Best german general of the war

[moni kerr]

To JustAGame,

There is no such thing as an objectively educated Russian. Or American for that matter. The Russians online that I have read are generally very well educated and articulate. Their opinions should not be insulted simply because they are Russian. You are wrong to do that. Too bad you weren't objectively educated.

The althistory crowd has some pretty outrageous "what ifs" that conveniently ignore facts. Things such as "Hitler launches Operation Sealion in late Sept 1940 and a month later Churchill commits suicide by driving a truck loaded with TNT into a German tank". Or "The Germans defeat operation Overlord (don't ask how), causing the British to sue for peace then transfer their army to the Eastern front where they defeat the Red Army (whatever happened to Bagration?) and capture Moscow in summer 1945". Stuff like that.

Suvrov's contention that the Red Army was planning an invasion of Germany for the summer of 1941 is just like the most outrageous althistory junk and he has been thoroughly refuted. At least enough to my satisfaction.

[Ed Cogburn]

Can you believe the WiR forum has a 3 page thread? We'll catch up to those guys in the ArtWar forum in no time at all.

[Lokioftheaesir]

Originally posted by Mist:

reading this thread with much interest and regreat that I have no time to step in discussion(which continues IMHO from the very creation of this board). But I can't miss your words without reaction.
Not that I am fan of Stalin... but did you mean that Soviets slaughtered more(tens millions) peacefull civilans during the war then Germans(millions)? Certanly every single living sould is precious. But please could you be more precise?

Hi Mist

Sorry, i'll be more precise. I was talking about deaths to civillians. Off the top of my head i'd guess Hitler caused the deaths of 10-15 millions.(lets not argue on this number, its a guess and not critical to the conversation) Stalin however was in power from the early 20's to 1953? and killed outright or caused the deaths off from his policies (this is a conservative number built from many sources including soviet) at least 50 millions of his own people. Yes, every soul is precious and to compare 15 millions to 50 millions is simply stupid.
The shear numbers do however elevate Mr Iosif Vissarionovich Djugashvili (Stalin)
to the top of the pile as the greatest mass murderer in recorded history.

JustaGame has not insulted me yet. When is it my turn?

Nick

[JustAGame]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



I happen to know a very smart Russian with an open mind as to the history of the war in the east. He's a member of the unpaid beta testing group working on WiR, so you can have an improved game to play. I hope he doesn't read this insult.

Your doin' just great JustAGame, considering how many people you've insulted in the 39 posts from you so far, at this rate you'll manage to insult everyone here within a month.

[ June 26, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Unless he has credentials as a critic of historians, then I stand by my comment. If someone is insulted for not being credited for something they aren't, then their problem has nothing to do with me. Of course, you may be telling me that the former Soviet Union fostered an open education system. Is that the case? If so, I suggest you speak with your smart Russian friend and ask him if that was the case. I realize your friendship with the very smart Russian has been infinitely more enlightening for you than the four years I spent acting as aide to Eastern bloc ministers visiting the US.

In all honesty, I recognize that you aren't so uninformed to really believe the Soviet Union possessed such an open educational system. My guess is that your impressive knowledge and strong writing skills has enabled you to bully your views on other people without recourse. Have you ever considered that dismissing another's viewpoint in a callous manner is also an insult? Whether you recognize it or not, you needed it to be pointed out to you that you were being pompous without care for other people's sensitivities. At the very least, I felt you needed to know that while I enjoy reading other people's views, I find it inappropriate for someone to rudely dismiss my own. For clarification, if I am incorrect about a fact, then please feel free to point it out. But if my opinion is different than your's, I find it insulting for you to say "Hardly". The only point of that "Hardly" was to emphasize that you, in your mind, discredited my view. It would serve no other purpose since you had already argued your points.

Although, I see your call for moral support for what it is. In recount, the only person who I have insulted is you. And, if you weren't so bent on being right at all costs, then I wouldn't have pointed out your arrogance in the most subtle way I felt your insensitivity to others deserved. If you can't see how your claiming to KNOW what would've happened as a ridiculous claim, then I am wasting my time in this discussion with you.

