Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (4) 1 [2] 3 4   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Soviets preparing their own invasion of Europe, Myth or reality?
Alexandru H.
Posted: May 16, 2005 06:58 pm
Quote Post


Sergent major
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 216
Member No.: 57
Joined: July 23, 2003



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!!!)...
PMUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 16, 2005 07:04 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



If you want a more balanced view of things check this link:

http://www.answers.com/topic/causes-of-the-polish-soviet-war

QUOTE
The political purpose of the Red Army's advance was not to conquer Europe directly. The Red Army of 1920 could hardly be sent with 36 divisions to do what the Tsarist army of 1914-17 had failed to achieve with 150.




This post has been edited by Imperialist on May 16, 2005 07:06 pm
PM
Top
Alexandru H.
Posted: May 16, 2005 07:24 pm
Quote Post


Sergent major
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 216
Member No.: 57
Joined: July 23, 2003



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...
PMUsers Website
Top
Alexandru H.
Posted: May 16, 2005 07:27 pm
Quote Post


Sergent major
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 216
Member No.: 57
Joined: July 23, 2003



QUOTE
This began to change in late 1919, however, when Vladimir Lenin, leader of Russia's new communist government, succumbed to a buoyant optimism, inspired by the Red Army's civil-war victories over White Russian anticommunist forces and their western allies on Russian territory. The Bolsheviks acted on a conviction that historical processes would soon lead to rule of the proletariat in all nations, and that the withering away of national states would eventually bring about a worldwide communist community. Lenin felt increasingly confident that the Revolution would survive and would soon sweep triumphant over Europe and the rest of the world. The main impetus to the coming war with Poland lay in the Bolsheviks’ avowed intent to link their Revolution in Russia with an expected revolution in Germany. Lenin saw Poland as the bridge that the Red Army would have to cross in order to link the two revolutions and to assist other communist movements in Western Europe. This course was explicit in early Bolshevik ideology, and was necessary if the Soviet experiment in Russia was to be brought into line with Marxist doctrine. It was not, however, until the Soviet successes in mid-1920 that this idea became for a short time dominant in Bolshevik policies.
PMUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 16, 2005 07:29 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (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...

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.

PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 16, 2005 07:31 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE
Polish politics was under the strong influence of the statesman Józef Piłsudski, who envisioned a federation (the "Federation of Międzymorze"), a Polish-led confederation comprising Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and other Central and East European countries now emerging out of the crumbling empires after the First World War. The new union would have had borders similar to those of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 15th–18th centuries; and it was to be a counterweight to, and restraint upon, any imperialist intentions of Russia or Germany. To this end, Polish forces set out to secure vast territories in the east.
PM
Top
Alexandru H.
Posted: May 16, 2005 07:37 pm
Quote Post


Sergent major
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 216
Member No.: 57
Joined: July 23, 2003



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...
PMUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 16, 2005 09:20 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (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...



From what you said,

QUOTE
The communists already had prepared an european invasion, that ended at the gates of Warsaw in 1920.


I thought the link was pretty direct.

Sorry for misunderstanding.
PM
Top
Dénes
Posted: May 17, 2005 03:11 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4355
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



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
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 17, 2005 06:13 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (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

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.
PM
Top
Dénes
Posted: May 18, 2005 01:56 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4355
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



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
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Alexandru H.
Posted: May 18, 2005 02:00 am
Quote Post


Sergent major
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 216
Member No.: 57
Joined: July 23, 2003



Excellent question that makes sense from a logical point of view.
PMUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 18, 2005 02:25 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (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?

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?


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.




PM
Top
Dénes
Posted: May 18, 2005 03:45 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4355
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



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

This post has been edited by Dénes on May 18, 2005 03:52 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Indrid
Posted: May 18, 2005 04:36 am
Quote Post


Sublocotenent
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 425
Member No.: 142
Joined: November 15, 2003



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.....
PMICQ
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (4) 1 [2] 3 4  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0280 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]