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



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

> Mark Solonin - The cask and the hoops
PaulC
Posted: September 17, 2012 11:07 am
Quote Post


Sergent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 159
Member No.: 3290
Joined: April 19, 2012




QUOTE

First of all, the actual quote is:
QUOTE
An additional 16,500 new model tanks were required to bring all mechanized corps up to full combat strength, and the NKO anticipated that industry would require not less than three years to meet this requirement. In the meantime, the corps were equipped largely with lesser number of older light BT and T-26 models. Soviet commanders permitted many of these older models to fall into disrepair in the expectation that new models would soon replace them. On 15 June 1941, 29% of the older model tanks required capital repair and 44% lesser maintenance.

(Stumbling Colussus, page 117-118)
So it's not "rebuild", it's "capital repair" and it's not "major overhaul", it's "lesser maintenance" and it's not the entire Soviet tank park, it's just the older models. If you are quoting, better do it from the actual source, not your interpretation of Solonin. t's not ok to attribute incorrect quotes to an author just to make your point.


I know the actual quote. FYI, capital repair or rebuild is the same thing. All automotive components are taken out of the tank and new ones put in.

QUOTE


Furthermore, you won't find in Stumbling Colossus the claim that there were only 3800 combat ready tanks in the Red Army on 22 June 1941. But if you do,  please refer to the specific page.


I wish you had used the same principles in the past.

Remembe what you said :
QUOTE
According to the same source, page 118, on average 29% of the Soviet older tanks required capital repairs on 15 June 1941 and 44% lesser maintenance. This seriously diminishes the actual combat strength of corps equipped with such models like the 16th Corps.  In fact, during teh early days of Barbarossa, the Soviets lost a huge number of tanks because of mechanical failures and the impossibility to repair (lack of technicians) or tow them to a repair station (lack of appropriate tractors).


You insinuated that the number of combat ready tanks was much smaller than in reality based on Glant'z % that you are now doing a 180 turn.

QUOTE

Second, "lesser maintenance" could very well include the tanks that have minor problems that could be resolved in the divisional workshops and not fall into categories 3-5 (overhauling). Btw, isn't it odd for you that there is no category for "under repairs at division level"? Under this circumstances one could argue that "quite operable" includes "lesser maintenance".


Division level would mean they could do the repairs in the field.


QUOTE

So that leaves 29% of the older models. Given that 1,475 were T-34s and KVs, this means that 12,782-1,475=11,307 were older models. One could argue that the B-7Ms were also new models and thus further decrease the total of older models, but for simplicity, let's leave it like this. 29% out of 11,307 is 3,279, which means that a total of 9,502 tanks were operable or quite operable. Not that far from 10,540 and certainly not 3,800.


They had over 2000 T34s and KV1s. Some were in transit and don't appear in the 5 western sectors for a simple reason : their schedule for the end of the deployment was July 5.

Secondly, all of a sudden we have 9500 operable tanks ( what's 1000 tanks between friends, it's not like the Germans had 3400 in total ). How does this go with your previous comments about mech corps battle readiness ?
QUOTE

But, other than this one example of "Glantz crap", which is the only case where Solonin mentions his name, can you provide more? You yourself claimed that
QUOTE

Solonin debunked a lot of the crap Glantz was spewing under the patronage of the Russian Ministry of Defense

"A lot" means more than one.


From where to start :
- his view on the purges
- his portrayal of unit manpower, transport and communications ?
- his view on battle performance in Mongolia, Finland
- view on Stalin

QUOTE

You also claim that Glantz has portrayed the Red Army :
QUOTE
as a bunch of imbeciles and being the pinnacle of incompetence ( as if all the incompetence of the world gathered there )

I suggest you read other books written by David Glantz (Colossus Reborn, When Titans Clashed, Red Storm over Blakans) to see that this is not the case.


I've read When Titans Clashed, Mars, Operation Barbarossa, Kursk about post June 22 1941 performance. Doesn't change my view.
PMEmail Poster
Top
PaulC
Posted: September 17, 2012 11:42 am
Quote Post


Sergent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 159
Member No.: 3290
Joined: April 19, 2012



QUOTE


Hitler made his mind up to attack Russia after conquering France, in 1940.


Wrong. He didn't considered the Soviet Union before the invasion of Basarabia and Bucovina. He left 10, 2nd rate divisions to defend the Eastern Border against the Russian bear which they thought of no threat whatsoever.

The brutal awakening caused by the invasion of the Baltic states ( which he didn't expect to materialize as it did ) + the occupation of Basarabia and the threat to the Romanian oil + taking Bucovina ( which wasn't agreed ! ) forced Hitler to reconsider the East.



