[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1608527944532.jpg (65.54 KB, 604x381, nigelaskey.jpg)

 No.220

This guy Is called nigel askey, and is apparently a legitimate historian. He published a paper debunking TIK's claim that the K/D ratio of the soviets during WW was 1/1.6, instead claiming that the soviets lost over 4 more times as many combatants as the Germansduring WW2. Here is his paper. I'm not a qualified historian and I dont have access to acrhives or time to research, so I can't debunk him.

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Essay-alt-view-TIK-presentation.pdf

I checked out his website and alsthough he does seem to be knowledgeable, he makes certain ridiculous claims that the "Vicors write history" in WW2, and the allies covered up how technologically and tactically inferior they were to the germans.
>>

 No.221

>>220
https://www.reddit.com/r/RebuttalTime/comments/9f5oiu/nigel_askey_debunks_tik_on_germansoviet_loss/

Here are prowestern redditor historians claiming that russian historians are censored, and the soviet army was completely inferior in tactics and strategy, and that all soviet generals were amateurs compared to german generals.
>>

 No.222

>he makes certain ridiculous claims that the "Vicors write history" in WW2, and the allies covered up how technologically and tactically inferior they were to the germans.
Two red flags. Why do you care so much?

>muh victor history

lmao Franz Halder wrote a lot of the history - an actual loser who Wehraboos constantly whine about and defer to when they say Hitler should have listened to his generals. This faggot thought he was going to take Moscow and the Soviets would immediately surrender like it was Paris.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Halder

>muh super advanced superior army

&ltThe WWII German Army was 80% Horse Drawn; Business Lessons from History
https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-wwii-german-army-was-80-horse-drawn-business-lessons-from-history/
[insert meme about overengineered German tanks here]

Just grabbed these links off google to give you an idea of what to read about, didn't read them myself.
>>

 No.223

>>220
Soviet won by just zerg rushing lol.
>>

 No.224

>>221
>the soviet army was completely inferior in tactics and strategy, and that all soviet generals were amateurs compared to german generals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation
&ltDeep operation (Russian: Глубокая операция, glubokaya operatsiya), also known as Soviet Deep Battle, was a military theory developed by the Soviet Union for its armed forces during the 1920s and 1930s. It was a tenet that emphasized destroying, suppressing or disorganizing enemy forces not only at the line of contact, but throughout the depth of the battlefield.

&ltThe term comes from Vladimir Triandafillov, an influential military writer, who worked with others to create a military strategy with its own specialized operational art and tactics. The concept of deep operations was a national strategy, tailored to the economic, cultural and geopolitical position of the Soviet Union. In the aftermath of several failures or defeats in the Russo-Japanese War, First World War and Polish–Soviet War, the Soviet High Command (Stavka) focused on developing new methods for the conduct of war. This new approach considered military strategy and tactics, but also introduced a new intermediate level of military art: operations. The Soviet Union was the first country to officially distinguish the third level of military thinking which occupied the position between strategy and tactics.[1]

Literally wrote the foundations of modern warfare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare#U.S._Marine_Corps_doctrine_of_maneuver
&ltThe possibility of a massive Soviet offensive in Western Europe led to the creation of the United States Army's AirLand battle doctrine. Though far from focusing on maneuver, it emphasized using combined arms to disrupt an adversary's plans by striking through their depth and was seen as moving towards maneuver warfare in comparison to the earlier Active Defense concept. The AirLand doctrine was seen by Martin van Creveld as "arguably a half way house between maneuver and attrition."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirLand_Battle
&ltAirLand Battle was the overall conceptual framework that formed the basis of the US Army's European warfighting doctrine from 1982 into the late 1990s. AirLand Battle emphasized close coordination between land forces acting as an aggressively maneuvering defense, and air forces attacking rear-echelon forces feeding those front line enemy forces. AirLand Battle replaced 1976's "Active Defense" doctrine, and was itself replaced by the modern "Full Spectrum Operations".
>>

 No.225

>>224
This comment adresses your claim:

"This would really require a huge essay. Supposedly the Germans didn't really use a separate concept of 'operational art', which is a rather potentially unnecessary concept or at least overused/abused idea. I think Glantz seriously overestimates how critical and superior Soviet concepts of it were and think that a huge part of Soviet victory was not only their numbers, but Wallied material aid and actions on other fronts. If the war were truly 1v1 (or at least with the historical Axis minor powers helping) then the Soviets couldn't have won the war.

