Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russia's War-Blood Upon The Snow...Any Good?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 1st cavalry View Post
    2. Germany attack with declaration of war .
    this sound like a declaration of war to me:
    The declaration was made several hours after the start of military actions. So attack started without a declaration indeed. Don't take it personally but after "NSDAP were nazists not fascists" it's the second in the top of most meaningless and irritating remark about WW2. I remember already 50 or 60 guys before you who tried to enlighten ignorant masses in exactly the same way and unfortunately there is on way to escape from hearing the same number in the future.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Artyom_A View Post
      The declaration was made several hours after the start of military actions. So attack started without a declaration indeed. Don't take it personally but after "NSDAP were nazists not fascists" it's the second in the top of most meaningless and irritating remark about WW2. I remember already 50 or 60 guys before you who tried to enlighten ignorant masses in exactly the same way and unfortunately there is on way to escape from hearing the same number in the future.
      did I try to enlighten ignorant masses ?
      I lie trough omission is still a lie, the documentary has no excuses . It even goes to say that Molotov found out that there is war going on from foreign press reports...
      This is what Molotov said :
      Citizens of the Soviet Union:
      The Soviet Government and its head, Comrade Stalin, have authorized me to make the following statement:

      Today at 4 o'clock a.m., without any claims having been presented to the Soviet Union, without a declaration of war, German troops attacked our country, attacked our borders at many points and bombed from their airplanes our cities; Zhitomir, Kiev, Sevastopol, Kaunas and some others, killing and wounding over two hundred persons.

      There were also enemy air raids and artillery shelling from Rumanian and Finnish territory.

      This unheard of attack upon our country is perfidy unparalleled in the history of civilized nations. The attack on our country was perpetrated despite the fact that a treaty of non-aggression had been signed between the U. S. S. R. and Germany and that the Soviet Government most faithfully abided by all provisions of this treaty.

      The attack upon our country was perpetrated despite the fact that during the entire period of operation of this treaty, the German Government could not find grounds for a single complaint against the U.S.S.R. as regards observance of this treaty.

      Entire responsibility for this predatory attack upon the Soviet Union falls fully and completely upon the German Fascist rulers.

      At 5:30 a.m. -- that is, after the attack had already been perpetrated, Von der Schulenburg, the German Ambassador in Moscow, on behalf of his government made the statement to me as People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs to the effect that the German Government had decided to launch war against the U.S.S.R. in connection with the concentration of Red Army units near the eastern German frontier.

      In reply to this I stated on behalf of the Soviet Government that, until the very last moment, the German Government had not presented any claims to the Soviet Government, that Germany attacked the U.S.S.R. despite the peaceable position of the Soviet Union, and that for this reason Fascist Germany is the aggressor.

      On instruction of the government of the Soviet Union I also stated that at no point had our troops or our air force committed a violation of the frontier and therefore the statement made this morning by the Rumanian radio to the effect that Soviet aircraft allegedly had fired on Rumanian airdromes is a sheer lie and provocation.

      Likewise a lie and provocation is the whole declaration made today by Hitler, who is trying belatedly to concoct accusations charging the Soviet Union with failure to observe the Soviet-German pact.

      Now that the attack on the Soviet Union has already been committed, the Soviet Government has ordered our troops to repulse the predatory assault and to drive German troops from the territory of our country.

      This war has been forced upon us, not by the German people, not by German workers, peasants and intellectuals, whose sufferings we well understand, but by the clique of bloodthirsty Fascist rulers of Germany who have enslaved Frenchmen, Czechs, Poles, Serbians, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Greece and other nations.

      The government of the Soviet Union expresses its unshakable confidence that our valiant army and navy and brave falcons of the Soviet Air Force will acquit themselves with honor in performing their duty to the fatherland and to the Soviet people, and will inflict a crushing blow upon the aggressor.

      This is not the first time that our people have had to deal with an attack of an arrogant foe. At the time of Napoleon's invasion of Russia our people's reply was war for the fatherland, and Napoleon suffered defeat and met his doom.

      It will be the same with Hitler, who in his arrogance has proclaimed a new crusade against our country. The Red Army and our whole people will again wage victorious war for the fatherland, for our country, for honor, for liberty.

      The government of the Soviet Union expresses the firm conviction that the whole population of our country, all workers, peasants and intellectuals, men and women, will conscientiously perform their duties and do their work. Our entire people must now stand solid and united as never before.

      Each one of us must demand of himself and of others discipline, organization and self-denial worthy of real Soviet patriots, in order to provide for all the needs of the Red Army, Navy and Air Force, to insure victory over the enemy.

      The government calls upon you, citizens of the Soviet Union, to rally still more closely around our glorious Bolshevist party, around our Soviet Government, around our great leader and comrade, Stalin. Ours is a righteous cause. The enemy shall be defeated. Victory will be ours.
      Last edited by 1st cavalry; 01 Nov 12, 05:32.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 1st cavalry View Post
        1.the difference is that France and Britain did not march into Belgium and Holland uninvited, nor did they deport their citizens or murdered their officer core.
        And the problem was these countries had entirely different relationships with their neighbour with the SU. When the matters of strategic defense became urgent and prevalent, there was no time for invitations and justifications.

