Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1945 Manchuria Operation

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Andrey
    Ask danjon why he quoted only info about the eevents before the April of 1945.
    That's up to him. He chose to quote a specific section, but he did provide a full link for anyone to read in full.
    Signing out.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Full Monty
      I think you'd be surprised just how little the average Japanese soldier required to remain an effective fighting soldier. It's a recurring theme in Field Marshal Slim's book on the campaign in India and Burma ('Defeat Into Victory') and Van Der Vat's book also.
      I read a lot of books about the war in the Pacific.

      Do not mix a soldier and a unit. May be an ordinary soldier needed a little supply to survive but it was not the same to maintain a unit as an operational unit.

      If a unit doesn't get enough supply so it turns into a crowd of armed men.

      But that's true of all histories to a certain extent and particularly WW2 and not just 'Western' histories of 'Eastern' warfare. It's all subjective to a certain degree and if you want to find bias it will, by the very nature of the subject matter, be there.
      I KNOW what propaganda is and I KNOW the methods how to fight aganist it. The problem of the Westerners that they don't believe in the existence of the Western propaganda. The Soviets answered the same during the time of the existence of USSR.

      Before the Westerners believe in the existence of Western propaganda they are not able to find truth in the sea of a false.
      Last edited by Andrey; 25 Sep 05, 21:51.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Full Monty
        That's up to him. He chose to quote a specific section, but he did provide a full link for anyone to read in full.
        I have to say that it is not always possible for me to read all the links.

        In this case I believed to danjon that he provided us the most necessary information of his source and that his link has only auxuilary data in addition to the info that he quoted.

        I do not inderstand how it is possible to quote the info about the events a half year before discussed events and to not quote the info that is closer to discussed events. It is very strange...

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Psycho1943
          What you guys don't seem to understand is all of this is not fact but just Western anti-Soviet propaganda according to Andrey. This always comes up when arguing with him about West vs East stuff. His historical sources say one thing and he accepts them but ours say something different and it is just anti-Soviet dribble to make us laugh at how pathetic the Russians were. Apparently he thinks most if not all of us in the West have no idea the Soviets destroyed the Germans and made our job much easier on the Western front. You can't say anything that could be taken as a negative in any stretch of the imagination or you are just anti-Russian. Again, any source you can provide, if it disrespects the Russians in any way (real or imagined) it is not to be trusted. You can only follow the truth laid down by Russian sources (which are not available for us to view).
          Answer shortly - do you believe in the existense of Western propaganda of the Cold War time?

          If you answer "yes" so why do I must believe in any statement that is taken from a Western book? I disagree with your Western opinion if according my info you speak incorrect words. It is not my problem that Western authors had been written so many falsehood about USSR and the Soviets in WWII.

          And, moreover, I share MY, RUSSIAN info with you. I give you the possibility to choose what opinion is correct. I do not force you MY opinion, I only say in every concrete case "yes, your info in this question is the same like the Russian one" or "your opinion contradicts with Russian opinion". But you prefer to see in any my word the position "to protect Russia at any price".
          Last edited by Andrey; 25 Sep 05, 23:50.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Andrey
            Answer shortly - do you believe in the existense of Western propaganda of the Cold War time?

            If you answer "yes" so why do I must believe in any statement that is taken from a Western book? I disagree with your Western opinion if according my info you speak incorrect words. It is not my problem that Western authors had been written so many falsehood about USSR and the Soviets in WWII.
            Yes of course there is propaganda which I have always admitted. You however seem to always think that the Russian sources state fact only while our sources are propaganda. I have said this many times and will repeat again for our new posters. I don't know the answers because I wasn't there. You also were not around so you don't know what is true and what is false. When you and Amvas say we don't know the truth and also mention that Russian archives are not accessible then how can we find out the truth?

