Comments by "Mitch Richards" (@mitchrichards1532) on "Why You NEED to Think Critically | Suvorov and Keitel's "Preemptive Strike" 1941 Idea" video.

  1. I read it, along with several books by Glantz, Stahel, Keegan, etc. Suvorov/Rezun wrote a simplistic story based on a theory and his facts are mostly just anecdotal evidence while at the same time he ignores far better sources and information. He lists divisions and corps that the Soviets supposedly had but really only existed on paper. How does a Soviet tank corps that has 40% fill of personnel, 30% of its equipment, is mostly untrained, and is missing key personnel fight a war? Many Soviet units fit that description and were in danger of evaporating in space as they left their assembly areas without proper leadership, proper communications gear, and no ability to coordinate logistical support, artillery, or even communicate with higher. They didn't fight poorly because they were surprised, they fought poorly because that is all you could expect from any unit in that early state of development.
    3
  2. definitely won't attract females...lol
    3
  3. nope....  That is incredibly simpleton and way off the mark.  Try reading David Glantz' "Stumbling Colossus".
    3
  4. It wasn't...
    3
  5. Suvorov wrote a book that targets an audience that won't research or analyze his claims. Its written in simple language, makes broad accusations, is based on anecdotal evidence instead of hard facts, and makes general references rather than being specific and to the point. I highly recommend reading David Glantz' "Stumbling Colossus" for comparison and to ensure you get a different point of view on the topic.
    2
  6.  @joelmarinier9199  Agreed... "the Red Army for all its shortcomings was back on the offensive and had been able to reequip a great number of men and formations very fast". That's a relative issue. The Wehrmacht lost combat power while the Red Army made gains. The German Army never had enough Infantrymen for their formations, and by mid 1942 they were steep into a downward spiral that they couldn't recover.
    2
  7. Bullshit to your statement.
    2
  8. Keep a closed mind...good job.
    2
  9. "Please explain why Stalin dismantled the Stalin Line": When the Soviets signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact and dismembered Poland, occupied the Baltic States; the border moved West which made the Stalin line obsolete in terms of geographical location and doctrine. The line was too far back to support Red Army doctrine of multi-echeloned defense/counter-attack. The enemy was to be stopped at the border before the 2nd echelon counter-attacked. A new defensive line was being built further West to meet doctrinal requirements, it was shorter and thus cheaper also. As it was being built, the Germans unexpectedly quickly defeated the French. This hastened the pace of the building of the new line, and hastened the moving of the old line's weapons and equipment to the new locations. The Soviets did not have the resources and manpower in peacetime to man and equip both lines. War was not expected in 1941, therefore the Stalin line's weapons and equipment were removed, stored for future installation, etc. Properly stored weapons, ammunition, etc. don't require maintenance or manning, thus time and money are saved. This is all explained in detail from original Soviet documents in multiple books.
    2
  10. Yes... Quickly conquer Turkey, reinvigorate the Berlin to Baghdad railway and seek Soviet Support in return for joint Soviet control of the Dardanelles Straits.  Leverage Vichy French Syria, use Crete for Luftwaffe staging/ferrying and the Italian navy...Game set match.
    2
  11. I highly recommend you read David Glantz' "Stumbling Colossus". It was written as a rebuttal to Icebreaker and demolishes every aspect of Rezun's theory in great detail.
    2
  12. Russian tanks in 1941 were garbage from an automotive perspective, thus why some 80% were not operational on 22 June 1941. A good gun, bad optics, no radio, and a non working engine are not signs of better tanks.
    2
  13.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  Sure, you're saying he offers something different than Rezun? He has evidence where Rezun doesn't? The fact is, the Red Army forces in the Western Mil Districts are very well documented in multiple languages. The historians I listed above used Soviet archival documents along with German documents to demonstrate a holistic analysis of the Red Army. That cannot be spun a different way or pawned off as Russian historians are the only reliable source. Soviet documents coincide with the German military experience during Barbarossa in such a way that there is no doubt as to what Soviet intentions were for 1941.
