I read some post above about how the soviets were going in Stalingrad in battle , how there was rifle to every man , no penalty battalions in Stalingrad … guys are you dreaming ??? Of course there was desperate situation there wasn’t rifles to everyone and there situation to go in behind you NKVD officer with gun to shoot you if you return and you without a rifle trying just to take cover .That was the common psyhological moment of the war , rather than the germans who were confident and occupying more and more teritory , the soviets got something more - the courage to safe your own life , to know that you are already "lost " their lifes as behind them was waiting certain death , a man who is under such life depending situation usually do everything just to save his own life . That was the difference between the man who is conquering and the man fighting for it’s own live who knew that there is no way back .
watch enemy at the gates and then u will see this
i know a movie in which this happens it called enemy at the gates watch and then u will see.
But we is developing very intensive:)
Look, half of former Oligarh-barons are in the prison, the other half , hide in Britain and Israel:)
Soon our capitalism will remind YOURS.
Even Revisionist will probably be prisoned:)
Kate , usialy i don’t answer to your rubbish, but sometimes you make me laugh.
i like to laugh you know;)
So by your mind the Churchill “fine strategy” was aimed to push both Germany and USSR together in a war and wait.
But why this “strategist” has started to fight with GErmany first?
Oh really , my Niazis propogand admirer?
Firslty the Breslau felt few day AFTER Berlin, but you don’t care about it.Becouse the BErlin felt befor the Unconditional surrender was signed in 8 may.
Secondary Breslau was a city-fortness and the battles were highly destructive house-to-house street fighting, that cost for both sides very much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Breslau#The_siege
And finaly, you my little history amateur, don’t share a Goebbels blunder please.
The whole 6 army of Ukrainian first front losed 9 000 of killed , 200 tanks.
The defenders lost about 6 000 killed and 45 000 prisoned.Moreover about 50 000 of civils died.
Most top Breslau German Generals dissappeared into the Soviet, never to return. If Red Army “tactics” were that advanced by mid 1945, how did Breslau extract such a high price of experienced soldiers?
Oh really, boy?
You wonder me more and more, there is no limit for your perfectness to fun the peoples:)
Did you ever hear how many soldiers German Army lost during the house-to-house battle of Stalingrad?
This is more than all Australian troops in Allied side ever participated in war:)
Now say , buddy , that such a hight Price was a resault of not-experienced German command.
BTW don’t mix the GErmans , the most professional and strong Army at that time with UGLY Japanes, whom 75 000 army WERE MORE THAN ENOUGH to kicked ass to the 150 000 british garrison of Singapore in 1942.
Answer…they were still using the “same old steamroller” in 1945…only highly publicised units got “the training”…the Red Army went into Barbarossa as a uniformed rabble and emerged with a VERY PATCHY record for the service of it’s units…
OLD streamroller, buddy, in 1944-45 liberated MORE territory that allies even can dream.
And you’ve forgot the “uniformed rabble” in 1938 succesfuly crushed the Japs in Soviet far East. The same Japes that you FEAR TO DEATH.
The casualties for the final push from the Oder River tell the story. This much “practiced” military service of the Red Army that could not advance qithout throwing lives away under grotesque circumstances.
I,ve told you that you point absurd itself, but i see now either you too old or too stupid to understand the simple mathematic things.
So i will repeat TWICE AND BOLD specialy for you.
The death-rate of Red Army during the 1944/45 was indeed NO more that death-rate Allies.In percents of participated troops.
Just the absolute figures of Land troops were differ- Germans directed about 80% of their army agains soviets ( the same were their casualties)
And your point has no any relation to Red Army.
Instead i can use the oppinion of Western professional, who unlike you, amateur, know the real situation.
And was’t aimed to repeat the Goebbels subhuman bul…t.
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp#ch10
In the conduct of the Manchurian operation, the Soviets adhered to tactical concepts generally in concert with those contained in the field service regulations of 1944. The necessity for speed, the vast expanse of the area of operations, the diversity of terrain, and the nature of the opposition dictated the final nature and form of Soviet offensive tactics. In order to achieve requisite speed in the Manchurian environment, the Soviets made some adjustments to actions the regulations prescribed. Yet, the regulations themselves were flexible and recommended adjustment based on the concrete conditions that an attacking force confronted. Thus, they recommended using unique and varied tactical formations to surprise the enemy. They also stressed initiative as a key ingredient for achieving surprise and maintaining the momentum of an attack.
At every level in every sector, Soviet commanders in Manchuria took great risks, planned bold operations, and executed their plans with abandon.They demonstrated a flexibility exceeding that displayed in earlier opera tions, not only because of the particular demands in the theater of operations, but also because Soviet military leadership had matured. The war had produced a generation of experienced and competent army, corps, division, regimental, and brigade commanders, whose expertise was the product of up to four years of battle. This generation realized that the Manchurian operation was probably the last campaign of a long war, hence a campaign that had to be successful and short. The will to achieve peace provided the impetus for this last violent spasm of war. Soviet forces were surgical in their conduct of battle: in just eleven days the violence of war was over
David Glanz. Operation August storm
This is opinion of respected military historian who hardly will honore the Red Army or share the Soviet propogand.
Now guess , to whom the people would believe to Glanz or to you, troll?
Modern Russians would naturally sweep all this under the carpet…rather like the Romans turning the Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca into a larger than life characterization specifically to highlight their own “achievements” in the martial sphere…
No hiding the dead from Cannae…just like there was no hiding the butchers bill from Soviet Red Army field operations.
AMATUERS…
Modern Russians have a curious detachment from these facts…of course, nobody wants to put the old leaders in a bad light for fear of it rubbing off to the rest of the community! Russia still has a “complex” about it’s own image…Funny how we westerners thrive on critcism of these same leaders.
If you don’t stand up and object to big issues like those mentioned above (like gross misconduct and mis-management leading to gross casualties), then you never do anything towards solving the basic problem. Your leaders can keep patting themselves on the back for the victory while critics of the Russian “system” go unvoiced…
Oh such touching speech of frank “friend” of russia.
Thank you buddy, i will account your advice to use the Goebbels untermenshen propogand in my studiing of OUR history.
Your posts contain the rough historical and statistical mistakes, but don’t care about historical accuracy.
Remember , you here not for accuracy - but exclusively for fun.
Write more …
No wonder Solzhenitsyn emigrated…
He’s come back already 10 earsh ago , buddy.
And till his death couple of month ago ,he has wrote an intersting book where he well described the rushophobia of such narrow western amateurs like you:)
[QUOTE=alephh;93211]I do not know if those “walk thru minefield” orders qualify for “killing own soldiers”.
I think the problem with this sort of “history” (shooting own men), is that it is way too sensitive subject, that most things are not put in the records and archives. All you get are unofficial statements by soldiers.
For example in Finland in 1918, there were shootings of own men after the civil war. These records were “lost”… until all the men involved in the issue were dead, and records surfaced to the public.
There are rumors that in Finland In 1944 several hundred men were shot (for retreating), but official records are, once again, totally clueless since key documents are “lost”. Maybe those “lost” documents will surface later, when persons involved are long gone.
Point being: if the issue is too sensitive to the nation in question, researching things by official records is pointless.
I have personally seen/heard statements that soviet soldiers killed everything from 1000 soviet soldiers to 400,000 soviet soldiers – it’s all about which men/sources you choose to believe.
And then there’s the problem of “stupid orders are stopped by good officers”:
Some of Hitler’s orders were stopped by officers, or they were delivered to men in altered form. For example Field Marshal von Manstein instructed the units under his command not to follow The Commissar Order by Hitler. And surely sensible soviet officer wouldn’t like to decrease the morale of his soldiers by delivering Stalin’s orders in full.
From soldiers point of view, many orders meant to be read to them, are sort of “secret”.
[/FONT]
There is an element of logic here that in my view requires examination.
In the “Favourite Soviet General” Thread it is admitted that having soldiers charge across minefields was common practice.
A death toll of 20% resulting from this was acceptable, (though in fact a survival rate of 20% was far more likely, certainly for the first two waves of troops).
Given that a 20% percent loss was seen as acceptable in that context there is no logical reason to think that same 20% rate was not equally acceptable in the context of a “shoot some to encourage others of them to move forward into combat” order (regardless if said order be from Stalin, Party HQ, or even if published among party faithful).
The Chinese army certainly proved the point of the Soviet infantry doctrine under which it had been trained, in human-wave assaults in Korea, nearly ten years later.
While I wish to cause offense to no-one, the element of logic here does deserve examination.
Regards, Uyraell.
[quote=“Uyraell,post:86,topic:2035”]
Sorry but I’m a bit confused here:
1918: Do you mean that the victorious White Finns (the government forces) shot their own men after the Civil war ended?
1944: To which rumoured case do you mean: The Huhtiniemi case or a newer rumour where 200 deserters were supposedly have been shot/executed?
Anyway…to my knowledge the 1918 thing I have never heard/read about but it doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened although it is highly unlikely.
and about 1944: The Huhtiniemi case was a hoax as the found bodies were russian troops from the 19th century. The latter is quite new but IIRC, it is has been researched already and I think there will be even more research on this one in the future.
Also, the Military archives have not been sorted after the war but the work is being currently done but it will take some time.
Just me 2 cents.
Well i would say it was a bad idea , because in operation there could be many loses and with this way , of killing your soldiers , it could raise the casualties to the top
Yes mr Uyraell is right.
THe White finns shoted their red finns pretty well.
Anyway…to my knowledge the 1918 thing I have never heard/read about but it doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened although it is highly unlikely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror#Finnish_White_Terror
White terror pretty exceeded the Red one.
Just spotted this Gem. Churchill took office (and hence could influence strategy significantly) on the 10th of May 1940. Planning for Barbarossa started on the 18th of December 1940. That leaves him about 220 days in which to totally change around German grand strategy towards the Soviet Union. If true, he deserves to be recorded as the greatest diplomat in history.
If he can really might do something to change the any GErman plans that time:)
Hardly he had enough time/ability for that.
In December 1940 Barbarossa was aproved and comenced to unroll.
The planning of it was initiated in July 1940. IIRC 18 of July.
Ah, yes. Thanks for the link but no news there. I need to find that book and read it.
Well, the this thread is about “shooting your OWN men” as in not your enemies. 
This really got me scratching my head as where would the sanity of this be.
There would not have been any white terror if there wouldn’t have been red terror first.
Anyways, the losers of the civil war won the parliamentary elections pretty soon after the war. Unlike in Soviet-Russia…isn’t that right, Chevy?
It’s just like to say that there would not have been the Nacism if there wouldn’t have been Bolshevism first - the point that might to justify everything.
Anyways, the losers of the civil war won the parliamentary elections pretty soon after the war. Unlike in Soviet-Russia…isn’t that right, Chevy?
Yes Airderfike, true, ONLY becouse of winners in civil war , later have losed the ww2.
So what exactly are you trying to say there, Chevan? I’m somewhat confused - The Soviets justified themselves by defeating the Nazis?
Or do you mean the Finns criminalized themselves by being on the losing side of WW2?
I offer a small anecdote in support of the Russian, as opposed to Communist position regarding troops and casualties deemed “acceptable”.
On June 3, 1944, Winston Churchill in conversation with Dwight Eisenhower asked Ike how many troops he was prepared to lose in order the secure and make certain the landings at Normandy.
Ike replied: “If it gets us ashore and solid, consolidated, then sir, I would accept a loss rate of 80 percent.”
Given the above, one can hardly criticise the Russians for having reached the same conclusion in regard to their own military operations, albeit the Russians reached that conclusion much earlier on.
While it may be in general terms said that the Red Army was more wasteful of lives, they certainly had the resources of manpower to do so where necessary, even though doing so was, by western standards, somewhat excessive.
The accounts I have read by Red Army veterans suggest that they themselves saw casualties as necessary evils, part of the price warfare extracts anywhere, from anyone.
In that: they are no different from the soldiery of any other combatant nation in World War Two.
Respectful Regards, Uyraell.
No , accurate otherwise, the Nazis justified their crimes by previous communistic ones( real or false) …This is well known fact
As for finnish Civil war -the opposite sides used the enemy’s crimes for justify own.Not just in finland.
So his poin is senselees.It’s just like to justify the Terror and crimes toward the German population in 1945, by the Nacis crimes in 1941-42.This is wrong, of course, the Crime are always the Crime.
The White finns exceeded the Red terror pretty much - probably that’s why they have won the war.
Well the heaviest casualties the American army has surrvived in Okinava as i know. COz the Japanes surprised them by unexpected tactic of their artillery - they start to fire when marines had landed.
The total percentage of American casualties was indeed no more the 3% dead from about 450 000 of troops, who participated in that battle.
If we look at the Battle for Berline, when from 2 mln of red Army troops has been lost about 60 000 dead - no more then 3% ( Red Army faced the strong fortified Zeelow area that ONE was more Bigger and stronger then entire Okinawa garrison )
So as i said indeed the RELATIVE casualties of Red Army in 1944-45 were the SIMULAR to Allied ones, when they did face the fierce resistance.( Red Army all the time fought with fierce, unlike say allies in Holland in 1945)