Military Review

About lend-lease and losses. The fate of the world in 1941-1945. solved on the Eastern Front: facts and figures

54
About lend-lease and losses. The fate of the world in 1941-1945. solved on the Eastern Front: facts and figuresIn March of this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking to delegates to the founding congress of the Russian Military Historical Society, noted that “the main resource of Russia's power, its future, lies in historical memory. " This is true. Russians can and should be proud of their history. I would like to talk about this on the eve of the 68th anniversary of the Great Victory.


22 June 1941 of the year, under the banner of Hitler's Reich, the military and economic power of almost the whole of continental Europe collapsed on the USSR. By that time, Germany controlled or patronized the territory in 3 million square meters. km, on which lived about 290 million. Even the so-called “neutral” Switzerland and Sweden made a considerable contribution to the growth of the military power of fascist Germany.

By 1941, Hitler was able to put himself in the service of the military industry, weapons and mobilization stocks of most European countries. This allowed him to create the most powerful military machine in the history of mankind. She rode across the expanses of our homeland like a fire rink ...

The Brest Fortress took the first blow. Her defenders kept the defense for more than a month. There were no detachments behind them that some modern “truth-seekers” like to refer to. The defenders of the fortress fought until the last breath.

I remember the words scratched on the plaster of one of the basements of the fortress for the rest of my life. “There were three of us. It was hard for us. We are dying, but not giving up. 22. 07. 1941.

Participants of the defense of Smolensk, Sevastopol, Odessa, Voronezh, Leningrad, and Moscow deserve no less piety. They detained, then stopped, and then drove the Nazi evil back.

Причем погнали так, что бывший пресс-секретарь нацистского министра иностранных дел Риббентропа, оберштурмбанфюрер СС (подполковник) Карл Шмидт (писавший под псевдонимом Пауль Карелл) после войны был вынужден признать, что в 1944 году «темпы наступления советских войск превышали темпы продвижения tank групп Гудериана и Гота по маршруту Брест-Смоленск-Ельня во время «блицкрига» летом 1941 г.».

I recall this fact for those Russian historians who savor the German "blitzkrieg", presenting it as something unsurpassed in the art of war.

Speaking of Soviet victories weapons, it is impossible to keep silent about its creators, heroes of the rear, by whose labor it was created. After the beginning of the war in a few months of autumn and winter 1941, the Soviet people transferred 2593 industrial enterprises to the eastern regions of the country! In addition, 2,4 million cattle, 200 thousand pigs, 5,1 million sheep and goats, 800 thousand horses were moved to the East. 10 million people were transported to the rear areas.

This required an incredible effort of strength, coherence and accuracy in the organization of rail transport. The volume of these shipments is staggering. Only for the evacuation of one Zaporizhstal plant it took 8000 cars. And enterprises of this scale were not one hundred. And all of them, almost from the wheels, began to give products that were so necessary to the front.

Aircraft designer Alexander Sergeevich Yakovlev recalled that "the Yak fighter aircraft factory evacuated from Moscow to Siberia exceeded the Moscow production volume three months later, and after eleven months made aircraft eleven times more than before the evacuation."

As a result, by the end of the 1942 of the year, the USSR was ahead of Germany in the production of tanks in 3,9 times, combat aircraft - in 1,9 times, guns of all kinds - in 3,9 times. Can any of the modern Russian "effective" managers repeat something like that?

Of course, it is impossible not to note the importance of Lend-Lease (American military aid). Paying tribute to this assistance, one should not idealize it, as a kind of highly moral, disinterested act of the administration and the industrial capital of the United States.

At the core of the Lend-Lease was a purely pragmatic calculation, the essence of which US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt described as follows. He said that “if your neighbor’s house is on fire, and you have a garden hose, lend it to your neighbor until your house is on fire”.

More specifically, the US Senator Harry Truman (the future president of the United States) spoke on Lend-Lease. 24 June 1941, he said that if Germany won, we would help Russia, and if Russia, then Germany. But the main thing is that they kill each other as much as possible.

The value of lend-lease supplies for the victory over Nazism is estimated differently. It is argued in the West, and some of Russian historians believe that without Lend-Lease, the Soviet Union would not stand. In the USSR, on the contrary, the significance of American supplies of arms, transport, materials and food was downplayed.

It was usually said that the share of these supplies in relation to domestic production during the war economy period was only about 4% and therefore could not have a decisive impact on the course of hostilities. Meanwhile, in monetary terms, the volume of American lend-lease deliveries amounted to about 11 billion US dollars.

In addition, this situation should be considered at a specific time. For one dying of thirst in the desert, even a single flask of water is life and an opportunity to reach the oasis. At the same time, we note that until October 1941, the USSR paid for this “flask” in gold. Recall the German cruiser Edinburgh, sunk in April 1942, by the Germans, which carried Soviet gold for military supplies to England. And the "flask" in 1941 was insignificant ...

Americans began to supply their supplies to the USSR only after Roosevelt approved the USSR’s connection to Lend-Lease in October 1941. However, American Lend-Lease deliveries were fully implemented only after Stalingrad and the Battle of Kursk, that is, in the second half of 1943.

Nevertheless, the role of the Lend-Lease was highly appreciated by the former USSR Commissar for Foreign Trade Anastas Mikoyan, who from the year 1942 led the reception of allied supplies.

The People's Commissar recalled that “in 1941, we lost everything, and if it were not for Lend-Lease, not weapons, food and warm clothes for the army, another question is how things would turn out ... Without Lend-Lease, we would probably have another one or one and a half extra fought. "

Under the USSR’s Lend-Lease, 409,5 thousand vehicles (427 thousand with the help of other allies), 32 thousand army motorcycles and 13,3 thousand tractors and tractors, about 18 thousand aircraft of various types, more than 7 thousand tanks (with including shipments from England 12,5 thousand), 90 cargo ships and 105 anti-submarine ships, 2 million 317 thousand tons of steel, 1900 locomotives and 11 thousand cars, 295 thousand tons of powder and explosives, 387 thousand tons of copper, 328 thousand . tons of aluminum, 38,1 thousand. machine tools, 610 thousand tons of sugar, 665 thousand tons of canned meat and others.

In the "Short History" of the Great Patriotic War, it is noted that in relation to Soviet production, supplies under Lend-Lease were: for artillery guns of all systems - 1,9%, for tanks - 7%, for combat aircraft - up to 13%. In the car park of the Red Army in 1943, the import cars were 5,4%, and in 1944, it was already 19%.

However, the calculation of "from the general" is not always correct. Take, for example, the American aircraft P-39 "Air Cobra" ("Airacobra"). They were delivered to the USSR only about 5 thousand pieces. From 120 thousand aircraft manufactured by the Soviet industry, that's just 4,2%. But 15 Soviet pilots, led by three times Hero of the Soviet Union Alexander Pokryshkin, flying the Air Cobra from 1943 to the end of the war, shot down over five hundred German aircraft.

The Americans also delivered thousands of Studebaker cars to the Union 20. It would seem a little. But the Studebakers became the main chassis of the legendary Katyusha rocket launcher, which each volley brought the Victory closer.

The same situation was with the delivery of US 8 thousand artillery guns. If we compare them with the general production of tools in the USSR (482,2 thousand), then this is only 1,6%. But it should be borne in mind that these were anti-aircraft guns, which, according to Stalin, were so necessary.

Nevertheless, I want to repeat, to exaggerate the significance of the military technical assistance of the West should not be. As already mentioned, the main volume of supplies under Lend-Lease came in the period after the defeat of the Germans at Stalingrad and Kursk, when the military power of Germany was already broken down. Undoubtedly, these supplies helped the USSR survive and accelerated its victory. However, the main role in achieving this victory was played by the skill of Soviet military leaders and the heroism of Soviet soldiers. This is confirmed, for example, by the following fact.

6 June 1944, 10 thousands of aircraft, 1200 battleships, 804 transport ships and 4126 landing craft threw 156 thousands of Allied forces across the English Channel (83 thousands of British and Canadians, 73 thousands of Americans). It was the discovery of the long-awaited Second Front.

By the end of 1944, the group of allied forces in Europe totaled almost a million people who had over 10 thousand aircraft, 6,5 thousand tanks. America threw at the European theater of war the most advanced military equipment. Anglo-American aviation reigned supreme in the air.

The Allies effortlessly broke through, only in words the formidable and impregnable Atlantic Wall. All they had to do on the borders of Germany was to overcome the dismantled Siegfried Line. It would seem that the Nazis came to an end.

But 16 December 1944, Army Group B, under the command of Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, which had more than 200 thousands of soldiers and officers, 900 tanks, 800 aircraft and 2600 guns and mortars, as well as selected tank divisions, struck in the Ardennes area, attacked in the area of ​​Ardennes. US Army Group of General Omar Bradley, numbering 12 million soldiers.

The Germans in a matter of hours crushed the defenses of the Americans and developed the offensive.

In January, 1945, they stepped up the onslaught. The situation for the Americans was catastrophic. In this regard, the supreme commander of the expeditionary forces, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, suggested that the heads of the United States and Great Britain turn to the USSR for help.

January 6 The British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote to I. Stalin that there was a “disturbing” situation in the West, “very heavy battles were going on,” and in this connection he asked to say whether the Anglo-Americans could count on the Soviet offensive in January The next day, the Soviet government replied that the timing of our offensive across the Central Front, originally scheduled for January 1945, 20, was shifted to January 1945.