That is important to note not because of operational art, but because of material and men which were siphoned off and prevented the Germans from being able to match to any degree the Soviet numbers. Part of the reason the Germans were able to do what they did in 1941-42 was because of the relative balance of numbers and Soviet inability to bring their weight to bear properly. So I wouldn't really say that one side or the other had 'superior operational art', rather the Germans had a much more functional military system, the best in the world bar none by 1941-43 before Axis losses and Allied catchup finally started balancing things out.

Soviet theory wasn't really the problem, it was actually quite good, but the Red Army was simply unable to utilize it really before 1944. There was practical honing of doctrine and especially organization, but largely 'Deep Battle' was sound theory. It was the tactical and arguably strategic realms that really hampered the Soviets, which ultimately was heavily made up for by numbers and seemingly inexhaustible space and replacements. Its not hard to improve in time when you can seemingly suffer endless losses and correct a bit after every failure.

The Germans didn't really have to change their concepts of maneuver warfare, they just lost the ability to conduct them due to losses and the increasing mismatch in military size (especially as the Wallies siphoned off German reserves and the Luftwaffe). Learning was certainly on the Soviet's side, as they improved the most based on hard lessons, learning what the Germans already knew about maneuver warfare in depth, while the Germans had to adapt to an attritional war they were losing and trying to figure out how to deal with increasing numbers of enemies on all fronts. Arguably the Germans were just devolving due to losses and increasing numbers of enemies, which meant losing the ability to actually act and instead were force to accept being acted upon. They of course improved tactically, but there wasn't the much to learn operationally since they basically understood the fundamentals already. At that point it was adapting to the situation and technologies that were evolving."
>>

 No.226

>>222
Can you read Nigel Askey's article?
>>

 No.227

>>222
>Why do you care so much?
I care because he seems like a legitimate historian and his analysis seems to be backed up by legitimate sources.
>>

 No.228

>>220
>over 4 times as many
lmao
>>

 No.229

>>225
>If the war were truly 1v1 then the Soviets couldn't have won the war.
lol epic historical analysis
I was just addressing the claim that the Soviets had shit for brains theory wise, he doesn't assert this claim ("Soviet theory wasn't really the problem"). He probably just replied to that comment because it was high up and he wanted his to be seen or it was a train of thought provoked by the comment he was responding to.
Honestly it's fascinating how much people will say "Had the circumstances been different…" when it comes to Nazi Germany.
>>226
A bit too tired to read it properly, but
>the Soviet side/agenda
>the Soviet/Russian side’s apparent agenda
>their agenda is to maximize apparent German irrecoverable losses
really.jpg
Lots of referencing a guy whose job is studying German archives too lol
Had a look around to see if anyone had written a response or something like it before and he's also written an article on how the T-34 was bad, actually. A good portion of German tanks had main guns other armies were using as squad support weapons, the T-34 was fine.
>>

 No.230

>>225
>ultimately was heavily made up for by numbers and seemingly inexhaustible space and replacements.
retarded, red army had manpower problems at multiple points, and stalingrad was so important precisely cause they were out of space.

>had a much more functional military system

there was some good, independance of officers proved pretty effective at breakthrough tactics and such, but this also caused many problems, supply and overdive being examples. Also their military intelligence was really shit, and their whole shtick of "big battle big breakthough" strategy fell apart completely against a strategic defense in depth and a drawn war.

I've seen said that soviet were superior strategically and inferior tactically
>>

 No.231

>>223
This.
It's history, deal with it idiots.
>>

 No.232

>>

 No.233

>>232
This video has nothing to the do with debunking the claim that soviets lost more than 2 times as many soldiers than the axis.
>>

 No.234

>>231
Source?
>>

 No.235

>>229
>I was just addressing the claim that the Soviets had shit for brains theory wise,
I never claimed that, you're attacking a strawman.

