The hard summer of the 41st: how the "obscene world" did not take place


Churchill came up with it all



June 22, 1941, a few hours after the invasion of Germany and its satellites in the USSR, at 21:00 GMT, British Prime Minister W. Churchill spoke on BBC radio.

“... At 4 o'clock this morning Hitler attacked Russia. All of his usual perfidy formalities are met with scrupulous accuracy. Suddenly, without declaring war, even without an ultimatum, German bombs fell from the sky onto Russian cities, German troops crossed the Russian borders, and an hour later the German ambassador, who literally the day before generously lavished his assurances of friendship and almost alliance to the Russians, paid a visit to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs and said that Russia and Germany are at war.

... I see Russian soldiers standing on the border of their native land and protecting the fields that their fathers plowed from time immemorial. I see how they guard their homes; their mothers and wives pray - because at such a time everyone is praying for the preservation of their loved ones, for the return of the breadwinner, patron, and their protectors.

... This is not a class war, but a war into which the entire British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations were drawn into by the Nazis, without distinction of race, religion or party.

... We must provide Russia and the Russian people with all the help we can, and we will provide it. We must urge all our friends and allies to follow a similar course and pursue it as steadily and steadily as we will, to the very end.

... We have already offered the government of Soviet Russia any technical or economic assistance that we are able to provide, and which will be useful to him. ”

Of course, the main thing in the statement of the “military” prime minister was that from now on Great Britain and its dominions are allies of the USSR. The Soviet leadership could understand that the British would not go to peace with the Nazis, and the Soviet Union would not be left alone in the struggle with almost all of continental Europe, which fell under Hitler’s heel.

However, in Moscow that day, and for the next two weeks, frightening silence remained "at the highest level." Unless, of course, the announcement of the announcer Yuri Levitan about the beginning of the Nazi invasion, as well as the statement of the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs V. Molotov about the outbreak of the war, made only at noon on June 22. Incidentally, a statement completely free from any emotions.

As you know, the tragic events on the Soviet-German front in the summer and even in the fall of 1941 in the USSR were invariably officially explained by "treacherous", "sudden" aggression and similar cliches. But after all, the silence of the highest Soviet leadership until July 3, 1941, had to be due to something. And this, most likely, was not at all confusion and not even a search for some alternative options or the consequence of severe contradictions in the ranks of the Soviet elite.

East vector


Not the most original, but unexpected assessment of the “Kremlin silence” was put forward at one time by the head of Vichy France, who is called “hero and traitor”, Marshal F. Petain. Researchers did not begin to replicate his point of view either in the USSR, let alone in France, where they confined themselves to the simple publication of his memoirs with very caustic comments.

It was Petain who first linked the pause, most likely taken personally by the leader of the peoples, with complete "uncertainty about how events will unfold in the coming days at the front with the German coalition." Also, Stalin at that time had almost no idea of ​​the positions of Iran and Turkey, which were unclear during the first two years of the World War.

It is known that for a long time Moscow did not receive information about them from the United States and Great Britain, but when it became clear that such potential opponents were not too difficult to neutralize, this was done very quickly. Especially in relation to Iran, overflowing with German agents, where the USSR and England had entered troops already at the end of the summer of 1941. (Tehran 41: unclassified operation "Consent") Turkey, it was decided to just keep on a short diplomatic leash.


In Moscow, it was not without reason that they feared invasion by both states, given their very close relations with Germany and Italy. However, the Soviet leadership before the war most likely overestimated the military assistance from the Fuhrer and the Duce to Iran and Turkey and the potential power of their armies. But the established ties with Churchill and Roosevelt, at first through intermediaries, quickly opened their eyes to Stalin and his entourage.

However, one cannot but recall in this connection that Germany and Turkey, just four days before the Germans began implementing the Barbarossa plan, signed an agreement on friendship and non-aggression in Ankara. And by July 14, the concentration of Iranian troops on the border with the USSR had already ended: by that time, their numbers near the Soviet border, as well as on the southern coast of the Caspian, had grown one and a half times.

New batches of weapons and ammunition arrived there. All this was confirmed by the data of the Soviet embassy in Iran and numerous reports from the border of the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, which were sent to the USSR people's commissariats of defense and foreign affairs.

The difficult situation in the early hours of the war was also aggravated by the fact that Hungary, Romania, and Finland officially declared war on the USSR between June 23 and 27. They were joined by puppet regimes, which the Germans established in the territories of present-day Slovakia, Slovenia and Croatia.

Obviously, in this situation, someone could not help but arise, let’s say, the “ghost” of the second Brest-Litovsk Treaty of 1918. This, though not directly, but quite convincingly, is confirmed by one of the sources, which is very widely used by researchers, but is used very selectively.

This refers to the memoirs and documents of the outstanding Soviet intelligence officer, Lieutenant General of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs Pavel Sudoplatov. As you know, repressed only four months after the death of Stalin - until August 1968. Much of the June foreign policy situation of 1941 is objectively indicated, for example, in Sudoplatov’s explanatory note dated August 7, 1953 to the USSR Council of Ministers.

The hard summer of the 41st: how the "obscene world" did not take place

Pavel Sudoplatov. He was called the "wolfhound" of Stalin

“A few days after the treacherous attack of fascist Germany on the USSR, I was summoned to the office of the then then People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR Beria. He told me that there was a decision of the Soviet government: unofficially find out under what conditions Germany would agree to end the war against the USSR.
This is necessary in order to gain time and give due rebuff to the aggressor. Beria ordered me to meet with the Bulgarian ambassador to the USSR I. Stamenov, who had connections with the Germans and was well known to them. "

Bulgarian trail


Bulgaria since its independence has skillfully maneuvered between Russia and Germany, and its mediation seemed quite logical. Ivan Stamenov (1893-1976), mentioned in Sudoplatov’s note, was the Bulgarian ambassador to the USSR from July 11, 1940 to September 8, 1944. However, he served in Moscow until October 1944, after which, for obvious reasons , until the end of his life remained under house arrest.

We read from Sudoplatov:
“Beria ordered me to raise four questions in an interview with Stamenov: 1. Why did Germany, in violation of the non-aggression pact, start a war against the USSR; 2. Under what conditions does Germany agree to end the war; 3. Will the transfer arrange for Germany and its allies the Baltic states, Ukraine, Bessarabia, Bukovina, the Karelian Isthmus; 4. If not, what territories does Germany additionally claim "(see RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 171. D. 466).
What Beria himself confirmed at the interrogation on August 11, 1953: "Stalin called me on June 24 and asked:" Are there still Stamenov in Moscow? " Upon learning that in Moscow, Stalin wanted to find out through his connections in Berlin: “What is Hitler trying to achieve, what does he want?”


Stamenov's reports could hardly reconcile Stalin with Hitler

Two days later, Beria was again questioned about this. Beria said that "he carried out the direct task of Stalin, but it was not about the whole of Ukraine and the Baltic states, but only about their part, and nothing was said about Belarus, Bukovina and the Karelian Isthmus." But Sudoplatov claimed the presence in that register of all the mentioned regions of the USSR. Stating at the same time that "if I were not sure that this task was from the Soviet government, I would not have carried it out." The conversation between Sudoplatov and Stamenov took place in the well-known Moscow restaurant Aragvi on June 28 (see RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 171. D. 466-467).

But the competent authorities preferred, for obvious reasons, not to risk the confrontation of Beria and Sudoplatov ...

Do not spare life itself


As for Stamenov, at the request of the USSR PVA Secretary I. Pegov, who arrived in Sofia, on August 2, 1953, sent a letter to the USSR Embassy in Sofia, confirming the meeting with Sudoplatov and "discussion of four questions and proposals of the Soviet government about a possible peace." But in Berlin, they were so enthusiastic about their first military victories in the USSR that, although they received those proposals, they refused to negotiate (see RGASPI. Fund 17. Inventory 171. Case 465).

According to Ivan Bashev, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria in Khrushchev and Brezhnev times, Stamenov could well have been brutal. But most likely, he was "saved" for the final discredit of Stalin, planned by Khrushchev already at the next, XXIII Congress of the CPSU (in 1966). Khrushchev’s resignation canceled these plans, but Stamenova, who was connected with Soviet intelligence in the 1940s, continued to zealously guard the Bulgarian KGB to prevent his Soviet colleagues from eliminating it.


Ivan Bashev, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria from 1962 to 1971

Bashev noted that the Brezhnev leadership abolished Khrushchev’s anti-Stalinist policy and its projects, but in fact saved Stamenov’s life. However, he had to commit himself to the KGB of Bulgaria not to write memoirs and not to get involved with the Western, including emigrant, media. And Stamenov kept his word.

Confirmations of Ivan Bashev’s estimates and Khrushchev’s plans are also supported by the fact that, firstly, it was in the early 60s that the closest associates of Stalin were excluded from the CPSU by the decision of Khrushchev from the first “ruling” figures of his era: Molotov, Kaganovich, Malenkov .

Secondly, the “original” proposal made by the dear Nikita Sergeyevich to the Polish leader Vladislav Gomulka can be considered not such direct evidence. Neither more nor less than publicly accuse Stalin of the Katyn execution. Moreover, Khrushchev admitted that he really did not have any documents really confirming this. We will not once again repeat what all the “documents” that appeared later are worth, but Gomulka cannot but be given his due, he had the intelligence and honor to refuse.

And finally, thirdly, what is Khrushchev’s statement that has now become quite well-known, “anticipating” Stalin’s final discredit at a reception in honor of the head of the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party Janos Kadar on July 19, 1964: “The efforts of those who are trying to defend Stalin are in vain ( "the leadership of the PRC, Albania, the DPRK, and a number of foreign Communist Parties. - Approx. Aut.) You can’t wash off a black dog."

After all that has been written, is it worth proving that the second Brest peace could hardly have taken place at all? It did not take place, thanks primarily to the heroic resistance of the Soviet troops. Despite a series of heavy defeats, they not only stopped the enemy at the gates of Moscow, but in the very first campaign of the war went on the counterattack.


The USSR made unprecedented sacrifices on the altar of common victory, but the Soviet leadership, and with it the whole people, gained confidence in the inevitable defeat of the aggressor in the summer of 1941. It was such confidence that sounded quite distinctly in Stalin’s speech on the radio on July 3, 1941.
Author:
Photos used:
www.bbc.co.uk, zemia-news.bg, golospravdy.eu
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mavrikiy 24 May 2020 05: 43 New
    • 7
    • 18
    -11
    I see Russian soldiers standing on the border of their native land and guarding the fields that their fathers have been plowing from time immemorial.
    Churchill is beautiful. Impudent, return to us our Baltic States, Ukraine and so on. on the little things. This was said by your beloved and dirty. repeat And do not about the will of the peoples. angry
    1. Same lech 24 May 2020 05: 51 New
      • 4
      • 15
      -11
      Impudent, give us back our Baltic States, Ukraine

      And what to do with Bandera and the forest brothers?
      1. Mavrikiy 24 May 2020 05: 56 New
        • 6
        • 9
        -3
        Quote: The same Lech
        And what to do with Bandera and the forest brothers?

        Students to provide a residence permit at the teacher. Let him retrain, if he has time, before they spread this mischievous misunderstanding, in the form of a raised shallow. request
      2. slasha 24 May 2020 21: 16 New
        • 2
        • 5
        -3
        Well, not what he did criminally, in his kindness, ITT. The fruits of his liberal attitude towards these reptiles are reaping in Ukraine and in the ranks of the Baltic states.
    2. Ross xnumx 24 May 2020 06: 04 New
      • 14
      • 8
      +6
      The hard summer of the 41st: how did not take place "obscene world»

      But it didn’t take place. The IVS did not make deals, as the leadership of the USSR in the person of the HMS and Russia in the person of the EBN did.
      Apparently, Joseph Vissarionovich knew the expression:
      “If a country, choosing between war and shame, chooses shame, it receives both war and shame,”
      even before its appearance ...
      1. Olgovich 24 May 2020 06: 44 New
        • 23
        • 5
        +18
        Quote: ROSS 42
        But it didn’t take place.

        I do not see anything seditious in secretly finding out the real intentions of the enemy: for a correct assessment of the situation, forces and planning, this could help.

        And he did not take place for several reasons:

        - thanks to the heroic resistance of the Soviet troops

        -Germans, as you know, wanted much more than what Sudoplatov said, as possible options

        - potential implementers of the new Brest were neutralized.

        For how dangerous they are and their actions in a difficult hour for the country, Stalin knew, as they say, first-handbeing direct participant Brest's events March 1918
        1. Ross xnumx 24 May 2020 06: 48 New
          • 6
          • 9
          -3
          Quote: Olgovich
          I do not see anything seditious in secretly finding out the real intentions of the enemy:

          You have not discovered anything new for me and ask, do not quote what you do not intend to answer.
          1. Olgovich 24 May 2020 08: 05 New
            • 14
            • 3
            +11
            Quote: ROSS 42
            You have not discovered anything new for me.

            A ... should have? lol

            You yourself by the way that new opened to readers?
            This:
            Quote: ROSS 42
            If a country, choosing between war and shame, chooses shame, it receives both war and shame ”
            ?
            Well thanks, yes! good lol
            please don’t quote what don't intend answer


            To this is yours:
            Quote: ROSS 42
            And so did not take place.
            ?

            was my answer about WHY he didn’t make it:
            А he did not take place for several reasons:


            In addition to garbage claims, there is something to answer ON THE TOPIC?
        2. Krasnoyarsk 24 May 2020 09: 15 New
          • 4
          • 4
          0
          Quote: Olgovich


          - potential implementers of the new Brest were neutralized.

          The names of the "implementers" in the studio!
          Who were neutralized?
          Or another blah blah blah?
          1. Octopus 24 May 2020 11: 41 New
            • 6
            • 6
            0
            Quote: Krasnoyarsk
            The names of the "implementers" in the studio!

            Vladimir Ilyich Lenin?
            1. Krasnoyarsk 24 May 2020 13: 26 New
              • 5
              • 5
              0
              Quote: Octopus
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              The names of the "implementers" in the studio!

              Vladimir Ilyich Lenin?

              New Brest? Do you have indigestion or, on the contrary, a draft in your head?
              1. Octopus 24 May 2020 13: 45 New
                • 7
                • 4
                +3
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                New Brest?

                He sold the first Brest, by the 41st year he was more alive than all the living, in the sense of deeply deceased, everything converges. What kind of insinuations I do not understand.
                1. Krasnoyarsk 24 May 2020 14: 08 New
                  • 5
                  • 5
                  0
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  Potential implementers of the new Brest were neutralized. [/ Quote]
                  [quote = Krasnoyarsk]
                  The names of the "implementers" in the studio! [/ Quote]
                  [quote = Octopus]
                  Vladimir Ilyich Lenin? [/ Quote]
                  [quote = Krasnoyarsk] New Brest? [/ quote]
                  [quote = Octopus]
                  He sold the first Brest, by the 41st year he was more alive than all the living, in the sense of deeply deceased, everything converges. What kind of insinuations to me, I do not understand. [/ Quote]
                  Can you read? What are the insinuations?
                  And, for your information: - Prisoner of March 3, 1918 "Brest Peace", which gave a respite to Soviet power, was denounced -
                  On November 13, 1918, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted a resolution repealing the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and related agreements.
                  All obligations included in the Brest-Litovsk Treaty regarding payment of indemnity or assignment of territory and regions are declared void.
                  So what did Lenin do wrong there? Saved the lives of thousands of Russian soldiers by ending the war with the Germans, Austro-Hungarians, Bulgarians and Turks?
                  And what does it have to do with the insinuations of the authors of the article under discussion?
                  1. Octopus 24 May 2020 14: 36 New
                    • 11
                    • 9
                    +2
                    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                    On November 13, 1918, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted a resolution repealing the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and related agreements.

                    Resolutions of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee are of interest only to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee itself.

                    Brest-Litovsk was canceled by Versailles.
                    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                    So what did Lenin do wrong there?

                    Lenin did everything right. His goal was to establish a Bolshevik dictatorship, and all his actions were consistent with this goal.
                  2. ser56 24 May 2020 19: 59 New
                    • 6
                    • 9
                    -3
                    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                    So what did Lenin do wrong there? Saved the lives of thousands of Russian soldiers by ending the war with the Germans, Austro-Hungarians, Bulgarians and Turks?

                    1) VIL made it so that of the winners in 1MB we became defeated and pariahs in politics ... request When they whine that England and France in 1939 were skeptical of the treaty with the USSR, they forget about their experience in 1918 request This article confirms their concerns ... hi
                    2) VIL turned 1MV into Civil, in which up to 10 million people died, died and fled ... hi
                    1. Krasnoyarsk 24 May 2020 20: 06 New
                      • 3
                      • 4
                      -1
                      Quote: ser56
                      1) VIL made so that of the winners in 1MB we became

                      This is your subjective look based on emotions and ambitions.
                      And if you answer your question - why did Russia need to declare war on Germany in the year 14, then your view will change somewhat. But you are afraid to answer this question yourself, because then your whole worldview will collapse.
                      1. Ryazan87 25 May 2020 14: 06 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        And if you answer your question - why did Russia need to declare war on Germany in the year 14, then your view will change somewhat.

                        I wonder if your view will change, given that:
                        August 1, 1914 Germany declared war on Russia (and at the same time took aggressive action in the west);
                        6 August 1914 Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia.
                        That Turkey, yes, Russia declared war. True, after the German-Turkish squadron shelled Russian ports on the Black Sea.
                        But then Bulgaria completely showed itself the initiative and also announced to Russia, and not vice versa.
                      2. Krasnoyarsk 25 May 2020 17: 39 New
                        • 1
                        • 4
                        -3
                        Quote: Ryazanets87

                        I wonder if your view will change, given that:
                        On August 1, 1914, Germany declared war on Russia (and

                        And you ask, in connection with what actions of Nicholas-2 Germany had to declare war?
                        If not for his stupidity, Russia could calmly "sit on a tree and wait for the corpses of its enemies to float down the river"
                      3. Ryazan87 25 May 2020 20: 05 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        in connection with what actions of Nicholas-2 Germany had to declare war?

                        Maybe in connection with the telegram on July 29 with the proposal "to transfer the Austro-Serbian question to the Hague Conference"? True, the Kaiser ignored her for some reason ....

                        He, the poor fellow "had" to declare war on Russia, the Germans simply defended as always. Preventively. Otherwise, they would sit on the bank and wait for themselves while the corpse of Franz Joseph sailed (and they lost their main ally on the continent).
                        True, Germany began the hidden mobilization early and the duration of that mobilization was 2 times less than in Russia. Austria-Hungary, on the other hand, began to mobilize on July 26, and Russia on the 31st.
                        "... the German bourgeoisie, spreading tales of a defensive war on her part, she actually chose the most convenient, from her point of view, moment for the war"using their latest improvements in military technology and preventing new weapons already outlined and predetermined by Russia and France."
                        IN AND. Lenin (PSS, t. 26)
                        I think this quote is just ideologically suitable for you.

                        No, of course, Nicholas II could cancel the mobilization. To send officers on vacation, for example, is an excellent measure. It helps a lot from the two border powers that have mobilized and deployed their armed forces. It was especially exciting to be with them by the end of the fall of the 14th one on one.
                      4. ser56 25 May 2020 20: 31 New
                        • 3
                        • 1
                        +2
                        Quote: Ryazanets87
                        It helps a lot from the two border powers that have mobilized and deployed their armed forces. It was especially exciting to be with them by the end of the fall of the 14th one on one.

                        Namely, for some reason the strategy is not available to all the Reds ... request
                      5. strannik1985 25 May 2020 20: 59 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        That is, all red

                        Right from September 1939? And what to eat?
                        And what will it give?
                      6. ser56 25 May 2020 21: 02 New
                        • 3
                        • 2
                        +1
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Right from September 1939? And what to eat?

                        better since May 1940, and eat too. that in real life is a half-starved collective farm request
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        And what will it give?

                        that there will be 2 fronts, as in 1MB ... hi
                      7. strannik1985 26 May 2020 07: 10 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        better since May 1940

                        Proceed with infantry against mobile units - Rzhev.
                        what will be 2 fronts

                        Why did you decide that the French and British will help us?
                2. Krasnoyarsk 25 May 2020 20: 48 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  Quote: Ryazanets87
                  No, of course, Nicholas II could cancel the mobilization.

                  He should not have announced it. But he stood up for the Serb brothers.
              2. ser56 25 May 2020 20: 30 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                Russia could calmly "sit on a tree and wait for the corpses of its enemies to float down the river"

                ITT stayed up ... bully
              3. Krasnoyarsk 25 May 2020 20: 52 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                Quote: ser56
                ITT stayed up ...

