Victor Suvorov

[Salvantis]

No it is obvious that i dont know history as you guys
As for you hitler was stalin puppet, russians were nazi, and poland has right to conquer siberia.
But where are the Martians in "your history" ?

[cegorach]

[QUOTE=Salvantis]USA also had economic ties both with Germany and Japan. Sweden and Switzerland actually were trading with germany almost until the end of war. USSR WAS NEUTRAL.


NEUTRAL So I assume that NEUTRAL country attacks its neighbout together with another country which somehow is not neutral. HItler attacked Poland and he is agressor and when Stalin joins he is NEUTRAL - where is logic in this ?

[Salvantis]

[QUOTE=cegorach]

USA also had economic ties both with Germany and Japan. Sweden and Switzerland actually were trading with germany almost until the end of war. USSR WAS NEUTRAL.
NEUTRAL So I assume that NEUTRAL country attacks its neighbout together with another country which somehow is not neutral. HItler attacked Poland and he is agressor and when Stalin joins he is NEUTRAL - where is logic in this ?

WAS USSR IN STATE OF WAR WITH UK AND FRANCE IN 1939,1940,1941...? Because "i dont know", you could tell me
I dont know what definition you use but i call it neutrality.

[cegorach]

[QUOTE=Salvantis]

WAS USSR IN STATE OF WAR WITH UK AND FRANCE IN 1939,1940,1941...? Because "i dont know", you could tell me
I dont know what definition you use but i call it neutrality.

Nope it joined the invasion of Poland so it was allied with Hitler the fact that it wasn't at war with the UK or France matters not - there were states which declared war agaist Germany without fighting Japan as well - were they neutral ?

Besides in 1940 France and the UK were close to attack the SU nonetheless - I mean Baku airstrikes.

M8 you are either trying to oppose everything and make yourself very famous or... what ?

[Kara Kolyo]

Salvantius Japan wasn't at war with USSR, but surely it wasn't neutral country up to 1945. i'm sure you will agree at least with this.

No it is obvious that i dont know history as you guys
As for you hitler was stalin puppet, russians were nazi, and poland has right to conquer siberia.
But where are the Martians in "your history

please show me where anyone said such things? and for a previous post from you- providing links to sources that can back your statements is let say a matter of beiing polite to other members of the forum and if you check the debating rules- it is kind of required flaming everibody else doesn't make your statements looking more historical. please show us the respect that we are triing to show you. and one last thing denying Molotov-Ribentrop pact in its entity- including the secret ammendments and the 52 centimeters Stalin signature on the map, doesn't mean that they didn'texist.

[Salvantis]

M8 you are either trying to oppose everything and make yourself very famous or... what ?

BOTH i think
No seriously, why should i have to agree with suvorov or you? I am not telling that MR pact in 1939 was very moral or something, but you all just pull it out of 1939 context. As i said before, i could say that in munich 1938 uk and france were participants of Czeskoslovakia destruction, and were hitlers allies. But i won't because it is completely wrong way of thinking.

Salvantius Japan wasn't at war with USSR, but surely it wasn't neutral country up to 1945. i'm sure you will agree at least with this. please show me where anyone said such things? and for a previous post from you- providing links to sources that can back your statements is let say a matter of beiing polite to other members of the forum and if you check the debating rules- it is kind of required flaming everibody else doesn't make your statements looking more historical. please show us the respect that we are triing to show you. and one last thing denying Molotov-Ribentrop pact in its entity- including the secret ammendments and the 52 centimeters Stalin signature on the map, doesn't mean that they existed.

I wasn't polite just because i can not except that hitler wasn't instaled by stalin? And i am showing you more respect than you showed to me (not you personally). You could check some of the previous posts yourself, when a guy ask me do i now what Molotov-Ribentrop pact was, or this other asking me do i know anything. If it is polite to you then ok.
And Kara Kolo it isnt salvantiUs; it is Salvantis
About neutrality: was USA neutral til 7.12.41.? Was sweden neutral? And again you cant put only ussr policy out of historical context.

