Suvorov books, ww-2

Pokryshkin was the exception rather than the rule within the VVS, but he was himself shot down in a MiG-3 in the early months of the war and barely evaded capture by the Romanian infantry advancing towards Odessa.

The fact that the MiG-3 eventually was retreated from service with the front aviation is a clear indication of how unsuited it was for this type of warfare.

All fighter aircraft eventually are.
The mig shared the same engine with the IL-2 and PE -2, in 1942 the choice was obvious.
( post edited in order not to create a new one.)

This post has been edited by osutacincizecisidoi on September 03, 2010 12:32 pm

Please try to address all of the points into one post, the topic is getting unnecessarily long in number of posts.

According my information it should be about :
in working condition - 173
and broken - 8

Look up
149 IAP/ 64 IAD (149 fighter regiment / 64 air division).

Yes, Sir!!
But It was just from August, when the Battle for Bessarabie was over. And pilots of this unit just started training for MiG-3, they began war on I-16 & I-153. And before war it was unit of OKVO, not Odessa MD...

interesting , and your source is ?

Sorry that jump into your discussion,

You can find that data in the works of notet russian aviation historian Dmitry Hazanov.
See also historians Alexei Stepanov,Vladimir Kondratiev,Dmitry Zaharov,Mark Solonin,etc.

I'm a history and geopolitics enthusiast myself and I've read Suvorov's books. IMO, his presentation is the only one which makes sense and explains what happened in the pre-war years and summer 1941. There is no other explanation except the official one which is full of contradictions ( Stalin is afraid of Germany, but he destroys the neutral countries in between them instead of supporting them; he doesn't believe in the German attack, but the bulk of the Red Army and 2000 airfields are located in a 250km stretch from the border , some airfields were 800m from the German border; ).

The official history never presented any plans whatsoever, they say Suvorov is wrong and there are no plans for attack, however they can't show any for defense either. Somehow, the Red Army was the only army in the world without any plans whatsoever.

I've read also the books of his detractors. What's so nice about the soviet lack of preparation theory is that it's always one sided. Example : VVS availability of front line units is only 70% , the remaining 30% in need of repairs. Is it good ? Is it bad ? That's a nice propoganda trick the soviet school is so fond of. Without comparison (or by false comparisons ) , you can make everything look bad.
The moment you do the comparison everything falls apart.

60% working soviet tanks out of 15000 is far more than 75% working german tanks out of 3400. Somehow, the later were ready for attack, the former were totally incapable.

There are 2 options on the table : either accept Suvorov's theory and everything starts to match or go on believing the irrational contradictions of the official history who's central theme is that the russians were blithering idiots.

A lot can be said of Stalin and his henchmen, but they were no idiots. The idiots were cleansed in 1936-1939.

After the collapse of France and the eviction of Britain from the continent there was no other potential threat for the USSR in Europe but Germany. The only thing standing between peaceful relations and war was a piece of paper - the non-aggression treaty. And it was well known that no piece of paper would stop Hitler from something. Thus, it was logical for the USSR to concentrate the bulk of its forces in the West.

However I don't think Stalin was in a hurry to attack in 1941.

Who needed that piece of paper ? Stalin or Hitler ? The answer is obvious, being laid out crystal clear in Stalin's august 19 1939 speech to the Politburo

Stalin had forseen the possibility of a German victory 1 year before, and it was something he desired. Let me emphasize this : Stalin wanted Germany to crush France and Britain and offered whatever strategic materials Germany needed to accomplish this goal.
Someone who does such a thing isn't someone that is afraid of Germany, but one who is actually pulling the strings.

Stalin laid out his vision in the august 19 1939 speech to the politburo. The speech leaked out to the french espionage through Bulgarian communist participants and parts of it appeared as a manifesto sent to English and french communists explaining the rationale behind the paradoxical and apparently illogical pact between mortal enemies, Nazism and Communist ideologies. For 50 years, the communists and all the copy/paste historians of the west declared there was no meeting on august 19 and the speech was a fraud. Now they accept there was a meeting. Now, they found traces of the speech. Probably in 2-5 years they will find the notes in some deep underground bunker.

The change in policy on August 19 was brutal. The august 19 meeting had the purpose of explaining to the soviet leadership the future direction and also the decision to start the covert mobilization of the Red Army was taken. It led directly to the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and allowed Germany a free hand to start the war.