    1
  14. What are you smoking?
    1
  15. They weren't right on the border and if you use the example of French forces in 1940 compared to the Soviet Western Military Districts, its night and day. The Red Army was in echelon up to 200 km deep, and their density per km of front was a small fraction compared to the French, and Germans for that matter. Their tank corps were far from the border, not co-located with their logistical support, and there was no buildup of logistical stockpiles that would suggest planned operations of any kind. That's the real telltale of the situation, a complete lack of logistical stockpiles that are the hallmark of EVERY Soviet offensive from 1939 to 1945.
    1
  16. "why were the Soviets also massed on the same frontier?". They weren't... Soviet airfield construction was behind schedule and got out of sync with the deployment plan. Soviet fighters had about a 400 mile range which is pretty short, thus they had to be relatively close to the frontier to provide coverage. The new airfields were behind schedule, which forced newly deploying units to double up on the existing airfields. Revisionists ignore this, interpret these bloated airfields as normal and that the Soviets were building more... (which is pure BS). Soviet troop concentrations were 60-100 km behind the border while the frontier was screened by very light NKVD border troops. Soviet tank concentrations were 80-120 km behind the front, which is more or less their tactical range. They were not co-located with their fuel, ammunition or maintenance support. There was no way they had any offensive intentions in that type of deployment. No Soviet offensive before 1941 or after looks like the Red Army's dispositions in June of 1941.
    1
  17. Wow really? How interesting, what was the model of the aircraft so I can look it up? lol (stealth, ssssuper secret, made of unobtainium)
    1
  18.  @kaletovhangar  Exactly. 70 built, far fewer actually operational and they were obsolete by 1941. Basically amounts to a fantasy.
    1
  19.  @kaletovhangar  I understand the design appears equal to contemporaries, but its the actual service record that demonstrates the flaws (use of obsolete tech in an "advanced" design).
    1
  20.  @kaletovhangar  Cheers! I dug pretty deep into the Rezun/Suvorov BS, most of it is just plain lies.
    1
  21.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  "Who gave you the wrong idea that this debate was limited to just Suvorov vs. Glantz?" Dunno genius.... Maybe you should read the video title and watch it: "Why You NEED to Think Critically | Suvorov ✨and Keitel's "Preemptive Strike" 1941 Idea". Glantz wrote "Stumbling Colossus" as a direct refutation of "Icebreaker" and its full of Soviet archival material.
    1
  22.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  Cool story, I have an MA in WWII Mil History.... and I'm a LTC (G4 career logistician). So ya, I DO actually know. Clearly you either have not read Glantz, or it went over your head. The Soviet forces in the WMDs were absolute trash, incapable of strategic offensive or defensive operations. Their level of training was at the company level, in its infancy rendering them incapable of large scale combat ops. The Soviets knew it, its in their own reports which Glantz cites.
    1
  23. Easy and true explanation... Hitler's Intel and operations staffs provided really bad estimates and also provided best case scenarios. None of that is a secret and the briefings, etc. are all on archive. Hitler wasn't "mad", but he was an amateur and didn't have the training or experience to ask the right questions. He trusted his staff of professionals and when things went bad, he stopped trusting them and took over thinking they were idiots. Pretty simple, but completely factual.
    1
  24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfWhGczWR9o
    1
  25. So when does the "1 million paratroopers" evidence of an offensive get covered?  lol, the paratroopers with no drop aircraft, parachutes, jump training or specialized equipment... Do tell.
    1
  26. Ok, identify the drop aircraft and what quantity the Soviets had in 1941:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_Soviet_Union_and_the_CIS#Transport_and_liaison    "Why You NEED to Think Critically" is the title of the video.... No drop aircraft, no airborne operations.
