Partisans in Belarus

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 11:39
Location: Russia

#16

Post by Karman » 18 Jul 2005, 16:41

Larry D. wrote:
General Ponomorenko who recited that during two years of guerilla war soviet guerillas exterminated 300,000 German servicemen, of them there were 30 generals, 6336 officers and 1520 pilots, they also exploded not less than 3000 trains, 3263 bridges and 1191 tanks, 476 airplanes and 478 cannons, 895 wharehouses with weaponry and ammo.
These are claims. As with all claims, no matter who makes them, they are almost always overstated. Since the 1954 book by Dixon and Heilbrunn, there have been a fairly large number of studies done on this subject in a variety of languages, including English and German, so those interested should review the more recent of these before jumping to any conclusions about the extent of the casualties and damage inflicted by the partisans in Russia, 1941-44.
Sure you can provide alternate figures? Actually I did not know that books simply match the expression: the fresher the better.

Larry D.
Member
Posts: 4103
Joined: 05 Aug 2004, 00:03
Location: Winter Springs, FL (USA)

#17

Post by Larry D. » 18 Jul 2005, 16:59

Here are a few of the more recent titles. These are a good starting point for those interested.

ARMSTRONG, John A. (ed.). Soviet Partisans in World War II. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1964.
GRENKEVICH, Leonid D. The Soviet Partisan Movement, 1941-1944: Critical Analysis of Historiography. Portland: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003.
HESSE, Erich. Der sowjetrussische Partisanenkrieg 1941 bis 1944 im Spiegel deutscher Kampfanweisungen und Befehle. Göttingen: Musterschmidt-Verlag, 1993.
LUTTICHAU, Charles V.P. von (ed.). Guerrilla and Counterguerrilla Warfare in Russia During World War II. WashDC: Office of the Chief of Military History/Department of the Army, 1963.
MULLIGAN, Timothy Patrick. The Politics of Illusion and Empire: German Occupation Policy in the Soviet Union 1942-1943. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1988.

If you want different figures, get the books.


Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 11:39
Location: Russia

#18

Post by Karman » 19 Jul 2005, 08:21

Larry D. wrote:Here are a few of the more recent titles. These are a good starting point for those interested.

ARMSTRONG, John A. (ed.). Soviet Partisans in World War II. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1964.
GRENKEVICH, Leonid D. The Soviet Partisan Movement, 1941-1944: Critical Analysis of Historiography. Portland: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003.
HESSE, Erich. Der sowjetrussische Partisanenkrieg 1941 bis 1944 im Spiegel deutscher Kampfanweisungen und Befehle. Göttingen: Musterschmidt-Verlag, 1993.
LUTTICHAU, Charles V.P. von (ed.). Guerrilla and Counterguerrilla Warfare in Russia During World War II. WashDC: Office of the Chief of Military History/Department of the Army, 1963.
MULLIGAN, Timothy Patrick. The Politics of Illusion and Empire: German Occupation Policy in the Soviet Union 1942-1943. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1988.

If you want different figures, get the books.
Thank you very much for your help. Taking into consideration your point that Dixon & Heilbrunn are bad since they were published in 1954 and applying this the-fresher-the-better method to the proposed books we have to exclude John Armstrong (1964) and Charles Luttichau (1963) . So what do we have left: Timothy Mulligan (1988), Erich Hesse (1993) and Leonid D. Grenkevich (2003). Grenkevis is the best being the freshest. But there appears a big problem. Looking at his name one can suppose that the guy is Russian or at least a Russian-speaking. Are you sure that one can trust Russians even if they publish their works in English?

Michate
Member
Posts: 1433
Joined: 02 Feb 2004, 11:50
Location: Germany

#19

Post by Michate » 19 Jul 2005, 08:53

The point is not about when a book was publsihed, the point is on accepting without checking against the other side's sources any extravagant claims, which the authors you have mentioned clearly have done. This should not be so difficult to understand.

And this is especially bad in books about the partisan war, which was a pet topic of communist ideology and where claims on the damage it inflicted often go beyond the border to the surreal.

