Hawok wrote:Which Suvrov and his followers used in all their books, however when his book came out in Russia and people began to show (with documents and such) that it is in fact otherwise , he somehow decided not address the critics. Anyway research done on the sate of RKKA, as of 22.6.41 clearly shows it was not in position to begin the offensive – it was not really in position to do much of anything.
Suvrov and his fellowers ? Perhaps Suvrov - the bad guy- is more honest then most of his own historicans.
Wishful thinking, pal. Why can the honest Suvorov offer no proof for his theories, no backup other than troop movements on the Soviet border? Why does he avoid discussing his theses, according to Oleg?
Concerning June 1941 : correct, but Stalin would have attacked in late 1941 or spring 1942 without any doubt.
"Without any doubt" sounds like an article of faith in the absence of evidence. Does any of the wise guys (Suvorov, Maser et al) have an answer to the questions I addressed in my first post on this issue?
The only possible result : it was a (not wanted) preemptive strike. If Hitler had not attacked, we would have fell under the soviet rule for many years.[/quoted]
Why, do you really think the ramshackle force that the Red Army was in 1941 would have made headway in an offensive against the Wehrmacht, if they had undertaken one? They could barely handle tiny Finland the year before. And while they eventually became an effective defensive force in the course of the German attack, after spectacular initial catastrophes, they botched up every offensive operation until Stalingrad and were in no condition to conduct an offensive in summer until after the battle of Kursk in 1943. To assume that the Red Army was in conditions to overrun the Wehrmacht in 1941 and that Hitler saved Europe from this fate just blinks at the realities of the time. To assume that the Iron Curtain would never have come into being if Hitler had refrained from attacking the Soviet Union is far more realistic, in my opinion.Hitler was a great criminal (Holocaust), but without him (and that is his historical importance only a few have understood yet), europe would have fallen under Stalins reign (except the isolated and corrupt Churchill).
I would say that without Hitler's attack on the USSR Soviet troops would never have entered Eastern Europe or Germany, simply because Stalin would never have dared to carry out such an attack against a force no other army had managed to stand up to so far. After Hitler had squandered his forces in the vast spaces of Russia, however, the conquest of Europe by a hardened Red Army became a real possibility, and it was only corrupt Churchill and his colleague Roosevelt who, through the invasion of Western Europe, eventually prevented that from happening.