"After my death, a lot of garbage will be put on my grave, but the wind of history will mercilessly dispel it."

Stalin was not a thing of the past; he was dissolved in our future, no matter how saddened many were.
Epigraph of the French writer Pierre Kurtad to the book by Edgar Moren "On the nature of the USSR. The totalitarian complex and the new empire "



The red emperor. With the departure of Stalin, the course of development of Soviet (Russian) civilization changed. After the XX Congress of the CPSU on 25 on February 1956, the era of the Khrushchev “thaw” began, which resulted in de-Stalinization and degenerated into Brezhnev’s “stagnation” when the most negative tendencies of Khrushchev’s rule were liquidated or frozen, but on the whole, the course for degradation was maintained. Then the power and the people were brought to Gorbachev's "perestroika", which led to the destruction and robbery of the USSR. They introduced Yeltsin’s “democracy” and Putin’s “liberalism”, which led to huge losses, victims, suffering and misfortunes of the vast majority of ordinary people, the extinction of the Russian people.

"After my death, a lot of garbage will be put on my grave, but the wind of history will mercilessly dispel it."


Losses from the reign of the "perestroika", "democrats", "liberals" and "optimizers" are so huge that, according to scientists, they are several times higher than the damage from the invasion of the Nazis. Indeed, during the Great Patriotic War, the western part of our Motherland was destroyed. Today, the “effective managers” of the liberal spill are walking all over Russia.

The return of Stalin to Russia


The supporting pillars of the Stalinist system were so strong in Russia that they could not be dismantled even halfway in the 1990 and 2000 years. The woeful democrats were not able to break what was created under Stalin and after him in the Soviet civilization he built.

It came to the point that the good memory of the great Soviet leader was not only preserved, but as the "reformers" destroyed the legacy of the USSR and socialism in Russia, it only grew stronger. So, already in the 2000 years, the level of support for Stalin rose to 50%. This was forced to admit the liberal media. The newspaper "Version" No. 7 from 20.02.06 published the data of a opinion poll conducted by the Echo of Moscow radio station. To the question “In your opinion, did Stalin do more good or bad for the country?” The answers were: 54% - more good; 43% - more bad; 3% - found it difficult to answer.

Westerners and liberals are frightened by such results. Since the time of "perestroika" and the Yeltsin "democratic revolution" on Stalin from all TV channels and other media constantly pouring dirt. The black myths created in the West about "bloody Stalin" and the "evil empire of the USSR" were fully accepted in liberal Russia. However, ordinary people relate to Stalin better and better.

Attributed to Stalin, but, in fact, very strong words come true (from the conversation of I. Stalin with A. Kollontai, 1939 year):
“Many of the affairs of our party and people will be perverted and spat on, above all, abroad, and in our country too. ... And my name will also be defamed, slandered. Many crimes will be attributed to me. ... The strength of the USSR lies in the friendship of peoples. The edge of the struggle will be aimed primarily at breaking this friendship, at breaking off the outskirts of Russia. ... Nationalism will raise its head with particular force. He will crush internationalism and patriotism for a while, only for a while. National groups within nations and conflicts will arise. Many pygmy leaders will appear, traitors within their nations.

In general, in the future, development will go in more complex and even frantic ways, the turns will be extremely steep. The point is that the East will be especially agitated. There will be sharp contradictions with the West. And yet, no matter how events develop, but time will pass, and the eyes of new generations will be turned to the affairs and victories of our socialist Fatherland. Year after year, new generations will come. They will once again raise the banner of their fathers and grandfathers and give us their due. They will build their future on our past. ”


In the 1943 year, Stalin said:
“I know that after my death a lot of rubbish will be put on my grave, but the wind stories will mercilessly scatter her! ”


These words were prophetic. Indeed, the de-Stalinists did their utmost to denigrate Stalin's name. All possible and impossible sins were recorded on it. The West was able to destroy Soviet civilization. The main stake was placed on nationalism-Nazism. So, Nazism dominates the Baltic Limitrophs, in the Neo-Bandera Ukraine, the stake on nationalism is made in Transcaucasia and Central Asia. However, such a policy brings only death, grief and destruction. An example is Georgia: the war, the separation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or Ukraine-Little Russia: the reunification of Crimea with Russia, the uprising in the Donbas, the civil war and the threat of a new collapse. And all this against the backdrop of the degradation of the economy and economy, the extinction of the people: Little Russia, the Baltic States are dying out, the population of Georgia is declining (mainly due to the flight of people to more developed and prosperous countries).

The difficult situation in Russia. The "reformers" could not finish off the legacy of the social state, but they are trying with all their might to complete what was begun in 1985 — 1993. Hence the pension “reform”, which robbed people, new taxes on taxes, the growth of tariffs, food prices, gasoline. Preparing Pension Reform-2. People who have privatized the state are trying by all means to get rid of social obligations, transfer the people, school, health care system, etc. to "self-sufficiency."

“And the eyes of new generations” are now increasingly turning to “the deeds and victories of our socialist Fatherland”. So, in the spring of 2019, the level of Stalin’s approval in the Russian Federation beat up historical record. A survey of the Levada Center showed that 70% of the country's citizens positively assess Stalin's role in history. And almost half of the Russians are ready to justify the repressions of the Stalin era.

Matter of his life


Why did our society remember Stalin? After all, everything that was done in the Stalin era was subjected to censure from the highest stands and all the leading media. He was condemned and rejected both as a person and as a statesman. But Stalin was not forgotten, as liberals and Westerners desired and desire. Not forgotten due to what is happening on the political expanses of the former USSR. Reality makes us remember both about him personally and about the business he served.

It makes you remember under the yoke of ordinary, everyday reality. When a huge mass of people live in poverty, in poverty or on the verge of poverty. And at the same time, billionaire oligarchs and multimillionaires are becoming even richer every year. When colonels of power structures find stolen billions (!) Of rubles, millions of currency and valuables, not counting elite property. When governors flee abroad with stolen billions of national money. When our resources go to the West and East, and the currency received for them goes there too. When feuds are sown between the peoples of the former USSR (great Russia), they are waging war. When politics is carried out not in the interests of a power and people, but in the interests of foreign governments and centers of influence. When the great Russian people dies out. When the school is destroyed, and youth is turned into stupid consumer slaves. You can continue for a long time.

So ordinary people think: “I would try with him! ..” They recall real, not virtual victories. Under Stalin, such armed forces were built that, despite the military catastrophes of 1941 – 1942, defeated the best forces of the West - the Third Reich, and the East - militaristic Japan. After the victory of the 1945 of the year, the Soviet Army was the most powerful army on the planet, so the United States and Great Britain were afraid to immediately unleash a new “hot” world war, and began a “cold” - information war. Two generations of Soviet people lived in peace.

Stalin contributed to the cultural development of the people, the spread of mass physical education, and not defective professional sports (where professional athletes become millionaires, and the masses spend time drinking beer and TVs, overgrown with fat and sores). They skillfully coped with drunkenness, but there was no talk of drugs as a social disease. The Soviet leader did not fight vodka; he fought during the time of the Soviet people. Therefore, they actively developed physical education, amateur sports. Each enterprise and institution had a team and athletes from its employees, employees. All more or less large enterprises had and maintained their own stadium (not for professionals, but for their employees). We played and went in for sports practically everything and in all kinds. Also actively developed active recreation of people. Since Stalin, parks have remained in all cities of the Union. They were available to all citizens. They had a reading and playing halls (chess, checkers, billiards), a dance floor, a summer theater, ice cream sales, etc.

Under Stalin, the power in the most difficult starting conditions and as soon as possible rushed forward and not only overcame the lag behind the developed West, but became a superpower, a civilization of the future, a beacon for all mankind. This means that the state needed a mass of smart, educated people, skilled personnel in various fields of life. And this was indeed so, since Stalin attached great importance to the intellectual development of Soviet citizens. He himself was an intelligent man and strove to ensure that the whole country was reasonable. Hence, such attention to science and education. The Soviet school, relying on the best traditions of the Russian classical school-gymnasium, became the best in the world. In the USSR-Russia, so much has never been done to provide people with knowledge - the basis for reason and creativity. The Stalinist government in every way contributed to the development of domestic science and technology, the introduction of new technologies.

In his political testament, “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” (1952), Stalin directly wrote:
“It is necessary ... to achieve such a cultural growth of society that would ensure all members of the society comprehensive development of their physical and mental abilities, so that members of society have the opportunity to receive an education sufficient to become active workers in social development, so that they have the opportunity to freely choose a profession and not be chained for life, due to the existing division of labor, to any profession. "


That is, Stalin understood that access to knowledge lies at the heart of the Western slaveholding "pyramid", a consumer society with the division of people into consumer slaves and masters of the "elect". Knowledge (information) is the key to the future of mankind.

In the field of economics, Stalin organized the crisis-free development of the national economy. While the whole world, based on the basis of the capitalist system, writhed in crisis, the USSR moved forward by leaps and bounds. The secret of the “Soviet miracle” is the refusal of loan usurious interest and in the planned system. This made it possible to transform the country from an agrarian-industrial to an industrial giant, to become the leading economy of Europe, to successfully prepare for a world war, and twice to raise the country from the ashes - unrest and war. And even begin to steadily lower prices for consumer goods, without raising the cost. For example, if in modern Russia wages increase, then prices and tariffs increase simultaneously, which allows usurious structures to cash in on the people.

If the Stalinist planning system had been preserved and reasonably improved, and Stalin understood the need to improve the socialist economy (it was not without reason that in 1952 his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” appeared), if the task of further improving the living standards of the people was put in the first place ( the task of creating heavy industry, engineering and the military-industrial complex was basically solved), by 1970, we would already be in the top three countries with the highest standard of living. At the same time, the inertia of the Stalinist economy was so powerful, its plans and personnel resources were so outstanding that even with the voluntarism of Khrushchev and the apathy of Brezhnev, the country continued to develop.

Thus, Stalin implemented the concept of a fair living arrangement in the USSR-Russia (communism is the life of a commune-community on the basis of an ethics of conscience and truth). The civilization of the future came into being - a society of knowledge, service and creation, where creators and creators lived. Stalin's job is to make people's lives happy, joyful, and creative. Therefore, in Russia there is a revival of popular Stalinism.

To be continued ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

722 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Spartanez300 30 October 2019 15: 06 New
    • 79
    • 7
    +72
    It would not be bad if Stalin’s prophecy was actually realized and the descendants would build their future on the example of the past.

    1. Greg Miller 30 October 2019 15: 12 New
      • 115
      • 11
      +104
      Something like that:
      1. depressant 30 October 2019 15: 28 New
        • 112
        • 11
        +101
        And I, a skeptic and a cynic, as I said a year ago:

        Long live the great Stalin!

        In the current historical conditions, Joseph Vissarionovich is the only authority for me.
        Stalin is more alive than all politicians who are now living.
        1. vladimirZ 30 October 2019 16: 48 New
          • 50
          • 6
          +44
          Time and memory of people will inevitably clear the name of I.V. Stalin from dirt and slander, but this is not the main thing in this inevitable historical process. The main and most important thing in it is the revival of a socially just society and state based on the ideas of socialism-communism, social equality of people, to which Stalin and the Communist Party strove.

          Moreover, the very process of building a communist society, as a very distant and difficult to achieve goal, should serve only as a guideline to which humanity should strive for many centuries. And the main thing here will not even be the creation of an abundance of material wealth for people, the hardest thing will be from generation to generation to bring up new people whose public interests will be higher than personal ones.
          The peoples simply do not have another way, capitalism leads only to wars, discord and the eternal enslavement of people by capital and the exploiting classes.

          And in this historical movement, the example of Russia and our people is vivid proof of this, since on our own fate, for one generation of people, we felt the loss of a socially just USSR and the enslavement of the predatory predatory capitalism of modern Russia, we knew what was and what became , and the choice of the majority of the people for socialism is communism, which was proved by I.V. Stalin.
          1. polk26l 31 October 2019 05: 14 New
            • 7
            • 3
            +4
            Well said! I completely agree!
            1. Vladimir16 31 October 2019 08: 11 New
              • 7
              • 31
              -24
              Quote: polk26l
              a socially just society and state based on the ideas of socialism-communism, the social equality of people, to which Stalin and the Communist Party strove.

              The Communist Party privatized the country.
              At first, revolutionaries nationalized all property. Everything that people have created for centuries has been nationalized.
              Then by joint efforts it was created no less, and maybe more.
              And then the greedy communists privatized everything. They threw past owners and the whole Russian people.

              The communists turned out to be greedy people.

              We need a fair social society. But let's leave the greedy communists in the past. Do not step on the same rake.

              Stalin was essentially an autocrat. He did not care for the party. He lifted our country from his knees. Country, but not the Communist Party.
              1. sir.jonn 31 October 2019 09: 33 New
                • 15
                • 4
                +11
                Quote: Vladimir16
                Stalin was essentially an autocrat. He did not care for the party. He lifted our country from his knees. Country, but not the Communist Party.

                To lift the country off its knees, he used the Communist Party, and the Communist Party itself was the focus of the ideas of the new Russia.
                1. Vladimir16 31 October 2019 13: 06 New
                  • 8
                  • 21
                  -13
                  Definitely.
                  You have elevated the Communist Party to religious status. Replaced Jesus with the Communist Party. Only the opposite result - your idol and robbed you.
                  After all, the fact that the Communists divided and robbed the country.
                  At least bruise your forehead, but it is a fact.
                  And your minuses will never return the country.

                  Communists are evil. They are possessed.

                  But people perceived Stalin as the new tsar. They just called it differently — the leader (they could have put him behind the king to the wall).
                  And Vissarionitch ruled as an autocrat. And I felt responsibility for the country as an autocrat. And the result is the same - with the name of the autocrat, people went on the attack protecting the country from European trash.
                  Like centuries before.


                  And the communists are ordinary greedy grabbers who decided to enter paradise on someone else's hump.

                  The trouble is that the Communists have eradicated Orthodoxy among people, and in return they have decided to give their greedy essence. But in the end, the money ate everything human (Orthodox) in them and the essence remained - corrupt Judas.
                  1. sir.jonn 31 October 2019 15: 25 New
                    • 2
                    • 2
                    0
                    Quote: Vladimir16
                    You have elevated the Communist Party to religious status. Replaced Jesus with the Communist Party. Only the opposite result - your idol and robbed you.

                    So it was at all times! Since man learned to manipulate other people, creating all kinds of idols, many religions have perished. They absorb each other, absorbing the most reliable ways to control the human mind. The ancient gods were replaced by socialism and capitalism over time, in the same way something new will replace them over time. The censure of outgoing values ​​and the exaltation of new ones will remain unchanged.
                  2. Crest46 31 October 2019 16: 01 New
                    • 6
                    • 3
                    +3
                    I completely agree with you. After the collapse of the Union, the people did not come to the Orthodox faith, and they destroyed the ideology. Now we are reaping the fruits of unbelief and separation ...
                    1. Roman070280 1 November 2019 11: 36 New
                      • 5
                      • 5
                      0
                      What is wrong with unbelief ??
                      More precisely - what is bad in the belief that there are no gods in heaven ?? After all, they are not there .. this is even the oldest grandmother deep in the brain understands ..
                      Despite the fact that she had been driven around her ears all her life ..
                      No need for a new generation to pour this nonsense into their ears .. let’s better look at the next series from Stephen Hawking - How the Universe works ..
                      And it’s time to get out of the head for a long time .. The 21st century is in the yard, and the madmen continue to pay Gundyaeva Rolexes and flights to dachas in the Krasnodar Territory ..
                  3. aybolyt678 31 October 2019 22: 52 New
                    • 12
                    • 1
                    +11
                    Quote: Vladimir16
                    The trouble is that the Communists have eradicated Orthodoxy among people

                    there cannot be two Suns in the sky (Chinese saying) laughing
                    Quote: Vladimir16
                    Communists are evil. They are possessed.

                    better to be a holy fool? smile
                    Quote: Vladimir16
                    Replaced Jesus with the Communist Party.
                    you have everything in a bunch! No one replaced Jesus - how can you replace him? He is a monument! ?? wassat
                    But the teachings of Marx and Lenin replaced the Bible, Stalin successfully continued the work of Jesus Christ, and achieved, it must be admitted, more. It is a pity that there were no worthy apostles.
                    But in general, seriously, do not confuse the Party under Stalin and the Party under Gorbachev. It’s not even different parties, it’s different countries!
                  4. savage1976 1 November 2019 01: 12 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    I agree with you. There is nothing to add.
                2. Pilat2009 31 October 2019 16: 14 New
                  • 0
                  • 3
                  -3
                  Quote: sir.jonn
                  and the Communist Party itself was the concentration of the ideas of the new Russia.

                  Any party degrades over time
                  1. Mavrikiy 1 November 2019 10: 28 New
                    • 4
                    • 1
                    +3
                    Quote: Pilat2009

                    Any party degrades over time
                    The fish rots from the head. You need to change the holoca more often and everything will be OK. (who will change? Father of the people). Ivan the Terrible cut, not cut. Peter 1 didn’t cut, Lenin didn’t, but Stalin didn’t. It is more necessary that Mikayanov should not be slipped to us instead of Stalin (had a discussion on the VO site a couple of years ago about a possible wonderful ruler, in the person of Mikayan).
              2. ASASHOKA 31 October 2019 15: 03 New
                • 12
                • 0
                +12
                The communist to the communist discord !!! It is both Man and Man.
                As soon as the real leader of the country died, the jackals began to fight the individuals who had adapted at the trough for the legacy he had built. After all, much has been done (they still tear this heritage to pieces and will not divide it in any way). And this happened because not everywhere on the ground (from top to bottom) they were able to resist the temptation to have more in their pockets than their neighbors, and our geopolitical rival, the West, by actively playing on this, made our state "elite" pliable and susceptible to trinkets. They bought it. And such "communists", who essentially jumped from this high pedestal but still wore this title, became ordinary adaptants to the "new realities" - nepotism, bribery, protestation, theft of state property, and so on and so forth. - These vices are known. Therefore, I still consider a communist those who were in the era of Stalin, and then they began to extort and humiliate this worthy title with astronomical speed, and it was precisely such opportunists who began to do so. If they were thrown out of the party in a timely manner, then the Communist would have sounded proud (Better less, better!).
                1. AEF
                  AEF 1 November 2019 00: 16 New
                  • 7
                  • 0
                  +7
                  You are right that after JV Stalin the power in the country was seized by the “Khrushchev group”, which was guided only by the goal of strengthening their personal power ambitions, disregarding the opinion of ordinary communists, and, in most cases, and tending to the true, real communists - patriots.
                  The people, even under the rule of the Khrushchev, called him the "maize", thereby expressing their attitude towards him. The people did not expect such moronism of power under his "leadership", and people even then began to express their dissatisfaction with the "results of his domestic policy."
                  Events in Novocherkassk - this is what he led the country for several years of his reign.
                  Khrushchev - ok, and a pygmy who penetrated power under the guise of a party membership card and proximity to the country's top leadership.
                  The party began to seek people who want to get a "warm place" in the offices, careerists and swindlers, such as "Yeltsin and the hunchback", who ruined the country of the USSR.
                  The coat of arms of today's Russia is a double-headed eagle. So it symbolizes today's elite of power in the country.
                  One "head" always looks west, thereby expressing the pro-Western policy of the Medvedev Government and its fulfillment of all the requirements of the IMF and other "Western governing structures."
                  And the second “head” - President Vladimir Putin, got off his feet, wandering around the country and around the world, settling “crises” and establishing “cooperation”, trying to “please everyone” and “not offend anyone”. But who will come after him, and where will Russia turn?
                2. MrK
                  MrK 2 November 2019 12: 39 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  I agree. By the way. V.I. Lenin strongly opposed the reckless increase in the number of party members, which later became involved in the CPSU, starting with Khrushchev. In his work, “The Childish Disease of Leftism in Communism,” he wrote: “We are afraid of the party’s over-expansion, for careerists and crooks who deserve only to be shot are inevitably clinging to the party.”
                3. ver_ 2 November 2019 12: 44 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  .... Duc didn’t * die * his death - the accomplices got rid of the murderer ...
              3. oracul 1 November 2019 09: 06 New
                • 9
                • 1
                +8
                For your information. There was Lenin’s warning that people with different views and interests would aspire to the ruling party, especially when it would be one. This is one thing. Another - during the years of World War II, millions of true communists went to the front and died for their homeland, lost health in the rear, providing the front. If this were not so, the country would not have resisted, the people would not have believed the Communists .. But their place was gradually taken by precisely those other people who outwardly spoke and stood up for a cause in which they did not believe. So it is not necessary to blame the greed of all the Communists, since the state was destroyed, and then the management and income, as Berezovsky used to say, were precisely degenerates.
              4. Artunis 7 November 2019 15: 43 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Or maybe all the same, the Communists were not Communists at all judging by their affairs? And what do you mean by a just social society? Classics of Marxism generally read? Or do you know only from the media that they are "byak"? In the 3rd Reich, too, there was a fair social society in its own way, but the question always arises - but "at whose expense is the banquet"? And in ancient Rome everything was logical and fair and socially even, but only for citizens - it did not apply to slaves! So be more careful with labels!
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. vlad106 2 November 2019 20: 56 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: vladimirZ
            Time and memory of people will inevitably clear the name of I.V. Stalin from dirt and slander ...

            That is why the Zionists hate Stalin?
            But he helped the Jews create the state of Israel ...
            they are ungrateful. (people cannot name the language)
            1. vladimirZ 3 November 2019 06: 57 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              That is why the Zionists hate Stalin? - vlad106 (Vlad)

              It depends on what and whom you consider Zionists. Zionism includes various movements from left-socialist to orthodox-religious.
              Common-minded common people, Jews are grateful to I. Stalin for their help in creating their own state of Israel.
              You did not listen to the speech of the politician publicist, former intelligence officer and former Soviet citizen Jacob Kedmi? He quite often appears on our TV, his many appearances on the Internet, by the way, he voices the attitude of Jews towards the USSR, I. Stalin, the collapse of the USSR, the traitors who destroyed the Union, and their position is favorable to us.
              And if you perceive Zionism as a “form of racism and racial discrimination” to other peoples in its various forms, this is another matter. But this is not entirely true. In the Jewish people, as in any other, a healthy core is good people, but like others there is a negative that people of other nationalities do not like, but the whole people cannot be judged by this negativity, this is not true.
              1. tesser 3 November 2019 08: 41 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                Quote: vladimirZ
                Sensible common people Jews are grateful to I. Stalin

                For the cause of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee.
                Quote: vladimirZ
                didn’t you listen to the former Soviet citizen Yakov Kedmi? He often appears on our TV,

                And where he appears, at Signor Soloviev, another Jew. It's hard to add anything to this, but I will add.

                If someone suddenly wonders what kind of Jews the GB at one time lodged with the Anti-Zionist Committee of the Soviet public, then the former Soviet citizens Kedmi and Soloviev remained, they can tell and show.

                Somewhere I heard that tragedies happen during the Brit Mila: the old mole-eyed moel can mix up and throw out the poor child. And the foreskin continues to live, impersonate a person, grow in ranks, like Gogol's Nose. Maybe it’s true, I don’t know.
        2. tihonmarine 30 October 2019 17: 43 New
          • 21
          • 3
          +18
          Quote: depressant
          And I, a skeptic and a cynic, as I said a year ago:
          Long live the great Stalin!
          I am not a skeptic or a cynic, and I also support your words.
        3. Ehanatone 30 October 2019 19: 58 New
          • 20
          • 2
          +18
          "Stalin is more alive than all now living politicians"
          Yeah, the cadaver carries from all these Nabibulin and Medvedev with the Silunavs a mile away ...
          and they try to drag us away behind the heights behind us ..
        4. nickname7 31 October 2019 06: 41 New
          • 15
          • 2
          +13
          There is one more point, that then there was a civil war and a severe crisis, Stalin - led during the civil war. A civil war is a terrible war where the population destroys each other. All horrors are the result of a citizen. Stalin was just doing his job at that time of crisis. The Russian so-called pseudo-liberals completely ignore the then-calls of a citizen, interventionists, hunger, banditry, etc.
          Any politician of times of crisis and war can be mixed with mud or, on the contrary, exalted, it is a matter of political will.
          British Stalin - Churchill, did quite a few bad things, but among the Angchians, he is the greatest.
          As Churchill ordered the food to be taken out of Bengal, the millionth country literally died out, the cities were filled with corpses, so BBS writes that this is (just) a stain in Churchill's biography, they say there was a big flow of information, you can’t keep track of everything, it happened so.
          Or Churchill’s statement about the use of toxic gases -

          “I can’t understand this squeamishness with regard to the use of gas,” he wrote when he worked at the Ministry of War in 1919. “I am a staunch supporter of the use of poison gas against uncivilized tribes.”
          They hire excellent word masters who neutralize the bad and put in good light.
          But we have made a political decision to shame on Stalin, which is sad.
        5. New Year day 31 October 2019 09: 02 New
          • 25
          • 4
          +21
          Quote: depressant
          And I, a skeptic and a cynic, as I said a year ago:

          Long live the great Stalin!

        6. peta locksmith 31 October 2019 12: 34 New
          • 10
          • 2
          +8
          "In the current historical conditions, Joseph Vissarionovich is the only authority for me" - you can’t say more precisely
          for all of us - the only authority
          1. ver_ 5 November 2019 11: 58 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            ... strange - my parents modestly carried out a portrait of Stalin from the room into the pantry after his death .. - well, they loved him so much - I won’t save ..
        7. smart ass 1 November 2019 08: 58 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          I think under Stalin, pension reform would not have worked, I definitely vote for Stalin
        8. Wolverine 1 November 2019 12: 47 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: depressant
          And I, a skeptic and a cynic, as I said a year ago:

          Long live the great Stalin!

          In the current historical conditions, Joseph Vissarionovich is the only authority for me.
          Stalin is more alive than all politicians who are now living.


          Portraits of Stalin are in the officials' offices and they themselves will die of malice and bile.
        9. Barzha 7 November 2019 15: 08 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And I always say that Stalin’s personality is too large to try to evaluate it now, in our time. It’s the same as considering, say, I. Aivazovsky’s painting “The Ninth Wave”, with his nose buried in it. Truly Stalin can only be estimated in 150-200 years. Because, as they say, "everything big is seen from a distance." Take, for example, the personality of Peter I. After all, the tyrant was a tyrant, of which there are few. Not that "hands to the elbow in blood", but the whole of Russia was flooded with blood - Mother Russia almost drowned in that blood. However, for what he accomplished in terms of the development of the Russian state, we call him GREAT!
      2. AU Ivanov. 30 October 2019 15: 41 New
        • 34
        • 6
        +28
        Stalin, in the first place, was a Patriot. That's right - with a capital letter.
        1. Chit 30 October 2019 17: 15 New
          • 17
          • 84
          -67
          Both of my grandfathers who died in the Second World War were no less patriots. And they have the right to ask the question: how did it happen that the great leader and best friend of the military and all the others miscalculated so much with the outbreak of war?
          On what basis did he consider only his opinion to be the only true one? Why the fifth grader in June 41 could ask himself: what will happen if Hitler still attacks first?
          But the great strategist did not even allow such a thought. He believed that he had outwitted everything. Although the position was obliged to provide for all war scenarios, including the most negative.
          And what is the result?
          Unheard of rout of the entire personnel spacecraft in June 1941
          Tens of millions of dead Soviet soldiers and civilians. But there could be fewer of them ...
          1. Dart2027 30 October 2019 17: 35 New
            • 44
            • 11
            +33
            Quote: Chit
            Why the fifth grader in June of the 41st could ask himself: what will happen if Hitler still attacks first?

            Because if Stalin was the first to attack, the defeat would be even worse. In 1941, the German army was better - alas, these are the facts. In addition, there was a chance that you would have to fight not only with Germany, but also with England and the United States.
            1. Chit 30 October 2019 18: 13 New
              • 12
              • 59
              -47
              What is meant by the word "better"?
              Did the Germans have more tanks?
              Airplanes?
              Artillery guns?
              Personnel?
              So I will disappoint you. Absolute superiority in armament and manpower in 1941 was on the side of the USSR.
              I bothered to get acquainted with the statistics. She is freely available. You will be very surprised.
              1. AU Ivanov. 30 October 2019 18: 27 New
                • 40
                • 3
                +37
                What is better? The Germans had much better control, the interaction between the armed forces. They excelled us in operational and tactical art, in logistics. Finally, the structure of units, in comparison with ours, was more perfect. Amount of military equipment, especially aviation? Here in the first place is the quality of weapons and the level of training of specialists. We pulled ourselves up to the German level only in 1943
                1. Chit 30 October 2019 18: 45 New
                  • 14
                  • 58
                  -44
                  What kind of weapons can we talk about?
                  You do not know that the Soviet artillery systems were the best in the world for 1941?
                  You do not know that the Germans did not even have anything closely similar to the T-34 and KV?
                  Regarding logistics, operational and tactical art, all questions are to Comrade Stalin, who is sculpted on this branch on a monument.
                  If Comrade Stalin had preoccupied on the eve of the war not with the mass arrests and executions of the high command of the Red Army, but with the same logistics, there would have been more sense.
                  1. AU Ivanov. 30 October 2019 19: 15 New
                    • 39
                    • 4
                    +35
                    And you compare the engine life of thirty-fours and HF with German Pz. Compare crew training. The radioification of tanks and, associated with it, the management of units. Lack of vehicles in tank units, as a result of this lack of fuel and ammunition. Lack of air cover. You think that over 10 years of industrialization it was technically possible to equip the Red Army. The much more technologically advanced France and Britain leaked the war in 5 weeks. There to whom questions?
                    1. Chit 30 October 2019 20: 14 New
                      • 13
                      • 57
                      -44
                      But where does the motor resource, if Soviet tanks burned at the very border? Some even did not have time to move. For they were located not in the depths, but near the border. Moreover, often without fuel and ammunition. Whose fault is this configuration of forces
                      My? Or Stalin and Zhukov?
                      Regarding the training of crews, to whom do you claim? To Guderian? Gotu? To Manstein?
                      Or to the Soviet commanders led by Stalin? The same Stalin who created the system of his sole power? The same Stalin who missed the start of the war? The same Stalin, because of the grossest political and military mistakes which killed tens of millions of people? Including my both grandfathers? The same Stalin, without whose order no one would begin the radioification of the same tanks?
                      About the cover from the air. Is it a smart move to make airfields to the border itself? Why do I understand that in this situation the very first German air strike would destroy everything, but Comrade Stalin had not thought of that before?
                      There is nothing to blame on France. She did not flood the enemy with the corpses of her soldiers. Yes, she capitulated quickly. But compare the French losses with ours!
                      As for Britain, she started the war with Germany at a time when the Kremlin raised glasses for the health of Adolf Hitler. Then she fought all 5 years. And she accepted the surrender of Germany along with the USSR.
                      1. Something 30 October 2019 20: 39 New
                        • 35
                        • 8
                        +27
                        Quote: Chit
                        As for Britain, she started the war with Germany at a time when the Kremlin raised glasses for the health of Adolf Hitler. Then she fought all 5 years.