As to the sources mentioned I might add the respective chapters in Ziemke "Stalingrad to Berlin", Ziemke/Bauer "Moscow to Stalingrad" and for the period 1942 - beginning 1943 the the respective chapters in "Germany and the Second World War", Vol. 6.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#20

Post by Andreas » 19 Jul 2005, 10:00

Karman wrote:
Larry D. wrote:Here are a few of the more recent titles. These are a good starting point for those interested.

ARMSTRONG, John A. (ed.). Soviet Partisans in World War II. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1964.
GRENKEVICH, Leonid D. The Soviet Partisan Movement, 1941-1944: Critical Analysis of Historiography. Portland: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003.
HESSE, Erich. Der sowjetrussische Partisanenkrieg 1941 bis 1944 im Spiegel deutscher Kampfanweisungen und Befehle. Göttingen: Musterschmidt-Verlag, 1993.
LUTTICHAU, Charles V.P. von (ed.). Guerrilla and Counterguerrilla Warfare in Russia During World War II. WashDC: Office of the Chief of Military History/Department of the Army, 1963.
MULLIGAN, Timothy Patrick. The Politics of Illusion and Empire: German Occupation Policy in the Soviet Union 1942-1943. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1988.

If you want different figures, get the books.
Thank you very much for your help. Taking into consideration your point that Dixon & Heilbrunn are bad since they were published in 1954 and applying this the-fresher-the-better method to the proposed books we have to exclude John Armstrong (1964) and Charles Luttichau (1963) . So what do we have left: Timothy Mulligan (1988), Erich Hesse (1993) and Leonid D. Grenkevich (2003). Grenkevis is the best being the freshest. But there appears a big problem. Looking at his name one can suppose that the guy is Russian or at least a Russian-speaking. Are you sure that one can trust Russians even if they publish their works in English?
Yes I am, and I am sure Larry is as well. If you have any reason not to trust them, please explain why, instead of dismissing a whole group of scholars just because of their nationality.

I would think that Luttichau is probably based on the captured German records, like most of the OCMH stuff that appeared in the 1960s, with input from German officers. So in that sense it would be a pretty timeless book for giving the German perspective, if it was well done. I am pretty certain that the 1954 book can not be based on a thorough analysis of the German sources, it is too early for that.

All the best

Andreas

Larry D.
Member
Posts: 4103
Joined: 05 Aug 2004, 00:03
Location: Winter Springs, FL (USA)

#21

Post by Larry D. » 19 Jul 2005, 13:35

Your comments are right on the mark, Michate and Andreas. There is nothing I can add.

Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 11:39
Location: Russia

#22

Post by Karman » 19 Jul 2005, 15:53

Andreas wrote: Yes I am, and I am sure Larry is as well. If you have any reason not to trust them, please explain why, instead of dismissing a whole group of scholars just because of their nationality.

I would think that Luttichau is probably based on the captured German records, like most of the OCMH stuff that appeared in the 1960s, with input from German officers. So in that sense it would be a pretty timeless book for giving the German perspective, if it was well done. I am pretty certain that the 1954 book can not be based on a thorough analysis of the German sources, it is too early for that.

All the best

Andreas
If that is true then we have to decide why German sources can be trusted more than the Russian ones (the official head of guerilla warfare in SU can be called a source). If one simply relies on German sources it is hard to understand how did they manage to loose the war with such a minimum losses and how Soviets managed to win it with such a maximum losses and such inefficient warfare.

As for the books on guerilla warfare in SU I think the memoirs and analysis of Illia Starinov : "Notes of Diversionist" and "Delayed-Action-Mine. Thoughts Of Partisan-Diversionist" is the ever best. The guy did the guerilla and demolition war in Spanish, Winter wars and WW2 being a partisan in Ukraine, Yugoslavia and Slovakia. After the WW2 he studied and reviewed guerilla operations. Most of post-Soviet Russian serious researches are based on his works (and I very much suspect that not only Soviet). The guy lived 100 year and died not long ago. According to his review the total number of partisans in the SU never exceeded 250,000 people on the total occupied territory and 47 789 people was the maximum figuer of those who acted in Ukrain simultaniously.

