1940, France falls, now what..

I’ve thought I’ve seen you use the word “lad” in other postings, but I’m not about to spend my time trying to find the specific time.  At any rate, you have used “bloke” and “rubbish” here, and I’ve yet to meet a single American who uses these words.

It’s fine if you’re English… just say so.  But the way you talk, it’s not how an American talks.  Or a Californian for that matter (and again, I’m originally from California).

I’m not English, so i guess you just met somebody who uses that vocabulary. I have traveled extensively and pick up words here and there.

Ok, here again.  Either you’re flat out stupid, since I’ve noted multiple times the modern historians who are applicable like Keegan and Clay Blair, noted multiple times (minimum of four, at this point) the importance of checking old Soviet records, and the importance of taking viewpoints from other countries, or you’re willfully ignoring those postings I’ve made.  Which is it?

What is it is a lack of a dynamic viewpoint of Historical events by referring only to mostly dead Historians who have an Anglo background. That is what it is. You discount all sources outside of that small group.

This is fascinating stuff. It’s like a sampler pack of IL’s deficiencies:

Lying, poor/no evidence, childishly calling names or thinking he is clever twisting someone else’s words, ignoring pertinent questions/info that would expose his faulty reasoning, correcting spelling so he can feel superior for SOMETHING, assuming that there are no relevant connections between operations of goverments (because some are the good guys and some are the bad guys � rolleyes), and just acting like an arrogant jerk in general.

spelling: governments

Calling names-changing words because you lost an argument….that would be you and a perfect fit.

And you still look like some insecure 13 year old Girl following me around wherever i go. I should call you Shadow

If YOU make an assumption based upon a data set that is admittedly limited, and only references one particular topic, and YOU extrapolate that to mean that only old white British and American authors can have the final word on any topic at all

But for you the final word on truth is only that espoused by those old or dead Historians who have never gained access to recent Soviet files. Then you create a false dichotomy and make my viewpoint look like I said Stalin was going to attack within weeks of Barbarossa. You limit your own position by shooting down anybody with credibility that does not fit that list. The 5-6 links i posted have viewpoints from European and American sources. You can ignore information or just focus on making Wikipedia jokes.

Any response to the fact that you were wrong about understanding my position? � How you claimed I held one position (that it was never possible!) when in fact I’ve always held that it was plausible, just not predetermined? � Or are you just incapable of admitting when you’re wrong?

I don’t have to understand your position, i just shoot down poor arguments you make against mine. That is what has been going on from the start. I didn’t argue with a position you made, rather you just showed up and took exception to a comment i made. You really need to wake up on Earth someday. I only said that Stalin was prepared and willing to attack Hitler first, provided that the conditions would be different.

Stalin was planning for war and directed Zhukov to prepare studies on how to attack Germany. The foreign policy was banking on Germany getting into another war of attrition ala WW1 western front and hoping to exhaust Germany while Stalin rebuilds his armed forces. He would give Hitler anything he wanted so as to avoid any provocation. The problem with that plan is to the dismay of the Soviets, the German army wiped up the French and had the British on her heels in a few short months. This is why Stalin was even more careful not to provoke Hitler.

However, Stalin did have designs against Germany and the Balkans ( among others things to get a warm water port). Yet Stalin was also pragmatic- If the Molotov/Ribbentrop meetings went well, they might have signed on with Germany to carve out the middle east but Germany and the Soviets would need to agree on spheres of influence over Scandinavia. This Hitler could not accept, nor any claims for more parts of Romania.