    1
  27. Exactly.
    1
  28. "all that could be turned from a defensive stance to an offensive one quite fast. Of course that is only my opinion, but there is absolutely no proof that it is not the case." There is a huge case against, with proof. "Stumbling Colossus" -David Glantz
    1
  29. lol, you repeat all the Suvorov/Rezun B S like a parrot. Do you say 1 million like Dr Evil? 1 Million paratroopers... Ok genius, name the drop aircraft and how many the Soviets had on hand. If you have "1 million" paratroopers and a handful of limited aircraft, do you really have any offensive airborne capability? (F no you don't!) The Soviets had 27k tanks, of which about 2000 were new models, and of the rest, about one in five actually worked (due to being old, worn out, etc). On paper the Russians have thousands of tanks today, but they can only field about 2500 in Ukraine. They never throw anything out and they tell the world how many they have and how strong they are to intimidate; these things don't change. Oh and the tanks that could run on the autobahn that Suvorov talks about? That was a failed design copied from a British tank, and oh yeah... It might be of interest that there was NO AUTOBAHN when those tanks were designed and built. LMAO
    1
  30. "30 000 soviet tanks against 5000 german". 5,000 working German tanks vs 5,000 working Soviet, mostly obsolete. The Soviets had less than 2,000 new tanks, most of which lacked trained crews, gun sights, basic issue equipment to maintain the tank, etc.
    1
  31. Germany needed Soviet resources and didn't have the means to trade or pay. "Wages of Destruction" by Dr. Adam Tooze, suggest you get a copy.
    1
  32. Thats what hes saying.
    1
  33. I question the "facts" deniers use... You? Do you bother doing that?
    1
  34. He tries to say exactly that without actually providing real proof. He uses weasel words and vagueness while avoiding specificity. It's basically historical distortion when you account for the omissions and look at the implications of making assumptions while factoring out inconvenient data.
    1
  35. Those "offers" were deception plans to placate the British and French in order to gain advantage. Bluff, propaganda, disinformation, whatever you want to call it, but you can't claim in any way that they were sincere offers.
    1
  36. I suggest you read David Glantz rebuttal of "Icebreaker", its called "Stumbling Colossus". The depth and detail in that book completely demolishes Suvorov in such a way that there isn't a second thought once you've read it.
    1
  37. Icebreaker was garbage.... Talks about tanks designed to run on the autobahn, before anyone ever thought of the autobahn. Talks about 1 million paratroopers, fails to mention they had no drop aircraft.... Brilliant!
    1
  38.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  Ok... The BT series of tanks was designed in 1930-31 (by an American) and the convertible track feature was not of Russian origin, though they did copy it. The Autobahn wasn't even thought of at that time.... It wasn't until 1934 when there was any real progress and they never got very far with it. The claim that the BT tanks were designed to take advantage of the Autobahn is just plain BS that completely fails in the light of the evidence against it. Also of note is that most of the BT tanks were old and mechanically worn out by June 1941. They were designated to be turned in by units and replaced by T34s. So what was the point of the Autobahn feature if they were being phased out by a tank that didn't have the same feature?
    1
  39. 1.  Suvorov does not meet academic standards of revealing and crediting his source material (critical issue in any history)  2. The Soviets "attacked" the territories outlined in the Nazi-Soviet pact.  3.  The Soviet Army lacked the tactical trucks in numbers and design to fight a mobile war, the 10k paratroops is a myth and they had no drop aircraft.  If you think they did, then go ahead and identify the aircraft and see how many they had.  4.  Agreed.  5.  There is no evidence to suggest that the Soviets were looking to go beyond the old borders of the Russian Empire.  They were looking to retake lost territory.  6.  Molotov-Ribbentrop protocols.  7.  Suggest you get a copy of James Corum's "Roots of Blitzkrieg".  8.  Germany attacked the Soviet Union with the Romanian, Finnish, Hungarian and later Italian armies as allies to offset the population issue.  Hitler chose to attack because Wehrmacht Intelligence grossly underestimated the size and of the Red Army and it's ability to generate new forces quickly.  They expected to crush the forces in the Western Military Districts and it would be over.    As for your last question... Take the map of the Russian Empire at the turn of the 20th century and lay it over a modern map of Russia and see how much smaller European Russia is.  Now add in all of the populations of the countries covered by the old Russian Imperial map, how's your basic math skills?
    1
  40.  @leomarkaable1  "Suvorov is a retired GRU general" No, "Suvorov, otherwise known as Rezun (his real name) was a KGB Captain with no experience whatsoever at the Strategic level. His "offensive plans theory" was debunked 25 years ago and it will remain that way. If you read his theory and bought in to it, I'm not going to argue with you, from experience I can tell you its not worth it. Read COL David Glantz "Stumbling Colossus" and then tell me what you think about "Suvorov". The difference between Glantz and Rezun isn't differing viewpoints, its completely different levels of academic scholarship.
