The participation of the German Secret Service in the Tukhachevsky affair, particularly the extent of such participation, is still being disputed. An unsigned study appearing in the periodical Die Gegenwart, Vol. 13, arrived at the following carefully balanced conclusion which for the time being must no doubt remain the last word on this affair:
'The probability approaching certainty is that the Tukhachevsky affair was not engineered by the leaders of the Third Reich. On the other hand it can be assumed with the same degree of probability approaching certainty that the rulers of the Third Reich had a finger in the Tukhachevsky affair. It is extremely probable that they sought to contribute to the downfall of Marshal Tukhachevsky. It is almost established fact that they boasted of this. It is possible that Heydrich and his accomplices were the passive and unconscious tools of Stalin.'
I found this as a note, while reading about another subject.
Is there anybody here who can give a short summary of the Tukhachevsky affair and its implications?
The probability approaching certainty is that the Tukhachevsky affair was not engineered by the leaders of the Third Reich. On the other hand it can be assumed with the same degree of probability approaching certainty that the rulers of the Third Reich had a finger in the Tukhachevsky affair. It is extremely probable that they sought to contribute to the downfall of Marshal Tukhachevsky. It is almost established fact that they boasted of this
They boasted by what?
The desire of Stalin to execute Tuhachevsky has come since at least 1920 when Tuhachevsky has been responsible for Red Army disaster near Warsaw.And Great Purge in Army has no endeed deal to Third Reich plot. It was inner political process to eliminate all the former so called “Red Civil war heroes” due to own purposes .
Nevertheless all of them , including Tuhachevskij were a War criminals ( commited crimes against guerrials) during civil war.
I believe it was sort of start of the bloodletting and a catalyst for Stalin gaining complete control over his command and eliminating any of his potential rivals for the affections of the Motherland…
Gen. Tukhachevsky was not solely to blame for the “abortive advance on Warsaw.” He was forced to run the battle from Moscow (disastrous command and control in the 1920s) and was undermined by other Red Army officers who refused to lend proper support.
Stalin didn’t want Tukhachevsky dead because of Warsaw, he wanted him gone because he actually stood up to Stalin, and because he was associated with Trotsky. Stalin trusted militarily reactionary dolts he could firmly control. Not geniuses who created his tank corp, mechanized the Red Army, and came up with original ideas such as “Deep Battle”. Especially if they were in the sphere of his ex-rival for control of the revolution…
And Great Purge in Army has no endeed deal to Third Reich plot. It was inner political process to eliminate all the former so called “Red Civil war heroes” due to own purposes .
Agreed. I think we may differ on the purpose though.
Nevertheless all of them , including Tuhachevskij were a War criminals ( commited crimes against guerrials) during civil war.
Most Soviet commanders could be termed “war criminals.” I doubt this really affected Stalin’s conscience too much and Tukhachevsky’s methods were pretty much in line with the military norms of early twentieth century counterinsurgency…
‘The probability approaching certainty is that the Tukhachevsky affair was not engineered by the leaders of the Third Reich. On the other hand it can be assumed with the same degree of probability approaching certainty that the rulers of the Third Reich had a finger in the Tukhachevsky affair. It is extremely probable that they sought to contribute to the downfall of Marshal Tukhachevsky. It is almost established fact that they boasted of this. It is possible that Heydrich and his accomplices were the passive and unconscious tools of Stalin.’
…seems pretty unlikely.
I thought that internal Soviet politics resulted in T. affair, all on its own, without foreign impeteus, but it´s strange to find such a footnote in book. (And somebody in the Reich might have liked to boast of it as their accomplishment, without having a hand in it…)
Did the Germans know about T´s thoughts on deep battle? (I think this has been discussed in another thread, but I can´t find it)
You 'stand it up side down, Nick.
It was Tuhachevsky ( the close friend of Trockiy and his “right hand” in arry) was advocating to “export the Bolshevic revolution” to Germany through Poland.It was general idea of Trockij and Tuhachevskij actively voted for it.Stalin was opposed to them both from most beginning.
