Military Review

Why Hitler did not finish off Britain

265
Why Hitler did not finish off Britain

German Heinkel 111 bombers fly over British territory during the Battle of Britain


80 years ago, on July 10, 1940, the Battle of Britain began, an attempt by the Third Reich to suppress England by air war, to force London to agree to Berlin.

The British Empire - an example to follow


The British withstood the air pressure of Germany in the summer and autumn of 1940. England lost about 20 thousand people, more than 1 thousand aircraft, but survived. The main reason: Hitler did not want to seriously beat the British. The Führer hoped for peace and even an alliance with Britain. The Germans expected that after the collapse of the Anglo-French alliance in London, that part of the British elite (including representatives of the highest aristocracy and the royal house) would come to power that would conspire with Berlin: in exchange for preserving the British colonial empire and the opportunity to profit at the expense of The British colonies of the British recognize the victory of Germany in Europe and will not interfere in the war with the Russians.

Hitler and many other representatives of the German elite and ideologists greatly admired Britain and copied it. After all, it was Britain that created the world colonial (slaveholding) empire. It was the British who were the authors of the theory of racism, social Darwinism and eugenics. They were the first to create concentration camps, to divide people into "higher" and "lower" races, to use the methods of terror, genocide, the principle of "divide, play and conquer" in the management of "inferior" peoples and tribes. Hitler considered the model of British colonization in India, where several tens of thousands of "white masters" kept hundreds of millions of Aborigines in obedience, ideal. The same model was planned to be distributed in the East, in Russia.

Hitler saw in the British the Germans - the "higher race", which must be forced to return to the "Aryan community." The Fuhrer did not want to destroy the British Empire, it would only strengthen America - the den of the plutocrats and financiers-usurers. In addition, Berlin knew that London, before the outbreak of World War II, had actively helped the Reich restore industrial and military potential.

In Berlin, they wanted to see a partner in Britain. Create axis Berlin - London - Rome - Tokyo. The union of these empires could be strengthened due to the collapse and development of Russia, could create a counterbalance to the financial, industrial and marine power of the United States. After World War I, the contradictions between the United States and England intensified. Washington was aiming for the role of senior partner, and London, as he could, rested. Berlin knew this well. They also knew that Britain had never recovered from the terrible losses of the First World War. The English nation was bloodless and no longer wished to repeat the terrible meat grinder. In England, the ideas of pacifism were not long ago popular. Society will be in a panic from the threat of war on the islands, the prospect of air strikes in large cities.

Thus, Hitler hoped until the very last to agree with the British that supporters of the alliance with Germany would overthrow the Churchill government. On the “second Munich”. After that, the Reich could calmly fight with the Russians. And Japan will begin the invasion of the Far East. The USSR will collapse in 1941. The German Empire would not have to worry about a second front, the struggle on the Atlantic and for Britain.


Briefing pilots of German dive bombers Yu-87 before a combat mission

Why England did not give up


The British are still proud that in the summer and fall of 1940, when neither Russia nor the United States entered the war, they alone fought against the Nazis and survived. True, with a careful study of the facts, it turns out that the Reich did not fight at full strength against England. At the very beginning of the war, the Luftwaffe received an order not to attack British ships fleet in the harbors. Although the attacks on the British naval bases and navy were a logical step. The German fleet was small, the Wehrmacht was preparing to land in Norway. Germany needed to clear the sea of ​​the enemy fleet. But Hitler forbade the bombing of British naval bases. Obviously, he did not want to anger English society. Port attacks could cause large casualties among civilians. Apparently, the Fuhrer was still counting on peace with Britain and he needed a fleet of the former mistress of the seas.

Further, during the French campaign, the Germans utterly defeated the allies, pressed their group in the Dunkirk area. Germanic Tanks could arrange a grandiose meat grinder, destroy or capture the enemy group (Hitler's “Stop Order”. Why didn’t German tanks crush the British army?) However, they did not. The British were allowed to clear their islands. Obviously, Hitler did not want to arrange a massacre, making the British mortal enemies.

After Dunkirk, the British Isles were weakened for some time in terms of defense. The expeditionary army exported from Dunkirk, lost its heavy weapons and equipment, is demoralized. It took time to restore it. Militia units are hastily forming on the islands. They have outdated weapons, poor training. The situation in the country is on the verge of panic. The British were mortally afraid of the Germans landing in the south of the island. The most successful moment for the landing of the German landing army. From the British fleet can be closed by minefields. The Germans had excellent magnetic mines. Throw the whole battle Aviation. This will lead to heavy losses of the British Navy. However, the Germans take a break.

Instead, the Nazis in July 1940 start an air war. The battle for Britain is not a full-blown, but a limited operation by small forces. The bet was made on the destruction of the British Air Force in continuous battles. Like, when the enemy runs out of pilots and planes, then Britain will capitulate. At the same time, the Germans did not bother at all. In England they don’t talk about this, but the Germans didn’t fight seriously in this period. The German economy, including the occupied countries, unlike the English, was not mobilized. In Reich, there was even a decrease in the release of bombers and fighters in the midst of the Battle of Britain. During this operation, Germany produced an average of 178 aircraft, and Britain - more than 470. At the same time, the industrial potential of Germany alone was approximately twice that of English. For example, in 1944, German industry produced 24 thousand fighters (an average of 2 thousand per month). As a result, in August 1940, the Goering fighter fleet accounted for 69% of the amount that was available three months earlier.

It is strange that the Luftwaffe did not think about strengthening the cover of their bombers, equipping fighters with hanging tanks. For some reason, the Germans did not begin to deploy an additional network of airfields in northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands. The German command sprayed insufficient bomber forces in the operation. As a result, the Germans could not break Britain by the fall. Annoyed, Hitler ordered the start of the terrorist bombing of London. They did not have special military significance, they only strengthened the British will to resist and caused great losses to the Air Force.

It is also strange that the Germans, rational and very skilled in military craft, did not deploy an underwater war at the same time as the air war. After all, Britain and its industry, the population were critically dependent on the supply of resources and food. On September 1, 1940, Germany had 57 submarines, exactly the same as a year ago! That is, the production of submarines has not been strengthened. Britain had only a few submarines at its positions. In addition, the German Navy was blind: due to Goering's position, the fleet was deprived of reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft. Only in the summer of 1941 was the submarine war against England intensified. Another “strange war”: when the German Air Force is active, the German fleet is almost inactive; when the sea war intensifies - the air attack stops, the Luftwaffe is aimed at Russia.


Passers-by on the street of Coventry destroyed by German bombs

What would Hitler do if he really wanted to crush England?


If the Fuhrer wished in the summer of 1940 to really break the back of the British Empire, he would have every opportunity to do so. The industry of the Reich, France and other subordinate countries would be mobilized for the urgent strengthening of the Air Force and Navy. The construction of fighters, bombers, the creation of long-range strategic aviation, the construction of submarines, destroyers, minesweepers, light cruisers, etc. Attacks had to be fired in several directions at once. The air war would be full-fledged: with powerful strikes at major ports, industrial facilities (especially aircraft and aircraft engine plants), energy and transport infrastructure (bridges, railway junctions, stations, tunnels, etc.). In the air, with the rapid buildup of the construction of military vehicles, it was possible to arrange a full-fledged battle. To interrupt the British fighter squadrons so that the rate of release of fighters in British factories is inferior to the pace of their destruction.

Attacks from the air would be supplemented by a full-fledged naval blockade with attacks by submarine and surface raiders in order to cut off Britain from the supply of raw materials and fuel for industry and the armed forces, food for the population. If Hitler had planned to fight England seriously, he would have strengthened the air fleet (including strategic aviation); would bet on building up the navy, primarily underwater and light; it would have blocked the English ports with mines, as the Nazis did later with the Russians in the Black Sea. The finale is a strategic landing operation.

Also, the Reich could inflict powerful blows on the British colonial empire. Capture Gibraltar, send a full-fledged army (and not two Rommel divisions) to help Italy in North Africa, the other to the Middle East. That is, to establish full control over the Mediterranean Sea, to make it the German-Italian Sea. Occupy Egypt and the Suez Canal, all of North Africa. Support anti-British sentiment in Iraq. Establish control over Turkey. Middle East oil was in Hitler’s hands. Target Persia and India, relying on anti-British nationalist forces. Everything posed a threat to the collapse of the British Empire. The Führer would have put England checkmate. But Hitler did not do this.

Thus, the Führer launched an air war in the hope of a future world and even an alliance with England. Therefore, the Nazis did not hit the vital centers of England, but in the psyche of society. In London, only the working suburbs were smashed, the rich did not touch the area. Coventry was a small city with a light industry. Hitler hoped until the very end that Churchill’s office would collapse and that supporters of reconciliation with the Third Reich would come to power. Hence the mysterious flight to England of one of the Nazi leaders, Hess, in May 1941. Interestingly, after the Hess mission, Germany calmly, without fear for the rear, attacks Russia. Indeed, in 1941-1943. The Reich was not prevented from fighting the USSR All British operations were in auxiliary theaters and areas that did not threaten Germany.


Firefighters extinguish a fire in a ruined building on Oxford Street in London

Fatal error of the Fuhrer


It seemed that England had no other choice but to find a common language with Hitler. France, the main ally on the continent (like others), is a bit. Vichy mode is hostile. The USSR, unlike tsarist Russia, did not intend to shed blood for the interests of Britain. Moreover, Moscow concluded a non-aggression agreement with Berlin. Germany for some time had a quiet rear from the Russians. The United States remains neutral. In the English elite there are supporters of an agreement with the Reich. Therefore, Hitler had every reason to believe that London would make peace with Berlin. And then a powerful European Union (the prototype of the European Union) will be created, headed by the Germans - Germans and British. On the one hand, the resources of the colonies of Britain and its fleet, on the other - a powerful industry and the army of the Reich. Such an alliance could well become a counterweight to the USSR (Hitler planned to crush the Russians soon) and the USA.

The Führer was expecting that London would soon take steps to peace. Therefore, the economy of Germany, as well as the whole of Europe under control, did not strain. The war in the West, according to Hitler, was successfully completed. This was Hitler's fatal strategic mistake. He did not take into account that circles came to power in London that do not want cooperation and an alliance with Germany. London and Washington created the Hitler project to strike at the USSR and destroy Europe. Germany was supposed to crush the Russians, then collapse itself under the blows of the Anglo-Americans. The defeated Russia, Germany (with it all of Europe) and Japan were to become the basis for a new world. The Moor has done his job; the Moor may leave. Therefore, Hitler was made clear that there would be no second front in the West while he was at war with the Russians. As a result, the German campaign to the East became fatal.


The commander of the 2nd Luftwaffe Air Fleet, Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, during a meeting with pilots of the 76th squadron of heavy fighters. In the background is a fighter Bf.110C-1 Messerschmitt


A pair of British Hurricane fighter jets flying over their airfield
Author:
Photos used:
http://waralbum.ru/
265 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. sav
    sav 10 July 2020 06: 16 New
    19
    In fact, the Germans and the British are distant relatives.
    1. Finches
      Finches 10 July 2020 06: 30 New
      18
      The Anglo-Saxons stupidly chased Hitler through secret capitalist channels and suggested that Soviet Russia was the main enemy of the whole "progressive" mankind - the Anglo-Saxons bought, like suckers, the entire "millennium" Reich, broke the back of his hands with the hands of a Russian peasant .... They upgraded their Anglo-Saxon empire, having moved the capital from London overseas, away from the turmoil, and fabulously enriched, driving into the anal slavery the whole European Union for decades ... That’s the whole story without equivocation! laughing
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r 10 July 2020 07: 07 New
        +8
        Yes, that’s right, but the “minimum” plan was fulfilled, and the maximum didn’t crush us either.
        1. Finches
          Finches 10 July 2020 07: 09 New
          0
          I agree with you! hi
          1. Akuzenka
            Akuzenka 11 July 2020 00: 30 New
            +3
            Then it didn’t work out, now it’s quite. The plan that was launched by Hitler is quite fulfilled, only without mass executions and burning alive, whole villages. How much was the population of the RSFSR in 1990 and how many now (without Crimea).? Gee! Naive. The plan is still in action! Who owns the wealth of the Russian Federation? That's right, to foreign (offshore) companies. Anglo-Saxons have won and continue to win!
      2. Bar1
        Bar1 10 July 2020 09: 11 New
        -10
        Why Hitler did not finish off Britain

        Alexander Samsonov didn’t say anything new, that Hitler “admired” Britain and wanted to like “friendship” EVERYONE has been saying this for a long time. Only friendship is best achieved when your friend is on his knees and you dictate terms of friendship . Hitler for some reason forgot about it.
        If articles pretend to bring something new to historiography, then it is necessary to speak first of all about the total dependence of Germany of those years on the West, on America, which gave loans and supplied gasoline ALL WAR, how can this be?

        Why didn’t even Stalin protest when tankers came to Germany from America, and ore from Sweden?
        Why did Hitler not touch Switzerland, where was a lot of gold?

        It is necessary to name the names of these capitalist conspirators, who is this?
        It is necessary to understand all the mechanisms of this undercover game, and to blame only on Hitler is simply to mislead people.
        It seems that the participants in the war were led from above and the goals and objectives of these world wars are of course completely different from what we are told.
        If Germany did not want to finish off Britain, it means that Germany was initially chosen to be a battered party with all the consequences, the destruction of the country's population and cultural values. This happened. Germany was subjected to massive destruction, and the population was genocide.
        There is one strange moment, which, due to the politeness of politeness, is ignored by all historians, it is the symbolism of fascist Germany. That same swastika is now a symbol of enslavement and oppression of the peoples of Europe. But we must remember that the swastika-Kolovrat is a symbol of the SUN. And it was an ornament of the Russian people, as well as many eastern peoples. Everyone in the West was fond of swastika, there are a bunch of pictures of hockey teams with swastikas, Nikolashka in a car with a swastika.
        I really didn’t like it, who first of all? Of course, the Christian church, the symbol of the Sun was not just a harmless symbol, a symbol of the PREVIOUS civilization and a symbol of the previous religion - the Solar religion. For example, crowns with the solar were replaced

        Image from Herberstein Notes on Muscovy.
        The Grand Duke or Vasily 3 or Ivan 4 sits in the SUN crown, against the backdrop of the rising sun. Christian symbolism is absent.


        to incomprehensible modern crowns, with incomprehensible symbols.
        The symbol of the past civilization, the swastika, is simply a vulgarity of contact with fascism.
        This was at least one of the goals of the war.
        1. Astra wild
          Astra wild 10 July 2020 12: 18 New
          13
          Bar, I nevermind all the sunny religions. Swistix was for me, is will be a symbol of fascism
          1. Bar1
            Bar1 10 July 2020 14: 56 New
            -18
            Quote: Astra wild
            Bar, I nevermind all the sunny religions. Swistix was for me, is will be a symbol of fascism

            but I do not care your opinion, because this is the opinion of an illiterate person.
          2. Hantengri
            Hantengri 10 July 2020 19: 49 New
            +5
            Quote: Astra wild

            Bar, I nevermind all the sunny religions. Swistix was for me, is will be a symbol of fascism

            The one that is salting, too?
        2. zenion
          zenion 13 August 2020 18: 56 New
          0
          In 2000, documents about banks and others who sponsored Hitler to the very end were supposed to open. And suddenly a statement that the opening of the documents was postponed until 2050. They say there are many more who fought in World War II, and of course they told their children and grandchildren, and this can injure them. And Hitler in the middle of 1944 told Goebbels - again the Jews have cheated us. And then the extermination of the Jews began.
    2. Uncle Izya
      Uncle Izya 10 July 2020 06: 33 New
      +8
      Any naval operation is a big risk, Britain had a strongest fleet, and the Fritz blew up the air battle
      1. military_cat
        military_cat 10 July 2020 07: 14 New
        14
        Hitler was preparing Operation Sea Lion, but it could take place only with complete air supremacy. He could not achieve dominance in the air, these wonderful things prevented the British from setting the entire coast:

        Chain home
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 10 July 2020 08: 37 New
          -5
          Quote: military_cat
          He could not achieve dominance in the air, these wonderful things prevented the British from setting the entire coast:

          The photo is valid, I have not met before, but the statement raises a question. Air dominance and radars are related? request Rave. The radar is an excellent development for air defense, timely detection and direction of air defense fighters in a dangerous area. For a landing operation, the Germans, on the contrary, need to shut down their ships and vessels from British bombers with their fighters. recourse
          1. tihonmarine
            tihonmarine 10 July 2020 09: 49 New
            +3
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            The photo is valid, I have not met before, but the statement raises a question.

            A good movie goes on Discovery about Britain’s air defense, very good shots of radar towers, stations, tracking and control points with environment tablets. But all the same, the main characters were pilots and planes, in which the Germans had a huge advantage, and if Hitler wanted the Goering’s children to smash the Royal Air Force and their entire infrastructure.
            1. saigon
              saigon 10 July 2020 14: 28 New
              +8
              Excuse me, but with what fright did the Germans have a huge advantage?
              Losses on fighter jets were on average 1-1.2 in favor of the Germans, not to mention bombers about the beam
              But why is it so easy to relate to the landing operation on the islands?
              To ensure the depth of the landing zone for the accumulation of reserves is already a difficult task, it is not a river spill. The Germans didn’t even have floating funds for a couple of divisions and the foreseeable occurrence of these funds was not expected (now we must take into account the Germans had ammunition for three days of fighting in the absence of supply — again, tonnage is needed). An amphibious operation in conditions of complete domination of the sea by the British is a way of collective suicide.
              To organize supplies through the strait on what and how to cover (the mines weren’t worth their land at that time had about 600-700 pieces, that is, the flanks were open, the submarines in memory at the time had about 40 pieces, and in the strait were shallow. Stop the British destroyers rushing towards vehicles is still a task, and Messers were inferior to spitfires and horizontally to harricains in battles over ships at low altitudes.
              In a word, problems and haemaroy are higher than the roof, and the result is foggy.
              The Germans lost the air war to the British without any options and did not want to look for a theory of a world conspiracy of insidious vein-massons.
              1. tihonmarine
                tihonmarine 10 July 2020 15: 03 New
                -3
                Quote: saigon
                But why is it so easy to relate to the landing operation on the islands?

                Yes, and Hitler did not think to land in England, it is more about the British that exaggerated about the landing. If there was a plan, then they would start to put it into action, and Hitler had a plan for a war with the USSR, and before that, capture all of Europe. Which is what happened. But a test of strength with a real enemy, before the attack on the USSR, this is real. Hitler had enough planes in 8074 aircraft, and in Britain 2963.
                1. saigon
                  saigon 11 July 2020 08: 45 New
                  +5
                  Well, how could 8000 aircraft help? Throw away training and other non-combat vehicles and 8000 somehow dry out, which airfields to base them on?
                  The network of airfields is not rubber and an extra hundred kilometers reduces the range by a little more than two hundred kilometers. Well, given that the range of German aircraft is already not large (aviation is mainly tactical), the time spent over England is reduced.
                  Another moment an English plane shot down over Britain is not equal to a pilot’s loss, a German mined pilot shot down there, and the pilots are not endless. An English plane shot down over England is not an irretrievable loss, a German shot down is already a slightly different ratio - the strait must somehow fly over. A bunch of little things like and not important, but they overlap one another and explain the defeat of the Hans in the battle for Britain.
                  1. tihonmarine
                    tihonmarine 11 July 2020 11: 01 New
                    +1
                    Quote: saigon
                    Well, how could 8000 aircraft help? Throw away training and other non-combat vehicles and 8000 somehow dry out, which airfields to base them on?