                        Do not write nonsense, the fate of victory over fascism was decided on the fronts of the USSR, and not Great Britain!
                        Chit, you are not tired of pretending to be a fool here, a liberal strategist ... The question of the beginning of the war was repeatedly before you. There were very big miscalculations in command and control, and the Germans (saboteurs) at the beginning of the war did much to disorganize the Red Army and, of course, the actions of Stalin himself and to a greater extent of his environment.
                        And it is not necessary here to bring confusion and enmity in the minds of Russians towards Stalin. The Russians are not going to sprinkle their heads with ash and make excuses to provocateurs and your narrow-minded friends from abroad for past historical events like you!
                      2. Vladimir16 31 October 2019 08: 29 New
                        • 16
                        • 5
                        +11
                        Quote: Chit
                        You are not aware that ...

                        Shit (or how to read his anostranny rattle correctly?) Read Suvorov. Not a Russian commander, but a traitor who escaped from the country by cowardice and spilled slops.
                        Shit, everyone has a head on their shoulders to think for themselves.
                        And repeat the said parrot case.

                        Even minus you put zapadlo.

                        ps shit is that shit?
                      3. peta locksmith 31 October 2019 12: 37 New
                        • 9
                        • 1
                        +8
                        shit is that shit?

                        yes, stupid and smelly
                  2. evgic 30 October 2019 21: 15 New
                    • 12
                    • 3
                    +9
                    Your incompetence, spilled out from the depths of a sick consciousness, is striking in its depth and versatility. In other words, with your knowledge of history, only sheep graze.
                  3. The comment was deleted.
                  4. astronom1973n 31 October 2019 07: 11 New
                    • 9
                    • 1
                    +8
                    Quote: Chit
                    As for Britain, she started the war with Germany at a time when the Kremlin raised glasses for the health of Adolf Hitler.

                    Oh yes, I fought !!!!! Dunkirk-it was cool!))) After this "great" battle, and made from water pipes))))
                  5. EvilLion 31 October 2019 08: 20 New
                    • 12
                    • 4
                    +8
                    Questions about tanks without fuel to the traitor Pavlov, all incidents of outright idiocy occurred in his district, including the shameful encirclement of an entire division in the Brest Fortress. All orders were sent to him ahead of time.

                    French losses 100%. The army ceased to exist, raising its hands and heading into captivity. The question is, in FIG such an army was needed at all? For some reason, our grandfathers wanted to do so much less.
                  6. tesser 31 October 2019 08: 48 New
                    • 4
                    • 16
                    -12
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    raising his hands and heading captive. The question is, in FIG such an army was needed at all? For some reason, our grandfathers wanted to do so much less.

                    Umm. I would not raise the issue of prisoners following the summer of the 41st.

                    It is another matter that Comrade Stalin's army of the 41st year, as it turned out, was not the last.
                  7. Sergey Zhikharev 31 October 2019 18: 05 New
                    • 5
                    • 0
                    +5
                    After an unexpected attack, after the defeat, the USSR continued to fight and won.
                    France had six months of training, quickly lost, but having the resources (south of France, colonies in Africa, South America, Asia) surrendered.
                  8. strannik1985 31 October 2019 18: 19 New
                    • 1
                    • 3
                    -2
                    The Soviet method (permanent mobilization) is not suitable for the French, the sizes are not the same. To continue to fight it is necessary to fight at the operational level no worse than the Germans.
                  9. tesser 31 October 2019 18: 35 New
                    • 2
                    • 7
                    -5
                    Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                    but having resources (south of France, colonies in Africa, South America, Asia) surrendered.

                    Have you heard anything about "Fighting France"?
                  10. Dart2027 31 October 2019 19: 55 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    Quote: tesser
                    "Fighting France"

                    Seven divisions of the “Fighting France” participated in the Allied landings in Normandy in 1944, and one squadron fought on the eastern front.
                    Not enough
                  11. tesser 31 October 2019 20: 06 New
                    • 1
                    • 6
                    -5
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    Not enough

                    8 divisions for partisans in essence?
                  12. Dart2027 31 October 2019 20: 12 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: tesser
                    for partisans in fact

                    Quote: Dart2027
                    participated in the Allied landings in Normandy in 1944

                    It’s not really partisans.
                  13. tesser 31 October 2019 23: 58 New
                    • 1
                    • 5
                    -4
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    It’s not really partisans.

                    On someone else's grub? Pretty well. And in the spring of the 45th there were 1,5 million people under arms.
                  14. Dart2027 1 November 2019 05: 58 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: tesser
                    On someone else's grub?

                    And England and the United States have always sought to fight with the wrong hands, even if it was necessary to pay for it, so if there was an opportunity to collect more, they would have done it without hesitation.
                  15. tesser 1 November 2019 06: 33 New
                    • 1
                    • 5
                    -4
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    be there the opportunity to collect more

                    In Dakar and Syria?
                  16. Dart2027 1 November 2019 08: 56 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: tesser
                    In Dakar and Syria?

                    When an ally landed in the African colonies of France, they had to fight the French army. Not that until the last cartridge, but nonetheless.
      3. Sergey Zhikharev 1 November 2019 10: 41 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        And where is such a country located?
        I'm serious.
        The organization (“fighting France”, “fighting Denmark”, “fighting Japan”, “fighting Germany”) is not a country. And even if they continue to fight for at least 10 years - they don’t change the essence, the country has lost.
    2. Doliva63 31 October 2019 20: 57 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
      After an unexpected attack, after the defeat, the USSR continued to fight and won.
      France had six months of training, quickly lost, but having the resources (south of France, colonies in Africa, South America, Asia) surrendered.

      Between the case, p / n 58447 does not mean anything? If not, squeeze it.
  2. strannik1985 31 October 2019 18: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Is that all? When was mobilization announced in BelOVO?
  3. chenia 31 October 2019 10: 56 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Quote: Chit
    Regarding the training of crews, to whom do you claim?


    The fact that we had more equipment and weapons was precisely the merit of Stalin, and the fact that the BP was failed was the fault of the general of the Red Army.
    As soon as you understand this, you will understand the reasons for the failures at the beginning of the war.
  4. Pravodel 31 October 2019 12: 13 New
    • 12
    • 2
    +10
    Dear, still Lenin V.I. performed by Schukin in one of the films of the early 30s he used to say: one can ask so many questions that 1000 smart ones will not answer.
    No need to pretend to be a simpleton and thereby try to hide his liberal nature. She looks through your every question, crawls, and asks: here I am, a liberal, now all of you morons who believe in Stalin will be destroyed by a smart question ... No matter how it is, in Russia there have long been few fools who are pecking at such a liberal chatter. The people of Russia have perfectly understood who really cares for Russia, the Fatherland, the people, and who strives to pick this people up and sell their Motherland to Russia. So that "our cause is just, the enemy will be defeated, victory will be ours." And you better speak somewhere on the Echo of Moscow, Rain, etc. together with the local screamers such as Svanidze, Sobchak, Albats, Borovoy, Venediktov, Gaidar M., Gudkov, Kiselev E., Ponomarev, Shenderovich, etc. - here are some. Add to this a worthy HSE professor, one has already become too famous for his ruffian remarks about Russia, the Russian language and the people of Russia. The country should know its “heroes”, all those who are trying to destroy it, destroy it, sell it to our sworn friends, not even for a penny, but for a bowl of pottage at the kennel of wolfhounds who have been rattled about Russia.
    And now to the point. An attempt to destroy, to belittle the greatness of Stalin, putting all the flaws of the first period of the war on him is a wasteful, waste of time, firstly, because miscalculations, wrong decisions are made by any leader, any person that Stalin was, and secondly , when comparing, when evaluating the activity of a particular leader or manager, it is necessary to evaluate the entire period, and not to snatch some separate, even extremely unpleasant, periods from history. Yes, no doubt, the initial period of the Second World War was terrible for the Fatherland. The question was generally about the survival of the people themselves, the Fatherland. But this is the greatness of the leader, the leader, that despite the colossal losses and setbacks of the initial period of the war, the Great leader mobilizes, mobilizes the country, people and, ultimately, wins the war, which seemed to be lost at the initial stage. The Great Patriotic War won is a feat of Stalin himself as the head of state, a feat of the people led by Stalin, a feat of our Red Army, which knew that it was fighting for the Motherland, for the Fatherland, for the people, for Stalin. And you, liberal friends, this feat can never be belittled and destroyed. You’ll leave, the tears of lies and reproach of our Motherland, Fatherland grown up by you, will go into oblivion, and the truth about the feat of the people led by Stalin, the truth about the creation of Stalin, about the power that the Motherland has reached under his leadership, will shine and light the way for all patriots Russia, to all those for whom the fate of Russia, the Fatherland is his fate, and not a piece of bread on the outskirts of liberal and Anglo-Saxon history ...

    "People-State-Fatherland" is the slogan of every Russian patriot. A strong state, a united people, a prosperous country for centuries, which cannot be broken by internal and external enemies.
  5. TANKISTONE 1 November 2019 17: 21 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    For current managers: "The tax of the state-fatherland" ...
  6. Sergey Zhikharev 31 October 2019 18: 01 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    As for Britain, she calmly negotiated with Germany and indulged the Nazis, while the USSR was already at war with the Nazis in Spain.
  7. tesser 31 October 2019 18: 37 New
    • 2
    • 9
    -7
    Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
    she calmly negotiated with Germany and indulged the Nazis, while the USSR was already at war with the Nazis in Spain.

    You see, at first the USSR fought, and Britain agreed, then Britain fought, the USSR agreed, then all the same. It’s a matter of gain.
  8. Sergey Zhikharev 1 November 2019 10: 48 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Profitable.
    When the USSR called "let's unite and stop together - with little blood," England and France chose to come to an agreement. And then.....
  9. tesser 1 November 2019 11: 48 New
    • 2
    • 8
    -6
    Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
    let's unite and stop together - with little blood

    As the Red Army stops the Germans, it showed in the 39th year in Poland, more precisely, Western Belarus and Western Ukraine. No one, primarily Poland, expected anything else from the USSR. In the 39th, the mentioned option from Stetsin in the Baltic Sea to Trieste in the Adriatic was not yet suitable.
  10. Sergey Zhikharev 1 November 2019 16: 04 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Ethiopia, Spain and Czechoslovakia showed how Great Britain and France stop the fascists (you can also recall China, Japan was stopped there). After all, in the years 1934-1938 it was possible to unite and jointly beat the Nazis. England and France preferred to negotiate (and actually pretend to be fascists) rather than stop the aggressors. When the USSR to some extent did the same thing as England and France did, for some reason it became bad.
    KA Germans in 1939 did not stop. And there was no option for an alliance between the USSR, England and France. If there would be an alliance, and the SC, instead of fighting, would prefer to put up with it, while AiF were fighting, then your claims against the USSR would still be justified.
    But there was no union, and claims to the USSR were bypassed.
    By the way, how did Western Ukraine and Western Belarus become part of Poland?
    Maybe that's why Poland did not want to negotiate with the USSR?
    If Poland expected only a “stab in the back” from the USSR, then it might have been better to establish friendship with its neighbors? With Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, finally with Germany to solve problems through negotiations?
    In the 39th, the mentioned option from Stetsin in the Baltic Sea to Trieste in the Adriatic was not yet suitable.

    More details, please
  11. tesser 1 November 2019 17: 37 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -3
    Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
    how Britain and France stop fascists showed Ethiopia

    Did someone stop them?
    Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
    Spain

    Stop the Nazis and surrender Spain to Comrade Negrin? What for?
    Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
    and Czechoslovakia

    Yes, it turned out ugly. On the other hand, in the Sudetenland, so you know, by the 38th fall, demonstrations were going German speaking, german worldthat's all. So outwardly everything looked relatively civilized, we went to meet the appeals of citizens, so to speak.
    Comrade Stalin, for example, could not refuse two years later to the working people of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, who suddenly wanted to in the USSR. At least, according to the USSR, they wanted this.
    Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
    If there would be an alliance, and the SC, instead of fighting, would prefer to put up with it, while AiF were fighting, then your claims against the USSR would still be justified.
    But there was no union, and claims to the USSR were bypassed.

    You see, it seems I was misunderstood. I do not oblige the late comrade. Stalin's being a girl in this brothel. Everyone there was good, including the poor, dismembered Poles. However, fans of Comrade Stalin, like himself, liked to try on a white coat of the most important and irreconcilable fighters against fascism in general and with Mr. Hitler in particular. This is in vain.
    Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
    By the way, how did Western Ukraine and Western Belarus become part of Poland?

    What confuses you? You do not ask how Eastern Ukraine and Eastern Belarus had anything to do with the RSFSR.
    Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
    maybe it was better to establish friendship with neighbors? With Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, finally with Germany to solve problems through negotiations?

    Give a corridor? Perhaps that would be reasonable. Although the devil knows him. Friendship with Lithuania against the Reich and the USSR would hardly have helped, Czechoslovakia was no longer there at that time. By the way, it was divided by Germany, Hungary and Poland, not England and not France.
  12. Sergey Zhikharev 1 November 2019 19: 54 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Did someone stop them?

    AIF - no one. But Italy had begun to stop the aggression against Ethiopia. England and France themselves, on the contrary, actually helped Italy (let no one intervene, this is the business of Italy and Ethiopia).
    Stop the Nazis and surrender Spain to Comrade Negrin? What for?

    Franco - a rebel, rebelled, why not leave the legitimate authority?
    Yes, it turned out ugly. On the other hand, in the Sudetenland, so that you know, by the 38th fall, the demonstrations of the German-speaking were in full swing, the German world, that's all. So outwardly everything looked relatively civilized, we went to meet the appeals of citizens, so to speak.
    Comrade Stalin, for example, could not refuse two years later to the working people of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, who suddenly wanted to in the USSR. At least, according to the USSR, they wanted this.

    And the Baltic countries for some reason with arms in their hands did not defend their freedom. But the USSR did not immediately capture them, but was selected — there was time to think, to understand what was happening. If you do not like the Soviet version.
    Give a corridor? Perhaps that would be reasonable. Although the devil knows him. Friendship with Lithuania against the Reich and the USSR would hardly have helped, Czechoslovakia was no longer there at that time. By the way, it was divided by Germany, Hungary and Poland, not England and not France.

    So maybe it was worth Czechoslovakia to come to the rescue in 1938, and not to tear it together?
  13. RUSS 1 November 2019 16: 29 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
    As for Britain, she calmly negotiated with Germany and indulged the Nazis, while the USSR was already at war with the Nazis in Spain.

    The USSR never fought with Spain, there were Soviet military experts in Spain, and yet there were no fascists in Spain, there were nationalists
  14. Sling cutter 1 November 2019 16: 39 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Quote: RUSS
    and yet there were no fascists in Spain, there were nationalists

    Which did not stop Franco from sending Spanish soldiers to Leningrad.
  15. tesser 1 November 2019 17: 39 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Quote: Stroporez
    Which did not stop Franco from sending Spanish soldiers to Leningrad.

    International debt payment is red.
  16. Sling cutter 1 November 2019 19: 10 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: tesser
    International debt by payment is red

    Pardonte, and what was Hitler and Franco's international, and, consequently, international duty?
  17. tesser 2 November 2019 07: 38 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Quote: Stroporez
    Pardonte, and what was Hitler and Franco's international,

    And I'm not talking about Hitler. I'm talking about tribute to the internationalist warriors, regarding give the land of Grenada to the peasants. In particular, personally in front of Army General Pavlov, Hero of the Soviet Union, an enemy of the people.
  18. tesser 1 November 2019 17: 40 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Quote: RUSS
    there were no fascists in Spain, there were nationalists

    Franco, after all, is considered to be a fascist.
  19. pin_code 5 November 2019 05: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    last paragraph and everything becomes clear. so in whose army did your grandfathers serve and what does Stalin have to do with it?
  • smart ass 1 November 2019 09: 02 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    I would add to you the organizational structure of the German tank division was ideal, if the Luftwaffe would be scary, the modern material part + the professionalism of the flight crew
  • Gardamir 30 October 2019 19: 45 New
    • 35
    • 5
    +30
    If
    Strange in recent history, power is untouchable. They are not responsible for anything, they have nothing to do with it everywhere. They cry that they were deceived everywhere by their partners. You have Stalin, one defendant for everything
  • Sibiriya 30 October 2019 21: 25 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    There is such a thing - a strategic initiative. at the beginning of the war she was on the side of the fascists. Whoever owns the initiative is the one who hits first, creating a numerical superiority in the breakout areas, and try to guess where they will hit. Regarding tanks - episodes of the successful struggle of the Germans with the "KB" and "T-34" you can collect not less, if not more, than examples of returning from battle with a hundred dents in armor. From the first days of the war, the Wehrmacht encountered new Soviet tanks, ultimately solving these problems due to anti-tank and anti-aircraft artillery mainly. Here is an excerpt from the combat report:

    1. On the tank "KB"
    a) When a shell and large-caliber bullets hit, the tower is jammed in pursuit and the armored caps are jammed.
    b) The diesel engine has a small power reserve, as a result of which the motor is overloaded and overheated.
    c) Main and onboard clutches fail.
    2. On the tank "T-34"
    a) The armor of vehicles and bodies from a distance of 300 – 400 m is penetrated by an 37-mm armor-piercing projectile. The plumb sheets of the sides are pierced by an 20-mm armor-piercing projectile. When overcoming ditches due to the low installation, the cars burrow with their noses, traction with the soil is insufficient due to the relative smoothness of the tracks.
    b) With a direct hit of a shell, the front hatch of the driver falls through.
    c) The caterpillar of the car is weak - it takes any shell.
    d) The main and onboard friction clutches fail ”



  • EvilLion 31 October 2019 08: 24 New
    • 12
    • 4
    +8
    Pz-IV in the 1942 year, when the versions with the long-barreled 75 mm appeared better than the T-34. Pz-III with 50 mm gun appeared after France, they completely penetrate the T-34.

    If Stalin had not bothered with the arrests of Tukhachevsky and other traitors, then he would not have had to fight, they would have given the country to the Germans. Not to mention the fact that these were people in the mass even without a military education, who jumped from junior officers to generals during the civil years, in contrast to the marshals-winners who went to the 1910-1930th all levels of service and were trained in academies.
    1. Sergey1987 31 October 2019 13: 10 New
      • 1
      • 8
      -7
      Quote: EvilLion
      If Stalin had not attended to the arrests of Tukhachevsky and other traitors

      What makes you think that Tukhachevsky was a traitor?
      1. MrK
        MrK 2 November 2019 12: 59 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        For example, in the West, memoirs of the former Soviet intelligence officer Alexander Orlov (Leiba Feldbin), who fled from our country at the end of the 30's, having seized a huge amount of government dollars, were published at one time. Orlov, who knew well the “inner kitchen” of his native NKVD, directly wrote that a coup was being prepared in the Soviet Union. Among the conspirators, he said, were both representatives of the NKVD leadership and the Red Army represented by Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky and the commander of the Kiev military district, Jonah Yakir. The plot became known to Stalin, who pre-took a very harsh retaliatory action ...
        If you want to know about the causes of repression, and not the nonsense of liberals, read the article: STALIN REPRESSIONS OF THE 30 OF THE YEARS. ARE YOU SURE THAT THEY ARE STALIN? http://www.proza.ru/2017/06/13/60
      2. tesser 2 November 2019 13: 17 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Quote: mrark
        memoirs of the former Soviet intelligence officer Alexander Orlov (Leiba Feldbin), who fled from our country in the late 30s, taking a huge amount of government dollars.

        Well, a fluent NKVDshnik will not lie.
      3. Sergey1987 2 November 2019 14: 45 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: mrark
        For example, in the West

        According to one version, the accusations against Tukhachevsky were based on a “red folder” partially hacked by the Nazi secret services and handed over to Stalin through Czechoslovak President Benes with evidence of Tukhachevsky’s secret contacts with the German General Staff.

        In his memoirs, Schellenberg mentions the transfer of incriminating evidence to Tukhachevsky, saying that there was very little fabrication there (all documents were prepared in 4 days), mainly to compromise the German General Staff [40]. However, the version is expressed that this was organized by Stalin himself with a double purpose - to weaken the German General Staff and to get a reason to fight Tukhachevsky “from the side”.

        “The criminal case against Tukhachevsky was entirely based on his own confessions, and there are absolutely no references to specific incriminating facts obtained from abroad. If such documents existed, then I, as deputy intelligence chief, who oversaw the German direction on the eve of the war, would probably see them or know about their existence.
        P. A. Sudoplatov
  • tesser 31 October 2019 08: 30 New
    • 6
    • 16
    -10
    Quote: Chit
    You do not know that the Soviet artillery systems were the best in the world for 1941?

    Believe less Comrade Rezun and Svistobol Grabin. Systems such as Soviet ones in other countries have long been launched for remelting. The British - back in the 20s, the Americans - in the 41st.
    The USSR could not afford modern art for the 41st year.
    This I’m not talking about the state from August 41st, a monument to poverty.
    Quote: Chit
    You do not know that the Germans did not even have anything closely similar to the T-34 and KV?

    That is yes. Such a gentleman as KV, the anti-fascist Vibikke piled in the 43rd, and then by the end of the year technologists more or less patched up. The 34-year-old T-41 was generally beyond the scope of everything human, the Germans could not even imagine that tanks could be made the way they did in Kharkov.
    Quote: Chit
    Regarding logistics, operational and tactical art, all questions are to Comrade Stalin.

    If there is water in the tap, Stalin poured it in there!
    Quote: Chit
    mass arrests and executions of senior officers of the Red Army, as well as the same logistics, would have been more useful.

    Of course. But only the enchanting Hassan and Halkin-Gol (no less enchanting than the Finnish) were led by the almost uncommitted comrade. Stalin's army.
  • 210ox 31 October 2019 09: 47 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    Look ... Rezun-Suvorov himself has bestowed .. am
  • 16329 1 November 2019 00: 11 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Unfortunately, executions and purges in the Red Army yielded only a partial result. The conspiracy was decapitated politically, but at the lower levels the structures of the conspirators were preserved, and the results of their activities are clearly visible on the example of the actions of the BOVO leadership in June 1941
    Unfortunately Pavlov and his accomplices were shot too late
    It was the defeat in Belarus that led to the collapse of the entire front and the summer disaster of 1941
    And another interesting moment, who promoted Little-Experienced Kirponos, the former head of the military school to the post of commander of KOVO

    And the most interesting moment, who planned to come to power in the country after the German troops entered the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line in the fall of 1941, who planned the seizure of power in the country against the backdrop of a military defeat according to a scheme that almost corresponded to the plan of Tukhachevsky and by analogy with the 1917 coups
  • Ural-4320 30 October 2019 21: 53 New
    • 7
    • 4
    +3
    Do not forget that the military doctrine of the USSR of that time was "to beat the enemy on its territory," but it did not work. Of course, the military knew about defense, but how to use it nationwide was not worked out. Hence the monstrous losses in attacks at the time when it was necessary to build a layered defense.
    And the German had time to mentally war on earth, in heaven and on water. And the goal was predatory: with future "nishtyaks" to the victors, allotments of land, people for work (into slavery). For such purposes, you can stomp and stomp.
    1. EvilLion 31 October 2019 08: 28 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      You know, but any army tries to beat the enemy on its territory, it’s easier and less problematic. This slogan is simply no doctrine. Stop writing nonsense. Defense, however, always exists simultaneously with the offensive, and a real war often takes place in conditions of mutual attacks in different directions. The advancing troops themselves are constantly on the defensive, while regrouping is underway, some bridgeheads, etc. are being captured, and the enemy is trying to prevent this with counterattacks.
  • savment 31 October 2019 06: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I agree with you completely.
  • Ehanatone 30 October 2019 20: 06 New
    • 25
    • 2
    +23
    "I bothered to get acquainted with the statistics. It is freely available. You will be very surprised"
    And there is also such military fun - to create a multiple advantage in the directions of the main blow ...
    and more fun - guess the direction the first time ...
    and yet - try out of 1500 predictions of the beginning of the war to find the right one ...
    and yet - in no case do not provoke, otherwise you will be considered as an achressor, and then goodbye help ...
    and further ...
    and further ..
  • Dart2027 31 October 2019 06: 07 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Quote: Chit
    What is meant by the word "better"?

    The fact that although the USSR had
    Quote: Chit
    Absolute superiority in armament and manpower in 1941
    Germans reached Moscow and Leningrad. The army is a system in which the presence of weapons does not mean superiority on the battlefield.
    Quote: Chit
    If Comrade Stalin had preoccupied on the eve of the war not with mass arrests and executions of the high command staff of the Red Army
    That result could be even worse.
  • nikvic46 31 October 2019 06: 55 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    You are ours, dear. The matter is not in quantity, but as armament.
    1. EvilLion 31 October 2019 08: 32 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      In the conditions of a very large war, it was still more likely in quantity, if only it would not break, although with this in the Red Army, of course, everything was bad, the tsar-priest did not leave the heavy. industry, and what they created, she did not have time. The problem with the quality of weapons is that creating weapons is much easier than defensive equipment, and an advanced tank can become a pile of metal after receiving only 1 shell in the barrel.
      1. 16329 1 November 2019 00: 22 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Actually, dreadnoughts were built in Tsarist Russia, the Obukhov Plant and Motovilikha were operating, the southern Donbass Mining and Metallurgical Complex was formed in addition to the Ural factories, a GOELRO plan was prepared, etc.
    2. ccsr 31 October 2019 11: 47 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Quote: nikvic46
      You are ours, dear. The matter is not in quantity, but as armament.

      And even more important is the quality of weapons, how trained personnel are in handling these weapons, especially on the battlefield.
  • EvilLion 31 October 2019 08: 16 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    You won’t believe it, but the Germans really had a lot more personnel, not to mention the spatial distribution, as for tanks and planes, there should be a bunch of vehicles for one plane or tank in the army, nothing like German art. for tractors of the USSR, for example, in principle, did not have in commercial quantities. So you need to familiarize yourself with statistics. As with the basics of mob. deployment and the military-political situation in the world at a time when the United States, the largest economy in the world, was going to help the attacker.
    1. tesser 31 October 2019 08: 52 New
      • 2
      • 8
      -6
      Quote: EvilLion
      in general, they were going to help the one they attacked.

      In the sense of Germany, if Comrade Stalin was the first to?

      Would they break through the English blockade or what?
      1. EvilLion 31 October 2019 09: 12 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        So what? The main thing is not who is right, but to participate, having proposed the winning side, which will be on the operating table, the Marshall Plan.
      2. Mordvin 3 31 October 2019 11: 03 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: tesser
        Would they break through the English blockade or what?

        Why did Rudy Hess fly to them, just like that? Moreover, the Germans and the British are much more kindred souls than with the Slavs. The Saxons played an important role in the formation of English culture.
        1. tesser 31 October 2019 11: 53 New
          • 0
          • 8
          -8
          Quote: mordvin xnumx
          Why did Rudy Hess fly to them, just like that?

          Which is it caulked for life?
          1. Mordvin 3 31 October 2019 12: 25 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: tesser
            Which is it caulked for life?

            And banged in the end.
          2. tesser 31 October 2019 12: 34 New
            • 0
            • 6
            -6
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            banged in the end.

            In 1987? What vengeful people, these are your British. And you say, you would have reconciled with Adolf instantly.
          3. Mordvin 3 31 October 2019 12: 51 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: tesser
            In 1987?

            Exactly. And they need it, so that Hess would talk to the whole world, what did they agree on there?
          4. tesser 31 October 2019 14: 50 New
            • 2
            • 8
            -6
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            they need it so that Hess would talk to the whole world, what did they agree on there?

            Somehow lousy agreed, no? And Hess spoke in Nuremberg, so there would be a desire. There is nothing to lose.
          5. Mordvin 3 31 October 2019 16: 06 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: tesser
            Somehow lousy agreed, no?