QUOTE

His decision was geostrategic, not determined by Soviet deployment of forces.


So he didn't finish the job in the West and is turning towards the East to be later bombed and invaded from the west? Where's the logic in that ? Hitler always claimed Germany's ww1 mistake was fighting on 2 fronts. Don't you wonder what forced him to go against his thinking ?

QUOTE

The extent of which German intelligence had no clue about anyway.


They saw only the 1st strategic echelon.

QUOTE

The very existance of numerous Soviet divisions was a big problem for Germany.


Isn't this a contradiction to what you claim above ?

QUOTE
The British blockade and the increasingly clear prospects of US involvement in the war on Britain's side made Germany's economic situation even more critical. The very existance of Russia's natural resources was a big attraction. For these reasons, aggressive or not Russia was going to be attacked. Only with the Red Army out of the picture and Russia's natural resources under its control would Germany be free and able to handle the war with UK&US and go for world power.


Germany is bypassing the british blockade with Soviet help. The flow of materials from the Soviet Union is huge and allowed Germany to invade western Europe.
Germany needed oil foremost. What chances did they have to take the Caucasus intact ? 0.

QUOTE

That is why Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.


I think he knew better and he expressed it himself why.
QUOTE

The official reasons presented to the public are have to be taken with a grain of salt because they were subordinate to a propaganda purpose. Germany had to claim the moral highground and to engage the whole of Europe in a crusade against Bolshevism. All public messages were subordinated to those "PR" goals.


Who's talking about PR ? I'm talking about official internal documents and discussions, not for public consumption.
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
Posted: September 17, 2012 05:19 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE (Victor @ September 16, 2012 08:30 pm)
QUOTE (MMM @ September 15, 2012 08:55 pm)
Indeed I hadn't read anything written by Glantz, but given the oppinions of Suvorov, Solonin and PaulC (!), I supposed he was some kind of apologet of the Red Army. BTW, is there a link to Glantz's book(s)?

It would be normal to read a book, paper, anything written by him and and then cast judgement. A least do the effort and google him.

I exagerated a little (again) when I wrote I didn't read anything by Glantz; I meant I haven't read a book, like "Stumbling colossus" or "Colossus reborn" or something else like that; I've "looked through" some of the stuff he wrote about "Operation Mars":
Glantz "stuff"
I suppose you do have the "Stumbling Colossus" and agree to it? But we're going off-topic...
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted: September 17, 2012 07:31 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE
So he didn't finish the job in the West and is turning towards the East to be later bombed and invaded from the west?  Where's the logic in that ? Hitler always claimed Germany's ww1 mistake was fighting on 2 fronts. Don't you wonder what forced him to go against his thinking ?


Hitler's logic makes perfect sense from a geostrategic point of view.

Finishing the job in the West called for aerial and naval forces Germany didn't have. And Britain was in no position to invade Europe anytime soon because it lacked the necessary land forces. Hence the front in the West was pretty much stalemated. Germany could leave behind only a small number of garrison divisions and focus all of its might on one decisive front - the East.

QUOTE
QUOTE

The very existance of numerous Soviet divisions was a big problem for Germany.


Isn't this a contradiction to what you claim above ?


No, because I'm talking about their existance, not their deployment. The perceived threat from the Soviet Union stemmed from what the SU was in terms of power, its existing power capabilities, not from where the Soviet Union might have deployed its divisions at one moment. Hitler wanted to eliminate that factor from the "chessboard". Only then could he turn around and build the aerial and naval forces needed for a showdown with UK&US.

QUOTE
Germany is bypassing the british blockade with Soviet help. The flow of materials from the Soviet Union is huge and allowed Germany to invade western Europe.
Germany needed oil foremost. What chances did they have to take the Caucasus intact ? 0.


Yes, Hitler was happy to obtain Russian resources through trade but he had no intention to become dependent on Russia. Russia was asking for technological (including military technology) goods in exchange for its resources. Russia could also have turned off the tap at any point.
PM
Top
Florin
Posted: September 19, 2012 04:22 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1866
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (guina @ September 09, 2012 06:26 am)
Mark Solonin was educated as an aeronauticl enginier,not as a historian.

