Military Review

The fall of the Reich. How Germany Surrendered to the Red Army

84
The fall of the Reich. How Germany Surrendered to the Red Army

Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel signs the Act on Unconditional Surrender of Germany. Berlin, May 8, 1945, 22:43 p.m. CET (May 9 at 0:43 p.m. Moscow time)


75 years ago, on May 9, 1945, Germany surrendered. The act of unconditional surrender of the Third Reich was signed in Berlin on May 8 at 22:43 CET, on May 9 at 0:43 Moscow time.

Reich surrender at Reims


After the fall of Berlin, the destruction of the Berlin group of the Wehrmacht by the troops of Zhukov, Konev and Rokossovsky, the German military-political elite still tried to maneuver. Hitler's successor, Grand Admiral Dönitz, entered into negotiations with the command of the British and American forces on unilateral surrender in the West, and sought to withdraw as many German divisions there.

This idea had a chance of success. The fact is that the allies, led by W. Churchill, worked out a plan for the start of the third world war: England, the USA and a number of other powers against Russia (Operation "The Unthinkable"). London wanted to oust the Russians from Eastern Europe, including Czechoslovakia, Austria and Poland. Therefore, the remaining German divisions and the military-industrial potential of the Reich could come in handy to the Anglo-American supreme command. The Germans would become the edge of the West against the Russians, and the British and Americans would remain in the second tier.

Before the general surrender of Germany, a series of partial surrenders of large Wehrmacht units took place. In March-April 1945, the British and Americans held talks with the Germans in Switzerland on the surrender of German troops in northern Italy. On April 29, 1945, the commander of the Army Group C signed an act of capitulation in Colonial Colonel General G. Fitingof-Scheel in Caserta. Hitler had previously subordinated to Kesselring all the armed forces of the Reich in southern Europe. Kesselring refused to capitulate, dismissed Fittinghof and his chief of staff, General Röttiger. However, the commanders of the armies belonging to the “C” group, the commander of the Luftwaffe von Paul forces and the commander of the SS troops in Italy, Wolf, ordered their troops to cease hostilities and surrender. Kesselring ordered the arrest of the generals. The commander-in-chief himself doubted, therefore, the matter did not come to fighting between the Germans. When news came of Hitler's suicide, Kesselring stopped resisting. On May 2, German troops surrendered in Italy.

On May 2, 1945, the remnants of the German garrison capitulated by General Weidling capitulated. On the same day in Flensburg, Admiral Dönitz held a meeting of the new German government. The meeting participants decided to concentrate on saving as many German forces as possible and withdrawing them to the Western Front in order to capitulate to the British and Americans. It was difficult to achieve total surrender in the West in view of the agreement of the allies with the USSR, so it was decided to pursue a policy of private surrender. At the same time, resistance against the Soviet ones continued.

May 4, 1945 the new commander of the German fleet, Admiral Hans-Georg Friedeburg, signed the act of surrender of all German armed forces in the north-west (in Holland, Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein and North-West Germany) to the 21st Army Group of Field Marshal B. Montgomery. The agreement extended to ships and ships of the military and merchant navy, acting against England and leaving ports and bases. On May 5, surrender entered into force. On May 5, General Friedrich Schulz, captain of Army Group G, operating in southwestern Germany, capitulated to the Americans. As a result, there were only four large Wehrmacht groups that did not add up weapon. Army Group "Center" Scherner, Army Group "South" Rendulich, troops in the Southeast (Balkans), Army Group "E" A. Löhr and Army Group "Courland" Hilpert. All of them continued to resist the Russian troops. There were also separate garrisons and enemy groups on the Baltic Spit, in the Danzig region, in Norway, on islands in the Mediterranean Sea (Crete, etc.), etc.


The commander of the 2th Corps General Helmut Weidling (left), who surrendered to the Soviet troops on May 56, together with the officers of his staff, the last Berlin defense commander personally appointed by Hitler


German Navy Commander Admiral General Hans-Georg von Friedeburg signs the surrender of German forces in northwestern Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands at the headquarters of the commander of the 21st Allied Army Group Field Marshal B. Montgomery

On May 5, Admiral Friedeburg, on behalf of Doenitz, arrived in Reims, at the Eisenhower headquarters, to solve the question of the surrender of the Wehrmacht on the Western Front. On May 6, representatives of the Allied commands were summoned to the headquarters of the High Command of the Allied Forces: members of the Soviet mission General Susloparov and Colonel Zenkovich, also a representative of France General Sevez. Friedeburg proposed to the representative of Eisenhower General Smith the surrender of the remaining German troops on the Western Front. Eisenhower conveyed to the German side that only a general surrender is possible, including formations on the Eastern Front. At the same time, troops in the West and East should remain in their positions. Dönitz decided that this was unacceptable and sent the chief of operations headquarters Jodl for further negotiations. However, he was unable to make concessions.

Under the threat of total annihilation, the Germans went on to surrender. They signed the surrender on May 7 and on the 8th they were supposed to stop the resistance. The act of unconditional surrender was signed on May 7 at 02:41 CET. From the German side it was signed by A. Jodl, from the Anglo-American command - the chief of the General Staff of the Allied Expeditionary Force W. Smith, from the USSR - the representative of the Headquarters under the Allies, Major General I. Susloparov, from France - F. Sevez. Already after the signing of the document, the Soviet representative was instructed from Moscow to ban signing surrender.


Colonel-General Alfred Jodl (center) signs the surrender of Germany at the headquarters of the Allied forces in Reims at 02.41 local time on May 7, 1945. Next to Jodl is Grand Admiral Hans Georg von Friedeburg (right), Jodlian adjutant Major Wilhelm Oksenius


The Allied chief of staff in Europe, American Lieutenant General Bedell Smith, signed the act of German surrender in Reims on May 7, 1945. In the photo on the left is the chief of staff of the British Navy, Admiral Sir Harold Burro, on the right is the head of the military mission of the USSR in France, Major General Ivan Susloparov


Major General Ivan Alekseevich Susloparov, the head of the USSR military mission in France, signs the act of German surrender in Reims on May 7, 1945. The photo on the far right is American General Karl Spaatz. To the left of I.A. Susloparova - his adjutant senior lieutenant Ivan Chernyaev

Surrender at Karlshorst


Dönitz and Keitel gave instructions to the Kesselring, Scherner, Rendulich and Lör formations to withdraw to the West as many divisions as possible, break through Russian positions if necessary, cease hostilities against the Anglo-American forces and surrender to them. On May 7, Count Schwerin von Krozig, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Reich Government, informed the German people of surrender via radio from Flensburg.

At the request of Moscow, the Anglo-American command postponed a public announcement of the surrender of the Third Reich. They decided to consider surrender in Reims "preliminary." Stalin demanded that the surrender be signed in Berlin, taken by the Red Army. The document was to be signed by the high command of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. That was fair. England and the United States did not oppose. Eisenhower informed the Germans about this, they had no choice but to give consent.

On May 8, 1945, British President W. Churchill and U.S. President G. Truman made radio speeches reporting the surrender of Germany and the Victory. Churchill noted:

“... there are no reasons prohibiting us from celebrating today and tomorrow as the days of Victory in Europe. Today, perhaps we will think more about ourselves. And tomorrow we must pay tribute to our Russian comrades, whose courage on the battlefield has become one of the most important components of our common victory. "

On the night of May 8 to 9, 1945, in the Berlin suburb of Karlshorst, the Final Act on the Unconditional Surrender of Germany was signed in the building of the officer club of the former military engineering school. From the side of the Reich, the document was signed by the chief of staff of the Wehrmacht High Command, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, representative of the Luftwaffe, Colonel General Stumpf, and the representative of the fleet, Admiral von Friedeburg. From the side of the Soviet Union, the document was signed by Marshal Zhukov, from the allies - Deputy Commander of the Allied Forces Marshal Tedder.


Representatives of Germany at the table during the signing of the Act of unconditional surrender. In the photo they sit from left to right: Colonel General Stumpf from the Air Force, Field Marshal Keitel from the Ground Forces and Admiral General von Friedeburg from the Navy


The representative of the Supreme High Command of the Red Army, the commander of the 1st Belorussian Front, Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgy Zhukov during the signing of the act of unconditional surrender of the German armed forces in the Karlshorst district of Berlin. To the right sits American General Spaats.

May 9, 1945 at 2:10 am Moscow time, the Sovinformburo announced the surrender of Germany. Announcer Yuri Levitan read the Act of Military Surrender of Fascist Germany and the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR declaring May 9 a Victory Day. The message was transmitted all day. On the evening of May 9, Joseph Stalin addressed the people. Then Levitan read out the order of the Supreme Commander for a complete victory over Nazi Germany and the artillery salute on May 9 at 22 p.m. with thirty volleys of a thousand guns. Thus ended the Great Patriotic War.

The remaining units, units and garrisons of the Wehrmacht, in accordance with the act of surrender, laid down their arms and surrendered. On May 9–10, Army Group Kurland, which was blocked in Latvia, capitulated. Separate groups that tried to resist and make their way west into Prussia were destroyed. Here, about 190 thousand enemy soldiers and officers surrendered to Soviet troops. At the mouth of the Vistula (east of Danzig), and on the Frisch-Nehrung spit, about 75 thousand Nazis laid down their arms. May 9, the Soviet troops captured 12 thousand. garrison of the island of Bornholm. In the north of Norway, the Narvik group laid down their arms.