The first partisan units sent behind the front line were almost all exterminated by Germans in 1941 - 1942. But then when NKVD handled preparation and education of gurillas they were extremly efficient though they almost always failed to coordinate their activities with regular troops. The mostly glorified by Soviets Rails War and Operation Concert in Belorussia totally failed and did not only damage the communication routes but caused even to increase of supplies to the front. The commanders ordered guerillas to demolish rails. But Germans had a lot of rails in stock. Moreover German servicemen were not scared anymore to be demolished in a train ba a guerilla since they knew that partisans targeted rails instead of trains in Belorussia. But guerillas understood that on their own and shifted to act against trains and bridges and water stations.

Starinov wrote that guerilla warfare was poor efficient because in the result of the Rails War and Operation concert the sum of interruption of train service reached only 18.750 days at station-to-station blocks and it made up only to 11.120 days in districts.

Besides he said that the guerilla warfare was inefficient because the German air force (according to Soviet estimates) spent 1500 kg of airobombs to interrupt the Soviet train service for 1 hour in 1941 and up to 7,500 kilos of aerobombs to reach the same result in 1944. When a Belarus guerilla used only 2,4 - 3,5, explosive munitions.

He considered it inefficient because if guerillas had been properly managed and had been targeted on propper targets the Eastern Front would be paralized in 1943 at all.

For example they inferred that Germans have a lot of spare rails but do not have enough locomotives. (later he learnt that the total locomotive stock available for Germans was about 5000 locos). So guerillas in Ukraine did not participate in the Rails war and demolished trains. .

One can say that most of partisans were lazy unskilled inefficient people who just escaped to forests to drink vodka and have fun. That said that those were just bands. This is true but it is just a part of thruth. The skilled professional raiders made the minimum part of guerilla warfare but produced the maximum result. And in this connection I trust Sudoplatov's words who supervised the activities of such raiders and said that guerillas under his command demolished 157,000 people.

So I am really interested to see the reasons why a person considers the guerilla warfare to be inefficient. If he thinks that because they failed to end the war in 1943 then I would agree.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#23

Post by Andreas » 19 Jul 2005, 16:28

Karman wrote:
Andreas wrote: Yes I am, and I am sure Larry is as well. If you have any reason not to trust them, please explain why, instead of dismissing a whole group of scholars just because of their nationality.

I would think that Luttichau is probably based on the captured German records, like most of the OCMH stuff that appeared in the 1960s, with input from German officers. So in that sense it would be a pretty timeless book for giving the German perspective, if it was well done. I am pretty certain that the 1954 book can not be based on a thorough analysis of the German sources, it is too early for that.

All the best

Andreas
If that is true then we have to decide why German sources can be trusted more than the Russian ones (the official head of guerilla warfare in SU can be called a source). If one simply relies on German sources it is hard to understand how did they manage to loose the war with such a minimum losses and how Soviets managed to win it with such a maximum losses and such inefficient warfare.

[SNIP]

So I am really interested to see the reasons why a person considers the guerilla warfare to be inefficient. If he thinks that because they failed to end the war in 1943 then I would agree.
Karman

I do not consider the German sources more reliable per se. But since both sides were involved in the partisan war, I think we can agree that documentation from both sides is required to assess its effects. Partisans will overclaim on German losses, and Germans will claim that any civilian they happened to kill was a partisan.

I also can not see someone in this thread claiming it was inefficient - in fact, I have provided a quote from a German divisional commander who said the exact opposite, i.e. that it was efficient.

So I am really not understanding what you are arguing against, or who with.

All the best

Andreas

Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 11:39
Location: Russia

#24

Post by Karman » 19 Jul 2005, 16:51

Andreas wrote: So I am really not understanding what you are arguing against, or who with.

All the best

Andreas
Was I aggressive? Mea culpa. Did not mean that. Actually I have to agree that to be more effective partisans did not have to kill more people. Actually their warfare itself did not mean huge operations against regular German (or any other Axis) troops. Starinov said that people from GRU (former Razvedupr) - military intelligence did not even demolish trains but counted them.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#25

Post by Andreas » 19 Jul 2005, 17:20

Karman wrote:Was I aggressive? Mea culpa. Did not mean that.
No you were not, at least not in my view. One can argue in a civilised manner. :)

I just did not understand why you thought there was a disagreement on the effectiveness or the reliability of sources. I think it may have been a language problem.