                Not "sat out", but as far as possible prepared the country for war.
                And the generals, with whom he confided, lost the company in 41 g. And he was forced, in addition to the country and its economy, to head the army.
              4. ser56 25 May 2020 21: 05 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                and as far as possible prepared the country for war.

                prepared? I note that in 1939 we would have fought with Germany, Austria-Czechoslovakia ... in 1941 we fought against almost all of Europe ... hi Well, this was an IVS strategist ... request

                hi
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                And the generals, with whom he confided, lost the company in 41

                and who put forward such generals? and by what qualities?
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                And he was forced, in addition to the country and its economy, to head the army.

                when there is no mind, the leader tries to do everything himself and does not have time ... request
              5. Krasnoyarsk 26 May 2020 10: 31 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: ser56

                prepared? I note that in 1939 we would have fought with Germany, Austria-Czechoslovakia ... in 1941 we fought against almost the whole of Europe ... hi Well, this was an ITT strategic ...

                If your neighbor wants to put you in the face, then no matter how you are a strategist, he will do it anyway, especially if your wife’s lover arouses it.
                Quote: ser56
                and who put forward such generals? and by what qualities?

                Do you have any idea? - The People’s Commissar of Defense along with the NHS. And Stalin had to personally check the QUALITY? Are you out of your mind?
                Quote: ser56

                when there is no mind, the leader tries to do everything himself and does not have time ...

                Of course - not in time. Here you would be, in his place (strategist damn laughing) not only Europe and Japan, but America would be defeated and the territory would be expanded to the English Channel laughing
              6. ser56 26 May 2020 13: 39 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                If your neighbor wants to put you in the face, then no matter how you are a strategist, he will do it anyway, especially if your wife’s lover arouses it.

                I am not interested in your household analogies ... bully I regard them as a departure from the essence of the matter ... request
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                The People's Commissar of Defense, together with the NHS. And Stalin had to personally check the QUALITY? Are you out of your mind?

                1) And who put forward the People’s Commissar and the NHS? bully who said frames decide everything?
                2) I'm in my own, you would have got it ... request
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                Here you would be, in his place (strategist damn

                The transition to the individual means that you have no arguments, knowledge or dignity ... request
            2. Olgovich 26 May 2020 12: 54 New
              • 0
              • 3
              -3
              Quote: ser56
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              and as far as possible prepared the country for war.

              prepared?


              Yeah, he cooked (by interest, yes), and Hitler ... He didn’t cook "(he became MUCH MORE lol

              These krasnoyars are even funnier about mobilization: it means that Russia should not have announced it, despite the AMOUNT mobilization of huge Hungary on its borders.
              but evoniy stratekh-CORRECTLY did not announce it TWO YEARS since 1939, when .... Hitler's mobilized and warring army stood on our borders!

              neither logic, nor knowledge from them, nor even desire to know .....
            3. ser56 26 May 2020 13: 40 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Quote: Olgovich
              neither logic, nor knowledge of them, nor even desire to know ...

              what to take from the red ... request
            4. Krasnoyarsk 26 May 2020 17: 49 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: ser56
              what to take from the red ...

              Oh, how many white people got divorced. Few of you were beaten in civilian clothes.
            5. ser56 27 May 2020 15: 56 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              Few of you were beaten in civilian clothes.

              then these winners went either in stages to the Gulag or to the wall ... request
            6. Krasnoyarsk 27 May 2020 15: 59 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: ser56
              then these winners went either in stages to the Gulag or to the wall ...

              Right! And the whites of the USSR built. fool
            7. ser56 27 May 2020 21: 17 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              Right! And the whites of the USSR built

              built people under the yoke of illiterate executioners ....
            8. Krasnoyarsk 28 May 2020 10: 12 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: ser56
              built people under the yoke of illiterate executioners ....

              Under your "competent" leadership, what would the people build?
              And could illiterate executioners generally build something?
            9. ser56 28 May 2020 21: 37 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              Under your "competent" leadership, what would the people build?

              I recommend reading how RI developed before 1MB - industrial growth over 5 years by 1,7 times, but without lowering the level of consumption ... compare with the first five-year period ...
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              And could illiterate executioners generally build something?

              see above - built the people, and failures due to the stupidity of the ITT and others compensated for by inventing the Industrial Parties, etc.
            10. Krasnoyarsk 28 May 2020 22: 39 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: ser56

              see above - built the people, and failures due to the stupidity of the ITT

              fool fool
              Unorganized people never built anything.
              Who am I saying all this for? fool
              RI could not develop because the people were UNLIMITED !!! How are you.
              Where did the Bolsheviks begin? Correctly. WITH LIKBEZA !!!
              To argue with you - do not respect yourself.
            11. ser56 29 May 2020 12: 58 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              Unorganized people never built anything.

              yes easy, it was the Bolsheviks who drove all in a herd ... and the Russians reached Kamchatka on foot ...
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              RI could not develop because the people were UNLIMITED !!! How are you.

              1) in RI there was a fairly high level of literacy among Russians in cities! The level of secondary and higher education was noticeably higher than in the USSR ... request
              2) Against my background, you are a banal illiterate teenager - an overgrowth bully That is why, instead of arguing your position, you turn to individuals ...
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              Where did the Bolsheviks begin? Correctly. WITH LIKBEZA !!!

              and why? Because 3 million literate people were either killed or left their paradise ... request
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              To argue with you - do not respect yourself.

              nobody argues with you - you are being whipped with rods of knowledge ... hi
  2. Herman 4223 27 May 2020 07: 23 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    In 1939 there was a partial mobilization, first against Japan in the Far East and then westward for a campaign in Poland. But France did not start active operations, and to fight Germany meant breaking the just-signed pact not to attack, and also to clash with Hitler’s allies face to face while the French for some reason did not take active measures. The situation would not be much better than in 1941. . And we would be aggressors.
  3. Olgovich 27 May 2020 11: 07 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Herman 4223
    But France did not start active operations, but to fight with Germany it meant violate the pact on non-attack that has just been signed, and also clash with Hitler’s allies face to face while the French for some reason do not take active measures.

    1.No, that meant doing Franco-Soviet Mutual Assistance Pact 1935

    2. Was the non-aggression pact with Germany supposed permission from the USSR for German aggression against a third country? Show it.

    3. What are allies of Hitler in 1939? belay

    Quote: Herman 4223
    And we would be aggressors.

    Complete nonsense: as anressor and a world evil, the whole world recognized GERMANY.
    And everyone who fights with it-CANNOT be an aggressor.
  4. strannik1985 27 May 2020 11: 20 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    1.No, this meant fulfilling the Franco-Soviet Mutual Assistance Pact of 1935

    Proceed with infantry against the enemy with mobile units = Rzhev.

    An interesting moment (if you are about May 1940), but: 1. You must have an analogue of TA arr. 1944-1945.
    2. You need to know at least a month before the start of active b / d.
  5. Olgovich 27 May 2020 11: 54 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: strannik1985
    Proceed with infantry against the enemy with mobile units = Rzhev.

    perform pact and infantry and tanks and aircraft.

    As, incidentally, was supposed and proposed by the Union only that, in 1938
    Quote: strannik1985
    An interesting moment (if you are about May 1940), but: 1. You must have an analogue of TA arr. 1944-1945.

    To have TA 44, you had to have an opponent 44.

    And they didn’t stink
    Quote: strannik1985
    2. You need to know at least a month before the start of active b / d.

    Yes, even just designate-and kirdyk Hitler
  6. strannik1985 27 May 2020 12: 06 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    perform pact and infantry and tanks and aircraft.

    No in the spacecraft arr. 1940 mobile units, infantry, even with the support of tanks, can not keep pace. In the best, most ideal case, there will be initial success (if they do not have time to notice), and after a meat grinder with advancement of tens of kilometers.
    To have TA 44, you had to have an opponent 44.

    No, one must have the experience of 1941-1944.
    Yes, even just designate-and kirdyk Hitler

    This, if the so-called Allies deign to fight, but why should they?
  7. Olgovich 27 May 2020 13: 05 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: strannik1985
    No in the spacecraft arr. 1940 mobile units, infantry, even with the support of tanks, can not keep pace. In the best, most ideal case, there will be initial success (if they do not have time to notice), and after a meat grinder with advancement of tens of kilometers.

    and what pace .... is needed?

    and who there will be a “meat grinder" from the Germ side?

    in only one group in 1939 in the Polish campaign with us

    2nd light tank brigade (223 BT-7, 30 armored vehicles (BA))
    27th light tank brigade (234 BT-7, 31 BA)
    20th Motorized Rifle and Machine Gun Brigade (61 BA)
    Quote: strannik1985
    No, one must have the experience of 1941-1944.

    no, the Germans were 39 grams and the Germans did not fit the sole soles 44 in armament and experience
    Quote: strannik1985
    This, if the so-called Allies deign to fight why should they?

    belay
    And someone ... asked about the desire?
  8. strannik1985 27 May 2020 13: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    and what pace .... is needed?

    Faster than infantry.
    in only one group in 1939 in the Polish campaign with us

    Artillery in the TC arr. 1939 (which is not, disbanded on the basis of the Polish campaign) two 4-gun batteries - 76 and 122 mm. Few artillery, few infantry to lead independent b / d in the depths of enemy defense.
    Loss of tanks and BA at Bain Tsagan recall?
    no, the Germans were 39 grams and the Germans did not fit the sole soles 44 in armament and experience

    But utterly superior in the organization of us, the French and the British, not to mention the Americans.
    And someone ... asked about the desire?

    The Germans, if they suspend the implementation of the Gelb / Roth plans, it is not at all necessary that the so-called the allies begin the offensive.
  9. Olgovich 27 May 2020 14: 58 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: strannik1985
    Faster than infantry.

    What for?
    Quote: strannik1985
    Artillery in the TC arr. 1939 (which is not, disbanded on the basis of the Polish campaign) two 4-gun batteries - 76 and 122 mm. Few artillery, few infantry to lead independent b / d in the depths of enemy defense.
    Loss of tanks and BA at Bain Tsagan recall?

    all we had was artillery and tanks and aircraft. The Germans were not in chocolate either.

    organizational forms would suggest life (as happened)
    Quote: strannik1985
    But utterly superior in the organization of us, the French and the British, not to mention the Americans.

    they had nothing special, something that was impossible in principle

    Wehrmacht, I remind you, all ..... FIVE (!) Years in ... a sanctions country without tanks and an army.
    Quote: strannik1985
    The Germans, if they suspend the implementation of the Gelb / Roth plans, it is not at all necessary that the so-called the allies begin the offensive.

    what's the difference?

    Yeah, they stopped a lot in 1914 !.

    Further, no matter how you twist and dash, TWO FRONTS, and this is the end!
  10. strannik1985 27 May 2020 15: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    What for?

    To avoid a positional deadlock.
    they had nothing special

    AP TD for 1939 - 16 105 mm G (360 rounds per barrel), 8 150 mm G (150 bn), 4 105 mm P (150), 8 75 mm LPO. 48 anti-tank guns.
    what's the difference?

    A large one, in 1914 the ZF actively fought, in 1940 the Germans can leave 30-40 second-class PD there, and send the rest of the forces to the East.
  11. ser56 27 May 2020 16: 05 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    To avoid a positional deadlock.

    are we afraid of him? laughing This Germany has no resources ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    AP TD for 1939

    and how many of these divisions? bully we have 36 TBR ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    in 1940 the Germans could leave there 30-40 second-class PD, and send the rest of the forces to the East.

    and where will they get the fuel? shells, motor resources? request
  12. strannik1985 27 May 2020 16: 14 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    are we afraid of him?

    In WWI, "no resources" dragged on for 4 years. Meaning years to pour blood to get the Anglo-Franco-German front?
    and how many of these divisions?

    A fire brigade cannot fly on its own, from the mobile forces of a spacecraft of 4 KK and up to 6 motorized divisions. Against 10 German TDs.
    and where will they get the fuel? shells, motor resources?

    Where did you get it before?
  13. ser56 27 May 2020 21: 21 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    In WWI "no resources" dragged on for 4 years

    But how long did the Second World War?
    Quote: strannik1985
    to get the English-French-German front?

    better to lose 27 million?
    Quote: strannik1985
    Where did you get it before?

    from stocks, and they run out ...
  14. strannik1985 28 May 2020 08: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But how long did the Second World War?

    4 years, only from the Great Patriotic War of the USSR came out the undisputed winner, but here?
    better to lose 27 million?

    Why did you decide that we’ll lose less here?
    Once again - the British and French are not friends to us, they are Poles, they merged for the sake of political interests. We will fight for several years and get the Anglo - Franco - German front with all the consequences.
    from stocks, and they run out ...

    If you manage to occupy Hungary and Romania.
  15. ser56 28 May 2020 21: 30 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    only out of the Second World War came out as the undisputed winner, but here?

    and here! only without destruction on its territory and civilian casualties ... request
    Quote: strannik1985
    Once again - the British and French are not friends to us,

    they are forced allies since May 10, 1940, and this is the most reliable ... request
    Quote: strannik1985
    we get the English - French - German front with all the consequences.

    he was not in real life request you have a really violent fantasy ... WHY do they alliance with Germany?
    Quote: strannik1985
    If you manage to occupy Hungary and Romania.

    these countries have good armies - where to get forces for aggression? And England / USSR will help ...
  16. strannik1985 29 May 2020 10: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    they are forced allies since May 10, 1940, and this is the most reliable ...

    Not allies, rather “allies” such as they wanted in the summer of 1939 at the talks in Moscow.
    No obligation - no action.
    WHY do they alliance with Germany?

    Even in real life, Churchill and the OKNS planned to attract 10 to 12 German divisions — cannon fodder — to participate in Operation Unthinkable.
    these countries have good armies - where to get forces for aggression? And England / USSR will help ...

    England will hastily rebuild the army after the loss of the BEF; the USSR has territorial claims against Romania.
  17. ser56 29 May 2020 13: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: strannik1985
    Not Allies, Rather Allies

    demagogy...
    Quote: strannik1985
    as they wanted in the summer of 1939 at the talks in Moscow.
    No obligation - no action.

    I repeat, you forgot about the Brest Peace ... betraying once .... request Try to understand someone else’s position, not repeat Agitprop

    Quote: strannik1985
    Even in real life, Churchill and the OKNS planned to attract 10 to 12 German divisions — cannon fodder — to participate in Operation Unthinkable.

    you forgot that in 1945 the situation changed radically, Germany was defeated, and the USSR strengthened - England continued its constant policy .... in 1941 to enter into an alliance with Hitler, it means for England to become a satellite ... request

    Quote: strannik1985
    , the USSR has territorial claims against Romania.

    So what? They were 20 years before ... the common enemy unites ... and the Bolsheviks easily gave up Russian / Russian lands to Turkey / Finland, Poland, etc.
  18. strannik1985 29 May 2020 13: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    demagogy...

    No, the actions of the governments of France and England from the summer of 1939 to May 10, 1940.
    I repeat - you forgot about the Brest Peace ...

    There is nothing to fight at the time of signing.
    in 1941, to enter into an alliance with Hitler, it means for England to become a satellite ...

    What is 1941? What prevents the "allies" from waiting a couple of years?
  19. ser56 29 May 2020 14: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: strannik1985
    There is nothing to fight at the time of signing.

    and who ruined the army? promised a world without annexations, but did it turn out they gave Ukraine and the Baltic states?

    Quote: strannik1985
    What prevents the "allies" from waiting a couple of years?

    you have a bad strategy, but Churchill had a dock in it ....
  20. strannik1985 29 May 2020 14: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    and who ruined the army?

    The Petrograd Soviet and the Provisional Government, in which the Bolsheviks were only one of the parties.
    you have a bad strategy

    And what contradicts the interests of England, the mutual weakening of Russia and Germany?
  21. ser56 29 May 2020 21: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: strannik1985
    The Petrograd Soviet and the Provisional Government, in which the Bolsheviks were only one of the parties.

    Did they accept a peace decree? bully
    Quote: strannik1985
    And what contradicts the interests of England, the mutual weakening of Russia and Germany?

    and the IVS had to think in the same coordinates, and not about the world revolution ... request
  22. strannik1985 30 May 2020 11: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Did they accept a peace decree?

    It does not matter, Poland remained faithful to the allies to the end, but the British and French quietly merged it to suit their interests.
    So the IVS had to think in the same coordinates

    The building of socialism in a single country is the official doctrine of the USSR since 1925.
  23. ser56 30 May 2020 15: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    but the British and French quietly merged it to please their interests.

    and everyone drained it - fate ... request
    but you don’t want to listen - Agitprop’s hysteria about the calm attitude of the Angles and Franks towards the 1939 talks in Moscow has reasonable roots both in history and then contemporary reality
    Quote: strannik1985
    official doctrine of the USSR since 1925.

    and the Cominter dismissed? bully
  24. strannik1985 30 May 2020 16: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    and everyone poured it - fate

    What prevents to merge the USSR?
    but you do not want to listen

    http://militera.lib.ru/research/1939_uroki_istorii/11.html
    Well, why, with pleasure, I will read your comment on the instruction to General Drax, which prescribed to drag out negotiations as much as possible, and also to the fact that the heads of delegations did not have written rights to sign anything.
    and the Cominter dismissed?

    And in which countries, after 1925, he organized the coup (s)?
  25. ser56 30 May 2020 16: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    What prevents to merge the USSR?

    you have a strange approach — each ally has its own interests — the RSFSR merged the Entente in 1918 ... request
    Quote: strannik1985
    prescribing to drag out negotiations as much as possible

    reasonable - they wanted to hold out negotiations until the fall, so that the Germans were in limbo .... hi
    Quote: strannik1985
    that the heads of delegations did not have written rights to sign anything.

    see above - the USSR, as an ally, was poorly quoted ... by the way - why did you rest against the treaties - you yourself wrote about Poland’s merging with the West ... a real ally when he is in a situation like England in 41g ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    And in which countries, after 1925, he organized the coup (s)?

    you do not confuse with orange revolutions? bully The USSR through the Comintern supported the Communist Parties around the world, huge resources went .... what do you think of the governments of foreign countries?
  26. strannik1985 30 May 2020 16: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    RSFSR in 1918 the strength of the Entente

    The Bolsheviks came to power as a result of the coup, the RSFSR is not a successor to the Russian Republic, i.e. an allied Entente. Moreover, the new (and old) power does not have an army to fulfill its allied duty. The Germans' breakthrough to Petersburg and all, the khan of the new government.
    reasonably

    That is, negotiations are fiction, deception of the Soviet side.
    real ally when he is out of situation

    The situation in 1941, England on the island, the USSR is fighting with the Reich on land. I somehow do not deny such a situation, only an English soldier will sit on the remaining piece of France, be bored and wait for hour H. And when he arrives, the operation "The Unthinkable" will begin hi
    you do not confuse with orange revolutions?

    I do not confuse, how can one be afraid of someone if he does not? I'm not talking about the purges of 1937-1938 in the Comintern.
  27. Olgovich 28 May 2020 08: 12 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    To avoid a positional deadlock.

    to the Germans?
    Quote: strannik1985
    AP TD for 1939 - 16 105 mm G (360 rounds per barrel), 8 150 mm G (150 bn), 4 105 mm P (150), 8 75 mm LPO. 48 anti-tank guns.

    And?
    Quote: strannik1985
    A large one, in 1914 the ZF actively fought, in 1940 the Germans can leave 30-40 second-class PD there, and send the rest of the forces to the East.

    May 1940 is ... not an active war ?! belay
  28. strannik1985 28 May 2020 08: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    to the Germans?

    To us, they have successfully overcome it.
    And?

    And our mobile unit, breaking away from the rifle troops, is draining away within a few days about suitable reserves, and their TD (AK (mot)) will successfully operate. In the best case, we will hammer in the spirit of the Rzhev offensive operations, in the worst (very likely) we will get boilers.
    May 1940 is ... not an active war ?!

    Active, but started by the Germans, not the Allies.
  29. ser56 28 May 2020 21: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    from rifle troops is draining in a few days

    about whom in Poland? there are practically no troops in May 1940, and there are no tanks or aircraft at all ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    and their TD (AK (mot)) will operate successfully.

    which must be withdrawn from the battle, loaded and transferred to Poland. unload ... this time ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    in the worst (very likely) we get boilers.

    even so, the battles in Poland, the Germans lose their tanks, there are no resources, and we have mobilization at entire factories ... request
    Quote: strannik1985
    Active, but started by the Germans, not the Allies.

    it’s even better for us ... we are the saviors of Europe from Nazism and then ... bully
  30. strannik1985 29 May 2020 10: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    about whom in Poland?

