Military Review

Ideology of Stalin's Victory

174

The holiday of May 9 is approaching - the 76th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War.


A decisive contribution to the Victory was made by the Red Army, armed with the advanced military equipment of the time. But this Victory would have been impossible without the appropriate ideological support, without the formulation of value ideological meanings that armed the soldiers of the Red Army (soldiers, commanders and political workers) with confidence in the rightness of their cause.

Outstanding Soviet writers and poets - Konstantin Simonov, Alexey Tolstoy, Ilya Erenburg, Alexander Tvardovsky and many others - made a huge contribution to the ideology of Victory.

Spirit of Victory


But the most important principles of the new ideological approach in the conditions of the great war that began were formulated in the speeches and addresses of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Chairman of the State Defense Committee, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars and General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks Joseph Stalin.

All these provisions, most important for understanding the ideological work, are contained in J. Stalin's collection "On the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union", published in 1947. This collection includes texts that are critical to understanding these new approaches. Starting with a radio speech on July 3, 1941, famous for the words "brothers and sisters, I am addressing you, my friends," and ending with the famous toast "To the Russian people."

Already in his first speech on July 3, 1941, Stalin explained in detail to society - was it not a mistake to conclude a non-aggression pact with Hitler's Germany, since Germany violated it and treacherously attacked our country. Stalin explains that by concluding a non-aggression pact with Germany, we ensured peace for our country for a year and a half and the possibility of preparing our forces to repulse if Germany would risk attacking our country, contrary to the pact. Recognizing that Germany, having made a treacherous attack, achieved a tactical advantage at the front, but she, the leader believed, "lost politically, exposing herself in the eyes of the whole world as a bloody aggressor."

Describing the nature of the outbreak of war, Stalin notes:

"It is about the life and death of the Soviet state, about the life and death of the peoples of the USSR, the destruction of the statehood of the peoples of the USSR."

He formulates not only the main tactical tasks of fighting the enemy in order to bleed and wear him out, leaving him with a destroyed infrastructure, but also defines the strategic goals of the struggle, calling the war - Patriotic!

“The goal of this nationwide Patriotic war against the fascist oppressors is not only to eliminate the danger hanging over our country, but also to help all the peoples of Europe groaning under the yoke of German fascism. Our war for the freedom of our Fatherland will merge with the struggle of the peoples of Europe and America for independence, for democratic freedoms ",

- proclaims Stalin.

Please note that the communist leader is not talking about the class struggle, the world proletarian revolution, support for the revolutionary struggle of workers in other countries, or the struggle against capitalism, as one might expect. The task was formulated as follows:

"The idea of ​​defending our Fatherland ... should and does give rise to heroes in our army, cementing the Red Army."

There was another important question, which was answered in detail by the leader. With whom is the USSR waging war, what political ideology and system of values ​​does Hitlerite Germany profess, and what order does she want to establish? In his report dedicated to the 24th anniversary of the October Revolution, Stalin explains in detail who the German National Socialists are, why they call themselves that, and who they really are. In this speech, Stalin gives his definition of the ideology of German Nazism - Hitlerism and the social nature of the NSDAP.

Stalin argues that Hitler's party cannot be considered not only socialist, but also nationalist. It could have been nationalist while the Nazis were collecting German lands, but after the German fascists enslaved many European nations and began to seek world domination, the Hitlerite party turned into an imperialist party, expressing the interests of German bankers and barons. Proving why the Hitlerite party is a reactionary political force that deprived the working class and peoples of Europe of elementary democratic freedoms, Stalin did not limit himself to this, but acts as a defender of the liberal political systems of his allies.

Stalin refutes the most important thesis of Goebbels 'propaganda about the social nature of the bourgeois democratic regimes in Great Britain and the United States as plutocratic, noting that in these countries there are workers' parties, trade unions, there is a parliament, and in Germany these institutions are absent. He recalls that "the Nazis just as willingly organize medieval Jewish pogroms as the tsarist regime arranged for them."

And here is the definition that Stalin gives NASDAP.

"The Hitlerite Party is the party of enemies of democratic freedoms, medieval reaction and Black Hundred pogroms."

Stalin also ridiculed the attempts of Goebbels' propaganda to compare Adolf Hitler to Napoleon Bonaparte. Firstly, he recalled the fate of Napoleon and his campaign of conquest against Russia, and secondly, he drew attention to the fact that the French emperor represented the forces of social progress for his time, while Hitler personifies the forces of extreme reaction and obscurantism.

Winner Code


An important element of the ideology of Victory was patriotic rhetoric and an appeal to the iconic figures of the Russian stories... In the same report, Stalin utters the historic words:

"And these people, devoid of conscience and honor, people with animal morality have the audacity to call for the destruction of the great Russian nation, the nation of Plekhanov and Lenin, Belinsky and Chernyshevsky, Pushkin and Tolstoy, Sechenov and Pavlov, Repin and Surikov, Suvorov and Kutuzov."

Often they try to present Stalin's policy during the war years as a rejection of communist ideology, Marxism and Leninism. This is an erroneous point of view, where the wish of these authors is passed off as reality.

Although the Stalinist interpretation of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" had its own characteristics, as well as the authoritarian system of government created by the leader. However, we can rightfully speak about the restoration, within the framework of the official ideology, of the historical continuity of all Russian history. And this new ideological policy, which was undoubtedly initiated by Stalin, did not begin at all with the outbreak of war, as they sometimes write, but back in the second half of the 30s, when iconic patriotic films about the commander Suvorov, Alexander Nevsky, Minin and Pozharsky. These important historical figures were actually rehabilitated and returned to the pantheon of national heroes.

Since 1934, as is known, the teaching of history in schools has been restored as a full-fledged subject, covering, among other things, the entire history of Russia. In the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks dated May 16, 1934 "On teaching civil history in the schools of the USSR" it was said in particular:

"Instead of teaching history in a lively, entertaining form with the presentation of events and facts in chronological sequence, with the characteristics of historical figures, students are presented with abstract definitions of socio-economic formations, thus replacing a coherent presentation of history with abstract sociological schemes."

This resolution was an important step in the rejection of the previously dominant dogmatic interpretations of Marxist concepts in Soviet historical science and school education. Stalin, unlike a number of other leaders of the Bolshevik Party, did not oppose the values ​​of state patriotism to communist ideology, but united them.

On November 7, 1941, at the famous parade on Red Square in Moscow, when the troops went straight from the parade into battle to defend the capital of our country, Stalin ended his speech as follows:

“Comrades, Red Army and Red Navy men, commanders and political workers, partisans and partisans! The whole world looks at you as a force capable of destroying the plundering hordes of German invaders. The enslaved peoples of Europe, who have fallen under the yoke of the German invaders, look at you as their liberators. A great mission of liberation has fallen to your lot. Be worthy of this mission! The war you are waging is a war of liberation, a just war. Let the courageous image of our great ancestors - Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, Kuzma Minin, Dmitry Pozharsky, Alexander Suvorov, Mikhail Kutuzov inspire you in this war!

And here's an interesting parallel.

The fact is that with the beginning of the war - literally on June 22, 1941, the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne of the Russian Orthodox Church, Sergiy Stragorodsky, addressed the Orthodox believers. He characterized the doctrine of German fascism as consistently anti-Christian. His text also contained the following words:

"Let's remember the holy leaders of the Russian people, for example, Alexander Nevsky, Dimitri Donskoy, who laid down their souls for the people and the Motherland."

And his appeal ends with a confident statement:

"The Lord will grant us Victory!"

Stalin, of course, was aware of this appeal by Sergius and appreciated its ideological significance. And on September 4, 1943, Stalin's historic meeting with the highest hierarchs of the Orthodox Church marked the beginning of the official restoration of Orthodoxy with some support from the Soviet state. What was difficult to imagine before the war, in the 30s, during the period of the total struggle against religion, when the so-called godless five-year plan, declared by the communist party since 1932, was carried out.

It is sometimes argued that during the war years Stalin deliberately abandoned the ideology of proletarian internationalism in favor of the idea of ​​national patriotism. Rather, we must talk about giving up the illusions inherent in the policies of the Comintern, hopes for a European communist revolution and blind faith in the German working class as a revolutionary vanguard on the European continent. It is no coincidence that, answering the question of the English correspondent of the Reuters agency, Mr. King, on May 28, 1943, about the decision to dissolve the Communist International, Stalin, in particular, explained this unexpected step in this way.

The dissolution of the Comintern "makes it easier for the patriots of freedom-loving countries to unite all progressive forces, regardless of their party affiliation and religious convictions, into a single national liberation camp - to launch the struggle against fascism."

Stalin emphasized that the source of the people's heroic deeds is "ardent life-giving Soviet patriotism." The report of the Chairman of the State Defense Committee at the ceremonial meeting of the Moscow Council of Working People's Deputies with party and public organizations in Moscow on November 6, 1944, dedicated to the 27th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, emphasizes the fundamental difference between the ideological values ​​of Soviet society and German fascism.

“The German fascists have chosen as their ideological weapons a misanthropic racial theory in the expectation that the preaching of bestial nationalism will create the material and political preconditions for domination over enslaved peoples. However, the policy of racial hatred pursued by the Nazis became in fact a source of internal weakness and foreign policy isolation of the German fascist state, ”

- Stalin notes. And he makes a conclusion. During the war, the Nazis suffered not only military, but also moral and political defeat.

"The ideology of equality of all races and nations, the ideology of friendship among peoples, which has taken root in our country, has won a complete Victory over the ideology of bestial nationalism and racial hatred of the Nazis."

Stalin emphasizes that

"The Hitlerite clique, with its cannibalistic policy, has revived all the peoples of the world against Germany, and the chosen German race has become an object of universal hatred."

At the same time, Stalin, unlike a number of well-known Western politicians and journalists, never blamed the German people as a whole for the crimes of the National Socialist regime and did not slip into the position of ethnic nationalism and hostility towards the Germans as a people, and towards Germany as to the country and the state. His phrase from the Order of the People's Commissar of Defense of February 23, 1942 to the next 24th anniversary of the creation of the Red Army is well known:

"Hitlers come and go, but the German people, and the German state remains."

Stalin also strongly opposed the idea of ​​dismembering defeated Germany into several small states. Similar proposals to return Germany to a situation of fragmentation, as it was before its unification during the time of the iron chancellor Otto von Bismarck in the second half of the XNUMXth century, were put forward, as you know, by Great Britain and its leader, Prime Minister Winston pc.

Stalin saw the strength of the Red Army precisely in the fact that it "does not and cannot have racial hatred for other peoples, including the German people." And the weakness of the German army lies in the fact that by its "ideology of racial superiority it has won the hatred of the peoples of Europe"!

“In addition, one should not forget that in our country the manifestation of racial hatred is punishable by law,”

- Stalin emphasized.

Toast to the health of the people


Speaking at a reception in the Kremlin in honor of the commanders of the Red Army on May 24, 1945, Marshal I. Stalin made his famous toast to the health of the Russian people, which caused the jubilation of all those present. He said:

"I raise my glass to the health of the Russian people, because in this war they have earned general recognition - as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country."

Having admitted certain mistakes of his government at the beginning of the war, Stalin expressed gratitude to the Russian people, who believed in his leadership, and stressed:

"And this confidence of the Russian people in the Soviet government turned out to be the decisive force that ensured the historic Victory over the enemy of humanity - over fascism!"
Author:
174 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee April 27 2021 03: 11
    +9
    Our cause is right. We will win. Victory will be ours !
    Briefly and clearly. Ideology contributed to the Victory.
    1. Far B
      Far B April 27 2021 03: 43
      +20
      Ideology, of course, is important, but if there is no work behind it, it remains just empty talk. At that time, the people saw that industrialization was under way in the country on a gigantic scale, the quality of life was improving, as Stalin himself said: "Life has become better, comrades, life has become more fun!" And that was true. Therefore, the seeds of ideology lay on fertile, fertilized soil.
      Now such a trick will not be possible - there is nothing behind the chatter of current ideologues ("There is Putin - there is Russia, there is no Putin - there is no Russia", "Putinism is for a long time" and other marasmic splashes from the pro-government "ilya"). There is no soil under it from the word at all. And the saddest thing is that no one is going to create this soil layer. Despite the fact that, according to the same modern "ilites", the relations of modern Russia with the outside world are now more tense than ever (yeah, but for some reason they prefer to send their children to the outside world). Something like this.
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx April 27 2021 04: 23
        +12
        Quote: Dalny V
        Ideology is certainly important, but if there is no work behind it ...

        The people will not defend the hateful life, but it happens that the choice has to be made between bad and very bad.
        One thing is clear, fascism could be stopped by a socialist country and socialist ideology. The author is also right that during the construction of the world's first socialist state, random people also entered power and there were many mistakes. Only the positive in real life is always not based on empty space. So there was something that made people go to death and step over themselves:

        And the mass heroism of the Soviet people is also known both at the front and in the rear ...
        That is why renewed socialism is more desirable and dearer to people than reanimated slavery.
      2. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee April 27 2021 04: 30
        +6
        Quote: Dalny V
        but if there is no business behind her

        Things were! And grandiose deeds. It is impossible to list everything - this is the history of the formation of the Soviet state, its power and improvement in the life of the people. This is what the people stood up for at 41.
      3. Lech from Android.
        Lech from Android. April 27 2021 04: 39
        -3
        Destroy the Russians' faith in their strength, destroy their national identity, turn them into Ivanov who do not remember their kinship and you can do whatever you want with them ... the state will collapse like a house of cards ... in the 90s we were convinced of this the hard way.
        Now I see new attempts to turn the same trick with the Russian people, including on our forum ... I will never support a government that will destroy the national consciousness of the Russian people.
        Stalin on the edge of the abyss realized that the main support of his power is the common people, he is the source of power, he is the Alpha and Omega of the state, and the ruler who forgets or rejects it sooner or later disappears into oblivion.
        1. squid
          squid April 27 2021 05: 54
          -9
          The Bolsheviks destroyed the national consciousness of the Russian people most of all. Together, by the way, with the Russian people themselves, represented by its best representatives - officers, intelligentsia, administrators, nobility, clergy ...
          1. Far B
            Far B April 27 2021 06: 01
            +2
            Together, by the way, with the Russian people themselves, in the person of its best representatives - officers, intelligentsia, administrators, nobility, clergy
            Exactly. Indeed, right now, the best representatives of the people from the list you have given (with the exception of the officers), who have returned to our life from oblivion, tirelessly make our life literally fabulous and unbearably pleasant, yes.
            PySy. Sometimes chewing is better than talking.
            1. squid
              squid April 27 2021 06: 05
              -8
              Well, first of all, our life right now on a personal everyday level is much better than it ever was under the communists. Secondly, the best representatives of the people were destroyed by the communists, and the current elite has nothing to do with them. Thirdly, the liberals who came in the late 80s - early 90s are generally not a gift either, although they are better than the communists. Fourth, chew well.
              1. Far B
                Far B April 27 2021 06: 14
                +6
                firstly, our life right now on a personal household level is much better than ever under the communists
                In everyday life, of course. Because progress does not stand still. 30 years have passed, other technologies, you know. But ... Under the commies, people did not have a single smartphone, damned totalitarians angry .
                Secondly, the best representatives of the people were destroyed by the communists.
                remember all by name, pzhalsta. Maybe I'll cry crying
                the liberals who came in the late 80s - early 90s are generally not a gift either, although they are better than the communists
                - Daragoy, well, cham, cham is better ?! - The Cham are the Kammunists.
                As far as I understand, you have no other arguments, except for "cham kammunists"? However, thanks for that too. Quite clearly.
                1. squid
                  squid April 27 2021 06: 17
                  0
                  Quote: Dalny V
                  progress does not stand still. Under the commies, people did not have a single smartphone, damned totalitarians

                  The remaining communist countries (North Korea, Cuba) still have few smartphones. So not everyone is affected by this progress.
                  1. Far B
                    Far B April 27 2021 06: 35
                    +13
                    Let's push any country in the Western world comparable to Cuba / DPRK in size into a regime of complete isolation - and see how long it will enjoy its developed economy. And these live. 30 years after the collapse of the USSR and the socialist camp, they retain their path of development, and in some ways even develop, think? And the North Koreans learned how to rivet in general.
                    By the way, the USSR (for the only time in the entire thousand-year history of Russia) quite confidently occupied the place of the second economy in the world and still made up for the lag behind America, having superior rates of economic development. So yeah, damn communist totalitarianism is fucking bad. Under the current Russian neo-feudalism, it is much better, because here. But the most sweet thing was in the presence of the tsars-priests, you really won't let me lie. The rolls crunched, the schoolgirls knocked them off their heels, and the peasants were completely blush and well-fed, because they ate exclusively from the rivers of milk, snacking on this good with jelly banks. So it was, I believe.
                    1. Aviator_
                      Aviator_ April 27 2021 08: 16
                      +6
                      Let's push any country in the Western world comparable to Cuba / DPRK in size into a regime of complete isolation - and see how long it will enjoy its developed economy.