Stalin didn’t want Tukhachevsky dead because of Warsaw, he wanted him gone because he actually stood up to Stalin, and because he was associated with Trotsky.
He was’n just associated. He was Trockij’s puppet, coz Trockij himself had made him major commander of Red Army.
Stalin trusted militarily reactionary dolts he could firmly control.
this is a buls…t.
Othervise we would have never won the GREAT Patriotic war.
Not geniuses who created his tank corp, mechanized the Red Army, and came up with original ideas such as “Deep Battle”. Especially if they were in the sphere of his ex-rival for control of the revolution…
Yeah, the “geniuses” who has managed the false idea of “Deep battle” that was denied right after the war has began:)
the “geniuse” who ordered the hopeless obsolet tanks kinda wheel-track BT-3 by thousands.And obsolet TB-3 bombers that was more danger for own crew then for enemy:)
Most Soviet commanders could be termed “war criminals.” I doubt this really affected Stalin’s conscience too much and Tukhachevsky’s methods were pretty much in line with the military norms of early twentieth century counterinsurgency…
Yes the tuhachevsky’s methods were … very simular for most of red army commanders during civil war.
Amd most of them were war criminals( including Tuhachevskij himself).
Therefore , personaly me, don’t think it was serious lack of stalin to purged then all out.
P.S. the Tuhachevskij wa a phony general.As it was proved by history, all his military experiece has been limited by …counterpartisan warfare. He was as much helpless as self-respected , arroganced very average officers.He was trockist ,that’s why some left-wing forces in west still makes him as “victims”. But he definitelly has deserved his execution.
To the second part of your post here --Well, perhaps that’s what Stalin said after the fact, we’ll never know. Will we? In any case, I believe Tuckhachevsky didn’t sound exactly enthusiastic about the operation afterword–nor regarding the divisiveness and limitations imposed on him.
And as far as Trotsky promoting him, well then perhaps Trotsky was the savant-genius he’s often portrayed as–as Tukhachevsky won far more than he lost and was absolutely vital to the success of the Red Army. Much like Trotsky was, and as much as certain factions would like to write them out of history, they were successful, and Trotsky was one of the singular prime movers of their victory…
He was’n just associated. He was Trockij’s puppet, coz Trockij himself had made him major commander of Red Army.
Of course he was “associated.” Just what I have said, my friend. But just because he was promoted doesn’t mean he was a “puppet.” They were on the same side after all, and such terms are used by the paranoid to dehumanize their potential enemies and rivals…
this is a buls…t.
Ot
hervisewe would have never won the GREAT Patriotic war.
You would never have won the Great Patriotic War if Tuckhachevsky hadn’t modernized the Red Army and formulated key doctrines that–although discredited under Stalin–continued within the ideas and beliefs of individual commanders…
Yeah, the “geniuses” who has managed the false idea of “Deep battle” that was denied right after the war has began:)
the “geniuse” whoorderedd the hopeless obsolet tank kinda wheel-track BT-3 by thousands.And obsolet TB-3bomberss that was more danger for own crew then for enemy:)
Eh, Deep Battle did not die with the Purge. The concepts were in fact keep around under the table of course and euphemistically…
You cannot blame him for that, he was dead by 1937 IIRC, and the newer weapons coming on line such as the T-34 also bore his thinking. Tank design is an evolutionary process…
Yes the tuhachevsky’s ethods were … very simular for mot of reed army commanders during civil war.
Amd most of the weere war criminals( including Tuhachevskij hiself).
Ther
refore , personaly me, d’t think k it was serious lack of stalin to purgethen a all out.
Seriously mate, you think Stalin was some sort of humanist? I recall that he was quite brutal and had the inclinations of state terror and executions during the Civil War as well in his sectors of responsibility. Secondly, Tukhachevsky wasn’t the only only in charge and other elements on the political side such as Cheka, who probably committed the worst atrocities…
P.S. the Tuhachevskij wa phony generar.A.As it was proved by history, all his military experiece has be limited d by …counterpartisan rfare. He was a as much helpless as self-respected , arroganced very erage offificers.He was trockist ,that’shy some e left-wing forces in west still makes him as “victims”. But he definitelly has served his s execution.
