1 Hmm...an interesting theory, albeit a stupid and provably false one.

You do realize that this is the Russian equivalent of our "Kennedy was killed by the CIA and LBJ" conspiracy theories.

2 The difference between a valid Historical proof and a Conspiracy Theory - the one uses documents to prove people's intentions, the other uses easily manipulated statistics.

To prove Stalin's intentions you need to know what Stalin said and thought, not the condition the Red Army was at the time. Also, as the Nazi archives are open to all, we'd KNOW if the Germans had evidence that Stalin plans a sneak attack.

So I call BS.

3 I don't buy the "out of desperation, [Hitler] attacked the USSR first; but he really had no chance of winning anyway," part of the theory.  Hitler always planned to go to war with the Soviets.  The plan was to destroy the Red Army near the border, after which the Soviet regime would simply collapse.  And  the Red Army's performance against the Finns just reinforced his belief that it was doable.  If the Wehrmacht could destroy the French Army in a matter of weeks, how easy would it be to do the same against the Bolshevik untermenchen?

4 Nice, misleading, mainstream-media style attention-grabbing headline...

...even if the assertions in the book were true, it don't mean WW2 was started by Stalin.

Better claim to make would be the Russians were intending to invade because they knew the Germans would eventually set their sights on them; best defense and all that.

5 The commies hate him.

6 Hitler's mistake was he never anticipated US entering the war.

He knew taking on the Reds will be costly, but as of 41 he was certain that the Russian gradual buildup after Stalin's cleanups was more dangerous than the remaining British forces.

But to suggest Stalin thought of Attacking Germany at 41 is propostrous.

7 It's not unreasonable to think Stalin might've been using Hitler as a stalking horse, but that's a far cry from saying the Sovs "started" the war.  Hitler still deserves the hook for that one despite any machinations on Stalin's part.

As for their combat readiness...even the Finnish (dirty scandis by any other name, would they still smell like lutefisk...) whooped the shit out of Iron Joe's boys as late in the game as March 1940, to the tune of 70,000 Soviets lost, at a cost of only 25,000 Finns.  That same little adventure also cost the Russians 1600 tanks and 700 aircraft.  And that was very much an offensive move, initiated by the well-positioned Soviet army.

I think plans for world domination at that point might've been a bit optimistic.

8 Hitler kept thinking that the Brits would help him fight the Russians.  Hitler always viewed communism as an enemy & couldn't understand why the Anglo-Saxon world didn't share this view.  And while Churchill did share that view, he knew he had to stop the Hun first.

9 How about a link to the book?  Get some Insty-style Amazon money.

10 One of the problems with this idea are the 1938 purges which crippled the Red Army. When war came in 1941 many army officers were released directly from the Gulags in order to command field formations. Stalin would have to have been a total fool to think he could decapitate his high command and then begin an offensive campaign against the Germans.

The reason that many formations were not entrenched on the forward lines is that they had just occupied eastern Poland and the defensive fortifications hadn't been built yet.

The tank he is talking about is the BT series (BT-5 and 7) which were meant for the DD formations. These were long range fast cavalry units.

The T-26  (based on the Vickers 6-ton) was a more typicle tank for the period and meant for the DPP formations. These were standard armoured units.

When the purges came the men who designed these tactics and strategy were shot or imprisoned and the sycophants who replaced them couldn't command the formations.

11 Travis gets part of it right but you can't ignore the part of the story wherein Stalin put many of the Red Army's best generals not on prison but in charge of Penal Battalions, where the soldiers got five rounds to fight their battle, just five. If you shot too many rounds you died, if you turned around against your own forces,you died, if you lost the battle...you died. This was the way Tolbuhkin wound up staying alive until after the war and even managing to rise in rank before he died. He also had no toenails on his feet as the were beaten off during torture instigated by Felix Derzhinsky and our boy Stalin in the Purges. It is also interesting to note that his death sentence was never repealed and he died with it still hanging over his head. The death of Stalin didn't chage that one wit.
Surprising what people will go through to stay alive.

12 Capturing Moscow is pointless?  You clearly have never played Risk, my friend.  But seriously, that is some interesting stuff.

13 I think that was Tolbuhkin, but it slip my mind for certain. I read about that stuff in a book  about the GRU, Soviet Military Intelligence.
Very bloody.

14 Y, if the Soviet troops, planes and tanks were where he says they were, it would lend credence to his claim.  However, you have to wonder why nobody who was there ever brought this out before.  WWII started almost 70 yrs ago.  There were lots of defectors from the Soviet regime prior to the collapse.  Surely someone who was in on the planning of any Soviet invasion would've liked to bring this out for a 6-figure book deal of his own.  Maybe even Krushchev himself, no fan of Stalin, would've used this info as part of his revisionist campaign.  It took 30 yrs for us to find out that the Russians had tactical nukes in Cuba in 1962 and were prepared to use them to repel a US invasion, but evenutally we did find that out even though one of the actors in the drama (Castro) was still alive.  Why have we not heard of this before now? 

15 The thing about conquering Moscow is that apparently it would have utterly disrupted the Soviet rail system, which was vital for maintaining production and continuing troop movements (especially bringing in reinforcements from the East). As I recall from readings about the Ostfront, that is the reason why so many of Hitler's commanders called for attacking Moscow. Hitler, on the other hand, believed that if he could get to the Caucasus, he could capture all the oil out from underneath the Soviets. It turned out that Hitler's strategy failed with the loss at Stalingrad, and that the rail system proved to be Stalin's saving grace. Nevertheless, it's difficult to say with certainty whether a capture of Moscow would have ended the war on the Ostfront.

16 I dunno.  The argument isn't very convincing, if only because I don't think Stalin really wanted to invade Western Europe.

On the other hand, it has always mystified me that the one human being Josef Stalin ever trusted in his entire life was . . . Adolf Hitler.

17 As for tanks, the Russians wisely adopted Christie suspension which gave the t34 much greater agility and handling than the ponderous and sluggish German tanks, with approximately equal guns on each side.
The Russians also believed in huge number  but simple models, what they called "monkey models" made so stripped down they could be operated by monkeys.
Add that to the huge amount of bodies in soviet livery and you have the makings of a bad day,or year, for the Germans.
And Stalin was even more paranoiac that Hitler, if that is possible.
Again, hard to believe but true.

18

This is nonsense from the word go. The Soviets were providing massive amounts of raw materials to the Reich right up to the hour the German Army kicked off the invasion. Stalin is reported to have been completely bewildered as to why Hitler would want to destroy their partnership. It was very profitable to both sides. The Soviet Union got a free hand in the Baltic and large slices of Poland and Romania in return for doing virtually nothing. The Soviets were conducting espionage against Great Britain and then delivering that info to Germany.

When the Wehrmacht failed to knock the Soviets out of Moscow in 41, Stalin had time to regain his balance, reinforce and dig in. Even though the Germans had a good initial offensive in 42, the Soviets ended that at Stalingrad. If America had never come in, and the Brits never invaded Europe, the Soviets still would have beaten the Nazis on their own. It might have taken millions more deaths and it might have gone until 46 or 47, but Russia was already winning before we fired a shot against Germany.

19 The comments above in this thread are good. This is a familiar conspiracy theory, and I'm glad to see people giving it the lie so cogently.

The way I would put it is: Hitler knew that beating Russia was doable, because the Kaiser's army (which he had been in, though not on the Eastern Front) had done just that; and he had a simple, rational expectation that the Wehrmacht could kill 200 Russian divisions, which is what the Reds were supposed to have. Therefore: invade Russia --> success!

Unfortunately for the Germans: "Overall, it is clearer and clearer that we have underestimated the Russian colossus, which had prepared itself for war with an utter lack of restraint which is characteristic of the totalitarian state. This is as true in the area of organization as it is of the economy, the area of transport and communications, but above all to pure military power. At the start of the war, we reckoned on some 200 enemy divisions. Now we have already counted 360. These divisions are definitely not armed and equipped in our sense, and tactically they are in many ways badly led. But they are there." - Halder.

They were indeed. And there were more to come, better armed and equipped and better led. And oops! there goes the Reich.

Invading Russia wasn't desperation. It was an intelligence failure of vast impact. Hitler really didn't know then what we know now about the Communists' ability to raise and arm additional divisions.

The conventional wisdom on who started World War II in Europe is extremely well documented, and it is correct.

Better book recommendation: Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War, by David M. Glantz.

20 The Murmansk sea-lift rescued the Russkies. Without the American aid they would have had to retreat East of the Urals.

Stalin had his troops on his new borders with Germany at the wars beginning because he used them to take his half of Poland. They weren't there on vacation. When Hitler moved on them the Reds were simply outclassed and defeated. Stalin had no reason to invade Europe then. Trade was flourishing with Germany and they were benefiting from the alliance. It is interesting to note that the Western Powers declaration of war against Germany's taking of Poland left out the Soviets which had claimed their half.

The Finns defeated the Reds in the initial onslaught because they were a better army. The victory cost them dearly though. The following attack (after Stalin murdered a few officers to set the tone) resulted in a quick capitulation. The Finns could not fight a war of attrition. They had no allies and they didn't have the men. They sacrificed their liberty for their lives.

21 Surovov was full of shit when he wrote Ten Million Bayonets and I think he's full of it now. Still, it's probably a fun read since John Ringo hasn't given us the sixth Ghost novel yet so I might well snag it.

22 Please.  Everybody knows that the Joooos! started World War 2 in order for Israel to be created when the world felt sorry for them after the Holocaust. 

23 There being no honor among thieves, it is not unlikely that Stalin planned to doublecross Hitler and was simply beaten to the punch.

The really needed reconsideration of WW2, however, is that we won in 1945 in Berlin. There is a reason there is no "Godwin's Law" for mentioning Stalin.

When the war began for us, half of Europe was in the grip of an evil, totalitarian and aggressive National Socialist dictatorship. When the war was over, half of Europe was in the grip of an evil, totalitarian and aggressive International Socialist dictatorship.

Therefore, by the foolish standards of today's Left anyway, WW2 was a "strategic disaster" and a "loss". Indeed, Iraq & Afghanistan are smashing sucesses in comparison. Still, the outcome was on balance certainly a victory and probably as good as was possible.

Margaret Thatcher has said that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot. Grenada vets and others would dispute that--but it wasn't the Cold War that he won. Reagan finished the uncompleted business started by his boyhood hero FDR and by Harry Truman.

WW2 wasn't won by us in 1945 in Berlin--it was essentially won in the mid-80's by Ronald Reagan in Reykjavik. Put that in your history book.

24 I  thought dubyadubyatoo started  when the germans bombed pearl harbor

25

Let’s do a quick history review:

- June 22, 1941 Operation Barbarossa commences. Germany attacks Soviet troops and positions in Poland and elsewhere. Within a week, Guderian’s Second Panzer Group has advanced 300 miles

- August 23, 1941, Hitler orders Guderian’s Second Panzer Group and the Second Army to attack south to link up with Army Group South, instead of continuing on to Moscow.

