Liberal thesis about Stalin’s plans to attack Hitler Germany

One of the themes about the Great Patriotic War, which is actively promoted by liberal historians, is connected with the thesis that if Hitler had not attacked Stalin in June 1941 of the year, then the opposite would have happened very soon - Stalin would have moved his army to Germany. Such a thesis reduces the largest in stories humanity’s war against the heroism of the Soviet people and its unprecedented feat for the utilitarian duel between the two dictators. No more.

One of the ideologues of the concept that Stalin “would have attacked Hitler, did not attack Hitler on the USSR,” is the famous liberal figure in historical science Viktor Rezun (Suvorov). His books at one time produced something similar to the revolution in historiography, powdering the brains of thousands of our compatriots who decided to get acquainted with these works on the history of the Second World War. The books promoted the idea of ​​the USSR as a state that was virtually no different from Nazi Germany, in the sense that its leadership "also wanted to own the world" - solely on blood.

In the video “In the footsteps of Suvorov-Rezun”, the author’s opinion is given about the materials published by Rezun, including the alleged plans of Stalin to attack Germany. The author notes that he himself once fell under the influence of this specific literature, but the years of studying military-historical subjects gave him the opportunity to understand what the works of pseudo-history really are.

Comments

[svp67]

is a famous liberal figure from historical science Victor Rezun (Suvorov)

Traitor, not worth mentioning so many titles
The video is interesting, as I understand it is a museum in Latrun.
T-34/85 well-groomed and as I understand it from the post-war, production of Czechoslovakia

[vladimirZ]

The author is right that I.V. Stalin did not think of organizing an attack on Germany first.
Yes, in the General Staff of the Red Army under the leadership of Zhukov-Timoshenko, General (at that time) Vasilevsky developed the so-called "Considerations on the Strategic Deployment of the Armed Forces of the USSR" of May 15, 1941 on the "warning strike" of the spacecraft on the German troops that had not deployed, but Stalin did not give he had no move, abruptly cutting off the leadership of the Army (Zhukov and Timoshenko) when they only tried to offer him such a scenario.
Stalin I.V., in contrast to the top military men of that time, soberly assessed the real capabilities of the Red Army, and besides, he was well versed in politics and diplomacy, and understood that only the USSR would take the initiative in preventing Germany's attack on the USSR, he would be immediately declared an aggressor and the initiator of the war, and "to defend Europe" from communism, the whole world will rally from Japan, obliged by an agreement with Germany to start a war with the USSR, to England and the United States, which will provide them with assistance. As a result, the USSR would then inevitably suffer defeat.
Thanks to genius I.V. To Stalin, the USSR was able not only to destroy the coalition of world capital against itself, but also to organize the leading capitalist states: the USA, Great Britain, their allies into an anti-Hitler union, which predetermined the inevitable defeat of fascist Germany in the war, and our Great Victory.

[aybolyt678]

Quote: vladimirZ

Stalin I.V., unlike the higher military of that time, soberly assessed the real capabilities of the Red Army,

Why didn't the author pay attention to the connection? why in German tanks were VHF radio stations and we have a semaphore from the commander’s tank?
further in the general staff of the spacecraft the doctrine of the "tank fist" prevailed, where an iron fist with a powerful blow breaks through the defense ...

[vladimirZ]

Why didn't the author pay attention to the connection? why in German tanks were VHF radio stations and we have a semaphore from the commander’s tank? - aybolyt678

All this is reflected in the general issues of the technical backwardness of the Red Army in the initial period of the war, noted by the author.
And here is not only communication, but also tanks that our military simply could not use, from rank-and-file tankers to generals and marshals in the initial period of the war, outdated aircraft, artillery, lack of vehicles, self-propelled artillery, lack of interaction between various military branches, etc.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: aybolyt678

Why didn't the author pay attention to the connection? why in German tanks were VHF radio stations and we have a semaphore from the commander’s tank?

With communication in general it was filthy with us. We relied on cable. And what was, was of poor quality.

