 |
| |
|
|
East Street Trader
|
 |
London, United Kingdom
Jun 2000
time: 05:33
|
|
shawnmmcc, I am not dependant on written histories about some of this. My father was a bomber pilot in WWII.
He tells me that all who took part knew perfectly well that precision bombing was a fiction. The navigational equipment and bomb aiming devices were crude in the extreme. It was hit or miss whether you dropped your bombs over the right city, let alone the right general area of a target city. The notion that you could actiually aim at anything just sounded good as propoganda.
And the discussions about the the effect on morale of bombing cities are well documented - with full US involvement.
It was a man named Richard Portal who, on 25 August 1940, ordered bombing raids on German cities. Which led the German air force to retaliate by embarking on the blitz. This was good news for Britain at the time because before then the German air force had been concentrating on British air bases, to good effect.
The British raids were initially by small numbers and had to be at night because during daylight hours the German fighters were deadly. Losses - even flying at night - when my father was taking part were very high, fifty or sixty percent in every raid.
But by the time Harris had risen to the top the tide had turned and 1000 bomber raids were possible. The British still flew predominantly at night but the US had developed large bombers which, flying high and in formation, could fend off such fighters as remained to the Germans. The British and US air forces co-operated and developed area bombing expressly designed to maximise death and destruction. Briefly Churchill put a stop to that saying that it would result in the allies coming into control of an utterly ruined land.
I have asked my father how he and others felt about the notion that one of his bombs might - probably did - blow some baby to rags. He says that if he, or any of his comrades in arms had ever faced the certainty of doing just that none would go through with such a dreadful thing. But as it was none of them baulked at dropping high explosives and incendiaries on civilians.
There was express motivation for the selection of Dresden as a firestorm target - by US as well as UK high command. It was that Dresden had been, up to then, untouched and the town was full to overflowing with refugees fleeing the Russian advance.
I posted the numbers involved in the raid to illustrate the difficulties facing someone from the US, like Ned, who dislikes the wholesale roasting of large numbers of civilians but who hopes to distance the US from such deeds.
However that is something which has, for my own generation, been achieved rather otherwise. And again not through the writings of any apologist or revisionist. Rather by the publicatiuon of a picture of another civilian - a little girl - running down a Viet Namese road, her back coated in Napalm.
That military men of all sorts - whatever their nationality - regard roasting civilians as a perfectly proper incident of warfare could hardly be more clearly illustrated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
East Trader, Thanks for your posts, and thank you too, Shawn, for your eloguent posts referencing your horribly burned sister.
I have a hard time with this topic as I have a visceral reaction to it. I can hardly think of the victims of our raids without tears welling up.
Shawn is right that the US should be judged by its own, "higher" standard. It is not true, as Molly has contended, that all sides in this war accepted area bombing of cities as necessary, let alone ethical. Roosevelt had called for all sides to cease-and-desist attacking cities prior to US involvement. During the war, the American public was led to believe that we were attacking only military targets in our strategic bombing campaign. News of Dresden leaked out through Sweden. I don't know the precise date now. But when it did, it caused a huge negative reaction in the United States.
Apparently, from the quotes given above by the scientist who petitioned Truman not to use the atomic bomb, it was a shock to the American people to learn in June, 1945 that we had firebombed Tokyo and devastated an area of 4.5 million people. Some may have reacted that the Japanese deserved it. But clearly others reacted in the way that suggested that we were losing our moral focus; and this was important because we were in this war, not for Empire, not because our strategic interests were at stake, but for the purposes of morality. (Don't tell me about Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war. Roosevelt had all but forced the war on Japan and Germany prior to December 7, 1941.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
we were in this war, not for Empire, not because our strategic interests were at stake, but for the purposes of morality. (Don't tell me about Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war. Roosevelt had all but forced the war on Japan and Germany prior to December 7, 1941.) |
I know you hate the Democrats, but this is ridiculous. Only wild-eye conspiracy theorists believe that FDR planned Pearl Harbour. Germany wasn't forced to do anything.
The US was in WWII because was attacked by the Japanese and because of Hitler's stupidity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
East Street Trader, I'm not questioning the authenticity of your father's experience. So please don't take this as a challenge, but as a search for more info. Do you know any sources in the UK that document (i.e. quoting memos, etc.) the strategic decisions, after-bombing reports, etc. that back what your dad says? Without a primary source, people get into arguments over interpetation (professional historians make our arguments here look TAME). I'm genuinely interested in what's been published over in the UK that might not be readily available here, or some websites posting original material. Thanks.
Molly, I forgot. Thanks for that reference on those slave revolts, I'll have to get that book and read it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by East Street Trader
It was a man named Richard Portal who, on 25 August 1940, ordered bombing raids on German cities. |
Who?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
I'll post a more more full critique of Stalin later, but:
He failed to recognise the threat of German invasion, despite the huge warnings.
