Operation Barbarossa Day

Thanks for many informations. Tomorrow I will try to search more about it all, now I have time only to write something short about Vlasov.
Maybe he was a traitor, I dont want to say neither yes or not, it is not easy to judge up. For Soviets is he indeed traitor, but for Russians? Who knows? But before he was captured, he was undoubtebly one of the best soviet officers. He proved his skills in many combats, i.e. defend of Kiev and Moscow. He did not surrender and was not even "normally" captured, as I know, some Russian civilians gave him to Germans, while he tried to escape from encirclement.

 

Yes Jean you are correct, Vlasov did indeed due his part in the Battle of Moscow.

however he switched sides to fight with the Germans and shot at his own people ( Russians )
For this reason, it is the Russians who consider him ( and rightfully so ) a traitor. Other's in other Soviet Republics try to either excuse or lesson his crimes....

~Strik-Strikfeldt, who had been a participant of the White movement during the Russian civil war, persuaded Vlasov to become involved in aiding the German advance. Along with lieutenant colonel Vladimir Boyarsky, Vlasov wrote a memo shortly after his capture to the German military leaders, suggesting a cooperation between the anti-Stalinist Russians and the German Army.


Later in 45' he switched sides again during the Prague uprising and began fighting the Germans.... As you can imagine this did not sit well with Stalin or the people and he was executed in 46'.

 

I am just startitg to sniff informations about Leningrad (thus I allready got somethig), so for Vlasov again shortly:
There were lots of Russians in german army, not only Vlasovs two divisions. Too many of Russians (not only Russians, all nations of USSR, Germans called them Hiwis or such as?), that, in fact, the Wehrmacht could not work without them.
Shooting to own people is indeed bad, but maybe he considers himself as a kind of rebel against Stalin and komunist party? Btw., his army did not fight much against Russians, only once in regular battle (as I remember, maybe more times).
Uprising in Prague is quite an interesting for me, as it is only about 100 km (1 hour by train) to get there. And if there were not those Vlasov forces there just in right time, many of ancient buildings and other sights were gone...
Btw., Vlasov himself did not want to fight Germans, one of his officers gave order to help to Prague.

 

Well, 150,000 was the maximum number of Germans (my estimation) directly attacking Leningrad. Wikis figure of 725,000 is not specified in time, thus probably mean all Germans, who ever seen Leningrad up to end of its siege. In Sept. 1941 is such a number nonsens.
Missing? Yes, they are missing on those map, because its a map of only Leningrad itself.
8th Panzer Division (PD) I am unable to locate in this time, I know only it was probably somewhere near Luga, along with 96th Infantry Div. (ID)
12th PD was in Schliessenburg (Kirovsk), a bit east of Leningrad. (with some parts of XXVIII Army Corps)
18th ID(mot) is like shadow for me, I only found it was somewhere about Leningrad, but nothing better. /maybe you should help to locate these units too/
18th Army was here too, about half of divisions I mentioned above belonged to 18th Army?!? Other parts of 18th Army were elsewhere, most of them were since 17th Aug. fighting with Soviet 8th Army at Narva.

15th September? My sources (definitely not Suvorov!!) says something else, the order to stop to try capture Leningrad was given to von Leeb 12th Sept. and 17th Sept. was transfered away the 41st Panzer Group.

As for Zhukovs and Kuliks attacks, as Zhukov could not arrive before Sept. 12th and Hitlers "Stop" came 12th too, how should this deter Germans from seizing Leningrad? This attacks indeed could to make situation of Leningrad better, but had nothing to influence Hitler to not capture Leningrad, but only to "erase" it. This decision came before those attacks.

