR prepare to war? That is just trade. You pay me and i sell you my products.
There is systematic genocid in Soviet Union from start. Lenin and Stalin just perfect methods by the time. Gulags, force labor, mass killings on ethnic and social gtoups. All that was present in USSR. You claim that is no material evidence. That is false and we have this documents. Read Solzenicyn. Look on Katyn, whole world saw picures of killed polish POW, plus we have documents with Stalin signature. There are examples after examples. We have also accses to archives in 1990, now Russia again is closing them but is too late. My biggest regret is we don't see all of soviet archives. Your claims are so weak like claims that Hitler doesn't know about Holocaust.
Long before Hitler create Wermacht, Red Army was best equiped and existed in high numbers in personel, guns and other war material. That was the source of USSR people suffering. Guns before welfare of nation. Before war Red Army use over 20000 tanks, Wermacht around 3000. Then tell me who were prepered to war better?
About Cold War, you know if USA and UK want invade USSR in 1945 they can do it. With atomic bomb they can whipe out Red Army. The main reson that Cold War started is Stalin's doings in Poland, Chehoslovakia, Hungary and Romania. Creating communist dictatorship in this countries, when Stalin claim that is what population of this countries want, what was a lie.
You also claim that USA and UK were responsiable for crimes against humanity. Yes they were, but even in this countries people in knew about it and can critisize it. Force leaders to change this policy. In USSR that was impossiable and communist are responsiable for milions of deaths. Even Hitler with his policy can't beat Stalin and Mao in cruelty and body count.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nuclear Confusion In your vision you really can't grasp that only communist can be patriotic in that definition. Other states of patriotism are imperial and oppresive, or even nationalist. Marx in very clear way state that patriotism si only acceptable when serve into interest of ploretariat. And final goal of ploretariat is worldwide dictartorship. In opposition in reality communist very ofent use nationalistic propaganda.
"A literal nonsense, since Tibet is an autonomous region even to this day. "
Really funny ,with mass Chinss colonization and suppression of local culture. Tibetans have no voice in that autonomy.
"And My point it's still valid; you dismissed everything that contradicts your view and you portraited that as the general view, with facts that hardly can be considered "nationalist propaganda". Your whole theory is demolished by the fact that Lenin fought against Russian chauvinism, and Stalin did the same."
They fought with that so much that the russian language and culture dominate
whole USSR. Supressed the other cultures, whitout any real autonomy. But hey they claim to fought with it.....
"NO, I am right! That Polish Operation isn't well documented, no sovietologists got around it and the claim comes from only two guys who claim the operation. The accounts of the victims of the Purge disprove your nonsense and your whole narrative debunks your claim, since you can see they targeted high ranks, not specially on ethnic grounds! >Aim was crush any sign of distincion from "soviet nation" False and not even the people who support the narrative don't claim such a nonsense. You are debunked by the actions of soviet authorities, the post-WW2 situation and the fact that USSR was a federation of multiple republics."
Yeah, still not true. Look on that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD
Lot of evidence, all facts are in opposition to your claims.
And you claim that USSR was real federation? Really? You make my laugh.
"Estonian, Latvian, Lithuenian or Polish or German civilians should been never enemies of USSR. False. Latvia was literally a fascist dictatorship. Estonia fought a against the Red Army during the Russian Civil War. Poland started a war of conquest in 20's against Russia which was in the middle of a Civil War. As I expected, you have no clue about the history of USSR and you beg the question very hard. > No one was safe, mass deportation, extaermination of elites that was typical soviet methods. So executing Nazi leaders was a soviet method? Huh, interesting. Mass deportation happened in Europe after WW1 aswell. Most of the deportation in USSR happened because of WW2, not despite of it! "
You claim that all victimes, civilian and from cultural elite from this countries were nazi?
And you use soviet propaganda lies about historic events. Polish-Bloshevik war was part of soviet attemp to invade western Europe.
"We must direct all our attention to preparing and strengthening the Western Front. A new slogan must be announced: Prepare for war against Poland."
Vladimir Lenin long before war starts in early 1919.
Me:People fighting with nazist were arrested and executed as a enemy of USSR and colaboraters to Hitler.
"You: no evidence, another claim that is as relevant as the other you spewed."
Then read that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Pilecki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimierz_Moczarski
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_the_Sixteen
All that prove you ignorrance of history. Real history, not marxist.
>In US they use rewrite Mein Kampf and leftist just love it as a progresive program.
"And ofc a false claim in order to enforce your mental gymnastics. Nothing such thing exists"
Really? This not in any way agree with you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_Studies_affair
https://www.timesofisrael.com/duped-academic-journal-publishes-rewrite-of-mein-kampf-as-feminist-manifesto/
It takes 5 sec to check it. You were so lazy to even try to check this part. Nice to know that you are dishonest in your reserch. Ilove when some accuse sombody that he claim somethnig and dno't check that in any way. That was very controversial discovery in american academic world. Much more schocking that you can imagine.
About war crimes made by Red Army:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Soviet_occupation_of_Poland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes
Maybe I can't now find books with I clearly remember that sum of Hungarian woman raped by soviet soldier was in aroud 30%. Soviet cover that under liberation propaganda.
Also i red mémoire of soviet soldiers that state clearly how brutal was liberation made by Red Army.
Very good part about that is in book by Mark Solonin, Нет блага на войне/ Nothing good at war.
Then don't tell me about spinning reality and evidence. Go fast to you commrads for new instructions.
1
-
1
-
@Nuclear Confusion Oh my, Rose Luxemburg do not agree with you. Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky do not agree with you. "But the workers are interested in the complete amalgamation of all their fellow-workers into a single international army, in their speedy and final emancipation from intellectual bondage to the bourgeoisie, and in the full and free development of the intellectual forces of their brothers, whatever nation they may belong to."
Marx and Engels in Communist Manifesto:
"The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word. National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat."
Maybe some racist slurs from father of communism. He was very eager to destroy some "less" value nations and races. His anty-semitism was in some way were near Hitler's views.
"Marx was also an anti-Semite, as seen in his essay titled “On the Jewish Question,” which was published in 1844. Marx asked:
What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. … The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. … The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general."
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/05/10/ugly-racism-karl-marx/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13569317.2019.1548094
International patriotism in Marx works just mean global ploretarian state. Only you can be pathriotic to communist country, either you should do everything to destroy capitaist state. No countries, only global communist paradise. Patriotism still play large scale communist propaganda. In my youth noone said "nazi Germans" but stricly Germans were enemy! Of course not from DDR, that was good and socialist Germans, not that bad from West.
And maybe Mao critisese Han nationalism, but still practice of Chinees Communist Party was embrace chauvinism above other nationalities living in China. Look on Tibet case or traetment of national minorieties in China.
In one hand they accuse national interest as a danger for world revolution. To later form own definition of "patriotism". Just like some other thinker ...guy called Hitler, but need just change proleratariat to race. Plus race domination on ploretarian revolution and you have.....
"2)You miss all the internationalist propaganda and you pick only the war time one, which is not even targeting people ethnically at all."
Hey i don't wrote and paint it. In pre WW2 works of soviet ideologs yopu have condemnation of nation and state as a opposite to dreammed "communism" as a worldwide domination of ploretariat. Again no nations, no countries.
But into the war always or invasion, or next purge you always finde some national or race beating. Every other country want invade USSR, but brave communist always invade others with "peacefull intentions"
"3) Comparing Socialism Internationalism with Hitler's New World Order and Rosenberg's theory of Aryan Race is a false equivalent fallacy."
Why? Because if you just change terms in communist works, you have( in Hitler view) family of aryan countries/satelites working for embracing racial ideas of Hitler. I do not claim that is the same, but is to similar to claim that the sources are different. How is different in action building new society on class/race theory. Genocide of enemies, creating classless/racial pure society as an final goal of regime.
In US they use rewrite Mein Kampf and leftist just love it as a progresive program.
And i judge communism on it's effects not rhetoric.
"4)Polish Operation isn't very well documented so I won't comment on that. Yet you fail to see, because you beg the question, that they targeted NATIONALISTS*, *NOT nationalities!!!"
No, you are wrong, it is very well documented. NKVD aim whole polish minority in west USSR. Polish Communist Party basicly was destroyed. Whole upper and middle levels of communist organisation in USSR was extermineted. Aim was crush any sign of distincion from "soviet nation". There were no place for any single sign of polish culture in USSR. Only handfull of ultra-loyal new communist leaders were chosen from this population, people that belive that Poland will became next soviet republic.
In the same manner purges were executed in Karelia, or in Middle Asian soviet republics. Key to exterminations and sovietization was nationality of "enemies", second the "social" status. Look how holodomor targeted Ukrainians, not whole soviet population.
Socialism in one country was just stage to preparation into new war, after fall of communist coups in Germany and Hungary or Finand. Still the main goal was worldwide revolution.
Rest was just propaganda.
"It's like saying that Soviets should have not fought against German soldiers, because they were working class, right? Or that they should have not take measures against Estonian or Ukrainian Nationalists that joined the SS, right? So basically attacking nationalists, in your view, is attacking an entire ethnic group, right? This is nonsense and I'm stunned that you can't see your flawed reasoning."
Then why Red Army rape, kill and steal from civilians on captured territories? Even after when fascist and nazist were defeted. Estonian, Latvian, Lithuenian or Polish or German civilians should been never enemies of USSR. But they were treaten like enemies. No one was safe, mass deportation, extaermination of elites that was typical soviet methods. People fighting with nazist were arrested and executed as a enemy of USSR and colaboraters to Hitler. Don't try spin facts. This is all well documented. Hungerian were so brutalised by Red Army, that 30% female population in country was raped. That was one of main reason why they so much hate USSR and rebel in 1956 against soviet domination.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielgreen6302 You realy don't understand that socialism is not only marxism? Rebuilding social structure, destroying "unwanted "class/race in this society to build better future. State as an absolute and total ruler, that is socialist agenda. Marx want destroy bourgeois as a ruling class, Hitler want destroy Jews because in his eyes they are trying to rule the world. Are ever try to read Hitler's works, or Mussolini's? Economical and social practice of nazism and fascism are similar with main socilaisit ideas. Economy is only tool, they belive that state "own" economy, that is not right-wing. Stalin or Mao uses right-wing propaganda in many times, noone name them as a right-wing. Also I thin that dogma about fascism and nazism as a right-wing was a trick from stalinist propaganda handbok. The same slender he use against all of his enemies, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Bukharin. All of them were by stalinists "right-wingers".
