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

[1st cavalry]

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.

It is worth watching, just that caution and critical analysis is advised .

[1st cavalry]

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".

since it is hollow ranting about" propaganda" do you mind sharing with us the date when Hitler proposed the military to prepare for a invasion
of SU ?

[1st cavalry]

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.

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.

[Artyom_A]

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

[Artyom_A]

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.

[R. Evans]

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.

[ShAA]

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".

[1st cavalry]

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

[ShAA]

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?

[1st cavalry]

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.

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.

[ShAA]

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.

[1st cavalry]

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

Did Germany start open hostilities against the US before DOW?

yes.

[ShAA]

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?

[1st cavalry]

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.

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.

[ShAA]

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