PDA

View Full Version : Shoot our Men



GermanSoldier
01-23-2007, 05:27 PM
Do you think the Soviet Union had a good idea of shooting the retreaters. What kind of losses did they have with this technique.

bas
01-23-2007, 05:32 PM
Do you think the Soviet Union had a good idea of shooting the retreaters. What kind of losses did they have with this technique.

Do you actually have an authoritive source that this approach was used?

Wolfgang Von Gottberg
01-23-2007, 05:53 PM
Do you actually have an authoritive source that this approach was used?

I guess there is a logical way into looking at this. I don't have any proof saying that this approach was used, but that contradicts everything that I've learned.

I'm not saying that it did happen, but I think there is a 50/50 probability that it did.

GermanSoldier
01-23-2007, 08:39 PM
When Russia lost Stalingrad they made an offensive to get it back. When they would retreat in Stalingrad the machine gunners, officers, and remaining soldiers would shout them.
If you watch Enemy At The Gates you will see a brief scene that shows you how they did it. It is also a great movie.

bas
01-23-2007, 08:43 PM
When Russia lost Stalingrad they made an offensive to get it back. When they would retreat in Stalingrad the machine gunners, officers, and remaining soldiers would shout them.
If you watch Enemy At The Gates you will see a brief scene that shows you how they did it. It is also a great movie.

Neat movie but hardly a historic source. It has several inaccuracies (aside from the whole sniper duel it is based on).

bas
01-23-2007, 08:52 PM
I guess there is a logical way into looking at this. I don't have any proof saying that this approach was used, but that contradicts everything that I've learned.

I'm not saying that it did happen, but I think there is a 50/50 probability that it did.

Part of the problem there Wolf, is that until recently most of our information on the Red Army came from German sources, since the Russian archives were closed to the West (the whole Cold War thing).

Also because of the Cold War there was a certain amount of Western propoganda against the Soviets (terriable soldiers can only win through mass numbers and have poor moral to the point that they were shot in the back if they retreated.... etc).

Did the Red army shoot cowards, you bet they did, so did every other army, after all disciplin needs to be maintained. Were some officers more ruthless than others? Possibly. But it didn't happen on the scale as was shown in Enemy at the Gates.

Remember the Germans didn't need to employ such tactics, neither did the Americans, Italians, English or any other army so why should the Russians need to? If anything they would be more motivated since they were fighting for their raw survival!

Nickdfresh
01-23-2007, 09:44 PM
Part of the problem there Wolf, is that until recently most of our information on the Red Army came from German sources, since the Russian archives were closed to the West (the whole Cold War thing).

Also because of the Cold War there was a certain amount of Western propoganda against the Soviets (terriable soldiers can only win through mass numbers and have poor moral to the point that they were shot in the back if they retreated.... etc).

Did the Red army shoot cowards, you bet they did, so did every other army, after all disciplin needs to be maintained. Were some officers more ruthless than others? Possibly. But it didn't happen on the scale as was shown in Enemy at the Gates.

Remember the Germans didn't need to employ such tactics, neither did the Americans, Italians, English or any other army so why should the Russians need to? If anything they would be more motivated since they were fighting for their raw survival!

All very correct.

But didn't the Soviets have what were called "penal battalions?"

Chevan
01-24-2007, 02:29 AM
When Russia lost Stalingrad they made an offensive to get it back. When they would retreat in Stalingrad the machine gunners, officers, and remaining soldiers would shout them.
If you watch Enemy At The Gates you will see a brief scene that shows you how they did it. It is also a great movie.
Really great movie?
This is the lates worst shit which i've ever seen. Moreover this is pure racist-biased propoganda which showed Red Army ( which win battle for stalingrad like idiots who mass died under NKVD mashingans).

Cheers.

Gen. Sandworm
01-24-2007, 03:35 AM
All very correct.

But didn't the Soviets have what were called "penal battalions?"

Yes the Soviets had Penal Battalions as did many nations. But you cant tell me the Soviets didnt shoot retreating men in these. They were usually sent on suicide missions anyhow. Draw fire will other better equiped troops could manouver.

Chevan
01-24-2007, 03:42 AM
Part of the problem there Wolf, is that until recently most of our information on the Red Army came from German sources, since the Russian archives were closed to the West (the whole Cold War thing).

Also because of the Cold War there was a certain amount of Western propoganda against the Soviets (terriable soldiers can only win through mass numbers and have poor moral to the point that they were shot in the back if they retreated.... etc).

Hi bas. That's very correct.
The problems of study of Red army in the west is that you wrote indeed.


Did the Red army shoot cowards, you bet they did, so did every other army, after all disciplin needs to be maintained. Were some officers more ruthless than others? Possibly. But it didn't happen on the scale as was shown in Enemy at the Gates.

Endeed the Enemy at the Gates had nothin real basis. There is some of propogandic clishes in this film:
1.The NKVD units (murder of retreat soldiers) just escorted the troops via the Volga and protect them. Practically all NKVD unit officer were killed by Germans in there.
2.The Red Army was showed as a big "penal battalion"( They run to the attack under mashingans) - this is FULL SHIT in Stalingrad there NEVER were the PENAL BATTALIONS.
3. The Red Army soldier go to the attack whithout rifles and ammunitions - FULL SHIT.
If it was happaned the officer who responsable for supplies would be shooted immediatelly.
4. The Red Army attacked strong german position- this is STUPIDEST idea in this film.
Indeed the Germans ATTACKED the soviet position till the december ( when begin the offencive for the surround of germans). Unlike the Germans soviet soldied DEFENCED THE BUILDING IN STalingrad. Its primary task was simply hold the position as strong as they could.
Acoording fact above i can conclude that this film was made for people which absolutly don't know the history of WW2.
Moreover recently the comitete of Veterans of Stalingrad brought an action agaisn one of russian TV-channel for demonstration the Enemy at the Gate in ether. The veterans were
outraged by the calumny to the soviet soldier in the battle for Stalingrad. They wrote a letter to the magazin where thay umasked the lie in theis film.


Remember the Germans didn't need to employ such tactics....
Hay bas. do you know the story of appearing the "penal battalions"?
They first penal battalions was formed by Germans during the winter russian Moscow cont-offensive in december 1941. BTW this tactic proved its effectiveness for the Red Army. Germans penal units fight more desperately..
After that the Stalin orderd to form it in the simular units in Red Army. There wer spesial companies and battalions for the officer ans privates who had a different violation of discipline.
Considering the condition of cruel fight in Eastern front this decision look rational.

Cheers.

Egorka
01-24-2007, 04:33 AM
Here is the translation of the order 227 that is regardet to be the begining of the "pennal batalions". Please see my comment for this order below.



ORDER #227 BY THE PEOPLE’S COMMISSAR OF DEFENCE OF THE USSR
Moscow, 28 July1942

The enemy feeds more and more resources to the front, and, paying no attention to losses, moves on, penetrates deeper into the Soviet Union, captures new areas, devastates and plunders our cities and villages, rapes, kills and robs the Soviet people. The fighting goes on in Voronezh area, at Don, in the Southern Russia, at the gates of the North Caucasus. The German invaders are driving towards Stalingrad, towards Volga, and want to capture Kuban and the North Caucasus with their oil and bread riches at any price. The enemy has already captured Voroshilovgrad, Starobelsk, Rossosh, Kupyansk, Valuiki, Novocherkassk, Rostov on Don, half of Voronezh. Some units of the South front, following the panic-mongers, have abandoned Rostov and Novocherkassk without serious resistance and without order from Moscow, thus covering their banners with shame.

The people of our country, who treat the Red Army with love and respect, are now starting to be disappointed with it, lose faith in the Red Army, and many of them curse the Army for its fleeing to the east and leaving the population under German yoke.

Some unwise people at the front comfort themselves with arguments that we can continue the retreat to the east, as we have vast territories, a lot of soil, many people, and that we will always have abundance of bread. By these arguments they try to justify their shameful behaviour at the front. But all these arguments are fully false, faked and working for our enemies.

Every commander, every soldier and political officer have to realise that our resources are not infinite. The territory of the Soviet Union is not a wilderness, but people – workers, peasants, intelligentsia, our fathers and mothers, wives, brothers, children. Territory of USSR that has been captured by the enemy and which enemy is longing to capture is bread and other resources for the army and the civilians, iron and fuel for the industries, factories and plants that supply the military with hardware and ammo; this is also railroads. With loss of Ukraine, Belorussia, the Baltics, Donetsk basin and other areas we have lost vast territories, that means that we have lost many people, bread, metals, factories, and plants. We no longer have superiority over enemy in human resources and in bread supply. Continuation of retreat means to destroy us and also our Motherland. Every new piece of territory that we leave to the enemy will strengthen our enemy and weaken us, our defences, our Motherland.

This is why we have to eradicate the conversations that we can retreat without ending, that we have a lot of territory, that our country is great and rich, that we have a lot of population and we will always have enough bread. These conversations are false and harmful, as they weaken us and strengthen the enemy, for if we do not stop retreating, we will be left without bread, without fuel, without metals, without raw materials, without factories and plants, without railways.

The conclusion is that it is time to stop the retreat. Not a single step back! This should be our slogan from now.

We need to protect every strongpoint, every metre of Soviet soil stubbornly, till the last droplet of blood, grab every piece of our soil and defend it as long as it is possible. Our Motherland is going through hard times. We have to stop, and then throw back and destroy the enemy, whatever it might cost us. The Germans are not as strong as the panic-mongers say. They are stretching their strength to the limit. To withstand their blow now means to ensure victory in the future.

Can we stand and throw the enemy back toward west? Yes, we can, as our plants and factories in the rear areas are working perfectly and are supplying our army with more and more tanks, planes, artillery and mortars.

So what do we lack? We lack order and discipline in companies, regiments and divisions, in tank units, in the Air Force squadrons. This is our major drawback. We have to introduce the strictest order and strong discipline in our army, if we want to save the situation and defend our Motherland.

We can no longer tolerate commanders, commissars, and political officers, whose units leave their defences at will. We can no longer tolerate the fact that the commanders, commissars and political officers allow several cowards to run the show at the battlefield, that the panic-mongers carry away other soldiers in their retreat and open the way to the enemy. Panic-mongers and cowards are to be exterminated at the site.

From now on the iron law of discipline for every officer, soldier, political officer should be – not a single step back without order from higher command. Company, battalion, regiment and division commanders, as well as the commissars and political officers of corresponding ranks who retreat without order from above, are traitors of the Motherland. They should be treated as traitors of the Motherland. This is the call of our Motherland.

To fulfill this order means to defend our country, to save our Motherland, to destroy and overcome the hated enemy.

After their winter retreat under pressure of the Red Army, when morale and discipline fell in the German troops, the Germans took some strict measures that led to pretty good results. They have formed 100 penal companies that were comprised of soldiers who broke discipline due to cowardice or instability; (emphasys is mine - Egorka) they have deployed them at the most dangerous sections of the front and have ordered them to redeem their sins by blood. Further on, they have formed around ten penal battalions comprised of officers who had broken discipline due to cowardice and instability, deprived them of their decorations and put them at even more dangerous sections of the front and ordered them to redeem their sins by blood. And finally, the Germans have formed special guards units and deployed them behind unstable divisions and ordered them to execute panic-mongers at the site if they tried to leave their defensive positions without order or if they tried to surrender. As we know, these measures were effective, and now the German troops fight better than they fought in winter. What we have here is that the German troops have good discipline, although they do not have an uplifted mission of protection of the Motherland, and only have one goal – to conquer a strange land. Our troops, having defence of defiled Motherland as their mission, do not have this discipline and thus suffer defeat.

Shouldn’t we learn this lesson from our enemy, as our ancestors learned from their enemies in the past and overcame their enemies? I think that we should.

THE SUPREME COMMAND OF THE RED ARMY ORDERS:

1. The military Councils of the fronts and first of all front commanders should:

a) In all circumstances decisively eradicate retreat attitude in the troops and with an iron hand prevent propaganda that we can and should continue the retreat to the east, and this retreat will not be harmful to us;

b) In all circumstances remove from offices and send to Stavka for court-martial those army commanders who allowed their troops to retreat at will, without authorization by the Front command;

c) Form within each Front 1 to 3 (depending on the situation) penal battalions (800 personnel), where commanding, senior commanders and political officers of corresponding ranks from all services, who have broken discipline due to cowardice or instability, should be sent. These battalions should be put on the more difficult sections of a Front, thus giving them an opportunity to redeem their crimes against the Motherland by blood.

2. The Military Councils of armies and first of all army commanders should:

a) In all circumstances remove from offices corps and army commanders and commissars, who have allowed their troops to retreat at will without authorisation by the army command, and send them to the Military Councils of the Fronts for court-martial;

b) Form 3 to 5 well-armed guards (barrage) units (zagradotryads), deploy them in the rear of unstable divisions and oblige them to execute panic-mongers and cowards at site in case of panic and chaotic retreat, thus giving faithful soldiers a chance to do their duty before the Motherland;

c) Form 5 to 10 (depending on the situation) penal companies, where soldiers and NCOs, who have broken discipline due to cowardice or instability, should be sent. These units should be deployed at the most difficult sectors of the front, thus giving their soldiers an opportunity to redeem their crimes against the Motherland by blood.

3. Corps and division commanders and commissars should:

a) In all circumstances remove from offices regiment and battalion commanders and commissars who allowed their troops to retreat at will without authorisation from divisional or corps command, deprive them of their military decorations and send them to the Military Councils of fronts for court-martial;

b) Provide all possible help and support to the guards (barrage) units (zagradotryads) of the army in their work of strengthening discipline and order in the units.

This order is to be read aloud in all companies, troops, batteries, squadrons, teams and staffs.

The People’s Commissar for Defence
JOSEPH STALIN

Egorka
01-24-2007, 04:34 AM
The order consist of two parts. The first is the motivation and the second is the actual order to action.
In the first part indeed very good explanation of the situation on the front and what was going on in the army i nsummer 1942. Very well formed concepts that is strait to the point and can be understood by the most Red army soldiers. Very little real propaganda statements (more or less not a single word about communism and such).

Second part is what actually was supposed to do. Again nothing really unhuman in the order it self (it in fact could not be to unfair because it was a public order). Of course very brutal. And for sure many (probably 2 -3 tousands, I guess) people were killed for no reason.

When trying to alalyse this ortder please remember that neither UK nor USA never (in the latest time) experienced enemy on their soil. You can not understand the intence of the strugle which led to these extreme measures.
The only alternative is peace!

Chevan
01-24-2007, 05:52 AM
When trying to alalyse this ortder please remember that neither UK nor USA never (in the latest time) experienced enemy on their soil. You can not understand the intence of the strugle which led to these extreme measures.
The only alternative is peace!

Right mate.
Moreover our UK/US friend even didn't know what's this the Gernan occupation and henocide of civilians.
The Gernan politic on the occuped territories of USSR was terribly unhuman. I have already wrote it was the common practice SS to kill 20-30-50 hostages for the every killed german soldiers by partisans. ( it was a special Germans order)
The West know a lot about Germans atrosities in French ( like Oranudor village) but a not much people know that there were a handreds simular villages were in Ukrain, Belorussian and Russia.

cheers.

Gen. Sandworm
01-24-2007, 08:42 AM
Here is the translation of the order 227 that is regardet to be the begining of the "pennal batalions". Please see my comment for this order below.


Well maybe its the translation but I see this could be read many different ways..........so maybe there was no mass execution of ppl that retreated but im sure there could have been shot fired at own troops in order to motivate. Maybe more extreme given some scenarios.

This is what the arguement is ............ was there "mass" execution of retreating soliders or not? I dont me 1000's I mean cases of 5-30 ppl at once or so. Not if ppl were shot for cowardice. All armies did that. Albeit some more than others.

Digger
01-24-2007, 09:05 AM
They certainly were desperate times and for such an order to be issued verifies the scale of defeats leading up to Stalingrad.

Yes I agree the Soviet army has been portrayed in a very poor light(particuarly during the Cold War), but I don't agree German atrocities on Soviet soil were totally scoffed at, because there was too much evidence of such atrocities. Yes some mainstream press did gloss over the facts, but there were sources pointing out the barbourous actions of the SS in particular.

Regards Digger:D

Frontovik
01-24-2007, 01:17 PM
From Beevor´s Stalingrad

Vasilevsky returned that evening with the draft of Order No. 227,
more commonly known as 'Not One Step Backwards'. Stalin made
many changes, then signed it. The order was to be read to all troops
in the Red Army. 'Panic-mongers and cowards must be destroyed on
the spot. The retreat mentality must be decisively eliminated. Army
commanders who have allowed the voluntary abandonment of positions
must be removed and sent for immediate trial by military
tribunal.' Anyone who surrendered was 'a traitor to the Motherland'.
Each army had to organize 'three to five well-armed detachments (up
to 200 men each)' to form a second line to shoot down any soldier
who tried to run away. Zhukov implemented this order on the Western
Front within ten days, using tanks manned by specially selected
officers. They followed the first wave of an attack, ready 'to combat
cowardice', by opening fire on any soldiers who wavered.

I dont belive that there where Commisars shooting russian soldiers, but i haven´t find any source that said the oposite, exept common sence of course.

Chevan
01-25-2007, 05:05 AM
.....This is what the arguement is ............ was there "mass" execution of retreating soliders or not? I dont me 1000's I mean cases of 5-30 ppl at once or so. Not if ppl were shot for cowardice. All armies did that. Albeit some more than others.
There is never be the reliable sources that proved the mass execution in penal units really was...
It can be explaned the conditions of war. You can't mass shoot your soldier ( even if they are offender of discipline) simply becouse you had not enough people. The some facts proves that after the catastrofic 1941 Rad Army already had shortage of soldiers.
If some NKVD officer could to order to shoot a group of penal soldiers - they personally took the risk to be the shooted by the war tribumal himself.
When it was necessary they shoot one most worst soldier as the example for other no to be like his. This is was the common practice in the penal battalions who was formed form former criminals ( i read about this) becouse those "material" was very hard for brinding up the discipline.

alephh
01-25-2007, 07:26 AM
Well, there seem to be strong difference how nations treated their soldiers. I have read a lot of interviews where soviet soldiers angrily describe the way the soviet high command and generals treated men as worthless objects.

Secret Order 227 by Stalin also pretty much declares everyone retreating to be judged and shot - and special units were formed for the shooting of own troops.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227

There are even stories that NKVD Special Departments carrying out the order 227 got into battles with front-line troops.

_

Egorka
01-25-2007, 08:59 AM
Alephh:

Did you read the whole thread?

I posted the order 227 is on the page 1. Take a look. And why do you call it secret, I wonder?

.

GermanSoldier
01-26-2007, 02:34 PM
I am Reading a book called World War2 Battles and Leaders. It said that the Russian Secret Police would hide behind the front lines. If there were any retreaters or deserters (same thing) They would shot them with their Russian Revolver.

alephh
01-27-2007, 06:06 AM
Alephh: Did you read the whole thread? I posted the order 227 is on the page 1. Take a look.

Yes I read it. Thank you for it. :-)

I still think I have right to summarize key points I can think of in my message (even if they are mentioned previously in the thread).

Also, I have noticed that long texts/quotations are not read by all.


And why do you call it secret, I wonder?

It's just sometimes called/referred that. Especially from the soldiers point of view - I suspect that not too many soldiers see it (in full). But yes, it was not "top secret" secret.



Something slightly related:


Penal battalions as frontline quasi-camps were closely controlled by the NKVD and provided disposable bodies for Soviet commanders. As Birgit Beumers notes, in Dostal'’s serial penal battalions “are dispatched to the frontline and deployed as cannon-fodder for the advancing German army so that the Soviets can better plan their tactics: the penal battalion has to cross a field full of mines in order to capture German positions, to attack a detachment of German tanks without sufficient ammunition, to form a bridgehead without any support to deter the enemy.”[2] While Russian writers―such as Viktor Nekrasov, Aleksandr Solzhenistyn, and Viktor Astaf'ev―discussed Stalinist brutality at the front lines, above all the notorious penal battalions and the ruthlessness of the NKVD, this topic still remains an issue to avoid or deny in the Russian nationalist press and the historiography affiliated with the Russian army. Official military historians emphasize the negligible role of penal battalions in the Soviet victory over the Nazis [3] and by doing so hide the important ingredients of Soviet victory—a total disregard for individual human life and prison camp regulations permeating the day to day operation of the Soviet Army, of which Order #227 remains one of the most notorious examples.
http://www.kinokultura.com/2006/13r-strafbat.shtml



_

Chevan
01-27-2007, 02:34 PM
I suspect that not too many soldiers see it (in full). But yes, it was not "top secret" secret.

alephh it was not something secret in text. The whole text was publishet in central soviet newspaper "Pravda", was readed on all et radio-station, and in the end - it was readed the political officers (comissars) to the ALL INFANTRY UNITS of Red Army.
Another hand is the ( it is what probably you mean) that the simple soldied don't need know the full text of order , usially it was enought just same statements - what's need to do and why they need to do this.


Something slightly related:
...Official military historians emphasize the negligible role of penal battalions in the Soviet victory over the Nazis...

Indeed.
just look to the text order

Form within each Front 1 to 3 (depending on the situation) penal battalions (800 personnel), where commanding, senior commanders and political officers of corresponding ranks from all services, who have broken discipline due to cowardice or instability, should be sent
i.e. the total quantity of penal soldiers was about 800-2500 mens in WHOLE FRONT( there were about 6 -8 fronts in Red Army) i.e. about 100 000 - 500 000 mens.
So i don't think that penal units had the essential role in front. It was rather for the psichologic ( or politic) purposes.
Certainly the penal units had the worst condotion for fight. They hadn't enough the artillery support ( BTW the common Red Army units not always had it too)

Cheers.

