PDA

View Full Version : Tukhachevsky affair



snebold
11-18-2009, 01:02 PM
The participation of the German Secret Service in the Tukhachevsky affair, particularly the extent of such participation, is still being disputed. An unsigned study appearing in the periodical Die Gegenwart, Vol. 13, arrived at the following carefully balanced conclusion which for the time being must no doubt remain the last word on this affair:

'The probability approaching certainty is that the Tukhachevsky affair was not engineered by the leaders of the Third Reich. On the other hand it can be assumed with the same degree of probability approaching certainty that the rulers of the Third Reich had a finger in the Tukhachevsky affair. It is extremely probable that they sought to contribute to the downfall of Marshal Tukhachevsky. It is almost established fact that they boasted of this. It is possible that Heydrich and his accomplices were the passive and unconscious tools of Stalin.'

I found this as a note, while reading about another subject.

Is there anybody here who can give a short summary of the Tukhachevsky affair and its implications?

Chevan
11-19-2009, 02:14 AM
The probability approaching certainty is that the Tukhachevsky affair was not engineered by the leaders of the Third Reich. On the other hand it can be assumed with the same degree of probability approaching certainty that the rulers of the Third Reich had a finger in the Tukhachevsky affair. It is extremely probable that they sought to contribute to the downfall of Marshal Tukhachevsky. It is almost established fact that they boasted of this
They boasted by what?
The desire of Stalin to execute Tuhachevsky has come since at least 1920 when Tuhachevsky has been responsible for Red Army disaster near Warsaw.And Great Purge in Army has no endeed deal to Third Reich plot. It was inner political process to eliminate all the former so called "Red Civil war heroes" due to own purposes .
Nevertheless all of them , including Tuhachevskij were a War criminals ( commited crimes against guerrials) during civil war.

snebold
11-21-2009, 11:26 AM
So, was the "Tuhachevsky affair" was a part of the Great Purge? Or the beginning of it?

Nickdfresh
11-21-2009, 12:08 PM
So, was the "Tuhachevsky affair" was a part of the Great Purge? Or the beginning of it?

I believe it was sort of start of the bloodletting and a catalyst for Stalin gaining complete control over his command and eliminating any of his potential rivals for the affections of the Motherland...

Nickdfresh
11-21-2009, 12:32 PM
They boasted by what?
The desire of Stalin to execute Tuhachevsky has come since at least 1920 when Tuhachevsky has been responsible for Red Army disaster near Warsaw.

Gen. Tukhachevsky was not solely to blame for the "abortive advance on Warsaw." He was forced to run the battle from Moscow (disastrous command and control in the 1920s) and was undermined by other Red Army officers who refused to lend proper support.

Stalin didn't want Tukhachevsky dead because of Warsaw, he wanted him gone because he actually stood up to Stalin, and because he was associated with Trotsky. Stalin trusted militarily reactionary dolts he could firmly control. Not geniuses who created his tank corp, mechanized the Red Army, and came up with original ideas such as "Deep Battle". Especially if they were in the sphere of his ex-rival for control of the revolution..


And Great Purge in Army has no endeed deal to Third Reich plot. It was inner political process to eliminate all the former so called "Red Civil war heroes" due to own purposes .

Agreed. I think we may differ on the purpose though.


Nevertheless all of them , including Tuhachevskij were a War criminals ( commited crimes against guerrials) during civil war.

Most Soviet commanders could be termed "war criminals." I doubt this really affected Stalin's conscience too much and Tukhachevsky's methods were pretty much in line with the military norms of early twentieth century counterinsurgency...

snebold
11-22-2009, 12:42 PM
Thanks for answers!

So this part of it:


'The probability approaching certainty is that the Tukhachevsky affair was not engineered by the leaders of the Third Reich. On the other hand it can be assumed with the same degree of probability approaching certainty that the rulers of the Third Reich had a finger in the Tukhachevsky affair. It is extremely probable that they sought to contribute to the downfall of Marshal Tukhachevsky. It is almost established fact that they boasted of this. It is possible that Heydrich and his accomplices were the passive and unconscious tools of Stalin.'

...seems pretty unlikely.
I thought that internal Soviet politics resulted in T. affair, all on its own, without foreign impeteus, but itīs strange to find such a footnote in book. (And somebody in the Reich might have liked to boast of it as their accomplishment, without having a hand in it...)

Did the Germans know about Tīs thoughts on deep battle? (I think this has been discussed in another thread, but I canīt find it)

Chevan
11-24-2009, 03:59 AM
So, was the "Tuhachevsky affair" was a part of the Great Purge? Or the beginning of it?
It was beginning of great purge in Army.

Chevan
11-24-2009, 04:31 AM
Gen. Tukhachevsky was not solely to blame for the "abortive advance on Warsaw." He was forced to run the battle from Moscow (disastrous command and control in the 1920s) and was undermined by other Red Army officers who refused to lend proper support.

You 'stand it up side down, Nick.
It was Tuhachevsky ( the close friend of Trockiy and his "right hand" in arry) was advocating to "export the Bolshevic revolution" to Germany through Poland.It was general idea of Trockij and Tuhachevskij actively voted for it.Stalin was opposed to them both from most beginning.


Stalin didn't want Tukhachevsky dead because of Warsaw, he wanted him gone because he actually stood up to Stalin, and because he was associated with Trotsky.

He was'n just associated. He was Trockij's puppet, coz Trockij himself had made him major commander of Red Army.


Stalin trusted militarily reactionary dolts he could firmly control.

this is a buls...t.
Othervise we would have never won the GREAT Patriotic war.


Not geniuses who created his tank corp, mechanized the Red Army, and came up with original ideas such as "Deep Battle". Especially if they were in the sphere of his ex-rival for control of the revolution..

Yeah, the "geniuses" who has managed the false idea of "Deep battle" that was denied right after the war has began:)
the "geniuse" who ordered the hopeless obsolet tanks kinda wheel-track BT-3 by thousands.And obsolet TB-3 bombers that was more danger for own crew then for enemy:)


Most Soviet commanders could be termed "war criminals." I doubt this really affected Stalin's conscience too much and Tukhachevsky's methods were pretty much in line with the military norms of early twentieth century counterinsurgency...
Yes the tuhachevsky's methods were ... very simular for most of red army commanders during civil war.
Amd most of them were war criminals( including Tuhachevskij himself).
Therefore , personaly me, don't think it was serious lack of stalin to purged then all out.
P.S. the Tuhachevskij wa a phony general.As it was proved by history, all his military experiece has been limited by ..counterpartisan warfare. He was as much helpless as self-respected , arroganced very average officers.He was trockist ,that's why some left-wing forces in west still makes him as "victims". But he definitelly has deserved his execution.

