The Invasion of Poland

[Kitsune]

This is a short but well researched (I think) account of the German invasion of Poland in September 1939:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/polcamp.htm

It also addresses myths sourrounding the campaign like the alleged destruction of the Polish airforce on the ground or the legendary horse charges of Polish lancers against German tanks. It also gives detailed numbers for the casualties of both sides (and the Soviet one).

Does anyone here disagree with this? Any comments are welcome!


p-)

[GazB]

"German invasion began with an air raid on undefended city of Wielun at 4:40am. Over 1200 people were killed in first warcrime of World War II. "

Is wrong for a start. You don't actually believe the Nazis were nice to the Czechs and Slovaks, or even the Austrians that didn't support their annexation. On the Pacific front the Japanese were already doing lots of bad things to the Chinese etc. (Just because the Commonwealth joined the war with the invasion of Poland doesn't mean that was the start of WWII any more than December 7th 1941 was the start of the Pacific war.)

[EvanL]

WW2 was started in 1932 when the Japanese invaded Manchuria.

[James]

Or perhaps Versailles in 1919 ;) .

[Kitsune]

Well, as far as Austria is concerned , there weren't any air raids on their cities. Most of their population supported the Nazis. (Not all of them, but thats also true for Germany itself). Austrians were treated as Germans and participated in the war as well as in the Holocaust related crimes. (Even over-proportionally for their populational size. Hitler was an Austrian by the way. So was Eichmann). Only later when the war wasn't going well for Germany anymore, they started "realizing" that they were different from the Germans. And after the war they knew it for certain. The postwar Republic of Austria was based on the myth that they were "the first victim" of Nazi aggression. A neat way of sidestepping any guilt. (The Austrian way of thinking is that Hitler was a German...and Beethoven an Austrian. :roll: )

As far as the beginning of WW2 is concerned: Historians have decided to let the war begin with the invasion of Poland. Thats just how it is. Complain if you must, but don't mess with them.
Never forget: historians possess a power even the gods don't have...they can change things that already have happened.

;)

[James]

I am an historian! :P

[Seiyuuki]

Somebody got a time machine!!!

[Maciek]

Does anyone here disagree with this? Any comments are welcome!


p-)

some 900 tanks


Tanks:
169 Vickers 7TP (11 t)
52 Vickers (6 t)
67 Renault M 17 FT (from WWI)
53 Renault R 35

693 small armoured vehicles(TK/TKS)

Armoured cars:
14 of type 29
86 of type 34

Armoured trains:
15 (11 other sourse)
5 heavy
3 medium
2 light
4 other(4 improvised)

[Maciek]

5 other trains

[GazB]

"As far as the beginning of WW2 is concerned: Historians have decided to let the war begin with the invasion of Poland."

I think you'll find that is western historians. I doubt Chinese Historians will agree, let alone other countries in Asia who were victims of Japanese expansion during the period before 1939, or even 41.

When anthropology was just becoming a real science... rather than treasure seeking expeditions or crusty old men who lived in libraries and read everything those explorers wrote of their travels... it was realised that for a long period in civilised western culture not much happened. The result was that they created a history based on druids and robin hood and King Arthur. They really don't know who built Stone Henge, but created a history for themselves so that they didn't look so boring and uncivilised at a time when civilisations in the Middle East, Africa, and China were thriving and creating things like mathematics and printing presses.

[Kitsune]

@GazB:

I think You are absolutely right there. These things are totally subjective. For example: there are a few historians who proposed that the war now known as the 7 years war could be termed the first World War, since it was fought in Europe, the Americas and Asia. But, well, it is not termed thus, we usually call it the 7 years war...
And of course: We tend to emphasize the European/American view of things, simply because Europe and the US were dominant during the last 200 years. This was not always so. And perhaps will change in the future again.
Its all convention. But we should stick to it for the time being, so that we know what we are talking about! The great war in the middle of the 20th century is WWII not WWIII...and it went from 1939 to 1945...


;)

[He219]

GazB, you really crack me up :lol:

A revisionist historian could also deduce the following:

China became colonized by European powers back in the 19th century, leading to anexation of Manchuria by the Russians, then the Japanese who aquired posessions after the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. Japan's expansion into Korea to gain a foothold in China during the 1930's preceeded by China's fragmention into warlordism in the 1920's certainly were not the start of hostilities. Try the Boxer Rebellion (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion) - but that would hardly be a meaningful start to WWII.