- September 19, the Germans capture Kiev, at a cost of about 100,000 men

- October 2 Operation Typhoon begins (after a delay of about 40 days and the loss of 100,000 men).

- November 27, the Germans push to within 30 miles of Moscow, halt die to lack of reinforcements.

- December 2, Some German units push to within 20 miles from the Kremlin (60day mark).

- December 5 Operation Typhoon ends, due to weather and lack of reinforcements.

This is approximately a 100-day window

Move the start of Typhoon up 40 days, and the Soviet army defending Moscow would’ve had to face an additional 100,000 Germans for 100 days (before the weather froze things).

A very large segment of the military history universe is of the opinion that the Germans would’ve taken Moscow had Typhoon started in August/September 1941, and that Stalin would’ve been shot as a result. The Eastern Front would’ve ceased to exist as an important theatre of WW2.

 

Suvorov (from the provided synopsis) makes an interesting case.

Up until 22 June 1941, Stalin very likely thought his army invincible. He had a very good idea what armaments the Germans had, and the Germans were unaware of the T-34 and KV-1. The Red army had large numbers of tanks and aircraft.

Unfortunately, the Soviets has insufficient logistical support, and poor communications.

Additionally, the numbers of T-34s and KV-1s (in 1941), don’t really point to an offensive in 1941, and the BT-5s and –7s are not much better than anyone else’s tanks. Both the T-34 and KV-1 (in 1941) had drivetrain problems. Neither were going very far before breaking severely.

The Me-109 is considerably better than the bulk of Soviet fighters in 1941, and the numbers of Me-109s point to a failed Soviet offensive in 1941. As history shows, airpower is extremely important.

It looks like Suvorov is doing some spin to a topic .... well, it sells books. If there is any reasonable evidence for Stalin preparing (not just wanting) to conquer Europe in 1941, Suvorov should provide it/

Still, Suvorov’s book sounds like an interesting read.

26 Even in the early 19th century, it became clear that victory is only achieved by destroying the enemy's army and other military potential; capturing cities, even capitals, is almost pointless


Tell that to the French.

Their Army was hardly used.

27 I  thought dubyadubyatoo started  when the germans bombed pearl harbor


No, it was over when they did.

28

Kaptain Watts his name was all the rage in my early schooling. You know, "use what you need, but save all you can"

Instead of real history. And I was at the forefront of of the Graduate High School at all cost/concerns.

I love coming to this, and other blogs for history lessons. That my Instructors/teachers Failed to do. I graduated HS in 1978.

I think this is going to be a long learning by example. coming right before us, now.  And I wonder, How much has the history been watered down by now?

29 WW2 was entirely and solely Winston Churchill's fault you deluded f'ing idiots.

30

even after the initial german invasion of russia Stalin had over 1 million troops still guarding his eastern border worrying about Japan.  It was only due to a german spy in tokyo telling Stalin that the japanese had no plans on an attack however Stalin didnt move his men off the eastern borders until close to august early september due to the fact it took others inside the Kremlin to convince Stalin the spy was not playing both sides.  Germanys panzers were too aggresive and out ran the infantry and wheeled vehicles so they had to stop and regroup in late october which let the winter set in and slowed the infantry down even more.  This allowed the troops from siberia to make it to the western edge.  Most scholars say that if Stalin didnt take the spys word or if the panzers hadnt outran the troops Moscow would have fell.  They were within 40 miles and moscow was being evacuated. 

all this tells me there is no way Moscow had plans of attacking Germany.  I dont buy his arguments.

31 It's an interesting subject, but trying to apply logic and reason to explain the actions and intentions of Hitler and Stalin is a tough game.

We're talking about Hitler and Stalin here.

One little bit though, I agree with Ace that the war wouldn't have ended if the Germans had captured Moscow in 1941.  The whole subject is overblown.  The Germans were counting on a political meltdown following the defeat of most of the Red Army.  People sometimes forget that the Germans did defeat Russia in WW1 by these means - and the Red Army got beat up even worse in 1941 than the Czar's Army had been in the first few years of WW1. 

I don't buy the "Russia was unbeatable because it was too big" argument anymore than I buy the "Russia would have lost if Moscow had fallen in 1941" argument.

32

Many folks are not aware that Hitler declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor, not vice-versa.  Upon which Churchill is reported to have first coined the phrase "Number of ejaculations?... I'll let you know when they bloody well stop!".

Okay, on that second part, I may have taken a bit of poetic license.

33 "Still, highly recommended."

Stumbo, this was stupid.

34 Many folks are not aware that Hitler declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor, not vice-versa.

Still inexplicable.  He should have denounced the Japanese and declared war on Japan.

35 Well, I've studied WWII quite a lot over the years, and I have to say: sounds thin. Stalin was busy enough with his internal problems without casting his eyes westward to Europe. He had just finished purging the Red Army in the 1930's, and was highly distrustful of others in the Politburo. Stalin was a paranoid brute, but he wasn't stupid: he knew that the Red Army was an empty shell, and that Russia as a whole was terribly weak after twenty years of purges, the Great Depression, and Stalin's own terror campaigns. The Russians were also more concerned about the Chinese than about the Europeans, a historical enmity that stretches back hundreds of years.

Stalin did dislike Poland for a number of reasons, and it's quite possible that he would have attacked Poland once Russia's internal affairs were in order, but I doubt this would have happened before 1950. Further, Stalin knew that such a strike would inevitably lead to German reprisal, and his animus against Poland was secondary to his fear of German might. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was essentially a way to carve up Poland without incurring a war between Russia and Germany (a hope in which Stalin was bitterly disappointed, as things turned out).

Hitler, on the other hand, saw in the vast open spaces of Russia the lebensraum that his master-race could spread out in, with the Slavic untermenschen existing as slaves to the "true Aryans". Russia and Poland were doomed the moment that Hitler became Chancellor in 1933. Hitler never considered The Soviet Union to be anything other than an enemy: his hatred of Communism and his belief in the racial inferiority of the Slavs, combined with the land and oil wealth of Russia, drew Hitler magnetically to the East.

Beware the "debunking" books. Most of them are written by cranks and ideologues with an axe to grind.

36 And it is true that Hitler declared war on America after Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan. This was a colossally stupid move on his part, because had he remained silent, it is very likely that the US Congress would have declared war only on Japan and left Germany alone. This would virtually have guaranteed the Nazis a victory in Europe, because England at that point was nearly beaten, and the rest of Europe and Russia was already under the Nazi boot. Churchill said it best when he wrote that when he heard that America had entered the war against Germany, he "went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful".

37 concerned about the Chinese

Sigh. I meant to say Japan. Stupid brain.

38 The leftists were at it in Mexico as well during the same time frame.  They got lots of "change" that brought terrible destruction to the people: http://tinyurl.com/5po3dl
Let's pray our "change" isn't so destructive!

39

# 33 Chrisy...

Explain?

40 Heinz Guderian believed that capturing Moscow would have resulted in a German victory; the difference between Moscow in Napoleon's time and Hitler's time was that Moscow was a major rail center in the 20th century and was therefore much more important to the Russians both tactically and logistically.

That's what I remember of his book Panzer Leader, which I read some 15+ years ago. 

The idea that Stalin was ready to attack Hitler in 1941 is, frankly, insane.

Suivorov is wrong on this argument, but his Inside the Soviet Army is still a must read. 

41 The Communist Party USA had a remarkable sequence of pirouettes as they opposed Fascism (national socialism interfered with internationalist socialism) until the non-aggression pact whereupon the supported Fascism until Hitler invaded Russia.

The thoughtful reader should consult Jonah Goldberg's work Liberal Fascism. I think that the demonization of fascism began with Stalin who saw it as a competitor for socialist mindshare with his own variant thereof. (Sort of like Quakers and Baptists going after the same non-conformist protestants in olde England.)

We should know exactly what fascism was in its various manifestations in Germany, Italy and America. Otherwise, we risk Godwinning ourselves when we oppose the various statist impulses of both Republicans and Democrats.

42 He should have denounced the Japanese and declared war on Japan.

Not likely, since he was still hoping the Japanese would get over that little asswhipping the Russians gave them in Manchuria in May-August of '39, and provide enough distraction to force some percentage of the Soviet forces to defend their eastern flank.

43 We have only to kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will collapse. - Adolf Hitler, referring to the upcoming Operation Barbarossa.

As far back as Mein Kampf, Hitler saw Russia as prime living space (lebensraum) for the master race. The idea that he attacked the Soviet Union out of desperation is simply absurd. Hitler merely did what he said he was going to do. For two decades.

44 But what if...aliens invaded during the middle of the whole thing?

45 I read about this Stalin was going to attack Germany theory a few years ago. I can't remember where. It was something about Stalin was interested in taking Romania and its oil fields so he would control all of the oil in Europe. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that he would want more territory in Europe. But Hitler always wanted Russia at least up to the Urals. Figuring that if the controlled Ukraine's wheat and the oil the Caucasus he could feed and fuel his Reich for a very long time.

Hitler declared war on the US because he thought the Japanese would then declare war on the USSR and that would tie down Soviet units in the far east. But the Russians knew through their spy network that the Japanese had no intention of doing so and sent their Siberian divisions west for their winter counter offensive.

46 Look at a map of the USSR in 1940. What you will see is that there are really no north - south rail lines that do not go through Moscow. This is why the Germans should have (and belatedly did) go after Moscow. The Russians could not use interior lines anywhere short of the trans Ural area if they lost Moscow.

Armchair generals talk about strategy while professionals talk about logistics. Central lines and superior logistics made the Germans early in the war while superior American production and logistics won the war.

.

47 Hassidic Rabbit:

the Nazi archives are open to all

An imminent Soviet invasion was the reason many German generals gave, at their subsequent trials. Hitler himself spoke about it, as justification for his attack.

Simon Oliver Lockwood:

The plan was to destroy the Red Army near the border

But why was it near the border? If you're planning for defense, you position your troops well behind the border, so a sudden attack wouldn't catch them flat-footed. If you don't expect any war at all, then your troops should be dispersed throughout the country. Therefore, the Red Army being positioned near the border can mean only one thing: it was poised for an attack of its own.

SOL, and apotheosis:

And  the Red Army's performance against the Finns just reinforced his belief that it was doable.

The performance against the Finns was conducted under much, much tougher conditions -- way-below-freezing temperatures, hidden defense posts, lakes which (under many feet of snow) were invisible until you drowned in them, mobile ski units of snipers who could shoot and then disappear, etc. -- yet the Red Army broke through all of that, in a few months. As Suvorov points out, this was an achievement the like of which no other army had ever accomplished. So anyone who took this as a sign of military unpreparedness was just plain wrong.