            Originally posted by Andrey
            And, moreover, I share MY, RUSSIAN info with you. I give you the possibility to choose what opinion is correct. I do not force you MY opinion, I only say in every concrete case "yes, your info in this question is the same like the Russian one" or "your opinion contradicts with Russian opinion". But you prefer to see in any my word the position "to protect Russia at any price".
            Yes you do share your info with us. You don't force your opinion on us but neither do we force ours on you. If someone says something that seems a slight about the Soviets you call it false Western propaganda and tell us the truth from your side. No forcing but always accepting your view versus our view. Always, not sometimes, ALWAYS. Our sources are always lies and propaganda and yours are always the truth. No questioning on your side of your own country's "truth" while I freely admit that I don't know how much truth there is to our "truth" as I wasn't there.

            I just finished a book about one of the late war Waffen SS units fighting in Hungary & Germany. Of course there is the prevailing view of how poor the partisans under Tito and the Soviet opponents performed vs this unit (from personal accounts not just the divisional history). However, I did find something new that I have never read in these sort of books. There are many first person accounts of the final days when surrendering to Soviets and Czech partisans. Every one of the accounts talks of how horrible the soldiers were treated by the Czechs; beatings and sometimes executions until they were saved by Soviet soldiers who usually disciplined the Czechs. There were only a couple of instances of the Soviet captors treating the surrendered soldiers the same as the Czechs did. For the most part they were happy (and surprised) to receive the treatment they did from the Soviets. Am I supposed to not believe this since our stuff is just full of lies?

            By the way, there is also mention of the Brits treating the soldiers very well and Americans acting more like the Czech and Soviets. We apparently beat and even killed some of the prisoners. When I read this I thought "I wasn't there and I don't know why this guy would lie about it so I will take his word for it." I did not leap to defend my country from these lying Nazis trying to twist history and make our soldiers look bad. I know our guys probably did many horrible things. There are bad people all over the world. I know this from personal experience and don't need propaganda to tell me what people are like. People are pretty much the same wherever you go. There are assholes and decent people everywhere. I am probably put in the first category by most people I know.
            Check out our webpage for our NFL picks http://members.cox.net/mjohns59/

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Psycho1943
              Yes of course there is propaganda which I have always admitted.
              OK. But why do YOU always suppose that YOUR WESTERN sources are more reliable than RUSSIAN/SOVIET? If I give you some info that contradicts with your version you usually suppose that Russian opinion is incorrect. I don't remember any case when you said something like this: "oh, may be, my source lies, may be it is only anti-Soviet propaganda."

              You however seem to always think that the Russian sources state fact only while our sources are propaganda.
              No, I don't. And remember that we often speak about MY COUNTRY so I have a bonus - .

              I have said this many times and will repeat again for our new posters. I don't know the answers because I wasn't there. You also were not around so you don't know what is true and what is false.
              I have my opinion and you have your opinion.

              When you and Amvas say we don't know the truth and also mention that Russian archives are not accessible then how can we find out the truth?
              Analize. How do spies gather their information? They can get true info on the base of secondary sources.

              It is not necessary to visit archives in any case.

              Yes you do share your info with us. You don't force your opinion on us but neither do we force ours on you.
              If I do not force you to do something so read easy what I write and think about it like it is only not usual opinion from other side of an ocean.

              I am Russian and I know more about the Russians than best Western authors.

              If someone says something that seems a slight about the Soviets you call it false Western propaganda and tell us the truth from your side.
              I didn't hear anyone spoke very good words about Stalin and Stalinism here so I had no possibility to speak bad things about my country -

              No forcing but always accepting your view versus our view. Always, not sometimes, ALWAYS.
              ALWAYS... Did you make statistic research of my posts? -

              Our sources are always lies and propaganda and yours are always the truth.
              Never said it.

              No questioning on your side of your own country's "truth" while I freely admit that I don't know how much truth there is to our "truth" as I wasn't there.
              It is your personal conclusions about my questioning. I know what Soviet propaganda is.