[Kara Kolyo]

Excuse me Salvantis for misreading your name. ofcource USA was just nominaly neutral before Pearl Harbor. the Lend Lease act and the Destroyers for naval bases agreement are clear examples of it's lack of neutrality. maybe you shoud read your posts about MR pact and why the others reacted. you can clearly see from my starting post that i have doubts about Stalin installing Hitler. the intention of this thread is to discuss in civilized manner whether Suvorov has point and what parts of his ideas sound plausible and what not

[cegorach]

The subject of US neutrality or its lack is not the topic of this thread.

Soviet 'neutrality' is.

I ask once more - were the Soviet troops which invaded Poland on 17th September 1939 neutral ?
They had even a victory parade together with the Nazi German forces or weren't they ?

There is a cooperation on every level between Germany and the SU the only thing was that the SU didn't attack the UK and France, but Japan didn't attack Poland and so didn't Italy.

Red Army and Wehrmacht even attacked same places at the same time defended by Polish army what else it is if not an alliance ? Friendly conversation, meeting in a pub or bloody birthday party ?

[Bwaho]

I think it was rather obvious the SU wanted to invade western countries and Hitler gave a perfect opportunity.

I wouldn't call it an opportunity, Germany came close to destroying Soviet. You're making it sound like Stalin had full control over the entire war.

and yes, Soviet was going to invade western europe. Germany was the only one at the time who tried to stop the Soviet Union. The post-WW2 era shows that Hitlers and Churchills fears of an expanding SU came true.

[Salvantis]

[QUOTE=cegorach]The subject of US neutrality or its lack is not the topic of this thread.[QUOTE]
That is exactly what i am talking about. History without any historical context, isnt history at all, but very malicious attempt of proving some todays political opinions. ussr or any other country can't be observe isolated from entire global history.

It looks to me that the topic and the goal of this thread is revision of WWII history, in order to make USSR at least as bad as Germany. That kind of historical argumentation is very distasteful to me. And if you are so insulted by my view of MR pact, i am far worst insulted by this entire idea, of Regans "empire of evil" idea.
There was very little, of any, cooperation of soviet and german military in poland 1939; but there is constant effort of polish propaganda during the war, and especially today, to create image of such cooperation.
And to repeat again, there is absolutely no argument to call ussr german ally.

[Dromikaites]

By ordering the communist MPs to vote in favor of the Nazis Stalin did put Hitler in charge of Germany.
By signing the Molotov-Ribetrop pact Stalin freed Hitler's hands to start a war in Europe andsupported the German war effort.
By concentrating the tactical bombers and the paratroop units (both offensive arms within an army) close to the Soviet-German border Stalin showed he was preparing to strike inside the German controlled territory.

All the 3 from above are not from secret archives but public domain. For instance the story of the bombers close to the border is told by 2 of the veterans interviewed on this excellent site http://english.pobediteli.ru/. Both those gentlemen mention the Soviet bombers that were destroyed on the airports near the border by surprise German attacks.

Somebody mentioned that BT-5 and BT-7 were too lightly armored and too lightly armed for standing a chance against the German tanks. But they were not designed to fight tanks. They were designed to advance quickly deep into the enemy territory. The Red army had other tanks well suited for fighting against other tanks or even against strongpoints, pillboxes and bunkers (the KV-1, the T-34, the T-28). So in case of a Sovied offensive the BT would have slipped through the gaps created by the heavy tanks in order to wreack havoc on the enemy's supply lines and to link up with the paratroops. That doesn't exactly make the BTs a defensive weapon, does it? Looks like Suvorov was a bit right on the BTs too

What was really wrong with the Soviet tanks was only few of them had radios. Even though the German tanks were less powerful their actions were much better coordinated. And better coordination leads to superior tactics which in turn lead to victory even with inferior tanks. I saw once a computer simulation of the tactics developed by the Americans which allowed several Shermans to destroy a much more powerful Tiger 1.

[Salvantis]

I wouldn't call it an opportunity, Germany came close to destroying Soviet. You're making it sound like Stalin had full control over the entire war.
and yes, Soviet was going to invade western europe. Germany was the only one at the time who tried to stop the Soviet Union. The post-WW2 era shows that Hitlers and Churchills fears of an expanding SU came true.