By the way, have you always tried to drag your friends into your fights? What a pathetic ploy. The whole discussion is here for everyone to read. You can't benefit from the fog of second hand information here. The fact remains that you alone were insulted by my commenting you are either omnipotent or amusing after you said "I know what would've happened" to a hypothetical.

[JustAGame]

Originally posted by moni kerr:
To JustAGame,

There is no such thing as an objectively educated Russian. Or American for that matter. The Russians online that I have read are generally very well educated and articulate. Their opinions should not be insulted simply because they are Russian. You are wrong to do that. Too bad you weren't objectively educated.

A friend of Ed's, I suppose.

I will apologize if they are indeed qualified critics of historians. Read your own point. You discounted a Russian's views because your online Russian friends trash him. Silly me; I should've been sold by that arguement.

I am still unclear if you are saying I'm insulting them for saying "objectively educated Russian", in profoundly sarcastic manner. Surely you can't be saying that, then making the point yourself that there is no such thing as an objectively educated Russian or American.

If you want to jump in on Ed's side, just say so and do it. You don't have to start a fight with me over a contrived non-issue. I haven't met a former Soviet academian, artist, athlete or government official who is not only aware they grew up in a closed society, but feel a bit "cheated". I'm far from being Russophobic or one who sees the Russians as an enemy. In fact, I have been a long time supporter of developing a stronger friendship between the US and those who are struggling to bring greater freedoms to the people of Russia. I see an emerging democratic Russia as a not so distant future ally of the US.

By the way, I don't see myself as credible critic of historians. It is not what I do. I may have opinions, but they are nothing more than my opinions.

The althistory crowd has some pretty outrageous "what ifs" that conveniently ignore facts. Things such as "Hitler launches Operation Sealion in late Sept 1940 and a month later Churchill commits suicide by driving a truck loaded with TNT into a German tank". Or "The Germans defeat operation Overlord (don't ask how), causing the British to sue for peace then transfer their army to the Eastern front where they defeat the Red Army (whatever happened to Bagration?) and capture Moscow in summer 1945". Stuff like that.

Suvrov's contention that the Red Army was planning an invasion of Germany for the summer of 1941 is just like the most outrageous althistory junk and he has been thoroughly refuted. At least enough to my satisfaction.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for clarifying what "althistory" is. I sincerely have no knowledge of such a group. Although, I'm still curious if they use althistory for gaming purposes or for some other purpose.

[JustAGame]

Originally posted by Don Shafer:
Wow, I should check this board more often. This is good. Just where do you stand on the Holocaust issue?

From a humanitarian perspective it was despicable and incomprehensible how someone could arrive at such a decision. Oddly, using both hands, one cannot count the times that such a fate is decided by one group of people for another group. What is scary is how such a maniacal plan can gain supporters.

From a practical standpoint, it was a self-defeating campaign for Germany. Removing emotion from the discussion, one has to wonder how much impact the containment and execution of so many loyal Germans, faithful allies, potential soldiers, hard working laborers and brilliant industrialists had on Germany's ability to wage war.

I do feel we flatter our species when claiming Hitler was a madman to explain the Holocaust. I'm not claiming he was as sane as the next fellow, but I feel labling Hitler as a madman is our way of finding an excuse for our potential for such a tragic act. Consider the millions murdered since the Holocaust by so many different leaders and peoples and one finds it difficult to believe they are all madmen.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by JustAGame:
Unless he has credentials as a critic of historians, then I stand by my comment.

Good, make it clear to everyone you're a just a troublemaker trying to start a flame war. The last thing we need here is another arrogant American. Why don't you try the ArtWar forum? There are plenty like you over there, you'd fit right in.

If someone is insulted for not being credited for something they aren't, then their problem has nothing to do with me.

Don't play word games. You claimed all Russians online are unobjective, and implied they are revisonist about WWII history. The facts that most of the rest of us here know about clearly show your statment is not factual, just inflammatory.

Of course, you may be telling me that the former Soviet Union fostered an open education system. Is that the case?

The former USSR died 10 years ago. The Russians we see here have had a decade to learn those things that were kept from them.

