The Black Myth of Germany's Preventive War Against the USSR

9 255 179
The Black Myth of Germany's Preventive War Against the USSR
Fyodor Fedyunin. "Invasion. June 22, 1941"


Black myth


In the wake of “perestroika” and liberal democratic “reforms,” when they were breaking up the Soviet Union (Great Russia), destroying the great civilization-world that opposed the Western “new world order,” they were actively rewriting the true history.



In particular, they recalled the concept of Adolf Hitler himself, who on June 22, 1941, declared a "preventive war" against the USSR to justify an attack on the Russians and the violation of the non-aggression pact. It was as if Stalin himself had planned to attack Germany, and Hitler had merely forestalled him. After the war, this idea was actively supported by defeated German generals writing memoirs and by Western revisionist historians.

In the 1980s–2000s, the most popular proponent of this idea was former Soviet intelligence officer Vladimir Rezun, who defected to the enemy. He wrote under the pseudonym Viktor Suvorov. His most famous work is "Icebreaker," but this theme is also explored in books such as "Day M: When Did World War II Begin?"; "Suicide"; "The Main Culprit: Stalin's Master Plan to Unleash World War II"; "How Stalin Unleashed World War II" (co-authored with M. Solonin, A. Burovsky, and others), and others.

It's worth noting that neither the Nazis nor the revisionist researchers came up with anything new. The Germans had used the slogan "preemptive strike" in almost every war. It was used in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, in World War I, and in the Polish campaign of 1939. A similar forgery was launched before the attack on Soviet Russia.

At the Nuremberg Tribunal, lawyers for the German military and political elite attempted to base their defense on the preemptive strike against the Russians. However, the facts refuting this thesis were so compelling that even during the so-called Cold War in the West, NATO anti-Soviet propaganda did not exploit the "preemptive strike" narrative. Only outspoken fringe journalists, not serious historians and ideologists, used it. World War II was still fresh in the memories of those who fought, and it was obvious to the entire world that the Russians were defending their homeland and liberating Europe from the black-brown plague.

However, as Soviet civilization collapsed ("perestroika") and the era of "reforms" began to overwhelm Russia, the West decided it was time to revisit the old lies. The information warfare reached a new level: to destroy historical truth, to uproot and defile everything bright and righteous in Russian history. So that the origins and historical memory would prevent the revival of the Russian state. To turn Russians into "Ivans who don't remember their ancestors." Into ethnographic material, like Russian-Little Russians (Ukrainians), who can easily be "reformatted" as Germans, Poles, or Canadians.

This is where characters like Solzhenitsyn and Rezun were used. Naturally, such lies were supported by the full force of Western propaganda. In Russia itself, the new Vlasovites and Banderites, Western-leaning liberals, completely dominated the country's information space in the 1990s and 2000s. Patriotism was considered "the last refuge of scoundrels."


Enemy propaganda


Rezun and his ilk marshaled evidence showing that Stalin was concentrating troops for the offensive, but kept it a complete secret, known only to People's Commissar of Defense Timoshenko and Chief of the General Staff Zhukov. It is claimed that the order was given after the concentration was complete, and Hitler only forestalled the Russians by one or two weeks.

In fact, such a strategic operation with millions of soldiers, thousands tanksThe acquisition of aircraft, guns, and huge reserves of fuel, ammunition, and other materials is preceded by colossal preliminary work by the General Staff, district headquarters, future fronts, armies, and corps. The work of intelligence, logistics agencies, and so on also involves the preparation of relevant plans, directives, orders, and other documents.

During the tragic beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Germans routed, encircled, and captured entire armies, corps, and divisions, capturing thousands of officers and their staffs. Clearly, if the Soviet military-political leadership had been preparing for a preventive war, the Nazis would have captured the necessary evidence. They would have immediately made it public if they had even one piece of evidence. But nothing was found! Not a single document! Not a single testimony! The unequivocal conclusion follows: the works of Rezun and his ilk are blatant lies, anti-Soviet propaganda. They are black myths that distort the Soviet era, the USSR, and Stalin personally.

Interestingly, during the reigns of Stalin's enemies such as Khrushchev, Gorbachev, and Yeltsin, archives were also not opened, nor were genuine documents shown that would have shown that Stalin's "bloody regime" was preparing a preventive war and unleashed World War II. Such documents simply don't exist. Therefore, nothing was shown to the public, only false speculation. And there's no point in fabricating documents; in an era of "information explosion" and the availability of all materials, they're easily refuted.

In fact, Stalin maneuvered to the last, trying to stay out of the global carnage. He tried to leave the war an internal affair of the Western, capitalist world. He tried to be the wise monkey from the Chinese proverb, who watches from a hill as two tigers fight."He managed to bring the country back from the brink of disaster.").

Stalin didn't want Russia to be used as a "dummy" in the Great Game, or Russians as "cannon fodder" in the war with Germany. Russians were supposed to fight for their own interests, not those of others. They were supposed to solve their own strategic and geopolitical problems, not those of others. They were supposed to prevent Russia from being crushed and plundered, like the Russian Empire in 1917.

Stalin also understood all the weaknesses of the USSR and its armed forces. The army, economy, and society were unprepared for a major war. All major programs were in the developmental stages of modernization and transformation. The seemingly powerful Red Army was raw and inexperienced. Attempts were being made to push the USSR into a war with Germany and Japan, a war on two fronts.

Logic itself suggests that if Stalin had wanted to strike at Hitler, the most opportune moment would have been the French campaign. While the most combat-ready German units were breaking through the defenses of the Anglo-French and their allies, crushing France in 1940, only five divisions remained in the east of the German Empire! Clearly, Hitler was confident about his rear, confident that the Russians wouldn't attack. There was no thought of a "preemptive strike" by Soviet Russia.

"A Colossus with Feet of Clay"


But after July 31, 1940, almost immediately after France's capitulation, Hitler tasked his General Staff with developing a plan for war with Russia, with the goal of destroying its vital force. There was no thought of a "preemptive war." The operation was scheduled for the spring of 1941. The start of the war was later postponed, as Yugoslavia and Greece were being crushed.How Yugoslavia Collapsed; Destruction of Yugoslavia; How Greece Collapsed).

Clearly, "preempting the Russians" almost a year in advance is more than odd. In reality, the Führer was implementing his old plans with two successive strikes, blitzkriegs. France was crushed. Now it was Russia's turn. There would be no repeat of the Second Reich's mistake of two fronts and protracted trench warfare, for which the Third Reich was unprepared.

Incidentally, the German generals had no fears or concerns about a war with Russia. No one spoke out against a war with the USSR! Although previously, the German generals had feared an invasion of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, and had feared the French and British. They believed that a war with the West would be catastrophic for the Reich.

It was only after the war that they criticized the Führer in every way possible. They claimed they had foreseen from the very beginning that they couldn't fight the Russians, or that the war should have been waged differently. The Führer was to blame for all the failures.

This was largely due to the Winter War between the USSR and Finland. Germany drew conclusions about the low combat effectiveness of Soviet Russia. Indeed, the Soviet command made a number of serious mistakes. They threw inexperienced, inexperienced troops head-on against the strong fortifications of the Mannerheim Line. But then they corrected their mistakes and brought in heavy equipment. artillery, began to use more effectively Aviation, engineering resources, etc. As a result, the Mannerheim Line was "dismantled", Finland found itself facing the threat of military and political catastrophe and surrendered.

The German army could have found itself in a similar situation if it had been forced to storm the powerful Czech fortifications in the Sudetenland, a mountainous region of the Czech Republic. However, the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia surrendered without a fight. However, such factors were not considered significant at the time.

The Soviet empire was considered a "colossus with feet of clay" that would collapse at the first blow of the Wehrmacht. Germany believed in the strength of its army. It was believed that in Russia, mutinies would break out among the military, nationalists, highlanders, Basmachi, and so on. Faced with the threat of total defeat, Moscow would agree to a new "shameful Brest-Litovsk Peace." The strength of the new Stalinist Russia and its successes were underestimated. This was a fatal mistake for the leadership of the Third Reich.

In fact, Hitler repeated Napoleon Bonaparte's fatal mistake in 1812. There was no need to fight with Russia, we should have come to an agreement.

Eventually Through subversive warfare, the masters of England and the United States succeeded in pitting the Germans and Russians against each other again. The true masters of London and Washington, global finance capital, hoped to first destroy Russia at the hands of the Germans by pitting the two great powers against each other.A Soviet global project based on social justice and the ethics of conscience, an alternative to the slave-owning "new world order" being built by the masters of the Western world. Then, to stab the weakened German Reich in the back.


Vitaly Borovik. "Youth of the 40s."
179 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    24 June 2026 05: 36
    Unfortunately, all this continues. There are so many new films about the war now that their number would surpass that of Soviet films. This would seem to be a good thing. But many films don't show the republics' participation in the war at all. They don't show the work of the home front. It's as if weapons magically reach the front. And in many ways, this is done deliberately.
    1. Des
      +5
      24 June 2026 07: 21
      Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
      There are so many new films about the war coming out now that their number would surpass that of Soviet films. This would seem like a good thing. But many films don't show the republics' participation in the war at all. They don't show the work of the home front. It's as if by magic that weapons are delivered to the front.

      Even worse, films about the Great Patriotic War made in the USSR are not shown. It's as if they never happened.
      1. 0
        2 July 2026 17: 26
        And they are not shown because the ruling elite does not recognize the socialist system and is oriented towards the capitalist system.
    2. +1
      25 June 2026 00: 02
      Yes, but among these "modern" films you often come across outright crap, like "Air", which only the lazy didn't criticize, "Stalingrad" and "Devyatayev"... And for some reason Solzhenitsyn was also adapted for the screen ((
    3. 0
      26 June 2026 04: 18
      Quantity != quality. The amount of trash, both ideological and production (outright hackwork), is simply off the charts. Films even remotely comparable to the masterpieces of the Soviet era are few and far between.
      And it's not that the new generation needs brilliant special effects, so-called action and all that, but that they can't even find normal consultants, I'm not even saying that in the moral aspect the resulting films are glossy duds (and not always glossy).
      1. +1
        2 July 2026 17: 30
        But every day, TV shows films about killers who are sherlizied. And then they wonder why young people are attacking teachers with knives, shooting their peers, and following the lead of Ukrainian Nazis.
  2. +2
    24 June 2026 07: 22
    The commission created in 1990 to politically and legally evaluate pre-war relations between the USSR and Germany was headed by one of the USSR's main enemies and destroyers, Yakovlev. And this commission, naturally, immediately discovered the "original appendices" to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in the archives of the CPSU Central Committee. There simply could not have been any other option, for the destroyers of the USSR, Stalin and Hitler, would have been placed on the same scale of history as equally guilty for unleashing WWII. As if that weren't enough, Stalin was also accused of preparing a preemptive strike against Germany to spread communism across Europe; Hitler was simply quicker and managed to strike the USSR first.
    By the way, these falsifications of the Yakovlev Commission were used to torment the minds of schoolchildren and students during history lessons and lectures for 30 years, and only now have they come to their senses, calling the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact an outstanding step by Stalin to gain time to prepare for the repulse of Germany's inevitable war against the USSR.
    What's 30 years worth of stuffing lies and falsehoods about our Motherland, Russia, and the then-USSR into the heads of schoolchildren and students? Right now, the FSB is catching all sorts of saboteurs and terrorists in droves (yesterday in Pyatigorsk). And they're just 20-30 years old, that is. They were taught to hate Russia's imperial nature (Russia existed as an empire from the time of Ivan the Terrible until Brezhnev's death, defeating all its external enemies, and Russia cannot exist in a non-imperial state). They were lied to about Stalin and the Great Patriotic War, they were praised for German order (and, in fact, Leningrad could have surrendered to the Germans during the siege, and the Germans would have fed everyone there sausages and stewed cabbage, washed down with Bavarian beer, and fed the children chocolate). They were recommended to read the books of Rezun and Solzhenitsyn in school. Incidentally, Rezun-Suvorov is the pseudonym of a collective author from MI6 in Britain. And the CIA recruited Yakovlev practically immediately after Stalin's death and patiently waited for someone like Gorbachev to appear in the USSR. And Solzhenitsyn... and Solzhenitsyn in Kislovodsk, just 50 km from Pyatigorsk, where these terrorists were caught yesterday, a monument was erected to him several years ago...
    I thank the author for repeatedly mentioning in articles the need to revive the Russian State, which throughout its imperial history had several names - the Principality of Rurikovich, the Tsardom of Moscow, Tsarist Russia, the Russian Empire and the USSR.
    1. +7
      24 June 2026 08: 12
      I don’t understand, are you denying the existence of the protocol to the pact or denying the authenticity of what was found in the archives?
      If you deny the very fact of collusion and the existence of the protocol, then how do you explain the mutual concessions of Polish territory in 1939? If the Red Army's Polish campaign wasn't pre-arranged, but a reaction to the invasion of Poland aimed at protecting the local population, why weren't there any clashes between Soviet and German units (after all, one was trying to seize territory, the other to prevent it), but rather mutual concessions? Or was it something like, "This village is home to "good Poles," so give them over to our protection, while that village is home to "bad Poles," so take them for yourselves?
      If you deny the authenticity of the discovered copy, then what was the actual protocol like, and does it matter? The very existence of the protocol is indirectly confirmed by the territorial "exchange" described above, and the difference in the scope of the "division of Eastern Europe" does not negate the fact of the conspiracy itself.
      ZV: And in general, it is not worth connecting the actions of today's people, who, due to their stupidity or greed or political views, carry out acts of sabotage, with the fact of collusion between the Soviet leadership and the Nazis on issues of dividing spheres of influence.
      1. +3
        24 June 2026 12: 39
        Stalin and Molotov were far from fools, signing some secret treaty with Hitler. They knew full well it would come to light later. The German original was never found. Supposedly, it burned in 44. Only a Soviet copy was found in 92. And the likelihood that it's a fake is very high. Considering what was going on back then and the kind of people who "found" it.
        There could well have been verbal agreements about demarcation.
        1. -3
          24 June 2026 14: 19
          You still haven't answered what exactly you're denying? The signature or the text?
          How do you explain the mutual concessions and troop withdrawals in Poland? How do you explain the German pressure on Romania regarding Bessarabia?
          If agreements were reached before the German invasion of Poland, what difference does it make whether they concerned only Poland or all of Eastern Europe? The issue at hand is the secret collusion with the Nazis, not the specific terms (the terms can be discerned from subsequent events).
          You see, the funny thing about conspiracy theories is that they can work in either direction; it all depends on your preferences and your desire to fit the owl onto the globe.
          So, one could say that the "bloody USSR" planned to attack Germany first back in 1938, along with France and Britain, supposedly protecting the Czechs. When that didn't work out, it decided to do so in 1939, while the Germans and French clashed on the Western Front, as in WWI. But they were wrong about the French, who waved the white flag too quickly. How is this version of "German self-defense" (incidentally, this is precisely how Hitler justified himself to the nation on the radio) less plausible than the author's ravings about how peace-loving Stalin was peacefully "playing in the sandbox" of industrialization and not bothering anyone?
          In reality, these were all complex political adventures; everyone miscalculated and caused a massacre. We were only lucky that the "artist" miscalculated more than the "leader."
          1. -2
            24 June 2026 15: 01
            You weren't asking me that question. I don't believe in the secret part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, SIGNED BY THE PARTIES, because such a document is pointless. If one of the parties violated it, what should they do? Blast it to the world, send diplomatic notes?
            1. -3
              24 June 2026 15: 16
              I apologize, I really wasn't asking you.
              The signature isn't for a complaint to the League of Nations or anywhere else, but for one's own chain of command. Bureaucracy, you know, prefers signed papers to verbal retellings. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs signs a treaty, which is sent to the General Staff for the development of a troop deployment plan and the drafting of orders. Then, public orders and secret packages are sent to the troops. If the agreements were only verbal, how can they be resolved between themselves? Whose transcript or diary entry should be trusted? That's why such papers are drawn up, to avoid disputes later.
              A trivial example: at work, who do you write memos for? And if the memo is rejected, will you go to court or to the director?
              1. 0
                24 June 2026 15: 27
                These secret packages sent to the troops would have been preserved in the archives of armies and fronts. And then it would have come to light.
            2. +5
              24 June 2026 16: 12
              I do not believe in the secret part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, SIGNED BY THE PARTIES, due to the meaninglessness of such a document.