I’m not sure which history proves he was a “phony.” Certainly, the history of the debacle in Finland, and the defeats at the beginning of Barbarossa prove otherwise IMO. If you’re going to blame Tukhachevsky for the failures in Poland, then who do you blame for the failures in Finland and in the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa? Who does one give credit too for the success at Khalkhin Gol where Zhukov was employing the essential precepts of “Deep Battle,” including envelopment?
P.S. the Tuhachevskij wa a phony general.As it was proved by history, all his military experiece has been limited by …counterpartisan warfare. He was as much helpless as self-respected , arroganced very average officers.He was trockist ,that’s why some left-wing forces in west still makes him as “victims”. But he definitelly has deserved his execution.
Is it the Trotskyist part of it, that in your opinion, made him derserve execution? His experience with counterpartisan warfare? Being arrogant?
And if he deserved it for efforts more than ten years old by 1937, why the wait?
No he deserved the execution not as part of Trockij plot, but as bolshevic war criminal, who beeing the close friend of Trockij and one of major commander all of Red forces , responsible for mass war crimes.
Just like Trockij himslef.
His experience with counterpartisan warfare?
Yes , he has oppessed the anti-boshlevic uprising in Tambov by…chemical wearpon , firing the civils in villages.
That’s more then enough to execute him.
Being arrogant?
Exactly.
The modern Neo-trockists on the west portray him as the sort of “military genius”.Just like the Trockij- the “genius of revolution”.The both points are pretty subjective and false.
When i for the first time was reading of Tuhachevskij’s military speaches , i was amazing- there were absolutly no the real military plans or tactical detalis. All of his speaches are …utter revolutionary demagogy. His “deep batttle” , mentioned by Nick is just …bucn of common phrases, nothing more. It was so called "attacking doctrine"very popular for its time, but unclear and foolish.
This madman was going to wage a war on “enemy territory”- therefore he ordered the wheels-track primitive BT-3, becouse he believed , the red army didn’t need the track , advancing on good road of Western Europe:)
He was adventurer, who has made an brilliant quick carier in Army due to his personal ties and political devoition to Trockij.
And if he deserved it for efforts more than ten years old by 1937, why the wait?
Well the first court investigation against Tuhachevskij was sunctioned yet in 1930 after the delation of some generals. But Stalin, suddenly…defends Tuhachevskij.And process was closed .Why?This is stll mystery for historians. Stalin might easy to eliminate Tuhachevskij in that time, but he didn’t.
Sure his execution in 1937 has no deal to war crimes, commited by Tuhachevskij in 1918-1919 . He was charged as “german spy”
Endeed he was “Trockij’s spy” but that didn’t advertised widely…
Of couse no Nick, coz I know it may shock you:)
Stalin purged the trockists becouse of his political aims. But it’s quite wrong, as some people do , to heroize the Trockists.
The one gung of bloody criminals in head with Trockij was destroyed and eliminated by other gung of stalinists:)
But both were bolshevic criminals on definition, especialy Trockij who was pesronaly responsible for beginning o Big Red terror , beein in head of state in 1918-1919, alongside Lenin.
Is it enough to clear the point?
You have to realise- the Stalins crimes doesn’t cover ALL who were behind the Stalin.
that’s why i think trockijs with their obsessed idea of World proleterian Revolution are utter criminals.
I recall that he was quite brutal and had the inclinations of state terror and executions during the Civil War as well in his sectors of responsibility. Secondly, Tukhachevsky wasn’t the only only in charge and other elements on the political side such as Cheka, who probably committed the worst atrocities…
Sure the ,CHEKA leaded by another good friend of Trockij - Felix Dzerginskij ,was responsible for the bloody atrocities during civil war, especialy in cities.
Nevertheless , the so called counter partisan operation , realised by Trockij ( as TOP commander of RKKA that time) and Tuhachevskij in rural areas were the same case.