                    The same can be said of 3000 British aircraft.
                    1. saigon
                      saigon 11 July 2020 13: 14 New
                      +1
                      I have already given you arguments why.
            2. Kwas
              Kwas 10 July 2020 17: 48 New
              +2
              Here it is also necessary to take into account the losses of experienced pilots, which were fatal, since they fell on enemy territory and were captured, and the British returned to duty.
            3. Mavrikiy
              Mavrikiy 10 July 2020 18: 19 New
              0
              Quote: tihonmarine
              But all the same, the main characters were pilots and planes, in which the Germans had a huge advantage, and if Hitler wanted the Goering’s children to smash the Royal Air Force and their entire infrastructure.

              I agree. And here are the radars and Polish pilots? The Battle of Britain is a cheap talk from Churchill.
      2. lucul
        lucul 10 July 2020 08: 12 New
        -2
        Any naval operation is a big risk, Britain had a strongest fleet, and the Fritz blew up the air battle

        The article was not read, no? There, just the Western propaganda was exposed, about how the British won the battle for Britain.)))
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 10 July 2020 08: 54 New
          +2
          Quote: lucul
          It was there that Western propaganda was exposed, about how the British won the battle for Britain.

          Anglo-Saxons are always even a loss, for the world put up a victory. Remember what nonsense they carried about the evacuation of the British expeditionary forces from near Dunkirk "The English soldiers threw helmets on the shore, because they have such a tradition, if they dropped their helmets, they will come back here," but they began to sing this song after the war.
          1. lucul
            lucul 10 July 2020 08: 58 New
            +3
            Anglo-Saxons are always even losing, for the world put up a victory.

            At least one of my own, otherwise I'm already tired of Haifa)))
            1. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 10 July 2020 09: 40 New
              +2
              Quote: lucul
              At least one of mine, otherwise I’m tired of Haifa

              For them, Britain is a taboo.
      3. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 10 July 2020 08: 27 New
        -1
        Quote: Uncle Izya
        and the air battle of Fritz blew

        Right! Only the Fritz did not show up for battle. request % LUFTVAFE participating in it ?.
        the Fuhrer began an air war with a view to the future world and even an alliance with England. Therefore, the Nazis did not hit the vital centers of England, but in the psyche of society. In London, only the working suburbs were smashed, the rich did not touch the area.
        not a battle, but an action for the faint of heart, which made it possible now to shout impudently, "we fought!"
        1. 8Schlaf
          8Schlaf 10 July 2020 08: 58 New
          +7
          The British won the battle for England in the air only because they read encrypted correspondence. The Germans regularly reported on the time and point of collection of their aircraft and their flight routes. This saved them from Hitler. However, this does not underestimate their victory in this battle.
          1. iouris
            iouris 10 July 2020 10: 44 New
            +9
            Well-set intelligence is a sign of the greatness of the state.
          2. Krasnodar
            Krasnodar 10 July 2020 12: 39 New
            +9
            Quote: 8Schlaf
            The British won the battle for England in the air only because they read encrypted correspondence. The Germans regularly reported on the time and point of collection of their aircraft and their flight routes. This saved them from Hitler. However, this does not underestimate their victory in this battle.

            In addition, the Royal Air Force pilots were no worse than the Luftwaffe aces, and the crashed pilot did not need to return to his own pull through the English Channel
          3. saigon
            saigon 11 July 2020 08: 58 New
            +9
            Alexander should note the encryption, even the read ones could not give information about the flight route.
            The Germans did not encode the card the way we did (there were no squares like 40-33).
            The commander of the group or staffel was given the task, and the commander chose the route altitude and speed on the route. Well, the Germans differed greatly from us, even in such trifles, and approaching them with the knowledge of our Air Force is counterproductive. Moreover, the point (exactly the point on the map) did not coincide yesterday and today, the encoding was for one day.
            So the radar installations gave the British information about the route.
            A bombing system called Goering rays was adopted during raids on London with controversial success.
            1. 8Schlaf
              8Schlaf 12 July 2020 04: 11 New
              +4
              You're right. About the routes and collection points of German aircraft in the book "Operation Ultra" does not say anything. I read for a long time. Thank you for explaining to me. I read your comment with interest. Now I'll know.

              We knew that if the Luftwaffe could manage to maintain the pace they had taken over the past two weeks for another one or two weeks, we could very well be faced with disaster. But the Luftwaffe also licked his wounds. According to Ultra, the German fleet was no longer replenished. The organization of repair and supply was not designed for such a war. According to Goering, the battle for England was to end in two weeks and with small losses for the Luftwaffe. Now the Germans have remained in service only 50 percent of the aircraft. This was important information. They testified that, despite the desperate situation of our air force, the Luftwaffe was broken; their morale also suffered.

              Then, in a last attempt to destroy our aircraft, Goering made his greatest mistake in the entire war. If he continued to strike at the airfields of southern England for another two weeks, then he could very well have destroyed our remaining fighters. But at 11 a.m. on September 7, Goering gave an order to Kesselring, intercepted and decrypted by us, to raid 300 bombers on London docks, while providing a massive fighter cover. The raid was scheduled for the end of the day and, according to Goering, was to lead to the destruction of the last British fighters.
              1. saigon
                saigon 12 July 2020 06: 09 New
                +6
                Yes, the bombing of London is Goering's mistake, and one must take into account the limited stock of bombs in Germany.
        2. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
          Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 10 July 2020 09: 23 New
          -1
          Right! Only the Fritz did not show up for battle. request% LUFTWAFFE who participated in it ?.


          For some reason, the Soviet patriots are silent that the Germans didn’t show up east by the same counting method until the 43rd
          1. tihonmarine
            tihonmarine 10 July 2020 10: 00 New
            +1
            Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
            For some reason, the Soviet patriots are silent that the Germans didn’t show up east by the same counting method until the 43rd

            I think that this "training manual" was practiced by the "Goering chicks" in Britain for a reason. This was just a powerful rehearsal before starting a big war with the USSR. It was Britain that corresponded to this task, because all of Europe could not and did not have time to use its Air Force against Hitler, but they had an idea of ​​the Union Air Force in Spain, Finland, and even in the Lipetsk flight school. Here the Germans needed to work out tactics on a stronger enemy.
        3. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 10 July 2020 15: 10 New
          +2
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          not a battle, but an action for the faint of heart, which made it possible now to shout impudently, "we fought!"

          And how much screech after the war is still in my ears. There is no need to tell the people how they draped from Dunkirk, throwing everything. And then Hitler forbade them to finish, when Guderian wanted to roll them on the beach with caterpillars, threatening to shoot them. The impudents invented a fairy tale after the war, allegedly Hitler was afraid that warships would shoot tanks. And someone from a sea gun fired at tanks before saying this.
          1. saigon
            saigon 11 July 2020 09: 13 New
            +5
            Vlad, have you ever read anything serious about the German army of WW2? Read at least something in tyrnet about relations in the upper echelons of power in Germany and don’t write about orders to shoot Guderian in 1940.
            Actually, the stop order was caused by many factors and the counter attack of the English tank brigade and Goering's promises to smash the British on the beaches and fear of falling under fire 102 and
            127 mm guns of the British destroyers, with the understanding that these guns will do with the German panzers and the fact that the tanks will not do the damn, the caliber of the barrels is very small for firing ships.
            1. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 11 July 2020 11: 12 New
              +2
              Quote: saigon
              Read at least something in tyrnet about relations in the upper echelons of power in Germany and don’t write about orders to shoot Guderian in 1940.
              Yes, our opinion, like mine, cannot show the essence of what is happening according to Dunkirk. But one indisputable fact is that the British here exaggerate their merits and "their beloved." Hitler’s “fatal” order, when the battles near Dunkirk were fought, the British wondered why the Germans did not attack with tanks, whose formidable breakthroughs had horrified the Allies from the first days of the beginning of the German offensive. Only German aviation tried to prevent the evacuation. ... Since then, disputes about what prompted Hitler to give this "fatal order" have not stopped. 80 years have passed, but there is no answer, and of course there will not be.
              1. saigon
                saigon 11 July 2020 13: 11 New
                +1
                Here, before Dunkirk, talking about tank breakthroughs, there is no attack on fortified positions and battles in the city, and guns on tanks from Hans are good if 5 cm and very little 7.5 cm, self-propelled guns are few and fighting in the city would be difficult.
                So German promised not to allow evacuation, he lied to the bastard.
                In addition to Dunkirk, the British evacuated from other ports and where the Germans could not disrupt the evacuation.
        4. Kwas
          Kwas 10 July 2020 17: 52 New
          +2
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          not a battle, but an action for the faint of heart, which made it possible now to shout impudently, "we fought!"
          Coventry was then the center of the aircraft industry, and Hitler “covented” it into dust. So I fought seriously.
        5. Mikhail Ya2
          Mikhail Ya2 13 July 2020 08: 05 New
          0
          It seems there is an article about the distortion of history?
      4. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 10 July 2020 08: 45 New
        -1
        Quote: Uncle Izya
        Any naval operation is a big risk, Britain had a strongest fleet, and the Fritz blew up the air battle

        Such a statement is not serious.
      5. zenion
        zenion 13 August 2020 19: 01 New
        0
        What a fleet if the fleet was busy in the Pacific and also in the Indian. You have forgotten about Japan, which threatened not only Asians, but also Australia. Hess flew to Nagliya for a reason. Stalin knew about all this, but he was silent, so as not to expose future allies, and where would they have gone without the USSR? This already happened under Napoleon. As the British said, Hitler's main mistake was that they did not bomb airfields, did not bomb factories, this is sacred, private property. Ports and many other things were not bombed. The war with Nagliya was needed in order to fool the USSR, they say, Hitler will not fight on two fronts.
    3. Ragnar Lodbrok
      Ragnar Lodbrok 10 July 2020 06: 36 New
      16
      Quote: sav
      In fact, the Germans and the British are distant relatives.

      And what? Nicholas II was also a relative of the Saxons, did they help him? Here, from the area of ​​"bees against honey", Adolf Aloizovich is entirely Anglo-Saxon product, just vigorous and masterful, then they barely reassured the whole world ...
      1. sav
        sav 10 July 2020 06: 48 New
        16
        Quote: Ragnar lodbrok
        Adolf Aloizovich is a completely and completely Anglo-Saxon product, just rebellious and masterful, then the whole world barely reassured

        So nobody argues with this.
        I mean that we are for them greater strangers and enemies than they are among ourselves.
      2. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 10 July 2020 07: 54 New
        +2
        It seems simpler there were several projects for unleashing and maintaining WWII (British, American, and German identity too) - as a result, they entered into interaction and something did not go exactly as they planned shaving for example.
        1. Kwas
          Kwas 10 July 2020 18: 00 New
          +1
          Exactly! Reality is always the result of the interaction of all plans and efforts. The West is also not monolithic, just look at the states now to see this. And by the way, there is no need to hide that we also had a WWII management plan, and in any case better than some. I really hope that now there are plans too.
      3. lucul
        lucul 10 July 2020 08: 13 New
        +5
        And what? Nicholas II was also a relative of the Saxons, did they help him?

        As if Anglo-Saxons rule Britain)))
        Since 1640 there has been Jewish rule ...
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 10 July 2020 12: 48 New
          +5
          Quote: lucul

          As if Anglo-Saxons rule Britain)))
          Since 1640 there has been Jewish rule ...

          And from 1649, Jews took power in Tibet. The Dalai Lama is the offspring of the Levitic Kama family, and the current Queen of England is Trotsky’s illegitimate daughter from Barbara Streisand! negative
          1. Mikhail Ya2
            Mikhail Ya2 13 July 2020 08: 07 New
            +1
            Do not give him ideas, because he will continue to transmit them
      4. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 10 July 2020 09: 03 New
        +8
        Quote: Ragnar lodbrok
        Here, from the area of ​​"bees against honey", Adolf Aloizovich is a completely and completely Anglo-Saxon product, which was just vigorous and masterful, then they barely reassured the whole world.

        They did not expect that the possessed Adik would be able to create a modern army and, in the blink of an eye, capture all of Europe, especially when France itself fell under the feet of the Fuhrer. “Late to drink Borjomi!”, The plans of the Anglo-Saxons flew to ashes. The question "Why did Hitler not tear Britain apart" like the Tuzik Grelka, is still open until the British publish the documents, but the German don’t know whether they disappeared or are in someone’s archives.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. iouris
      iouris 10 July 2020 10: 42 New
      0
      Quote: sav
      Germans with the British are distant relatives

      All people are brothers. This is a truism.
      Another thing is that both the Romanovs (starting with Peter III, are called the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanovs), and the Windsor (the Windsor House was established on July 17, 1917 by King George V in order to rid the ruling dynasty of the former German name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in conditions of the First World War) were not only the descendants of the German princes, but also close relatives, which did not prevent the Romanovs from being eliminated. Prince Charles and his descendants should have belonged to the Glucksburg branch of the Oldenburg house, from which the husband of Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, came (this house also belonged to the Russian emperor Peter III and all his male descendants).
      Britain is a product of capital that has been relocated from the Venetian "republic." Moscow and St. Petersburg were rebuilt by Italians, and the shape of the battlements on the walls of the Kremlin indicates that the Moscow Tsar is a supporter of the Ghibellines (party of the emperor of the empire of the German nation), an opponent of Guelphs (papal authority),.
    6. Normal ok
      Normal ok 10 July 2020 15: 00 New
      -2
      Quote: sav
      In fact, the Germans and the British are distant relatives.

      According to the latest genetic studies, - from India to Europe = all relatives))
  2. Poetry
    Poetry 10 July 2020 06: 20 New
    +4
    The raven will not peck out the crow. The live-swallow does not kill the live-swallow. But here we are, quite another matter. We know the result.
    1. 2 Level Advisor
      2 Level Advisor 10 July 2020 08: 06 New
      +1
      But what then did they fight at 1 MV and 2 MV? Hitler scumbag with the idea of ​​an Aryan race, the British in the Aryans did not fall.
      1. iouris
        iouris 10 July 2020 13: 32 New
        +2
        Hit. Even as they hit. They developed this theory.
  3. Revolver
    Revolver 10 July 2020 06: 38 New
    14
    If Adolf had decided to seriously engage in Britain, the USSR would have received a reprieve until at least 1942. This is exactly what Stalin was counting on, quite logically assuming that the Germans would not start a big war, having an uninhabited Britain behind, and a force in itself to be reckoned with , and a potential foothold for the deployment of US forces. How much would this help the USSR? One can only guess, there will still be no definite answer.
    1. iouris
      iouris 10 July 2020 10: 51 New
      -1
      Hitler also "thought that ..." It should be borne in mind that the United States until the Pearl Harbor on December 1941 officially adhered to the policies of "pacifism" and "isolationism", i.e. they had only one interest: to earn a lot from the war in Europe, i.e. in order for the United States to overcome the deepest crisis, help spread this war, destroy European industry and transfer capital to the United States (doesn’t it remind of anything of modernity?). Henry Ford (not the last person in the USA) was an open admirer of Hitler, having on his wall a presented portrait in paints, he published anti-Semitic books. And all these “wonderful people” were ardent anti-communists who passionately hated the USSR.
  4. Octopus
    Octopus 10 July 2020 06: 43 New
    10
    Strange.

    When Mr. Samsonov alternates Soviet history, this is funny in his own way.

    But when he climbs abroad with his knowledge and skills in AI, it causes only irritation.
    1. lucul
      lucul 10 July 2020 08: 17 New
      -3
      But when he climbs abroad with his knowledge and skills in AI, it causes only irritation.

      And is this all your refutation of the article? )))
      He wrote everything correctly, he would like Hitler to fight seriously - he would capture 100%.
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 10 July 2020 08: 36 New
        +9
        Quote: lucul
        rebuttal of the article?

        Rebuttal?

        The question "how do we spend Sea Lion" a hundred times examined by people, in contrast to the author versed in history.

        You do not.

        If you want rebuttals - google and read.
        1. lucul
          lucul 10 July 2020 08: 40 New
          -10
          The question "how do we spend Sea Lion" a hundred times examined by people, in contrast to the author versed in history.

          These people had the task of hiding the falsehood and inconsistencies of that battle for Britain, and not a serious analysis.
          And also many skilled experts and historians write about how Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014. And what should I believe them? The analogy is complete and absolute - I have no confidence in Western propaganda.
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 10 July 2020 08: 45 New
            +1
            Quote: lucul
            experts and historians write about how Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014

            The attack of Russia on Ukraine is a secret only for Russians. Although even for them it’s not a secret: the universal argument is “not prove”.
            1. lucul
              lucul 10 July 2020 08: 47 New
              +6
              The attack of Russia on Ukraine is a secret only for Russians. Although even for them it’s not a secret: the universal argument is “not prove”.

              You’ve been fighting for 6 years, right?
              How are things going on in your parallel Universe? ))))
              1. 8Schlaf
                8Schlaf 10 July 2020 09: 00 New
                -1
                That he does not smell hryvnia ...
              2. Octopus
                Octopus 10 July 2020 09: 20 New
                -2
                Quote: lucul
                You’ve been fighting for 6 years, right?
                How are you

                Lousy. This is pretty obvious.
            2. chenia
              chenia 10 July 2020 09: 20 New
              +2
              Quote: Octopus
              The attack of Russia on Ukraine is a secret only for Russians.


              But America occupied Ukraine. . Ukraine pays reparations, and has an occupation administration. Miracles, but it happens when the Anglo-Saxons begin to "help".
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 10 July 2020 09: 48 New
                0
                Quote: chenia
                But America occupied Ukraine

                )))
                Kharkov occupied by America and Donetsk liberated by Russia could become a wonderful parody of the DPRK / RK.

                Could, but did not. Unlike in South Korea, the Ukrainian state did not succeed. And every day the chances of his appearance are decreasing. That is precisely the problem of the Ukrainians, and not at all in the war with Russia.

                Not every nation is destined to become state-forming. In the post-USSR, this quickly happened only among the Balts, who had hidden the embryo of their state for 50 years from the Soviet power in the basement, like a mushroom. Recently, Armenians and Georgians have been causing joyful surprise.

                The rest are out of luck.
                1. chenia
                  chenia 10 July 2020 10: 17 New
                  -2
                  Quote: Octopus
                  only the Baltic states quickly succeeded,


                  Did they do it? You are a cheerful person.
                  We take from the tribalt assistance, or rather the content of the EU and .... "succeeded"
                  How long will it be?
                  And in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, the requirements of the Washington Regional Committee were clearly fulfilled. The result is obvious. In short, "the glory of the CPSU (United States Capitalist Party).
                  1. Octopus
                    Octopus 10 July 2020 10: 21 New
                    +1
                    Quote: chenia
                    We take from the tribalt assistance, or rather the content of the EU

                    Take it, try it.
                    Quote: chenia
                    in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, the requirements of the Washington Regional Committee were clearly complied with. The result is obvious.

                    The result is different for everyone. Georgia is undoubtedly the best, Ukraine is the worst, Moldova did not take place at all.
                    When Mishiko left, it seemed that Georgia was over, the thieves broke through to power forever according to the Moldovan scenario. But no, while holding on.
                    1. chenia
                      chenia 10 July 2020 10: 28 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Octopus
                      while holding on.


