"He managed to bring the country back from the brink of disaster."

12 058 85
"He managed to bring the country back from the brink of disaster."


The Wise Monkey Strategy


Moscow's pre-war policy can be explained by the old Chinese strategy: "A smart monkey sits on a mountain and watches two tigers fight in the valley."



Stalin maneuvered and cunningly maneuvered to the very end, seeking a way to avoid direct involvement in a major war. He sought to avoid the fate of the Russian Empire, the scenario of World War I, when the Germans and Russians were pitted against each other, and all the fruits of victory went to the then collective West—France, England, and the United States. The Russians and Germans found themselves defeated, fragmented, and robbed. They barely escaped the complete collapse of civilization and statehood.

The seminary dropout Joseph Vissarionovich was one of the few Russian rulers who understood that this wasn't our war. They were trying to drag Russians back into the fray, to use them as "cannon fodder," pitting them against the Germans and Japanese once again. They were trying to exploit Russia, to force it to fight for foreign interests, for the interests of Britain and the United States.Roosevelt and the idea of ​​global domination in the world).

In this matter, he followed the wise policy of Tsar Alexander III, who used to say, "When the Russian Tsar is fishing, Europe can wait." During his reign, Russia did not wage war in Europe, preferring to stay out of European squabbles. The Russian Empire only expanded its sphere of influence in Turkestan and strengthened its army. fleet.

The war in Europe was the business of the Western world and civilization. We had to avoid this carnage at all costs. Moscow's policy was based on this strategic goal. Initially, the Union attempted to reach an agreement with the collective West, to create a real system of collective security in Europe that would stop the aggression of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. This was a real possibility. The aggressors would not have been able to resist the League of Nations if it had expressed a genuine will for peace.

The weakness of the Union


At the same time, Stalin was well aware of all the weaknesses of the Soviet Union. Industrialization was well underway, but still far from complete. Programs to modernize and strengthen the army and navy (including the creation of a navy capable of operating on the world's oceans) were incomplete. A powerful Red Army had only just been formed, but it was still "raw," as the Winter War with Finland demonstrated. The system of military design bureaus and research institutes was still in its infancy.

Yesterday's peasants were barely put behind the levers tanks and aircraft controls. They hailed from medieval communities that relied on subsistence farming. Their potential adversaries—the Germans, British, and Americans—were descended from industrial civilizations. Divisions, corps, and armies were often commanded by former partisans, Civil War-era "field commanders," and cavalrymen far removed from the realities of the new "war of motors."

The people had not yet recovered from the civilizational and governmental catastrophe of 1917–1920. The wounds of war still suffused both cities and villages. The outlying regions were still far from stable. This was demonstrated by the Great War—the Baltic Nazis, Banderites in Ukraine, the highlander problem in the Caucasus, and so on. In total, up to 1,2–1,5 million Soviet citizens of various nationalities served on Hitler's side in various military and auxiliary units during the war. In many ways, this was an echo of the Great Russian Time of Troubles.

The Soviet society of knowledge, service, and creation had only just begun to be built. Illiteracy had only just been overcome, and advanced schools and science had just been established.

Yet the enemies knew all this. They simply underestimated the policies of the Stalin government. They didn't expect that literally three pre-war five-year plans would radically change and restructure Soviet society and the state. They expected to encounter a USSR reminiscent of the 1920s—a typically "finished," dysfunctional country, government, and people. A colossus with feet of clay that would collapse at the first blows of the Wehrmacht.

Stalin's successes


Joseph Vissarionovich, despite the masters of the Great Game from Berlin, Paris, London, and Washington, managed to achieve a lot. He returned the Russian historical lands – the Baltics, Western Belarus and Western Ukraine, Bessarabia-Moldova. He expanded the security zone, pushing it westward. He likely saved Leningrad-Petersburg by annexing the Baltics and pushing back the Finnish border.

He created a powerful army, which, despite terrible losses, endured and fought back, and then, "We turned the Earth back," "So that the sun would rise in the East," as the Russian genius Vladimir Vysotsky sang. He created a powerful military-industrial complex, and "Magnitogorsk conquered the Ruhr." Society and the home front withstood the terrible war without breaking. Design bureaus and research institutes created new technologies, new weapon and technique.

Moscow managed to avoid a war on two fronts – against the Japanese Empire and the German Reich. Such a war could have buried the USSR. The Japanese, realizing they were being exploited and pitted against the Russians, turned south and began attacking the Westerners.

Stalin outplayed the French and the British. He demanded a full-fledged military alliance from them, along with permission to transit troops and military supplies through allied countries, Poland and Romania. The Westerners refused, expecting the Third Reich to strike at Russia. Then Moscow reached an agreement with Berlin.Why did Stalin reach an agreement with Hitler?). This made it possible to resolve the issue of the Baltics, Western Ukraine and Belarus – strategic objectives of the Russian state and people.

Stalin also managed to avoid involvement in the first round of the world war, when Hitler clashed with the Western democracies. However, the German Reich clearly dealt with Norway, France, Holland, Belgium, and England sooner than Moscow had hoped. There was hope that the conflict would be protracted, as in the First World War. This would allow the Russians to better prepare for war, complete the programs already underway to build fortified areas, modernize the army, and deploy new weapons and equipment.

There was a chance that Hitler would continue to be a man one could talk to. After all, Russia and Germany had no fundamental differences. The Russo-German conflict benefited only Britain and the United States, our mutual competitors. Therefore, Stalin delayed the war until the very end, made concessions, and demonstrated a willingness to compromise.

Everything seemed to be going on the right course. However, Hitler made a fatal mistake, just as Napoleon Bonaparte had in the summer of 1812. He began the war despite objective facts. The Führer counted on the Soviet colossus collapsing at the first blow. His logic was different—irrational, magical. He was counting on a miracle.

The Riddle "June 22, 1941


Anti-Soviet, liberal historiography accuses Stalin of "sleeping through" the outbreak of the war. He "believed" Hitler to the very end, dismissing intelligence reports that were "accurate." He disbelieved the reports of British Prime Minister Churchill, who warned Stalin that Hitler was moving troops eastward to attack Russia, and so on.

Fact is that Stalin had an excellent understanding of economics, politics, and history. He knew that the Third Reich was not ready for war with Russia. Germany cannot fight on two fronts; it must finish off Britain first.

Are the Germans preparing strike forces on the Soviet border? So this is a massive disinformation operation, as well as Germany's defensive measures against a surprise Russian attack. A cover army while the Germans prepare operations against Britain.

It is obvious that Hitler, after the capture of Greece and Crete (How Hitler Conquered Crete), will develop operations in the Mediterranean. Like a strike on Egypt with the goal of seizing Britain's main strategic supply line (the Suez Canal) and taking it out of the war. Or Hitler is preparing an assault on Britain or the capture of Sweden, with its strategic raw material reserves. All of this is logical and reasonable.

Logic and reason dictated that Germany and its armed forces were unprepared for war with the enormous Soviet Union. Moscow received perfectly accurate intelligence and diplomatic reports that the German Reich's economy was unmobilized for a protracted war. Germany's raw material reserves were meager. The country was in dire need of essential resources (metal, fuel, provisions, etc.) even without a war with the Russians! How then could they fight such an economic and territorially colossal monster as the Red Empire?

Moscow received reports that German equipment was no superior to Soviet equipment in either numbers or performance characteristics. Moreover, we had more armored vehicles and guns. The Wehrmacht was unprepared for a winter campaign. Did the Germans really want to win during the summer?

