CM2 - Can I buy NKVD Batallions to shoot my own troops?

[Skipper]

> At least some of those border guard units

> were among the best Soviet formations.

You know, recruits were always selected to serve in the border guard for above average fitness and clean political record. Even paratroopers had lower selection standards, afaik.

[Skipper]

> He doesn't state that.

That's a great relief

[Clubfoot]

Although this will be my last post to this thread, I'll depart with one parting shot. Skipper's assertion that Solzhenitsyn's work is anti-Soviet propaganda is utter hogwash. Eleven million dead bodies isn't propaganda. If you want a truly accurate depiction of the terror the Soviets faced under Stalin and his ilk, I strongly suggest his work. Until Skipper shows me his personal account of the Gulag/NKVD experience, I'll rely on the accounts of those who actually faced it. Namely the 3 ex-Soviet, naturalized American Professors (two of whom were soldiers arrested during the war, and not miles from the fighting either) whose tears were impossible to argue with and who consequently referred me to 'Archipelago' for, as they put it, "the single most truthful account of the Stalinist horror". I'd be interested to see your proof of this work as "propaganda" other than a quote from a pro-Soviet writer or your own personal opinion.

Clubfoot.

[This message has been edited by Clubfoot (edited 03-22-2001).]

[tss]

M Hofbauer wrote:

Those Polish soldiers weren't dumb, you really expect they would believe that tanks are made opf cardboard?

While Polish cavalry didn't charge tanks in WWII, they still have conducted few cavalry charges throughout history that could be classified as dumb ideas.

In particular, I'm thinking of the charge against Karl X's army near Praga during the Deluge in 1650's. Hussars charged straight into Swedish cannon and musket fire and suffered terrible losses.

However, less than 50 years before a similar charge had obliterated the defending Swedish army (though the rank soldiers of that particular army were mostly Finns) resulting in the second worst Swedish defeat in the whole history. Only Poltava was worse. Unfortunately I can't remember even the year of the battle but it happened in Lithuania.

- Tommi

[AcePylut]

How did this thread go from being about executing my uninspired troops to a discussion on Polish Cavalry charges?

Hey, I'm sure USSR cavalry would charge tanks if they had a little NKVD inspiration. Heck, I'll take lances against tanks over feet and hands against tanks any day.

[tss]

AcePylut wrote:

How did this thread go from being about executing my uninspired troops to a discussion on Polish Cavalry charges?

In the usenet world this is called 'thread drift'. It is inevitable. The only thing that we can hope is that not all threads end in ... Oops, I almost wrote the alternatives, and that would immediately summoned the evil demons of ..., ..., ..., and ... to this thread.

Heck, I'll take lances against tanks over feet and hands against tanks any day.

I wouldn't. In the early war it was possible to immobilize tanks using improvised weapons, like jamming a log into the tracks. However, I'd like to point out that the method was:

1) Very dangerous and took a lot of courage

2) Not guaranteed to work. Not at all. It might work, or not. It worked best against Soviet BT's that always had problems with tracks.

I've read one description where one Finn tried to stop a T-26 by jamming a crowbar to the tracks. The only result was that both the crowbar and the Finn flew back several meters.

-Tommi

[Zakalwe]

Originally posted by tss:

While Polish cavalry didn't charge tanks in WWII, they still have conducted few cavalry charges throughout history that could be classified as dumb ideas.

In particular, I'm thinking of the charge against Karl X's army near Praga during the Deluge in 1650's. Hussars charged straight into Swedish cannon and musket fire and suffered terrible losses.

This was the Battle of Warsaw in 1656. The event is described in Peter Englund's 'Ofredsår'. There is a chapter devoted to 'the last 80 meters of the Middle Ages'.

Peter Englund can also serve as a bridge to get us back to the subject of NKVD troops - one of his books (Brev från Nollpunkten, IIRC) has some very interesting essays on the coercive methods of both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. IMHO, Englund is an outstanding military historian; it's a real pity his works are only available in the Nordic languages. I'd almost say it's worth learning Swedish just to be able to read his books.

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by tss:

While Polish cavalry didn't charge tanks in WWII, they still have conducted few cavalry charges throughout history that could be classified as dumb ideas.

And, they are the only nation to have a dumb idea, like Dieppe? The Little Big Horn? The Mongolian invasion of Japan? Etc.

There is an old Polish saying, "A Pole is born with a brick in one hand, and a sword in the other."

It means that a Pole is always fighting his enemies (German, Russian, Turk, Hun, Mongolian), yet after war, rebuilds his land and home.

