Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
WorldWar2.ro Forum > Reviews & Bookstore > Mark Solonin - The cask and the hoops |
Posted by: MMM September 08, 2012 06:43 pm |
I hope I can write a review for this book - more precisely, for the Romanian version of it, edited by Polirom and translated by a certain Maria Sirghi. First of all, the author's view is different from Suvorov's theories, although not in a fundamental way. Whereas Suvorov just tries to proove the fact that USSR was preparing for an aggresive move towards Nazi Germany, Solonin (which, by the way, seems to be a historian with "history studies" ) not only does that by showing the disposition of Soviet troops at the borders, but explains with data and numbers some stuff: what troops, how many / how ready / how complete, who were the commanders, how did they fight etc. What makes the book interesting (IMO) is the step-by step analysis of the fighting of some Red Army Mechanized Corps in the first days of the war. The style of narration is attractive, at least for the instructed reader (familiarized with the Eastern Front actions) and the maps are of real help when trying to follow the routes of attackers and defenders. A really weak spot of the book is the way in which it was translated and some military terms and names were "masacred", to put it in a mild tone: the word "efreitor" kept appearing in the book; perhaps it is the Russian version of the German "Gefreiter", aka Corporal; perhaps it is just a derogatory term; also, Franz Halder was reffered to as "Halter" a couple of times; Hoth became Gott and there were a couple more of gags like those; annoying, to say the least. I hope the next book will benefit from a better translation, as some of Suvorov's books do! (translated by Radu Părpăuţă) |
Posted by: Victor September 09, 2012 06:53 am |
My impression after reading it is that Solonin does not make a good case on the Suvorov theory. Most of the effort is put in proving that the Soviet state had on paper the means to defend itself against the German attack (contrary to the image that Soviet propaganda has apparently fed to Soviet citizens post war, but nothing new to us) and that the Red Army was actually a colossus with clay feet, something which the much booed David Glantz (booed by the Suvorov fans that is) has already done. If any, in my opinion, his book only goes to strengthen the image put forward by Glantz in "Stumbling Colossus". Although an educated historian apparently, the writing style of Solonin draws closer to that of Suvorov than to a cold history book, which is regrettable. The translation/publishing errors were indeed annoying given the price paid for the book. For that money Polirom should have done a cleaner job. |
Posted by: MMM September 09, 2012 08:15 am |
Indeed, the style is not very "objective", but it's more objective than Suvorov's - which is a good start! I haven't read Glantz yet, although I've read Gorodetsky (another anti-Suvorov writer) and I can pretty much see the sides in this fight of authors... Anyway, the final chapters are really interesting, at least the "When did the patriotic war really start" and "Cask and hoops" ones! All in all, after reading also the chapters on solonin.org, I'm waiting for some other books written by him! |
Posted by: guina September 09, 2012 11:26 am |
Mark Solonin was educated as an aeronauticl enginier,not as a historian. |
Posted by: MMM September 09, 2012 11:27 am |
Then WHY is he assuming this "title"? Just because he's writing history books? |
Posted by: guina September 09, 2012 12:42 pm |
Well,here you got to a point that is hotly debated in russian historical media,and not only there.Who is a historian,the guy that finished a third rate historical institute and teaches,god knows what,in a remote village or the one that spends thousands of hours in TsAMO Podolsk ( Central military archives of Russian army) The history "educated" guys argue that only they can hold the title of "historian " and the rest are,in the best case "diletant" historians and the latter argue that only the quality (mainly the quality and volume of research ) of their work defines who is a historian.Thinking of our historians of the 50'( See Roler ) I incine to the second opinion,but i'm not a "historian". BTW,as a result of this debate there is a new historical magazine on russian market called "DILETANT" http://www.diletant.ru/journal/ Quite interesting,as a matter of fact . all the best,Dan |
Posted by: MMM September 09, 2012 12:51 pm |