His refusal to consider retreat as an option allowed the Germans to repeatedly encircle and destroy Red Army units.
His brutality gave the Germans a temporary liberators bonus, and his secret police thought nothing of jamming the railways up with deportees, slowing the evacuation of workers and machinery.
He purged the Red Army of its innovative officers, and promoted his Civil War cronies, who attempted to turn back the clock and institute a WW1 style infantry/artillery combination, with tanks dispersed between infantry groups. The sort of tactics that had failed the French, who also had decent heavy tanks.
He was invisible for the first week of the invasion, hiding out in his villa. |
Blah..blah..blah...
I heard this Khrushev's sh!t a thousand times already.
"Khrushchev at the 20th Congress of the CPSU emphatically said that Stalin fought the "war globally and not on the front"! Stupidity of this utterance immediately brought denials, demands of apology by the living Generals, Marshals and front-line fighters during the Great Patriotic War. Nevertheless, this Khrushchev version up to this day prevails, supported by scores of "historians," all of them writing volumes upon volumes of lies and not having any trouble financing their books, etc., etc.
The biggest lie is that Stalin did not know when the war started, got panicky, locked himself up at the dacha outside of Moscow, was getting senselessly drunk for one week, taking himself away from every facet of governing, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
In reality, everything was much different.
JUNE 22, 1941 -- Politbureau and Stalin at its head worked on the text of the speech to the Soviet people, which was delivered by Molotov, giving directives, commands on mobilization of other civilians to the ranks of Red Army, announcing the appointment of Marshals and Generals of different fronts, etc.
JUNE 23, 1941 -- General Central Command was established.
JUNE 24, 1941 -- Emergency meeting of the leaders of Industry to plan the war output. Held in the cabinet of Marshal Stalin.
JUNE 25, 1941 -- Reserve Army was formed under the command of Marshal Budyonny.
JUNE 27, 1941 -- Decision of the CC All Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks to mobilize Communists and Komsomol members.
JUNE 29, 1941 -- Directives of the CC AUCPB to broadcast the speech of Stalin on July 3, 1941. After that, the meeting of the Politbureau with the General Command of the Red Army.
JUNE 30, 1941 -- Establishment of the State Defense Committee with Stalin as its head.
Documents of these days give the lie to the vicious lies of Khrushchev.
The most prevalent lies about Stalin is that in 1937-1938 years, the army was decimated with purges and that Stalin purged and killed 300,000 commanders and political commissars. These falsehoods and lies should look at the known facts, that the Red Army had only 140,000 commanders and political commissars in total.
In the magazine "Young Guard" (1989 -- #9) there was published a document taken from the archives of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR, which was presented at that time to Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov and Beria on May 5, 1940, that in 1937-1939, 36,898 commanders were dismissed from the ranks of Red Army. More than 75% of them were retired because of their age, sickness, moral grounds (drunkenness) and unworthy of service in the Red Army. From August of 1938, there was working a commission which was told to look into these cases and make recommendations. More than 30,000 requests were received by those dismissed to look into their appeals. In January 1, 1940, this commission returned to their posts more than 12,461 commanders, from those 10,700 were formerly dismissed for political reasons and now put back into ranks.
Do not forget that there were hidden enemies of the Red Army inside the CC CPSU and did their dirty work.
In the above listing of numbers in the Red Army, let us not forget that there were thousands of former Tsarist officers, who were accepted into the Red Army by Trotsky, in whose ranks were Tukhachevsky, Yakir, Uborevich and others. Most of them harbored their lost class interests and were hidden enemies of socialism, although there were hundreds who became loyal Army Officers in the Red Army and fought valiantly against the Hitler Hordes. "
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:33
|
|
Well, I wasn't going to respond to Patroklos' lies and rants, but what the hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
I understand that when you are wrong it is a good tactic to avoid addressing your critics and to continue ranting, but everyone here has called you out on it, especially your SS comment.
|
This is certainly a perfect description of what you have done in this discussion about the "chivalrous" SS. You have repeatedly been called out to back up your claim that:
"The Waffen SS... did not just commint [sic] atrocities. They fought bravely and chivalrously for a cuase [sic] they truely [sic] believed." -- page two of the previous thread.
Instead you go on a rant by called me a lair, when I have not lied. You owe me an apology, although I doubt you are mature enough to admit your mistake.
You lied (or to give you the benefit of the doubt, you got things completely wrong) when you wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
You MISQUOTED the WSSOB, egregiously, were caught and then LIED about it when confronted.
|
I never quoted the website WSSOB. Here's what I wrote about the website author:
He also claims the Waffen SS were civilrous (sp?, I'm drunk and can't be bothered to spell it right).