1
-
@radunMARSHAL
In the response that every historian and economist agree with you, or 99%, or 90% or.....whatever you claim.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2015/Samuelsfascism.html
You user that line:
"The economics of fascism refers to the economic policies implemented by fascist governments. Historians and other scholars disagree on the question of whether a specifically fascist type of economic policy can be said to exist. Baker argues that there is an identifiable economic system in fascism that is distinct from those advocated by other ideologies, comprising essential characteristics that fascist nations shared.[1] Payne, Paxton, Sternhell et al. argue that while fascist economies share some similarities, there is no distinctive form of fascist economic organization.[2] Feldman and Mason argue that fascism is distinguished by an absence of coherent economic ideology and an absence of serious economic thinking. They state that the decisions taken by fascist leaders cannot be explained within a logical economic framework.[3]"
But in article is also position:
"Fascists opposed both international socialism and free market capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third position. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism.[12] They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and social hierarchy was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists),[13][14] while also arguing that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists).[15]"
That mean they see their economy as a third way between capitalism and communism. But they were not international but national socialist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
The your claim is false. Nice that you state one qoute to twist whole text.
"Claims that engineering and science in socialist states was lagging behind the West is an obvious bullshit. If it was so, there wouldn't have been an arms race or space race. The difference between the capitalist West and the socialist East was that the West did not have to allocate most of their research and industry into military effort, while the Soviets had to do that"
I claim that even with good engineering and science communism and socialism is lagging in technology behnid capitalistic countries. Space and arms race was in long term disaster for communist economy. Whit many succeses communist lost both of them. That was failing of communism/socialism itself, that idea can't really work. Many of sucsess of communists were based on intelligence and gain in other ways technology. Atomic bomb, rocket and jet engines or electonics were captured or stolen. In science communism was dogmatic and reject any discoveries that was in aynway in contrradiction with official ideology.
And you should add that military allocation was normale practice in communist countries because of aggressive nature of communism and need to keep population in line with communist regime. Capitalism countries don't need to do it. But even with lower percentage GDP consumed by military West could overspend the Eastern Block, because capitalism was much more better economic system.
Did they outclassed non-communist in any aspect of technology?
Capitalism give us internet, GPS, mobil phones, PC and much more technology used in modern world. What advanced technology was produced in communism?
Only technology in military!
Even this high quality products of communist countries were easy to buy in West and not that easy to buy in communist countries. Difference in workers payn in both economy play for capitalism not communism.
Next you compare Yougoslavia to stalinist USSR as a example of economic reforms? You should then wrote that Yougoslavia never implemented fully communist economy. Privat property were't attack like in other communist countries. Yougoslavian economy was uniqe mix of socialism and capitalism. At that terms is not in any way good example to wrote about politics in USSR.
"There's no lighter version of communism, since no state was ever communist. Communism is impossible, it's an utopia, it's bullshit to think it's achievable. "
Whit this i can agree. Communism is utopia, but tries to impemanting it happens, That is position to critic of socialism and communism. Socialism or communism can't work. Some ideas could be implemented but as a whole idea of marxism or most extremist socialist is flawed. It always goes to"that was no real socialism/communism" argument. Look on humanitarian disaster in Venezuela or North Korea today.
"Fascist Italy and Germany were ethnic nations, so their nationalism was very different from anything that could arise in socialist nations since socialism, Marxism and leftism in general are not compatible with ethnic nations and ethnic nationalism."
Really? You should read how communist propagand use nationalism and racism to attack enemies of communism. How in Africa communist call all whithes as a colonizers and blacks as only a victimes. Into the WW2 communist more and more use nationalist propaganda. The same is in North Korean and Vietnamees propagadna, or todays Chinees propaganda. Polish communism was in propaganda very nationalist. In many way like in nazi Germany. Indeed Marx was racist.
Failing of international socialist movement before WW1 in part was caused by nationalist movement in socialist parties! Socialist of Europe first decide to choose interest of nation before interest of interantional workers class.
Your knowledge of communismt and socialist look very one-sided.
"Absolute monarchy and feudal monarchy are two very different and distinct systems. You should do a research on that subjects."
If you comapare french absolute monarchy to tsars Russia you have two different and distinctsystems. Both are based on feudal values, but in one you see first glimps of proto-capitalism but in second system was typical feudal monarchy, even into 18th and early 19th century. You don't understand that in one term absolute monarchy can be use in different places. But still it is a feudal base system. Democracy also was different in many places in vast time periods.
Also in yur own words:
"Right is concerned with preserving the social hierarchy and stratification, so conservatism, and the left is concerned with breaking the social hierarchy and stratification."
If you look on ideology of fascism and nazism. Both want destroy classic social fabric, build new society . Both want create new natiosocialism, not marxist socialism! Even your defenition move Hitler to left side.
1
-
@radunMARSHAL You quote article that state that historians disagree about economical policy of fascism. Then you state that historians agree whit your point. That what is your logic? They agree in or not? In links that i'll give you have statement of many ways to see fascism, not like you claim only one!
And statement that 99% of scientist agree about something is also incorrect, the is no such study to support that. That is jsut words of some amator journalist. Not scientist!
You also claim that switching from production military materials is not that problematic. That is very big simplification. If you cover few factories it is very easy to do it. But if you talk about whole model of production, distribution of materials and chain of cooperation that is not that easy. You need years to do it in scale of soviet economy. In any other economy that also cause lot of problems, look on post WW1 economies of France, GB or Germany! From higly militarised economy to peace time economy.
"Welfare in communist states was that everyone had a complete healthcare coverage, had a decent pension after retirement, had a house or a flat, could educate themselves as high as they wanted free of charge, that everyone had a job etc. Worker's rights covered things like 8 hour shift, how much overtime work is payed, number of days off work, 30 workdays or something in SFRY, lower age for retirement for labor intensive trades etc. These are exactly the economic policies eastern European neo-fascist stand for and they often consider themselves far left rather than far right, though they are obviously far right. They hate both the fascists and the communists but for different reasons than you think. Communists for their anti-nationalism, atheism and modernism, and fascists for destruction in WWII and the fact that they considered the eastern Europeans an inferior race."
Maybe you should remember that Yugoslavian communis was much lighter version than stalinist communism. Titio break relations with Stalin because of difference in vision of communism.
You wrote about welfare state in communism when all that "communist achivments" were present in capitalist system in the same time on much bigger scale. You should also remember that some of this privliges of "communist welfare state" stay only on paper. Medic covarage in western Europe was much bigger and on higher quality level than communist version. Education and science were much more effective in western democracies than in communist block. Just look how technological progress was much faster on West than in communist countries. Even if communism could train good engineers, that engineers can't produce own projects because communist industry wasn't ready to do it. Look on design and production of computers. Communism have some inventors with projects, but no production capacity in this field. In capitalist society they just build factories and build computers to sell them!
For so called decent payment you can't buy so much. Maybe you have money but shops sre empty! Noi bread, no toliet paper... just like in Venezuela today!
Most funniest of your claims is that communism is not interested in nationalism. You should check Stalin's speeches from WW2, or why Romania, Albania or even Yugoslavia were in opposition from USSR. National interest of this countries was more important than inernational communism! They even prefer stay in close relations with (like Yugoslavia) USA or other capitalistc countries. Maybe that was way for "sucsess of communism" in your country.
I live from birth to 2016 in Poland. And i can say what was real effects of communist economy versus capitalist economy. Poverty, lack of essential products. Industry producing low quality products or products that no one can buy because of high prices!
When after WW2 communists captured power in Poland they crete mirror of soviet economy. Hevy industry concetrated on military production and low civilian goods production. That create social tencions, that broke out in 1956. Fisrt things that was in the workers want was bread and work! The same happend in 1970 and 1980! Basicly each time communist regime use brutal force (including tanks on streets!)and when that fail they try to change policy to better in some way economical status of entire population (not only party members). From crisis to crisis, tha was economy of socialism. Even in 1970' with big investment and credits from banks from West, communist economy can't change that immanent state of crisis in Poland (the same state that was present in many forms in all communist countries).
Communism as it goes is economical failure, that why USSR and other communist countries never can compare in real numbers wealth of citzens capitalist industrial powers. Capitalism long ago win with this terms with communism. Poepole living in democratic capitalist state have more rights and wealth than in any communist country ever. Communism just bancrupt as a economical and social system. Look on todays North Korea, atomic power with famine killing whole nation!
And even when everybody can use medical sevice in communism that not mean any way that is good quality system. Lack of medicines, shortage of personel, all that is typical for communist system. I live in it and don't try sell me lies about something i see by my own eyes.
You also try to convince me that i don't really know nothig about political systems. Let me say that you are mixing things that can't be compared.
Absolute monarchy is any way totalitarian system. It is a product of feudal production and social system and in any way can't be called totalitarian. In this type of monarchy it is possiable existense of political parties, there is different level of economical freedom. The real thing that state absolute monarchy is that monarch is absolute authority in this system. All power and laws are created in interst of monarch and state. As Loius XIV claim 'L'etat c'est moi' ('I am the state'). That was statement of power, but is not the same that create totalitarian state. In this system everyone should obey authority of the king and his biurocracy for interest of state. Monarch is ruler but also servant of the state. Nothing less, nothing more.
If you compare that to concept of totalitarian state, there is lots of differences. First is that in totalitarian state nothing is privat, no possesion or psoition in society is free from state ownership (absolute monarch never usurp that much control over citizens). Second is that no opposition is allowed in state. Absolut monarchy tolerate critic in borders of law, but in totalitarian regime law forbids any criticism of state.
Third is that in monarchy is intersted in economical efficecy of economy in any forms, privat or state ownership. In totalitarian state practice of privat ownership is non-existing or stricly limited and controled by state.