    Up to 22 PD on the border with the USSR, if there is a strategic surprise (which can be achieved only after the start of the German offensive, because Hitler appointed the first date of the attack on France November 12, 1939, and then transferred it 20 (!!!!) times for 7 months ), and then about reserves, up to 60 infantry, up to 10 tank, up to 9 motorized divisions, they can transfer against the USSR.
    even so, the battles in Poland, the Germans lose their tanks, there are no resources, and we have mobilization at entire factories ...

    We put the Red Army smiled luck in all 32 teeth, carried out an offensive operation of 200-300-400 km, then a pause follows. There will be a struggle for an offensive initiative, and in the spirit of autumn - winter 1941, without mobile associations.
    we are the saviors of Europe from Nazism and then ...

    No, we are a new threat. If in real life the balance of forces was unfavorable for the allies (103 allied formations versus 264 equivalent for the KA), then the British and French are much stronger.
  31. ser56 29 May 2020 13: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    Up to 22 AP on the border with the USSR, if there is a strategic surprise (which can be achieved only after the start of the German offensive

    in the first echelon of the USSR in 1940, up to 80 divisions, 9KK, 30 TBB - 15 tanks, 000 aircraft ... 12 barrels ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    because Hitler appointed the first date of the offensive on France on November 12, 1939, and then transferred it 20 (!!!!) times over a period of 7 months)

    Yes, spit, the beginning of covert mobilization in the USSR is the beginning of the German offensive .... after 7-10 days, the 1st echelon goes on the attack ... although preparation can begin in April - after Denmark / Nrvegiya
    Quote: strannik1985
    up to 60 infantry, up 10 tank, up to 9 motorized divisions they can throw against the USSR.

    you have a fever - the Germans have so many mechanized forces concentrated against France, but NO more! " hi
    Quote: strannik1985
    There will be a struggle for an offensive initiative, and in the spirit of autumn - winter 1941, without mobile associations.

    1) I repeat, the Germans do not have the resources to continue the war and 2 fronts. The most likely mutiny of the generals ...
    2) We are fighting in Poland, our territory is not destroyed, planned mobilization is underway, military factories are working without stopping ... request
    Quote: strannik1985
    without movable associations.

    tired of reminding - so long as everyone has - Guderian became famous in France .... and we have 9KK
    Quote: strannik1985
    No, we are a new threat.

    we will become in 1941, instead of 45g ... request
  32. strannik1985 29 May 2020 14: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    in the first echelon of the USSR in 1940, up to 80 divisions, 9KK, 30 TBB - 15 tanks, 000 aircraft ... 12 barrels ...

    KK in 1937-1938 reduced to 5. There are many troops, but most of them can attack at a speed of 30 km / day.
    you have a fever - the Germans have so many mechanized forces concentrated against France, but NO more! "

    May 21, the battle of Arras, defeat and retreat to Dunkirk. At best, they will gain a foothold somewhere on the way to Dunkirk.
    1) I repeat, the Germans do not have the resources to continue the war and 2 fronts. The most likely mutiny of the generals ...

    A normal war, with the active actions of two fronts.
    tired of reminding - so long as everyone has - Guderian became famous in France .... and we have 9KK

    KK and in 1941 were. For material support in TA arr. 1944-1945 was an automobile regiment or up to 4 separate automobile battalions in bulk, in AK (mot) separate motorized battalions and supply companies. Do not remind how it consists in cav. case?
  33. ser56 29 May 2020 14: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    KK in 1937-1938 reduced to 5

    You are mistaken ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    There are many troops, but most of them can attack at a speed of 30 km / day.

    this is more than enough ... by the way, and 30 TBR - too? bully
    Quote: strannik1985
    . At best, they will gain a foothold somewhere on the way to Dunkirk.

    you do not answer the question - where will the Germans take the 19 mobile units you described? bully
    Quote: strannik1985
    A normal war, with the active actions of two fronts.

    if you don’t want to answer in essence - I’ll stop too .... hi I repeat - where did the oil and stuff come from?

    Quote: strannik1985
    Do not remind how it consists in cav. case?

    in KK horses, they don’t need gasoline ... but enough for tanks ... BT refueling is 500km ... i.e. a march of 350-400 km is more than enough ...
  34. strannik1985 29 May 2020 17: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    are mistaken

    http://www.soldat.ru/force/sssr/rkka/kav/01_kavkorp.html
    it's more than

    10 days - 300 km without fighting.
    you do not answer the question

    He already answered, 11 days after the start of Operation Gelb, the main allied forces were defeated and retreating, leaving the infantry to crush, several mobile divisions to reserve, and the rest to the East.
    do not want to answer in essence

    Essentially what? The action of the English government since the start of the Moscow talks in 1939?
    Buy in Hungary and Romania. Are you going to occupy them or persuade them in a 10-day period?
    in QC horses

    BT tanks are hit by Pak 36 at all battle ranges, if not to suppress the VET, the offensive will end in the style of KMG Boldin near Grodno, for these purposes only 76 mm DA shells (194 per state) and 120 mm mines (140) carried 69,3 and 26,6 thousand pieces, respectively.
  35. ser56 29 May 2020 21: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    http://www.soldat.ru/force/sssr/rkka/kav/01_kavkorp.html

    we are about 1940 gcm. your link - there is 7KK request
    Quote: strannik1985
    10 days - 300 km without fighting.

    exit to the border of Germany! it will be just a march the overwhelming advantage in aviation of the Red Army and tanks ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    several mobile divisions to reserve, and the rest to the East.

    1) How many is a few? hi Let me remind you that Guderian then smashed the French to the south - without this, there is no surrender of France, but the Western Front will be included!
    2) Your estimate of the time for the transfer of 10 mobile connections, mine is at least 10 days, and this is if the bridges over the Oder are not bombed / captured by the Red Army ...
    3) Motor resources of Guderian tanks are lost by 50%, there are problems with BP and fuel - they have no reserves of France yet ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    Buy in Hungary and Romania. Are you going to occupy them or persuade them in a 10-day period?

    1) Do they want to spoil relations with England or France? There is no rout yet ... request
    2) Romania, the Red Army can also occupy, as it was in real life, but without stopping on the Dniester ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    BT tanks hit Pak 36

    gone stupid ... bully
  36. strannik1985 30 May 2020 11: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    we are about 1940

    Take a closer look, physically buildings 6 - 1st were reorganized into 4th, 7th were disbanded on 08.01.1938/1938/5, i.e. since XNUMX buildings XNUMX.
    exit to the border of Germany

    And then the mobile groups fall into the boilers, a pause, and if the spacecraft again does not have time to start (successfully!) The first offensive, a breakthrough of the front and again the boiler, only for the rifle forces.
    a few is how much?

    You do not follow the conversation? I fully admit the existence of the Western Front, in the style of a "strange war."
    1) Do they want to spoil relations with England or France?

    Romania until May 1940 sold most of the oil to Germany, the British government did not even allow diversion in the oil fields and delivery routes.
    gone stupid ...

    In the Wehrmacht TD on a 105-mm howitzer 360 shells, on a 150-mm G or 105-mm gun 150 shells. The principle is the same.
  37. ser56 30 May 2020 15: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    You do not follow the conversation?

    tired of commenting on your nonsense ... request
  38. strannik1985 30 May 2020 16: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    tired of commenting on your nonsense

    What exactly is Churchill’s policy as the customer of the development of Operation Unthinkable and the author of the Fulton Speech, or the nature of the war of 1941-1942? wink
  39. ser56 30 May 2020 16: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    or the nature of warfare 1941-1942

    namely - when discussing the events of 1940 - do you have self-prophecy? bully then you have 19 mech.connections of the Germans out of 19 out of the gloom in Poland, etc. bully At the same time, the Soviet KK and TBR are no good .... request
  40. strannik1985 30 May 2020 16: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    then you have 19 mech.connections of the Germans out of 19

    So, doesn’t it bother you that 11 days after the start of Operation Gelb, the main forces of the Allies are defeated and retreat to Dunkirk?
    At the same time, the Soviet KK and TBR are good for nothing

    Why juggle? The task of the TBR is to support the infantry, for this it is suitable.
    The structure of the spacecraft during the war underwent very serious changes.
    http://don1942.ru/svedeniya-iz-arkhiva-oborony/item/spravka-doklad-o-chislennosti-i-organizatsionnoj-strukture-kavalerii-za-period-otechestvennoj-vojny-tablitsa
    In particular, the number of ground guns increased from 96 to 120 by 01.01.1944/82/120, 32 and 188-mm mortars from XNUMX to XNUMX.
  41. ser56 30 May 2020 17: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    that 11 days after the start of Operation Gelb

    So what? as soon as you remove the TD, the front will roll back - the Germans' PD has fallen behind ... request
    and most importantly, you need TIME to transfer troops ... request

    Quote: strannik1985
    The task of the TBR is to support the infantry, for this it is suitable.
  42. strannik1985 30 May 2020 19: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    what?

    Let it roll back, in the matter under discussion the location of the Western Front is not fundamental. The bottom line is that the spacecraft cannot defeat the German Armed Forces in one offensive operation or cascade of operations, the war drags on with a predictable result.

    Are you talking about the teachings in the BVI 1937? That group did not have a regular supply service, 25 TC in the Polish campaign was part of such a group, could not independently organize the supply, the tanks had to carry fuel by planes.
  43. ser56 30 May 2020 20: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    The bottom line is that the spacecraft cannot defeat in one offensive operation or cascade of operations

    even a capture at the beginning of the remnants of Poland and access to the borders of Germany is no longer bad! Maybe East Prussia will be able to capture ... request
    Quote: strannik1985
    the war drags on with a predictable result.

    The result is known when we fought against almost all of Europe, in the proposed scenario, Finland, Hungary, Italy and Romania DO NOT fight against us - 50 divisions, in addition, the Germans have the Western Front ... request
    Quote: strannik1985
    could not independently organize the supply, fuel tanks had to carry airplanes.

    Experience can be taken into account - it will be six months ...
  44. strannik1985 31 May 2020 07: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    even a capture at the beginning of the remnants of Poland and access to the borders of Germany is already not bad!

    For a month - two, and then? The largest spacecraft boilers (Kiev, Vyazemsky, Bryansk) accounted for the period of "brigadization" BTiMV. The conquered will lose 100% if there is a lucky break, while the Germans re-attack the West.
    The result is known when we fought against all of Europe.

    It depends only on how successfully we will fight, suppose everything is ok, no one helps the Germans. In 2-3-4 years, a new confrontation, the question is - who will join the Anglo - French coalition? For example, among the Finns, participation in a coalition war against the USSR is part of the military doctrine, and the Romanians of the USSR have territorial claims.
    Experience can be considered

    It is possible, but not taken into account.
  45. ser56 31 May 2020 13: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    For a month - two, and then? WITH

    further mobilization will give new connections, plants are working ... request In Germany, problems with raw materials and fuel ... well, and the general decline of spirit ... request
    Quote: strannik1985
    while the Germans re-attack the West.

    you are fantastic ... hi
    Quote: strannik1985
    For example, among the Finns, participation in a coalition war against the USSR is part of the military doctrine, and the Romanians of the USSR have territorial claims.

    these problems are solved at the end of the war with Germany ... request
    Quote: strannik1985
    It is possible, but not taken into account.

    the problem is that at the head of the country and the army were illiterate upstarts, whose main skill was a thirst for personal power hi see Bazhanova ...
  46. strannik1985 31 May 2020 16: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    further mobilization will give new connections

    Those. again permanent mobilization, subsidence in the level of training, new boilers.
    you are fantastic ...

    In World War I, they fought like that.
    these problems are solved at the end of the war with Germany ...

    How? The positions of England and France are much stronger than in reality; they do not need a strong USSR in Europe. The likelihood of conflict is much greater.
    the problem is that at the head of the country and the army were illiterate upstarts

    In this case, illiterate upstarts were at the head of France, England and the United States, especially in the last two.
  47. ser56 1 June 2020 14: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    Those. again permanent mobilization, subsidence in the level of training, new boilers.

    But wasn’t it in real life? Only the enemy has less power, and we have more ... and war on foreign territory ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    In World War I, they fought like that.

    in 1MB there were 2 fronts and on both of them a reasonable command ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    The positions of England and France are much stronger than in reality; they do not need a strong USSR in Europe. The likelihood of conflict is much greater.

    The USSR is not destroyed, a priori stronger ... as for England / France, it is not much, but there is no US influence ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    especially in the last two.

    compare their losses in WW2 with the USSR request
  48. strannik1985 1 June 2020 19: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But wasn’t it in real life?

    That is, everything is repeated.
    in 1MV there were 2 fronts and on both of them a reasonable command

    As an option, the Allies can take some action, the Germans can try to finally solve the issue, they don’t understand what they are facing.
    but there is no US influence ...

    Just the USA is more adequate; since this war they have gained maximum in a new, protracted conflict, they are not interested.
    compare their losses in WW2 with the USSR

    Do you propose to dig a moat with a minimum width of 37 km and build one of the strongest fleets in the world so that the Germans could not force it? laughing
  49. ser56 1 June 2020 20: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    Offer

    I propose not to consider others more stupid request England has held Germany back for more than a year, and then fought with Japan .... as for the Channel, if they had lost in the air, it would not have helped, but they had not lost request
  50. strannik1985 2 June 2020 08: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I propose not to consider others more stupid

    Sorry, but judging differently for the same mistakes is evidence of bias.
    Yes, England fought, but where the Reich is stronger - on land in Europe, it (together with France) lasted 44 days.
  51. ser56 2 June 2020 15: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    Sorry, but judging differently for the same mistakes is evidence of bias.

    Mistakes were different _England entered the war normally, but did not wait ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    on land in Europe, it (together with France) lasted 44 days.

    The USSR was saved by strategic depth, the defeat in the first 1,5 months of the war was even more terrible request
    At the same time, England and France did not have so many planes and tanks, incl. TD ... request
  52. strannik1985 2 June 2020 17: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The mistakes were different

    The same, the British formed their 1st BrTD from October 1937 to October 1940, the division was weak in terms of art support, for example 25-pound guns - 16 howitzers, in the BrTD org. February 1942 alone 25-pound 48.
    "Fake war" is not a war, the allies did not w / d, did not fight for the initiative.
    USSR saved strategic depth

    Everyone had their pros and cons, for example, the Allies had 7 months of war, at least a year until September 1939 for preparation, the Allies. They outwitted themselves.
  53. ser56 2 June 2020 17: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    The same, the British formed their 1st BrTD from October 1937 to October 1940,

    and we formed 29MK for 1000 tanks in half a year - did it help? As for the structure of the troops, it is always being improved on the basis of experience ... see the same Germans ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    They outwitted themselves.

    not without it, here the "ingenious" ITT made a contribution ... request

    went flood hi
  54. strannik1985 2 June 2020 18: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    and we formed in six months

    It didn’t help, but you consider some to be half-educated, while others do not. If you decide to judge, then in one measure.
    not without it

    To get a new one after 3-4 years of war, and even with the prospect of using nuclear weapons?
  55. ser56 2 June 2020 19: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    It didn’t help, but you consider some to be half-educated, while others do not.

    there is a reason - to form 29 MK is nonsense - there are no resources for them ...
    but forming MBR for several years is not nonsense - it’s just that resources are limited and England justifiably sent them to other goals - the fleet, aviation and innovation (radars, ASDs, etc.). Well, the main thing for England is the Mech ... request France made mistakes in the development of tank troops, but moved in the right direction - 1TD de Gaulle formed ... request
    Quote: strannik1985
    If you decide to judge, then in one measure.

    do you have a refrain? bully find errors in the Angles and Francs without after-trial? But 29MK is nonsense ... request
    Quote: strannik1985
    To get a new one after 3-4 years of war, and even with the prospect of using nuclear weapons?

    1) problems are solved as they become available.
    2) in 1939 there was no question about nuclear weapons - there were calculations of a chain reaction, no more request
  56. strannik1985 3 June 2020 10: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    but to form several years of MBR is not nonsense

    Not nonsense, but the victory of a different point of view. T.N. "the great tank scandal" - an experimental mechanized formation (formed in 1927-1930) was disbanded, John Fuller resigned. The role of tanks was reduced to supporting infantry.
    France made mistakes in the development of tank troops

    Yes, compared with the British they are geniuses, 2 TD (DLM) at the beginning of the war + cavalry DLC.
    However, the mistakes are one on one with the USSR, only the scale is smaller - the war, albeit fake, is already underway, everything can be expected from the enemy. When did the new tank divisions begin to form? In January - February 1940. Moreover, there are enough tanks and BA in the infantry, trucks in France by 01.01.1936/468/708 1 713 units, cars 430 XNUMX XNUMX units. It seems that there is a war in the country, but the allies have everything according to plan, the real b / ds will not start soon, so you can not rush.
    I’m not talking about the organization of cavalry DLMs and infantry DCRs (in the division there is one battalion of motorized infantry for 4 tank and 2 divisions of 105 mm howitzers).
    do you have a refrain?

    That is, sitting and waiting for the attack is not a mistake? To plan the formation of new mobile units for years to come and not rushing to carry them out (who said the first stage MK - 1942, the second stage - 1943? wink )? Withdraw all operational reserves to the Dil River line?
    1) problems are solved as they become available.

    Here the USSR also solved them.
  57. ser56 3 June 2020 10: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    That is, sitting and waiting for the attack is not a mistake?

    based on the experience of 1MB - no ... and don’t accept Hitler's plan through the Ardennes - who knows what happened ....

    Quote: strannik1985
    Here the USSR also solved them.

    starting the formation of 29MK without resources? bully
    in short - there are errors from non-knowledge. but there is from stupidity ... request
  58. strannik1985 3 June 2020 10: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    based on the experience of 1 MV

    Wrong, the first stage of World War I is offensive operations.
    starting the formation of 29MK without resources?

    Exactly the same plans for two to three years in advance. In the event of war, MKs of the first stage should receive equipment from the national economy, with the difference that they had up to several days for this, and the Allies had up to 7 months from September 1939 to May 1940.
  59. ser56 3 June 2020 17: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    the first stage of World War I - offensive operations.

    Maginot line was not ....
    Quote: strannik1985
    In the event of war, the first stage MK must receive equipment from the national economy

    Especially walkie-talkies and preparations laughing ovlennyh commanders ....
  60. strannik1985 4 June 2020 12: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Maginot line was not ....

    And she, suddenly, completed her task a little more than completely, the enemy attacked bypassing the LM wink But to prevent this from happening, you need to fight for initiative, and not give the enemy freedom of action.
    Especially walkie-talkies and preparations

    I understand correctly, to form the 4th DLM and all DCR was premature, because there are no walkie-talkies, no experienced commanders, no auxiliary equipment ...?
  61. ser56 4 June 2020 20: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    the enemy attacked bypassing the LM

    it speaks of the error of the Franks who had law-abiding .... request
    the line had to be led to the sea ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    you need to fight for initiative, and not give the enemy freedom of action.

    again forgot about the experience of 1MV and the Verdun / Somme meat grinder ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    because there are no walkie-talkies, no experienced commanders, no auxiliary equipment ...?

    always amusing when they consider themselves the smartest ... bully Do you understand the difference in the formation of one and 29 compounds? request
  62. strannik1985 5 June 2020 13: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    the line had to be led to the sea ...

    Suddenly in the Ardennes broke through the continuation of "LM".
    again forgot about the experience of 1MV and the Verdun / Somme meat grinder ...

    So this is the experience of the struggle for initiative, before these battles the Germans broke through several lines of fortresses that were considered impregnable.
    Do you understand the difference in the formation of one and 29 compounds?

    There is no difference, there is a difference in the timing of achieving combat readiness. The allies did not have time to bring the divisions to readiness and the spacecraft did not.
  63. ser56 30 May 2020 17: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    The task of the TBR is to support the infantry, for this it is suitable.

    and the GKZH wrote in a memoir that he was to command KMG bully
  64. ser56 27 May 2020 16: 01 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    No in the spacecraft arr. 1940 mobile units, infantry, even with the support of tanks, can not keep pace

    you forgot about the cavalry corps - in every 128 BT tanks ... request
    Quote: strannik1985
    why should they?

    why is England one fought a year with Germany?
  65. strannik1985 27 May 2020 16: 07 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    you forgot about the cavalry corps - in every 128 BT tanks ...

    There are 8 76-mm guns and 8 122-mm howitzers in the CD, 2 times more than in the TC, but several times less than in the TC / MK arr. 1944-1945.
    why England alone fought a year with Germany?