And this is kind of stuff i was just writing against here all night. "Hitler actually was europian defence against russian barbarian hordes (or communists, what is the difference)."
THIS THREAD STARTED TO INSULT MILLIONS OF SOVIETS CASULTIES DURING THE WWII AND THAT KIND OF BS IS BOTH OFFENSIVE AS IT IS STUPID.
so if i am not polite "please excuse me". ANd i know that i will probably be banned, not this nazi . But this company makes me anyway .

[RusskiSoldat]

Besides Stalin attacked 6 countries to 1941 i.e. only 2 less than Hitler so there is no reason to think he was peaceful.

What?
What coutnries did we attack in 1941?
I could only think of one that we attacked 137-1947, and that would be Finland.
4 others responded to ultimatums, and one was occupied in a way that's debatatble if the invasion happenned.

But goal of the communist is comunism in all world.So they plan world domination...and if you remember after victory in WW2 they dont go home but stay in teritories with massive Armies.Or its just "Peacemakers" plan?

1. Trotsky's internationalism was long dead in the USSR by that time
2. Of course we were going to keep the territory we already fought for, but we had no intention of attacking it in the first place.
[quote]
This one is easy to answer what puppet government - clearly policy of extermination was employed in eastern territories of Poland, not complete of everyone, but the occupation was much cruel than under Nazis between 1939 and 1941.
There were no plans to form such government, Poles were actually 'encouraged' to forget there will ever be Poland, so the army could have only one purpose the puppet force for 17th Soviet republic of Poland cut from the territory occupied by the Nazi.[/quite]
What?
There were very, very few actual Poles in the territory we took.

well Salvantius there enough sources besides Suvorov who state that SU had only offensive millitary doctrine.

No ****?
Probably learning from the Germans we saw how succesful the Blitz was, and our general staff tried to copy that.

large army for defending your country is one thing but having more tanks, airplanes and cannons than the entire world combined is completely other.

Sources please, for numbers of tanks, airplanes and cannons across the countries of the world at the time.

i think it was more "ward off" than offensive doctrine. Yes they had "the largest bomber in the world" in 1936, just to show it in the red square parade. Main problem was that bomber couldnt fly on its own

It totally could.
Of course it was completely useless as anything other than a symbol of might and I believe eventualy crashed after a collision with a fighter.

Salvantius are you talking about TB 3 or Pe 8 because 818 TB 3 are not only to show on the Red Square http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TB-3 during the 30-ies nobody else had so many strategic bombers. please check some sources before making such statements

Those bombers look poorly designed and archaic.
Quantity over quality has always been the Russian doctrine, what's so surprising?

he did but that's beside the point- such arguments are not an excuse for acts of agression against Poland and Finland not to mention anexation of Baltic States.Let me remind that in 1918 Lenin signed declarations which condemned and void all territorial gains of Tzarist Russia.

Lenin was dead for 15 years by the time that happenned.
Principles are nice, but practical ideas are better.

another invention of Soviet propaganda -there was never such intention of creating any "safe" or "buffer" zones.Suvorov is quite right in this respect.Annexing 80,000 square miles of eastern Poland didn't not improved safety of western borders of USRR...quite the opposite

Because 80,000 square miles really isn't that much.
And it's safer for us that we got it and not the Nazis.

LEnin of course wasn't a communist huh? But he was nice communist. He was giving russian land whenever he could. So he wasn't such bad guy like stalin.

Lenin was giving away land to damn near everyone because in his day the very survival of Soviet Russia was at stake.
He of course freed Finland, but only because we couldn't affod to fight the Finish army as well as the Whites.

To come in weakened europe as "Liberators".

Of course we took land that we fought so hard over.
What's so surprising?

Also Lenin was first who speak about WW2 long before it:"If World revolution dont come we must make second world war"

LENIN WAS DEAD
Unless you're suggesting Lenin and Stalin had exactly the same outlook on politics, in which case I suggest you read a history book.