For that we have to go to the rape of Germany through the Treaty of Versailles (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles) and the resentment that directly led to the continuation of hostilities in WWII. Interestingly enough, the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles is site of German Unification during the 1871 Franco-Prussian War with the Crowning of Kaiser Wilhelm I. The Versaille Treaty was signed in that famous railcar that Hitler accepted the French surrender in, decades later.

So it falls to the events that started WWI that link hostilites in WWII, GazB. I blame your pro-Serbian nationalist buddiy named Gavrilo Princip (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrilo_Princip) who assasinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria in Sarajevo, Bosnia, as the culprit...

rofl

[James]

Ah, history afficianados... Nice to know that you're here. ;)

[Kitsune]

You're wrong He219.
Gavrilo Princip was on his way home when he stumbled into Franz Ferdinands car by sheer coincidence...the driver had lost his way in the narrow streets of Sarajavo. His incompetence led to WWI! He is the true culprit.

rofl

[He219]

Nice, kitsune!
by sheer coincidence...the driver had lost his way
But it warrants correction:

Nedjelko Cabrinovic threw the bomb that glanced off Franz Ferdinand's arm as the Archduke deflected it away from his wife Sophie. The bomb glanced off Franz Ferdinand's arm, bounced off his folded car top and into the street behind them. The explosion injured about a dozen spectators. The fragments also injured Lieutenant Colonel Merizzi, the Bosnian Governor General Oskar Potoirek's chief adjutant, with an injury to the back of his head.

The Archduke did not wish to cancel his visit to the museum and lunch at the Governor's residence, but wished to alter his plans to include a visit to Merizzi in the hospital. The same motorcade set out along the Appel Quay, but neither the Mayor's driver, nor Franz Ferdinand's driver had been informed of the change in schedule. This would have been Merizzi's job.

The Mayor, Fehim Effendi Curcic in his car, followed by Franz Ferdinand's car turned off the Appel Quay and onto Franz Joseph Street, as originally planned, to travel to the museum. General Potoirek leaned forward. "What is this? This is the wrong way! We're supposed to take the Appel Quay!" The driver put on the brakes and began to back up. Franz Ferdinand's car stopped directly in front of Moritz Schiller's food store where Gavrilo Princip was getting a sandwich.

Therefore it was a direct result of Cabrinovic's actions, and Princip was still the trigger man. He shot Sophie in the head and Ferdinand in the chest before his gun jammed. The conspiritor's guns and bombs were supplied by the Serbian Ujedinjenje ili Smrt.

Have a great day!
;)

[Rantanplan]

"Edmund: Do you mean "How did the war start?"

Baldrick: Yeah.

George: The war started because of the evile Hun and his villainous empire-building.

Edmund: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.

George: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not. (aside, to Baldick) Mad as a bicycle!

Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.

Edmund: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.

Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir."
rofl

[Kitsune]

@He219:

Ok, you convinced me!

;)

[GazB]

Rantanplan.... :-) Love Blackadder... got series 1,2, and 4 on DVD... will buy series 3 when I get the chance.

The problem with the "european" view of things is that it is biased. If you are going to standardise history then you need to look at all sides and not agree on anything... otherwise all you'll have is bollocks.
Ask an American or a Brit what the high point of WWII was than they'd say D-Day or some such thing. Ask a Russian and they'll say something completely different. Are either of them wrong? Of course not... for each front there is a clear high point, just as there is a clear low point, and a strange bit where nothing is happening.

As someone who is interested in the non-western bits of the war, the 1939-45 thing is rubbish. As far as the Russians are concerned their official war with Japan didn't start till 1945 when they opened a second front. But it could be argued that in the late 30s when there were skirmishes on borders with the Japanese and the Japanese were soundly thrashed by Georgi Zhukov was also part of WWII. Then a short time later the war with the Finns by lesser generals where well equipped Finns armed with SMGs and skis gave the Soviet conscripts and their lesser leaders a good thrashing for a while, which meant eventually a sledge hammer had to be brought in to smash eggs led those in Europe to think the Russian army was weak... and to quote Hitler once we kick in the front door the whole rotten place will collapse in on its own weight. Or something to that effect.

[Kitsune]

Yeah, as Germany invaded Russia they did it with 3300 tanks and around 3000 aircraft. Soviet forces outnumbered them severly, for example Stalins army had more than 20000 (!) tanks and more than 10000 aircraft.
(As far as tanks are concerned it is interesting to know that Soviet tanks weren't technologically inferior. In fact, the Russians were the first to build huge tanks with strong guns and sloped armor. And the Germans didn't have Panthers or Tigers at that time. The Panther was in fact inspired by the Soviet T34 tank. Nonetheless virtually all of those 20000 Soviet tanks were destroyed or captured by the Germans during the first months of the invasion). It is really astonishing that Hitler dared to attack this mighty force. He obviously had a lot of faith into the quality of German troops...or the un-quality of Soviet ones.

