We practiced spying and firing tomahawks at Waikiki on the Submarine. Isn’t that similar to planning for higher level staff officers? Practicing their art?
Since you keep comparing modern US to 1939 Nazi Germany, how bout this:
1. North Korea has plans to invade South Korea
2. USA has plans to invade Mexico
Which plan has alot more credulity in terms of actually being carried out?
Hitler and Stalin were always enemies and distrusted each other as much as your mindset formulated the choice for #1
You have to come up with way more evidence to show that Stalin was planning to attack the Nazis, other than the existence of an OPLAN, a map, and one guy who is largely dismissed by the academic community.
Four links not enough? I think no matter what link i will come up with, you will discredit for some reason.
you keep assuming the differing nature of the regime (in this case, totalitarian vs. democratic) is in and of itself enough to prove that the existence of an OPLAN in a despotic regime equals intent.
No wrong. that is not what i was saying. The plans of despots carry more weight in terms of them being carried out. The US has contingency plans for developments as a result of actions by other governments, the Despotic regimes in this case are the ones that make active provocations…they start the problem. That is a far different type of plan and these nations have no scruples to employ these plans if any opportunity presents itself by nature of the regime.
Come up with some kind of mainstream academic like Gerhard Weinberg, Michael Mandelbaum, John Gaddis, Ned Lebow, Richard Betts, Clay Blair, somebody who understands both WWII and is a respected academic figure, then I’ll listen.
Sure, Ill get fly them to LAX, pic them up and take them to Malibu and we can have them say whatever. If you were somebody who plans the itinerary of other people, you’d understand that.
Because you set whatever standard for who is credible or not those you mention are just as credible as however many people think Stalin did have plans to attack Hitler, if the opportunity presented itself. If you knew anything about who Stalin was, you’d understand that.
“The US has contingency plans for developments as a result of actions by other governments, the Despotic regimes in this case are the ones that make active provocations…they start the problem.” That is a real, real oversimplification–both for what we do in the U.S. and what despotic regimes do.
But this is a forum where people post short quips on any topic. If you were a poster here for a long time, you’d understand that.
:-D
OK we just reanimated Stalin ( from his tomb) and he said “he was going to attack Hitler”, so i guess that’s solved. If you were a specialist in reanimation, you’d understand that.
See how that works?
I believe the book was called Barbarossa that had the info about the Russia invasion of Germany. I don’t know why you guys see this as a impossibility. Look at what we already know of a Stalin Russia. They attacked Finland and had no problem gobbling part of Poland why is it so hard to believe they would take a shot at Germany? I pretty much thought that would be common knowledge knowing what we know of Stalin. Guess I’m wrong.
Lol… so says the guy who claims who went to the “University of Stanford.” Man, learn something about the academic process and burdens of evidence.
BTW, I love how you defend a crappy argument by saying “m’eh, that’s the internet, that’s what we do.” Also interesting to note that you can’t find any real, respected historian or academic who supports your thesis. Just… webpages. Guess what? My nephew has a webpage. He’s 10.
For you the burden of evidence is for one person to discount any presented link and replace his own failing evidence to discount the evidence with a list of people who said nothing on the topic and rest on nothing but “it wasn’t seriously considered because i said so”…. Then bring up a typo over and over because you’re quite incapable of making any argument. The typo argument fails again. If you were a professional in faulty reasoning and argument, you’d understand that.
BTW, do you think changing a word or two of something I’ve said, and repeating it back to me makes you sound witty or something? You’ve done it like three or four times. I don’t get it. It’s just… lame.
The mockery of a failing argument is entertainment. Do you constantly need to fall back on what little you know by attempting to force fit it in a discussion of WW2? ( e.g. Modern US contingency plans OPLAN has nothing to do with Stalin’s plans to invade Germany, but because that’s all you know it gets regurgitated here and we all suffer from ignorance).
Perhaps you might not want to make analogies from talking points in lectures. But that would require knowledge of WW2 rather than modern US Defense protocols, so you head back to the drawing board. And what you ‘don’t get’ backfires because it’s laughable.
Dude, a typo is misspelling something like “pretentious”. Calling your alma mater the wrong name isn’t a typo. It’s being caught in a lie.
OK “Dude” if that works for you go with it. And entertain us with that being an argument if that’s what you got. LOL
It’s no coincidence that IL spells LI backwards.
It is what works for me, because that’s what happened. You lied about where you went to school. And were then caught. Pretty straight forward.
No rather in a PM to you i typed University of Stanford rather than I went to the University at Stanford… If that means i lied, go with that. It should form a great argument as to the nature of Stalin’s plans to invade Germany in 1941-42.
