The Year of Ten Victories by Russian historians

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 03:51
Location: Malaysia

The Year of Ten Victories by Russian historians

Post by Panzermahn » 30 May 2004 14:29

Hi,

just read from Beevor's Berlin: Downfall 1945..

He mentioned that Russian historians referred to 1944 as the year of ten victories? Just for info, what are the ten victories claimed by the Russians?
Thanks for any information

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

Post by Kunikov » 31 May 2004 17:58

http://www.indiana.edu/~league/1944.htm

Read over the Soviet victories and advances here, I think they speak for themselves.

User avatar
Acolyte
Member
Posts: 1376
Joined: 07 Jul 2004 13:55
Location: Festung Europa

Post by Acolyte » 30 Jul 2006 19:21

A few to surely be among them:

1. Destruction of German blockade around Leningrad
2. Destruction of German forces in Cherkassy pocket
3. Offensive against the Mannerheim Line
4. Operation Bagration (I guess Soviet historians regarded it as a string of victories due to the fact that more than one pockets were successfully formed)
5. Making Romania change sides
6. Recapturing all Soviet territories by late 1944
7. Battle of Debrecen

Wokelly
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 03 Oct 2005 21:53
Location: Canada

Post by Wokelly » 30 Jul 2006 21:57

And the fact before launching that massive operation against Army Group Center, they tricked the Germans into thinking the attack was going to be against army group south, so the German High Command stripped all the armor from Center and put it down to South. Hence when the RUssians hit army group center, they just gutted them.

Kinda like allies at Normandy tricking the germans.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4205
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 31 Jul 2006 10:17

Acolyte wrote:3. Offensive against the Mannerheim Line


To be quite accurate Mannerheim Line existed only during the Winter War. Line was partly destroyed in battles between 1939 - 1940 and Soviets also exploded many survived bunkers afterwards. In 1944 Finns did fought at Mannerheim line but it had no "official status" anymore as a defence line.

In 1944 the most important Finnish lines on Karelian Isthmus and behind it were:
- Main Line (mostly field fortified with individual bunkers)
- VT (Vammelsuu - Taipale) Line (new Main Line with fortified and non-fortified areas, not finished yet)
- VKT (Viipuri - Kuparsaari - Taipale) Line (still under construction)
- "Salpa" Line (very strongly fortified line behind the border of 1940, mostly completed)

Soviets could breach the three first mentioned lines in June 1944 but could not advance any further when Finns (with the help of Germans) stopped their attacks everywhere. When the attack in Finland was stopped Soviets started moving their troops to the Estonian front in July 1944.

Epaminondas
Member
Posts: 282
Joined: 07 Aug 2005 17:28
Location: Raleigh NC

Post by Epaminondas » 31 Jul 2006 16:38

Petsmo, and Crimea are on the list as well.

Petsmo-Nikel was against Germany's Norwegian army, knocked them back from the approaches to murmunsk, and seized the important Nickel mine at Nikel.

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

Post by paulmacg » 01 Aug 2006 17:30

Kunikov wrote:http://www.indiana.edu/~league/1944.htm

Read over the Soviet victories and advances here, I think they speak for themselves.


Good link, Kunikov, but I noticed a few interesting things from it. The first concerning the Normandy invasion:

This invasion, under the command of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, established a new Western Front and marked the beginning of the end of the Third Reich.


I would be interested to know by what criteria the writer established that Normandy was "the beginning of the end" of the Third Reich. Given that the Soviets were in the process of enjoying nearly two years of virtually unbroken victories and were about to invade Germany proper, I wonder why the aforementioned mark could not be set at some earlier date.

And this one concerning Soviet victories in Byelorussia:

The Normandy invasion prevented the Germans from sending reinforcements to the Eastern Front which resulted in a series of Russian victories.


Or, said a slightly different way, the destruction of roughly 30 German division equivalents, which would have happened with or without OVERLORD, did not allow for reinforcements to be sent to the Western Front allowing the Western Allies to break out of Normandy in a much more timely fashion.

Just a little clarification for any readers who would otherwise be misled.

Cheers

Paul

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

Post by Kunikov » 01 Aug 2006 18:15

paulmacg wrote:
Kunikov wrote:http://www.indiana.edu/~league/1944.htm

Read over the Soviet victories and advances here, I think they speak for themselves.


Good link, Kunikov, but I noticed a few interesting things from it. The first concerning the Normandy invasion:

This invasion, under the command of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, established a new Western Front and marked the beginning of the end of the Third Reich.