Also, the Red Army completed the rout and capture of the enemy in Czechoslovakia and Austria. From May 9 to 13, over 780 thousand Germans laid down their arms on the southern section of the former Soviet-German front. On the territory of the Czech Republic and Austria, separate groups of Germans still showed resistance, tried to break through to the West, but in the end they were finished by May 19-20. As a result, from May 9 to 17, our troops captured about 1,4 million German soldiers.

Thus, the German armed forces and the Third Reich ceased to exist. On the initiative and insistence of Moscow on May 24, 1945, the German government of Dönitz was dissolved, its members were arrested. The Reich High Command was also arrested. All of them were considered war criminals and were to appear before the tribunal. All power in Germany passed to the authorities of the four victorious powers: the USSR, USA, England and France. It is worth noting that the occupation zone was allocated to the French only at the initiative of the Soviet government. Legally, the occupation was framed in the Declaration on the defeat of Germany on June 5, 1945. Subsequently, this issue was decided at the Potsdam Conference of Great Powers (July - August 1945).


Fighters of the Red Army celebrate victory in the "Honorary Courtyard" of the Reich Chancellery in Berlin


Salute in honor of the Victory on the roof of the Reichstag at the sculpture group "Germany"


Soviet soldiers and orchestra celebrate victory on Vienna street


Women give flowers to Soviet aviators on Victory Day on Sverdlov Square in Moscow


Salute in honor of the Victory on Pushkin Square in Leningrad
Author:
Photos used:
http://waralbum.ru/
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. yasvet
    yasvet 9 May 2020 18: 27 New
    12
    Pravda newspaper, May 10, 1945

    1. New Year day
      New Year day 9 May 2020 22: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: yasvet
      Pravda newspaper, May 10, 1945

      Comrade Stalin Congratulates on Victory May 9, 1945
    2. Range
      Range 10 May 2020 00: 00 New
      +1
      Happy Great Victory Day!
      1. cost
        cost 10 May 2020 15: 50 New
        +1
        Happy Victory Day! Alexander
        IMHO. Bad clip. Straight away plagiarism of the famous song by Mikhail Gulko "Why are you married?"
        1. Range
          Range 10 May 2020 20: 19 New
          0
          What kind of plagiarism? Two completely different pieces. Fortunately, God did not lose his ear for music. Even harmony (sequence and composition of chords) is different, not to mention the theme of the melody itself.
  2. rruvim
    rruvim 9 May 2020 18: 43 New
    -3
    There is one legal nuance (which actually does not change anything): did Keitel (before this Jodl) have the right to sign something?
    1. Shadow
      Shadow 9 May 2020 18: 53 New
      +3
      Quite. Doenitz authorized him to do so.
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 9 May 2020 19: 38 New
        -9
        And who authorized Doenitz?
        In this situation, each gopher can try on the powers of an agronomist.
        1. Shadow
          Shadow 9 May 2020 20: 08 New
          14
          But Doenitz authorized all the actions of a corporal in his will from 1945.
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 9 May 2020 20: 23 New
            -3
            Yes, that's all. Just after the Fuhrer’s mysterious suicide, Doenitz’s powers were very controversial. This can be seen even by following Doenitz’s orders in the last days of the war.
            1. Range
              Range 9 May 2020 21: 43 New
              +7
              Enough to crush the water in the mortar. There is the generally accepted and recognized in 1945 - capitulation on May 8 at 22:45, more precisely at 0:45 Moscow time, period. The rest is innuendo ...
    2. alone
      alone 9 May 2020 19: 15 New
      +8
      The agreement on the German side was signed by representatives of the military branches .. Keitel was then the most important of the Wehrmacht, being the chief of staff of the Oberkommando Wehrmacht .. that's why Doenitz authorized him to sign the act of surrender
      1. rruvim
        rruvim 9 May 2020 19: 47 New
        0
        This is so, but on the other hand it is not. Dönitz is the successor, but he has not signed anything. Formally, if the surrender of Germany did not happen as such, the allies signed all the generals who managed to capture the acts of surrender of their parts. The Führer therefore staged his death in order to cut off, under legal law, Roman law, all the possibility of surrender. Therefore, the Anglo-Saxons had to come up with norms. Stalin, for example, declared victory on May 6 on the day of St. Vladimir. George the Victorious, and the Anly demanded the day of signing the legal document of dubious reliability. But it was still Our Victory!
        1. alone
          alone 9 May 2020 19: 51 New
          +2
          Quote: rruvim
          But it was still Our Victory!

          Certainly
  3. Avior
    Avior 9 May 2020 19: 10 New
    +2
    With the headline got excited.
    The Germans nevertheless did not surrender, not to the Red Army, but to representatives of the anti-Hitler coalition.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 9 May 2020 19: 41 New
      +4
      They just wanted to arrange the act of surrender. And they did it. But this does not change the fact of who actually defeated the Germans.
    2. rruvim
      rruvim 9 May 2020 20: 09 New
      0
      Exactly! The Germans surrendered like military men near Stalingrad. And surrenders are signed and agreed upon by diplomats, in the presence of the military. Every line of the Surrender Act is important! Even about the division of zones of influence of the allies. Eternally, Eternally, Eternally !!! The unification of Germany with West Berlin and East Germany is the most direct violation of this surrender. I won’t write further ... And so it is clear.
      1. zenion
        zenion 9 May 2020 20: 32 New
        +3
        Coming up with your own correct act of surrender? In the same way they wrote in Kanatchikova’s cottage that if you don’t respond, we will write to Sportloto. But, when some write, there were no orderlies at that moment.
        1. rruvim
          rruvim 9 May 2020 20: 51 New
          0
          Do you even understand that the Act was signed by HVAC?
          1. rruvim
            rruvim 9 May 2020 20: 58 New
            -3
            That is, only the military signs it. Notice a single diplomat from the Reich, not a single deputy from LANGSLAG, not a single minister from the Lands! OKV only, i.e. Army. All!!!
    3. Octopus
      Octopus 10 May 2020 14: 59 New
      +4
      Quote: Avior
      The Germans nevertheless did not surrender, not to the Red Army, but to representatives of the anti-Hitler coalition.

      This is Samsonov, he sees so. His usual lies.
      The fact is that the allies, led by W. Churchill, worked out a plan for the start of the third world war: England, the USA and a number of other powers against Russia (Operation "The Unthinkable").

      Churchill was not the head of the Allies, and the very idea of ​​the "Unthinkable" was not communicated in time even to Churchill's subordinates Montgomery and Alexander.
      Army Group "Center" Scherner, Army Group "South" Rendulich, troops in the Southeast (Balkans), Army Group "E" A. Löhr and Army Group "Courland" Hilpert. All of them continued to resist the Russian troops.

      Samsonov continues to rave. Firstly, there were no Russians; there were Soviet ones. Secondly, the same Lör and the Red Army were not much correlated; as of May, the Yugoslavs were its main problem. And the army group he has only by name.
      It is worth noting that the occupation zone was allocated to the French only at the initiative of the Soviet government.

      Lies. The Anglo-Americans cut the zone to the French at the expense of their own. One of the countless Anglo-American nonsense of the 45th year.
  4. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 9 May 2020 19: 12 New
    +1
    any coalition is temporary ... created an anti-fascist coalition with a common goal, but each side was on its mind ... and on the alert ...
    1. rruvim
      rruvim 9 May 2020 20: 39 New
      -3
      The fact of the matter is that the creation of an anti-fascist coalition did not have a common goal. This was the first collaboration without a common goal. The goal, of course, was. But not specific: "the defeat of the axis." They have already given up on it. The goal (not specific) was: what will happen after? What is the economic system?
      1. Tycoon
        Tycoon 10 May 2020 07: 43 New
        0
        why should the creation of an anti-fascist coalition somehow influence the economic system after ... ????
        1. rruvim
          rruvim 10 May 2020 15: 57 New
          +1
          Bretton Woods system
      2. Octopus
        Octopus 10 May 2020 15: 35 New
        +6
        Quote: rruvim
        that the creation of an anti-fascist coalition did not have a common goal.

        Everything is quite peculiar there.

        All members of the coalition wanted to solve their problems at the expense of other people's resources. Everyone more or less succeeded. The general result of their activities was, frankly, lousy, but those individual tasks that were set were more or less solved.
        The US filed the old empire, most notably Britain.
        The USSR received its empire.
        Britain won with relatively (by the standards of the WWII) small losses, and the empire ended the empires anyway, their time is up. This had to admit even to Churchill.

