|
Mortabis posted:So, does anyone take the World War II "Stalin wanted to strike first" theory of Victor Suvorov's Icebreaker seriously? I ask this question because actually I know the answer: someone does, and his name is Dr. Norman Davies, professor emeritus of University College London. A lot of that evidence could also be used to say Poland was about to attack Germany in 1939 because Poland also favored a frontier defense, but a better explanation is that political circumstances demanded a defense on the border to prevent Germany from just biting a chunk of border territory without a fight and then making a deal to keep what they took. That was a fear of both the Polish leadership and Stalin.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
I don't think that Stalin would have had the crazy balls to invade Germany. He was always a careful tactician both in politics and in war, not a risk taker like Hitler. All the wars that Stalin initiated were done deals, including the only war against a major power - and Japan was no longer a threat in August '45.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
you mean apart from the whole revolution thing, i'm assuming
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 11:02
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:So, does anyone take the World War II "Stalin wanted to strike first" theory of Victor Suvorov's Icebreaker seriously? I ask this question because actually I know the answer: someone does, and his name is Dr. Norman Davies, professor emeritus of University College London. What's his argument? That common sense tells that the "ex-corporal and his adventurers" were bound for more adventure and that Stalin must have known? There is enough material know about how the commanders of the frontier troops and the staff reacted to the attack. On the evening of the 22., after coming home from theather, where he learned about the attack, Pawlow reported the troop movements and the fire to Timoshenko in Moscow, Timoshenko told him that he should assemble the staff the next morning and that there might be some discomfort and that he shouldn't let the Germans provocate him. By the next time that Timoshenko calls at around 3.30, the 3rd Army at Grodno already had capitulated. It's comically how unprepared the Russians were, very few in a position of power expected war right now. The whole argument of Hitler preempting a strike of Stalin is usually the stuff that you hear from Nazi apologists, packed in "common sense" arguments. Tias, speaking of deserteurs that went over to warn the Russians, did you mean Alfred Liskow? There are some stories about his fate, one that he was shot later, but others and an article in the Prawda that he became a soldier in the Red Army. Ultimately it is not known what happened to him, and it seems that he died in 1942. There were a handful of others, but only one man from Berlin was shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
So a few weeks back I was doing some writeups on German bombs, and mainly dropped it because of the link I gave out to the online pdf for it, but I got my hands on the Japanese Explosive Ordnance book. Only thing is that it's Volume 2, which doesn't have an online copy readily available as far as I know. Long story short, the Japanese apparently had a tear gas round in 8mm and 9mm caliber and, according to the Technical Manual, would've been employed in a similar fashion as rifle grenades. They also had special purpose projectiles (Not sure what caliber, yet) that were sand-filled  .8mm and 9mm Tear Gas rounds posted:Remarks: The propelling case is rimless and made of brass. There is a tear-gas round, but specifications indicate that this is a relatively large missile and it is probably launched from the pistol somewhat in the manner of launching grenades from a rifle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:
That, and Stalin apologists who find "beaten to the draw by seconds" a better narrative than "completely and totally suckered."