              It's quite the opposite—it's a technical appendix about the demarcation line, i.e., where which troops should stop to avoid misunderstandings. For example, the Germans left Brest easily and casually, even though they had previously captured the city. And if there hadn't been a protocol, how would they have been driven out?
              In Lvov, there was even a battle between the Red Army and the Wehrmacht (due to misidentification of each other), and yet, the Germans also easily left the city, since there was a protocol to the treaty.
              1. -4
                24 June 2026 16: 21
                So-so logical reasoning
                1. +4
                  25 June 2026 15: 51
                  Quote: belost79
                  So-so logical reasoning

                  You have no reasoning or logic, not a single word.
                  What if the Germans reach Minsk or the Red Army reaches Warsaw? How will this be resolved if the demarcation line hasn't been agreed upon in advance?
          2. +2
            25 June 2026 00: 07
            You haven't read Mein Kampf, otherwise you wouldn't be reasoning like that. It was written almost 20 years before the start of WWII. And there, Hitler writes unequivocally that Russia must be conquered and destroyed. Stalin's policy was simply an attempt to prevent war while it was possible, to delay the attack on the USSR as long as possible, and to reclaim lands seized by other countries.
            1. -2
              25 June 2026 11: 52
              Quote: futurohunter
              You haven't read Mein Kampf, otherwise you wouldn't be reasoning like that. It was written almost 20 years before the start of WWII. And there, Hitler writes unequivocally that Russia must be conquered and destroyed. Stalin's policy was simply an attempt to prevent war while it was possible, to delay the attack on the USSR as long as possible, and to reclaim lands seized by other countries.

              You've probably read Marx, too, and as you can imagine, he must have been turning over in his grave at the news that Russia was at the forefront of revolutions, ahead of the rest of the world. The point is, who knows what or who wrote before.
              1. +1
                25 June 2026 12: 02
                Another liberal has infiltrated... Only Lenin rejected Marx's thesis on "World Revolution" and justified revolution as occurring "in the weakest link of capitalism," while Stalin completely abrogated most of Marx's theses, justifying "the construction of socialism in a single country." One should read books, not attribute one's own and others' fantasies to others.
                1. 0
                  25 June 2026 20: 23
                  Quote: futurohunter
                  Another liberal has infiltrated... Only Lenin rejected Marx's thesis on "World Revolution" and justified revolution as occurring "in the weakest link of capitalism," while Stalin completely abrogated most of Marx's theses, justifying "the construction of socialism in a single country." One should read books, not attribute one's own and others' fantasies to others.

                  It's a shame you can't even understand what was written to you. The key word wasn't Marx's statement, but what he wrote about Russia, and in practice, things turned out differently. And what does the educational program about Lenin and Stalin have to do with it? Apparently, only you understand. You claimed that in Mein Kampf, Hitler declared the need to destroy Russia. It's easier to say who didn't say that. However, the reasons for the attack at a particular time are in no way connected to Hitler's previous statements.
                  1. 0
                    25 June 2026 21: 05
                    The key word was not Marx's statement, but what he wrote about Russia, and in practice it turned out differently.
                    Once again, in case you "didn't get it," Lenin and Stalin didn't follow Marx's dogmas, but did things their own way. Because of this, Stalin was even accused of being "not a Marxist."
                    however, the reasons for the attack were precisely in a certain time period
                    What a convoluted phrase to justify a weak position. Hitler didn't retract a single word he wrote in "Mein Kampf." It was all implemented in subsequent Nazi policies. And then there was Plan Ost, the plan for the complete destruction of the USSR. So, DON'T LIE, dear foreign agents!
                    1. +1
                      3 July 2026 10: 45
                      Quote: futurohunter
                      The key word was not Marx's statement, but what he wrote about Russia, and in practice it turned out differently.
                      Once again, in case you "didn't get it," Lenin and Stalin didn't follow Marx's dogmas, but did things their own way. Because of this, Stalin was even accused of being "not a Marxist."
                      however, the reasons for the attack were precisely in a certain time period
                      What a convoluted phrase to justify a weak position. Hitler didn't retract a single word he wrote in "Mein Kampf." It was all implemented in subsequent Nazi policies. And then there was Plan Ost, the plan for the complete destruction of the USSR. So, DON'T LIE, dear foreign agents!

                      Marx's teachings were rooted in classical capitalism and boiled down to the inevitability of revolution, with the proletariat as the primary driving force. Do you think Lenin didn't follow this? Are you sure? Lenin carried out a socialist revolution in a country Marx hadn't expected. But this wasn't dogma; Marx simply had a poor understanding of Russia's realities. To prove the possibility of revolution in Russia, Lenin wrote "The Development of Capitalism in Russia." You're either unfamiliar with all this or completely misunderstand the logic of Marxism.
                      Your answers are a bit watered down, although if you know the material, they should be clear and concise. "However, the reasons for the attack were precisely during a certain time period" is a simple hint; the answer doesn't require a book reference; it lies in the realm of economics, which, in most cases, is the cause of wars under capitalism. Even Mr. Prigozhin, when answering the question about the causes of the war in Ukraine, kept it to one sentence, and it wasn't a reference to Kuchma's book or statements by other Ukrainian leaders.
                      1. -1
                        3 July 2026 13: 50
                        Marx assumed that the proletariat should carry out a revolution and take control of the most industrially developed capitalist countries, and preferably several at once. He argued that the proletariat was most developed, organized, and conscious in developed countries. In contrast, Lenin argued for revolution in a single country—the "weakest link in capitalism." Marx hated Russia, and his works contained anti-Russian statements. If I'm not mistaken, it was Marx who called Russia "the gendarme of Europe." Clearly, after such reasoning, he certainly couldn't have expected a revolution in Russia. However, no real communist parties formed in Europe, and during WWI, local social democrats adopted a position of compromise, proclaiming "social peace" and "war to the bitter end" in their countries. Only the RSDLP(b), led by Lenin, put forward the slogan of “transforming the imperialist war into a revolutionary war against our oppressors.”
                        There's a lot of fluff in the answers, although if you know the material, they should be clear and concise.
                        Shouldn't. Marxism and history are not my professional field of activity.But, unlike my classmates, I didn't fall asleep during social studies lectures at university and read the textbook on the history of the CPSU with great interest—it read like a detective story. But I haven't studied the topic since then and am writing from memory. By the way, you also have a lot of water. laughing
                        in the economic plane, which, in most cases, is the cause of wars under capitalism
                        This is an outdated explanation, more characteristic of early Marxism. Economics is not the sole cause of wars in general, including wars under capitalism, as under any social system. Rather, economics is a secondary phenomenon. I don't dispute that Hitler was guided by economic interests in his plans for conquest. But he also made many irrational decisions that cannot be explained by any economics. What economics underlay the war in Karabakh? Don't even mention Turkey and the United States! Or Georgia's attack on impoverished South Ossetia? Indonesia's attempts to seize East Timor?
                        Much more important than economics are other reasons, I will list them in order:
                        1. The ambitions of various rulers. We see this in the example of the "Epstein coalition's" latest war against Iran.
                        2. Emotional reasons (resentment, nationalism, random incidents, such as the "Italian bucket")
                        3. Strategic calculations, for example, to push Finland's border further away from Leningrad. Or to ward off the threat of NATO aggression from its borders at the beginning of the Central Military District.
                        4. There are anti-colonial wars, for example, in Angola and other countries.
                        Only after this does economics come into play. For example, with the annexation of Novorossiya, Russia gains the most developed and wealthiest parts of Ukraine, the former USSR. In any case, economics follows other factors, and very often serves as an "explanation" for what has already been done, especially for completely irrational actions.
                        Even Mr. Prigogine
                        He may have been an expert in business and storming fortifications, but he certainly wasn't an expert in politics, otherwise he would have ended up like this. Therefore, citing him is a very strange exercise.
                        Incidentally, there still hasn't been a clear explanation for his march on Moscow. Not a single explanation, such as:
                        1. Personal grievances/PTSD
                        2. An attempt to "prove the truth to the President" (the good king)
                        3. Went crazy/sold out to the enemy
                        It doesn't explain what happened. However, there was a similar story in South Korea, shown in the film "Silmido." Although it didn't reach the same scale as ours.
      2. +2
        25 June 2026 00: 04
        The USSR's "conspiracy" with the Nazis allowed the war to be delayed for two years. Moreover, the USSR took back its historical lands, which the Nazis could have occupied.
        1. 0
          25 June 2026 12: 22
          Quote: futurohunter
          The USSR's "conspiracy" with the Nazis allowed the war to be delayed for two years. Moreover, the USSR took back its historical lands, which the Nazis could have occupied.

          I'll tell you more than that, Stalin raised new Tukhachevskys in just two years, like Konev, whose memoirs begin in 1943, and before that, commanders learned to fight on the blood of soldiers.
      3. 0
        25 June 2026 02: 31
        Quote: parma
        If the Red Army's Polish campaign was not pre-arranged, but a reaction to the invasion of Poland with the aim of protecting the inhabitants
        What other protection for the inhabitants? The Soviet Union was reclaiming territories captured by the Poles during the Soviet-Polish War of 1920. These territories were inhabited by Ukrainians and Belarusians.

        Was there an "additional protocol"? There probably was, if not written, then oral. Is the discovered copy authentic? Who knows. And it doesn't really matter.
        The important thing is that they managed to reach an agreement and beautifully presented to the world the image of "cordial friendship and complete mutual understanding." This was necessary so that Japan would lose hope in its ally (under the Anti-Commintern Pact) in the event of a major war against the USSR, and consequently, would not start a major war, but would suffer defeat at Khalkhin Gol. This was precisely why the USSR agreed to a non-aggression pact with Hitler.
      4. +1
        25 June 2026 13: 10
        No one denies the pact, since the positive role of this agreement is beyond doubt. As for the "secret additions," their authenticity has not been proven, and any documents allegedly discovered in archives after 1992 can and should be questioned. Unfortunately, an objective examination is simply impossible even now. Such "secret documents" are still a political tool, so objectivity is of no use.

        There was a preliminary agreement between the Reich and the USSR; that's more than likely. But this agreement precluded either side from seizing all of Poland's territory in the event of a potential military conflict with Poland. This clearly benefited the USSR. Would it have been better if the Reich had occupied Poland's western borderlands and made the rest of Poland its military ally? This option would have been far worse than the reality. Moreover, such a scenario would have prevented the split between the Reich and Japan (the PMR was the cause of this split), so the USSR could easily have faced a simultaneous war on two fronts (Germany and Poland in the west, and Japan in the east).
      5. 0
        29 June 2026 16: 24
        How do you explain the mutual concessions of Polish territory in 1939?

        When you live with wolves, you have to howl like a wolf. Koba couldn't reach an agreement with either Alglo-France or the Czechs, who were in immediate danger. And even the Hyena, anticipating another jackpot, refused to negotiate with tomorrow's victim. So Dzhugashvili negotiated with those who were willing to negotiate. And "taking the people under protection..." was perfectly acceptable at the time. The gentry, however, had squandered the country and had no right to complain.
    2. +4
      24 June 2026 18: 37
      Khrushchev, Gorbachev. We don't know everything about Gorbachev. Suddenly, a dropout is accepted into Moscow University, and for this, an 18-year-old boy is awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor. At 19, he's accepted into the party, given a silver medal (they couldn't get a gold one). And with all this baggage, Gorbaty (a candidate for party membership, a recipient of orders, a medalist, a ton of recommendations from the Komsomol and the party) arrives in Moscow and enters Moscow State University without taking entrance exams. Someone was really pushing him. Where they recruited him remains a mystery. There's another interesting thing here.
      Viktor Baranov is the most famous Soviet counterfeiter and inventor, alone He created the technology for counterfeiting Soviet rubles. And who was he? A driver in the Stavropol Regional Committee of the CPSU, where Gorbachev was the First Secretary. The driver was made into the chief counterfeiter, a lone figure who developed the ink composition, the paper, engraved the clichés, and created the printing press. And if the driver worked under the protection of the City Committee, that would have given Gorbachev unlimited funds for receiving delegations from Moscow and gifts. All in all, it's a shady story.
      But Gorbachev was brought in as our leader and he did not let us down.
      1. +3
        24 June 2026 20: 00
        Quote: Vol Dimir
        And who was he? A driver in the Stavropol Regional Committee of the CPSU, where Gorbachev was the first secretary.

