Hitler's strategy. Why the Fuhrer was not afraid of a war on two fronts

Hitler's strategy. Why the Fuhrer was not afraid of a war on two fronts

Adolf Hitler speaks at an emergency meeting of the Reichstag on September 1, 1939


"Crusade" of the West against Russia. Hitler perfectly understood the danger of war on two fronts. Nevertheless, in the summer of 1941, the Führer went to such a war, leaving behind a battered but not broken England behind.

Who helped Hitler


Adolf Hitler helped come to power. Without organizational and financial support from the powers that be, the Nazis had no chance of coming to power in Germany. Our liberals blamed the Communists and Stalin. But Soviet Russia had no reason to support Hitler. And there were no resources for this.

Financial injections into the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) came from the United States. The financial capital of America needed a big war, and Hitler acted as the instigator of such a war, and the Reich became a battering ram to destroy the old order in Europe. Hitler was supported by London, the British aristocracy and financial circles. The British were playing their game. They needed a possessed Fuhrer against the growing Russians and in the game against the United States. The British Empire did not want to be a junior partner of the United States. Therefore, London literally crushed the Munich agreement, giving him Czechoslovakia. Prior to this, the British closed their eyes to the Anschluss of Austria. And in 1939, England allowed Hitler to crush Poland, expecting him to go further to the East.

Thus, in this wolf time (it is the same now) everyone tried to use each other in a big game.

Why did Hitler unleash a great war


From the very beginning of the great war in Europe (Germany against Britain and France with their colonial empires that spread across the planet), Germany’s military-economic situation was hopeless. And when the Soviet Union and the USA came out against Germany, then even more so. Why did Hitler climb into the war? With all the shortcomings of the Fuhrer, he was a cut above his generals in matters of military strategy and the economics of war. The Germans were not ready for a major war either in 1939 or later. The generals also knew this, so they were afraid when Hitler renounced the Versailles restrictions, occupied the Rhine demilitarized zone, captured Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. They knew about the Reich’s weakness, and so feared that several high-level military conspiracies arose against the Fuhrer in order to save Germany from a new military catastrophe.

The point was that Hitler knew more than his generals. He did not intend to wage a classic protracted war to deplete all forces and resources, following the example of the First World War. He relied on the fact that he would be given everything he wanted. The Führer knew that the owners of London and Washington wanted to start a big war, a "crusade" to the East. Therefore, the great powers turn a blind eye to the aggression of the Reich in Western, Southern, Northern and Eastern Europe. He will be allowed to create a "Hitler's European Union", to unite the military-economic, human potential of Europe, aimed against the USSR.

Therefore, the Fuhrer did not give a damn about the sober and rational calculations of his generals. He acted with incredible audacity, conducting lightning-fast local operations one after another. From 1936 to March 1939, Hitler, avoiding a war with the great powers of Europe, which he would inevitably lose with a bang, annexed the Rhine region, Austria, the Sudetenland, Czech Republic-Bohemia and Klaipeda Territory to his empire. The German leader also resolved the “Spanish question” in his favor by providing armed assistance to General Franco.


Adolf Hitler welcomes German troops crossing the bridge over the San River (the right tributary of the Vistula) in the Yaroslav region of Poland. First right: Colonel General Walter von Brauchitsch, Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht Ground Forces. September 1939

Lack of readiness for war


At the same time, the Third Reich at that time was weaker than the Second Reich of the 1914 model: the armed forces were in the process of formation and greatly inferior to the forces of France and England (plus allies throughout Europe); Germany was sandwiched between strong opponents from the West, South and East; the fleet was weak; human and material resources were inferior to the huge colonial empires of France and Britain; the Germans did not have oil, metal, and a mass of strategic resources for a big war, not even enough coal. Aluminum is in short supply, the problem with non-ferrous metals, timber, the lack of locomotive fleets, etc. For example, Germany imported up to 75% of good iron ore from outside, from France and Norway. Oil was in short supply. It was necessary to save on everything and to develop the production of synthetic fuel, which did not cover even a third of the needs (it was planned to deploy a full-fledged sector for the production of synthetic fuel only by the mid-40s). Hitler didn’t even have enough soldiers. The Nazis constantly faced the problem of replenishing losses on the Russian front and the need to preserve skilled workers for industry.

That is, from the very beginning, Germany was doomed to the position of a suicide bomber, who could inflict terrible damage to enemies with the first blows, but was doomed to die in a protracted struggle. The war, in terms of material preparedness, was suicide for the Reich. Even in terms of the readiness of the military-industrial complex, the Germans were unprepared for a world war. Their military programs in 1938 were designed to be completed in 1943-1945. And the rearmament of the ground forces, and the Air Force, and the creation of a powerful fleet. By 1945, they planned to complete the modernization of the railways. None of the programs were completed in 1939. And when the war began, and most importantly (!) Became protracted, the Germans began to improvise. And they achieved a lot, but they could not interrupt the basic conditions.

The entire stock of ammunition planned for Operation Barbarossa (the rout and occupation of Russia) had already been spent by August 1, 1941. Contrary to the myth created by the cinema, where German soldiers are completely armed with machine guns and easily shoot the Red Army with old rifles (or one rifle for three), the Nazis lacked a small automatic weapons. Therefore, often used trophy from Western Europe, or Russian. The German army lacked explosives, aerial bombs, aircraft and aircraft engines, etc.

Hitler started a war without mobilizing the economy and people into a total war. This will happen later, under the influence of defeats on the Russian front. The Reich economy was aimed at small, local wars. For the preparation of the war with Soviet Russia, the preparation was more thorough, but even without a total mobilization, the population almost did not notice it. And soon after the outbreak of war with the USSR, the release of certain types of military equipment was even reduced in anticipation that the war would end soon. The occupation of Europe was not used for total mobilization. Took mostly ready-made, available in the arsenals: French and Czech Tanks, French planes, motor vehicles, small arms, etc. Hitler believed in a “lightning war”, which in the East will be the same as in Western Europe.


Hitler examines the French tank Char B1-bis No. 442, destroyed near the town of Fim. To the right of Hitler is the Reichsfuhrer SS Himmler. June 1940

Hitler's game


Thus, Hitler’s hyperstrategy is a belief in a “miracle”, a blitzkrieg, running along a razor’s edge. It's hard to believe, because the Germans are considered very rational. But the fact is that the Führer had quite rational foundations for such a strategy.

This is the answer to the two “strange” years - 1940 and 1941. In particular, the “strange” war of England and France against Germany. The answer to the question of why Hitler did not finish England, although he had every opportunity to do so. So, the Fuhrer could relatively easily capture Gibraltar, closing the Mediterranean to Britain; occupy Egypt and Suez. That is, to sharply worsen the connection of England with Persia and India. To take control of Turkey and Persia, creating a threat to the rule of the British in India. And there you could enter into a direct relationship with the Japanese. To create a real threat of landing an army on the English islands, and force London to go to a separate world. After that, it was already possible to attack the USSR. Or agree with Stalin on the division of the world.

In reality, Hitler made one fatal mistake after another, although he was not crazy. He perfectly understood the danger of war on two fronts. Nevertheless, in the summer of 1941, Hitler went to such a war, leaving behind a battered, but not broken England, its powerful fleet. At the same time, the Germans fought a war in the Mediterranean. As a result, the Reich fought on three fronts!

It is also worth noting that Stalin received warnings about the Reich attack through various channels. The timing was different, but the essence is the same - Germany is attacking Russia. But the Soviet leader stubbornly believed that in 1941 there would be no war. Stalin was also not a fool, according to his own enemies, he was one of the greatest statesmen in stories of humanity. Stalin cannot be blamed for negligence. That is, the Kremlin quite reasonably expected that Hitler would first solve the problem of the second front, England. And only after that we can wait for the war. In addition, the Soviet government had all the data on the economy and armed forces of Germany. The conclusions were clear: the Third Reich is not ready for a long war. The suicidal Blitzkrieg strategy we see now was then obvious stupidity. Hitler was considered a very smart and dangerous enemy.

One explanation - Hitler hoped for peace and even a secret alliance with Britain. In England, a pro-German party was strong, London and Berlin could divide the planet into spheres of influence. The Hitlerite elite was brought up on British ideals, British racism, the ideas of eugenics (improvement, selection of the human race) and social Darwinism. The British were considered part of the German family, the Aryans. The Anglo-Saxon colonial model was the benchmark for the Nazis, when several thousand masters held millions of natives in obedience. Britain was seen in Berlin as the most ideal ally. Hence the pre-war financing of Hitler by England, secret contacts with representatives of the British elite, the secret of the flight of Rudolf Hess (The mystery of the death of Rudolf Hess).

Why Hitler did not seriously fight England


Hitler seriously believed that the British would make peace with him. That in England supporters of an alliance with the Reich will come to power and they will conspire with him. Moreover, it is believed that there was already a conspiracy. Hence Hitler’s iron confidence and calm behind his rear while he is at war with the Russians. Therefore, London classified its archives of World War II.

Berlin and London shared spheres of influence. Britain still had the largest colonial empire, could profit from the fallen France. Germany received “living space” and the resources it needed at the expense of the Russians. At that time, the United States was not afraid of Hitler. On the one hand, part of the financial capital of America supported Hitler and his desire for a great war. On the other hand, the United States has not yet entered the war and might not have entered. Many Americans then sympathized with the Fuhrer, including the Kennedy clan. There was an opportunity to agree. The union of Germany, Italy, Japan and England was supposed to balance the power of the United States.

In this situation, the war with the USSR did not bother Hitler. First, he was secretly promised a quiet rear that there would be no real “second front” while the Germans were at war with the Russians. Secondly, the Führer overestimated the strength of the Reich and underestimated the Russians (the war between the USSR and Finland seemed to confirm the thesis "about a colossus with feet of clay"). They planned to crush Russia or push the Russians over the Volga, to the Urals during the “lightning war”, before the start of winter. That is, to win the war in a single campaign in 1941. Thirdly, in the Far East, Japan was supposed to hit the Russians, capturing Vladivostok, Primorye and intercepting the Siberian Railway. On this historical Russia came to an end.

Therefore, the Germans did not fight seriously with Britain. Having defeated the French and the British expeditionary forces in May - June 1940, Hitler allowed the British to flee to their islands. The Germans could arrange a meat grinder in Dunkirk, destroy and capture the remnants of the British army. But the British were given the opportunity to escape, even taking some of the weapons. Moreover, Hitler banned Luftwaffe attacks on British naval bases. Although it was the most sensible step if the war were serious. In preparation for the landing in Scandinavia, it was necessary to deliver a strong blow to the enemy fleet. But they didn’t. Obviously, the Führer did not want to spoil relations with London and drown the British favorite brainchild - the Navy.

After Dunkirk, Hitler could organize a strategic landing operation. To land troops in England. Britain at that time was demoralized, the army was defeated. On the islands formed militia units armed with junk, which could not stop the Wehrmacht. The English Channel could be closed by mines, aviation Goering, and land an airborne army. A great moment for the complete defeat of Britain. But Hitler did not. Allowed the British to come to their senses. Instead of solving the problem, the Germans limited themselves to a demonstration - the so-called. battle for england. The Germans fought with England, not bothering themselves. The Reich economy, unlike the English, was not mobilized. Germany's aviation industry has even reduced the production of military vehicles - in the midst of an air attack on England! The British, at the height of the battle, produced an average of 470 vehicles per month, and the Germans - 178. The Germans did not build up fighter cover for their bombers, equipping their fighters with hanging tanks, did not deploy a network of airfields in northern France to attack the enemy.

Also, the born Teuton warriors did not begin to combine their air attack on Britain with the deployment of a large-scale submarine war. Britain had only a few submarines on duty; there was no total sea blockade. Only in the summer of 1941 did the scale of submarine war increase. At the same time, when the German fleet begins a more serious war with the British, the Air Force stops the onslaught.

Thus, it was also a “strange” war. The Germans, in fact, did not seriously fight England. Hitler had every opportunity to bring England to its knees as early as 1940. It was necessary to attack at once from several directions, seriously. Customize submarines and aircraft. Complement air attacks with an underwater blockade, actions of surface raiders, intercept marine communications. Leave the British without oil and food. Attack the naval bases of England, fill up the entrances and exits with mines. To concentrate air strikes on Liverpool is the main seaport through which there was a supply of resources from outside, to bomb aircraft factories, enterprises manufacturing aircraft engines. To paralyze railway traffic by bombing railway bridges and transport junctions. Close the English Channel by minefields and aircraft. Mobilize maritime transport and land an assault. Capture Gibraltar and Suez, Egypt and Palestine, subjugate regimes in Turkey and Persia. Create a threat to India.

Thus, Hitler spared England. They didn’t fight seriously with the British. They were considered as the fraternal Germanic people with whom it was necessary to conclude an alliance. It is very likely that Berlin and London had secret agreements that are kept secret until now. Therefore, the Germans did not destroy the British fleet, naval bases and ports, military industry, and railways. All that made Britain a great power. In fact, the Germans saved the military, naval and economic power of England. Air strikes were demonstrative. Like, stop fooling around. Hitler hoped until the very end for the pro-German government to come to power. This is the mystery of the flight of Hess in May 1941, one of the closest associates of the Fuhrer, to England. And after the mission of Hess, Hitler calmly begins a war with the Soviet Union, hoping that the British would not interfere with him.


Hitler and his entourage inspect the 88th anti-tank gun (8,8-cm-PaK 43) at the training ground while showing new types of weapons. To the left of Hitler is Reich Minister of Arms and Ammunition Albert Speer (in a brown overcoat), to the right (face covered by a muzzle brake) - the head of the Arms Commission (and also the artillery commission) under the Reich Minister Speer Erich Mueller, one of the directors and designers of the Krupp concern
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Scipio 28 February 2020 05: 39 New
    • 9
    • 3
    +6
    Hitler, a flying goose who was happily supported by "our friends" only a goose was uncontrollable ..... It always surprised how such personalities grow to such a scale!
    1. Arlen 28 February 2020 08: 39 New
      • 32
      • 6
      +26
      Quote: Scipio
      It was always amazing how such personalities grow to such a scale!

      Only thanks to financial support.
      At the expense of the article I will say this: The possessed Fuhrer was not afraid of a war on two fronts only because:
      a) He knew that Britain was not ready and could not conduct ground offensive operations;
      b) No matter how pathetic it sounded, the possessed counted on Blitzkrieg tactics. The victory in Poland and France finally convinced him of this.
      c) Frenzy hoped that London after his victory over the USSR would conclude peace with Berlin, but miscalculated.
      His illusion of the USSR crashed. The USSR, under the leadership of the Great Joseph Vissarionovich, survived, defeated and saved Europe from the brown plague.
      1. antivirus 28 February 2020 12: 44 New
        • 8
        • 2
        +6
        Financial injections into the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) came from the United States.