Perhaps he just gambled that the Soviet Union might break apart. And in fact the nearly incredible losses made the Russian state come close to it. Stalin had killed and terrorized its own population in an incredible way during the 30ties...he was hated by many. It was perhaps Hitlers cruelty which was his undoing. If the Germans would have come as liberators and not as new orpessors this probably would have done the trick. But as it were Stalin used the attack to rally his people. In fact the war and the victory over Nazi Germany gave the Soviet state an sense of purpose and a feeling of being the "liberators" of Europe that may have even stabilized the Soviet Union in the decades after the war...

[EvanL]

Wait Poland was invaded? When? How? By Whom? haha jk

[GazB]

"for example Stalins army had more than 20000 (!) tanks and more than 10000 aircraft. "

But most of those tanks were light tankettes armed with a small turret and a MG for infantry support, or a huge multi turreted bohemouth, while most of the fighter planes were Polikarpov biplanes and monoplanes that flew well in the Spanish civil war, but the introduction to that war of the Bf-109A spelt the polikarpovs obsolescence. Most aircraft were destroyed on the ground lined up next to their runways which meant that most of the pilots survived. The vast majority of the tanks lost were captured when overrun.
Throughout the war the Germans handled their armour much better than its opponents.
At the start of the war the Soviets saw tanks as single purpose vehicles... either as direct infantry support or as mobile artillery. Direct support meant MG armament or a short 3 in gun firing HE rounds. The other role was tank hunter with a high velocity small calibre gun, like a 37mm or 45mm HV gun. Such a small calibre gun couldn't use much HE so as an anti infantry round it wasn't that good... hense the short barrel 76.2mm guns.

The breakthrough of the T-34 was the multipurpose gun. Previous vehicles intended to take on other tanks had high velocity but small cailbre weapons. 37mm-45mm was common. Panzers entered the Soviet Union confident in the power of their 50mm guns. For infantry support MGs or large calibre guns were used with very short barrels... short barrel 3 in guns were common. The large 5 turreted heavy Soviet tanks had up to 5 turrets with the top central turret with a short L11 76.2mm gun, while enemy tanks were engaged with two 37mm or later 45mm guns mounted in each corner, with the opposite corners armed with turrets with MGs for close in defence. The L34 and then later L44 76.2mm gun on the T-34 used a longer barrel with a relatively high velocity added to large shell weight for a good HE round as well. (Lxx shows the length of the gun barrel in calibres... ie L44 is 44 calibres long, or 44 x 76.2 = 3352.8 or a 3.3m long barrel). this length of barrel meant the same gun could be used against infantry (HE) and tanks (solid shot).

[Maciek]

But most of those tanks were light tankettes armed with a small turret and a MG for infantry support, or a huge multi turreted bohemouth (...)

But the Germans used 3508, 2176 with 3,7cm gun(or bigger), ther were using PzKpfw I and II.

Most of soviet tanks with MG were with 12.6mm
Most of german tanks with MG werw with 7,62mm

[GazB]

No, I meant the main armament of many Soviet tankettes was a turret with a 7.62mm MG. The Panzer 2s had a 7.92mm MG and a 20mm cannon, whereas the Panzer 3s had 50mm guns. Early Panzer 4s had short 75mm guns but they were later fitted with longer barrel guns that were comparable to the gun fitted to the T-34. These were necessary as the 50mm couldn't penetrate the T-34s armour except with the brand new and expensive (rare) tungsten (wolfram) rounds... and even then they had to be fired from close range and from behind a T-34.
Soviet tankettes were later upgraded with 50 cal MGs and their heavy tanks like Stalin tanks had 50cals mounted above their turrets and later still 20mm cannon were fitted to some too, but most often the MGs used on soviet tanks were DT 7.62mm MGs.
Light tanks like the BT series were limited to 45mm guns as their turrets weren't big enough to absorb the recoil of a more powerful gun.
On the german side the 50mm anti tank guns were found to be useless against the few T-34s and KVs to be found at the start of the war, but were very effective against the lightly armoured tankettes and the thinskined multiturreted tanks (Less than 500 multi turreted tanks were actually made... they looked good on parade, but in combat they usually broke down and were abandoned).
When the Germans invaded the Tiger was on the drawing board and prototypes were being tested, though the discovery of the T-34 and KV series both greatly changed the requirements and drove an acceleration to the project. In the mean time a new medium tank to replace the Panzer 4 was demanded... and it was largely based on what the Germans learned from the T-34.

