Leaving this lie without an answer would be wrong.
In Latynina every word splashes hatred towards Russia. Therefore, to deny everything that says is too laborious, and probably unnecessary work. Let's take ten theses from her speech and show their lies.
1. “In the 1913 year, 170 lived in the Russian empire of millions of people, it was 10% of the world's population. After India and China, it was the largest population of the Earth. Now on the territory of what remains of Russia, 2,4% of the population of the Earth live, that is, a quarter of these 10%, and, actually, lives less in Russia itself than lived in the Russian Empire in 1913 year. ”
Classic, just from the textbook, an example of manipulation. We speak one number and do not speak others. In 1913, the Russian Empire had 170 million. And why do we now consider only the Russian Federation, in the same time calling our Motherland “what remains of Russia”? In order to compare correctly, it is necessary today to take the same or almost the same territory. (The funny thing is that you, dear reader, suggest that Latynina restore Russia within the boundaries of 1913, so she will be the first to be totally against it. And she will pour a bunch of crap on you).
Let us remind the forgetful Yulia Latynina that in 1913, Ukraine, Belarus, Finland, a good half of Poland, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the republics of Central Asia, and Moldova almost all were part of our country in 170. Even without bothering with the calculations, we will see that the population is much larger than the 1913 million that were in the 220 year. As a matter of fact, you can not even count it, just remembering that there were 1917 million people in the USSR. Therefore, today our demographic situation is not as tragic as Latynina is trying to present. But it could have been much better - if it had not been for 1991 and not for 600, the year when such “democrats” and “truth-lovers”, like this Echo of Moscow employee, did not powder our people’s heads. According to the forecast of Mendeleev, we should already have been XNUMX million.
And the February foremost ladies, revolutionaries - traitors and a bunch of bourgeois Octo-Cadet cadets, who decided that everything is bad in Russia and everything needs to be redone, stopped Russia on this path. Was it possible to avoid February 1917 and the way to the abyss? Can. Having shot crowds of demonstrators in Petrograd from machine guns. But it is the “Latins” who in fact consider the “Februaryists” a model and standard, and anyone who is ready to put things in order with an iron hand is a “bloody regime”. What then, what now.
2. “And here is a simple example - compare just the intellectual environment in 1913 and even in 1927 and 2013. Here, Kapitsa with Burmatov. That's what happened to Russia, this Russia, why did she die? Who destroyed her? Answer: Stalin destroyed it, he burned it in the firebox of the war for world domination, and this war did not start in 1941 and in 1939. ”
Here is another typical manipulation. Knowing the current deplorable state of science, Latynina proposes to compare the 1913 and 1927 year with the 2013 year. The comparison is clearly not in favor of today. And if you compare with the 1961 year? With 1985 year? The picture is completely different. Brilliant Soviet science, the first flight into space. And it is immediately evident how Latynina is drawn by the ears. Well, Stalin could not "burn" the country and science, if even with him after the war, and thirty years after his death - our science did not lag behind the science of the West. And then the liberals came to power and for 20 years crushed science. Not Stalin, but the liberals burned Russian science and the country in the furnace.
3. “Actually, Hitler owed Stalin his coming to power: in the 6 elections of November 1932 of the year, Hitler received 33% of votes, and the Social Democrats and the Communists together received 37%. That is, if the Communists had entered into a coalition with the Social Democrats, Hitler would not have come to power and there would have been no revenge. ”
This lie Latynina repeats time from time to time. I already wrote an article about it called “Tenfold Lies of Yulia Latynina” already three years ago. Nothing, we are not proud - we will expose the lie again.
Three years ago, Latynina said: “Actually, Hitler was largely indebted to Stalin for his coming to power. In the 1933 election of the year, Hitler gets 43% of the votes, and the Social Democrats and the Communists together 49%. If the Social Democrats and the Communists formed a bloc, Hitler simply would not have come to power. ” You can read the refutation of the old lie in my article three years ago. Pay attention - today she speaks not about 1933 year, but about 1932. Either she read my article, or she was told that she needed to lie more accurately.