In this case, Britain benefited from the Germans clashing with the Russians. It was a matter of England's survival! Therefore, all warnings are a provocation aimed at saving Foggy Albion. The goal is to implement the basic scenario of World War II: the slaughter of Russians and Germans.

If Hitler made a fatal mistake, the Red Army would have to withstand the blow and launch a counteroffensive. No one in the Soviet Union thought the Germans would reach Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, or that the Wehrmacht would capture more than 3 million Soviet soldiers in the first year of the war alone. The enemy was underestimated, as was the Führer's magical strategic talent.

Hitler had to attack first, so that the Russians would become the victims of aggression. Therefore, the Free French, Britain, and the United States became allies of Soviet Russia, the "Bolsheviks" they had previously hated. This was a coup for the Stalin government. The tactical alliance was: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."


On January 4, 1943, Time magazine named Stalin Man of the Year. The magazine noted: “1942 was the year of blood and fortitude. And the Man of the Year was a man whose name in Russian means ‘steel,’ and whose few English words include the American expression ‘tough guy,’” the magazine noted. “Only Stalin knows exactly how close to defeat Russia came in 1942. And only he knows exactly how he managed to bring the country back from the brink. The whole world, however, understands what would have happened otherwise. And Hitler understands this better than anyone. If the German legions had broken through iron-clad Stalingrad and destroyed Russia’s offensive potential, Hitler would have become not only Man of the Year, but the undisputed master of Europe. He would have been able to prepare for the conquest of other continents. And free up 250 victorious divisions for new conquests in Asia and Africa. But Stalin managed to stop him.”
85 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 20
    19 June 2026 05: 20
    Most importantly, he understood perfectly well that without responsibility, nothing good would come. And he demanded responsibility from both himself and the elite. That elite was truly the country's elite. And this one...
    1. + 15
      19 June 2026 05: 27
      My address, "And this one..." - just elite... And, moreover, impudent.
    2. -5
      19 June 2026 14: 02
      Quote: My address
      And he demanded responsibility both from himself and from the elite.

      Yeah, Voroshilov should have been put through a meat grinder alive for the Act of Acceptance of the People's Commissariat of Defense dated May 7, 1940 - and he should have been sent to the Security Council. lol...oh...it was called something else back then.
      Zhigarev lied to my face - and later became a marshal.
      Salzman didn't care about Moscow's orders - apparently they shot him, right?
      And there were a ton of such extremely responsible people from top to bottom, both among the military and among civilians.
    3. -1
      19 June 2026 23: 31
      Alexander, hello!! drinks
      That's all true. But I personally have one very serious complaint against Stalin. Even more so, I'll go further: Stalin committed a criminal negligence, which consisted of failing to recognize in time the true goal of the war Germany launched against the USSR. This goal was solely to control the USSR's territories and resources, while the populations in these territories were condemned to starvation. There's now a wealth of material on this topic. Stalin and his comrades failed to appreciate the full practical danger of Nazi ideology. Although they could have...
    4. 0
      8 August 2026 11: 09
      There were plenty of bastards in the elite, too. Voroshilov, Khrushchev, Zhdanov—those were real hotshots. The country suffered through Khrushchev's 10 years of power. The Crimea scam alone was worth it! A corn-dancing man.
  2. + 22
    19 June 2026 06: 18
    After Stalin's death, the country continued to follow Stalin's path for some time. 1954, I was 8 years old. A new grocery store opened. It had a variety of meats, black and red caviar. The price in those days was 110 rubles for red caviar, 220 rubles for black caviar. Nowadays, children don't care about prices. But at that time, we cared about everything. I'm not even talking about fur shops and jewelry stores. Everything, even dental crowns. It's clear that for most people, this was not very affordable. Now, many blame paid secondary education. Firstly, it wasn't that much money. And secondly, the quality of education was high. This was abolished in 1956. And in 1957, Sputnik was launched. This means that everything in education was done correctly. Only those who lived at that time can appreciate public health care. After Stalin, many children's hospitals closed. Only in our area there were two children's clinics. one. The attitude towards sanitation was the strictest.
    1. +5
      19 June 2026 09: 04
      Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
      Nowadays, kids don't care about prices. But back then, we cared about everything... Not to mention fur shops and jewelry stores.

      I remember, as a very little child, I loved looking at the "consumer goods" brochure, a huge book of excellent printing... I especially remember the soap, toilet soap in the shape of an orange, where the pieces were its slices, individually packaged... cologne in a vessel shaped like the Kremlin tower... I saw it "in person" too, but this soap was no longer available...

      Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
      there was a high quality of education

      It is no wonder that in the early 60s, Americans were concerned about reforming their schools and higher education, citing their lag behind the USSR
    2. -7
      19 June 2026 14: 12
      Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
      The price back then was 110 rubles for a red one, 220 rubles for a black one. Kids these days don't care about prices. But back then, we cared about everything. I'm not even talking about fur shops and jewelry stores. Everything, right down to dental crowns. Clearly, it wasn't very affordable for most people.

      Average salary in 1954 according to data CSB USSR was 699 rubles.
      (See the Statistical Table of the Central Statistical Office of the USSR “Average monthly cash wages of workers and employees by sectors of the national economy of the USSR in 1940, 1945, 1950-1955”, RGAE. F. 1562. Op. 41. D. 113. L. 161-161ob.)
      That means red caviar is 1/7 of the average salary then.
      Now red caviar (real!!!) is 5,000 kg * 1/7 = 35,000 - that is, at least no more expensive than then.
      If we count by officialdom Just like back then, the average salary was 74,000 across the country, which was 2 times cheaper than in 1954.

      Black, yes - significantly more expensive than in the USSR
      1. +6
        19 June 2026 14: 48
        Quote: your1970
        Now red caviar (real!!!) is 5,000 kg * 1/7 = 35,000 - that is, at least no more expensive than then.

        Where's it going for 5000? In the Far East, in the fall of 2025, during the peak chum salmon run, it was 7000 rubles... In the spring, you could get it for 4,5, but there was a 95% chance of running into a "cheat."
        Quote: your1970
        Black, yes - significantly more expensive than in the USSR

        Yes, you can go to jail for black caviar; it's not officially harvested or sold. There are, of course, some fish farms that harvest it, but the prices... I'm speaking from my region, based on my own experience.
        1. -3
          20 June 2026 00: 27
          Quote: Fitter65
          Where's it going for 5000? In the Far East, in the fall of 2025, during the peak chum salmon run, it was 7000 rubles... In the spring, you could get it for 4,5, but there was a 95% chance of running into a "cheat."

          I bought it in Moscow in the spring for 5,000, a real one, in a store
          1. -4
            20 June 2026 06: 02
            Guys, I have only one question: Are you fucking greedy?
            1. +4
              20 June 2026 10: 01
              Quote: Traveler 63
              Guys, I have only one question: Are you fucking greedy?

              I'll tell you. Bitch, we haven't gotten too spoiled. Red caviar and salmon have been a staple in the Far East diet for ages. Every fall, I'd use the money I'd saved to go boating and buy salmon and caviar from the fishermen. It wasn't a big deal. But in the last five years, Muscovites have taken over. And fish and caviar have become more expensive here than in places where they're not found. Last year, my brother came from Novosibirsk and was surprised that our chum salmon was more expensive than theirs.
              Quote: your1970
              I bought it in Moscow in the spring for 5,000, a real one, in a store

              I've already mentioned that the entire fishing and caviar industry is located in the Far East, "near Moscow," just like all other profitable industries. Whether it's logging or gold mining, you look at the equipment and see it all has Moscow license plates, though you can also find some of our "local" ones. So it's no surprise that caviar and chum salmon caught in the Amur River are cheaper in Moscow than in stores in towns and villages along the Amur.
              1. -3
                21 June 2026 03: 32
                Quote: Fitter65
                I'll tell you. B...ka, we haven't gotten too spoiled.

