Thread: 06-22-1941

Everyone should know that this day was marked by the beginning of Great Patriotic War (Великая Отечественная Война). Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union spurring the WWII to begin. Beginning from their school days, the previous generations of Russians were taught that fascists perpetrated a treacherous attack. USSR headed by Stalin was found absolutely incapable of repeling aggression. Some moments of that time have been reinterpreted for the last 15-20 years. In particular, Viktor Suvorov (Виктор Суворов) casts doubt on the fact of "a treacherous attack" in his books Ice-breaker and Day M, stating that Germany's actions were preventive in nature, i.e. Hitler left Stalin only a few weeks behind. Stalin along with his marshals and Red Army went down in history as a liberator of Europe, while Hitler (along with Wehrmacht) as a world-famous villain and dreg. So, what do YOU think about this?

First of all, WWII started in 1939, not 1941. The most important part of this war, as far as Europe is concerned, began, as you said, on 22 June 1941.

Stalin wanting to attack Hitler in 1941? That's BS. The Red Army didn't have enough ammo, didn't have enough trucks, had lost to the Finns just a year earlier. The USSR was in no way capable of attacking Hitler's Germany in 1941.

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

First of all, WWII started in 1939, not 1941. The most important part of this war, as far as Europe is concerned, began, as you said, on 22 June 1941.

My original Russian sentence was "нацистская Германия совершила нападение на Советский Союз, дав тем самым новый толчок Второй Мировой войне" (Nazi Germany attacked USSR giving a new incentive to WWII"). Sorry for confusion, I used a wrong phrase from a dictionary (spur to begin).

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

First of all, WWII started in 1939, not 1941. The most important part of this war, as far as Europe is concerned, began, as you said, on 22 June 1941.

Stalin wanting to attack Hitler in 1941? That's BS. The Red Army didn't have enough ammo, didn't have enough trucks, had lost to the Finns just a year earlier. The USSR was in no way capable of attacking Hitler's Germany in 1941.

The Hitler's army didn't have enough ammo too. For example they used cannons from WW1 captured in France. Can u explain the fact: Red Army soldiers got new uniform not long before the war ? Red Army commanders had no maps of USSR territory and the like...

seems to me, it's a miracle the the russians stopped them when they did, though, i doubt that in the end germany would'ave won, i mean fighting in the urals would have just been a slaughter. i think most of germany's loss can be blamed on hitler himself. he was so obsessed with stalingrad, and not surrendering, he wouldn't give up any ground, and would not send in re enforcements. he encouraged officers to commit suicide rather than surrender (infact this was ordered). i think alot of russia's victory also came from moral, i mean, russia just has the hugest ego, which is crazy because in about 6 months the people go from opressed over worked under paid farmers, to i love the mother land, the mother land loves you, fight for everything she has ever done for you, (which wasn't much) and they beleived it. but, that is great, because it gave everyone who fought somthing to believe in. like i said before (maybe i another post ?!) i'm obsessed with world war 2, i have studied it since like 6th grade. (mostly the european theatre) and i just find the battles for france and russia so fascinating. i'm glad somone started this discussion. infact, i have a question, i found a book a few weeks ago that was sayng that japan had actually invaded russia's east coast ?! was that so ? i also find it amazing how both russia, and the united states were able to fight two armies on opposit ends of the word, by themselves, and win with little to no help. purely amazing.
*Somtimes i wish i could go back in time and jump out of a landing craft onto omaha beach, or jump out the side of on airplane over the normandy veinyards, and sneak up along a patrol of un suspecting dirty nazi krouts, and with my best high school german, tell them everything will be ok, once they raise their hands, and then when they least expect it, let em av it wit da 15 rounds ov ma M1 carbine.* man, i could talk about WWII all day, who wants to talk with me ?!?!

and, i know somone is going to say "dogboy you silly kid, you know nothing about the horrors of war" which is true. but it has given me a new respect for old people. every year on june 6th, i go down to the safeway where veterans sit and hand out little pins with american flags on them. i go there and just talk with them. eveytime i see an elderly person i just try to imagine, how old they were, and what they were doing when they heard that the japs had attacked the united states. i read in a bookthat the youngest american to die in a WWII battle was 15, in guadle canal, i guess he obvioulsy lied about his age to inlist. but damn, i am almost 17 but 15 how much do you have to love your country to die that young ? i read in another book once, about B-24 bombers flying over Czechoslavacia in 1943, you know how when somthing amazing happens to you, and you and your friend just kinda look at each other and smile at the same time ? well he said Quote "The cockpit had just taken a direct hit from flak, the windsheild was completely gone, and most of the instruments had been knocked off balence, it was at this moment i realized i was still alive, and had noticed several large peices of metal that had flown past my face. at this time i began to feel a grin grow across my face, a grin of life, amazment and shock that i was still alive, i looked over at my co piolot expecting to see the same grin staring right back at me, instead what i saw was what looked like a head, a few patches of hair, and a bloody stump." I find it amazing how people can say, oh yea, war, it's bad, but you never even know just how bad untill your best friend in the whole world, who is less then two feet away from you gets it in the teeth, and you remain unscathed furthermore, you have to watch him die. i also find it disgusting how kids today (i know i am one of them) don't even care. i know people who think WWII was against veitnam ... no joke. i can't believe people don't care. this reminds me, i know nothing about russia in world war two, other that i have seen in враг в воротаx. or somthing. if anyone in russia could ask their grandmas, or grandpas any stories or anything interesting at all about russia in this time period, please ask, and share. i along with other people i think, would love to hear about it. i myself have no reletives in world war two. other than a cousin who was killed in veitnam, or my great great grandpa who fought in china in world war 1. anyways, i think this could be a great opportunity for people to share their families stories about war and combat. and, even though it is not my family, i have countless, amazing stories tucked away in my brain, if anyone is intersted in trading some !