 

Well, it is surprising for me, that as a chief of the Red Army General Staff (January - July 1941) he had no authority to anything?!? Stalin indeed must have the last word to confirm any major decission, but someone had to make plans etc. and bring them to Stalin, am I wrong? And this is Staffs work to make plans, place units... And the staff worked very hard, about 18-19 hours per day (Zhukovs Memories... page 241)(btw, it was again Zhukov, who wrote on page 110 of his memories, that not the staff, but the Komunist Party Committee was the brain of the RA)(it is very hard for me to expres in English most of informations I want to). One old strategist (Sun Tzu, I think) wrote something like that: "if you place your units bad, at the start of the battle, it is nearly impossible to retrieve it" And, maybe its only my wrong idea, whos signature was on orders and plans of the Red Army in first six months of the 41st year? After all, if ignoring commands from the General staff (and who was in charge, if not the staff??), only this dislocation of army and first days orders (signed by Zhukov, of course) did make him responsible at least of a part of those defeats.
It was allways Zhukov, who said: I couldt do anything, I did not know about.., I had not authority.., I disagreed with Stalin etc.. Interesting is, that after war he claimed he predicted this and that (and where is some evidence of it and some evidence about his disagreeing with Stalin is missing too, except Zhukovs statements) and simultaneously he did not know, his own inteligence officer "was not under his command"... This seems to me as a great pile of excuses or evasions. In addition, if I consider all of these Zhukovs exclamations, Zhukov looks like either dumb, or incapable. (I am sorry for such a sharp judging, but I dont know how to write it other way)
T-26 and BTs are another story for another topic, because I dont think these were as inferior as you wrote here.

 

Yes, Zhukov had no authority over Stalin. He only had authority over the other comanders. Zhukov is the one who pleaded with Stalin to withdraw the Red Army from Kiev over the Dneper. Stalin called him a insane and threw his argument out the window. Zhukov warned him about the Vyazma offensive and was completely against it. Again Stalin told Zhukov to to attack, which led to catastrophic results. This information is listed in many books and many sites. Historian such as David Glants and Erickson back this claim and so do other Soviet Gernerals such a Rokkosovsky and Saposhnikov. During the 1st 6 months of the war, it was Stalin and ONLY stalin who made military decisions. His generals only followed what Stalin had instructed them to do. It was only after the Battle of Moscow that Stalin started to hand over more and more control to his generals.

All of this is backed by countless of historians, I am only the messenger

Read: THE GREATEST BATTLE by Andrew Nagorski

You will be surprised as to what Russian soldiers, officers and Generals claim about Stalin's participation.

 

Just something on the battle of Moscow 1941 from Robert Forczyk " Moscow 1941 "

At the start of Typhoon, the Reserve of the Supreme High Command ( RVGK) was virtually depleted, since three new armies has just been formed on the Volkhov Front near Leningrad and many other divisions were sent to Ukraine to rebuild the shattered Southern Front.At the start of October 1941, Stalin and Stavka felt that Moscow was well protected and kept few regular units actually near the capital. However once the front fell apart in a matter of days, the Stavka had to scramble to find stable reinforcements that would not merely join the stampede to the rear.

Zhukov arrived in Moscow at dusk on 7 October and met with Stalin. The mood was grim. Stalin said " ..just like Pavlov at the beginning of war, Konev has opened up the front to the enemy".

By 15 October, when AGC finally had sufficient forces to begin its assault on the Volokolamsk-Mozhaisk-Maloyaroslavets fortified areas, Zhukov had been able to assemble elements of 18 rifle divisions and 11 tank brigades along the 50 km front- an amazing achievement in only five days. However, most of these units were either decimated remnants or partly equipped and their actual combat strength was only about 90,000.

 

My friend this is a pretty bold accusation, could you provide a source for this?

Look into David Glantz in "before Stalingrad"
Also, "The Greatest" Battle by Andrew nagorski

( I have just finished both of them very recently and coincidentally both talk about this topic extensively )

Georgy Zhukov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Promoted to full general in 1940, Zhukov was briefly (January - July 1941) chief of the Red Army General Staff before a disagreement with Stalin led to him being replaced by Marshal Boris Shaposhnikov"

"Among Soviet commanders, he was one of the few who attempted to convince Stalin that the Kiev region could not be held and would suffer a double envelopement by the Germans. Stalin, who berated Zhukov and dismissed his advice, refused to evacuate the troops in the area"


Here is another,

Georgi Zhukov - Biography

Zhukov attempted to convince Stalin that the city of Kiev could not be held and all troops should be evacuated. Stalin reprimanded Zhukov and dismissed him

