Wars and Conflicts permalink
Stalin's reaction to Barborossa
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by seanG03 (U9345730) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Did Stalin go into hiding at the start of Operation Barborossa? Did he genuinely fear he would be arrested and toppled?
-
Message 2
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Monday, 9th February 2009
For a short period he was minded to flee, but then he decided to stand his ground and remain and fight.
It is one of the great turning points of history. -
Message 3
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 9th February 2009
For a short period he was minded to flee, but then he decided to stand his ground and remain and fight. Rubbish. All this nonsense about Stalin paralized with fear is taken at face value from Zhukov's memoires, which is a proven fraud.
-
Message 4
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 9th February 2009
suvorovetz,
Rubbish. All this nonsense about Stalin paralized with fear is taken at face value from Zhukov's memoires, which is a proven fraud.Â
Then what did Stalin do? -
Message 5
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Then what did Stalin do? Stalin was in the round-the-clock contact with his General Staff, particularly Zhukov, according to the records from his visitor’s journal. Meanwhile, his General Staff was desperately trying to launch an all-out offensive as it was outlined in the plan put together in May, as is well illustrated by the copies of Zhukov's directives sent to the field commanders on or after June 22. The problem was that the Wehrmacht attack had been discarded as a possibility, and in the chaos that followed attempts to launch the pre-planned offensive only made matters worse.
-
Message 6
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
'Did he genuinely fear he would be arrested and toppled?'
- probably he feared. But there really were no Men among the high ranked Stalin's Generals who could dare to topple him.
'All this nonsense about Stalin paralized with fear is taken at face value from Zhukov's memoires, which is a proven fraud.'- but what about the Memories of Mykyta Khrushchov who held to the same view that Stalin-warrior did nothing during the first couple of weeks of Hitler's invasion while cavalrymen-the former tzarist NCOs were busy with their 'offensives'.
P.S. Always better to have the two books than the one...because having the freedom is the better thing than not having as everyone knows..
-
Message 7
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
OUNUPA
what about the Memories of Mykyta Khrushchov who held to the same view that Stalin-warrior did nothing during the first couple of weeks of Hitler's invasion while cavalrymen-the former tzarist NCOs were busy with their 'offensives' What about him? You never heard how Khrushchev came to power? It was none other than Zhukov who made it possible. Khrushchev was the master of blaming everything on dead Stalin, like in his infamous "Secret Speech" published about as lavishly as Zhukov's memoires, by the way. Talk about secret. What Khrushchev forgot to cover in his not so secret speech is that he personally oversaw Golodomor and purges resulting in death of millions of farmers in Ukraine. So, the bottom line is this: I'd say that Stalin's visitor's journal and Zhukov's directives prove the memoires of both of these clowns fraudulent. Always better to have the two books than the one... You don't even need two books to figure out that Zhukov's memoires is a fraud. All you need to do is to try to make its different chapters add up. Good luck with that, especially if you can count up to like 100K. -
Message 8
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Okay,I've got your way.
Zhukov was a liar, Khrushchov was a master to do some things.
But whom was Ivan Mayisky who wrote an article in the 'Novyi Mir'1964,12,p.162-163 in support of the idea that Stalin did nothing during the first couple of weeks of Hitler's invasion? How do you think, Suvorovetz ? Was he a clown or a provocateur ?
P.S. Always better to have the two books and several journals than only the one book...because the sea is wider than a river. -
Message 9
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
But whom was Ivan Mayisky who wrote an article in the 'Novyi Mir'1964,12,p.162-163 in support of the idea that Stalin did nothing during the first couple of weeks of Hitler's invasion? How do you think, Suvorovetz ? Was he a clown or a provocateur? I don't know who Ivan Mayisky is, and why should I care about him at all? I don't know whether he ever saw Stalin's visitor's journal entries or copies of Zhukov's directives that were uncovered in the 90s after the collapse of the Communist government in Russia. If we are to vet everyone who recycled Zhukov's fairy tales about June 1941 on both sides of Atlantic, we will never finish this thread. As for Zhukov, he is a lier for sure. Just read his memoires, we'll compare notes when you're done.
-
Message 10
Posted by hambi22 (U2309395) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Hello,
the first time Stalin turned to public after the war broke up was on 3. July, it was also 12 day after the start war of the war.
Why was he silent for so long?