        Germany with this view was the point to harmonize all these interests.
  5. Tycoon
    Tycoon 9 May 2020 19: 49 New
    -4
    The defeat of Germany in the war was understandable already in 1942 - everything rested on when exactly this would happen ..... the USSR had a tremendous advantage in human resources and raw materials and how Germany could win ??????
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 9 May 2020 19: 54 New
      +6
      In the fleeting company of the 41st year and in the absence of errors there was a chance. And the capture of Moscow would have critical consequences for us because Moscow is the largest railway junction and the collapse of a unified transport system would have fatal consequences
      1. Tycoon
        Tycoon 9 May 2020 20: 05 New
        +1
        If Moscow and Japan were to take action in the Far East, something might have happened, but in 42 everything was clear ....
        1. Marine engineer
          Marine engineer 9 May 2020 23: 58 New
          +6
          In 1942, nothing was “clear” yet.
          Read order 227 and you, everything will become "clear."
          1. Tycoon
            Tycoon 10 May 2020 07: 42 New
            -5
            This order did not cancel the total advantage of the USSR in human and raw material resources - in 42, the defeat of Germany was understandable, when it happened - this is the second question ...... The Germans had a 41 chance - but they did not use it ... ..
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 May 2020 09: 34 New
              +7
              Quote: Tycoon
              This order did not cancel the total advantage of the USSR in human and raw material resources.

              Calculate how much the USSR lost the population in the occupied territories and you will understand that in 1942 we did not have any "total advantage" in human resources
              1. Tycoon
                Tycoon 10 May 2020 11: 07 New
                -3
                Data from open sources, approximate calculations:

                The population of Germany in 1941 is 70 million.

                According to the 1939 census, the population of the USSR is 165 million. If we take the data for the 1939 USSR, then the population loss in the occupied territories is the Ukrainian SSR 30 million, the BSSR 5 million, the RSFSR 5 million. Total 165 -30-5-5 = 125 million - this is the population of the USSR, excluding the natural increase of 1939-1941, the population of the annexed territories evacuated in 1941, etc.

                Total population of the USSR is twice the population of Germany.
                1. Marine engineer
                  Marine engineer 10 May 2020 15: 46 New
                  +4
                  ".... without taking into account the natural growth of 1939-1941, the population of the affiliated territories, ...."

                  1) The natural growth of 1939-1941, you can’t call up the army, so in vain, you mentioned it in your calculations.
                  2) Conscription into the army from the population of the annexed territories brought negative results in 1941. In most cases, the resilience of the divisions, a significant part of the personnel of which was manned by this contingent, was zero.
                  3) By August 1942, about three million of our soldiers and officers were captured and it was not realistic to replace their loss with natural resources.
                  4) In your "mathematics" the potential of the allies and satellites of Nazi Germany who fought against us is not taken into account.

                  Please explain where the information came from, that by the summer of 1942 the “population loss in the occupied territories of the RSFSR” amounted to 5 million people.
                  1. Tycoon
                    Tycoon 10 May 2020 16: 01 New
                    -2
                    It is necessary to end this topic - so I will answer and end the dialogue.

                    1. For the years 1939-1941, those young men who can be called up in 1942 have matured.
                    2. Persistence the division does not interest me - people of draft age in these territories were and not all were deserters, traitors, etc.
                    3. By August 1942 there were many losses and prisoners, but I did not claim that in 1942 they were all made up. I argued that the human resource of the USSR was much higher than that of Germany and in 1945 it showed itself when Germany had no one to fight in fact. And in 1943 - 1944, all losses were replenished .....
                    4. The potential of allies and satellites does not interest me; not only the USSR fought against Germany and Germany was not in vain holding significant forces on the western front and in Africa ....
                    5. This figure is indicative - if there is a more accurate figure - fine, but I think it will differ slightly.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 May 2020 16: 05 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Tycoon
                  The population of Germany in 1941 is 70 million.

                  More precisely, about 90 million.
                  Quote: Tycoon
                  According to the 1939 census, the population of the USSR is 165 million. If we take the data for the 1939 USSR, then the population loss in the occupied territories is the Ukrainian SSR 30 million, the BSSR 5 million, the RSFSR 5 million. Total 165 -30-5-5 = 125 million

                  as of January 1940, over 9 million people lived in Belarus. The number of Ukraine as of January 1, 1941 was almost 41 million people. How you calculated 5 million in the RSFSR is simply impossible to imagine. Especially taking into account the captives and dead Red Army - natives of the RSFSR in 1941
                  But even taking your erroneous numbers on faith - 90 against 125 million
                  1. Tycoon
                    Tycoon 10 May 2020 16: 08 New
                    -6
                    The topic is closed - but the figures for the German population are from open sources on Wikipedia.

                    That's it - thanks for the discussion.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 May 2020 16: 46 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Tycoon
                      The topic is closed - but the figures for the German population are from open sources on Wikipedia.

                      If those that I brought - then yes, because they are true. Yours are wrong
                      Quote: Tycoon
                      That's it - thanks for the discussion.

                      You are welcome:)
                3. mister-red
                  mister-red 16 June 2020 23: 35 New
                  0
                  Quote: Tycoon
                  loss of population in the occupied territories - Ukrainian SSR 30 million

                  I wonder where such data came from. According to the 1939 census, the population of the Ukrainian SSR was 31 million. When the western regions were joined from Poland, almost 1 million were added. Minus who were in the army at the beginning of the war. In Ukraine, the entire population died ?!
                  Ukrainian or what? Do you now learn history?
                  1. mister-red
                    mister-red 16 June 2020 23: 37 New
                    0
                    I liked the auto-editing from the site. I did not write "Ukrainian")))
            2. AllBiBek
              AllBiBek 10 May 2020 12: 23 New
              +5
              About the total advantage in human resources of the USSR against the entire Reich - can you read more?

              Or, only the Germans fought with us?

              By the way, even in this calculation you took a figure of 20 million less, there are 90 million at least according to official sources, this is - in fact - German citizens excluding the Germans after all the Anschluss sections, etc.

              About total raw material superiority is also interesting, especially after the loss of about a third of the heavy industry and a bunch of sources of raw materials for it.
              1. Tycoon
                Tycoon 10 May 2020 15: 20 New
                -7
                а с немцами воевал только СССР ???? Население Германии - 70 млн. Ссылка - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8

                And the heavy industry in the Urals developed on its own reserves, or the steel and coal of the USSR received Lend Lease ..... ?????
                1. Marine engineer
                  Marine engineer 10 May 2020 16: 11 New
                  +5
                  Your reference is the population of the Federal Republic of Germany.
                  Type "The population of the Third Reich" and you will see the figure - 90,03 million people in 1941.
                  Minus from me, for trying forgery.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 May 2020 16: 49 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Tycoon
                  and only the USSR fought with the Germans ????

                  And only Germany fought the USSR? Finland, Romania, Italy ... no? :))))
                  Quote: Tycoon
                  And heavy industry in the Urals developed on its own reserves

                  Mostly yes. And most importantly - by 1945, the Red Army had more than enough weapons to expel the Americans and British from the continent, not even once, but three times. And yes, you can study the military release of the USSR after 1945, when there was no Lend-Lease
                  Quote: Tycoon
                  Link -

                  laughing fool
                  These are NATURAL Germans. But for example, Austria has not entered here. And not only
            3. Marine engineer
              Marine engineer 10 May 2020 14: 01 New
              +2
              "This order did not cancel the total advantage of the USSR in 1942 ......"

              Read the order carefully, everything is written there.
    2. rruvim
      rruvim 9 May 2020 19: 58 New
      -3
      The defeat of the Germans was known back in 1940. The question was how to help the USSR destroy another type of socialism, at that moment the AXIS and the EU. Axis: Germany, Italy, Japan. EC: Germany, Austria, Vichy France, Denmark, Finland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Frankovsk Spain, Portugal and any other reptile in pairs. Therefore, in the 42nd already shared the world. But Stalin did not take into account the bablos. Therefore, in Podsdam he caved in.
      1. Tycoon
        Tycoon 9 May 2020 20: 07 New
        -1
        Stalin caved in because the war with the United States and England, the USSR could not stand it ......
        1. rruvim
          rruvim 9 May 2020 20: 20 New
          -2
          I agree! Koba was left alone. Millions are killed, East Germany is completely destroyed (by allied aviation), and Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania are destroyed on the way. And the completely destroyed West of Russia! How can you not fall into despair.
          But did not fall! Because Stalin was a statesman! Created a vigorous bomb and S-75 (Golden Eagle) and much more. The same CMEA and VD.
        2. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 9 May 2020 20: 33 New
          +2
          Quote: Tycoon
          because the war with the USA and England, the USSR could not stand

          Without nuclear weapons it would be easy to bend all of Europe.
          The Pendos were precisely why they bombed Japan in order to show power and stop the USSR in the expansion of Hokkaido and Constantinople.
          1. Tycoon
            Tycoon 9 May 2020 20: 34 New
            +2
            They wouldn’t bend down - there were not enough forces on this ......
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 May 2020 21: 01 New
              +8
              Quote: Tycoon
              They wouldn’t bend down - there were not enough forces on this .....

