Tiger Tales - First-Hand Accounts of Tiger Life

[JasonC]

To Stalin's Organ -

That is exactly the problem - it is a sweeping history, not of the war but of later grog-hood and historical-political debating points. Every line of it has an obviously intended "moral" one is supposed to draw about a well known technical or political debate - every blessed line. Which is out of this world for real recollection of real experiences. Nobody cares about such things, while in the middle of fighting and expecting to die any day. But it is par for the course for propaganda.

As for Michael's comment about trained to think that way, there may be some truth to it. But I have a simpler explanation of the tendency, which I prefer for Occam's razor reasons. Some of these fellows probably think it is some sort of -duty-, still, to present a certain version of things. You can call that "conditioned to think that way". I call it lying.

Does the vet who says the Russians must have been about to attack need to really think so, to say so? Or to have thought so at the time? Has he bothered, or does he care, that historical records perfectly available to all by now, show pretty darn conclusively that it was not so at all, and the political surprise of Barbarossa was total?

I don't think so. All he has to know is that is what Hitler said in every speech about the war with Russia from the day of the invasion until the final collapse. Over and over again. Which makes it the authorized version, whether he "believes it" or not. His duty is to say so. Belief as you or I understand it, as a relation of one's conscience to one's perceptions of the world, seems to have nothing to do with it whatever.

What is the jocular definition of a diplomat? A man sent abroad to lie for his country. Well, some are "diplomats" to reality itself, from a world of fantasy. I am never in the least surprised by mendacity about events triggered by a movement that was the incarnation of mendacity from begining to end. But there is precious little point in fighting over such things all over again. I simply record that I don't believe a word of it, and rest.

[JasonC]

T-34s were produced before Barbarossa. Production started in July of 1940 - the prototypes were accepted at the tail end of 1939. Around 3000 were ordered before the invasion, most of those were made as "B" models sometime in 1941 (after a smaller run of "A"s that were buggy). One factory was in Kharkov and worked on them from the summer of 1940, while another in Gorki was added to the program in early 1941. They first saw action against the Germans in July of 1941, a couple of weeks into the invasion. Part of the production was shifted to the Urals during the invasion, and later Stalingrad became a major producer of them as well. The 1942 "C" model was the one produced in tens of thousands rather than thousands, in both 42 and 43. In '44, production switched to the T-34/85.

The KV-1 was also a pre-invasion model, on essentially the same time scale. Its prototype was accepted in 1939 and production began in 1940. They were produced in Leningrad and the plant was later evacuated to the Urals. 636 were produced before the invasion, and another 728 by December. A small number of them were used in Finland in the winter war, more for combat trials and working out, than for operational results. The KV-2 was also produced in 1940, specifically to deal with Finnish fortifications - only a few hundred of those were produced.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

I saw a picture of the first T-34 encountered by the Liebstandarte. It was knocked out on the side of the road, with an SS officer being carried away on a stretcher. The caption said he tried to destroy it with a Hafthollahdung mine, but got injured somehow. I believe it was dated mid July '41.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, same photo I am talking about. There is a StuG in the foreground - the StuG couldn't do the job, so they had to try a mine, and eventually poured petrol on it and set it afire. The photo and caption are in Squadron Signal's Waffen SS in action - which I can't locate my copy of.

There is no stretcher in the photo IIRC, but the soldier is indeed being carried away, obviously wounded.

[Gyrene]

Michael & PW42, thanks for the T34 info.

Gyrene

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

To Stalin's Organ -

That is exactly the problem - it is a sweeping history, not of the war but of later grog-hood and historical-political debating points. Every line of it has an obviously intended "moral" one is supposed to draw about a well known technical or political debate - every blessed line. Which is out of this world for real recollection of real experiences. Nobody cares about such things, while in the middle of fighting and expecting to die any day. But it is par for the course for propaganda.

As for Michael's comment about trained to think that way, there may be some truth to it. But I have a simpler explanation of the tendency, which I prefer for Occam's razor reasons. Some of these fellows probably think it is some sort of -duty-, still, to present a certain version of things. You can call that "conditioned to think that way". I call it lying.

Does the vet who says the Russians must have been about to attack need to really think so, to say so? Or to have thought so at the time? Has he bothered, or does he care, that historical records perfectly available to all by now, show pretty darn conclusively that it was not so at all, and the political surprise of Barbarossa was total?

I don't think so. All he has to know is that is what Hitler said in every speech about the war with Russia from the day of the invasion until the final collapse. Over and over again. Which makes it the authorized version, whether he "believes it" or not. His duty is to say so. Belief as you or I understand it, as a relation of one's conscience to one's perceptions of the world, seems to have nothing to do with it whatever.