Note the absence of quotation marks. That's called a paraphase, not a quote.
You then went on a rant by pointing out the website says "sometimes chivalrous" rather than just "chivalrous". Do you know the meaning of the phrase "splitting hairs".
I responded by saying: Yeah right. I said the website claims the SS were chivalrous. The website, as you have shown, claims the SS were "sometimes chivalrous". Same diff.
It is obvious that I did not lie as you claimed.
By the way, if I said "Bob sometimes does good deeds" then it is the same as saying "Bob does good deeds". Same diff. Get it?
Note that this is different from the faulty logic of saying sometimes cats are white therefore all cats are white. In the Bob example, "sometimes" qualifies the action, while in the cat example, "sometimes" qualifies the subject (cats).
Your rants have also included:
- Listing names of books and websites, and then claiming the titles, by themselves, prove your argument;
- Hypocrisy: Attacking others for not providing evidence (your post to Serb) when you refuse to provide evidence.
- Denials ("I could very easily qote [sic] from Beevor's book, but I feel no need to..."]
- Naming a book/website and falsely claiming that it proves the Waffen SS were sometimes chivalrous, when it does not.
- Listing irrelevant sources (eg, Death by Government)
- Listing irrelevant information (the number of non-Germans in the Waffen SS says nothing about whether they were chivalrous)
Then there are the just strange comments like:
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
It was your quote that stated the SS were "sometimes chivilrous," not mine.
[QUOTE]
No, you provided the quote from the website. Remember? You went on a rant because I only wrote "chivalrous" instead of "sometimes chivalrous"
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Patroklos
I also quoted about 30 lines of statisical data from the WSSOB concerning foreign nationals serving in the SS. So the next move is yours, to find your own source that says the opposite.
|
I don't need to find something that says the opposite because I have never claimed the opposite.
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
I could very easily qote from Beevor's book, but I feel no need to untill you provide SOMETHING, anything to back up your claim. That the SS is evil to the corps, to include every individual in it. No exceptions, good luck!
|
Patroklos: I can't believe I have to explain this, but I guess I do. The Waffen SS was not a typical military unit composed of men from all parts of a society. The Waffen SS consisted of people who believed in Nazi ideology. They believed that Aryans were the master race and that Slavic and Jewish people were sub-human. They believed that communists were evil. They believed that killing these people was acceptable. It is impossible for a person to believe this crap and be considered chivalrous because chivalry is about being fair and treating people decently.
The members of the Waffen SS supported an ideology that was unjust and inhuman. In other words, an ideology that was the opposite of chivalry. Therefore, they could not be, and were not chivalrous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
What Ned states about FDR and instigating the US involvement in WW2 is well documented, especially concerning Nazi Germany. FDR was supplying war materials (obsolete destroyers, etc.) clearly identifiable as coming from the US. He then ordered modern US destroyers to escort British merchant vessels carrying war materials halfway accross the Atlantic, and attack any German U-boats that attempted to attack them. The Kriegsmarine had to specifically warn their U-boat commanders NOT to fire back at US destroyers that were depth-charging them, the situation had gotten so bad.
FDR was in violation of several neutrality laws, and may have also been in violation of the constitution itself - no declaration of war, the that vs. the powers of the commander-in-chief have been argued ad infinitum. In fact he was one of the first modern presidents to so expediantly use the commander-in-chief authority to flout the will of congress, and the people of the US, who were still largely isolationist. One of the reasons the Nazis declared war was the fact the US had been shooting at them for over a year. They were waiting for an excuse, and a good opportunity.
FDR had read Mein Kampf, if my memory serves me correctly, and realized the threat Hitler presented. He still dangerously expanded the power of the executive. He was right, but he actually committed an impeachable offense (deliberately violating the neutrality laws). This doesn't change the fact he was right, but it puts him in context as someone, who certain of his rightness, was willing to put the constitution at risk. Some have stated he was the first imperial president. Enough agreed that he is the one president who scared the politicians enough to pass a constitutional amendment!
Japan was slightly different. The US was attempting to contain them, and there are some memos to the affect that either economically crippling them, or instigating a war with them, were both acceptable results to US policies. What the US didn't realize was, due to a variety of factors going back to Commodore Perry, but mostly since 1900, that this war was pretty much inevitable to domestic developments in Japan, and the threat the Japanese perceived the US to be, and the humiliations they felt they had suffered in part due to US policies. FDR WANTED war with Germany, and wasn't going to turn down one with Japan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
East Street Trader, I almost agree with what you said about war between nation states. The problem is the whole "nation state" bit. We've had some argume... uh disagreements  among the US posters concerning our "States rights" issues, and whether the will of the people should be the final arbiter or governmental bodies, and which of those take precedence, state or federal.