G: even if the assertions in the book were true, it don't mean WW2 was started by Stalin

Not physically started, but put in motion.

Someone:

I don't know how to make a link so that Ace gets a percentage; if you know how to do that, please tell me.

Travis:

One of the problems with this idea are the 1938 purges which crippled the Red Army

The chapter on Tukhachevsky partly explains that. The point is that Stalin was getting rid of deadwood -- competent generals were kept; incompetent ones were either forced into retirement, imprisoned, or simply shot. (Some whom Stalin decided to give a second chance to were later brought back from prison, and reinstated as commanders. Tukhachevsky definitely didn't qualify.)

JP:

if the Soviet troops, planes and tanks were where he says they were, it would lend credence to his claim. ...  Maybe even Krushchev himself, no fan of Stalin, would've used this info as part of his revisionist campaign

Khruschev did say they were where they were. But his whole point was to accuse Stalin of ineptitude and unpreparedness, not of aggressive plans (even though he himself took part in those plans).

derzornhistology:

The thing about conquering Moscow is that apparently it would have utterly disrupted the Soviet rail system, which was vital for maintaining production and continuing troop movements (especially bringing in reinforcements from the East).

I don't think that's a huge point. So, troop reinforcements from the East would've had to disembark a few miles East of Moscow, and complete the rest of the way on foot? Big deal; that's what soldiers do all the time. Likewise, tanks could've completed that trip under their own power.

Trimegistus:

On the other hand, it has always mystified me that the one human being Josef Stalin ever trusted in his entire life was . . . Adolf Hitler.

Suvorov answers that question: he didn't.

Log Cabin:

The Soviets were providing massive amounts of raw materials to the Reich right up to the hour the German Army kicked off the invasion

Because they expected that those materials would be used against Western Europe, not against the USSR.

Russia was already winning before we fired a shot against Germany

That's what Suvorov says, too.

David Blue:

Well, read Suvorov's book, as well.

But statements like Hitler knew that beating Russia was doable are absurd. Nobody had beaten Russia since the Mongols in the 13th century.

Torabora:

When Hitler moved on them the Reds were simply outclassed and defeated

No; it was because Hitler had the element of surprise. Had it gone the other way, the Germans would've been "outclassed and defeated."

SGT Dan:

Surovov was full of shit when he wrote Ten Million Bayonets

As a very brief web search tells me, that book was written not by Suvorov, but by a David C. Isby. Unless you convince me that that was another of Suvorov's pen-names, I don't see its relevance to this discussion.

Noel:

There is a reason there is no "Godwin's Law" for mentioning Stalin

Because, again, Stalin waited for Hitler to invade Poland first, and thus earn the title of He Who Started WW2. For a few decades, it has been known that Stalin killed more people than Hitler; Suvorov's merely trying to establish that in this case, Stalin was also more to blame.

Arbalest:

The Me-109 is considerably better than the bulk of Soviet fighters in 1941, and the numbers of Me-109s point to a failed Soviet offensive in 1941. As history shows, airpower is extremely important.

Well, again -- if you're planning to launch a surprise attack, you mainly need bombers, not fighters. The enemy aircraft get destroyed while still on the ground, and then, you have a "clear sky" to bomb anything else you'd like to bomb.

LJ:

I don't understand your post. Please rephrase it in English.

Forest:

I agree with Ace

Ace had nothing to do with this post.

Christoph:

You'll have to do better than that to convince me.

Monty:

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was essentially a way to carve up Poland without incurring a war between Russia and Germany

On the contrary (as mentioned in my post) -- it created a common border instead of a buffer zone, which greatly facilitated the start of a war from either side.

Hitler, on the other hand, saw in the vast open spaces of Russia the lebensraum that his master-race could spread out in

That was part of his thousand-year-Reich schedule, not an immediate goal. As Suvorov asks (approximately): unless you're aware of an imminent danger, why on earth would you forgo the yet-unoccupied South of France, and instead fight to the death for the swamps of Minsk?

This would virtually have guaranteed the Nazis a victory in Europe, because [...] Russia was already under the Nazi boot

It wasn't. A small part of it was. The rest was being mobilized (factories being built, troops -- including prisoners -- being trained, etc.)

PalinFan:

The idea that Stalin was ready to attack Hitler in 1941 is, frankly, insane.

Then what was he planning to do with all those troops massed on the border? Do an Emily Litella?

"Mobilization is war, and we cannot understand it in any other way." -- B. M. Shaposhnikov, Stalin's favorite military theorist

Packsoldier: see my reply to Monty.

48

And don't give me any crap about how Hitler almost captured Moscow. Napoleon, in 1812, did capture it -- and ended up having to flee.

In 1812, Moscow was merely the capital of Russia.

In 1941, Moscow was the absolute center of the Soviet rail net.

In Napoleon's time, capturing Moscow doesn't really have any adverse effects on the Russians. In Hitler's time, it's tantamount to cutting the Soviet rail net--and hence, the Soviet Army--in two.

Second-order effects of capturing Moscow: Leningrad is doomed and falls in early 1942. It took incredibly heroic efforts to keep Leningrad in (minimal) supply as it was--not having Moscow available means that arms and munitions from the trans-Ural industrial complexes would never get to Leningrad. This frees up a large portion of Army Group North to support Operation Blau. Hitler may end up successfully grabbing the Caucusus oil fields, and if that happens it's game over for the USSR--a T-34 is of little use without fuel.

49

"In 1812, Moscow was merely the capital of Russia."

No, it wasn't even that.  St. Petersburg was the capital from 1713 until after the Revolution.

50 Many good comments including the OP.  Fascinating theory but it seems deeply flawed to me.  It was a Nazi propaganda point that the Soviets were planning to invade; that doesn't invalidate the alternate theory but it indicates a need for caution.  I have little to add on refutation to the many specific remarks above.

One of the fascinating things I have read about Barbarrosa is that many Russians were delighted that the Germans had come and wanted to join them in liberating the country from the Soviets.  There were volunteer units formed to fight the Reds.  However the Nazis were so oriented toward brutal subjugation and extermination that they drove these potential allies back into the arms of the Soviets.  Had they pursued a more enlightened policy of pacification, these anti-Soviet Russians could have formed a significant force behind the lines to deal with partisans and patrol supply lines.  What I find interesting in this is that the racial theories of Nazism were in effect responsible at least in part for their own flawed offensive and ultimate defeat.  The alternative scenario I find most interesting is the "what if" Germany/Hitler had not been a Nazi but just a German nationalist?  Einstein might have designed the bomb for Germany, for example.

Nice to take a break from politics once in a while.  It's been a while since I read a book on WW2, but I have read a lot of them back in the day, from all sides in the conflict that more than any other shapes our world even today. 

51

Does anyone else here think this is Kat-Mo posting under a new name? The style, arrogance and several other things make me suspect this.

He/she/it has been banned from posting.

52 I'm going to skip reading the comments. Not because they're a waste of time - a quick skimming showed there's a lot of good analysis - but because I don't want to get sucked into a grinding long argument on the origins of WW2!

HOWEVER, there are some points I'd like to make which may be of interest as I'm one of the few people in this thread who has actually read most of Suvorov's books (the ones that have been translated into English).

Most of his earlier (pre-Icebreaker) books are about the GRU and the special forces (Spetsnaz) of the Red Army. He was in both. They're very interesting although it's hard to know what parts are true and which are made up. Lots of people say he was making stuff up to make his British handler's happy (he defected to the British). Meh. I don't know. When I read those books, the stuff that I know about matches up well with what he writes. (I was in Intelligence when I was in the military). The stuff I don't know about... Well, it's damn fun reading so I'll cut him some slack!

But what about the Icebreaker/Stalin was egging on Hitler into starting WW2? That's more controversial. On the BIG picture I have to see Suvorov's point. Hitler would hardly have gotten froggy with Poland unless he already had a deal worked out with Stalin. So if Stalin had stood with Britain and France, Germany would have had to move a lotmore carefully in Eastern Europe. But you got to look at things from Stalin's point of view. What did Stalin want? He wanted to rule the world! And having Europe exhaust itself with a nice fat war between Germany, France and Britain wouild be a pretty damn useful. And, at some point, the Red Army would have to make their move in Europe to dominate the continent.

But that opinion, although not universally accepted, is not all that controversial. In Icebreaker, Suvorov makes lots of specific claims about how Stalin was just about to attack German in July 1941 when the Germans pre-empted them with Barbarossa. Icebreaker has lots of short chapters - each chapter make a particular claim about Soviet tactics, strategy, the way military units were being deployed, defenses being destroyed or the design of military equipment that Suvorov says supports the idea of a Soviet attack on Germany in July 1941.
The problem I have with that part of the theory is that much of it I can't check. He makes references to diaries of Soviet commanders, this book, that book. All of which haven't been translated to English! Other historians, who can read those sources, say Suvorov is stretching things.
The things I can check such as the BT-70 tank design, the lack of a tail gunner on early models of the Sturmovik ground attack plane do support his views. These things (BT-70, tail gunner-less Sturmovik) only make sense in an all-out offensive war starting with full strategic surprise. But they're not, by themselves, conclusive.

I'm very excited to see an English compilation of the post Icebreaker books are coming out. I'll pick it up. But I also want to warn you guys that, based upon who else likes the post Icebreaker books, Suvorov is spinning some scary theories. Who likes them? The neo-Nazis! Suvorov's books are bigsellers among the German's who think that Hitler got a bad rap! I hear Suvorov points the finger at the JEEEEEEWWWS!

I'll point out there's another explanation for the success of the German invasion of 1941. Suvorov says it worked so well (at least, initially) because they were attacking a force that was poised to attack and, because of that, in a horrible defensive posture. That's plausible. It's also plausible (and much more widely accepted) that Stalin was a freaking Military Moron!

53 "... the conflict that more than any other shapes our world even today."

I'd argue that that's actually the FIRST World War.

54 "His goal is to disprove the conventional wisdom about the origins of WW2"

Uhhhhhhhhhhh

What was all that stuff going on in France? As well as the naval battles in the Atlantic? Were those KGB/NKV spies? Damn Stalin was sneaky.

55 packsoldier @ 43: "Hitler merely did what he said he was going to do. For two decades."

Kinda like what's been going on with the interconnected web of socialists and islamo-fascists arrayed against the U.S. now.

It's like the world's biggest and gnarliest fuitcake from hell: We have Chavista/Bolivaran nuts, international and national progressives/socialists of all fruity stripes, Iran's theocrats, various sundry Salafists, and post Soviet oligarchs who carved up the remains of the USSR longing for a return to international greatness. This giant shitcake is all topped off with China's military corporatists throttling our industrial capacity to death while selling us the rope.

They all talk, and they all openly talk about hastening the collapse of the great 'capitalist' Satan.