Just to name a few

 

That accuzation is from Suvorov, I am sorry if it is not true but now I cannot to neither to confirm it nor refutate it. (Anything I was able to confirm from those last two Suvorovs books: "The Shadow of victory" and "I take my words back" proved to be true anyway). Thursday I am going to go to library to find some books a then...??
Wikipedia is not a source for me, as anybody may to write here anything. Where is this information came from to Wiki? I presume, it came from the very same source, as that one from Zhukovs Biography: from his own memories. And his memories are as worthy as fairy-tale book for me, if those informations from this book are not confirmed from another one. (I mean from some book, which is not descendant or coming of his memories)
I am trying to find another witness of it, i.e. memories of another high-enough officer, who saw this too (if there was anything to see, of course) and wrote memories too.
Its quite hard though, because this scene of Zhukov-Stalins quarrel is without any date and time and information about any other present person is missing too. So I ask myself, what the hell is this information about? It seems quite strange, if not completely worthless to me, and to you?
I am going to go to library the day after tomorrow, than few days takes reading, notes, searching etc., so I am sorry, if I will be unable to bring some exact informations before weekend or more likely end of weekend.
Edit: This is from Wikipedia, so this information is definitely from Zhukov:
According to his own memoirs (written after the death of Stalin and during the peak of Nikita Khrushchev's Anti-Stalin campaign), Zhukov was fearless in his direct criticisms of Stalin and other commanders after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 (see Great Patriotic War). Among Soviet commanders, he was one of the few who attempted to convince Stalin that the Kiev region could not be held and would suffer a double envelopement by the Germans. Stalin, who berated Zhukov and dismissed his advice, refused to evacuate the troops in the area. As a result, half a million troops became prisoners when the Germans took Kiev.[5] Zhukov stopped the German advance in Leningrad's southern outskirts in the autumn of 1941.[6][7]
Yes, yes according to his own memoirs he could do anything.

 

Something told me that Vladimir Rezun was the source of these claims.

Unfortunately he is not a historian. Nothing which he writes in his books is backed up by any facts only by his personal opinions and many historians tear his books apart. Yes, while Wiki is not the best source ( and I agree with you ) I will choose them over the Suvoruv garbage anyday of the week ( no offense. ) Though his books have been known to have thicker pages which made good use as toilet paper

If I were you, I would stop reading Suvoruv's conspiracy theories and look into actual historians.

David Glantz and John Erickson just a couple of the top of my head.

Oh and Vladimir Rezun is also a traitor to his nation, just thought I would throw that out there.

 

Suvo-who? I thought this was a serious thread.

The Russian Battlefield - The Failed Historian

 

Yes, I know, that most of Suvorov-Rezjun theories and books are thrash. Worst is the Spetznaz, but this was the only thing (Zhukovs accuzations etc..) I did not found elsewhere yet. Those others I wrote here (Including David Glantzs, btw.) I got from other sources before I brought them here. And I tried to bring links to them too. I was looking up for some links from you too, but all I can read here is only: not, it is not true and such as, or (the link to Wiki) confirmation of Zhukovs words by......Zhukovs book?!? (this particully one considered as a joke first)
I am trying to find the most easily to find informations from Suvorov, i.e. units and where they were placed, times and places of Zhukov, orders etc. and everyone of that ones I found was true and those from Zhukov was not.
So when I use pure matematic and score is about 5:0 in favor of Suvorov, what I can thing about it? I am using his books only as a inspiration where is something strange and interesting to search, not as an argument or proof.

 

I would not buy into anything that Suvoruv says. Very little which he has said or written (if anything ) about WW2 has been backed by fact. Why is Zhukov any different? What makes you think that what Suvoruv says about Zhukov is true if everything else he has said is false? Why do you believe Suvoruv over Zhukov?