            It is unlikely that we will find out what was agreed there.
            Quote: tesser
            And Hess spoke in Nuremberg, so there would be a desire.

            He only did there that sclerosis depicted on his head.
          6. tesser 31 October 2019 16: 21 New
            • 1
            • 5
            -4
            Yes, as if judging by the fate of Hess, there is little doubt. He would drive into the liberated Aachen on the Sherman’s armor as, I don’t know, dear Comrade Rakosi to Hungary - there would be a different conversation.
  • 16329 1 November 2019 00: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In fact, the ruling dynasty has a purely German origin, from the same Lower Saxony (Hanover)
  • ZAV69 31 October 2019 10: 59 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The Germans had behind them two years of war and the whole of occupied Europe. And this is an experience. The Red Army had a similar experience only in 43, by the end of the year.
  • mentle 31 October 2019 12: 10 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    An important point, arguing about the quantity, do not forget that the vast majority of weapons were outdated. And the lack of radio in the troops was felt immediately.
    1. Pilat2009 31 October 2019 16: 43 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Quote: mentle
      the vast majority of weapons were outdated

      What kind of weapon was obsolete? In any country in the world there is a new and old weapon — in India, for example, they fly on MiG-21, in Syria on Su-24, t-72 in the army the main tank.
      As for Germany, its T-3 tanks, for example, were not much better than the Soviet BT and T-26. And already captured French and all sorts of Slovak tanks in general. There was also nothing ultra-modern in artillery systems. There was some advantage on aircraft but was expressed in the concentration of superiority on a certain area. By the way, read for example about the rainy day of the Luftwaffe in the Netherlands, for example
      https://www.proza.ru/2016/05/28/1366
  • nesoglasen 30 October 2019 20: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And with Japan.
    1. Dart2027 31 October 2019 06: 08 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: nesoglasen
      Japan

      She would have joined later, like Turkey.
  • tesser 31 October 2019 08: 45 New
    • 3
    • 7
    -4
    Quote: Dart2027
    the likelihood that you will have to fight not only with Germany, but also with England and the United States.

    In 41?
    1. EvilLion 31 October 2019 09: 13 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      By the way, find out which sanctions were imposed on the USSR in the 1941 United States, just go nuts, what a friendly country it was.
      1. tesser 31 October 2019 09: 29 New
        • 2
        • 8
        -6
        Quote: EvilLion
        By the way, find out which in 1941 the United States imposed sanctions on the USSR

        In the 39th. Naturally, the allies of Britain impose sanctions on the allies of Germany, what bothers you? France and Britain thought about bombing, but there were more urgent matters.
        Quote: EvilLion
        The main thing is not who is right, but to participate, inviting the winning side,

        Participate on the side of Germany against Britain?
    2. Dart2027 31 October 2019 11: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: tesser
      In 41

      What bothers you so much? England, France and the United States were quite friendly with Hitler most of his career as a politician - the Strange War and the Munich Agreement are known to all. And when Hitler decided to strike at France it was the flight of the British, who threw their allies greatly helped him.
      1. tesser 31 October 2019 12: 44 New
        • 1
        • 5
        -4
        Quote: Dart2027
        Strange war and Munich conspiracy are known to all

        What confuses you here? Both that, and another - about "history has given us little time" "transition to military rails", etc., it is not only the Soviet song. As for the Sudetenland, in the Sudetenland there was an almost entirely German, irredentist-minded population. Another conversation is that Mr. Hitler understood this treaty broadly (throughout Czechoslovakia).
        Quote: Dart2027
        it was the flight of the British, who threw their allies greatly helped him.

        Nobody's perfect, you know.
        1. Dart2027 31 October 2019 15: 17 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: tesser
          Both that, and another - about "history has given us little time" "transition to military rails", etc., it is not only the Soviet song

          Only then the Germans were far from as strong as in 1941.
          Quote: tesser
          Nobody's perfect, you know.

          That is, the fact of collusion is obvious.
          1. tesser 31 October 2019 15: 40 New
            • 2
            • 5
            -3
            Quote: Dart2027
            Only then the Germans were far from as strong as in 1941.

            Strong enough, as it turned out.
            Quote: Dart2027
            That is, the fact of collusion is obvious.

            Is the British conspiring with the Germans to surrender France and remain alone with the Germans? It is obvious to you, but not to me.
            1. Dart2027 31 October 2019 16: 56 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: tesser
              as it turned out

              Truth? But I remember that after the defeat in WWI, Germany had a purely nominal army and did not have heavy weapons. But Hitler should appear and ...
            2. tesser 31 October 2019 17: 11 New
              • 2
              • 8
              -6
              What are you hinting at? On the short-sighted policy of the offices of Baldwin and MacDonald? So I am in the know. As for your pacts, many of them, if not all, were mistakes, but only two were crimes. Because they sold Hitler to third countries. Strange as they say, everyone is talking about them.
            3. Dart2027 31 October 2019 19: 58 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: tesser
              On the short-sighted policy of the offices of Baldwin and MacDonald?

              Well, why short-sighted, it almost happened - Hitler still attacked the USSR, only the scenario has changed a bit.
              Quote: tesser
              As for your pacts, many of them, if not all, were mistakes, but only two were crimes.

              Why two? All but the last.
            4. tesser 31 October 2019 20: 12 New
              • 2
              • 5
              -3
              Quote: Dart2027
              Well, why short-sighted, it almost turned out

              That's how MacDonald did not like the USSR - he could not eat. Baldwin out of a desire to lime the USSR allowed Germany to build submarines for some reason. To Paulus swim in Stalingrad.
              Quote: Dart2027
              All but the last.

              Was this an agreement between Lithuania and Germany? Wow.
              In addition, you know that if Mr. Ribentrop and Comrade Stalin had agreed only on non-aggression, there would have been no questions.
            5. Dart2027 1 November 2019 06: 03 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: tesser
              That's how MacDonald did not like the USSR - he could not eat.

              Yes, a piece in the throat did not climb, like the rest.
              Quote: tesser
              Was this an agreement between Lithuania and Germany?

              And they did not know who Hitler was? Wow.
              Quote: tesser
              what if Mr. Ribentrop and Comrade Stalin agreed only on non-aggression

              And they agreed on him. Poland was an enemy of the USSR and its well-being was, to put it mildly, uninteresting, but the joint actions of the Poles and Germans looked like a serious threat.
            6. tesser 1 November 2019 06: 42 New
              • 3
              • 6
              -3
              Quote: Dart2027
              a piece in the throat did not climb, like the rest.

              I will disappoint you. They ate as if into themselves, even Mr. Churchill.
              Quote: Dart2027
              And they did not know who Hitler was?

              When, in the 39th? In the 39th, even Comrade Ehrenburg did not know this.
              I seem to have already written this. Hitler in the sense of Hitler !!!!!!! 111DINODIN is a post-war phenomenon. Even in the 45th, “the fascists are such German rightists, to the right of the Republicans” (c).
              Quote: Dart2027
              And they agreed on him.

              Yes, it coincided by chance. You already decide, Pact MR is the greatest achievement of Soviet diplomacy (s) or there were no protocols (s). And then there is a feeling of senility.
            7. Dart2027 1 November 2019 09: 00 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: tesser
              They ate as if into themselves, even Mr. Churchill.

              Such a concept as figurative expression is probably not familiar to you.
              Quote: tesser
              In the 39th, even Comrade Ehrenburg did not know this.

              Oh really? I once thought that there were already concentration camps.
              Quote: tesser
              You already decide, Pact MR - the greatest achievement of Soviet diplomacy (s) or there were no protocols (s)

              And the meaning of some protocols that do not even have a nominal legal force? The greatest achievement was the fact that, thanks to the ambition of the Poles, they were able to quarrel with the Germans, not allowing a united front against the USSR.
            8. tesser 1 November 2019 09: 34 New
              • 2
              • 7
              -5
              Quote: Dart2027
              once thought that there were already concentration camps.

              Naturally were. And where did you get the idea that this should have bothered someone? Does it seem to you now that the word “concentrational” sounds much worse than “corrective labor”, in the 39th no one saw such a problem.
              Quote: Dart2027
              The greatest achievement was the fact that, thanks to the ambition of the Poles, they were able to quarrel with the Germans, not allowing a united front against the USSR.

              Yes Yes. The Poles (both Romanians and Balts) directly dreamed of launching the Wehrmacht. We did not allow them; we made a common border with the German from sea to sea. Tricky plan, multi-way.
            9. Dart2027 1 November 2019 11: 46 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: tesser
              There are three dates. 07.07.1937/01.09.1939/11.12.1941, the war in Asia. XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, the war in Europe. XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, the unification of the European and Asian war, world war.
              For all but Soviet propagandists, the USSR is a participant in the war in Europe from 17.09.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX.
              There is an official start date for WWII - 01.09.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX.
              Quote: tesser
              You confuse America and the American state. The American state apparatus is not the “main European”, but a social security agency for losers and freaks. They did not at all and are making America great.

              That is, the United States has become great in spite of its state apparatus? Hmm ... And how is this possible?
              Quote: tesser
              Naturally were. And where did you get the idea that this should have bothered someone? Does it seem to you now that the word “concentrational” sounds much worse than “corrective labor”, in the 39th no one saw such a problem.
              Well then, why did Hitler have to bother Stalin?
              Quote: tesser
              Yes Yes. The Poles (both Romanians and Balts) directly dreamed of launching the Wehrmacht. We did not allow them; we made a common border with the German from sea to sea. Tricky plan, multi-way.
              That is, the fact that under Pilsudski, the Reich and Poland had an alliance and close friendship is news for you? But Romanians with the Balts then, and now, no one asked.
            10. tesser 1 November 2019 18: 21 New
              • 1
              • 4
              -3
              Quote: Dart2027
              There is an official start date for WWII

              I gave you three dates for the start of conflicts that ended on 02.09.1945/XNUMX/XNUMX. Which of them and who is official - it makes no difference to me.
              Quote: Dart2027
              became great in spite of their state apparatus? Hmm ... And how is this possible?

              What's so complicated? The United States became great when it got too hot. But muscle was pumped not by administrations, but by completely different people (administrations, in particular the FDR, were more in the way). This happens, there is a lot of muscle mass, and the brain is only bone.
              Quote: Dart2027
              Well then, why did Hitler have to bother Stalin?

              You see. To Stalin there would have been no questions at all about 39-41, if not for the ensuing events. Latvia, for its part, was hardly able to fight back in any case, even from the Red Army, even from the Wehrmacht.
              Quote: Dart2027
              That is, the fact that under Pilsudski, the Reich and Poland had an alliance and close friendship is news for you?

              This is probably for you the news that in the 39th Pilsudski 4 years as he died. However, in the 38th, Polish-German friendship also existed, but they were only friends in the neighboring house, and not in their own.
            11. Dart2027 1 November 2019 19: 38 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: tesser
              Which of them and who is official - it makes no difference to me.
              But who are you to decide which date refers to which war? I gave you the official date.
              Quote: tesser
              But muscle was pumped not by administrations, but by completely different people (administrations, in particular the FDR, were more in the way).
              Well, and how is it possible for the state to develop in spite of itself?
              Quote: tesser
              To Stalin there would have been no questions at all about 39-41, if not for the subsequent events
              That is, there are questions to him, but not to the others? Who was the first to conclude an agreement with him? England and France? All questions to them.
              Quote: tesser
              This is probably for you the news that in the 39th Pilsudski 4 years as he died.
              What served the collapse of the Polish-German friendship, to the good fortune of the USSR.
            12. tesser 2 November 2019 08: 14 New
              • 2
              • 5
              -3
              Quote: Dart2027
              in general, who is it to decide which date refers to which war? I gave you the official date.

              You can discuss the “official dates” with Mr. Medinsky, a great historian. For you, as well as for him, it’s not a problem that Claire Shannolt, the “flying tiger”, who has been fighting in China since the summer of 37, fought in the Sino-Japanese war on the morning of September XNUMX, and already in World War II in the evening, because somewhere in the opposite part of the globe, Germany attacked Poland.
              You are not at all aware of this Shannolt and all this Chinese massacre, at your place near Halkin Gol Japanese on the USSR attacked.
              Quote: Dart2027
              how is it possible for the state to develop in spite of itself?

              If you learn to distinguish between the state in the meaning of "country" and the state in the meaning of "state apparatus", this will cease to be a problem for you.
              Quote: Dart2027
              Who was the first to conclude an agreement with him? England and France? All questions to them.

              That supporters weighted position и constructive dialogue expressing deep concernserved strong protest when it was high time for water to be brought to the Second World War, no one (from serious authors) in the West denies.
              Quote: Dart2027
              the collapse of the Polish-German friendship, to the good fortune of the USSR.

              That yes, lucky so lucky.
            13. Dart2027 2 November 2019 13: 14 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: tesser
              You can discuss the “official dates” with Mr. Medinsky, a great historian. For you, as for him, it is not a problem that
              It is not a problem for me to know that in the world almost always someone is fighting, and that was at that time. There is an official, internationally recognized start date for the war, and the rest is your desire.
              Quote: tesser
              If you learn to distinguish between the state in the meaning of "country" and the state in the meaning of "state apparatus"
              It’s very touching, but the fact that all the achievements in politics, economics and military affairs provides just the state apparatus is well known to me.
              Quote: tesser
              The fact that the proponents of a balanced position and constructive dialogue, expressing deep concern, vigorously protesting when it was high time to get wet was brought to the Second World War by no one (from serious authors) in the West.
              Well, and what claims to Stalin? As I said all the question there.
  • Mavrikiy 1 November 2019 13: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    No need to rave. K1939 Comrade Ehrenburg passed Spain. Greetings from WIKI:
    In 1922 he published a philosophical and satirical novel, “The Extraordinary Adventures of Julio Jurenito and His Pupils,” which gives an interesting mosaic picture of the life of Europe and Russia during the First World War and Revolution, but most importantly, a set of amazing prophecies is given. Leonid Zhukhovitsky wrote about this [18]:

    “... I am still shocked by the fully fulfilled prophecies from Julio Jurenito. Accidentally guessed? But was it possible to randomly guess German fascism, and its Italian variety, and even the atomic bomb used by the Americans against the Japanese. Probably, in young Ehrenburg there was nothing from Nostradamus, Wangi or Messing. It was different - a powerful mind and quick reaction, which allowed to capture the main features of entire nations and to foresee their development in the future. In the past, for such a gift they burned at the stake

    I have not read it, but I support it. repeat
  • tesser 1 November 2019 17: 43 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Quote: Mavrikiy
    Ehrenburg passed Spain.

    So what? Did he make any distinction between the fascist dog Hitler and the fascist dog Mannerheim? (by the way, the first time Mannerheim became a fascist dog, Hitler was temporarily discharged from dogs).
  • Olgovich 31 October 2019 11: 22 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Quote: Dart2027
    In addition, there was a chance that you would have to fight not only with Germany, but also with England and the United States.

    1. England already fought against Hitler. Those. abruptly cease and ... become his ally ?,
    And what, by the way, prevented her from doing this in 1939 when the USSR crossed the Polish border and seized its territory, as it were,? Together with Hitler, Poland, France on absolutely legal grounds, against the "aggressor"? request Ng forgave everyone and even ... supported. for they understood that this was against Hitler.
    2. Hitler to 41 g-universally recognized absolute evil, aggressor and occupier of Europe. Everyone who opposed him was even indirectly supported. The liberation of Poland from the occupier is the same for which England fought.
    3. Why "attack"? But it is impossible to defend oneself by conducting MOBILIZATION and combat readiness against the FORMERLY mobilized, fighting, standing on our border hostile army?
    1. Dart2027 31 October 2019 15: 29 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Olgovich
      England ALREADY fought against Hitler. Those. abruptly cease and ... become his ally?

      But didn’t she cease to be an ally of the USSR immediately after the change in the political situation? This was rubbed into us by all ideological dregs in schools, and in politics, normal politics, nobody cares about ideology.
      Quote: Olgovich
      when did the USSR cross the border of Poland and seize its territory, as it were? Together with Hitler, Poland, France on absolutely legal grounds, against the "aggressor"

      And why didn’t she attack Hitler, who was the aggressor who attacked Poland?
      Quote: Olgovich
      Why "attack"? And defend themselves by conducting MOBILIZATION

      So that’s how it is, only the announcement of mobilization meant the immediate outbreak of war. But what was the combat readiness of the army, Stalin knew, it’s enough to remember how the Finns “defeated” “easily”, so he pulled as much as he could.
      1. tesser 31 October 2019 15: 47 New
        • 2
        • 5
        -3
        Quote: Dart2027
        Didn’t she cease to be an ally of the USSR immediately after the change in the political situation?

        Of course I stopped. But Hitler, nevertheless, has already been removed from the board.
        Quote: Dart2027
        why didn’t she attack Hitler,

        They expressed deep concern. You seem to be judging from the point of view of the Soviet post-war man who knows that this is Hitler, he will eat everyone. In the 39th it bothered much less, the poleurops of these Hitlers, right-wing populists. Is there any sort of showdown among these Western Slavs who are interested in general?
        Quote: Dart2027
        So that's it, that's just a mobilization announcement

        He had mobilized a long time ago. Back in the 39th 40th years.
        1. Dart2027 31 October 2019 16: 58 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: tesser
          But Hitler, nevertheless, has already been removed from the board.

          And under other circumstances, they would have removed Stalin.
          We do not have eternal allies and we do not have constant enemies; our interests are eternal and permanent. Our duty is to protect these interests.
          http://www.bibliotekar.ru/encSlov/19/1.htm
          Quote: tesser
          He had mobilized a long time ago.

          I'm talking about Stalin.
          1. tesser 31 October 2019 19: 19 New
            • 2
            • 6
            -4
            Quote: Dart2027
            And under other circumstances, they would have removed Stalin.

            It's hard to believe, but the USSR at that time was seen as some kind of eastern Poland, a beggar and a wild one, well, or northern China, a poor and wild one. Neither Germany nor Britain took him seriously. Therefore, only Poland and Romania, and not Germany and Britain, could unite against the USSR.
            Quote: Dart2027
            We do not have eternal allies and we do not have constant enemies; our interests are eternal and permanent.

            Empty bragging. Eternal and permanent interests change twice a day.
            Quote: Dart2027
            I'm talking about Stalin.

            I'm talking about him. Take an interest in what happened to the Red Army in 39-41. With the number and staff.
            1. Dart2027 31 October 2019 19: 51 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: tesser
              It's hard to believe, but the USSR at that time was seen as some kind of eastern Poland, a beggar and a wild one, well, or northern China, a poor and wild one.

              Do not consider partners stupid and naive. The USSR was not a superpower, but not China, and they knew it very well.
              Quote: tesser
              Take an interest in what happened to the Red Army in 39-41. With the number and staff.

              Are you talking about these unfortunate purges? Too lazy to look, but at one time they discussed this issue and about 5000 people were arrested.
            2. tesser 31 October 2019 20: 14 New
              • 1
              • 6
              -5
              Quote: Dart2027
              Do not consider partners stupid and naive.

              Unfortunately, that was the case. USSR and comrade Stalin was underestimated too much and too long.
              Quote: Dart2027
              Are you talking about these unfortunate purges?

              I'm talking about mobilization. That is, about the increase in numbers and the change in the OSH.
            3. Dart2027 1 November 2019 05: 56 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: tesser
              USSR and comrade Stalin was underestimated too much and too long.

              Industrialization in the USSR was carried out with the help of Western experts and purchasing everything that was possible abroad. They were aware of the military-industrial potential of the USSR at that time.
              Quote: tesser
              I'm talking about mobilization.

              Quote: Dart2027
              So that’s how it is, only the announcement of mobilization meant the immediate outbreak of war. But what was the combat readiness of the army, Stalin knew, it’s enough to remember how the Finns “defeated” “easily”, so he pulled as much as he could.
              Germany was already at its peak, but the USSR was profitable to delay the start of the war as far as possible.
            4. tesser 1 November 2019 06: 49 New
              • 3
              • 7
              -4
              Quote: Dart2027
              They were aware of the military-industrial potential of the USSR at that time.

              You see. I, unlike you, was interested in the activities of the Roosevelt administration. They were not in the know American military-industrial potential. There is no intelligence, the General Staff is virtually nonexistent, the State Department has some drug addicts.
              Quote: Dart2027
              Germany was already at its peak, but the USSR was profitable to delay the start of the war as far as possible.

              Again an alternative story. The USSR has been participating in the engine since the 36th year. Front-line operations are from the 39th. If the Japanese-Chinese conflict is considered part of WWII, then the USSR enters WWII earlier than Germany. If you suddenly do not know.
              He pulled the war away from the heart.
            5. Dart2027 1 November 2019 09: 04 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: tesser
              They were not aware of the American military-industrial potential. There is no intelligence, the General Staff is virtually nonexistent, the State Department has some drug addicts.

              Quote: Dart2027
              Do not consider partners stupid and naive.

              If they were so stupid, but would not become a superpower.
              Quote: tesser
              The USSR has been participating in the engine since the 36th year. Front-line operations are from the 39th. If the Japanese-Chinese conflict is considered part of WWII, then the USSR enters WWII earlier than Germany. If you suddenly do not know.
              He pulled the war away from the heart.

              WWII began on September 1, 1939.
              The war with Finland was not part of it, as well as the battles with Japan, but the fact that according to their results the Japanese did not decide to attack the USSR simultaneously with the Germans is an achievement.
            6. tesser 1 November 2019 11: 08 New
              • 2
              • 6
              -4
              Quote: Dart2027
              WWII began on September 1, 1939

              There are three dates. 07.07.1937/01.09.1939/11.12.1941, the war in Asia. XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, the war in Europe. XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, the unification of the European and Asian war, world war.
              Quote: Dart2027
              The war with Finland was not part of it

              For all but Soviet propagandists, the USSR is a participant in the war in Europe from 17.09.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX.
              Quote: Dart2027
              If they were so stupid, but would not become a superpower.

              You confuse America and the American state. The American state apparatus is not the “main European”, but a social security agency for losers and freaks. They did not at all and are making America great.

              The consequence of this state of affairs was Eisenhower, who in the 39th still carries a portfolio for MacArthur in some Asian Zadryuchinsky, is awaiting a colonel's retirement, and in the 43rd Roosevelt declares that the commander-in-chief on TVD defines the strategy on the Mediterranean theater, and Churchill flies persuade of the same Eisenhower attack Italy. He cannot order him, but Roosevelt and Marshall refuse to do this. 3 years ago Aiku Patton offered a regiment as a friend. Friendship, since the rank of Hayk at that time was a lieutenant colonel, and he was commanded to command a battalion.

              Such an attitude to politics led to fairly predictable consequences, from Stetsin in the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic. And now I'm reading about the plot of the Americans, these same Americans, who had been raising Hitler’s fighting hamster for ten years, just to spoil the Russian people.
            7. ccsr 1 November 2019 12: 15 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: tesser
              He cannot order him, but Roosevelt and Marshall refuse to do this. 3 years ago Aiku Patton offered a regiment as a friend. Friendship, since the rank of Hayk at that time was a lieutenant colonel, and he was commanded to command a battalion.

              This verbiage has nothing to do with Eisenhower’s assessment, because during the war there were ups and downs among many commanders, not to mention the fact that in 1940 our most outstanding commander Marshal Rokossovsky was in prison, and the USSR had already managed to recapture part of its territories . So you don’t need to prove something to people who know military history in such a cheap way - your hints of Hayk are just homegrown fantasies, and nothing more.
            8. tesser 1 November 2019 18: 12 New
              • 3
              • 5
              -2
              Quote: ccsr
              This verbiage has nothing to do with Eisenhower’s assessment,

              I, it seems, have already explained to you on this subject. Be careful with terms such as "verbiage", "homegrown fantasizing", etc. Eisenhower’s biography can be clarified by Ambrose, Soldier and President. The episode with Italy is short there, but you can take Churchill.
              Quote: ccsr
              Marshal Rokossovsky was in prison

              1. Before prison, Rokossovsky for 6 years commanded a division, a year corps. The last thing Eisenhower commanded was the 1st Battalion of the 15th Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division. He was not removed to this post, as Manstein in his time, on the contrary, it was only at the end of the 40th year that he was given command, after many years of adjutant positions in the colonies. This is March 41st. Next - 1,5 years of headquarters and the post of commander in chief in Europe. Even by the standards of Comrade Epishev, he sang extremely.
              2. Neither Rokossovsky, nor Zhukov, nor anyone else in the Red Army accepted political decisions determining the fate of states. Aiki was forced to take them. He knew how, given his experience. He spent half of interbellum in Panama and the Philippines, as far as he could distinguish Slovakia from Slovenia, and Lublin from Ljubljana - more or less clearly. Despite the fact that he was a brilliant battalion commander, the divisional commander would most likely also have been good. But life and J. Marshall decided differently.

              What is there that you wrote about the territories conquered by the USSR is not clear.
            9. ccsr 2 November 2019 10: 05 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: tesser
              Eisenhower’s biography can be clarified by Ambrose, Soldier and President.

              And do you recommend Brezhnev's biography to be studied on the Lesser Earth, for which he received the Order of Victory? Oh well...
              Quote: tesser
              Before prison, Rokossovsky for 6 years commanded a division, a year corps.

              I cited this fact simply in order to understand how a military career can change in an instant, by coincidence, even in peacetime, not to mention the military.
              Quote: tesser
              only at the end of the 40th year they were given command, after many years of adjutant positions in the colonies.

              Yes, it’s all muddy - it’s enough to study the appointment of Yazov, who slipped into the ministers clearly not for his military past during the war years.
              Quote: tesser
              What is there that you wrote about the territories conquered by the USSR is not clear.

              It is not clear about Western Ukraine and Belarus that were recaptured in 1939, when Rokossovsky was in prison?
            10. tesser 2 November 2019 13: 40 New
              • 2
              • 4
              -2
              Quote: ccsr
              You recommend Brezhnev’s biography to be studied on the Small Earth,

              Have you decided to make a fancy? I'm not talking about Brezhnev with you. If you have an alternative Eisenhower lens - lay out, do not be shy.
              Quote: ccsr
              military career can change in an instant by coincidence, even in peacetime

              Demagogy. When "under the influence of circumstances" marshals are put up against the wall - this is one, when a lieutenant colonel (permanent rank of Hayk for the 43rd year, temporary - full general (colonel general) Bonaparte appoint - this is different.
              Quote: ccsr
              to study the appointment of Yazov, who slipped into ministers

              What else Yazov? Who was there at Gorbachev who interested in the Second World War?
              And here is how Comrade Stalin replaced Vasilyevsky with political adviser Bulganin, Marshal, God forgive me, Victory, - it was witty, he was great.
              Quote: ccsr
              Western Ukraine and Belarus that were recaptured in 1939 when Rokossovsky was in prison?

              What is incomprehensible to you? Like Comrade In the 39th, did Stalin manage without Rokossovsky? Are you kidding me?
            11. ccsr 2 November 2019 16: 58 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: tesser
              Have you decided to make a fancy? I'm not talking about Brezhnev with you.

              And there was no thought - I think you just should not earn cheap credibility with various zealots that have nothing to do with the matter, as was the case with the biography of the former American president.
              Quote: tesser
              And here is how Comrade Stalin

              But it is better not to speak about Comrade Stalin - it was he who showed many that their fate depends on his opinion on the business qualities of these leaders.
              Quote: tesser
              Like Comrade In the 39th, did Stalin manage without Rokossovsky? Are you kidding me?

              Over your nonsense - yes.
  • Olgovich 1 November 2019 07: 39 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Quote: Dart2027
    But didn’t she cease to be an ally of the USSR immediately after the change in the political situation?

    What has changed for England in 1941? Germany ceased to be an aggressor, which had to be stopped by the whole world?
    Let me remind you that Germany was ACKNOWLEDGED by the aggressor against Poland, and England and Fr. and the USSR -NO!
    and a Soviet strike on the aggressor-England would be on the .... side of the aggressor ?!
    Where is written, but not invented?
    Quote: Dart2027
    And why didn’t she attack Hitler, who was the aggressor who attacked Poland?

    Attack, forgot? September 3, 1939 And after the 17th of September, in the USSR.
    Quote: Dart2027
    And so she is, only the announcement of mobilization meant immediate the beginning of the war. But what was the combat readiness of the army, Stalin knew, it’s enough to remember how the Finns “defeated” “easily”, so he pulled as much as he could.

    This is nonsense: Hitler spat on occasions, he started when he was PREPARED, neither earlier nor later
    .
    And before June 22, he simply could not attack (declare Stalin a mob or not): he was busy in the Balkans.
  • Pilat2009 31 October 2019 16: 51 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Olgovich
    But it is impossible to defend oneself by conducting MOBILIZATION and combat readiness against the FORMERLY mobilized, fighting, standing on our border hostile army?

    Apparently it’s impossible. Or did you think that Stalin was completely an idiot? So there were some reasons. Perhaps even wrecking. Not without reason, one historian wrote: "He shot them a little ..." There were many "civilian heroes" in the leadership of the troops and since then military thought has stepped up far ahead
  • Sergey1987 31 October 2019 13: 02 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Dart2027
    that we’ll have to fight not only with Germany, but also with England and the USA.

    Or maybe with the Martians? England waged a war with Germany, and then with a fright even with the USSR would start a war? Why did the USA unleash a war with the USSR?
    1. Dart2027 31 October 2019 15: 30 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Sergey1987
      and here with a fright also with the USSR would start a war? Why did the USA unleash a war with the USSR?