According to Yu. Mukhin and A. Lebedintsev in the book “Fathers-Commanders”, about a year before the war, radio stations from fighters were removed and sent to warehouses. Experts explain this decision by the fact that the aircraft engines of the USSR were supposedly unshielded, and a crack was heard in the headphones from the ignition system, which distracted the pilot.

Well, and type:

[Vladimir 5]

Aibolit678. At that time, the Red Army did not even have a clue about the use of VHF radio communications. Read the memoirs, there in 1942 they removed VHF stations from enemy equipment and began to study, sometimes working for a reception at enemy negotiations ... It was correctly noted about the capabilities of the Red Army, which was proved in the recent, just a year ago, in the Finnish War, because I. Stalin pulled time for rearmament and pulling up the Red Army to a satisfactory level, because it proved to be practically not capable of that in that war, a lot of consequences after an extensive purge of the Red Army command staff ..

[Conductor]

If grandmother had testicles, she would be grandfather.

[Conductor]

In my amateurish opinion. 1. There is a rearmament of the army, what kind of attack? 2. After the winter war, it is clear to Stalin that his officer corps basically does not know how to fight, especially senior and senior officers. 3. To start the war from the bridgeheads only recently occupied in Ukraine and the Baltic states is an extremely autocratic assumption; we have not yet been sufficiently strengthened there. completion of reproach areas is underway; it is unlikely that Stalin would have fought according to the book of Nikolai Shpanov.

[vredlo]

it’s just that at every opus of this bastard you need to print his biography, maybe then people will understand who they are reading and who will trash such a surname

[Conductor]

But then he thinks that he chose Freedom !!!

[aybolyt678]

Quote: Conductor

But then he thinks that he chose Freedom !!!

lack of culture implies the word Freedom - permissiveness and impunity

[Mcar]

The author notes that he himself at one time came under the influence of this specific literature, but the years of studying military-historical subjects gave him the opportunity to understand what the works of pseudo-history really are.

Literally about me!

I remember when I read "Icebreaker" and "Day M", more precisely, as I read it, I just went nuts - naturally, you read and spiral into the goiter, there is not enough air. And everything is so neatly written that an amateur, which I was then due to objective reasons - the Internet was not yet in the project and it was almost impossible to find out, double-check, was not able to notice the falsity of the story. Only years later, I gradually figured out both the writings of the author and who Suvorov-Rezun was. And then, in the early 90s, it came to the point that he almost quarreled with my mother. I told her - look how it really was, but she - not true, it was not. I quote her, she gives me her argument. He was stupid - she knew not from books how and what was there, she was already over 20 when Stalin was killed.

But we must admit that this false libel, like many other equally false lies associated with the name of Stalin, is extremely tenacious. This fact alone gives rise to thought - if all the servants of the bourgeois class continue to pour deceitful dirt on the leader of the peoples, this means only one thing - the truth for them, even after so many decades, is fatal.

[Strashila]

“I would attack Hitler if Hitler did not attack the USSR”, but don’t get into it. Stalin had a good example of Western behavior during the conflict with Finland, when the French, British, Americans, Swedes and other democracies stood in line with the Finns and Nazis of Germany against the USSR.

[dzvero]

I agree. Even in the 41st there was a rather high probability of a peace between Germany and England. Begin Stalin first, would only accelerate this process, and then the USSR would get a war against a very strong coalition on two fronts (Japan would not stand aside).
The order about "not to give in to provocations" is considered by many to be the basis for defeat in the summer of 41. But in this way the USSR became a victim of aggression (Churchill's reaction at that moment is very indicative), and Germany - an aggressor with all the consequences. No matter how cynical it may sound, but by and large, at the cost of losing the border battle, the USSR won the war. Stalin deliberately took this risk, but, it seems to me, he did not anticipate such (!) A catastrophe.