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:So, does anyone take the World War II "Stalin wanted to strike first" theory of Victor Suvorov's Icebreaker seriously? I ask this question because actually I know the answer: someone does, and his name is Dr. Norman Davies, professor emeritus of University College London. Suvorov is a hack that wrote horseshit at a time when a) it would sell and b) nobody could prove otherwise. Consider this as one of his main arguments: the Red Army had a "uniquely offensive" road based attack tank that could load a squad of GULAG convicts and rush to Berlin at 100 kph (Suvorov cannot distinguish between maximum speed and average movement speed). His proof? A rear transmission compartment (I'm guessing the Renault FT is also a "uniquely offensive" tank) and the "A-7" index of the tank, the A naturally stood for Autobahn (A was the index for factory #183 products and did not cover a single vehicle capable of going that fast). Isaev has a whole book called Antisuvorov that explains why this guy shouldn't be allowed to touch pen to paper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
Yeah i wonder if suvorov would concoct a story about british designs on france based on the design of the cruiser tanks. It's ridiculous. I mean look britain has a historical claim on France.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
100 Years Ago The road to ANZAC Cove begins, as Sir Ian Hamilton starts to apply himself to the question of invading Gallipoli. Meanwhile, the great military thinker [sic] Lt Pickford of the 4th Ox & Bucks (accompanied by his comedy sidekick) conducts an important experiment in No Man's Land, strategically deploying a large gramophone to disturb the Boche's sleep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
I went to the Nagasaki Peace Park today. Very sobering experience. I managed to take pictures of ground zero, the Urakami Cathedral memorial and the Fountain of Peace, but I just let the rest of our group take pictures of the rest of it as I felt emotional for everything else. Tomorrow we're supposed to visit the Atomic Bomb Museum. Not that any of this is probably a huge thing to any of you, but I just wanted to give a shoutout as this is one of the few times I've actually gone to a very significant MilHist site.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
The stuff in Hiroshima is pretty galling. I would also warn anyone to never look at photos of the Tokyo firebombing if they have a weak stomach or aren't used to seeing stuff like that. It is really, really, really awful.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
I saw the Hiroshima museum back in 2005 and I still feel kind of hosed up over it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Suvorov is a hack that wrote horseshit at a time when a) it would sell and b) nobody could prove otherwise. Consider this as one of his main arguments: the Red Army had a "uniquely offensive" road based attack tank that could load a squad of GULAG convicts and rush to Berlin at 100 kph (Suvorov cannot distinguish between maximum speed and average movement speed). His proof? A rear transmission compartment (I'm guessing the Renault FT is also a "uniquely offensive" tank) and the "A-7" index of the tank, the A naturally stood for Autobahn (A was the index for factory #183 products and did not cover a single vehicle capable of going that fast). All of the language I quoted is Davies', not Suvorov's. The point of that post is that Norman Davies is not a hack or an amateur or a Nazi apologist, but in his survey of European history he cited Suvorov. It's interesting that what I would otherwise consider a decidedly mainstream book referenced him. P-Mack posted:That, and Stalin apologists who find "beaten to the draw by seconds" a better narrative than "completely and totally suckered." In addition the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is one of the more uncomfortable facts of the war for Russian nationalists and that does give them a convenient (if extremely flimsy) excuse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:They also had special purpose projectiles (Not sure what caliber, yet) that were sand-filled
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Putting out tanks that are on fire by shooting at them? You'd only get sand on the tank since it probably wouldn't penetrate anyway  Although I assume it might be practice shells.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
If your infantry was caught in crossfire in a place where there is no materials for filling sandbags with, you could deliver the sand by artillery?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:You'd only get sand on the tank since it probably wouldn't penetrate anyway ETA: presumably with water-shells so you can just wash the sand away! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:That's fine. You just bury it and dig it out later. Don't forget the shells with dehydrated food and/or rice 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:So, does anyone take the World War II "Stalin wanted to strike first" theory of Victor Suvorov's Icebreaker seriously? I ask this question because actually I know the answer: someone does, and his name is Dr. Norman Davies, professor emeritus of University College London. Not a single person takes Suvorov seriously - he's about as respected as that guy who says there was no such thing as the Schlieffen Plan - so the idea that Norman Davies actually cited it is pretty depressing. Hopefully it's just a old book, written before Suvorov's article was thoroughly torn to pieces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 17:11
|
|
Nenonen posted:If your infantry was caught in crossfire in a place where there is no materials for filling sandbags with, you could deliver the sand by artillery? Now I'm picturing two terrified Japanese soldiers trying to open and hold onto a hemp sack for a crude sandbag while a Ha-Go fires at it, and the sack of course ripping from their hands.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:What's his argument? That common sense tells that the "ex-corporal and his adventurers" were bound for more adventure and that Stalin must have known? There is enough material know about how the commanders of the frontier troops and the staff reacted to the attack. On the evening of the 22., after coming home from theather, where he learned about the attack, Pawlow reported the troop movements and the fire to Timoshenko in Moscow, Timoshenko told him that he should assemble the staff the next morning and that there might be some discomfort and that he shouldn't let the Germans provocate him. By the next time that Timoshenko calls at around 3.30, the 3rd Army at Grodno already had capitulated. It's comically how unprepared the Russians were, very few in a position of power expected war right now. I'm not sure. I'll try to prod through my milhist library later tonight, see if I can find out where I saw it (I think it was Beevors World War 2).
