 |
| |
|
|
The Vagabond
|
 |
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
Serb, I've got the impression that you justify Stalin totally and unconditionally. 
In the early 1930s Stalin said something like that: "We are 50 years behind the developed countries. We have to cover this distance in 10 years, or else we'll be destroyed". Those who think that fast industrialization was an imperative for survival at that particular place and time are certainly right. Times were tough and cruel, and the leader of the Soviet Union had to be tough, even cruel, and with the right insight into what had to be done. Stalin was that. But unfortunately he was even more than that: He was also a paranoid and murderous maniac. The number of victims is horrendous^(*). If we try to compare him with other tough dictators like e.g. Franco or Pinochet, the numbers of victims are incomparable.
But, all in all, if I had to choose between Stalin and a kinder leader who would have failed to prepare the country for the war, I would choose Stalin, of course. All the repressions pale in comparison with what could have happened if the Soviet Union had been defeated in that war. You see, it's a really tough choice here.
(*) Here I mean the realistic estimations (like 4 million repressed, 1 million victims of the Ucranian famine), not the BS numbers that have been feeding the western propagandistic machine for decades.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well he does live in Russia. |
Well I did provide coverage for a detox ward for 3 years.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Serb, US doctrine for dealing with asymetric warfare stinks from a political standpoint. Vietnam was a classic cluster f***, and Iraq is having problems. Our problem is that our military is politically controlled, and when the administration is in denial, "they'll welcome us with open arms," our military isn't given the resources because the idiot politicians KNOW they won't have a guerilla war. |
Well, I brought an example of two guerrilla wars were Soviet and US army participated, to compare their peformance. As for me, it's obviuos, that Soviets performed in Afghanistan better than Americans did in Vietnam. So, I don't see how Soviet doctrines could be worse than American.
quote:
I agree that all of the early Soviet Army was lightly armored. That's why I mentioned BT-5/7 spearheaded by T-34A/KV-1A. |
But, T-34 and KV tanks were created after Tukhachevsky. Had he stayed in charge, those tanks would never be created. Tukhachevsky didn't want tanks like T-34 or KV-1, KV-2, because he din't understand the nature of modern warfare, he didn't understand what kind of tanks needed for new type of warfare. What he wanted to create, was a new breakthrought tank T-39, weight- 90 tonns , two 107mm main guns, two 45mm secondary guns, five muchineguns. It was the same fricking "land battleship" as T-35 or British "Indepentent", but just bigger, uglier and more absurd.
quote:
The T-28 and T-35 were pathetic, but then again so the the PZ-1, with the PZ-11 only competent for armored recon (which the Germans eventually used a variant for). If you look at other tanks from the same time period, nobody was doing a very good job. The Brits had tiny guns, the French had one-man turrets, and the Germans only had light tanks. It's the next generation, with the Pzkw-III that the German's get quality equipment, and then the Soviets with the T-34 and KV-1 build the best tanks for the time period, pre-1942/43 depending on how you figure your dates and the Panther and Sherman Firefly. |
Sure, but again, he wanted to replace T-35 and T-28 with 90 tonns T-39. Considering T-35 and T-28 were pure crap, but were damn expensive (overall Tukhachevsky build 60 T-35 and about 500 T-28), it's obvious thier bigger and uglier version T-39, would have been even more crap and even more expensive. So, Soviet industry could not produce them in quantity needed for breakthroughts. In Tukhachevsky's armored forces were 60 T-35, 500 T-28, BUT about 20 000 light tanks with "paper armor" (T-26 and BT of all modifications) and also 4000 of swiming tanks (5-7mm armor). Can you explain such proportion? I can't. I don't know what for he need so many almost unarmored tanks.
quote:
The problem with the theory of deep operation is that it as practiced it was centrally directed, and commanders were largely trained AND REWARDED for following orders, not initiative. You cannot claim to only reward successful initiative, but there will always be mistakes. If you can get shot for a loss on the field due to failed initiative, then initiative will be rare. Doctrine includes down to the small unit level, and the disconnect between brilliant strategic doctrine and failed operational/tactical doctrine means that deep operation was a paper tiger. |
Disagreed. All front-scale operations are centrally directed. Take your latest campaign in Iraq for example. Wasn't it centrally directed from HQ? Weren't your commanders following their orders? Or your generals just send your boys and told them - "just do what you want to do, what you consider will be the best"?