        USA -KEY TO WWII RESULTS. CAPITAL TRADE WITH THE GERMANS AND ENGLISH AND THE USSR.
        We just twisted out from under a mortal blow. .
        At the cost of many victims, the state and the lives of the peoples were preserved, the United States all received and did not lose anything.
        The United States solved the issue of influence in the Western Hemisphere - the Angles were taken away all the preferences and entered Europe, depriving Ang and Fr of influence in its most developed parts - the parasite replaced from John to d Sam.
        + Japon mother subdued and BBV (oil).
        Compare North and South Sakhalin + North Korea against all of Japan and South Korea.
        only China has confused balance calculations - this is an approach to TRMV. not all players decided.
      2. iouris 29 February 2020 23: 43 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        All wrong. From the word "completely."
        Hitler was given three years (the deadline for the transfer of US troops to England) in order to defeat the USSR. The victory over the USSR could give Hitler the necessary resources to continue the war. However. Everyone understood that the United States is more than 44% of the world’s GDP, so those who oppose the United States will face "serious problems." Stalin solved the problem: to represent the USSR as a victim of aggression. If the USSR were represented by the aggressor, then the front of the Western (European) powers, relying on the moral, financial and technical support of the United States, would have opposed the USSR. Stalin chose another option: the Wehrmacht at the walls of Moscow.
      3. Ham
        Ham April 12 2020 09: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The possessed one hoped that London, after his victory over the USSR, would conclude peace with Berlin, but miscalculated

        how could he “miscalculate” if the Reich did NOT defeat the USSR? but if I WIN ...
        it should also be taken into account that most of the intelligence on military potential of the USSR was received from a British intelligence agent, Walter Canaris ... it was canaris who convinced him that the USSR was “an ear of clay feet”, push and fall apart
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Shiden 29 February 2020 15: 05 New
        • 0
        • 5
        -5
        And you never thought about such a question why his party was supported by financial bigwigs. What was the impetus. And then you read articles about Hitler and his party, the British and Americans are to blame everywhere. Although my opinion is that the USSR also contributed to the Nazis coming to Germany.
        1. Doliva63 29 February 2020 18: 54 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          [quote = Shiden. Although my opinion is that the USSR also contributed to the Nazis' arrival in Germany. [/ quote]
          What is your opinion based on, interesting?
          1. Shiden 29 February 2020 22: 02 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And you carefully read what I wrote or carefully drew only the ending to the written. Well, I’ll try to explain. You heard something about such an organization as the Commintern and who created it, what it did, how it was financed. If you analyze the situation in Germany in the 20s and early 30s, you will be surprised how much is written who financed Hitler and his party but you don’t You will find out who financed the German Communist Party during this period.
            1. Doliva63 1 March 2020 19: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Shiden
              And you carefully read what I wrote or carefully drew only the ending to the written. Well, I’ll try to explain. You heard something about such an organization as the Commintern and who created it, what it did, how it was financed. If you analyze the situation in Germany in the 20s and early 30s, you will be surprised how much is written who financed Hitler and his party but you don’t You will find out who financed the German Communist Party during this period.

              Since I’m not reading anything sober, I could have missed something, of course. But what is the relationship between the financing of the Nazis and the Communist Party? I remember that German Communists often visited the Union then, Ernst Bush even gave concerts, and torchlight processions were held under them in Moscow. Father in childhood went to them. But the Nazis only arrived after the 33rd when Hitler came to power.
              1. Shiden 1 March 2020 22: 02 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Well, since you’re not reading sober comments, you don’t need to explain anything. My initial comment was aimed at making a person understand, analyze and delve a bit into history. After all, it is always easier to adhere to the official story where all the guys are white and we are white and fluffy.
    3. Bar1 28 February 2020 08: 53 New
      • 13
      • 4
      +9
      Hitler spared not only England, but also Sweden, and there was high-quality ore, Switzerland in which there was a bulk of gold, also inexplicably avoided military operations until the end of the war. It is clear that the agreement with the world elite was strictly adhered to by Hitler, and even then when Germany was beaten to the smithereens. It seems that Hitler was ready for such a finale, Hitler himself was an Austrian and not even of an Aryan appearance, so the German nation was not very dear to him. He cherished than anything else. Only one thing comes to mind. Hitler was becoming Lenin’s world’s elites, and not national ones, and he created a new world order — German-Anglo-Saxon — well, you can add the Jewish here. Despite the fact that Hitler destroyed the Jews, he destroyed the very bottom of the Jews without touching the Jewish elites. And where are they were these elites?
      A war flared all over Europe and blood flowed, and the small state in the center of Europe, Switzerland, which was led by Jewish bankers, remained outside all the cataclysms that occurred with humanity. This is simply an amazing fact.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Alexander Suvorov 28 February 2020 10: 10 New
          • 15
          • 9
          +6
          Diana, my respect! hi love I’m wondering why you got the minuses? Someone seems to be compelling the truth? So in the Wehrmacht and in the SS a decent number of Jews served and they did not hesitate to destroy their own kind. And Aloizovich himself is also not clear who, whether an Austrian, or an Austrian Jew.
          1. zenion 28 February 2020 15: 28 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            In southern Europe, there was talk that when Hitler captured Stalingrad, the British would begin to bomb the Caucasus, ostensibly so that the Germans would not get oil. At the same time, the Japanese were supposed to advance in the Far East, and the Americans were to capture the north of the USSR. In general, the intervention of the West would be repeated after the First World War. Therefore, Stalingrad was a very important political unit in containing a general attack on the USSR.
            1. Kisa 29 February 2020 06: 05 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Even as the author writes, the British all tweaked that they went along the blade itself playing with fire. If the Turks had fallen then, the Turks would have sided with Germany. And with Japan, too, pearl harbor happened and not Vladivostok surprising the Allies then. Somehow I don’t really believe that the British knew it all in advance
              . And in general, how do you see the capture of Britain with a population of 50 million? This is how many people are brought there to control both the island and the mainland. Probably still hoped to divide the new world order on paper
              1. naidas 29 February 2020 21: 56 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Quote: kitty
                And in general, how do you see the capture of Britain with 50 million people?

                Why capture, the king and children are already zigging.
      2. Kronos 28 February 2020 23: 05 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        No wonder Germany could trade through Switzerland getting the goods and resources it needed + there was money including Nazi bonzes that could disappear
      3. georgiigennadievitch 15 March 2020 12: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Hitler's surname was a Shiklgruber. His grandfather was a tax collector (shekels in the Jewish community in Austria.) A shekel-shikl is just the peculiarities of the local Austrian pronunciation in Yiddish ... Those who brought him to power and ensured his strange victories, those and dictated to him what and when to do. Naturally, Switzerland, where then the money of the true owners of the “Third Reich” was located, was a taboo for the Schicklgruber. And Sweden, despite its supposedly neutrality, practically supported the Hitler economically throughout the war, supplying it with iron ore and alloying with additives. Before his death, Hitler declared that he had been “tricked." Who? It seems that a ruined and ruined Europe was more acceptable for the USA as a market for the sale of goods, economic and military expansion, than the territory controlled by the world rival Germany. That's actually where the answers to your questions lie.
  2. saigon 28 February 2020 05: 41 New
    • 11
    • 5
    +6
    Landing operation in England is strong!
    No landing ships, no enough mines for the strait.
    Well, the fleet of England will probably watch the landing on ships creeping in the strait.
    The situation with flight from Singapore comes to mind when in the Strait the Japanese fleet crashed into a bunch of ships draped from Singapore.
    1. Dart2027 28 February 2020 06: 37 New
      • 12
      • 6
      +6
      Quote: saigon
      Landing operation in England is strong!

      Yes, how to say. Ships and mines can be built (the strait is not the ocean, so there is no prohibitive complexity in this), and the English fleet can be destroyed by aviation. The chances were decent.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 07: 24 New
        • 15
        • 8
        +7
        There was no chance. Absolutely. Everything rested on the size of the contingent, which had to be transferred to England. In 1940, it was relatively small, but there were no ships for the transfer. Ships could be built, but during this time the British strengthened the army, that is, it was necessary to transfer even more soldiers, more ships, etc.
        1. Ros 56 28 February 2020 08: 16 New
          • 9
          • 11
          -2
          Come on, if I wanted to, I’d collect it all over Europe, from the Scandinavians to Spain and North Africa. And you don’t need to build anything, one fishing fleet how many people could take on board. And the English Channel is about forty km away. An hour or two, depending on what.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 08: 42 New
            • 11
            • 6
            +5
            You do not take into account a number of things. Firstly, it was necessary to transport not just soldiers, but a lot of cargo, artillery, tanks, car ammunition and much more. And unload on an unequipped coast. Secondly, the landing operation is not a one-time swim, the deployed group of troops will constantly need supplies. And thirdly, the Germans in fact tried to collect everything they found in the ports, but there was little
            1. Ros 56 28 February 2020 08: 46 New
              • 2
              • 6
              -4
              Butting on this topic, it is necessary to collect a lot of documentary evidence and information of that period, but I don’t really want to dig pro-old snow, we will remain at their own.
              1. icant007 28 February 2020 09: 08 New
                • 12
                • 10
                +2
                Quote: Ros 56
                Butting on this topic, it is necessary to collect a lot of documentary evidence and information of that period, but I don’t really want to dig pro-old snow, we will remain at their own.


                And rightly so, do not argue with Andrei from Chelyabinsk.
                He wrote so much on the marine theme that he probably considers himself a naval commander no lower than Lazarev's level)

                One day, a naval officer was brought to Lazarev and asked to be promoted, that they say he sailed a lot, but could not rise in the ranks. To which Lazarev grunted: "Here I have a chest in my cabin, he was with me in many voyages, but this did not cease to be a chest")))
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 09: 48 New
                • 6
                • 6
                0
                I just dug in my time, and I thoroughly thoroughly :))) But yes, of course, I won’t persuade you against your desire, so we’ll remain with our hi
            2. Alexey LK 2 March 2020 22: 58 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Well, in fragments, you also can’t think. First, the blockade, the bombing, and only then - the landing. The Germans would need to supply only their landing troops, and the British - the entire population, because could not feed so many Britons without the supply of resources, food, etc. And the Britons needed to be brought from India or the United States, and the Germans only through the English Channel ... And the Britons understood everything perfectly, and therefore went to Casablanca to the conditions of the States. They did not plan to negotiate with the Germans for the most part, they only pretended to be lured into a big war. And the activity of Canaris, by the way, should have been most carefully studied and highlighted - in my humble opinion, this is one of the main keys to understanding the whole idea! And about what Hitler was counting on - I agree that he was most likely an “embedded player” - but it seems that he was introduced somewhat by the forces that Canaris introduced.
          2. Alexey RA 28 February 2020 11: 16 New
            • 5
            • 4
            +1
            Quote: Ros 56
            Come on, if I wanted to, I’d collect it all over Europe, from the Scandinavians to Spain and North Africa. And you don’t need to build anything, one fishing fleet how many people could take on board. And the English Channel is about forty km away. An hour or two, depending on what.

            Just for reference: in the summer of 1940, only in the Canal and on approaches to it are fifty destroyers (five times more than in the whole Kriegsmarine), three or four cruisers and the battleship Royal Navy. From above, they are covered by the two most equipped air groups of the Fighter Command.
        2. Dart2027 28 February 2020 08: 27 New
          • 5
          • 6
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In 1940, it was relatively small, but there were no ships for the transfer. Ships could be built, but during this time the British strengthened the army

          The question is who would be stronger. No ocean ships are needed to force the English Channel.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 08: 43 New
            • 8
            • 6
            +2
            Alas, the landing fleet cannot be built in a few months either
            1. Dart2027 28 February 2020 11: 01 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              also not build in a few months

              Do not build. But the British would have to strain a lot. The question is who would have done before.
              1. naidas 29 February 2020 22: 00 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Dart2027
                But the British would have to strain a lot.

                The king has not yet tensed, but has already relaxed and zygites with the future queen
            2. antivirus 28 February 2020 12: 52 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              the war did not go according to SMikhalkov - The battle is not for glory, for the sake of life on earth ...
              FOR BABLO HAVE BEEN CUT. LITTLE BABLO IN ENGLAND .... BILLS WERE TRANSPORTED TO CANADA AND AGAIN GERMANY ---- MUST. oil and metals + other joys in the colonies. they are dispersed throughout the world - each for several years to conquer.
              Only the USSR concentrated everything in one person
            3. skobars 28 February 2020 23: 48 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              As far as I know, the impudent people evacuated from Dunkert on the pelvis collected from everywhere and quite successfully, probably if the Germans could have sent their troops to England in the same way plus using the transport fleet involved in the transfer of troops to Africa.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 February 2020 10: 03 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: skobars
                As far as I know, the brazen people evacuated from Dunkert on the pelvis collected from everywhere and quite successfully

                Let's get a look. Dynamo lasted 8 (EIGHT) days, 338 thousand people were transported, not only on the pelvis, but also on relatively large transports and warships (a total of 693 English and about 250 French transports were involved) - in fact, such That way half of all evacuated people were taken out. At the same time, these 338 thousand people were not the army - for the most part they were even forced to leave personal weapons on the shore, so the first deficit that England encountered when reconstructing the army was a shortage of rifles.
              2. Alexey RA 2 March 2020 11: 04 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: skobars
                As far as I know, the brazen people evacuated from Dunkert on the pelvis collected from everywhere and quite successfully

                Only personnel with a rifleman, without heavy and group weapons. The heavier rifles remained on the beaches of France.

                If the Wehrmacht is landed in this way, then even Home Guard is enough to repel such an assault. smile
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 12: 09 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The British :))) Due to US supplies
            1. Dart2027 28 February 2020 12: 11 New
              • 1
              • 3
              -2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Due to American supplies

              If they were. Yes, the US industry could do a lot, but the USA does not do charity work and would not begin to strain too much without guaranteed benefits.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 13: 16 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                And it wasn’t that they needed to exert much effort, because American weapons, generally speaking, poured into England
        3. Ptolemy Lag 28 February 2020 12: 41 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          There were chances. But Hitler was an Anglophile, Mine Kampf read.
      2. Olgovich 28 February 2020 08: 18 New
        • 14
        • 15
        -1
        Quote: Dart2027
        Yes, how to say. Ships and mines can be built

        This takes time and resources.
        And England and the United States will not be building at the same time on a much larger scale (which happened in reality)?
        Quote: Dart2027
        and the English fleet can be destroyed by aviation.

        The Germans lost the air in the battle for Britain, what is the "destruction" of the armed fleet?
        there are practically no such examples near Britain.

        Author:
        The Führer knew that the masters of London and Washington want to the beginning of the great war

        The Führer knew that England and France categorically DO NOT WANT a big war and are mortally FEAR of it. The US didn’t give a damn.

        This was called a "pacification policy" about which everyone knows, except the author. But it claims (without documents) about a global conspiracy agreement.

        But there are documents DEBATE in the Parliaments of France and England, newspapers, etc. during all the events on the eve of WWII.

        The keynote of them: Hitler, yes, a bastard, but to fight, and even somewhere not at home-categorically NOT .


        Suffice it to recall the famous Chamberlain: "I brought you peace!" and shameful debate in the French Parliament already after the start WWII and yet another attempt to pacify Hitler by second Munich.
        The British and especially the French were terribly afraid of losses of the WWI scale and were ready to give anything if only they would not be touched ..

        Therefore, Hitler behaved so arrogantly, he saw it perfectly and knew ...
        Hitler started a war without mobilizing the economy and people into a total war. it will happen later, under the influence of defeats on the Russian front.

        А 3 million 200 thousand by 1939 (from 100 thousand) and 7 million 200 thousand by June 41 is not mobilization
        The entire stock of ammunition planned for Operation Barbarossa (the rout and occupation of Russia) had already been spent by August 1, 1941.

        And how did they lose, in that case?
        Memoirs indicate the opposite ....

        Hitler was an adventurer, but he knew well the weaknesses of the West and skillfully used them.
        But he made a mistake with the USSR, as, in the end, and the rest ....
        1. Dart2027 28 February 2020 08: 30 New
          • 3
          • 5
          -2
          Quote: Olgovich
          The Führer knew that England and France categorically DO NOT WANT a big war and are mortally FEAR of it.

          This is where the dog is buried. When Hitler came to power, Germany did not have an army. That is, it was formally, but actually not. 1000000 people without heavy weapons is about nothing. So how did he scare England and France?
          1. icant007 28 February 2020 09: 11 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: Dart2027
            When Hitler came to power, Germany did not have an army. That is, it was formally, but actually not.


            The main thing that Hitler retained is personnel.
            1. Dart2027 28 February 2020 11: 04 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Quote: icant007
              what Hitler kept is frames

              Shots are good, but they alone will not recover so quickly.
              1. icant007 28 February 2020 11: 12 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                But nobody destroyed industry. That we needed to carry out industrialization. But the Germans had everything.
                1. Dart2027 28 February 2020 12: 05 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  Quote: icant007
                  But nobody destroyed industry.

                  Not really. After the war, Germany found itself in a deep economic crisis. Our 90s remember? It was as if not worse. And first of all, it hit industry.
          2. Olgovich 28 February 2020 10: 56 New
            • 5
            • 11
            -6
            Quote: Dart2027
            This is where the dog is buried. When Hitler came to power, Germany did not have an army. That is, it was formally, but actually not. 1000000 people without heavy weapons is about nothing. So what did he scare England and France?

            Germany, which recently killed more than 2 million French and British and inflicted terrible economic losses on them.

            Therefore, the French removed from the Ruhr in 1923, so they remained silent in the Rhine crisis of 1936: they had something to lose (and they did not want to lose anything), unlike Germany.

            In the same 1936, Hitler took them "weakly":
            General Guderian, interrogated by French officers after the end of World War II, said: “If you French would intervene in the Rhine region in 1936, we would lose everything, and Hitler's fall would be inevitable»

            Hitler himself said: “48 hours after the march to the Rhine region were the most exhausting in my life. If the French entered the Rhine region, we would have to retreat with tight tails. The military resources at our disposal were inadequate even for moderate resistance. ”


            But France categorically did not want to spend money on mobilization, financial expenses and possible losses.

            England generally stated: "In the end, they went into their garden ...."

            The same situation was repeated in the case of Austria, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, and, finally, in a somewhat different form, with Poland.
            IMHO
            1. Dart2027 28 February 2020 11: 03 New
              • 5
              • 4
              +1
              Quote: Olgovich
              Germany, which recently killed more than 2 million French and British and inflicted terrible economic losses on them.

              Only then did Germany have an army. And then they themselves allowed her to create it. I do not believe in such stupid English and French.
              1. Olgovich 28 February 2020 11: 54 New
                • 4
                • 10
                -6
                Quote: Dart2027
                And then they themselves allowed her to create it. I do not believe in so stupid English and French.

                This is usually the case for intelligent people: the fear of looking the truth in the eye, hence the ostrich policy.

                people who do not want to lose anything or sacrifice something .....

                I draw your attention to the debate in their parliaments during all events: a categorical demand is peace at all costs! And this is the voters ....
                1. Dart2027 28 February 2020 12: 08 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  I draw your attention to the debate in their parliaments during all events: a categorical demand is peace at all costs

                  Parliament is certainly parliament, but the technology of manipulating public opinion through newspapers already existed, and they knew the real situation of the German army.
                  1. Olgovich 28 February 2020 13: 23 New
                    • 4
                    • 7
                    -3
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    and they knew the real situation of the German army.

                    Everyone and everyone knew, just didn’t want to know ....
                    hi
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 February 2020 11: 23 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Dart2027
                I do not believe in such stupid English and French.

                Here the question is not only stupidity ... In Europe it is impossible to determine the correct and fair borders, disputes on the earth go back centuries and it is impossible to understand who is more right. They still did not know what Germany would become (insightful - guessed, but they were in the minority). Therefore, at some stage, some concessions held by Versailles Germany looked quite logical and reasonable. But here is the Anschluss of Austria and what happened later - it’s a deliberate search, and neither the French nor the British reacted as they should.
          3. Alexey RA 28 February 2020 11: 25 New
            • 5
            • 3
            +2
            Quote: Dart2027
            That is, it was formally, but actually not. 1000000 people without heavy weapons is about nothing. So how did he scare England and France?

            In fact, the Reichswehr is a hundred thousand officers and non-commissioned officers. Von Sect from the very beginning built the Reichswehr not as a normal army, but as a large training class for the command staff, which was to become the backbone of the army of a revived Germany. He could afford it - the borders of the Reich were kept by the League of Nations and the signatories of Versailles, so that it was possible for ten to fifteen years to do without a traditional army.
            1. Dart2027 28 February 2020 12: 09 New
              • 1
              • 5
              -4
              Quote: Alexey RA
              so that it was possible for ten to fifteen years to do without a traditional army

              Can. That's just Hitler created an army in a couple of years, in a poor, completely devastated country, and this is already surprising.
              1. Kronos 28 February 2020 23: 08 New
                • 2
                • 3
                -1
                The USSR did the same thing only in worse conditions and without Western loans
                1. Dart2027 29 February 2020 07: 03 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Kronos
                  USSR did the same

                  Done. Only it took him more time.
        2. Alexey RA 28 February 2020 14: 30 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Olgovich
          The British and especially the French were terribly afraid of losses of the WWI scale and were ready to give anything if only they would not be touched ..

          The British still knew perfectly well that they had nothing to fight. The degradation of the armed forces of the Island Empire came to the point that Chamberlain, the pacifist and peacemaker, became the Chancellor of the Treasury in the mid-30s and took the initiative to increase the military budget. The Chancellor of the Treasury, set to control and reduce costs, demanded that these costs be increased! belay

          It was the deplorable state of the British armed forces that became the main reason for Chamberlain's “peacekeeping” in foreign policy and his “hawkishness” in domestic politics. With one hand, in 1938, Chamberlain “brought peace”, and with the other hand, he increased the military budget sixfold compared to 1935. The Peacemaker tried his best to prepare Britain for the impending war, but there was not enough time. And so he tried to delay the start of a big war in Europe - but he was ready for the war to begin.
      3. saigon 28 February 2020 11: 19 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Dear, look on the Internet for how many sea mines Germany had, hundreds of bill.
        Shaving aviation is able to cover the fleet, and to imagine that Rodney class battleships will create ships in the strait without even shooting is simply scary (an example with a drape from Singapore).
        And how the British fleet will fight can be seen on the example of the battle of the British destroyers in the defense of the northern convoy when the heavy cruiser of the Hemanites draped from the English destroyers.
        I just do not believe that the Germans will be able to stop the English destroyers rushing to the landing ships.
        With all my dislike for the British, I must give them their due, the fleet of Britons would have settled the landing at the transition.
        And it’s worth noting that the Hans had neither BDB nor units ready for landing in England
      4. zenion 28 February 2020 15: 34 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        You forgot how the Germans captured Norway. It was enough to drop the SS battalion to capture England. The British knew this. The documentary English films show how they are preparing to fight for the island against the invasion. In addition, Stalin calculated when it was necessary to capture Berlin, so that the allies of the Anti-Hitler coalition would not come to the aid of Hitler. Therefore, the Red Army entered deep into Germany and even the allies could not come close to Berlin. There is an interesting book, “The Good German,” as Americans were given the opportunity to take away everyone who was close to American banks and corporations, moreover, along with documents.
        1. Alexey RA 28 February 2020 17: 20 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: zenion
          You forgot how the Germans captured Norway. It was enough to drop the SS battalion to capture England.

          I’m directly seeing an epic canvas: "SS battalion is landing in the area of ​​responsibility of the 11th RAF Air Group". Oil on canvas, bloodthirsty. smile
      5. gsev 1 March 2020 00: 54 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Dart2027
        and the English fleet can be destroyed by aviation. The chances were decent.

        German aviation could not gain air supremacy during the Battle of Britain. Moreover, if at the beginning of this battle there was a noticeable superiority of German aviation, then at the end German aviation lost its superiority. With acceptable losses, German bombers could bomb Britain only at night, fighter jets only effectively operate on the Channel, not flying deep into England. When trying to increase the intensity of the raids, the Germans were faced with an even greater intensity of the RAF. During the Battle of England, the Germans themselves chose the location of the concentration of the blow and always received a worthy rebuff in the punk of their choice. After the landing, air battles would go over the landing site and the arteries supplying this landing, that is, it would be more difficult for German aviation to hold the initiative. In interrogations after the war, German aviators admitted that having lost the air war in the fall of 1940, Germany lost the war.
    2. icant007 28 February 2020 07: 36 New
      • 5
      • 5
      0
      Quote: saigon
      No landing ships


      We also had practically no landing craft, but somehow managed to land them with the same small hunters and other boats. Not always successful, but nonetheless.

      Germany could well afford a landing operation. Another thing is that in an emergency situation, Britain could well pull itself into the USSR’s allies.
      And then Hitler had nowhere to go. It was necessary to first solve the "problem" in the East.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 08: 45 New
        • 10
        • 7
        +3
        You do not know the history of Soviet landings. Examine their strength and the force involved in the landing
        1. icant007 28 February 2020 08: 59 New
          • 9
          • 8
          +1
          And now you don’t believe in the genius of the German generals, about which you yourself spoke. In their ability to carry out lightning operations?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 09: 58 New
            • 7
            • 7
            0
            I understand all your pain and inveterate hatred of my person after that discussion, but still do not write nonsense, please. Or have you not yet realized that raving in my presence is harmful to your fragile psyche? :)
            The German General Staff just perfectly understood the futility of the landing. In fact, it was like this - the landmen formulated the conditions that must be ensured for the success of the landing, the Kriegsmarin and the Luftwaffe signed the inability to provide these conditions. The Führer, using the ephedron, felt that he would not burn out and did not insist.
            And yes, the lack of sufficient air force and navy forces cannot be compensated for by any genius :)
            Z.Y. It is always ridiculous to watch when an oppressed opponent runs away from the specifics (Soviet landings!). What did you fail to clarify the composition of naval forces? I am not surprised
            1. icant007 28 February 2020 10: 10 New
              • 6
              • 5
              +1
              Judging by your voluminous answer, you are just the same offended) you hope to fill up the text, for God's sake. I won’t even argue.

              And on the landing, I was not going to give you specifics. Where am I to the admiral) who does not hear anyone
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 10: 38 New
                • 5
                • 6
                -1
                That is, you resentment measure the volume of the text? Distances, probably in joules, and the area in light years?
                And you can’t give specifics for the landings, because if you bring them, then refute yourself.
                1. icant007 28 February 2020 10: 57 New
                  • 8
                  • 2
                  +6
                  You know better. Where can I compete with you?

                  You are the first to get personal. I do not accept this approach. Therefore, I advise everyone not to argue with you, because you are an arrogant person and full of aplomb.
                  1. aakvit 28 February 2020 13: 32 New
                    • 4
                    • 1
                    +3
                    Guys, why are you dogging like a bazaar, chesslovo !! angry Digit, push digital! hi
                    1. icant007 28 February 2020 14: 25 New
                      • 5
                      • 1
                      +4
                      Quote: aakvit
                      Guys, why are you dogging like a bazaar, chesslovo !! Digit, push digital!



                      Yes, the fact of the matter is that digital does not always work)
                      We cannot quantify the organizational level of the armed forces, the level of maturity, let’s say, the moral and psychological state of society and many other factors.

                      Was the USSR weaker than Germany in 1941? In terms of numbers, not even stronger. So what?
          2. Catfish 28 February 2020 10: 18 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            We need funds to conduct a blitzkrieg, the Wehrmacht had them, but the Kriegsmarine didn’t.
            1. icant007 28 February 2020 10: 27 New
              • 3
              • 5
              -2
              The Germans had a strong submarine fleet, of which the Englishmen were very afraid. So much so that they thought over the issue of sheltering the fleet in individual harbors along the coast, not trusting the anti-submarine defense of Scapa Flow and other bases.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 10: 39 New
                • 5
                • 4
                +1
                Sit down, deuce. In that period, the Germans did not have any strong submarine fleet.
                1. icant007 28 February 2020 10: 58 New
                  • 4
                  • 2
                  +2
                  I listen, teacher)))
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 12: 01 New
                    • 4
                    • 4
                    0
                    I just remind you that by the beginning of the war the Germans had 57 submarines, of which only 22 were full-fledged, and 35 with a displacement of only 250 tons. These boats were considered to be of limited use and were used in large part for training crews and mining, but not for deployment for the purpose of attacks ships.
                    Moreover, the loss of submarines until late summer 1940 exceeded the income. To this should be added the problems with the German torpedo fuses, which could only be solved in 1941.
                2. icant007 28 February 2020 11: 00 New
                  • 5
                  • 3
                  +2
                  On October 14, 1939, a German submarine sank the English battleship Royal Oak, which was on the roadstead in Scapa Flow.
                  1. saigon 28 February 2020 11: 40 New
                    • 3
                    • 1
                    +2
                    The sinking of the battleship named Prin by you is a fact, but the number of submarines in Germany in the 39th year does not inspire hope.
                    1. icant007 28 February 2020 11: 58 New
                      • 3
                      • 3
                      0
                      If my memory serves me right, the British in the 39th year estimated the number of boats at 60, and the forecast for the 40th was up to 100.
                      But I’m not talking here specifically about 39, 40 or 41 years. The situation in different periods was different. And the British also did not stand still. And the farther, the less likely was the success of the landing of the Germans in the British Isles.
                      My opinion is that with competent organization, with the skillful use of the means that they had, they could well count on success in the landing operation until June 1941.
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 11: 48 New
                    • 4
                    • 2
                    +2
                    Yeah. That is, if Bismarck sank Hood, then Germany, according to your logic, possessed a very strong linear fleet? :)))) Are you not ashamed of such "conclusions"?
                    1. icant007 28 February 2020 14: 08 New
                      • 3
                      • 2
                      +1
                      The sinking of the battleship on the raid of the main naval base of the British Navy, indicates a low level of organization of the British anti-submarine defense. That is, about the poor protection of the coast. Further continue the discussion?




                      I hope you will come to your senses and move away from using such cheap tricks in the discussion as "you are not ashamed, sit down deuce." You are an admiral, not a bad school teacher)
                      1. smaug78 28 February 2020 15: 28 New
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        0
                        And how many Germans after that were able to sink the English ships in the bases of the Metropolis? Further continue the discussion?
                      2. icant007 28 February 2020 15: 35 New
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        0
                        Quote: smaug78
                        And how many Germans after that were able to sink the English ships in the bases of the Metropolis? Further continue the discussion?

                        I do not know. I suspect that not at all.

                        Ready to listen to reasoning with pleasure.
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 15: 32 New
                      • 3
                      • 1
                      +2
                      Continue, of course, to me to laugh hunting. Let's draw conclusions from the death of Oak :)))
                      And as for the cheap tricks, then you, as always, mixed everything up. That's when a person recalls a tactical landing on boats and compares it with a strategic one in England - this is a cheap trick. When a person, instead of answering for his words about Soviet landings, begins to recall his grievances from past discussions, this is a cheap trick. And when a person crawls into someone else’s conversation not with numbers and facts, but with a change in personality (you wrote that I imagined something there) - this is also a cheap trick. So "do not bashfully pull the skirt to your knees, comrade captain of the 3rd goranga, if you came to see a venereologist"
                    3. icant007 28 February 2020 15: 44 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Somehow you are behaving very ugly.

                      I reminded you that you spoke out about the genius of the German command.
                      In relation to you, the words "imagined" I did not use.

                      Moreover, I always called you a great mind and even an admiral.

                      And your link to a primitive joke reveals your real cultural level.

                      Immediately you see nothing to argue, except for laughter, hiccups and other natural items
                    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 15: 52 New
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      -1
                      Congratulations on the next drain - as you might expect, there is nothing to tell you on the essence of the matter (the effectiveness of German submarines).
                      By the way, a "primitive joke" is a quote from Rear Admiral Radzievsky. Well, about the cultural level :))))
                    5. icant007 28 February 2020 16: 42 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      And you want me to draw you a pivot table with a bunch of numbers and text piles?

                      This is not my method) I am far from following the bare numbers. Yes, and spending time on you is like throwing beads ....
                    6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 February 2020 10: 40 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: icant007
                      And you want me to draw you a pivot table with a bunch of numbers and text piles?

                      I do not expect this from you - I have cited the figures above. Sam :)))) There are few of them, but they perfectly illustrate the "power" of kriegsmarin. I can add a little
                      The Germans had 57 submarines at the beginning of the war. As of July 1, 1940, losses amounted to 24 submarines. In this case, the entry into the submarine stand was lagging behind the losses. Word Doenitz
                      The average monthly production of submarines in the first half of 1940 was 2 units, in the second half of the year - 6.

                      In general, you should refrain from comments that you are not able to confirm with numbers.
                      Finally, I will quote you from Doenitz.
                      For a successful invasion, we should have secured supremacy at sea. After all, the point was not to simply transport troops across the strait. After that, it was necessary to ensure their supply with everything necessary, and for an indefinite period of time. And reinforcements were supposed to arrive on the island regularly. We did not dominate either in the sea or in the air, and did not have the opportunity to provide this. Therefore, in my opinion, the Navy command took the right position, not speaking out against the invasion openly, but making obvious the need for a preliminary solution of unrealistic tasks.

                      It’s funny that reproaching me for lifting my nose too much, you don’t shy away from refuting Doenitz. Without a single figure on hand :))))))))))
                    7. icant007 29 February 2020 11: 58 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      And where did you read that I deny Doenitz?

                      As for the submarines, since the beginning of 1941, the production rate was already 20 units per month.

                      My reproaches to you are not a claim to the information that you state, but to the mentoring, edifying tone that you allow yourself.

                      Take an example from Alexei RA or Comrade Saigon)
                    8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 February 2020 13: 13 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: icant007
                      And where did you read that I deny Doenitz?

                      Rђ RІRѕS,
                      Quote: icant007
                      The Germans had a strong submarine fleet, of which the Englishmen were very afraid.

                      Quote: icant007
                      As for the submarines, since the beginning of 1941, the production rate was already 20 units per month.

                      And what about the number of German troops that could capture England in 1941? :))) This is not the 1940th, the British have become much stronger.
                      Quote: icant007
                      My reproaches to you are not a claim to the information that you state, but to the mentoring, edifying tone that you allow yourself.

                      I haven’t written a word to you yet, but from you already
                      Quote: icant007
                      And rightly so, do not argue with Andrei from Chelyabinsk.
                      He wrote so much on the marine theme that he probably considers himself a naval commander no lower than Lazarev's level)

                      One day, a naval officer was brought to Lazarev and asked to be promoted, that they say he sailed a lot, but could not rise in the ranks. To which Lazarev grunted: "Here I have a chest in my cabin, he was with me in many voyages, but this did not cease to be a chest")))

                      Will you deny that you hinted that I'm worse than a chest? It is possible, but then you have to note that among your many vices there is also cowardice.
                    9. icant007 29 February 2020 13: 56 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      I would like to hint to you that if you wrote a lot on the marine topic, this does not automatically make you always right when discussing any situation.

                      There are other points of view that also need to be taken into account.

                      As for a strong submarine fleet. I was not attached to a particular year. We are considering the period from summer 40 to summer 41, when the landing operation was possible.
                      It is clear that the situation was different. I’m trying to show this, that everything was more complicated and ambiguous than you demonstrate.
                    10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 February 2020 17: 04 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: icant007
                      I would like to hint to you that if you wrote a lot on the marine topic, this does not automatically make you always right when discussing any situation.

                      Of course does not. I am periodically refuted in some things, there are no problems. But they refute it with figures and facts in their hands, and nothing else.
                      Quote: icant007
                      There are other points of view that also need to be taken into account.

                      I accepted when I studied the issue. My motto in the study of history is De omnibus dubito (doubt everything), which is why my views are sometimes quite far from the generally accepted ones. The possibility of a successful German landing in England for many years was controversial for me, I did not have a final opinion on this matter. But, with the study of an increasing number of sources, he gradually tended to what was impossible, gradually became convinced of this.
                      Yes, my position may seem radical to someone, but it is not because I reject the threshold and do not consider alternative points of view, but because I examined them very carefully, studied, and now I am sure that they are incorrect.
                    11. icant007 29 February 2020 17: 38 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Your position on this issue is not radical, but corresponds to the position of the majority.

                      Naked figures may not always serve as evidence. And sometimes they are often misleading.
                      Therefore, I honestly do not like the language of numbers.
                      More truly, I am building my opinion not only on figures alone, but personal impressions and feelings of contemporaries are more valuable to me.

                      Well, you have to look at the map)
                      Remember how you laughed at the "inaccessible" terrain in the Volga-Don steppes.
                      But places in the bend really have a difficult terrain: there are chalk mountains, cliffs, ravines .. And this creates certain difficulties for the use of tank units.
                    12. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 February 2020 17: 47 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: icant007
                      Your position on this issue is not radical, but corresponds to the position of the majority.

                      From which it does not follow that it is incorrect. Most are also sometimes right :)))
                      Quote: icant007
                      Naked figures may not always serve as evidence. And sometimes they are often misleading.

                      If they are used incorrectly, then yes.
                      Quote: icant007
                      More truly, I am building my opinion not only on figures alone, but personal impressions and feelings of contemporaries are more valuable to me.

                      Well, Churchill believed that he would be able to repel the invasion, Raeder and Doenitz - that they would not be able to provide it, Goering generally believed that he wouldn’t need any plowing and that he would bring Britain to its knees by air war ... Hitler did not dare to land. So on whose personal impressions do you base your judgments?
                      Quote: icant007
                      Well, you have to look at the map)

                      It is necessary. And I watched.
                      Quote: icant007
                      Remember how you laughed at the "inaccessible" terrain in the Volga-Don steppes.

                      And where was I wrong?
                      Quote: icant007
                      But in places in the bend there is indeed a difficult relief: there are chalk mountains, cliffs, ravines ..

                      Andrew, one more time. One of the best field marshals of the 3rd Reich, Manstein, sent an armored corps there on the offensive. Yes, in some places any terrain can be difficult and impenetrable, but this does not make the terrain tank inaccessible as a whole.
                    13. icant007 29 February 2020 18: 02 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      And where was I wrong?


                      You were wrong in speaking of small mounds.
                      I live in the Rostov region. I have been there repeatedly.
                    14. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 February 2020 18: 36 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: icant007
                      You were wrong in speaking of small mounds.

                      I talked about the fact that this area was tank accessible. And yes, I didn’t see the large hills that could really interfere with the tanks of those years, in any case, they were not located in such a way as to completely block the progress of the tanks, or at least severely restrict their movement
  • Catfish 28 February 2020 12: 22 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Good day, Andrey! hi Yes, even if he was strong, if the British tried to invade, they would have thrown into the battle everything that they had, it’s not for a foreign country to fight. A lion, though he was a Sea lion, initially did not know how to swim, but he lacked the teeth for this. request
  • saigon 28 February 2020 11: 38 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The pores of France are broken, the roads to the ports are broken. There is no BDB, and they are not expected before spring.
    There are no parts like the Japanese SMDS, there is no experience of landing operations.
  • Alexey RA 28 February 2020 11: 27 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: icant007
    We also had practically no landing craft, but somehow managed to land them with the same small hunters and other boats. Not always successful, but nonetheless.

    Well let's drop an army group with equipment and supplies small hunters and other boats. smile
    Moreover, if the enemy has cruisers and battleships covered by aircraft.
    1. icant007 28 February 2020 11: 46 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Well, let’s drop off an army group with equipment and supplies with small hunters and other boats.


      Well, firstly, the bridgehead is first captured by the infantry. And only as it expands, there are opportunities for the transfer of heavy equipment.

      Secondly, at that time, amphibious assault troops did not land from the BDK, as we show on TV in parades
      1. Alexey RA 28 February 2020 13: 05 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: icant007
        Well, firstly, the bridgehead is first captured by the infantry. And only as it expands, there are opportunities for the transfer of heavy equipment.

        An army corps will come running to your landing zone within XNUMX hours. Supported from the sea by cruisers, or even a battleship.
        Are you going to hold the bridgehead with infantry without heavy weapons?
        1. icant007 28 February 2020 13: 24 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Quote: Alexey RA
          An army corps will come running to your landing zone within XNUMX hours.



          And this will guarantee the victory of the British?

          Those British who at that time were very proud of the successful evacuation (flight) from Dunkirk?

          Here, many here are trying to appeal to mathematics. Who has more) But did mathematics help France?

          Do not overestimate the British. At that moment in time, they were very critical of their capabilities. Therefore, June 22, 1941 breathed a sigh of relief.
          1. Alexey RA 28 February 2020 15: 34 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: icant007
            And this will guarantee the victory of the British?

            Those British who at that time were very proud of the successful evacuation (flight) from Dunkirk?

            This will not guarantee the victory of the Germans. Which are naked and barefoot wet and hungry they will sit on the coast, shot from the sea and land.
            Once again I will explain my idea: to guarantee the retention of the bridgehead, the Germans need to land at least in the first echelon a corps - with all the weapons. Otherwise, they simply get crushed.
            Dunkirk can not be remembered - there was a British landing on a foreign land for them (BEC). smile
            1. icant007 28 February 2020 16: 08 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Once again I will explain my idea: to guarantee the retention of the bridgehead, the Germans need to land at least in the first echelon a corps - with all the weapons.


              Perhaps you are right. I do not argue.
              Here I do not insist categorically on any one assessment.
              Another thing bothers me. Why is everyone here unanimously confident that Germany would not have gone for an airborne operation, while Britain was very serious about this issue.
              And the Soviet command also assumed a high probability of this alignment.
              I’m not sure that we now know more than those who lived at that time.

              Special thanks to you, and to Comrade Saigon for the human discussion.

              Unlike Andrei from Chelyabinsk)
        2. Marine engineer 28 February 2020 20: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          “Supported from the sea by cruisers, or even a battleship.”

          Strait is not the sea-ocean. Cruisers and battleships could be sunk by aircraft based on the French coast.
          1. Alexey RA 2 March 2020 11: 09 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Marine engineer
            Strait is not the sea-ocean. Cruisers and battleships could be sunk by aircraft based on the French coast.

            The Germans could not sink the battleship even in the absence of enemy fighters in the air - in 1941 near Crete. In the Channel, the LC will be covered by 11 or 12 Fighter Command air groups. Moreover, for the RAF, covering the LC will be a priority - for the fate of the German landing on the coast depends on its work.
      2. Korax71 28 February 2020 15: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        To capture the landing base, you will need to cover the same infantry with aviation and naval artillery fire. But before that you will need to somehow manage to hide from the enemy the preparatory period, the concentration of landing forces in the area of ​​concentration. There are very few favorable landing sites, so equip in a short period of time they will not be able to make anti-descent, mine barriers. by the side of the landing fleet you will need in a large number of supply vessels, which also have to be unloaded somewhere, i.e. e. either you will have to capture and hold the enemy’s port, or in the shortest possible time to create its semblance on a captured bridgehead. If everything is weighed, then, in the best case, Germany had only personnel without experience in landing operations. In an alternative story, the German landing in England it is possible, in reality, there are many difficult to solve problems that would take more than one year.
  • saigon 28 February 2020 11: 33 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Andrey, all of our landings are TACTICAL, but landing on the territory of England is already a strategic operation.
    The tactics of the Wehrmacht infantry were fundamentally different from our landings. Moreover, unlike our landings, the surprise factor is simply absent and the fire superiority of the British.
    1. icant007 28 February 2020 13: 09 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      I agree that tactical, only the majority, and not all.

      But what prevents the success of the tactical landing?
      What Churchill writes in June 1940 after leaving France:

      The most immediate danger, obviously, lay in parachute landings and, even worse, in the landing of relatively small, but very mobile German tank forces, which could dismember and disorganize our defenses, as they did, rushing to France.
      These days, I was most afraid of the landing of German tanks on our shore. Since I was attracted by the idea of ​​landing tanks on their coast, I naturally believed that they might have the same intention. We had almost no anti-tank guns and ammunition, and even ordinary field artillery. The following incident testifies to what we have reached when preparing to repel this danger. I visited our coast in the bay of Saint Margaret, near Dover. The Brigadier General informed me that his brigade had only three anti-tank guns covering four or five miles of this highly threatened coastal line of defense. He stated that he only had six shells per gun, and asked me in a slightly defiant tone whether he would do the right thing by allowing his people to fire a shot for practice so that at least they knew how the gun worked. I replied that we cannot afford to spend shells “for practice” and that fire must be opened at the last moment from the closest distance.


      W. Churchill, World War II.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 February 2020 15: 34 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        And why not until the end of Churchill quote? :)))
        1. icant007 28 February 2020 16: 47 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Until the end of the pages there are many who are interested, he will find and read.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 February 2020 10: 21 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            That's right, I say - firstly, you quoted the passage "forgetting" to mention that it characterizes the state of the metropolitan forces even before the fall of France. And secondly, you did not bother to quote how Churchill himself saw the problem of the invasion in 1940. And he saw her like that
            “Naval power, if properly understood, is a wonderful thing. Sailing an army in the face of superior fleets and flotillas is an almost impossible thing ... ... The enemy could not win a single serious naval battle against us. He could not resist our cruisers. We outnumbered it by ten times the number of our destroyers and small ships. All of this, however, had to be opposed by all sorts of random weather, especially fog. But even if these conditions were favorable to the enemy and he succeeded s to make a landing at one or more points, the problem of preservation of its communications and supplies landed troops would still remain unresolved ...
            ... But now there was also aviation. What effect did this greatest achievement have on the invasion problem? It is clear that if the enemy could establish air supremacy on both sides of the narrow Dover Strait, the losses of our fleets would be very great and ultimately could be fatal ...
            ... But who possessed superiority in the air? In the battle for France, we fought with the Germans at a power ratio of 2: 1 and 3: 1 and inflicted damage on them in the same proportion. Over Dunkirk, where we had to establish constant patrols to cover the evacuation of the army, our planes fought with a force ratio of 4: 1 and 5: 1 and acted successfully. Chief Air Marshal Dowding believed that over our own waters and over the areas of our coast and country, you can conduct successful battles with a power ratio of 7: 1 or 8: 1 ...
            Of course, there was a third potential factor. Did the Germans secretly prepare, with their notorious accuracy and foresight, a huge armada of landing craft, which did not need either harbors or moorings, but which could land tanks, guns and motorized vehicles at any point on the coast, and subsequently supply the troops that landed? However, we had no reason to believe that anything like that existed in Germany, although the worst should always be taken into account when drawing up plans. We spent four years of hard work and experimental work, it took us enormous material assistance from the United States to create the huge number of landing craft that was necessary for the landing in Normandy. At that time, the Germans could have done much less. But they had only a few Siebel ferries.... "
            And - cherry on the cake
            I clearly stated the essence of my ideas before parliament on June 18:

            “The Navy never claimed to be able to prevent the invasion of 5-10 thousand troops unexpectedly delivered and landed at several points on the coast on a dark night or foggy morning.

            In order for sea power to manifest itself, especially under modern conditions, the forces of invasion must be large. These forces should be large, given our military power, in order to generally bring any benefit. But if the forces of the invasion are great, then the navy will be able to find them, meet them and hit them. In addition, it should be remembered that even for five divisions, no matter how easily equipped, 200-250 ships would be required, and with the current aerial reconnaissance and aerial photography it would not be easy to assemble such an armada, build it and navigate through the sea under a powerful an escort of warships; to put it mildly, it is very likely that this armada would be intercepted long before it would reach the coast, and all its personnel would be sunk at sea or, in the worst case, would be destroyed along with their equipment when trying to land. "
            1. icant007 29 February 2020 11: 51 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              “The Navy never claimed to be able to prevent the invasion of 5-10 thousand troops unexpectedly delivered and landed at several points on the coast on a dark night or foggy morning.


              So what's the cherry? You yourself demonstrate different views of Churchill on the possibility of landing operations.

              The British were more afraid of small landings. They were afraid in vain?
              Everyone drowned right there, because the landing operation was, in principle, impossible.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              very likelythat this armada would be intercepted long before it would reach the coast, and all its personal


              Pay attention to the word is very likely.

              And about aviation, and you, too, did not quote to the end) The overall ratio of the German and British Air Force was 3: 1 in favor of the Germans.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 February 2020 13: 04 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Quote: icant007
                So what's the cherry? You yourself demonstrate different views of Churchill on the possibility of landing operations.

                Cherry is that Churchill (unlike some of my opponents) did not suffer from a split personality, and he had one opinion on such issues. Regarding the possibilities of the invasion, Churchill believed that the Germans would be able to land only relatively small and incapable of capturing England troops, and the transfer of forces that could really create a threat to the British would be reflected by the fleet and the Air Force.
                If you studied Churchill, and not customized his quotes to your point of view, then this would be obvious to you.
                Quote: icant007
                The British were more afraid of small landings. They were afraid in vain?

                Quote from Churchill’s place where he points out that small landings are more dangerous for England. And better - finish customizing Churchill to your thesis - this is impossible :))) Just because Churchill disproves you in all respects. Here are two more quotes
                The defense capability of any part of the coast should be determined not by the number of troops on the coast, but by how many hours it will be possible to conduct a strong counterattack on the landing areas.

                This, I hope, is beyond doubt? Now the following:
                Thus, in the second half of September, we could put into operation on the front of the southern coast, including Dover, 16 beautiful divisions; three of them were armored divisions or their equivalent in brigades; all this served as an addition to the local coastal defense and could be very quickly put into action against any landing forces. This provided us with a shock fist or several such fists that General Brooke could use when necessary, and no one could do better than him.
                .
                SIXTEEN DIVISIONS. And you tell me tales here about the "terrible detachment of 10 thousand German people"? :)))))
                Quote: icant007
                Everyone drowned right there, because the landing operation was, in principle, impossible.

                Everyone stomps for the fact that a successful operation to capture England is impossible for the Germans. Not a paragraph without juggling, or are you so incapable of perceiving the comments of your opponents?
                Quote: icant007
                Pay attention to the word is very likely.

                Yes. And if you recall that Churchill spoke ONLY about landing intercepts at sea? But the landing fleet that came to the coast will be unloaded at least a day (actually, several days), and all this time the landing force with all its reserves will be close to the coastline and can be destroyed by naval artillery ... There is no chance of a successful operation.
                Quote: icant007
                And about aviation, and you, too, did not quote to the end) The overall ratio of the German and British Air Force was 3: 1 in favor of the Germans.

                You are not even able to read comments. It’s sad. Quote from Churchill again
                In the battle for France, we fought with the Germans at a power ratio of 2: 1 and 3: 1 and inflicted damage on them in the same proportion. Over Dunkirk, where we had to establish constant patrols to cover the evacuation of the army, our planes fought with a force ratio of 4: 1 and 5: 1 and acted successfully. Chief Air Marshal Dowding believed that over our own waters and over the areas of our coast and country, you can conduct successful battles with a power ratio of 7: 1 or 8: 1 ...
                1. icant007 29 February 2020 13: 17 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  I will not argue with you. I can only say that I do not customize quotes for my theses.

                  I am just trying to show duality, different opinions.

                  About 7: 1, I read everything correctly, but you did not read

                  Chief Air Marshal Dowding believed that successful battles could be waged over our own waters and over areas of our coast and country with a power ratio of 7: 1 or 8: 1. At that time, the power of the German air force, as far as we knew (and we were well informed), not counting the individual concentration of units, outnumbered our air force in a ratio of about 3: 1.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 February 2020 16: 53 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: icant007
                    I will not argue with you. I can only say that I do not customize quotes for my theses.

                    Andrei, why then, in confirming your own words, you quote a fragment where Churchill describes the state of affairs when the war in France was not yet over and the landing was impossible, but the fragment where Churchill speaks about the forces that he had by September 1940, that is, when Zeelev could take place do not say anything?
                    Quote: icant007
                    I am just trying to show duality, different opinions.

                    The only question is that both Churchill and Doenitz had identical opinions regarding the reality of a successful landing in England. And not only them.
                    Quote: icant007
                    About 7: 1, I read everything correctly, but you did not read

                    I read it. Dowding believed that he could fight successfully at a ratio much worse than the real 3 to 1 (although this is not entirely true - it was a little different), and I do not see how this refutes or changes the meaning of the fragments quoted by me.
                  2. icant007 29 February 2020 17: 51 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei, why then, in confirming your own words, you quote a fragment where Churchill describes the state of affairs when the war in France was not yet over and the landing was impossible, but the fragment where Churchill speaks about the forces that he had by September 1940, that is, when Zeelev could take place do not say anything?



                    Why I say, for example:
                    "The fleet can lose the war, but only aviation can win it."
                    3 September.

                    In June and September, the situation for the British was very difficult. I did not notice that England had somehow intensified. An active air war began.

                    "Actual invasion should be considered a constant threat, but it is unlikely to materialize as long as large forces are deployed on our island."
                    Ibid. September 3, 1940.

                    And Hitler could stupidly ignore the opinion of Doenitz.

                    I won’t say anything about the correlation in the Air Force, I just gave a figure.
                  3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 February 2020 18: 32 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: icant007
                    The fleet can lose the war, but only aircraft can win it

                    Can. But here's the thing - we have a battle-analogue when large forces of the British fleet fought against no less large air forces of the Germans, and the latter acted from nearby aerodromes. Of course, I'm talking about the battle of Crete.
                    So, in a few days the Germans, although they inflicted significant damage to the British ships, could not cover their own naval assaults on Crete - they were either destroyed by the British fleet, or they retreated and returned to the ports. If the landing in England differs from the battle for Crete, it is only because the British could use much larger fleet forces than Crete, and they would be covered by numerous air force squadrons. By the fall, the British in England had 100 squadrons of fighter aircraft, but Crete had none. Of course, the Germans could also strengthen their air forces, but the catch is that the Germans used Crete almost all of their forces that were trained in naval warfare. Practice shows that the Air Force, which was not trained in warfare over the sea and action against ships, is very weak against the sea enemy.
                    Quote: icant007
                    In June and September, the situation for the British was very difficult. I did not notice that England had somehow intensified. An active air war began.

                    If you are talking about 1940, then by that time England had formed a large number of full-fledged divisions on the continent. To defeat them, the Germans would need to transfer at least 12–13 of their divisions and provide them with full supply - this is even with the most optimistic layouts for the Germans.
                    Quote: icant007
                    And Hitler could stupidly ignore the opinion of Doenitz.

                    Could, but this could affect the start of the Seeleve operation, and not the success of its completion
                  4. icant007 29 February 2020 19: 10 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    For all the weight of your arguments, I am still tormented by vague doubts)))
                    Take a pause on this issue)
                  5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 February 2020 19: 27 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: icant007
                    For all the weight of your arguments, I am still tormented by vague doubts)))

                    This is normal. As I already wrote - De omnibus dubito :))))
                    And, of course, if you find some reasonable counterarguments, I will be happy to familiarize myself with them.
                  6. icant007 29 February 2020 19: 29 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    I am also a follower of the philosophy of the Cartesians)
                  7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 February 2020 19: 32 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: icant007
                    I am also a follower of the philosophy of the Cartesians)

                    And they professed such an approach? Did not know. However, I never claimed to be fully knowledgeable in matters of monastic orders of Christianity
                  8. icant007 29 February 2020 21: 22 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    I have not heard about monastic orders. So called the followers of Descartes, the principle of his philosophy is to question everything.
                  9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 February 2020 21: 45 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: icant007
                    As for the monastic orders I have not heard

                    And I thought, you mean the order of the Cartesians :)))) Well, you have to! It was free for me to forget that the followers of Descartes called themselves so! :)))) Mia Kulpa, definitely.
  • Alexey RA 2 March 2020 11: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    But the landing fleet that came to the coast will be unloaded at least XNUMX hours

    Even the Yankees could not provide such deadlines. But no, I’m lying - they did it once: when Turner, by a voluntary decision, stopped unloading and stole the transports with most of the supplies from Guadalcanal. smile
    The most interesting thing is how will the Germans unload supplies and equipment on an unequipped shore? As I already wrote, the American marines, the most prepared in terms of landing, in the first operation managed to score the landing zone before the landing of the first echelon so that there was nowhere to unload.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 March 2020 14: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      That's right. Therefore, I called the day, which, generally speaking, is an unattainable minimum even for a perfectly performed operation. But in a longer period, my opponent would hardly have believed, and digging up confirmation numbers for amphibious operations was lazy
  • gsev 1 March 2020 00: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: icant007
    We also had practically no landing equipment, but somehow managed to land the same small hunters and other boats.

    So after landing our troops in Kerch, the Germans successfully organized its blockade with high-speed barges at night, and during the day they successfully counteracted the supply of paratroopers. Our landing on the Danube and in Bulgaria were successful.
    So the British aviation and navy could block the German landing.
    1. icant007 1 March 2020 10: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: gsev
      So after landing our troops in Kerch, the Germans successfully organized its blockade with high-speed barges at night, and during the day they successfully counteracted the supply of paratroopers.


      Well, according to Wikipedia, our losses from the BDB amounted to only 5 boats. More lost from coastal artillery fire and from storms.

      At the same time, our attack aircraft destroyed 26 BDB.

      And despite the difficulties with the supply, the bridgehead was restrained.
      1. gsev 2 March 2020 00: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: icant007
        And despite the difficulties with the supply, the bridgehead was restrained.

        In 1942, the paratroopers landed in the Crimea in the majority died. That is, the fleet could not provide the evacuation of the landing. The fleet was unable to provide supplies to Sevastopol, and after the defeat it was not able to evacuate the defeated army. During the Kerch-Feodosia operation, the landing party in Feodosia was defeated and for each killed German, the paratroopers paid about 5 lives. I do not detract from the courage and military skill of the Soviet soldiers, officers and generals who participated in the landing and its planning. When the US airborne corps full of tanks, self-propelled artillery with complete air supremacy was defeated by the Chinese infantry who had one rifle for two soldiers, the Americans were able to evacuate the defeated troops from North Korea by sea even with the support of naval artillery against Japanese and Soviet guns in 76 mm. In his memoirs, Bradley mentions that the use of mustard gas by the Germans against his landing in Normandy could put an end to Operation Overlord. History does not like the subjunctive mood. The Germans had much fewer ships in the Black Sea and did not allow the liberation of Crimea by forces of one landing without storming Perekop. Therefore, it can be assumed that the British having won the air battle for England in August-September 1940 and having a stronger fleet would have been able to disrupt German air and sea landing. In addition, I will assume that in such a critical situation, Yugoslav, Greek, Soviet and American troops, and possibly Turkish troops, could come to the aid of Great Britain. Of course, they would then talk about the liberation of the Chekhov, the Serbs, the Lusatian Serbs and the Turks of Thrace and the Rhodope.
        1. icant007 2 March 2020 08: 08 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: gsev
          The Germans had much fewer ships in the Black Sea and did not allow the liberation of Crimea by forces of one landing without storming Perekop.


          I think if the Germans had their "Perekop" to Britain, they would not bother at all about landing)
          Nevertheless, we got confused in the autumn of 1943. We might not have landed, we could. We could wait until we get to Perekop.

          Quote: gsev
          In 1942, the paratroopers landed in the Crimea in the majority died.


          You probably mean 1943 - Eltigen landing.
          My opinion of the Eltigen landing was simply abandoned. There was no hope of success, but the landing party entrenched, and decided to use it to the last.
          At the same time, the remaining 18 army, which was being prepared for the transfer, was generally transferred to another front.
          In general, the topic about this landing is somehow dimly written.
          A lot is written and in detail about the Eltigen landing, about his heroism, about his blockade. And very little is written about the landing north of Kerch. But there was created quite a bridgehead with 2 rifle corps.
          If Crimea were an island, then from that bridgehead, in any case, the offensive would have to be developed.
          1. gsev 3 March 2020 19: 33 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: icant007
            If Crimea were an island, then from that bridgehead, in any case, the offensive would have to be developed.
            That is, we come to the conclusion that landing through the strait is a very difficult task, and special difficulties begin when the landing operation goes into the struggle for communications of the airborne supply. The Germans could throw 2 airborne divisions into England and 2-3 sea landing divisions. But then the RAF would block the airborne assault, and the British fleet naval assault. Even if for this I had to sacrifice half the fleet.
            1. icant007 3 March 2020 20: 31 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: gsev
              That is, we come to the conclusion that the landing through the strait is a very difficult task, and special difficulties begin when the landing operation goes into the struggle for communications of the airborne supply


              And the naval landing operation is, in general, perhaps the most difficult type of military operations. I did not even dispute this)
              In order to understand whether Sea Lion could be successful, you need to build a simulation model with many variables and play options.
          2. gsev 3 March 2020 19: 47 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: icant007
            You probably mean 1943 - Eltigen landing.

            I had in mind Manstein’s Operation "Bustard Hunt" in May 1942.
            1. icant007 3 March 2020 20: 37 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: gsev
              I had in mind Manstein’s Operation "Bustard Hunt" in May 1942.


              Then it is not clear what dead paratroopers you are talking about?
              1. gsev 4 March 2020 17: 52 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                [quote = icant007] Then it is unclear what dead paratroopers you are talking about? [/ quoteа,
                Successfully launched landing operation ended in defeat. I believe that the landing operation does not end with a successful landing, but enters the phase of holding the bridgehead, fighting for communications, and accumulating strength for the final victory. This is just common sense, not military-academic definitions.
                1. icant007 4 March 2020 21: 44 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Something you confused me.
                  Do you mean that the Kerch-Theodosia operation as a whole was unsuccessful, since in the end in May 1942 Manstein squeezed us out to Taman?
  • apro 28 February 2020 06: 05 New
    • 6
    • 6
    0
    They dealt with Agitler as with Shuseyn. First, unspoken support, then the outcome of hell ..
    Of course, the arrangements were. Too easily everything turned out at first.
    Was IVStalin busy with Nazi agreements with the Angles and Amers? All these orders of provocations did not appear from scratch.
    When IVS Stalin learned about the death of Agitler he said .. the game was played up by the scoundrel ..
  • Far B 28 February 2020 06: 26 New
    • 9
    • 5
    +4
    But the Soviet leader stubbornly believed that in 1941 there would be no war.
    Yeah, that’s why on the eve of the attack, an order of full combat readiness was transmitted to the districts ((
    Stalin hopedthat in the 41st war will not be, not stubbornly believed. Heavily different things, however.
    1. strannik1985 28 February 2020 07: 25 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Yeah that's why on the eve of the attack

      Recognized the signs of the preparation of the attack, but it was already too late. Estimated period of mobilization and deployment of districts (fronts) is a month.
  • DMB 75 28 February 2020 06: 56 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    And to me, what was Hitler’s strategy there, what was he afraid of or not, the main thing is that the second didn’t appear. Well, to fight on two fronts is even too much for Germany, they quickly forgot Bismarck- "And if the war is on two fronts if it arises, then at the end of it not one of the Germans, stupefied by blood and horrors, will already be unable to understand what he was fighting for ... "
  • Nikolaevich I 28 February 2020 07: 24 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    Stop the Author! And then he so waved his hands, listing the possibilities of Hitler, that a fan is not necessary to create a draft! And I already have a cold ...
    1. Boris55 28 February 2020 07: 50 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      And I already have a cold ...

      Coronovirus? Quickly put a mask on your avatar! laughing

      By title.
      To call the murderer of millions of our citizens the Fuhrer (leader), I think is not appropriate.
      1. Nikolaevich I 28 February 2020 09: 01 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        "Do not ss ... get scared, Masha ... I'm Dubrovsky!" Coronavirus is something imported! This is for those who have money to roam abroad ... not for us pensioners! laughing I have a traditional, constantly-familiar, banal ARI! Even a little annoying ... no one pays attention! I’m even thinking ... it’s a pity that it’s not a Muscovite (!) ... otherwise I would go into the subway, but I would sneeze! fellow That would be fun for everyone! lol
        About the title ... I agree with you! Quite often, words are used as shortcuts without paying attention to the “internal” meaning! By the way, I once remembered one article in which the author recommended how to "name" Patriot air defense systems "correctly"! Like, the word "Patriot" does not carry any negative meaning, but, on the contrary, even! Therefore, it is better to use "Patriot" or "Patriot" ...
      2. rich 28 February 2020 10: 26 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Quote: Boris55
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        And I already have a cold ....

        Coronovirus? Quickly put a mask on your avatar! laughing

        So what? winked

        Just what? His health is excellent, no infection will bother. And without a mask, Vladimir Nikolaevich is much prettier yes
        1. Svarog51 28 February 2020 20: 22 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Dmitriy hi Plus to him in karma, which is in agreement with humor. yes He is close to Japan and China there, such a mask will not be superfluous.
      3. saigon 28 February 2020 11: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Sir, in essence, what do you have to say?
        It so happened that Adolf Aloizovich is called the Fuhrer, and they even call the corporal the idea that the German gefreyter is not our corporal and there was a senior shooter from the private to the corporal.
        I would like to read your thoughts on the topic of discussion without blah blah merry.
        1. Nikolaevich I 3 March 2020 02: 27 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          This comment was "discovered" by me on March 3rd and there were no notifications to me. Therefore, “I have no right” to perceive it as an answer to me ... but, nevertheless, “I’ll add a penny”!
          Personally, I am not so categorically opposed to the use of the word "Fuhrer" in this context, but in my comment I expressed my opinion, drawing the readers' attention to the fact that many authors of publications use expressions, names like "labels, tags", without delving into the inner meaning of these words! And this leads to the fact that the authors do not think about a possible "alternative" replacement of known words, expressions, and do not do this even when there is an opportunity. In this case, we can give an example: 1. Hitler's strategy. Why the Führer was not afraid of a war on two fronts ... 2. Hitler's strategy. Why Adolf was not afraid of a war on two fronts ... Is it not possible to “designate” SO Thus, the use of the word “Fuhrer” was avoided! If my memory serves me, the “Fuhrer” means “leader” (!) ... and who is “opposite to the leader”, if we also had “leaders and teachers” Lenin and Stalin? Is it indirectly .... is it subconscious, but the word "leader" turns out to be positive "adjective" to this or that character ...
          1. saigon 3 March 2020 06: 45 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Vladimir my answer was to our esteemed 55 Boris.
    2. voyaka uh 2 March 2020 22: 17 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      "Stop the Author!" /////
      -----
      He cannot be stopped. He has a global and systemic falsification of history.
      This is how to try to stop flat Earth proponents.
      I stopped responding to the author’s articles, and I do not advise you. stop
  • Vitaly Tsymbal 28 February 2020 07: 51 New
    • 6
    • 10
    -4
    Speculation, conjecture .... To be honest, I don’t understand why Hitler attacked the USSR. Could Hitler have captured England? For me, definitely -YES !!!, and everything went to this, but then, as if on command - stop. The landing operation was prepared, but not by the method of forcing the strait, but by the airborne landing (remember how many German paratroopers the Nazis used in the 41st in the USSR).
    I can assume this situation by analogy with the current European Union. Until a certain point, the Hitler European Union included Great Britain (which also had a separate position as the current EU), the British were more likely allies of the Germans than opponents (remember the flight of Hess to Britain). And it is customary to negotiate with the Allies (after all, Brussels agreed with Belgrade after the NATO bombing), and not to seize the territory. Since the USSR, as always, it is a wild and backward (by the standards of the West) territory with many ethnic groups, but to the "disgrace" rich in natural resources. By the way, in Europe (unlike the United States), they still do not understand how so many indigenous ethnic groups can exist in a single state. Hitler didn’t understand this either, thought that with a “good” strike, like in Poland (remember the Western Ukrainians, Slovaks, etc.), the “Stalinist empire” would fall apart like a “colossus with clay feet”, but even after the first months of the Second World War the collapse of the USSR into national states did not happen. This is precisely the main strategic mistake of the Hitlerite European Union and the "isolated" member of this union of Great Britain.
    1. sidoroff 28 February 2020 08: 36 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      how many German paratroopers did the fascists use in the 41st in the USSR?
      0 (zero).
      1. Vitaly Tsymbal 28 February 2020 09: 03 New
        • 5
        • 5
        0
        Dear Vasily, the paratroopers in the first months of the war were used by the Germans very often, just while reading the story you did not pay attention to these moments. Quote from "German skydivers. 1939–1945, B. Querry M. Chappe:
        1st Parachute Division. Until the end she fought in Italy, capitulated in the Imola region in April 1945. 2nd Parachute Division. After the fall of Brest, in December 1944 a new division was formed in Holland with the same number. It included the new 2nd, 7th and 21st parachute regiments. Destroyed in the Ruhr in the spring of 1945

        3rd parachute division. Broken down in Normandy, re-formed in Belgium at the end of 1944 from various units of the Luftwaffe. As part of the 15th Army in December 1944, she fought in the Ardennes. The remainder of the division surrendered at the Ruhr in April 1945.

        4th parachute division. Fought in Italy before the surrender of German troops on this front; laid down arms in April 1945 near Vincenza.

        5th parachute division. It suffered heavy losses in Normandy, then was replenished with various units of the Luftwaffe in France, Belgium and Holland. Then again, heavy losses on the southern flank of the Ardennes offensive (as part of the 7th Army). Surrendered in March 1945 at the Nurburgring.

        6th parachute division. “Patchwork” division, uniting the 17th and 18th regiments; formed in France in June 1944 and badly battered in Normandy. The rest was transferred to the 7th parachute division. Re-formed in Holland and surrendered to the British near Zutphen in early 1945.

        7th Parachute Division. Designation of the ground-mounted Luftwaffe assembled “from the pine forest”. This division, which existed only in documents, never fought in full force. It included separate units of the 5th and 6th divisions, training personnel and several battle groups (Menzel, Grossmel, Lightved-Hardegg, Greve, Schaefer, Shlukeber, Grunwald). She fought in the Arnhem area, and finally surrendered to the British near Oldenburg.

        8th Parachute Division. Formed at the beginning of 1945 from the 22nd and 24th parachute regiments. It fought in the Ems-Weser region until the final defeat in April1945.

        9th Parachute Division. Formed in December 1944 from the staff of the Luftwaffe. The regiments of the division received the designations of the 25th, 26th and 27th. It fought on the Eastern Front in the area of ​​Stargorod, Braslau and on the Oder. Destroyed during the last Soviet offensive on Berlin. This part was commanded by the energetic Bruno Breuer. After the war, he was declared a war criminal and executed in 1947. His main guilt was recognized as actions against partisans in Crete in 1941.

        10th Parachute Division. The remains of the 1st and 4th divisions, defeated in Italy, in March 1945 in the area of ​​Cremé-Melk in Austria were brought down to the 28th, 29th and 30th regiments. After the fighting in Moravia, most of the division fell into Soviet captivity.

        11th parachute division. A division that existed only on paper, and which, most likely, failed to unite disparate divisions
        1. strannik1985 28 February 2020 09: 22 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Dear Vasily

          In 1941 in the Wehrmacht, the paratrooper division was exactly one-7th, another was trained in operations as part of the landing assault — the 22nd airborne assault.
          On the Eastern Front, the 7th division fought as ordinary infantry, with the parachute and the RD and RDG landing.
          The divisions you have indicated have been formed since 1943, but they refer to the airborne divisions only by name, because they are part of the Luftwaffe, and not the Wehrmacht.
          1. icant007 28 February 2020 10: 20 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: strannik1985
            The divisions you have indicated have been formed since 1943, but they refer to the airborne divisions only by name, because they are part of the Luftwaffe, and not the Wehrmacht.


            Well, we also had the Airborne Forces part of the Air Force.
            1. saigon 28 February 2020 11: 51 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              But the Germans also had tank-and-parachute divisions
            2. strannik1985 28 February 2020 12: 40 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Well, we also had the Airborne Forces were part of the Air Force

              But at least they were planning to use, according to the state, airborne training in their profile, and the German paratroopers as "jumping" ended on the island of Crete.
        2. Catfish 28 February 2020 10: 08 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          All this is good, but we are talking about the 41st year and their use against the USSR, and everything you cited as an example to the beginning of the Second World War has nothing to do. Rather, Crete can be remembered, it was taken with almost bare hands, but at what cost.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. Catfish 28 February 2020 10: 13 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Well, Vladimir wrote about this:
          ... with parachutes landed RG and RDG.
          Where is there at least something similar to mass landing as during the assault on Crete? Some saboteurs, one Brandenburg.
          1. saigon 28 February 2020 11: 53 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            A small remark, German paratroopers landed in pistols, and carbines and machine guns went on separate parachutes
            1. Pane Kohanku 28 February 2020 13: 27 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              German paratroopers landed in pistols, and carbines and machine guns went on separate parachutes

              in Crete - definitely yes. yes not even that on separate parachutes - in separate containers. Whether this state of affairs was further changed during the course of the war, I do not know. request
          2. Pane Kohanku 28 February 2020 13: 25 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Where is there at least something similar to mass landing as during the assault on Crete?

            in Crete, the Germans killed a large number of transport aircraft. The next beating of German transporters will be an attempt to supply the 6th Army in Stalingrad.
            I did not understand this from the quote:
            Summer 1941 years During the redeployment of German and Romanian divisions from Crimea through the Kerch Strait to the Taman Peninsula (Operation Xenophon), a platoon of the Brandenburg-800 regiment of Senior Lieutenant Katwitz attacked the Soviet stronghold of anti-aircraft searchlights at Cape Pekla and destroyed it [25]. Successfully
            I apologize, but did the Germans land on Taman in the summer of the 41st? what
            1. icant007 28 February 2020 18: 50 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Pan Kohanku
              Summer 1941 During the redeployment of German and Romanian divisions from Crimea through the Kerch Strait to the Taman Peninsula (Operation Xenophon), a platoon of the Brandenburg-800 regiment of Senior Lieutenant Katwitz attacked the Soviet stronghold of anti-aircraft searchlights at Cape Pekl


              Well, yes this is some kind of crap. Reprint from the book. Lied somewhere Anatoly Taras. Or mixed up)
    2. 32363 28 February 2020 08: 46 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Vitaliy Tsymbal
      To be honest, I don’t understand why Hitler attacked the USSR.

      and this will confuse you even more, fotal at the museum on Poklonnaya Gora, translation: "Collection of military topographic maps of the European part of Russia and Moscow, photos and text, Top Secret.
      Printed June 20, 1941"
    3. Alexey RA 28 February 2020 11: 33 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: Vitaliy Tsymbal
      To be honest, I don’t understand why Hitler attacked the USSR. Could Hitler have captured England?

      Hitler himself said that direct capture of Britain is impossible, and therefore it is necessary to deprive it of its last hope on the continent - the USSR:
      July 31, 1940 (Berghof)
      Fuhrer:
      and. He emphasized his skepticism about the technical capabilities [of the landing operation]. He is satisfied with the actions of the navy.
      b. Noted the value of the weather.
      at. I examined the question of the possibilities of the enemy conducting a struggle against us. Our small ships make up 15% of the ships of the same class of the enemy fleet; destroyers - 8%; torpedo boats - 10-12%. Our defense at sea is zero.
      Mines remain (not a completely reliable tool). Coastal artillery is good! Aviation.
      When making a decision, it should be borne in mind that we should never risk in vain.
      Assumption: We will not attack England, but break up the illusions that give England the will to resist. Then we can hope for a change in her position. The war itself is won. France fell away from the "British lion." Italy fetters British troops. Submarine and air war can decide the outcome of the war, but it will last a year or two.
      The hope of England is Russia and America. If hopes for Russia collapse, America will also fall away from England, since the defeat of Russia will result in the incredible strengthening of Japan in East Asia.
      Russia is the East Asian sword of England and America against Japan. An unpleasant wind blows here for England. The Japanese, like the Russians, have their own plan, according to which Russia should be eliminated before the end of the war. Russian film about the victorious war! England especially relies on Russia. Something happened in London! The British were completely discouraged, now they suddenly perked up again.
      Overheard conversations. Russia is unhappy with the rapid development of events in Western Europe. It is enough for Russia to tell England that it does not want to see Germany too [strong] for the British to cling to this statement as if drowning in a straw, and began to hope that in six to eight months things will turn out very differently.
      If Russia is defeated, England will lose its last hope. Then Germany will dominate in Europe and the Balkans.
      Conclusion: In accordance with this reasoning, Russia should be eliminated. The deadline is spring 1941.

      The sooner we break up Russia, the better. An operation will only make sense if we crush the entire state with one swift blow. Just capturing some part of the territory is not enough.
      © Halder's Diaries.
    4. Doctor 28 February 2020 18: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      To be honest, it’s not clear to me why Hitler attacked the USSR ....
      Hitler didn’t understand this either, he thought that with a “good” strike, like in Poland (remember the Western Ukrainians, Slovaks, etc.), the “Stalinist empire” would fall apart like a “colossus with feet of clay”,

      Probably. He was sure of victory.

      "... There was a huge globe in the Führer’s residential building in Bergof, in Obersalzberg. A few months later I saw on it notes of these unfavorably negotiated negotiations. With a significant expression on his face, one of the Wehrmacht’s adjutants pointed to a small, pencil-drawn line from the North to the south in the Urals. It was drawn by Hitler as the future border between the spheres of influence and Japan. On June 21, 1941, on the eve of the attack on the Soviet Union, Hitler invited me to his Berlin home and ordered me to lose a few . Acts of "Preludes" by Liszt "In the near future you will often hear it - our victorious fanfare, the call letters for the Russian campaign How you like them Oh, granite and marble we get there, it takes ....?
      ... A few months later, on June 27, 1941, I, as the commissioner for the construction of industrial facilities for the production of weapons, participated in a meeting between Milch and Todt. Hitler was already sure that the Russians were completely defeated and therefore ordered to urgently speed up the development of the aviation industry for his next action, the conquest of England ... "
      Speer. Memories.
    5. Kronos 28 February 2020 22: 57 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The operation of the Nazi sea lion failed - the British aviation was not destroyed without which it was impossible to secure a landing that the landing in Crete showed well when the Nazis barely won after suffering heavy losses, the British fleet was also stronger than the German one that it was impossible to land with the fleet
  • Unknown 28 February 2020 07: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    that is why I.V. STALIN did not trust the Anglicos, and had reason. they still keep secret the flight of Hess, and what they talked about with him. and Hitler’s, in my struggle, about the Anglicos, only enthusiastic remarks, such as how he learns from them to manage a multimillion people, in the person of India. and the foreign minister, ribbentrop, had many friends in the business and aristocratic environment of Britain. not without reason his eldest son, studied at the prestigious Oxford. so Hitler could be calm about Britain. and here’s what’s interesting about Churchill, Marshal Golvan writes ............. Somehow we got data about the arrival of the son of Churchill Randolph, who appeared there in the guise of a war correspondent, at the Supreme Headquarters. His appearance at Marshal Tito was not quite ordinary - he was dropped there by parachute.

    When I reported the information to Stalin, after a short pause, he said:

    - Keep in mind, the sons of the prime ministers do not jump on parachutes so easily and do not appear in other people's headquarters ......... like that.
  • bober1982 28 February 2020 08: 06 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Hitler, of course, was crazy (possessed), this was openly stated by some of his generals and field marshals (Beck, Witzleben, Blomberg, etc.)
    And, therefore, Hitler’s strategy for starting the world war at the initial stage was to eliminate all these generals from the old Prussian school. Someone slipped a damsel of easy virtue into their wives, than they compromised, another was declared homosexual, someone was sent to retire, and so on.
    By 1938, Hitler was completely ready for war, everyone supported him.
  • Viktor Sergeev 28 February 2020 08: 08 New
    • 4
    • 8
    -4
    The English army of 1940 was powerful, and not a gathering of militias, as shown in the article. Hitler could not land the troops due to lack of transport; it’s not for you to throw a couple of thousand paratroopers. Hitler hell would beat England in their territory.
    Everyone fed Hitler, trying to set one against another.
    1. Diana Ilyina 28 February 2020 09: 02 New
      • 6
      • 5
      +1
      Victor Sergeev (Victor Sergeev)
      English Army 1940
      Yeah, so "powerful" that heroically draped to Dunkirk? recourse Something of the successes of this "powerful" army was not observed throughout the war, well, except for El Alamein. There true success was due to the twofold numerical superiority of the Britons. And so yes, the "most powerful" army of all time ... lol
      1. Mathafaka 28 February 2020 10: 23 New
        • 2
        • 7
        -5
        And you probably forgot about the Royal Air Force?
        1. Alexander Suvorov 28 February 2020 10: 44 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Mathafaka (Nick Fury)
          And you probably forgot about the Royal Air Force?
          The Air Force alone does not win the war.
          1. Alexey RA 28 February 2020 17: 44 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Alexander Suvorov
            The Air Force alone does not win the war.

            And limes at this stage do not need to win the war. They only need to make the success of the German landing impossible. And for this Island Empire, a fleet + Air Force combination is quite enough.
            The fate of the German landing will be decided in and over the English Channel. smile
      2. saigon 28 February 2020 11: 56 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        Diana the English infantry throughout the war showed excellent resistance in defense.
        Moreover, of all the armies of the West, the British army had the least habit of panic.
        1. Alexey RA 28 February 2020 19: 23 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: saigon
          Diana the English infantry throughout the war showed excellent resistance in defense.

          Ummm ... in Malaya and in Singapore too? wink
          1. saigon 29 February 2020 06: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            In Singapore, there was a psychological scrapping of the Britons.
            They very much believed in the theory of the weakness of the Japanese army (racial superiority, so to speak).
    2. volodimer 28 February 2020 09: 47 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      After the evacuation from Dunkirk, the English army was not at all "powerful." Without heavy weapons and morally broken. And read about their home guard. The way they trained and how they armed themselves ...
      This is more for a comedy about Mr. Pitkin. Yes, these comedies are how they comprehend this experience.
      What I agree with: in case of disembarkation, there would be no easy walk. Shaving can be stubborn.
      Lack of transport ... The British gathered boats to take troops out of Dunkirk, and the Germans could do this, especially since under them the entire coast of Europe.
      I believe that the chances of success of the landing were, but the possibility of trying on and the expected "easy walk" in the east outweighed.
  • Ros 56 28 February 2020 08: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    What nonsense, he was very afraid of a war on two fronts, like any normal military leader, if one can be attributed to them. Hoping for providence and good luck.
  • Alex2 28 February 2020 08: 22 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    It is necessary to reward all this nonsense, and even with such peremptoryness.
  • kalibr 28 February 2020 08: 26 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    The point was that Hitler knew more than his generals. I have always been surprised by such peremptory phrases of other authors. How do they know this? Did he have the gift of extrasensory perception or was he reported? They reported ... Therefore, it is not the supreme leader, but his entourage always knows more than his leader, because it also gives him "news" and reports!
    1. bober1982 28 February 2020 08: 29 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      This is because the author knew more than Hitler.
      1. aakvit 28 February 2020 13: 47 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        But where did the firewood come from ?! Is there really access to the afterlife? And from there the information will be - surely! drinks
  • Krasnodar 28 February 2020 08: 27 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Aloizych lost the Battle of England, on this all of Hitler’s chances to get the Britons out of the war ended
    1. gsev 2 March 2020 00: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Krasnodar
      Aloizych lost the Battle of England, on this all of Hitler’s chances to get the Britons out of the war ended

      There are interesting recollections of an American tank officer "Death Traps". He in 1944 in Britain came across a secret map on which about 1940 soldiers were recruited per kilometer of the front in the defense of the southern coast of Britain in the summer of 10. If Hitler knew this, Hitler could take a chance. But besides the Battle of England air war, Germany lost the intelligence war. Having lost the reconnaissance war, Germany was unable to identify the weak points of Britain-the production of aircraft engines. And instead of continuous air strikes at the aircraft engine plant, it tried to disable this plant by saboteurs, who were captured by British counterintelligence.
  • 5-9
    5-9 28 February 2020 08: 41 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Hitler could not land on the Island if he wanted to ... there weren’t enough boats, Grand Fleet would beat these little ships, he couldn’t win air supremacy in the landing zone / on the route either.
    1. chenia 28 February 2020 10: 55 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: 5-9
      with all desire ..

      With a strong desire could. But in a hurry. Someone convinced him that the ground operation against the USSR would be lightning fast.
      1. 5-9
        5-9 28 February 2020 10: 59 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        He could land, of course, but well to land - no chance. Therefore, it did not reach ...
  • nikvic46 28 February 2020 09: 00 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Fascism is a terrible phenomenon. There was no such ideology in the history of mankind. And Hitler was no Napoleon. His environment with German pedantry influenced nationalist leaders. The idea was that you lost what we are able to return to you. And all this was built on limitless capitalism.
    1. Krasnodar 28 February 2020 10: 37 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      What limitless capitalism? National Socialism. A social program for all citizens of the correct national origin.
  • Maks1995 28 February 2020 09: 06 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Article gives wishful thinking.
    Well, the support of countries .... Authors usually forget that capitalists themselves make a profit, and do not look at the Secretary-General with his mouth open - with whom you can trade and with whom not.
  • smaug78 28 February 2020 09: 16 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Again, a folk-conspirator Samsonov broadcasts nonsense from Internet fences laughing
  • smaug78 28 February 2020 09: 20 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Vitaliy Tsymbal
    . To be honest, I don’t understand why Hitler attacked the USSR.

    “Russia is the factor that England puts most of all on… Russia only needs to tell England that it does not want Germany to be strengthened, and then the British will, like drowning people, hope that things will turn out completely in 6-8 months to another.

    But if Russia is broken, England’s last hope will fade. The lord of Europe and the Balkans will then be Germany.

    Solution: in the course of this clash with Russia, it must be finished. In the spring of the 41st. "From a recording by Halder of a meeting at Hitler in Berghof. July 31, 1940
  • Million 28 February 2020 09: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I wonder what the world would be like if Hitler started a war with England ...
  • Mathafaka 28 February 2020 10: 21 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    After Dunkirk, Hitler could organize a strategic landing operation. To land troops in England.

    What forces to plant? What ...
  • smaug78 28 February 2020 10: 38 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Million
    I wonder what the world would be like if Hitler started a war with England ...

    Like now. Hitler began the war with England.
  • BAI
    BAI 28 February 2020 10: 40 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    One can agree with the author only in one - fascist Germany was specially prepared and pushed to war with the USSR.
  • Petrik66 28 February 2020 10: 53 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    The author took up agitprop.
    1. What would France fight in September 1939? The army of France on September 1, 1939 was not ready for serious hostilities. Breakthrough of German fortifications? The invasion of the Ruhr? On September 17.09. the French army was not mobilized. To introduce troops in parts to break through German defense is nonsense. talking about the English expeditionary force is simply not serious.
    2. The German fleet - there were already 57 submarines, including training and repairs, plus torpedoes not brought to mind. after Norway, the Germans did not really have any destroyers. Battleships? Well, the newest Bismarck battleship Hood - the ship of the First World War - sank ..... The British where the Germans could catch, they were drowned there. landing in England? Are you serious?
    3. England had aircraft, but only so much as not to lose air over Dunkirk.
    4. Hitler - a limited psychopath and amateur or an evil genius? No need to reduce everything to one person. War is a competition of systems. The average soldier, non-commissioned officer, lieutenant, major, colonel, general is at war. .On 01.09.39/XNUMX/XNUMX., The Germans were no better, while others were worse.
    5. The companies are 39 - 42 years old, not how many Germans won, how many ... did the systems of France, Poland, England and the USSR.
  • Alexey RA 28 February 2020 10: 57 New
    • 12
    • 2
    +10
    The Führer knew that the owners of London and Washington wanted to start a big war, a "crusade" to the East. Therefore, the great powers turn a blind eye to the aggression of the Reich in Western, Southern, Northern and Eastern Europe.

    Oh yes ... the owners of London and Washington simply dreamed of seeing a single Nazi Europe, receiving resources and food from the rear, invulnerable to them, the occupied territories of the USSR. smile
    He perfectly understood the danger of war on two fronts. Nevertheless, in the summer of 1941, Hitler went to such a war, leaving behind a battered, but not broken England, its powerful fleet. At the same time, the Germans fought a war in the Mediterranean. As a result, the Reich fought on three fronts!

    And with what England in 1941 could threaten Germany? Attack the fleet of Berlin?
    After Dunkirk, the Reich and Britain had a stalemate: the Germans could not finish off the limes, since they could not land on the Island, and the limes could not do anything with the Germans, because they had no army. And it was in an attempt to cut this knot that Hitler attacked the USSR, because he considered it the last hope of Britain, which she wants to use for her own purposes and because of which she does not give up. Hitler said this directly back in 1940 - it is recorded in the same diaries of Halder.
    Moreover, Hitler banned Luftwaffe attacks on British naval bases. Although it was the most sensible step if the war were serious. In preparation for the landing in Scandinavia, it was necessary to deliver a strong blow to the enemy fleet. But they didn’t. Obviously, the Fuhrer did not want to spoil relations with London and drown the favorite brainchild of the British - the fleet.

    Everything is simpler - among all the objectives of the Island, the British Navy had the most powerful air defense. Hitler simply decided not to grind backlash before the main blow.
    After Dunkirk, Hitler could organize a strategic landing operation. To land troops in England. Britain at that time was demoralized, the army was defeated. On the islands formed militia units armed with junk that could not stop the Wehrmacht. The English Channel could be closed by mines, Goering's aircraft, and a landing army was landed. A great moment for the complete defeat of Britain.

    How simple it is to arrange a strategic landing operation without superiority in air and sea. Yes, BEC was broken. But the fleet, based in the Metropolis, and the Air Force of the Metropolis have not gone away. How to land, if only in the Canal zone for the summer of 1940 there are fifty RN destroyers, three or four cruisers and a battleship, which are covered from the air with "sleeps" and "hurricanes"? And these are only the forces of the Canal and southern Command, without taking into account the Fleet of the Metropolis and the Command of Approaches. Let me remind you. that after the Norwegian operation, Kriegsmarine left about a dozen combat-ready EMs. And the fleet also has no stocks of mines for blocking the Channel.
    And about Goering's aircraft and ships - and how, did the backlash help the naval assault forces in Crete?
    And I’m not talking about the organization of the landing of the infantry and tankers poorly prepared for the landing on the Islands. I immediately recall Guadalcanal, where the specialized marine corps trained all the time before the war, in the absence of enemy opposition, managed to completely stall the continuation of the operation after landing the first echelon: after unloading the equipment and supplying the first echelon, the free coast has ended. The light was added by artillerymen, who, when transported to the position of their guns, plowed all the wired communication in the landing zone.
    Oh, and by the way, why are we going to land the German landing force and how to supply it? Alternative "The Reich is preparing for the landing until July 1940“it won’t work. Until July 1940, all the efforts of the Reich were aimed at solving the main goal of the first stage of the war - the defeat of France. For without defeating France, all preparations for the landing on the Island have no meaning.
    1. Dmitry V. 28 February 2020 11: 15 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And with what England in 1941 could threaten Germany? Attack the fleet of Berlin?
      After Dunkirk, the Reich and Britain had a stalemate: the Germans could not finish off the limes, since they could not land on the Island, and the limes could not do anything with the Germans, because they had no army.

      Quote: Alexey RA
      How simple it is to arrange a strategic landing operation without superiority in air and sea. Yes, BEC was broken.

      This is Samsonov :) - in your head your own little world, your own alternative story.
    2. Dmitry V. 28 February 2020 11: 19 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Oh, and by the way, why are we going to land the German landing force and how to supply it? The alternative "Reich is preparing for the landing by July 1940." it's not gonna go. Until July 1940, all the efforts of the Reich were aimed at solving the main goal of the first stage of the war - the defeat of France. For without the defeat of France, all preparations for the landing on the Island have no meaning.


      :)) Your comment turned into a educational program for the author :)))
      Why are such authors generally allowed to publish, as you think?
      It seems to me that this is an editorial policy that would gain more comments from outraged history buffs?
      1. Krasnodar 28 February 2020 17: 12 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Bliiin ... well, why are you breaking Samsonov? A neighing ??
  • Dmitry V. 28 February 2020 11: 10 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    After Dunkirk, Hitler could organize a strategic landing operation.

    Alternative history?
    What landing operation, if the Royal Air Force is not destroyed, like the fleet?
    The author with another conjecture ...
    Tired of commenting on this incompetence and free interpretation of historical events from time to time!
    1. fk7777777 28 February 2020 12: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, he could finish them off, mine everything, organize the interaction of aviation and submarines, etc.
      1. Alexey RA 28 February 2020 13: 19 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: fk7777777
        Well, they could finish them off

        Could not. And could not in real life.
        In addition, Crete has shown that RN can disrupt naval landing even without air cover.
        Quote: fk7777777
        mine everything

        But nothing. smile
        In the AST series, in the comments on the alternative about the successful Sea Lion, the number of mines at Kriegsmarine for 1940 was given - I don’t remember the exact number, but they weren’t even enough to cover the landing zone from the flanks.
        Quote: fk7777777
        organize the interaction of aviation and submarines

        In a shallow strait, with the complete superiority of the enemy at sea and the approximate balance of forces in the air. Dönitz will be immensely glad. smile
  • Per se. 28 February 2020 11: 12 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    In reality, Hitler made one fatal mistake after another, although he was not crazy.
    Alexander, mistakes were not made by Hitler, but Germany with its people. The Germans were "fucked" by the Anglo-Saxons, harnessed them to fight with Russia, and Hitler only did his job, as his true masters ordered.

    After Hitler’s attack on the USSR, Lord Brabazon, the Minister of Transport in the Churchill’s government, was reckless to speak openly that - “For the Western powers, it would be best to wait until the forces of the Germans and Russians are completely exhausted”. For the destruction of the Soviet state, not controlled by world vampires, and made of the defeated in World War I, anti-USSR. Faced the Germans with the Russians. Hitler stopped his troops, allowing the British to flush out from under Dunkirk. Goering (again not without Hitler’s guidance) stopped the bombing of British industrial facilities when Britain’s defense was on the verge of collapse, and suffered attacks on English cities, which allowed England to restore and replenish military output. By the way, our "allies" also did not bomb heavily what worked against the USSR, and at the end of the war they carefully destroyed everything that could fall into the Soviet zone of influence.

    Yes, and I doubt very much that the charred corpse in darned socks was Hitler, to whom his Anglo-Saxon masters had to give reinforced concrete guarantees for the fulfilled order.
    1. fk7777777 28 February 2020 12: 30 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      So we must act in advance, since they did not change our comrade at all, to the one who is needed. And shafts of shaving, already really knocked down, and most importantly, no one would have jerked, the party’s policy remained the same ... Yes, and everything could be blamed on shaving, because they need it, everything is logical ... this is the most important miscalculation.
  • place 28 February 2020 11: 42 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The main lesson of World War II is different.

    The factory factory proletariat, which the Communists even considered the "grave digger of the bourgeoisie" even in the beginning of the 20th century, turned out to be its obedient slave, who prefers to go to the grave himself, but remain faithful dogs of his masters.

    The events of the 90s in Russia brought this role to the point of absurdity. The proletariat supported its oppressors and EVEN HELPED THE EXPLOSION TO GASK OUT HIS COUNTRY STILL PURCHASER OF HITLER - AT ITS OWN DESIRE! It was a complete collapse of the world communist movement of the classical type.
    1. fk7777777 28 February 2020 12: 25 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Bullshit, your fantasies about reality are absolutely divorced from reality.
      1. place 28 February 2020 14: 40 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: fk7777777
        Bullshit, your fantasies about reality are absolutely divorced from reality.

        --------------------

        Continue, wait, I'm recording. Moreover, you have amazing evidence-based arguments. Although I can call your post nonsense .......

        But the voting in the work collectives in the 90s, when the unanimous worker "approvals" supported the idea of ​​"privatization" - I remember perfectly. There is no sclerosis yet.
        I didn’t forget how the hard workers then kicked out of the bankrupt enterprises into the street ............... and nothing, just like the poet N. Nekrasov: shook themselves, wiped himself on and on, "they went in the sun Palimi "......
    2. kalibr 28 February 2020 15: 47 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Well, Hitler was not the first to support the proletariat, but ... The All-German Trade Union of Associate Professors in 1928. Hitler promised them to increase their salaries 4 times!
  • smaug78 28 February 2020 12: 15 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Dart2027
    Quote: Alexey RA
    so that it was possible for ten to fifteen years to do without a traditional army

    Can. That's just Hitler created an army in a couple of years, in a poor, completely devastated country, and this is already surprising.

    Yes, a strong statement about a poor and completely ruined country ... You. Of course, can you confirm with documents?
    1. Dart2027 28 February 2020 16: 22 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: smaug78
      You. Of course, can you confirm with documents?

      Hyperinflation in Germany from 1919-1923
      http://www.globfin.ru/articles/crisis/hyperinf.htm
  • fk7777777 28 February 2020 12: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The question is, if during the fighting with the Britons, he was removed during the war and the authorities in Germany would have stood up who just started to bring down the English, that’s what had to be realized under Stalin.
  • nnz226 28 February 2020 12: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The picture doesn’t work out: the article says that at the beginning of the war the Wehrmacht had spent stocks of shells and ammunition by August 1, 1941, and all historians and memoirists claim that both the Typhoon and Blau operations and the reflection of our Mars so that our positions were overloaded with heavy shells and bombs, and the attacks of our infantry were reflected by machine guns that did not spare bullets. In “Mars” the Germans responded to one of our shells with three or four of theirs, thereby preventing them from successfully completing the operation, and this is the winter of 1-1941 and the whole of 42, before the Germans evacuated the Rzhevsky ledge in the spring of 1942. About the blockade of Leningrad and the reflection of our attempts at the deblockade in 1943-1941 modestly keep silent!
    1. place 28 February 2020 18: 15 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The author went too far and thickened ........ BUT if you recall the memoirs of Guderian, he writes about the unreasonable dispersal of funds by the leadership, which instead of establishing mass production of 1-2 samples of reliable equipment, frantically financed a lot of projects. Why? Guderian writes that from fright, after the defeat near Moscow. Things went wrong, and they began to fuss ........

      How many Tigers have been released? 1400 pieces. T-4 produced less than 9 thousand. And jet planes, missiles, an atomic bomb, many types of tracked vehicles, 600 pieces of Ferdinands with electric transmission ....... In the USSR, only T-34 tanks - more than 35 thousand ... . + Lend-Lease

      And what about the incentive system of German soldiers for drugs like "Tank Chocolate"? And here is an explicit calculation for a quick war. Seeding, they later could not refuse ..... Here the stereotypes created by us from the time of the USSR by our stupid “propaganda on the contrary” play here. Magazines promoted a lot of material about alcoholism of the Red Army on the basis of the "People’s Commissar 100 grams", but kept quiet about what was happening in other armies.
      1. kalibr 29 February 2020 07: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: ort
        600 pieces of Ferdinand

        Only 90, not 600!
        1. Alexey RA 2 March 2020 11: 22 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: kalibr
          Only 90, not 600!

          90 were issued, of which 600 were destroyed. smile
    2. Doctor 28 February 2020 18: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The picture doesn’t work out: the article says that at the beginning of the war the Wehrmacht had spent stocks of shells and ammunition by August 1, 1941, and all historians and memoirists claim that both the Typhoon and Blau operations and the reflection of our Mars so that our positions were inundated with heavy shells and bombs

      So they continued to work. Plus - the minister of war industry changed, Todt died in a plane crash, Hitler appointed an effective manager Speer.

      "... I developed an organizational plan, the vertical lines of which depicted finished products - tanks, planes or submarines, i.e. armaments of all three branches of the Wehrmacht troops. The vertical pillars were surrounded by numerous rings, each of which had to represent a certain contingent of supplies, necessary for all guns, tanks, airplanes and other types of weapons.Here, in these circles, I imagined put together the production of, for example, forged products or bearings or electrical equipment. professional thinking in three dimensions pushed me to portray this new organizational chart in volume and perspective ...
      ... We have formed "main committees" for certain types of weapons and "main rings" to ensure supplies. Thirteen main committees eventually formed the vertical elements, “pillars” of my armed organization. They were interconnected by an equal number of main rings ...
      ... In addition to the main committees and rings, I also established promising development commissions in which army officers met with the best designers. These commissions had to control new design developments, make technology proposals at the design stage, and suspend work on unnecessary innovations ...
      ... The somewhat provocative principle of my approach to personnel policy also aroused the displeasure of many. At the very beginning of my work, I decided, as it was enshrined in the Fuhrer’s document of February 19, 1942, that the leaders in the most important posts, if they are "older than fifty-five years, an deputy is appointed not older than forty years ...
      ... Already six months after my appointment, we increased the output in all areas transferred to us. Production in August 1942, according to the "Index of the final product of the German arms industry," increased by 27% compared with February, by 25% in tanks, and the ammunition output almost doubled - plus 97%. The total production of military products increased over this period of time by 59,6% ...
      ... After two and a half years, despite the bombardment that has just begun, we raised our arms production to a record level — from the average annual index of 98 for 1941 to 322 in June 1944. At the same time, the employed labor force grew only only about 30%. It was possible to halve the expenditure of living labor per unit of production ...
      Speer. Memories.
  • Ptolemy Lag 28 February 2020 12: 44 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    In fact, the article is an abridged version of Nikolai Starikov’s book “Who made Hitler attack Stalin.” I recommend to read.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • smaug78 28 February 2020 18: 35 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Dart2027
    Quote: smaug78
    You. Of course, can you confirm with documents?

    Hyperinflation in Germany from 1919-1923
    http://www.globfin.ru/articles/crisis/hyperinf.htm

    Extremely strong document Only Hitler came to power in 1933, and announced the rearmament of the army in 1935. I am waiting for the next batch of revelations, preferably with tablets and figures of German GDP.
  • smaug78 28 February 2020 18: 36 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: icant007
    Quote: smaug78
    And how many Germans after that were able to sink the English ships in the bases of the Metropolis? Further continue the discussion?

    I do not know. I suspect that not at all.

    Ready to listen to reasoning with pleasure.

    And why did you shock the air?
    1. icant007 29 February 2020 07: 49 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: smaug78
      And why did you shock the air?


      As you put it, I “shook the air”, showing an example of disorder and sloppiness in the British armed forces. If there is a puncture in the main base of the fleet, then what about peripherals.

      Although theoretically I admit that this was an ordinary case, and in the rest of the army there was complete chic and order.

      But once again, the British themselves were very critical of the defense capabilities of their coast. And first of all they were afraid not of a strategic landing operation, against which they could bring down the entire power of their fleet, but of smaller possible landings of 5 thousand people each.


      And where is your reasoning?
      1. smaug78 29 February 2020 10: 03 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Punctures were after - no. So your attempt to draw a general conclusion from a particular case is incorrect hi
  • Petrol cutter 28 February 2020 20: 25 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Thanks to the author. An interesting and informative article.
  • Reklastik 29 February 2020 10: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Scipio
    It was always amazing how such personalities grow to such a scale!
    - that means someone needs this ...
  • smaug78 29 February 2020 14: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Dart2027
    Quote: Kronos
    USSR did the same

    Done. Only it took him more time.

    So the USSR and industry had to be restored from scratch and there was no such engineering school. And they did not give loans.
    1. Dart2027 29 February 2020 14: 23 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: smaug78
      Yes, and did not give loans

      That's it ... Hitler was given loans. The question is why?
  • NF68 29 February 2020 18: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Adolf Aloizovich began to play and could no longer stop. Blackmail can also be used only for a while.
  • SARANCHA1976 3 March 2020 10: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I didn’t even read the article, the headline was enough. According to the recollection of adjutant Hitler, when he was informed that France and England declared war on Germany, he stood in prostration for about five minutes, although he later believed in a flash of rage. Hitler knew very well how the wars on two fronts ended for Germany, and he repeatedly stated this. My opinion is that they threw him. Until 40 years old, a dark and murky story
  • Sardanapalus April 9 2020 11: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    England and France because of the attack on Poland declared war on Germany. Actually, we have administrative responsibility for distorting the historical truth. The West has designated "who attacks Poland, that is war" .. and not the East. East gobbled up leftovers.
  • Petrik66 April 16 2020 06: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This material is an ordinary agitation written off from a training manual for a lecturer from the time of 1965. "The Germans could set up a meat grinder in Dunkirk, destroy and capture the remnants of the British army. But the British were given the opportunity to escape, even taking part of their weapons. Moreover, Hitler forbade the Luftwaffe to strike at British naval bases."
    1. Hitler's “Stop Order” only stated the situation on the front, namely: the dispersion of German mobile units, a sharp increase in the density of battle formations of the Anglo-French troops, the backlog of German rear lines and the total superiority of allies in artillery.
    2. The first paragraph of Directive 13 set the armies of Army Group “B” the direct task: “to destroy the Franco-Anglo-Belgian forces encircled in Artois and Flanders with a concentric strike. ?????? How does this relate to the text of the article?
    3. The weather was bad over Dunkirk, for only 2,5 days the Germans could use aircraft, made 1800 sorties, destroyed port facilities, but the Allies had too many ships and a strong group of fighters over Lamanche.
    4. the entire German fleet, after participating in the Norwegian operation, totaled 2 submarines and 9 torpedo boats.
    I just gave one example of the total not knowing the material by the author ..