You can find much more differences in this two systems. You also toook authoritarism as the same as a totalitarism, that is two different systems. Pinochet was authoritarian, not real fascist as you claim. It is communist trend to call everything else than communism as a fascism.
But you also don't understand that right wing and lefy wing of policy are in strict definition covered from French Revolution to today. Some part of this shift with changes in policy and society. Some simplest difference:
Right wing is covered in protection of privat property and rights as a rights of indyvidual. The right side is more interested in evolution of society than revolution, because right wing claim that revolutions cause more damage then create good. Traditions and legacy of past are very important for this side of political spectrum. Right take human nature as a state of fact, not social construct.
Left is concetrated in interest of groups. See revolution as a way of future and reject any respect for traditional values. See in that danger of rejection of progress. Privat property is not in any way seen as a part of program. Inividual rights are covered in rights of group. Human nature in left is something you can change by socialisation.
There is so many other definitions, but if you look on policy of Hitler and Mussolini you see how far they were from right side.
Socialism is his origin anti-individualistic and not interested in any form of personal freedom outside given group. That is a roots of modern totalitarism, rejection of indyvidualism and rights of indyvidual. Interest of many overcome interest of few. You should know this statement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@radunMARSHAL "I've said that Fascism does not care about economics, and you still come up with things like "If you claim that fascism was based on capitalism". No you pathetic degenerate, I have not once stated that Fascism is based on capitalism, I said that it doesn't care about economics. Which part of that sentence you do not understand? If you knew anything about fascist ideology, you'd be aware that it doesn't cover economics at all. What I said is that Fascists regimes in Italy, Germany, Spain, Chile etc had capitalist economics, mostly classical liberal, not out of belief but out of convenience. You should go read some books about that period, since you have obviously never read any about that subject."
"You don't have to link me NEP, I know everything, literally everything about the history of European communism in the 20 century. And I'll tell again, there's no valid comparison in terms of economic policies between two ideologies of which one doesn't care about economics, and the other one is all about economics. In terms of applied Fascism in fascist states of the first half of the 20th century, their economic policies are with no exception purely capitalist, and very often in the spirit of classical liberal economics. Even the more recent fascist regimes like Pinochet's Chile were also purely capitalist, in fact Friedman was Pinochet's economic adviser. These fascist regimes didn't turn to capitalism out of their belief in capitalism, but out of convenience. Capitalism, especially liberal one, is really efficient in terms of making money and as such really convenient to a regime that's all about nationalism and military might."
You contardict yourself in this two statements. You claim that fascism do not cover economy as a aspect of ideology. I never heard that anyone with that reasoning, you are the first man that ever claim that. I don't know any historian who claim the same. In fact simple check in wiki give the information taht you can read yourslef:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2012/02/22/the-economic-leadership-secrets-of-benito-mussolini/#709d6c268e6c
Also you didn't mention that italian facism and german nazism have different definision of state and role of race in it. Italian version was in many ways different from nazism. But that is not the point of disscusion
If you don't understand what I wrote: "If you claim that fascism was based on capitalism" This sentence was conclusion of your claim that facsism is any way conected with socialism and is in bed with capitalism. Then what economical system is goal of facsism? You claim that is no concern of facsist, i don't agree and I argue that facsism and nazism were another branch of socialism. In simple example North Korea is communist country, but state ideology is more facsist and stiil they implementing socialist economy. China oficially is communist, but everyone know that is capitalist country. Names are just names, practice is much more than oficial statements. Maybe we both are wrong but capitalism wasn't declared and implemented by facsist as a prefered system. Economy of 1930 Germany and Italy were diretced to reject capitalism, not like you claim. Both regimes have own visions of economy.
"I've never said that Marxism is the only school of Socialism, actually I've never said anything about Marxism altogether nor stated or shown in any way that I'm a Marxist, you pathetic, pathetic moron."
Maybe you are not marxist, but in your description of socialism you use marxist definition. You wrote from position that sounds like classic marxist. It is just simple observation. Maybe here I'm wrong.
"Regarding "Stalin's disaster economy", that's again propaganda and pamphlets speaking from you since you're not able to question any narrative nor form your own opinion. Calling Stalinist economy a disaster economy is not just ignorant, but also idiotic. The USSR under Stalin has achieved economic growth of unprecedented rate, beating even Japanese and German growth. Stalinist economy is the very reason the USSR was able to outperform economically and defeat the NAZI Germany which was an European industrial powerhouse for century at that point, and that's the mainstream view with historians."
If you read some raw data you can compare industrial output of both countries (III Reich and USSR) in years before war and in WW2. If you compare disadvantage in III Reich position in resources, then you see that even then USSR in any way outperform Germany. Stalin's "reforms" cost life milions of USSR citizens, hard to see in that great achivment. Famine on mass scale, massive drop in consumption of goods in civilian market, low efficency of industrial base and low quality of products. You compare USSR to Japan, you forgett that Japan start from much lover position in start of XX century. Aslo after 1905 Russia starts effective reforms to pretend to become one of the biggest industrial power in Europe. That can't help Russia in WW1, but that show that Stalin didn't do anything special in terms of russian economy. In scale of tragedy that was product of his policy, effects are not that great. And also USSR without Lend-Lease and military cooperation from UK nad USA, can't win with Germans. Battle of Atlantic consume much from resources, industrial capacity and manpower of III Reich. Air attacks on Germany also keep major Luftwaffe forces from Eastern Front. Other fronts keep german forces off balance. That is fact that only soviet and russian historian can't accept it.
Many historian and economist are convince that industralization will be going in USSR whitout horrors created by Stalin. Trotsky was decided to preper USSR to spread revolution and if he will be next ruler of USSR, industralization will be one of his goals. Many soviet economic specialist (killed by Stalin in his terror) propose another forms of industralization in connection to NEP. Not only Stalin saw that problem.
"Khrushchev's liberalization had nothing to do with changing the USSR economy away from central planning, it just emphasized more on consumer goods rather than military production of Stalin's era."
If you don't see difference in Stalin and Khrushchev economic policy in can't help you. Yes that was still central planning economy. But you can't just magicly change profile of production in whole country from military production to "emphasized more on consumer goods" whitout big changes in the economy itself. Tha is more than change name of factory. Khrushchev liberalization bring changes in pressure on soviet society. Terror of 1930 and 1940 was gone. Changes were more deep rooted than just decsions in Kremlin. Even in Brezhnev's era pressure on workers and rest of economy can't be compared to stalinist terror. That is very important factor. One of many in that change in USSR economical status. Gorbashev's liberalisation was also big and important change in soviet economy. But still failed because of communist ideology.
And you wrote:
"Neo-fascists in eastern Europe tend to assert socialist economics since people in this part of the world have experienced communist welfare states, social programs and worker's rights, so they tend to view these policies as something of a golden standard of state policies. Since fascists are populists, aka telling people what they wanna hear, they stand for socialist welfare policies and worker's rights, which, of course, doesn't at all mean they would implement these if they ever come to power."
Not only as you called "Neo-fascists in eastern Europe" compare Hitler policy to ways of socialism. Also "communist welfare states" and "worker's rights" do not exist in any of communist countries. That is just an propaganda. In West in contrast of communist East, workers have rights and real and working walfare programs. Independent trade unions can't exist in communist country, that why polish Solidarity was enemy of polish communist goverment and that why this regime try to crush it. Only party decide what was law, noone had any rights. On paper communism give you all rights , but in reality you are just a slave od state. Claim something else is just a lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robcampbell6700 If people read Marx with understanding. Marx was convince that to achive communism, first step is revolution in industral country and creation of ploretariat dictatorsip. First mistake of Marx, revolution starts in agrarian Russia (less industrialised country of Europe), second mistake ploretariat can't organise his goverment, insted that create monoparty capatured by tyrants like Lenin and Stalin! Yes, Lenin was the same monster like Stalin! He build concetration camps, create secret police and destroy democracy in Soviet Russia. And you are wrong when you claim that USSR wasn't socialist, all means of production was state own, there were even time when Lenin force abandonment of any currency, but that with other socialist reforms nearly destroyed USSSR. Marxist theory need totalitarian state that create new men by state education. Family will be repleced by state. All that is in Marx works. Socialism can't work with democracy, because free people never will resign from privat property nad other freedoms. You should check others communs in history. In small scale they can work, but in bigger scale socialism is imposiable. Capitalism is jsut much more effective and even with his faults is much more better then utopian socialism. Colony in Jamestown starts like a commune and end with mass starvation. To many people want use other people work as a way to benefit themselve.
By the way Marx is only one of socialist theorist. But today incorectlly everybody claim that Marx create socialism. Marxist theory is utopian with no cover in science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rustammamin5726 Ok after rereading your post I concetrate on basicly false staetments you wrote. I will replay to them and I am ending discussion because you are just making things up and there is no sence to drag this.
1)" Rzhech Pospolitna was not a state. Therefore it is completely wrong to claim that Poland existed at 1795."
Basicly there is no need to wrote any long exposition on this fake. As I wrote most recognised date of start Poland as a country is 996. And Rzeczpospolita was created in 1569 by Union of Lublin, which create one of the modern states i this time.
2)"Rzhech Pospolitna has no centralized government. This was still a loose feudal confederation. It has no well defined borders."
Sejm, Senat, King, ministers of the court were central organs of Rzeczpospolita, than again you are mistaken. If you see the strucure of Rzeczypospolita it was one of the mordern form of confedarcy or depend of definition federation, sometimes is called commonwealth, but in any way that was so obscure feudal state. Going to borders, if you spend 3 minutes reading summary of Poland's hitory you will know that borders of Rzeczpospolita was form and were recognize by all it's neighbours. State recognize border and sphere of influence from anticien times.
3) "About China. I am not sure that China ever existed in 16 century A.D."
There is no historian that claim that China non egsisted even before 210 BC, that was first time when China become single and cetnral ruled country, even todays name China is taken from transliteration of the name kingdom which united it, Kingdoom of Cin/Quin. But you still use false claims like:
"India is very ancient civilization, and China is a young civilization"
"Chinese borrowed a lot from Indians, but not visa versa. In 19 century China was ruled by regional warlords, which only formally recognized Beijing as capital."