The point in these comments was that the soviets consistently lost as much or more soldiers and equipemnt in every single battle they fought against the Germans up until 1945, and without having a manpower advantage, they would have lost because they had no way of replenishing losses.
>>

 No.236

>>234
[b]Source: The History Board[/b][b][/b]
>>

 No.237

>>235
>you're attacking a strawman
&ltthe soviet army was completely inferior in tactics and strategy, and that all soviet generals were amateurs compared to german generals
>>

 No.238

>lose and get enslaved for decades
>still be proud
Weird people
>>

 No.239

I'm going to be moving this thread to /his/ on roulette.
>>

 No.240

>>220So nobody has any desire to make refutal of historian's claim. Great
>>

 No.241

>>221
>Here are prowestern redditor historians claiming that russian historians are censored, and the soviet army was completely inferior in tactics and strategy, and that all soviet generals were amateurs compared to german generals.
lmao giant cope
>>

 No.242

>>220
>he makes certain ridiculous claims that the "Vicors write history"
yet he writes about history. heh, checkmate I guess
>>

 No.243

>>240
You posted it less than three hours ago when Europe is asleep.
>>239
ripperoni
>>

 No.244

>>240
Exactly. If you like to believe also the wild claims about Syria by turkish trolls on twitter it's not other people's business.
>>

 No.245

Anyone have any links debunking communist 'death tolls'?
>>

 No.246

>>243
Only europeans are interested in analysing WW2 historical papers?
>ripperoni
And now back to seeing amerishart politics and furry anime girl threads on feed.


>>244
This isnt twitter. Also that guy apparently is a professional historian.
>>

 No.247

>>240
Just let them have it. Imagine being german right know and want to feel 'proud' about your country
You look at the history of germany and its nothing but them getting cucked and btfo over and over again by different countries.
Then you cope by analyzing lost wars trying to find something you can be finally be proud of.
You finally find something that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside because in this retarded warped version of warfare you made up in your head you 'won' by some weird numerical cope
>>

 No.248

>>245
You can't debunk something that someone made up in their mind
>>

 No.249

File: 1608527947521.png (41.48 KB, 571x618, C62DEC51-15AA-4A73-B0AE-72….png)

>>220
>>221
>reddit
>cold warrior historians
You have to go back.
>>

 No.250

>it's unfair that minor axis are lumped in with the Heer, they performed way worse, 1-1 with the red army even during Barbarossa.
>They should be counted separately

Ok

>It's not right that partisans aren't included in the red army figures they played an Important role.

>Heck the trash minor allies forces were mostly tied up doing anti-partisan work
>I'm lumping the partisan casualties in with the red army casualties.

Hold up, the Professional military forces of Italy are too bad to be counted as German casualties, but the mostly armed civilians are fine as USSR casualties?

Like don't get me wrong his argument is ok generally and I tend to agree with his overall point, if not some of the specifics; but he seems just as guilty of being biased/lazy with the methodology as some of the historians he criticises.
>>

 No.251

>>250
*Minor axis
>>

 No.252

>>220
Too fucking lazy to do a full rebuttal but literally on his about page.
https://www.operationbarbarossa.net/about-us/
>I was born in 1961 in South Africa. I resided mostly in the UK until 1990 and then in Australia to the present day. I graduated in July 1982 from the University of Sussex in the UK, with an honours degree in physics.
Nope no history degree there. Maybe you can chalk this up to “THE EVIL CULTURAL MARXIST JOOISH ACADEMIC SCENE PREVENTS HIM FROM REVEALING THE TRUTH!!!”.
>Since the early 1980s, I have taken a keen interest in military history and military simulations, with a particular emphasis on WWII and ‘modern’ military campaigns. At the University of Sussex I was a founding member of the ‘war-gaming’ club: at that time sophisticated computer based military simulations were still in their infancy and most of the war games used traditional manual map based systems.
&ltgamer
Why does every time there’s a anti-Soviet “historian”, it always inevitably that the person is a gamer?
And before you say he’s a published author, his work is not in anyway peer reviewed. Which is really common for wehraboos authors. Also retards like Solzhenitsyn and Orthodox nutcases that uses camp fire stories as real source for “da soviet horror” are also published authors.
>>