              Am I supposed to not believe this since our stuff is just full of lies?
              It is necessary to check everything especially if there are any doubts.

              By the way, there is also mention of the Brits treating the soldiers very well and Americans acting more like the Czech and Soviets. We apparently beat and even killed some of the prisoners. When I read this I thought "I wasn't there and I don't know why this guy would lie about it so I will take his word for it." I did not leap to defend my country from these lying Nazis trying to twist history and make our soldiers look bad. I know our guys probably did many horrible things. There are bad people all over the world. I know this from personal experience and don't need propaganda to tell me what people are like. People are pretty much the same wherever you go. There are assholes and decent people everywhere. I am probably put in the first category by most people I know.
              It is necessary to check everything.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Andrey
                OK. But why do YOU always suppose that YOUR WESTERN sources are more reliable than RUSSIAN/SOVIET? If I give you some info that contradicts with your version you usually suppose that Russian opinion is incorrect. I don't remember any case when you said something like this: "oh, may be, my source lies, may be it is only anti-Soviet propaganda."
                Wrong. I don't recall having ever said that your sources are incorrect and if I did that is wrong. I have over and over said that neither of us knows the truth so I am not sure how much from either side is truth and how much is false. You however constantly say your sources speak truth while ours is anti-Soviet propaganda. You can double check all of my posts to confirm and I think that anyone that has followed our discussions will back me up (probably all Westerners of course ).

                Originally posted by Andrey
                I have my opinion and you have your opinion.
                Right and as I said above, my opinion is that our side will tend to make our side look better so I don't know how much to trust. You say that your side does not try to hide anything but only speaks the real truth about what happens. I have even mentioned my friend that visited your country (after fall of Soviet Union not before) and some of her friends from Russia came to Germany and to visit the USA. Some of them broke down and cried and told her they had been lied to about what it was like in the horrible West. I suppose my friend is a liar and I should laugh in her face for telling me such garbage?

                Originally posted by Andrey
                I am Russian and I know more about the Russians than best Western authors.
                No you don't necessarily know better than someone from the West. You are going by what you are reading. Unless you witnessed the events personally first hand then you don't know the truth and have to decide how much you can believe when reading this stuff. For instance, when reading accounts from US soldiers fighting the Germans you would think every German tank was a Tiger. It is common knowledge over here that the US soldiers when confronted with a large armored vehicle (including SPG/TD which have no turret at all) just screamed Tiger and ran for cover.


                Originally posted by Andrey
                ALWAYS... Did you make statistic research of my posts? -
                I think that I can safely say without checking that anytime we mention a source that says anything that seems to question Soviet WW2 tactics/weapons/fighting ability/etc you ALWAYS call it Western bias. It doesn't even have to be an actual attack or slight in any way. If you take it unfavorably then that is how we meant it even if we say otherwise.

                Originally posted by Andrey
                Never said it. (answer to my line: Our sources are always lies and propaganda and yours are always the truth.)
                You say this constantly on here and if we question your sources in the same way... Just more Western bias against your country to make you guys look bad compared to us.

                Again, your sources are no different than our sources. Your side will try to make you guys look like the good guys and almost never talk about the bad things you might have done. Guess what, same thing over here. Why would you want to read about bad things your side did? Why would they want to bring it up? I just don't understand why you can't grasp this idea.
                Check out our webpage for our NFL picks http://members.cox.net/mjohns59/

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Psycho1943
                  Again, your sources are no different than our sources. Your side will try to make you guys look like the good guys and almost never talk about the bad things you might have done. Guess what, same thing over here. Why would you want to read about bad things your side did? Why would they want to bring it up? I just don't understand why you can't grasp this idea.
                  You describe how propaganda is made.

                  But you are incorrect.

                  Sometimes people don't want to listen propaganda tales and want to listen truth.