I don't want to be rude but Chineese discover many things that you use today and yes they trade and share cuture with India, but not like you claim. Partition of government or even civil war not constitute non-existence of state. Yes China many times change it's political status but noone is claiming that China disappper in this periods. Cases of American or Spanish Civil wars simply debunk your claims, country exist even when it's territory is under enemy occupation or we have case of changing government power, there is many examples of this case, one was Polish Government or Exile in WW2 and second was Serbian Government in WW1.
4) "There is no Jewish nation in Israel. Even some Israeli authors recognize this"
Third Reich, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and other enemies of Israel and Jews don't agree with you. Also there was documents like Balfour Declaration from from 1917. There si so many other instances establishing a nation of Jews, even without talking about stste of Israel.
5) "Gareth Jones witnessed famine, some people whom I knew, also witnessed famine. But not every famine is deliberate killing of people by government. By the way, local famines in Russian empire were common even in the end of 19 century and in the of 20 century. Parents of my grangrandmother died in one of such famines.
"Holodomor" concept is that famine was deliberately caused by Stalin in order to kill as much Ukrainians as possible. But this is wrong."
Holodomor is fact, even if you take only Stalin's policy of colectivisation. Famine was created by administrative mesures done by communist. Gareth Jones was withess of this actions and consecuens of it. In this time any other nation have been struck with starvation and famine at scale seen in Soviet Ukraine. Confiscation of food and liquidation freedome of movement basicly cause mass toll of death. Ukraininias were targeted by government of USSR and there were much more eye-witnesses that give statment of genocidal practice which was done by communists. Mny diplomats send reports to governments to inform them what happend. You know why is that a genocide, because in the same time USSR sell grain to finace colectivisation and industralisation. Then don't use arguments used by people claimng that Holocaust never happen,
Famine in Tsar's Russia was causeed by admnistrative negligence and feudal form of governing. Russia from 18th century produce so much grain that never should know famine. Resposniable was Tsar's biurocracy. You understad that with stock of grain that was in this time Russia can prevent any starvation, only indolence of govering power cause this tragedy.
6) "16 and 17 century maps of Rzhech Pospolitna are fakes made by Polish nationalists.
In these maps Rzhech Pospolitna rules Crimea.."
Historic maps and sources arer not creation of "polish nationalist". Rzeczpospolita was great teritorial state with baltic ports and conection to ports in Black See. That is source of statment :Od morza do morza/ From see to see.
Crimean Penisula never was a part of Rzeczpospolitej and no Poilsh rulers claim that. Don't create alternative history.
7) "There we no Ukrainian nation at 1918, only some nationalistic intellectuals. By the way, even today , Ukrainian nation had not yet created."
Even most radical Polish nationalis recognize Ukrainians as a nation. Scientific disscusion are when nation constitutes and when we can recognize nations. For some historians Ukrainians form as nation in early 19th century, for someone in late 1800's or even on eraly 1900's. Claiming that today there is no Ukrainian nation is basicly a false statment.
I SEE YOU POST NEW REVELATIONS.
"We do not know what was at 966 A.D. We do not know what was before invention of bookprinting."
Yes we know from multiply sources and material evidence. History exist before print. Using your logic there was no Asyria, Rome or other historic events.
"Yes it was. That is because RP was not a state. It had no central bureaucracy. RP in end of 18 century was relic from earlier "
Still you prove that you don't understand history of political systems. That in 17th and 18th there were no other systems similar to Rzeczpospolitej? Oh there was, United Kingdome created from separate states of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. One king, one pairlement and many local forms of government. And decentralisation of local government don't mean that is not a existing state. Using your argument today's Switzland is not a state.
How I wrote on start you prove me that you don't understand history and scientific ways to proof reality of claims. In case of political systems and theory behind then in any case your pony was right. They sounds nice as propaganda but they are false and easy to disproof. We can discuss about history, but when some claim that China as a state didn't exist before 16th century, that is end od disscussion. Because I try to talk about history, you use sudo-science.
As a admition I can understand critic of my statement as a Polish perspective. But claims like "Petrula plan staving Russia" end's disscusion, that is not history, that is propaganda.
I hope that in future we can disscuse on accurate level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rustammamin5726 1) Does Bolsheviks provide independenc for Ukrainians and Bielarusians how they promiss? No they don't. Polish proposition was just realpolitik for guarantee existence for this nations and free states. But mistakes made by both sides bury this option and Poles suffer less in this situation. You know that "mithical" Rzeczpospolita create possibilty for both nations of Ukraine and Bielarus and give them chance to build with own culture and language, before that lands were taken by Russia which treat this people like "just other kind of Russians". You should read more about history of this lands. 20th century is just small period in more than 1000 years of civilization there. Mistakes made by Poles, Ukrainians and Bielarusian after 1918 were not the whole picture of this region. Attacking Poles for doing things done by everyone around don't show any objectivism on your side. I don't try make Poles saint, because we are not. But reading comments which prove bias against one nation is really annoing.
2) China as a centralized country are recognize from 221 BC and that state is existing from then to today! Dynasty changes, but country was the same. And Chineese culture and civilization is much older as whole.
3) You try to compare periods mesure in case of Rzeczpospolita in 123 years (1795-1918). To hundred of years in case of Italy and Roman Empire. That is dishonest and in any way valiable argument, as like ...apple and oranges, two different things. But still I show you more examples. Bulgaria and Grecce are countries that rise to independence after ages of occupation.
That is my anwser. Nation can recrate state in borders which was in it before fall under occupation because that was status quo before fall. Roman Empire in this case can only claim region of Italian Penisula, becuase that was natural teritory of Rome, rest were provinces, not integral territory. Rzeczypospolita in any way was empire, it was federation with single Sejm/Parliment and one king.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rustammamin5726 1) Irrelevant, because no one suggest recreation Polish-Lithuenian Commonwelth in 1918! There were conceptions to create a alliance of independent countries, Poland, Baltic States, Bielarus and Ukraine. When Polish-Bolshevik war ends there wer no chance for realisation of this concept. That even produce position from Piłsudski, he was disapointed because he see that without real independent Ukraine and Bielarus, Poland will we obvoius target for immanent Soviet expansion. He understand that Russia always will be trying to subjegate Ukraine, before moving against Poland, Bielarus and Baltic States. That is basicly what is happening today with Putin's expansion plans.
2) For Rzeczpospolita Sejm/Parilment was central strucure, a king was head of both parts of Commonwelth, like British monarch. What is not Modern in this? In the British Empire less percgentage people get to vote in election than in Commonwelth in late 18th century. And constitution of 3rd May of 1791 was modern reform and way modernize Rzeczpospolita. That was First modern European constitution. Give rights to all citizen (only revolutionary France made bigger reform in Europe in this time) and modernizating regime of the country. Basic knowledge about Polish History! Polish teritory wa were established from medival times.
3) Back to example of Greece, regaining independence in 19th century teritory was based on historic borders. Even today China claim that they are still teritories that should be under control of Beijing, because they are historic part of China. It is one of the basic way that countries claim ownership of teritories. Look on unification of Italy or Germany in 19th century, not all teritory was ethnicly German or Italian in this time. But that didn't stop unification.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@СергейРублев-т7я 1) Deporting 200000 people before even you try filter the collaborators is a crime. Families of soldier Red Army were also pack to wagons without any trails. You just defenend barbaric standard, if 1 is guilty then even 9 innocent will be punished. There wer no protection in this, that was just was Stalin revenge.
Making an exccuse on racist categories don't make your case stronger, just show that Bolsheviks were the same racist like nazist.
2) Really. even from Poland Ukrainian were deported into eastern part of USSR in years 1944-47. First practice of sowiet occupation was aresting everone who was seen as a "enemy of communism", next step was mass deportation non-russian populations. You see that everywhere where USSR install it's borders. After 17th September 1939 to 22 June 1941 Soviets deported 700000 Poles from occiupied territories. All of them were "nationalist"? Baltic States suffer first deporatation in 1940, next wave was done in 1944-45 after "liberation". Todays Russian minorities in this countries are effect of this planed moves.
If we blame Hitler for war crimes like mass deportation and terror. The same cathegories are used to wrote about criminals like Stalin.
"You simply repeat the primitive demonization as an argument (the Soviet state is not normal, Stalin is a butcher), etc."
You say primitive demonization. Ok I will response with examples.
1)Hitler kill millions of people but small numbers, but much smaller number of citizens of Third Reich (even in precentage), as like communist, Jews or other "unwanted" cathegories of people. Stalin and Lenin kill milions of own citizens even before they invade any of other countries. They create system of oppression working for decades. That is good reason to name them butchers. Do we demonize Hitler or Third Reich?
2)What you can name action when Soviet government without declaring a war and after arresting officers of neutral army decide kill them wihout any judical procidings. That is crime whatever you want to paint that. When Germans kill Soviet POW that is a crime, but when Soviet do this is justified even when they kill soldiers of army with they officialy are not in war.
Stalin even try to push mass execiution of 70000 German officers without trail. Just as an cleansing of German population from "enemies of Allied powers".
3)When Stalin start colectivisation effect was mass famine on Ukraine. We could discuss if tha was effect of plan or negligence. Fact is that when Ukraine was starving, USSR sell grain outside. What government starve own nation, butchers and bandits is again good name for them. Also other regions of USSR were famine struck great populations. Kazahstan was hit as bad as Ukraine in 1932-33.
4)What is normal in practicies of Cheka, NKVD or KGB. That organisations act like Gestapo in Third Reich. Tortures and killing the arrested was normal day by day practice.
Soviet practice was you are guilty and you have to prove that you are not the enemy of the state. In Europe in 20th century only totalitarian regims use this logic.
5) What with a famous Order No. 227 and other laws connected with it?
Terrorising and punishing the families of POW? That was order that cost Soviet Union thousends of wasted soldiers life. How you can support persecution of families of "traitors which surrender"? By that logic Stalin should be arrested, because his son Jakov was taken by Germans and became POW.
6) What with warcrimes done by Red Army? Massive persecution of "liberated nations" . Rapes, brutal pacification as you name them "local nationalists", mass deportatioms. That is sign of normal state? Thats rather examples of degenrate bandit state.
