Was general Pavlov a traitor and SU in fact very well prepared for invasion?

Discussions on all aspects of the USSR, from the Russian Civil War till the end of the Great Patriotic War and the war against Japan. Hosted by Art.
Post Reply
Kopyrda
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 22 Oct 2015, 20:16
Location: Poland

Was general Pavlov a traitor and SU in fact very well prepared for invasion?

#1

Post by Kopyrda » 22 Oct 2015, 20:26

Having a discussion about reasons of great losses of Soviet Union during initial stages of Operation Barbarossa, somebody linked me to an interesting article:
http://lenta.ru/articles/2015/08/08/aviationwar/
I've never encountered such informations and my Russian is virtually non-existent (I use google translator :oops: ), so I decided to ask somebody who might know better. Is this article any good?
Sorry in advance if topic like that already exists.
Last edited by Kopyrda on 23 Oct 2015, 07:15, edited 1 time in total.

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Was general Pavlov a traitor?

#2

Post by steverodgers801 » 22 Oct 2015, 22:15

Considering he did support a foreign invader he is by definition a traitor. How ever his motivation is debatable


Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Was general Pavlov a traitor?

#3

Post by Art » 22 Oct 2015, 23:19

steverodgers801 wrote:Considering he did support a foreign invader he is by definition a traitor.
Eh, what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Pa ... general%29

The article is an exercise in conspiracy theory. The only positive fact is that Berezin wing machine guns were indeed removed from MiG fighters just before the war. That was however ordered by the Soviet government (headed by Stalin himself) not by Pavlov, the corresponding decree is quoted down the link:
http://pro-samolet.ru/samolety-sssr-ww2 ... ig-1-mig-3

Kopyrda
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 22 Oct 2015, 20:16
Location: Poland

Re: Was general Pavlov a traitor?

#4

Post by Kopyrda » 23 Oct 2015, 07:00

Art wrote: The article is an exercise in conspiracy theory.
That's what I thought. Another interesting thing that its author seems to be impying, is that SU was in fact prepared for German invasion very well. What happened, happened of course because of treason. Another link:
http://lenta.ru/articles/2015/06/21/22june/
Is this article also not very believable?

Yet another one: http://vasilii-ch.livejournal.com/23092.html
It just keeps getting better and better...

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Was general Pavlov a traitor and SU in fact very well prepared for invasion?

#5

Post by steverodgers801 » 23 Oct 2015, 19:50

Trying to prepare and being prepared are two whole different animals. The Soviets were about a year behind on all the changes they were making. The most important mistakes were, Stalin insisting of attacking when it was not practical and the complete failure of command and control in the center

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Was general Pavlov a traitor and SU in fact very well prepared for invasion?

#6

Post by michael mills » 09 Nov 2015, 06:07

Another interesting thing that its author seems to be impying, is that SU was in fact prepared for German invasion very well.
The Red Army was not preparing to defend against a German invasion, rather it was preparing to launch a first strike against the German forces massing in Poland, in accordance with the Timoshenko-Zhukov first-strike plan. To that end, forces were massing in the Lvov salient, from which the main thrust of the Red Army offensive was to be launched.

However, as of 22 June 1944, the level of forces in the start positions required by the Timoshenko-Zhukov plan had not yet been reached, although it may well have been reached in a couple of months, given that large formations were in the process of moving toward the border.

As for the Red Army being a year behind, that is not the view of Professor Lennart Samuelson in his book "Plans for Stalin's War Machine". His final words in the book indicate that the Soviet Union was by no means behind Germany in its defence-industrial capacity and the quality of its armaments. He writes on pages 198-199:
A final reflection. From the German point of view, Operation Barbarossa was based on their severe underestimation of the Soviet tank, aircraft and artillery stock and the country's defence-industrial capacity]. In 'virtual history' one might speculate about how the German generals would have drafted their attack plan if they had been better informed about the Soviet economy. It may even be argued that such information could have had a deterrent effect on any aggressor. Only as a last-minute attempt did the Soviet side in March-April 1941 show off their best aircraft factories and a host of other munitions plants to German delegations. Although the Germans were impressed and sent appropriate reports to Berlin, it was too little and too late to stop Hitler's war machine. Instead of securing the nation, the extreme secretiveness surrounding the Soviet military-industrial complex, and particularly its mobilisation capacities, from the early 1930s produced an image of a ramshackle economy. Not for nothing would Hitler imagine that 'one only has to kick in the door, and whole colossus will come tumbling down'.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Was general Pavlov a traitor and SU in fact very well prepared for invasion?

#7

Post by Art » 09 Nov 2015, 11:42

michael mills wrote: The Red Army was not preparing to defend against a German invasion, rather it was preparing to launch a first strike against the German forces massing in Poland, in accordance with the Timoshenko-Zhukov first-strike plan.
To be precise plans provided for defense based on border fortifications during period of mobilization and deployment. Any strategic scale offensive movements were intended only after competition of this phase. Who strikes first was mostly considered irrelevant for the planning in general.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Was general Pavlov a traitor and SU in fact very well prepared for invasion?