[Maciek]

GazB what do you understand under tankettes and light tank?

[GazB]

"GazB what do you understand under tankettes and light tank?"

Sorry, don't understand the question.

I am using Tankette and Light tank as interchangable terms. Both are very light, lightly armoured and lightly armed tracked vehicles.

[Maciek]

Tankette and Light tank is not the same. Tank has a turret. Tankette is armed in MG.

BTW do you know names of soviet tankettes


BTW do you know that part of soviet light tanks were able to swimm. What german tank were able to swimm?

[Kitsune]

There is a most impressive site concerning German Armed Forces of (mostly) WWII. It is still in the making, but it seems to be quite objective and well researched and has already an overwhelming mass of material.

Check out: http://www.feldgrau.com/

Note the part about statitistics and numbers: http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

(especially the KIA/MIA numbers per WWII war month. Should be taken with agrain of salt but nonetheless fascinating.)

Also note that the (Polish?) claim, that the German losses during the Polish campaign were higher than those of the French campaign in summer 1940 is not supported by the numbers given here. The losses during the French campaign were nearly three times as high.
(If anyone has a source that contradicts this, just say so...I am only interested in the truth here).


p-)

[Maciek]

My source (Janusz Piekałkiewicz book "Wojna pancerna 1939-1945") German losses :
KIA - 27074
WIA - 111 034
MIA - 18 348

note the KIA and MIA
KIA + MIA = 45422
on the feldgrau site KIA 46000 MIA 1000

I will check objective anather time

[perdurabo]

Take French forces(and Brits) stats and compare it to Polish (number of tanks planes etc)

[GazB]

Tankette and Light tank is not the same. Tank has a turret. Tankette is armed in MG.

BTW do you know names of soviet tankettes


BTW do you know that part of soviet light tanks were able to swimm. What german tank were able to swimm?

The most common light tanks at the start of the war were T-26 (single or twin turret with rifle cal MG in each), T-37 also with rifle cal MG in turret and the T-40 which supersceeded it with a 50 cal and rifle cal MGs in a turret. The later T-60 tank had a 20mm aircraft cannon as a main armament. (The T-37, T-40, T-60 and the other later recon tanks could swim).

Not sure about the german vehicles.

[Maciek]

BTW T-37A was airborne by TB3 plane

[Russian Texan]

T 37 airborne was a prototype that never went into production and you know why and what was its purpose? Hint: most of the Soviet weapons in the begining of WW2 were offensive in nature. Soviet Union wasn't prepeared for the defense it was geared for the offense that is why all the retreat, confussion, huge loses and almost 20.000 light tanks that are great on offense but useless in defense. BTW did you know that overwhelming majority of Soviet tanks could shred their track and move much faster on wheels. But again, moving around without tracks at high speeds is only possible on the paved roads and USSR didn't have back then many of those, think about it.

[Maciek]

T 37 airborne was a prototype that never went into production (...)

About 1130 prototypes were built :)

About 1200 T-37s of all variations were built.The estimated 70 T-37 vehicles built in 1933 were probably a pre-production version that were extensively tested in 1933. Production vehicles, conformed to the T-37A configuration. Later Soviet documents dispensed with the "A" when referring to the T-37A

BTW soviet build a prototype of T-60 that was airbone through attachment of wings and stabilizer and making the tank a big glider. The T37A was attach under bomber, the bomber have to land on enemy airfild with the tank.

[Maciek]

BTW did you know that overwhelming majority of Soviet tanks could shred their track and move much faster on wheels. But again, moving around without tracks at high speeds is only possible on the paved roads and USSR didn't have back then many of those, think about it. :) :) :) I know that :) :) :)

BT tanks were build to do that
The soviets build:
200 BT-2
1800 BT-5
1200 BT-7

the speed of BT tanks were 72km/h on weels

[Maciek]

Russian Texan did ypu read Wiktor Suworow books woot ???

[GazB]

"Soviet Union wasn't prepeared for the defense it was geared for the offense that is why all the retreat, confussion, huge loses and almost 20.000 light tanks that are great on offense but useless in defense."