I guess you lied when you said you would not reply to me, which makes you the one telling lies. Now you have been caught. If you knew what hypocrisy is, you’d understand that.
Holy ����, you did it again!! Laughing, this is awesome! Stanford isn’t a “place.” It isn’t even a town. Stanford University is located next to Palo Alto (yes, technically, Stanford is an unincorporated neighborhood on some land the university sits on, but the University is generally accepted as being in Palo Alto. You know, the actual city where people live and work). Stanford is named after Leland Stanford, the former Governor of California.
Again, people that went to Stanford, or Californians in general (I was born in San Jose, and went to elementary school in San Ramon, not far at all from Palo Alto) and most Americans, know that it’s Stanford, and Stanford’s in Palo Alto. No one says “I went to the University of Stanford” if they went there, and no one says, particularly if they went there “I went to the University at Stanford.”
In fact, here’s the totality of the message you sent me a few weeks back:
University of Stanford: double major Philosophy and History, then Masters in History. 1990
Live in Malibu,own apartment buildings, and develop Real Estate.
Play Badminton most nights.
From the context, it seems pretty clear you meant to pass off that you went to the “University of Stanford.” Problem is, that’s not a thing. You lied about your academic credentials; just own up to it.
And as for how that matters on the argument of who was going to attack whom first in 41/42… it doesn’t. All it shows is that you’re someone who lies about your educational background. Which is enough to show that your credibility is ���� on these kind of issues.
Do you see any pattern to the way i posted that PM? You dummy, doesn’t it seem like incomplete sentences. I went to the university …at Stanford, but wrote University of Stanford.
Stanford isn’t a “place.” It isn’t even a town. Stanford University is located next to Palo Alto (yes, technically, Stanford is an unincorporated neighborhood on some land the university sits on
Stanford is a place you moron it is in the zip code 94305. Go look it up. You know nothing about this. It is possible to say " University at Stanford" as a “place” because it is one. You really need to get a grasp on language.
The fact that you twist a PM is basically because you ran out of gas regarding any argument about Stalin invading Hitler first. I graduated from Stanford in 1990. If you don’t believe it by reasoning that in poorly written PM… well you seem pretty pathetic.
Why did you lie about not replying to me?
Get em Peters! Get em!
Jeeze… every place in America has a zip code. I live in an unincorporated part of the county, and guess what? I have a zip code. Doesn’t mean I live in a town or a city or a township. Just like there is no town of “Stanford”. Where’s the Stanford Police Department located? Who’s the Mayor of “Stanford”? How about the “Stanford Volunteer Fire Department”? Never heard of those things? Never have I. Because Stanford’s not a city, or a town, or a township. It’s a patch of land next to Palo Alto that has a zip code. Like every other place in America.
Besides which, no one who went to college in the States says “I went to the University at Stanford”, or “I went to the University at Harvard,” or “I went to the University at (of) Georgetown.” They say “Stanford, history and philosophy”. Or, “I went to Michigan.” Or, “Georgetown, political science and economics.” Or “MIT.” Or “I went to college at CalTech.” Or “I went to school at Minnesota.” Saying “I went to the University at Indiana” is just… weird. I mean, maybe they’d say “I went to school in Bloomington,” to refer to Indiana, but I’ve just never heard of a formulation where someone says “I went to the University at Indiana.” That’s just… not colloquial usage.
Besides which, that’s not what you said. The original text of the message you sent me read “University of Stanford.” The simplest, easiest, most common sense to read that is exactly how you typed it. That you went to the University of Stanford. Which isn’t a thing.
And you say I “lied” when I promised not to respond to you. So you really see no difference between someone saying (and I’m paraphrasing) “Imperious Leader is a lying dick, and I don’t plan on responding to him anymore” and someone caught lying about his academic credentials? Honestly, you see no difference at all? If that’s the case, you’re just too freakin’ stupid to have gone to Stanford. So I still don’t believe you.
What it means is Stanford is a place. You could even write a letter and use
Stanford, CA
as a destination. If you were a student, you’d understand that. IN those very short incomplete sentences which you depend on as your revisionist theory, i meant to say I went to a University….at Stanford
Now that you have hijacked this thread with typo’s meant for a PM, you really have nothing left to stand on in terms of any credibility regarding anything on WW2. You have not posted anything remotely useful in terms of refuting any idea that Stalin was not planning on hitting Hitler first. I provided evidence to the contrary. You can choose not to believe the information, but i did provide some links and there was no prerequisite to only getting links from that laundry list of mostly postwar Historians.
