Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Constantine Pleshakov

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

  • Constantine Pleshakov

    I am amazed that no one here has mentioned this mans' book as he has dug up more than enough documents to prove that Stalin had ordered a pre-emtive strike on Germany but Germany beat him to the punch. "It is necessary to deprive the German command of all initiative, to pre-empt the adversary and to attack". His book, "Stalins Folly", even contains a map showing the area of pre-emtive attacks. I've been aware of his speech of May 5th 1941 in which he stated that "the Germans will probably attack us in 1941 but if they do not, we will attack them in 1942", but I was not aware that the plans had been moved up to within days of the German strike.
    Last edited by Barbarossa; 26 Apr 07, 02:57. Reason: sic

  • #2
    Originally posted by Barbarossa View Post
    ... this mans' book as he has dug up more than enough documents to prove that Stalin had ordered a pre-emtive strike on Germany...
    ah, another ''book'' ...
    in fact -
    no such ''documents'' ever existed,
    therefore - they couldn't be ''dug up''.
    and -
    it's a historically proven fact: hitler attacked first.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Barbarossa View Post
      I am amazed that no one here has mentioned this mans' book as he has dug up more than enough documents to prove that Stalin had ordered a pre-emtive strike on Germany but Germany beat him to the punch. "It is necessary to deprive the German command of all initiative, to pre-empt the adversary and to attack". His book, "Stalins Folly", even contains a map showing the area of pre-emtive attacks. I've been aware of his speech of May 5th 1941 in which he stated that "the Germans will probably attack us in 1941 but if they do not, we will attack them in 1942", but I was not aware that the plans had been moved up to within days of the German strike.
      I've heard that before but have since seen stuff saying it was not true at all.
      Check out our webpage for our NFL picks http://members.cox.net/mjohns59/

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Psycho View Post
        I've heard that before but have since seen stuff saying it was not true at all.
        It's true.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by stalin View Post
          ah, another ''book'' ...
          in fact -
          no such ''documents'' ever existed,
          therefore - they couldn't be ''dug up''.
          and -
          it's a historically proven fact: hitler attacked first.
          I've come to the conclusion that either you do not read books or,
          you cannot afford them. In any case, your posts do not add any info.....just sarcasm. Thus I'll choose to ignore them. Havanada.

          Comment


          • #6
            That's funny !
            Always the same thing : one quote a book, another reply "it's false" but don't quote any source.
            I do believe that speeches from a man like Stalin were recorded (I don't talk about private conversations that could only be recorded by who did participate in) either on tape or written.
            So, does records of this speech exist ?
            If they do, did he say it or no ?
            I think that in Russia, there are archives as anywhere else. And if the book quoted is based upon those archives, it's hard to say so abruptly that it's all crap and lies.
            And "historically proven" doesn't mean nothing at all.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bruno View Post
              ... did he (stalin) say it or no ?
              ... And "historically proven" doesn't mean nothing at all.
              1. stalin's not known for saying he's going to launch pre-emptive military campaing against hitler.
              2. historically acknowledged fact: hitler always attacked first.
              how comes that widely acknowledged facts mean nothing to you???!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by stalin View Post
                how comes that widely acknowledged facts mean nothing to you???!!!
                Just because "widely acknowledged facts" of one day are no more another day.
                In 1939, it was a "widely acknowledged fact" that Stalin was the friend of Hitler (the Ribentrop-Molotov pact).
                Beginning on 22/06/1941, it's a "widely acknowledged fact" that Staline and Hitler were enemy.
                See what I mean ?
                In France, we call that "truth of one day"...
                And my question is still : are the speeches of Staline recorded somewhere ?
                And if they are, can we found any evidence of his will to strike Germany first ?

                We perfectly know that Hitler wanted to destroy the Soviet Union. He told this from the very beginning of his political career.

                But Staline had too the will to conquer countries at his western borders (Belarus, Ukraine, Batic States, Finland, Poland...) and indeed, he made it.
                So why couldn't he be the one to strike first ?
                He had the hugest military power at this time (22 000 tanks, for instance) and Germans were far weaker, in number at least.

                So, it's a possibility and I would like you to show me a speech or anything else from Staline stating that he didn't wanted to attack Germany. And not only "widely acknowledged facts" or "stalin's not known for saying he's going to launch pre-emptive military campaing against hitler".

