Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soviet/Russian Myths of the Great Patriotic War 1-The Second Front

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Andrey View Post
    By other word, Dieppe landing was a sacrifice of landing forces to show for Stalin that the landing in 1942 was impossible. Here what is the Russian point of view on Dieppe landing 1942.
    Then quite simply, the Russian view is wrong. In fact, that's the dumbest thing I have ever heard about the Dieppe raid, and there have been a lot of very dumb things said about it.

    Disagree. It is a question of propaganda efforts - how to show it for the people.
    You are entitled to disagree. The fact remains that without landing craft, an invasion was impossible. There were not enough landing craft in 1942, or in 1943. There were by 1944, and then is was a question of waiting for suitable weather and tides.

    Landing an inadequate force in France would be pointless, foolhardy, and impossible to justify. It would certainly be a propaganda coup, but for Göbbels. It would set the effort back in the west by two or three years, so it would be 1946 before the US Army could liberate France. By then Stalin would be dead, incinerated in an atomic explosion over Moscow after he refused to turn Paris over to DeGaulle, and the invading force would be attacking the Red Army. That's a western view.

    Cheers
    Scott Fraser
    Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

    A contentedly cantankerous old fart

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
      Then quite simply, the Russian view is wrong. In fact, that's the dumbest thing I have ever heard about the Dieppe raid, and there have been a lot of very dumb things said about it.
      This the most popular Russian opinion about Dieppe raid 1942.

      You are entitled to disagree. The fact remains that without landing craft, an invasion was impossible. There were not enough landing craft in 1942, or in 1943. There were by 1944, and then is was a question of waiting for suitable weather and tides.
      But the Germans wouldn't know all the details. All what they would know it that the Allies landed.

      Landing an inadequate force in France would be pointless, foolhardy, and impossible to justify. It would certainly be a propaganda coup, but for Göbbels. It would set the effort back in the west by two or three years, so it would be 1946 before the US Army could liberate France. By then Stalin would be dead, incinerated in an atomic explosion over Moscow after he refused to turn Paris over to DeGaulle, and the invading force would be attacking the Red Army. That's a western view.
      Why 1946 only? Why not 1956?

      When I spoke about propaganda I meant the descriprion of the task of events and not the task of the landing. The task of the landing would be to help to the Soviets in the Soviet-German Front and it would be task of propaganda to explain it well enough to the people. I don't understand WHY it "would be pointless, foolhardy, and impossible to justify".

      "The Soviets fought in Stalingrad with their bit of strength. Our landing in Western France forced the Germans to send in France 4 panzer, 10 infantry divisions and 500 planes. It let for the Russians to hold out in Stalingrad. Stalingrad was the turning point of the World War II. And our troops also took part in that battle, holding German reserves in Western France and providing the victory of our Russian friends!!!"

      Whay is strange in such text? For Russians it sounds ok.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Andrey View Post
        This the most popular Russian opinion about Dieppe raid 1942.
        That may be, but it is wrong. I do not believe anyone thought twice about Stalin or the USSR or a possible Second Front with regard to the Dieppe Raid. That Raid is worth a separate thread, so I don't want to pursue it far, but is was never considered more than a reconaissance in force, to test German defences, scoop a radar set and poke them in the eye. For 1942, it was a MAJOR effort, and many lessons were taken away, not least was the need for complete air and sea superiority, much better communications, better planning (Mounbatten was an idiot), better reconaissance, and suitable landing craft. Dieppe remains controversial, to this day.

        Why 1946 only? Why not 1956?
        Soonest 1946.

        When I spoke about propaganda I meant the descriprion of the task of events and not the task of the landing. The task of the landing would be to help to the Soviets in the Soviet-German Front and it would be task of propaganda to explain it well enough to the people. I don't understand WHY it "would be pointless, foolhardy, and impossible to justify".
        The Anglo-Americans committed everything they had to D-Day. It succeeded, but not by a huge margin. Had it failed, it would have been the end of any attempt to invade Europe for years, as long as it took to replace the men and equipment that was lost.