So she changed the year - now she says about the 1932 year and takes the correct numbers this time. But leaving his lies with the same vile.
That's what it really was. In the November 6 elections, 1932, the Nazis scored 33,1% of the votes, the Communists 16,9%, the Social Democrats 20,4% (in total, 41,3%). And as a result of these elections, Hitler did not come to power. Why? Because the Nazis did not have a majority. It must be said that before they put everyone in prison, the Nazis could not win any elections at all. Even in the March 5 elections, 1933, two months after Hitler was appointed Chancellor, after the repressions, the Nazis received 43,9%.
Hitler did not become chancellor because someone was not united. His opponents themselves also never had 50,1% votes. But Adolf Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933. How? Having won the elections, how does Latynina tell us? Nothing like this. To bring Hitler to power through the elections really tried. The impression was that the authorities of the Weimar Republic, controlled from abroad, decided to hold them as many times until the Nazis came to power by collecting more than 50% of votes. From 1929 to 1933, there were 9 elections for the Reichstag. And this is not counting the election of 12.11. 1933, when there was one NSDAP in the bulletin and she scored 92%.
Latynina lies that Hitler became the chancellor because of Stalin’s order not to block the Communists from the SPD. Hitler came to power in the most constitutional way. Rather, he was brought to her. According to the 48 article of the Weimar Constitution, the president of Germany had the opportunity, under certain circumstances, to take “emergency measures” (including the adoption of legislative decrees) without the prior consent of the Reichstag (the German parliament). But until 1930, this rule was not used. In the 1930 year, it was “uncorked”, “trained”, and in January 1933, this was the way MINUTE PARLIAMENT, President Hindenburg, appointed Hitler Chancellor (Prime Minister). That is, the election results had nothing to do with the appointment. It was a decision based on backstage bargaining, and not on elective%. And then Stalin?
(Source: A. Bulok, Hitler and Stalin, Smolensk, Rusich, 1994, the table of the results of the elections in Germany)
4. 'History 1925, narrated by Viktor Suvorov in The Last Republic. 1925 year. A red warrior, a red military pilot Minov, arrives in France. Minov's assignment - buy 4 thousand soldiers aviation engines. Hitler had less on the Eastern Front on June 22, I remind you. And the essence of the matter lies in the fact that Minov, however, could not fully fulfill his task, because France did not have so many engines. But he was incognito, and it was very funny when the Minister of Aviation of France found out about his visit and at the very last moment ran into the carriage with a bouquet of flowers with regret that his colleague was already leaving without seeing so much. "
Suvorov-Rezun for Latynina authority. So be it. In one of his books, Suvorov writes about Tukhachevsky, who wanted to build 100 tanks. And then 4 thousand engines for aircraft. Similar handwriting, right? Stalin the adventurer Tukhachevsky besieged, and then the other military sitting in the tribunal in 1938 sentenced him to treason. And in 1925, who led the USSR? Stalin? No. The struggle for power was just beginning. Comrade Trotsky is sovereign. Other "comrades" in the field. Only October 31, 1925 will be stabbed to death on the operating table by order of Trotsky, People's Commissar of Defense Frunze, who was seriously thinking about the invasion of the Red Cavalry in India.
Where did the information that Stalin personally ordered to buy so many engines, not having the production of aircraft? She is not. There is a story about the pilot from the book of Rezun. And that's all.
5. “But the question is, from whom did Stalin defend himself in 1925? From the imperialists? He bought motors from them. From the Germans? At this moment, in fact, the USSR coached the Germans at their training grounds. If Stalin was afraid of Germany's revenge, why did he train German generals? These trainings stopped only with Hitler coming to power, but on the initiative of Hitler, not Stalin. ”
The lie about how the USSR trained the “German generals” is one of the liberals' favorites. And three years ago Latynina lied in the same way. Therefore, the answer is the same. According to the results of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had the right to have 100 thousand army. Without heavy weapons, without aircraft, without tanks, without fleet. Did Stalin give all this to Hitler? Nothing like this. What really happened?
The creation of top-secret joint military projects was the result of the Rapallo Treaty between Germany and Russia in 1922. Weimar Germany and the USSR agreed to open a tank school, flight school and chemical test site on our territory.