The guy who is researching in the archives is a researcher, as it is in Romania as well; the guy who teaches History is a teacher and the guy who, having studied history, is writing historical studies (preferably based on archive research) which are acknowledged by his peers as such, is a historian. I see no big issue here... BTW, although I'm trying to finish my PHD about WW2, I'm a teacher of English... and I'll never call myself a "historian"! Back to Solonin: indeed, much like Suvorov, the archive research seems to have led to very troublesome results, which are not welcomed by the "establishment"; however, it is interesting to read what both sides are "throwing on the market". Much later edit: Roller himself was NOT a historian, because he did not have studies in this area! |
Posted by: guina September 09, 2012 01:08 pm |
I agree with you,especially with your last lines. |
Posted by: Radub September 09, 2012 01:16 pm |
In Romania we had "serious historians", members of the "Academy of Sciences", revered in their field, honoured with medals and awards, feared by students, who wrote shockingly bad and stupid stuff! These are the people who wrote our history books and excised the entire period from 41 to 44 from Romanians' minds. So, are these guys "historians"? Is the stuff they wrote "history"? They are actually more dangerous than "dilletants". Those historians actually caused clear and quantifiable harm. They created generations of ill-informed people. And I am willing to bet that these are the people who call themselves "serious historians" and look dow their noses at "dilletants" are such dinosaurs. History is very subjective. Ten people watching the same event will have ten versions. The best way to understand the event is to read all 10 accounts. Radu |
Posted by: guina September 09, 2012 01:27 pm |
100% agree. |
Posted by: MMM September 09, 2012 03:40 pm | ||
1. Practically we didn't have "history books" between 1948-1989, because everything was altered in order to fit the new concepts (such as fight among classes - "lupta de clasă") and it was quite difficult to discern the grain of truth - where it was! 2. If one asks them, yes/yes. If one checks for himself and reads some other (better-documented) oppinion, no/no; they're just mercenaries and their writing is propaganda. 3. And the process continues, as long as many (too many) of today's "accepted historians" are politically-oriented (couldn't find a milder term) 4. Indeed - and at the faculties of History there was a course called "Istoriography" and another one called "Introduction to History", in which the students were taught some basic notions; yet, the professors should have "kept by the book" themselves and the students should have acquired those notions, but unfortunately this rarely happened. Now back to Solonin: the main fact from his writings is the confirmation of USSR's aggresive plans - as if someone who read the history from 23.08.1939 (the "Pact") until the annexations (Poland, Finland, Baltic States, Romania) didn't see the aggresive behaviour... |
Posted by: MMM September 09, 2012 07:11 pm |
Re: the problems of history-writing in Romania: see the book above (unfortunately, although it is written in Romanian and printed in Romania, it wasn't spared of typos...) |
Posted by: MMM September 13, 2012 07:51 pm |
Mr. Solonin is mentioned - and even praised - in one of Suvorov's books, "The Last Republic II: The Holy Cause". It is another book, though. "All the airfields seemed asleep"... Interesting that in "The Cask and the Hoops", Solonin expresses a rather negative oppinion on Suvorov's writings! |
Posted by: PaulC September 14, 2012 07:27 pm | ||
How isn't he making a good case for Suvorov when a good portion of the book explains in detail the offensive plans and how the Red Army deployed accordingly, being days away from unleashing its own attack ? Did you actually read it or only skipped through it ? Suvorov's central theme is this : 1. Communism cannot coexist with any other system , its leaders were painfully aware of this, and can spread only due to chaos, destruction and anarchy 2. WW2 was initiated by Stalin's aggressive moves to destabilize Europe ( help Hitler get in power, help Germany rearm, supply it with needed materials, give it a green light to invade Poland ) 3. Once the "capitalist countries" were on the brink of collapse, the Soviet Union will enter the war and tilt the balance in its favor ( sovietize Europe ). Nobody refuted Suvorov on this. Everybody is dragging the discussion into technicalities - they couldn't attack in 1941 because they didn't have enough trucks, the tanks had few motor hours, they lacked AP shells, whatever. Exactly what you do here by mentioning Glantz ( who by the way will be exposed as a FRAUD, it's only a mater of time, Solonin debunked a lot of the crap Glantz was spewing under the patronage of the Russian Ministry of Defense ). You look at post June 22 actions and declare because of this lame display, they couldn't attack. Which is as completely