The problem is that, just like my abortion argument with Ben, the nice clean theortical instances get very muddy in the real world. Lets take two opposite cases, the United States and North Korea.
North Korea is a dictatorship, it's actually a cult-state, much more akin to the Hitler dictatorship in Nazi Germany. It starves it's people to the point they had to drop the minimum height requirement for draftees to, get this, 4 feet 2 inches (single source, so I won't swear to it), they've bombed civilian airliners, kidnapped foreign nationals off of beaches, etc. Obviously part of the axis of evil, and a government that most of the world would like to see fall. The United States is obviously a democratic state with protected individual rights. But wait.
How about Communist China? Nobody can argue that over the last two decades the leadership has done wonders, getting the birth rate down to a sustainable level, developing a hybrid economy (for SMAC players - Police - Planned becoming Free - Wealth  ), and taking China into a modern, industrial world. Yet it is an oligarchy, and they have nuclear weapons. They washed Tianemen Square in blood to stay in power.
If the dictator(s) do good by their country, or has nuclear power, is that what lets them pass muster. Do we just respect any leader who seizes control of the instruments of power for the nation state? If we don't, where do we draw the line between the two extremes? North Korea, Iraq, the Congo, Rwanda while the Hutu dictatorship was in control? If they are genocidal, like the Sudan, or do we include ethnic cleansing, and deny protection to the nation state status of Turkey for it's treatment of the Kurds.
So lets then censure countries that deny equal status to minorities. What about the Mohawk nation in the US (native Americans to this day get hideous treatment by the law enforcement/judicial communty, and have the highest rate of incarceration of any identifiable minority in the US)? So I've come full circle.
Sanctions don't work, unless it's the case of a democratic minority that gets tired of the reduced standard of living, i.e. South Africa. Look at my sig. It typically has little effect on dictators. Plus, whether it's Haliburton in the US, or French and German companies, we let our commercial interests trump human rights.
I don't have any good answers, but stopping war as an end in itself, without first guaranteeing human rights, and the rights of ethnic minorities from the tyranny of the majority, is a dangerous step. You could just as likely condemn millions, if not billions, to lives of limited, or no freedoms while they are cultural exterminated. I think it takes a measured, thoughtful response (not George W. Bush - a deaf man in a room full of blind people or was it the other way around). GB's steps with Scotland and Wales are a good start, I just wish we would do the same with our Native American groups here.
Oh, I am very aware of the inaccuracy of what gets past the censors in a war, there's a book "The First Casualty..." or something very close to that talking about the press and the truth in time of war. I will read "Bomber Harris". I had assumed (dirty word) that it was a typical autobiographical whitewash. I am really interested in that collection of reminiscences. Now I have two - three books to read.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
I'll post a more more full critique of Stalin later, but:
He failed to recognise the threat of German invasion, despite the huge warnings.
His refusal to consider retreat as an option allowed the Germans to repeatedly encircle and destroy Red Army units.
His brutality gave the Germans a temporary liberators bonus, and his secret police thought nothing of jamming the railways up with deportees, slowing the evacuation of workers and machinery.
He purged the Red Army of its innovative officers, and promoted his Civil War cronies, who attempted to turn back the clock and institute a WW1 style infantry/artillery combination, with tanks dispersed between infantry groups. The sort of tactics that had failed the French, who also had decent heavy tanks.
He was invisible for the first week of the invasion, hiding out in his villa. |
And do not forget how he left general Bor Komorowski and the Polish Home Army to be ground into mincemeat. And forbade US B17s from flying supply missions (until their participation was meaningless).
And did Bor turn around and join the Nazis?
No he didn't. I wouldn't say Stalin was an imbecile... but as a highly accomplished mass murderer, "imbecile" is a step up on the human ladder to what Stalin was.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:33
|
|
shawnmmcc: I agree that FDR openly baited and taunted the Germans, and that he wanted the US in the fight against Hitler, but that's not the same as forcing them to fight.
Had Hitler been smart and not declared war, FDR would have faced extensive pressure to concentrate soley on the Japanese. Even with Germany declaring war, there was pressure to focus on Japan first, then Germany.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
The Waffen SS, the United States Army Air Force under Curtiss LeMay and Robert S. McNamara, communist forces under Stalin, the Imperial Japanese army and British Bomber Command under Air Marshal Harris, all engaged in massive war crimes.