The main reason the Soviets armour suffered so badly was because although they had plenty of light tanks and plenty of experience in using tanks in exercises they had been practising for the wrong war... they were using them like it was WWI. The Germans showed the way by concentrating tanks in Tank units that were highly mobile and with concentrated power and force. The Soviets on the other hand used them like the British used them in WWII, as part of an infantry unit... they worked with infantry in penny packets to assist in infantry attacks. In comparison when a German tank unit attacked a Soviet unit the German tanks outnumbered the Soviet tanks 10 to one... the German unit quickly took out the Soviet tanks and mowed down the infantry. Very large Soviet units were bypassed or captured enmass with their vehicles often having their turrets removed and a Soviet 76.2mm gun fitted as a makeshift self propelled gun by the Germans (who were so impressed by its natural armour penetrating capabilities they produced their own ammo for it).
Stalin KNew his forces weren't ready... that is why he did everything in his power to avoid a war with Germany. He had seen how the Germans had ploughed through the French and British and how he had swept through Europe in weeks... so unlike WWI... the war everyone but the Germans were prepared to fight... Germany Armour was ready for WWII and it showed. Estimates as to how long it was going to take to reform Soviet units on the German model ranged from 1 year to 1.5 years including of course all of the changes in training and a few exercises to iron out bugs... in the end the Germans didn't give them that time and it showed... they struck at the start of the change over.

[GazB]

"BTW did you know that overwhelming majority of Soviet tanks could shred their track and move much faster on wheels. But again, moving around without tracks at high speeds is only possible on the paved roads and USSR didn't have back then many of those, think about it."

The spring was the worst time... frozen ground is easier to traverse than mud.

On later model BT tanks the ability to drive on wheels was dropped due to the complication and the fact that the feature was hardly ever used. One of the best features of the T-34 was its wide tracks allowing it to drive almost anywhere too thick to swim through.

[Maciek]

[quote="GazB
The spring was the worst time... frozen ground is easier to traverse than mud.

On later model BT tanks the ability to drive on wheels was dropped due to the complication and the fact that the feature was hardly ever used. One of the best features of the T-34 was its wide tracks allowing it to drive almost anywhere too thick to swim through.[/quote]

The soviets stoped to build BT tanks, they were build to move on german highway so ther was no use for them in defence war

No german tank on the start of had wide tracks so they were not prepared for the war.

[Russian Texan]

Russian Texan did ypu read Wiktor Suworow books ???

Yeah I did, Suvorov has couple of books that support the idea of Hitler attacking Stalin out of desperation because he knew that the only chance to survive he had was to beat Stalin to the punch. I was very intrigued by his work and facts that he provides to support it, but the same facts presented under a different angle can take on a completely new meaning. Well anyways, I'm not sure what to believe since the author himself is very controversial figure and doesn't carry much credibility to me, although anything is possible. The only two people who knew exactly what was going on and manipulated their countries into the war are dead so I guess we will never know for sure.

[GazB]

"Yeah I did, Suvorov has couple of books that support the idea of Hitler attacking Stalin out of desperation because he knew that the only chance to survive he had was to beat Stalin to the punch."

I think Mein Kampf showed that Hitler was always going to attack the Soviet Union. It is his living space in the east and also an ideological enemy. If the air attacks on Britain had succeeded and the British had lost the so called Battle of Britain then Hitler may have gone west first and then East. Hitler knew of the power of the British navy and that he couldn't mount an operation against both the RAF and the Royal Navy. If he could have taken out the RAF he might have had a go at invasion. If he had kept concentrating on RAF airfields he would have won. Instead he had his hand smacked away from the cookie jar and turned East.

[Maciek]

GazB did you read Mein Kampf ???
I did not so I cant tell what Hitler planed to do with Soviet Union.

[Maciek]

Russian Texan did ypu read Wiktor Suworow books ???

Yeah I did
what titles did you read?

[Russian Texan]

Inside the Aquarium, Spetsnaz, Liberator and Icebreaker. Just like I said before, all of those books present very interesting read and initially I started to believe him but then I have done some research on Mr. Suvorov and the actual events, that is when he lost all credibility to me. Basically all of his books were written when USSR was a mystery to the western world and spy books were selling very well. I do give him credit for doing research but the same facts can be presented in some many ways... Anyhow, his books are fiction that he is trying to pass as the real thing through using real life people, events and locations. Nevertheless his work makes for some very intriguing reading material.

[GazB]

"initially I started to believe him but then I have done some research on Mr. Suvorov and the actual events, that is when he lost all credibility to me."

Can you post here what you think he said that was wrong?

I have seen lots of verification of many of the things he mentions. (the IT-1 missile tanks etc).

He was a defector, and some of the things he said were suspected of being misinformation, but i don't think it was doubted the he was in the GRU. Most of the things he talked about would not have been known to just any russian at the time. Even Spetsnaz troops were unknown to the Soviet Public at the time.