[victor50]

Quote: dzvero

No matter how cynical it sounds, but by and large, at the cost of losing the border battle, the USSR won the war. Stalin consciously took this risk, but, as it seems to me, did not expect such a (!) Disaster

I understand what you wanted to say, but still it’s impossible: first they retreated to Moscow, then to the Volga — this cannot be called a border battle. Millions of dead ... sounds somehow cynical, it turns out, a tactical "border battle". You shouldn't oversimplify even to emphasize an idea.

[dzvero]

A frontier battle is a frontier battle. No one expected that it would result in such a catastrophe - the loss of two armies of ZAPOVO at once, the defeat of parts of the troops in the south and north. Moscow and Stalingrad are a consequence of that catastrophe.
Stalin's decisions before the start of the war can be called cynical, their interpretations too, but the policy itself is cynical - apparently there were two possibilities - to get a "small war" against Germany alone or a "big" one against a consolidated West ...

[Cycle boss]

Well, as my grandfather told. That in 1945 (sort of) Zhukov put the troops on full alert (which at that time were already at the peak of their “strength”, but tired of constant fighting) and wanted to turn Amers from Europe, but Stalin did not let him do it. Ostensibly due to the fact that the Americans already had an ammunition vigorous bomb and were not used in Japan.

[Sayan]

Don't give a damn about the libels of this used contraceptive. There is a wonderful military historian in St. Petersburg Klim Zhukov and there is a wonderful project "the era of knowledge" ... interesting. rezun will soon die and the less often he is mentioned, the better

[Altona]

Liberals generally think that after the tsarist regime Stalin got paradise, lots of gold and many houses where he could settle everyone. And since there were no problems in the country, he plotted world wars. In fact, the country was very limited in resources, accelerated weapons and the mobilization of the economy were forced in the face of a growing military threat.

[TAMBU]

And most importantly, a well-fed and educated population ...

[Altona]

Quote: TAMBU

And most importantly, a well-fed and educated population ...

---------------------
Even the Soviet government could not defeat poverty, most people lived very modestly even in the 1970s. They didn’t starve, but there were no excesses. I mean mainly the village.

[Mcar]

Quote: Altona

Even the Soviet government could not defeat poverty, most people lived very modestly even in the 1970s. They didn’t starve, but there were no excesses.

It depends on what is considered poverty, modesty, hunger, excess.

If the designated period is considered poverty, then what is the current one called when potatoes are considered a delicacy among millions of Russians, when a broth cube becomes the most popular of meat products.

[Altona]

Quote: McAr

If the designated period is considered poverty, then what is the present, when millions of Russians already have potatoes as a delicacy

--------------------------
Potato? Potatoes have never been in short supply. Poverty is when you can afford a very limited purchase of products, clothing. I just remember my grandfather’s village, collective farmers had small pensions and therefore the consumption of manufactured goods was very limited. This is what I had in mind. Of all civilization, there were only electric wires. The transport was equestrian, that's all. This is the years 1970-1980.

[Mcar]

Quote: Altona

... the consumption of manufactured goods was very limited. This is what I had in mind.

You mean manufactured goods, and I'm going. I do not think that manufactured goods are more important than food, if we talk about survival.

Quote: Altona

I just remember my grandfather’s village, collective farmers had small pensions ...

But now huge!
Try, for the experiment, to live at least a year on what remains with the pensioner after the mandatory payments for housing services.

Quote: Altona

Potato? Potatoes have never been in short supply.

This is for you. Do not be selfish, except for you in the Russian Federation a few more people live.
When from pension after payment of housing and communal services there remain 5 thousand for everything, the price per kilogram of 40 rubles bites.

[Altona]

Quote: McAr

You mean manufactured goods, and I'm going. I do not think that manufactured goods are more important than food, if we talk about survival.

-------------------------
The food was in the village. They kept cattle, there were milk and vegetables. But still they lived modestly. And the townspeople also lived modestly. Under Soviet rule, manufactured goods were relatively expensive as part of the same salary.

Quote: McAr

This is for you. Do not be selfish, except for you in the Russian Federation a few more people live.
When from pension after payment of housing and communal services there remain 5 thousand for everything, the price per kilogram of 40 rubles bites.