All the best

Andreas

User avatar
_Viktor_
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 20 Oct 2004, 04:02
Location: Russia

#26

Post by _Viktor_ » 20 Jul 2005, 12:59

I'd say one should be really cautious about books written by authors with Russian names published in the West. They have certain extra reasons to throw dirt on USSR: first they are expected to reveal sensations, the Western reader is better prepared for that rather than for USSR being praised, etc, etc. Think about V.Suvorov... Same goes for Polish authors and websites, which, as we see, go as fas as to give reasons to some people to call the partisans "apologetic heroes".

Larry D.
Member
Posts: 4103
Joined: 05 Aug 2004, 00:03
Location: Winter Springs, FL (USA)

#27

Post by Larry D. » 20 Jul 2005, 13:38

Viktor -

I have read quite a few "Western" (God forbid!) books on the subject over the years and most of them, based on a careful analysis of the evidence from all sources (mainly Soviet and German, of course) give the partisan movement in the USSR high marks for tying down on rear-area security duties significant enemy forces that could have been used elsewhere, and for waging a war of terror against the civilian population that kept collaboration to a minimum. The civilians behind German lines lived in a constant state of fear of doing anything that might be interpreted as "collaborating" because the partisans would either kill them and/or their families. The material damage inflicted on the Germans by the partisans was negligible. The Partisans are also credited with achieving limited tactical impact in certain areas at certain times that disrupted or slowed German operations at the front. This is what the "Western" authors say. I personally have read many of the wartime German military records of the Rückwärtiges Heeresgebiete und Armeegebiete and the Sicherungsdivisionen deployed in the Heeresgruppe Nord and Mitte areas and these conclusions seem to be well-founded. However, let me state very clearly, I am NOT an expert or authority on this subject. I would also like to say that this issue - the relative effectiveness of the WW II Soviet Partisan Movement - can be argued back and forth to doomsday and it will never be resolved. There will always be two sides to the controversy. This is all I have to say.



--Larry

Molobo
Banned
Posts: 629
Joined: 14 Feb 2005, 15:20
Location: Poland

#28

Post by Molobo » 20 Jul 2005, 15:56

Same goes for Polish authors and websites, which, as we see, go as fas as to give reasons to some people to call the partisans "apologetic heroes".
Depends on formation.Some Soviet partisans commited atrocities on Polish population or worked in establishing Soviet dictatorship in Poland.Some were true heroes fighting for independence and against genocide commited by Soviets and Reich.
A example of Soviet partisants atrocities :
http://www.ipn.gov.pl/eng/eng_inv_koniuchy.html
Investigation in the Case of the Murder by Soviet Partisans of Koniuchy Inhabitants

Investigation S 13/01/Zk

Investigation in the case of the murder by Soviet partisans of approximately 300 inhabitants of the village called Koniuchy, county of Lida, the Nowogr�dzkie voivodship, on January 29th, 1944, was initiated on March 8th, 2001.

In the course of the investigation, in fulfilling the tasks of preparatory proceedings as stipulated in article 297 of the Criminal Procedure Code and article 45 point 3 of the law on the Institute of National Remembrance � Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation of December 18th, 1998, people who inhabited Koniuchy and neighbouring villages in 1944 were found and interrogated as witnesses. The personal composition of the battalion 5 of 77 pp of the Home Army which operated in those years near Koniuchy was determined and living soldiers � members of the battalion were interrogated as witnesses.

The current places of residence of former inhabitants of Koniuchy were found out and proper requests for interrogation of these people were sent to the Prosecutor�s Offices in Belarus, Lithuania and the Ministry of Justice in Canada. The Prosecutor�s Offices in Belarus and Lithuania were also asked to send archival documents from the collections of their national archives.

The Consul General of Poland in Montreal was asked to provide information on the citizenship of two important witnesses who live in Canada.

Archival documents concerning the circumstances which are the subject of the investigation have been searched for.

In the New Act Archives in Warsaw a classified situation report of February 5th, 1944 made in Riga by the Operational Unit of the Wehrmacht Ostland Commander was disclosed. It informed about an action of the Soviet partisans in Koniuchy and included, among others, a number of the killed and wounded.