The agreement on the organization of a joint tank school was signed on October 2 1926 in Moscow. The German side bore costs for the current maintenance of the school and the acquisition of all the necessary property for its operation, including the tanks themselves. The Soviet side allocated technical staff for workshops, workers and security. The cadets of the school were to study in combat vehicles of English and French production, which the Germans were going to buy through various machinations and bring into the Soviet Union. Thus, the Red Army, not spending a penny, got access to the latest models of military equipment. (Source: Military-Historical Journal. 1993. No. 6, s.39-44; No.7, s.41-44; No.8, s.36-42.).
The ten combat vehicles promised by the Germans arrived only at the start of the 1929 of the year. For all the time of its existence, the tank school managed to make three issues of German students: in 1929 / 30. - 10, in 1931 / 32 - 11 and in 1933 year - 9 people.
Total: in the USSR prepared 30 German tankers. How many times did Hitler have tankers? Tens of thousands. (Source: Gorlov SA, Top Secret: Alliance Moscow - Berlin, 1920 — 1933, M., 2001, p. 220)
The situation is similar with the “production” of the German aces. The first steps towards the emergence of a school in Lipetsk were made in 1923, when the German military ministry, through an intermediary, bought single fighters from the Fokker company in the Netherlands. Full-time studies began only in the second half of 1926. Please note - in the fleet of aviation schools exclusively foreign aircraft: 34 fighter "Fokker", 8 reconnaissance "Heinkel" training aircraft "Albatross", "Heinkel" and "Junkers", and another transport "Junkers".
Where is the help of Stalin? And it was not. The Soviet Union provided the Germans only with their own sky, and they brought everything else with them, and in addition trained our pilots and designers. In total, the 120 German fighter pilots and 100 observer pilots were trained or re-trained at the flight school in Lipetsk. (Source: Sobolev, DA, Khazanov, D. B. A German trace in the history of domestic aviation., Moscow, Rusavia, 2000, p. XXUMX)
Latynina is learning to lie more skillfully. Previously, did not tell a drop of truth. Now he mixes up lies and truth. The truth is that both schools were really closed on the orders of Hitler, immediately after he came to power. And never again resumed their work. That is, with Hitler, Stalin had no military cooperation. It took place in very modest quantities with the Democratic Weimmar Republic! Stalin and the USSR had nothing to do with the armament of Hitler's Reich. Hitler armed the West, not the East.
And a new kind of lies - now Stalin is even to blame for Latynina even that it was not he, but Hitler, who terminated the agreement and closed the schools! And why was it necessary to close them to Stalin? Hitler, England and France were allowed to open schools right in Germany, and he closed them in Russia, for the war with which he was brought to power by the same British and French. And why did Stalin close these schools? The Germans brought the latest technology (of which we have no analogues and so far we do not know how to produce) and learn how to use it with us. Why close such a good school?
6. “Finally, if Stalin defended himself, why weaponwhich he did was offensive? Here, with the light hand of Viktor Suvorov, there is a great example. This is an example of a BT tank, which, in fact, was a tank by, in fact, American designer Christie, which was bought in 1930 year and was produced in Kharkov at a factory built by the American designer Kan in the amount of 22 units per day. BT was a great tank. He fought in Spain, he showed himself well there, he did a two-day march in 630 kilometers, a march to the Ebro River. Under Halkin-Gol, it was BT that was fighting, the 800-kilometer march along the Mongolian steppe. Finally, in 1945, BT was also the main tank in the war with the Japanese, it marched 820 kilometers march. ”
Yulia Latynina may not know, but it was Japan that attacked Mongolia and the USSR on the eve of World War II, and not vice versa. The fighting near Khalkhin Gol and Lake Hassan brought the Japanese to their senses. So much so that they then in 1941 did not dare to try their luck again. And the BT tanks were one of the shock forces of our army. Which defended, and was not the aggressor. That is, citing such an example, Latynina exposes herself, to put it mildly, unintelligent. Having an offensive weapon is not a sign of aggressiveness. Offensive weapons are in the armies of all countries, including those who themselves will never be the first to attack anyone. Incidentally, according to Latynina, again, the American tank. That is, not having their own samples yet, the USSR purchased what was abroad. The reason - see the previous paragraph.