Nickdfresh
11-24-2009, 01:34 PM
You 'stand it up side down, Nick.
It was Tuhachevsky ( the close friend of Trockiy and his "right hand" in arry) was advocating to "export the Bolshevic revolution" to Germany through Poland.It was general idea of Trockij and Tuhachevskij actively voted for it.Stalin was opposed to them both from most beginning.

To the second part of your post here --Well, perhaps that's what Stalin said after the fact, we'll never know. Will we? In any case, I believe Tuckhachevsky didn't sound exactly enthusiastic about the operation afterword--nor regarding the divisiveness and limitations imposed on him.

And as far as Trotsky promoting him, well then perhaps Trotsky was the savant-genius he's often portrayed as--as Tukhachevsky won far more than he lost and was absolutely vital to the success of the Red Army. Much like Trotsky was, and as much as certain factions would like to write them out of history, they were successful, and Trotsky was one of the singular prime movers of their victory...


He was'n just associated. He was Trockij's puppet, coz Trockij himself had made him major commander of Red Army.

Of course he was "associated." Just what I have said, my friend. But just because he was promoted doesn't mean he was a "puppet." They were on the same side after all, and such terms are used by the paranoid to dehumanize their potential enemies and rivals..


this is a buls...t.
Ot
hervisewe would have never won the GREAT Patriotic war.

You would never have won the Great Patriotic War if Tuckhachevsky hadn't modernized the Red Army and formulated key doctrines that--although discredited under Stalin--continued within the ideas and beliefs of individual commanders...


Yeah, the "geniuses" who has managed the false idea of "Deep battle" that was denied right after the war has began:)
the "geniuse" whoorderedd the hopeless obsolet tank kinda wheel-track BT-3 by thousands.And obsolet TB-3bomberss that was more danger for own crew then for enemy:)

Eh, Deep Battle did not die with the Purge. The concepts were in fact keep around under the table of course and euphemistically...

You cannot blame him for that, he was dead by 1937 IIRC, and the newer weapons coming on line such as the T-34 also bore his thinking. Tank design is an evolutionary process...


Yes the tuhachevsky's ethods were .... very simular for mot of reed army commanders during civil war.
Amd most of the weere war criminals( including Tuhachevskij hiself).
Ther
refore , personaly me, d't think k it was serious lack of stalin to purgethen a all out.

Seriously mate, you think Stalin was some sort of humanist? I recall that he was quite brutal and had the inclinations of state terror and executions during the Civil War as well in his sectors of responsibility. Secondly, Tukhachevsky wasn't the only only in charge and other elements on the political side such as Cheka, who probably committed the worst atrocities...


P.S. the Tuhachevskij wa phony generar.A.As it was proved by history, all his military experiece has be limited d by ..counterpartisan rfare. He was a as much helpless as self-respected , arroganced very erage offificers.He was trockist ,that'shy some e left-wing forces in west still makes him as "victims". But he definitelly has served his s execution.

I'm not sure which history proves he was a "phony." Certainly, the history of the debacle in Finland, and the defeats at the beginning of Barbarossa prove otherwise IMO. If you're going to blame Tukhachevsky for the failures in Poland, then who do you blame for the failures in Finland and in the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa? Who does one give credit too for the success at Khalkhin Gol where Zhukov was employing the essential precepts of "Deep Battle," including envelopment?

snebold
11-25-2009, 06:52 AM
P.S. the Tuhachevskij wa a phony general.As it was proved by history, all his military experiece has been limited by ..counterpartisan warfare. He was as much helpless as self-respected , arroganced very average officers.He was trockist ,that's why some left-wing forces in west still makes him as "victims". But he definitelly has deserved his execution.

Is it the Trotskyist part of it, that in your opinion, made him derserve execution? His experience with counterpartisan warfare? Being arrogant?
And if he deserved it for efforts more than ten years old by 1937, why the wait?

Chevan
11-26-2009, 10:16 AM
Is it the Trotskyist part of it, that in your opinion, made him derserve execution?
No he deserved the execution not as part of Trockij plot, but as bolshevic war criminal, who beeing the close friend of Trockij and one of major commander all of Red forces , responsible for mass war crimes.
Just like Trockij himslef.


His experience with counterpartisan warfare?

Yes , he has oppessed the anti-boshlevic uprising in Tambov by..chemical wearpon , firing the civils in villages.
That's more then enough to execute him.


Being arrogant?

Exactly.
The modern Neo-trockists on the west portray him as the sort of "military genius".Just like the Trockij- the "genius of revolution".The both points are pretty subjective and false.
When i for the first time was reading of Tuhachevskij's military speaches , i was amazing- there were absolutly no the real military plans or tactical detalis. All of his speaches are ...utter revolutionary demagogy. His "deep batttle" , mentioned by Nick is just .......bucn of common phrases, nothing more. It was so called "attacking doctrine"very popular for its time, but unclear and foolish.
This madman was going to wage a war on "enemy territory"- therefore he ordered the wheels-track primitive BT-3, becouse he believed , the red army didn't need the track , advancing on good road of Western Europe:)
He was adventurer, who has made an brilliant quick carier in Army due to his personal ties and political devoition to Trockij.


And if he deserved it for efforts more than ten years old by 1937, why the wait?
Well the first court investigation against Tuhachevskij was sunctioned yet in 1930 after the delation of some generals. But Stalin, suddenly....defends Tuhachevskij.And process was closed .Why?This is stll mystery for historians. Stalin might easy to eliminate Tuhachevskij in that time, but he didn't.
Sure his execution in 1937 has no deal to war crimes, commited by Tuhachevskij in 1918-1919 . He was charged as "german spy":)
Endeed he was "Trockij's spy" but that didn't advertised widely..

Chevan
11-26-2009, 10:56 AM
Seriously mate, you think Stalin was some sort of humanist?

Of couse no Nick, coz I know it may shock you:)
Stalin purged the trockists becouse of his political aims. But it's quite wrong, as some people do , to heroize the Trockists.
The one gung of bloody criminals in head with Trockij was destroyed and eliminated by other gung of stalinists:)
But both were bolshevic criminals on definition, especialy Trockij who was pesronaly responsible for beginning o Big Red terror , beein in head of state in 1918-1919, alongside Lenin.
Is it enough to clear the point?
You have to realise- the Stalins crimes doesn't cover ALL who were behind the Stalin.
that's why i think trockijs with their obsessed idea of World proleterian Revolution are utter criminals.


I recall that he was quite brutal and had the inclinations of state terror and executions during the Civil War as well in his sectors of responsibility. Secondly, Tukhachevsky wasn't the only only in charge and other elements on the political side such as Cheka, who probably committed the worst atrocities...