Hell Russia's 'president' is breaking bread with Chavez who recently parlayed with the Iranians, who have strong military-industrial ties with the Norks, who are maintained by the Chinese, who are in turn sustained largely by a U.S. population that wants stuff that our union-saddled and regulation-bound manufacturing base can't produce cheaper than command economy serfs. We can't compete even with the influx of millions of illegally cheap laborers from wobbly countries south of our border.

...And who have we as a nation chosen to manage this emerged web of totalitarian statists arrayed against our Capitalist Republic?

Obama...The one. Triumphant leader of the party that has thwarted American interests in nearly every way they can manage to pull off with the kind help of their alphabet networks of propaganda ministers.

Interesting times.

56

Retraction/Apology:

Earlier I speculated that Stumbo might be Kat-Mo. I was wrong and it's confirmed that Stumbo is not Kat-Mo reborn. My apologies.

57

Stumbo:

"But why was it near the border? If you're planning for defense, you position your troops well behind the border, so a sudden attack wouldn't catch them flat-footed. If you don't expect any war at all, then your troops should be dispersed throughout the country. Therefore, the Red Army being positioned near the border can mean only one thing: it was poised for an attack of its own."

Your statement is a post-WW2 lesson and statement. It isn’t wrong, but it is tough to justify based only on pre-1939 information and experience.  It's sort of like predicting, in 1940, that the days of the battleship were over (this became true very shortly afterwards, and very many people at the time were astounded).

Additionally, and as mentioned by others, the Soviets had also purged a large proportion of their competent officers in the preceding years. Given the paranoid reality of life in 1930-1941 Soviet Union, it is entirely conceivable that the Soviet officers in charge deployed their forces as they, or their predecessors had done, in WW1, because it was safe to do so.

How would the deployment of, say, 5 divisions each in the western areas around Kiev, Minsk, Smolensk, Vilna, Kharkov, Talinn, etc, have been seen by the political officers in 1941?

"Well, again -- if you're planning to launch a surprise attack, you mainly need bombers, not fighters. The enemy aircraft get destroyed while still on the ground, and then, you have a "clear sky" to bomb anything else you'd like to bomb."

This is more or less generically true, but it assumes a relative parity in capability between both sides. Senfinj JU-88s and Heinkel-111 agains Spitfires seems reasonable; sending them against F16s, EE Lightnings or even Gloster Meteors is not.

In hindsight, the Red Airforce of 1941 had a very rough time against the Luftwaffe, and (ignoring the losses due to surprise) it looks to be mostly equipment and communications issues. The MiGs, Yaks and other formidable Soviet fighters appear in quantity very shortly after Operation Barbarossa happens.

Then there’s the question of combat experience; the Russians were plenty brave, but the Germans were experienced. Prospects for a successful strike against

 

Suvorov looks to be someone who reasonably could have been in a position to see documents or hear someone reminiscing about old plans.

That Stalin really did want to conquer Europe seems unsurprising, even before WW2.  That he was in the proces of trying is also not terribly surprising, but that he was, according to Suvorov, only days or weeks away in 1941, is astounding.

The hard evidence, specifically the equipment and state of the Red Army in 1941, doesn't support such a claim, at least not very well.

If Suvorov has evidence (documents) to support his thesis, he should present what he has. It would be of significant historical interest

58 WWII remains fascinating because of the endless "what if?" scenarios. Please allow me to throw one out there.

 There is a school of thought that if Hitler didn't have to waste time and resources to bail Mussolini out of his failed Balkans adventure (invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece, April 1941), Barbarossa would have launched several weeks earlier than it did, and the Germans probably would have captured Moscow. Whether or not that would have meant the end of the USSR is obviously debatable, but I think that it would have at least knocked them out of the game for a long while. I find it hard to believe that a Stalin government-in-exile would have been able to effectively counterattack before Germany solidified it's gains.

Anyway, from my reading and study of the war (admittedly non-academic), Stalin did plan on invading Germany...but probably not in June of 1941. If the Germans had won the Battle of Britain in 1940, however, Russia probably would have been better prepared for Barbarossa, if not an offensive.

59

“Probe with bayonets", Stalin would say: "Where you encounter steel, withdraw.  Where you find mush, proceed."

This, more or less, explains Stalin's long-term strategy.  Take your conquests when you can, such as parts of Poland and Romania. etc.  This would not include an invasion of Germany, armed to the teeth, at least until the prospects were in his favor.

Trust? If you can't trust a megalomaniac paranoid narcissist, whom can you trust?  Hitler removed or killed all of his 17 Field Marshalls, save one.  Of 36 Generals, only 3 made it through without demotion or death.  Hitler is famous for his paranoia, but even he lives in the shadow of Stalin in this department.  Nobody has caused the death of more of his own forces than Stalin, probably in all wars put together.  His purges were legendary and regular.

But Stalin made fewer military mistakes and an invasion of Germany would have been a big one.  His defense of Stalingrad, brutal as it was, stands as his finest hour and became the key battle of the war.  Without this, we would be studying Normandy, Midway and the Battle of Britain in German.

 

Hitler saw England as a very tough nut to crack, without much inside as a reward.  He always feared the cross-channel barge invasion versus the British Navy, Battleof Britain notwithstanding.  Russia on the other hand, offered almost unlimited resources and potential, and a “perfect” target for Blitzkrieg.

 

We do not fail to remember that, on May 10, 1941 – just before the German invasion of Russia - Rudolf Hess flew to Scotland to offer peace to Churchill on the condition that England and the U.S. not aid Stalin. Although Hess was probably acting on his own, he knew all about Hitler’s plans for the Eastern Front.  Hitler was thinking North and East, not South and West.

60 Russia on the other hand, offered almost unlimited resources and potential, and a “perfect” target for Blitzkrieg.

No, it didn't, it crosses 11 fucking time zones.

61
Back in the 80s, when I was studying Russian, I was tutored by a Polish Jew living in my home town. His story, briefly, was that he had grown up in what was then Western Poland, and had escaped to the Soviet zone after the partition of Poland in 1938, where he had been drafted into the Red Army. On the subject of invasion, he claimed that the commissars who would harangue the troops always spoke of invading the West and defeating Hitler and the bourgeois democracies - said invasion to come when Stalin was ready.

If what my tutor told me is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, a Red invasion of the west was accepted party doctrine at the time. However, there's a huge difference between wanting to invade some day, and preparing to invade imminently. I'm sure that if the Hitler regime were ground down by a war in the west, then Stalin would turn on his ally and grab in eastern Europe, and maybe even try to bring about the red revolution that came so close to succeeding in Germany in 1918. But Hitler beat him to the punch, and the rest, as they say, is history.

62 Armchair generals talk about strategy while professionals talk about logistics.

Word. 

63 Christoph you moron,

You are right about the 11 time zones, but wars don't go by time zone they go by gaining and holding key ground and winning key battles.  In this case, only a few key cities were at the center of it.

Hitler believed that he could quickly capture several cities using Blitzkrieg, that is why I put the word "perfect" in quotation marks.  In any case, he came within an eyeblink of success and only failed by some bad luck and the most fierce opposition imaginable.  Stalin would send off his troops with 5 bullets only so they couldn't turn on him, and with the promise that if they came back they would be shot.

Many in the West are unaware of how close Germany came to winning this, and what the consequences would have been, had Hitler been able to relocate, say, 100 divisions to the West.

64

No, it didn't, it crosses 11 fucking time zones.

Christoph, I would think that the German military would have thought of that detail. I don't think what was happening on the Kamchatka Peninsula was as much of a concern to them as what was happening on the Polish-Soviet border, and on to Moscow- which, incidentally, was 3 fucking time zones away. It wasn't a matter of when the sun rose- it was a matter of where the Germans stood when the sun rose. Blitzkrieg was- in the opening days of the offensive-  having one hell of an effect of just where that was.

65 Most erudite thread of the year. Yikes.

66

No, it didn't, it crosses 11 fucking time zones. (Cristoph)

Just to further jump on that general sentiment, the soviet Union crossed 11 time zones but something like 75-80% of the population and industrial production was in 2 or 3 of them.

But why was it near the border? If you're planning for defense, you position your troops well behind the border, so a sudden attack wouldn't catch them flat-footed.  (Stumbo for all that follow)

 

That’s not true.  One of the major contributors to the quick defeat of both France and Poland was they massed their armies on the borders.  The Soviets in 1940 were prepared to defend like France, infantry dug in with tanks penny packeted to the infantry for support.  Following the fall of France the Soviets decided to take up mobile defense, the infantry wouldn’t dig in and tanks would be massed in mechanized corps behind the front to respond to breakthroughs with the maneuvering infantry.  However, the reorganization of the Soviet mechanized forced back into concentrated groups and the maneuver training for the infantry would not be completed until 1942.  The Germans caught an army whose infantry were not dug in, had no idea how to fight a mobile battle, and without organized tank forces supporting them. 

 

I’m not aware of any country who recently has used this “defend your country from well behind the border” defense (there are some examples from well in the past but many aren’t applicable today).  Just in the 20^th Century, the Russians defended the Yalu River in 1904, all major powers defended their borders in 1914 (even to the extent where despite plans to pull back armies they did not).  The Poles and French defended their borders, as did Greece and the Soviet Union.  The RoK army defended its border in 1950.  The Iraqis defended their border in 1991, and only didn’t in 2003 because they couldn’t.  An army is naturally opposed to defending well behind its border.  Soldiers don’t like letting the people they will die to protect be harmed while they do nothing.

The performance against the Finns was conducted under much, much tougher … So anyone who took this as a sign of military unpreparedness was just plain wrong.

Very true invading Finland in winter is very difficult, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Russians were grossly incompetent in their conduct of the war.  There is no excuse for 50,000 soldiers to be cut off and destroyed by 10,000 or to have mass tank attacks stopped by an army with little anti-tank capability, none.

The point is that Stalin was getting rid of deadwood -- competent generals were kept; incompetent ones were either forced into retirement, imprisoned, or simply shot.

 

That’s completely contrary to everything I’ve read about the purges and the abilities of the executed generals, but ok.

I don't think that's a huge point. So, troop reinforcements from the East would've had to disembark a few miles East of Moscow, and complete the rest of the way on foot? Big deal; that's what soldiers do all the time. Likewise, tanks could've completed that trip under their own power.

This would take too much time to refute in detail, so it’ll have to suffice to say that it would have been a HUGE deal if the Soviet rail net were cut off at Moscow.  Read about the effect of the 30 mile  break in the Trans-Siberian railroad at Lake Baikhal had in 1904-5, it cut Russian reinforcements to Manchuria by something like 80-90%.  It’s no simple matter to take an entire division and disembark it from a railroad, March 100 miles (especially in that part of Russia) and re-embark it.  That goes more so for the tons and tons of bulk supplies an army needs.  Russia’s truck production was low and relied on American trucks to supply their offensives in 1943-5, it would have been a massive problem.  Also, Moscow had something like 3 million factory workers around it, almost as many as Britain or France had in total.   