I’m not sure which history proves he was a “phony.” Certainly, the history of the debacle in Finland, and the defeats at the beginning of Barbarossa prove otherwise IMO. If you’re going to blame Tukhachevsky for the failures in Poland, then who do you blame for the failures in Finland and in the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa?
you don’t mix it up all together Nick.
The case of finland was a special ( -35 winter frost). Plus finns were diehard partisan.
The barbarossa, just like the previous Polish campain and French campain of wermacht were explained by military incompetence of thier command and officers corp.Right?
I hope you will not blame the “Stalin purges” for failures of , say british troops in Malay for the first stage of war in pacific?
Who does one give credit too for the success at Khalkhin Gol where Zhukov was employing the essential precepts of “Deep Battle,” including envelopment?
Oh come on.
Say yet that Germans has specialy studied the tuhachevskij’s “Deep buttle” for their Blitzcriege.The so called deep battle was as i said nothing but buch of well know common phrases, deluted by revolutionary demagogy ,that any general might to apply without tuhachevskij.
the first , really working tactic of Deep battle - using the armored wedge ,deep quick penetration to the enemy territory and surround of eenemy troops by infantry - have been realised by …Germans in 1940.
Later red army has adopted much of it during the strategic offensive 1944-45. But in 1941, as it was proved by events, the Red Army was unable to weage such a war against strong enemy. Our war was Defence War in sense.Unlike the tuhachevskij dreamed.
Tukhachevsky certainly was not murdered on any sort of moralistic grounds, and by your guidelines, than other generals needed to be executed for failing to enforce proper discipline amongst their rear-echelon soldiers…
Exactly.
The modern Neo-trockists on the west portray him as the sort of “military genius”.Just like the Trockij- the “genius of revolution”.The both points are pretty subjective and false. When i for the first time was reading of Tuhachevskij’s military speaches , i was amazing- there were absolutly no the real military plans or tactical detalis. All of his speaches are …utter revolutionary demagogy. His “deep batttle” , mentioned by Nick is just …bucn of common phrases, nothing more. It was so called "attacking doctrine"very popular for its time, but unclear and foolish.
He’s not merely “portrayed” as a military genius in the West–he was one. This isn’t based on his “speeches.” Perhaps this is an error in translation, but soon to be heretical ideas are written in that papers that Tukhachevsky wrote along with several other key military figures in the Red Army. And if you think his ideas, and mind you he was not solely the prognosticator of the conceptualization of Deep Battle, then you’ve failed to grasp that they were some of the very same ideas the Red Army had to gradually dust-off and re-learn by 1943 in order to liberate the Motherland so to speak…
[i]Deep battle was a military theory developed by the Soviet Union for its armed forces during the 1920s and 1930s. It was developed by a number of influential military writers, such as Vladimir Triandafillov and Mikhail Tukhachevsky who endeavoured to create a military strategy with its own specialised operational art and tactics. The concept of deep operations was a national strategy, tailored to the economic, cultural and geopolitical position of the Soviet Union.
In the aftermath of several failures or defeats in the Russo-Japanese War, First World War and Polish–Soviet War the Soviet High Command (Stavka), focused on developing new methods for the conduct of war. This new approach considered military strategy and tactics, but also introduced a new intermediate level of military art; operations. The Soviet Union was the first nation to officially recognise the third level of military thinking which occupied the position between strategy and tactics.
Using these templates, the Soviets developed the concept of deep battle and by 1936 it had become part of the Red Army Field Regulations. Deep operations had two phases; the tactical deep battle, followed by the exploitation of tactical success, known as the conduct of deep battle operations. Deep battle envisaged the breaking of the enemy forward defences, or tactical zones, for fresh uncommitted mobile operational reserves to exploit by breaking into the strategic depth of an enemy front. The goal of any deep operational was to inflict a decisive strategic defeat on the enemy and render the defence of their front more difficult or impossible.