Examples are countless. USSR is responsiable for million of dead own citizens. Thre is no greater crime for state that treat that own citizens. But in your logic that is nessesity of state. That is difference for other Europeans, we see state as a protector. You put state on piedestal and citizens have no rights for you. Russian were always ready to serve state nad communist abuse that to levels that even worst Tsar's done. Everything that to dystopian and genocidal practice of marxist ideology. Insted becoming power with citizens living on high level of life. USSR became a superpower with poor and oppressed population. Power was so important for Party that the normal people were just resource, not citizens. That way I recognize a USSR as greater tret for own citizens that anybody else. We in Poland like to praise a tragedies, but we see then as they were. Russian citizens praise greatest tragiedies as a victories. Communism destroy and is still destroying Russia from inside.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@СергейРублев-т7я 1) Then who oppose Soviet rule in lands that was integral part of USSR after 1921. Why in 1919 Bolsheviks have to fight with in Tambov region with pesant revolt (Тамбовское восстание).
If the local "patriots" were red band s and become after invasion members of Soviet represion aparatus, it is not "local" initiative but atcion created by members of communist organisation commanded from Moscov. No of nationalist would welcome Soviet Army, because for them there were occupier as a Poles.
Even on lands that were under Soviet dictatorship form 1920's people cheer Wermacht and welcome it with flowers. It was sympathy caused by Soviet attrocieties. Germans desroy that very fast and I don't claim that love for Germans was reason. Basicly Lenin and Stalin show how in reality communism works or rather not wok.
2) That could be truth if other nation didn't achive economical grovth. Russia before WW1 was on road to become a industrial power of Europe. Bolsheviks destroy in 1920 economy by implementation communist ideology. Then they back to elements of capitalism and privat ownership in NEP, not really communistic system with private companies. Later came tragedy of colectivisation and forced industralisation. Why tragedy, because levels of production of food grow slovly from revolution, but after colectivisation that level drasticly drops and later growth never go to pre-revolution levels of growft. There was incidental growths, but alwas that quicly desend in iffency of central planed economy. Why country that before sell revolution sell grain istart have problems with food shortage? It was so normal in communism that in late 1970's and 1980's USA could force USSR to talk by blocking USSR from buying food from outside communist sphere of interest.
If industralisation was in any way benefit for USSR, wasn't for level of life of Soviet citizens. Most of industry was use to create colossal army but in any way improve level of life of soviet citizen. Yes illiteration was liquidetated, but that was done everywhere in the same time. Level of acses to goods was much higher in poor Poland and Romania then in USSR. Whole that Soviet progress in scale of resources and land mass of USSR is not that impressive. Many todays Russian economist stop beliving in Stalin's mirracle and taklk that economy of Russia could done better without communism in 1920's and 1930's.
You can say what you want but USSR destroy itself by communism. Cold War propaganda was also done by Soviet Union. Also for me history of Russia is very interesting. Such and powerful country in resources and population. But for last 300 years can't use it in full extension to improve life of own citizens. Country bulding thousends of tanks, with food shortage. Country that send man to space but people living in poverty in comaprision to other parts of the industrial world. Tsar's were bad rulers, but Lenin and Stalin were criminals. Russia is so powerful that even communism need half a century to fall. Such a power and such a level of incompetence.
Sorry but communism ideology was something that is I know in my life. I have no symphaty for it because i know how it works in reality. I don't blame Russians for nothing, they are the same victimes of communism as other people, maybe even more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@СергейРублев-т7я You don't need any quote when this two things happend:
1) Bolsheviks prepare offensive against Poland, Ukraine and Bielarus (so ironic in case of Lenin's sefl-governing nations statement) called operation "Goal Vistula".
Source:
Direktiwy Gławnogo Komandowanija Krasnoj Armii 1917-1920, Moskwa 1969, nr 133, 151, 311.
2)From 3rd January Bolsheviks create puppet communist government fo Poland. Styill before even Poland plan action against Soviet Russia.
Source:
Jerzy Borzęcki, Pokój ryski i kształtowanie się międzywojennej Europy Wschodniej, Warszawa 2012, wyd. Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych, ISBN 978-83-62453-32-0, s.31-35.
Some authors quote Lenin words from early 1919, but no one give primary source.
"We must direct all our attention to preparing and strengthening the Western Front. A new slogan must be announced: Prepare for war against Poland."
I know that qoute earlier but now i cant find primary source for you. But still more important were agressive actions of Red Army, done long before Polish Army move on Kiev!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arismaiden6457 For first, Soviet Russia and later USSR never were democratic. They were some mock up build into political system, like workers counciles, but only real power was in communist party. And that party was ruled by communist leaders like Lenin, Trotsky, Bucharin, Zinovyev or Stalin. No other political parties exist or were tolerated. Just like in Third Reich or Mussolini's Italy. Other socialist parties were basicly destroyed in USSR in time of Civil War. Basicly war started by bolsheviks because they can't get to power, because they were one weakest and less influencial party in new political system of Russia after fall of Tsar. Miensheviks were more popular in this time, what push bolsheviks to military coup. Basicly they grab power by destroying democratic system that was been deweloping in that time in Russia. In reality 1917 was no revolution, just military coup done by bolseviks which in reality have no big backing in population. They win only tanks of terror and divide in enemy camp. Even attack on Winter Palace which is founding myth of revolution is a lie. And in reality Trotsky was in big part behind coup not Stalin. There is many propaganda lies hidden in official soviet history. History that contain in reality millions of soviet victimes. And most of them was nations of USSR.
Also comparision to Third Reich is valid. Because even with controversy to place Hitler regime on left or right side, both states were monoparthy system, with Regin of terror and with imperialistic goals.
And about USA political system, is not just two party system. In history of USA were many parties that came and go. Todays US parties are rather coalitions than classical party and probably Democratic Party will be split because of divide between establishment poloticans and hard left populisty like AOC.
And educate yourself about reasons of Bengal famine. One blame was on Japan invasion of Birma, second local british and Indian politician are fault for most problem. Also in this tragedy was no design or decision to stare that population. Tha insted was done by Stalin with intension to starve Ukraine ( Kazachstan also was treat like that).
About bombings you forgott two key things. Axis done this from start of war, targeting civilians by design. The same was done by Soviets in time of invasion on Poland in 1939 or Finland in the same year. Second thing Allied decided bomb German cities after prolog German terror campanig of targeting civilians. War is tragedy, but this was started by Germany and USSR.
I do not claim that US or UK do not commit war crimes or other crimes. Difference is that in case both countries history that was incidents, in case of USSR that was common practice.
1
-
teslagod2003 Modern democracy is a political system where you have at least, free elections, separation of power and free speach. Nothing of that exist in USSR or Third Reich. If you still claim that USSR have elements of democracy you should check your historical knowledge. In USSR only members of communiost Party can be elected, Party was ultimate creator of laws and there was no free speach in USSR. Simple, but you still missing understanding of difference between democracy and sud-democrtic elements in other political systems.
Also I do not support anti-vaccination movment. You just use random slenders because youjust lack knowledge and arguments.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
At it goes:
1)In USSR were no control by non-party members on governmemt, that is not rule of the people, that is Party dictatorship,
2) Only people from monoparty were elected, then members of the party were privliged in society
3)no separation of power, Party was highest ruler and could ignore the law
4)no free speach, critiziting state or Party end in prison or worse.
5)election in USSR were falsified and from start bolsheviks to keep power need mass terror.
How can you claim that in USSR exists forms of democracy when simple facts just don't agree with you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StephenYuan Not really. British were very much against strong Poland. They still count on Whites win in Russian Civil War. Also they do not want see any strenthening France position. Also they affraid that independent Poland will weaken to much Germany. That is why Danzing become independent, not a part of Poland.
For British diplomacy new countries like Poland, Finland or Baltic States rather weaken Russia, still potencial ally for them. And you tottaly forgett a USA role in creating support for Polish independence.
200 years of imperial European politics was going to the bin by WW1 destroying potencials of great powers like Germany, UK, France, Russia not mention Austro-Hungary. When they lose control, nations oppressed by empiers rise up. For Germans or Russians WW1 was tragedy because cost them epmires, for Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia and others that was time of regaining independence.
Aggressive empiers nee one generation to rebuild potencial. And still they can't suppresse nation states that regain existenze after WW1.
"It seems pretty self evident to me at least that Poland's very creation, from what was Germany and Russian territory, was intended by the
Western powers was a counterweight to both of those countries. Polish nationalism was, from the very beginning, a pawn in the central european Great power game between Germany, the Soviet Union, and the two headed beast of France and the UK. The geopolitical order that came out of Versailles was meant to check and contain both. UK foreign policy was designed to pit Central Europeans against each other, in order to prevent them from turning their attention in a Westerly direction."
That statment tottaly miss the dynamics of Mid-War Years politics. Border wars between new countries were out of control of UK and France. Russian Civil War too. USA were back to isolationism and old powers were too weak to any significant intervention. System created in 1815 was long dead in 1918. To create new borders and international system even winniners of WW1 were forced to observe situation.
Greate powers lose way to project power on smaller nations for whole generation. Even winners were to weak to force sides in border wars to just accept any demands of UK or France. When sides of wars were exausted only then Allied could force them to sign peace. Look on situation of Romania nad Hungary. Or Finland and Baltic States. Seeing politics of region as play of UK and France diplomacy is tottaly ahistorical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dwarov 1 Soviet radar technology and usage was limited. In any case soviet AA system was compared with UK or German AA and airdefence. In 1950's and 1960's USSR build proper defence system.
Vietnam got newest radar and missile soviet systems which were use very clever by Vietnamess and for most time USAAF can't attack this targets by political reasons. And you fogett that after that war USA in any war suppress soviet style defence with eas. Last Israeli raid on Syria prove that.
I mention Mark Solonin and he states using soviet documentation that Red Army lose 11 mlns of soldiers. That si one of sources that prove that Soviets lose more soldiers than Germans.
http://www.solonin.org/en/article_fire-in-the-storehouse
And he is just one of many sources.