        Why did Baranov resign (and was rehired a year after that), while Gorbachev remained First Secretary for another two years after that? Any leader of serious rank is "pulled"; without protection, none of them will ever climb the ladder... both before and now. Are you trying to declare the KGB of the USSR completely incompetent with your theory? Well, if that's the case, there were no other options. And what was Gorbachev doing, using Baranov's money to buy things in the USSR for his commission, things he couldn't have afforded as First Secretary? Oysters from the French Riviera? Who pulled him in at first has long been known: Kulakov, after whom Gorbachev named an avenue back in Stavropol...laughing
      2. 0
        25 June 2026 00: 08
        Marked One was recruited and was in the US payroll until his death. The story is well known.
    3. -1
      24 June 2026 18: 56
      Khrushchev. He, too, was elevated to a top position by exploiting the contradictions of the post-Stalin elite. Whether he was recruited is unlikely, but he was approached through his son-in-law, Adzhubei. As they used to say in those days, "Don't have a hundred rubles, get married like Adzhubei." Adzhubei was the editor-in-chief of Izvestia, the second-largest newspaper in the USSR after Pravda, and in fact, the first. A joke circulated at the time: "God loves the truth, but he subscribes to Izvestia."
      Khrushchev's report "On Stalin's Personality Cult" was pushed through Adzhubei and his newspaper staff. The report's outline was slipped to Adzhubei from the United States (they happened to have party archives taken to Germany by the Germans). The report's main idea was to destroy Stalin's comrades who were plotting to remove Khrushchev. The idea worked. The transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR should be viewed in the same light. In the behind-the-scenes power struggle, Khrushchev's entourage considered this a good move, guaranteeing the strengthening of Khrushchev's power. Khrushchev had good connections with the Ukrainian SSR party leadership; he, to put it bluntly, offered a bribe. It worked.
      Brezhnev could have reversed all this, but he himself was tied hand and foot to Ukraine. The Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR under Brezhnev was Podgorny, the former First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Ukrainian SSR. Brezhnev pushed him aside, becoming Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, unofficially President of the USSR (at least that's what he was called in the West).
      1. +1
        24 June 2026 19: 05
        It so happened that I saw Khrushchev's son, Sergei, the day before his departure for the States, from which he never returned. There was a meeting with Sergei Khrushchev and Roy Medvedev at the MAI Palace of Culture. It's been so long, but I don't remember what they talked about, but they most likely talked about perestroika. I remember one moment: Sergei Khrushchev was complaining about how he'd been banned from traveling abroad all these years, and now he'd finally been allowed to leave and was flying to the States the next day, his ticket already in his pocket. He patted his chest, as if he had a plane ticket in his inside pocket. After the meeting, they showed the film "Doctor Zhivago" in English, starring Omar Sharif.
      2. -2
        25 June 2026 00: 10
        Khrushchev was also recruited. Moreover, the Soviet elite maintained ties with the West through their relatives. For example, Kosygin's son-in-law, Gvishiani, was already part of the global deep state—he was a founding member of the Club of Rome. The corrosion had already begun before Stalin's death, and he noticed it, but he was assassinated.
    4. +1
      25 June 2026 12: 03
      For North 2.
      Tell me, what's the value of a secret conspiracy, whether there was a secret protocol or not, if you don't even understand the reasons for the war? If you did, you wouldn't have raised the issue of a great paranoid wandering around the edge. As for the Russian state, let me remind you that every coin has two sides, and besides all that, there were three peasant wars, political and other repressions, and millions of peasants who died from famine and war, and the arbitrary actions of the nobles. Lomonosov studied many subjects, including demography, and according to his calculations, at the turn of the millennium, there should have been over 300 million Russians; thanks to the efforts of Russian authorities of various stripes, we have just over 100 million. A brilliant result. You're right: it needs to be revived, strengthened, and continued.
    5. 0
      25 June 2026 19: 01
      The FSB is catching all sorts of saboteurs and terrorists in droves (yesterday in Pyatigorsk). And they're just 20-30 years old, meaning they were taught to hate Russia's imperial nature (Russia existed in an imperial state from the time of Ivan the Terrible until the death of Brezhnev).

      You are disputing the work of V. I. Lenin, the organizer of the creation of the USSR. His PSS is here. https://leninism.su/works.html
      PERIALISM AS THE HIGHEST STAGE OF CAPITALISM Lenin V.I. Complete Works Volume 27
      The gigantic size of finance capital, concentrated in a few hands and creating an extraordinarily widespread and dense network of relationships and connections, subordinating to it a mass of not only medium and small, but also the smallest capitalists and proprietors—on the one hand, and, on the other, the intensified struggle with other national-state groups of financiers for the division of the world and for domination over other countries—all this is causing a wholesale defection of all the propertied classes to the side of imperialism. The "universal" infatuation with its prospects, the frenzied defense of imperialism, the every conceivable embellishment of it—such is the sign of the times.

      Doesn't this remind you of anything?
  3. +2
    24 June 2026 07: 27
    The saddest thing about the conspiracy theory is its inconsistency... Let's imagine for a moment that Operation Barbarossa had been executed from start to finish, everything had gone according to plan, and by the end of 1941, the USSR had admitted defeat. How much would Germany have been bled white? According to available archival data, from June 22.06.1941, 1941, to January 01.01.1942, 2, Germany and its allies lost approximately 1,5 million men, and the number of various collaborators in combat units from Soviet territory during WWII is roughly comparable. Even ignoring the possibility that, had the Red Army been completely and more successfully defeated, and that such a bloody battle for Moscow had been avoided (up to two-thirds of all German losses in 3) due to capitulation and the likely increase in the number of defectors, even in such a case, the Axis forces would not have formally lost in numbers, but would have gained the resources and industrial base of the USSR. Can this really be called "bleeding white"? This doesn't even consider opening new corridors to India and the Middle East, where there were poorly defended colonies. It's a thoroughly bizarre plan. Either the "Jewish Freemasons" had a vision of the future and knew the Wehrmacht would be stopped near Moscow, but then it's unclear why they didn't know the Great Leader would fly over them and ruin their plans.
  4. Des
    +2
    24 June 2026 07: 49
    From the author's article:
    "But nothing was found! Not a single document! Not a single testimony! The conclusion is clear: the works of Rezun and others like him are unequivocal lies, anti-Soviet propaganda."
    I reread Rezun's (Suvorov's) books a while back. They're captivating and you can't put them down! They're well written. "There's an opinion" that they were written by a group of authors. Yes, Rezun is a traitor. I specifically tried to read his debunkers. None of them (though they're not as readable) did not thoroughly refute all the facts and conclusions in turn traitor Rezun. Unfortunately, the quality of the arguments and general reasoning is similar to this article.
    The fact is that the enemy (in this case the traitor Rezun and Co.) turned out to be more experienced and talented.
    Solzhenitsyn is generally unpathetic.
    1. +3
      24 June 2026 09: 03
      I specifically tried to read his debunkers. Not a single one of them (even if they're less readable) thoroughly refuted all the facts and conclusions of the traitor Rezun.
      It seems Isaev published a book by Antisuvorov.
      But as far as I understand, it is impossible to refute all the facts presented in Icebreaker, because many of them correspond to reality.
      The subtlety of the icebreaker lie is that the authors first invent false theories, and then begin to select historical facts to support them, interpreting them at their own discretion and ultimately completely distorting the true course of history.
      1. +7
        24 June 2026 17: 29
        Quote: Lewww
        But as far as I understand, it is impossible to refute all the facts presented in Icebreaker, because many of them correspond to reality.

        Wrong:)))
        Rezun often takes perfectly real and completely neutral facts that require absolutely no refutation. Then, through his own personal fantasies, he transforms them into something that discredits the USSR. The production of BT tanks – a fact? A fact. That the tank was abbreviated as A during development – ​​a fact? A fact. And then he fantasizes about how "A" stands for "highway," and voila – a conspiracy theory is ready.
        You know, I worked at a large factory and never hid the fact that I had three children. And then they asked me carefully... It turned out someone had started a rumor that yes, I really do have three children, but... From three different women:)))))) I laughed, of course, because I'm happily married and my children have the same mother.
        But if we translate this situation into the logic of the Rezunists, then they would not be satisfied with proof that my three children are from one woman and demanded proof that I do not have three children, and since I do have them, then “in the main he is right!”, which means that I am still immoral laughing
        1. 0
          25 June 2026 10: 57
          Wrong:)))
          Rezun often takes very real and completely neutral facts,
          That's what I wrote about.
          First, a theory is developed: the USSR wanted to attack Germany first – to launch a pre-emptive strike
          And then this theory is supported by a FALSE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS.
          Look how many tanks the USSR produced, especially of types Germany didn't have (the T-34 and KV). And a tank, as we know, is a means of supporting attacking infantry, i.e., a means of attack.
          Conclusion: The USSR did not plan to defend itself, its military doctrine was OFFENSIVE, therefore an attack on Germany was planned.

          Somehow
          1. +2
            25 June 2026 12: 33
            Quote: Lewww
            Wrong:)))
            Rezun often takes very real and completely neutral facts,
            That's what I wrote about.
            First, a theory is developed: the USSR wanted to attack Germany first – to launch a pre-emptive strike
            And then this theory is supported by a FALSE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS.
            Look how many tanks the USSR produced, especially of types Germany didn't have (the T-34 and KV). And a tank, as we know, is a means of supporting attacking infantry, i.e., a means of attack.
            Conclusion: The USSR did not plan to defend itself, its military doctrine was OFFENSIVE, therefore an attack on Germany was planned.

            Somehow

            No, that's not true, the doctrine was about attacking from defense and defeating the enemy on his own territory. How can you not even know that? It's like hating the history of your own country.
      2. -1
        25 June 2026 00: 13
        The book, allegedly by Rezun, but in fact by the British intelligence services, very cleverly mixes 30% truth and 70% lies.
    2. +4
      24 June 2026 09: 26
      Quote: Des
      None of them (even if they are not so readable) thoroughly refuted all the facts and conclusions of the traitor Rezun in turn.

      Everything's fine with the refutation. Rezun simply makes a clear assessment of facts that can be interpreted in various ways, and his assertions aren't the most logical. Almost all of his evidence is based on speculation. There's no direct evidence. I read it several decades ago, and his categorical style struck me as odd.
    3. 0
      24 June 2026 10: 59
      I reread Rezun's (Suvorov's) books a while back. They're captivating and you can't put them down! They're well written. "There's an opinion" (likely referring to a group of authors). Yes, Rezun is a traitor. I specifically tried to read his debunkers. Not a single one of them (even if they're less readable) thoroughly refuted all the facts and conclusions of the traitor Rezun. Unfortunately, most of the arguments and general reasoning are similar to this article in quality.
      The fact is that the enemy (in this case the traitor Rezun and Co.) turned out to be more experienced and talented.

      There was a plan. And it was certainly offensive. There couldn't have been anything else in those days; every schoolchild in the USSR knew it: "on foreign soil, with minimal bloodshed..." The troop deployment was also appropriate, along with all the other nuances. That's precisely why Rezun is so difficult to refute.

      Another question: did Stalin really intend to attack Germany in 1941? IMHO - no.
      He considered all territorial, political, and economic issues with the Germans resolved at that point. There was no point or reason to interfere in Europe.

      Suvorov and Co. played on this subtlety. negative
      1. +4
        24 June 2026 12: 09
        There were supposed to be several plans.

        One - in case of a German attack (with the subsequent defeat of the Wehrmacht) and a completely different one - a plan for the USSR to attack Germany.
        We are not told which of them was chosen as the leader.

        A common place, apparently, was the concentration of troops, convenient (as it seemed then) for a rapid advance to the west.

        Both plans were completely inadequate, they were destroyed (as unnecessary) and they hastily began to write plans for the evacuation of industry.
        Well, that is, we got down to concrete actions, not fantasies.

        The military intelligence services of both countries seriously underestimated the enemy, for which they paid the price.
        1. +1
          24 June 2026 17: 06
          Agreed. But any of our plans involved an offensive. Either immediately or after repelling the first attack.
          This is evident both from the initial actions of the troops and from scraps on the Internet, such as: “Considerations for a plan for the strategic deployment of forces of the Soviet Union in the event of war with Germany and its allies.”
        2. 0
          25 June 2026 03: 26
          Quote: Arigin
          The military intelligence services of both countries seriously underestimated the enemy, for which they paid the price.
          It's not even a matter of intelligence, but of armies. The German army developed completely new warfare tactics. Until other countries adapted to these methods and partially copied them, they had no chance against the Wehrmacht.
          1. +1
            25 June 2026 12: 39
            Quote: The Meaning of Life
            Quote: Arigin
            The military intelligence services of both countries seriously underestimated the enemy, for which they paid the price.
            It's not even a matter of intelligence, but of armies. The German army developed completely new warfare tactics. Until other countries adapted to these methods and partially copied them, they had no chance against the Wehrmacht.

            Are you serious? Before the 37 purges, didn't generals use this tactic to justify to Stalin the need for at least four types of tanks and the formation of large mechanized units? The paranoid one shot them and began distributing tanks as reinforcements among squadrons. But Stalin is so dear to you, of course we didn't have prophets, only the Germans.
            1. -1
              25 June 2026 16: 06
              Quote from Etwas
              Are you serious? Before the 37 purges, didn't generals use this tactic to justify to Stalin the need for at least four types of tanks and the formation of large mechanized units? The paranoid one shot them and began distributing tanks as reinforcements among squadrons. But Stalin is so dear to you, of course we didn't have prophets, only the Germans.
              It turns out you don't know about the pre-war Red Army and the Wehrmacht's tactics. nothing at all1) Tanks were always present in squadrons. The T-26 was designed specifically for this purpose. 2) Mechanized corps were disbanded not in 1937, but at the end of 1939, when, after a campaign in western Ukraine/Belarus, where there wasn't even any fighting, it became clear that the mechanized corps were turning into a completely uncontrollable herd (and it couldn't have been otherwise, since only command tanks had radios). However, just a year later, impressed by the Wehrmacht's successes in France, the mechanized corps were formed anew. 3) German tank divisions and groups were fundamentally different from the Soviet and French. It was a completely different combination.
              1. +1
                25 June 2026 20: 40
                Quote: The Meaning of Life
                Quote from Etwas
                Are you serious? Before the 37 purges, didn't generals use this tactic to justify to Stalin the need for at least four types of tanks and the formation of large mechanized units? The paranoid one shot them and began distributing tanks as reinforcements among squadrons. But Stalin is so dear to you, of course we didn't have prophets, only the Germans.
                It turns out you don't know about the pre-war Red Army and the Wehrmacht's tactics. nothing at all1) Tanks were always present in squadrons. The T-26 was designed specifically for this purpose. 2) Mechanized corps were disbanded not in 1937, but at the end of 1939, when, after a campaign in western Ukraine/Belarus, where there wasn't even any fighting, it became clear that the mechanized corps were turning into a completely uncontrollable herd (and it couldn't have been otherwise, since only command tanks had radios). However, just a year later, impressed by the Wehrmacht's successes in France, the mechanized corps were formed anew. 3) German tank divisions and groups were fundamentally different from the Soviet and French. It was a completely different combination.

                You claimed that the Germans were the first to use large mechanized units. I replied that our specialists had been talking about such units since before 1937. The goal was one: to break through the enemy's defenses in depth. Apparently, the Germans' goal was "fundamentally different from the Soviet and French ones." You seem to be confusing goal and structure. While they are different in structure, their goal is identical, and, moreover, structure is always secondary.
                1. 0
                  25 June 2026 21: 16
                  Quote from Etwas
                  You stated that the Germans were the first to use large mechanized units
                  It's not true. I said: The German army developed a completely new war tactic. You made up everything else yourself.

                  Quote from Etwas
                  structure is always secondary
                  Only if the structure is inappropriate will nothing work. And the experience of the liberation campaign in Poland demonstrated this.
      2. +3
        24 June 2026 16: 05
        Quote: Arzt
        There was a plan. And it was certainly offensive. There couldn't have been anything else in those days; every schoolchild in the USSR knew it: "On foreign soil, with minimal bloodshed..."