                      Yes,. poverty is so stubborn and steadfast.
                      By the way. and where did the population go? (from 5 million to 3 with a hook). Do not tell me. Probably from the fallen happiness. people are massively dying ..
            3. uladzimir.surko
              uladzimir.surko 10 July 2020 09: 44 New
              -1
              An attack on the Russian language is an act of aggression, so someone got an answer and there is nothing to cry!
      2. Astra wild
        Astra wild 10 July 2020 12: 42 New
        +1
        Wanting and being able to make a big difference.
    2. Astra wild
      Astra wild 10 July 2020 12: 28 New
      +2
      In general, Mr. Sasonov is a unique author. He sometimes has good works, and most of them are
  5. Cowbra
    Cowbra 10 July 2020 06: 51 New
    +3
    The author, and the question? Pressed, yes. Only here, the Fast Gaints passages do not play, they have nowhere to retreat, and there the army is. The mentors will put everyone, 3-on-1 has not been canceled, but this is not. Dumb. That's why the air was clean - a mystery, yes
  6. Avior
    Avior 10 July 2020 06: 53 New
    12
    Well, the author piled on everyone. Sometimes even the truth comes across smile
    upon careful study of the facts, it turns out that the Reich did not fight at full strength against England. At the very beginning of the war, the Luftwaffes were ordered not to attack the ships of the British fleet in harbors.


    Since July 1940, the main objectives of the German bombing were coastal convoys and naval bases such as Portsmouth, but after a month the Luftwaffe switched to English airfields. During the battle, aircraft factories and ground-based infrastructure were also bombarded. Ultimately, the German Air Force resorted to scary bombing tactics and attacks on objects of great political importance.

    Surprisingly this sounds to us, German industry was not mobilized and work in peacetime. But even more surprisingly, this provision lasted until 1943.
    That is, Hitler began the war with the USSR, having a peacetime industry. Production went on in one shift, the restructuring of industry and generally life in the Reich for military needs did not occur. The war until 1943 was fought so as to affect as few Germans as possible. This provided Hitler with internal support.
    And this situation continued for 2 more years.
    But after the United States entered the war, the land began - Lisa and especially Stalingrad, Hitler realized that this would not work out further.
    Even in peacetime languor, the Americans covered Germany for the production of equipment like a bull’s sheep, and production grew, there was no talk of any peace talks for a long time, the Russians were ready to fight to the last, the war in the East took on a very fierce character, and something needed do.
    In 1943, Goebbels made a famous talk about total war, most of which was dedicated to the fact that the Germans had to stop living peacefully and go to resorts. As usual, he justified this by saying that dishonestly fighting against Germany and other blah blah blah.
    It was from the beginning of 1943 that Germany began the restructuring of industry for military needs. But this is another story ....
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 10 July 2020 07: 59 New
      0
      Quote: Avior
      Surprisingly this sounds to us, German industry was not mobilized and work in peacetime

      This is quite reasonable.

      Hitler, and he was not alone, believed that Germany had lost the WWII not at the front, but in the rear. From this he invented, as it seemed to him, a brilliant solution - Blitzkrieg. Achieve your geopolitical goals a series of small victorious wars, without politically excessive suffering of the German people.

      Hitler was primarily a great populist. Unlike some other populists, Hitler had bread and butter for the German people and getting up from his knees, and not one instead of the other.

      Until the 41th year it seemedThat it works. Yes, Britain is not finished, but, it seemedis safe. Even Barbarossa was executed successfully, they reached the Dnieper-Dvina line on time, and the Red Army was destroyed in border battles.

      But then it suddenly became clear that the loss of the USSR army, like dunkirk, do not mean the victory of the Reich in the war.

      At first it seemed like a mistake, an accident. If the first blitzkrieg did not resolve the issue, let's do another one. And they did it in the 42nd, also more than successfully.

      Only after the winter of 42nd did Hitler have to accept that the blitzkrieg no longer works, a total war cannot be avoided.

      Too late.

      For too long he did not want to believe it, he lied to himself.

      Comrade Stalin, for his part, learned the lessons of WWI, but in his own way. He was preparing for a war of attrition, preparing from the end of the 20s, at the cost of the inconceivable victims of the Soviet people. The Holodomor, collectivization, repression of the 30s - this is all it, World War II. Comrade Stalin was not satisfied with the option of transferring the imperialist war into a civil war and removing him from office by a vote of the commanding fronts.

      He completed these tasks. Yes, the USSR did nothing as it should, and in general until the 40th year it was going to fight with Britain, and not with Germany, but even under such conditions, Stalin’s bid for a total war broke the bid for Blitzkrieg.
      1. lucul
        lucul 10 July 2020 08: 21 New
        -5
        at the cost of the inconceivable victims of the Soviet people. The Holodomor, collectivization, repression of the 30s - this is all it, World War II.

        As usual-we will reduce everything to Russophobic propaganda, it is so in Hebrew ....
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 10 July 2020 08: 29 New
          +3
          Quote: lucul
          we will reduce everything to Russophobic propaganda

          How interesting. And what do you find in the quoted phrase Russophobic propaganda?
          1. lucul
            lucul 10 July 2020 08: 35 New
            -3
            How interesting. And what do you find in the quoted phrase as Russophobic propaganda?

            Is not it so ?)))
          2. V. Salama
            V. Salama 19 July 2020 16: 39 New
            -1
            And what do you find in the quoted phrase as Russophobic propaganda?
            There is a rule that many adhere to, it works in more than 50% of cases - "if an anti-Soviet, then a Russophobe." This is as information. However, it is anti-Sovietism that leads you to errors in assessing historical events to the level of speculation.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 19 July 2020 16: 49 New
              +2
              Quote: V. Salama
              if anti-adviser, then Russophobe

              As far as I remember, this is your rule invented by Sovkolyub, specifically Goblin. In general terms, it is wrong - leftist ideas are international. But in my case it really works - I consider the Russian people not a victim, but an accomplice in all affairs of the people's power.

              However, the conversation is not about that. Specifically in the post under discussion, where I characterize the preparation of the USSR for war - what do you see Russophobic?
              1. V. Salama
                V. Salama 19 July 2020 18: 59 New
                -1
                Quote: Octopus
                He was preparing for a war of attrition; he had been preparing since the late 20s, at the cost of unthinkable sacrifices of the Soviet people. The Holodomor, collectivization, repression of the 30s - this is all she, World War II.
                Perhaps you do not understand, but so mix everything in one pile ....? These are all separate topics for analysis, although at a certain stage this is also the period of preparation for war. Stalin did everything that the head of state should have done under those conditions, and hardly anyone could do it better. Offer an alternative, which is better and if you believe in it, then it will not be Russophobic slander, but just a delusion.
                Comrade Stalin was not satisfied with the option of the transition of the imperialist war into a civil war and his own removal from office by a vote of the front commanders
                Is this something from Western history? What is this all about? Of course, you can assume, based on experience with those who share your position, what do you mean. However, I have no desire to engage in speculation, and this is too voluminous topic for this format.
                Yes, the USSR did not do anything properly, and in general, until the 40th year, was going to fight with Britain, and not with Germany

                This statement also characterizes your position as biased. I already repeat that in those conditions everything possible was done, there wasn’t enough time and technology for “as it should”, but a lot of things weren’t enough ...
                The fact that until the 40th USSR was going to fight with Britain, and not with Germany, to put it mildly, is a historical error. Allegations of this kind are used to justify the fact that Stalin was stupid and did not possess the situation and information.
                Specifically in the post under discussion, where I characterize the preparation of the USSR for war - what do you see Russophobic?
                That's all that is perceived as slander and a lie on the history of our country and its leaders, and there are a lot of tricks that the opponent uses even unconsciously, following his motives, maybe even sincerely believes in his truth, this is slander on the Soviet people. Since, in the historical period under consideration, the Russian people played a significant role, this is a manifestation of Russophobia. But you yourself admitted this, considering "the Russian people an accomplice in all affairs of the people's power." The fact that you did not write "bloody" does not change anything - this is a technique.
                Reference: A motive is an internal psychological, conscious or unconscious incentive source to actions, giving them purposefulness and supporting their activity.
                And sayings (shortcomings) here often take place and characterize a person’s position and, more significantly, reduce the quality of his work in the analysis of situations.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 19 July 2020 20: 57 New
                  +1
                  Quote: V. Salama
                  You may not understand, but so mix everything in one pile ....?

                  What exactly is mixed in one pile? In your alternative, industrialization had nothing to do with militarization?
                  Quote: V. Salama
                  Suggest an alternative

                  As I already said, the USSR did not do anything normally, therefore, it is not so difficult to come up with altpositives for him if you do not follow the path of the current fellow soldiers with AK-47 and RPGs. Cancel the Big Fleet, instead of 11 thousand T-26, make 11 thousand Raupenschlepper Ost or at least Universal Carrier or half-geese. From 5 thousand BT-7s and 500 T-28s, form at least one tank division in advance.
                  Quote: V. Salama
                  What is this all about?

                  This is Nikolai's removal, 1917. As I understand it, the history of the USSR is not particularly interesting to you.
                  Quote: V. Salama
                  this, to put it mildly, is a historical delusion

                  the USSR in the reality before Barbarossa, he managed to lay 6 LC (2 pr 69, 4 pr 23), Britain - 7, USA - 8.
                  Quote: V. Salama
                  Stalin was stupid and did not own the situation and information.

                  Stalin was what he was, and the entire western border is occupied by the allies of Britain, not Germany. And in the south, junk without a big eye - English, mostly.
                  Quote: V. Salama
                  reduce the quality of his work in the analysis of situations.

                  The quality of your analysis is striking.
                  1. Octopus
                    Octopus 19 July 2020 21: 09 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Octopus
                    to barbarossa

                    Until the 41st year, more precisely, at the beginning of the 41st, the Americans banged another 2 Iowa.
                  2. V. Salama
                    V. Salama 20 July 2020 10: 30 New
                    0
                    Industrialization is always related to militarization to one degree or another. "All the greatest achievements of mankind are primarily used in military affairs." This was allegedly still claimed by Leonardo da Vinci. And the USSR, starting the industrialization of the country in the face of a military threat, was forced to strengthen its defense capacity in accordance with this threat. It is clear that the enemies of Russia do not like this.
                    Alternatively, plow finely. Yes, at that time we did not have adequate ideas on the use of tank troops, and what, and who had them by that time, except Germany? Of course, it was possible to make anything from the T-26, T-28, BT-7, all are good in hindsight ... but that would not solve the problem in any way, because the conditions of that time were the same (borrowed your technique). The problem was complex and, in addition to "militarization", the country faced a host of other problems.
                    Its enemies did not like the Russian fleet either, never objectively, but historically - since the time of Peter-1. It is not necessary to shift your needs to the needs of Russia, based on the complexity of external threats, in Russia itself the problem of determining the need and sufficiency of funds for defense is extremely difficult. Even Napoleon argued that "Geography is a sentence."
                    Nicholas, you are all masters of fastening in place and out of place, you yourself, probably, have already become entangled in relationships and interdependencies. This argument has not been rolling for a long time - it does not stand up to criticism, definitely. But you do not know and do not understand the history of the USSR, you simply do not have the necessary tools and, of course, motivation for this. You have already seen everything important in it for yourself for a long time, such teachers apparently were.
                    The fact that “the entire western border is occupied by the allies of Britain, not Germany. And in the south, junk without a big look - English, mostly "is absolutely not an argument confirming the assertion of who was planning to fight with whom. With the signing of the so-called "Molotov Pact ..." we, too, became an ally of England, which made her extremely disconcerted. And with the end of the First World War, it was clear that a future war was inevitable, and with the advent of Mein Kampf, it became obvious who would be the "driving force" in this war. And the fact that England was one of the key players in this "Sick Game" does not mean anything either, she has always been our enemy and, almost never, did not really hide it.
                    1. Octopus
                      Octopus 20 July 2020 11: 26 New
                      +1
                      Quote: V. Salama
                      It is clear that the enemies of Russia do not like this.

                      In the concept with good Russians, the Russians themselves must not like it. It is not so difficult to compare the price paid for supermilitarization by both countries of the 30s that followed this path: the USSR and Japan.
                      Quote: V. Salama
                      Yes, by that time we did not have adequate ideas for the use of tank forces.

                      It was the USSR and only it in the mid-30s that there were tank troops, and there were also ideas about their massing and deep operations, and much earlier than Guderian. Until the native party with its 29 mechanized corps got down to business.
                      Quote: V. Salama
                      because the conditions of that time were what they were (borrowed your technique)

                      If there were any conditions, what alternative could be discussed?
                      Quote: V. Salama
                      This argument has not rolled for a long time - it does not stand up to criticism,

                      Did you want to say something, or are you clogging up the ether with copy-paste?
                      Quote: V. Salama
                      absolutely not an argument confirming the statement about who planned to fight with whom.

                      Of course, this fact itself is not an argument. I have already cited the argument Above, you blurred it with references to Peter I.

                      Battleship tonnage laid down in 31-40 years inclusive, thousand short tons standard:

                      Italy - 160
                      France - 168
                      Germany - 253
                      Japan - 253
                      Britain - 265
                      USSR - 311
                      USA - 324.

                      Let me remind you that the United States is building a fleet of two oceans, preparing to fight Germany, Italy, France and Japan simultaneously and alone. Who is the USSR preparing to fight on the sea?
                      Quote: V. Salama
                      with the advent of "Mein Kampf" it became obvious

                      The author Mein Kampf, as far as I remember, performed in pubs, and at the time of writing this work he was in prison.
                      Quote: V. Salama
                      she has always been our enemy and almost never really hid it.

                      As a result, the battleship tonnage was not useful, 20 thousand T-26 and BT tanks too. As for the tanks, by the way, what amazes first of all is not that they disappeared, to hell with them, but that, as you rightly noted, the Red Army has 20 thousand tanks and has no idea what to do with them.

                      The multinational Soviet people found themselves a little bit overwhelmed.
                      1. V. Salama
                        V. Salama 20 July 2020 15: 29 New
                        0
                        Do not play with the concepts of overmilitarization and price. When there is no quality, you have to use quantity. It is a question of the possibilities of that time and the price is paid accordingly. You consider yourself a specialist in the history of the USSR, so you should also know the conditions of the embargo in which the country was located and the problems of industry and all other problems of that period. Do not drag Japan in here, which built its fleet, in particular, with the help of England and it is clear for what purpose. And she paid the price not for "overmilitarization", do not confuse "means" with "end".
                        Undoubtedly, at Khalkhin Goll we were "ahead of the rest of the planet," but I spoke about the use of tank troops in the war for which we were preparing - in a different theater of operations and with another enemy. In order to be adequate in those conditions, different equipment was needed, a different organizational and staff structure of troops and a fundamentally different system of combat and other types of support. We did not reach the ideal here even by the end of the war, again, everything depended on the possibilities for resources. The “native party” proceeded from these possibilities, but Guderian did not stand still, made great progress in these issues, relying on the experience of the war in Europe, and the “party” could not know about his achievements, just as Hitler and Guderian had strong surprise on a number of other issues regarding our troops.
                        With whom was the USSR preparing to fight at sea? A strange question for an expert on the history of the USSR. The country was simply preparing for war, and not only at sea. I think that those countries whose fleet tonnage you listed were considered as potential adversaries, and not only these countries, if you remember. At the time of the Intervention, 14 states had already plundered Russia, believing that it was no longer there. The taste for this has remained with them to this day. As subsequent events showed (adjusted for Hitler's deviance), this is what happened. The USSR had to fight with fascist Europe, in a war that meets all the aspirations of the European elites, where, by the will of circumstances, at a certain stage of it, our geopolitical opponents, actively participating in the preparation of this war, England and the USA, became our "allies".
                        The author of "Mein Kampf", of course, performed in pubs and was in prison. But in this work he formulated the task of expanding living space to the East. They helped him to come to power and, already in 1936, according to Time magazine, he became the man of the year. All England zigzagged at discos and in the USA there are enough fans among the elites. The necessary person appeared, although wayward, but this is a cost, in the end, the Moor must die anyway.
                        The fact that "the multinational Soviet people ended up a little bit at a broken trough" and another "I consider the Russian people not a victim, but an accomplice in all affairs ..." - here we must ask how the Russian people themselves believe. I will not answer on his behalf, I see no point in this case. If I answer briefly - accuse of "copy-paste", and you do not need a detailed answer, since your method of argumentation is, in fact, just a provocation in the hope of creating "troubled waters".
                      2. Octopus
                        Octopus 20 July 2020 16: 38 New
                        +1
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        You consider yourself a specialist in the history of the USSR

                        Who am I? I'm a little interested.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        should know the conditions of the embargo


                        Quote: V. Salama
                        Do not drag Japan in here, which built its fleet, in particular, with the help of England and it is clear for what purpose.

                        Quote: V. Salama
                        with the help of England

                        Was it Yamato, or what, they built with the help of England? It seems that someone is too impudent.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        And she paid the price not for "overmilitarization", do not confuse "means" with "end".

                        I am talking specifically about the cost of economic militarization. Of course, the Japanese were still those bunnies, but at least they did not eat each other. I mean, they literally didn't eat.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        on Khalkhin Goll we were "ahead of the rest"

                        At Khalkin Gol it became clear, first of all, that Comrade. Zhukov is not averse to lying.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        to be adequate in those conditions, a different technique was needed,

                        Why do you need another technique if you do not know how to use the one that is?
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        other organizational and staff structure of troops

                        In part of the tanks, they returned to the pre-war brigades. Moreover, these very brigades, called tank corps, existed until the end of the war.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        We did not reach the ideal here even by the end of the war

                        Most of all it looked like a division of the mechanized corps of the state of 43rd year.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        again, it all came down to resource opportunities

                        The mechanized corps of the 43rd year is 4 times smaller than the mechanized corps of the 41st.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        "Native party" and proceeded from these possibilities

                        The native party totally did NOT proceed from the possibilities, and this is evident in absolutely all components of military power.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        had great surprise on a number of other issues regarding our troops.

                        First of all, the question was why these troops did not end when it was already time. Hitler and Guderian did not understand what they were dealing with.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        During the Intervention, 14 states had already plundered Russia,

                        Of the 14 countries (I will not recount), the intervention was mainly carried out by Germany, with which the Bolsheviks had no problems. And, frankly speaking, there were no problems with the rest, except, perhaps, Poland. France, Britain and the United States fought on the side of the Bolsheviks. The French saved Ukraine for them, the British - Transcaucasia, the Americans drove the Finns from Karelia and the Japanese from the Far East Republic.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        I think that those countries were also considered as potential opponents.

                        Naturally, anyone was seen as opponents of the young republic of workers and peasants. Peaceful coexistence with the USSR was never possible, unfortunately, it came late and few people. So you absolutely rightly recorded the Allies as temporary travel companions.
                        Alas, you and Comrade Stalin understands this much better than Roosevelt and even, for a while, Churchill.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        But in this work he formulated the task of expanding living space to the East.

                        Did you read it?
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        already in 1936, according to Time magazine, he became the man of the year

                        In '38, Hitler was a man of the year; in '36, it was Wallis Simpson, the wretched divorcee.
                        Stalin was Time's Man of the Year in 39 and 42. In 2019, Greta Tumberg became the person of the year, in 2017 - the MeToo movement, if you don't know, these are the ladies who were grabbed by the ass by famous people 20 years ago, and it's time to tell the world about it. What should this fact tell me? That Hitler was also grabbed by the ass?
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        here we must ask what the Russian people themselves think.

                        So he thinks, as far as I know. Is it "we" who won the Second World War, or not already?
                      3. V. Salama
                        V. Salama 20 July 2020 19: 23 New
                        0
                        If you are a little interested in who you are in my opinion, then I can give you a description of your motivations, viewed when analyzing your posts. But, probably, this is not worth doing, you will not like it, and there is no need for it. So, be careful with your desires.
                        The country found itself in conditions of economic isolation after 1917, the technology was paid for in gold, timber, hemp, bread ..., and since 1925 - only with bread, the rest was not taken. I wonder why? And for some reason, only the Bolsheviks are to blame for the "Holodomor", the war was "cold" in modern terminology, there were also its victims. The question is different - there was a time of famine, but was there a famine? Statistics on the causes of death exist in the media of that time, you can consider it propaganda, you always have your own statistics on this matter.
                        The fact that the USSR built its ships to defend against a common enemy in British shipyards and at its own expense is one situation. And when Japan built its fleet on British funds and under their unseemly goals and obligations - this is a different situation, so there is no need to attract Japan here.
                        The "cost of economic militarization" of Japan? It is easy for you to mock a loser in the war, if you didn’t win the war, it was all in vain… - the wrong price was paid for…, or that one, but it wasn’t necessary?
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Why do you need another technique if you do not know how to use the one that is?

