Operation Barbarossa and Icebreaker

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 17 Nov 2005 09:27

Hi Paul

In any case, I don't think you were going in that direction, but now I'll ask you directly. Do you think SC leaves the door open for the political intention of attacking in the Summer of 1941?


Strictly speaking, yes. But only in the sense that his argument against it is not absolutely conclusive and definitive. It hardly can be, as he hardly addressess the issue at all on the political level, just on the level of military planning and military realities. To put it slightly differently, I think he conclusively shows that the Red army was not capable of such an operation, also that its actions in the months prior to the outbreak of war do not reflect such an intention. This is a very, very heavy argument, but it is not definitive, as it remains possible that a political decision to attack some time in the summer of 1941 nevertheless existed. Here Zhukov's proposal for a pre-emptive attack is a case in point - Glantz does not seem to realise that regardless of whether Stalin even saw this plan or not, the fact that Zhukov produced it shows that the state of the Red Army clearly did not in itself make a strategic attack an unthinkable option to the Soviet leadership. This side of the issue can only be satisfactorily addressed on the level of strategic and political decision-making, and as Glantz points out in his quite brief discussion of that issue, most of the relevant documentation remain unavailable.

However - this is little more (though also no less) than the appropriate academic reservations on a subject where the state of the sources are not everything that might be desired. On the strength of the very considerable information that is known, I do not see anything substantial that would support such an explanation, while there are very weight arguments and evidence against it. The conclusion to draw from this appears to me obvious, and is the same as yours.

cheers

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4454
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 17 Nov 2005 20:24

paulmacg wrote: Reportedly, the corps KVs went into combat without AP ammunition and many of the T-34s had not been boresighted and so were unable to fire their main guns.



As I recall it was the KV tanks who didn't have their guns boresighted, not the T-34's. Around 30 KV's went into battle with instructions to ram German tanks because of this.

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 18 Nov 2005 12:00

The discussion about Glantz and historiography in general has been split off into a new thread here:

viewtopic.php?p=801456#801456



cheers

paulmacg
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: 24 Sep 2005 19:45
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Post by paulmacg » 19 Nov 2005 20:30

Kunikov wrote:As I recall it was the KV tanks who didn't have their guns boresighted, not the T-34's. Around 30 KV's went into battle with instructions to ram German tanks because of this.


You may very well be right about that. I might have confused battles. I know there were numerous cases of T-34s and KVs not being boresighted and even more cases of shortages of AP ammunition, but in the specific example of the 5th and 7th MC at Lepel, I really can't say for sure.

Cheers

Paul

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4454
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 19 Nov 2005 21:03

paulmacg wrote:
Kunikov wrote:As I recall it was the KV tanks who didn't have their guns boresighted, not the T-34's. Around 30 KV's went into battle with instructions to ram German tanks because of this.


You may very well be right about that. I might have confused battles. I know there were numerous cases of T-34s and KVs not being boresighted and even more cases of shortages of AP ammunition, but in the specific example of the 5th and 7th MC at Lepel, I really can't say for sure.

Cheers

Paul


The information I recalled was from the 3rd Mechanized Corps' 2nd Tank Division: 50 KV's were not bore-sighted and were ordered to ram the enemy. If you can tell me where you're getting the same information for the 5th or 7th Mech Corps I'd be very interested in hearing about it.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11432
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 15 Dec 2005 00:13

StaHit wrote:Many Russian members joined the discussion now so I would like to repeat one question I asked earlier - maybe Russians posting here can tell us whether there was any film or documentary shot and released in SU between March and August in 1940 about Winter War?
Hi,

Sorry for the late reply, but this?

Image Image
http://www.wingstv.ru/

Regards, Juha

timotheus
Member
Posts: 140
Joined: 31 Dec 2005 19:38
Location: U S A

Well I had to make a new thread on this

Post by timotheus » 31 Dec 2005 23:17

Sorry but I find the whole idea of the 2 murderous dictatorships jockeying for position for European (maybe world) domination fascinating.

I argue somewhat a different point of view, or at least try to prove (as much as I can using internet/open sources) that USSR allowed and helped Germany rearm itself an dlaunch its war of revenge in 1939.

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4420
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 02 Jan 2006 08:01

Nazis and communists were both socialism based systems..I find it quite understandable they had something in common.

Mika68
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 13:15
Location: Finland

Re: Operation Barbarossa

Post by Mika68 » 03 Jan 2006 07:02

WaffenSS27 wrote: Hitler got so close to Moscow he should have used paratroops to drop into Moscow because if you seize the capital you seize the country.


Your opinion is not correct. Hitler only wanted to seize Russia to line Ural-Volga-Caspian Sea. Behind that line he supposed to destroy Soviet bases with air forces. Hitler was dummie. Russia is very large country as you know. Russians only moved their most important functions behind the Urals. Seizing Moscow would not be be end of Russia.