F-86H use 20 mm guns. Not worse in any way to 23 mm soviet guns.
Allied produce planes like De Hallivand Comet or Vampire, P-53 Aircomet and P-80 Shooting Star in 1944-45. Soviet prototype jets were produced 2 years later in 1947. Two years in war is colossal difference.
About Königsberg:
"Königsberg, the capital of East Prussia, Germany’s easternmost region, was an oasis of peace for much of the second world war. Its destruction has been widely forgotten. From August 26th-27th 1944, the Royal Air Force conducted a bombardment; an even more ruinous raid of carpetbombing followed two days later. In “The Strategic Air Offensive against Germany 1939-1945” (1961), Sir Charles Webster and Noble Frankland observed that incendiary bombs destroyed or seriously damaged 41% of all buildings in the city and 20% of industrial buildings. More than 100,000 people were displaced by the strikes."
https://www.economist.com/prospero/2019/08/29/commemorating-the-devastation-of-konigsberg
"The red airforce bombed german cities into oblivion even in 1941 while the allies were sitting on their asses doing nothing."
To 22nd June of 1941 STalin and Hitler were allies. Only country left fighting Germany was UK, which done quite good job.
And comparing WWS strategic forces as even or better than USA nad UK strategic forces is a joke. Stalin in 1945 ask for help to bomb Dresden, because that was impossiable to done by WWS.Soviets alone did not "oblitorate" from air any single german city alone. Soviet strategic bombings were nothing more than propaganda stunts. TIK show in one of his video that Germans do not have enough bombers to conduct strategic bombings. Thye try it with good start in 1941-42 but they never use enough forces. Join USA and UK air forcers would decimate WWS in few months. After that nothing would stop them to bomb day and night land forces to oblivion. Plus even few atomic bomb could put Red Army on knees.
"The USSR won the war alone. Learn some history before commenting bullshit."
Your bias is visiable and nothing change your lines of prosoviet prejustice. one-on -one Germans with allies and occiupied teritories would just smash USSR in 1942 or 1943. Without Len Lease in 1942 USSR was unable to prologn war. And without Battle of Atlantic Germans could produce twice more tanks and planes. All that oil use in Kriegsmarine could be used in eastern front.
Even when I show you don't recognise two different persons and I show you multiply sources that contrradict you, you will still claim your absurds like "4000 tons of food" provide in whole war by Lend Lease.
"Yes, the air war was won and conducted by the red airforce. The allies began bombing german extensuvely in late 1944 while the USSR was already fighting in germany."
Britsh bombing campaing was constatnt from 1940 to 1945. USA join with own airforce in 1942. Start of strategic bombing in large scale start in 1943 when British and USA send hundred of planes against targets in Germany.
Any part of German industry was intact in 1944, at opening of 1945 after strategic bombings done by USA and UK German industry was on last breath.
Claims about USSR outproducing USA and UK I just treat as soviet wartime propaganda.
USSR was main taker in Lend Lease program. Thousends of tanks and other war material were send to USSR even in 1945. Without this materials soviet army and industry colud collapse in 1942. All major soviet offenssive in 1943-45 was possiable because USA produced trucks and trains. There were not enough train factories and car plants in USSR to replace loses of Red Army from 1941-42.
And bullshit about that Red Army wasn't ready to war with Germany put in fairy tales. Material and manpower was in place. Only level of training and command was weak. First months show how weak in this part was Red Army.
And Operation Uranus was first , Operation Mars was second in time. Which strike is always a decoy, first or second?
Anwser is basicly always the same, if you strike with bigger forces later, the second operation is main one, Mars was not decoy. If you read soviet generals they were suprosed in scale of succsses. But they are silent about Mars for many years. Because that was dissaster caused by Zukhov.
Zukhov as a field commader was weak, he didn't plan Uranus or Kursk operations. He just stole this valour from other generals. His commad in Berlin Operation was a shame, in the last days of war he put his soldiers in needless massacre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mars
Rokossovk and Koniev were much better commanders.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dwarov 1 "The soviet pilots described allied planes as hatd to control, poorly armed and not manouverable enough. "
Stalin son you wrote that died was from his first marriage and he was arttilery officer. Second Stalin's son was general of airforce and he criticise soviet planes in comparision to western quality of planes.
Alexander Pokryshkin a one of greatest soviet fighter aces hate soviet fighter plane and he prefer western planes. Why? Because he love them for agilty, maneuverabilit, speed, firepowere and quality of production.
If you forgott F-86 was also armed in other versions in 4x20 mm canons.
You basicly use downplay western planes hidding soviet weakness. And in many qualities was better than MiG-15.
"The allied did not even have a cycling system which meant that all allied soldiers were poorly trained conscripts while the red army was pulling men from their trained reserves who finished their BCT (which was 3 months long) and already had 2 years of service behind them."
Hahahaha you basicly do not know nothing about reality of soviet WW2 standards. Meat grinder eat Red Army human resources because soviet command do not count with own soldiers life. Just compare soviet loses in men and equipment in years 1941-45 with German loses and stop making fool from yourslef.
You wrote about Uranus, then also you should mention Operation Mars which was Zukhov execiuted massacer on Central Front. Uranus was decoy, Zukhov with larger forces fail in destroying Army Group Center, but you don't mention that.
And after Kursk Soviets fought bloody campaings with Germans to win. You rewrite history. No one take soviet victories from them, but you have to put them in WW2 perspective not propaganda "facts".
Soviets were responisable for destroying Wermacht on Eastern Front, but Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine was smashed by USA and UK airforces long before Soviet reach Germany.
"What about the soviet raids on Bucharest, Königsberg or Berlin? In fact, the soviet raids on Königsberg resulted in the destruction of 91% of the city."
Heh again half truths, Königsberg was destroyed by siege and soviet artillery, also RAF take part in raids on city.
Berlin was leveled by RAF and USA airforce. Soviets send few planes that is not even anyway to compared of effects of western allied work.
You just prove again and again that you spread soviet propaganda nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dwarov 1 Soviet air defence was uneffective on tactical, operational and strategic levels. No net of radars, no real effective command structure and modern equipment. Only weakness of Luftwaffe protect soviet industry from german bombs.
Tacticaly Red Army AA was very poor, no real cover against Luftwaffe was created. Germans in 1945 were still using Ju 87 against Red Army, plane that in 1940 was easly shoot down by RAF. Any soviet land system was in any way to be compared with USA or UK mobile AA weapons. How many effective AA guns was in Red Army in comparision to US Army or British Army, how many of them were mobile systems like american M16 or british Cruseder AA? Redc Army have only trucks with nothing bigger than light automatic cannons, easy to destroy and not ready to operate in terrain outside of roads.
In fightercraft allied were producing much more better planes that could fight on higher altitiude than any soviet planes in 1945. Only IL-2 and IL-10 planes were produced in USSR, other models were imported from USA like A-20, B-25. Rest of soviet medium bombers were obselete and there were no soviet modern medium or strategic bombers. Americans were developing models of bombers like B-36 that could flight deep into USSR airspace and drop A-bombs wherever they need to use them. Soviets didn't have A-bomb or even bombers like that.
Soviets with help of allies produce little over 50% of USA production of planes, not mention of UK production. USA produce 300 000 to 158 00 soviet produced.
Also how many planes have USA and UK in comaprision to USSR? How many carriers, crusiers and battleships were in navys of USA and UK aganist nonexisting soviet fleet?
USA and UK do not need rebuilding from German occupation, USSR need. Also in case of war USSR can't invade UK and USA. In second direction that was possiable. If Germans were so close to beat USSR alone, how that would play if USA and UK re-arm them to fight and provide resources and support?
Plus when USA and UK produce domestic jet planes in hundreds, Soviet need years to copy german technology. What was engine in MiG-15? Because I think that was soviet copy of Rolls-Royce jet engine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikefay5698 Soviet Union was total faliure. Any one who claim otherwise is just stiupid or ignorant. I'll givie simple examples, in this worker paradise in Stalin's era, when you were late to work 3 times, whatever cause that, you were treat as a criminal and send to Gulag. You can't travel without permision or even change the job without communist party approval.
You assume I am uneducated and dumb. Let me response to that. I am from farmer and workers family. I am myself a blue collar by. choice. But in the same time I achive science degree in political science and I study history for my whole life. Especially militarny and politics history. I reject your conspiracy theories just because facts don't support them.
You can't provide any source to you claim about sunking this transport to Spain. If you give evidence I can assume that you are right. Now you just claim something what is not supported by any source.
About Lusitania, it is not a shock that were fuses there, because Lusitania was transporting war materials! Problem was that Germans just sunk it without controlling cargo, technicly they were right. But British used a fact that they broke rules of war and blame them for that, which also was true. And USA rather join because Zimmerman's Telegram, Lusitania was just one more argument.
About integrity, books also can be biased. Only work with multiply sources and real scientific methods can provide you right conclusion. And again your claim sound silly when you claim that USSR was example of future way. For me USSR is a one more example of ideology failing against reality. There is not even one sucessful example of communism country. All of them turn in poverty and terror.
1
-
@mikefay5698 "Horatio82 Most books on the Spanish Civil War mention the submarine sinking,have a read. " That is just empty statment. I ask again, ships names, date and contex. Because I don't see reason why RN should sunk neutral ship in peace time! Even Germans after start of WW2 were very careful to attack only allied shiping. RN would just stop that ship using any of own warship in area, no need to sunk it!
" Another anti Soviet regime in Europe didn't please Stalin. Wihout Soviet help the Francoist Rebels would have quickly overcome the Spanish reformers all of Spain wanted out of Medieval backwardness. Stalin charged everyone he gave aid to. Every bullet was paid for. He kept the Gold allegedly as his price for materiel for the Spanish Government."
If Stalin "charged everyone he gave aid to" that was not help but just buisness. If Stalin want Republican to win, he can just send more "volunteers" like Hitler and Musssolini. Even France nad England can't stop him. And I will claim that USSR stole Spanish gold, because value of this asset was much more bigger than any "help" that USSR provide to Spain.
Stalin was Bolshevik, he don't prefer any one over his own puppets, just look how he create net of satelite states after WW2. That he order coup in Spain and killing of any one who was in opposition to Stalin's views and dictatorial power.