              The forces were quite enough - in a collision with the Red Army, the Anglo-American troops in Europe would have suffered a quick and crushing defeat.
              1. Tycoon
                Tycoon 10 May 2020 07: 40 New
                0
                not true, there wouldn’t be enough strength, and Stalin understood this very well
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 May 2020 09: 33 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Tycoon
                  not true

                  Exactly what is true. The Anglo-American contingent was most significantly inferior to the Red Army in combat training, and their commanders in the ability to plan and implement operations at all levels. At the same time, the Red Army outnumbered the British and Americans in numbers and military equipment. Without even recalling the real relationship, I will quote the thoughts of the General Staff of England
                  26. Taking this part into account, as well as the forces necessary to ensure the security of the front north to the Dresden Chemnitz line, we estimate that we receive about 47 divisions, including 14 armored divisions that can be involved in offensive operations.
                  27. The Russians, in response, according to our estimates, will be able to put forth forces equivalent to 170 allied divisions, of which 0 divisions are armored. Thus, we will encounter an inequality of forces in approximately a ratio of two to one in the armored forces and four to one in the ground forces.

                  So ...
                  1. Tycoon
                    Tycoon 10 May 2020 11: 14 New
                    0
                    And how many divisions were on the island of Great Britain and the USA ??? How many divisions could be formed from German prisoners of war ???? And the advantage in the aviation and navy ??? And the threat of military action in the Far East, Middle Asia. So it’s not so simple and Stalin understood it .... I don’t even want to remember about nuclear weapons ....
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 May 2020 16: 44 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Tycoon
                      And how many divisions were on the island of Great Britain and the USA ???

                      Consider not at all. This is not a division at all; it is a grease for bayonets.
                      The Germans during the war of 1944, inclusively, did so. First, they trained personnel for a new division, then they put together this very division and for some time taught it in the rear fighting coordination. Then they sent her to the eastern front, but were not involved in serious operations, they allowed her to get used to it for at least a month, and only then they were used to their fullest. In those cases when this did not work out, the division suffered heavy losses - it simply could not stand up to the Soviet troops on an equal footing.
                      So, the British and Americans were significantly weaker than ours. They simply did not have enough experience, because operations in Africa and Europe simply could not give them sufficiently trained soldiers, sergeants, lieutenants and above.
                      That is, what they were able to land in Europe - that was practically their entire prepared army, and its combat readiness was significantly lower than both the Germans and the Red Army. Tank ace Otto Carius, who fought in both East and West, wrote:
                      After all, five Russians were more dangerous than thirty Americans. "If Karius admired the" ivans "(as the soldiers of the Red Army are often called in the book), often marveling at their stability and courage, then he openly called the Americans" half-educated "who were to lose just ashamed.
                      This is not Zadornov's "well, stupid!" Of course, if the Americans were to be held in our conditions, forcing them to fight with the main forces of the Wehrmacht for three or four years, they would also learn something. But they did not have our school, and they had nowhere to take it. As, by the way, and the British, who fought with the Germans much longer, but with a very limited contingent.
                      In general, of course, both the British and Americans in 1945 possessed a serious resource from which many divisions could be stamped. But then it would be more humane to build these divisions in the USA and order them to shoot themselves than to send them to the eastern front.
                      Quote: Tycoon
                      How many divisions could be formed from German prisoners of war

                      In the current reality, the Americans starved the masses of German prisoners of war with hunger, simply because they could not establish their food, when they rushed to surrender en masse to "civilized European opponents." But in general - very little. Simply put, the Americans got masses of prisoners without heavy weapons. From them it was necessary to form divisions, equip them with American weapons, teach them how to handle them ... In general, all this is possible, but not quickly. But the Americans and the British would not have had time for sure.
                      Quote: Tycoon
                      advantage in aviation and navy ???

                      The fleet would not help them, and the aircraft ...
                      British generals will answer for you
                      In the air, our advantage will be somewhat complicated by the fact that the forces of our strategic bombers will initially have to be based in England - even in the case of using intermediate airfields on the continent. The exhausting loads of the Air Force and the long distances that they will have to overcome are unlikely to allow them to be used with the same efficiency as during the war with Germany.

                      As for the correlation of aviation forces in general, the British saw it like this
                      Provided that no reductions in forward-base forces are expected, the Allied tactical air forces in North-Western Europe and the Mediterranean will be 6714 first-line aircraft. The potential of bomber aviation is 2464 aircraft, of which 1840 are based in the United Kingdom and 624 in the Mediterranean Sea.

                      But the USSR, in their opinion
                      The Russian Air Force in the West has at its disposal approximately 14600 aircraft, of which 9380 are fighters and attack aircraft and 3380 are bombers of an unknown type, of which about 1 are heavy bomber aircraft.

                      Yes, the Americans and the British are still stronger in the air, due to the quality of the aircraft and their control, but to realize this superiority will not work quickly.
                      Quote: Tycoon
                      And the threat of military action in the Far East, Middle Asia.

                      There the tiny American contingents would have been simply incinerated by a quarter of the existing Red Army troops. Well, the Allies did not have any serious ground forces there.
                      Quote: Tycoon
                      I don’t even want to remember about nuclear weapons ....

                      This is very correct on your part, because the military role of nuclear weapons in 1945 is negligible. EMNIP Americans made "Kid", "Fat Man" and had materials for 2 more bombs of a similar type. That is, roughly, 4 tactical nuclear weapons.
                      For one division, of course, that's enough ...
                      1. Octopus
                        Octopus 10 May 2020 17: 29 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        This is not a division at all; it is a grease for bayonets.

                        For samurai swords, I think I heard this version.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In those cases when this did not work, the division suffered heavy losses.

                        You're right. The Americans, fewer the British, had huge problems with the replenishment system, this is considered the main mistake of Marshall among many of his other monstrous mistakes.
                        Nonetheless. The allies with relatively small losses carried out a number of operations comparable in scale to the Byelorussian. The people who landed in Normandy were alive much more than those who took Minsk. I am aware that for you the Americans are Fredendall and his soldiers, on whom (Fredendall) then Patton and Eisenhower hung all the dogs (especially the second one), but the Americans of the 45th year are those who performed a wonderful Maas Rhine operation and rooted Model.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Tank ace Otto Carius, who fought in both East and West, wrote:

                        Isn't that the same Otto Carius who escaped from an American prisoner of war camp, pretending to be a collective farmer? He was ashamed to lose, how gentle.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But they didn’t have our school, and they had nowhere to take it from.

                        The number of living and healthy soldiers and sergeants who had combat experience in the West and East by the spring of the 45th was comparable. At the headquarters level, yes, the superiority of the Soviet side in the experience was felt.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But then it would be more humane to build these divisions in the USA and order them to shoot themselves than to send them to the eastern front.

                        The German side had exactly the same ideas in the 41st. The German side had every reason to think so. But something went wrong.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In the current reality, the Americans starved the masses of German prisoners of war, simply because they could not arrange their food,

                        Other loss. I didn’t think that you would also push conspiracy theories here. Eisenhower really was a bastard, but not in that sense.

                        It is especially funny that in the wiki, articles on Other Losses are in English (the original language), ... Arabic and Russian, no longer in any, such a coincidence.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Simply put, the Americans got the masses of prisoners without heavy weapons.

                        You're right. Therefore, the mention of the German units in "Unthinkable" is delirium and manilovism. For normal interaction with the Germans, the Allies needed to recognize the Doenitz government or do something of their own, I don’t know, Shacht-Speer, which could interact with self-defense forces.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The fleet would not help them,

                        You are mistaken. The fleet controlled the Baltic, left flank, and Middle-earth, the right flank. Plus it posed a threat to the landings, the Americans, I heard, understood something about the landings by that time.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The exhausting loads of the Air Force and the long distances that they will have to overcome are unlikely to allow them to be used with the same efficiency as during the war with Germany.

                        Again, under the terms of the task, the Allies are at war with the Red Army in Poland. The defense of the Kiel Rhine-Alps is described in other terms.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        There the tiny American contingents would have been simply incinerated by a quarter of the existing Red Army troops.

                        Just when turning to the war with the USSR, the strengthening of the Iraqi group, including strategic aviation, is a matter of archival and archival importance. There is a duck, an egg, and a needle of Soviet power. This is much more reasonable than buttging with tank armies in Poland.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Well, the Allies did not have any serious ground forces there.

                        I see, you quietly moved to the attack from the USSR.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        That is, roughly, 4 tactical atomic munitions.
                        For one division, of course, that's enough ...

                        And why in your alternative, insane Americans use strategic weapons as tactical? No, they were insane, but not to the same extent.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 May 2020 18: 20 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Octopus
                        For samurai swords, I think I heard this version.

                        Yes. And the samurai are exactly what brought the Americans upside down from virtually all of Asia. They lost in a protracted war, and here we are discussing a local and short question - the stability of the Allied forces in Europe.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        The allies with relatively small losses carried out a number of operations comparable in scale to the Byelorussian.

                        None.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        but the Americans of '45 are those who carried out the beautiful Meuse-Rhine operation and made the Model gobble.

                        Very funny :)))) The "wonderful" operation was carried out in 1945, that is, when the Wehrmacht, in fact, was close to collapse and could no longer wage a mobile war, while the Germans, although they suffered losses, were not defeated.
                        Are you comparing THIS with the Belarusian operation, during which the German Army Group Center was destroyed? Oh well.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Isn't that the same Otto Carius who escaped from an American prisoner of war camp, pretending to be a collective farmer?

                        So what?:)))
                        Quote: Octopus
                        He was ashamed to lose, how gentle.