quote:
Khalkin-gol is a very bad example. The Japanese army was pathetic. It's best tank was worse than the BT- series, it only had a medium velocity 37mm gun, it was slow, and it had armor that could be penetrated by a heavy machine gun. There artillery was poor, and their machine guns had all kinds of problems. The only thing you could say for their doctrine was that it stressed the intiative, but it did that via frontal assaults and horrendous casualties. Their army air force was equally bad, and it took bringing in their naval air units to slow down the Soviets. The Soviets were fighting an army with worse infranty equipment than the German and British armies in WW1 (not the French, nobody was that bad  ). |
Sure their equipment and esp. tanks were crap, but why it's a bad example? Japanese kicked some arses before (well, to be honest Chinese army was in even worse state than Japanese) and after Khalkin-Gol. I heard they put quite a fight to US in 1941-1945.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
I think you are too tough on BT tanks, Serb. Surely they were no worse than PzI/PzIIs and probably even comparable to early PzIIIs. That's what Zhukov used at Khalkhin-Gol and with considerable success.
The doctrine was inadequate and logistics was in shambles during early weeks of the war. No tank is going to be any good without fuel and ammo. That's what most likely explains horrendous losses of them in summer'41, not that they were particularly bad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Are you like 15 years old? |
When I was 15 years old, I thought like most of you that Stalin was just a paranoid manic, who liked to kill his own people. Now I'm 27 and when I say that purges "strenghtened the Red Army, not the other way around", I'm absolutely serious.
Again from diary of Joseph Davis American ambassador in USSR (I didn't translate this part last time, more probably most of the names spelled wrong here, forgive me my English):
"Today, thanks to efforts of FBI, we know that Hitler's agents acted everywhere, even in United States and South America. German enterance to Praga, was supported by military organizations of Helen. The same was in Norway (Quisling), Slovakia (Tiso), Belgium (de Grell)... however we see nothing alike in Russia. "Where are the Russian agents of Hitler?" - people ask me often, and I answer - "they were shot".
The end of quote.
Besides obvious criminals and traitors like Tukhachevsky, Stalin replaced lazy and incompetent officers by proffesionals. After the purges the % of educated officers in highest leadership of Red Army incresed by 45% (most of those brightest minds, like Tukhachevsky&Co had no military education, proffesionals, my ass ). Stalin replaced all those old farts, with whole line of real professionals, like Zhukov.
Winston Churchill considered that in human history Stalin's marshals: Zhukov, Konev, Rockossovsky, Vasilevsky, Konev, etc. had only one parallel- Napoleon's marshals.
The purges of 1937-1938, weren't just arrests and exectutions. The percent of officers who were arrested during purges was actually small (iirc, about 10%). The rest of officers were FIRED from Red army during 1937-1938, retired because of age, or FIRED because of incompetence or lack of discipline.
And one more thing.
When Soviet tanks were near Berlin, just several days before his death, Hitler in his bunker, met with western journalist (don't remeber his name) and gave him his last interview. In this last interview, Hitler said something like this- "Stalin did a genius thing when he purged his army, I regret I didn't do the same".
It's confession of the defeated enemy, he had no reasons to lie, imho.
Last edited by Serb on 04-04-2004 at 13:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Trostky commanded the Red Army during the civil war - he must have won a few battles because the Red Army beats the Whites. |
I don't recall a single battle he won. He perhaps was a creator of Red Army as many claim, but operational general? I doubt. He was more like draft man and propaganda man. He traveled across Russia in his personal train (It wasn't a regular train, but personal train of last Russian Tzar- Nickolai II. Trotsky's personal cook was from Paris. This guy really liked comfort.) and made speeches. But who cares about Trotsky? We spoke about Tukhachevsky.
quote:
Stalin did not distinguish himself in the civil war, quite the opposite. |
Wrong guess, AH, wrong guess. Stalin won for Soviets one of the most decisive battles of Civil war. He crushed an overhelming force of Whites during defence of Tsaritzin. This city was a key factor for survival of young Soviet republic, guess how it was named later? It was renamed to Stalingrad.
quote:
In fact if I recall correctly Stalin was responsible for the Polish debacle. There was a scandal about it but this of course was written out of the official history once Stalin came to power. |
Stalin responsible for the Polish debacle?