If so, I suggest you speak with your smart Russian friend and ask him if that was the case. I realize your friendship with the very smart Russian has been infinitely more enlightening for you than the four years I spent acting as aide to Eastern bloc ministers visiting the US.

The Eastern Bloc died 10 years ago along with the USSR too, and claiming a superior position in a discussion of Soviet WWII history because you were an aide to communists doesn't help your argument any, it just means you've heard their propaganda more than the rest of us. It does *not* mean you can claim to know that all Russians today are still under the influence of communism and its ideals, or still blinded by Stalin's version of history. I know one Russian that does not fit your characterisation, and one is all that's needed to deflate your theory.

In all honesty, I recognize that you aren't so uninformed to really believe the Soviet Union possessed such an open educational system.

I was never talking about the Soviet Union to begin with, that edifice is ancient history. You're the one implying communism and its beliefs are still being taught to Russians today. The reality of what Stalin did is knowledge that is out in the open in Russia today.

My guess is that your impressive knowledge and strong writing skills has enabled you to bully your views on other people without recourse.

ROTFL!!! You're accusing me of bullying? All I did was state my opinon on Hitler's southern strategy idea during Barbarossa. God man, you need to go to the ArtWar forum, they'd love you over there. Of course they've some folks just as good at insulting and inciting people to anger, and starting wonderfully bloody flamewars over there too. I got a dollar that says they'd eat you for lunch.

Have you ever considered that dismissing another's viewpoint in a callous manner

Now let me remind you again:

"Your omnipotence is either worthy of worship or amusing"

Now who is dimissing another's viewpoint in a callous manner? Try as hard as you want, you're not going to convince anyone here I'm the arrogant one in this argument. I stated my opinion, that's all. Everybody does that here, and we do so without needing to insult one another as you do. If we disagree we just move on to the next subject, without the need of a flamewar.

Whether you recognize it or not, you needed it to be pointed out to you that you were being pompous without care for other people's sensitivities.
....
[snipped]

Bravo! Fantastic work here. I'm the pompous ass that started all this. You make a compelling argument, but only as long as those wanting to make their own opinion do not go and look at your original posts to this forum and this particular thread, because those posts are the evidence proving your inquisition of me is baseless. The reality is, I could have wrote that diatribe against you, it fits like a glove.


Now do you want to waste any more bandwidth with your Big Lie Strategy? Its right out of Goebbel's playbook, he'd be proud of your work.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by JustAGame:
A friend of Ed's, I suppose.

No, simply someone who is bothered by an unprovoked insult directed at someone else, as am I.

I will apologize if they are indeed qualified critics of historians.

......

By the way, I don't see myself as credible critic of historians.

"Qualified critics of historians"? Since you claim not to be one, then how do we decide what characterisitics define a "qualified critic"? Who gets to define those characteristics, and pass judgement upon Russians in these forums, you?

I haven't met a former Soviet academian, artist, athlete or government official who is not only aware they grew up in a closed society, but feel a bit "cheated".

True, but that is not what you said. You said they can't be credible critics of history because they had a communist teaching in their early part of life. You ignore the last 10 years of time that some of them have used to correct their original education, *especially* those with access to the Internet since those tend to be above average intelligent Russians because of their work in scientific fields that involve computers. In effect you say a person can't undo a flawed early education. People most certainly can do that, not everyone sure, but many can and do.

You don't have to start a fight with me over a contrived non-issue

Is that what you think your insults are? They are obviously "contrived", but definitely not a "non-issue" to those who have been offended.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by JustAGame:

I do feel we flatter our species when claiming Hitler was a madman to explain the Holocaust. I'm not claiming he was as sane as the next fellow, but I feel labling Hitler as a madman is our way of finding an excuse for our potential for such a tragic act. Consider the millions murdered since the Holocaust by so many different leaders and peoples and one finds it difficult to believe they are all madmen.

Damn, I actually agree with you.

Hitler and Stalin are at the top of everyone's list mainly because of the numbers. They had the advantage of being in a modern time with a massive population compared to just 2 centuries ago. Some have suggested Genghis Kahn should be above these two (or at least Hitler) in the list, for his sheer depraved indifference to humanity, and joy of bloodletting.