What does the egoist have to do with it? As far as I remember, potatoes have always been, because we have grown them ourselves since 1967. And who doesn’t plant here, he stupidly buys 4 bags at 12 rubles per kg per season and that’s all. As for manufactured goods, then braids, sickles, axes, dishes, furniture, tarpaulin boots, a tarpaulin cloak and other things are manufactured goods.

[aybolyt678]

Quote: Altona

This is what I had in mind. Of all civilization, there were only electric wires. The transport was equestrian, that's all. This is the years 1970-1980.

This is where it was? Tractors and buses were everywhere.

[aybolyt678]

Quote: Altona

most people lived very modestly even in the 1970s. Not starving, but no frills

Work was always and everywhere. For a long ruble, everyone went to Magadan. BUT I would like to say that the pace has slowed down because of Khrushchev and in the future there was no decent leader in the leadership. No one understood how such a colossus as the USSR could be controlled. Afraid of breaking firewood, they canned the system. And sowing oil generally relaxed.

[Altona]

Quote: aybolyt678

Work was always and everywhere. For a long ruble, everyone went to Magadan.

--------------------------
When you are a front-line soldier and not young, you will not go to Magadan anymore. You are sitting in a village retired at 45 rubles yourself and something there 25 from his wife. I'm talking about my grandfather.

[aybolyt678]

Quote: Altona

When you are a front-line soldier and not young, you will not go to Magadan anymore. You’re sitting in a village retired at 45 rubles yourself and there’s something 25 with your wife

and that in Magadan the watchmen were not needed? Watchman in kindergarten?

[Larum]

Yeah, Rezun ...
And Putin, who opened the tablet to Sozhenitsyn, and Cadmi, pitting the country, and a bunch of well-fed Ukrainians and experts in a TV show ....?

Rezun was kicked, but his business lives on ....

[Evil echo]

Quote: McAr

The author notes that he himself at one time came under the influence of this specific literature, but the years of studying military-historical subjects gave him the opportunity to understand what the works of pseudo-history really are.

Literally about me!

I remember when I read "Icebreaker" and "Day M", more precisely, as I read it, I just went nuts - naturally, you read and spiral into the goiter, there is not enough air. And everything is so neatly written that an amateur, which I was then due to objective reasons - the Internet was not yet in the project and it was almost impossible to find out, double-check, was not able to notice the falsity of the story. Only years later, I gradually figured out both the writings of the author and who Suvorov-Rezun was. And then, in the early 90s, it came to the point that he almost quarreled with my mother. I told her - look how it really was, but she - not true, it was not. I quote her, she gives me her argument. He was stupid - she knew not from books how and what was there, she was already over 20 when Stalin was killed.

But we must admit that this false libel, like many other equally false lies associated with the name of Stalin, is extremely tenacious. This fact alone gives rise to thought - if all the servants of the bourgeois class continue to pour deceitful dirt on the leader of the peoples, this means only one thing - the truth for them, even after so many decades, is fatal.

When I began to read Java Icebreaker attacked the contradictions on the first ten pages and threw it away. And so he lacks a climbing icebreaker.

[VeteranVSSSR]

Quote: h201

Quote: McAr

If the designated period is considered poverty, then what is the current one called when potatoes are considered a delicacy among millions of Russians, when a broth cube becomes the most popular of meat products.

I don’t understand, is that today people do not think you live any better than under socialism? Are you out of your mind? What are you smoking there?
Under socialism, 99% of the population had nothing, except for frayed trousers, a crystal vase in a closet and a moth-beaten carpet on the wall.
The apartment, if it was, was rented (they were rented from the state). For bad behavior (from the point of view of the state), the right to rent an apartment was deprived. So there were Soviet homeless people (or scourges), heard of such?
Units had cars.
There was enough money for very modest food (mainly bread and potatoes, that is, death for the body, so they lived very little) and very modest clothes. Medicine was state-owned and of disgusting quality. They saved money for more or less serious operations (or for teeth) (they had to "give" to the doctor). Without this, diction was obtained, like that of "dear Leonid Ilyich" (he had dentures in the end ordered in Germany). And even worse.
From personal experience.
An abortion with anesthesia, 2 bottles of cognac (it was then very expensive). Otherwise, without anesthesia.
The grandmother was brought to the hospital by ambulance. They performed an operation and rolled out into the corridor (not even into the ward) to die. Came, "gave" to the doctor. They rolled back into the operating room and did something there for a long time. She lived for a very long time.
I had operations. I did one for free. I suffer from side effects to this day. The second time "gave" to the doctor and did the same, again. We did OK.
And this is just so, offhand. Therefore, do not make up stories about supposedly good life under socialism. And oh bad, now.