In the period from 12 to 14 in January of 1945, the Soviet front over the course of 1200 km (from East Prussia and the Western Carpathians) began to move. At the same time, a whole series of offensive operations were carried out: the Vistula-Oder, Sandomierz-Silesian, West Carpathian, East Prussia, Warsaw-Poznan. Each of them in scale substantially exceeded the Ardennes operation.

According to the rules of military art, it is believed that a successful attack on a fortified enemy requires the material advantage of 4: 1. But there are cases when with particularly strong fortifications such an advantage did not guarantee success. But on January 12, the Red Army's 1945, the Red Army's compound, broke through the German front with concentrated blows throughout.

To participate in the East Prussian operation, the Soviet military leadership concentrated 1,7 million, 25,4 thousand guns and mortars, about 4 thousand tanks and SPG, over 3 thousand combat aircraft. This group attacked Königsberg, the military fortifications of which were created for several hundred years. The city was defended by 780 thousand Wehrmacht soldiers, 8,2 thousand guns and mortars, 700 tanks and assault guns, 775 aircraft.

However, Koenigsberg was taken in three days. For comparison, we recall that Stalingrad withstood a siege of more than four months, and its main fortification was an ordinary residential house, known as the house of Sergeant Pavlov.

The success of the Red Army was obvious, but the losses of the Soviet fronts in the period from January 13 to April 25 1945 were also heavy. 126,5 thousand soldiers and officers died and went missing, more than 458 thousand soldiers were injured or were out of action due to illness. Troops lost 3,5 thousand tanks and self-propelled artillery, 1,6 thousand guns and mortars and almost 1,5 thousand combat aircraft.

However, the German losses were incomparably greater. Only in East Prussia 25 of the German divisions were destroyed, 12 divisions lost from 50 to 70% of their composition. Soviet troops captured more than 220 thousand soldiers and officers. About 15 thousand guns and mortars, 1,4 thousand tanks and assault guns, 363 combat aircraft and many other military equipment became trophies.

In general, the losses of the Wehrmacht in the Soviet January offensive were up to 500 thousand people. In the Ardennes, German losses amounted to 81 thousand people.
After the start of the Soviet offensive, the Nazis virtually ceased active hostilities in the West, leaving behind only battle barriers. Already 18 in January 1945 of the Year F. Roosevelt wrote to I. Stalin: “The exploits accomplished by your heroic warriors earlier, and the effectiveness they have already demonstrated in this offensive, give every reason to hope for the early successes of our troops on both fronts.”

The Allies were able to recover from the strike in the Ardennes only in the last week of March 1945. At this time, despite the fact that the Nazis threw all reserves to the East, the Red Army was successfully advancing deep into Germany. The grand January offensive led Soviet soldiers to the near approaches to the German capital. Before Berlin at the beginning of February, 1945 remained only 60 km.

As we see, the decisive role in the success of military operations at the final stage of the Second World War was played not by motorized formations of the United States, but by Soviet commanders and soldiers. In their hands, military equipment made a miracle and ensured not only the salvation of the American and British troops in the Ardennes, but also the final victory over Nazi Germany.

It would seem that the heroism and blood of Soviet soldiers was a sufficient payment for military and material assistance, which the Allies provided to the Soviet Union in the fight against the common enemy. But the Americans regarded it a little differently.

After the defeat of Japan, the States sent a proposal to the Soviet government to return the surviving military equipment as of 2 September 1945 of the year and pay off the debt. Well, at least they didn’t demand compensation for the US military equipment destroyed during the battles.

Interesting was the process of putting military equipment to the Americans, in particular cars. According to eyewitnesses, this happened in 1946-1947 year. The Americans brought a ship to the port with a press and scissors. A special commission meticulously took the car, checked the conformity of the factory configuration, after which it was immediately sent ... under a press and loaded into the ship in the form of "cubes".

Soviet-American negotiations on payments for lend-lease supplies began in 1948, and continued intermittently until June of 1990. Then Gorbachev and Bush set a new deadline for the final payment of debt — 2030 a year, and the amount of $ 674 million.
Interestingly, if the United States carried the main burden of the battles with Germany in World War II and suffered casualties commensurate with the Soviet ones, would they agree to pay their creditor under the same conditions as the USSR?

Special mention should be made of the human losses of howling parties. First of all, about the Soviet losses. Today they have become the subject of sophisticated speculation, the essence of which is as follows. The USSR piled up the Wehrmacht with corpses, thereby winning the war. Meanwhile, according to the military historian Colonel-General G.F. Krivosheev in combat killed 8,7 million Soviet soldiers, of which more than 3 million were in German captivity. In total, 26,6 million Soviet people died during the war. Recall that the population in the USSR in 1940 was 194 million.

However, the Russian historian and publicist Boris Sokolov claims that the Soviet armed forces during the war years allegedly lost 26,4 million, and the total casualties of the USSR amounted to 43,4 million. It should be noted that Sokolov included demographic losses in Soviet losses (that is, those who could have been born but not born), but did not do this for Germany.

At the same time, Sokolov increased the population of the USSR in the 1941 year to 209 million, which, accordingly, in his calculations automatically increased the number of Soviet losses. Such conscious "blunders" Sokolov in his calculations made a lot. You can read more about them in Vladimir Timakov’s article “The Demography of Victory”, published by 09.05.2012 in the newspaper “Tomorrow”.

Sokolov deliberately did not take into account that by the fall of 1942, the USSR had lost the territory in which more than 80 million people lived.

As a result, Soviet conscription resources were almost equal to the resources of Nazi Germany. Therefore, the USSR had a small real opportunity to “cover the Nazis with corpses”.
Sokolov estimated the total human casualties of Germany in the war at 5,95 million. At the same time, he claims that the Wehrmacht and parts of the SS allegedly lost all 3,95 million, of which on the Eastern front - 2,6 million. The ratio of military losses of the USSR and Germany Sokolov estimated as 10,3: 1. (B. Sokolov. Price wars: losses of the USSR and Germany, 1939-1945).

The impression is that Sokolov sought to adjust the number of German losses to the figure voiced by Hitler. He in February 1945 of the year said that Germany had lost millions of people killed 6. Perhaps, therefore, Sokolov rejected the data of the West German military historian R. Overmans. He estimated the losses of the German armed forces in World War II in 5,3 million dead, including the dead in captivity.

However, Overmans, analyzing reports on the losses of the Wehrmacht, found that in some cases they used the reduction factor "2". Simply put, the Germans reduced their losses by half. So much for the vaunted German statistics.

In this regard, we list some variants of German combat losses, which are currently offered in Germany. According to official data of the German government, the irretrievable loss of life of the German armed forces in the war is defined in 4.192 thousand people. Former Wehrmacht Major General B. Muller-Hillebrand determined the amount of German combat losses in 4,0 million. Professor Helmut Arntz believes that the losses (only Germans) of the German armed forces in World War II amounted to only 3.250 thousand people.

It would be possible to believe in it, if it were not for the obvious facts. Princess Vasilchikova, in her “Berlin Diary” in 1943, wrote that everyone who could be mobilized was mobilized into the army. Then in Germany was declared "total" mobilization. Newsreel of the end of April 1945, shows how Hitler goes along the line of mobilized adolescents and the elderly.

In total, during the war years, Germany mobilized according to various sources from 17,8 to 19,0 million. Where are these millions gone? Some work in this direction was done by the Russian historian-economist A. Kozinsky. He was able to convincingly prove that in all calculations of German losses killed and dead strangely disappears around 5,0 million Wehrmacht soldiers. (A. Kozinsky. "The history of military losses in the Second World War: how many Hitlerite armed forces lost their killed?").

Major-General V. Gurkin, member of the USSR Ministry of Defense Commission on casualties in the Great Patriotic War, in the article “On the human losses on the Soviet-German front in 1941-1945”, believes that the irretrievable human losses of Nazi Germany on the Soviet-German front, including Austrian, Luxemburg, Alsatian, Lothing, Sudeten Germans and voluntary formations from other states made up 6.923.700 people. (“New and Newest History”, No. 3, 1992).

Consequently, the ratio of casualties on the Soviet-German front is no more than 1: 1,3 in favor of Germany. This ratio of losses is confirmed by the analysis of the human balance of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army at the end of the war.
Then, in the Wehrmacht, about 7,0 million military personnel (33% of the conscripted) remained under arms, and in the Red Army - 12,8 million (37% of the conscripted).

According to Gurkin’s calculations, the total casualties of the German armed forces in World War II were 13.448.000 people, or 75,1% of the number mobilized and 46% of the total male population of Germany for 1939 a year, including Austria.

The Germans suffered the majority of these losses on the Eastern Front. Recall that in just three weeks of fighting in June-July, the Wehrmacht 1941 lost 100 thousand people. The Germans did not carry such losses even in battles with the strongest European army, the French. And in the USSR, the Nazis went through battles near Moscow, Rzhev, Leningrad, Voronezh, Stalingrad, Kursk, Kiev, etc. These battles became for the Nazis a genuine "meat grinder".

But, according to Sokolov, who emphasizes the commanding talent of the Nazi generals, it turns out that the Germans in these battles simply got tired of shooting at the Russians. They allegedly retreated almost without loss, straightening, as Goebbels argued, the front line. In this way, “saving” ammunition, shells and people, the Nazis retreated all the way to Berlin? And completed this whole epic of his surrender? Can you believe it?

It remains to remind Mr. Sokolov that for any soldier and officer of the Wehrmacht, the direction to the Eastern Front was the most terrible punishment. On this front, Germany lost 72% of military personnel, 75% of tanks, 78% of aircraft.