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

[Lokioftheaesir]

To JustaGame and Ed

This sort of conversation goes nowhere. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Let me moderate some of the points.

* If some ex-soviets are still confused about the real world then that is OK. Most people i know would have trouble finding Moscow on a map.
* Hitler was indeed a lot smarter and less crazy than the west makes out but the west has to say he was nuts. Propaganda.
* Justagame, I've been conversing with ED for a while and i hardly consider him to be a bully. He has his own views to be sure but who of us hav'nt.
* ED, Justagame is pulling your tail cause
you stand up to him. He is infomed smart and arrogant (like i was before i realised i knew nothing).
* This does not mean i want you to stop though i think ED has the upper hand. The problem with being informed smart and arrogant is that someone will come along and blow you away with a simple fact.
* Justagame. I feel that you are being contentious for the sake of it. If you are bored i will gladly debate any topic you see fit, i can converse on any topic from the theory of mobile warfare to quantum mechanics, just open a new thread.

If we try we can stretch this to 4 pages.


Nick

PS. What you call flame wars i call sending some twit to he intellectual trash heap(where he may learn to think again). They are divisive but i love them.

PPS. When will i be insulted??

[frank1970]

Justagame:

I would name myself a friend of Ed, so you might want to read this post or not.

Ed is a real nice guy, as long as you do not make him angry. He does a lot of work in the beta-team and has created wirhack, a Wir based version of alternative history. I would call him extremely well informed about topics of WW2 (and WW1, btw).
From all the information he got and all the texts he read, he made up his opinion. He told us his opinion and you disagreed. That´s it. Nobody wanted you to believe anything.
BTW
It is long known (for everyone who WANTS to know it) that Hitler had a brain desease
( http://www.parkinson.org/hitlerspd.htm ).

And you should know that there are always three histories for WW2:
the Allied history,
the Russian history and
the German history.

When the history told to you does not fit to your point of view it might not be the history which is wrong but your point of view.

[Don Shafer]

Originally posted by JustAGame:


From a humanitarian perspective it was despicable and incomprehensible how someone could arrive at such a decision. Oddly, using both hands, one cannot count the times that such a fate is decided by one group of people for another group. What is scary is how such a maniacal plan can gain supporters.

From a practical standpoint, it was a self-defeating campaign for Germany. Removing emotion from the discussion, one has to wonder how much impact the containment and execution of so many loyal Germans, faithful allies, potential soldiers, hard working laborers and brilliant industrialists had on Germany's ability to wage war.

I do feel we flatter our species when claiming Hitler was a madman to explain the Holocaust. I'm not claiming he was as sane as the next fellow, but I feel labling Hitler as a madman is our way of finding an excuse for our potential for such a tragic act. Consider the millions murdered since the Holocaust by so many different leaders and peoples and one finds it difficult to believe they are all madmen.

You should have stopped with the first two paragraphs. But then you completely contradicted yourself with the third. Look up the word madman in the dictionary and I would beleive that you will find the words "despicable" and "maniacal". There is a logical explanation for why Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Charles Manson, Pol Pot, and many others are labeled as such. COMITTING GENOCIDE IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT THE ACT OF A RATIONAL THINKING HUMAN BEING. Which I beleive is also another description of the word "madman". What can possibly be construed as flattery when humans are capable of these acts? You missed the point of my original question, with you're viewpoint that Hitler was a genius, I assumed that you were one of those people that had taken the opinion that the Holocaust never happened. My apologies.

[matt.buttsworth]

