The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Army"
 All Comments / On "Army"
    It is in some ways remarkable that there is still no commonly agreed method on quantifying and ranking national military power. There is one such for economics, for instance. It is called the GDP. You can make somewhat different arguments on relative economic size or living standards based on various ways of measuring GDP -...
  • […] a potential opponent’s military capability is a very inexact business. A simple counting of boots in the barracks can be extremely misleading. History is replete with […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] There is still no commonly agreed method on quantifying and ranking national military power. Anatoly Karlin is a California based Russian analyst and blogger. He proposes the concept of comprehensive military power index (CMP index) as a rating for comparing military power. It seems to be well thought and reasonable analysis. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] There is still no commonly agreed method on quantifying and ranking national military power. Anatoly Karlin is a California based Russian analyst and blogger. He proposes the concept of comprehensive military power index (CMP index) as a rating for comparing military power. It seems to be well thought and reasonable analysis. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The only way to tell which military is the most powerful is to have a competition. Which is to say, a war. And at the rate at which they are carrying on we should soon have one. So those of us who survive should soon be able to answer the question definitively, and without employing any math.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Twinkie

    how World War II really began, and the many efforts that were made by Hitler to avoid it, and to establish a lasting, viable and mutually acceptable peace, but how he was ultimately left with no choice but to invade Poland.
     
    I disagree with this vehemently. Hitler in no way avoided World War II. He had a different vision of it than how it unfolded (he expected the British to sue for peace after Dunkirk - in fact, I think he preferred the British to stay out of the war and keep their empire), but he intended to engage in a titanic struggle with the Soviet Union sooner or later.

    I’ve been meaning to ask you a question. As we discussed here, there are many examples in history of more effective fighting forces succumbing to great odds. We have touched on the Finns and Germans and there r many others.

    When I went to high school in the US in the late 90s, in the South, i had a teacher with whom I discussed the American Secession war, and he told me that the confederates, though they lost, man for man had been the better soldiers. The evidence I’ve come across seems to support what my teacher told me.
    What’s your take? Do u know of any good books or online articles that discuss this aspect of the ‘civil’ war?

    Regards

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • L.K says:
    @Twinkie

    how World War II really began, and the many efforts that were made by Hitler to avoid it, and to establish a lasting, viable and mutually acceptable peace, but how he was ultimately left with no choice but to invade Poland.
     
    I disagree with this vehemently. Hitler in no way avoided World War II. He had a different vision of it than how it unfolded (he expected the British to sue for peace after Dunkirk - in fact, I think he preferred the British to stay out of the war and keep their empire), but he intended to engage in a titanic struggle with the Soviet Union sooner or later.

    “I disagree with this vehemently.”

    Having read some of your other posts, I’m in no way surprised. But the F-A-C-T-S vehemently disagree with your disagreement! :-)

    ” Hitler in no way avoided World War II. He had a different vision of it than how it unfolded (he expected the British to sue for peace after Dunkirk – in fact, I think he preferred the British to stay out of the war and keep their empire), but he intended to engage in a titanic struggle with the Soviet Union sooner or later.”

    In fact, had you at least watched the documentary(with an open mind), you would know that he very much did try to avoid War.

    « The fact is that the only real offer of security which Poland received
    in 1938 and 1939 emanated from Hitler. He offered to guarantee the
    boundaries laid down in the Versailles Treaty against every other country.
    Even the Weimar Republic had not for a moment taken this into consideration.
    Whatever one may think of Hitler’s government or foreign policy,
    no doubt exists on this point; his proposals to Poland in 1938/39 were
    reasonable and just and the most moderate of all which he made during the
    six years of his efforts to revise the Versailles Treaty by peaceful means. »
    – Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, prominent American historian.

    « Poland’s decision of August 30, 1939 that was the basis for general
    mobilization marked a turning point in the history of Europe.
    It forced Hitler to wage war at a time when he hoped to gain further
    unbloody victories. » – Kazimierz Sosnkowski, Polish General and Government
    -in-Exile’s commander-in-chief, August 31, 1943.

    “Of all the Germans, Believe it or not, Hitler is the most moderate as far
    as Danzig and the Corridor are concerned.” – Sir, Neville Henderson,
    British Ambassador to Berlin, 16th August, 1939.

    « The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war.
    His people, and particularly his generals, were profoundly fearful of any such risk — the experiences of World War One had scarred their minds. » – Sir. Basil Liddell Hart, The History of the Second World War.

    « The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all. » – Professor AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, p. 267.

    « Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war;
    and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership. » – Professor AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, p. 104-5.

    In January 1939, after uniting the Austrian, Sudenten and German brothers in a German Reich,
    Hitler said that the process of the formation of the German nation – the German “Lebensraum” – had reached its conclusion.
    Here is the speech:
    Adolf Hitler Speech – 1939.01.30 – at around 2:40 / Eng. subs

    As for the Soviet Union, the German command, after failing to bring the war to a close after winning in the Western Front in 1940, began to seriously consider the creation of an Eurasian block, which would include the Soviets, as a way to face the Anglo-American threat.
    This, among other evidence, shows that NS Germany could be flexible and was not nearly as ideologically rigid as people assume.
    It was not meant to be. Stalin had other plans.

    After the war, the first to realize that the official narrative of the Soviet-German conflict was not correct were the Russians themselves.
    As D.W.Michaels wrote:

    “One of the earliest Russian revisionists of World War II history was Pyotr Grigorenko, a Soviet Army Major General and highly decorated war veteran who taught at the Frunze Military Academy.[…]he was the first leading Soviet figure to advance the revisionist arguments, which became well known during the 1980s and 1990s, on Stalin’s preparations for aggressive war against Germany. In an article submitted to a major Soviet journal (but rejected, and later published abroad), Grigorenko pointed out that Soviet military forces vastly outnumbered German forces in 1941. Just prior to the German attack on June 22, 1941, more than half of the Soviet forces were in the area near and west of Bialystok, that is, in an area deep in Polish occupied territory. “This deployment could only be justified” wrote Grigorenko, “if these troops were deploying for a surprise offensive. In the event of an enemy attack these troops would soon be encircled.”

    Since the 90s, with the partial opening of Soviet archives(closed again), many Russian historians have refined the evidence for Stalin’s agressive aims.
    Fanatic propagandists and quacks such as Smoothie and Serge hate Resun and would like him to have been the only Russian to advance such a thesis. Far from it.

    An incomplete list of such Russian historians/researchers:
    Former Soviet intel officer ,Vladimir Bogdanovich Resun(Viktor Suvorow), Russian historian Dr. Mikhail Meltiukhov, V. A. Nevezhin, Colonel V. D. Danilov, Igor Bunich, Irina. V. Pavlova, V. L. Doroshenko, M.Solonin, Constantine Pleshakov, Dr.Alexander Pronin, Prof. Dr. Maria Litowskaja, Colonel Kiselev, Dr. Dschangir Nadschafow, faculty director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, etc.
    Since the 1990s, many Western historians have reached similar conclusions. Americans such as Albert Weeks, Richard Raack, John Mosier, R.H.S. Stolfi. German and Austrian historians such as Dr.Joachim Hoffmann, Ernst Topitsch, Ernst Nolte, Dr.Werner Maser, Lothar Rühl, Fritz Becker, Dr.Walter Post, Dr.Max Klüver, Wolfgang Strauss, Heinz Magenheimer, French Stéphane Courtois, François Furet, etc.

    This is the reason behind Russia’s new legislation against ‘revising’ WWII history. No, I’m not talking about the holohoax, but about the war itself. Just as with the holocau$t, truth need not be shielded from scrutiny.
    Also most Soviet archives of the era remain closed. Why? Or are only selectively opened to ‘approved’ historians, such as the israeli Gabriel Gorodetsky.

    W.Strauss lists in his book ‘Unternehmen Barbarossa und der russische Historikerstreit’ ( i highly recommend it for those able to read german )(from a review of it by D.Michaels), the findings of several of these Russian researchers:
    Major findings:
    -Stalin wanted a general European war of exhaustion in which the USSR would intervene at the politically and militarily most expedient moment. Stalin’s main intention is seen in his speech to the Politburo of August 19, 1939.
    -To ignite this, Stalin used the [August 1939] Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact, which: a) provoked Hitler’s attack against Poland, and b) evoked the declarations of war against Germany by Britain and France. But not against the Soviet Union which also invaded Poland taking half of it.
    -In the event Germany was defeated quickly by Britain and France, Stalin planned to “Sovietize” Germany and establish a “Communist government” there, but with the danger that the victorious capitalist powers would never permit a Communist Germany.
    -In the event France was defeated quickly by Germany, Stalin planned the “Sovietization” of France. “A Communist revolution would seem inevitable, and we could take advantage of this for our own purposes by rushing to aid France and making her our ally. As a result of this, all the nations under the ‘protection’ of a victorious Germany would become our allies.”
    -From the outset Stalin reckoned on a war with Germany, and the Soviet conquest of Germany. To this end, Stalin concentrated on the western border of the USSR operational offensive forces, which were five- to six-times stronger than the Wehrmacht with respect to tanks, aircraft and artillery.
    -With respect to a war of aggression, on May 15, 1941, the Red Army’s Main Political Directorate instructed troop commanders that every war the USSR engaged in, whether defensive or offensive, would have the character of a “just war.”
    -Troop contingents were to be brought up to full strength in all the western military districts; airfields and supply bases to support a forward-strategy were to be built directly behind the border; an attack force of 60 divisions was to be set up in the Ukraine and mountain divisions and a parachute corps were to be established for attack operations.
    -The 16th, 19th, 21st, 22nd and 25th Soviet Armies were transferred from the interior to the western border, and deployed at take-off points for the planned offensive.
    -In his speech of May 5, 1941, to graduate officers of the academies, Stalin said that war with Germany was inevitable, and characterized it as a war not only of a defensive nature but rather of an offensive nature.

    Also, the trouble with the notion of the “peace loving” and “neutral” USSR is that it had already invaded Poland and Finland in 39, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania in 1940 and even after the German-Soviet war started they invaded and occupied Iran in August 1941(together with the British). During world war 2 Bulgaria was in a unique position amongst the European Axis countries in that it did not go to war against the USSR after June 22 1941. Hitler asked Boris III for military assistance but he refused. The Bulgarian monarch would not even allow a Waffen SS recruitment agency for individuals who wanted to enlist. In September 1944 after advancing through Romania to the Bulgarian border the Bulgarian government reminded the USSR that it was neutral in the german-soviet conflict. The Soviet army invaded anyway.
    Japan and the USSR were signatories to a non aggression pact which the Japanese adhered to, refusing German appeals to open a new front to the Soviet rear. But that didn’t stop the Soviets from attacking the Japanese when it suited them, after the war in Europe had ended.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • All the shiny toys in the world don’t make one whit of a difference if you lack the cojo-, er, the will to use them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • …but he intended to engage in a titanic struggle with the Soviet Union sooner or later.

    Hitler met with Molotov in Nov. 1940 in an attempt to get the Soviets to become full members of the Axis. Molotov showed little interest and made demands (like acquistion of the Dardanelles,which belonged to Turkey ) that AH thought outrageous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @L.K
    Hitler’s War: What the Historians Neglect to Mention. An English translation of “Hitlers Krieg? Was Guido Knopp Verschweigt” by Alphart Geyer (Germany 2009).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mA0kk29DBA

    This is a 96 minute long “Made in Germany” underground documentary film. It’s the first documentary ever to unabashedly explain from the German perspective, how World War II really began, and the many efforts that were made by Hitler to avoid it, and to establish a lasting, viable and mutually acceptable peace, but how he was ultimately left with no choice but to invade Poland. It documents many facts that have been deliberately left out of the “official narrative” as presented by the victorious Allies, which we have all been taught since 1945, and which Germans especially have been constantly reminded of since the war ended; with the blame entirely upon Germany’s shoulders. Many of the claims of the Allies that have been widely accepted as fact are refuted here as patently untrue, distorted, or ignored completely.

    The film is largely based upon a book entitled “Der Krieg der viele Väter hatte or in English: 'The War that had Many Fathers” by German author and historian, Gerd Schulze Rhonhof and “Ein unvermeidlicher Krieg? — Der Weg zum 1. September 1939”. Rhonhof is a former high-ranking, German military officer (Brigadier General in the Panzer Division) who has done, as any honest historian should, his own deep research in the war archives, and has been assisted by many other historians.
    Also of interest is the following speech which gives a glimpse into the depth that the victors went to frame and incriminate the losers.
    In this speech Gerd Schulze Rhonhof describes how he discovered forged material in British archives regarding the Nürnberger Prozesse, aka, Show Trials. Unfortunately in German only.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvwb5QPrmc0
    The British simply replaced complete pages in German documents but did not know that their paper material was of different physical quality when compared to the German originals. This led to a different discoloring process of the aging papers, so every page they replaced can now be identified, but the originals appear to have vanished.

    how World War II really began, and the many efforts that were made by Hitler to avoid it, and to establish a lasting, viable and mutually acceptable peace, but how he was ultimately left with no choice but to invade Poland.

    I disagree with this vehemently. Hitler in no way avoided World War II. He had a different vision of it than how it unfolded (he expected the British to sue for peace after Dunkirk – in fact, I think he preferred the British to stay out of the war and keep their empire), but he intended to engage in a titanic struggle with the Soviet Union sooner or later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    "I disagree with this vehemently."

    Having read some of your other posts, I'm in no way surprised. But the F-A-C-T-S vehemently disagree with your disagreement! :-)

    " Hitler in no way avoided World War II. He had a different vision of it than how it unfolded (he expected the British to sue for peace after Dunkirk – in fact, I think he preferred the British to stay out of the war and keep their empire), but he intended to engage in a titanic struggle with the Soviet Union sooner or later."

    In fact, had you at least watched the documentary(with an open mind), you would know that he very much did try to avoid War.

    « The fact is that the only real offer of security which Poland received
    in 1938 and 1939 emanated from Hitler. He offered to guarantee the
    boundaries laid down in the Versailles Treaty against every other country.
    Even the Weimar Republic had not for a moment taken this into consideration.
    Whatever one may think of Hitler’s government or foreign policy,
    no doubt exists on this point; his proposals to Poland in 1938/39 were
    reasonable and just and the most moderate of all which he made during the
    six years of his efforts to revise the Versailles Treaty by peaceful means. »
    – Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, prominent American historian.

    « Poland’s decision of August 30, 1939 that was the basis for general
    mobilization marked a turning point in the history of Europe.
    It forced Hitler to wage war at a time when he hoped to gain further
    unbloody victories. » – Kazimierz Sosnkowski, Polish General and Government
    -in-Exile’s commander-in-chief, August 31, 1943.

    "Of all the Germans, Believe it or not, Hitler is the most moderate as far
    as Danzig and the Corridor are concerned." - Sir, Neville Henderson,
    British Ambassador to Berlin, 16th August, 1939.

    « The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war.
    His people, and particularly his generals, were profoundly fearful of any such risk — the experiences of World War One had scarred their minds. » – Sir. Basil Liddell Hart, The History of the Second World War.

    « The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all. » – Professor AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, p. 267.

    « Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war;
    and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership. » – Professor AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, p. 104-5.

     

    In January 1939, after uniting the Austrian, Sudenten and German brothers in a German Reich,
    Hitler said that the process of the formation of the German nation - the German "Lebensraum" - had reached its conclusion.
    Here is the speech:
    Adolf Hitler Speech - 1939.01.30 – at around 2:40 / Eng. subs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvJnPNtTKNc

    As for the Soviet Union, the German command, after failing to bring the war to a close after winning in the Western Front in 1940, began to seriously consider the creation of an Eurasian block, which would include the Soviets, as a way to face the Anglo-American threat.
    This, among other evidence, shows that NS Germany could be flexible and was not nearly as ideologically rigid as people assume.
    It was not meant to be. Stalin had other plans.

    After the war, the first to realize that the official narrative of the Soviet-German conflict was not correct were the Russians themselves.
    As D.W.Michaels wrote:

    "One of the earliest Russian revisionists of World War II history was Pyotr Grigorenko, a Soviet Army Major General and highly decorated war veteran who taught at the Frunze Military Academy.[…]he was the first leading Soviet figure to advance the revisionist arguments, which became well known during the 1980s and 1990s, on Stalin’s preparations for aggressive war against Germany. In an article submitted to a major Soviet journal (but rejected, and later published abroad), Grigorenko pointed out that Soviet military forces vastly outnumbered German forces in 1941. Just prior to the German attack on June 22, 1941, more than half of the Soviet forces were in the area near and west of Bialystok, that is, in an area deep in Polish occupied territory. “This deployment could only be justified” wrote Grigorenko, “if these troops were deploying for a surprise offensive. In the event of an enemy attack these troops would soon be encircled.”

     

    Since the 90s, with the partial opening of Soviet archives(closed again), many Russian historians have refined the evidence for Stalin’s agressive aims.
    Fanatic propagandists and quacks such as Smoothie and Serge hate Resun and would like him to have been the only Russian to advance such a thesis. Far from it.

    An incomplete list of such Russian historians/researchers:
    Former Soviet intel officer ,Vladimir Bogdanovich Resun(Viktor Suvorow), Russian historian Dr. Mikhail Meltiukhov, V. A. Nevezhin, Colonel V. D. Danilov, Igor Bunich, Irina. V. Pavlova, V. L. Doroshenko, M.Solonin, Constantine Pleshakov, Dr.Alexander Pronin, Prof. Dr. Maria Litowskaja, Colonel Kiselev, Dr. Dschangir Nadschafow, faculty director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, etc.
    Since the 1990s, many Western historians have reached similar conclusions. Americans such as Albert Weeks, Richard Raack, John Mosier, R.H.S. Stolfi. German and Austrian historians such as Dr.Joachim Hoffmann, Ernst Topitsch, Ernst Nolte, Dr.Werner Maser, Lothar Rühl, Fritz Becker, Dr.Walter Post, Dr.Max Klüver, Wolfgang Strauss, Heinz Magenheimer, French Stéphane Courtois, François Furet, etc.

    This is the reason behind Russia’s new legislation against ‘revising’ WWII history. No, I’m not talking about the holohoax, but about the war itself. Just as with the holocau$t, truth need not be shielded from scrutiny.
    Also most Soviet archives of the era remain closed. Why? Or are only selectively opened to 'approved' historians, such as the israeli Gabriel Gorodetsky.

    W.Strauss lists in his book ‘Unternehmen Barbarossa und der russische Historikerstreit’ ( i highly recommend it for those able to read german )(from a review of it by D.Michaels), the findings of several of these Russian researchers:
    Major findings:
    -Stalin wanted a general European war of exhaustion in which the USSR would intervene at the politically and militarily most expedient moment. Stalin’s main intention is seen in his speech to the Politburo of August 19, 1939.
    -To ignite this, Stalin used the [August 1939] Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact, which: a) provoked Hitler’s attack against Poland, and b) evoked the declarations of war against Germany by Britain and France. But not against the Soviet Union which also invaded Poland taking half of it.
    -In the event Germany was defeated quickly by Britain and France, Stalin planned to “Sovietize” Germany and establish a “Communist government” there, but with the danger that the victorious capitalist powers would never permit a Communist Germany.
    -In the event France was defeated quickly by Germany, Stalin planned the “Sovietization” of France. “A Communist revolution would seem inevitable, and we could take advantage of this for our own purposes by rushing to aid France and making her our ally. As a result of this, all the nations under the ‘protection’ of a victorious Germany would become our allies.”
    -From the outset Stalin reckoned on a war with Germany, and the Soviet conquest of Germany. To this end, Stalin concentrated on the western border of the USSR operational offensive forces, which were five- to six-times stronger than the Wehrmacht with respect to tanks, aircraft and artillery.
    -With respect to a war of aggression, on May 15, 1941, the Red Army’s Main Political Directorate instructed troop commanders that every war the USSR engaged in, whether defensive or offensive, would have the character of a “just war.”
    -Troop contingents were to be brought up to full strength in all the western military districts; airfields and supply bases to support a forward-strategy were to be built directly behind the border; an attack force of 60 divisions was to be set up in the Ukraine and mountain divisions and a parachute corps were to be established for attack operations.
    -The 16th, 19th, 21st, 22nd and 25th Soviet Armies were transferred from the interior to the western border, and deployed at take-off points for the planned offensive.
    -In his speech of May 5, 1941, to graduate officers of the academies, Stalin said that war with Germany was inevitable, and characterized it as a war not only of a defensive nature but rather of an offensive nature.

    Also, the trouble with the notion of the “peace loving” and “neutral” USSR is that it had already invaded Poland and Finland in 39, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania in 1940 and even after the German-Soviet war started they invaded and occupied Iran in August 1941(together with the British). During world war 2 Bulgaria was in a unique position amongst the European Axis countries in that it did not go to war against the USSR after June 22 1941. Hitler asked Boris III for military assistance but he refused. The Bulgarian monarch would not even allow a Waffen SS recruitment agency for individuals who wanted to enlist. In September 1944 after advancing through Romania to the Bulgarian border the Bulgarian government reminded the USSR that it was neutral in the german-soviet conflict. The Soviet army invaded anyway.
    Japan and the USSR were signatories to a non aggression pact which the Japanese adhered to, refusing German appeals to open a new front to the Soviet rear. But that didn’t stop the Soviets from attacking the Japanese when it suited them, after the war in Europe had ended.
    , @L.K
    I've been meaning to ask you a question. As we discussed here, there are many examples in history of more effective fighting forces succumbing to great odds. We have touched on the Finns and Germans and there r many others.

    When I went to high school in the US in the late 90s, in the South, i had a teacher with whom I discussed the American Secession war, and he told me that the confederates, though they lost, man for man had been the better soldiers. The evidence I've come across seems to support what my teacher told me.
    What's your take? Do u know of any good books or online articles that discuss this aspect of the 'civil' war?

    Regards
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Put it simply, the Allies won WWII bc they had more of everything; manpower, industrial output, raw materials, etc. To say nothing of Germany’s horrible geographic position.
    For example:
    Global GDP distribution 1941 in %:
    USA = 29
    USSR = 13
    British Empire = 11
    France = 5
    – –
    Germany = 11
    Japan = 6
    Italy = 5

    It was basically a team of giants(USSR, US, Brit.Empire, Colonial France, China, etc) X a team of midgets(German, Japan, Italy, Hungary,etc).

    To make matters worse, the Allies actually generally coodinated their war strategy and planning while the Axis countries often fought parallel wars which hurt each other.

    Given the odds, it is not surprising the Axis lost, what is surprising is how close to winning they got and the horrible price the allies had to pay to ultimately prevail.

    Fighting-wise, the soviets were the ones most responsible for winning the war, given that most german troops were lost on the Eastern Front and Germany was the strongest Axis power, militarily and economically.
    That said, realistically the Soviet ability to keep fighting cannot really be separated from the aid it received, whether material aid or other fronts that kept draining germanys very limited resources.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • You have Azerbaijan and Georgia ranked above Armenia. Yet, Armenia is the only country among the 3 Caucasian states that won a war in the last 30 years – against Azerbaijan. Armenia was outgunned and out-manned but still won. And the same is true now but to a lesser extent. Any ranking ought to take into account the will power and moral strength of a military, but since this is nearly impossible to quantify one never sees this component.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Hitler’s War: What the Historians Neglect to Mention. An English translation of “Hitlers Krieg? Was Guido Knopp Verschweigt” by Alphart Geyer (Germany 2009).

    This is a 96 minute long “Made in Germany” underground documentary film. It’s the first documentary ever to unabashedly explain from the German perspective, how World War II really began, and the many efforts that were made by Hitler to avoid it, and to establish a lasting, viable and mutually acceptable peace, but how he was ultimately left with no choice but to invade Poland. It documents many facts that have been deliberately left out of the “official narrative” as presented by the victorious Allies, which we have all been taught since 1945, and which Germans especially have been constantly reminded of since the war ended; with the blame entirely upon Germany’s shoulders. Many of the claims of the Allies that have been widely accepted as fact are refuted here as patently untrue, distorted, or ignored completely.

    The film is largely based upon a book entitled “Der Krieg der viele Väter hatte or in English: ‘The War that had Many Fathers” by German author and historian, Gerd Schulze Rhonhof and “Ein unvermeidlicher Krieg? — Der Weg zum 1. September 1939”. Rhonhof is a former high-ranking, German military officer (Brigadier General in the Panzer Division) who has done, as any honest historian should, his own deep research in the war archives, and has been assisted by many other historians.
    Also of interest is the following speech which gives a glimpse into the depth that the victors went to frame and incriminate the losers.
    In this speech Gerd Schulze Rhonhof describes how he discovered forged material in British archives regarding the Nürnberger Prozesse, aka, Show Trials. Unfortunately in German only.

    The British simply replaced complete pages in German documents but did not know that their paper material was of different physical quality when compared to the German originals. This led to a different discoloring process of the aging papers, so every page they replaced can now be identified, but the originals appear to have vanished.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    how World War II really began, and the many efforts that were made by Hitler to avoid it, and to establish a lasting, viable and mutually acceptable peace, but how he was ultimately left with no choice but to invade Poland.
     
    I disagree with this vehemently. Hitler in no way avoided World War II. He had a different vision of it than how it unfolded (he expected the British to sue for peace after Dunkirk - in fact, I think he preferred the British to stay out of the war and keep their empire), but he intended to engage in a titanic struggle with the Soviet Union sooner or later.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @The most deplorable one

    A few paragraphs in, it became quite clear that he doesn’t understand OODA loop at all and have never seen the briefings.

    I take it that you have seen Boyd's briefings, then?

    You may have written a thesis on FM100-5 but as a former Lt Col, Kratman had to actually use the 1982 version of AirLand Battle when he went into Panama.

    Let me ask him.

    The man wrote quite a substantial rebuttal of OODA with detailed references to a number of significant historical battles, but I guess that someone who wrote a thesis on FM100-5 knows better.

    I take it that you have seen Boyd’s briefings, then?

    Not as Boyd did. But those by his “Acolytes” based on his material, yes.

    The man wrote quite a substantial rebuttal of OODA with detailed references to a number of significant historical battles, but I guess that someone who wrote a thesis on FM100-5 knows better.

    Where did I write that I knew FM100-5 of the era better than someone else, let alone a particular individual? I merely wrote that I was intimately familiar with that particular iteration of the FM100-5 as I spent a couple of years obsessively studying its development, history, critiques, etc.

    If LtCol Kratman was an active, serving officer at the time, he most likely has a far better understanding of how AirLand Battle was implemented in practice. In fact, if you could read the rather simple sentence I wrote above, I wrote that I AGREE with him (for different reasons and motives) that AirLand Battle was not a correct expression of Boyd and his Acolytes.

    My critique of him is regarding his understanding of the OODA loop and his examples (specifically the comparison to Japanese sword fighting).

    The man wrote quite a substantial rebuttal of OODA

    And it would take a phonebook to rebut everything he wrote. Is there a particularly salient point or two of his you’d like to bring up? I’d be happy to reply if you have specific points you’d like to argue.

    Furthermore, if you were really interested in the substance of the OODA loop debate, I can point you to someone who can defend it far better than I ever could or will. Bill Lind with whom you should be familiar is only too happy to engage in such discussions (or at least he was – I’ve sent many officers his way for such discussions).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Twinkie

    Indirectly Mistaken Decision Cycles
     
    Um, yes, okay. OODA loop is "science fiction." A few paragraphs in, it became quite clear that he doesn't understand OODA loop at all and have never seen the briefings. And not only his knowledge of the history of the OODA loop highly defective to say the least (one of the key realizations over the air-to-air combat by Boyd was about the communication between the pilot and the airplane (as relates to the ability of the latter to effect the maneuvers ordered by the pilot in a timely fashion).

    He also is quite ignorant about Japanese sword fighting/one-on-one combat. "Sen-no-sen" is a classic category of technique that epitomizes superior cycling through the OODA loop.

    In the few paragraphs I read, the only thing he is correct about is that, indeed, the US Army's (now dated) AirLand Battle doctrine that was formulated under General Don Sparry at TRADOC was NOT a correct realization of Boyd and his followers' ideas. AirLand Battle was an improvement, to be sure, from the previous iteration of the US Army's operational doctrine "Active Defense," but it wasn't what Boyd or his followers intended (I am intimately acquainted with the FM100-5 Operations manual of the U.S. Army of that period, because I wrote a thesis on it.)

    Tangentially, I should note that Don Sparry and Brigadier Richard Simpkin (the premier Western expert from the UK on the Soviet maneuver warfare doctrine, especially during the interwar years) collaborated on these topics. Indeed Sparry wrote the foreword to Simpkin's iconoclastic "Race to the Swift: Thoughts on Twenty-First Century Warfare" that was published in 1984.

    A few paragraphs in, it became quite clear that he doesn’t understand OODA loop at all and have never seen the briefings.

    I take it that you have seen Boyd’s briefings, then?

    You may have written a thesis on FM100-5 but as a former Lt Col, Kratman had to actually use the 1982 version of AirLand Battle when he went into Panama.

    Let me ask him.

    The man wrote quite a substantial rebuttal of OODA with detailed references to a number of significant historical battles, but I guess that someone who wrote a thesis on FM100-5 knows better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I take it that you have seen Boyd’s briefings, then?
     
    Not as Boyd did. But those by his "Acolytes" based on his material, yes.

    The man wrote quite a substantial rebuttal of OODA with detailed references to a number of significant historical battles, but I guess that someone who wrote a thesis on FM100-5 knows better.
     
    Where did I write that I knew FM100-5 of the era better than someone else, let alone a particular individual? I merely wrote that I was intimately familiar with that particular iteration of the FM100-5 as I spent a couple of years obsessively studying its development, history, critiques, etc.

    If LtCol Kratman was an active, serving officer at the time, he most likely has a far better understanding of how AirLand Battle was implemented in practice. In fact, if you could read the rather simple sentence I wrote above, I wrote that I AGREE with him (for different reasons and motives) that AirLand Battle was not a correct expression of Boyd and his Acolytes.

    My critique of him is regarding his understanding of the OODA loop and his examples (specifically the comparison to Japanese sword fighting).

    The man wrote quite a substantial rebuttal of OODA
     
    And it would take a phonebook to rebut everything he wrote. Is there a particularly salient point or two of his you'd like to bring up? I'd be happy to reply if you have specific points you'd like to argue.

    Furthermore, if you were really interested in the substance of the OODA loop debate, I can point you to someone who can defend it far better than I ever could or will. Bill Lind with whom you should be familiar is only too happy to engage in such discussions (or at least he was - I've sent many officers his way for such discussions).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @The most deplorable one

    I am sure you know all about the OODA loop.
     
    Indirectly Mistaken Decision Cycles

    He has a column up here as well: http://www.everyjoe.com/2015/08/10/politics/immigration-doesnt-work-like-it-used-to/#1

    It's called Lines of Departure ...

    Indirectly Mistaken Decision Cycles

    Um, yes, okay. OODA loop is “science fiction.” A few paragraphs in, it became quite clear that he doesn’t understand OODA loop at all and have never seen the briefings. And not only his knowledge of the history of the OODA loop highly defective to say the least (one of the key realizations over the air-to-air combat by Boyd was about the communication between the pilot and the airplane (as relates to the ability of the latter to effect the maneuvers ordered by the pilot in a timely fashion).

    He also is quite ignorant about Japanese sword fighting/one-on-one combat. “Sen-no-sen” is a classic category of technique that epitomizes superior cycling through the OODA loop.

    In the few paragraphs I read, the only thing he is correct about is that, indeed, the US Army’s (now dated) AirLand Battle doctrine that was formulated under General Don Sparry at TRADOC was NOT a correct realization of Boyd and his followers’ ideas. AirLand Battle was an improvement, to be sure, from the previous iteration of the US Army’s operational doctrine “Active Defense,” but it wasn’t what Boyd or his followers intended (I am intimately acquainted with the FM100-5 Operations manual of the U.S. Army of that period, because I wrote a thesis on it.)

    Tangentially, I should note that Don Sparry and Brigadier Richard Simpkin (the premier Western expert from the UK on the Soviet maneuver warfare doctrine, especially during the interwar years) collaborated on these topics. Indeed Sparry wrote the foreword to Simpkin’s iconoclastic “Race to the Swift: Thoughts on Twenty-First Century Warfare” that was published in 1984.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    A few paragraphs in, it became quite clear that he doesn’t understand OODA loop at all and have never seen the briefings.

    I take it that you have seen Boyd's briefings, then?

    You may have written a thesis on FM100-5 but as a former Lt Col, Kratman had to actually use the 1982 version of AirLand Battle when he went into Panama.