    In 1940 on land?
  66. ser56 27 May 2020 21: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: strannik1985
    In 1940 on land?

    but for you, war in the air and at sea is not war? Let me remind you, England is an island ...
  67. strannik1985 28 May 2020 08: 06 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    but for you, war in the air and at sea is not war?

    No, for me the Germans are conducting an air offensive and naval blockade of England, and not vice versa. Reduce activity - it’s not at all a fact that the British will be active b / d.
  68. ser56 28 May 2020 21: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    Reduce activity - it’s not at all a fact that the British will be active b / d.

    Seriously? Did the British abandon raids on Berlin or fight in North Africa? You come up with strange reasons ...
  69. strannik1985 29 May 2020 09: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You come up with strange reasons ...

    Absolutely, the raids began on May 11, 1940, in response to the German offensive, in North Africa the so-called the allies fought with the expeditionary forces of the Italians, and from February 1941 the Germans. No threat to the colonies - no fighting.
  70. ser56 29 May 2020 13: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    the allies fought with the expeditionary forces of the Italians

    and what's the difference - with the Axis countries
    Quote: strannik1985
    and from February 1941 - the Germans

    Quote: strannik1985
    In 1940 on land?

    Do you have land only in Europe? hi
  71. strannik1985 29 May 2020 13: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    and what's the difference - with the Axis countries

    Defense, not the British began, but their opponents.
    Do you have land only in Europe?

    To influence the operational environment? Yes.
  72. ser56 29 May 2020 13: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    not the British began, but their opponents.

    you have a strange logic ... request
    Quote: strannik1985
    to the operational environment? Yes.

    I recommend reading books on strategy ... hi
  73. strannik1985 29 May 2020 14: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    you have a strange logic ...

    No, these are the actions of the governments of France and England from the summer of 1939 to May 1940.
    I recommend reading books on strategy ..

    Can you tell me which objects bombed the FACC in 1940?
  74. ser56 29 May 2020 14: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    These are the actions of the governments of France and England from the summer of 1939 to May 1940.

    be surprised, but the actions of the IVS are even more stupid ... request
    Quote: strannik1985
    Can you tell me which objects bombed the FACC in 1940?

    Forgot your search engine? hi I note that they wanted to bomb Baku and had good reason ...
  75. ser56 27 May 2020 21: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: strannik1985
    There are 8 76-mm guns and 8 122-mm howitzers in the CD, 2 times more than in the TC,

    What am I talking about? so the best is the enemy of the good ....
  76. ser56 27 May 2020 16: 00 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: strannik1985
    An interesting moment (if you are about May 1940), but: 1. You must have an analogue of TA arr. 1944-1945.
    2. You need to know at least a month before the start of active b / d.

    1) there were 9 KK in the Red Army - this is the KMG of the Second World War - a serious tool ... and 36 TBR ...
    2) The first echelon went into battle, the mobilization begins ...
  77. Herman 4223 27 May 2020 12: 38 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The Mutual Assistance Pact provided for protection in the event of unprovoked aggression by another European power. Hitler did not attack France, France declared war on Germany, and not vice versa.
    In 1939, no whole world called Germany a world evil. It happened later.
    Hitler's allies in 1941 came from somewhere. And at 39 it would be the same.
  78. Olgovich 27 May 2020 20: 15 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Herman 4223
    The Mutual Assistance Pact provided for protection in the event of unprovoked aggression by another European power. Hitler did not attack France, France declared war on Germany, and not vice versa.


    Announced because Germany. contrary to international law, committed an act of aggression.

    And where is the article in the Covenant prohibiting the defense of France. stopping the aggressor, in fact, defending itself? No such.

    Besides. paragraph 4 of the protocol stated that “the negotiations resulting in the signing of this treaty were originally initiated to supplement the security agreement covering the countries of northeastern Europe, namely the USSR, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland and the Baltic states neighboring the USSR” and , besides this agreement, “an agreement on assistance between the USSR, France and Germany was to be concluded, in which each of these three states had to commit itself to supporting one of them that would be the subject of an attack by one of these three states. ”

    Quote: Herman 4223
    In 1939, no whole world called Germany a world evil. It happened later.
    Hitler's allies in 1941 came from somewhere. And at 39 it would be the same.

    and there wasn’t a trace: only Slovakia performed together with the Hitler and then for two weeks.

    the vast majority of countries condemned aggression.
  79. strannik1985 25 May 2020 20: 47 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    If not for his stupidity, Russia could calmly

    By the summer of 1914, she couldn’t do it anymore. There are no insoluble contradictions with Germany, but it’s completely with Austria-Hungary. The Germans will surely put the interests of their main ally above the Russian ones.
  80. Krasnoyarsk 26 May 2020 17: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: strannik1985

    By the summer of 1914, she couldn’t do it anymore. There are no insoluble contradictions with Germany, but it’s completely with Austria-Hungary. The Germans will certainly put their interests

    If Russia had not declared mobilization, Germany would not have declared war on Russia, it would not have been profitable for her. And the Austrians would not have started a war with Russia without Germany.
    Russia had to declare neutrality. But, as always - "English shit"
  81. strannik1985 27 May 2020 11: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If Russia had not declared mobilization of Germany, it would not have declared war on Russia,

    In the summer of 1914, i.e. since July 28, when it spun.
    You are right, but only in part - the very murder of the Archduke is only an excuse; there would have been no such case, there would have been some other kind. Those. other solutions are needed much earlier, somewhere from the time of the succession, especially in terms of financial policy.
  82. ser56 25 May 2020 20: 29 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    This is your subjective look based on emotions and ambitions.

    it's just a factology ... hi the rest is your demagogy ...
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    But you are afraid to answer this question yourself, because then your whole worldview will collapse.

    if you want to say something - say it. and do not play in meaningfulness ... bully
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    why did Russia have to declare war on Germany in 14

    trite - there was no other way request This IVS fell under the “sudden blow”, and RI plannedly entered the war ...
  83. Krasnoyarsk 25 May 2020 20: 53 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: ser56
    and RI plannedly entered the war ...

    And immediately lost Samsonov’s army. Also see the plan.
  84. ser56 25 May 2020 21: 08 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    And immediately lost Samsonov’s army. Also see the plan.

    yes, there was a failure, but France was saved from defeat and the Western Front was the main one ... I understand, it's hard to understand ... bully
    Compare with the Red Army in 1941-defeated in 2 months, the entire personnel of the Red Army and lost almost all of its weapons ... request At the same time, the Eastern Front is the only one ... well, the genius of the IVS is directly visible to the naked eye ... bully
  85. Krasnoyarsk 26 May 2020 10: 18 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    [quote = ser56]
    yes, there was a failure, but France was saved from defeat and the Western Front was the main ... I understand it is difficult to understand ... [/ quote]
    Well, of course, the main thing for you is to save France.
    Well, if for the Germans the Western Front is the main one, then why did the tsarist army stagnate for so long without having any strategic successes in the Eastern?
    Why, in spite of quote = ser56] and RI plannedly entered the war ... [/ quote] throughout the war the army did not have enough weapons and ammunition?
    [quote = ser56] bully
    Compare with the Red Army in 1941, the entire personnel Red Army was defeated in 2 months and almost all of its weapons were lost ... request [/ quote]
    Thank your forerunner, Pavlov.
    The king and his generals purged the Japanese in 1905, with the loss of territory, and the German-Austrians in 14-17.
    And Stalin, not only to the Austrian Germans, but to the whole of Europe, and then to Japan, also hardened and the territory grew not weak.
    So go take a shower and calm down.
  86. ser56 26 May 2020 13: 49 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    Well, of course, the main thing for you is to save France.

    I understand that your level of knowledge and intelligence does not allow you to realize the ridiculous - you need to save France so that it fights against Germany, otherwise we will remain alone with the Germans - as with the IVS in 1941 request
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    why did the tsarist army stagnate for so long without having any strategic successes in the East?

    from what? The Brusilovsky breakthrough put AB on the brink of defeat ... hi Turkey was close to complete defeat, there was a question of the capture of the Bosphorus ...
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    throughout the war did the army lack armament and ammunition?

    not all, but only after the exhaustion of pre-war reserves in 1915, in 1916 the shell hunger was eliminated ... I note that in the Second World War the Red Army had not had shells for almost 2 years ... request
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    Thank your forerunner, Pavlov.

    Do you have problems with your head? hi My last name is not Pavlov ... to the last, he was put forward by the ITT, but he was not ready ... request
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    The king and his generals purged the Japanese in 1905, with the loss of territory, and the German-Austrians in 14-17.

    1) in the REV, the Japanese lost more than in the RIA, the reasons for the defeat were not in the army ..
    2) in 1MV RIA suffered losses comparable to the enemy, did not run to Moscow ... request
    3) if it’s not a secret - what does the RIA have to do with it if the personnel Red Army was defeated in 2 months?
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    And Stalin, not only to the Austrian Germans, but to the whole of Europe, and then to Japan, also hardened and the territory grew not weak.

    and the losses suffered by the Russian people do not bother you?

    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    So go take a shower and calm down.

    do you have problems with washing? bully
  87. Krasnoyarsk 26 May 2020 17: 44 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: ser56

    from what? The Brusilovsky breakthrough put AB on the brink of defeat ... hi Turkey was close to complete defeat, there was a question of the capture of the Bosphorus ...

    Lady friend: - "We already filed an application with the registry office, but for some reason he did not get married."
    Quote: ser56
    1) in the REV, the Japanese lost more than in the RIA, the reasons for the defeat were not in the army ..

    I know. Stalin is to blame.
    Quote: ser56
    2) in 1MV RIA suffered losses comparable to the enemy, did not run to Moscow ...

    Because the Germans did not want to. They themselves said that the Western Front was more important for them.
    Quote: ser56
    request 3) if it’s not a secret - what does the RIA have to do with it if the personnel Red Army was defeated in 2 months?

    And the Germans defeated France. With the help of England and the USA lol
    Well, since the Red Army was defeated, then in your logic it turns out that way.
    Quote: ser56
    and the losses suffered by the Russian people do not bother you?

    And is Stalin to blame? Not Hitler, who attacked the USSR, but Stalin? fool
    If not for Stalin, would we have won the war without loss? fool
  88. ser56 27 May 2020 15: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    Lady friend: - "We already filed an application with the registry office, but for some reason he did not get married."

    Thank you for declaring your level of knowledge and analytics ... by the way, where is the USSR now? request
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    I know. Stalin is to blame.

    like spring is ending - do you have it from self-isolation? bully
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    Because the Germans did not want to. They themselves said that the Western Front was more important for them.

    1) the Germans wanted, but their Wishlist were circumcised ... request RIA was able to fight well and in 1914 hi
    2) The Germans had a Western front with different priorities according to the years of the war, but apart from them, there was also AB - for her the Eastern Front was the main one ..
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    Well, since the Red Army was defeated, then in your logic it turns out that way.

    Quote: ser56
    personnel red army

    you don’t know how to understand what was read — the Nazis were defeated not by the personnel Red Army, for the maintenance and armament of which our people spent terrible money (24 thousand tanks alone), but mobilized people ... request
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    And is Stalin to blame? Not Hitler, who attacked the USSR, but Stalin?

    Hitler is an enemy, he attacked, but the monstrous losses in the Second World War are precisely due to the fault of the IVS - his illiterate pre-war, pre-war and military policy and military construction ...
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    If not for Stalin, would we have won the war without loss?

    your laughter from stupidity request So for example - in June 1941, the ratio of losses for tanks near Brody was 2000 against 200 ... request Moreover, the Germans roughly had 1000, and the Red Army had 4800 tanks ... hi And then laugh fool
  89. Krasnoyarsk 27 May 2020 15: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: ser56
    hi And then laugh

    I laugh at your amateurish look at the history of the Second World War, the USSR and the Republic of Ingushetia.
    If you are not too lazy to read, then at least watch Isaev’s videos. about WWII.
    He lucidly tells, it will be clear even to you, about all the operations of the Red Army and all periods of the war.
    But for some reason I’m sure you won’t watch. Afraid of parting with hatred of the USSR.
  90. ser56 27 May 2020 21: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    I laugh at your amateurish look at the history of the Second World War, the USSR and the Republic of Ingushetia.

    Show someone a finger - laughs ... bully as I understand it, you have no arguments? wink
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    then at least watch Isaev’s videos. about WWII

    I do not respect opportunists ... request
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    He lucidly tells, it will be clear even to you, about all the operations of the Red Army and all periods of the war.

    in a discussion with me, he went into the bushes ... this is for you and others like you he is an authority ...
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    Afraid of parting with hatred of the USSR.

    I lived in the USSR for many years - this is my homeland ... and a story that must be honestly studied ...
  • Doctor 24 May 2020 10: 00 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    I do not see anything seditious in secretly finding out the real intentions of the enemy: for a correct assessment of the situation, forces and planning, this could help.

    Communication channels are needed in any case, even in case of war. The Germans chose the Bulgarians.

    RECORD OF THE TALK OF THE FIRST DEPUTY PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR A.YA. VYSHINSKY WITH THE AMBASSADOR OF BULGARIA IN THE USSR I. STAMENOV
    24 June November 1941, XNUMX
    Secretly
    Today at 21 o’clock I received the Bulgarian envoy Stamenov on his
    request.
    Stamenov, saying that he had already sent a note to the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs this afternoon, told me that, according to the notification received from the Bulgarian government, the Bulgarian mission in Moscow was authorized assume the protection of German interests in the territory of the USSR *. Stamenov asked me to convey this to the government of the USSR.
    I replied to Stamenov that I would give the government the statement he made,
    after which I will give an answer.
    Then Stamenov said “in order of simple information”, as he put it, that on June 22, 30 German citizens arrived in Moscow with a Siberian train. They ask permission to apply to the embassy for obtaining visas to leave the USSR.
    ....
    Saying goodbye to me, Stamenov said that he really did not want to take on such a heavy burden as the protection of German interests in the Soviet Union, on the other hand, he was glad of this assignment, since it testified that he would remain in the same the situation in which he was before the conflict between the USSR and Germany. Then he said: “To what we survived ...” - and cited the beginning of the Latin proverb: “Whom God wants to destroy ...” (meaning, obviously, the saying: “Whom God wants to destroy, he deprives him of reason”).
    The conversation lasted 15 minutes. in the presence of Comrade Chumakova.
    A. Vyshinsky
  • Nikolai Korovin 26 May 2020 12: 25 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    A significant difference between Brest and the situation after June 22 - the army really was gone. Separate weak detachments of the Red Guard. But Hitler was quite happy with the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line. Wilhelm was more modest. I do not think that Stalin did not read Mine Kampf. He certainly understood that if Hitler had already begun, he would shout until they stopped. But the probe could distract Hitler, at least for a short while, from solving operational issues, so probably he really was. For the organization of defense was expensive every hour. The reason for postponing Stalin's personal speech until July 3 is a severe cold. He worked with the leadership from the first hours, and could not speak publicly, even if on the radio.
  • your1970 31 May 2020 15: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Olgovich
    Quote: ROSS 42
    But it didn’t take place.

    I do not see anything seditious in secretly finding out the real intentions of the enemy: for a correct assessment of the situation, forces and planning, this could help.

    And he did not take place for several reasons:

    - thanks to the heroic resistance of the Soviet troops

    -Germans, as you know, wanted much more than what Sudoplatov said, as possible options

    - potential implementers of the new Brest were neutralized.

    For how dangerous they are and their actions in a difficult hour for the country, Stalin knew, as they say, first-handbeing direct participant Brest's events March 1918

    very strange raising the question of Ukraine - at that moment, a piece of it was tweaked ...
    And then suddenly an offer - to give right away the entire.
    This proposal is much more reliable and logical - militarily and politically
    "it was not about the whole of Ukraine and the Baltic states, but only about their partand nothing was said about Belarus, Bukovina and the Karelian Isthmus. "
    I won’t be surprised if the task was cover out to the maximum, therefore, they voiced the formula- "Yes, give them everything, business then ..."
  • Doctor 24 May 2020 09: 37 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    But it didn’t take place. The IVS did not make deals, as the leadership of the USSR in the person of the HMS and Russia in the person of the EBN did.

    You might think someone offered these deals to him.
    Hitler did not undertake a campaign to the East in order to return the Baltic states.
  • knn54 24 May 2020 09: 55 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    - He continued to zealously patronize the Bulgarian KGB in order to prevent its elimination by Soviet colleagues.
    The Bulgarian KGB, like no other intelligence service of another socialist country, did nothing without the knowledge of the KGB of the USSR.
    Information from the category "On the meeting of Hitler and Stalin in Lviv".
  • Alexander Sosnitsky 24 May 2020 23: 49 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    I see Churchill’s speech as an appeal to the Germans and Russians to kill each other more, which was ready long before 22.06.41, and the promise of all support in this matter and I still do not understand him.
  • Herman 4223 27 May 2020 06: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Support.
  • demiurg 24 May 2020 05: 59 New
    • 17
    • 4
    +13
    The farther the war, the more sudden revelations.
    Now it turns out that it was Churchill who saved the USSR from surrender. The USSR was preparing for this war as best it could, and when it began it immediately became ready to give up vast territories. Cross-border battle is still in full swing, and Stalin is ready to surrender Belarus and Ukraine. And after all someone will believe.
    Interestingly, I will live to see those years when I learn that only the landing of the Americans in Normandy saved from the collapse of the USSR?
    1. Crowe 24 May 2020 06: 02 New
      • 15
      • 3
      +12
      This is how they distort and rewrite history.
      1. Doctor 24 May 2020 09: 39 New
        • 6
        • 6
        0
        This is how they distort and rewrite history.

        Who! Sudoplatov?
    2. Same lech 24 May 2020 06: 04 New
      • 9
      • 5
      +4
      Interestingly, I will live to see those years when I learn that only the landing of the Americans in Normandy saved from the collapse of the USSR?

      Of course you survive ... you can even say survived. smile

      The owner of the White House, Donald Trump, announced the victory of the United States and Great Britain in the fight against fascist Germany, while he did not mention the USSR at all. A video was posted on Twitter by the American president’s administration, in which Trump and First Lady Melania, on the background of an honor guard, pay tribute to those killed in the war
      .
      1. Octopus 24 May 2020 11: 50 New
        • 9
        • 1
        +8
        On May 8, 1945, America and Great Britain had victory over the Nazis!

        "America's spirit will always win. In the end, that's what happens."


        What is your problem?

        Firstly, the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition dofig, they do not interfere in a tweet. Even France did not fit.
        Secondly, Donnie is not about history at all. Well, at least she knows Britain.
        Thirdly, he writes, on May 8 they won. The USSR did not win the victory on May 8, it has a separate victory on the 9th, in a separate war. What does not suit you?
        1. Same lech 24 May 2020 11: 54 New
          • 4
          • 7
          -3
          Even France did not fit.

          Yeah, France managed at the end of the war to participate in the signing of the surrender of Germany ... despite the fact that half of France collaborated with Hitler throughout the war ... it's just surrealism.
          Not to mention the decisive role of the USSR for Trump is an unforgivable thing ... if the illiterate Bush Jr. has reached the bottom of illiteracy, then Trump has broken this bottom.
          1. Octopus 24 May 2020 13: 02 New
            • 7
            • 2
            +5
            Quote: The same Lech
            Not to mention the decisive role of the USSR for Trump is an unforgivable thing

            Who will not forgive him, you? Does he know about you?

            Again. For Donny, May 8 is a memorable date american history. An unimportant memorable date, as in the post-USSR on September 2 (or already 3rd, I do not follow the changing Russian history). It’s strange that he didn’t remember the USSR and France, it’s strange that he remembered Britain.
    3. Nikolai Miracles 24 May 2020 07: 48 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      In May-June 1941, the British fought against Iraq, who sided with Hitler
      https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5c2bb5cbea039800abdc8fd6/kak-irak-za-gitlera-voeval-5e4f6f55fd27690308677e2c
      In July 1941, British aircraft carriers bombed the Wehrmacht's rear warehouses and ports in Kirkenes and Petsamo, helping to stop the attack of the Dietl corps on Murmansk,
      https://inosmi.ru/social/20200323/247074336.html
    4. Doctor 24 May 2020 09: 43 New
      • 11
      • 1
      +10
      Now it turns out that it was Churchill who saved the USSR from surrender.

      Is Churchill guilty again?
      In the article, conversations go between Stalin, Beria, Sudoplatov, Stamenov. Then Khrushchev and Brezhnev.