      And why did they help Hitler build muscle and approach the borders of the USSR?
      1. tesser 31 October 2019 15: 48 New
        • 3
        • 5
        -2
        Quote: Dart2027
        approach the borders of the USSR?

        Sorry? The borders of the USSR, as it were, approached him, no?
        1. Dart2027 31 October 2019 16: 54 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: tesser
          The borders of the USSR, as it were, approached him, no?

          That is, it was not Hitler who invaded Poland and defeated it in a couple of weeks? If the USSR did not occupy those territories, then they would fall under the control of the Germans.
          1. tesser 31 October 2019 17: 05 New
            • 4
            • 5
            -1
            Quote: Dart2027
            That is, it was not Hitler who invaded Poland and defeated it in a couple of weeks?

            And about this, by chance, there were no agreements? Which, incidentally, concerned 6 states bordering the USSR, and not just Poland.
            1. Sergey1987 31 October 2019 17: 52 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              Quote: tesser
              And about this, by chance, there were no agreements? Which, incidentally, concerned 6 states bordering the USSR, and not just Poland.

              It looks like this dart is as familiar with the story as I with ballet.)))))
            2. Dart2027 31 October 2019 20: 02 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Sergey1987
              Dart is as familiar with history as I with ballet

              Judging by your comments, you are Mikhail Nikolaevich Baryshnikov.
            3. Sergey1987 1 November 2019 14: 38 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Quote: Dart2027
              Judging by your comments, you are Mikhail Nikolaevich Baryshnikov.

              )))))) It is unlikely that I would have the nickname Sergey1987 if I were him. For the first time I hear about him.
            4. Dart2027 1 November 2019 16: 51 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Sergey1987
              For the first time I hear about him

              Mikhail Nikolaevich Baryshnikov - ballet dancer, choreographer, who remained in Canada in 1974. Honored Artist of the RSFSR, nominated for Oscars and Golden Globes.
      2. Dart2027 31 October 2019 20: 02 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: tesser
        And about this, by chance, there were no agreements?

        That is, Stalin was an ally of Poland and the guarantor of its security? Actually, Poland was then like today's Ukraine, only more dangerous, and its allies were England and France, and not the USSR at all.
      3. tesser 31 October 2019 20: 43 New
        • 2
        • 5
        -3
        Quote: Dart2027
        Poland was then like today's Ukraine, only more dangerous, and its allies were England and France, and not the USSR at all.

        Well, that is, it would be possible to agree with pan Kachinsky (he, sorry, has no mustache) and divide Ukraine along the Dnieper, this is for you, this is for us. Normal topic, in the studio of V.R. Solovyov, she seems to have come in completely.
        Quote: Dart2027
        It’s not really partisans.

        The army without an economy, on other people's grub - more than enough. And by the spring of the 45th there were 1,5 million people under arms.
      4. Dart2027 1 November 2019 06: 04 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: tesser
        Well, that is, it would be possible to agree with pan Kaczynski

        As I understand it, there are no questions regarding the above facts?
      5. tesser 1 November 2019 06: 51 New
        • 1
        • 5
        -4
        Quote: Dart2027
        As I understand it, there are no questions regarding the above facts?

        Which? What Poland was an adversary about which it is possible and necessary to agree with Germany? Of course there are no questions.
      6. Dart2027 1 November 2019 09: 04 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: tesser
        Which?

        Quote: Dart2027
        her allies were England and France

        They passed it.
      7. tesser 1 November 2019 09: 25 New
        • 0
        • 5
        -5
        Quote: Dart2027
        They passed it.

        Not without it. They surrendered it to the Reich and the USSR.
  • Sergey1987 31 October 2019 17: 51 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Dart2027
    And why did they help Hitler build muscle and approach the borders of the USSR?

    Until the 39th year, they collaborated with Germany, as did the USSR. You at least read the story before you carry nonsense. Read where the German tank crews and pilots studied.
  • KrokodilGena 31 October 2019 22: 33 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    Quote: Dart2027
    Because if Stalin was the first to attack, the defeat would be even worse.

    First of all, what does "attack first" have to do with it ?! Why was the more powerful Red Army so quickly and massively defeated and no one was ready? Who is responsible for this? For contracts with Hitler?

    Quote: Dart2027
    In 1941, the German army was better - alas, these are the facts.

    What is better ??

    Quote: Dart2027
    In addition, there was a chance that you would have to fight not only with Germany, but also with England and the United States.

    By that time, they had already declared war on Hitler and fought with him, what is the logic?
    1. Dart2027 1 November 2019 06: 09 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: KrokodilGena
      Why was the more powerful Red Army so quickly and massively defeated and no one was ready? Who is responsible for this?

      Marshals and generals. They are responsible for the combat readiness of the army.
      Quote: KrokodilGena
      Which is better?

      Level of combat readiness.
      Quote: KrokodilGena
      By that time, they had already declared war on Hitler and fought with him.

      The logic is that "if the crocodile ate your enemy, then this does not mean that he became your friend." To conclude peace and alliance against a third party is a completely possible matter in politics.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 October 2019 17: 43 New
    • 23
    • 2
    +21
    Quote: Chit
    On what basis did he consider only his opinion to be the only true one? Why the fifth grader in June 41 could ask himself: what will happen if Hitler still attacks first?

    Try to study history at your leisure. Stalin was absolutely sure that Hitler would attack.
    Quote: Chit
    But the great strategist did not even allow such a thought. He believed that he had outwitted everything. Although the position was obliged to provide for all war scenarios, including the most negative.
    And what is the result?
    Unheard of rout of the entire personnel spacecraft in June 1941

    In short, this was the case. Stalin believed that Hitler would attack before 1942 and understood that the state of the Red Army was more than far from ideal. He hoped to win this year, but nonetheless continued to monitor the situation with the German troops. Alas, intelligence overslept the mass transfer of troops from France to the Soviet-German border, and after that the defeat in the border battle was predetermined.
    That is, there have been mistakes on the ground, mistakes of our scouts, and it’s rather difficult to understand why you put them on Stalin. Of course, he, as the leader of the country, is responsible for everything, but ... Still, there is no direct fault.
    1. Chit 30 October 2019 18: 31 New
      • 13
      • 33
      -20
      I have been studying history (including the history of the Second World War) for more than 20 years. He started back in Soviet patterns and thoughts of Comrade Zhukov. And I dare to assure you, I understand the subject.
      I am not interested in what Stalin was counting on and what Stalin was counting on. I am interested in the fact of the catastrophic defeat of the Red Army in June.
      I am not interested in what Comrade Stalin was thinking of doing in 1942. I ask for an answer why he overslept Hitler’s attack in 1941.
      And do not blame everything on intelligence. Intelligence reports were different and covered events from different angles.
      Golikov, Dronov, Tupikov, Merkulov had alternative points of view on the beginning of the war. But Comrade Stalin felt that his opinion was the only correct one.
      I’m not talking about what Stalin planned to do in Europe, it’s useless to argue about this.
      I ask a specific question: if you have deployed a large accumulation of manpower and equipment in the border areas (for what purposes - now is not about that), why not bother with its preservation and safety? Why not allow the thought, as long as the strategist and commander, that the enemy can strike first? Will strike a preemptive strike? Will cut both strategic ledges to the root?
      Why did Stalin not allow this simple, elementary thought? Understandable for any mortal?
      1. tesser 30 October 2019 18: 43 New
        • 9
        • 11
        -2
        Quote: Chit
        I am interested in the fact of the catastrophic defeat of the Red Army in June.

        This is well known.
        All participants - Britain, France, Germany, Japan, the USA - understood what was going on and prepared. In the name of preparation, they allowed themselves rather nasty things, such as Munich, the Pact, the Strange War, Land Liz, etc. However, it turned out that Germany and Japan were preparing as they should (although they made mistakes that decided the fate of these regimes), and the rest - prepared very badly. In the case of Comrade Stalin, his cadre army, armed with the world's best tanks, rifle, aircraft, artillery, etc. - turned out to be one big fraud. I had to drag out the war by the militia with the corresponding loss account. Moreover, in the main thing - the war will not be a blitzkrieg, but a war of attrition - Comrade Stalin was right, therefore, in the end, the USSR pulled out the war, unlike the Germans, who were much better prepared for the war proper.
        1. Chit 30 October 2019 20: 25 New
          • 9
          • 28
          -19
          Reserves began to plug holes just after the personnel spacecraft was destroyed due to Stalin's mistakes.
          About fraud - see statistics. Compare the number of German and Soviet aircraft and tanks on June 22, 1941.
          What was Stalin right about? The fact that the war will be on its territory? Yes, you at least read the Field Charter of 1936! Perhaps you will understand what Stalin had in mind under the war a little blood and on foreign territory.
          For Stalin, Hitler's attack was a complete surprise. He didn’t even allow such a thought. This is what I focus on, and this is what I blame Stalin.
          And you tell me about some kind of war of attrition ...
          1. tesser 30 October 2019 20: 55 New
            • 8
            • 7
            +1
            Quote: Chit
            Compare the number of German and Soviet aircraft and tanks on June 22, 1941.

            According to statistics or combat readiness?
            Quote: Chit
            Yes, you at least read the Field Charter of 1936! Perhaps you will understand what Stalin had in mind under the war a little blood and on foreign territory.

            Comrade Stalin did not mean the war with little bloodshed and on foreign territory from the moment the coalition of Poland and Romania ceased to be potential adversaries. This is his only advantage over Herr Hitler, who was otherwise much better prepared.
            Quote: Chit
            For Stalin, Hitler's attack was a complete surprise. He didn’t even allow such a thought.

            Yes Yes. Rezun-Suvorov has already written a collected work on this subject. Mostly lies, but the division numbers are correct.
            Quote: Chit
            And you tell me about some kind of war of attrition ...

            Not about some, but exactly about the Second World War, which was in reality.
        2. Perdit monocle capra 30 October 2019 21: 54 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          What is the abomination of Lend-Lisa ???
          1. tesser 30 October 2019 22: 01 New
            • 3
            • 10
            -7
            Quote: Perdit monocle capra
            What is the abomination of Lend-Lisa ???

            The fact is that the state, declaring neutrality, at its own expense supplies arms (and vacationers with the preservation of the rank) to one of the belligerents. There is some insincerity here. Regarding, in particular, the voter, who for some reason half a year before this undertaking had forgotten to tell about her.
            1. Town Hall 30 October 2019 22: 12 New
              • 5
              • 2
              +3
              Was the law on land lease passed secretly from the voter? Did the voter somehow disagree with the law, except for the next re-election of the "liar" a couple of years later?)
              1. tesser 30 October 2019 22: 30 New
                • 3
                • 8
                -5
                Quote: Town Hall
                The voter somehow expressed his disagreement with the law,

                The voter in the 40th year voted for Mr. Roosevelt and our boys will not go to the European war, it seems.
                Quote: Town Hall
                except for the next re-election of the "liar" a couple of years later?)

                In the 44th? At that time, the situation changed slightly.
                By the way, President Roosevelt was already sent to America for her sins, and Roosevelt's sample of the 4th term is generally a direct resident of hell. It is hard to imagine who could be worse than him.

                This is in addition to the fact of the 4th term in America.
              2. Town Hall 30 October 2019 22: 37 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                Quote: tesser
                At that time, the situation changed slightly

                And at 41 did not change compared to the 40th?
                Quote: tesser
                It is hard to imagine who could be worse than him.
                I already heard that. Worse than Roosevelt's president was only Eisenhower commander)
                Quote: tesser
                This is in addition to the fact of the 4th term

                4th term is not "more surprising" than the 3rd
              3. tesser 30 October 2019 22: 55 New
                • 1
                • 6
                -5
                Quote: Town Hall
                And in 41 did not change compared to the 40th

                Between November and March? No. Churchill received a letter on the topic ran out of money, such a surprise.
                Quote: Town Hall
                I already heard that. Worse than Roosevelt's president was only Eisenhower commander)

                Yes, this is not only my opinion))). And Eisenhower is not a military commander at all. This is by the measures of the USA of that time still not bad. Here is Field Marshal MacArthur - yes, ghoul.
                Quote: Town Hall
                4th term is not "more surprising" than the 3rd

                Partly yes, it was already clear that something had gone wrong. But in the 44th president, Konstantin Ustinovich Chernenko was elected, which is completely out of place.
              4. Town Hall 30 October 2019 23: 03 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                They do not change horses at the crossing, this is international fun). Bush Jr. in 2004, too, was re-elected by the way.
                By the way, right after Roosevalt, the limitation of 2 terms, which before that was gentlemen's agreement, was made a formal norm of the law .. and that is typical without any confusion in the form of the word Contract). Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum
              5. tesser 30 October 2019 23: 18 New
                • 2
                • 6
                -4
                Quote: Town Hall
                By the way, right after Roosewalt’s restriction of 2 terms, which before that was gentlemen's agreement,

                Good but not enough. The XX Congress of the Democratic Party was needed. If all these arts were opened, the madness of McCarthyism would not have been needed. Alas.

                In the United States, there are still problems with this, with litter from the hut. Oh, how much Mr. was poured on the Clinton, and were elected - and with his hand took off. And conditional Biden, and even Sundance, I’m sure about Trump, will forget about the spy and pest, right on the day the results are announced. Mai country, so to speak, wright o rong. Although in fact mutual responsibility and class solidarity.
    2. Perdit monocle capra 30 October 2019 22: 40 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      On December 11, 1941, the USA entered the war with Germany in December 41. After that, what's the abomination ???
      1. tesser 30 October 2019 22: 49 New
        • 1
        • 5
        -4
        Quote: Perdit monocle capra
        On December 11, 1941, the USA entered the war with Germany in December 41. After that, what's the abomination ???

        After - no questions (until the age of 44). But Lend-Lease is March of the 41st year.
      2. Town Hall 30 October 2019 22: 53 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: tesser
        Lend-Lease is March of the 41st year.

        The foundations of the Land Lisa were laid in May 40, when industry began to shift to "paramilitary" rails.
      3. tesser 30 October 2019 22: 58 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Quote: Town Hall
        The foundations of the Land Lisa were laid in May 40, when industry began to shift to "paramilitary" rails.

        About industry is a separate song, there is much to talk about. But now I'm talking about the nuances of understanding the international legal status.
      4. Town Hall 30 October 2019 23: 06 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And what international rules did the US land lease law violate?
      5. tesser 31 October 2019 00: 31 New
        • 2
        • 6
        -4
        Quote: Town Hall
        And what international rules did the US land lease law violate?

        Oh my God. You will not untwist me on the review of international treaties of the interbellum period.

        If for you.
        1. Joint occupation by a warring country and a neutral of third countries (like another neutral);
        2. Supplies to the belligerent side of armaments due to neutral (as opposed to another neutralwho, nevertheless, traded);
        3. Providing neutral communications from Britain to Britain (neutral patrol) (other neutral hunted for smuggling kachuk, but in completely incomparable volumes)

        still neutral, then so be it.
      6. Town Hall 31 October 2019 10: 05 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Sweden throughout the war traded ore with the Reich .. that I do not recall any complaints against them from anyone
      7. tesser 31 October 2019 10: 17 New
        • 0
        • 6
        -6
        You really do not see the difference between the supply of ore (bearings, a lot of things) in the framework of foreign trade and the supply of weapons at the expense of your own budget?
      8. Town Hall 31 October 2019 12: 12 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        You are about moral aspects or about the norms of international law (at that time)
      9. Olgovich 31 October 2019 12: 22 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: tesser
        You really do not see the difference between the supply of ore (bearings, a lot of things) within foreign trade and arms deliveries from your own budget?

        You would also know that the components of Lend-Lease - (from the English. Lend - "lend" and lease - "Rent, lease"is a form of TRADE.
      10. tesser 31 October 2019 14: 16 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Quote: Olgovich
        You would also know that the components of Lend-Lease

        You read yourself. The LL property was owned by the United States Government. After the war, it was subject to or return to the owner, or foreclosure into the property.
        The British killed the Germans with weapons that officially belonged to the US government.
      11. Olgovich 1 November 2019 07: 28 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: tesser
        You read yourself. The LL property was owned by the United States Government. After the war, it was subject to eitherreturn to the owner, or redemption of property.

        I repeat, if you do not understand: leasing is long-term lease of property with subsequent redemption right, credit. TRADE FORMS. The USA HAD the right to do so. Like any country.
        WHAT is not clear, then ?!
      12. tesser 1 November 2019 08: 33 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        Quote: Olgovich
        TRADE FORMS. The USA HAD the right to do so. Like any country.
        WHAT is not clear, then ?!

        You see, it is incomprehensible to you. You, apparently, are not aware of the realities of the FDR and are making up for it.

        LL, as the FDR told Congress, it is as if your cousins ​​(British) had a fire (war), and you had a hose in your closet (a lot of things have been idle since the WWII). You give them a hose, they use it, and when it is not needed they will return it. But they won’t return it - and to hell with it, all the same junk, speaking between us.

        LL, as he submitted, is the president’s right to dispose of the army and navy’s mobility reserve. The supply of LL did not imply a transfer of rights - everything delivered until the time of the repurchase remained the property of the US government. The fact that LL in the blink of an eye became a means of militarizing industry, so what Roosevelt was a great president, is the ability to execute acts of Congress as he needs, and not as the people who accepted them thought.

        On the other hand, such a legal design meant the following: an aircraft carrier belonging to the US government, with aircraft belonging to the US government, drops bombs belonging to the US government to German submarines. At the same time, the command of the aircraft carrier is English, but the pilot, quite possibly, is an acting officer (more precisely, Ensign) of the US Navy. If all this happens west of Iceland (the occupied USA) - the flag on the aircraft carrier is American, if to the east - English.

        And the USA is neutral.
      13. Olgovich 2 November 2019 09: 31 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: tesser
        . Delivery under LL did not imply transfer of rights - everything delivered until the time of redemption remained in ownership US government.


        Of course, this is the essence of this TRADE: lend - “lend” and lease - “rent, rent” YOUR property.

        It is very common in the world today. Read the lease agreement.
        Quote: tesser
        A U.S. government-owned aircraft carrier with U.S.-government aircraft drops U.S.-government bombs on German submarines. In this case, the crew of the English carrier

        Yes, a combine purchased on a lease (the property of a leasing company), collects crops in the fields that have no relation to this company, sows seeds there that are not related to it, and watered water from a third company.
        His operator is also not from her.
      14. tesser 2 November 2019 13: 43 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        Quote: Olgovich
        Yes, a combine purchased on lease

        Well, if you don’t see the difference between combine leasing and an aircraft carrier leasing, I won’t be able to explain it to you.
      15. Olgovich 3 November 2019 07: 28 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: tesser
        Well, if you don’t see the difference between combine leasing and an aircraft carrier leasing, I won’t be able to explain it to you.

        If you you do not want to know the essence of trade in leasing, then, of course, make you not in my power.
      16. tesser 3 November 2019 08: 46 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Quote: Olgovich
        If you do not want to know the essence of leasing

        How would I tell you about leasing trade. If you find a lessor transferring ships and planes for leasing for free, and deducting them for free in case of loss - be sure to let me know, I really need it.
      17. Olgovich 3 November 2019 10: 14 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: tesser
        What can I tell you about trading on lease. How to find a lessor leasing ships and planes for free

        All for the money.
        Quote: tesser
        and free of charge them in case of loss - be sure to let me know he is very needed.

        and why do you need it?
        This is the salt ....
      18. tesser 3 November 2019 10: 19 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        Quote: Olgovich
        All for the money.

        Google, An Act Further to promote the defense of the United States, and for other purposes.
      19. Olgovich 3 November 2019 10: 56 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: tesser
        An Act Further to promote the defense of the United States, and for other purposes


        Yes: Art. 5 (b)
        The terms and conditions upon which any such foreign government receives any aid authorized under subsection (a) shall be those which the President deems satisfactory, and the benefit to the United States may he payment or repayment in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory.
      20. tesser 3 November 2019 11: 57 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        Quote: Olgovich
        may he payment or repayment in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory.

        Yes, yes, yes, trade. Americans love and know how to trade.

        Are you going to get to this for a long time?
      21. Olgovich 3 November 2019 12: 08 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: tesser
        Yes, yes, yes, trade. Americans love and know how to trade.

        Are you going to get to this for a long time?

        perhaps enough is enough: you are unconvincing, and there is no goal to prove anything to you either. hi
      22. tesser 3 November 2019 13: 09 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        Quote: Olgovich
        You are unconvincing

        Did I convince you of something? Did not know.
  • ccsr 31 October 2019 11: 56 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: tesser
    Oh my God. You will not untwist me on the review of international treaties of the interbellum period.

    So you won’t convince that the whole world should be white and fluffy, as you want to draw, but rather yourself with a lot of meanness and hypocrisy in relation to competitors and opponents in the geopolitical arena. So the attempts to run into Stalin and the policies of the USSR, and they can be seen in your texts, look like an inadequate reaction to world history, or purposeful propaganda in demonizing the Bolsheviks and their period of rule in our Fatherland.
    You are more subtly lead propaganda - the ears are painfully noticeable ...
  • tesser 31 October 2019 14: 10 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    Quote: ccsr
    the whole world should be white and fluffy as you want to draw

    I AM? I am very far from the thought of a white and fluffy world. None of the above rial politicians did the above. Like not listed.
    Quote: ccsr
    So the attempts to run into Stalin and the politics of the USSR, and they can be seen in your texts

    I don’t know what you are viewing there. If you put Stalin among the figures where he saw himself - Peter, the Terrible, Genghis Khan, etc. - everything falls into place. And fire and sword, and boyars on stakes, and even the kingdom of heaven with the gulag. The balance of pros and cons in the thread says that the XNUMXth century is not over.
    Stosh.
    Quote: ccsr
    targeted propaganda in demonizing the Bolsheviks

    I don’t like many people. Why would I hide this?
  • ccsr 31 October 2019 18: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: tesser
    I don’t like many people. Why would I hide this?

    I already realized that you can hardly expect objectivity from you in assessing historical events.
  • tesser 31 October 2019 19: 03 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    I already realized that you can hardly expect objectivity from you in assessing historical events.

    What is another "objectivity in the assessment"? Did you read this in Soviet textbooks? A person either owns the texture, or not, or cheats, or not. And for what he drowns at the same time - the tenth matter. I sometimes come across well-trained Stalinists, from whom you can learn a lot for yourself, not about liberals, but from history. Moreover, if a person does not like my views - he has an incentive to look for errors in my arguments. If he really does this, and does not freebies with cheap slogans - this is extremely valuable.
  • ccsr 31 October 2019 19: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: tesser
    What is another "objectivity in the assessment"? Did you read this in Soviet textbooks?

    No, it’s from my life that I realized that you don’t have to believe those who are pre-configured to praise or defame the story, because their blindness leads to its distortion.
    Quote: tesser
    A person either owns the texture, or not, or cheats, or not.

    Those. Are you implying that I should believe Yakovlev or Volkogonov? Why on earth, even if he operates on some documents and what do you think "own texture", but at the same time pursue their propaganda goals?
    Quote: tesser
    If he really does this, and does not freebies with cheap slogans - this is extremely valuable.

    You stated that
    still neutral, then so be it.

    I have a simple question - Sweden and Switzerland with this approach are neutral countries in that period or not?
  • tesser 31 October 2019 20: 29 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    who is preconfigured to praise or defame the story, because their reticence leads to its distortion.

    It’s just easier, no need to strain and catch where objectivity begins to turn into lies.
    Quote: ccsr
    Why on earth, even if he operates on some documents and what do you think "own texture", but at the same time pursue their propaganda goals?

    Naturally. Facts are facts, they need to be known, not believed. I’ll tell you more, as someone has already noted here, the golem propagandist Suvorov was very useful at one time if you treated him without too much enthusiasm. Trust, but verify. If you are told something that you do not agree with, you need not shout "liberalist," or, I don’t know, "a whiskered ghoul," but formulate it, if only for yourself, but what’s wrong?
    Quote: ccsr
    I have a simple question - Sweden and Switzerland with this approach are neutral countries in that period or not?

    The Swedes were neutral in the Anglo-German war and were not neutral in the Soviet-Finnish. The Swiss were neutral. They did not conduct joint combat operations with the warring countries, they did not provide military convoys following their territory with an armed convoy, they did not supply arms to the warring parties free of charge, at the expense of the Swiss budget. They led the merchant woman, hid a bloody little gold, there are no questions, for that we need neutrality.
  • ccsr 31 October 2019 21: 00 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: tesser
    Naturally. Facts are facts, they need to be known, not believed.

    I agree. But the trouble is that the facts are often withheld, and you cannot in some historical period have access to all documents of the same Great Patriotic War, and even now. Try to find genuine encryption that is stored in the archives of the GRU or in the 8th department of the General Staff, for example. What will we do with this?
    Quote: tesser
    , the golem propagandon Suvorov at one time was very useful,

    Do you mean Rezun? If so, what is the big use of his lies?
    Quote: tesser
    and formulate, at least for himself, but what is wrong?

    I agree with this - we must first of all understand for ourselves what the truth is, and only then defend it so as not to look ridiculous in a dispute with those who have a different opinion based on a false interpretation of events and facts.
    Quote: tesser
    The Swedes were neutral in the Anglo-German war and were not neutral in the Soviet-Finnish.

    But didn’t they support the German economy with their trade after the start of the Second World War? There is a fact of economic assistance to Germany, which means they were not neutral in the classical sense.
    Quote: tesser
    The Swiss were neutral.

    And their banks did not conduct operations with fascist Germany, and the enterprises did not supply products to the Wehrmacht? I think that in this case, neutrality is just a convention that the Germans used throughout the war.
    Quote: tesser
    They led the merchant woman, hid a bloody little gold, there are no questions, for that we need neutrality.

    And for some reason I thought that neutral countries should try not to tarnish their reputation, and not use their position to provide covert assistance to one of the belligerents, limiting themselves, for example, to the activities of the Red Cross or humanitarian aid to prisoners of war.
  • tesser 31 October 2019 23: 53 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Quote: ccsr
    What will we do with this?

    Nothing. It is required to work with what is.
    Quote: ccsr
    If so, what is the big use of his lies?

    The fact that two different lies is much better than one, the only true one that was available in the 80s.
    Quote: ccsr
    But didn’t they support the German economy with their trade after the start of the Second World War?

    Naturally supported. And not WWII, but WWII. As for the Second World War, the USSR was the enemy of Sweden, but the Reich was not. You, I see, have forgotten about the liberation of the Finnish working people from the royal imperfections, and the Swedes have not forgotten.
    Quote: ccsr
    which means they were not neutral in the classical sense.

    I don’t know what your classic understanding is. A non-classical understanding of neutrality is to suck two queens.
    Quote: ccsr
    And their banks did not conduct operations with fascist Germany, and the enterprises did not supply products to the Wehrmacht?

    Quote: tesser
    They led the merchant woman, hid a bloody little gold, there are no questions, for that we need neutrality.

    Quote: ccsr
    And for some reason I thought that neutral countries should try not to tarnish their reputation.

    And someone there presented to me for excessive fluffiness.
    Quote: ccsr
    for example, the activities of the Red Cross or humanitarian aid to prisoners of war.

    So you can’t make money with bread and butter.
  • ccsr 1 November 2019 12: 00 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: tesser
    Nothing. It is required to work with what is.

    Nifiga yourself approach! And if the documents that are hidden now refute the topic of your dissertation, for example - how then treats you when they are declassified? Here, one author in another topic famously lied about intelligence and accused her that she allegedly didn’t indicate the numbers of German regiments. And he was planted with a big pig by the recently declassified report by Shaposhnikov, where the potential of Germany is assessed only by divisions - and this is how the soap bubbles of some small-town “researchers” burst.
    Quote: tesser
    The fact that two different lies is much better than one, the only true one that was available in the 80s.

    By definition, lies cannot be the best, even if there are two or more of them - I'm sure of that. You do not know the truth - there is nothing to lie for the sake of your ignorance.
    Quote: tesser
    As for the Second World War, the USSR was the enemy of Sweden, but the Reich was not.

    Why on earth, if our embassy worked there throughout the war?
    Quote: tesser
    A non-classical understanding of neutrality is to suck two queens.

    This does not smell close to neutrality, and is an excuse for vile politicians.
    Quote: tesser
    So you can’t make money with bread and butter.

    So then let's not talk about neutrality at that time at all - it simply did not exist, and almost all countries participated on one side or another in the world war.
  • tesser 1 November 2019 18: 30 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Quote: ccsr
    so then it treats you when they are declassified?

    To write a monograph on them, of course.
    Quote: ccsr
    By definition, lies cannot be the best, even if there are two or more of them - I'm sure of that.

    You are sure wrong. Two hostile lies undermine each other, help to find spaces, stretches and specific examples of fraud in each other. That is, they help to find the truth, first with pieces of the puzzle, then with the big picture.
    Quote: ccsr
    Why on earth, if our embassy worked there throughout the war?

    They did not declare war, weapons and volunteers were sent.
    Quote: ccsr
    is an excuse for vile politicians

    I have no other politicians for you, you are our fluffy.
    Quote: ccsr
    almost all countries participated on one side or another in the world war.

    That is why it is world-wide, that if not the country itself, then its main trading partners are at war.

    I seem to have written in detail. One thing is trade, the second is joint military operations, the third is the supply of weapons at one’s own expense.
  • ccsr 2 November 2019 10: 15 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: tesser
    To write a monograph on them, of course.

    And the previous dissertation in the furnace and abandon the title to (d). And.?