 No.253

>>240
His arguement is literally "I am right, but the Russian information that would support my claims on losses are being suppressed".
>>

 No.254

>>235
>The point in these comments was that the soviets consistently lost as much or more soldiers and equipemnt in every single battle they fought against the Germans up until 1945
Context is important, because the Germans also outnumbered them at the beginning and in many individual battles after then.
>>

 No.255

>>246
>Only europeans are interested in analysing WW2 historical papers?
No, just Americans are probably in /usapol/ and I would expect the Russians to tear this apart when they get their hands on it like they did with this sort of stuff on old leftypol.
>>

 No.256

>>253
His argument is that the "soviet agenda" counts german woundedas casaulties, as well as luftwaffe and kreigsmarine casaulties on the eastern front while omitting VVS, PVO, VMF, and NKVD casaulties and including only RKKA irreplaceable casaulties.

Also he claims that the soviets always had numerical superiority but always suffered extreme losses compared to the germans in the following campaigns:
Blau
Rzhev
Leningrad
Crimea
Hungary 1945
Germany 1945
>>

 No.257

>>256
He also hilariously disregarded how tanks are counted as “loss” to both sides. A t-34 if it can’t run or shoot will be considered “loss” (which also means tanks that got stuck will count too) so you can see a tank counted as a loss to be fighting to the end of the war. While the Germans only put a tank in the list of casualties if it’s completely destroyed.
>>

 No.258

>>257
>While the Germans only put a tank in the list of casualties if it’s completely destroyed
This is true of ALL German statistics, the Krauts only counted professional soldiers as casualties, that means that volkssturm didn't count nor did civilians, meanwhile the Soviets took Partisan and civilian casualties into account so of course in a war where SS units were wandering around behind the lines burning down random villages those "casualties" start to add up. German casualties are really just casualties*

*some exceptions will apply.
>>

 No.520

REVIVING an epic thread. Is Europe finally awake?
>>

 No.1255

Check /r/shitwehraboossay or /r/AskHistorians, those are usually good for debunking the usual arguments.
>>

 No.1256

>>220
I'm no historian so I can't really address his claims. But just from a glance it seems his contention is mainly with the number of soldiers wounded? Having no knowledge about this whatsoever, do wounded count as "losses"? Because virtually every relative of mine who fought either in the Red Army or as Soviet partisans suffered some kind of injury yet continued fighting, so I don't see why it's considered good practice to lump the wounded in with the killed. I guess it makes sense if you're looking at combat performance, however.

>>258
>that means that volkssturm didn't count nor did civilians
so why is he including Soviet partisans lmao, makes no sense. Is it because the partisans were co-ordinated by the NKVD?
>>

 No.1369

>>1256
>so why is he including Soviet partisans lmao, makes no sense. Is it because the partisans were co-ordinated by the NKVD?
That's the big mystery. Maybe it's because the Soviets actually counted civilians losses since they cared about those numbers while nazis just cared about which meat got thrown into the meat grinder, maybe it's cause the Partisans were integrated into the Soviet command structure in 1943. Or maybe Nazi-humping fags are desperate to boost their numbers because there's no evidence to support them otherwise.
>>

 No.1841

File: 1608528126894.jpg (1023.97 KB, 800x4115, WW2 truth and myth.jpg)

>>220
Reposting:
Pic translation: https://leftypics.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=2432
Early in the war the Soviets understood that a precision built bolt action rifle with sights graduated to 1200 yards was an expensive option and one that required considerable time and resources to train huge numbers of troops on. The Mosin–Nagant of which they made 37,000,000 was a good weapon but one that only a small percentage of their infantrymen could use to its maximum potential and as with all bolt guns was cursed with a slow rate of fire and a limited magazine capacity.

The soviets realized sooner than anyone else that 90% of infantry combat takes place at close range (&lt=200 meters) where full power cartridges like their 7.62mm X 54R were over powered and the bolt action rifles that fired such heavy hitters had a low rate of fire. Soviet doctrine demanded that in meeting engagements their troops should be able to establish direct fire superiority quickly and then maneuver under the cover of that high volume of fire. Of course the Germans wanted the same capability but were too slow to implement the changes required in time.