    1
  41. Suvorov... The guy who claims there were 1 million Soviet paratroopers and fails to mention that the Soviets had a handful of drop aircraft and no plans or means to produce any. The guy who claims the BT tanks were designed to take advantage of the Autobahn, when there was no Autobahn.. lol Perhaps look at how the Red Army prepared ALL of its offensives in WWII? That is mass concentrations very close to the point of attack, backed by huge logistical stockpiles and thousands of trucks. Look at the Red Army of 22 June 1941 compared to every major Soviet offensive before or after that date and...one of these kids doesn't look like the others.
    1
  42.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  I'm very familiar with the topic and have done the research, have enough credentials of my own to write on the topic. This is why I find the idea that the Soviets were going to attack in 1941 to be utterly stu pid. It wasn't in the cards.
    1
  43.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  What exactly is there to disagree with when looking at Red Army strength, dispositions, and force readiness is Summer of 1941? I'm talking specifics by unit, by personnel and equipment. I know how long it takes to train personnel, train a unit, equip, deploy, and what it takes to sustain a unit in the field. A thorough investigation of the Red Army in 1941 reveals beyond any doubt whatsoever that they were not going to attack in 1941. I will debate anyone face to face on that... Anyone. I have 30 years in the military, studied Russian doctrine, have an MA in WWII military history, etc. I trained Ukrainians last year... I'm a professional, not an amateur. Just putting that out there to avoid low level banter on the topic.
    1
  44. ​ user-wj6dt5bq3w  I see this is a pointless exercise... "Stalin decides if they attack not proper personnel or equipment numbers. Its a dictatorship." Stalin decides to do anything militarily far in advance of execution, as is evidenced throughout his career. The evidence of 1941 clearly shows that decision was to array in strategic depth and begin a gradual build up through partial mobilization. That is what the evidence shows, nothing more.
    1
  45.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  I did not cite a bogus point, I referenced THE point. Military capability of what is possible or not possible is THE point. In the Khalkin Gol campaign of 1939 it took the Red Army about 6 weeks to build forces and overcome a single Japanese Infantry division. It took them 4 weeks to build up a reinforced Corps to do the job. Now look at the Western Mil Districts with their 76 Corps that were understrength, underequipped, undertrained, under supplied, and in many cases still forming. Key indicators include war time establishment of trucks was below 30%, which means Red Army logistics cannot function in the field or support operations (offensive or defensive). Logistical hubs, nodes, and requisite stockpiles for offensive operations were not established or even in the process of being established and no order for that purpose has ever been found or mentioned anywhere. You or the authors you mention cannot deny these indicators, and the Red Army of 1941 could not conduct offensive operations without them being addressed, its physically impossible, and it takes time measured in months to address.
    1
  46. When you lack oil but have horse feed and coal for trains, what do you do? Do you have visions of horse columns walking from Germany to Moscow or something?
    1
  47.  @scalfer  Its a rehash of Viktor Rezun's "Icebreaker" and its all superficial, misleading BS that avoids a lot of hard facts. If you believe that story, I recommend you get a copy of David Glantz' "Stumbling Colossus". When you read it, you'll know beyond any doubt what the truth is. As the old line goes, the truth fears no inquiry.
    1
  48. Denier conspiracy
    1
  49. Conspiracies happen, true story and no sht.  Conspiracy theories and nutters exist in great numbers, also a true story.  The true nutters can't tell the difference and say things like "jewish Narratives" when discussing anything related to WW2.  Honorable mention to "victors write the history" and other intellectual cop outs like that.
    1
  50. John Mosier????? lol, he's the laughing stock of the historical community.  I suggest you lose that book and all memory of it...
    1
  51.  @davidhimmelsbach557  Mosier is an idiot...
    1
  52.  @davidhimmelsbach557  You can divert all over the place, doesn't change the force array, troop dispositions, readiness rates or overall state of affairs for the Red Army in the Western Military Districts for summer 1941. They were under-manned, under-trained, under-supplied and hundreds of kms from the border and not concentrated. Get a copy of Glantz "Stumbling Colossus" for details.