                      Quite right, let's apply sanctions, for example, to Israel and see how long it will last in a regime of complete isolation.
                      1. nemez
                        nemez April 27 2021 08: 55
                        +3
                        Israel will bend; it has a lot of things to live in isolation.
                      2. Overlock
                        Overlock April 27 2021 10: 06
                        +1
                        Quote: nemez
                        Israel will bend; it has a lot of things to live in isolation.

                        Has Israel dealt with water? Now the import of goods from Israel to Russia from the "vegetables" group for the period January, 2019 - January, 2020 amounted to $ 178 million, with a total weight of 170 thousand tons.
                        Mainly imported were “other vegetables” (71%), “carrots, turnips, beets, radishes” (27%).
                        Is it like water with us?
                      3. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ April 27 2021 19: 30
                        +1
                        We have good water supply. If it were not for the Israeli lobby (already 30 years as Israel is our "brotherly country"), then "other vegetables" and "carrots, turnips, beets" would not have been imported. Last but not least, a hit on the director of the state farm. Lenin Grudinin is that he is a strong competitor to Israeli products.
                      4. Illanatol
                        Illanatol April 28 2021 13: 21
                        0
                        So what? No dependence on imports?
                        Israel even imported fertile land for money that Uncle Sam planted.
                        Left to itself, without the help of the diaspora and the United States, Israel would be doomed. However, his future is already bleak, given the demographics.
                  2. Overlock
                    Overlock April 27 2021 09: 49
                    +1
                    Quote: Aviator_
                    let's apply sanctions, for example, to Israel and see how long it will last in complete isolation.

                    And because of what, in principle, are the sanctions being taken?
                    Let's take North Korea:
                    1.The first sanctions against the DPRK were introduced in 2006, after the first successful test of North Korean nuclear weapons (UN Security Council Resolution 1718). - Fair?
                    2. In 2009, after the second North Korean nuclear test, the UN Security Council Resolution 1874 was adopted. This resolution extended the embargo on arms supplies to the DPRK. - Fair?
                    3. In March 2013, after the third test of the North Korean atomic bomb, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2094, which imposed sanctions on remittances coming to the DPRK from the international financial system. - Fair?
                    Consequently, the sanctions are applied for the reason
                  3. Aviator_
                    Aviator_ April 27 2021 19: 34
                    0
                    UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2094, which imposed sanctions

                    The Security Council took a lot of things, in particular, back in the mid-70s he equated Zionism with Nazism, so what? And nothing. More bubbles in a puddle.
                2. not main
                  not main April 28 2021 00: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: Aviator_
                  let's apply sanctions, for example, to Israel and see how long it will last in complete isolation.

                  "And what about us?"
            2. chenia
              chenia April 27 2021 08: 14
              +6
              Quote: squid
              Quote: Dalny V
              progress does not stand still. Under the commies, people did not have a single smartphone, damned totalitarians

              The remaining communist countries (North Korea, Cuba) still have few smartphones. So not everyone is affected by this progress.


              And in capitalist Haiti there is a lot of fun. Or does Cuba (in isolation) still live better?
        2. nemez
          nemez April 27 2021 08: 56
          +2
          If your life is better, don't speak for everyone.
          1. chenia
            chenia April 27 2021 09: 12
            0
            Quote: nemez
            If your life is better,


            Do you come to me? Or what did you not understand?
        3. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 April 27 2021 10: 07
          +10
          Quote: squid
          Well, first of all, our life right now on a personal everyday level is much better than it ever was under the communists.

          And under the tsar it was worse than under the communists. And under the princes it is worse than under the king. And under the primitive system it is worse than under the princes. wink
          Maybe it's enough to blame everything on commies? Did your government do anything by itself, other than devouring the Soviet legacy?
        4. The comment was deleted.
      4. Lech from Android.
        Lech from Android. April 27 2021 07: 43
        -1
        Yeah, former communists and Komsomol members became the owners of banks, factories, collective farms. smile
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 April 27 2021 10: 08
          +3
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          Yeah, former communists and Komsomol members became bank owners,

          And a president with a pathological power complex.
    2. evgen1221
      evgen1221 April 27 2021 07: 52
      +6
      Well, these (the best representatives) showed themselves so badly before and brought RI to collapse? Those gentlemen were not so and the best turns out.
      1. squid
        squid April 27 2021 08: 16
        -5
        To begin with, these "representatives" of Russia created, defended, expanded to the borders even more Soviet ones, raised the Russian giant people, and won many wars. And they defeated Napoleon, 130 years before Hitler, and in the First World War they did not roll back to the Volga. But yes, by the beginning of the 20th century, the system was outdated.
        And then, taking advantage of the severity of the martial law, the turmoil and political transformation, the Marxists seized power ... Vile, in the back, shamelessly deceiving the illiterate rabble with their fabulous promises, using criminals, outcasts and foreign mercenaries to strengthen their bloody power. And in the end they destroyed the country, but did not create and multiply, like "that", even if not at all ideal, elite.
        1. Far B
          Far B April 27 2021 08: 22
          +5
          Marxists seized power
          Somehow I did not know that Prince Lvov and the other Guchkovs were Marxists. A new page in history, however. The audience is hungry for details!
          1. squid
            squid April 27 2021 08: 32
            -3
            The Marxists took advantage of the war and the intertime, the fall of the monarchy, to deceive the people, seize power and their subsequent "experiments." Without them, there would be a normal modern market parliamentary democracy, and not barbed wire across the country. And, by the way, the constituent assembly was dispersed, where they had a minority - despite all the lies, most of the people did not believe them. Which, by the way, removes the historical responsibility for communism from the Russian people - unlike the Germans who voluntarily accepted Nazism, our people did not invite communists. Themselves were victims. And even decades later, all this Marxism has not taken root among the people - as soon as the naive Gorbachev really gave people something to choose, partly bringing the real communist "people's democracy" to the declared one, as all communism immediately fell down like a house of cards. Somehow 70 years were not enough for him to take root.
            1. Far B
              Far B April 27 2021 08: 41
              +3
              Without them, there would be a normal modern market parliamentary democracy
              "Parliamentary democracy" destroyed the country and the front de facto in seven months. If it were allowed to exist for another five months, all this would be formalized de jure. So thank God that the Bolsheviks came and took away the remnants of power from the Democratic guys (which was simply falling out of the shaking hands of the provisional government). After all, matches are not toys for children.
              Py.Sy. And what are the "parliamentary democrats", according to your version - the best people, did not stop the October coup? Only the lazy in St. Petersburg did not know that an uprising was planned for October 25th. Zinoviev and Kamenev reported this news literally through the newspaper. Maybe Kerensky and Co. were asleep and saw that someone more responsible came and took power from them? Well, here: they came and took them away. Why cry something?
              1. squid
                squid April 27 2021 08: 49
                -2
                In troubled waters, in times of perturbations, the most cruel, purposeful and unprincipled always wins. Ready to lie shamelessly and kill without hesitation. The army was disintegrated by the Marxists themselves, by their "revolutionary" agitation, so this is another Marxist chutzpah, that someone is to blame for the failures at the front. By the way, their front also collapsed - even the dying German army kicked all the red army.
                Unfortunately or fortunately, the "parliamentary democrats", since the communists do not hold on to power like that - fanatically clutching it with their teeth and walking over corpses. Alas, good is always softer than evil. Russia was unlucky at the crossroads, the "ghost of communism" that roamed Europe cursed us.
                1. Far B
                  Far B April 27 2021 08: 58
                  +4
                  The army was disintegrated by the Marxists themselves, by their "revolutionary" agitation
                  Why, in the Great Patriotic War, the much better German propaganda, which, moreover, possessed a mass of agents from the "best people" of the pre-revolutionary leaven, failed to disintegrate the army? Maybe in WWII people understood what they were fighting for, but in WWII they had nothing to shed blood for? But in the class struggle (aka the Civil War) after WWI, many willingly entered the class struggle - only to get rid of the hateful "best people" (in your version). Think about it. If, of course, you have something to think about.
                2. squid
                  squid April 27 2021 09: 05
                  -3
                  If anything the Marxists have done well, it is to lie. Actually, Marxism is an instrument of deception. "Marxism is a great lie" (c). And no third-party agitators can compare with them in this. But what can I say, half of the country still believes - here you are. The Marxists never had any "better future", even in the draft. And they did not build any "communism" (as they promised) - it's just a fairy tale.
                  The Russian people throughout their history fought steadfastly and gloriously. Until he faced the Marxist poison ... Marxism is an ideological weapon, a brilliant instrument of deception, with which outwardly unapproachable Russia was conquered by the enemy from within.
                3. Far B
                  Far B April 27 2021 09: 21
                  +2
                  But what can I say, half of the country still believes - here you are
                  Why not believe something? They are their so-called. "lies" have been proven by great deeds. Industrialization was carried out. The backbone of fascism was broken. The country was rebuilt after two disastrous wars. The leading space power of steel. For the first time in a thousand-year history, the state brought it to a clean second place in terms of economic indicators and confidently moved to first place. To enumerate further?
                  What can you and your "best people" boast about?
                4. Overlock
                  Overlock April 27 2021 10: 33
                  +2
                  Quote: Dalny V
                  Industrialization was carried out.

                  At whose expense?
                  Quote: Dalny V
                  The backbone of fascism was broken.

                  Broke! Why are soldiers still being dug out of the ground? There is such a lake Sviblo (Pskov region). In January 44th, 6th SD was thrown across the ice at the Vanka village bridgehead (about 2 km28). With heavy losses, she retreated. My grandfather died there. There he was buried. In 1954, all graves from the bridgehead were moved. BUT! Over the past 20 years, search engines from this bridgehead have raised about 500 "riding" remains of soldiers. They just lay on the ground all the years. Well then. in 1954, the remains of 500 soldiers were simply thrown in the ground?
                  Such is the price and such an attitude of the country towards its heroes!
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 28 2021 15: 59
            0
            Quote: squid
            The army was disintegrated by the Marxists themselves, by their "revolutionary" agitation

            That is, Alexander Fedorovich Kerensky was a Marxist? belay
            Or have you forgotten - who struck the shameful Order No. 1, which approved the destruction of discipline in the army?
            Quote: squid
            Unfortunately or fortunately, the "parliamentary democrats", since the communists do not hold on to power like that - fanatically clutching it with their teeth and walking over corpses.

            Seriously? For the sake of maintaining its power, the AFK organized the Kornilov rebellion - and then betrayed the general, throwing the Red Guard and the Council's agitators against him.
        2. Overlock
          Overlock April 27 2021 10: 19
          +2
          Quote: Dalny V
          So thank God that the Bolsheviks came and took away the remnants of power from the Democratic guys.

          In exchange for

          Completed? In return, we got:
          "The grain monopoly, the bread card, the universal labor service are in the hands of the proletarian state, in the hands of the sovereign Soviets, the most powerful means of accounting and control ..." Lenin, 1917. "Will the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?"
          And to this day people are kept in check for bread! How else to explain the beggarly wages and pensions?
      2. Illanatol
        Illanatol April 28 2021 13: 34
        0
        The Marxists took advantage of the war and the intertime, the fall of the monarchy, to deceive the people, seize power and their subsequent "experiments." Without them, there would be a normal modern market parliamentary democracy, and not barbed wire across the country. And, by the way, the constituent assembly was dispersed, where they had a minority - despite all the lies, most of the people did not believe them.


        The Romanov dynasty surfaced in the time of troubles and ended with the troubles that it created and prepared.
        The system was initially vicious: a chimera with a European head on a Eurasian body has completely outlived its usefulness. It was then clear to everyone, so none of the parties in the GW tried to resurrect her. Then various projects of revolutionary reorganization fought, there was simply no "counter-revolution".
        The Bolsheviks could well erect a monument to Nikolashka for creating a "revolutionary situation": Stolypin's reforms, which destroyed the very foundations of the former order of Russia and dragging into a completely unnecessary war, a war for the interests of Britain and the United States.
        However, it should be noted that Nikolashka earned his bullet honestly. Having renounced the throne, he also resigned from the duties of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Leaving a combat post in the midst of a war is an act of desertion. The act of the last emperor dealt a blow to the morale of the Russian army stronger than all the revolutionary anti-war propaganda ... what kind of victories at the front.
        So for his desertion and undermining the army, the last Romanov received what he deserved. And the fact that this "sovereign" was recorded as a saint is a real shame of our era.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 28 2021 16: 06
          +1
          Quote: Illanatol
          The Bolsheviks could well erect a monument to Nikolashka for creating a "revolutionary situation"

          Giggles ... in 1967 there was an anecdote about rewarding Nicholas for the 50th anniversary of the Revolution:
          The Soviet government posthumously awarded citizen Romanov Nikolai Alexandrovich, former Tsar Nicholas II, with the Order of the October Revolution for creating a revolutionary situation in the country.
      3. evgen1221
        evgen1221 April 29 2021 16: 06
        0
        Parliamentary democracy say something I think it would be like in Germany after the PNV and before adik, ours just as dashingly began to use words under Nikolashka, and it could well have gone to the German absurdity or how it will develop with the State Duma today, with the same consequences and the attitude of the population towards them (even though the devil is right not these, and instant rallying under the banner of any party that is actually putting things in order). No, mind you from such a charm as a parliamentary boltocracy.
  • Overlock
    Overlock April 27 2021 09: 50
    +4
    Quote: evgen1221
    Well, these (the best representatives) showed themselves so badly before and brought RI to collapse?

    The general manager was weak
  • New Year day
    New Year day April 27 2021 11: 33
    -4
    Quote: evgen1221
    Those gentlemen were not so and the best turns out.

    Does this apply to Catherine II?
  • nemez
    nemez April 27 2021 08: 49
    +5
    And the fact that the nobility preferred a non-Russian one did not bother you?
    1. Overlock
      Overlock April 27 2021 10: 34
      +1
      Quote: nemez
      And the fact that the nobility preferred not Russian

      And the fact that the current nobles prefer not Russian
      Quote: nemez
      didn't bother you?
      1. Illanatol
        Illanatol April 28 2021 13: 38
        0
        And the fact that the current nobles prefer not Russian


        Well, one field of berries. Those were pro-Western scoundrels and the current ones too.
  • Illanatol
    Illanatol April 27 2021 09: 01
    +4
    Why did these "best representatives" screw up so badly in the First World War?
    Then they also tried to pass off the war as "Fatherland", the slogan "Everything for the front - everything for Victory" was invented ... but it did not work.
    And even an attempt to put the country on a liberal track, to play democracy, failed.
    Then the people quickly understood the essence of democracy: "Someone has a donut, someone has a donut hole, this is a democratic republic."
    War is the most severe test for the state. And then the exam showed that all these "best representatives" in the majority are just a bunch of parasites and inept people. There were others, of course. Those officers who developed plans for technical modernization even before the Revolution will implement them within the framework of GOELRO.
    1. New Year day
      New Year day April 27 2021 11: 36
      -1
      Quote: Illanatol
      Why did these "best representatives" screw up so badly in the First World War?