    Quote: tesser
    You are sure wrong. Two hostile lies undermine each other, help to find spaces, stretches and specific examples of fraud in each other.

    Where I had to communicate this sophistry was not perceived - the type of activity was different, and there only truth was required, based on reliable sources. So your thoughts would not have rolled in, whatever you wrapped them in.

    Quote: tesser
    I seem to have written in detail. One thing is trade, the second is joint military operations, the third is the supply of weapons at one’s own expense.

    Come on, this does not make an excuse, just like the fact that for the sake of "humanity" the Americans tried to avoid large-scale bombing of German enterprises, which had partly American capital and moved into their zone of occupation.
  • tesser 2 November 2019 14: 07 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Quote: ccsr
    abandon the title to (d). and.?

    With a fig? Science is not the establishment of “truth” so that you know that priests and honest journalists are engaged in “truth”. Science is the creation of content of a certain quality and internal connectivity based on available base. When, for example, the Americans recently discovered that the Japanese also know how to write in some of their gibberish languages, but there is a right mouse button that allows you to read this - the history of the Pacific War has been radically revised. But, as far as I am aware, no one was shot at the same time for previous (anti) scientific achievements.
    Quote: ccsr
    only true, based on reliable sources.

    Again you with your felts. The truth is being addressed by the historians of Middle-earth J. Tolkien. The history of Russia / USSR is occupied by such people as the doctor of various sciences Medinsky and General Epishev on the one hand, foreign agents, pedophiles and runaway spies on the other.
    Quote: ccsr
    no excuse

    What other excuses did you find with me? Brezhnev, Spaats, tell us more about the blacks who are lynched, and we will end here.
  • ccsr 2 November 2019 17: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: tesser
    Science is not the establishment of “truth” so that you know that priests and honest journalists are engaged in “truth”. Science is the creation of content of a certain quality and internal connectivity based on the existing base.

    It seems to me that you are from the current "grave" - ​​it is too painful an extravagant look at science, especially accurate.
    Quote: tesser
    The history of the Pacific War has been radically revised.

    I did not read what the Japanese are writing now, but I had to study several of the works of our experts on that war, and therefore I have my opinion based on their views. If someone now “opens up” something new, I’m unlikely to radically change my views, because the array of information that is known after the end of that war is enough to understand what was happening there.
    Quote: tesser
    The history of Russia / USSR is occupied by such people as the doctor of various sciences Medinsky and General Epishev on the one hand, foreign agents, pedophiles and runaway spies on the other.

    I don’t know anything about Medinsky, what kind of historian he is, and Epishev wasn’t either, but historian E. Spitsin is listening with interest, because in my opinion he is one of the best modern historians in our country. But this is my personal opinion, so that you understand it.
    Quote: tesser
    What other excuses did you find with me?

    Apparently this was not an excuse, but your flight of thought into the unknown gave. When you return from them, inform them that the conversation is more substantive.
  • Perdit monocle capra 30 October 2019 23: 39 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Why until the 44th ???
  • tesser 31 October 2019 00: 26 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    Quote: Perdit monocle capra
    Why until the 44th ???

    Because in August-September of the 44th, the US ambassador Harriman and the head of the military mission Dean began to write to Washington that no alliance between the USSR and the USA exists and cannot exist. By the spring of the 45th, the USSR and the USA were actually at war, about which Dean and Harriman went to report to Washington personally, each in their own line.

    Fortunately for the USSR, in that world that the city of fantasy imagined Roosevelt, Hull, Stettinius and others, there was no place for a bad USSR, and especially a war with the USSR. Marshall at that time generally spit on political issues from a high bell tower, reducing his functions exclusively to administrative ones, Truman was completely isolated from current issues by Roosevelt and for at least six months after taking office he could not understand the monstrous state of affairs (there is reason to believe that much longer). The Roosevelt administration, and then Truman, managed to lie to themselves and others about the wrong Egain until the summer of 1950 and finally start fighting with the USSR in an immeasurably weaker position than they had in the 45th, especially the 44th . They chose shame several times, and got both shame and war, bloody, but meaningless. In their case, Korean, then Vietnamese.
  • Perdit monocle capra 1 November 2019 19: 52 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    I wonder where you read it ??? The United States was faithful to allied treaties until the last day of WW2. In September, the last LL came to the USSR.
    And what was Roosevelt wrong saying about the neighbor’s fire and hose ??? The United States very skillfully used LL to its advantage. What claims to them ???
  • tesser 2 November 2019 03: 48 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Quote: Perdit monocle capra
    What claims to them ???

    For Land Liz? Yes, there are no complaints, I even think that Roosevelt was absolutely right in this case, and there is no Taft (in the 41st). I simply listed LL among the real politicians of the time, along with Munich and the Pact. If the word "abomination" bothers you, you can call it "creative." All three decisions are a way to buy time for mobilization, and the idea of ​​the Americans is undoubtedly the most elegant and humane. In contrast to the "appeasement" of Hitler and the Pact, LL more than paid off, both in the war and after.
    Quote: Perdit monocle capra
    The United States was faithful to allied treaties until the last day of WW2. In September, the last LL came to the USSR.

    Yes, although Dean, Kennan and others, I repeat, offered to finish with him as early as September 44th. You can read Kennan, if you want, on the same milter. But the late Roosevelt was already incapable of such turns, and the early Truman did not understand at all that he came with a knife to a shootout.
  • vladimirZ 30 October 2019 19: 45 New
    • 17
    • 2
    +15
    I have been studying history (including the history of the Second World War) for more than 20 years. He started back in Soviet patterns and thoughts of Comrade Zhukov. And I dare to assure you, I understand the subject. - Chit

    It is evident that you do not know enough about the history of the Second World War, especially regarding the constantly opening archives.
    I.V. Stalin knew that there would be a war in June 1941, a large number of facts, especially those that had been discovered in recent decades, spoke of this. I will cite only a few - the early release of commanders from military schools and academies in May 1941, and Stalin’s speech dated May 05, 1941 at a reception in honor of graduates of military academies, in which he spoke of a close war with Germany; the partial mobilization of 800.000 reservists carried out in February-March, in the form of BUSs sent to the western military district; the nomination in April-May 1941 of several armies from the internal districts and Siberia also to the western districts, etc.

    In fact, despite the numerical superiority in the quantity of military equipment, the Red Army was weaker than the Wehrmacht in terms of skill and organization of troops, the training of soldiers and commanders, the quality of general training, and the use of new tactical and strategic warfare methods developed by the German military. It is enough to cite as an example the developed method of conducting a blitzkrieg based on the use of tank groups, the coordination of different branches and types of armed forces in them, aimed at a concentrated and crushing breakthrough of the front and the encirclement of large masses of enemy forces, in comparison with our 1000 tank clumsy mechanized corps, poorly organized service and maintenance of equipment, almost no communication, coordination with artillery, infantry, aviation, etc.

    In addition, it is not necessary to discount our eternal mess and indifference, permeating the entire vertical command of the Red Army from the bottom to the highest general with the facts of their direct betrayal. As an example, it’s enough to cite the command of the OZapVO under the leadership of General Pavlov, who in fact sabotaged the implementation of the directives of the General Staff and the People’s Commissariat of Defense for putting troops on alert in the last pre-war days, starting from June 10-12, 1941, which actually determined the defeat of the district forces in the first days of the war, and opened a 400 km hole on the entire Western Front.
    Well, etc. etc., you can write a lot on this topic. In the last two decades, a large number of historical studies on this topic have been published, which give reasonably enough evidence of the causes of the defeat of the SC in 1941-42, and the role of I.V. Stalin is minimal in them. Most of these reasons are objectively logical because of the backwardness of military-technical production, the low educational and cultural level of the population, which inevitably affects the Red Army, the low training of command personnel to generals and marshals, inclusive.
    1. Chit 30 October 2019 20: 40 New
      • 9
      • 23
      -14
      Let’s not now popularize the calculations of Suvorov-Rezun. Because your theses fit perfectly into them.
      If Stalin knew that there would be a war in 1941, then this only says that he wanted to start it. This "knowledge" cannot be explained by anything else.
      If Stalin KNEW that the war would begin with an attack by Hitler, then there was no forgiveness to him. If you knew, why didn’t you prepare? Why concentrated the troops in two ledges, which the German instantly cut off? Why brought the airfields to the border? After all, the German will attack! After all, everything will fall under attack! Everything will be destroyed!
      Is Stalin's guilt minimal? Yes, Stalin was solely responsible for everything that happened in the USSR, including the Red Army! Who should be involved in training team personnel from generals to marshals, inclusive? Soldier Ivan Chonkin? Or the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary General of the party to which all military units are subordinate?
      Who should analyze the political and military situation, evaluate intelligence of the Red Army and the NKVD? Who should make the right decision on defense of the state border of the USSR? Who was obliged to foresee everything, up to the sudden attack of Germany?
      1. tesser 30 October 2019 21: 03 New
        • 5
        • 6
        -1
        Quote: Chit
        If you knew, why didn’t you prepare?

        Quote: Chit
        why did he concentrate the troops in two ledges,

        Quote: Chit
        Why brought the airfields to the border?

        Here, I’ve been preparing, what else do you need.
        Quote: Chit
        Who was obliged to foresee everything, up to the sudden attack of Germany?

        What to do, the spy and wrecker Beria shot all the fellow soldiers on the far approaches to Comrade Stalin’s office. The unwillingness to meet the Wehrmacht as it was in 40-41 is a common problem.
      2. Obi-Wan Kenobi 31 October 2019 06: 40 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        Only a finished clinical one could write this:
        If Stalin knew that there would be a war in 1941, then this only says that he wanted to start it.

        You will find the diagnosis of idiocy online.
        Is Stalin's guilt minimal? Yes, Stalin was solely responsible for everything that happened in the USSR, including the Red Army!

        Who are you to judge I.V. Stalin? What have you personally done for your country, huh?
        Do you at least a little of your meager, wretched, plebeian mind represent all that burden of responsibility (April - June 1941) that lay on the shoulders of Stalin before the entire Soviet people and the USSR as a whole?
        If it weren’t for Stalin, there would be no one alive! The Nazis would destroy the entire population of the USSR.
        Although people like you would most likely start working with the Germans and submit lists of communists and Jews to the GESTAPO in time.
        1. astepanov 31 October 2019 08: 19 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
          This could only be written by a finished clinical

          Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
          You will find the diagnosis of idiocy online

          Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
          You at least imagine your meager, wretched, plebeian mind

          Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
          such as you would most likely begin to cooperate with the Germans and in time submit to the GESTAPO lists of communists and Jews.

          So gentlemen, "patriots" have come to such pearls in discussion.
      3. vladimirZ 31 October 2019 07: 13 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Let’s not now popularize the calculations of Suvorov-Rezun. Because your theses fit perfectly into them.
        If Stalin knew that there would be a war in 1941, then this only says that he wanted to start it. This "knowledge" cannot be explained by anything else. - Chit

        Ha ha ha Yes, you can see, except for the traitor and the nonsense Rezunov-Suvorov, you have not read or heard anything about modern research on the history of the Great Patriotic War, if you state this. They read liberal stories and myths, and sprinkle them like peas against a wall, without analyzing them, and without critically interpreting them.
        Are you the names of such researchers of the history of the Great Patriotic War as E. Spitsyn, Yu. Zhukov, A. Martirosyan, Yu. Mukhin, A. Isaev, S. Chekunov, O. Kozinkin, and others. What are they talking about?
        I.V. Stalin is not a comprehensive God, in order to look into every small problem of the USSR, he solved the global issues of building socialism in the USSR, improving the well-being of people, preparing the country for an imminent war, and to solve these problems he not only worked on them, but also trained command personnel and arranged them to the decisive sections of the construction of the country and the Army. Those who could not cope with the work he dismissed, set others, until he found those who could do the job and who could be relied on with complete confidence. Was wrong about that? Yes, he was mistaken many times, but such is life — errors are inevitable here. One of them is the appointment of G. Zhukov and Tymoshenko to the leadership of the Red Army before the war, but more on that below.

        Now about the defeat of the beginning of the war, the deployment of the Red Army in Bialystok and Lviv ledges, the deployment of airfields and military depots with a large amount of equipment and military equipment lost in the early days of the war near the border.
        Some of the authors, falsifiers of the history of the Great Patriotic War, have slopes in continuation of Rezun-Suvorov’s bluff, and more precisely Goebels’s bluff - Hitler’s mouthpiece, based on this pre-war deployment of the Red Army troops, to assert that the USSR was the first to start a war against Germany, “to bring socialism to the peoples of Europe,” etc. These include the successors of the Rezun-Suvorov case - M. Solonin, Svanidze, M. Meltiukhov, etc.
        Other, objective historians, researchers, including A. Martirosyan, O. Kozinkin, S. Chekunov and others, based on archival data, revealed the "secret" of such a pre-war deployment of our troops. And it is as follows.

        The pre-war leadership of the Red Army (G. Zhukov, Tymoshenko) was replaced by the only one approved by the country's leadership, and I. Stalin, in October 1940, the Defense Plan - "Considerations for the deployment of troops ...", developed by Marshal B.M. Shaposhnikov, based on the principles of active defense, on his own version of the outbreak of war. The Zhukovsky option consisted of an immediate counter-offensive by the Red Army against the attacking German forces from Lviv (main attack on Lublin, Krakow) and Bialystok (auxiliary attack on Warsaw) ledges, with the goal of "preventing the deployment of German troops" and surround them with the actions of mechanized corps, s " stubborn stiff defense "on the remaining sectors of the front, which was expressed in the famous Directive No. 3 of 22.06.1941 and the Plan -" Considerations for the deployment of troops ... "of May 15, 1941 (although it was not signed by anyone, but nevertheless developed nny).
        Moreover, as G. Zhukov himself later admitted in conversations with the writer Simonov, they even offered I. Stalin to be the first to start a preventive war against Germany, but Stalin categorically rejected their proposals that he accepted Zhukov with post-war gratitude, understanding the after-fact of the inevitable multiple defeat, what really happened in June 1941.

        Why did I. Stalin trust Zhukov-Tymoshenko in preparing the Red Army for war? At that time, Stalin was not the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, did not possess the necessary luggage of military knowledge to understand the disastrous essence of the options for starting the war offered by the military, and much was done quietly by them, since they achieved the subordination of the Special Departments in the Red Army, from the NKVD to the People’s Commissariat of Defense. Only after the outbreak of the war, seeing where he was brought by timothy bugs, he was forced to take control of not only the country, but also the Army, and gradually improve the situation.
        1. DimerVladimer 31 October 2019 13: 21 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: vladimirZ
          and gradually straighten the position


          1942 disaster near Kharkov, in Crimea, the Germans breakthrough into the Caucasus ...
          what do historians think about this?
          After the winter successes of 1941-1942, Stalin was in a state of euphoria near Moscow, Tikhvin and Rostov. It was the frivolity of Stalin, who overestimated the capabilities of the Red Army and underestimated the Wehrmacht, became, according to an established opinion, the cause of the disaster near Kharkov, in the Crimea and the Germans' exit to Stalingrad and the Caucasus.
          1. vladimirZ 31 October 2019 19: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            After the winter successes of 1941-1942, Stalin was in a state of euphoria near Moscow, Tikhvin and Rostov. It was the frivolity of Stalin, who overestimated the capabilities of the Red Army and underestimated the Wehrmacht, became, according to an established opinion, the cause of the disaster near Kharkov, in the Crimea and the Germans' exit to Stalingrad and the Caucasus. - DimerVladimer

            And whose opinion is this? There was no frivolity, and no euphoria either. The battle of Moscow showed the ability of the Red Army to conduct defensive battles, but the insufficient ability to organize offensive operations, in essence, was pushing out exhausted German troops from Moscow. The first attempts at the beginning of 1942 to break through the German front near Moscow and bring army groups into the breakthrough in order to achieve at least some front-line success in the direction of Vyazma ended with the encirclement of the 33rd Army, its complete defeat and death, surrounded by its commander, Lieutenant General M Efremov.
            As for the defeat of the spacecraft near Kharkov in 1942, the initiative for the offensive operation of the spacecraft belonged to the command of the South-Western direction, headed by Tymoshenko, a member of the Armed Forces Khrushchev, chief of staff Baghramyan, who went to Headquarters in March 1942 with such a proposal.
            The General Staff, having considered this proposal, concluded that it was impossible to carry out such an operation in the spring of 1942. This was reported to I. Stalin. The headquarters, not being able to strengthen the South-West direction with its reserves, agreed with the opinion of the General Staff. Marshal S.K.Timoshenko was asked to develop a plan for a limited operation only with the aim of defeating the enemy group in the Kharkov region and liberating the city with available forces. The initiative of the command of the Southwestern Front turned out to be poorly developed and poorly organized, and besides, it came across a “sudden” (again “sudden” for them) German offensive on this sector of the front, which led to the encirclement and death of our troops. Who cares in more detail in the article "Kharkov disaster in May 1942" http://www.historia.ru/2008/01/kharkov.htm
            As for the defeat in the Crimea in 1942, the SC was again shown the inability to conduct offensive operations in that period, and with due German counterattack, our troops simply lost.
            In fact, at that time, the German army was stronger than the Red Army, which ensured the success of the Germans in the entire South-West and South directions. Ours could only hold strategic active defense, retreat gradually grinding the German troops. And this was the strategic plan of the Supreme High Command Headquarters, which is confirmed by the fact that the preparation of the defense of Stalingrad began in October 1941.
      4. Pilat2009 31 October 2019 17: 04 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Chit
        Who should be involved in training team personnel from generals to marshals, inclusive

        You’ll laugh, but not the Supreme. This is the General Staff involved. And war games are being held. Even the same Zhukov at headquarters games according to some reports, just like the Germans cut off the Bialystok ledge (although maybe it's just rumors)
        http://militera.lib.ru/docs/da/sov-new-1940/92.html
  • AU Ivanov. 30 October 2019 19: 59 New
    • 8
    • 5
    +3
    Stalin did not oversleep Hitler’s strike and the attack was not a surprise. We had nothing to oppose the German military machine. Neither in terms of tactics, nor in terms of command and control.
    1. DimerVladimer 31 October 2019 13: 24 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: AU Ivanov.
      Stalin did not oversleep Hitler’s strike and the attack was not a surprise. We had nothing to oppose the German military machine. Neither in terms of tactics, nor in terms of command and control.


      And who is responsible for this?
      1. Pilat2009 31 October 2019 17: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        And who is responsible for this?

        In any war there are winners and losers. Well, let Stalin be responsible. Let us put the question differently, but could a 41-year defeat be avoided?
  • Ehanatone 30 October 2019 20: 21 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    "And do not blame everything on intelligence. Intelligence reports were different and covered events from different points of view."
    It is very convenient to broadcast on the afterlife from the heights of righteous anger ...
    And it seems your grandfathers have nothing to do with it ...
    And where exactly you, with your angry pose, and not at all a position ...
    Yes, of course, all this does not mean that Stalin was infallible ....
    as indeed Zhukov, who you adored, who stubbornly believed that the German, seeking harm, would attack exclusively the kuev, and he did not care about Belarusian swamps, well, if only because there, for example, the mosquito vegetable ...
  • As an adult, who has been studying the history of the Second World War for 20 years, you should know that the unexpected attack of Germany on the USSR was politically beneficial. This suited the leadership of the Union. You must know the reaction of the civilized world to the war with the white whales and the liberation campaign ... To bomb the oil fields of Baku in Great Britain was something. And the will was and the empire had the opportunity. The Union remembered how the Germans, the British, the French, the Americans and the Japanese came to visit Russia during the Civil War ... The Soviet leadership did everything right in the spring and summer of 1941. At the everyday level. In time mobilization was announced ... I think you do not know when it was announced .... This is not a well-known date. Let it remain that way. The leadership of the USSR did not plan a war on its territory. The enemy must be beaten on its territory. What is unusual or abstruse in this? Or too impudent? ,, Oh, you are so тогда Well then get ... ,, - here's the shortest ,, synopsis, about the intentions of the leadership of the Union for the summer of 1941. The stories of 1942 are for an ignorant layman. ... They were confident in their strength. Spain and Hassan In general - everything is fine! ... You are correctly talking about the balance of power of the parties. The Nazi tank T-1 did not have a gun, but had 2 7,92mm machine guns. How many such “tanks” could be chopped into a nut, the Soviet KV-2 armed with a 152mm caliber cannon? But the T-1 crawled to Moscow, and the KV-2 ended up in Berlin only as a trophy.
    The catastrophe of 1941 is not a “worldly” level, not a military mistake by Stalin. How many verbiage has already tried to explain how it is possible, easily and easily, to destroy thousands of Soviet tanks in 1941. And Kolobanov, and Lavrinenko?
    For hundreds of years, Russians have known: ,, God will not give out, a pig will not eat! ,, In 1941, -, gave out ,,. They deserve it. “Holy Russia” is the name of Russia that has been established for centuries. And any state located on this territory must be responsive to the task set by the Creator of Russia. There is a desire to prejudice, ,, to fool around,? Well then, get ready, get on the neck ,,. Moreover, the lesson of 1941 was not learned ... And they got the 1991th. The Union did not collapse then, collapsed after 50 years. Notice how for ,, correctional school ,, - clearly after 50 years. (2021st survive?)
    Former seminarian Stalin understood what was happening. Therefore, he sharply changed relations between the Soviet state and the Church since January 1943 .... Therefore, the word ,, victory ”is placed on the Order of Victory under the SPASSKAYA tower of the Kremlin
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 October 2019 21: 05 New
    • 10
    • 5
    +5
    Quote: Chit
    And I dare to assure you, I understand the subject.

    Do not understand. Apparently, 20 years were not enough for you
    Quote: Chit
    I am not interested in what Stalin was counting on and what Stalin was counting on. I am interested in the fact of the catastrophic defeat of the Red Army in June.

    And you are clearly not interested in the real reasons for this rout.
    Quote: Chit
    I ask for an answer why he overslept Hitler’s attack in 1941.

    I gave it to you. It’s not my fault that after 20 years of studying history you could not learn the most elementary, elementary truths.
    Quote: Chit
    And do not blame everything on intelligence. Intelligence reports were different and covered events from different angles.

    And there is a fact - intelligence overslept the transfer of divisions to the Soviet border.
    Quote: Chit
    I ask a specific question: if you have deployed a large accumulation of manpower and equipment in the border areas (for what purpose - now is not about that), why not bother with its preservation and safety?

    First, take the trouble to study why Stalin deployed a large number of troops in the border regions. This is the KEY question of the reasons for the defeat of 1941.
    When you find out that:
    1) After the WWII, all countries knew that the war does not begin when the guns rattle, but when the probable enemy begins a general mobilization;
    2) The USSR, due to its large areas and relatively weak transport network, lost to Germany in mobilization for about 3-4 weeks. From which it obviously followed that Germany, having begun general mobilization on the same day as the USSR, would be ahead of the Country of Soviets by almost a month in deployment. And from this, in turn, it followed that deciding to start a war with the USSR, Germany automatically receives a strategic initiative;
    3) By virtue of paragraphs 1-2, the USSR adopted a strategic plan for itself, which in principle corresponded to what the Russian Empire had in anticipation of the WWII;
    4) This plan was to concentrate large enough forces in the border districts and keep them close to full, so that you could quickly replenish the staff for 1-3 days or even fight with the existing staff. In the case of the beginning of the mobilization of Germany, these forces had to deliver a preemptive strike on the territory of the enemy in order to frustrate their deployment and win the very 3-4 weeks of the term until the complete mobilization of the Red Army.
    5) This is exactly what the Russian Empire tried to do in WWI by moving the armies of Samsonov and Rennenkampf to Prussia. However, the mistakes of our command and the hasty troop transfer from the French front led to failure - after the initial victories, Samsonov was defeated;
    6) But this plan could work only if the USSR struck before the German army deployed on its border - otherwise it would completely lose its meaning, because the troops of the border districts could not confront the entire German army. Their numbers were enough for a limited strike in order to disrupt / hamper deployment, and not to defeat the Wehrmacht
    Then, perhaps, you can recall that at the beginning of WWII, Germany fought first with Poland and then with France. That is, her army was ALREADY mobilized, but ours was not. And, perhaps, realize that the attempt to mobilize the Red Army rested on the fact that Hitler would consider this the beginning of the war. The war, to which the Soviet-Finnish conflict the Red Army showed "excellent", is categorically not ready. Did you read excerpts from the documents of Voroshilov and Tymoshenko? Or for 20 years did not master?
    Accordingly, in 1941, everything rested on intelligence. If she recorded the fact of the mass transfer of troops to the Soviet-German border, Stalin could understand that an attack was being prepared on the USSR and could counterattack according to plan. But intelligence:
    1) Overslept the fact of the transfer
    2) Over the years, the size of the German armed forces has been overestimated.
    Therefore, even when it became clear that the Germans had already gathered divisions at the borders of 120, Stalin:
    1) I couldn’t do anything already. Any of his decisions - an attack, announcement of mobilization, demonstrative withdrawal of troops no longer decided anything - the Germans gained an advantage and could attack at any time
    2) There was still hope that the Germans would not attack in 1941, since even 120 divisions, according to our intelligence, were less than 50% of the size of the German army. Why would Hitler not concentrate his entire army for an invasion, but only a small part of it?
    Quote: Chit
    Why did Stalin not allow this simple, elementary thought?

    How, studying history over the course of 20 years, did you manage to learn nothing about it?
    1. tesser 30 October 2019 21: 32 New
      • 4
      • 5
      -1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      1) After the WWII, all countries knew that the war does not begin when the guns rattle,

      Well, OK.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Germany, having begun universal mobilization on the same day as the USSR, will be ahead of the Soviet Union country by almost a month in deployment.

      OK.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      In the case of the beginning of the mobilization of Germany, these forces had to deliver a preemptive strike on the territory of the enemy in order to frustrate their deployment and win the very 3-4 weeks of the term until the complete mobilization of the Red Army.

      Army cover. It looks elegant.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Then, perhaps, you can recall that at the beginning of WWII, Germany fought first with Poland and then with France.

      And here the problems begin. When G.K. Zhukov got the post "front commander"?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      That is, her army was ALREADY mobilized, but ours was not.

      Hmm, how is it? What other army do you need, besides the one that was actually in the spring of 41? What will mobilization give you?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      1) Overslept the fact of the transfer

      There were facts. The analysis failed.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Over the years, the size of the German armed forces has been overestimated.

      That is yes. Comrade Stalin did not understand well the situation with the Wehrmacht and the situation with the Red Army.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Stalin:
      1) Already could not do anything.

      Come on you. Who else but you should know that the stories “how can we not fall in love with the 41st year” have written a million, and not all of them are insane. Another question is that Comrade Stalin's USSR was what it was and could not be otherwise.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2019 17: 37 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: tesser
        And here the problems begin. When G.K. Zhukov got the post "front commander"?

        If you have a problem, you should correctly formulate the question, and people will help you :)))) And the Zhukov’s comfront became 10 on October 1941.
        Quote: tesser
        Hmm, how is it? What other army do you need, besides the one that was actually in the spring of 41? What will mobilization give you?

        laughing Dear, you would at least learn the basics of military affairs, or something. In peacetime, divisions in those years (and even later) were maintained according to their reduced staff, that is, the size of the peacetime division was several times less than its size in the military. After the announcement of the mobilization of the division, they received replenishment (from previously served reservists) carried out combat coordination and then were transported to the battlefield. That is, mobilization, in fact, gives the army, without it there is no army.
        Quote: tesser
        There were facts. The analysis failed.

        There were no facts. For a long time, intelligence did not see the German divisions on our border - and suddenly eighty!
        Quote: tesser
        Come on you. Who else but you should know that the stories "how can we not fall in love with the 41 year" have written a million, and not all of them are insane.

        Yes, some are just deeply mistaken
        1. tesser 31 October 2019 18: 49 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          of the Zhukov’s confrontation became October 10, 1941

          Suddenly. But who worked at 01.07.1940, don’t you remember?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          That is, mobilization, in fact, gives the army, without it there is no army.

          It seems that you paid some attention to the Second World War. From you to hear that the Red Army in June 1941 was in dire need of the call of the collective farmers somehow strange.

          It would be nice to talk about transport. But, if I don’t confuse, you yourself said that some kind of game was formed with transport from n / a.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          For a long time, intelligence did not see the German divisions on our border - and suddenly eighty!

          That is, still found the Nazis?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Yes, some are just deeply mistaken

          You fell into determinism))?

          In general, this whole conversation about surprise reminds me of future allies, excuse me. They wrote and wrote for 20 years maritime contracts, and then bam, 2: 1 with the Japanese aircraft carriers. Who could know that this would be so? Incredible.

          More unexpected was perhaps the Wehrmacht in Belgium. Both times.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 November 2019 10: 36 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: tesser
            Suddenly. But who worked at 01.07.1940, don’t you remember?

            I thought you were talking about command during the war and indicated the date you took command of the Western Front, since Zhukov led the Reserve (August) and Leningrad (September) about a month each.
            Quote: tesser
            From you to hear that the Red Army in June 1941 year urgently needed the call of the collective farmers is somehow strange.

            Collective farmers (more precisely, trained draftees) then needed any massive army in the world. For example, in 1939 the German army (not all, but only field troops, garrisons of fortified areas and construction troops) was supposed to have 2 758 064 people in wartime. In fact, in peacetime there were only 730 thousand people directly in the troops, while the Wehrmacht did not have enough trained recruits - there were only 500 thousand of the first stage and 600 thousand of the second.
            Quote: tesser
            That is, still found the Nazis?