The problem is of course that the Allied war crimes are not ackknowledge in such by the United States and Great Britain. (A Brit Lancaster bomber recently participated in the celebrations of the Queens anniversary.) The argument still rages even today that these war crimes were justified -- primarily because they are motivated at by legitimate war strategy. If we, however, never wish to do this again, or have this done to us by others, at any time, at any place, in any war in the future, we have to acknowledge that these war crimes were not justified and we ourselves must accept responsibility.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
John Kerry had as much to say about our war crimes in Vietnam in testimony to Congress in 1971:
"Statement of Mr. John Kerry
...I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one
member of the group of 1,000 which is a small
representation of a very much larger group of veterans
in this country, and were it possible for all of them
to sit at this table they would be here and have the
same kind of testimony....
WINTER SOLDIER INVESTIGATION
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans,
and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an
investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged
and many very highly decorated veterans testified to
war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated
incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis
with the full awareness of officers at all levels of
command....
They told the stories at times they had personally
raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from
portable telephones to human genitals and turned up
the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly
shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion
reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for
fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the
countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal
ravage of war, and the normal and very particular
ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of
this country.
We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier
Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on
words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the
Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted
at Valley Forge because the going was rough.
We who have come here to Washington have come here
because we f eel we have to be winter soldiers now. We
could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we
could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on
in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this
country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not
reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are
committing that threaten it, that we have to speak
out.
http://vietpage.com/archive_news/po...Dec/2/0084.html
There is a lot more in his statement that is specific to that war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Tingkai, many historians have made exactly that observation, concerning the fact the single biggest mistake the Hitler made was declaring war on the US. In fact, as Japan had initiated hostilities, under the Tripartite Pact neither Germany nor Italy had any obligation to go to war with the United States. Thankfully, most of Hitler's close advisors were syncophants or sociopaths, and he very seldom received advice contrary to his current mood. It was decidedly unhealthy to contradict Der Fuhrer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Stalin was directly responsible for the disasters of 1941 and 42.
It was only when he let the Red Army professionals do their job that the Soviet Union started to win battles.
Stalin was no military genius. |
I have a book where author proves that everything was exactly reverse.
Can you translate it with babblefish or something?
Some quotes for everyone who can read Russian.
"На второй день войны, 23 июня 1941 г., Советская власть – Верховный Совет – учредил высший орган стратегического командования – Ставку Главного Командования. Первоначально в нее вошли маршалы Ворошилов и Буденный от Наркомата обороны, генерал армии Жуков – от Генштаба, адмирал Кузнецов – от Военно-морского флота, Сталин и Молотов (нарком иностранных дел) – от правительства СССР. Возглавил Ставку нарком обороны маршал Тимошенко.129 Он и был первым Главнокомандующим Красной Армии в Великой Отечественной войне, но был недолго. Не прошло и недели, как выяснилось, что наши маршалы и генералы не только не способны командовать Красной Армией, но и не представляют, что происходит на фронтах.
29 июня 1941 г. Советская власть вдруг узнала, что войска советского Западного фронта сдали немцам столицу Белоруссии город Минск. Узнала не от своего Верховного Главнокомандующего Тимошенко и не от начальника Генерального штаба Жукова, а из передач европейских радиостанций. А.И. Микоян вспоминал, что собравшиеся у Сталина – он, Молотов, Маленков и Берия, который и доложил, что Минск у немцев, – забеспокоились. Микоян далее пишет:
"Сталин позвонил в Наркомат обороны маршалу Тимошенко. Однако тот ничего конкретного о положении на западном направлении сказать не смог.
Встревоженный таким ходом дела, Сталин предложил всем нам поехать в Наркомат и на месте разобраться с обстановкой. В кабинете наркома были Тимошенко, Жуков и Ватутин. Сталин держался спокойно, спрашивал, где командование фронта, какая имеется с ним связь. Жуков докладывал, что связь потеряна и за весь день восстановить ее не удалось".
Поясню, что в армии за связь отвечают начальники штабов, начальники войск связи подчинялись непосредственно им, за связь в Красной Армии отвечал начальник Генштаба Жуков, причем ответственность шла сверху вниз, т.е. вышестоящие штабы обязаны были удерживать связь с нижестоящими. Жуков с этой своей элементарной задачей справиться был не способен даже через неделю после начала войны. Микоян продолжает:
"И все же около получаса поговорили довольно спокойно. Потом Сталин взорвался: что за Генеральный штаб, что за начальник Генштаба, который так растерялся, что не имеет связи с войсками, никого не представляет и никем не командует. Раз нет связи, Генштаб бессилен руководить. Жуков, конечно, не меньше Сталина переживал за состояние дел, и такой окрик Сталина был для него оскорбительным. Этот мужественный человек не выдержал, разрыдался, как баба, и быстро вышел в другую комнату. Молотов пошел за ним. Мы все были в удрученном состоянии".94
Что делал тогдашний Верховный Главнокомандующий Тимошенко – Микоян не написал, но об этом можно догадаться по воспоминаниям управляющего делами Совнаркома Чадаева, который передает вот такой телефонный разговор Сталина с Тимошенко, правда, уже после того, как Тимошенко сняли с должности Верховного.