                        The means must be proportionate to the purpose of the destination, this is taught at school.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        The mechanized corps of the 43rd year is 4 times smaller than the mechanized corps of the 41st.

                        I see no contradiction with my statements. Consequently, the resource for the comprehensive support of actions is several times less.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Hitler and Guderian did not understand what they were dealing with

                        In the end, it turned out like this. But I'm not going to talk about the losses of the parties now, you still won't believe it.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Did you read it?

                        Right now, this is prohibited by law, but the video has not yet been closed on YouTube, if memory serves: "Could Stalin have stopped Hitler."
                        Quote: Octopus
                        ... there were no problems, except, perhaps, Poland. France, Britain and the United States fought on the side of the Bolsheviks. The French saved Ukraine for them, the British - Transcaucasia, the Americans drove the Finns from Karelia and the Japanese from the Far East Republic.

                        Smiled, although with humor I'm fine. We are talking about the Intervention of 1918, however ...
                        Quote: Octopus
                        In the 38th, Hitler was a man of gogda, ..., a wicked divorcee.
                        Stalin was Time's Man of the Year in 39 and 42.

                        Well, I was mistaken in a year, so what? What's essential. You, too, made a mistake in the year - the second time Stalin became the man of the year in 1943, what is also a "razor razvenka"?
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Is it "we" who won the Second World War, or not already?

                        Only you can doubt the answer to this question. Whether you are even a soldier of the ideological front or a victim of an information war related to irrecoverable losses, you are wasting your time on provocations. However, they have become much worse for you now.
                      4. Octopus
                        Octopus 21 July 2020 09: 58 New
                        +2
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        Only you can doubt the answer to this question.

                        Perfectly. Therefore, my, yours and the Goblin's position that the Russians owe all the debts of the USSR is quite consistent with the position of both the authorities and society in Russia.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        the second time Stalin became the man of the year in 1943, what is also a "broken intelligence"?

                        42nd. 43rd - Marshall. Who, in principle, can be interested in the opinion of Time magazine on any issue?
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        it is about the Intervention of 1918, however ...

                        It is about her. Another thing is that the Soviet government, of course, lied to the population about who were its enemies and who were its friends.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        Right now, this is prohibited by law,

                        Prohibited from distribution, not reading, for now.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        But I'm not going to talk about the losses of the parties now, you still won't believe it.

                        )))
                        You will not believe this.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        Consequently, the resource for the comprehensive support of actions is several times less.

                        Consequently, the size of a tank division for all countries is approximately the same, since it is set by objective restrictions. The USSR had much more objective restrictions than the Americans and Germans (communications, personnel), so its tank divisions were smaller and simpler than foreign ones. Task of Commands of the Red Army to force.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        The remedy must be proportionate


                        Quote: V. Salama
                        The "cost of economic militarization" of Japan? It's easy for you to mock a loser in a war, if you didn't win the war, then everything was in vain ...

                        Actually, the meaning of my statement is the opposite. The Japanese, dispensing, as far as is known, without cannibalism and corpse-eating, created an effective army and unconditionally the best fleet in the world for the 41st year. The USSR created an army at the indicated price, which burned down in 2 months.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        The fact that the USSR built its ships for protection from a common enemy in British shipyards and at its own expense

                        This is from what alternative history the USSR builds ships in England? Not from the same alternative where Yamato was built with English money?
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        Statistics on the causes of death exist in the media of the time.

                        Great, we got to the most honest Soviet newspapers in the world.

                        As I said, I treat the Russian people without romantic sadness. Therefore, the current official position - there was a famine in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, but not in the RSFSR - suits me perfectly. Russians must not be allowed to pass themselves off as victims of the Soviet regime. Anti-Soviet = anti-Russian, as you and Goblin correctly noted, therefore Soviet = Russian.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        And for some reason, only the Bolsheviks are to blame for the "Holodomor"

                        Exactly.

                        Quote: V. Salama
                        only bread, the rest was not taken. I wonder why?

                        Because a country that only produces Vickers tanks has nothing more to offer? No, won't it?

                        By the way, about the embargo.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        economic isolation after 1917, technology was paid for in gold, timber, hemp, bread

                        A strange kind of isolation looms.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        If you are a little interested in who you are in my opinion,

                        Careful about the commas. The remark referred to your definition of me as a specialist in the history of the USSR.
                      5. V. Salama
                        V. Salama 21 July 2020 12: 06 New
                        0
                        If Russia has officially declared itself the successor of the USSR, then attract debts to it. And whether she recognizes the fairness of these payments is not for us to decide. The fact that only the Russians owe their debts is your Russophobia that deforms the logic of thinking. The fact that this is combined with the position of the authorities, I can agree, so - in the percentage of EdRosny approximately. For society - I think much less. This is the essence of your argumentation - to pass off the part for the whole.
                        “... that the Soviet government, of course, lied to the population about who were its enemies and who were its friends” is your personal opinion, which has nothing to do with reality. I do not even consider it necessary to refute it, it in itself discredits you as a source of information for the formation of adequate ideas about reality.
                        There is no point in arguing about the losses of the parties, since we still will not receive accurate data, as well as confirmation that the USSR suffered excessive losses. Excessive in comparison with what, with Germany, Poland, France ..., with the fact that if he knew how to use T-26, BT, or if there were not so many of them? Germany has not kept a record of its combat losses at all since August 1943, and has never kept a record of the losses of its allies, but have you counted their number? And the USSR, unlike Germany, did not set the goal of destroying its population. It's not for you to judge about light tanks and their number, here Hitler expressed his opinion, so they played a role at the beginning of the war, and later they found a use.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        The Japanese, dispensing, as far as is known, without cannibalism and corpse-eating, created an effective army and unconditionally the best fleet in the world for the 41st year. The USSR created an army at the indicated price, which burned down in 2 months.

                        If you do not see the difference in what conditions what was done and how it burned down, I will not dissuade you, for the same reason as with the Intervention.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Russians must not be allowed to pass themselves off as victims of the Soviet regime.

                        Yours initially tried, but apparently did not work. Now the task has changed to the opposite, go ahead.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        hence Soviet = Russian.

                        Definitely, only mathematical symbols are inappropriate here, since in fact it is possible to write it like this - Soviet = Kazakh. You have something wrong with the logic, I think this is the same Russophobia crushes.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        A strange kind of isolation looms.

                        Nothing strange, just such a Jesuit policy, they understood what they were doing.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Careful about the commas. The remark referred to your definition of me as a specialist in the history of the USSR.

                        I'm sorry, I lost my meaning and interest in communication, I don't even read your arguments to the end sometimes, so there are jambs, but in fact, the subject does not matter much.
                      6. V. Salama
                        V. Salama 22 July 2020 13: 42 New
                        0
                        I apologize, of course, but I don't like the unfinished page, this is my marriage, I will try to fix it, but this always makes sense.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        This is from what alternative history the USSR builds ships in England? Not from the same alternative where Yamato was built with English money?

                        I did not claim that the Yamato was built with British money, but there are British credits in the fleet created by Japan. Yamato was built later, but the resource obtained earlier cannot be ignored in the estimates. For the construction of Yamato, Japan could well use the Russian gold received from Kolchak. However, it was about the conditions in which Japan and Russia were “militarized”. You have absolutely equalized these conditions or completely ignored them. I, perhaps, in an unsuccessful manner, recalled one of the initial factors from which one could start comparing these conditions, but I limited myself to it, since I did not assume that you were "a little interested" in the history of Russia and the factor I indicated would not move you to that the chain of reasoning that I expected. You sent me back to 1917 with the reproach that I was not interested in the history of Russia, but in this case, assessments should be started at least from the year 1905.
                        In the Russo-Japanese War, Japan won naval battles, having a modern fleet at that time and an ally Great Britain, on whose money this fleet was built. Russia had mostly outdated ships. Russia endured the 1905 revolution, the preparation of which was not without the participation of external forces. In what state the country was at the stage before the First World War - this is the ideological battlefield of many forces at the present time and you can find opposite assessments.
                        So by 1913 the growth of industrial production in Russia was 7%, in Europe - 4%. Russia produced and sold metal to Germany, France, England, the United States, and exported bread. If it were not for the Bolsheviks ... However:
                        Germany produced metal 6 times more than Russia, France - 4 times, England - 9 times, the USA - 16 times.
                        Russia was agricultural, peasant - 5 out of 6 people lived in rural areas. So, it makes little sense to compare the percentage of growth of a flea and an elephant. The bread was sold abroad due to the malnutrition of its own people and due to high yields in the southern regions. When a lean year happened, no one was going to feed the peasants of the middle lane at that time, but at the present time - to look there for famines and those to blame for them.
                        Take the results of the last Tsarist census, there is data on the number of people who can read and write - about 30%, depending on gender and age.
                        And with such a baggage, Russia entered this dynamic in the development of countries, the 20th century?
                        The First World War revealed and exacerbated everything, there is also an ideological battlefield here, I will not touch on, I will only remind you that we are comparing the conditions of Russia in comparison with the conditions of Japan.
                      7. V. Salama
                        V. Salama 22 July 2020 13: 44 New
                        0
                        If we assume the impossible, namely that February 1917 was not a Maidan created by the West through agents of influence with the aim of destroying Russia, using its critical state, but it was indeed a bourgeois revolution, then it should be admitted that it did not fulfill any of its tasks and was not able to fulfill them. And all this industrial revolution, reforming agriculture, LIKBEZ and others had to be done by the Bolsheviks. And in what terms, and in what conditions, so that their methods were appropriate to the conditions of preparation for a future war and fully consistent with the methods of other states in similar conditions. However, other states did not have such conditions when they had to fight on such a scale with sabotage, sabotage and other opposition initiated and supported from outside. And these are additional measures and sacrifices, the blame for which you attribute only to the Bolsheviks. There was also the Intervention and the Civil War, which would not have happened, at least on that scale, without the full support of the White movement by the West. There was also an embargo, technologies were not given to us, and we had carousel machines, in particular, there were only two for the production of modern tanks, if I'm not mistaken. And Japan is already an ally of Germany, and you equalize it in conditions with the USSR. Stalin had to use Germany, I hope you do not blame the USSR ("Russian") for this.
                        As for the "construction of ships of the USSR at the shipyards of England", these are torpedo boats. Ships of a different class were already built according to Lend-Lease at US shipyards. Large ships were not built for us at all and were not transferred, except perhaps in 1944. They did not want to, and we had nowhere to use them.
                        Already in September 1941, Great Britain, tired of confronting Germany alone, in the person of the "Canadian Powers Boat Company", proposed to the USSR, in the person of the head of the Soviet military mission in Great Britain, Rear Admiral Nikolai Kharlamov, to produce 100 torpedo boats 25 monthly each. and as a result received 202 torpedo boats.
                      8. Octopus
                        Octopus 22 July 2020 16: 43 New
                        +1
                        Lord, how many bukaff.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        Already in September 1941 Great Britain

                        I do not consider the international cooperation of the USSR in the framework of the Second World War.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        February 1917 was not a Maidan created by the West through agents of influence with the aim of destroying Russia using its critical state,

                        In your parallel reality, some mentally ill Westerners are destroying their ally in order to free up the forces of their enemy and destroy more of their own soldiers.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        The bourgeois revolution, then it should be recognized that it did not fulfill any of its tasks and was not able to fulfill them.

                        Here you are right, the liberals mediocrely pissed away their first and last chance. As well as Russia as a whole.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        However, other states did not have such conditions when they had to fight on such a scale with sabotage, sabotage and other opposition initiated and supported from outside.

                        Quite unexpected people were engaged in sabotage and sabotage. Members of the Central Committee of the first congresses, for example, or, there, the chairman of the Petrograd Soviet.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        which would not exist, at least on that scale, without the comprehensive support of the West of the White movement.

                        How interesting. And what does not suit you in the fact that the Entente supports the country's official authorities against the color revolution, the leadership of which is openly acting in the interests of their common military enemy with the Republic of Ingushetia? It’s clear to me — I don’t love white Russia almost as much as red — but you?
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        There was also an embargo, technology did not give us

                        Aircraft engines of the USSR WWII: VK / Hispano-Suiza, Shvetsov / Wright, Mikulin / BMW. There was also Tumansky / Gnome-Ron, but Soviet power quickly covered him.

                        Embargo, yes.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        of us carousel machines, in particular, for the production of modern tanks, there were only two, if I'm not mistaken.

                        This is a well-known tale. Ask about the size of the turret ring of the mentioned battleships.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        Stalin had to use Germany, I hope you do not blame the USSR ("Russian") for this.

                        That the USSR helped the Reich prepare for Barabarossa? No, I don't see any problems in this, everything is fair.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        start assessments from at least the year 1905.

                        What for? Again you want to blame all the lovers of the Second World War on Alexander III?
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        And with such a baggage, Russia entered this dynamic in the development of countries, the 20th century?

                        With industry at the French level in terms of shaft, somewhat inferior in technology. When going back through 1913, Sovkolyubs love to change gross indicators to per capita and vice versa.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        Nothing strange, just such a Jesuit policy, they understood what they were doing.

                        Some sick Jesuits exchange bread for tanks for the Bolsheviks.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        - Soviet = Kazakh

                        Not. Kazakhstan, slower than many other countries, but also moving towards the concept of Soviet-Russian occupation. It's unavoidable.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        Yours initially tried, but apparently did not work.

                        Yes, the White Guard, the denial of the Soviet period, was in vogue in the early 90s, at the suggestion of the AIS. It didn't work out, of course. Unlike the Federal Republic of Germany, where in the 49th elections the Germans chose from two Dachau graduates, Adenauer and Schumacher, in the Russian Federation the same Soviet nomenklatura simply moved to other seats. Naturally, there was no reason to declare the Soviet regime, their regime, criminal.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        If you do not see the difference in what conditions what was done and how it burned down,

                        It burned out instantly, and the conditions were much milder than Japanese.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        Germany has not kept a record of its combat losses at all since August 1943

                        Drop dead.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        It's not for you to judge about light tanks and their number, here Hitler expressed his opinion

                        Well, if Hitler himself expressed his opinion, then it is definitely not for me to judge.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        it in itself discredits you as a source of information

                        Do you take information from anonymous forums? You can feel it.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        If Russia has officially declared itself the successor of the USSR, then attract debts to it. And whether she recognizes the fairness of these payments is not for us to decide

                        You see, I did not mean money by the debts of the USSR. Not money at all.
                      9. V. Salama
                        V. Salama 24 July 2020 14: 35 New
                        0
                        Quote: Octopus
                        In your parallel reality, some mentally ill Westerners are destroying their ally in order to free up the forces of their enemy and destroy more of their own soldiers.

                        The reality is somewhat different: to use the "ally" in such a way as to save their soldiers and, as a result, weaken and deprive them of influence.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Here you are right, the liberals mediocrely pissed away their first and last chance. As well as Russia as a whole.
                        Well, you shouldn't be talking about Russia - there was also the USSR and its achievements, in the loss of the existence of which mankind lost its chance for an unacalyptic survival. Henry Kissinger spoke interestingly about the USSR at the age of 86 at the end of his political career. And the liberals again got and realized their chance in the early 90s.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Quite unexpected people were engaged in sabotage and sabotage. Members of the Central Committee of the first congresses, for example, or, there, the chairman of the Petrograd Soviet.
                        Even now we have a lot of such unexpected people, and the damage and consequences from it are greater, though we do not see it that way - the plundering of resources will affect later, but for some reason it is now considered illegal to use repression against them. So what follows from this? Whoever got the chance should be responsible.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        And what does not suit you in the fact that the Entente supports the country's official authorities against the color revolution, the leadership of which is openly acting in the interests of their common military enemy with the Republic of Ingushetia? It’s clear to me — I don’t love white Russia almost as much as red — but you?

                        Here, as it were, a violation of logic is visible, the Entente prepared and supported the color revolution, and when the Bolsheviks, as disregarded by anyone as a serious force, violated these plans, the Entente tried to destroy them.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        This is a well-known tale. Ask about the size of the turret ring of the mentioned battleships.
                        I was not interested in this issue, it is surprising, of course, that the elements of the turret turret of the battleship and the T-34 tank were cut on the same machine. Although here it is necessary to take into account the caliber of the weapon. In any case, we must talk about the presence of these machines in factories for the production of tanks, not ships.
                        "The fact that the USSR helped the Reich prepare for Barabarossa? No, I don't see any problems in that, everything is fair."
                        Well, yes, they were "friends", they were well fed, since August 1939, the media were afraid to say a bad word not to offend - and they prepared the enemy, they didn't know who he was, and didn't know who was preparing him in reality. You have all the cards in your deck marked and double standard in the ratings.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        With industry at the French level in terms of shaft, somewhat inferior in technology. When going back through 1913, Sovkolyubs love to change gross indicators to per capita and vice versa.

                        You are now assessing this by the shaft, but it seems like you started with combat power. With regard to "slightly inferior in technology" you have softened this a lot. In addition, it is necessary to figure out at the expense of what ensured the growth of industrial production in Russia by 7% - that is another topic.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Not. Kazakhstan, slower than many other countries, but also moving towards the concept of Soviet-Russian occupation. It's unavoidable.

                        You are talking about the “elite” of Kazakhstan, and yes, this is inevitable to justify your mistakes in management and in case of objective problems.
                        The people said their word back in the 90s. I think you remember what percentage of the vote for the preservation of the Union was among the people of Kazakhstan. And now, the "elite" is always reformatting its people to suit their needs. "What is the pop, so is the parish."
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Yes, the White Guard, the denial of the Soviet period, was in vogue in the early 90s, at the suggestion of the AIS. It didn't work out, of course.

                        Here you have somewhat skipped off the subject of controversy, not about that, not about the denial of the period. I do not blame you, I myself can, without understanding the intentions of my opponent, blurt out inappropriately. In addition, in this mode of communication, you can forget the original arguments, remember yours:
                        "We cannot allow the Russians to pass themselves off as victims of the Soviet regime."
                        And this is also from Goebbels - the hope that the Soviet (Russian) people feel like a victim of Soviet power and an attempt to strengthen this feeling with their own propaganda. This attempt was also made by the liberals, but much later than the beginning of the 90s. As for Goebbels, his hope could have been shaken even then by General Vlasov A.A., who "was of the opinion that the Russian people are very grateful to Bolshevism for many good things," summarizes the document drawn up since October 26, 1944 by employees of the Berlin branch (section 4- H) the Secret State Police. Source: Smyslov O.S. Judas in uniform. - M .: Veche, 2010 .-- 2010 .-- 320s.: Ill. - (Military secrets of the twentieth century). on page 103.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        It burned out instantly, and the conditions were much milder than Japanese.
                        It is good for you to talk about conditions on the island. The Kwantung Army just burned out, judging by the totality of factors that were essential for our dispute.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Do you take information from anonymous forums? You can feel it.