        Yeah... but propaganda and planning in the USSR didn't intersect at all. Voroshilov, for example, could proclaim from the podium that "we won't give up an inch," and then, upon leaving, sign a document expanding evacuation zones to the East in the event of military action. smile
        Judging by the "Cover Plans," our plan was to first defeat the enemy's "invasion army," simultaneously disrupt the mobilization and concentration of its main forces, and only then attack. No one expected an invasion with a fully mobilized army without preliminary diplomatic claims—they were looking to Poland, which had six months to warm up and partially mobilize.
        Quote: Arzt
        Another question: did Stalin really intend to attack Germany in 1941? IMHO - no.

        In my humble opinion, it's possible to do without it. Because there's nothing to invade with. The First Mechanized Corps won't be fully staffed and organized until the fall of 1941, after which it will be forced into exercises to determine its suitability and modify its operational staff based on the results. The Air Force is in a semi-disassembled state; the program for retraining and forming new units won't be completed until 1942. There are no personnel – in one of the tank divisions, the operations department consisted of one person. The rear infrastructure in the reunited territories is practically nonexistent – ​​warehouses are being built, fuel tanks haven't even been manufactured yet, and railways are being rebuilt. Military camps and training grounds make up a third of the existing units; in the rest, personnel are crammed into peasant houses, stables, and other outbuildings; some are quartered in prisons, others in synagogues. There are no airfields - after the failure of the Air Force reconstruction program in 1940. The Air Force rear is absent - in the spring of 1941, a reform began with the demolition of the entire old system, and for the new one in 1941, traditionally, there are no personnel or equipment.
        In general, until 1942, the Red Army was a half-disassembled vehicle in the process of repair and modernization.
        1. 0
          25 June 2026 12: 42
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: Arzt
          There was a plan. And it was certainly offensive. There couldn't have been anything else in those days; every schoolchild in the USSR knew it: "On foreign soil, with minimal bloodshed..."

          Yeah... but propaganda and planning in the USSR didn't intersect at all. Voroshilov, for example, could proclaim from the podium that "we won't give up an inch," and then, upon leaving, sign a document expanding evacuation zones to the East in the event of military action. smile
          Judging by the "Cover Plans," our plan was to first defeat the enemy's "invasion army," simultaneously disrupt the mobilization and concentration of its main forces, and only then attack. No one expected an invasion with a fully mobilized army without preliminary diplomatic claims—they were looking to Poland, which had six months to warm up and partially mobilize.
          Quote: Arzt
          Another question: did Stalin really intend to attack Germany in 1941? IMHO - no.

          In my humble opinion, it's possible to do without it. Because there's nothing to invade with. The First Mechanized Corps won't be fully staffed and organized until the fall of 1941, after which it will be forced into exercises to determine its suitability and modify its operational staff based on the results. The Air Force is in a semi-disassembled state; the program for retraining and forming new units won't be completed until 1942. There are no personnel – in one of the tank divisions, the operations department consisted of one person. The rear infrastructure in the reunited territories is practically nonexistent – ​​warehouses are being built, fuel tanks haven't even been manufactured yet, and railways are being rebuilt. Military camps and training grounds make up a third of the existing units; in the rest, personnel are crammed into peasant houses, stables, and other outbuildings; some are quartered in prisons, others in synagogues. There are no airfields - after the failure of the Air Force reconstruction program in 1940. The Air Force rear is absent - in the spring of 1941, a reform began with the demolition of the entire old system, and for the new one in 1941, traditionally, there are no personnel or equipment.
          In general, until 1942, the Red Army was a half-disassembled vehicle in the process of repair and modernization.

          Now let's do the same thing using the example of individuals before the repressions of 37. I think you will succeed, but the result will be different.
          1. +2
            25 June 2026 15: 30
            Quote from Etwas
            Now let's do the same thing using the example of individuals before the repressions of 37. I think you will succeed, but the result will be different.

            Oh yes... with the pre-repression commanders in the Red Army there will be not just horror, but horror-horror-horror.
            After all, during their demonstration ballet of the Grand Maneuvers, despite the plans communicated to all parties in advance, the designated results of the exercises had to be extracted by intermediaries.
            The R-5, SSS, and R-Z light bomber and attack aircraft squadrons, which were supposed to clear the way for the advancing tanks, were essentially unable to do so. Their coordination with the mechanized brigades and regiments "failed" (BVO), "was completely lost, or was only sporadic" (KVO): the communications between the air and tank headquarters were flawed.

            Yakir and Uborevich's tank crews advanced blindly—their reconnaissance was poorly organized, inactive, and [according to the assessment of A.I. Sedyakin, the Chief of the Red Army Combat Training Directorate (UBP), who oversaw the maneuvers] "ineffective." As a result, T-26 tanks from the 15th and 17th Mechanized Brigades of the KVO repeatedly struck "into empty space." BT-5 and BT-7 tanks from the 5th and 21st Mechanized Brigades of the BVO failed to detect the ambush (and ambush operations were a favorite tactic of German tank crews). T-28 tanks from the 1st Tank Brigade of the BVO "suddenly" (!) found themselves confronted by a strip of tank traps and obstacles and were forced to abruptly turn aside—toward an as-yet-unseen section of terrain, where they became bogged down.

            ...Yakir and Uborevich's infantry, firstly, attacked the enemy's machine guns "everywhere" not in loose lines, but in dense "crowds of squads." "With such formations, the attack would have been thwarted in reality, drowned in blood," stated A.I. Sedyakin, who himself participated in similar attacks in 1916 and was caught in German wire five times. "The reason: the fighters were isolated, the squads and platoons were undertrained." During the offensive, the soldiers instinctively huddled close together, and the poorly trained squad and platoon commanders were unable to restore proper battle formation.
            Even tanks providing direct infantry support wouldn't have helped such "crowds," especially since in the KVO (even in its best 24th and 44th Rifle Divisions), neither infantry nor tank crews knew how to cooperate. Artillery support for the attack wouldn't have saved either, especially since in the KVO, "the issue of artillery cooperation with infantry and tanks" was already "the weakest" by the summer of 1937, while in the BVO, artillery support for attacks was often ignored altogether.

            As for Uborevich's infantry, they were completely incapable of close-quarters offensive combat. During the 1936 maneuvers, their "offensive" consisted of a steady forward movement. There was no "coordination of fire and movement"—that is, squads, platoons, and companies attacked, ignoring defensive fire. They didn't prepare their attack with machine gun fire, didn't practice lying low, running, or digging in, and didn't throw grenades.

            ...Uborevich's advancing infantry was completely unconcerned about protecting its flanks—"even by observation!" The KVO infantry was guilty of the same thing at the Shepetivka maneuvers.

            Quoted from Smirnov. The Great Maneuvers of 1936: What They Really Showed.

            Moreover, all of the above was discovered back in 1935. But even before the exercises, and even after them, the situation remained unchanged. Budyonny summarized the Red Army's preparations under Tukhachevsky's command:
            We sometimes hover on a very large operational and strategic scale, and what will we operate with if the company is not suitable, the platoon is not suitable, and the detachment is not suitable?
            1. +1
              25 June 2026 21: 39
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Quote from Etwas
              Now let's do the same thing using the example of individuals before the repressions of 37. I think you will succeed, but the result will be different.

              Oh yes... with the pre-repression commanders in the Red Army there will be not just horror, but horror-horror-horror.
              After all, during their demonstration ballet of the Grand Maneuvers, despite the plans communicated to all parties in advance, the designated results of the exercises had to be extracted by intermediaries.
              The R-5, SSS, and R-Z light bomber and attack aircraft squadrons, which were supposed to clear the way for the advancing tanks, were essentially unable to do so. Their coordination with the mechanized brigades and regiments "failed" (BVO), "was completely lost, or was only sporadic" (KVO): the communications between the air and tank headquarters were flawed.

              Yakir and Uborevich's tank crews advanced blindly—their reconnaissance was poorly organized, inactive, and [according to the assessment of A.I. Sedyakin, the Chief of the Red Army Combat Training Directorate (UBP), who oversaw the maneuvers] "ineffective." As a result, T-26 tanks from the 15th and 17th Mechanized Brigades of the KVO repeatedly struck "into empty space." BT-5 and BT-7 tanks from the 5th and 21st Mechanized Brigades of the BVO failed to detect the ambush (and ambush operations were a favorite tactic of German tank crews). T-28 tanks from the 1st Tank Brigade of the BVO "suddenly" (!) found themselves confronted by a strip of tank traps and obstacles and were forced to abruptly turn aside—toward an as-yet-unseen section of terrain, where they became bogged down.

              ...Yakir and Uborevich's infantry, firstly, attacked the enemy's machine guns "everywhere" not in loose lines, but in dense "crowds of squads." "With such formations, the attack would have been thwarted in reality, drowned in blood," stated A.I. Sedyakin, who himself participated in similar attacks in 1916 and was caught in German wire five times. "The reason: the fighters were isolated, the squads and platoons were undertrained." During the offensive, the soldiers instinctively huddled close together, and the poorly trained squad and platoon commanders were unable to restore proper battle formation.
              Even tanks providing direct infantry support wouldn't have helped such "crowds," especially since in the KVO (even in its best 24th and 44th Rifle Divisions), neither infantry nor tank crews knew how to cooperate. Artillery support for the attack wouldn't have saved either, especially since in the KVO, "the issue of artillery cooperation with infantry and tanks" was already "the weakest" by the summer of 1937, while in the BVO, artillery support for attacks was often ignored altogether.

              As for Uborevich's infantry, they were completely incapable of close-quarters offensive combat. During the 1936 maneuvers, their "offensive" consisted of a steady forward movement. There was no "coordination of fire and movement"—that is, squads, platoons, and companies attacked, ignoring defensive fire. They didn't prepare their attack with machine gun fire, didn't practice lying low, running, or digging in, and didn't throw grenades.

              ...Uborevich's advancing infantry was completely unconcerned about protecting its flanks—"even by observation!" The KVO infantry was guilty of the same thing at the Shepetivka maneuvers.

              Quoted from Smirnov. The Great Maneuvers of 1936: What They Really Showed.

              Moreover, all of the above was discovered back in 1935. But even before the exercises, and even after them, the situation remained unchanged. Budyonny summarized the Red Army's preparations under Tukhachevsky's command:
              We sometimes hover on a very large operational and strategic scale, and what will we operate with if the company is not suitable, the platoon is not suitable, and the detachment is not suitable?

              Everyone, including Stalin, knew that the army, despite the delivery of a large quantity of new weapons, was still "raw." They carried out purges, executing a large number of officers, although the purges had nothing to do with the aforementioned maneuvers and their results. Then 1939 arrived, did things get better or...? The opinions of Budyonny, Voroshilov, and later Mekhlis are an argument; no, they certainly contributed positively to the best of their ability. But ultimately, Stalin himself removed them for professional incompetence. And what's the point of holding maneuvers anyway? It's true, to identify weaknesses. They identified them, but there was no one left to fix them. Tell me, wasn't it the First Cavalry Army that was smashed on the Don, and wasn't it Tukhachevsky who cleaned up the mess later? I have no doubt Budyonny remembered that. And wasn't Tukhachevsky the one who stopped Kolchak? He certainly didn't take Perekop, but who brought the troops to Perekop? Tukhachevsky suppressed the mutinies at the Kronstadt forts. He probably had numerical superiority and overwhelmed them with sheer numbers, or perhaps not with sheer numbers, but with skill. He was undoubtedly an outstanding leader and enjoyed the well-deserved respect of the rank and file. You know how Stalin dealt with those who were successful, intelligent, and authoritative, just as he later did with Rokossovsky, Zhukov, Antonov, and others.
              1. +1
                26 June 2026 11: 48
                Quote from Etwas
                And why do they conduct maneuvers anyway? Right, to identify weaknesses. They did, but there was no one left to fix them.

                This was discovered back in 1935.
                The worst part was that this situation showed no signs of improvement. For example, reconnaissance and flank protection in the BVO had been ignored as early as the autumn exercises of 1935 (when units of the 2nd, 29th, and 43rd Rifle Divisions paid for it with the "defeat" of units). In the Kiev Military District, "weak reconnaissance organization" had already been evident during the famous Kyiv maneuvers of 1935, where the crowded battle formations of the attacking infantry were also noted. The poor training of individual soldiers, squads, platoons, and companies, the inability of commanders to control fire, and the "complete lack of coordination between fire and movement," when "the main (and almost only) command was a loud "Forward!" repeated by everyone from the battalion commander to the squad commander," were also demonstrated by the BVO troops as early as 1935.

                Had anything changed by 1937? Yes, it had gotten worse:
                The results of infantry fire training in March-April 1937 were also worse than in 1936. The 45th Mechanized Corps of the Kiev Military District, the main hero of the Kyiv maneuvers of 1935, also demonstrated "poor performance in combat training (shooting, accident rate)" in the spring of 1937.

                Quote from Etwas
                Tukhachevsky suppressed the mutinies at the Kronstadt forts. He probably had numerical superiority and overwhelmed them with sheer numbers, or perhaps not with sheer numbers, but with skill. He was undoubtedly an outstanding leader and enjoyed the well-deserved respect of the rank and file.

                Tukhachevsky was an outstanding leader of the Civil War, a war in which both sides abandoned tactics and strategy. The moment Tukhachevsky encountered the regular army, it resulted in complete defeat.
                However, this didn't apply only to him. The IVS drew a line under the cult of the Civil War at the Conference following the CFV.
                What prevented our army from quickly, on the fly, reorganizing and adapting to the conditions, preparing not for a leisurely stroll, but for a serious war? What prevented our command staff from reorganizing itself to wage war not in the old way, but in a new way? After all, keep in mind that in the entire existence of Soviet power, we had never fought a real modern war. (...)
                The Civil War is not a real war, because it was a war without artillery, without aviation, without tanks, without mortars. Without all this, what is this serious war? It was a special war, not modern. We were poorly armed, poorly dressed, poorly fed, but still we defeated the enemy, who had much more weapons, who was much better armed, because here the spirit mainly played a role.
                So, what prevented our commanding assembly from waging a war in Finland in a new way, not in the type of civil war, but in a new way? In my opinion, the cult of tradition and experience of the civil war interfered. As our command structure is regarded: have you participated in the civil war? No, I did not participate. Go away. Did he participate? Participated. Give him here, he has a lot of experience and more.
                I must say, of course, the experience of the civil war is very valuable, the traditions of the civil war are also valuable, but they are completely insufficient. This is precisely the cult of the tradition and experience of the civil war that must be put to an end, and it prevented our command personnel from immediately reorganizing themselves in a new way, on the tracks of modern war.
              2. +1
                26 June 2026 11: 48
                Quote from Etwas
                And why do they conduct maneuvers anyway? Right, to identify weaknesses. They did, but there was no one left to fix them.