    1
  53.  @davidhimmelsbach557  Sounds like Rezun on your brain.
    1
  54.  @davidhimmelsbach557  Fact, this is a YouTube comment section, hardly the place for real debate. Fact, you are fully convinced of Rezun's BS theory and immovable in your opinion on the matter. Suggestion: Join a real forum.... Axis History, Armchair General, Feldgrau. Guess you're not familiar with Glantz...
    1
  55.  @davidhimmelsbach557  Mosier remains an idiot, apparently you are too for trying to parrot his crap. BTW- I am quite well read, have a MA in WWII military history, speak German, was assigned to EUCOM for 3 years as a Staff Officer. Fact is, I'm far more well read than Mosier, which is why I know he's an idiot. I suggested real military history forums to you, bring your Mosier arguments there and see how they hold up...lol
    1
  56.  @davidhimmelsbach557  Mosier as a Historian (his Phd is in English, not History) discussed: https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/historical-events-eras/world-war-i/162971-moisers-verdun-opinions https://forum.axishistory.com/search.php?keywords=mosier&sid=961fac50967949c0f4e890c0a73056d9 Its pretty universal, on any serious military history forum/discussion to include his peers, he's not taken seriously: https://forum.axishistory.com/search.php?keywords=mosier&sid=961fac50967949c0f4e890c0a73056d9
    1
  57. German officers maintained a journal as part of their job.
    1
  58. It's Rezun.
    1
  59. Nope, fake news as spread by Suvorov.
    1
  60.  @svyatoslavleonenko9787  Tanks... No, there were Tank Corps that were forming but not operational. Out of 28 Tank Corps in the entire Red Army, only 2 were combat ready. Of the 11,000 tanks in the Western Military Districts on 22 June 1941, less than half were operational. Those tank units were undermanned, under-equipped, under-trained and not ready for mobile operations. They had 10% of the trucks needed for mobile operations. I suggest you take your own advice about learning the Soviet situation.
    1
  61.  @svyatoslavleonenko9787  Proper sources? I did use proper sources, apparently you don't like the reality. Do you have another number for tanks in the WMD's on 22 June 1941? Can you identify other Soviet Tank Corps than the 4th and 6th that were fully formed?
    1
  62.  @svyatoslavleonenko9787  ​You're going to try and quibble about nomenclature? lol Name any of the "Mechanized Corps" other than the 4th and 6th that had anywhere near 1000 tanks. The order to form these units was issued in July 1940, the majority were still forming and not even close to being complete, let alone combat ready. I guess you aren't too familiar with the battle of Brody? You have no idea whatsoever what you are trying to discuss, none.
    1
  63.  @svyatoslavleonenko9787  Hmmmm, combat ready... So, a formation with say 1000 tanks. How many trucks does that number of tanks require for logistics? It seems that the Soviets got that calculation wrong in a big way, no? Maybe thats because they only started forming units of that size 10 months prior to Op Barbarossa and didn;t have time to fully man, equip and train them to be able to operate as a unit and learn the lessons that come from that? If your 1,000 tank unit lacks trucks, lacks mechanics, lacks wireless radios to coordinate refuel, re-arm, maintenance, etc. and is untrained in large scale operations, is that combat capable? If so, by who's definition? Now, take that 1,000 tank unit and subtract hundreds of tanks and thousands of men, while still keeping it more or less untrained and how do you think it will do in combat with a 1st class enemy. So tell me about the battle of Brody and how the Soviet tank corps performed and why they performed that way?