Russia was already winning before we fired a shot against Germany

That's what Suvorov says, too.
 

Highly debatable.  The Germans could have had Moscow before the snow fell, and then Kiev, Leningrad, and Stalingrad would have fallen in early 1942.  Soviet recovery would have been very difficult with the loss of the rail network and industrial production of those cities, though they probably would have kept the soldiers lost in the Kiev encirclement.  Although the Soviets are often said to have had “limitless manpower”, the did have a manpower limit, around 40 million able bodied males, and around 1945 as it was they were near to exhausting it (10-15 million in service, 20+ million killed/POW/seriously wounded). 

 

How would they have done had they been forced to use their human wave tactics against a German defensive line on the Volga filled with the well trained professionals of 1941 and not the hastily raised conscripts that the Soviets historically faced after 1942?  Also the Soviets conscripted all able bodied males from liberated areas, without those could the Soviets have formed enough of a critical mass to push the Germans back from the Volga to begin with?  Maybe, but it’s not as definite as many make it sound.

Nobody had beaten Russia since the Mongols in the 13th century.

 

Read up on the Time of Troubles when the Poles installed their own Tsar in Moscow, or WW1 when the Germans were busy decided how to carve up Russia into their new Empire if you really think that.  Also, there really wasn’t a “Russia” for the Mongols to beat.

No; it was because Hitler had the element of surprise. Had it gone the other way, the Germans would've been "outclassed and defeated."

You cannot seriously believe that.  Had Stalin attacked the Germans unexpectedly in July 1941 they would have done what the Germans always did, react quickly and effectively.  It would have been the Tannenberg/Masurian Lakes times ten.  I believe it is JFC Fuller who said the German army of WW2 was the finest in history and the German army of WW1 was the second finest.  Seriously, no one outclasses them.

 why on earth would you forgo the yet-unoccupied South of France, and instead fight to the death for the swamps of Minsk?

Because Hitler never planned to permanently occupy France.  Southern France was initially left alone because the Germans only needed to occupy northern France until Britain surrendered when they would withdraw only holding onto Alsace-Lorraine.  Hitler planned to be hegemon of Western Europe, not directly control it.

 

Why go into the Soviet Union? I’d go with the reasons Hitler himself gave.  It was always part of the long-term plan to invade the Soviet Union after France had been neutered, and Britain humbled.  However, Britain wouldn’t surrender and Hitler was aware that Churchill was holding out hope for Soviet entry into the war on Britain’s side.  So he seemed to have thought he could kill two birds with one stone, knock the Soviets out early (not like the army had anything else to do) and remove Britain’s last hope.

 

The bigger WW2 question is what on God’s green earth convinced Hitler to declare war on the US.  The best answer I’ve heard is he thought Japan would declare war on the Soviet Union in return which would allow the Soviet Union to be subdued before the US could bring her full power to bear and by that point America would be fighting the world island.

It wasn't. A small part of it was. The rest was being mobilized (factories being built, troops -- including prisoners -- being trained, etc.)

 

A huge chunk of Russia was occupied, something like 1/3 of the population, a majority of industrial output (though it was being expanded in the Urals), and between 1/3 and 2/3 of various resources.  Again, area does not equal national resources or population.  If it did the Republicans would never lose elections.

Then what was he planning to do with all those troops massed on the border? Do an Emily Litella?

As already mentioned it was how non-Germans defended pre-1942.  Further, it’s not like the entire Red Army was on the border.  There were a huge number of divisions spread around Belorussia, the Baltic States, and the Ukraine.  These were the units that formed the lines at Smolensk, Vyazma, and then Mozhaisk.

 

 

However, I do agree that long-term Stalin was definitely preparing to attack Hitler.  The Red Army was simply not prepared for it in 1941 though.

67 When you look at the troop dispostions just prior to the beginning of Barbarossa, you will see the Russians aligned in their classic defensive belts.  They were in no way prepping for an offensive operation.

68

I just double checked in JFC Fuller's Military History of the Western World, the number of workers in Moscow is given as "over a million" not 3 million as I stated.  Interestingly though Fuller says of Moscow,

"To destroy Russian fighting power demanded the selection of an objective which could not be abandoned by the Russian armies and which could compel them to accept battle within striking range of the Germans.  The sole target which filled the bill was Moscow.  It was the hub of Russian rail communications, and therefore strategically indispensable, and it was also the Mecca of world Communism, the center of a highly centralized state, and a great industrial center."

That was a major difference from 1812 when the Russians were not much worse off without Moscow than they were with it, that is the French attacking Moscow could not compel the Russians to fight so they could be destroyed.  How Napoleon could have compelled the Russians to fight is a very tough question (strke at St. Petersburg maybe?) and also unrelated to the German situation in 1941.

69 Stumbo;

me: "There is a reason there is no "Godwin's Law" for mentioning Stalin."

you: "Because, again, Stalin waited for Hitler to invade Poland first, and thus earn the title of He Who Started WW2. For a few decades, it has been known that Stalin killed more people than Hitler; Suvorov's merely trying to establish that in this case, Stalin was also more to blame."

True enough. Hitler was blamed and Stalin was our ally of convenience.

There is no Godwin's Law for Stalin because of the Left's comfort level with communism. When we sniff out a Nazi like David Duke, we ostracize them. Even Herr Doktor Paul caught grief for his loose associations. As does Pat Buchanan--although he's now writing mash notes to Putin.

But when the Left sniffs out a communist like Ayers or Klonsky, they join the same foundations and sit across the same cubicle for twenty years, putting cream in each other's coffee. One lump or two, comrade?

70

Just out of curiosity, I recently had a debate with a youngman, born in russia, raised in the USA.  His understanding is that (from his Russian grandparents and Massachusetts teaching) the USA contributed tanks and guns to WWII and nothing else.   The Russians were the heroes of WWII, the USA useless. 

Also, isn't it the position of our vaunted teachers in this country that the evil USA is the root of all wars?  A few weeks with our teachers here in Massachusetts and this author will be thinking right again.

71 Judith, in Russia they tought (and perhaps still do) that the "Velikaya Otechestvenaya" war began at 42. I was educated in Soviet Ukraine and NEVER EVER heard that there was a World War before 42 and there were other countries that fought the "fascists".

Overall, the sudden change in Soviet inner propaganda regarding Soviet-Nazi relations before and after Ribbentrop-Molotov  and before and after Barbarossa, was one of Orwell's biggest inspirations for 1984.

72 "An imminent Soviet invasion was the reason many German generals gave, at their subsequent trials. Hitler himself spoke about it, as justification for his attack. "

Stumbo, the Germans said lots of stuff at Nurembergs, partially because they wanted to make a good impression on the West. What we should look for are official military documents and military and solid secret service intelligence reports (which the Germans had in abundance: ie intelligence). I don't recall any of those suggesting Russia had immidiate and concrete military plans to invade. This is why i call BS.

73

Just out of curiosity, I recently had a debate with a youngman, born in russia, raised in the USA.  His understanding is that (from his Russian grandparents and Massachusetts teaching) the USA contributed tanks and guns to WWII and nothing else.   The Russians were the heroes of WWII, the USA useless. 

The Russianshave a saying to the effect that the US contributed money, the British time, and the Russians blood.  Of course blood is more important than money so therefore Russia > America.  My own view is that outside of lend lease the US played a vital role limiting German industrial/fuel production, tying down 20-40% of the Wehrmacht (depending on the time) and a greater share of the Luftwaffe, and keeping thousands upon thousands of German 88's shooting at B-17's not T-34's.  The Russians paid a lot of blood for their own reasons (Stalin, poor education, lack of sufficient industrial output, desperation, more sever POW camps causing Germans to not want to surrender,etc).  Also, it's not like we were only fighting one enemy on one front, we were fighting 3 enemies on 5 fronts (all smaller than the Eastern Front of course).

With lend lease it is undebatable that the US played a vital role to the Soviet war effort (which the Soviets either limit or accept in the manner the Russian youngman mentioned).  According to the World War II Encyclopedia, lend lease provided Russia with 10-15% total production of armored vehicles (9,300), planes (12,200), and guns (4,100).  More importantly we provided the Soviet Union with 434,000 trucks (important since they could drive through mud better than Russian or German trucks giving the Red Army a huge advantage during the Raputitsas), 28,000 jeeps, 5,400 prime movers, 1,050 locomotives, 8,300 rail cars, 333,000 telephones, 1 million miles of telephone cable, 26,000 machine tools, 400,000 tons of rare materials, 6 million uniforms and pairs of shoes, 16 million barrels of refined oil products, 130 million gallons of high octane aviation fuel (which the Soviets couldn't produce and which gave their planes an advantage over the lower octane German planes), and perhaps most vital of all given the loss of the Ukraine and ravaging of the central black earth region, all the food the Soviets needed to feed the Red Army.

74
@67 When you look at the troop dispostions just prior to the beginning of Barbarossa, you will see the Russians aligned in their classic defensive belts.  They were in no way prepping for an offensive operation.

I think you're confusing Barbarossa with the Battle of Kursk (Operation Citadel).

75

Even in the early 19th century, it became clear that victory is only achieved by destroying the enemy's army and other military potential; capturing cities, even capitals, is almost pointless...

ummm... the Soviet manufacturing base was solely located in those very cities; capturing those cities was paramount to crippling the Soviet army - and it is another major point that hardly any of its principle manufacturing sectors was located east of Moscow/Stalingrad/Karkov.  The tales of soviet armor being assembled on one end and driving out of the other end of the factory guns blazing are true.

One more thing to consider is in logistics and its transportation thereof.  What transportation was present in 1930s and early 1940s was funneled through those very cities.  So what manufacturing base did exist eastwards of Moscow still had to go through Moscow and Stalingrad, and it had to be done by rail.

Had the Nazis rendered 1940s Soviet Russia's chief western cities unusable to them they would have accomplished a major step in 'winning'.  (but as is previously mentioned, the fact that the Nazis planned on 'winning' in just a summer was nigh inpossible).

That about sums up my armchair general for the week.

76 JOE STALIN was abigger mass murderer then ADOLPH HITLER and FDR called him UNCLE JOE

77

Regardless of whether this guy is right or wrong, the topic is awesome.

I believe Soviet doctrine at the time was offensive oriented, based around almost-blitzkrieg tactics, so the troop dispositions would not be too absurd. They were building some defensive lines, but not complete.

German early success and surprise despite Russians seeing their buildup means to me that this theory is wrong.

78

Oh, and USA supplied about 60% of Soviet's aviation fuel. No Sturmobviks flying = German victory.

Logistics again. Heh.