User avatar
batu
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 22 Nov 2005 15:59
Location: Helsinki Finland

Re: Operation Barbarossa

Post by batu » 03 Jan 2006 08:14

Mika68 wrote:
WaffenSS27 wrote: Hitler got so close to Moscow he should have used paratroops to drop into Moscow because if you seize the capital you seize the country.


Your opinion is not correct. Hitler only wanted to seize Russia to line Ural-Volga-Caspian Sea. Behind that line he supposed to destroy Soviet bases with air forces. Hitler was dummie. Russia is very large country as you know. Russians only moved their most important functions behind the Urals. Seizing Moscow would not be be end of Russia.


Yeah, Napoleon felt it on his skin.
He got surprised when he entered the empty burned Moscow only to be chased away a month later and almost totally annihilated later :)

User avatar
savantu
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 29 Dec 2002 00:36
Location: Romania

Post by savantu » 24 Jun 2006 23:08

Good threads refuse to die.

It is nice to see how more info has surfaced since we had the original discussion 3 years ago. :)

May I also suggest this thread to be labeled as "sticky" ?

StaHit
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: 04 May 2005 16:58
Location: Lithuania

Post by StaHit » 09 Jul 2006 08:44

savantu wrote:Good threads refuse to die.

It is nice to see how more info has surfaced since we had the original discussion 3 years ago. :)

May I also suggest this thread to be labeled as "sticky" ?



Nice to see here a member whose posts inspired me to continue this thread :) Well, at the moment it's hibernated due to my fault, but that's far from dying. Sooner or later it'll be alive again, even without being "sticky" :wink:

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3635
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 03:51
Location: Malaysia

Re: Operation Barbarossa and Icebreaker

Post by Panzermahn » 24 Mar 2010 05:40

May I suggest the works of Mikhail Ivanovich Meltyukhov, (his works has not been translated to English yet but I believed the translation of his two titles that dealt with Soviet offensive plans for a prem-emptive strike against Germany are "We Will Destroy The Enemy Even at His Territory" and "Stalin's Missed Chance"). I believed Meltyukhov is the leading Russian scholar on Soviet offensive plans against Germany. Meltyukhov criticised Rezun's work on circumstantial evidence (a fact mitigated that Soviet archives was restricted to researchers in the 80s). Surprisingly, not many Western historians had review Meltyukhov's work apart from Richard Raack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_Missed_Chance

Dr. Heinz Magenheimer as well as Bianka Pietrow-Ennker from Austria also concluded that the Soviets were planning to pre-emptively strike Germany, however the Germans spoilt the Soviet plans by launching Operation Barbarossa

Javaman
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 21:28

Re: Operation Barbarossa and Icebreaker

Post by Javaman » 24 Mar 2010 14:06

While I agree that the Red Army may very well have had plans in development for an invasion of Germany/Romania I highly doubt that the Soviets were actually capable of executing them. Personally I don't see the Red Army as any more capable of executing a strategic offensive in Summer 1941 than they were of executing counter-offensives aimed at stoppping Barbarossa once that started. Their command and control was weak, logistical support totally inept (for offensive operations) and their tactical leadership was very inexperienced.
My opinion is that the Red Army was waiting for Germany to actually launch operation Sea Lion and then invade when the West was locked in a life or death struggle (Summer 1942?).

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3635
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 03:51
Location: Malaysia

Re: Operation Barbarossa and Icebreaker

Post by Panzermahn » 24 Mar 2010 14:46

Javaman wrote:While I agree that the Red Army may very well have had plans in development for an invasion of Germany/Romania I highly doubt that the Soviets were actually capable of executing them. Personally I don't see the Red Army as any more capable of executing a strategic offensive in Summer 1941 than they were of executing counter-offensives aimed at stoppping Barbarossa once that started. Their command and control was weak, logistical support totally inept (for offensive operations) and their tactical leadership was very inexperienced.
My opinion is that the Red Army was waiting for Germany to actually launch operation Sea Lion and then invade when the West was locked in a life or death struggle (Summer 1942?).
A middle position taken by mainstream historians would be Hitler and Stalin was planning to attack each other and the Molotov-Ribbentrop is only a pact of convenience (for Hitler to focus his efforts on the Western Europe whereas for Stalin to prepare the Red Army for the invasion of Europe only after Hitler has been bled white in the West.)

Due to the Soviet purges in the 30s, it is highly unlikely for the Soviet General Staff to prepare invasion plans without the express approval or authorization from the Politburo or Stalin. Marshal Tukhachevsky, the Soviet inventor of the deep operations, was executed due to tendency of Tukhachevsky being independent due to his prestige and influence rather han subservient to Stalin

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”