This is my original position and nothing here is out of place. It is all pretty basic knowledge “common knowledge”  If you were a student of common knowledge, you’d understand that. :-D

I just got this from Dr. David Brandenberger -Associate Professor of History and International Studies ( Harvard) I made a mistake this is from David Glantz

Dear Mark:

I am familiar with the pre-emptive war theory postulated by Suvorov (Rezin) about 10 years ago in his book, Icebreaker.  In fact, I have seen a copy of the original Zhukov proposal of 15 May 1941, together with Timoshenko’s signature and the lack of any comments by Stalin.  I believe this proposal was one of many made by the General Staff in 1941. After all, this is the General Staff’s job (just as we had a plan to contend with war against Canada in the late 1930s).  I wrote Stumbling Colossus in an attempt to refute Suvorov’s claim. Although implementation of Zhukov’s plan in July 1941 was clearly impossible, the Soviets did include include aspects of the plan in their Defense Plan-1941 (DP-41), specifically, in regard to the counterstrokes anticipated by the defense plan.  In fact, on 24 June, two days after Operation Barbarossa began, Stalin sent Zhukov down to the Southwestern Front to supervise those counterstrokes – all of which failed miserably because of the Red Army’s poor state of readiness.

So in a nutshell, I reject Suvorov’s thesis.

I hope this answers your question.

All the best,

David

“soviets did include include”

hmm…

“soviets did include include”

Yes that was a typo in a private email, which means according to ding-a-ling that David Glantz is a fraud and didn’t receive any education. By that standard he was never in the Army either.

Here is the response from Dr. David Brandenberger -Associate Professor of History and International Studies ( Harvard):

Dear Mark,

I don’t think there is any question that Stalin planned for war with Germany sometime between 1942-1943, but firm plans were not yet in place in June 1941.  If you want to know the precise positions of your generalist historians and memoirists on the issue, their books are available in good libraries.  There are better, more modern analyses available today by Reese, Glantz, Gorodetsky, Overy, Zetterling, Pleshakov, etc.  Suvorov, incidentally, argued in his Icebreaker that Stalin was going to attack in July 1941, so his thesis is different.

Cheers,
David

Department of History
University of Richmond
28 Westhampton Way
Richmond VA 23173 USA

Since he didn’t make any mistakes we can safely assume he did go to Harvard and his opinion is correct.

I win, you lose… you’re case is dismissed, good bye- Judge Judy

Ok, where are you from then?  I’ve said you’re British, and you keep saying “I’m not English”.  Are you Welsh?  Scottish?  Irish?  Where are you from?

Who cares? Not important?

1. that’s incorrect, and you know it.  2) still doesn’t address your logic failure, which I’ve pointed out multiple times.

It is a plausible theory. Unlike you some people read more modern interpretations of the facts and with History that is a good thing. As for Logic, assuming a mistake in a PM means "im not from Stanford is a wonderful logical conclusion….of an idiot. Not to mention being homophobic by calling things you don’t like “Gay” is the same as a stupid 12 year old might post.

You really need to check into reality. :roll:

Laughing… so, why should I believe he wrote that and you didn’t write it?  I mean, it’s pretty clear you’ve lied about academics to begin with.

Second, you say he’s at Harvard… but yet his signature block says University of Richmond.

Third, he referred to a number of author authors, including your boy Glantz… who pretty categorically dismisses Suvorov’s theory… which is what you’ve based yours on.

If that’s how you define a “win”… laughing, ok… just more evidence that you’re too stupid to have gone to Stanford.

Moron, he was educated at Harvard. If you think i made up those emails, you really have issues. Feel sorry for you. No not really. :roll:

My theory is not based on Suvorov. That is more of embellishment on your part. Suvorov believes the attack to be in early July 1941, I maintain conditions would need to be met and you basically haven’t read anything i posted or you are deliberately dense. Glantz makes email errors, so i guess he wasn’t educated at whatever school he says he graduated from. He isn’t in the military either again because he made that damm typo.

Can you take that gibberish elsewhere? Perhaps chastise Glantz for being uneducated or something productive?

BTW, no response to this one I see?

Respond to being a homophobic person? Go ahead. We need to understand that saying something is “Gay” isn’t the behavior of a 12 year old kid. :roll:

I don’t think there is any question that Stalin planned for war with Germany sometime between 1942-1943

This is what i maintain as well. Very plausible based on any rudimentary study of Stalin and his motives. You argue against that and stop making up “gee you said he was going to attack July 6th 1941”

Third, he referred to a number of author authors, including your boy Glantz… who pretty categorically dismisses Suvorov’s theory… which is what you’ve based yours on.