Sure the ,CHEKA leaded by another good friend of Trockij - Felix Dzerginskij ,was responsible for the bloody atrocities during civil war, especialy in cities.
Nevertheless , the so called counter partisan operation , realised by Trockij ( as TOP commander of RKKA that time) and Tuhachevskij in rural areas were the same case.


I'm not sure which history proves he was a "phony." Certainly, the history of the debacle in Finland, and the defeats at the beginning of Barbarossa prove otherwise IMO. If you're going to blame Tukhachevsky for the failures in Poland, then who do you blame for the failures in Finland and in the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa?

you don't mix it up all together Nick.
The case of finland was a special ( -35 winter frost). Plus finns were diehard partisan.
The barbarossa, just like the previous Polish campain and French campain of wermacht were explained by military incompetence of thier command and officers corp.Right?
I hope you will not blame the "Stalin purges" for failures of , say british troops in Malay for the first stage of war in pacific?:)


Who does one give credit too for the success at Khalkhin Gol where Zhukov was employing the essential precepts of "Deep Battle," including envelopment?
Oh come on.
Say yet that Germans has specialy studied the tuhachevskij's "Deep buttle" for their Blitzcriege.The so called deep battle was as i said nothing but buch of well know common phrases, deluted by revolutionary demagogy ,that any general might to apply without tuhachevskij.
the first , really working tactic of Deep battle - using the armored wedge ,deep quick penetration to the enemy territory and surround of eenemy troops by infantry - have been realised by ..Germans in 1940.
Later red army has adopted much of it during the strategic offensive 1944-45. But in 1941, as it was proved by events, the Red Army was unable to weage such a war against strong enemy. Our war was Defence War in sense.Unlike the tuhachevskij dreamed.

Nickdfresh
11-30-2009, 09:16 AM
No he deserved the execution not as part of Trockij plot, but as bolshevic war criminal, who beeing the close friend of Trockij and one of major commander all of Red forces , responsible for mass war crimes.
Just like Trockij himslef.

Yes , he has oppessed the anti-boshlevic uprising in Tambov by..chemical wearpon , firing the civils in villages.
That's more then enough to execute him.

Then why didn't Stalin kill himself?

Tukhachevsky certainly was not murdered on any sort of moralistic grounds, and by your guidelines, than other generals needed to be executed for failing to enforce proper discipline amongst their rear-echelon soldiers...


Exactly.
The modern Neo-trockists on the west portray him as the sort of "military genius".Just like the Trockij- the "genius of revolution".The both points are pretty subjective and false. When i for the first time was reading of Tuhachevskij's military speaches , i was amazing- there were absolutly no the real military plans or tactical detalis. All of his speaches are ...utter revolutionary demagogy. His "deep batttle" , mentioned by Nick is just .......bucn of common phrases, nothing more. It was so called "attacking doctrine"very popular for its time, but unclear and foolish.

He's not merely "portrayed" as a military genius in the West--he was one. This isn't based on his "speeches." Perhaps this is an error in translation, but soon to be heretical ideas are written in that papers that Tukhachevsky wrote along with several other key military figures in the Red Army. And if you think his ideas, and mind you he was not solely the prognosticator of the conceptualization of Deep Battle, then you've failed to grasp that they were some of the very same ideas the Red Army had to gradually dust-off and re-learn by 1943 in order to liberate the Motherland so to speak...

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deep_battle


Deep battle was a military theory developed by the Soviet Union for its armed forces during the 1920s and 1930s. It was developed by a number of influential military writers, such as Vladimir Triandafillov and Mikhail Tukhachevsky who endeavoured to create a military strategy with its own specialised operational art and tactics. The concept of deep operations was a national strategy, tailored to the economic, cultural and geopolitical position of the Soviet Union.

In the aftermath of several failures or defeats in the Russo-Japanese War, First World War and Polish–Soviet War the Soviet High Command (Stavka), focused on developing new methods for the conduct of war. This new approach considered military strategy and tactics, but also introduced a new intermediate level of military art; operations. The Soviet Union was the first nation to officially recognise the third level of military thinking which occupied the position between strategy and tactics.

Using these templates, the Soviets developed the concept of deep battle and by 1936 it had become part of the Red Army Field Regulations. Deep operations had two phases; the tactical deep battle, followed by the exploitation of tactical success, known as the conduct of deep battle operations. Deep battle envisaged the breaking of the enemy forward defences, or tactical zones, for fresh uncommitted mobile operational reserves to exploit by breaking into the strategic depth of an enemy front. The goal of any deep operational was to inflict a decisive strategic defeat on the enemy and render the defence of their front more difficult or impossible.
...

Despite producing the most sophisticated military doctrine which would have given the Soviet Red Army an advantage against its enemies, the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin initiated a purge against his enemies, both real and imagined, in the Soviet military. The Officer Corps was nearly destroyed and the personalities that had conceived deep battle were labelled traitors. Most were executed by the state after show trials. The deep operation concept was thrown out of Soviet military strategy as it was associated with the denounced figures that created it. The abandonment of deep operations had a huge impact of Soviet military capability. Before the purges in 1937, the Soviet Union's armed forces were highly advanced and organized. Entering the Second World War after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Soviet struggled to relearn the discarded lessons. By late 1942 the Soviets had recovered sufficiently to put their concept into practice. Soviet deep battle was used to devastating effect on the Eastern Front after the Battle of Stalingrad, allowing the Red Army to destroy hundreds of Axis divisions and play a vital role in the Allied victory by 1945.


This madman was going to wage a war on "enemy territory"-

He was no more a "mad man" than his contemporaries. Some would say he was in fact far more lucid in his approach. It was thought to be "inevitable" that the Soviet Union would have to fight the Capitalist West, or the fascist powers, in an epic struggle. Tukhachevsky was just preparing for what even Stalin believed to be the end game.

And he was far ahead of the two armies that could come close to the USSR in military power--the French and the Germans (to a lessor extent)--in terms of doctrines.


therefore he ordered the wheels-track primitive BT-3, becouse he believed , the red army didn't need the track , advancing on good road of Western Europe:)
He was adventurer, who has made an brilliant quick carier in Army due to his personal ties and political devoition to Trockij.

How would an early generation battle tank not be "primitive?" "Primitive" my dear Chevan? Actually, the BT-3 (**or more correctly, the BT series of tanks 2-7) was far ahead of most contemporary tanks as it used Walter Christie's revolutionary suspension system for AFVs. This was of course incorporated into the T-34. But I really have to question your judgment regarding the BT-3. It was a very solid tank that was more than a match for just about any contemporary Western design of its era. And although the road-wheel idea was a bit of a failure, this in no way hindered its potential effectiveness. Yes, the BT-3 was a highly mobile AFV, but that in no way indicates and predilection towards "adventurism." Tukhachevsky was a visionary who realized the vast expanses of the Soviet Union depended on mobile forces, radical doctrines, and combined arms to successfully defend...