#8

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 04 May 2016, 04:16

Art wrote:
To be precise plans provided for defense based on border fortifications during period of mobilization and deployment. Any strategic scale offensive movements were intended only after competition of this phase. Who strikes first was mostly considered irrelevant for the planning in general.
I wonder precisely what the 'plans' the Red Army commanders took out of their cabinets 22 June had them do?

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Was general Pavlov a traitor and SU in fact very well prepared for invasion?

#9

Post by Art » 04 May 2016, 12:22

The text of district-level plans for initial operations (first 15 days after mobilization) is quoted by Glantz in "Stumbling Colossus". In accordance to those plans combat order were prepared for formations/units several weeks before 22.06.41, they were kept in sealed packages in respective commanders cases and were opened and activated with the start of hostilities. The content was 'take defense positions from X on the right to Y on the left" for border divisions and "make a march and concentrate at Z, wait for further orders" for the rest. Apparently air forces prepared certain plans for air strikes on targets on hostile territory, but I don't have much knowledge here.

User avatar
AMVAS
Member
Posts: 550
Joined: 02 Aug 2004, 14:58
Location: Moscow
Contact:

Re: Was general Pavlov a traitor and SU in fact very well prepared for invasion?

#10

Post by AMVAS » 17 Aug 2016, 00:22

After studying for 25+ years the history of the Great Patriotic War and especially 1941 year I can say my own opinion.
The RKKA was not able to make any offensive operations in summer 1941. Moreover, it was quite poorly prepared for defensive operations. At the same time doctrine of RKKA was moslty advancing and this led to preparations of impracticable plans.
Why I think that Red Army was not able for offensive.
1. Very poor prepared placement and logistic structure. Too low amount of airfields and roads in western Ukraine and Byelorussia.

2. Massive changes in structure of units. Many of those were disposed, or reorganized prior to the war.
Especially this is true for the tank units, which really were reborn in 1940. Absolutely fantastic plans for formation of 30 mechanised corps, which had no enough AFVs until at least 1943. I'm silent about maneuver experiences for this monster units. Finally a large portion of those left understrenghthened in June 1941 when they were thrown into fights.

3.Too slow rearming to newer weapons. Some aircraft units had two sets of airplanes - old and new. Pilots had no enough experience with new airplanes. The similar situation was with new tank models. Their crews simply couldn't have enuogh training hours.

One need to be crazy to start a campaign under such a conditions!
At the same time I can't reject possibility of plans for Soviet offensive against Germany. But you see, ANY good General Staff MUST have plans for war against all possible neighbors of the country.
Btw, I read that when Soviet commanders opened so called "Red Packages" with orders prepared according to pre-war plans they were very urprised, because those plans didn't take into account real state of their units. For example, plans were developed for completely equipped mechnised corps, but real state of this was very far from this.

sorry, I have no too much time for disputes, so just showed my vision in brief.
Regards
Alex

GregSingh
Member
Posts: 3877
Joined: 21 Jun 2012, 02:11
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Was general Pavlov a traitor and SU in fact very well prepared for invasion?

#11

Post by GregSingh » 18 Aug 2016, 01:09

Too low amount of airfields
There are several list of airfields in the area of ЗОВО early in 1941 compiled based on Soviet documents. Numbers are from 270 to 340.
What was a desired number of airfields for offensive operations ?

User avatar
AMVAS
Member
Posts: 550
Joined: 02 Aug 2004, 14:58
Location: Moscow
Contact:

Re: Was general Pavlov a traitor and SU in fact very well prepared for invasion?

#12

Post by AMVAS » 18 Aug 2016, 11:36

GregSingh wrote:
Too low amount of airfields
There are several list of airfields in the area of ЗОВО early in 1941 compiled based on Soviet documents. Numbers are from 270 to 340.
What was a desired number of airfields for offensive operations ?
a) Most of Western Special Military District airfields were in the Central and Eastern Byelorussia.
In the western part, which was reunited with the USSR in autumn 1939 there were no such a number of those
b) In spring 1941 many airfields were set under re-construction and couldn't be used.
In our literature it's a usual subject for disputes, what has happened and could this be a sort of sabotage
c) All of this led to large concentration of Soviet airplanes at a small number of operable airfields, which made tham good targets for German first air blow.
You can easily trace this observing placement of Soviet aircraft divisions on June 1941.
They were disposed at a very limited number of airifleds.

Regards
Alex

GregSingh
Member
Posts: 3877
Joined: 21 Jun 2012, 02:11
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Was general Pavlov a traitor and SU in fact very well prepared for invasion?

#13

Post by GregSingh » 18 Aug 2016, 11:55

Thanks Alex!

Post Reply

Return to “The Soviet Union at War 1917-1945”