Since a history lesson of Polish courage is clearly needed.... It should be remembered that one of the greatest generals in history, Gustav Adolf, developed his skills in almost continuous warfare with the Poles - and his success in the Thirty Years War were preceded my many years of effort against inferior numbers of Poles who had humiliated the Swedish army at Kircholm.

"Polish Lithuanian forces under Krzysztof I Radziwill and Hetman Chodkiewicz crushed the Swedish armies at the battles of Kokenhauzen (10 March 1601), Bialy Kamien (25 Sept 1604) and Kircholm (27 Sept 1605). On each occasion the Poles were outnumbered, but by skilful tactics and the expert use of husars the Swedes were well beaten. However due to lack of funds, recapturing occupied towns was difficult and Protracted, especially since the Swedes began to avoid battle and remained in towns and castles. The war ended with the attention of both countries turned to Muscovy.

And... Dalerac wrote - " Usars are the most beautiful cavalry in Europe, in terms of men, splendid horses, brilliance of dress and bravery of arms ... this cavalry sits on the best horses in the country ... The husars never retreat, releasing their horses into full gallop charges and carrying all before

them."

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 03-22-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 03-22-2001).]

[The Commissar]

Dr Brian,

Since you seem to know much of Polish history, would you care to tell me the number of years and periods that Poland was under Russia's yoke? That is, partial or full control, if that ever happened.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers!

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

Dr Brian,

Since you seem to know much of Polish history, would you care to tell me the number of years and periods that Poland was under Russia's yoke? That is, partial or full control, if that ever happened.

Pan Commissar,

Under Russia's "yoke" from the 1st Partition in 1772...

Under direct coquest and control from the 3rd and final Partition at the end of the 18th century in 1795.

From 1795, Russification of all things Polish, i.e., Polish language, culture, schools, and identity, from 1795 to 1914 (173 years).

From 1914 to 1918 under German control.

From 1918 to 1939, the Free Republic Of Poland. (21 years of freedom)

1939 - 1944, the most horrible period in the history of the world, where over 33% of the Polish population was systematically butchered.

1944 - 1989 Under Soviet (i.e., Russian) control.

Over the past 228 years, only 33 years have been outside the Russian "yoke." (German for 9 of them.)

Current trends indicate Russian activities to destablize Poland (and Ukraine) continue. Ref: Jane's Intelligence Defense.

And so, it continues....

Hope that helps!

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 03-22-2001).]

[The Commissar]

Thanks Dr. Brian! My friend and I had a small disagreement, and now I have the information to back up my statements.

Cheers and thanks once more!

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Dr. Brian]

Pan Commissar,

I did not include the years under Napolean's mandated Duchy of Warsaw which was from 1809 to 1814... so, 5 years under French dominion, but, during that time, they were allowed to be "Polish" and free again... which as a people, is all they want.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[easy-v]

Ok, I retract my previous statement regarding Beevor and the NKVD. For some reason, I remember being staggered and shocked at the brutality of the soviets in their treatment of their soldiers while reading his book, and this was an impression that I kept after finishing the book.

To clarify though, Beevor states in the preface that the "Soviet authorities executed around 13,500 of their own soldiers at Stalingrad". He does not elaborate further, nor does he cite his source, but in the course of the book, he does dedicate pages to the NKVD and their methods.

IMHO, to characterize the NKVD as *merely* border guards is on par (if not worse) to calling the entire SS "combat troops". (not that anyone here has-that I've seen).

Well, I am going to restrain myself now, before I head off to lockdown-taboo subjects and get this informative thread shut down.

easy-v

[Skipper]

> IMHO, to characterize the NKVD as *merely*

> border guards

LOL Fully agree. NKVD was much more than that. It was the Interior Ministy in a tyrant's regime.

> Eleven million dead bodies isn't propaganda.

It is exactly that. You can more or less rely on Solzhenitsyn's personal experiences - some Gulag acomodations were real hell. As a source of historical information, he is nil.

[tss]

Dr. Brian wrote:

And, they are the only nation to have a dumb idea, like Dieppe?

Oh, no, all countries have had dumb ideas in combat. From Finnish side I could mention the Winter War era charges of two light detachments (7th and ... maybe 8th). The more famous one was the attack against Äyräpää church that was portrayed in the movie Winter War. The more obscure happened at Viipuri Bay when the other detachment charged over ice against dug-in Soviet troops, suffering ~70 KIA. (The actual numbers are not known since afterwards the unit was in heavy battles for several days and the casualty report was done after those battles.)