Egorka
01-27-2007, 03:35 PM
Alephh,

I guess only the most closely guarded orders end with the line "is to be read aloud in all companies, troops, batteries, squadrons, teams and staffs."

The order would make no effect if it was not delivered to all the soldiers. Abviously it was ment to affect soldiers sicologicaly, scare them if you will. So how can you scare someone if you do not tell them?

Egorka
01-27-2007, 04:11 PM
I just found info that this order was marked no as secret (abviously it could never be secret if it was read to all the units), but as "without publication" (bez publikacii). So it might had not been printed in the newpapers. I guess this might contributed to the secrecy hipe.

The guarding squads (those that was supposed to shoot at the friendly soldiers) were mainly used as kind of millitary police. And they did indeed arrested a lot of men, many of which were send to the penal units.

After the tide of the war was turned backwards these gurad squads were gradually loosing their meaning. In the August 1944, for example, the dheaf of the political and propaganda comeety of the 3-rd Baltic front General Lobachev reported that most of the guard units are used not as intended by the guard units code, i.e. from being bodyguards for the stab personel and watching the telephone lines to kitchen work. As conclusion he sugested to disband all the guard units.

On the 29 October 1944 Stalin signed order 0349 which says that taking in to account the current situation on the front line all the guard units should be disbanded from 13 November and used as reinforcements to othe active divisions.

The penal batallions remained until the end of the war.

arhob1
01-27-2007, 05:05 PM
Egorka - thanks for the text of the order - fascinating reading.

To me "retreating" is a legitimate military tactic when used in the right circumstances. It saves lives and equipment for another day when it could be more usefully deployed.

It seems very harsh to issue an order that any one retreating is to be shot. But then the Germasn resorted to this as an "incentive" to others in 1945 when they were desperate.

I don't believe the Brits would have ever resorted to this (other than the odd soldier shot for cowerdice) after all teh French, Dutch, Belgians and so on didn't despite been over run.

The war in teh East was desperate and resulted in desperate measures.

Egorka
01-27-2007, 05:55 PM
More info:

"From 1 August till 15 October 1942, the guard squads held 140.755 soldiers that run from the front line.
Out of this number, 3.980 were arrested,
executed - 1.189,
sent to the penal batallions - 2.776,
sent to penal squads - 185,
sent to their units or assembly places - 131.094."

Example:


"NKVD report, 17-Feb-1943.
On the 2nd of October 1942, during the attack of our forces, certain units of 138 rifle division, receiving heavy artilery and mortar enemy fire, wavered and run back through the defence lines of 1st batallion 706 SP, 204 SD, on the second defence line. The taken measures resumed the situation. 7 covards and paniceurs were shot in front of other solfiers, others returned to the front line."

0n the 16th of October 1942, during the enemies counter attack, a group of soldiers from 781 and 124 rifle division, accounting for 30 men, showes covardness and run in panic alluring other soldiers. The guard squad of the 21st army, present in the area, with use of weapons dissolved panic and restored present situation.

19 november 1942. During the attack of the 293 rifle division, in the time of german counter attack, 2 mortar squads together with the squad leaders, leitenant Bagatirev and Egorov, without order othe higher comand left the positionand run in panic leaving the weapons behind. The present squad of gurad machinegunners stopped them ,and executing the 2 paniceurs in front of the linereturned others to the previous positions, afther which the attack sucessufly resumed."


So, the guard squads did not just shoot all of the running people. Only some of them in certain circomstances.

Chevan
01-27-2007, 06:51 PM
very well Igor.
Thank's good info, i gust read about it but i can't to find the info in net.

alephh
01-28-2007, 07:40 AM
I guess only the most closely guarded orders end with the line "[I]is to be read aloud in all companies, troops, batteries, squadrons, teams and staffs."

I just find it a bit strange that someone wants to read/show some of those statements to troops. Like:

"The people of our country, who treat the Red Army with love and respect, are now starting to be disappointed with it"

"we have lost vast territories, that means that we have lost many people, bread, metals, factories, and plants."

"We lack order and discipline in companies, regiments and divisions, in tank units, in the Air Force squadrons."

"the Germans took some strict measures that led to pretty good results"

That should kill morale immediately


Someone may be interested:


“Not-so Friendly Fire:” The Soviet Union’s Treatment of its Soldiers During the
Great Patriotic War: a Failure in Leadership

Richard Goette

Department of History, Queen’s University
Canada

...

The capture of the war diaries of the Wehrmacht’s High Command by the Western Allies at the end of the Second World War has allowed historians to give an accurate picture of the barbarism of the German Army on the Eastern Front. The equivalent archives of Stavka and the NKVD, however, have until recently been kept hidden, making mockery of the words “No one is forgotten. Nothing is forgotten” that are carved on many war memorials throughout the former Soviet Union. Instead, who and what should be remembered was decided first by Stalin and, after his death, by the Communist Party. What resulted was that whatever did not enhance the official line that the Party (as opposed to the Soviet people) was responsible for victory in the Great Patriotic War was not printed. These political constraints have badly hurt the accuracy of Soviet information on the Great Patriotic War, notably the memoirs of former generals and marshals, and have “forced rewrites of key episodes or the complete omission of important information.” Soviet sources often provide text without context and utilize heavy amounts of statistics, but omit significant details.

...

Order No. 270 is very telling of the Soviet leadership. First of all, the Soviet leadership did not address it to the Army in the field, although that was its subject. Instead, the order was addressed to Party members and government officials and it was not published for Red Army consumption. Second, it blamed encirclements on either an “accident” or a deficiency on the part of soldiers and commanders, not on the initial German successes and Soviet unpreparedness. This would have implicated the Soviet leadership for responsibility for the military debacles, an idea that Stalin did not want to get out. Instead, soldiers who were surrounded were blamed for their own condition.

...

Amnon Sella argues that Order No. 227 was disastrous because of the contradiction between its implications for Stavka and for the regular army. For Stavka it authorized withdrawal and flexible defence as an operational instruction to avoid further disasters while for the ordinary Soviet soldier in the field it emphasized the “not a step backwards” aspect of the order as a political- administrative instruction to stop the decline in morale. The resulting effect of Order No. 227 was a huge drop in morale, exactly opposite of its intent, and this led to its cancellation, but not before thousands of Soviet soldiers had needlessly perished.

...

Indeed, 227 and 270 were so terrible and resulted in such high losses that the Soviet Union deliberately prevented their publication until 1989.

...

In fact, recently Soviet veterans have begun reassessing history and their views on the Soviet leadership during the war and some damning literature has been recently produced. For example, in the 9 May 1990 issue of Literaturnaya gazeta, marking the 45 anniversary of the Soviet victory, Vyacheslav Kondratyev produced an article entitled “The Paradox of Nostalgia for the War” in which he damned the Soviet leadership. In the following piece, Kondratyev sums up the attitude of the Soviet leadership: “In our country results of some kind are always more important than anything else, more than people. Russia has plenty of people, she has enough of them to waste.”

...

Another factor that led to Order No. 227’s cancellation was a realization, ridiculously belated, amongst the Soviet leadership that a soldier allowed to withdrawal to a more strategically sound and easily defended position with better supplies would “live to fight another day.”

...

Even partisan cells took Stalin’s order seriously. John and Carol Garrard explain that “the automatic execution of escaping Soviet soldiers by partisan units reached such a level that Soviet POWs actually volunteered to form military units to attack the partisans rather than risk being shot by their own
countrymen.”

...

For example, at Stalingrad hunger forced many Russian boys and girls to take German water bottles to the Volga River to fill them in return for a crust of bread. When Soviet authorities realized what was happening, they ordered Red Army soldiers to shoot the children.


http://www.rmc.ca/academic/conference/iuscanada/papers/goette_sovietpaper.pdf




_

alephh
01-28-2007, 10:01 AM
I do not know if those "walk thru minefield" orders qualify for "killing own soldiers".


The USSR also sacrificed countless Ukrainian lives in its "cannon fodder" military procedures. Soldiers were marched across minefields by foot to clear them by their deaths.
http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/page-20.html


I think the problem with this sort of "history" (shooting own men), is that it is way too sensitive subject, that most things are not put in the records and archives. All you get are unofficial statements by soldiers.

For example in Finland in 1918, there were shootings of own men after the civil war. These records were "lost"... until all the men involved in the issue were dead, and records surfaced to the public.

There are rumors that in Finland In 1944 several hundred men were shot (for retreating), but official records are, once again, totally clueless since key documents are "lost". Maybe those "lost" documents will surface later, when persons involved are long gone.

Point being: if the issue is too sensitive to the nation in question, researching things by official records is pointless.

I have personally seen/heard statements that soviet soldiers killed everything from 1000 soviet soldiers to 400,000 soviet soldiers -- it's all about which men/sources you choose to believe.


And then there's the problem of "stupid orders are stopped by good officers":

Some of Hitler's orders were stopped by officers, or they were delivered to men in altered form. For example Field Marshal von Manstein instructed the units under his command not to follow The Commissar Order by Hitler. And surely sensible soviet officer wouldn't like to decrease the morale of his soldiers by delivering Stalin's orders in full.

From soldiers point of view, many orders meant to be read to them, are sort of "secret".


Hitler's Commissar Order to his Generals

"The war against Russia cannot be fought in knightly fashion. The struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be waged with unprecedented, unmerciful, and unrelenting hardness. All officers will have to get rid of any old fashioned ideas they may have. I realize that the necessity for conducting such warfare is beyond the comprehension of you generals, but I must insist that my orders be followed without complaint. The commissars hold views directly opposite to those of National Socialism. Hence these commissars must be eliminated. Any German soldier who breaks international law will be pardoned. Russia did not take part in the Hague Convention and, therefore, has no rights under it."




_

Frontovik
01-28-2007, 12:09 PM
And wath do you think about beevors tanks at stalingrad?
The thing i quoted in a later post.

GermanSoldier
01-28-2007, 12:15 PM
I have never heard about them but let's stay on topic.

Egorka
01-28-2007, 01:24 PM
Chevan,

here is some info in russian: http://www.situation.ru/app/j_art_423.htm

Egorka
01-28-2007, 01:48 PM
Alephh:


I just find it a bit strange that someone wants to read/show some of those statements to troops. Like:

"The people of our country, who treat the Red Army with love and respect, are now starting to be disappointed with it"

"we have lost vast territories, that means that we have lost many people, bread, metals, factories, and plants."

"We lack order and discipline in companies, regiments and divisions, in tank units, in the Air Force squadrons."

"the Germans took some strict measures that led to pretty good results"

That should kill morale immediately

My friend, this just means, that you don't know how moral issues work out in a country like Russia.


Someone may be interested:
bla-bla-bla
Being grown up un Moscow and going to an ordinary school and being under influence of all nornmal everyday propaganda (in both good and bad sence of the word), I can tell you, that the Victory was not presented as Victory of Communist party, but Victory of People. Abviously with communist leadership and all that. But there was no monopoly of communist party on this subject at all!

By the way, I would not doubt, that many of the heroes were communist, as the hard communist were normally the most ideologicaly and therefore moraly most stable soldiers.

Most, though not all, of the quote you mention here can be summirised as: bla-bla-bla...

Egorka
01-28-2007, 01:57 PM
Alephh:

I heard my self about case of clearing mines with soldiers... I guess it might have happened. It something else... I just know that I would never ever would reffer to a site like www.infoukes.com in forum like this one. I think it is just comepletely unapropriate for an intenetional audience.

But I guess it is just a matter of personal taste.


Point being: if the issue is too sensitive to the nation in question, researching things by official records is pointless.
Wrong. Official record are usefull in any case. It is just the matter of making right conclusion and thinking things through, i.e. taking into account the situation and conditions present. That is why we are in this forum and not the forum of Britny Spears funs, I suppose.


I have personally seen/heard statements that soviet soldiers killed everything from 1000 soviet soldiers to 400,000 soviet soldiers -- it's all about which men/sources you choose to believe.
And I have heard that USSR suffered 50.000.000 casualties in WWII. So what does this prove?

Frontovik
01-28-2007, 06:21 PM
I have never heard about them but let's stay on topic.

I mean that beevor says that the detachments of NKVD used Tanks to prevent soldiers from retrating

Lancer44
01-28-2007, 11:50 PM
3. The Red Army soldier go to the attack whithout rifles and ammunitions - FULL SHIT.
If it was happaned the officer who responsable for supplies would be shooted immediatelly.

Cheers.

I agree with Chevan that "Enemy at the gates" is totally biased, untrue and partially idiotic movie.

Anyone interested how armies maintained discipline should look at, say, US Army in Italy between November 1943 and April 1944. How many desertions and "psychiatric" conditions they had?
If you don't know I will provide later.

In ETO from 6 June 1944 till 8 May 1945, total figure for desertions and psychiatric conditions in US Army reached 870,000.

Anyone may tell me what was US Army Provost doing?
Hey, I'm not saying that MPs were shooting retreating soldiers.
But they were catching them, then Court Martial followed.

Regarding soldiers attacking without weapons and ammo - very unlikely.
As Chevan said commanding officer would be court martialled and shot.
However in case of People's Militia which was hastily formed and underarmed, it is possible that teams of two operated. Second in a team had no rifle but hand grenades and bottles of petrol. He supported his team leader and in case of his death had to recover gun and continue fighting. He also could use captured German weapon.

Similar was approach of Home Army soldiers during Warsaw Uprising.
Anyway even there and on the Eastern Front scenes like from "Enemy at the gates" were impossible.
Regular army could attack with limited ammo supplies, being in encirclement, but not without ammo.

L44

Chevan
01-29-2007, 01:45 AM
Anyone may tell me what was US Army Provost doing?
Hey, I'm not saying that MPs were shooting retreating soldiers.
But they were catching them, then Court Martial followed.
Well i think it could be ineteresting mate. This wrote Irving in one of his work:
http://chayka.org.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=47822


The supreme commander-in-chief of the armies of western allies General d. Eisenhower conducted many hours with the chief judge of American forces in Europe by brigadier general 3. Betts, discussing the measures for the maintenance of discipline in the troops. Not of the abstract motives of humanity, but for the very terrestrial reason: under those conditions the disorderliness in the American army undermined its combat efficiency before face of Hitler Wehrmacht. Close one to Eisenhower K. Sammersbi wrote in the diary on 5 November, 1944,: "Betts reports about very poor discipline in the army. Come complaints from Frenchmen, Dutchmen and other in the numerous cases of rapes, murders and robberies... Eisenhower in detail discusses with the chief of staff By Bedellom (Smith) discipline in the troops. The matter is bad, they report about the countless disturbances. It is necessary to take decisive measures. Eisenhower proposes to hang publicly, the especially guilties of the rape ".
It is worthwhile to recall that 82-4 and 101-4 airborne divisions were considered as the best connections of the American armed forces. As soon as Eisenhower assumed it possible to publicly pull up soldiers of 82-1 and 101-1 divisions, then is possible easily to represent, how problem was burning. From the moment of debarkation in Normandy to the end of the war of 454 American soldiers of osuzhdeny for the murders and the rape, and 70 of them are executed. This is evidence of those horrors, which the population of the freed countries of West Europe with the arrival of the American army survived.....

They still killed prisoners. General Patton wrote down in the diary: "as before occur unpleasant incidents, prisoners they shoot (hoping that we will succeed themselves in hiding this)". Apparently, strict measures of secrecy in this respect were accepted, but, of course, far and not in everything military censors succeeded.
As accurately wrote F. Naytli about the last German offensive at the western front during December 1944 in the Ardennes: "story about the ardennes will remain incomplete, if we do not mention about panic and confusion, caused by German strong pressure, and as they was afraid of before it. It was necessary to remove American Major General, who never was in combat, from the command by division, and soon it died of the heart attack. Colonel, who commanded tank connection, since the beginning of the German offensive communicated the matters to his deputy, and for the last time it they saw being hurried into the rear in the complete confusion "after the ammunition". The attempts to raise combat spirit finished by failure ". About 19 thousand American soldiers their parts without the permission threw, were brought down into the bands, stealing fuel, driving away trucks and entire compositions on the way to front, hammering together states on the black market. "situation reminds Chicago in the times al--Kapone", said the chief of military police ". The unlimited power of the bands of gangsters in Chicago under the management al to kapone entered into the history OF THE USA by a chrestomathic example of lawlessness and corruption...

Certainly the scale of rapes was not the same in Red Army and in Allies territories, but the scale of robbery was the simular. But if REd Ammy robbered mostly refugers , then allies robbered the big fish.
In the Bivoors book "Berlin: Downfall" i readed the story of dissapeared the big and dear collection of works of art of Hoering.
This nazi very liked the to collect the art masterpieses form state which was occuped by Germany. When allies captured him , this collection just dissapeared. One British commander of spesial forces left it to itself.


However in case of People's Militia which was hastily formed and underarmed, it is possible that teams of two operated. Second in a team had no rifle but hand grenades and bottles of petrol. He supported his team leader and in case of his death had to recover gun and continue fighting. He also could use captured German weapon.

Yes mate this was so calle People Front voluntares (Narodnoe opolchenie) which was formed mostly from wokers and teenagers. This was for instance in Moscow and Leningrad.
I read one report of commander of cimular units" He complained that his woker battalion has 600 mens but only 120 rifles, 70 pistols and about 200 "molotov's Koctails".
This units served mostly in AA-defence ( put out the firebombs and to clear the streets).

Cheers.

Sneaksie
01-29-2007, 02:45 AM
As it has been said already, forget Enemy at the gates altogether first.
Second, the famous order 'do not retreat' did not mean that somebody should shoot at the backs of own attacking infantry. 'Zagradotryady' (shielding detachments) were dispatched at several km behind frontline in crucial front areas to check documents of everyone moving from the frontline to make the deserting of individual soldiers impossible and as additional security measure. They were meant to stop retreating regiments too, of course, but a squad or platoon sized force can hardly stop a batallion which is determined to get through (of course such things were unthinkable). Main task of these detachments was, as i said, to prevent individuals or small groups deserting (involving court-martial later, of course) and calming down by any means possible the larger retreating in panic groups, if need arises.

As about shooting panicking or defecting soldiers, it was done i suppose like in other armies. Once i read in memoirs of one soldier, that once during heavy artillery barrage, one soldier panicked, probably gone nuts. He dropped his weapon and begun running to enemy positions with hands up. Nearby officer shouted at the author "Shoot him!", but he did nothing, being confused. Then officer ran to the author, snatched out AT rifle from his hands, took aim and shoot at the running soldier, hitting him in the back of his head.

Gen. Sandworm
01-29-2007, 04:02 AM
As it has been said already, forget Enemy at the gates altogether first.


Well while I find the movie interesting it is far from history. However I can see why alot of people by it coz in the west it always appear that Soviet problems at home where dealt with by the gun. I think Stalin might have provoked this idea and others played off of it.

Chevan
01-29-2007, 04:05 AM
Chevan,

here is some info in russian: http://www.situation.ru/app/j_art_423.htm

Thanks for the link mate , very detailed and interesting
Here is one part of this for our friends.


During the defense of Stalingrad barrage forces played important role in a matter of the guidance of order in the parts and warnings of the disorganized withdrawal from the occupied boundaries, the return of the significant number of soldiers to the foremost front line.
Thus, on 29 August, 1942, the staff of 29-1 rifle division 64-1 of army of Stalingrad Front was surrounded by the burst open tanks of enemy, part of the division, after losing control, in panic they moved away into the rear Zagradotryad ( barrage unit) under the command of the Lieutenant of the state security Of Filatov, after taking decisive measures, it stopped the soldiers outgoing in the disorder it returned them to the previously occupied boundaries of defense. In other section of this division the enemy attempted to burst open into the depths of the defense. Zagradotryad joined the battle and detained the advance of enemy.
On 14 September enemy undertook offensive against the parts of 399-1 rifle division 62-1 of army. Soldiers and commanders 396- GO and 472- GO of rifle it is regimental they began in panic to move away. The chief of Zagradotryad the Junior Lieutenant of the state security Of Elman ordered his force to open the fire above the heads of those stepping back. As a result the personnel of these was regimental stopped and after two hours of shelf they engaged the previous boundaries of defense.
On 20 September Germans engaged the East outskirts Of Melekhovskay. Summary brigade under the strong pressure of enemy began arbitrary withdrawal. The actions of zagradotryad 47 army of Black Sea group of forces in the brigade induced order. Brigade engaged previous boundaries and it was drop on the initiative of the political instructor of the company of the same zagradotryad, by combined actions with the brigade enemy was rejected from The the Melekhovskay. In the critical moments barrage forces joined directly the battle with the enemy, they successfully held in control his strong pressure and they brought losses on it.
Thus, on 13 September 112-4 rifle division under the pressure of enemy went away from the occupied boundary. Zagradotryad of 62 army under the management of the chief of the force of the Lieutenant of the state security Of Khlystov took up defense on the approaches to the important height. During four days the soldiers and the commanders of force reflected the attacks of the sub-machine gunners of enemy, after applying to them large losses. Zagradotryad retained boundary up to the approach of military parts. 15-16 September zagradotryad of 62 army during two days successfully conducted battle with the superior forces of enemy in the region of Stalingrad railroad station. In spite of its small number, zagradotryad not only repelled the attacks of Germans, but also counterattacked, after applying to enemy significant losses in the kinetic energy. Its boundary force left only if for the change the parts of the 10th rifle division approached.


