well it seams that...

the soviets prepared for crossing the Prut before the outbreak of the war:

here's the "evidence":

http://www.collectrussia.com/DISPITEMWINDO...W.HTM?ITEM=7992

nice item... isn't it? :roll:

:shock:

Very impressive! That Suvorov with the "ice-breaker" theory seems to have been right... Germany did a counter-attack in order to prevent a Soviet invasion on June 22th, 1941!

GREAT FIND! :keep:

Getu'

Getu... Only Rumania is the issue. :wink:

Does any of you speak Russian?

Using my scarse knowledge of Russian language, I'd translate the row on top of the books title (the underligned row in the upper part of the front page) to: "New (/updated?) iliustrated manual for the military colledge"

Is it possible to be only the latest version of a common book about the neighboring countrys military forces? I guess that in any military colledge the officers learn something about the neighboring countrys armys.




Oh, and a really interesting find indeed. Good job man !

it's portable short phrase book and guide intended for junior commanders and not an school book.

[quote]I guess that in any military colledge the officers learn something about the neighboring countrys armys. [/quote]

Yes, like:

- arata directia! (show me the way!)
- culca'te! (lie down!)
- mergi inaintea lui! (walk in front of him!)
- incet, nu fa galagie! (quiet, don't make any noise!)
- mergi mai repede! (walk more fast!)
- numeste satul! (name that village!)
- numeste orasul! (name that city!)
- daca fugi, trag! (if you'll run, i'll shoot!)

[quote]Is it possible to be only the latest version of a common book about the neighboring countrys military forces?[/quote]

this was almost funny Dr.V, but sorry... i'll sugest you to go to the library and start reading finnaly some real history and not that communist crap uve been teach in highscool before '89, and maybe still is. Becouse ure always starting whit false premises.

ps:
i'll sugest you to start whit the factbook: "Tragedia romanilor basarabeni". It can be found at my library.

[quote]this was almost funny Dr.V, but sorry... i'll sugest you to go to the library and start reading finnaly some real history and not that communist crap uve been teach in highscool before '89, and maybe still is. Becouse ure always starting whit false premises.

[/quote]

Well, seamns that I'm so uneducated that I'm starting to annoy people around here. Tough luck, that's me allright.

:guns:

For your information I studied in highschool far after '89, more precisely between '92 and '96. If you assume that in that time period the communists were still on power in Romania means that you still believe you're living in a communist era...

Also for your information I'd like to underlign that a sugestion is not eqivalent with a premess. I was talking very seriousely when I asked if there's any member that can read Russian, I am curious how exactly can be tranlated that piece of text I was refearing to. If I remember corectly I said "Is it possible ...?" It was a question, not a conclusion.

I can't express a conclusion about a book I only saw 3 pages of on a site. I guess you can't eighter. Jumping to conclusions is not a wise aproach when you confrunt new info. I'm a skeptic in nature and I dislike taking for granted something I didn't had the oportunity of analising farely.

About the idea that the Russians had in mind the posibility of attacking their neighbors... nothing new about that. The Russian empire (regardless of its name in various periods) always pushed to expand its territory. Maybe you are aware that Stalin was already making plans to attack Germany through Poland when operation Barbarossa was launched. From what I remember now Hitler outran him by only a few months. I'm sure that those plans included a detailed analise of the posibilitys offered by the smaller neighbor Romania. I never said that military manual was benign, just that it could have been done without a speciffic operation in mind, but only prepearing the officers for every opportunity they could get.

[quote]ps:
i'll sugest you to start whit the factbook: "Tragedia romanilor basarabeni". It can be found at my library[/quote]

If you'll bother mentioning the author too I might try looking for it. I'm open to widen my perspectives even thaugh I tend to avoid reading books that look at a matter from a sentimental point of view. A cold analisis is more likely to give me a more realistic idea, but if you believe that to be a good book I'll read it. Then I'll be able to tell you if my opinion on it coincides or not with yours.


P.S.: You may be older than me, but the agressive style in your replys is certainly not very polite and it won't score a stronger effect. You may also be wiser than me, but you did not prooved that with your message. You know, I too can be rude if all the other options fail, so please don't try testing my good manners further!

ok. Dr.V so be it: a commun russian - rumanian post evacuation of Bessarabia cooperation quide in military matters : )


wateva.. i'm 23
:cheers:

"agressive stile" = sorry, not what ive intended for. I'm not against persons, i'm against ideas.

to the forum:

1. my last post in this thread were not really neccesary... but i was something like "bored" :oops:
2. i'm not really against history is sometimes presented in some "old" books (like those from before 89) but think it will rather stick to the facts and not interpretations, caracterisations (like in us for an instance (quess, nowone's blaming the south), and all aspects should be revealed.
3. ex: i cannot understand why still the continuous blaming of the past 50 years for an instance in some books (have an highschool one from 94).

wateva not my bussines...

roll:

Actually the field of history is full of facts BUT is always open to interpretation which is why new theories are coming up. As a History teacher in New Jersey, I inform class about events and then have them research them and present what they found out. 9 out of 10 times they find a new idea which leads to new theories on events which we look into even further. We also have to remember that the victors of war write history.

Everybody agree here that the Soviet Union under Suvorov were preparing an attack against Germany and the Axis forces before Operation Barbaossa started. Other sources about that would be really appreciated.

QUOTE

Everybody agree here that the Soviet Union under Suvorov were preparing an attack against Germany and the Axis forces before Operation Barbaossa started. Other sources about that would be really appreciated.

No, not everybody. But I'm ready to change my mind if more evidence can be produced, of course.

Same here.
From what reviews I've read on Suvorov (usually from revisionist sources), the author simply focused on the Russian forces concentrated on the border and concluded an attack was imminent because of their concentration.
He also shows soviet weapons research and deduces the soviet aggressive intent.

I dont remember reading he had some kind of document proving an actual plan to attack.
Anyway, I dont see the point in that theory.
"The soviets were going to attack anyway so Germany preempted".
Well, unless solid evidence is found that the soviets were preparing for an attack before the germans did, history will remember the germans as the aggressors.
And even if evidence is found is some corner of soviet archive, somebody has to show that the germans had that kind of info at the time and they attacked in order to preempt an attack, not to destroy the USSR.
By the way in which the war was fought, the goal was not to eliminate the armed threat on the border but to take the USSR out completely... so...