    1
  64.  @svyatoslavleonenko9787  "Because that quantity of sov. troops was impossible to withdraw ". Not true, they're strategic dispositions clearly show they were spread over a great distance in width and depth. Many were engaged in building new defensive fortifications while stripping the old Stalin line. In order for the Red Army to conduct a strategic attack as Suvorov suggests, they required a mobilization of motorized assets from the Soviet industrial and civilian sector, which takes many weeks. There is no order to that effect or any evidence it was being done. It was however in the orders for Soviet mobilization, which were not executed. How do you account for the Red Army supposedly planning to attack and ignoring their own mobilization requirements in regard to the lifeblood of logistical support to their decisive maneuver units??? Just how do you conduct a strategic attack with undermanned, under equipped, under-trained Tank Corps that rely on a fraction of the logistical support required and those trucks are 4x2 with minimal cross country capability? Every Soviet offensive from Khalkin Gol, Finland, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Bagration, etc. that included a massive stockpile prior to the offensive, as well as deception and surprise, but this ONE single time, the largest offensive ever for the Red Army they decided to ignore all of their own expertise and just roll the dice? lol, seriously? Suvorov's theory is for fools...
    1
  65.  @svyatoslavleonenko9787  I'm not sure if you are understanding this properly by way of completely underestimating the details I have.... If a Soviet tank corps has hundreds of tanks, but only a small handful of tankers and a few trucks with which to refuel and resupply, just how the F do you conduct an offensive? Without tactical radios, how do you coordinate combined arms??? The fact is, the Red Army wasn't planning to have to conduct major operations in 1941 and it shows beyond doubt in their actual readiness.
    1
  66.  @svyatoslavleonenko9787  "f soviet were gonna go in defensive? way strip the old Stalin line ?". The Soviets shut down the old line, stripped it of weapons, mechanical components, electrical systems, optics, etc. and put most of them into storage. The reason is that the construction of the new line was behind schedule and the associated costs of manning/operating a defensive line too far from the border to meet doctrinal requirements was too much. You are aware of the Soviet doctrinal defensive counterstrike plan, no? The covering forces working in concert with the defensive belt set up the counter-strike. So, take a look at the Stalin line and the old border, note the depth from the border. Look at the new defensive line and note the depth from the new border and let me know if you see any similarities in depth and design.
    1
  67.  @svyatoslavleonenko9787  lol, ok you quoted tank statistics without anything else in the combined arms team or logistics... Hmmm, Wehrmacht, 600,000 motor vehicles with a 95% readiness rate. Soviet readiness rates? Probably around 50-60% on paper. In reality it was much lower. Why? Dunno...maybe because motorized equipment requires trained mechanics, with shop space, with tool sets, with electricity, with spare parts and service kits, oil and lubricants, etc. The Red Army went through a massive expansion during the purges and had a small fraction of the leadership that was required to man all of its units. If everyone is new, mostly incompetent...then who the Fck is training who???? The blind leading the blind??? Tell me again about the battle of Brody? Why did the Soviet formations of 1,000 tanks lose most of their strength before combat even happened?
    1
  68.  @svyatoslavleonenko9787  BTW: "Another problem stemmed from the failure to fully equip tank units like the mechanized corps with the vast range of other vehicles needed to make them truly mobile and effective formations. For instance, in terms of supporting the maintenance heavy mechanized corps, no less the vast numbers of rifle corps forming the Red Army's bulk, the Red Army of June 1941 was supposed to have 836,000 motor vehicles and tractors/prime movers on hand. Instead, it could only marshal 314,200 such vehicles on its books. Worse yet, only 77% of those were even in running condition. Fuel shortages were also endemic in spite of the fact that the Soviet Union was one of the world's leading oil producers. Some units, such as the 33rd Tank Division, reported shortages in fuel, oil, and lubricants reaching well over 90 percent in the days prior to the onset of the German invasion. Among other things, this meant that the basis for supporting mobile operations was almost completely lacking - a huge problem given the comparative advantages enjoyed by the Wehrmacht in fighting a war of maneuvour. Again this shows where sheer numbers hardly tell the whole story. After all, the Red Army's tank park dwarfed the Wehrmacht's own tank strength. And, in the first five months of 1941 some 1,503 of the 1,684 tanks rolling from Soviet factories were T-34 and KV-1's .But how many of these tanks really could be used? Or for that matter, how well could the Red Army even fight, given shortages in trucks were far from the only problem." http://globeatwar.com/article/state-red-army-june-22-1941
    1
  69.  @svyatoslavleonenko9787  Ok, clearly you are a Suvorov believer an d a moron... lol, good luck
    1
  70.  @svyatoslavleonenko9787  I gave you far better information and analysis, but you think its ok to "discuss" history by parroting conspiracy BS from a low level KGB defector? lol You are a fcking moron conspiracy dipshit.
