Military Review

Battle of hearts or war of motors?

53
The traditional explanation of the huge difference in the strategic picture of the two world wars suffers from a strong bias in favor of the material means of their conduct, with a serious underestimation of the moral and psychological component.




It is well known that the First World War was predominantly positional, during which entire fronts stood for years, or unsuccessfully, at great sacrifices, tried to attack. In contrast, the Second World War was highly maneuverable, extremely dynamic, with lightning-fast changing fronts.

Traditionally, this diametric difference in the picture of two world wars is explained by the state of armaments and military equipment. Say, during the First World War, defensive types dominated the battlefield weapons - machine guns and artillery, which deprived the infantry of even minimal chances for a successful advance.

And twenty years later, on the contrary, offensive weapons, in the first place, took the lead Tanks and combat aviation, which provided a breakthrough of any defense and advance to a greater depth of enemy territory.

At first glance, it is. But let's try to get out of the well-groomed rut and ask ourselves a question - does this explanation exhaust this topic? Are the two world wars really so radically different in nature only because certain scientific and technical innovations were introduced into military affairs, which radically changed the situation on the battlefield?

But if this is true, then there is a need to understand - as with all of this, for example, the same Russian Civil War of 1918-1920 fits in. Although it is called civil, it was actually conducted on both sides, mainly by units of the former Russian imperial army, which was divided into "red" and "white" during the revolutionary events.

So, this war was waged at almost the same military-technical level as the First World War as a whole. And even more than that - the latest offensive means - practically no red or white tanks had the same tanks and airplanes. And if they were, then in amounts of meager, incapable of influencing anything.

And, nevertheless, this war of a completely regular type, which was waged, mostly by fighters who were sitting in the trenches of the German front, turned out to be radically unlike the sedentary military weekdays of the first world war. Solid operational dynamics, rapid breakthroughs, decisive offensive with outstanding strategic victories - this is the face of this war that looks like nothing. Or rather, very similar. But by no means the first world, but rather the dashing German attack on the Western front in May 1940 of the year!

Such a paradox! But according to the logic of our traditional theory, the picture of the Russian civil war, which was conducted at exactly the same level of development of armaments as the First World War, should have been very similar. With the same frozen in the stillness of the fronts, the dominance of guns and machine guns and choking in their own blood, hopelessly attacking infantry. That is how it should have been, if we explain the nature of the war of that time, only by the level of development of military technologies.

It turns out that such an explanation is at least completely insufficient for a complete understanding of the reasons for such a striking difference in the picture of two world wars.

Where, then, is the dog buried?

Some thoughts on this matter came to me completely by accident, after watching the Australian film “The Waterseeker” with Russell Crowe in the lead role. By the way, the film itself, like the main character, looks good. Although it is clearly romanticized in the traditional Hollywood style - slightly cloying western narcissism. This, by the way, has cut me. There was one dialogue between the former adversaries - the Turk and the Anglo-Saxon. When the Turks asked their counterpart - why did they climb the Turkish land, the Briton replied that they did not need this land, but they fought for the idea. For which particular idea, the film does not specify.

But it was strange that the Australians, who had sailed from the other end of the world, who had no idea about the same Turkey, suddenly began to “knead” the same Turks on the beaches of Gallipoli.

In general, this is clearly an unnatural reason for the carnage and became me a reminder of things that are historically significant. Namely - about the very strange nature of the First World War for the peoples of Europe. Which, according to the official propaganda of the time, generally began because Sarajevo was shot by only one person - the crown prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

The figure is, of course, uncommon, but not so world-significant to justify in the eyes of the whole world the subsequent death on the battlefield of tens of millions of people from different countries.

It is in this glaring contradiction, between the backstage and obscure squabbles of the powerful world, all these royal houses, industrial and financial magnates, on the one hand, and a complete misunderstanding of the causes of world slaughter by millions of ordinary citizens who, at best, have a sweet candy in their mouths. the struggle for some obscure "idea", on the other, is, in my opinion, the main contradiction of the First World War.

Which, attention (!) And determined its very peculiar operational and strategic picture. The main point of which was that ordinary citizens, for the most part, were by no means eager to fight. And even more so to die for the interests of all kinds of nobles, or, in the present, oligarchs, incomprehensible to them. It was this, and not the notorious absence of tanks, that led infantry chains to attack, at best, meekly died with the despair of the doomed, and at worst tried to find a common language with the enemy without the knowledge of the commanders.

Battle of hearts or war of motors?


The First World War was absolutely not by chance the time of the most mass soldiers fraying in the world stories. The fatigue of an incomprehensible war and the sheer unwillingness to kill exactly the same people in another military uniform became almost universal at that time. So much so that in the French army were forced to recall the ancient Roman decimation - that is, every tenth shot in the units that fled from the battlefield.

Well, in Russia, you know how it all ended - the army just ran away. And the Bolshevik agitation, on which it is now so fashionable to blame, was therefore so effective that it fell on very fertile soil. Remember how the messenger Krapilin in Bulgakov's Bega responded to General Khludov when he tried to appeal to his patriotic feelings and gave an example of how he went on the attack on Chongar gatiy to the music and was wounded there twice “Yes, all the provinces spit on your music ! ”Krepilin, a hanging soldier, replied to him in the near future. Here you have the whole story about the "motivation" of our rank and file in that incomprehensible war.

With such a completely “human material” located to heroic deeds, no tanks with planes would help the then generals to turn this war into a swift march into the depth of enemy defense. The soldiers did not have sufficient psychological grounds. So it's not only, and not so much in technology and weapons.

