От Mirek Wawrzynski Ответить на сообщение
К Владислав Ответить по почте
Дата 02.01.2007 13:02:04 Найти в дереве
Рубрики Межвоенные конфликты; Версия для печати

Cox is for me more credible, then Krivosheeyv's team


>>I think there are but in Japan language at last someone as A. Cox will make them public in other language then Japan.


>Полнота и достоверность каждого исследовния (не только о потерях) определеятся следующитми факторами, ни один из которых отдельно от джругих не является абсолютным.

>1) Авиторитет исследователя
>2) Количество обработанного им материала и авторитетность источников информации
>3) Полнота, подробность и логичность воссоздаваемой картины
>4) Отсутствие ппотиворечий с другими авторитетными исследованиями и более-менее установленными фактами

>Относительно какого-либо исследования о японских потерях на Халхин-Голе даже вы такого комплекса факторов привести не можете. То есть ваше убеждение является исключительно следствием веры.

Yes, I can not do this and others who done some wroks could make such statmens. Everytime this is a problem of - credibility+professionalism of each resarcher, or other way the faith on his/her attitude towards the true.

In my opinion A.Cox had done as much as he could in his searches to find exact data. Second he was a foreigner and had any interest to be overbalanced by predujdities or other impact of own 'natinality'.
Why Cox should make "colorised" data for Japan side (due to the symphaty to Japan or they had paied him for such manipulation)?

Second, the same trust/attiude (if one side belive that A. Cox are not "credible" resarcher) should be put toward Krivosheyev's team work. They (Russian -state's official workers) could also simply manipulate own statistical data to hide real Soviet losses or own potential.
Simple proof, that Russian state's official material are also not full credible and should not be 100% trusted by readers.
Look at data concerning Russian-soviet agression on Poland on 17 IX 39 (Russians called it as a "osvoboditielnyj pochod" - nice "dubel-speak"). There is different data for 1993 and 2001 edition - the difference is for about 200-300 KIA/DoW given more, then for first report.
Second "strange" manipulation of data in this Russian book is the amount of given tanks and planes in RKKA and Germany for June 1941. Which are quite different (for planes it is about all 10.700 RKKA in 5 military district to 9,2 given in the book) and German + thier ally higher, then were in reality (about 5.000 towards about real of all 3.000 planes on 22 VI 41).
In suppling such meterial data Russian given for example only onw servicable (not servicable are not included) and supplied for German side all amount (servicable + not servicable all toghehr, or only half data for border district hidding the whole Rkka potiential in other military district. It is evidently clear during presentation of both power on 22 VI 1941 - very nice example of total manipulation by Krivosheeven team such figures (se p. 221). Old manipulation's Soviet fashion style have been still sustained in 2001 official state book about "Potyeri woruzonnych silll...". Funy but it is stupid and not fair and profesional attitude toward own history, fallen people and now to the readers.

You may easly find such different if you compare them with books printed by Kolomyjetz, who supplied quite deatil amounts of RKKA and German tanks in each military district (including in the 5 Western MO) - look at "Preludie k Barbarosse" or other Kolomyjetz books (amout of plane too). There are quite different gap in data between "Krivosheey" and Kolomyyetz materials!

Next. If you do not trust one side, you have also do the same with second side. For tens of years many data coming out from Soviets were more or less not true, semitrue or simple falsificated during the period 1917 up to 1990. Evidently example of such manipulation is Zukov's memories.

So I have seen too much quite many "strange" data given in Krivosheev's book to be in 100% belive, that this perticular team had done "fair and complete statistical works about RKKA losses".

Knowing well other works done by other Russians, more or less "private" resarches, working on the same archival's materiala and reports I am very sceptical in any state official reports and more belive in private searches like done by A.Cox or Kolomyetz, then "fundamental work - icone" of "Krivosheev".

Regards,
MirekW

PS.
In several weeks, I will check the lossses given in Cox's book.