7. “The question arises: how did Stalin, who turned the whole country into a weapons factory, why did he not have strategic bombers? The answer is that a strategic bomber is a weapon of retaliation. Now, if you were attacked, then you are flying to the rear of your opponent and bombing the factories producing weapons with which you were attacked. ”
Another stupidity. According to Latynina - who has strategic bombers, he will never attack first. Stupidity. Just strategic bombing can bring the enemy's economy down and it is this kind of aggression that we see today (and yesterday) on the part of the Anglo-Saxons and NATO. Another thing is that the resources to develop and aviation and short-range and strategic are usually not enough. You have to make a choice. Hitler made a choice in favor of "non-strategic" aviation. Why? Because I was preparing for war with the USSR, where in the European part you can “get there” to the enemy and its important centers. But to England, the German planes flew to the limit of their capabilities. A small fight - and it's time to go back, and then run out of fuel. To fight with the United States without strategic aviation is impossible at all. So Hitler was not going to fight the Anglo-Saxons. Apparently planning to capture the "whole world" without a fight with the States? But the British and Americans already in the course of the war began to develop precisely strategic aviation, hoping to put both Germans and Russians on their knees. The bombing of Dresden is a “portfolio” of allied strategic aviation. Destroyed a large city, killed hundreds of thousands of people - and all in order to put pressure on Stalin. Exactly, like a bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this is an attempt to make Stalin compliant by demonstrating his capabilities.
8. “There is such a unique battle in world history under 22’s January 1879 of Izandlwan. This is a battle in which Zulu warriors, armed with spears and clubs, beat the English army. Why? Because the British ran out of ammo.
Why did not the fronts break through to the First World War? Because no government could afford to lose 10 or 100 thousands of people in the attack. Stalin created such a system that allowed it. "
There is nothing to even comment on. "Oscilloscope Arrow" in its purest form. Fronts in World War broke through. Repeatedly. The most striking example is the Brusilov breakthrough of the Russian army. But Latynina will not write this - this is a victory for the Russian weapon, you can’t write and talk about it. As for the losses, just any unsuccessful offensive, of which there were many in the history of the First World War, was precisely the one that was marked by terrible losses. About the cost of 10 thousands of lives - it is almost ANY offensive of that time and the war. Paid for a couple of square kilometers. But especially for the "Latin" we take the upper bar - 100 thousands of lives. Is this the only “bloody Stalin” that can attack ?!
Here is the statistics of the loss of one of the bloodiest battles of the First World War - Verdun. The British and the French began to attack him, that is, those governments who, according to Latynina, cannot afford the losses in 100 thousand people. They attacked from 21 February to 18 in December 1916 of the year, during which time near Verdun both sides lost about a million people, among whom there were thousands of people killed - up to 430. This battle will be called the "meat grinder."
Here is another battle - the slaughter of Nivelle. Again come the "governments that can not afford to lose 100 thousand people in the attack." In the spring of 1917, the French and the British stormed the German fortifications head on: 16 April 1917 - May 1917. The largest battle of the First World War. For several weeks, even according to Wikipedia, which the liberals love so much, “In the Nivel Offensive, the French lost the killed and wounded 180 000 people, the English 160 000 people. The losses of the German army were 163 000 people (29 000 prisoners). ”
Again, Stalin is to blame?
9. “Even in the 1945 year, with the capture of Berlin, the daily losses of the Red Army were 15 thousands of people a day. These were the biggest losses for the war, that is, nothing had changed since Rzhev. ”
Every time Latynina calls numbers, she tries to beat on emotions. The real numbers are: Berlin defended about 1 million enemy soldiers. Of this number of Germans and mixed SS men who defended Berlin, 480 thousand soldiers and officers were taken prisoner. Our losses - 101 960 killed, 200 thousand wounded (G. Hilger, A. Meyer. Russia and Germany. Allies or enemies ?, M.CentrePoligraph, 2008, C.412).