wrong and devoid of any logic since it implies a-temporal causality. Stalin couldn't attack, because he wasn't prepared to attack, but this was realized only after he was attacked. Any light-bulbs blinking at the stupidity of this ? When Stalin decided to industrialize the Soviet Union, to prepare the largest weapons industry in the world, to bring the citizens of the riches country in the world to cannibalism just for building more weapons that the rest of the world combined ( and for a noble purpose, to export cannibalism in the rest of the world ) he couldn't have possibly known his monster armies might be outdone by the Wehrmacht by 2 weeks and that his own subjects might be less than enthusiastic in defending the savage and brutal regime that terrorized them. Everything that happened after June 22 has no impact on the validity of Suvorov's thesis simply because there isn't any relation between post June 22 combat performance and pre June 22 actions and deployments. Everybody who studied the pre-June 22 situation on the Eastern front knows very well that Soviet actions were dictated by their own plans and schedules and weren't linked to the German ones. The soviets were going ahead with their preparations IGNORING the German buildup. Solonin explicitly mentions this. And Solonin isn't negative about Suvorov; that's only misconception of one who analyzed Suvorov superficially. Solonin reinforces Suvorov's points by providing actual data, both absolute and in %. What Suvorov guessed, Solonin proves. And you know why Suvorov is right ? Because ever since he published his books in the '80s and early '90s, his theory is reinforced by new data that is discovered. Who ever is doing research knows that the first sign you're on the right path is when new data points fit like a glove in the model. Everything that was discovered in the '90s and the last 12 years reinforces Suvorov's theory and dispels the web of lies and false myths propagated by the soviets in the last 60 years. Solonin brings a new cause in the defeat, which is psychological in nature. Suvorov focused on offensive deployment, lack of maps, lack of plans and in general the one-sided preparation that the Soviet Union undertook. Solonin goes one step further and proves that apart from all above, the disaster of 1941 was caused for the simply reason that the people of the Soviet Union refused to defend the criminal regime that turned their life into hell. The invasion meant the emblems of the criminal state, the communist party and the NKVD fled. The population felt released. Soldiers saw fear and confusion in the eyes of the commissars and officers and turned against them. And this meant the disintegration of the active Red Army. It wasn't the lack of equipment, they had more than the world combined, nor the quality, they had the best in everything. When they had THE OPTION to choose between fighting for a criminal regime and deserting they picked the second option. The German attack gave them something they did not have before : the liberty to choose what path to take. Before that their options were simple : do as told or get an NKVD Nagant 7,62mm in the back of the head. |
Posted by: MMM September 15, 2012 01:08 pm |
@PaulC: +1! Really, now, does Glantz's theory is a fraud? I haven't read it yet, so I couldn't say... About the Soviet actions pre-22.06.41, they actually were linked with the German ones: they didn't sovietize the Baltic states and Bessarabia until France was out of the game. Re: Suvorov and Solonin are right: as long as the interested parties (Russia, Glantz, Gorodetsky, whoever) do NOT show up with some solid arguments, well... tough luck! |
Posted by: Victor September 15, 2012 05:49 pm | ||
Why do you claim Glantz has to come up with solid arguments when you yourself stated that did not read his book? How do you know he didn't? |
Posted by: Victor September 15, 2012 05:54 pm | ||
Please list all the "Glantz crap" Solonin debunked and do so by sparing me the usual theatrics in your posts. |
Posted by: MMM September 15, 2012 06:55 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)? |
Posted by: PaulC September 15, 2012 07:54 pm | ||||