Well the first court investigation against Tuhachevskij was sunctioned yet in 1930 after the delation of some generals. But Stalin, suddenly....defends Tuhachevskij.And process was closed .Why?This is stll mystery for historians. Stalin might easy to eliminate Tuhachevskij in that time, but he didn't.
Sure his execution in 1937 has no deal to war crimes, commited by Tuhachevskij in 1918-1919 . He was charged as "german spy":)
Endeed he was "Trockij's spy" but that didn't advertised widely..

Perhaps Stalin didn't eliminate him because he was very popular amongst his subordinates, and because he needed his organizational skills to reorient the Red Army.

Nickdfresh
11-30-2009, 09:38 AM
I'm just going to post this from John Keegan's The Second World War, pages 175-176:

---The effects of the purge---

...
If there was a clue to Stalin's murderous motives, it seemed to lie in the history of personal rancours and alliances formed during the Civil War. Just as the principle victims of the military purge were those who had been identified with Leon Trotsky's command of the Red Army in its struggle with the Whites. The anti-Trotsky faction had been centred on the First Calvary Army, commanded by S.M. Budenny and K.E. Voroshlov, which had recalcitrantly conducted its own strategy during the struggle against the Whites in South Russia where Stalin was political commissar, in 1918-19, and signally failed to assist Tukhachevsky in the abortive advance on Warsaw in...

Continued below:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/Nickdfresh/Picture1.jpg

Chevan
12-01-2009, 04:19 AM
Then why didn't Stalin kill himself?

And who would have killed the another bolshevic-criminalt otherwise;)?
Believe or not, but Stalin till the end of 1940 has eliminated almost all of first bolshevics , including the head of IV International.Stalin was't a saint , and was a criminals himself.
But i don't really care which method he did use, killing those criminals. Do you?


Tukhachevsky certainly was not murdered on any sort of moralistic grounds, and by your guidelines, than other generals needed to be executed for failing to enforce proper discipline amongst their rear-echelon soldiers...

No he was murdered exactly on "moralistic grounds"- he was a German spy , forgot it?
And he ,publically slandered on himself and his "friends". So all of them were executed then.But for sake of true , i have to add , they ALL clandered and lied on each others. This speaks for something?


He's not merely "portrayed" as a military genius in the West--he was one. This isn't based on his "speeches."

Oh no, my single forum friend from New York - is neo-trockists?It's too much.


Perhaps this is an error in translation, but soon to be heretical ideas are written in that papers that Tukhachevsky wrote along with several other key military figures in the Red Army.

Which military papers do you mean?


And if you think his ideas, and mind you he was not solely the prognosticator of the conceptualization of Deep Battle, then you've failed to grasp that they were some of the very same ideas the Red Army had to gradually dust-off and re-learn by 1943 in order to liberate the Motherland so to speak...

I repeat Nick , the abstarct mythical Deep battle NEVER WAS A REAL strategy or military plan.It was abandoned not coz it was unthinkable for that Red Army stage of military skill ( in mid-end of 1930yy).It never has been applied on real battle even when Tuhachevskij was a real figure in Army.
Tha ONLY German Blizcriege has teached the Red Army to develop their own starategic offensive doctrine( that worked well and was applied much later in 1944-45).It's wasn't even close to those phantasies, that Tuhachevskj's fans in West was going to PR as his "Deep battle"


He was no more a "mad man" than his contemporaries. Some would say he was in fact far more lucid in his approach. It was thought to be "inevitable" that the Soviet Union would have to fight the Capitalist West, or the fascist powers, in an epic struggle. Tukhachevsky was just preparing for what even Stalin believed to be the end game.

Ah, again a nonsense.
The epic battle with Capitalist or by the other words the World Proletarian Revolution was a idea-X of Trockists maniaks. Those gues deamed about Red World, and nobody hided it.
Stalin, btw, was much more progmatic then idealist Trockij. See the context..
In 1932 the USSR has establish the friendly diplomatic relations with ..."capitalist" Britain.
In 1933 - the diplomatic relation with ...USA.
BTW did you know that the first Soviet plans were equiped by the ..american machinery?
The first soviet car-plan GAZ was buitl by the engineers of FORDcompany.
The same was with "fascist" Germany in 1939 - when it was profitable for SU - Stalin was flexible and reasonable enough.


And he was far ahead of the two armies that could come close to the USSR in military power--the French and the Germans (to a lessor extent)--in terms of doctrines.

Well in "deep theory" and dreams he actualy was much ..ahead:)
We all had a fine doctrines , the Poland included.The practice has demonstarated what did cost the excellent theoretical doctrine without the serious practical support.


How would an early generation battle tank not be "primitive?" "Primitive" my dear Chevan? .......
the road-wheel idea was a ... failure

Now you have answered for yourself.
It was't a match for German tanks coz the Radio and optic equipment was much more primitive compared to any western counterpart.Plus the idiotic concept of wheels tank did cost too much lives for russian crew for the first months of war. It was hopeless for russian mud from most beginning, Nicki.The military advasers noticed it .But Tuhachevskij was going to wage a war on the enemy territory.He was too "smart" to listen the others.
Even T-34 was,'t enough effective coz a lack of optics that time.
Almost forgot, the another idea of Tuhachevskij was a multiturret soviet giant T-35 , tha was too slow and weak to pull itself:)
The tank was ordered in 1933 by "military genius" for his "deep battle" concepr.It looks cool on parades on Red Square and Tuhachevskij was wery proud of his tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35#Combat_history


Perhaps Stalin didn't eliminate him because he was very popular amongst his subordinates, and because he needed his organizational skills to reorient the Red Army.
Perhaps, who knows.
But perhaps Stalin did want to get him the one more chance to shoose the right side and abandon the Trockists enemies.

Chevan
12-01-2009, 04:52 AM
I'm just going to post this from John Keegan's The Second World War, pages 175-176:

---The effects of the purge---

...
If there was a clue to Stalin's murderous motives, it seemed to lie in the history of personal rancours and alliances formed during the Civil War. Just as the principle victims of the military purge were those who had been identified with Leon Trotsky's command of the Red Army in its struggle with the Whites. The anti-Trotsky faction had been centred on the First Calvary Army, commanded by S.M. Budenny and K.E. Voroshlov, which had recalcitrantly conducted its own strategy during the struggle against the Whites in South Russia where Stalin was political commissar, in 1918-19, and signally failed to assist Tukhachevsky in the abortive advance on Warsaw in...