Cheers.

Lancer44
01-29-2007, 06:05 AM
Yes mate this was so called People Front volunteers (Narodnoe opolchenie) which was formed mostly from workers and teenagers. This was for instance in Moscow and Leningrad.
I read one report of commander of similar unit. He complained that his worker battalion had 600 men but only 120 rifles, 70 pistols and about 200 "molotov's Koctails".
This units served mostly in AA-defence ( put out the firebombs and to clear the streets).

Cheers.

Hi Chevan,

(I corrected a bit this fragment of your post, hope you don't mind..)

Yes, yes, Narodnoye Opolcheniye! I read it but long time ago.

In Poland in 1939 it was called National Defence, (Obrona Narodowa - Narodnaja Oborona).
Some units were fully armed, some had a few old French and Austrian rifles, some had almost nothing - near Gdynia they armed themselves with scythes like in 18-th century.

Not long ago I read memoirs of one Polish soldier which joined Red Army in June 1941. He complained that they gave him rifle with 10 bullets, one handgrenade and such armed battalion of men sent to counterattack German advance. (I don't blame him... events from his point of view were not funny.)

Such situations were common in Poland in 1939 - the reason - simple - not enough ammunition for old Berthiers, Lebels and Mannlichers.
I think that similar situation was in soviet Russia. Military surplus stores had certain amount of rifles from WWI.
Some desperate commanders made decisions which really costed a lot of lives. But they way of thinking was: "Boys, you have ten bullets each, if everyone of you will kill just 1 German, we will kill 900 of them."
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that...

Anyway, I can dig some photos of British Home Guard armed with hunting rifles, forks and putting spikes into the ground against German paratroopers.

I wonder why filmmakers see only soviet NKVD shooting with Maxim machine guns their own soldiers and Polish Lancers trying to cut the barrels of Pz-III
with sabres...

Both mentioned events are total b....it.

L-44

Chevan
01-29-2007, 06:52 AM
Hi Chevan,

(I corrected a bit this fragment of your post, hope you don't mind..)

Oh no problems mate

Yes, yes, Narodnoye Opolcheniye! I read it but long time ago.

In Poland in 1939 it was called National Defence, (Obrona Narodowa - Narodnaja Oborona).
Some units were fully armed, some had a few old French and Austrian rifles, some had almost nothing - near Gdynia they armed themselves with scythes like in 18-th century.

Not long ago I read memoirs of one Polish soldier which joined Red Army in June 1941. He complained that they gave him rifle with 10 bullets, one handgrenade and such armed battalion of men sent to counterattack German advance. (I don't blame him... events from his point of view were not funny.)

Yea i think this is true the shortage of amunition and rifles in early stages of war in 1941-42 could be explained of a catactrophical defeats in first period.
It's unbelivable, but after the summer of 1941 Red Army lost practically all aviation ( about 20 000 aircraft) and almost all tanks park. This is one of the amazing thing IMHO how could Red Army be able to continie the fight after this.
Just the the soldier go to the attack having 10 bullets per rifle.


Such situations were common in Poland in 1939 - the reason - simple - not enough ammunition for old Berthiers, Lebels and Mannlichers.
I think that similar situation was in soviet Russia. Military surplus stores had certain amount of rifles from WWI.
Some desperate commanders made decisions which really costed a lot of lives. But they way of thinking was: "Boys, you have ten bullets each, if everyone of you will kill just 1 German, we will kill 900 of them."
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that...

Yes i heared this stupid point. The simular way of thinking could lead us to the justification of kamikaze attacks.


Anyway, I can dig some photos of British Home Guard armed with hunting rifles, forks and putting spikes into the ground against German paratroopers.

Well well if you please sir i would watch to the British Home Guard with forks.;)


I wonder why filmmakers see only soviet NKVD shooting with Maxim machine guns their own soldiers and Polish Lancers trying to cut the barrels of Pz-III
with sabres...

Both mentioned events are total b....it.
Just becouse the old film like "4 tankers &dog" is today is "politically immoral". The whole old direction of patriotic films was broked , but but they suggested nothing instead.
The last generation of directors in Russia is just the mediocre or feebleness today.

Cheers.

GermanSoldier
03-13-2007, 06:06 AM
I mean that beevor says that the detachments of NKVD used Tanks to prevent soldiers from retrating

Oh, I see what you mean now. Could someone post a image of a beevor so I could see what it looks like? It would be very helpful!

15.JG.52_Vukodlak
03-19-2007, 02:35 PM
Right mate.
Moreover our UK/US friend even didn't know what's this the Gernan occupation and henocide of civilians.
The Gernan politic on the occuped territories of USSR was terribly unhuman. I have already wrote it was the common practice SS to kill 20-30-50 hostages for the every killed german soldiers by partisans. ( it was a special Germans order)
The West know a lot about Germans atrosities in French ( like Oranudor village) but a not much people know that there were a handreds simular villages were in Ukrain, Belorussian and Russia.

cheers.

Actually the executions of up to 100 to one ratio was the standard reprisal allowance for an occupying army as per the Geneva Convention...it was ment as a deterrent for civilians to take up arms against occupying forces of any kind for the safety of both the civilian populace and the Occupying armies.

Not that I support this Idea as some German bastards actually went to the full houndread to one ratio inside Croatia.

Egorka
03-19-2007, 05:36 PM
Actually the executions of up to 100 to one ratio was the standard reprisal allowance for an occupying army as per the Geneva Convention...it was ment as a deterrent for civilians to take up arms against occupying forces of any kind for the safety of both the civilian populace and the Occupying armies.

Really? I did not know. Do you have more info about it?
Thanks.

Vassili Chukolov
05-03-2007, 02:10 PM
I think it really made the Russians really fight for there Motherland. What else are you going to do? I heard that any Russian found later as a POW would be executed for being a traitor. Surrendering wasn't even allowed to the Germans ( atleast what I heard ) and running awya would only get you executed as well.

Egorka
05-05-2007, 05:26 PM
I think it really made the Russians really fight for there Motherland. What else are you going to do? I heard that any Russian found later as a POW would be executed for being a traitor. Surrendering wasn't even allowed to the Germans ( atleast what I heard ) and running awya would only get you executed as well.

Sesarch this forum. There is discussion about how many POW went to GULAG and why.

shoogs
05-06-2007, 01:44 PM
the russains used the people who retreated or cowards and crims to go forth through mine feilds, fortified sectors and such like, if these people came back instead of going forward then they shot them, cowards were shot in all side of the war.

227
07-20-2007, 01:25 PM
It was Great Patriotic War, guys, don't forget! To say more simple, it was a war for survival. Russians may have lost their country. For example, the stakes at Stalingrad direction were too high to retreat even farther. Shooting the retreaters sometimes was the only possibility to stop the offensive and the upcoming catastrophe. It was very cruel to shoot own soldiers (as seen from individual's perspective) but there was no other way out (now imagine the whole picture of those tragic events). Any self-respecting country would use such methods if they want to stay independent and alive.

sniper18
07-22-2007, 07:47 PM
Do you think the Soviet Union had a good idea of shooting the retreaters. What kind of losses did they have with this technique.


If this is true I would have shot the retreaters too because the won't be helping by fighting so that would be a loss by its self.

Right?

bwing55543
07-22-2007, 07:52 PM
The reason retreaters were shot was to scare the other grunts to stay in the battle. From what I know, the Soviet soldiers were actually more afraid of their superior officers than of the Germans.

sniper18
07-22-2007, 07:58 PM
The reason retreaters were shot was to scare the other grunts to stay in the battle. From what I know, the Soviet soldiers were actually more afraid of their superior officers than of the Germans.


Thats dum its like fighting for no other purpose than out of fear for there superior officers.

Egorka
07-23-2007, 02:47 AM
It is not the "retreaters" that were shot, but panic-monger. It is not the same.
Though I am sure a number of innosent men was killed this way. But war is a bloody mess!

Mosquito
07-23-2007, 06:43 AM
It is not the "retreaters" that were shot, but panic-monger. It is not the same.
Though I am sure a number of innosent men was killed this way. But war is a bloody mess!


Form 3 to 5 well-armed guards (barrage) units (zagradotryads), deploy them in the rear of unstable divisions and oblige them to execute panic-mongers and cowards at site in case of panic and chaotic retreat, thus giving faithful soldiers a chance to do their duty before the Motherland;

Retreaters were shot, that is one of the main points of Order No. 227.

Egorka
07-23-2007, 07:11 AM
Retreaters were shot, that is one of the main points of Order No. 227.

Do you mean like 99% of retreaters were shot? By whoom? By the "guards (barrage) units (zagradotryads)"?

What do you make of this? http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=93171&postcount=26

bt3au
08-23-2007, 06:07 PM
Part of the problem there Wolf, is that until recently most of our information on the Red Army came from German sources, since the Russian archives were closed to the West (the whole Cold War thing).

Also because of the Cold War there was a certain amount of Western propoganda against the Soviets (terriable soldiers can only win through mass numbers and have poor moral to the point that they were shot in the back if they retreated.... etc).

Did the Red army shoot cowards, you bet they did, so did every other army, after all disciplin needs to be maintained. Were some officers more ruthless than others? Possibly. But it didn't happen on the scale as was shown in Enemy at the Gates.

Remember the Germans didn't need to employ such tactics, neither did the Americans, Italians, English or any other army so why should the Russians need to? If anything they would be more motivated since they were fighting for their raw survival!
Hi just cruising through the threads and came across this one I suggest you look at the link below, soviet blocking forces were indeed used and the order was signed by Stalin himself, at the time the soviet army was in a bad way and massive amounts of material and soldiers had been lost to the Germans and this was the way to stop the disintegration of the soviet army.
Harsh? yep sure was, but when your nations survival was at stake the individual doesnt count for much

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/blockdet.htm

the first paragraph
How Were Soviet Blocking Detachments Employed?
by A.A. Maslov
Translated by COL David M. Glantz
Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS.
(Editor's introduction: One of the more infamous institutions which the Red Army developed and employed during the Great Patriotic War was "blocking detachments." These forces were formed to prevent soldiers from leaving the battlefield, individually or en masse. Although little has been written about them in Soviet military-historical literature, German archival records mention their use extensively as one of the more draconian measures used by Soviet commands to prevent unauthorized withdrawals, desertion, or panic among military formations. This article, which describes one incident related to the overall concept of the blocking detachment, is one of the first to describe the origins and nature of the institution using Red Army archival sources.)

Chevan
08-24-2007, 12:32 AM
Hi just cruising through the threads and came across this one I suggest you look at the link below, soviet blocking forces were indeed used and the order was signed by Stalin himself, at the time the soviet army was in a bad way and massive amounts of material and soldiers had been lost to the Germans and this was the way to stop the disintegration of the soviet army.
Harsh? yep sure was, but when your nations survival was at stake the individual doesnt count for much

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/blockdet.htm

the first paragraph
How Were Soviet Blocking Detachments Employed?
by A.A. Maslov
Translated by COL David M. Glantz
Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS.
(Editor's introduction: One of the more infamous institutions which the Red Army developed and employed during the Great Patriotic War was "blocking detachments." These forces were formed to prevent soldiers from leaving the battlefield, individually or en masse. Although little has been written about them in Soviet military-historical literature, German archival records mention their use extensively as one of the more draconian measures used by Soviet commands to prevent unauthorized withdrawals, desertion, or panic among military formations. This article, which describes one incident related to the overall concept of the blocking detachment, is one of the first to describe the origins and nature of the institution using Red Army archival sources.)

Thanks bt3au good analysis.

Here is the scale of total personnel losses in the regiments of Akimenko's division for the period from 20 through 24 September, inclusive, according to a document prepared by the division headquarters: the 395th Guards Rifle Regiment -- 150 men killed or drowned in the river and swamps, 50 missing in action, 405 wounded, and around 850 surrendered as prisoners of war; and the 535th Guards Rifle Regiment -- 250 men killed, drowned, or missing in action, 78 wounded, and 100 captured with their weapons as prisoners of war
Actually the first and main reason ot the employing of the blocking detachment units was the resault of extremaly low moral and training level of the soviet troops.
This was not wondering if the young soldiers were sending to the batle.

B5N2KATE
07-29-2008, 01:24 AM
I must protest!

MANY sources mention Soviet attacks thus...

"Arm in arm and very drunk, these men would run forward, shouting at the top of their lungs. The first two ranks were the only ones to be armed, with the back eight ranks instructed to pick up weapons of the fallen. Mannerhiem mentions that these unquestionably brave troops would run over minefields or lay on barbed wire to provide a "human bridge"......(Purnells History of the Second World War)

"The whole attack was conducted in such a disgusting fashion. It seemed to us that Russian officers had calculated the number of machine guns multiplied by their rate of fire, and provided more than enough men to run across open terrain until our barrels were hot or we were out of ammunition, and added a number of men on that were to actually survive and complete their mission. No attempt made to recover wounded men, and the possibility of being captured by these people was frightfull to behold."...Lt.Wilhelm Hoffman at Stalingrad.

50,000,000 casualties for the Soviets alone.....BUTCHERS that make the SS look like holiday excursionists in the realm of state sponsored terror.

"Russian officers justified this "method" by stating that German morale was most affected, and when the best way to defeat an enemy is to attack his morale, their method was, by their own definition, a success.".....John Hill from "The Evolution of Infantry Tactics"...Vol 14 No.5 "The General")

Egorka
07-29-2008, 03:26 AM
I must protest!
What exactly are you protesting against?
Or you just protest in general, just to be on the safe side?


50,000,000 casualties for the Soviets alone.....
Are you sure it is not an underestimation? Was not it like 100.000.000 for the Soviets?
I mean, please, add as meny zeros as you pleased, be my guest.

Chevan
07-29-2008, 12:04 PM
I must protest!

You must be shoted down once, JapaneBomber, i guess by the Corsar or Mustang:)


MANY sources mention Soviet attacks thus...

"Arm in arm and very drunk, these men would run forward, shouting at the top of their lungs. The first two ranks were the only ones to be armed, with the back eight ranks instructed to pick up weapons of the fallen. Mannerhiem mentions that these unquestionably brave troops would run over minefields or lay on barbed wire to provide a "human bridge"......(Purnells History of the Second World War)

"Mention" what?
The human wave attack during the winter war i guess?
What to hell has it to "Shoting our men" theme?


"The whole attack was conducted in such a disgusting fashion. It seemed to us that Russian officers had calculated the number of machine guns multiplied by their rate of fire, and provided more than enough men to run across open terrain until our barrels were hot or we were out of ammunition, and added a number of men on that were to actually survive and complete their mission. No attempt made to recover wounded men, and the possibility of being captured by these people was frightfull to behold."...Lt.Wilhelm Hoffman at Stalingrad.

Now say to us, that in Omaha Beach the yankees did not provided the GErmans mashingunners with more then enough their soldiers:)
"Russian officers"- i told you a rusophobian. True rusophobian..


50,000,000 casualties for the Soviets alone.....BUTCHERS that make the SS look like holiday excursionists in the realm of state sponsored terror.

Indeed 11 millions of perished soviet soldiers, during the 1941-45, pluss about 16 mln civils genocided by inviders like your "lovely SS" during holiday excursionists.
But you continie to "use a reliable sources".We like a funs here.


"Russian officers justified this "method" by stating that German morale was most affected, and when the best way to defeat an enemy is to attack his morale, their method was, by their own definition, a success.".....John Hill from "The Evolution of Infantry Tactics"...Vol 14 No.5 "The General")

What methods are meant now?
You mix a three quotes from different books , and try to prove the some point?
What are you trying to pove for me?Tha all the "russian officers' just a butchers who send their mans to die for NOTHING?Just becouse they ( officers) were so stoopid and evil?
Is this your pitiful point?
You know sometimes i feel very sorry the Japane has not captured the Australia.
Not becouse i wish a bad for my australian friends , but becouse you should understand something very importaint.
When you country is under mortal threat ( literally) and their future existence depend on the YOUR ability to stop the enemy now , when the millions of the peoples die in attempt to defend you right for living- i would like to watch how you will kiss an *** YOUR traitors and cowards , who don't wish to stand at the positions simply becouse they don't wish.

B5N2KATE
07-29-2008, 02:00 PM
Red Army tactics were similar for the entire war. Even the push from the Oder cost 300,000 people. Human waves were not just a feature of the Winter War...

50,000,000 is the figure quoted by "Military History Quarterly", a sterling publication that makes no attempt to fudge figures. Many of these people died of STARVATION, as the Russian industrial machine turned out only certain products in quantity, at the expense of FOOD.

You guys seek to justify such a butchers bill ....there is no justification for a poorly mismanaged military force, one that was much stronger in many ways than the German Army.

Most SOVIET generals would have been pensioned off years before....too many political apointees and not enough practiced professionals...

Victory is not an excuse....patriotic fellows that you are, there is not much justifying the record of the Red Army in WW2,....responsability must lie with the guys at the top, not the ordinary "Ivan" that had to put up with this nonsense...

Thank providence the Russian mil;itary is a good deal more of a professional force these days, with world famous units, special forces etc...

"Ivan" won that conflict through sheer gutsy performance........the "leadership" were responsible to no-one, and failed time after time in 1941....even Stalin thought the entire thing had been "f@#Ked up", to use a phrase from the man of steel himself.

Russians should be justly proud of the common soldier, and correspondingly damning of their leadership.

Brings to mind an old saying about the British Army....it applys equally to the Red Army of 1940-1945....

"LIONS lead by IDIOTS"

Chevan
07-30-2008, 01:16 AM
Red Army tactics were similar for the entire war. Even the push from the Oder cost 300,000 people. Human waves were not just a feature of the Winter War...

Wrong.
The tactic of Red Army was improving and developing all the war.
The desperate tactic of 1941 was determined by the shortage of everything, but MOSTLY the real lack of commander's experience.
Facing the strongest army of the world, they tryed to do what they can. Very bad , but they tryed.
The tactic of 1943-45 was seriously differ from the previous battle.
The strong Mechanized Armor steamroller with intensive Artillery support.
of course you are wrong about Human wave attack- this was one of the Basic method , that if applied right, get the amazing great resault.
But this methods work ONLY in close interaction with Artillery support and Aviation.Like it stat to work enough perfectly since the 1944.
BTW the push from the Oder , is the Battle of Berlin i guess?
Relax buddy , the total death of the Red Army was about 81 000 from about 2,5 mln of troops imvolved.
Soviet had a total 3,5x1 advantage in strength
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin
Just 3,2% of dead mortality.
For the comparition US lost about 12,5 from 500 000 in Okinawa, i.e. 2,5 %
Having almost 5x1 advantage.
SO as you see the mortality rate was a very close in both armies when the Battles were really hot.
You suggestion about 300 000 of lost is nothing more than simple "brain speculation" that indeed proves nothing.
May be you don't know but even during the Agust storm ( the liqudation of Kwantung Army for few weeks) the soviet also used the Human wave attack agains suicidal mashin-gunners.But those mashine-gunners had not a much chances coz Soviet artillery fu..d them off before they could make the sensitive casualties ;)


50,000,000 is the figure quoted by "Military History Quarterly", a sterling publication that makes no attempt to fudge figures. Many of these people died of STARVATION, as the Russian industrial machine turned out only certain products in quantity, at the expense of FOOD.

The 50 mln is probably the total Demographic decrease of Soviet population during the 1941-45 , that include the people , that could be born if 26 mln killed , can survive.


You guys seek to justify such a butchers bill ....there is no justification for a poorly mismanaged military force, one that was much stronger in many ways than the German Army.

You man seek the way to slander our brave ancestors.
So you have no any chance, honeslty.


Most SOVIET generals would have been pensioned off years before....too many political apointees and not enough practiced professionals...

Most of soviet generals would have been purged out of army ( as it really happened in 1937-38) But new generation of professional officers that has come on their places had no any chance to get such brillians experience lake Germans got in 1939-41.
The SOviet were prepeared well in materials, wearponry and ets in 1941.
But they still have a lack of serious practice work, thay probably can beat the any army ( even the Japanes in 1938) but they faced the MOST strong Army of the World in 1941.



Russians should be justly proud of the common soldier, and correspondingly damning of their leadership.

Brings to mind an old saying about the British Army....it applys equally to the Red Army of 1940-1945....

"LIONS lead by IDIOTS"
This is foolish point that indeed has any sense in practice.
Just do not tell that YOU CAN win without your Generals.
Each army is as much good as their generals.The even most brave soldiers can not stooped the enemy without correspond professional leadership.
And lack of Soviet High comman in 1941 has clearly demonstrated it.
there were the all sorts of Hight officers in Red Army - from the stoopid to the very professional ones( as in any other army of world).
And people actualy loved some of them- for instance Chyikov ( commander of 62 army that saved Stalingrad) , Chernijahovskiy, Rokossovskij and many others.
True the were a certain generals lik a a Zukov who was too harsh and direct. But in fact, the peoples oppinion didn't consider him as a "butcher". Many former soviet soldier in their memours remember their BEST commander with a good words.
This is not my oppinion but our veterans.
Many of soviet generals have been responsible for catastrophe of 1941, many have bee executed by the military tribunal.
But true is that the many of them lead by the Army in 1944-45 with great professionalism and success.
So your foolish rusophobia is just a paranoia.
Drop the shit at other people, your for instance, not at my

Egorka
07-30-2008, 04:54 AM
Gentlemen!

Do you know this site: http://www.iremember.ru/
There are tons of RKKA soldiers accounts in both English and Russian.
Take a look. You can also have some vivid illustrations regarding the infantry tactics.