And finaly WHAT IS MOLOTOV/RIBENTROP PACT ?

What about it?
We bought ourselves time and some land in exchange for non aggression with Germany for a little while.

Non-agression treaty between two countries that did not even share the border at the time treaty was signed...how very interesting

Considering both were major powers, it's not surprising.
And yes we got a lot out of the M-R pact, why not?
Either Hitler was gonna take it or we were.
No other option.

There are revisionists denying the existence of death camps and there are revisionist denying the fact of the alliance between the SU and the Thrird Reich.

You have cooperation in military, economy and between the organs of opression, you have even declarations of friendship- what else do you need to call it by its name ALLIANCE ??

How about not amassing armies in preparations to attack each other?
Germany was basically buying Soviet neutrality for while they fought the west.
Many thought the war with France would be long and bloody, so the Germans decided it's better to give up some territories to Russia than have another two front war.

Also there is interesting speach in USSR CK kongress
in 1939. 19 august (the same day when M/R Pact was accepted)
So Josif Stalin say...

"...The last twenty years show us ,that in peace time comunist movment are not posible in Europe,strong and not able to bolsheviks.Dictatorship of this can be posible only in large war result.We did our turn and that is clear.We must accept German
threaty but English and French alliance we send back without answer.It is not hard to se what we get from this.Poland was destroyed before English and French come to help.First wat we get is Ukraine and then Poland to Warshav. ..."

Source:
"Otečestvennaja istorija", M., 2004, Nr.1, 119.-122.page
H.Ruffin, Deux documents, Journal de Geneve, 1941. 12.juilet

Makes perfect sense.
The British and French would have barely given us anything, and whatever they gave to us they couldn't guarantee.
And we would **** off Germany.

Salvantis
Maybe you should have a quick read of that..pretty basic stuff

OMG TWO NATIONS AT PEACE WITH EACH OTHER WERE TRADING!!!

NEUTRAL So I assume that NEUTRAL country attacks its neighbout together with another country which somehow is not neutral. HItler attacked Poland and he is agressor and when Stalin joins he is NEUTRAL - where is logic in this ?

First off all, there was no attack.
The Nazis conquered Poland, and we got a piece of it by treaty.
Second of all, the British and French didn't care about Poland as much as about their own interests, and it was not in their interests to start a war with Germany and the USSR.

I ask once more - were the Soviet troops which invaded Poland on 17th September 1939 neutral ?

Yes, as we got a part of German territory which was conquered by Germans through a treaty with Germany.

They had even a victory parade together with the Nazi German forces or weren't they ?

Sure, a token gesture of friendship.
Why not?
Both Germany and Russia hated Poland, to the point where they united in celebration when it was destroyed.

and yes, Soviet was going to invade western europe. Germany was the only one at the time who tried to stop the Soviet Union. The post-WW2 era shows that Hitlers and Churchills fears of an expanding SU came true.

Try to get this into your head: the only reason we got Eastern Europe was because we conquered it from the Nazis.
If the Nazis weren't there, we wouldn't have touched it.

[Perkele]

All those countries were part of the Russian empire. He didn't take anything which wasn't russian before 1917.

Well there you have it, he 'took' something, ie fought offensive wars.

However, you should understand that the main reason for this was Soviet attempt to create as large buffer zone as they could, between hitler and soviet heartland, not some communist invasion.

I don't care what excuses you make for it, those were still INVASIONS, which means that your original argument that stalin had no offensive ambitions is wrong.

[Bwaho]

And this is kind of stuff i was just writing against here all night. "Hitler actually was europian defence against russian barbarian hordes (or communists, what is the difference)."
THIS THREAD STARTED TO INSULT MILLIONS OF SOVIETS CASULTIES DURING THE WWII AND THAT KIND OF BS IS BOTH OFFENSIVE AS IT IS STUPID.
so if i am not polite "please excuse me". ANd i know that i will probably be banned, not this nazi . But this company makes me anyway

very constructive *clap clap*

yes, believe it or not Germany was the only one who could stop Soviet at the time.

