Crisis Manager of the Red Army

23 426 80
Crisis Manager of the Red Army
Marshal Zhukov with officers on the steps of the Reichstag

We don't have any Hindenburgs in reserve.

J. Stalin




Cavalryman and hero of Khalkin-Gol


Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov has come a long way. A peasant's son who worked as a furrier, that is, a furrier's apprentice. At the age of 16, he received the title of master and had his own small workshop. If not for the world war and revolution, he would have become a clerk, a petty bourgeois. And he hardly thought that he would become a great and world-famous military leader.

The war changed everything. “But the war, as always happens, confused all our hopes and calculations,” Zhukov recalled.

On August 7 (20), 1915, Zhukov was called up to the Tsarist army. He was enlisted in the cavalry. In his declining years, the marshal told the writer Konstantin Simonov:

"I could have ended up in a school for ensigns. I graduated from a four-year school in Gazetny Lane, which provided a sufficient educational qualification for admission to this school. But I thought: now I'll graduate from the school for ensigns and, as a 19-year-old boy, I'll command seasoned soldiers - bearded men. I didn't want that, it was awkward. And who knows what would have happened if I had turned out to be not a soldier, but an officer... and by that time the revolution had broken out... Maybe I would have lived out my days somewhere in exile..."


Novgorod Dragoon Georgy Zhukov. Late 1915 – early 1916.

After training as a cavalry non-commissioned officer, Georgy ended up on the Southwestern Front in the 1916th Novgorod Dragoon Regiment at the end of August 10. The young cavalryman fought bravely, but not for long.

In September, he was slightly wounded during a cavalry attack in the mountainous region of Bystrica. He was awarded the St. George Cross for capturing a tongue. However, in October, Georgy stepped on a mine and suffered a severe concussion, as a result of which he partially lost his hearing. He had to recover for a long time. He never returned to the front.

Georgy met the February Revolution in a marching squadron. Zhukov was elected chairman of the squadron committee and a member of the regimental council. After the October Revolution, his squadron, stationed in Kharkov province, went over to the Bolsheviks. After the unit was disbanded, he returned home.

He volunteered for the Red Army. He fought on the Eastern, Southern and Western fronts against the White Cossacks, Denikin's men and Wrangel's men.

After completing the Ryazan Cavalry Courses in the fall of 1920, he was appointed platoon commander, then squadron commander. After the end of the Time of Troubles, he commanded a cavalry regiment, cavalry brigade, cavalry division and corps.

He became famous as the commander of the special 57th corps, which defeated the Japanese at Khalkin-Gol. For this operation, Corps Commander Zhukov was awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union. In 1940, he received the rank of Army General.

Russian military historian A. Isaev noted in his work “Myths and Truth about Marshal Zhukov”:

"Usually, Zhukov's name is associated only with the final phase of the conflict - the offensive of the Soviet troops at the end of August 1939. However, in reality, he had to play out a rather complex combination during three months of fighting. Zhukov managed to bring the Soviet troops in Mongolia out of a deep crisis, repel the Japanese offensive, accumulate forces and defeat the opposing Japanese troops in a decisive encirclement battle."


Hero of the Soviet Union, Corps Commander G.K. Zhukov, 1939

The Stalin Butcher


During the rewriting stories Soviet civilization and the Great Patriotic War, Zhukov became one of the main targets for liberals and revisionist researchers. He was called "Stalin's butcher", accused of unprofessionalism, tyranny, cruelty and indifference to soldiers' lives. In the "millions of lives" of soldiers that he laid on the altar of Victory.

The purpose of such works is obvious: by blackening the Marshal of Victory, who became one of the symbols of our Great Victory (Stalin himself noted: "Zhukov is our Suvorov"), one can slander the Soviet period of our history with impunity. To smear with dirt the true heroes and great statesmen and military figures, and to make "heroes" out of the scum, for example, Bandera and Shukhevych.

According to anti-Sovietists, the Soviet commander is remembered more for "his swearing and executions of his own soldiers on all fronts" than for his military victories. Allegedly, Georgy Konstantinovich is responsible for the catastrophic defeats of 1941, when the Red Army was not ready for war. On his conscience are the huge "cauldrons" of the initial period of the war, including Vitebsk, Mogilev, Minsk, Kyiv, Vyazma and Bryansk, in which hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers died or were captured.

It was concluded that Stalin's marshal, as Chief of the General Staff of the Red Army in the summer of 1941 and a member of the Headquarters, was one of the main culprits of the most terrible catastrophe in world military history.

Zhukov was especially slandered in the new "independent" Ukraine. It was emphasized that Zhukov sent hundreds of thousands of mobilized Ukrainians to their deaths. That the Ukrainians, due to the mistakes of "Stalin's butchers," survived the terrible German occupation and then liberated their own land at the cost of enormous losses.

Allegedly, the Soviet marshal ordered "no mercy" for the recruits from Ukraine sent to the four Ukrainian fronts. They were considered "suspicious elements" living under Nazi rule. Allegedly, this is the reason for the high losses of Ukraine in World War II among the republics of the USSR (only in the RSFSR more died).

Although the reasons for the high losses of the population of the Ukrainian SSR are quite objective: the front line passed there, the region was under fascist occupation, the Nazis carried out a policy of physical destruction of Slavic-Russians, "cleansed" the lands for German "supermen". Some of the bloodiest battles of the Great Patriotic War took place in Little Russia, Hitler tried at any cost to hold on to the region, which was strategically and economically important for the Third Reich.

Thus, we see another attack in the direction of the USSR, the Great Patriotic War and its heroes. Like, the enemy "filled up with corpses." But the Victory Marshal was in fact a “Stalinist butcher” who destroyed hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens and especially Ukrainians.


Marshal G.K. Zhukov (right) conferring with the commander of the Steppe Front, General of the Army I.S. Konev (center) and the commander of the 53rd Army I.M. Managarov on the eve of forcing the Dnieper. September 1943

Crisis Manager of the Red Army


In order to understand the stupidity and falsity of such “works”, it is simply necessary to read and analyze historical sources and objective historical research.

Thus, a very good work on this topic is by the military historian, specialist in the history of the Great Patriotic War A. Isaev, "Myths and Truth about Marshal Zhukov". Alexey Isaev notes that Stalin's military leader knew how to fight, since 1939 he was the "crisis manager" of the Red Army, "the man who was thrown into the most difficult and dangerous section of the front". Zhukov "was a kind of "commander of the RGC", capable of fencing armies and divisions better than his colleagues".

The headquarters sent Georgy Konstantinovich to a section of the front that was in crisis or required increased attention. This guaranteed the high command increased effectiveness of the Red Army's actions in this section. At the same time, Zhukov was not an "invincible" commander. Often, he had to emerge from an approaching catastrophe into a "draw", a "Pyrrhic victory", establish a fragile balance of power from chaos, and pull other commanders out of a crisis.

The Soviet commander usually got the most difficult sections of the front and dangerous enemies. Sometimes, on orders from the Headquarters, he had to hand over the work he had started, and others reaped the fruits of his efforts, moving to new sections of the front.

Zhukov came from a poor peasant family, never had high patrons, but thanks to his talents and iron will he became the most outstanding and famous Soviet marshal. During the war he became Deputy Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Minister of Defense, member of the highest military-political leadership of the USSR, four times Hero of the Soviet Union, holder of two Orders of Victory and many other Soviet and foreign orders and medals. Georgy Konstantinovich did nothing vile, did not humiliate himself before the highest leadership. He forever remained the people's Marshal of Victory.

Zhukov led the largest masses of Soviet troops and inflicted the largest defeats on the Wehrmacht. From the very beginning of the war, he showed the ability to deliver powerful counterattacks in defensive operations. He showed that it is necessary to attack even in the most difficult conditions in order to survive and defeat a terrible enemy tomorrow. He showed himself as a person who knows how to manage large masses of people. As a military leader, able to make tough decisions necessary to maintain the common good and preserve the power. His life is an example of the highest demands on himself and others.

Unfortunately, Zhukov turned out to be a bad politician. After Stalin's death, he got involved in political games, supported Khrushchev with his authority first against Beria, then helped Khrushchev defeat his other opponents. This was his huge mistake. The state pygmy Khrushchev could not tolerate such a titan as Zhukov next to him. The marshal could also lead the opposition. Khrushchev "optimized" (destroyed) the Armed Forces of the USSR with all his might. Therefore, in 1957, Zhukov fell into disgrace, was dismissed, and was deprived of all state and military posts.


In the photo, from left to right: Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov (1896-1974), British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery (1887-1976), Marshal of the Soviet Union Konstantin Konstantinovich Rokossovsky (1896-1968), General of the Army Vasily Danilovich Sokolovsky (1897-1968), Colonel General Mikhail Sergeyevich Malinin (1899-1960) walk through the streets of Berlin after awarding Soviet military leaders with British awards. G. K. Zhukov - Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, K. K. Rokossovsky - Honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath, V. D. Sokolovsky and M. S. Malinin - Knights of the Order of the British Empire (military). July 12, 1945

Why hate Zhukov


Why is Zhukov the subject of more mud than Stalin's other military leaders? It's all about Georgy Konstantinovich's personality. He is a symbol of the Red Empire. A peasant's son, an iron soldier who went from being a Tsarist non-commissioned officer to a great marshal who defeated the Third Reich. A national hero, a military leader who rightfully stands among the other great military figures of Russian civilization, in the same row as Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, Dmitry Pozharsky, Alexander Suvorov and Mikhail Kutuzov.

Stalin himself said: “Zhukov is our Suvorov.”

A widely known statement about Georgy Zhukov, attributed to Adolf Hitler, is: "If the German army had at least one general like Zhukov, Germany would have long ago conquered world domination." Whether the Fuhrer said this or not is not exactly known, but in the Wehrmacht Zhukov's abilities were indeed highly valued.

As in other armies allied with the USSR during the Second World War, American General William Spahr noted:

“In the year of the struggle of the Russian people with new disasters, Zhukov is raised as an icon embodying the spirit of the Russian people, able to nominate a leader-savior in extreme conditions. Zhukov is the embodiment of Russian honor and valor, Russian sovereignty and the Russian spirit. No one can erase or stain the image of this man on a white horse who has done so much to raise his country to shining heights. "

Thus, attempts to overthrow Georgy Zhukov from the Victory podium are an informational, ideological war against our history, Russian and Soviet civilization. The blackening of the Marshal of Victory is the blackening of our entire history, the history of the USSR, the history of the Great Patriotic War, and the Great Victory.


Victory Parade. Deputy Supreme Commander-in-Chief Marshal of the Soviet Union G.K. Zhukov takes the parade of the troops of the Active Army, the Navy Fleet and the Moscow garrison to commemorate the victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War. June 24, 1945
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    20 August 2025 07: 16
    I wonder how Zhukov would have planned and conducted the SVO in February 2022. However, this is not important, because the Russian Armed Forces either do not have Zhukov today, or they do, but they do not give him command.
    1. +7
      20 August 2025 08: 33
      Something tells me that the results were the same as now... how did Zhukov spend 1941-1942? The Soviet army was not organized in a modern manner (no one except Germany was), the counterattacks of the mechanized corps were a failure, because they were in a state of reformation at the beginning of the war, tanks (and not all mechanized corps even had them, much less staffed) simply did not have the cover of motorized infantry and artillery, we had to learn from bitter experience. In 2022, it turned out that our army is again not ready for a modern war, but if in 1941 it became clear how to properly organize the shock troops and the army only a year ago (even the Germans really understood the necessary proportionality only after the defeat of France), then by 2022, in 30 years, NATO showed us at least 4 times how it should be done, and even Azerbaijan showed us, but we did not see or did not want to see (after 2008, there were attempts to change everything, but these ideas were quickly curtailed)...
      Regarding the article - the author, as always, suffers like an owl, replacing one myth with another... Zhukov was not a genius from birth, perhaps he was not even the best commander in the world at that time, but he knew how to learn... he, like our other marshals and generals of that war, was simply the best we had...
      1. +5
        20 August 2025 18: 11
        parma
        Zhukov was not the best commander, look how many fronts he commanded. Since 1943, Moscow has saluted Rokossovsky's troops the most, that's a fact, but now they write more about Zhukov and Konev. Everyone fought, but Moscow's salute is recognition of the combat successes of the front and their commander.
        1. +5
          20 August 2025 22: 08
          In 42-43, Zhukov was a representative of the headquarters and was not a front commander. In 44, he took charge of the 1st Ukrainian Front, then handed it over to Konev and again became a representative of the headquarters, coordinating the work of 2-3 fronts.
        2. +3
          21 August 2025 03: 18
          Well, Rokossovsky is also far from being as ideal as they like to present him, at least read about the same offensives on Bobruisk in the fall and winter of 43-44 and about the conflict with Gorbatov, otherwise everyone in his biographies loves to jump straight from the Battle of Kursk to Bagration, as if he had done nothing for a whole year. Well, the fact that Zhukov was driven around the fronts says just the opposite - that he was a trusted person, whom Stavka and Stalin sent to the most active and responsible areas, if he had been average or bad - he would have remained the whole war languishing in some Karelian front or would have been demoted to army commander, and not met the end of the war in Berlin, commanding the largest front.
          1. +1
            21 August 2025 13: 59
            You wrote everything correctly, you just forgot to write how many salutes there were in honor of Rokossovsky's troops, and how many in honor of Zhukov. Yes, there are no ideal people, but the point is not how many train cars Zhukov took out of Germany and how many Rokossovsky. And Zhukov was really a trusted person of the Headquarters and an overseer, but when Rokossovsky asked his opinion about postponing the start of the fire at the Battle of Kursk, what did he answer? You are the commander, it is up to you to decide. Zhukov was more of a political figure, a Russian commander should take Berlin, not a Pole. Zhukov began to be awarded from the middle of the war, he did not even receive anything for Moscow.
        3. -1
          4 September 2025 16: 20
          Quote: Sergei Fonov
          Moscow has saluted Rokossovsky's troops more than any other city since 1943

          but Rokossovsky had no successes at all before 43, while Zhukov had literally all the major achievements of the Red Army of that period. In addition, in the second half of the war, Zhukov was more involved in general planning than in managing a specific front.
          Let me remind you that the defense of Moscow, the defense of Leningrad, the battles at Stalingrad, partially organizing the defense of Kyiv, numerous adjustments to troop tactics, strict systematic discipline of slacker commanders, revision of supply standards and troop organization - all this is Zhukov's work. Even Rzhev is blamed on him, but I believe that he did his part of the job well at the very least - Konev's headquarters, which was tasked with implementing it, screwed up. In general, I rate Zhukov quite highly, but Rokossovsky's merits, although great, are often somewhat exaggerated. For example, take the battles at Kursk. There, Rokossovsky's tasks were in fact much simpler than, for example, Vatutin's. Or the battles in Germany. There, Rokossovsky's troops did not show the best results in terms of losses. In general, I even find it strange how you came to the conclusion that Zhukov was worse.
          I would also like to add Zhukov’s major role in preparing for the war, and regarding Rokossovsky, his imprisonment did not have the best effect on his career.
          1. +1
            4 September 2025 19: 43
            I'm not going to prove anything to you, but Rokossovsky had successes before 1943, for example Stalingrad, which Zhukov attributes to himself. "Was Zhukov involved in overall planning?" Where is Zhukov, and where is the planning. I was especially struck by the part about Kursk. But there is a person, or rather there was one, who appreciated Zhukov. Details in the comment by Seal (Sergey Petrovich) from August 22, 2025 at 18,34:XNUMX. Stalin, after the war, said that Zhukov fought better than Konev, but no worse than Rokossovsky. Read it.
            1. -2
              5 September 2025 08: 31
              Quote: Sergei Fonov
              Rokossovsky had successes before 1943, for example Stalingrad

              Seriously??? Many people had successes, the question is what kind. Rokossovsky took part in Stalingrad at the final stage. The main burden of the battles was borne by other commanders. We can note 43 of his key successes before 3 - the Smolensk events, the controversial results of the battle near Dubna and the defense of Moscow. He showed himself well overall, but... compare this with what Zhukov managed to do???
              About planning and staff work. I don't know where they got the idea that Zhukov wasn't good for this, but I want to remind you that in the staff games before the war Zhukov showed himself very well. Much better than most commanders.
              1. 0
                5 September 2025 16: 51
                So what? In your opinion, Stalin's assessment is incorrect. But you can't argue with Stalin anymore. So why wasn't Zhukov awarded until 1943, unlike Rokossovsky, if he was so good? And you don't need to jump from question to question, I'm not a schoolboy, and you're not an examiner. Write when Zhukov was awarded for the first time, during the war years from 1941-1945.
                1. -2
                  8 September 2025 11: 00
                  You have some very strange understanding of how to evaluate the success of a military leader.
                  In the first half of the war, up until 43, there was a general shortage of awards. Read the documents. And how do you evaluate Zhukov? Well, look who hosted the victory parade on a white horse in Moscow. Probably the biggest loser of the commanders?
                  1. +1
                    8 September 2025 19: 42
                    As I understand it, there is nothing to say on the merits. Study history not from movies, and not from propagandists' articles.
                    1. -2
                      9 September 2025 08: 36
                      I know enough to disagree with your conclusions.
                      I'll say more, I don't understand at all why you're pulling comparisons by the ears. You chose a narrow career segment of 2 years, chose an indicator that's advantageous to you again and hurray, let's compare. You impose such methods on a kindergarten, but I won't buy them.
                      1. 0
                        10 September 2025 12: 44
                        The conclusions are not mine, these are Stalin's words.
                        "Zhukov fought better than Konev, and no worse than Rokossovsky"
                        Now argue with Stalin, he was wrong. The Red Army soldier won the war, armed, clothed, fed and trained. Of all this, only training remains with the generals, the rest is the work of the rear. It is no coincidence that after the war, Stalin sat Khrulyov next to him in a photo shoot, telling the marshals that without him, there would have been no victories.
                      2. -1
                        10 September 2025 12: 55
                        Quote: Sergei Fonov
                        "Zhukov fought better than Konev, and no worse than Rokossovsky"
                        Now argue with Stalin that he was wrong.