        Essentially, all the eggs were in one basket. Had it dropped to the floor, in 1943 or in 1944, it would have meant the end of any hint of a land campaign against Germany by the Anglos in Europe for a long time, I reckon at least two years. By then the Red Army would be in Berlin, regardless, and probably in Paris and beyond. The war would be over, and Churchill and Truman would have the task of eexplaining how they managed to wrest France from Hitler only to turn it over to Stalin.

        "The Soviets fought in Stalingrad with their bit of strength. Our landing in Western France forced the Germans to send in France 4 panzer, 10 infantry divisions and 500 planes. It let for the Russians to hold out in Stalingrad. Stalingrad was the turning point of the World War II. And our troops also took part in that battle, holding German reserves in Western France and providing the victory of our Russian friends!!!"

        What is strange in such text? For Russians it sounds ok.
        I missed something. Where does this text come from? It makes no sense to me.

        If "Our landing in Western France" refers to the Dieppe Raid, I think that's claiming way too much. The Dieppe Raid may have made the Germans more aware of vulnerabilities along the seawall, but it also reinforced the fact that the British were not able to do much more than send aeroplanes against Germany. The Red Army was victorious at Stalingrad because the Red Army was ready for victory, and the Germans had walked into a disaster. The British had no part in it.

        Andrey, we can both find snippets from fools and puppets who know less that we do about the Second World War. Sometimes they will distort things, omit things, invent things to reinforce a warped opinion.

        History is about the facts, about events, and about the people who lived those lives and made those decisions. It is sometimes abused by those who seek to advance their own agenda, and that is wrong.

        We are now getting to the point where few people who lived through those years still live. We are alsmost at the point where real history can begin, when there are no more closets with skeletons inside. All the victims and now all the perpetrators are dead.

        Andrey, my friend, our worlds are different. Our records have been open for many years, most of them. Yours have not. I research the T-34. Я могу по-русски, хватает, чтоб я прочитал и прекрасно понял написанно Коломиецом последнюю книгу о тридцатьчетверке. I read Russian enough to read the latest book on the T-34 by Kolomiets, and understand it. He is the first to get access to all the archives, to TsAMO and RKKA, NKTP and NKSM and NKTM, and put all the pieces together to present a history of the T-34. It is huge, 500 pages, and still not complete, or it would be twice that. The same information about the M4 Sherman has been available here for three decades.

        There is still much work to be done in Soviet archives, enough for decades before all the truth is known. That is the nature of history. Everyone must be dead before real history has life. In your country, there are still many secrets, and alarm that they should all be revealed. We can both travel to Moscow today without problem. I still cannot visit Kubinka. When that changes, we will be past lingering days of suspicion and recrimination.

        Эти большие, очень сложные слова. Хотелось, что смысль поятно. Проишлось надо времени, потом правда исстории появляется. С уважением...

        Cheers
        Scott Fraser
        Last edited by Scott Fraser; 23 Apr 10, 08:27.
        Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

        A contentedly cantankerous old fart

        Comment


        • #94
          Scott, I think Andrey is offering a hypothetical with that text on something that could have been done by the Western Allies at the time of greatest need by the Soviets.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
            I research the T-34. Я могу по-русски, хватает, чтоб я прочитал и прекрасно понял написанно Коломиецом последнюю книгу о тридцатьчетверке. I read Russian enough to read the latest book on the T-34 by Kolomiets, and understand it. He is the first to get access to all the archives, to TsAMO and RKKA, NKTP and NKSM and NKTM, and put all the pieces together to present a history of the T-34. It is huge, 500 pages, and still not complete, or it would be twice that. The same information about the M4 Sherman has been available here for three decades.

            There is still much work to be done in Soviet archives, enough for decades before all the truth is known. That is the nature of history. Everyone must be dead before real history has life. In your country, there are still many secrets, and alarm that they should all be revealed. We can both travel to Moscow today without problem. I still cannot visit Kubinka. When that changes, we will be past lingering days of suspicion and recrimination.

            Эти большие, очень сложные слова. Хотелось, что смысль поятно. Проишлось надо времени, потом правда исстории появляется. С уважением...

