View Single Post
  #11  
Old 15th May 2005, 16:33
Six Nifty .50s Six Nifty .50s is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 246
Six Nifty .50s
Re: Credibility of Krivosheev? Rather low, :-(

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek Wawrzynski
Some of you are talking about a book Grif Sekretnosti Sniat, edited by Colonel-General G. F. Krivosheev. I wonder what edition do you think about. This book has 2 edition : first in 1993 (about) and secon in 2001 (Poteri voruzonnych sil Rosji i CCCP w XX wiekie) form 2001. I have the second the first I had seen some times ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek Wawrzynski
My impresion about this books as following.

What is for me "shocking" in both books are political manipulation of statictic provided by Russians/Soviets historians. Both book do not have credible datas.
When you check the tables about the Soviet tanks in June 1941 you will get to know that Soviets had about 22.600 tanks in the Red Army.
Other Russian sources edited also in the last years given highr fighyres (I think about Kolomyjetz and his series Frontovaja Ilustratzya) in his series he can specifiy tanks according the types and their serviceability - he put the total figure of Soviet tank force on about 26.000 on June 1941. -all category of tanks


Yes, statistics are always open to interpretation. Both numbers cannot be correct, unless one uses different criteria for inclusion. On the other hand, you compared two numbers in which there is not a significant difference. It is possible that the first number is wrong. But, did you consider that the second number might be less accurate than the first?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek Wawrzynski
Last biut not least the language of Krivosheev books is also far of being objective and balanced and have strong political (red/Soviet oriented) colour/flovour.


That is possible, but then again some people have accused the German armed services of the same behavior. Certain historians from every country want to believe that their own soldiers and flyers were/are "more honest than the other side", which in itself is strongly political, and far from being objective and balanced.

I would encourage anyone to raise questions about statistics, but I think it is unfair to make assumptions that political motives caused someone to intentionally 'cook the books'.

Last edited by Six Nifty .50s; 15th May 2005 at 16:35.
Reply With Quote