      Got drunk and steal
      1. Illanatol
        Illanatol April 28 2021 13: 46
        0
        Could it be otherwise?
        Not. Everything went to this.
        The system was flawed from the start. When the elite actually turns into a separate people with a mentality, culture, language, way of life different from the main mass, then the final degradation is inevitable. The empire created by Peter the Great was essentially a fascist state with its "Ubermensch" and "Untermensch".
        The October Revolution is inherently anti-fascist, an attempt (alas, unsuccessful) to end with the division of people into grades, into "higher" and "lower".
  • place
    place April 27 2021 14: 35
    +3
    Quote: Lech from Android.
    in the 90s we saw it on our own skin.
    Now I see new attempts to pull the same trick with the Russian people,


    Maybe you have there "on android" it is, and if you look from Russia, then the 90s - this is the coming to power of those thieves who exploited the "Russian idea". I remember Yeltsin very well, drunkenly in public, waving his three-ruble trolleybus pass and yelling that "the Russians need to get rid of the privileges of the regional committees and the union republics." About "self-awareness" then also vparivali be healthy! Not the first time to hear. Since we are talking about "Russian identity", it means - keep your pocket, they will rob ...

    Everything is like "for you FOR YOUR MONEY!" Well, to hell with you, lord "freed by thieves" instead of putting things in order in his own country. NO FUCK TO YOURSELF, waited for the "liberators" - Gaidar with Yeltsin and Chubais! Chosen, bln ... "kind Russian master."
  • Private89
    Private89 April 27 2021 06: 07
    +11
    Now such a trick will not be possible - there is nothing behind the chatter of the current ideologists

    And what else to expect from the comprador "elite", they cannot openly say that our ideology is the plundering of this territory. And they cannot raise a healthy ideology of serving the people to the banner; they will have to correspond to it, bear some responsibility to the people. In fact, they destroyed the USSR so as not to be held accountable for their actions before the people, and built such a system so that they could not be asked for the result. An example of the May decrees, after all, they are correct in words, only the guarantor for their execution, or rather for their non-execution, did not send anyone into retirement or to places not so distant. I will not be surprised that the bureaucrats have reported and there is even a piece of paper on which it is written that the May decrees have been fulfilled)) This is "our" state the main thing for bureaucrats to sign a piece of paper, but how a person lives is not important, we will write in a piece of paper what is good.
  • bober1982
    bober1982 April 27 2021 07: 42
    0
    Quote: Dalny V
    as Stalin himself said: "Life has become better, comrades, life has become more fun!"

    Hence the high workings of the norm ........, such is the continuation of the famous Stalinist quotation.
  • tihonmarine
    tihonmarine April 27 2021 09: 44
    +2
    Quote: Dalny V
    Ideology, of course, is important, but if there is no work behind it, it remains just empty talk.

    It’s not even a matter of ideology, but in what direction to launch the people. And JV Stalin understood this and launched it. In the first couple of months, the party, communist and international ideas led the idea of ​​the ball, and the army retreated. But when the Fatherland, the people, traditions became the head of the idea, our heroes, ancestors and the enemy wants to enslave and destroy us. So it gave a powerful surge, which was perceived by the people.
    Even enemies write about it. I read this in the memoirs of the company commander of anti-tank guns Birdman. This is one of the Germans who really described the ideological basis in the USSR and the tactics of waging war in the Red Army.
    1. Far B
      Far B April 27 2021 09: 51
      +1
      I read this in the memoirs of the company commander of anti-tank guns Birdman
      Here's something I am tormented by vague doubts that the company commander of anti-tank guns Birdman was a specialist in ideological work. Even Goebbels, not to mention the Soviet. Otherwise, he would not have risked his own skin on the eastern front, but rather comfortably would have worked in the Reich propaganda ministry.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine April 27 2021 10: 38
        +1
        Quote: Dalny V
        Here's something I am tormented by vague doubts that the company commander of anti-tank guns Birdman was a specialist in ideological work.
        You didn't need to be an ideologist here, you just had to see what was happening, and after the war I was able to recognize what the victory of the Soviet people and their spirit was.
        Read what other Germans wrote about and you will understand that it is rare to recognize the advantage of the Russians. Moreover, this German started the war at the age of 19 as a corporal near Sevastopol, a gun commander, and did not write like others about the superiority of the Germans.
  • Overlock
    Overlock April 27 2021 09: 59
    -1
    Quote: Dalny V
    At that time, the people saw that industrialization was under way in the country on a gigantic scale, the quality of life was improving, as Stalin himself said: "Life has become better, comrades, life has become more fun!"

    I would like to ask about the price of this. Hunger of the 30s - is it "more fun"?
    Then there was such an office "Torgsin", which for 5 years sold bread to the starving in exchange for gold from the population (rings, earrings, spoons, etc.)

    And who didn't have gold items? What happened to them?
    At whose expense is industrialization?
    1. chenia
      chenia April 27 2021 14: 14
      +1
      Quote: Overlock
      At whose expense is industrialization?

      Definitely at the expense of the village in the first place. There was a correct understanding, otherwise we will not survive.
      In 70-80, the peasants were given credit with interest.
      It was also the case in the states (and then with overproduction) starving or working for a bowl of soup. And they took the pledge from the population, got out of the crisis - gave it back.

      It is sadder here, there was no overproduction.
    2. place
      place April 27 2021 14: 43
      +2
      Quote: Overlock
      At whose expense is industrialization?


      And for whom is industrialization? So the question cannot be put? At the expense of the village, but also for the village. It is definitely impossible to create a state with a predominance of the urban population without industrialization. You have to be actually a natural "patient" to ask questions; "at whose expense?" ...
      As the poet Mayakovsky used to say in his time: "At your expense, comrades, so calm down, At your expense." Would you like at whose expense?
    3. Illanatol
      Illanatol April 28 2021 13: 52
      0
      She's always at someone's expense. This is generally a painful process, but it cannot be otherwise.

      Famine was also common in pre-revolutionary Russia. Bread was exported, and their peasants were starving.
      By the way, at whose expense did Peter the Great carry out his modernization?
      It was also a real tough thing .. if the bells were removed from the churches, it is not difficult to imagine how the peasants were treated.
  • kalibr
    kalibr April 27 2021 11: 57
    +1
    Quote: Dalny V
    Despite the fact that, according to the same modern "ilites", the relations of modern Russia with the outside world are now more tense than ever (yeah, but for some reason they prefer to send their children to the outside world).

    So not as tense as they say for the "herd" ...
  • RUSS
    RUSS April 28 2021 19: 32
    0
    Quote: Uncle Lee
    Our cause is right. We will win. Victory will be ours !

    By the way, this is not a quote from Stalin, but from Molotov.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • north 2
    north 2 April 27 2021 04: 43
    +5
    When Napoleon was defeated, it was part of the chain from the Battle of Kulikovo and this chain did not break in the Second World War. And what was the ideology in all the fateful Victories of Russia before the Second World War? Leader, Motherland, Vera. Stalin, in the depths of the consciousness of the Soviet people, was the power that the Russian princes and Tsars-Winners possessed. But the spineless Nicholas II remained spineless in the Russian mind. And how Stalin carried out industrialization! And how Stalin defeated the pro-Western fifth column before the Second World War!
    This is what kind of willpower and fortitude one had to have, that after the Civil War, to raise the country in such a way and so clean it up. That is why people first of all sacrificed themselves during the Second World War, because they believed in the power of Stalin as the Leader. And there were two more feet in a ryazh in the Russian spirit. Homeland and Vera. Without a strong Leader, those two pillars would not have withstood the full weight of the misfortune! So on May 9, at the Victory Parade, not to carry portraits of Stalin is blasphemy!
    1. squid
      squid April 27 2021 05: 39
      -5
      At the words "Motherland and Vera," any devout Marxist puffs up the hair on the nape of the neck. According to Marxism, history is driven by the class struggle. And the bourgeoisie invented your "homelands" and "faiths" to deceive the working class. By the way, you have forgotten about the "people", and loyalty to them (namely, national, not class) - which is in general nationalism and the gravest sin for the Marxists.
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine April 27 2021 10: 03
      +2
      Quote: north 2
      And there were two more feet in a ryazh in the Russian spirit. Homeland and Vera. Without a strong Leader, those two pillars would not have withstood the full weight of the misfortune! So on May 9 at the Victory Parade it is sacrilege not to carry Stalin's portraits!

      Wild blasphemy. Forgotten many and many ...

  • squid
    squid April 27 2021 05: 14
    -2
    Very interesting. First, the communists killed and starved to death tens of millions of Russian people (18 million were victims of hunger and repression during the first 20 years of Soviet power, according to conservative estimates), destroyed the Russian officers (the acute shortage of command personnel in the 41st), even transplanted their own officers who had somehow grown up. (due to the "peculiarities" of their political system, which could not have been without executions and terror), they missed a sudden "treacherous" attack (another German "blitzkrieg" about which even their generals warned Dzhugashvili, but in the Soviet system the word is for the leader - checks and there are no counterbalances), supplied their future killers with strategic materials in gigantic quantities (Soviet echelons went to Germany on June 22nd), lost almost the entire cadre army in mediocre boilers in the first months, let the enemy through to the Volga and lost 27 million people (and this is only for their own same calculations) ...
    And now they are talking about the "ideology of victory"!
    Wonderful.
    And of course, as always, the communists 'passages about the lack of democracy, independent trade unions, violation of workers' rights and other exposures of "enemies of democratic freedoms, medieval reaction" are touched by the communists. Oh well.
    And this is not to mention the fact that the arrival of National Socialism itself is largely due to the reaction of society to the communist threat - according to the principle "these are better than the communists" and in the hope that "these" will somehow cope with the communists. So without the Bolsheviks, most likely there would have been no Nazism. And if the German threat had arisen again - without the Bolsheviks (with whom no one in their right mind wanted to be "friends"), Russia would not have remained isolated and the Germans would not have been able to consistently defeat France (with Soviet help) and then turn to the east with all their might , as it was not possible in 1914.
    And now about the "ideology of victory". This "ideology" consists, first, in Russia's vast demographic, territorial, and spiritual resources, created not by the communists and not for the communists. Which, even with disgusting leadership, made it possible to withstand the enemy, several times smaller in population, and dozens of times smaller in territory and natural resources. Secondly, this is a victory over a smaller part of the West, which at the same time with us was at war with most of the West, and even was in a strategic blockade from all sides (except, for the first couple of years, the eastern one, where the communists traded with them). And thirdly, since we are talking specifically about "ideology", then this is the only necessary, albeit clearly forced, decision of the communist elite to move away from the propaganda of the class struggle (which, according to Marxism, moves the world) in favor of really acting motives - the defense of the homeland, the people , faith, etc. (ie, to "obscurantists", according to Marxist theory, patriotism, nationalism, and religion). As it was rightly said in the article, "deliberately abandoned the ideology of proletarian internationalism in favor of the idea of ​​national patriotism" - this and only this could raise the Russian people to fight.
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 April 27 2021 05: 34
      -3
      They also wrote off huge territories to the created republics, the mistakes of 41 years completely lie with Dzhugashvili and those who fawned at him out of fear. I am outraged that he wore a uniform and rank, without a military education and not serving in the army for a single day.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ April 27 2021 08: 18
        +7
        he wore uniforms and ranks, having no military education and not serving in the army for a single day.

        Are you talking about Shoigu?
    2. chenia
      chenia April 27 2021 08: 34
      +7
      Quote: squid
      18 million victims of famine and repression in the first 20 years

      From 1918 to 1960, from 4 to 6 million people died from the famine and repressions. The losses of civil guilt on both sides (and it was not unleashed by the red ones) typhus, increased mortality, unborn, losses from the Spanish flu. emigration -12-15 million
      And you are all in a bunch.
      Quote: squid
      supply their future assassins with strategic materials

      Well, as it turned out, we also owed them on 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX. And what did they supply us with?

      Quote: squid
      the arrival of National Socialism itself


      Holy simplicity. And now on Capitalist Russia, why the hell have you run over? Or it’s not the case.

      Well, then hysterical liberoid propaganda and gray delirium. There is no desire to comment.
      1. squid
        squid April 27 2021 08: 42
        -2
        Hunger of the 20s - 5 million people. There could have been more, but thanks to the "capitalists" - they saved millions with their food aid, while the communists were plundering the church gold. Gorky also bowed to his feet for this.
        Hunger 30s - 7 million people.
        Stalin's Great Terror - 4 million people
        The Red Terror of the Bolsheviks after the revolution - 2 million people. The figure looks underestimated, the true scale is unknown, because The Bolsheviks, unlike the 30s, were not yet sure that they were serious and for a long time, and they tried not to leave evidence for themselves. Moreover, they killed the best.
        Plus deportation. Plus the post-war famine (when money and food were available, but they were held for other purposes).
        And this is not counting the actual civil war, emigration and the "successful" leadership of the communists in the Second World War.
        1. Hantengri
          Hantengri April 27 2021 09: 56
          +5
          Quote: squid
          Hunger 30s - 7 million people.

          Based on the data of the registry office and TsUNKhU http://istmat.info/files/uploads/44830/rgae_4372.92.161_l.1-34.pdf the total supermortality rate, in 1932-33 throughout the USSR, amounted to 2 people. And you managed to count 654 who died from hunger alone ... How did you think, do not tell me?
          Quote: squid
          Hunger of the 20s - 5 million people.

          The question is the same: How did you think? Based on what data?
          Quote: squid
          Stalin's Great Terror - 4 million people

          According to Zemskov's data, 4 is the total number of those convicted under "political" articles from 060 to 306. Do you think no one survived?
          Quote: squid
          The Red Terror of the Bolsheviks after the revolution - 2 million people.

          Right! "Write more, why feel sorry for them, white-assed!" (c) (almost). laughing
          1. squid
            squid April 27 2021 10: 36
            -6
            Of course, judging the crimes of the communists by the statistics of the communists is the very thing.

            "The famine in Soviet Russia of 1921-1922 (better known as the" Hunger in the Volga region "of 1921-1922) covered 35 provinces (the Volga region, southern Ukraine, Crimea, Bashkiria, partly Kazakhstan, the Urals and Western Siberia) with a total population of 90 million people , of which at least 40 million were starving (according to official Soviet data, 28 million). The number of victims of the famine was about 5 million. "

            "Famine in the USSR (1932-1933) - a mass famine in the USSR on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR (see also" Holodomor "), the BSSR, the North Caucasus, the Volga region, the Southern Urals, Western Siberia, Kazakhstan, which entailed significant human casualties (according to various estimates from 2 to 8, and according to some estimates, up to 10 million; most estimates agree on the number of victims of about 7 million). "
            1. Hantengri
              Hantengri April 27 2021 10: 58
              +7
              Quote: squid
              Of course, judging the crimes of the communists by the statistics of the communists is the very thing.

              Well, what are you! How can you! And since no one else, at that time, in the USSR kept statistics, you just need to compose numbers, whatever you like, and then run around and waving the received "data", yelling about "crimes of the communists".
              Quote: squid
              "The famine in Soviet Russia of 1921-1922 (better known as the" Hunger in the Volga region "of 1921-1922) covered 35 provinces (the Volga region, southern Ukraine, Crimea, Bashkiria, partly Kazakhstan, the Urals and Western Siberia) with a total population of 90 million people , of which at least 40 million were starving (according to official Soviet data, 28 million). The number of victims of the famine was about 5 million. "

              Quoting from Wikipedia ...
              I will repeat the question: Who, on the basis of what data and by what methodology, counted all this?
              Quote: squid
              "Famine in the USSR (1932-1933) - a mass famine in the USSR on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR (see also" Holodomor "), the BSSR, the North Caucasus, the Volga region, the Southern Urals, Western Siberia, Kazakhstan, which entailed significant human casualties (according to various estimates from 2 to 8, and according to some estimates, up to 10 million; most estimates agree on the number of victims of about 7 million). "

              Wikipedia again ...
              The question is the same: Who, on the basis of what data and by what methodology counted all this? Have you tried checking these "explorers"? Not? Try it. O-very exciting experience. lol
              1. squid
                squid April 27 2021 11: 23
                -4
                Why should I check something for you? check, report if you find inaccuracies
                1. Hantengri
                  Hantengri April 27 2021 11: 31
                  +5
                  Quote: squid
                  Why should I check something for you?

                  Why for me? Check for yourself. You cannot so selflessly believe everything that is written on Wikipedia, even if it coincides with your convictions.
                  Quote: squid
                  check, report if you find inaccuracies

                  I informed you above. You didn't like it.
                  1. squid
                    squid April 27 2021 11: 36
                    -5
                    always amazed people asking to "find" for them their own argumentation in the discussion. I have no reason to mistrust Wikipedia as the most balanced and cross-checked source. an in-depth search leads to the same results. but there is a reason not to trust the archives of the communists in exposing the crimes of the communists.
                    1. chenia
                      chenia April 27 2021 14: 04
                      +2
                      Quote: squid
                      always surprised people asking to "find" for them


                      And you just need to strain your brains a little, and you will understand a lot. But it’s not destiny.

                      Even the most stubborn liberals began to understand that numbers don't beat. Smorganyat some kind of fake document and refer to it.
                      Then, according to their data, there were 205-209 million of us before the war (otherwise, the loss of the Red Army in 26 million will not work). But at the same time they forget the previous figures that they slipped in (this is a pro-how about the overstatement of data by Stalin in the pre-war period). Those. before the war there are few people (well, clearly the famine and repressions), on the eve of the war suddenly there are a lot of people - here the losses must be increased (the difference is increasing).
                      Guys liberasty, you twist the sun like a gypsy. And quite often there are links (which you yourself have invented and are giving).

                      If you are an honest person, then you should estimate the losses yourself. It is not difficult, it is easy to deduce from statistics.
                      When the masters come to you to do repairs, do you estimate the approximate consumption of material (which you have to pay)? Or do you believe them unconditionally?
          2. Sugar Honeyovich
            Sugar Honeyovich April 27 2021 17: 38
            0
            Quote: HanTengri
            You managed to count 7 who died from hunger alone

            There are also 10 million. Half of those killed in the war. Einstein was right!
            1. Hantengri
              Hantengri April 27 2021 23: 37
              0
              Quote: Sahar Medovich
              There are also 10 million. Half of those killed in the war. Einstein was right!

              There are 1,5 million, and 2 million, and 3-4 million, and 8 million and 12 million, and on the basis of the same sources: Population census 1927 Data from the registry office and TsUNKHU, on the natural movement of the population, Census 1937 and 1939 Census Everything, there are no other primary sources ...
              I remember a phrase from an old Soviet joke:
              - And this is an African fish, called a crocodile. From head to tail 8 meters, from tail to head 10 meters. And who measured it? ... Drunk, I guess.
        2. Overlock
          Overlock April 27 2021 10: 43
          -2
          Quote: squid
          but thanks to the "capitalists"

          And what should be noted - AMERICAN!
          1. The United States, which did not officially recognize Soviet Russia, sent about $ 80 million (in those prices) aid to the USSR - the ARA humanitarian mission. In the summer of 1922, almost 9 million people received food in ARA canteens, as well as special corn rations, and at the end of the summer more than 10 million. In total, in 1921-23, the Russians received 1.163.296 such parcels, the Americans fed from 7 to 10 million people daily

          2. In World War II, under Lend-Lease, the USSR received assistance for $ 9,4 billion (for modern figures, multiply the amount several times), about 40% of which was military equipment (small arms, tanks, cars, etc.) ), and everything else is essential goods and food.
          2. In the sunset of the USSR, everyone remembers "Bush's legs"
          1. squid
            squid April 27 2021 10: 50
            -2
            And these are just flowers. In China, the number of victims of communism is estimated at 60-80 million people. The memories are striking that when Mao asked the provincial leaders if everything was in order with their food and if the government's help was needed, those, for career reasons, cheerfully reported that everything was fine, although hunger was raging. This is how insignificant in the Marxist system was the role of those very "workers and peasants" for whom everything was allegedly started.
            1. Illanatol
              Illanatol April 28 2021 13: 56
              +1
              The most widespread famine in history was caused by the British in India. At least 30 million were killed.
              You don't want to blame them for such "process costs".
              Or does political correctness and double standards not allow?
    3. Illanatol
      Illanatol April 27 2021 09: 30
      +8
      Again a set of tales on duty.
      The population of the country after the Great Patriotic War and before the beginning of the Second World War grew, and did not decline, as in post-Soviet times.
      These liberal reforms of the 90s led to millions of demographic losses.
      It is time.
      The former tsarist officers did not show themselves very well in the First World War. Defeat after defeat, starting from Tannenberg ... Even the famous "Brusilovsky Breakthrough" actually ended in failure. Well, of course, not only the officers are to blame, especially since the tsarist government itself mediocrely ditched the best cadres at the beginning of the war, as it ditched the Russian-Japanese squadron of Rozhdestvensky near Tsushima ... the tsarist regime could not make up for the losses with a full replacement. Plus - the military-industrial complex was not up to the mark: technical backwardness, corruption, etc.
      This two.
      The arrival of National Socialism is primarily due to revanchist sentiments. In the end, the forerunner of the National Assembly - Italian fascism came to power when no one took Bolshevism seriously. In general, fascism and the National Assembly are the quintessence of Western political culture, devoid of all fig leaves. Fascism lies at the heart of the most Western civilization, which grew out of the wreckage of the Roman Empire, in fact a deeply fascist state.
      These are three.
      The Soviet system is an organic manifestation of the essence of Russian spiritual and political culture, real Russia - not the rotten "Westernized" imperial elite, but the working Russian people.
      Yes, our socialism was not of a Marxist sense, it could not be "strictly according to Marx", in strict accordance with the postulates of Marx himself. Marxism is for Europeans, and we are not Europeans and will never become Europeans.
      "I am not a raven, I am a raven, a raven flies after me." E. Pugachev.
      So the raven flew in, a century and a half after the execution of Pugachev.
      These are four.
      About patriotism. Homelands, like mothers, are different. Sometimes "Rodina", like a bad mother, should be deprived of her maternal rights. In the First World War it happened.
      But in the Great Patriotic War - a completely different situation. As a mother to her children, so children to a mother. So there is no need to compare the patriotism of Soviet people with the past ... two big differences.
      It's five.
      The passage about "defeating a smaller part of the West" is especially ridiculous. What did the "majority of the West" show themselves so cowardly and ineptly both in Munich in 1938 and at Dunkirk in 1940?
      Why did the European inhabitants so humbly accept Hitler's power, while others volunteered for his service?
      What was it that the majority was so drawn to with the opening of the "second front"? Apparently she was not very confident in her own strengths, in the fact that it was the "majority" ...
      It was just then that the West had already fully demonstrated its spiritual rottenness. "We are strong in goods, but weak in spirit .."
      1. squid
        squid April 27 2021 10: 23
        -1
        It is clear to anyone except the communists that if the population grows, this is not a sign of the absence of repression. As well as vice versa. The highest growth in Africa, in the most developed countries - a decline. In the 19th century, the population of Russia quadrupled. And by the way, in WWI it was more than in Scoop in 39m and more than 91m, on the territory of the Russian Federation left after communism. But that's okay, the usual Marxist demagoguery.
        We should have “won” in WWII as the tsarist government “lost” in WWII. Here the enemy was allowed through half of the European part of the country, there was a crush on the border, with "defeats" in the form of the loss of a part of the Baltic states. And the outcome of the war was quite clear - a bright victory, they would have gotten the Bosphorus with the Dardanelles and much more, in contrast to the WWII as a result of which only communism was exported to Eastern Europe, which the local inhabitants still cannot forgive us.
        The main internal motivation specifically for Hitler and the entire National Assembly was anti-Semitism, which is quite obvious. But the coming to power (the demand for society and the non-interference of the Entente) occurred precisely because of the general (and fully justified) fear of communism. And this calculation, by the way, was justified, although the costs turned out to be surprisingly high, but still, even in Germany as a result of WWII, fewer people died than in Russia alone from communism, excluding WWII, including in percentage terms.
        Fascism and Nazism, first of all, are different things. And secondly, fascism is simply concentrated totalitarianism. The idea of ​​a totalitarian state as the best structure of society. Which, by the way, is diametrically opposed to the Western political tradition since the days of Ancient Greece. So the eternal mantras of the communists that fascism is a certain final stage in the evolution of "capitalism" are blatant lies - "capitalism" seeks to minimize the state, not its totality. For the West today, German National Socialism is generally the anti-pole and the embodiment of absolute evil. By the way, Mussolini's "doctrine of fascism" describes a set of features of this system, and, no matter how funny, communism does not just correspond to each of them - it is a champion in them. So, according to formal criteria, the USSR can be considered the most fascist state of that time. However, in the future, it may have been pushed off the pedestal by such showcases of communism as Maoist China and Pol Pot's Cambodia.
        The Marxist system is deeply alien to everything Russian and has never been voluntarily accepted by the Russian people. In Marxist philosophy itself, materialism and anti-religiousness run like a red thread, which is the complete antithesis of the Russian soul. Marxism in Russia held on only to deception and terror. As soon as they stopped believing and planting, he immediately fell down.
        Guided by the "doctrine of Marx" it is impossible to create any system, for this doctrine is divorced from life and is fundamentally wrong. Yes, it is most likely not intended for anything other than the stories of beautiful fairy tales to the semi-literate population (and the seizure of power on the shoulders of this population, of course). So any really existing "socialism" will not be "according to Marx", otherwise it simply cannot exist.
        Marxism considered the state an instrument of class suppression and declared the final rejection of it. He also considered the existence of nations to be artificial, and hence nationalism. You don't have to mention religion at all. For a true Marxist, there is only class struggle and proletarian internationalism. Patriotism, nationalism, religion - all this, according to the Marxists, is a bourgeois fairy tale. So the Soviet turn towards them was purely forced and contradicted their own canons. The Marxists never had any "Motherland", and they didn't give a damn about the Russian people.
        Nobody says that the contribution of the USSR to the victory over Germany was less than that of the Allies. But it is quite obvious that the one-on-one Reich was much stronger (and, by the way, reached space first - if we talk about Soviet "achievements"). So the scoops can thank the hated Allies for the victory - if they had not intervened, even if the United States stood on the sidelines, then Soviet scraps would have rushed through the back streets. But for some reason the "capitalists" decided to oppose their "quintessence" in alliance with the communists they hate, refuting the Marxist constructs.
        1. kalibr
          kalibr April 27 2021 12: 09
          -3
          squid (Serg) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++
        2. Illanatol
          Illanatol April 27 2021 14: 20
          +4

          The highest growth in Africa, in the most developed countries - a decline. In the 19th century, the population of Russia quadrupled. And by the way, in WWI it was more than in Scoop in 39m and more than in 91m, on the territory of the Russian Federation left after communism. But that's okay, the usual Marxist demagoguery.


          That is why the "developed countries" are giving up their positions and are ready to share the fate of the Roman Empire.
          The population of Russia in the 19th century grew, first of all, due to the entry of new territories, despite the high birth rate, the growth of the "imperial people" was far from being a record one.
          Geographically, neither the USSR 1939 nor the Russian Federation 1992 correspond to the Russian Empire. But the main merit in this belongs not to the communists, but to their political opponents - the liberal democrats.
          It was the liberals who destroyed the Russian Empire, even before the Bolsheviks came to power. The Bolsheviks then had to reassemble the country, although Poland and Finland had to be lost.
          And the collapse of the USSR is also on the conscience of the liberal democrats under the leadership of the renegades Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
          In general, the usual liberal demagoguery bully

          And the outcome of the war was quite clear - a bright victory, they would have gotten the Bosphorus with the Dardanelles and much more.


          They would not have gained anything, but would have lost the country.
          First, Germany would not have lost to WWI. After all, the reason for her defeat was the revolution, which sent the Kaiser to the dustbin of history, like Nikolashka.
          But the revolution in Germany is only an "echo" of October. If we had not had the October Revolution, there would have been no revolution in Germany, therefore, there would not have been its defeat. The exhausted Entente would not have had the strength to take Berlin.
          Germany and Austria-Hungary were then merged not by the Entente, but by Lenin, using a systemic weapon - the "plague of Bolshevism."
          Secondly, the October Revolution was preceded by the February Revolution, which brought to power an incapacitated liberal government that no longer controlled the de facto imperial outskirts (Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia). The ease with which it was overthrown,
          proves his weakness and doom. Democratic gentlemen were a priori incapable of victorious military action, let alone be able to take advantage of the fruits of victory.
          Well, this is not why our "Western partners" brought liberals to power in Russia to share "goodies" with them. No, they would very willingly tore pieces from Russia, no worse than the Germans. And as in the 90s "the young anti-Soviet republic was suffocating in the ring of friends." With the difference that there was no powerful deterrent at that time - nuclear weapons.

          So they didn't get the Bosphorus with the Dardanelles - they lost Arkhangelsk, Crimea, the Caucasus, the Far East.


          Fascism and Nazism, first of all, are different things. And secondly, fascism is simply concentrated totalitarianism. The idea of ​​a totalitarian state as the best structure of society. Which, by the way, is diametrically opposed to the Western political tradition since the days of Ancient Greece.


          Fascism, Nazism and liberalism are related. They have the same spiritual fathers - Malthus, Locke, Hobbes, Nietzsche.
          It is based on the division of people into varieties, obviously unequal. Either on a national basis, or on a social, class basis.
          In modern conditions, class principles merge with national and racial ones. There are bourgeois nations, there are proletarian nations, there are lumpen nations. Liberalism and Nazism are increasingly merging into an explosive mixture.
          Any modern Western "democracy" is inherently totalitarian. Yes, no (so far. There is a totalitarian state, but there is already a totalitarian society, there are mega-corporations that are increasingly acquiring the properties of political subjects and there is no smell of any "freedom of choice" inside them - rigid hierarchical systems.
          Well, he made fun of it. The first model of a totalitarian state was described by the Greek Plato, who called it "ideal".
          And in Sparta, the homeland of Tsar Leonidas, such harsh totalitarian orders reigned (even sex was regulated) that the Reich could envy.
          Aristotle wrote a treatise On the Nature of Slavery. Rosenberg's opuses are just his pale shadow.

          Slavery, inequality, the division into "lower" and "higher", the construction of their prosperity on the export of exploitation and poverty are the essence of Western political tradition. And in the days of the Roman emperors and in our time.
        3. Sugar Honeyovich
          Sugar Honeyovich April 27 2021 17: 42
          +1
          Quote: squid
          So the scoops can thank the hated Allies for the victory - if they had not intervened, at least the United States would stand on the sidelines

          On the contrary, if the USSR had not at first resisted, and then did not begin to win, the allies would have stood on the sidelines.
          So they should thank us for the victory. (Then, however, it was clear to everyone).
          1. Illanatol
            Illanatol April 28 2021 13: 59
            0
            The allies would not stand on the sidelines. If Hitler could seize and subjugate the USSR, then with such a "resource base" he would easily have broken first Britain, and then the United States.
            Approximately, as in the novel by F. Dick "The Man in the High Castle".
            1. Sugar Honeyovich
              Sugar Honeyovich April 28 2021 17: 43
              0
              That is precisely why they would probably stand. They try to be friends with the strong.
              1. Illanatol
                Illanatol April 29 2021 13: 03
                0
                Would Hitler want to be friends with them?
                He would not have let him stand on the sidelines, gnawed to the bones, since there was something to take.
                Roosevelt and Churchill understood this perfectly, and therefore entered into a military alliance with the USSR. First of all, they took care of their own skin.
                1. Sugar Honeyovich
                  Sugar Honeyovich April 29 2021 14: 17
                  0
                  Who knows! He constantly stated that the Germans and the British "want to be friends." And it is not known what he agreed with them through Hess - the documents were classified forever. Although, on the other hand, there are two bears in the same den ...
                  1. Illanatol
                    Illanatol April 30 2021 08: 48
                    0
                    "You spoke, you spoke and did not believe your words ..." tongue
                    He did not agree on anything. Hess's mission was doomed to failure even before Hess sat at the helm.
                    The union of the Reich and Britain was, first of all, not beneficial to the United States, it destroyed the whole combination.
                    If such an alliance took place, the United States would be left out of business and would not have control over Europe (in fact, control over most of the world). Therefore, such an alliance was impossible under any circumstances. The United States had enough resources (intellectual and financial) to impose its will.
                    1. Sugar Honeyovich
                      Sugar Honeyovich April 30 2021 08: 55
                      0
                      Then why secret?
      2. Overlock
        Overlock April 27 2021 10: 45
        +2
        Quote: Illanatol
        The Soviet system is an organic manifestation of the essence of Russian spiritual and political culture, real Russia - not the rotten "Westernized" imperial elite, but the working Russian people.

        This is how to count: Oktyabrskaya revolution or переворот?
        Quote: Illanatol
        What was it that the majority was so drawn to with the opening of the "second front"?

        What is the majority? - USA, UK! They were waiting for someone to bleed faster.
        "Churchill did not want the defeat of the USSR, because in this case, victorious Germany would have attacked England with a vengeance and, probably, in the end would have occupied the British Isles. But Churchill also did not want the complete defeat of Germany, for in this case the USSR would have become too powerful and the influence emanating from it would threaten to undermine the colonial foundations of the British Empire, and indeed cause great upheavals of an anti-capitalist nature in the world. Ideal, from Churchill's point of view, would be if both Germany and the USSR emerged from the war badly shabby, bled and wandered on crutches for at least a whole generation, while England would have come to the finish line with a minimum of losses and in the good shape of a European boxer. This naturally led to the desire to show maximum savings in the expenditure of their own efforts to win the war and, conversely, to shift the maximum effort, suffering and losses to achieve this goal on the Soviet Union. "
        'Memories of the Soviet Ambassador'
        http://art-of-diplomacy.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000012/st033.shtml
        1. Illanatol
          Illanatol April 28 2021 14: 11
          0
          Consider whatever you like, the point is not in terms.
          You can even consider this as a Counter-Revolution in relation to the revolutionary transformations of Peter the Great.
          No matter how hard the homegrown Westerners try, we will never become a part of the West, Europe.
          The United States and Britain were the majority of the West, given their potential (economic, human, etc.).
          Hitler had already crushed the European husk of Belgium-Holland. Who else is there?
          I don't care what Churchill was counting on. In fact, he is the losing side.
          The two World Wars are "British Succession" wars, prepared and instigated by the American elite. She is the true winner, having cemented her victory with the Bretton Woods Agreements.
          And Britain lost the 20th century. With what she began the 20th century, and with what she ended ... sadness, however. Geopolitical losses are much stronger than those of Russia, and the pound no longer has the same status as in century 19. The mighty empire turned into a jackal Tabaki under the stars and stripes Sher Khan: even the Suez Canal could not be defended.
    4. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 April 27 2021 10: 15
      +4
      Quote: squid
      First, the communists killed and starved to death tens of millions of Russian people (18 million were victims of famine and repression during the first 20 years of Soviet rule, according to conservative estimates)

      Do you know how Peter was the first to cut the window to Europe? How many people were in shackles?
      You dear, you would not shake the bones of the dead - great achievements always have a downside, and it does not matter whether under the kings or under the communists.
      1. squid
        squid April 27 2021 10: 38
        -1
        Well, enlighten how many "were in shackles" and how many died.
        The result of Peter's efforts - great Russia
        The result of the efforts of the communists is a collapsed state.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 April 27 2021 11: 48
          +2
          Quote: squid
          The result of Peter's efforts - great Russia
          The result of the efforts of the communists - a collapsed state

          With the same success, you can draw a parallel on tsarism - with the successes of Peter and the mediocre country Nikolashka. The result is the death of the empire and directly the family of the weak-willed and incompetent tsar.
          Shall we go further according to the results? The results of the reign of the current "tsar"? wink
        2. place
          place April 27 2021 15: 14
          0
          Quote: squid
          The result of the efforts of the communists is a collapsed state.


          DOESN'T CRACK? LIES LESS.
          The result of the efforts of nationalists and anti-communists is a collapsed state.
          The result of the efforts of the communists is the creation of the Russian Federation and the USSR.
          For whom the people went, then he got it. Do you think if "we are the Russian people", then God won't even have a threaded bolt on you? Even as it is, every nation gets what it deserves, there are no exceptions. God - He can do without any people ...
    5. kalibr
      kalibr April 27 2021 12: 05
      -2
      He also supported the idea of ​​national fascism more dangerous than fascism in the Comintern, which prevented the socialists and communists of Germany from uniting. The slogan "After the fascists, we are!" It was not by chance that he appeared in the KKE. They gave money from the USSR for it. It's good that at least Stalin was smart enough to refuse all this in time!
    6. place
      place April 27 2021 15: 01
      -2
      Quote: squid
      Very interesting. First, the communists killed and starved to death tens of millions of Russian people (18 million were victims of hunger and repression during the first 20 years of Soviet power, according to conservative estimates), destroyed the Russian officers (the most acute shortage of command personnel in the 41st century),
      And now they are talking about the "ideology of victory"!


      WHY SO MUCH "bukoff? ...." Actually, a normal person will at least explain to himself and answer; "but what the hell did the communists need all this?"This is where we actually observe - the level of a kindergarten like;" it was because those and others did not like us ........ the nurse and the teacher in the kindergarten are evil ..... "
      In fact, the reasons for the problems of the people are in the people themselves. AND ONE WHOM HE PROMOTES INTO THE BEGINNING. Here Christ came to the ancient Jews - so they created such that then, together with their kingdom, after 30 years, "there is no stone left over." The Romans scattered these cretins with their "national identity" around the World .... The Russians had communists with the same idea; "who does not work, he does not eat" - so the result has not yet been repeated, BUT things are moving faster and faster towards the same result.
      Do you think that if "we are the people", God will not find a bolt with a thread on you?
      Not ...... guy, as you can find, these freaks about "the people are always right, the people are always correct" - this is from the crafty and Euro-democratic quirks ...
    7. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich April 27 2021 17: 35
      0
      Quote: squid
      , in huge demographic, territorial, spiritual resources

      For some reason, the same huge resources did not help others. And Russia is not always ...
      Quote: squid
      enemy, several times smaller in population

      Superior in human resources.
      Quote: squid
      roma, the first couple of years, eastern, where the communists traded with them

      And also all the years of the war, where the capitalists traded with them. Incl. being at war with them.
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich April 27 2021 06: 59
    -5
    by concluding a non-aggression pact with Germany, we ensured peace for our country for a year and a half and the possibility of preparing our forces to repulse,
    The pact was needed to push the borders back - to return their lands, but he did not push back the attack for a single second: when Hitler was fully prepared (resolved issues in Europe and concentrated), then he began. There is not a single evidence that during these two years Hitler was stopped by the RM pact.

    In addition, during these two incomplete years, the USSR became stronger by interest, and Hitler became stronger by the captured one. Europe.

    but, the leader believed, she "lost politically, exposing herself in the eyes of the whole world as a bloody aggressor."

    what is there to "expose": she (like Italy) by June 1941 already a long time ago was recognized bloody aggressor ALL the world - after its attacks and occupations of Poland, Norway, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Greece, Yugoslavia, Albania. Much more ...

    However, we can rightfully speak about the restoration within the framework of the official ideology. historical continuity throughout Russian history... And this new ideological policy, which was undoubtedly initiated by Stalin, did not begin at all with the outbreak of war, as they sometimes write, but back in the second half of the 30s, when iconic patriotic films about the commander Suvorov, Alexander Nevsky, Minin and Pozharsky. These important historical figures were actually rehabilitated and returned to the pantheon of national heroes. the image of our great ancestors - Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, Kuzma Minin, Dmitry Pozharskogо

    for without this there is no country.

    But before that, the main military monuments and shrines of Russia were destroyed and plundered - the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the Naval Cathedral in Kronstadt and Sevastopol, tombs of the same Minin and Pozharsky, monuments of Borodino, Maloyaroslavets, etc., etc.

    But it is impossible without it, as it turned out ...

    for the health of the Russian people

    but no one even thought to return to the Russian people those 4 million km2 that were cut off from them even AFTER the formation of the USSR, from 1922 to 1940, even Murmansk was cut off from Russia by the KFSSR ...
    1. Far B
      Far B April 27 2021 07: 52
      +2
      even Murmansk was cut off from Russia by the KFSSR ...
      And the Russians from Leningrad to Murmansk had to break through two customs, yeah. Just like under the tsar - to Finland.
      By the way, how long has this, judging by your post, the occupation KFSSR existed?
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich April 27 2021 09: 49
        -1
        Quote: Dalny V
        And the Russians from Leningrad to Murmansk had to break through two customs, yeah.

        today I would have to, and just two, as in Kaliningrad.

        how it would be-see. through the window: real customs are exactly on those borders who are the Bolsheviks and have established for their fictitious, never existed before so-called. "states" - ukraine, kazakhstan and others. turkmeny.

        Quote: Dalny V
        By the way, how long has this, judging by your post, the occupation KFSSR existed?

        all the life of its inventor and creator, such things could be KNOWN.

        And if later, hurray, they liquidated it, then all other inventions (Russia without its Faithful, Guryev, Uralsk, Odessa and so on) - stayed ...
    2. Illanatol
      Illanatol April 27 2021 09: 37
      +2

      The pact was needed to push the borders back - to return their lands, but he did not push back the attack for a single second: when Hitler was fully prepared (resolved issues in Europe and concentrated), then he began. There is not a single evidence that during these two years Hitler was stopped by the RM pact.

      In addition, during these two incomplete years, the USSR became stronger by interest, and Hitler became stronger by the captured one. Europe.


      The pact, first of all, created a split between the Reich and Japan. Hitler could well have started a war against the USSR earlier, because Japan had already fought with the USSR. A war on two fronts could have become a reality by 1940 for the USSR.
      The pact eliminated such a threat.

      The USSR has become stronger not by interest. In these "less than two years" there was an active modernization of the Soviet Armed Forces, they also grew in number.
      It was during this period that the T-34 and KV, Yak-1, LaGG and MiG fighters were adopted.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich April 27 2021 10: 48
        0
        Quote: Illanatol
        The pact, first of all, created a split between the Reich and Japan. Hitler could well have started a war against the USSR earlier, because Japan had already fought with the USSR. A war on two fronts could have become a reality by 1940 for the USSR.
        The pact eliminated such a threat.

        1.Japan had a much more important problem - the United States.

        2. Hitler could not physically attack earlier, what nonsense? Having France in the West, the Balkans in the South with the Angians?

        Solved the issue by June 41 -and went, spitting on the pact and the treaty of friendship. They cost nothing and did not move anything for a second.
        Quote: Illanatol
        The USSR has become stronger not by interest. ...

        but, he became stronger on the potentials of Hungary, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia. Poland, Norway, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Greece, Yugoslavia, Albania, Finland, like Germany?
        No?
        And what are you talking about then?
        Quote: Illanatol
        In these "less than two years" there was an active modernization of the Soviet Armed Forces, they also grew in number.
        It was during this period that the T-34 and K were adopted.

        and Vermhat, of course, did not grow and did not arm itself instead of tankettes in '39 with tanks T2, TZ, etc., etc.
        1. Foul skeptic
          Foul skeptic April 27 2021 15: 49
          +2
          There is not a single evidence that these two years Hitler stopped the pact of RM

          In the world of logic, this is called argumentum ad ignorantiam.
          but, he became stronger on the potentials of Hungary, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia. Poland, Norway, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Greece, Yugoslavia, Albania, Finland, like Germany?

          The potential of Hungary, Albania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria was at Hitler's disposal even before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
          and Vermhat, of course, did not grow and did not arm itself instead of tankettes in '39 with tanks T2, TZ, etc., etc.

          In the world of chess, this is called - zugzwang
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich April 27 2021 21: 12
            -1
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            In the world of logic, this is called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

            In the world of chess, this is called - zugzwang


            In the world it is called Me solum relinquatis:
        2. Illanatol
          Illanatol April 28 2021 14: 24
          -1
          1. The USA was not a problem for Japan, isolationism was too strong there. It took a provocation with Pearl Harbor to drag the United States into the war.
          2. Why did these France and England not open a second front when Hitler attacked Poland?
          Why didn't they start saving Czechoslovakia?
          With these bourgeois countries "Democracies" were bound by military treaties. But abandoning them did not help. So why would they be harnessed to the conflict between the Reich and the USSR?
          On the contrary, they were only glad of such a conflict, would have contributed to it, and dreamed of "channeling aggression."

          3. Yes, I have become stronger. In fact, all these satellites, with the exception of the Czech Republic, had little to do with the Reich. In terms of the production of the main types of weapons, the USSR was a giant against the background of all these "Holland" even before the start of the war.

          4. The Wehrmacht grew, of course, but still not at the same pace. If Hitler had started the war in 1942, the beginning would have been different.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich April 29 2021 07: 13
            -1
            Quote: Illanatol
            1. The USA was not a problem for Japan, isolationism was too strong there. It took a provocation with Pearl Harbor to get the US into the war

            and now find out with what fright the Japanese decided on pearl harbor / war
            Quote: Illanatol
            2. What are these France and England did not open a second frontwhen Hitler attacked Poland?

            go to school
            Quote: Illanatol
            Why didn't they start saving Czechoslovakia?

            pacified the aggressor, can get drunk. stupid position, but it was.
            Quote: Illanatol
            So why would they be harnessed to the conflict between the Reich and the USSR?
            On the contrary, they were only glad of such a conflict, would have contributed to it, and dreamed of "channeling aggression."

            they do not care about the ussr - they are tempted to decide their tasks. The USSR is not Poland and Hitler, who got stuck there, could not oppose them at all and was the easiest prey. In doing so, they, of course, would have let them destroy each other, and then took the remnants. Stalin dreamed about this, only in relation to the war between France / Germany, but cruelly miscalculated.

            Leaving a belligerent France in the rear was madness.
            Quote: Illanatol
            3. Yes, I have become stronger. In fact, all these satellites, with the exception of the Czech Republic, little could give the Reich... In terms of the production of the main types of weapons, the USSR was a giant against the background of all these "Holland" even before the start of the war.

            they gave a lot, for example, transport, aircraft, weapons, strategic reserves of raw materials, money.
            Quote: Illanatol
            4. The Wehrmacht grew, of course, but still not at the same pace. If Hitler had started the war in 1942, the beginning would have been different.

            so it was necessary to prepare for the 41st-who was in the way?

            This is not a 6-year-old Wehrmacht of a country without an army, a navy, and even under sanctuary.
            1. Illanatol
              Illanatol April 29 2021 09: 18
              +1
              and now find out with what fright the Japanese decided on pearl harbor / war


              So it was later, as it were. End of 1941
              The Japanese were bred like suckers. Reasonable Japanese were well aware that such a war would not be pulled, and the Americans were well aware that the Japanese were a very convenient enemy for them. Skillful diplomacy and backstage intrigues did their job. The Japanese skillfully played the role of an "icebreaker" for the Americans, chopping off their colonies from the European powers, and then the Yankees, having conquered the colonies, "forgot" to return them to their former owners. With Vietnam, however, it did not work out, well, it happens ...

              Much more interesting is why the Japanese suspended hostilities against the USSR.
              Certainly not only because Zhukov won a tactical victory. Our forces in the theater of operations were very limited, but for the Japanese it was reconnaissance in force. Together with the Manchukou army, they could deploy 2 million bayonets, being sure that it would not be possible to transfer large forces from the European part of the USSR - Hitler was also there.
              But Hitler signed a pact with the USSR, which made a full-scale war against the USSR less predictable. So the Japanese “channelized” their aggression in a different direction.

              Leaving a belligerent France in the rear was madness.


              "Howling France" especially delivers. More details about the military operations of France against Germany in 1939 What battles, what losses, what is the result?
              Even in the campaign against Poland, Hitler used all the tank divisions, the main striking power of the Wehrmacht. In western Germany, the German divisions were disabled teams, but the French did not take their chance.

              so it was necessary to prepare for the 41st-who was in the way?
              This is not a 6-year-old Wehrmacht of a country without an army, a navy, and even under sanctuary.


              The French were also preparing ... did it help?
              Easy to say.
              And that the Wehrmacht was created from scratch?
              The Weimar Republic had an army. Yes, small, but with the highest quality frames. The privates are ready-made sergeants. The officer corps is beauty and pride. The personnel and experience with the PMA have not gone anywhere. A highly developed industry, excellent design bureaus, science, engineering staff have not gone anywhere. In terms of the number of engineers, Germany surpassed the USSR dozens of times.
              You cannot produce warships for your fleet - but you can create for export. You cannot produce combat aircraft - you can create civilian and sports aircraft with excellent characteristics. The Me-109 had a civilian predecessor, the Me-108.
              And so on ... Germany had much better starting conditions than the USSR, which had to create a lot from scratch.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich April 29 2021 09: 41
                -2
                Quote: Illanatol
                So it was later, as it were. End of 1941

                later than what?

                And the end of 41, only at the end of 41, was formed or SOMETHING led to it for years?
                Quote: Illanatol
                Certainly not only because Zhukov won a tactical victory. Our forces in the theater of operations were very limited, but for the Japanese it was reconnaissance in force. Together with the Manchukou army, they could put up 2 million bayonets

                what, excuse me, nonsense!

                Japan waged the hardest years of war with Chinato which she has lack of resources- what other wars in the north?
                Quote: Illanatol
                But Hitler signed a pact with the USSR, which made a full-scale war against the USSR less predictable. So the Japanese “channelized” their aggression in a different direction.

                The Japanese knew very well the price of these pacts, until September 1, 1939.

                and the other direction was more important to them: there were no resources to explode
                Quote: Illanatol
                Even in the campaign against Poland, Hitler

                The USSR is not Poland: the Franks would let the USSR and Germany kill each other and take Germany cheaply
                Quote: Illanatol
                The French were also preparing ... did it help?
                Easy to say.

                the rate of capture of the USSR was twice as high as that of France - just the territory of France quickly ended
                Quote: Illanatol
                Germany had much better starting conditions than the USSR, which had to create a lot from scratch.

                so, and who prevented Karlhorst 1945 from doing in 1918? And there would be no WWII.

                No, they saved Germany from this by Brest betrayal, then by Rappal for the right to rule.

                Claims to yourself.
                1. Illanatol
                  Illanatol April 29 2021 13: 27
                  +1
                  later than what?


                  Later the conclusion of the Covenant.

                  what, excuse me, nonsense!

                  Japan was waging a difficult long-term war with China, for which it did not have enough resources - what other wars in the north?


                  The Kuomintang army was backward and weak, the Japanese beat it as they wanted. And the territories captured in China were an excellent resource base, the Kwantung Army was not only self-sufficient, but also sent coal and metal to the metropolis.
                  Something was not prevented by the lack of resources for the attack on Mongolia, however.

                  The USSR is not Poland: the Franks would let the USSR and Germany kill each other and take Germany cheaply


                  Alas, the authority of the military might of the USSR was not as high in the West as you imagine.
                  The "Miracle on the Vistula" has not yet been forgotten, alas. As well as the failures of tsarist Russia in WWI, although the eastern front was not the main one for Germany at that time. And the USSR was forced to fight in splendid isolation.
                  So such calculations are the fruit of your imagination, nothing more.

                  the rate of capture of the USSR was twice as high as that of France - just the territory of France quickly ended


                  A large territory, on the one hand, is a plus for defense, and on the other - a minus. A large territory and a large border are more difficult to defend, especially given the changed nature of the war: the war has become more agile, a war of engines. It has become much more difficult to predict the actions of the aggressor. Therefore, the advantage is on the side of the attacking, not the defending side. For the first time, an effective defense began to require more forces than an offensive. And the more, the larger the territory.
                  The French army was completely mobilized, but the Red Army was not.

                  so, who prevented Karlhorst from doing 1945 in 1918? And there would be no WWII


                  WWII was inevitable and not through the fault of the USSR.
                  The culprits should be found overseas among those who turned out to be the main beneficiary of this event.
                2. Foul skeptic
                  Foul skeptic April 29 2021 17: 14
                  +1
                  USSR is not Poland:

                  By 1939, for Europe, the military comparison between the USSR and Poland was not in favor of the USSR.
                  the francs would let the USSR and Germany kill each other and take Germany cheaply

                  lol but turned out to be a party to the conflict. So are the shaves. And of course the pact has nothing to do with it. winked
                  the rate of capture of the USSR was twice as high as that of France

                  And in the USSR, Hitler also stopped his troops for 2 weeks, as was the case from May 24 to June 5, 1940 in France?
                  No, they saved Germany from this by Brest betrayal, then by Rappal

                  And what saved Germany from? belay
    3. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich April 27 2021 17: 49
      -1
      Quote: Olgovich
      the pact was needed to push the borders back - to return their lands,

      The pact was needed so as not to end up in a war in unfavorable conditions. Failed to come to an agreement with potential allies - I had to negotiate with potential enemies in Europe and Asia. Shifting boundaries is the second step.
      Quote: Olgovich
      not for a second did he push back the attack

      Whether this is so, no one knows.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich April 27 2021 21: 38
        -2
        Quote: Sahar Medovich
        The pact was needed so as not to end up in a war in unfavorable conditions.

        so HOW did he prevent it from being something?

        Hitler was not going to attack (then) and could not under any sauce (France), the USSR was also not going to either attack or stand up for Poland (although he could, i.e. Hitler got more)

        and yes: there was no pact - and there was no war. He appeared - the war has come.

        But in reality it was precisely the definition of the agreed BORDERS that was made, i.e. the subject of the war was also removed.

        And it was RIGHT from all points of view
        Quote: Sahar Medovich
        Whether this is so, no one knows.

        you don't know that, but all know that Hitler attacked exactly when he considered himself prepared and finished his business in Europe.... And where did the pact get in the way of it?

        On the contrary, he helped calmly, without fear of his back, with all his might, to deal with Europe.

        That only brought closer 22 June
        1. Sugar Honeyovich
          Sugar Honeyovich April 28 2021 13: 47
          -1
          Quote: Olgovich
          so HOW did he prevent it from being something?

          In fact, the question was: what was the pact for, and not what it gave in reality. But nevertheless: 1) He spoiled the relations of the Germans with the Japanese and incidentally 2) compromised the Germans in the eyes of those White emigrants who had plans for Germany (for example, the Russian Fascist Union); 3) thanks to him, the borders in Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and Karelia moved to the west; 4) it led to the conclusion of major trade agreements with Germany, the terms of which in terms of preparation for war were more beneficial to us than to the Germans. This is at least.
          Quote: Olgovich
          Hitler was not going to attack (then) and could not under any sauce (France)

          Afterbirth. Then there were good reasons to expect his attack. And he was going to attack Poland and attacked. Despite (France) and (England).
          Quote: Olgovich
          there was no pact - and there was no war. He appeared - the war has come.

          And if he had not appeared, the war would not have come? Yes or no? And proof?
          Quote: Olgovich
          And it was RIGHT from all points of view

          Mainly - preparations for the war.
          Quote: Olgovich
          you don't know

          You too.
          Quote: Olgovich
          everyone knows that Hitler attacked exactly when he considered himself prepared

          He would have done the same in the absence of a pact.
          Quote: Olgovich
          finished business in Europe

          And someone assured that England was seriously at war with him ... laughing
          Quote: Olgovich
          I helped calmly, without fear of my back, with all my might, to deal with Europe.
          What only brought June 22 closer

          If there was no pact, all this would not have happened? Yes or no? And proof?
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich April 28 2021 14: 17
            -2
            Quote: Sahar Medovich
            1) He ruined the relations of the Germans with the Japanese and along the way 2) compromised the Germans in the eyes of those white emigrants who had views on Germany (for example, the Russian Fascist Union)

            lol laughing HOW it delayed June 22nd that was the question.

            No way
            Quote: Sahar Medovich
            Afterbirth. Then there were good reasons to expect his attack. And he was going to attack Poland and attacked. Despite (France) and (England).

            paranoia must be treated. to compare Poland and the USSR, who do you need to be?
            Quote: Sahar Medovich
            And if he had not appeared, the war would not have come? Yes or no? And proof?

            without it, it would not exist, it is a fact
            Quote: Sahar Medovich
            Mainly - training in the war.

            complete failure
            Quote: Sahar Medovich
            Likewise he would have done in the absence of a pact

            just about-pact did not decide anything here
            Quote: Sahar Medovich
            And someone assured that England was seriously at war with him ..

            see africa, seas, battle of britain
            Quote: Sahar Medovich
            If there was no pact, all this would not have happened? Yes or no? And proof?

            the pact brought closer. than-see above
            1. Sugar Honeyovich
              Sugar Honeyovich April 28 2021 17: 40
              -1
              Quote: Olgovich
              HOW it delayed June 22nd that was the question.

              Nobody can know this.
              Quote: Olgovich
              No way

              Or somehow. Somewhere for a year.
              Quote: Olgovich
              paranoia needs to be treated

              So heal.
              Quote: Olgovich
              to compare Poland and the USSR, who do you need to be?

              It is known by whom - the leading world politicians of that time. And highly qualified military experts. Those who believe that Germany will defeat the USSR in 10 DAYS (how much did it take to defeat Poland? what ) or that the Finnish army will be able to single-handedly fight the Red Army for at least six months. And the main thing is not Poland, but the Anglo-French-Polish alliance - two fronts for Germany.
              Quote: Olgovich
              complete failure

              In Europe. In the USSR, nothing of the kind.
              Quote: Olgovich
              just about-pact did not decide anything here

              So I am about the same. You got it right ... this time. good
              Quote: Olgovich
              see africa, seas, battle of britain

              So Hitler didn’t finish the job? However, here, too, the pact's influence can be traced ...
              Quote: Olgovich
              the pact brought closer. than-see above

              Ide? Etta, tunnels:
              Quote: Olgovich
              without it, it would not exist, it is a fact
              ?
              Those. no proof? Which was required ... to prove. hi laughing
              Py Sy. Many people signed such pacts with Hitler - there was no war before them. But there was a seizure of foreign lands by the Germans. And then the war began. So, for your information. hi
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich April 29 2021 07: 32
                -2
                Quote: Sahar Medovich
                Nobody can know this.

                everyone knows, I say again: when I prepared, then I attacked. No stuttering about the PWB holding it back, no one ever stuttered in the Reich
                Quote: Sahar Medovich
                Known by whom - leading world politicians of that time. And highly qualified military experts. Considering that Germany will defeat the USSR in 10 DAYS

                so show leading politicians who considered the USSR-Poland, what are you talking about?

                "Experts" of the level of the mistaken Stalin, it is understood, were there too
                Quote: Sahar Medovich
                In Europe. In the USSR, nothing of the kind.

                that's for sure: neither the world nor Europe knew anything like a military catastrophe and the failure of the USSR in 41-42
                Quote: Sahar Medovich
                So I am about the same. You got it right ... this time.

                pact - up to one place by the start date - it came to you
                Quote: Sahar Medovich
                So Hitler didn’t finish the job? However, here, too, the pact's influence can be traced ...

                finished in Europe, thanks, yes, the pact: he acted without looking back at the conscientious and piously observing Stalin, in Stalin Hitler was confident and correct.
                Quote: Sahar Medovich
                Ide?

                Tama, in Europe, sclerosis already?


                Quote: Sahar Medovich
                Those. no proof? Which was required ... to prove.


                something else: no pact, no war is a fact on the face.
                Quote: Sahar Medovich
                ... Many people signed such pacts with Hitler - there was no war before them.

                there were no pacts with countries, there were no wars with them. -Poland, France, England, etc. This is a fact-on the face
                1. Foul skeptic
                  Foul skeptic April 29 2021 08: 54
                  -1
                  no pact-no war is a FACT in the face

                  Correlation is not causal.
                  there were no pacts with countries, there were no wars with them. -Poland, France, England, etc. This is a fact-on the face

                  Did Germany have no mutual non-aggression agreements with these countries?
                  And what about the Bonnet-Ribbentrop, Chamberlain-Hitler, Neurath-Lipsky agreements?
                2. Illanatol
                  Illanatol April 29 2021 10: 03
                  0
                  that's for sure: neither the world nor Europe knew anything like a military catastrophe and the failure of the USSR in 41-42


                  Come on. The defeat of France in less than two months is a much larger-scale (adjusted for the size of the countries) catastrophe.
                  And this is given that France was fully combat-ready. She herself declared war and mobilized without hindrance. And in the end - a complete defeat and surrender.
                  Strictly speaking, the war of Germany against France was not a blitzkrieg in its classical sense. But it turned out to be a blitzkrieg.
                  But against the USSR, a blitzkrieg was implemented in its entirety. But he failed, the USSR managed to transfer the war to a protracted regime and won. And the Reich suffered a catastrophe, the equal of which the world still does not know.
                  Even the USSR's alleged defeat in the Cold War is incomparable. It's not about war at all ...
                  Are examples known in history when the allegedly losing side retains the technical ability to destroy its winner in the shortest possible time, and the winner is unable to deprive the loser of such an opportunity?
                  1. Olgovich
                    Olgovich April 29 2021 11: 28
                    0
                    Quote: Illanatol
                    Come on. The defeat of France in less than two months is a much larger-scale (adjusted for the size of the countries) catastrophe.

                    nothing of the kind: during the same time, the USSR lost two france
                    Quote: Illanatol
                    And this is given that France was fully combat-ready.

                    Who prevented the ussr from getting ready, except for blind faith in the pact?
                    Quote: Illanatol
                    Strictly speaking, the war of Germany against France was not a blitzkrieg in its classical sense. But it turned out to be a blitzkrieg.
                    But against the USSR, a blitzkrieg was implemented in its entirety.

                    that's for sure: not a grain of experience has been learned from WWII that has been going on for 2 years.
                    Quote: Illanatol
                    ... But he failed

                    27 million (there is a report about 40 million) victims are forced to talk about the price
                    Quote: Illanatol
                    Are examples known in history when the allegedly losing side retains the technical ability to destroy its winner in the shortest possible time, and the winner is unable to deprive the loser of such an opportunity?

                    Is such a huge country known in the world? If the USSR was the size of France, the war would end twice as fast as with France.
                    1. Illanatol
                      Illanatol April 29 2021 13: 38
                      0
                      nothing of the kind: during the same time the USSR lost two francs


                      The USSR returned them on its own. And France was able to return itself on its own?

                      Who prevented the ussr from getting ready, except for blind faith in the pact? that's for sure: not a grain of experience has been learned from WWII that has been going on for 2 years.


                      Are you aware that a full mobilization is tantamount to a declaration of war?
                      War would become inevitable and the USSR would appear as an aggressor.

                      27 million (there is a report about 40 million) victims are forced to talk about the price


                      Direct losses of the USSR amounted to 20 million. This is not our data, but the data of CIA analysts. There is no compelling reason to revise them, and the ravings of paid propagandists are rampant.

                      Is such a huge country known in the world? If the USSR was the size of France, the war would end twice as fast as with France.


                      If grandma had a dick ... fellow
                    2. Foul skeptic
                      Foul skeptic April 29 2021 15: 32
                      0
                      would the USSR be the size of France-the war would end twice as fast as with France

                      Long distances are not only what saved the USSR, allowing them to exchange distances for time, but also the fact that they were one of the reasons why these very distances had to be exchanged for time.
                      the ussr who got in the way is preparing, except for blind faith in the pact

                      1) and no one believed in the pact.
                      2) the USSR was engaged in increasing combat readiness
                      not a grain of experience has been learned from WWII that has been going on for 2 years

                      And what experience could be learned? Did the French gain a lot of experience from the Polish campaign of the Wehrmacht? Already at war. It took 9 months to comprehend. ))
                3. Sugar Honeyovich
                  Sugar Honeyovich April 29 2021 14: 35
                  0
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  everyone knows, I say again: when I prepared, then I attacked

                  Only no one knows whether it delayed or accelerated, facilitated or complicated. All words about this are unfounded.
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  so show the leading politicians who considered the USSR-Poland

                  Any reference book in the style of "Who was who" before the war and at the beginning of it.
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  "Experts" of the level of the mistaken Stalin, it is understood, were there too

                  In the first roles and in the majority.
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  that's for sure: neither the world nor Europe knew anything like a military catastrophe and the failure of the USSR in 41-42

                  Still, not exactly: in Europe, the Germans have "fabulous troop successes", in the USSR in 1941 they themselves "have already lost the war, in essence," there - the defeat by Germany, here - the defeat of Germany. And with her - all of fascist Europe. soldier
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  pact - up to one place by the start date

                  Only if this is the term - you do not know.
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  conscientiously and sacredly observing Stalin, Hitler was confident and correct in Stalin.

                  Only neither one nor the other knew about it. fool
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  in Europe

                  They're not there. In Asia, too. So where is the evidence? No? Same.
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  there were no pacts with countries, there were no wars with them. - Poland, France, England, etc.

                  That's right - there were no pacts - there was no war with them, but they concluded pacts with Hitler - and a war! That's who is to blame! Fact. bully
            2. Foul skeptic
              Foul skeptic April 28 2021 17: 50
              0
              to compare Poland and the USSR, who do you need to be?

              1) Why are you talking about comparing "Poland" and "USSR", and not "Poland, France and Great Britain with colonies" and "USSR, Tannu Tuva and Mongolia"?
              without it, it would not exist, it is a fact

              2) If you write the word "fact" before a hypothesis, it does not cease to be a hypothesis.
              complete failure

              3) Is the 1941 army less prepared for war than the 1939 army?
        2. Foul skeptic
          Foul skeptic April 28 2021 16: 41
          0
          Hitler was not going to attack (then) and could not under any sauce (France)

          1) He negotiated with the Poles (pre-feeding Zaolzie) in the fall of 1938 about Poland joining the Anti-Comintern Pact, about an extraterritorial road for the transfer of troops through Polish territory with promises to Poland of territories in the east, because he was not going to attack in the next year?
          2) What about France? Is at war with Germany as of the summer of 1939, when the negotiations began, which ended with the MP pact? France guarantees the inviolability of the USSR? France is geographically located between the USSR and Germany? There is only one answer to three questions - no. Therefore, there are no obstacles in the form of France for Germany to carry out aggression against the USSR in 1939 either.

          Situation in Europe by August 1939:
          1) The anti-Comintern bloc is strengthening - to Germany, Italy and Japan, Hungary, Spain and Manchukuo join. Bulgaria and Romania are still outside the pact only de jure, and de facto have been fascist for several years. Like the Slovak Republic and Estonia.
          2) The goal of the Anti-Comintern bloc is the USSR and this is not hiding
          3) England and France are indifferent to the threat of the spread of fascism in Europe. This was shown by Munich and Dusseldorf - between capitalist countries there can be no obstacle in ideology, but only in sales markets, in Dusseldorf England and Germany conclude a cartel agreement and divide spheres of economic influence.
          4) Diplomatically, England, France and Germany have non-aggression agreements among themselves.
          5) Mein Kampf makes it clear about the vector of German expansion - to the east. This is confirmed by the actual actions of the Reich - Austria and Czechoslovakia are the eastern borders of Germany.
          6) Only the territory of Poland separates Germany from the attack on the USSR.
          7) The relations between Germany and Poland are such that there is no guarantee that a military alliance is not possible between them - Germany fed Poland with the Vilna region and the Cieszyn region. The fact that Germany viewed Poland as an ally, and not an obstacle until mid-spring 1939, is confirmed by negotiations between the countries and the terms of the proposed agreement.
          8) Even if an alliance does not arise between Poland and Germany, Munich showed that there is no guarantee that France will stand up for Poland. (Note. - As life has shown, these were reasonable suspicions, having made a good face with a bad game, France did not tease Germany, after all, everyone knows that Hitler's goal is the east). Before the pact, Poland does not have an agreement of mutual assistance with England (Note - As life has shown, the existence of an agreement did not change anything)
          Thus, by the summer of 1939, it was perfectly clear to everyone that German aggression against the USSR could not be avoided and no one would stand up for the USSR.
          In this situation, what do you propose to the USSR - instead of concluding a pact, carry out a preventive strike against Germany?
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich April 29 2021 08: 54
            -1
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            said

            don’t bother to write so much: I don’t read you already: after Your statements about "CAPTURE, annexation of Crimea by Russia" you disgust me.

            Deliver me of these (and similar) brains of yoursкrevivals.
            1. Foul skeptic
              Foul skeptic April 29 2021 09: 12
              -1
              Do not bother to play the Crimea card, foreign policy is not for kindergarten outlooks on life, the principles do not work badly-well, but only expedient-not expedient. You have already been told this. In the same conversation, you ignored the request to answer the question, what term is used to indicate a situation when the armed forces of one state are blocking the administrative and military facilities of another state?
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich April 29 2021 09: 12
                -2
                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                dit

                go, go, I don’t serve on Thursdays.

                PS for Russians outside Russia is a question of a completely different order.

                All with you.
                1. Foul skeptic
                  Foul skeptic April 29 2021 09: 56
                  -1
                  go go

                  1) Rudeness is a frequent companion of stupidity.
                  2) What is it that you cannot name term?
                  for Russians outside Russia, this is a question of a completely different order

                  How do you then explain the immigration of Russians from Crimea? And it's not about internal migration. Or is this a revelation for you? And you ask at your leisure. Although I believe that you will have the wrong Russians))
          2. Illanatol
            Illanatol April 29 2021 09: 46
            +1
            Poland, even before the partition of Czechoslovakia, was actually Hitler's ally.
            You can recall the episode with the Anschluss of Austria. Then France wanted to block this attempt by Hitler and turned to the Polish leadership with a proposal for joint actions, since they were allies. Poland actually sabotaged France's actions by putting forward unacceptable counter conditions. France had to remain silent; Hitler was the winner. Probably did not forget to tell the Poles "danke shon"
            1. Foul skeptic
              Foul skeptic April 29 2021 10: 21
              +1
              Poland was unpredictable. This unpredictability is the result of a mixture of their own greed and fear. Therefore, she could not finally decide on the side. I wanted both territories and protection.
        3. Illanatol
          Illanatol April 29 2021 09: 28
          0
          But in reality it was precisely the definition of the agreed BORDERS that was made, i.e. the subject of the war was also removed.


          There are no "objects" for war, there are reasons and reasons.
          There would be a reason - but there will be a reason.
          And Hitler outlined the reasons for the war against the USSR in detail long before the PMR.

          Hitler attacked exactly when he considered himself prepared and finished business in Europe .. And where did the pact stop him?

          On the contrary, he helped calmly, without fear of his back, with all his might, to deal with Europe.


          Hitler did not finish business with Europe, England then remained. By itself, it did not pose a threat to England, but it is an ideal springboard for the deployment of US forces for the subsequent
          invasion of the continent.

          Even before the conclusion of the Pact, Hitler did not fear behind his back. The episode with Czechoslovakia shows this completely.
  • Gardamir
    Gardamir April 27 2021 07: 30
    +10
    Is it worth breaking spears. Everything is relative . 1917-1947 and 1991-2021. The so-called civil war, when on the territory of Russia German troops, Japan, England, France, the USA, even from faraway Australia were pinned. But the country held out, decided on its goals, began to rise to its feet, but then the real 1941, not some imaginary Obama, but the Nazis invaded the country. We survived, revived.
    And now someone is interfering with everything, then the can will come to rewrite all the textbooks, then the hospital's trump closes. Suddenly the retirement age will jump by itself .. This probably has not happened in the history of any country. You see Crimea, ours, and Kharkov is a country404.
    Recently everyone was sent, survive as you want, but the oil companies will increase their compensation to 350 billion. So much for the ideology.
    1. squid
      squid April 27 2021 07: 58
      -7
      The so-called civil war, which was unleashed by the communists, illegally seizing power and organizing mass terror. Naturally, action creates opposition. How would you react now if the power in the country were appropriated for no reason by some, say, Scientologists, and for the sake of their "only correct teaching" they began to kill all dissent? Naturally, the duty of any honest person is to fight them by any means. And the war was not with the invaders, but with the Russian people who remained faithful to their duty and unwashed by the Marxist propaganda. And England-France helped as much as possible, and even then, unfortunately, not enough.
      It is easy to build factories using slave labor. Keeping engineers in scuffles. Close borders from the inside. Pay for labor as much as you like. Take values ​​from citizens. Rob the peasants to starvation. With absolute dictatorship and complete contempt for civil rights in general, many things are easier to do. So comparisons with the West or even today's Russia are incorrect. However, the communist fuse was not enough for a long time - from the 30s to the 60s, then stagnation and degradation. And to the West, despite all efforts, in general development in no way even approached, only in certain types of weapons.
      And even about "Kharkiv 404" I would not even stutter in the place of the communists - they cut up different "Ukrainians" from Russia for some unknown reason, carried out "indigenization" and Ukrainization in them. And even after the formation of their "union" they continued to take away the Russian territories. And at the end of their short history, with a noise and a bang, together with their party, they dissolved the country. So we are sitting now on the ruins.

      And the "spears", obviously, are worth breaking - since the Marxists, with inimitable arrogance, as if nothing had happened, continue to spread their poison and declare some kind of their moral superiority (!). Abomination unfinished. "Who owns the past, he owns the future" (c). And if the Nazis were forced to repent for much lesser sins, then why should the communists walk around to this day as if nothing had happened.
      1. Gardamir
        Gardamir April 27 2021 09: 21
        +6
        How would you react now if the power in the country were appropriated for no reason by some, say, Scientologists,
        Was it not so. when a bad boy sold himself to the West for a box of cookies and staged a coup d'etat in the country. And the country fell apart. Then the terror of the 90s.
        If the communists cut different Ukrainians, then who interfered with yours in 2014 will declare Tatarstan the Kazan province, and return Donbass to Russia and not only Donbass. But you are "blameless saints", someone is interfering with you.
      2. Illanatol
        Illanatol April 27 2021 09: 41
        +4
        The Bolsheviks did not start the GW. The first act of the Civil War was the Kornilov revolt, even before the Bolsheviks came to power.
        The only real alternative to Soviet power was the fascist dictatorship.
        You have no idea how "good" it was for the Western proletarians at the dawn of industrialization in the same Europe. And how good it was for the natives in the colonies ... wink
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 April 27 2021 10: 27
          +3
          Quote: Illanatol
          The Bolsheviks did not start the GW.

          You are already talking about modern Russia, and you are all diving in the past. It has passed, and the country is now being destroyed, today. And this is done by the descendants of those whom Stalin did not finish off in 37.
          I am also not delighted with the 17th, but if it were not for Stalin, the country would no longer exist. It was he who changed the original plans for the collapse of the Republic of Ingushetia, it was he who, at the cost of incredible sacrifices and efforts, turned the country from the vector of collapse, and lifted it into space.
          And you, together with Olgovich, mourn the country that will never be. But behind this cry, you run the risk of crying what is left. The country can now be saved only by power with a state ideology, and only the Reds have it.
          Decide already with whom you are - with those who praise the lost Russia, and destroy and sell the existing one?
        2. Overlock
          Overlock April 27 2021 11: 00
          +4
          Quote: Illanatol
          The Bolsheviks did not start the GW. The first act of the Civil War was the Kornilov revolt, even before the Bolsheviks came to power.

          Seriously?
          The struggle for power during the Civil War was fought between the armed formations of the Bolsheviks and their supporters (Red Guard and Red Army) on the one hand and the armed formations of the White movement (White Army). Both sides envisioned their own way of exercising political power through dictatorship
          Quote: Illanatol
          The only real alternative to Soviet power was the fascist dictatorship.

          negative
          1. Illanatol
            Illanatol April 29 2021 09: 36
            0
            Seriously?
            The struggle for power during the Civil War was fought between the armed formations of the Bolsheviks and their supporters (Red Guard and Red Army) on the one hand and the armed formations of the White movement (White Army). Both sides envisioned their own way of exercising political power through dictatorship


            And what did Kornilov want? Against whom did he rebel and why?
            His political icon was Benito Mussolini ... have you heard of this?
            I would have won - I would have arranged "democracy" am

            In addition to the reds and whites, there were also greens ... and also "national liberation movements" on the outskirts. GW is a more complex conflict than many imagine.

            Well, here some argue that if it were not for the "damned commies" we would have parliamentary democracy and a full buffet to boot. For home-grown democrats, sausage is no less important than liberal values, the stump is clear.
    2. Edward Vashchenko
      Edward Vashchenko April 27 2021 08: 48
      +5
      Bravo Bravo
      1. Catfish
        Catfish April 27 2021 15: 11
        +3
        With both hands - for! Brilliantly!
  • Woodman
    Woodman April 27 2021 07: 45
    0
    Let us cite the text of this Stalinist toast in its entirety, in the form in which it was seen by millions of Soviet citizens on the pages of central newspapers.

    “Comrades, let me raise another, last toast.

    I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, above all, the Russian people. (Stormy, prolonged applause, cries of "cheers").

    I drink, above all, for the health of the Russian people because it is the most prominent nation of all the nations that make up the Soviet Union.

    I am raising a toast to the health of the Russian people because they have earned in this war general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country.

    I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people, not only because they are the leading people, but also because they have a clear mind, a strong character, and patience.

    Our government had many mistakes, we had moments of desperate situation in 1941-1942, when our army retreated, left our native villages and cities of Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, the Leningrad Region, the Baltic States, the Karelian-Finnish Republic, left because there was no other way. Other people could say to the government: you did not live up to our expectations, go away, we will set up another government that will conclude peace with Germany and provide us with peace.

    But the Russian people did not go for it, for they believed in the correctness of the policy of their government and made sacrifices to ensure the defeat of Germany. And this confidence of the Russian people in the Soviet government turned out to be the decisive force that ensured a historic victory over the enemy of mankind - over fascism.

    Thanks to him, the Russian people, for this trust!

    To the health of the Russian people! (Stormy, long-lasting applause) ”.

    There are some minor differences from the published version in the transcript of Stalin's speech. In particular, the Baltic was not mentioned among the territories that our army was forced to leave in the early years of the war, and at the end of the newspaper version the emphasis was shifted to the words about the victory over fascism, while the following Stalinist words given in the transcript were partially cut out: “I repeat, we had mistakes, for the first two years our army was forced to retreat, it turned out that they did not master the events, did not cope with the situation. However, the Russian people believed, endured, waited and hoped that we would still cope with the events. For this trust in our government, which the Russian people have shown us, thank him very much! " This happened as a result of Stalin's personal editing of his toast before placing it in print.
  • Niko
    Niko April 27 2021 07: 46
    -3
    Sometimes it amazes how we do not love the PEOPLE. "ideology of Stalin's victory" - it is difficult to think of a more humiliating name in anticipation of the 9th of May. The victory was for the PEOPLE, As well as the pain and sacrifice, and not only Russian, but at that time Soviet. And it was largely not thanks to, but in spite of many things, including the leadership. The very word "leader" is repeatedly used by the author is humiliating: we were and there is not a tribe, and not a flock-PEOPLE. The people whose opportunities none of these "leaders" are able to use even two percent, but that's okay, so at least one shouldn't attribute the VICTORY OF THE PEOPLE to people who, by the will of circumstances (and partly personal qualities), managed to soak up the glory of the People.
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ April 27 2021 08: 21
      0
      there is no need to ascribe the VICTORY OF THE PEOPLE to people who, by the will of circumstances (and partly personal qualities), managed to soak up the glory of the People.

      Well, yes, the people did everything themselves, and the leadership only stood on the side.
      1. Overlock
        Overlock April 27 2021 11: 07
        +2
        Quote: Aviator_
        Well, yes, the people did everything themselves, and the leadership only stood on the side.

        No need to oppose! "Guiding and leading" had its own niche, but the people were on the battlefield, not the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). How did Mekhlis "help" during the Kerch landing operation? Or how many battles in WWII did Chief Marshal Budyonny win? There are many examples, but the people lay down in the land!
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ April 27 2021 19: 27
          0
          How did Mekhlis "help" during the Kerch landing operation? Or how many battles in WWII did Chief Marshal Budyonny win? There are many examples, but the people lay down in the land!

          Read less Khrushchev's people. They have already shown their incompetence as managers. As I understand it, you completely reject the command structure in the army? Then the crowd remains, capable only of "senseless and merciless revolt."
        2. Sugar Honeyovich
          Sugar Honeyovich April 28 2021 17: 46
          0
          Quote: Overlock
          there were people on the battlefield, not the Central Committee of the CPSU (b)

          The headquarters of the Supreme Command and the State Defense Committee were also not on the battlefield. Hence the conclusion?
      2. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid April 27 2021 19: 52
        0
        Quote: Aviator_
        there is no need to ascribe the VICTORY OF THE PEOPLE to people who, by the will of circumstances (and partly personal qualities), managed to soak up the glory of the People.

        Well, yes, the people did everything themselves, and the leadership only stood on the side.

        Well yes! Especially the evacuation of factories, people ------ beyond the Urals. The most complex logistic actions according to plans that the people themselves drew up before the Second World War ....... As soon as the machines, materials ----- arrived, the buildings still cannot be completed succeeded, and the evacuated machines, on which the evacuated employees began to work, began to work, releasing the most complex defense products without any instructions from above ... hi
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ April 27 2021 20: 00
          +1
          The original author is either a troll for work, or just a limited person. Well, there are some.
          1. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid April 27 2021 20: 57
            0
            Quote: Aviator_
            The original author is either a troll for work, or just a limited person. Well, there are some.

            If we continue the theory that it is not leadership, but
            the people themselves .....
            then the absurdity will turn out. If that good is people, it means, and if bad is how? Or in peacetime?
            1. Aviator_
              Aviator_ April 27 2021 21: 09
              +1
              This can only be written by people who have never led anyone. Without leadership, a mass of people is a crowd. Another thing is that there should be an idea that unites this mass, and leaders at all its levels (squad, platoon, company, battalion, etc.). The leaders ensure the solution of the task. And every soldier must know his own maneuver (A. Suvorov). And the political worker is responsible for introducing the idea to the masses. Now there are political workers, but there are problems with the idea.
        2. Niko
          Niko April 29 2021 11: 47
          -2
          Quote: Reptiloid
          Quote: Aviator_
          there is no need to ascribe the VICTORY OF THE PEOPLE to people who, by the will of circumstances (and partly personal qualities), managed to soak up the glory of the People.

          Well, yes, the people did everything themselves, and the leadership only stood on the side.

          Well yes! Especially the evacuation of factories, people ------ beyond the Urals. The most complex logistic actions according to plans that the people themselves drew up before the Second World War ....... As soon as the machines, materials ----- arrived, the buildings still cannot be completed succeeded, and the evacuated machines, on which the evacuated employees began to work, began to work, releasing the most complex defense products without any instructions from above ... hi

          All the actions that you describe took place (with local peculiarities of course) in ALL countries, participants in the war, and that everywhere personally that V. Stalin led? And in England, which remained one on one against the whole of Europe + the USSR as an ally of Germany, and nothing, they coped without Comrade Stalin (and indeed without comrades at all) And in the USA, where the restructuring and growth of industry simply amaze in volume, quality and speed. Of course, you are not able to understand, but at least you should know: there are a huge number of people with brains who UNDERSTAND that if any other person were in Stalin's place, even if Lenin or Trotsky, even PETER 1st or Nicholas 2nd, nothing has fundamentally changed
          1. Illanatol
            Illanatol April 29 2021 13: 44
            +1
            All the actions that you describe took place (with local peculiarities of course) in ALL countries, participants in the war, and that everywhere personally that V. Stalin led? And in England, which remained face to face against the whole of Europe + the USSR as an ally of Germany, and nothing, they coped without Comrade Stalin (and generally without comrades) And in the USA, where the restructuring and growth of industry are simply amazing in volume, quality and speed.


            England had colonies: hundreds of millions of workers, resources of any choice.
            But in exchange for US aid, Churchill had to make concessions that set in motion the collapse of the British Empire.

            When was Stalin an ally of Hitler there? He that occupied France on a share with Germany?

            Nothing amazes. The United States made good money on the First World War, and the entire Western Hemisphere, as its own "hacienda".
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 April 27 2021 09: 41
      +3
      Quote: Niko
      The very word "leader" repeatedly used by the author is humiliating: we were and are not a tribe, and not a flock-PEOPLE

      Well, yes ... an old Russian proverb ... PEOPLE are like a tongue, where you turn there and it came out!
      Well then, my dear fighter against leaderism, tell me please, how did it happen that the Central Asian peoples, cutting the throats of the Russians, stood to death under the walls of Moscow?
      1. Overlock
        Overlock April 27 2021 11: 08
        +2
        Quote: Serg65
        that the Central Asian peoples, cutting the throats of the Russians, stood to death under the walls of Moscow?

        I believe that those who cut the throats of the Russians near Moscow did not stand
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 April 27 2021 12: 31
          +2
          Quote: Overlock
          I believe that those who cut the throats of the Russians near Moscow did not stand

          you shouldn't think so! The 316th division included those who besieged Tokmak and Przhevalsk in 1916! And they volunteered!
      2. Niko
        Niko April 27 2021 14: 00
        -1
        Quote: Serg65
        Quote: Niko
        The very word "leader" repeatedly used by the author is humiliating: we were and are not a tribe, and not a flock-PEOPLE

        Well, yes ... an old Russian proverb ... PEOPLE are like a tongue, where you turn there and it came out!
        Well then, my dear fighter against leaderism, tell me please, how did it happen that the Central Asian peoples, cutting the throats of the Russians, stood to death under the walls of Moscow?
        Representatives of the peoples "who cut the throats of the Russians" As you write, now welcome guests in the Kremlin, and not just representatives of those peoples, but also people who personally participated ... and for this our thanks to the next great leader.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 April 27 2021 14: 24
          +2
          Quote: Niko
          Representatives of the peoples "who cut the throats of the Russians" As you write, now welcome guests in the Kremlin, and not just representatives of those peoples, but also people who personally participated ... and for this our thanks to the next great leader.

          Slogans are good, but how did it happen that they laid down their lives under the Russian city and for the freedom of the Russian people? Can you answer that?
          1. Niko
            Niko April 27 2021 15: 11
            -4
            Quote: Serg65
            Quote: Niko
            Representatives of the peoples "who cut the throats of the Russians" As you write, now welcome guests in the Kremlin, and not just representatives of those peoples, but also people who personally participated ... and for this our thanks to the next great leader.

            Slogans are good, but how did it happen that they laid down their lives under the Russian city and for the freedom of the Russian people? Can you answer that?

            You are of course right and the "wild division" in the First World War, and the Bashkirs with the Kazakhs in the wars against Napoleon, and even more so the alliance of Alexander Nevsky with the Horde, all this is a merit and achievement exclusively of Comrade Stalin. (Oh yes! Also thanks to him for our happy childhood)
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 April 28 2021 06: 40
              +1
              Quote: Niko
              all this is the merit and achievement of exclusively Comrade Stalin. (Oh yes! Also thanks to him for our happy childhood)

              My dear man, I am asking you, by the way, in Russian, why in 1916 they were against the Russians, and in 1941 they did not spare their lives for the same Russians ??
              What is the reason? Or does your nationalistic ego forbid you to truthfully answer this question?
    3. Illanatol
      Illanatol April 29 2021 08: 49
      0
      And it was largely not thanks to, but in spite of many things, including the leadership.


      Yeah. The leadership gave the "people" tanks and planes, and they fought back: "We will fight with a club and a pitchfork!"
      The leadership developed plans for strategic operations, and the "people" fought on a whim, wherever they wanted, they attacked there.
      Good nonsense to bear. It is impossible to win victories without the absence of one-man command, the unification of the will of the commanders and the energy of the masses.
  • nikvic46
    nikvic46 April 27 2021 08: 12
    +3
    There have been so many moments in the history of Russia when Russian lands belonged to foreigners that it is impossible to list. But for some reason, all attention is paid to the time of Soviet power. The author, being in the modern trend, focuses on nationalism. Deservedly glorifying the Russian people, Stalin is first of all honored the working class. "We must be loyal to the proletariat, and not to a single individual" -Stalin. Now the Army and the Navy are considered the main ally. Then the main ally was the Soviet people. It is he who creates everything that the military uses. It can be argued for a long time, but the working class and the peasantry are gradually melting away. Namely, these layers constituted power in any war.
  • Million
    Million April 27 2021 09: 34
    +4
    I remembered: "This is for you guys!"
    Not for Putin / Sechin / Chubais
  • mz
    mz April 27 2021 10: 38
    +1

    squid (Serg)

    It is easy to build factories using slave labor. Keeping engineers in scuffles. Close borders from the inside. Pay for labor as much as you like. Take values ​​from citizens. Rob the peasants to starvation. With absolute dictatorship and complete contempt for civil rights in general, many things are easier to do.

    An excellent description (minus the engineers in sharashkas) of life in Russia before the USSR. After the USSR, much of this is also present.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov April 27 2021 12: 01
    +1
    The victory was for the PEOPLE, as well as the pain and sacrifice, and not only the Russian, but at that time the Soviet. And it was largely not thanks to, but in spite of many things, including the leadership.

    The victory is always of the people. But the same people themselves did not always win, but suffered defeats. It means that the victory of the people depends on the social system and on the leaders of this very people.
    The victory of the people not because of, but in spite of the system and the leaders does not beat.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov April 27 2021 12: 05
    +1
    Quote: mz
    It is easy to build factories using slave labor.

    Slave labor is ineffective, and modern industry cannot be built by slaves.
    If slaves can be beaten to build an advanced industry, then the empires of slave owners have survived to this day.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov April 27 2021 12: 10
    0
    Quote: squid
    The remaining communist countries (North Korea, Cuba) still have few smartphones. So not everyone is affected by this progress.

    Vyi does not know - the PRC, a communist state leading the world in the field of smartphones.
    The DPRK is also full of locally made smartphones. I have no information about Cuba and Vietnam, but I think smartphones there are no worse than in Asia and Latin America in general.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov April 27 2021 13: 52
    +2
    The so-called civil war, which was unleashed by the communists, illegally seizing power and organizing mass terror.

    1. The civil war was unleashed by foreign military intervention. Without this intervention, everything ended in a matter of days and with minimal casualties.
    2. The communes "seized" power absolutely legally. For them, councils voted - the only democratic form of government in the country at that time. The Soviets held an honorable meeting for the Constituent Assembly and it is not their fault that this assembly did not recognize the Soviet government and thus did not recognize itself. It is interesting that the communists also held the second vybor in the history of Russia when their enemies were defeated at the end of the 20th century. I don’t know any other democratic voices in the history of Russia, when the opposition of the authorities won. Remember if you scored.
    3. The terror of linen and foreign invaders began a few months before the Red Terror and his mashab beat an order of magnitude.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov April 27 2021 13: 59
    +2
    And because of what, in principle, are the sanctions being taken?
    We take North Korea

    Sanctions are adopted, in principle, for the disarmament and maximum weakening of a certain country that the United States wants to attack and occupy. Example Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and so on.
    For this purpose, they also imposed sanctions against the DPRK, but so far disarmament has not been achieved.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov April 27 2021 14: 05
    +5
    Quote: Overlock
    Completed? In return, we got:
    "The grain monopoly, the bread card, the universal labor service are in the hands of the proletarian state, in the hands of the sovereign Soviets, the most powerful means of accounting and control ..." Lenin, 1917. "Will the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?"

    In return, we got:
    1. Bread - after the establishment of collective farms, there has never been a famine in Russia in peacetime.
    2. Peace - after the defeat of Germany, no one dared and would think to attack Russia. And to this day, the legacy of the USSR preserves the peace and independence of Russia.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov April 27 2021 14: 17
    +4
    And the war was not with the invaders, but with the Russian people who remained faithful to their duty and unwashed by the Marxist propaganda. And England-France helped as much as possible, and even then, unfortunately, not enough.

    In other words, the "Russian people", together with the interventionists, were defeated by the Bolsheviks.
    Let's leave aside how much the Russian people "loved" the German-Anglo-French-Japanese-American-Polish and so on interventionists.
    There are only two outputs here:
    1. The Bolsheviks possessed a supernatural ability and defeated the Russian people along with the interventionists - which I do not believe.
    2. The Russian people supported and fought for the Bolsheviks, and only in this way did they manage to defeat the interventionists and their local Russian servants with "brains that do not get rid of."
  • place
    place April 27 2021 16: 46
    0
    The author, for all his patriotism, is not free from the liberal clichés of the West. For example, in the question of "authoritarianism". So what happens? Does the political structure of the country depend on the personal character of one person?

    Nope ... it depends on the LAWS OF THE STATE. And what were they like in the USSR? It is, of course, to the descendants of serfs, for whom the law = the arbitrariness of the master, it is not interesting, you never know what the laws were, we live like in a gang, according to the concepts ........

    But objectively, there was legislation in the USSR. For today's youth, this is generally a discovery, not everyone believes !!! Ah-bln ... it turns out that the USSR also had laws?

    The laws were more democratic than they are now .. Huge rights of the Top of the Council, the absence of the President (until 1989!), For example, the right to appoint the Government. In the ruling party VKPb-KPSS, the statutory principle of "dem- centralism". All leaders are elected and accountable to meetings and congresses. The post of "party chairman" is absent. Stalin did not hold any positions in the Government of the USSR from 1923 to 1941 ...

    BUT THEN WHY WAS HE IN FACT THE KING? Because in the "land of slaves, the land of masters" it cannot be otherwise. Whether at least the General Secretary, even the President, be any laws, EVERYTHING EQUALLY WILL BE A KING IN THE HEAD. These are the traditions of society, dating back to the 16th and 17th centuries. Society has survived to the 21st century, and relations in it are like 300 years ago. You can say "Tsar and boyars", You can say "President's apparatus" ..... one hell. Hence the problems of society, and not because "Stalin was a Caucasian" and that he "was a tyrant at heart."