So we lived in different countries ...
You write that you only ate bread and potatoes ... I don’t know, I don’t know ...
Let me give you a few figures that I personally encountered:
1979, returned from the army, and also returned to PO `` Horizon ''; salary from250 rubles
Price:
- pork 1rub80 kopecks., tenderloin 3.30
beef 1.90. tenderloin 3.30
Bread 14kop. -18 kopecks., Loaf 13-23 kopecks., Potatoes 7-9 kopeks / kg
Beer - 0,37 rubles., Draft - 22 kopecks. ,,, red '' from 92 kopecks. up to 1.77 rubles. vodka-3.62-4.12. Cognac (which was very expensive), Ararat "3 stars-4.42 rubles, Azerbadzhan 6-8 rubles, Georgian-8 hazel grouses.
Why am I, and the fact that for one salary I could buy 1785 loaves of bread at 1 KG.
And how much can you buy today KG of brown bread ???
Here is such an arithmetic ...

[Altona]

Quote: VeteranVSSSR

1979, returned from the army, and also returned to PO `` Horizon ''; salary from250 rubles
Price:
- pork 1rub80 kopecks., tenderloin 3.30
beef 1.90. tenderloin 3.30

------------------------
My mother and father received about this much together. There was not often meat in stores, although the city had a powerful meat factory. They lived modestly in general. There was meat in the consumer co-operation, but already at 3,60 and higher and it was windward; for some reason, the products were not in demand there. Although everything was there.

[aybolyt678]

Quote: VeteranVSSSR

- pork 1rub80 kopecks., tenderloin 3.30
beef 1.90. tenderloin 3.30

lies! the tenderloin cost 3 rubles 5 kopecks !!! in the shops! but she was not every day. But on the other hand, every day something was "given" and the Soviet people were very organized, not wasting time on trips to the marketplaces, stood in line and took either a tenderloin, then a tea sausage (of amazing taste) for 3 rubles 10 kopecks, or Dutch Cheese.

[VeteranVSSSR]

Well, why so immediately categorically ... but
If we take the period of stagnation, then the tea sausage is 1 rub. 60 kopecks, and the most expensive of the cooked sausages, Estonian, is 2 rub. 80 kopecks.
Yes, I would like to add that the territory of the USSR was divided into three zones at food prices.
P / S. Prices are shown until 01/07/1979.
Then another story begins ...

[Nait]

Quote: Altona

The transport was equestrian, that's all. This is the years 1970-1980.

Zvizdet not bags tossing and turning.

[jurijsv]

Most of all, I don’t like the fact that the traitor calls himself Suvorov. Rezun lives in the UK at the expense of the British secret services and publishes his little books at the expense of the Queen of England and the British secret services. Reliability ???????

[aybolyt678]

Quote: jurijsv

Most of all, I don’t like the fact that the traitor calls himself Suvorov.

In Bandera, the cutter was called the one who kills with cutting weapons.

[NF68]

In some cases, an attack on an adversary can also be regarded as a defense of one’s own country. Hitler in the 1939-1940-ies clearly demonstrated that it was impossible to believe him and that he was still that adventurer. Therefore, I do not see anything wrong with the USSR’s plans to strike at Germany after Germany launched WWII.

[vladimirZ]

In some cases, an attack on an adversary can also be regarded as a defense of one’s own country. ...
Therefore, I do not see anything wrong with the USSR’s plans to strike at Germany after Germany launched WWII. - NF68 (Nikolai.)