I would be interested to know by what criteria the writer established that Normandy was "the beginning of the end" of the Third Reich. Given that the Soviets were in the process of enjoying nearly two years of virtually unbroken victories and were about to invade Germany proper, I wonder why the aforementioned mark could not be set at some earlier date.

And this one concerning Soviet victories in Byelorussia:

The Normandy invasion prevented the Germans from sending reinforcements to the Eastern Front which resulted in a series of Russian victories.


Or, said a slightly different way, the destruction of roughly 30 German division equivalents, which would have happened with or without OVERLORD, did not allow for reinforcements to be sent to the Western Front allowing the Western Allies to break out of Normandy in a much more timely fashion.

Just a little clarification for any readers who would otherwise be misled.

Cheers

Paul


Both good points, I didn't look at all of what was written there, just thought it'd be a good start for those interested in learning what happened in 1944.

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

Re: The Year of Ten Victories by Russian historians

Post by Yuri » 01 Aug 2006 20:13

Panzermahn wrote:Hi,

just read from Beevor's Berlin: Downfall 1945..

He mentioned that Russian historians referred to 1944 as the year of ten victories? Just for info, what are the ten victories claimed by the Russians?
Thanks for any information

By the end 1943 the Red Army has exempted from invaders a significant part of the main industrial centres USSR - Stalingrad, Rostov, Donbass, Voronezh, Kurske, Eagle (Orel), Belgorod, Kharkov, Smolensk, Poltava and Kiev. Moreover, Soviet people has managed to restore the industrial enterprises, which invaders destroyed at deviation. At deviation invaders applied, so-called, tactics of "the burnt ground». It is tactics provided continuous destruction of all buildings, structures, railways and highways, bridges. No bombardment can be compared by that has been made by invaders during realization of this fanatic plan.

Restoration in the shortest term of the destroyed industry is considered in Russia a feat to the equal militarian.
The restored industry has allowed to increase technical power of Red Army. It, in turn, has enabled Stavka (General Headquarters) to start in 1944 development and realization of strategy of achievement of a victory in GPW above mullions-strong armies of the numerous opponents.

One of variants of this victorious strategy has been offered by Supreme Commander in Chief I.Stalin. The essence of this strategy consist in drawing on the opponent of powerful impacts in various places and at various times, however, all these impacts have been incorporated by a uniform plan.
Applying false concentrations and the latent maneuver on all to 4 500 kilometer front, the Red Army focused the forces to separate sites and striked there the most powerful blows on the German Wermacht and his European allies. Practically all these impacts were unexpected for the opponent and radically improved position of Red Army.
These ten operations have become history GPW under the name «Ten Stalin impacts».

Here these operations of 1944:

1. Clearing of Leningrad of blockade (Leningrad - Novgorod operation)
2. Clearing of right-bank Ukraine (Rout of group of armies " South " - field marshal Manshtejna in Ukraine):
- Zhitomir - Berdichev operation-
- Kirovograd operations
- Uman - Batoshani operation
- Korsun - Shevchenko operation
- Rovno - Lutsk operation
- Nikopol - Krivoi Rog operation

3. Clearing of Crimea (rout of 17-th army in Crimea)

4. Vyborg - Petrozavodsk operation (a conclusion from war of Finland).
5. Rout of group of armies "Centers " (operation "Bagration")
6. Rout of group of armies « Northern Ukraine » (Lvov - Sandomir operation)
7. Rout of group of armies « Southern Ukraine » (JAssy - Kishinev operation - a conclusion from war of Romania)
8. Clearing of the Soviet Baltic (Baltic operation - a conclusion from isolation of the Baltic fleet locked up to those in gulf of Finland)
9. Clearing of Yugoslavia and an exit to the central Hungary
10. Clearing of Northern Norway.

/
Yuri

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4205
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Re: The Year of Ten Victories by Russian historians

Post by Harri » 02 Aug 2006 06:56

Yuri wrote:4. Vyborg - Petrozavodsk operation (a conclusion from war of Finland).


That Soviet operation was a failure because the planned goals could not be reached. The operations elsewhere played much important role and would have eventually led to the exactly same end result.

Also a correct kinds of diplomacy (from the Soviet side) would have perhaps also led to the same decision. In this respect the mentioned failed Soviet operation was totally unnecessary. Perhaps the most significant achievement (from the Finnish point of view) was that Soviet regime had no more false illusions on the Finnish Army and its fighting will which probably saved Finland from a possible Soviet occupation later and becoming a Soviet satellite.