That's how the myht is born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War#The_tide_turns_again:_Th e_.22Miracle_at_the_Vistula.22
The major lack of the warsaw offensive was that Tuhachevskij simply ignored the Poles , continied to advance to Germany. He was going... walk round the warsaw to germans border( according will of his fgeneral-commander Trockij:)) That's why poles easy counterattacked his right flank and surrounded all his troops. Buddeny , whose cavalry forugh enough effective were tied near Lwiw , so he can't assist to the Tuhachevskij who , btw had a superiority in strenght over poles.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/Nickdfresh/Picture1.jpg
How is fascinating...:)
So the bBuddeny ( the friend of Stalin)had no military brains , but, by the stgrange way the Tuhachevskij ( friend of Trockij), did have a genious military brain, right Nicki?This is politically biased.
Why the Voroshilov was an idiot( i/m agree) but Tuhachevskij was not, coz Gukov later, quite accidentally, has adopted "his" Tank wedges tactic.:)
Do not read the trockists's book before the sleep , Nick.

Nickdfresh
12-01-2009, 06:48 AM
And who would have killed the another bolshevic-criminalt otherwise;)?
Believe or not, but Stalin till the end of 1940 has eliminated almost all of first bolshevics , including the head of IV International.Stalin was't a saint , and was a criminals himself.
But i don't really care which method he did use, killing those criminals. Do you?

Stalin wasn't a "saint" you say?


No he was murdered exactly on "moralistic grounds"- he was a German spy , forgot it?
And he ,publically slandered on himself and his "friends". So all of them were executed then.But for sake of true , i have to add , they ALL clandered and lied on each others. This speaks for something?

Trumped up, faked charges are hardly "moralistic."


Oh no, my single forum friend from New York - is neo-trockists?It's too much.

Well my married friend from Southern Russia. What was so horrid about Trotsky (as compared to Stalin) anyways? Would he have murdered a few less of his citizenry or something?


Which military papers do you mean?

The ones forwarded in the Wiki link on Deep Battle I provided. You know? The one you're completely ignoring...


I repeat Nick , the abstarct mythical Deep battle NEVER WAS A REAL strategy or military plan.It was abandoned not coz it was unthinkable for that Red Army stage of military skill ( in mid-end of 1930yy).It never has been applied on real battle even when Tuhachevskij was a real figure in Army.
Tha ONLY German Blizcriege has teached the Red Army to develop their own starategic offensive doctrine( that worked well and was applied much later in 1944-45).It's wasn't even close to those phantasies, that Tuhachevskj's fans in West was going to PR as his "Deep battle"

Um, you're contradicted by just about every source I've ever read on the subject...


Ah, again a nonsense.
The epic battle with Capitalist or by the other words the World Proletarian Revolution was a idea-X of Trockists maniaks. Those gues deamed about Red World, and nobody hided it.
Stalin, btw, was much more progmatic then idealist Trockij. See the context..
In 1932 the USSR has establish the friendly diplomatic relations with ..."capitalist" Britain.
In 1933 - the diplomatic relation with ...USA.
BTW did you know that the first Soviet plans were equiped by the ..american machinery?
The first soviet car-plan GAZ was buitl by the engineers of FORDcompany.
The same was with "fascist" Germany in 1939 - when it was profitable for SU - Stalin was flexible and reasonable enough.

Stalin was realistic because the situation forced him to be. I might add that Trotsky was hardly the "maniac" you make him out to be. He was in fact well traveled both prior to the revolution and after his exile and was far more realistic than he is generally given credit for...


Well in "deep theory" and dreams he actualy was much ..ahead:)
We all had a fine doctrines , the Poland included.The practice has demonstarated what did cost the excellent theoretical doctrine without the serious practical support.

Now you have answered for yourself.
It was't a match for German tanks coz the Radio and optic equipment was much more primitive compared to any western counterpart.Plus the idiotic concept of wheels tank did cost too much lives for russian crew for the first months of war. It was hopeless for russian mud from most beginning, Nicki.The military advasers noticed it .But Tuhachevskij was going to wage a war on the enemy territory.He was too "smart" to listen the others.
Even T-34 was,'t enough effective coz a lack of optics that time.
Almost forgot, the another idea of Tuhachevskij was a multiturret soviet giant T-35 , tha was too slow and weak to pull itself:)
The tank was ordered in 1933 by "military genius" for his "deep battle" concepr.It looks cool on parades on Red Square and Tuhachevskij was wery proud of his tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35#Combat_history

Of course it was "no match" for German panzers, it was a generation behind them! The BT series was introduced in the 1920s and one of the fundamental things you're either missing, or are in denial about, here is that it was the poor vision and planning of Stalin's favorite generals that succeeded Tukhachevsky that retarded Soviet tank development. However, the BT series directly contributed to the development of the T-34..

Nickdfresh
12-01-2009, 06:53 AM
That's how the myht is born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War#The_tide_turns_again:_Th e_.22Miracle_at_the_Vistula.22
The major lack of the warsaw offensive was that Tuhachevskij simply ignored the Poles , continied to advance to Germany. He was going... walk round the warsaw to germans border( according will of his fgeneral-commander Trockij:)) That's why poles easy counterattacked his right flank and surrounded all his troops. Buddeny , whose cavalry forugh enough effective were tied near Lwiw , so he can't assist to the Tuhachevskij who , btw had a superiority in strenght over poles.

Tukhachevsky wasn't even allowed outside of Moscow to lead his own forces (a cardinal sin of command and control). How was he to invade Germany through Poland, then?


How is fascinating...:)
So the bBuddeny ( the friend of Stalin)had no military brains , but, by the stgrange way the Tuhachevskij ( friend of Trockij), did have a genious military brain, right Nicki?This is politically biased.
Why the Voroshilov was an idiot( i/m agree) but Tuhachevskij was not, coz Gukov later, quite accidentally, has adopted "his" Tank wedges tactic.:)
Do not read the trockists's book before the sleep , Nick.

I could just as easily say that you "victor's history" and Stalin apologetic is just as "biased." Eh?

Chevan
12-02-2009, 11:53 PM
Stalin wasn't a "saint" you say?

Yet i 've said he was a criminal..


Trumped up, faked charges are hardly "moralistic."

But he , beeing "innocent" absolutly voluntary "unmasked" his friends- Yakir,Feldman, Uborevich and ets.


Well my married friend from Southern Russia. What was so horrid about Trotsky (as compared to Stalin) anyways? Would he have murdered a few less of his citizenry or something?

Married, eh?
Trockij was responsible for Big Red terror in 1918-1921.About 2 mln were murdered.That's more then enough to wiped him out from earth.


The ones forwarded in the Wiki link on Deep Battle I provided. You know? The one you're completely ignoring...