                This was discovered back in 1935.
                The worst part was that this situation showed no signs of improvement. For example, reconnaissance and flank protection in the BVO had been ignored as early as the autumn exercises of 1935 (when units of the 2nd, 29th, and 43rd Rifle Divisions paid for it with the "defeat" of units). In the Kiev Military District, "weak reconnaissance organization" had already been evident during the famous Kyiv maneuvers of 1935, where the crowded battle formations of the attacking infantry were also noted. The poor training of individual soldiers, squads, platoons, and companies, the inability of commanders to control fire, and the "complete lack of coordination between fire and movement," when "the main (and almost only) command was a loud "Forward!" repeated by everyone from the battalion commander to the squad commander," were also demonstrated by the BVO troops as early as 1935.

                Had anything changed by 1937? Yes, it had gotten worse:
                The results of infantry fire training in March-April 1937 were also worse than in 1936. The 45th Mechanized Corps of the Kiev Military District, the main hero of the Kyiv maneuvers of 1935, also demonstrated "poor performance in combat training (shooting, accident rate)" in the spring of 1937.
              3. +1
                26 June 2026 11: 48
                Quote from Etwas
                Tukhachevsky suppressed the mutinies at the Kronstadt forts. He probably had numerical superiority and overwhelmed them with sheer numbers, or perhaps not with sheer numbers, but with skill. He was undoubtedly an outstanding leader and enjoyed the well-deserved respect of the rank and file.

                Tukhachevsky was an outstanding leader during the Civil War, a war in which both sides practically abandoned tactics and strategy. When Tukhachevsky encountered the regular army, it resulted in complete defeat.
                However, this didn't apply only to him. The IVS drew a line under the cult of the Civil War at the Conference following the CFV.
                What prevented our army from quickly, on the fly, reorganizing and adapting to the conditions, preparing not for a leisurely stroll, but for a serious war? What prevented our command staff from reorganizing itself to wage war not in the old way, but in a new way? After all, keep in mind that in the entire existence of Soviet power, we had never fought a real modern war. (...)
                The Civil War is not a real war, because it was a war without artillery, without aviation, without tanks, without mortars. Without all this, what is this serious war? It was a special war, not modern. We were poorly armed, poorly dressed, poorly fed, but still we defeated the enemy, who had much more weapons, who was much better armed, because here the spirit mainly played a role.
                So, what prevented our commanding assembly from waging a war in Finland in a new way, not in the type of civil war, but in a new way? In my opinion, the cult of tradition and experience of the civil war interfered. As our command structure is regarded: have you participated in the civil war? No, I did not participate. Go away. Did he participate? Participated. Give him here, he has a lot of experience and more.
                I must say, of course, the experience of the civil war is very valuable, the traditions of the civil war are also valuable, but they are completely insufficient. This is precisely the cult of the tradition and experience of the civil war that must be put to an end, and it prevented our command personnel from immediately reorganizing themselves in a new way, on the tracks of modern war.
      3. 0
        25 June 2026 11: 15
        Quote: Arzt
        There was a plan. And it was certainly offensive. There couldn't have been anything else in those days; every schoolchild in the USSR knew it: "On foreign soil, with minimal bloodshed..."

        The plan was not offensive, but the military doctrine of the USSR was DEFENSIVE-OFFENSIVE.

        In the first phase, when the enemy would strike first, defense was envisaged, followed by a transition to the offensive and waging war on enemy territory.
        Because wars are not won by defense alone
        1. +2
          25 June 2026 12: 43
          Quote: Lewww
          Quote: Arzt
          There was a plan. And it was certainly offensive. There couldn't have been anything else in those days; every schoolchild in the USSR knew it: "On foreign soil, with minimal bloodshed..."

          The plan was not offensive, but the military doctrine of the USSR was DEFENSIVE-OFFENSIVE.

          In the first phase, when the enemy would strike first, defense was envisaged, followed by a transition to the offensive and waging war on enemy territory.
          Because wars are not won by defense alone

          Absolutely correct answer.
    4. -1
      25 June 2026 00: 12
      The British intelligence services wrote under the pseudonym Suvorov. That's why it's interesting. They have a lot of experience.
    5. 0
      25 June 2026 13: 25
      Rezun's books are pure fantasy—what's there to refute in the works of this ignorant scribbler? His blunders are worthy of becoming (and have become) genuine memes. Even poems have been written about his "highway tanks" in the mocking genre (search for "Highway tanks are flying..." and you'll be delighted).
      What can you say about an author who doesn't even know the most basic things... In his book, they tore down an old defensive line in the USSR so it wouldn't interfere with a large-scale invasion of the Reich (yeah, the pillboxes were right on the roadway... impossible to get around), and the shells, piled right on the ground, would have rusted and deteriorated if they hadn't been urgently used in an act of aggression (Rezun either doesn't even know how artillery ammunition is stored... no one told him about shell boxes, and he's never even seen ammunition in a movie, or he's just pulling the wool over the eyes of overly gullible readers), and so on in the same vein. "Experienced and talented," yeah... a lying storyteller and nothing more; he's worth reading only to laugh at such nonsense.
  5. 0
    24 June 2026 08: 00
    If Stalin had wanted to strike at Hitler, the most opportune moment would have been the French campaign. While the most combat-ready German units were breaking through the defenses of the Anglo-French and their allies, crushing France in 1940, only five divisions remained in the east of the German Empire!
    Unfortunately, the unique chance to destroy Hitler in 1940 was missed.

    WWI lesson not learned
    1. +3
      24 June 2026 09: 27
      Quote: Olgovich
      The unique chance to destroy Hitler in 1940 was missed

      With the speed with which Hitler destroyed France, there was no chance at all.
    2. -3
      25 June 2026 00: 16
      The Red Army was unprepared for war throughout the 30s. Victory over the Japanese was a hard-won victory, and they never went away. Spain also demonstrated how "ready for war" our military was. Unfortunately, the bitter Spanish experience was not put to good use, and in 1941, the same mistakes were made.
      1. +2
        25 June 2026 08: 29
        Not true. The Spanish experience, like that of Khalkhin Gol and the Winter War, was analyzed, and efforts were made to correct the mistakes as much as possible. But there were too many mistakes, and the time and practical resources to correct them were catastrophically short.
        But the adoption of new medium and even heavy tanks (T-34 and KV), albeit modest, but still the production of new tanks, the urgent development of new aircraft (primarily fighters, and even the Il-2) - isn't this based on the experience gained?
        Many people made mistakes back then. And for some, supposedly "developed" ones, things turned out even worse.

        The Japanese were neutralized by diplomatic measures—the infamous Pact. The fact that the USSR was more successful in this endeavor than the "democracies" still irritates the democrats.
        1. -1
          25 June 2026 10: 42
          Yes and no. The German Nazis used this experience more successfully and were quicker to rearm with new tanks and aircraft. How long did we spend dawdling over and dragging out the I-16, which had already become obsolete in Spain? "New types of fighters" began appearing almost as early as 41. And it wasn't even a matter of technology. No changes were made to the Red Army's tactics.
          Regarding "developed." France had complete superiority over the Germans—they had a more powerful army, and they were even technically superior. But shameful cowardice was the French's undoing. The British were saved only by the English Channel, and the fact that Hitler wasn't particularly keen on fighting them. And there was a certain collusion between the British elite and the Nazis.
          Incidentally, when it comes to new tanks and aircraft, we weren't so much influenced by Spanish and Far Eastern experience as by European trends—the development of high-speed fighters and bombers in Germany, France, and Great Britain, and work on shell-proof armor in France and medium tanks in France. It's worth remembering that the T-34 is a direct descendant of the American Christie tank, while the KV is a completely unique series, unparalleled. And, by the way, in 1941, the Germans weren't afraid of the T-34, but of the KV, which they found extremely difficult to combat.
          The Japanese were neutralized through diplomatic measures
          Not only that. Our intelligence services wove their own intrigues, convincing the Japanese that they needed to seize Asian territories to create a raw materials base. Incidentally, the attack on Pearl Harbor was the Japanese's undoing, above all, as they had easily secured British territory and had already begun expansion in India and the Indian Ocean, even landing on Madagascar. But if the Americans hadn't entered the war, things would have been much more difficult for us. The Japanese had a real chance of dominating half the world.
          The "shit-crats" are infuriated by the very fact of our country's Great Victory, although, according to their calculations, we should have lost and disappeared into the abyss of history.
          1. 0
            25 June 2026 13: 45
            Did you know that the I-16 was accepted into service only a few years before the Me-109? The Germans simply began modernizing, effectively creating, their armed forces a little later than the USSR, and so began adopting more modern and sophisticated models. The latest modification of the I-16 (alas, not very numerous) was quite capable of fighting against what the Germans had in 1941. However, replacing all the fighters with the latest ones simply wasn't possible or timely.

            France had no superiority in 1940. Quantitatively, yes, it was roughly equal. But both its aircraft and tanks were already outdated, crude, and riddled with design flaws. Its tactics, yes, were outdated. But precisely because the generals and officer corps hadn't been created largely from scratch (as in Germany) and weren't subject to "unjustified repression," as in the USSR. Conservatism and the inertia of military thought played a role.

            The T-34 isn't exactly like the Christie. It's in a different weight class, has a largely unique engine, has reasonably sloped armor, and is purely tracked. The relationship is too distant.
            The French were too fond of multi-turreted tanks. Stalin personally ordered this to stop, forcing them to make the KV single-turreted. Even he was fed up with this idiocy left over from Tukhachevsky, who truly idolized the Frogmen and the Brits.

            Quote: futurohunter
            Our intelligence services wove their own intrigues, convincing the Japanese that they needed to seize Asian territories to create a raw materials base. Incidentally, the attack on Pearl Harbor was the Japanese's undoing, first and foremost.


            But you don’t have any proof of this, just guesses, right?
            The Japanese objectively needed resources; prompting from our "Stirlitz" men wasn't particularly necessary. The Japanese simply continued the policy they had begun before the First World War. The attack on Pearl Harbor was provoked by the Yankees themselves, who imposed an oil embargo. Moreover, this attack perfectly suited the interests of the American elite. Japan was a convenient adversary, given its rather modest industrial potential and resource limitations (the Japanese initially seized considerable resources, but they still needed to be extracted and processed before they could be used, something the samurai didn't have time for). The Japanese had no real chance. Even their most famous admiral declared that they could only count on one year of success and victory, followed by catastrophe. His dying prognosis proved quite accurate.
            1. -1
              25 June 2026 15: 59
              Nevertheless, the Bf-109 was inferior to the I-16 at the beginning of the war in Spain, but it quickly overtook it. The I-16 no longer had room for improvement. The I-180 never reached production.
              The latest modification of the I-16 could well have fought
              That's exactly what it COULD have done, although it wasn't up to par in terms of speed, armament, etc. You know, the I-153 biplanes also fought... For lack of anything else, since there were few "new types of fighters" and they were poorly developed.
              There was simply no opportunity or time to replace all the fighters with the latest ones.
              History knows no subjunctive mood. Nevertheless, let me remind you that our aviation before the war was in a state of "disarray and confusion." The unsuccessful Yak-2 and Yak-4 were put into production. No one discontinued the clearly obsolete I-153. There were far more "new-generation fighters" than most people know. What about the planes of Tomashevich and Yatsenko? Even so, the war was in full swing, and Yatsenko's I-21s, without engines, were parked in rows at the Saratov airfield. So they were scrapped.
              France had no superiority in 1940.
              Quantitatively, yes. That's also very important! Especially since the level of French technology in 1940 was no worse than that of the USSR in 1941. What's more important is quantity, the speed of equipment renewal, and, most importantly, the desire to fight on the part of the leadership, and that's precisely what was missing.

              planes and tanks
              The MS-406, while no longer quite new, was still better than the I-16 and a match for the Messerschmitts. The D-520 was a thoroughly modern fighter, comparable to the Messerschmitts. And by 1940, they weren't exactly outdated. Along with their outdated bombers, the French had plenty of modern ones, too. Let's recall the Soviet SB and Db-3F.
              French medium tanks had shell-proof armor and were quite capable of fighting the Germans, considering that the Germans were dominated by Prague tanks and T-2s, and had very few T-3s.
              But precisely because the generals and the officer corps were not created largely from scratch
              But there was General de Gaulle, and not only him! I repeat, the majority of the French military and political elite DID NOT WANT TO FIGHT, and they could have easily defeated the Germans. Especially in alliance with other countries...
              The T-34 still doesn't look much like a Christie.
              The Christie's chassis, with all its shortcomings, remained. However, Christie tanks were in fashion in many countries at the time... Although, I won't argue, the T-34 was undoubtedly the best tank of World War II in terms of its overall qualities. Not "super-duper," but OPTIMAL for our conditions and our troops.
              The French were too fond of multi-turret tanks
              There weren't that many of them... Then again, there was a global fashion for "cruisers." Stalin caught on just in time, but the SMK and T-100 were built, the T-35 and T-28 were mass-produced, and even the first KVs had two guns each, while multi-turret KV designs were considered until 1942-43.
              remained after Tukhachevsky, who truly idolized the Frogs and the Britons
              I'd go further: I also idolized a bunch of techno-adventurers, like Grokhovsky, Kurchevsky, and others, as well as all sorts of radio tanks and the like. Only two "children" of the crazy 1930s were not stillborn - radar and the Katyusha-type MLRS...
              hints from our "Stirlitz" were not particularly needed
              You see, some idea may still be maturing, but you can "help" it with this...
              The Japanese simply continued the policy they had begun before the First World War.
              Let me remind you that back then they seized foreign military bases from Russia, and part of its territory, and during the intervention of 1918-1920, they actually invaded the Far East... Back then, they looked more "north" than south... True, it's no secret that the English were actively pushing them there, at the same time, away from their colonies...
              The attack on Pearl Harbor was provoked by the Yankees themselves, who imposed an oil embargo.
              They might as well not have attacked... Especially since Admiral Yamamoto himself, when he went to Pearl Harbor, only honestly carried out orders, although he was categorically against war with America...
              Japan was a convenient enemy
              However, until Japan was left alone after the defeat of Nazi Germany and the intervention of the USSR, the Americans didn't really cope with it... Let me remind you that the Japanese reached the Aleutians, India, Australia, and Madagascar... Look at the state of the American armed forces before World War II... They hardly even had tanks...
              American profiteers didn't want to fight at all, but hoped to sit it out overseas and then profit from military supplies to all the warring parties...
              the samurai didn't have enough time for this
              Not only that... Managing such a scattered "patchwork empire" was extremely difficult, let alone holding onto such territory. And they wanted more and more—remember the landing on Madagascar?
              The Japanese had no real chance
              Once again: only after the Americans and the USSR intervened. Before that, the Japanese had defeated the Dutch and had given the British a real beating—look at how much territory the British surrendered at the start of the war. Yes, actually, the British were beaten everywhere, and they weren't very good fighters... Perhaps the British sailors were a bit brave in places.
              1. 0
                26 June 2026 13: 50
                The final modification of the I-16 could compete quite successfully with the first-series Messerschmitts (but no longer the "Emils"). It was only slightly inferior in speed and climb rate, and even superior in armament.
                Well, unfortunately, they produced as many Yak-1 and LaGG as they could.