What is the jocular definition of a diplomat? A man sent abroad to lie for his country. Well, some are "diplomats" to reality itself, from a world of fantasy. I am never in the least surprised by mendacity about events triggered by a movement that was the incarnation of mendacity from begining to end. But there is precious little point in fighting over such things all over again. I simply record that I don't believe a word of it, and rest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are OUT of you're MIND.

And now I rest.

You might be right but you seem to be a bit overanalytical. I haven't read the article yet (my browser wont show the site for some reason) but just becuase an author of the site comes on here to defend does not mean he is fabricating or has fabricated information and storied accounts from vets. In fact I thought he showed great class in defending which obviously means alot to him. He even made a better point about not backstabbing people, and writing directly to the author's e-mail. He did give to you ya know. Why not write him to discuss it with him.

Anyway, toodledoo.

[offtaskagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Yep, same photo I am talking about. There is a StuG in the foreground - the StuG couldn't do the job, so they had to try a mine, and eventually poured petrol on it and set it afire. The photo and caption are in Squadron Signal's Waffen SS in action - which I can't locate my copy of.

There is no stretcher in the photo IIRC, but the soldier is indeed being carried away, obviously wounded.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's definitely the one I was thinking of. I flipped through that book in a store but couldn't remember the name or exact details.

[JasonC]

Whether he is retailing somebody else's lies to him, or otherwise, I don't pretend to know, nor do I care. I just know that pack of stuff in the last J-S section is propaganda. If you haven't read it, you obviously have precious little input to offer either way on that judgment.

[M.McCulloch]

To Jason C

I dont give a damn what you think either. You might want to attend a university or college & study your subjects before you rubbish everything anyone says. I still notice you haven't the decency to conact us directly! Scared that we show you up for the amatuer you are. You can rubbish the site site all you want that doesn't bother me at all after all I live in a country of free speech but dont rubbish the memory of my uncle thats just bad manners & ignorance. If you are an expert on the JS 1 why not share it we would all be delighted to see your vast knowledge. P.S I can quite happily give you all the mail addresses of reltions of vets from all sides that have written to us with their stories. Oh please let us know when you design & publish your own WW2 site I cant wait to visit.

[Viceroy]

JasonC,

none are as blind as those that will not see.

Thank you for so clearly displaying to everyone exactly what sort of a person you really are.

[JasonC]

Here is my loose translation of the section on Normandy.

The Panzer trooper loves his tank.

The leader always sees what is coming.

The Panzer trooper loves to fight.

The German people love the war.

The commanders know what the enemy will do, before the enemy does.

The Panzer trooper loves his tank.

Cliched anecdote of army life.

The panzer trooper loves to fight.

The panzer trooper usually fights all the time, tirelessly.

Cliched attitude toward fresh meat.

The panzer trooper is proud of his prowess.

The panzer trooper always obeys orders.

The panzer trooper takes care of his tank. It takes care of him.

Cliched statement about tanker's tasks.

German tanks are better.

The Panzer trooper loves to fight.

The panzer trooper is proud of his prowess.

The panzer commander is proud of his men.

The panzer trooper loves to fight.

German soldiers know the heraldry of every other German unit.

The western allies had superior airpower.

Cliched attitude toward fresh meat.

The panzer trooper loves to fight.

The western allies had superior airpower.

The German panzer always wins.

The western allies had superior airpower.

The panzer trooper is proud of his prowess.

The panzer trooper usually fights every day, tirelessly.

German tanks fire from ambush and remain unseen.

The German panzer always wins.

The western allies had superior airpower.

The panzer commander always thinks ahead.

The SS and Heer work together.

The western allies had superior airpower.

The panzer commander wins with his wits.

The German panzer always wins.

The French always run away.

The western allies had superior airpower.

Good service is always rewarded.

Troopers are always humbled by awards.

The German panzer always wins.

The British are reckless with tanks.

The western allies had superior airpower.

All defeats in the west are the Luftwaffe's fault.

Goering was a coward, that's why the Luftwaffe fails.

The German panzer always wins.

The British are reckless with tanks.

The Russians were even dumber.

The German panzer always wins.

German tanks are better.

The German panzer always wins.

The British are reckless with tanks.

All defeats in the west are the Luftwaffe's fault.

Sometimes tanks break down. They never lose in action.

Read that, and you've heard everything it actually says - or rather means. Anyone think that is important eyewitness testimony, instead of propaganda drivel?

[JasonC]

To Viceroy -

I kinda like the Moody Blues too. But pray tell, what kind of person am I?

[JasonC]

"I dont give a damn what you think either."

Is the stuff on your site then "what you think"? That is not, after all, the way it is presented. But perhaps you merely refer to my comments about not caring what the origin of the obvious propaganda in those sections, was.