There is nothing wrong with this, as an option "in some cases" of the defense of one's own country, BUT there are rules and traditions of international politics and diplomacy, which considers in this case the state that made the first military attack on another state - the initiator of the war and the aggressor, with all the consequences its consequences.
And the consequences, in that particular situation, were bad for the USSR. Germany and Japan had a Mutual Assistance Agreement, under which each of them pledged to provide military assistance in the event of aggression against one or another side. In essence, the USSR would have to fight on two fronts: in the West with Germany and its allies, and in the East with Japan. Moreover, the agreement between Japan and the USSR on non-aggression against each other in this situation was not a deterrent.
The United States, by a resolution of the Congress, adopted in 1940 the provision on assistance to states subjected to aggression, and if the USSR attacked Germany, the United States would refuse to help the USSR, and with a high degree of probability would begin to render it to Germany.
The position of Great Britain, due to the significant number of pro-German lobbies, including in the royal family, could change, in the event of Soviet aggression, in favor of Germany, which Hitler, by the way, sought. An example of this is the UK support for Finland, an ally of Germany, in the Winter War 1939-40. USSR with the Finns.
And all this was very BAD for the USSR, as it led to an almost guaranteed defeat, despite the fact that the attack was the first to be a defensive warning measure.
And given the real capabilities of the Red Army in the confrontation with the troops of Germany and its allies at that time, it would mean a complete collapse of the USSR.

[NF68]

Quote: vladimirZ

In some cases, an attack on an adversary can also be regarded as a defense of one’s own country. ...
Therefore, I do not see anything wrong with the USSR’s plans to strike at Germany after Germany launched WWII. - NF68 (Nikolai.)

There is nothing wrong with this, as an option "in some cases" of the defense of one's own country, BUT there are rules and traditions of international politics and diplomacy, which considers in this case the state that made the first military attack on another state - the initiator of the war and the aggressor, with all the consequences its consequences.
And the consequences, in that particular situation, were bad for the USSR. Germany and Japan had a Mutual Assistance Agreement, under which each of them pledged to provide military assistance in the event of aggression against one or another side. In essence, the USSR would have to fight on two fronts: in the West with Germany and its allies, and in the East with Japan. Moreover, the agreement between Japan and the USSR on non-aggression against each other in this situation was not a deterrent.
The United States, by a resolution of the Congress, adopted in 1940 the provision on assistance to states subjected to aggression, and if the USSR attacked Germany, the United States would refuse to help the USSR, and with a high degree of probability would begin to render it to Germany.
The position of Great Britain, due to the significant number of pro-German lobbies, including in the royal family, could change, in the event of Soviet aggression, in favor of Germany, which Hitler, by the way, sought. An example of this is the UK support for Finland, an ally of Germany, in the Winter War 1939-40. USSR with the Finns.
And all this was very BAD for the USSR, as it led to an almost guaranteed defeat, despite the fact that the attack was the first to be a defensive warning measure.
And given the real capabilities of the Red Army in the confrontation with the troops of Germany and its allies at that time, it would mean a complete collapse of the USSR.

With wolves, living in a different way will not work. In the 1941 year, the situation of BI was so difficult that the British would have turned a blind eye to all these inconsistencies, and the Americans would have had to do the same because the US and BI already very well understood the difficult situation of the BI. In reality, on 22 of June 1941 of the year, the USSR was not able to defend itself properly, not to attack Germany.

[NordUral]

This scum clouded over many heads, he himself got caught for the first time reading, but gradually woke up from obsession. Thanks to the internet!

