Fight of Panfilov's men near the Dubosekovo crossing

144
Fight of Panfilov's men near the Dubosekovo crossing


Entry


In my opinion, the main problem of most authors of articles on this topic is that they jump into “November 16th”, as if into a pool, so they first plunge headlong, and then, having drunk on pseudo-historical water, begin to actively flounder, clinging to old logs floating in it like “according to Vasiliev’s recollections it was so and so”; “and Kaprov said that in fact, it was not 28 people who fought heroically near Dubosekovo, but the entire 4th company”; “and the head of the political department of the 316th Infantry Division said in his report that, according to unspecified data, in the area of ​​1075th Infantry Division at least 9 Germans were shot down tanks"; “but Malik Gabdulin remembered how...” etc., etc.

I think that in order to find the correct answer to the question “Was there really a time. Dubosekovo battle, during which the Germans lost 18 tanks?”, first you need to step back in time - to the very first battle of the 1075th rifle regiment near Volokolamsk, which also took place on the 16th, but only a month earlier (before that there were only minor skirmishes between the reconnaissance units of the regiments).

In the documents of the 1075th Rifle Division and 316th Infantry Division dated October 16–17, it is described extremely sparingly and contradictorily, although on October 16 it was the only battle of the division’s units.



First battle of the 316th Infantry Division


According to the operational report of the headquarters of the 316th Infantry Division, on October 16.10.41, 1075, on the left flank of the 06th Infantry Division near the Bolychevo state farm, a heavy battle broke out from 00:75 - the advancing enemy in the amount of 6 tanks and a motorized infantry regiment tried to break through this line, and the XNUMXth Infantry Company, which was holding the defense, did this to him didn't allow it.

But the most remarkable thing is that, according to one of the operational reports of the headquarters of the 316th rifle division, in this battle the enemy lost 17 tanks (there is no such data in the documents of the 1075th rifle division).

As a result, the Germans nevertheless took possession of the state farm by 16:00 (which is confirmed by their documents, but without reference to time).

Then the headquarters of the 1075th rifle regiment, in order to provide assistance to the 6th company encircled on the state farm, developed a plan for a small offensive operation. However, it never took place, because the company seemed to have left the encirclement at night (that is, from Bolychevo). But allegedly she did not leave completely - one platoon still remained on the state farm (apparently, it was he who was initially surrounded).

Thus, according to Soviet documents, it is not entirely clear who won the victory in the end: it seems that the Germans overcame the defensive line of Panfilov’s men and took the state farm, but it seems they didn’t take it, since there was a whole input there. And at night they either removed the encirclement themselves and left, or not themselves, but withdrew in the early morning of October 17, knocked out "concentrated fire from our artillery". That is, it turns out that in the end, each of the opponents seemed to remain to their own.

But the losses of the parties speak in favor of the Panfilov’s victory: according to Soviet documents, the Germans took them out of Bolychevo “4 cars killed and a large number of wounded”, and the losses of the 6th company were 1 killed, 8 wounded and 4 guns (two 45 mm and two 76 mm). Well, don’t forget about the main trophy of Panfilov’s men: 17 destroyed tanks.

In short, this one is confusing historical the question is still waiting for its researcher, who will thoroughly delve into the enemy’s documents to clarify it.

Judging by the combat reports of the 316th Infantry Division, on October 17, the Germans no longer tried to storm Bolychevo; they wisely bypassed it to the north and opened the division’s defense line at Fedosino, this time encircling the 2nd Infantry Division of the 1075th Infantry Division (apparently the 4th and 5th companies). But then Panfilov’s men were rescued by the tankmen of the 22nd Tank Brigade - already with the onset of darkness, as a result of their swift tank attack, the encirclement ring was broken, the rifle battalion was rescued from it, and the situation was restored. For what “Major General Panfilov expressed gratitude to the tankers, and the liberated infantrymen kissed them as their liberators”.


Fragment of a map with the operational situation developing on the left flank of the 316th Infantry Division on October 16–18, 1941.

Thus, we can conclude that the first two days of combat for the 1075th joint venture were, although not entirely successful, still with a successful ending.

The collapse of the regiment's defense occurred in the next two days. The main forces of the enemy arrived, and he dealt such a crushing blow that by the end of the day on October 19, the 1075th rifle regiment had actually lost its combat effectiveness. By that time, due to large losses of personnel, the 2nd and 3rd battalions had turned into small detachments, and therefore were no longer considered as serious combat units.

Only the 1st battalion retained relative combat effectiveness. And only thanks to this circumstance (and also because of the impossibility of replacement) subsequently 1075 joint venture continued to appear as one of the scattered links of the mobile defense of 16 A, participated in battles, was partially replenished, retreated, and in the end (most likely) on October 28 found itself in its the main historical place at times. Dubosekovo.

But this is a topic for another study, so I return to the original question.

The origins of the birth of the myth about the battle near Dubosekovo


It can be assumed that since the battle for the Bolychevo storage warehouse was the very first battle of the 316th Infantry Division in the Western Fleet (the first milestone on the glorious military path of the division), it was somehow awkward to admit that in fact it ended extremely unsuccessfully - the 6th company of the 1075th Infantry Division On October 16, it retreated from the occupied line near the Bolychevo storage farm, without orders. Although she retreated for only a short time, she returned back early the next morning. Yes, and they retreated partially - one platoon on the state farm (according to the operational report) still remained to hold the defense.

Therefore, it can be assumed that subsequently, when there was a lull in the fighting (early November), the actual course of events at the Bolychevo storage farm was already completely lost in the array of other combat events of the division, of which there were more than enough in October. As a result, in the division’s combat leaflets and when compiling a description of its combat path, the battle for the Bolychevo storage farm was slightly adjusted, and thanks to the work of political instructors in a “heroized” version, it was brought to the attention of all fighters and commanders of the division. That is, it was turned into a vivid example of the fearlessness and heroism of the people of the division, which later became the Guards, shown already in the first battles.

For example, in a brief outline of the military operations of the 8th Guards. The SD battle for Bolychevo had already lasted for two days - 16 and 17. And in the award documents of the political instructor of the 6th Wed P.B. Vikhrev, the company fought for the state farm starting on October 14. Moreover, for two days she defended herself surrounded, “...after which, under the leadership of Comrade Vikhrev, she broke through the ring of enemy encirclement and connected with 1075 joint ventures”.

And, apparently, the echoes of this particular battle, which took place on October 16, reached the capital’s correspondents through “second or third hands”, and eventually ended up on the pages of newspapers (the first publication in the Izvestia newspaper is dated November 18). Then, in each new article by each new author, the events began to acquire new fictitious details.

And when Krivitsky, who was the last to join this relay race, began to collect clarifying data for his second article (probably in January 1942), the political department either by mistake (confusing it with the old age) or deliberately informed him that this heroic battle, previously described in several articles, took place not on October 16, but on November 16. That is, on the day when events developed even worse than before at Bolychevo.

Dubosekovo surfaced in Krivitsky’s second article due to the fact that on October 16 and November 16 the Germans attacked the left flank of the regiment, and according to the division’s documents, on November 16 this flank ended at the Dubosekovo junction. Consequently, it was there that the heroic battle of a platoon of brave men took place with German tanks attacking their positions.

So from a real historical battle that took place on October 16 (the details of which are still poorly researched), due to the remoteness and abundance of events that took place, confusion with dates, and also thanks to the powerful efforts of the collective imagination of newspapermen and workers of the political department of the 8th Guards. SD, as a result, a fairy-tale battle was gradually born, supposedly taking place on November 16 at once. Dubosekovo.

Bolychevo was replaced by Dubosekovo, 17 destroyed tanks were transformed into 18, the platoon remaining in Bolychevo turned into 28 heroes killed at the junction, and the remaining details (about the large number of motorized infantry and enemy tanks) for the most part remained unchanged. And when it turned out that the positions at Dubosekovo were defended by the 4th company, Krivitsky only had to get from its commander P.M. Gundilovich the names of the people from his company who died that day, including political instructor Klochkov (who replaced the real Vikhrev and the newspaper Diev).

This is how the nameless heroic epic, previously wandering through the newspapers, composed according to the echoes of the first battle of the regiment, was mistakenly attached by Krivitsky to specific historical events (battles of the 1075th rifle regiment at the turn of “height 251,0, Petelino, Dubosekovo district”) and to specific people , further fantasized and published on January 22, 1942 in another newspaper publication.

Then Krivitsky did not miss the opportunity to periodically repeat the invented epic in his subsequent publications, thanks to which it quickly and thoroughly strengthened in Russian historiography in the form of an undoubted historical event.

Sad afterword


In conclusion, I consider it useful to draw the reader’s attention to one more curious circumstance.

For some reason, Ivan Vasilyevich Panfilov always placed 1075 rifle regiments on the left flank of his division’s defensive line. And for some reason the Germans had a habit of starting the next stage of their offensive by striking precisely at the left flank of the 316th Infantry Division.

As a result, by a strange coincidence, the 1075th Regiment was the first of the division's regiments to take the blow of the attacking enemy on both October 16 and November 16.

The only difference was that on October 16 it was an almost fully equipped fresh regiment. But the enemy, on the contrary, acted with relatively small forward forces, therefore, with some reservations (until proven otherwise), we can conclude that the regiment withstood the first “October” blow.

On November 16, exactly the opposite happened: the 1075th rifle regiment was already small in composition and had too weak anti-tank defense means, i.e., it was actually conditionally combat-ready. And his enemy (2 TD), on the contrary, was strong - well equipped with tanks (about 100 units), artillery and motorized infantry.

Under the circumstances, it was not possible to resist his attack, so on November 16, the 1075th Regiment was defeated, the Germans quickly suppressed pockets of resistance, and by about 16:316 the fighting in the regiment’s defensive sector was over. Some of the people, along with the regimental headquarters, retreated to Shishkino (where the headquarters of the XNUMXth Infantry Division was located), the rest died, were captured, or, at best, made their way through the forests, escaping from encirclement.

There is no doubt that many heroic deeds were committed on November 16, but, alas, we will never know about them...

It can be assumed that, as usual, the exploits of people were not as vivid as they were usually presented in newspaper articles or films about the war. The heroes did not hit dozens of tanks and did not mow down fascists by hundreds. They simply fought until the last grenade and last cartridge, defending their positions or covering the retreat of their comrades. And by their death they deserved immortality, but, alas, the names of these true heroes have sunk into oblivion...

It is known that nature abhors a vacuum, and as a result, the resulting vacuum was filled by a fairy tale about 28 fictional heroes...

Is it correct?

The philosophical question ...
144 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +16
    16 November 2023 04: 41
    History repeats itself twice: the first time as a tragedy, the second time as a farce. in twenty years, the “secret” will be revealed that they didn’t take Berlin either.
    1. +30
      16 November 2023 05: 47
      The author, before publishing his pseudo-exposure, just needed to look at the map, namely, which section of the front was defended by the 316th Panfilov Division. This is the line Maleevka - Chentsy - Bolshoye Nikolskoye - Petelino. Isn't it too much for just one division, even one trained like Panfilov? Eh, the author? And therefore, a small number of soldiers, mines, anti-tank rifles, Molotov cocktails, because normal artillery cannot saturate all tank-hazardous areas. The distorted battle in Dubosekovo is simply drowned in “episodes” where a handful of soldiers fought to the death against tanks.
    2. +7
      16 November 2023 16: 28
      They took it, of course. The valiant US Marines hoisted the Stars and Stripes flag over the Reichstag, despite its desperate Russian defense laughing laughing There are surviving selfies. And one aircraft carrier sailing on the Spree laughing
  2. +21
    16 November 2023 05: 13
    Listen to the author, you published similar material smile Genre crisis? smile
    1. -9
      16 November 2023 08: 15
      There is no crisis, there is a lot of material for publication.
      But I don’t understand why exactly the article is bad?
      What are your specific complaints?
      1. +4
        16 November 2023 18: 08
        there is a lot of material for publication.
        This is your second article about feat 28, no matter who accomplished it. You are suggesting with your articles that there was no feat.
        1. 0
          4 December 2023 10: 45
          The author just wants to get to the bottom of the truth. What's bad about it? For example, I read the article with interest..
  3. +12
    16 November 2023 05: 21
    Yes, yes....there was no heroism of the Panfilovites, Alexander Matrosov accidentally fell, General Vlasov must be understood and forgiven....I would be imprisoned for such articles. For a long time.
  4. +10
    16 November 2023 06: 09
    and why for many “Lvov Tyurins” this question about the feat of the Panfilovites is like a thorn in their sirloin, well... where these sirloin parts do not meet? The question is philosophical, right, Lev Tyurin?
    1. 0
      16 November 2023 08: 19
      Dear, a question for you and others like you: what specific shortcomings or inaccuracies do you see in the article?
      Or is your indignation caused only by the author’s doubt about the actual historicity of the battle, so vividly described by Krivitsky in the newspaper? recourse
      1. 0
        16 November 2023 09: 52
        I recommend the author to read G. Chesterton's story "The Broken Sword." maybe he'll understand then?
      2. +19
        16 November 2023 11: 22
        Quote: Lewww
        Dear, a question for you and others like you: what specific shortcomings or inaccuracies do you see in the article?

        HEHE. appeared. You are not Leff, you are a skunk. Lack of basic knowledge in the military field. does not allow you to understand the essence of the problem.
        The fact that your desire to pass off a fight a month ago as a fight on November 16.11.41, 316 may be born in your fevered brain. What inaccuracies - at least the left flank of the 5th Infantry Division. this is more than once. Dubosekovo. and the outskirts of Sheryaevo, the positions of the 1th company, forgot to include? Yes, and Morozovo had BO, although this is the band of Dovator’s group. It was on this flank of BG 1 (Kelitsa’s subgroup struck.) For those who don’t know, let me explain - BG 2 (one of three BG 2 TD of the Wehrmacht) was divided into two subgroups, Kelitsa and Hoppe. And Hoppe had the order to “attack, through Lama to the right of Nelidovo.” And this is exactly the position of the 4nd platoon of the 300th company (well, if you know that the front is up to 2 m, and this is a quarter of the distance from Dubosekovo to Petelino). And in ZhBD both TD 1 and ZhB BG 5 nothing is said about how Hoppe ended up in Petelino. But in the report to the 11.00th AK, the problems are described at 12.00-1,5 Moscow time "5 km south of Petelino (exactly the positions of the platoon - Dubosekovo and the 45th company). And in the documents of the 2th MK "the offensive of the 316nd TD STOPPED.." And instead of that If you were to look for what happened there, you start making up bullshit that the commanders and political workers of the XNUMXth SD passed off the battle at Dubosekovo as the battle at Bolychevo. And, as always, they spoiled the air.
        1. -7
          16 November 2023 14: 10
          What inaccuracies - at least the left flank of the 316th Infantry Division. this is more than once. Dubosekovo. and the outskirts of Sheryaevo, the positions of the 5th company, forgot to include?
          My dear, as usual, you have a progressive inability to literally understand a perfectly clearly written text.
          Shiryaevo had only BO, and the positions of 1075 joint ventures ended at Dubosekovo.
          Here is a fragment of a working map of the ZapF headquarters with the situation as of 15.11/45 to help you. https://i.ibb.co/Tq15yqK/11-XNUMX.jpg
          Shiryaevo is located to the right of the inscription "Shiryaevo".
          I won’t comment on the rest of your fantasies; I was already convinced earlier that this matter is completely hopeless - it is impossible to convince a true believer of the falsity of the main article of his faith

          And I have already written to you 100 times: in the morning 1075 SP WAS PREPARING TO GO ON THE OFFENSIVE, so you can only build very cautious assumptions about where exactly his people were at the time of the enemy’s attack (and in what readiness).
          But alas, again there is no food for the horse

          But your gift of clairvoyance as always amazes me hi
          1. +4
            16 November 2023 16: 28
            Quote: Lewww
            And I have already written to you 100 times: in the morning the 1075th joint venture was PREPARING TO GO ON THE OFFENSIVE, so one can only make very cautious assumptions about where exactly his people were at the time of the enemy’s attack

            You have amnesia of the highest degree. We have already discussed this topic. The regiment and the division as a whole (well, except for the artillery) did not budge even an inch. Look at what was written in the order, and when the division could begin to carry out attacks. What lines should 58 TD (neighbor on the right) and Dovator’s group (neighbor on the left) occupy so that 316 SD would begin to advance? They not only didn’t come close to them (58 TD), they didn’t start at all (Dovator). You can't read documents, you don't understand anything (except the table of contents), and then you make stupid conclusions. And so on all the time. Your masterpiece is when you claimed that Hoppe and his group (and this is an infantry battalion, a battalion of tanks of about 60 units with reinforcement) unnoticed “slipped through” Morozovo, Shiryaevo before Kelitsa, and then occupied Peteleno, admires his stupidity. And all so that Hoppe’s tanks do not go to the 2nd platoon of the 4th company (although according to the order they had to do this) You may screw the ears of many people, but not me.
            1. -4
              16 November 2023 17: 01
              Look what was written in the order,
              My dear, I have no desire to enter into another demagogic argument with you.

              Until now, all operational reports of the headquarters of the 316th infantry division in the first half of November, available on the Memory of the People website, indicate that the left flank of the defense of the 1075th infantry regiment (and, accordingly, the division) ends "times. DUBOSEKOVO"
              It was there (curving along the border of the forest of the eastern railway) that the outline of the regiment’s defense line was drawn on all maps of the ZapF headquarters posted on the same website and the line to Shiryaevo is not on any map reflecting the situation from 15 to 19.11.41, doesn't reach.

              If you have an operational report from the headquarters of the 316th Infantry Division, where verbatim writtenthat the left flank of the 1075th rifle division ends precisely in SHIRYAEVO, or there is a working map of the headquarters of 16 A, ZapF or 316 SD, where clearly visible that the defense line of 1075 joint venture reaches SHIRYAEVO, Please provide a link to these documents.

              I look forward to argumentation supported by documents, but I’m not interested in discussing your fantasies and free speculation with you - find yourself some well-meaning person with big drooping ears for this
              1. +1
                16 November 2023 17: 46
                Quote: Lewww
                Some operational reports from the headquarters of the 316th rifle division in the first half of November indicate that the left flank of the defense of the 1075th rifle regiment (and, accordingly, the division) ends at the “Dubosekovo area”

                Colonel Serebryakov (chief of staff of the 316th SD) and Captain Hoffman (chief of the operations department of the headquarters of the 316th SD) laughed long and painfully. Seek and rite. Always like this. You will argue long and hard until you get your nose wet in the appropriate substance. And look for documents. I won’t tell you, because it’s USELESS, not feed for a horse.
                1. -1
                  16 November 2023 18: 06
                  And look for documents. I won’t tell you, because it’s USELESS,
                  Well, as always: when you don’t have arguments supported by documents, demagoguery comes into play.

                  I am stating a fact: submit an operational report (or other document) from the headquarters of the 316th Infantry Division, where it would be verbatim writtenthat on November 15-16, 1941, the left flank of the 1075th rifle division reached SHIRYAEVO, You can not.

                  So your attack was not entirely successful this time either.
                  You can continue to develop your gift of clairvoyance - I wish you success hi
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. +2
                    16 November 2023 19: 45
                    Here's one diagram for you. . And here is clearly the position of the 2nd battalion near Shiryaevo.[/ Center]
                    1. +3
                      16 November 2023 19: 53
                      Here's another diagram. And also positions 316 SD to Shiryaevo. And just don’t sing about the fact that it’s not on 16.11.41/XNUMX/XNUMX.
                      1. -1
                        16 November 2023 21: 22
                        Here's another diagram. And also positions 316 SD to Shiryaevo. And just don’t sing about the fact that it’s not on 16.11.41/XNUMX/XNUMX.
                        My dear, what you are completely deprived of the ability to perceive written texts literally, I wrote to you at least 100 times.

                        Read 10 times in a row what is written in my article:
                        Dubosekovo surfaced in Krivitsky’s second article due to the fact that and October 16 and November 16 the Germans attacked the left flank of the regiment, and according to division documents, on November 16 this flank ended at the Dubosekovo junction.

                        And now you read it 10 more times in a row, and then try to explain how this diagram that you attached was installed FIFTH November, may indicate that on the SIXTEENTH of November the defense line of the 1075th rifle division reached SHIRYAEVO???

                        Now read 10 times in a row, and then another 10 times in a row:
                        Until now, all the operational reports of the headquarters of the 316th infantry division in the first half of November, available on the Memory of the People website, indicate that the left flank of the defense of the 1075th infantry regiment (and, accordingly, the division) ends in “Raz. DUBOSEKOVO”
                        It was there (bending along the border of the forest of the eastern railway) that the outline of the regiment’s defense line is marked on all the maps of the Western Front headquarters posted on the same website and the line to Shiryaevo is not on any map, oreflecting the situation from 15 to 19.11.41, does not reach.


                        I repeat once again: to date, NOT A SINGLE operational report from the headquarters of the 316th Infantry Division has been made public, where it would be written LITERALLY that the left flank of the 1075th Infantry Division 15-16 November reached SHIRYAEVO.
                        And on the maps of the headquarters of the Western Front, with the situation plotted on the basis of data from the headquarters of 16 A, in turn received from the headquarters of the 316th Infantry Division, right flank 1075 joint venture as of SIXTEENTH OF NOVEMBER shown like this:

                        Once again for those in the tank: above is the situation on November 16, not November 5 as in the diagrams you presented.
                        If you don’t believe that such a situation existed, make claims to Zhukov’s headquarters and Panfilov’s headquarters, and not to me, who uses THEIR data.

                        Here is a link that allows you to open the entire map from the cat. I presented a fragment: https://pamyat-naroda.ru/documents/view/?id=101111235&backurl=division%5C1075%20sp::begin_date%5C01.11.1941::end_date%5C01.12.1941::use_main_string%5Ctrue::group %5Cmap::types%5Ckarti:shemi::page%5C2

                        And once again for reinforcement from my article:
                        а according to division documents, on November 16 this flank ended at the Dubosekovo junction.
                      2. -1
                        16 November 2023 22: 36
                        Quote: Lewww
                        And on the maps of the ZapF headquarters, with the situation plotted on the basis of data from the 16 A headquarters, in turn received from the headquarters

                        Happening. When you force a foolish person to pray to God, he will bruise his forehead. The diagram drawn up by the division headquarters is ten times more accurate than the operational map of the front headquarters. The greenest lieutenant knows this. Well, the operator of the Front Operations Directorate didn’t draw the line with a pencil, and to hell with it, this map should reflect a different level of the situation. And here you don’t respect yourself to argue. And you always try to draw your line on such inaccuracies.
                        Tell me what, did Hoppe advance in the Dubosekovo area or not? According to the order, it should, but according to the information displayed, it was not there. His tanks (a small number) ended up in Petelino at 10.00 Moscow time on the other side, from Kelitsa.
                        And who did he NOT PASS?
                        And they wrote about the problems IN THE AREA 1,5 km south of Peteleno (which is Dubosekovo) in their reinforced concrete records. And most importantly, if Hoppe had passed the Dubosekogo area, why the hell would it be necessary to send a reserve through Morozovo, Shiryaevo at 11.30 Moscow time. (that’s when 80 and even 100 tanks were spotted in reports from 50 KD)? A?
                        Why not directly, Vasilyevskoye, through Lama and up to Peteleno?
                        But the terrain there was not passable, WELL, Hoppe’s PT platoon DIDN’T PASS IN THE FIRST ATTACK.
                        And there is nothing accurate in the ZhBD, and everything is torn apart and does not agree with its own reports - reports in 5 AK. And I warned that the ZhBD is not a log of the operational duty officer and more favorable information is entered into the ZHB (as an example, the case with Matrenino station was given), where they also hid the kickback from Momysh-Ula. In general, a more truthful document is a report to the first higher and nearby headquarters (it’s more difficult to shave off). Therefore, reports and reports are more truthful than ZhBD.
                        But you have always had it: we believe in the Germans endlessly, but not in our own people. (and in war everyone lies).
                      3. -2
                        17 November 2023 12: 13
                        Well, the operator of the Front Operations Directorate didn’t draw the line with a pencil, and to hell with it,
                        Well, now you have the ZapF headquarters operator to blame for the fact that your fantasies again do not correspond to the documentary data, on the basis of which I wrote:

                        Dubosekovo surfaced in Krivitsky’s second article due to the fact that on October 16 and November 16 the Germans attacked the left flank of the regiment, and according to division documents, on November 16 this flank ended at the Dubosekovo junction.
                        I assume that after the writer of the epic, Krivitsky, became convinced that the battle he had invented took place not on October 16.10, but on November 16.11, and having information that on this day the German offensive began and the enemy struck the left flank of the 316th Infantry Division (as well as happened on both of these days), then he, wanting to attach a fictitious fairy tale to a specific point, asked for additional information. information from one of the headquarters: 8th Guards. sd, 16 A or ZapF.
                        And the headquarters workers deployed some of the kart, where the operational situation was applied as of 15-16.11.
                        And we saw that the left flank of the 316th Infantry Division (1075th Infantry Division) was reaching Dubosekovo and there it ends at the edge of the forest east of the railway.
                        Those. according to the map(s), this is the left flank of the division and regiment.
                        And he reported this information to Krivitsky.
                        And he, to the misfortune of the defenders of the historicity of this battle, placed his heroes not in Shiryaevo and not in Petelino, where the Germans struck the first blow, but just in time. Dubosekovo, which is not mentioned as a place of fighting in any of the November documents of the spacecraft and the Wehrmacht.

                        But this is just my guess - only the Lord knows which way Krivitsky’s literary fantasy moved.
                        Tell me what, did Hoppe advance in the Dubosekovo area or not?
                        My dear, I have already answered you: I am not interested in discussing your visions and the results of carefully examining the line spacing in the records of the Germans' railway records - look for a simpleton for this task with large protruding ears and with the same exaggerated imagination as yours
                      4. -2
                        17 November 2023 16: 17
                        Quote: Lewww
                        Well, now you have the operator of the ZapF headquarters to blame for

                        From, .. This is the extent to which the brain must be deprived of convolutions in order to determine the position of a company on a strategic map. The operators very carefully depicted the positions of the division as a whole (detailed map). And if they didn’t achieve something, it’s not their fault, it’s not their mistake, THIS IS THE NORM. Sometimes regiments, but mostly divisions, corps and armies operate on such maps. And those who...see above can refer to them in determining the positions of the company. There were NO changes to the front of the regiment's sector; there were only changes in the position of the dowries and regimental units of the combat group and combat support. Although there is no particular point in discussing this.
                        Quote: Lewww
                        I’m not interested in the results of a careful examination of the line spacing in the Germans’ residential data records -

                        Darling, what are you talking about? You have given me every nuance that from our and German documents that does not confirm the battle at Dubosekovo.
                        And Hoppe's obvious order "......attack through Lama, east of Nelidov.." And these are tanks!!! You distorted it to the point of absolute idiocy - you sent them through Morozovo, Shiryaevo, and to the right of the railway (they say, also to the east) and at the same time, without having a single record in German documents about the participation of Hoppe’s subgroup in this event.
                        You, swearing objectivity, reject the obvious fact, in favor of your rotten version, that there was no battle at Dubosekovo.
                      5. 0
                        17 November 2023 16: 38
                        Quote: chenia
                        And Hoppe's obvious order is "..... to attack through Lama, east of Nelidov ..

                        Moreover, the time when this battle should take place, according to the order, coincides with the first battle, which witnesses and the article talked about (but this category is for you liars and dreamers). And the Germans about Hoppe (and this is a battalion of tanks (at least 60 pieces) and an infantry battalion (5 companies) have zero information. On the left, BG2 is described in detail how they attack, their successes. On the right is the Kelitsa subgroup - the same achievements are described in all their glory. And Hoppe’s subgroup (with such power), and no PR.
                        SO DID HOPPE ATTACK THE PLATOON POSITION OR NOT?
                        If he attacked, then it seems that our witnesses and the article (albeit exaggerated) voiced the result.
                        AND THIS MEANS HOPPE'S TANKS DIDN'T GET THROUGH THE PLATOON IN THE FIRST ATTACK.
                        And, if NO, then what did his subgroup do?
                        YOUR VERSION. Only with specifics and without mooing.
                  3. The comment was deleted.
          2. 0
            16 November 2023 16: 34
            And the “map” is of such terrible quality that it undermines the credibility of a good article. With the version that has the right to beat.
            1. -3
              16 November 2023 17: 16
              What exactly is a card of “terrible quality”, what is it terrible about, what specifically does it undermine?
    2. -1
      4 December 2023 10: 47
      Is it possible not to write nonsense at all? The author's article is relevant...
  5. +9
    16 November 2023 06: 14
    Yes, as much as possible, every time such dirt creeps in on significant dates, write right away “there was no war” and you will have grace and happiness.
    1. +15
      16 November 2023 06: 39
      Yes, as much as possible, every time such dirt creeps up on significant dates
      “Water, stone is chiseling” (c) In Ukraine, they were chiseling, chiseling, chiseling. Meanwhile, in Rostov-on-Don, a monument to Wrangel was erected on November 7 of this year. What is typical in the liberated territory was a monument to Sudoplatov, who at the age of 16 volunteered to join the Red Army, to fight against others like him.
      1. +6
        16 November 2023 09: 30
        "Water, the stone is chiseling" (c) This is the worst thing, to also ask with an innocent look, what’s wrong with the article? It's not like that! Let it be an exaggeration, but people didn’t fight and sacrifice their lives for the sake of an article in a newspaper, so that later people like this would poke around, “Did they describe correctly how you fought there and died, maybe you weren’t heroes at all and were only on the side at all?” I would have killed him!
        1. +4
          16 November 2023 18: 11
          people did not fight and sacrifice their lives for the sake of an article in a newspaper
          Yes, that’s right, they went into battle without thinking that they would be written about in the newspapers. Only the dead know the truth of how it really happened.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. 0
        23 November 2023 13: 35
        Quote: parusnik
        Yes, as much as possible, every time such dirt creeps up on significant dates
        “Water, stone is chiseling” (c) In Ukraine, they were chiseling, chiseling, chiseling. Meanwhile, in Rostov-on-Don, a monument to Wrangel was erected on November 7 of this year. What is typical in the liberated territory was a monument to Sudoplatov, who at the age of 16 volunteered to join the Red Army, to fight against others like him.

        Why are you clinging to Wrangel? He was as much a patriot of Russia as most whites. It’s just that each side had its own truth.
        Just look at how they fought in WWI
  6. +6
    16 November 2023 06: 37
    the birth of the myth about the battle near Dubosekovo

    Oh, these seekers of pgavda... We can only advise them to direct their creative forces to “exposing” today's TV reality!
  7. +2
    16 November 2023 07: 28
    I think... But supposedly... it’s not entirely clear... apparently... for some reason... One can assume

    In general, this is called fortune-telling using coffee grounds.
    1. -5
      16 November 2023 08: 27
      Vladimir, you will be surprised, but as a person closely involved in researching the events of the times of WWII and O.V. For about 5 years now I can tell you that when a historian often uses the phrases “most likely”, “one can assume” and the like, this means that he has a lot of experience and approaches his work very responsibly.
      And vice versa
      1. 0
        16 November 2023 10: 15
        Well, “their indignant minds are seething,” and that’s all. )))
      2. +1
        16 November 2023 17: 19
        Quote: Lewww
        phrases “most likely”, “one can assume” and the like, this means that he has extensive experience and approaches his work very responsibly.

        Or he did not find facts confirming his version. And in order not to be exposed as a lie, he used a formula that allows him to retreat - “I didn’t claim anything.” Dear author, you have not provided a single fact. No one! Why did you release this version?! To show off (I don’t want to think that it was for baser reasons)?! In the article you write that much needs to be researched. So research, and then produce material based on facts. And one more thing: 5 years of researching materials on the Great Patriotic War is not a period of time, not such a long period of time, which, in my opinion, should not allow you to boast and consider yourself a professional.
  8. +6
    16 November 2023 07: 40
    Gentlemen, comrades commenting, write a petition to the president that all archives should be burned, so as not to upset you with the real story, so that descendants can follow the same rake, otherwise God forbid they read too many books and will prepare for war, not a parade .
    1. 0
      23 November 2023 13: 41
      Quote: Cartalon
      Gentlemen, comrades commenting, write a petition to the president that all archives should be burned, so as not to upset you with the real story, so that descendants can follow the same rake, otherwise God forbid they read too many books and will prepare for war, not a parade .

      Well, history seems to show that for the last 120 years they have been preparing for parades. Although every country, without exception, had victories and defeats
  9. +6
    16 November 2023 08: 03
    Another version that added nothing and subtracted nothing from the history of Panfilov’s men.
  10. +10
    16 November 2023 08: 05
    filled with a fairy tale about 28 fictional heroes...
    Somehow today, historians have clearly established that the feat of 28 Panfilov’s men is not a fairy tale, but an image of unparalleled heroism, fearlessness and unbending courage. A symbol of great self-sacrifice for the sake of saving the Motherland, for the sake of victory over the enemy.
    1. -1
      16 November 2023 08: 38
      You are greatly mistaken, this feat was, for example, the battle on November 19.11.41, 4 in the Volokolamsk direction of the Kuban Cossacks of the 37th squadron of the 9th Armavir Cavalry Regiment (later the 50th Guards Cavalry Sedletsky Red Banner, Order of Suvorov) of the XNUMXth Kuban Cavalry Division
      https://nvo.ng.ru/history/2001-11-30/5_kazaki.html?ysclid=lp0r6nee7y349264524
      Unfortunately, no one had heard of him, but the whole country learned about the fabulous battle at Dubosekovo.
      Personally, I don’t see anything good in the fact that often, instead of bringing to the attention of the public the details of real exploits, of which there were thousands, the organs of Soviet propaganda, with the help of all sorts of Krivitskys, inventing the details without leaving the editorial office, composed fairy tales.
      1. +2
        16 November 2023 09: 24
        and here's about a fabulous fight
        What's fabulous about it? Did you fight with a 12-headed dragon? On the Smorodina River, on the Kalinov Bridge?
        1. +1
          16 November 2023 12: 48
          What's fabulous?
          Fabulousness in everything - this battle is a fiction from the beginning to the very end (including the names of the Panfilov men allegedly participating in it).
          About the fight up close once. There is no mention of Dubosekovo in any of the documents of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht dated 1941.
          Moreover, Krivitsky himself subsequently publicly confirmed that he composed the details himself.
          The losses of German tanks in the defensive sector were 1075 on 16.11. - only 2 tanks, cat. were blown up by mines.
          1. +3
            16 November 2023 16: 24
            The fight was in a different place, what does that change? Levanevsky did not save the Chelyuskinites personally, he received a hero. History is written by ordinary people. Errors, omissions, exaggeration or omission, embellishment or exaggeration - all this is characteristic of the events described. As a result, historical misconceptions and stereotypes are formed that are not always reliable. And how does the fact that the battle did not take place at Dubosekovo implore unparalleled heroism, fearlessness and courage? What makes you sick? Because the Germans didn’t take Moscow?
      2. +5
        16 November 2023 10: 36
        Quote: Lewww
        You are greatly mistaken, this feat was, for example, the battle on November 19.11.41, 4 in the Volokolamsk direction of the Kuban Cossacks of the 37th squadron of the 9th Armavir Cavalry Regiment (later the 50th Guards Cavalry Sedletsky Red Banner, Order of Suvorov) of the XNUMXth Kuban Cavalry Division

        Quote: Lewww
        Unfortunately, no one had heard of him, but the whole country learned about the fabulous battle at Dubosekovo.

        And that’s why you don’t hold up the feats you mentioned, but “expose” what has become a symbol of feat for several generations. Well done, you can't say anything!
        1. +4
          16 November 2023 11: 08
          And that’s why you don’t raise your shield to the feats you mentioned.
          And the author is not interested in “exposing” anything.
        2. -3
          16 November 2023 12: 42
          And that’s why you don’t hold up the feats you mentioned, but “expose” what has become a symbol of feat for several generations.
          I don’t really understand the meaning of your phrase “don’t raise it to the shield”...
          I don’t compile other people’s articles like many who write on VO.
          Whenever possible, I always publish only my own material, my personal understanding of the events of World War II, based on archival documents.
          And in this publication I expressed a version of how a specific myth was born in Soviet historiography.
          If you don’t like articles like this, don’t read them, there are many other articles on VO
          1. +2
            16 November 2023 13: 57
            Quote: Lewww
            I don’t really understand the meaning of your phrase “don’t raise it to the shield”...
            I don’t compile other people’s articles like many who write on VO.
            Whenever possible, I always publish only my own material, my personal understanding of the events of WWII, based on archival documents.

            Can you tell me in which archive you found the document where this episode is reflected:
            On November 27, 1941, when the German tank armies stubbornly rushed to Moscow, one of the formations of the 7th Wehrmacht Panzer Division was tasked with capturing a tactically important object - a carefully guarded auto-horse bridge across the Canal named after. Moscow near the city of Yakhroma. For this, a sabotage group was formed from among the most experienced volunteers under the command of Oberleutnant Rudolf Reineck.

            She moved out of the division's concentration point at the end of daylight hours and secretly moved towards the object by the edge of the forest away from the roads - the commander led his people, guided by a compass and a map. As a result, under cover of the darkness of the night, the saboteurs managed to go unnoticed to the bridge, quickly and silently remove the sentries from the west side, then imperceptibly cross the bridge and take off the sentries serving on its eastern side with lightning speed. Then the sappers who were part of the group cut the wires leading to the charges of explosives laid in the base of the bridge pillars.

            The capture was carried out so swiftly and at the same time silently that it passed completely unnoticed by the Red Army units located at some distance from the bridge, and discovered that the bridge was already in the hands of the enemy, only with the onset of daylight.

            Moreover, the saboteurs acted so boldly that even for some time they coolly let the cars of the Red Army to the western side of the canal (to their captivity). And it did not occur to the drivers that the people in white camouflage suits who were greeting them, urging them to pass quickly without being checked, were not Red Army men at all, but fascists.

            As a result, the Germans (in addition to the bridge) managed to get additional trophies in the form of 40 prisoners and 6 trucks.
            1. -3
              16 November 2023 15: 05
              This is reflected in one of the books of the historian Vasily Stepanovich Karasev (or several). I don’t remember exactly where now, the author gave links to documents of the Red Army and the enemy
              1. +4
                16 November 2023 16: 53
                Quote: Lewww
                This is reflected in one of the books

                what about
                Whenever possible, I always publish only my own material, my personal understanding of the events of WWII, based on archival documents.

                Those. You can shove an episode into a text about Skorzeny that has nothing to do with him and obviously savoring the success of the Wehrmacht DRG, but you are disdainful of popularizing the exploits of ours?
                You are an accomplice of those who are waging psychological warfare against our country.
          2. +3
            16 November 2023 16: 26
            If you don't like articles like this, don't read them.
            To like or dislike an article, do you need to read it first? How do you think?
  11. +4
    16 November 2023 08: 36
    Why write such opuses. The soldiers of 316 are all heroes. If there weren’t 18 tanks, and two, it doesn’t matter. In an open field in November with grenades and anti-tank guns against tanks, it’s hard. So the division slowly retreated - normal. They exchanged territory and won The time was hard and bloody. A counterattack was already being prepared.
    1. -8
      16 November 2023 08: 53
      Why write such opuses?
      Dear, do you have any specific complaints or amendments to the text, or did you just have some free time and wanted to write a comment?
  12. BAI
    +2
    16 November 2023 08: 52
    whether there really was a time. Dubosekovo fight

    was, was not. For so many years this battle served as the basis of patriotic education that even if it didn’t happen, it still happened.
    In the 70s, I saw an interview on TV with one of the surviving participants in that battle. Ivan Shadrin.
  13. 0
    16 November 2023 08: 56
    Quote: kor1vet1974
    the feat of 28 Panfilov men is not a fairy tale, but an image of unparalleled heroism, fearlessness and unbending courage

    You can’t say better!
    1. +3
      16 November 2023 09: 41
      the feat of 28 Panfilov men is not a fairy tale, but an image of unparalleled heroism, fearlessness and unbending courage The author appreciates that, apparently, Ognykov’s interpretation of the 90s is sweeter, when they lowered their country and their own history into one substance.
      1. +4
        16 November 2023 10: 23
        Ogonykov’s interpretation of the 90s is nicer, when they lowered their country and their own history into one substance.
        The author is haunted by Kadyrov’s “laurels”, he read the latest history textbook, he didn’t like it, so he made amendments smile
      2. -4
        16 November 2023 12: 36
        the second one is purple, apparently Ogonykov’s interpretation of the 90s is cuter
        Dear, it’s more pleasant to me WHEN THEY WRITE THE TRUTH and consecrate the names of true heroes to immortality, and not when they compose a pseudo-historical popular print.
        I believe that it is impossible to cultivate people’s patriotism through lies.
        What I wrote about on VO more than once.
        1. 0
          16 November 2023 17: 30
          Quote: Lewww
          Dear, it’s nicer for me WHEN THEY WRITE THE TRUTH

          Especially about the heroism of enemies, as commentators have shown here. And the information about their heroism was not gleaned from the archives. If you had rummaged through them, you might not have found confirmation of the actions of the enemies who so delighted you!
        2. +1
          18 November 2023 10: 50
          WHEN THEY WRITE THE TRUTH
          Let me ask you - “whose TRUTH”? Hitler had his own “truth” (hello Holocaust, Nazism, concentration camps, Lebens Raum and other “delights” (, Emperor Hirohito had his own (hello Nanjing, Shanghai, Detachment 731, “Asia for Asians”, etc.) .. Uncle Soros and others like him... including domestic truth-tellers and truth-lovers who remove "fine battalions-zoya-ninetyayev-citadels...etc.." Do you... apparently prefer these "truths"? Do I understand correctly?. I. .. this is how I understand it again... “there” “they” wrote exclusively about the “exploits” of their compatriots 100% the truth? They didn’t attract, they didn’t embellish... All sorts of tank and air “aces” didn’t attribute “hundreds” of victories to themselves... and the public there apparently didn’t cheer and glorify their “heroes”? Oh yes-ah-ah.. it’s all there - “Teutonic knights! Noble Japanese samurai...!” And here.. in “this country.. well, everyone understood! In spite of it, they always lied, shot each other, knocked on each other...”
  14. -2
    16 November 2023 10: 13
    Quote: Lewww
    Personally, I don’t see anything good in the fact that often, instead of bringing to the attention of the public the details of real exploits, of which there were thousands, the organs of Soviet propaganda, with the help of all sorts of Krivitskys, inventing the details without leaving the editorial office, composed fairy tales.


    You don't see, someone sees.
    The point is not what actually happened, but how to relate to what has already been said. Destroy one myth, they will create another, perhaps even less plausible or, you see, even completely destructive. This has already happened, and is still happening.
    Historians know the truth; the wider the audience, the greater the need for generalizations, and from generalization to myth there is less step.
    The truth is a sharp object, you can cut yourself.
  15. +3
    16 November 2023 10: 32
    All this digging and “revelatory articles” about “myths of Soviet propaganda” are broken down by one fact - the Germans were stopped and the Red Army went on the offensive. The author turns out that the Wehrmacht marched victoriously, easily breaking the resistance of individual units of the Red Army. The question arises: then, by the end of November, the advancing units were practically drained of blood and the offensive stalled? German propaganda sinned in the cold, so I advise the author to do the same, otherwise in his story there is more anti-Sovietism than attempts to tell about the feat of the people who stopped the fascists.
    1. -2
      16 November 2023 12: 33
      The author turns out that the Wehrmacht marched victoriously, easily breaking the resistance of individual units of the Red Army.
      The author there is no such conclusion - there is no need to attribute to the author the fantasies of his own composition.
      1. -1
        16 November 2023 15: 57
        Damn it, I can't stand up! (I apologize for my “French”) Did the author even re-read what he wrote? Did you understand the essence of what he said? Did you comprehend the logic of the events voiced in the article? From the material it turns out that the Germans moved like a bulldozer, sweeping away poorly organized and scattered parts of the Red Army on their way. And suddenly they became exhausted and stopped. Well, it's complete nonsense!
  16. +11
    16 November 2023 10: 33
    I also don’t understand why these topics are being discussed all the time. Zoya has already become a psychopathic arsonist, and Sailors have become a criminal, and Panfilov’s men are pathological liars. Have nothing else to do? And so the Pepsi generation has already been raised, which does not know who Suvorov, Kutuzov, Lenin, Stalin are. Etc. And there are individuals who have never heard of the USSR, and don’t really know anything about the Second World War. And here you are, filling their fragile minds with your investigations. The question is, what the hell?
    1. +1
      18 November 2023 10: 53
      The question is, what the hell?
      I suspect that “both yours and ours will dance for three rubles” hi
  17. +2
    16 November 2023 11: 30
    On November 16, exactly the opposite happened: 1075 joint venture was already small in composition

    in fact, before this, the regiment received reinforcements and had orders to attack, like the entire division. Another thing is that the Germans preempted it, which led to the defeat of the regiment.
  18. +3
    16 November 2023 11: 52
    So let’s follow the author’s logic and dismantle the monuments to Panfilov’s men, because there was no feat. How then will we be better than the neo-Nazis from Ukraine? Or the Balts with all sorts of Czechs destroying monuments to our soldiers. This whole article is disgusting, but I can’t call it anything else, it has the same smell.
  19. -4
    16 November 2023 12: 29
    I would like to draw the attention of readers to the following phrases:
    “Was there really one time. Dubosekovo battle, during which the Germans lost 18 tanks?
    not in the author's material.
    The author did not pose such a question - this is the personal creativity of someone from the site administration.
  20. +6
    16 November 2023 12: 48
    Quote: Lewww
    I would like to draw the attention of readers to the following phrases:
    “Was there really one time. Dubosekovo battle, during which the Germans lost 18 tanks?
    not in the author's material.
    The author did not pose such a question - this is the personal creativity of someone from the site administration.


    Yes, no one is essentially arguing with you - basically, the very fact of publishing on this topic causes negativity.
    1. -1
      16 November 2023 13: 24
      Quote: S.Z.
      The very fact of publishing on this topic causes negativity.
      And you apparently propose to elevate the myth of the battle of 28 Panfilov’s men at Dubosekovo to the status of some kind of “sacred historical cow”?

      Personally, I cannot understand the need for a fairy-tale fight. Dubosekovo as a certain most important historical milestone, the removal of which immediately collapses the entire fairway of the history of V.O.V.
      And since this myth has arisen in Russian historiography, I think it would be interesting to give my thoughts on the mechanism of its creation.
      1. -2
        16 November 2023 15: 57
        Quote: Lewww

        Personally, I cannot understand the need for a fairy-tale fight. Dubosekovo as a certain most important historical milestone, the removal of which immediately collapses the entire fairway of the history of V.O.V.
        And since this myth has arisen in Russian historiography, I think it would be interesting to give my thoughts on the mechanism of its creation.

        Your article is based on several of your assumptions. And the readers have other assumptions... Why are their assumptions worse than yours?
        You yourself showed that there was no “mechanism for creating a myth.” You are talking about the mistakes of the correspondent and editors. Errors and accidents are not a mechanism. Where is the conclusion? The current article reveals patterns - and what is the pattern? Readers see a pattern in your assumptions. Because they are repeated with great persistence. Readers can understand...

        You refute yourself when you write that this event should not be treated as a major historical milestone. “It’s interesting to bring up some thoughts” is not a conclusion or proof of the relevance of the article. Don't you have anything else to write about? Yoklmn... train on cats or prove the fabulousness of the fight between Ilya Muromets and the robber nightingale, your descendants will appreciate it. And you don’t need to train on Panfilov’s soldiers. For this topic, your time and in general such stubborn lovers like you have not yet come.
      2. 0
        18 November 2023 11: 08
        then I think it would be interesting to give my thoughts on the mechanism of its creation.
        and... who asked you interestingly bring YOURS thoughts? If you don’t know..then you’ve already screwed up considerations all sorts of bastards and their ilk... for more than 30 years... And now such “unique .snezhynki” have the opportunity to broadcast their nonsense to the masses.
        myth about the battle of 28 Panfilov men
        yes, yes.. it’s all a myth! And fairy tales. And God helped us win the war. Recently they made a movie about this...
        into the status of some kind of “sacred historical cow”?
        fortunately... I studied history at school, written by competent historians and not by idealists and maximalists. And.. Why don’t people like YOU write about how the Nazis lied, took credit for hundreds of downed planes, destroyed tank divisions on their own, and “sunk” ships in the Atlantic? And write about “lies and myths” in the style of “they threw corpses”, “one rifle for three”, that they missed the beginning of the war? Why don’t you “TRUTH” guys write about how the Americans loved the attack on Pearl Harbor... how they surrendered in the Philippines in thousands practically without a fight, how the proud British sat in a fortified city called Singapore, having numerical and material superiority over the Japanese landing force surrendered the city without a fight and killed a bunch of civilians? Don’t write about France at the beginning of WW2? Which was considered the most combat-ready army in Europe at that time! Why don’t you write again about the British, who immediately fell in love with almost all of their colonies in the Asia-Pacific region? ..No.. this is a taboo or answer in the style of liberals - “I’m not interested in what they have..!” Yes. Such people are not interested in “what they have!” Or rather, I’m interested in how many pennies will be transferred negative
  21. 0
    16 November 2023 14: 07



    On the night of November 16, the 16th Army made a partial regrouping and went on the offensive at 10 a.m. In turn, the enemy decided on the morning of November 16 to attack the left flank troops of the 16th Army with forces of more than two infantry regiments with tanks (5th Tank Division). The Nazis advanced at the junction between the 316th Infantry Division and Dovator’s cavalry group and began to press back our units. The offensive of both sides developed simultaneously on opposite flanks.
    The battle-tested, small 316th (now 8th Guards) Rifle Division fought the enemy with a strength of up to an infantry regiment with several dozen tanks supported by bombers at the line of Bykovo, Chentsy, Goryuny, blocking the Volokolamsk Highway and the path to Istra with its left flank units and Moscow. One of the division's regiments occupied defense at the line height 251,0, Petelino, Dubosekovo junction (7 km southeast of Volokolamsk).
    The regiment covered the most important direction to Moscow, south of the Volokolamsk highway, protecting the highway from the breakthrough of tank units from the southwest. A breakthrough of large tank forces in this direction could have a detrimental effect on the entire operation of the 16th Army. It was very important to hold the line we occupied. On the left flank of the regiment were the company political instructor Klochkov-Diev and Sergeant Dobrobabin with a group of soldiers.
    It was already known from intelligence that the Germans were preparing for a new offensive and that in the area of ​​Muromtsevo, Zhdanovo, Krasikovo they had concentrated a tank regiment (80 tanks), about two infantry regiments, six mortar and four artillery batteries; There were also groups of machine gunners and motorcyclists here.
    On the morning of November 16, the enemy from the Zhdanovo area launched an offensive in large forces in the general direction of Petelino and Matrenino. A group of fighters under the command of Sergeant Dobrobabin, using favorable terrain, took a sheltered position near the Dubosekovo crossing. The Nazis, using hidden approaches on the left flank of the defense of the regiment of the 316th Infantry Division, attacked the group with a company of infantry supported by twenty tanks. Not expecting to encounter serious resistance here, the German infantry went on the attack at full speed.
    1. +1
      16 November 2023 19: 04
      On the morning of November 16, the enemy from the Zhdanovo area launched an offensive in large forces in the general direction of Petelino and Matrenino.
      The area from which the offensive began was named incorrectly.
      The rest is a true story mixed with a fairy tale

      For example:
      It was already known from intelligence that the Germans were preparing for a new offensive and that in the area of ​​Muromtsevo, Zhdanovo, Krasikovo they had concentrated a tank regiment (80 tanks) and about two infantry regiments
      this is correct - such information by the end of the day 15.11/1075. there were XNUMX joint ventures but they didn’t help much
      It was already known from intelligence that the Germans were preparing for a new offensive and that in the area of ​​Muromtsevo, Zhdanovo, Krasikovo
      Not expecting to encounter serious resistance here, the German infantry went on the attack at full speed.
      this is a fairy tale, portraying fascists as idiots is a typical manner of Soviet propaganda, by the way, even Zhukov noted this with disapproval after the war
      15.11. On the eve of the offensive, the Germans conducted force reconnaissance of the left flank of the 1075th rifle regiment and knew perfectly well where and what could be found.
      And their aerial reconnaissance worked perfectly
  22. +2
    16 November 2023 14: 22
    For a researcher of the Great Patriotic War, here are killer quotes from the publication:

    “...In the documents of the 1075th rifle division and 316th division dated October 16–17, it (the battle - author) is described extremely sparingly and contradictorily, although on October 16 it was the only battle of the division’s units.”

    “...But the most remarkable thing is that, according to one of the operational reports of the headquarters of the 316th rifle division, in this battle the enemy lost 17 tanks (there is no such data in the documents of the 1075th rifle division).”

    ...In short, this complicated historical question is still waiting for its researcher, who will thoroughly delve into the enemy’s documents to clarify it.”

    The evil irony of the DOCUMENTARY history of the Great Patriotic War.
    Digging through combat documents - the “fog of war” has become even greater, it’s getting thicker, it turns out to be devilry, the more documents (especially at the level of divisions, regiments, battalions) - the more misunderstandings there are.

    The stories of eyewitnesses, real participants in battles, often contradict the same documents (do documents don’t lie?), often from the “believe it or not” series.

    And “thorough digging into the enemy’s documents” is a big deal, and that’s all.

    Popular military historian Mikhail Timin found a German log of losses in aircraft of the most important Fritz Quartermaster General.
    Apophygee! A completely different method of accounting for losses, different from ours. According to them, it turns out - either 1 German for 10 of ours, according to other calculations - already one in five. In any case - carraul!!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ABqHVaDCI

    We will never know the real price of Victory. A million here, two million here...
    But the main thing, despite all these documentary mockeries of the truth, is the banner of our Victory over Berlin!

    1. 0
      16 November 2023 15: 47
      For a researcher of the Great Patriotic War, here are killer quotes from the publication:
      Well, if this seems murderous to you, then you have never done serious research into the battles near Moscow during the fall of 41
      Well then don't start hi
      1. +1
        19 November 2023 18: 14
        “...But the most remarkable thing is that, according to one of the operational reports of the headquarters of the 316th rifle division, in this battle the enemy lost 17 tanks (there is no such data in the documents of the 1075th rifle division).”

        If you have “seriously researched” the battles near Moscow using such documents, then it’s time for you to finish such “research”. There is enough fog of war there even without your “research”.
        1. 0
          19 November 2023 19: 22
          How should you research? According to the post-war memoirs of people who declared themselves participants in the battle near Dubosekovo and remembered all its details “as they do now”? wink
    2. +7
      16 November 2023 16: 09
      Quote: Timofey Charuta
      The evil irony of the DOCUMENTARY history of the Great Patriotic War.
      Digging through combat documents - the “fog of war” has become even greater, it’s getting thicker, it turns out to be devilry, the more documents (especially at the level of divisions, regiments, battalions) - the more misunderstandings there are.

      The stories of eyewitnesses, real participants in battles, often contradict the same documents (do documents don’t lie?), often from the “believe it or not” series.

      Oh-ho-ho... documents may generally contradict each other. I have already given an example I encountered, EMNIP, in LJ uv. Ulanov, when the infantry and tank crews, following the results of the joint liberation of one city, provided documents in which each side completely forgot about the other. That is, the infantry, according to its documents, liberated the city itself, and the tankers flashed somewhere on the periphery. And the tankers in their documents also liberated the city as one person, without infantry.
      I made a guess in the comments. that there is a third documentary version of the battle - the German one. In which the faithful sons of the Reich repulsed all attacks of the many times superior Red hordes, destroying hundreds of thousands of Bolsheviks, but were later forced to retreat by order to straighten the front line. laughing
      1. +2
        16 November 2023 21: 00
        Oh-ho-ho... documents may generally contradict each other. I have already given an example
        Your example is not the worst option.
        It’s worse when there is a retreat and the division headquarters loses contact with the regimental headquarters, they lose contact with the battalion commanders, and they, in turn, with their companies.
        And as a result, it happens that the division headquarters reports to the army headquarters not the current operational situation, but its optimistic forecast of how it most likely has developed.
        Data sometimes arrives with a delay of several days
  23. +2
    16 November 2023 14: 47
    Another lying anti-Soviet vomit.
  24. 0
    16 November 2023 14: 51
    Quote: Lewww
    And you apparently propose to elevate the myth of the battle of 28 Panfilov’s men at Dubosekovo to the status of some kind of “sacred historical cow”?

    Personally, I cannot understand the need for a fairy-tale fight. Dubosekovo as a certain most important historical milestone, the removal of which immediately collapses the entire fairway of the history of V.O.V.


    I repeat once again - you see that no one argues with you on the facts. All questions about - WHY are you writing this? There is an established picture of the world, now is not the time to shake it. The battle at Dubosekovo is not a historical mystery; you yourself provided many documents relating to those events. Well, you really don’t want to demolish the monument, do you? Then why?
    1. +3
      16 November 2023 15: 43
      Quote: S.Z.
      I repeat once again - you see that no one argues with you on the facts. All questions about - WHY are you writing this?
      I will answer again:
      And in this publication I expressed a version of how a specific myth was born in Soviet historiography.
      If you don’t like articles like this, don’t read them, there are many other articles on VO
      And since this myth has arisen in Russian historiography, I think it would be interesting to give my thoughts on the mechanism of its creation.


      Well, so that someone who knows more on this issue than I (has sources unfamiliar to me) corrects my possible inaccuracies, or expresses his thoughts, as is customary among cultured people who study individual battles of V.O. IN.
      But apparently I didn’t choose the best site for this.
      1. +1
        16 November 2023 16: 59
        Quote: Lewww
        But apparently I didn’t choose the best site for this.

        Contact Soros, Khodorkrkovsky, TsIPSO, they will tell you where it is better to publish.
      2. 0
        16 November 2023 17: 46
        Quote: Lewww
        But apparently I didn’t choose the best site for this.

        Contact Soros, Khodorkovsky, TsIPSO, they will tell you where it is best to publish.
      3. 0
        18 November 2023 11: 13
        But apparently I didn’t choose the best site for this.
        apparently... despite the degradation, there are still some sober-minded people left here...
  25. 0
    16 November 2023 16: 58
    Quote: Lewww
    And in this publication I expressed a version of how a specific myth was born in Soviet historiography.
    If you don’t like articles like this, don’t read them, there are many other articles on VO
    And since this myth has arisen in Russian historiography, I think it would be interesting to give my thoughts on the mechanism of its creation.


    There was only one question: WHY are you doing this. You see that this is mainly of interest to you. :)
  26. -1
    16 November 2023 17: 04
    Quote: Lewww
    But apparently I didn’t choose the best site for this.


    The site is not bad, you shouldn’t, look at how many interesting people and rare information there are in the History and Armament sections. Sometimes it is not clear how people even know certain things and details.

    Your style of presentation (for example, you immediately said it’s a myth, and this does not imply a calm discussion) provokes an emotional, rather than rational, response. Sorry that my words may seem like an attempt to “teach life.” I would just like a respectful discussion on historical topics, for example, and, apparently, that’s what you wanted too.

    But it went to emotions.

    Sometimes form destroys content.
    1. -1
      16 November 2023 17: 40
      The form was chosen quite appropriately, because at the moment it is generally known that the battle at Dubosekovo, in the version of the newspaperman Krivitsky, is a myth.
      I would also like a respectful discussion, but unfortunately the following mostly prevails in the thread:
      Another lying anti-Soviet vomit.

      Sometimes it seems that people on VO switched from Zen, and those who communicated on VO 5 years ago left it long ago
      1. +3
        16 November 2023 20: 34
        those who communicated on VO 5 years ago left it long ago


        You have the right impression laughing
        1. +1
          16 November 2023 21: 49
          and more and more often I am convinced of this, alas, the level has not been the same for a long time recourse
          1. -1
            18 November 2023 11: 17
            and more and more often I am convinced of this, alas, the level has not been the same for a long time
            yes, yes... we heard it many times - we raised the retirement age - “the people are not the same!”, we built hundreds of churches that people don’t flock to - again, “the people are not the same!”, we are filming the next slop about the USSR, which only a few go to the movies - and again “the people are not the same!”.. We write “sensations” generously smeared on the seam with something known - “what is it! Again the people are not the same!!” Maybe it's worth thinking about? What kind of things are not needed here???? Both on the site and in Russia? Here... how many “correct Russians” stormed Verkhniy Lars
      2. +1
        17 November 2023 08: 35
        Unfortunately, the impression is close to the truth.
  27. 0
    16 November 2023 19: 12
    I have already read dozens of times that the battle at the Dubosekovo crossing is supposedly a lie. And it’s as if there was no battle, and Soviet propaganda keeps lying. These revelations surfaced during perestroika, when interested parties needed to discredit the Soviet Union as much as possible, discredit its ideology, goal setting, history and “terrible Soviet propaganda.” This was done so that the Soviet people themselves would dismantle and gouge the USSR brick by brick. Subsequently, a great robbery was planned with further pitting of the peoples inhabiting the USSR. As we can see, the interested parties succeeded in almost everything. But, it’s true, domestic interests never entered the world elite (as they hoped and dreamed), receiving a kick in the ass from their “Western partners.” But that is another story...
    As for the battle, was there a battle (maybe not even in Dubosekovo, but nearby)? There was a fight.
    Did the Red Army soldiers fight heroically? Heroically.
    Does it matter whether there were 28 people there or a company? Doesn't matter in the slightest.
    Then what is the point of exploring all this? For a passionate person it can and does make sense. But constantly procrastinating on this topic is a shame.
    I’ll say it again: “28 Panfilov’s men” is, in modern language, a Soviet meme, a brand, but in normal language it is a great symbol that needed to be destroyed. This is the main idea of ​​the analysis and dispute about how 28 people differ from a company.
    1. +1
      16 November 2023 22: 04
      As for the battle, was there a battle (maybe not even in Dubosekovo, but nearby)? There was a fight.
      Did the Red Army soldiers fight heroically? Heroically.
      Does it matter whether there were 28 people there or a company? Doesn't matter in the slightest.
      You are talking like a layman.

      A simple example.
      Let’s say you are a platoon commander and you have 44 active bayonets under your command, and now they put you in position, give you a 45 mm gun and 1 anti-tank gun.
      Then, say, 30 German tanks, accompanied by a regiment of motorized infantry, approach you and take you from your position in half an hour to Benya’s mother.
      And so you gathered the surviving fighters who had fled, came to the regimental headquarters, and you were court-martialed and sent to the headquarters with the saying:
      - You lieutenant got lost, that’s why you didn’t complete the assigned task. 28 Panfilov men, even with smaller anti-tank weapons, were able to hold back even a larger number of tanks and infantry for an ENTIRE DAY, but you couldn’t hold out for even an hour.

      How do you like this scenario?

      Such newspaper myths are harmful because they created the illusion of ease of war and could lead inexperienced commanders to overestimate the available forces and means and place them incorrectly.
      And experienced soldiers undermined their trust in the veracity of the Soviet press
      1. +2
        17 November 2023 10: 44
        Quote: Lewww
        How do you like this scenario?

        This is a wartime option. But there is an even worse version of the post-war period. Even two options.
        First: since 28 soldiers in the canonical version (KZ dated November 28.11.41, 18) were able to destroy XNUMX enemy tanks, then what were the rest of the Red Army soldiers doing? Why didn't they fight the same way? This means that the people did not want to fight for the bloody regime... and away we go barrels and hoops.
        At the same time, as you write, real heroes who do not have impressive newspaper accounts of destroyed opponents come under attack - they say, what kind of heroes are these, they only knocked out a few tanks, here are 28 Panfilov men - yes...
        Second: since the myth of Panfilov’s 28 men has already passed into official history, the blow falls on it. The revisionist pulls out the policeman Dobrobabin twice (“everyone died, but didn’t give up, yes...”), materials from the article “Legends and Facts,” etc. And, working from the particular to the general, he no longer begins to expose the myth, but to question the history of that wars in general - "everyone lied to you". The rule of the thirteenth strike, you know.
        Therefore, it is important to separate history and myths in a timely manner, removing the most odious of them from official history. Not to expose it with pomp, but to quietly remove it. How the same Yankees removed the LK Haruna ram propagated by Captain Kelly during the war, replacing it with a feat based on real events: on the way to the base, together with the co-pilot, he kept the crippled burning car in the air until the last, allowing the rest of the crew to escape.
        1. -1
          17 November 2023 11: 36
          the myth of Panfilov’s 28 men has already passed into official history


          But in my opinion there is no “official history”.
          History is a science and the volume of its data about the past is constantly increasing.
          There is only the current “school version” of history and it is highly desirable that it does not lag too far behind the latest historical data. And it did not contain obvious myths.
          1. +2
            17 November 2023 13: 21
            Quote from: dump22
            But in my opinion there is no “official history”.

            Eat. But this should not be a bronzed monolith in the style of Epishev, but a living history - as you described (the “school version” is precisely the official history, its basic course, which the state has approved for putting into the heads of its citizens smile ):
            Quote from: dump22
            the current “school version” of history and it is highly desirable that it does not lag too far behind the latest historical data. And it did not contain obvious myths.

            Actually, one of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR was the ossification of Marxism-Leninism and everything connected with it - primarily ideology (with which history is closely connected). The theory has ceased to be verified by practice and adjusted, as it was under Lenin and Stalin - and thus ceased to correspond to the changing world. In fact, the USSR tried to navigate the ever-changing river delta of history, using XNUMXth-century sailing directions.
            1. +1
              17 November 2023 13: 56
              which the state approved for inserting into the heads of its citizens


              The role of the “state” (or rather not the state, but the current government of the country) is generally questionable to me in “approving history.”
              In my opinion, the current government should not interfere even with school courses.

              Because different parties in power (and therefore governments) change regularly - so why not regularly revise the school history course?
              For example, the socialists won the last parliamentary elections - and there is an urgent need to rewrite the school curriculum? What if the liberals win in 5 years? And then suddenly right-wing conservatives?
        2. -2
          17 November 2023 15: 09
          Therefore, it is important to separate history and myths in a timely manner, removing the most odious of them from official history.
          I gave you a plus, but I’m sure it will drown in a heap of minuses.

          In reality, it was not the myth that was removed, but the one who encroached on its sanctity - the head of GARF Mironenko.
          And they didn’t just remove it, but after fiddling with their face on the table in the media.

          But the myth, on the contrary, was only exalted - a feature film about this fictitious battle was made with drawn tanks and traditionally stupid fascists who stubbornly go and go to the PT position, like sheep to the slaughter, as if the victory of the fascists over the USSR depended on the success of this battle laughing
          By the way, in Soviet times there was no such film, they understood that there was no need to stick it out once again - the truthful information was already there where it should be
          1. +1
            17 November 2023 16: 17
            Was Pearl Harbor a treacherous attack by the Japanese or a provocation when the Japanese were deliberately allowed to attack?
            And there is a movie though
            Quote: Lewww
            the truthful information was already there
            .
            There is such a thing as “war propaganda”. Have you heard the British exposing their war propaganda? I didn’t hear.... And you are exposing. Those. working for the enemy. Those. you are an enemy. And when you have been told this 100 times, and you continue to persist, this is conscious work for the enemy. If you want to play the role of an objective historian, analyze the siege of Troy... and then with reservations.
            1. +2
              18 November 2023 01: 40
              Have you heard the British exposing their war propaganda?


              I heard.
              For example, the British politician and writer Arthur Ponsonby (baron and member of parliament) wrote the famous book “Lies in Time of War,” dedicated to exposing the falsity of English war propaganda.
              It is from his book that the phrase is known: “When war is declared, the first victim is truth.»
              1. -1
                18 November 2023 12: 31
                Quote from: dump22
                wrote the famous book “Lies in Time of War,” dedicated to exposing the deceitfulness of British war propaganda.

                During the First World War. And then? In our country, the “wirebreakers” expose themselves (ultimately) by every date every year..
                1. +1
                  18 November 2023 14: 25
                  During the First World War. And then?
                  and then there were probably dozens of books where the history of events was told truthfully by the participants.
                  Was Pearl Harbor a treacherous attack by the Japanese or a provocation when the Japanese were deliberately allowed to attack?
                  And there is a movie
                  This is a treacherous attack, because to this day it has not yet been proven otherwise
                2. +1
                  18 November 2023 18: 07
                  During the First World War. And then?


                  Well, here's a more recent example.
                  Churchill in Britain was officially (!) recognized by an act of parliament in 2002 greatest Briton in history.
                  And the British historian John Charmley, the book “Churchill: The End of Glory” and several others: calls him a racist, an anti-Semite who hated Gandhi, Hindus and all Muslims in general. He accuses him of causing a famine in Bengal in 1943 and of shooting striking workers in Wales. And a bunch of other crimes.

                  And then this Charmley calmly teaches at a British university.
            2. -1
              18 November 2023 11: 18
              There is such a thing as “war propaganda”. Have you heard the British exposing their war propaganda? I didn’t hear.... And you are exposing. Those. working for the enemy.
              I wrote above in a little more detail hi A plus from me for objectivity good
            3. +1
              20 November 2023 18: 13
              Quote: Alexander Kochurkov
              Was Pearl Harbor a treacherous attack by the Japanese or a provocation when the Japanese were deliberately allowed to attack?

              Pearl Harbor is a criminal underestimation of the enemy. smile
              The United States really pushed Japan towards war through its actions. However, Japan itself, with its aggressive policy, provided excellent reasons for this. But the Yankees did not plan a strike on the P-X with the disabling of the base of the US Pacific Fleet - the Philippines were exposed to the Japanese attack.
              Who would have thought that the Japanese would decide to secure the Pacific flank of their DESO in Southeast Asia, preceded by an auxiliary operation to disable the enemy fleet.
              And yes - this is precisely a treacherous attack without a declaration of war, during ongoing negotiations.
  28. -3
    16 November 2023 20: 30
    Stop publishing articles like this. Understand and accept that the truth is not needed.
    There are no historians here (on the VO website), and besides historians, no one is interested in the truth.

    Young people simply don’t care about what exactly happened there 80 years ago.
    But you can’t convince old people of anything with any facts, you’ll only make them angry.
  29. +1
    17 November 2023 07: 27
    Dear author! You did some work when writing this article, which, of course, inspires respect. And the fact that “... it’s nicer for you WHEN THEY WRITE THE TRUTH and consign to immortality the names of the true heroes...” is very good! Just the names of which heroes did you consign to immortality in this article? Let's quickly go through the actions of the 1075th joint venture on October 16.10.1941, 316, when "... according to one of the operational reports of the headquarters of the 17th infantry division, in this battle the enemy lost 17 tanks..." and where "... do not forget about the main trophy of the Panfilovites: XNUMX destroyed tanks " (this is where the researcher makes an effort and consigns the names of the heroes to immortality!) You are immersed with great gusto in exposing Soviet propaganda and “newsman Krivitsky”! Hiding behind the noble slogan of searching for the truth, you demand only facts and maps from your opponents. At the same time, in the article you are only guessing!
    In difficult times, the country needed heroes, and now it does. Even then, an “information war” was being waged (and it is still being waged) and “newsman Krivitsky” fought in this war as best he could (there, as we know, “all means are good”), but he fought for his country, which is now called Russia. And for which country are you exposing the “tale of 28 fictional heroes”? Hiding behind a noble goal, you are pouring slop on the symbol of courage of the Great Patriotic War! It really smells like an order from “partners”!
    1. -3
      17 November 2023 12: 41
      Just the names of which heroes did you consign to immortality in this article?
      Where did you get the idea that the purpose of the article was to immortalize the names of the heroes?
      I seem to have written clearly:
      In short, this confusing historical question is still waiting for its researcher, who will thoroughly delve into the enemy’s documents to clarify it.
      If I had a sufficient set of documents with which to reconstruct the historical actions of the 316th SD in October 41, I would write an article with the names of the participants in the event. But I don't have any. But I’m not going to fantasize, following the path of the Krivitskys.

      As for the heroes, on this site there is my article about Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, where I cited some previously unpublished data obtained from spacecraft documents, and explained what exactly, in my opinion, was her feat
      And for which country are you exposing the “tale of 28 fictional heroes”?
      My dear, you have mixed up something.
      I am not exposing anything - this fairy tale was exposed long before me.
      I just made an assumption about how this myth about 28 Panfilov’s men was born, i.e. that, in my opinion, the actual combat events of the day of October 16 were then transformed and transferred to the day of November 16.
      And that the real historical figure is political instructor P.B. Vikhrev first served as the prototype for the fabulous political instructor Diev, and then was replaced by the real Klochkov.
      Read the cat's publications more carefully. gathered to comment
      It really smells like an order from “partners”!
      Dear, you are overestimating the importance of my article, which will be read on this site by at most 20-30 thousand people.

      Much greater harm to the country’s image is caused by the constant lies of top-ranking government officials
  30. 0
    17 November 2023 07: 40
    Quote: Lewww
    The battle at Dubosekovo, according to newspaperman Krivitsky, is a myth.


    And?
    1. 0
      20 November 2023 18: 23
      Quote: S.Z.
      And?

      And we must carefully separate myth and real events, leaving the latter in history.
      The heroic defense of the 316th Infantry Division against a quantitatively and qualitatively superior enemy is history.
      28 Panfilov men in the canonical version - leave them as an example of military propaganda to raise morale in wartime, making them a collective image for the real exploits of the fighters of the entire division (fortunately, in November 1941 there were enough of them in the 1073, 1075 and 1077 rifle divisions - the same 11 sappers).
  31. -3
    17 November 2023 07: 45
    Quote: Lewww
    and more and more often I am convinced of this, alas, the level has not been the same for a long time


    It is necessary to make allowances for what time it is now - a time when polarization is occurring and contradictions are intensifying. Besides our calm conversation, there is another world in which people in uniform live and think; I see them almost every day. These are two parallel worlds with different values, in one of which the value is simply to survive until the morning. They need support both in the real world and in the world of ideas.

    These worlds intersect at some points.

    This is not the time to touch old myths.
  32. -2
    17 November 2023 07: 48
    Quote: sansan
    In difficult times, the country needed heroes, and now it does. Even then, an “information war” was being waged (and it is still being waged) and “newsman Krivitsky” fought in this war as best he could (there, as we know, “all means are good”), but he fought for his country, which is now called Russia.


    Agree. Now there is an information war and it is simply not the right time to “expose old myths,” since such actions could help the enemy.
  33. +3
    17 November 2023 11: 19
    Newspaper publications cannot be considered historical documents. That's all. Everyone turned their attention to the newspaper fairy tale created by Krivitsky.
    After the war, the military prosecutor's office sorted everything out.
    Even with the ideological bias of the prosecutor’s office in favor of the Soviet regime and all its guidelines, the battle of 28 Panfilov’s men is recognized as a fairy tale.
    And this was the widespread practice of those times.
    And you don’t have to scold it - newspapers were a weapon with all that it implies. Well, should I have written about the Vyazemsky Cauldron? So they wrote about 28 Panfilovites.
    At one time I was interested in the Ostrogozh-Rossoshansk operation of Little Saturn - a small homeland in those places.
    I was interested in the following way: I collected stories from old-timers and then compared them with documents on “In Memory of the People” and “Feat of the People.”
    Very interesting.
    For example, the ever-memorable Kantemirovka of the Voronezh region (the division was named in her honor), according to all documents, including German ones (presented in the collection for the anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad), was liberated on December 20, 1942, and the day of liberation is celebrated there on December 19; the village was liberated by soldiers of the 267th Infantry Division with the support of several tanks of the 17th TK (mostly light T-60 or T-70), and at the festival they praised the 17th TK with all their might.
    And there are many such inconsistencies and obvious frauds, and sometimes they are associated with very bloody cases, such as the shooting of civilians.
  34. -1
    17 November 2023 11: 49
    Quote: Fintiflushkin
    Newspaper publications cannot be considered historical documents. That's all.

    A newspaper publication is a historical document, evidence, but not the only one. Even military reports lie (remember - “lies like a military bulletin”) - sometimes with intent, sometimes without.
    Different documents are compared - then you can find out the truth, but not always.
  35. +3
    17 November 2023 13: 50
    Quote from: dump22
    No one except historians is interested in the truth.
    When is that historians interested true ?
  36. 0
    17 November 2023 15: 38
    Quote: Seal
    When were historians interested in the truth?

    Real ones - always.
  37. -3
    17 November 2023 16: 56
    The thirst for knowledge of the truth is the main driving force and main incentive of a real historian.
    Moreover, these days the true history of V.O.V. It is mainly restored not by professional historians, but by enthusiasts.
    And not for the sake of obtaining material gain, but rather at a loss.
    Maybe this is for the better (that they are not professional)
    1. +1
      17 November 2023 17: 53
      Quote: Lewww
      The thirst for knowledge of the truth is the main driving force and main incentive of a real historian.

      How does this suit you? You use all the arguments, even just hints, to cheat the heroes. And all this under the guise of a struggle for historical truth. All your witnesses are liars and dreamers, and only German documents are FALSE.
      Let me remind you once again that the German document (extract from the order) forces one of the subgroups (Hoppe) of BG1 to attack the positions of the 2nd platoon of the 4th company, and how stupidly you, with the stupidest arguments, diverted them from the Dubosekovo area. And the witnesses confirm that Hoppe carried out the order, i.e. THERE WAS A FIGHT!!.
      Why so biased? Well, the Germans screwed it up there, and didn’t want to show it in the ZhBD (which was filled out after the fighting of the day) and removed the unpleasant moments (such as at Matrenino station, where Mamysh-Uly was knocked out of there). By the way, you also called Momysh-Uly a liar, and he had exaggerations, but the overall picture he described is correct.
      Two things prevent you from filtering fiction from truth:
      the first deliberate intention to denigrate the heroes;
      the second is a lack of knowledge in a certain area.
  38. +2
    17 November 2023 18: 58
    The author of this rant needs to be imprisoned for discrediting the Soviet Army!
    1. 0
      17 November 2023 22: 04
      Well, if you imprison him, then for discrediting the Red Army, it seems that the author did not write anything bad in relation to the Soviet Army.
      But still, thank you very much for your timely signal, our authorities will certainly sort it out with the author Yes
  39. +2
    17 November 2023 21: 53
    Another delirium of an inflamed consciousness, on the topic “was it or wasn’t it”?
    The answer is obvious to most, but certainly not to the author.
    Maybe it’s enough to stop engaging in graphomania on this topic once every six months?
    The site administration should pay attention to this.
  40. -3
    17 November 2023 22: 02
    Quote: chenia
    Let me remind you once again that the German document (extract from the order) forces one of the subgroups (Hoppe) of BG1 to attack the positions of the 2nd platoon of the 4th company, and how stupidly you, with the stupidest arguments, diverted them from the Dubosekovo area. And the witnesses confirm that Hoppe carried out the order, i.e. THERE WAS A FIGHT!!.

    My dear, I have already answered you: I am not interested in discussing your visions and the results of carefully examining the line spacing in the records of the Germans' railway records - look for a simpleton for this task with large protruding ears and with the same exaggerated imagination as yours
    1. +1
      18 November 2023 18: 59
      Darling, you're screwing someone else over. The fact that you do not have a clear explanation of how Hoppe could not carry out the order (a fact in German documents) which obligated us to attack our well-known platoon. Well, it so happened that this platoon found itself on the offensive path (according to the documented order) of the BG1 unit, which was filled with tanks. And you are now pushing the version that the Germans saw a weak point, where from Dubosekovo to Shiryaevo there were absolutely no troops. And so at the last moment they changed the order and rushed en masse to Petelino, through Morozovo and Shiryaevo.
      This was not the case. The Germans climbed through the railway track (and there were two passages in the recesses) and raked to the fullest (so much so that it was a shame for ZhBD to even write something about Hoppe’s subgroup.)
      And only then the tanks had to crawl around (at 11.30 Moscow time) through the route you indicated FORCE in order to regroup.
      And your drain is counted. SILENCE AND MOOING OF LAMBS.
  41. 0
    18 November 2023 00: 08
    Quote: Lewww
    when a historian often uses the phrases “most likely”, “one can assume” and the like, this means that he

    Trying to confuse the investigation! And he doesn’t want to get charged under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation! Not good citizen Tyurin. Only with sincere confession and complete repentance can you ease your fate! So I will repeat the question - “Under what circumstances were you recruited by a resident of American intelligence?”
  42. 0
    18 November 2023 03: 40
    The book of Marshal of Victory G.K. At one time they did not want to publish Zhukov, largely because he questioned the specific fact of this battle of Panfilov’s men. But this in no way detracts from the heroic defense of Panfilov’s division and the mass heroism of the Red Army.
    1. +1
      18 November 2023 12: 20
      And the mass heroism of the fighters and commanders of the 1075th joint venture in particular.
      But who and when argued with this?
  43. +4
    19 November 2023 00: 44
    After reading the comments to the article, my old conclusion is once again confirmed.
    In our country, people perceive History not as a science, but as a certain collection of canonical, highly sacred texts like “The Lives of the Saints,” which completely destroys its analytical and developmental value.
    Of course, the author chose, perhaps, a somewhat more confident style of presenting the theory than he should have. However, it is worth understanding that the initial and even middle period of the Second World War was more than eventful; often not just pieces of the mosaic were lost, but entire pieces of a huge puzzle.
    Army convoys with documents and headquarters were carried around in the soup, entire units were surrounded and died, the connection was damn relative, people died in batches and those who observed it also died, and those who observed it also died - and sometimes there was no one to tell, and sometimes there was no time even to remember specific episodes - because they retreated catastrophically, they advanced with incredible tensions, and people didn’t have time or a piece of paper to scribble something for memoirs. Yes, and this was not encouraged..
    So a layer of legends and myths for such events is normal. And it is advisable, yes, to work with it and try to clear it up.
    However, I will immediately note that this is an unrealistic task - due to the traditional attitude of the people with whom I began the post. And the cyclopean scale of the story itself. Actually, there is also a political question here... scientific revisionism does not carry political value, now it is not profitable for agitprop to raise the silt from the bottom of those times, nullifying heroic deeds and demonstrating, among other things, the terrifying ease with which people then died without a trace or news , the appalling stupidity of how this could happen. This can create unnecessary allusions and create unnecessary sentiments.
    Your piece of the puzzle, author, is too small and has too sharp edges - and they don’t like to do puzzles here, give us some cards or, at worst, dominoes.
    1. -1
      19 November 2023 16: 55
      Of course, the author chose, perhaps, a somewhat more confident style of presenting the theory than he should have
      I already tried to insert the words “possibly” and “apparently” more often - what confidence is there request
      And the version is based on an analysis of articles by G. Ivanov (Izvestia), V. Chernyshev (Komsomolskaya Pravda), V. Koroteev (Kr. Zvezda) and Krivitsky.
      There is an analogy with the battle at the farm. There is a lot of Bolychev in all articles, the connection can be traced very clearly
      After reading the comments to the article, my old conclusion is once again confirmed.
      And mine too - for some reason many Soviet people are imbued with acute hatred of the authors of publications that debunk some myth created by Soviet propaganda.
    2. +2
      20 November 2023 18: 28
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      Army convoys with documents and headquarters were carried around in the soup, entire units were surrounded and died, the connection was damn relative, people died in batches and those who observed it also died, and those who observed it also died - and sometimes there was no one to tell, and sometimes there was no time even to remember specific episodes - because they retreated catastrophically, they advanced with incredible tensions, and people didn’t have time or a piece of paper to scribble something for memoirs.

      Yeah... remember, Shein and Ulanov complained during their work on “Order in Tank Forces” that you come to the archive for materials on some connection for the summer of 1941 - and there is a skinny folder with pre-war data, and then - at best, a few unreadable pieces of paper, or even nothing at all.
  44. +2
    20 November 2023 12: 21
    Unfortunately, I don’t know where which regiment was stationed and on what date. I know one thing - the work of “debunking myths” about that Great War is one of the most vile activities, akin to spitting on the Eternal Flame! These heroes have long become symbols of our Great Victory. The path and remain them without blurring the places of dates and part numbers, i.e. actually destroying characters.
    1. 0
      21 November 2023 15: 51
      I know one thing - the work of “debunking myths” about that Great War is one of the most vile activities
      My dear, historians cannot be held responsible for the fact that during the war political agencies often created myths.
      And when a historian restores the ACTUAL course of events in WWII, he willy-nilly debunks several myths.
      If you don’t believe me, read Isaev’s works, for example Boilers of 41.
      Or do you propose to ban writing altogether true history of V.O.V., they say let it remain as it was written during the times of the USSR?
  45. +2
    21 November 2023 07: 23
    Khol wrote that the blizzard is driving according to State Department manuals
  46. +1
    23 November 2023 22: 17
    Quote: Proxima
    The author, before publishing his pseudo-exposure, just needed to look at the map, namely, which section of the front was defended by the 316th Panfilov Division. This is the line Maleevka - Chentsy - Bolshoye Nikolskoye - Petelino. Isn't it too much for just one division, even one trained like Panfilov? Eh, the author? And therefore, a small number of soldiers, mines, anti-tank rifles, Molotov cocktails, because normal artillery cannot saturate all tank-hazardous areas. The distorted battle in Dubosekovo is simply drowned in “episodes” where a handful of soldiers fought to the death against tanks.

    I am a descendant of one of the Panfilrvtsev. In his last letter, Ivan-grandfather wrote that they were actively setting up fake targets, moving around positions and lighting up on purpose to show multiplicity. In general, I recommend that the writer who wrote the article here somehow return my grandfather to me or go to three letters. By the way, the last letter was a date later than the one that he “died.” From all the leapfrog with the Panfilovites, I found out one thing - our Moscow writers are still the same artists who ruined everything...
  47. +1
    23 November 2023 22: 22
    Quote: Lewww
    Of course, the author chose, perhaps, a somewhat more confident style of presenting the theory than he should have
    I already tried to insert the words “possibly” and “apparently” more often - what confidence is there request
    And the version is based on an analysis of articles by G. Ivanov (Izvestia), V. Chernyshev (Komsomolskaya Pravda), V. Koroteev (Kr. Zvezda) and Krivitsky.
    There is an analogy with the battle at the farm. There is a lot of Bolychev in all articles, the connection can be traced very clearly
    After reading the comments to the article, my old conclusion is once again confirmed.
    And mine too - for some reason many Soviet people are imbued with acute hatred of the authors of publications that debunk some myth created by Soviet propaganda.

    Komsomolskaya Pravda publishes fake news several times a month. All these historians and writers would return Panfilov’s grandfather to me and then I would forgive them all. And so I’m ready to beat the snickering faces, like my grandfather beat the fascists.
  48. +1
    23 November 2023 22: 33
    Lef Tyurin wrote that my deceased Panfilov grandfather is fictional. One thing I don’t understand is who stopped the fascists, writers like him or Heroes? There were 5 of my relatives who served with Panfilov, and everyone only knew approximately who died and how. But the grandfathers were like me now. If I, Leo, arrange something indecent with you, will you also say that this is fiction?
    1. 0
      26 November 2023 16: 01
      Lef Tyurin wrote that my deceased Panfilov grandfather is fictional.
      Where and when did you write? belay
      Specific quote can you give it, or was it a banal demagogic stuff?

  49. 0
    24 November 2023 06: 41
    Author, why don’t you believe Medinsky? And the RF Ministry of Defense is also great - they opened access to the archive in Podolsk to everyone who is not too lazy
    1. 0
      8 January 2024 15: 23
      Quote: Mamin-Sibiryak
      Author, why don’t you believe Medinsky?
      Why is he famous enough to be trusted?
      His competence in this highly specialized historical issue is zero
  50. +1
    April 9 2024 22: 21
    My maternal and paternal grandfathers served in the Panfilov Division. It was in those battles in the article above that Moskalenko’s grandfather Ivan, a Muscovite, died. Moskal died defending Moscow and he is Russian, not Ukrainian. And all kinds of writers wrote and composed then, according to the heroes, and now they are promoting themselves as best they can on the bones and writings of political agitators. Give me back my grandfather and then continue your artistic whistling. I talked to the grandfathers who survived when I was a boy. And they told what scribblers, like this author “according to documents”, also often invented by writers, are not even aware of. How dare you punch such authors in the face!
  51. 0
    April 24 2024 23: 40
    For me, even if this was not the case, then this is a collective image of the heroic fighters of the Red Army, it is needed as a tribute to memory.