Nickdfresh
07-30-2008, 06:44 AM
Wrong.
...
May be you don't know but even during the Agust storm ( the liqudation of Kwantung Army for few weeks) the soviet also used the Human wave attack agains suicidal mashin-gunners.But those mashine-gunners had not a much chances coz Soviet artillery fu..d them off before they could make the sensitive casualties ;)

...


The Japanese medium machine-gun, the Type 92, had an awkward feed mechanism of ammo strips and only fired like 400 rounds a minute (probably less in actual battle). A big difference from the MG-42 in terms of conducting "human wave attacks."

Chevan
07-30-2008, 07:31 AM
The Japanese medium machine-gun, the Type 92, had an awkward feed mechanism of ammo strips and only fired like 400 rounds a minute (probably less in actual battle). A big difference from the MG-42 in terms of conducting "human wave attacks."

Type 92 was medium tank as i remember.
400 is not 40 , right. This is 6-7 bullet per second - more then enough to kill 2-3 soldiers for such sort time.
Besides professional mashin-gunner have to take aim precisely and shot by short burts.
Not believe me- ask Rising Sun. He was excellent mashin-gunner as i know.
Plus 400 rounds a minute not bad i think, the economy of ammo is obvious;)For japs it was a critical.
And finaly - nodoby refuse the artillery-in their fortified dots japs have a plenty howitzers that could spoil many blood for soviet infantry.

Kato
07-30-2008, 09:43 AM
True the were a certain generals lik a a Zukov who was too harsh and direct. But in fact, the peoples oppinion didn't consider him as a "butcher". Many former soviet soldier in their memours remember their BEST commander with a good words.

You know well that any war memoirs of former Soviet soldiers criticising Zhukov or Soviet regime were never allowed to be published in the USSR. Any sober-minded veteran did not even try to publish them as it would have just turned him into a person of interest for appropriate state organs.

Chevan
07-30-2008, 11:28 AM
You know well that any war memoirs of former Soviet soldiers criticising Zhukov or Soviet regime were never allowed to be published in the USSR. Any sober-minded veteran did not even try to publish them as it would have just turned him into a person of interest for appropriate state organs.
During the Khrushev the moderate critical point of Stalin's generals were allowed.
Don't forget in the mid1960 even critic of soviet stalins system and his way of ruling were not forbidden ( even welcomed) for the such legally published authors like Solzenitsin.
Regarding the critic of Zhukov- this was a famous matter of his jealous "competitors" Konev almost openly and publically attacked Zhukov in hight military environment.Initially it was just among close circles of peoples.
But soon , since the 1960 the critical analisys of Zhukov was becoming a tupical among all pro-liberal historians in USSR ( in certain limits of course)
What to recollections - nobody need to read a recollections of soviet Era- today we have enough memours , free of political background.
Egorka provides an excellent source of bright recollection of veterans.
So you might learn from "first hands" the relation of soviet soldiers to the their commander.
there are a lot of pretty different views.
But one true is for sure - today the former Soviets soldiers never tell their commander were a "bloody butchers" as try to impose us here one biased japane wearponry admirer:)

B5N2KATE
08-02-2008, 05:38 AM
hISTORICAL ACCURACY IS NOT ABOUT PATRIOTISM OR REPECT OF ANCESTORS...

It's about telling the truth...

You guys, caught up in a modern Russia with no sense of itself on the world stage, you guys look back on the Socialist period with rose tinted glasses.

Socialism was only Russian imperialism by another name, anyhow...

imi
08-02-2008, 08:08 AM
Kill your brother isn't a good idea.Lot of russian soldier was drunk in the front,they principals get some alcohol for the soldiers.The NKVD;GPU;VCSK organizations hunt for these poor man's.That's a shame.The germans become aware one of the pow's is a kommissar,they shoot down immediate usually

Chevan
08-02-2008, 02:26 PM
hISTORICAL ACCURACY IS NOT ABOUT PATRIOTISM OR REPECT OF ANCESTORS...

Sorry, your point ( all the soviet officers are just "butchers") doesn't even pretend to elementary sense, not just to historical accuracy.
It was denied by the many russian veterans who fought in ww2.
You , it has been proved, specially ignore the truly historical events , like the rise of professionalism of "soviet butchers" in the 1944-45 who was able to reach a Great military resaults with very limited casualtied for their soldiers, compared with Allies casualties.


It's about telling the truth...

You guys, caught up in a modern Russia with no sense of itself on the world stage, you guys look back on the Socialist period with rose tinted glasses.

You man better look for yourself and around to get the "advises".
As i guessed - you know noting about the War in East at all.
And i don't see the reason to falsify the facts, even if it was happend during "Socialism" period.


Socialism was only Russian imperialism by another name, anyhow...

Now you openly take the rushophobian point, very well:mrgreen:
What was sense to hide your frank thoughts from most beginning?
You are furious not a socialism but "russian imperialism" .
You propbably think that British colonial imrerialism was better then Soviets one, just because it was a British.
But this is whole other theme.
I just want to say - that your crazy pushophobia get the quite direct effect on us.
Although the critic of Red Army is welcomed ( this help to learn true) but you have to understand , that your point is just like to critic the Israel and Jews from position of Nazis race-superiority ideas - everything they do is disgusting and wrong.
This approach has no any sense.Even being applied to Russia.

flamethrowerguy
08-02-2008, 04:22 PM
I'd like to quote an interesting excerpt from a book I am reading right now (Pomerania 1945 by Helmut Lindenblatt). It deals -beyond of the blocking force issue- with the treatment of liberated russian POW's by the liberators:
"...on January 29th 1945 at about 5:00 a.m. russian tanks entered the village of Schönrade (Pomerania, eastern Germany). On an estate they surprised a transport of 600 russian POW's guarded by two german officers and 14 soldiers. Within a few minutes the germans were led to the farmyard and shot. Little later however 17 russian POW's were picked either and also shot for unknown reasons. It was speculated that they had been denounced by their comrades for collaboration with the germans or otherwise just to make an example of how to treat soldiers of the Red Army to let themselves get captured by the enemy without fighting till death."

Egorka
08-02-2008, 04:43 PM
I'd like to quote an interesting excerpt from a book I am reading right now (Pomerania 1945 by Helmut Lindenblatt). It deals -beyond of the blocking force issue- with the treatment of liberated russian POW's by the liberators:
"...on January 29th 1945 at about 5:00 a.m. russian tanks entered the village of Schönrade (Pomerania, eastern Germany). On an estate they surprised a transport of 600 russian POW's guarded by two german officers and 14 soldiers. Within a few minutes the germans were led to the farmyard and shot. Little later however 17 russian POW's were picked either and also shot for unknown reasons. It was speculated that they had been denounced by their comrades for collaboration with the germans or otherwise just to make an example of how to treat soldiers of the Red Army to let themselves get captured by the enemy without fighting till death."
Do not you think that it is piculiar that 17 out of 600 Soviet POW were shot? I mean it is strange number to pick up for a terror action, do not you think?
If it was random exectution for the reasons of "make an example of how to treat soldiers of the Red Army to let themselves get captured by the enemy without fighting till death", then it would be a round number, like 20, 30, 50...

In my mind the most likely explanation is the one mentioned by you: "It was speculated that they had been denounced by their comrades for collaboration with the germans".

Which does not eliminate possibility that some or even all of those 17 people were innosent. I mean some one could have accused other people out personal antipathy.
The same goes for the executed German soldiers - some or all of them could had been treating those POW as good as was possible in the circumstances... But during offensive enemy tends to priotorise offensive over the life of captured enemies...

flamethrowerguy
08-02-2008, 10:26 PM
... But during offensive enemy tends to priotorise offensive over the life of captured enemies...

Well, if it was possible you should tell this one to the prosecutors of the Malmedy trial, not sure they would totally agree. But,ok, we're talking eastern front here, meaning "different measures".
Anyway, I was just quoting the book and didn't utter my own opinion on the incident, it seems most likely to me that "personal accounts have been settled", this would explain the strange number of 17. It's incontestable though that soviet soldiers liberated from german war captivity weren't welcome with open arms by their liberators. Oftenly enough they joined their german companions in misfortune on their way to Siberia.
As to the execution of the german guards, during this period -when the Red Army firstly entered german soil on a larger scale- there certainly was a no-prisoner-policy, this means both sides.

B5N2KATE
08-13-2008, 10:39 AM
Unlike British rule, which was admired the longer their reign lasted, I know of NO country on earth affected by Russian Imperialism that came away from the experience wanting to remain as part of the Soviet Bloc....

I have nothing against ordinary Russians....their leaders, however, ARE A DISGRACE.

any FOOL can turn up on a collapsing section of the "front" or behind enemy lines to restore discipline with a Nagan in hand, carrying out 'summary executions' to "restore order".....IF our officers in the West carried on in such a fashion, many would find themselves "fragged" by their own troops.

Gee....isn't it lucky the Soviets finished WW2 on the winning side.....many Russian officers would have (and SHOULD HAVE) been prosecuted for murderous misconduct.

NAME ONE SOVIET OFFICER OF ANY RANK PROSECUTED FOR WAR CRIMES...NO YUGOSLAVS EITHER....

You guys crying "Russo-phobe", get your heads out of the sand!!!

I'll give you an article by JOHN HILL on BASIC INFANTRY TACTICS OF WW2, to show you just how far removed from reality these Soviet officers were....

Of course, those of you in Eastern Europe see your own participation in WW2 as benign...remember, there would not have been a WW2 as we know it had the Soviet Union not signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact of '39.....large amounts of evidence to sustain that one...

Any other denials?.....Face it, modern Russians just put the 'blinkers' on and conveniently forget the moral and social bankruptcy of the Soviet Years....

If Socialism was such a good idea, why are 120 billion Dollars U.S. disappearing into Russia every year to corruptive business practice?

The story with Russia just goes on and on. Your leaders have been irresponsible fools and butchers of other Russians, and modern Russians, naturally, want to sweep it under the carpet as "Russophobia"....

Chevan
08-13-2008, 12:34 PM
Unlike British rule, which was admired the longer their reign lasted, I know of NO country on earth affected by Russian Imperialism that came away from the experience wanting to remain as part of the Soviet Bloc....

I have nothing against ordinary Russians....their leaders, however, ARE A DISGRACE.

Interesting point:)
So who in your mind the "ordinary russians" that let to manage themself by DISGRACED leaders?


any FOOL can turn up on a collapsing section of the "front" or behind enemy lines to restore discipline with a Nagan in hand, carrying out 'summary executions' to "restore order".....IF our officers in the West carried on in such a fashion, many would find themselves "fragged" by their own troops.

True, so the propogandic b..sh that "officers with Nagans curriing out of executin...and ets..
This is so foolish , that nobody in Russia today wish to hear it.
Even russian WW2 veterans:)


Gee....isn't it lucky the Soviets finished WW2 on the winning side.....many Russian officers would have (and SHOULD HAVE) been prosecuted for murderous misconduct.

Yes it very sad.
i think if USSR joined the axis and Germany would have finish the Britain - soon the Japane "master-race" would show you in Australia the "murderous misconduct".


You guys crying "Russo-phobe", get your heads out of the sand!!!

Why?
to put it into somebody's ***?just like you?


I'll give you an article by JOHN HILL on BASIC INFANTRY TACTICS OF WW2, to show you just how far removed from reality these Soviet officers were....

But why the "far removed from reality soviet officers" crushed the GErmans in 1944-45, and kicked the whole Kwantung army for couple of weeks?
Sorry but you obviously has no any point here.


remember, there would not have been a WW2 as we know it had the Soviet Union not signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact of '39.....large amounts of evidence to sustain that one...

Yea?
I/m too know a lot of "conspiracy theories" as evidence of "real" reasons of events.


Any other denials?.....Face it, modern Russians just put the 'blinkers' on and conveniently forget the moral and social bankruptcy of the Soviet Years....

Nodoby trying to restore today the "Soviet years',relax buddy and enjoy:)


If Socialism was such a good idea, why are 120 billion Dollars U.S. disappearing into Russia every year to corruptive business practice?

Of course this is BAD idea, becouse in Russia already 17 years is a CAPITALISM.
If you've forgot it:)
The corruption disaster is the common illness of all the CAPITALLIST East European states.not just Russia



The story with Russia just goes on and on. Your leaders have been irresponsible fools and butchers of other Russians, and modern Russians, naturally, want to sweep it under the carpet as "Russophobia"....
Oh what we were doing without your friendly advise;)

B5N2KATE
08-14-2008, 12:47 AM
German and the Soviet Union joining hands to finish off England?

Unlikely.....Stalin was the only state leader in Europe under this delusion. Hitler was the ONLY national leader he TRUSTED.

The Egyptian cartoonist (KEM) that portrayed Hitler and Stalin tied together at the boot and each with a hand on his gun at the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact was expressing what should have been obvious to everyone inside the Soviet Union at the time. It was certainly obvious to him and many others....Stalin was the only one that missed it.

Adolphus was such a pronounced anti-communist....he had said it so often as to be unmentionable in his speeches, and "Drang Nach Osten" WAS national Policy in the Reich for a long time before June 22nd 1941....

No Chevan.....Russia was out on it's own virtually from the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk onward. The chances of a dictatorship stretching from the from the Spanish border to Vladivostock was a big fat ZERO....

Besides.....British diplomacy in the hands of Winston Churchill made sure that the Eurpoean dictators would be fighting eachother, and that the U.S. would intervene on a "Europe First" basis...

Winston was a fine strategist, and he succeeded in his plan of playing off one dictatorship versus another. I'm glad his vision was the post-war model we went into the Cold War with...

Who wants to be ruled by Russian politicians and military men?

Most of us don't....free thinking people have spoken on this issue already.... PRAVDA

B5N2KATE
08-14-2008, 12:54 AM
Russia Capitalist?

Their version of it. I don't think Russians have really gotten the "hang" of capitalism just yet.....too much organised crime involved in business.....too many politicians like Putin with military roots.

Putin is still well and truly running the country at present, isn't he? WHO elected him, or his successor for that matter, groomed for the top slot in the Kremlin as he was....

Russian Capitalism and Russian Democratic freedom still have a long way to go. If you dropped the rose-tinted view of the Soviet years as anything but a disaster for Russia as a whole, you may well get somewhere.

Until then, it's the same dictatorship running the largest nation on earth.....and, as usual, they couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery without sustaining millions of casualties.

B5N2KATE
08-14-2008, 01:19 AM
Chevan, Russian "tactics" remained very similar right up to VE Day.....BRESLAU cost 60,000 people, and fighting trapped soldiers with ersatz and volksturm boy soldiers and grandfathers. And it went on for weeks and weeks....Breslau only surrendered a few days before BERLIN fell!!!

Most top Breslau German Generals dissappeared into the Soviet, never to return. If Red Army "tactics" were that advanced by mid 1945, how did Breslau extract such a high price of experienced soldiers?

Answer....they were still using the "same old steamroller" in 1945......only highly publicised units got "the training".....the Red Army went into Barbarossa as a uniformed rabble and emerged with a VERY PATCHY record for the service of it's units....

The casualties for the final push from the Oder River tell the story. This much "practiced" military service of the Red Army that could not advance qithout throwing lives away under grotesque circumstances.

Modern Russians would naturally sweep all this under the carpet....rather like the Romans turning the Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca into a larger than life characterization specifically to highlight their own "achievements" in the martial sphere...

No hiding the dead from Cannae.....just like there was no hiding the butchers bill from Soviet Red Army field operations.

AMATUERS....

Modern Russians have a curious detachment from these facts.....of course, nobody wants to put the old leaders in a bad light for fear of it rubbing off to the rest of the community! Russia still has a "complex" about it's own image....Funny how we westerners thrive on critcism of these same leaders.

If you don't stand up and object to big issues like those mentioned above (like gross misconduct and mis-management leading to gross casualties), then you never do anything towards solving the basic problem. Your leaders can keep patting themselves on the back for the victory while critics of the Russian "system" go unvoiced....

No wonder Solzhenitsyn emigrated.....

aly j
09-27-2008, 05:48 AM
When Russia lost Stalingrad they made an offensive to get it back. When they would retreat in Stalingrad the machine gunners, officers, and remaining soldiers would shout them.
If you watch Enemy At The Gates you will see a brief scene that shows you how they did it. It is also a great movie.

Ive got that movie, and i also think its a great movie.
well in there cercumstanaces when you cant see anything or hear anything.
When you got enemy soilders close bye you cant take any chances.
Shoot to kill or to be killed thats how i see it.

Nickdfresh
09-27-2008, 07:41 PM
Russia Capitalist?

Their version of it. I don't think Russians have really gotten the "hang" of capitalism just yet.....


Sure they have! Unfortunately, they started with the 19th century, robber baron version of it in the 1990s!

Ivaylo
09-28-2008, 07:13 AM
I read some post above about how the soviets were going in Stalingrad in battle , how there was rifle to every man , no penalty battalions in Stalingrad ..... guys are you dreaming ??? Of course there was desperate situation there wasn't rifles to everyone and there situation to go in behind you NKVD officer with gun to shoot you if you return and you without a rifle trying just to take cover .That was the common psyhological moment of the war , rather than the germans who were confident and occupying more and more teritory , the soviets got something more - the courage to safe your own life , to know that you are already "lost " their lifes as behind them was waiting certain death , a man who is under such life depending situation usually do everything just to save his own life . That was the difference between the man who is conquering and the man fighting for it's own live who knew that there is no way back .

ww11freak34
09-30-2008, 07:01 PM
watch enemy at the gates and then u will see this

i know a movie in which this happens it called enemy at the gates watch and then u will see.

Chevan
10-09-2008, 01:30 AM
Sure they have! Unfortunately, they started with the 19th century, robber baron version of it in the 1990s!

But we is developing very intensive:)
Look, half of former Oligarh-barons are in the prison, the other half , hide in Britain and Israel:)
Soon our capitalism will remind YOURS.
Even Revisionist will probably be prisoned:)

Chevan
10-09-2008, 01:40 AM
Besides.....British diplomacy in the hands of Winston Churchill made sure that the Eurpoean dictators would be fighting eachother, and that the U.S. would intervene on a "Europe First" basis...

Winston was a fine strategist, and he succeeded in his plan of playing off one dictatorship versus another. I'm glad his vision was the post-war model we went into the Cold War with...

Kate , usialy i don't answer to your rubbish, but sometimes you make me laugh.
i like to laugh you know;)
So by your mind the Churchill "fine strategy" was aimed to push both Germany and USSR together in a war and wait.
But why this "strategist" has started to fight with GErmany first?:)

Chevan
10-09-2008, 02:54 AM
Chevan, Russian "tactics" remained very similar right up to VE Day.....BRESLAU cost 60,000 people, and fighting trapped soldiers with ersatz and volksturm boy soldiers and grandfathers. And it went on for weeks and weeks....Breslau only surrendered a few days before BERLIN fell!!!

Oh really , my Niazis propogand admirer?
Firslty the Breslau felt few day AFTER Berlin, but you don't care about it.Becouse the BErlin felt befor the Unconditional surrender was signed in 8 may.
Secondary Breslau was a city-fortness and the battles were highly destructive house-to-house street fighting, that cost for both sides very much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Breslau#The_siege
And finaly, you my little history amateur, don't share a Goebbels blunder please.
The whole 6 army of Ukrainian first front losed 9 000 of killed , 200 tanks.
The defenders lost about 6 000 killed and 45 000 prisoned.Moreover about 50 000 of civils died.


Most top Breslau German Generals dissappeared into the Soviet, never to return. If Red Army "tactics" were that advanced by mid 1945, how did Breslau extract such a high price of experienced soldiers?

Oh really, boy?
You wonder me more and more, there is no limit for your perfectness to fun the peoples:)
Did you ever hear how many soldiers German Army lost during the house-to-house battle of Stalingrad?
This is more than all Australian troops in Allied side ever participated in war:)
Now say , buddy , that such a hight Price was a resault of not-experienced German command.
BTW don't mix the GErmans , the most professional and strong Army at that time with UGLY Japanes, whom 75 000 army WERE MORE THAN ENOUGH to kicked *** to the 150 000 british garrison of Singapore in 1942.


Answer....they were still using the "same old steamroller" in 1945......only highly publicised units got "the training".....the Red Army went into Barbarossa as a uniformed rabble and emerged with a VERY PATCHY record for the service of it's units....

OLD streamroller, buddy, in 1944-45 liberated MORE territory that allies even can dream.
And you've forgot the "uniformed rabble" in 1938 succesfuly crushed the Japs in Soviet far East. The same Japes that you FEAR TO DEATH.


The casualties for the final push from the Oder River tell the story. This much "practiced" military service of the Red Army that could not advance qithout throwing lives away under grotesque circumstances.

I,ve told you that you point absurd itself, but i see now either you too old or too stupid to understand the simple mathematic things.
So i will repeat TWICE AND BOLD specialy for you.
The death-rate of Red Army during the 1944/45 was indeed NO more that death-rate Allies.In percents of participated troops.
Just the absolute figures of Land troops were differ- Germans directed about 80% of their army agains soviets ( the same were their casualties)
And your point has no any relation to Red Army.
Instead i can use the oppinion of Western professional, who unlike you, amateur, know the real situation.
And was't aimed to repeat the Goebbels subhuman bul...t.
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp#ch10




In the conduct of the Manchurian operation, the Soviets adhered to tactical concepts generally in concert with those contained in the field service regulations of 1944. The necessity for speed, the vast expanse of the area of operations, the diversity of terrain, and the nature of the opposition dictated the final nature and form of Soviet offensive tactics. In order to achieve requisite speed in the Manchurian environment, the Soviets made some adjustments to actions the regulations prescribed. Yet, the regulations themselves were flexible and recommended adjustment based on the concrete conditions that an attacking force confronted. Thus, they recommended using unique and varied tactical formations to surprise the enemy. They also stressed initiative as a key ingredient for achieving surprise and maintaining the momentum of an attack.