[konus]

You see, the creation of military plans (including plans for the outbreak of war) requires the participation in their development of a large number of specialists - tankmen, pilots, sappers, rifle troops, rear support troops, transport specialists. Linking all these plans also requires the participation of industry and economic specialists. Each such unit had to develop a pile of paper (compare with the documentation for the "Barbarossa" plan in Germany). This pile of paper, or rather a summary from it, had to be signed by a very large number of persons - the political and military leadership. However, these summaries are not submitted for review even at this time. There are only a few leaves, and even those are signed by one A.M. Vasilevsky, who at that time, although he was a prominent figure in the General Staff of the Red Army, was not its chief. I think that any person who is quite literate is very suspicious of the writings of Rezun and similar "historians". Well, if a person believed these scriptures, then he really wanted to be deceived!

[Catfish]

Great!

Everything is clear, reasonably and competently argued. The author of the video is really grateful for the quality work. A wonderful video sequence, viewing of which along with the author’s text seemed to complement what was happening and did not interfere with perception at all.
When I read the first books of Rezun, it was about the same as with the author, although I was older than him, and I already knew more than he was then. But bought! He knows how, viper Rezun brains to powder, preparation is good. Sobering came later, when the nineties ended and his books flew into the trash.
Here, the author laid out everything on the shelves and logically substantiated everything so clearly that there was nothing to add.
Thanks again. Sincerely, M.Kot.

[iouris]

The thesis is not liberal, but Russophobic. Stalin could not plan an attack on Germany, because against the USSR-aggressor the whole West would act as a united front, behind which the USA would stand. Moreover, the initial period of the war confirms this. Only when Hitler reached Moscow did the situation irreversibly change.

[sah4199]

Quote: konus

You see, the creation of military plans (including plans for the outbreak of war) requires the participation in their development of a large number of specialists - tankmen, pilots, sappers, rifle troops, rear support troops, transport specialists. Linking all these plans also requires the participation of industry and economic specialists. Each such unit had to develop a pile of paper (compare with the documentation for the "Barbarossa" plan in Germany). This pile of paper, or rather a summary from it, had to be signed by a very large number of persons - the political and military leadership. However, these summaries are not submitted for review even at this time. There are only a few leaves, and even those are signed by one A.M. Vasilevsky, who at that time, although he was a prominent figure in the General Staff of the Red Army, was not its chief. I think that any person who is quite literate is very suspicious of the writings of Rezun and similar "historians". Well, if a person believed these scriptures, then he really wanted to be deceived!

Of course, it is good to write "There are only a few leaves, and even those are signed by one A.M. Vasilevsky," but the defeat of 1941 must also be explained.

Another "villain" writes about this - M. Solonin, who wrote after 1991 and, unlike V. Suvorov, could rely on some documents, for example, about losses:
Vulture of security removed. Losses of the Armed Forces of the USSR / Ed. Mr. F. Krivosheeva. - M .: Military Publishing, 1993 ..

From the book of M. Solonin June 41st. Final diagnosis

As a result, we have the following: even if we accept the knowingly and significantly underestimated figures of Krivosheev, then in this case the ratio of irretrievable losses of personnel during the so-called. “Frontier battle” (until July 6–10) will be 1 to 23. The real picture of the irretrievable losses is most likely determined by figures of the order of 900–1000 thousand from the Soviet side and 25–30 thousand from the other, which gives a 1 to 35 ratio. Violating the chronology of the presentation somewhat, I immediately note that the final ratio irretrievable losses for the whole of 1941 amounted to about 1 to 28.
This is a “miracle” that does not fit into any canons of military science. This ratio of losses is possible only in the case when the white colonialists who sailed to Africa with guns and rifles attack the natives armed with spears and hoes. But in the summer of 1941, the situation on the western borders of the USSR was completely different: the defending side as a whole was not inferior to the enemy either in numbers or in armaments, quantitatively superior to it in the means of delivering powerful counterattack - tanks and aircraft, and even had the opportunity to build its defense on the system of natural barriers (full-flowing rivers Bug, Neman, Berezina, Zapadnaya Dvina, Dnieper, Dniester) and long-term defensive structures (about 1 thousand reinforced concrete pillboxes along the “new” border and more than 3 thousand at the “old” one).

Also, relying on docs from Russia. archives, M.Solonin proves that the Red Army was deployed precisely on several sheets with the signature of one A.M. Vasilevsky