                        In such cases, I take from my shitty memory, so I'm often wrong in numbers.
                        For me, it is more important to understand myself than to convince you (the latter for me does not make sense at all, by and large). And for this, such principles are quite applicable, the correct understanding of which can only be in a complex consideration: knowledge of trends (understanding the essence of a phenomenon, a process) frees from the need to know little things, by which we should understand an insufficient set of essential facts and the entire set of insignificant ones. Since (from psychology) a thought brought to its logical end is thrown out of memory, it makes sense (given the unconscious process of saving mental efforts) to keep in mind the final conclusions, without worrying about preserving the prerequisites that provide the received ideas. This quality is extremely negative in controversy, but what it really is.
                        And you can hardly expect me to look for a document every time that confirms my statements in a dispute with a person who does not need the truth (in the everyday sense) and who has every word a lie or at least a half-truth, which is always worse than a lie, and which uses Solzhenitsyn's principle: "The main thing is to spit first."
                        Quote: Octopus
                        You see, I did not mean money by the debts of the USSR. Not money at all.

                        I am not surprised at all. You are always ready to "hang all the dogs" on the USSR.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 10 July 2020 10: 38 New
    +4
    Quote: lucul
    As usual-we will reduce everything to Russophobic propaganda, it is so in Hebrew ....

    And you read Simonov (Military-Industrial Complex of the USSR in the 1920-1950s) and Melia (Mobilization Planning).
    The leadership of the USSR understood that a great war in Europe could not be avoided (however, everyone understood that - Marshal Foch even called a fairly accurate date for the termination of the "Versailles Armistice"). And that this war will be a war of attrition, and not of affliction - a long and bloody one. And the winner is the one who mobilizes the economy in the best way for the needs of the front and takes the plants out of attack.
    True, the first half of the 20s did not give a damn about the economic component of a future war - for the process of sharing power was much more important. Helped the USSR, oddly enough, the British with their ultimatum and the Military Alert of 1927. In preparing the response, the leadership of the Union suddenly discovered that the country had nothing for a big war - there was nothing even to arm most of the mobilized. Based on the results of the Military Alert, a decision was made to rush industrialization - to create an economic foundation for a future war. A industrial
    Industrialization with emphasis on heavy industry (even at the cost of agreement with the capitalists), mobilization and evacuation planning, the transformation of railways into a paramilitary organization, tight control over the armed forces - no, the ITT did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past authorities. smile
  • Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 10 July 2020 12: 59 New
    +1
    Quote: lucul

    As usual-we will reduce everything to Russophobic propaganda, it is so in Hebrew ....

    Correctly say, here he is - a Jew, an associate of Solovyov and Khinshtein - the pillars of the Russophobic propagandist on Israel 1 channel! am
  • chenia
    chenia 10 July 2020 09: 31 New
    +3
    Quote: Octopus
    He was preparing for a war of attrition, preparing from the end of the 20s, at the cost of the inconceivable victims of the Soviet people. Holodomor, collectivization, repressions of the 30s - that’s all it is,


    Absolutely sober calculation, and a deep understanding of world processes. I can’t even imagine what would have happened if, by the beginning of the war, 5-6 plants had not been built that significantly influenced the production of military equipment, and if the main types of equipment had been created (albeit raw ones).
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 10 July 2020 10: 14 New
      +1
      Quote: chenia
      Absolutely sober calculation, and a deep understanding of global processes

      Common paranoia. However, if you have paranoia, this in itself does not guarantee that they will not try to kill you.
      1. chenia
        chenia 10 July 2020 10: 23 New
        +2
        Quote: Octopus
        Common paranoia.


        Uh, but so primitive. And as the real story showed, Comrade Stalin was generally at the level of the prophets. And this happens if you do not clog the head with all liberoid garbage.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 10 July 2020 10: 29 New
          -2
          Quote: chenia
          as shown by real history, comrade Stalin was generally at the level of the prophets.

          Yes, comrade Stalin was lucky. The rest were less fortunate.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 10 July 2020 12: 09 New
        +2
        Quote: Octopus
        Common paranoia.

        Or the understanding that a great war in Europe cannot be avoided.
        This is not peace, this is a truce for 20 years.
        © Ferdinand Foch
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 10 July 2020 12: 40 New
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          understanding that a great war in Europe cannot be avoided.

          You know very well that the big war in the understanding of the end of the 20s is the Baltic Entente - + the Balkan Entente + if at all kapets, Manzhou-go.
  • iouris
    iouris 10 July 2020 11: 43 New
    -1
    Quote: Octopus
    Yes, the USSR did not do anything properly, and in general, until the 40th year, was going to fight with Britain, and not with Germany

    Stalin did. History does not know the subjunctive mood. It could not be otherwise, even if you personally replaced Stalin.
  • carstorm 11
    carstorm 11 10 July 2020 18: 19 New
    0
    you taught history well?) Hitler invented the blitzkrieg))) Alfred von Schlieffen after that apparently turned over in a coffin after a similar statement. What else did he come up with? apparently tanks?)))
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 10 July 2020 18: 30 New
      +2
      Do not find fault with the details. It was about the political context of the blitzkrieg.
  • lucul
    lucul 10 July 2020 08: 19 New
    -1
    During the battle, aircraft factories and ground-based infrastructure were also bombarded.

    And a lot was destroyed?)))
    1. Avior
      Avior 10 July 2020 08: 23 New
      +2
      How much could.
      1. lucul
        lucul 10 July 2020 08: 34 New
        -3
        How much could.

        When the Germans WANTED, they could destroy, examples are France / USSR, and then there is absolutely no destruction ....
        They wanted it so called ... or simply there was no order.
        1. Avior
          Avior 10 July 2020 08: 36 New
          +2
          Tell us more about the demolished Paris in your alternative world of Paris or Moscow.
          The usual story is not up to date.
          1. lucul
            lucul 10 July 2020 08: 45 New
            0
            Tell us more about the demolished Paris in your alternative world of Paris or Moscow.
            The usual story is not up to date.

            In fact, RUSSIAN will not write this, or do you think there were few cities from Brest to Moscow, and weren’t the Germans bombing them ????
            1. Avior
              Avior 10 July 2020 09: 09 New
              +2
              Bombed. How much could- destroyed. Like in England. But you set France as an example of destruction in the first place.
              Again, you give an example of a zone where ground combat was taking place. Of course, if active battles in the city, he will suffer very much, even if no one sets the task of destroying the city.
              Sorry, but you didn’t hear that there were instructions from the Stavka on the destruction and burning during the retreat of Soviet industry, infrastructure, agriculture — all, in general, up to the Soviet settlements completely?
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 10 July 2020 11: 05 New
          +9
          Quote: lucul
          When the Germans WANTED, they could destroy, examples are France / USSR

          Well, the Germans wanted to destroy Moscow. And How? Or evaluate the scale of the destruction of Leningrad during the blockade - even shipyards worked in the city, and it is almost impossible to shelter them. The same "Ayshtoss" of 1942, the backlashes solemnly failed.
          Wishlist play must be correlated with the capabilities of enemy air defense. And with the capabilities of the backlashes themselves (for example, with a combat radius of Bf-109).
          1. chenia
            chenia 10 July 2020 11: 48 New
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Well, the Germans wanted to destroy Moscow. And How?


            In, I also give an example. Moscow is in front of the nose, and something the Germans did not fly and did not bomb (so small things).
            And the Battle of Moscow is a battle of millions of factions.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 10 July 2020 12: 41 New
              +5
              Quote: chenia
              In, I also give an example. Moscow is in front of the nose, and something the Germans did not fly and did not bomb (so small things).

              So the Moscow air defense zone in terms of forces was approximately equal to the air defense of the entire south of Britain. smile But the Germans attracted much less energy to raids on Moscow than to the “Eagle Day” and the Battle of Britain as a whole.
              So the backlash could want anything. But the result of their Wishlist was determined by the air defense goals.
          2. Kwas
            Kwas 10 July 2020 18: 16 New
            0
            As for Moscow, we must also take into account that our air defense forces relied on excellent airfields near Moscow, and Hitler got broken and muddy ground.
  • iouris
    iouris 10 July 2020 13: 36 New
    0
    Quote: Avior
    Surprisingly this sounds to us, German industry was not mobilized and work in peacetime.

    Firstly, "German industry" is almost the whole of Europe. Secondly, in "German industry" the slave labor of prisoners of war, political prisoners and east-arbeiters was used, and the slave owners did not work. So this thesis is erroneous.
    1. Avior
      Avior 10 July 2020 14: 41 New
      -1
      Poor this whole Europe worked
      For all types of military equipment, Germany lagged behind the USSR at times
  • Free wind
    Free wind 10 July 2020 16: 34 New
    0
    Many manufacturing processes are continuous. Starting a blast furnace runs continuously, open-hearth furnaces, a continuous process, etc. That is, production in three shifts. according to the laws of war. In agriculture, at least the cow twitch for the tits around the clock, she will not give more milk. The Germans had no problems in arming. If necessary, they could increase production. Plus huge trophies. On airplanes, so they and the pilots did not have enough. And where it is not necessary, this tension, and so they lived peacefully. Soviet soldiers marveled at the prosperity of the peasants, Germany. They were not taken to the front either.
    1. Avior
      Avior 11 July 2020 16: 59 New
      0
      I know that there are continuous cycles.
      Only smelted steel can be used in different ways. we are talking about military production.
      Nothing like "everything for the front, everything for the Victory" was not observed in Germany at that time.
      Worked in peacetime
  • aglet
    aglet 11 July 2020 16: 46 New
    +1
    "But after the US entered the war, the land began - Lisa"
    Lend lease began in March 1941, America declared war on Germany on December 10, 1941, and then Hitler thought (two years, if cho), and transferred the industry to military tracks. had it not been for the losses on the eastern front, Hitler would have fought with the "allies" in a sanatorium-resort regime. and you look, and would conquer
    1. Avior
      Avior 11 July 2020 16: 56 New
      -1
      The states needed time to restructure industry.
      At some point, Hitler might have the illusion that he could do without it. But in 1942, massive bombing of Germany began, Land Lisa grew sharply and the age of the loss of the Wehrmacht in both technology and manpower.
      Stalingrad alone was worth it.
      1. aglet
        aglet 11 July 2020 17: 00 New
        -1
        "What alone was Stalingrad."
        That's it, Stalingrad. and do not talk about the war between America and Germany, land lease, etc. Germany suffered major losses on the eastern front, including in technology. therefore, they brought industry on a war footing. and the Germans would have dealt with the allies without straining too much
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 10 July 2020 06: 55 New
    10
    Do not read Samsonov’s stories before dinner stop . I've been sworn, but read. And time cannot be returned
    1. lucul
      lucul 10 July 2020 08: 26 New
      -4
      Do not read Samsonov’s stop story before dinner. I've been sworn, but read. And time cannot be returned

      And what to read, your Western propaganda? )))
      So we know about its authenticity - according to it, Russia has been fighting Ukraine since 2014))) And the myths of the Battle of Britain among them ...
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 10 July 2020 08: 48 New
        +8
        do not read propaganda at all. and if you read, divide by 16. And get rid of the stupid habit of contrasting: "I am a patriot - you are an agent of the West" - panties have long been small, probably
        1. lucul
          lucul 10 July 2020 08: 50 New
          -6
          do not read propaganda at all. and if you read, divide by 16. And get rid of the stupid habit of contrasting: "I am a patriot - you are an agent of the West" - panties have long been small, probably

          So what do you climb on our Russian-language site? Sit there and discuss.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 10 July 2020 09: 00 New
            +3
            where exactly ? in Russia ?
            I do not like the way you bother your head
    2. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 10 July 2020 08: 48 New
      +6
      It’s not depressing that this is nonsense; it’s depressing that such nonsense is published more and more often.
  • Kunich80
    Kunich80 10 July 2020 06: 56 New
    +7
    Hitler could not and that’s all, he hoped for peace, but did not grow together. And when the losses of the Luftwaffe surged, and the British showed that they could bomb German cities, I decided not to waste the strength of the Luftwaffe in vain.
    Alternative specialists
    1. lucul
      lucul 10 July 2020 08: 23 New
      -5
      And when the losses of the Luftwaffe surged, and the British showed that they could bomb German cities, I decided not to waste the strength of the Luftwaffe in vain.

      Yeah, and therefore attacked the USSR with a powerful air fleet, which, according to Western propaganda, was destroyed by the British, right? Where is the logic ? )))
      1. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar 10 July 2020 13: 07 New
        +1
        He had an effective air fleet that fought against the ineffective Red Army Air Force until 1943. The United States and Britons had a really powerful fleet, also of the year since 1943.
    2. aglet
      aglet 11 July 2020 16: 54 New
      -2
      "And when the losses of the Luftwaffe went wild, and the British showed that they could bomb German cities, I decided not to waste the strength of the Luftwaffe in vain"
      the Bretans began bombing German cities in 1942, with emphasis on the destruction of civilians. loss of Britons battle for Britain - 60 thousand. English. loss of Germans from carpet bombing - 600 people. is there a slight difference? "The British Air Force launched carpet bombing. It was clarified that it was necessary" to focus attacks on the morale of the civilian population of the enemy and, in particular, industrial workers "" terrorism, no?
  • 7,62h54
    7,62h54 10 July 2020 07: 01 New
    -4
    Hitler and Churchill diligently depicted the war, and saved their strength, expecting an attack on the USSR.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2020 07: 22 New
    10
    (yawn) Another portion of delirium from Samsonov ...
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 10 July 2020 07: 27 New
    +8
    Fuhrer hoped peace and even alliance with Britain. The Germans hoped that after the collapse of the Anglo-French alliance in London, that part of the British elite would come to power.

    Please do not speak to the author for Hitler, but bring HIS DOCUMENTS and STATEMENTS about these "hopes", "calculations," unions "
    In Berlin, they wanted to see a partner in Britain. Create axis Berlin - London - Rome - Tokyo

    Documents Editing imagine!
    German tanks could arrange a grandiose meat grinder, destroy or capture the enemy group

    Maybe they could.
    But they did not know about it and stopped, because there was no gas, infantry, rear, intelligence, and in front of a huge enemy group
    The British were mortally afraid of the Germans landing in the south of the island. The most successful moment for the landing of the German landing army.

    Very afraid, yes. And the moment is right, yes. And HOW to deliver this army to the island?
    What are the "fields" of mines? WHO will deliver them and who will let them deliver?
    Obviously, he did not want to anger English society. Port attacks could cause large casualties among civilians

    Yeah, and the blows to ... RESIDENTIAL quarters of London should not have pissed off.
    If the Führer wished in the summer of 1940 to really break the back of the British Empire, he would have every opportunity to do so. The industry of the Reich, France and other subordinate countries would be mobilized for the urgent strengthening of the Air Force and Navy

    In the summer of 1940, the Führer still fought with France, and in the summer of 1940 there was no way
    urgently strengthen .... Navy and Air Force.
    To do this, a lot of TIME, resources, trained personnel, including pilots.
    Hitler had none of this.
    The construction of fighters, bombers, the creation of long-range strategic aviation, the construction of submarines, destroyers, minesweepers, light cruisers, etc.

    And all this for .... incomplete summer ?! belay
    Tales, yes ...

    Hitler didn’t even have enough amphibious assault forces, and in the conditions of air resistance and naval superiority of the fleet of the South Caucasus, the operation was an adventure. .

    He lacked neither the strength nor the resources: the author forgot that the Wehrmacht, the Air Force and the arms of Germany had only five years...
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 10 July 2020 07: 57 New
      -4
      Quote: Olgovich
      In the summer of 1940, the Führer still fought with France, and in the summer of 1940 there was no way
      urgently strengthen .... Navy and Air Force.

      Do not write nonsense. The truce between Germany and France took place on June 10, 1940. That is, almost all summer Germany no longer fought on land.
      Quote: Olgovich
      Please do not speak to the author for Hitler, but bring HIS DOCUMENTS and STATEMENTS about these "hopes", "calculations," unions "

      Read Shearer's book The Collapse of Nazi Germany, chapter five.
      https://flibusta.appspot.com/b/393518/read?Y6qAI4Oq#t9
      1. lucul
        lucul 10 July 2020 08: 31 New
        -5
        Do not write nonsense.

        The owners whitewash.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 10 July 2020 08: 49 New
          +6
          Quote: lucul
          Do not write nonsense.

          The owners whitewash.

          Well, they asked not to write nonsense. adult person
          1. lucul
            lucul 10 July 2020 08: 51 New
            -6
            Well, they asked not to write nonsense. adult person

            So do not write)))
            This technique of manipulation, we also know)))
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 10 July 2020 09: 05 New
              +2
              You are more familiar with such techniques as: denial, substitution, repression, regression, projection and compensation. And you use them already unconsciously, on the machine. Bell yes
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2020 09: 09 New
        10
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Do not write nonsense. The truce between Germany and France took place on June 10, 1940. That is, almost all summer Germany no longer fought on land.

        Do not write nonsense. And in what, interesting way. From June 10 to the end of summer, Germany could organize
        Quote: Olgovich
        The construction of fighters, bombers, the creation of long-range strategic aviation, the construction of submarines, destroyers, minesweepers, light cruisers, etc.

        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Read Shearer's book The Collapse of Nazi Germany, chapter five.

        And what can you see there? Shearer wrote everything correctly - that Hitler was counting on a peace with England (not about an alliance) and that Germany was not able to carry out a landing in England. This refutes Samsonov and confirms the words of Olgovich
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 10 July 2020 09: 28 New
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And what can you see there? Shearer wrote everything correctly - that Hitler was counting on a peace with England (not about an alliance) and that Germany was not able to carry out a landing in England. This refutes Samsonov and confirms the words of Olgovich

          This confirms Samsonov, who claims in this article that Hitler did not want to continue the war with Britain, and after the defeat of France, he wanted to make peace with the British, so that not having a hostile Britain behind, start a war with the USSR.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Do not write nonsense. And in what, interesting way. From June 10 to the end of summer, Germany could organize

          In fact, Germany was at war with Britain from September 3, 1939, and until the summer of 1940 there was a lot of time. And Germany absolutely never used this time to strengthen its Navy and Air Force. And this serves as absolute evidence that Hitler did not even think of landing on the British Isles.
          1. Avior
            Avior 10 July 2020 09: 32 New
            0
            This confirms Samsonov, who claims in this article that Hitler did not want to continue the war with Britain, and after the defeat of France, he wanted to make peace with the British

            Did Samsonov open your eyes? smile
            It was never a secret.
            Germany did not want a war with England.
            This England wanted a war with Germany. The aggressor, in general, as Comrade Commissar Molotov said at the congress. smile
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 10 July 2020 09: 40 New
              -5
              According to liberals, Hitler was asleep and saw how to capture Britain. But for some reason they do not like to say that it is Britain and France who declared war on Germany, and not vice versa. And the aggressors were just the British and French.
              1. Avior
                Avior 10 July 2020 09: 54 New
                0
                What kind of liberals are these?
                Hitler was ready to make peace with England on conditions very honorable for England.
                England was against it. It was never a secret. But they didn’t like to remember something in the USSR, although they were never formally forbidden
                the British government announced that it was as if the goal of the war against Germany was, no more and no less, how. "the destruction of Hitlerism." It turns out that the English, and with them the French, supporters of the war declared against Germany something like an "ideological war" resembling old religious wars. .... it’s not only pointless, but also criminal to wage such a war as the war for the “annihilation of Hitlerism” disguised by the false flag of the struggle for “democracy” ....
                It is known, for example, that over the past few months, concepts such as "aggression", "aggressor" have received a new specific content, have acquired a new meaning. ... Now, if we talk about the great powers of Europe, Germany is in the position of a state striving for an early end to the war and peace, while England and France, who were still fighting against aggression yesterday, are in favor of continuing the war and against concluding peace .... .
                meaningless is the continuation of the present war under the banner of the restoration of the former Polish state. Understanding this, the governments of England and France, however, do not want to end the war and restore peace, but are looking for a new excuse to continue the war against Germany ...

                Report of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs comrade V. M. Molotov on the foreign policy of the Government. October 31, 1939
                http://doc20vek.ru/node/1397
              2. Kronos
                Kronos 10 July 2020 12: 18 New
                -3
                So did the liberals attack Poland under the guise of a German army? Or liberals under the guise of England and France had an alliance with Poland?
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2020 10: 37 New
            +2
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            This confirms Samsonov, who claims in this article that Hitler did not want to continue the war with Britain, and after the defeat of France, he wanted to make peace with the British

            Samsonov writes about something completely different. He writes about the inclusion of England in the axis "Berlin-Tokyo-Rome", I quote:
            In Berlin, they wanted to see a partner in Britain. Create axis Berlin - London - Rome - Tokyo.

            Hitler never counted on such.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            In fact, Germany was at war with Britain from September 3, 1939, and until the summer of 1940 there was a lot of time.

            I don’t know where you saw a lot of time there. Let me remind you that the destroyer the Germans built up to 2.5 years (type 1934 for example) and the average submarine was built over a year.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            And Germany absolutely never used this time to strengthen its Navy and Air Force.

            In fact, both the Navy and the Air Force intensified at a fairly decent pace. Yes, Hitler did not transfer the economy to total military tracks, so he did not transfer it in 1941 (this process began only in 1943), and that, by your logic, he was not going to fight the USSR, so what? :) )) And within the available capacities, both the Navy and the Navy received a very large gain. Although the emphasis was, of course, on the ground forces, and that was correct - it was necessary to deal with France, and Hitler considered her a serious opponent
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            And this serves as absolute evidence that Hitler did not even think of landing on the British Isles.

            Naturally, I did not think. He believed that after the defeat of France, he would offer England peace and she would agree. At the same time, Hitler did not think at all and did not expect the fall of France as quickly as it happened in reality.
          3. Olgovich
            Olgovich 10 July 2020 11: 29 New
            +3
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            This confirms Samsonov, who claims in this article that Hitler did not want to continue the war with Britain, and after the defeat of France, he wanted to make peace with the British, so that not having a hostile Britain behind, start a war with the USSR.

            He put on the world, not because he wanted to leave UNPAINTED Britain strong, but because he considered it already completely defeated and incapable to resistance and therefore creeping up to it behind the world: Jodl:
            Since England can no longer hope for victory, she will be forced, according to forecasts, to conclude a peace when she realizes that she can still get all this at a relatively low price.


            He didn’t crawl to England and then he began to prepare a landing and an air battle for England, "but neither the strength nor the funds were enough:. Shearer:
            mountains of German secret military documents leave no doubt that Hitler's plan to carry out the invasion of England in early autumn 1940 was absolutely impossible and that, despite the hesitation, the Nazi dictator would dare to implement the operation "Sea Lion", if there was any chance of success.

            But there was no chance. No one.
            Therefore, he first postponed the deadlines, and then completely canceled the landing. operation
            1. chenia
              chenia 10 July 2020 11: 58 New
              +2
              Quote: Olgovich
              But there was no chance. No one.


              Because Hitler was not.
              To get involved in a war with Britain, when in the rear of the USSR, this is just an option to get a war on two fronts (and at the most crucial moment).

              And to fight with the USSR. having locked in the islands of britain. not very scary. And what problems could they create? Arrange another Depp. Britain, in fact, was already turned off from the war.
              And the Germans had enough opportunity to crush Britain, but only after solving the problem in the east.
              1. Kronos
                Kronos 10 July 2020 12: 21 New
                +1
                No, it was not at sea that the British drowned the German fleet, in Africa they smashed Hitler's ally Mussolini
                1. chenia
                  chenia 10 July 2020 13: 10 New
                  0
                  Quote: Kronos
                  No, it was not at sea that the British drowned the German fleet, in Africa they smashed Hitler's ally Mussolini


                  The answer already was.
                  Quote: chenia
                  but only after solving the problem in the east.


                  Then all forces would be thrown to the fleet and aviation (a year, another). In Africa, the Romel Corps (2 TDs) turned the game up (shaved ran). And if there were 10 German divisions. Yes, even through the Caucasus, Persia, Turkey. With a light click, the Angles would be kicked out of the Mediterranean. So the Italians would be pulled into the Atlantic.

                  So, thanks to not resolving the "eastern issue", it turned out to keep Britain ..
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 10 July 2020 13: 52 New
                    +1
                    In Africa, the Romel Corps (2 TDs) turned the game up (shaved ran).

                    Who prevented the Germans from transferring not 2 divisions and a group of battalions, but a full-fledged army of 10 divisions?
                    On February 16, 1941, the war with the USSR had not yet fought?
                    And then a victory in the sands of North Africa would be on the side of the “Teutons”!
                    And even Malta could not be “knocked out” from the transport supply of the troops of the “British Lion”!
                    They were also planning to land in Malta ...
                    And again, cancellation and denial ... Live the island of Malta ...
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2020 23: 05 New
                      +2
                      Quote: hohol95
                      Who prevented the Germans from transferring not 2 divisions and a group of battalions, but a full-fledged army of 10 divisions?

                      First of all, the lack of transport that could transport and supply this army
                      1. hohol95
                        hohol95 12 July 2020 22: 07 New
                        0
                        And the French did not dare to "strain"?
                        Or allies from the Black Sea.
                        But this is now only fiction and afterthought.
          4. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 11 July 2020 23: 02 New
            +4
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            In fact, Germany was at war with Britain from September 3, 1939, and until the summer of 1940 there was a lot of time. And Germany absolutely never used this time to strengthen its Navy and Air Force. And this serves as absolute evidence that Hitler did not even think of landing on the British Isles.

            What is the strengthening of the Navy with not yet defeated France? Well, how not enough strength, and will begin again great seat? And then what to do with these Navy? Who needs them if there is no place to land in Britain? So all efforts should be devoted to strengthening the army and the air force.
            No one knew in advance that the victorious army of the last war would merge in a month.
        2. Olgovich
          Olgovich 10 July 2020 12: 01 New
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          and that Germany was not able to land in England.

          I will express seditious thought, flickering, implicitly, somewhere far in the back of consciousness (to refute myself, in some way):

          if Hitler spat on all the arguments of the mind, logic, calculations and reports of the commanders, and, nevertheless, suddenly carried out the "Sea Lion", albeit by small forces, he would have a chance of success!
          recourse
          And in the case of the Rhine zone, and in the cases of Austria, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland, all the calculations of the forces and resources of the parties were against him, but he took arrogance, impudently, knowledge of psychology pacifiers from France and England. And after such victories as Dunkirk, when England really was very, very afraid of him and was in the frustration of the army ...

          In the case of ML, he cheated on himself, lost courage .... He acted correctly, yes, as expected, yes, but ... this is not the style that led him to victory over Europe. what
          1. Kronos
            Kronos 10 July 2020 12: 25 New
            0
            He did this against opponents not ready to fight, the British were ready
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 10 July 2020 12: 29 New
              +2
              Quote: Kronos
              against opponents not ready to fight

              Czechoslovakia is not ready? Poland? France? England 1936,1938,1937,1940? belay
              1. Kronos
                Kronos 10 July 2020 12: 30 New
                -2
                Yes, the leadership of these countries capitulated quickly. France’s unwillingness to fight seriously after 1 world secret is not. Britain, through the efforts of Churchill and other principled politicians, rejected the Nazi proposals for peace and was ready to fight until victory
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 10 July 2020 14: 03 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Kronos
                  Yes, the leadership of these countries capitulated quickly

                  we spoke in a different context of readiness, in technical, military terms.
                  Everyone was ready no worse than England.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2020 23: 06 New
            -1
            Quote: Olgovich
            I will express seditious thought, flickering, implicitly, somewhere far in the back of consciousness

            I understand you, but ... no. It will not burn out :)))
          3. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 12 July 2020 14: 37 New
            +5
            Quote: Olgovich
            if Hitler spat on all the arguments of reason, logic, calculations and reports of commanders and, nevertheless, suddenly carried out the Sea Lion, albeit by small forces, he would have a chance of success!

            To land - perhaps. But, as the practice of domestic landings shows, the landing is a lesser part of success. Further questions arise of expanding the bridgehead, deterring the counterattacks of the enemy’s reserves and, most importantly, of supplying the landed forces. Which, with full dominance of the sea RN and large relative losses to the Kriegsmarine in the Norwegian campaign, is an almost insoluble problem.
            At best, there will be a repeat of one of the Kerch landings. At worst, the battle for Dieppe.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 13 July 2020 08: 50 New
              +1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              To land - perhaps.

              A successful landing solved everything: then everything would fall like a house of cards from fear and horror and betrayals. As it was everywhere in Europe
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Farther questions arise of expanding the bridgehead, deterring counterattacks by the enemy’s reserves, and most importantly, of supplying the landed forces. Which, with full dominance of the sea RN and large relative losses to the Kriegsmarine in the Norwegian campaign, is an almost insoluble problem.
              At best, there will be a repeat of one of the Kerch landings. At worst, the battle for Dieppe.

              Further calculations. And by all accounts, Hitler was completely doomed to collapse even from the Rhine zone.
              An otherwise it came out ...
      3. Olgovich
        Olgovich 10 July 2020 09: 57 New
        +2
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Do not write nonsense. The truce between Germany and France took place on June 10, 1940. That is, almost all summer Germany no longer fought on land.

        Do not broadcast nonsense, but do this:
        the creation of long-range strategic aviation, the construction of submarines, destroyers, minesweepers, light cruisers, etc.
        for .. incomplete summer belay lol laughing
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Read Shearer's book The Collapse of Nazi Germany, chapter five.
        https://flibusta.appspot.com/b/393518/read?Y6qAI4Oq#t9

        I read the fifth chapter. Thank you, the book (and not only the 5th chapter) is really interesting hi and precisely by bringing documents

        But he found only confirmation of my words about the impossibility of an invasion due to a lack of forces and means:
        By December 1939, the command of the ground forces and the Luftwaffe began to express their views on intrusion to England. . In January 1940, the naval and air forces rejected the army plan as unrealistic.. The sailors claimed that this plan was completely He didn’t take into account the power of the British Navy, and the Luftwaffe believed that he underestimated the capabilities of the British Royal Air Force. The report of the General Staff of the Luftwaffe, addressed to the High Command of the Ground Forces, concluded: "The combined landing operation in England as its target should be rejected."

        Rundstedt, who was entrusted with command of the invading forces, told the Allied:
        "Sentence to invade England was absurdsince there was no necessary number of ships for this ... our navy was not able to guarantee the safe passage of the English Channel landing craft or delivery of reinforcements to the islands. Dand German aviation could not take over these functions if the fleet failed

        WHERE are Hitler's promised documents and statements about his plans for an alliance with Britain?
        And ... there are none. request
    2. lucul
      lucul 10 July 2020 08: 30 New
      -3
      Hitler didn’t even have enough amphibious assault forces, and in the conditions of air resistance and naval superiority of the fleet of the South Caucasus, the operation was an adventure. .

      He lacked neither the strength nor the resources: the author forgot that the Wehrmacht, the Air Force and the arms of Germany were only five years old ...

      Yeah, nothing was missing .... and a year later attacked the USSR with EVERYTHING, where is the logic ???? ))))
      Samsonov’s articles generally chic open sleeping agents))))
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 10 July 2020 08: 52 New
        +3
        ALL this domination of the sea and the landing fleet? All of their industry couldn’t do this, not only to capture England, even to the Gibraltar
        1. lucul
          lucul 10 July 2020 08: 55 New
          -6
          ALL this domination of the sea and the landing fleet? All of their industry couldn’t do this,

          Aviation, dear, aviation. Here in your propaganda is a terrible inconsistency)))) Or will you dispute that Germany had a powerful air fleet on June 22, 1941? )))
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 10 July 2020 09: 08 New
            +3
            the battle for Britain ended by November of the 40th year - here in your knowledge there is a big gap - and her Hitler pros ... l. He could have riveted more planes by the summer, but the fleet ... nope negative And the Lamansh does not freeze. He would never have taken Britain
            1. lucul
              lucul 10 July 2020 12: 58 New
              -3
              the battle for Britain ended by November of the 40th year - here in your knowledge there is a big gap - and her Hitler pros ... l. He could have riveted more planes by the summer, but the fleet ... nope

              Explain to me how the fleet could prevent the invasion of the British Isles? )))))
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 10 July 2020 19: 02 New
                -1
                Quote: lucul
                the battle for Britain ended by November of the 40th year - here in your knowledge there is a big gap - and her Hitler pros ... l. He could have riveted more planes by the summer, but the fleet ... nope

                Explain to me how the fleet could prevent the invasion of the British Isles? )))))

                lack of fleet interfered
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2020 09: 11 New
            +3
            Quote: lucul
            Or will you dispute that Germany had a powerful air fleet on June 22, 1941? )))

            Had. But he was not enough to gain air supremacy over England.
            1. lucul
              lucul 10 July 2020 12: 38 New
              0
              But he was not enough to gain air supremacy over England.

              Enough and in abundance (in 1941) - if you proceed from the logic of your Hutspa - then the Germans, in Dunkirk, could not defeat the British, because they did not have the strength to do this - the analogy of lies is direct.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2020 13: 31 New
                +1
                Quote: lucul
                then the Germans, in Dunkirk, could not defeat the British, because they did not have the strength to do this

                Well, they couldn’t :)
                Quote: lucul
                the analogy of lies is direct.

                Refute if you can. Just the facts, please.
                Quote: lucul
                Sufficient and abundant (in 1941)

                There is a fact - Germany lost the air war over England with a bang, and was quickly forced to switch to night raid tactics. You did not know about this? :)
                1. lucul
                  lucul 10 July 2020 15: 28 New
                  -5
                  There is a fact - Germany lost the air war over England with a bang, and was quickly forced to switch to night raid tactics. You did not know about this? :)

                  From 1939 to 1945, Germany produced 34 Me.000 and 109 FW-20s, compared to 000 Spitfires manufactured from 190 to 20)))
                  Lost miserably, huh))) In Britain, after all, there are no oil fields of its own, right? Germany produced oil in Romania, the USSR in Baku, and Britain brought all the oil to the island. Why didn't Hitler bomb / drown tankers in the first place? Leaving Britain without gas, he would have easily conquered the sky.
                  But Hitler did not want the destruction of Britain's industry and navy, hoping to make her his ally. This is the only acceptable explanation for Hitler's actions.
                  1. Free wind
                    Free wind 10 July 2020 16: 59 New
                    0
                    American tankers were drowned, and quite a lot, and England has its own oil, and in considerable quantities. The USSR also extracted oil in the Orenburg steppes, and oil was being produced along the Volga.
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2020 17: 00 New
                    +2
                    Quote: lucul
                    From 1939 to 1945, Germany produced 34 Me.000 and 109 FW-20s, compared to 000 Spitfires manufactured from 190 to 20)))
                    Lost miserably, huh)))

                    fool
                    Listen, I already want to give you a textbook of logic. You have just gaping dips there. That is, following your logic, the Red Army did not lose the battle of 1941, since during the war years the USSR produced more than 100 units of armored vehicles, and Germany - less than 000?
                    Germany in 1940 lost the war over England with a bang and was forced to resort to night raids - to continue to drop bombs on English cities, but not to meet in the air with the FAC.
                    Quote: lucul
                    Why didn't Hitler bomb / drown tankers in the first place? Leaving Britain without gas, he would have easily conquered the sky.

                    Because the main traffic flows that feed England, passed outside the zone of effective operation of German aviation.
                    1. lucul
                      lucul 10 July 2020 17: 16 New
                      +1
                      That is, following your logic, the Red Army did not lose the battle of 1941, since during the war years the USSR produced more than 100 units of armored vehicles, and Germany - less than 000?

                      The analogy is on the verge of fiction)))
                      In 1941, Hitler could freely conquer England if he wanted to, but the analogy with Dunkirk is direct, no order was given.)))
                      Germany in 1940 lost the war over England with a bang and was forced to resort to night raids - to continue to drop bombs on English cities, but not to meet in the air with the FAC.

                      Circus . German fighters started only from German airfields, and when approaching England, they had a minimum fuel supply for the battle, because they still had to go back to Germany, what kind of battle was there, to cover the bombers and that’s all, because Me.109 E had a practical range 660 km, i.e. 300 there and 300 km back. Open the map and look at the distance between Germany and England, and figure out where the planes could fly.
                      But if the planes started from the northern coast of France (Calais), then their radius of action would immediately cover all of England, right up to Scotland. Answer the simple question - why did Hitler not use the northern airfields of France, but use only German ones? )))
                      Because the main traffic flows that feed England, passed outside the zone of effective operation of German aviation.

                      Logic, huh? ))))
                      It should be remembered that in addition to aviation, the Germans had an extremely developed submarine fleet. With the help of which, if desired, it was possible to block the cranes of oil supply to the island)))
                      1. Tavrik
                        Tavrik 10 July 2020 20: 37 New
                        -2
                        extremely developed submarine fleet

                        Germany started the war, having as many as 57 (!) Submarines. Mass construction began much later, with the goal of blockading England. And then nothing happened. In May 43, more than 40 submarines were sunk.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2020 23: 04 New
                        +1
                        Quote: lucul
                        The analogy is on the verge of fiction)))

                        Strictly according to your "logic"
                        Quote: lucul
                        In 1941, Hitler could easily conquer England, if he wanted to

                        That you are sure of this, I already understood. Will there be any evidence? :)))
                        Quote: lucul
                        Answer the simple question - why did Hitler not use the northern airfields of France, but use only German ones? )))

                        Who told you such nonsense?
                        Quote: lucul
                        the practical range at Me.109 E is only 660 km, i.e. 300 there and 300 km back.

                        Come on! The reserve for the battle is not needed, as I understand it. In fact, the combat radius of the thin is about 200 km.
                        Quote: lucul
                        Open the map and look at the distance between Germany and England, and figure out where the planes could fly.

                        Opened. The distance from Calais to central London is 150 km.
                        Quote: lucul
                        But if the planes started from the northern coast of France (Calais), then their radius of action would immediately cover all of England, right up to Scotland.

                        Have you tried to write fiction?
                        Quote: lucul
                        It should be remembered that in addition to aviation, the Germans had an extremely developed submarine fleet. With the help of which, if desired, it was possible to block the cranes of oil supply to the island)))

                        laughing Today is just a day of revelation. Well, read on the topic at least ANYTHING. As of September 1, 1939, the German submarine fleet consisted of 57 submarines, most of which were small, suitable only for crew training.
                        In 1940, the Germans practically did NOT have a capable submarine fleet.
          3. Avior
            Avior 10 July 2020 09: 22 New
            0
            Have you ever tried to confirm statements with figures and facts?
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2020 09: 11 New
        +5
        Quote: lucul
        Yeah, nothing was missing .... and a year later attacked the USSR with EVERYTHING, where is the logic ????

        What-EVERYTHING? :))))) Hitler had a powerful ground army, but he did not have the Air Force, Navy and landing fleet of sufficient numbers for landing in England. In your opinion, did the Germans sail to Moscow on cruisers? laughing
        1. lucul
          lucul 10 July 2020 12: 50 New
          -2
          Hitler had the most powerful land army, but he did not have the Air Force, Navy and landing fleet of sufficient numbers for landing in England.

          Elementary logic, the most elementary, primitive to the point of horror - in World War II, aircraft carriers proved that aviation was the most effective weapon at sea. In the open sea, I emphasize - in the open sea. And here, how could the whole British fleet prevent the landing operation to force the English Channel, if the Germans, having located their airfields on the northern coast of France, could control with their aviation a radius of 500 km around the English Channel, no British air defense at that time could to withstand the massive raid of German bombers / torpedo bombers from the coast. The fleet would inevitably be sunk, inevitably.
          But Hitler still hoped to squeeze the Rothschilds economically (drowning ships) than with a lot of blood.
          Therefore, all those tales that justify the impossibility of landing were given only in 1939, in 1941 Hitler had every opportunity to conquer the British Isles, and that would be so. If Hitler wanted to.
          But there they had their own Sephard graters with Ashkenazi ....
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2020 13: 28 New
            +2
            Quote: lucul
            Elementary logic, elementary, primitive to horror

            Sorry, but this is not logic, but a banal lack of elementary knowledge on the topic that you are going to discuss
            Quote: lucul
            In World War II, aircraft carriers proved that aviation was the most effective weapon at sea. On the high seas, I emphasize - on the high seas

            Wrong. Carriers proved that MARINE aviation, PASSED NECESSARY TRAINING FOR WAR ON THE SEA, is the most effective weapon at sea. But when unprepared aviation took up the matter, nothing came of it - see the actions of the British air forces (not the naval air forces of the air naval fleet, namely the air forces), Italian, German, etc.
            That is, one of the most important lessons of WWII was precisely the postulate that aviation only then acquires decisive power at sea when it is MARINE. But in all cases when she was raked up by the Air Force, she couldn’t do anything sensible.
            So, German aviation, which Goering had just built under itself, didn’t really bother with training its pilots in naval warfare. By 1940, there were literally a couple of compounds there that could do something.
            Quote: lucul
            And here, how THE FULL British fleet could prevent the landing operation to force the English Channel, if the Germans, having located their airfields on the northern coast of France, could control with their aircraft a radius of 500 km around the English Channel

            Yes, elementary. Just as the British fleet prevented amphibious assault on Crete, although German airfields with hundreds of aircraft were some tens of kilometers from the battlefield. the only difference is that in Crete the KVMF acted completely independently, and off the coast of Britain it would have been supported by the full power of the KVF
            Quote: lucul
            The fleet would inevitably be sunk, inevitably.

            The historical facts of real clashes between the German Air Force and the British Navy strongly disagree with you :)
            1. lucul
              lucul 10 July 2020 15: 14 New
              -2
              that MARINE aviation, PASSED NECESSARY TRAINING FOR WAR ON THE SEA is the most effective weapon at sea.

              I rumble in the voice - the Japanese mean they realized, even before the war (an aircraft carrier has been under construction for several years), HOW should naval aviation operate, but the Germans not? ))) They could share knowledge with the extremes, the allies after all, the Germans transferred the manufacturing technology of the DB-601 aircraft engine to Japan. But the fact is that Hitler did not want to destroy the fleet and Britain physically, but hoped to make her an ally. If we consider Hitler’s actions based on this logic, then all that “strange war” with Britain becomes logical and understandable.
              But the proof that Hitler could not defeat Britain - this is pulling an owl on the globe, you can’t call it anything else. You start looking at the facts - and immediately the ocean of inconsistencies in this proof ...
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2020 16: 53 New
                +3
                Quote: lucul
                Rzhu in a voice

                Alas, laughter for no reason is not a sign of high analytical ability :)))
                Quote: lucul
                the Japanese then realized, even before the war (an aircraft carrier has been under construction for more than one year), HOW should naval aviation operate, but the Germans not? )))

                That's right. Learn the story :))))
                Quote: lucul
                They could share knowledge at the extreme, allies after all

                What knowledge? :)))) Do you even think a little bit what you write. What was to happen, in your opinion? The Japanese had to come up with a time machine, fly into the future, find out exactly what aviation will steer at sea, come back and tell the Germans about it? :)))
                The Japanese themselves did not know that aviation would steer. Some guessed, but nothing more. The Japanese considered the main force of the fleet battleships. Avics for them were bargaining material that could weaken the American advantage in LK.
                As a result of WWII, it became clear that the Japanese at the time of the war prepared at that time the best naval aviation in the world. But in 1940 no one knew about this, including the Japanese themselves.
                The most important thing - if the Japanese even poked themselves, they would have been sent by Goering, who did not consider it particularly necessary to train his crews over battles over the sea.
                Quote: lucul
                If we consider Hitler’s actions based on this logic, then all that “strange war” with Britain becomes logical and understandable.

                Yeah. Terror of civilians from the air - the best way to enter into an alliance with England laughing
              2. Mikhail Ya2
                Mikhail Ya2 13 July 2020 09: 18 New
                0
                According to your logic, Hitler did not want to capture the USSR either, but only force the world, because he stopped near Moscow, and did not erase it with aviation?
          2. Tavrik
            Tavrik 10 July 2020 20: 25 New
            -3
            in 1941, Hitler had every opportunity to conquer the British Isles, and that would be so

            What are the features? What appeared in Hitler at 41, which was not at 39m ?? Are there any vunderwaffes? But the second front in the East appeared ... that with t.z. disembarkation is only a minus. And aviation there, and part of the Navy. The landing force must not only be landed, but also constantly supplied. And for this, supremacy in the air and at sea is necessary.
      3. Olgovich
        Olgovich 10 July 2020 10: 14 New
        +3
        Quote: lucul
        Yeah, nothing was missing

        not enough, yes:
        Rundstedt, commander of the invasion of England,
        «
        The proposal to invade England was absurdsince for this there was no necessary number of ships ... our navy was not able to guarantee the safe passage of the English Channel by landing ships or the delivery of reinforcements to the islands. Yes and German aviation could not take over these functions if the fleet failed
        Quote: lucul
        and a year later attacked the USSR with EVERYTHING, where is the logic ????

        USSR too ... on an island?
        Where
        Quote: lucul
        logic ???? ))))

        request
        1. lucul
          lucul 10 July 2020 12: 54 New
          -4
          The proposal to invade England was absurd, because there wasn’t the necessary number of ships for this ... our navy was not able to guarantee the safe passage of the English Channel by landing ships or the delivery of reinforcements to the islands. Yes, and German aviation could not take on these functions if the fleet did not succeed

          Data for 1939, in 1941 Hitler had every chance and opportunity to conquer the British Isles, he just went east - or rather he was sent there, and the battle for Britain was more for the alibi of the Anglo-Saxons than a real war ...
      4. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 10 July 2020 11: 47 New
        +7
        Quote: lucul
        Yeah, nothing was missing .... and a year later attacked the USSR with EVERYTHING, where is the logic ???? ))))

        The logic is simple. Hitler had an army, but there was no fleet. To force Britain to peace, landing on the islands is needed. And it is impossible to implement it without a fleet. It takes 2-3 years to build a fleet.
        So - you need to try to solve the problem of forcing Britain to peace by the forces of the explorers. And then Adolf had a crazy idea that the USSR was the last hope of Britain on the continent. And if you defeat the USSR, then Britain will lose this hope and may surrender. And if you don’t give up, then final solution of the Soviet question will partially demobilize the army, which will give workers hands for industry, including shipbuilding.
        ICH, the idea of ​​Adolf, the armed forces supported - the army team was reluctant to swim in the English Channel, and the fleet - to meet with RN.
        1. Tuzik
          Tuzik 11 July 2020 01: 23 New
          +3
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And then Adolf had a crazy idea that the USSR was the last hope of Britain on the continent.

          Why insane? If the blitzkrieg was successful, he had a good chance of concluding peace with England. So did Napoleon.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 11 July 2020 22: 31 New
            +5
            Quote: Tuzik
            Why insane?

            And because the main hope of Britain was overseas cousins. Which Hitler took into account, but for some reason did not count as the main hope.
            It was US aid that kept Britain afloat. The scale of this assistance was such that already at the beginning of 1941, the U.S. army leadership declared the impossibility of continuing the formation of new formations and training personnel - due to the fact that the FDR systematically robbed arsenals and redirected manufactured army orders to Britain. The last straw was the expropriation of the FDR of the new B-17s. After the rebellion of the generals, it was decided that no more than half of those issued for the US Army would be selected for Britain.
      5. Tavrik
        Tavrik 10 July 2020 20: 43 New
        +3
        To attack the USSR, the landing fleet is not needed. And the rest of the fleet, in general, too. And for the landing in England needed. And after the landing still need to supply troops. And for this you need dominance in the air and at sea. Here is the logic.
  • AsmyppoL
    AsmyppoL 10 July 2020 07: 41 New
    14
    The author is right. Hitler did not want to defeat England. Halder (13.7.40 g.): "The Fuhrer is most concerned with the question of why England still not looking for peace. He, like us, sees the reason for this is that England still hopes for Russia. Therefore, he believes that he will have to force England to peace. However, he is somewhat reluctant to do so. Reason: If we defeat England, the entire British Empire will collapse. But Germany will not benefit from this. The defeat of England will be achieved at the cost of German blood, and Japan, America, etc. will reap the benefits."

    All German policies before the outbreak of World War II showed that the defeat of England by Germany was not required ... Numerous attempts were made to the union from England, and there should have been such attempts from Germany. Enough detail about the period from July 2 until the outbreak of the war was written in the article [media = https: //topwar.ru/1939-borba-za-vtoruju-mirovuju-vojnu-okonchanie.html].

    Hitler's appeal to Chamberlain (25.8.39 g.): “The claim that Germany intends to conquer the whole world is ridiculous. The British Empire covers 40 million square kilometers, Russia 19 million square kilometers, America 9,5 million square kilometers, while Germany covers less than 600 thousand. sq. km. It is quite clear who exactly wants to conquer the world ...

    The problem of Danzig and the Corridor must be solved ... The biggest result of this speech can be a bloody war between Germany and England. Such a war will be more bloody than the war of 1914-1918. In contrast to the last war of Germany do not have to fight on two fronts ...

    Fuhrer ... accepts British empire and ready to give your personal consent to its continued existence and put at its disposal the power of the German state, provided that:

    1) him colonial requirementswhich are limited and can be discussed peacefully, will be fulfilled, for which he is ready to set the longest deadlines;

    2) his obligations in relation to Italy remain untouchable; in other words, he does not demand that England renounce her obligations with regard to France, and he, in turn, cannot deny his obligations with regard to Italy;

    3) he also wants to emphasize the indispensable determination of Germany to never again enter into conflict with Russia. Fuhrer ready to conclude agreements with Englandwhich, as already emphasized, not only guarantee the existence of the British Empire in all circumstances to the extent that it depends on Germany, but they will also conclude. if necessary, the assurance of the British Empire of German assistance, regardless of where such assistance would be necessary ... "


    Only England's goal in preparing this war was completely different. Hitler into the war with Poland, giving him the opportunity to go to the border with the USSR. Declare war on Germany, when Hitler will no longer be able to play back. Further expect on the western border of Germany, when Germany and the Soviet Union will be bloodless. Further, England can dictate any conditions of Germany and the USSR. Germany could even be overthrown again in 1918, but our country could become dependent in all areas on England. In this case, all the colonies of Great Britain were completely preserved - there was no need to at least share something with Hitler ...

    But here the interests of Great Britain did not coincide with the interests of the United States, which after the next war in Europe should remain the only superpower in the whole world ... Great Britain was not included in the list of superpowers ... The feat of the entire Soviet people after the end of World War II allowed The Soviet Union will also take a place among the two superpowers ...

    Everyone had their own interests, which should be decided at the expense of the USSR ... But our country managed to win, I play against the largest countries in the world ...
    1. Kwas
      Kwas 10 July 2020 18: 44 New
      +1
      "I didn’t want" is only part of the truth. When he wanted, he couldn’t. One does not exclude the other.
      1. AsmyppoL
        AsmyppoL 10 July 2020 19: 19 New
        +1
        It seems to me that I didn’t want to. Halder wrote correctly - Germany could not recover from this victory for a long time ...
        The German command was smart enough and they knew about the huge superiority of the fleet of England ...
        But how were the Germans going to neutralize this threat and carry out an airborne operation?
        1. AsmyppoL
          AsmyppoL 10 July 2020 19: 48 New
          +9
          First of all, the German command was convinced that the forces of German and English aviation were comparable. The Germans did not know that they would lose the air war in the future. In essence, they would not have lost it, if not for the secret of Enigma ... The British wrote that if the Germans continued their air operations for more than a week, there could have been no victory ... This is despite the fact that the British fighter aircraft knew about the German flight routes aircraft and acted only on them. If the British sprayed their aircraft along the coast, then the radars would not help, and everything for England could end sadly after the destruction of the aircraft factories ...

          The decision to neutralize the English fleet is quite simple and it was implemented in World War I. This is a mine-artillery position, which to overcome the English battleships and cruisers would be problematic. At the first stage, it was planned to build onshore batteries and positions for railway large-caliber batteries. It took at least 1 months - with the involvement of most of Todt's all forces. During this period, the batteries were not buried.
          1. AsmyppoL
            AsmyppoL 10 July 2020 19: 58 New
            +8
            The figure shows the radius of destruction of long-range German batteries. If the Germans had time before the spring of 1941, then the batteries would have become much larger. Under cover of coastal and railway batteries, minesweepers and barriers would work. Minesweepers would begin to trawl English mines, and barriers would put up barriers, gradually increasing its length ... Plus submarines to cover ships and barriers. In this case, the British aviation would have to work off the coast of France and Belgium. and German aircraft worked near their shores.

            And if Hitler would have decided to end England, then this would Germany tried to implement. Of course, not in 1940, but in 1941. Everything would depend on the position of the USA ...
            If the Germans began to build coastal batteries, they would have lost three months. Then the period of fogs and storms began, which would put an end to the continuation of the naval operation until the spring of 1941.

            In this case, Germany would have lost about nine months before continuing preparations for a landing in England. By the end of summer - in September 1941, they would have tried to land on the English coast and walked around the country with an ice rink. But for almost a whole year, almost all of German industry was supposed to work in the interests of a future landing operation ...

            And what would Germany gain? Never mind. Industry England worked on imported materials. Probably the fleet would have gone to the USA. The subordinate states of the metropolis came under the influence (control) of other states. For example, the same states ...

            The war with the USSR could begin in this case only in 1942. “Colossus on clay feet” could turn into a steel colossus. What blitzkrieg tactics are there? And where? Under the guise of the USSR could strengthen its influence or presence in Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey and Iran ...
            Germany would have braked at the level of 1940, would have gained not particularly needed territories, would have lost time, significant resources ... There would have been huge problems with oil products: long fleet operations and a long landing operation require a huge amount of fuel. And Hitler still had obligations regarding other states, which he considered necessary to fulfill. For example, regarding Italy ...
            Hitler was right when he said something like this: “If we defeat England, the whole British Empire will fall apart. But Germany will not benefit from this. The defeat of England will be achieved at the cost of German blood, and Japan, America, etc. will reap the benefits. ”
            I expressed only my opinion, which may be erroneous ...
          2. Tavrik
            Tavrik 10 July 2020 20: 17 New
            0
            These are mine-artillery positions that English battleships and cruisers would be difficult to overcome

            And who will put them? And under the cover of whom? And where will we put it - everywhere? This is not the Gulf of Finland, shot from both sides with a weak Baltic fleet, whose air force is engaged in the defense of Leningrad. Everything is more complicated here.
          3. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 11 July 2020 22: 45 New
            +5
            Quote: AsmyppoL
            This is a mine-artillery position, which to overcome the English battleships and cruisers would be problematic.

            Pereslegin's comments on the alternative Sea Lion from Kenneth Maxi (“The Invasion That Wasn’t”) show the total number of sea mines allocated for the operation: 8000 pieces or almost the entire stock of the Reich.
            The problem is that it is almost impossible to place the MOH in the RN coverage area off the coast of the Metropolis. And without a full MH, RN has freedom of action in the north of the Channel.
            1. AsmyppoL
              AsmyppoL 12 July 2020 09: 51 New
              +4
              We argue on the topic if we would like, it could be wink
              If coastal batteries and positions for railway batteries were to be built, their construction period was estimated at three months and the invasion of Britain smoothly took place in 1941. For six months, if desired, it was possible to produce the required number of minutes. And they could exhibit them from the end of 1940. There was no political will ...
  • Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
    Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov 10 July 2020 07: 45 New
    +6
    It is worth recognizing that the Western "Partners" successfully cast corporal ...)))))
    I read that when I.V. Stalin was informed about the self-liquidation of Adolf, he said briefly: "Played the scoundrel!")))))
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 10 July 2020 07: 46 New
    +7
    Hitler regarded the USSR as the last hope of England, in the light of the Polish and French companies it seemed to him that it was easier to defeat the USSR than to land on the Island.
    And there is no need to invent anything, he himself announced this.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 10 July 2020 07: 47 New
    +2
    Everything is much simpler, the British government scratched their guts, found Celtic priests in Wales, they went ashore of the English Channel and stopped Hitler with their spells ... laughing
  • svp67
    svp67 10 July 2020 07: 54 New
    +4
    We realized that we had no strength, and most importantly there weren’t enough resources for this, so we didn’t risk it ... we decided, at first, to get unlimited resources ...
  • Free wind
    Free wind 10 July 2020 08: 01 New
    0
    The Germans wanted to make peace with the British so much that they continued to bomb England until the age of 45. We are talking about the FAU-1 and FAU-2 missiles .. maybe Hitler had personal scores for the British, he got into trouble. Yes, and Hess flew to England, and then was silent all his life. It somehow does not fit with the secret mission. So many years have passed, something would have surfaced.
    1. Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
      Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov 10 July 2020 08: 32 New
      +1
      [Quote] [/ quote]
      This all happened much later already - after the start of total bombing of German cities. Again, even after the first raid of thousands of bombers on Cologne in the 42nd, the corporal did nothing to mobilize industry (but after Stalingrad did): he could increase the production of bombers and begin reciprocal full-fledged bombing of the Western Partners. with the actions of submarine forces to help which new aircraft could also be allocated - a powerful combination would come out: u-bots from under the bombs, bombers from the sky (wunderwaffles in the 44th - this is an act of despair when time is hopelessly already gone) .
  • 2 Level Advisor
    2 Level Advisor 10 July 2020 08: 02 New
    0
    Quote: sav
    In fact, the Germans and the British are distant relatives.

    Why did you decide so?
    1. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 10 July 2020 10: 19 New
      0
      This is a well-known fact.
      1. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 10 July 2020 10: 21 New
        0
        strong answer ... the main thing with powerful evidence of the position .. but I understood your arguments ..
        1. Sergej1972
          Sergej1972 10 July 2020 10: 37 New
          0
          Download any ethnology textbook for universities, this can be done for free. In any case, a person with a higher education, not even necessarily humanitarian, should know about the kinship of the Germans and the British.
          1. Tavrik
            Tavrik 10 July 2020 20: 13 New
            -4
            Yes, they are all relatives there. All Western Europe is one superethnos. Therefore, no matter how much they fight, it’s still closer to each other than we or the Greeks or Turks. We read the theory of ethnogenesis of comrade Gumilyov, everything is written there.
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 10 July 2020 08: 22 New
    +2
    Obviously, this was a step towards the defeat of the Reich in the big game. However, most likely, the Fuhrer did not believe in Stalin's naivety (perhaps in vain) and expected an attack from the USSR, while from the “allies” in the 41st attack seemed impossible.
    1. Avior
      Avior 10 July 2020 09: 35 New
      0
      However, most likely, the Fuhrer did not believe in Stalin's naivety (perhaps in vain) and expected an attack from the USSR

      As it turned out recently from an article by Putin, he expected in vain. There were no such plans from the word at all smile
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 10 July 2020 10: 38 New
        +1
        Well, that wasn’t in vain) I said because I didn’t believe in naivety.
  • Kolin
    Kolin 10 July 2020 09: 58 New
    0
    To land in Gentlemenostan, it is necessary to defeat the British aviation and navy, and there were some problems with the amateur chewing on the rugs.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 10 July 2020 10: 01 New
    +5
    And, again, in the article they pull an owl on the globe.
    This is both true and false at the same time.

