French armed Forces

Read his "Aquarium".It explains most of what you´re questioning.
Plus maybe "The tales of a liberator"or something like that. (his earlier books). He was tank commander, later studied in the Academy od General Staff as a cover for the education as GRU agent. He had thus access to much material.

I don´t think that some minor blemishes should make us discard him: he was about the first who showed, very convincingly, that invasion was about to begin in June ´41.
By that time, I have already read some published (and not) memoirs of Soviet-turned-Israeli officers which tell the same story (plus my Grandpa´s stories,of course, which turned my interest on in the first place).

 

I don't discard him, but the inconsistences make me wary. I am gradually(!) learning to "mistrust" all sources until I find confirmation from elsewhere. In my youth I nearly always took the first source as gospel and then find out later that what I had learnt was incorrect - in wargaming, tanks, physics and engineering.
There is a saying "if in doubt, ask" - I put up with a big poster over my drawing board saying "if in doubt, think".
When asked why I had altered the traditional wording by the chief draughtsman I told that when I had asked I'd been given incorrect information - and realised it was incorrect after thinking about it!
Oli

 

Take into consideration that the man had no access to any Soviet sources, but what he could find in UK (he was under constant threat, like Rushdie). He still is.
He had been an officer of Soviet Army. As an immigrant, he might have had an subconscious wish to embellish the drab Fatherland of his: Yes, this was an awful country (society) but look what beautiful tanks we made, starving.
This kind of mechanism, I think. If you can show me a deliberate lie - we can talk about it. I have his Icebreaker and Suicide in Russian. Let´s talk. Of course, it was also my feeling that he was a bit too proud of USSR and Stalin, the machiavellian Genius. But deliberate lies - I don´t think...

 

He was a trained intelligence officer with a trained memory. He stated things as fact in the "Spetsnaz" book, particularly, that I know weren't true - the ELF communications for one, and has been discredited on his remarks about a 130mm-armed tank-destroyer in professional military magazines, IIRC Ogorkiewicz and Isby came down very hard on his claims...
There's a difference between "lying", "disinformation - maskirovka" and embellishment.
As far as I am concerned, it doesn't really matter which he's doing, I tend to think embellishment mixed with some maskirovka, (and possibly a wish to mask his ignorance leads him to invent), but as a reliable source, IMHO, he's very low on the list.
Oli

 

agree

 

I don´t, I think. _Many if not most of his informations in books like icebreaker, DayM, Suicide I have been able to confirm independently. Your examples come as a surprise.

 

Just managed to get the Suvorov downloaded.
Still reading it but:
IIRC Hitler mentioned in Mein Kampf that he intended taking the Ukraine "like England with India" or some such and that was written in the thirties.
Stalin planned the attack for summer '41, and

The Su-2 didn't start production until 1940, didn't enter service until about late '40/early '41. A total of about 500 were made (error "produced and deployed in large numbers"): by 22nd of June only 75 were in service! And it wasn't effective, even after being up-engined later on it was still a turkey.

Which were chopped to pieces in the first two weeks of Barbarossa, if they were preparing for an attack and had been building up for one why were they in such a poor state of readiness??
Stalin knew what tanks the Germans had, because of the treaty letting Germany test its tanks in Russia. Where were the T-34s if he was planning an attack, why only light tanks ready for the invasion?

One thing Americans (in general) never quite understand is the Soviet view of the world. According to them they are surrounded by capitalist enemies, hence the need for strong forces. Which are viewed as defensive forces, regardless of capability.

So what, amphibious light tanks are of what use? Negligible combat value... and if they'd been needed in a European scenario wouldn't other nations have them?
Hmmm, still reading the rest, but looking at the next article - Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbour and gave orders for nothing to be done?
I'm sorry, the whole thing smacks of right-wing revisionism to me, and I'd always considered myself (politically) verging on fascism :lol:
Will read the whole thing and comment more on it - later,
Oli

 

You are probably right on Ivanov. I don´t have detailed data.

Amphibious tanks: we have been discussing them at length here, somewhere. I think Suvorov himself gives a good explanation: recon, bridgeheads, I wold add - even forcing La Manche in good weather (at leas t40 could move in 3 gr. on Beaufort´s. Call it nonsense. If you don´t feel the crazy purposedfulness of communists, you´ll never internalize that that they were always dead serious. Even in 80´s they were still preparing for attack. In the 60s, something I know from a public service TV program, there were serious plans to explode two atom bombs over 2 part of Denmark, followed by amphibious attack (after the explosions the Danes were given an option to capitullate or being annihilated) - a good tactics for such a land (see April ´40).

Not only light tanks. Besides, it was not tanks that were to make a breakthrough, but artillery and riflemen.
The tanks had to drive full spped, westwards.

T34 were only in some units, as were KVs. There was not use for them if surprise could be achieved.



poor readiness. Once again that argument. I don´t think they were poorly prepared for what was being planned: a mass scale attack. A flood.
Not much space for initiative of a soldier, or so Stalin thought.

It was enough to read map, drive, shoot, jump with parachute and terrorize whole areas. Pilots got only 3 months´training course in the last months before June 41. Their task was essentially to annihilate some ground object, usually airplanes and infrastructure of enemy airfields, and bet back home or not. They were dispensable after the 1st day.

I´ll finish tomorrow. My computer is kaputt and I hate to use laptop.

 

Apart from lacking any form for defensive preparations or even training, the Soviets didn´t even have maps of own territory. One can call it stupid: they were over-convinced of the success of the attack. Psychologically it was a good trick but not practical.

You didn´t mention Suvorov´s photo of flying tank: but he nowhere wrote that it was produced. It is just an example of aggressive thinking.

You say that Russians had just light tanks. But what about Germans? Great majority - light. A BT7 with a long 45mm gun was not so light in this light. The problem is that it had some problems moving outside roads: very narrow tracks. Training with tank-tank battle was also not very strong part of Soviets. Rearming is a continuous process. In June 41 Soviets were rearming from predominantly light to a mixture of light/middle/heavy tanks. You can never know precisely when war comes and you have to be ready with what you have.

And first and foremost - the almost total lack of flexibility. People were paralyzed with fear and didn´t want to take decisions by themselves. Not without reason, as you know.

What do you call revisionism? The site?
I just found the article in Yahoo; this patriot.dk is not something I read ormally. It is revisionist. I gave link to this because of icebreaker, no more.

 

No, I didn't say they had just light tanks, the figures given, and which, barring further research I'm not going to dispute, cover light, medium etc.
What I mean is that I know T-34 was in production in 1940. If Russia was planning an attack why were T-34s not at the front? Germany didn't meet T-34 until well after Barbarossa had started.
Personally, if I had a tank like T-34 at the time the Russians did, and was planning an attack, I'd put them in the front line.
The point about revisionism is that, Suvorov gets a lot of support from revisionists, but little but laughs from everyone else.
I agree it's worth thinking about. For example about 30 years ago I read "I Flew for the Fuhrer" by, IIRC, Heinz Knocke (sp?). In that book he states that as he flew over the border on day one he came across masses of Russian vehicles, which made him think that the Germans had pre-empted a Russian attack, but nothing else I read corroborated this.
Oli

 

It is a good point though - if the CCCP is intending to invade, and as the BT-7 has cross-country mobility problems, and as the T-34 was in production, why were they not forward at the border?

Were they still undergoing crew familiarisation? Unlikely, given the limited training they apparently gave their pilots...

Were they not wanting to commit new tanks to a war? Unlikely, partly given the example of their use of the Winter War as a testing ground for new stuff, partly because that would make no sense.

Were they unwilling to use their best equipment in the initial attack? See the last answer.

 

Acording to Suvorov and Beshanov, f.ex., both KVs and T34s were present in the Lvov salient, at least. I´ll have to check in the latter when I come home. It´s a book by a Russian writing in Russia, very fresh - from 2004. Not translated.

Revision of the old idea that RKKA was not going to attack, at least in 1941 seems to me to be definitely out. Such massive concentration of hardware near the border, very close to it in fact, in awful conditions, in the woods, without maps of own territory: even Zhukov would not have been able to devise such a stupid situation. For many reasons. One thing I don´t really understand is why Stalin considered it wise to take Bessarabia and North Bukovina in 1940, as well as move shios from Dnepr Flotilla to Donau delta... He probably counted on a prolonged war in France.

 

So how come the Germans did not meet them until later...?

 

According to Beshanov there were following numbers on 22nd:
T26: 9998
BT: 7519
T28: 481
T35: 59
t37,37A, 38: 5836
T40: 132
T34: 1225
KV: 636

Total: 25886

Honestly, I could not find anything about their wherebouts on 22nd. I have no time these days. I remember though, that there were some T34 at te botder, south-west. Why the Germans don´t describe them, I don´t know.

Whatever. One can venture an assumption: someone having 25886 tanks, Must have aggressive plans. Or what? I am not saying all ofthem were working and ready for fight. Many were bombed in trains. Whatever. The botder area those days was very chaotic. I guess, the T34 disappeared in the chaos.

 

My problem with Suvorov is increasing. I Googled for "Operation Groza" and, at first glance (daren't go further now), the majority of people giving credence to his arguments are so far right they're nearly off the map. I came across one site giving permission to download their documents for distribution to "interested whites". Their words
One of the articles, (okay, I got sucked in, I thought it was astronomy!) tries to link the struggle between Geocentric and Heliocentric views to that of "racial purity"
They want to "keep the race pure". I'm in favour of that - but I mean the human race! I'm not gonna let my daughter marry a filthy Martian :lol:
Suvorov should be extremely careful of the company he keeps.
Oli

 

And this is precisely why historians and politicians try to hush the obvious. Stalin´s plan exonerate, partly - yes, Hitler for his war.

I don´t think it was Suvorov´s (Rezun´s - that´s his real name) agenda. Not at all. I have seen an interview with him on TV: he is a very modest, quiet, sympathetic man who wants to, first and foremost, at tell the world, what the Soviet nations had to suffer because of communists´ crazy rule. And not only Europeans. I don´t know whether you remember from his books what he says about hitler. This is not some positive words; on the contrary. He stresses and almost relishes in the man´s severely pathologic personality traits and compares him with Stalin´s cold, cruel, machiavellian logic. He does not in the least exonerate any of them. The only thing that sounds a little strange is his, sort of pride: "look, we are not idiots. Our people were able to develop this or that, almost create miracles under the cruel lash of Stalin´s.

So, in a way, he was hijacked by right wing extremists, in my opinion - much against his will.
At the same time, there are powerful forces in today´s world which are not interested in any changes in the official history of the war. Hitler is to be portrayed as the evil incarnate and the sole culprit of all the calamities of WW2.

The very reaction of Russian authorities to his books was poorly founded derision and active defence in the form of inviting one Gabriel Gorodetsky from Holyland and giving him some access, probably conveniently limited, to archival information. I haven´t read Gorodetsky, but citates from his work in Suvorovs books are ridiculous imo. Of course, it is often easy to use citates in strange ways, but in this case there is too many evidence to deny Suvorov´s thesis.

 

You should not really judge somebody's work by the people who start to champion it afterwards.
If Suvorov / Rezun himself made any hint of far-rightism, go ahead. But is it his fault that his most ardent supporters are people who desperately want it to be true?

 

I'm not "judging" his work on those who support him, it just sort of makes me nervous that, so far, all of his support comes from the far right, ie those with a vested interest in exoneration of Hitler.
I would prefer a spread of support - it indicates that (possibly mistakenly) that his work has been judged and dismissed by the "more rational" historians. Just the way it strikes me.
Found out this weekend that in early 1941 50% of tanks in Soviet units were T-34. It still begs the question of why the Germans didn't meet sooner.
I'm going to have to get the book and decide for myself.
Oli

 

I Didn't know the french had a army in ww2. (ha, ha, ha.)

 

How original...