        2. than i recommend you watch part 3 of the documentary before commenting on it, nowhere does it say that Germany declared war a few hours late, it clearly states : without a declaration of war.
        ARGH! Do you realise that the document called "the declaration of war" can only be considered a declaration BEFORE the hostilities start. AFTER the attack it's a meaningless piece of paper - a statement of fact.

        3 . no, reread my initial post, I was pointing out the old repeat of tired excuses justifying the defeats of 1941 .
        I'm glad you know this all better
        www.histours.ru

        Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ShAA View Post
          And the problem was these countries had entirely different relationships with their neighbour with the SU. When the matters of strategic defense became urgent and prevalent, there was no time for invitations and justifications.
          To be frank i did not expect any other answer.


          Originally posted by ShAA View Post
          ARGH! Do you realise that the document called "the declaration of war" can only be considered a declaration BEFORE the hostilities start. AFTER the attack it's a meaningless piece of paper - a statement of fact.
          By the same logic german declaration of war on america is also a a statement of fact.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by 1st cavalry View Post
            To be frank i did not expect any other answer.
            Neither did I. The Soviet Union was cornered by the intransigence of Britain and France and had to deal with Germany. Especially that the neighbours had long-standing grudges which could not be remedied.

            By the same logic german declaration of war on america is also a a statement of fact.
            Did Germany start open hostilities against the US before DOW?
            www.histours.ru

            Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by ShAA View Post
              Neither did I. The Soviet Union was cornered by the intransigence of Britain and France and had to deal with Germany. Especially that the neighbours had long-standing grudges which could not be remedied.
              So, what matters of strategic defense became urgent and prevalent in September 1939 ? i did follow up on your advice and read upon SU efforts to maintain peace , such as this meaningless piece of paper: http://www.iilj.org/courses/document...Aggression.pdf
              Originally posted by ShAA View Post
              Did Germany start open hostilities against the US before DOW?
              yes.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by 1st cavalry View Post
                So, what matters of strategic defense became urgent and prevalent in September 1939 ? i did follow up on your advice and read upon SU efforts to maintain peace , such as this meaningless piece of paper: http://www.iilj.org/courses/document...Aggression.pdf


                Hope you weren't too exhausted after trying so hard

                http://books.google.ru/books?id=WK18...0peace&f=false

                yes.
                Oh, really? Care to elaborate? Your inability or unwillingness to state your position clearly is wearing down on me.
                www.histours.ru

                Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ShAA View Post


                  Hope you weren't too exhausted after trying so hard

                  http://books.google.ru/books?id=WK18...0peace&f=false
                  no actually it is common knowledge .
                  In complete defiance of the convention put forth by Litvinov, the soviet union, had committed armed aggression against Roumania, Estonian Republic, Latvian Republic, Polish Republic, Finland .
                  As for the book you linked :
                  This statement highlights a certain mindset:
                  The rapid changes of the 1930 traumatized soviet society. Never had the regime bean less prepared to withstand the shock of war yet never had war seamed to be more likely .The threat posed by the imperialist crisis containing the seeds of confrontation was a familiar theme in soviet analysis, but now it took on a new immediacy. In the wake of Hitler ascension to power,Stalin must have concluded that a new imperialist war on the scale of 1914-1918 was in the making . The overriding dilemma for soviet security policy was how to most effectively position the regime for an inexorably approaching conflict.
                  One would think if that was the case, Su needed all her 1914-1918 allies in the same boat, not making an enemy out of every neutral state on the western border.
                  Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                  Oh, really? Care to elaborate? Your inability or unwillingness to state your position clearly is wearing down on me.
                  Sorry, I did not think I needed to spell it out for you.
                  check up on the attacks on Kearny and Ruben James.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 1st cavalry View Post
                    no actually it is common knowledge .
                    In complete defiance of the convention put forth by Litvinov, the soviet union, had committed armed aggression against Roumania, Estonian Republic, Latvian Republic, Polish Republic, Finland .
                    As for the book you linked :
                    This statement highlights a certain mindset:
                    The rapid changes of the 1930 traumatized soviet society. Never had the regime bean less prepared to withstand the shock of war yet never had war seamed to be more likely .The threat posed by the imperialist crisis containing the seeds of confrontation was a familiar theme in soviet analysis, but now it took on a new immediacy. In the wake of Hitler ascension to power,Stalin must have concluded that a new imperialist war on the scale of 1914-1918 was in the making . The overriding dilemma for soviet security policy was how to most effectively position the regime for an inexorably approaching conflict.
                    One would think if that was the case, Su needed all her 1914-1918 allies in the same boat, not making an enemy out of every neutral state on the western border.
                    Yes, and the Munich Agreement showed quite clearly that neither Britain and France were ready to surrender these states, and on top of it, these states, instead of forming joint alliances, were ready to join Germany in raping others - check Poland in 1938. Litvinov's ideas might have been too fair and open-minded for the West, but in any case the Soviet Union did more to advace collective security than anybody else. Only after the Munich Betrayal its policies changed.