Hitler was no fool, he realized the danger :

[/B]

This post has been edited by PaulC on April 20, 2012 06:18 pm

I think you misread that Stalin speech (provided it is true).

It is nothing but a presentation of options, analysis of several possible outcomes (not solely a German victory as you say) and justification of the choice made. Stalin had to pitch to his listeners a very controversial change in policy and to make it clear how such a change would significantly benefit the USSR, communism and the world revolution. One can even see the parts in which he overstates his case.

Anyway, I don't see what this has to do with Suvorov. The problem with Suvorov is his claim that the USSR planned to attack Germany in the summer of 1941.

p.s. Talking of documents and archives, did the Western archives reveal what were the top secret negotiations that the Western envoys had with Stalin in Moscow in August 1939?

Why is that a problem, historically speaking? I am not talking about "Suvorov", but about the statement.

Gen. Dénes

Stalin overstates his case ? Let's look what happened :

-the pact is signed - check
-Germany invades Poland - check
-France and England declare war on Germany - check ( surprisingly, comrade Stalin did not tell Hitler about this tiny little fact, leaving the Fuhrer speechless when the war declaration was presented to him on Sept 3. His " What do we do now ?" tell us everything about the scope of his plans and how prepared he was for this turn of events. But the war weary, half "idiot", comrade Stalin was grinning behind his mustache. Things were going perfectly as he wanted. No wonder he shouted " I cheated Hitler, I did it" after the pact was signed. FYI, Stalin's signature on the map of Europe was 58cm IIRC . That's the mark of someone who is about to explode of enthusiasm and hop around the room in one leg singing)




Btw, this is how the newspapers at the time, early September, presented the pact


Totally different from the bullshit we were fed for 60 years : Stalin was afraid and with his pants down tried to buy time. Does the cartoon look as Stalin was afraid and trying to buy time ?

-the war starts to wear the combatants - -check ( the naval war starts to pick up, new fronts are opened, Norway )
- Stalin supplies Germany with what they need ( oil, rubber, alloy metals, wheat,etc )- check
-Germany attacks France and England - check ( the war is total )


While all this happens, the Red Army triples in size, industry is put on a war footing. Like Stalin said we could plan the opportune time for us to enter the war , by that he doesn't mean getting attacked by Germany. Since no other foe was in front of him, the phrase can only be translated as "we will attack at the opportune moment ". When was the opportune moment ? 1941. Why ? Because the massive draft of 1939 meant that by September 1st 1941, you needed to demobilize the millions called for the 2 year service.

The first to say that were the German High Command. Simply being nazis and having commited all the crimes they did, from a historical POV that doesn't imply they were lying. It's a non-sequitur, one's crimes and brutality do not imply he is lying. But of course, appealing to emotions and logical fallacies is perfectly adequate, God forbid someone says " well , they were right ". It's simply not politically correct.
After the German, there were the soviet officers in captivity like Vlasov. After them were soviet intelligence defectors of the '40s and '50s.
Suvorov only made the case in the '80s and he put together the whole picture ( the World Revolution explained, the interwar years with german-soviet agreements to build military bases in the SU, the industrialization that gave the SU in the shortest time possible the largest armaments industry the world has seen , the purges to get rid the Army of the civil war butchers and comissars ( incompetent and nobody would fight for them ), the pact, the secret mobilization, the transfer to the borders and last but not least the start of the war). He put everything in chronological order and explained the cause-effect of each actions and how the interlinked to support the goal. No other author on the Soviet Union, either russian or foreign, did that. 99% took for granted the official version which is like swiss cheese, full of holes. ( how come Stalin did not prepare for war, yet, his advantage in weapons like planes, tanks, guns, submarins is like 3-1, 4-1, 2-1, 1-1 vs. the entire world, not just Germany. No answer. Why were the soviet army units and HQs moved to close to the border in non-defensible positions ? No answer. Why were 2000 airfields built in a 250km belt from the border ? No answer. Why didn't the Red Army had no plans and no maps on fighting on their own territory ? No answer. Believing the official history is a matter of faith since it blows in the face of every logical inquiry )

The entire problem can be divided in 3 sections :
-Did the communists wanted to realize the World Revolution and thus fostered any civil dissent in western Europe and used Nazi Germany as a tool for starting another world war ? ( without this it's pointless to discuss the date or how prepared they were for attack ) "The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough for the Bolshevik Party to seize power. The dictatorship of such a Party will only become possible as the result of a major war."
-If we accept that Stalin meticulously helped Germany restart a major war in Europe, when did he want to "liberate" Europe from the Nazi oppresion ? In addition, all the nations that fall under the "protection" of a victorious Germany will become our allies. This presents for us a broad field of action for the initiation of world revolution.
-Thirdly, did Stalin had the means ( to defeat Germany and conquer Europe ) at the date he envisioned ?