It should be remembered that one of the greatest generals in history, Gustav Adolf, developed his skills in almost continuous warfare with the Poles

Yup.

receded my many years of effort against inferior numbers of Poles who had humiliated the Swedish army at Kircholm.

The Kircholm battle in 1605 was the "50-year earlier" battle that I mentioned in my post. Technically, I made an error in claiming that it was the second worst Swedish defeat ever, since Swedish losses in Nördlingen 1634 were greater. However, Kircholm is certainly the most embarassing and the army at Nördlingen was predominantly composed of foreign mercenaries while the army at Kircholm was national.

Swedes had an army of 10000 men (I was also wrong to claim that it was predominantly Finnish, that army was formed later. This army had ~10% Finns). Poles had only 3500 men.

In the beginning, Swedes assumed a strong defensive position. Chodkiewicz committed a feint attack against it and then retreated. Against the suggestions of his advisors, king Karl IX then ordered his forces to attack. When they had reached the plain, Chodkiewicz committed his forces to attack, and the cavalry charge crushed Swedish lines and routed the army. Swedes lost ~4000 men KIA, more men than Poles had in their army.

Poles had probably the best heavy cavalry in Europe in the 17th century.

- Tommi

[Dr. Brian]

Tommi,

Wonderful analysis of the battle. Hans Delbruck, if I recall correctly, put the Swedish numbers higher. Thing about this old history, the numbers are always debatable.

Overall though, the "effect" and "aftershock" as you detailed, is what really matters most.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[tss]

Dr. Brian wrote:

Wonderful analysis of the battle. Hans Delbruck, if I recall correctly, put the Swedish numbers higher. Thing about this old history, the numbers are always debatable.

Yup. My source is Major Hannula's "Sotataidon historia II" from 1930's. He got the figure (10700 to be exact) from a Swedish source: Petri, "Kungl. Första Livgrenadjärregements historia I", 1926. Hannula also used Delbrück as a source.

I don't held Hannula's book particularly reliable, since he suffers from same problem than many other soldiers-turned-to-historians. That is, he interprets the events via the accepted military doctrine of his time. Additionally, one of his sources (that he uses almost exclusively in some parts of the book) is E. Kuussari's "Venäläisten sotataito I" ("The Art of War in Russia") that is notoriously bad in some places. For example, the book is claiming to be the authoritive source on Russian military from 800-1700, but the author doesn't even mention Alexander Nevski.

- Tommi

[Guest Rex_Bellator]

Re: CM2 - Can I buy NKVD Batallions to shoot my own troops?

Good news, you don't have to wait until CM2 to get this experience. Last night in a random battle I had some Green quality British attacking in the Fog. When my Engineers on point made contact with the enemy, they immediately faced about 180 degrees and ruthlessley gunned down their fellow flamethrower team following them up behind My guys policy seemed to be gun'em down if they even look a little bit worried

I know its not exactly what you wanted to see, but if you want Blue on Blue then raw troops in limited visibility will deliver every time already. BTW I enjoyed the posts relating to Poland in this thread, very interesting stuff.

------------------

In blossom today

then scattered,

life is so like a delicate flower,

how can one expect the fragrance

to last forever

Vice Admiral Takijiro Ohnishi - Commander Kamikaze Special Attack Force

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by tss:

My source is Major Hannula's "Sotataidon historia II" from 1930's.

Tommi,

I heard about this book, but have never seen it. Is the English translation available? I'd like to read it, and add it to my library.

Thanks in advance!

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[tss]

Dr. Brian wrote:

I heard about this book, but have never seen it. Is the English translation available?

I don't know but most probably not. It is possible that some foreign military services have translated it but almost certainly no "consumer edition" translations exist.

I managed to find my copy from an old books store last fall.

- Tommi

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by tss:

I managed to find my copy from an old books store last fall.

Oh well.

It's always good to have one of these "rare" books on one's shelf. Congrats!

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Padre]

Originally posted by Dr. Brian:

Under Russia's "yoke" from the 1st Partition in 1772...

I see you skipped the mention of a Polish yoke of 1612. Or propping up a son of a Polish king onto a Russian throne and ransacking Moscow does not qualify as a foreign invasion?

Under direct coquest and control from the 3rd and final Partition at the end of the 18th century in 1795.

From 1795, Russification of all things Polish, i.e., Polish language, culture, schools, and identity, from 1795 to 1914 (173 years).