"You might want to attend a university or college & study your subjects"

I study at the University of Chicago. I've studied with John J. Mearsheimer on security issues. If you haven't heard of him, he is a leading "realist" international relations prof who wrote the book "Conventional Deterrence", among other things. I also worked with Hein Goemez when he was a graduate student, who I consider something of an authority on both WW I and issues of war termination, if you care; he now teaches at Duke. As for being able to spot propaganda, my field is political science.

I don't consider it any requirement of decency or of anything else, to only discuss your publications in private, rather than in public. After all, when you publish something, on the web or elsewhere, inviting public thought about it, and comment on it, is sort of the entire point. I tell not only you, but everyone who might be interested here, that I don't believe the stuff in one part of your site. You react as though people may not disbelieve any particular thing you happen to publish, which is quite silly.

As for hiding behind filial piety, I'm afraid that does not begin to wash. I don't know you to have had any relation with anyone, who did or did not write, at the time or later, any account that you claim to present snippets of, edited who knows how by you, or censored who knows how by officials at the time, or composed for what purpose by the author or authors, whenever. I don't need to, in order to conclude that the content of the JS section of your site is propaganda. Whose, is quite immaterial to me. Perhaps it is yours by wholesale fabrication. Perhaps it is yours merely by selective editing. Perhaps it was some prior editor's, or the author's. It is entirely possible some man sat down and deliberately wrote propaganda at any time from the actual events until the day before your site went up, but none of that changes the nature of the internal evidence.

It is just bilge.

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Grunto IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The Russian front vet I talked to proclaimed, practically on a stack of bibles, that they passed huge stockpiles of equipment on the Soviet border in June 1941 as Barbarossa began. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you read the late version of scorched earth, carrel (carell?) mentions that when the soviet archives were opened up around 1990, that it was learned that the soviets were preparing to attack germany that same summer - 1941 - and were caught with their proverbial pants down.

this might explain the huge stockpiles of equipment.

andy

[JasonC]

Right Grunto IV. Sure.

"Whether or not America enters the war is a matter of indifference, inasmuch as she supports our opponent with all the power she is able to mobilize. The situation in England itself is bad; the provision of food and raw materials is growing steadily more difficult. The martial spirit to make war, after all, lives only on hopes. These hopes are based solely on two assumptions: Russia and America. We have no chance of eliminating America. But it does lie in our power to exclude Russia. The elimination of Russia means, at the same time, a tremendous relief for Japan in East Asia, and thereby the possibility of a much stronger threat to American activities through Japanese intervention."

Hitler to Mussolini, explaining the reason for Barbarossa. Privately.

"This has brought us to the hour when it is necessary for us to take steps against this plot devised by the Jewish Anglo-Saxon warmongers and equally the Jewish rulers of the Bolshevist center in Moscow."

To the German people. Publicly.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grunto IV:

if you read the late version of scorched earth, carrel (carell?) mentions that when the soviet archives were opened up around 1990, that it was learned that the soviets were preparing to attack germany that same summer - 1941 - and were caught with their proverbial pants down.

this might explain the huge stockpiles of equipment.

andy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I keep hearing good things about Carrell, I will have to get around to reading him. Thanks for the info. I guess the opening of the Russian archives has caused a lot of rethink by historians - sort of like the revelations about ULTRA - which is why you can't trust any histories written right after the war. I suppose we have to wait for the next generation of Russian Front histories now that we researchers are starting to gain access.

That proves the point about veteran's stories - there is no way of knowing sometimes what is true and what is not. I talked to a Canadian vet a few weeks back who bragged about having VD 7 times, and that one of his NCOs fathered 12 illegitimate children while in England from 1940-44. He seemed so crazy you didn't want to believe him, but in discussion of other things, he had an amazing memory for details. So you just never know.

[Skipper]

> Not abandoned equipment - this vet was

> telling me Russia was preparing to invade

> Germany.

RKKA was deploying in response to german deployment. The deployment was still unfinished when germans made their move. Lots of hardware from sceleton formations was already unloaded in the deployment areas, while mobilised reservists were still on the way to that hardware. This about sums it up.

Most T34s deployed in the west in June 1941 were in mechanised corps formations. I have an URL for the history of these formations, but now it doesnt work. I do recall that they went into battle quite early into the war - in the early July, if not in the late June.

The URL [in russian] http://mechcorps.chat.ru

[PzKpfw 1]

Alright eneough use of JS the proper nomenclature is IS.....