And what were the losses of the civilian German population? The previously mentioned prof. Mr. Arntz identified these losses in approximately 3-3,5 million. This figure seems to be understated for the following reasons. Arntz believes that 500 thousands of people died from the bombing in Germany. At the same time, he himself cites information that 250 thousand people were killed by Allied bombs only in Dresden. (G. Arntz. Human casualties in World War II).

Similarly, five more large German cities, including Hamburg, Cologne, and Juelich, were destroyed (by 90%, like Dresden). 56 German cities were destroyed by bombing more than 50%. It is estimated that the Allies dropped a number of bombs on Germany equal to 75 Hiroshima.

According to the directory Japan-Hanbuch, hrsg. Von H / Hammitzsch in Zusammenarbeit mit L. Brull / 2 / Aufl. Stuttgart, 1984 (p. 155, 195) in Hiroshima killed more than 260 thousand people and more than 100 thousand were injured. If we draw an analogy with Hiroshima, it turns out that the casualties among the civilian population of Germany from the Allied bombings should have counted more than one million victims.

Recall the loss of life of our former allies: the United States and Britain. Today, they position themselves as powers that have made a decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

It is known that the United States lost in the 418 war thousands of people. But for this they received very substantial material compensation.

The United States turned out to be the only belligerent country in the world that, during the war, created a powerful military-industrial complex and concentrated in itself 73% of the world gold reserves.

Recall that after the First World War, the United States also increased its gold reserves from $ 1,9 billion to $ 4,0 billion. If we proceed from the price of gold, then a billion dollars 1920 of the year corresponds to modern 55 billion dollars. To whom the war, and to whom the mother is native!

Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939. In 1940, she sent the 300-thousandth expeditionary force to the aid of France. However, he, like the 5 million-strong French army, was defeated by the Germans in a matter of weeks. After that, Britain focused its efforts on repelling German bombing raids, V-1 aircraft and V-2 airplanes on London.

The main military operations of Britain led the North African theater of military operations, and since 1944, in Europe.

Today, British and Western historians stubbornly impose the view that the battle of El Alamein (October-November 1942, Egypt, 106 km from Alexandria) was the decisive battle of the Second World War, which determined its outcome.

Recall that in this battle 8-I British Army under General Bernard Montgomery number 220 thousand. Man with 1100 tanks, 750 airplanes and 908 guns defeated the German-Italian group, under the command of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel number 115 thousand. Man with 600 tanks, 900 aircraft and 552 guns.

The British lost the 13.560 killed and wounded in the battles of El Alamein, the 332 of the tank, the Germans and Italians lost the 30.542 of those killed and wounded and the 232 of the tank. The total losses of Great Britain in the war amounted to 450 thousand people.

Speaking of the Battle of Stalingrad (July 1942 - February 1943), we note that in it the total irretrievable and sanitary losses of the warring parties (the Red Army and the Wehrmacht) amounted to almost two million people (1,12 million Soviet and 840 thousand German) . It is known that the total irretrievable losses of the Germans on the Western Front amounted to 340 thousand people killed.

In the Battle of Kursk (5 July - 23 August 1943), the Soviet grouping of troops numbering 1,3 million, 3,4 thousand tanks, 19,1 thousand guns and mortars and 2,2 thousand planes (excluding reserves) was opposed by the German group numbering 0,9 million, 2,7 thousand tanks, about 10,0 thousand guns and mortars and 2,0 thousand aircraft. The total losses of armored vehicles near Kursk were more than 7, 5 thousand tanks (6,0 thousand Soviet and 1,5 thousand German).

Note that modern German historians claim that the Wehrmacht won tank battles near Kursk. Yes, the Soviet losses of armored vehicles were significantly higher than the German ones. But they did not become fatal for the USSR. Industry quickly replenished them. And for the German tankers, the victory star at Kursk finally rolled.

It is no accident that the German "tank genius", Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, admitted that German armored forces had suffered a "decisive defeat" near Kursk. As a result, the Germans were not able to carry out any large-scale offensive on the Eastern Front using large groups of armored vehicles, as happened in the 1941 and 1942 years.

Finally, in April-May 1945, 1,9 million people took part in the operation to block and take Berlin from the Soviet side, 6250 tanks, more than 7500 aircraft, from the German side - 1,0 million people, 1500 tanks and more than 3300 aircraft.

All in all, during the fighting, the Red Army defeated the 640 divisions of Germany and its satellites, while the troops of the United States, Britain and France - 180.

The above gives the right to declare that the fate of the world in 1941-1945 was decided not at El Alamein or in the Ardennes, but in the battles for Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk and Berlin.

There is no doubt that neither the United States nor the United Kingdom can claim a decisive role in the defeat of German fascism. Perhaps, on the eve of the Victory, this could not be talked about. However, today the concern is the policy of our former allies who, having survived the Second World War without any particular problems, nowadays inspire regional conflicts that can develop into the Third World War.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. igordok
    igordok 18 May 2013 08: 07 New
    +5
    Not only Brest stood to death, almost every firing point at which the soldiers were standing stood to death.
    Simply and briefly the GERMANS WILL NOT PASS.
  2. Eric
    Eric 18 May 2013 08: 40 New
    +4
    We are winners, period! There can be no speculation on this subject! angry
  3. erased
    erased 18 May 2013 09: 03 New
    +8
    As always, the truth is aloof from controversy and abuse.
    Victory in the war for the USSR! The United States gained the most from Germany’s defeat. The help of the Allies was necessary and quite sufficient, but it did not play a decisive role.
    The USSR fought not against Germany, but against a conglomerate of countries led by Germany. Moreover, the Reich allies not only sent soldiers to the battlefield, but also forged economic power. The United States, whose private firms have collaborated with the Nazis throughout the war, is worth adding to this.
    Always and everywhere, the warring parties tried to downplay their losses and exaggerate the loss of the enemy. Now, after 70 years, with a relatively high degree of probability, one can give the true figures of the losses of the parties. And the fact that the Germans “hid” part of their dead is not surprising.
    Bottom line - it's simple. Everything must be done so that the tragedy of World War II does not happen again. After all, the States and NATO, as well as China, do not abandon their plans.
    1. Atlon
      Atlon 18 May 2013 10: 30 New
      +8
      Quote: erased
      The United States, whose private firms have collaborated with the Nazis throughout the war, is worth adding to this.

      The vast majority belonged to Jewish capital ... By the way, some of them also produced crematorium furnaces ...
      1. erased
        erased 18 May 2013 15: 05 New
        0
        I did not know about this, an interesting fact.
      2. Interface
        Interface 18 May 2013 16: 28 New
        0
        They gave money to the Schneider-Creusot factories, the English Vickers, and German krupps in World War I money. On blood, they put together their capital. This is the essence of the Western mentality - if you cannot live at the expense of others.
        1. Atlon
          Atlon 19 May 2013 10: 50 New
          +1
          Many Jewish "businessmen" billed the United States and England for factories bombed in Germany during the war years. And got the money! wink
    2. Apologet insane
      Apologet insane 20 May 2013 07: 01 New
      -3
      And how much and what did the Soviet Union deliver to the Nazis before and during the war? For some reason, this always remains behind the scenes.
      1. dddym
        dddym 20 May 2013 08: 53 New
        0
        during the war, nothing - if that happened. then to Germany only through capitalist channels, which is not surprising ...
        1. Apologet insane
          Apologet insane 20 May 2013 09: 19 New
          0
          During the war of Germany with Great Britain and France. World War II did not begin in 2.
          1. dddym
            dddym 20 May 2013 18: 33 New
            0
            Well, you give - then Germany was not an enemy of the USSR and the USSR cannot be called the main trading agent. Not only that, we could become allies if England still began to bomb Baku oil fields, or entered the Finnish war. and besides, trade was parity.
          2. Alex
            Alex 23 August 2013 23: 02 New
            +2
            Clarify the terms, these are the ancient Greeks advised.
      2. BM-13
        BM-13 3 August 2014 20: 01 New
        +3
        Quote: Apologet Insane
        And how much and what did the Soviet Union deliver to the Nazis before and during the war?
        During the war - is it your brain softening? Or have the USSR been mixed up with the USA? It is, of course, one letter matches, even three times.
    3. yurta2013
      yurta2013 20 May 2013 19: 50 New
      -1
      Quote: erased
      The help of the Allies was necessary and quite sufficient, but it did not play a decisive role.

      And what other role can be considered, for example, the supply of aluminum (according to various estimates from 106 to 125% of our production in WWII) necessary for the production of aircraft and engines for the T-34? And what about copper (82%) and explosives (53%) for ammunition? And car tires (92%)? What about radio stations and field phones (the vast majority)? Cables (3 times more)? Food (enough to feed the 10 millionth army throughout the war. Is that? Not a decisive factor?
      1. dddym
        dddym 22 May 2013 08: 58 New
        0
        And what other role can be considered, for example, the supply of aluminum (according to various estimates from 106 to 125% of our production in WWII) necessary for the production of aircraft and engines for the T-34? And what about copper (82%) and explosives (53%) for ammunition? And car tires (92%)? What about radio stations and field phones (the vast majority)? Cables (3 times more)? Food (enough to feed the 10 millionth army throughout the war. Is that? Not a decisive factor?
        Yes, Christmas trees ... all this is understandable ... Well, how can you sell for example a piece of bread to your friend who is bleeding? How can you shout about it later? I remember the film from Soviet times, when 2 military journalists practically became friends and the American takes off his watch and gives it to our journalist with a wide gesture. Ours is hugging with happiness and almost an idyll sets in - which the American himself destroys: "With you 10 dollars." Would you yourself begin to demand payment for saving you? Even if you helped the savior, let’s say, spitting on a criminal who is following in your footsteps? Lend-lease is a commercial deal, and one can admire it like a drunk who comes from a hangover to a stall for a shag and the seller, a compassionate squeamishly squeamishly recounts the copper coins hired during the day and still gives out the treasured 250g.
      2. Alex
        Alex 23 August 2013 23: 08 New
        +2
        For the supply of strategic raw materials (aluminum, copper), materials (explosives and communications), equipment (I will not list) and other, other, other - many thanks. This allowed to save huge resources (material and labor), which were aimed at the deployment of industry. And at the expense of feeding the army throughout the war - sorry, easy busting. Not one stew Soviet soldier lived.