At every level in every sector, Soviet commanders in Manchuria took great risks, planned bold operations, and executed their plans with abandon.They demonstrated a flexibility exceeding that displayed in earlier opera tions, not only because of the particular demands in the theater of operations, but also because Soviet military leadership had matured. The war had produced a generation of experienced and competent army, corps, division, regimental, and brigade commanders, whose expertise was the product of up to four years of battle. This generation realized that the Manchurian operation was probably the last campaign of a long war, hence a campaign that had to be successful and short. The will to achieve peace provided the impetus for this last violent spasm of war. Soviet forces were surgical in their conduct of battle: in just eleven days the violence of war was over
David Glanz. Operation August storm

This is opinion of respected military historian who hardly will honore the Red Army or share the Soviet propogand.
Now guess , to whom the people would believe to Glanz or to you, troll?


Modern Russians would naturally sweep all this under the carpet....rather like the Romans turning the Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca into a larger than life characterization specifically to highlight their own "achievements" in the martial sphere...

No hiding the dead from Cannae.....just like there was no hiding the butchers bill from Soviet Red Army field operations.

AMATUERS....

Modern Russians have a curious detachment from these facts.....of course, nobody wants to put the old leaders in a bad light for fear of it rubbing off to the rest of the community! Russia still has a "complex" about it's own image....Funny how we westerners thrive on critcism of these same leaders.

If you don't stand up and object to big issues like those mentioned above (like gross misconduct and mis-management leading to gross casualties), then you never do anything towards solving the basic problem. Your leaders can keep patting themselves on the back for the victory while critics of the Russian "system" go unvoiced....

Oh such touching speech of frank "friend" of russia.:)
Thank you buddy, i will account your advice to use the Goebbels untermenshen propogand in my studiing of OUR history.
Your posts contain the rough historical and statistical mistakes, but don't care about historical accuracy.
Remember , you here not for accuracy - but exclusively for fun.
Write more ...


No wonder Solzhenitsyn emigrated.....

He's come back already 10 earsh ago , buddy.
And till his death couple of month ago ,he has wrote an intersting book where he well described the rushophobia of such narrow western amateurs like you:)

Uyraell
03-07-2009, 06:22 PM
[QUOTE=alephh;93211]I do not know if those "walk thru minefield" orders qualify for "killing own soldiers".




I think the problem with this sort of "history" (shooting own men), is that it is way too sensitive subject, that most things are not put in the records and archives. All you get are unofficial statements by soldiers.

For example in Finland in 1918, there were shootings of own men after the civil war. These records were "lost"... until all the men involved in the issue were dead, and records surfaced to the public.

There are rumors that in Finland In 1944 several hundred men were shot (for retreating), but official records are, once again, totally clueless since key documents are "lost". Maybe those "lost" documents will surface later, when persons involved are long gone.

Point being: if the issue is too sensitive to the nation in question, researching things by official records is pointless.

I have personally seen/heard statements that soviet soldiers killed everything from 1000 soviet soldiers to 400,000 soviet soldiers -- it's all about which men/sources you choose to believe.


And then there's the problem of "stupid orders are stopped by good officers":

Some of Hitler's orders were stopped by officers, or they were delivered to men in altered form. For example Field Marshal von Manstein instructed the units under his command not to follow The Commissar Order by Hitler. And surely sensible soviet officer wouldn't like to decrease the morale of his soldiers by delivering Stalin's orders in full.

From soldiers point of view, many orders meant to be read to them, are sort of "secret".
[/FONT]


There is an element of logic here that in my view requires examination.
In the "Favourite Soviet General" Thread it is admitted that having soldiers charge across minefields was common practice.

A death toll of 20% resulting from this was acceptable, (though in fact a survival rate of 20% was far more likely, certainly for the first two waves of troops).

Given that a 20% percent loss was seen as acceptable in that context there is no logical reason to think that same 20% rate was not equally acceptable in the context of a "shoot some to encourage others of them to move forward into combat" order (regardless if said order be from Stalin, Party HQ, or even if published among party faithful).

The Chinese army certainly proved the point of the Soviet infantry doctrine under which it had been trained, in human-wave assaults in Korea, nearly ten years later.

While I wish to cause offense to no-one, the element of logic here does deserve examination.

Regards, Uyraell.

AirdefMike
03-08-2009, 12:37 PM
[QUOTE=alephh;93211]
For example in Finland in 1918, there were shootings of own men after the civil war. These records were "lost"... until all the men involved in the issue were dead, and records surfaced to the public.

There are rumors that in Finland In 1944 several hundred men were shot (for retreating), but official records are, once again, totally clueless since key documents are "lost". Maybe those "lost" documents will surface later, when persons involved are long gone.

Point being: if the issue is too sensitive to the nation in question, researching things by official records is pointless.

Regards, Uyraell.[/FONT]

Sorry but I'm a bit confused here:

1918: Do you mean that the victorious White Finns (the government forces) shot their own men after the Civil war ended?

1944: To which rumoured case do you mean: The Huhtiniemi case or a newer rumour where 200 deserters were supposedly have been shot/executed?

Anyway...to my knowledge the 1918 thing I have never heard/read about but it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened although it is highly unlikely.

and about 1944: The Huhtiniemi case was a hoax as the found bodies were russian troops from the 19th century. The latter is quite new but IIRC, it is has been researched already and I think there will be even more research on this one in the future.

Also, the Military archives have not been sorted after the war but the work is being currently done but it will take some time.

Just me 2 cents.

Egorka
03-09-2009, 02:37 AM
1918: Do you mean that the victorious White Finns (the government forces) shot their own men after the Civil war ended?
He most likely means this: http://www.svd.se/kulturnoje/understrecket/artikel_810101.svd

kallinikosdrama1992
03-09-2009, 04:04 AM
Well i would say it was a bad idea , because in operation there could be many loses and with this way , of killing your soldiers , it could raise the casualties to the top

Chevan
03-09-2009, 05:14 AM
1918: Do you mean that the victorious White Finns (the government forces) shot their own men after the Civil war ended?

Yes mr Uyraell is right.
THe White finns shoted their red finns pretty well.


Anyway...to my knowledge the 1918 thing I have never heard/read about but it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened although it is highly unlikely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror#Finnish_White_Terror
White terror pretty exceeded the Red one.

pdf27
03-09-2009, 01:51 PM
Kate , usialy i don't answer to your rubbish, but sometimes you make me laugh.
i like to laugh you know;)
So by your mind the Churchill "fine strategy" was aimed to push both Germany and USSR together in a war and wait.
But why this "strategist" has started to fight with GErmany first?:)
Just spotted this Gem. Churchill took office (and hence could influence strategy significantly) on the 10th of May 1940. Planning for Barbarossa started on the 18th of December 1940. That leaves him about 220 days in which to totally change around German grand strategy towards the Soviet Union. If true, he deserves to be recorded as the greatest diplomat in history.

Chevan
03-09-2009, 02:03 PM
That leaves him about 220 days in which to totally change around German grand strategy towards the Soviet Union. If true, he deserves to be recorded as the greatest diplomat in history.
If he can really might do something to change the any GErman plans that time:)
Hardly he had enough time/ability for that.

Egorka
03-09-2009, 02:39 PM
Just spotted this Gem. Churchill took office (and hence could influence strategy significantly) on the 10th of May 1940. Planning for Barbarossa started on the 18th of December 1940. That leaves him about 220 days in which to totally change around German grand strategy towards the Soviet Union. If true, he deserves to be recorded as the greatest diplomat in history.

In December 1940 Barbarossa was aproved and comenced to unroll.
The planning of it was initiated in July 1940. IIRC 18 of July.

AirdefMike
03-15-2009, 11:30 AM
He most likely means this: http://www.svd.se/kulturnoje/understrecket/artikel_810101.svd


Ah, yes. Thanks for the link but no news there. I need to find that book and read it.

Well, the this thread is about "shooting your OWN men" as in not your enemies. ;)

This really got me scratching my head as where would the sanity of this be.

AirdefMike
03-15-2009, 11:36 AM
Yes mr Uyraell is right.
THe White finns shoted their red finns pretty well.

As did the reds and russians when given the chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror#Finnish_White_Terror
White terror pretty exceeded the Red one.

There would not have been any white terror if there wouldn't have been red terror first.

Anyways, the losers of the civil war won the parliamentary elections pretty soon after the war. Unlike in Soviet-Russia...isn't that right, Chevy? ;)

Chevan
03-15-2009, 02:16 PM
There would not have been any white terror if there wouldn't have been red terror first.

It's just like to say that there would not have been the Nacism if there wouldn't have been Bolshevism first - the point that might to justify everything.


Anyways, the losers of the civil war won the parliamentary elections pretty soon after the war. Unlike in Soviet-Russia...isn't that right, Chevy? ;)
Yes Airderfike, true, ONLY becouse of winners in civil war , later have losed the ww2.

Schuultz
03-16-2009, 07:15 AM
Yes Airderfike, true, ONLY becouse of winners in civil war , later have losed the ww2.

So what exactly are you trying to say there, Chevan? I'm somewhat confused - The Soviets justified themselves by defeating the Nazis?

Or do you mean the Finns criminalized themselves by being on the losing side of WW2?

Uyraell
03-16-2009, 07:37 AM
Sorry, your point ( all the soviet officers are just "butchers") doesn't even pretend to elementary sense, not just to historical accuracy.
It was denied by the many russian veterans who fought in ww2.
You , it has been proved, specially ignore the truly historical events , like the rise of professionalism of "soviet butchers" in the 1944-45 who was able to reach a Great military resaults with very limited casualtied for their soldiers, compared with Allies casualties.

You man better look for yourself and around to get the "advises".
As i guessed - you know noting about the War in East at all.
And i don't see the reason to falsify the facts, even if it was happend during "Socialism" period.


Now you openly take the rushophobian point, very well:mrgreen:
What was sense to hide your frank thoughts from most beginning?
You are furious not a socialism but "russian imperialism" .
You propbably think that British colonial imrerialism was better then Soviets one, just because it was a British.
But this is whole other theme.
I just want to say - that your crazy pushophobia get the quite direct effect on us.
Although the critic of Red Army is welcomed ( this help to learn true) but you have to understand , that your point is just like to critic the Israel and Jews from position of Nazis race-superiority ideas - everything they do is disgusting and wrong.
This approach has no any sense.Even being applied to Russia.
I offer a small anecdote in support of the Russian, as opposed to Communist position regarding troops and casualties deemed "acceptable".

On June 3, 1944, Winston Churchill in conversation with Dwight Eisenhower asked Ike how many troops he was prepared to lose in order the secure and make certain the landings at Normandy.

Ike replied: "If it gets us ashore and solid, consolidated, then sir, I would accept a loss rate of 80 percent."

Given the above, one can hardly criticise the Russians for having reached the same conclusion in regard to their own military operations, albeit the Russians reached that conclusion much earlier on.

While it may be in general terms said that the Red Army was more wasteful of lives, they certainly had the resources of manpower to do so where necessary, even though doing so was, by western standards, somewhat excessive.

The accounts I have read by Red Army veterans suggest that they themselves saw casualties as necessary evils, part of the price warfare extracts anywhere, from anyone.

In that: they are no different from the soldiery of any other combatant nation in World War Two.

Respectful Regards, Uyraell.

Chevan
03-17-2009, 01:44 AM
So what exactly are you trying to say there, Chevan? I'm somewhat confused - The Soviets justified themselves by defeating the Nazis?

Or do you mean the Finns criminalized themselves by being on the losing side of WW2?
No , accurate otherwise, the Nazis justified their crimes by previous communistic ones( real or false) ..This is well known fact
As for finnish Civil war -the opposite sides used the enemy's crimes for justify own.Not just in finland.
So his poin is senselees.It's just like to justify the Terror and crimes toward the German population in 1945, by the Nacis crimes in 1941-42.This is wrong, of course, the Crime are always the Crime.
The White finns exceeded the Red terror pretty much - probably that's why they have won the war.

Chevan
03-17-2009, 02:00 AM
On June 3, 1944, Winston Churchill in conversation with Dwight Eisenhower asked Ike how many troops he was prepared to lose in order the secure and make certain the landings at Normandy.

Ike replied: "If it gets us ashore and solid, consolidated, then sir, I would accept a loss rate of 80 percent."


Well the heaviest casualties the American army has surrvived in Okinava as i know. COz the Japanes surprised them by unexpected tactic of their artillery - they start to fire when marines had landed.
The total percentage of American casualties was indeed no more the 3% dead from about 450 000 of troops, who participated in that battle.
If we look at the Battle for Berline, when from 2 mln of red Army troops has been lost about 60 000 dead - no more then 3% ( Red Army faced the strong fortified Zeelow area that ONE was more Bigger and stronger then entire Okinawa garrison )
So as i said indeed the RELATIVE casualties of Red Army in 1944-45 were the SIMULAR to Allied ones, when they did face the fierce resistance.( Red Army all the time fought with fierce, unlike say allies in Holland in 1945)

Uyraell
03-17-2009, 07:22 AM
Well the heaviest casualties the American army has surrvived in Okinava as i know. COz the Japanes surprised them by unexpected tactic of their artillery - they start to fire when marines had landed.
The total percentage of American casualties was indeed no more the 3% dead from about 450 000 of troops, who participated in that battle.
If we look at the Battle for Berline, when from 2 mln of red Army troops has been lost about 60 000 dead - no more then 3% ( Red Army faced the strong fortified Zeelow area that ONE was more Bigger and stronger then entire Okinawa garrison )
So as i said indeed the RELATIVE casualties of Red Army in 1944-45 were the SIMULAR to Allied ones, when they did face the fierce resistance.( Red Army all the time fought with fierce, unlike say allies in Holland in 1945)
Nor, my friend, do I dispute you in those figures.:)
My point was that though certain persons posting in this forum do over-emphasise Russian casualties and readiness to accept huge losses of men, the reality is/was that Russia as a nation was just as ready and willing to accept those casualties if necessary as any nation then at war. In that, our Russian Ally was no different to us in the west.

Warm Regards, Uyraell.

Cojimar 1945
03-18-2009, 11:34 AM
With regards to Soviet casualties, I thought the western allies faced enemy forces on the western front in 1917-18 that were as large as or even slightly larger than those faced by the Soviets on the eastern front yet their casualties were considerably lower than Soviet casualties.

Also, wasn't Americas bloodies battle in the 1939-45 war the battle of the Bulge with over 19,000 combat deaths compared to around 12,520 combat deaths at Okinawa including those killed at sea.

Nickdfresh
03-18-2009, 03:46 PM
With regards to Soviet casualties, I thought the western allies faced enemy forces on the western front in 1917-18 that were as large as or even slightly larger than those faced by the Soviets on the eastern front yet their casualties were considerably lower than Soviet casualties.

Also, wasn't Americas bloodies battle in the 1939-45 war the battle of the Bulge with over 19,000 combat deaths compared to around 12,520 combat deaths at Okinawa including those killed at sea.


The Bulge certainly was the bloodiest. I would also add that the Okinawa figures are skewed, as I believe the 500,000 figure is deeply mislaid. Individual US units suffered casualty rates on par with any Soviet Red Army units fighting in the East...

kamehouse
03-18-2009, 06:25 PM
Does anybody have some figures in KIA for the Hutgen forest?
I found 33,000 american KIA in this website but it seems a bit high?It even speaks of 50,000 KIA for the allied side!
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_find_information_on_the_Battle_of_Hurtg en_Forest

Nickdfresh
03-18-2009, 08:19 PM
Does anybody have some figures in KIA for the Hutgen forest?
I found 33,000 american KIA in this website but it seems a bit high?It even speaks of 50,000 KIA for the allied side!
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_find_information_on_the_Battle_of_Hurtg en_Forest

The 33,000 figure is both killed and wounded, not "Killed In Action."

Chevan
03-19-2009, 01:21 AM
With regards to Soviet casualties, I thought the western allies faced enemy forces on the western front in 1917-18 that were as large as or even slightly larger than those faced by the Soviets on the eastern front yet their casualties were considerably lower than Soviet casualties.

Are you kidding?
The INSTRUMENTs of mass killing the enemy soldiers in WW2 have been seriously developed and improved since ww1.
Lets drop the Hydrogen bomb at the average European army now, and then say - hey look the death rate is higher then compared to Napoleon's war, although the army was "slighly larger" couple of centures ago:)


Also, wasn't Americas bloodies battle in the 1939-45 war the battle of the Bulge with over 19,000 combat deaths compared to around 12,520 combat deaths at Okinawa including those killed at sea.
I was speaking about death-rate.
In Bulger , there were 19 000 dead from over 840 000 of troops, participated in battle - 2,26%
In Okinawa , there were about 548 000 troops , 12500 died - 2,28%
Very close indeed.If to believe to official American statistic

Chevan
03-19-2009, 01:24 AM
The Bulge certainly was the bloodiest. I would also add that the Okinawa figures are skewed, as I believe the 500,000 figure is deeply mislaid.
Wiki gives 548 000 american troops total, believe it or not.
But sure just part of them has been landed at first bloodies period of assault.
At first wave i suppose the death rate was about 20-30%

Nickdfresh
03-19-2009, 09:11 AM
Wiki gives 548 000 american troops total, believe it or not.
But sure just part of them has been landed at first bloodies period of assault.
At first wave i suppose the death rate was about 20-30%


I realize that, but they weren't in combat all at once. That figure must also include the US Navy...

Also, the US Marines/Army were "fat" because of the need to establish logistical areas in the island hopping campaign and use the captured aerodrome on Okinawa for what was thought to be the next phase for Operation Downfall. So many of those servicemen were not combat ground forces but were logistical specialists and whatnot...

Individual combat units suffered casualty rates as high as 50% I believe. The Japanese had underground fortifications throughout the entire island that were bomb-proof and each cave/bunker/trap door had to be taken one by one or else US ground troops faced attacks in their rear areas thought to be secured...

Cojimar 1945
03-19-2009, 11:59 PM
The hydrogen bomb may be better at mass killing than stuff they previously had but how was mass killing efficiency that much better in 1939-45 than in 1914-18 aside from the A-bomb? At certain points it appears that the western allies did suffer casualties in 1914-18 which if sustained would have surpassed the figures of the eastern front.

The British empire forces had over 19,000 men killed in 1 day at the Somme. If this loss rate had been sustained it would have resulted in 1,710,000 men killed over 3 months which is far higher than the fatalities suffered by the Soviets in any 3 month period. The huge casualties of this day would seem to undermine the argument about killing efficiency given that such casualties seem to have been extremely rare in 1939-45.

Chevan
03-20-2009, 03:02 AM
The British empire forces had over 19,000 men killed in 1 day at the Somme. If this loss rate had been sustained it would have resulted in 1,710,000 men killed over 3 months which is far higher than the fatalities suffered by the Soviets in any 3 month period. The huge casualties of this day would seem to undermine the argument about killing efficiency given that such casualties seem to have been extremely rare in 1939-45.
Well, you have a point here, but i think we can't use such simple extrapolation as 1 deay death rate to entire 3 month is not correct.
Though i heard during the defensive strategic battles or Stalingrad , both sides losed about 10 000 per day, during the almost half of year since september till febriary.
So the total absolute figures of dead was awful.
German lost endited Group army - about 600 000 plus about 200 000 of their allies, Red Army lost up to million dead.
That just support the argument that entire ww1 wasn't such a BIG like ww2.
The only SINGLE EASTERN fromt has absorbed up to 7 mln Soviets and up to 6 mln of Axis soldier's lives( not to mention the about 20 mln of civils from all the Eastern Europe and GErmany) - more then entire ww1.

Schuultz
03-20-2009, 10:12 AM
That just support the argument that entire ww1 wasn't such a BIG like ww2.
The only SINGLE EASTERN fromt has absorbed up to 7 mln Soviets and up to 6 mln of Axis soldier's lives( not to mention the about 20 mln of civils from all the Eastern Europe and GErmany) - more then entire ww1.

Well, sorry if I go off-topic here, but I still believe that WW1 was more important and therefore "Bigger" in my definition. I strongly believe that without WW1, WW2 would have never occured (a second WW would have occurred some time but not the way we know it.)

In many ways, WW1 was the disaster that spawned the ultimate catastrophe, WW2. Think about what wouldn't have happened without the fall of the German Empire, the Austrio-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire.
There would have been no Soviet Russia. There would have been no Nazi Germany and therefore no Holocaust. There might not even be the unrest and war we experience in the Middle East right now.

So if anybody ever asks me which one was worse, I'd always say WW1 - regardless of casualties.

Chevan
03-20-2009, 12:18 PM
Well, sorry if I go off-topic here, but I still believe that WW1 was more important and therefore "Bigger" in my definition. I strongly believe that without WW1, WW2 would have never occured (a second WW would have occurred some time but not the way we know it.)

Fully agree sir.
Yes in fact the ww2 was just a legitime consequence of ww1.
Some Asian historians think that indeed the ww1 was never stopped, it was just continied since in 1920 after the Japane attack of China till the 1939 , when European war has been started.