BTW there are two very good books written by a British woman named Carey Schofield, one on the Soviet armed forces and another on the VDV and special forces. In the middle of the latter book there are photos of m16 armed guards being taken down in exercises. One error is that some of the weapon identification in the two boks is not that great. One identifies a Metis-M short range ATGM (ie up to 1,500m) as a Strela man portable SAM, and an RPO-A flame rocket launcher is identified as a bazooka type weapon.

[Maciek]

Some things are hard to believe. The "Liberator" is about Czechoslovakia invazion (right?We have different titles). If I did not talk with the people that were ther it would be hard to believe fo me.

[Russian Texan]

Things that undermine his credibility the most:

1. Anyone who is familiar whith the Russian military will tell you that its description and relationships with in it, although true in some places, but overall grossly exaggerated and tailored for better selling in the west.

2. All of the leading Russian historians disagree on most of the numbers that he provides (I'm reffering to WW2)

3. If he was an active resident (spy), when did he have the time to go through all of those secret historical documents and archives? And who would give him such an access?

4. He is a defector who is bitter at his native country and has to make a living somehow. This alone should raise questions about his objectivnes.

And now the facts that completely destroy his credibility (IMHO):

He claims that he is sentenced to death by KGB and nevertheless he openly travels, appears on TV and in movies, makes public appearances during his books presentations and so on. Somehow it is hard to believe that KGB couldn't get off a shot in 25 years...

His book "Spetsnaz" WOW... I don't even want to go into the detailed description of all missinformation and fiction collected in that work of art, I am just going to say one thing: How can a man of his physical built and his eyesight and I'm not talking about his present day pictures, I am talking about his old/younger pictures, be a Spetsnaz member. Ofcourse may be back then Spetsnaz recruited among obesity prone geek midgets...

Anyway you look at it, there are a lot of things that just don't add up in his books and career if you start paying attention to details, but it doesn't matter because he writes what sells therefore publishers are happy and he is laughing all the way to the bank.

[GazB]

I'll admit it has been a while since I read his work, but from memory he claimed to be an oficer in the GRU. His links therefore to spetsnaz would be as an officer in their organisation. I particularly remember him talking about observing an exercise where the soldiers trying to get into spetsnaz had to go on a long run in heavy rain conditions with full gear and the part he saw where they had to run to the middle of a bridge and jump off the middle into the freezing waters of a river. As the observation post was some distance from the bridge and those observing didn't have any life saving equipment he asked the other officer there what to do if a soldier didn't surface after he hit the water. The reply was the if he didn't surface he was no good for spetsnaz units.

Undoubtedly much of what he might have known would be kept secret by the west and editorial changes by non experts might change quite a few details to the point where they become questionable.

A lot of the facts he mentions are quite true and were not known in the west a the time. Details of the 9mm silenced makarov, anti aircraft "mines". and many other things.

[NcDeuce]

Ay! :cantbeli: Silly, silly Poles.

[perdurabo]

Ay! :cantbeli: Silly, silly Poles.
ekhm what do you mean? if it's another "Polish minesweeper" better forget it :]

[Maciek]

Things that undermine his credibility the most:

1. Anyone who is familiar whith the Russian military will tell you that its description and relationships with in it, although true in some places, but overall grossly exaggerated and tailored for better selling in the west.

2. All of the leading Russian historians disagree on most of the numbers that he provides (I'm reffering to WW2)

3. If he was an active resident (spy), when did he have the time to go through all of those secret historical documents and archives? And who would give him such an access?

4. He is a defector who is bitter at his native country and has to make a living somehow. This alone should raise questions about his objectivnes.

And now the facts that completely destroy his credibility (IMHO):

He claims that he is sentenced to death by KGB and nevertheless he openly travels, appears on TV and in movies, makes public appearances during his books presentations and so on. Somehow it is hard to believe that KGB couldn't get off a shot in 25 years...

His book "Spetsnaz" WOW... I don't even want to go into the detailed description of all missinformation and fiction collected in that work of art, I am just going to say one thing: How can a man of his physical built and his eyesight and I'm not talking about his present day pictures, I am talking about his old/younger pictures, be a Spetsnaz member. Ofcourse may be back then Spetsnaz recruited among obesity prone geek midgets...



1 All Warsaw pact armys are similar
2 "leading" Russian historians are writing what Kreml want
3 On military school he was guarding archives ("Suicide")
4 What abaut other historians

You have all answers in books

He was not a spetsnaz member, he was only a spy :bash:
Did you read books or just look at the photos :)

[Russian Texan]

He was not a spetsnaz member, he was only a spy
I have never made a statement that he was career spetsnaz officer. I was talking about his time with "spetsnaz GRU"

"leading" Russian historians are writing what Kreml want

C'mon get real, you don't even know how ridicilous this statement is today, 12 years ago I'd agree with you but now...