            Found - when it was already too late. What I actually wrote more than once
            Quote: tesser
            You fell into determinism))?

            No, I stay in realism :)))
            Quote: tesser
            In general, this whole conversation about surprise reminds me of future allies, excuse me. They wrote, wrote 20 years of maritime contracts, and then bam, 2: 1 with the Japanese aircraft carriers.

            Excuse me, what are you talking about? :))) at the beginning of the war in the Pacific, the Japanese have 6 heavy and 2 light aircraft carriers, Americans have 2 Lexington, 3 Yorktown, Ranger, Wosp. What's wrong?:)))
            Quote: tesser
            More unexpected was perhaps the Wehrmacht in Belgium. Both times.

            You don’t understand one simple thing - given the quality of command and control of the troops themselves in 1941, our cover army of the border districts was doomed to defeat, no matter what you do with it. This is not a matter of surprise.
          2. tesser 2 November 2019 15: 12 New
            • 3
            • 4
            -1
            It's funny You can’t help but understand what I’m talking about, but you decided to dig in the GlavPURovsky chronology of the Second World War. Naturally, you get something-that-cannot-call.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            believed you were talking about command during the war

            And where will the fronts come in peacetime?
            It is, of course, about the Southern Front, the first front commanded by Zhukov. Let me remind you that it was about the warrior Wehrmacht and peaceful Red Army.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            For example, in 1939 the German acting

            Do you play thimbles? I'm not talking about the Wehrmacht, I'm talking about the Red Army of the 41 year of the sample.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You don't understand one simple thing

            I understand her perfectly. Therefore, I run into your mobilization, which did not have time to carry out: comrade Stalin, in an appeal to the 39th of the 40th, gathered everything that he could. What is the “trained reserve” for him, which he didn’t see in the SVT, if he has a complete ahtung with sergeants and junior commanders, with company and platoon officers who themselves use only a bayonet and a butt in SVT? I’m not talking about the commanders, there’s a song of its own. The Red Army couldn’t be bigger, you call the collective farmers — the USSR is over, they will all disappear in summer boilers.

            What does Golikov have to do with "late found"? Why late, bunkers to dig from the Bug to the Dnieper? Personally, Zhukov and personally Tymoshenko personally went on "excursion trips" of the Red Army of the 39th to the 40th, they themselves know: these are the Americans of the 44th year, who do not know how to fight, when Patton who does not know how to fight, unfolds the front that does not know how to fight 3rd Army at 180 degrees, from the Rhine to Bastogne, having led tank divisions through infantry marching orders, did not do this in the USSR. The right words were spoken by comrade Tymoshenko and personally Comrade himself Stalin, about the dizziness of success and the modern war, but how to fight with this army, and not with the one that you dreamed of, for two years they did not understand.

            But the bumpkin Eisenhower understood. Therefore, he did not have boilers. Many why, but also so.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Americans - 2 Lexington, 3 Yorktown, Ranger, Wosp.

            Remember Langley. Two Lex one York vs Nagumo in December. At the same time, Sarah is bewitched, like a big batch - so she is in California)))
          3. ccsr 2 November 2019 17: 24 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: tesser
            And where will the fronts come in peacetime?

            From the judgment:
            Far Eastern Front. It was created by order of the People’s Commissar of Defense of the USSR from June 28, 1938 (in accordance with the decision of the Main Military Council of the Red Army on June 8, 1938) on the basis of the Special Red Banner Far Eastern Army (OKDVA) and was called the Red Banner Far Eastern Front. The front included management, the 1st and 2nd armies, as well as the Khabarovsk group of forces.

            So there would be a desire, perhaps in the European part of the country they would create fronts in peacetime.
            Quote: tesser
            But the bumpkin Eisenhower understood. Therefore, he did not have boilers. Many why, but also so.

            No need to distort and compare the scale of operations of the Wehrmacht in 1941 and in 1945. - these are two big differences. And in December 1944, the talents of the American commanders somehow did not appear in the Ardennes, and this was far from June 1941 and the Wehrmacht was not at all the same. Trim sturgeon ....
          4. tesser 2 November 2019 18: 09 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            Quote: ccsr
            would create fronts in peacetime.

            Peaceful as the 38th year in the Far East.
            Quote: ccsr
            did not show the talents of American commanders

            With talent there was poor. But the craft was known. Patton and Bradley, by the way, write that, as always, Monty ruined everything.
            Quote: ccsr
            the Wehrmacht was not at all the same.

            Yes Yes. I heard a lot about the wrong Wehrmacht, and even wrote it myself. There is something to add to this account comrade Konev on the example of Bautzen-Weissenberg, end of April of the 45th year.

            So that you know, the catastrophe in the West and the shame of Eisenhower were not the inflamed Ardennes. And the boring mouth of the Scheldt, which is of no interest to anyone. Where some 6 thousand people died, and then non-native Canadians.

            In these meaningless days, weeks, months, both Berlin and Vienna were fond of.
          5. ccsr 2 November 2019 18: 27 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: tesser
            With talent there was poor. But the craft was known. Patton and Bradley, by the way, write that, as always, Monty ruined everything.

            In general, I don’t see big talents there, and if one of them writes in his memoirs about someone, then to believe them in everything - do not respect yourself. However, our memoirists sometimes cheat to whitewash or embellish themselves, so this is a well-known phenomenon since ancient times.

            Quote: tesser
            So that you know, the catastrophe in the West and the shame of Eisenhower were not the inflamed Ardennes.

            It doesn’t interest me at all - you apparently didn’t understand that I took your words about Ike as a typical example of your narcissism. I cited the example of Ardenne only to show that the German army could surprise everyone in general.
          6. tesser 2 November 2019 18: 54 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            Quote: ccsr
            I don’t see big talents there

            Quote: ccsr
            It doesn't interest me at all

            And I see that you are not interested. It’s just that for some reason you decided to take me away with a proprietary Soviet technique, they say, lost by the Ardennes Model - this, all of a sudden, is the collapse of the Allies, Kharkov, 42nd year. Right now, more about Churchill’s letter and the Vistula-Oder operation, it’s necessary to go with trump cards.
          7. ccsr 2 November 2019 20: 17 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: tesser
            It’s just that for some reason you decided to take me away with a proprietary Soviet technique, they say, lost by the Ardenne Model

            Why leave you away when you so selflessly admire yourself in the mirror?
            Quote: tesser
            Right now, about Churchill's letter

            And that he was not, or is it not your suit?
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 November 2019 21: 01 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: tesser
    It's funny You can't help but understand what I'm talking about

    I don’t guess. Well, I don’t have a myelophone. In the discussions I met many different misconceptions on WWII, how do I know yours?
    Quote: tesser
    And where will the fronts come in peacetime?

    What does this have to do with the discussion?
    Quote: tesser
    Do you play thimbles? I'm not talking about the Wehrmacht, I'm talking about the Red Army of the 41 year of the sample.

    While you are signing in complete misunderstanding of why the army needs mobilization. I have already cited the Wehrmacht as an example, everything is wrong for you :)))
    Quote: tesser
    I understand her perfectly. Therefore, I run into your mobilization, which did not have time to carry out: comrade Stalin, in an appeal to the 39 of the 40 of the years, collected everything that he could. What is the “trained reserve” for him, which he didn’t see in the SVT, if he has a complete ahtung with sergeants and junior commanders, with company and platoon officers who themselves use only a bayonet and a butt in SVT?

    And now, we will refuse to deploy the army and surrender, so what?
    Quote: tesser
    The Red Army couldn’t be bigger, you call the collective farmers — the USSR is over, they will all disappear as one in summer boilers.

    In fact, the mobilization was carried out. So, for reference :)))
    Quote: tesser
    Why late, bunkers to dig from the Bug to the Dnieper?

    And what's the use of these pillboxes?
    Quote: tesser
    when Patton, who doesn’t know how to fight, unfolds the front of the 3 army, which doesn’t know how to fight, by 180 degrees from the Rhine to Bastogne, having led tank divisions through infantry marching orders, this cannot be done in the USSR.

    Quote: tesser
    But the bumpkin Eisenhower understood. Therefore, he did not have boilers.

    :))) This is even reluctant to comment. The Americans were completely incapable of maneuvering war, an example of which is the same Falese cauldron and completely mediocre actions under the Ardennes (1944 g).
    In fact, the Americans did not have boilers for one reason - simply put, the Germans never had the strength to operate on the encirclement of American troops :))) Therefore, in the first years of the war they beat them perfectly in the forehead, the US victories began when they learned not to yield to the Germans battlefields while having two soldiers on one German and higher.
    Quote: tesser
    Remember Langley. Two Lex one York vs Nagumo in December

    This is not a question of the amount of strength, but a question of the ability to bring them into battle.
  • tesser 2 November 2019 23: 36 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    I don’t guess. Well, I don’t have a myelophone.

    "What front commanded Zhukov 01.07.1940/XNUMX/XNUMX?" You are right, it’s hard to understand what this is about. Leading questions do not work, I understood.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    What does this have to do with the discussion?

    It is such that if in the USSR, some fronts come out through peacetime in the 4th year, then here and there - maybe we need to take a closer look at the time, and it is not so simple with mobilization.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    I have already cited the Wehrmacht as an example, everything is wrong for you :)))

    Tell about the Blitzkrieg’s army “by analogy” with the army of permanent mobilization? Sharp move. Cut off.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In fact, the mobilization was carried out

    You are well aware that the hectic formation of the All-Russian Supreme Economic Council has nothing in common, alas, with the staffing up of personnel to wartime, especially with the Wehrmacht, should it be amiss. This did not affect the fate of the PSE at all, even though you will begin the house mobilization in March.
    Speaking of that. The idea of ​​VSE, of course, spun, but what the hell is this, how to live with it - a complete improvisation of red-banner jazz musicians. There is neither a sane staff, nor training programs, nor ersatz weapons, conditional teaching staff and SU-76. Everyone has more important things to do: 30 mechanized corps will not form themselves. And battleships, more battleships!
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    An example of this is the same Falese cauldron and completely mediocre actions under the Ardennes

    Yes, I, too, had time, cited these examples. Well, Ike was dumb. Only by the third time I realized what was the secret of the boiler.

    Montgomery shouldn’t be entrusted with anything.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    the Germans never had the strength to operate on the encirclement of American troops

    Honestly, I thought that you would show for another: that I compare Soviet poverty with the golden American divisions, with their total connection, mechanization, and aviation in the state. And you decided to tell me that the Yankees crushed in bulk, like the Chinese. Suddenly.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Therefore, in the first years of the war they beat them perfectly in the forehead

    You, excuse me, were carried away. The first YEARS is until November 44th? Or have you had these years in Tunisia, where Eisenhower, who was beaten in the forehead, stood still, losing how much? 500 infinitely expensive lives per month? 600?
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    It’s not a matter of strength

    What are you talking about? Nagumo has 6 aircraft carriers, while the Americans have 4,5 (0.5 - Wosp, Ranger - air transport, no Hornet), plus the enemies, unexpectedly, dug up another ocean, about which no one knew, and where at least some aircraft carriers were needed at least Ranger and Wosp. Of course, the Japanese exactly 6 years ago withdrew from the London treaty, but who could have imagined that this would happen? Another second ocean, this stupid, hell brought it.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 November 2019 02: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: tesser
    Honestly, I thought that you would show for another: that I compare Soviet poverty with the golden American divisions, with their total connection, mechanization, aviation in the state.

    Seriously? :))) Sorry, but fairy tales are for Hans Christian. But in practice, the Americans were forced to throw "tankers" into the battle with 1944-6 in 7 (!!!) hours of driving technology. Scraped to the rear
    Quote: tesser
    You, excuse me, were carried away. The first YEARS - this is until November 44?

    The first years are a surgery
    Quote: tesser
    What are you talking about? Nagumo has 6 aircraft carriers, and Americans have 4,5 (

    Sorry, but this is to your doctor. The number of fleets of Americans & Japanese is well known
  • tesser 3 November 2019 09: 42 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    in practice, the Americans were forced in 1944 (!!!) to throw "tankers" into the battle with 6-7 hours of driving equipment. Scraped to the rear

    There in the fall of the 44th and clerks handed out rifles. What can you do, if your tanks don’t need armor, then for some reason tankers begin to die for you quickly. If you have arranged such an ingenious system of manning an army as Marshall, when you have two red armies under arms, but almost all of them are 3 thousand km from the theater of operations, you will have problems with infantry replenishment.
    I am very far from the thought that Marshall, Eisenhower, Patton and others were not mistaken in anything. Moreover, unlike altpositives for the USSR, it would be very simple to make altpositives for the United States if at least someone wanted to do them. A huge number of unforced errors, lack of expertise, incompetence at all levels, assault,
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The first years are

    From November 42 to May 43, I understand. And "beat in the forehead" is 2 (two thousand seven hundred and fifteen) infinitely expensive lives in 715 months. Well, OK, there are a lot of missing people, but you can’t get a division with them in the next world either. And they did not know how to fight at all, you are right.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The number of fleets of Americans & Japanese is well known

    Well, you don’t know, you could ask, but you decided to cheat on me for some reason. Kimmel has Sarah, Lex and Enterprise. Ranger, Wosp and Yorktown in neutral patrol, Hornet is not yet.

    For 5 years, from April 36th to April 41st, the Americans laid down 1 (one) aircraft carrier, Hornet. There were more important matters: 30 mechanized corps 10 battleships will not build themselves, not to the smallest detail. The little things this time with King and Knox were aircraft carriers, cruisers, submarines, and especially PLO.

    For comparison, the British for the same 5 years laid 7 AB.
  • ccsr 31 October 2019 19: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In peacetime, divisions in those years (and even later) were maintained according to their reduced staff, that is, the size of the peacetime division was several times lower than its size in the military.

    First, at that time the divisions were of a reduced composition depending on mobilization readiness, but not at times, but because the minimum number of such divisions was 6000 people:
    According to some authors, about 10% of the total number of rifle divisions were contained in the state of wartime 04/400, about 80% in the states of peacetime 4/100 (12000 people) or 4/400 (also 12000 people), the rest ( slightly more than 10%) were mountain rifle (maintained on a 4/140 state), 2 motor rifle and 2 rifle divisions, maintained on a 4/120 state (6 people)

    Secondly, the combat units of the cover units had almost 90% staffing in l / s, but the support units had a large shortage. So from the point of view of defensive battles on the border, the cover divisions were not so poorly manned.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    There were no facts. For a long time, intelligence did not see the German divisions on our border - and suddenly eighty!

    Have you seen the intelligence reports of the General Staff of the General Staff in 1941 to state this? There, the buildup of a group of Germans has been noted since the beginning of spring 1941, for example, Golikov even indicated on March 20 three options for the German troops and the date the attack began - May 20. So your statement about intelligence is not true.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 November 2019 10: 47 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: ccsr
      First, at that time the divisions were of a reduced composition depending on mobilization readiness, but not at times, but because the minimum number of such divisions was 6000 people:

      Exactly what at times. Because the pre-war staffing of the same infantry division was determined in 14,5 thousand people.
      Moreover - you are now talking about the state, while the actual state of affairs was much worse. The Red Army in the pre-war period experienced explosive growth, and it turned out all the time that in the state of peacetime laid 6 thousand, in fact there are not three.
      Quote: ccsr
      Secondly, the combat units of the cover units had almost 90% staffing per l / s

      This is not true. 103 infantry divisions of border districts were manned by 84%, 60 tank and motorized divisions by 71%
      Quote: ccsr
      Have you seen the intelligence reports of the General Staff of the General Staff in the 1941 year to state this?

      Of course
    2. ccsr 2 November 2019 11: 28 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Exactly what at times. Because the pre-war staffing of the same infantry division was determined in 14,5 thousand people.

      Firstly, this concerned only part of the divisions, and as a rule, these were not cover divisions.
      Secondly, the country did not have the resources to bring all divisions to wartime states, which is why the shortened version was chosen - this is an objective reality, and not someone else’s mistake.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The Red Army in the pre-war period experienced explosive growth, and it turned out all the time that in the state of peacetime laid 6 thousand, in fact there are not three.

      Once again I say that this is a staff of reduced divisions, and it is determined by the government of the country based on the economic capabilities of the state. It also determines how many such divisions to maintain in peacetime, realizing that the war cannot end in a few weeks, which means that there will be time to mobilize such divisions to 14,5 thousand. What is wrong with the military economy?

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      This is not true. 103 infantry divisions of border districts were manned by 84%, 60 tank and motorized divisions by 71%

      Firstly, the staffing of 84% even according to the standards of the Soviet Army allows us to recognize such divisions as READY - you seem to be off topic and very strong.
      Secondly, the overall percentage of staffing does not reflect how the parts within the compound are staffed, and if you had carefully studied these data at least once, then you would have understood why 90-95% were equipped with l / s in the rifle regiments of the cover divisions, but in the same supply battalions (engineer, communications, medical battalion, etc.) sometimes did not even reach 30-40%. But this, if the division is on the defensive, will not greatly affect its combat capabilities, especially when you consider that, according to the views of military science on the part of the cover, they just have to die at the border, but not step back a step.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Of course

      Well, if you saw, then why then declare:
      There were no facts. For a long time, intelligence did not see German divisions on our border - and suddenly eighty!

      What does it mean?
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 November 2019 20: 47 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: ccsr
      Firstly, this concerned only part of the divisions, and as a rule, these were not cover divisions.

      Excuse me, is this all what was said? I know that rifle divisions in the border districts were commissioned at 84%, mechanized corps at about 71% on average.
      Quote: ccsr
      Secondly, the country did not have the resources to bring all divisions to wartime states, which is why the shortened version was chosen

      In peacetime, no country holds a mass army in wartime states. All of them, both German and French and ours, required mobilization to bring wartime to the state. What is the problem? You knock on the open door, why?
      Quote: ccsr
      Firstly, the staffing of 84% even according to the standards of the Soviet Army allows us to recognize such divisions as READY - you seem to be off topic and very strong.

      You know, already tired. Are you unable to read the comment, or what? I am writing about the fact that the forces of the border districts were just ready to take action immediately; for this they were kept in states close to the full state of wartime. But, it is ONLY about divisions of border districts! Just that. This is not the whole of the Red Army. I write that this part of our army was combat ready in order to operationalize the mobilization and deployment of the rest of the army. And what do I read in response?
      Quote: ccsr
      the staffing of 84%, even according to the norms of the Soviet Army, allows such divisions to be READY - you seem to be off topic and very strong.

      What nonsense, please tell me?
    4. ccsr 2 November 2019 21: 00 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I know that rifle divisions in the border districts were commissioned by 84%, mechanized corps - by about 71% on average.

      There are a large number of divisions in the district, which are staffed differently and are located at different locations. That is why the average figure in the district does not say anything about the manning of the compounds, which in the first hours take a hit on themselves.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      What's the problem?

      The fact that the German division already had not only the right equipment, but also trained personnel with combat experience. But unfortunately, the personnel were not prepared in our country, and not everywhere was equipped with weapons, as was the case with the Germans.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      What nonsense, please tell me?

      This is not nonsense - it is known to those who were responsible for the combat readiness of units, and they know the standards when units and formations are considered combat ready and when not.
  • Igor Aviator 31 October 2019 00: 56 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    How, studying history over the course of 20 years, did you manage to learn nothing about it?

    hi good Let me answer: IT DIDN'T WANT !!
    It is important for him to know only what is enough for FOOT!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2019 17: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Igor Aviator
      It is important for him to know only what is enough FOR COOLING!

      I can’t but agree :)))) hi
  • Olgovich 31 October 2019 12: 54 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Due to its large areas and relatively weak transport network, the USSR lost Germany in mobilization for about 3-4 weeks. From which it obviously followed that Germany, having begun general mobilization on the same day as the USSR, would be ahead of the Country of Soviets by almost a month in deployment.


    Yeah, but standing on the border of the USSR MOBILIZED long time ago - actually, fighting for two years German 7 millionth army (the same 7 millionth, as in March 1945, when all the mobilization had passed long ago)), is considered to be "Non-military", because Hitler did not say the word "mobilization" .... lol
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    This is exactly what the Russian Empire tried to do in WWI, having moved the army of Samsonov and Rennenkampf to Prussia. though Errors our command and the hasty transfer of troops from the French front led to failure - after the initial victories of Samsonov defeated;

    1. There was no mistake, but there was the salvation of France and was the main cannon ang-franc. meat there-in the West-this ingenious the course of Russia.
    Unlike 1940when joyfully rubbed their hands, when the imperialists beat each other. As a result, we stayed ONE against Germany.

    2. Recognize that the transfer of forces from the West did NOT affect the battle in Prussia - a loss occurred WITHOUT their participation.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Their number of enough for a limited strike to disrupt / hamper deployment, and not to defeat the Wehrmacht

    It’s not true: the Germans at the border were numerically superior, ours were in the front in tanks, artillery, aircraft.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    . Did you read excerpts from the documents of Voroshilov and Tymoshenko?

    The Acceptance Act indicates almost ALL the causes of the defeat of the army in 41.
    But WHO prevented Voroshilov NOT to allow them? Tymoshenko did not indicate that this is IMPOSSIBLE, on the contrary, it was implied that it было doable
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    1) Overslept the fact of the transfer

    1. TASS statement of June 13, there ALL is indicated

    2. What does it mean "overslept"? WHAT are the distances from "overslept?"

    In conditions of WAR, with battles - the Germans passed 350 km to Minsk in FIVE days!
    Rokossovsky mechanical corps — more than a hundred km / day, along military roads
    А without wars on the good roads of Poland? This is hundreds of kilometers a day!
    Another thing is that NOBODY thought about this, although distant, it would seem, parts of the Germans-MUST be taken into account.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2019 18: 16 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Olgovich
      Yeah, and standing on the border of the USSR MOBILIZED a long time ago - long ago actually, the German 7 millionth army has been fighting for two years (the same 7 millionth as in March 1945, when all the mobilization was long ago)), is considered to be "Non-military", because the word Hitler didn’t “mobilize” ...

      Olgovich, but let’s you, instead of carrying fierce nonsense, go to learn materiel. Then you, for example, will find out that no 7 of a million-strong army has ever stood on our border. And when you learn to distinguish the number of troops gathered for an attack on the USSR from the total staffing of the German Armed Forces, then already try to talk about strategy. Although - I do not recommend it.
      You are not even able to understand that when the Germans (in much smaller forces) turned around at the borders of the USSR it was already too late to announce the mobilization and this meant provoking the Germans to strike.
      Quote: Olgovich
      There was no mistake, but there was the salvation of France and was the main cannon ang-franc. meat there in the West is a brilliant move of Russia.

      It is difficult to expect even this from you. Soviet diplomacy broke into a cake to create an analogue of the Entente, and the fact that it did not go forward is considered as a stupid mistake of Europe. If the USSR had the opportunity to strike, while the Wehrmacht attacked France, WWII as we know it simply would not exist. For a number of objective reasons, the USSR was completely unable to attack Germany during the battle for France.although it would save the lives of millions of Soviet citizens, since in 1940 Mr. Hitler could not at all fight on the 2 front.
      In general, we can only regret that we did not have such an opportunity, but to see this as a brilliant move of the USSR ....
      Quote: Olgovich
      Find out that the transfer of forces from the West did NOT affect the battle in Prussia-a loss occurred WITHOUT their participation.

      Find out that it was the redirection of troops from the West that allowed the Germans to take risks and attack Samsonov’s army — they now had reserves that could be used if the battle of Tannenberg was lost.
      Quote: Olgovich
      It’s not true: the Germans at the border were numerically superior, ours were in the front in tanks, artillery, aircraft.

      True. And according to the General Staff of the Red Army, and a retrospective assessment of the available forces was not enough to inflict decisive defeat on the Wehrmacht. And you continue to consider the strength of the army by the number of tanks in its composition. Maybe at least learn to count.
      Quote: Olgovich
      But WHO prevented Voroshilov NOT to allow them? Tymoshenko did not indicate that this is IMPOSSIBLE, on the contrary, it was understood that it was doable

      Are you out of your mind? It says in Russian in white that a commander who knows how to use service weapons should receive a special mark in his personal file. Do you consider it possible to fix it? What time frame? Tymoshenko, and so the feat made unique in terms of increasing the combat effectiveness of the Red Army.
      And who interfered with Voroshilov ... Well, read at your leisure the changes in the states of the Red Army. About police divisions. About triad. For a terrible money saving, so many who served in the interval between WWII and WWII in the Red Army were never even at the shooting range ... Read at least something! laughing
      Quote: Olgovich
      TASS statement from 13 June-there ALL is indicated

      No, I got excited :)))) Learn to read first! fool And what is the statement here? :))) WE READ THE SCIENTIFIC ACKNOWLEDGMENTS!
      Quote: Olgovich
      In conditions of WAR, with battles - the Germans traveled 350 km to Minsk in FIVE days!
      Rokossovsky mechanical corps — more than a hundred km / day, along military roads
      And without war, on the good roads of Poland? This is hundreds of kilometers a day!

      wassat Olgovich ... Your calculations on logistics are even more crazy than anything else.
      1. tesser 31 October 2019 18: 40 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        For a number of objective reasons, the USSR was completely unable to attack Germany during the battle for France.

        Sorry? What else are there for objective reasons? Are you talking about the state of troops or what?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 November 2019 11: 45 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: tesser
          What else are there for objective reasons? Are you talking about the state of troops or what?

          Simply put, in order to make a decision on the German attack and realize all the benefits of it, you had to know for sure that France would last a month, Germany would attack the USSR in 1941, and also the consequences of this attack. That is, it was necessary to have a time machine, afterglow.
          The Red Army in 1940 was categorically unprepared for offensive operations. In addition, in order to achieve success, the USSR had to secretly increase the number of troops in the border districts before the invasion of France and attack with decisive goals (and not to disrupt deployment) even before mobilizing troops. In general, to do completely impossible things from the point of view of military science. And this could only be done if you were firmly convinced that you weren’t doing stupid things, which could only be given by afterlife
        2. tesser 2 November 2019 15: 47 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Everything is correct, only a couple of nuances:

          1. Hidden mobilization in the West. This is not a question, the Pact covered it. Along the entire border of the USSR a peasantry appeared, which it was time to free from the landowners. You know that the Red Army simply choked on draftees 39-41, which you still need to file a mobilization.
          2. The army can not maneuver? When there the enemy of the people Yakir carried out Kiev maneuvers? After 5 years, do you call this "objective circumstances"?
        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 November 2019 16: 05 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: tesser
          You know that the Red Army simply choked on the recruits 39-41, which you still need to file a mobilization.

          In fact, in our reality, everything was exactly the opposite - it was in the 39-41 that the Red Army experienced a chronic lack of reservists for wildly expanded states. And I, however, don’t know how to explain this to you.
          Quote: tesser
          The army can not maneuver? When there the enemy of the people Yakir carried out Kiev maneuvers?

          Please stop asking “suggestive” questions - just say what you mean. What are you not aware of? The fact that the Kiev maneuvers were fiction? Or the fact that the inability of the Red Army to serious operations was revealed during the introduction of troops into Poland and during the Finnish war? Do not make me guess what you think, please, I don’t have time for this
        4. tesser 2 November 2019 16: 26 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          It was precisely in 39-41 that the Red Army experienced a chronic shortage of reservists under wildly expanded states

          You tell me that there weren’t enough people for the "division in bags", all the 300 numbers that Rezun likes to think so. I tell you that the Red Army did not have enough lieutenants, and monstrously - sergeants and foremen. The problem is with the skeleton, not with the meat. It cannot be solved by mobilization. You consider this an objective circumstance, but I do not.

          It seems that you discussed this on other occasions. Build 3 battleships by 20%. And so it is.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Kiev maneuvers were fiction

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          opened during the entry of troops into Poland

          The Kiev maneuvers showed exactly the same thing as the Louisiana maneuvers: that moving mechanized formations even in their own rear is not for you the First Horse’s carts. The fact that Tymoshenko in the 39th revealed the same thing - I will not name objective circumstances.

          But I agree with you on another. The Stalinist USSR had no options to avoid the 41st year.
        5. Town Hall 2 November 2019 16: 43 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: tesser
          The Stalinist USSR had no options to avoid the 41st year

          Also infected with Chelyabinsk "fatalism"?) I recall that in the real history of the Red Army did reach Berlin. With divisions of 5 / 6.000 bayonets, which were almost never staffed by state
        6. tesser 2 November 2019 17: 24 New
          • 2
          • 4
          -2
          Quote: Town Hall
          Also infected with Chelyabinsk "fatalism"?)

          The opposite attitude to the Soviet regime does not interfere with the same perception of reality.
          Quote: Town Hall
          Let me remind you that in the real history of the Red Army did reach Berlin

          Like this she came at such a price. Having stooped the Wehrmacht blitzkrieg in endless meat grinders, having already received all sorts of garbage in the 43rd, which, under the leadership of Manstein, were fought by the Panthers in the same way that Rotmistrov did not fight in the same place, and in the 45th Volkssturm in general under Himmler, the commander of the GA Wisla. No other way.