Uyraell
03-21-2009, 01:16 PM
Well, sorry if I go off-topic here, but I still believe that WW1 was more important and therefore "Bigger" in my definition. I strongly believe that without WW1, WW2 would have never occured (a second WW would have occurred some time but not the way we know it.)

In many ways, WW1 was the disaster that spawned the ultimate catastrophe, WW2. Think about what wouldn't have happened without the fall of the German Empire, the Austrio-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire.
There would have been no Soviet Russia. There would have been no Nazi Germany and therefore no Holocaust. There might not even be the unrest and war we experience in the Middle East right now.

So if anybody ever asks me which one was worse, I'd always say WW1 - regardless of casualties.


Fully agree sir.
Yes in fact the ww2 was just a legitime consequence of ww1.
Some Asian historians think that indeed the ww1 was never stopped, it was just continied since in 1920 after the Japane attack of China till the 1939 , when European war has been started.

I have to agree with you both.
In a history essay in High School I argued that WW2 essentially began at Versailles in 1919, and that it simply took 20 years for the first shots to be fired on the European mainland.

Basically you each have expressed similar thinking to that which I employed in the essay.

I do add one distinction: I tend to think WW2 was worse if civilian casualties (whether from results of warfare or extermination camps) are considered.
I have always regarded (rightly or wrongly, I've never really cared about exact numbers of dead and wounded) WW1 and WW2 as broadly comparable in terms of military death tolls.

Regards, Uyraell

Cojimar 1945
03-21-2009, 02:58 PM
What I think the first day of the Somme illustrates along with some other episodes of the 1914-18 war is that the weaponry of that era certainly was capable of wrecking the sort of carnage seen on the eastern front from 1941-45 depending on the tactics used. I strongly doubt the Germans had vastly more deadly weaponry on July 1, 1916 than they did later in the war on the western front. Perhaps the Soviets could have reduced their casualties if they had used different tactics even given the weaponry available to their enemies.
A book series on BEF military operations in France and Belgium suggest that some of the casualties listed for the BEF by books like The World Crisis and Chronicle of the First World War are considerably exaggerated. For example, BEF casualties on the western front in March 1918 are given as 173,721 but it appears that the correct figure is just under 150,000. However, the casualties on July 1, 1916 seem to be widely accepted as accurate. The lack of such casualties on other days seems to be due to better tactics being used and greater caution but certainly is not a result of lack of firepower.
In fact, I have read that on August 22, 1914 the French army had 27,000 men killed in just one day. A grisly figure that if maintained would exceed Soviet casualties by an even greater amount than the Somme. Yet, the armies involved in the fighting on the western front seem to have been considerably smaller than those seen later and certainly were less than what the Soviets faced. If anyone has anymore info on French losses in 1914 than I would be interested.

Chevan
03-23-2009, 03:50 AM
What I think the first day of the Somme illustrates along with some other episodes of the 1914-18 war is that the weaponry of that era certainly was capable of wrecking the sort of carnage seen on the eastern front from 1941-45 depending on the tactics used. I strongly doubt the Germans had vastly more deadly weaponry on July 1, 1916 than they did later in the war on the western front. Perhaps the Soviets could have reduced their casualties if they had used different tactics even given the weaponry available to their enemies.

Soviets actualy has redused their casualties since 40-50 in 1941 to 2-5% diring the Last desicive battles of 1944-45.
And their tactic was endeed wery flexible( say during the operation August storm , the troops were more then free in tactical maneuvres).
As well as the Germn army was much more determined harsh-managed during last month of war when Mainstan have been dismissed from his post.
When situation was suitable- the soviets all time has used the tactical possibilities in 1945.

Schuultz
03-23-2009, 06:39 AM
Well, I think a lot (though far from all) came back to the fact that the Russians were pretty much chasing a defeated army by 1945.
There was no way the German army was going to win anymore, and pretty much every soldier except the most fanatical knew it. The big propaganda pushes such as 'Koenigsberg won't fall' etc had only meager success, considering that the soldiers still had to fight against an overwhelming, well equipped and very experienced Red Army.
Add to that a lack of supplies and a German High Command under the control of a schizophrenic lunatic, and the Russians would have needed about 10 million cases of friendly fire to mess that up...

Chevan
03-23-2009, 07:53 AM
Add to that a lack of supplies and a German High Command under the control of a schizophrenic lunatic, and the Russians would have needed about 10 million cases of friendly fire to mess that up...
Well if to eliminate the those both lunatics from Germany and USSR , the ww2 wasn't probably even began.

Cojimar 1945
03-28-2009, 01:40 AM
Even without Hitler, wouldn't the Soviets have wanted to avenge their humiliating defeat in 1917? Without the great patriotic war, the Russians might be mocked by foreigners as people prone to giving in to foreign conquerers and I would think such humiliation would be hard to endure.

Schuultz
03-28-2009, 09:16 AM
Even without Hitler, wouldn't the Soviets have wanted to avenge their humiliating defeat in 1917? Without the great patriotic war, the Russians might be mocked by foreigners as people prone to giving in to foreign conquerers and I would think such humiliation would be hard to endure.

You mean like the French are being mocked at the moment?

I doubt the Soviets would consider 1917 a humiliating defeat. The War was unpopular in Russia, and they didn't really 'loose' it in their point of view. The revolutionaries decided to make peace with the Germans so that they could concentrate on their revolution.

This was of course a strategic victory for Germany, as they were able to move those troops to the West, but no real defeat for the Bolsheviks, as it was never really their war.

Chevan
03-28-2009, 10:06 AM
You are right ,Schuultz.
Actualy the russian revolution/Civil war had nothing to deal with Germany, who itself has been defeated after the ww1, moreover the Communist were glad and thankfull to germans for support of Lenin in 1917, when GErman intelligence service has delivered Lenin to Russia in the special railway-truck:).
And Bolshevics had a close ralation with GErmans ones( Erns Telman, Rosa Luksemburg and ets) untill the most moment when SD has finished them.
As for "russian avenge", it was actual for ...Japane , not for GErmany.
The Russian public oppinion has been humiliated in 1904-05 , after Russian defeat in Rusio-Japane war.The Emperial Russian military was unable to use proper the newest superior Russian fleet to reach the victory over Japane.And that's was a very sad sign.
Bolshevics even did focused its anti-tsar propogand.We lost the Port-Artur and Sakhalin .
So Operation August Storm ( 1945) has been determined not only by the allied agrements and friendly will to help the Chinas Communist :)
But and by the Russian revenge for former unfair defeat.

Cojimar 1945
04-13-2009, 12:44 AM
I thought Krivosheev put Soviet casualties in the Berlin operation at about 78,291 killed or missing. Does anyone know of a breakdown of the dead and missing?

Todesengels
05-04-2009, 05:21 PM
I don't think shooting them was a great idea but their war tactic of "they can't kill us all" was where this spawned. Deserters were those who chose to not run into bullets. I can honestly say that i would have turned around and ran like none other.

Chevan
05-04-2009, 11:44 PM
I don't think shooting them was a great idea but their war tactic of "they can't kill us all" was where this spawned. Deserters were those who chose to not run into bullets. I can honestly say that i would have turned around and ran like none other.
It's coz you didn't fight on the real war.
If you know for sure, that your mates will die if you ran away - this is a crime.Why should you live while others should die?
That's why i think it was a good idea to introduce the Penalty Units for deserters
Very human and reasonable.

Chevan
05-04-2009, 11:49 PM
I thought Krivosheev put Soviet casualties in the Berlin operation at about 78,291 killed or missing. Does anyone know of a breakdown of the dead and missing?

I heard the namder of missed were around 10 000. But not sure all of them have been killed or dead.

Cojimar 1945
05-31-2009, 05:02 PM
One factor that seems relevant regarding the treatment of deserters is the brutality or lack thereof of the enemy. If the enemy is trying to win but is not bent on your total annihilation then defeat or at least compromise might be morally preferable to trying to win no matter the cost.

However, the nazi treatment of people in the USSR was fairly awful as far as I can tell so harsh measures seem more justifiable than in other conflicts the USSR/Russia engaged in.

Chevan
06-01-2009, 12:15 AM
.... the nazi treatment of people in the USSR was fairly awful as far as I can tell so harsh measures seem more justifiable than in other conflicts the USSR/Russia engaged in.
Exactly.
People on the west often don't understand that war in East was in sense , war for EXISTENCE for whole ethnic groups of USSR.If to believe to so called "General Plan Ost" - the slav population of former USSR should have been serioulsy limited up to 50 mln through the decade after the war.Even such devoted friends of Nazis as Baltic nationalists - shall be later deported further to the East.
It doesn't mean the phisycal annihilation - it may be the special means kinda the ban for birth, sterilization of woman and propogand of abortions and ets. regarding to the "low races".
That's why i think we shouldn't have no mercy for all sort of Colloborators/deserters in Red Army - whatever they spoke for their justification ( kinda "fight against bolshevism"/"Liberation of Russia" and simular propogandic mud) - FINALY they forugh for Regime that targeted to the TOTAL limitation of our people.

Ivaylo
06-01-2009, 09:46 AM
and the commies didn't do the same things later killing all who they wanted no matter if they were just a professors , teachers or whatever just because they are called "enemies of the nation " without trial , prison just shot . As i see in my country you did very good job - i mean those who said we are commies and we serve the great leader Stalin - the commies did so much killing that the nazis never did here . So please stop with these funny post about how the great communism saved us , it's just saved some most died later , that's why the western people won't understand it because it can't be understanded to kill peope without court and to send them to GULAG or camps . It's same thing as what Nazis did .

Schuultz
06-01-2009, 11:28 AM
He didn't really say communism saved -you-. He said that he understood why there was a harsh treatment of deserters because the army fought against the annihilation and/or deportation of the Slavic people.

Chevan
06-01-2009, 11:27 PM
and the commies didn't do the same things later killing all who they wanted no matter if they were just a professors , teachers or whatever just because they are called "enemies of the nation " without trial , prison just shot .
Later..?
Buddy, later not just Commi killed OWN Nazis collobarotors - the Frenchs have executed a lot of them too.
No matter who they were - "professors,teachcers, workers" or simply volunteres who share the Nazis Races ideas..
BTW how do you think -To which Race did the Bulgarians belong - to Low-race( just like the russians) or to master-race?

Schuultz
06-02-2009, 08:40 AM
Ivaylo wasn't talking about Nazi-Supporters - he was talking about general opposition to the Communist regime. And that these people were persecuted under Stalin is no secret...

Ivaylo
06-02-2009, 09:42 AM
Ivaylo wasn't talking about Nazi-Supporters - he was talking about general opposition to the Communist regime. And that these people were persecuted under Stalin is no secret...

That's completely right - or maybe i have to start to think that my grand father was a nazi supporter on age 77 in 1945 :confused: that's why without trail he was called for "friendly " meetings in the local police for some "friendly " beating . Actually he was lucky to get away with only that , some weren't so lucky and they got a shot , friends of my grand father , were simply farmers , workers , teachers not supporters of the Nazi regime and during it they simply did their ordinary day work , they didn't walk with Nazi flags and didn't send their children on the Eastern Front . As for the race the official german politic said it clear - bulgarians doesn't belong to the slavic common group to which russians , belorussians belong so they are not treat to us . If we belonged to the so called slavic group that you so much want to put us in ( remember when our country was formed in 681 by Khan Asparuh not only slavs formed it but also the so called Bulgars ) so we aren't completely slavs because in the process of forming there are two ethnic groups , so you can accept that we are only 1/2 slavs . Not to mention that during the existence of Bulgaria ( look at the name it Bulgaria ) there were many marriages between us and citizens of Byzantine Empire as well as other ethnic groups .So we are pretty much mixed and no one can say I am slav completely 100 % . So up to that moment the germans i think found out that and they felt that we are no threat or danger to them , even more we let them pass in 1941 . By any means only the Germans were the master race so i think you didn't read well there is arcticle in wikipedia somewhere about the racial politic of Third Reich found and read it well . The other races were just more or less near or far the ONLY ONE race that was to be master - the germans .

Chevan
06-02-2009, 11:12 PM
So up to that moment the germans i think found out that and they felt that we are no threat or danger to them , even more we let them pass in 1941 . .
yea , you let them pass absolutly voluntary coz hoped to get a profit after the GErman victory.
You don't care that many nations and ethnic groups shall disappear, right.
And now you are crying that "farmers , workers , teachers" who just worked ( for GErmany) during the 1941-44, while others fought and died for its lands have been punished?

Ivaylo
06-03-2009, 05:04 AM
yea , you let them pass absolutly voluntary coz hoped to get a profit after the GErman victory.
You don't care that many nations and ethnic groups shall disappear, right.
And now you are crying that "farmers , workers , teachers" who just worked ( for GErmany) during the 1941-44, while others fought and died for its lands have been punished?

And what you actually propose to fight with a million Reich Army waiting to smash us to pieces on Danube ? With what ? With absolute tanks and rifles from WW1 ? And from what i see you didn't and you don't care if we will disappear so why we should care if you will ? And no i am not crying for farmes and teachers , i am simply saying the truth because my grand father was neither comunist nor nazi supporter but because he wasn't the first the great holy USSR made repression against him . And what you gonna say me that on age 77 he was a Nazi ?? Heinrich Himmler himself or what ? So yes i don't care if communist commisars , NKVD officers and other Stalin pupets got killed because the only thing they got to my poor grand father was punishment , in other countries rapes and many murders of civil population . If you so much cared about punishment of the nazis you had to make a real courts not to shoot people without even a process which to the end of the world will bring your beloved communism next to the Nazi terror . And that's what all the western countries said and continue to say , that's why they won't ever understand the war in the East , the war in Chechenia and many others , simply they are democratic nations , not perfect but trying to follow some reasoning and law unlike what my parents saw and many others from Eastern block during 45 years nice murdering communist rule and terror . That's something they will never understand for sure .

Rising Sun*
06-03-2009, 07:14 AM
If you so much cared about punishment of the nazis you had to make a real courts not to shoot people without even a process which to the end of the world will bring your beloved communism next to the Nazi terror . And that's what all the western countries said and continue to say , that's why they won't ever understand the war in the East , the war in Chechenia and many others , simply they are democratic nations , not perfect but trying to follow some reasoning and law unlike what my parents saw and many others from Eastern block during 45 years nice murdering communist rule and terror . That's something they will never understand for sure .

As a Westerner, I agree that none of us can understand, in the sense of having any personal or family experience of the horrors which occurred in Europe, and notably Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Baltic states, during and after WWII. And for that matter, which occurred much more recently in some of those places, such as Bosnia which had nothing to do with communism and everything to do with ancient ethnic and religious divisions. Tito's communist state actually prevented it happening.

Another of the reasons we in the West can't understand it is that we haven't inherited the ancient divisions and hostilities which still exist in those parts of the world, as exemplified on a smaller but violently bitter scale by the situation in Cyprus between Greeks and Turks some decades ago and more recently in what used to be Yugoslavia and the endless conflict about who is entitled to Macedonia and the title Macedonian.

Most Western countries, and mine in particular, have absorbed people from most of those areas of conflict. Generally we have avoided open conflict between those groups in their new country. And we won't tolerate it when it happens.

It is understandable but sad that people who remain in those countries can't manage to achieve the same degree of tolerance for their opponents that their countrymen find in a new country.

On a separate point, communism as such has never been the problem, any more than Catholicism or Islam are in other areas of conflict. The problem has been the way those systems have been exploited by bad and selfish people for bad and selfish purposes. Which pretty much qualifies them as perfect capitalists.

Chevan
06-03-2009, 07:59 AM
And what you actually propose to fight with a million Reich Army waiting to smash us to pieces on Danube ? With what ? With absolute tanks and rifles from WW1 ?
It is psyhology of traitors:)
Serbs fought with NO tanks and by rifles from ww1 era enough succesfull for against inviders( a million Reich army).
You couldn't. you has just invited them and waited .
And that's all after that Russia done for you independence from your beloved ottoman Empire.
And don't tell me about your "POOR "grand father, who has been "beaten" in 77
My granddad DIED in age 23 in 1942 fighting agains Mainstain troops on Southern Russia.

Nickdfresh
06-03-2009, 09:11 AM
It is psyhology of traitors:)
Serbs fought with NO tanks and by rifles from ww1 era enough succesfull for against inviders( a million Reich army)....

"Traitors" to whom?

Schuultz
06-03-2009, 10:08 AM
Nobody.
A nation can't possibly be declared a traitor for following its national interests rather than some other nation's - especially when there's no treaty there to bind them.

Chevan
06-03-2009, 11:47 PM
"Traitors" to whom?

To ALL others who fought and die, Nick.
The Colloborationism in all form was a crime , espesialy on the East.
Becouse as i said , the Nazism has been targeted for elimination of entire nations.

Chevan
06-03-2009, 11:59 PM
A nation can't possibly be declared a traitor for following its national interests rather than some other nation's - especially when there's no treaty there to bind them.

Yes , but then TAHT Nation can't cry about its fate after the war.Coz they did not care about others.
It is stupid at least, we lost a millions of civils, thousands died per day.While some nations lived in relative comfort, watching how others have been exterminated.
Now one cry about "bitter fate" of his country- Bulgaria:)

Ivaylo
06-04-2009, 09:43 AM
It is psyhology of traitors:)
Serbs fought with NO tanks and by rifles from ww1 era enough succesfull for against inviders( a million Reich army).
You couldn't. you has just invited them and waited .
And that's all after that Russia done for you independence from your beloved ottoman Empire.
And don't tell me about your "POOR "grand father, who has been "beaten" in 77
My granddad DIED in age 23 in 1942 fighting agains Mainstain troops on Southern Russia.

Haha yes traitor to whom ?? To USSR ?? Excuse me but as Schuultz said we weren't in any alliance with you mr.Chevan , and that's something you have to learn mr. Chevan - Bulgaria is INDEPENDENT nation so we don't have to follow your rule of what who is "traitor " and who's not because you see things only from your eyes and stubbornly resist to see the things from the other people , you call us traitors for following our own national interest as Shuultz said , and that's really funny it's the same thing as to call you traitor because you invaded our country via help of partisans in september 1944 and after that the russian communists with the help of their bulgarian counterparts committed mass murders that you for known reasons refuse to see . And please don't tell me what i can tell or what not , remember mr.Chevan we live in democracy thanks to the western allies and from the communism that you so much enjoyed and that we so much suffered there is nothing left . So get use to it that's the reality . And if we have to be traitors in your eyes we will be because our national interest is N1 as well as the major powers follow theirs . As for my grand father he was really Beaten not "beaten " mr.Chevain and was forced to be without work simply because he was called "enemy of the state " something that even the nazis didn't do here , even more my father was banned from posibility to go to university you know why mr.Chevain ? Because he was with father "enemy of the state " on age 77 , that are the facts and i will tell them till the end of my life and you won't stop me because i live in freedom , get to use to that too .
And don't count only how many your country gave as casualties , what the whole Eastern Block gave as casualties + the GDR people trying to get trough to the West and shot on the wall ( btw why this people were running out of there maybe , wasn't communism a nice sistem with pleasure and enjoyment mr . Chevan ? Or maybe you were in 45 years of enjoyment while others were suffering as repayment for your casualties ? That's pretty much the same as the nazis wanted suffering from the Allies because Germany lost the WW1 ) so i think we payed and even repayed with so much death sentences over 45 years of harsh communist rule .

Chevan
06-05-2009, 12:05 AM
Haha yes traitor to whom ?? To USSR ?? Excuse me but as Schuultz said we weren't in any alliance with you mr.Chevan , and that's something you have to learn mr. Chevan - Bulgaria is INDEPENDENT nation so we don't have to follow your rule

Who did say the Bulgaria is independent?
MOST of your existence YOU was DEPENDENT:)
Even now you are pretty dependent from EU , Washington, NATO and ets.
I didn't speak the Bulgaria was in Any alliance with Russia.
Vice versa, all of you "independent " histosry you were in alliance with OUR enemies.



of what who is "traitor " and who's not because you see things only from your eyes and stubbornly resist to see the things from the other people , you call us traitors for following our own national interest as Shuultz said , and that's really funny it's the same thing as to call you traitor because you invaded our country via help of partisans in september 1944 and after that the russian communists with the help of their bulgarian counterparts committed mass murders that you for known reasons refuse to see .

Well , if only your "national interest" lie in alliance with Germany and NS.
Don't cry now . And its not funny if to keep in mind how many civil peoples died in that war.


And please don't tell me what i can tell or what not , remember mr.Chevan we live in democracy thanks to the western allies and from the communism that you so much enjoyed and that we so much suffered there is nothing left . So get use to it that's the reality . And if we have to be traitors in your eyes we will be because our national interest is N1 as well as the major powers follow theirs . As for my grand father he was really Beaten not "beaten " mr.Chevain and was forced to be without work simply because he was called "enemy of the state " something that even the nazis didn't do here , even more my father was banned from posibility to go to university you know why mr.Chevain ? Because he was with father "enemy of the state " on age 77 , that are the facts and i will tell them till the end of my life and you won't stop me because i live in freedom , get to use to that too .

Well i glad you live in "miserable poor country" ( it's YOOR words) but in DEMOCRACY.
Now you should be "happy and independent":)
I din't really say "what you can to tall",i just noticed that YOUR grandftaher was MUCH more lucky to be only beaten.
Unlike those millions who lost ALL their families, children and life in my country, from hands of your friends.
Who killed peoples not coz they were "communists" but coz they were low race.
Your poblem , buddy that YOU country IDIN"T EVEN try to fight for MOTHELAND, like fought say Poles, Greeks, Finns and Serbs.
And how you are crying (what a voe?) how terrible was life in Bulgaria?:)
Your "partisans" were nonentity, they've done nothing against GErmans. Even Dutch had much more strong resistence.