                Proofs, written ones, by documents of the time. That's the only pieces I rely on as an amateur historian.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Bruno View Post
                  Just because "widely acknowledged facts" of one day are no more another day.
                  In 1939, it was a "widely acknowledged fact" that Stalin was the friend of Hitler (the Ribentrop-Molotov pact).
                  Beginning on 22/06/1941, it's a "widely acknowledged fact" that Staline and Hitler were enemy.
                  See what I mean ?
                  ... I would like you to show me a speech or anything else from Staline stating that he didn't wanted to attack Germany...Proofs, written ones, by documents of the time. That's the only pieces I rely on as an amateur historian.
                  1. i see... it's only that - stalin, since nazis invaded russia, was hitler's friend no more.
                  so, after the war was over - stalin, roosevelt and churchill shook hands as if the so-called ''molotov/ribentrop pact'' had never existed, and - that's it.

                  2. no no no. you show me your ''proofs'' first! then - we'll talk.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Barbarossa View Post
                    I am amazed that no one here has mentioned this mans' book as he has dug up more than enough documents to prove that Stalin had ordered a pre-emtive strike on Germany but Germany beat him to the punch. "It is necessary to deprive the German command of all initiative, to pre-empt the adversary and to attack". His book, "Stalins Folly", even contains a map showing the area of pre-emtive attacks. I've been aware of his speech of May 5th 1941 in which he stated that "the Germans will probably attack us in 1941 but if they do not, we will attack them in 1942", but I was not aware that the plans had been moved up to within days of the German strike.
                    I've read Pleshakovs book throughly & dont see any clear evidence of orders for a preemptive strike. I searched his book, as I have several others, specifclly for evidence of this & do not see it. Pleshakov refers to plans for an attack into Geman held territory, but he also makes it clear Stalin gave no order to execute a "preemptive" attack. Supporting this, Pleshakov refers to realatively few reservists being called to service during May or early June. More important is that the standing forces on the Western frontier recived no orders to take up war positions before 22 June. I hardly think the Soviet generals were ignoring orders that month.

                    The lack of full mobilization, or even a adaquate partial move to readiness contradicts any claims for an "order". Particularly when laid against the evidence of the German preperations for attack that reached the Soviet government. From April evidence of the massing of the Wehrmacht & Luftwaffe in Poland reached Soviet intellegence & security agencys & was presented to all the senior leaders including Stalin. Through the spring Luftwaffe reconissance flights became extremely common, German agents engaged in ground reconissance were found on the Soviet side of the border, and German deserters begain crossing the border warning of a attack. Yet the Soviet Army recives no usefull orders until after the German attack is launched.

                    The war plan Pleshakov refers to does not even look like a good premptive attack. It looks like a plan for a quick reaction to a German attack. A bold counter strike to stall the Germany army & airforces perhaps, while the reserves were mobilized. As a premeptive attack that plan lacked stratigic staying power. A large mobilization & preperation of the Soviet Army reserves would have been necessary, which would have risked tactical & operational suprise.

                    There are arguments the Soviet Army was being prepared for eventual participation for a general European war, but that does not imply a "premptive attack".

                    The basic point to Pleshakovs book is to show Stalin was unwilling to attack Gemany in 1941. That he argued against those who would advise him to prepare for war in mid 1941, and that he definitly did not want war with Germany that year. In fact he rather beats the reader over the head with this point. Claiming evidence there of "orders for a premptive attack" twists Pleshakovs text beyond belief.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Good post Carl, not having read Pleshakov's book, I didn't want to comment. I Barbarossa's presentation of Pleshakov's hypothesis (which is actually not the latter's hypothesis) sounded a bit too much like Rezun's thesis which has been thoroughly trashed by now.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        joea... Thanks. I'm not the expert on this, but did do a bit of reading on te subject the past two years. Wanted to answer the question for myself. If Rezun is correct he makes a sorry case for it. The interpretaion of historians like Glantz & Pleshakov into English makes much more sense when matched to certain critical events. ie: The completely unprepared situation of the Soviet Army on 21 June.

                        Anyway since Andrey & the other Russians (& Urkrainians?) had probablly not read Pleshakovs book I thought to point out the disinformation in the original post here.
                        Last edited by Carl Schwamberg; 29 Apr 07, 12:04.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I don't know what the truth of this matter is. It is certainly an interesting topic for research. Too bad it is so against official Russian history that anybody researching this topic will have a difficult time.

                          If it is true, it certainly answers many questions regarding Barbarossa's initial success plus Stalin's actions right before the war.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by pp(est) View Post
                            ... It is certainly an interesting topic for research. Too bad it is so against official Russian history...
                            too bad - it's against the widely known facts of ww2!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by pp(est) View Post
                              I don't know what the truth of this matter is. It is certainly an interesting topic for research. Too bad it is so against official Russian history that anybody researching this topic will have a difficult time.

                              If it is true, it certainly answers many questions regarding Barbarossa's initial success plus Stalin's actions right before the war.
                              Did you read any of the other post's here? Carl even points out that Barbarossa misrepresented Pleshakov's hypothesis and he wasn't trying to say that at all!!

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X