"– Я вижу, Вы недовольны мной, – слышался густой бас Тимошенко.
– А я вижу, Вы слишком раздражены и теряете власть над собой.
– Раз я плохой в Ваших глазах, прошу отставку. – Сталин отставил от уха трубку и сказал про себя:
– Этот черт орет во всю грудь, и ему в голову не приходит, что он буквально оглушил меня.
– Что? Отставку просите? Имейте в виду, у нас отставок не просят, а мы их сами даем...
– Если Вы находите, – дайте сами.
– Дадим, когда нужно, а сейчас советую не проявлять нервозности – это презренный вид малодушия".94
Итак, до войны у нас каждый маршал и генерал мнил себя Суворовым и Наполеоном, но как только началась война, то оказалось, что наркому обороны срочно захотелось в отставку, а начальник Генштаба от вопроса о положении на фронтах впадал в истерику. Что оставалось делать Советской власти? Ждать, пока эти генералы армию и страну немцам сдадут, так и не поняв, что произошло?
В результате 10 июля Верховный Совет Ставку Главного Командования реорганизовал в Ставку Верховного Командования (чтобы Тимошенко было не так обидно) и председателем ее назначил Сталина.130 Но поскольку Ставка была коллегиальным органом, которому в полном составе почти никогда не приходилось собираться, то 8 августа 1941 г. должность Сталина была изменена в названии и он стал называться не Председателем Ставки, а Верховным Главнокомандующим.
Таким образом, не предполагая, не собираясь и не готовясь, Сталин, неожиданно для себя вынужден был стать еще и военным вождем СССР. И, кстати, как после его смерти ни клеветали на Сталина, но никому и в голову не приходило, что в то время из всех имевшихся деятелей СССР кто-либо, кроме Сталина, смог бы занимать эту должность. "
About Kiev:
"В результате группа немецких армий "Центр" глубоко вклинилась по направлению к Москве, и ее положение стало опасным: неразгромленные войска Ворошилова и Буденного могли ударить с севера и с юга по основанию немецкого клина и окружить войска, идущие на Москву.131 Гитлер этой опасностью пренебречь не смог, тем более поняв, что его армия сражается не с французами или поляками, а с солдатами совсем иного качества...
...Гитлер не смог не учесть изменения обстоятельств и вынужден был импровизировать. Он поставил крест на "Барбароссе" и изменил задачу группе "Центр". Он остановил ее движение к Москве и повернул входящую в ее состав 2-ю танковую группу Гудериана и 2-ю армию на юг – в тыл советского Юго-западного фронта с целью окружить и уничтожить его войска. То есть перед наступлением на Москву Гитлер снимал угрозу своим войскам с юга. (А 3-я танковая группа, входившая в группу армий "Центр", была направлена на север для снятия угрозы удара оттуда).
Особенно велика была опасность от этого маневра Гитлера для Юго-западного фронта. Его войска держали оборону далеко на западе, причем крайним западным участком был укрепленный район (УР34) на правом берегу Днепра у Киева. Здесь, кстати, находилась самая крупная и сильная группировка советских войск Юго-западного фронта.
Сталин видел эту опасность и принял меры: был создан Брянский фронт в составе двух армий под командованием генерал-лейтенанта Еременко восточнее того места, откуда немцы могли нанести удар в тыл Юго-западного фронта. Предполагалось, что ударом с запада войск Юго-западного фронта и с востока – войск Брянского фронта, прорыв немцев на юг будет смят и ликвидирован. Но из-за отсутствия радиосвязи наша многочисленная и не управляемая в воздухе авиация в то время не представляла существенной угрозы немецкой авиации, и люфтваффе Геринга практически выбомбило Брянский фронт еще на станциях выгрузки. Еременко остановить Гудериана не смог, и тот, пусть и с трудом, прорвался (что впоследствии закончилось окружением и гибелью части войск Юго-западного фронта).
Г.К. Жуков в своих мемуарах "Воспоминания и размышления", которые для точности следовало бы назвать "Сказки дедушки Жоры, потерявшего совесть", привычно врет, что, дескать, 29 июля 1941 г. он предложил отвести войска Юго-западного фронта на восток и оставить Киев, а Сталин, дескать, его за это гениальное предложение выгнал с должности начальника Генштаба.133 Жуков, по обыкновению, украл эту историю у другого военачальника, поскольку произошла похожая история спустя полтора месяца после заявленной Жуковым даты.