Concerning the T-34 the 1st encounters with T-34's began from June 22 1941 on as thev Germans encountered both the T-34 & KV1 from the 1st day of Barbarossa etc, Ie 6th Mech Corps with 238 T-34's & 114 KV1's attacked the German XX Corps on June 24. XX corps AT gunners were shocked to see their 37mm AT rounds bounce off the new tanks, and after the AT guns ran outa of ammo, Stuka's had to be called into to break up the Mech Corps attacks.

If anyone is interested in the initial Soviet encounters with Germans & vice versa below are some Soviet Mech Corps that engaged the Germans with the T-34 & KV:

3rd Mechanized Corps

4th Mechanized Corps

15th Mechanized Corps

Regards, John Waters

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

Whether he is retailing somebody else's lies to him, or otherwise, I don't pretend to know, nor do I care. I just know that pack of stuff in the last J-S section is propaganda. If you haven't read it, you obviously have precious little input to offer either way on that judgment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you are right, however that cannot stop me from giving my input either way.

BTW, what was you're take on the claim of the russian soldier who supposedly clubed 10 hitler youths to death? The one with the the great snapshot picture and caption? I was just cusrious as to what you thought about that.

[K_Tiger]

cool....my grandpa served in the XX Korps...im not really sure about the unit..maybe the 389. Inf. Div.??..must ask him again..

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: K_Tiger ]

[JasonC]

To Freak -

I thought it was hilarious. It never occurred to me to consider it true.

Also, please do not take my word for it about what is on this guy's site. Read it yourself. My "loose translation" is what I think the moral behind each passage in the text is supposed to be, propagandistically. I don't mean I am translating it from German or anything, do not misunderstand me. I looked at each section of text and wrote under it what the cliched "moral" of that passage was obviously supposed to be, then strung those morals together without the original. And got the result above. I think it is pretty obvious, but people can decide that themselves.

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

To Freak -

I thought it was hilarious. It never occurred to me to consider it true.

Also, please do not take my word for it about what is on this guy's site. Read it yourself. My "loose translation" is what I think the moral behind each passage in the text is supposed to be, propagandistically. I don't mean I am translating it from German or anything, do not misunderstand me. I looked at each section of text and wrote under it what the cliched "moral" of that passage was obviously supposed to be, then strung those morals together without the original. And got the result above. I think it is pretty obvious, but people can decide that themselves.

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough Jason C. Thanks for your input.

[Triumvir]

Viceroy,

I don't speak or read German. But I have done quite a bit of reading on the subject, especially when I was at university. Most of the translated diaries I have read have sounded quite a bit more formal than the extracts there; and are more concerned with their barracksmates than their kill scores.

James Lucas may be a crypto-fascist Hitler apologizer, but his translations of diaries are pretty good. His book _Das Reich_, which is full of mundane unit history -- he actually writes off Oradour-sur-Glane and Tulles as a "delay in moving to the front" without even mentioning the names -- may be personally loathsome, but has good flavour for how the soldiers thought and acted.

Jason;

No wonder you rub people the wrong way; all you freshwater scholars do that!

[Simon Fox]

Well Jason can be a bit acerbic at times no doubt but irrespective of whether I agree with his opinions on the matter, I do agree that it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the merits of a public publication (which is what a web site is) on a public forum. Open criticism and discussion cannot be construed as backstabbing. If I think some author's work is suspect I am hardly likely to indulge in some private correspondance with them but if it came up in conversation I would certainly venture my opinion.

Speaking of which I have heard little good of Carrell who by all accounts seems to be an adherent of the Hitler's fault school of excusing German failures. I have heard him called the Victor Suvarov of Germany There was a fantastic customer review of one of his books on amazon at one stage that absolutely ripped into it and was pretty bloody funny too.

As pointed out by Dorosh, among others, you would be an idiot to rely on first hand accounts as being anything more than a sampling of reality. I do think there are some national differences in style though. Personally I prefer the British style which is a bit more understated, the Germans often seem a bit too full of themselves (eg Martin Poppel) sometimes seeming almost caricatures of themselves. What redeems books like Poppel's is that amidst all that arrogance there are periods where he is less sure of his superiority. Those are Crete, which clearly shook him up, and Russia where he was far from dismissive of his opponents.

[PzKpfw 1]

Well Carrel has his faults Ie, the standard German line of defeat excuses, & he was one of the 1st to use Suvarov's theory that the Soviet's were going to invade etc.

On the other hand despite this Glantz etc has used some of his works in his recent books Ie, Kursk etc.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Viceroy]

Simon Fox,

you said "the Germans often seem a bit too full of themselves" and "sometimes seeming almost caricatures of themselves". You mentioned the German writers "arrogance".

Don't you feel that the same comments could be made about many of the "historians" on the CM forums? I find some people on these threads to be incredibly pompous and arrogant.