 

Well, you did not read anything I wrote here? I.e. your favourite historician David Glantz and whatever he wrote about Rzhev-Sycevka? It seems to me, that Suvorov took Glantz as a good source of informations too.
Btw., I do not say, that Zhukov is allways wrong, only this informations I tryied to confirm proved to be, well.., not exact.
On the other side you cosider here everything that Suvorov maybe even looked at as a lie. If I take this to roots, so maybe Stalin did not exist, Zhukov did not exist, even USSR did not exist, because Suvorov wrote about it. And if he wrote that i.e. soviet 4th Army was in Brest in June 22th, maybe it is that "conspiration theory", as you wrote above? Btw., if you try to look to Wikipedia, there is link to "Hero Fortress", where is only that information, that in fortress itself were only about 4000 soviet soldiers. And not even note about other forces around, in the city of Brest etc.
I am thinking over to stop searching about these informations, because it seems little futile to me, when after some hours or days of reading and searching the ansver is only a "first click to wiki or google" type or such as.
Its easy to say that somebody or something is not true, but it seems to me, that there are missing some backing up arguments. Now I am starting to search something about offensives against Guderians tank group in summer 1941, but it seems to me as a wasting my time to bring it here, though it is a good practise of writing in English for me, because I did not that from high school and this is about 13 years ago. A good practise, but it takes lots of time too and I have to study some things for my job now, this time some emulsion-type industrial explosives (a kind of "slurry" explosives, but advanced), so I dont have as much of time as I would like to have.
I realy dont know, if I will to continue here, or I will not?

 

Here is something I found recently about Glantz and his books, it seems to me, he is only a little more reliable than Suvorov is:

Code:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-11462.html

 

Jean2005


You menton yourself earlier that Zhukov was responsible for Kiev´s loss? What is your source on that?

See your text earlier:

"Maybe he warned before Kiev, maybe not, but true is, that he is responsible for that (lost) battle."

To me it seems it was Stalin, again.

September 9, 1941

Marshal Budyenny, commanding an Army in the Kiev area, makes his first request to abandon Keiv. Stalin denies the request.

September 11, 1941

General Budyenny makes his second appeal to Stalin to withdraw from the Kiev area. This time the the request was co-signed by the ranking commissar, Nikita Krushchev. Budyenny was sacked within hours. Only 60 miles separated the jaws of the great German encirclement at Kiev.

September 16, 1941

The Kiev pocket begins to collapse as Soviet forces begin to withdraw. General Timoshenko, commander of the Soviet High Command (STAVKA), authorizes the withdrawal. However, Stalin would not confirm the orders for 48 critical hours.

September 17, 1941

The withdrawal from the Kiev pocket is finally approved by Stalin, but it is far too late. General Kirponos, commander of the forces in Kiev, would share the fate of many of his soldiers when his column, attempting to withdraw was ambushed and he was cut down. In the end, only 15,000 would escape the encirclement. This was a grave blow to the Red Army.


http://www.bartcop.com/arc4109.htm
--------------

On the other hand on the other major losses on the Ostfront earlier for the Red Army. If you read "Stalin´s folly" by by Constantine Pleshakov it gives rather a good picture, which I could believe, that very soon into the Barbarossa Stalin and Stavka realized the troops close to border were necessary to sacrifice in order to be able to create a new defensive line deep into USSR soil. New troops were created and sent there while it was hoped the troops sacrficed could buy the time for the Red Army to prepare for the Germans. However the Germans were much faster than hoped for and their tactics at the time better. And Zhukov had to fight Stalin all the time with making decisions on the tactics, the best example still being the major winter attack that Stalin wanted to take place all through the front and not as a concentrated attack.

------------

Also I find the reaction for Glantz´s book a bit stupid. It must be only the name that shocks people. If all in all the book tells the story where AGC was almost ripped off its pedestal I´d say it was a great Red Army story even if the losses were huge. If the name was something like " Zhukov the almost-destroyer of the AGC and Model" we would get a very different reaction. I say I find it funny that some book reviews on the book in Amazon claim that he is troubled by how pro-Soviet Glantz is in his book. And I say that if you have read the book you agree. And i agree. And it is a great book on how close the Red Army was to win the war in Dec 1942! You either accept the losses or not. But that´s how Zhukov played his game.