" The sinking of the Lusitania too was cooked up by the British to bring the US into ww1. You are naive Horatio!"
Neutral ship attacked and sunken by German submarine, without checking cargo for contaband (that is war crime under international laws!). And you claim that was a British provocation? I'm sure that not mean I am naive, rather proof that you are living in conspiracy theories world. False flag is nothing new, but to prove that you need more than buch of nonsens claims.
To be precise, I don't support Franco or Republicans views, because both sides use nice sounding propaganda, but still ends with death squads kiling thousends of innocent. And there is no way to claim that was accident, to many instances and process starts long before breaking the Civil War. Bot sides target opponents and kill them without mercy. Then spare me claims that Republicans want peace and love in Spain. Words can't change the reality of socialist , communist and nationalist terror.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukebruce5234 Your distortion of history basicly ends discussions with you. Settle only the biggest ones.
In one sentence you show that Soviets were preparing to war. Industralisation and militarisation were by you done for that. In second you claim that soviet tanks were obselete, soviet army was unprepered and other excuses. Then what is your stance. Both statments they break each other.
I think you sholud read some works of Mark Solonin. Because he destroy each of yours claims and statistic. Historian which usage primary sources. Not soviet propaganda.
http://www.solonin.org/en
Polish-German Non-aggresion Pact it is nothing more than a name similar to the Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact.
Simple example. This pact in any way targeted like Soviet-German Pact third parties. Secret part of Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact determined the division of Europe between Hitler and Stalin.
Also Poland reject earlier any suggestion to invade USSR with Hitler. Still Stalin prefer to help Hitler. Facts from your perspective don't work.
"Nobody denies the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. It was basically a Soviet version of the Polish-German pact of 1934 with one major difference, the Poles were the ones to sign it as soon as Hitler come into office, the Soviets on the other hand did it last out of desperation after all the other powers refused to cooperate."
Today no one is denying, but then that was present whitout mention about secret protocol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
"Fact is that Poland massacred ethnic German civilians after the invasion by Hitler.
................................................................................
Fact is that after the war ended the Poles started a genocide of Germans which ended up in the deaths of 400,000 German civilians....."
It was neither genocide nor ethnic cleansing. No one killed ethnic Germans in mass in 1939, that is Joseph Goebbels lie.
After war no one kill 400,000 Germans in Poland. Remember that in 1945 Poland was under Red Army control and exist puppet communist regime created by Stalin. You basicly accuse Stalin of ethnic cleansing. I agree that was his plan, but your number aren't true. Postadam conference basicly force Germans from this teritories.That was decision of USA, USSR and UK, no one ask Poles about that.
"Fact is that the Poles did engage in mass murder of the Jews themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedwabne_pogrom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom"
Jedwabne is fact, in Poland we understand that there were some Poles that kill Jew. But there were no mass killing Jews by Poles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Righteous_Among_the_Nations
That was even commented by German government, which reject any claims that polish citizens help in mass in Holocaust. Germans politican and historians challenged this narration and state that no polish mass movment help Germans in Holocaust. Nazi official were disapointed that Poles don't want help them in extermination. That dosen't mean that ther were no collaborators.
Polish government ib exile as a first inform about Holocaust and documented that genocide, because Jews were also polish citizens.
Also Kilece Pogrom was done under the rule of communist puppet government after the WW2. Soldiers of communist army and secret police members take active participation in this. You basicly show that polish communists take part in tis action. Thanks for helping me to sow how evil was communism.
"And to this day Poland is the shame of Europe with their bigotry and racism and their pathetic laws making it illegal to say the Polish supported the holocaust."
Strong words from someone that probaly never been in Poland. Yes we have racist and bigots, like everywhere. Law which you point it was written badly and was designed that block usage of term "polish concetration/death camps" in contex of Holocaust. This law in reality dosen't work.
In the same time in Russia people are send to prison if you state that Hitler with Stalin starts WW2. When in Poland no one land in prison for historic comments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@konstantinkelekhsaev302 Every of Stalin's diplomatic move was calcualated to weaken peace in Europe. Officialy he support peace, but in secret he was building biggest army in the world. Hitler with Stalin's help, invade Poland first because he need first secure his rear to fight predicted long war with France and England and avoide germans mistakes from WWI. You just mention official propaganda resons to invade Poland, in reality Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact give both dictators what they want, possibility to conquere parts of Europe they want to grab. In the secret part of Pact both sides agree to secure sphere of influnence in Europe. Officialy that Pact was nonaggression, but in reality it was military and political alliance agianst enemy of both regimes. Look on faith of Poland, Baltic States and Winter War. Without cooperation from Stalin Hitler never can invade Poland, knowing that Red Army with ten thousends of planes, tanks and artillery is waiting to strike him in back when he go to invade France, the first who propose aggremment was Stalin, not Hitler. France and England never want to agree to soviet occupation of Poland and Baltic States, because that was Stalin's price for war with Hitler. Everybody knows that when Red Army go to "help" never go away without war. Ask Poles, Lithuenians, Latvians, Estonians or Finish citizen. Long war was only in interest os Stalin's plans to secure soviet invasion on West. If Stalin want stability and peace why he didn't order his army attack Germans in 1939 when they were weakened after invasion of Poland. Why he didn't send enough weapons and soldiers to crush Franco rebellion. No one stop Germans and Italians to do it against Republicans. In 1939 Stalin have all reasons and means to stop Hitler if he want peace. Insteed he choose to give Hitler everything he needs to wage war for next years. Why on Stalin's order NKVD killed thousends of thousends "liberated" citizens of conquered countries? There is trurth in old verb that picture tell more than thousend words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eGo-NEcEVI
Or this Stalin's speech :
https://petroleks.ru/stalin/14-27.php
1
-
@konstantinkelekhsaev302 In respone to your "Suvorov" claim:
1. Yes german plans were ready, like soviet or other countries in the world, because every country have some war plans against enemies. Look on american Plan Orange. Without Stalin Hitler was against Poland and his allies alone, even Italy choose to join war in 1940 in the last days of fall of France. Stalin help Hitler backstabbing Poland 17th X 1939, when USSR and Poland have nonaggression pact in the time! First date of german attack was 24th IX 1939 and it was stopped by Hitler after british guarantees for Poland. When pact Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was sign Hitler decide attack at 1st IX.
2. GB nad France didn't recogniz soviet claim about Baltic States and never admit to legilize the annexation. For then in years 1940-1991 Baltic States were under Soviet occupation and no legal action was taken against this countries property and citizens. The case is simple, for France and England this countries were under occupation, still weren't part of Soviet Union like Crimea today.
3. This is the text of secret part of this agreement. In it you have simple decision to devide independent countries to "sphere of interest" of both Germany and USSR. It precise with countries will be under soviet and german rule.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/german-soviet-nonaggression-pact
Here you information about have text and map about appendix to this treaty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Frontier_Treaty
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
Notiece the change in Lithuania border agreed without informing legal lithuanian goverment! Even before soviet capture and occupied Lithuania! And correction in new german-soviet border in occupied Poland according to previous pact!
4. This was modification of Treaty of Versile and agreement to limit new german navy! Not secret plan to invade other countries!
4.II. West appease Hitler because Soviet Union and rise of Red Army. USSR, wich was arming to aggression on his "capitalist enemies" long before Hitler came to power. Lenin and Stalin cooperate with Germany in rebuilding german army before 1933, places like german Kama tank school are proof of real soviet intentions. Stalin want an all out war in Europe and Hitler give him that. Many times Stalin in his speeches said that he will wait to capitalist destroy itself and only then Soviet Union will join to fight!
https://warontherocks.com/2016/06/sowing-the-wind-the-first-soviet-german-military-pact-and-the-origins-of-world-war-ii/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama_tank_school
5. Do you want know hostile army on your territory to "help" you? Because that was reality for everybody, just look on how "help" for Baltic States in 1940 from Red Army work for them! Poland choose to fight with Germany, because they knew what happen when Red Army go to Poland. France and GB fight with Germans all time from 1939 t0 1945. In 1939-40 was Allied plans to help Finland defence against USSR or even bomb soviet Baku oil plant witch was producing oil for Germans! Even other occupied countries were still in fight, look on chehoslovakian and polish arm forces in the second world war. In the same time USSR was helping III Reich with large quantity of war materials and NKVD kill civilian, officials and officers from Poland and Baltic States as a enemy of USSR! Gestapo and NKVD exchange prisoners and cooperate in suppressing ressistance in occupied teritories!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yaqppl When Germans suggest that nPoland sholud join Anti-Commintern Pact respose was: NO, WE ARE NOT INTERESTED.. Poland was ofered that first time as a suggestion to polish ambassadore in Berlin, Lipski. His respond was that Poland can't agree on that without breaking Polish-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact from 1932. That happen after Munich and in the first days of 1939 Beck respond that the Poland is not interested in this pact!
You can find it in many aricles about Germans trying put Poland into alliance against USSR.
"M. LÉON NÖEL, French Ambassador in Warsaw, to M. Georges Bonnet, Minister for Foreign Affairs. Warsaw, April 30, 1939.
ONE of my colleagues has learned from one of the most intimate collaborators of M. Beck that in September, January and March last, the German Government proposed to Warsaw collaboration against the U.S.S.R.
To a question by my colleague, M. Beck's collaborator, without wishing to define these proposals, replied that they went far beyond an adhesion of Poland to the Anti-Comintern Pact.
LÉON NÖEL."
"Signing non-agression papers with Moscow had less than none impact value on that matter. "
Poland do not want to be in alliance with Third Reich or USSR because that would put them against on one of neirbors. Pact with Moscow was respected and that was one of important points why Hitler propositions were rejected. Irony is that USSR make allaince with Hitler when Poland refusse and Hitler have no allies in continent. Even Italy was against war!
"Poles avoided contact with Red Army, that's right, but there already were no real forces on east in september. Mainly empty garrisons, depots, logistics, units under messed mobilization, and few thousand of KOP corp. stretched on enormous border. Most of them just threw their brownings and mausers in sane calculation of chances against 400 000 soviets."