May be he was thinking up, how to explan to Soviets citizen, how he was outwited by Hitler.
regards -
Message 11
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Hello,
the first time Stalin turned to public after the war broke up was on 3. July, it was also 12 day after the start war of the war. Not being on public is not the same as being in hiding paralized with fear. The objective archive records show that Stalin was busy as a bee during the first week of the war - working round the clock, in fact.
Why was he silent for so long? Hello. The entire first echelon of his massive striking force deployed in East Europe was being clubbered. He was probably trying to get a handle on his General Staff. The demotion of his Chief of General Staff Zhukov came shortly thereafter, for example. -
Message 12
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
I don't know who Ivan Mayisky is'- yes,
'What did happen with the submarine, Mr.Putin ?'
'She has sunk.'
Very nicely.
===============
Suvorovetz, Vyshinski and Mayisky were the two Mensheviks who had managed to survive not only during the endless raw of Stalin's cleansing but they even became not the last men within the staff of the Stalin's Ministry of the Foreign Affairs.
'we will never finish this thread.'- we can suppose that this ' visitor's journal' is nothing more than the KGB's fraud . Too many evidences from different sources stand against the theory of Stalinists about Genius who 'run the job round the clock'. -
Message 13
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
Did Stalin go into hiding at the start of Operation Barborossa? Did he genuinely fear he would be arrested and toppled?Â
No, but from the perspective of the Russian people he did not have much to say to them for the next few weeks.
Being the clever old weasel that he was, he made Molotov announce the start of the war, given that the first few days had been disastrous from the Russian perspective, and whoever made the announcement would be associated with failure and indecision in the public mind. Stalin's picture, usually so familiar on the front page of Pravda, was virtually absent for a month.
My dear old pal SUV and I will never agree about these events, especially what I regard as Stalin's refusal to accept that Barbarossa had actually begun and that the forward-based Russian airforce had been destroyed on the ground.
There are many interpretations, no doubt, but there is an excellent and detailed hour by hour account of this stage of the USSR's / Stavka's bungled reaction to Barbarossa, on pages 313 to 347 of "Stalin: In the Court of the Red Tsar" (2003) by Simon Sebag Montefiore, published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN 1 142 127268. -
Message 14
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
Suvorovetz, Vyshinski and Mayisky were the two Mensheviks who had managed to survive not only during the endless raw of Stalin's cleansing but they even became not the last men within the staff of the Stalin's Ministry of the Foreign Affairs. Wow. I suppose, this makes them the most credible sources there are. I never thought of Vyshinsky this way before. I thought he was the Fraud personified throughout his glorious career.
we can suppose that this ' visitor's journal' is nothing more than the KGB's fraud I can't see what possible motivation would KGB have to forge those journal. Besides, when the KGB had total control over the archives, these journals were nowhere to be found. They surfaced only in the chaos of the Soviet collapse. Too many evidences from different sources stand against the theory of Stalinists about Genius who 'run the job round the clock' Novyi Mir articles by Party bureaucrats and "secret speeches" by Stalin's ex-henchmen is not evidence, OUNUPA. -
Message 15
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
Hi, Pilot but there is an excellent and detailed hour by hour account of this stage of the USSR's / Stavka's bungled reaction to Barbarossa, on pages 313 to 347 of "Stalin: In the Court of the Red Tsar" (2003) by Simon Sebag Montefiore, published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN 1 142 127268. I would like to see Mr. Montefiore comments on the documents I referred to. Of course, he could just call it the KGB forgery and call it a day, as OUNUPA does, but that would not be very convincing in my opinion, unless he presents compelling evidence to that effect.
-
Message 16
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
Hello again SUV
I would like to see Mr. Montefiore comments on the documents I referred toÂ
By 'those documents' are you referring to Poskrebyshev's 'log' of those present in the 'Little Corner' on the early evening of June 21st 1941?
If so, Montefiore does deal with the possible unreliability of that document on page 316 (footnote thereof).
I wasn't there, nor was Montefiore or the Suvorovs (senior and junior). Montefiore says that he bases his account on the work of: "..Molotov, Mikoyan, Zhukov, Timoshenko, Hilger and 'others'".
So, yes, Zhukov's memoir was consulted but there seems to be a balance of other sources too.
I confess that I cannot read (or utter) a word of Russian so I'm dependent on the veracity of translations or over-views.
Nonetheless, Anthony Beevor describes Montefiore's work on Stalin as "outstanding", and I value Beevor's integrity and scholarship.
I trust you are surviving our 'Siberian' winter?
Do svidanya, for now. -
Message 17
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
Chao, Pilot
Nonetheless, Anthony Beevor describes Montefiore's work on Stalin as "outstanding", and I value Beevor's integrity and scholarship. There is a classic Russian tale that concludes with, "Kukushka chvalit vorobya za to shto chvalit on kukushku." I'm sure OUNUPA can confirm the authenticity of this line. I guess the English equivalent would be like, "I scratch your back and you scratch mine." But I like the Russian line better. It has a better ring to it, especially when we talk about Stalin and Co. -
Message 18
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Friday, 13th February 2009
'c(k)hvalit vorobya za to shto chvalit on kukushku." - this is a line from the fable of the Russian fabulist Krylov.
"I scratch your back and you scratch mine." - it suits more to the saying 'ruka ruku moeyet, a obe bely zivut'- one hand washes another or roll my log and I'll roll yours or claw me and I'll claw thee..
'I can't see what possible motivation would KGB have to forge those journal. '-fooling around...or the matters look even worse, Suvorovetz ? Well, it was done to give us the 'evidence' that they served ( in Siberian camps and in shooting squads behind the front lines ) the Genius who even would be planned to launch the attack against the Germany..i.e. the power which made, just before the German invasion in the USSR , from the France the dust in 1940....This is a shame for them to say even themselves that KGB was just a tool in hands of the coward when they fought the 'german-ukrainian' nationalists in camps of Mordovia in June 1941. They were even worse than cowards and didn't deserve to get their 'special pensions and privileges'. It worth to forge not only the so called 'journal'.....
And they now inventing tales about Warrior Stalin ...But in realty all they could do is to launch 'attacks' against the Finland in 1939, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 and against Georgia in summer 2008. And that is the Fact from History the rest are those ASSUMPTIONS ! Think so is the same as to suppose that Putin would plan to nuke the USA in order to make from the Americans the 'kolkhozniks' -'the victims of Tatar yoke'. They even failed to make them from the peasants in Afghan. It turned out that Afghan tribes are more proud people than the 'victims of yoke'. Such was unexpected surprise for the Politburo in 'Tatar Kremlin'. -
Message 19
Posted by hambi22 (U2309395) on Friday, 13th February 2009
Hello,
by the way talking about Stalin, why did he ignore the sings of impending German agression.
I hope , that you admit that there were some.
best regards -
Message 20
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 13th February 2009
OUNUPA
And they now inventing tales about Warrior Stalin That's quite a twist. Stalin was the warrior all along. Just watch the longest war series in the world "Osvobozhdeniye" one more time to refresh your memory. The difference is that he used to be the Defender of the Motherland and the Liberator, as opposed to the Agressor, who he actually turned up being. So, you're saying that the KGB forged his visitors' journal and Zhukov's directives to accuse Stalin of being the Agressor? Right. -
Message 21
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 13th February 2009
Hi, hambi22
by the way talking about Stalin, why did he ignore the sings of impending German agressionÂ
Steelers and I argued about it here:
-
Message 22
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Saturday, 14th February 2009
Just watch the longest war series in the world "Osvobozhdeniye" one more time to refresh your memory.'- I've got a good memory, Suvorovetyz, but you can put this 'serial' on your garden . It really would make your flowers grow bigger.Do you belong to those who like to save the cost of installing satellite TV by taping current editions of Top Of The Pops in order then watch them in thirty years time ?
=========================================
Stalin trusted Hitler when he chose , unintentionally for him, to define the Hitler' invasion as ' verolomnoye' i.e. Hitler was the one whom Stalin trusted and who 'has broken Stalin's TRUST' .
Most of Stalin's supporters , like Stalin himself, came from very humble backgrounds and had received little formal education. They preferred to place their trust in Stalin's wisdom, with his simple calls, when it came to matters of ideology.
But Stalin learned the lesson of the Red defeat in Poland. The root of the defeat was rather political than those military errors.
The Polish workers had failed to rise in support of the INVADING Red Army but, on the contrary, had rallied to Pilsudski.
Nationalism proved a more potent force than 'international communism'.
Lenin openly told the Party Conference in September 1920
'We encountered a nationalist upsurge from the petty bourgeois elements as our advance towards Warsaw made them fear for their national survival'.
Lenin realized that the SAME would also hold true for the REST OF EUROPE, but he was not sure for ASIA !
Trying to impose Communism from the OUTside would merely have the effect of turning its potential supporters.
It was defeat in Poland which forced Stalin to give up the Bolshevk's fantasies of European revolution. We can call the Treaty of Riga as the point of the start of a new era of so called peaceful co-existence between Russian Empire and the West.
The Polish disaster had clearly shown that Russia's PEASANT army was not strong enough to sustain an offensive against EVEN THE SMALLER Western powers , I'm not to say against the best in the world German army.
The lesson for the Bolsheviks was clear -
their best chances of exporting Communism lay to the East !
In Afghanistan, India ....
There is no doubt at all that our Red Army constitutes an incomparably more powerful force in the Asian terrain of world politics than in the European terrain.
Here there opens up before us an undoubted possibility not merely of a lengthy wait to see how events develop in Europe.
The road to India may prove at the given moment to be more readily passable and shorter for us than the road to the Soviet Czechoslovakia....
The road to Paris and London lies via the towns of Afghanistan, the Punjab and Bengal'
It literary meant ...that we did some stuff .. in our pants .....and now should fight the Tiflis.... punishing in a such way America. -
Message 23
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 14th February 2009
OUNUPA
I've got a good memory, Suvorovetyz, but you can put this 'serial' on your garden If you have a good memory you would remember that the KGB did not need to forge anything to foster Stalin's Warrior image.
Stalin trusted Hitler Your favorite historian Khruhschev wrote that Stalin once had told him that he did not trust his own shadow.
But Stalin learned the lesson of the Red defeat in Poland. The root of the defeat was rather political than those military errors.
The Polish workers had failed to rise in support of the INVADING Red Army but, on the contrary, had rallied to Pilsudski. Pilsudsky had much smaller army. The root of the defeat was purely military. Tukhachevsky failed as the great strategist your favorite historian Khrushchev sold him to the world. Fast forward, Tukhachevsky's execution did not empede Red Army's strength in any way, shape or form.
Lenin realized that the SAME would also hold true for the REST OF EUROPE, but he was not sure for ASIA ! Trying to impose Communism from the OUTside would merely have the effect of turning its potential supporters.It was defeat in Poland which forced Stalin to give up the Bolshevk's fantasies of European revolution. Nonsense. Both of them repeatedly emphasized that Communist regime would not survive in isolation. What Stalin realized was that he needed an industrial base, a big army and - mostly - the right strategy to win.
The Polish disaster had clearly shown that Russia's PEASANT army was not strong enough to sustain an offensive against EVEN THE SMALLER Western powers , I'm not to say against the best in the world German army. Exactly. Except that Germany did not have any army at all in 1920. Stalin himself helped Hitler to rearm - as part of his new strategy. -
Message 24
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 14th February 2009
By the way, OUNUPA Well, it was done to give us the 'evidence' that they served ( in Siberian camps and in shooting squads behind the front lines ) the Genius who even would be planned to launch the attack against the Germany..i.e. the power which made, just before the German invasion in the USSR , from the France the dust in 1940.... This is a blatant straw man you've just erected here. None of what you wrote here makes sense. Let me cite Suvorov's first page of the Icebreaker - it's a brilliant resume of what the Soviet propaganda was putting out ever since the WWII broke out.
"Who started the Second World War? This question is being answered in different ways. There is no consensus. The Soviet government, for example, changed its opinion many times. On September 18, 1939, the Soviet government declared in the official communique that Poland was the guilty party. On November 30, 1919, in the Newspaper PRAVDA, Stalin called out more 'perpetrators', "England and France attacked Germany taking responsibility for the current war." On May5, 1941, in his secret speech to the graduates of military academies, Stalin added Germany to the list. After the war the circle of 'perpetrators' grew even more. Stalin stated that all capitalist countries started the Second World War. Before the war all sovereign countries of the world, except the USSR, were considered capitalist by Stalin's measure. So, if one were to believe Stalin, the bloodiest war in the history of mankind was started by the governments of all countries, including Sweden and Switzerland, but not the Soviet Union. Stalin's point of view about everybody's guilt, except the USSR, was embedded in the Communist mythology for a long time. In times of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, Andropov and Tchernenko, accusations against the rest of the world were repeated many times over. Under Gorbatchev, many things changed in the Soviet Union, but not the Stalin's postulate about the war perpetrators. For example, the main historian of the Soviet Army in Gorbatchev's time Lieutenant-General P.A. Zhilin repeats, "The perpetrators of the war included not only the German imperialists, but those of the whole world." (Krasnaya Zvezda, September 24, 1985)." -
Message 25
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 14th February 2009
On November 30, 1919, in the Newspaper PRAVDA, Stalin called out more 'perpetrators', "England and France attacked Germany taking responsibility for the current war."Â It should read November 30, 1939, of course. Sorry.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.