I think in history there have always been cruel and terrible people. Warfare, especially primtive warfare was merciless.
But a distinction must be made between Hitler, Stalin and Genghiz.
Genghiz was acting according to the rules of Nomad warfare, just on a bigger scale than anyone before or since with the possible exception of Timur the Lame.
Hitler and Stalin were in a civilized century and 'civilized warfare/society' has included a much better treatment of civilians/citizens than nomad or primitive tribes.
There actions were insane, but when interpreted as apocalyptic, were typical for apocalyptic movements, but again as in the case of Genghiz and the nomads, on a bigger scale than anyone before or since.
But 6 million in the Gas chambers, approx 30 million dead European theatre is a terrible tragedy as is the 140 mn claimed dead for communism this century.
As leaders of an apocalyptic movement I think both Hitler and Stalin did go crazy in a meglomanical apocalyptic way, especially in the mass murder of those they percieved as their enemies.
What is most sad, is not their personal madness, but that so many people believed, worshipped their insane ideas.
Mein Kampf is crazy but so too in an intellectual way is the Communist Manifesto or Bolshevik propaganda.
But Hitler until the Germans were losing the war was very popular in Germany, and Stalin as the victor fo the war was amazingly popular considering the tens of millions he killed.
The myth of Hitler, and the terrible reality has long been put to rest.
Stalin despite Kruschev Courtois etc is still popular for many in the Soviet Union including I believe Putin who celebtrated his birthday and bought back the Stalinist national hymn.
That is why I find the reaction to the Suvorov argument so interesting. Not that Suvorov is good - much of his history is terrible, other German historians are much better - but the vehemence with which people react to the idea, despite empirical evidence that the Soviets could have been planning to attack first.
The Nazis are bad, therefore the Soviets could not have been as bad, could not have been planning to attack, and the Nazis were the only bad guys in world war two.
But there often more than one wolf in the forest and I believe that both Nazism and Bolshevism were crazy, dangerous, murderous and tragic movements.

[RickyB]

Originally posted by Matthew Buttsworth:
That is why I find the reaction to the Suvorov argument so interesting. Not that Suvorov is good - much of his history is terrible, other German historians are much better - but the vehemence with which people react to the idea, despite empirical evidence that the Soviets could have been planning to attack first.
The Nazis are bad, therefore the Soviets could not have been as bad, could not have been planning to attack, and the Nazis were the only bad guys in world war two.
But there often more than one wolf in the forest and I believe that both Nazism and Bolshevism were crazy, dangerous, murderous and tragic movements.

Actually, I haven't read these arguments about the Soviets attacking in July as being based on any Nazi bashing/hating or anything - that seems to be more from a seperate issue regarding how bad Hitler was, which seemed to have been sparked by the Hitler was a genius post.

My only concern about the Stalin attacking in July argument, as partially stated before, is that I have yet to see any pointers to evidence of this. Hitler's Panzers East had no evidence in it and used only one source - Suvorov. I have not read Suvorov so I still can't judge in any way the validity of his statement, without knowing what evidence he based his thoughts on. So far nobody has posted what this evidence might be. There are also references to the Nuremburg trials, which are meaningless to me and Soviet prisoners. The prisoners would mean something, if there are more details as to number of them, rank, etc.

Overall, everything I have knowledge of indicates that the Red Army planned on an immediate offensive in case of war with Germany from the Lvov area in 1940. However, after wargames in early 1941 showed that a Soviet offensive would fail, the plan was dropped but the units left in place. The deployments that occured in the spring of 1941 were not up to the German/Rumanian border, but about 300 km behind the border. The Soviets only had approximately 64 divisions on within 50 km of the border on June 22 and another 35-40 divisions within another 50km, while they massed well over one hundred weak divisions in this 300+ km zone. All this means to me that the Soviets were deploying a defense in depth as they so often did during the war, with the frontline forces basically sacrificed to gain time. With the exception of any evidence that Soviet prisoners can give, and the definite lack of any written Soviet documents showing a plan to attack in July 1941, the evidence I am aware of is completely against a Soviet attack in the near term. Another thing that just popped into mind is that Zhukov pushed Stalin to keep the guns that were emplaced in the Stalin line along the 1939 borders in place, while others were pushing to use them to fortify the Polish border. Guess where the guns were in June - the old Stalin line positions where they did almost no good, but then they would have been totally worthless there in the case of an offensive against the Germans.

Anyway, I just want to see (hear about) some real evidence of an attack before feeling it was a possible plan.

[moi]

About Suvorov (Rezun):

On russian war-history forums was some interests game - find error in Sovorovs books. In middle, two page from three (2/3) has errors or false or anomalous data.

Sorry for my bad english, if it is interesting I can send to Mist (or some another Russian) some documents and research's for translate.