I may hurt some feelings, but I consider that as engineer you can try to be a good historian and hope to succeed, but vice versa is not possible.
More than following a history university, what really matters is how dedicated you are to obtain an equidistant result, and to be willing to expose the truth even when you are not happy with it. Your work is not supposed to be subordinated to partisan interests, or to the times you live in. Of course it also matters how much time and resources you intend to invest in your research work, and how willing you are to modify whole chapters if in the last moment you discover something that contradicts your writings.
An engineer accustomed to do a lousy work in engineering will do of course a lousy work as historian. A historian with strong personal feelings for or against one side of the story will do a lousy job as well.
So the bottom line is the character of the writer... and his ability to write, of course.

This post has been edited by Florin on September 19, 2012 04:24 am
PM
Top
MMM
  Posted: September 19, 2012 09:14 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE (Florin @ September 19, 2012 07:22 am)
So the bottom line is the character of the writer... and his ability to write, of course.

... and, of course, the "interests" of those allowing him archive access (as is Suvorov's theory) for their own inscrutable purposes.
As for the engineer vs. historian stuff, the fact is that technical education cannot be improvised as easy as "humanist disciplines"!
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Florin
Posted: September 19, 2012 06:39 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1866
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (MMM @ September 19, 2012 04:14 am)
QUOTE (Florin @ September 19, 2012 07:22 am)
So the bottom line is the character of the writer... and his ability to write, of course.

... and, of course, the "interests" of those allowing him archive access (as is Suvorov's theory) for their own inscrutable purposes.
.................

In a documentary kindly highlighted for us by "C-2" some time ago, there was a parallel between Communism and Nazism. You could see there the following:

When at national TV from Moscow they had shown a document with 3 wax seals, and signatures from leaders of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, promoting total collaboration in all kind of things, including returning the Communist refugees back to Germany (and the pro-Capitalist guys back to Soviet Union), the Putin’s government went berserk. The video recording disappeared from the archive of national Russian TV – but the show was recorded by at least one TV viewer ! :lol:
Why Putin’s government was mad: they accepted that Soviet Union and Stalin collaborated with Hitler and Nazi Germany, based on verbal agreements, but they already sworn that there was nothing in writing.
PM
Top
PaulC
Posted: September 19, 2012 07:13 pm
Quote Post


Sergent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 159
Member No.: 3290
Joined: April 19, 2012



QUOTE (Florin @ September 19, 2012 08:39 pm)
QUOTE (MMM @ September 19, 2012 04:14 am)
QUOTE (Florin @ September 19, 2012 07:22 am)
So the bottom line is the character of the writer... and his ability to write, of course.

... and, of course, the "interests" of those allowing him archive access (as is Suvorov's theory) for their own inscrutable purposes.
.................

In a documentary kindly highlighted for us by "C-2" some time ago, there was a parallel between Communism and Nazism. You could see there the following:

When at national TV from Moscow they had shown a document with 3 wax seals, and signatures from leaders of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, promoting total collaboration in all kind of things, including returning the Communist refugees back to Germany (and the pro-Capitalist guys back to Soviet Union), the Putin’s government went berserk. The video recording disappeared from the archive of national Russian TV – but the show was recorded by at least one TV viewer ! :lol:
Why Putin’s government was mad: they accepted that Soviet Union and Stalin collaborated with Hitler and Nazi Germany, based on verbal agreements, but they already sworn that there was nothing in writing.

We were already told be our esteemed forum colleagues that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany weren't de facto ( and de jure based on new documents ) allies in between 1939 and 1941.
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
Posted: September 19, 2012 08:17 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE (PaulC @ September 19, 2012 10:13 pm)

In a documentary kindly highlighted for us by "C-2" some time ago, there was a parallel between Communism and Nazism. [/QUOTE]
We were already told be our esteemed forum colleagues that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany weren't de facto ( and de jure based on new documents ) allies in between 1939 and 1941.

Re: documentary: it is an approach deserving consideration, but it is also created by Russo-phobes (from the Baltic states)
Re: "esteemed forum colleagues": who? where? :o
If necessary, I could post an excerpt form a book which states that there was an offer from USSR to military help Germany in the interval mentioned; there were also German soldiers at a Soviet naval base in the extreme North...
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Florin
Posted: September 19, 2012 10:03 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1866
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (MMM @ September 19, 2012 03:17 pm)
QUOTE (PaulC @ September 19, 2012 10:13 pm)

In a documentary kindly highlighted for us by "C-2" some time ago, there was a parallel between Communism and Nazism.  We were already told be our esteemed forum colleagues that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany weren't de facto ( and de jure based on new documents ) allies in between 1939 and 1941.

Re: documentary: it is an approach deserving consideration, but it is also created by Russo-phobes (from the Baltic states)
Re: "esteemed forum colleagues": who? where? :o
If necessary, I could post an excerpt form a book which states that there was an offer from USSR to military help Germany in the interval mentioned; there were also German soldiers at a Soviet naval base in the extreme North...