Началось это трагическое событие в ночь на 11 сентября. Маршал Баграмян, на тот момент генерал-майор и начальник оперативного отдела штаба Юго-западного фронта, восстановил его по копиям телеграмм и собственным воспоминаниям. Штаб Юго-западного фронта и его командующий генерал-полковник М.П. Кирпонос к этому моменту поняли, что ни Юго-западный фронт на тех позициях, на которых он находился, ни Брянский фронт не остановят немцев от выхода в тыл Юго-западного фронта.
Кирпонос обратился к начальнику Генерального штаба маршалу Шапошникову с предложением оставить Киевский УР и Киев и отвести все войска за 250 км на восток от Киева на рубеж реки Псел. Но маршал Шапошников от имени Ставки категорически запретил это делать: "Ставка Верховного Главнокомандования считает, что необходимо продолжать драться на тех позициях, которые занимают части Юго-западного фронта, как это предусмотрено нашими уставами" – ответил он.
Тогда Кирпонос обратился к командующему Юго-западным направлением, включавшим Южный и Юго-западный фронты, маршалу Буденному. И тот дал телеграмму Сталину: "Военный совет Юго-западного фронта считает, что в создавшейся обстановке необходимо разрешить общий отход фронта на тыловой рубеж…" (Далее идет оценка обстановки Буденным и такие выводы: "Промедление с отходом Юго-западного фронта может повлечь к потере войск и огромного количества материальной части. В крайнем случае, если вопрос с отходом не может быть пересмотрен, прошу разрешения вывести хотя бы войска и богатую технику из Киевского УР, эти силы и средства, безусловно, помогут Юго-западному фронту противодействовать окружению".
Сталин был в очень трудном положении. Как глава страны он должен был согласовать оставление врагу столицы уже шестой союзной республики и огромного количества населения. Генштаб против отвода войск. Что делать? Сталин принимает собственное решение, и это решение военного вождя – он ставит Юго-западному фронту задачу на спасение войск, на спасение не бегством, а боем. Вечером 11 сентября он связывается по телеграфу с Кирпоносом и, оценив обстановку, заканчивает анализ своим решением:
"Первое. Немедленно перегруппировать силы хотя бы за счет Киевского укрепрайона и других войск и повести отчаянные атаки на конотопскую группу противника35 во взаимодействии с Еременко, сосредоточив в этом районе девять десятых авиации. Еременко уже даны соответствующие указания. Авиационную же группу Петрова мы сегодня специальным приказом передислоцируем на Харьков и подчиним Юго-Западному направлению.
Второе. Немедленно организовать оборонительный рубеж на реке Псел или где-либо по этой линии, выставив большую артиллерийскую группу фронтом на север и на запад36 и отведя 5-6 дивизий на этот рубеж.
Третье. По исполнении этих двух пунктов, и только после исполнения этих двух пунктов, т.е. после создания кулака против конотопской группы и после создания оборонительного рубежа на реке Псел, словом, после всего этого начать эвакуацию Киева. Подготовить тщательно взрыв мостов. Никаких плавсредств на Днепре не оставлять, а разрушить их и после эвакуации Киева закрепиться на восточном берегу Днепра, не давая противнику прорваться на восточный берег.
Перестать, наконец, заниматься исканием рубежей для отступления, а искать пути для сопротивления".
Надо пояснить, чего боялся Сталин. Когда 30 июня 1941 г. Ставка разрешила Юго-западному фронту отвести войска от новой границы к укрепрайонам на старой границе, то фронт этот маневр произвести не смог. Отвод всех войск сразу привел к тому, что немцы опередили колонны наших отступающих войск и едва не ворвались в Киев. Закрепиться на УРах старой границы не удалось, пришлось отступать дальше – до Днепра.
Поэтому Сталин, поддержав в целом предложение Буденного, расширил его и разбил на этапы: сначала нужно было войска с правого берега Днепра (Западного), с Киевского УРа немедленно перебросить навстречу Гудериану и не дать тому замкнуть окружение; одновременно отвести часть войск на Псел и начать готовить оборонительные позиции, а затем на эти позиции отводить и весь фронт. Сам маршал Баграмян это решение Сталина откомментировал так: "Своей железной логикой Верховный Главнокомандующий мог обезоружить кого угодно".
Но дальше случилось невероятное, вернее то, чего ни Баграмян, ни другие оставшиеся в живых свидетели объяснить не могли, случилось то, отчего "Тупиков, слушая Кирпоноса, схватился за голову". (Генерал-майор В.И. Тупиков – начальник штаба Юго-западного фронта, погиб при выходе из окружения). Кирпонос и член Военного совета фронта Бурмистренко (тоже погибли при выходе из окружения) оттелеграфировали Сталину: "У нас и мысли об отводе войск не было до получения предложения дать соображения об отводе войск на восток с указанием рубежей, а была лишь просьба в связи с расширившимся фронтом до 800 с лишним километров усилить наш фронт резервами…"
Сталин не понял. Он передал Кирпоносу текст телеграммы, которую получил от Буденного. Телеграфный аппарат долго молчал, видимо растерянный Сталин не знал, что решить, ведь оказалось, что и Генштаб и командующий Юго-западный фронтом против отвода фронта с занимаемых позиций. Затем последовал приказ: "Киева не оставлять и мостов не взрывать без особого разрешения Ставки".