      And from Churchill only this:

      ... I see Russian soldiers standing on the border of their native land and protecting the fields that their fathers plowed from time immemorial. I see how they guard their homes; their mothers and wives pray - because at such a time everyone is praying for the preservation of their loved ones, for the return of the breadwinner, patron, and their protectors.

      ... This is not a class war, but a war into which the entire British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations were drawn into by the Nazis, without distinction of race, religion or party.

      ... We must provide Russia and the Russian people with all the help we can, and we will provide it. We must urge all our friends and allies to follow a similar course and pursue it as steadily and steadily as we will, to the very end.

      ... We have already offered the government of Soviet Russia any technical or economic assistance that we are able to provide, and which will be useful to him. ”
      1. Operator 24 May 2020 09: 59 New
        • 2
        • 11
        -9
        Churchill was answered by US Senator Harry Truman on June 24, 1941 in an interview with the New York Times:

        "If we see that Germany wins, then we should help Russia, and if Russia will win, we should help Germany, and so let them kill as much as possible."

        Harry Truman had a reputation for being a dumb politician from the backwoods who couldn’t keep his mouth shut, so he blurted out what the American leadership had in mind. US President Roosevelt did exactly what Truman suggested: he began to help the USSR (included in the Lendlis program) when Germany won - in November 1941 during the German assault on the capital of the Soviet Union.
        1. Krasnodar 24 May 2020 10: 14 New
          • 15
          • 1
          +14
          And then, when Russia began to win, he began to help Germany. Massive bombing of the Ruhr lol
          1. Operator 24 May 2020 10: 20 New
            • 3
            • 12
            -9
            Then there was the Soviet counterattack near Moscow in conditions of scanty Lendlis and the defeat of the Germans near Stalingrad in the conditions of freezing Lendlisian deliveries through Murmansk.

            After that, it dawned on the American leadership that the Lendlizovskiy lever with respect to the USSR was not working and the 1941 Truman doctrine was carefully lowered into the toilet.
            1. Krasnodar 24 May 2020 10: 33 New
              • 7
              • 1
              +6
              And why did the States help Britain since 1940? A clash between the United States and Germany was already inevitable - the Germans sank a couple of American ships delivering aid to the Britons. The alliance with the USSR was in their interests; after Tehran 43, Roosevelt's position was more pro-Soviet than pro-English. Amers was not interested in the internal European affairs that interested Churchill - the fate of Poland and so on. They were worried about the creation of the UN and a kick in the ass to the old European empires - the French and the Great Britain. Later, Eisenhower, who already at the beginning of the 42nd insisted on the opening of the Second Front, together with the USSR forced the Franks and Britons to leave Suez in 1956.
              1. Operator 24 May 2020 10: 41 New
                • 2
                • 11
                -9
                Helping Anglo-Saxon compatriots in Britain until December 1941 does not mean being their military ally.

                And what does the US position have to do with the defeat of the Germans near Stalingrad in the context of the freezing of land-lease in 1942?
                1. Krasnodar 24 May 2020 10: 55 New
                  • 8
                  • 3
                  +5
                  About freezing Lendlize in 1942 can be more detailed? As far as I remember, the negotiations on Lendliz were postponed in December 1941 due to the entry of the States into the war, as they had to reconsider their own military needs and volumes of supplies to the allies, respectively.
                  As for compatriots, you are clearly getting excited - the largest ethnic group in the USA - now and then, these are Germans, not Anglo-Saxons.
                  1. Operator 24 May 2020 10: 59 New
                    • 2
                    • 9
                    -7
                    Convoy PQ-17 as a reason to freeze landlize.
                    1. Krasnodar 24 May 2020 11: 13 New
                      • 9
                      • 1
                      +8
                      There was a convoy - out of 35 transports we reached 13. In order to prevent this from happening again, there was a break from the 20th of June 1942 to September 2 - for a month and a half. It was used to reorganize both convoys and cover - Soviet and British. The initiators of the month and a half break were the Britons - not the Americans.
                    2. Alexey RA 25 May 2020 09: 17 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Operator
                      Convoy PQ-17 as a reason to freeze landlize.

                      And what, Lend-Lease is limited only to the northern convoys?
                      The southern route at the same time plowed like a damn, trying to simultaneously fulfill two tasks: to push through the needle eye of Iranian ports and roads all that was delivered to the ports of Iran by the Allies, and at the same time to improve this infrastructure to increase the volume of supplies.
                      Limey did not cope with the second task on their own - they had to first call the Yankees for subcontracting, and then generally give the southern route to the American zone of responsibility.
                      1. Operator 25 May 2020 11: 12 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        One (termination of the northern route) does not cancel the other (limited possibilities of the southern).
                      2. Alexey RA 25 May 2020 14: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Operator
                        One (termination of the northern route) does not cancel the other (limited possibilities of the southern).

                        Limited options do not mean freezing Lend-Lease.
                        There was no freezing Lend-Lease - only the northern route was temporarily closed, the other two worked.
                    3. Ryazan87 25 May 2020 14: 28 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Just comrade The operator believes that the organization of the supply of thousands of tons of cargo on multimodal routes across half the planet in the conditions of armed resistance is a logistical task at the level of "deliver pizza by courier."
                      Transport capacities, repair facilities, fuel supplies, the most complicated convoy schedules, the creation of a warehouse and berth infrastructure, the expansion and preparation of roads and railways .. in short, all this, as you know, is done instantly and very simply. We need, for example, cranes for unloading in the port of Murmansk (which is mercilessly bombed) - this is Comrade. Stalin only click his fingers.
                      And yes, in 1941, Senator Truman was clearly not a defining figure in US foreign policy. He already in the position of vice president about the Manhattan project was not considered necessary to tell.
                    4. Alexey RA 25 May 2020 19: 38 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Ryazanets87
                      Just comrade The operator believes that the organization of the supply of thousands of tons of cargo on multimodal routes across half the planet in the conditions of armed opposition

                      Moreover, when the recipient country did not count on something like this at all and did not lay any infrastructure under it. smile
                      Quote: Ryazanets87
                      We need, for example, cranes for unloading in the port of Murmansk (which is mercilessly bombed) - this is Comrade. Stalin only click his fingers.

                      You can still remember the Iranian route, which even the British could not master - I had to let the goat into the garden give the Iranian section of the Yankees.
          2. Octopus 24 May 2020 12: 50 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            Quote: Krasnodar
            after Tehran 43, Roosevelt's position was more pro-Soviet than pro-English

            Yes.
            Roosevelt never understood what the USSR was.
            Quote: Krasnodar
            Germany was already inevitable - the Germans sank a couple of American ships, delivering aid to the Britons.

            Nonsense. 3 years passed from Lusitania to the entry of the United States into the war. In the case of WWII, these were generally warships, they have such a job.
            Quote: Krasnodar
            They were worried about the creation of the UN and a kick in the ass to the old European empires - the French and the Great Britain.

            A delusional story with the UN came to the fore at the end of the war. At the beginning of the war, Roosevelt's activity was completely unsystematic. He did small and large dirty tricks to absolutely everyone.
            Quote: Krasnodar
            Later, Eisenhower, who already at the beginning of the 42nd insisted on the opening of the Second Front

            The delusional statements of Eisenhower (and Marshall) of the 42nd year show only their incompetence. In January of the 43rd, Arnim explained to Eisenhower what the latter should have known in advance.

            That a well-armed rabble, which Eisenhower considers the American army, is not an army.
            Quote: Krasnodar
            together with the Soviet Union forced the Franks and Britons to leave Suez in 1956.

            Eisenhower as a useful idiot, he remained until the end of his life. He took the Red Army from Nalchik, left the SA in 15 minutes of flight time from his own home.
            1. Krasnodar 24 May 2020 13: 11 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Controversial.
              1) I understood - he just did not care. He preferred the Bolsheviks of the British Empire, the British to Hitler.
              2) The Germans drowned transports, including weapons to the UK
              3) He raised this topic in 1943, Roosevelt, unlike Churchill, did not consider the Americans as significant to Europe (like Trump today), but about the dirty tricks in more detail?
              4) By the 43rd Eisenhower knew exactly all the weaknesses and strengths of the American army laughing Clashes with the Germans began in 42, in Tunisia. Strong, effective artillery, good aircraft, weak everything else (from land)
              5) Yes, the general, the president of the States, did not understand the greatness of not only Western, but also Eastern Europe, Mongolia, Zimbabwe. He was more interested in relations with the USSR - here is the clown lol
              1. Octopus 24 May 2020 14: 18 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                Quote: Krasnodar
                1) I understood - he just did not care. He preferred the Bolsheviks of the British Empire, the British to Hitler.

                Did not understand.

                US policy was anti-colonialism for free trade and a free global market. The USSR built a colonial empire that is different from the British in the sense of free trade as the MPR is different from Canada.
                Quote: Krasnodar
                The Germans drowned transports, including weapons to the UK

                The transports supplying arms to Britain could only be British. The principle of cash and carry. If the Germans drowned American vehicles with weapons - the only question is who committed a violation of neutrality. Question to Roosevelt in the first place. Which in words was extraordinarily neutral.
                Quote: Krasnodar
                He raised this topic in 1943.

                Hull's Office dug up stewardess League of Nations to report why they have not yet been removed from allowance. His work - to establish diplomatic options - Hull refused to engage categorically. It got to the point that all negotiations in Europe, with the French, that with the Italians, that directly from the USSR, were conducted by the rural idiot Eisenhower, who did not distinguish between Slovakia and Slovenia and Lublin and Ljubljana. And most importantly, he did not consider it necessary to distinguish between them.

                Unfortunately, madness world government became the backbone of American foreign policy of the 40s.

                Quote: Krasnodar
                and about dirty tricks can be more detailed?

                The Atlantic Charter was primarily an anti-British document, and Germany and its allies fell under various moral embargoes. Operator Ideas for cunning plan have grounds, but only this was an anti-British and anti-German plan. In this optics, the USSR was indeed an ally of the United States, since it was also an enemy of all the old empires at the same time, that of German, that of British.

                Roosevelt did not know (and did not want to know) that the enemy of the USSR was not Germany and not Britain, but the entire world capitalist system. Moreover, the USSR always spoke directly about this. After the war, of course, the United States became the center of the capitalist system. Accordingly, they became the main enemy of the USSR.
                Quote: Krasnodar
                Clashes with the Germans began in 42, in Tunisia.

                January 43rd - this is Tunisia is, Kasserin. Before that, the Americans dealt only with the French.
                Quote: Krasnodar
                forceful artillery,

                So far not very, artillery has shown itself only in the 44th.
                Quote: Krasnodar
                good aviation

                Generally a shame. In the 43rd aviation, count it was not, the backlash beat the P-40 almost like on the Eastern Front.
                Patton couldn’t calm down, and when the delegation of pilots sat down to discuss the incident, the “four Messers” appeared, who flew at a height of 300 feet and fired machine guns from the street. The back door of the house turned out to be jammed, and we couldn’t jump out when alone dropped a bomb from planes. " "And how did you manage to organize everything?" asked the shocked Spaats. “I’ll be damned if I know myself. But if I still find the scum who sat on these planes, I will give everyone a medal!” Patton shouted back.

                As you see, the Messers had so much to do that they stormed the buildings.
                Quote: Krasnodar
                weak everything else (from land)

                The best tank forces in the world at that time (nominally, since September of the 42nd Sherman a month it’s been released more than the T-34), but there’s no understanding what to do with them.

                The Germans quickly explained to Eisenhower that all he could do was sit in positions for six months and wait ... EASTERN FRONT!

                The eastern front at that time was the British, advancing from Egypt.

                In the 42nd year, he could not wait to go to France, such a good thing, it was necessary.
                Quote: Krasnodar
                He was more interested in relations with the USSR - here is the clown

                Useful it. None of the American presidents, except Roosevelt, did more for the USSR.

                If you ask the patriot of the USSR how to justify the existence of this country before God, then the answers, in addition to the freedom of the working people of all countries, will usually be.
                1. Victory Banner.
                2. Gagarin.
                3. The most delicious ice cream.
                4. Kalashnikov.
                5. T-34.

                Eisenhower is not related to the ice cream. The first Soviet ice cream factory was purchased in the USA by Mikoyan in the 36th year (what the Soviet authorities did in the 36th year).

                Everything else is Eisenhower. The stop order to Simpson on 13.04.45/7,62/51 and the prohibition of the Air Force and von Braun to use military missiles to launch satellites, the abandonment of an intermediate cartridge in favor of NATO XNUMXxXNUMX and the abandonment of specially built tanks in favor of the mobilization ersatz Sherman - all this is Eisenhower or his subordinates.
                1. Krasnodar 24 May 2020 14: 42 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  1) The United States was interested in sales markets - the Union at the same time threatened them only with the expansion of ideology. Unlike the Western Europeans
                  2) In words - was. In fact - helping Britons
                  3) At that time, Slovenia and Slovakia were different, as now Cameroon and Angola. Now Slovenia has become a highly developed country, it made a leap in the 10th. He was interested in the rest of Eastern Europe as Myanmar and Bangladesh of the current US administration. The world government - yes, under the control of reptilians, it will still do business.
                  4) Oh, so what am I talking about ... The American war for sales markets did not see a competitor in the USSR. Then Uncle Truman screwed up, well, the Union became the main enemy of the States through his fault.
                  5) The Germans in North Africa complained that due to the actions of the American artillery they were not able to approach the enemy infantry “at a distance of a machine-gun shot”)). Read Beaver and Hastings
                  6) I read another - Germans Amer seemed no worse than Royal Navy
                  7) Air support - Amers had jambs even funnier
                  8) Heh, advancing from Egypt, because Amers took over part of the German and Italian forces
                  9) So after Korea they got new tanks, not bad, by the way))
                  1. Octopus 24 May 2020 15: 02 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    At the same time, the Union threatened them only with the expansion of ideology. Unlike the Western Europeans

                    Both the USSR and the territories under its control fell out of the world system of markets. By the year 50, these territories extended from Denmark to Hong Kong with the threat of Japan, Italy, France, not to mention the young post-colonial republics like India.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    In words - was. In fact - helping the Britons

                    Unlike the USSR, British aid was not free. Extremely free.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    The world government - yes, under the control of reptilians, it will still do business.

                    Better reptilians than the UN that Hull had fantasized for himself. Roosevelt did not fight at all for the current freak show with Greta, but for the global EU with global NATO in one bottle.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    At that time, Slovenia and Slovakia were different, as now Cameroon and Angola.

                    Yes, that was exactly the position of Eisenhower, to whom the peculiar policy of Roosevelt and Marshall actually granted Napoleon the authority.

                    The fate of tens of millions of people was decided by people who did not give a damn about what was happening.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    American war for sales did not see a competitor in the USSR

                    The United States was not afraid of competition; they fought for the abolition of trade barriers. The USSR and the British Empire in this sense differed as well as the US-Canadian border and the Berlin Wall.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    Uncle Truman screwed up, but the Union became the main enemy of the States through his fault.

                    Truman was forced to gradually return to reality.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    and the Union became the main enemy of the States through his fault.

                    Not by the request of the petitioners the tongue froze,
                    not beggars, squinting from the master's light, -
                    we rode around, inspecting with masterful eyes
                    the coming
                    World Federation of Soviets.
                    Chatting reeds of newspaper lines:
                    "Try them first ..."
                    Enough!
                    Do not you give the test period -
                    and we give a break for a while.


                    Comrade Mayakovsky simplifies, but in general, everything is correct. By the 45th year, there was not a single country left that would have a land border with the USSR in the 24th year, and which the USSR would not attack, or at least not make territorial claims against it.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    The Germans in North Africa complained that due to the actions of American artillery

                    OK, in the positional defense, American artillery immediately proved to be quite good. Americans were not greedy for shells.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    Amersky seemed no worse than Royal Navy

                    What is this about?
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    Air support - Amers had shoals even funnier

                    And this is what?
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    Heh, advancing from Egypt, because Amers took over part of the German and Italian forces

                    Yes and no. Rommel's forces in Libya were limited to logistics. Yes, the Americans created additional pressure on logistics; they also had to fight with them.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    So after Korea they got new tanks, not bad,

                    After Korea. When the fried cock pecked second time.
                  2. Krasnodar 24 May 2020 15: 19 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    1) No. The only piece of the potential market taken by the USSR was Czechoslovak and East German - unpleasant, but tolerable. Hungary, Poland, others were not interesting to them.
                    2) But she was
                    3) UN - yes, I agree. It's time to cover the desk. Ineffective two-faced demagogues.
                    4) And now who does not care about the Darfur genocide or the massacre in Rwanda? Everyone is interested in 30 of the two hundred Lebanese civilians (provided that the Israelis wet them) and the annexation of Crimea to Russia.
                    5) To a lesser extent. Americans have always been interested in dominance in sales markets, preferential duties, their absence - as one of the components of dominance or hegemony
                    6) To the edge of reality? The restoration is sweet and influential of the old European empires, an alliance with those forces whose influence the States wanted to limit?
                    7) And any war is 80% logistics, 10 - the current guard and surveillance service, and only 10% - active initiated hostilities. Plus, do not forget that it is necessary to cover the logistics with military troops, so the Americans there were not very useless
                    8) During Korea - during WWII, they just released Fireflies more
                  3. Octopus 24 May 2020 15: 46 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    No. The only piece of the potential market taken by the USSR was Czechoslovak and East German - unpleasant, but tolerable. Hungary, Poland, others were not interesting to them.

                    According to the results of the Second World War, the USSR received in whole or in part 12 countries in Europe with a population of approx. 100 million people. All these territories were excluded from international trade. In terms of volume, this market was comparable with Italian and West German. Before the war, as of the 39th year, these countries were quite a part of the market.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    But she was

                    Just in the case of Britain, conversations about fraternal suffocating hugs are quite appropriate.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    Now who doesn’t give a damn about the Darfur genocide or the massacre in Rwanda?

                    Nobody cares. Yes, and do not care about the Lebanese, do not deceive yourself.
                    And then what did Eisenhower forget in Europe?
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    Less. Americans have always been interested

                    They were not interested in introducing preferential duties, but in their abolition. Just in time for equal competition with anyone, America was ready, this is not the middle of the XIX century, when they fought for protectionism. They fought with each other.
                    So what are you talking about duties in the countries of people's democracies there? Were they equal for everyone?
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    an alliance with those forces whose influence the States wanted to limit?

                    A peaceful existence with the British Empire is more than possible. Peaceful coexistence with the USSR - no. It was a global jihadist project, a holy class war. As soon as he stopped expansion, he began to fall apart.

                    By the way. Anti-colonialism is by far the most monstrous of America's crimes. It cost the lives of tens of millions of people, lives of poverty and lack of rights - billions. Neither Hitler, nor even Stalin can compare in the amount of blood on their hands with Roosevelt. Of course, he was not the only one to blame - the burden of white was bursting at the seams - but he was the main bulldozer of the demolition of the colonial system.
                    Watch Guiana suffering from the French heel, cursing her slave share of the British Virgin Islands and happy, prosperous, free Somalia.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    And any war is 80% logistics, 10 - the current guard and surveillance service, and only 10%

                    This is yes.

                    But hardly Aiki, when he was torn in the 42nd to France, had in mind this way of victory.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    in WWII, they just released Svetlyachkov more

                    1. They did not have fireflies. This is an English tank. The Americans against Panther had the same Mr., as the T-34-76, only better done.
                    2. They did not have anything during Korea. The first normally made American tank - M48 - the 53rd year.
                  4. Krasnodar 24 May 2020 16: 03 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    1) Purchasing power was extremely low, until the 39th year. Collectively, possibly both Spanish and Portuguese. Probably.
                    2) But they helped in difficult times
                    3) Do not call on Lebanese if Israel kills from. If inside the Lebanese graters - 30 thousand driven in will not particularly shake anyone. In Western Europe - ensuring their own markets under the auspices of ensuring security for Europeans - and developed
                    4) That's it - the abolition of duties, as part of the struggle for markets. Once again - the countries of people's democracy except Czechoslovakia and the GDR were not particularly interested in them. As now not interested in this plan, Africa, Cambodia and Bangladesh
                    5) Ilf and Petrov wrote about peaceful coexistence with the USSR in their single-story America EMNIP - instead of a revolution, American workers buy cars
                    But Great Britain and France were still a splinter - competition, etc.
                    And about colonialism - an example of liberated Singapore - immediately Somalia
                    6) Aiki thought to make things easier for Russians - a decent person
                    7) Upgraded and used this Sherman shaving - I agree. But Amers successfully coped with feline interaction with aviation, etc.
                    8) Was Pershing - M-26
                  5. Octopus 24 May 2020 16: 43 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    Purchasing power was extremely low

                    The purchasing power in Germany and Italy in '45 was so-so. Normal European countries, no worse than Finland.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    But they helped in difficult times

                    Yes. But for the interest.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    ensuring their own markets under the auspices of ensuring security for Europeans - and developed

                    The development of Hungary and Austria was quite comparable. What are we arguing about?
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    As now not interested in this plan, Africa, Cambodia and Bangladesh

                    Just the abolition of trade barriers in the poor compared to even post-war Europe colonies they were more than interested.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    instead of revolution, american workers buy cars

                    It didn’t quite suit the USSR, you see. Because in a state of workers and peasants with cars for workers and peasants it was pretty sour from beginning to end. Once upon a time there was a thread here about Zaporozhets and Mustang.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    an example of liberated Singapore - immediately Somalia

                    Great example. Lee Kuan Yew rested his arms and legs, he was pushed out of the British Empire with a forged colonial boot in the ass. Unlike black kids, the Chinese understood very well how expensive the services they have as British citizens for free: the court and business law, a huge unified legal and economic space, defense and first-class higher education, professional administration and an independent press.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    Aiki thought to make things easier for Russians - decent man

                    A presumptuous boob. After the Germans drowned these Kansas warriors in blood, the USSR would have fought alone to the end. No one, besides the current lovers of the Soviet Empire, would be better off from this.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    But Amers successfully coped with feline interaction with aviation, etc.

