Makes a very bad impression.LWD wrote:And his pen name is Victor Suvorov. Hardly a significant point.Omeganian wrote:Of course:LWD wrote:Perhaps you could supply a bit more detail?For starters, his real name is Vladimir Rezun.Glantz wrote:This starkly revisionist book... was written by a former Soviet Army major, Viktor Rezun
He was doing a colonel's job. An intel colonel, so he had to know quite a bit about the past.LWD wrote:I doubt it. Even in the Red Army rank and position were pretty highly correlated were they not? And given his rank and his functions it's still a very valid question.Omeganian wrote:????? Such a question might be valid for some armies, but for the Soviet Army, it is simply meaningless. Rank was secondary to position. Is Glantz really so ignorant?Glantz wrote:At the least one can validly question how an officer of his lowly rank could have had access to such material in the first place
Explain.Echelon refers to where they are. Suvorov didn't have to specifically state where they were to make that a reasonable inference.Now, that is a completely insane mixture. Suvorov discusses NKVD formations (part of no echelon nor the army) in one chapter, he discusses black divisions (by no means imposing) in the second echelon (neither quite mobilized nor deployed at the time) half a book later, and he discusses shirts... nowhere at all.Glantz wrote:he contended that Stalin... deliberately mobilized and deployed a massive strategic second echelon to achieve victory, that this echelon consisted of imposing "black shirted" NKVD formations and crack shock armies (such as the 16th and the 19th)
Doesn't look that way.As for the shirt colors NKVD uniform shirts were dark grey or black were they not?
Then why does he talk about them in the second echelon?It's not unreasonable for Glantz to refer to them as such without Rezun doing the same.
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/icebreaker.pdfAs for the rest if it I'd like to see a direct quote, given the context minor changes could make this very reasonable or not.
NKVD divisions - chapters 7-8. Black divisions - chapter 24.
Searched the text of the books. Nothing like that.So you are critizeing Glantz for something you don't remember?I don't remember Suvorov stating such a thing, although lately (in books which came out after the Stumbling Colossus) he does praise Vasilevsky and criticizes Zhukov.Glantz wrote:that General A. M. Vasilevsky and not General G. K. Zhukov was the architect and designated implementer of Stalin's cunning plan
No statements about it being "formidable" or combat ready.Actually, quite consistent with Suvorov's statements. It's just that Glantz's description has too little in common with them.Glantz wrote:According to both Soviet and German classified sources, the formidable Soviet second strategic echelon, to which Rezun refers, including the vaunted 16th and 19th Armies and their associated mechanized corps, was considerably less than formidable, as attested to by its subsequent combat performance when its forces were committed to action between August and October. Second strategic echelon Soviet mechanized corps almost totally lacked modern medium and heavy tanks
Which makes no sense at all.
Suvorov says the second echelon had few tanks, and most of the power was concentrated in the first echelon. Glantz says Suvorov is mistaken because the second echelon had few tanks, and the heavy and medium tanks were concentrated in the first echelon... and you see no problem with that?The way this was written it's not at all clear that there is any specific problem with Glantz.According to Suvorov, the tanks were mainly concentrated in the first echelon for a massive first strike, and the second echelon, when their turn to fight would have come, would have received the remains of these mechcorps in addition to their own - plus the factory output, of course. So, naturally, it was a bit poor on tanks under the conditions which came to pass.