A false wiki article , based on post-war Tuhachevski's apologists works.I specially asked you - have you read the real work of Tuhachevskij?No, coz NO his any theoretical work DOES exist in nature.


Um, you're contradicted by just about every source I've ever read on the subject...

It does not wonder me, coz you have read ONLY Trockists works- the field that is absolutly dominates in USA nowadays.
I m not going to didsmiss their false propogandic ideas- kinda Idiot Budenny and "genious" Tuhachevskij. This is too obvious falsification.


Stalin was realistic because the situation forced him to be. I might add that Trotsky was hardly the "maniac" you make him out to be. He was in fact well traveled both prior to the revolution and after his exile and was far more realistic than he is generally given credit for...

False.
Stalin was more realistic from most beginning- yet in 1920 he seriously objected to CK( central commite of party in head with Trockij and Lenin) to move the Red Army through the Poland to Berlin.It was Trockij who advocated that mad idea. They inspired- the Polish worker would support the Red Army becouse of solidarity class straggle.Stalin argued- the Poles are nationalist and their nationalistic feeleng will make them to resist to Red Army invasion.
The history has proved Stalin was right, Trockij was out to be the idealistic maniac, red army has been crushed coz his obsessed will to bring the revolution to Germany.


Of course it was "no match" for German panzers, it was a generation behind them! The BT series was introduced in the 1920s and one of the fundamental things you're either missing, or are in denial about, here is that it was the poor vision and planning of Stalin's favorite generals that succeeded Tukhachevsky that retarded Soviet tank development. However, the BT series directly contributed to the development of the T-34..
Oh sure , say yet that german T-III/IV directly contributed to development of Tiger;)
The all of Tuhachevskij wearpon that were ordered by Ary in 1931-1937 were OBSOLET and hopeless.Just in 1939-1941 the new generation of soviet wearponry were proved to be more or less effective.

Chevan
12-03-2009, 12:03 AM
Tukhachevsky wasn't even allowed outside of Moscow to lead his own forces (a cardinal sin of command and control). How was he to invade Germany through Poland, then?

easy,Tuhachevskij's Western front was advancing through Poland by the shortest way to German border( according to Trockij directive). When poles attacked his flank , Tuhachevskij was in panic.Coz he thought the poles were "broken".


I could just as easily say that you "victor's history" and Stalin apologetic is just as "biased." Eh?
Ha, i m not apolist of STalin. However i seriously think that your "losers approach" ( Kinda if Stalin murdered the Trockij/Tuhachevskij , they were an "innocent victim") is a ..foolish.
It's wrong way on definition to heroise one sort of Boslhevics criminals and demonize the otheres ones.

Nickdfresh
12-05-2009, 10:28 AM
Yet i 've said he was a criminal..

You seem to be choosing one "criminal" over another, which seems a tad of a double-standard...


But he , beeing "innocent" absolutly voluntary "unmasked" his friends- Yakir,Feldman, Uborevich and ets.

He wasn't "unmasked," he was slandered by the NKVD on orders from Stalin...


Married, eh?

Are you ever gonna make an honest girl of her? ;)


Trockij was responsible for Big Red terror in 1918-1921.About 2 mln were murdered.That's more then enough to wiped him out from earth.

Trotsky was no more "responsible" than any other Bolshevik, and Stalin was far more of a direct terrorist, even during the Civil War. The only real responsibility Trotsky bares was building the Red Army into an effective fighting force more so than any other singular individual. Yes, a lot of people died, but that happens during revolutions and wars. The Whites also committed atrocities.

What would ever make Trotsky worse than Generalissimo Stalin? Why the distinction? Why is Stalin blameless for the debacle of the Soviet defeats in the opening of Barbarossa in your eyes?


A false wiki article , based on post-war Tuhachevski's apologists works.I specially asked you - have you read the real work of Tuhachevskij?No, coz NO his any theoretical work DOES exist in nature.

It's not a "false article." You just don't like it. There's a difference...

And Tukhachevsky was one of four or five main strategists than formulated Deep Battle and his work found its way into several field manuals used by the Red Army until the Purge--one's called "Deep Battle". So, they didn't exist?....


It does not wonder me, coz you have read ONLY Trockists works- the field that is absolutly dominates in USA nowadays.
I m not going to didsmiss their false propogandic ideas- kinda Idiot Budenny and "genious" Tuhachevskij. This is too obvious falsification.

I admit that Trotsky is a bit more admired here than perhaps he deserves to be. This is based on the perception that he was very successful and combined a powerful intellect with actual leadership and organizational ability. Something rare in most historical figures. I do agree he was a bit of an idealist, but he was also far more democratic minded than Stalin and criticized the over use of state terror and was abhorred by the notion of genocide, often criticizing even left wing movements that sought to murder or ethnically cleanse based on race or culture...


False.
Stalin was more realistic from most beginning- yet in 1920 he seriously objected to CK( central commite of party in head with Trockij and Lenin) to move the Red Army through the Poland to Berlin.It was Trockij who advocated that mad idea. They inspired- the Polish worker would support the Red Army becouse of solidarity class straggle.Stalin argued- the Poles are nationalist and their nationalistic feeleng will make them to resist to Red Army invasion.
The history has proved Stalin was right, Trockij was out to be the idealistic maniac, red army has been crushed coz his obsessed will to bring the revolution to Germany.

They were not simply "moving through" Poland and were capitalizing on their initial successes against the Poles. A Polish general inflicted a most unlikely defeat on the Russians that no one expected and Poland was on the verge of collapse IIRC. Trotsky certainly wanted to move to the German border to assist the German communists in their post-WWI workers rebellions. I'm no fan of a communist Germany, but had Trotsky completed this and turned Germany into a workers state, there certainly would have been no catastrophic "Barbarossa" and millions of dead Soviet citizens.

One can also argue that power would have grounded and forced Trotsky to become more pragmatic and no one can state "what Marshal Trotsky would have done." Because we cannot know...

And Stalin was "realistic" alright. So realistic that he dealt with Hitler and beleived that Hitler was not going to attack him despite receiving reams of intelligence data from spies, reconnaissance, and his own commanders in Poland...


Oh sure , say yet that german T-III/IV directly contributed to development of Tiger;)
The all of Tuhachevskij wearpon that were ordered by Ary in 1931-1937 were OBSOLET and hopeless.Just in 1939-1941 the new generation of soviet wearponry were proved to be more or less effective.

You're comparing tanks designed in the early 1930s/late 20s to German panzers that were designed in the late 1930s. Blaming Tukhachevsky for the failure of Soviet preparedness for WWII based on BT series of tanks is historically asinine, even irresponsible. The BT's were better than anything in their day and you are essentially criticizing the design because it was obsolete by WWII. Well, no shit! A lot of things were. That doesn't mean they weren't good weapons systems that evolved into something else. In this case, the BT series directly led to the T-34!

Chevan
12-07-2009, 02:15 AM
You're comparing tanks designed in the early 1930s/late 20s to German panzers that were designed in the late 1930s. Blaming Tukhachevsky for the failure of Soviet preparedness for WWII based on BT series of tanks is historically asinine, even irresponsible. The BT's were better than anything in their day and you are essentially criticizing the design because it was obsolete by WWII. Well, no shit! A lot of things were. That doesn't mean they weren't good weapons systems that evolved into something else. In this case, the BT series directly led to the T-34!


http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%83%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D 0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9#.D0.9F.D1.80.D0.BE.D1.82.D0.B8.D0 .B2.D0.BE.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D1.8F.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B 5_.D0.B2_.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.BC.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B4.D0.B E.D0.B2.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B8_.D0.A0.D0.9A.D0.9A .D0.90
... сам Тухачевский зачастую был некомпетентен в тех вопросах, которые ему приходилось решать. Фактически разработанные им наступательные доктрины и соответствующий устав Красной армии не предусматривали ни долговременной обороны, не организованной борьбы с танковыми клиньями противника. В частности лично Тухачевский сыграл крайне негативную роль в обеспечении Красной армии современной противотанковой, зенитной, полковой и дивизионной артиллерией. К сожалению, ситуацию сложившуюся в военном строительстве по вине склонного к волюнтаризму Тухачевского не удалось исправить до начала Великой Отечественной войны. Во многом успехи вермахта в 1941 году объясняются некомпетентной военной политикой Тухаческого, настоявшего в 30-ые годы на подготовке неимоверного числа десантников (более двух миллионов) и выпуске огромного количества легких танков (около 12 тысяч). Красная Армия готовилась громить врага на его территории, высаживая у него в тылу десятки десантных корпусов и продвигаясь вперед на колесных легких танках по европейским дорогам[источник?], абсолютно не умея при этом воевать в обороне и более того не имея никаких средств для организации обороны своей собственной территории
.................................................. .................................................. ......
It should be noted that Tukhachevskiy itself was often incompetent in those questions, which was necessary to solve. The actually developed by its offensive doctrines and the corresponding regulations of the Red Army were lacked for sustained defense, organized fight with the tank wedges of enemy. In particular , personally Tukhachevskiy played extremely negative role in the equipment of the Red Army with contemporary anti-tank, AA, regimental and divisional artillery. Unfortunately, situation prevailing in the military building through the fault of inclined to the voluntarism of Tukhachevskoij could not be corrected prior to the beginning of World War II. In many aspects, the successes of Wehrmacht in 1941 explained by the incompetent military policy of Tukhacheski, that insisted in the 1930-yy on the preparation of the incredible number of landing force members (Paratrupers) (more than two million) and the production of the huge amount of light tanks (about 12 thousand). The Red Army prepared to raid enemy in his territory, setting down in its rear tens of landing paratruper's armies and advancing on the wheel light tanks along the European roads, absolutely without knowing how in this case to fight in defense and what to do ot organize the defence on own territory

The great Deep battle plan, Nick..


admit that Trotsky is a bit more admired here than perhaps he deserves to be. This is based on the perception that he was very successful and combined a powerful intellect with actual leadership and organizational ability. Something rare in most historical figures. I do agree he was a bit of an idealist, but he was also far more democratic minded than Stalin and criticized the over use of state terror and was abhorred by the notion of genocide, often criticizing even left wing movements that sought to murder or ethnically cleanse based on race or culture...
Yeah , "democratic minded" Trockij has sunctioned the mass Red terror himself, and criticized the over use of it:)
Nice theory ...


What would ever make Trotsky worse than Generalissimo Stalin? Why the distinction? Why is Stalin blameless for the debacle of the Soviet defeats in the opening of Barbarossa in your eyes?

And who is to blame for debacle of the Alliess defeats in the Asia for the opening of Japane war?
Roosewelt and Church i suppose? Hmmn, why not..
Who is to blame for catastrophic collapce of France - Lets blame the Albert Lebrun:)

Nickdfresh
12-08-2009, 08:42 AM
The great Deep battle plan, Nick..

Really? Right, everything is HIS fault now...


The impact of the purges

Deep Operations were first formally expressed as a concept in the Red Army's "Field Regulations" of 1929, and more fully developed in the 1935 Instructions on Deep Battle. The concept was finally codified by the army in 1936 in the Provisional Field Regulations of 1936. By 1937, the Soviet Union had the largest mechanized army in the world and a sophisticated operational system to operate it.

However, in 1937 the 'Great Purges' of 1937 to 1939 removed many of the leading officers of the Red Army, including Svechin, Varfolomeev and Tukhachevsky.[30] The purge of the Soviet military liquidated the generation of officers who had given the Red Army the deep battle strategy, operations and tactics and who also had rebuilt the Soviet armed forces. Along with these personalities, their ideas were also dispensed with.[31] Some 35,000 personnel, about 50 percent of the Officer Corps, three out of five Marshals,; 13 out of 15 Army Group commanders; 57 out of 85 Corps Commanders; 110 out 195 Division commanders; 220 out of 406 Brigade commanders were all murdered. Without the personnel and strategy, Stalin destroyed the cream operational and tactical competence of the Red Army.[32]
[edit] Deep Operations during World War II

The surprise German invasion (Operation Barbarossa) subjected the Red Army to six months of disasters. The Red Army was shattered during the first two months of war. Thereafter, it faced the task of surviving, then reviving and maturing into an instrument that could compete with the Wehrmacht and achieve ultimate military victory.

Soviet military analysts and historians subdivide the war into three distinct periods. Although the Red Army was primarily on the strategic defensive during the first period of war (22 June 1941–19 November 1942). The second period of war (19 November 1942 – 31 December 1943), which commenced with the Soviet strategic counteroffensive at Stalingrad, was a transitional period marked by alternating attempts by both sides to secure strategic advantage. After the Battle of Kursk the Soviets had firmly secured the strategic initiative and advanced beyond the Dnepr River. The Red Army maintained the strategic initiative during the third and final period of war (1944 – 1945) and ultimately emerged victorious.[33]



Yeah , "democratic minded" Trockij has sunctioned the mass Red terror himself, and criticized the over use of it:)
Nice theory ...

He killed far less people than Stalin would...


And who is to blame for debacle of the Alliess defeats in the Asia for the opening of Japane war?
Roosewelt and Church i suppose? Hmmn, why not..

