blue division

doubt if they were destroyed - unless they were imbolized and blown up by their crews. I expect the crews had their ear drums blown out by the pressure of the detonation or some such incapacitating injury. I doubt there were many people who were qualified to handle such a complex and valuable piece of equipment, so that was probably that.

Quote : 'You would do well in the US administration's press department. Yes, that reminds me of fake dossiers and cooked up evidence. Stern assertions of proof and evidence whilst waving around cooked up or watered down pamphlets. Maybe you are the one who should be filling out the application form, Andreas.

Andreas, where is your arguent on the Red Army becoming a suddenly better force in 1944? How can that be, when the Soviet Premier himself said the Soviet advance could not be done without US help? Where is your argument, other than in pieces? Where is your credibility? What quotations can you provide us with to help back up your argument? Perhaps some Glantz will do this time? Answers now please.

Where have your debating 'skills' gone Andreas? They search him here, they search him there, they search everywhere. Still trying to raise the wreck of your argument off of the seabed? Soemtimes, it's best to let things go, and drift off onto new things. Perhaps you can start a thread up on how the Da Vinci code and the Illuminati must exist, because you read it in a book? Throw in lots of quotes, and we can all start believing you. I would be most interested to hear you other theories. We could all do with some cheering up.

Quote: 'Nah, he is just trying to prove something. Not sure what.' Nothing to prove here. Don't know about you. My statement about you giving up on the debate still stands. I note that you have conveniently forgotten about that.

Andreas : 'You are a funny man - or maybe you are just a the typical 'I read this on a weetabix pack so it must be true' type of hobby-historian. ' Did you know that when we criticise other people in this manner, we are often subconsciounsly talking about ourselves? What do you think?

Where are you? Has the teacher called you back in for lessons?

Still looks like Andreas has left the scene of his defeat.

Sergei, perhaps you could do the kissing and making up on my behalf. It looks like your forte.

Andreas, back to the argument- you seem to have given up the argument now after I came out of the Khruschev quote. I think it completely blew your argument out of the water. You have now given up trying to even debate, and are now merely trading insults. Your last postings indicate the last thrashings of your ship as it sinks beneath the waves.

Andreas, yes, it must be quite amusing being you. Go back to your Glantz books.

Andreas, I think if you look back over all of the postings you will see that the argument has swung my way. Don't you think?

Andreas, do you understand english? Please desist from insults. Maybe you are the one who is clueless, as you do not seem to understand this sentence. PS desist means 'stop'

Andreas, Quote : 'probably to avoid the embarassment of admitting that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. ' on the contrary - it is YOU who are constantly shifting the argument. Your choice of personal insults has merely proved this. Please cease and desist from insults.

Ok, so I mistook the code word for the Operation in 1942 towards Kharkov. But that is what code words are designed to do, confusde and mislead. The thrust of my argument is still correct Andreas, and you are still mistaken. You are still WAY to concerned with the operational side of the war, rather than the overall picture. You are like a short-sighted old man who cannot see the whole because your nose is pressed to the page. Also, Please desist from insults. If you do not have the intellectual capacity for intelligent debate, you should not be posting here.

Andreas, getting hot under the collar?

Andreas, Qutoe : 'A troll is an attempt to start a prolonged flame war, a fierce argument with rude, personal insults. ' Andreas - you are the troll. You have just insulted me with this personal insult. I am not a troll - if you can't engage in sensible debate, please leave me out of any of your postings. You are the person flaming, because you are attacking me in a personal and overly aggresive manner. Please cease and dessist.

Quote: 'I stand by my conclusion about your attitude towards proper research.' And yet you quote Glantz's work. Haven't read his book on Operation Mars, but from what the synopsis says he blames it all on Zhukov. This is fundamentally flawed. That particular battle was run to a large extent by Khruschev and one of the other inner circle who's name I can't recall. It was basically another one of the old civil war period warriors who were part of Stalins inner circle. When I say 'run' I mean that they constantly interfered and overrode the staff officers in charge of the conduct of the offensive. This lead to disaster - the offensive being carried on for far too long. Krushchev could not go back to Stalin empty handed - he could have paid with his head for it. This illustrates perfectly your lack of judgement when weighing up the evidence. You are using a seriously flawed book, and are waving it about as if it is the revealed truth from on high. You must be more discerning when quoting 'sources'. There are a lot of 'tripe' books out there - you need to be aware of that. Broaden your reading, Andreas. Don't just stick to military books - when dealing with the USSR, you must have a firm grasp of the political situation too. After all, the Red Army was considered to be the peoples army, and the Bolshevik party was the party of the people. Everything was intertwined - you can't seperate the military from the party.

