Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
MG1962 said:
It matters nought how slow you say things - evidence is the final arbitor




Sorry you need to read Mein Kampf - He mentions his need to attack the Soviets in Chapter 13 (IIRC)




Sorry if you want to try and introduce the Finnish recording you cant pick or choose. I make no claim of how many tanks Hitler destroyed. he did state a number, in his own voice recorded for history.




One thing you definately share with Hitler - lack of understanding. He thought he'd beaten Britian in Dec 1940 - History shows another outcome



When you show something that suggests a new interpretation should be considered, I definately will



I have no emotional attraction to any of the combatants of WW2 - History is history - If someone suddenly discovers "My secret plan to invade Germany" J Stalin, I would read it with great interest and change my thinking to "Stalin was the worst military leader of the modern era, not Hitler.
Click to expand...


MG1962 studiously ignores Hitler's remark about being forced to attack the USSR. Reason: it does not fit in his interpretation of history as delivered by Spielberg for $10,- only. Or how much does a cinema ticket cost in Anglosphere?

I leave it at that.
 
9/11-investigator said:
What's your point?
Click to expand...

Invasion plans, especially the logistics appendix take a lot of planning or in laymen's terms lots of paperwork.

Where is this paper. It took six months from the German General staff to come up with a plan - where is the Soviet plan?
 
Where are Stalin's orders? Where are the depots? Why weren't the air and naval forces prepared? Why were subs and mine layers not prepositioned?
 
garethdjb said:
Basically, yes. Either deliberately or from Rezun's ignorance of how the Red Army intended to operate in 1941.
Click to expand...

Yes I'd heard mention of it in something (I believe) that was written by the American LTC who wrote a lot of Soviet Military History - whose name escapes me at the moment. (Glantz?)

I wonder if it got beyond a concept?
 
Hans said:
Yes I'd heard mention of it in something (I believe) that was written by the American LTC who wrote a lot of Soviet Military History - whose name escapes me at the moment. (Glantz?)

I wonder if it got beyond a concept?
Click to expand...

David M. Glantz

The Red Army's strategic defence was intended to include deep counter-attacks, but they lacked the mobile formations, radios and command structures to carry them out effectively. Those formations that tried to carry out the defence plan were easily encircled and destroyed by the Wehrmacht. Even when the Red Army began to launch more co-ordinated counter-offensives in July, these were conducted on too broad a front and with too little depth to be effective.
 
garethdjb said:
David M. Glantz

The Red Army's strategic defence was intended to include deep counter-attacks, but they lacked the mobile formations, radios and command structures to carry them out effectively. Those formations that tried to carry out the defence plan were easily encircled and destroyed by the Wehrmacht. Even when the Red Army began to launch more co-ordinated counter-offensives in July, these were conducted on too broad a front and with too little depth to be effective.
Click to expand...

I wonder too if this imaginary offense was based on Zhukov's concept of an attack - but it was never planned nor, as far as anyone is aware, accepted by Stalin.

This is a good summary of the question - seems pretty thin to me.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
 
One of the interest aspect of this myth is that the Germans and their allies never captured a copy of this alleged plan. Despite taking numerous Divisional, Corps and Army level headquarters

399px-Fall_Barbarossa_1.jpg


Where is the Soviet plan...above is an image of the Barb... given to Hitler after he requested a plan to invade the USSR on July 21, 1940
 
garethdjb said:
David M. Glantz

The Red Army's strategic defence was intended to include deep counter-attacks, but they lacked the mobile formations, radios and command structures to carry them out effectively. Those formations that tried to carry out the defence plan were easily encircled and destroyed by the Wehrmacht. Even when the Red Army began to launch more co-ordinated counter-offensives in July, these were conducted on too broad a front and with too little depth to be effective.
Click to expand...

David Glantz...

He seems to have good connections in... Russia!

A member of the Russian Federation’s Academy of Natural Sciences, he has written or co-authored more than twenty commercially published books, over sixty self-published studies and atlases, and over one hundred articles dealing with the history of the Red (Soviet) Army, Soviet military strategy, operational art, and tactics, Soviet airborne operations, intelligence, and deception, and other topics related to World War II.
Click to expand...