                    They had no interaction with aviation. Aiki himself identified 9VA officers who understood the essence of interaction with the ground forces as a rare exception. Yes, they were able to quickly improve this component, but it was just an improvisation, and not the concept of an air-ground operation.

                    As for cats, artillery naturally fought with them.
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    Was Pershing - M-26

                    Pershing M26 - a tank of a special period, the American IS-2. Yes, in the 50th they grasped that it would be necessary to finish it, but then they spat and finally made the modern 53rd year a tank from scratch. Again in a wild rush and being late, however, to the war.
                  6. Krasnodar 24 May 2020 20: 59 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    It would be more interesting to argue with you in PM laughing
                    I will answer very briefly to finish in this thread:
                    1) Italy and Germany on the 45th possessed industrial potential
                    2) Mogshi help Germans for interest
                    3) No, Austria was developed
                    4) The removal of trade barriers as part of the market access war
                    5) Did not suit
                    6) No, they were offended by Britain because of the lack of proper protection in WWII. Insisted on leaving the 50s.
                    7) Was in the 44th, worked best at the end of the Arden offensive
                    7) Pershing worked in Korea
                    8) I agree about the fiasco of the Second Front until 1944
                2. Alexey RA 25 May 2020 09: 24 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Krasnodar
                  7) Upgraded and used this Sherman shaving - I agree. But Amers successfully coped with feline interaction with aviation, etc.

                  “Successfully coped” with tankers usually looked like this: boom minus “Sherman”, boom minus “Sherman” ... after two or three wrecked “Sherman”, the self-propelled guns interacting with them track the German’s position and knock him out. On the next German, the cycle repeats.
                3. Krasnodar 25 May 2020 09: 29 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Or like this
                  Do you know this joke?
                  Stalin at a rehearsal of a play about the Civil War
                  Calls the theater director
                  “Tell me, why does this white officer have a mustache that looks suspiciously like mine?”
                  - Excuse me, comrade Stalin ..
                  - Come on ... shoot the actor, shoot the director ... theater director .., are you a director?
                  - Or maybe just shave off the mustache for the actor?
                  - Or like this!
                4. Octopus 25 May 2020 10: 20 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  “Successfully coped” with tankers usually looked like this: boom minus “Sherman”, boom minus “Sherman” ... after two or three wrecked “Sherman”, the self-propelled guns interacting with them track the German’s position and knock him out. On the next German, the cycle repeats.

                  It is easy to notice that your description of the battle with the materiel is connected in some way. The Allied anti-tank defense, as elsewhere, was built on infantry anti-tank infantry (much more adequate than in the east) and massive howitzer fire, cutting off infantry from tanks (again, on a much larger scale than in the east). Accordingly, the main problem of the tankers is the timely detection of the enemy (like the German side in the east), especially in the tank ambush situation that you described. Here the infantry helped secondly and aviation firstly. It was in the reconnaissance that aviation primarily helped, and not in the storming of tigers by the NURSami.

                  As for self-propelled guns, their guns are the same as those of tankers.
                5. Alexey RA 25 May 2020 10: 43 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Octopus
                  As for self-propelled guns, their guns are the same as those of tankers.

                  Ahem ... when the Shermans fled from a 75 mm anti-aircraft gun, they mounted a 76 mm anti-aircraft gun on a tank destroyer. When the Sherman was allowed to put the 76 mm, anti-tankers got a 90 mm.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Accordingly, the main problem of the tankers is the timely detection of the enemy (like the German side in the east), especially in the tank ambush situation that you described.

                  The ambush was also that even if the tankers discovered the enemy, only anti-tankers could hit him. Typical case: “Shermans” attack and stumble upon “Panther”. "Shermans" are firing at her - to no avail. After the Germans knocked out two “Sherman” to the Yankees, a 90-mm tank destroyer finally crawled to the rescue and knocked out the “Panther”.
                6. Octopus 25 May 2020 11: 16 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Ahem ... when the Shermans fled from a 75 mm anti-aircraft gun, they mounted a 76 mm anti-aircraft gun on a tank destroyer. When the Sherman was allowed to put the 76 mm, anti-tankers got a 90 mm.

                  Comrade Erinburg simplifies.

                  First, the conversation began with Firefly. The British set fireflies as a means of reinforcing fire companies, and by day D they had more or less mastered this matter. English self-propelled guns have the same gun.

                  Secondly, the production of 76mm Sherman began in January, in May he became the main model in production. Jackson appeared in April of the 44th, but in homeopathic doses (well, like, by American homeopathic standards, one or two OGvTTP per week on the Soviet account). So far, production (more precisely, alteration) has not been stopped in September of the 44th, because nobody cares about it (by this time the army has already been known for two months that 90mm is the only working equipment, but it’s not to inform the industry about this hands reached). By this time, most of the tanks entering Europe were 76mm. But the Wolverines (and the Hellkets) were still the main carriers of 76mm guns.

                  Thirdly, the main thing.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  self-propelled guns interacting with them detect the position of the German and knock him out.

                  They did not interact.

                  Self-propelled gunners are artillery organizationally subordinate infantry. In tank division no self-propelled guns except howitzers. Therefore, on the one hand, when tanks stumble upon German tanks, there is nothing to pierce them, and on the other hand, when infantry enters the city (Holzvir) they have no tanks, but there are self-propelled guns (M10) with defective land mines and without a roof (or even without reservation if it is M18). And Odie Murphy.

                  Here again, Marshall's headquarters talents manifested themselves, first of all. Well, Eisenhower well done, as usual.
  • Doctor 24 May 2020 10: 51 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    After which it dawned on the American leadership that the Lendlizovskiy lever with respect to the USSR did not work

    What lever is there ... As soon as it was determined that the United States our allies flew telegrams right away, you need it, you need it ... In a week.

    TELEGRAM OF THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR V.M. MOLOTOV TO THE AMBASSADOR OF THE USSR TO THE USA K.A. UMANSKY
    29th of June 1941
    You should now go to Roosevelt or Hell (Wells) and ask him about the possibility of assisting the Soviet Union with the following supplies:
    I) single-engine fighter aircraft - 3 thousand,
    2) bomber planes - 3 thousand,
    3) machine tools, presses and hammers for aircraft factories - for $ 30 million,
    4) anti-aircraft guns from 25 to 47 millimeters - 20 thousand pieces with ammunition,
    5) cracking and other plants for the production of high-octane autofuel and plants for the production of aircraft mass,
    6) toluene - 50 thousand,
    7) equipment for toluene production plants, 8) equipment for a tire factory, 9) equipment for a light alloy rolling mill. It is advisable that a loan of five years be provided for these goods. Wire the results.
    V.Molotov
    1. Operator 24 May 2020 11: 01 New
      • 1
      • 6
      -5
      Soviet Wishlist and American politics until December 1941, when the United States pecked at a fried rooster - two completely different things.
      1. Doctor 24 May 2020 11: 12 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Soviet Wishlist and American politics until December 1941, when the United States pecked at a fried rooster - two completely different things.

        Nothing like this. It took 4 days for the Americans to decide.

        FROM THE TELEGRAM OF THE AMBASSADOR OF THE USSR TO THE USA K.A. UMANSKIY TO THE PEOPLE
        COMMISSARIAT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR
        26th of June 1941
        Today, June 26, in the evening was with Welles. For a month now, he has been acting Secretary of State due to Hell's illness.
        Before I could even make my message, Welles said that the American government expresses its regret to the Soviet Union about the "predatory, cowardly and treacherous attack of Nazi Germany on the USSR." After that, I asked Welles to formally formulate the attitude of the American government to this attack, to the USSR, to the future of Soviet-American
        relations.
        Wells answered me the following: "The American government considers the USSR a victim of unprovoked, unjustified aggression. The American government further believes that the rebuff to this aggression, which is now being given by the people and the army of the USSR, is not only dictated, in the words of Mr. Molotov, by the struggle for the honor and freedom of the USSR, but is consistent with the historical interests of the United States of America. Therefore, in accordance with the statements already made by the president, the American government assures the Soviet government that it is ready to provide all possible support to this struggle to the extent determined by the manufacturing capabilities of the United States and its most urgent needs.
        The US government has already proved its resolve to pursue this line in two acts: the abolition of the blocking of Soviet financial operations and, more importantly, the decision not to apply to the USSR the restrictions prescribed by the neutrality act.
        The American government now can not say anything exactly about the types and amount of assistance, until the Soviet government specifically stated its wishes. The sooner and more accurately the Soviet government declares this, the better, because much work remains to be done to coordinate these needs with the Anglo-American program.
        However now "the American government can assure the Soviet government that all applications will be considered by the American government immediately and in a friendly manner."[...]
        K. Umansky
        1. Operator 24 May 2020 11: 26 New
          • 1
          • 6
          -5
          Remove the noodles (cartouche statements by the U.S. Department of State) from your ears and remember when the lend-lease deliveries began - exactly the same according to Truman's doctrine of June 24, 1941.
          1. Doctor 24 May 2020 11: 39 New
            • 7
            • 3
            +4
            Remove the noodles (cartouche statements by the U.S. Department of State) from your ears and remember when the lend-lease deliveries began - exactly the same according to Truman's doctrine of June 24, 1941.

            Understand you are a simple thing. In that war, our fate was decided.
            And we were very lucky that the Americans and the British were on our side.
            They did not have to do this, because for them there is no difference between Nazism and communism.

            Churchill could sign an honorary surrender and then, even without a second front, those half a million German soldiers in 1941 would have moved from the Western Front to Moscow. How it would end is understandable.

            But they were smart enough to understand that Hitler would follow them after us.
            1. Operator 24 May 2020 11: 55 New
              • 1
              • 6
              -5
              There was nothing luck - the USSR in 1939-41 implemented an effective foreign policy aimed at the collapse of the united front against the USSR (pitted Poland, Britain and France with Hitler, neutralized Japan and survived alone under the onslaught of Germany before entering the US war on our side, including due to the secret lobbying of the war between the USA and Japan (see operation "Snow" of the NKGB of the USSR).

              After the victory over the USSR, the two German states of the British Empire and the Third Reich planned to unite, so none of them wanted to defeat anyone.
            2. Doctor 24 May 2020 12: 11 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              USSR in 1939-41 implemented an effective foreign policy

              You do not listen to the Stalinist historians, look at the facts - the result of this "effective".
              We got a war that nearly killed us, and threw us back 50 years.
            3. Operator 24 May 2020 12: 25 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Actually WWII was a continuation of WWII, so we didn’t get anything.

              Two geopolitical rivals of Russia (the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires) were exterminated in the WWII, and four more in the WWII (the Third Reich, the Japanese and British Empires, and the French colonial system). The trend however.

              As for the rejection for 50 years, I did not understand - recall who is now the leader in the nuclear and missile spheres.
            4. Doctor 24 May 2020 12: 49 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Two geopolitical rivals of Russia (the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires) were exterminated in the WWII, and four more in the WWII (the Third Reich, the Japanese and British Empires, and the French colonial system). The trend however.

              That is, again, a cunning plan, it was conceived, first by Nicholas then Joseph? laughing
              As for the rejection for 50 years, I did not understand - recall who is now the leader in the nuclear and missile spheres.

              Imagine - "if there were no war."
            5. Operator 24 May 2020 13: 06 New
              • 4
              • 3
              +1
              You cannot come to terms with the simple fact of life - no one has ever been and is not enthusiastic about the development of 6/7 of the land called RI / USSR / RF.

              The German empire unleashed a war with RI in 1914 precisely because later Russia would have become uniquely stronger than Germany, and the Third Reich attacked the USSR precisely in 1941, because according to forecasts in 1942, the Soviet Union would be mobilized in every sense.

              If no one has attacked us for 75 years now, this only means that in our development we were ahead of everyone and deprived of any sense in waging a war against us. And not what you think - if we developed quietly and silently, no one would care about us.

              PS I understood this sharply when I read the memoirs of Russian re-emigrants from shabby Argentina - as part of the school geography course there was a world map on the wall with browned paint 1/6 of the land without a name, in which the Argentine teacher viciously poked a pointer and inspired schoolchildren to "justice" will dispose of its territory. So we were and remain a thorn in the eye of the rest of humanity. In this connection, we need to have the opportunity to “burn out the eyes” of all the losers in historical development, which we (possession of the opportunity) are doing, thank God.
            6. Doctor 24 May 2020 13: 48 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              You cannot come to terms with the simple fact of life - no one has ever been and is not enthusiastic about the development of 6/7 of the land called RI / USSR / RF.

              Why put up with it - I completely agree with your post.
              Our sizes are our problems. There, after all, they argue: Russians have the largest country in the world, and everyone will not calm down, continue to annex territories.
              You have to be trickier.

              Canada and Mexico are sleeping and see joining the United States, but they have long understood - it’s not necessary to unite on the map, it’s enough to control the governments of the countries you need, and swing, swing.
              And in the case of stocks, people will go to overthrow puppets.

              In Ukraine, who is blamed for all troubles? Russia and its rulers.
              And the USA overseas, white and fluffy. tongue
            7. Operator 24 May 2020 14: 23 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              I don’t know anything about Canada (but I doubt that Canadians are eager to fraternize with African Americans), but Mexico is sleeping and sees California, Texas and the other border states between them annexed by the United States in the mid-19th century.

              Moreover, the creeping Mexican reconquista is successfully carried out - in the form of mass emigration of Latinos. In Florida, for example, already 25 years ago, all signs, street names, etc. were in two languages ​​- above in Spanish, below in English.
            8. Octopus 24 May 2020 14: 33 New
              • 6
              • 1
              +5
              Quote: Operator
              but Mexico is sleeping and sees California, Texas and the rest of the border states between them annexed by the USA

              )))
              One California in economics - three in Mexico. If cocaine is served instead of salt to tequila, it won’t end in good.
            9. ccsr 24 May 2020 16: 56 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Octopus
              One California in economics - three in Mexico.

              The issue is not in the economy, but in the ethnic factor and who will then control the power in the same Southern California.
              Quote: Octopus
              If cocaine is served instead of salt to tequila, it won’t end in good.

              Let the Americans care, especially since they know very well how he gets to the USA:
              Colombians began to use submarines to transport cocaine back in the nineties, but the US Coast Guard first managed to capture such a submarine only in 2006.

            10. Octopus 24 May 2020 17: 56 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              Quote: ccsr
              and in the ethnic factor and who then will control the power in the same Southern California.

              Some kind of strange question. Southern California (more precisely, Southern Baja California) is the state of Mexico.
              Quote: ccsr
              Let it concern Americans

              Americans who sleep there and see about their native harbor do not care for a minute.
            11. ccsr 25 May 2020 10: 19 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Octopus
              Some kind of strange question. Southern California (more precisely, Southern Baja California) is the state of Mexico.

              I don’t know if you saw the movie “Killer” or “Killer-2”, but even if we assume that much is exaggerated there (which I strongly doubt), the authorities in Mexico are simply not able to control what is happening in the border areas with the USA. All this will come out to the Americans sideways, if only because the US border states themselves have become a breeding ground for banditry, with which the regular army has to fight.
              Quote: Octopus
              Americans who sleep there and see about their native harbor do not care for a minute.

              I do not believe. What do you think they don’t understand how dangerous the level of organized crime is, not only for the authorities, but also for themselves in the domestic sphere. They are not so illiterate as it might seem to someone.
            12. Svidetel 45 26 May 2020 23: 33 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              It’s not yours, it’s even as it worries, what wall on the border with Mexico did Trump ward off.
        2. Svidetel 45 26 May 2020 23: 30 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          It is utter nonsense that California produces more bread, oil, and other material values ​​than all of Mexico, California’s main product is the film industry, a service sector that you can live without, they roll zeros behind the dollar sign, and like you prostrate themselves in front of these zeroes like a savage in front of a wooden idol.
  • Octopus 24 May 2020 12: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Arzt
    Today, June 26, in the evening was with Welles. For a month now, he has been acting Secretary of State due to Hell's illness.

    The State Department and especially Wallace are far more pro-Soviet comrades than Congress. The latter is almost the main friend of the USSR in the late 40s. Still, Roosevelt needed a little more time to enter the USSR in the defenders of democracy against the background of all the activities of the USSR 1939-1940.
  • Nikolai Miracles 24 May 2020 11: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    the defeat of the Germans near Stalingrad in the conditions of the freezing of land-supply supplies through Murmansk.

    49% of Lend-Lease in the USSR came through Vladivostok, more than 20% through Iran.
  • Doctor 24 May 2020 10: 25 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Churchill was answered by US Senator Harry Truman on June 24, 1941 in an interview with the New York Times:
    "If we see that Germany wins, then we should help Russia, and if Russia will win, we should help Germany, and so let them kill as much as possible."

    When Stalin made the biggest mistake of all time during his reign — he signed a pact with Hitler, the West began to perceive us as allies in the fight against them. So it was.
    Therefore, it is absolutely natural that some circles in the United States so perceived the situation.
    But precisely some. In the States, democracy is known. wink

    FROM THE TELEGRAM OF THE AMBASSADOR OF THE USSR TO THE USA K.A. UMANSKIY TO THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIAT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR
    22th of June 1941
    Literally all of America lives only on the German attack on us. However, the picture of the first reaction is significantly more mottled than in Anglin:
    1. Among the broad working people and petty-bourgeois public, set up mainly in isolationist, but sincerely anti-fascist, is a clear rise in our popularity, which over the past 18 hours has had dozens of examples in the form of friendly appeals to the embassy, ​​including several requests for admission by volunteers to the Red Army.
    2. The reactionary isolationists Hoover, Lindbergh, and the entire anti-Roosevelt fascist group immediately showed their face, for example, Wheeler's statement that the Soviet-German war should be rejoiced, and there was nothing to help communism. This group of Republicans and individual Democrats plus a group of our professional enemies such as Bullitt-Burley plus the Catholic hierarchy have already begun, judging by a number of signs, to exert pressure on Roosevelt and are furious with Churchill's speech.
    3. The relatively progressive wing of the American government (Ikea, Morgenthau, Hopkins) has taken the line that is favorable to us - the spread on us of the law on the supply of weapons on loan and for rent, in fact allied relations in the spirit of Churchill's statement.
    4. Roosevelt, the government camp as a whole, and the Roosevelt majority in Congress today took a silent, expectant position on the German attack on us., which will probably be clarified tomorrow ...
    The prospect of a German victory is unacceptable to him, for it threatens England and ultimately the plans of the United States, while the prospect of our "too" crushing victory and influence on the whole of Europe frightens him from a class perspective.
    All Roosevelt and his politics now consist of zigzags between these contradictions.
    1. Thunderbolt 24 May 2020 10: 30 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Arzt
      we have dozens of examples in the form of friendly appeals to the embassy, ​​including a number of requests for volunteers to join the Red Army.

      She's so young ..... her sweat-top, then gave frolic in Oceania
    2. Operator 24 May 2020 10: 53 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      What does the US perception of the USSR have to do with it on August 23, 1939 and June 24, 1941?

      Or do you think that the refusal of Britain and France to start hostilities against Germany in September 1939 was their approval of the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty, and those who disagreed with the United States landed marines in Danzig to support the Poles? laughing

      Once again, this is not about the American isolationists, but about those who want to kill as many Russians and Germans as possible by supplying American weapons to the losing side (and not some kind of struggle for democracy).
      1. Doctor 24 May 2020 11: 00 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        but about those who want to kill as many Russians and Germans as possible by supplying American weapons to the losing side (and not some kind of struggle for democracy there).