Yeah, right, next time you'll tell me, that Stalin is responsible for extinction of dinosaurs.
Poland was a Tykhachevsky's f*ck-up 100%. This "brightest mind" denied importance of reinforcements. He complitely denied reinforcements as an element of warfare and HE, and no one else, HE f*cked-up at Warsaw.
Sure after the war, he wrote a book where he start to whine - "It was not my fault, blah...blah...blah..."
This bright mind didn't win a single battle vs. enemy's army. However he was quite talented dealing with such enemies as peasants. His only victories are suppression of peasant riot at Tambov (Yeah, it's pretty honorable to shot peasants, right?) and suppression of Krondshtat riot of sailors.
That's all.
quote:
It's sad you believe that because it was actually intelligence operation by Abwehr, German military intelligence, which triggered the purges. It was their most successful operation to convince Stalin his most gifted generals were traitors. |
It's sad, really sad, (because I really respect you) that you AH, are prisoner of the same myths, as most of the others here. Tukhachevsky wasn't a gifted general and such operation never existed. Considering what kind of harm Tukhachevsky done to Red Army, Germans were intersted at him staying in charge as longer as possible.
quote:
So sad you think that about Tukhachevsky. Stalinist propaganda is alive and well it seems in modern Russia. The Germans had immense respect for Tukhachevksy... |
Sure, he was a member of their team, their minion.
quote:
... because they trained secretly in Russia during the Weimar republic period. The blitzkrieg was developed in Russia but Stalin's cronies rejected deep armoured penetration as counter-revolutionary after the purges in favour of massed infantry frontal assault. This "tactic" wasn't overturned until the end of 1942. Millions of ordinary Russian soldiers died as a result. |
Once again AH,
1) The theory of deep operation (you called a blitzkrieg)was created by Triandafilov. Tukhachevsky has nothing to do with this, except that he pursued and presecuted Triandafilov all his life, untill he (Triandafilov) finally died.
2) The theory of deep operation was in Red Army's regulations since 1936. No one removed it from regulations since this time, it was a part of regulations in 1941, as well.
3) No one in Soviet leadership switched in favour of massed infantry frontal assaults after Tukhachevsky's death. Spearhead units- Mechanized Corps were still there and Red Army still should act in accordance with its regulations, in accordance with theory of deep operation which was part of those regulations. Single Mech. Corps had more than 1000 tanks and there were several such corps in 1941 and Stalin planned to increase their number to 20 within 1-1.5 years).
But problem was that in 1941, those spearhead units were still equiped by Tukhachevsky's tanks- T-26 and BT. Germans wiped-out this armada of rusty crap within few months and Soviets had to build their armor forces from scratch. Millions of Russian soldiers died as result of Tukhachevsky betrayal or his incompetence at best, because he armed them with such armaments.
Last edited by Serb on 04-04-2004 at 13:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I've seen lots more of them than you have buddy. You can depend on that. He didn't have to walk the streets, he had lots of people do it for him. Are you making the claim that the humongous number of people he sent to death and/or imprisonment were actually guilty of plotting to overthrow the Soviet Union? What portion of those people do you hink were actually guilty? |
I think a big portion. USSR was isolated and surrounded by hostile countries. The WW2 was on horisont and enemy's activities were very high. Besides, there were many internal enemies. The civil war left a lot of people who were hostile to Bolshevicks and who did their best to harm them somehow. Next, the split in party, produced a lot of enemies within party itself. It was not a war only between Stalin and Trotsky, but among their followers as well. Followers of Trotsky had no reasons to love Stalin's line and did their best to sabotage Stalin's efforts in economy. So I think a big portion of them were actually guilty, but it doesn't meant I believe that no innocent people were shot or send to jails. Sure many innocent suffered and it's a tragedy. I believe my grand grandfather who was shot in 1937 was innocent too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whoha
they didn't develop the skills or technology to build railroads,factories, machine equipment,etc. It was all brought in. The US had to develop a lot of what it had, it could only steal so much from GB. In particular railroads over rugged terrain, and high pressure steam engines that make trains possible are US inventions for example.
|
Well, they did build those railroads and factories by themselves. Foreign companies only designed those factories not build. Anyhow, it's quite normal situation for that time (and for today too). Those design companies did not worked for USSR only. They worked for other countries as well. That's how they are making money. It's they job and they don't care much who sign the checks. It's just a buisness. I'm pretty sure today in US, hordes of engineeres from all around the world (including Russia of course) works for US. I'm pretty sure thousands of companies from all around the world, cooperate with US and sell to US their technologies.