It’s pretty telling that you are unable to identify a single mainstream WWII historian to support your case. That’s your failing, not mine.
The problem with that as we have seen, is no matter who i bring up gets shot down as not on the list. You only listed about 8 Historians and most of them deal with postwar issues. I do know Co.l David Glantz from previous correspondence. I will ask him this question.
Besides which, no one who went to college in the States says “I went to the University at Stanford”, or “I went to the University at Harvard,” or “I went to the University at (of) Georgetown.” They say “Stanford, history and philosophy”. Or, “I went to Michigan.” Or, “Georgetown, political science and economics.” Or “MIT.” Or “I went to college at CalTech.” Or “I went to school at Minnesota.” Saying “I went to the University at Indiana” is just… weird. I mean, maybe they’d say “I went to school in Bloomington,” to refer to Indiana, but I’ve just never heard of a formulation where someone says “I went to the University at Indiana.” That’s just… not colloquial usage.
Besides which, that’s not what you said. The original text of the message you sent me read “University of Stanford.” The simplest, easiest, most common sense to read that is exactly how you typed it. That you went to the University of Stanford. Which isn’t a thing.
I say I went to the University of Texas at Austin. Am I saying it right?
@rjpeters70:
Stephen E. Ambrose
A. J. P. Taylor
John Keegan
Liddell Hart
Martin Gilbert
W.S. Churchill
David Fraser
Alistair Horne
Niall Fergusson
Ned Lebow
John Gaddis
Dan Kurman
Clay Blair
Richard Betts
Dwight Eisenhower
George Kennan
V.D. HansonDo any of those guys support your theory? Again, the burden of proof is on you, not me, as you’re the one advocating a revisionist history.
Interesting that you only listed westerns. btw ,it would be appreciated if you could keep your foul words to your self as I think we are all civilized in here rjpeters70.
I did some research on a Stalin first strike and it seems that there is something to it.
It´s def. a few thoughts worth.
As for now I found out that it could be, that the Tank ratio was changed to a 1:7 ratio, 3410 German Tank vs. 22000 Soviet Tanks instead of the nbrs. we know.
It was also considered that the reason for a fast territory gain by Germans was due to the setting wich the soviet army was in.
Instead of a defensive preparation it was in an attacking set up.
There supposed to be some evidence hidden in the archives in Podolsk wich could explain more and in detail to an possible first strike of Stalin. Will look up for more informations.
Interesting that you only listed westerns. btw ,it would be appreciated if you could keep your foul words to your self as I think we are all civilized in here rjpeters70.
Yes quite right. To gain the full understanding you need to quote Soviet sources, as well as European scholars . I bet he will disapprove of David Glantz, who is an authority on the Russian campaign. Glantz has written many books solely dealing with that campaign. The problem with rjpeters70 is he only reads what he wants too…old men or dead men and his threshold of what is real is limited to this. Everything else gets the “revisionist” label. Most of the information on this occurred many years following the wars end. People like Churchill and Liddell hart, Eisenhower, A.J. P. Taylor are living a long time ago and new facts and a reassessment of that period have been done.
Did someone say revisionist history?
I have a few chapters I’d like to write…
Like I’ve said, I’m perfectly willing to concede the possibility of it being true. My problem is with folks like Imperious Leader, who have credibility problems to say the least, saying that “it WAS” going to happen… as though it was an historical certainty. If that’s the case, then great, prove your point. Cite some mainstream authors.
It could have happened if it were not for Germany attacking first. If they didn’t attack first, it was more than likely to occur and was not some “training mission” or “OPLAN” or just some study.
Stalin had no idea Hitler would attack. The facts are very clear regarding that.
And I’m also willing to concede that I’m a Westernist when it comes to my historiography. But then again, I’m a Westerner. And having read some of the old declassified Soviet stuff, I just haven’t seen anything that suggested Stalin was months/weeks away from his own offensive against the Nazis. Which is what Imperious Leader says.
A more dynamic assessment of History includes the view of people outside " the American top 10" list of Historians. The assessment of History is always evolving and most older Historians don’t have the complete information. I did not say Stalin would attack in a few weeks or months, That is where you make my viewpoint look less sanguine by making it look extreme. I said Stalin was prepared to attack 1941-42 and not “2 weeks” That is rubbish and you know it.
Hence, my stance: Ok, you think it was going to happen? Great. Prove it. Show real evidence that has the support of mainstream academics. Someone like Glantz says it was going to happen? Ok, good enough for me. But I’d like to see that in writing in some kind of academic or peer reviewed publication.
I am sending him a note and we wait a few days.
Viktor Suworow and Solschenizyn would have been two “Historians” on Eastern side!