And don't count only how many your country gave as casualties , what the whole Eastern Block gave as casualties + the GDR people trying to get trough to the West and shot on the wall ( btw why this people were running out of there maybe , wasn't communism a nice sistem with pleasure and enjoyment mr . Chevan ? Or maybe you were in 45 years of enjoyment while others were suffering as repayment for your casualties ? That's pretty much the same as the nazis wanted suffering from the Allies because Germany lost the WW1 ) so i think we payed and even repayed with so much death sentences over 45 years of harsh communist rule .
You credited "the harsh communist rule", my dear Bulgarian revisionist.
You paid for terror against us before even commi has come to Bulgaria.
You were the devoited friends of AXIS since WW1 to WW2.
And now you trying to cause the symphaty for you hard life?Tell it to Americans and Germans - they never really seen such a terror. But not to me.

Chevan
06-05-2009, 02:54 AM
A nation can't possibly be declared a traitor for following its national interests rather than some other nation's - especially when there's no treaty there to bind them.
Let me clarify the points , my friend.
I don't defend the communists crimes- no way. You probably know that Russian suffered from Communism more then any other people on Eath( well just right after the Cinases).
I can understand that the alliance with Nazi Germany was in 1940 in the best interests of Bulgaria:)
The Hitler even promised them the Romanian Southern Dobruja and part of Makedonia ( while he promised Odessa to Romanians ;))after the war.
The Bulgaria joined absolutly voluntary to the ant-russian Triple pact that year.
Finaly as we know from mr Ivaylo post- the Bulgarians are not Jews and Russians, so they may live enough good ( and lond) with/in Reich.( i/m really glad for that fact)
So yes, the coalition with Nazism folows to a Bulgarian national interests, hard not to agree.
The Axis alliance was all time in best Bulgarian interests, i have to afdd, since ww1 when Bulgaria wanted to gain its terrotory and get the piece of Serbia.
The ONLY thing that bother me is why mr Ivaylo calls the Germans as occupants?
This is wrong , we can conlclude from his posts- the ONLY Communists were occupants who treated the population, beated the mr Ivaylo's poor grand daddy.(Notice - German did do that)
So Germans were natural friends of Bulgaria- its' what mr Ivaylo said us.
When Bulgarian people friendly meet the Wermacht in 1941 before the invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia, coz as we know that they had "ONLY ww1 tanks and rifles"( BTW do you accidentaly know - how much did have Geeks the tanks?).
Bulgaria was a little 6 million country that can't resist neither German not Soviets, said mr Ivaylo.But facts prove the othervise.It seems NOBODY except few communists didn't wish to resist in Bulgaria:)
Funny enought, but 3 mln Finland couldn resist.
6 mln Greece resisted
5 mln of Serbs resisted to the end of the war.
How much did they ALLTOGETHER have a tanks?
Can you believe that Bulgarian elite so loved USSR , that asked to join us as one of the Soviet Repablic VOLUNTARY in mid 1970?
Now the defective mr Ivaylo want to say othervise -that the Communists want to murder all Bulgarians, they beated hois grandfather.Whom to believe?
So i don't believe more to traitors..

Rising Sun*
06-05-2009, 05:27 AM
Ivaylo and Chevan

This is a mod's pre-emptive strike, which does not imply any criticism of the conduct of either of you so far.

However, this thread could easily turn into unpleasantness.

It's been going okay so far as a reasoned and factually supported, if understandably somewhat hostile, exchange.

Don't take it to the next step of name calling and personal abuse etc.

Just keep to the history supporting your respective arguments.

Ivaylo
06-05-2009, 11:29 AM
Let me clarify the points , my friend.
I don't defend the communists crimes- no way. You probably know that Russian suffered from Communism more then any other people on Eath( well just right after the Cinases).
I can understand that the alliance with Nazi Germany was in 1940 in the best interests of Bulgaria:)
The Hitler even promised them the Romanian Southern Dobruja and part of Makedonia ( while he promised Odessa to Romanians ;))after the war.
The Bulgaria joined absolutly voluntary to the ant-russian Triple pact that year.
Finaly as we know from mr Ivaylo post- the Bulgarians are not Jews and Russians, so they may live enough good ( and lond) with/in Reich.( i/m really glad for that fact)
So yes, the coalition with Nazism folows to a Bulgarian national interests, hard not to agree.
The Axis alliance was all time in best Bulgarian interests, i have to afdd, since ww1 when Bulgaria wanted to gain its terrotory and get the piece of Serbia.
The ONLY thing that bother me is why mr Ivaylo calls the Germans as occupants?
This is wrong , we can conlclude from his posts- the ONLY Communists were occupants who treated the population, beated the mr Ivaylo's poor grand daddy.(Notice - German did do that)
So Germans were natural friends of Bulgaria- its' what mr Ivaylo said us.
When Bulgarian people friendly meet the Wermacht in 1941 before the invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia, coz as we know that they had "ONLY ww1 tanks and rifles"( BTW do you accidentaly know - how much did have Geeks the tanks?).
Bulgaria was a little 6 million country that can't resist neither German not Soviets, said mr Ivaylo.But facts prove the othervise.It seems NOBODY except few communists didn't wish to resist in Bulgaria:)
Funny enought, but 3 mln Finland couldn resist.
6 mln Greece resisted
5 mln of Serbs resisted to the end of the war.
How much did they ALLTOGETHER have a tanks?
Can you believe that Bulgarian elite so loved USSR , that asked to join us as one of the Soviet Repablic VOLUNTARY in mid 1970?
Now the defective mr Ivaylo want to say othervise -that the Communists want to murder all Bulgarians, they beated hois grandfather.Whom to believe?
So i don't believe more to traitors..

Germans were occupants Mr.Chevan because they waited with army on Dunabe river on the border of Romania and you know pretty much what will happen if we didn't allow them - 3 days fight and after very harsh occupation and mass killings . So it's pretty much the same if someone point you a gun to your head you have no choice . Resistance is possible and right to do when you have resource to do it - USA had it , USSR too they were big countries . Not to forget UK were in hard situation fighting alone in the first stages of the war until the other countries joined ( i don't mean that they did bad when they defended their own country ) .
Second if you were so much wanting us to resist the germans where were USSR then ? why they didn't transfer us even rifles or something to fight with ?
Mainly what come was a diplomatic notes from USA and USSR not to join the Nazi pact with some murky promises in them like after the war if you are on our side will possibly give you something ( but it's not said what ) .

Third the bulgarian tzar Boris III in both occupations didn't gave order to resist or to move soldiers simply because he didn't want any bloodshed of bulgarian blood . During the both balkans wars and the WW1 we suffered enough so he was hoping to achieve something only with diplomation . When the Soviets came back here we didn't fought against them at all . Even more the goverment after 9 September 1944 agreed to send soldiers AGAINST the nazis something that the allies ( not USSR ) didn't take into consideration .

Fourth independence is never full as like we as persons in this world are not free to do anything as we wish because there are always persons which we count on or need for something . I prefer to be poor rather to be nazi killing machine or sent to soviet gulag .

Fifth please don't call me with unpleasant and false names i conduct a normal discussion and as you far you see i never called you with bad words against your personality .

Sixth if you don't respect other nation or nationality , don't respect their sovereignty in this case Bulgaria and the bulgarians what you expect from us and what you want from us ? Me personally don't have nothing against the russians as nation and i respect your country as i know and met a few russians so far in my life , but when it comes to give back the respect you don't give it and call me and my nation with such words as "traitors" . As yourself admitted Bulgaria had followed it's interest in a concrete situation , which was decided not by the bulgarians but by the tzar Boris III , he though the diplomation would save us . The only soldiers he sent were in the neighbours countries not against Germans in 1941 or against russians in 1944 . The difference comes from the treatment the both countries gave to our country , sadly for someone but the germans didn't touch us , they didn't made National Courts to shoot everyone who they see here ( something that sadly again some commies did here with orders from Moscow ) .

Seven - most of my nation still think you are our brothers because yes you saved us in 1878 and we are grateful for that and will be till end of our lifes . But i know the difference between Tzarist Russia and Communist one . And yes my grand father was lucky , others from other countries wasn't , and i don't cry about anything i just say the facts .

Eight - i am happy that you admitted that communism made crimes , that's considerable progress . For the democratic countries today there is no difference between the Communism and Nazis .

Nine - As for the post war era the bulgarian commies pretty much wanted to be liked by Moscow that's why they did whatever Moscow ordered without questions that's why they wanted to be with USSR there were other proposals as to join Yugoslavia too , something for which they had to be punished much more than the democracy here did , they were the real traitors because most of them were post "tzarists " officers who near 9 september 1944 simply as the wolf change it's skin changed their uniforms and disguised themself as stubborn communist .With the help of Moscow they got the power they so much loved .

Rising Sun*
06-07-2009, 10:27 AM
Blocking units were essential to keep discipline. Every army needs discipline. I think the red army, unfortunately, had to use them. If not, their soldiers would of retreated past the Urals. What was their left to? Stalin still had more people's to subjucate after this whole conflict was over.

So what does your last sentence have to do with your preceding points?

Chevan
06-11-2009, 01:35 AM
Germans were occupants Mr.Chevan because they waited with army on Dunabe river on the border of Romania and you know pretty much what will happen if we didn't allow them - 3 days fight and after very harsh occupation and mass killings . So it's pretty much the same if someone point you a gun to your head you have no choice . Resistance is possible and right to do when you have resource to do it - USA had it , USSR too they were big countries . Not to forget UK were in hard situation fighting alone in the first stages of the war until the other countries joined ( i don't mean that they did bad when they defended their own country ) .

Really mr Ivaylo?
Now say me what was a big counries Serbia, Finland and Greese? They had a dammn of resoursess, tanks and mashine-guns:)



Second if you were so much wanting us to resist the germans where were USSR then ? why they didn't transfer us even rifles or something to fight with ?

It's simple.
Coz you did not wish to fight.
USSR supported all who foght- Republican in Spain 1936-37,Chinases in 1941-45.
Britains supported Tito in Yugoslavia.
But all those people fought.


Mainly what come was a diplomatic notes from USA and USSR not to join the Nazi pact with some murky promises in them like after the war if you are on our side will possibly give you something ( but it's not said what ) .

Why have somebodyto tell you what to do mr Ivaylo?
Now this is tupical colonial psyhology - the big boss shall determine for you what you have to do.
Ask the Serbs- did the USA/USSR promised them more then diplomatic notes?


Third the bulgarian tzar Boris III in both occupations didn't gave order to resist or to move soldiers simply because he didn't want any bloodshed of bulgarian blood . During the both balkans wars and the WW1 we suffered enough so he was hoping to achieve something only with diplomation . When the Soviets came back here we didn't fought against them at all . Even more the goverment after 9 September 1944 agreed to send soldiers AGAINST the nazis something that the allies ( not USSR ) didn't take into consideration .

Oh your tsar didn't want to fight.
Tht's why you've got the bot occupaton ABSOLTLY voluntary.
You didn't fight against Nizis ( excpt few pro-comminists patisans) , you didn't fight against SOviets.And your rotten elite lick the sovie *** pretty well.
Well, my friend, you GOT WHAT YO"VE DESERVED voluntary.


Fourth independence is never full as like we as persons in this world are not free to do anything as we wish because there are always persons which we count on or need for something . I prefer to be poor rather to be nazi killing machine or sent to soviet gulag .

But you have prefered to be WITH Nazis , and then wth Soviets -that's a real facts.
Whom to complain now?


Fifth please don't call me with unpleasant and false names i conduct a normal discussion and as you far you see i never called you with bad words against your personality .

I've just called you revisionist - it had nothing to you pesonality, but ONLY to your ideas and points.


Sixth if you don't respect other nation or nationality , don't respect their sovereignty in this case Bulgaria and the bulgarians what you expect from us and what you want from us ? Me personally don't have nothing against the russians as nation and i respect your country as i know and met a few russians so far in my life , but when it comes to give back the respect you don't give it and call me and my nation with such words as "traitors" . As yourself admitted Bulgaria had followed it's interest in a concrete situation , which was decided not by the bulgarians but by the tzar Boris III , he though the diplomation would save us . The only soldiers he sent were in the neighbours countries not against Germans in 1941 or against russians in 1944 . The difference comes from the treatment the both countries gave to our country , sadly for someone but the germans didn't touch us , they didn't made National Courts to shoot everyone who they see here ( something that sadly again some commies did here with orders from Moscow ) .

I know you felt good with Germans .
And your puppet Boris ( who didn't ant to resist) was very glad endeed to get the peice of Romanian and Makedonian land for colloboratin with Nazis after the war.
And yes it was in Bulgarin interest , finally the Bulgaria fought for pieces of neighbourd lands during Balcans wars.
And i do respect the nations pretty well. But you advocating the COLLOBORATION in sense.
It cant be respective.
While the Boris ( who as i learn - didn't exress the Bulgaran people wll:);)) practised with diplomacy - the millons went to death camps.


Seven - most of my nation still think you are our brothers because yes you saved us in 1878 and we are grateful for that and will be till end of our lifes . But i know the difference between Tzarist Russia and Communist one . And yes my grand father was lucky , others from other countries wasn't , and i don't cry about anything i just say the facts .

No you don't know the difference.
I'll prove it for you.
Bulgarian joined to Axis against Russia in 1914.You was an friend of russian enemy again.
No you know why i'll call the Bulgarians as traitors.


Eight - i am happy that you admitted that communism made crimes , that's considerable progress . For the democratic countries today there is no difference between the Communism and Nazis .

That's what i've trued to say you.
It's bad to colloborate with both regimes.But you did it voluntary ALL TIME.
It's the shame.
You have to understand me- you swear to Germans with Love, than you sweared to Stalin.
Now, quite accidentally , when you have a friendship with Washington - we have learned- the both regimes were occupants.
When we can to believe you?
When did you said the true?
How can we know that , say, through 20-30 years when USA will have losed their world liadership - you will not tell us (or CHina or Turkey - as varianst)) that NATO was "occupation" who "invided" the poor miserable Bulgaria?


Nine - As for the post war era the bulgarian commies pretty much wanted to be liked by Moscow that's why they did whatever Moscow ordered without questions that's why they wanted to be with USSR there were other proposals as to join Yugoslavia too , something for which they had to be punished much more than the democracy here did , they were the real traitors because most of them were post "tzarists " officers who near 9 september 1944 simply as the wolf change it's skin changed their uniforms and disguised themself as stubborn communist .With the help of Moscow they got the power they so much loved .
Yes they were a traitrs, who wanted the communist privilegies for themself.That's why they lied to ustoo - they said loved us.
But now you is complying on ...evil soviet regime:)
Why don't you blame the ugly domestic scums who berayed and lied to both our peoples?

Chevan
06-11-2009, 01:47 AM
Ivaylo and Chevan

This is a mod's pre-emptive strike, which does not imply any criticism of the conduct of either of you so far.

However, this thread could easily turn into unpleasantness.

It's been going okay so far as a reasoned and factually supported, if understandably somewhat hostile, exchange.

Don't take it to the next step of name calling and personal abuse etc.

Just keep to the history supporting your respective arguments.

Understood, boss.
No more unpleasant Nato's sentences:);)
I juts try to improve my historical level with mr Ivaylo.
BTW did you know that Tsar Boris III was puppet too:)He did not say the people that Germans were occupants.
Poor Bulgaria.When the Bulgaians really were under Bulgarian rule?:)

Ivaylo
06-12-2009, 09:55 AM
Understood, boss.
No more unpleasant Nato's sentences:);)
I juts try to improve my historical level with mr Ivaylo.
BTW did you know that Tsar Boris III was puppet too:)He did not say the people that Germans were occupants.
Poor Bulgaria.When the Bulgaians really were under Bulgarian rule?:)

Mmm nice humor but unfortunately i don't get what is so funny in that and as i see the others too ;)
Maybe the tsar had to wear a board sign with words " we had been occupied i didn't had any other choice , you saw what happen with Greece and Yugoslavia please for that traitor action towards USSR anyone who meet me beat me a slap because i didn't protect the holy interest of mother Russia "
Well i will tell you the other part not only Bulgaria but as well the other countries will be free when you stop to accuse them by not protecting your own interest every single time and when you stop to say them that they are not independent with one word - your protectorates . Only when you leave the minor countries like our and other such to be free and to act as their interest say without latter you to want vengeance then Bulgaria and other as us will by under our own rule . Because even now the major powers via the diplomatic ways try to make us protectorates and slaves of their own major interest using their major power .

Ivaylo
06-12-2009, 10:22 AM
Really mr Ivaylo?
Now say me what was a big counries Serbia, Finland and Greese? They had a dammn of resoursess, tanks and mashine-guns:)

It's simple.
Coz you did not wish to fight.
USSR supported all who foght- Republican in Spain 1936-37,Chinases in 1941-45.
Britains supported Tito in Yugoslavia.
But all those people fought.

Why have somebodyto tell you what to do mr Ivaylo?
Now this is tupical colonial psyhology - the big boss shall determine for you what you have to do.
Ask the Serbs- did the USA/USSR promised them more then diplomatic notes?

Oh your tsar didn't want to fight.
Tht's why you've got the bot occupaton ABSOLTLY voluntary.
You didn't fight against Nizis ( excpt few pro-comminists patisans) , you didn't fight against SOviets.And your rotten elite lick the sovie *** pretty well.
Well, my friend, you GOT WHAT YO"VE DESERVED voluntary.

But you have prefered to be WITH Nazis , and then wth Soviets -that's a real facts.
Whom to complain now?

I've just called you revisionist - it had nothing to you pesonality, but ONLY to your ideas and points.

I know you felt good with Germans .
And your puppet Boris ( who didn't ant to resist) was very glad endeed to get the peice of Romanian and Makedonian land for colloboratin with Nazis after the war.
And yes it was in Bulgarin interest , finally the Bulgaria fought for pieces of neighbourd lands during Balcans wars.
And i do respect the nations pretty well. But you advocating the COLLOBORATION in sense.
It cant be respective.
While the Boris ( who as i learn - didn't exress the Bulgaran people wll:);)) practised with diplomacy - the millons went to death camps.

No you don't know the difference.
I'll prove it for you.
Bulgarian joined to Axis against Russia in 1914.You was an friend of russian enemy again.
No you know why i'll call the Bulgarians as traitors.

That's what i've trued to say you.
It's bad to colloborate with both regimes.But you did it voluntary ALL TIME.
It's the shame.
You have to understand me- you swear to Germans with Love, than you sweared to Stalin.
Now, quite accidentally , when you have a friendship with Washington - we have learned- the both regimes were occupants.
When we can to believe you?
When did you said the true?
How can we know that , say, through 20-30 years when USA will have losed their world liadership - you will not tell us (or CHina or Turkey - as varianst)) that NATO was "occupation" who "invided" the poor miserable Bulgaria?

Yes they were a traitrs, who wanted the communist privilegies for themself.That's why they lied to ustoo - they said loved us.
But now you is complying on ...evil soviet regime:)
Why don't you blame the ugly domestic scums who berayed and lied to both our peoples?

Finland fought against the holy USSR don't forget it ( you have to answer why ) and as territory and at least nation yes they are bigger than us , Greece too and Yugoslavia too if you don't believe me look at the map and see how much population they got .

Why britans supported Tito in Yugoslavia where was the holy USSR ?
A nation like ours broken by two wars against Greece , Yugoslavia and Romania was incapable to make resistance yes nor in the nation anyone wanted it , the folk wanted peace that is simple and the Tzar knowing that used only diplomation unlike you and the germans who prefered the war as main method of convincing of what is right or wrong .
And what difference it would make if Bulgaria fought for 3 days ? None just another nation like Holland crushed to pieces for the interest of the holy USSR . What difference made the fighting of Yugoslavia and Greece ? None they were too crushed to pices and subjected to terror , but the Yugoslavia were unlucky as they just seen one terror the another one was waiting after the war .

As for what have someone to tell me read well what i wrote . I wrote about what the major Allies promised not what someone had to told us . Just USSR and the major powers didn't have any interest in Bulgaria they didn't care about it , Britain cared about it's beloved Greece and you about your child Yugoslavia it's simple . Like in the law - every subject have to follow it's interest acording to the major laws . And so the only one who cared even little about us was .... guess who ... USSR ? nope , Britain ? again wrong ....
US ??? they don't even know we exist ...... Germany ? ahh what a damn nazi nation but they were the only one who PROMISED us something in exchange to much normal occupation mr Chevan because it was occupation we didn't invite them to have a cup of tea on the Black see and to watch the stars the Germans said it clearly " if you don't pass us we will be merciless and will crush you like we did with Yugoslavia and Greece " So if you saw what happened with your neighbours before and with Allies who just send their diplomatic notes in which they didn't even promised help what about other , you don't have anything to fight for mr . Chevan . and you even don't have with what to fight even if you wish because you saw how it ends ( Greece crushed by the Wehrmacht and SS the same with Yugoslavia ) .
Or maybe you think that we had the resource to make Stalingrad here or what ?

And mr . Chevan we fought for bulgarian lands not for neighbourhood lands change your USSR rithoric please , because these lands after the first Balkan wars had to be ours but the Greece and Yugoslavia joined against us and taken them from us , they were filled with native bulgarians something the Holy Russia turned a blind eye and again choosed to support it's beloved Serbs . That's why this led to our choice to join the Germans again mr.Chevan not you because you never stood by our interest you never protected it , you always choosen the Serbs . That's why we always choose Germany .