Who is to blame for catastrophic collapce of France - Lets blame the Albert Lebrun:)

There are varying reasons. Churchill can't really be blamed as much since he was not in power when the war began. The US suffered successive defeats in Asia, but the losses were minimized to an extent as there were only a relative small numbers of soldiers on the Philippines. Also, the United States only began to mobilize in 1940, something hardly comparable to the large standing Soviet forces of the era which greatly outnumbered those of Nazi Germany. You can try and blame Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor, but unlike Stalin, no one was screaming in his ear the Japanese were about to attack there...

As for France, there is an endemic abject failure of doctrine in "Methodical Battle," which was something quite contrary too "Deep Battle" in that Methodical Battle was deeply rooted in the past and Deep Battle was a modernist doctrine attempting to address the nature of industrialized, mobile warfare...

Chevan
12-09-2009, 12:38 AM
The surprise German invasion (Operation Barbarossa) subjected the Red Army to six months of disasters. The Red Army was shattered during the first two months of war. Thereafter, it faced the task of surviving, then reviving and maturing into an instrument that could compete with the Wehrmacht and achieve ultimate military victory.

Soviet military analysts and historians subdivide the war into three distinct periods. Although the Red Army was primarily on the strategic defensive during the first period of war (22 June 1941–19 November 1942). The second period of war (19 November 1942 – 31 December 1943), which commenced with the Soviet strategic counteroffensive at Stalingrad, was a transitional period marked by alternating attempts by both sides to secure strategic advantage. After the Battle of Kursk the Soviets had firmly secured the strategic initiative and advanced beyond the Dnepr River. The Red Army maintained the strategic initiative during the third and final period of war (1944 – 1945) and ultimately emerged victorious

This is very true.
The initial disaster of Red Army was due to lack of any real-working defence tactic. The GErman Panzers simply cutted it through, surrounding the giant amount of red army troops within few days.The red Army , who is going to wage a war on enemy territory( according Tuhachevski doctrine) , wasn't capable to face the really strong enemy on defence.
The soviets did not have enough AT, AA artillery to stop the panzers.( I don't speak about truck - we have no enough truck till the mid 1943, Tuhachevskij has produced a 10 thousanfds of light tanks , but ...forget to order the truck to move the supporting infantry behind the tanks.
Only after when the soviets has got the enough AT-artillery in Kursk battle - we could to face the German panzers and slow then down - after that the Soviet tank attack has been resultative.

Chevan
12-09-2009, 02:59 AM
He killed far less people than Stalin would...

I don't think so. the Civil war costs 10 mln of lives.
And Trockij really planned to fire start all the Europe in 1920..The bloody-bath that migh to cost another up to 100 mln..


large standing Soviet forces of the era which greatly outnumbered those of Nazi Germany. You can try and blame Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor, but unlike Stalin, no one was screaming in his ear the Japanese were about to attack there...

Germans had roughtly 170+ EXPERIENCED division . Soviet had roughtly 190.
The Quantity of troops isn't a all-important matter.The quality of germans officers corp was much higher.
and the american troops were defeat by relatively small number of japanes troops.


As for France, there is an endemic abject failure of doctrine in "Methodical Battle," which was something quite contrary too "Deep Battle" in that Methodical Battle was deeply rooted in the past and Deep Battle was a modernist doctrine attempting to address the nature of industrialized, mobile warfare...
ha , modernistic mobile doctrine , that totally ignored the defence:)
Germans has captured all the france , having LESS troops then French-british contingent..
And this has happand yet in 1940 when Wermanch wasn't such experienced.
So , honestly Nicki, if Russians fought bad like the allies in 1940 - the Hitler would finish the barbarossa yet in september.But he has not done it.

Rising Sun*
12-09-2009, 06:11 AM
Churchill can't really be blamed as much since he was not in power when the war began.

True, but he was solidly in power when he lost Greece and, having learnt nothing from that disaster, less than a year later lost Malaya for the same primary reason: committing forces to a doomed defence by denying his commanders the airpower they and higher commanders knew and had told Churchill was needed. The secondary reason in both cases was committing his commanders to doomed campaigns where Churchill's political considerations overrode the commander's proper military considerations, effectively hamstringing his commanders who, like poor old Percival in Malaya, have unfairly borne responsibility for losing battles and campaigns Churchill lost for them before the first shot was fired.

Churchill preferred to allocate air resources to Britain and the Med because he gave them higher priority than Malaya at the time, although it is questionable whether they were even needed for those purposes at the time. It is also debatable whether committing extra air power to Malaya would have altered rather than merely delayed the end result, but that is a huge "What if" topic in its own right.

Churchill failed, like some of his lesser commanders, to grasp that airpower was critical and that the days had passed of capital ships being the big boys. As was shown when the Repulse and Prince of Wales went down under air attack with Tom Phillips, another airpower sceptic, in command of the force.

It is to a fair extent the old story of people fighting the current war with the last war's tactics and attitudes, although Churchill wasn't that good as a tactician or strategist even in the Great War, having military skills and attitudes more attuned to the Boer than Great War.

snebold
01-25-2010, 01:03 PM
Now I have seen the assertion that there was a German plan behind it in another place, and I migth also have found the source this.
I have the memoirs of Walter Schellenberg. He was in the German intelligence community -as it would be called today, and head of RSHA Amt VI (foreign intelligence) from mid 1941. He claims that the Germans (with Heydrich as primus motor) wanted to hand incriminating material on Tukhachevsky over to the Soviets, and were surprised to be asked for the price, as they planned to do it for free.
The book was written in 1951 and Schellenberg died in 1952.
(They asked for, and got 3 million rubles, which Schellenberg later were personally involved in getting rid of, as German agents in the Soviet Union using notes from this payment developed a habit of getting caught soon after, he claims)

Uyraell
02-04-2010, 03:24 AM
Thanks for answers!

So this part of it:



...seems pretty unlikely.
I thought that internal Soviet politics resulted in T. affair, all on its own, without foreign impeteus, but itīs strange to find such a footnote in book. (And somebody in the Reich might have liked to boast of it as their accomplishment, without having a hand in it...)

Did the Germans know about Tīs thoughts on deep battle? (I think this has been discussed in another thread, but I canīt find it)

The thing that clouds objective viewing is this: Both Schellenburg and Canaris are on record as having referred to German involvement in the Tukhachevsky affair, as is Richard Sorge. Before his death in 1942, Heydrich is recorded as having spoken of it, this (iIrc) is noted by General Beck (July '44 plot) at some point.
Thus, the Germans were certainly more than aware of the T. affair, and may have had some involvement without necessarily being the initiators or instigators thereof.
Where I hesitate, is assigning either knowledge or roles to the various persons I have mentioned, it being that Sorge remained an enigma till his death, and Canaris destroyed many records before his own death. Similarly, Schellenburg did not wish certain events to remain recorded knowledge, and may have deliberately clouded matters, post-war.

Respectful Regards, Uyraell.