        Do you think it was the KhPR (Roosevelt Tricky Plan)? laughing
        It was only a week later that we began to bombard them with telegrams about what we needed.
        Read my post above.
        1. Operator 24 May 2020 11: 03 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          Yes - that was Roosevelt-Truman's plan until December 7, 1941.
          1. Doctor 24 May 2020 11: 17 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Yes - that was Roosevelt-Truman's plan until December 7, 1941.

            Let us suppose. And what has changed on December 7? Did communism disappear?
            Then tell me from what time the United States began deliveries under the Lend-Lease Hitler?
            Since 1944? Or since 1945? laughing
            It doesn’t matter that there are some politicians chatting, listen to our Zhirik, so the hair will stand on end.
            MATTERS CASE.
            The Americans were with us until the end of the war, this is a fact.
            1. Operator 24 May 2020 11: 30 New
              • 1
              • 4
              -3
              The United States in June 1941, with the help of Truman, announced their readiness to supply the USSR and Germany equally, but in December Japan began military operations, and Germany declared war on them - had to change shoes in the air.
              1. Octopus 24 May 2020 12: 19 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Quote: Operator
                USA in June 1941 with the help of Truman

                And who is Truman? And why does he say this in a newspaper, and not, for example, in Berlin?

                Sit slowly, discuss the details?
      2. Doctor 24 May 2020 11: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        What does the US perception of the USSR have to do with it on August 23, 1939 and June 24, 1941?

        How does this come about? This is the key point! Immediately determine who could count on and who not. Molotov immediately did just that.
        After the pact, there were generally great doubts that the West would want to help us.
      3. Octopus 24 May 2020 12: 18 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: Operator
        by supplying American arms to the losing side (and not some kind of struggle for democracy there).

        You will not believe it, but the existence of both the Reich and the USSR, with democracy did not combine.

        Roosevelt had a different opinion on this matter. Roosevelt, as you know, was wrong.
        1. Svidetel 45 26 May 2020 23: 44 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Still believe in fairy tales about democracy, how old are you?
          1. Octopus 27 May 2020 01: 03 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Svidetel 45
            Still believe in fairy tales about democracy, how old are you?

            Quote: Svidetel 45
            It’s utter nonsense that California produces more bread, oil, and other material values ​​than all of Mexico, California’s main product is the film industry, the service sector,

            Your ideas about the economy are approximately equal to your ideas about politics. It is unlikely that I will be able to explain something to you.
    3. Octopus 24 May 2020 12: 16 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Arzt
      All Roosevelt and his politics now consist of zigzags between these contradictions.

      )))
      So it was.

      If you remove the labels, the Soviet side understood American politics much better than the American side - the Soviet one. However, this is not surprising.
  • Octopus 24 May 2020 12: 09 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: Operator
    Churchill was answered by US Senator Harry Truman on June 24, 1941 in an interview with the New York Times:

    First, with what joy can an American senator answer for the British prime minister? The Truman Committee in the Senate is a control and audit commission; it has nothing to do with foreign policy.
    Secondly, Truman did not belong to the American leadership. This is the American Navalny, he made a name in the fight against saw-roll schemes, which bloomed under Roosevelt in magnificent colors. In the 44th he was imposed on the heavily awakened Roosevelt, who, with his left bias, ceased to suit too many, just in the role of a nail in his boot.
    Thirdly, you, as usual, do not value a good attitude towards yourself. The very idea that helping Russia generally can be provided, was much more pro-Soviet than the average for the hospital in those years. Republicans, in particular, considered such activity an open betrayal.

    Well, in the fourth you, as usual, cheat.
    Quote: Operator
    Roosevelt did exactly what Truman proposed: he began to help the USSR ... in November 1941

    Roosevelt representative Hopkins meets with Stalin in July. At the end of September, the First Moscow Conference is held, following which the parties, including the United States, are committing to supply this to the USSR. Your claims that the weapons from Detroit did not reach Moscow right away, “Ruslans,” are an empty sketch.
  • Svidetel 45 26 May 2020 23: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And at the same time they helped Germany by quiet glanders, supplying oil, components for automobiles, supplying raw materials from the British colonies for the needs of the Wehrmacht, though through third countries and private firms.
  • vladcub 24 May 2020 14: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    demurg, in that of Churchill, 22.06.1941/1941/XNUMX: "we offered the government of Soviet Russia any technical and economic assistance," there is nothing surprising: Churchill knew that Hitler would deal with Britain after the USSR. Read Churchill's "war memoirs," how many full-fledged tanks did they have then? Apparently, out of boredom, he wanted to equip the militia with museum halberds? And so the longer Hitler is occupied on the Eastern Front, the better England. In June-July XNUMX, the Soviet Union was in dire need of ANY HELP. So that everything was “garlic”
  • svp67 24 May 2020 06: 09 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Churchill should, no, on June 22, just had to put the thickest candle for the fact that Hitler decided to start a war on two fronts and that for now you can unpack the suitcases that were already ready to move to the United States into "exile".
    That on June 24, Stalin gave the order, through intermediaries to find out the reasons for Hitler’s actions - I believe, as this is normal practice, but that he was already ready to make such concessions then - I don’t believe it. It was not he, not our General Staff who at that moment still did not understand the depths of the catastrophe that befell our army and country, there was still confidence that the enemy could be stopped at the old border, and here so many territories should be surrendered ... I did not believe. I remember that I read at Pikul that in the most difficult days of the Battle of Stalingrad, Stalin simply demanded that they go to Hitler through Bulgaria and agree to all his conditions and not believe it anymore, this is more like an attempt to denigrate Stalin.
    1. Krasnodar 24 May 2020 10: 15 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      So on June 22, Churchill told his entourage - gentlemen, Hitler began to Russia - we will win the war
      1. Thunderbolt 24 May 2020 10: 35 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: svp67
        I remember that at Pikul I read that in the most difficult days of the Battle of Stalingrad, Stalin simply demanded that they go to Hitler through Bulgaria and agree to all his conditions and not believe it anymore, this is more like an attempt to denigrate Stalin.
        Reply

        There is also a good covenant not to read these most glorious newspapers. Pikulya in the same firebox. The historian is the same.
  • demiurg 24 May 2020 06: 15 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    If Stalin was ready to give up the Baltic states, Ukraine and Belarus, then this would be minus 40 percent of industrial production and 20-25 percent of the population of the USSR.
    Doesn’t resemble anything, Czechoslovakia is 38 years old for example? Well, why write such nonsense? Did Stalin not see this section?
    Please return the cons to the evaluation of articles.
  • Uncle lee 24 May 2020 06: 41 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    about the positions of Iran and Turkey
    That Turkey sat on the fence and looked where to jump - I knew ... But about the Iranian readiness to attack, I read for the first time ...
    1. Nikolai Miracles 24 May 2020 07: 38 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      In May-June 1941, Iraq fought on the side of Hitler with the help of Italian and German air groups, receiving weapons and ammunition through Syria, which was then controlled by Vichy France.
      https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5c2bb5cbea039800abdc8fd6/kak-irak-za-gitlera-voeval-5e4f6f55fd27690308677e2c
      ещё: https://zen.yandex.ru/media/xtorik/sudba-vtoroi-mirovoi-byla-reshena-v-irake-5b2c9df9ddd64b00a87ba9db
    2. Doctor 24 May 2020 10: 35 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      That Turkey was sitting on the fence and looking where to jump - I knew ..

      They immediately declared neutrality.

      RECORD TALK OF THE FIRST DEPUTY PEOPLE'S COMMISSIONER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR A.YA. VYSHINSKY WITH THE AMBASSADOR OF TURKEY TO THE USSR A.AKTAY
      26th of June 1941
      Secretly
      .
      At the same time, Comrade Molotov raised the question of the nature of neutrality that Turkey can adhere to.
      The ambassador received instructions from his government to respond to the Soviet government that Turkey will adhere to strict and absolute neutrality. The ambassador emphasized that this message is completely official and he makes it on behalf of his government.
      To my subsequent question about what exactly should be understood as absolute neutrality, Aktay explained that absolute neutrality means that Turkey will strive to establish absolutely the same relationship with both warring parties.
      1. Octopus 24 May 2020 12: 24 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Arzt
        They immediately declared neutrality.

        The Soviet Union understood the word "neutrality" very conditionally. Look at Japan. Neutrality by neutrality, and keep the powder dry.

        In general, this is a reasonable position.
    3. Doctor 24 May 2020 11: 50 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      But about the Iranian readiness to attack, I read for the first time ...

      There was no such thing. On the contrary, deliveries went through them. Despite the neutrality. wink

      RECORD TALK OF THE AMBASSADOR OF THE USSR IN IRAN A.A.SMIRNOV WITH THE PRIME MINISTER OF IRAN A. MANSUR
      30th of June 1941
      Secretly
      On June 30, two hours after arriving in Tehran, I asked Prime Minister Mansour for a reception.
      Mansour received me very kindly. After a mutual exchange of greetings, I told Mansour that the statement by the Iranian government on maintaining complete neutrality was accepted with great satisfaction in the USSR. To this, Mansour replied that For many years, the Iranian government has always sought to maintain friendly relations with the Soviet Union.

      I then presented to Mansur the text of the statement of the Soviet government on expanding trade with Iran and on the transit of our goods through Iran. Mansur, expressing gratitude for the readiness of the Soviet government to expand trade, said that this fully meets the wishes of the Iranian government. For his part, Mansour said, the Iranian government will give relevant instructions to the ministries to pay special attention to the issue of expanding trade with the USSR.

      I asked Mansour what goods transit he considers dangerous for Iran’s neutrality. Mansour said that only weapons. To my remark that we intend to import raw materials and various industrial products and machines, Mansur replied: “All you want except weaponsand as regards raw materials, you have been transporting them all the time. ”

      At the end of the conversation, I expressed the hope that in my work I will meet with his support and assistance. Mansour replied that he was always at my disposal.
      USSR Ambassador to Iran
      Smirnov
      1. Svidetel 45 26 May 2020 23: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, yes, there were supplies when Iran was occupied by Soviet and British troops.
  • KVU-NSVD 24 May 2020 07: 23 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Described in the article may be true, i.e. Stalin sought peace. Maybe half-truth - Beria covered himself with it and acted through Sudoplatov himself. It may be a lie from the very beginning - after the arrest of Beria, Khrushchev created indestructible trump cards (at that time there was enough experience and performers in the security services, and fabricating the most ridiculous accusations did not bother anyone) to denigrate Stalin and cover his own ass, respectively. All of the above in the article, in principle, fits into all three versions. If this was the case, additional documents are needed, moreover, documents from the time of these negotiations, and not testimonies and memos of later times. The article did not convince me one iota.
    1. Avior 24 May 2020 07: 40 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      After all, Sudoplatov was not shot along with Beria, he served 15 years, was released, rehabilitated in the early 90s and died in 1996.
      An episode about negotiations with the ambassador is in his memoirs, although in an amended form, primarily by date.
      There are indications on this score and the ambassador himself.
      It was unlikely that documents were being negotiated then, all unofficially, after all, Sudoplatova had previously been presented to the ambassador as secretary of Beria, but under a different name. This, in fact, is difficult to call negotiations, just a sounding of opportunities.
      1. KVU-NSVD 24 May 2020 07: 58 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In general, I agree - questions and desires to receive answers on the principle - "you drove and what they needed * could not have been. This is human psychology. It is another matter how these questions were posed and what specifically. It was unlikely that there were concrete proposals and an ambassador they kept on a leash only in order not to raise this topic even by accident.
        1. Avior 24 May 2020 08: 01 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          The topic calmed down by itself - the Germans did not react in any way.
          1. KVU-NSVD 24 May 2020 08: 06 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Avior
            The topic calmed down by itself - the Germans did not react in any way.

            It is a matter of the degree of spreading and pedaling of knowledge about the undercurrents of the times of war - a lot of unseemly (albeit insignificant in general) facts always cast a shadow on the main facts (same spoons and barrels)
            1. Avior 24 May 2020 08: 14 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              It will be possible to say exactly if documents of the time of the highest level are opened without cuts — minutes of meetings at the very top, correspondence of senior management.
              But far from that.
              So far, even part of the information about the awards of the times of war has been kept secret, let alone documents of this level.
              But on the other hand, giving Beria a command on this could be a personal decision, not discussed with anyone.
              1. KVU-NSVD 24 May 2020 08: 17 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Oh, and it won’t be soon. There are not generations, centuries are needed here, so that such knowledge becomes insignificant. Like for example the secret movement at the Vienna Congress .. Now it is read as a detective story, and at the beginning of the last century, hands would have been burned from such documents
                1. Doctor 24 May 2020 11: 21 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Oh, and it won’t be soon.

                  Already. And how long.
                  http://dvp.sssr.su/

                  Now read like a detective

                  Exactly.
              2. Doctor 24 May 2020 11: 20 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                It will be possible to say exactly if documents of the time of the highest level are opened without cuts — minutes of meetings at the very top, correspondence of senior management.

                Yes, everything is open for a long time.
                http://dvp.sssr.su/
                1. Avior 24 May 2020 11: 52 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  wrong documents.
                  You have a link to public documents that no one has secreted.
                  These are actually newspaper clippings.
                  Interesting, but you will not find anything new there.
                  if they open documents of that time at the highest level without notes, minutes of meetings at the very top
                  1. Doctor 24 May 2020 11: 56 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    wrong documents.
                    You have a link to public documents that no one has secreted.
                    These are actually newspaper clippings.
                    Interesting, but you will not find anything new there.

                    Are you kidding me? There are 90% with vultures.
                    1. Avior 24 May 2020 12: 11 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      depending on what years of publication.
                      and documents are separate, not the entire volume without cuts.
                      And these are not the protocols of the Politburo, on which fundamental decisions were really taken, or the internal correspondence between the top leadership.
                2. Octopus 24 May 2020 12: 26 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Arzt
                  http://dvp.sssr.su/

                  )))
                  This is propaganda, not history. Although yes, there is a lot of interesting things that contemporaries did not perceive with a blinded eye as a sensation.
                  1. Doctor 24 May 2020 12: 31 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    This is propaganda, not history.

                    Why? Just a list of documents, no ratings. Everything is objective, type - read decide for yourself.
                    1. Octopus 24 May 2020 13: 06 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Quote: Arzt
                      Everything is objective

                      Everything except the selection.

                      "State Publishing House of Political Literature, Moscow, 1959." Yes, they understood well about objectivity.
                      1. Doctor 24 May 2020 13: 16 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        "State Publishing House of Political Literature, Moscow, 1959." Yes, they understood well about objectivity.

                        True, everything up to volume XXI inclusive can not even be read.
                        But with the XXII volume (from January 1, 1939) - a completely different matter.
    2. Deniska999 24 May 2020 09: 13 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      By the way, there are assumptions about the negotiations in 1942 in Mtsensk, as well as in 1943 in Kirovograd.
    3. ccsr 24 May 2020 11: 35 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      Described in the article may be true, i.e. Stalin sought peace. Maybe half-truth - Beria covered himself with it and acted through Sudoplatov himself.

      This is not the case, but the fact that he gave evidence of the Sudoplatov after the removal of Beria, i.e. then when he already had a "loop on his neck" ie 07.08.1953/1941/XNUMX. Therefore, to believe what he stated in the explanatory note, testifying against Beria, is at least naive, especially considering that such events would have necessarily been recorded even at the time of the talks. That is why there is no evidence of these conversations with the Bulgarian ambassador dated XNUMX, the question is certainly interesting ....
      The only source of information on this subject is Pavel Sudoplatov - in June 1941 the deputy head of the 1st intelligence department of the NKGB of the USSR, which in the 1990s was transformed from the First Main Directorate of the KGB of the USSR to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service. There are no confirmations from other sources, as far as I know.

      From the explanatory note P.A. Sudoplatov to the Council of Ministers of the USSR
      07.08.1953/XNUMX/XNUMX Top Secret
      I report on the following fact known to me.
      A few days after the treacherous attack of fascist Germany on the USSR, about the number of June 25–27, 1941, I was called into the office of the then People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR Beria.
      Beria told me that there is a decision of the Soviet government, according to which it is necessary to find out informally on what conditions Germany will agree to end the war against the USSR and suspend the advance of the Nazi forces. Beria explained to me that this decision of the Soviet government was intended to create conditions allowing the Soviet government to maneuver and gain time to gather strength. In this regard, Beria ordered me to meet with the Bulgarian ambassador to the USSR, Stamenov, who, according to the NKVD of the USSR, had connections with the Germans and was well known to them. [...]
      Beria ordered me to raise four questions in an interview with Stamenov. Beria listed these questions, looking in his notebook, and they boiled down to the following:
      Why did Germany, in violation of the nonaggression pact, start a war against the USSR;
      What would suit Germany, on what conditions would Germany agree to end the war, what is needed to end the war;
      Will the Germans be happy with the transfer of such Soviet lands as the Baltic states, Ukraine, Bessarabia, Bukovina, the Karelian Isthmus to Germany?
      If not, what territories does Germany additionally claim?
      Beria ordered me not to speak with Stamenov on behalf of the Soviet government, but to raise these questions in the course of the conversation on the current military and political situation and to find out Stamenov’s opinion on the merits of these four issues.
      Beria said that the meaning of my conversation with Stamenov is for Stamenov to remember these four questions well. At the same time, Beria expressed confidence that Stamenov himself would bring these issues to the attention of Germany.

      https://yandex.ru/q/question/pravda_li_chto_stalin_v_1941_godu_byl_i_v_dd4e8cf5/
      Where is the decision of the Government referred to by Beria, and why only he knew about it? In general, it is hardly possible to believe that Sudoplatov, holding a similar post already at that time did not understand that he needed to somehow document his communication with the Bulgarian ambassador, so that he would not be made extreme and put to the wall later on - I’m sure of that.
      1. Avior 24 May 2020 12: 26 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Where is the decision of the Government referred to by Beria

        Well, you ask the question smile
        And what are all these solutions in the public domain without cuts?
        1. ccsr 24 May 2020 13: 35 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Avior
          And what are all these solutions in the public domain without cuts?

          Khrushchev would have certainly declassified him in order to discredit Stalin, so if it had been, it would have surfaced a long time ago. Yes, and if there was a government decision, then it must be "closed" documented, which means that traces in the logs of the performers would have remained, even if the document itself had been destroyed. Soviet office work at that time was at its best - just look at even the documents of the lowest level, and it immediately becomes clear that the records were kept.
          1. Avior 24 May 2020 14: 40 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            It was a blow not only to Stalin, but also to the USSR.
            In the case of Beria, this also did not matter; everything was clear with Beria.
            As for the fact that the meeting was a fiction, the ambassador died only in 1976, Sudoplatov in general in 1996, there was enough time to refute it.
            1. ccsr 24 May 2020 16: 45 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Avior
              As for meeting fiction,

              The meeting could be - just discussed there, if it is not documented (which is nonsense in itself), we can only guess. That is why it is certainly possible to believe what Sudoplatov said in 1953, but for some reason this is not confirmed by anything, and accordingly suggests "was there a boy."
  • Fedorovich 24 May 2020 08: 16 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Given that Sudoplatov had every reason to drown Beria with all his might, I would not trust this note, even if it was real - but I still doubt it. No, an attempt to find out what is happening is inevitable, but there were just no questions with what the enemy needed - a rabid parrot shouted about it to the whole world in plain text, and there was an example of Yugoslavia before my eyes ...
    1. Avior 24 May 2020 08: 20 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Which note?
      Interrogation protocol?
      Sudoplatov himself confirmed the fact of this meeting in his memoirs, so this is definitely not an invention.
      Yes, and the ambassador also confirmed.
  • Operator 24 May 2020 08: 39 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    Churchill is beautiful - “we will stand shoulder to shoulder”, and the first deliveries for lend-lease (not British, which is typical) began only in November 1941, when the Wehrmacht stormed the capital of the USSR; the landing of Americans and British in Europe generally occurred two years later.

    Britain in June 1941 did exactly the same as in September 1939 - many beautiful words and zero actions. Therefore, Stalin had every reason to suspect the imminent accession of Britain, Turkey and Iran to the Tripartite Pact, led by the Third Reich. It was in the event of such a development of events that a probe was made of the possibility of concluding a second Brest peace through Bulgarian intermediaries.