                        I don't understand what exactly I'm disputing in your opinion. I claimed that Zhukov as a commander was no worse than Rokossovsky, and this was not affected by the number of awards he received between 41 and 43. Actually, there is no contradiction with Stalin. Moreover, if you look at their path, Zhukov and Rokossovsky often solved the same problems and equally successfully, but their methods were somewhat different.
    2. +5
      20 August 2025 11: 55
      Quote: avia12005
      I wonder how Zhukov would have planned and carried out the SVO in February 2022.

      Planned - no way. Because
      He cannot be appointed to staff or teaching work - he organically hates it.
      © Rokossovsky
      But if there was a well-written plan, I would put all my efforts into its implementation.
    3. 0
      26 August 2025 17: 45
      How he planned and carried out the operation to liberate Bessarabia in 1940. Three days were enough.
    4. +1
      4 September 2025 16: 08
      Quote: avia12005
      how Zhukov would have planned and conducted the SVO in February 2022

      Well, first of all, he would have started planning earlier and would have done it better. Perhaps there would not have been such episodes as the shooting down of helicopters flying to Gostomel, over the Kyiv reservoir, he would have synchronized actions in all directions better.
      and secondly, I would insist on a significant increase in the initial forces to guarantee the result, so that there would be no options with a very strange retreat in mid-22.
      Finally, he would not have allowed even half of the chaos that was in the SVO groups at first. But there is still the question of authority - what he would be allowed to do.
  2. +9
    20 August 2025 07: 29
    After the October Revolution

    While fighting some liberal myths, the author supports others
    1. +4
      20 August 2025 09: 10
      No, he doesn’t fight, where did you see a fighter? laughing Samsonov, a "red" monarchist type laughing
    2. 0
      22 August 2025 19: 16
      Well, that's how it was, a few years after 1917 - the October Revolution was called that quite officially.
      1. 0
        23 August 2025 15: 57
        Yes, but in our time no one spoke like that except for anti-Soviet enemies
        1. 0
          23 August 2025 17: 39
          That's what they called him until about 27, and it didn't carry any negative connotations.
          1. +1
            23 August 2025 22: 19
            But in the 60s and 70s it smelled. Because the correct name is the Great October Socialist Revolution. It is the only one.
            There have been a lot of revolutions in history and there will be just as many.
            1. 0
              4 September 2025 16: 29
              Quote: October
              The correct name is the Great October Socialist Revolution. It is the only one of its kind.
              And there have been a lot of revolutions in history

              Here's the thing - it all really started as a coup, but quickly turned into a revolution. Therefore, both statements about the process are true, but only the second one about the result.
              I would like to remind you that in 17, there were actually 2 revolutions.
              Monarchy -> Capitalism -> Anarcho-commune.
              The Bolshevik course was adopted only in the spring and summer of 18, and not by revolution, but by evolution. And after the suppression of the Socialist Revolutionary rebellion, construction began according to the course of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, and even then Lenin spoke very cautiously about communism.
              The particularly stubborn can even construct an outwardly consistent version that the German ambassador Mirbach personally interfered with the construction of communism in Russia, having entangled the entire state with his tentacles, and only the reprisal of the Socialist Revolutionaries against him, who sacrificed everything for this, allowed the communists to overcome the machinations of capital.
              1. 0
                4 September 2025 19: 05
                The Bolshevik course was adopted only in the spring and summer of 18, and not by revolution, but by evolution.

                The Bolsheviks' course towards socialist revolution was taken in the spring of 1917. To be convinced, open Lenin's work "April Theses" and read [https://vkpb-skb.ru/images/pdf/Lenin_pss/tom31.pdf] and the historical context around them [https://kprf.ru/ruso/183687.html?ysclid=mf5l41d4o794672144].

                And after the suppression of the Socialist Revolutionary rebellion, construction began according to the course of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, and even then Lenin spoke very cautiously about communism.


                The construction of socialism began immediately after the socialist revolution, even at the moment when the storming of the Winter Palace was completed, Lenin addressed the II All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies with decrees on peace, on land, on power. On October 29, a decree was signed establishing an 8-hour workday.
                The list of all decrees adopted immediately after the revolution can be found, for example, in the book "Decrees of the Soviet Power. Vol. 1. October 25, 1917 - March 16, 1918" published in 1957. It is on the Internet. And this is the construction of a socialist state.
                1. 0
                  5 September 2025 08: 57
                  Quote: October
                  The Bolsheviks' course

                  You are confusing the Bolsheviks and who determined the leadership of the revolutionary committee.
                  the Bolsheviks, although they had significant influence, in fact the Socialist Revolutionaries, Cadets, anarchists, Mensheviks, etc. decided things by sheer numbers and they didn't give a damn that a SMALL faction of Bolsheviks was deciding things at home. The situation changed radically not in October or in the spring of 17, but only in the summer of 18, when the actions of the Socialist Revolutionaries seriously undermined their support, while the Bolsheviks, on the contrary, through agitation and more reasonable actions, acquired much more influence and essentially became the determining force in decision-making in government committees.
                  about decrees. I want to somehow remind you of them in time.
                  the first decree that can be somehow connected with the program of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, with great difficulty, is the Decree on the formation of the Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh) of December 2 (15), 1917
                  December 6, 1917 "Draft decree on the abolition of private property rights to city real estate. But this is also very remotely precisely the program of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks
                  and so on. similar decrees could be issued by any revolutionaries - fascists, republicans, democrats.
                  If you follow the content of the decrees carefully, then under the strong influence of the program of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, they began to be issued only in 18.
                  1. 0
                    5 September 2025 09: 14
                    You are confusing the Bolsheviks and who determined the leadership of the revolutionary committee.
                    Although the Bolsheviks had significant influence, in fact, the Socialist Revolutionaries, Cadets, anarchists, Mensheviks, etc. decided things by sheer numbers, and they didn’t give a damn that a SMALL faction of Bolsheviks was deciding things at home.

                    I'm not interested in your demagoguery.
                    Provide links. Without links there is nothing to talk about with you. And links to primary sources, literature, and not to the yellow press.
                    Lenin's work "April Theses" is the foundation
                    1. 0
                      5 September 2025 09: 40
                      Quote: October
                      I'm not interested in your demagoguery.
                      Provide links. Without links there is nothing to talk about with you.

                      of course, you don't need any links to justify your opinion )))
                      but I will cite the Soviet historian Vospensky, 1920-1997 and physically did not have the opportunity to carry on the post-perestroika nonsense and was a witness to those events.
                      says that the number of ALL Bolsheviks by October was 350 thousand, for comparison, the Mensheviks were 200 thousand, and the Socialist Revolutionaries, according to various estimates, were about a million, plus their great popularity among the soldiers, the main force of the revolution. No one gives the exact number of anarchists, but according to the most modest estimates, there were significantly more of them than the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks combined, plus they owned significant resources and controlled a number of workers' unions. Thus, the Bolsheviks in the Revolutionary Committee, relying on their own strength, were represented several times less than their opponents. This is called a MINORITY. The situation with the electorate was even worse. The peasantry did not support them at all at first.
                      1. 0
                        5 September 2025 10: 39
                        of course, you don't need any links to justify your opinion )))

                        I have provided links to support my opinion above.
                        I didn't see any links from you. Only your free fantasy, which I don't intend to read.
                      2. 0
                        5 September 2025 10: 46
                        Quote: October
                        Just your free imagination, which I don’t intend to read.

                        You are lying outright - I have indicated all the sources of data and even provided quotes. And the entire justification for your opinion consists of insults.
                      3. 0
                        5 September 2025 10: 49
                        You are lying outright - I have indicated all the sources of data and even provided quotes. And the entire justification for your opinion consists of insults.

                        You, sir, undertake to prove something, but you don’t even know how to do it.
                        I have all the data sources

                        To indicate the source of data means to name the journal, issue, year of publication, page. Or the book, author, year of publication, preferably page. I didn't see any of this.

                        Demagogy.
                      4. 0
                        5 September 2025 10: 53
                        I am not a historian and I suppose I am not writing a dissertation, so I am not bound by such strict requirements. An indication of the author and a quotation or an extract close to the text is quite sufficient.
                2. 0
                  5 September 2025 09: 05
                  Quote: October
                  even in those moments, as soon as the storming of the Winter Palace was completed,

                  I am simply touched by how stubbornly you remain captive to historical myths.
                  "the storming of the Winter Palace" actually took place through the back door and the main task of the "stormers" was to find at least someone. And they found, after about 40 minutes of wandering around the empty building, a meeting of part of the provisional government in one of the offices. The barrier of the women's battalion, which formally guarded the Winter Palace, did not offer significant resistance and was not destroyed, but taken prisoner.
                  I think there is something about this in Trotsky’s memoirs.
                  1. -1
                    5 September 2025 09: 15
                    I am simply touched by how stubbornly you remain captive to historical myths.
                    "The storming of the Winter Palace" actually took place through the back door and the main task of the "stormers" was to find at least someone.

                    You are a demagogue and an enemy. Learn history.
                    Conversation is over.
                    1. 0
                      5 September 2025 09: 44
                      I understand that again there are no arguments, only insults?
                      1. 0
                        5 September 2025 10: 40
                        There are no insults there. It is a statement of fact.
                      2. 0
                        5 September 2025 10: 52
                        Quote: October
                        There is a statement of fact there.

                        a statement of your fantasies.
                        but let's get back to the facts. Where is even one contradiction in the picture I described??? Yes, there was an October coup, there was a revolution, but were they only carried out by communists? Well, it's obvious that they weren't - it's even written in Soviet textbooks. The question is in the interpretation of events.
                        I have cited data that show that the VKPB was able to impose its path only in the middle of 18, before that it had only a very limited influence. It was not a Bolshevik revolution from the very beginning, it became one afterwards. And this is an important point, because a number of accusations of terror addressed to the Bolsheviks are simply unfounded in terms of dates.
                      3. 0
                        5 September 2025 10: 59
                        You are an enemy because you are spreading blatant anti-Soviet lies without even trying to provide references.
                        The conversation is over, you can stop adding branches.
                      4. 0
                        5 September 2025 11: 08
                        What is anti-Soviet about indicating the number of parties or the dates of decrees?
                        Did I lie somewhere? Did I distort something somewhere? Or did I just say something inconvenient?
                    2. 0
                      5 September 2025 09: 58
                      Quote: October
                      Learn the story.
                      Conversation is over.

                      An excerpt from an interview with Yulia Kantor, professor of history at the Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia.

                      After one in the morning, a small armed group (10-12 people), led by Antonov-Ovseenko, entered through the only unlocked and unguarded entrance to Zimny ​​from the side of Palace Square, which led to the Empress's chambers.

                      It is now impossible to find out why none of the defenders of the palace was there - probably everyone simply forgot about this entrance, since this part of the Winter Palace had long been empty. According to some reports, one of the companies of the women's battalion was supposed to be here, but late in the evening of October 25, almost all of its personnel left their positions.

                      Antonov-Ovseenko and his comrades climbed a small narrow staircase to the second floor and, naturally, got lost in a multitude of completely dark rooms. At about two o'clock in the morning, hearing someone's voices, they went out to the Malachite Drawing Room and found themselves right in front of the door of the Small Dining Room, where the ministers of the Provisional Government met.

                      Nobody guarded them?

                      There was supposed to be a cadet post in the Malachite Living Room, but for some reason there was no one there. Another cadet post was in the room adjacent to the Small Dining Room on the opposite side.

                      Did the cadets try to neutralize the Antonov-Ovseenko detachment?

                      There is no evidence that the cadets were involved in this situation in any way.

                      How can this be explained? Maybe they were just sleeping?

                      I don't think so. The Winter Palace was being shelled from the Peter and Paul Fortress, so it's unlikely that any of its inhabitants slept that night. I can only assume that the appearance of Antonov-Ovseenko's armed group came as a complete surprise to everyone.

                      The reception room of Alexander III, where one of the shells fired at the palace from the Peter and Paul Fortress landed
                      The reception room of Alexander III, where one of the shells fired at the palace from the Peter and Paul Fortress landed

                      Photo: historydoc.edu.ru

                      Perhaps, in order to avoid bloodshed, the members of the Provisional Government asked the cadets not to resist, especially since Antonov-Ovseenko guaranteed everyone's life. He declared the ministers arrested, after which they were taken away in two cars to the Peter and Paul Fortress.

                      So there was no violence?
                      There was none at that moment.

                      any questions?
                      1. 0
                        5 September 2025 10: 44
                        I still don't see a link where I can watch it.
                      2. 0
                        5 September 2025 10: 48
                        Quote: October
                        I still don't see a link where I can watch it.
                        Google the text, I wrote that it was a quote.
                      3. 0
                        5 September 2025 10: 51
                        Google the text I wrote,

                        1) Why should I do your work?
                        2) I asked for a link to the source, and not to your anti-Soviet blog, which you run somewhere and which I don’t care about
                      4. 0
                        5 September 2025 10: 55
                        Quote: October
                        Why should I do your work?

                        It's not my job - it's your desire to drown me in a sea of ​​searching for evidence, while a couple of words of insults are enough for you.
  3. -5
    20 August 2025 08: 27
    Overall, Zhukov was in his right place. Smart, honest, brave.

    Unfortunately, Zhukov turned out to be a bad politician. After Stalin's death, he got involved in political games, supported Khrushchev with his authority first against Beria, then helped Khrushchev defeat his other opponents. This was his huge mistake.

    And here too he was right. This cannot be tolerated (Zhukov 1957):

    From the documents available in the archives of the Military Collegium of the Tribunal27, in the archives of the Central Committee, it is clear that from February 27, 1937 to November 12, 1938, the NKVD received from Stalin, Molotov, and Kaganovich the sanction for the conviction by the Military Collegium, the Supreme Court, the sanction for the death penalty28 of 38 people.

    The sanction was given, as a rule, to leading officials of party, soviet, Komsomol and trade union bodies, as well as to people's commissars, their deputies, major business leaders, prominent military workers, writers, and cultural and artistic leaders.

    By giving the sanction for trial before the Military Collegium, Stalin, Molotov, and Kaganovich determined the measure of punishment in advance, and the Military Collegium only formalized29 this measure of punishment, this sentence, essentially formally fulfilling its duty. The lists sent to the Central Committee by Yezhov to Stalin were compiled for an extremely large number of people. These lists of people who were presented for execution indicated only the last name, first name, and patronymic of the convicted persons and the category under which they should be tried. Yezhov proposed this in advance. These lists did not even indicate the year of birth, did not indicate party affiliation, did not indicate why this person should be sentenced to death.

    The sanction for sentencing was also given for a large number at once. For example, Stalin and Molotov on one day - note - November 12, 1938 sanctioned the execution of 3 people.

    Voices. Horror.

    ZHUKOV. I don't know if they read the list. After all, for 30 people, do you know how many pages you have to read, not to mention that you had to ask, for what, who is this person? Like cattle, they were sent according to the list: so many bulls, so many cows, so many sheep.

    On November 21, 1938, the NKVD was presented with a list for sanctioning the execution of 292 people, including 45 former members and candidates for membership in the Central Committee, 28 former members of the CPC and KSC, members of the Audit Commission, 12 former secretaries of regional and territorial committees, 26 former people's commissars, deputy people's commissars, and chairmen of regional executive committees, 149 responsible employees of the people's commissariats, etc. After reviewing this list, Stalin, Molotov, and Kaganovich sanctioned the death penalty for 229 people, including 23 former members and candidates for membership in the Central Committee, 22 former members of the CPC and KSC, 12 former secretaries of regional committees, 21 former people's commissars, 136 former employees of the people's commissariats, and 15 former military workers.
    1. +7
      20 August 2025 12: 00
      Quote: Olgovich
      And here he was right too. This cannot be tolerated (Zhukov 1957)

      Well, having said A, it was necessary to say B: how many people did the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine apply for the Highest Measure of Social Protection.
      Otherwise, when condemned The anti-party group of Malenkov, Kaganovich, Molotov and Shepilov who joined them © during the repressions of the 30s, they somehow quietly ignored the fact that:
      During the years 1938-1940, when Khrushchev was the first secretary of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine, 167 people were arrested in Ukraine (in 565 alone, consent was given to the repression of 1938 people from among the republican party and Soviet activists).
      1. 0
        20 August 2025 14: 15
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And then, when the Anti-Party Group of Malenkov, Kaganovich, Molotov and Shepilov, who joined them, was convicted

        They were allowed to live and even live a comfortable existence - isn't that a striking difference from '37?
        1. +7
          20 August 2025 14: 36
          Quote: Olgovich
          They were allowed to live and even live a comfortable existence - isn't that a striking difference from '37?

          That's true. And after them, the General Secretary was removed from his post and sent to retirement, not to a firing range in an unmarked burial place.

          I'm talking about something else: The anti-party group was condemned for complicity in the repressions of the 30s. But they did this under the leadership of an active participant in these very repressions. This is roughly like the fight against communism under the leadership of members of the CPSU Central Committee.
          1. Fat
            -1
            20 August 2025 20: 04
            What? Was something else expected? N.S. Khrushchev's demarche with revelations was perceived by the majority of "builders of communism" as a betrayal.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            It's roughly like the fight against communism under the leadership of members of the CPSU Central Committee.

            Not approximately, but right on target.
          2. +1
            21 August 2025 09: 51
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The anti-party group was condemned for complicity in the repressions of the 30s.

            No, they were convicted of trying to remove Khrushchev, condemning the repressions - earlier, in 1956, and in fact even earlier, when they began mass rehabilitations.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            But they did this under the leadership of an active participant in these very repressions.

            I don't understand what's wrong with this...
          3. 0
            22 August 2025 19: 18
            Well, bees are against honey.
          4. 0
            24 August 2025 15: 08
            As far as I know, Shepilov, and possibly Saburov and Pervukhin, did not take part in the repressions.
    2. 0
      22 August 2025 17: 03
      "..... I don't know if they read the list30. After all, for 3 people, do you know how many pages you have to read, not to mention that you had to ask, for what, who is this person? Like cattle,......!
      The lists were prepared by other people, specially trained for this task. If the signatory were to investigate and delve into the situation, he would have no time left for his direct duties. Everyone does HIS own personal task responsibly, hoping that others also do THEIR task responsibly. Now, the division commander will go and look for pillboxes and machine gun nests, put them on the map and aim the gun!
      1. +1
        23 August 2025 13: 51
        Quote: vetlan19
        If the signatory is involved in investigating and delving into the situation, he will not have time for his direct responsibilities.

        the signatory had no idea at all no right sign death lists for someone
        Quote: vetlan19
        The lists were prepared by other people, specially trained for this task.

        the bandits are trained too had no rights make death lists.

        The COURT only had the right to decide, not the signatories.
  4. +5
    20 August 2025 09: 08
    In the course of rewriting the history of Soviet civilization and the Great Patriotic War

    Samsonov, this is exactly what you are doing and you are the most notorious anti-Soviet.
  5. +5
    20 August 2025 17: 59
    I wonder why Stern was awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union. The article is about nothing, copied from a popular brochure. Stalin raised Zhukov, but in 1941 and later, after the Battle of Rzhev, he realized that he was not an outstanding commander, but was suitable as a whip. And of course, the "trophy case" about the removal of property from Germany by train was not meanness, someone else could have been imprisoned for a long time or shot for looting. Stalin did not blow up the scandal, but told Zhukov that he needed to be more modest.
  6. +2
    20 August 2025 18: 29
    When will they start writing down the authors of the articles at the beginning???
    1. +7
      20 August 2025 18: 58
      Well, then some authors' articles simply won't be read and there won't be any fun in the comments. For example, Samsonov and Skomorokhov are our everything.
    2. Fat
      0
      20 August 2025 20: 14
      Does the scrolling suffer? It's often clear from the first word. The style... Not the worst by the way... maybe not at the moment But it should be noted that A. Samsonov is a good author and an experienced journalist. Well, you need something more luxurious, give it better, smarter... et seter)))
      1. 0
        21 August 2025 08: 15
        The work here is a C. Samsonov could have done a better job of compiling, without obviously repeating Isaev
  7. -1
    21 August 2025 10: 12
    Quote: shocktrooper
    Well, Rokossovsky is also far from being as ideal as they like to present him, at least read about the same offensives on Bobruisk in the fall and winter of 43-44 and about the conflict with Gorbatov, otherwise everyone in his biographies loves to jump straight from the Battle of Kursk to Bagration, as if he had done nothing for a whole year. Well, the fact that Zhukov was driven around the fronts says just the opposite - that he was a trusted person, whom Stavka and Stalin sent to the most active and responsible areas, if he had been average or bad - he would have remained the whole war languishing in some Karelian front or would have been demoted to army commander, and not met the end of the war in Berlin, commanding the largest front.

    And who did they take the front from? From Rokossovsky and they gave it to him...
    1. 0
      21 August 2025 11: 18
      Quote: stoqn477
      And who did they take the front from? From Rokossovsky and they gave it to him...

      Rokossovsky was transferred from the 1st Belorussian Front to the 2nd Belorussian Front in November 1944. When Berlin was still a distant memory, it was necessary to first reach the Oder from the Vistula.
  8. 0
    21 August 2025 11: 44
    The General Staff screwed up a lot at the beginning of the war. That's why Zhukov, on Stalin's orders, went and corrected the generals' mistakes. Well, and Zhukov's too, of course. At least that's what Martirosyan said in his lecture
    1. +1
      22 August 2025 19: 20
      The General Staff did a lot of damage at the beginning of the war.

      Under the leadership of the Chief of the General Staff, who, oddly enough, was the subject.
  9. 0
    21 August 2025 22: 34
    After the end of the Time of Troubles
    The film "Formula of Love" comes to mind: we have many long-livers here.... That's how the Time of Troubles is called the events of the 17th century in Russia
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. +1
    22 August 2025 18: 34
    The article, as usual, has no references to the original sources. Although we are talking about the well-documented 20th century. The article contains the phrase twice: "Stalin said: "Zhukov is our Suvorov." The words of I.V. Stalin were recorded especially carefully. But for some reason the author did not specify when this phrase was uttered (or maybe not uttered) by I.V. Stalin, who heard it, who wrote it down, in which Soviet media of that time it was printed.
    Here's another point. The author writes.
    During the war, he became Deputy Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Minister of Defense, member of the highest military-political leadership of the USSR, four times Hero of the Soviet Union, holder of two Orders of Victory and many other Soviet and foreign orders and medals.
    The context suggests that G.K.Zhukovo received all four Hero of the Soviet Union Stars during the war. However, the fourth time the title "Hero of the Soviet Union" was presented to G.K.Zhukov by N.S. Khrushchev as a gift for Zhukov's 60th birthday. The decree on awarding the title for the fourth time was issued on December 1, 1956 in connection with the 60th anniversary of his birth.
    In 1949, writer Emmanuel Kazakevich was awarded the Stalin Prize of the second degree.
    for his novel "Spring on the Oder". When discussing this novel, Comrade I.V. Stalin said
    The novel has its shortcomings. Not everything is depicted correctly: Rokossovsky is shown, Konev is shown, but the main front there, on the Oder, was commanded by Zhukov. Zhukov has his shortcomings, some of his qualities were not liked at the front, but it must be said that he fought better than Konev and no worse than Rokossovsky. This aspect of Comrade Kazakevich's novel is incorrect. There is a member of the Military Council in the novel, Sizokrylov, who does what a commander should do, replaces him in all matters. And so there is a pass, no Zhukov, as if he never existed. This is wrong. And the novel "Spring on the Oder" is talented. Kazakevich can write and writes well. How should we decide this issue? Should we give him a bonus or not? If we decide this issue positively, then we must tell Comrade Kazakevich so that he can take this into account and correct it, it is wrong to do so. In any case, to pass through the way he passed through means that it is wrong to do so."

    Like this Zhukov fought better than Konev and no worse than Rokossovsky
    1. +1
      22 August 2025 19: 22
      He was given the fourth star for Hungary, not for his 60 years.
      Rewards for living to a certain age began under dear Leonid Ilyich. In principle, living to a certain age is also a feat to some extent.
      1. 0
        24 August 2025 15: 11
        Under Stalin, awards were also given in connection with anniversaries or length of service.
        1. 0
          24 August 2025 17: 35
          Can you name anyone who received an award under Stalin on the stated basis?
          1. 0
            24 August 2025 18: 49
            https://03-11-1944.rkka.wiki/
            https://03-11-1944.rkka.wiki/regulation
          2. 0
            24 August 2025 18: 53
            Interesting points:
            6. The time spent in captivity, encirclement, and special inspection (during the Great Patriotic War) is counted towards length of service, but only if the serviceman was not discharged from the Red Army during this period by order of the People's Commissariat of Defense.
            7. The time spent under investigation or in prison (in 1937-1939 and elsewhere) is counted towards length of service, but only if the previously issued order to dismiss from the army was cancelled or if re-enrollment into the Red Army was carried out immediately after the end of the investigation or release from prison.
            8. Servicemen of the Red Army, seconded to serve in the Polish army, are subject to the award of orders and medals for length of service on a general basis, as members of the cadres of the Red Army.
          3. 0
            24 August 2025 18: 55
            Below are links and an excerpt from one document. This all concerns military personnel. But I think this was practiced in relation to other categories as well.
            1. 0
              24 August 2025 20: 54
              They convinced me. But still, it was not so indiscriminately awarded on this basis under "dear Leonid Ilyich" (including Leonid Ilyich himself) - under Stalin.
          4. 0
            24 August 2025 19: 24
            PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE USSR
            DECREE
            from 25 February 1946 of the year
            On awarding comrade Zhdanov A.A. with the Order of Lenin


            In connection with the fiftieth anniversary of the birth of the Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Comrade A. A. Zhdanov, and taking into account his outstanding services to the party and the Soviet people, to award Comrade Andrei Aleksandrovich Zhdanov the Order of Lenin.

            Chairman of the Presidium
            USSR Supreme Council
            M. KALININ
            Secretary of the Presidium
            Supreme Soviet of the USSR A. GORKIN
            Moscow, Kremlin. February 25, 1946.
            Source: On the awarding of Comrade A. A. Zhdanov with the Order of Lenin // Pravda: newspaper. - 1946. - February 27, No. 49 (10131). - P. 2.
    2. 0
      23 August 2025 11: 51
      With P. Thank you for the comment, I would like to note that Stalin spoke about the Berlin operation. Earlier in April 1946, a military-scientific conference was held at which Lieutenant General Telegin cited data according to which the total number of tanks destroyed, ALLEGEDLY destroyed by the 1st Blr Front, is more than 2 times greater than the number of tanks the Germans had against the 1st Blr Front. Overstatement of human losses by approximately 15%. (Wikipedia)
  12. -2
    22 August 2025 19: 08
    Stalin himself said: “Zhukov is our Suvorov.”
    I have studied his works, and I am surprised that anyone in Russia doubts such a talented commander. I have no doubts.
  13. 0
    22 August 2025 21: 42
    Quote: Metallurg_2
    He was given the fourth star for Hungary, not for his 60 years.
    But the decree on the award is dated December 1, 1956. And Zhukov was born on December 1, 1896. Just a coincidence, right?
    Well, then here is the decree itself. hi
  14. +2
    22 August 2025 21: 43
    Quote: Altmann
    Stalin himself said: “Zhukov is our Suvorov.”
    Yes, great. Just questions:
    1. Where did you say
    2. When he spoke
    3. Who heard?
    4. Who wrote it down?
    5. In which newspaper or in which collection of Comrade Stalin’s speeches was this phrase published?
  15. -1
    23 November 2025 18: 48
    And there was another crisis manager who managed to organize the production of tanks, airplanes, and ammunition in sites amidst the taiga and fields, the movement of trains during evacuations, the operation of the oil, coal, rubber, and other industries, and strategic intelligence. And all this amidst a perfect storm of disorganization, especially in 1941-42. First Deputy Chairman of the State Defense Committee. How did he manage it?