                        And you read his memoirs :))) Yes, he was ashamed, because if he had at his disposal a minimum of combat-ready troops, the Americans would not have thought enough. But he does not write about Russians like that.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        The number of living and healthy soldiers and sergeants who had combat experience in the West and East by the spring of the 45th was comparable.

                        Sorry, but this is nonsense from the word "complete". Multiple superiority of the Red Army
                        Quote: Octopus
                        The German side had exactly the same ideas in the 41st.

                        That's it. At the same time, the Germans obviously excelled the Red Army in training and had many other advantages. The Americans had none of this.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        I didn’t think that you would also push conspiracy theories here. Eisenhower really was a bastard, but not in that sense.

                        And where does the conspiracy thesis? There is a fact - mass mortality in prisoner of war camps. Incidentally, I do not say at all that the Americans did this on purpose.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        You are mistaken. The fleet controlled the Baltic, left flank, and Middle-earth, the right flank.

                        We did not control the Baltic throughout the war, and what prevented it?
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Plus it posed a threat to the landings, the Americans, I heard, understood something about the landings by that time.

                        Yes, they understood. But in Europe it would be a tactical maximum, deciding nothing, and on the Far East it is simply unrealistic - the landing forces that the Americans could scrape together and transfer were insignificant before the Red Army strength on the Far East
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Again, under the terms of the task, the Allies are at war with the Red Army in Poland. The defense of the Kiel Rhine-Alps is described in other terms.

                        for example, in such a way that dispersed Soviet industry will not be a sensible target for strategic aviation? :)
                        In any case, they needed time, and a lot of time to knock out our Air Force. During this time, everything on earth would be over.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Just when turning to the war with the USSR, the strengthening of the Iraqi group, including strategic aviation, is a matter of archival and archival importance.

                        Which is impossible to do quickly. After the defeat in Europe - it is possible, but ... there is also something to discuss here.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        I see, you quietly moved to the attack from the USSR.

                        Why? My opponent considered the Anglo-American contingents there a threat. I replied that they were not such because of their small numbers.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        And why in your alternative, insane Americans use strategic weapons as tactical?

                        Firstly, the alternative is not mine - I did not fantasize about the victory of the Anglo-Americans in Europe. Secondly - because using it as a strategic is generally meaningless. What will you do with 4 nuclear weapons? :))))
                      3. Octopus
                        Octopus 10 May 2020 19: 35 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Yes. And the samurai are exactly what brought the Americans upside down from virtually all of Asia.

                        Americans? Across Asia? You have started an alternative somewhere much earlier.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        the stability of the allied forces in Europe.

                        The stability of the Allied forces of the 45th year. Not the 41st.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        None.

                        Seriously? The number of German troops in France in the summer of the 44th?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Are you comparing THIS with the Belarusian operation, during which the German Army Group Center was destroyed?

                        The losses of the Wehrmacht and separately in the Ruhr, and separately in Normandy (the French company until the end of the summer) are close to the Belarusian and amount to 300-500 thousand people common in each operation.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        "Excellent" operation was carried out in 1945, that is, when the Wehrmacht, in essence, was close to collapse

                        It was as if some other Wehrmacht was participating in the Wisla-Oder.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Are you comparing THIS with the Belarusian operation, during which the German Army Group Center was destroyed?

                        Yes. What confuses you? You want to tell me again about such Germans and other Germans from some 6th TA SS when moving from front to front?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But he does not write about Russians like that.

                        But how did he end up in the camp, doesn't he write? The traitor Model ordered, I suppose?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        but this is nonsense from the word "complete". Multiple superiority of the Red Army

                        C fig? The number of front-line units never exceeded 3 million. And after Belarus, Vistula-Oder, Courland, Pomerania and Berlin, they clearly no longer exist. The losses of the Allies since the summer of the 44th are much less, therefore, the accumulation of combat experience is much better.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The Americans had none of this.

                        Do you want to prove to me that the Polish version of the Unthinkable will not succeed? I know. Do you want to prove that the Red Army will win the company of the 46th or 47th year? Or at least be able to prevent this company? I do not see the arguments.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And where does the conspiracy thesis? There is a fact - mass mortality in prisoner of war camps.

                        The trick with the "disarmed enemy forces" is really pretty nasty. But to say that the Germans lost a million corpses until the Canadian humanities scholar found them in 1989, only Russian, for whom evaluation losses of their country with an accuracy of plus or minus 10 million people is not a problem.
                        Although no, I'm wrong. In China, in the colonies, many where a million corpses could be lost. But not in Germany in the second half of the 40s.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        We did not control the Baltic throughout the war,

                        You have not fought with the sea powers, as I recall.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        tactical, decisive landing,

                        The tactical, non-decisive landing of the three divisions near Icheon turned out to be quite useful. And you have surprisingly many people in the Baltic who have nothing to love the Soviet regime, speaking between us.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        for example, in such a way that dispersed Soviet industry will not be a sensible target for strategic aviation? :)

                        All Volga cities are reachable when flying from Copenhagen. It is impossible to take Denmark from land. Here you find it appropriate to recall the Kuril landing, probably.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In any case, they needed time, and a lot of time to knock out our Air Force

                        I don’t see any problems at all. The American ground forces are oversaturated with anti-aircraft guns, moreover, as if deliberately invented for IL-2/10, by quadromounts. Catching Thunder and Typhoons on the Yak-9 is still a pleasure, La-7 is not enough, their combat readiness is very low, and the American La-11, Corsair, has been flying since the 43rd year.

                        Soviet aviation is the most useless branch of the army after the fleet.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Which cannot be done quickly

                        What do you mean "impossible"? There are a lot of ships, in the States 7 million people are kicking a bulldozer under arms, I don't see a single problem at all. These front-line units of yours with boundless experience do not exist in the Caucasus and never have existed, but if you want to fail - there is Italy, which is almost not in danger and where there are plenty of Allied forces with experience of mountain warfare. True, in the alternative with reasonable Allies, they are a little busy in Slovenia, you will have to look for reinforcement in other places.

                        Are you really going to argue that the mobilization tension of the Allies is comparable to the Soviet?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        My opponent considered the Anglo-American contingents there a threat.

                        Your opponent is really not aware of the Far East, but the Middle East is extremely important and extremely vulnerable. Lancaster and Liberator in Europe will not reach Moscow, but much can be drunk from Basra.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Firstly, the alternative is not mine - I did not fantasize about the victory of the Anglo-Americans in Europe.

                        Come on. War 45th year, a classic of grandfathers.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        What will you do with 4 nuclear weapons? :))))

                        Actually, there can be no two opinions here, it seems to me.
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 May 2020 21: 27 New
                        0
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Americans? Across Asia? You have started an alternative somewhere much earlier.

                        Well, what Asian strongholds remained with the United States after the Japanese offensive? Tell us in detail :)))
                        Quote: Octopus
                        The stability of the Allied forces of the 45th year. Not the 41st.

                        Absolutely.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Seriously? The number of German troops in France in the summer of the 44th?

                        And what happened in France in the summer of the 44th? :))) Ah, yes, I almost forgot - the Americans landed :))))
                        Of course, the landing itself is a brilliant achievement of the USA and England. To land almost 160 thousand people in one day, to establish supplies, in general - is really gorgeous. But the fact is that from the point of view of the war, it is not the fact of the landing itself that matters, but the actions of the troops that followed. But they, to put it mildly, are not impressive - both the Americans and the British met with the Germans in June and July, and only in August, at last, were able to achieve something sane by capturing about 50 thousand Germans in the Falezsky boiler. And then they missed part of the 7th army. By the way, Falez is located less than 100 km from the coastline.
                        During this time, the Red Army held Bagration, during which the Red Army "moved" the front over 1000 km by 600 km towards Germany :)))) The Red Army destroyed Army Group Center, and the British and Americans inflicted a heavy defeat, but did not destroy the 7th Army ...
                        In general, the number of German troops is good, especially if you supplement the real infantry and tank divisions with the number of "stationary" and little good divisions. But the question is not in the number of German troops, but in what the Americans and the British could do with them.
                        Not impressive.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        The losses of the Wehrmacht and separately in the Ruhr, and separately in Normandy (the French company until the end of the summer) are close to the Belarusian and amount to 300-500 thousand people common in each operation.

                        In the Ruhr - yes. But this, I repeat, is 1945, when the Germans were practically not capable of organized resistance. In the Ruhr, the British and Americans, without much tension, surrounded the main German group. The Germans no longer had forces that could fend off the advance of the Union forces. And since 1944, this is completely incomparable.
                        It is also incomparable with the Vistula-Oder operation, which was carried out at about that time by the Red Army.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        It was as if some other Wehrmacht was participating in the Wisla-Oder.

                        Actually - yes, another. But I won’t convince you of this, I’ll only note that during the Ruhr operation the Germans lost about 18 divisions in the bag, and during the Wieslo-Oder - a little so much 35. At the same time, the depth of the Vistula-Oder operation reached 500 km. If the Americans and the British were able to advance like this, then by the end of the Rhine operation they would be in Berlin.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Yes. What confuses you?