Glantz doesn't have a theory to promote, he's promoted himself as the "details" man. He floods you with huge amounts of data, that each T34 had 5 screws missing, that BT tanks had 71 hours of motor life left, that each platoon had 13% of the radios needed, 70% of the boots, 24% of the ammo, etc ,etc. His second "expertise" is to uncover so called "forgotten battles". Apparently, the Eastern front is full of large battles that went wrong on both sides and are hidden under the carpet. Huge soviet offensives like operation Mars that blasts away Zhukov's professionalism and competence. Why I'm saying he's a fraud ? Because he writes in disparaging terms of the Red Army, portrays them as a bunch of imbeciles and being the pinnacle of incompetence ( as if all the incompetence of the world gathered there ). And you know from where he has those juicy details ? From the Ministry of Defense in Russia. He boasts about his trips in Russia and how he is shown previously classified material. And what for ? To prove the Russians are incompetent. And what is the Ministry of Defense saying ? " Very good, comrade Glantz. Come next year also, we might have some more archives for you." To anyone with half a brain, this should sound suspicious. An american researcher is invited by the Ministry of Defense in Russia and is given a wealth of numbers and percentages. No official Russian historian has that amount of details. Their books seem stuck in the '50s, each copying from the previous. To them, the Red Army still had 1800 tanks at the beginning of Barbarossa. The new generation of Russian historians, almost all amateur, have used the cracks in the system to get juicy details too. Solonin, Melthiukov don't stand Glantz. And is easy to see why, their story is totally different an inline with Suvorov. Btw, I wonder if somebody would go to the French Defense Ministry and ask access to the archives for a book where he intends to prove the French army was incompetent and lazy. He would be deported in 24h from the country. A simple example why Glantz is a fraud, he's famous data about the reliability of the Red Army tanks. "29% need rebuild and 44% major overhaul" - that's 73% of the soviet tanks being inoperable on June 1st. But is it really so ? Let's see what Solonin says :
Coming back to your post, regarding pre-June 22, I'm referring to the 3-4 months before when both the Red Army ( which started first ) and the Wehrmacht were deploying for their jump of positions in the bulges pinpointing towards the enemy. |
Posted by: PaulC September 15, 2012 07:58 pm | ||||
By coincidence, already did that in the previous post regarding tank availability. |
Posted by: PaulC September 15, 2012 08:11 pm | ||||
He;s not really apologetic, he's a few words short of calling the Red Army a rabble ( o gloata de neispraviti ). His books follow the party line, not deviating 1" from it. Which is funny since the data and his conclusions are most of the time going head to head. I will post you 2 user reviews from the Amazon since they capture exactly what I mean.
|
Posted by: Dénes September 16, 2012 06:59 am |
Interesting comments from Amazon.com. Thanks for posting. Gen. Dénes |
Posted by: MMM September 16, 2012 08:06 am | ||
Yeah... so it's highly controversed and expensive! So I won't buy it any time soon... |
Posted by: Imperialist September 16, 2012 02:50 pm | ||||
Just because Glantz doesn't engage in speculation like Suvorov doesn't mean he's towing "the party line". In regard to that 2nd review, we know why Hitler attacked Russia and we even know when he took the decision to do so. His decision had nothing to do with Soviet troops massing on the border or with a possible Soviet invasion in 1941. So the attempt to link Suvorov's theory to Hitler's publicly professed reasons for Barbarossa only shows the subconscious mental mechanisms of some of Suvorov's biggest fans. |
Posted by: MMM September 16, 2012 04:15 pm | ||
Hitler's decision was taken because of the aggresive behaviour of USSR. I do NOT think that Hitler wanted to attack USSR in 1939 or prior to that... only after doing business directly with them he got the idea that they (aka Stalin, Molotov etc.) could be even more ruthless and aggresive than himself. It is, however, very suspicious that the very German generals which trained in the USSR in the 20's and early 30's, have not considered the Russian tanks worth a damn, nor the Russian production capabilities! I mean, Untermensch, but if you do see their achievements, why would you (Hitler and his henchmen) not try to surpass that? |
Posted by: Victor September 16, 2012 05:30 pm | ||
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. |
Posted by: PaulC September 16, 2012 06:06 pm | ||||||||||||
I'm sure he'd give anything to find such a big fish like what Suvorov caught. But such opportunities come and go once in a lifetime and all he can do is to play the old theme and crush the readers with enormous amount of figures and percentages. With no beginning and no end. He can't engage in speculation. At best he can memorize something and repeat it to you. Suvorov is a thrill to read because you notice from the very beginning the guy is creative and has an incredible critical thinking. He's training in the GRU also becomes apparent for attention to detail. Glantz doesn't posses that. Instead of critical thinking all he can do is to criticize everything.