    Only after receiving specific guarantees from Britain that the latter would not enter into an alliance with Hitler (as it actually was in September 1939) and collecting up-to-date intelligence about the position of Turkey and Iran, did Stalin enter into a military alliance with Britain, an ardent opponent of the USSR until June 22, 1941.
    1. Cartalon 24 May 2020 09: 59 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      And what do you think Churchill should have done?
      1. Operator 24 May 2020 10: 12 New
        • 0
        • 5
        -5
        At a minimum - immediately propose to jointly occupy Iran under a treaty of 1922 to create a group of Soviet-British troops in the rear of Turkey so that Iran and Turkey do not flinch to Germany’s help, and also start supplying petroleum products to the USSR from the Persian Gulf and food from India.

        Plus, Stalin, unlike the performer of Sudoplatov, took into account the position of the United States (de facto ally of Britain) as of June 24, 1941, publicly formulated by US Senator Harry Truman - let the Russians and Germans kill each other as much as possible, and we will help them in this by supporting the losing side.
        1. Cartalon 24 May 2020 11: 10 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          And how much did Churchill hesitate with the proposal to occupy Iran? And why did he have to urgently deliver petroleum products to the USSR, which did not seem to need them at that time, and they themselves would not have hindered Britain at all.
          And how is Truman's phrase related to all this?
          1. Operator 24 May 2020 11: 17 New
            • 0
            • 6
            -6
            Truman voiced the real policy of the Anglo-Saxons as of June 24, 1941, and Churchill only tried to hang noodles on his ears.

            Iran was occupied on September 25, 1941, i.e. For two months Britain sat on the priest level and did not provide any support to the USSR in confronting Turkey and Iran, except for negotiations and paper work - it was waiting, apparently.

            Losses of army supply bases in the border regions of the USSR caused an acute shortage of fuel and food - the production of Soviet refineries was limited, the grain crop of 1941 had not yet been harvested (unlike India).
            1. Cartalon 24 May 2020 11: 34 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              The invasion of Iran began in August, no one was sitting on any pope or according to your whistle or something should go without negotiations without preparation. How did Churchill know that the USSR would lose its supply base and once again why did you decide that Britain had excess fuel?
              On June 24, did the Anglo-Saxons already have real politics? Yesterday we learned about the invasion of the Germans, and today they already have a policy on this matter.
              The United States didn’t participate in the war at that time and Truman could say anything, from the point of view of the American isolationists he said everything correctly, what is the matter of the Americans to the war of the Germans with the Russians?
              1. Operator 24 May 2020 11: 45 New
                • 1
                • 5
                -4
                The British government, as of July 22, 1941, was head over heels in shit - everyone knew its policy towards its official ally, Poland, in September 1939, which Britain fed Germany.

                With what kind of hangover did Stalin have to believe that in June 1941 Churchill would not board the USSR in this way?
                1. Cartalon 24 May 2020 12: 08 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  The British government was lagging behind Britain’s interests, they couldn’t physically take on the USSR, since it didn’t have any agreements and obligations with the USSR, and the Poles’s fantasies were their business, Britain declared war, and there were no agreements like storming Berlin with the Poles .
                  1. Operator 24 May 2020 12: 18 New
                    • 0
                    • 3
                    -3
                    What is it about: "Allied fantasies" - that is what the British military alliance was called.
                    1. Cartalon 24 May 2020 12: 34 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      A military alliance does not imply suicide for the sake of an ally, you help as much as you can within the framework of your interests.
                      1. Operator 24 May 2020 12: 39 New
                        • 0
                        • 4
                        -4
                        You are a British scientist (C), of course.

                        Where is the entry of Indian divisions into Iran with the threat of Turkey in June 1941, and where is the suicide of the British Empire?
                      2. Cartalon 24 May 2020 12: 41 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I’m generally talking about Poland, and I’m wondering how it was in June 41 to Iran, could the British keep up with the troops and most importantly what would it give in principle?
                      3. Operator 24 May 2020 12: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 4
                        -4
                        Warranties against Turkey and Iran not joining the war on the side of Germany, as well as the possibility of deploying ZakVO troops to the western front (similar to the troops of the Far Eastern Military District).
          2. Octopus 24 May 2020 12: 38 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Cartalon
            Truman could say anything, from the point of view of the American isolationists he said everything correctly,

            No.

            From the point of view of isolationists, no help to the USSR, which was literally the day before yesterday the main ally of Germany in Europe, is unacceptable. They and LL did not easily digest it in Britain; it does not at all combine with the concept of neutrality in the European war for which (in words) Roosevelt stood.

            Truman's statement is pro-Soviet.
            1. Cartalon 24 May 2020 12: 46 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Well, it’s good from the point of view of the average American who is small - he knows little about what is happening in the world.
          3. Octopus 24 May 2020 12: 41 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Cartalon
            Rumen could say anything, from the point of view of American isolationists he said everything correctly,

            No.

            Saying Truman - prosovetsoke. From the point of view of isolationists, assistance from the USSR, which was Germany’s main friend in Europe a week ago, is unacceptable. They and LL did not easily digest it in Britain, since it was very poorly combined with neutrality in the european war, about which Roosevelt poured literally in the autumn of the 40th, when he was elected president for the third time.
    2. Octopus 24 May 2020 12: 36 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Operator
      and also start delivering petroleum products to the USSR from the Persian Gulf and food from India.

      This is with a fright? Moreover, from India, do you even know where India is located?
  • vladcub 24 May 2020 15: 15 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Wait for Mosley to loop. Indeed, in the event of Hitler’s victory, Britain would have a kayuk
  • Octopus 24 May 2020 12: 33 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    Quote: Operator
    and the first deliveries for lend-lease (not British, which is typical) began only in November 1941

    You're lying.
    The first convoy, RO-O (Dervish) left already on August 12, came on the 31st.
    Hurricanes

    Appeared in Vaenga on August 28, with the British pilots.
    1. ccsr 24 May 2020 17: 16 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Octopus
      You're lying.
      The first convoy, RO-O (Dervish) left already on August 12, came on the 31st.
      Hurricanes

      You are lying in this case, because the USSR paid for this equipment with its own money and it was not a Lend-Lease supply, as the Operator correctly pointed out to you:
      Indeed, by early August, very little was achieved in expanding supplies. So far, only a few specific positions were clear - 200 fighters, 5 bombers, a certain amount of various military materials. All this could be regarded only as the first trial deliveries, not capable of exerting any noticeable influence on the course of hostilities on the Soviet-German front. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the deal with the conclusion of a loan agreement was hardly progressing. And the question of the speedy execution of such an agreement has become increasingly important for us. Already at that time, receiving the first batch of American aircraft, we were forced to pay for them in cash. It is appropriate to recall here that G. Hopkins after a conversation with I.V. Stalin on July 30, 1941 in Moscow, answering a question from correspondents about paying for American materials, said that in this regard, he was sure that there would be no difficulties and there would be no delays. In practice, however, the situation was not so simple as G. Hopkins represented it in Moscow ...

      F.I.Golikov
      “Notes of the head of the Intelligence Agency”
      1. Octopus 24 May 2020 18: 01 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: ccsr
        for this technique the USSR paid with its money

        Do you need everything right away and for nothing?
        As for summer deliveries, these are English deliveries, not American ones.
        Quote: ccsr
        In practice, however, the situation was not so simple as G. Hopkins represented it in Moscow ...

        Naturally, the situation was not so simple as Comrade had imagined. Golikov. Neither Hopkins, nor even Roosevelt, commanded the budget in America.
        1. ccsr 25 May 2020 10: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Octopus
          Do you need everything right away and for nothing?

          No, I would like you not to distort historical facts.

          Quote: Octopus
          As for summer deliveries, these are English deliveries, not American ones.

          Naturally, the first negotiations of Golikov took place in the UK, and only then there were negotiations with the United States. By the way, the British allocated these planes on their own initiative, because the question was about American planes delivered to the British by Lend-Lease, and some of which we wanted to receive during these negotiations - this is described in detail in Golikov’s memoirs.
          Quote: Octopus
          Neither Hopkins, nor even Roosevelt, commanded the budget in America.

          By that time, the Lend-Lease Act was already in force, so there was no need to tell tales - the USSR was fully suited to this program, as was the United Kingdom, and therefore there were no legal obstacles, especially since the law allowed the sending of weapons in the US Army , i.e. already paid by budget money.
          1. Octopus 25 May 2020 10: 42 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Historical facts are that Roosevelt struck LL for the USSR faster than he struck it for Britain for the first time. And also that the bourgeoisie decided on their side in the Soviet-German conflict much faster than the Soviet Union decided on their side in German-English.
            Quote: ccsr
            and some of which we wanted to receive during these negotiations - in Golikov’s memoirs, all this is described in detail.

            And what significance can the opinion of Golikov have on this issue? What did he want to get there - let Santa Claus write.
            Quote: ccsr
            By this time, the law on Lend-Lease was already in force, so do not tell tales

            The Land Liz Act allowed the president to act on funds allocated by Congress in the first place, and in the interests of the United States defense in the second. Neither wording was related to the USSR.
            1. ccsr 25 May 2020 11: 41 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Octopus
              Historical facts are that Roosevelt struck LL for the USSR faster than he struck it for Britain for the first time.

              You actually understand that the Lend-Lease was not accepted in order for someone to supply weapons for free, but first of all for American companies in order to remove budgetary restrictions on issuing loans for state obligations, and this stimulated the growth of the American economy primarily. The American Lend-Lease Act freed the hands of the American industrialists, so in fact the Americans needed it first of all, which is why they so easily agreed to supply us - they don’t care who to supply if the state was the guarantor of the return of their loans.
              Quote: Octopus
              And what significance can the opinion of Golikov have on this issue?

              He was the head of our delegation, and at least he knew better than others how everything was at that time.
              Quote: Octopus
              What did he want to get there - let Santa Claus write.

              He did what Stalin wanted from our allies.
              Quote: Octopus
              The Land Liz Act allowed the president to act on funds allocated by Congress in the first place, and in the interests of the United States defense in the second.

              This is not entirely true - the US government guaranteed payment for the manufactured products, which is why US industrialists took out loans for the creation of any weapons without fear that they would not be paid for supplies. And the same applies to non-military goods - Lend-Lease gave guaranteed paid orders to the Americans.
              Quote: Octopus
              Neither wording was related to the USSR.

              The Lend-Lease Act does not apply to any particular country at all - it could be applied to any country by decision of the US government.
              1. Octopus 25 May 2020 11: 56 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: ccsr
                You generally understand that Lend-Lease was not accepted in order for someone to supply weapons for free, but primarily for American companies

                In fact, just exactly in order to supply weapons for free. This was the argument between Roosevelt and the "isolationists." Isolationists unfastened money for US armaments without question.
                Quote: ccsr
                You actually understand that Lend-Lease was not taken to

                These are your Marxist fantasies, no more.
                Quote: ccsr
                knew better than others how everything was at that time.

                Quote: ccsr
                Stalin wanted to get from our allies.

                Stalin's Wishlist, he can tell in his Moscow. Churchill said that would help than can, and with what he can help - he will look, ask people.
                Quote: ccsr
                This is not entirely true - the US government guaranteed payment for manufactured products

                No. The Lend-Lease Act gave the president the right to transfer precisely property, already purchased the US government. Only such a formulation could pass. Therefore, any Sherman on which Soviet tankers fought legally belonged to the US Army, any can of stew they ate belonged to the American Quartermaster service before getting into their mouths. This is the essence of Lend-Lisa.
                Quote: ccsr
                it could be applied to any country by decision of the US government.

                Take yes read what is written there.
                https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lend_Lease_Act,_11_March_1941
                The country is not specified, but the amount is provided by Congress. To remove limits from Britain and transfer the USSR - Roosevelt, of course, is a great friend of the USSR, but still not a deputy comrade. Shvernik, yet.
                1. ccsr 25 May 2020 12: 21 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Octopus
                  In fact, just exactly in order to supply weapons for free.

                  Only part of the armament was supplied free of charge, but that wasn’t the point, but the fact that other states of the world were ready to buy from the US government much more under their state obligations and gold and foreign exchange reserves. That's why a huge amount of gold turned out to be in the USA after the war - it went on account of paying the debt to the USA.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Isolationists unfastened money for the armament of the United States without question.

                  Their consequences of the depression were not eliminated, and even their own army was not equipped with weapons as expected, which is why they constantly delayed the delivery dates in 1941-1942.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Churchill said that he could help with what he could, and with what he could help - he would look, ask people around.

                  What does Churchill and Lend-Lease have to do with it, if he did not decide what the Americans can supply us with?
                  Quote: Octopus
                  The Lend-Lease Act gave the president the right to transfer precisely property already purchased by the US government. Only such a formulation could pass.

                  Where to get credit money to create new industries - it seems you have no idea how it all gets organized. As for the transfer of American weapons from the US Army, this is only part of the entire program, and even then it was reduced after Pearl Harbor.

                  Quote: Octopus
                  Therefore, any Sherman on which Soviet tankers fought legally belonged to the US Army,

                  Nevermind - a huge amount of military equipment went into paying our supplies to the United States, and the property of the US Army has never been.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  any can of stew they ate belonged to the American Quartermaster’s service before they entered their mouths. This is the essence of Lend-Lisa.

                  It’s a lie, because a huge amount of wires and cable, machine tools and other property went not as purchased by the US Army, but as products paid for by the Soviet Union even before the war, and for cash, and not on a credit line.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Take yes read what is written there.

                  It is written there:
                  Notwithstanding any other law, the Chairperson may do so from time to time. when he considers it necessary in the interests of national defense, authorize the Minister of War, Minister of the Navy, or any other agency or agency of the Government -

                  The words "any other agency or agency of the Government" just means that the US Department of Commerce could order anything and without military to sell to allies or supply free of charge. So you yourself first learn to read American documents before referring to them.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Remove limits from Britain and transfer the USSR - Roosevelt, of course, is a great friend of the USSR,

                  This is generally a purely technical operation, which was a consequence of the fact that the Germans did not land in England, and the main hostilities were on the Eastern Front.
  • Krasnoyarsk 24 May 2020 09: 04 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    = Also, Stalin at that time had almost no idea of ​​the positions of Iran and Turkey, which were unclear during the first two years of the World War. =
    Yes, yes, no. Stalin did not have ambassadors in Iran and Turkey and, well, absolutely, there was no intelligence.

    = Turkey’s reversal from pro-British to pro-German was completed four days before the start of World War II on June 18, 1941 by the conclusion of an agreement on friendship and non-aggression with Germany, signed by Turkish Foreign Minister Sarajoglu and German Ambassador to Ankara von Papen. [39]
    Stalin did not know this? Did his ambassadors in Germany and Turkey not read the German and Turkish newspapers reporting the conclusion of the treaty?

    = With the beginning of World War II, the Turkish government officially declared its neutrality in the conflict, but at the same time carried out a partial mobilization in the provinces bordering the territory of the Soviet Union. In addition, people over 60 years old and reserve officers over 65 years old were called up for military service. Some historians attribute these actions to the need to fill the shortage of military units in the eastern provinces caused by the displacement of the 40th army in the region of Thrace. [23] Be that as it may, these actions aroused serious concern in Moscow. [40] Stalin in the summer and autumn of 1941 repeatedly declared that he was not sure of maintaining Turkish neutrality. [41] [42]
    What do the authors want to convince us of? Is it that Stalin "knew nothing" and therefore kept in the Turkish direction 200 grouping (000 armies) of Soviet troops? Or maybe he kept it because he KNEW?

    = It is known that for a long time Moscow did not receive information about them from the United States and Great Britain, but when it became clear that such potential opponents were not too difficult to neutralize, this was done very quickly. =
    And what would Stalin do if it weren’t for information from the “allies” laughing

    What do the authors of this libel want to convince us of?
    The fact that Stalin was afraid that he would be defeated and executed, and therefore agreed to give Hitler the Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, Bukovina and something else that Hitler would demand in order to save his beloved.
    The article is another libel on Stalin and the USSR.
    But a very veiled libel.
    1. vladcub 24 May 2020 14: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      "therefore, kept the 200 group in the Turkish direction" this group + the British fist and allowed: "keep Turkey on a short diplomatic leash"
  • WayKheThuo 24 May 2020 10: 45 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Some kind of crumpled article.
    The introduction and the beginning are norms, and the climax is some kind of ragged - just a phrase:

    But in Berlin, they were so enthusiastic about their first military victories in the USSR that, although they received those proposals, they refused to negotiate (see RGASPI. Fund 17. Inventory 171. Case 465).


    How and who made the decision to refuse? In what form did they refuse? How was the refusal transmitted? Why didn’t they take advantage of such an offer for an ideological war?
    That is, how the request was sent "there" in the article is described more or less, although not without questions, but how they got the answer "from there" and, most importantly, who can confirm this on the "other" side - the article does not disclosed from the word "no way."
    And another strange thing: yesterday the Soviet leadership was ready to give up the western field, and today - "we will fight to the last drop of blood" and, most importantly, for 4 years and without attempts to re-"reconciliation", despite all the vicissitudes of wartime.
    It doesn’t happen that today there would be “Katz offers to surrender”, and tomorrow “Get up a huge country ...” and all under the leadership of one party and, most importantly, without metastases.
    It is also impossible to discount that Khrushchev "loved" Stalin so much that he was ready to go to any vile thing to drown the name of the Supreme in the deepest cesspool, and here any lie to the cash register.

    But by and large, all this is empty, because the main and main thing - Victory was left to our ancestors and thanks to this we live, think and can, in general, send all these “explorers” by a long forest road to the highest dunes.
    I think so.
  • Operator 24 May 2020 11: 07 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Arzt
    After the pact, there were generally big doubts that the West would want to help us.

    And before the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty, the Soviet leadership on your logic was confident in the West’s help in the fight against Hitler (but for some reason it concluded an agreement - the last in Europe, by the way) laughing
    1. Krasnoyarsk 24 May 2020 13: 40 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Operator
      Quote: Arzt
      After the pact, there were generally big doubts that the West would want to help us.

      And before the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty, the Soviet leadership on your logic was confident in the West’s help in the fight against Hitler (but for some reason it concluded an agreement - the last in Europe, by the way) laughing

      There are 3 reasons for concluding the Covenant. 1. The hopes for an anti-Hitler alliance between the USSR, France and Britain melted away.
      2.Official (voiced) - to delay the beginning of the war.
      And 3. To which, for some reason, they pay no attention and, in my opinion, no less important than 2 points - the Economic Agreement between the USSR and Germany, and this agreement was a condition that the USSR put forward for the conclusion of the "Pact"
  • Yurahip 24 May 2020 13: 59 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Churchill was an experienced politician, and therefore he offered the USSR all kinds of help and cooperation, literally in the first hours of the war. He undoubtedly foresaw the possibility of such a * obscene world * between Germany and the Union.
    And then England would definitely remain face to face with Hitler.
  • vladcub 24 May 2020 14: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Krasnodar
    And then, when Russia began to win, he began to help Germany. Massive bombing of the Ruhr lol

    God forbid and save from such help. Such bombing does not contribute to the release of weapons, and Hitler at that time needed every rifle like air
  • bars1 25 May 2020 11: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Gosha! Greed killed the Germans. I had a better opinion of Stalin.
  • iouris 25 May 2020 13: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This is propaganda against the winners.
  • Pavel57 25 May 2020 16: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Phrases:
    - As confirmed by Beria himself during interrogation on August 11, 1953: ..
    -But the competent authorities preferred, for obvious reasons, not to risk the confrontation of Beria and Sudoplatov ...

    doubtful. There were no interrogations of Beria. He was killed during the storming of the house., Where Beria lived. And in fact, Khrushchev made a coup. But this is a different story.
  • zoill 25 May 2020 20: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    After 15 years in prison with a six-month-old imitation of insanity, I would very much have taken faith in Sudoplatov, for, except for him, no one had ever mentioned the negotiations with Stamenov. If they really took place, then they could not leave no trace in the USSR, nor in Germany and Bulgaria! Yes, and too early they supposedly began - a week after the start of the war - does not look like either Stalin or Beria ...
  • Operator 27 May 2020 09: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    only the northern route was temporarily closed

    Thank you cap for confirming my argument in the dispute laughing
  • Trapperxnumx 30 May 2020 13: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    And Stalin had to personally check the QUALITY? Are you out of your mind?

    But why? Nicholas 2 is reproached for putting “stupid generals”. Or does the IVS have a special certificate on this score that it cannot be criticized for personnel issues?
  • tank64rus 1 June 2020 10: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Khrushchev, second after Eichmann, according to the results of the repressions of 1937, accuses Stalin of repression. Really black male.