You mixed together some of my words with PaulC's words, then you gathered them under his name. It would be as bad if you would put everything under my name.
***
Your error is technical, not deliberate, but this happens when we don't check our text.

This post has been edited by Florin on September 19, 2012 10:07 pm
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: September 19, 2012 10:33 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (PaulC @ September 19, 2012 07:13 pm)
We were already told be our esteemed forum colleagues that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany weren't de facto ( and de jure based on new documents ) allies in between 1939 and 1941.

What the esteemed colleagues told you was that for the sake of clarity they personally prefer to use the word alliance strictly for agreements that explicitly include a casus foederis clause that compels the signatories to offer support to each other. Of course you are free to use the very loose definition you prefer. It's not necessarily wrong, it's just too general.
PM
Top
PaulC
Posted: September 20, 2012 05:11 am
Quote Post


Sergent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 159
Member No.: 3290
Joined: April 19, 2012



QUOTE (Imperialist @ September 20, 2012 12:33 am)
QUOTE (PaulC @ September 19, 2012 07:13 pm)
We were already told be our esteemed forum colleagues that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany weren't de facto ( and de jure based on new documents ) allies in between 1939 and 1941.

What the esteemed colleagues told you was that for the sake of clarity they personally prefer to use the word alliance strictly for agreements that explicitly include a casus foederis clause that compels the signatories to offer support to each other. Of course you are free to use the very loose definition you prefer. It's not necessarily wrong, it's just too general.

And somehow, using the same logic, you don't see your definition as too restrictive. I mean,dividing Europe into spheres of influence and coordinating to establish those spheres; swapping undesirables, sometimes your own citizens and supplying materials to belligerent Germany to wage war in Europe, to me that's a de facto alliance. Looking at Poland one could say it falls even under casus foederis, but on the aggressor stance. Same situation for Norway, when German navy used Murmansk as a base to conquer the far North.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Florin
Posted: September 20, 2012 05:20 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1866
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (PaulC @ September 20, 2012 12:11 am)
... Same situation for Norway, when German navy used Murmansk as a base to conquer the far North.

From the same documentary mentioned before: Admiral Erich Raeder sent a personal letter with thanks, addressed to the commander of the Soviet Fleet, expressing gratefulness for the Soviet help and collaboration during the German fleet operations in Norway, 1940.
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: September 20, 2012 08:02 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (PaulC @ September 20, 2012 05:11 am)
And somehow, using the same logic, you don't see your definition as too restrictive. I mean,dividing Europe into spheres of influence and coordinating to establish those spheres; swapping undesirables, sometimes your own citizens and supplying materials to belligerent Germany to wage war in Europe, to me that's a de facto alliance. Looking at Poland one could say it falls even under casus foederis, but on the aggressor stance. Same situation for Norway, when German navy used Murmansk as a base to conquer the far North.

I prefer the stricter casus foederis definition because it gives an alliance a degree of intensity/importance above all other forms of cooperation.

For what they did to Poland we already have terms we can use - coalition or simply a partitioning agreement.
The supplying of materials fell under trade agreements.
Basis Nord was certainly a deviation from strict neutrality, but it was nothing major.
All these things could at most turn Russia's position into friendly neutrality towards Germany.

The looser definition can create confusion.
I have to resort to an off-topic contemporary example. For example, although Russia opposes (often with very strong words and shows of force) NATO on certain issues (missile shield, NATO expansion, Middle East) and some NATO members perceive Russia as a competitor or threat, using the looser definition Russia has a de facto alliance with NATO (the 1997 Founding Act on Cooperation and Security, cooperation in Afghanistan, talk of a strategic partnership, trade with NATO countries, including weapons trade).
PM
Top
MMM
  Posted: September 02, 2013 02:09 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



RE: Glantz being a fraud and stuff like that:
How do we (Romanians which know a bit of WW2 history, to be more accurate) feel reading this phrase?
„Schobert's Eleventh Army penetrated Soviet defences, captured Iassy and reached the Prut river on the first day of action, while foiling counterattacks from” etc. etc. etc.
What would be more appropriate than to suppose there are some other mistakes as blatant as this one?
Does this „capturing Iassy” thing make him a fraud or a serious, well-researched historian? (hint: google these darn Iassy and Prut things and see ) :Pî

Later Edit: the phrase in question is to be found in Glantz - „Barbarossa - Hitler's invasion of Russia”, at page 53.

This post has been edited by MMM on September 02, 2013 02:11 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

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

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0331 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]