        What interests me here is: at what prices did the Allies pay for deliveries, who paid for the loss of cargo on the way, and how did these prices (the Allies and our domestic) compare with each other?
  4. Boris55
    Boris55 18 May 2013 09: 35 New
    +6
    LENDLIZ: Full list of goods and materials received by Russia: http://klin.hutt.ru/viewtopic.php?id=463
    For all this we paid in gold. A second front was opened to stop us. Do not let us take over the whole of Europe. The "senseless" bombardment of Dresden is a demonstration to Stalin of the power of the "allies." The “meaningless" nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is to prevent us from invading Japan and stealing our victory in World War II.
    (If anyone is in the know: World War II began on the 1 of September and ended on the 2 of September)
    Russia still has only two allies - this is its army and navy.
    1. _lawyer_
      _lawyer_ 18 May 2013 14: 54 New
      -1
      "... The meaningless" nuclear bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... "Considering how persistently the Japanese clung to every island and a piece of land and what losses both sides suffered, the nuclear bombing does not look so pointless, since the landing landing to the main islands and the continuation of the war with conventional weapons, would lead to huge losses (including among the civilian population), and Nagasaki and Hiroshima showed the Japanese government the senselessness of resistance.
      Of course it sounds cynical, but during the war it was not up to snot.
      1. smile
        smile 18 May 2013 19: 29 New
        +4
        _lawyer_
        The emperor of Japan learned that something special was used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki only after a week ... about 400 thousand people died during the destruction of Tokyo, burned with incendiary bombs - more than during the atomic bombings.
        Therefore, one should not exaggerate the military and psychological significance of the use of atomic weapons on the Japanese, most of whom until the end of the war had not learned about this humane way of warfare, including the highest Japanese military commanders ...
        The meaninglessness of the resistance for them did not become apparent after the atomic bombs - on the contrary, they clearly underestimated the severity of these weapons - in Hiroshima, for example, the next day after the bombing in the city - a tram started walking right under the epicenter of the explosion ..... several hundreds of incendiary bombers raided with bombs on any of the Japanese major cities with their paper houses, neither in terms of consequences nor victims was inferior to nuclear weapons, and often exceeded. It is the Americans who extol the significance of atomic bombs ....
        The Japanese began to speculate on surrender when, in accordance with international law, we denounced our non-aggression treaty with Japan, and they realized that we would enter the war ....
      2. Proud.
        Proud. 18 May 2013 20: 53 New
        +4
        The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed nothing, and decided nothing. On August 14, the Japanese command proposed a ceasefire, but the hostilities on the Japanese side did not stop. The Kwantung army continued to resist, continued to resist Japanese groups on Sakhalin and the islands of the Greater and Lesser Kuril Ridges. The fighting ended there by September 1. the Japanese acted contrary to orders. For example, the 84th Cavalry Division of General T.V. Dedeoglu, in Manchuria, was surrounded, and she had to conduct hostilities until September 7-8. In Manchuria, everything was tough-Russian pearly to the end, the Japanese fought to death.
    2. aviator46
      aviator46 21 May 2013 00: 56 New
      -2
      Do not drive the blizzard.
      LendLiz, by definition, was free.
      And for the supplies that the USSR had to pay, Stalin did not pay a cent.
      Only in the 80s did concrete conversations begin .., but given inflation, it was about 0.5% of the amount.
      Dresden was one of MANY cities bombed.
      "..In 2008, a commission of German historians, commissioned by the city of Dresden, estimated the death toll in the range from 18 to 25 thousand people ..."
      The list of cities in which the area of ​​destruction was 50% and more of the total area of ​​buildings (oddly enough, only 40% fell on Dresden):
      50% - Ludwigshafen, Worms
      51% - Bremen, Hannover, Nuremberg, Remscheid, Bochum
      52% - Essen, Darmstadt
      53% - Cochem
      54% - Hamburg, Mainz
      55% - Neckarsulm, Zoest
      56% - Aachen, Münster, Heilbronn
      60% - Erkelenz
      63% - Wilhelmshaven, Koblenz
      64% - Bingerbrück, Cologne, Pforzheim
      65% - Dortmund
      66% - Crailsheim
      67% - Gisen
      68% - Hanau, Kassel
      69% - Duren
      70% - Altenkirchen, Bruchsal
      72% - Geilenkirchen
      74% - Donauworth
      75% - Remagen, Würzburg
      78% - Emden
      80% - Prüm, Wesel
      85% - Xanten, Zulpich
      91% - Emmerich
      97% - Julich

      The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of millions of Japanese, Russians and Americans.
      Read about the battles for Okinawa ... you can calculate the possible losses ..
      The surrender declared by the Emperor of Japan made it possible, with minimal losses, to occupy territories controlled by the Kwantung Army.

      Learn the materiel, and do not throw slogans, we don’t live in the “scoop”.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 21 May 2013 01: 10 New
        +1
        Quote: aviator46
        The surrender declared by the Emperor of Japan made it possible, with minimal losses, to occupy territories controlled by the Kwantung Army.

        Fierce fighting continued mainly only on the Soviet-Japanese front. On August 12, General Okamura, Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese forces in China, telegraphed the Minister of War as if nothing had happened: “We are seriously worried about the threat to the state system and the territory of the empire. We understand that the entry of the Soviet Union further worsened the situation. However, having in the territory of Japan proper an army of up to 7 million people and an expeditionary army on the mainland of up to 1 million people, whose morale is still high, are ready for a decisive defeat of the enemy. It was now that the army became the main pillar of the empire. We are firmly convinced that, despite the successful offensive of the enemy and difficulties within the country, the whole army is ready to die with honor in battle, but to achieve the goals of the war this fall. The fate of imperial Japan is decided in Manchuria. Being passionately loyal to my homeland, I dare to report my opinion and hope that firm decisions will be made. ”
        http://www.mywebs.su/blog/history/2161.html
        what
      2. Alex
        Alex 23 August 2013 23: 36 New
        +2
        Quote: aviator46
        Learn the materiel, and do not throw slogans

        This is primarily true of people who come from all over the place. that the states are doing something for free. In my opinion, they don’t even sneeze for free, but for a fifth and in the church they fart.

        As for the atomic bombing - the rationale for their conduct is quite well known: all the same damned money. It is not an easy task to justify such a breakthrough of the money spent without using this very weapon. And after that, the Japanese did not even think of giving up. Or do you think their thinking process is slower than the Scandinavians and giraffes?
  5. avt
    avt 18 May 2013 10: 05 New
    +3
    Article +, yes, it would be possible to have more documents and ... well, a lot of things are possible. The main topic should not be forgotten and constantly reminded with numbers, dipping libertarian ,, historians "in their own beds. The further the war from us, the more often they will belittle the Feat of the Soviet People and try to put us on a par with Nazi Germany.
  6. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 18 May 2013 10: 42 New
    +2
    The above gives the right to declare that the fate of the world in 1941-1945 was decided not at El Alamein or in the Ardennes, but in the battles for Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk and Berlin.
    I would also add here Leningrad as beneath it was a large group of Germans bound for two whole years, and how many of these Germans were ground there.
  7. omsbon
    omsbon 18 May 2013 10: 56 New
    +3
    It is high time to legislatively ban speculations on the Great Victory! For defamation, pseudo-historians such as Sokolov, Mlechin, Svanidza and other dishonesty must be put in prison, or at least removed from the media.
  8. Gadfly
    Gadfly 18 May 2013 12: 16 New
    +6
    it is striking how persistent, despite the evidence of facts, Western historians and politicians and our sold-out renegades are trying to rob us of the victory of our ancestors, mess it up, throw it out in the mud. So I want to shoot them all to hell
    1. Alex
      Alex 23 August 2013 23: 39 New
      +2
      And many of ours also help them. And not for money, but quite sincerely, which is strange (I myself know this, I am simply amazed).
  9. Stas57
    Stas57 18 May 2013 12: 29 New
    +1
    In March this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking to delegates to the constituent congress of the Russian Military Historical Society, noted that "the main resource of Russia's power, its future is in historical memory."