                I'll give you the same answer, bitch! What you're writing about can be summed up in two words: "Yaroslavna's lament!" I grew up on the shores of Lake Ladoga and know what red fish and red caviar are, and... we just caught them, we didn't buy them! I won't argue with the "Muscovites"; they're already a pain in the neck here, too. That's pretty much it, in a nutshell.
        2. 0
          23 June 2026 17: 03
          For 5-6 thousand rubles, you can find excellent red caviar in the Moscow region. You just need to know who's safe to buy from and where to pass it by...
          1. +2
            24 June 2026 00: 18
            Quote: Glagol1
            For 5-6 thousand in the Moscow region there is excellent red caviar.

            Since Moscow is a popular destination for salmon, caviar isn't expensive there. Unlike Komsomolsk-on-Amur, where it costs 7 rubles and up...
    3. +4
      19 June 2026 17: 01
      Nikolai Malyugin (Nikolay Malyugin), sir, you wrote, "Now many blame paid secondary education. Firstly, it wasn't that much money. And secondly, the quality of education was high." But you forgot to mention that some categories of students studied for free. My mother fell into this category. My grandfather died as a private Red Army soldier in February 1944 near Velikiye Luki. My mother didn't pay for his education in grades 8-10. And she didn't pay for her studies at the teacher training college either. But, since I studied well at the pedagogical college, I had to choose: to receive a survivor's pension or to receive a scholarship..." The Council of People's Commissars of the USSR decrees: To exempt, as of July 1, 1941, children of privates and junior command personnel called up to the ranks of the Red Army and the Navy from tuition fees in grades 8-10 of secondary schools, technical schools and universities." - this is the text of the RESOLUTION of July 2, 1941 N 1803 of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "ON THE EXEMPTION FROM TUITION FEES OF CHILDREN OF PRIVATE AND JUNIOR COMMANDS OF THE RED ARMY AND THE NAVY". The document lost its validity or was repealed due to the publication of Resolution No. 626 of the USSR Council of Ministers dated August 18, 1965. Children of officers killed at the front and officers disabled in the Great Patriotic War were exempt from tuition fees in accordance with the USSR Council of People's Commissars' Order dated December 5, 1944, No. 22334-r... Resolution No. 2436 of the USSR Council of People's Commissars dated September 21, 1945, "On measures to provide assistance to demobilized soldiers, families of fallen soldiers, disabled veterans of the Great Patriotic War, and families of military personnel." It contains 21 points, and is easy to find on Wikisource. It contains several points regarding free tuition.
    4. +3
      19 June 2026 21: 40
      There were only two children's clinics in our area. Now there is only one left.
      Communal apartments were vacated, young people with children moved into new buildings, while, for example, in my Petrogradsky district, the long-time residents—retirees—remained. The population density dropped, and the child population even more so. The gangs of mischievous kids in the neighborhoods disappeared. The social landscape changed. In the neighborhood, where there were five schools in the 1960s, only two remained by the 1980s. So to speak, "it's not all that clear-cut." Behind the surface, there are many underlying processes.
  3. + 11
    19 June 2026 06: 22
    And now there are so many crows! There is no cohesion in society and there never will be. No matter what they sing to us from above, Russia faces a serious threat.
  4. + 10
    19 June 2026 06: 58
    Well, history repeats itself. The only difference is that this time, the enemy took into account why the USSR survived. And they began preparing for war more thoroughly – first, they destroyed the USSR, thereby weakening its rear, logistics, and manpower. The breakaway republics were lured away, and continue to be lured away, so that they would fight on the enemy's side. They weakened education as much as possible, so that there would be no scientists who could have strengthened combat readiness and logistics in difficult times. They weakened culture as much as possible, changed values, sowed mistrust of each other, the government, and the Motherland, replacing it with admiration for the West. They are conducting propaganda in advance, just as they did during the Great Patriotic War during the offensive. At the same time, they have fueled Russophobia in Europe and nationalism in the former Soviet Union, with elements of "resentment." And if, according to the article, Hitler made a fatal mistake for him by going to war defying logic, now there are many such Hitlers in the EU.
    All this can't just disappear. And most likely, a major war is still ahead.
  5. -2
    19 June 2026 07: 31
    And he didn’t trade his son for a field marshal!
    I would give ten field marshals for my son!
    But I'm not Stalin, what would you have done in his place?
    1. +5
      19 June 2026 08: 56
      Quote: Vyacheslav Boldyrev
      I wouldn't trade my son for a field marshal! I'd trade ten field marshals for my son.

      I believe he did this not as a father, but as the head of state, in front of the entire country... I also believe that this was not an easy decision.
    2. +2
      19 June 2026 14: 16
      Quote: Vyacheslav Boldyrev
      And he didn’t trade his son for a field marshal!
      I would give ten field marshals for my son!
      But I'm not Stalin, what would you have done in his place?

      Quote: Rodez
      Quote: Vyacheslav Boldyrev
      I wouldn't trade my son for a field marshal! I'd trade ten field marshals for my son.

      I believe he did this not as a father, but as the head of state, in front of the entire country... I also believe that this was not an easy decision.

      There is no documented evidence of the possibility of such an exchange.

      The formula "I wouldn't trade my son for a marshal" originated with Ozerov's TV series back in the 1970s.
    3. -3
      21 June 2026 13: 42
      Stalin couldn't stand Yakov. He would have given him up for Vasily Paulus, no doubt about it.
  6. +5
    19 June 2026 07: 35
    The Riddle of June 22, 1941

    Personally, I think the following. We've all read how desperately Comrade Stalin tried not to provoke the Germans. All those orders not to shoot down their insolent scouts, and so on and so forth. But the question arises about the illogicality of this behavior.
    Indeed, all experience has shown that if two countries don't want a major war, they won't start one, even if a major military incident occurs. A prime example is Khalkhin Gol. It would seem that if this isn't a pretext for a major war, what is? But neither the USSR nor Japan wanted that—and so they ended up punching each other a few times and going their separate ways.
    The opposite is also true: if a state decides to wage a major war, it will concoct a pretext for it perfectly well. Or it can manage without one. Aloisyevich's antics, for example, are very telling. So, provoke him or not, war is bound to break out.

    So who was Joseph Vissarionovich so afraid of giving a pretext for war? If it clearly wasn't Germany? Well, let's recall the preceding events. On May 10, 1941, Hess arrived in Britain... the Germans' second-in-command!! What happened? The British claim they didn't come to an agreement with him. Why, then, are all the documents on this matter classified to this day? My opinion is that the Cambridge Five had been working for the Soviet Union since the 30s, and there were plenty of other agents as well. And then, documents landed on Comrade Stalin's desk that clearly stated—no, they had reached an agreement.

    So what was the deal? Naturally, peace between England and Germany. Under it, Germany would receive Europe, and England would retain her colonies. But where's the guarantee that Germany wouldn't change its mind after a while? It's very simple: they need to be fed a piece that will take them a long time to digest... That is, the European part of the USSR. But England wouldn't be England if it didn't try to grab something for itself. But to do that, they'd have to go to war with the USSR, something their own population wouldn't quite understand. So imagine this: the USSR treacherously attacks Germany, the West is in danger, the unity of all German peoples, the defense of universal values ​​from the perfidious Bolshevik hordes, and all that other nonsense. To this tune, England and Germany urgently conclude peace, and England enters the war with the USSR. This is who Comrade Stalin was so afraid of giving a pretext to!