Who is we ?
Why and when ?
You mean the reasons proven by the soviet deployment ?
I dare you to find a single lie in the reasons expressed by Ribbentrop. |
Posted by: Victor September 16, 2012 06:32 pm | ||||||||
We already discussed this once, but I will repeat the answer. First of all, the actual quote is:
(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. 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. 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". 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. 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
"A lot" means more than one. You also claim that Glantz has portrayed the Red Army :
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. |
Posted by: Radub September 16, 2012 07:44 pm | ||
This simply makes no sense. So what if a country opened its archives? Who made it a rule that unless one writes "nicely" about the "helphul country" that makes one a "fraud"? What if Germany opened their archives to a historian? Would you call a "fraud" any such historian who did not write "nicely" about Hitler's Germany? The truth has nothing to do with "being nice". We mentioned above how Romania was blighted by "rubbish historians" who kissed the behind of whoever was nice to them. Radu |
Posted by: Imperialist September 16, 2012 08:00 pm | ||
@MM & PaulC Hitler made his mind up to attack Russia after conquering France, in 1940. His decision was geostrategic, not determined by Soviet deployment of forces. The extent of which German intelligence had no clue about anyway. The very existance of numerous Soviet divisions was a big problem for Germany. 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. That is why Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. 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. p.s. That doesn't mean they don't have a grain of truth. But they're not telling the whole story. They're just an excuse, not the core reasons. |
Posted by: PaulC September 17, 2012 11:07 am | ||||||||||||||||||||
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.
I wish you had used the same principles in the past. Remembe what you said :
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.
Division level would mean they could do the repairs in the field.
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 ?
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
I've read When Titans Clashed, Mars, Operation Barbarossa, Kursk about post June 22 1941 performance. Doesn't change my view. |
Posted by: PaulC September 17, 2012 11:42 am | ||||||||||||||
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.
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 ?
They saw only the 1st strategic echelon.
Isn't this a contradiction to what you claim above ?
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.
I think he knew better and he expressed it himself why.
Who's talking about PR ? I'm talking about official internal documents and discussions, not for public consumption. |
Posted by: MMM September 17, 2012 05:19 pm | ||||
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": http://writersofhistory.com/?p=45 I suppose you do have the "Stumbling Colossus" and agree to it? But we're going off-topic... |
Posted by: Imperialist September 17, 2012 07:31 pm | ||||||||
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.
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.
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. |
Posted by: Florin September 19, 2012 04:22 am | ||
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. |
Posted by: MMM September 19, 2012 09:14 am | ||
... 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"! |
Posted by: Florin September 19, 2012 06:39 pm | ||||
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 ! 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. |
Posted by: 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. |
Posted by: MMM September 19, 2012 08:17 pm | ||
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? 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... |
Posted by: Florin September 19, 2012 10:03 pm | ||||
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. |
Posted by: Imperialist September 19, 2012 10:33 pm | ||
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. |
Posted by: 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. |
Posted by: Florin September 20, 2012 05:20 am | ||
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. |
Posted by: Imperialist September 20, 2012 08:02 am | ||
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). |
Posted by: MMM September 02, 2013 02:09 pm |
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 ) î Later Edit: the phrase in question is to be found in Glantz - „Barbarossa - Hitler's invasion of Russia”, at page 53. |