Try to get this into your head: the only reason we got Eastern Europe was because we conquered it from the Nazis.
If the Nazis weren't there, we wouldn't have touched it.

Well you can believe that if you want... I just believe differently. The only reason Soviet didn't go on after WW2 and capture western europe was because of USA.

[Kara Kolyo]

Obviously i will have to ask a moderator to close the thread, not because it was started as insult to the russian people or for praising Hitler and Nazi Germany(which i detest and i'm not fan of the wehrmacht and SS too), but simply because its obviously too sencitive and not everybody arround here wants to maintain calm and civilized discussion. and finaly Salvantis maybe you should look the ToS and the discussion rules because you are insulting me without any reason just for starting dialogue for the plausibility of an author and his books.

Ruski have you heard of Sobolev's action and SU's offers to Bulgaria to have milittary bases on our teritory?

[Hans Kloss]

Obviously i will have to ask a moderator to close the thread

I think that might be a very good idea.I can send you PM with few links to Suvorov's threads in various forums if you are still interested

[cegorach]

What?
What coutnries did we attack in 1941?
I could only think of one that we attacked 137-1947, and that would be Finland.
4 others responded to ultimatums, and one was occupied in a way that's debatatble if the invasion happenned.

--------> It is not debatable because it happened.





First off all, there was no attack.
The Nazis conquered Poland, and we got a piece of it by treaty.
Second of all, the British and French didn't care about Poland as much as about their own interests, and it was not in their interests to start a war with Germany and the USSR.

Yes, as we got a part of German territory which was conquered by Germans through a treaty with Germany.


------------> One MILLION OF SOLDIERS was used in 1939 by the SU, supported by 3000 tanks and numerous planes - about 1000 if I am correct.
The Red Army met initially only border guard corps numbering 10 or 20 000 with no anti-tank artillery and planes.
Yes they lost 3000 soldiers ( at least), 250 tanks damaged and destroyed and a couple of planes - at least two were shot down by Polish fighters.

NO INVASION you must be joking. If one minllion soldiers moves in a foreign territory and fights its citizens it is an invasion.

And where were Germans at that time - were they in Vilnius area, in Lviv, Grodno, Pinsk - the Red Army attacked the back of the Polish army and helped their allies Nazis. Later they together exchanged prisoners, Jews and fought Polish underground.

Do not deny basic facts.


Try to get this into your head: the only reason we got Eastern Europe was because we conquered it from the Nazis.
If the Nazis weren't there, we wouldn't have touched it.

Were Nazis in Finland, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania or easter Poland ??? Where ?

[cegorach]

to make USSR at least as bad as Germany. That kind of historical argumentation is very distasteful to me. And if you are so insulted by my view of MR pact, i am far worst insulted by this entire idea, of Regans "empire of evil" idea.
There was very little, of any, cooperation of soviet and german military in poland 1939; but there is constant effort of polish propaganda during the war, and especially today, to create image of such cooperation.
And to repeat again, there is absolutely no argument to call ussr german ally.

Yes the Soviet Union was a place of happy peasants, hard-working labourers and skilled artists with no hunger, secret police, genocide, offensive wars, extermination of Jews, Gulags, Katyn and other mass killings - a paradise in othr words.
So who killed so many people there goblins with Elves or maybe Lord Sauron ?

And 'polish propaganda' crap - great !

Of course the SU and the Third Reich cooperated in every possible way, yet they never were allies and let noone tell such lies, kill anyone that tries...

I know that Russians have a problem with their history, but it is sometimes so incredibly irrational.

Fortunatelly the SU is dead and will never come back to repeat all the crap its propaganda broadcasted.

[Bwaho]

or for praising Hitler and Nazi Germany(which i detest and i'm not fan of the wehrmacht and SS too)

how is saying "Germany were the only ones at the time who could stop SU" praising Hitler and Nazi Germany?

USA were the only ones who could stop the SU in the cold war era.

but simply because its obviously too sencitive and not everybody arround here wants to maintain calm and civilized discussion

yes, it's unfortunate...but then if we were never to discuss anything because someone might get offended, we would never discuss anything at all.