            Cheers
            Scott Fraser
            I'd really love to visit Kubinka myself. To me, it is one of a number of major attractions for visiting Russia. I hope it will be open to foreign armour enthusiast tourists soon. I would like to plan a trip some time in the next few years.
            "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Panther3485 View Post
              I'd really love to visit Kubinka myself. To me, it is one of a number of major attractions for visiting Russia. I hope it will be open to foreign armour enthusiast tourists soon. I would like to plan a trip some time in the next few years.
              For me, I want to revisit Moscow and (now) St Petersburg, and I want to see Volgograd. Kharkov, Kiev, Smolensk, and other places, but Kubinka is the ultimate destination. With many rolls of film...

              Friendly
              Scott
              Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

              A contentedly cantankerous old fart

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                For me, I want to revisit Moscow and (now) St Petersburg, and I want to see Volgograd. Kharkov, Kiev, Smolensk, and other places, but Kubinka is the ultimate destination. With many rolls of film...

                Friendly
                Scott
                Agreed, and all of the above for me2.
                "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                Comment


                • #98
                  Stalin sort of got his revenge when he focused the promised Eastern Front support attack for the Normandy invasion on the Finnish Front.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                    A failure would have been in Germanys stratigic favor.
                    Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                    Why?

                    Soviets were defeaed in Rzhev in November 1942 but Germany didn't celebrate it too much - Germany was in horror because of Stalingrad disaster.

                    Rzhev was a German tactical success which resulted to strategic defeat in Stalingrad.

                    Why do you suppose that a possible failure of a large diversionary landing in France in 1942-43 would be more important than a possible larger scale Soviet victory in the Soviet-German Front?
                    A failure of theis attack means a far less diversion than historically occured in 1943. The point to making such an attack into France/Belgium is to create a more usefull Second Front than was created in the Mediterrainian. A failed attack in North Western Europe means a failed Second Front there, and very likely a much smaller diversion in the Mediterrainian. While there is a momentary operational level diversion in the west that goes away with failure & the Germans may have benefit of insignificant enemy operations in the west for at least a year. Certainly nothing of the size of the Tunisian campaign in the Medterrainian. Probably only a single British Army fighting in Lybia. So instead of two or three armygroups confronting the Germans in the west by the end of 1943 there might be only a single army, or none. That simplifiys the stratigic problem for Germany.


                    Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                    Again - why? What is victory and what is defeat depends on propaganda strategy. By other words - how the rules explain situiation to the people.

                    If to say that we lost a few divisions but saved Stalingrad and let for Russians to win there - I think the most people would agree that it had been a victory.
                    You over estimate the ability of the propagandists in the west, particularly in the US & particularly in those days. Related to this is you seem to think of the leadership in the west as much more disciplined and cohesive than it is.

                    Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                    ANY serious landing in Western France (a few divisions) would force Hitler to send erious forces against it. Not how it was in Dieppe when local resistace was preliminary informed that the Dieppe raid would be only a limited diversionary operation.
                    Again a brief operational distraction is not automatically a longer term startigic advantage. If the invaders are driven away it is the greater advantage for Germany.

                    The small defeat at Dieppe was a important reason the British leaders turned away from further attacks into western Europe. A larger defeat creates conditions within British leadership that will make it even more difficult to argue for another attack. A second question is if the US leaders would even consider arguing with the British. A 1942 or 1943 attack would largely be a British show. British leaders and Commonwealth combat units would be the main force & if they failed the US might reduce cooperative efforts. That is turn to the Pacifc for its man effort.
                    Last edited by Carl Schwamberg; 23 Apr 10, 11:10.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by kek View Post
                      Stalin sort of got his revenge when he focused the promised Eastern Front support attack for the Normandy invasion on the Finnish Front.
                      I thought the destruction of the German center Army group in July/August was the main supporting effort?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                        It would set the effort back in the west by two or three years, so it would be 1946 before the US Army could liberate France. By then Stalin would be dead, incinerated in an atomic explosion over Moscow after he refused to turn Paris over to DeGaulle, and the invading force would be attacking the Red Army. That's a western view.
                        This was always my impression as well. I wonder, though, if the Western Allies could still launch Dragoon in August and attack up through southern France. I tend to think that if the Normandy invasion was to be defeated, it would have to be defeated quickly. Otherwise the Anglo-American buildup would have prevented the Germans from wiping out the beachhead.