[JustAGame]

Originally posted by Don Shafer:


You should have stopped with the first two paragraphs. But then you completely contradicted yourself with the third. Look up the word madman in the dictionary and I would beleive that you will find the words "despicable" and "maniacal". There is a logical explanation for why Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Charles Manson, Pol Pot, and many others are labeled as such. COMITTING GENOCIDE IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT THE ACT OF A RATIONAL THINKING HUMAN BEING. Which I beleive is also another description of the word "madman". What can possibly be construed as flattery when humans are capable of these acts?

By my interpretation of "rational", I agree with you. Unfortunately, "rational" is subjective to the culture and circumstances. Even as the "holier than thou" American do-gooders, we have a nation that was made possible by means of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Yet, I can't recall hearing the names of American Presidents in the lists of madmen. The list of nations, religious groups or ethnicities without a history of atrocities would be short, if one could be made at all. Were all of our ancestors madmen?

Perhaps the use of "madman" was too general. I have always associated it's use with Hitler as infering he had a mental condition that would have him institutionalized in most societies. Additionally, I feel that has always been the intent.

Originally posted by Don Shafer:
You missed the point of my original question, with you're viewpoint that Hitler was a genius, I assumed that you were one of those people that had taken the opinion that the Holocaust never happened. My apologies.

Actually, I suspected you were more curious if I am a neo-nazi or some other form of anti-semitic nut. But, I figured that I would answer your question anyway since it is nearly impossible to discuss Hitler without the Holocaust being either the topic or a sub-conscious filter to the relevant topic. Besides, the topic has "good discussion" written all over it.

[JustAGame]

Originally posted by Frank:
Justagame:

I would name myself a friend of Ed, so you might want to read this post or not.

Ed is a real nice guy, as long as you do not make him angry.

He may well be a nice guy and considering his support here, he obviously makes friends.

Originally posted by Frank:
He does a lot of work in the beta-team and has created wirhack, a Wir based version of alternative history.

Hence his clout on this board.

Originally posted by Frank:
I would call him extremely well informed about topics of WW2 (and WW1, btw).

I agree.

Originally posted by Frank:
From all the information he got and all the texts he read, he made up his opinion. He told us his opinion and you disagreed. That´s it. Nobody wanted you to believe anything.

On the contrary. I told my opinion and he disagreed. I argued my point further and he argued his as well. There was no issue until he tried to "win" the discussion by dissecting my posts and rewording my points to strengthen his own and finalizing his post with an empirical retort that was far from being correct to my factual statement that noone really knows what could have been. My response to his "I Know" was that he isn't omnipotent, then I find such a claim to be amusing. No sir. It was my opinion that was being attacked. He is far from being a victim. In retrospect, my arguements would have been served by pointing out the inaccuracy of his "I know" in a more candid than sarcastic manner.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Frank:
BTW
It is long known (for everyone who WANTS to know it) that Hitler had a brain desease

Good article. Thanks.

Originally posted by Frank:
When the history told to you does not fit to your point of view it might not be the history which is wrong but your point of view.

For most of my life, I believed that Hitler was an incompetant military leader. How else could have the German military monster have lost the war? Over time, I learned that it is a myth that Germany possessed such a "giant" (Ed's knowledge is such that I'm sure he can tell you which nation had the largest and most "modern" military at the outbreak of the war). I have also learned that "history" is a living entity and what we "know" now is not everything and always accurate. In short, my point of view is not fixed and I try not to limit it to what is popular at the moment.

[JustAGame]

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:
To JustaGame and Ed

This sort of conversation goes nowhere. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Let me moderate some of the points.

...
* ED, Justagame is pulling your tail cause
you stand up to him. He is infomed smart and arrogant (like i was before i realised i knew nothing).
* This does not mean i want you to stop though i think ED has the upper hand. The problem with being informed smart and arrogant is that someone will come along and blow you away with a simple fact.
* Justagame. I feel that you are being contentious for the sake of it. If you are bored i will gladly debate any topic you see fit, i can converse on any topic from the theory of mobile warfare to quantum mechanics, just open a new thread.

If we try we can stretch this to 4 pages.