                  USSR is a good example of it. In the time of Gorbachev's rule the politics of Glasnost was. Glasnost means to not hide unpleasant truth, it means to speak truth in any case. The PEOPLE of USSR demanded from rules to stop to hide truth. The PEOPLE of USSR WANTED to know truth about past and about present time.
                  In that time the mass media of USSR began to speak a lot of info about Stalin and Stalinism, it was unpleasant for people to know the bad things about our country but they wanted to know truth.

                  After the collapse of USSR this process continued. A lot of journalists and historians tried to find new and new dark secrets of Soviet past. All the book shops were full of the books where many bad things were described.

                  Now the situation changed because the rules and the public began to look what those authors write. Very often such authors wanted to get a sensation and wrote real rabbish without any checking.

                  For example, Victor Suvorov (former Soviet spy Rezun who became a traitor and lives in London now) wrote in a huge amount of books that USSR wanted to attack Germany in July, 6th of 1941 and the Hitler's invasion was only a preventive attack. And some forces printed really huge amount of his books and all the shops were overflooded by them. His books are absolutely incompetent and it is proved in many books of serious historians who became to write books with the name like "Anti-Suvorov: How Suvorov-Rezun lied about the history".

                  Another example is Boris Sokolov. This historian made his own calculations and counted the Soviet casualties in WWII as 40-50 millions. I read his book and it is clearly that he tries in any question to prove how bad was USSR in WWII.

                  Now the public and the authors began to try to give the balanced view of the events - to speak not only bad but also and good things about USSR in WWII.

                  So the Russian people who are interested the history of WWII had a lot of info about the events of that war and that info was not only pleasant for Russians.
                  For last 15-20 years there are no more dark secrets of Soviet past that are still unknown now for Russian public.

                  IT IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RUSSIANS AND THE WESTERNERS.

                  THE RUSSIANS HAVE A BALANCED VIEW OF THE ACTIONS OF USSR IN WWII.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Here is the phote that I have described earlier (I did it from my memory so it is not right completely).

                    The inscription in the bottom:
                    "The Soviet Banner flies over Port Arthur"

                    The banner in the photo is the Banner of the Soviet Navy as the sailors in the photo are Marines of the Soviet Pacific Ocean Fleet.
                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Andrey
                      IT IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RUSSIANS AND THE WESTERNERS.

                      THE RUSSIANS HAVE A BALANCED VIEW OF THE ACTIONS OF USSR IN WWII.
                      This is precisely the kind of ridiculous sweeping generalisation that I find so frustrating. You castigate 'us' (as 'Westerners') for only believing the bad things about the USSR yet this shows that you don't have a balanced view of us. So if you don't have a balanced view of us, how can we take any viewpoint you have on any other issue as being balanced?
                      Signing out.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Full Monty
                        This is precisely the kind of ridiculous sweeping generalisation that I find so frustrating.
                        OK, I'll say more precisely:

                        "THE RUSSIANS HAVE ENOUGH INFO TO HAVE A BALANCED VIEW OF THE ACTIONS OF USSR IN WWII"

                        You castigate 'us' (as 'Westerners') for only believing the bad things about the USSR yet this shows that you don't have a balanced view of us.
                        No, I didn't mean it.

                        The Western mass media and historical literature accented on bad things and even speak some false about it. So they give for "the Westerners" the distorted image of USSR in WWII.

                        It doesn't mean for a Westerner to believe in bad things only, it means "to have no enough info to have a balanced view".

                        So if you don't have a balanced view of us, how can we take any viewpoint you have on any other issue as being balanced?
                        Let's speak about history of WWII.

                        If to speak about the efforts of Western Allies in WWII so I have more balanced view about it then you about the actions of USSR.

                        It is because the Russians can read a lot of WESTERN historical books about the actions of Western Allies in WWII. The Soviet propaganda's efforts in the case of Allies was to not speak anything about the actions of Allies, it was "while the Soviet people was struggling against Germany the Western Allies didn't do anything and were waiting good time to invade in France when the Germans would not have enough forces to repell that invasion".