 

Thanks for such a huge response. Now I have lots to think about again.
But why you quote some of my text and answer to something different? Your answer shows to me this: it was Budyenny (and Timoshenko, but later), who requested to withdraw from Kiev and not Zhukov, so Zhukov lied in his memoires. Correct me, if I am wrong.
I wrote he was responsible for battle of Kiev, its true, but it was meaned he was responsible for creating of conditions, which led to that battle. There were some major battles in the summer of the year 1941 and many futile soviet attacks (i.e. Yelnia?), whose depleted strategic reserves of RA and at the end that led to possibility to free Guderians 2nd panzer group for attack and advance to Konotop and further and thus to make one half of the ring around Kiev. But I have to admit I do not know much about that, because I just started to search about that and I do not know what of this is true or not true.

Today I was thinking about another older reply here, those one about Stalin and his authority above all orders and commanders and I found something strange. If some operation was success. than Zhukov proudly claims: It was my work. If it was not success, than it was Stalin, who was responsible for that, because he could overrule any order or leader. The only conclusion, that appears to me is, that if Stalin realy overruled all, those winned battles are his credit, and those lost naturally too and Zhukov then lies about his claims to win something. And if Stalin did not overruled everything, than Zhukov lies again, this time about those lost battles.
/well, last nine lines took me at least half an hour to write and I hope someone will understand this, as for myself it looks too complicated in English. In Czech its easy and short to say, however/

 

May I ask as what source other then Suvoruv's you are using to claim all of this about Zhukov?

Also, once again I must point out that everything which you are claiming about Zhukov seems only an opinion and not backed by fact. Until you provide a source other then Suvoruv for any actual events taking place during WW2, im afraid that many in this forum will not take you seriously.


This from: The Russian Battlefield - The Failed Historian As our very own Za has wisely pointed out

I would like to begin by stressing that this article was meant as a general survey of Rezun’s failings as a historian, and I by no means seek to claim sole authorship of all the included critiques. Any external sources used are cited in the text itself, and also in the bibliography section at the end of the piece. The article itself was written back in the year 2000, and numerous works demonstrating the true “value” of Rezun’s writings have been published since. So many, in fact, that there is now little need to continue arguing the merits of Rezun’s thesis; in fact, to publicly support Rezun’s theories has become a sign of ignorance

Best regards

 

What exactly do you mean? If is it only my reply just above, there I took your own words about Stalins and Zhukovs authority and Zhukovs claims of victories and how he was trying to hide his defeats. Where I used Suvorov as a source?
Another thing is that: "The article itself was written back in the year 2000".
But Suvorovs books about Zhukov are from the year 2002 and 2005, so I dont uderstand, how should someone to rewiew something that by that time does not exist.
But this is not matter, however. Except one mistake (and I am sorry for this) I did not and do not use Suvorov as a source. Sometimes I used him only as some kind of inspiration, where could be something interesting to look at. How many times I must to repeat this? I am sitting hours and hours above books or (mostly) internet and I am trying to search datas from any source I should to aquire and if I put them here, even if it is with some link or such as, most answers are only: this is not true. And finally I made the mistake, I used Suvorovs name once and what happend? Seems to me like if someone is waiting for it and: Alas! Suvorovs name is here! Game over, try again...
Its funny, when your sorce confirm my words. I.e.here:

Code:

http://www.bartcop.com/arc4109.htm

is, that Zhukov took command in Leningrad in September 14 and the order for germans troops to not capture Leningrad came in Sep. 12. So how he could to be the savior of Leningrad? He could not stop Germans, as they stop themselves just obeying the order from Hitler. He did not broke through blocade, so about 1 milion of people died. Yes, maybe he had some important part in following deffense here, but definitely he is not the savior of Leningrad. (and probably he is not the savior of Moscow as well, but I am not enough far with searching about that, so if you have some links, please put them here...)
Afternoon I will try to borrow his memoires again and we will see, what he claimes there exactly, not only what is on the web.
And once again I must to say, it does not matter to me, whatever Suvorov writes, I only want to know everything possible about Zhukov and about Barbarossa operation. (This way I found this forum, btw.. I was searching about Barbarossa and...what is it? Some forum? Looks interesting, and I am not a member of any English-speaking forum yet, maybe I will find some informations here, lets register and I will see...)