Taking Berlin is a huge victory. And it's not just that during the 8 days of fighting, our army defeated and captured a huge army. The fact is that it was Stalin’s decision to storm Berlin and saved the world from the Third World War. The British did not dare to fight the army, which in a short time took the most powerful fortress. Having decided to storm the German capital, Stalin showed the allies the power of his army, just as they showed him the power of their aircraft, having burned the poor Dresden to the ground. The British military stated their premiere that there would be no quick victory. But in April, 1945-th Churchill ordered to prepare a plan for Operation Unthinkable. A possible start was planned for July 1 1945.
What was the operation like? The overall plan was this - a sudden (without a declaration of war) all-destructive attack on the Russian army in Europe. Next - the attack there, from where just our people drove Hitler. Allied strategic aviation was preparing to wipe out the largest cities of the USSR. Especially for the admirers of Sir Winston Churchill, of whom there is a lot of poor knowledge of history in our country, I cite the points of the Anglo-Saxon plan. The purpose of the operation was to "force Russia to submit to the will of the United States and the British Empire." To achieve the goal, the Allies planned:
A) To occupy those areas of internal Russia, having lost which, the country will lose the material possibilities of waging war and further resistance;
B) inflict such a decisive defeat on the Russian armed forces, which will make it impossible for the USSR to continue the war.
Read? Now explain the difference with the German Barbarossa plan and the goals that Adolf Hitler set for himself in 1941 year. The goal of the Fuhrer was the elimination of the USSR as a military factor and the subordination of the Russians to the will of Germany. The British tried to achieve the same thing four years later, Hitler, developing the operation “Unthinkable”. According to the Barbarossa plan, the Germans were going to occupy a significant part of the USSR’s territory and smash the main forces of the Red Army in border battles, which, in their opinion, should have brought Reich victory in the war with the Russians. Exactly the same were the plans of their English "colleagues".
Operation "Unthinkable" did not take place just because of the fact that its developers considered the combination of forces in Europe to be not in their favor. Hot heads cooled down. Third World War, which our English “partners” had planned for 1 July 1945, did not happen. How many lives, how many millions of lives did Stalin save by his decision? He could not stop Hitler, but was able to stop Churchill. The assault on Berlin was carried out quickly and clearly. 2 May 1945, the Berlin garrison capitulated.
And the losses ... Yes, they were - 8 days by 15 000 people, there are a hundred thousand. Who gave their lives for their homeland, storming Berlin. So that British aviation would not wipe out Moscow and Leningrad from the face of the earth ...
10. “The problem is that even before 1939, Stalin tried to develop the war in at least two places - in Spain in 1936 and Czechoslovakia in 1938, and both times he did exactly the same thing. He pursued his policy in the same way, both times through the Fifth Column in the face of the Comintern and useful idiots, so that France and Britain declared war on Hitler, and Stalin was on the sidelines. ”
That lived. Stalin had already organized a civil war in Spain. Did Stalin persuade General Franco to rebel? Not. So what is Stalin's fault? And about this wrote three years ago Latynina. Stalin supplied weapons to the legitimate government of Spain. Serious guilt, nothing to say. Today, Russia is very guilty - it supplies weapons to Syria. And years through 50, Vladimir Putin’s “Latin” will be blamed for fomenting the war in Syria. Why, Western media already blames Moscow for this.
And about Czechoslovakia is just an anecdote. No one in historiography laid the blame on Stalin for the desire to unleash a war during the Munich Agreement, when the British and French, through the mediation of Mussolini, gave Hitler the floor of Czechoslovakia. Not asking, by the way, and the Czechs. Having an allied treaty with Czechoslovakia. The USSR also had an agreement with the Czechs and declared that it was ready to fight with Hitler for Czechoslovakia, observing the agreement. But since they themselves surrendered, Stalin, of course, led the troops away from the border. So what is Stalin to blame? What the British and French handed over to Hitler successively Austria and Czechoslovakia?
Do not look for the truth in the words Latynina and the like.
They are always to blame Russia, always to blame the Russian authorities.
In extreme cases, Stalin is always to blame for everything.