Originally Posted by JJ

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

First of all, WWII started in 1939, not 1941. The most important part of this war, as far as Europe is concerned, began, as you said, on 22 June 1941.

Stalin wanting to attack Hitler in 1941? That's BS. The Red Army didn't have enough ammo, didn't have enough trucks, had lost to the Finns just a year earlier. The USSR was in no way capable of attacking Hitler's Germany in 1941.

The Hitler's army didn't have enough ammo too. For example they used cannons from WW1 captured in France. Can u explain the fact: Red Army soldiers got new uniform not long before the war ? Red Army commanders had no maps of USSR territory and the like...

Sorry, but I have had this discussion too many times already. You just believe what you want to believe. For me, the USSR was the victim of unprovoked aggression. If you think otherwise, please do.

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

Stalin wanting to attack Hitler in 1941? That's BS. The Red Army didn't have enough ammo, didn't have enough trucks, had lost to the Finns just a year earlier. The USSR was in no way capable of attacking Hitler's Germany in 1941.

Don't just think that the idea of USSR attacking Germany is groundless BS. By the beginning of the war Stalin had already had much more powerful army than Hitler had. The whole problem is that those were offensive, shock troops good for aggressive wars. This is supported by documented facts. Light БТ tanks (БТ-2, БТ-5, БТ-7) that could take off the tracks and go along the highway at 100 killometers/hour, air-landing forces -- are all useles in defensive war. All this ammor was concentrated near the border and 90% of it was destroyed by Germans within the first hours of war.


[added]
As for the loss to Finns, don't simply think that this war was lost. Big losses of ammo and troops were largely due to bad command of the troops and bad working of the operation.

Moreover, there was Germany behind Finnland and it would be extremely undesirable to start war with it at that time. Usurpation of Finnland would give Stalin springboard for attack of ore deposits in Sweden. Loss of these deposits and oilfields in Romania would mean death to Wehrmacht. I would repeat that the war in Finland was not lost. Stalin achieved most of his tasks despite big losses. As for ammo and transportation: in 1939 Zhukov has successfully defeated Japanese troops (one of the most powerful states in Asia at those times) in Mongolia and Khalhin-Gole. Would this be possible with NO OR BAD ammo?

Yes, but tanks were where the russians were great. they managed to make such high quality, at such a mass quantity. i forget which it was. the T- somthing or other. probly a 43 or somthing. In one battle took over 290 direct hits from german fire, and still managed to make it 40 kilometers back to link up with its group, where it continued on traveling for quite some time, so it was told. also, i think i saw on the history channel, that when it came time to upgrade their tanks, the germans were chosing between two diffrent prototypes of panzer tiger II's, one was made by porshe (this one was CLEARLY better, and outpreformed the other one in almost every way) and the other, i forgot the company, but it was headed by one of his good friends. hitler chose his friends inferior tank, well i guess cuz he didn't want to hurt his feelings, or some crap like that.

Originally Posted by Admin

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

Stalin wanting to attack Hitler in 1941? That's BS. The Red Army didn't have enough ammo, didn't have enough trucks, had lost to the Finns just a year earlier. The USSR was in no way capable of attacking Hitler's Germany in 1941.

Don't just think that the idea of USSR attacking Germany is groundless BS. By the beginning of the war Stalin had already had much more powerful army than Hitler had. The whole problem is that those were offensive, shock troops good for aggressive wars. This is supported by documented facts. Light БТ tanks (БТ-2, БТ-5, БТ-7) that could take off the tracks and go along the highway at 100 killometers/hour, air-landing forces -- are all useles in defensive war. All this ammor was concentrated near the border and 90% of it was destroyed by Germans within the first hours of war.

Most of the mechanized corps had to ride 2-3 days before they reached the front. (Check Erickson's standard work on Barbarossa for this.) If making the Red Army ready for attack, why was so much energy put in building fortifications on the new border? The army was concentrated on the border, because Stalin didn't want to give an inch of Soviet territory to the Germans. During the first year of the war, he kept this believe: "Ni shagu nazad!"

