Skip to comments.Moscow annoyed by attempts to rewrite WWII history
Posted on 08/28/2009 2:05:20 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
click here to read article
I’ve got a great read for you if you haven’t already read it:
“Ivan’s War” It’s upstairs and I’m too lazy right now to go get it for the author’s name. Someone finally got around to making an anthology of memoirs of some ordinary Red Army soldiers. I’m sure it’s a bit sanitized. Most of the brutal stuff you wrote about didn’t have any survivors to leave memoirs.
LOL - post of the day! Still laughing at that photo....I should send to Rick Pitino since he needs a pick-me-up.
Problem was, after the concrete was delivered, the authorities arrived to see the new memorial, which was no where to be found. Some quick-thinking Lithuanian told them, "the concrete was of too poor quality to use in a Lenin memorial, so we used it to make basketball courts."
Don’t think so. The French moved like a snail. The British slower. The Germans had the Poles on three sides, with more modern equipment, particularly aircraft, tanks, and anti-tank guns; and the most advanced military doctrine on the planet. They also had an attack plan that meshed, perfectly from their point of view, with Poland’s forward deployment. Caught ‘em in a double envelopment that evolved into a concentric double envelopment.
While the Poles fought bravely, in reality it was over in a little over two weeks.
By the time the Soviets moved in, most of the Polish Army was unavailable above regimental strength. In point of fact, the Germans were well past the demarcation line when the Reds showed. Guderian had to give them Brest-Litovsk. [He had to retake it in 1941.]
No. The USSR was an agressor and the communists running it cant afford for the people to learn the truth.
"Its little wonder that the Russians dont want to shatter the myths they built around what they call the Great Patriotic War."
Great post. The bottom line is, when it came to brutality, Stalin was the Old Master, Hitler his precocious pupil. And, it is a debatable point, imho, as to which leader ended their lives responsible for more innocent deaths.
Most curious that:
"President Medvedev has repeatedly criticized attempts by foreign states to rewrite or falsify history, in particular post-Soviet countries' positions on World War II and the Stalinist repression,"...
so that Russia could be ""blamed for the events and tragedies of those years" and that these attempts were aimed at "laying the groundwork for making claims on our country - political, financial, and territorial." "
No need to "rewrite or falsify" anything. The truth is plenty damning enough.
Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland months before talks even began with Stalin. And Stalin was so disgusted by British and French appeasement of Hitler, he wouldn't trust them for anything.
Remember that Stalin's intelligence services were excellent, and he knew pretty much everything Hitler was up to. So, what Stalin gained by his 1939 nonaggression pact was at least the following:
Point is: Stalin was just as eager for the agreement as Hitler. And the western allies had nothing of any interest to offer Stalin -- only bargaining chips in his negotiations with Hitler.
Here's the bottom line: had there been no 1939 Stalin-Hitler nonaggression pact, the Germans would have started their invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 that much closer to Moscow, with little or no resistance in the Baltic countries. The result would have been Hitler's victory over Stalin in 1941, and most probable victory in the war.
So Stalin was the ultimate survivor. But he paid a huge, huge price in other people's blood.
The one thing to consider is that without the Soviets invading Poland from the East, the Germans would have had a much rougher go of it in occupying Poland. Not that the Germans wouldn’t have ultimately defeated Poland. But the occupation would have been much more thornier for them in terms of resistance. They probably wouldn’t have taken France quite so quickly.
No doubt. But as long as we are playing the "what if?" game, then consider:
My point is: Hitler might well have been better off NOT signing the nonaggression with Stalin, and had instead taken all of Poland, plus the Baltic countries BEFORE starting his invasion of Soviet Russia.
In that case, German armies would have shorter distances to reach Moscow or Leningrad, and might even have more axis-allied troops from the Baltic armies.
What I'm suggesting is: the Hitler-Stalin nonaggression pact helped Hitler lose the war.
See, isn't "what if?" fun? ;-)
Please elaborate on the picture you posted, I am familiar with the web site on Democide, but this picture begs to be explored futher and Powerkills is a large site to just search. Do you have an URL please.
I just did a google image search and happened upon that picture.
“They also had an attack plan that meshed, perfectly from their point of view, with Polands forward deployment.”
The Poles forward deployed much of their available forces at the border ares, because they feared yet another sell-out by France and Britain to Germany, just as had already happened so many times before.
Chamberlin couldn’t give away Polish Territory to appease Hitler, yet again, if the Polish Army was already deployed to defend it.
“the Germans would have had a much rougher go of it in occupying Poland.”
The pre-planned and prepared fallback position of the Poles was what they called “Fortress Romania”, in the southeast areas of Poland from Lvov, along the Romanian border.
Many reserve units were already being moved there when the Russian invasion hit.
Not only that, but had the Russians not invaded, Poland would have had at least an addition 20,000 of their officers at their disposal.
Hitler’s purpose in agreeing to the pact was to avoid war on two fronts. The old von Schlieffen plan called for knocking out France quickly before turning around to fight Russia. Plus Hitler had British Expeditionary Force to worry about.
I note especially your reference to the old Von Schlieffen plan, because it ties together German military thinking from both wars.
But unlike WWI, by 1939 many in the West were conflicted as to which was the bigger devil -- Hitler or Stalin -- and would have been happy to see them destroy each other. There were also no plans in the West to invade Germany -- as demonstrated by the "Phony War" of September 1939 through May 1940. So French and Brits were perfectly happy to sit behind their Maginot Lines and wait for a German attack.
Point is: Hitler's concerns in 1939 over a "two front war," were misplaced. In reality, he had little to immediately fear from the West.
Of course, all this is just the game of "what if," and anyone can play. I'm only speculating that Hitler might even have been better off not signing the nonaggression pact with Stalin...
Thanks for your interesting post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.