However, the Russian civil war very quickly changed the moral and psychological situation in the army and in the whole country. First of all - precisely with the combat motivation of its participants. The enthusiasm of the Reds and without me is well known - inspired by the bright horizons of the communist tomorrow, the soldiers of the Red Army, who saw the light at the end of the tunnel with their endless trench and forced labor of workers and peasants in general, fought for the best share in the way they should be in such cases. That is, with all my heart and with all the proletarian hatred.

But the whites also did not yield to them at all - after all, on their side was the holiness of traditional Russia, loyalty to their great Motherland and military oath. And, of course, a considerable desire to retain not the worst class place under the Russian sun. On the whole, there was plenty of enthusiasm on both sides. And because the war was extremely dynamic. Although they fought, in general, with the same weapon as the dull trench handlers of the First World War.

And now we turn to the topic of the second world. This war, unlike the first worldwide massacre, was, first of all, I dare to assert - an ideological war. In the sense that its main participants - from the first persons of the states, to the very last soldier, absolutely knew for what they were fighting. And they were really ready for this goal "not to spare their own blood and life itself." This, of course, about the USSR and Germany.

The Germans, humiliated and offended by the full program of annexations, indemnities and other imperialistic outrages after defeat in the first war, had a giant tooth for the rest of the world. And I must admit - not without good reason. For they were to blame for the first imperialist slaughter no more than the same, for example, the Anglo-Saxons. Therefore, Adolf Hitler was brought to power, who by their extreme demoniacism was most adequate to their then national, quickly converted to the Nazi worldview.

Enthusiasm and fighting spirit in the Third Reich, as they say, was boiling and bubbling. With such staunch avengers for the outraged Vaterland, Hitler had every reason to expect to triumphantly pass at least half the world.

And at this time, in a very distant galaxy, that is, in the surrounding Third Reich of other Europe, uniform confusion and vacillation reigned. Caused by an endless succession of economic crises and other troubles, generated, in turn, by the horny egoism of small and large proprietors. The inhabitants of Europe spread down by this yoke were not morally ready to fight. From the word at all. And some of them, to confess, even with sympathy glanced at the German neighbors. With which Hitler quickly brought a full ordnung with chicken in each pot.

It is this monstrously unequal ratio of moral potentials that ensured the victorious march throughout Hitler's Wehrmacht throughout Europe in 1939 - 1940 - the beginning of 1941. But it is not at all the mythical tank supermanship of Guderian and Rundstedt. Which, against the background of four thousand tanks of the French army alone, didn’t shrink to anecdotal proportions. At that time, the Germans and the tanks almost didn’t have any real ones, except for the “prisoners” of Czechoslovakia. Some miserable motochanki with machine guns.

All this German military happiness ended exactly on 22 on June 1941 of the year on the Soviet border, where it was invincible, because of the complete moral and political insanity of its European opponents, the Wehrmacht rashly attacked the Red Army. Which, as if to say it is more artistic, was obsessed with a great idea, no less, and maybe more German.

And although the Germans at first tried to gnaw Russian granite with the same agility as a melting European cream pie in their mouths, they very quickly realized that they had obviously not been caught in the wrong way and this country was too tough for them. The Soviet fighters, motivated to defend their only socialist motherland in the world, are significantly more than one hundred percent, not squeezed by the very first defeats, using any, even the smallest, opportunity to make the Germans big and very big dirty tricks. And, as a result, the war on the Soviet-German front came out very dynamic, mobile and you can even say, extremely passionate.

It is this very high drive of both sides that explains the fact that this war was strategically very manoeuvrable on the one hand, and extremely protracted on the other. Because the Soviet Union and Germany fought smoothly until one of the opponents had the spirit completely gone. Or rather, not even the spirit, but simply ended the territory where you could still war.
In this whole ideological war, there simply could not have been that many years of positional sitting of the unfortunate workers and peasants dressed in a soldier's robe who simply did not understand why they were driven here. And such warriors, like those poor Australians from Hollywood cinema, who pinned up as much as Turkey itself, allegedly to fight for some incomprehensible “idea”, were few of the real soldiers of the First World War, to say the least. So sparingly that the two huge empires, French and British, could not do anything on their front without the Russian soldiers who were much less decomposed by the “accursed tsarism”.

The Soviet and German fighters of the second world understood absolutely everything. And they fought with open eyes for life and death. Because it was precisely such a stake in this total war, not only for their states, but also for their cities and villages, relatives and friends. That's why the heat of this fight was immensely great. Other Anglo-Saxons, who at the very end fought in Europe again for some kind of "idea", that is, again for the interests of their money bags, did it with about the same small "enthusiasm" as in the first world. And it cost them only the same Germans to slightly touch the glands in the Ardennes, as this timid army almost reached the back again to Dunkirk.
So - with tanks and airplanes, or without them at all, only with demining shovels, or even barehanded, the most highly motivated troops of the Second World War in Europe - the Red Army and the Wehrmacht would still not have sat in the trenches forever, stupidly thinking - why are they here generally turned out. And, of course, no mass fraternisation between them - this symbol of aimless and incomprehensible war, was not here and could not be.

I think that it is precisely in this gigantic difference of moral and political potentials that the main secret of high energy and dynamism of the Second World War, as opposed to the extremely slow-moving and first-mover, lies. A technique - it is, of course, a good assistant. But only if the soldier has a real desire to fight. The tank itself is just a pile of iron.

And the last. Everything written above is not only a consequence of the author’s abstract interest in world history. Which for an inquiring mind is always a treasure trove of rich experience and a reason for the most far-reaching comparisons. It is from this point of view that I propose to the respected public to take a closer look at this difficult topic. And appreciate what our present time and our own readiness to fight are more in line with: the selfless, offensive impulse of the Red Army soldiers, whom no one could stop until Berlin itself, or the French soldiers of the 1940 model of the year, who practically didn’t care what flag their once proud Paris.
Author:
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladivostok1969
    Vladivostok1969 22 March 2018 06: 12
    +4
    If during the breakthrough of Brusilov Galicia and Bukovina weren’t busy, and the Kursk province (for example) was freed up, I don’t think of any fraternization with the Germans in WW1, the Russian troops would not fight for their land. is understandable.
    1. XII Legion
      XII Legion 22 March 2018 07: 24
      +18
      But the Baltic states, Belarus and western Ukraine (then part of Galicia), where the front passed, is not Russia?
      Yeah
      1. Vladivostok1969
        Vladivostok1969 22 March 2018 07: 44
        +2
        The fighting took place in the states of lemitrophs. In the regular army of the Russian Empire, the citizens of these countries did not actually serve. Besides the senior ranks.
        1. XII Legion
          XII Legion 22 March 2018 09: 41
          +20
          Zdraste
          What other limitrophs?
          These are the territories of the Russian Empire (later the Soviet Union).
          The citizens of these countries did not actually serve in the regular army of the Russian Empire. In addition to senior ranks.

          Even as they served. Why hang noodles? If you do not know - do not mislead readers.
          I am enclosing a page from the Statsbornik Russia in World War II. In numbers. 1925.
          It shows that they served both from the Estland, and Mogilev and other provinces.

          That is, they actively and massively served even in the general army.
          I am silent about the national units - for example, the Latvian.
          1. Cetron
            Cetron 22 March 2018 17: 48
            +1
            Only Orthodox Christians were called in to RIA (nationality does not matter, in Latvia there are many Orthodox Latvians now), all other RI peoples had the right to serve voluntarily. The Latvian arrows were formed in 1915 when the Germans approached Riga. The motivation worked that the Germans were the original enemies of the Latvians (the Baltic landowners were German barons).
            1. dauria
              dauria 22 March 2018 23: 50
              0
              And then "did not understand the goals of the war", "motivation" on the nature of the database? Features of the theater and the level of weapons. All.
              A trench, a machine gun and a bunch of barbed wire (there has recently been an article on the barriers of World War I — herds of mammoths will be stopped, not like infantry). If civil engineering work on the same scale (and it takes a lot of money and people) and smaller sections of the front would be the same. And then the regiment on horseback chases another regiment along the steppes, grumbling among the local population.
              And compare with the second war. So conclusions from the first were made. Tank plus infantry plus artillery. Moreover, since the latter does not always have time, they used flying artillery - Ju-87 dive bombers. Plus the dimensions of the fronts, plus a minimum of time and money for engineering training.
              Hence the “maneuverability”. Where they managed to gain a foothold, there was the same positional war. Leningrad, Stalingrad, the defense of Sevastopol.
            2. XII Legion
              XII Legion 23 March 2018 08: 28
              +16
              comrade said:
              The citizens of these countries did not actually serve in the regular army of the Russian Empire. In addition to senior ranks.

              This is nonsense.
              In the RIA called only Orthodox

              This is also not true.
              There is a very good article, a memoir of an officer, dedicated to taking the oath in the RIA.
              As it was accepted by the ORTHODOXERS (there were most of them) - on the Holy Scriptures, then the MUSLANS stood on the Koran, etc. And at the very end of the system, an eyewitness recalled, there were 2 soldiers with something wrapped in a rag. It turned out to be PAGINS (gods were wrapped in a rag) - of course, there were no priests for them, and the regiment commander took the oath.
              Lieutenant K. Popov recalled how, before the battle on Bzur, his company, which had suffered heavy losses, was equipped with Tatars. They still had to be taught Russian.
              And the Tekinsky Horse Regiment, and the Caucasian Indigenous Horse Division?
              After all, there was a whole series of articles on VO. But I emphasize that I am not talking about individual formations, but that not only Orthodox MASSOVOs served in the general army.
              1. XII Legion
                XII Legion 24 March 2018 07: 40
                +15
                Representatives of all CONFESSIONS served.
                But some PEOPLES were exempted from conscription. However, they could serve in the ranks of irregular military units.
  2. Same lech
    Same lech 22 March 2018 06: 31
    +4
    And, of course, there weren’t and couldn’t be any mass fraternities between them - this symbol of a purposeless and incomprehensible war.


    In the first months of the Second World War, there were times when our soldiers naively believing in the proletarian solidarity of German soldiers from the workers and German burghers tried to somehow communicate humanly ... but the Germans quickly shot this faith with their bullets ... then the war of annihilation went on .... either they are us or we are them ... there is no third.
    We won ... in general, according to the article, I agree with Yuri ... the soldier must have motivation for the war, otherwise he does not understand why to fight and die in fierce battles with the enemy.
    1. Dmitry Konoplev
      Dmitry Konoplev 23 March 2018 10: 47
      0
      Motivation should be in everything, otherwise they sat half the world and sold all nonsense, but now you are bored and notice again they are looking maliciously towards Russia.
  3. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 22 March 2018 06: 40
    +2
    once proud Paris.
    not particularly proud!
  4. inkass_98
    inkass_98 22 March 2018 06: 44
    +2
    World War I was not needed not only for the peoples, it was not needed for the main states participating in it. Hence its sluggish state. All further events flow from here: the revolution in Russia, and then in Germany, the Brest Peace, and then Versailles and so on.
  5. zoolu350
    zoolu350 22 March 2018 07: 14
    +11
    A complete misunderstanding of the political and military situation at the beginning of the WWII, the Civil War and WWII. In the WWII, the high density of troops and the abundance of satellites, without sufficient motorization of the army, simply did not allow for deep operations to be carried out in terms of coverage and environment, regardless of the moral and psychological state of the troops, in addition, most of the WWII was conducted by the parties continuously searching for the most effective way to break through the positional front. In a civil war, troop densities were simply ridiculous compared to the WWII, and the engineering equipment of the positions was carried out only in a number of battles (Kakhovka, Crimea, Volochaevka).
    1. novel66
      novel66 22 March 2018 13: 43
      0
      Peter hi and even in the WWII the appearance of tanks began to lead to breakthroughs, it was enough to read the same Guderian, and not tryndet about ideas
      1. prodi
        prodi 22 March 2018 14: 15
        0
        well, nevertheless, the “Brusilovsky breakthrough” was possible, in the sense that the generals of the warring armies did not have much motivation for active hostilities
    2. Akuzenka
      Akuzenka 22 March 2018 15: 50
      0
      Not strong in the history of the WWII, to appreciate the "depth" of the knowledge of the topic by the author, this was enough:
      And I must admit - not without good reason. For they were to blame for the first imperialist carnage no more than the same, for example, the Anglo-Saxons. Therefore, they brought to power Adolf Hitler, who, by his extreme demoniacity, was most adequate to their then national, which quickly turned into a Nazi worldview.

      I didn’t read further. It is already clear what the author is driving at. If it’s not clear to anyone, “Russia (the Russian Empire, the USSR) is to blame.” The right, in the right place, substitute.
      1. CentDo
        CentDo 22 March 2018 18: 00
        +2
        Where did you get this from? Between the lines you need to read where at least something is written between them. The author said only that blame for unleashing the WWII should be given not only to Germany, but also to Britain (and France was not standing aside there either). Where did you dig up the Russian Empire from here?
  6. XII Legion
    XII Legion 22 March 2018 07: 23
    +20
    Funny reasoning
    It is well known that the First World War was predominantly positional, during which entire fronts for years stood still, or unsuccessfully, at the cost of huge sacrifices, tried to advance.

    In the west, from November 1914 to November 1918.
    In the east from the end of 1915 - 1917
    Well, in Russia, you know how it all ended - the army just ran away. And the Bolshevik agitation, on which it is now so fashionable to blame, was therefore so effective that it fell on very fertile soil. Remember how the messenger Krapilin in Bulgakov's Bega responded to General Khludov when he tried to appeal to his patriotic feelings and gave an example of how he went on the attack on Chongar gatiy to the music and was wounded there twice “Yes, all the provinces spit on your music ! ”Krepilin, a hanging soldier, replied to him in the near future. Here you have the whole story about the "motivation" of our rank and file in that incomprehensible war.

    All in a heap, all in one phrase.
    It's hard to even comment, and there’s nothing
  7. Alex66
    Alex66 22 March 2018 08: 10
    +9
    ordinary citizens, in their bulk, were not at all eager to fight. And even more so to die for incomprehensible interests of all kinds of nobles or, in the present, oligarchs.
    Well, here we are back to the situation of the First World War, when there are oligarchs for whom the people are not educated and people who are unlikely to want to go to the slaughter for the interests of Rotenberg, Vekselberg, Diripaska or Prokhorov. Why do I need to fight if the state or the bourgeoisie need me while I work and I am silent, but I get sick or get old and I don’t care for them, They need profit, capture world markets, and I want an apartment, a car, a summer house, raise children and they only bother me, only the situation it’s stabilizing, you’ll postpone something like hello to a rainy day, again from a bare well ... Well, what should I risk my life for them on the battlefield.
    1. andrewkor
      andrewkor 22 March 2018 08: 50
      0
      I completely agree with you. Glaring injustice somehow does not particularly motivate feats. Why do Russian guys die in Syria? GDP said: "Smash terrorists away from Russia!" I agree, it’s necessary, but isn't the Qatar gas pipeline to Europe the reason? The Russian army is now more professional — die wherever they order!
      1. captain
        captain 22 March 2018 09: 18
        +5
        Quote: andrewkor
        I completely agree with you. Glaring injustice somehow does not particularly motivate feats. Why do Russian guys die in Syria? GDP said: "Smash terrorists away from Russia!" I agree, it’s necessary, but isn't the Qatar gas pipeline to Europe the reason? The Russian army is now more professional — die wherever they order!

        Interestingly, what inspired Russian soldiers to exploits in the 1812 war? And what inspired the Russians during the defense of Sevastopol in 1854-55gg? And what inspired the Russians to capture Berlin in 1760? And in - 1813g what moved the Russian soldiers during the capture of Berlin? And what moved the Russian soldiers during the "attack of the dead"?
        With all due respect to the author (he writes quite interestingly, I like to read his articles), he wrote here; or a custom-made article or for some unknown reason poured mud on our Russian soldiers. I remind the author; Russia and Russians existed before October 1917. The lands that Russia had before 1917; annexed, captured, conquered by the Russians (and other peoples of the Republic of Ingushetia). Our territory of Russia has decreased by 4 mln. km, during the reign of the Communists. The population of Russia decreased from 189 mln. People to 145mln. person. For the first time, an article by Yuri Selivanov aroused a feeling of hostility in me.
        1. Alex66
          Alex66 22 March 2018 11: 32
          +4
          Previously, they fought for faith (this is a very powerful incentive), the king and the fatherland (now from this only the fatherland if we suddenly do not elect the king). And there was no other life, everyone was spinning as best he could, who plowed the land, who traded, there is nothing to compare with, but we already lived under a different system when we were the real masters of our country and it was destroyed against our will by those who are now with the money ..
        2. shuravi
          shuravi 22 March 2018 12: 02
          +6
          Quote: captain

          Interestingly, what inspired Russian soldiers to exploits in the 1812 war? And what inspired the Russians during the defense of Sevastopol in 1854-55gg? And what inspired the Russians to capture Berlin in 1760? And in - 1813g what moved the Russian soldiers during the capture of Berlin? And what moved the Russian soldiers during the "attack of the dead"?



          Yura, you are not serving along the way, because you don’t know.
          There are always two motivations:
          - for whom;
          - against who.
          So, the first is more relevant until the moment when it was drawn into the battle, so to speak, mobilization. The second one is when I got into the fighting somehow.
          Here in the wars you mentioned, you can name examples when peasants and artisans unaffected regions massively fled to enlist in the army, or the militia?
          This is it.




          Our territory of Russia has decreased by 4 mln. km, during the reign of the Communists. The population of Russia decreased from 189 mln. People to 145mln. person. For the first time, an article by Yuri Selivanov aroused a feeling of hostility in me.


          This is not thanks to the Communists, but to the democrats you love.
          1. captain
            captain 22 March 2018 14: 24
            0
            Quote: shuravi
            Quote: captain

            Interestingly, what inspired Russian soldiers to exploits in the 1812 war? And what inspired the Russians during the defense of Sevastopol in 1854-55gg? And what inspired the Russians to capture Berlin in 1760? And in - 1813g what moved the Russian soldiers during the capture of Berlin? And what moved the Russian soldiers during the "attack of the dead"?



            Yura, you are not serving along the way, because you don’t know.
            There are always two motivations:
            - for whom;
            - against who.
            So, the first is more relevant until the moment when it was drawn into the battle, so to speak, mobilization. The second one is when I got into the fighting somehow.
            Here in the wars you mentioned, you can name examples when peasants and artisans unaffected regions massively fled to enlist in the army, or the militia?
            This is it.




            Our territory of Russia has decreased by 4 mln. km, during the reign of the Communists. The population of Russia decreased from 189 mln. People to 145mln. person. For the first time, an article by Yuri Selivanov aroused a feeling of hostility in me.


            This is not thanks to the Communists, but to the democrats you love.

            And Gorbachev, Yeltsin Shevarnadze, Kravchuk, Yakovlev and others. It seems like they belonged to the CPSU elite. You beloved CPSU, and in the newspaper Pravda (I’m writing specifically for you, you don’t know that it was a printed organ of the CPSU Central Committee) they wrote about them that they were real Leninist communists. You’re just kind as Yakovlev (he was responsible for the ideology in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union), he deceived all people, and then it turned out that he was in the same boat as Lenin Gorbachev.
            1. Sergej1972
              Sergej1972 22 March 2018 14: 39
              0
              About Kravchuk have not been written. This was a second-tier leader, the republican secretary of the Central Committee for ideology. He became famous a couple of years before the collapse of the USSR.
      2. XII Legion
        XII Legion 22 March 2018 09: 43
        +16
        One journalist wrote about the war in Syria:
        It will take a year, two, three, five, ten, and no one in Russia will remember these filthy oriental affairs, and these entities wrapped in a rag themselves will once again change places, cut each other in a new circle, and then declare their former enemies of the Russian "friends" in their unpleasant dialects - but it turns out that this guy, and many others, died there for some reason. Not a single Russian soldier, not a single Russian ruble should be spent where the Russians do not live.
        1. Sergey Sadchikov
          Sergey Sadchikov 25 March 2018 10: 27
          0
          Quite strange reasoning, why it is not clear where and it is not clear why our army is fighting? , and unfortunately warriors are dying. Have you ever wondered why we need an army if we don’t use it anywhere? Why do we pay taxes on the army? Why do thousands of guys go there voluntarily (after military service, of course)? What do they go as cooks in cookery or sellers in the store? They go to the army !!!!! and realize that the Army is a war, and the war is Death, but people themselves weigh their capabilities and voluntarily sit on the full “cash” from the state, and there you’re lucky, or you’ve gotten into a war and you’re out of luck, or having spent all his life in full support of the state, and did not fight. Really, these snot began to infuriate about our dying soldiers somewhere, people themselves go to the Army to the government that is now in power and accordingly carry out its instructions and it’s right, they do it everywhere, but for some reason we all whine Either the tyagomotin begins about a criminal government that sends sons for slaughter, you know, you won’t be nice to everyone, some people in Russia consider the government normal. the other part is criminal. Some people believe that it was not necessary to indulge the criminal Stalin and fight for Stalingrad and Leningrad, then the soldiers would be safe and mother would be happy, and in general the era of prosperity would come. But here is 1 question why would we then the Army was needed if the Wehrmacht was the boss in our land, why would we save the soldiers? So that they ate and slept in the barracks at our expense, and did not fight with the invaders, in order to live? So is it not better to abolish the Army, and then no one would die for criminal governments. No guys do this when a person goes to the firemen, he theoretically knows. that can die in a fire, and when this happens no one says that the criminal government sent him to extinguish the fire and he died, and if he didn’t have to go, the house would burn down and to hell with him, everyone says that he has such a job, lucky. Also with the Army do not need to speculate on this topic, everyone understands where they are and what they have to pay for it. PS
          I bring an excerpt from the novel "Cruiser" where the role of the army, as such, is very clearly described: - But why? - midshipman Schepotiev was indignant. - Why do we military need to pay with blood for the powerlessness of diplomats who have long survived from the mind and are already shaking from insanity?

          Khlodovsky unexpectedly abruptly stopped this argument:

          - Michman Schepotiev I ask to retire to his cabin ...

          The cruiser’s mechanic Yuri Markovich, the son of the people's volunteer and grandson of the writer Marko Vovchok rose above the silent table:

          - Gentlemen! An insidious question always remains for military people: for what are we living? We are perfectly dressed, well fed, we are honored ... For what? How did we deserve such a squandering from the state, which for the sake of paying our whims rummaged through the pockets of loyal subjects? We live (and live better than the people), probably only for a single moment ... Yes, a single! At the hour of the fatal battle, we are obliged to pay with Russia for all that is pleasant for our ambition and contentment. It is at the time of the battle that we are obliged to give ourselves to the homeland - to the last drop of blood. And even that last sip of salt water that ends our lives, we must accept from fate, as our holy communion ...
      3. vindigo
        vindigo 22 March 2018 13: 38
        +1
        They say they are paid good salaries in Syria.
      4. Akuzenka
        Akuzenka 22 March 2018 15: 56
        +2
        It would be strange if Russia did not have any interests anywhere. Syria with a gas pipeline, a perfect and correct example. Well, not only against the gas pipeline our VKS there, but also against terrorists, against the SGA and the Anglo-Saxon policy.
        Do you refuse to defend your interests in Russia? Then whose interests are you for? However, the answer is obvious, in this case. You are for the interests of the Anglo-Saxons and terrorists, so you do not argue.
  8. andrej-shironov
    andrej-shironov 22 March 2018 09: 13
    +4
    Well, Yuri, you can write relatively adequate articles without deflection under the current government! You deserve my respect again, although of course it’s completely useless to you. wink Unfortunately, the current government is pursuing a policy of debilitation and "victory of sausage over ideals" among the people, therefore there will not be such a rise of the people as in the Second World War unless there is a real invasion with an attempt to seize the territory. The West understands this very well, so it won’t go for a takeover, but a preventive strike on the cents is quite possible. And here the power will remain alone with the West without the support of the people.
  9. nivander
    nivander 22 March 2018 09: 45
    +2
    the article is so-so - doubtful, dull, long - would put a minus yes you could not have to like
    1. novel66
      novel66 22 March 2018 13: 45
      +1
      but was it possible not to put anything? request
  10. BAI
    BAI 22 March 2018 09: 50
    0
    But how does the immobility of the front (practically the entire war) on the Kola Peninsula fit into this concept?
    1. novel66
      novel66 22 March 2018 13: 46
      +1
      shitty, there the conditions did not allow the mass use of tanks
  11. tasha
    tasha 22 March 2018 09: 54
    +1
    All of the above is by no means a mere consequence of the author's abstract interest in world history. Which for an inquiring mind is always a storehouse of rich experience and an occasion for the most far-reaching comparisons.

    He laid straws, splashed some water. It seems to me that the author’s inquiring mind should devote more time to studying this very world history ... In 1941-1942, 3,5 million Soviet soldiers fell into German captivity. There is reason to think ...
    1. yuriyselivanov
      22 March 2018 10: 19
      +4
      They themselves counted, or did Hitler help?
      1. tasha
        tasha 22 March 2018 10: 28
        +2
        Are you an author? I did not expect such a "comment" ...
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. iouris
    iouris 22 March 2018 12: 47
    +2
    This question has been sufficiently investigated in the works of military philosophers and psychologists of the USSR Armed Forces. But since the author does not adhere to the scientific methodology of studying the problem of armed struggle, he wrote an unhelpful article. This Porthos fought just for the sake of fighting. The war is not only waged by the armed forces, but by the whole people. War is a continuation of politics. Politics is a concentrated expression of the economy. Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Russians are fighting for certain goals. The goal determines the nature of the war. Wars are divided into fair and aggressive. Distinguish (but do not oppose) the material and spiritual factors of armed struggle. The nature of the war has a decisive influence on spiritual factors, technical superiority or lag too. If the author is interested in the question of the moral and psychological readiness of the Republic of Armenia for the upcoming war, then the question should be answered: who is the enemy, what are the nature and goals of the war for each of the parties, and then analyze their material and spiritual potential.
    Something like that.
  14. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 22 March 2018 13: 59
    +4
    It is this monstrously unequal ratio of moral potentials that ensured the victorious march throughout Hitler's Wehrmacht throughout Europe in 1939 - 1940 - the beginning of 1941. But it is not at all the mythical tank supermanship of Guderian and Rundstedt. Which, against the background of four thousand tanks of the French army alone, didn’t shrink to anecdotal proportions. At that time, the Germans and the tanks almost didn’t have any real ones, except for the “prisoners” of Czechoslovakia. Some miserable motochanki with machine guns.

    Author-author ... well, would you have studied at least briefly the French campaign. The victory of the Germans was ensured by the fact that for 10 years of peace, one Anschluss and one war, they had worked out the staff of their tank units and their interaction with other military branches. It’s not tanks fighting - the structures are fighting. As France and our 1941 proved to us.
    And even if the French had risen from the graves of the soldiers of 1914 from their elanthen they would not be able to win in conditions when, on the march, the division turns into a battalion - because there are not enough refuelers. When another division on the march is pulled apart battalionously and porously - to repel actual and imaginary German attacks. When tanks have to be thrown right on the battlefield or on the side of the road when retreating - because there are not enough towing vehicles, shells and fuel. When the enemy instead of a fair fight of spherical tanks in a liquid vacuum smile regularly exposes infantry and anti-tank vehicles, including 8,8 cm, to attacking French tanks. Here, for example, what happened to the full-featured 3rd DLM:
    As a result of these two-day continuous battles, the 3rd DLM irretrievably lost 68 Hotchkiss of 155 and 37 Somua S35 of 95 on the lawns of Belgium, i.e. 41% of its combat tank fleet. According to french data the German side lost 164 cars, mainly Pz.I and Pz.II. The battlefield remains with the Germans, who are able to gradually evacuate, repair and put down damaged vehicles.

    The most striking thing is that the French BTVs were just distinguished by the epic courage of the crews of tanks (the same Boyot) and units. But they lost at the level of formations - when they were unable to organize the coordinated actions of infantry, artillery and tanks, at least within the division, and also to supply all this colossus.
    The reasons for the defeat of the French tank units should be sought not in a thoughtless repetition of myths that had developed about seventy years ago and often dictated by the momentary benefits of the current political moment, but in a strictly historical analysis of the events that took place. Already the first attempts at its implementation show us that the real problems were not at all in the general small number of tanks or the archaic unsuitable doctrine of their use, but, for example, in the low discipline of order execution and extreme slowness. Or in the complete ignorance of infantry commanders of various levels about the sometimes elementary issues of tactics and “logistics” of tank units subordinate to them. Or in the absence of any anti-aircraft or air cover for the deployment of the tank division. Or in the low initiative of direct performers who too literally adhere to the "spirit and letter of the charter." Or in the almost complete absence of intelligence, that of the military, that of the aviation, etc., etc.
    © Ulanov / Shein
  15. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 22 March 2018 14: 00
    0
    By the way, the “anecdotal dimensions” of the Panzerwaffe are 2626 tanks in TDs or 2811 tanks and self-propelled guns in general in combat units. Moreover:
    Of the 10 tanks available in German tank divisions on May 2626, more than half were of the Pz.I and Pz.II types (643 and 880, respectively).
    © Ulanov / Shein
    For comparison:
    On May 10, 1940, the Allies had 3447 tanks and self-propelled guns in combat units.

    And as I understand it, the defeat of Soviet troops in the Border Battle of June 1941, which took place almost according to the same French scenario, also ensured monstrously unequal ratio of moral potentials? wink
    1. iouris
      iouris 22 March 2018 14: 15
      0
      Will of the will, as long as forces are inevitable ...
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 22 March 2018 16: 28
        +3
        Quote: iouris
        Will of the will, as long as forces are inevitable ...

        This applies more to the Pacific theater of operations. Where the "cowardly and pampered" Yankees already in 1942 beat in the tail and mane of highly spiritual samurai, who arranged micro-zerg-rushi in detachments of 500-1000 people with light shooting at the position of the entrenched marine division. And then it was only worse - with a katana a samurai will rush to the tank. At sea, however, it was no better - as soon as the conveyor belt launched before the US entered the war brought the products to the exit, the Japanese immediately became uncomfortable. For no elite is enough when against 3-4 of your ABs the enemy rolls out a dozen of their drums (followed by a couple more dozen escort soldiers). smile

        But the border battle of the USSR-41 is almost written off from the French campaign. The enemy, possessing formally numerically inferior forces with less powerful armored vehicles, smashes our motorized units with unprecedented ease - despite the personal courage of the tankers. And even the reasons for the defeat are the same: the inability of the infantry command to use motorized units subordinate to them (from the march — immediately to battle, without time for regrouping, pulling up the rear and vehicles lagging behind on the march), non-optimal staff, worsened by its understaffing (which led to the stratification of tank units by march and problems with supply and repair), failure to fulfill orders, poor preparation of military personnel, lack of intelligence. Actually, De Gaulle’s well-known complaints about the state of his division in 1940 can, by replacing the number, be quietly applied to almost any Soviet TD arr. 41.
        In total, the N-th division had 215 tanks. The only infantry unit was a motorized infantry battalion transported by bus! There were practically no radio stations in the division, and orders were delivered to the units by cyclists. The artillery of the division consisted of several parts of the reserve. Supply and maintenance services practically did not exist.
    2. prodi
      prodi 22 March 2018 16: 06
      +1
      Quote: Alexey RA

      And as I understand it, the defeat of Soviet troops in the Border Battle of June 1941, which took place almost according to the same French scenario, also ensured monstrously unequal ratio of moral potentials? wink

      you distort, although the attacker always has an advantage. Just the equality of these potentials did not allow the Germans to repeat the success of the European campaign
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 22 March 2018 18: 43
        +3
        Quote: prodi
        you distort, although the attacker always has an advantage. Just the equality of these potentials did not allow the Germans to repeat the success of the European campaign

        Oh-ho-ho ... just in the Border Battle of the 41st, the Germans repeated the success of the European campaign - and on a much larger scale: already in July there were nothing left from the mechanized corps of the border districts with their hundreds of tanks, both lines of fortifications were breached, and the enemy was on the approaches to Kiev and Leningrad (the fighting on the Luga line began on 10.07.41).
        The problem is that, unlike France, the Germans won the border battle the war with the USSR did not end. Instead of a further victorious march to Moscow, the Germans received battles from the "Second Red Army" of the internal districts, and then freshly mobilized formations pulled themselves together. And the Germans had to start all over again - but in much worse conditions: the flanks were open, the infantry was lagging behind, communications were stretched, motor vehicles were failing.
        In the units and formations of Army Group North, 39% of the available vehicles were out of order. (In some transport battalions, up to 56% of the available vehicles were out of order.)
        © Halder 03.08.41
        Motor convoys formed from cars previously used in the national economy account for up to 30% of motor vehicles that have failed. In columns formed by the army, up to 20% of motor vehicles that fail. The largest number of vehicles failed in Army Group North.
        © Halder 03.08.41
  16. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 22 March 2018 15: 02
    +5
    The article is just great. Everything is completely true. And because of this, the current situation in our country inspires me personally with horror. But a war is already going on against us, and it is precisely in the most vulnerable sector - in the field of the mind. And what do we contrast the bulk of the enemy? What is our idea? Unite around our greatest bosses, who finally got the opportunity to get rich enormously? Yes, with this wonderful Idea, we are simply invincible, damn it! Scary people. Really scary.
    1. iouris
      iouris 23 March 2018 12: 20
      0
      Quote: Mikhail3
      Scary people. Really scary.

      It's a shame, people. Really ashamed.
  17. shuravi
    shuravi 22 March 2018 18: 12
    +1
    Even, a bearded joke was recalled.

    The machine gunner ran out of ammo. He reports:
    “Comrade Commander, I have run out of ammunition.”
    - What do you mean run out? Are you a communist - asks the commander.
    “Yes, a communist,” and the machine gun bolted even harder.
  18. shuravi
    shuravi 22 March 2018 18: 35
    +2
    Quote: captain

    And Gorbachev, Yeltsin Shevarnadze, Kravchuk, Yakovlev and others. It seems like they belonged to the CPSU elite. You beloved CPSU, and in the newspaper Pravda (I’m writing specifically for you, you don’t know that it was a printed organ of the CPSU Central Committee) they wrote about them that they were real Leninist communists. You’re just kind as Yakovlev (he was responsible for the ideology in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union), he deceived all people, and then it turned out that he was in the same boat as Lenin Gorbachev.


    What kind of communists are they? Adherents crawled into power, no more. Communists do not deny their beliefs.
  19. samarin1969
    samarin1969 22 March 2018 20: 14
    +2
    Any theory of a historian suffers from a “fit of facts”, and this article has too many exaggerations. The Germans were happy to tan opponents in 1914m. In Russia, this “2nd Livonian” was also initially enthusiastic. In the Civil War, both surrender and abandonment of positions from hopelessness and decimation were a frequent occurrence. People would have peace and bread, and not a "struggle for ideas." ... But the author’s central question is really “interesting”.
    Answer: there will be no “ideological” war. "Motorola" is now not in honor with the "strategists". And the "strategists" themselves simply do not have any "Faith, Tsar and Fatherland" ...
  20. Radikal
    Radikal 22 March 2018 20: 36
    +2
    A superficial article, with a claim to historicism, the topic is not disclosed, only can lead the undemanding reader to an even greater impasse. sad
  21. Freeman
    Freeman 23 March 2018 01: 16
    0
    There was one dialogue between former opponents - the Turk and the Anglo-Saxon. When the Turk asked his counterpart - why did they climb onto Turkish land, the British replied that they did not need this land, and they fought for the idea. For which particular idea, the film is not specified.

    Russia, too, joined the WWII with the idea of ​​helping the "Serb brothers."
    "Serbia, Serbia, I feel sorry for you,
    Damned Germany is coming at you.
    Austria, Germany, what you call,
    Who are you fighting with ... your mother ?! “.

    / soldier's song /
    The Serbs expected support from Russia and saw in it a defender, hope for existence and liberation (those Serbs who then still lived in the Habsburg monarchy). The extent to which the hope for Russia was spread among the common people is clearly shown by the reaction of the condemned priest Vid Parezhanin, who was condemned to death in Austria-Hungary, who, as stated in the Austro-Hungarian police report, “under the gallows and with a noose around his neck repeatedly shouted: Long live Serbia, long live the Serbian army and long live the great Russia! ”

    source: http://asbest-grin.ru/_ld/0/63_book86.pdf
    "The greatness and ulcers of the Russian Empire." International scientific collection.
    page 367-376 MIROSLAV JOVANOVICH. Russian assistance to Serbia in 1914 - 1915
  22. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 23 March 2018 08: 25
    0
    Of course, the author raised an important topic, no less relevant for our troubled times. With many conclusions, of course, I agree. By the way, an excellent argument and argument for the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on the revival of the GlPU Ra! No matter how outstanding the commanders fathers are, the soldiers will not be able to reach every soldier and raise their morale, even with seven spans in the forehead, at least one hundred arms and one hundred legs, and many are not interested. The Bible is their charter, and they pray for it! So without political leaders in future wars, nowhere. Especially if the army will be equipped with conscripts. Some experts believe in vain that the era of mass armies, with their saturation with automatic and high-tech weapons, is over. It is only in local conflicts that contract and compact armies can manage. And in world wars, to which the current world community stubbornly rolls, only mass armies will fight! But how, pray tell, to seize and hold, or defend a continental theater? And with modern weapons, can they be different from these TVDs?
    Now on the merits of the article. I myself have repeatedly thought about the question of why these wars, which were very close to each other, were so different. The above arguments of the author are certainly true! But ... There are some circumstances. So in the civilian, the sharpest question was - the seizure and retention of power! The initiators of the war, after all, were not the people, but the ruling elite, agree! She mobilized the people in the right direction. That is, the main factor can be considered political! Further, the military commanders who marched on the XNUMXst Mv fought on both sides. Also people, go, not stupid, made conclusions, took into account mistakes, learned lessons. Thirdly, the civil war took place not only along the front line, but also in the rear. Constant uprisings, speeches, partisans, etc., would not have given any stability to the capital-fortified fronts. This was perfectly understood by commanders from both sides, and did not waste time and energy in vain. But they did not neglect the engineering fortifications, on occasion, as on Krymsky Val.
    On the European theater of operations in the XNUMXst MV, with its limited space and a dense network of transport highways, the mass armies that were used on such a scale, for the first time, there was nowhere to deploy to the full breadth and power. The course of events resembled a pull of two cabinets in a narrow hallway at the same time. This equilibrium was violated by military equipment, which appeared at the forefront in massive numbers, which predetermined its future. Well, the motivation of the hp armies, of course, was abstract for ordinary people - fidelity to duty, fidelity to the king-king-Kaiser-constitution-charter was not very inspired. Only armies fought, and all the rest acted as onlookers. No guerrilla to you.
    II MB, especially WWII, was a war of civilizations not for life, but for death. This was understandable even without agitation, according to the behavior of the invaders in the occupied territories. It remained to bring information to the general population. By the way, the same prospects await us in the future! Therefore, waiting in the trenches of death or captivity is more than a risky task! By the way, using the motivation of the Nazis operating in Europe for our theater is not entirely correct! There they "restored justice", and here they "expanded the living space from subhuman people." The big difference!
  23. 82т11
    82т11 26 March 2018 21: 25
    0
    In principle, the author is right that the high motivation of the Soviet people helped win the war and then raise the country from ruins. But now something of the same motivation is not visible, everyone is looking for a freebie.