    1
  71. "Given this logic is Hitlers attack not pre-emptive?" Maybe, but that logic is fundamentally flawed. A proper basis would start with an analysis and timeline of Red Army expansion in parallel with Germany's. You'll quickly find that Soviet attempts to expand militarily were reactionary, highly flawed, and full of errors. Also, you'll find that the Soviet defense plan and supporting mobilization plan for 1941 were defensive in nature, and assumed they could counter-attack. There was no plan for a strategic first strike. No evidence to that has ever been found, and Red Army dispositions in 1941 were clearly defensive.
    1
  72.  He ro  Berlin to Baghdad railway. Railroad > Ships
    1
  73. Nope, Suvorov/Rezun brings in dozens of other unproven theories while leaving out any contrary evidence, he actually has few real facts and omits many more. He fails to develop overall context, therefore he actually created a false narrative.
    1
  74. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfWhGczWR9o
    1
  75. Dear Dave...  "Why were Stalin's forces arrayed for offense, and not defense?"  They were clearly deployed in a defensive alignment, with NKVD border units...on the border.  The armor units were 100-200km from the border, no located with their ammo and fuel supplies and no tactical trucks were mobilized to allow for any offensive operations.  "Why did Lenin invade Poland after WW1 (when Germany was on it's knees)?"  Imperial Russia had annexed most of Poland by 1795, the Red Army was retaking what was Imperial Russian territory.
    1
  76. ? The Wehrmacht crushed the Red Army in 1941. Not a myth...
    1
  77. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfWhGczWR9o
    1
  78. Did you read "Stumbling Colossus" to see the "other side"? Suvorov's theory dies in the light.
    1
  79. Ya sure, take a look at the map of imperial Russia and then look at the list of territories the Soviets took. Notice anything? It might be similar to what the Germans were doing...
    1
  80. 15,000 Soviet tanks.... The main reason is that the Soviets never threw anything out.  Of that 15,000 tanks, less than 1,800 were new.  The majority were old, unserviceable, awaiting parts for repair, etc.  Their readiness rate was absolutely terrible.  15,000 on paper with about 3,500 operational.  The Soviet Western Military Districts had 2.6 million men in them, that's a front about 1,500 miles wide and 300 miles deep (5.7 Soldiers per sq mile average).  The Armored units were more than a day's march from the border, not co-located with their fuel and ammunition supplies and as previously said, were not in any shape for operations.  Does that sound like an attack plan?  lol
    1
  81. "who started WW2?" NAZI GERMANY. Poland had a publicly declared military agreement of mutual assistance with Britain and France since March of 1939, and the Nazis attacked Poland anyway knowing it would mean war. Prussia and the Russian Empire occupied Poland from 1795 to 1918, so maybe you want to make that BS argument that the Nazis wanted their formerly occupied parts of Poland back??? lol
    1
  82.  @ionionescu6777  Nope... It was in French-British interests to ensure Poland's sovereignty and check Nazi aggression. So, thats what they did. Germany acted in their own self interests by illegally attacking Poland, and every action gets a reaction. Germany started the war by invading a sovereign nation and ally of Britain and France. War with the Soviet Union was considered, but deemed unwise for obvious reasons. Practical does win over principle sometimes.
    1
  83.  @ionionescu6777  O K .... G o t i t.... N o w....nice and slow... French and British interests were compromised by Germany's invasion of Poland, they warned Germany prior that there would be consequences for an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that the "Allies" had a formal agreement with. It was just a local conflict between Germany and Britain/France, until Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
    1
  84.  @ionionescu6777  How many of these encirclements are within 200 miles of the border???? https://images.beastsofwar.com/2016/07/imagej.jpg Answer...(2), less than 400k prisoners on a 1000 km front during a surprise attack. Proof that the Red Army was not postured for a strategic attack.
    1
  85.  @ionionescu6777  jesus, get a clue...665k at Kiev, where tf is Kiev einstein? How about Vyazma-Briansk? Smolensk? My god...read SOMETHING on the topic. Idiot
    1