It will be worth mentioning that when Poland had a chance to be a sovereign state just prior its division, it was actively pursuing the policy of forceful Polonization of their own ethnical minorities, namely Ukrainians. Indeed, all empires, big and small, are surprisingly alike

Again, you forgot to mention a brief excursion of quite a few Polish units as a part of Napoleon's invasion of 1812.

From 1914 to 1918 under German control.

From 1918 to 1939, the Free Republic Of Poland. (21 years of freedom)

Forgetting some Polish "indiscretions" again? How about Poland trying to use a confusion of Russian Civil war for a land grab of their own?

Some people like to mention brave Poles beating Russian hordes away from the outskirts of Warsaw in 1920. What those people usually forget is to mention that those Russian hordes got to Warsaw while beating Poles from the outskirts of Kiev and Minsk in a first place.

Mentioning the fact that Poland carved some lands from Gzechoslovakia under threat of arms (and got those lands too) in 1938 while Germany was busy cutting off their share, will be probably off topic. As we were discussing Poland-Russia relations. Besides, you will most likely argue that those Czech lands were really Polish anyway

1939-1944, the most horrible period in the history of the world, where over 33% of the Polish population was systematically butchered.

1944 - 1989 Under Soviet (i.e., Russian) control.

Personally, I find it somewhat insulting that you would equate "Soviet" to "Russian". Ideology of any kind, as we know it, is usually equally appealing to any particular ethnicity, all else being equal. Not to mention that those pesky Russ... erm... Soviets would probably had a hard time keeping Poles under their "yoke" without a good number of Polish "helpers" on their side.

Over the past 228 years, only 33 years have been outside the Russian "yoke." (German for 9 of them.)

Current trends indicate Russian activities to destablize Poland (and Ukraine) continue. Ref: Jane's Intelligence Defense.

And so, it continues....

The point I am trying to make? While it is that it is undeniable that Poles and Russians have alot of bad blood, I will still contest your depiction of their mutual relations as a continuous struggle of good Poles against bad Russians. Real history was, and still is not that simple.

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by Padre:

I see you skipped the mention of a Polish yoke of 1612. Or propping up a son of a Polish king onto a Russian throne and ransacking Moscow does not qualify as a foreign invasion?

Nope, I didn't forget to mention it. The question directed to me, was Poland under the Russian "yoke."

That's why we started from the 1st Partition onward.

But, ahhhhhh, those were the good ole days.

Originally posted by Padre:

It will be worth mentioning that when Poland had a chance to be a sovereign state just prior its division, it was actively pursuing the policy of forceful Polonization of their own ethnical minorities, namely Ukrainians. Indeed, all empires, big and small, are surprisingly alike

Now this is clearly inaccurate. The Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania was a diverse and tolerant kingdom. In fact, it was the most "free" country in Europe, and a republic The Polish-Lithuanian kings did not "Polinize" the language, as the Carpathian Ukrainians learned under the Ukrainian language and schools.

Religiously, all were free to worship, as they wanted. In fact, the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania was much less "Catholic" than people believe. Unites and Jews found religious tolerance the government's policy, and this can be seen by the large numbers of Jews, Unite, and Muslims within the Kingdom.

To be "Polish" at the time was not just for "Poles." It was to be one from Poland-Lithuania. It was not uncommon for a Ukrainian or German or Jew to say he or she was Polish, even though, they did not speak the Polish language.

So, I can not find historically, or accept your statement about a policy of forceful polinization, which clearly did not exist. It was okay to be German, but call yourself Polish. That's what they did back in Poland-Lithuania.

Recommended reading; "The History of Poland" volumes I and II.

Originally posted by Padre:

From 1914 to 1918 under German control.

From 1918 to 1939, the Free Republic Of Poland. (21 years of freedom)

Forgetting some Polish "indiscretions" again? How about Poland trying to use a confusion of Russian Civil war for a land grab of their own?

What land grab? You are looking at a map with the perspective of a modern day man. What you call "land grab" today is based on post WWII borders. What Pilsudski's government was fighting for, was the return of Poland's lands and peoples. Compare a map of Poland after the treaty of Brest with one of Poland of 1667 and even 1772, when Poland was not under Russian dominion.

You will clearly see that Kiev and Minsk were part of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, and, people in these areas, were "Polish" as defined by pre-partition definition.

So, Poland was not making a "land grab" but still trying to fight for the freedom of it's former peoples, land, resources, etc.

Today though, it would be a land grab, as these people have grown their own, non-"Polish" national identities.

Originally posted by Padre:

Some people like to mention brave Poles beating Russian hordes away from the outskirts of Warsaw in 1920. What those people usually forget is to mention that those Russian hordes got to Warsaw while beating Poles from the outskirts of Kiev and Minsk in a first place.