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Xotl posted:Not a single person takes Suvorov seriously - he's about as respected as that guy who says there was no such thing as the Schlieffen Plan - so the idea that Norman Davies actually cited it is pretty depressing. Hopefully it's just a old book, written before Suvorov's article was thoroughly torn to pieces. Published in 1996. ISBN 0-06-097468-0. VVVV there was probably someone competent among the thousands of Polish officers executed in the Katyn massacre. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Can you guys bring up some good examples of competent generals/officers who got screwed over after losing a war? I don't mean guys getting hanged for crimes against humanities because they had it coming, or soldiers of what was considered a rebel army. More like legitimate states warring against each other, a soldier doing his job effectively (maybe TOO effectively), ultimately losing, and the winning side just holding a massive grudge against him/her and making their lives miserable (or ending it.) I know Stalin did this to some of his own generals instead of his opposition's (a blurred line in his mind) but that doesn't count!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Animal posted:Can you guys bring up some good examples of competent generals/officers who got screwed over after losing a war? I don't mean guys getting hanged for crimes against humanities because they had it coming, or soldiers of what was considered a rebel army. More like legitimate states warring against each other, a soldier doing his job effectively (maybe TOO effectively), ultimately losing, and the winning side just holding a massive grudge against him/her and making their lives miserable (or ending it.) Napoleon?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Norman Davies is amazing, but he's got a little anti-Soviet bias, which is a condition that naturally results from knowing the slightest bit of Polish history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Napoleon? Yeah but he was the head of state, which is fair game as far as retribution for a war, not just a soldier doing his duty. Plus he started a huge war of aggression. I'm thinking of Hannibal, though the Romans probably had legitimate reasons to consider him a war criminal, and EVERYTHING was personal back then. And it was a war of annihilation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Fabius Maximus Cuncator. A good general who got a bad rap. Although people appreciated him eventually.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Animal posted:Can you guys bring up some good examples of competent generals/officers who got screwed over after losing a war? I don't mean guys getting hanged for crimes against humanities because they had it coming, or soldiers of what was considered a rebel army. More like legitimate states warring against each other, a soldier doing his job effectively (maybe TOO effectively), ultimately losing, and the winning side just holding a massive grudge against him/her and making their lives miserable (or ending it.) Masharu Homma might qualify. You can debate at lenght wether (and on what points and to what sentence) he would have been convicted by the Allied War Crimes Commission, but that's kinda moot. Because Doug MacArthur held a huge enough grudge over losing the Philippines to Homma that he had him transferred over, set up an unashamed kangaroo court and then had it convict and execute Homma out of hand. Dougout Doug was a huge, petty rear end in a top hat is all I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Animal posted:I'm thinking of Hannibal, though the Romans probably had legitimate reasons to consider him a war criminal, and EVERYTHING was personal back then. And it was a war of annihilation. Hannibal was a political leader as well, far too important to be left running around. Also I'm not sure why Romans would have considered Hannibal a war criminal - criminal by what jurisdiction? I'm not really sure if your question can be answered satisfactorily. For the most part of history victors have had millions of good reasons to cut the throats of captured enemy commanders because the concept of career officers with no political strings attached existed for only a brief time. Magnanimity toward a defeated enemy who is still hostile to you could have resulted in him just going back home and raising another army or leading a peasant rebellion. Eg. in Katyn the NKVD executed, by Wikipedia, an admiral, two generals, 24 colonels, 79 lieutenant colonels, 258 majors, 654 captains, 17 naval captains and 3420 non-commissioned officers. That's a lot of officers and NCOs, imagine what the Home Army could have done with them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Also I'm not sure why Romans would have considered Hannibal a war criminal - criminal by what jurisdiction? I'm only assuming, because they pictured him a monster, and the Romans were grudge holders to the extreme. To them he was not just an enemy general he was the boogeyman. quote:in Katyn the NKVD executed, by Wikipedia, an admiral, two generals, 24 colonels, 79 lieutenant colonels, 258 majors, 654 captains, 17 naval captains and 3420 non-commissioned officers. That's a lot of officers and NCOs, imagine what the Home Army could have done with them.  