On territories that USSR invaded were thousends of polish soldiers (around 200 000 after mobilization and in training), policemans and civil service members. KOP members were attacked and killed without warning on border because they were seen as a main target in first hour. Soldiers with officers capitulated only when they were surrounded and many times Soviets lie that they came to fight with Germans.
Some bigger polish units beat Red Army and go west to fight with Germans. Operational Group "Narew" under general Kleberg fought with Soviets and Germans in the same time.
And to show you how false is narration it is, read how Grodno civilians prefer defence against incoming Red Army.
As conclusion how it really was look on this two things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QspnYAYGJ04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA__56vFqa8
Also how stiupid was to belive Stalin when you see on example of Baltic States. Polish officers in the end were killed by Soviets in Katyn and other places. That is why no one belive in soviet good will.
And I agree that taking portion of Czechoslovakia in 1930's was stiupid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yaqppl Noel wrote "...that in September, January and March last, the German Government proposed to Warsaw collaboration against the U.S.S.R."
September of 1938 was the time when Germans annexed part of Czechoslovakia, not whole country! It is not 1939 but September of 1938! He wrote about polish government was not interested in Germans proposition any way! From September 1938! Poles only delay Germans effort to give them time. If Poles want to join Germans because they know that then they would fight against France, UK and USSR in the same time. But in the same time they do not know that Stalin was ready to talk with Hitler to give him reason to start war and get his share in spoils of war.
If you do not read what he wrote that is not my fault! I give one source with clear recognition of polish staments, but you still do not accept that.
In the end Poland do not become German ally, Stalin did! And in situation when Hitler was in corner, German economy was on bring of collapse, any of his allies could strength his position against Poland. France and UK. And then Stalin propose pact to cut Europe in half and cooperate against Poland in invasion! Do you seriuosly want to blame Poles for cooperation with Hitler in comparison of that?
"In your other argument, worth of mentioning are numbers. Soviets took captive above 200 000 polish soldiers, 13000 killed in action or wounded.
Germans took captive above 600 000, killed or wounded 200 000. Captive to death/wound ratio is saying enough on subject of resistance on eastern border."
You compare situation when Poland was fighting in the west with aggressor and concetrate main army forces on this front, with situation when neirbor which guarantee neutrality attack without any provocation! On west Poles were in full scale war, on east they were mobilizating forces. Most polish territory before 17th September was under polish control. After soviet attack and deception campaing it took to Red Army to took this 200 000 to capture. You compare situation when we know that Germans are with war with us, with situation when Red Army activly claim that they just defending civilians against German invasion and even claim that they would be fighting with them!
And if you claim that Poles didn't fight with Red Army you basicly lie. And there is lot of exapmles for that.
Whole numbers of battles and lot of them lose by Red Army even with major advantage on Soviet side!
If you compare that with situation of 1941 in USSR, what would happen when Japan would join to war against USSR, claiming that in east there is no major Red Army forces and annexed this land because USSR can't defend them?
1
-
@yaqppl ""polish soldiers capitulated under point of soviet gun". Oh, how suprising. Thats not an argument, every army is armed in guns, not teddy bears. Even Czechs gave their freedom under threat of bombing Prague, nobody gaves it freely.
"
Little hint, Soviets lied that they came to fight against Germans and still some polish units fight them, some capitulate in good will. But you also forget that in the same time rest of polish army fought Germans in west. There i s massive difference when you are missinform that someone came to help you and in the last minute surround you and point guns on you. Whole case is not to be compared. Plus even polish high command order to avoid fighting Soviets for all cost, only when they try to disarm Poles! In amny cases that cause chaos because Soviets brake many agreements about treating polish forces. They many times invite polish officer to negotiation and arrest them at once! Tell me how you could fight when enemy claim that he will help you and in the same moment he surrond you?
"Poles in 1939 lost 3 000 killed, 10 000 wounded, and 250 000 taken captive. That's not even comparable, it's nearly 20:1.
Even French had 5:1 in 1940."
Nicy try, but French fought war with Germans and was not attacked by USSR from behind! You compare two different campaings. Compare whole Polish loses in campaing. You use wrong number including only including defeting soldiers without any structure of command against soviets to full campaing in West. Poles lose whole country against two invader, how you can claim that they didn't fight? It took whole month to crush Poland by two biggest military in world and you are supprise that second line units without strucure of command was suprised and destroyed. Big portion of this 250 000 was reatriting from west to go to south part of Poland! Red Army invasion make polish defence at that reagion impossiable! Many of this soldiers were captured in way from mobilization points to units when they have any weapons! They were going to be armed when they would be joining forming units! How you want fight without weapons?
"3 mln taken captive, an 3.5 mln killed, and only during barbarossa. That makes almost 1:1 ratio. It suggest heavy fighting dude. Bad argument."
Why you lie, Soviets lose some of 700 000 killed in this operation. 6 millions was wounded or captured! In situation ehen Red Army was keep in line by NKVD! Nobody in polish army was killing polish soldiers for retreating or for capitulation! Polish soldiers many times fights to the end. Even Germans and Soviet admits that!
As an example. Captain/Rotmistrz Narcyz Łopianowski polish cavalry officer and his unit beat soviet tank unit without any heavy anti-tank weapons destroying few tanks! Soviet were so impressed that they want
him to join there "polish army" against Germans, which they start creating by selecting officers in 1940!
You compare again two tottaly different situations! Soviet prefer in own sources claim bigger loses to cover up mass dessertions and that German capture so much soldier of Red Army without fight! Whole soviet units were just gone without one shot!
I understand you anti-polish bias, but that don not agree with facts. You use only maipulated statistics and "forget " to compare facts in proper order. That is not really sign of open mind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@valterskye7934 In 1935 in USSR show world a biggest army manuevers in the world. With hundreds aof tanks and hevy equipment, first massive paratrooper use. In 1930's USSR buildm more tanks that any nation in the world toghether. That is just a peak how USSR under Stalin prepare to spread revolution!
https://www.google.pl/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNRjiVrJ_o8entaG7neTNeIaZBp9Ow%3A1579700586570&ei=alEoXq-_ItWFhbIPp9-3sAs&q=kiev+manuevers+in+1935&oq=kiev+manuevers+in+1935&gs_l=psy-ab.3...7063.14042..14417...1.2..0.96.1750.22......0....1..gws-wiz.....10..0i71j35i362i39j35i39j0j0i67j0i203j0i10i203j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j33i160j33i10i160.i8vwSIqmFck&ved=0ahUKEwivnMGiq5fnAhXVQkEAHafvDbYQ4dUDCAo&uact=5
Red Army have milions of train reservist in 1930's and do not need more than 2 mln soldiers active! No country in world spent more resources to training and exmantion of Army in 1930's, even Germans or Japan were dwarfed by Soviet war machine. 26 000 tanks that Red Army posses do not come from air! There were produce whole 1930's.
"Soviet in thier belives seen themself as a liberators. But noone want them and communism!". Exactly the reason com parties were banned and million of communists worldwide were killed."
Nobody killed milinos of communist in 1920's and 1930's. Only Stalin did it in his Great Terror, his first victimes were old bolsheviks. His only big obstacle to power.
This communist you wrote were banned because they act in intrest of Moscov not own countries. Just take a look how this comunist enslave own nations to serve Stalin ater 1945!
In 1939 French government banned communist party, because it's mebers sabotage war against Third Reich and were spreading propaganda that Third Reich is not enemy for France and USSR!
"The party was banned in 1939 on the outbreak of World War II. Under Comintern direction the PCF opposed the war and may have sabotaged arms production. The leadership, threatened with execution, fled abroad."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_French_Communist_Party
"Look.. in 1940, 3rd Reich was tremendously strong fully mobilised land power, which utterly crushed France. Literally everybody in the world knew, that it will go east sooner or later. Soviet Union trade with 3rd Recih were close to irrelevant. Germans were abusing lots of ocuppied contries + the Axis trade + Sweden + Switzerland trade and oil smuggle."
Yeah but real numbers of soviet trade do not agree with you. USSR was sending key products that keep Third Reich economy! Without that help there would be invasion on France! German ships that take a part in invasion on Norway were using Murmansk as a base! In 1939 Minsk radio was directing with signal Luftwaffe planes bombing Poland!
Even after beating France there were no chance for Germany to function with enough capacity to stay on war with UK and be isolated. USSR basicly create moster that nearly destroy them!
"During both the first period of the 1940 agreement (February 11, 1940, to February 11, 1941) and the second (February 11, 1941, until the Pact was broken), Germany received massive quantities of raw materials, including over:[71][73]
1,600,000 tons of grains
900,000 tons of oil
200,000 tons of cotton
140,000 tons of manganese
200,000 tons of phosphates
20,000 tons of chrome ore
18,000 tons of rubber
100,000 tons of soybeans
500,000 tons of iron ores
300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron
2,000 kilograms of platinum
In August 1940, Soviet imports comprised over 50% of Germany's total overseas imports, which declined at this time to 20.4 thousands of tons.[74]
The trade relations ended when Germany began Operation Barbarossa and invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.[75] The various items that the USSR has sent to Germany from 1939 to 1941 in significant amount, can be substituted or obtained by increased imports from other countries.[76]
Without Soviet deliveries of these major items, Germany could barely have attacked the Soviet Union, let alone come close to victory, even with more intense rationing"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Credit_Agreement_(1939)
"Almost everything you say is an idiotic bullshit. Just look at your statements: Stalin was killing his own army, wanted to conquer the World and wasnt idiot."
No he wasn't idiot, he just underestimated Hitler and his urge to start the war even when Germany were unprepared! Stalin was clever and cold calculating monster, but even him can predicted how irracional was Hitler. He was using Hitler to gain his prize but in the end that bite him in the ass.
All that bullshit about peacfull USSR was always a propaganda game. Maybe at first Stalin was affaraid intervention against USSR, but in second part of 1930 he play key role with destabilisation of Europe and eruption of WW2.
How weak Third Reich was you can see here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVo5I0xNRhg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQGMjDQ-TJ8&t=5s
Yu should read Mark Solonin, a real russian historian who show how bad in long term was alliance of Hitler and Stalin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1