As I mentioned, the last time Poland was free, those were Polish lands. So, the argument you present is flawed here.

Originally posted by Padre:

1944 - 1989 Under Soviet (i.e., Russian) control.

Personally, I find it somewhat insulting that you would equate "Soviet" to "Russian".

And I'll be the first to agree with you. I'm not insulting you. Being Ukrainian myself, I find it hard to swallow how many in my family are "russian" and fought in the "russian army" of WWII.

We both know that Ukrainians, Mongolians, Georgians, etc. made up the Red Army too.

We also both know, that the Soviet Union was basically run by the Russians, which was why like they did to Poland, they tried to do to Ukraine with Russification in the schools, etc.

Originally posted by Padre:

I will still contest your depiction of their mutual relations as a continuous struggle of good Poles against bad Russians.

I understand your contention. However, it is much easier when a people that were free, and then get wiped from the map of Europe, are considered "good" while the Russians are considered "bad." Especially when it is over 230+ years.

Again, realize, that for for the past 228 years, Poland has been basically fighting for their identity under Russian efforts to "Russify" them.

It's tough for many people, especially westerners, and Russians, to understand the concept of "bad" Russian (we'll use your term here for simplicity). People of eastern Europe and Asia, are constantly, for the past 500+ years, been subjected to a policy of Russification whenever Russia has been given the chance.

It's sort of like the Balkans. Over 1000 years of fighting has lead to deep divisions that will never be solved. The same, sadly, is true about Russia and their efforts of Russification and the people they try to Russify.

Ask any Ukrainian, Pole, Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian, Uzbekian, Georgian, Mongolian, etc.

In conclusion, thanks for the frank discussion. It's brought a couple points home for me, including your last about real history!

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 03-26-2001).]

[Skipper]

> So, Poland was not making a "land grab"

> but still trying to fight for the freedom

> of it's former peoples, land, resources,

> etc.

> Today though, it would be a land grab, as

> these people have grown their own, non-

> "Polish" national identities.

Ukranians have formed their "non-polish" national identity back in XVIII century. Note: I am not talking Western Ukraine (Galicia) here.

As for the "free" Poland, your picture is surprisingly rosy. Orthodox ukranians fought religious wars (sort of) against catholic poles. I guess, they had a reason.

I do agree on your other comments, more or less, although it is worth mentioning that quite a few of the countries you mentioned (namely, Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan) attached themselves to Russia at their free sovereign will. They should have thought that benefits of such a union outweighed the negative effects of what you call "russification".

Ie, "russification" is not "bad" or "good", it is just the best you can get when you join an empire. The alternatives are "extermination" and "enslaving".

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by Skipper:

As for the "free" Poland, your picture is surprisingly rosy. Orthodox ukranians fought religious wars (sort of) against catholic poles. I guess, they had a reason.

To be honest, it may appear rosy. But, their were also pogroms against Jews as well. Over a long period of time, actions like these (or similar) do happen, including in the US like race riots in LA in 1992 or Newark, NJ in 1966.

But, overall, it was always brought back into mainstream.

Off with the Polish hat…. On with the Ukrainian.

I'm gonna have to disagree. In no way did Ukraine "freely" join with Russia. First, we need to talk about time context. As you identified, Ukrainian national identity occurred in the east sooner than the Galciaian/Carpathian Ukrainians than those in the Don, who considered themselves "Ukrianian speaking Poles" (for the most part). A lot of that had to do with the Don Cossacks, which were fiercely independent.

However, the Cossacks came under the employ of the Czars and Czarinas, and became an instrument of population control in Ukraine. Cossacks were … well mercenaries … hired guns … under no government, etc.

The Royal House of Russia gained so much control over the Cossacks in time, that the frequent "revolts" with the Cossacks were squashed, either by Russia directly, or "competing" Cossacks. Almost similar to the Apartheid Regime of South Africa, where they would instigate the African Nations against each other.

Where the Cossacks Ukrainian? Yes. Did they help Russia gain control of Ukraine? Yes. Does that mean Ukraine became a willing partner with Russia? Consider the times, and forms of government then, probably yes. But, you said it so well … enslavement or annihilation. Not much of a choice.

Russian policy has, and will be, to establish economic and intelligence strongholds in those nations of central and Eastern Europe recently whenever freed from Moscow's domination. It has worked for them since 1300 onward, a period of over 700 years. It is part of their national conscience.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 03-27-2001).]