On military school he was guarding archives

So basically he wrote 12 books based on sveral hours a week that he spend at the entrance to the archive :roll:

All Warsaw pact armys are similar
In what way? Do you mean command structure, selection process or what? In my post I was referring to the inner workings of the Russian military & society and not the organizational structure but rather social interaction in it.


Suvorov is the typical communist who went over to the "dark side", kind of "Darth Vader of imperialist propaganda" :-) His writings belong to the domain of science fiction- "alternative history" like H. Turtledove's etc.. but they are quite convincing for people who have very little knowledge of history.

Although like I have stated before not all of it is fiction, he does use a lot of real life stuff that was or is still unknown to the general public. For example hand-to-hand combat training with murderers and death row inmates, hazing in the military, some special equipment that he describes, education and training, etc. So he does provide facts, althoug he completely skips those that can be damaging to his theory,it is just the way he interprets them is geared more towards selling rather than establishing historical accuracy. BTW there was a movie made, I think it was in Checoslovakia, based on his book "Aquarium" so if you are still a believer,see it and then we'll talk. BTW2 Look at Russian president V. Putin, he is about the same age and comes from the similar background (intelligence), find any similarities...I don't think so. Well I guess you get my drift :)

[perdurabo]

[
"leading" Russian historians are writing what Kreml want

C'mon get real, you don't even know how ridicilous this statement is today, 12 years ago I'd agree with you but now...


All Warsaw pact armys are similar
In what way? Do you mean command structure, selection process or what? In my post I was referring to the inner workings of the Russian military & society and not the organizational structure but rather social interaction in it.


LOL Rusians NEVER change! look at Kursk how they treated familys members of crew :) now under Putin rule they will go further in lies and other ****:]

second well even inner workings of rusian army and other stuff were similiar, Russians tried to make all nations around them to be like them :] but Walesa come up and dystroyed comunism woot jeee and ****heads from moscow now cry for our carots and ships and are scared if we find other sources of oil....:) LOL

[Russian Texan]

You have failed to provide any logical objections or comments to my arguments so I presume that you have none. In your opinion, why would present day Russia hide any information about WW2 when everything, everyone and anything that happened during USSR was denounced, bashed, exposed, blamed in the "free media" (media is never free, it always belongs to someone, if not the gov. then to the guy who signs a paycheck) of todays Russia.
[second well even inner workings of rusian army and other stuff were similiar
Prove.

but Walesa come up and dystroyed comunism

So he is singlehandlently responsible for the change of political systems.... aha
Allow me to remind you that it actually was USSR in the first place to give Poland independence from Czar's Russia but that is besides the point. The simple truth is that if USSR cared, whatever happened in Poland would end up same way as it did Checoslovakia and other places that weren't happy with the communism and Walensa probably be explaining his political views to the bears in Siberia. Does abreviation "ZGV" ( zapadnaya gruppa voisk) tell you anything?

jeee and ****heads from moscow now cry for our carots and ships and are scared if we find other sources of oil....

The statement above hints me that either you or Poland as a whole suffer from the bitternes and a small country/penis inferiority complex... Let me see if I got it right, if it is not for Poland then Russian economy would cease to exist and its population will be sentenced to endure the lack of vitamins and eventualy die from starvation... yeah right man, whatever you say :roll:
I'll do you a favor and let you on a terrible secret: somehow I think that if tommorrow Poland disappears from the face of the Earth, 99.9% of russians won't even notice it, just ask any of them on this message board. Just make a post, who will care if the Poland in no longer...

Here is joke that you might want to remember anytime you'd like to get a reality check:

Q:Which is the most independent country in the world?
A: Poland
Q:Why?
A:Nothing depends on it :lol:

Take care pal.

[Maciek]

(...)

Here is joke that you might want to remember anytime you'd like to get a reality check:

Q:Which is the most independent country in the world?
A: Poland
Q:Why?
A:Nothing depends on it :lol:

Take care pal. rofl rofl rofl a good one did not know it before

I do not remember the carots

It is truth that they cry for ours ships.
The first person that complain about restructuring the "W.I.Lenin" shipyard was the soviet ambasador
The shipyard was the main supplier of ZSRR with fishing boat and large fishing ships and hydrographic ships.
We were selling them under construction cost.