    I don’t know what he said there, but at the same time (whether it’s Putin, Surkov or Nedimon) there is a conscious “blurring” of all Soviet symbols that are possible — Starting from the mausoleum hidden from the eyes of the parade, movie guano, pseudo-concerts and ending with simple "little things."
    1. Alex
      Alex 23 August 2013 23: 40 New
      +2
      Unfortunately, diverting words from deeds is a common thing for the current leadership. We ourselves have this ...
  10. shurup
    shurup 18 May 2013 13: 29 New
    +1
    The fate of the world? In the event of the defeat of the USSR, Hitler would have received in his hands enormous resources that would have been used with German pragmatism. Plus a connection with Japan and Turkey. Plus the emergence of new allies.
    Lend-lease in relation to the USSR was forcedly carried out from the principle of "save your skin."
    That's what the good-looking Anglo-Saxons and their financiers were talking about on the sidelines. Then they dragged on for a long time with the opening of a second front.
    After Stalingrad, they switched to discussing the fate of the world in their favor. And now they continue to do this.
  11. Captain45
    Captain45 18 May 2013 18: 33 New
    0
    And I also want to add that the fate and borders of post-war Europe, even during the war, were determined at two conferences, the Tehran 1943 and the Yalta 1945, and were finally fixed at Potsdam. Who led the Soviet delegations at these conferences and negotiated - the Marshal, and subsequently generalisimus I.V. Stalin. There was laid the foundation, which still allows you to live without world wars. And now it is visible in the anus of Europe itches, again with SyShyPoy they strive to unleash the war, with ..ukki, homo..seki. Stalin on them .. no people. Would sit now quietly silent in a rag.
    1. Alex
      Alex 23 August 2013 23: 44 New
      +2
      Yes, Uncle Joe was able to catch fear on the allies. I don’t know if Churchill actually wrote this phrase (I didn’t completely read his memoirs, only occasionally), but it’s very good: "When he [Stalin] entered the conference hall [of the Potsdam], then we all had an irresistible desire to stand at attention".
  12. Kazanok
    Kazanok 18 May 2013 20: 48 New
    -2
    the article is complete nonsense ... the Germans are stupid .. we are so smart blah blah .... if so then why did they reach the Volga? probably the mustachioed one lured them there to starve and chill .... and everything that is said about our supposedly premature offensive to save the alliance during the battle on the Balga (Ardennes) is also nonsense ... ours still didn’t start when the allies were already liquidating everything there .... Lend-Lease is our salvation there are no questions .. it’s strange that now the West is also being poured mud for help .. somehow it’s not patsansky .... but on the bill as our pseudo-wise generals fought I advise reading Nikulin ....
    1. Rider
      Rider 18 May 2013 21: 39 New
      +1
      Quote: Kazanok
      ours still didn’t start the lodo-oder one when the allies there had already liquidated everything ...


      On December 16, 1944, a sudden blow to the American and British troops, which practically explains the initial success of the German troops. They turned their adversary into an erratic, almost stampede. The American journalist R. Ingersoll, in his book “Top Secret”, wrote how “the Americans fled on all roads leading to the west”. They suffered heavy losses, and the headquarters were at a loss. The Allied command led by D. Eisenhower was ignorant of preparing the enemy for the offensive. The commander of the 12th Army Group, American General O. Bradley, frankly admitted that "not only me and the commanders of the armies, but also Montgomery and Eisenhower were in a mess."

      On January 1, 1945, German forces launched an offensive in Alsace in the direction of Strasbourg against the 7th American Army. The German command was tasked with destroying the American and British troops in parts. German aviation was active, which caused significant damage, especially to enemy aircraft.

      On January 4, American General D. Patton made the following entry in his diary: "We can still lose this war." Eisenhower was forced to ask his government for urgent reinforcements in order to keep the front. He was not sure about the quick normalization of the situation and, turning to the US War Department, wrote: "The tension in the situation could be largely removed if the Russians launched a major offensive." With this idea, he turned to W. Churchill.

      Churchill, in his memoirs on the Second World War, could not fail to note that “on the part of the Russians and their leaders it was a wonderful act to speed up their widespread offensive, no doubt, at the cost of heavy human losses. Eisenhower was really very pleased with the news I told him. ” This was confirmed by Eisenhower, who then wrote in a letter to Soviet military leaders: “The important news that the valiant Red Army moved forward with a new powerful jerk has been enthusiastically received by the Allied armies in the West.”



      taken: http://www.biografia.ru/arhiv/voyna098.html

      I advise you to read it before you write nonsense.
      1. Kazanok
        Kazanok 18 May 2013 23: 44 New
        +1
        I will answer too with a quote ...
        On December 16, 1944, the 5th Panzer Army, Major General Hasso Manteuffel, dealt a powerful and sudden blow to the shallow defense of the 1st American Army and advanced to the Meuse River on the 20th by the Dinan area. However, the right-flank 6th tank army of Joseph “Zepp” Dietrich was not able to provide substantial assistance to the neighbors, bogged down in battle with the 5th Army Corps of the Americans in the area south of Malmedy. The result was a dangerously protruding protrusion to the west. In addition, Manteuffel’s communications passed through the city of Bastogne, and the Germans couldn’t take this Bastogne, where the 101st Airborne (now Airborne Assault) Division and the 10th American Armored Division were defending, leaving behind in the rear, believing that the city will fall later. But the city did not fall a day or a week later.
        By December 22, the Americans completed the regrouping and went on the counterattack. Parts of the 7th US Army Corps and the 2th British Army Corps deployed from the north (from the 30nd English Army) attacked Manteuffel from the front in the area of ​​Boren and Rochefort. To the north, the 9th American Army pounced on Dietrich’s 6th Panzer, threatening the 5th Panzer’s German right flank. And to the south, Patton’s 3rd Army attacked the 7th German Army, covering the left flank of Manteuffel, forcing the German general to transfer reinforcements from the central section there. On this, the attempt to break through, in fact, ended - the blow to Dinan was stopped.
        On the same day, Field Marshal Gerd Rund Stöttt advised Hitler to stop the offensive, "since soon he would have to withdraw large forces to repel Russian strikes on the Eastern Front" (Mellentin F. Armored Wehrmacht fist, p. 491). The Führer agreed to stop the offensive, but ordered to hold positions.
        On December 26, Patton burst into Bastogne and the prospect of encirclement loomed over the German tank armies.
        The Germans fought back until January 5, 1945, when they finally received an order to begin the systematic withdrawal of troops to their original positions. The losses amounted to: among the allies (according to American data) 82,4 thousand people with 19,2 thousand killed; Germans lost 82 thousand people with 12,6 thousand killed.
        So, similar in dates:
        On December 16, 1944, the Germans launched an offensive in the Ardennes. It was 21 days before Churchill's letter to Stalin, almost a month before the Soviet offensive in Poland.
        On December 22, 1944, the Allies launched a counterattack. Before Churchill’s letter — 15 days, before the Soviet offensive on the Vistula — 21 days.
        On December 28, the Germans stopped the offensive in the Ardennes and went on the defensive — 9 days before Churchill’s letter and 15 days before the Soviet offensive on the Vistula.
        On January 5, 1945, the Germans began to withdraw troops to their previous positions. The Wehrmacht offensive in the Ardennes is over. The day before Churchill's letter to Stalin and a week before the Soviet offensive. As you can see, the version of the "miraculous salvation of the allies by the Red Army" is utter nonsense.
        1. Rider
          Rider 19 May 2013 00: 49 New
          0
          Quote: Kazanok
          As you can see, the version of the "miraculous salvation of the allies by the Red Army" is utter nonsense.


          you forgot one date - January 1, the German offensive on Strasbourg.

          and if you say that the 5th Germans began the retreat, then why did the 6th Churchill write a letter?
          But by this time (as you write) the Anglo-Saxons had already bent the Germans.
          He did not know that everything was over and the allies drove the Germans?
          1. Kazanok
            Kazanok 19 May 2013 11: 14 New
            0
            Quote: Rider
            you forgot one date - January 1, the German offensive on Strasbourg.

            On January 1, the Germans went on the offensive again - this time in Alsace in the Strasbourg region with the aim of diverting the allied forces, but these were only distracting local attacks carried out by small forces - in the Ardennes the German troops were already retreating with might and main. The Wehrmacht lost its strategic initiative forever.
            this is from the wiki ...
            By the way, both Hayk and Monti knew and prepared for the Germans’s strike .. All this is also in the wiki in excerpts from the memoirs ... the truth is not sure that this is true ...
            why did the Churchill alcoholic write this letter I can only speculate .. some wrote that he allegedly wanted to find out Dzhugashvili’s plans ... personally I don’t know ...
            1. Rider
              Rider 19 May 2013 16: 09 New
              0
              Quote: Kazanok
              all this, too, on the wiki is in excerpts from the memoirs ... the truth is not sure if this is true.


              Not everything on the wiki should be taken for granted.
              I quoted quotes from the state commanders themselves above.

              and then you can write anything (what they did)

              I pay attention again
              that such letters, like what Churchill wrote, JUST DO NOT WRITE!

              and even more so when "FSE control."
        2. evgen762
          evgen762 19 May 2013 19: 15 New
          0
          I will clarify - 6 TA SS.
    2. Proud.
      Proud. 18 May 2013 21: 41 New
      +2
      In your comment, I read that the Germans are stupid, the article doesn’t. Do you have a “mustachioed” one, is Shiklgruber? So he started a scoundrel so that he could freeze him with cold and hunger. About the Ardennes .. By the middle of December 1944, the Germans concentrated 300 thousand people in the Ardennes against 83 thousand among the allies. On December 16, at 5.30 a.m., the German offensive began. The 106th US Infantry Division was encircled and destroyed. The 28th Infantry and 7th Armored Divisions were also defeated. The 101st US Airborne Division was surrounded. The Allies rolled back 90 kilometers. By the end of December, they were able to stabilize the situation, but on January 1, 1945 the second powerful blow of the Germans followed, accompanied by the strongest bombing of the airfields. Churchill asked for help at the request of the Allied command. From the memoirs of Marshal Konev (memoirs of 1966): "9 January, Antonov called me on the HF, ”said Ivan Stepanovich.“ He then acted as chief of the General Staff, and on behalf of Stalin announced that the offensive should begin on January 12, in three days! He explained: the Allies have a difficult situation in the Ardennes and our attack does not begin January 20, and 12. I realized that this was an order and replied that I would follow it. It was not bravado, but a sober assessment of events: basically we were ready. "Lend-lease helped, no doubt, but it was not a lifeline .And about how our generals and marshals fought, read not only Nikulin.
      1. Kazanok
        Kazanok 18 May 2013 23: 52 New
        -1
        Quote: Be proud.
        "mustachioed", this is Schicklgruber

        no, it's dzhugashvili ...
        Quote: Be proud.
        So he started a scoundrel, so that he could starve with cold and hunger

        the question is how he ended up with the overwhelming superiority of the ussr
        about the letter of Churchill wrote above ....
        Quote: Be proud.
        Lend-lease helped, no doubt, but it was not a lifeline

        it’s a saving one .. even the beloved slots of bugs respected here on the resource admitted that, by the way, sensitive microphones of the shit of that time were fixed ... they just gave it to us at that moment when it was most needed ... ours fled losing the footcloth right under the Volga. .. but it’s strange that the capitalists are sending help .. isn’t the irony of fate right? Dzhuga wanted to put them all at the peak and then begged for help)))

        Quote: Be proud.
        And about how our generals and marshals fought, read not only Nikulin.

        By the way, Vasilevsky himself wrote about corpse filling in the business of his life .. and the unforgettable Vasily Ivanovich in his memoirs .. and the humpbacks described it all very well ... castati at Gorbatov’s worth paying more attention to part 1 of the book .. he’s good at his camps there described .. and if neighing then read about Sokolovsky’s cretin ...
        1. Proud.
          Proud. 19 May 2013 01: 20 New
          0
          Quote: Kazanok
          no, it's dzhugashvili ...

          I understood about whom you, I.V. Stalin, I do not consider a scoundrel. Hitler is the first priority.
          Quote: Kazanok
          the question is how he ended up with the overwhelming superiority of the ussr

          The question is ambiguous. There is good material on this resource, was published a few days ago http://topwar.ru/27914-evgeniy-pozhidaev-prizrak-krasnogo-kolossa-prichiny-voenn
          oy-katastrofy-1941-goda.html
          Quote: Kazanok
          about the letter of Churchill wrote above ....

          Not sure what the nonsense. It is necessary to watch. If it is not difficult, throw the link to.
          Quote: Kazanok
          just gave us that moment when she was most needed ...
          Who needs it? Us or "allies"? As an example, 70% of Lend-Lease deliveries came in 1943-1945, and during the worst period of the war for the USSR, the help of the Allies was not too noticeable. “Gebnya” was to Novodvorskaya. Do not be so dismissive, based on your word-of-mouths, I can draw the wrong conclusion about you, or ... the right one, I don’t know yet.
          Quote: Kazanok
          by the way about cadaver filling
          "... I repeat, this story is not at all objective (!). My view of the events of those years is directed not from above, not from the bell tower of the general, from where everything is visible, but from below, from the point of view of a soldier crawling on his belly along front dirt, but sometimes burying his nose in this dirt. Naturally, I saw a little and saw specifically (!) ... "This is from the preface of Nikulin’s book" Memoirs of the War. "I highlighted with exclamation marks. Let me doubt therefore. About Vasilevsky and Gorbatov, or rather about their works, I can’t say anything yet. Although I’m interested in knowing what “dead body filling” means in your opinion?
          1. Kazanok
            Kazanok 19 May 2013 11: 38 New
            0
            Quote: Be proud.
            I understood about whom you, I.V. Stalin, I do not consider a scoundrel. Hitler is the first priority.

            why Gordey? after all, they are absolutely identical people ... they even admired each other, and the adik says that he copied the methods of jugashvili ..
            Quote: Be proud.
            Not sure what the nonsense. It is necessary to watch. If it is not difficult, throw the link to.

            I inserted this phrase by copying their books S. Zakharevich "Big blood" but the whole chronology of the battle on the Balga was taken by me purely from the wiki ..
            http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C0%F0%E4%E5%ED%ED%F1%EA%E0%FF_%EE%EF%E5%F0%E0%F6%E
            8% FF_ (1945)
            Quote: Be proud.
            Who needs it? Us or "allies"? As an example, 70% of Lend-Lease deliveries came in 1943-1945, and during the worst period of the war for the USSR, the help of the Allies was not too noticeable.

            In August 1941, US President Roosevelt announced his decision to supply the Soviet Union with American weapons and strategic materials. On September 6, deliveries of foreign military equipment began. From September to December 1941, 930 British and American tanks were delivered. This, of course, is not much. At first sight.
            The fact is that as of December 41st, 1731 tanks had only survived in the active units of the Red Army, of which 1214 were light T-26, BT, T-40 and T-60. Consequently, as of December, the Anglo-Americans shipped to Stalin tanks alone at a rate of 60% of what he possessed in general.
            By the end of the year, more than 59% of the rifles and carbines available at the beginning of the war (5,55 million), more than 62% of light and 64% of machine guns (134,7 and 54,7 thousand), about 39 % of large-caliber machine guns and almost 50% of anti-tank rifles, as well as more than 32% of pistols and revolvers (see: Russia and the USSR in the wars of the XXth century. M., 2001, pp. 473–481, tab. 186).
            If we take into account that only 1,57 million, 45,3 and 8,4 thousand light and machine guns, respectively, entered the active army of the same rifles and carbines, it becomes clear that the difficult situation in the troops even with small arms (it is not surprising that divisions of the national militia were armed with captured Polish grenades and Mauser rifles, and even Japanese rifles from the Arisaka system that survived from the Civil War, and later there were cases when one rifle fell to 3-4 fighters).
            What about heavy weapons?
            Artillery: Out of 12 thousand anti-aircraft guns registered on June 22 and received during the following months (until December 31.12.41, 4,1), 34,2 thousand (17,4%) were lost. Of the 12,1 thousand anti-tank guns, 69,5 thousand (43,3%) were lost. Of the 24,4 thousand “barrels”, field artillery lost 56,3 thousand (98,5%), of 60,5 thousand mortars, it lost 61,4 thousand (XNUMX%).
            Tanks. Here is a real defeat. Out of 28,2 thousand, 20,5 thousand (72,7%) were lost.
            Aviation: Out of 10,9 thousand bombers, 7,2 thousand (66%) were lost for various reasons. Of the one and a half thousand attack aircraft, 1,1 thousand (73%) were lost. Of 29,9 thousand fighters, 17,9 thousand (60%) were lost.
            In addition, 33,3% (159 thousand out of 204,9) of all types of cars, 55,1% of radio stations and telephones (23,7 thousand out of 43) were lost forever by the Red Army.
          2. Kazanok
            Kazanok 19 May 2013 11: 45 New
            0
            Quote: Be proud.
            “Gebnya” is to Novodvorskaya. Yours may have fled, Ours have retreated. It’s not so dismissive, based on your word-of-mouth, I can draw the wrong conclusion about you, or ... the right one, I don’t know yet.

            I don’t say so because of this ugly pig .. I just don’t consider their contribution to the Second World War as any .. and even after the atrocities that they did in their country, they all need to be anathema, oblivion and ostracized ...
            but I ran so because it’s not insulting, but unfortunately a fact ... after that terrible disaster under Barvenkovo ​​it was necessary to flee .. for not having tanks we could not do anything against the enemy in the steppe .. therefore we had to flee ..
            Quote: Be proud.
            I can’t say anything about Vasilevsky and Gorbatov, or rather about their labors. Although I’m interested to know what do you mean “dead body”?

            very interesting fiction ... what struck me omen was that Vasilevsky acknowledged the fact of taking cities timed to a certain date (he wrote about Kiev there) .. and Gorbatov described the tactics of taking villages in the 41-42s interesting ... here there really was a tin .. at the same time he described the behavior of the command staff and all this happened in reality .. it was written very interesting ... my hair stood on end when I read ...
            damn half the post disappeared .. I wrote about the Lend-Lease .... I can add everything in detail if necessary and what I think about this ...
    3. smile
      smile 18 May 2013 22: 06 New
      0
      Kazanok
      Yes, yes, yes, it’s in patsansky style - to pick up other people's propaganda cliches and carefully turn away from available documents and serious historical research to broadcast nonsense thoughtfully - the main thing is that this nonsense denigrates the USSR or Russia ... congratulations - you are a real "kid"! And your kid’s intellect is about the same as in your nickname .... :)))
      By the way, a couple of weeks ago one of your .. didn’t say like-minded people - but what are your thoughts? - he was already sticking out shocking with the writings of comrade Nikulin .... naturally the “boy” was rolled into a pancake and explained on the fingers, well, in a different way but she won’t be able to say that not every Nikulin’s scripture will fit even in a needy ... no longer fuss .... Goodbye, boy ...
      1. Kazanok
        Kazanok 18 May 2013 23: 57 New
        0
        Quote: smile
        pick up other people's propaganda cliches and carefully turning away from available documents and serious historical research thoughtfully broadcast nonsense

        for example, what? I've got a lot of itals and just trying to find out the truth
        Quote: smile
        the main thing is that this rubbish denigrates the USSR or Russia ... congratulations - you are a real "kid"!

        in no case did not want to insult or denigrate Russia which I love and respect very much .. I just hate the damned communists who ruined the Empire ...
        Quote: smile
        By the way, a couple of weeks ago one of your .. didn’t say like-minded people - but what are your thoughts? - he was already sticking out shocking with the writings of comrade Nikulin .... naturally the “boy” was rolled into a pancake and explained on the fingers, well, in a different way but he won’t be able to say that not every Nikulin’s scripture will be suitable even in a needy ... no longer fuss