Nick

PS. What you call flame wars i call sending some twit to he intellectual trash heap(where he may learn to think again). They are divisive but i love them.

PPS. When will i be insulted??

This is far from an effort to objectively moderate. Such as it is, I realize that this is not a place where I stand a chance of winning an arguement with Ed. If arguing one's opinion is contentious, than I am guilty.

This is the 3rd or 4th time that you have asked for an insult and, to date, the only insult between us is you calling me arrogant and it is possible that you were implying that I know nothing. The ONLY person or group who I have insulted is Ed (although it suited someone's purposes to manifest an insult out of a purely logical comment about being Russian does not equal critic of historians). Considering the bait thrown my way by Ed's friends, ask yourself who is really being contentious. If you really feel I am being contentious for the sake of it, then why didn't I attack the numerous others who disagreed with my opinion.

That said, I throw in the towel. This is not enjoyable, entertaining or thought provoking. Ed, by virtue of his popularity on this board, wins. Hitler was an "incompetent" and Ed knows who would have won the war if the German generals hadn't deviated from and resisted the plan.

[matt.buttsworth]

Rick,
Have read Suvorov in detail. Early books thought provoking. Last book trash. German sources - Post especeially - much better.
Suvorov's claims that the Soviet units and Stalin line guns were on way to border when attacked. Therefore the Soviet disposition in depth was accidental not ordered.
Other arguments of his - such as Germany attacked to prevent a Russian attack/takeover of the world - are farcical and not backed up by any good evidence. The facts are as I understand it - Germans totally underestimated Russian strength, thought campaign would be very easy, motivations possible future threat, racist ideology, Mein Kampf
In many respects he is highly suspect and deserves all the criticism he gets.
I however do not have the access to historical documents or the knowledge of Russian to look at his specific claims about orders given to Russian units, armies, generals to advance to the front and cannot prove or disprove his claims.
Therefore I find the debate interesting and would like to see a book in which someone takes Suvorov's specific claims to bits, debunking the evidence he gives and trashing him. So far, what I have read Glantz, Gabirelovsky, dodges the issue using evidence from after the German attack about unpredparedness of Soviet forces to disprove him which is not relevant as Soviet forces were obviously unprepared to defend. But is that because they were unprepared for war or prepared only to attack?
My own opinion - and I am definitely not a specialist in the field even though I am a historian - is that the ideological argument that Stalin signed the Poland Pact with Hitler to trigger World War 2, let the capitalist powers fight to the death and then step in and attack later is probably true.
Reflected Bolshevik ideology, massive build up for war, production of tanks, dive bombers etc. All for the attack - probably in 1942 but whenever the European capitalist powers were exhausted.
That plan however was destroyed by the rapid German victory in France leaving the Germans stronger not weaker, after which the Soviets and Stalin did not know what to do.
What follows then appears to be a paralysis of decision making and theory. Soviet forces Lvov salient in attack positions, Zhukov/Timenshenko May 15 plans for a preventative attack approved/disapproved (depending on who you believe) by Stalin, and no proper plans made for defence, for taking of defensive measures or approval given for attack.
Hope against hope that the Germans will not attack until the Russians are ready but I have seen nothing apart from the interviews with Russian prisoners to say conclusively that the Soviets would have actually attacked on July 7, or in August, Septermber 1941 or whenever.
Nor do any markings on the May 1941 plan say Stalin read it, with Soviet accounts saying it was definitely not backed.
But if it was knocked back, the failure to withdraw massed tank forces from the Lvov salient, and to really defend in depth on Army group centre was catastrophic reflecting either a total over-estimation of Soviet ability to stop German attack and go on the offensive (doubtful but possible) or in my opinion paralysis and a vain hope that the ever so obvious attack will not fall.

[JustAGame]

Originally posted by Matthew Buttsworth:
Rick,
Have read Suvorov in detail. Early books thought provoking. Last book trash. .

Were there others besides Ice-breaker, M-Day and Last Republic? Also, Ralph Zuljan is another published critic of "the Zuvurov legend" and I think his perspective is from the same angle as Glantz's in that he evaluates the distribution of Soviet forces. Although, I can't say that with certainty since I haven't read his material.