I see that you dont know that this was on purpose, every comunist country was made to build one kind of think, that make them depend from others comunist countris, but the Kreml forget that them become depend from others to.
The same thing hapened in Ukraine, ther were some important military factorys for ZSRR

[Herrmannek]

You have failed to provide any logical objections or comments to my arguments so I presume that you have none. In your opinion, why would present day Russia hide any information about WW2 when everything, everyone and anything that happened during USSR was denounced, bashed, exposed, blamed in the "free media" (media is never free, it always belongs to someone, if not the gov. then to the guy who signs a paycheck) of todays Russia.


B/c it could cost them money. We have few graveyards in Russia made by NKWD, many pieces of art stolen from Poland, Not payed bills(for carots, potatos, onion, shoes, ships and other stuf :) ) and such...



but Walesa come up and dystroyed comunism
So he is singlehandlently responsible for the change of political systems.... aha
Allow me to remind you that it actually was USSR in the first place to give Poland independence from Czar's Russia but that is besides the point.


Yes, By sending Budionny to Warsaw to congratulate :)


The simple truth is that if USSR cared, whatever happened in Poland would end up same way as it did Checoslovakia and other places that weren't happy with the communism and Walensa probably be explaining his political views to the bears in Siberia. Does abreviation "ZGV" ( zapadnaya gruppa voisk) tell you anything?

rofl rofl rofl rofl, USSR was colos on ceramic legs, theye were white from fear that this can happen In USSR, they cared but were afraid that invasion can make bigger **** than was then.


jeee and ****heads from moscow now cry for our carots and ships and are scared if we find other sources of oil....

The statement above hints me that either you or Poland as a whole suffer from the bitternes and a small country/penis inferiority complex... Let me see if I got it right, if it is not for Poland then Russian economy would cease to exist and its population will be sentenced to endure the lack of vitamins and eventualy die from starvation... yeah right man, whatever you say :roll:


Don't start penis size contest, maybe they wouldn't die from starvation, but they would eat grass :) joke


I'll do you a favor and let you on a terrible secret: somehow I think that if tommorrow Poland disappears from the face of the Earth, 99.9% of russians won't even notice it, just ask any of them on this message board. Just make a post, who will care if the Poland in no longer...

Now yes, no one would see the difference but then, it would be big problem for USSR, with couldn't buy anything from free part of world b/c of lack of US $ :)

[perdurabo]

joke:
Mao calls to Stalin:
-Hey comrades can you send us 1bilion$?
-of coz not a problem
few weeks leater same phonecall
-hey can you send us 1milion tons of coal
-of coz not a problem
another call from Pekin to Moscow
-can you send us 1milion tons of rice?
-no! i understand dollars, i understand coal but where from the poor Gierek(Polish first secretary) gets rice?

other one:
Thankfullnes of Moscow:
We send them ships and in favour they take our coal

[GazB]

"LOL Rusians NEVER change! look at Kursk how they treated familys members of crew now under Putin rule they will go further in lies and other ****:]"

What lies?

"Russians tried to make all nations around them to be like them "

You mean like the US makes the central and south american countries around them? Oops, no, your dictators were no where near as brutal as some of them.

"I have never made a statement that he was career spetsnaz officer. I was talking about his time with "spetsnaz GRU""

He was in the GRU, he just wasn't in Spetsnaz... he was an officer in GRU... ie Soviet military intelligence service.

[Maciek]

"Russians tried to make all nations around them to be like them "

You mean like the US makes the central and south american countries around them? Oops, no, your dictators were no where near as brutal as some of them.



We did not have a dictator but a first secretary :bash: , thers is a little difference(very little)
Its not brutality that is important but the way of slaverying people.
The Russians wanted to make all nations around them to be like them fore ther own safety, to be sure that the people wont revolt, when they see people beter live in other country.

[GazB]

"The Russians wanted to make all nations around them to be like them fore ther own safety, to be sure that the people wont revolt, when they see people beter live in other country."

Do you think the US interferes in the countries near it because it wants to help them? An opposition government in central america could be more fascist than mussolini but as long as those they were fighting were called communists the US would jump into bed with them.

[Maciek]

You are right

What are we talking about any way???

[GazB]

We don't seem to be talking about the invasion of Poland anymore...

Almost back on topic, one of the effects of Stalins agreement with Hitler to divide Poland has been suggested as one of the reasons Japan didn't open a second front on the Soviets during WWII. I heard that the Japanese thought that Hitler double dealing behind their backs with what they perceived as their enemy meant that they no longer trusted Hitler.

Of course they needed oil more than they needed to hold vast areas of tundra but what do you guys think about this?

[Maciek]

Are some Japanese on this forum?

Yes but they needed oil and steel and some other metals.
They think that China and Korea will be easy targets

[GazB]

...and rubber and quite a few other necessities.