Books of Viktor Suvorov contains a lot of myths

[Kunikov]

The 'truth' is already known. There is more than enough evidence to show what the Soviet Union was capable of in 1941. Those who believe a certain archive(s) will release a 'smoking gun' that will validate what the likes of Rezun advocate are living a fantasy.

In order to prepare an attack, you do not need to have a good army, you only need to believe that you have good and prepared army.

This is not an abstract argument, Stalin believed neither of those things.

Hitler attacked USSR with obsolete weapons, and with horse drawn transport. Was he prepared? No, because he lost.

Fallacious argument.

Did he believe that he would win in 1941? Yes.

You're going off on tangents, show the correlation between Hitler's belief he would win the war against the USSR, and for which he began to plan a year before the invasion, to Stalin doing the same, if you're going to use such a comparison.

Perceptions are important.

Facts, more so.

To the question why RKKA was beaten in 1941, one can view also Mark Solonin's books (main thesis of M.S-Vast majority of RKKA soldiers did not want to fight for the "loved" regime. However Hitler with his stupid racial policy proved to them that there are far worse things than communism). Of course, other factors (like the purges that probably had negative effect on RKKA) should also be considered.

Solonin's already been shown to be about as believable as Suvorov, no thanks.

[Connat]

The 'truth' is already known. There is more than enough evidence to show what the Soviet Union was capable of in 1941. Those who believe a certain archive(s) will release a 'smoking gun' that will validate what the likes of Rezun advocate are living a fantasy.

In order to prepare an attack, you do not need to have a good army, you only need to believe that you have good and prepared army.

This is not an abstract argument, Stalin believed neither of those things.Source please. unless you will show to me that Stalin has said before Barbarossa that "RKKA is worse than Wehrmacht", you cannot cancel Suvorov's thesis merely on "Rkka lost in 1941, and therefore Stalin has not planned anything"

Hitler attacked USSR with obsolete weapons, and with horse drawn transport. Was he prepared? No, because he lost.

Fallacious argument. Attacking with horse transport mechanized troops is called being unprepared. So is attacking circa 20000 tanks with less than 5000, and out of them no one could deal with t-34

Did he believe that he would win in 1941? Yes.

You're going off on tangents, show the correlation between Hitler's belief he would win the war against the USSR, and for which he began to plan a year before the invasion, to Stalin doing the same, if you're going to use such a comparison. Stalin actually did believe that he will win. source:
Hoffman, J. „Die Angriffsvorbereitungen des Sowjetunion 1941“ in: Zwei Wege nach Moskau: Vom Hitler-Stalin Pact bis zum „Unternehmen Barbarossa“. Ed. B. Wegner, München, R.Piper GmbH& Co, 1991, p.370-375". it is full with speeches by stalin or communist propaganda, which leitmotiff being-"we will win, There will be great uprising of the proletariat in germany, german soldiers do not want to fight", etc. Delusion? Yes. But he DID believe in it. As for preparations-on material part, Stalin was VERY prepared. Unfortunately for him, he decided that it should be enough.

Perceptions are important.

Facts, more so.Facts and how you perceive them are 2 different things.

To the question why RKKA was beaten in 1941, one can view also Mark Solonin's books (main thesis of M.S-Vast majority of RKKA soldiers did not want to fight for the "loved" regime. However Hitler with his stupid racial policy proved to them that there are far worse things than communism). Of course, other factors (like the purges that probably had negative effect on RKKA) should also be considered.

Solonin's already been shown to be about as believable as Suvorov, no thanks.

Source please, that criticize Solonin. If found good, i will gladly include it in my work.

[Kunikov]

This is not an abstract argument, Stalin believed neither of those things.

Source please. unless you will show to me that Stalin has said before Barbarossa that "RKKA is worse than Wehrmacht", you cannot cancel Suvorov's thesis merely on "Rkka lost in 1941, and therefore Stalin has not planned anything"

Don't put words in my proverbial mouth, I said no such thing. And that kind of a fallacious argument is why you are making the same mistakes Suvorov does. Although I would bet he knows what he's doing and you're just baaaing along. You also cannot prove a negative, therefore it is up to you to show that Stalin did believe his army could defeat Hitler.

Hitler attacked USSR with obsolete weapons, and with horse drawn transport. Was he prepared? No, because he lost.

Fallacious argument.

Attacking with horse transport mechanized troops is called being unprepared. So is attacking circa 20000 tanks with less than 5000, and out of them no one could deal with t-34

Wrong, Hitler did not expect 20,000 tanks, that's one mistake. Two, saying Hitler lost thus he was not prepared is a fallacious argument. The Soviet Union was not prepared for war and it did not lose.

Did he believe that he would win in 1941? Yes.

You're going off on tangents, show the correlation between Hitler's belief he would win the war against the USSR, and for which he began to plan a year before the invasion, to Stalin doing the same, if you're going to use such a comparison.

Stalin actually did believe that he will win. source:
Hoffman, J. „Die Angriffsvorbereitungen des Sowjetunion 1941“ in: Zwei Wege nach Moskau: Vom Hitler-Stalin Pact bis zum „Unternehmen Barbarossa“. Ed. B. Wegner, München, R.Piper GmbH& Co, 1991, p.370-375". it is full with speeches by stalin or communist propaganda, which leitmotiff being-"we will win, There will be great uprising of the proletariat in germany, german soldiers do not want to fight", etc. Delusion? Yes. But he DID believe in it. As for preparations-on material part, Stalin was VERY prepared. Unfortunately for him, he decided that it should be enough.

Wrong, this is propaganda. You will have to show that this is what Stalin actually thought/believed rather than being a facade for his own soldiers/civilians and the outside world. And since Stalin advocated for Socialism in one state and stopped the multitude of revolutions that the Comintern sponsored, your assertion, in this case, has no foundation.

To the question why RKKA was beaten in 1941, one can view also Mark Solonin's books (main thesis of M.S-Vast majority of RKKA soldiers did not want to fight for the "loved" regime. However Hitler with his stupid racial policy proved to them that there are far worse things than communism). Of course, other factors (like the purges that probably had negative effect on RKKA) should also be considered.

Solonin's already been shown to be about as believable as Suvorov, no thanks.

Source please, that criticize Solonin. If found good, i will gladly include it in my work.

http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4233916/

[Connat]

This is not an abstract argument, Stalin believed neither of those things.

Source please. unless you will show to me that Stalin has said before Barbarossa that "RKKA is worse than Wehrmacht", you cannot cancel Suvorov's thesis merely on "Rkka lost in 1941, and therefore Stalin has not planned anything"

Don't put words in my proverbial mouth, I said no such thing. And that kind of a fallacious argument is why you are making the same mistakes Suvorov does. Although I would bet he knows what he's doing and you're just baaaing along. You also cannot prove a negative, therefore it is up to you to show that Stalin did believe his army could defeat Hitler.

Hitler attacked USSR with obsolete weapons, and with horse drawn transport. Was he prepared? No, because he lost.

Fallacious argument.

Attacking with horse transport mechanized troops is called being unprepared. So is attacking circa 20000 tanks with less than 5000, and out of them no one could deal with t-34

Wrong, Hitler did not expect 20,000 tanks, that's one mistake. Two, saying Hitler lost thus he was not prepared is a fallacious argument. The Soviet Union was not prepared for war and it did not lose.
You are proving my point. Hitler thought that he had enough, and he attacked.
By meaning "USSR lost" i refer to initial period of war-1941

Did he believe that he would win in 1941? Yes.

You're going off on tangents, show the correlation between Hitler's belief he would win the war against the USSR, and for which he began to plan a year before the invasion, to Stalin doing the same, if you're going to use such a comparison.

Stalin actually did believe that he will win. source:
Hoffman, J. „Die Angriffsvorbereitungen des Sowjetunion 1941“ in: Zwei Wege nach Moskau: Vom Hitler-Stalin Pact bis zum „Unternehmen Barbarossa“. Ed. B. Wegner, München, R.Piper GmbH& Co, 1991, p.370-375". it is full with speeches by stalin or communist propaganda, which leitmotiff being-"we will win, There will be great uprising of the proletariat in germany, german soldiers do not want to fight", etc. Delusion? Yes. But he DID believe in it. As for preparations-on material part, Stalin was VERY prepared. Unfortunately for him, he decided that it should be enough.

Wrong, this is propaganda. You will have to show that this is what Stalin actually thought/believed rather than being a facade for his own soldiers/civilians and the outside world. And since Stalin advocated for Socialism in one state and stopped the multitude of revolutions that the Comintern sponsored, your assertion, in this case, has no foundation.This begs the question do you believe the speech that Stalin has said on 19 of august or not?
However, even if you do not believe that he actually said such a speech, we must ask ourselves another question-Did Stalin believe in communism or not? If one answers yes, than Hoffman proof is sufficient. If not, than Hoffman is lacking. By the way thanks for pointing out that bit for me. I will have to plan anew some stuff in my work now

To the question why RKKA was beaten in 1941, one can view also Mark Solonin's books (main thesis of M.S-Vast majority of RKKA soldiers did not want to fight for the "loved" regime. However Hitler with his stupid racial policy proved to them that there are far worse things than communism). Of course, other factors (like the purges that probably had negative effect on RKKA) should also be considered.

Solonin's already been shown to be about as believable as Suvorov, no thanks.

Source please, that criticize Solonin. If found good, i will gladly include it in my work.

http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4233916/

Ah, Isaev. I will of course buy and carefully read the book (thanks once again), however i must point out to what Solonin has written on Isaev's critique. While Isaev does not write on Solonin in this book, his inclusion asks for raised eyebrow.

Link: http://www.solonin.org/full.php?show=co ... 4&type=otz

[ljadw]

The 'truth' is already known. There is more than enough evidence to show what the Soviet Union was capable of in 1941. Those who believe a certain archive(s) will release a 'smoking gun' that will validate what the likes of Rezun advocate are living a fantasy.

In order to prepare an attack, you do not need to have a good army, you only need to believe that you have good and prepared army.

This is not an abstract argument, Stalin believed neither of those things.Source please. unless you will show to me that Stalin has said before Barbarossa that "RKKA is worse than Wehrmacht", you cannot cancel Suvorov's thesis merely on "Rkka lost in 1941, and therefore Stalin has not planned anything"

Hitler attacked USSR with obsolete weapons, and with horse drawn transport. Was he prepared? No, because he lost.

Fallacious argument. Attacking with horse transport mechanized troops is called being unprepared. So is attacking circa 20000 tanks with less than 5000, and out of them no one could deal with t-34

Did he believe that he would win in 1941? Yes.

You're going off on tangents, show the correlation between Hitler's belief he would win the war against the USSR, and for which he began to plan a year before the invasion, to Stalin doing the same, if you're going to use such a comparison. Stalin actually did believe that he will win. source:
Hoffman, J. „Die Angriffsvorbereitungen des Sowjetunion 1941“ in: Zwei Wege nach Moskau: Vom Hitler-Stalin Pact bis zum „Unternehmen Barbarossa“. Ed. B. Wegner, München, R.Piper GmbH& Co, 1991, p.370-375". it is full with speeches by stalin or communist propaganda, which leitmotiff being-"we will win, There will be great uprising of the proletariat in germany, german soldiers do not want to fight", etc. Delusion? Yes. But he DID believe in it. As for preparations-on material part, Stalin was VERY prepared. Unfortunately for him, he decided that it should be enough.

Perceptions are important.

Facts, more so.Facts and how you perceive them are 2 different things.

To the question why RKKA was beaten in 1941, one can view also Mark Solonin's books (main thesis of M.S-Vast majority of RKKA soldiers did not want to fight for the "loved" regime. However Hitler with his stupid racial policy proved to them that there are far worse things than communism). Of course, other factors (like the purges that probably had negative effect on RKKA) should also be considered.

Solonin's already been shown to be about as believable as Suvorov, no thanks.

Source please, that criticize Solonin. If found good, i will gladly include it in my work.

[Kunikov]

Hitler attacked USSR with obsolete weapons, and with horse drawn transport. Was he prepared? No, because he lost.

Fallacious argument.

Attacking with horse transport mechanized troops is called being unprepared. So is attacking circa 20000 tanks with less than 5000, and out of them no one could deal with t-34

Wrong, Hitler did not expect 20,000 tanks, that's one mistake. Two, saying Hitler lost thus he was not prepared is a fallacious argument. The Soviet Union was not prepared for war and it did not lose.

You are proving my point. Hitler thought that he had enough, and he attacked.
By meaning "USSR lost" i refer to initial period of war-1941

Your points are no longer coherent. You jump around from one argument to another with no clear coherence or interest in the facts.

Did he believe that he would win in 1941? Yes.

You're going off on tangents, show the correlation between Hitler's belief he would win the war against the USSR, and for which he began to plan a year before the invasion, to Stalin doing the same, if you're going to use such a comparison.

Stalin actually did believe that he will win. source:
Hoffman, J. „Die Angriffsvorbereitungen des Sowjetunion 1941“ in: Zwei Wege nach Moskau: Vom Hitler-Stalin Pact bis zum „Unternehmen Barbarossa“. Ed. B. Wegner, München, R.Piper GmbH& Co, 1991, p.370-375". it is full with speeches by stalin or communist propaganda, which leitmotiff being-"we will win, There will be great uprising of the proletariat in germany, german soldiers do not want to fight", etc. Delusion? Yes. But he DID believe in it. As for preparations-on material part, Stalin was VERY prepared. Unfortunately for him, he decided that it should be enough.

Wrong, this is propaganda. You will have to show that this is what Stalin actually thought/believed rather than being a facade for his own soldiers/civilians and the outside world. And since Stalin advocated for Socialism in one state and stopped the multitude of revolutions that the Comintern sponsored, your assertion, in this case, has no foundation.

This begs the question do you believe the speech that Stalin has said on 19 of august or not?

This does not 'beg' anything, it raises the question. And no, the speech of August 19 was proven to have been a fake. See "РЕЧЬ СТАЛИНА, КОТОРОЙ НЕ БЫЛО" С.З.Случ.

However, even if you do not believe that he actually said such a speech, we must ask ourselves another question-Did Stalin believe in communism or not? If one answers yes, than Hoffman proof is sufficient. If not, than Hoffman is lacking. By the way thanks for pointing out that bit for me. I will have to plan anew some stuff in my work now

Once again, Stalin advocated Socialism in one state. His rhetoric for communism would rarely be done for anyone but an international audience to hear.

Ah, Isaev. I will of course buy and carefully read the book (thanks once again), however i must point out to what Solonin has written on Isaev's critique. While Isaev does not write on Solonin in this book, his inclusion asks for raised eyebrow.

Link: http://www.solonin.org/full.php?show=co ... 4&type=otz

The critique in that book is not by Isaev.

[ljadw]

About the thesis of Solonin:
1)It is very superficial
2)It is unprooved
3)It is unprovable:how does one proove that the vast majority is not willing to fight for the regime ? Btw:what is the vast majority ?
4)It is contradicted by the facts:German weekly losses in 1941:30000 in 1942:20000 If I am following his argument ,in 1942 they were even less willing
5)Hitlers racial theory:is there any proof that the Russian soldiers were aware in 1941 of the massacres in occupied theory and that this was strengthen their willingness to figth .
6)The purges:was their importance that 'important' ? Do not forget that the SU did survive in 1941 without help(if LL had any importance-but that is of-topic -it was not in 1941 )
I hope that this time my post will appear,the other times,some one was faster

[Connat]

1)My arguments are coherent. One cannot judge by the state of "preparedness" (which by itself is extremely relative), Stalin's intentions. One must look at other clues and signs. Such a clue may be found in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I have read several books (including Suvorov's main opponent Gorodezky) that try to deal with this question. I cannot say that i am impressed or convinced. Furthermore, i find it hard to understand why Stalin was aiding Hitler economically.

If you are interested in the validness of such "Sherlock Holmes" Methodology, i can assure you that it is valid. It has been used by Morelli to find out forgeries in art, and has been advanced by historian Carlo Ginzburg. Source-

וינריב, אלעזר. היסטוריה – מיתוס או מציאות: מחשבות על מצב המקצוע . תל אביב: רמת אביב, 2003. 68-70

2)I am not at all sure that Stalin advocated "one state socialism". When i will read Stalin i will return to this topic. Suvorov quotes Stalin saying that final victory of socialism will be when it will encompass all states (or something to that effect). However, given the fact that Suvorov sometimes uses phrases out of context, i must check it out.

3)What is "Случ"? I am not very familiar with journals in Russian (as you probably have guessed, after seeing the source in Hebrew, i do not live in Russia, though i was born there).

4)Another point-Having such a neighbor as Hitler, Stalin had only 2 choices for action-Defend against Hitler or attack Hitler. Stalin could NOT have ignored Hitler. You say that Stalin did not plan to attack Hitler. In that case, you need to show me how Stalin was planning to defend USSR, and how the RKKA forces location on the eve of 22.6.41 was fitting any defensive plan.

5)ljadw -I am not convinced by your arguments. First of all, Solonin says that the Russian soldier attitude changed between "Stalingrad and Kursk". That is more or less 1.5 years of fighting. During that time Russian soldier could hear lots of things through the following sources:
Propaganda
Refugees
His own eyes (after all after 1941 RKKA gained some ground)
Stories from other army parts (like from the ones that returned from blockaded Leningrad, etc).

Secondly, the number of dead does not depend solely on the Russian soldier's will to fight. Weather (in 1942 germans were better prepared), number of battles and their intensity, etc, all these are additional variables.

Thirdly-The purges were the cause (one of) of the abysmal situation RKKA was in 1941. I dare to say that without such purges RKKA situation would have been better.

Fourthly-Vast majority means the statistics that Solonin shows in his books. If you have any counter argument to 6 million lost fire arms, i will gladly listen.

What do you mean that the thesis of Solonin is unproved? Do you mean that his proof base is small or illogical?

[Kunikov]

1)My arguments are coherent. One cannot judge by the state of "preparedness" (which by itself is extremely relative), Stalin's intentions.

If you're comparing him to Hitler, then yes, you can.

One must look at other clues and signs.

No, you must look at FACTS.

Such a clue may be found in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I have read several books (including Suvorov's main opponent Gorodezky) that try to deal with this question. I cannot say that i am impressed or convinced. Furthermore, i find it hard to understand why Stalin was aiding Hitler economically.

Then you haven't read enough.

If you are interested in the validness of such "Sherlock Holmes" Methodology, i can assure you that it is valid. It has been used by Morelli to find out forgeries in art, and has been advanced by historian Carlo Ginzburg. Source-

Fallacious argument, and a faulty comparison. You cannot compare forgeries in art to historical research. And Carlo Ginzburg dealt with micro-history in a time period which lacked the type of evidence we have today for Stalin's Soviet Union.

2)I am not at all sure that Stalin advocated "one state socialism". When i will read Stalin i will return to this topic. Suvorov quotes Stalin saying that final victory of socialism will be when it will encompass all states (or something to that effect). However, given the fact that Suvorov sometimes uses phrases out of context, i must check it out.

You make a lot of claims for being 'not at all sure.'

3)What is "Случ"? I am not very familiar with journals in Russian (as you probably have guessed, after seeing the source in Hebrew, i do not live in Russia, though i was born there).

One more time:
РЕЧЬ СТАЛИНА, КОТОРОЙ НЕ БЫЛО
С.З.Случ
Случ Сергей Зиновьевич,
канд. истор. наук,
ст. научн.сотр. Института славяноведения РАН.

4)Another point-Having such a neighbor as Hitler, Stalin had only 2 choices for action-Defend against Hitler or attack Hitler. Stalin could NOT have ignored Hitler. You say that Stalin did not plan to attack Hitler. In that case, you need to show me how Stalin was planning to defend USSR, and how the RKKA forces location on the eve of 22.6.41 was fitting any defensive plan.

False dichotomy. Stalin did not expect an attack by Hitler, another fallacious argument.

[Connat]

1)My arguments are coherent. One cannot judge by the state of "preparedness" (which by itself is extremely relative), Stalin's intentions.

If you're comparing him to Hitler, then yes, you can.Of course i will compare RKKA to Wehrmacht. What else should i compare it to?

One must look at other clues and signs.

No, you must look at FACTS.Pact is good enough sign-fact to me.

Such a clue may be found in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I have read several books (including Suvorov's main opponent Gorodezky) that try to deal with this question. I cannot say that i am impressed or convinced. Furthermore, i find it hard to understand why Stalin was aiding Hitler economically.

Then you haven't read enough.This is not an explanation.

If you are interested in the validness of such "Sherlock Holmes" Methodology, i can assure you that it is valid. It has been used by Morelli to find out forgeries in art, and has been advanced by historian Carlo Ginzburg. Source-

Fallacious argument, and a faulty comparison. You cannot compare forgeries in art to historical research. Why not? The principle is the same. And Carlo Ginzburg dealt with micro-history in a time period which lacked the type of evidence we have today for Stalin's Soviet Union.His method is still valid. If i threw a stone into a pond, you will be able to deduce that i have done so by seeing ripples, and seeing me near pile of stones.

2)I am not at all sure that Stalin advocated "one state socialism". When i will read Stalin i will return to this topic. Suvorov quotes Stalin saying that final victory of socialism will be when it will encompass all states (or something to that effect). However, given the fact that Suvorov sometimes uses phrases out of context, i must check it out.

You make a lot of claims for being 'not at all sure.'This is called caution.

3)What is "Случ"? I am not very familiar with journals in Russian (as you probably have guessed, after seeing the source in Hebrew, i do not live in Russia, though i was born there).

One more time:
РЕЧЬ СТАЛИНА, КОТОРОЙ НЕ БЫЛО
С.З.Случ
Случ Сергей Зиновьевич,
канд. истор. наук,
ст. научн.сотр. Института славяноведения РАН.

4)Another point-Having such a neighbor as Hitler, Stalin had only 2 choices for action-Defend against Hitler or attack Hitler. Stalin could NOT have ignored Hitler. You say that Stalin did not plan to attack Hitler. In that case, you need to show me how Stalin was planning to defend USSR, and how the RKKA forces location on the eve of 22.6.41 was fitting any defensive plan.

False dichotomy. Stalin did not expect an attack by Hitler, another fallacious argument.

Exactly. Since that he did not fear him, he did not prepared himself for defense. Ergo, he prepared to attack. Hitler was not that kind of neighbor as to allow 3-d option. All these soldiers and arms had some purpose, you know. You do not build and recruit them for doing nothing.

As of yet, i have 3 questions that should be addressed:

1)Why Stalin signed M-R Pact? Was it fear, or something else?
2)Why Stalin aided economically to Hitler? Was it simple economic gain, or something else?
3)How one can explain soviet deployment on the eve of Barbarossa?


Also, i must rephrase my previous statement-One cannot judge by the supposed state of "ill-preparedness, as evident in 1941 battles", Stalin's intentions.

[Kunikov]

1)My arguments are coherent. One cannot judge by the state of "preparedness" (which by itself is extremely relative), Stalin's intentions.

If you're comparing him to Hitler, then yes, you can.

Of course i will compare RKKA to Wehrmacht. What else should i compare it to?

You've now contradicted yourself, you first said you cannot judge and now you are saying that you can judge based on comparisons.

One must look at other clues and signs.

No, you must look at FACTS.

Pact is good enough sign-fact to me.

No, that's a fact without context.

Such a clue may be found in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I have read several books (including Suvorov's main opponent Gorodezky) that try to deal with this question. I cannot say that i am impressed or convinced. Furthermore, i find it hard to understand why Stalin was aiding Hitler economically.

Then you haven't read enough.

This is not an explanation.

You are not looking for explanations, you are looking for justifications of your theories.

If you are interested in the validness of such "Sherlock Holmes" Methodology, i can assure you that it is valid. It has been used by Morelli to find out forgeries in art, and has been advanced by historian Carlo Ginzburg. Source-

Fallacious argument, and a faulty comparison. You cannot compare forgeries in art to historical research. [b]Why not? The principle is the same. And Carlo Ginzburg dealt with micro-history in a time period which lacked the type of evidence we have today for Stalin's Soviet Union.

His method is still valid. If i threw a stone into a pond, you will be able to deduce that i have done so by seeing ripples, and seeing me near pile of stones.

This is not an argument. Practice your English and take a historiography class.

2)I am not at all sure that Stalin advocated "one state socialism". When i will read Stalin i will return to this topic. Suvorov quotes Stalin saying that final victory of socialism will be when it will encompass all states (or something to that effect). However, given the fact that Suvorov sometimes uses phrases out of context, i must check it out.

You make a lot of claims for being 'not at all sure.'

This is called caution.

It's a cop-out.

4)Another point-Having such a neighbor as Hitler, Stalin had only 2 choices for action-Defend against Hitler or attack Hitler. Stalin could NOT have ignored Hitler. You say that Stalin did not plan to attack Hitler. In that case, you need to show me how Stalin was planning to defend USSR, and how the RKKA forces location on the eve of 22.6.41 was fitting any defensive plan.

False dichotomy. Stalin did not expect an attack by Hitler, another fallacious argument.

Exactly. Since that he did not fear him, he did not prepared himself for defense. Ergo, he prepared to attack. Hitler was not that kind of neighbor as to allow 3-d option. All these soldiers and arms had some purpose, you know. You do not build and recruit them for doing nothing.

Wrong, there is no 'exactly' here. You've just admitted that you've set up a false dichotomy and then continue to contend that it's the correct way of viewing the event(s) in question.

As of yet, i have 3 questions that should be addressed:

1)Why Stalin signed M-R Pact? Was it fear, or something else?
2)Why Stalin aided economically to Hitler? Was it simple economic gain, or something else?
3)How one can explain soviet deployment on the eve of Barbarossa?


Also, i must rephrase my previous statement-One cannot judge by the supposed state of "ill-preparedness, as evident in 1941 battles", Stalin's intentions.

You are obviously not interested in history or facts. If you've come here to find fans of Suvorov or Solonin then keep looking.

[michael mills]

Connat,

To get back to your original question. If you read German, you might find this book useful:

"Unternehmen Barbarossa : deutsche und sowjetische Angriffspläne 1940/41", by Walter Post ( Hamburg : E.S. Mittler, c2001 )

It contains a German translation of the text of all known and preserved Soviet plans for an offensive to the west against the German armed forces in occupied Poland, including the Timoshenko-Zhukov plan of May 1941. However, it does not include the maps, so far as I recall.

It also includes the texts of the various German plans for an offensive to the east against the Soviet armed forces in the west of the USSR.

I have read the above book, and what impressed me was the similarity of the May 1941 offensive plan to earlier Soviet plans. Indeed, the Timoshenko-Zhukov plan of May 1941 appeared to be simply an up-dating of the earlier plans, with the reference to a German first strike omitted. That omission shows that the May 1941 plan was for a pre-emptive strike, ie before the German invasion, whereas previous plans were ostensibly for a Soviet counter-offensive after an initial german strike, which would be immediately halted at the border.

[ljadw]

Connat,

To get back to your original question. If you read German, you might find this book useful:

"Unternehmen Barbarossa : deutsche und sowjetische Angriffspläne 1940/41", by Walter Post ( Hamburg : E.S. Mittler, c2001 )

It contains a German translation of the text of all known and preserved Soviet plans for an offensive to the west against the German armed forces in occupied Poland, including the Timoshenko-Zhukov plan of May 1941. However, it does not include the maps, so far as I recall.

It also includes the texts of the various German plans for an offensive to the east against the Soviet armed forces in the west of the USSR.

I have read the above book, and what impressed me was the similarity of the May 1941 offensive plan to earlier Soviet plans. Indeed, the Timoshenko-Zhukov plan of May 1941 appeared to be simply an up-dating of the earlier plans, with the reference to a German first strike omitted. That omission shows that the May 1941 plan was for a pre-emptive strike, ie before the German invasion, whereas previous plans were ostensibly for a Soviet counter-offensive after an initial german strike, which would be immediately halted at the border.

Michael,the book by W.Post contains on P430 a map with as title:Die Sowjetische Angriffsplanung im mai 1941 .

[ljadw]

an other useful source is "Hitler's War " by H.Magenheimer :he is giving on P 52 (in my pocket edition) "Soviet Deployments and Attack Plans " on 18 september 1940 and may 1941

[Connat]

1)My arguments are coherent. One cannot judge by the state of "preparedness" (which by itself is extremely relative), Stalin's intentions.

If you're comparing him to Hitler, then yes, you can.

Of course i will compare RKKA to Wehrmacht. What else should i compare it to?

You've now contradicted yourself, you first said you cannot judge and now you are saying that you can judge based on comparisons.As i have said, i have written incorrectly my previous statement

One must look at other clues and signs.

No, you must look at FACTS.

Pact is good enough sign-fact to me.

No, that's a fact without context. Quite to the contrary. If we will look at Soviet politics during 1938, it fits the picture

Such a clue may be found in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I have read several books (including Suvorov's main opponent Gorodezky) that try to deal with this question. I cannot say that i am impressed or convinced. Furthermore, i find it hard to understand why Stalin was aiding Hitler economically.

Then you haven't read enough.

This is not an explanation.

You are not looking for explanations, you are looking for justifications of your theories. No, i am looking for counter explanations as well

If you are interested in the validness of such "Sherlock Holmes" Methodology, i can assure you that it is valid. It has been used by Morelli to find out forgeries in art, and has been advanced by historian Carlo Ginzburg. Source-

Fallacious argument, and a faulty comparison. You cannot compare forgeries in art to historical research. Why not? The principle is the same. And Carlo Ginzburg dealt with micro-history in a time period which lacked the type of evidence we have today for Stalin's Soviet Union.

His method is still valid. If i threw a stone into a pond, you will be able to deduce that i have done so by seeing ripples, and seeing me near pile of stones.

This is not an argument. Practice your English and take a historiography class. [b]I took a historiography class already. My linguistic skills are not part of the debate here.

2)I am not at all sure that Stalin advocated "one state socialism". When i will read Stalin i will return to this topic. Suvorov quotes Stalin saying that final victory of socialism will be when it will encompass all states (or something to that effect). However, given the fact that Suvorov sometimes uses phrases out of context, i must check it out.

You make a lot of claims for being 'not at all sure.'

This is called caution.

It's a cop-out. Do not worry. As soon as i will find the quote, i will return to you.

4)Another point-Having such a neighbor as Hitler, Stalin had only 2 choices for action-Defend against Hitler or attack Hitler. Stalin could NOT have ignored Hitler. You say that Stalin did not plan to attack Hitler. In that case, you need to show me how Stalin was planning to defend USSR, and how the RKKA forces location on the eve of 22.6.41 was fitting any defensive plan.

False dichotomy. Stalin did not expect an attack by Hitler, another fallacious argument.

Exactly. Since that he did not fear him, he did not prepared himself for defense. Ergo, he prepared to attack. Hitler was not that kind of neighbor as to allow 3-d option. All these soldiers and arms had some purpose, you know. You do not build and recruit them for doing nothing.

Wrong, there is no 'exactly' here. You've just admitted that you've set up a false dichotomy and then continue to contend that it's the correct way of viewing the event(s) in question. Evidently you have not understood what i have written. Do reread what i have posted

As of yet, i have 3 questions that should be addressed:

1)Why Stalin signed M-R Pact? Was it fear, or something else?
2)Why Stalin aided economically to Hitler? Was it simple economic gain, or something else?
3)How one can explain soviet deployment on the eve of Barbarossa?


Also, i must rephrase my previous statement-One cannot judge by the supposed state of "ill-preparedness, as evident in 1941 battles", Stalin's intentions.

You are obviously not interested in history or facts. If you've come here to find fans of Suvorov or Solonin then keep looking. Some more specific response?

I came here for counter arguments to their theories. Meanwhile, what i have received from you (apart from two sources) were "go read books", without referring to them by name, "this is not an argument" without explaining why, etc.
This is not what i have been looking for.