Mine is not based on Suvorov. I told you this before. Are you always this stupid?

Wait: I have a new theroy…

Stupid + Stupid= YOU

@Imperious:

BTW, no response to this one I see?

Respond to being a homophobic person? Go ahead. We need to understand that saying something is “Gay” isn’t the behavior of a 12 year old kid. :roll:

This is patently obvious utilizing something not germane to the issue at hand to avoid having to answer questions whose truthful answers would embarrass you immensely.

“you are a ________ so you point that__________ is not valid.”

We could run a course on logical fallacies and IL could be the example for almost every one. In fact, maybe that is his background at Stanford, he was a lab rat there for a philosophy course?

It is important.  It’s about your credibility.  You have yet to say definitively that you’re not British when asked explicitly (“I’m not English”) and yet you have not say that you’re Californian, or even American.  I’ve offered that you use a number of non-American colloquialisms that when combined with some of your other stories that don’t seem to hold together, like where you went to college, paint a picture of someone pretending to be someone who they are not.

I doesn’t matter to me and i already told you. Of course you don’t believe it because you don’t want to. I really could care less and I’m glad it bugs you.

What’s the big deal of saying where you’re from?  I’ve said where I’m from (born in greater San Francisco Bay Area, moved away when I was in elementary school) before and given references to where I went to school (mid West for college, East Coast for grad school and doctoral work).  What’s the big deal?

The big deal is $4.99 for lunch. Choose either British Fish and Chips or Haggis .

You wrote: � Associate Professor of History and International Studies ( Harvard). � As in, that’s where he’s an Associate Professor. � Why in the world would you write their academic position, followed by the name of an academic institution, and then assume that the name of the academic institution refers to where they got their Ph.D., as opposed to where they are now? � Who does that? �

I do it to mess with you because i want you to discredit him as well like you usually do and look stupid. Go look up his credentials. IN fact ask him if the email is a fake. Don’t ask me to do your homework.

I think there’s a reasonable chance you made up the emails, because there’s strong reason to believe you’re a liar.

I believe you are homophobic, which is something you clearly avoid while asking me " Why didn’t you respond to that?" Hilarious situation.

You wrote: � My theory is not based on Suvorov. � Except that’s the person you referenced primarily, both in your initial evidence from Wikipedia (which is still funny) and then again when you quoted the theory from Suvorov’s Wikipedia page. � You keep saying “my theory is not based on Suvorov”–except that’s who you’ve referenced the most.

I posted where you might look to gain knowledge of the situation. You want to make Wikipedia jokes fine. You want to go back and do the Stanford thing, fine. All you doing is lose total credibility on the issue because you don’t want to see the plausibility of an attack in 1942. I do not maintain an attack for July 6th 1941 or whatever he says. I do know that if the war did not come to USSR in 1941, Stalin would most likely attack by 1942. That is what our educated chap  Dr. David Brandenberger says.

And he didn’t make any typos, so you can believe him. :roll:

Sorry, you’re the PC police too now? � I’ll use whatever insults I feel like using. � Sorry your delicate sensibilities are offended.

LOL

No, do you have any response to the question, have you ever thought “hey, maybe I’m the asshole?” since so many people on these boards seem to hate you? � I mean, I’ve seen a bunch of places where you post–ignore most of them, just not this thread–and it seems like people really think you’re a dick.

I think you already figured out what you are. Homophobic who calls things he hates “gay” arguing like some 12 year old kid will only get you so far.

Correct.  It’s why he hasn’t answered your original question:  Does IL ever think maybe he’s the asshole, given that so many people think he’s a dick?

yep Homophobic…uses certain words of genitalia…check…Have you been in prison?

@rjpeters70:

And ABWorsham–my apologies to you for my part in derailing a very interesting thread.

Tried a couple times to steer it back, but… failed.

Accusing people of being British? It doesn’t seem like you were trying very hard.