Qutoe: 'There is nothing more to say about your opinion than that it is tripe.' Getting hot under the collar, Andreas?

Quote : 'I see - sources are not relevant in a discussion about history. Oh well, learn something new every day.' I didn't say that. I will repeat myself again- if you want to quote me as a source, please do not misquote me or taking me out of context. I really do shudder to think what you are claiming from some of your 'sources', when you are so freely mis-quoting me. I would not be surprised if they were cookery books. If you are going to 'learn something everyday', then maybe it should be that.

Oh, my apologies...

Quote : 'It's hard to argue Hitler saying "stand fast" ALWAYS made things worse for the Wehrmacht. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, it seems to me.' I said in 1944. It is difficult to argue that in 1944 a 'hold fast' really made any big improvement in any situation (*see below). You must be talking about earlier years. PLEASE read the posts - otherwise we end up repeatign ourselves. *** With the possible exception of the garrissons left behind in the channel ports of France, Belgium and Holland that denied easy supply to the Allies.

Quote : 'Why do you consider Chuikov's memoirs "5th grade stuff"?' I didn't say that. I was remarking on your statement that - ''I have read both memoirs. Have you?'' where you imply that merely through reading a book you have won the argument. Books must be interpreted critically before you can take them as gospel. Please read my posts properly and understand them fully before responding incorrectly. Quote: 'Which Front(s) was(were) it that Khruschev commanded' You need to look this up - there was a lot of interference from the politburo up to 1943. I don't have a photographic memory to give you a full list of the interference. Please look this up yourself. During the early stages of the war the Politburo insisted on interfering with operations. You should know this. The form this interference took was that a member of the Politburo would be delegated by Stalin to go to the front and personally take charge of the situation. The general in charge (if he knew what was good for him) would have to obey. In this way the front was controlled directly by the politburo. Stalin was totally paranoid of treachery. You can say that the politburo members were basically trying to fight their last war - the Civil War, which was a lot more swashbuckling and informally run. Krushchev was particaularly fond of sticking his fingers in until he made a real mess of things in the Kharkov offensive of 1942 (was it called Operation Mars?). You need to read other books than the solidly military books you have quoted. They aren't giving you enough background of the whole situation in the USSR. I can stress it enough - in the USSR politics were involved in EVERYTHING. If you sneezed in Russia in '30's and up to 1942, it had to be done in a communist fashion. Otehrwise you ended up in the Gulag. You can be sure that nearly everything to do with the Red Army in this period was overseen, interfered with and signed off by Stalin. Quote : 'Since when is disagreeing with some one the same thing as denigration?' den·i·grate ( P ) To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame. To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts. By posting things such as this: 'Not the presence of trucks or cans of spam. ' you are implying that I am writing spam - therefore you are disparaging my posts.

Quote: 'And I repeat, taking operational freedom away from German units and issuing "hold the line" orders did help in Soviet successes, too.' Absolutely correct. Giving 'Hold fast' orders to the German Army in 1944 was criminally irresponsible of Hitler. It was an invitation to the Allies and Soviets to surround and cut off those soldiers. It was even more terrible to consign those German soldiers to the tender mercies of the Soviet government once they had surrendered. Most of the German captives were forced labourers until 1955 or so. A lot didn't make it back. Remember the Courland pocket? 250,000 soldiers or so... Tunisia ? another 250,000.

Quote: 'If Soviet sources are as tainted as you say, why are you citing Khruschev? ' OK, here we go... A short history of the USSR... Khruschev, as you may or may not know (I reserve judgement) was the leader after Stalin. He denounced Stalin after he had consolidated his position and did his best to remove parts (not all) of his legacy. Soon afterwards, he himself was removed by some of Stalin's younger cronies (Brezhnev) who didn't like the way things were going. Although he did write himself out of blame many times (just like all the other Communist leaders), it is EASY to spot when he is being honest. In this case, his criticism of the backwardness of the USRR (it's inability to feed its own citizens durign the war) is a direct criticism of Stalin (remember what I said about the politics of Stalin's Soviet Union earlier?). He wrote this because it undermined further the reputation of Stalin. But just because he was undermining Stalin does NOT mean what he wrote was a lie or factually incorrect. We now know from the Soviet Archives being opened up and studied that indeed this was the case. There were indeed terrible famines in Russia during the War. To be a good researcher you need to be able to weigh evidence, and not just parrot out quotes from books. I think you need to stop writing replies so quickly and mull things over before posting. It may improve the quality of your posts.