79

Arthur 52 - "But I also want to warn you guys that, based upon who else likes the post Icebreaker books, Suvorov is spinning some scary theories. Who likes them? The neo-Nazis! Suvorov's books are bigsellers among the German's who think that Hitler got a bad rap! I hear Suvorov points the finger at the JEEEEEEWWWS! "

Arthur's right. I once tried using Google for researching Jewish life in the Polish / Ukrainian / Belarussian triad. I ended up in the Institute for Historical Review reading about Wolfgang Strauss, who was then using Suvorov in his Nazi apologetic.

In modern Nazi apologetic, Stalin (a Georgian) is considered part of a non-IndoEuropean cabal of enemies against European Christian civilisation. The apologetic must assume that the core of this cabal was Jewish. Stalin's purges in the late 1930s, and his growing antiSemitism, is explained away as the remnant of the implacably anti-Christian mindset which he inherited from the Jews. Thus, Stalin's mythical plan to invade Europe becomes part of the great Elders of Zion plot.

Stumbo, be very careful about lying down with this dog.

80 "He began with the consequences of Pearl Harbor. If Japan had not entered the war, he would at some point have had to declare war on the USA. 'Now the East-Asia conflict falls to us like a present in the lap, Goebbels reported."

[...]

""Aware of the objections that the alliance with the Japanese stood opposed to 'the interests of the white man in East Asia', Hitler was frank, forthright and pragmatic: 'Interests of the white race must at present give way to the interests of the German people.'"

- Hitler, 1936-45: Nemesis, by Ian Kershaw, page 448

If Hitler had taken the view that the interests of the white race were paramount, he would not have declared war on America; he would have declared war on Japan, and appealed to Congress to tie Roosevelt's hands. I do not see how that appeal could have been unsuccessful - and Germany would then have had a very good chance to resolve matters in Europe to its satisfaction.

But, when German national interests required a peaceful Ukraine, and allies, he decided in favor of the harshest kind of racism - and again to the detriment of whites, that is Ukrainians.

In sum, Adolph Hitler was consistent in being a disaster for the white race. He took the most catastrophic options on offer as though they were welcome gifts.

And neo-Nazis feel obligated to defend this hate-crazed catastrophic loser.

You can't do it. Even on the basis of the purest white racism, Hitler was as bad as possible. He was evil, he was injurious to every cause he claimed to uphold, and he was crazy.

Which takes me back to his motives for invading Russia. Besides the little error regarding how many division the Reds ultimately could field, there was as always with Hitler the Jewish question.

This also from Kershaw, page 490:

"Since it had become plain that the Soviet state was dominated by Jewish commissars, Stalin, too, was no more than 'an instrument in the hands of this almighty Jewry'. Behind him stood 'all those Jews who in thousandfold ramifications lead this powerful empire'. This 'insight', Hitler suggested, had weighed heavily upon him, and compelled him to face the danger from the east.'

There's no reasoning into peace a man with a mentality like that.

Stalin was always going to invade Western Europe, and end capitalism there ... when he thought the time was right, when all his ducks were lined up, one fine day.

Hitler was going to invade Russia when he thought he had the means. The mere perception of possibility was to him the same as an imperative mandate to invade, since not to invade meant giving the Jews who secretly dominated the Soviet Union a free hand to work all the evil their scheming Jewish brains could invent.

Strategic desperation about the immediate dispositions of the Red Army doesn't come into it.

81

...Germans bombed pearl Harbor.

 

That's not as far from the truth as many people think. http://tiny.cc/mIUN4 meet Bernard Julius Otto Kuehn minion of Karl Haushofer.

http://tiny.cc/eJ9qu meet Karl Haushofer and ask yourself who really started WWII.

82 Stumbo @ 47:

I don't think you should charachterize Stalins' military purges of the 1930s as "getting rid of driftwood".

Here are the results of the various pruges:
3 of 5 Marshals;
13 of 15 Army commanders;
8 of 9 fleet admirals and admirals Grade I;
50 of 57 corps commanders;
154 of 186 divisional commanders;
16 of 16 army political commissars;
25 of 28 corps commissars;
58 of 64 divisional commissars;
11 of 11 vice commissars of defense;
98 of 108 members of the Supreme Military Soviet.

This went far beyond removing the simply incompetent.

Moreover, the USSR's military wasn't sufficiently mobilized to conduct offensive operations (Stalin feared a repeat of 1914 when a mobilized Russian army led to an ultimatum from Germany).

In the end, Stalin refused to believe that Hitler would attack and open a war on two fronts (the UK, although spanked, was still fighting).

Stalin was so unprepared for Germany's attack that he didn't give orders to counterattack until after the German embassy in Moscow confirmed that Germany was at war with the USSR.

83 A few thoughts here. First off, there's a solid school of evidence that Stalin anticipated war with Hitler, but signed the Non-aggression Pact with Germany to buy time. Also, the invasion of Poland (Soviet version) gave a bit more of a strategic cushion to the Russkis. Stalin likely knew that Hitler would be coming, and just wanted to have some time to rebuild the military he'd almost destroyed.

As for the rest, numerous people have made solid points. Most of the Soviet Union's industry and people were in European Russia. Take that area and the Ukraine, and you've essentially won. As mentioned above, take Moscow and you control the whole of western Russia and Ukraine.

Also, don't forget that Stalin was hardly an Obama-like character in Russia, giving people all kinds of hopey-change. He was feared and hated. In the Ukraine especially, the Germans were initially viewed as liberators. It was only after they started shooting innocent people that the locals supported Stalin.

Some years back, there was a book called "Hitler's Panzers East". Don't recall the author, but his main points were made above by Arbalest. Hitler turned his forces away from Moscow, against the advice of his generals, and delayed the final push in the center until October, when the weather helped stall the attack. Had they made it during the summer, then one can presume it would have done as well as the initial attacks. The outcome? If Typhoon was launched August 4, instead of the attack going southwards, Moscow would *probably* have fallen by September 10 at the latest (assuming a rate of advance similar to that seen in the first 6 weeks of the War). By October, the Germans would have had a strong position established east of Moscow. No winter fighting until the Soviets regrouped and resupplied, which might well have been spring anyway. And again, don't forget that most of their industry, rail lines, and people would have been in the occupied areas.

So in conclusion, Hitler could definitely have beaten Stalin's hordes. At one point, the casualty rates favored the Germans by something obscene like 20 Soviets to every German. Hard to sustain the fight that way, no?

My take? Suvorov is full of it at worst, but using literary license at best. At some point, Stalin would have certainly stabbed Hitler in the back, but not until he was more prepared than he was in 1941.

84 Oh, and lets not forget that Barbarossa was delayed a few weeks because of the invasion of the Balkans. It might have been launched at the end of May. Again, the conclusion is that Hitler's errors forced a winter war in Russia. His generals planned and executed it brilliantly until Adolph took over.

There's not a major need for winter clothing if you don't expect to be outdoors fighting in the winter.

85

Technically speaking, it did not become a "world war" until Japan attacked the US and the British Empire, followed by Germany's declaration of war on the US. So you'd have to say that the Japanese started it. Prior to that it was just another in a long series of European wars.

 

 

86 Interesting.

May add it to the old Christmas list.

87

I find the "USA vs. Soviet Union" debate over who really beat Hitler fascinating.

It is clear from just opening a few history books (Churchill's history of WW2 is great), is that the Soviets were already pushing the Germans back before any substantial allied aid arrived there. I think the Wehrmacht could have possibly toppled Stalin had they captured Moscow in the fall of 41. When that offensive stalled, I think the balance of power went over to the Soviet Union. The Germans could still mount large offensives as in the Caucasus in the summer of 42 and at Kursk, but the Soviets defeated those more and more easily and began an advance that pushed all the way to Berlin. 

Now, of course America contributed mightily to defeating Hitler. With many lives and lots of bullets and bombs. The US also sent amazing amounts of material to Russia, but eventually Russia would have won on her own. She would have been completely devastated and broke, but she would have won. 

Also, the US was fighting Japan in the Pacific at the same time. While Japan had a huge army in China, the US had almost no help in the amphibious march to Japan. The US ultimately ground Japan down to powder. That country was absolutely smashed to the stone age by 1945. 

88

I don't think that Hitler capturing Moscow would have ended the campaign, Log Cabin.  The USSR had already turned over a considerable portion of its industrial might (and by 1940 it was mighty indeed) to war production, so it was prepared for a long war and had troops to spare (on the other hand, most western governments anticipated the USSR would fall after seeing the German army chew up the Soviet defenses in the first few months).  By the time the Allies invaded Italy and began to threaten Germany's rear, the USSR already had the upper hand.

In addition, the USSR rightly viewed this as a war of extermination -- either they or Nazism would be wiped out -- therefore they were prepared to fight to the last drop of their people's blood.

89 I read a translation of a book by a Soviet general on lessons learned from the German invasion. (I have access to a library on an Air Force base.) It was intended for a War College-style course for defense analysts. He explained the offensive nature of Soviet preparations this way: the plan was to stop the Germans cold at the border, then launch a massive counterattack. The offensive preparations were for the counterattack.

I've never seen this explanation anywhere else.

90

A few partial answers --

Cobalt Shiva (#4, et al.:

In 1812, Moscow was already a major transportation hub. But in any case: if Moscow had been taken and the front had moved past it, how would this, in and of itself, prevent troops, supplies, etc. from being transported from the East to the front along still-free roads and railroads, from factories (read: labor camps) located back there?

Genghis (#51 & 56):

No probs. (And I didn't mean to sound arrogant; my apologies if I did.)

Arthur (#52), David Ross (#79):

The neo-Nazis like Suvorov for the same reason most Western historians have ignored him: they think he's trying to exonerate Hitler. He's not; he paints Hitler as no less of a monster than Stalin, simply as a less-smart one. And he certainly doesn't blame the JOOOOS for anything.

Arthur (#52):

Notes of a Liberator was certainly fiction, or at least fictionalized; likewise, at least to some extent, was The Aquarium. The rest, probably not. (Aside from two of his books which are explicitly labeled as fiction, albeit set in "his" version of history.)

Dr. Manhattan (#65):

Most erudite thread of the year

Thanks. But what else would you expect from a smart military blog?

Jarod (#66):

Read up on the Time of Troubles when the Poles installed their own Tsar in Moscow

That was more of a civil war -- in addition to the Poles and others, the (first) False Dmitriy had plenty of support among his own population. But once he won and started giving foreigners too much power, he was overthrown and executed, and the Poles killed and/or kicked out.

(And, instead of "beaten," I should've put "conquered." Russia of course had its share of military defeats before WW2.)

Harun (#77):

They were building some defensive lines, but not complete

Or, rather, they were just for show -- an attempt to make the enemy believe they weren't about to attack. Suvorov argues that Zhukov was simply repeating the tactic he had successfully used against the Japanese in 1939.