          And the Soviet divisions of the 45th year are American brigade combat groups with major generals instead of colonels. Just art and people in three divisions as in one American. Feature of the Red Army.
        7. Town Hall 2 November 2019 17: 33 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          It came after an unprecedented series of defeats in history, after losing half of the country, from a fierce false start. But in June 1941, without all these tragedies, couldn’t get anywhere and would roll back to the Urals for any reason? .... because "objective reasons" in the form of “only” 74% of the staffing of 60 !!! (sic) tank and motorized divisions
        8. tesser 2 November 2019 18: 30 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          Quote: Town Hall
          Reached after an unprecedented series of defeats in history, after losing half of the country, from the most severe false start

          So.
          Quote: Town Hall
          without all these tragedies, I couldn’t go anywhere

          Without tragedies - no, I couldn’t.
          Quote: Town Hall
          because "objective reasons"

          Because before you win, you had to pay your debts. For Stakhanov’s methods in industry and for the class approach to personnel. For collective farms and for the NKVD. For not having weapons in the world and for the plan on the shaft. For the Comintern and for the invariably peaceful policy. For a comprehensive fraud and for the vile, cowardly misconduct.

          All these debts he did alone, the Leader and Teacher.

          His fans never admit it.
        9. Town Hall 2 November 2019 18: 50 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          I’m no worse than you know how steel was tempered. And that the Red Army for 41 years is not a rival to the Wehrmacht, too. I am smiling at the children's excuses of my colleagues from Chelyabinsk and other brothers by clave a la Alexei RA calculating trees (in the form of insufficient% footcloths in rifle divisions) and those who did not see (and did not want to see) the forest behind them — the army could not have flesh from the flesh of the country and another army from that country.
          My pitch was about something else. PSE was doomed. But it could be burned in two ways. As it was burned. Or also in boilers, But near Krakow and at the Vistula. During a stupid, but still organized attack. Against the Wehrmacht, absolutely unprepared for this . Which without a doubt would grind PSE for a month. But by the end of July I would still be in Poland, and not near Smolensk.
          Only for this we needed eggs from the supreme leader. Who showed them only if the Baltic states of Romania and the agonizing Poland were against Finland. Against the Amers in Korea, again the eggs refused by the way
        10. tesser 2 November 2019 19: 04 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Quote: Town Hall
          also in cauldrons, But near Krakow and the Vistula.

          Like, Rezun was right? I do not remember such an alternative, but there are percentages somewhere else. Perhaps uv. colleague Andrei will tell you.

          But my heart feels, nothing more or less would have changed. One of the main arguments of the anti-Rezunovites: the army, which was defending like this, will not reach the Vistula stupidly. And they tried to attack that summer, this is well known. Good did not end.
        11. Town Hall 2 November 2019 19: 23 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          We tried when it was too late. Already on June 14 (TASS report) it was clear to everyone including Father and Genius that Something went wrong. But he got scared, as always.
          The offensive on June 26/27 against the Wehrmacht running in full steam, from semicircle, in panic and chaos, was a pernicious affair. On June 14, half the Wehrmacht was in the cars, and the second half was hiding in disordered crowds through the forests.
          We’ll leave the Rezun ravings about jumping to the English Channel on freeway tanks to the side. We wouldn’t reach the Vistula but also would not roll back to the Volga. This is 100%.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 November 2019 20: 40 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: tesser
    You tell me that there weren’t enough people for the "division in bags", 300 all the numbers that Rezun likes to think so. I tell you that the Red Army did not have enough lieutenants, and monstrously - sergeants and foremen. The problem is with the skeleton, not with the meat.

    One does not cancel the other. It is clear that it was very bad with officers, but this did not cancel the problems of bringing the divisions to the number of wartime
    Quote: tesser
    You consider this an objective circumstance, but I do not.

    On that and decide :)))
  • Olgovich 1 November 2019 10: 15 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Olgovich, but let’s you, instead of carrying fierce nonsense, go to learn materiel. Then, for example, you will find out that no 7 millionth army has ever stood on our border. And when you learn to distinguish the number of troops gathered for an attack on the USSR from the total staffing of the German Armed Forces, then already try to talk about strategy. Though - not recommend.


    I answered Yours same "thoughts" on the mobilization of the whole army of Germany and the USSR, and not about its specific parts .. on the border.
    Or are you already ......Do not remember? belay So see above! request

    And about her generally, naturally, and spoke, referring to standing in the West from us 7 million army Germany.

    Leave your recommendations to yourself - they are clearly more necessary for you.
    Although, there is little hope that you are no longer broadcasting about "UNMOBILIZED" 7 million Wehrmacht, somehow managing. in the same time. already 2g to fight in the WORLD WAR yes
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    It is difficult to expect even this from you. Soviet diplomacy broke into a cake to create an analogue of the Entente, and the fact that it did not go forward is considered as a stupid mistake of Europe.

    Ay-yy-yay, what a "stupid" vile vile Europe! yes

    Only I will remind you that England and FR have not changed ANYTHING for hundreds of years and ALWAYS were so "vile and vile" thinking of themselves.

    BUT! - Russia was ABLE to negotiate with them, but the USSR-NO! This is just a fact.
    Why they were afraid of the USSR a little less than Germany-ask them, the Comintern and ravings about the world revolution.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    If the USSR had the opportunity to strike while the Wehrmacht attacked France, WWII, as we know it, would simply not exist. For a number of objective reasons, the USSR absolutely could not attack Germany during the battle for France, although this would save the lives of millions of Soviet citizens, since in 1940 Hitler could not at all fight on 2 fronts.

    MTF for ALL reasons and reasons. Moreover, in the face of the example of WWI. but- they wanted to be the most cunning ....
    Moreover, he had every reason, including legal: for example Franco-Soviet Mutual Assistance Pact 1935, but missed a unique chance to save himself from 1941 and congratulated Germany on ... taking Paris.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Find out that it was the redirection of troops from the West that allowed the Germans to take risks and attack Samsonov’s army — they now had reserves that could be used if the battle of Tannenberg was lost.

    It’s good that you already realized that these troops did NOT take part in the Prussian operation in the Samsonov’s defeat -NO, as you claimed.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Truth. And according to the General Staff of the Red Army, and a retrospective assessment of the available forces was not enough for inflicting decisive defeat on the Wehrmacht. .

    And who was talking about ... a decisive defeat for the Wehrmacht, except for YOU?belay Speak for yourself and answer?
    There were enough of them for defense and to prevent defeat in reality.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And you continue to consider the strength of the army by the number of tanks in its composition. Maybe even learn to count.

    they certainly mean NOTHING, which is why they cut like butter. fronts 41-42 years and created unprecedented boilers in History. This is all infantry.
    I don’t give you such advice: I’m afraid that it’s too late ....
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Are you out of your mind? T

    Bravo! good yes This is an argument!
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    It says in Russian in white that a commander who knows how to use service weapons should receive a special mark in his personal file. Do you consider it possible to fix it? AT what terms?

    You do not understand the Russian language, alas. ONCE AGAIN: The Act implied that it MUST BE DONE under Voroshilov
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And who interfered with Voroshilov ... Well, read at your leisure the changes in the states of the Red Army. About police divisions. About triad. For a terrible money saving, so many who served in the interval between WWII and WWII in the Red Army were never even at the shooting range ... Read at least something!

    Yeah, the dancing problem, I see.

    Then you have a speech Commissar of Defense USSR Voroshilov, 37 g of the Central Committee in St. Petersburg;
    the workers 'and peasants' Red Army is now a huge industrial organization. We are the owners colossal car park. We own, therefore, the operation, therefore, there are a large number of technicians, engineers and workers of the Red Army.

    In the tank weapons, we also have a huge army, we have a huge aviation, where we also have engineers, technicians, pilots. To date, having such a large and highly industrialized, highly mechanized army, we already have significant, large cadres of the workers 'and peasants' Red Army. We now have a huge staff of 206 thousand people in command.
    To date, the army is armed force loyal to the party and state.
    NOBODY objected: neither Stalin, no one ... belay ....
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Learn to read first! fool

    And again, bravo! good You have amazingly convincing arguments! lol
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And what is the statement here? :))) WE READ THE SCIENTIFIC ACKNOWLEDGMENTS!

    Yeah, and the TASS message -ono from "AIR" was born. You are told that EVERYTHING KNEWS and there was NO secret that the troops were DISPOSED from the bapank to us (see TASS), but it was STAGED to BE ASSESSED.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Olgovich ... Your calculations on logistics are even more crazy than anything else.

    ONCE AGAIN fact to you: with fights. in FIVE days, the Germans traveled 350 km, 70km / day.
    When you memorize it, then perhaps no , about the speed of their movement WITHOUT fighting across Poland to our borders on the eve of the war by the same formations.
    Good luck in your studies!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 November 2019 11: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I read the comment .. And why am I, Olgovich, angry with you? :))) You need to feel sorry for, not resent you :)
      Quote: Olgovich
      Although, there is little hope that you are no longer broadcasting about the "UNMOBILIZED" 7 million Wehrmacht

      Olgovich, the Wehrmacht in 1941 was completely mobilized, unlike the Red Army. I don’t know how else this can be written so that it comes to you :)))) And yes, its number actually amounted to about 7 million, but of these, only about 3,5 million ground forces were located on the border with the USSR, including about 2,5 million in the army.
      The USSR, with the planned number of wartime forces of 8,6 million people, had active troops in the border districts of the order of 1,8 million.
      Quote: Olgovich
      MTF for ALL reasons and reasons.

      We read how the Red Army distinguished itself in Finland, we read the documents of the host army Tymoshenko. And everything becomes clear.
      Quote: Olgovich
      When do you speak to the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR Voroshilov, 37 r.

      Quote: Olgovich
      NOBODY objected: neither Stalin, no one ...

      Olgovich, you will learn to somehow distinguish agitation for the population from the real state of affairs. That's what Voroshilov wrote in 1938 - even before the Finnish
      top, senior and middle commanders, commissars and staff workers are not yet an example for troops in the ability to own weapons. The junior commanders are also not trained in this matter and therefore cannot properly train soldiers.

      Khalkhin Gol
      The combat training of the troops, staffs and commanding officers of the front turned out to be unacceptably low. The military units were pulled out and not combat-ready; supply of military units is not organized. ... The troops came to the border on combat alert completely unprepared. The untouchable stock of weapons and other military equipment was not pre-scheduled and prepared for handing over to units, which caused a number of egregious outrages throughout the entire period of hostilities. The chiefs of the front and the commanders of the units did not know what, where and in what condition weapons, ammunition and other military equipment were available. In many cases, whole artillery batteries ended up at the front without shells, spare barrels for machine guns were not fitted in advance, rifles were issued unshooted, and many soldiers and even one of the rifle divisions of the 32 division arrived at the front without rifles and gas masks. Despite the huge stocks of clothing, many fighters were sent to battle in completely worn shoes, half-barefoot, a large number of Red Army soldiers were without overcoats. The commanders and staffs lacked maps of the war zone. c) All types of troops, especially infantry, found themselves unable to act on the battlefield, maneuver, combine movement and fire, apply to the terrain ...

      And Stalin knew that very well. As well as the fact that this case is not at all some special for the Red Army. Excerpts from the order of the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR N 120 from 16 on May 1940. (based on the Finnish war)
      ... The infantry entered the war the least prepared of all the military branches: it did not know how to engage in close combat, in trenches, did not know how to use the results of artillery fire and provide its offensive with machine guns, mortars, battalion and regimental artillery ... .. Meets modern combat requirements. The commanders did not command their units, did not hold tightly in the hands of subordinates, lost in the total mass of soldiers. The authority of the command staff in the middle and junior level is low. Demanding staff is low. Commanders were sometimes criminally tolerant of discipline violations, the bickering of subordinates, and sometimes even direct non-execution of orders.

      Moreover
      "... MILITARY TRAINING OF TROOPS
      1) The low training of the middle command staff in the company link is a platoon and the especially weak training of the junior command staff.
      4) The extremely weak training of the combat arms on the battlefield: the infantry cannot cling to and break away from the fire shaft, the artillery can not support the tanks, the aviation can not interact with the ground troops.
      5) The troops are not trained in skiing.
      7) The troops have not worked out fire control.
      8) The troops are not trained in attacking fortified areas, building and overcoming barriers and forcing rivers ”

      It’s better not to recall the headquarters, however, you can read the order of the People’s Commissar of Defense of the USSR N 0104 from 19 on July 1939.
      Quote: Olgovich
      You do not understand the Russian language, alas. ONCE AGAIN: The act implied that it MUST BE done under Voroshilov

      Let's clarify - with the funding that the Red Army had, neither Voroshilov nor Napoleon would have done ANYTHING. Yes, the Red Army could have been prepared somewhat better than in reality. Good - you can’t.
      The Germans prepared for war in the best way, much more thoughtful than we — they, too, had to hastily expand their army in a few years, although the reasons were different - not monetary, but the terms of international treaties. But at the same time, the Germans initially thought out the possibilities of expansion and did not spare money for their troops. Their hundred thousandth contingent with which they started was, in fact, an army of officers and junior commanders. But what is the result of all this? Anschluss of Austria - mobile divisions scattered along the roads. The occupation of the Rhine region - several regiments were lost, so I had to look for them with the involvement of the local police ...
      Quote: Olgovich
      they certainly mean NOTHING, which is why they cut like butter. fronts 41-42 years and created unprecedented boilers in History. This is all infantry.

      You will be surprised, but it is so :)))
      Quote: Olgovich
      Yeah, and the TASS message -ono from "AIR" was born. They tell you that EVERYTHING KNEWS and there was NO secret that the troops were transferred from the bogan to us

      Olgovich, I reveal a military secret - the transfer of German troops in an amount excluding the success of our frontier cover army was carried out in the spring of 1941. It was then approximately opened. After that, we could only convince the Germans that we did not think to violate the non-aggression pact and the British attempts to persuade us to do something else did not make sense. Which, in fact, did the TASS statement you mentioned from June 13 :))) It was too late to react with military preparations
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 November 2019 11: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Olgovich
      ONCE AGAIN fact to you: with fights. in FIVE days the Germans traveled 350 km, by 70km / day.
      When you memorize it, you may realize no, about the speed of their movement WITHOUT fighting across Poland to our borders

      Olgovich, when ... no, never :)))))
      In general, I explain on the fingers. In battles, you can really go both 500 km and 700 km at a speed of 70 and even 100 km per day. But here's the misfortune - after such marches, troops repeatedly lose their combat effectiveness and the ability to conduct offensive operations. After that, they need time, measured in weeks, to repair rolling stock, transport the rear, replenish fuel supplies, and more. That is why in WWII there were very often respites between separate operations.
      Moreover, such rates can be maintained only by mechanized connections. Infantry, non-motorized formations (of which the Germans had the majority) are capable of moving at speeds of the order of 20 km per day.
      And in order to prepare the invasion, it is necessary not only to replenish supplies to the state - it is necessary to accumulate much larger reserves at the border.
      That is why the Germans concentrated troops on the border of the USSR using exclusively railway transport. This is a historical fact, Olgovich :))))
    3. Olgovich 3 November 2019 10: 34 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Olgovich, when ... no, never :)))))
      In general, I explain on the fingers. In battles, you can really go through 500 km and 700 km at a speed of 70 and even 100 km per day.

      1. Here, dear Andrey, this is the essence: it was IMPOSSIBLE mobilized the German army is considered a threat on the sole ground that it is not 300 meters from the border, but 300 km ..

      This is NOTHING for fast and covert transport in conditions of non-war and a developed network of entire railways ready for it units.

      Therefore, our ALREADY mobilized combat ready army, ready to sudden appearance enemy masses.


      2. The TASS report speaks of the KNOWLEDGE of troop transfer from the Balkans to our borders, but instead of Directive 1 of June 13, it was ... this Message .... And Deere 1 came out when it was already. practically not needed .....
  • Olgovich 2 November 2019 12: 20 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    I read the comment .. And why am I, Olgovich, angry with you? :))) You need to feel sorry for, not resent you :)

    lol I don’t even put a minus to you .....
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Olgovich, Wehrmacht in 1941 g was completely mobilized unlike the Red Army.

    Dear namesake, I am glad that it finally came to you and you are no longer talking about future Mobilization for Germany:
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    USSR due to its large areas and relatively weak transport network lost Germany in mobilization for about 3-4 weeks. From which it obviously followed that Germany, having begun general mobilization;in one day with the USSR, it will be ahead of the Country of Soviets by almost a month in deployment. And from this, in turn, it followed that deciding to start a war with the USSR, Germany automatically receives a strategic initiative

    So MOBILIZED Germany stands on our border. But this, in contradiction with YOUR postulate:
    ) After the WWII, all countries knew that the war does not begin when the guns rattle, but when the likely enemy begins general mobilization;
    It did not become an occasion for the leadership of the USSR to consider this a war, or even, at least in response, to carry out their SUBSTANTIATED, OWN mobilization or to bring the army into combat readiness.
    Which was the BIGGEST miscalculation
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    We read how the Red Army distinguished itself in Finland, we read the documents of the host army Tymoshenko. And everything becomes clear.

    Nothing is clear: the Wehrmacht 40 g is not the Wehrmacht 41 g with the resources of France, Belgium, etc. and its BEST parts are in the West. Fulfill your obligations under the Covenant with France of 1935 and repeat 1914, not 1941
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Olgovich, you will learn to somehow distinguish agitation for the population from the real state of affairs. That's what Voroshilov wrote in 1938 - even before the Finnish
    top, senior and middle commanders, commissars and staff workers are not yet an example for troops in the ability to own weapons. The junior commanders are also not trained in this matter and therefore cannot properly train soldiers.

    Agitation in front of the Central Committee and ... Stalin ?! belay Are you joking?
    The same Voroshilov said that there are EXCELLENT parts and a lot of oath-assured then that by 1939 with the "shooter" everything will be fine.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Khalkhin Gol
    The combat training of the troops, staffs and commanding officers of the front turned out to be unacceptably low. The military units were pulled out and not combat-ready; supply of military units is not organized

    And the reason for this is-forget what he said? Betrayal Blucher associates. Removed and-corrected situation.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Excerpts from the order of the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR N 120 of May 16, 1940. (based on the Finnish war)

    That's it: the matter is NOT in small FINANCE (all material IS-equipment, and aircraft, and shells), but inability to command and teach. WHO prevented learning to BE ABLE ?!
    The Germans generally FORBIDDEN it was and nothing, managed
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    But what is the result of all this? Anschluss of Austria - Mobile Divisions scattered along the roads. Occupation of the Rhine region - several regiments were lost, so I had to look for them with the involvement of the local police ..

    And they had enough problems and nothing to talk about their total "superiority" and the inability to adequately respond
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    You will be surprised, but it is so :)))

    I will not be surprised, for I know that it is NOT so. ALL boilers 41-to help you.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Olgovich, I reveal a military secret - the transfer of German troops in an amount excluding the success of our frontier army of cover was carried out in the spring of 1941. At that time, approximately it was opened. After that, we could only convince the Germans that we did not think to violate the non-aggression pact and the British attempts to persuade us to do something else did not make sense. Which, in fact, did the TASS statement you mentioned on June 13 :)))

    Yeah, but until May we did not know that the border-mobilized fighting army, ALREADY captured a dozen countries. An example of France, Greece, Yugolsavia - I did not teach ANYTHING, it is easier to slide my head into the sand - and, ABOS, "they will not touch it." Yeah, they didn’t touch ...

    I refer you to Halder, who wrote that ALL strategic bridges were captured WHOLE in the early days of the war, as were the roads along which German columns surged to Minsk, etc.
    "Small financing" prevented them from mining, blowing up, blocking engineering structures?
    No, a little brainwashing. And so, very much ....
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 November 2019 16: 26 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Olgovich
    Dear namesake, I am glad that this finally came to you and you no longer carry nonsense about future mobilization for Germany:

    That is, you are not even able to understand the text of a short comment in which I wrote in Russian in white that the initial plan was to
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In the case of the beginning of the mobilization of Germany, these forces had to deliver a preemptive strike on the territory of the enemy in order to frustrate their deployment and win the very 3-4 weeks of the term until the complete mobilization of the Red Army.

    but at the same time
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    But this plan could work only if the USSR struck before the German army deployed on its border - otherwise it would completely lose its meaning, because the troops of the border districts could not confront the entire German army. Their numbers were enough for a limited strike in order to disrupt / hamper deployment, and not to defeat the Wehrmacht
    Then, perhaps, you can recall that at the beginning of WWII, Germany fought first with Poland and then with France. That is, her army was ALREADY mobilized, but ours was not.

    From the foregoing, it is obvious that the last opportunity to implement our cover plan was to strike during the redeployment of the main forces of the Wehrmacht to the Soviet border.
    What could be incomprehensible here - I won’t even ask
    Quote: Olgovich
    So MOBILIZED Germany stands on our border. But this, in contradiction with YOUR postulate:
    ) After the WWII, all countries knew that the war does not begin when the guns rattle, but when the probable enemy begins a general mobilization;

    And what could be the contradiction if Germany was at war with Poland first, and then with France and England? :))) Tell you the word "logic" - does it mean anything? :)
    Quote: Olgovich
    It did not become an occasion for the leadership of the USSR to consider this a war, or even, at least in response, to carry out their SUBSTANTIATED, OWN mobilization or to bring the army into combat readiness.

    He died, and it was not a miscalculation. If Hitler was not really going to attack, we would thereby declare war on him, for which we were not ready. The litmus test, whether Hitler was planning to attack us or not, was the concentration of troops on the Soviet border. Because if intelligence had detected the start of the transfer, then in this case it was really necessary to declare a general mobilization and attack. If this were known, but Stalin did not order a war, then THIS would be a miscalculation. But intelligence overslept, as a result of which the border cover plan lost its meaning
    Quote: Olgovich
    Nothing is clear

    Nothing for you. Those who are at least a little bit aware of the real state of affairs - everything is clear
    Quote: Olgovich
    The Wehrmacht 40 r is not the Wehrmacht 41 r with the resources of France, Belgium, etc. and its BEST parts are in the West.

    Yeah. Only now you cannot even understand how much the Red Army 1940 is weaker than the Red Army 1941. It seems to you that this is the same :))) At the same time, in 1941, the level of training of the troops was radically different from what we had in 1939, ., although it was still very far from German
    Quote: Olgovich
    That's it: the matter is NOT in small FINANCE (all material IS-equipment, and aircraft, and shells), but in the inability to command and teach. WHO prevented learning to BE ABLE ?!

    Do you even understand how expensive it is to drive your sun in the tail and mane? Are you broadcasting from which planet at all? :))) The Red Army has just abandoned the MILITARY type divisions, where there were practically no cadre officers, they were trained at three-month courses, there was no money for more.
    Quote: Olgovich
    I will not be surprised, for I know that it is NOT so. ALL boilers 41-to help you.

    Olgovich, well, what else, 1941 to you to read lectures? :))))
    Quote: Olgovich
    I refer you to Halder, who wrote that ALL strategic bridges were captured WHOLE in the early days of the war

    Quote, please :))))
  • Olgovich 3 November 2019 08: 44 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    That is, you are not even able to understand the text of a short comment in which I wrote in white in Russian,

    Apparently, the opposite: you are not able to clearly, briefly, in Russian, express your thoughts.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The initial plan was to
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In the case of the beginning of the mobilization of Germany, these forces had to deliver a preemptive strike on the territory of the enemy in order to frustrate their deployment and win the very 3-4 weeks of the term until the complete mobilization of the Red Army.

    From the foregoing, it is obvious that the last opportunity to implement our cover plan was to strike during the redeployment of the main forces of the Wehrmacht to the Soviet border.
    What could be incomprehensible here - I won’t even ask

    I will explain ONCE AGAIN:

    1. Germany carried out mobilization, and the USSR, in response, no. Which completely contradicts yours :)
    After the WWII, all countries knew that the war doesn’t start when the guns rattle, and when a likely adversary begins a general mobilization;

    The war, in fact, is declared, and the USSR ... ignores it belay , "not .... provokes"
    2. The last opportunity was in 1940, when Germany fought with France to liberate Poland from the German invaders, that is, to do what they did in 1945-five years earlier.
    3.Till June, the USSR could mobilize anything and any number: Hitler was NOT able physically hit: he was busy in the West and South.
    4. He didn’t give a damn about “motives”: he had already shown it ten times in Europe: he didn’t attack then. when there is a reason, and when ready to attack. And ostrich policy avoid reason- only worsened our situation.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And what could be the contradiction if Germany was at war with Poland first, and then with France and England? :))) Tell you the word "logic" - does it mean anything? :)

    1. History, do not remember? Russia in 14 g declared that it would mobilize against A-venrgii, but Germany declared war on .... Russia (see your same postulate).
    2. I.e. huge mobilized army On our the border, directed, as it were, not towards us, but towards Poland (and this is exactly OUR side, by the way) and France --..... DOES NOT threaten us ?!
    This is WHAT it was necessary to have in mind to forget Schlieffen’s plan and the experience of WWI? belay Ahhh, there was the Nonaggression Pact and FRIENDSHIP, for sure! Well then, of course, NOT attack! yes
    Recall Molotov:
    not only pointless, but also to wage war on the annihilation of Hitlerism "

    In how, it turns out ....
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    He died, and this was not a miscalculation. If Hitler weren’t really going to attack, we would have declared war on him, to which we were not ready. The litmus test, whether Hitler was planning to attack us or not, was the concentration of troops on the Soviet border. Because if intelligence spotted But intelligence overslept

    1. You do not want to understand that Hitler was NOT READY to attack ABSOLUTELY. He was Cramped in the forces of time and resources no less than us!

    2. Make the fate of the country dependent on .... reports of intelligence agents ?! belay What's wrong with you?
    There are BASIC principles for protecting the country: there is a huge mobilized the army (albeit 200-300 km is fu!) and the measures should be MIRROR! So it was, it is, and it always will be! The invented “novelty2” led to the disaster of 41 g.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Do you even understand how expensive it is to drive your sun in the tail and mane? What planet are you broadcasting from? :)))

    Aha: it was cheaper to build thousands of tanks, frozen with useless crowbar in the first weeks of the war - as a result of this NEGOGENIA!
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Yeah. Only now you cannot even understand how much the Red Army of 1940 is weaker than the Red Army of 1941.

    You are not able to understand how much has become stronger Germany for the same year: on the resources of FRANCE, BELGIUM, etc., etc.: nm is stronger than the USSR for the same year!
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote, please :))))

    Halder's diary.

    PS The war in June 41 was unavoidable (ALL Hitler’s enemies were already defeated on the continent, the USSR was left alone) and attempts to delay it through diplomacy and “non-provocation” were near and harmful to the country's security.
  • ccsr 2 November 2019 17: 30 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Let's clarify -

    And nothing needs to be clarified - everything that you wrote really corresponds to the truth, and this is understood by those who have an idea of ​​military affairs.
  • strannik1985 1 November 2019 11: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yeah, but standing on the border of the USSR, MOBILIZED long ago — long ago actually, the German 7 millionth army has been at war for two years (the same 7 millionth as in March 1945, when all the mobilization was long gone)), is considered to be “Non-military”, because the word Hitler didn’t “mobilize” .... lol

    In October 1940, 30 divisions on the border with the USSR (25 PD, 3 TD, 1 MD, 1 CD, 1 division arrived during the month), in December 1940 32 divisions (25/4/2/1, respectively), in February 1941 35 (27/6/1/1), in March 38, in May 52 (46/3/2/1, 29 divisions arrived during the month), in June 81 formations (60/12/8/1), to 22 June 129 divisions. Deliberately or not, you confuse the number of mobilized units in the country and at the border. There was no formal obstacle to keeping deployed even the entire Red Army (for example, to accept the 04/100 staff for all 198 rifle divisions and similar ones for the remaining formations). The problem is different - they can’t be placed in peacetime near the border, the troops will not be able to conduct combat training. German aircraft until the last moment were spread throughout the territory of the Reich, most of the formations arrived in May-June, just before the attack.
    Another problem is the national economy, for the deployment of an army of people, horses, equipment must be removed, this greatly complicates everyday activities.
    In contrast to 1940, when the hands were joyfully rubbed, when the imperialists beat each other. As a result, we stayed ONE against Germany.

    The Moscow talks in 1939 perfectly demonstrated the attitude of France and England towards the USSR as a possible ally.
    The Acceptance Act indicates almost ALL the causes of the defeat of the army in 41.

    Indiscrimination of the spacecraft is also indicated?
    1. Olgovich 1 November 2019 11: 39 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: strannik1985

      In October 1940, 30 divisions on the border with the USSR (25 PD, 3 TD, 1 MD, 1 CD, 1 division arrived during the month), in December 1940 32 divisions (25/4/2/1, respectively), in February 1941 35 (27/6/1/1), in March 38, in May 52 (46/3/2/1, 29 divisions arrived during the month), in June 81 formations (60/12/8/1), to 22 June 129 divisions. Intentionally or not you confuse the number of mobilized compounds in the country and at the border.

      I have NO WORDS about this.
      Quote: strannik1985
      There was no formal obstacle to keeping deployed even the entire Red Army (for example, accept the 04/100 staff for all 198 rifle divisions and similar ones for the rest of the formations). The problem is different - they can’t be placed in peacetime in any wayfar from the border, troops will not be able to conduct combat training. German aircraft until the last moment were smeared throughout the Reich, most of the formations arrived in May-June, just before the attack.
      Another problem isnational economy, to deploy an army of people, horses, equipment must be removed, it greatly complicates everyday activities.

      Well, since such "insoluble" problems, then, of course, it was necessary, like a lamb to slaughter, dutifully wait for an obvious catastrophe.

      Then, however, it was necessary to solve MUCH more insoluble and difficult problems — with blood, territories, losses, and with the same deployment, and with horses and equipment with people.