    Let me ask him.

    The man wrote quite a substantial rebuttal of OODA with detailed references to a number of significant historical battles, but I guess that someone who wrote a thesis on FM100-5 knows better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SergeKrieger
    Russia has nothing to repent for but US has got a lot. Let's calculate how many people died in the world since 1945 due to US invasions, sanctions and destabilizing of the whole countries via coups and so called orange revolutions...
    US is a country that unlike Germany which clearly stated her goals are doing basically same things but pretending and declaring pure goals of the world betterment while actually pursuing own selfish agenda of the world domination via other means.
    Look into the mirror first before blaming other.

    US is a country that unlike Germany which clearly stated her goals are doing basically same things but pretending and declaring pure goals of the world betterment while actually pursuing own selfish agenda of the world domination via other means.

    Sure, the world would be the same place had Nazi Germany won World War II or the Soviet Union won the Cold War.

    I have no doubt then I would be conversing freely on the Soviet-built Internet and letting an heir of the Soviet global domination such as yourself with absolutely no fear of retribution.

    Now I see that you and SmoothieX12 are unrepentant Soviet apologists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SergeKrieger
    You are not worth talking too. If you are historian I am ballet dancer.
    If those who call themselves historians repeat that cr*p about mass rapes no wonder general public is even more ignorant.
    Germans must be lucky they were not move din mass to USSR to rebuild what they destroyed and pay for their sins. As historian you must know what Rome did with Cartage. Germany deserved nothing better. The fact that it exists now and is whole again speaks volume about Russian character.

    You are not worth talking too. If you are historian I am ballet dancer.

    You and SmoothieX12 seem to excel at ad hominem.

    For the sake of clarity and accuracy, I am not a historian now and have not been for over a decade.

    If those who call themselves historians repeat that cr*p about mass rapes no wonder general public is even more ignorant.

    So the history of the Soviet mass rapes is “crap,” eh? Just more Western propaganda, right? Just like Katyn massacre.

    As historian you must know what Rome did with Cartage. Germany deserved nothing better.

    I am glad that the modern conventions of war have evolved just a tad since the days of Rome and Carthage. And because I was a historian, yes, I do remember that Rome defeated Carthage THREE times before it proverbially salted the earth of what eventually became the Roman province of Africa (and I write “proverbially” because evidence is scant about the actual salting). Although about 50,000 Carthaginians were sold to slavery after the city fell, other Punic cities (such as Utica) received better treatment, and “Africa” went on to prosper under Roman rule until the arrival of the Vandals.

    Although Romans did sometimes, as Tacitus put it, “make a desert and call it peace,” in reality they were quite shrewd about giving lenient treatment to former enemies and incorporating them into their empire, sometimes even on nearly equal terms to Roman citizens proper (but without suffrage, obviously). It is because of this that Roman legions were almost always accompanied by Italian allied legions in equal number in battle prior to the Marian reform (in fact, in cavalry the allies provided more troops).

    Stupid and inhumane conquerors who go about exterminating the civilian populations of their onetime enemies don’t last long. Remember how the Melians admonished the arrogant and powerful Athenians, the vision of which came true after the Battle of Aegospotami.

    The fact that it exists now and is whole again speaks volume about Russian character.

    Certainly your lack of humanity says a lot about YOUR character.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Yevardian
    Saudi Arabia still at no. 10? Really? Really?
    Certainly that whole state would collapse into a Syria-like mess if even a minimally competent/battle-hardened Arab army gave it a poke. Those people make Egyptians (who at least have their planning of the Yom Kippur war to their credit) or Jordanians look like Germans. Saudi sans oil would be even worse than Yemen, considering that region at least has some history of pre-European civilisation. There are things no amount of money can buy.

    ...

    [for Ron Unz]: Does this site honestly need an "agree/disagree" feature? All it will do will cause readers to pre-judge comments and colour opinion prior and after to reading them. This site should be above encouraging the herd-mentality found on "social media".

    Word is about 25% of the Saudi National Guard is Pakistani, not including all the other foreigners they have in their “military”. They are bragging about bottling up the last of the Houthis, but I just read an article about how Najran or one of their other border cities, was shelled repeatedly again the other day.

    If you do a google search, you’ll see just before the shelling of Najran, the Saudis were bragging they had totally removed the threat to their own cities.

    Given their performances against Saddam in 1991 or against the Meccan Terrorists in the late 70s, their results in Yemen are no surprise whatsoever.

    To have them next to the Turks, or anywhere near them in rankings, is absurd, unless the measurement is only counting equipment and budget.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Johann Ricke

    Russia has nothing to repent for but US has got a lot.
     
    In WWII alone, thanks to Russian support for the Nazis, they were able to overrun Poland and Western Europe, leading to the deaths of 12m people during the Holocaust, as well as millions of other civilians. Without the distraction of a European war that the Russians enabled, would the Japanese have felt confident enough to expand their depredations in the direction of the European colonies in the Far East? Without Russia lending the Germans a hand, WWII might not have occurred. Going beyond WWII, Russian support for Mao set in motion a communist victory in China that eventually resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese. Thanks to Russian support for Kim Il-Sung, North Korea, though endowed with a first rate resource in the form of a population with an average IQ ranked among the top 10% in the world, is a country that is perpetually either in the midst of or in between famines. The idea that the US, in the course of battling communism, Iraqi imperial ambitions or terrorism comes close to any of these body counts is fantastical.

    Going beyond body counts - just run your eyes along a list of Russia's closest erstwhile and current allies - Nazi Germany, Communist China, North Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Assad's Syria, Gaddafi's Libya, Castro's Cuba, et al - do these sound like normal countries, countries that a non-Russophile might get the warm and fuzzies about?

    The whole thing with France, Britain, and the USSR with Hitler was a game of buckpassing initiated by the Franco-British alliance. The very reason the British and French appeased Hitler in Central Europe – including doing NOTHING when the vast bulk of the Wehrmacht was in Poland and the French could have easily seized 30% of all German Industry in the Ruhr Valley and at the very least forced the Germans back across the Rhine with a minimum of effort – was to allow Poland to be conquered and put the USSR and Nazi Germany on a shared border and on the path to an early war between them.

    They were absolutely gobsmacked when the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact was executed. They thought Stalin was a dummy.

    Seldom reported – but contained in most mainstream accounts of WW2 that I have read – is that Stalin offered to guarantee Poland against the Nazis, but the Allies rejected it, weeks before the M-R Pact was signed. Stalin’s jaw dropped when the British envoy – who had no negotiation power – revealed that Britain had only 2 active divisions in all of Europe.

    The French and the British figured the next war would be a repeat of WW1 – a meat grinder. Whoever ‘won’ would be so weak and the war would take years to decide, leaving them time to rearm and mop up the exhausted, bloodied victor. They gambled, sacrificing Poland and Czechoslovakia for time and an early Nazi-Soviet war and lost. Hitler went for France next, and held the Soviet Union for later.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @L.K
    That is right.
    And the 200.000, if memory serves, refer only to heavy trucks. Tens of thousands of light trucks and jeeps were also sent.

    Just so people can get a grasp on this, Waffen SS armored divisions, which were very large units of more than 17,000 men(model 1944) were supposed to have some 3800 trucks.
    Often, real availability was considerably lower though.
    So it is easy to see what more than 200.000 trucks could do for an army, mobility-wise, which is extremely important.

    At any rate, the german fuel production was too low, so even if they could have put out more vehicles they would not have been able to fuel them.
    Just a comparison between Germany with the US demonstrates this;
    figures including imports and synthetic fuel in million metric tons.
    US - 1942 = 183.9 / 1944= 222.5
    Germany 1942 = 7.7 / 1944= 6.4


    The situation was serious from the beginning of the war. So much so that the Germans turned massively to Holzgas generators. More than 500,000 vehicles(civilian but also many military) were converted, including even tanks.
    On Producer Gas(Holzgas);
    https://books.google.com.br/books?id=OZYrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=%22producer+gas%22&source=bl&ots=PQbyjnhC51&sig=Dd_tqPlW_ERy_IO-cL6baDYIx30&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

    http://www.amazon.de/Fahren-mit-Holz-Holzgasgeneratoren-Ersatzantriebe/dp/3768825086/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446397082&sr=8-1&keywords=Fahren+mit+Holz

    And yet they incinerated millions!

    Clearly, they were stupid.

    I mean, just check out the energy costs of cremating a human body. Sheer stupidity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • A white-straight-healthy-gentile-Christian-male would have to be either desperate, mercenary, or an idiot to join and fight with the US military.

    The US military is a tool of the dominant US political regime, and the dominant US political regime is inimical to his long term interests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 1210150

    [US participation in the war both against Germany and Japan was also,(on the face of things), by necessity and not by choice.]

    Read my sentence again more carefully, paying attention this time to the words I have now helpfully set off by() . Do you imagine that my prose is as careless and my choice of expressions as meaningless as yours?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This is the fourth post which went for moderation. So much for “no moderation” posts on Karlin’s blog.

    AK: There isn’t. The spam filter sometimes mistakenly holds back comments now and then, but there are currently zero comments in either the spam or pending folders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @5371
    Few governments will ever be so carefree as not to take a declaration of war by one of the world's leading powers seriously. I have already explained why Britain and France had no legitimate cause for complaint about the German-Soviet pact or its consequences. The USA still less, if possible, since it was not yet at war with anyone itself.

    Few governments will ever be so carefree as not to take a declaration of war by one of the world’s leading powers seriously. I have already explained why Britain and France had no legitimate cause for complaint about the German-Soviet pact or its consequences. The USA still less, if possible, since it was not yet at war with anyone itself.

    No amount of explanation can get past the fact that Russia is at root responsible for the war that killed so many of its own. The reason the Western allies shouldn’t be grateful for the Russian attempt to avoid being exterminated by the Germans is because it was Russia’s alliance with Germany that resulted in the West’s initial defeat, and the massive sacrifices that followed, to overturn German rule and to avoid Russian domination of the European mainland.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Twinkie

    We did not have enough munitions, how would we have been able to turn out all those tanks without the rolled steel sent to us by the Americans?”
     
    And not only that, while tanks were very nice indeed, trucks were what won the war for the Allies. Studebaker alone built 200,000 that were sent to the Soviets under Lend-Lease.

    On the German side, the situation was reversed, as you likely know, and the Germans went through something of de-mechanization/de-motorization as the war on the Eastern Front worsened, which led some of the German generals to joke darkly that they no longer had Panzer divisions but "Panje divisions."

    That is right.
    And the 200.000, if memory serves, refer only to heavy trucks. Tens of thousands of light trucks and jeeps were also sent.

    Just so people can get a grasp on this, Waffen SS armored divisions, which were very large units of more than 17,000 men(model 1944) were supposed to have some 3800 trucks.
    Often, real availability was considerably lower though.
    So it is easy to see what more than 200.000 trucks could do for an army, mobility-wise, which is extremely important.

    At any rate, the german fuel production was too low, so even if they could have put out more vehicles they would not have been able to fuel them.
    Just a comparison between Germany with the US demonstrates this;
    figures including imports and synthetic fuel in million metric tons.
    US – 1942 = 183.9 / 1944= 222.5
    Germany 1942 = 7.7 / 1944= 6.4

    The situation was serious from the beginning of the war. So much so that the Germans turned massively to Holzgas generators. More than 500,000 vehicles(civilian but also many military) were converted, including even tanks.
    On Producer Gas(Holzgas);

    https://books.google.com.br/books?id=OZYrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=%22producer+gas%22&source=bl&ots=PQbyjnhC51&sig=Dd_tqPlW_ERy_IO-cL6baDYIx30&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

    http://www.amazon.de/Fahren-mit-Holz-Holzgasgeneratoren-Ersatzantriebe/dp/3768825086/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446397082&sr=8-1&keywords=Fahren+mit+Holz

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    And yet they incinerated millions!

    Clearly, they were stupid.

    I mean, just check out the energy costs of cremating a human body. Sheer stupidity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @L.K
    The article about the polish documents got cut off.

    Here it is:
    President Roosevelt's Campaign To Incite War in Europe:
    The Secret Polish Documents
    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

    Sir, you need to really get back on your anti-depressants, if not altogether check yourself into the asylum. The delirium you deliver is for psychiatrists to deal with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @SergeKrieger
    You are not worth talking too. If you are historian I am ballet dancer.
    If those who call themselves historians repeat that cr*p about mass rapes no wonder general public is even more ignorant.
    Germans must be lucky they were not move din mass to USSR to rebuild what they destroyed and pay for their sins. As historian you must know what Rome did with Cartage. Germany deserved nothing better. The fact that it exists now and is whole again speaks volume about Russian character.

    These are Anthony Beevor’s and his, supposedly “great” late British ignorant hack Keegan, BS-ers, who had a visceral hatred for Russians, “students”. Doesn’t matter that Sandhurst today is nothing more than a vocational school for PC morons, including from all over Muslim world, who still think that British Empire does still mean… sh.t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The article about the polish documents got cut off.

    Here it is:
    President Roosevelt’s Campaign To Incite War in Europe:
    The Secret Polish Documents

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    Sir, you need to really get back on your anti-depressants, if not altogether check yourself into the asylum. The delirium you deliver is for psychiatrists to deal with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • There are many books, some written by American historians, about the not so ‘inoccent’ Roosevelt administration in re to WWII.

    A well known one is C.Beards ‘President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941: Appearances and Realities’.

    http://www.amazon.fr/President-Roosevelt-Coming-War-1941/dp/0765809982

    There is much new research too:
    For those who can read German, i recommend D.Bavendamms “Roosevelts Krieg’, published in 2002. There is Thomas Flemmings ‘The new dealers War”, “Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor’ by Robert Stinnett and many others.

    The US was guilty as sin over WWII. So was Comrade Stalin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SergeKrieger
    Russia has nothing to repent for but US has got a lot. Let's calculate how many people died in the world since 1945 due to US invasions, sanctions and destabilizing of the whole countries via coups and so called orange revolutions...
    US is a country that unlike Germany which clearly stated her goals are doing basically same things but pretending and declaring pure goals of the world betterment while actually pursuing own selfish agenda of the world domination via other means.
    Look into the mirror first before blaming other.

    Russia has nothing to repent for but US has got a lot.

    In WWII alone, thanks to Russian support for the Nazis, they were able to overrun Poland and Western Europe, leading to the deaths of 12m people during the Holocaust, as well as millions of other civilians. Without the distraction of a European war that the Russians enabled, would the Japanese have felt confident enough to expand their depredations in the direction of the European colonies in the Far East? Without Russia lending the Germans a hand, WWII might not have occurred. Going beyond WWII, Russian support for Mao set in motion a communist victory in China that eventually resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese. Thanks to Russian support for Kim Il-Sung, North Korea, though endowed with a first rate resource in the form of a population with an average IQ ranked among the top 10% in the world, is a country that is perpetually either in the midst of or in between famines. The idea that the US, in the course of battling communism, Iraqi imperial ambitions or terrorism comes close to any of these body counts is fantastical.

    Going beyond body counts – just run your eyes along a list of Russia’s closest erstwhile and current allies – Nazi Germany, Communist China, North Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Assad’s Syria, Gaddafi’s Libya, Castro’s Cuba, et al – do these sound like normal countries, countries that a non-Russophile might get the warm and fuzzies about?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lion o' Zion
    The whole thing with France, Britain, and the USSR with Hitler was a game of buckpassing initiated by the Franco-British alliance. The very reason the British and French appeased Hitler in Central Europe - including doing NOTHING when the vast bulk of the Wehrmacht was in Poland and the French could have easily seized 30% of all German Industry in the Ruhr Valley and at the very least forced the Germans back across the Rhine with a minimum of effort - was to allow Poland to be conquered and put the USSR and Nazi Germany on a shared border and on the path to an early war between them.

    They were absolutely gobsmacked when the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact was executed. They thought Stalin was a dummy.

    Seldom reported - but contained in most mainstream accounts of WW2 that I have read - is that Stalin offered to guarantee Poland against the Nazis, but the Allies rejected it, weeks before the M-R Pact was signed. Stalin's jaw dropped when the British envoy - who had no negotiation power - revealed that Britain had only 2 active divisions in all of Europe.

    The French and the British figured the next war would be a repeat of WW1 - a meat grinder. Whoever 'won' would be so weak and the war would take years to decide, leaving them time to rearm and mop up the exhausted, bloodied victor. They gambled, sacrificing Poland and Czechoslovakia for time and an early Nazi-Soviet war and lost. Hitler went for France next, and held the Soviet Union for later.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Johann Ricke

    I thought you would know that Germany declared war on the US first.
     
    Just because someone declares war on you is no reason to fight him. Up to that point, Hitler had not targeted the US, with the exception of ships carrying supplies to Britain. Pro forma declarations of war in support of allies without any actual contributions to their war efforts are pretty numerous throughout history. Bottom line is that at no point after Germany's "declaration of war" was it in a position to invade the US, given the way the Royal Navy had neutered the Kriegsmarine. As such, the US entry into the war against Germany, along with 2/3 of its war efforts, actually set back V-J day, perhaps by years.

    [the people of the West not celebrating the Soviet contribution to the Allied victory in World War II]

    They celebrated it plenty before Hollywood and the rest of the American lie machine got to work.
     
    When the White House lie machine about Uncle Joe gave way to the reality of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, along with disclosures of how integral Soviet support was to the Nazi invasion of the West, Russians began to creep a lot lower in the estimation of ordinary Americans. Add to this Russian imperial designs, including the support for communists in Korea and Vietnam, which resulted in the deaths of 100K Americans, and it became clear as day that Russia was what Reagan would call "an evil empire". We would no more celebrate the Russian contribution (i.e. its fight for survival against its former ally, Nazi Germany) than we would al-Nusra's contribution to the fight against ISIS. The principal difference between Germans and Russians is that Germans actually regret the evil they wrought around the world, whereas Russia remains unrepentant.

    Few governments will ever be so carefree as not to take a declaration of war by one of the world’s leading powers seriously. I have already explained why Britain and France had no legitimate cause for complaint about the German-Soviet pact or its consequences. The USA still less, if possible, since it was not yet at war with anyone itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Few governments will ever be so carefree as not to take a declaration of war by one of the world's leading powers seriously. I have already explained why Britain and France had no legitimate cause for complaint about the German-Soviet pact or its consequences. The USA still less, if possible, since it was not yet at war with anyone itself.
     
    No amount of explanation can get past the fact that Russia is at root responsible for the war that killed so many of its own. The reason the Western allies shouldn't be grateful for the Russian attempt to avoid being exterminated by the Germans is because it was Russia's alliance with Germany that resulted in the West's initial defeat, and the massive sacrifices that followed, to overturn German rule and to avoid Russian domination of the European mainland.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Johann Ricke

    I thought you would know that Germany declared war on the US first.
     
    Just because someone declares war on you is no reason to fight him. Up to that point, Hitler had not targeted the US, with the exception of ships carrying supplies to Britain. Pro forma declarations of war in support of allies without any actual contributions to their war efforts are pretty numerous throughout history. Bottom line is that at no point after Germany's "declaration of war" was it in a position to invade the US, given the way the Royal Navy had neutered the Kriegsmarine. As such, the US entry into the war against Germany, along with 2/3 of its war efforts, actually set back V-J day, perhaps by years.

    [the people of the West not celebrating the Soviet contribution to the Allied victory in World War II]

    They celebrated it plenty before Hollywood and the rest of the American lie machine got to work.
     
    When the White House lie machine about Uncle Joe gave way to the reality of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, along with disclosures of how integral Soviet support was to the Nazi invasion of the West, Russians began to creep a lot lower in the estimation of ordinary Americans. Add to this Russian imperial designs, including the support for communists in Korea and Vietnam, which resulted in the deaths of 100K Americans, and it became clear as day that Russia was what Reagan would call "an evil empire". We would no more celebrate the Russian contribution (i.e. its fight for survival against its former ally, Nazi Germany) than we would al-Nusra's contribution to the fight against ISIS. The principal difference between Germans and Russians is that Germans actually regret the evil they wrought around the world, whereas Russia remains unrepentant.

    Russia has nothing to repent for but US has got a lot. Let’s calculate how many people died in the world since 1945 due to US invasions, sanctions and destabilizing of the whole countries via coups and so called orange revolutions…
    US is a country that unlike Germany which clearly stated her goals are doing basically same things but pretending and declaring pure goals of the world betterment while actually pursuing own selfish agenda of the world domination via other means.
    Look into the mirror first before blaming other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Russia has nothing to repent for but US has got a lot.
     
    In WWII alone, thanks to Russian support for the Nazis, they were able to overrun Poland and Western Europe, leading to the deaths of 12m people during the Holocaust, as well as millions of other civilians. Without the distraction of a European war that the Russians enabled, would the Japanese have felt confident enough to expand their depredations in the direction of the European colonies in the Far East? Without Russia lending the Germans a hand, WWII might not have occurred. Going beyond WWII, Russian support for Mao set in motion a communist victory in China that eventually resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese. Thanks to Russian support for Kim Il-Sung, North Korea, though endowed with a first rate resource in the form of a population with an average IQ ranked among the top 10% in the world, is a country that is perpetually either in the midst of or in between famines. The idea that the US, in the course of battling communism, Iraqi imperial ambitions or terrorism comes close to any of these body counts is fantastical.

    Going beyond body counts - just run your eyes along a list of Russia's closest erstwhile and current allies - Nazi Germany, Communist China, North Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Assad's Syria, Gaddafi's Libya, Castro's Cuba, et al - do these sound like normal countries, countries that a non-Russophile might get the warm and fuzzies about?
    , @Twinkie

    US is a country that unlike Germany which clearly stated her goals are doing basically same things but pretending and declaring pure goals of the world betterment while actually pursuing own selfish agenda of the world domination via other means.
     
    Sure, the world would be the same place had Nazi Germany won World War II or the Soviet Union won the Cold War.

    I have no doubt then I would be conversing freely on the Soviet-built Internet and letting an heir of the Soviet global domination such as yourself with absolutely no fear of retribution.

    Now I see that you and SmoothieX12 are unrepentant Soviet apologists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Twinkie

    The losses of the USSR were on such a scale that frankly after what Germans did it was act of amazing kindness that Germans were not exterminated at all.
     
    The large-scale looting, destruction, killing of civilians, and an orgy of mass gang rapes without parallel in modern history were an "act of kindness"?

    No matter what the German military and the SS did in World War II (obviously they perpetrated horrendous crimes), exterminating German civilians would have been a monstrous evil without peer.

    Out of 27 million dead , 18 million were civilians and number of starved to death or shot outright POWs were around 3 million.
    It is very sensitive topic. Americans are very sensitive about 3000 who died in 9 11 and I have not heard Russians making fun of this…
     
    Who is "making fun" of the Soviet suffering in World War II?

    Furthermore, while the numbers are incomparable, the Soviet losses took place 70 years ago (and sandwiched between Stalin's terrors on his own people). There are not many alive today who remember those losses firsthand. Several generations have come of age since that time, and the descendants of the perpetrators are, by and large, very remorseful about their ancestors' crimes.

    The 9/11 attacks occurred fewer than 15 years ago and the memories are still fresh. They happened unexpectedly during peacetime. Many of us Americans (including I) knew and mourn people who died in the attacks firsthand.

    You are not worth talking too. If you are historian I am ballet dancer.
    If those who call themselves historians repeat that cr*p about mass rapes no wonder general public is even more ignorant.
    Germans must be lucky they were not move din mass to USSR to rebuild what they destroyed and pay for their sins. As historian you must know what Rome did with Cartage. Germany deserved nothing better. The fact that it exists now and is whole again speaks volume about Russian character.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    These are Anthony Beevor's and his, supposedly "great" late British ignorant hack Keegan, BS-ers, who had a visceral hatred for Russians, "students". Doesn't matter that Sandhurst today is nothing more than a vocational school for PC morons, including from all over Muslim world, who still think that British Empire does still mean... sh.t.
    , @Twinkie

    You are not worth talking too. If you are historian I am ballet dancer.
     
    You and SmoothieX12 seem to excel at ad hominem.

    For the sake of clarity and accuracy, I am not a historian now and have not been for over a decade.

    If those who call themselves historians repeat that cr*p about mass rapes no wonder general public is even more ignorant.
     
    So the history of the Soviet mass rapes is "crap," eh? Just more Western propaganda, right? Just like Katyn massacre.

    As historian you must know what Rome did with Cartage. Germany deserved nothing better.
     
    I am glad that the modern conventions of war have evolved just a tad since the days of Rome and Carthage. And because I was a historian, yes, I do remember that Rome defeated Carthage THREE times before it proverbially salted the earth of what eventually became the Roman province of Africa (and I write "proverbially" because evidence is scant about the actual salting). Although about 50,000 Carthaginians were sold to slavery after the city fell, other Punic cities (such as Utica) received better treatment, and "Africa" went on to prosper under Roman rule until the arrival of the Vandals.

    Although Romans did sometimes, as Tacitus put it, "make a desert and call it peace," in reality they were quite shrewd about giving lenient treatment to former enemies and incorporating them into their empire, sometimes even on nearly equal terms to Roman citizens proper (but without suffrage, obviously). It is because of this that Roman legions were almost always accompanied by Italian allied legions in equal number in battle prior to the Marian reform (in fact, in cavalry the allies provided more troops).

    Stupid and inhumane conquerors who go about exterminating the civilian populations of their onetime enemies don't last long. Remember how the Melians admonished the arrogant and powerful Athenians, the vision of which came true after the Battle of Aegospotami.

    The fact that it exists now and is whole again speaks volume about Russian character.
     
    Certainly your lack of humanity says a lot about YOUR character.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I thought you would know that Germany declared war on the US first.

    Just because someone declares war on you is no reason to fight him. Up to that point, Hitler had not targeted the US, with the exception of ships carrying supplies to Britain. Pro forma declarations of war in support of allies without any actual contributions to their war efforts are pretty numerous throughout history. Bottom line is that at no point after Germany’s “declaration of war” was it in a position to invade the US, given the way the Royal Navy had neutered the Kriegsmarine. As such, the US entry into the war against Germany, along with 2/3 of its war efforts, actually set back V-J day, perhaps by years.

    [the people of the West not celebrating the Soviet contribution to the Allied victory in World War II]

    They celebrated it plenty before Hollywood and the rest of the American lie machine got to work.

    When the White House lie machine about Uncle Joe gave way to the reality of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, along with disclosures of how integral Soviet support was to the Nazi invasion of the West, Russians began to creep a lot lower in the estimation of ordinary Americans. Add to this Russian imperial designs, including the support for communists in Korea and Vietnam, which resulted in the deaths of 100K Americans, and it became clear as day that Russia was what Reagan would call “an evil empire”. We would no more celebrate the Russian contribution (i.e. its fight for survival against its former ally, Nazi Germany) than we would al-Nusra’s contribution to the fight against ISIS. The principal difference between Germans and Russians is that Germans actually regret the evil they wrought around the world, whereas Russia remains unrepentant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SergeKrieger
    Russia has nothing to repent for but US has got a lot. Let's calculate how many people died in the world since 1945 due to US invasions, sanctions and destabilizing of the whole countries via coups and so called orange revolutions...
    US is a country that unlike Germany which clearly stated her goals are doing basically same things but pretending and declaring pure goals of the world betterment while actually pursuing own selfish agenda of the world domination via other means.
    Look into the mirror first before blaming other.
    , @5371
    Few governments will ever be so carefree as not to take a declaration of war by one of the world's leading powers seriously. I have already explained why Britain and France had no legitimate cause for complaint about the German-Soviet pact or its consequences. The USA still less, if possible, since it was not yet at war with anyone itself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Twinkie

    US participation in the war both against Germany and Japan was also, on the face of things, by necessity and not by choice
     
    The war with Japan, yes, but the war against Germany is debatable. My own view, of course, is that U.S. ought to have entered the war against Germany, as it historically did. But whether that was by choice or necessity is arguable. Japan actually attacked the U.S., so in that there was no choice for the U.S.

    I don’t know why you think this is a damning remark. The USSR certainly owed no loyalty to the western powers which had never shown it any.
     
    It's not a "damning remark" per se, just a statement of fact. Given that the Soviet Union was supplying critical raw materials to Nazi Germany with which the latter was attacking Great Britain right until the commencement of Operation Barbarossa and also given that the Cold War ensued immediately after World War II, perhaps the people of the former Soviet Union should not be that sensitive about the people of the West not celebrating the Soviet contribution to the Allied victory in World War II.

    It shouldn’t be controversial that none of the US wars since Vietnam is at all comparable with that conflict in its intensity, let alone with those of other countries in history. The casualty totals are not a secret.
     
    That is obviously a reasonable assessment, but that's not what SmoothieX12 wrote. Furthermore he called COIN "not real war," which I believe he meant as a slight to US military capability and experience and, by extension, those of the servicemen and women who have fought the recent wars.

    There is a great deal of difference between calling something a war of lower intensity (LIC) and "not a real war."

    “tomb of the unknown rapist”.
     
    Fair enough. But I did not call HIM a rapist - I sarcastically called him "an heir" to that legacy. And "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist" is what the locals in Berlin call the Soviet War Memorial there. They are not my words.

    I thought you would know that Germany declared war on the US first.

    [the people of the West not celebrating the Soviet contribution to the Allied victory in World War II]

    They celebrated it plenty before Hollywood and the rest of the American lie machine got to work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SergeKrieger
    Yes, it was one of those I meant by using control themselves especially on such sensitive topic as Soviet unknown fallen soldiers.
    The losses of the USSR were on such a scale that frankly after what Germans did it was act of amazing kindness that Germans were not exterminated at all.
    Out of 27 million dead , 18 million were civilians and number of starved to death or shot outright POWs were around 3 million.
    It is very sensitive topic. Americans are very sensitive about 3000 who died in 9 11 and I have not heard Russians making fun of this...

    The losses of the USSR were on such a scale that frankly after what Germans did it was act of amazing kindness that Germans were not exterminated at all.

    The large-scale looting, destruction, killing of civilians, and an orgy of mass gang rapes without parallel in modern history were an “act of kindness”?

    No matter what the German military and the SS did in World War II (obviously they perpetrated horrendous crimes), exterminating German civilians would have been a monstrous evil without peer.

    Out of 27 million dead , 18 million were civilians and number of starved to death or shot outright POWs were around 3 million.
    It is very sensitive topic. Americans are very sensitive about 3000 who died in 9 11 and I have not heard Russians making fun of this…

    Who is “making fun” of the Soviet suffering in World War II?

    Furthermore, while the numbers are incomparable, the Soviet losses took place 70 years ago (and sandwiched between Stalin’s terrors on his own people). There are not many alive today who remember those losses firsthand. Several generations have come of age since that time, and the descendants of the perpetrators are, by and large, very remorseful about their ancestors’ crimes.

    The 9/11 attacks occurred fewer than 15 years ago and the memories are still fresh. They happened unexpectedly during peacetime. Many of us Americans (including I) knew and mourn people who died in the attacks firsthand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SergeKrieger
    You are not worth talking too. If you are historian I am ballet dancer.
    If those who call themselves historians repeat that cr*p about mass rapes no wonder general public is even more ignorant.
    Germans must be lucky they were not move din mass to USSR to rebuild what they destroyed and pay for their sins. As historian you must know what Rome did with Cartage. Germany deserved nothing better. The fact that it exists now and is whole again speaks volume about Russian character.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    US participation in the war both against Germany and Japan was also, on the face of things, by necessity and not by choice;
     
    Interesting point you bring. There was a faction in US military headed primarily by incomparable George Marshall and his protege Ike, who were pressing from the get go for the Second Front. That is where Sledgehammer came from and was...defeated by British on the ARCADIA in D.C. Late Stephen Ambrose discusses this in detail in his Supreme Commander, as well as introduced Ike's diary in which he states that failure to help USSR in 1941-42 is "the gravest mistake". But, but...there were still Pacific firsters and, of course, isolationists with whom FDR had to content in Congress. And, of course, there was Sir Winston. In Casablanca, however, General Stanley Embick (he was the head of US-Canadian side on ABC conferences with Lord Halifax in 1940) of George Marshall's staff who had enough of British delays and secondary theaters of operations efforts and wrote his "Primrose Path" memorandum which OPENLY accused British in avoiding proper operations in Europe. Attached here are two scans from David Eisenhower's monster of a book about his glorious Grandfather and those scans give a very good insight (however partial) into the Allies' strategic considerations and discussion re: Second Front.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IbG4gbrfe8c/VjY1vOs9XYI/AAAAAAAAAPA/FDm84vCo2-Y/s1600/Ike_1.jpg

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hhs882opTA0/VjY1vej8pkI/AAAAAAAAAPE/sH9CR7N8uEo/s1600/Ike_2.jpg

    Late Stephen Ambrose discusses this in detail in his Supreme Commander, as well as introduced Ike’s diary in which he states that failure to help USSR in 1941-42 is “the gravest mistake”.

    To the extent that Germany almost delivered the knockout blow to the Soviet Union in the fall of 1941, that sentiment is understandable.

    But attempting to enter the continent in 1941-42 would have been an unmitigated disaster for the U.S. and for the Allied war effort as a whole as it turned out. The American ground forces were insufficiently organized and trained for large scale mechanized combat at that time. Even in early 1943 in North Africa, the U.S. forces suffered for such deficiencies (see the Battle of Kesserine Pass) – which led one captured British officer under German interrogation to call Americans contemptuously as “our Italians.” (By 1944, of course, the script had flipped and the Americans frequently complained of the British forces for being overly cautious and lacking elan.)

    And then of course there was the fiasco of the Dieppe Raid (which, on a more positive note, taught the Allies much about what would be necessary to effect a successful large-scale forced landing).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Twinkie

    Really, I mean really;-))) Well, specially for you, my dear, a hyperlink to an outstanding and famous OEG 51st Report immediately after….drum roll..WW II. I suggest you browse the whole thing, which is, as it turns out, ALL about Operational Research from the times when Colonel Dupuy was still…let say infancy.
     
    The term is "operations research" (or analysis) not "operational research." They are different things.

    I did not state, suggest or imply that the late Trevor Dupuy was the inventor or originator of the use of operations research for war, as I am well-aware of the history of the field (having, during my student days, done considerable research on the topic as it relates to the Vietnam War). But Dupuy was a pioneer in using operations research and formulating a predictive model for battle outcomes (particularly as it relates to history) in the United States. So I familiarize myself with his work, going so far as to re-do some of his calculations in "Numbers, Predictions and War."

    As far as why I am not a "big fan" of using operations research as it relates to war is a very lengthy and complex topic, and I don't wish to open another front in this already sprawling discussion. But, to simplify extremely, it comes down to this. In terms of prescriptive purpose, operations research is obviously great for calibrating inputs for obtaining specific outputs based on past data of a given system (or conversely, maximizing outputs by calibrating the inputs differently). That obviously has much utility in various aspects of war (especially as it relates to logistics and such).

    But for me there are two major issues with this as it relates to the art of war (whether strategic or operational). First, war is not a unitary system. It is a contest of wills, bodies, and materials of at least two foes - foes who always adapt to each other (if one party fails to adapt, he loses, and the war is over). Because of the mutually-imitating, -learning, and -adaptive nature of war, calibrations based on past data tend to be reactive and not predictive of future changes of the opponent - meaning, anticipating the adaptations of the enemy to one's moves. In war, which is a highly time-sensitive activity, reacting can be deadly (I am sure you know all about the OODA loop). This is the "art" (not the "science") part of war. The ability to anticipate the "unknowns" of the enemy in a timely fashion is not something that can be calculated quantitatively. A reasonable amount of quantitative analysis is useful, but ultimately the final decision in matters of life and death is in the realm of "finger feel" to paraphrase a German expression.

    Second, operations research tells us what and how well, but is not very good at telling us why. You seem to fixate on numerical issues like aggregation of firepower and such, but in my view, in war intangibles (leadership, genius, courage/fear, cohesion, etc.) matter more. While these can be captured in the what's and how's by operations research, the why's is not, and operations research may even provide faulty "why's," leading to future failures. The lessons of Alain Enthoven (and his boss Robert McNamara) regarding Vietnam is an obvious example.

    I am sure you know all about the OODA loop.

    Indirectly Mistaken Decision Cycles

    He has a column up here as well: http://www.everyjoe.com/2015/08/10/politics/immigration-doesnt-work-like-it-used-to/#1

    It’s called Lines of Departure …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Indirectly Mistaken Decision Cycles
     
    Um, yes, okay. OODA loop is "science fiction." A few paragraphs in, it became quite clear that he doesn't understand OODA loop at all and have never seen the briefings. And not only his knowledge of the history of the OODA loop highly defective to say the least (one of the key realizations over the air-to-air combat by Boyd was about the communication between the pilot and the airplane (as relates to the ability of the latter to effect the maneuvers ordered by the pilot in a timely fashion).

    He also is quite ignorant about Japanese sword fighting/one-on-one combat. "Sen-no-sen" is a classic category of technique that epitomizes superior cycling through the OODA loop.

    In the few paragraphs I read, the only thing he is correct about is that, indeed, the US Army's (now dated) AirLand Battle doctrine that was formulated under General Don Sparry at TRADOC was NOT a correct realization of Boyd and his followers' ideas. AirLand Battle was an improvement, to be sure, from the previous iteration of the US Army's operational doctrine "Active Defense," but it wasn't what Boyd or his followers intended (I am intimately acquainted with the FM100-5 Operations manual of the U.S. Army of that period, because I wrote a thesis on it.)

    Tangentially, I should note that Don Sparry and Brigadier Richard Simpkin (the premier Western expert from the UK on the Soviet maneuver warfare doctrine, especially during the interwar years) collaborated on these topics. Indeed Sparry wrote the foreword to Simpkin's iconoclastic "Race to the Swift: Thoughts on Twenty-First Century Warfare" that was published in 1984.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov
    Sir, this quote is NOT mine:

    Let’s see, these are your quotes:
     

    That’s the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a future war with real armies, air forces, air defenses and naval power.
     
    This is the quote from Colonel Douglas Macgregor (the author of the cult Breaking The Phalanx) from his Time magazine article "USMC: Under-utilized Superfluous Military Capability". Here is a direct link and I suggest you to read whole article.

    http://nation.time.com/2012/12/03/usmc-under-utilized-superfluous-military-capability/

    As per COIN. It is not just my point, it is point of view of many US Armed Forces professionals who do realize that US Armed Forces DIDN'T fight even second rate military, let alone first rate one, in decades. Namely, since Vietnam.

    I wish to remain anonymous, so the advantage is yours.
     
    Sir, if you didn't notice, I didn't get to my credentials until you started stating yours. I DO NOT discuss something for advantage or not, I discuss things for a simple reason--getting facts and truth out. When forced and, as it was the case with Operations on the Eastern front, I had to state who I am. In fact, it was germane to a discussion since required serious military academic background. Because you want to remain anonymous, I want to remain not interested in discussing anything with you further. Good luck.

    P.S. For your consideration, when you have time.

    http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/08/02/us-army-ukraine-russia-electronic-warfare/30913397/

    Sir, this quote is NOT mine

    Yes I know. You quoted someone else.

    As per COIN. It is not just my point, it is point of view of many US Armed Forces professionals who do realize that US Armed Forces DIDN’T fight even second rate military, let alone first rate one, in decades. Namely, since Vietnam.

    There is a difference between calling a war LIC and not real war. You meant it to be derisive.

    Sir, if you didn’t notice

    Now that you are politely referring to me as Sir” again, does that mean I am no longer “an asshole,” “a prick,” and someone with “Stolen Valor” who should have been taken to court by Hackworth?

    Because you want to remain anonymous, I want to remain not interested in discussing anything with you further.

    If you are not interested in discussing anything with me, just don’t respond. Don’t act like you are doing me a favor after calling me names, making accusations, all the while weaseling out of having attempted to inflate your credentials as if you were in a “real war.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Sorry to interrupt
    (3. The rain and resultant mud during the delay proved to be critically damaging to the German motorized movement once they resumed their attack along the Moscow axis.

    (This is called Raspytica and it is happening regularly twice a year. It is like blaming sun for being hot. It is what it is. Soviet army had to deal with this conditions as well.)
    You always can google images from Russia with vehicle up to the roof in mud.


    Information about Japan moving South came from Richard Sorge.

    (This is called Raspytica and it is happening regularly twice a year. It is like blaming sun for being hot. It is what it is. Soviet army had to deal with this conditions as well.)

    Obviously the blame, as such, lies with the Germans for not being able to forecast and deal with it. Nonetheless, the particular rain/mud cycle came at a particularly opportune moment for the Soviets. Furthermore, it was more critically damaging for the Germans because 1) they were at the end of their supply tether; 2) the Soviets were on defense, thus less reliant on motorized transport and on interior (shorter) supply lines, and 3) presumably the Soviets were more familiar with the weather patterns and their effects.

    In any case, it was one of several reasons why the Germans failed to take Moscow. If Hitler had not altered the war plans and allowed Army Group Center to proceed on the central axis of attack without a diversion to Kiev, things might have turned out very differently.

    Information about Japan moving South came from Richard Sorge.

    Yes, I am well-aware of the role the Sorge ring played in conveying intelligence from the Germans and the Japanese to Moscow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @5371
    US participation in the war both against Germany and Japan was also, on the face of things, by necessity and not by choice; I don't know why you think this is a damning remark. The USSR certainly owed no loyalty to the western powers which had never shown it any.
    It shouldn't be controversial that none of the US wars since Vietnam is at all comparable with that conflict in its intensity, let alone with those of other countries in history. The casualty totals are not a secret.
    The first inflammatory sally, it seems to me, was yours about the "tomb of the unknown rapist".

    US participation in the war both against Germany and Japan was also, on the face of things, by necessity and not by choice

    The war with Japan, yes, but the war against Germany is debatable. My own view, of course, is that U.S. ought to have entered the war against Germany, as it historically did. But whether that was by choice or necessity is arguable. Japan actually attacked the U.S., so in that there was no choice for the U.S.

    I don’t know why you think this is a damning remark. The USSR certainly owed no loyalty to the western powers which had never shown it any.

    It’s not a “damning remark” per se, just a statement of fact. Given that the Soviet Union was supplying critical raw materials to Nazi Germany with which the latter was attacking Great Britain right until the commencement of Operation Barbarossa and also given that the Cold War ensued immediately after World War II, perhaps the people of the former Soviet Union should not be that sensitive about the people of the West not celebrating the Soviet contribution to the Allied victory in World War II.

    It shouldn’t be controversial that none of the US wars since Vietnam is at all comparable with that conflict in its intensity, let alone with those of other countries in history. The casualty totals are not a secret.

    That is obviously a reasonable assessment, but that’s not what SmoothieX12 wrote. Furthermore he called COIN “not real war,” which I believe he meant as a slight to US military capability and experience and, by extension, those of the servicemen and women who have fought the recent wars.

    There is a great deal of difference between calling something a war of lower intensity (LIC) and “not a real war.”

    “tomb of the unknown rapist”.

    Fair enough. But I did not call HIM a rapist – I sarcastically called him “an heir” to that legacy. And “Tomb of the Unknown Rapist” is what the locals in Berlin call the Soviet War Memorial there. They are not my words.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    I thought you would know that Germany declared war on the US first.

    [the people of the West not celebrating the Soviet contribution to the Allied victory in World War II]

    They celebrated it plenty before Hollywood and the rest of the American lie machine got to work.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @5371
    US participation in the war both against Germany and Japan was also, on the face of things, by necessity and not by choice; I don't know why you think this is a damning remark. The USSR certainly owed no loyalty to the western powers which had never shown it any.
    It shouldn't be controversial that none of the US wars since Vietnam is at all comparable with that conflict in its intensity, let alone with those of other countries in history. The casualty totals are not a secret.
    The first inflammatory sally, it seems to me, was yours about the "tomb of the unknown rapist".

    US participation in the war both against Germany and Japan was also, on the face of things, by necessity and not by choice;

    Interesting point you bring. There was a faction in US military headed primarily by incomparable George Marshall and his protege Ike, who were pressing from the get go for the Second Front. That is where Sledgehammer came from and was…defeated by British on the ARCADIA in D.C. Late Stephen Ambrose discusses this in detail in his Supreme Commander, as well as introduced Ike’s diary in which he states that failure to help USSR in 1941-42 is “the gravest mistake”. But, but…there were still Pacific firsters and, of course, isolationists with whom FDR had to content in Congress. And, of course, there was Sir Winston. In Casablanca, however, General Stanley Embick (he was the head of US-Canadian side on ABC conferences with Lord Halifax in 1940) of George Marshall’s staff who had enough of British delays and secondary theaters of operations efforts and wrote his “Primrose Path” memorandum which OPENLY accused British in avoiding proper operations in Europe. Attached here are two scans from David Eisenhower’s monster of a book about his glorious Grandfather and those scans give a very good insight (however partial) into the Allies’ strategic considerations and discussion re: Second Front.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Late Stephen Ambrose discusses this in detail in his Supreme Commander, as well as introduced Ike’s diary in which he states that failure to help USSR in 1941-42 is “the gravest mistake”.
     
    To the extent that Germany almost delivered the knockout blow to the Soviet Union in the fall of 1941, that sentiment is understandable.

    But attempting to enter the continent in 1941-42 would have been an unmitigated disaster for the U.S. and for the Allied war effort as a whole as it turned out. The American ground forces were insufficiently organized and trained for large scale mechanized combat at that time. Even in early 1943 in North Africa, the U.S. forces suffered for such deficiencies (see the Battle of Kesserine Pass) - which led one captured British officer under German interrogation to call Americans contemptuously as "our Italians." (By 1944, of course, the script had flipped and the Americans frequently complained of the British forces for being overly cautious and lacking elan.)

    And then of course there was the fiasco of the Dieppe Raid (which, on a more positive note, taught the Allies much about what would be necessary to effect a successful large-scale forced landing).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Twinkie

    Please, provide my quotations here about about “denigrating” US Army?
     
    Let's see, these are your quotes:

    That’s the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a future war with real armies, air forces, air defenses and naval power.
     
    And:

    war (real one, not some COIN)
     
    "Not some COIN"? That sure comes off derisive to me.

    It seems to me that you are suggesting here that because the U.S. forces have not fought "real armies" with "air forces, air defense and naval power" and because it has instead engaged in irregular warfare worldwide or otherwise fought against "Third World" forces, it has not fought a "real war" per your definition of what real war is. So, all the American KIAs in OIF and OEF, including several of my blood brothers and friends died in what? A fake war?

    Ordinarily I could not care less what your credentials were or were not. I would not even have cared if you were some idiotic teenager sitting in your mother's basement, provided you made intellectually honest and robust arguments. But your derision toward the type of conflict the U.S. armed forces have engaged in the past decade and the sacrifices they have made me quite angry. And that is why I asked you whether YOU, by your OWN DEFINITION, have ever fought in a "real war."

    And then you compounded the insult by deceitfully replying as if you had. This was your first response:

    Heard of Caucasus ever? Unless you are Vietnam Vet (specifically Vietnam), there is really nothing to talk about.
     
    You were implying here that you had "real war" experience in the Caucasus. Of course, that sounded fishy to say the least, so when I pointed out that the Soviet Union had not fought a conventional war in the Caucasus since World War II, you STILL tried to act as if you had "real war" experience by rambling forth as follows:

    Of course, you never heard of Nagorny Karabakh or what was happening in Azerbaijan. I can give you even the start of all mayhem–mid-November 1988 and barely stopped since then. But I am not insisting on describing what and how things were happening there, it is of no consequence here.

    Now about my “credentials”, and “tank battalion” you may read about them in the end of my US Naval Institute Proceedings Article but I’ll help you. Graduate of Caspian (Kirov) High Red Banner Naval Academy in Baku, class of 1985. Advanced degree in Gyro-inertial navigational complexes of the strategic missile systems (focus on pr. 667B-BD Delta I-II class SSBNs). Degree with specialization of Command VUS (ask Creveld what it is), including command of unit of Naval Infantry (marines), apart from other interesting things. Went to serve on surface ships and for some years guarded maritime border between USSR and Iran. Among my class-mates are former (I am 53) COs of submarines, surface ships, professors in Kuznetsov Naval Academy (Naval War College), Admirals and COs of large ground units which fought in Chechnya and even Afghan veterans. I think, I will stop here. I ended my service for health reasons (you know, when bogeys shoot at you, and even friendlies) early 1991. You tend to develop all kinds of health problems, my was simple–I bled with my stomach, but that is just nuance. [Bold faces mine.]
     
    Of course, I then pointed out the problem with using the Nagorno-Karabakh c. 1988 as the place where you experienced this "real war." And of course the rest is irrelevant credential chest-thumping, including, rather comically and desperately, the combat and command experiences of people with whom you went to school!

    And now that I have unparsed your attempt to portray yourself as someone with "real war" experience, you retreat to this:

    Yes, I do not have “combat” experience, I just was almost killed several rimes while serving.
     
    Whatever that means. And then, of course, when you can't defend your own posturing, you must attack the questioner, so you go on the offense:

    It was you who brought here your “combat” experience, not me–want a reminder?
     
    I worked in U.S. politics for some years as well. I must say, you would be an excellent fit for political campaigns and press offices.

    If you had any sense of honor or integrity, instead of all this posturing to make yourself seem like a combat veteran, you would have simply replied one of two ways 1) "No, I have not been in a real war. But that doesn't alter the substance of my argument that the U.S. has not fought in a real war for some time." Or 2) "No, I have not been in a war, and I am sorry if I implied that all the American servicemen I [supposedly] admire had not been in real war in the past decade."

    Instead of being a man of honor, you tried to be squirrely and you were found out.

    Now, I already gave you my credentials, the only thing I hear from you is that you have fought.
     
    I wish to remain anonymous, so the advantage is yours.

    All I will say is to repeat what I have mentioned elsewhere on this site in the past. I grew up in East Asia. I attended an Ivy League university and then went onto a top-10 (in the U.S.) Ph.D. program in my field. Then I worked as an academic (historian specializing in military history) for some years and then decided to leave it for both personal and political reasons. I then served my country overseas in numerous assignments (Europe, the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia). I have fought in a war (not "real war" according to you). I was wounded and lost friends at war.

    I still consult, so I am not keen to advertise myself. And that's all I am going to say whether or not you call me names or engage in hysterics.

    I come to Unz Review mainly to comment on HBD and political issues. I read mostly Messrs. Sailer and Khan, and am not a regular reader of Mr. Karlin, but his interesting attempt to turn national military capabilities into comparative indices drew me to comment on the thread.

    Sir, this quote is NOT mine:

    Let’s see, these are your quotes:

    That’s the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a future war with real armies, air forces, air defenses and naval power.

    This is the quote from Colonel Douglas Macgregor (the author of the cult Breaking The Phalanx) from his Time magazine article “USMC: Under-utilized Superfluous Military Capability”. Here is a direct link and I suggest you to read whole article.

    http://nation.time.com/2012/12/03/usmc-under-utilized-superfluous-military-capability/

    As per COIN. It is not just my point, it is point of view of many US Armed Forces professionals who do realize that US Armed Forces DIDN’T fight even second rate military, let alone first rate one, in decades. Namely, since Vietnam.

    I wish to remain anonymous, so the advantage is yours.

    Sir, if you didn’t notice, I didn’t get to my credentials until you started stating yours. I DO NOT discuss something for advantage or not, I discuss things for a simple reason–getting facts and truth out. When forced and, as it was the case with Operations on the Eastern front, I had to state who I am. In fact, it was germane to a discussion since required serious military academic background. Because you want to remain anonymous, I want to remain not interested in discussing anything with you further. Good luck.

    P.S. For your consideration, when you have time.

    http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/08/02/us-army-ukraine-russia-electronic-warfare/30913397/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Sir, this quote is NOT mine
     
    Yes I know. You quoted someone else.

    As per COIN. It is not just my point, it is point of view of many US Armed Forces professionals who do realize that US Armed Forces DIDN’T fight even second rate military, let alone first rate one, in decades. Namely, since Vietnam.
     
    There is a difference between calling a war LIC and not real war. You meant it to be derisive.

    Sir, if you didn’t notice
     
    Now that you are politely referring to me as Sir" again, does that mean I am no longer "an asshole," "a prick," and someone with "Stolen Valor" who should have been taken to court by Hackworth?

    Because you want to remain anonymous, I want to remain not interested in discussing anything with you further.
     
    If you are not interested in discussing anything with me, just don't respond. Don't act like you are doing me a favor after calling me names, making accusations, all the while weaseling out of having attempted to inflate your credentials as if you were in a "real war."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @5371
    US participation in the war both against Germany and Japan was also, on the face of things, by necessity and not by choice; I don't know why you think this is a damning remark. The USSR certainly owed no loyalty to the western powers which had never shown it any.
    It shouldn't be controversial that none of the US wars since Vietnam is at all comparable with that conflict in its intensity, let alone with those of other countries in history. The casualty totals are not a secret.
    The first inflammatory sally, it seems to me, was yours about the "tomb of the unknown rapist".

    Yes, it was one of those I meant by using control themselves especially on such sensitive topic as Soviet unknown fallen soldiers.
    The losses of the USSR were on such a scale that frankly after what Germans did it was act of amazing kindness that Germans were not exterminated at all.
    Out of 27 million dead , 18 million were civilians and number of starved to death or shot outright POWs were around 3 million.
    It is very sensitive topic. Americans are very sensitive about 3000 who died in 9 11 and I have not heard Russians making fun of this…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The losses of the USSR were on such a scale that frankly after what Germans did it was act of amazing kindness that Germans were not exterminated at all.
     
    The large-scale looting, destruction, killing of civilians, and an orgy of mass gang rapes without parallel in modern history were an "act of kindness"?

    No matter what the German military and the SS did in World War II (obviously they perpetrated horrendous crimes), exterminating German civilians would have been a monstrous evil without peer.

    Out of 27 million dead , 18 million were civilians and number of starved to death or shot outright POWs were around 3 million.
    It is very sensitive topic. Americans are very sensitive about 3000 who died in 9 11 and I have not heard Russians making fun of this…
     
    Who is "making fun" of the Soviet suffering in World War II?

    Furthermore, while the numbers are incomparable, the Soviet losses took place 70 years ago (and sandwiched between Stalin's terrors on his own people). There are not many alive today who remember those losses firsthand. Several generations have come of age since that time, and the descendants of the perpetrators are, by and large, very remorseful about their ancestors' crimes.

    The 9/11 attacks occurred fewer than 15 years ago and the memories are still fresh. They happened unexpectedly during peacetime. Many of us Americans (including I) knew and mourn people who died in the attacks firsthand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    Yet, somehow those Slavic an other non-Slavic untermensch not only continued to fight
     
    Nobody brought up the Nazi racial concepts here but you. Will you stop with these stupid straw man arguments?

    In comment 158 above, I attributed the relative combat deficiencies of the Soviet soldiery (in comparison to that of the Nazi Germans) to the simple facts of lack of education and training, not to some innate racial defects.

    In the same comment, I praised the Soviet soldiers for being probably tougher and more inured to hardship than the Germans.

    My assessments of the respective fighting qualities of the World War II Germans and Russians is not out of ethnic animus or ideology (I loathe both Nazism and communism).

    but by the end of 1941 did ground Wehrmacht, fresh from its lighting victories in Europe, to the halt at Moscow and then kicked it back.
     
    Of course, you do realize that:

    1. Hitler diverted Army Group Center from the Moscow axis to a) northward to aid the capture of Leningrad and, more crucially, b) southward to capture Ukraine over the strong objections of the many of the generals, because he capriciously changed his mind and opted for economic objectives over political-logistical one when the final victory was not achieved quickly enough for his taste.

    2. And that diversion as well as the intelligence from East Asia that Japan would "go South" (attack the Western Allies in the Pacific and Southeast Asia) and not "go North" (attack the Soviet Union) provided the Soviets with the time and opportunity to bring 30 fresh Siberian divisions to stiffen the defense of Moscow.

    3. The rain and resultant mud during the delay proved to be critically damaging to the German motorized movement once they resumed their attack along the Moscow axis.

    4. And that the Germans, though incurring MUCH smaller casualties than the Soviets could not replenish those casualties as well as the latter, and, being at the very end of a very long supply line, were at the end of their tether operationally.

    And yet for all that, one of their reconnaissance battalions still captured the bridge over the Moscow-Volga canal. In 1941, the Germans came within a proverbial inch of defeating or fatally wounding the Soviet Union, but fortunately did not.

    Sorry to interrupt
    (3. The rain and resultant mud during the delay proved to be critically damaging to the German motorized movement once they resumed their attack along the Moscow axis.

    (This is called Raspytica and it is happening regularly twice a year. It is like blaming sun for being hot. It is what it is. Soviet army had to deal with this conditions as well.)
    You always can google images from Russia with vehicle up to the roof in mud.

    Information about Japan moving South came from Richard Sorge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    (This is called Raspytica and it is happening regularly twice a year. It is like blaming sun for being hot. It is what it is. Soviet army had to deal with this conditions as well.)
     
    Obviously the blame, as such, lies with the Germans for not being able to forecast and deal with it. Nonetheless, the particular rain/mud cycle came at a particularly opportune moment for the Soviets. Furthermore, it was more critically damaging for the Germans because 1) they were at the end of their supply tether; 2) the Soviets were on defense, thus less reliant on motorized transport and on interior (shorter) supply lines, and 3) presumably the Soviets were more familiar with the weather patterns and their effects.

    In any case, it was one of several reasons why the Germans failed to take Moscow. If Hitler had not altered the war plans and allowed Army Group Center to proceed on the central axis of attack without a diversion to Kiev, things might have turned out very differently.

    Information about Japan moving South came from Richard Sorge.
     
    Yes, I am well-aware of the role the Sorge ring played in conveying intelligence from the Germans and the Japanese to Moscow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Twinkie

    I find it amusing as few locals come and behave disrespectfully towards those who does not share their views but then ask those who were insulted to control themselves. I wonder why not to behave respectfully without getting personal in the first place ?
     
    I don't recall anyone using terms like asshole and prick except one commenter. Or, for that matter, accusing other commenters of being "sock puppets" when they agree.

    While several of us have used intemperate words (in my case "jackass" for example; see my comment 231), after "SmoothieX12" was cornered into admitting that he didn't have "real war" experience, he went batty and took it to another level. And that was after repeated use of "BS" to dismiss what I and another commenter posted, often at some length.

    If someone here cannot handle an opposing view, it's him. You could practically imagine the spittle flying as he unleashed these tirades.

    By the way, for the record, count me as someone who thinks that the Soviet Union was critical and decisive in defeating Nazi Germany, of all the participants in World War II. And I agree with those who say that - among the ordinary people - those in the West are often ignorant of the titanic sacrifices and hardship that the people of the Soviet Union underwent to be that decisive force. But among anybody with even a modicum of historical knowledge I think the Soviet role is well-known.

    At the same time, it should be acknowledged that the Soviet contribution to this victory was by necessity and not by choice. I have no doubt that, given the opportunity, Stalin would have loved to enter the war "late" after other combatants were exhausted fighting each other and reap much of the spoils of victory (as the Soviets actually did to a limited extent in the Far East, declaring war on Japan late and demolishing the much drained and demoralized Kwantung Army). After all, until the very end of the pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in 1941, the former was supplying the latter with critical war resources such as petroleum with which the latter was attacking the Western Allies.

    US participation in the war both against Germany and Japan was also, on the face of things, by necessity and not by choice; I don’t know why you think this is a damning remark. The USSR certainly owed no loyalty to the western powers which had never shown it any.
    It shouldn’t be controversial that none of the US wars since Vietnam is at all comparable with that conflict in its intensity, let alone with those of other countries in history. The casualty totals are not a secret.
    The first inflammatory sally, it seems to me, was yours about the “tomb of the unknown rapist”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SergeKrieger
    Yes, it was one of those I meant by using control themselves especially on such sensitive topic as Soviet unknown fallen soldiers.
    The losses of the USSR were on such a scale that frankly after what Germans did it was act of amazing kindness that Germans were not exterminated at all.
    Out of 27 million dead , 18 million were civilians and number of starved to death or shot outright POWs were around 3 million.
    It is very sensitive topic. Americans are very sensitive about 3000 who died in 9 11 and I have not heard Russians making fun of this...
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    US participation in the war both against Germany and Japan was also, on the face of things, by necessity and not by choice;
     
    Interesting point you bring. There was a faction in US military headed primarily by incomparable George Marshall and his protege Ike, who were pressing from the get go for the Second Front. That is where Sledgehammer came from and was...defeated by British on the ARCADIA in D.C. Late Stephen Ambrose discusses this in detail in his Supreme Commander, as well as introduced Ike's diary in which he states that failure to help USSR in 1941-42 is "the gravest mistake". But, but...there were still Pacific firsters and, of course, isolationists with whom FDR had to content in Congress. And, of course, there was Sir Winston. In Casablanca, however, General Stanley Embick (he was the head of US-Canadian side on ABC conferences with Lord Halifax in 1940) of George Marshall's staff who had enough of British delays and secondary theaters of operations efforts and wrote his "Primrose Path" memorandum which OPENLY accused British in avoiding proper operations in Europe. Attached here are two scans from David Eisenhower's monster of a book about his glorious Grandfather and those scans give a very good insight (however partial) into the Allies' strategic considerations and discussion re: Second Front.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IbG4gbrfe8c/VjY1vOs9XYI/AAAAAAAAAPA/FDm84vCo2-Y/s1600/Ike_1.jpg

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hhs882opTA0/VjY1vej8pkI/AAAAAAAAAPE/sH9CR7N8uEo/s1600/Ike_2.jpg

    , @Twinkie

    US participation in the war both against Germany and Japan was also, on the face of things, by necessity and not by choice
     
    The war with Japan, yes, but the war against Germany is debatable. My own view, of course, is that U.S. ought to have entered the war against Germany, as it historically did. But whether that was by choice or necessity is arguable. Japan actually attacked the U.S., so in that there was no choice for the U.S.

    I don’t know why you think this is a damning remark. The USSR certainly owed no loyalty to the western powers which had never shown it any.
     
    It's not a "damning remark" per se, just a statement of fact. Given that the Soviet Union was supplying critical raw materials to Nazi Germany with which the latter was attacking Great Britain right until the commencement of Operation Barbarossa and also given that the Cold War ensued immediately after World War II, perhaps the people of the former Soviet Union should not be that sensitive about the people of the West not celebrating the Soviet contribution to the Allied victory in World War II.

    It shouldn’t be controversial that none of the US wars since Vietnam is at all comparable with that conflict in its intensity, let alone with those of other countries in history. The casualty totals are not a secret.
     
    That is obviously a reasonable assessment, but that's not what SmoothieX12 wrote. Furthermore he called COIN "not real war," which I believe he meant as a slight to US military capability and experience and, by extension, those of the servicemen and women who have fought the recent wars.

    There is a great deal of difference between calling something a war of lower intensity (LIC) and "not a real war."

    “tomb of the unknown rapist”.
     
    Fair enough. But I did not call HIM a rapist - I sarcastically called him "an heir" to that legacy. And "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist" is what the locals in Berlin call the Soviet War Memorial there. They are not my words.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SergeKrieger
    I find it amusing as few locals come and behave disrespectfully towards those who does not share their views but then ask those who were insulted to control themselves. I wonder why not to behave respectfully without getting personal in the first place ?

    I find it amusing as few locals come and behave disrespectfully towards those who does not share their views but then ask those who were insulted to control themselves. I wonder why not to behave respectfully without getting personal in the first place ?

    I don’t recall anyone using terms like asshole and prick except one commenter. Or, for that matter, accusing other commenters of being “sock puppets” when they agree.

    While several of us have used intemperate words (in my case “jackass” for example; see my comment 231), after “SmoothieX12″ was cornered into admitting that he didn’t have “real war” experience, he went batty and took it to another level. And that was after repeated use of “BS” to dismiss what I and another commenter posted, often at some length.

    If someone here cannot handle an opposing view, it’s him. You could practically imagine the spittle flying as he unleashed these tirades.

    By the way, for the record, count me as someone who thinks that the Soviet Union was critical and decisive in defeating Nazi Germany, of all the participants in World War II. And I agree with those who say that – among the ordinary people – those in the West are often ignorant of the titanic sacrifices and hardship that the people of the Soviet Union underwent to be that decisive force. But among anybody with even a modicum of historical knowledge I think the Soviet role is well-known.

    At the same time, it should be acknowledged that the Soviet contribution to this victory was by necessity and not by choice. I have no doubt that, given the opportunity, Stalin would have loved to enter the war “late” after other combatants were exhausted fighting each other and reap much of the spoils of victory (as the Soviets actually did to a limited extent in the Far East, declaring war on Japan late and demolishing the much drained and demoralized Kwantung Army). After all, until the very end of the pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in 1941, the former was supplying the latter with critical war resources such as petroleum with which the latter was attacking the Western Allies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    US participation in the war both against Germany and Japan was also, on the face of things, by necessity and not by choice; I don't know why you think this is a damning remark. The USSR certainly owed no loyalty to the western powers which had never shown it any.
    It shouldn't be controversial that none of the US wars since Vietnam is at all comparable with that conflict in its intensity, let alone with those of other countries in history. The casualty totals are not a secret.
    The first inflammatory sally, it seems to me, was yours about the "tomb of the unknown rapist".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @L.K
    Yawnnn...
    The work of Russian historians in this connection(aid to the Soviet Union during the war), published in the late 1990s & early 2000s is well known.
    I guess dear comrade Smoothie has not heard of the work of Russian historians Alla Paperno, Boris Sokolov, Aleksandr Vislykh, etc.

    How about Marshal Zhukov himself:

    "...Today(1963) some say the Allies did not help us...
    But, listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war...
    We did not have enough munitions, how would we have been able to turn out all those tanks without the rolled steel sent to us by the Americans?
    "

     

    How, comrade Smoothie?
    Buahahhaha
    :-)

    We did not have enough munitions, how would we have been able to turn out all those tanks without the rolled steel sent to us by the Americans?”

    And not only that, while tanks were very nice indeed, trucks were what won the war for the Allies. Studebaker alone built 200,000 that were sent to the Soviets under Lend-Lease.

    On the German side, the situation was reversed, as you likely know, and the Germans went through something of de-mechanization/de-motorization as the war on the Eastern Front worsened, which led some of the German generals to joke darkly that they no longer had Panzer divisions but “Panje divisions.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    That is right.
    And the 200.000, if memory serves, refer only to heavy trucks. Tens of thousands of light trucks and jeeps were also sent.

    Just so people can get a grasp on this, Waffen SS armored divisions, which were very large units of more than 17,000 men(model 1944) were supposed to have some 3800 trucks.
    Often, real availability was considerably lower though.
    So it is easy to see what more than 200.000 trucks could do for an army, mobility-wise, which is extremely important.

    At any rate, the german fuel production was too low, so even if they could have put out more vehicles they would not have been able to fuel them.
    Just a comparison between Germany with the US demonstrates this;
    figures including imports and synthetic fuel in million metric tons.
    US - 1942 = 183.9 / 1944= 222.5
    Germany 1942 = 7.7 / 1944= 6.4


    The situation was serious from the beginning of the war. So much so that the Germans turned massively to Holzgas generators. More than 500,000 vehicles(civilian but also many military) were converted, including even tanks.
    On Producer Gas(Holzgas);
    https://books.google.com.br/books?id=OZYrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=%22producer+gas%22&source=bl&ots=PQbyjnhC51&sig=Dd_tqPlW_ERy_IO-cL6baDYIx30&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

    http://www.amazon.de/Fahren-mit-Holz-Holzgasgeneratoren-Ersatzantriebe/dp/3768825086/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446397082&sr=8-1&keywords=Fahren+mit+Holz
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    To be fair, Glantz has made valuable contributions to the field. But, and this is my impression, he, as a leading analyst of Soviet military forces during the Cold War, had a tendency, incentive perhaps, to overestimate Soviet capabilities (just as American military experts on China today often exaggerate Chinese military capabilities). Furthermore, Glantz, as a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Science, enjoys access, let’s say, less-Russophilic researchers are often denied, and, as the saying goes, access requires quid-pro-quo or at least “friendliness.” (In DC, it’s pretty well-known that foreign governments, for example, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Saudis to name but a few spread money around American researchers and analysts via think thanks and foundations to advance friendly policy advocacy).
     
    Couldn't let this slide, you, insinuating a-hole. Who the hell are you, prick, to judge people who are upholding, especially in these times, what remains of US scholarship and real academe, not to mention being officers of US Army, with combat experience, such as Glantz . Here is for you, especially, what "peer reviewed" means.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y5lon3Lwn28/VjP93HRgViI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/C_2DF-WMsGk/s1600/Kursk.jpg

    I wish Colonel David Hackworth was still alive to get your sorry ass to court for Stolen Valor.

    Couldn’t let this slide, you, insinuating a-hole. Who the hell are you, prick, to judge people who are upholding, especially in these times, what remains of US scholarship and real academe, not to mention being officers of US Army, with combat experience, such as Glantz .

    What I wrote about Glantz was a whimsical speculation on my part. Hence the amusement over the Rezun-Glantz feud and proposing a Cold War novella about it.

    Stop with the fake outrage. And frankly you attribute a lot more to Glantz than he would about his own achievements by crediting him with “upholding… what remains of US scholarship and real academe” (implying that others are frauds).

    By the way, I know Glantz is your personal hero for advancing arguments friendly to your national ego, but if we are talking about Soviet mobile warfare doctrine during the interwar years, the best authority on the subject in the West is not Glantz, but Richard Simpkin.

    I wish Colonel David Hackworth was still alive to get your sorry ass to court for Stolen Valor.

    That is, again, rich coming from someone who tried to weasel his words to make it seem as if he were a veteran of “real wars.” All this vitriol, cursing, and personal attacks just because you couldn’t answer honestly your own experience after you disparaged the war experiences of others (i.e. American servicemen). So you know have to invert.

    Just typical.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    Even if it were true I wonder who caused Wehrmacht to become skeletal and disorganized in the first place.
     
    Speaking of the devil;-) Our friends here, while being so "scientific" with "interpreting" tables, forget, of course, to look at the start of those pesky tables of numerical ratios of Axis and of the Red Army, which from 22 June 1941 through December 1941 (5 months) fought being outnumbered 1 to 1.4 in Summer to being twice smaller (1 to 1.9) in November 1941. Of course, I will scan this table too. Yet, somehow those Slavic an other non-Slavic untermensch not only continued to fight but by the end of 1941 did ground Wehrmacht, fresh from its lighting victories in Europe, to the halt at Moscow and then kicked it back. Obviously, if we consider those (I simplify this for readability) Fire Power coefficients (issue of force density also arises here), and that is what was considered throughout whole war by STAVKA and General Staff, we would see that not only Red Army in 1941 was grossly outnumbered, it was grossly outgunned and remained so till the end of 1942. Yet, vaunted Wehrmacht encountered its own losses on the scale unlike anything it experienced in its Western campaign. So, using our friend Twinkie's insightful definition, we may clearly state, which is an absolutely irrefutable fact, that Wehrmacht fought "skeletal" Red Army throughout 1941 and even early 1942.

    Yet, somehow those Slavic an other non-Slavic untermensch not only continued to fight

    Nobody brought up the Nazi racial concepts here but you. Will you stop with these stupid straw man arguments?

    In comment 158 above, I attributed the relative combat deficiencies of the Soviet soldiery (in comparison to that of the Nazi Germans) to the simple facts of lack of education and training, not to some innate racial defects.

    In the same comment, I praised the Soviet soldiers for being probably tougher and more inured to hardship than the Germans.

    My assessments of the respective fighting qualities of the World War II Germans and Russians is not out of ethnic animus or ideology (I loathe both Nazism and communism).

    but by the end of 1941 did ground Wehrmacht, fresh from its lighting victories in Europe, to the halt at Moscow and then kicked it back.

    Of course, you do realize that:

    1. Hitler diverted Army Group Center from the Moscow axis to a) northward to aid the capture of Leningrad and, more crucially, b) southward to capture Ukraine over the strong objections of the many of the generals, because he capriciously changed his mind and opted for economic objectives over political-logistical one when the final victory was not achieved quickly enough for his taste.

    2. And that diversion as well as the intelligence from East Asia that Japan would “go South” (attack the Western Allies in the Pacific and Southeast Asia) and not “go North” (attack the Soviet Union) provided the Soviets with the time and opportunity to bring 30 fresh Siberian divisions to stiffen the defense of Moscow.

    3. The rain and resultant mud during the delay proved to be critically damaging to the German motorized movement once they resumed their attack along the Moscow axis.

    4. And that the Germans, though incurring MUCH smaller casualties than the Soviets could not replenish those casualties as well as the latter, and, being at the very end of a very long supply line, were at the end of their tether operationally.

    And yet for all that, one of their reconnaissance battalions still captured the bridge over the Moscow-Volga canal. In 1941, the Germans came within a proverbial inch of defeating or fatally wounding the Soviet Union, but fortunately did not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Sorry to interrupt
    (3. The rain and resultant mud during the delay proved to be critically damaging to the German motorized movement once they resumed their attack along the Moscow axis.

    (This is called Raspytica and it is happening regularly twice a year. It is like blaming sun for being hot. It is what it is. Soviet army had to deal with this conditions as well.)
    You always can google images from Russia with vehicle up to the roof in mud.


    Information about Japan moving South came from Richard Sorge.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    By the way, this comparison of yours shows an utter lack of historical knowledge on the topic – “Blitzkrieg” was a popular propaganda term that was quickly adopted by the press, it was not an actual military doctrine.
     
    Attached here are two scans from otherwise Three-volume set of The West Point Military History Series by the Department Of History of the United States Military Academy, Senior Editor Brigadier General Thomas E. Gries. ISBN 0-89529-424-9. Scans are from my copy of this wonderful set.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mGgCOqlOw8A/VjKxrWWJDHI/AAAAAAAAAN4/7YCWWtjmM1Y/s1600/West-Point_1.jpg

    or

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ISKy9U6vVjM/VjKxrWbRZNI/AAAAAAAAAN0/Y9C4Te5s1W0/s1600/West-Point_2.jpg

    Sir, I don't know what are your purpose here but your continuous stating of either platitudes, well-known pop-facts or outright unprofessional delirium mixed with propaganda is really beginning to look preposterous. I, again, ask you to provide references to your articles, which were "peers reviewed". I hope you understand that I am not interested in arguing with you on any matters other than of military history of Eastern Front. Moreover, I allow you to call me coward, idiot, jackass or whatever floats your boat but show me just a single sign that you are a professional in at least any field relevant to anything military.

    If you have issues with West Point's Department Of History, their contact numbers are easily found on the internet. I know, I know--it is their "private opinion" and "cherry picking" but we will get to it in time. As to the point--everyone knows that Blitzkrieg was a label.

    I hope you understand that I am not interested in arguing with you on any matters other than of military history of Eastern Front.

    And yet you seem to ignore what I wrote about the Eastern Front and engage me with ad hominem on everything else.

    Moreover, I allow you to call me coward, idiot, jackass or whatever floats your boat but show me just a single sign that you are a professional in at least any field relevant to anything military.

    I called you a jackass for implying that the U.S. forces have not been in “real wars” of late, but I never called you a coward (to make that determination, I’d have to meet you and get to know you in person). Stop making things up and stop portraying yourself as a victim.

    As far as this “sign,” it is impossible since your logic is circular, along the lines of “1) Show me a sign that you know anything about war or military affairs. 2) Everything you say is amateur, academic BS, etc. etc. 3) Show me a sign.” Since you are the sole arbiter of what is and is not a sign of being “a professional in at least any field relevant to anything military,” it doesn’t matter what I say or write. You will just dismiss it with a wave of a hand and then call me names.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    Anyway, bean counting is never sure thing in this business.
     
    Absolutely, but that is why, usually (not always), the leading (as well as sets of sub criteria) operational criteria is a Probability of the event. For duel, it is relatively easy to calculate, for mechanized corps on the offensive--well, that is where it all becomes interesting;-) In fact, even probabilities ARE often the most serious secret since can disclose some of the capabilities. That is why Tactical and Operational Manuals are highly guarded state secret--you know, all those pesky Alphas, Sigmas, Omegas which go into the Salvo modelling.

    Absolutely, but that is why, usually (not always), the leading (as well as sets of sub criteria) operational criteria is a Probability of the event. For duel, it is relatively easy to calculate, for mechanized corps on the offensive–well, that is where it all becomes interesting;-) In fact, even probabilities ARE often the most serious secret since can disclose some of the capabilities. That is why Tactical and Operational Manuals are highly guarded state secret–you know, all those pesky Alphas, Sigmas, Omegas which go into the Salvo modelling. [Boldface mine.]

    Jim Dunnigan used to tell an amusing story about his early days as a commercial war game designer several decades ago (early ’70′s I think). I don’t recall which game it was (probably PanzerBlitz) or what the exact numbers were, but the story goes that he and a friend came up with a probability ratio for one of his war games rather casually. It was one of those games with hexagonal maps and rectangular counters displaying force type, size, and mobility (number of hexes they can move in a turn). The thought process was something like, “Gee, I think if the correlations of forces were 3-to-1 attackers-to-defenders, maybe dice rolls of 1 would be the attacker destroyed, 2-3 would be stalemate, and 4-6 would be defender destroyed and attacker occupies the hexagon.”

    Then according to Dunnigan, after the game was published, he was visited by some folks from the USG, who interrogated him on how he “obtained” this ratio of probabilities. They just would not believe that Dunnigan came up with it off-the-cuff and apparently suspected that he obtained leaked USG research. Dunnigan claimed he later found out the U.S. army spent considerable resources, millions of dollars, into probabilities research and came up with essentially the same ratio as he did after a few dice throws. Or so he’d like to tell.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    I am generally not a big fan of applying operations research to war. But he was a pioneer in his field in the U.S. so I am acquainted with his work.
     
    You just made my day;-) Let's start from the beginning of this gem of a stratagem of yours.

    1. So YOU (personally) with all your years of combat, military academies, staff and war colleges and your experience as a military historian ARE NOT a big fan. Well, let me break some news to you, the moment Osipov-Lanchester Equations were discovered (during WW I) the Theory Of Operations was born. It existed, of course, even before that but about this--later, when you will expose even more of your profound knowledge of warfare and military history. So, the classic form of the system of dA/dt=-bB and dB/dt=-aA was born then. I am sure you will have no problem in solving those simple differential equations (those are separable variables and integrating them is really easy;-) and seeing for yourself why it became known as a Quadratic Law;-) Since then, ALL serious General Staffs started using it. In fact, by the start of the WW II NO serious military operation was planned without what any General (and other) Staffs do for a living--calculations. Obviously the trick was in those "a" and "b" coefficients which, later, became known as firepower coefficients, but, again, about this later too. But not only calculation, in the end, of Fractional Exchange Rates became the bread and butter but knowing and understanding the meaning of those small a-s and b-s. I will write about this later--some people asked me to do that explanation in my blog, hell, in a presence of such esteemed military historian such as yourself I may as well do it here. I'll give you an example, calculation of Operational Sweep Rates defined how British Patrol Aviation planned its operations in Biskay during WW II, but what do those Britons know, right? So, you are, basically, saying that you discovered something new in warfare which leading armed forces of the world missed when they started basing all of their operational planning on that--from pre-WW II times up to our day. Because I need to go now (some circumstances changed) I will cut short this kindergarten intro to OT but will make, however, comment about your pearl:


    But he was a pioneer in his field in the U.S. so I am acquainted with his work.

     

    Really, I mean really;-))) Well, specially for you, my dear, a hyperlink to an outstanding and famous OEG 51st Report immediately after....drum roll..WW II. I suggest you browse the whole thing, which is, as it turns out, ALL about Operational Research from the times when Colonel Dupuy was still...let say infancy. You know what OEG stands for? Operations Evaluation Group, it was 1946. So, dear, sir. Since I have to (sadly) leave for a little bit, you may consult your consciousness if you want to continue with serious operational review of some (selective) WW II operations and research their utterly nonlinear nature. Before I go, here is a link directly to the 51st Report and remember the names of people who wrote it. I can tell you, though, one thing--I was taught by people who would put your Creveld with his Ph.D. in political science and "history" to shame in 10 minutes flat.

    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/ASW-51/ASW-11.html

    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/ASW-51/index.html#contents

    P.S. Yes, again, NO operations are planned and executed without...see above;-)

    Really, I mean really;-))) Well, specially for you, my dear, a hyperlink to an outstanding and famous OEG 51st Report immediately after….drum roll..WW II. I suggest you browse the whole thing, which is, as it turns out, ALL about Operational Research from the times when Colonel Dupuy was still…let say infancy.

    The term is “operations research” (or analysis) not “operational research.” They are different things.

    I did not state, suggest or imply that the late Trevor Dupuy was the inventor or originator of the use of operations research for war, as I am well-aware of the history of the field (having, during my student days, done considerable research on the topic as it relates to the Vietnam War). But Dupuy was a pioneer in using operations research and formulating a predictive model for battle outcomes (particularly as it relates to history) in the United States. So I familiarize myself with his work, going so far as to re-do some of his calculations in “Numbers, Predictions and War.”

    As far as why I am not a “big fan” of using operations research as it relates to war is a very lengthy and complex topic, and I don’t wish to open another front in this already sprawling discussion. But, to simplify extremely, it comes down to this. In terms of prescriptive purpose, operations research is obviously great for calibrating inputs for obtaining specific outputs based on past data of a given system (or conversely, maximizing outputs by calibrating the inputs differently). That obviously has much utility in various aspects of war (especially as it relates to logistics and such).

    But for me there are two major issues with this as it relates to the art of war (whether strategic or operational). First, war is not a unitary system. It is a contest of wills, bodies, and materials of at least two foes – foes who always adapt to each other (if one party fails to adapt, he loses, and the war is over). Because of the mutually-imitating, -learning, and -adaptive nature of war, calibrations based on past data tend to be reactive and not predictive of future changes of the opponent – meaning, anticipating the adaptations of the enemy to one’s moves. In war, which is a highly time-sensitive activity, reacting can be deadly (I am sure you know all about the OODA loop). This is the “art” (not the “science”) part of war. The ability to anticipate the “unknowns” of the enemy in a timely fashion is not something that can be calculated quantitatively. A reasonable amount of quantitative analysis is useful, but ultimately the final decision in matters of life and death is in the realm of “finger feel” to paraphrase a German expression.

    Second, operations research tells us what and how well, but is not very good at telling us why. You seem to fixate on numerical issues like aggregation of firepower and such, but in my view, in war intangibles (leadership, genius, courage/fear, cohesion, etc.) matter more. While these can be captured in the what’s and how’s by operations research, the why’s is not, and operations research may even provide faulty “why’s,” leading to future failures. The lessons of Alain Enthoven (and his boss Robert McNamara) regarding Vietnam is an obvious example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    I am sure you know all about the OODA loop.
     
    Indirectly Mistaken Decision Cycles

    He has a column up here as well: http://www.everyjoe.com/2015/08/10/politics/immigration-doesnt-work-like-it-used-to/#1

    It's called Lines of Departure ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    You are a joke. I once sat next to General Norman Schwarzkopf. Does that make me a combat veteran of Desert Shield and Desert Storm? Are you that desperate for glories of “real war” (again, your term, not mine) that you are now mentioning people who sat next to you when you were a naval cadet?

    So, to recap, you don’t have any real war experience, but you do go around denigrating the U.S. military and its operations and capabilities for not having fought opponents with “real air defense” in what you consider to be less than “real wars.”
     
    Please, provide my quotations here about about "denigrating" US Army? I do respect American soldier, I do have a very warm feelings to US (and Allied in general) servicemen. I DO admire US Navy's magnificent battles in Pacific and heroism of its sailors and marines. What "sitting next to General Shwartzkopf" has anything to do with it? It was you who brought here your "combat" experience, not me--want a reminder? You threw at me another argument that you have some works published--please, provide references. I did provide mine. Yes, I do not have "combat" experience, I just was almost killed several rimes while serving. Now, I already gave you my credentials, the only thing I hear from you is that you have fought. OK, I am very happy for you that you sat next to Norman, whom I do respect as a man and as a professional. But I'll be home in the next couple of hours and we'll continue out "discussion", in a very to the point and practical matter.

    See ya later.

    Please, provide my quotations here about about “denigrating” US Army?

    Let’s see, these are your quotes:

    That’s the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a future war with real armies, air forces, air defenses and naval power.

    And:

    war (real one, not some COIN)

    “Not some COIN”? That sure comes off derisive to me.

    It seems to me that you are suggesting here that because the U.S. forces have not fought “real armies” with “air forces, air defense and naval power” and because it has instead engaged in irregular warfare worldwide or otherwise fought against “Third World” forces, it has not fought a “real war” per your definition of what real war is. So, all the American KIAs in OIF and OEF, including several of my blood brothers and friends died in what? A fake war?

    Ordinarily I could not care less what your credentials were or were not. I would not even have cared if you were some idiotic teenager sitting in your mother’s basement, provided you made intellectually honest and robust arguments. But your derision toward the type of conflict the U.S. armed forces have engaged in the past decade and the sacrifices they have made me quite angry. And that is why I asked you whether YOU, by your OWN DEFINITION, have ever fought in a “real war.”

    And then you compounded the insult by deceitfully replying as if you had. This was your first response:

    Heard of Caucasus ever? Unless you are Vietnam Vet (specifically Vietnam), there is really nothing to talk about.

    You were implying here that you had “real war” experience in the Caucasus. Of course, that sounded fishy to say the least, so when I pointed out that the Soviet Union had not fought a conventional war in the Caucasus since World War II, you STILL tried to act as if you had “real war” experience by rambling forth as follows:

    Of course, you never heard of Nagorny Karabakh or what was happening in Azerbaijan. I can give you even the start of all mayhem–mid-November 1988 and barely stopped since then. But I am not insisting on describing what and how things were happening there, it is of no consequence here.

    Now about my “credentials”, and “tank battalion” you may read about them in the end of my US Naval Institute Proceedings Article but I’ll help you. Graduate of Caspian (Kirov) High Red Banner Naval Academy in Baku, class of 1985. Advanced degree in Gyro-inertial navigational complexes of the strategic missile systems (focus on pr. 667B-BD Delta I-II class SSBNs). Degree with specialization of Command VUS (ask Creveld what it is), including command of unit of Naval Infantry (marines), apart from other interesting things. Went to serve on surface ships and for some years guarded maritime border between USSR and Iran. Among my class-mates are former (I am 53) COs of submarines, surface ships, professors in Kuznetsov Naval Academy (Naval War College), Admirals and COs of large ground units which fought in Chechnya and even Afghan veterans. I think, I will stop here. I ended my service for health reasons (you know, when bogeys shoot at you, and even friendlies) early 1991. You tend to develop all kinds of health problems, my was simple–I bled with my stomach, but that is just nuance. [Bold faces mine.]

    Of course, I then pointed out the problem with using the Nagorno-Karabakh c. 1988 as the place where you experienced this “real war.” And of course the rest is irrelevant credential chest-thumping, including, rather comically and desperately, the combat and command experiences of people with whom you went to school!

    And now that I have unparsed your attempt to portray yourself as someone with “real war” experience, you retreat to this:

    Yes, I do not have “combat” experience, I just was almost killed several rimes while serving.

    Whatever that means. And then, of course, when you can’t defend your own posturing, you must attack the questioner, so you go on the offense:

    It was you who brought here your “combat” experience, not me–want a reminder?

    I worked in U.S. politics for some years as well. I must say, you would be an excellent fit for political campaigns and press offices.

    If you had any sense of honor or integrity, instead of all this posturing to make yourself seem like a combat veteran, you would have simply replied one of two ways 1) “No, I have not been in a real war. But that doesn’t alter the substance of my argument that the U.S. has not fought in a real war for some time.” Or 2) “No, I have not been in a war, and I am sorry if I implied that all the American servicemen I [supposedly] admire had not been in real war in the past decade.”

    Instead of being a man of honor, you tried to be squirrely and you were found out.

    Now, I already gave you my credentials, the only thing I hear from you is that you have fought.

    I wish to remain anonymous, so the advantage is yours.

    All I will say is to repeat what I have mentioned elsewhere on this site in the past. I grew up in East Asia. I attended an Ivy League university and then went onto a top-10 (in the U.S.) Ph.D. program in my field. Then I worked as an academic (historian specializing in military history) for some years and then decided to leave it for both personal and political reasons. I then served my country overseas in numerous assignments (Europe, the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia). I have fought in a war (not “real war” according to you). I was wounded and lost friends at war.

    I still consult, so I am not keen to advertise myself. And that’s all I am going to say whether or not you call me names or engage in hysterics.

    I come to Unz Review mainly to comment on HBD and political issues. I read mostly Messrs. Sailer and Khan, and am not a regular reader of Mr. Karlin, but his interesting attempt to turn national military capabilities into comparative indices drew me to comment on the thread.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    Sir, this quote is NOT mine:

    Let’s see, these are your quotes:
     

    That’s the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a future war with real armies, air forces, air defenses and naval power.
     
    This is the quote from Colonel Douglas Macgregor (the author of the cult Breaking The Phalanx) from his Time magazine article "USMC: Under-utilized Superfluous Military Capability". Here is a direct link and I suggest you to read whole article.

    http://nation.time.com/2012/12/03/usmc-under-utilized-superfluous-military-capability/

    As per COIN. It is not just my point, it is point of view of many US Armed Forces professionals who do realize that US Armed Forces DIDN'T fight even second rate military, let alone first rate one, in decades. Namely, since Vietnam.

    I wish to remain anonymous, so the advantage is yours.
     
    Sir, if you didn't notice, I didn't get to my credentials until you started stating yours. I DO NOT discuss something for advantage or not, I discuss things for a simple reason--getting facts and truth out. When forced and, as it was the case with Operations on the Eastern front, I had to state who I am. In fact, it was germane to a discussion since required serious military academic background. Because you want to remain anonymous, I want to remain not interested in discussing anything with you further. Good luck.

    P.S. For your consideration, when you have time.

    http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/08/02/us-army-ukraine-russia-electronic-warfare/30913397/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SergeKrieger
    "You have no understanding of the Soviet and German mobilization policies and aparently no clue to the fact that millions of people were transferred from the areas that Germany occupied into Soviet held areas during Stalins scorched earth policy, a policy which had military and economic facets."

    You think I have no idea of that. What a hack. My grandma was transferred to Magnitogorsk.
    That's what make you and your kind different from us. We know it from our experience and you from some books not all of which are reliable sources. Transfer of Soviet industry form occupied areas to Ural , Siberia and Central Asia is not some mystery for me.

    I find it amusing as few locals come and behave disrespectfully towards those who does not share their views but then ask those who were insulted to control themselves. I wonder why not to behave respectfully without getting personal in the first place ?

    Read More
    • Agree: geokat62
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I find it amusing as few locals come and behave disrespectfully towards those who does not share their views but then ask those who were insulted to control themselves. I wonder why not to behave respectfully without getting personal in the first place ?
     
    I don't recall anyone using terms like asshole and prick except one commenter. Or, for that matter, accusing other commenters of being "sock puppets" when they agree.

    While several of us have used intemperate words (in my case "jackass" for example; see my comment 231), after "SmoothieX12" was cornered into admitting that he didn't have "real war" experience, he went batty and took it to another level. And that was after repeated use of "BS" to dismiss what I and another commenter posted, often at some length.

    If someone here cannot handle an opposing view, it's him. You could practically imagine the spittle flying as he unleashed these tirades.

    By the way, for the record, count me as someone who thinks that the Soviet Union was critical and decisive in defeating Nazi Germany, of all the participants in World War II. And I agree with those who say that - among the ordinary people - those in the West are often ignorant of the titanic sacrifices and hardship that the people of the Soviet Union underwent to be that decisive force. But among anybody with even a modicum of historical knowledge I think the Soviet role is well-known.

    At the same time, it should be acknowledged that the Soviet contribution to this victory was by necessity and not by choice. I have no doubt that, given the opportunity, Stalin would have loved to enter the war "late" after other combatants were exhausted fighting each other and reap much of the spoils of victory (as the Soviets actually did to a limited extent in the Far East, declaring war on Japan late and demolishing the much drained and demoralized Kwantung Army). After all, until the very end of the pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in 1941, the former was supplying the latter with critical war resources such as petroleum with which the latter was attacking the Western Allies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “You have no understanding of the Soviet and German mobilization policies and aparently no clue to the fact that millions of people were transferred from the areas that Germany occupied into Soviet held areas during Stalins scorched earth policy, a policy which had military and economic facets.”

    You think I have no idea of that. What a hack. My grandma was transferred to Magnitogorsk.
    That’s what make you and your kind different from us. We know it from our experience and you from some books not all of which are reliable sources. Transfer of Soviet industry form occupied areas to Ural , Siberia and Central Asia is not some mystery for me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SergeKrieger
    I find it amusing as few locals come and behave disrespectfully towards those who does not share their views but then ask those who were insulted to control themselves. I wonder why not to behave respectfully without getting personal in the first place ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @L.K
    SergeKrieger writes:
    'Man, have mercy upon me. I am out of my league here."

    You really are. You have no understanding of the Soviet and German mobilization policies and aparently no clue to the fact that millions of people were transferred from the areas that Germany occupied into Soviet held areas during Stalins scorched earth policy, a policy which had military and economic facets.

    The measures taken by the Soviet Union between 1940 and 1942 aimed not only at furthering the Soviet war effort, but also at harming the German enemy even at the cost of huge losses of life among Soviet civilians. The Soviet scorched-earth strategy included the deportation of millions of men, women and children; the resettlement and reestablishment of thousands of factories; the withdrawal of almost the entire railway rolling stock; the-annihilation of raw material depots; the removal of most of the agricultural machinery, cattle and grain stocks; the systematic destruction, burning and blowing up of the immovable infrastructure, inventories of all kinds, factory buildings, mines, residential areas, public buildings, public records, and even cultural monuments; and the intentional starvation of the civilian population which remained behind to face German occupation. It was basically a policy which unscrupulously used the civilian population as a strategic pawn. The extent and timing of this policy action is confirmed by so many sources that no real difference of opinion exists in this regard.
     
    Germany had to send thousands of specialists to keep the economy in these territories running at a minimum.

    Man, I did not ask your opinion. I meant I was out of my league when it came to all that math and special equations Smoothy was mentioning. Otherwise considering level of many “experts” who post here I do not feel not problem at all.
    From what you wrote you I feel a way more comfortable as I have been dealing with your kind elsewhere regularly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @ilkarnal
    Please control yourself. The sources you provide do not repudiate L.K's claim that "[USSR] received MASSIVE help" and "this contribution may have even have been decisive." Your sources claim that the aid was very significant, but probably did not make the difference between victory and defeat. They do not completely rule out L.K.'s claim, much less make him out to be someone with "deep personal problems" posting "pathetic rants."

    I also noticed that one of your sources pegged the USSR at 29 million military casualties, which would seem to side with L.K. in the broader disagreement you two are having.

    While I am no military expert, your response to someone who offered full-throated praise to the USSR as the most capable and significant of the Allies seems quite beyond the pale. I don't know what the consensus is in the Russophone sphere, but on an English language forum L.K. is about as pro-Soviet as you're going to get when it comes to talking about the Soviet contribution to victory. Obviously that does not mean that you should restrain yourselves when arguing about facts - we all benefit from an unflinching strike towards the truth. But it makes your terribly insulting attitude stupid in addition to reprehensible.

    Obviously that does not mean that you should restrain yourselves when arguing about facts – we all benefit from an unflinching strike towards the truth. But it makes your terribly insulting attitude stupid in addition to reprehensible.

    Sir, you don’t like my attitude? Don’t read me. Spare yourself negative emotions. Anyone, who mentions Rezun as a viable source cannot be treated seriously. So, skip my responses and you will insulate yourself from my reprehensible attitude. Meanwhile, you may read Edward Stettinius statement (easily found) about the role of Lend-lease, as well, as find your own confirmation of numbers in weapons and materials specifically. Numbers vary, such as tanks–7% of Soviet production, to some materials whose share was as high as 25%. Such as armor steel. The most significant Allied contribution were transport vehicles–that was, indeed, massive and DID improve Red Army’s mobility significantly. Having said all that, overall Lend-Lease numbers (the way they are calculated) still remain a point of contention, it is clear that it was significantly more than 4% claimed (and, sadly, downplayed) in Soviet times but they also hardly rise anywhere higher than 10% of Soviet war production. It was a significant help but it didn’t win the war as it is very often claimed in the West. If you find statements from Glantz and US Military Academy at West Point as “not repudiating” the point of L.K. then nothing I can do for you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov
    I see no reason continuing to argue with you since you you are either Twinkie's clone or the same kind of hot air bag who has no idea what is he talking about and you has no idea. But before I continue, not that I don't have anything better to do, here is some food for thought regarding you blanket statement:

    Furthermore, it shoud be noted that the Soviet Union did NOT fight this war alone against Germany. It received MASSIVE help in the form of the lend lease program and other aid from the US and, to a less extent, Britain. Trucks, aircraft, armor, fuel oils, food, all kinds of raw materials were given in huge quantities and new Russian research has confirmed that this contribution may have even have been decisive.
     

    Here are two scans, one from already well-discussed Glantz and House (When Titans Clashed, page 285, Conclusion)

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c5hbLfJ9AVw/VjT_ccnWrtI/AAAAAAAAAOk/kDjVXsYCUGs/s1600/Glantz-House_2.jpg

    Or, US Military Academy's The Second World War, Volume Europe And Mediterranean, page 143.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A-bbcZU50dU/VjT_cQAbxDI/AAAAAAAAAOo/vC-BHm5guJc/s1600/West-Point_3.jpg

    Unless we are talking about large conspiracy on part of Glantz, House, Leavenworth General Staff College or West Point's History Department or them being paid "Soviet Propagandists", which, as we all understand, has a probability approaching that of a zero, I think the only diagnosis here is that of your deep personal problems. You already exposed yourself enough. If you want to continue to humiliate yourself further, sure, carry on.

    Last remark. USSR/Russia remembers and appreciates Allies' help deeply. Names of Ike, Montgomery, Bradley and, of course, George Marshall--a true American military genius behind Overlord--still have a special place. But having said all that, you can not POSSIBLY know anything about Russian sources or "studies" on Lend-Lease or otherwise, other than what is available in English. For example, you can not POSSIBLY know, as an example, WHAT Captain First Rank Krasnov writes in his Lend-Lease For USSR and I, frankly, have no desire to translate anything for you since it will be the waste of time anyway. In general, you have no military, no historic, no academic, no linguistic and, possibly, no any other background which would allow you to even remotely understand what are you talking about and what are the points of reference. Your pathetic rants here are the best proof of that.

    Please control yourself. The sources you provide do not repudiate L.K’s claim that “[USSR] received MASSIVE help” and “this contribution may have even have been decisive.” Your sources claim that the aid was very significant, but probably did not make the difference between victory and defeat. They do not completely rule out L.K.’s claim, much less make him out to be someone with “deep personal problems” posting “pathetic rants.”

    I also noticed that one of your sources pegged the USSR at 29 million military casualties, which would seem to side with L.K. in the broader disagreement you two are having.

    While I am no military expert, your response to someone who offered full-throated praise to the USSR as the most capable and significant of the Allies seems quite beyond the pale. I don’t know what the consensus is in the Russophone sphere, but on an English language forum L.K. is about as pro-Soviet as you’re going to get when it comes to talking about the Soviet contribution to victory. Obviously that does not mean that you should restrain yourselves when arguing about facts – we all benefit from an unflinching strike towards the truth. But it makes your terribly insulting attitude stupid in addition to reprehensible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Obviously that does not mean that you should restrain yourselves when arguing about facts – we all benefit from an unflinching strike towards the truth. But it makes your terribly insulting attitude stupid in addition to reprehensible.
     
    Sir, you don't like my attitude? Don't read me. Spare yourself negative emotions. Anyone, who mentions Rezun as a viable source cannot be treated seriously. So, skip my responses and you will insulate yourself from my reprehensible attitude. Meanwhile, you may read Edward Stettinius statement (easily found) about the role of Lend-lease, as well, as find your own confirmation of numbers in weapons and materials specifically. Numbers vary, such as tanks--7% of Soviet production, to some materials whose share was as high as 25%. Such as armor steel. The most significant Allied contribution were transport vehicles--that was, indeed, massive and DID improve Red Army's mobility significantly. Having said all that, overall Lend-Lease numbers (the way they are calculated) still remain a point of contention, it is clear that it was significantly more than 4% claimed (and, sadly, downplayed) in Soviet times but they also hardly rise anywhere higher than 10% of Soviet war production. It was a significant help but it didn't win the war as it is very often claimed in the West. If you find statements from Glantz and US Military Academy at West Point as "not repudiating" the point of L.K. then nothing I can do for you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • On another note, Swedish military historians Niklas Zetterling & Anders Frankson have noted the general tendency in Anglo-American and Soviet/Russian histories, to exaggerate, sometimes grotestquely so, German strength;
    For a Russian example, they discuss how distinguished Russian historian Meltyukhov( who BTW agrees, as do many other russian historians, with Suvorovs thesis ) made several mistakes in this connection, re force ratios at the beginning of Barbarossa.
    Some of their conclusions demonstrate the problem;
    - Meltyukhov includes German High Command reserves that were released during July, but NOT the corresponding Soviet forces.
    - Grossly overstates Luftwaffe manpower participation.
    - German satellite troops are included even if they were not committed until much later. If such satellite troops are included, Soviet reinforcements arriving in the meantime should also be included in a comparison.
    - Exaggerate German army strength.

    A couple of examples; Meltyukhov says 3rd Panzer Group had 265.000 men when in reality it only had 150.000. For 2nd Panzer G. he gives a force of more than 461,000 when in reality only 205,000 men were available.
    With such gross distortions – which are regularly found re Normandy, Italy, etc – false impressions are given re force ratios, in this case, at the start of Barbarossa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Yawnnn…
    The work of Russian historians in this connection(aid to the Soviet Union during the war), published in the late 1990s & early 2000s is well known.
    I guess dear comrade Smoothie has not heard of the work of Russian historians Alla Paperno, Boris Sokolov, Aleksandr Vislykh, etc.

    How about Marshal Zhukov himself:

    “…Today(1963) some say the Allies did not help us…
    But, listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war…
    We did not have enough munitions, how would we have been able to turn out all those tanks without the rolled steel sent to us by the Americans?

    How, comrade Smoothie?
    Buahahhaha
    :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    We did not have enough munitions, how would we have been able to turn out all those tanks without the rolled steel sent to us by the Americans?”
     
    And not only that, while tanks were very nice indeed, trucks were what won the war for the Allies. Studebaker alone built 200,000 that were sent to the Soviets under Lend-Lease.

    On the German side, the situation was reversed, as you likely know, and the Germans went through something of de-mechanization/de-motorization as the war on the Eastern Front worsened, which led some of the German generals to joke darkly that they no longer had Panzer divisions but "Panje divisions."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @L.K
    No amount of clowning around by shameless Soviet propagandists, such as SmoothieX12, can change the basic facts;

    As stated by no one else than dear Colonel D.Glantz, so cited by comrade Smoothie;

    "By 1942, after Leningrad and Moscow, Stalin and Marshal Georgi Zhukov think alike. They understand that even if you have to ruthlessly expend manpower, resistance will wear down a numerically weaker opponent. That tactic cost probably 14 million military dead—the price of defeating a more experienced, battle-worthy, savvy Wehrmacht."
     
    http://www.historynet.com/david-m-glantz.htm

    What is Glantz saying?
    1. The obvious FACT that Germany fought against a more numerous enemy.
    2. The Soviets spent manpower ruthlessly, suffering some 14 million military dead.
    Notice that this figure is quite higher than what Krivosheev offers, which may indicate that even Glantz has his doubts, as do several others, re official Soviet loss figures.
    Put it simply, particularly for 1941, the figures appear quite understated.
    3. The Wehrmacht was a superior fighting force when compared to the Red Army.

    Check out the table scan from Krivosheevs book, showing KIA, died later from wounds plus non combat losses per year and totals in the war against Germany.
    http://justpaste.it/Krivosheev

    Furthermore, it shoud be noted that the Soviet Union did NOT fight this war alone against Germany. It received MASSIVE help in the form of the lend lease program and other aid from the US and, to a less extent, Britain. Trucks, aircraft, armor, fuel oils, food, all kinds of raw materials were given in huge quantities and new Russian research has confirmed that this contribution may have even have been decisive.

    Despite Stalin's repeated demands for an Allied 'second front' to take the pressure off Russia, in point of fact several such fronts were already draining Germany's quite limited resources—a second front in the air over Germany itself, a third front in the Battle of the Atlantic, a fourth front in the war in North Africa and then later Sicily and Italy—all before the D-Day invasion of France in June 1944.
    The mere threat of Western Allied operations shows how that gave the Soviets an edge given that the germans kept switching many units, including some of Germany's best, from the eastern front to other theatres in the west, to the Balkans, to France, to Italy, and elsewhere, in response to real or expected threats from the Allies.

    I see no reason continuing to argue with you since you you are either Twinkie’s clone or the same kind of hot air bag who has no idea what is he talking about and you has no idea. But before I continue, not that I don’t have anything better to do, here is some food for thought regarding you blanket statement:

    Furthermore, it shoud be noted that the Soviet Union did NOT fight this war alone against Germany. It received MASSIVE help in the form of the lend lease program and other aid from the US and, to a less extent, Britain. Trucks, aircraft, armor, fuel oils, food, all kinds of raw materials were given in huge quantities and new Russian research has confirmed that this contribution may have even have been decisive.

    Here are two scans, one from already well-discussed Glantz and House (When Titans Clashed, page 285, Conclusion)

    Or, US Military Academy’s The Second World War, Volume Europe And Mediterranean, page 143.

    Unless we are talking about large conspiracy on part of Glantz, House, Leavenworth General Staff College or West Point’s History Department or them being paid “Soviet Propagandists”, which, as we all understand, has a probability approaching that of a zero, I think the only diagnosis here is that of your deep personal problems. You already exposed yourself enough. If you want to continue to humiliate yourself further, sure, carry on.

    Last remark. USSR/Russia remembers and appreciates Allies’ help deeply. Names of Ike, Montgomery, Bradley and, of course, George Marshall–a true American military genius behind Overlord–still have a special place. But having said all that, you can not POSSIBLY know anything about Russian sources or “studies” on Lend-Lease or otherwise, other than what is available in English. For example, you can not POSSIBLY know, as an example, WHAT Captain First Rank Krasnov writes in his Lend-Lease For USSR and I, frankly, have no desire to translate anything for you since it will be the waste of time anyway. In general, you have no military, no historic, no academic, no linguistic and, possibly, no any other background which would allow you to even remotely understand what are you talking about and what are the points of reference. Your pathetic rants here are the best proof of that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ilkarnal
    Please control yourself. The sources you provide do not repudiate L.K's claim that "[USSR] received MASSIVE help" and "this contribution may have even have been decisive." Your sources claim that the aid was very significant, but probably did not make the difference between victory and defeat. They do not completely rule out L.K.'s claim, much less make him out to be someone with "deep personal problems" posting "pathetic rants."

    I also noticed that one of your sources pegged the USSR at 29 million military casualties, which would seem to side with L.K. in the broader disagreement you two are having.

    While I am no military expert, your response to someone who offered full-throated praise to the USSR as the most capable and significant of the Allies seems quite beyond the pale. I don't know what the consensus is in the Russophone sphere, but on an English language forum L.K. is about as pro-Soviet as you're going to get when it comes to talking about the Soviet contribution to victory. Obviously that does not mean that you should restrain yourselves when arguing about facts - we all benefit from an unflinching strike towards the truth. But it makes your terribly insulting attitude stupid in addition to reprehensible.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • No amount of clowning around by shameless Soviet propagandists, such as SmoothieX12, can change the basic facts;

    As stated by no one else than dear Colonel D.Glantz, so cited by comrade Smoothie;

    “By 1942, after Leningrad and Moscow, Stalin and Marshal Georgi Zhukov think alike. They understand that even if you have to ruthlessly expend manpower, resistance will wear down a numerically weaker opponent. That tactic cost probably 14 million military dead—the price of defeating a more experienced, battle-worthy, savvy Wehrmacht.”

    http://www.historynet.com/david-m-glantz.htm

    What is Glantz saying?
    1. The obvious FACT that Germany fought against a more numerous enemy.
    2. The Soviets spent manpower ruthlessly, suffering some 14 million military dead.
    Notice that this figure is quite higher than what Krivosheev offers, which may indicate that even Glantz has his doubts, as do several others, re official Soviet loss figures.
    Put it simply, particularly for 1941, the figures appear quite understated.
    3. The Wehrmacht was a superior fighting force when compared to the Red Army.

    Check out the table scan from Krivosheevs book, showing KIA, died later from wounds plus non combat losses per year and totals in the war against Germany.

    http://justpaste.it/Krivosheev

    Furthermore, it shoud be noted that the Soviet Union did NOT fight this war alone against Germany. It received MASSIVE help in the form of the lend lease program and other aid from the US and, to a less extent, Britain. Trucks, aircraft, armor, fuel oils, food, all kinds of raw materials were given in huge quantities and new Russian research has confirmed that this contribution may have even have been decisive.

    Despite Stalin’s repeated demands for an Allied ‘second front’ to take the pressure off Russia, in point of fact several such fronts were already draining Germany’s quite limited resources—a second front in the air over Germany itself, a third front in the Battle of the Atlantic, a fourth front in the war in North Africa and then later Sicily and Italy—all before the D-Day invasion of France in June 1944.
    The mere threat of Western Allied operations shows how that gave the Soviets an edge given that the germans kept switching many units, including some of Germany’s best, from the eastern front to other theatres in the west, to the Balkans, to France, to Italy, and elsewhere, in response to real or expected threats from the Allies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    I see no reason continuing to argue with you since you you are either Twinkie's clone or the same kind of hot air bag who has no idea what is he talking about and you has no idea. But before I continue, not that I don't have anything better to do, here is some food for thought regarding you blanket statement:

    Furthermore, it shoud be noted that the Soviet Union did NOT fight this war alone against Germany. It received MASSIVE help in the form of the lend lease program and other aid from the US and, to a less extent, Britain. Trucks, aircraft, armor, fuel oils, food, all kinds of raw materials were given in huge quantities and new Russian research has confirmed that this contribution may have even have been decisive.
     

    Here are two scans, one from already well-discussed Glantz and House (When Titans Clashed, page 285, Conclusion)

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c5hbLfJ9AVw/VjT_ccnWrtI/AAAAAAAAAOk/kDjVXsYCUGs/s1600/Glantz-House_2.jpg

    Or, US Military Academy's The Second World War, Volume Europe And Mediterranean, page 143.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A-bbcZU50dU/VjT_cQAbxDI/AAAAAAAAAOo/vC-BHm5guJc/s1600/West-Point_3.jpg

    Unless we are talking about large conspiracy on part of Glantz, House, Leavenworth General Staff College or West Point's History Department or them being paid "Soviet Propagandists", which, as we all understand, has a probability approaching that of a zero, I think the only diagnosis here is that of your deep personal problems. You already exposed yourself enough. If you want to continue to humiliate yourself further, sure, carry on.

    Last remark. USSR/Russia remembers and appreciates Allies' help deeply. Names of Ike, Montgomery, Bradley and, of course, George Marshall--a true American military genius behind Overlord--still have a special place. But having said all that, you can not POSSIBLY know anything about Russian sources or "studies" on Lend-Lease or otherwise, other than what is available in English. For example, you can not POSSIBLY know, as an example, WHAT Captain First Rank Krasnov writes in his Lend-Lease For USSR and I, frankly, have no desire to translate anything for you since it will be the waste of time anyway. In general, you have no military, no historic, no academic, no linguistic and, possibly, no any other background which would allow you to even remotely understand what are you talking about and what are the points of reference. Your pathetic rants here are the best proof of that.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • SergeKrieger writes:
    ‘Man, have mercy upon me. I am out of my league here.”

    You really are. You have no understanding of the Soviet and German mobilization policies and aparently no clue to the fact that millions of people were transferred from the areas that Germany occupied into Soviet held areas during Stalins scorched earth policy, a policy which had military and economic facets.

    The measures taken by the Soviet Union between 1940 and 1942 aimed not only at furthering the Soviet war effort, but also at harming the German enemy even at the cost of huge losses of life among Soviet civilians. The Soviet scorched-earth strategy included the deportation of millions of men, women and children; the resettlement and reestablishment of thousands of factories; the withdrawal of almost the entire railway rolling stock; the-annihilation of raw material depots; the removal of most of the agricultural machinery, cattle and grain stocks; the systematic destruction, burning and blowing up of the immovable infrastructure, inventories of all kinds, factory buildings, mines, residential areas, public buildings, public records, and even cultural monuments; and the intentional starvation of the civilian population which remained behind to face German occupation. It was basically a policy which unscrupulously used the civilian population as a strategic pawn. The extent and timing of this policy action is confirmed by so many sources that no real difference of opinion exists in this regard.

    Germany had to send thousands of specialists to keep the economy in these territories running at a minimum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SergeKrieger
    Man, I did not ask your opinion. I meant I was out of my league when it came to all that math and special equations Smoothy was mentioning. Otherwise considering level of many "experts" who post here I do not feel not problem at all.
    From what you wrote you I feel a way more comfortable as I have been dealing with your kind elsewhere regularly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    I think modern armies are way to complex and expensive to maintain and operate.
     
    And that is why there are such things in Russia which are called Базы Хранения (Storage Bases). It is sort of Кадрированные Дивизии (Cadre Divisions) of 1970-s and 1980-s. Remember the scandal with T-72s rusting in the forest couple-three years ago? Yep, that contributed to getting Serdykov's ass out of MO. As for modern real war--080808 and Donbas. Combined arms warfare never went away.

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2015/08/strange-it-took-so-long.html

    No , I did not read about that but I do remember when at the end of 80′s beginning of 90′s when Cold war was considered over and we had some 64000 tanks I read in newspaper probably Arguments and Facts that many of them were going to be conserved somewhere in Siberian Storage bases.
    I remember you posted many times regarding Serdyukov credentials to be Defense Minister aka his furniture experience :)
    But he indeed was running army like a business which is not good imho. Buying from abroad vs building own is not wise long term strategy especially for Russia.
    I also do not get all that ruckus about brigades. Were there not polki in divisions? Why suddenly to cancel divisions and create smaller brigades while each division has some 3-5 polkov in each which certainly could be used separately if need arose. it awfully reminds me about Theodosius making 5000 legion into 1000 smallish unit that lacked older legion strength and ability to perform independent operations.

    Combined arms operation have been here since Alexander the Great and are not going anywhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @SergeKrieger
    I think modern armies are way to complex and expensive to maintain and operate.
    Peer to peer wars have not been fought for 70 years so level of conflicts was pretty low with also pretty low causalities both human and military equipment wise. In my humble opinion once God forbids there will be real peer to peer all out war things will have to be considerably simplified. all currently made equipment is imho too complex and expensive to be produced quickly in significant numbers to replace lost and broken one. Satellites would be a reasonable targets to just shut down all surveillance opportunity for opposite side and so satellites which are used for smart phones communications.
    Things might get far simpler again from current complex level.
    By the way, those holographic technologies you spoke about. Do they depend upon satellite connections?

    I think modern armies are way to complex and expensive to maintain and operate.

    And that is why there are such things in Russia which are called Базы Хранения (Storage Bases). It is sort of Кадрированные Дивизии (Cadre Divisions) of 1970-s and 1980-s. Remember the scandal with T-72s rusting in the forest couple-three years ago? Yep, that contributed to getting Serdykov’s ass out of MO. As for modern real war–080808 and Donbas. Combined arms warfare never went away.

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2015/08/strange-it-took-so-long.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @SergeKrieger
    No , I did not read about that but I do remember when at the end of 80's beginning of 90's when Cold war was considered over and we had some 64000 tanks I read in newspaper probably Arguments and Facts that many of them were going to be conserved somewhere in Siberian Storage bases.
    I remember you posted many times regarding Serdyukov credentials to be Defense Minister aka his furniture experience :)
    But he indeed was running army like a business which is not good imho. Buying from abroad vs building own is not wise long term strategy especially for Russia.
    I also do not get all that ruckus about brigades. Were there not polki in divisions? Why suddenly to cancel divisions and create smaller brigades while each division has some 3-5 polkov in each which certainly could be used separately if need arose. it awfully reminds me about Theodosius making 5000 legion into 1000 smallish unit that lacked older legion strength and ability to perform independent operations.


    Combined arms operation have been here since Alexander the Great and are not going anywhere.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Twinkie

    Twinkie wrote:
    “Glantz has his own viewpoint, and not all or even most historians of the field share his.”

    Exactly.
     
    To be fair, Glantz has made valuable contributions to the field. But, and this is my impression, he, as a leading analyst of Soviet military forces during the Cold War, had a tendency, incentive perhaps, to overestimate Soviet capabilities (just as American military experts on China today often exaggerate Chinese military capabilities). Furthermore, Glantz, as a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Science, enjoys access, let's say, less-Russophilic researchers are often denied, and, as the saying goes, access requires quid-pro-quo or at least "friendliness." (In DC, it's pretty well-known that foreign governments, for example, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Saudis to name but a few spread money around American researchers and analysts via think thanks and foundations to advance friendly policy advocacy).

    He is not exactly an unbiased, neutral observer.

    I always thought his feud with the defector "Viktor Suvorov" (i.e. Vlamdimir Rezun) was a bit odd and at times comical. What a great Cold War novella it would make if it turned out Glantz was used to discredit an influential (and over-the-top in his own way) defector by the Soviets!

    To be fair, Glantz has made valuable contributions to the field. But, and this is my impression, he, as a leading analyst of Soviet military forces during the Cold War, had a tendency, incentive perhaps, to overestimate Soviet capabilities (just as American military experts on China today often exaggerate Chinese military capabilities). Furthermore, Glantz, as a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Science, enjoys access, let’s say, less-Russophilic researchers are often denied, and, as the saying goes, access requires quid-pro-quo or at least “friendliness.” (In DC, it’s pretty well-known that foreign governments, for example, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Saudis to name but a few spread money around American researchers and analysts via think thanks and foundations to advance friendly policy advocacy).

    Couldn’t let this slide, you, insinuating a-hole. Who the hell are you, prick, to judge people who are upholding, especially in these times, what remains of US scholarship and real academe, not to mention being officers of US Army, with combat experience, such as Glantz . Here is for you, especially, what “peer reviewed” means.

    I wish Colonel David Hackworth was still alive to get your sorry ass to court for Stolen Valor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Couldn’t let this slide, you, insinuating a-hole. Who the hell are you, prick, to judge people who are upholding, especially in these times, what remains of US scholarship and real academe, not to mention being officers of US Army, with combat experience, such as Glantz .
     
    What I wrote about Glantz was a whimsical speculation on my part. Hence the amusement over the Rezun-Glantz feud and proposing a Cold War novella about it.

    Stop with the fake outrage. And frankly you attribute a lot more to Glantz than he would about his own achievements by crediting him with "upholding... what remains of US scholarship and real academe" (implying that others are frauds).

    By the way, I know Glantz is your personal hero for advancing arguments friendly to your national ego, but if we are talking about Soviet mobile warfare doctrine during the interwar years, the best authority on the subject in the West is not Glantz, but Richard Simpkin.

    I wish Colonel David Hackworth was still alive to get your sorry ass to court for Stolen Valor.
     
    That is, again, rich coming from someone who tried to weasel his words to make it seem as if he were a veteran of "real wars." All this vitriol, cursing, and personal attacks just because you couldn't answer honestly your own experience after you disparaged the war experiences of others (i.e. American servicemen). So you know have to invert.

    Just typical.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    But I wonder, is same level of maskirovka possible today under satellites watchful eyes or in case of war all satellites basically will be shot out of the sky and hence back to fighting blind.
     
    Very good question. I don't have the full answer. But I know that holographic means are being developed in Russia, at least. Obviously the US and Russia know everything about each-others space recon capabilities. It is also understandable that, indeed, it is vastly more difficult to conceal anything today in the era of smart-phones. Just a naval example--modern subs today are so silent that the next step is to make them sound exactly as the ocean's background noise. Albeit, the development of non-acoustic detection means is really impressive.

    I think modern armies are way to complex and expensive to maintain and operate.
    Peer to peer wars have not been fought for 70 years so level of conflicts was pretty low with also pretty low causalities both human and military equipment wise. In my humble opinion once God forbids there will be real peer to peer all out war things will have to be considerably simplified. all currently made equipment is imho too complex and expensive to be produced quickly in significant numbers to replace lost and broken one. Satellites would be a reasonable targets to just shut down all surveillance opportunity for opposite side and so satellites which are used for smart phones communications.
    Things might get far simpler again from current complex level.
    By the way, those holographic technologies you spoke about. Do they depend upon satellite connections?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I think modern armies are way to complex and expensive to maintain and operate.
     
    And that is why there are such things in Russia which are called Базы Хранения (Storage Bases). It is sort of Кадрированные Дивизии (Cadre Divisions) of 1970-s and 1980-s. Remember the scandal with T-72s rusting in the forest couple-three years ago? Yep, that contributed to getting Serdykov's ass out of MO. As for modern real war--080808 and Donbas. Combined arms warfare never went away.

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2015/08/strange-it-took-so-long.html

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @SergeKrieger
    I will try and get Eisenhower book you mentioned. But I wonder, is same level of maskirovka possible today under satellites watchful eyes or in case of war all satellites basically will be shot out of the sky and hence back to fighting blind.
    also, I know the numbers. USSR had population of around 200 million in 1941. 80 million resided in areas occupied by Germans by December 1941. Hence with left 120 million which was slightly above 80 million Germany proper had and more with allies it was impossible for Soviet Union to field 5;1 numerical superiority. Not to forget that most of 1941 summer forces were captured or killed.
    There also was need for people to work at the factories.

    BTW, I did not read Krivosheev but I think there was misunderstanding about numbers where that guy mentioned about 7 million dead in 1944 alone is probably because Krivosheev probably mentioned USSR total losses in dead by the end of 1944 from June 1941 as around 7 million?

    I will try to ruminate through these links this weekend.

    But I wonder, is same level of maskirovka possible today under satellites watchful eyes or in case of war all satellites basically will be shot out of the sky and hence back to fighting blind.

    Very good question. I don’t have the full answer. But I know that holographic means are being developed in Russia, at least. Obviously the US and Russia know everything about each-others space recon capabilities. It is also understandable that, indeed, it is vastly more difficult to conceal anything today in the era of smart-phones. Just a naval example–modern subs today are so silent that the next step is to make them sound exactly as the ocean’s background noise. Albeit, the development of non-acoustic detection means is really impressive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SergeKrieger
    I think modern armies are way to complex and expensive to maintain and operate.
    Peer to peer wars have not been fought for 70 years so level of conflicts was pretty low with also pretty low causalities both human and military equipment wise. In my humble opinion once God forbids there will be real peer to peer all out war things will have to be considerably simplified. all currently made equipment is imho too complex and expensive to be produced quickly in significant numbers to replace lost and broken one. Satellites would be a reasonable targets to just shut down all surveillance opportunity for opposite side and so satellites which are used for smart phones communications.
    Things might get far simpler again from current complex level.
    By the way, those holographic technologies you spoke about. Do they depend upon satellite connections?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    Also, they bring those crazy numbers like 5:1 numerical superiority. well, it was in those decisive points achieved by maneuvered hide by maskirovka and distraction.
     
    One of the theses of Leavenworth Papers (by Lieutenant Colonel Connor) I referred to earlier

    http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16040coll3/id/133

    dedicates a very large portion of a work to a strategic concealment (maskirovka) and amassing of the troops on main axes--both are an integral and high level parts of military art. Both Stalingrad and Kursk saw similar operations. Speaking of the mass, this is precisely the issue of force density. As per comparison of wars, I will later simply scan some of David Eisenhower's conclusions from his, as I already mentioned not for once, outstanding work (which also became #1 National Bestseller in 1988). It will illustrate a difference quite explicitly. But I am sure, those will be legendary Ike's grandson's "personal opinions" and "cherry picking", after all, what can possibly Eisenhower's family and circle know about war;-))

    I will try and get Eisenhower book you mentioned. But I wonder, is same level of maskirovka possible today under satellites watchful eyes or in case of war all satellites basically will be shot out of the sky and hence back to fighting blind.
    also, I know the numbers. USSR had population of around 200 million in 1941. 80 million resided in areas occupied by Germans by December 1941. Hence with left 120 million which was slightly above 80 million Germany proper had and more with allies it was impossible for Soviet Union to field 5;1 numerical superiority. Not to forget that most of 1941 summer forces were captured or killed.
    There also was need for people to work at the factories.

    BTW, I did not read Krivosheev but I think there was misunderstanding about numbers where that guy mentioned about 7 million dead in 1944 alone is probably because Krivosheev probably mentioned USSR total losses in dead by the end of 1944 from June 1941 as around 7 million?

    I will try to ruminate through these links this weekend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    But I wonder, is same level of maskirovka possible today under satellites watchful eyes or in case of war all satellites basically will be shot out of the sky and hence back to fighting blind.
     
    Very good question. I don't have the full answer. But I know that holographic means are being developed in Russia, at least. Obviously the US and Russia know everything about each-others space recon capabilities. It is also understandable that, indeed, it is vastly more difficult to conceal anything today in the era of smart-phones. Just a naval example--modern subs today are so silent that the next step is to make them sound exactly as the ocean's background noise. Albeit, the development of non-acoustic detection means is really impressive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @SergeKrieger
    I think facts that do not fit into their world view are being ignored or changed to reflect those views.
    Also, they bring those crazy numbers like 5:1 numerical superiority. well, it was in those decisive points achieved by maneuvered hide by maskirovka and distraction.

    All those excuses brought by those who lost doe snot include the fact they had massive advantage by catching Soviet military with pants down and military leadership in state of transition after purges of 1937-1940. No European power survived this kind of onslaught and all of them collapsed within few weeks. Despite you being polite towards US military, I think US GIs have never been in similar situations. I have serious doubt about their ability to fight and plainly being sane under similar circumstances. Despite savagery the war in Far East was nothing even remotely comparable to Eastern front and Soviet Manchurian operation showed clearly that Japanese were not on same level as Germans.

    Also, they bring those crazy numbers like 5:1 numerical superiority. well, it was in those decisive points achieved by maneuvered hide by maskirovka and distraction.

    One of the theses of Leavenworth Papers (by Lieutenant Colonel Connor) I referred to earlier

    http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16040coll3/id/133

    dedicates a very large portion of a work to a strategic concealment (maskirovka) and amassing of the troops on main axes–both are an integral and high level parts of military art. Both Stalingrad and Kursk saw similar operations. Speaking of the mass, this is precisely the issue of force density. As per comparison of wars, I will later simply scan some of David Eisenhower’s conclusions from his, as I already mentioned not for once, outstanding work (which also became #1 National Bestseller in 1988). It will illustrate a difference quite explicitly. But I am sure, those will be legendary Ike’s grandson’s “personal opinions” and “cherry picking”, after all, what can possibly Eisenhower’s family and circle know about war;-))

    Read More
    • Replies: @SergeKrieger
    I will try and get Eisenhower book you mentioned. But I wonder, is same level of maskirovka possible today under satellites watchful eyes or in case of war all satellites basically will be shot out of the sky and hence back to fighting blind.
    also, I know the numbers. USSR had population of around 200 million in 1941. 80 million resided in areas occupied by Germans by December 1941. Hence with left 120 million which was slightly above 80 million Germany proper had and more with allies it was impossible for Soviet Union to field 5;1 numerical superiority. Not to forget that most of 1941 summer forces were captured or killed.
    There also was need for people to work at the factories.

    BTW, I did not read Krivosheev but I think there was misunderstanding about numbers where that guy mentioned about 7 million dead in 1944 alone is probably because Krivosheev probably mentioned USSR total losses in dead by the end of 1944 from June 1941 as around 7 million?

    I will try to ruminate through these links this weekend.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    Even if it were true I wonder who caused Wehrmacht to become skeletal and disorganized in the first place.
     
    Speaking of the devil;-) Our friends here, while being so "scientific" with "interpreting" tables, forget, of course, to look at the start of those pesky tables of numerical ratios of Axis and of the Red Army, which from 22 June 1941 through December 1941 (5 months) fought being outnumbered 1 to 1.4 in Summer to being twice smaller (1 to 1.9) in November 1941. Of course, I will scan this table too. Yet, somehow those Slavic an other non-Slavic untermensch not only continued to fight but by the end of 1941 did ground Wehrmacht, fresh from its lighting victories in Europe, to the halt at Moscow and then kicked it back. Obviously, if we consider those (I simplify this for readability) Fire Power coefficients (issue of force density also arises here), and that is what was considered throughout whole war by STAVKA and General Staff, we would see that not only Red Army in 1941 was grossly outnumbered, it was grossly outgunned and remained so till the end of 1942. Yet, vaunted Wehrmacht encountered its own losses on the scale unlike anything it experienced in its Western campaign. So, using our friend Twinkie's insightful definition, we may clearly state, which is an absolutely irrefutable fact, that Wehrmacht fought "skeletal" Red Army throughout 1941 and even early 1942.

    I think facts that do not fit into their world view are being ignored or changed to reflect those views.
    Also, they bring those crazy numbers like 5:1 numerical superiority. well, it was in those decisive points achieved by maneuvered hide by maskirovka and distraction.