Soviet military doctrine was oriented on the offensive, but that was the case in the whole of Europe. The doctrine of 1941 was "vpolzanie v vojnu" ("creeping into war"). It assumed an attack (!) by an aggressor to be somewhat like WWI, i.e. BEFORE the main forces of the attacker were mobilized. The first phase would see small battles along the border after which the main force would come in and smash the invaders, quickly taking the war to the enemy's territory (the offensive phase, the "real" war). It was called winning the war "mogushim udarom, maloj krovju" ("with a great blow, little blood"). The Blitzkrieg, however, wasn't a first phase, it was a concentrated all-out blow by the main body of the Wehrmacht. The Soviets became victim of their outdated military doctrine. They weren't planning an attack westward.

Dogboy: No, Japan did not attack Russia's east coast (not any big offensive anyway). Stalin, however, had stationed several divisions there do prepare for any possible invasion, and would not let them move over to the European front until later. He wouldn't let himself be convinced by his intelligence service that there wasn't going to be a Japanese invasion. This slowed the progress down on the European front a bit. Btw, I am 100% for a WWII discussion. My grandpa was drafted during the war, but in Sweden, so all they did was preparing for a Nazi invasion, which never came.

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

Most of the mechanized corps had to ride 2-3 days before they reached the front. (Check Erickson's standard work on Barbarossa for this.) If making the Red Army ready for attack, why was so much energy put in building fortifications on the new border? ....

What fortifications? Those that were build LATER? And concentration of the army on the border might serve one of the two purposes: defend OR attack.

What fortifications? The fortifications construction was started on on the new western border after the gains in 1939 (Poland) and 1940 (Baltics, Eastern Romania).

The theory was the Soviets would block an attacker (who would, like in WWI, not attack with the main body in the 1st phase of the war) and quickly (with the main forces being amassed) bring the war to the territory of the aggressor. This is why the Soviets had so many offensive weaponry, they were convinced the defensive phase wouldn't take long and that the aggressor would be dealt with on his own territory.

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf in 1923 (!) he wanted to attack the USSR. Do you really buy this pre-emptive strike BS? Hitler had plans for the Soviet Union the minute he became Fuhrer of Germany.

In the later years of the war didn't Russians go into Manchuria and Korea? I think they still own one of the Japanese islands and it's being disputed over...so who lives there? Japanese who speak Russian, Russians, or nobody?

До недавнего времени был приверженцем Суворова.
До недавнего...
Пока однажды мне не пришла в голову мысль, но ведь есть историки, которые резко против него. Чем они мотивируют свои идеи.?
Я начал искать и наткнулся на несколько книг, которые анализируют книги Суворова. С моей точки зрения - серьзно и последовательно анализируют.
Суворов неплохо может отстаивать свое мнение. Умеет писать. Умеет привлечь читателя. Но слишком у него все сенсационно.
Но теперь я считаю - ОН ВРЁТ!!!

По поводу доказательств...
Прочтите пожалуйста вот это.
Я находил и другие книги. Признаюсь это не совсем тривиальная задача.
Гораздо проще попасть на Суворова.
Но к сожалению у меня нет привычки сохранять пути.
http://warrax.croco.net/63/shuler.html

For those of you who believe Suvorov, just read carefully and ask yourself: where does he get his info from? You'll see that often, he's basing his statements on nothing.

who the хелл is survorov ?

An "historian" who claims Hitler HAD to attack the USSR in 1941, because otherwise Stalin would have attacked Germany...

Thanks for the link, Ger. This article is really worth reading.

Yes, this Suvorov (aka Rezun) looks so-o convincing... until you read somebody, who know factual matters better.

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

Most of the mechanized corps had to ride 2-3 days before they reached the front. (Check Erickson's standard work on Barbarossa for this.) If making the Red Army ready for attack, why was so much energy put in building fortifications on the new border? The army was concentrated on the border, because Stalin didn't want to give an inch of Soviet territory to the Germans. During the first year of the war, he kept this believe: "Ni shagu nazad!"

There wasn't so much put into building fortifications. Refer to documental sources from years 1939-1941. Till 1939 there existed a strong fortified area stretching from Baltic to Black sea, so called Stalin's line (линия Сталина). After concluding a pact with Germany they started to destroy this line atctively. Then (after separaton of Poland, usurpation of Baltic, occupation of Бессарабия) the border moved further to the West, and they started creating there a obviously ostentatious, sickly Molotov's Line (линия Молотова).

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

Soviet military doctrine was oriented on the offensive, but that was the case in the whole of Europe. The doctrine of 1941 was "vpolzanie v vojnu" ("creeping into war"). It assumed an attack (!) by an aggressor to be somewhat like WWI, i.e. BEFORE the main forces of the attacker were mobilized. The first phase would see small battles along the border after which the main force would come in and smash the invaders, quickly taking the war to the enemy's territory (the offensive phase, the "real" war). It was called winning the war "mogushim udarom, maloj krovju" ("with a great blow, little blood"). The Blitzkrieg, however, wasn't a first phase, it was a concentrated all-out blow by the main body of the Wehrmacht. The Soviets became victim of their outdated military doctrine. They weren't planning an attack westward.

Well, I can't argue with this now, however I'll try digging documentary sources