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

Re: The Year of Ten Victories by Russian historians

Post by Yuri » 02 Aug 2006 17:27

Harri wrote:That Soviet operation was a failure because the planned goals could not be reached. The operations elsewhere played much important role and would have eventually led to the exactly same end result.

Also a correct kinds of diplomacy (from the Soviet side) would have perhaps also led to the same decision. In this respect the mentioned failed Soviet operation was totally unnecessary. Perhaps the most significant achievement (from the Finnish point of view) was that Soviet regime had no more false illusions on the Finnish Army and its fighting will which probably saved Finland from a possible Soviet occupation later and becoming a Soviet satellite.

You attribute Stavka imaginary intentions.
You have excellent broken these imaginary intentions and the Finnish army has gained the next brilliant victory.
However, you have forgotten to mention, that as a result of this brilliant victory Finland has been compelled to stop from war from the USSR and to to begin war of Germany.
In my opinion, on a thing it is necessary to see such what they were, instead of such with what they were to be seen

Finland from occupation by armies of Red Army was saved not by the Finnish army, and the clever politics of the Finnish politicians which have replaced president Rjuti.
These clever Finnish politicians have found in themselves forces to tear with Germany.
Stalin was not only Supreme Commander in Chief of armed forces of the USSR, simultaneously he was the main politician of the USSR.
It is known, that political purposes are always put above the military purposes.

Vyborg-Petrozavodsk operation pursued not military, but a political purpose. This purpose consisted in forcing Finland not only to leave war from the USSR, but to start to force Finns to begin struggle against the German armies was in her territory.
This purpose the Soviet side has reached.
Already on August, 1st, 1944 president Rjuti has been replaced, on September, 4th Finland capitulated, on September, 15th Finns have begun military actions with the German armies.
It also was that purpose which was put with the Stavka.

The Stavka did not set as the purpose to attach Finland to the USSR.
These are inventions.
You should know that I.Stalin as Supreme Commander in Chief of Red Army proceeding from a political purposes Vyborg - Petrozavodsk operations by the special instruction has forbidden to the general of army Meretskov ordering the Karelian front to cross border of Finland when that wished to combat in the Finnish territory the German armies departing to Norway.
When general Meretskov has tried to explain to Stalin expediency from the military side of maneuver prospective by him Stalin has answered so:
«This is demanded with a political purpose. If you will try to disturb still time instruction Stavka will are discharged of a post of commander front».

/
udachi / Good Luck
Yuri

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4205
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Re: The Year of Ten Victories by Russian historians

Post by Harri » 03 Aug 2006 08:00

Yuri wrote:You attribute Stavka imaginary intentions.


These were quite real intentions in spring and June 1944.

Yuri wrote:You have excellent broken these imaginary intentions and the Finnish army has gained the next brilliant victory.


It was not a brilliant victory for the Finns. Finns just stopped Soviet attacks everywhere. You can call it whatever. We in Finland call them "repel victories".

Yuri wrote:However, you have forgotten to mention, that as a result of this brilliant victory Finland has been compelled to stop from war from the USSR and to to begin war of Germany.
In my opinion, on a thing it is necessary to see such what they were, instead of such with what they were to be seen


You forget that USSR started this attack (Finland had no goals in this attack) and set the military goals for its troops which were not achieved. Then there were also political goals which immediately failed even more. Like I said the same results could have been achieved also without this attack just waiting for a few months.

Yuri wrote:Finland from occupation by armies of Red Army was saved not by the Finnish army, and the clever politics of the Finnish politicians which have replaced president Rjuti.


One of the Soviet goals (like already during the Winter War) was beating of Finnish Army was neither achieved. The political manoeuvres in Finland in the summer 1944 were possible only after Finnish Army had stopped Soviet assault and also Soviet side was ready for peace.

Yuri wrote:These clever Finnish politicians have found in themselves forces to tear with Germany.
Stalin was not only Supreme Commander in Chief of armed forces of the USSR, simultaneously he was the main politician of the USSR.
It is known, that political purposes are always put above the military purposes.


Perhaps so, but Stalin made another BIG mistake when he thought Finnish Army could have been beaten easily. Like in so many other cases also in this case a political solution could have been possible without Soviet attack. After the failed operation also Soviet side was ready for political solution with Finland. Politics had now risen above the military solution in USSR.