        But what did Nikulin write crap or something ??
        in my opinion, it’s true ... I talked a lot with veterans who were volitional before .... they also told me worse .... I don’t understand what they accuse him of ...
        1. smile
          smile 19 May 2013 04: 51 New
          0
          Kazanok Torii
          Frankly, you didn’t surprise me ... you didn’t bark at me in response ... thanks ... more ... unfortunately, Nikulin didn’t just write crap-disinformation, real ... qualified ... apparently, you just disoriented .... and it’s not your fault .... I beg you to read at least the GRAZIN book “How Viktor Suvorov wrote the story” ... judging by your answer, you are conscientiously mistaken ... at the same time you are very young ... I wish you good luck ... but I'm glad you asked for an opinion ... on the other side ... clever ... clever! :))))
          1. Kazanok
            Kazanok 19 May 2013 11: 49 New
            +1
            Quote: smile
            Frankly, you didn’t surprise me ... you didn’t bark at me in response ... thanks ... more ... unfortunately, Nikulin didn’t just write crap-disinformation, real ... qualified ... apparently, you just disoriented .... and it’s not your fault .... I beg you to read at least the GRAZIN book “How Viktor Suvorov wrote the story” ... judging by your answer, you are conscientiously mistaken ... at the same time you are very young ... I wish you good luck ... but I'm glad you asked for an opinion ... on the other side ... clever ... clever! :))))

            maybe earlier I would have done so .... but now I don’t do it .. maybe I got smarter))) or just got old ....
            1. smile
              smile 19 May 2013 14: 05 New
              +1
              Kazanok
              Well, since you’ve gotten “old,” then consider that I complimented you — you look young ... :))) you don’t be offended for the harshness - it just pisses me off of the repetition of perestroika myths ... on that site like I’d have discussed and chewed them a hundred times ... brought a monstrous layer of literature and documents that I personally will never master ... and here on you ... people regularly appear who either did not hear about it or did not want to hear about it .. ..you were very pleased (without jokes) that you really want to figure it out .... get into the archives of the site - there, if you wish, you will find all the necessary information - so, probably, it will be better ...
              1. yurta2013
                yurta2013 20 May 2013 18: 53 New
                0
                If the archives of the site contain the same articles as this Stalinist bike, then they are worthless. These are real myths, myths of neostalinism.
  13. Kazanok
    Kazanok 18 May 2013 23: 59 New
    0
    Quote: smile
    And you have about the same boyish intellect as in your nickname.

    )) this is from the surname)))
  14. Landwarrior
    Landwarrior 18 May 2013 23: 59 New
    +1
    For me, the most important thing is that the Yankees put in the Union for Lend-Lease - this is Studebaker US-6. World car. good
    1. Kazanok
      Kazanok 19 May 2013 11: 51 New
      +2
      Lend-lease also gave our army such mobility .. it’s not on tractors or weak lorry to pursue the damned Nazis through the mud .. but the students and Fords perl like tanks .. as a result, our infantry kept up with them ...
      1. Landwarrior
        Landwarrior 19 May 2013 15: 51 New
        +1
        Yes, there is one. Well, the production of four-wheel drive trucks was not normally set up in the country. "Students" successfully filled this niche. yes
        Well, it’s worth remembering that thanks to Lend-Lease, the lack of amphibious funds (FORD GPA, GMC DUKW) was made up for, which helped a lot when the Soviet army went on the offensive.
        1. Kazanok
          Kazanok 19 May 2013 17: 32 New
          +1
          I completely agree and support ... and after reading it I found out that our fleet was 90% created by the Angles and Yankees .. ours, unfortunately, it was ... if ... and the sailors were used to plug gaps in the defense and as suicide bombers in the attacks to impregnable heights .. I will find the Old, I will drop everything literally .. there is just insanity ...
        2. Kazanok
          Kazanok 19 May 2013 17: 41 New
          +1
          that's what I found on the ships ..
          Fleet. Much has been said at the time about the actions of Soviet torpedo boats, one of the few active tools of war in the Soviet Navy. At the same time, they keep silent that 190 English and American boats Vosper (A-1), Higgins (A-2) and ELKO (A-3) provided this activity. They had a range of 420 miles (778 km) with an economic speed of 21 knots (40 km / h). And at 16 nodes we crossed for 500 miles (926 km).
          The Soviet torpedo boat of the D-3 type possessed about the same range, but the armament was incomparable - the Soviet boats, in addition to the two 533 mm torpedo tubes, were equipped with two 12,7 mm machine guns, and the Allied boats 1-2 cannons of 20-40 mm and 4 heavy machine guns. Add here radars (SO-13), which the USSR did not produce at all.
          Until May 1, 1945, the Northern Fleet alone received from the Allies 1 battleship, 1 light cruiser, 9 destroyers, 4 submarines, 46 large hunters, 68 torpedo boats, 22 minesweepers. Total - 151 units! The Pacific Fleet received even more torpedo boats, large hunters and minesweepers, as well as landing and patrol ships.
          Add to that radars and sonars, anti-submarine defense bombing launchers, automatic anti-aircraft artillery, radio stations, A-20 torpedo bomber aircraft, dozens of Liberty-type transport vessels with a carrying capacity of 10 thousand tons each ...
          Without foreign supplies, the Soviet fleet, already half dead, would have been dead without any “sex”.
  15. Uzoliv
    Uzoliv 19 May 2013 00: 06 New
    +2
    For me, the fact that the Soviet Union made the main and decisive contribution to the defeat of Germany is indisputable. And I want to emphasize that it is a rout! The main forces of Germany defeated the Red Army! BUT. I believe, and I am firmly convinced, that if, after June 22, 1941, we would not have had such allies as Great Britain and the USA, then the war would have been much harder for us. And I am not 100% sure that without their material, technical, military and food assistance we would have reached Berlin. There are very good reasons for this.
    There is an order 227 (Not one step back) which mercilessly honestly describes the situation in the country at that time. We put all that we had on the altar of victory. War is courage and courage, but also resources and economics. And if the Allies took the position, as during the war with Poland - neither peace nor war, or even worse would have concluded a separate peace. What would happen if the Luftwaffe forces in the Reich air defense did not reflect the allied air raids and went to the eastern front? What would have happened if Rommel’s corps hadn’t fought in Africa but headed for Stalingrad? What weapons would the industry which riveted the German submarine fleet for the battle in the Atlantic give, where would this weapon be directed? And we would not have what the allies put to us?
    But I am also convinced that if, for some reason, the USSR had left the war at 41, like Russia at 17, then the Allies would not have been able to do anything with Germany. Rommel would take Egypt with the help of liberated troops from the eastern front. Malta and Gibraltar would have fallen. Maybe the Germans would not have taken London, but they would have strangled Britain with their submarine fleet, and most likely they would have built a heavy bomber and razed Britain to the ground. And then the Americans would not have had that platform on which to accumulate strength before the invasion of Europe. War for America would take a protracted character. And the aggregate economic potential of that hypothetical Third Reich from Gibroltar to Smolensk is quite comparable with the American one.
    The fate of the world was decided in Russia. And then, at that time, it was perfectly understood both in London, and in Berlin, and in Washington. And, of course, we perfectly understood this.
    1. Kazanok
      Kazanok 19 May 2013 11: 53 New
      0
      Quote: Uzoliv
      I believe, and I am firmly convinced, that if, after June 22, 1941, we would not have had such allies as Great Britain and the USA, then the war would have been much harder for us. And I am not 100% sure that without their material, technical, military and food assistance we would have reached Berlin.

      we would be defeated ....
  16. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 19 May 2013 00: 22 New
    0
    <<< The above gives the right to declare that the fate of the world in 1941-1945 was not decided near El Alamein or in the Ardennes, but in the battles for Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk and Berlin. There is no doubt that neither the United States nor Britain can claim a decisive role in the defeat of German fascism. (HOWEVER) Today, British and Western historians stubbornly impose the view that the battle of El Alamein (October-November 1942, Egypt, 106 km from Alexandria) was the decisive battle of the Second World War, which determined its outcome. >>>
    After all, how pleasant it is for the enlightened gameocrats of the West, to confirm their image of the historical world messiah of goodness, to dress and wear the laurel wreath of the winner of the universal evil of the twentieth century, listen to laudatory odes addressed to you. Why not? Who can object? There are few witnesses to those events in the West who could object. And the rest of the Western community and its allies in the world, and especially the younger generation, with the help of the powerful Western media, newly-minted "experts", and "historians" who overestimated the events of that time from the point of view of "democratic" values, easily managed to brainwash and achieve the "right "understanding - who is the winner in the 2nd World War. And Russia's opinion on this issue, suppressed by the polyphony of Western media and barely audible, is simply ignored, because it does not coincide with the opinion of the West, moreover, modern Russia, represented by the West as uneducated, barbaric, non-democratic, spat on the inside and out with the help of the paid liberal "anti-lelegion" "simply cannot, in their opinion, have an authoritative opinion! So the West-Russia confrontation continues and only on the POWER and DECISION of Russia depends on whether her voice will be heard and whether her opinion will be taken into account when evaluating the events of history and whether she will remain the heiress of the USSR - THE MAIN WINNER of the plague of the XNUMXth century!
    1. Kazanok
      Kazanok 19 May 2013 11: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: Goldmitro
      Today, British and Western historians stubbornly impose the view that the battle of El Alamein (October-November 1942, Egypt, 106 km from Alexandria) was the decisive battle of the Second World War, which determined its outcome. >>>

      about this mouse fuss is not worth mentioning at all ....
  17. Radoslav
    Radoslav 19 May 2013 13: 54 New
    +1
    Why did my grandfather liberate Poland as part of the army of Marshal Rokosovsky, so that these bastards, Poles, began to breed, forget their beneficiaries, and now threaten us Russians, the ancestors of their liberators. GOD saved my grandfather, and how many of their Russian soldiers remained for the freedom of Eastern Europe, why?
    1. Kazanok
      Kazanok 19 May 2013 15: 12 New
      0
      it’s absolutely true ... they hold Belarusians for a moment ... they just say that .. our lackeys and .... he himself drove to Poland more than once and heard this often .....
  18. Takashi
    Takashi 19 May 2013 16: 02 New
    0
    how much you can rape the theme of the Second World War? Each time, it feels like people are writing a history textbook (or rather, licking from there). Did they study poorly in grades 10-11?

    Is it really impossible to find the material in an interesting way. from the 45th to 2013 so much has happened !!!!
  19. yurta2013
    yurta2013 19 May 2013 16: 03 New
    0
    At last. This is perhaps the first article in my memory here, the author of which, albeit reluctantly, acknowledges the fact that the world-wide share of Lend-Lease deliveries was much more than the official 4% of the production of these goods in the USSR. However, this recognition does not at all make the article less Stalinist than almost all the previous ones on the same subject of the Second World War. In this, and in all of these articles, a whole bunch of Stalinist myths is being promoted, the main of which is the assertion that we owe Stalin victory in this war. As one of the proofs of this thesis, the opinion is imposed that it was the perspicacious Stalin who created the powerful socialist industry, which, under his strict guidance, even in the most difficult conditions of the war, managed to surpass Germany many times over in terms of production of military products and ensure victory. Of course, for this myth, any objective evidence about the real role of Lend-Lease in our victory over fascist Germany is extremely dangerous. After all, they undermine the very essence of the myth - the assertion that the economy of the USSR of the Stalin period itself coped with all the tasks of the war and only thanks to it we during the war surpassed Hitler’s army in technology and weapons, which proves the superiority of the Stalin system over the flawed and vicious economy of all capitalist countries . In fact, the country approached the Second World War, still technically and technologically lagging behind all developed capital countries. The severe defeats of the first period of the war, the loss of the most economically valuable territory, the forced evacuation of factories to the east, significantly undermined our military industry. At the end of 1941 and in the first months of 1942. its production volumes were several times lower than by mid-1941 and several dozen times lower than at the end of the war. In other words, our industry at that moment was unable to provide the army with everything necessary to at least stop the enemy rushing forward. It was at this moment that deliveries of our Lend-Lease allies began, which literally saved us from inevitable defeat. Yes, their volume in 1941-1942. was not as big as in subsequent years, but even this help was enough to stop the enemy on the approaches to Moscow, Caucasian oil and on the banks of the Volga. Subsequently, it was Lend-Lease assistance that ensured our superiority over Germany in armaments and military equipment. It was this help, combined with our military production that was restored and increased largely thanks to it, and trophies captured during the war (especially in Germany itself) that by 1945 turned the USSR into a powerful military power capable of competing on an equal footing with the entire bloc of leading Western countries . At the same time, I do not obscure the enormous role of our people, who selflessly swept and paved the way for victory with blood. But without the help of Lend-Lease, folk efforts alone would be clearly not enough for her.
    1. Kazanok
      Kazanok 19 May 2013 17: 36 New
      +1
      it’s just been nice to read .. I absolutely share and support this point of view .... okay, I understand still to hush up the facts of deliveries ... but to drive why ?? I don’t understand this .... they didn’t deliver the bastards .. they delivered even more of the bastard ...
    2. dddym
      dddym 19 May 2013 18: 52 New
      0
      - what help? This is not help, but credit - and these are different things ... Simply if you call a spade a spade - as Mr. Roosevelt said about a fire hose - it’s only for the money. Why so far no one has calculated and what was the role of Western capital on the other hand? The ratio will immediately decrease sharply - do you know that the West also helped Hitler? And he helped with machines and products and resources - will anyone ever appreciate this paradox? Or does everyone just think that without the US we are nobody? And it is the United States that should first of all be grateful for having calmed his creation. http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/01.html
      1. Kazanok
        Kazanok 19 May 2013 22: 21 New
        0
        Quote: dddym
        about a fire hose - it’s for money only

        read .. Lend-Lease is absolutely free .. everything is simple, then I kept it for myself, kindly pay for it .. but everything that burned down in the flames of war was written off .... but they paid only to the British for the first shipment ...
        1. dddym
          dddym 19 May 2013 22: 40 New
          0
          and the fact of the matter is that even after giving almost everything that was alive after the war under Lend-Lease, the world owed the United States at today's prices of $ 610bn. During the war, the United States increased its economy by about 40% of the pre-war period, neither England nor France were able to recover after this lend-lease, the USSR was able to fight for a long time. The United States finally took the lead in the European economy and all debtors have since been only on the side of the United States. The war with Germany was unleashed by capitalist economic warriors, and they also eliminated Hitler's loser after Stalingrad. Lendliz is not free - but for money was provided, and Truman’s slogan was actively promoted
          If we see that Germany wins the war, we should help Russia, if Russia wins, we should help Germany, and let them kill each other as much as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler under any circumstances as winners.
          (On the help of the USSR in the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War)
          Posted by: Truman Harry
          Calm your nerves - you and your life are completely unnecessary the United States and they helped only for your destruction.
          1. yurta2013
            yurta2013 20 May 2013 19: 18 New
            0
            Quote: dddym
            The United States and they helped only for your own destruction.

            Maybe then for their own (USA) destruction? Indeed, starting in December 1941, the United States itself waged war on Germany and its ally, Japan. That is, do you think that the United States profited even from the blood of its own soldiers, supplying resources to its enemy during the war? Is this too common sense?
      2. yurta2013
        yurta2013 20 May 2013 19: 08 New
        0
        Quote: dddym
        Why so far no one has calculated and what was the role of Western capital on the other hand? The ratio will immediately decrease sharply - do you know that the West also helped Hitler? And he helped with machines and products and resources - will anyone ever appreciate this paradox? Or does everyone just think that without the US we are nobody?

        This is not about the role of Western capital “on the other hand” (this topic can be left for another article), but about the role of Lend-Lease in OUR victory over fascism, which was very great.
    3. dddym
      dddym 19 May 2013 20: 33 New
      -1
      Fir-trees sticks - well after all volumes are written about this! Well, it's not true! But the truth is. that helping us they did not forget to help Germany itself! am http://www.duel.ru/200301/?01_6_3
      All the blame for the war lies with them, and you say - oh, they helped, but they didn’t help, but they themselves made money ...
  20. Muxauk
    Muxauk 19 May 2013 18: 18 New
    0
    They helped us with a bit of technique, they only accelerated the defeat, not secured it. Stalin ensured the victory. If the Allies bombed the Germans so well, then the USSR would not have intervened in the war, then the Germans would have caught in France and England. Only they caked too quickly.
    And rewriting history is beneficial, though not for us. Now you can find a lot of things on the Internet, somewhere even at school they say that Stalin escaped in the early days of the war, and then the people forgave him, and only then they began to crush the enemy))) They write so much insolent nonsense that the only thing I think is right is which is connected with patriotism.
  21. Budilnik
    Budilnik 19 May 2013 18: 19 New
    0
    Thanks to the author for the article. This is the "help"! What else do you have to pay for Lend-Lease until the year 2030 ...
    1. Kazanok
      Kazanok 19 May 2013 22: 23 New
      0
      do not forget that they threw us Lend-Lease until the end of 46 years .. even after the war .... and so they pay only for what they left to themselves ...
  22. Muxauk
    Muxauk 19 May 2013 20: 29 New
    0
    go nuts, at what price did they sell it to us ?? she went these bourgeois. Business, they don’t dare to fight, but to trade masters, and bribed Gorbachev. There is no Stalin on him ...
  23. Roman555
    Roman555 25 May 2013 00: 21 New
    0
    are we really on the Kursk Bulge we have lost 6 units of armored vehicles against 000 units of antitank weapons?
  24. i.xxx-1971
    i.xxx-1971 7 August 2013 22: 14 New
    0
    We really lost 6000 tanks on the Kursk Bulge, and the Germans 1500. These numbers were named by Malyshev at a meeting in the Supreme Command after the battle. It's true. There are many reasons for this: objective and subjective. So, T-34-85 and IS appeared after the Battle of Kursk, and we did not concede to the Germans anymore. The main thing is that in the Battle of Kursk we won a strategic victory and the loss in manpower was a little more than that of the Germans. Regarding losses: throughout the war we lost equipment and weapons more than the Germans. In principle, we couldn’t produce weapons better than German - too different industrial potential. Our tanks and planes were many times cheaper and, accordingly, lower quality - weapons of one battle. But we released these weapons at times more than the Germans. But the losses in people throughout the war were less with us. In my deep conviction, the irretrievable losses of Germany alone on the Eastern Front amounted to about 12 people (those killed, those who died at the evacuation stage, missing, prisoners). Our losses are about 000 people (we fought not only with the Germans, the entire European bastard participated in this, and the losses of ROA, Heavi, all sorts of national formations in the Wehrmacht also, unfortunately, are included in this number). The fact that the Germans are lying about their losses is evidenced by such a fact - even now, 000 years after the end of the war, 10 Germans are reported as missing. They do not fit, so to speak, into the official historical version.