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



Pages: (4) « First ... 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?
Indrid
Posted: May 20, 2005 07:18 am
Quote Post


Sublocotenent
Group Icon

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



well good thing Jukov was away from Moscow at the time. or he too might have fallen victim to the purges.
PMICQ
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 20, 2005 07:38 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



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.
PM
Top
Iamandi
Posted: May 20, 2005 08:08 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004



QUOTE (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.

Who knows? Maybe Jukov was "protected". Maybe he had more chances than others.

Iama
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Indrid
Posted: May 20, 2005 09:24 am
Quote Post


Sublocotenent
Group Icon

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



"protected"?

what do you mean?
PMICQ
Top
Iamandi
Posted: May 20, 2005 10:01 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004




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
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 21, 2005 12:23 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



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

This post has been edited by Imperialist on May 21, 2005 12:26 pm
PM
Top
Victor
Posted: May 21, 2005 12:36 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4336
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



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.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 21, 2005 12:47 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (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.

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".

PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 21, 2005 12:54 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



Well, after a search on the net I found the complete interview with Falin:

http://agitprop.org.au/nowar/20050322_nov_..._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 $.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on May 21, 2005 12:57 pm
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 22, 2005 05:27 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



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:

QUOTE
Let me recall that this tactics disrupted the talks between the Soviet Union, Britain and France in August 1939, when something still could have been done to contain the Nazi aggression. Yet they defiantly left no choice for the Soviet leaders, but to sign a non-aggression treaty with Germany. They left us exposed to the Nazi military machine, which was getting ready to strike.


Historia's choice of the words:

QUOTE
Aceasta tactica, sa ne amintim, a torpilat tratativele URSS, Marii Britanii si Frantei, din luna august 1939, cand inca mai era posibil sa se faca ceva pentru a impiedica agresiunea nazista.
  Liderii sovietici au fost constransi sa incheie demonstrativ un tratat de neagresiune cu Germania.
  Noi am devenit tinta privilegiata a masinii de razboi naziste.


I dont know where the hell did they get "demonstrativ"...

The original:

QUOTE
Let’s put the question this way: why was the allied landing planned for 1944? No one focuses on this issue. Yet the date was not randomly chosen. The West took into account our huge losses of soldiers, officers and weapons in Stalingrad. Losses in Kursk were also big. We lost more tanks than the Germans


Historia translation:

QUOTE
In Occident, s-a luat in consideratie ca, inainte de Stalingrad, noi am pierdut un mare numar de soldati, ofiteri si material de razboi....


The original:

QUOTE
It was not a war on two fronts, but a war against two adversaries.


Historia unclear translation:

QUOTE
Razboiul se ducea nu numai pe cele doua fronturi, oriental si occidental, ci si pentru doua fronturi.


This post has been edited by Imperialist on May 22, 2005 05:28 am
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 22, 2005 05:47 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



Interesting statements completely leftout of Historia, but worth debating here:

QUOTE
According to Churchill, the circumstances allowed Western powers to advance farther than expected toward the east and the “democracies” must hold there. Churchill spoke against the Potsdam conference or any other conference that would have recognized a great contribution of the Soviet people to the victory. According to his logic, the West had been given the opportunity to challenge the Soviet Union at the time when its resources were depleted, the communications at the rear overextended, the troops exhausted and equipment worn out, and demand that Moscow either yield to the Allies or face the hardships of another war.

I would like to stress that it is not an insinuation or an assumption, but a true fact, which even has a proper name. In the beginning of April 1945 (according to a different source — at the end of March), Churchill issued an order to plan urgently Operation Unthinkable. The new war was scheduled to start on July 1, 1945. American, Canadian, and British contingents in Europe, the Polish Expeditionary Corps and 10-12 German divisions (the ones that had not been disbanded and kept in Schleswig-Holstein and Southern Denmark) were supposed to participate in the operation.


QUOTE
VL: Nevertheless, can we assert that the capture of Berlin stifled the temptation of London and Washington to start World War III?

VF: One thing is certain. The battle for Berlin sobered up quite a few warmongers and, therefore, fulfilled its political, psychological and military purpose. Believe me, there were many political and military figures in the West who were stupefied by easy victories in Europe by the spring of 1945. One of them was US General George Patton. He demanded hysterically to continue the advance of American troops from the Elbe, through Poland and Ukraine, to Stalingrad in order to finish the war at the place where Hitler had been defeated. Patton called the Russians “the descendants of Genghis Khan.” Churchill, in his turn, was not overly scrupulous about the choice of words in his description of Soviet people. He called the Bolsheviks “barbarians” and “ferocious baboons.” In short, the “theory of subhuman races” was obviously not a German monopoly.

Immediately after Roosevelt’s death, the priorities of US foreign policy drastically changed. In his last address to the US Congress (March 1945), he warned, “We shall have to take the responsibility for world collaboration, or we shall have to bear the responsibility for another world conflict.” Truman was apparently not troubled by the political will of his predecessor. During a meeting in the White House on April 23, he openly announced his course for the near future — Germany’s surrender was a matter of days and from then on, the paths of the Soviet Union and the United States split in opposite directions; the balance of interests was the choice of the “softies.” The Pax Americana had to become the keystone of US policy.

Truman was close to announce the immediate break of US alliance with Moscow. It could have happened if not for the opposition on the part of the US military. The break-up with the Soviet Union would have meant that the Americans had to fight against Japan on their own and, according to Pentagon estimates, would have had to sacrifice the lives of about 1-2 million “American GIs.” In such a manner, the American generals, pursuing their own interests, actually prevented a political catastrophe in April 1945. Not for long, though.


This post has been edited by Imperialist on May 22, 2005 05:48 am
PM
Top
Alexandru H.
Posted: May 22, 2005 11:05 am
Quote Post


Sergent major
Group Icon

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



Too bad they had destroyed the entire german army in the process. Only with its help they could have managed to defeat the russians...
PMUsers Website
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

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

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0269 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]