    Aloisyevich was tricked into maintaining long-standing contacts with a certain high-ranking group in the USSR. In exchange for establishing their power over the remnants of the country, they promised to guarantee the defeat of the Red Army in a border battle and the removal of Comrade Stalin. And then – an immediate peace with the cession of the required territories and economic cooperation with the West. Only things went wrong: Comrade Stalin failed to be removed. Despite the defeat, the Red Army proved far more combat-ready than expected, and the people rose en masse to defend the Soviet Motherland. And the British backed down, simply abandoning the Germans...

    Tell me, is this nonsense? But didn't the same people conclude a very similar Brest-Litovsk Treaty just 20 years earlier? For different reasons, but the essence is the same? And isn't this exactly what happened in 1991? Isn't this what's being actively promoted even now? And '41 was simply a failed attempt. You'll agree—this version explains a great deal, if not everything, of the mysterious events of those days.
    1. +1
      19 June 2026 08: 34
      Excellent commentary. Politics itself is a formula with several unknowns, and anticipating them determines the next course of action. And the goal of a country's leader is to force his own inputs into these unknowns. And Stalin achieved much of this.
      There's a science fiction story about a humanoid army from different galaxies gathering to fight a horde of intergalactic locusts. Each planet will invite one participant, representing the minds of all the people on that planet. Naturally, according to the author's imagination, the representatives of other galaxies have advanced very far in their development, and the Earthling is more of a supporting character. But at the climax of the battle, which on the scale of an intergalactic war is a very slow and difficult-to-predict event, the entire humanoid army will begin to retreat, even before the big, heated battle. Only the Earthling will dare to strike, even at the cost of death, rushing forward in his small ship. And when he does, suddenly the humanoid army, assembled from a million galaxies, will rush after him, and now the enemy will begin to turn and retreat. Victory will be humanity's.
      And when the Earthling asks, "Why are you so frightened, you advanced people, when you followed me, a simple Earthling?" Then he'll get the answer: it wasn't courage or emotion. Your actions were just a calculation for a new input, which predetermined our success. Before, our calculations showed us losing.
    2. +1
      19 June 2026 09: 18
      And so, documents landed on Comrade Stalin's desk, from which it clearly followed - no, we had an agreement...
      Even if an agreement had been reached at that moment, it was impossible to rule out the possibility that if the USSR had started a war with Germany first, England would have immediately concluded an armistice, and perhaps even become an ally of Germany.
      Because the USSR, with its communist ideology and fair distribution of income, was an eyesore for all capitalist countries.
      Apparently Stalin was well aware of this, which is why he restrained the zealous Timoshenko and Zhukov, who proposed a preemptive strike.
    3. +3
      19 June 2026 14: 23
      Quote: paul3390
      Why then are all documents on this matter still classified?

      The flight materials' security clearance has been extended for another 75 years—after the deadline. We certainly won't live to see it...

      Suicide Resources by 2040:
      He was then transferred to Berlin's Spandau Prison, where, according to the official version, he committed suicide in 1986. However, historians speculate that he was actually murdered by British intelligence. The investigation into his "suicide" remains classified; London promised to declassify it in 2017, but never did. The materials of Hess's interrogations conducted in London are classified until 2040, with the possibility of extension."
      1. +2
        19 June 2026 15: 04
        Exactly. If they really didn't reach an agreement back then, then why keep it so secret?
  7. +4
    19 June 2026 07: 36
    There's a clear difference in the effectiveness of Stalin's commissars and political officers compared to Brezhnev's political officers in the army. Stalin's political officers rallied men to attack the enemy, while Brezhnev's political officers surrendered both the army and the country to the enemy, Gorbachev.
    As for the post-war USSR, I remember very well that after Stalin's death, under Khrushchev, no one told dirty jokes about Stalin. You'd think that Khrushchev had exposed the "tyrant and tormentor," and there would be plenty of "material" for jokes about him! But no! People made up and told jokes about Khrushchev, not Stalin!!! Incidentally, the collapse of the USSR began under Khrushchev!
    But Stalin's greatest achievement was his unification of the Russian lands into a single state, that is, his return to Russia's imperial status (the USSR was the Red Empire), a state in which alone Russia could exist. The deprivation of Russia of its imperial status in 1991 was the most terrible blow to Russia in its entire thousand-year history!!! And what do we have today as a result?
    What we have is that on May 9th, at the Victory Day parade, there are not even portraits or banners depicting the man who brought Russia to its imperial state, which allowed, under his command, to win the Great Patriotic War and save the Russian Red Empire of the USSR, but we have Yeltsin Centers as official places of worship to the destroyer of the Red Empire of the USSR, in order to eventually gradually tear apart the remaining territory and original Russian lands that the Russians still had left after Yeltsin.
    1. -14
      19 June 2026 08: 02
      The collapse of the USSR began not under Khrushchev, but under Stalin, or rather, under Lenin. Ukrainization, the creation of national republics, the right of nations to self-determination, the de facto pardoning of the Baltics and Ukronazis. Well, everything else is already a tide, by inertia, a generational change, and the USSR destroyed itself, and Khrushchev had nothing to do with it, just a cog in the machine of destruction.
      1. +2
        19 June 2026 08: 38
        Ukrainization and Baltization began under Khrushchev and flourished under Brezhnev. It was under Khrushchev that the Baltic states were introduced, and under Brezhnev's efforts, a trend was introduced whereby schools were divided separately for children of indigenous nationalities and for Russian children. Moreover, in schools for indigenous nationalities, only a few lessons a week were allocated for Russian language and literature, and everything was taught in the language of the Baltic states. And mathematics, physics, chemistry, and history... In universities, it was the same. Even the magazines "Ogonyok" and "Krokodil" had their own versions - but in the language of the Baltic states. The Constitution of the USSR under Khrushchev and Brezhnev did not contain an article stating that Russian was the state language throughout the USSR. But a single state language is the basis for a multinational state. And it wasn't under Stalin that they started poking Russians in the Baltic states, saying, "Speak our language here." You could have been sent to Siberia for this. It began under Khrushchev, continued under Brezhnev, and blossomed into a riot under Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion that if, instead of national republics, the USSR had had provinces based not on nationality but on economic and geographic divisions, without any republican Supreme Soviets, then perhaps Gorbachev and Yeltsin wouldn't have found so many local supporters. Although the Bolsheviks under Lenin found local support, even though the entire Russian Empire was then divided into provinces based on geography.
        1. +2
          19 June 2026 10: 33
          Not only in the Baltics, but also in neighboring Mari, there was a magazine called "Pachemysh," a crocodile-like creature. It's not just a matter of nationality, though. Remember Rossel's Ural Republic in the 90s? The Uralians could easily have created a nation.
      2. 0
        19 June 2026 09: 38
        Enough of the cowardly nonsense of the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people. Even your "Liberator" Gorbachev didn't want to dismantle the USSR; he wanted to destroy socialism and the power of the CPSU, which is why he launched a wholesale slander against the Bolshevik-Communists, automatically justifying your crimes. And the majority of voters in the referendum on preserving the USSR, including residents of the Ukrainian SSR, voted for preserving the USSR.
        It was you who forcibly divided the USSR into your evil anti-Soviet-Russophobic States.
        1. +2
          19 June 2026 14: 32
          Quote: tatra
          It is a YOU forcibly divided the USSR into your evil anti-Soviet-Russophobic States.