Pigilito (#82):

Suvorov covers all that. (He uses Tukhachevsky as his prime example, because he was the one most lionized by post-Stalin Soviet propaganda.)

Gun-totin-wacko (#83):

At one point, the casualty rates favored the Germans by something obscene like 20 Soviets to every German. Hard to sustain the fight that way, no?

No; it was hard (for the Germans) to sustain that ratio, after the initial massacre at and near the border.

... This obviously doesn't address all of the objections raised, I know. Just read the damn book.

(Someone: again -- if you can make a cash-earning link, please do so.)

 

91 (Fucking smiley.)

92

That was more of a civil war -- in addition to the Poles and others, the (first) False Dmitriy had plenty of support among his own population. But once he won and started giving foreigners too much power, he was overthrown and executed, and the Poles killed and/or kicked out.

(And, instead of "beaten," I should've put "conquered." Russia of course had its share of military defeats before WW2.)

That's true, though you also didn't say conquered when not in a civil war :p.  Aside from ignoring the WW1 example, there are relatively few examples of countries, especially great powers, being outright conquered in history.  Most of the time they have to eventually come to terms.  It may not be "conquering" the Soviet Union but bleeding it white and then taking the Ukraine and Ostland would have been a good gain for the Germans and placed them in a better position for the inevitable second (well third) go round.  That whether Stalin came to terms or the Germans took Moscow and the grads and essentially faced the 100 years war Goebbels expected while devleoping the deeper rear regions.

Well you didn't respond to the rest of my points which is no fun, but one response is one more than I've garnered on this sitie's comment threads before.

93

To add to the great power point, Muscovy was most definitely not a great power when the Mongols arrive.  The Kievan Rus was more so, but defending open plains against expert horse archers is a tough task indeed.  It'd be like the Ukraine being the center of Soviet power and the Soviets only had infantry divisions, the Germans would have been to the Urals in about however long it takes a panzer to drive there.

Further, not to belabor the importance of a unified rail net, an example I should have mentioned earlier.  The Allies had serious issues with supplies in late 1944 in France in part because we had so thoroughly destroyed the French rail net.  We struggled to supply 2 million men, 200-400 miles from the supply ports, with more trucks than anyone else in the world had, and with paved roads.  How could the Soviets supply 10 million men, 100-1,500 miles from usable railheads, with few trucks availible for supply transport, and without paved roads?  That's not even considering preventing quick strategic redoployment between the  northern, eastern, and southern parts of the country.

94 Jarod:

Since you're the only one who replied to my #90, I'm happy to oblige.

"Following the fall of France the Soviets decided to take up mobile defense, the infantry wouldn’t dig in"

I'm not sure where you're getting that from; if it's from an official Soviet source or something based on that, you can safely disregard it. Mobile defense is useful under some circumstances (when there are natural and artificial obstacles that you know about and the enemy doesn't -- e.g., in in Finland's defense against the USSR), but digging in has always been the best defensive strategy (which Finland employed as well).

"I’m not aware of any country who recently has used this 'defend your country from well behind the border' defense"

I'm not a military expert -- I'm just restating Suvorov's argument -- so I can't comment on that. But it stands to reason that you're less vulnerable to a sudden attack if the enemy first has to traverse a strip full of booby-traps, pillboxes, etc.

"An army is naturally opposed to defending well behind its border.  Soldiers don’t like letting the people they will die to protect be harmed while they do nothing."

Perhaps, if there are large civilian populations right near the border (which wasn't the case here). And anyway, in Stalin's military (and his entire regime) there was no place for such sentimentalities.

"Very true invading Finland in winter is very difficult, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Russians were grossly incompetent in their conduct of the war.  There is no excuse for 50,000 soldiers to be cut off and destroyed by 10,000 or to have mass tank attacks stopped by an army with little anti-tank capability, none."

Do you have a better example of an army breaking through a similar line of defense?

"This [the capture of Moscow not being a huge deal] would take too much time to refute in detail"

I agree (perhaps I didn't make that clear, earlier) that it would've been a huge loss (psychological as well as logistical), but it wouldn't have meant the end of the war.

"The Germans could have had Moscow before the snow fell, and then Kiev, Leningrad, and Stalingrad would have fallen in early 1942."

The snow would have fallen first, and the Germans would've been more worried about not freezing their asses off than about capturing more cities (at least, according to Suvorov's argument). They never did take Leningrad, despite several years of trying to.

"How would they have done had they been forced to use their human wave tactics against a German defensive line on the Volga filled with the well trained professionals of 1941 and not the hastily raised conscripts that the Soviets historically faced after 1942?"

The Volga wasn't an obstacle for a surprise Soviet attack in 1941.

"Because Hitler never planned to permanently occupy France."

Why not? Wouldn't it have been a much better location for at least part of his Lebensraum? (Surely he had no moral qualms about getting rid of some or all of the French population.)

And as for the "Yeah, Stalin probably planned to someday attack Germany, but much later" argument, expressed by you and some others, I'll just quote directly (chapter 20, pp. 124-126):

Suvorov, quoting or paraphrasing Shaposhnikov --

"The nation cannot exist in a constant state of preparedness for war, just as a man cannot constantly hold a gun in each hand. [...] Constant concentration of forces and expenditure of social resources on war preparation ruin the nation. [...] Mobilization and war are inseparable. If you take out a gun and aim it at the enemy with your finger on the trigger, you have to shoot. [...] If you are a tiny bit of a second late, he will kill you. [...] Once the path of mobilization has been chosen, you have to follow it up to the end -- start a war."

Suvorov --

"The moment came -- September 1, 1939. [Note that at the time, few people other than Stalin realized that this was the start of a world war; most thought it was just a minor border skirmish between Germany and Poland. -- me, paraphrasing some other Suvorov passage.] On this day, a universal military draft was instituted [...] According to the new law, the draft age was reduced from twenty-one to nineteen, and in some categories to eighteen. [...] The law adopted on September 1, 1939, allowed for an increase in the ranks of the Red Army from 1.5 million men in the spring of 1939 to 5.7 million in the spring of 1941 [...] Additionally, this law allowed for the preparation of 18 million reservists [...]

This army development had a time limit, because Stalin called several age groups into the Red Army at the same time -- in essence, all the young men in the country. The duration of army service for the majority of the population -- privates in ground forces and NKVD forces -- was two years, so the country had to enter a major war before September 1, 1941. If not, all the young people would go home on September 1, 1941 [...] It is impossible to maintain an armed force of this size without a war: it does not produce anything, and it consumes everything produced by the country. [...] Without war, no terror could suffice to keep five million soldiers, who have already served their two required years, in their barracks. [...] The decision to enter a large war was made in the Kremlin in August 1939 and the deadline for entering the war was set -- the summer of 1941."

I hope this answers most of your questions.

95 Germany never had any more chance of winning that war than the South had of winning the Civil War.  Wars are about production.  The main determinant of victory was U.S. production.

96 jj

97 iTunes Converter, Protected Music Converter,Protected Video Converter,Protected M4A Converter, Protected M4B Converter, Protected M4P Converter, Protected M4V Converter, Protected MP4 Converter, Napster Converter, Zune Music Converter, Yahoo Music Converter, Protected WMA Converter, Protected WMV Converter, Protected AAC Converter, RAX Converter

98 nike shoes cucusoft air jordan shoesadidas shoes starcraft cd key warcraft 3 cd key diablo 2 cd key diablo 2 cd keys dvd to ipod converter free dvd to ipod converter ipod video converter free ipod video converter nike shoes air jordan shoes fake air jordans air jordan adidas superstar adidas basketball shoes jordan shoes air force ones air force air force 1 air max nike air max air max 90 nike dunk high nike dunk low nike dunk nike shox shox nike basketball shoes adidas superstar adidas basketball shoes jordan shoes air force ones air force air force 1 air max nike air max air max 90 nike dunk high nike dunk low nike dunk nike shox shox nike basketball shoes adidas shoes

99

To the Atlantica online Gold, you can keep silence! When you have Atlantica Gold, you can through the way to the end. If you like, you can take part in some group. It is decided to buy Atlantica online Gold; this is your key to the outcome of the decision. When you have cheap Atlantica online Gold, you will find your life is so strong! When Atlantica online money appeared, you will find that your life is very interesting.

100

Welcome to our company which sells all kinds of maple mesos, very cheap mesos, and the more cheap mesos. If you have to buy maplestory mesos, please come to our company, we can give you the best service for you to buy maple story mesos.

101 http://www.bestprog.com
http://www.interbd.com
http://www.zappeduster.com
http://www.grupopenelope.com
http://www.42plus.com
http://www.brv-inc.com
http://www.meditacija.net
http://www.aec-dk.com/
http://www.mb-friends.net/
http://seo-mobi.net/jk/
http://www.hmt-ag.com/
http://www.biotechcgi.com/
http://www.hi-tech-reno.com/
http://www.mb-deai.net/
http://www.littlediablo.net/
http://www.ccc-p.com/
http://www.sit-n-shop.com/
http://www.mtdcases.com/
http://www.louisville-realtor.com/
http://www.heartminders.com/
http://www.targetvehiclerental.com/
http://www.mail24x7.com/00/idkb0022.html
http://www.kessel-diamonds.com
http://sincerely-love.com/00
http://www.cambridgeins.com/
http://www.lots-ins.com/
http://www.chihuahuaelpub.com/
http://www.aec-dk.com/merutomo/
http://www.andritz-na.com/merutomo/
http://www.hi-tech-reno.com/merutomo/
http://www.sugudeai.com/

102 <a href="http://fghfgk.net/">fhfgjr</a>

103 Welcome to wow gold our wow Gold and wow power leveling store. We wow gold are specilized, wow power leveling professional and reliable wow power leveling website for wow power leveling selling and wow gold service. By the world of warcraft gold same token,we offer wow power leveling the best WoW service wow power leveling for our long-term and wow powerleveling loyal customers. wow powerleveling You will find wow powerleveling the benefits and value powerlevelingwe created powerleveling different from other sites. As to most people, power leveling they are unwilling to power leveling spend most of wow power leveling the time wow gold grinding money Rolex for mounts or rolex replica repair when replica rolex they can purchase Watches Rolex what they Rolex Watches are badly need. The Watch Rolex only way is to look Rolex Watch for the best place RS Gold to buy Cheap WARHAMMER ONLINE GOLD. Yes! You find it here! Our WoW Gold supplying service has already accumulated a high reputation and credibility. We have plenty of Gold suppliers, which will guarantee our delivery instant. Actually, we have been getting RuneScape Gold tons of postive feedbacks from our loyal RuneScape Money customers who really appreciate our service.

104

I get a lot of rappelz rupees and the rappelz money is very important for me. Some of the rappelz gold is given by my friends who buy rupees to let me happy. Thanks for my friends and the cheap rappelz rupees.