So? What is the difference? It's quite normal proccess.
quote:
Would the 5 year plan have gotten anywhere without outside investors bringing equipment and tech in? |
They were not an investors. Not a single foreigner in his straight mind, would invest in USSR in 30's. An investor put his money on risk, he may win and make a profit, but also he can loose and lost his bet. Any investment it's always a risk. What they did, whas just a deal- they sold, USSR bought. The government of SU just bought an equipment and designs from west. The government of USSR was an investor in this case, not the companies who sold this equipment to investor.
quote:
Would it have done so as quickly as it happened? I do not know, and you don't either. |
Sure. But as I've said it was a buisness profitable for both sides, otherwise western companies wouldn't have been bothering with Soviets.
Last edited by Serb on 04-04-2004 at 13:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Serb, I've got the impression that you justify Stalin totally and unconditionally.
|
Not at all. My atitude towards him are very complicated, but I still think he was overdemonized. To much BS about him were released, to much.
Anyhow, I'm with GePap here:
" People have to learn that being Great and being good are not the same thing at all".
Stalin, among Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible, certanly was one of the Greatest leaders in Russian hisory. But unfortunately, in Russian history, Great is always = cruel dictator. It's our cross.
quote:
In the early 1930s Stalin said something like that: "We are 50 years behind the developed countries. We have to cover this distance in 10 years, or else we'll be destroyed". Those who think that fast industrialization was an imperative for survival at that particular place and time are certainly right. Times were tough and cruel, and the leader of the Soviet Union had to be tough, even cruel, and with the right insight into what had to be done. Stalin was that. |
Exactly.
quote:
But, all in all, if I had to choose between Stalin and a kinder leader who would have failed to prepare the country for the war, I would choose Stalin, of course. All the repressions pale in comparison with what could have happened if the Soviet Union had been defeated in that war. You see, it's a really tough choice here. |
My thoughts exactly.
Last edited by Serb on 04-04-2004 at 17:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErikM
I think you are too tough on BT tanks, Serb. Surely they were no worse than PzI/PzIIs and probably even comparable to early PzIIIs. That's what Zhukov used at Khalkhin-Gol and with considerable success.
|
The age of lightly armored tanks was over with appearance of anti-tank artillery. The concept of "land battleship" was a complete sh!t from the beggining. Everyone understood this. Everyone, except the "brightest mind of Red Army" and he keep building hordes of light tanks and dozens of heavy multy-turret monsters. The production of BT stopped before the war. It was inadequate tank for WW2. And it's a tragedy for any country if its armaments are inadequate for war, and country have to re-arm itself when the war is already goes on. Tukhachevsky is responsible for this tragedy, not the only one who is responsible, but still he is responsible. He ordered those hordes of tanks and planes that were already obsolete when he sign papers about their production.
quote:
The doctrine was inadequate and logistics was in shambles during early weeks of the war. No tank is going to be any good without fuel and ammo. That's what most likely explains horrendous losses of them in summer'41, not that they were particularly bad. |
They were obsolete in 1941.
The bulk of Soviet tank forces in 1941 were old tanks of obsolete models, without spare parts and proper maintenance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
Ha, you had pretty rich sponsors and your industry was nowhere near in comparisons with Soviet. IIRC, the only tanks in Finnish forces during entire WW2, were 5 T-28 captured in Winter war. Pathetic Soviet industry pale in comparison with mighty Finnnish industrial giants, no doubt.
Last edited by Serb on 04-04-2004 at 17:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
How man can create a famine is beyond me. Modern weather control technologies doesn't reach that level yet. 1932-33 were extremely dry years and famine was not only in Ukraine but at central Russia too. The family of my granfather ran from central Russia to Russian Far East, because of hunger.
Last edited by Serb on 04-04-2004 at 17:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hurricane
What sponsors would that be if I might ask? And that Finland had no heavy industry during WW2 is exactly my point. It was created pretty much from scratch in only a few years after the war. |
With all my due respect to Finnish economy - and I do think that Finland did a tremendous job in modernizing her economy - I cannot recall Finnish companies that produce aircraft, tanks, cars, trucks, microprocessors, etc.