                        The Soviets would launch Bagration on schedule (or close to on schedule) regardless. If that happened, and the Germans felts secure in France having defeated Neptune, perhaps they shuffle most/all of their mobile reserves to the east, allowing the Dragoon landings to be successful and allowing a quick penetration northward (under the overall command of Brooke, rather than the disgraced Eisenhower).

                        All what ifs, of course.
                        Last edited by The Ibis; 23 Apr 10, 16:41.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                          I thought the destruction of the German center Army group in July/August was the main supporting effort?
                          On June 9th the Soviet Union began the support offensive on the Finnish front. In June Finnish forces with the help of section Kuhlmey, German troops, German Panzerfausts and "new" German Stugs stopped the assault. In July/August the focus of the Soviet offensive changed, since the race for Berlin had begun.

                          Edit:
                          the sections with bold added
                          Last edited by kek; 23 Apr 10, 16:54.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by joea View Post
                            Scott, I think Andrey is offering a hypothetical with that text on something that could have been done by the Western Allies at the time of greatest need by the Soviets.
                            exactly. It was an example how tp explain the significance of the landing in France even if it would be failed...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                              That may be, but it is wrong. I do not believe anyone thought twice about Stalin or the USSR or a possible Second Front with regard to the Dieppe Raid. That Raid is worth a separate thread, so I don't want to pursue it far, but is was never considered more than a reconaissance in force, to test German defences, scoop a radar set and poke them in the eye. For 1942, it was a MAJOR effort, and many lessons were taken away, not least was the need for complete air and sea superiority, much better communications, better planning (Mounbatten was an idiot), better reconaissance, and suitable landing craft. Dieppe remains controversial, to this day.
                              How can you be sure that you know what was the real reason for Dieppe raid in Churchill's mind and in minds of other Biritish high commsnders and politicians?????

                              Soonest 1946.
                              Why 1946? Why not 1944? It is only your opinion. I can in the same way to say 1966. Not sooner. So what?

                              The Anglo-Americans committed everything they had to D-Day. It succeeded, but not by a huge margin. Had it failed, it would have been the end of any attempt to invade Europe for years, as long as it took to replace the men and equipment that was lost.

                              Essentially, all the eggs were in one basket. Had it dropped to the floor, in 1943 or in 1944, it would have meant the end of any hint of a land campaign against Germany by the Anglos in Europe for a long time, I reckon at least two years. By then the Red Army would be in Berlin, regardless, and probably in Paris and beyond. The war would be over, and Churchill and Truman would have the task of eexplaining how they managed to wrest France from Hitler only to turn it over to Stalin.
                              You again speak about huge landing with the task "to enter Berlin".

                              I speak about a large diversionary landing (3-4 divisions) with task to hold as much as possible german reserves for some time. Of course, if it would be successful it could turn into "to eneter Berlin" type operation.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                                How can you be sure that you know what was the real reason for Dieppe raid in Churchill's mind and in minds of other Biritish high commsnders and politicians?????
                                What I said: "I do not believe..." I do not believe it because it makes no sense.

                                Why 1946? Why not 1944? It is only your opinion. I can in the same way to say 1966. Not sooner. So what?
                                It took two years to prepare for D-Day, mainly to amass the transport needed. If the invasion had failed, that transopt lost, it is reasonable to conclude it would take at least another two years to replace it. Of course, they could have spread the effort out over several years, so as to be ready by 1966.

                                You again speak about huge landing with the task "to enter Berlin".

                                I speak about a large diversionary landing (3-4 divisions) with task to hold as much as possible German reserves for some time. Of course, if it would be successful it could turn into "to enter Berlin" type operation.
                                There was only reason to invade Europe, and that was to defeat Germany. The suggestion that three or four divisions be landed strictly as a diversion, to draw forces away from the Eastern Front, is absurd.

                                Firstly, it would be weeks before any impact was felt in the East, if ever. Secondly, without orders to march on Germany, such forces would be squandered, left to be destroyed in detail by the Wehrmacht for no concrete gain. Third, the loss of the men and equipment sacrificed for such an empty gesture would delay a real invasion by months or years, practically guaranteeing a Soviet occupation of France following a Red Army victory in 1945 or 1946. No western leader would ever countenance such an action, even in the "Alternative Reality" Forum.

                                Cheers
                                Scott Fraser
                                Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

                                A contentedly cantankerous old fart

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X