    Didn't do your best? So he did not make an attack on the USSR. He didn’t transfer the economy to war, he didn’t fully use the conquered economies ...

    Could drop out and destroy the fleet at the click of a finger? so it's fantastic.
    A bunch of articles around describing the problems in the struggle of aviation with the fleet, and the fleet of England was many times superior to the German? at 5? or more?

    And submarines are not born at the click of a finger, they need to be built. Etc.
    1. Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
      Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov 10 July 2020 12: 45 New
      +1
      [Quote] [/ quote]
      An article about the fact that if Adolf had really wanted to clean the island of Great Britain from the “Partners”, he could have done it after the brilliant French company: for this he had both industrial and scientific and mobilization potential, but ... the possessed was an incorrigible Anglophile, about which and he honestly wrote in "his struggle" (if we discard anti-Semitism, then this "work" is truly a hymn to the British Empire and the British).
      Yes, by the way, the Germans did land in England - the capture of the Channel Islands.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 July 2020 14: 29 New
      +5
      Quote: Max1995
      Could drop out and destroy the fleet at the click of a finger? so it's fantastic.
      A bunch of articles around describing the problems in the struggle of aviation with the fleet, and the fleet of England was many times superior to the German? at 5? or more?

      Actually, what can the fleet against the naval landing, supported by aviation, showed Crete. Moreover, there RN did not have any air cover. And in the Channel, British ships will cover two fighter air groups, and even with guidance from the ground according to the radar.
      And about the superiority of RN ... in July 1940 only in the Canal and in the bases of the southern coast of the Island had about 50 EMs - five times more than Kriegsmarine (the "Narvik pogrom" did not go in vain). Plus 3-4 CR and 1 LK.
  • alone
    alone 10 July 2020 10: 13 New
    +2
    Hitler had his own plans for England and they were no different from the others. .Air battle did not give those expectations. The Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses .. And the German fleet was the Achilles heel of the Reich .. before France, during the operation to capture Norway, the Germans lost 10% of the surface fleet. They did not have enough warships to provide security and support for the airborne units ... And this was abandoned.
    They even had a London Gestapo chief appointed. Standartenführer Zix. He had to organize 11 concentration camps around London and engage in the extermination of the British. They even found for themselves the king ... Duke of Windsor, Edward, who was to sit on the throne to please the Nazis .... so they say Hitler took pity on the British, to put it mildly, the wrong term ..Hitler could not achieve air superiority. He could not lock the British fleet in ports and destroy ships in the parking lots, and realized that there would be huge losses.
  • smaug78
    smaug78 10 July 2020 10: 25 New
    +1
    Again, the Samsonov science fiction ...
  • Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 10 July 2020 11: 38 New
    +2
    At the very beginning of the war, the Luftwaffes were ordered not to attack the ships of the British fleet in harbors. Although the attacks on the British naval bases and navy were a logical step.
    The Germans did not have airplanes that could get British bases. You can’t reach Scapa Flow on Junkers. But the submarines successfully operated. The battleship Royal Oaks was sunk at night on October 14, 1939 in Scapa Flow (Orkney Islands), a German U-47 submarine penetrated there. So the conclusion is strange.
    The German fleet was small, the Wehrmacht was preparing to land in Norway. Germany needed to clear the sea of ​​the enemy fleet. But Hitler forbade the bombing of British naval bases.

    And the French also banned ?! Some garbage
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 July 2020 12: 45 New
      +5
      Quote: Stirbjorn
      And the French also banned ?! Some garbage

      Something seems to me that the author confuses the issue of banning the bombing of naval bases in 1939 and 1940. In 1940, during the Battle of Britain, the Germans refused to attack large naval forces because these goals had the most strong air defense.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 10 July 2020 12: 40 New
    +2
    Samsonov’s next blow to the history and reputation of the site. Moreover, judging by the comments, successful. Delirium discussions are in all seriousness.
    1. alone
      alone 10 July 2020 13: 30 New
      +2
      Quote: Undecim
      Samsonov’s next blow to the history and reputation of the site. Moreover, judging by the comments, successful. Delirium discussions are in all seriousness.

      Unfortunately, the author wants to give out his point of view as a historical truth. But the truth was that not corporalists were sitting in the headquarters of the Wehrmacht. They knew the power of the British Navy, and the air battles showed that if things went like that, there would be nothing to close the sky. And also do not forget how the United States helped the British. In Germany, they understood this. And therefore they refused the operation "Seelev".
  • Eug
    Eug 10 July 2020 15: 02 New
    +1
    It is interesting how history would have turned if Stalin had informed Hitler that the USSR would not only not attack, but would support Germany in every way, but only so long as it would actively fight with England ...
    1. Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
      Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov 10 July 2020 16: 15 New
      -2
      Quote: Eug
      It is interesting how history would have turned if Stalin had informed Hitler that the USSR would not only not attack, but would support Germany in every way, but only so long as it would actively fight with England ...

      History would not have "turned" from this:
      The British Empire was an idol for Hitler and a role model. All his “butts” with the Anglo-Saxons were forced and “through tears” - he wanted to become a partner to his idols, but the gentlemen had their own plans for this corporal and the partnership with him was not included in these plans. The attack on the USSR was Adolf’s last desperate attempt to partner with the Anglo-Saxon "racial brothers" ...
      1. Kwas
        Kwas 10 July 2020 18: 58 New
        0
        The Fuhrer, oddly enough, was also a politician. And as a politician, he did what seemed rational to him, despite his sympathies (which were exactly like that). Legends about his "Anglophilism" are intended for naive people who have no idea about the brains of politicians. And they have about the same price as the legends of the "Bloodthirsty Ivan the Terrible" or "Bloodthirsty Stalin."
  • NF68
    NF68 10 July 2020 17: 34 New
    +1
    Hitler’s strength was not even enough to crush British aircraft, but it was also necessary, if not completely destroyed, to thoroughly thin out a weak English fleet. What a landing here in Britain. Allies in 1944, having complete dominance in the air and at sea, were seriously afraid of the German coastal defense. So the Americans in 1944 already had a decent experience in conducting large landing operations and had everything necessary for their implementation. And the Germans acted on the principle of "get into a fight, and then we look." They got involved, looked, for one thing they didn’t get weak from the British in the teeth and realized that it’s so easy not to get along with the British on the fly. And they began methodically destroying the merchant ships of the British and Americans.
    1. Tavrik
      Tavrik 10 July 2020 20: 07 New
      -6
      Yes sir. And it turned out that even hundreds of submarines could not block England.
  • Free wind
    Free wind 10 July 2020 17: 38 New
    -1
    How the German fleet acted on the example of Tirpitz. He marked the presence of the defeat of the convoy, and then the whole war was concealed in the Norwegian fjords, from the British aviation.
    1. Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
      Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov 10 July 2020 17: 51 New
      +3
      Quote: Free Wind
      How the German fleet acted on the example of Tirpitz. He marked the presence of the defeat of the convoy, and then the whole war was concealed in the Norwegian fjords, from the British aviation.

      Well, in general, the galoshes of the Englishwoman Ripals and Prince of Wales showed that it would be if Adolf decided to really clean the island of Great Britain from the Western Partners and mobilize industry in the 40th to produce avions ...
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 10 July 2020 20: 06 New
        -3
        The example is not correct. For "Ripals" and "Prince of Wales" no one covered from the air. Either didn’t have time, or didn’t find it, I don’t remember exactly. Off the coast of the Metropolis, this would hardly be allowed.
        Incidentally, under similar circumstances, the destroyer Vampire and the aircraft carrier Hermes were still killed.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 July 2020 22: 51 New
        +2
        Quote: Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
        Well, in general, the galoshes of the Englishwoman Ripals and Prince of Wales showed that it would be if Adolf decided to really clean the island of Great Britain from the Western Partners and mobilize industry in the 40th to produce avions ...

        And where will he get crews for these planes? Or did you forget how and how long it took to prepare sea pilots in Japan? Accelerated release pilots will not work here - instead of Kuantan, they will have a "Marian turkey hunt."

        And by the way, would you like to recall Crete? Here it is, the level of backlash when working on marine targets that do not have air cover. And such a freebie off the coast of the Metropolis, of course, will not.
  • Kwas
    Kwas 10 July 2020 18: 05 New
    +1
    Quote: Nagan
    If Adolf decided to take up Britain seriously, the USSR would receive a reprieve until at least 1942.

    But he didn’t, in particular because he became afraid of us. And he was not up to England.
    I’ll say right away on this issue - I’m not an adherent of Rezun, but he has a piece of truth. I fully admit that around the fall of 1940 a secret report was sent to the Führer intelligence intelligence such as "The Russians have about 20 thousand tanks and 20 thousand combat aircraft." True report, by the way. And what could he, poor fellow, think, against whom is all this? And indeed, all this was potentially against him. The arguments of Isaev (Isaev Alexey Valerievich "Antisuvorov") on this issue are unconvincing.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 10 July 2020 19: 01 New
      +1
      Which means I fully admit that the report either fell or did not fall, I have never heard of any fear of the Germans before the USSR, and it would not have occurred to one person in the world to attack Germany when its army is not connected on another front with In 1870, the German army was the strongest in the world with a margin from competitors, Isaev rely on documents, not what someone thinks.
      1. Kronos
        Kronos 11 July 2020 00: 54 New
        -1
        About the strongest you grabbed, the British were not much inferior, for example, but the French then pulled themselves up. But at the time of 1940 it’s possible, but not the fleet, and what’s important is aviation
    2. Shiden
      Shiden 10 July 2020 21: 02 New
      +2
      Sorry, but you are wrong. Hitler was afraid of the Red Army until the winter of 40, but after the Soviet-Finnish he no longer considered the Red Army a threat. Yes, Hitler was an adventurer but not an idiot as they want to show in the article. And his dictum about "An ear of clay feet "appeared just after the Finnish. And according to the recollections of Hitler’s inner circle, he liked to watch newsreels of the Red Army parades and was delighted with power. But as practice showed, people are fighting, and be at least 2-3 times superior in technique if you don’t know how to use this technique, then you are playing.
    3. Kronos
      Kronos 11 July 2020 00: 52 New
      +1
      In reality, the Nazis did not know about the real quality and quantity of Soviet tanks
  • Kwas
    Kwas 10 July 2020 18: 25 New
    +2
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    In fact, Germany was at war with Britain from September 3, 1939, and until the summer of 1940 there was a lot of time. And Germany absolutely never used this time to strengthen its Navy and Air Force. And this serves as absolute evidence that Hitler did not even think of landing on the British Isles.

    Germany used this time to the maximum to prepare the defeat of France! Expecting, at the same time, that England will go to the world. At the same time, they physically could not, and did not possess the gift of foresight, prepare the landing operation. Because it could have turned out differently.
  • Kwas
    Kwas 10 July 2020 18: 36 New
    +1
    Quote: Tlauicol
    All of their industry couldn’t do this, not only to capture England, even to the Gibraltar

    To get to Gibraltar, Franco needed the active participation. And he did not want, bribed by the Anglo-Saxons. Well, I myself didn’t really appreciate the odds of the parties. And he didn’t openly refuse, asked for 10 guns with a caliber of at least 280mm, knowing in advance (at the prompt) that they were not in all of Germany. Then he provided the allies of the island for the Air Force. But bombing Gibraltar from the air, by the way, is completely useless. Bronevsky described the casemates there well.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 July 2020 22: 58 New
      0
      Quote: Kwas
      To get to Gibraltar, Franco needed the active participation. And he did not want, bribed by the Anglo-Saxons.

      And there it was not necessary to bribe. Food came to Spain from the American continent. Hitler refused to replace these deliveries: cuts in rations were already going on in the Reich, they even included the crop of the USSR-41 territories planned for the occupation in their grain balance so that it converged to zero.
      So the choice for Franco was between neutrality and hunger (with a chance of a resumption of civil).
      Quote: Kwas
      And he didn’t openly refuse, asked for 10 guns with a caliber of at least 280mm, knowing in advance (at the prompt) that they were not in all of Germany.

      He also asked for French colonies in North Africa. In general, he talentedly lowered the negotiations downhill. smile
  • Tavrik
    Tavrik 10 July 2020 20: 00 New
    -2
    Attacks from the air would be supplemented by a full-fledged naval blockade with attacks by submarine and surface raiders in order to cut off Britain from the supply of raw materials and fuel for industry and the armed forces, food for the population.

    See the composition of Kriegsmarine and Royal Nevi. Not even all, but only the Navy of the metropolis. Plus the level of training, state of the art, crew morale. The Germans of large ships after Norway and the death of Bismarck left "one-two and all." A number of destroyers. A bit of destroyers. Mass construction of submarines has only just begun. Who do the naval blockade? Even when the submarines were built and commissioned in dozens, the blockade did not work out.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 July 2020 15: 16 New
      +4
      Quote: Tavrik
      The Germans of large ships after Norway and the death of Bismarck left "one-two and all."

      LC "Scharnhorst" - 08.06.1940/1940/XNUMX in the battle with the group "Gloriesa" got a torpedo in the stern from EM "Acasta". Under repair until December XNUMX
      LC "Gneisenau" - 20.06.1940/1940/XNUMX received a torpedo in the nasal extremity from the submarine "Clyde". Under repair until November XNUMX
      BR "Luttsov" - 09.04.1940/11.04.1940/1940 was damaged during a breakthrough in Oslo (bow BS of the main gun was disabled), 1940/XNUMX/XNUMX got a torpedo in the stern with the Spearfish submarine. Under repair until August XNUMX, combat readiness only in December XNUMX
      BR "Admiral Scheer" - as of June 1940, the combatants.
      KRT "Admiral Hipper" - as of June 1940, the combatants.

      KRT "Prince Eugen" - was accepted into the fleet only on 01.08.1940. And then he got up to retrofit. Combat training - from December 1940. Conditionally combat readiness only in April 1941.
      KRL "Cologne" - on June 1940, the combatants.
      KRL "Leipzig" - 13.12.1939/1940/XNUMX received a torpedo from the submarine "Salmon". In repair until December XNUMX, it was not completely restored, was used as a training CD.
      KRL "Nuremberg" - 13.12.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX received a torpedo with submarine "Salmon" (commander of the submarine chased two hares and wounded both smile ) Fighting by June 1940
      KRL "Emden" - in June 1940, the combatants.
      According to EM: as of June 1940, 6 EMs are ready, 4 more are in need of immediate repair.
      According to MM: as of June 1940, 17 MM were ready.


      In total, Kriegsmarine for June-November 1940 has 1 BR, 1 SRT, 2 KRL, 6-10 EM and 17 MM. With these forces, the Germans will have to defend the landing zone and fight with the fleet of the Metropolis. laughing

      By the way, it’s funny that for the Kriegsmarine (and for the Reich), the Norwegian campaign, in fact, turned out to be a strategic defeat - almost all the large ships were either sunk or disabled until the end of 1940. At the most theoretically convenient time for the Sea Lion - the second half of 1940 - the Reich was without a fleet, and therefore without the possibility of at least somehow conducting a landing on the Islands.
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 13 July 2020 11: 25 New
        +1
        Thank you, laid out by the piece what I was lazy to do hi . And then some think that the Kriegsmarine was of immeasurable power. That’s what they called me ...
  • BAI
    BAI 11 July 2020 15: 09 New
    -3
    Why Hitler did not finish off Britain

    Such a title is simply touching. Hitler assembled the team of authors “A. Samsonov” and said: “And now, dear comrades, I will tell you why I did not finish off Britain. Write everything down to you and pass it to the readers of VO.
    1. sg7s
      sg7s 11 July 2020 16: 04 New
      0
      Well, there is an article right there, on topvar - https://topwar.ru/16083-bolshaya-igra-rokfelerov-i-rotshildov-na-svetu-iv-teni.html. On top, but everything is correct. In more detail - rummage through the origins of the IMF. IMHO - Hitler this stinking islet bent by the Sea Lion for forty to fifty days. And so the Britons were bent by the USA and the Rockefellers stopped Hitler, having received the Arabian Peninsula, the assets of Britain in the USA, having dissolved the empire (starting from India in 47th). All these buns for the stop order, Roosevelt threw Lord Halifax in the 44th directly in the forehead and - "hello, Great Britain" ...
      Now, after the collapse of the USSR (this is the pure victory of the Rothschilds), the latter are rocking the PRC through the Komsomol members (with the goal of reformatting the dollar through the victory of the Komsomol democrats in the PRC). There is an interesting discrepancy - XI DID NOT ORDER to isolate Wuhan, the Komsomol members in the city committee and the regional committee hoped for riots, but Xi introduced the PLA to "prevent a pandemic" (the PLA built hospitals, etc., controlling the situation), at the same time firing all the leading Komsomol members (from 34 regions were removed in the 7 previous regional committees). All of this was muddled by the Rothschilds (in the United States, IMHO, too), but so far they have failed. Now whoever reformats the dollar (will lead the process) - remove zeros, introduce a new digital currency, or in some other way - that will rule the world for the next 100 years
  • meandr51
    meandr51 11 July 2020 17: 54 New
    -1
    Here it is mentioned in passing about the "Hitler project", but it was necessary to start with this in detail. Hitler was inclined to trust the Angles precisely because they created him ...
  • Puper
    Puper driver 11 July 2020 18: 11 New
    +2
    The United States, for the sake of the dominance of the dollar, which did not work during World War I, arranged with England, which also wanted to be the dominant in World War II. The states beat the British, and both fed this cannibal. How similar to the Anglo-Saxons. Delhi the world with the wrong hands. The world currency was the dollar, not the pound sterling. Plus, in the wreck of Europe, the states made it a puppet. By the way, how to deploy Hitler to the East is still a mystery. He was far from a boy, and knew what war was on two fronts.
  • serg v zapase
    serg v zapase 12 July 2020 04: 31 New
    -1
    I won’t know how to think of Hitler, Stalin, Churchill or Roosevelt. they had their own reasons, as an example, a peace was concluded between this and that, and a year later the agreement was wiped off and the massacre began. Who thought what when an agreement, pact or just a communique was concluded? What the hell breakthroughs in diplomacy, especially the understanding of why they did not finish this or that patient. There is a bunch of reasons for a stop order, a bunch for a strange war. As an example with the USSR, why not make a demilitarized zone from Finland after the Finnish war? Or why didn’t the MR pact provide for measures to check the border areas for the appearance of an additional 150 divisions?
  • Barmal
    Barmal 13 July 2020 21: 04 New
    0
    After delirium that Hitler did not want the collapse of the British Empire, he did not read. Meaning?
  • Lebed
    Lebed 20 July 2020 16: 07 New
    +9
    Hitler was simply gullible in some matters. Or naive.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 29 September 2020 05: 00 New
      0
      He was a dictator. A mediocre person in many areas, who has grasped enormous power and believed in his own exclusivity. And indestructible luck, against the background of the first easy victories.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 28 September 2020 02: 07 New
    +2
    Look at the monthly aviation output in Britain and Germany.
    As early as 1940, Britain produced more combat aircraft than Germany.
    And so it went on until the very end of the war.
    In the "Battle of England" Germany lost 1/3 of its bombers and 1/4 of its fighters.
    The losses of the bombers were not compensated until 1942.
    Hitler had a strong ground army, but no aircraft until England
    there was no way to get there. And Hitler turned east.