 

105 ƒ�ƒ‹—F�o‰ï‚¢ŒnƒTƒCƒg�o‰ï‚¢ŒnƒTƒCƒg‰‡�•Œð�ÛƒZƒtƒŒ‰Æ�oŒfŽ¦”ƒ�ƒ‹—F

106 SWF Converter,SWF to AVI,SWF to MP4,SWF to FLV Converter,SWF to WMV,SWF to MOV,SWF to 3GP,SWF to MPG, MPEG,SWF to VOB,SWF to iPod,SWF to iPhone,SWF to Apple TV,SWF to PSP,SWF to Zune,SWF to MP3,SWF to WMA,SWF to JPG, JPEG,SWF to Gif, Animated Gif,SWF to PNG

107 FLV Editor is an all-in-one flv editor converter which provides you a powerful editing and converting function.,FLV Joiner,FLV Ripper,FLV Clipper,FLV Capture,FLV Splitter,FLV Effect,FLV Cropper,FLV Watermark,FLV Cutter Joiner

108 Hi. In the absences of a decent time machine, fiction remains the most sturdy vehicle for visiting other eras. Help me! I find sites on the topic: fotoshop shrift zagruzit'. I found only this - adobe photoshop cs2 uroki. Com ? I like to explore design reach into unexpected places. Santa cruz solutions, web design, graphic design, ecommerce, web development, search engine optimization. ;-) Thanks in advance. Athena from Poland.

109 Players are always fighting in Runescape. It’s one of the reasons the game is so popular, being able to go to another world, attack monsters, and take their treasure . It’s adventure. It’s excitement. It’s fun. Especially through outstanding account.
And one of the best parts about combat (melee combat) is that it is by far the cheapest of all three combat methods.Ranging costs buy runescape gold because it requires the use of arrows. Magic costs even more because it requires lots and lots of runes. But melee combat is relatively cheap. The only and runescape money for sale you must spend is on your weapons and armor. Once you buy those things, you don’t have to keep buying more and more stuff to keep fighting. As you gain levels in Runescape, you will be able to buy better and better equipment. The better you get, the better the weapons and armor you can use, which makes you better able to keep your buy runescape accounts leveling-up.
And while we are getting the basics out of the way, let’s take a second to learn about the world of Runescape. Or rather, the worlds.

110 Welcome to tiffany jewelry stores, the place where we strive to offer allof the tiffany jewelry to satisfy any of your jewelry taste and needs.
We offer a huge selection of different styled jewelry such as tiffany rings,tiffany necklaces, and so forth. Our main goal is to offer you a line of jewelry that is exquisite yet affordable.

111 The treated cloth slows down the tarnishing process and keeps the tiffany jewelry from rubbing against harder jewelry that can scratch it. Try to to keep your tiffany pendants in a cool, dry place Tiffany necklaces tiffany necklaces Tiffany earrings Tiffany earrings. Tiffany Rings Tiffany jewellery Tiffany jewelry Tiffany rings Tiffany Bracelet Tiffany rings Tiffany jewellery

112 Compromising traditional craftsmanship of luxury leather goods，Louis Vuitton has been welcomed by many Louie Vuitton handbag lovers. I think there is no cheaper Luis Vuitton outlet than you in the world. Thanks very much to bring me a proxy service and fast delivery. You are an experienced wholesaler and your company can supply so many replica brands.

113

The strong desire for Tiffany jewelry could be seen as my vain and florid dreams and I will lose interesting in others only for this. While Tiffany & Co. is a grand company which stands for another kind of US beauty, the company Tiffany and Co really does a lot to better our life. Thank you very much for your understanding. May Jesus bless you.

114 Sorry. I have very strong feelings about how you lead your life. You always look ahead, you never look back.
I am from Sierra and too bad know English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "A small refrigerator, counter top stove and galley."

Thank :-) Kalyca.

115 Good evening. The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be.
I am from Luxembourg and also am speaking English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Technorati tags acme people search, affiliatize, gdi, tissa godavitarne."

Thank :-D Orla.

116 Well hello guys Great job! Congrats .
I am from Seychelles and also now'm speaking English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Getting close to my th post and a giveaway."

With love , Bathroom furniture vanities.

117

Friendly links:the followings are useful for you to choose bride dresses,for more info,pls visit www.birde-dress.org

cheap wedding dresses wholesale wedding dresses wedding dress factory wedding dress shops

118 Wedding Dresses

119 Breitling Watches| Cartier Watches|Omega Watches| Tag Heuer Watches| Panerai Watches| IWC Watches| Patek Philippe Watches| Chopard Watches| Gucci Watches| Bell & Ross Watches|Breitling Watches| Burberry Watch|Chopard Watches| Concord Watch| Omega Watch| Burberry| Breitling| Chopard| Concord|Omega|Replica Cartier Watches|Cartier Replicas|Cartier Replica|

120 shanghai massage turntable bearings beijing massage

121 Some people like LV handbags,Some people like Chanel handbags,but most popel have been keeping an eye on cheap fashion brand handbags .we often talk about all kinds of designer handbags with my friends,most of my friends also like cheap fashion brand handbags.We admire cheap fashion brand handbags designer who often be able to design so many stylish handbags.We want to be a handbag抯 designer in the future too. In our store online，you can buy all series of cheap fashion brand handbags，include: Louis Vuitton,LV Luggage,LV Wallets,LV Agendas,LV Belts,LV Shoes,LV Accessories,Gucci,Gucci Wallets,Gucci Shoes,Marc Jacobs handbags,Marni handbags,Miu Miu handbags,Mulberry handbags,Prada handbags,Thomaswylde handbags,TOD handbags,Bottega Veneta handbags,D&G handbags,Dior handbags,YSL handbags,Coach handbags

122 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

123 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

124 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

125 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

126 Hi! GzQhgoAb

127 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

128 Replica Cartier | Replica watches | Fake Watches | Replica Watches | Fake Cheap Rolex | Fake Jaeger LeCoultre | Richard Mille Replica | Glashutte Watch Replica | Fake Blancpain | Fake Piaget Watches | Fake IWC | Parmigiani Replica Watch | Hublot Watch Replica | Girard Perregaux Watch Replica | Bedat & CO Fake Watches

129 Fake Watches | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica Breitling Watches | replica soccer jersey | replica soccer jersey | Piaget Fake | Replica Girard Perregaux | Louis Vuitton Fake | Panerai Replica Watch | Swiss Chanel Ceramic Watches Replica | Fake Vacheron Watches | Chanel Replica | Replica Porsche Design | Japan Rolex Watch | Vacheron Replica

130 Replica Watches | Replica Cartier | Fake Watches | Replica watches | Replica watches | Fake IWC Watches | Swiss Replica Watch | Wholesale Louis Vuitton Watch | Wholesale Oris Watch | Concord Watch | Jacques Lemans Watch Replica | Ebel Watches | Wholesale Hamilton Watch | Replica Breitling | Jaeger LeCoultre Replica

131 replica soccer jersey | Replica Rolex | Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Omega | replica soccer jersey | Cheap Louis Vuitton Watches | Fake Montblanc Watches | Cheap Longines Fake Watch | Maurice Lacroix Watch | Bmw Replica Watch | Replica Gucci Watches | Replica Chanel Watch | Fake Breguet | Cheap Burberry | replica watches

132 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

133 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

134 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

135 We supply authentic discount Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Trainers
New Lacoste
Lacoste Sale
Mens Lacoste
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste trainers shoes
lacoste camden retro
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste carnaby shoes
lacoste carnaby retro
lacoste shoes sale
New Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes online
cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoe
mens lacoste shoes
Lacoste Shua Lace
Black Lace shoes
white Lace shoes
lacoste swerve shoes
White Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes sale
Cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste Women Shoes
Women Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Shoes online
on line, cheap price,Top quality,Free shipping!

136 Corrosion Ring Fashion | Jewelry Tools Wholesale | Magnet Tungsten Bracelet Luxury | Wire Bangle Luxury | Corrosion Bangle Best | Cutting Tungsten Bracelet Fashion | Wholesale Earrings Jewelry | Plating Cufflink Fashion | Magnet Bracelets Best | Cutting Rings Yiwu | Wholesal Cutting Bracelets | Wholesal Rubber Necklace | Business Cards Luxury | Business Cards Luxury | Wire Bangle Luxury | Carbon Fiber Bracelet Luxury | Stone Bracelets Fashion | Casting Rings | Watches Luxury | tiffany silver

137 Piaget Replica Watches | Alain Silberstein Replica Watches | Piaget Fake Watches | Replica Tissot Watches | IWC Replica Watches | Richard Mille Fake Watches | Replica Tissot Watches | Watches Corum Fashion | Replica Rolex Watches | Replica A Lange & Sohne Watches | Replica Rolex Watches | Replica TAG Heuer Watches | Replica Blancpain Watches | Bedat & CO Replica Watches | Ebel Replica Watches | Watches Corum Fashion | Richard Mille Fake Watches | Porsche Design Fake Watches | Watches Hermes Fashion | Replica Hamilton Watches

138 Chanel Replica bags | Giverchy Replica bags | Replica Dolce & Gabbana Handbags | Luxury Prada handbags | Luxury Louis Vuitton Wallet handbags | Prada Replica bags | Christian Dior Fake Handbags | Fendi Replica bags | Replica Louis Vuitton Handbags | Replica Dolce & Gabbana Handbags | Gucci Replica bags | Replica Fashion Gucci handbags | Luxury Chloe handbags | Best Christian Dior bags | Replica Fashion Louis Vuitton handbags | Best Loewe bags | Best Louis Vuitton Watches bags | Cartier Fake Handbags | Giverchy Replica bags | Mulberry Fake Handbags | Best Chole bags | Replica Gucci Handbags | Designer Wallets Fake Handbags | Louis Vuitton 2007 Replica bags | Replica Hermes Handbags

139 Gowns Wedding Gowns, Wedding Gowns Dresses

140

The H4 replica watches took replica watches Harrison a massive 13 years to replica watches construct-but this was only the end of a lifetime's work. His genius was clear from the very beginning. Unfortunately many astronomers such as Nevil Maskelyne were convinced that a mechanical solution replica watches would not work and that only astronomy could solve the replica watches longitude problem. The fact that Harrison was from a working class family and had little replica watches formal education probably didn't help his prospects.Solving the longitude problem through horology meant designing a timepiece that could work accurately at sea. When you watch consider the rolling waves, changes in replica watches temperature and generally adverse replica watches conditions the dificulty of this task becomes apparent.The H1 was completed in 1735 and proved replica successful at sea. However the Board of Longitude demanded a full a transatlantic wholesale watch voyage. They gave Harrison a grant of 500 pounds with which he began work on the H2 watches.

141 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches

142 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.