Magni posted:Masharu Homma might qualify. You can debate at lenght wether (and on what points and to what sentence) he would have been convicted by the Allied War Crimes Commission, but that's kinda moot. Bataan Death March 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Fabius Maximus Cuncator. A good general who got a bad rap. Technically Rome did win though, so they Carthage didn't get a chance to crap on him. Hell, IIRC, the only person more irritated than the Romans with his strategy was Hannibal. I would imagine as a matter of course that a successful, yet losing, general would usually get the screws turned against them. Flipping it around, when didn't it happen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Animal posted:Can you guys bring up some good examples of competent generals/officers who got screwed over after losing a war? I don't mean guys getting hanged for crimes against humanities because they had it coming, or soldiers of what was considered a rebel army. More like legitimate states warring against each other, a soldier doing his job effectively (maybe TOO effectively), ultimately losing, and the winning side just holding a massive grudge against him/her and making their lives miserable (or ending it.) I suggest as one answer "Almost anybody particularly important in an area annexed by Rome in war," given that standard Roman practice was to parade the defeated leaders of their enemies before Roman citizens before (usually) screwing them over somehow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Yeah, nation states and heads of states could be huge dicks back then. Crassus comes to mind as another example, but then again he wasn't exactly competent, and he was technically a head of state (of a state with three heads). More contemporary examples would probably be more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Animal posted:Bataan Death March As I said, you can argue (and rightly, imo) that Homma deserved to be put before the Allied War Crimes Commission. Getting put before a kangaroo court MacArthur drummed up specifically to just up and off him, however, was just plain petty revenge and him getting hosed for having the temerity to beat Dugout Doug.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Hannibal was a political leader as well, far too important to be left running around. Also I'm not sure why Romans would have considered Hannibal a war criminal - criminal by what jurisdiction? Hannibal was accused of many atrocities and barbarities during the Second Punic War (Livy in particular has many complaints to levy against him), and would surely have been brought before a Roman court and crucified as a war criminal and an enemy of the state if he hadn't poisoned himself when they eventually cornered him. In particular, the Romans objected to his harsh treatment of war prisoners and his general cruelties to the Roman population in the areas that he occupied. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Some of Napoleon's generals come to mind but they were regarded as traitors - Murat, for example, or Ney. Here is a Nazi Example and an incomplete list.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Does Osama bin Laden count? But more seriously, I think modern examples of people offed specifically for being too good a general is probably going to be real rare because modern warfare doesn't rely so much on lone generals of brilliant talent as it does on sheer industrial power. Killing any one general in particular just doesn't matter too much as long as the rest of the enemy generals are reasonably competent and well-trained enough to manage the rest of the army. Now, killing off generals for various POLITICAL reasons, on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:18
|
|
Tomn posted:Does Osama bin Laden count? Depends if a general is of political or doctrinal importance. Petraeus being killed would have had a major impact.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Some of Napoleon's generals come to mind but they were regarded as traitors - Murat, for example, or Ney. Jodl, Kaltenbrunner, Löhr et al. on the same list as the men of the 20th July. I'm sure they'd appreciate this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
Xotl posted:he's about as respected as that guy who says there was no such thing as the Schlieffen Plan Go back, lets talk about this. I've heard that argument (that the Schlieffen Plan had no real basis in reality, and it wasn't a war plan to actually be followed, but more of a budget sell), but I can't recall the source, though I don't recall the author being particularly crazy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 20:38
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.