And you did not have to, as Finnish economy is well integrated into the world economy. Finnland did not have to support a large military, either.
Soviet Union in 1930s had to be self-sufficient, though. Partially by startegic reasons and partially due to trade restrictions that were placed against it both before and after the war. So the scale of industrialization had to be larger than in Finland.
There was no other country, not even United States, that were as self-sufficient as USSR. Again, this is by itself is not a major accomplishment since international trade is more efficient than an autarky. Soviet Union did not have such a luxury though.
Besides, before the communist revolution, Finland and the Baltic states were some of the more industrialized regions in Russia.
So Russia vs. Finland is not exactly a fair comparison.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hurricane
|
 |
Arctic Hill
May 2001
time: 07:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErikM
With all my due respect to Finnish economy - and I do think that Finland did a tremendous job in modernizing her economy - I cannot recall Finnish companies that produce aircraft, tanks, cars, trucks, microprocessors, etc.
And you did not have to, as Finnish economy is well integrated into the world economy. Finnland did not have to support a large military, either.
Soviet Union in 1930s had to be self-sufficient, though. Partially by startegic reasons and partially due to trade restrictions that were placed against it both before and after the war. So the scale of industrialization had to be larger than in Finland. |
With all due respect, your knowledge of the Finnish industry seems rather limited. Let me quote from http://countrystudies.us/finland/94.htm
quote:
Once dominated by the forest industries, Finnish industry underwent rapid structural change after World War II. A boom in metalworking began in the immediate postwar years in response to the need to ship capital goods, including machine tools, ships, rolling stock, and chemicals, to the Soviet Union. By the mid-1950s, heavy industry had taken over the leading role traditionally held by wood products. Beginning in 1957, Finland began to liberalize its trade policies, forcing domestic industry to compete in world markets and bringing new industries to the fore, especially metalworking and engineering, but also petroleum refining, chemicals, plastics, and high-technology goods.
Guided by domestic and foreign tastes and by fierce international competition, industrial firms had developed a wide range of products and had maintained quality standards that were often higher than those typical of industry in the United States. Aware of the relatively small size of their industry, industrial leaders and government officials aimed successfully for technological leadership in narrowly defined subsectors in which Finland enjoyed comparative advantages. Since the 1950s, Finnish firms have been able to dominate world markets for products such as icebreakers, wood-processing and paper-processing machinery, and environmental protection equipment. Buyers of such products were often less sensitive to price increases than they were to technical innovations, quality, and durability. At the same time, Finland had avoided some of the structural weaknesses, such as excessive investments in declining product lines, that plagued the other Nordic economies.
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErikM
There was no other country, not even United States, that were as self-sufficient as USSR. Again, this is by itself is not a major accomplishment since international trade is more efficient than an autarky. Soviet Union did not have such a luxury though. |
If Soviet was so self-sufficient, why was millions and millions of tons of goods shipped to Soviet by the US through the Lend-Lease program?
quote:
Originally posted by ErikM
So Russia vs. Finland is not exactly a fair comparison. |
A perfectly fair comparison is impossible to make. But I still haven't got a single good reason for why the Gulags, mass executions, forced exiles, wasteful projects and mass famine were necessary in order to industrialise Russia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
So please enlighten me.
Finnish aircraft company? ...
Finnish automotive company? ... (iirc you had a SAAB subsidiary at some point but it was closed down)
Finnish microprocessor company? ...
Finnish domestic major weapon systems? ...
Icebreakers and paper-processing are very nice, but it does not make for a complete heavy industry line-up.
quote:
If Soviet was so self-sufficient, why was millions and millions of tons of goods shipped to Soviet by the US through the Lend-Lease program?
|
Hmm, maybe because US and GB were our allies in WWII? Or you think that they would adequately perform their alliance obligations by sending us Christmas cards?
quote:
A perfectly fair comparison is impossible to make. But I still haven't got a single good reason for why the Gulags, mass executions, forced exiles, wasteful projects and mass famine were necessary in order to industrialise Russia. |
5x5=25 again. See the earlier posts. Give me an example of a country that created heavy industry and a major military machine in less than 10 years starting basically from scratch and we will discuss it.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2004 21:38
Attachment: 
|