          So, 19 million members of the CPSU and the USSR's security forces never existed - when did the unknown "you" come and divide the USSR?
          No, I basically agree - they gave them a kick in the pants and told them to go to hell - and so they went, members of the CPSU, the Soviet Army, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the KGB, the Komsomol, and other abbreviations.
          That's exactly where we went - to hell, in the 1990s.
          I do not understand whence where did these "you" victorious republics come from?
      3. -1
        19 June 2026 14: 25
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        de facto forgiveness of the Baltic and Ukrainian Nazis.

        Yeah, "forgiveness" - they were still being driven around in full force until 1957...
      4. +3
        20 June 2026 20: 04
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        The collapse of the USSR began not under Khrushchev, but under Stalin, or rather, under Lenin. Ukrainization, the creation of national republics, the right of nations to self-determination, the de facto pardoning of the Baltics and Ukronazis. Well, everything else is already a tide, by inertia, a generational change, and the USSR destroyed itself, and Khrushchev had nothing to do with it, just a cog in the machine of destruction.

        How propaganda brainwashed a person, he thought they were lying, but it turns out they weren’t.
    2. 0
      20 June 2026 20: 03
      Quote: North 2
      There's a clear difference in the effectiveness of Stalin's commissars and political officers compared to Brezhnev's political officers in the army. Stalin's political officers rallied men to attack the enemy, while Brezhnev's political officers surrendered both the army and the country to the enemy, Gorbachev.
      As for the post-war USSR, I remember very well that after Stalin's death, under Khrushchev, no one told dirty jokes about Stalin. You'd think that Khrushchev had exposed the "tyrant and tormentor," and there would be plenty of "material" for jokes about him! But no! People made up and told jokes about Khrushchev, not Stalin!!! Incidentally, the collapse of the USSR began under Khrushchev!
      But Stalin's greatest achievement was his unification of the Russian lands into a single state, that is, his return to Russia's imperial status (the USSR was the Red Empire), a state in which alone Russia could exist. The deprivation of Russia of its imperial status in 1991 was the most terrible blow to Russia in its entire thousand-year history!!! And what do we have today as a result?
      What we have is that on May 9th, at the Victory Day parade, there are not even portraits or banners depicting the man who brought Russia to its imperial state, which allowed, under his command, to win the Great Patriotic War and save the Russian Red Empire of the USSR, but we have Yeltsin Centers as official places of worship to the destroyer of the Red Empire of the USSR, in order to eventually gradually tear apart the remaining territory and original Russian lands that the Russians still had left after Yeltsin.

      So, under Stalin, May 9th wasn't a holiday; it was a regular workday. This is just a reference for holiday lovers.
  8. -9
    19 June 2026 07: 55
    True, the German Reich dealt with Norway, France, Holland, Belgium and England clearly earlier than Moscow had hoped. There was hope, that the battle would be protracted, like in the First World War.


    A foolish hope, based on complete ignorance and misunderstanding of the history of WWI—a protracted war in the West—was only possible because Russia struck from the east and saved France.

    Stalin delayed the war until the very end, made concessions, and showed a willingness to compromise.

    He didn't delay the war for a second - Hitler didn't even plan to attack the USSR. before, how will it solve problems in Europe by putting it at the end of the queue.

    Hitler had to attack first, so that the Russians would become victims of aggression. Therefore, the Free French, Britain, and the United States became allies of Soviet Russia, the "Bolsheviks" they had previously hated. This was a coup for the Stalin government.

    What nonsense - and before June 22nd, Hitler, who had captured all of Europe, was not considered an aggressor...?
    If the USSR had stabbed Germany in the back in Poland in May 1940, would it have become... the aggressor? Against whom?

    Anti-Soviet, liberal historiography accuses Stalin of "sleeping through" the start of the war

    USSR Minister of Defense Zhukov:
    Due to Stalin's ignoring the obvious threat of an attack by Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union, our Armed Forces were not promptly brought to combat readiness, were not deployed by the time of the enemy's attack, and were not tasked with being ready to repel the enemy's impending attack, so as, as Stalin said, "not to provoke the Germans into war."

    Stalin explained the failures of the first period of the war by citing Nazi Germany's surprise attack on the Soviet Union. This is historically inaccurate. There was no surprise in the attack by Hitler's troops. The impending attack was known, and Stalin had invented the surprise to justify his miscalculations in preparing the country for defense.

    I have no doubt that if our troops in the western border zone had been brought to full combat readiness, had had the correct formation and clear tasks to repel the enemy's attack immediately upon the start of his attack, - xthe nature of the struggle in the first hours and days of the war would have been different and this would have affected its entire subsequent courseThe balance of forces in the theater of military operations, with proper organization of the actions of our troops, made it possible to at least reliably contain the enemy's advance.
    1. +8
      19 June 2026 09: 43
      Quote: Olgovich
      Due to complete ignorance and misunderstanding of the history of WWI, the protracted war in the West was only possible because Russia struck from the east and saved France.

      Olgovich Well, you can't live with your brain turned off all the time. Well, you've been surrounded by Gorbachev-era "Ogonyok" and are constantly spitting out rotten information.
      The experience of World War I suggests that the war will be protracted. That's the first point. The theory of deep operations—at that point, just a theory. That's the second point. The Russian Empire's attack on Eastern Prussia in WWI merely bought France and Britain time. And how long did the "phony" war last? And there wasn't enough time to rebuild the two most powerful economies on the planet for wartime. The most important strategic line was covered—the Maginot Line. What else was needed?
      A. They didn't want to fight. Stalin knew that.
      Moreover, there was the danger of a German-Polish alliance. Britain and France were doing everything they could to draw Germany away, promising unprecedented aid. And they generally believed that with this aid they could deal with Germany alone (pre-war Poland was larger than today).
      And France and Britain were constantly conducting opaque negotiations with Germany.
      Although this is not for you, in your head everything is already reinforced concrete.
      Quote: Olgovich
      He didn't delay the war for a second - Hitler

      He delayed it; it's still unclear how the Western guys will come to an agreement with Germany. And they can give up right away, even to those they promised (Czechoslovakia). They even ditched Hitler (well, after Hess's visit).
      Quote: Olgovich
      There was no surprise in the Nazi attack. The impending attack was known, and Stalin invented the surprise to justify his own miscalculations in preparing the country for defense.

      Ha, what won't a person come up with to shirk responsibility? Okay, so the border battles were lost, but there was a second operational echelon (and not everyone in the first was stuck at the border), a second strategic one. And Kirponos began deploying independently on June 12, and no one put him up against the wall.
      Ah, so you, as Chief of the General Staff, burned the most prepared mechanized infantry divisions and wiped out all the armored personnel carriers. Well, Stalin is to blame. Before that, he reformed them, started building 30 mechanized infantry divisions with a shady joint assault force. This wiped out tank divisions and tank brigades from the armies. And created organizational chaos for the summer. Postpone it until the fall, the consequences wouldn't be the same. And who was in charge of all this? It just so happens it was the Chief of the General Staff.
      Quote: Olgovich
      made it possible to at least reliably contain the enemy's advance.

      So, how did the second operational and second strategic forces hold things back (there was no longer any surprise) under his sensitive leadership? Zhukov was always rotten as a person. Although, let's give him credit, he was a good commander (he learned quickly, was decisive, and wasn't afraid to try new tactics).
      1. -7
        19 June 2026 13: 36
        Quote: chenia
        Olgovich Well, you can't live with your brain turned off all the time.

        You are alive. lol

        You even write something.
        Quote: chenia
        The experience of the First World War suggests that the war will be long-lasting.

        When Russia strikes—when will it hit? France is saved and has taken the full brunt.