Another thing i see your happiness from what we got and i don't see why , it's like to be happy for such countries like Netherlands that they had been occupied , i don't understand such behaviour mr.Chevan . Btw speaking of the dutch with your logic they were traitors too - many of them signed for the dutch SS legions fighting against you mr.Chevan for one or other reason .

As for the Serbs i won't ask them because at the end the poor guys got nothing less a comunist regime leading them to the Miloshevic and the mass killings of albanians in the wars that we know . So i don't think their fighting gave them something less than missery , they were crushed again quickly by the germans .

And yes i blame both the creators and main leaders of the communist regime as well as our pupets who sold themselfs for power during both occupations .
As for NATO they are not because now we voted that in our parlament and we joined on our own will , something that didn't happen neither in 1941 nor in 1944 .

Chevan
06-12-2009, 01:29 PM
Mmm nice humor but unfortunately i don't get what is so funny in that and as i see the others too ;)
Maybe the tsar had to wear a board sign with words " we had been occupied i didn't had any other choice , you saw what happen with Greece and Yugoslavia please for that traitor action towards USSR anyone who meet me beat me a slap because i didn't protect the holy interest of mother Russia "

I don't think he wear such a boad coz , mr Ivaylo , the Bulgaria joined to Axis BEFORE the invasion to Greese and Yugoslavia.
As well as the Makedonia has been promised to Boris before even Serbs and Greeks began to fight.
I don't force you to protect the interes of Mother Russia- you shall protect at least YOUR OWN interests.
And if cooperation with Nazi was in your interest- dont cry now that Stalin had installed communists gov in bulgaria ,according to best soviet intrests.
There were a tiny , but resistence in Bulgaria in1941-44.But it was Communits who ONLY resisted.
So they , as a force who ONLY fought agins German occupants - they had desered ALL RIGHTS to be in power, unlike your defective coloborator Tsar.
All is legitime.


.. even now the major powers via the diplomatic ways try to make us protectorates and slaves of their own major interest using their major power .
They have already made you as their protectorate . Just open the eyes my friend.
Amd you elite just work on their interests, just like in 1914,1941,1944.

Firefly
06-12-2009, 02:17 PM
So what exactly are we trying to say here?

That Bulgaria got what it deserved becuase it was part of the Axis, or

that Bulgaria woulld have gotten the same treatment no matter what side it was on?

Chevan
06-12-2009, 03:08 PM
Finland fought against the holy USSR don't forget it ( you have to answer why ) and as territory and at least nation yes they are bigger than us , Greece too and Yugoslavia too if you don't believe me look at the map and see how much population they got .

You my friend is deeply mistaken.
The population of Finland was TWICE less then Bulgarian in 1940 ( 3 mln vs 6 mln).Plus nobody helped to finns when they fough against USSR during winter war.
They fought alone against the whole Soviet front ( about 400 000 rd army soldiers).
Yugoslavia had ONLY about something 30 000- 50 000 of partisans under Tito's controll.
But all those nation fought against Invders.'
Bulgarian did not .
That's what YOUR problem.


Why britans supported Tito in Yugoslavia where was the holy USSR ?

Yugoslavia was neither pro-sovie nor pro-communistic that time- It was ally of Britain.
But were was the Bulgaria?
Well , i guess though:)
You have been busy , devide the Yugoslavian land, just lik in all good tmes ( balcan wars and ww1)


A nation like ours broken by two wars against Greece , Yugoslavia and Romania was incapable to make resistance yes nor in the nation anyone wanted it , the folk wanted peace that is simple and the Tzar knowing that used only diplomation unlike you and the germans who prefered the war as main method of convincing of what is right or wrong .

Oh you have been broken and uncapable to resist , but felt enough good, joining to invasion of Yugoslavia alongside Wermacht:)
Well, well my friend , what will i have learned next?:)


.. What difference made the fighting of Yugoslavia and Greece ? None they were too crushed to pices and subjected to terror , but the Yugoslavia were unlucky as they just seen one terror the another one was waiting after the war .

No , my revisionist friend.
The Germans have been obligated to hold entire 9-13 divisions on the Yugoslavia( plus Bulgarian, Albanian colloborationists) to fight with Tito.Out of European war.
Yes it was hard time for Serbs. But the Tito has won - and saved their power in a country even after Soviet liberation.Yuoslavia was INDEPENDENT from Soviets after the war.
Unlike defective Tsar Boris:)


As for what have someone to tell me read well what i wrote . I wrote about what the major Allies promised not what someone had to told us . Just USSR and the major powers didn't have any interest in Bulgaria they didn't care about it , Britain cared about it's beloved Greece and you about your child Yugoslavia it's simple . Like in the law - every subject have to follow it's interest acording to the major laws . And so the only one who cared even little about us was .... guess who ... USSR ? nope , Britain ? again wrong ....
US ??? they don't even know we exist ...... Germany ? ahh what a damn nazi nation but they were the only one who PROMISED us something in exchange to much normal occupation mr Chevan because it was occupation we didn't invite them to have a cup of tea on the Black see and to watch the stars the Germans said it clearly " if you don't pass us we will be merciless and will crush you like we did with Yugoslavia and Greece " So if you saw what happened with your neighbours before and with Allies who just send their diplomatic notes in which they didn't even promised help what about other , you don't have anything to fight for mr . Chevan . and you even don't have with what to fight even if you wish because you saw how it ends ( Greece crushed by the Wehrmacht and SS the same with Yugoslavia ) .

Yugoslavia has not been crushed, my friend.They fough to the end , while your beloved Boris helped the Nazis in occupationof your neighbourds.
And as i said Bulgaria has joied to "Tripe parct" before te invasion of Greese.


Or maybe you think that we had the resource to make Stalingrad here or what ?

Or what..
You may to organize at least something kinda Helsinki 1940:)
Pure for the health of your conscience.
But you prefered to invide yuogoslavia :)
Nice choose, i have to add.


And mr . Chevan we fought for bulgarian lands not for neighbourhood lands change your USSR rithoric please

I would like to change the "USSR rhetoric" , but English Wiki is'n under my controll , my dear Ivaylo.
You know Brits all time do use the "Soviet rhetoric":)They clearly told what were lands you fought for:)
Check it up , if you wish.


...the Holy Russia turned a blind eye and again choosed to support it's beloved Serbs . That's why this led to our choice to join the Germans again mr.Chevan not you because you never stood by our interest you never protected it , you always choosen the Serbs . That's why we always choose Germany .

Hmmn , it's interestig.
SO you , poor guys , all times choosed the Germany voluntary, only coz Russia supported our ALLIED Serbia?
But Serbia all time RESISTED to invaiders.
You didn't . Whom shall we choose to support?The Nazis ally?
It was sort of vengeace for you?
SO all time supported Beloved Reich, who as you saw by YOUR eyes ,terrorised population Yugoslavia and greese.
You supported the regime that was going to exterminat the entire nations on the East , coz " Russia all time supported Serbia"?
Do you understand how dos much emotional and silly such an argiment?
The problem that Russia didn't support Yugoslavia yet in 1941.You have choosed Nazis first:)


Another thing i see your happiness from what we got and i don't see why , it's like to be happy for such countries like Netherlands that they had been occupied , i don't understand such behaviour mr.Chevan . Btw speaking of the dutch with your logic they were traitors too - many of them signed for the dutch SS legions fighting against you mr.Chevan for one or other reason .

Nah, Dutch SS were simple COLLOBORATORS.
COz thoushand of Russian hadn't died for Freedom of Nethelads fighting ugly Ottoman Empire, mr Ivaylo.
Bulgrian colloorators were traitor for us- coz you all time choosed the Enemy side.Just out of princip, as i've learned.


As for the Serbs i won't ask them because at the end the poor guys got nothing less a comunist regime leading them to the Miloshevic and the mass killings of albanians in the wars that we know . So i don't think their fighting gave them something less than missery , they were crushed again quickly by the germans .

No ,they saved their country from Soviet occupation in 1945.
They deserved it. You don't
The Yugoslavia was multinational country , that suffered the tragedy not coz comunism , but coz after the collaps of communis local Nationalist have began the rougless Ethnic war.Just like you Nazis friends in Yugoslavia in 1941.
Nationalism -is the father of Fascism, you have to learn it (for a long time of German love)


And yes i blame both the creators and main leaders of the communist regime as well as our pupets who sold themselfs for power during both occupations .

So haw meny your puppets have been charged or imprisoned for Communist era crimes?
How many of them have ben blamed for LIE ( they sweared "with love" to USSR)?
Most of them or their sons now in the power, after magical transformaton to "Democrats".You kow it.
This' is anoter dirty story of YOUR country ( that other Eastern Europeans don't like to remind also).
The Local colloborationism.


As for NATO they are not because now we voted that in our parlament and we joined on our own will , something that didn't happen neither in 1941 nor in 1944 .
Ha ha ha .
Your parliament voted for American money ( re-armng programs ) and European finatial dotations. Everybody know it.
Just like in 1914, 1941 you gov voted for pieces of neigbourd lands.

Chevan
06-12-2009, 03:19 PM
So what exactly are we trying to say here?

I try to explain to mr Ivaylo the simple Jesus commandment- Love your neighbourg as much as you love yourself.
Tsar Boris didn' folow that rule- he didn't love Serbs, Romanians , Greeks , Russians and Jews. He loved only his egoistic interests.
That's why it has so badly ended, mr Falklanders:)
SO mr Ivalyo have tend to blame all others in their inner problems.
Initially , he make me laugh, sying that Bulgarian arny had no "tanks and rifles" and "USA didn't promised them nothing more than diplomatc notes":)
Now , quite by chance , we have learned frm mr Ivaylo that Bulgaria INDEED joined to Asix to reconquer "its lands" ( stolen by Serbia and ROmania) back.
And that was in best their interests sure.
Quite intersting have to say.

P.S. Wanna get the Argentinian citisentship when PZ will have come to Malvinas to take it back?:);)

Firefly
06-13-2009, 10:48 AM
P.S. Wanna get the Argentinian citisentship when PZ will have come to Malvinas to take it back?

Well, Im sitiing here waiting for that glorious day. Mind you, it may be a wee bit chilly for them this time of the year.:shock:

Ivaylo
06-13-2009, 01:14 PM
You my friend is deeply mistaken.
The population of Finland was TWICE less then Bulgarian in 1940 ( 3 mln vs 6 mln).Plus nobody helped to finns when they fough against USSR during winter war.
They fought alone against the whole Soviet front ( about 400 000 rd army soldiers).
Yugoslavia had ONLY about something 30 000- 50 000 of partisans under Tito's controll.
But all those nation fought against Invders.'
Bulgarian did not .
That's what YOUR problem.

Yugoslavia was neither pro-sovie nor pro-communistic that time- It was ally of Britain.
But were was the Bulgaria?
Well , i guess though:)
You have been busy , devide the Yugoslavian land, just lik in all good tmes ( balcan wars and ww1)

Oh you have been broken and uncapable to resist , but felt enough good, joining to invasion of Yugoslavia alongside Wermacht:)
Well, well my friend , what will i have learned next?:)

No , my revisionist friend.
The Germans have been obligated to hold entire 9-13 divisions on the Yugoslavia( plus Bulgarian, Albanian colloborationists) to fight with Tito.Out of European war.
Yes it was hard time for Serbs. But the Tito has won - and saved their power in a country even after Soviet liberation.Yuoslavia was INDEPENDENT from Soviets after the war.
Unlike defective Tsar Boris:)

Yugoslavia has not been crushed, my friend.They fough to the end , while your beloved Boris helped the Nazis in occupationof your neighbourds.
And as i said Bulgaria has joied to "Tripe parct" before te invasion of Greese.

Or what..
You may to organize at least something kinda Helsinki 1940:)
Pure for the health of your conscience.
But you prefered to invide yuogoslavia :)
Nice choose, i have to add.

I would like to change the "USSR rhetoric" , but English Wiki is'n under my controll , my dear Ivaylo.
You know Brits all time do use the "Soviet rhetoric":)They clearly told what were lands you fought for:)
Check it up , if you wish.

Hmmn , it's interestig.
SO you , poor guys , all times choosed the Germany voluntary, only coz Russia supported our ALLIED Serbia?
But Serbia all time RESISTED to invaiders.
You didn't . Whom shall we choose to support?The Nazis ally?
It was sort of vengeace for you?
SO all time supported Beloved Reich, who as you saw by YOUR eyes ,terrorised population Yugoslavia and greese.
You supported the regime that was going to exterminat the entire nations on the East , coz " Russia all time supported Serbia"?
Do you understand how dos much emotional and silly such an argiment?
The problem that Russia didn't support Yugoslavia yet in 1941.You have choosed Nazis first:)

Nah, Dutch SS were simple COLLOBORATORS.
COz thoushand of Russian hadn't died for Freedom of Nethelads fighting ugly Ottoman Empire, mr Ivaylo.
Bulgrian colloorators were traitor for us- coz you all time choosed the Enemy side.Just out of princip, as i've learned.

No ,they saved their country from Soviet occupation in 1945.
They deserved it. You don't
The Yugoslavia was multinational country , that suffered the tragedy not coz comunism , but coz after the collaps of communis local Nationalist have began the rougless Ethnic war.Just like you Nazis friends in Yugoslavia in 1941.
Nationalism -is the father of Fascism, you have to learn it (for a long time of German love)

So haw meny your puppets have been charged or imprisoned for Communist era crimes?
How many of them have ben blamed for LIE ( they sweared "with love" to USSR)?
Most of them or their sons now in the power, after magical transformaton to "Democrats".You kow it.
This' is anoter dirty story of YOUR country ( that other Eastern Europeans don't like to remind also).
The Local colloborationism.

Ha ha ha .
Your parliament voted for American money ( re-armng programs ) and European finatial dotations. Everybody know it.
Just like in 1914, 1941 you gov voted for pieces of neigbourd lands.

HAHAHA very funny Helsinki here :D:D:D Helsinki for whom for you ? Only in your dreams . Remember We are not Finland that have harsh winter the germans would simply jump through the river and would have shmashed us to pieces in a 2-3 days campaign just like they did in their western campaign . Actually you are mistaken that nobody helped the finns they received some help behind the scenes . Also your Jesus principle hahahah you gonna tell me that you love your neighbours ? HAHAHAHA You invaded Finland isn't it ? What the hell you were doing there ?? To show the finns how much you love them ? HAHAHAHAHA
Oh so everyone who is dutch a message from Moscow - you are collaborators ! Mother Holy Russia thinks you are disgrace to the human race .
I can't love a neighbour even a country which always ally herself with Serbia and other such loving neighbours which always put a knife in our backs . Btw WW 1 when they put a such knife in our backs what did Russia do ?
Said " i allow you cut them and do whatever you want " that's what you did .
So of course we would join the Third , fifth and whatever Reich , democracy or country who can save us from your imprerial megalomania , and yes we will do it everytime until you don't stop to act against us .
And with your sentences saying that we were occupying Yugoslavian land you clearly show to whom you stand and who you love , so don't act so surprised when we choose people who love us ;)
And no it's not silly it's called defending YOUR OWN NATIONAL INTEREST and it's allowed by the international law if you don't agree sit and read the law , it's allowed even now .
Btw if you think NATO are occupiers don't join but LEAVE the others to join and get away from your " bear hug ". That's my last ever reply on this theme i won't loose my time to debate with a pro communist viewer and man who don't respect not only mine but all countries who didn't follow his county interest . Over and OUT

Ivaylo
06-14-2009, 08:26 AM
So what exactly are we trying to say here?

That Bulgaria got what it deserved becuase it was part of the Axis, or

that Bulgaria woulld have gotten the same treatment no matter what side it was on?

The second one my friend , neither UK nor USA or USSR cared about some tiny little country , not to mention that then and even now some people from US and UK don't know that we even exist .

Rising Sun*
06-14-2009, 09:25 AM
The second one my friend , neither UK nor USA or USSR cared about some tiny little country

Why should they?

Every country acts in its own interests as determined by the government of the time, just as Bulgaria did in WWII and since.

The UK and USA and USSR didn't care about each other during WWII. They just used each other for their own purposes.

What makes you think they would treat Bulgaria any differently?


not to mention that then and even now some people from US and UK don't know that we even exist .

Why should they, any more than they should know where Yemen or the Gilbert Islands or Chad or anywhere else is?

32Bravo
06-15-2009, 05:50 AM
Why should they?

Every country acts in its own interests as determined by the government of the time, just as Bulgaria did in WWII and since.

The UK and USA and USSR didn't care about each other during WWII. They just used each other for their own purposes.

What makes you think they would treat Bulgaria any differently?



Why should they, any more than they should know where Yemen or the Gilbert Islands or Chad or anywhere else is?

I know that Timbuktu is twinned with Hay-on-Wye...I just don't know where it is ... Hay-on-Wye, that is.

Ivaylo
06-15-2009, 06:32 AM
Why should they?

Every country acts in its own interests as determined by the government of the time, just as Bulgaria did in WWII and since.

The UK and USA and USSR didn't care about each other during WWII. They just used each other for their own purposes.

What makes you think they would treat Bulgaria any differently?



Why should they, any more than they should know where Yemen or the Gilbert Islands or Chad or anywhere else is?

At least from common culture you have to know geography ;) Because they knew where Greece is , Turkey and all other what in the middle of the Balkans there is a hole or what ? :) And second reason is that we are part of Europe and as such we know the countries part of it we are not some country in South America (nothing against them ) , so it would be nice the others to know about our country too :) I don't say they must it would be just nice of course :)
With the other part about the interests i completely agree with you , of course UK and US defended their interest and such is the world , expecially in case of war , so as we did defend our own interest they did defend their so i personally have nothing against that , just i said what was their position towards us .

Rising Sun*
06-15-2009, 07:01 AM
At least from common culture you have to know geography ;) Because they knew where Greece is , Turkey and all other ...

Want to bet on that? ;) :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNs0OYMudls&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3eS1zwfZQ0&feature=related (although at least she had heard of Turkey)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esbS_vT25GU

Not that these clowns are unique to America. Every country has them.

32Bravo
06-15-2009, 09:42 AM
Want to bet on that? ;) :D



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3eS1zwfZQ0&feature=related (although at least she had heard of Turkey)




That is hilarious...but she makes up for it with her personality. :lol:

Chevan
06-15-2009, 10:17 AM
Why should they?

They should mate.At least in mind of mr Ivaylo:)
I would want to call is the "hard Communist heritage", but honestly our bulgarian friend has proved right now- Bulgarian colonian mentality hasn't realy changed since Ottoman empire owned by them:).


Why should they, any more than they should know where Yemen or the Gilbert Islands or Chad or anywhere else is?
Bulgaria is the Yemen of Balcans- that all what one really must know about them:)

Chevan
06-15-2009, 10:23 AM
With the other part about the interests i completely agree with you , of course UK and US defended their interest and such is the world , expecially in case of war , so as we did defend our own interest they did defend their so i personally have nothing against that , just i said what was their position towards us .

Biiingooooo....
Yes so now you agree that everybody was doing right , including USSR that acted in its BEST interest installing you defective po-soviet commies on power of Bulgaria:)
BTW who did promise not to post more in this thread?

Chevan
06-15-2009, 10:28 AM
So of course we would join the Third , fifth and whatever Reich , democracy or country who can save us from your imprerial megalomania , and yes we will do it everytime until you don't stop to act against us .
And with your sentences saying that we were occupying Yugoslavian land you clearly show to whom you stand and who you love , so don't act so surprised when we choose people who love us ;)

That was a greates post i ever heard mr Ivaylo.
From points of European colonial revisionism..

Ivaylo
06-16-2009, 11:50 AM
Bulgaria is the Yemen of Balcans- that all what one really must know about them:)[/QUOTE]

I really promised to not reply you but you reached the line of my patience .
Where are the words about the loving neighbours ? Jesus ? that's bul****
And what we should know about you ? That your words don't count a piece of **** and you are such . That's what you are , insulting other nations calling them traitors , and whatever else and latter talking for love , no one will believe you you are the biggest traitors to your own hearts .

Ivaylo
06-16-2009, 11:51 AM
Biiingooooo....
Yes so now you agree that everybody was doing right , including USSR that acted in its BEST interest installing you defective po-soviet commies on power of Bulgaria:)
BTW who did promise not to post more in this thread?

Bla bla bla and what next ? to give you medal that you exploatated us for 45 years ??

Ivaylo
06-16-2009, 11:53 AM
They should mate.At least in mind of mr Ivaylo:)
I would want to call is the "hard Communist heritage", but honestly our bulgarian friend has proved right now- Bulgarian colonian mentality hasn't realy changed since Ottoman empire owned by them:).

Bulgaria is the Yemen of Balcans- that all what one really must know about them:)

Bulgaria never got colonies read more history and as you don't know it don't speak about it . Btw i didn't receive a answer what you did in Finland ? Trying to show the Mercy and love of Jesus ? :D

Rising Sun*
06-16-2009, 03:44 PM
And what we should know about you ? That your words don't count a piece of **** and you are such .

This is what I didn't want to see happen.

As my pre-emptive warning was ignored, you now have a moderator's formal warning for insulting language.

Cool it.

Leave those sorts of comments out of posts and you'll be fine. And that goes for everybody else in this thread.

Schuultz
06-16-2009, 04:17 PM
Leave those sorts of comments out of posts and you'll be fine. And that goes for everybody else in this thread.

DARN IT!

And here I thought this thread could replace Oprah
:mrgreen: