Jeeze… every place in America has a zip code. I live in an unincorporated part of the county, and guess what? I have a zip code. Doesn’t mean I live in a town or a city or a township. Just like there is no town of “Stanford”. Where’s the Stanford Police Department located? Who’s the Mayor of “Stanford”? How about the “Stanford Volunteer Fire Department”? Never heard of those things? Never have I. Because Stanford’s not a city, or a town, or a township. It’s a patch of land next to Palo Alto that has a zip code. Like every other place in America.
Besides which, no one who went to college in the States says “I went to the University at Stanford”, or “I went to the University at Harvard,” or “I went to the University at (of) Georgetown.” They say “Stanford, history and philosophy”. Or, “I went to Michigan.” Or, “Georgetown, political science and economics.” Or “MIT.” Or “I went to college at CalTech.” Or “I went to school at Minnesota.” Saying “I went to the University at Indiana” is just… weird. I mean, maybe they’d say “I went to school in Bloomington,” to refer to Indiana, but I’ve just never heard of a formulation where someone says “I went to the University at Indiana.” That’s just… not colloquial usage.
Besides which, that’s not what you said. The original text of the message you sent me read “University of Stanford.” The simplest, easiest, most common sense to read that is exactly how you typed it. That you went to the University of Stanford. Which isn’t a thing.
And you say I “lied” when I promised not to respond to you. So you really see no difference between someone saying (and I’m paraphrasing) “Imperious Leader is a lying dick, and I don’t plan on responding to him anymore” and someone caught lying about his academic credentials? Honestly, you see no difference at all? If that’s the case, you’re just too freakin’ stupid to have gone to Stanford. So I still don’t believe you.
What it means is Stanford is a place. You could even write a letter and use
Stanford, CA
as a destination. If you were a student, you’d understand that. IN those very short incomplete sentences which you depend on as your revisionist theory, i meant to say I went to a University….at Stanford
Now that you have hijacked this thread with typo’s meant for a PM, you really have nothing left to stand on in terms of any credibility regarding anything on WW2. You have not posted anything remotely useful in terms of refuting any idea that Stalin was not planning on hitting Hitler first. I provided evidence to the contrary. You can choose not to believe the information, but i did provide some links and there was no prerequisite to only getting links from that laundry list of mostly postwar Historians.
It’s pretty telling that you are unable to identify a single mainstream WWII historian to support your case. That’s your failing, not mine.
The problem with that as we have seen, is no matter who i bring up gets shot down as not on the list. You only listed about 8 Historians and most of them deal with postwar issues. I do know Co.l David Glantz from previous correspondence. I will ask him this question.
Besides which, no one who went to college in the States says “I went to the University at Stanford”, or “I went to the University at Harvard,” or “I went to the University at (of) Georgetown.” They say “Stanford, history and philosophy”. Or, “I went to Michigan.” Or, “Georgetown, political science and economics.” Or “MIT.” Or “I went to college at CalTech.” Or “I went to school at Minnesota.” Saying “I went to the University at Indiana” is just… weird. I mean, maybe they’d say “I went to school in Bloomington,” to refer to Indiana, but I’ve just never heard of a formulation where someone says “I went to the University at Indiana.” That’s just… not colloquial usage.
Besides which, that’s not what you said. The original text of the message you sent me read “University of Stanford.” The simplest, easiest, most common sense to read that is exactly how you typed it. That you went to the University of Stanford. Which isn’t a thing.
I say I went to the University of Texas at Austin. Am I saying it right?
@rjpeters70:
Stephen E. Ambrose
A. J. P. Taylor
John Keegan
Liddell Hart
Martin Gilbert
W.S. Churchill
David Fraser
Alistair Horne
Niall Fergusson
Ned Lebow
John Gaddis
Dan Kurman
Clay Blair
Richard Betts
Dwight Eisenhower
George Kennan
V.D. HansonDo any of those guys support your theory? Again, the burden of proof is on you, not me, as you’re the one advocating a revisionist history.
Interesting that you only listed westerns. btw ,it would be appreciated if you could keep your foul words to your self as I think we are all civilized in here rjpeters70.
I did some research on a Stalin first strike and it seems that there is something to it.
It´s def. a few thoughts worth.
As for now I found out that it could be, that the Tank ratio was changed to a 1:7 ratio, 3410 German Tank vs. 22000 Soviet Tanks instead of the nbrs. we know.
It was also considered that the reason for a fast territory gain by Germans was due to the setting wich the soviet army was in.
Instead of a defensive preparation it was in an attacking set up.
There supposed to be some evidence hidden in the archives in Podolsk wich could explain more and in detail to an possible first strike of Stalin. Will look up for more informations.
Interesting that you only listed westerns. btw ,it would be appreciated if you could keep your foul words to your self as I think we are all civilized in here rjpeters70.
Yes quite right. To gain the full understanding you need to quote Soviet sources, as well as European scholars . I bet he will disapprove of David Glantz, who is an authority on the Russian campaign. Glantz has written many books solely dealing with that campaign. The problem with rjpeters70 is he only reads what he wants too…old men or dead men and his threshold of what is real is limited to this. Everything else gets the “revisionist” label. Most of the information on this occurred many years following the wars end. People like Churchill and Liddell hart, Eisenhower, A.J. P. Taylor are living a long time ago and new facts and a reassessment of that period have been done.
Did someone say revisionist history?
I have a few chapters I’d like to write…
Like I’ve said, I’m perfectly willing to concede the possibility of it being true. My problem is with folks like Imperious Leader, who have credibility problems to say the least, saying that “it WAS” going to happen… as though it was an historical certainty. If that’s the case, then great, prove your point. Cite some mainstream authors.
It could have happened if it were not for Germany attacking first. If they didn’t attack first, it was more than likely to occur and was not some “training mission” or “OPLAN” or just some study.
Stalin had no idea Hitler would attack. The facts are very clear regarding that.
And I’m also willing to concede that I’m a Westernist when it comes to my historiography. But then again, I’m a Westerner. And having read some of the old declassified Soviet stuff, I just haven’t seen anything that suggested Stalin was months/weeks away from his own offensive against the Nazis. Which is what Imperious Leader says.
A more dynamic assessment of History includes the view of people outside " the American top 10" list of Historians. The assessment of History is always evolving and most older Historians don’t have the complete information. I did not say Stalin would attack in a few weeks or months, That is where you make my viewpoint look less sanguine by making it look extreme. I said Stalin was prepared to attack 1941-42 and not “2 weeks” That is rubbish and you know it.
Hence, my stance: Ok, you think it was going to happen? Great. Prove it. Show real evidence that has the support of mainstream academics. Someone like Glantz says it was going to happen? Ok, good enough for me. But I’d like to see that in writing in some kind of academic or peer reviewed publication.
I am sending him a note and we wait a few days.
Viktor Suworow and Solschenizyn would have been two “Historians” on Eastern side!
Right but this bloke only recognizes old white Americans and British as the final word on anything.
No matter what Glantz says in a return email, i will post.
Viktor Suvorov:
"According to Suvorov, Stalin planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the �Icebreaker�) against the West. For this reason Stalin provided significant material and political support to Adolf Hitler, while at the same time preparing the Red Army to �liberate� the whole of Europe from Nazi occupation. Suworow argued that Hitler had lost World War II from the very moment he attacked Poland: not only was he going to war with the powerful Allies,
but it was only a matter of time before the Soviet Union would seize the opportune moment to attack him from the rear
."
This is pretty much what i said before, Stalin wanted to help Hitler so he could be bled white from fighting France and UK banking on another war of attrition. When Hitler took out France in 6 weeks, he did everything he could to keep Hitler happy, while building up his own forces. Coincidentally, the Baltic states were occupied to provide a buffer between Germany and USSR.
@rjpeters70:
@Imperious:
Right but this bloke only recognizes old white Americans and British as the final word on anything.
No matter what Glantz says in a return email, i will post.
Viktor Suvorov:
"According to Suvorov, Stalin planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the �Icebreaker�) against the West. For this reason Stalin provided significant material and political support to Adolf Hitler, while at the same time preparing the Red Army to �liberate� the whole of Europe from Nazi occupation. Suworow argued that Hitler had lost World War II from the very moment he attacked Poland: not only was he going to war with the powerful Allies,
but it was only a matter of time before the Soviet Union would seize the opportune moment to attack him from the rear
."
This is pretty much what i said before, Stalin wanted to help Hitler so he could be bled white from fighting France and UK banking on another war of attrition. When Hitler took out France in 6 weeks, he did everything he could to keep Hitler happy, while building up his own forces. Coincidentally, the Baltic states were occupied to provide a buffer between Germany and USSR.
BTW, you lifted that from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov). Please stop doing that; it’s bad history and not peer reviewed. At any rate, interesting you left off the following from the same Wikipedia page: The works by Suvorov remain a matter of debate among historians. While most agree that Stalin made extensive preparations for an upcoming war and exploited the military conflict in Europe to his advantage, the assertions that Stalin planned to attack Nazi Germany in the summer of 1941, and that Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike by Hitler, are disputed.Â
Also, from the same page:Â Suvorov made his name writing books about the Soviet Army, GRU, and Spetsnaz, but it was his book Icebreaker and several follow-up books about World War II that spurred considerable controversy.
It was ME who brought Suvorovs name in this Topic so I have NO clue why you trying to put it on IL´s Tap or what you are actually talking about.
@aequitas:
Viktor Suworow and Solschenizyn would have been two “Historians” on Eastern side!
Please let us go back to Topic.
Your first citation of evidence was from wikipedia (hee hee): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy Here’s what that page reads: He argued that Soviet ground forces were extremely well organized, and were mobilizing en masse all along the German-Soviet border for a Soviet invasion of Europe slated for Sunday, July 6, 1941, but they were totally unprepared for defensive operations on their own territory.
Later, same page: Thus, according to supporters of the Soviet Union Offensive Plans Theory, the Red Army had to enter a war by 1 September 1941 or the drafted soldiers would have to be released from service.
So, yes: Supporters of that theory, based upon the “evidence” that you cited (and you seem to think Wikipedia counts for something, since you’ve used it in the past, and it was the first thing you referenced), the Soviet offensive was weeks/months away from when Barbarossa started (3rd week in June).
Rubbish? I too think it’s not likely… but it is your theory, not mine.
I referenced about 6 sites, but you pick Wikipedia….hmmm BTW I believe Stalin would have attacked in 1942 if Hitler was still dealing with UK in order to force Hitler into a two front war. The entry dates depends on the source and the date is less important. What is important was whether an attack would come.
I “only recognizes old white Americans and British as the final word on anything.” That’s an assumption based upon a limited data set
It is an assumption based on the list of old white Americans that YOU POSTED. The fallacy is yours, not mine.
I also contacted Dr. David Brandenberger -Associate Professor of History and International Studies ( Harvard) for this question
you were suggesting that a Soviet attack on Germany was coming within weeks/months of Hitler’s invasion
But i never said that. That is where you make up information to make the argument look less possible.
We’re arguing over whether or not an attack WAS coming. � I’m saying, yes, it’s plausible… but not likely
Well than after all of this ….you agree. My contention was always if Hitler was still bogged down in war and wasn’t doing too well, that by 1942 at the latest more than likely he would invade. That is not a training exercise for the military or some contingency plan. It this a plan that had legs. That is a far different plan than modern US OPLAN. It was like Hitler’s plan to attack Gibraltar, which would have occurred had additional perquisites had been attained ( the war would need to have a better result for Germany in 1940).
Any response to you cherry picking only those sections of Wikipedia that supported your position, but left off those sections that summarily discounted it?
Am just posting what his theory was so other people understand why he was brought up in the first place. Hello :roll:
Viktor Suvorov:
"According to Suvorov, Stalin planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the Icebreaker) against the West. For this reason Stalin provided significant material and political support to Adolf Hitler, while at the same time preparing the Red Army to liberate the whole of Europe from Nazi occupation. Suworow argued that Hitler had lost World War II from the very moment he attacked Poland: not only was he going to war with the powerful Allies,
Like I’ve said, the citation you listed to support your theory said that Stalin would attack within weeks/months. � Since you offered it up as evidence, I assumed you supported this view. � You can understand my confusion, I hope. �
And my position on this isn’t new. � Go back and reread my posts. � I’ve always said it’s possible, but the evidence was thin. � My problem is the position that such an attack was for sure coming (without any kind of substantive evidence to support such a statement). � Seriously, go back and read posts. �
My first response to your position was: � I agree, this is really thin gruel. � This is a fringe assertion, that doesn’t have a lot of evidence to support it.
A couple posts later, I wrote this: � Was there a Soviet plan on the books to fight the Nazis? � I’m sure there was. �
A few posts later, I wrote again: � No, I don’t see it as being an impossibility at all. � I’m just saying, I don’t think the generally accepted historical view is that Stalin was going to attack Hitler in Summer/Fall of 41; but Hitler beat him to the punch. � That’s all.
Then more recently: � Like I’ve said, I’m perfectly willing to concede the possibility of it being true. � My problem is with folks like Imperious Leader, who have credibility problems to say the least, saying that “it WAS” going to happen… as though it was an historical certainty. � If that’s the case, then great, prove your point. � Cite some mainstream authors. �
So, it’s not like I’m suddenly changing my position. � I’ve been pretty clear about my thoughts on this. � Possible? � Sure. � You bet. � Plausible? � Maybe. � For sure going to happen? � That’s pretty shaky.
Well i appears you don’t understand my position at all. Or that you do but still like to argue against it, while supporting it. For the plan to work, the war would need to continue to be another wasted year for Hitler in 1941. If that occurs and no change with respect to England has occurred, the plan was most likely to happen. That is a far cry from some military study or training mission given to the military.
Wait… you claim to be a middle aged man who went to Stanford, and you just did the 13 year old girl equivalent of “hello??” with an accompanying eye roll? Wow… That’s pretty damn gay.
In California, this is our vernacular and it is not Gay. What is unfortunate is all you have left is insinuating people are Gay and have no argument. Pretty lame if you ask me.
Yeah, but you’re not Californian. You’re British.
And love the fact that you say I have no argument, when you can’t even cite credible sources to support your own.
Well make up what you like.
And you must also love the fact that only a laundry list of mostly dead Anglo-Historians become the ex facto final word on anything :roll: You are the homophobic one who calls people gay like some 10 year old…LOL What a crock.
“If that occurs and no change with respect to England has occurred, the plan was most likely to happen.”
Right there, that’s what I have a problem with. � You say “most likely to happen” and have yet to offer a credible, mainstream, peer reviewed academic who supports such an assertion. �
No rather a view shared by only dead white Americans who mostly have a world view based on the facts of that day, without the benefit of new information. Like Eisenhower and Churchill had any access to Soviet sources in the 1950’s…yea sure. You see all you do is discount any source that is not on the list and you picked all the old people who have a different interpretation of that period. That is a faulty assessment of History. You need to consult other Historians like those who are not Anglo.
Woah, woah, woah… you use words like “rubbish” and “lad” and “bloke” and you deny that your British? Or at least Australian? Seriously?
I never used “Lad”… funny how you constantly make up stuff to make that pathetic point of view. I am not English or Australian.
This is fascinating stuff. It’s like a sampler pack of IL’s deficiencies:
Lying, poor/no evidence, childishly calling names or thinking he is clever twisting someone else’s words, ignoring pertinent questions/info that would expose his faulty reasoning, correcting spelling so he can feel superior for SOMETHING, assuming that there are no relevant connections between operations of goverments (because some are the good guys and some are the bad guys  :roll:), and just acting like an arrogant jerk in general.
IL, have you ever considered how many people can’t stand you, and then thought for a second, “Hmm, maybe the problem is ME and the way I act and think?” You should.