Кирпонос и Бурмистренко, между прочим, довольно подло "подставили" маршала Буденного. Он в глазах Ставки оказался не только паникером, ни с того, ни с сего начавшим кричать об отводе войск, но еще и негодяем, который к своей панике присоединил Кирпоноса и Бурмистренко, которые, "оказывается", ни сном, ни духом не собирались отводить войска и оставлять Киев. На следующий день Ставка сняла Буденного с должности и назначила на его место Тимошенко.134 Но это мелочь по сравнению с тем, что произошло дальше.
Через 6 дней немцы замкнули окружение Юго-западного фронта, и напрасно Тимошенко требовал от Кирпоноса немедленно начать отвод войск, Кирпонос ждал письменного приказа от Ставки, который попал к нему только 19 сентября. Своим диким решением Кирпонос погубил сотни тысяч советских солдат. Такова была стоимость первого урока, который дали Сталину на посту Верховного Главнокомандующего его маршалы и генералы с их авторитетом "профессионалов
Харьков
Последний раз, когда Сталин прислушался к "профессионалам" в стратегических вопросах, был, по моему мнению, план кампании на 1942 г. Эта кампания началась попыткой советских Юго-западного и Южных фронтов окружить немцев под Харьковом".
Whole book here:
http://rusograd.narod.ru/history/muhin1.html#50
The author ask some interesting questions Saras.
(On konechno prosto bogotvorit Stalina, no knigu etu, imho prochitat', ne bezinteresno. Sobytiya predstayut neskolko v inom svete, chem nam zdes' v techenii poslednih 15-20 let vdalblivali.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:33
|
|
Da pochemu zhe ne mozhet? Est' ved arhivy sovetskoi armii, tam vse eti documenty est'. Naprimer prikaz Zhukova kak nachalnika gen. shatba o privedenii voisk v polnuyu boevuyu gotovnost' nakanune 22-go iunya. Pravda on v svoih memuarah ob etom prikaze rasskazat' "zabyl", tak zhe kak zabyl pro "Kiev" i mnogoe drugoe. Ya k memuaram voobshe otnoshus' ochen' ostorozhno, mali chto avtor mozhet tam nabrehat'. Nemeckie generaly vse valili na Hitler'a, ono i ponyatno ego ved' uzhe ne bylo i sledovatel'no oprovergnut' on ih ne mog. Nash vse valili na Stalina po toi zhe prichine.
Drugoe delo prikazi- eto uzhe istoricheskii material, dokument.
A tak, knizhka v principe poleznaya, poskol'ku daet pishyu dlya razmuslenii. Muhin tam deistvitel'no zadaet takie voprosy, vrode- "esli uzh Stalin byl takoi mudak, no kak vy rebyata obyasnite vot eto, vot eto, i vot eto" nad kotorimi prihoditsya zadumyvatsya.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
I cannot find my book, but one of the more recent Ribbentrop biographies mentioned a Waffen SS general who left the Eastern front, if memory serves me also fed up with the atrocities. He was assigned to be the top military officer in Denmark, I cannot recall the position. He personally helped interefere with Gestapo and other attempts to deport Danish Jews, which when combined with Ribbentrop's turf battle over control of Denmark as an occupied country versus annexed territory of the reich, the proximity of Sweden, and the heroism of the Danes, produced on a percentage basis what I believe was the highest survival rate of Jews in all of Nazi occupied Europe, in fact I recall the Nazis killed less than 100 by wars end. As a footnote, the history mentioned the Waffen SS general was imprisoned for war crimes. Sad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
I cannot find my book, but one of the more recent Ribbentrop biographies mentioned a Waffen SS general who left the Eastern front, if memory serves me also fed up with the atrocities. He was assigned to be the top military officer in Denmark, I cannot recall the position. He personally helped interefere with Gestapo and other attempts to deport Danish Jews, which when combined with Ribbentrop's turf battle over control of Denmark as an occupied country versus annexed territory of the reich, the proximity of Sweden, and the heroism of the Danes, produced on a percentage basis what I believe was the highest survival rate of Jews in all of Nazi occupied Europe, in fact I recall the Nazis killed less than 100 by wars end. As a footnote, the history mentioned the Waffen SS general was imprisoned for war crimes. Sad. |
Sad indeed. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-01-2004 19:01
|