And no surprise here:

Glantz is also known as an opponent of Viktor Suvorov's thesis, which he endeavored to rebut with the book Stumbling Colossus.
Click to expand...

If we remember that Suvorov still has an unrevoked death penalty hanging over his head by the Russian state, then we should not be too surprised that only anti-Suvorov's will find a place in a state institution like an Academy of Science.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
If we remember that Suvorov still has an unrevoked death penalty hanging over his head by the Russian state, then we should not be too surprised that only anti-Suvorov's will find a place in a state institution like an Academy of Science.
Click to expand...

Yes thats the only possible reason, absolutely no chance he is just plain wrong.

How is that homework I gave you going?
 
garethdjb said:
David M. Glantz

The Red Army's strategic defence was intended to include deep counter-attacks, but they lacked the mobile formations, radios and command structures to carry them out effectively. Those formations that tried to carry out the defence plan were easily encircled and destroyed by the Wehrmacht. Even when the Red Army began to launch more co-ordinated counter-offensives in July, these were conducted on too broad a front and with too little depth to be effective.
Click to expand...

Here a Russian poster on the amazon forum comparing Suvorov and Glantz.

If there were no offencive preparations why Russians did not dig up their 3,000,000 men, 11000 superior tanks and 44,000 guns and mortars that have been deployed in the border areas
...
So why Zukov's, who was in charge of army, was proposing the attack? I guess he (gen Zukov) knew better than Mr. Glantz what were real abilities and intentions of Red Army.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If there were no offencive preparations why Russians did not dig up their 3,000,000 men, 11000 superior tanks and 44,000 guns and mortars that have been deployed in the border areas
Click to expand...

I assume by 'dig up' he means 'dig in'. Well, they did. The Russians began constructing fortifications in Poland along the new frontier 4 days after the surrender of France.
 
Can somebody please come to the aide of MG1962 who has maneuvered himself in such a mess that he is unable to explain himself a way out of it:

So we have Hitler on record as saying:

If I had an idea - then I would have been even more difficult for me, but I would have taken the decision [to invade] anyhow, because - there was no other possibility.
Click to expand...

This does not sound like Djenghis Kahn 2.0 conquering Russia just for the heck of it, now does it?... "there was no other possibility"

Our whole armament - you know, was - is a pure good weather armament. It is very capable, very good, but it is unfortunately just a good-weather armament. We have seen this in the war. Our weapons naturally were made for the west.
Click to expand...

Can somebody, brave enough to admit that he still believes in the traditional fairy tale that Hitler invaded Russia as a sort of Djenghis Kahn 2.0, please help MG1962 out? On behalf of MG1962, thanks!

BTW was Djenghis Kahn a Jew? :D
 
Last edited:
garethdjb said:
I assume by 'dig up' he means 'dig in'. Well, they did. The Russians began constructing fortifications in Poland along the new frontier 4 days after the surrender of France.
Click to expand...

I think the Russian poster was refering to the situation in June 1941, not that of June 1940.
 
9/11-investigator said:
You are in no position to give me 'homework' where you just have been outmaneuvered in this post.

You are the one who needs to do homework. A lot of it.
Click to expand...

LOL - no dog ate my homework excuses. We need the name, or a map or an OOB from this mythical invasion. Really it should not be too hard...should it?
 
MG1962 said:
But I doubt it contents. How many tanks does Hitler claim his army had destroyed?



Why bring it up. History is about relevance. By your own addmission this interview carries no relevance to the point up for debate




So then do I take it you consider Hitler the worst military leader in history? Even a lowly corporal knows that unless an invading force can achieve a 3:1 ratio they will be defeated by a prepared enemy



We have nothing except Hitler expected war with the West, given this discussion point is about pre-emptive Soviet actions in the East, it has no relevence



No one is debating a pre-emptive strike by German forces, we are asking you for evidence for plans of a Soviet pre-emptive strike
Click to expand...

He also was the weakest since according to deniers he was forced to go to war, forced to invade Russia and in general had no control of events.

ETA: Makes you almost fell sorry for him, a nice guy caught in such a situation but what's a Fuhrer to do?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom