STALIN's AGGRESSIVE PLAN in 1941

Grey Wolf, I Blame Communism, I have to wonder if he bothers to read what he posts.

He claims it was a brilliant deception by the Soviets to use only weak and poorly equipped forces in eastern Poland AND refers to German concerns as to the massive and extremely powerful Soviet forces in eastern Poland.

He thinks any report of the final battle of the Soviet-Japanese border war proves Soviet aggression. An intelligent person would note the crushing Japanese defeat followed by no territorial changes and realize the aggressor lost the war.

He is apparently in complete denial as to Hitler's treaty with Stalin and the terms for the partition of Eastern Europe, with Finland, the Baltic States, eastern Poland and Bessarabia assigned to Stalin.

And the only evidence he has on his side is a series of comments by convicted war criminals.

:rolleyes:
Is it bad that all this reminds me of Bard32?
 



ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-SEVENTH DAY
Wednesday, 5 June 1946

Morning Session
[The Defendant Jodl resumed the stand.]

DR. EXNER: In your diary-the so-called diary-Document 1809-PS, Volume I of my document book, Page 83, you write on 24 May: "Situation in the East becomes precarious due to the Russian menace against Bessarabia." That is on 24 May 1940. That is what you wrote in your diary. How did you come to this conclusion?
JODL: The reason was a dispatch from Canaris reporting the concentration of 30 Russian divisions against Bessarabia. Whether the note expressing anxiety originated with me, or whether it was an idea of the Fuehrer's which I jotted down, I can no longer say today.

DR. EXNER: Now, when did you first hear of the Fuehrer's fears that Russia might prove hostile to us?
JODL: For the first time, on 29 July 1940, at the Berghof near Berchtesgaden.
DR. EXNER: In what connection?
JODL: The Fuehrer kept me back alone after a discussion on the situation and said to me, most unexpectedly, that he was worried that Russia might occupy still more territory in Romania before the winter and that the Romanian oil region, which was the conditio sine qua non for our war strategy, would thus be taken from us. He asked me whether we could not deploy our troops immediately, so that we would be ready by autumn to oppose with strong forces any such Russian intention. These are almost the exact words which he used, and all other versions are false.


DR. EXNER: Tell me, in these statements, which Hitler made to you, was there ever any mention made of such things as the extension of the "Lebensraum," and of the food basis as a reason for a war of conquest, and so on?
JODL: In my presence the Fuehrer never even hinted at any other reason than a purely strategic and operational one. For months on end, one might say, he incessantly repeated:
"No further doubt is possible. England is hoping for this final sword-thrust against us on the continent, else she would have stopped the war after Dunkirk. Private or secret agreements have certainly already been made. The Russian deployment is unmistakable. One day we shall suddenly become the victim of cold-blooded political extortion, or we shall be attacked."
But otherwise, though one might talk about it for weeks on end, no word was mentioned to me of any other than purely strategical reasons of this kind.

DR. EXNER: Did the reports which you received contain indications of military reinforcements for the Red Army?

JODL: From maps which were submitted every few days, which were based on intelligence reports and information from the radio interception section, the following picture was formed: In the summer of 1940 there were about 100 Russian divisions along the border. In January 1941, there were already 150 divisions; and these were indicated by number, consequently the reports were reliable. In comparison with this strength, I may add that the English-American-French forces operating from France against Germany never, to my knowledge, amounted to 100 divisions.

DR. EXNER: Then, in your opinion, the Fuehrer waged a preventive war. Did later experiences prove that this was a military necessity?
JODL: It was undeniably a purely preventive war. What we found out later on was the certainty of enormous Russian military
preparations opposite our frontiers. I will dispense with details, but I can only say that although we succeeded in a tactical surprise as to the day and the hour, it was no strategic surprise. Russia was fully prepared for war.
DR. EXNER: As an example, could you perhaps tell the Tribunal the number of new airfields which were discovered in the Russian-Polish area?
JODL: I recall approximately that there had been about 20 airfields in eastern Poland, and that in the meantime these had been increased to more than a hundred.
DR. EXNER: Quite briefly, under these conditions what would have been the result of Russia's having forestalled us?
JODL: I do not want to go into the strategic principles, into the operations behind the front; but I can state briefly that we were never strong enough to defend ourselves in the East, as has been proved by the events since 1942. That may sound grotesque, but in order to occupy this front of over 2,000 kilometers we needed 300 divisions at least; and we never had them. If we had waited until the invasion, and a Russian attack had caught us in a pincer movement, simultaneously, we certainly would have been lost. If, therefore, the political premise was correct, namely that we were threatened by this attack, then from a military point of view also the preventive attack was justified. The political situation was presented to us soldiers in this light, consequently we based our military work accordingly.

 
Grey Wolf, I Blame Communism, I have to wonder if he bothers to read what he posts.

He claims it was a brilliant deception by the Soviets to use only weak and poorly equipped forces in eastern Poland AND refers to German concerns as to the massive and extremely powerful Soviet forces in eastern Poland.

He thinks any report of the final battle of the Soviet-Japanese border war proves Soviet aggression. An intelligent person would note the crushing Japanese defeat followed by no territorial changes and realize the aggressor lost the war.

He is apparently in complete denial as to Hitler's treaty with Stalin and the terms for the partition of Eastern Europe, with Finland, the Baltic States, eastern Poland and Bessarabia assigned to Stalin.

And the only evidence he has on his side is a series of comments by convicted war criminals.

:rolleyes:

Comrades, we must retreat, conceding ground to the enemy so that the People's Great Leader and Administrator can implement his masterful "ban" strategy. Long live the people! Long live the Administrator! Long live Russia! Hitler and his apologists cannot foil our march toward world domination! :D
 
Wasn’t it daft to believe soviets comrades and to waste tons of paper in order to write thousands of books and dissertations based on fairytales which have been made up by communists.
NO, it wasn’t, but unfortunately only in one case, if such “history” was, and for some of them probably still is, convenient for the both parties.
Initially I felt pity for historians like John Erickson, under the assumption that they were just treacherously deceived by those who were representing regime which seemed to be such a philanthropic, pacific and truthful ever, that it is simply indecent not to believe soviet comrades and everything they were saying.
But wait a minute. Were John Erickson and his colleagues deaf and blind? Never heard about cold war and evil empire. Don’t think so.
And truth, as usually, sometimes can be very nasty. The history they wrote was convenient, suitable, excusatory and even profitable for both parties.
For one (USSR) - impunity, for another - general recognition of historical society, orders, glory and money, and, of course, mass publications rubbish.

Western historians stupidly followed the Soviet Union's interpretation of WW II. In spite of all the freedom to research the past most western scholars became lazy and let Soviet’s historians do their thinking for them.
A lot of these “brilliant” historians were invited by USSR, treated like a girl on the first date, with drinks, sweets and promises. They melted and believed in every piece of fabricated information. I wonder if these guys ever ask themselves why Soviet comrades were so anxious about their historical careers.
One of the important aspects of Communist Party policy was lie. To cover crimes they lied to its own population, lied themselves, because the truth was never in favour of communism. So, why they would tell the truth to their sworn enemies?????


It is time now to shed some light on the “professional historians” I refer to here. Who are they? Well, to my best understanding, it seems there is a group of friends at the top including, David Glantz, John Erickson, Gabriel Gorodetskey, Jonathan House. This core is also highly supported by other famous names, such as Jonathan Haslem, Robin Edmonds, Roger Reese, John Lukacs, among many others. If you read their works, their articles, their interviews you will immediately notice their tendency to praise each others works. Those from the outer circle, usually not military historians, would contribute by a praising book review of their works in renowned journals, such as Foreign Affairs is.

In case you want to understand the historiography of WWII, make sure to read BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY and make up your own mind about it! Only then you will begin to understand the whole complexity of the problem.



 
reads Paulo's post about who this reminds him of


Son of a...!:eek:


Remember, comrades, we must upheld socialist truth and insist that the actions of Goering, von Ribbentrop, Jodl, et al be branded as aggression no matter how obviously justified and defensive the actions they took against Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxemborg...
 
Wasn’t it daft to believe soviets comrades and to waste tons of paper in order to write thousands of books and dissertations based on fairytales which have been made up by communists.
NO, it wasn’t, but unfortunately only in one case, if such “history” was, and for some of them probably still is, convenient for the both parties.
Initially I felt pity for historians like John Erickson, under the assumption that they were just treacherously deceived by those who were representing regime which seemed to be such a philanthropic, pacific and truthful ever, that it is simply indecent not to believe soviet comrades and everything they were saying.
But wait a minute. Were John Erickson and his colleagues deaf and blind? Never heard about cold war and evil empire. Don’t think so.
And truth, as usually, sometimes can be very nasty. The history they wrote was convenient, suitable, excusatory and even profitable for both parties.
For one (USSR) - impunity, for another - general recognition of historical society, orders, glory and money, and, of course, mass publications rubbish.

Western historians stupidly followed the Soviet Union's interpretation of WW II. In spite of all the freedom to research the past most western scholars became lazy and let Soviet’s historians do their thinking for them.
A lot of these “brilliant” historians were invited by USSR, treated like a girl on the first date, with drinks, sweets and promises. They melted and believed in every piece of fabricated information. I wonder if these guys ever ask themselves why Soviet comrades were so anxious about their historical careers.
One of the important aspects of Communist Party policy was lie. To cover crimes they lied to its own population, lied themselves, because the truth was never in favour of communism. So, why they would tell the truth to their sworn enemies?????


It is time now to shed some light on the “professional historians” I refer to here. Who are they? Well, to my best understanding, it seems there is a group of friends at the top including, David Glantz, John Erickson, Gabriel Gorodetskey, Jonathan House. This core is also highly supported by other famous names, such as Jonathan Haslem, Robin Edmonds, Roger Reese, John Lukacs, among many others. If you read their works, their articles, their interviews you will immediately notice their tendency to praise each others works. Those from the outer circle, usually not military historians, would contribute by a praising book review of their works in renowned journals, such as Foreign Affairs is.

In case you want to understand the historiography of WWII, make sure to read BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY and make up your own mind about it! Only then you will begin to understand the whole complexity of the problem.




Yes, that's right. History is all one big conspiracy by led by the Soviets. Lucky we had the Nazis to save us from them eh?:mad:
 
Alas for Cheshire Cat we on AH already know the history on both sides and have made up our minds based on the facts. Darn us all.:D
 
Instead of wasting your time by reading a Soviet propaganda stuck in lazy and narrow minds of some western historians I recommend you to open your mind, stop exploring wikipedia and at least try real encyclopedias (weapons, tanks, artillery) and make comparison. You would see straight away from it that USSR by the beginning of war had the superior and modern tanks, aircrafts, artillery and rocket artillery. Moreover, the Soviets had it in enormous quantity with the endless military potential.
And you would see that no country in the world had nothing like that even nearby.

USSR 1939 KV-1A Heavy Tank
USSR 1939 KV-2A early Heavy Tank
USSR 1939 KV-2A late Heavy Tank
USSR 1939 KV-2B Heavy Tank
USSR 1939 T-40A Amphibious Light Tank
USSR 1939 T-40 Amphibious Light Tank
USSR 1939 T-40S Light Tank
USSR 1939 T-50 Light Tank
USSR 1939 T-34/76A Medium Tank
USSR 1941 KV-1B Heavy Tank
USSR 1941 T-60 / T-60A Light Tank
USSR 1941 T-34/76B Medium Tank
USSR 1942 BA-64 Armoured Car
USSR 1942 KV-1C Heavy Tank
USSR 1942 KV-1s Heavy Tank
USSR 1942 T-70 Light Tank
USSR 1942 T-34/76C Medium Tank
USSR 1942 T-34/76D Medium Tank
USSR 1943 KV-85 Heavy Tank
USSR 1943 T-80 Light Tank
USSR 1943 T-43 Medium Tank
USSR 1943 T-34/76E Medium Tank
USSR 1943 T-34/76F Medium Tank
USSR 1944 IS-2 Heavy Tank

Artillery

76-mm gun zis-1,2,3, 122-mm howitzer M-30, 152-mm howitzer
М-10,
152-mm howitzer-gun ML-20, 210-mm gun BR-17, 280-
мм mortar BR-5,
305-mm howitzer BR-18, 25-, 37-, 76- and 85-mm anti-aircraft guns,
50-, 82-, 107- and 120-mm mortars, rocket artillery BM-8
и BM-13
Su-85, Su-100, Su-122- self-propelled guns.

After comparing it with weapons of the Germans not mentioning Britain and USA , only complete imbecile, who can’t distinguish a screwdriver from a wrench, may say that the Russian weapons was obsolete. If you call it obsolete you automatically call tanks and artillery of Germany pristine and primitive, not mentioning Britain and USA who had nothing at all with comparison to USSR. The Germans were very happy using russian tanks and artillery to the end of the war in the Atlantic Defence Wall, after capturing it in excessive amount in 1941.

 
Did you just call the KV-1 modern?

Snerksnerksnerksnerk.

KV was the best tank ever till 1943.

KV-1 and KV-2 weighed 47 and 52 tons, respectively. The KV was the first tank in the world with a true anti-shell armor: it had a frontal armor of 75 mm, which could be further reinforced. The wide caterpillar track of the KV allowed it to fight on almost any terrain in any weather conditions. The KV had 600-horsepower diesel engine.
A 76-mm short-barrel F-32 gun was installed on KV. At that time, this gun was unrivaled in the world. KV-1 had initial shell speed of 662 m/s.
The KV-2 had 152-mm howitzer.
The most powerful German tank shell of that time weighed 6.8 kg. But the KV-2 fired concrete-destroying shells that weighed 39.9 kg at an initial speed of 529 m/s, and high –explosive shell 48.7 kg.
 
Last edited:
Like Herr von Cheshirekatze said, those Stories about Deutsche Agression are clearly Jewish-Bolshevik lies, propagated by their Jewish und Freemason Allies in the West. So could you Gentlemen please stop your ad hominem attacks so that we can move on and enjoy his thoughts about the Auschwitzluge?
 
By 1941 USSR had biggest army and the best armaments ever, including more than 23000 of tanks and 18000 aircrafts, 60000 of cannons, while no army in the world didn’t have anything like that even in their military dreams at that moment.
Soviet Army-5.5million of people, German Forces-- 8.5 million.
 
Top