      Combat formations were deployed from the Balkans, after the defeat of Yugoslavia, read TASS on June 13.
      Quote: strannik1985
      The Moscow talks in 1939 perfectly demonstrated the attitude of France and England towards the USSR as a possible ally.

      England and FR-THE SAME as 25 years ago and 100 years ago, but opposite them was a country with the Comintern, whose goal: “the union of workers of the whole world, striving for the establishment of Soviet power in all countries ". And NOT in a peaceful way ...

      And Russia-COULD agree and thereby save itself from 41 g, but the USSR-could not.
      Quote: strannik1985
      Indiscrimination of the spacecraft is also indicated?

      The condition of the troops is indicated. Very informative act ....
      1. strannik1985 1 November 2019 14: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I have NO WORDS about this

        Have you written about the 7 millionth army?
        Well, since such "insoluble" problems, then, of course, it was necessary, like a lamb to slaughter, dutifully wait for an obvious catastrophe.

        Other things being equal, it is better to attack (like Israel in 1967), a purely military aspect, without politics and economics. But this is equal, and if there is no analogue of the German motorized corps, an attack can lead to disaster, as happened on the Anglo-French front in May-June 1940. That is first you need to create an OMG front, which is what they did from the summer of 1940.
        England and FR-THE SAME as 25 years ago and 100 years ago,

        Well, yes, the very same England and France, for the sake of momentary interests, surrendered Czechoslovakia and Poland. What are they "not like"?
        The condition of the troops is indicated. Very informative act ....

        You see what’s the matter, I'm afraid that even the preparation of the spacecraft in 1945 could not allow fighting on equal terms in a ratio of 1: 4
      2. Olgovich 2 November 2019 07: 58 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: strannik1985
        Have you written about the 7 millionth army?

        GERMAN army. You give deployment-soviet.
        Quote: strannik1985
        Other things being equal, it is better to attack (like Israel in 1967), a purely military aspect, without politics and economics. But this is equal, and if there is no analogue of the German motorized corps, an attack can lead to disaster, as happened on the Anglo-French front in May-June 1940. That is first you need to create an OMG front, which is what they did from the summer of 1940.

        It was necessary to fulfill the obligation (1935) to France and hit Germany in the back in May 1940 - nothing hindered except the lack of a head.
        Quote: strannik1985
        Well, yes, the very same England and France, for the sake of momentary interests, surrendered Czechoslovakia and Poland. What are they "not like"?

        So I say that they were SUCH 100, 200 years ago, the same and remained in 1937, 1938,39 and Mr. vile, treacherous, etc.
        But, to its advantage, Russia was ABLE to negotiate with them.
      3. strannik1985 2 November 2019 09: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        GERMAN

        No, the stages of the deployment of the German army are indicated.
        Must

        What's the point? France and England are not going to fight in any case, the Germans will hold Gelb, maybe not in full. As a result, the "allies" of the USSR can and will save, but it will be substituted. It will not be possible to defeat the Germans with rifle corps and separate motorized divisions, either AK (mot) will be transferred from the Western Front to organize a counterattack, or they will organize a counterattack after the end of the offensive operation, and then the Germans will break through the defense, as the Bryansk Front broke through, the defense of which was preparing for 2 months, or Voronezh front (3 months of preparation). We get the same long war with boilers and other things, only behind the Reich France and England will loom.
        So

        No, just before WWI they took Germany more seriously than in 1939-1940. That’s all the difference.
      4. Olgovich 2 November 2019 09: 49 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: strannik1985
        No, the stages of the deployment of the German army are indicated.

        It's to blame, just after the indicated number of deployed divisions you remembered the USSR, I was wrong hi
        Quote: strannik1985
        What's the point? France and England are not going to fight in any case, the Germans will hold Gelb, maybe not in full. As a result, the "allies" of the USSR can and will save, but it will be substituted.

        So the USSR was not about to. But when they attack, you willy-nilly fight.
        Quote: strannik1985
        As a result, the "allies" of the USSR can and will save, but it will be substituted. It will not be possible to defeat the Germans with rifle corps and separate motorized divisions, or AK (mot) from the Western Front to organize a counterattack

        You are guessing, but there is already a former in history real-world PMV example: Germany, rushing between strong opponents and DOOMED to defeat.
        Quote: strannik1985
        No, just before WWI they took Germany more seriously than in 1939-1940. That’s all the difference.

        No: they feared Germany 38 g much MORE than Germany 14 g.
        Hence these wild panic surrenders of the Rhine region, Austria, Czechoslovakia, in an attempt to saturate the cannibal (in vain)
      5. strannik1985 2 November 2019 10: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So

        By oneself? What's the point? Get the same, but with France and England behind Germany?
        You

        There was no "strange war" on the Western Front in 1914.
        No

        Yes, in 1935 it was enough to notify Hitler of mobilization in the event of the occupation of the Rhine region, in 1938 the combined forces of Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, England were much stronger than Germany. You don’t even have to fight by yourself, it’s enough to make Poland miss the spacecraft to defend Czechoslovakia. In 1939, likewise, it was only necessary to negotiate normally, and not to waste time. Uncles played politics, for which they paid.
      6. Olgovich 2 November 2019 11: 01 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: strannik1985

        By oneself? What's the point? Get the same, but with France and England behind Germany?

        to the back of Germany
        Quote: strannik1985
        There was no "strange war" on the Western Front in 1914.

        It wasn’t, yes: because the Germans ADVISED in 1914, and NO in 1939. And when they arrived in 1940, it ended. All the same.
        Quote: strannik1985
        Yes, in 1935 it was enough to notify Hitler of mobilization in the event of the occupation of the Rhine region, in 1938 the combined forces of Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, England were much stronger than Germany.

        Read the debate in the Franz Parliament in 1939 in September, when the question of declaring war on Germany was being decided: they did not want to fight and the Panic were afraid to fight and carry the rub and agreed to almost everything!
        Quote: strannik1985
        it is enough to force Poland to miss the spacecraft to protect Czechoslovakia. In 1939, likewise, it was only necessary to negotiate normally, and not to waste time. Uncles played politics, for which they paid.

        They were afraid of the USSR and didn’t trust a little less than Hitler. The purpose of the Comintern in the USSR is the establishment of Soviets of power in the whole world.
      7. strannik1985 2 November 2019 13: 52 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        в

        And what's the use of the Union? They are to him the same enemy as Germany.
        в

        That is, in 1914 they sat like a mouse under a broom, if they had such an opportunity.
        Read

        They do not have to fight on their own, at least not in full force. Even in 1939, it is possible to agree on the passage of the Red Army through Poland and Romania. You can provide military-technical assistance to Poland, and not ask to suspend mobilization.
        the USSR

        Besides desire, opportunities are needed, and they are such that the ally of the USSR was given to Germany, and the Union was wiped out.
      8. Olgovich 3 November 2019 07: 38 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: strannik1985
        And what's the use of the Union? They are to him the same enemy as Germany.

        1. They are enemies of the enemy.
        2. They are absolutely not the same enemies as Germany — they did NOT want to fight with anyone (including the USSR), they did NOT want to (they don’t need to talk about boib. Baku only).
        Quote: strannik1985
        Ie they and in 1914 sat like a mouse under a broom, if they had such an opportunity

        And I mean the same thing: the same thing happened in 14 and 41 years.
        Quote: strannik1985
        They do not have to fight on their own, at least not in full force. Even in 1939, it is possible to agree on the passage of the Red Army through Poland and Romania. You can provide military-technical assistance to Poland, and not ask to suspend mobilization.

        Nobody would ever miss the Red Army anywhere, it’s obvious: the Union was not much less feared than Germany (remember the Comintern)
        Quote: strannik1985
        Besides desire, opportunities are needed, and they are such that the ally of the USSR was given to Germany, and the Union was wiped out.

        And who is the ally of the USSR?
      9. strannik1985 3 November 2019 09: 38 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        [quote] They are [/ quote]
        They don’t want to, so they turned a blind eye to the cessation of reparation payments, the creation of a normal, draft army in Germany, surrendered the Sudetenland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland. The Germans at least fought for themselves, but they wanted to heat the heat with the wrong hands.
        [quote] and / quote]
        In total, there are more than a hundred divisions and developed economies, while the USSR and the Reich will butt up the level of training and development of their armies, and then they will hit Germany in the back or render military-technical assistance. In any case, their position towards the USSR is potentially hostile. Meaning to dig a hole for ourselves?
        [quote] No one [/ quote]
        A year or two later, you don’t have to let anyone go anywhere, the combined forces of France, Czechoslovakia, Poland are more than enough to pacify Germany.
        [quote] ally [/ quote]
        Czechoslovakia.
      10. Olgovich 3 November 2019 10: 43 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: strannik1985
        They don’t want to, so they turned a blind eye to the cessation of reparation payments, the creation of a normal, draft army in Germany, surrendered the Sudetenland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland. The Germans at least fought for themselves, but they wanted to heat the heat with the wrong hands.

        So.
        Quote: strannik1985
        In total, there are more than a hundred divisions and developed economies, while the USSR and the Reich will butt up the level of training and development of their armies, and then they will hit Germany in the back or render military-technical assistance. In any case, their position towards the USSR is potentially hostile. Meaning ourselves pit dig?

        This "pit" (alliance) was inevitably arrived and it saved millions of our lives. And they also beat us from the East, when it was bad in the West, as in 1914. Only it happened not in 1940, but in 1945.
        Quote: strannik1985
        A year or two later, you don’t have to let anyone go anywhere, the combined forces of France, Czechoslovakia, Poland are more than enough to pacify Germany.

        In theory .... But in practice, neither Franz, nor Chekhsl-were not going to fight or even suffer minor losses.
        Quote: strannik1985
        Czechoslovakia.

        Well, what kind of ally is he if you fight even for yourself -Do NOT want to ?!
      11. strannik1985 4 November 2019 12: 38 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        To this "hole"

        Not to this, in the real 1945, the armies of France and England did not pose a serious danger to the spacecraft, but the United States already received the maximum possible from the war, plus the strengthening of the French and British was contrary to American interests.
        In theory...

        Not so, in practice in 1939-1940 the French did not want to fight a la 1914, according to normal, they announced mobilization and the troops deployed.
        Ну

        Because it was instituted weaker than Germany, and the closest neighbors refused support, moreover, Poland, if it had such an opportunity, would have seized a larger piece of the Tieszyn region.
  • Pavel57 30 October 2019 21: 58 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    And how did the military comply with directive 2 and directive 1?
    1. Pavel57 30 October 2019 22: 16 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Why was the General Staff pulling with the withdrawal of aviation, although the decision was made?
      Zhukov, or rather Govorov in military games, playing for the Germans, defeated the Red Army? Which of these conclusions were made by Gene. By headquarters?
      1. Igor Aviator 31 October 2019 01: 29 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Quote: Pavel57
        Which of these conclusions were made by Gene. By headquarters?

        You are aware that the chief of the General Staff Zhukov, appointed in January1941, did not have a higher academic military education, and the ability to fight him (and the higher command staff) had to comprehend "in practice" -Halkin-Gol, and indeed Finland. What can we say about the rest ... What to do - we did not have the best, then, anyway, there were no losses from here ... And if we take into account the conspiracy among senior officers, and the subsequent for this, quite understandable repressions ... Our commanders were comparable in level of military literacy with German only by the middle - end of 1942. but already in 1943 they surpassed the "teachers".
        1. astepanov 31 October 2019 11: 48 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Igor Aviator
          if we take into account the conspiracy among senior officers, and the completely understandable repressions that followed ...

          Was there a conspiracy, or was it one of the “cases of pest doctors” fabricated in the bowels of the NKVD as instructed from above? Tukhachevsky, Egorov, Blucher, Yakir, Uborevich - the tip of the iceberg. Marshal Vasilevsky wrote: “Without the thirty-seventh year, there probably would have been no war at all in the forty-first year. In that Hitler decided to start the war in the forty-first year, an important role was played by the assessment of the degree of defeat of the military personnel that we had” .
  • Mikhail Drabkin 30 October 2019 23: 55 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    You chit write:
    I ask for an answer why he overslept Hitler’s attack in 1941.

    —- The power of Stalin, like any great man, included beliefs.
    -True, there are facts multiplied, and examined through a filter of beliefs, faith. Such was indeed the truth of Stalin. If you study the attitude and relations of Stalin with people whom he respected (rarely), then there will certainly be strong, even unshakable, convictions of these people in a solid draft. And the skill is finite (and it is situational: for example, Zhukov in war and peace are different values). Or, for example, you: Your beliefs do not allow your truth not to be answered in your questions (for the most part you have ready-made answers that you not only consider to be true, but also TRUE).
    —- I use this model, answering you: Stalin's beliefs filtered incoming information. Yes, he had a “blind spot” even on June 22 after the attack .... did not want to believe in the outbreak of war because of his convictions.
    -Whether this led to the death of your grandfathers and millions of others - it is UNCONDITALLY a QUESTION of FAITH, BELIEF. You have decided for yourself. AND UNCONDITIONALLY, THIS WITHOUT Doubt is UNFORMATED. Because the facts of beliefs can not be beaten, and faith does not care.
    —- To argue about Stalin, any truth, people with opposing beliefs, in order to come to an agreement it is possible only with good will to reject (at least temporarily) beliefs. And this is impossible without a philosophical approach. Not a victory in a dispute, but a consideration of facts and hypotheses should be primary.
    -I think that Stalin was a great man. He could not have done otherwise before the outbreak of war. AND HE OF COURSE NEVER SLEEP ANYTHING, WAS CONSIDERED IN THE QUESTION OF WAR CONSTANTLY !! If you need to acknowledge Stalin’s mistakes as a trump card in a dispute like “... he made an obvious mistake (even a fifth grader ...) when the war started, all the more he made mistakes with cleaning the Army .... collectivization .... blockade of Leningrad .... attacks of June 22 .. "- then you do not need this recognition. It’s not for me to judge the decisions of Stalin ... I don’t know what was on the scales. But recalling the reluctance of Golda Meir to recognize the Suez crossing and the beginning of the Doomsday War, I think that Stalin could have had at least one more reason.
    1. ccsr 31 October 2019 12: 21 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Michael Drabkin
      I think that Stalin was a great man. He could not have done otherwise before the outbreak of war. AND HE OF COURSE NEVER SLEEP ANYTHING, WAS CONSIDERED IN THE QUESTION OF WAR CONSTANTLY !!

      I still can’t find the answer to the question why Stalin did not give the command on the evening of June 21 to introduce cover plans in four border districts with a short order, with the text “START THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COVERAGE PLAN 1941”, and limited myself to the Directive b / n, which In my opinion, it led to the fact that the troops began to occupy positions under the fire of German artillery.
      I still have not come across the testimonies of the participants in the meeting with Stalin that they personally reported on Tymoshenko and Zhukov, and what were their proposals for introducing cover plans, and who initiated the publication of the Directive, given that by 20.00 they already knew for sure that the war will begin in the coming hours.
      I think that it is interesting for military specialists, first of all, to understand who made a strategic mistake in the matter of putting the districts on alert several hours before the attack, which led to the most serious consequences of the first days of the war. The question is not an idle one, if only because one understands who bears the historical responsibility for this, but not in order to settle accounts, but for the sake of truth.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2019 15: 58 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In fact, no bet actions in the evening of June 21 decided anything from the word completely
        1. ccsr 31 October 2019 18: 57 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In fact, no bet actions in the evening of June 21 decided anything from the word completely

          Come on, the border guards at some outposts without the arrival of detached detachments from cover units until 10-12 hours on June 22 fought until they died completely. And if all the connections of the border districts had taken their positions according to the cover plan at least by 3.00, then the Germans would have gotten bogged down at the border from the first hours, and it is not known how their advance would have gone. The entrenched infantry is not so easy to knock out, even if the enemy had a numerical superiority, and the example of the Brest Fortress best showed how many troops can fight even in complete encirclement.
  • Mikhail Drabkin 31 October 2019 00: 43 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    You chit write:
    I ask for an answer why he overslept Hitler’s attack in 1941.

    ---------
    —- The power of Stalin, like any great man, included beliefs.
    -True, there are facts multiplied, and examined through a filter of beliefs, faith. Such was indeed the truth of Stalin. If you study the attitude and relations of Stalin with people whom he respected (rarely), then there will certainly be strong, even unshakable, convictions of these people in a solid draft. And the skill is finite (and it is situational: for example, Zhukov in war and peace are different values). Or, for example, you: your beliefs do not allow your truth not to be answered in your questions (for the most part you have ready-made answers that you not only consider to be true, but also TRUE).
    —- I use this model, answering you: Stalin's beliefs filtered incoming information. Yes, he had a “blind spot” even on June 22 after the attack .... did not want to believe in the outbreak of war because of his convictions.
    —- Whether this led to the death of your grandfathers and millions of others is UNCONDITIONALLY a QUESTION of FAITH, BELIEF. You have decided for yourself. AND UNCONDITIONALLY, THIS WITHOUT Doubt is UNFORMATED. Because the facts of beliefs can not be beaten, and faith does not care.
    —- To argue about Stalin, any truth, people with opposing beliefs, in order to come to an agreement it is possible only with good will to reject (at least temporarily) beliefs. And this is impossible without a philosophical approach. Not a victory in a dispute, but a consideration of facts and hypotheses should be primary.
    —- I believe that Stalin was a great man. He could not have done otherwise before the outbreak of war. AND HE OF COURSE NEVER SLEEP ANYTHING, WAS CONSIDERED IN THE QUESTION OF WAR CONSTANTLY !! If you need to acknowledge Stalin’s mistakes as a trump card in a dispute like “... he made an obvious mistake (even a fifth grader ...) when the war started, all the more he made mistakes with cleaning the Army .... collectivization .... blockade of Leningrad .... attacks of June 22 .. "- then you do not need this recognition. It’s not for me to judge the decisions of Stalin ... I don’t know what was on the scales. But recalling the reluctance of Golda Meir to recognize the Suez crossing and the beginning of the Doomsday War, I think that Stalin could have had at least one more reason.
  • evgic 31 October 2019 08: 42 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    For 20 years, Khoja Nasreddin donated to teach how to speak, but you have not mastered the history of the Second World War. Your knowledge at the secondary level that it has been studied there for 4 years is not clear. At least read something besides Rezun
  • EvilLion 31 October 2019 09: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    If you had studied history for at least six months, you would not have lied about the fact that the Red Army had more strength than the German army.
  • chenia 31 October 2019 11: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Chit
    I am not interested in what Stalin was counting on and what Stalin was counting on. I am interested in the fact of the catastrophic defeat of the Red Army in June.


    It. right?
    So I’ll tell you that we suddenly "slept through" the beginning of the war and even the unsuccessful operational formation of the troops of the first strategic echelon (the merit "of the General Staff, and then Meretskov was correctly pressed) minor meaning (although the military commanders in the memoirs turned arrows on Stalin, hiding their schools, based on surprise).

    And the failed combat training of the troops (the fault is exclusively military, and here Stalin is not by any means. I say this as a professional). just the main reason for all our failures.
    40% of all prisoners are taught for the first six months, and the Moscow battle is confirmed by the appearance of troops with at least four months of training (Siberian divisions).
  • DimerVladimer 31 October 2019 13: 11 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    Quote: Chit
    Why did Stalin not allow this simple, elementary thought? Understandable for any mortal?


    Do not worry.
    The Stalinists almost exclusively come running and clicking on the Lizoblyud articles about Stalin - hence the rating and a lot of minuses to those who hold a different opinion.
    It is useless to convince them of the opposite of their conviction, their world is simple to mention - there is the great Stalin and circumstances harmful to him. All who disagree with this are traitors in their opinion.
  • Sibiriya 30 October 2019 18: 38 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    I do not quite agree. The main reason is the lack of diplomatic claims on the part of Germany, they did not know the direction of the main strikes, there was no mobilization, and yes they slept through the accumulation of troops after their revaluation in 1940, and intelligence data were contradictory. And since the Supreme was responsible for everything, they are trying to blame everything on him, despite the fact that he made great efforts to defeat the enemy. There were mistakes, but the Supreme is not worth blaming for the outbreak of the war.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 October 2019 21: 16 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Siberia
      did not know the direction of the main blows

      And they are generally quite difficult to guess. The French were mistaken, the British were constantly mistaken, the Americans ... there were no comments at all.
      Quote: Siberia
      mobilization was not carried out

      It was PRINCIPLE impossible to conduct. This is a declaration of war
      1. tesser 30 October 2019 21: 46 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        they are generally quite difficult to guess

        Very easy. If it's your punch.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Americans ... there are no comments at all.

        Hmm, what about the Americans? When did Eisenhower lose at least one division in the boiler? When was the last time large forces flew into the boiler, I don’t know, Konev? But the US Army and the Red Army of the first years of the war - they are in many respects similar, unfortunately.
  • Pavel57 30 October 2019 22: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In short, this was the case. Stalin believed that Hitler would attack before 1942. - This is the Khrushchev version.
    Partly accurate about intelligence, the same Sorge gave 3 dates for the start of the war.
  • EvilLion 31 October 2019 09: 22 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It is not so simple and at the same time not so difficult, the mass of German troops stood at the border all spring, but there were infantry divisions, their presence in itself was not a reason to announce mobilization, or even more so to preventively, getting the status of aggressor, and, possibly , USA as an adversary. Just in case of war, the infantry will not move anywhere quickly. The USSR did not know when mobile units would be deployed, but they appeared only in June, and then a diplomatic and military reaction followed. At the same time, it was clear that there could be no talk of “beating the enemy on its territory”, if the Germans weren’t stupid, then a favorable course of war for the USSR would be to retreat to 100-200 km until the mob approached. reserves. But, apparently, the combat capability of the Red Army was overestimated, and Pavlov surrendered everything in the BSSR, and this hole had to be plugged at the expense of other directions.
    1. Pilat2009 31 October 2019 17: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      the mass of German troops stood at the border all spring

      The Germans seemed to claim that they were saving troops from the British bombing
  • Olgovich 31 October 2019 12: 09 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Alas, intelligence overslept mass transfer of troops from France to the Soviet-German border, and after that the defeat in the border battle was predetermined.

    which "overslept", which "France"?
    TASS message

    [13.06.1941]
    recent transfer of German troops, freed from operations in the BalkansIn eastern and northeastern regions of Germany connected, presumably, with other motives that have no relation to Soviet-German relations

    all all knew. but ordered - DO NOT believe this (same TASS):
    Germany began to concentrate its troops near the borders of the USSR with the aim of attacking the USSR;
  • DimerVladimer 31 October 2019 13: 04 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Of course, he, as the leader of the country, is responsible for everything, but ... Still, there is no direct fault.


    I agree with everything except the final conclusion - the head of the country is personally responsible for the failure of the personnel policy
  • Pilat2009 31 October 2019 16: 53 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Of course, he, as the leader of the country, is responsible for everything, but ... Still, there is no direct fault.

    We must also remember how many times intelligence set a date for the outbreak of war ...
    1. Sergey Zhikharev 1 November 2019 13: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And in this, the scouts were like weather forecasters - every time a new date.
      And this is only in the reports that the Germans will attack the USSR.
      At the same time, the reports "the Germans will attack Turkey", "the Germans will begin the Sea Lion."
      And there are the same dates
  • Igor Aviator 31 October 2019 00: 44 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Quote: Chit
    But there could be fewer of them ...

    I don’t understand what you are trying to achieve. To get recognition from everyone that “Stalin is bad” - you won’t wait! According to the results of his administration of the country, his descendants should erect monuments at every intersection! Maybe, choking on Stalin, you want to show everyone how smart you are that you are underestimated - at least silly and unworthy, at least the memory of your grandfathers, they attacked with the name of Stalin, and, sincerely! But in general, (from myself) I’ll say - it’s not good to try to assert oneself by cringing ancestors - they cannot object or answer! And there is such a VERY GOOD feature in some - very strong in hindsight yes And, yes - well, if such a "smart" - so come on, forward, in the sense of - back, tell Joseph Vissarionovich what you need to (did) do! It is very easy to evaluate ancestors, knowing the result, and owning, from print media, versatile information, analyzing it in a serene cabinet silence, keeping your ass in an easy chair! Although, even in these conditions, you could not cope! So rushing from your "thought conclusions" incompetence, one-sided presentation of "as it were facts"! How do you know what Stalin really thought? It was he who just suggested that Germany MANDATORY attack the USSR, only a little later, in 1942, hoping to reorganize by this time (to grow the missing and urgently needed command personnel of the lower and middle command level, which CATASTROPHICLY lacked), to carry out (finish) the re-equipment of the army, aviation and navy, to build the missing plants of heavy and medium-sized engineering in the Urals ... A lot of things did not make it - including the completion of the defense line. By the way, Hitler himself, in fact, planned to attack the UK first, but he "did not grow together" and the plans were changed.
    1. Pilat2009 31 October 2019 17: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Igor Aviator
      including the completion of the defense line

      And why then destroy the old ur? Concentrate troops on the Old Border and enough time to take URA
      1. Sergey Zhikharev 1 November 2019 13: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So they were not destroyed. Khrushchev launched a bike that blew up.
        This means that all border guards, specialists (doctors, builders, teachers, administration, workers) sent to new lands (Baltic States, Western Ukraine and Belarus, Bukovina, Bessarabia) are immediately attributed to losses. At the same time, we write off the equipment that was placed there.
        And the Germans, not meeting resistance, joyfully met by local residents (here and there appear new free and independent republics) in a couple of days reach the old border.
        Isaev’s 10 myths about WWII more
  • EvilLion 31 October 2019 08: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Given that in WWI to the east. the Germans had a front 30 percent of all forces and the army of the Republic of Ingushetia could not even cope with this, then your hitting is only perplexing.
    1. tesser 31 October 2019 08: 59 New
      • 0
      • 5
      -5
      Quote: EvilLion
      your run over is only perplexing.

      That is yes. Want to tell how Comrade Stalin fought with the Soviet people on the side of the Germans, but then gr. Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov, the owner of the Russian land, and no longer succeeds.
  • Sergey1987 31 October 2019 12: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Chit
    And they have the right to ask a question

    Good question. For him, here people have directed you to cons.
  • Pilat2009 31 October 2019 16: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Chit
    But what happens if Hitler attacks first?

    and Stalin did not have a time machine to know this. For some reason, you think that the army is taken "at the command of the pike." The Germans were a serious force and the defeat of France proved this. Yes, and in World War I, the Germans successfully gave lyuli to everyone. It can be said that German military thought was at the peak of its peak. It took us 3 years to get to the peak
  • aybolyt678 31 October 2019 23: 02 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Chit
    And they have the right to ask the question: how did it happen that the great leader and best friend of the military and all the others miscalculated so much with the outbreak of war?

    how could attack Russia fighting with England? how could one attack the USSR without winter weapon grease, sheepskin coats? And then what fatty piece was Turkey? went on donkeys! And close to oil! This is not Stalin miscalculated, this is Hitler or the victim of the work of British intelligence. No wonder Canaris was hanged precisely for cooperation with the British.
  • tihonmarine 30 October 2019 17: 44 New
    • 14
    • 0
    +14
    Quote: AU Ivanov.
    Stalin, in the first place, was a Patriot.

    The main thing I.V. Stalin was a statesman.
    1. AU Ivanov. 30 October 2019 20: 00 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      It is the same. A person who thinks about the state is a patriot.
      1. tesser 30 October 2019 22: 03 New
        • 2
        • 6
        -4
        Quote: AU Ivanov.
        A person who thinks about the state is a patriot.

        Uh, no.
        1. tihonmarine 30 October 2019 22: 55 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: tesser
          Uh, no.

          Sir, you turn out to be a liberal.
          1. tesser 30 October 2019 23: 00 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            Quote: tihonmarine
            Sir, and you turn out to be a liberal

            )))
            No longer.
            1. tihonmarine 30 October 2019 23: 25 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: tesser
              No longer.

              Sorry, that means we have different ideals and views.
              1. tesser 31 October 2019 00: 42 New
                • 1
                • 4
                -3
                Quote: tihonmarine
                Sorry, that means we have different ideals and views.

                Malenkov: Stalin destroyed the status quo and created a new one. He was a liberal
                Beria: Radical
                Malenkov: Radical

                (c) The death of Stalin.

                Ideals and views are likely to be discussed in more detail, rather than by labels.
    2. Perdit monocle capra 30 October 2019 22: 09 New
      • 0
      • 12
      -12
      This is very controversial. All forum users for some reason lose sight of the fact that he was a REVOLUTIONARY to the marrow of bones and his main goal in life was the WORLD REVOLUTION !!! Industrialization was done in the name of the world revolution, because Stalin was well aware that without advanced weapons it would be impossible to achieve the victory of the MP. The USSR was his tool in achieving the goals of the MR.
      1. Pavel57 30 October 2019 22: 32 New
        • 11
        • 0
        +11
        All forum users for some reason lose sight of the fact that he was a REVOLUTIONARY to the bone marrow and his main goal in life was the WORLD REVOLUTION

        You confuse it with Trotsky.
        1. Perdit monocle capra 30 October 2019 22: 42 New
          • 0
          • 9
          -9
          I do not confuse. Stalin simply turned out to be smarter in this matter. Stalin and Trotsky had one goal, Mr. But the vision of implementation paths is different.
          1. tesser 30 October 2019 23: 01 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            Quote: Perdit monocle capra
            Stalin and Trotsky had one goal,

            But Kristobal Hosevich managed earlier
      2. tihonmarine 30 October 2019 22: 56 New