A research in the Central Military Archives was ordained, however, in its course no materials pertaining to the investigation were found.

From the �Karta� Centre information was acquired as pertains the �Frycz� Diversion Unit of the Home Army whose members were partially recruited from people who survived the pacification of Koniuchy.

The World Association of the Home Army Soldiers was also asked to send archival materials in its possession.

An opinion of the Research and Expertise Unit of the Chief Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation was acquired which was made on the basis of source materials and concerned the events under investigation.

The evidence pertaining to the case collected so far allowed for the reconstruction of events which took place on January 29th, 1994 in Koniuchy. The circumstances of the activities of partisan units subject to the Central Headquarters of the Partisan Movement in Moscow have been determined.

Currently, the roles in the event of commanders of the partisan units as well as of the units� members whose names and pseudonyms were given by witnesses is being determined.

In the course of activities by way of international legal assistance the personal data of these people have been established. The ensuing lists of Soviet partisans allow now to initiate activities which will determine which of these people are still alive and where they live.

Some measures were taken as to procure a list the harmed people, however this list is still incomplete and further activities are being conducted in this area.

Once the material requested by way of international legal assistance has been available and the sources of evidence available in Poland have been exhausted, a decision concerning further proceedings will be made.

At the present stage the date of the investigation�s closure cannot be determined.

Prosecutor Robert Janicki
Chief Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation
Warsaw, August 5th, 2003

User avatar
_Viktor_
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 20 Oct 2004, 04:02
Location: Russia

#29

Post by _Viktor_ » 20 Jul 2005, 20:07

Larry,

I think the Western views on the topic may be as biased as Soviet ones, both are likely to emphasize/interprete things that are more agreeable to them from the ideological point of view. Or, look at the modern Polish opinion (above): the partisans who fought for the Soviets "committed atrocities on the Polish population", while those who fought against both Soviets and Nazis were "true heroes". I.e. "pro-Soviet" partisans who received all kinds of military support from USSR and were well-coordinated from Moscow targeted only civilians but not Nazis, while the "Polish" ones never touched civilians and were crushing only Nazis. 8O

Molobo,

The long piece of writing you just quoted is content-free: there is nothing describing what the partisans did, their identify, concrete evidence for that...

Serus
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 03 May 2005, 09:46
Location: Warsaw-Poland

#30

Post by Serus » 20 Jul 2005, 20:42

_Viktor_ wrote:Larry,

I think the Western views on the topic may be as biased as Soviet ones, both are likely to emphasize/interprete things that are more agreeable to them from the ideological point of view. Or, look at the modern Polish opinion (above): the partisans who fought for the Soviets "committed atrocities on the Polish population", while those who fought against both Soviets and Nazis were "true heroes". I.e. "pro-Soviet" partisans who received all kinds of military support from USSR and were well-coordinated from Moscow targeted only civilians but not Nazis, while the "Polish" ones never touched civilians and were crushing only Nazis. 8O

Molobo,

The long piece of writing you just quoted is content-free: there is nothing describing what the partisans did, their identify, concrete evidence for that...
I don't know what to say... i think somone reasonable (and better qualified than me) should discuss it.
If im not mistaken the case of Koniuchy was discuted on this forum in more than one thread.
You can believe it or not - but modern historiography tries not to "emphasize things that are more agreable to them". If you have some claims that books about soviet partisans posted in this thread are wrong - because of ideological bias - give examples - do not make claims without any arguments behind them.
I could tell that all books written by authors of country X are excellent and all in country Y are crap - but thats not the point, it would be completly useless comment.
And please stop your comments specifically pointing to Polish historiography - its not different form any other, there are many excellent Polish books about WW2 and some bad books - as always. If you want to criticize specific book - name it, give exemples, quotes, etc...
"Modern Polish opinion" (that you misquoted and distorted btw) - has nothing to do with historiography, if someone writes in a book that "all soviet partisans were murderers" and "all Polish partisans were heroes", without enough evidence to support the claims then you will have a reason to dismiss this one specific title writen by one specific man - not all "western" or "Polish" historigraphy.

Edit: thread about Koniuchy http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... t=koniuchy

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”