Yuri wrote:Vyborg-Petrozavodsk operation pursued not military, but a political purpose. This purpose consisted in forcing Finland not only to leave war from the USSR, but to start to force Finns to begin struggle against the German armies was in her territory.


It's easy to be wise afterwards. The goals of the Soviet military operation(s) and its political backgrounds are so well known today that there is no doubt that Soviets failed militarily. Minimum political goals were without doubt achieved but much later.

Yuri wrote:This purpose the Soviet side has reached.
Already on August, 1st, 1944 president Rjuti has been replaced, on September, 4th Finland capitulated, on September, 15th Finns have begun military actions with the German armies.
It also was that purpose which was put with the Stavka.


Finland did not capitulate. It's a common mistake. At first Finland signed a truce which started on 4.9.1944 (Soviets started it on 5.9.) and a temporary peace agreement in Moscow. Peace agreement was signed in Paris with all Allied countries.

Yuri wrote:The Stavka did not set as the purpose to attach Finland to the USSR.
These are inventions.


We can discuss on that but I think Stalin more likely would have liked to see Finland as his puppet state or part of USSR like the Baltic States (that was for the first time tried in the Winter War and it led to another war).

Yuri wrote:You should know that I.Stalin as Supreme Commander in Chief of Red Army proceeding from a political purposes Vyborg - Petrozavodsk operations by the special instruction has forbidden to the general of army Meretskov ordering the Karelian front to cross border of Finland when that wished to combat in the Finnish territory the German armies departing to Norway.


I think Soviet operations against Germans in Northern Finland and Norway started after the Soviet truce with Finland?

Orders given to Soviet troops in the summer 1944 indicated clearly full scale penetration into old Finnish soil in Karelian Isthmus and Finnish inland.

Yuri wrote:When general Meretskov has tried to explain to Stalin expediency from the military side of maneuver prospective by him Stalin has answered so:
«This is demanded with a political purpose. If you will try to disturb still time instruction Stavka will are discharged of a post of commander front».


I think Stalin had to please Britain and USA because the separate nature of Finnish case had been declared already in 1943 in Teheran conference. Stalin although had relatively free hands to operate towards Finland.

If there had been a chance to "get Finland" easily just like that using military force I have no douts that would have happened despite of any "political purposes". Like all dictators also Stalin acted if he saw someting was possible despite of costs.

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

Post by Yuri » 03 Aug 2006 12:25

Hi, Harri

Finland has come into contact to the USSR for finding-out of conditions of the exit from war in February 1944. That is, Finns for some months prior to the beginning Vyborg-Petrozavodsk operation began to understand, that Germany defeat expects.
It was result Leningrad - Novgorod operation ("The first Stalin impact") by the lead Red Army in January-February, 1944

However at that time Finland has disagreed with the offered conditions. The main thing that did not wish to incur then the Finnish heads are to accept obligations about opening military actions against the German armies was in her territory.
Negotiations have been interrupted. Diplomatic efforts have not brought for the USSR the desirable purpose - a conclusion of Finland from war and opening of her military actions against the German armies.
Stavka understood, that at Finns any illusions in this direction can be kept.

On this case Vyborg-Petrozavodsk operation also has been developed.
Carrying out is operations on the eve more powerful operation "Bagration" it not accident. It is a prudent step.

Lead one for another Vyborg-Petrozavodsk operations and operation "Bagration" (rout of group of armies " Mitte ") have shown the Finnish heads, that if Finland will be and to reject further the requirements which have been put forward by the USSR artillery divisions of break and artillery corps of break (Stalin's these ingenious inventions), in a flash broken defense of Wermacht in Belarus, can appear on the Karelian front and repeat the same with the Finnish army, that they have made with Germans.
Having understood it is a direct hint, the Finnish heads have displaced president Rjuti and have agreed to execute all requirements of the USSR.

All ten operations of 1944 («Ten Stalin impacts») it not a chaotic set of operations, it were components deeply and comprehensively thought over with political, economic and the military sides of strategy of achievement of a victory over war.
Each step of this general plan of a victory (or each impact) increased forces and opportunities of Red Army.

So, for example, the third impact (rout of 17-th army and clarification of Crimea) has led to that Turkey has finally broken away from Germany. It has allowed the USSR to remove a significant part of forces of Red Army with Soviet - turkish border (Transcaucasia front) which she has been compelled to hold there even during the most intense period of struggle for Caucasus (autumn of 1942).
After rout of 17-th army in Crimea at political leaders of Turkey does not remain illusions in occasion of the one who will be the winner in this war.
And Turkey on diplomatic channels has declared about desire to improve the relation from the USSR.
It has allowed Red Army to remove a significant part of armies unwrapped against Turkey and to direct them on the West.