                        I am confused by the complete lack of objectivity - for the scale and the opposing enemy in the Byelorussian and Maas Rhein are completely incomparable.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        But how did he end up in the camp, doesn't he write? The traitor Model ordered, I suppose?

                        No, he gave up on his own. He was not captured in battle, if you talk about it. And yes, he surrendered to the Americans. But what of that? It was not the qualities of the American army that led to his personal surrender, but the generally hopeless situation of Germany.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Do you want to prove that the Red Army will win the company of the 46th or 47th year? Or at least be able to prevent this company?

                        1945th. Since 1946 - too many assumptions to talk about it without going into a deep alternative
                        Quote: Octopus
                        The trick with the "disarmed enemy forces" is really pretty nasty. But to say that the Germans lost a million corpses until a Canadian humanist found them in 1989 can only be Russian

                        You are mistaken a little more than completely. In reality, the Germans, because of the imperfection of the account of the dead, lost much more than some million there even in those years when Germany was still holding. And then ...
                        Quote: Octopus
                        only Russian, for which estimating the losses of their country with an accuracy of plus or minus 10 million people is not a problem.

                        Well what can I say? Believe the official German 2,4 million dead :)))))))))))
                        Quote: Octopus
                        You have not fought with the sea powers, as I recall.

                        Excuse me? Will you lead American aircraft carriers to the Baltic? There, they will lose more on mines than in the entire previous war.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        The tactical, non-decisive landing of the three divisions near Icheon turned out to be quite useful.

                        Yeah. In the war against Korea :)))) The USSR, alas, is not Korea even once.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        And you have surprisingly many people in the Baltic who have nothing to love the Soviet regime, speaking between us

                        And you, in accordance with the precepts of Churchill, throw forward tanks, forming infantry from the local, giving them weapons from the wheels? :)))))
                        Quote: Octopus
                        All Volga cities are reachable when flying from Copenhagen.

                        Only here you still have to get to Copenhagen aviation, but from England it is difficult.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        I don’t see any problems at all.

                        More precisely, you do not want to see.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        There are a lot of ships, 7 million people are kicking a bulldozer in the States under arms, I don’t see a single problem at all

                        Just read about how much effort the Americans had to make to transport and secure troops in Overlord. Or did they come up with a teleport in the USA, but I don’t know? :)))) Transporting huge masses of troops, supplying them with food while having to supply troops in Europe and Asia ... This is not even funny. So 7 million will remain in their place.
                      5. Octopus
                        Octopus 10 May 2020 22: 15 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Well, what Asian strongholds remained with the United States after the Japanese offensive? Tell us in detail :)))

                        Sorry, but what points were to offensive? No way, Philippines? Which fleet decided to hand over in advance, along with the soldiers and MacArthur? Well, a peaceful one, of course.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Falez is located less than 100 km from the coastline
                        During this time, the Red Army held Bagration, during which the Red Army "moved" the front over 1000 km by 600 km towards Germany :)))

                        )))
                        Timing Mastery.

                        From Saint-Lo to Metz, 500 km in a straight line.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        this is good, especially if you supplement real infantry and tank divisions with the number of "stationary" and little good divisions.

                        It’s as if you didn’t count the Khivi with the Sunder teams in the GA Center.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        what could the Americans and the British do with them.

                        The French company and the Belarusian operation were almost identical, both in depth and in German losses. In terms of strategic importance, the French certainly more important, especially when you consider the onset of an air attack.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The year 1945, when the Germans were practically not capable of organized resistance.

                        Do you apply this maxim to the Wisla-Oder and Berlin?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        It is also incomparable with the Vistula-Oder operation, which was carried out at about that time by the Red Army.

                        And why not?
                        There is one fact unpleasant for your theory. In Wisła Oder participated less German forces than in the Ardennes. and they were worse, according to the same Guderian. I’ll tell you more if you pay attention to the Panthers, Yagdpantery, CT, jet aircraft, the whole German high-tech - this is primarily or only the West. But the soldiers were not singled out, the soldiers were only Georgians and ear patients, no doubt.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Germans lost about 18 divisions in a bag

                        Large divisions, 300 thousand people.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Belorussian and Maas Rhine

                        The Meuse-Rhine is possible, but I named the three largest operations in the West.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        It was not the qualities of the American army that led to his personal surrender, but the generally hopeless situation of Germany.

                        The hopeless situation of Germany as a whole, and in particular Carius, who surrendered precisely in the Ruhr Cauldron, has nothing to do with the qualities of the American army.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        1945-th.

                        Your task is to win in the 45th not a battle, but a war. This is a rather ambitious task, especially if the adversary behaves rationally, and not like Churchill in the Unthinkable.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Well what can I say? Believe the official German 2,4 million dead :)))))))))))

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        By the way, to create a sane alternative to the story you need to know VERY good.

                        So we came to the denial of official history, it took a little time.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Excuse me? Will you lead American aircraft carriers to the Baltic?

                        Why are there aircraft carriers? There is Bornholm for example, and even Rügen. There are many interesting things. Friendly shore, marine supply flank. You underestimate these things in vain. What the Allies knew a lot about was supply.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And you, in accordance with the precepts of Churchill, throw forward tanks, forming infantry from the local, giving them weapons from the wheels?

                        You have some strange ideas about Churchill. Do you really think that the land in the Balkans was burning underfoot thanks to the Communists led by Comrade. Tito?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Only here in Copenhagen aviation must still get

                        She flies, you will not believe. And the ports of Denmark are not destroyed.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        More precisely, you do not want to see.

                        Well, you drown it 2 weeks before the English Channel, not me.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        This is not even funny. So 7 million will remain in their place.

                        God, why are there 7 million people? The task of these forces is simply to prevent an advance through the mountains from the Caucasus. Pretty modest task. Tread not required, the Red Army will have to advance.

                        Returning to strength. You are at war with the USA + Britain + France + Italy + North. Europe + Germany. Some of these allies, the same French, are rotten, but they will fit as loaders. Are you sure that the USSR is able to maintain quantitative superiority? How long can he do this without food?
                      6. Liam
                        Liam 10 May 2020 22: 29 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Octopus
                        How long can he do this without food?

                        And with the rear and communications made up from different Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic and East Germany, whose population was delighted with the USSR
                      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 May 2020 14: 58 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Excuse me, what were the points before the onset? No way, Philippines? Which fleet decided to hand over in advance, along with the soldiers and MacArthur?

                        Sorry, but further discussion is clearly counterproductive. This is a dispute for the sake of a dispute in which you seek to win at all costs.
                        We began this fragment of our conversation with "grease for bayonets" and I gave you as an example the chain of victories that the Japanese won over the Americans in Asia. You are now reducing the conversation to "but there were no Americans in Asia, and in general they should have surrendered everything according to plan."
                        In fact, the Americans had forces in Asia - the same Philippines, forces given by the AWA, etc. In addition, the Americans had allies in Asia defending their interests, whose help was very beneficial to the Americans: the same British and Dutch. And the Americans tried to help them. However, the Japanese easily knocked them all out of their intended defensive perimeter, and the Americans, however, suffered overwhelming defeats over and over again, not being able to cause significant damage to the attacking Japanese. The same Philippines - yes, they were supposed to be given to the Japanese. But to give it back after a fierce struggle, and not to merge, as it happened in reality.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        From Saint-Lo to Metz, 500 km in a straight line.

                        And then it just went enchanting distortion.
                        Soviet troops carried out Operation Bagration from June 22, 1944 to August 29, that is, roughly, 2 months. During its conduct, the thousand-kilometer front was moved on average by 550-600 km, and the Army Group Center was destroyed.



                        The Anglo-American contingent, having begun Operation Overlord on June 7, by August 25, that is, 2 weeks more than the Soviet troops. And that's what they achieved

                        That is, even if measured by the maximum distance (from Cherbourg to Troyes) - it turns out 436 km. But even such a result was achieved only by the fact that instead of closing the Falese cauldron and not letting anyone out, the Americans went to Paris: as a result of this mistake, the Germans were still able to withdraw considerable forces from the cauldron. During this operation, the German Army Group was not defeated, only the 7th Army, which fell into the Phaletic cauldron, suffered heavy losses.
                        You suggest that I measure the distance from St. Law, where the Americans were on July 23 to Metz, which the Americans reached around November 16 (!), And only managed to take it on December 13 (!!).
                        Very open-minded, just very.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        The French company and the Belarusian operation were almost identical, both in depth and in German losses.

                        As we see, in depth the French operation, to put it mildly, does not reach Bagration from the word at all. As for the losses, they are comparable only according to European historians. Although, if you estimate the loss of Germany in the west by European authors (within 450 thousand people), then you should evaluate German data on Soviet (about 700 thousand). But what’s interesting ...
                        You write
                        Quote: Octopus
                        So we came to the denial of official history, it took a little time.

                        And why? Well, of course, because I allowed myself to doubt the official data of German losses. That is, you trust the German sources. Excellent! But alas, you trust them exactly where it is profitable for you, and where it is not profitable - you "forget" about them. Because just German sources show that in the west during the Overlord / Bagration period, the Wehrmacht lost much fewer fighters than in the east

                        This, by the way, is Muller-Gillebrand
                        Thus, one of two things is already here - either the German officialdom is true, or your statement about the equality of losses in the West and in the East is false. And it’s hard for me to believe that you, while defending German officialdom, didn’t read it yourself.
                        Then let me take my leave. I can spend my time on an interesting debate, but a discussion with a person who goes for a direct forgery of data is not interesting to me.
                        Z.Y. As you know, it’s easy for me to ruin the rest of your arguments, but ... it makes sense to spend time on this?
                      8. Octopus
                        Octopus 11 May 2020 16: 27 New
                        +5
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I gave you an example of the chain of victories that the Japanese won in Asia over the Americans

                        For some reason, it seems to me that you know that all sorts of colored plans for the fleet there did not imply any battle for the Philippines. How did it happen that the naval and politicians wrote off MacArthur’s soldiers in advance, and what Marshall’s role in all this is is an unpleasant conversation for the American side, but nevertheless it has little to do with the military stability of the Americans. When the Americans faced the Japanese in a situation where the command did not plan to merge them - in the 42nd - it turned out that even unshielded marines were not fighting so badly.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But to give it back after a fierce struggle, and not to merge, as it happened in reality.

                        Do not merge - who told you this? No way MacArthur?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And the Americans tried to help them.

                        The help of Americans of the 42nd year format is a separate difficult conversation. It’s interesting for anyone, but in that situation it’s interesting to talk about the British, who really shamefully surrendered the region to the Japanese.
                        However, I categorically do not believe that you can transfer stories about the 42nd year fleet to the 45th year army without any changes.
                        By the way, the main thing that the Americans showed around Fr. Savo in the 42nd - the tendency to senseless banzai attacks. This they didn’t completely end later.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And then it just went enchanting distortion.

                        Yeah. It can be seen that you are used to talking with people who know the history of WWII except in general terms.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        having begun Operation Overlord on June 7, by August 25, that is, 2 weeks more than the Soviet troops.

                        The Saint-La breakthrough began on July 25th. Starting the French blitzkrieg from June 7 is about the same as starting Bagration directly from the Vitebsk offensive operation.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        July 23 to Metz, which the Americans reached around November 16 (!), And only managed to take on December 13 (!!).

                        But lying really is not good. Patton approached Mets on September 5, on the 15th forced the Moselle before he was stopped by unimaginable efforts.

                        The unthinkable efforts of Montgomery.

                        Yes, the Mets remained in German hands until the winter, but Bagration you finish, I think, with the Wiesley bridgeheads, and not with the capture of Warsaw on January 17th.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        As we see, in depth the French operation, to put it mildly, does not reach Bagration from the word at all.

                        Well, you see it, on the cards in mid-August. Apparently you don’t have any maps for mid-September, with the Antwerp-Brussels-Moselle-Dijon-Marseille front line. To the left of this line a little more than 2 months ago there were 2 army groups with 2 thousand tanks and self-propelled guns, which seems to be 4 times more than in Belarus (in words, four).
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        o should evaluate the German data on the Soviet (about 700 thousand)

                        Sorry, but an offer to consider German losses according to Sovinformburo I consider offensive. I’m asking you not to do that again. If you think that the German wiki is a mistake and you have more serious evidence for this than the articles by Samsonov and Skomorokhov about the Russophobic conspiracy of Western historians, please be so kind as to indicate them.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        This, by the way, is Muller-Gillebrand

                        What's the problem? I wrote somewhere that apart from the Belarusian operation in the East, nothing happened? Or does Müller-Gillebrand write this?

                        394 thousand people whom the Allies minus over 2 months, do you still have or how?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        about the equality of losses in the West and in the East is false.

                        It’s not good to lie for me. I outlined for discussion the French campaign and the Belarusian operation. I did not intend to cancel Lviv-Sandomir (300 thousand common) and Iasi-Chisinau (150 thousand common without Romanians), this is your guess.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        which goes to a direct forgery of data to me is not interesting.

                        The funniest feature of Comrade fans Stalin, I find their unattainable moral height.
      2. Octopus
        Octopus 10 May 2020 16: 45 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        in a clash with the Red Army, Anglo-American troops in Europe would have suffered a quick and crushing defeat.

        Alternative specialists are alive)))
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The Anglo-American contingent was most significantly inferior to the Red Army in combat training, and their commanders in the ability to plan and implement operations at all levels.

        This is where how. In the 45th year of those front-line units, which Isaev likes to talk about, there were not so many. But I would not count on draftees from the liberated areas, but on some Polish Army. On the other hand, there were staffed divisions that sniffed gunpowder, so sneezing - and fleeing - it wasn’t. See the Ardennes.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        surpassed the British and Americans in numbers and military equipment.

        Yielded in numbers and military equipment to even one Americans, when viewed as a whole. Exceeded on a specific theater.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        in a clash with the Red Army, Anglo-American troops in Europe would have suffered a quick and crushing defeat.

        There was nothing to stop the Elbe-Rhine operation, but nevertheless it does not hinder to remember that during the 2 years of the war Eisenhower never once allowed a large boiler (see Bautzen). So it’s quite dead to defeat the Allied army.

        But on the Rhine, you should keep in mind a certain Karl E. Spaats. He has something to say on this issue.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I will quote the thoughts of the General Staff of England

        The thoughts of the General Staff of England were connected by the conditions that Churchill proposed to them. In these conditions - the pit and destruction of 2 BF, 1BF, 1UF in Poland by the available forces - the task was unsolvable.

        The war against the USSR to destroy - strategic bombing from Iraq, AB to Moscow, defense in Europe, the war on communications - was a much more advantageous situation for the Allies. With this approach, it is quite possible to keep even the line of the Elbe. Not to mention that when turning to the war with the USSR, at least immediately after Yalta, the outline of the line of contact will be completely different. Even at the beginning of the alternatives on April 12, the Allies can do a lot where to do, where the Soviet side would not want to.

        It is possible that with such an alternative, it will not be necessary to fight at all. Comrade Stalin understood only power, respected only power, and any Brest-Litovsk could sign with a gun at his head.

        But this, again, is an addiction. Previous political mistakes of the Allies did not allow to quickly implement this option.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 May 2020 18: 48 New
          +2
          Quote: Octopus
          Alternative specialists are alive)))

          Alive. And it’s strange that they have to explain common truths to people who believe that they know the story :)))
          By the way, to create a sane alternative to the story you need to know VERY good.
          Quote: Octopus
          This is where how. In the 45th year of those front-line units, which Isaev likes to talk about, there were not so many. But I would not count on draftees from the liberated areas, but on some Polish Army.

          The Red Army in 1945 had a training system and had an army as an organism, capable of accepting newcomers and quickly transforming them into experienced fighters. Because we were already preparing our people decently, and the newcomers fell under the leadership of those who had already fought, into a harmonious military organism. The Americans had it on a much smaller scale.
          Quote: Octopus
          Yielded in numbers and military equipment to even one Americans, when viewed as a whole. Exceeded on a specific theater.

          Figures in the studio, please :)))) I am very interested in how about 11 million US Army soldiers (of which almost 4 million were in the Navy, MP and coast guard) exceeded 11 million of the Red Army.
          And then, in fact, we are considering exactly "a specific theater of operations"
          Quote: Octopus
          There was nothing to stop the Elbe-Rhine operation, but nevertheless it does not hinder to remember that during the 2 years of the war Eisenhower never once allowed a large boiler

          Mostly because the Germans made no attempt to take the Americans into this cauldron - they had nothing corny. Nevertheless, during the Guard on the Rhine, the Germans turned out a cauldron
          Quote: Octopus
          So it’s quite dead to defeat the Allied army.

          Well yes. How could some kind of master of sports in boxing beat me when I was young if Mike Tyson himself did not beat me? True, Tyson never tried ... :)))
          In fact, the Anglo-American contingent did not demonstrate much skill during the same German counter-offensive near the Ardennes. By the way, in their largest battle of WWII (just the Ardennes), Americans lost more prisoners than those killed.
          Quote: Octopus
          The war against the USSR to destroy - the strategic bombing from Iraq, AB to Moscow, the defense in Europe, the war on communications - was a much more advantageous situation for the Allies.

          I can only repeat - we can talk about what a protracted conflict would lead to, but that in its beginning the Anglo-American troops in Europe would be destroyed - there is no doubt
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 10 May 2020 20: 07 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            you need to know the story VERY well.

            )))
            I see.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Because we were already preparing our people decently, and the newcomers fell under the leadership of those who had already fought, into a harmonious military organism. The Americans had it on a much smaller scale.

            The Americans had their own problems, it's hard to argue here. Only about these newcomers you are talking about.
            I led to shoot the bandit.
            She did not ask for mercy.
            She looked proudly and angrily.
            She bit a handkerchief from pain.
            Then she said: “Listen, lad,
            Anyway, I’ll perish from a bullet.
            Give before you clap
            Let me look at Ukraine.

            The Red Army also has problems with conscription, which you underestimate.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I am very interested in how approximately 11 million soldiers of the US Army (of which almost 4 million were in the fleet, MP and coast guard) exceeded 11 million of the Red Army.

            )))
            Well, you see, you are even in the know.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            we consider precisely the "specific theater of operations"

            Quote: Octopus
            Exceeded on a specific theater.

            OK.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Mostly because the Germans made no attempt to take the Americans into this cauldron

            Seriously? What does it suddenly make such a difference?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            during the Guard on the Rhine the Germans turned out a boiler

            Could it be Bastogne? If the imaginary boilers of the Red Army will also end, then there is little joy.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            How could some kind of master of sports in boxing beat me when I was young if Mike Tyson himself did not beat me?

            Some kind of strange phrase construction. Here is a German who did not have boilers in the West (no, the Bastogne fortress and the boiler are not the same thing), but in the East they were until the very end. Where is Tyson, why Tyson - I do not understand.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            By the way, in their largest battle of WWII (just the Ardennes), Americans lost more prisoners than those killed.

            You're right. 19 thousand killed or 26 thousand prisoners and missing. Almost secondary Soviet operation, like the East Pomeranian.
            You're not right. I don’t know what you consider a "battle," but the bloodiest (and militarily worst) American operation in Europe was the Siegfried Line.
            You're not right. The Ardennes were another disgrace of the American army, but the disgrace of one person - Eisenhower, who slept through the counteroffensive (whatever he then poured into his memoirs) and cowed. His decision to transfer 1A Hodges from Bradley to Montgomery ruled out the establishment of German forces and a decisive victory. All others performed from "good" to "brilliant".

            But it should be noted. Eisenhower did not know how to win. But he knew how not to lose, and proved it many times against the strongest German tactics.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            but the fact that at its beginning the Anglo-American troops in Europe would have been destroyed - there is no doubt

            Still as it should. There is no real operation in which large American forces would be destroyed because they did not have time to retreat. There is not a single real Soviet operation in which it launched an attack to such a depth as was necessary to end the war with one blow. And in such terms after the previous strategic operation.

            Ah, there is one. Manchurian. I hope you are ashamed to give her an example.
  • trahterist
    trahterist 10 May 2020 16: 48 New
    0
    Tycoon,

    No illusions))
    For May 1945. The Red Army were, to put it loosely, in such "excitement" and combat readiness (one might say at the peak of power for the entire War) that, if the order of the "allies" had been done, purely out of inertia, they would have been blown to shreds and thrown the remnants into the Atlantic.
    But then, as if coexisted later, This is a Question.
  • rruvim
    rruvim 9 May 2020 20: 46 New
    0
    Igor! You and I once met years ago at the Beer Celebration. You then googled on Iraq (our beloved). But about our about Japan and Constantinople is not necessary. In addition to the Kuril Islands and Bulgaria, everything is in the Yalta showdown.
  • zenion
    zenion 9 May 2020 20: 40 New
    +4
    If this were so, then Churchill would set the Nazis against the USSR. You think in military categories, there are still political categories. Why Americans already having nuclear weapons did not attack the USSR? As one American said about those times, he was from high ranks, who was later called a communist. What if the USA started a war against the USSR, the people would not have understood this, a revolution could have happened, the same thing happened in England. Stalin knew this and calmly made nuclear weapons in order to protect the present goons from themselves. Stalin assumed that the fifth column in the country remained. But even now, when feudalism is in Russia, the Stalin shield protects Russia, which the West continues to hate. They themselves want to manage this territory through Gauleiter, and they do not need Russian thieves.
    1. rruvim
      rruvim 9 May 2020 21: 35 New
      -1
      It is very easy to answer the question [quote] [Why did the Americans, already having nuclear weapons, not attack the USSR? / quote] Firstly: Moshiach has not arrived yet. Secondly: the Sadukeev (Truman) party was then in force! But then there were "horror stories" ... We threw the idea of ​​nuclear weapons to China and Pakistan, then to the balance of India, the Americans of the "white" South Africa (we will keep silent about England and France). France threw off all Brazilian documentation. Japan and all Koreans already know everything. There is also Chile, where the full documentation is skipped from the Spaniards. But there is also Israel, he generally knows EVERYTHING !!!
  • Octopus
    Octopus 10 May 2020 16: 23 New
    +1
    Quote: rruvim
    Therefore, in Podsdama he caved in.

    Sorry what?
  • zenion
    zenion 9 May 2020 20: 33 New
    0
    Everything could change at the moment if suddenly one of the three died. If this happened to Roosevelt, then the United States would definitely take the side of Hitler.
    1. Tycoon
      Tycoon 9 May 2020 20: 36 New
      0
      Where are such conclusions from ????? What are the prerequisites for this ????
      1. zenion
        zenion 9 May 2020 20: 43 New
        +4
        These findings are from your findings. Churchill was afraid that Russian tanks would reach the canal. Therefore, they hurried with the beginning of the second front. Stalin asked Churchill, are you opening the Second Front, or are we to complete the liberation of Europe ourselves?
        1. Tycoon
          Tycoon 10 May 2020 07: 39 New
          0
          Have you personally been present during their conversation? When you indicate such data - write a link to the sources, it will be more correct ...
          1. AllBiBek
            AllBiBek 10 May 2020 12: 33 New
            +1
            Do you understand that now you are reminiscent of a pigeon that teaches chess players to play chess?

            You haven’t brought a single link, speak memorized phrases from the Bandera training manual on conducting Internet disputes about WWII, but at the same time ambition - like naval ambitions in Ukraine.
            1. Tycoon
              Tycoon 10 May 2020 15: 21 New
              0
              Well, I don’t even want to comment on this nonsense ..... If you want, I can open, as you say, a training manual, but without a training manual you are very nervous - what will happen to the training manual ????
              1. AllBiBek
                AllBiBek 10 May 2020 16: 08 New
                +1
                Is it "Oh, everything!"?
                The drain is counted.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 10 May 2020 16: 21 New
    +4
    Quote: Tycoon
    The defeat of Germany in the war was understandable already in 1942 - everything rested on when exactly this would happen ..... the USSR had a tremendous advantage in human resources and raw materials and how Germany could win ??????

    Firstly. I remind you that right in the 42nd year the Germans defended the cities of Nalchik and Pyatigorsk (find out where it is) and went to the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line in the region of Stalingrad.
    Secondly, I’ll remind you of such an opinion, just the 42nd year.
    Every commander, Red Army man and political worker must understand that our means are not unlimited. The territory of the Soviet state is not a desert, but people — workers, peasants, intellectuals, our fathers, mothers, wives, brothers, children. The territory of the USSR, which the enemy seized and seeks to seize, is bread and other products for the army and rear, metal and fuel for industry, factories, factories supplying the army with weapons and ammunition, railways. After the loss of Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states, Donbas and other areas, we had much less territory, therefore, much less people, bread, metal, factories, and factories. We lost more than 70 millions of people, more than 800 million pounds of bread per year and more than 10 million tons of metal per year. We no longer have a predominance over the Germans either in human reserves or in bread stocks. To retreat further is to ruin ourselves and at the same time ruin our homeland. Each new patch of territory we left will strengthen the enemy in every possible way and weaken our defense, our homeland in every possible way.

    Therefore, we must fundamentally stop talking about the fact that we have the opportunity to retreat endlessly, that we have a lot of territory, our country is large and rich, there is a lot of population, there will always be plenty of bread. Such conversations are deceitful and harmful, they weaken us and strengthen the enemy, for if we do not stop retreat, we will be left without bread, without fuel, without metal, without raw materials, without factories and plants, without railways.
  • Molot1979
    Molot1979 11 May 2020 17: 57 New
    0
    You are mistaken, dear man. There was no superiority in 1942. And where does it come from? The most populated and economically developed areas are under occupation. And we are not talking about Germany alone, but about everyone who came to us with her. So it’s not worth answering in the spirit of “but the whole anti-Hitler coalition must be added to us”. Their power was thrown on the scales only in the summer of 1944, and not in 1942.
  • trahterist
    trahterist 10 May 2020 16: 40 New
    0
    Quote: Avior
    With the headline got excited.
    The Germans nevertheless did not surrender, not to the Red Army, but to representatives of the anti-Hitler coalition.

    Particularly pleased (incredibly), HOW they all imaginable and inconceivable ways skedaddle to surrender It was to the "allies", that is, they still hoped, parasites, get off lightly.
    However, all the same, they were finished off in separate parts by the soldiers of the Red Army quite successfully.
    Honor and glory to our grandfathers!
  • Nikolai Miracles
    Nikolai Miracles 10 May 2020 17: 09 New
    0
    THIS VIDEO WANTS TO SEE AGAIN AND AGAIN
  • iouris
    iouris 11 May 2020 12: 00 New
    0
    Germany did not "surrender" but was defeated. Not only by the Red Army, but also by the rear, by the unparalleled efforts of the entire Soviet people with the support of the allies.
    1. Birch
      Birch 11 May 2020 12: 04 New
      -3
      Quote: iouris
      Germany did not "surrender" but was defeated. Not only by the Red Army, but also by the rear, by the unparalleled efforts of the entire Soviet people

      Germany was simply crushed by the power of 9 Stalin attacks .. RUSSIAN Ivan harnesses for a long time, but travels quickly .. And we showed this to the whole world and ALL the Soviet people! Someone wants to check us for a tooth again? soldier