Military Review

Military and political elites of Great Britain about the USSR army on the eve of the war

101

Great Britain, before acting as an ally of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War, soberly assessed the state of the Soviet armed forces. The British military leadership, in a sense, publicly described the professional and combat qualities of the Red Army on the eve of the war as quite high, but not without criticism.


In order to remind once again what this British review of our army was in the late 30s, let us consider three specific historical document.

One of them is the result of monitoring of Soviet troops by representatives of the British military elite (a report sent in September 1936 to the British General Staff, from the British representative General Wavell, who visited the autumn maneuvers of the Red Army, where he gave an assessment of the current state of the Soviet troops).

The position of the political elite (as retold) is reflected in two letters (from 1934 and 1937) from the former tsarist diplomat E.V. Sablin, who lives in London, where he almost literally expounds the remarks of the British nobility about the state of the Soviet troops in those years, published in the leading British newspapers (mouthpieces of the British political and military establishment) of that time.

1936


In 1936, autumn bilateral operational-tactical maneuvers of the troops of the Belarusian Military District were carried out in a vast area east of Minsk.

Foreign military delegations were invited there as guests. The foreign observers included, among others, from the British armed forces, the commander of the 2nd Aldershot Division, General A. Wavell, the representative of the General Staff, Colonel Martell (known at that time tank theorist), as well as Colonel Wigglesworth.


Archibald Percival Wavell. Great Britain. Source: warhistoryonline.com

In its report September 9/10, 1936 (Report on visit to manoevres in White Russian military district. P. 10-12. Mjr.-Gen. AP Wavell to Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Moscow, Sept. 9, 1936 (copy) // PRO. FO / 371/20352 / N5048) about this event, General Archibald Wavell highly appreciated the technical condition and professional level of the personnel of the Soviet Air Force. He also drew attention to the high morale of the Red Army and intra-army relations.

However, there were also critical remarks in the same report. The British general spoke unflatteringly about the combat and professional training of the Soviet troops. He especially did not like the methods of combat employment of troops and tactical training.

The Briton called the weak point of the Soviets the lack of a sufficient number of trained commanders and technical specialists.

In addition, the general considered that the shortcomings of the Soviet troops noted by him were unavoidable, since, in his opinion, they were inherent in the Soviet / Russian national character. On the whole, in the position of the British military elite of those years, there was an undisguised conviction about the "inferiority" of the Soviet person.

This is what exactly this British general wrote in his report to the British military leadership about our Red Army:

“The main efforts of the Soviets are currently directed towards defense, in which they have achieved significant results.

Their armored forces are now far ahead of any other army in size, design, and use; and they probably have the capacity to sustain their production in times of war.

Their air force is impressive numerically, but the RAF does not think their pilots or aircraft are more than decent, certainly below our standard.

As for the other branches of the armed forces — cavalry, artillery and infantry — the personnel are physically excellent, as they have always been before; equipment and training have advanced since pre-war times.

The spirit of the whole army is very high; relations between officers and enlisted men appear to be good, discipline is clearly well maintained, and, with the exception of the common use of comrade as a form of address regardless of rank, appears to be little, if any, different from that of "class" armies.

In reality, the officers of the Red Army are showing clear signs of becoming a privileged caste, and in fact, in many ways, are already it.

On the other hand, the tactical methods used seem to be clumsy and rather primitive and, without any doubt, will lead to heavy losses during the war; until the road and rail system is improved, the problem of transport and supply will be very difficult; the reserve of trained officers and technical personnel is probably completely inadequate for military needs.

Time and hard work can reduce these obstacles, but obstacles rooted in national character take longer to resolve.

From a military point of view, the main one has always been the lack of initiative and evasion of responsibility on the part of commanders, especially junior ones, and the preference given to ideal paper diagrams over practical implementation in real conditions - on the part of staff officers. "


Postcard. “People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR Marshal of the Soviet Union K.E. Voroshilov talks to a soldier at the maneuvers of the Belarusian Military District in 1936 " Moscow, 1938, photo by J. Khalip. Source: andcvet.narod.ru, auction.ru

1934


As for the position of the British political elite, it was recorded in two historical documents. These are two letters (1934 and 1937) of an ex-diplomat living in London, in which he practically verbatim retells the editorials of English newspapers. And these publications relayed the position of British political circles.

In fact, the British political elite then continued to view the Red Army (including publicly on the pages of the editorials of the leading London periodicals) as a weapon intended solely to suppress the dissatisfaction of the Soviet population within the country.

The cream of British society was skeptical about the potential of the Red Army in operations in external theaters of military operations.

Their skepticism grew (just like that of the British generals) from the argument about the notorious Russian national character and certain features of the Soviet people.

Both historical documents about this were published in compilation “What were we witnesses ... Correspondence of former tsarist diplomats of 1934-1940. In 2 volumes "(1998).

Military and political elites of Great Britain about the USSR army on the eve of the war

The first evidence is a letter from the ex-diplomat, former tsar's chargé d'affaires in London (1919-1924) Yevgeny Vasilyevich Sablin, sent from London on March 20, 1934. This message was addressed to the lawyer and politician Vasily Alekseevich Maklakov. The document was classified as "top secret". It is indicated that the handwritten original was photographed by agents of the GUGB department.


E.V. Sablin. Source: angliya.com

E.V. Sablin, in particular, says in his letter that in the March 1934 issue of one of the oldest English monthly magazines, The Nineteenth Century, the British correspondent who returned from the Soviet Union to Great Britain, Malcolm Muggeridge, published a very important article “Germany, Russia (USSR), Japan ". This English correspondent also expounds in this article his views on the Red Army.


Malcolm Muggeridge. Source: wikipedia.org

Actually, this very article is retelling almost word for word by the ex-diplomat.

Here is what Muggeridge wrote about the Red Army in that article (the original article could not be found, so the text is given in Sablin's literal presentation):

“We all know,” writes Muggeridge, “that Japan is preparing for war and that Germany is arming, that Russia (USSR) and France fear war, and England strives to keep hands free and does not get involved in any continental complications. "

Moscow's fears “are compounded by the fact that the headquarters of the Ukrainian separatists ... is located in Germany and their propaganda has intensified considerably lately. "

"The impotence of the Soviet government in the event of a collision with an external enemy is too obvious for everyone who knows the real state of affairs in Russia (USSR)."

“It is true that the Red Army is large and well-armed.

However, it does not have combat experience, its commanding staff is rather dubious, it is difficult to imagine what this army could turn into in case of a collision with a first-class military power. "

“Finally, the Red Army is constantly required in Russia itself (USSR) to maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat, especially in the south of Russia (USSR) and in the North Caucasus.

She alone can contain the starving and protesting population.