Still more impressing success has been reached in the fourth impact, that is as a result of successful carrying out Vyborg - Petrozavodsk operations. Here the Red Army not only could exempt the forces operated up to those against Finland, but force Finnish armies were is turned against Germans.

P. S.
Once again.
Stavka was not engaged in planning of revolutions in Finland or still somewhere.
If you look attentively can notice, that in the countries of the East Europe communists have received authority already after the Red Army has left territory of these states.
Participation of Red Army in becoming communistic modes in the countries of the East Europe and on the Balkans is a myth what exist not a little.

For example, in Czechoslovakia communists have received authority in February, 1948. Last Red Army man has left territory of Czechoslovakia almost three years before is in August, 1945.
Last Red Army man has left territory of Yugoslavia in November, 1944.
On territory of Albania the Red Army did not come at all.

The Red Army on territory of Greece did not come. Meanwhile in Greece the authority was taken by communistic adherents. To put Greeks on the right track, Englishmen by means of Americans have destroyed more than 100 thousand Greeks.
And more than one million Greeks has been forced to run from the country.
Some tens thousand Greek emigrants have appeared in the USSR, and, the most part from them lived in capital of Uzbekistan the city of Tashkent. I lived in Tashkent and dews among the Greek guys.
Only in 1978 when in Greece, at last, was will derthrow the repressive mode established by Englishmen and Americans in 1946, the Greeks lived in the USSR, could return on the Native land.

And, by the way, the Red Army has exempted from occupation territory of the Scandinavian neighbour of Finland - Northern Norway, however communists in this state at authority were not.
/
udachi / Good Luck
Yuri

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

Re: The Year of Ten Victories by Russian historians

Post by paulmacg » 03 Aug 2006 14:29

Harri wrote:If there had been a chance to "get Finland" easily just like that using military force I have no douts that would have happened despite of any "political purposes". Like all dictators also Stalin acted if he saw someting was possible despite of costs.


So, is it your argument that the Soviet Union was not able to take Finland if it so desired? Although I'm sure that the Finnish army was "really really cool" I have more than a little trouble imagining the 1944 or 1945 Red Army not being able to stomp it out of existence with a small portion of its strength.

My guess is that there were other reasons why Finland was not reduced to a puppet state.

Cheers

Paul

Epaminondas
Member
Posts: 282
Joined: 07 Aug 2005 17:28
Location: Raleigh NC

Re: The Year of Ten Victories by Russian historians

Post by Epaminondas » 03 Aug 2006 16:20

paulmacg wrote:So, is it your argument that the Soviet Union was not able to take Finland if it so desired?


Simple- the soviets could have overrun Finland practically at will. What the 1944 battles demonstrated to the soviets that they couldn't have done so on the cheap; that they would need significantly more resources then allocated initially...

and those resources were better used to ensure a better share of the loot in central Europe... Czech and German industries being much better loot then some lumber mills :P

Additionally, the Winter War demonstrated that actual occupation of Finland would be very difficult for years.

And the US in particular was leaning on the soviets to go easy on the Finns.

---

What the 1944 battles did was show that Finland wasn't go down easily, and were just as tough and determined as 1940. The prize of occupying Finland wasn't worth the cost.

Before the negotiations, Stalin wasn't convinced of that.

===

From a Finnish POV, their goals were to end the war with their territory pre 1939 intact as a strech goal, but at minium survive the war with out being a soviet satillite or occupation.

From a Soviet POV their strech goal was to incorporate Finland into their empire, but at minium knock finland out of the war so they could move large amounts of troops elsewhere, and free up the soviet navy for Baltic operations.

Neither side got all it wanted; but the sacrifice of the Finnish soliders in 1944 was necessary for the survival of an independant Finland. With out demonstrating to Stalin that it would not be cheap or easy to conquor Finland, Stalin would present the USA with a fait acompi...

Both sides achieved a limited victory; the soviets got some land, freedom for their navy and troops to use on other fronts; finland kept its independance.

Victory or defeat are from a certain point of view, and scalable from goals. Both sides can achieve their goals and view a battle as a victory, if the goals aren't mutually incompatible.

Both Russian nationalists and Finnish nationalist are correct in viewing the 1944 battles as victories... after all, both sides achieved their minium goals!

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”