    All those excuses brought by those who lost doe snot include the fact they had massive advantage by catching Soviet military with pants down and military leadership in state of transition after purges of 1937-1940. No European power survived this kind of onslaught and all of them collapsed within few weeks. Despite you being polite towards US military, I think US GIs have never been in similar situations. I have serious doubt about their ability to fight and plainly being sane under similar circumstances. Despite savagery the war in Far East was nothing even remotely comparable to Eastern front and Soviet Manchurian operation showed clearly that Japanese were not on same level as Germans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Also, they bring those crazy numbers like 5:1 numerical superiority. well, it was in those decisive points achieved by maneuvered hide by maskirovka and distraction.
     
    One of the theses of Leavenworth Papers (by Lieutenant Colonel Connor) I referred to earlier

    http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16040coll3/id/133

    dedicates a very large portion of a work to a strategic concealment (maskirovka) and amassing of the troops on main axes--both are an integral and high level parts of military art. Both Stalingrad and Kursk saw similar operations. Speaking of the mass, this is precisely the issue of force density. As per comparison of wars, I will later simply scan some of David Eisenhower's conclusions from his, as I already mentioned not for once, outstanding work (which also became #1 National Bestseller in 1988). It will illustrate a difference quite explicitly. But I am sure, those will be legendary Ike's grandson's "personal opinions" and "cherry picking", after all, what can possibly Eisenhower's family and circle know about war;-))

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @SergeKrieger
    "Of course, you love talking about Bagration. It was the one final victorious Soviet operation that essentially destroyed the already skeletal and disorganized Germany army in the East."

    Even if it were true I wonder who caused Wehrmacht to become skeletal and disorganized in the first place.
    You have some serious anti Russian issues and bad attitude toward different opinions.
    By the way, do you think you are not influenced by what you call propaganda in Smoothie case?

    Even if it were true I wonder who caused Wehrmacht to become skeletal and disorganized in the first place.

    Speaking of the devil;-) Our friends here, while being so “scientific” with “interpreting” tables, forget, of course, to look at the start of those pesky tables of numerical ratios of Axis and of the Red Army, which from 22 June 1941 through December 1941 (5 months) fought being outnumbered 1 to 1.4 in Summer to being twice smaller (1 to 1.9) in November 1941. Of course, I will scan this table too. Yet, somehow those Slavic an other non-Slavic untermensch not only continued to fight but by the end of 1941 did ground Wehrmacht, fresh from its lighting victories in Europe, to the halt at Moscow and then kicked it back. Obviously, if we consider those (I simplify this for readability) Fire Power coefficients (issue of force density also arises here), and that is what was considered throughout whole war by STAVKA and General Staff, we would see that not only Red Army in 1941 was grossly outnumbered, it was grossly outgunned and remained so till the end of 1942. Yet, vaunted Wehrmacht encountered its own losses on the scale unlike anything it experienced in its Western campaign. So, using our friend Twinkie’s insightful definition, we may clearly state, which is an absolutely irrefutable fact, that Wehrmacht fought “skeletal” Red Army throughout 1941 and even early 1942.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SergeKrieger
    I think facts that do not fit into their world view are being ignored or changed to reflect those views.
    Also, they bring those crazy numbers like 5:1 numerical superiority. well, it was in those decisive points achieved by maneuvered hide by maskirovka and distraction.

    All those excuses brought by those who lost doe snot include the fact they had massive advantage by catching Soviet military with pants down and military leadership in state of transition after purges of 1937-1940. No European power survived this kind of onslaught and all of them collapsed within few weeks. Despite you being polite towards US military, I think US GIs have never been in similar situations. I have serious doubt about their ability to fight and plainly being sane under similar circumstances. Despite savagery the war in Far East was nothing even remotely comparable to Eastern front and Soviet Manchurian operation showed clearly that Japanese were not on same level as Germans.

    , @Twinkie

    Yet, somehow those Slavic an other non-Slavic untermensch not only continued to fight
     
    Nobody brought up the Nazi racial concepts here but you. Will you stop with these stupid straw man arguments?

    In comment 158 above, I attributed the relative combat deficiencies of the Soviet soldiery (in comparison to that of the Nazi Germans) to the simple facts of lack of education and training, not to some innate racial defects.

    In the same comment, I praised the Soviet soldiers for being probably tougher and more inured to hardship than the Germans.

    My assessments of the respective fighting qualities of the World War II Germans and Russians is not out of ethnic animus or ideology (I loathe both Nazism and communism).

    but by the end of 1941 did ground Wehrmacht, fresh from its lighting victories in Europe, to the halt at Moscow and then kicked it back.
     
    Of course, you do realize that:

    1. Hitler diverted Army Group Center from the Moscow axis to a) northward to aid the capture of Leningrad and, more crucially, b) southward to capture Ukraine over the strong objections of the many of the generals, because he capriciously changed his mind and opted for economic objectives over political-logistical one when the final victory was not achieved quickly enough for his taste.

    2. And that diversion as well as the intelligence from East Asia that Japan would "go South" (attack the Western Allies in the Pacific and Southeast Asia) and not "go North" (attack the Soviet Union) provided the Soviets with the time and opportunity to bring 30 fresh Siberian divisions to stiffen the defense of Moscow.

    3. The rain and resultant mud during the delay proved to be critically damaging to the German motorized movement once they resumed their attack along the Moscow axis.

    4. And that the Germans, though incurring MUCH smaller casualties than the Soviets could not replenish those casualties as well as the latter, and, being at the very end of a very long supply line, were at the end of their tether operationally.

    And yet for all that, one of their reconnaissance battalions still captured the bridge over the Moscow-Volga canal. In 1941, the Germans came within a proverbial inch of defeating or fatally wounding the Soviet Union, but fortunately did not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Twinkie

    Now to more substantial issues: war (real one, not some COIN)
     
    Hey, jackass, in what "real war" have you been?

    In, going back to topic of Bagration
     
    Of course, you love talking about Bagration. It was the one final victorious Soviet operation that essentially destroyed the already skeletal and disorganized Germany army in the East.

    Why don't you regale us with your great professional expertise about the Third Battle of Kharkov in 1943? You know, when the German army in the East still had some semblance of organization, air support, and intact command and operational structure. How well did the glorious Soviet doctrine of Deep Battle work out when outnumbering the Germans 5-to-1, the Soviets managed to be counterattacked and out-killed by the Germans 10-to-1 (and losing over 50 divisions)?

    “Of course, you love talking about Bagration. It was the one final victorious Soviet operation that essentially destroyed the already skeletal and disorganized Germany army in the East.”

    Even if it were true I wonder who caused Wehrmacht to become skeletal and disorganized in the first place.
    You have some serious anti Russian issues and bad attitude toward different opinions.
    By the way, do you think you are not influenced by what you call propaganda in Smoothie case?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Even if it were true I wonder who caused Wehrmacht to become skeletal and disorganized in the first place.
     
    Speaking of the devil;-) Our friends here, while being so "scientific" with "interpreting" tables, forget, of course, to look at the start of those pesky tables of numerical ratios of Axis and of the Red Army, which from 22 June 1941 through December 1941 (5 months) fought being outnumbered 1 to 1.4 in Summer to being twice smaller (1 to 1.9) in November 1941. Of course, I will scan this table too. Yet, somehow those Slavic an other non-Slavic untermensch not only continued to fight but by the end of 1941 did ground Wehrmacht, fresh from its lighting victories in Europe, to the halt at Moscow and then kicked it back. Obviously, if we consider those (I simplify this for readability) Fire Power coefficients (issue of force density also arises here), and that is what was considered throughout whole war by STAVKA and General Staff, we would see that not only Red Army in 1941 was grossly outnumbered, it was grossly outgunned and remained so till the end of 1942. Yet, vaunted Wehrmacht encountered its own losses on the scale unlike anything it experienced in its Western campaign. So, using our friend Twinkie's insightful definition, we may clearly state, which is an absolutely irrefutable fact, that Wehrmacht fought "skeletal" Red Army throughout 1941 and even early 1942.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Twinkie

    not the illiterate faux-academic contrived BS you wrote
     
    For someone who whines about ad hominem, you sure do use it a lot.

    “force” and “power”
     
    Yes, apparently such concepts are above your pay grade of running operations of a Soviet tank battalion.

    This sums up your level. When no arguments are present this is the only thing you can have.
    Heard of Caucasus ever? Unless you are Vietnam Vet (specifically Vietnam), there is really nothing to talk about.
     
    I think you ought to look at the mirror as this line of "reasoning" seems to reflect YOUR "level," and, for that matter, your lack of logical consistency and intellectual honesty (another hallmark of a Soviet product).

    You implied earlier by this phrase - "war (real one, not some COIN)" - that COIN (or LIC) was not "real war." When I asked you in what real war - by your definition - you fought, you alluded to the Caucasus. The last conventional war the Soviet Union fought in the Caucasus was in 1943. Are you a World War II vet?

    Of course, the Chechen wars came to mind in the more recent years (mid-1990's and 1999-2000), but you specifically wrote earlier this:

    since this Jedi spent 11 years in Soviet Armed Forces, more than 5 of them as an officer, after military academy, including on operational level, plus including some really funny events I had to participate in, not that I wanted to.
     
    Soviet officer, you wrote, not Russian, so you couldn't have fought in the Chechen wars.

    Furthermore, even if you were a veteran of the battles of Grozny, you disparaged COIN earlier, and the last time I checked the Chechens did not have "real air defenses" and such, the lack of which in America's recent opponents you used to disparage the U.S Armed Forces and their capabilities.

    So again, by your own definition, in what "real war" have you fought? You have some explaining to do, comrade. Might I suggest a healthy session of self-criticism?

    Why should I? It was a strategic blunder with the obvious outcome.
     
    Just like that. Dismissed with a wave of a hand. How convenient. This sounds a lot like boxers who get knocked out, who say that they are actually great fighters, but just "got caught once or twice."

    Did the Soviet military personnel only study victories? What happened to the vaunted "Deep Battle" doctrine? In your own words earlier, I thought the Soviet doctrine of deep battle apparently demolished the German doctrine of Blitzkrieg? Does Deep Battle only work when fighting a grossly outnumbered and overmatched enemy that is on the verge of disintegration (as in your favorite case of Bagration)?

    By the way, this comparison of yours shows an utter lack of historical knowledge on the topic - "Blitzkrieg" was a popular propaganda term that was quickly adopted by the press, it was not an actual military doctrine. The German mobile warfare doctrine of World War II was synthesized from the infantry infiltration tactics developed in the late World War I and used with some success in the Spring "Ludendorff" Offensive (aka Kaiserschlacht; the tactical innovations are attributed to Oskar von Hutier, though he was not alone in formulating it) and the nascent mechanization/motorization, radio communication, and air force development in the 20's and the early 30's by men such as Heinz Guderian (who, interestingly, began his career as a signal officer) and Wilhem Ritter von Thoma (with strong influence from Western theorists such as J.F.C. Fuller and B.H. Liddell Hart), then experimented/refined in the Spanish Civil War (with a slight detour in technical development via Soviet Union before the Nazis came to power, as the Soviet Union allowed Weimar Germany to conduct experiments and weapons development sub rosa in the Soviet Union).

    And of course there were parallel developments in other countries, mostly Britain and the Soviet Union (your vaunted "Deep Battle") though such developments lagged behind or otherwise was quite faulty compared to that in interwar Germany. And, in the case of the Soviet mobile warfare doctrine, as you probably know, Triandafillov died early, and others such as Tukhachevky were liquidated in the Purges, so the concept was stillborn (and, worse, politically repudiated). Although the Russians subsequently upheld "Deep Battle" as a native innovation, in reality the Russians learned much from their opponents through the bitter war (as van Creveld is fond of saying, war is a mutually-learning and -imitating activity).

    I am absolutely not interested in Creveld of Dupuy
     
    Of course not. They are inconvenient to your arguments. I note that van Creveld is an Israeli. And he has been critical of both the Israeli and U.S. armed forces (for many interesting reasons, which are regrettably outside the scope of this discussion). As far as World War II historiography goes, he has no reason to celebrate the successes of Nazi Germany. On the contrary he has all the reasons to denigrate it. So when he compares the performance of the World War II German army favorably to that of the Allied powers, he is being an objective analyst and historian who is interested in the lessons of why. I know of no serious historian/analyst of respective national military performances of World War II who has not read Creveld's "Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance 1939-1945."

    while we are on the issue of the Combined Arms Warfare and its relation to history, we may as well put it to practical use. Right? I hope you agree with me that issue of Force (not the illiterate faux-academic contrived BS you wrote several posts ago about “force” and “power”) and how it is applied is a crucial one? I would love you to comment on operational coefficients which go into the “real war” and define how real planning and execution are conducted. Then we will see what kind of “historian” you are.
     
    You are pretty incoherent here (apparently you picked up childish and vulgar colloquialisms such as "butthurt" but cannot put together a coherent sentence in English). Try again.

    Sure, destroying Nazi military machine and ending up in Berlin is really nothing, you know, peanuts. Accidental victory.
     
    Are you stupid, hypocritical or deceptive?

    For the umpteenth time, NO ONE, NO ONE, is denying that the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany in World War II (with assistance from the Western allies, of course). Let me try to use small words and a simple arithmetical example to explain this concept to you: if an army of a country with 30 million troops and 50,000 tanks defeat another country with 10 million troops and 20,000 tanks in a long, bitter war by losing 15 million troops and devastating much of its own territory, whether or not it won the war, can you say that it performed better than that of the defeated, particularly on per capita basis? After all, didn't the Soviet Union defeat Finland too? Does that mean the Soviet military performed better than that of Finland?

    "Deep Battle" did not defeat the German mobile warfare doctrine. On anything close to materially equal footing, the Germans consistently outfought the Soviets. Even when the Germans were severely outnumbered, had no air cover, they still outfought greatly the Russians when they were given the freedom of maneuver by their national command. Germans lost the war, not because their soldiers were less effective than Soviet soldiers, but because the German national command - Hitler - put them in an exceptionally poor grand strategic position of fighting a two-front war against two massive continental powers and because he failed to utilize the comparative advantage the Germans had - the high quality of their fighting men and their superior battle-craft.

    Both Hitler and Stalin were amateurs. Hitler's forbidding of elastic defense and his obsession, instead, with great offensives and static defense ("no retreat") doomed the Germans and sealed his own fate - instead of listening to leaders such as von Manstein and Guderian who wanted to preserve a large mobile reserve and fight a series of defense-offense/elastic defense operations a la Kharkov 1943, Hitler threw and then wasted the last large-scale operational reserve the Germans had in "Zitadelle" (Kursk) and lost the war.

    Stalin wasn't exactly better. His fantasy orders in 1941 for "immediate counterattacks" against the Germans were in the same league of insanity as Hitler in late 1944 moving nonexistent corps and divisions on his bunker map. The two madmen fought a pitiless war of attrition with millions of hapless lives and, predictably, the one with a bigger country, more numerous population, greater industrial capacity, and fewer enemies won in the end after a massive bloodbath.

    That ending doesn't say anything about the actual fighting qualities of the men involved at the tactical and operational levels.

    One Wehrmacht soldier killed on average 200.5 Soviets. It is well-known fact?
     
    Stop with the stupid straw man. Even an idiot with only access to Wikipedia can see the estimates:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union (Krivosheev's numbers are not some magical lore only accessible to Russian speakers; this link contains a good summary of his findings and the critiques of the same.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II

    By the way, this comparison of yours shows an utter lack of historical knowledge on the topic – “Blitzkrieg” was a popular propaganda term that was quickly adopted by the press, it was not an actual military doctrine.

    Attached here are two scans from otherwise Three-volume set of The West Point Military History Series by the Department Of History of the United States Military Academy, Senior Editor Brigadier General Thomas E. Gries. ISBN 0-89529-424-9. Scans are from my copy of this wonderful set.

    or

    Sir, I don’t know what are your purpose here but your continuous stating of either platitudes, well-known pop-facts or outright unprofessional delirium mixed with propaganda is really beginning to look preposterous. I, again, ask you to provide references to your articles, which were “peers reviewed”. I hope you understand that I am not interested in arguing with you on any matters other than of military history of Eastern Front. Moreover, I allow you to call me coward, idiot, jackass or whatever floats your boat but show me just a single sign that you are a professional in at least any field relevant to anything military.

    If you have issues with West Point’s Department Of History, their contact numbers are easily found on the internet. I know, I know–it is their “private opinion” and “cherry picking” but we will get to it in time. As to the point–everyone knows that Blitzkrieg was a label.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I hope you understand that I am not interested in arguing with you on any matters other than of military history of Eastern Front.
     
    And yet you seem to ignore what I wrote about the Eastern Front and engage me with ad hominem on everything else.

    Moreover, I allow you to call me coward, idiot, jackass or whatever floats your boat but show me just a single sign that you are a professional in at least any field relevant to anything military.
     
    I called you a jackass for implying that the U.S. forces have not been in "real wars" of late, but I never called you a coward (to make that determination, I'd have to meet you and get to know you in person). Stop making things up and stop portraying yourself as a victim.

    As far as this "sign," it is impossible since your logic is circular, along the lines of "1) Show me a sign that you know anything about war or military affairs. 2) Everything you say is amateur, academic BS, etc. etc. 3) Show me a sign." Since you are the sole arbiter of what is and is not a sign of being "a professional in at least any field relevant to anything military," it doesn't matter what I say or write. You will just dismiss it with a wave of a hand and then call me names.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @SergeKrieger
    Man, have mercy upon me. I am out of my league here.
    I get it you must be meaning some equations to which various battle situations are being reduced to to reduce complexity and provide some templates.

    Anyway, bean counting is never sure thing in this business.

    Anyway, bean counting is never sure thing in this business.

    Absolutely, but that is why, usually (not always), the leading (as well as sets of sub criteria) operational criteria is a Probability of the event. For duel, it is relatively easy to calculate, for mechanized corps on the offensive–well, that is where it all becomes interesting;-) In fact, even probabilities ARE often the most serious secret since can disclose some of the capabilities. That is why Tactical and Operational Manuals are highly guarded state secret–you know, all those pesky Alphas, Sigmas, Omegas which go into the Salvo modelling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Absolutely, but that is why, usually (not always), the leading (as well as sets of sub criteria) operational criteria is a Probability of the event. For duel, it is relatively easy to calculate, for mechanized corps on the offensive–well, that is where it all becomes interesting;-) In fact, even probabilities ARE often the most serious secret since can disclose some of the capabilities. That is why Tactical and Operational Manuals are highly guarded state secret–you know, all those pesky Alphas, Sigmas, Omegas which go into the Salvo modelling. [Boldface mine.]
     
    Jim Dunnigan used to tell an amusing story about his early days as a commercial war game designer several decades ago (early '70's I think). I don't recall which game it was (probably PanzerBlitz) or what the exact numbers were, but the story goes that he and a friend came up with a probability ratio for one of his war games rather casually. It was one of those games with hexagonal maps and rectangular counters displaying force type, size, and mobility (number of hexes they can move in a turn). The thought process was something like, "Gee, I think if the correlations of forces were 3-to-1 attackers-to-defenders, maybe dice rolls of 1 would be the attacker destroyed, 2-3 would be stalemate, and 4-6 would be defender destroyed and attacker occupies the hexagon."

    Then according to Dunnigan, after the game was published, he was visited by some folks from the USG, who interrogated him on how he "obtained" this ratio of probabilities. They just would not believe that Dunnigan came up with it off-the-cuff and apparently suspected that he obtained leaked USG research. Dunnigan claimed he later found out the U.S. army spent considerable resources, millions of dollars, into probabilities research and came up with essentially the same ratio as he did after a few dice throws. Or so he'd like to tell.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Twinkie

    Obviously, Twinkie’s fascination with DePuy... he doesn’t understand the issues discussed in DuPuy’s
     
    His name is Trevor Dupuy, not "DePuy," not "DuPuy."

    And, no, I am not "fascinated" with Dupuy's work (if you looked at his calculations in "Number, Prediction and War," he makes some significant mathematical errors, something acknowledged by even his ardent defenders). I am generally not a big fan of applying operations research to war. But he was a pioneer in his field in the U.S. so I am acquainted with his work.

    I am generally not a big fan of applying operations research to war. But he was a pioneer in his field in the U.S. so I am acquainted with his work.

    You just made my day;-) Let’s start from the beginning of this gem of a stratagem of yours.

    1. So YOU (personally) with all your years of combat, military academies, staff and war colleges and your experience as a military historian ARE NOT a big fan. Well, let me break some news to you, the moment Osipov-Lanchester Equations were discovered (during WW I) the Theory Of Operations was born. It existed, of course, even before that but about this–later, when you will expose even more of your profound knowledge of warfare and military history. So, the classic form of the system of dA/dt=-bB and dB/dt=-aA was born then. I am sure you will have no problem in solving those simple differential equations (those are separable variables and integrating them is really easy;-) and seeing for yourself why it became known as a Quadratic Law;-) Since then, ALL serious General Staffs started using it. In fact, by the start of the WW II NO serious military operation was planned without what any General (and other) Staffs do for a living–calculations. Obviously the trick was in those “a” and “b” coefficients which, later, became known as firepower coefficients, but, again, about this later too. But not only calculation, in the end, of Fractional Exchange Rates became the bread and butter but knowing and understanding the meaning of those small a-s and b-s. I will write about this later–some people asked me to do that explanation in my blog, hell, in a presence of such esteemed military historian such as yourself I may as well do it here. I’ll give you an example, calculation of Operational Sweep Rates defined how British Patrol Aviation planned its operations in Biskay during WW II, but what do those Britons know, right? So, you are, basically, saying that you discovered something new in warfare which leading armed forces of the world missed when they started basing all of their operational planning on that–from pre-WW II times up to our day. Because I need to go now (some circumstances changed) I will cut short this kindergarten intro to OT but will make, however, comment about your pearl:

    But he was a pioneer in his field in the U.S. so I am acquainted with his work.

    Really, I mean really;-))) Well, specially for you, my dear, a hyperlink to an outstanding and famous OEG 51st Report immediately after….drum roll..WW II. I suggest you browse the whole thing, which is, as it turns out, ALL about Operational Research from the times when Colonel Dupuy was still…let say infancy. You know what OEG stands for? Operations Evaluation Group, it was 1946. So, dear, sir. Since I have to (sadly) leave for a little bit, you may consult your consciousness if you want to continue with serious operational review of some (selective) WW II operations and research their utterly nonlinear nature. Before I go, here is a link directly to the 51st Report and remember the names of people who wrote it. I can tell you, though, one thing–I was taught by people who would put your Creveld with his Ph.D. in political science and “history” to shame in 10 minutes flat.

    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/ASW-51/ASW-11.html

    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/ASW-51/index.html#contents

    P.S. Yes, again, NO operations are planned and executed without…see above;-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Really, I mean really;-))) Well, specially for you, my dear, a hyperlink to an outstanding and famous OEG 51st Report immediately after….drum roll..WW II. I suggest you browse the whole thing, which is, as it turns out, ALL about Operational Research from the times when Colonel Dupuy was still…let say infancy.
     
    The term is "operations research" (or analysis) not "operational research." They are different things.

    I did not state, suggest or imply that the late Trevor Dupuy was the inventor or originator of the use of operations research for war, as I am well-aware of the history of the field (having, during my student days, done considerable research on the topic as it relates to the Vietnam War). But Dupuy was a pioneer in using operations research and formulating a predictive model for battle outcomes (particularly as it relates to history) in the United States. So I familiarize myself with his work, going so far as to re-do some of his calculations in "Numbers, Predictions and War."

    As far as why I am not a "big fan" of using operations research as it relates to war is a very lengthy and complex topic, and I don't wish to open another front in this already sprawling discussion. But, to simplify extremely, it comes down to this. In terms of prescriptive purpose, operations research is obviously great for calibrating inputs for obtaining specific outputs based on past data of a given system (or conversely, maximizing outputs by calibrating the inputs differently). That obviously has much utility in various aspects of war (especially as it relates to logistics and such).

    But for me there are two major issues with this as it relates to the art of war (whether strategic or operational). First, war is not a unitary system. It is a contest of wills, bodies, and materials of at least two foes - foes who always adapt to each other (if one party fails to adapt, he loses, and the war is over). Because of the mutually-imitating, -learning, and -adaptive nature of war, calibrations based on past data tend to be reactive and not predictive of future changes of the opponent - meaning, anticipating the adaptations of the enemy to one's moves. In war, which is a highly time-sensitive activity, reacting can be deadly (I am sure you know all about the OODA loop). This is the "art" (not the "science") part of war. The ability to anticipate the "unknowns" of the enemy in a timely fashion is not something that can be calculated quantitatively. A reasonable amount of quantitative analysis is useful, but ultimately the final decision in matters of life and death is in the realm of "finger feel" to paraphrase a German expression.

    Second, operations research tells us what and how well, but is not very good at telling us why. You seem to fixate on numerical issues like aggregation of firepower and such, but in my view, in war intangibles (leadership, genius, courage/fear, cohesion, etc.) matter more. While these can be captured in the what's and how's by operations research, the why's is not, and operations research may even provide faulty "why's," leading to future failures. The lessons of Alain Enthoven (and his boss Robert McNamara) regarding Vietnam is an obvious example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    Exactly. Nobody is talking about the art of war, generalship and social factors.
     
    Oh, I am about to start;-) I want to discuss with our friends here Salvo (equation) models and ask our esteemed historian to comment on the process of operational planning, such as Force Sizing and how operational coefficients formed, together with criteria of success. Obviously, Twinkie's fascination with DePuy comes from the simple fact that he doesn't understand the issues discussed in DuPuy's and others works--usually material which starts on Tactics And Operational Theory Departments in any respected military academy in the world;-)

    Man, have mercy upon me. I am out of my league here.
    I get it you must be meaning some equations to which various battle situations are being reduced to to reduce complexity and provide some templates.

    Anyway, bean counting is never sure thing in this business.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Anyway, bean counting is never sure thing in this business.
     
    Absolutely, but that is why, usually (not always), the leading (as well as sets of sub criteria) operational criteria is a Probability of the event. For duel, it is relatively easy to calculate, for mechanized corps on the offensive--well, that is where it all becomes interesting;-) In fact, even probabilities ARE often the most serious secret since can disclose some of the capabilities. That is why Tactical and Operational Manuals are highly guarded state secret--you know, all those pesky Alphas, Sigmas, Omegas which go into the Salvo modelling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    You are a joke. I once sat next to General Norman Schwarzkopf. Does that make me a combat veteran of Desert Shield and Desert Storm? Are you that desperate for glories of “real war” (again, your term, not mine) that you are now mentioning people who sat next to you when you were a naval cadet?

    So, to recap, you don’t have any real war experience, but you do go around denigrating the U.S. military and its operations and capabilities for not having fought opponents with “real air defense” in what you consider to be less than “real wars.”

    Please, provide my quotations here about about “denigrating” US Army? I do respect American soldier, I do have a very warm feelings to US (and Allied in general) servicemen. I DO admire US Navy’s magnificent battles in Pacific and heroism of its sailors and marines. What “sitting next to General Shwartzkopf” has anything to do with it? It was you who brought here your “combat” experience, not me–want a reminder? You threw at me another argument that you have some works published–please, provide references. I did provide mine. Yes, I do not have “combat” experience, I just was almost killed several rimes while serving. Now, I already gave you my credentials, the only thing I hear from you is that you have fought. OK, I am very happy for you that you sat next to Norman, whom I do respect as a man and as a professional. But I’ll be home in the next couple of hours and we’ll continue out “discussion”, in a very to the point and practical matter.

    See ya later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Please, provide my quotations here about about “denigrating” US Army?
     
    Let's see, these are your quotes:

    That’s the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a future war with real armies, air forces, air defenses and naval power.
     
    And:

    war (real one, not some COIN)
     
    "Not some COIN"? That sure comes off derisive to me.

    It seems to me that you are suggesting here that because the U.S. forces have not fought "real armies" with "air forces, air defense and naval power" and because it has instead engaged in irregular warfare worldwide or otherwise fought against "Third World" forces, it has not fought a "real war" per your definition of what real war is. So, all the American KIAs in OIF and OEF, including several of my blood brothers and friends died in what? A fake war?

    Ordinarily I could not care less what your credentials were or were not. I would not even have cared if you were some idiotic teenager sitting in your mother's basement, provided you made intellectually honest and robust arguments. But your derision toward the type of conflict the U.S. armed forces have engaged in the past decade and the sacrifices they have made me quite angry. And that is why I asked you whether YOU, by your OWN DEFINITION, have ever fought in a "real war."

    And then you compounded the insult by deceitfully replying as if you had. This was your first response:

    Heard of Caucasus ever? Unless you are Vietnam Vet (specifically Vietnam), there is really nothing to talk about.
     
    You were implying here that you had "real war" experience in the Caucasus. Of course, that sounded fishy to say the least, so when I pointed out that the Soviet Union had not fought a conventional war in the Caucasus since World War II, you STILL tried to act as if you had "real war" experience by rambling forth as follows:

    Of course, you never heard of Nagorny Karabakh or what was happening in Azerbaijan. I can give you even the start of all mayhem–mid-November 1988 and barely stopped since then. But I am not insisting on describing what and how things were happening there, it is of no consequence here.

    Now about my “credentials”, and “tank battalion” you may read about them in the end of my US Naval Institute Proceedings Article but I’ll help you. Graduate of Caspian (Kirov) High Red Banner Naval Academy in Baku, class of 1985. Advanced degree in Gyro-inertial navigational complexes of the strategic missile systems (focus on pr. 667B-BD Delta I-II class SSBNs). Degree with specialization of Command VUS (ask Creveld what it is), including command of unit of Naval Infantry (marines), apart from other interesting things. Went to serve on surface ships and for some years guarded maritime border between USSR and Iran. Among my class-mates are former (I am 53) COs of submarines, surface ships, professors in Kuznetsov Naval Academy (Naval War College), Admirals and COs of large ground units which fought in Chechnya and even Afghan veterans. I think, I will stop here. I ended my service for health reasons (you know, when bogeys shoot at you, and even friendlies) early 1991. You tend to develop all kinds of health problems, my was simple–I bled with my stomach, but that is just nuance. [Bold faces mine.]
     
    Of course, I then pointed out the problem with using the Nagorno-Karabakh c. 1988 as the place where you experienced this "real war." And of course the rest is irrelevant credential chest-thumping, including, rather comically and desperately, the combat and command experiences of people with whom you went to school!

    And now that I have unparsed your attempt to portray yourself as someone with "real war" experience, you retreat to this:

    Yes, I do not have “combat” experience, I just was almost killed several rimes while serving.
     
    Whatever that means. And then, of course, when you can't defend your own posturing, you must attack the questioner, so you go on the offense:

    It was you who brought here your “combat” experience, not me–want a reminder?
     
    I worked in U.S. politics for some years as well. I must say, you would be an excellent fit for political campaigns and press offices.

    If you had any sense of honor or integrity, instead of all this posturing to make yourself seem like a combat veteran, you would have simply replied one of two ways 1) "No, I have not been in a real war. But that doesn't alter the substance of my argument that the U.S. has not fought in a real war for some time." Or 2) "No, I have not been in a war, and I am sorry if I implied that all the American servicemen I [supposedly] admire had not been in real war in the past decade."

    Instead of being a man of honor, you tried to be squirrely and you were found out.

    Now, I already gave you my credentials, the only thing I hear from you is that you have fought.
     
    I wish to remain anonymous, so the advantage is yours.

    All I will say is to repeat what I have mentioned elsewhere on this site in the past. I grew up in East Asia. I attended an Ivy League university and then went onto a top-10 (in the U.S.) Ph.D. program in my field. Then I worked as an academic (historian specializing in military history) for some years and then decided to leave it for both personal and political reasons. I then served my country overseas in numerous assignments (Europe, the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia). I have fought in a war (not "real war" according to you). I was wounded and lost friends at war.

    I still consult, so I am not keen to advertise myself. And that's all I am going to say whether or not you call me names or engage in hysterics.

    I come to Unz Review mainly to comment on HBD and political issues. I read mostly Messrs. Sailer and Khan, and am not a regular reader of Mr. Karlin, but his interesting attempt to turn national military capabilities into comparative indices drew me to comment on the thread.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    Exactly. Nobody is talking about the art of war, generalship and social factors.
     
    Oh, I am about to start;-) I want to discuss with our friends here Salvo (equation) models and ask our esteemed historian to comment on the process of operational planning, such as Force Sizing and how operational coefficients formed, together with criteria of success. Obviously, Twinkie's fascination with DePuy comes from the simple fact that he doesn't understand the issues discussed in DuPuy's and others works--usually material which starts on Tactics And Operational Theory Departments in any respected military academy in the world;-)

    Obviously, Twinkie’s fascination with DePuy… he doesn’t understand the issues discussed in DuPuy’s

    His name is Trevor Dupuy, not “DePuy,” not “DuPuy.”

    And, no, I am not “fascinated” with Dupuy’s work (if you looked at his calculations in “Number, Prediction and War,” he makes some significant mathematical errors, something acknowledged by even his ardent defenders). I am generally not a big fan of applying operations research to war. But he was a pioneer in his field in the U.S. so I am acquainted with his work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I am generally not a big fan of applying operations research to war. But he was a pioneer in his field in the U.S. so I am acquainted with his work.
     
    You just made my day;-) Let's start from the beginning of this gem of a stratagem of yours.

    1. So YOU (personally) with all your years of combat, military academies, staff and war colleges and your experience as a military historian ARE NOT a big fan. Well, let me break some news to you, the moment Osipov-Lanchester Equations were discovered (during WW I) the Theory Of Operations was born. It existed, of course, even before that but about this--later, when you will expose even more of your profound knowledge of warfare and military history. So, the classic form of the system of dA/dt=-bB and dB/dt=-aA was born then. I am sure you will have no problem in solving those simple differential equations (those are separable variables and integrating them is really easy;-) and seeing for yourself why it became known as a Quadratic Law;-) Since then, ALL serious General Staffs started using it. In fact, by the start of the WW II NO serious military operation was planned without what any General (and other) Staffs do for a living--calculations. Obviously the trick was in those "a" and "b" coefficients which, later, became known as firepower coefficients, but, again, about this later too. But not only calculation, in the end, of Fractional Exchange Rates became the bread and butter but knowing and understanding the meaning of those small a-s and b-s. I will write about this later--some people asked me to do that explanation in my blog, hell, in a presence of such esteemed military historian such as yourself I may as well do it here. I'll give you an example, calculation of Operational Sweep Rates defined how British Patrol Aviation planned its operations in Biskay during WW II, but what do those Britons know, right? So, you are, basically, saying that you discovered something new in warfare which leading armed forces of the world missed when they started basing all of their operational planning on that--from pre-WW II times up to our day. Because I need to go now (some circumstances changed) I will cut short this kindergarten intro to OT but will make, however, comment about your pearl:


    But he was a pioneer in his field in the U.S. so I am acquainted with his work.

     

    Really, I mean really;-))) Well, specially for you, my dear, a hyperlink to an outstanding and famous OEG 51st Report immediately after....drum roll..WW II. I suggest you browse the whole thing, which is, as it turns out, ALL about Operational Research from the times when Colonel Dupuy was still...let say infancy. You know what OEG stands for? Operations Evaluation Group, it was 1946. So, dear, sir. Since I have to (sadly) leave for a little bit, you may consult your consciousness if you want to continue with serious operational review of some (selective) WW II operations and research their utterly nonlinear nature. Before I go, here is a link directly to the 51st Report and remember the names of people who wrote it. I can tell you, though, one thing--I was taught by people who would put your Creveld with his Ph.D. in political science and "history" to shame in 10 minutes flat.

    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/ASW-51/ASW-11.html

    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/ASW-51/index.html#contents

    P.S. Yes, again, NO operations are planned and executed without...see above;-)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    You implied earlier by this phrase – “war (real one, not some COIN)” – that COIN (or LIC) was not “real war.” When I asked you in what real war – by your definition – you fought, you alluded to the Caucasus. The last conventional war the Soviet Union fought in the Caucasus was in 1943. Are you a World War II vet?

    Of course, the Chechen wars came to mind in the more recent years (mid-1990′s and 1999-2000), but you specifically wrote earlier this:
     
    Of course, you never heard of Nagorny Karabakh or what was happening in Azerbaijan. I can give you even the start of all mayhem--mid-November 1988 and barely stopped since then. But I am not insisting on describing what and how things were happening there, it is of no consequence here.

    Now about my "credentials", and "tank battalion" you may read about them in the end of my US Naval Institute Proceedings Article but I'll help you. Graduate of Caspian (Kirov) High Red Banner Naval Academy in Baku, class of 1985. Advanced degree in Gyro-inertial navigational complexes of the strategic missile systems (focus on pr. 667B-BD Delta I-II class SSBNs). Degree with specialization of Command VUS (ask Creveld what it is), including command of unit of Naval Infantry (marines), apart from other interesting things. Went to serve on surface ships and for some years guarded maritime border between USSR and Iran. Among my class-mates are former (I am 53) COs of submarines, surface ships, professors in Kuznetsov Naval Academy (Naval War College), Admirals and COs of large ground units which fought in Chechnya and even Afghan veterans. I think, I will stop here. I ended my service for health reasons (you know, when bogeys shoot at you, and even friendlies) early 1991. You tend to develop all kinds of health problems, my was simple--I bled with my stomach, but that is just nuance.

    I will answer the rest of you vitriol later, including discussion on how military art works and what numbers mean.

    Of course, you never heard of Nagorny Karabakh or what was happening in Azerbaijan.

    Of course I know about Nagorno-Karabakh. I have Armenian-American acquaintances who helped to finance and even personally participated in the conflict (which I thought was more than a little crazy). But the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan was very small-scale and sporadic prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. So if you participated in the Soviet “state of emergency” in Nagorno-Karabakh, that’s not even COIN let alone “real war” per YOUR definition.

    Among my class-mates are former (I am 53) COs of submarines, surface ships, professors in Kuznetsov Naval Academy (Naval War College), Admirals and COs of large ground units which fought in Chechnya and even Afghan veterans.

    You are a joke. I once sat next to General Norman Schwarzkopf. Does that make me a combat veteran of Desert Shield and Desert Storm? Are you that desperate for glories of “real war” (again, your term, not mine) that you are now mentioning people who sat next to you when you were a naval cadet?

    So, to recap, you don’t have any real war experience, but you do go around denigrating the U.S. military and its operations and capabilities for not having fought opponents with “real air defense” in what you consider to be less than “real wars.”

    Here is an American colloquial expression for you – “That is rich.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @5371
    Your first and second paragraphs contradict each other.

    Your first and second paragraphs contradict each other.

    They do not. The first paragraph refers to the difference between the treatment of POWs on the Western Front and that in the Eastern Front. The second paragraph refers to the difference between the early part of the war and the later periods on the Eastern Front.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    Exactly. Nobody is talking about the art of war, generalship and social factors.

    Oh, I am about to start;-) I want to discuss with our friends here Salvo (equation) models and ask our esteemed historian to comment on the process of operational planning, such as Force Sizing and how operational coefficients formed, together with criteria of success. Obviously, Twinkie’s fascination with DePuy comes from the simple fact that he doesn’t understand the issues discussed in DuPuy’s and others works–usually material which starts on Tactics And Operational Theory Departments in any respected military academy in the world;-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Obviously, Twinkie’s fascination with DePuy... he doesn’t understand the issues discussed in DuPuy’s
     
    His name is Trevor Dupuy, not "DePuy," not "DuPuy."

    And, no, I am not "fascinated" with Dupuy's work (if you looked at his calculations in "Number, Prediction and War," he makes some significant mathematical errors, something acknowledged by even his ardent defenders). I am generally not a big fan of applying operations research to war. But he was a pioneer in his field in the U.S. so I am acquainted with his work.
    , @SergeKrieger
    Man, have mercy upon me. I am out of my league here.
    I get it you must be meaning some equations to which various battle situations are being reduced to to reduce complexity and provide some templates.

    Anyway, bean counting is never sure thing in this business.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov
    Stephen Biddle used dyadic technological advantage calculations when calculating military technological advantage. No indexing will ever reflect the actual state of the affairs in the military field. Technological and economic dimensions of strategies are very important but social dimension--even more so. No index can reflect it. Napoleon tried, though, by producing his dictum on regiments fighting as divisions and vice-versa. And then comes this tricky issue of the national military school and operational art.

    “And then comes this tricky issue of the national military school and operational art.”

    Exactly. Nobody is talking about the art of war, generalship and social factors. Napoleonic France had clear advantage over Russia in all respects including larger population at the time and military genius at the head of the army too.
    Caesar when he started Civil war was in much inferior position to Pompey who had resources of the whole Republic under his command and far more troops. Caesar actually attacked Pompey in Greece with half troops numbers Pompey had.
    In both cases things that cannot be calculated decided the outcomes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @L.K
    Smoothie goes at it again with this gem:
    "P.S. Wehrmacht was notorious for sloppy record keeping and hiding its losses"

    Pure shameless lying by you, sir.

    The German records were quite accurate and were kept in painstaking detail and this has been recognized by historians who are familiar with them.
    The Soviet records are the ones generally viewed with greater suspicion.

    BTW, the figure of 1.947.106 German casualties for the year of 1944 has been determined, among others, by Swedish military historians Niklas Zetterling & Anders Frankson. Zetterling is one of the most well informed historians when it comes to the German archives.
    That is right, Niklas Zetterling & Anders Frankson who have written for 'The Journal of Slavic Military Studies' founded by non-other than dear Colonel David M. Glantz himself. That same Glantz who says the Soviets lost some 14 million military dead.

    Oh, just another thing; Krivosheevs figures, though the best available, are not without problems.
    Zetterling & Anders Frankson have discussed for example how the Soviet 1941 losses appear to be UNDERSTATED and that the records for said year seem imcomplete and unreliable.
    Which is natural, given the chaotic situation with all them cauldrons.

    Oh, just another thing; Krivosheevs figures, though the best available, are not without problems.

    Oh, wait a minute–how about that then?

    The Soviet casualties I quoted come from the MOST DETAILED compilation available in Russia. The work was carried out by Colonel General G.F.Krivosheyev( head of the team of authors from the Russian General Staff), and his team, who combed through thousands of documents and reports from different Soviet archives in order to produce what is known to be the MOST ACCURATE AND COMPREHENSIVE Data for Soviet losses in 20th century conflicts.
    Colonel General G.F.Krivosheyev, ‘Grif Sekretnosti Sniat’(Moscow, 1993) pg.147.

    But then again, I will continue to post tables from this “not without problems” source.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Twinkie

    not the illiterate faux-academic contrived BS you wrote
     
    For someone who whines about ad hominem, you sure do use it a lot.

    “force” and “power”
     
    Yes, apparently such concepts are above your pay grade of running operations of a Soviet tank battalion.

    This sums up your level. When no arguments are present this is the only thing you can have.
    Heard of Caucasus ever? Unless you are Vietnam Vet (specifically Vietnam), there is really nothing to talk about.
     
    I think you ought to look at the mirror as this line of "reasoning" seems to reflect YOUR "level," and, for that matter, your lack of logical consistency and intellectual honesty (another hallmark of a Soviet product).

    You implied earlier by this phrase - "war (real one, not some COIN)" - that COIN (or LIC) was not "real war." When I asked you in what real war - by your definition - you fought, you alluded to the Caucasus. The last conventional war the Soviet Union fought in the Caucasus was in 1943. Are you a World War II vet?

    Of course, the Chechen wars came to mind in the more recent years (mid-1990's and 1999-2000), but you specifically wrote earlier this:

    since this Jedi spent 11 years in Soviet Armed Forces, more than 5 of them as an officer, after military academy, including on operational level, plus including some really funny events I had to participate in, not that I wanted to.
     
    Soviet officer, you wrote, not Russian, so you couldn't have fought in the Chechen wars.

    Furthermore, even if you were a veteran of the battles of Grozny, you disparaged COIN earlier, and the last time I checked the Chechens did not have "real air defenses" and such, the lack of which in America's recent opponents you used to disparage the U.S Armed Forces and their capabilities.

    So again, by your own definition, in what "real war" have you fought? You have some explaining to do, comrade. Might I suggest a healthy session of self-criticism?

    Why should I? It was a strategic blunder with the obvious outcome.
     
    Just like that. Dismissed with a wave of a hand. How convenient. This sounds a lot like boxers who get knocked out, who say that they are actually great fighters, but just "got caught once or twice."

    Did the Soviet military personnel only study victories? What happened to the vaunted "Deep Battle" doctrine? In your own words earlier, I thought the Soviet doctrine of deep battle apparently demolished the German doctrine of Blitzkrieg? Does Deep Battle only work when fighting a grossly outnumbered and overmatched enemy that is on the verge of disintegration (as in your favorite case of Bagration)?

    By the way, this comparison of yours shows an utter lack of historical knowledge on the topic - "Blitzkrieg" was a popular propaganda term that was quickly adopted by the press, it was not an actual military doctrine. The German mobile warfare doctrine of World War II was synthesized from the infantry infiltration tactics developed in the late World War I and used with some success in the Spring "Ludendorff" Offensive (aka Kaiserschlacht; the tactical innovations are attributed to Oskar von Hutier, though he was not alone in formulating it) and the nascent mechanization/motorization, radio communication, and air force development in the 20's and the early 30's by men such as Heinz Guderian (who, interestingly, began his career as a signal officer) and Wilhem Ritter von Thoma (with strong influence from Western theorists such as J.F.C. Fuller and B.H. Liddell Hart), then experimented/refined in the Spanish Civil War (with a slight detour in technical development via Soviet Union before the Nazis came to power, as the Soviet Union allowed Weimar Germany to conduct experiments and weapons development sub rosa in the Soviet Union).

    And of course there were parallel developments in other countries, mostly Britain and the Soviet Union (your vaunted "Deep Battle") though such developments lagged behind or otherwise was quite faulty compared to that in interwar Germany. And, in the case of the Soviet mobile warfare doctrine, as you probably know, Triandafillov died early, and others such as Tukhachevky were liquidated in the Purges, so the concept was stillborn (and, worse, politically repudiated). Although the Russians subsequently upheld "Deep Battle" as a native innovation, in reality the Russians learned much from their opponents through the bitter war (as van Creveld is fond of saying, war is a mutually-learning and -imitating activity).

    I am absolutely not interested in Creveld of Dupuy
     
    Of course not. They are inconvenient to your arguments. I note that van Creveld is an Israeli. And he has been critical of both the Israeli and U.S. armed forces (for many interesting reasons, which are regrettably outside the scope of this discussion). As far as World War II historiography goes, he has no reason to celebrate the successes of Nazi Germany. On the contrary he has all the reasons to denigrate it. So when he compares the performance of the World War II German army favorably to that of the Allied powers, he is being an objective analyst and historian who is interested in the lessons of why. I know of no serious historian/analyst of respective national military performances of World War II who has not read Creveld's "Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance 1939-1945."

    while we are on the issue of the Combined Arms Warfare and its relation to history, we may as well put it to practical use. Right? I hope you agree with me that issue of Force (not the illiterate faux-academic contrived BS you wrote several posts ago about “force” and “power”) and how it is applied is a crucial one? I would love you to comment on operational coefficients which go into the “real war” and define how real planning and execution are conducted. Then we will see what kind of “historian” you are.
     
    You are pretty incoherent here (apparently you picked up childish and vulgar colloquialisms such as "butthurt" but cannot put together a coherent sentence in English). Try again.

    Sure, destroying Nazi military machine and ending up in Berlin is really nothing, you know, peanuts. Accidental victory.
     
    Are you stupid, hypocritical or deceptive?

    For the umpteenth time, NO ONE, NO ONE, is denying that the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany in World War II (with assistance from the Western allies, of course). Let me try to use small words and a simple arithmetical example to explain this concept to you: if an army of a country with 30 million troops and 50,000 tanks defeat another country with 10 million troops and 20,000 tanks in a long, bitter war by losing 15 million troops and devastating much of its own territory, whether or not it won the war, can you say that it performed better than that of the defeated, particularly on per capita basis? After all, didn't the Soviet Union defeat Finland too? Does that mean the Soviet military performed better than that of Finland?

    "Deep Battle" did not defeat the German mobile warfare doctrine. On anything close to materially equal footing, the Germans consistently outfought the Soviets. Even when the Germans were severely outnumbered, had no air cover, they still outfought greatly the Russians when they were given the freedom of maneuver by their national command. Germans lost the war, not because their soldiers were less effective than Soviet soldiers, but because the German national command - Hitler - put them in an exceptionally poor grand strategic position of fighting a two-front war against two massive continental powers and because he failed to utilize the comparative advantage the Germans had - the high quality of their fighting men and their superior battle-craft.

    Both Hitler and Stalin were amateurs. Hitler's forbidding of elastic defense and his obsession, instead, with great offensives and static defense ("no retreat") doomed the Germans and sealed his own fate - instead of listening to leaders such as von Manstein and Guderian who wanted to preserve a large mobile reserve and fight a series of defense-offense/elastic defense operations a la Kharkov 1943, Hitler threw and then wasted the last large-scale operational reserve the Germans had in "Zitadelle" (Kursk) and lost the war.

    Stalin wasn't exactly better. His fantasy orders in 1941 for "immediate counterattacks" against the Germans were in the same league of insanity as Hitler in late 1944 moving nonexistent corps and divisions on his bunker map. The two madmen fought a pitiless war of attrition with millions of hapless lives and, predictably, the one with a bigger country, more numerous population, greater industrial capacity, and fewer enemies won in the end after a massive bloodbath.

    That ending doesn't say anything about the actual fighting qualities of the men involved at the tactical and operational levels.

    One Wehrmacht soldier killed on average 200.5 Soviets. It is well-known fact?
     
    Stop with the stupid straw man. Even an idiot with only access to Wikipedia can see the estimates:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union (Krivosheev's numbers are not some magical lore only accessible to Russian speakers; this link contains a good summary of his findings and the critiques of the same.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II

    You implied earlier by this phrase – “war (real one, not some COIN)” – that COIN (or LIC) was not “real war.” When I asked you in what real war – by your definition – you fought, you alluded to the Caucasus. The last conventional war the Soviet Union fought in the Caucasus was in 1943. Are you a World War II vet?

    Of course, the Chechen wars came to mind in the more recent years (mid-1990′s and 1999-2000), but you specifically wrote earlier this:

    Of course, you never heard of Nagorny Karabakh or what was happening in Azerbaijan. I can give you even the start of all mayhem–mid-November 1988 and barely stopped since then. But I am not insisting on describing what and how things were happening there, it is of no consequence here.

    Now about my “credentials”, and “tank battalion” you may read about them in the end of my US Naval Institute Proceedings Article but I’ll help you. Graduate of Caspian (Kirov) High Red Banner Naval Academy in Baku, class of 1985. Advanced degree in Gyro-inertial navigational complexes of the strategic missile systems (focus on pr. 667B-BD Delta I-II class SSBNs). Degree with specialization of Command VUS (ask Creveld what it is), including command of unit of Naval Infantry (marines), apart from other interesting things. Went to serve on surface ships and for some years guarded maritime border between USSR and Iran. Among my class-mates are former (I am 53) COs of submarines, surface ships, professors in Kuznetsov Naval Academy (Naval War College), Admirals and COs of large ground units which fought in Chechnya and even Afghan veterans. I think, I will stop here. I ended my service for health reasons (you know, when bogeys shoot at you, and even friendlies) early 1991. You tend to develop all kinds of health problems, my was simple–I bled with my stomach, but that is just nuance.

    I will answer the rest of you vitriol later, including discussion on how military art works and what numbers mean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Of course, you never heard of Nagorny Karabakh or what was happening in Azerbaijan.
     
    Of course I know about Nagorno-Karabakh. I have Armenian-American acquaintances who helped to finance and even personally participated in the conflict (which I thought was more than a little crazy). But the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan was very small-scale and sporadic prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. So if you participated in the Soviet "state of emergency" in Nagorno-Karabakh, that's not even COIN let alone "real war" per YOUR definition.

    Among my class-mates are former (I am 53) COs of submarines, surface ships, professors in Kuznetsov Naval Academy (Naval War College), Admirals and COs of large ground units which fought in Chechnya and even Afghan veterans.
     
    You are a joke. I once sat next to General Norman Schwarzkopf. Does that make me a combat veteran of Desert Shield and Desert Storm? Are you that desperate for glories of "real war" (again, your term, not mine) that you are now mentioning people who sat next to you when you were a naval cadet?

    So, to recap, you don't have any real war experience, but you do go around denigrating the U.S. military and its operations and capabilities for not having fought opponents with "real air defense" in what you consider to be less than "real wars."

    Here is an American colloquial expression for you - "That is rich."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Twinkie

    not the illiterate faux-academic contrived BS you wrote
     
    For someone who whines about ad hominem, you sure do use it a lot.

    “force” and “power”
     
    Yes, apparently such concepts are above your pay grade of running operations of a Soviet tank battalion.

    This sums up your level. When no arguments are present this is the only thing you can have.
    Heard of Caucasus ever? Unless you are Vietnam Vet (specifically Vietnam), there is really nothing to talk about.
     
    I think you ought to look at the mirror as this line of "reasoning" seems to reflect YOUR "level," and, for that matter, your lack of logical consistency and intellectual honesty (another hallmark of a Soviet product).

    You implied earlier by this phrase - "war (real one, not some COIN)" - that COIN (or LIC) was not "real war." When I asked you in what real war - by your definition - you fought, you alluded to the Caucasus. The last conventional war the Soviet Union fought in the Caucasus was in 1943. Are you a World War II vet?

    Of course, the Chechen wars came to mind in the more recent years (mid-1990's and 1999-2000), but you specifically wrote earlier this:

    since this Jedi spent 11 years in Soviet Armed Forces, more than 5 of them as an officer, after military academy, including on operational level, plus including some really funny events I had to participate in, not that I wanted to.
     
    Soviet officer, you wrote, not Russian, so you couldn't have fought in the Chechen wars.

    Furthermore, even if you were a veteran of the battles of Grozny, you disparaged COIN earlier, and the last time I checked the Chechens did not have "real air defenses" and such, the lack of which in America's recent opponents you used to disparage the U.S Armed Forces and their capabilities.

    So again, by your own definition, in what "real war" have you fought? You have some explaining to do, comrade. Might I suggest a healthy session of self-criticism?

    Why should I? It was a strategic blunder with the obvious outcome.
     
    Just like that. Dismissed with a wave of a hand. How convenient. This sounds a lot like boxers who get knocked out, who say that they are actually great fighters, but just "got caught once or twice."

    Did the Soviet military personnel only study victories? What happened to the vaunted "Deep Battle" doctrine? In your own words earlier, I thought the Soviet doctrine of deep battle apparently demolished the German doctrine of Blitzkrieg? Does Deep Battle only work when fighting a grossly outnumbered and overmatched enemy that is on the verge of disintegration (as in your favorite case of Bagration)?

    By the way, this comparison of yours shows an utter lack of historical knowledge on the topic - "Blitzkrieg" was a popular propaganda term that was quickly adopted by the press, it was not an actual military doctrine. The German mobile warfare doctrine of World War II was synthesized from the infantry infiltration tactics developed in the late World War I and used with some success in the Spring "Ludendorff" Offensive (aka Kaiserschlacht; the tactical innovations are attributed to Oskar von Hutier, though he was not alone in formulating it) and the nascent mechanization/motorization, radio communication, and air force development in the 20's and the early 30's by men such as Heinz Guderian (who, interestingly, began his career as a signal officer) and Wilhem Ritter von Thoma (with strong influence from Western theorists such as J.F.C. Fuller and B.H. Liddell Hart), then experimented/refined in the Spanish Civil War (with a slight detour in technical development via Soviet Union before the Nazis came to power, as the Soviet Union allowed Weimar Germany to conduct experiments and weapons development sub rosa in the Soviet Union).

    And of course there were parallel developments in other countries, mostly Britain and the Soviet Union (your vaunted "Deep Battle") though such developments lagged behind or otherwise was quite faulty compared to that in interwar Germany. And, in the case of the Soviet mobile warfare doctrine, as you probably know, Triandafillov died early, and others such as Tukhachevky were liquidated in the Purges, so the concept was stillborn (and, worse, politically repudiated). Although the Russians subsequently upheld "Deep Battle" as a native innovation, in reality the Russians learned much from their opponents through the bitter war (as van Creveld is fond of saying, war is a mutually-learning and -imitating activity).

    I am absolutely not interested in Creveld of Dupuy
     
    Of course not. They are inconvenient to your arguments. I note that van Creveld is an Israeli. And he has been critical of both the Israeli and U.S. armed forces (for many interesting reasons, which are regrettably outside the scope of this discussion). As far as World War II historiography goes, he has no reason to celebrate the successes of Nazi Germany. On the contrary he has all the reasons to denigrate it. So when he compares the performance of the World War II German army favorably to that of the Allied powers, he is being an objective analyst and historian who is interested in the lessons of why. I know of no serious historian/analyst of respective national military performances of World War II who has not read Creveld's "Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance 1939-1945."

    while we are on the issue of the Combined Arms Warfare and its relation to history, we may as well put it to practical use. Right? I hope you agree with me that issue of Force (not the illiterate faux-academic contrived BS you wrote several posts ago about “force” and “power”) and how it is applied is a crucial one? I would love you to comment on operational coefficients which go into the “real war” and define how real planning and execution are conducted. Then we will see what kind of “historian” you are.
     
    You are pretty incoherent here (apparently you picked up childish and vulgar colloquialisms such as "butthurt" but cannot put together a coherent sentence in English). Try again.

    Sure, destroying Nazi military machine and ending up in Berlin is really nothing, you know, peanuts. Accidental victory.
     
    Are you stupid, hypocritical or deceptive?

    For the umpteenth time, NO ONE, NO ONE, is denying that the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany in World War II (with assistance from the Western allies, of course). Let me try to use small words and a simple arithmetical example to explain this concept to you: if an army of a country with 30 million troops and 50,000 tanks defeat another country with 10 million troops and 20,000 tanks in a long, bitter war by losing 15 million troops and devastating much of its own territory, whether or not it won the war, can you say that it performed better than that of the defeated, particularly on per capita basis? After all, didn't the Soviet Union defeat Finland too? Does that mean the Soviet military performed better than that of Finland?

    "Deep Battle" did not defeat the German mobile warfare doctrine. On anything close to materially equal footing, the Germans consistently outfought the Soviets. Even when the Germans were severely outnumbered, had no air cover, they still outfought greatly the Russians when they were given the freedom of maneuver by their national command. Germans lost the war, not because their soldiers were less effective than Soviet soldiers, but because the German national command - Hitler - put them in an exceptionally poor grand strategic position of fighting a two-front war against two massive continental powers and because he failed to utilize the comparative advantage the Germans had - the high quality of their fighting men and their superior battle-craft.

    Both Hitler and Stalin were amateurs. Hitler's forbidding of elastic defense and his obsession, instead, with great offensives and static defense ("no retreat") doomed the Germans and sealed his own fate - instead of listening to leaders such as von Manstein and Guderian who wanted to preserve a large mobile reserve and fight a series of defense-offense/elastic defense operations a la Kharkov 1943, Hitler threw and then wasted the last large-scale operational reserve the Germans had in "Zitadelle" (Kursk) and lost the war.

    Stalin wasn't exactly better. His fantasy orders in 1941 for "immediate counterattacks" against the Germans were in the same league of insanity as Hitler in late 1944 moving nonexistent corps and divisions on his bunker map. The two madmen fought a pitiless war of attrition with millions of hapless lives and, predictably, the one with a bigger country, more numerous population, greater industrial capacity, and fewer enemies won in the end after a massive bloodbath.

    That ending doesn't say anything about the actual fighting qualities of the men involved at the tactical and operational levels.

    One Wehrmacht soldier killed on average 200.5 Soviets. It is well-known fact?
     
    Stop with the stupid straw man. Even an idiot with only access to Wikipedia can see the estimates:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union (Krivosheev's numbers are not some magical lore only accessible to Russian speakers; this link contains a good summary of his findings and the critiques of the same.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II

    It isn’t tenable to blame Hitler or Stalin for each and every failure of German or Soviet forces and credit someone else with each and every success. It’s easy to produce instances when both were right against the majority of professional advice, and there is no evidence of their consistently being uninvolved in the making of decisions that turned out well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Twinkie

    Which one?
     
    Not a "real one" according to "Comrade SmoothieX12."

    So which one?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Twinkie

    That’s not what the German soldiers themselves thought. They noticed a radical difference between Barbarossa and the previous campaigns, even from the very beginning, in that Soviet soldiers continued fighting far longer after being encircled than their other opponents had.
     
    Of course. Both the Germans and the Soviets essentially repudiated the international conventions in their war, so their war was fought under very different legal and practical conventions vis-à-vis treatment of the captured enemy.

    My point was that in 1941, the Soviet soldiers trapped in "loose" pockets created by German operations were much more likely to surrender than the Soviet soldiers in 1943 and on, because the German rhetoric of liberation from Bolshevism was far more believable in 1941 and the experience of the brutal German occupation of captured Soviet territories and populations was well-known by 1943.

    Your first and second paragraphs contradict each other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Your first and second paragraphs contradict each other.
     
    They do not. The first paragraph refers to the difference between the treatment of POWs on the Western Front and that in the Eastern Front. The second paragraph refers to the difference between the early part of the war and the later periods on the Eastern Front.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov
    So, will start with this:

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-62vkztIGsDI/VjFUwEUAzVI/AAAAAAAAANQ/CGgMxmTdjFI/s1600/Glantz-House_1.jpg

    These are the numbers House and Glantz put for Wehrmacht losses. As you can see yourself (and others with you)--those are not exactly slightly below 2 million which you are pushing here or is it....drum roll..."personal opinions"?

    Per this:


    “By 1942, after Leningrad and Moscow, Stalin and Marshal Georgi Zhukov think alike. They understand that even if you have to ruthlessly expend manpower, resistance will wear down a numerically weaker opponent. That tactic cost probably 14 million military dead—the price of defeating a more experienced, battle-worthy, savvy Wehrmacht.”
     
    I am not in disagreement with this. Or, should I use "personal opinion" or "cherry picking" BS defense here? I, to a certain point, agree with Glantz here since it would take Stalingrad for conditions to mature. You, evidently, are missing my point here--through Summer of 1943, Wehrmacht was the best army in the world. But I digress.

    Here (below) is "your number" in the continuation of table 133 from Krivosheev. Pay attention to marked in red squares. Including the number under the column Всего (Altogether), which does included those 1, 135, 342 Заболело (Fallen Ill) which are NOT combat losses. I am really at loss what are we going to do with that? But this is precisely the number which went into Wikipedia;-) ? And House and Glantz.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PE3ddlwbbtg/VjFUweweA_I/AAAAAAAAANU/c628m3FKzE4/s1600/Krivosheev-3_Sanitary.jpg

    That is where you have gotten your approx. 6.8 millions. But again, I digress.

    Addressing the discrepancy between KIAs and MIAs in table B, pages 298-299 and total combat and other losses for the same period of time--Table B counts them in OFFENSIVE operations for 4 quarters of 1944. I hope you understand the significance of such a close match between German and Soviet killed and missing? If you need me to scan those tables, just whistle. Will gladly oblige.

    Now to more pressing matters;-)

    I am waiting for our combat veteran Twinkie and then I will expand on Glantz' statement you introduced above. In fact, I would love to finally get to the issues of FERs and, as a warm up, to why Guderian called Kursk a "decisive defeat". But then again, it is Guderian's "personal opinion", right? Or was he "cherry picking".

    P.S. Wehrmacht was notorious for sloppy record keeping and hiding its losses.

    as a warm up, to why Guderian called Kursk a “decisive defeat”.

    Er, familiar with the term Pyrrhic victory?

    I absolutely agree with Guderian. The war on the East was lost for the Germans the moment Zitadelle began. As for why, you can read my earlier comment to you.

    P.S. Wehrmacht was notorious for sloppy record keeping and hiding its losses.

    Pure, Soviet propaganda, in which light is dark, rape is liberation, and truth is false.

    Wehrmacht records were so accurate and precise that they were used as evidence for war crimes trials.

    Soviet records, in contrast, were grossly inaccurate and often fabricated, because of 1) generally low accounting standards and training, 2) weak institutional ability to collect information, and 3) fear of punishment for being “the bearer of bad news” (Soviet officers were frequently shot for “incompetence” when they failed to carry out fantasy orders).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @L.K
    To 5371

    The fighting was hard from the start, but the facts of desertion, "flight forward", etc, r very well documented.
    The fact of the matter is that many soviet soldiers were not that interested in dying for Stalin and his regime.
    Hell, even Glantz talks about this.


    Twinkie wrote:
    "Glantz has his own viewpoint, and not all or even most historians of the field share his."

    Exactly.

    Twinkie wrote:
    “Glantz has his own viewpoint, and not all or even most historians of the field share his.”

    Exactly.

    To be fair, Glantz has made valuable contributions to the field. But, and this is my impression, he, as a leading analyst of Soviet military forces during the Cold War, had a tendency, incentive perhaps, to overestimate Soviet capabilities (just as American military experts on China today often exaggerate Chinese military capabilities). Furthermore, Glantz, as a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Science, enjoys access, let’s say, less-Russophilic researchers are often denied, and, as the saying goes, access requires quid-pro-quo or at least “friendliness.” (In DC, it’s pretty well-known that foreign governments, for example, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Saudis to name but a few spread money around American researchers and analysts via think thanks and foundations to advance friendly policy advocacy).

    He is not exactly an unbiased, neutral observer.

    I always thought his feud with the defector “Viktor Suvorov” (i.e. Vlamdimir Rezun) was a bit odd and at times comical. What a great Cold War novella it would make if it turned out Glantz was used to discredit an influential (and over-the-top in his own way) defector by the Soviets!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    To be fair, Glantz has made valuable contributions to the field. But, and this is my impression, he, as a leading analyst of Soviet military forces during the Cold War, had a tendency, incentive perhaps, to overestimate Soviet capabilities (just as American military experts on China today often exaggerate Chinese military capabilities). Furthermore, Glantz, as a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Science, enjoys access, let’s say, less-Russophilic researchers are often denied, and, as the saying goes, access requires quid-pro-quo or at least “friendliness.” (In DC, it’s pretty well-known that foreign governments, for example, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Saudis to name but a few spread money around American researchers and analysts via think thanks and foundations to advance friendly policy advocacy).
     
    Couldn't let this slide, you, insinuating a-hole. Who the hell are you, prick, to judge people who are upholding, especially in these times, what remains of US scholarship and real academe, not to mention being officers of US Army, with combat experience, such as Glantz . Here is for you, especially, what "peer reviewed" means.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y5lon3Lwn28/VjP93HRgViI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/C_2DF-WMsGk/s1600/Kursk.jpg

    I wish Colonel David Hackworth was still alive to get your sorry ass to court for Stolen Valor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @5371
    [ That also explains, in my view, why the Germans were able to take such massive numbers of prisoners in the early years despite rather tenuous, thin encirclements they created – ]

    That's not what the German soldiers themselves thought. They noticed a radical difference between Barbarossa and the previous campaigns, even from the very beginning, in that Soviet soldiers continued fighting far longer after being encircled than their other opponents had.

    That’s not what the German soldiers themselves thought. They noticed a radical difference between Barbarossa and the previous campaigns, even from the very beginning, in that Soviet soldiers continued fighting far longer after being encircled than their other opponents had.

    Of course. Both the Germans and the Soviets essentially repudiated the international conventions in their war, so their war was fought under very different legal and practical conventions vis-à-vis treatment of the captured enemy.

    My point was that in 1941, the Soviet soldiers trapped in “loose” pockets created by German operations were much more likely to surrender than the Soviet soldiers in 1943 and on, because the German rhetoric of liberation from Bolshevism was far more believable in 1941 and the experience of the brutal German occupation of captured Soviet territories and populations was well-known by 1943.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Your first and second paragraphs contradict each other.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @5371
    [Have you ever fought in a war? I have.]

    Which one?

    Which one?

    Not a “real one” according to “Comrade SmoothieX12.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    So which one?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    Hey, jackass, in what “real war” have you been?
     
    This sums up your level. When no arguments are present this is the only thing you can have.
    Heard of Caucasus ever? Unless you are Vietnam Vet (specifically Vietnam), there is really nothing to talk about.

    Are you a military historian? Have you ever been one? I have. I have peer-reviewed articles published.
     
    Well, guess what--me too. In US too. Peer reviewed. And not for once. Go to my website if you are interested, one of them is there. Precisely on the issues of strategies and doctrines. I reiterate, you are not historian, especially serious military one, and it shows. You pearl about "cherry picking" and "his own view point" is one of those "arguments" when there is nothing left to counter. Glantz and House are internationally recognized as the best authorities in English-speaking world on the War at Eastern Front. Period, don't like it? Too bad.

    Why don’t you regale us with your great professional expertise about the Third Battle of Kharkov in 1943?
     
    Why should I? It was a strategic blunder with the obvious outcome.

    I am not your researcher. Go argue with Trevor Dupuy and Martin van Creveld. Their numbers and publications are readily available, as are the raw data from the respective national archives.
     
    Again, is Creveld the best you can do? While you at it, why don't you mention Stephen Biddle too. Or, I can give you a simple tactical problem (part of operational planning) on the level of, say, tank battalion--yes, this is what staffs of regiment and upper levels do--agree? Why not to stop this BS from you and get to the active work of Operational Art? So, are you up to it? Then we may talk about credentials. I am absolutely not interested in Creveld of Dupuy, or arguing with them, I am arguing here with you, whoever you are, specifically and, while we are on the issue of the Combined Arms Warfare and its relation to history, we may as well put it to practical use. Right? I hope you agree with me that issue of Force (not the illiterate faux-academic contrived BS you wrote several posts ago about "force" and "power") and how it is applied is a crucial one? I would love you to comment on operational coefficients which go into the "real war" and define how real planning and execution are conducted. Then we will see what kind of "historian" you are.

    Of course, you love talking about Bagration. It was the one final victorious Soviet operation that essentially destroyed the already skeletal and disorganized Germany army in the East.
     
    Sure, destroying Nazi military machine and ending up in Berlin is really nothing, you know, peanuts. Accidental victory. One Wehrmacht soldier killed on average 200.5 Soviets. It is well-known fact?

    not the illiterate faux-academic contrived BS you wrote

    For someone who whines about ad hominem, you sure do use it a lot.

    “force” and “power”

    Yes, apparently such concepts are above your pay grade of running operations of a Soviet tank battalion.

    This sums up your level. When no arguments are present this is the only thing you can have.
    Heard of Caucasus ever? Unless you are Vietnam Vet (specifically Vietnam), there is really nothing to talk about.

    I think you ought to look at the mirror as this line of “reasoning” seems to reflect YOUR “level,” and, for that matter, your lack of logical consistency and intellectual honesty (another hallmark of a Soviet product).

    You implied earlier by this phrase – “war (real one, not some COIN)” – that COIN (or LIC) was not “real war.” When I asked you in what real war – by your definition – you fought, you alluded to the Caucasus. The last conventional war the Soviet Union fought in the Caucasus was in 1943. Are you a World War II vet?

    Of course, the Chechen wars came to mind in the more recent years (mid-1990′s and 1999-2000), but you specifically wrote earlier this:

    since this Jedi spent 11 years in Soviet Armed Forces, more than 5 of them as an officer, after military academy, including on operational level, plus including some really funny events I had to participate in, not that I wanted to.

    Soviet officer, you wrote, not Russian, so you couldn’t have fought in the Chechen wars.

    Furthermore, even if you were a veteran of the battles of Grozny, you disparaged COIN earlier, and the last time I checked the Chechens did not have “real air defenses” and such, the lack of which in America’s recent opponents you used to disparage the U.S Armed Forces and their capabilities.

    So again, by your own definition, in what “real war” have you fought? You have some explaining to do, comrade. Might I suggest a healthy session of self-criticism?

    Why should I? It was a strategic blunder with the obvious outcome.

    Just like that. Dismissed with a wave of a hand. How convenient. This sounds a lot like boxers who get knocked out, who say that they are actually great fighters, but just “got caught once or twice.”

    Did the Soviet military personnel only study victories? What happened to the vaunted “Deep Battle” doctrine? In your own words earlier, I thought the Soviet doctrine of deep battle apparently demolished the German doctrine of Blitzkrieg? Does Deep Battle only work when fighting a grossly outnumbered and overmatched enemy that is on the verge of disintegration (as in your favorite case of Bagration)?

    By the way, this comparison of yours shows an utter lack of historical knowledge on the topic – “Blitzkrieg” was a popular propaganda term that was quickly adopted by the press, it was not an actual military doctrine. The German mobile warfare doctrine of World War II was synthesized from the infantry infiltration tactics developed in the late World War I and used with some success in the Spring “Ludendorff” Offensive (aka Kaiserschlacht; the tactical innovations are attributed to Oskar von Hutier, though he was not alone in formulating it) and the nascent mechanization/motorization, radio communication, and air force development in the 20′s and the early 30′s by men such as Heinz Guderian (who, interestingly, began his career as a signal officer) and Wilhem Ritter von Thoma (with strong influence from Western theorists such as J.F.C. Fuller and B.H. Liddell Hart), then experimented/refined in the Spanish Civil War (with a slight detour in technical development via Soviet Union before the Nazis came to power, as the Soviet Union allowed Weimar Germany to conduct experiments and weapons development sub rosa in the Soviet Union).

    And of course there were parallel developments in other countries, mostly Britain and the Soviet Union (your vaunted “Deep Battle”) though such developments lagged behind or otherwise was quite faulty compared to that in interwar Germany. And, in the case of the Soviet mobile warfare doctrine, as you probably know, Triandafillov died early, and others such as Tukhachevky were liquidated in the Purges, so the concept was stillborn (and, worse, politically repudiated). Although the Russians subsequently upheld “Deep Battle” as a native innovation, in reality the Russians learned much from their opponents through the bitter war (as van Creveld is fond of saying, war is a mutually-learning and -imitating activity).

    I am absolutely not interested in Creveld of Dupuy

    Of course not. They are inconvenient to your arguments. I note that van Creveld is an Israeli. And he has been critical of both the Israeli and U.S. armed forces (for many interesting reasons, which are regrettably outside the scope of this discussion). As far as World War II historiography goes, he has no reason to celebrate the successes of Nazi Germany. On the contrary he has all the reasons to denigrate it. So when he compares the performance of the World War II German army favorably to that of the Allied powers, he is being an objective analyst and historian who is interested in the lessons of why. I know of no serious historian/analyst of respective national military performances of World War II who has not read Creveld’s “Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance 1939-1945.”

    while we are on the issue of the Combined Arms Warfare and its relation to history, we may as well put it to practical use. Right? I hope you agree with me that issue of Force (not the illiterate faux-academic contrived BS you wrote several posts ago about “force” and “power”) and how it is applied is a crucial one? I would love you to comment on operational coefficients which go into the “real war” and define how real planning and execution are conducted. Then we will see what kind of “historian” you are.

    You are pretty incoherent here (apparently you picked up childish and vulgar colloquialisms such as “butthurt” but cannot put together a coherent sentence in English). Try again.

    Sure, destroying Nazi military machine and ending up in Berlin is really nothing, you know, peanuts. Accidental victory.

    Are you stupid, hypocritical or deceptive?

    For the umpteenth time, NO ONE, NO ONE, is denying that the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany in World War II (with assistance from the Western allies, of course). Let me try to use small words and a simple arithmetical example to explain this concept to you: if an army of a country with 30 million troops and 50,000 tanks defeat another country with 10 million troops and 20,000 tanks in a long, bitter war by losing 15 million troops and devastating much of its own territory, whether or not it won the war, can you say that it performed better than that of the defeated, particularly on per capita basis? After all, didn’t the Soviet Union defeat Finland too? Does that mean the Soviet military performed better than that of Finland?

    “Deep Battle” did not defeat the German mobile warfare doctrine. On anything close to materially equal footing, the Germans consistently outfought the Soviets. Even when the Germans were severely outnumbered, had no air cover, they still outfought greatly the Russians when they were given the freedom of maneuver by their national command. Germans lost the war, not because their soldiers were less effective than Soviet soldiers, but because the German national command – Hitler – put them in an exceptionally poor grand strategic position of fighting a two-front war against two massive continental powers and because he failed to utilize the comparative advantage the Germans had – the high quality of their fighting men and their superior battle-craft.

    Both Hitler and Stalin were amateurs. Hitler’s forbidding of elastic defense and his obsession, instead, with great offensives and static defense (“no retreat”) doomed the Germans and sealed his own fate – instead of listening to leaders such as von Manstein and Guderian who wanted to preserve a large mobile reserve and fight a series of defense-offense/elastic defense operations a la Kharkov 1943, Hitler threw and then wasted the last large-scale operational reserve the Germans had in “Zitadelle” (Kursk) and lost the war.

    Stalin wasn’t exactly better. His fantasy orders in 1941 for “immediate counterattacks” against the Germans were in the same league of insanity as Hitler in late 1944 moving nonexistent corps and divisions on his bunker map. The two madmen fought a pitiless war of attrition with millions of hapless lives and, predictably, the one with a bigger country, more numerous population, greater industrial capacity, and fewer enemies won in the end after a massive bloodbath.

    That ending doesn’t say anything about the actual fighting qualities of the men involved at the tactical and operational levels.

    One Wehrmacht soldier killed on average 200.5 Soviets. It is well-known fact?

    Stop with the stupid straw man. Even an idiot with only access to Wikipedia can see the estimates:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union (Krivosheev’s numbers are not some magical lore only accessible to Russian speakers; this link contains a good summary of his findings and the critiques of the same.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    It isn't tenable to blame Hitler or Stalin for each and every failure of German or Soviet forces and credit someone else with each and every success. It's easy to produce instances when both were right against the majority of professional advice, and there is no evidence of their consistently being uninvolved in the making of decisions that turned out well.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    You implied earlier by this phrase – “war (real one, not some COIN)” – that COIN (or LIC) was not “real war.” When I asked you in what real war – by your definition – you fought, you alluded to the Caucasus. The last conventional war the Soviet Union fought in the Caucasus was in 1943. Are you a World War II vet?

    Of course, the Chechen wars came to mind in the more recent years (mid-1990′s and 1999-2000), but you specifically wrote earlier this:
     
    Of course, you never heard of Nagorny Karabakh or what was happening in Azerbaijan. I can give you even the start of all mayhem--mid-November 1988 and barely stopped since then. But I am not insisting on describing what and how things were happening there, it is of no consequence here.

    Now about my "credentials", and "tank battalion" you may read about them in the end of my US Naval Institute Proceedings Article but I'll help you. Graduate of Caspian (Kirov) High Red Banner Naval Academy in Baku, class of 1985. Advanced degree in Gyro-inertial navigational complexes of the strategic missile systems (focus on pr. 667B-BD Delta I-II class SSBNs). Degree with specialization of Command VUS (ask Creveld what it is), including command of unit of Naval Infantry (marines), apart from other interesting things. Went to serve on surface ships and for some years guarded maritime border between USSR and Iran. Among my class-mates are former (I am 53) COs of submarines, surface ships, professors in Kuznetsov Naval Academy (Naval War College), Admirals and COs of large ground units which fought in Chechnya and even Afghan veterans. I think, I will stop here. I ended my service for health reasons (you know, when bogeys shoot at you, and even friendlies) early 1991. You tend to develop all kinds of health problems, my was simple--I bled with my stomach, but that is just nuance.

    I will answer the rest of you vitriol later, including discussion on how military art works and what numbers mean.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    By the way, this comparison of yours shows an utter lack of historical knowledge on the topic – “Blitzkrieg” was a popular propaganda term that was quickly adopted by the press, it was not an actual military doctrine.
     
    Attached here are two scans from otherwise Three-volume set of The West Point Military History Series by the Department Of History of the United States Military Academy, Senior Editor Brigadier General Thomas E. Gries. ISBN 0-89529-424-9. Scans are from my copy of this wonderful set.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mGgCOqlOw8A/VjKxrWWJDHI/AAAAAAAAAN4/7YCWWtjmM1Y/s1600/West-Point_1.jpg

    or

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ISKy9U6vVjM/VjKxrWbRZNI/AAAAAAAAAN0/Y9C4Te5s1W0/s1600/West-Point_2.jpg

    Sir, I don't know what are your purpose here but your continuous stating of either platitudes, well-known pop-facts or outright unprofessional delirium mixed with propaganda is really beginning to look preposterous. I, again, ask you to provide references to your articles, which were "peers reviewed". I hope you understand that I am not interested in arguing with you on any matters other than of military history of Eastern Front. Moreover, I allow you to call me coward, idiot, jackass or whatever floats your boat but show me just a single sign that you are a professional in at least any field relevant to anything military.

    If you have issues with West Point's Department Of History, their contact numbers are easily found on the internet. I know, I know--it is their "private opinion" and "cherry picking" but we will get to it in time. As to the point--everyone knows that Blitzkrieg was a label.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov
    So, will start with this:

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-62vkztIGsDI/VjFUwEUAzVI/AAAAAAAAANQ/CGgMxmTdjFI/s1600/Glantz-House_1.jpg

    These are the numbers House and Glantz put for Wehrmacht losses. As you can see yourself (and others with you)--those are not exactly slightly below 2 million which you are pushing here or is it....drum roll..."personal opinions"?

    Per this:


    “By 1942, after Leningrad and Moscow, Stalin and Marshal Georgi Zhukov think alike. They understand that even if you have to ruthlessly expend manpower, resistance will wear down a numerically weaker opponent. That tactic cost probably 14 million military dead—the price of defeating a more experienced, battle-worthy, savvy Wehrmacht.”
     
    I am not in disagreement with this. Or, should I use "personal opinion" or "cherry picking" BS defense here? I, to a certain point, agree with Glantz here since it would take Stalingrad for conditions to mature. You, evidently, are missing my point here--through Summer of 1943, Wehrmacht was the best army in the world. But I digress.

    Here (below) is "your number" in the continuation of table 133 from Krivosheev. Pay attention to marked in red squares. Including the number under the column Всего (Altogether), which does included those 1, 135, 342 Заболело (Fallen Ill) which are NOT combat losses. I am really at loss what are we going to do with that? But this is precisely the number which went into Wikipedia;-) ? And House and Glantz.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PE3ddlwbbtg/VjFUweweA_I/AAAAAAAAANU/c628m3FKzE4/s1600/Krivosheev-3_Sanitary.jpg

    That is where you have gotten your approx. 6.8 millions. But again, I digress.

    Addressing the discrepancy between KIAs and MIAs in table B, pages 298-299 and total combat and other losses for the same period of time--Table B counts them in OFFENSIVE operations for 4 quarters of 1944. I hope you understand the significance of such a close match between German and Soviet killed and missing? If you need me to scan those tables, just whistle. Will gladly oblige.

    Now to more pressing matters;-)

    I am waiting for our combat veteran Twinkie and then I will expand on Glantz' statement you introduced above. In fact, I would love to finally get to the issues of FERs and, as a warm up, to why Guderian called Kursk a "decisive defeat". But then again, it is Guderian's "personal opinion", right? Or was he "cherry picking".

    P.S. Wehrmacht was notorious for sloppy record keeping and hiding its losses.

    Smoothie goes at it again with this gem:
    “P.S. Wehrmacht was notorious for sloppy record keeping and hiding its losses”

    Pure shameless lying by you, sir.

    The German records were quite accurate and were kept in painstaking detail and this has been recognized by historians who are familiar with them.
    The Soviet records are the ones generally viewed with greater suspicion.

    BTW, the figure of 1.947.106 German casualties for the year of 1944 has been determined, among others, by Swedish military historians Niklas Zetterling & Anders Frankson. Zetterling is one of the most well informed historians when it comes to the German archives.
    That is right, Niklas Zetterling & Anders Frankson who have written for ‘The Journal of Slavic Military Studies’ founded by non-other than dear Colonel David M. Glantz himself. That same Glantz who says the Soviets lost some 14 million military dead.

    Oh, just another thing; Krivosheevs figures, though the best available, are not without problems.
    Zetterling & Anders Frankson have discussed for example how the Soviet 1941 losses appear to be UNDERSTATED and that the records for said year seem imcomplete and unreliable.
    Which is natural, given the chaotic situation with all them cauldrons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Oh, just another thing; Krivosheevs figures, though the best available, are not without problems.
     
    Oh, wait a minute--how about that then?

    The Soviet casualties I quoted come from the MOST DETAILED compilation available in Russia. The work was carried out by Colonel General G.F.Krivosheyev( head of the team of authors from the Russian General Staff), and his team, who combed through thousands of documents and reports from different Soviet archives in order to produce what is known to be the MOST ACCURATE AND COMPREHENSIVE Data for Soviet losses in 20th century conflicts.
    Colonel General G.F.Krivosheyev, ‘Grif Sekretnosti Sniat’(Moscow, 1993) pg.147.
     
    But then again, I will continue to post tables from this "not without problems" source.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @L.K
    Gee, I have really rattled your cage, eh?

    You are WRONG, obviously. The book has been published in English as I've already said.

    "Or the same work by Krivosheyev can be found translated into English, edited by Professor J.Erickson;
    ‘Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century’(1997), pg.96/97."

    At any rate i ain't American and do not live there.

    So Smoothie, stop being ridiculous. Any person interested, even if not able to read Russian, can get the book in English and check the exact pages i have mentioned.
    All the details are given;
    There is a column for those who died of disease, accidents, etc. they are designated as non-combat losses.
    For the year of 1944 the figure given is 54.420.
    Another column is KIA(including those who died under casualty evacuation).
    For 1944 the figure given is 1.212.062.
    Another column has those WIA who died later in hospitals.
    For 1944 the figure given is nearly 330.000.

    Your beloved David M. Glantz had this to say about the eastern front, during an interview for historynet.com;

    "By 1942, after Leningrad and Moscow, Stalin and Marshal Georgi Zhukov think alike. They understand that even if you have to ruthlessly expend manpower, resistance will wear down a numerically weaker opponent. That tactic cost probably 14 million military dead—the price of defeating a more experienced, battle-worthy, savvy Wehrmacht."

    Of course that many of the military dead perished in captivity but the same is true for german military dead in WWII. In fact, even more so.

    The only troll and BSer here is yourself, sir, stop projecting.

    So, will start with this:

    These are the numbers House and Glantz put for Wehrmacht losses. As you can see yourself (and others with you)–those are not exactly slightly below 2 million which you are pushing here or is it….drum roll…”personal opinions”?

    Per this:

    “By 1942, after Leningrad and Moscow, Stalin and Marshal Georgi Zhukov think alike. They understand that even if you have to ruthlessly expend manpower, resistance will wear down a numerically weaker opponent. That tactic cost probably 14 million military dead—the price of defeating a more experienced, battle-worthy, savvy Wehrmacht.”

    I am not in disagreement with this. Or, should I use “personal opinion” or “cherry picking” BS defense here? I, to a certain point, agree with Glantz here since it would take Stalingrad for conditions to mature. You, evidently, are missing my point here–through Summer of 1943, Wehrmacht was the best army in the world. But I digress.

    Here (below) is “your number” in the continuation of table 133 from Krivosheev. Pay attention to marked in red squares. Including the number under the column Всего (Altogether), which does included those 1, 135, 342 Заболело (Fallen Ill) which are NOT combat losses. I am really at loss what are we going to do with that? But this is precisely the number which went into Wikipedia;-) ? And House and Glantz.

    That is where you have gotten your approx. 6.8 millions. But again, I digress.

    Addressing the discrepancy between KIAs and MIAs in table B, pages 298-299 and total combat and other losses for the same period of time–Table B counts them in OFFENSIVE operations for 4 quarters of 1944. I hope you understand the significance of such a close match between German and Soviet killed and missing? If you need me to scan those tables, just whistle. Will gladly oblige.

    Now to more pressing matters;-)

    I am waiting for our combat veteran Twinkie and then I will expand on Glantz’ statement you introduced above. In fact, I would love to finally get to the issues of FERs and, as a warm up, to why Guderian called Kursk a “decisive defeat”. But then again, it is Guderian’s “personal opinion”, right? Or was he “cherry picking”.

    P.S. Wehrmacht was notorious for sloppy record keeping and hiding its losses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Smoothie goes at it again with this gem:
    "P.S. Wehrmacht was notorious for sloppy record keeping and hiding its losses"

    Pure shameless lying by you, sir.

    The German records were quite accurate and were kept in painstaking detail and this has been recognized by historians who are familiar with them.
    The Soviet records are the ones generally viewed with greater suspicion.

    BTW, the figure of 1.947.106 German casualties for the year of 1944 has been determined, among others, by Swedish military historians Niklas Zetterling & Anders Frankson. Zetterling is one of the most well informed historians when it comes to the German archives.
    That is right, Niklas Zetterling & Anders Frankson who have written for 'The Journal of Slavic Military Studies' founded by non-other than dear Colonel David M. Glantz himself. That same Glantz who says the Soviets lost some 14 million military dead.

    Oh, just another thing; Krivosheevs figures, though the best available, are not without problems.
    Zetterling & Anders Frankson have discussed for example how the Soviet 1941 losses appear to be UNDERSTATED and that the records for said year seem imcomplete and unreliable.
    Which is natural, given the chaotic situation with all them cauldrons.
    , @Twinkie

    as a warm up, to why Guderian called Kursk a “decisive defeat”.
     
    Er, familiar with the term Pyrrhic victory?

    I absolutely agree with Guderian. The war on the East was lost for the Germans the moment Zitadelle began. As for why, you can read my earlier comment to you.

    P.S. Wehrmacht was notorious for sloppy record keeping and hiding its losses.
     
    Pure, Soviet propaganda, in which light is dark, rape is liberation, and truth is false.

    Wehrmacht records were so accurate and precise that they were used as evidence for war crimes trials.

    Soviet records, in contrast, were grossly inaccurate and often fabricated, because of 1) generally low accounting standards and training, 2) weak institutional ability to collect information, and 3) fear of punishment for being "the bearer of bad news" (Soviet officers were frequently shot for "incompetence" when they failed to carry out fantasy orders).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @L.K
    Gee, I have really rattled your cage, eh?

    You are WRONG, obviously. The book has been published in English as I've already said.

    "Or the same work by Krivosheyev can be found translated into English, edited by Professor J.Erickson;
    ‘Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century’(1997), pg.96/97."

    At any rate i ain't American and do not live there.

    So Smoothie, stop being ridiculous. Any person interested, even if not able to read Russian, can get the book in English and check the exact pages i have mentioned.
    All the details are given;
    There is a column for those who died of disease, accidents, etc. they are designated as non-combat losses.
    For the year of 1944 the figure given is 54.420.
    Another column is KIA(including those who died under casualty evacuation).
    For 1944 the figure given is 1.212.062.
    Another column has those WIA who died later in hospitals.
    For 1944 the figure given is nearly 330.000.

    Your beloved David M. Glantz had this to say about the eastern front, during an interview for historynet.com;

    "By 1942, after Leningrad and Moscow, Stalin and Marshal Georgi Zhukov think alike. They understand that even if you have to ruthlessly expend manpower, resistance will wear down a numerically weaker opponent. That tactic cost probably 14 million military dead—the price of defeating a more experienced, battle-worthy, savvy Wehrmacht."

    Of course that many of the military dead perished in captivity but the same is true for german military dead in WWII. In fact, even more so.

    The only troll and BSer here is yourself, sir, stop projecting.

    Gee, I have really rattled your cage, eh?

    I am not writing it for you. I am writing it for people who read this, so called, discussion. Sure “you rattled my cage”. If it works for you, works for me. If you have the book in English–the better. I, meanwhile, will produce tables. Give me half an hour or so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Andrei Martyanov

    I have Krivosheevs’ book and the total losses for year 1944 read(PAY ATTENTION): 6.878.641
     
    Even if you have the book (which, to the best of my knowledge haven't been published in US, I could be wrong though) I doubt you understand what is written it for two reasons:

    1. I DO own Krivosheev's 2001 "Soviet Union And Russia In The 20th Century Wars< Statistical Study", which has all of Grif Sekretnosty PLUS more, including WW I and First Chechnya War. So, in Chapter V, Table 113 it states your number, with one very important clarification. More than 1,340,000 of those "casualties" are NON-combat and go there under the classification "Ill". Yes, like diarrhea, pneumonia, dysentery and even grown in nails. But you will not know the difference, of course.

    2. Your number of 1.947.106 is false. So, in order for us to stop this BS propagated by you and the other guy, I will do it this way--I will scan all necessary documents later today and will place them in my blog. As I already said, communications with all kinds of trolls and BSers in this format is a waste of time. Until they are put face to face with facts, the only thing they are able to do is to hurl insults and deny obvious.

    Later.

    Gee, I have really rattled your cage, eh?

    You are WRONG, obviously. The book has been published in English as I’ve already said.

    “Or the same work by Krivosheyev can be found translated into English, edited by Professor J.Erickson;
    ‘Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century’(1997), pg.96/97.”

    At any rate i ain’t American and do not live there.

    So Smoothie, stop being ridiculous. Any person interested, even if not able to read Russian, can get the book in English and check the exact pages i have mentioned.
    All the details are given;
    There is a column for those who died of disease, accidents, etc. they are designated as non-combat losses.
    For the year of 1944 the figure given is 54.420.
    Another column is KIA(including those who died under casualty evacuation).
    For 1944 the figure given is 1.212.062.
    Another column has those WIA who died later in hospitals.
    For 1944 the figure given is nearly 330.000.

    Your beloved David M. Glantz had this to say about the eastern front, during an interview for historynet.com;

    “By 1942, after Leningrad and Moscow, Stalin and Marshal Georgi Zhukov think alike. They understand that even if you have to ruthlessly expend manpower, resistance will wear down a numerically weaker opponent. That tactic cost probably 14 million military dead—the price of defeating a more experienced, battle-worthy, savvy Wehrmacht.”

    Of course that many of the military dead perished in captivity but the same is true for german military dead in WWII. In fact, even more so.

    The only troll and BSer here is yourself, sir, stop projecting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Gee, I have really rattled your cage, eh?
     
    I am not writing it for you. I am writing it for people who read this, so called, discussion. Sure "you rattled my cage". If it works for you, works for me. If you have the book in English--the better. I, meanwhile, will produce tables. Give me half an hour or so.
    , @Andrei Martyanov
    So, will start with this:

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-62vkztIGsDI/VjFUwEUAzVI/AAAAAAAAANQ/CGgMxmTdjFI/s1600/Glantz-House_1.jpg

    These are the numbers House and Glantz put for Wehrmacht losses. As you can see yourself (and others with you)--those are not exactly slightly below 2 million which you are pushing here or is it....drum roll..."personal opinions"?

    Per this:


    “By 1942, after Leningrad and Moscow, Stalin and Marshal Georgi Zhukov think alike. They understand that even if you have to ruthlessly expend manpower, resistance will wear down a numerically weaker opponent. That tactic cost probably 14 million military dead—the price of defeating a more experienced, battle-worthy, savvy Wehrmacht.”
     
    I am not in disagreement with this. Or, should I use "personal opinion" or "cherry picking" BS defense here? I, to a certain point, agree with Glantz here since it would take Stalingrad for conditions to mature. You, evidently, are missing my point here--through Summer of 1943, Wehrmacht was the best army in the world. But I digress.

    Here (below) is "your number" in the continuation of table 133 from Krivosheev. Pay attention to marked in red squares. Including the number under the column Всего (Altogether), which does included those 1, 135, 342 Заболело (Fallen Ill) which are NOT combat losses. I am really at loss what are we going to do with that? But this is precisely the number which went into Wikipedia;-) ? And House and Glantz.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PE3ddlwbbtg/VjFUweweA_I/AAAAAAAAANU/c628m3FKzE4/s1600/Krivosheev-3_Sanitary.jpg

    That is where you have gotten your approx. 6.8 millions. But again, I digress.

    Addressing the discrepancy between KIAs and MIAs in table B, pages 298-299 and total combat and other losses for the same period of time--Table B counts them in OFFENSIVE operations for 4 quarters of 1944. I hope you understand the significance of such a close match between German and Soviet killed and missing? If you need me to scan those tables, just whistle. Will gladly oblige.

    Now to more pressing matters;-)

    I am waiting for our combat veteran Twinkie and then I will expand on Glantz' statement you introduced above. In fact, I would love to finally get to the issues of FERs and, as a warm up, to why Guderian called Kursk a "decisive defeat". But then again, it is Guderian's "personal opinion", right? Or was he "cherry picking".

    P.S. Wehrmacht was notorious for sloppy record keeping and hiding its losses.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @German_reader
    "By comparison, the number of German soldiers executed in all fronts was low and there was no such terror apparatus despite strict discipline. "

    I wouldn't exactly say it was "low"...30 000 Wehrmacht soldiers were sentenced to death and about 23 000 were executed. It's true that there wasn't that much desertion until 1944/45 but then it wasn't exactly easy for German soldiers to desert.

    As i have already explained, it was relatively low when compared to the Soviets.

    It was even harder for the soviet soldiers to desert, yet they did so in much greater numbers.
    This is a Fact.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @5371
    There are some desertions from every army, without exception.

    5371

    This is true. But the problem in the Soviet Army was much, much worse than in the German army.
    Huge numbers also chose to surrender.
    This is the reason for the draconian orders by Comrade Stalin, such as order 270 from Aug-41, order no 227 of july 42, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.