| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW2 in General > Soviets preparing their own invasion of Europe |
| Posted by: Victor May 16, 2005 01:39 pm | ||
That's a myth. |
| Posted by: Alexandru H. May 16, 2005 01:53 pm |
| The communists already had prepared an european invasion, that ended at the gates of Warsaw in 1920. The Comintern wasn't just a world-wide organisation, it was a fifth-column tool that was hopefully going to attract supporters for a future all-communist block. I genuinly think that Stalin would have attacked, at some point Central Europe, if it weren't for the Nazis that beat them to the prize. Now, the level of preparedness could be argued, but the Communists' ambition not. |
| Posted by: Dénes May 16, 2005 02:56 pm |
| Based on what I've learned in the past years, I agree with Alexandru. The Soviets were preparing to "liberate" the working class in the Central and Western European Capitalist countries. Stalin just waited for the proper moment in the 1940s, when both camps, at war with each other, would be weak enough militarily. To Stalin's dismay, he was beaten to the punch by Hitler. Mind you, the German attack in June 1941 was not a 'pre-emptive' one, as some authors say. It was planned long before. It just happened that Hitler was quicker than Stalin. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 16, 2005 03:16 pm | ||||
Following that trail of thought we can say the West prepared the invasion of Russia since 1918. If Suvorov's main argument is that a lot of Russian forces were concentrating on the border before June 1941, so they were obviously preparing an attack, I'm afraid its all baloney. The main defensive doctrine at the time was to concentrate the forces on defensive positions on the border so as to act as a covering force for interior movements and as a delaying force against the enemy's armoured and mechanised assault. What did Suvorov expect, the Soviets to keep their forces around Moscow? The fact that Germany attacked first remains. The Soviets may have had plans (who doesnt?) but that doesnt justify the German move. p.s. maybe this is offtopic, but an interesting discussion. maybe its better to be moved where we could talk at length about this? |
| Posted by: Alexandru H. May 16, 2005 03:50 pm | ||
| Suvorov brings other interesting arguments. 1. See the Japanese defeat at Khalkhin-Gol in Mongolia, which was the result of a decision taken shortly after the second purge of the generals. This is a clue about Stalin's intention: the desire to have reliable commanders, to stop a possible conflict in the East and to be able to devote most of the military resources in the West. Check the famous two-year mobilization program from 1939 to 1941, which meant nothing more than the final preparations for a war. 2. Between 1939 and 1941, the military forces of USSR literally doubled. I don't remember the exact figures, but from not a single tank division, Stalin ended up with more than 50-60. That's a staggering number, indeed... 3. The Red Army ordered in the Spring of 1941 massive artillery and ammunition pieces, but did not create special storage houses for them, they simply laid there on the ground, at the mercy of the autumn rains. But what if they were supposed to be used before fall? Stalin's order makes more sense! 4. After the attack, when opening the envelopes with the plans, the russian commanders found only attack orders, which maintained the state of dementia among the russian armies for several days. Now, I don't think Hitler knew very much about the russian preparation, he thought Stalin would prepare for war, and he acted accordingly to his "strike first" credo. While it wasn't an innocent preemtive attack (the war against USSR had nothing to do with the last two years of russian mobilization), it can be considered, from the point of view of the nazist war machine, such an act....
Read your basic documents about the Russian-Polish war of 1919-1920. The Russian elite (Lenin, Trotki, Zinoviev, who was the head of Comintern) expected Poland to be the trambuline towards Hungary, Germany, Austria, Romania, and the grand red european revolution. May I recommend Richard Pipes' "Short History of the Russian Revolution"? The West tried for two years to supress the revolution, then it left never to return. USSR kept going... |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 16, 2005 04:33 pm | ||
A state of War in Europe existed in 1939. Mobilisation was a normal thing to do. @ No.3 - pure speculation. The situation of them lying in the autumn rains did not occurr. Ofcourse, you can say Stalin preempted the german attack in the production lines, but that doesnt mean anything. @ No.4 - does he give any details what kind of attacks were there on the orders? I mean were there strategical lines of attack for entire russian army groups towards Europe, or mere tactical attacks against the german thrust? (flank attacks maybe?) The Soviets tried to spread the Revolution in 1920 in Poland, but they were stopped. They left never to return (?). The West kept going (1941).... my point -- no use in engaging into statements like that (soviets plan to invade Europe were obvious, they tried to do it in 1920; the West's intention to invade Russia were obvious, they tried to do it in 1918); both sides have their arguments and can play with them. It doesnt mean much. Besides acknowledging obvious dislike between the 2 sides. |
| Posted by: Alexandru H. May 16, 2005 04:35 pm | ||
This cracks me up!  Sounds like an Orwellian Answer!Edit: May I ask you something? What is with you and the USSR? Defending it is one thing, but sentences like the one above makes me question the existence of a line between reason and imagination... |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 16, 2005 04:36 pm | ||||
Its the mirror image of your argument. It cracked me up too. (your initial argument) |
| Posted by: Alexandru H. May 16, 2005 04:40 pm | ||
I merely said that
I see nothing wrong in it. All throughout the interwar years, USSR kept all possibilities opened in order to export the model of its revolution abroad. It used parties, sindicates, intelectual, cultural movements etc... In Romania, we have the known example of the 1924 Bessarabian "insurection" along with a party led by foreigners. In USSR, Stalin killed everyone even suspected of harboring relations with the West! Imperialist, sometimes you trip on your own circle of thoughts! Seriously, I doubt anyone would be so ideologically-brainwashed into suggesting that USSR was a "good boy"... |
| Posted by: Alexandru H. May 16, 2005 05:07 pm | ||
Yes, those two should be connected. I can't see your problem with this. The USSR was not a normal regime, it was an ideologically-driven regime, and, as any ideology, it maintained a few key doctrines all-throughout its existence. Among these, was the theory of revolution. You can't understand 80s Africa, 70s South America or 50s Asia if you don't see the link between the different revolution exports: Russia, 1917; Bavaria, Hungary, 1919; Mongolia 1921 etc.... The Polish war is not a proof that Stalin had prepared armies to invade Europe, it's simply a proof of Stalin's intentions. |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 16, 2005 05:15 pm | ||||
Sure, you're so not-ideologically brainwashed that you failed to notice:
My mirror-image statement was in response to your attempt to connect the 1920 Soviet-Polish war with the "obviousness" of a russian 1941 attack on Europe. My mirror-image showed that your statement is as revealing and insightful into the 1941-imminent-soviet-attack issue as me/someone else saying the 1918 Allied anti-soviet war showed the obviousness of a 1941 Barbarossa campaign. And using that + german build-up on the border to justify a hypothetical soveit preemptive attack. If history would have been like that, without the actual Barbarossa Plan in hand, no historian would say the germans were definitely going to attack the SU so the SU's preemption was justified. (I hope you can follow my trail of thought, associations and comparisons. If not, lets just call it a day.) |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 16, 2005 05:26 pm | ||
"Intention" means squat in international relations. If wars are to be based on mere intentions then we'd have a continuous World War. p.s. Germany too had "intention". |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 16, 2005 05:32 pm |
| However, moving away from speculations, its known that the German plans for an attack againts SU started imediately after the defeat of France. Does Suvorov present similar Soviet plans for an invasion? And the question remains: what kind of attacks were on the soviet orders after the German attack? Hmm... Alex?  |
| Posted by: dragos May 16, 2005 05:51 pm |
| Here is a quick research I have made on topic. After the partition of Poland by Germany and the USSR under the terms of the Soviet-German Boundary and Friendship Treaty, Stalin acted quickly to conclude 'mutual assistance' pacts and garrison key points in all three buffer states [Baltic states], aiming to secure his flank against potential incursions of his new and uncertain ally before turning his attention to Finland. Early in June 1940, Soviet forces occupied Estonia by force. (I) Like its sister republics on the Baltic Sea, Estonia and Lithuania, Latvia was assigned to the Soviet sphere of influence by a secret protocol of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939. In October it was obliged to sign a 'mutual assistance' pact with the USSR, granting the Red Army military bases on Latvian territory. On 16 June 1940, Latvia was invaded by Soviet forces and a puppet regime installed under August Kirchensteins. (II) On 28 September 1939, the Soviet-German Boundary and Friendship Treaty was signed following the liquidation of the Polish state. On 30 November 1939, the Soviet government attacked Finland and, following a difficult war, it took Karelian istmus and Eastern Karelia at the peace of 12 March 1940. Several days later, on 29 March 1940, the report of V.M.Molotov, the president of the commisars of the people and the foreign affairs commisar, presented in front of the Supreme Soviet of USSR, stated that: "Among the neighbouring countries, that were cited, it is one with which we don't have a non-aggression pact, Romania. This is explained by the existence of an existing litigious problem, those of Bessarabia, whose annexation by Romania was never consent by the Soviet Union, even if the later never considered taking back Bessarabia by military intervention. (III) The documents show that the Soviet Union had the intention to put in practice the stipulations of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact since the autumn of 1939, but the bogging down of the Red Army in Finnland obliged her to postpone her plans for Romania. The end of the "Winter War" on 12 March 1940, offered Kremlin freedom of movement. On 29 March 1940, V. Molotov made a speech in the Supreme Soviet, bringing back the issue of Bessarabia as an unresolved problem in relations with Romania. Meantime, the Soviet supreme command started the military preparations for an action along the Dniester, mission that was assigned to the Kiev and Odessa military districts, that later formed the Southern Front commanded by Jukov. (IV) Sources: I, II - The Macmillan Dicitionary of the Second World War, 1997 III - RIM 5-6(45-46)/1997 IV - RIM 2(36)/1996 |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 16, 2005 06:50 pm |
| BTW, in 1920, the Polish attacked the Soviet Union, enlarging their eastern frontier. Maybe this puts things into perspective Alex. At least thats what regular history books say, written by historians post-2000... That kind of blows your Soviet intention theory. |
| Posted by: Alexandru H. May 16, 2005 06:58 pm |
| Yes, my case is ruined.... I never said that USSR attacked Poland in the first place, what I said was what USSR intended to do with this war on their hands. I already acknowledged that the West, till 1920, wanted to supress the russian revolution, and Poland (like Romania in Hungary) was given a free hand. The problem is that Lenin and his henchemen intended to transform this conflict into an all european class-struggle warfare... Please read books instead of nit-picking every small detail I don't mention (because it's not relevant!!!)... |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 16, 2005 07:04 pm | ||
| If you want a more balanced view of things check this link: http://www.answers.com/topic/causes-of-the-polish-soviet-war
|
| Posted by: Alexandru H. May 16, 2005 07:24 pm |
| You're talking about Lenin... he managed to conquer Russia with a handful of men, turned back every White uprising, defeated the Western Powers... Lenin prefered small but highly organized and specialized troops...it was in his blood... While he did not thought of conquering Europe in a classical way with 36 divisions, he most certainly believed that by sparking revolution in the West, he could have fulfilled the dream of Marx... Imagine the armies of France and Germany turning red...like it happened in Hungary and Bavaria... |
| Posted by: Alexandru H. May 16, 2005 07:27 pm | ||
|
| Posted by: Imperialist May 16, 2005 07:29 pm | ||
OK, to close this subject, I agree. In fact, I never disagreed that the SU was ideologically driven or intended to export revolution. I only questioned the link between the 1920 war and Soviet ideology and Suvorov's devastating proof of a Soviet plan to attack Europe, a plan preempted by the Germans, a plan that without the German attack would have occurred on "D-Day". What you mentioned - mobilisation, armoured divisions, artillery and obscure "orders" to attack (what?) after the germans attacked - is not proof enough of a Soviet invasion. Its conjecture. |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 16, 2005 07:31 pm | ||
|
| Posted by: Alexandru H. May 16, 2005 07:37 pm |
| It's not a direct link, not a causality. It was mere an example of how the external policy of USSR was shaped during the interwar years. In fact, even during Cicerin's benevolent years, USSR proved its warlike intentions... |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 16, 2005 09:20 pm | ||||
From what you said,
I thought the link was pretty direct. Sorry for misunderstanding. |
| Posted by: Dénes May 17, 2005 03:11 pm |
| I recommend to anyone interested in the topic to read the following article, published in The Journal of Historical Review, volume 20, number 5/6, September/December 2001, titled: Revising the twentieth century's 'perfect storm': Russian and German historians debate Barbarossa and its aftermath: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n6p59_Michaels.html It sheds new light on the whole affaire. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 17, 2005 06:13 pm | ||
The main argument of the article seems to be Zhukov's operational plans. Yet, in the same logic one can say that a Soviet attack before June 22 1941 was in fact justifiably preempting a German attack. As the German plans for Barbarossa started in 1940, and Zhukov's operational plans in May 15 1941, who can dismiss that claim if history would have been like that? Secondly, I beg to differentiate between operational plans and actual attack. As Germany became the main adversary in Europe the russians started to develop operational plans in case of war with it. As Germany and Japan were increasingly perceived as threat, the US started since the beginning of 1941 to make plans of operations against these 2 countries. Yet neither the US neither the SU were compelled to attack first. War is not started on the basis of enemy operational plans. Neither are operational plans sufficient proof of imminent attack. |
| Posted by: Dénes May 18, 2005 01:56 am |
| The question is what sort of proof would you need to convince you that the Soviets were indeed preparing for an overall attack? There is only one ultimate proof: the attack itself. Since this did not happen for obvious reasons, anything less could be shrugged off as speculation. Then I am asking this: what proofs could one find of an impending German attack against the USSR a few months before the actual offensive? Only plans and troops build up - exactly what the Soviets did, too. Only they were apparently beaten to the punch... Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Alexandru H. May 18, 2005 02:00 am |
| Excellent question that makes sense from a logical point of view. |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 18, 2005 02:25 am | ||
The Army Staff's business is to create operational plans against all kinds of potential enemies. What will convince me? Seeing the political decision that gave that operational plan the go-ahead. The Directive. With main goals, forces to be used, date etc. |
| Posted by: Dénes May 18, 2005 03:45 am |
| Here is a quote from an important speech of Stalin, done in front of the graduates of the military academy, at Kremlin: "The Red Army is a modern army and a modern army is an attacking army." The date of speech: May 5, 1941. It's not the proverbial 'smoking gun', but it pretty much sums up the would-be Generalissimus' strategical thinking six weeks prior to the war on East to start. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Indrid May 18, 2005 04:36 am |
| well this can bee seen as a propaganda speech at best. the russian army was nothing a modern army was. after killing almost all the officer core, the low literacy rates, undertraining, lack of equipment and infrastructure....oh yeah, what a modern army. too bad he did not say" a modern army is a 10 million soldier army"...much closer to the truth..... |
| Posted by: Victor May 18, 2005 05:43 am | ||
On 22 June 1941, the Red Army was 5.5 million strong, with 2.68 million deployed in the Western military districts, less than the Axis had near the Soviet frontier. The number of mobilizable personnel was around 12 million. A country that is preparing to invade its powerful neighbour would mobilize its entire forces available. Stalin had no intent to make war with Germany in June 1941. Several years later probably, but not then. Many of his divisions lacked the equipment they were supposed to have on paper and just a part of the thousands of tanks were actually serviceable. The rapid success of the Germans on the frontiers were not dued to the fact that the Red Army had no defense plans. That is absurd. Any army has one, if not at least ten. During the first days of Barbarossa, the Germans managed to actually cut off communications between the Soviet command centers, jam their radio links and create a general state of confusion. This, coupled with the efficiency of the Wehrmacht and its slight numerical superiority, made possible the success of the initial border battles. |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 18, 2005 06:37 am | ||
The quote reflects the prevailing doctrine of the '30s, doctrine reenforced by the german successes. The speech could be seen as something directed for foreign ears, but it certainly is not a political directive to start aggressive actions. Also, the german preparations for Barbarossa show more preoccupations about eliminating an uncomfortable long term threat and the economic exploitation of the occuppied areas than about preempting an imminent attack. If documents surface about soviet political decision to attack in 1941, then indeed by the weirdest coincidence Hitler could have beaten Stalin to the punch, but he certainly didnt do it on purpose. He had his own agenda. Thats maybe why I dont get Suvorov's intention. This summer I'll read his book to see clearly what he wants to imply. take care |
| Posted by: Dénes May 18, 2005 12:43 pm |
| Force comparison between the Soviet forces on the Western front (under build-up) and the Axis forces on June 22, 1941. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Category Axis Soviet Ratio ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Manpower 3,300,000 German+600,000 Small Axis 2,900,000 1.3:1 Divisions 190 (153+37) 170 1.1:1 Of this nr. armoured div. 19+1 Rumanian (11% of div.) 60 (35% of div.) 1:3 Tanks 3910 (3648+262) 14,200 1:3.6 Airplanes 3576 (2598+978) 9200 1:2.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total no. of Soviet armed forces on June 22, 1941: 4,901,852 men. No. of additional Soviet divisions, under build-up: 66. Of course, the quality of Soviet and Axis matériel was not always identical. Nevertheless, the table gives a good overall idea of the forces facing each other on the day Operation Barbarossa started. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Dénes May 18, 2005 03:21 pm | ||||
I believe such a document won't surface, at least not in our times. The cause is that it would demolish the whole thesis of the so-called 'Great Patriotic War' Russian history is built upon. Therefore, no Russian historian would want/dare to release such a document. Even if such a direct order would somehow be published, it would be immediately labeled as a forgery and thus descredited.
As I noted earlier, I don't think Hitler's attack plan was "pre-emptive", neither was Stalin's. In my perspective, it was not a "weird coincidence", but rather two plans running in parallel. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 18, 2005 03:35 pm | ||
I agree with your first statement, the implication would be important. On the second part, yes I too think the soviets would have eventually switched sides, but I think they still waited for the germans to commit their forces to something new. I dont know, maybe another Sealion attempt, or to try to carve out their colonies in North Africa/Middle East... The soviets are pretty patient and shrewd, they knew they had a lot of aces in their hand, so they would have waited for the other side to make a move (good or bad). Anyways, like I said, I cant wait to read Suvorov's case, and I'll post anything interesting or contradictory that I'll find. take care |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 19, 2005 05:14 pm |
| There is certainly an influx of "what ifs" concerning WWII: http://www.historia.ro/index.php?id=338 |
| Posted by: Indrid May 19, 2005 05:21 pm |
| is Historia a reliable source of information? |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 19, 2005 05:23 pm | ||||
I dont understand the question, Historia has nothing to do with it:
|
| Posted by: Indrid May 19, 2005 05:28 pm |
| well i believe it has a lot to do....i wanted to know if it is reliable. just a question. what's so difficult? |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 19, 2005 05:50 pm | ||
I thought you knew Historia... well, its reliable as Magazin Istoric or Lumea. People with some know-how publish there, or they publish foreign researcher's articles. The question of reliability has to be asked for those that publish there and about what they publish, Historia simply hosts them there. I guess... |
| Posted by: Indrid May 19, 2005 05:53 pm |
| i knew it. the fact that it has cristoiu as director worried me and i never paid any atention to it, hence the question |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 19, 2005 05:59 pm | ||
Shouldnt worry about Cristoiu being the director. I bought several of his previously directed historical magazines, and there was nothing wrong with them. Dosarele Istoriei No.8/2000 "1940-1945.Apa si Foc" was pretty interesting and well documented. A whole issue dedicated to the Romanian Navy in WWII. From Historia I didnt buy any issue, true, but this time I will, after I saw its summary on the net. That "what if" intrigues me...  take care |
| Posted by: Iamandi May 20, 2005 06:43 am |
| I doubt about a preemptive german/axis attack, even if some writers try to convince the world, when in realitty they want to obtain attention, good selling and "senzational". But, russians had prepared for war. This, i think nobody can say "no". Reasons are obviously a lot. Iama |
| Posted by: Indrid May 20, 2005 06:49 am |
| they had prepared, ok. but were they any good at preparing? with most of theri elite grinded by stalin, what was to prepare. and of course preemptive scenarios are ok these days given the american pushing the paradigm, but was it available back then as a political strategy? i do not believe that Hitler attacked russia becasue he was afraid of it, but becasue it was part of the greater plan. i think that Poland and western fronts were only a diversion from the greater pla, which was the eastern expansion, leading all the way to the Urals |
| Posted by: Iamandi May 20, 2005 07:08 am | ||||
Of course! And, about
They had a large/huge mass of people, a lot of secaond wave leaders under the microscope. They had a lot of possibilitys, and manny mans to be choose as new leaders. I think Stalin had "brainhunters" who follow from "shadow" some capable people to elect from they rows new leaders. Iama |
| Posted by: Indrid May 20, 2005 07:18 am |
| well good thing Jukov was away from Moscow at the time. or he too might have fallen victim to the purges. |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 20, 2005 07:38 am |
| About the Historia article I talked about... Pretty interesting and it only shows that each side has its own version of events. Suvorov and Falin are the two sides of the same coin: historical revisionism with a political agenda. |
| Posted by: Iamandi May 20, 2005 08:08 am | ||
Who knows? Maybe Jukov was "protected". Maybe he had more chances than others. Iama |
| Posted by: Indrid May 20, 2005 09:24 am |
| "protected"? what do you mean? |
| Posted by: Iamandi May 20, 2005 10:01 am |
| Not protected-protected, but "protecded". Something like not so exposed like others, because was seen as a smart soldiers with potential by those ipotetical (?*) "brain hunters". I have to re-read about Jukov, to see if was hit, or if enjoyed some luck/protection. Iama |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 21, 2005 12:23 pm |
| Ok, here are Falin's points: -- according to him the Allies knew that Germany could be defeated in 1942 as the bulk of German forces were in the East and at that time there were no permanent defense works on 2000km of French beaches. A landing would have forced the germans to capitulate -- on August 20th 1943 at the Quebec meeting they (Britian and the US) discussed getting out of the alliance with USSR and entering an alliance with Germany (after the Kursk disaster) -- the idea of weakening the russians by using the germans was developed by Churchill with general Kutiwpov since 1919 -- the French, British and US are reluctant or unable to reign in USSR so the job has to be given to Germany or Japan -- the indecision of the Allies in august 1939 forced the USSR to sign a demonstrative non-aggression pact with Germany; Russia became the target of the German war machine -- Operation Overlord was postponed for 1944 because the allied experts apprectiated that in 1944 the Soviet offensive power will be spent, calculating the losses it had suffered; -- the landings coincided with the coup plot against Hitler and the generals that were supposed to take over would have ended hostilities with Britain and US and all would have speeded forward so as to stop the Soviets on the 1939 borders -- the Ardenees offensive was supposed to show US and Britain that they will not be able to reach Germany before the USSR does -- in 1941 and 1942 the (western) Allies waited the defeat of the SU before committing to a certain policy -- the major goal in the minds of the (western) Allies, despite their their operations which pinned important german forces, was to stop the SU -- his conclusion is that the opening of the 2nd front in 1942 would have diminuated the human losses in Europe by 10-12 million, and Auschwitz would have never occurred as that started to function totally only in 1944 |
| Posted by: Victor May 21, 2005 12:36 pm |
| It looks like something comming out of the Soviet propganda machine. Falin seems to overlook the raid on Dieppe in August 1942, which shows just how prepared were the Western Allies for invading France. |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 21, 2005 12:47 pm | ||
True, but its funny to note each side's bias in reinterpreting history. I mean the supporters of Falin and those of Suvorov. And its also interesting to note that the 1919 events can be/are interpreted as being the forerunners of the 1941 ones, in the same way as the 1920 Polish-SU war can be interpreted vice-versa by the other side. About Dieppe, if I read Falin's mind correctly he probably says a large-scale landing similar to that of 1944 only earlier... werent only British forces at Dieppe? Anyways, his military knowledge is absurd. Even if the allies landed in 1942, how come he doesnt imagine the germans transferring forces from the East to the West, and preferrs to think about outright defeat? Nevertheless, he has a point in the fact that the Allies prepared the Operation Torch rather than a landing in Europe... then went to Sicily and Italy and only afterwards landed in Normandy. Falin probably sees these operations on secondary fronts as "guilty". |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 21, 2005 12:54 pm |
| Well, after a search on the net I found the complete interview with Falin: http://agitprop.org.au/nowar/20050322_nov_conversation_on_history.php It seems that Historia didnt have the cojones to publish everything! I havent read the complete interview yet, only what Historia published... what a waste of a good $. |
| Posted by: Imperialist May 22, 2005 05:27 am | ||||||||||||
| Here are some major differences between the real Falin interview and the one published in Historia magazine. These differences are either sheer malice or outright incompetence in translating from english. Also about half of the interview has been left out. The original:
Historia's choice of the words:
I dont know where the hell did they get "demonstrativ"... The original:
Historia translation:
The original:
Historia unclear translation:
|
| Posted by: Imperialist May 22, 2005 05:47 am | ||||
Interesting statements completely leftout of Historia, but worth debating here:
|
| Posted by: Alexandru H. May 22, 2005 11:05 am |
| Too bad they had destroyed the entire german army in the process. Only with its help they could have managed to defeat the russians... |