        Stalin congratulated Hitler on his victory over France and took the entire WWII upon himself.
        Quote: chenia
        Pulled, it's not known yet

        imagine documents Hitler's plans to attack the USSR in 1939 and 40 and how Stalin delayed them. lol
        Quote: chenia
        Ha, what won’t a person come up with to shift responsibility off himself.

        answers the best friend of the athletes, who destroyed the army and kept the Voroshilovs with 2 years of education as marshals.

        Zhukov NGSh was nothing special
        Quote: chenia
        Well, how was the second operational and the second strategic one holding back (there was no longer any surprise) holding back, under his sensitive leadership

        Yelnya, Leningrad, Moscow - Zhukov defended them
        Quote: chenia
        Zhukov was always rotten as a person.

        the best of the rotten people surrounding Stalin.
        1. +1
          20 June 2026 08: 43
          Quote: Olgovich
          you live

          I'm alive, and sometimes I can relax and switch off my own brain, and even that of others (a former Candidate Master of Sports in boxing). But you're not at risk; you don't have a brain as an organ. You have a spinal cord that helps you reflexively retype articles from Ogonyok during the perestroika era.
          Quote: Olgovich
          France was saved and took the whole burden upon itself.

          In other words, more than eight months were not enough for the two superpowers to prepare and shoulder the full burden. Incidentally, this pause demonstrated how unprepared Germany was for war, and if France's permanently prepared troops had struck Germany's industrial regions, Germany would have collapsed.
          Quote: Olgovich
          Present Hitler's documents about the plans to attack the USSR in 1939 and 40 and how Stalin delayed them.

          This question is the consequence of your problem, the lack of an organ capable of thinking.
          What were the Germans doing all this time, you eccentric? And as soon as they became a little freer, Barbarossa and Hess suddenly appeared in England.
          Quote: Olgovich
          Yelnya, Leningrad, Moscow - Zhukov defended them

          Oh, you're a civilian. I'm explaining this as the Chief of the General Staff. I didn't dispute his military leadership skills. His human qualities are a different matter. The problem is that you don't understand what I wrote (see above).
          Quote: Olgovich
          the best of the rotten people surrounding Stalin.

          Well, not like the vomit around Nikolashka. Stalin's generals had already defeated the Germans and all of Europe at Rostov and Moscow within six months. And within a year and a half, they had crushed their military machine, almost single-handedly. They only received 4% of the aid from the LL (and even then, Anders stole half of the LL from 1942—by the way, such allies were looming), their own industry pulled through.
          And in the bast-shoe Russian Empire, the further it went, the worse it got. Well, they could still whip up a bit of an Austrian hodgepodge. But as soon as the Germans showed up, it was a retreat.
          Okay, you still won't understand.
          1. -3
            21 June 2026 07: 52
            Quote: chenia
            I can turn off my brain in yourself, and even in someone else (a former CMS in boxing). But you are not at risk.

            I noticed you can't turn it on, even though after thousands of micro-concussions the boxer's brain...
            Quote: chenia
            That is

            everyone is unprepared
            Quote: chenia
            What were the Germans doing all this time, weirdo? And as soon as they became a little freer, "Barbarossa" and Hess suddenly appeared in England.

            You're a weirdo, that's what I'm talking about.Staolin didn't pull anything away, but quietly waited for his turn
            Quote: chenia
            Let me explain as the Chief of the General Staff

            he was no longer the Chief of Staff, an expert
            Quote: chenia
            Well, not like the vomit in Nikolashka's entourage.

            far from the vomit level of General Commissioners of State Security, members of the Central Committee of the faggots Yezhov and others
            Quote: chenia
            Stalin's generals in just 6 months

            found themselves under fire
            Quote: chenia
            We received it from LL

            received foodfor a 10 million army for 4 years and still people were dying in the rear.Without food, how many millions would die?

            "Russia, however, had nothing of the sort and fed its people
            1. 0
              25 June 2026 06: 29
              Quote: Olgovich
              Russia, however, had nothing of the sort and fed its people

              About 40 percent of new recruits ate meat for the first time after joining the military.
              //Menshikov M. O. Youth and the Army. October 13, 1909.


              Now (1906–7), in starving areas, fathers are selling their daughters to human traffickers. The progress of the Russian famine is obvious.
              // V. G. Korolenko

              found themselves under fire
              Alexander I completely burned Moscow, along with the wounded Russian soldiers they "forgot" to evacuate.
      2. +2
        20 June 2026 20: 13
        Do you have documentary evidence that Zhukov, Headquarters, and others could make decisions on their own, without Stalin's approval?
        1. 0
          20 June 2026 21: 48
          Quote from Etwas
          what Zhukov, Headquarters

          The most important issues, of course. The workers themselves decided them. The Chief of the General Staff has a direct relationship with the structure of the Armed Forces, but Stalin is secondary (as the military will convince him), as production problems are already arising, filling these positions with people and equipment. And not only the General Staff, but also the Ministry of Defense are incapable of making decisions without Stalin and the other people's commissars. And what does Stavka have to do with it? The war hasn't even begun yet.
          Quote from Etwas
          and others could make decisions on their own, without Stalin's consent?

          Others are when the sergeant major asks Stalin for permission to lead the company to the canteen.
          Don't attribute to Stalin the stupidities that the Red Army generals did (I say this as a military man (in the past).
  9. +3
    19 June 2026 07: 59
    Today's people are no match for Stalin.
    1. -4
      19 June 2026 14: 38
      Quote: Million
      Today's people are no match for Stalin.

      It goes without saying that the current generals are not capable of retreating to the Volga (having a 3-fold superiority in tanks and a 2-fold superiority in the Air Force)
  10. -7
    19 June 2026 07: 59
    Stalin was certainly a brilliant leader, but... it was he who laid the foundation for the future collapse of the USSR. The mistakes of Stalin and Lenin that destroyed the USSR still echo today: the creation of national republics, the intensified Ukrainization, the liberal attitude toward the traitorous Balts and Ukrainians, the stupid Soviet constitutions that asserted the right of nations to self-determination.
    1. 0
      19 June 2026 08: 11
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      Stalin was certainly a brilliant leader.

      Yes, one can agree that he brilliantly destroyed his entire so-called elite, which, by the way, is not much different from the current one.
      Immediately after Stalin's death, the country went into decline; the surviving elite was extremely greedy, cowardly, and stupid.
    2. +1
      19 June 2026 09: 13
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      the creation of national republics, increased Ukrainization, a liberal attitude towards the traitorous Balts and UPA members

      He reconsidered the national question in the end, but there was no time for adjustments... the upashniks all went off to saw pine trees for matches, Khrushchev, as victims of repression, released them into the open and not only...
      1. 0
        19 June 2026 21: 13
        And what did Stalin reconsider regarding the national question at the end of his reign? Can you name his work or speech on this topic in the post-war period? Incidentally, the first amnesties for Banderites and Baltic collaborators occurred under Stalin.
    3. +6
      19 June 2026 13: 38
      "Stalin was certainly a brilliant leader, but... it was he who laid the foundation for the future collapse of the USSR."
      A friend of mine inherited a house built by his father in his 60s. He lives there, but he constantly complains about how his father did a bad job or built it wrong. But in all his time living there, he literally, as the saying goes, hasn't hammered a nail in it. If something's wrong, it can be changed. Didn't they change the retirement age, presidential terms, the USSR Constitution, which stipulates the right to work and housing, free education and healthcare? Well, if this is considered the height of stupidity, then what can we seriously discuss with you?
      1. -2
        20 June 2026 20: 55
        Quote: sergey backgrounds
        "Stalin was certainly a brilliant leader, but... it was he who laid the foundation for the future collapse of the USSR."
        A friend of mine inherited a house built by his father in his 60s. He lives there, but he constantly complains about how his father did a bad job or built it wrong. But in all his time living there, he literally, as the saying goes, hasn't hammered a nail in it. If something's wrong, it can be changed. Didn't they change the retirement age, presidential terms, the USSR Constitution, which stipulates the right to work and housing, free education and healthcare? Well, if this is considered the height of stupidity, then what can we seriously discuss with you?

        Remind me how many years they gave for being 15 minutes late to work. You say it's a right to work, a duty, because the law on parasitism hasn't been repealed. And on collective farms, they didn't even give workers passports, lest they run away from happiness. You mention education, but what does Stalin have to do with it? On November 9, 1917, a joint decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars established the State Commission on Education, tasked with managing the entire system of public education and culture.
        On October 16, 1918, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted the regulation “On the Unified Labor School of the RSFSR,” which introduced free and co-educational education for school-age children.
        On December 26, 1919, a decree was signed on the elimination of illiteracy among the population: the entire population of the country aged 8 to 50 years who could not read or write were obliged to learn to read and write in their native language or Russian.
        1. +2
          20 June 2026 22: 08
          I didn't want to answer, but then I changed my mind. I'll try to be brief.
          "You say education, but what does Stalin have to do with it..."
          It's true that under Stalin, education was paid for, but life has changed. I'm from a village, got a passport, and graduated from university for free, even though I'm 75. Nowadays, they've managed to increase both the retirement age and presidential terms. This isn't criticism, but a statement of fact. The lack of jobs for older people is criticism, as is the fact that older people aren't hired.
          "The entire population of the country between the ages of 8 and 50 who could not read or write were required to learn to read and write in their native or Russian language."
          Before the mandatory training of teachers was introduced, we adopted many national projects, but what happened to them? It was a miserable fate: the money disappeared, and the projects remained unfulfilled. Stalin, however, largely accomplished the assigned tasks, at a time when oil and gas weren't being sold abroad in such quantities.
  11. 0
    19 June 2026 09: 10
    Get to know Samsonov from the first three paragraphs laughing
    At first:
    Stalin maneuvered and cunningly sought to the very end to avoid direct participation in a major war.

    And suddenly:
    Stalin outmaneuvered the French and British. He demanded a full-fledged military alliance from them. Permits for the transit of troops and military materials through allied countries, Poland and RomaniaThe Westerners did not agree to this,
    And where was he planning to transport troops and military materials, if it’s not a secret?
    And for what purpose? On vacation to one of the European countries? laughing
  12. +4
    19 June 2026 09: 56
    There is a concept called Leninism - it is an ideology.
    There is a concept of Stalinism - it is an era.
    The concept of Putinism has emerged - it is a form of government - "to pretend that nothing is happening and wait for it to resolve itself."
    1. -1
      20 June 2026 20: 59
      Quote: Idle_piston
      There is a concept called Leninism - it is an ideology.
      There is a concept of Stalinism - it is an era.
      The concept of Putinism has emerged - it is a form of government - "to pretend that nothing is happening and wait for it to resolve itself."

      Dear Sir, the first commandment of a student is: do not use words during an exam whose meaning you do not understand - ideology, era, form of government.
  13. -7
    19 June 2026 10: 05
    Valentin Pikul's book Barbarossa describes an interesting fact: after the war began, Stalin attempted to negotiate with Hitler over Brest-2, that is, the transfer of the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Belarus to Germany in exchange for peace. This is indirectly supported by the fact that for 10 days after the war began, nothing was known about Stalin.
    1. +7
      19 June 2026 10: 24
      What a source of historical knowledge is Pikul's novel, don't make people laugh.
    2. +2
      19 June 2026 10: 42
      What's important here is when he started writing this novel. And even when it was published, unfinished. Those were the days when any fantasy could be written about the USSR.
      1. +1
        19 June 2026 14: 43
        Quote: Gardamir
        What's important here is when he started writing this novel. And even when it was published, unfinished. Those were the days when any fantasy could be written about the USSR.

        You ABSOLUTELY You're right - it was written in 1988-1990. It would have been possible to write that Stalin and Hitler drank and loved women in a sauna...
    3. -1
      19 June 2026 14: 40
      Quote: pavel.tipin
      Valentin Pikul describes an interesting fact in his book Barbarossa

      Pikul even lied like a grey gelding about what he knew, and as for what he didn't know...
    4. 0
      20 June 2026 20: 40
      Quote: pavel.tipin
      Valentin Pikul's book Barbarossa describes an interesting fact: after the war began, Stalin attempted to negotiate with Hitler over Brest-2, that is, the transfer of the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Belarus to Germany in exchange for peace. This is indirectly supported by the fact that for 10 days after the war began, nothing was known about Stalin.

      I can assume that Nostradamus wrote the same thing.
      1. -1
        21 June 2026 11: 21
        Unlike Nostradamus, Pikul worked in the archives during perestroika, which were open at the time.
  14. +2
    19 June 2026 10: 35
    Quote: pavel.tipin
    This is indirectly indicated by the fact that for 10 days after the start of the war nothing was known about Stalin.
    This was not known to those who had read tales from pickles and salted meats.
  15. -1
    19 June 2026 10: 50
    Regarding "not giving in to provocations."
    What do you think, if the Germans had managed to convince the same Americans of the "justice" of the Great Patriotic War, and on this wave to make peace with the British (Hess's flight?), where would Lend-Lease have gone?
    Let me remind you that there were strong pro-German sentiments in America.
    Regarding the timing. The optimal time to attack is May or early June, to get there before the autumn thaw. Hitler repeatedly postponed the attack, and to believe another date, especially one outside the optimal timeframe for the start of the war...
    1. 0
      20 June 2026 21: 02
      Quote: Not the fighter
      Regarding "not giving in to provocations."
      What do you think, if the Germans had managed to convince the same Americans of the "justice" of the Great Patriotic War, and on this wave to make peace with the British (Hess's flight?), where would Lend-Lease have gone?
      Let me remind you that there were strong pro-German sentiments in America.
      Regarding the timing. The optimal time to attack is May or early June, to get there before the autumn thaw. Hitler repeatedly postponed the attack, and to believe another date, especially one outside the optimal timeframe for the start of the war...

      Try to start with questions, the cause of the war, and the war as a consequence, but please don’t write nonsense that the main thing is the fight against Bolshevism.
    2. +1
      21 June 2026 13: 21
      Quote: Not the fighter
      What do you think, if the Germans had managed to convince the same Americans of the "justice" of the Great Patriotic War, and on this wave to make peace with the British (Hess's flight?), where would Lend-Lease have gone?


      This is impossible. The United States wanted control of Europe, and through the European metropolises (the European powers had most of the world as their colonies), they wanted to control practically the entire world. Pro-German sentiment in the United States? The Yankees simply wanted to use the Reich as their "icebreaker" and then sink it too. The Germans seemed to have made peace with the Brits in Munich, but would this peace last? The Brits also understood that they had too much (in the form of colonies) for Hitler to sooner or later encroach on their colonial wealth. So, any outcome other than the one that existed in the real World War II could not have happened.
  16. +6
    19 June 2026 12: 47
    I.V. Stalin—the greatest of all the leaders of the USSR—managed, in two five-year plans and just ten years (!), to raise the state from ruin under conditions unlike the current political and economic blockade of the Russian Federation. He raised the economy to second place in the world after the United States. He solved the persistent problem of inflation and currency stability, which the current Russian authorities have been unable to resolve for three decades, achieved import substitution and technological independence, created industries that were new for that period, combated illiteracy, revived and brought science to the forefront, provided shoes, clothing, and food, won the war against the fascist Germans, and routed the million-strong Japanese Kwantung Army in aid of the Allies in the Far East. He created a powerful economic foundation on which the USSR survived for more than thirty years after his death, until Yeltsin and his gang destroyed the state.
    1. +3
      19 June 2026 12: 56
      And how many state entities around the world were inspired to switch to the socialist camp, which everyone understood in their own way, but nevertheless, who in the world was inspired by the example of the Russian Federation? Absolutely no one, and this is significant.
  17. +2
    19 June 2026 13: 46
    The seminary dropout Joseph Vissarionovich was one of the few Russian rulers who understood that this wasn't our war. They were trying to drag Russians back into the fray, to use them as "cannon fodder," pitting them against the Germans and Japanese once again. They were trying to exploit Russia, to force it to fight for foreign interests, for the interests of Britain and the United States.