                        But the Westerners have no possibility to know the Russian/Soviet point of view about WWII.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Andrey

                          "THE RUSSIANS HAVE ENOUGH INFO TO HAVE A BALANCED VIEW OF THE ACTIONS OF USSR IN WWII"
                          Whether this is applied is another matter entirely


                          The Western mass media and historical literature accented on bad things and even speak some false about it. So they give for "the Westerners" the distorted image of USSR in WWII.

                          It doesn't mean for a Westerner to believe in bad things only, it means "to have no enough info to have a balanced view".
                          I think you're still stuck in the Cold War. Things have moved on since the '80s so I'd like you to explain to me exactly where the work of historians like Overy and Glantz falls short.

                          Let's speak about history of WWII.

                          If to speak about the efforts of Western Allies in WWII so I have more balanced view about it then you about the actions of USSR.


                          But the Westerners have no possibility to know the Russian/Soviet point of view about WWII.
                          I wonder about this opinion (and that's all it is) of yours. It seems that you feel you can't discuss anything with 'us' here because 'we' don't 'know' anything! In which case, why do you bother?
                          Signing out.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Andrey
                            For last 15-20 years there are no more dark secrets of Soviet past that are still unknown now for Russian public.

                            Come now Andrey, you can't really believe that.
                            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Full Monty
                              Whether this is applied is another matter entirely
                              I do not understand. I am not Englishman or American.

                              I think you're still stuck in the Cold War. Things have moved on since the '80s so I'd like you to explain to me exactly where the work of historians like Overy and Glantz falls short.
                              Alexander Werth also wrote his books in pro-Russian style but it doesn't mean that he did it not in the conditions of Cold War.

                              Overy and Glantz are an exclusion from the large amount of other authors and journalists which continue to write in the style of Cold War.

                              And the Westerners can read not only modern books but also the books written in Cold War time.

                              Yes, there are a few changes from 80th's but those changes were not significant enough as now Western propaganda shows not Soviets but the Russians as bad guys.

                              It was a pair months ago when I spoke with an American girl-journalist who had arrived in Omsk as a Mormone-missioner a year ago and lived in Russia for one year in usual flat in usual house. She said that firstly she was afraid to go in Russia but now she supposed that "Russia is normal country".

                              I wonder about this opinion (and that's all it is) of yours. It seems that you feel you can't discuss anything with 'us' here because 'we' don't 'know' anything! In which case, why do you bother?
                              I give you my info and opinion. A discussion means to share by arguments, facts and opinions.

                              My idea was that the Russians can read WESTERN books with WESTERN point of view but the Westerners can buy in Western book shops only few Russian/Soviet books with Russian/Soviet point of view.
                              Last edited by Andrey; 27 Sep 05, 20:27.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by tigersqn
                                Come now Andrey, you can't really believe that.
                                I wrote
                                "For last 15-20 years there are no more dark secrets of Soviet past that are still unknown now for Russian public." and I really believe in it.

                                It is the same to doubt that D-day events are not explored completely.

                                The Westerners have very weak impression what info the Russians have been got for last 15-20 years about WWII events.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                • casanova
                                  Adults Rashid Dostur
                                  by casanova
                                  The Warlord Abdul Rashid Dostur came back to Afghanistan and was promoted to military marshal by the Afghanian president Ashraf Ghani. ...
                                  Today, 00:48
                                • casanova
                                  Alouette III
                                  by casanova
                                  The military helicopter Alouette Iii will be staioned off duty in 1923 because of oldness by the Austrian airforce. The Austrian airfoce wants to buy...
                                  Today, 00:22
                                • casanova
                                  Israel Army
                                  by casanova
                                  The Israelian Army stationed all airdefencesystens, tanks and soldiers on the Liban and Syrian border. The Iran wants to attack Israel. Arabian terrorists...
                                  Yesterday, 23:15
                                Working...
                                X