Yes they did. It is a well known fact. The Anglo-French tried to get an agreement signed for the defense of Poland with the Soviet Union. However, the SU demanded corridors through Poland to fight Germany if war starts. The Poles categorically refused. Must have something to do with 1919-1920 when they got a first taste of what Red Army presence on your territory means.

A summary of the discussion is presented even on wikipedia page of the pact.

link

Yes he does. He is trying to wrap a realpolitik decision into communist ideological rhetoric and to pitch the change in foreign policy to the Politburo. He overstates his case and even makes some logical fallacies. For example he tells them that USSR couldn't come to the aid and assistance of a Sovietized Germany (in case Germany loses) but USSR would come to the help of a Sovietized France (in case Germany wins).

Are you kidding? Hitler may have been speechless because the Western democracies didn't back down, not because the declaration took him by surprise coming out of the blue. Everyone was aware war was a possibility since it was common knowledge that Britain and Poland had signed an alliance and a military pact. There was no point in Stalin telling Hitler anything.

Since when are newspaper cartoons relevant? Not to mention that is one cartoon, in one newspaper and it looks like it's a Polish newspaper.

BTW, the alleged speech you posted does show buying time was part of Stalin's strategy.

If Stalin had a grand plan to attack Germany the best moment would have been 1940 while Germany was busy in the West.

1941? Not so good. Germany turns around and concentrates all of her might in the East, on a single front, Britain is unable to do anything on the continent. Following the logic presented in that alleged Politburo speech, in 1941 Stalin would bid his time, strengthen his army and wait for further developments between Britain and Germany. He is winning without attacking.

Hitler can't afford to do this because with every passing year he will become weaker. Hitler's decision to attack the USSR was strategic in nature, not based on intelligence reports that USSR will attack in the summer of 1941.

Who said Stalin did not prepare for war? All countries prepare and prepared.

2,000 airfields built in a belt 250-km deep. Sounds awesome until you factor in the length of USSR's Western border (around 3,000 km).

So is that all they talked about?

Just a footnote before we begin. On 22 June 1941, the VVS had between 9,000 and 10,000 aircraft near the Western border according to Bergstrom & Mikhailov. That would make 4.5-5 aircraft/airfield given a uniform distribution. I would say it's a bit of an inflation of airfields.

The Red Army was a stumbling colossus in June 1941. This is a fact which is well substantiated by David Glantz in the book with the same name and by the military defeats in the first year of war. Furthermore, Stalin and his henchmen, who you seem to think were some sort of Prof. Moriarty&Co, were partly to blame for the poor state of the Red Army and the debacles of the Winter War and of 1941.

I don't know where you got the information from, but I don't think it's statistically possible that all the 54,714 officers killed, imprisoned or discharged were all idiots. The total included 3 of 5 Soviet marshals, 2 of 4 armt commanders 1st rank, 12 of 12 army commanders 2nd rank, 60 of 67 corps commanders, 136 of 199 division commanders, 221 of 397 brigade commanders (see Glantz, Stumbling Colossus, pages 30-31). And the purge went on even to regiment commander level and their staffs. Of course you are welcome provide a source that certifies all these men were idiots, but before you do, you should look up Rokossovsky's, Meretskov or Gorbatov's biography if you are not familiar with them.

Sure, Suvorov's theories are "sexy" and nice to believe in, especially if one has an agenda. It saves up a lot of effort to dig deeper in the matter. However, complicated subjects don't have simple clean-cut answers. Where the Soviets preparing for war against the Axis? Most likely. Where they preparing for an attack in June 1941? The facts don't really point that way. In my opinion, they would have been or believed to have been ready in 1942 and that's when they would have attacked. But it's just a personal opinion, based on "irrational contradictions", not one in which everything matches.