                    Sorry, I did not think I needed to spell it out for you.
                    check up on the attacks on Kearny and Ruben James.
                    So why are you bringing up armed incidents? Do you know the difference between an all-out war, launched by Germany at 3.45 am on June 22 1941 and military conflicts or border incidents?
                    www.histours.ru

                    Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      more of the before mentioned mindset :
                      Having analyzed this information, Soviet historians came to the only possible (possible for them) conclusion:
                      “… Soviet government was in a situation which could be best described as position of a man who is overflowed by sea tide: water reached his knees, then his waist, breast, neck… One more second - and water would cover his head, if man wouldn’t do any fast, decisive movement which would take him to the rock, inaccessible for the tide…" ( 36)
                      Water (or another liquid) “covered the head” of Soviet historians-propagandists and they harped for half a century that Stalin and Molotov were extremely scared by half a thousand tanks, that they trembled in awe from the thought that these tanks, having crossed the whole Poland (and at that time it was twice as wide as the present one), would fling in October 1939, under autumn rains, straight to Smolensk and Moscow through marshlands in Belarus.
                      And just the desire to “escape” the implacable danger forced them to throw themselves into “treacherous arms” of Ribbentrop… Let's though not waste time for discussing crazy fantasies of Communist propaganda. The question, what summary of the war’s experience in Spain did make the Soviet military-political authorities, however, deserves a discussion.
                      Mark Solonin : June 23: M-day

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 1st cavalry View Post
                        more of the before mentioned mindset :


                        Mark Solonin : June 23: M-day
                        Mark Solonin is a well-known proponent of Victor Suvorov's thesis on "Stalin's preventive war", which first originated in Hitler's excuse for the war with the Soviet Union. His books are overfilled with ideological conjectures and gross factual errors - pretty much like those of his idol Suvorov-Rezun.

                        In the passage you've quoted there's nothing to disprove what Soviet historians or Overy say, only hollow ranting about "propaganda".
                        www.histours.ru

                        Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 1st cavalry View Post

                          Sorry, I did not think I needed to spell it out for you.
                          check up on the attacks on Kearny and Ruben James.
                          That's a little fuzzier.

                          The US actually was acting as a belligerent without a declaration of war against Germany. The Kearny incident would've been an interesting case to take to court. The Kearny responded to calls for help from Canadian convoy escorts and began dropping depth charges. The Canadians and Germans were legally at war, the US was not but came to help anyway. The case can be made that U-568 was simply defending itself against a ship that was trying to sink it. Almost any captain of a ship (or boat) would do the same.

                          The Reuben James is a somewhat different story. She hadn't depth charged anyone but had positioned herself between a U-boat and its target. The target was an ammunition ship, a legitimate target. U-552 could argue that the Reuben James was topedoed accidentally but I doubt that's the case.

                          PS- I didn't mean for this thread to start a whole debate on the start of the Soviet-Nazi War. Just want to know whether the documentary was worth watching. But that's okay.
                          Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 1st cavalry View Post
                            I lie trough omission is still a lie, the documentary has no excuses .
                            It's not a lie its just a standing formula which contains explicitly omitted but implicitly meant part. A usual thing with a human language:
                            "Have you ever noticed this--that people never answer what you say? They answer what you mean--or what they think you mean. Suppose one lady says to another in a country house, `Is anybody staying with you?' the lady doesn't answer `Yes; the butler, the three footmen, the parlourmaid, and so on,' though the parlourmaid may be in the room, or the butler behind her chair. She says `There is nobody staying with us,' meaning nobody of the sort you mean. But suppose a doctor inquiring into an epidemic asks, `Who is staying in the house?' then the lady will remember the butler, the parlourmaid, and the rest. All language is used like that; you never get a question answered literally, even when you get it answered truly
                            The formula "without a declaration of war" really meant "without a declaration of war made by the moment hostilities started", which is more or less understood if you know the context. That is why remark "in fact there was a declaration of war" is meaningless, it simply ignores the context. I cannot comment on the documentary itself, I haven't seen it.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 1st cavalry View Post
                              In complete defiance of the convention put forth by Litvinov, the soviet union, had committed armed aggression against Roumania, Estonian Republic, Latvian Republic, Polish Republic, Finland .
                              Only against Polish Republic and Finland. Divide it by three

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                                Yes, and the Munich Agreement showed quite clearly that neither Britain and France were ready to surrender these states, and on top of it, these states, instead of forming joint alliances, were ready to join Germany in raping others - check Poland in 1938. Litvinov's ideas might have been too fair and open-minded for the West, but in any case the Soviet Union did more to advace collective security than anybody else. Only after the Munich Betrayal its policies changed.
                                The sad part is that you actually believe the Munich Betrayal part.
                                The fact that it does not excuse the invasion of virtually every country on su western border seams to be lost on you.

                                Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                                So why are you bringing up armed incidents? Do you know the difference between an all-out war, launched by Germany at 3.45 am on June 22 1941 and military conflicts or border incidents?
                                because you asked ? Irrelevant in this case as the United states and Germany due to geographical reasons could only trade blows at sea in the opening stages.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X