The German Solution:
Was to place light belt fed machine guns with high rates of fire such as the MG-34 with its ~900 round/min rate of fire with infantry platoons. Thus the German squad armed predominantly with bolt action rifles was centered around its base of fire the MG34.
The Soviet Solution (s):
•On one level the Soviets adopted the same solution with the 7.62mm X 54R DP-28 drum fed light machine gun acting as the base of fire and the rest of the unit armed with bolt action rifles.

•Another Soviet solution was the creation of SMG battalions where the predominant weapon was the easy to manufacture PPSh-41 sub machine gun (1000 rounds/min) that was supported by DP-28 LMG and designated marksmen armed with either Mosin–Nagant bolt guns or SVT-40 semi automatic rifles. These units could send clouds of lead at German troops while in the attack at a dead run.

Imagine 20 Germans with 1 MG-34, 4 MP-40s and 15 bolt action rifles facing 20 Soviets with 2 DP-28s, 6 SVT-40s and 12 PPSh-41s. The German unit is over matched with respect to the volume of fire it can deliver. And it take less time and effort to train a sub machine gunner than an effective rifleman.

According to meticulous post-Soviet archival work (G. I. Krivosheev in Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses), the total number of men (and in the Soviet case, about 1mn women) who passed through the armed forces of the USSR was 34,476,700 and through Germany’s was 21,107,000. Of these, the “irrevocable losses” (the number of soldiers who were killed in military action, went MIA, became POWs and died of non-combat causes) was 11,285,057 for the USSR, 6,231,700 for Germany, 6,923,700 for Germany and its occupied territories, and 8,649,500 for all the Axis forces on the Eastern Front. Thus, the total ratio of Soviet to Nazi military losses was 1.3:1. Hardly the stuff of “Asiatic hordes” of Nazi and Russophobic imagination (that said, also contrary to popular opinion, Mongol armies were almost always a lot smaller than those of their enemies and they achieved victory through superior mobility and coordination, not numbers).

The problem is that during the Cold War, the historiography in the West was dominated by the memoirs of Tippelskirch, who wrote in the 1950’s citing constant Soviet/German forces ratios of 7:1 and losses ratio of 10:1. This has been carried over into the 1990’s (as with popular “historians” like Anthony Beevor), although it should be noted that more professional folks like Richard Overy are aware of the new research. Note also that cumulatively 28% and 57% of all Soviet losses were incurred in 1941 and 1942 (Krivosheev) respectively – the period when the Soviet army was still relatively disorganized and immobile, whereas for the Germans the balance was roughly the opposite with losses concentrated in 1944-45.

The idea that there were two soldiers for every rifle in the Red Army, as portrayed in the ahistorical propaganda film Enemy at the Gates, is a complete figment of the Russophobic Western imagination. From 1939 to 1945, the USSR outproduced Germany in aircraft (by a factor of 1.3), tanks (1.7), machine guns (2.2), artillery (3.2) and mortars (5.5), so in fact if anything the Red Army was better equipped than the Wehrmacht (sources – Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won; Chris Chant, Small Arms).

Also the 3 men to a rifle thing actually originates from WW-1 when a British officer noted that Russian troops were thrown into battle with 1 rifle per 3 men, really shows why t
>>

 No.1842

>>1841
> why t
why they went over to the Red Army
>>

 No.2008

>>1841
I've read that 1.3:1 irreplaceable casualty ratio is also what US and British forces had fighting against Germany.
>>

 No.3045

>>2008
Where did you see that?
>>

 No.3362

Post some more Wehraboo arguments and get to debunking them!
>>

 No.4519

>https://s1.desu-usergeneratedcontent.xyz/trash/image/1606/50/1606504832714.jpg
&ltLe epic "Muh poor Warsaw unhelped by evul Stalin"
What is with /pol/ and putting their ideology into everything including porn?
>>

 No.4595

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrKDBFJoo2w&ab_channel=USNationalArchives

Some archive documentaries

Also can anyone help me find an old documentary about Nazi atrocities? I remember it distinctly because among the footage used were filmed portions of Belarus villages and a literal piles of baby corpses torched alive by the nazi scum.

Unique IPs: 1

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]