    Vladimir Vladimirovich, the KGB agent who had retrained himself as a capitalist, globalist, and liberal, also understood everything perfectly well, but continued the course of the traitors Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The result: Russia continues to be used in the interests of Britain and the United States.
    1. +1
      20 June 2026 21: 07
      Quote: AlexSam
      The seminary dropout Joseph Vissarionovich was one of the few Russian rulers who understood that this wasn't our war. They were trying to drag Russians back into the fray, to use them as "cannon fodder," pitting them against the Germans and Japanese once again. They were trying to exploit Russia, to force it to fight for foreign interests, for the interests of Britain and the United States.

      Vladimir Vladimirovich, the KGB agent who had retrained himself as a capitalist, globalist, and liberal, also understood everything perfectly well, but continued the course of the traitors Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The result: Russia continues to be used in the interests of Britain and the United States.

      Maybe he's a hostage to the already established model of capitalism, or do you think he should have carried out a new revolution, relying on someone? Judging by the comments here, that's problematic. I've never seen a comment about someone selling a yacht, a palace, etc., and transferring everything to a defense fund so that their colleagues could steal it all.
      1. +1
        21 June 2026 02: 43
        So what are we dreaming about here? If he's a hostage and he doesn't succeed (or didn't succeed, or wasn't allowed (they didn't allow it)), then everything will end as London and the Vatican, and partly Washington, planned: Russia and the Orthodox Russian people will cease to exist. There will be no more Stalin; he simply won't be allowed into power; the liberal vertical from the Kremlin to the regional capitals has been successfully built. He'll gradually surrender everything to the West, and that's it. Or will it be something else?
  18. +2
    19 June 2026 15: 57
    IMHO, some kind of substitutions.
    What war on 2 fronts?

    By the time the USSR was attacked, Guermantia had already abandoned its attempt to land in Britain. The navy was weak. The air force was tied.
    And this despite the fact that the British were late with rearmament, and they did not have what they needed.

    But everyone was 100% "unprepared" for war. And everyone had some experience.
    It's just that in some people it showed itself to be stronger.
    1. 0
      20 June 2026 21: 09
      Quote: Max1995
      IMHO, some kind of substitutions.
      What war on 2 fronts?

      By the time the USSR was attacked, Guermantia had already abandoned its attempt to land in Britain. The navy was weak. The air force was tied.
      And this despite the fact that the British were late with rearmament, and they did not have what they needed.

      But everyone was 100% "unprepared" for war. And everyone had some experience.
      It's just that in some people it showed itself to be stronger.

      The question remains the same: the reasons for the war.
      1. 0
        20 June 2026 22: 05
        The reasons are often the same. Imperialism.
        As an example now: give either control (USA, etc.) or territory and control (Venezuela, China, Israel, etc.)
        1. 0
          22 June 2026 06: 52
          Quote: Max1995
          The reasons are often the same. Imperialism.
          As an example now: give either control (USA, etc.) or territory and control (Venezuela, China, Israel, etc.)

          You mention imperialism, so you could add that people aren't perfect and all that, but the problem is different: there were very real, tangible reasons that arose from very real events. One of the posts here describes the goals of the war, but I don't see any explanation for the reasons. And as a result, you don't understand why the Union, not England, was chosen. History doesn't have a subjunctive mood; it's a fairly precise science; if you know the real events, you'll understand the consequences. The conclusion is simple: you need to study the history of your country.
          1. 0
            22 June 2026 09: 35
            The causes of the war were meticulously laid out even in Soviet schools...
            and in one word - Imperialism.

            And you can always repeat it; there are plenty of educational videos, articles, and textbooks now...
            There was something there about England and the Union...
            I don’t know why you write so provocatively...
  19. 0
    19 June 2026 17: 47
    And VVP, like a village idiot, believed, was deceived, again and again stepped on the same rake and finally fell into a well-created trap.
  20. -3
    19 June 2026 23: 08
    One can praise the wisdom of the leader of the people, but he wasted the leading generals of the Red Army in 37. This, in turn, was the main reason for the heavy losses in 41, as was the incompetence of the command and the lack of readiness for war. Regarding economic policy, industrialization, and so on, there are no questions; it was perhaps the only correct option at that time.
    1. +2
      20 June 2026 07: 57
      Hitler overwhelmed all of Europe with a blitzkrieg, and there were no military reprisals. And there were more competent generals with extensive combat experience. Some of the losses are likely due to the resulting shortage of command personnel. As for the question of repression itself, some historians believe that a military conspiracy, like the Doctors' Plot, did take place.
    2. -3
      20 June 2026 21: 18
      Quote from bob03
      One can praise the wisdom of the leader of the people, but he wasted the leading generals of the Red Army in 37. This, in turn, was the main reason for the heavy losses in 41, as was the incompetence of the command and the lack of readiness for war. Regarding economic policy, industrialization, and so on, there are no questions; it was perhaps the only correct option at that time.

      I'll tell you more, up until 1942 inclusive, he continued, while effectively commanding the troops, to execute generals (scapegoats) who carried out his orders, and the consequences were dire. And rightly so; Stalin couldn't be wrong. As for the "Not a Step Back" decree, when reports began to arrive that overzealous executors had begun executing en masse, he issued a classic decree about excesses. I believe he had spoken about excesses before, more than once, though on a different topic.
  21. 0
    20 June 2026 16: 13
    Hitler had to attack first so that the Russians would become victims of aggression.


    But the next time, everything turned out differently, which gave us grounds to call us aggressors and occupiers. A chess error =(

    Guderian was indeed disappointed that the T-34 was better than the T-III and T-IV.
  22. +1
    20 June 2026 20: 37
    Quote: Victor Sergeev
    Stalin was certainly a brilliant leader, but... it was he who laid the foundation for the future collapse of the USSR. The mistakes of Stalin and Lenin that destroyed the USSR still echo today: the creation of national republics, the intensified Ukrainization, the liberal attitude toward the traitorous Balts and Ukrainians, the stupid Soviet constitutions that asserted the right of nations to self-determination.

    Please provide quotes from Lenin, as well as information about the fighting in Ukraine in 18-19. I'll remind you that the Red Army (aka the Russian army that took and relinquished Kyiv four times) is based on your recognition of the new Ukrainian governments by Lenin. You're so lazy that you can't even access the archives and work with the documents; not only professionals are allowed there.
  23. +1
    17 July 2026 19: 02
    "I.V. Stalin managed to lift the country out of ruin, carry out industrialization and create entire industries from scratch, raise the economy to second place in the world, win the bloodiest war, and lay the foundation for the atomic rocket and space industry for decades to come, thanks to which the USSR survived until Yeltsin's coup, and the Russian Federation exists today.