…
Despite producing the most sophisticated military doctrine which would have given the Soviet Red Army an advantage against its enemies, the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin initiated a purge against his enemies, both real and imagined, in the Soviet military. The Officer Corps was nearly destroyed and the personalities that had conceived deep battle were labelled traitors. Most were executed by the state after show trials. The deep operation concept was thrown out of Soviet military strategy as it was associated with the denounced figures that created it. The abandonment of deep operations had a huge impact of Soviet military capability. Before the purges in 1937, the Soviet Union’s armed forces were highly advanced and organized. Entering the Second World War after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Soviet struggled to relearn the discarded lessons. By late 1942 the Soviets had recovered sufficiently to put their concept into practice. Soviet deep battle was used to devastating effect on the Eastern Front after the Battle of Stalingrad, allowing the Red Army to destroy hundreds of Axis divisions and play a vital role in the Allied victory by 1945.[/i]
This madman was going to wage a war on “enemy territory”-
He was no more a “mad man” than his contemporaries. Some would say he was in fact far more lucid in his approach. It was thought to be “inevitable” that the Soviet Union would have to fight the Capitalist West, or the fascist powers, in an epic struggle. Tukhachevsky was just preparing for what even Stalin believed to be the end game.
And he was far ahead of the two armies that could come close to the USSR in military power–the French and the Germans (to a lessor extent)–in terms of doctrines.
therefore he ordered the wheels-track primitive BT-3, becouse he believed , the red army didn’t need the track , advancing on good road of Western Europe:)
He was adventurer, who has made an brilliant quick carier in Army due to his personal ties and political devoition to Trockij.
How would an early generation battle tank not be “primitive?” “Primitive” my dear Chevan? Actually, the BT-3 (**or more correctly, the BT series of tanks 2-7) was far ahead of most contemporary tanks as it used Walter Christie’s revolutionary suspension system for AFVs. This was of course incorporated into the T-34. But I really have to question your judgment regarding the BT-3. It was a very solid tank that was more than a match for just about any contemporary Western design of its era. And although the road-wheel idea was a bit of a failure, this in no way hindered its potential effectiveness. Yes, the BT-3 was a highly mobile AFV, but that in no way indicates and predilection towards “adventurism.” Tukhachevsky was a visionary who realized the vast expanses of the Soviet Union depended on mobile forces, radical doctrines, and combined arms to successfully defend…
Well the first court investigation against Tuhachevskij was sunctioned yet in 1930 after the delation of some generals. But Stalin, suddenly…defends Tuhachevskij.And process was closed .Why?This is stll mystery for historians. Stalin might easy to eliminate Tuhachevskij in that time, but he didn’t.
Sure his execution in 1937 has no deal to war crimes, commited by Tuhachevskij in 1918-1919 . He was charged as “german spy”
Endeed he was “Trockij’s spy” but that didn’t advertised widely…
Perhaps Stalin didn’t eliminate him because he was very popular amongst his subordinates, and because he needed his organizational skills to reorient the Red Army.
I’m just going to post this from John Keegan’s The Second World War, pages 175-176:
[i]—The effects of the purge—
…
If there was a clue to Stalin’s murderous motives, it seemed to lie in the history of personal rancours and alliances formed during the Civil War. Just as the principle victims of the military purge were those who had been identified with Leon Trotsky’s command of the Red Army in its struggle with the Whites. The anti-Trotsky faction had been centred on the First Calvary Army, commanded by S.M. Budenny and K.E. Voroshlov, which had recalcitrantly conducted its own strategy during the struggle against the Whites in South Russia where Stalin was political commissar, in 1918-19, and signally failed to assist Tukhachevsky in the abortive advance on Warsaw in…[/i]
And who would have killed the another bolshevic-criminalt otherwise;)?
Believe or not, but Stalin till the end of 1940 has eliminated almost all of first bolshevics , including the head of IV International.Stalin was’t a saint , and was a criminals himself.
But i don’t really care which method he did use, killing those criminals. Do you?
Tukhachevsky certainly was not murdered on any sort of moralistic grounds, and by your guidelines, than other generals needed to be executed for failing to enforce proper discipline amongst their rear-echelon soldiers…
No he was murdered exactly on “moralistic grounds”- he was a German spy , forgot it?
And he ,publically slandered on himself and his “friends”. So all of them were executed then.But for sake of true , i have to add , they ALL clandered and lied on each others. This speaks for something?
He’s not merely “portrayed” as a military genius in the West–he was one. This isn’t based on his “speeches.”
Oh no, my single forum friend from New York - is neo-trockists?It’s too much.
Perhaps this is an error in translation, but soon to be heretical ideas are written in that papers that Tukhachevsky wrote along with several other key military figures in the Red Army.
Which military papers do you mean?
And if you think his ideas, and mind you he was not solely the prognosticator of the conceptualization of Deep Battle, then you’ve failed to grasp that they were some of the very same ideas the Red Army had to gradually dust-off and re-learn by 1943 in order to liberate the Motherland so to speak…
I repeat Nick , the abstarct mythical Deep battle NEVER WAS A REAL strategy or military plan.It was abandoned not coz it was unthinkable for that Red Army stage of military skill ( in mid-end of 1930yy).It never has been applied on real battle even when Tuhachevskij was a real figure in Army.
Tha ONLY German Blizcriege has teached the Red Army to develop their own starategic offensive doctrine( that worked well and was applied much later in 1944-45).It’s wasn’t even close to those phantasies, that Tuhachevskj’s fans in West was going to PR as his “Deep battle”
He was no more a “mad man” than his contemporaries. Some would say he was in fact far more lucid in his approach. It was thought to be “inevitable” that the Soviet Union would have to fight the Capitalist West, or the fascist powers, in an epic struggle. Tukhachevsky was just preparing for what even Stalin believed to be the end game.
Ah, again a nonsense.
The epic battle with Capitalist or by the other words the World Proletarian Revolution was a idea-X of Trockists maniaks. Those gues deamed about Red World, and nobody hided it.
Stalin, btw, was much more progmatic then idealist Trockij. See the context…
In 1932 the USSR has establish the friendly diplomatic relations with …“capitalist” Britain.
In 1933 - the diplomatic relation with …USA.
BTW did you know that the first Soviet plans were equiped by the …american machinery?
The first soviet car-plan GAZ was buitl by the engineers of FORDcompany.
The same was with “fascist” Germany in 1939 - when it was profitable for SU - Stalin was flexible and reasonable enough.
And he was far ahead of the two armies that could come close to the USSR in military power–the French and the Germans (to a lessor extent)–in terms of doctrines.
Well in “deep theory” and dreams he actualy was much …ahead:)
We all had a fine doctrines , the Poland included.The practice has demonstarated what did cost the excellent theoretical doctrine without the serious practical support.
How would an early generation battle tank not be “primitive?” “Primitive” my dear Chevan? … the road-wheel idea was a … failure
Now you have answered for yourself.
It was’t a match for German tanks coz the Radio and optic equipment was much more primitive compared to any western counterpart.Plus the idiotic concept of wheels tank did cost too much lives for russian crew for the first months of war. It was hopeless for russian mud from most beginning, Nicki.The military advasers noticed it .But Tuhachevskij was going to wage a war on the enemy territory.He was too “smart” to listen the others.
Even T-34 was,'t enough effective coz a lack of optics that time.
Almost forgot, the another idea of Tuhachevskij was a multiturret soviet giant T-35 , tha was too slow and weak to pull itself:)
The tank was ordered in 1933 by “military genius” for his “deep battle” concepr.It looks cool on parades on Red Square and Tuhachevskij was wery proud of his tank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35#Combat_history
Perhaps Stalin didn’t eliminate him because he was very popular amongst his subordinates, and because he needed his organizational skills to reorient the Red Army.
Perhaps, who knows.
But perhaps Stalin did want to get him the one more chance to shoose the right side and abandon the Trockists enemies.
That’s how the myht is born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War#The_tide_turns_again:The.22Miracle_at_the_Vistula.22
The major lack of the warsaw offensive was that Tuhachevskij simply ignored the Poles , continied to advance to Germany. He was going… walk round the warsaw to germans border( according will of his fgeneral-commander Trockij:)) That’s why poles easy counterattacked his right flank and surrounded all his troops. Buddeny , whose cavalry forugh enough effective were tied near Lwiw , so he can’t assist to the Tuhachevskij who , btw had a superiority in strenght over poles.
How is fascinating…
So the bBuddeny ( the friend of Stalin)had no military brains , but, by the stgrange way the Tuhachevskij ( friend of Trockij), did have a genious military brain, right Nicki?This is politically biased.
Why the Voroshilov was an idiot( i/m agree) but Tuhachevskij was not, coz Gukov later, quite accidentally, has adopted “his” Tank wedges tactic.
Do not read the trockists’s book before the sleep , Nick.
No he was murdered exactly on “moralistic grounds”- he was a German spy , forgot it?
And he ,publically slandered on himself and his “friends”. So all of them were executed then.But for sake of true , i have to add , they ALL clandered and lied on each others. This speaks for something?
Trumped up, faked charges are hardly “moralistic.”
Oh no, my single forum friend from New York - is neo-trockists?It’s too much.
Well my married friend from Southern Russia. What was so horrid about Trotsky (as compared to Stalin) anyways? Would he have murdered a few less of his citizenry or something?
Which military papers do you mean?
The ones forwarded in the Wiki link on Deep Battle I provided. You know? The one you’re completely ignoring…
I repeat Nick , the abstarct mythical Deep battle NEVER WAS A REAL strategy or military plan.It was abandoned not coz it was unthinkable for that Red Army stage of military skill ( in mid-end of 1930yy).It never has been applied on real battle even when Tuhachevskij was a real figure in Army.
Tha ONLY German Blizcriege has teached the Red Army to develop their own starategic offensive doctrine( that worked well and was applied much later in 1944-45).It’s wasn’t even close to those phantasies, that Tuhachevskj’s fans in West was going to PR as his “Deep battle”
Um, you’re contradicted by just about every source I’ve ever read on the subject…
Ah, again a nonsense.
The epic battle with Capitalist or by the other words the World Proletarian Revolution was a idea-X of Trockists maniaks. Those gues deamed about Red World, and nobody hided it.
Stalin, btw, was much more progmatic then idealist Trockij. See the context…
In 1932 the USSR has establish the friendly diplomatic relations with …“capitalist” Britain.
In 1933 - the diplomatic relation with …USA.
BTW did you know that the first Soviet plans were equiped by the …american machinery?
The first soviet car-plan GAZ was buitl by the engineers of FORDcompany.
The same was with “fascist” Germany in 1939 - when it was profitable for SU - Stalin was flexible and reasonable enough.
Stalin was realistic because the situation forced him to be. I might add that Trotsky was hardly the “maniac” you make him out to be. He was in fact well traveled both prior to the revolution and after his exile and was far more realistic than he is generally given credit for…
Well in “deep theory” and dreams he actualy was much …ahead:)
We all had a fine doctrines , the Poland included.The practice has demonstarated what did cost the excellent theoretical doctrine without the serious practical support.
Now you have answered for yourself.
It was’t a match for German tanks coz the Radio and optic equipment was much more primitive compared to any western counterpart.Plus the idiotic concept of wheels tank did cost too much lives for russian crew for the first months of war. It was hopeless for russian mud from most beginning, Nicki.The military advasers noticed it .But Tuhachevskij was going to wage a war on the enemy territory.He was too “smart” to listen the others.
Even T-34 was,'t enough effective coz a lack of optics that time.
Almost forgot, the another idea of Tuhachevskij was a multiturret soviet giant T-35 , tha was too slow and weak to pull itself:)
The tank was ordered in 1933 by “military genius” for his “deep battle” concepr.It looks cool on parades on Red Square and Tuhachevskij was wery proud of his tank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35#Combat_history
Of course it was “no match” for German panzers, it was a generation behind them! The BT series was introduced in the 1920s and one of the fundamental things you’re either missing, or are in denial about, here is that it was the poor vision and planning of Stalin’s favorite generals that succeeded Tukhachevsky that retarded Soviet tank development. However, the BT series directly contributed to the development of the T-34…
Tukhachevsky wasn’t even allowed outside of Moscow to lead his own forces (a cardinal sin of command and control). How was he to invade Germany through Poland, then?
How is fascinating…
So the bBuddeny ( the friend of Stalin)had no military brains , but, by the stgrange way the Tuhachevskij ( friend of Trockij), did have a genious military brain, right Nicki?This is politically biased.
Why the Voroshilov was an idiot( i/m agree) but Tuhachevskij was not, coz Gukov later, quite accidentally, has adopted “his” Tank wedges tactic.
Do not read the trockists’s book before the sleep , Nick.
I could just as easily say that you “victor’s history” and Stalin apologetic is just as “biased.” Eh?
Trumped up, faked charges are hardly “moralistic.”
But he , beeing “innocent” absolutly voluntary “unmasked” his friends- Yakir,Feldman, Uborevich and ets.
Well my married friend from Southern Russia. What was so horrid about Trotsky (as compared to Stalin) anyways? Would he have murdered a few less of his citizenry or something?
Married, eh?
Trockij was responsible for Big Red terror in 1918-1921.About 2 mln were murdered.That’s more then enough to wiped him out from earth.
The ones forwarded in the Wiki link on Deep Battle I provided. You know? The one you’re completely ignoring…
A false wiki article , based on post-war Tuhachevski’s apologists works.I specially asked you - have you read the real work of Tuhachevskij?No, coz NO his any theoretical work DOES exist in nature.
Um, you’re contradicted by just about every source I’ve ever read on the subject…
It does not wonder me, coz you have read ONLY Trockists works- the field that is absolutly dominates in USA nowadays.
I m not going to didsmiss their false propogandic ideas- kinda Idiot Budenny and “genious” Tuhachevskij. This is too obvious falsification.
Stalin was realistic because the situation forced him to be. I might add that Trotsky was hardly the “maniac” you make him out to be. He was in fact well traveled both prior to the revolution and after his exile and was far more realistic than he is generally given credit for…
False.
Stalin was more realistic from most beginning- yet in 1920 he seriously objected to CK( central commite of party in head with Trockij and Lenin) to move the Red Army through the Poland to Berlin.It was Trockij who advocated that mad idea. They inspired- the Polish worker would support the Red Army becouse of solidarity class straggle.Stalin argued- the Poles are nationalist and their nationalistic feeleng will make them to resist to Red Army invasion.
The history has proved Stalin was right, Trockij was out to be the idealistic maniac, red army has been crushed coz his obsessed will to bring the revolution to Germany.
Of course it was “no match” for German panzers, it was a generation behind them! The BT series was introduced in the 1920s and one of the fundamental things you’re either missing, or are in denial about, here is that it was the poor vision and planning of Stalin’s favorite generals that succeeded Tukhachevsky that retarded Soviet tank development. However, the BT series directly contributed to the development of the T-34…
Oh sure , say yet that german T-III/IV directly contributed to development of Tiger;)
The all of Tuhachevskij wearpon that were ordered by Ary in 1931-1937 were OBSOLET and hopeless.Just in 1939-1941 the new generation of soviet wearponry were proved to be more or less effective.
easy,Tuhachevskij’s Western front was advancing through Poland by the shortest way to German border( according to Trockij directive). When poles attacked his flank , Tuhachevskij was in panic.Coz he thought the poles were “broken”.
I could just as easily say that you “victor’s history” and Stalin apologetic is just as “biased.” Eh?
Ha, i m not apolist of STalin. However i seriously think that your “losers approach” ( Kinda if Stalin murdered the Trockij/Tuhachevskij , they were an “innocent victim”) is a …foolish.
It’s wrong way on definition to heroise one sort of Boslhevics criminals and demonize the otheres ones.