If significant parts of the Red Army had to be sent to the external front, then millions of peasants, driven to despair, would remain in the rear.

They hate Soviet power ... and are ready to welcome any foreigner, any foreign conqueror, if only he promised to get rid of the current situation, which has become truly unbearable. "

“The Red Army is winning victory after victory in the class war against the unarmed and hungry peasants, clergy and remnants of the former estates.

However, it is hardly possible to draw a conclusion from this that such "practice" could prepare real fighters against a strong external enemy. On the contrary, Muggeridge thinks. "

In those years, the British elite paid special attention to foreign intervention in Ukraine. It was noted that the European crusade against the USSR would rely on Ukraine, where Europeans were perceived at that time (as well as today) as liberators.

«About provisions of the Soviet Ukraine we can say that ... everyone is opposed there and on this basis it develops striving for separatism.

The Ukrainians themselves cannot do anything, but one might think that it would be easier for the German forces to occupy Ukraine now than in 1918. The peasant masses would have welcomed them.

The leaders of the Ukrainian opposition know this, and it seems to represent a considerable temptation for them ... Germans could hardly have encountered a serious obstacle on either side if they now acted as the liberators of the Ukrainian people from the yoke of the communists ...

Regarding the Ukrainian separatists outside Russia (USSR), we can say that they would probably find German-Polish interference in the affairs of Ukraine in their own interests ... foreign interference. All hopes for the collapse of the Soviet state from within are weakening over time, although Muggeridge himself believes that such an opportunity is closer to being realized now than it was at other times. "

By the way, rumors and rumors about a united Europe's campaign against the USSR have been circulating for a long time. This was specifically stated in a retold article in the English monthly Nineteenth Century:

“After many years of pointless talk about European crusade against the Bolsheviksbut now it is really beginning to emerge that the Soviets have finally found themselves in hostile surroundings. "

1937


In another letter from London (March 18, 1937) from E.V. Sablin (addressed to the same V.A.Maklakov) there are no less interesting quotes about our army from the British propaganda press. This published letter was also classified "top secret".

The diplomat begins this letter with the story that three days ago the Times newspaper published an editorial about the twentieth anniversary of the Russian February Revolution of 1917. (Historians point out that the Times newspaper unofficially reflected the position and views of the most authoritative part of the British political and military elite).

The jubilee article, among other things, assessed both the results of military construction in the USSR and the state of the army of the Soviet Union as a whole, 20 years after the 1917 revolution.

The political elite of Great Britain (in contrast to its military elite) had very positive impressions of the Red Army, especially about our air force. Although disadvantages were noted too.

“… Most strikingly, says The Times, Russian achievements are shown on the front of the Red Army and on its air navy.

The number of civilian armies reaches 1 people, and the number of spare armies has already exceeded six million.

A huge mechanized apparatus has been created with a large army of reserve pilots, which will always be possible to replenish from civilians previously trained in this matter.

Russians in general, states The Times, have a special talent for aeronautics.

Finally, the tremendous development of heavy industry, which at any moment can be used for military purposes, all this significantly weakens for Russia (USSR) the danger of an external war, under the threat of which it lived for so many years.

True, observers argue that the quality of Soviet weapons does not correspond to the quantity and that the Soviet railways are still in an unsatisfactory condition, but for a defensive war this may not be so important. "

«England More and more starts to hesitate between the possibilities agreements with Germany and agreements with Russia (USSR), for it is more and more aware that it will not be able to keep its entire gigantic empire under the condition of its current isolation. "

Thus, in general, the opinion of both the British political establishment and the British military elite about the Red Army was not entirely flattering.

In addition, in those years, among the upper British society, sentiments in favor of friendship with Nazi Germany were very widespread.
Author:
101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 04: 20
    -3
    Brilliant article, bravo Irina!

    The political elite of Great Britain (in contrast to its military elite) had very positive impressions of the Red Army,
    Which is completely unsurprising - the English landowners did not cover themselves with glory, to put it mildly, but the political elite of England, with all its Russophobia, was adequate to the time.
    1. WHAT IS
      WHAT IS 26 March 2021 05: 32
      +15
      I did not notice the adequacy in these conclusions of Muggeridge
      "The powerlessness of the Soviet government in the event of a collision with an external enemy is too obvious for everyone who knows the real state of affairs in Russia."

      They hate Soviet power ... and are ready to welcome any foreigner, any foreign conqueror

      Where did he see the universal hatred of Soviet power and the expectation of a foreign conqueror?
      However, it is hardly possible to draw a conclusion from this that such "practice" could prepare real fighters against a strong external enemy. On the contrary, Muggeridge thinks. "

      What kind of fighters of fascism broke the back then? Probably the British ..
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 05: 55
        -1
        Quote: WHAT IS
        I did not notice the adequacy in these conclusions of Muggeridge
        Well, he is not a representative of the political elite, but only:
        British correspondent returning from the Soviet Union to Great Britain
        1. Proxima
          Proxima 26 March 2021 11: 41
          +5
          ".. millions of peasants driven to despair.
          They hate Soviet power ... and are ready to welcome any foreigner, any foreign conqueror
          .. "- from the text. Is this stupidity or just propaganda? request We also had science fiction writers who assumed that upon seeing an airplane with red stars, the proletariat of a belligerent country would join hands and sing the International. belay In short, there are fools everywhere and in any system. This fully applies to the British "expert." fool
      2. dzvero
        dzvero 26 March 2021 10: 15
        +4
        Where did he see the universal hatred of Soviet power and the expectation of a foreign conqueror?

        Look at the year of publication of the article - 1934. The correspondent collected information earlier - and times were difficult then. Collectivization, dispossession of kulaks, hunger ... I fully admit that such sentiments in some places took place. Plus, of course, extrapolation to the whole country and all the people, so that the article would correspond to the "spirit of the newspaper."
        All the more noticeable is the change in tone just three years later ...
        1. Victor Tsenin
          Victor Tsenin 26 March 2021 21: 15
          +7
          There was definitely discontent, if objectively. In certain regions of Ukraine, it is true that they were greeted with bread and salt. Another thing is that in the general mass the population was in favor of socialist power, as the best and people-oriented. As for another heresy about our character, it remains to notice the English character in fleeing from Rommel. And in the process of the battle with the Nazis who knew how to fight, we also developed skills and combat vehicles much better, in contrast to.
      3. tacet
        tacet 26 March 2021 11: 04
        +3
        I want to draw attention to the dates (34 years), this is me about the conclusions of Muggeridge. I think the dissatisfaction with the authorities was very significant, because people had to go through the famine of 32-33. Only observations are very superficial, from here and Muggeridge's conclusions turned out to be incorrect.
      4. Sevan
        Sevan 26 March 2021 19: 41
        -1
        And who was evicted? And where did 5 million prisoners come from in the first year? The cessation of the Bolshevik chatter about the unification of the proletarians of all countries, the rehabilitation of the ROC, the arrested officers, the revival of the Russian historical tradition, the return of shoulder straps, finally, is this not a consequence of the actions of a strong external enemy?
      5. Novichek)
        Novichek) 26 March 2021 21: 47
        +5
        No, well, in terms of western Ukraine and the Baltic states, he did hit the mark, and so it happened later. Yes, that's just an amendment - in those years these territories were not yet included in the USSR))
      6. Xnumx vis
        Xnumx vis 27 March 2021 21: 37
        +2
        Quote: WHAT IS
        They hate Soviet power ... and are ready to welcome any foreigner, any foreign conqueror
        especially in the south of Russia (USSR) and in the North Caucasus. ----------------- But here the Angles were right .. This
        betrayed by the USSR, Karachais, Kalmyks, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Crimean Tatars and Meskhetian Turks. And the Georgians were preparing to meet the Nazis, roasted piglets, made turkey satsivi, poured wine to meet the "liberators" .... Sadly, but true ... And the divisions recruited for the release of Crimea from the Caucasian republics turned out to be incapable of fighting ... shown on the Kerch Peninsula in 1942 ...
        1. Free wind
          Free wind 28 March 2021 00: 27
          +3
          About 10 thousand "soldiers" recruited from the Caucasus, scampered across the Crimea in search of the Germans to surrender, I read about this. In his memoirs, Rudel wrote that the Germans felt completely safe in the Crimea. Unlike Belarus or Ukraine.
    2. yehat2
      yehat2 26 March 2021 11: 00
      +5
      "British ground" had a rich experience of small conflicts, plus there were still quite a few people who participated in WWI and further battles, as well as being an advisor or observer in side conflicts. There is not much fame here, but there was experience.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 11: 19
        +2
        Quote: yehat2
        There is not much fame, but there was experience

        It is generally accepted that the experience of WWI was of little use for actions during WWII, and now, to drive the Papuans and fight with the modern army is very different things. And yet, the "defense" of Singapore is a good example of the actions of the British ground forces with all their "experience".
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 26 March 2021 11: 27
          +3
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          It is generally accepted that the experience of WWII was of little use for actions during WWII.

          you confused the time, because the speech is about what happened before the WWII
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 11: 39
            +1
            Quote: yehat2
            you confused the time, because the speech is about what happened before the WWII
            In my commentary, relying on the different assessment of the Red Army by the British army and politicians described in the article, I specifically wrote about the Second World War, that it was she who showed the different level of British ground troops and politicians.

            Great Britain before becoming an ally of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War
            1. yehat2
              yehat2 26 March 2021 11: 55
              +7
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              In my commentary, relying on the different assessment of the Red Army by the British army and politicians described in the article, I specifically wrote about the Second World War, that it was she who showed the different level of British ground troops and politicians.

              British "landowners" and politicians cannot be described unifyingly.
              The same Churchill is radically different from Chamberlain.
              There were different factions in Britain with different views.
              Let's take another example - a sharp turn in the construction of the fleet before WWII at the suggestion of Fischer and with the participation of Churchill, although formally Churchill was just a landlord.
              In short, you cannot smear them with one color.
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 14: 18
                +1
                Quote: yehat2
                British "landowners" and politicians cannot be described unifyingly

                I never described them - "unifying". But the army men, namely, I called them "ground forces", showed themselves in WWII - WWII very weakly, precisely as a military man.
                1. yehat2
                  yehat2 26 March 2021 15: 11
                  0
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  showed themselves in WWII - WWII very weakly, precisely as a military.

                  it was very different there. There were good moments and disastrous and shameful and heroic ones. But on average it is not worse than the Red Army.
                  1. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 15: 17
                    0
                    Quote: yehat2
                    But on average it is not worse than the Red Army.

                    Independently, without powerful, namely military, when shoulder to shoulder, the support of the United States, they could not do anything.
                    1. yehat2
                      yehat2 26 March 2021 15: 28
                      +4
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      Independently, without a powerful, military, when, shoulder to shoulder, support from the United States, they could not do anything

                      could, but you prefer to ignore it.
                      you just don’t have to demand from them the scale of the Kursk Bulge
                      We must not forget that the British still did not consider the ground forces as the main striking force. And equipped accordingly.
                      For 30 years they did not approve the costs of any serious tank program, the same questions were about artillery.
                      The British preferred to invest in the navy.
                      and then you blame them - now, they do not have 4 tank armies to show everyone Kuzkin's mother. It is necessary to be more adequate. Consider not strategically, but specifically their army, their tasks and how they coped. Do not forget that the arrogant fought simultaneously in Asia, Indo-China, Oceania, Africa and Europe, and they also tried to bite off Norway. And all this is for a nation that is several times smaller in number than the USSR or the USA.
                      1. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 15: 59
                        0
                        Quote: yehat2
                        could, but you prefer to ignore it.
                        Just give examples.

                        Quote: yehat2
                        and then you blame them - now, they don't have 4 tank armies to show everyone Kuzkin's mother
                        And you write to me that I would be more adequate?
                      2. yehat2
                        yehat2 26 March 2021 16: 54
                        +2
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Just give examples.

                        defense of Crete, defense of Malta, a number of African operations, support for Greece, counterstrike in the Ardennes, defense of India. In France, everything was bad, but even there the British did not look like whipping boys.
                        And now you tell me, where did you get the idea that the British fought badly?
                        You take general results, not paying any attention to the conditions under which this or that was achieved. And you can endlessly speculate on the topic.
                        For example, compare the results of the battles of the Red Army near Kiev or Rzhev with the battle at Alamein. Or, using the example of Severloch, declare that 1 German was worth XNUMX Americans in battle.
                        And it's not for nothing that I write about the adequacy, because you are not trying to honestly compare, but manipulate, pretending to be a felt boot, that like everything is ok.
                        I have no Anglophilism, but do not forget what citizens then inhabited the kingdom, how they were raised and trained and what they were capable of.
                        Compare this with the usual 3-4 grades of education for the Red Army, with 2.5 million Khivi and 300 thousand collaborators who were armed in the Wehrmacht.
                        Yes, part of the Red Army also fought like that.
                      3. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 17: 47
                        -3
                        Quote: yehat2
                        Defense of Crete, Defense of Malta

                        This is entirely the merit of the fleet.

                        Quote: yehat2
                        a number of African operations
                        Before El Alamein, the British could not do anything with Rommel, and only a 5-fold advantage allowed them to wear down the Afrika Korps, but without the fleet they would not have done that either.

                        Quote: yehat2
                        counterstrike in the Ardennes
                        Are you out of your mind? This is an example of American (mostly) English interaction.

                        Quote: yehat2
                        defense of India.
                        Against the German army or what? And yes, in 44, defending against a numerically inferior Japanese army is epic.

                        Quote: yehat2
                        You take general results, not paying any attention to the conditions under which this or that was achieved.
                        Incredible in any way?

                        Quote: yehat2
                        And you can endlessly speculate on the topic.
                        What are you shamelessly doing.

                        Quote: yehat2
                        And it's not for nothing that I write about the adequacy, because you are not trying to honestly compare, but manipulate, pretending to be a felt boot, that like everything is ok.
                        You are already carrying some nonsense. "I manipulate pretending to be a felt boot" - a new word in adequate comments. So wipe the foam at your mouth.

                        Quote: yehat2
                        I have no Anglophilism, but do not forget what citizens then inhabited the kingdom, how they were raised and trained and what they were capable of.
                        The island of Guernsey is a perfect example of what "they" were capable of, not a single German occupier killed in 6 years. And what you are not an Anglophile is clear, in response to a real fact, no English army, you almost throw a hysterics.


                        Quote: yehat2
                        Compare this with the usual 3-4 grades of education for the Red Army, with 2.5 million Khivi and 300 thousand collaborators who were armed in the Wehrmacht.
                        Yes, part of the Red Army also fought like that.
                        Yes, it is already clear that you are not an Anglophile, but a Russophobe.
                      4. hohol95
                        hohol95 26 March 2021 18: 36
                        0
                        There is a photo of the Greeks watching British soldiers breaking their own rifles!
                        They couldn't even take out the rifles?
                        Or did they prevent the infantry from "retreating quickly" so as not to be captured by the Germans?
                  2. Ivan Shcherbakov
                    Ivan Shcherbakov 26 March 2021 17: 27
                    +3
                    At that time, the largest empire in the world, larger than the USSR
              2. hohol95
                hohol95 26 March 2021 17: 53
                0
                The average temperature in the hospital is 36,6!
                Let me ask you about the good times with the British Ground Forces?
                Only battles on the African continent do not need to be cited.
  2. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 26 March 2021 13: 23
    +3
    Quote: yehat2
    "British ground" had a rich experience of small conflicts, plus there were still quite a few people who participated in WWI and further battles, as well as being an advisor or observer in side conflicts. There is not much fame here, but there was experience.

    A small conflict like PMA?
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 26 March 2021 15: 16
      -1
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      A small conflict like PMA?

      the British did not have so many people there.
      mainly the French and the United States took out the fighting. There were many vassals of the British Empire from the countries - Hindus, Australians, Canadians, etc.
      The British helped more with support - the navy, aviation, artillery, tanks, etc.
      For them, the land part of the conflict was small, not comparable to ww2
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 26 March 2021 18: 21
        +2
        Quote: yehat2
        mainly the French and the United States took out the fighting.

        The Americans took out the First World War, having appeared on it in the third year out of four?
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 27 March 2021 00: 18
          0
          Americans lost more in half a year than Britons lost in the entire war
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 27 March 2021 00: 24
            +2
            Quote: yehat2
            Americans lost more in half a year than Britons lost in the entire war

            Enough to carry it. Generally incomparable loss figures.
            And since when are the merits directly proportional to the number of those killed?
  3. Sevan
    Sevan 26 March 2021 19: 43
    +1
    "English landowners", by the time of the German attack on the USSR, had been at war with Hitler for 2 years.
  • Proxima
    Proxima 26 March 2021 11: 51
    +2
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Brilliant article, bravo Irina

    Looks like Mrs. Frolova asked her husband to write an article, and she herself went to the kitchen to cook. belay
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 14: 14
      0
      Quote: Proxima
      Looks like Mrs. Frolova asked her husband to write an article, and she herself went to the kitchen to cook

      This is a family affair, but the article is much better than the series about the betrayal in 1941 - a fact.
  • Far B
    Far B 26 March 2021 04: 40
    +2
    Regarding the state and purpose of the Red Army, as well as about the peculiarities of the Russian national character, the British miscalculated ... However, like the Germans a few years later. I will not say that this is good (because it was not good at all, as much as 4 years, from 41 to 45), but there is a clear underestimation of the potential enemy. However, the Angles are famous snobs and racists, they have it in the order of things.
    But this, she-she, Olgovich wrote in his previous incarnation:
    If significant parts of the Red Army had to be sent to the external front, then millions of peasants, driven to despair, would remain in the rear. They hate Soviet power ... and are ready to welcome any foreigner, any foreign conqueror, if only he promised to get rid of the current situation, which has become truly unbearable
    1. tatra
      tatra 26 March 2021 08: 52
      +2
      The choice of "whites" at VO Olgovich perfectly in this quote showed the essence of the enemies of the Bolshevik-communists on the territory of the USSR, their attitude to their country and people all these 103 years of the Soviet and post-Soviet periods. They have always been and are FOR anyone and anything, including for the enemies of their country and people, for the occupiers of their country, if only to be AGAINST the communists and their supporters, AGAINST everything Soviet.
  • Cowbra
    Cowbra 26 March 2021 05: 04
    0
    In addition, in those years, among the upper British society, sentiments in favor of friendship with Nazi Germany were very widespread.

    Or rather, she fully supported Germany and was just BEGINNING to consider the POSSIBILITY of an agreement with the USSR:
    England is increasingly beginning to hesitate between the possibilities of an agreement with Germany and an agreement with Russia.
    1. apro
      apro 26 March 2021 07: 14
      +1
      Quote: Cowbra
      Or rather, she fully supported Germany and was just BEGINNING to consider the POSSIBILITY of an agreement with the USSR:

      The British did not support anyone, except England, any agreements with them were useless, because the British were able to instantly take the opposite decision in their favor.
      Brita at the time of the 30s was the first magnitude. A superpower at that time. And all its actions are aimed at eliminating a possible competitor. Both the USSR and Germany challenged the global Brits. And with competitors and them the conversation was short. To destroy.
  • Ravik
    Ravik 26 March 2021 05: 52
    +4
    The training of British troops was shown at Dunkirk.
    They draped so that everything had to be thrown ... and then they did not stick their nose out of their islands.
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 26 March 2021 06: 31
      +9
      Well, how, how, in the 41st year, the British unexpectedly began an offensive for themselves and famously beat the Italians in North Africa, seizing prisoners and territory, then Rommel arrived in Africa (with one division) and drove them back with a much larger speed than they were before.
      The British had only a serious formation, the Royal Navy, with competent commanders and with such admirals as Sommerville and Cunningham, the army was headless, not to consider a nonentity like Montgomery as a commander.
      As for the General Wavel mentioned in the article, he also received a kick from the same Rommel in the Libyan desert and was removed from his post, then received a penalty from the Japanese and, apparently for all his "merits", was appointed Viceroy of India with the assignment of the rank field marshal. Such is the great strategist and critic. laughing
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 26 March 2021 11: 43
        +9
        As for the General Wavel mentioned in the article, he also received a kick from the same Rommel in the Libyan Desert.
        Wavel's getting a kick has nothing to do with his assessment of the level of training of the Red Army, which he saw in 1936. And this assessment almost completely coincides with the assessment of the Military Council under the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR.
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 26 March 2021 17: 07
          +1
          Hi, hi. hi
          Somehow there is no desire to rely on the assessments of a not very smart and repeatedly beaten general. As for the assessment of our Military Council, the question arises, how many of these “assessors” survived until June 41? Maybe that is why they did not live up to the fact that their assessments were not very correct?
          Vic, I'm not arguing, just thinking out loud.))
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 26 March 2021 17: 13
            +5
            Klement Efremovich Voroshilov, who gave the assessments, died in 1969.
            In addition to Voroshilov, 1941 and 1942 too.
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 26 March 2021 17: 26
              +2
              And Voroshilov commanded a lot there? Stalin removed him from his post for his complete incapacity for modern war and a lack of understanding of its features.

              In addition to Voroshilov, 1941 and 1942 too.

              I didn't understand the last phrase.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 26 March 2021 17: 28
                +4
                1941 and 1942 gave an assessment.
                And Voroshilov was removed in 1940. We can discuss personalities, but this will not change the level of preparation of the Red Army. And the course of events shows that the assessments, in general, of the level of combat training were correct.
                1. Hunter 2
                  Hunter 2 26 March 2021 17: 48
                  +2
                  Welcome hi at the initial stage, Voroshilov led the defense of Leningrad, he was not a coward, he even went to the attacks and was wounded ... but really, as Konstantin writes, he did not understand the realities of modern war, did not have a military leader's talent and appropriate education!
                  1. Undecim
                    Undecim 26 March 2021 18: 03
                    +5
                    And who in 1936 from the Soviet military commanders understood the realities and had the appropriate education?
                    And we, nevertheless, are discussing the preparation of the Red Army, the state of which, in addition to the personal qualities of senior military leaders, was influenced by a number of significant factors.
                    1. Hunter 2
                      Hunter 2 26 March 2021 18: 21
                      0
                      Personally, I really respect two: Antonov and Vasilevsky! Brilliant operations designed by these headquarters officers!
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 March 2021 17: 21
        +1
        Quote: Sea Cat
        Well, how, how, in the 41st year, the British unexpectedly began an offensive for themselves and famously beat the Italians in North Africa, seizing prisoners and territory, then Rommel arrived in Africa (with one division) and drove them back with a much larger speed than they were before.

        But for this we should thank Churchill, who, exactly at the time of Rommel's arrival, pulled out two infantry divisions from the British forces in Africa (he wanted three, but managed to defend one), a tank brigade and nine squadrons - and sent them to Greece. Chased two birds with one stone ... and got it from both. smile
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 26 March 2021 17: 31
          0
          I remember this, but I do not think that anything would have changed for the better for the British, had these units stayed in Africa. A man without a head is not a man, but a piece of meat, at best, a monkey with a grenade, but they did not have a head, Monty - "this is not a head" (unlike Briand laughing )
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 26 March 2021 18: 42
            +1
            Quote: Sea Cat
            I remember this, but I do not think that anything would have changed for the better for the British, had these units stayed in Africa. A man without a head is not a man, but a piece of meat, at best, a monkey with a grenade, but they did not have a head, Monty - "this is not a head"

            Monty was not there in 1941 - it was Wavell. And the British did not have a head higher than Wavell - it was the Metropolis who ordered to stop the offensive when Wavell was ready to take Tripoli.
            And with two more APs and controlling Tripoli, the limes could fight Rommel.
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 26 March 2021 18: 54
              +2
              Wavela was later replaced by Auchinleck and everything continued with the same "success", if the British did not have a fleet and intelligent admirals in Mediterranean, everything would have ended with the complete defeat of the "Army of the Nile" and the capture of Alexandria. So without the British fleet, everything would have ended there back in the 41st. But this is just my opinion, in the sense that El Alamein is a victory for the British fleet.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2021 07: 43
      +13
      Quote: Ravik
      The training of British troops was shown at Dunkirk.
      Draped so that everything had to be thrown ...

      Ummm ... I don’t want to upset you, but they didn’t "go around so hard that they had to give up everything." The British left their heavy weapons when it was time to board ships - it was impossible to load tanks, guns, and in some cases even rifles on them.
      Quote: Ravik
      and then they did not stick their nose out of their islands.

      And this is also not true, the British fought the Germans where it was possible for them. Alas, neither in 1940 nor in 1941 their ground forces could reach the German ones. Their African units were brought up to about the level of the German ones only in 1942. The command did not pull up until the very end of the war.
      The training of our ground forces, alas, in 1941 also did not shine, and clearly did not correspond to the German one. So I wouldn't really kick the barrel at the British. Moreover, individually, the British fought very bravely and valiantly, in Africa situations when their tank brigades suffered gigantic losses, but continued to attack "to the last tank", or when groups of British took a perimeter defense and fought to the last man, took place.
      But they were really out of luck with the command
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 26 March 2021 12: 06
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I do not want to upset you

        I don’t understand at all how the quote from 1934 correlates with the events of World War II. This is not a fig "eve" of the war.
        And here is this passage from Mugheridge in the retelling of Slavin
        the commanding staff of her <RKKA> is rather dubious
        quite prophetic. After 3 years, Comrade Stalin began to clean up the "dubious" ones.
        In addition, assessments of the British military state of the European armies are not worth a damn - Ironside, staying in Warsaw in 1939, also praised the Polish army. AND?
      2. Catfish
        Catfish 26 March 2021 16: 43
        -1
        Good day, Andrey. hi
        Command - did not catch up until the very end of the war.

        That's for sure.
  • kalibr
    kalibr 26 March 2021 06: 22
    -1
    Ay, yes Irina! Congratulations. So, in pieces, giving the story is much better. And the evidence base is good. And I liked it: "In reality, the officers of the Red Army are showing clear signs of transformation into a privileged caste, and in fact, in many respects, are already it." What a big-eyed Englishman - even spotted that!
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 26 March 2021 06: 37
      +6
      Hi, Vyacheslav. hi Big-eyed, he is big-eyed, and he could only fight against Italians, about whom (I do not remember who) he said that "they were beaten even by the Austrians who were eternally commonplace." And there is no need to criticize a big mind.
      1. Korsar4
        Korsar4 26 March 2021 06: 47
        +2
        Here the relationship is important: what is done by ourselves to how the other is criticized. It is not easy to measure objectively.
      2. kalibr
        kalibr 26 March 2021 06: 55
        +1
        To understand and be able to - are different things!
      3. kalibr
        kalibr 26 March 2021 07: 14
        +2
        Quote: Sea Cat
        and could only fight against the Italians,

        Some abilities are needed to see and understand, but to lead, especially in battle, are completely different ...
    2. Richard
      Richard 26 March 2021 08: 35
      +10
      kalibr (Vyacheslav): Ay, yes Irina! Congratulations. So, in pieces, giving the story is much better. And the evidence base is good. And I liked it

      Yes, full of you, Vyacheslav. stop
      Plain vinigrette of two ingredients. Articles from the site "Alternative history" of 27.02.2021/35/36 "Assessment of the State of the Red Army on the basis of military maneuvers carried out in XNUMX and XNUMX: opinions of historians and contemporaries"
      link: http: //alternathistory.com/otsenka-sostoyaniya-rkka-na-osnove-provedennyh-v-35-i-36-godah-voennyh-manevrov-mneniya-istorikov-i-sovremennikov/
      and Nikolai Naumov's article "The Red Army in the Assessment of the British Military Leadership in the Second Half of the 30s."
      link https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/krasnaya-armiya-v-otsenke-britanskogo-voennogo-rukovodstva-vo-vtoroy-polovine-1930-h-gg
      Word for word without bothering too much
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 26 March 2021 09: 39
        0
        Richard! For me, the impression that the article leaves is important. And whence what was rewritten - let it remain on the conscience of the author. I also use materials very often ... "from somewhere". However, I try to make them no less than 90% new according to Advego and Novotex. Does she have less? Well, maybe he will still learn ...
    3. Undecim
      Undecim 26 March 2021 09: 43
      +8
      Ay, yes Irina! Congratulations
      Interestingly, Vyacheslav Olegovich, if the auto press "plagiarized" your article, how would you react to this? Would the ratings be as enthusiastic?
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 26 March 2021 10: 20
        +3
        Quote: Undecim
        Interestingly, Vyacheslav Olegovich, if the auto press "plagiarized" your article, how would you react to this?

        If she did it well, she would take it positively. In general, I like it when people do something masterfully. When I published THERE, I even wrote in it: take it, use it as you want ...
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 26 March 2021 10: 28
          +3
          If she did it well
          "Plagiarism is an illegal use or disposal of the protected results of someone else's creative work, deliberately committed by a natural person, which is accompanied by the dissemination of false information to other persons about himself as the actual author."
          Nobody is against the promotion of knowledge to the masses. But lying is immoral, and it is not difficult to put a few lines after the article with the list of sources used.
          1. kalibr
            kalibr 26 March 2021 10: 32
            +1
            Once again: at a novelty level of 90-92% and above, this is not plagiarism. VO allows the level of novelty above 70%, AST - not less than 75%, "Russian contour" - not less than 90%. Any material rewritten under these requirements cannot be plagiarized! Now, by the way, I am rewriting one of my articles for another publication. While the level of novelty is 100%.
            1. Undecim
              Undecim 26 March 2021 11: 16
              +5
              What is the "level of novelty" if, while reading the article, I immediately caught myself thinking that I had read it before. And, judging by the comments, this thought has visited more than one of me. The search for "primary sources" took three minutes, the search for Muggeridge's article, which the autoresser "could not find" took as much as five minutes.
              1. kalibr
                kalibr 26 March 2021 11: 53
                +3
                It means that she did her journalistic work poorly. And then she is ashamed and disgraced. But I have not read these articles, so I could not catch myself thinking that I had read this before. And he proceeded from this when he wrote "Congratulations!" Howl and that's it.
                1. Undecim
                  Undecim 26 March 2021 12: 01
                  +5
                  And then she is ashamed and disgraced.
                  I fully support it. This feeling and this assessment can be characterized by the creativity of the autoressa from the moment of its appearance on the site.
                  By the way, with the translation of Muggeridge's article, too, "not everything is clear." We have an option "in the spirit of the times".
          2. Korsar4
            Korsar4 26 March 2021 20: 15
            +2
            Oddly enough, it's good when something that worries us is still needed by someone.
            And adding a bibliography: just the norm. Doesn't require much work. Probably a matter of habit.
  • Konnick
    Konnick 26 March 2021 06: 41
    +8
    Much in the sources is wishful thinking. Especially funny about protests and separatism. What a foreign diplomat can see in the country, the same as a State Duma deputy from United Russia knows about the mood of the population in Uryupinsk.
    And the state of the army is even funnier, diplomats know about non-initiative executors, junior commanders. The Germans later changed these ideas to the opposite.
    Ahead were the battles on Khalkhin-gol and the war with the Finns.
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 26 March 2021 07: 36
    -2
    They hate Soviet power ... and are ready to welcome any foreigner, any foreign conquerorif only he promised to get rid of the current situation, which has become really unbearable. "


    The Englishman was wrong: the Russians knew and understood perfectly well that the conqueror needed the resources and lands of Russia, but the Russians themselves are not needed at all.

    And they will deal with their own affairs themselves, without "benefactors"

    PS and in fact the criticism of the articles earlier, it seems, worked: there are no HUBs of the 1941 sample or aquadiskotheques 41-43 there ...
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 26 March 2021 18: 46
      +2
      It's just that the author took time out. Putting on: "an owl on the globe" is a tedious task. Gather strength and continue
  • parusnik
    parusnik 26 March 2021 07: 50
    +4
    Thus, in general, the opinion of both the British political establishment and the British military elite about the Red Army was not entirely flattering.
    .. What is the essence of the article?
    1. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 26 March 2021 08: 10
      +3
      That is not flattering because of the disdainful attitude towards the Soviet people laughing
    2. vladcub
      vladcub 26 March 2021 18: 52
      +2
      Quote: parusnik
      Thus, in general, the opinion of both the British political establishment and the British military elite about the Red Army was not entirely flattering.
      .. What is the essence of the article?

      You should ask the author about this.
  • BAI
    BAI 26 March 2021 08: 33
    -4
    The growth of the author is visible. There are no wordless statements, everything is confirmed. There are no blunders with terminology and photographs. Anyone who disagrees with the author can oppose as much as he wants, but not from a personal point of view, but with the presentation of documents. Which is much more difficult.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 26 March 2021 09: 46
      +7
      The growth of the author is visible.
      Yes, in the "socialization" of other people's articles, the auto press is growing before our eyes.
    2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 26 March 2021 10: 04
      +3
      Quote: BAI
      The growth of the author is visible.

      Towards the bottom.
      Above are the links from where Madame Frolova corny stole the material.
  • Alexander Kopychev
    Alexander Kopychev 26 March 2021 09: 59
    +3
    If significant parts of the Red Army had to be sent to the external front, then millions of peasants, driven to despair, would remain in the rear.

    Apparently, when in 14 the Russian army rescued the French in the fields of Europe, there were millions of peasants in the rear, brought to "satisfying prosperity"?
    The Red Army is winning victory after victory in the class war against the unarmed and hungry peasants, the clergy and the remnants of the former estates.

    The elimination of illiteracy, the widespread construction of hospitals, schools, electrification and industrialization - perhaps this is what ...
    rooted in national character will take longer to eliminate

    How arrogant and arrogant this analyst is - have they at least learned it?
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 26 March 2021 10: 22
      -4
      Quote: Alexander Kopychev
      widespread hospital construction

      Duration 8 years or more ...
  • Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 26 March 2021 12: 05
    +4
    Their tank forces are currently far ahead of any other army in terms of number, design and use.

    Hitler argued about the same. And then there was "a soap bubble, slightly armored from the outside."
    The spirit of the whole army is very high
    and simultaneously
    The powerlessness of the Soviet government in the event of a collision with an external enemy is too obvious for everyone who knows the real state of affairs in Russia "
    и
    The Red Army is constantly required in Russia itself to maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat ... Only she alone can restrain the starving and protesting population. If significant parts of the Red Army had to be sent to the external front, then millions of peasants, driven to despair, would remain in the rear. They hate Soviet power ... and are ready to welcome any foreigner, any foreign conqueror, if only he promised to get rid of the current situation, which has become truly unbearable. "

    Who did the Red Army consist of, if only it is capable of holding back the "protesting population" with a "high fighting spirit"?
    It is clear that the British, Germans, Finns and others evaluated the Russians on the basis of the experience of World War I, multiplied by their own conjectures and inventions. But still ... it already gives off schizophrenia.
    1. Darkesstcat
      Darkesstcat 26 March 2021 12: 37
      +1
      Remember also the Soviet-Finnish war. She did great harm to the image of the Red Army.
      1. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 26 March 2021 12: 48
        +2
        Yes. And two years later, some called it a grandiose disinformation operation ...
  • Lister
    Lister 26 March 2021 14: 22
    +11
    Great Britain before becoming an ally of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War

    Before becoming an ally of the USSR in the war against Nazism, England and France drew up a plan for a war against the USSR. In particular, they planned to send an Anglo-French expeditionary corps to Finland and start bombing Baku.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 26 March 2021 14: 54
      +2
      Lister. The rulers of those countries that do not have plans for all occasions are bad. Only the stupid live at random. Planned ... so they were realistic. They did not realize their plans - the realists are doubly. Were we planning a preemptive strike against Hitler or not?
      1. Lister
        Lister 27 March 2021 00: 47
        +4
        Quote: kalibr
        Were we planning a preemptive strike against Hitler or not?

        I do not know. Some say yes. Others claim that they planned to cover the state border. You are a historian, working with archives, have you met the developed plan of the General Staff of the Red Army for a preemptive strike against Germany?
        Quote: kalibr
        They did not realize their plans - the realists are doubly.

        So maybe something else prevented them from realizing their plans? For example, such things as the end of the war with Finland and the surrender of France ... It turns out they were not good rulers of their countries, if they did not take into account March and May-June 1940 in their plans?
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 27 March 2021 07: 45
          0
          Quote: Lister
          It turns out they were not good rulers of their countries, if they did not take into account March and May-June 1940 in their plans?

          And here we are talking about something else. About foresight. And to anticipate is a GOOD LEADER'S OBLIGATION, but ... very limited. The summer of 1940 was very difficult to foresee. But our plan to strike Hitler simply HAD TO BE. Because it is not at all difficult to foresee its necessity. And if he was not, then ... this is bad! The leadership is not up to par. You should always have a contingency plan. Right now, for example. We have a plan to strike the United States, and more than one. They have the same thing. 41st should not be repeated!
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 26 March 2021 15: 43
    +6
    Quote: Lister
    In particular, they planned to send an Anglo-French expeditionary corps to Finland and start bombing Baku.

    The Germans preempted, and the bombing of Baku did not take place.
  • orcinus
    orcinus 26 March 2021 15: 53
    +1
    Let's just say that the article is like analytical zero. Especially the last paragraph, the conclusions - just none. As for the essence of the information reported, then, especially with regard to the first letter, it is difficult to disagree with him: in terms of the initiative and the level of junior commanders, Moltke wrote about this in his time. The second letter, of course, is typical "liberal game, which is still replete with the same BBC. But, in general, it was interesting to read
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 26 March 2021 17: 28
    +2
    Quote: yehat2
    Quote: Aron Zaavi
    A small conflict like PMA?

    the British did not have so many people there.
    mainly the French and the United States took out the fighting. There were many vassals of the British Empire from the countries - Hindus, Australians, Canadians, etc.
    The British helped more with support - the navy, aviation, artillery, tanks, etc.
    For them, the land part of the conflict was small, not comparable to ww2

    Yes of course.

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland lost 704 people during the war, British India - 121 people, Canada - 64 people, Australia - 449 people, New Zealand - 56 people and, finally, the Union of South Africa - 639 people.
  • faterdom
    faterdom 26 March 2021 17: 31
    +1
    In general, the assessments of the British are about the case for that time.
    They underestimated only one comrade - Stalin.
    Who, for a start, was able to shorten the frustrating senior command staff, and then, in a short time, replace the generals who could not win (the Pavlovs and Mekhlises) with the one that could (Rokossovsky, Chernyakhovsky, Vatutin and many others known).
    To recreate a new military-industrial complex in the east - this, too, according to pre-war experts, would be from the category of fantasy, but they could (Ustinov, Vanin and many others).
    Unfortunately, our shortcomings cost us dearly, but already in 45 the British themselves (a first-class military power, as it was believed before the war) preferred to shove their "Unthinkable" plan ... deeper, and not out of the kindness of their soul, and the Americans really really thirsted our help in the Far East, even with an atomic bomb in the asset.
    1. Free wind
      Free wind 28 March 2021 00: 44
      0
      Mekhlis died a natural death in his bed.
  • El Barto
    El Barto 26 March 2021 18: 24
    +3
    Actually, the assessments of the British are still quite complimentary in comparison with the assessments that the Soviet military leadership gave to the state of the army:

    1937 - The People's Commissar rated the tactical training of the troops extremely low: the soldiers do not know how to secretly move, dig in, the interaction between the branches of the armed forces is still not worked out. Commanders often do not care about maintaining normal communication with neighbors, subordinates, and higher management. Also, the training of tank forces and anti-tank defense received a low rating.

    1940 - Numerous shortcomings in combat training were also noted in the act on the acceptance of the People's Commissariat of Defense S.K. Timoshenko from Voroshilov:
    “1) Low training of the middle command personnel at the company-platoon level and especially poor training of the junior command personnel.
    2) Weak tactical training in all types of combat and reconnaissance, especially small units.
    3) Poor practical field training of troops and their inability to perform what is required in a combat situation.
    4) The extremely weak training of the combat arms in the interaction on the battlefield: the infantry is not able to snuggle up to and break away from the fire shaft; artillery cannot support tanks; aviation does not know how to interact with ground forces.
    5) The troops are not trained in skiing.
    6) The use of camouflage worked out poorly.
    7) The troops have not worked out fire control.
    8) The troops are not trained to attack fortified areas, set up and overcome obstacles and forcing rivers. "

    On May 8, 1941, at a meeting of the Main Military Council, the results of combat training for the winter period of 1940-1941 were considered. The conclusions set out in the minutes of the meeting are also disappointing. Although it is noted in the document that the quality of combat training has improved in comparison with 1940, nevertheless, the general level of training of troops was considered unsatisfactory and did not correspond to the requirements of modern combat and operations. The tasks set for the winter period by order of the NKO No. 30 of January 21, 1941 on the combat and political training of troops for the 1941 academic year were declared unfulfilled. As before, the interaction of the combat arms has not been properly worked out. Deficiencies were especially noted in the Leningrad and Western Special Military Districts. Things were better in the Kiev Special Military District. The state of the air force was found to be completely unsatisfactory.
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 27 March 2021 00: 31
      +4
      Quote: El Barto
      with assessments that the Soviet military leadership gave to the state of the army

      shortly before the war, about 50+ thousand soldiers and officers were dismissed from the army for malicious systematic violation of the charter or theft.
      One of the problems of the Red Army was that it was not workers and townspeople who were accustomed to discipline and organization who went into the army, but peasants and it was not easy for many of them to adapt.
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 28 March 2021 00: 40
        -2
        The peasants were the best soldiers. Every village boy, and girls as well, knew how to handle a weapon; everyone in the hut had a Berdanka hanging on the wall. Was trained to survive in the wild. They were hardy. Do you think that the Siberian divisions in the Second World War were recruited from the cities? With what?, Yes there are minuscule of them, and almost all the men worked for the defense industry, were with armor. It was from the villages that the most combat-ready units were recruited. Stop writing fairy tales about super smart sailors who knew how to handle SVT.
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 28 March 2021 01: 42
          +2
          Quote: Free Wind
          survive in the wild. Were hardy

          Are you going to recruit an army of partisans?
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 29 March 2021 11: 06
          0
          Quote: Free Wind
          The peasants were the best soldiers. Every village boy, and girls as well, knew how to handle a weapon; everyone in the hut had a Berdanka hanging on the wall.

          Just a reminder:
          "The disdainful attitude towards the instruction on the storage and conservation of weapons in military units / § 222, 242 /, ignorance of the device of automatic weapons, its disassembly rules were brought to such a state that automatic rifles" ABC ", submachine guns" Degtyarev "during their disassembly turned out to be with hardening started in the gas paths, the entire gas exhaust unit is covered with rust, the surface of the barrel and other parts are heavily rusty. The same state of the gas paths is with the DP machine guns "

          "In parts of the 97th rifle division, rifles manufactured in 1940, which were on hand for no more than 4 months, up to 29% are reduced to the state of rust traces in the barrel bore, machine guns" DP "manufactured in 1939 to 14% also have a deterioration in the barrel bores."
  • vladcub
    vladcub 26 March 2021 18: 37
    +2
    If we take Wavell's report, then the Brits correctly assessed the potential of the Red Army, there was no bias.
    And as soon as the political bias began, I doubt the article from the "nineteenth century" and everything is in the trash
  • Doliva63
    Doliva63 27 March 2021 21: 31
    0
    In the year 88 or 89, one day in a tent they drank "Rushen vodka" with the head of intelligence of the British Rhine, General Rogers, if the sclerosis does not lie about the surname. So after 3 glasses he said - would not want to fight with you. Not because we are drinking vodka in this tent right now, but because it will be difficult to stop you. This is the assessment.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 29 March 2021 10: 59
    0
    In reality, the officers of the Red Army are showing clear signs of becoming a privileged caste, and in fact, in many ways, are already it.

    On maneuvers, perhaps, such an impression arose. But in everyday army life ...
    ... the poor combat training of the troops during the times of Uborevich and Yakir was due not only to the low qualifications of the commanders of the Red Army, but also to poor military education.
    The level of the latter can be judged, for example, by the collective portrait of the command staff of the 110th rifle regiment of the BBO, made by the division commander K.P. Podlas in October 1936: “The younger [sie] are familiar with their elders, loosely, leaves his leg, sitting, accepts orders, bickering ... Lots of torn uniforms, dirty, unshaven, torn boots, etc. " At that time the middle commanders of the 44th and 45th divisions of the KVO also walked "unshaven, with dirty collars": this is how "red officers" were brought up in their cadet years ...
    For example, this is what the cadets of the United Belarusian Military School looked like in August 1932: "The weak front bearing is striking; the uniforms "did not wash almost all summer" and "came to the color of oil."
    Seeing a commander with rhombs in his buttonholes (that is, in the old-fashioned way, a general!), "The day cadets ... hesitated, one scratched his cheek and turned his head, not knowing what to do: stand or sit." (It is appropriate to cite here the memoirs of General V.V. Glazatov about the Odessa cadet school at the turn of the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries. "When the command" Smirno "was given at the school, - he said, - the senior officer looked not at the cadets, but at the tips of bayonets - try just move, you can immediately see everything. What was the drill bearing! ")
    Unsightly looked at Yakir and Uborevich and the younger commander of the Red Army. Unstretched, unshaven, often in a torn tunic, and even without insignia (!), In principle, he could not be demanding, he could not persistently work out with the fighters all the details of their preparation.
    One could argue with such a commander, he could be called a "bastard" and cursed - the low level of discipline was another factor that led to the poor combat training of the Red Army in the mid-30s. However, the general atmosphere of the "proletarian state" did not contribute to the strengthening of discipline either. The Red Army soldier was seen not so much a soldier as a citizen, "comrade such and such." The fighter could criticize the platoon commander and the foreman at the Komsomol meeting - what kind of military discipline could we talk about?
    © Smirnov. Great maneuvers.