                So what's the point of planes that don't have engines? Just admiring them?

                Well, the French tanks had some obvious flaws, though the main ones were a lack of proper tactics, a concept for their use, and a dispersal of forces. The Germans used their tanks completely differently, taking out the French not with their tanks, but with artillery and dive bombers, which was more effective. In general, comparing performance characteristics doesn't tell you much.

                De Gaulle... who was labeled a "traitor to the Motherland." Well, most French people were more sympathetic to General Petain.

                Since the Renault FT, the French set the trends in tank design in the 20s and 30s (the first half). The Germans remained in the shadows... until a certain point.

                Yeah. And in terms of overall concept, the T-34 is even closer to the Renault FT. Especially since that Renault was tracked, like the T-34. lol

                The Japanese were also looking south back then. Korea was definitely not north. And China wasn't quite north either. And there was no need for leftist prompting after Hitler began to push the European metropolises into the ground. It would have been foolish to miss the opportunity when France and Holland lost their sovereignty.

                Japan's blitzkrieg failed; they had no chance in a protracted war. Tanks? Well, the Japanese weren't exactly short on tanks either. The Pacific War was primarily about the navy and air force. The Yankees were perfectly capable of developing these capabilities on virtually any scale imaginable. Lend-Lease allowed them to test new weapons in combat conditions, using foreign hands. The end result was a foregone conclusion; the elite cared little about the losses of ordinary citizens. Imperialism, however.
                And yes, they profited handsomely from the war. A comparison of the US economic and financial situation before and after WWII clearly demonstrates this. Fortunately, after the war, they could buy up the industries of their defeated enemies, Germany and Japan, for the profits of their stewed meat.

                Well, that's exactly what the Yankees were counting on. Logistics in that war clearly weren't on the Japanese side.

                US intervention was inevitable and without alternatives. This was the Yankees' original plan; they used the samurai as their "icebreaker."

                The colonial troops of England, France, and Holland couldn't have had much combat effectiveness. They were more like gendarmes than real soldiers, trained to pacify the local Papuans.
                Well, the Yankees weren't exactly shining either, even with the odds evenly matched. They always aimed to be supermen, always needing an undoubted advantage over their opponents.

                And as we know, "he who couldn't become just a man dreams of becoming a superman."
  6. +1
    24 June 2026 08: 22
    "It was as if Stalin himself had planned to strike Germany, and Hitler had merely forestalled him. After the war, this idea was actively supported by defeated German generals writing memoirs, and by Western revisionist historians." Generals would be better off justifying why they lost the war, not why they started it. Wars are started not by generals, but by politicians. "Wars begin in the quiet of offices, from the quiet words of diplomats." A.M. Gorchakov – an outstanding Russian diplomat, the last chancellor of the Russian Empire.
  7. -2
    24 June 2026 09: 18
    In the 1980s and 2000s, the most popular promoter of this idea was former Soviet intelligence officer Vladimir Rezun, who defected to the enemy. He wrote under the pseudonym Viktor Suvorov. His most famous work is "The Icebreaker."

    Suvorov wrote based on the materials available to him at the time. It's now known that he was completely mistaken; we had no plans for war against the Nazis, nor could we have had any (Putin wrote about this in his famous article for the 75th anniversary of Victory Day). Quite the contrary: we were actively working to fully join the alliance of Germany, Japan, and Italy as a fully-fledged fourth party. Not just the Treaty of Friendship and the Non-Aggression Pact, which we already had, but full accession to the alliance of Germany, Japan, and Italy.
    A full-fledged "Four Axis Powers Pact" was being prepared.
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пакт_четырёх_держав
    Only Hitler's sheer stupidity, eager to conclude peace with England as quickly as possible (and England was categorically opposed), coupled with our weakness during the Finnish War, led to Hitler's decision to attack us and wage a "small victorious war" to intimidate England. For years, historians have been trying to figure out why our leadership missed the start of the war, but in light of what's now known, a simple, yet unflattering, explanation has been given: no one in our country expected Germany to attack, since we were at that moment preparing to become its closest ally. No one could have expected such sheer stupidity from Hitler, but he did it.
    In the photo, Molotov negotiates with the Germans in November 1940 in Berlin about the full annexation of the USSR to the Axis powers.
    1. -3
      24 June 2026 15: 48
      Quote from solar
      Suvorov wrote on the materials that he had

      The relevant foreign intelligence services were pushing it on me.
      Quote from solar
      he was completely wrong

      Because he served as a platoon commander, and in non-linear units. He went from a training division to the Soviet Army Academy. And he never saw the complexity of certain operations. And the deployment of the 30th Motorized Rifle Corps, linked to possible offensive actions in July, is a complete nonsense.
      Quote from solar
      And only the sheer stupidity of Hitler, who wanted to conclude peace with England as quickly as possible (and England was categorically against it),

      It's probably Edward or the future Elizabeth giving the Nazi salute. There were more Nazis there than in Germany (at all times).
      Sweeping Britain under the rug was a matter of the near future. But the ease with which Hitler had crushed Britain, France, and Poland, which had joined them (I won't even mention the other small fry, everyone there had their hands up, even the proud Vikings—except the South, the Greeks, and the Albanians). And he thought he could do the same with the Union. And the British weren't going anywhere. They'd be saved for dessert. And Hitler envisioned friendship with Britain on the same level as France (after May 1940). On the principle: "If you don't want to be friends, it's worse for you." Hitler didn't care about Britain; at most, he wanted to make it a satellite.
      Quote from solar
      Molotov negotiates with the Germans in November 1940 in Berlin about the full annexation of the USSR to the Axis powers.

      Eyewitness testimony (carved on the table - "Solar was here").
      1. +2
        24 June 2026 18: 40
        It's probably Edward or the future Elizabeth giving the Nazi salute.

        Yes, a two-week-old king and a four-year-old queen.
        Well, you are so healthy that you can make up all sorts of nonsense...
        1. 0
          24 June 2026 20: 41
          Quote from solar
          four-year-old queen.

          Get an abacus (a calculator would be too complicated for you). You made a mistake with your fingers.
          Quote from solar
          future
          This means for now, princess.
          Quote from solar
          Well, you are all healthy

          talk nonsense.
          1. +2
            24 June 2026 21: 20
            Get an abacus (a calculator would be too complicated for you). You made a mistake with your fingers.

            Just think about it. Yes, she's six years old in the photo, not four. So what? Has anything changed?
            hi
            1. -1
              24 June 2026 21: 55
              Quote from solar
              Yes, she's 6 years old in the photo, not 4. So what?

              And who taught her? Dad, uncle, grandfather, or all of them together.
              And you were counting Eduard's two weeks on the wrong side. You're our mirror image. Indeed, Klitschko is right—"not just everything."
              Keep your brain busy.
              1. +2
                24 June 2026 22: 07
                And you counted Edward's two weeks on the wrong side.

                What, three weeks of rules? And you draw the same profound conclusions from that as you would from a six-year-old's raised hand? (Incidentally, she later became a World War II veteran—though she didn't participate in combat, she did serve in the army during World War II.)
                You are simply an analytical genius...
                1. -1
                  25 June 2026 07: 39
                  Quote from solar
                  What, three weeks of rules? And from this you draw the same profound conclusions,

                  I see. You're smart. From Monday to Saturday there are four days, from Saturday to Monday there is one day. Then you're right, your logic is impeccable (but that's in a different dimension). And so it's been almost a year.
                  Quote from solar
                  and from this you draw the same profound conclusions as from the raised hand of a six-year-old child?

                  And Mommy, why are you raising your hand? I told you so.
                  Quote: chenia
                  There were more Nazis there than in Germany (at all times).

                  Quote from solar
                  World War II veteran

                  Yes, of course, she carried the wounded on her fragile girlish shoulders.

                  You're just......
                  1. +1
                    25 June 2026 08: 53
                    I see. You're smart. From Monday to Saturday there are four days, from Saturday to Monday there is one day. Then you're right, your logic is impeccable (but that's in a different dimension). And so it's been almost a year.

                    The coronation of Edward VIII was scheduled for 12 May 1937.

                    When did he leave?
                    Yes, of course, she carried the wounded on her fragile girlish shoulders.

                    The truck driver, in case you didn't know.
    2. +3
      24 June 2026 17: 32
      Quote from solar
      A full-fledged "Four Axis Powers Pact" was being prepared.

      He did not prepare because the USSR did not agree with the role assigned to him.
      1. -1
        24 June 2026 18: 36
        But you can't tell from Molotov's photo.
        He was fully prepared and did not refuse the offer.
        It was Hitler who did something stupid...
        1. +3
          24 June 2026 21: 27
          Quote from solar
          But you can't tell from Molotov's photo.

          Do you want one of the greatest politicians of those years to have all his plans visible not just on his face, but in his photograph? laughing
          Quote from solar
          He was fully prepared and did not refuse the offer.

          One of Molotov's (and not only his) most important tasks was to determine whether Hitler would view the USSR as an equal ally and whether he was willing to take the USSR's interests into account. It quickly became clear that the answer to both questions was "no." From then on, Soviet diplomacy was subordinated to one goal: to postpone the start of the war until 1942.
          1. 0
            24 June 2026 21: 47
            One of Molotov's most important tasks (and not only his) was to find out whether Hitler would see the USSR as an equal ally and whether he was ready to take into account the interests of the USSR.

            So it is known that he was ready. There were problems with Italy.
            It quickly became clear that the answer to both questions was "no."

            Interesting. Did you determine this from the photograph or do you have any other evidence?
            From then on, the USSR's diplomacy was subordinated to one goal - to postpone the start of the war until 1942.

            This is actually quite curious. Our president, for example, ordered a combing through the archives but found no evidence that we were preparing for war with Germany, which he then wrote about. Do you have more access to information than the president?
            1. +2
              24 June 2026 22: 17
              Quote from solar
              So it is known that he was ready. There were problems with Italy.

              The problem was precisely Hitler.
              Quote from solar
              or is there any evidence?

              Foreign policy documents of those years, correspondence, reports, etc.
              Quote from solar
              This is actually quite curious. Our president, for example, ordered a combing through the archives but found no evidence that we were preparing for war with Germany.

              What year? :)))
              1. +1
                24 June 2026 22: 24
                The problem was precisely Hitler.

                Yes, he turned out to be a stupid man. But he didn't advertise it, so the attack was sudden.
                Foreign policy documents of those years, correspondence, reports, etc.

                What kind of documents are these?
                What year? :)))

                What year? Scraping? For the 75th anniversary of Victory Day.
                1. 0
                  25 June 2026 00: 21
                  If Hitler had been stupid, he would not have devoured all of Western Europe.
                  1. 0
                    25 June 2026 08: 34
                    If I had been smart, I wouldn't have lost the war.
                    1. 0
                      25 June 2026 10: 47
                      Napoleon wasn't stupid, but he still lost. It's not a matter of intellect or stupidity... Hitler started the war against the wrong people...
                2. +1
                  25 June 2026 08: 53
                  Quote from solar
                  What kind of documents are these?

                  Listen, they had a twenty-volume set:)))) I abandoned WWII a long time ago, so I don’t remember the volume number.
                  Quote from solar
                  What year?

                  You are making a statement
                  Quote from solar
                  Our president, for example, ordered a combing through of the archives but found no evidence that we were preparing for war with Germany.

                  Can you refer to this speech by VVP?
                  1. +1
                    25 June 2026 09: 06
                    This is Putin's article for the 75th anniversary of Victory.
                    And in this regard, I can responsibly state that there are no archival documents that would confirm the version about the USSR’s intention to start a preventive war against Germany.
                    1. +2
                      25 June 2026 09: 14
                      Quote from solar
                      There are no archival documents that would confirm the version about the USSR's intention to start a preventive war against Germany.

                      Exactly. I'm writing to you about Stalin preparing for a war that would begin in 1942. What does a preemptive attack have to do with it? :)))) It seems to fit the context of my phrase.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      From then on, the USSR's diplomacy was subordinated to one goal - to postpone the start of the war until 1942.

                      It is clear that they were preparing for Germany's attack on the USSR, and not the other way around
                      1. +1
                        25 June 2026 09: 21
                        I am writing to you that Stalin was preparing for the war that would begin in 1942.

                        We were preparing for any war, not specifically with Germany, that's obvious. England and the United States were even greater enemies to us than Germany. And in Germany, at least the socialists (albeit nationalists) were in power, they celebrated May Day officially, just like us, and Hitler was a commoner, not some lord or industrialist. We already had a positive experience with Germany, dividing spheres of influence. It's now well-known that Hitler's attack was the result of a gross misjudgment of the situation, but why should we base our policy on the assumption that he would make such a gross error?
                      2. +2
                        25 June 2026 09: 23
                        Quote from solar
                        We were preparing for any war, and not specifically with Germany, that’s obvious.

                        A German attack was expected, and the army was built specifically to fight it—the mechanized corps, for example, were our response to the 20,000 tanks that our intelligence managed to count among the Germans...
                      3. -1
                        25 June 2026 09: 32
                        Tanks were primarily built until September 1, 1939, when the situation changed dramatically, and we received not only a non-aggression pact with Germany, but also a friendship treaty and secret agreements on the division of spheres of influence. After that, tank production proceeded by inertia. And even more so after November 1940, when we received, at Germany's initiative, an offer to fully join them. The accession fell through due to our exaggerated demands—we had acted similarly with the Allies after the war, demanding Libya, the Turkish Straits, the right to occupy Japan, and much more (which is why we never signed a peace treaty with the Japanese). Even though the post-war world order had long been agreed upon with the Allies at several conferences, we decided to revise the agreement, and the negotiations ended similarly to those with Germany.
                      4. +2
                        25 June 2026 09: 50
                        Sorry, but with a timeline like that, it belongs on alternative history. The formation of the 21st MK alone doesn't fit at all.
                        Quote from solar
                        From then on, tank construction continued by inertia.
                      5. -1
                        25 June 2026 10: 04
                        Sorry, but with a timeline like that, this should be in alternative history.

                        It's not my fault that he doesn't fit with your views.
                        The formation of 21 MK alone does not fit in with

                        Were there tags on the tanks? "To Dresden," "To Leipzig," "To Baden-Baden"? And a categorical ban on using them for other purposes?
                      6. +2
                        25 June 2026 10: 10
                        Quote from solar
                        It's not my fault that he doesn't fit with your views.

                        Oh well, my views are just not consistent with history. Can you prove that?
                        Quote from solar
                        From then on, tank construction continued by inertia.

                        Tell us at the same time how ChTZ was adapted for the KV in 1940 "by inertia"
                        Quote from solar
                        Were there tags on the tanks?

                        No, there were documents that showed the strength of the Wehrmacht with which it could attack, and after this there were changes in the staffing structure of the Red Army.
                      7. -1
                        25 June 2026 10: 37
                        Well, never mind my views - they don't fit in with history at all.

                        It fits perfectly. Most tanks were built before 1939, with the peak being 1936—4809 units—when the Germans' tank inventory was a token one.
                        Tell us at the same time how ChTZ was adapted for the KV in 1940 "by inertia"

                        So what? Tanks continued to be produced, just as before.
                        and after this there were changes in the staffing structure of the Red Army

                        It's logical - they saw the Germans' combat experience, gained their own in Spain and the Far East, and began to somehow use it at home.
                      8. +2
                        25 June 2026 10: 51
                        Quote from solar
                        Fits perfectly.

                        Sergey, you love asking for references. Please provide the reference that led you to conclude that tanks continued to be built "out of inertia."
                        Quote from solar
                        It's logical - they saw the Germans' combat experience, gained their own in Spain and the Far East, and began to somehow use it at home.

                        You didn't see the main thing - the Red Army was deploying a staff that was not sufficient for the tanks it had, despite the fact that a significant portion of the tanks it had were not suitable for the MK at all.
                      9. +1
                        25 June 2026 10: 58
                        Sergey, you love asking for references. Please provide the reference that led you to conclude that tanks continued to be built "out of inertia."

                        If you don't like it "out of inertia," let it continue as it was before. Tanks are necessary for any war.
                        You didn't see the main thing - the Red Army was deploying a staff that was not sufficient for the tanks it had, despite the fact that a significant portion of the tanks it had were not suitable for the MK at all.

                        Reorganizing the army is like renovating an apartment—you can start it, but you can't finish it. New experience emerges—they reorganize.
                      10. 0
                        25 June 2026 12: 43
                        But did he really want to see it?
                      11. -1
                        25 June 2026 12: 42
                        You're lying again. In 1936, our tanks were also symbolic—the T-26 and BT. But by the start of the war, the Germans had the anything but symbolic PzIII and PzIV.
                        How many tanks were produced "by inertia"?
                        1936 - 3,799 pcs.
                        1937 - 2,855 pcs.
                        1938 - 2,855 pcs.
                        1939 - 2,855 pcs.
                        1940 - 2,855 pcs.
                        By 1937, it became clear that the T-26 and BT tanks suffered from numerous defects, so production was reduced to address them. Production then began to recover, almost reaching its 1936 level. In 1940, production declined slightly due to the introduction of new-generation tanks—the T-34, KV, and T-40.
                        saw the combat experience of the Germans
                        What? That the Germans only had air power in Spain? And they even reached Paris without resistance, using drugs?
                      12. -1
                        25 June 2026 12: 30
                        Don't argue with him - he's lying on purpose! He always lies!
                      13. -1
                        25 June 2026 12: 28
                        So this is clearly a foreign agent. He always writes in this vein.
                      14. 0
                        25 June 2026 10: 35
                        In this case, the slowdown in the production of old vehicles may be connected with the plan to put new vehicles on the assembly line, which were actually put into production in 40.
                      15. -1
                        25 June 2026 10: 52
                        The mere production of tanks and reorganization of the army don't indicate that this was done solely for the war with Germany. From love to hate is only one step. Today, England and the United States are bitter enemies, tomorrow, allies. Just as we were preparing exclusively for defense. The Germans attacked Poland, and we also considered Finland defensive. The Germans also attacked us defensively. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor defensively. There is no such thing as a ministry of attack, only a ministry of defense.
                      16. -1
                        25 June 2026 12: 47
                        Today England and the United States are bitter enemies.
                        Well, yes, that's why Trump first went to Great Britain, then King Charles went to the USA.
                        Germans attack Poland
                        The Germans devoured their opponents' weakest link. At the same time, they tested the reaction of Great Britain and France—zero. And they prepared a springboard for an attack on the USSR. Hitler acted very deliberately; it was only in 1943 that his plans failed.
                        The Germans also attacked us defensively.
                        Well, yes, and defensively they burned villages in Belarus and bombed hospital trains. Are you a fascist? Just say so, what's there to hide?
                        The Japanese launched a defensive attack on Pearl Harbor.
                        What were they defending themselves against?
                        There is no ministry of attack
                        How about the US now?
                      17. -1
                        25 June 2026 12: 27
                        There's no need to make things up, especially if you've only read books about the war written by British intelligence. Tank production in the USSR began in the early 30s, and production volumes only increased. The most powerful Soviet tanks, the T-34 and KV, appeared just before the war.
                        Hitler cultivated relations with the USSR to prevent the formation of an alliance against him. Hitler never viewed the USSR as a full-fledged ally, only an adversary to be destroyed—again, read Mein Kapf, written more than a decade earlier. The post-war world order only began to be determined in 1941-42 at the Washington Conference.
                        You are either DELIBERATELY LYING or you enjoy being lied to.
                      18. 0
                        26 June 2026 15: 58
                        Hitler never considered the USSR as a full-fledged ally, only an enemy that must be destroyed - again, read "Mein Kapf", written more than 10 years earlier.

                        That's exactly it, in 15 years, in a completely different situation.
                        Tanks began to be built in the USSR in the early 30s, and production volumes only increased.

                        The peak of tank production was 1936.
                        You are either DELIBERATELY LYING or you enjoy being lied to.

                      19. -1
                        26 June 2026 17: 30
                        The "Ost" plan for the destruction of the USSR and its population was written just before the war. The program for the destruction of the USSR and its population began in the first days of the war.
                        They could have just said that you are a fascist, why hide it and dress up in other clothes?
                      20. 0
                        26 June 2026 14: 02
                        So when did the T-34 and KV tanks go into production, and how many were produced before June 1941? What inertia, the start of production of far more complex and expensive tanks.
                      21. +1
                        26 June 2026 15: 57
                        Do you think that the models shouldn't have changed?
                      22. 0
                        27 June 2026 08: 29
                        Firstly, the transition to new tank TYPES (not models) is always accompanied by some reduction in production volumes. New developments are always more difficult at first, especially if they are technically more complex.
                        Secondly, comparisons are silly without taking this complexity and cost into account. You'll discover that the actual labor costs of producing a medium tank, and especially a heavy one, exceed those of a light tank. One KV tank, in this regard, is like several T-26s.
                        Thirdly. Back then, tanks were most often viewed as a means of infantry fire support. Light tanks were perfectly adequate (and often even preferable) for this purpose. But medium and especially heavy tanks were often (and still are sometimes) viewed specifically as a means of countering enemy tanks. Let's recall when the Germans acquired Tigers and Panthers. It was precisely then that they encountered the widespread use of serviceable Red Army tanks as a means of countering the numerous T-34s.
                        How many countries back then (in 1939-1941) had tanks in significant numbers? A few... and primarily Germany. So this is quite clear evidence that the USSR was preparing for war, primarily with Germany.
            2. -1
              25 June 2026 07: 52
              Quote from solar
              Our president, for example, ordered a combing through the archives but found no evidence that we were preparing for war with Germany, which he then wrote about. Do you have more access to information than the president?

              Oh, the country has expanded its army exponentially, starting the formation of 30 MKs exclusively for parades. There are no enemies, only buddies in Europe since 1940. No, we need to be careful with you (in the mask), they say stupidity is contagious.
              1. +1
                25 June 2026 08: 35
                What nonsense? Who said there are no enemies? Did you make that up yourself?
                1. -1
                  25 June 2026 11: 01
                  Quote from solar
                  Who said there are no enemies? Did you make that up yourself?

                  21 MK began to be built in 1941. A thousand tanks each, and primarily in the western districts.
                  Quote from solar
                  What makes you think that the USSR was preparing for war specifically with Germany?

                  Borrow your neighbor's brain, at least for a while. That's not possible. (See above). Only Switzerland remains in Europe. The rest are allies (including France) of Germany. And that's why Britain threatened us, to expand its army like that?
                  Quote from solar
                  Most of the tanks were built before 1939, with the peak in 1936 - 4809 units, when the Germans had symbolic tanks.

                  And our T-26 and BT tanks are purely symbolic. The German 3-series was still a tank in 1941, and even the reinforced 2-series (well, if you don't include the sides). We have T-34 and KV tanks, and they wanted to produce them. (They also tinkered with the T-50 for the German 3-series, and it's good they didn't start). And this transition to heavier tanks reduced production. And the plan was to build 30 MKs with 1034 tanks each. So what's the point? If we're friends, the beer (Bavarian) is thick. Eh?
            3. 0
              25 June 2026 08: 22
              Quote from solar
              Our president, for example, ordered a combing through the archives but found no evidence that we were preparing for war with Germany, which he then wrote about. Do you have more access to information than the president?


              The point was that there were no plans to attack the Reich first! The USSR was preparing for a defensive war, something that was never hidden by anyone.
              Yeah, the adoption of a law on universal military service (which allowed the Red Army's numbers to increase exponentially in the three years before the war), a plan to modernize and reform the Armed Forces (developing and producing new types and even models of weapons), and the construction of fortified areas on the USSR's new western border—sort of, like, nothing better to do? Well, say hello to your neighbor, the spherical horse, with whom you seem to be living in a vacuum. tongue
              1. +1
                25 June 2026 08: 36
                The USSR was preparing for a defensive war, which was never hidden by anyone.

                What makes you think that the USSR was preparing for war specifically with Germany?
                1. -1
                  25 June 2026 12: 51
                  And with whom? Japan was defeated and put on hold for now. And the Japanese had other plans. Preventative measures against a British and French attack were taken, but just in case, nothing more.
                2. 0
                  26 June 2026 07: 55
                  Quote from solar
                  What makes you think that the USSR was preparing for war specifically with Germany?


                  Strictly speaking, the USSR was preparing for war with a possible coalition of imperialist powers. Soviet strategists assumed that potential adversaries would have a numerical superiority in manpower. To compensate for this potential superiority, they produced light tanks in such large quantities to enhance the firepower of their infantry divisions. And yes, they believed that Germany, in close alliance with Poland, would play the main role in aggression (during Pilsudski's time, everything was heading toward a military alliance between these powers). Both Germany and Poland were infected with revanchism and Russophobia/anti-Sovietism, so the threat was more than likely. Again, let's look at geography. Germany, allied with Poland, would be the easiest country to stage an aggression against. Not France, of course; it's far from our borders. England? Its capabilities for conducting large-scale land combat were limited, and the British always preferred to fight through proxy forces. In fact, after Hitler came to power, the idea of ​​"channeling" his possible aggression to the East became popular, and the British voiced precisely this idea.
              2. -1
                25 June 2026 12: 49
                He doesn't have a spherical horse, but the SBU, USAID, and British intelligence "as neighbors."
        2. 0
          26 June 2026 13: 56
          And I saw, at one time, photos and videos (on TV) of how L. Brezhnev and M. Thatcher conducted negotiations.
          They probably also wanted to form a military alliance... maybe to defeat Argentina or someone else. laughing
          Who knows what they discussed. How did they know it was a military alliance? Did God whisper something?
          1. +1
            26 June 2026 16: 03
            How do we know that it is a military alliance?

            Is it bad luck to read the link?
            1. -1
              27 June 2026 08: 36
              Quote from solar
              Is it bad luck to read the link?


              It's not my destiny, nor is there any desire to read such fabrications. They're in the same boat as the "Katyn case materials." Tons of such nonsense have been fabricated since 1992.
              You still haven't presented the actual consequences of these "negotiations" to the studio. What did you ultimately agree on? If there's no result, what's the point? Just talk to buy time and put pressure on a third party. "See, we're negotiating with those damned Nazis (or those damned communists). So come quickly and compromise with us, or you'll be on your last legs..."
              It's a common thing these days, too, that all sorts of negotiations are being conducted and supposedly deals are being prepared. laughing
    3. 0
      25 June 2026 00: 17
      The so-called "Suvorov" didn't write anything. It was the British secret services.
    4. -3
      25 June 2026 00: 20
      solar
      No need to LIE, Mr. Ukrainian agentWe had no such plans. Fascism had been reviled in our country since 1918, and cooperation with Italy and Germany was reluctant, as Britain, France, and the United States weren't particularly keen on collaborating with us. Conversely, Germany and Italy sought to prevent a possible alliance between the USSR and its future allies.
      1. 0
        25 June 2026 08: 43
        Fascism has been criticized in our country since 1918.

        From love to hate is just one step. The capitalists of England and the United States were criticized even more, but that didn't stop us from becoming their closest allies.
        1. -1
          25 June 2026 10: 59
          You've been listening to too many liberal myths. The Soviet leadership was well aware of the fundamental differences between the USSR and the surrounding capitalist countries, and the complete incompatibility of their political systems. Georgiy Dimitrov even unequivocally defined fascism as an extreme form of capitalist dictatorship. And this view was firmly held by the Soviet leadership.
          And if there were only "capitalists" around, who else was there to collaborate with? Russia, at least now, has a "global south." The USSR didn't even have that...
          Moreover, the USSR desperately needed equipment and technology from its "opponents." During the Great Depression, entire factories were exported from the United States. Furthermore, Comrade Stalin uttered a very wise phrase when purchasing the newest battleship from Germany: "Buying a warship from them means we've won two ships: we have one more, and they have one less."
          As for the US, the US became the "tyrant of the world" precisely after World War II. Before the war, many in the US were very sympathetic to the USSR, and communist influence was very strong. To the point that almost all the physicists who participated in the Manhattan Project were former communists or "sympathizers." And politically, the US and Russia frequently collaborated, from the founding of the US until 1945... and even after. Examples:
          1. The USSR and the USA, through joint efforts, stopped the Franco-British-Israeli aggression against Egypt.
          2. The USSR and the USA forced South Africa to destroy its nuclear weapons and curtail its nuclear program.
          Moreover, this is only now being discussed—it wasn't just the USSR but also the US that destroyed the global colonial system. True, each superpower had its own interests, but their joint, albeit independent, efforts yielded results...
          1. +1
            26 June 2026 16: 20
            Comrade Stalin also said a very wise phrase when purchasing the newest battleship from Germany: "Buying a warship from them means that we have won two ships: we have one more, and they have one less."

            The cruiser was never completed in the USSR and was written off unfinished, while the Germans received over 100 million Reichsmarks from us and used them to build other weapons.
            1. -1
              26 June 2026 17: 27
              But, nevertheless, the Germans did not receive one large warship. And its guns were quite successful in crushing the Germans. German guns, and German shells
        2. 0
          26 June 2026 08: 15
          Quote from solar
          The capitalists of England and the States were criticized even more, but this did not prevent us from becoming their closest allies.


          Not immediate, but purely situational. Moscow understood perfectly well how long such an alliance would last after the defeat of the Reich and Japan. An alliance with Satan to exorcise demons, nothing more.
          Well, and how these "closest allies" of the USSR delayed the opening of a second front is also quite telling.
          By and large, the United States and England were also quite the allies back then. In exchange for Lend-Lease, Roosevelt made demands of Churchill that led to the collapse of the British Empire after the end of WWII.
          Capitalists can't be close allies even among themselves. "Bolivar can't carry two," as the saying goes, and only one power can be hegemonic in the "free world" (the greatest and most significant freedom is the freedom to rip out the throats of all competitors).
          1. +1
            26 June 2026 16: 09
            Not the closest ones...

            Yes, it couldn't be any closer, they almost kissed each other on the gums.
            In exchange for Lend-Lease, Roosevelt made the following demands of Churchill:

            Only at the initial stage. Then the assistance was free. Before that, no one had done that at all.
            "Bolivar can't stand two"

            An interesting quote. I remember our president using it...
            1. 0
              27 June 2026 08: 45
              Judas and Christ also seemed to kiss.

              Ah... so you're out of the loop. Are you aware of the terms of Lend-Lease for Britain? In exchange for military-technical assistance, Roosevelt demanded (and received) free access for American corporations to the markets of the British colonies and dominions. The British had previously blocked foreign capital from these markets with protectionist measures, fearing American competition. But they had to give in to Roosevelt's conditions. As a result, the economic conditions for the future collapse of the British Empire were created. And in some former British colonies, local currencies are still called "dollars." As we know, there are no Canadian pounds, Australian pounds, and the like; there are dollars.

              The aid wasn't free, no nonsense. Britain paid off its Lend-Lease debts even later than Russia.
      2. -1
        25 June 2026 12: 52
        I wonder who downvoted me and why? Show me your faces! And try to refute everything written, starting with the second sentence.
    5. +1
      25 June 2026 08: 06
      Another liberal nonsense.
      1. The USSR had no plans to join the Axis powers. The "Friendship Treaty" with Germany was merely intended to drive another wedge between the Reich and Japan, to render their military alliance untenable. It succeeded, another victory for Soviet diplomacy.
      2. Neither Hitler, nor Stalin, nor Hitler's allies seriously considered the possibility of such an alliance, even theoretically. Yeah, the Japanese Mikado and Mussolini actually dreamed of an alliance with Stalin. Crazy bullshit.
      3. Aha, Hitler decided to wage a little war with the tiny USSR to intimidate great and mighty Britain! Open Day at the local madhouse? laughing
      4. Molotov never conducted any negotiations on "full annexation." Molotov stalled for time as long as possible, and no more. The USSR was never an ally of the Reich, and never intended to be. But the liberals lie like they breathe.
      1. 0
        25 June 2026 08: 39
        The USSR did not plan to join the Axis powers.

        I didn't just plan it, I negotiated about it.
        Yeah, Hitler decided to wage a little war with the little USSR to intimidate the great and mighty Britain!

        That's right. He was a fool; he watched us fight Finland and drew the wrong conclusions.
        1. 0
          25 June 2026 12: 54
          Quote from solar
          I didn't just plan it, I negotiated about it.


          But of course, you have no evidence that the negotiations were specifically about joining the Axis alliance. No transcripts, no final communiqués or resolutions. Secondly, conducting negotiations and concluding a real agreement are two very different things. Negotiations are often conducted not with the goal of actually concluding an alliance or even some kind of compromise, but to buy time for something entirely different. You don't have to look far for examples... not long ago, some negotiations were held in Minsk and Istanbul... and? What was the result? And also... if a state is truly determined to join some collective union, it must negotiate with all its members. So, is there any factual evidence about the USSR's negotiations with Japan and Italy? Or, as with Germany, is it just empty blah-blah-blah?

          Quote from solar
          He was a stupid man; he watched us fight with Finland and drew the wrong conclusions.


          I don't sympathize with Hitler, but I still don't consider him a fool. Stupid people don't rise to power in a country and accomplish as much as he did. Did he whisper his thoughts in your ear, or is this just another figment of your imagination? Excuse me, what have you actually governed, or are you governing, to label other leaders fools? It's worth being humble, after all...
          1. 0
            26 June 2026 16: 10
            But of course, you have no evidence that the negotiations were specifically about joining the Axis alliance.

            you were given a link
        2. -1
          25 June 2026 12: 56
          I didn't just plan it, I negotiated about it.
          Give me at least one piece of evidence, at least one link, or quote that shows that these are not your morbid fantasies - come to the studio!
          He was a stupid man, he watched us fight with Finland.
          Yes, yes, he was very stupid, especially when he analyzed the beginning of the Finnish war. He sent his troops into Finland and supplied them with weapons. And at the same time, he gave them to the Romanians... Very stupid, but we lost over 20 million, and the war lasted four years...
          1. -1
            26 June 2026 16: 11
            Yes, yes, he was very stupid.

            That's right, a smart person wouldn't have attacked us.
            1. -1
              26 June 2026 17: 28
              Is this your only criterion for intelligence/stupidity? So why are they attacking us now? Are they also stupid?
      2. -1
        25 June 2026 12: 54
        You won't convince him; he's lying deliberately. Books about fascism were published in the USSR, starting in 1923. I just happen to have a reprint in my hands—you can buy it on Ozon.
    6. +1
      25 June 2026 12: 49
      Quote from solar
      In the 1980s and 2000s, the most popular promoter of this idea was former Soviet intelligence officer Vladimir Rezun, who defected to the enemy. He wrote under the pseudonym Viktor Suvorov. His most famous work is "The Icebreaker."

      Suvorov wrote based on the materials available to him at the time. It's now known that he was completely mistaken; we had no plans for war against the Nazis, nor could we have had any (Putin wrote about this in his famous article for the 75th anniversary of Victory Day). Quite the contrary: we were actively working to fully join the alliance of Germany, Japan, and Italy as a fully-fledged fourth party. Not just the Treaty of Friendship and the Non-Aggression Pact, which we already had, but full accession to the alliance of Germany, Japan, and Italy.
      A full-fledged "Four Axis Powers Pact" was being prepared.
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пакт_четырёх_держав
      Only Hitler's sheer stupidity, eager to conclude peace with England as quickly as possible (and England was categorically opposed), coupled with our weakness during the Finnish War, led to Hitler's decision to attack us and wage a "small victorious war" to intimidate England. For years, historians have been trying to figure out why our leadership missed the start of the war, but in light of what's now known, a simple, yet unflattering, explanation has been given: no one in our country expected Germany to attack, since we were at that moment preparing to become its closest ally. No one could have expected such sheer stupidity from Hitler, but he did it.
      In the photo, Molotov negotiates with the Germans in November 1940 in Berlin about the full annexation of the USSR to the Axis powers.

      Good theory, you just need to back it up with documents, we're waiting.
  8. +4
    24 June 2026 13: 33
    Ultimately, through subversive warfare, the masters of England and the United States succeeded in pitting the Germans and Russians against each other once again. The true masters of London and Washington, global finance capital, hoped to pit the two great powers against each other first by destroying Russia, the Soviet global project based on social justice and the ethics of conscience, and an alternative to the slave-owning "new world order" being built by the masters of the Western world. Then, they would stab the weakened German Reich in the back.

    Great plan! Reliable as a Swiss watch! ©
    First, provide the Hitlerite regime with a food and raw material base that would allow it to eliminate rationing (and take Spain into its rationing system – hello to Gibraltar), launch the Reich's industry to its full potential, and not rely on supplies from neutral countries. Moreover, this base would be inaccessible to air raids. At the same time, provide the Reich with a safe place to evacuate its industries.
    The advantage is that it will free the Reich from the need to divide its forces into two strategic directions and maintain a huge mobilized army in case of an invasion by the "Red Hordes" (120 divisions in the East just for defense). The Germans will be able to demobilize some of their troops, which will further increase industrial and agricultural productivity. It will even be possible to aim for William our Shakespeare "Plan Z".

    And then the real masters of London and Washington They'll stab you in the back... wait—what back? Why would the Reich keep an army in the East if the USSR is already finished? In that case, the Reich would meet the West's attack head-on.

    In short, the takeover of the USSR would have been advantageous for the true masters of London and Washington, if they had wanted to checkmate themselves. For even victory in a war against such a Reich would have been Pyrrhic.
    1. -1
      25 June 2026 13: 06
      And then the real masters of London and Washington will stab you in the back... wait - which back?
      In 1939-41, the USSR had to maintain additional air power in the Transcaucasus, as Great Britain and France were planning strikes on oil fields in Azerbaijan from their bases in the Middle East—this was discovered by Soviet intelligence. Let me also recall Plan Unthinkable, the British strike on the USSR in 1945.
      They wanted to checkmate themselves
      Let me remind you that Hitler rose to power with American money. American companies operated freely in Germany throughout the war. In 1943, Ford simultaneously launched the same car model in both the US and Germany.
      Hitler considered the Anglo-Saxons and the French "part of the German race." British politicians and the royal family had close ties to the Nazis. Why did Hess suddenly fly to Britain in the midst of the war? And then remain silent as a fish until he mysteriously "committed suicide"? If not Hitler, then the Nazi state suited these "masters" just fine, since Hitler pursued the same goals as they did.
      1. +2
        25 June 2026 15: 40
        Quote: futurohunter
        In 1939-41, the USSR had to maintain additional air forces in the Transcaucasus, because Great Britain and France were planning attacks on oil fields in Azerbaijan from their bases in the Middle East – this was discovered by Soviet intelligence.

        Yes, they had to. But that's not the 120 divisions and a couple of air fleets the Germans had to maintain even against the neutral USSR.
        Quote: futurohunter
        Hitler considered the Anglo-Saxons and the French "part of the German race." British politicians and the royal family had close ties to the Nazis. Why, then, did Hess suddenly fly to Britain in the midst of the war?

        And how did it all end? That's right – with arrest and imprisonment.
        If I remember correctly, Oswald Mosley said after the start of WWII that in the phrase "British fascist" the first word is "British". There are no people beyond the Canal.

        And who would have given Britain the choice of sides anyway? Its main creditor had already decided in 1940 that Hitler and the Euro-Reich were no longer acceptable. And in early 1941, a joint strategy for combat operations between the belligerent Britain and the still-neutral United States against the Axis was approved. And already in the spring of 1941, an American commission arrived in Britain to inspect the military infrastructure of the Homeland to select future locations for the American army.
        1. -1
          25 June 2026 20: 58
          not 120 divisions and a couple of air fleets, which the Germans had to maintain even against the neutral USSR
          Well, yes, well... Only these divisions and fleets in 1941, by some defensive miracle, invaded the USSR...
          And how did it all end?
          The Munich Agreement, and then the "Unthinkable" plan. Well, and the "Iron Curtain."
          Who would let Britain choose sides?
          In fact, it was the largest empire in the world, although it had already begun to crumble from all sides... The United States rose up later...
          its creditor had already decided in 1940 that Hitler and the Euroreich did not suit him
          Thanks to this, American companies successfully conducted business in Germany throughout the war...
          already in the spring of 1941, an American commission arrived in Britain to inspect the military infrastructure of the Metropolis
          A common misfortune united us. The US was also forced to fight, and not just reap the benefits of war.
          1. +1
            26 June 2026 12: 05
            Quote: futurohunter
            Well, yes, well... Only these divisions and fleets in 1941, by some defensive miracle, invaded the USSR...

            Once again: the forces Germany would have to deploy to defend against the Allies in Transcaucasia after a hypothetical victory over the USSR are far smaller than the forces it would have deployed in reality against a neutral USSR. And that's without even considering Turkey's position and pro-German sentiment in Iraq and Iran.
            So there will be no "stab in the back" from the Allies - the Reich will have enough strength to meet them face to face.
            Quote: futurohunter
            The Munich Agreement, and then the "Unthinkable" plan. Well, and the "Iron Curtain."

            The "Munich Betrayal" was the Allies' admission of their complete unpreparedness for war. Britain, for example, simply had nothing to fight with—pounds sterling, contracts, and blueprints couldn't buy much. So Chamberlain delayed the war as long as possible—in order to prepare for it. He had no doubt that Britain would have to fight.
            Quote: futurohunter
            In fact, it was the largest empire in the world, although it had already begun to crumble from all sides... The United States rose up later...

            Are we talking about the same Empire that, as early as 1940, began paying not with money, but with territory? And which, by 1941, was firmly hooked on Lend-Lease? wink
            Quote: futurohunter
            A common misfortune united us. The US was also forced to fight, and not just reap the benefits of war.

            It wasn't a common misfortune that forced the United States to fight, but rather a desire to reap the benefits of the war. To avoid a WWI-like outcome, where others skimmed off all the glory.
  9. +3
    24 June 2026 14: 27
    Ultimately, through subversive warfare, the masters of England and the United States succeeded in pitting the Germans and Russians against each other once again. The true masters of London and Washington, global finance capital, hoped that by pitting the two great powers against each other, they would first destroy Russia at the hands of the Germans,

    1. England and the USA wanted to pit Germany and the USSR against each other, but without Hitler’s catastrophic mistake this could not have happened.
    2. In 1941, the USA and England feared Germany incomparably more than they did as a direct rival for world hegemony.
    3. The USSR also feared Germany much more than it did in 1941, as it posed an existential threat to the existence of the Soviet state.
    1. +2
      25 June 2026 12: 57
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Ultimately, through subversive warfare, the masters of England and the United States succeeded in pitting the Germans and Russians against each other once again. The true masters of London and Washington, global finance capital, hoped that by pitting the two great powers against each other, they would first destroy Russia at the hands of the Germans,

      1. England and the USA wanted to pit Germany and the USSR against each other, but without Hitler’s catastrophic mistake this could not have happened.
      2. In 1941, the USA and England feared Germany incomparably more than they did as a direct rival for world hegemony.
      3. The USSR also feared Germany much more than it did in 1941, as it posed an existential threat to the existence of the Soviet state.

      Before you start making up conjectures, start with the economic state of the US. Something tells me they weren't paying attention, but you probably know better if you just make things up.
      1. +1
        25 June 2026 15: 49
        Quote from Etwas
        Before you start speculating, start with the economic state of the US; something tells me they weren't up to it.

        The main warmonger In the USA there was Roosevelt's team, which began to create an army even before the war.
        But before the war, the Senate and Congress couldn't see why the United States, sitting across two oceans, needed a ground army. An air force and a navy, yes, but what was the point of an army? It was pure isolationism, combined with a defensive strategy based on the navy and air force. The US ground forces were needed purely to finish off the survivors. Besides, a massive army is a very expensive undertaking, and the US budget, after the Great Depression, had plenty of other things to spend it on.
        Moreover, the isolationists, in principle, were not against the US participating in the war - but without direct intervention, purely through the sale of weapons and supplies.
        But as the situation in Europe worsened, FDR began to push the isolationists. Roosevelt's million, if I remember correctly, was in 1938. Subsequently, the preparation process was undermined, on the one hand, by a shortage of trained personnel and an industry that hadn't had time to develop, and on the other, by constant upward revisions of plans and the need to divert resources to arming a couple more armies.
        1. +1
          25 June 2026 20: 52
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote from Etwas
          Before you start speculating, start with the economic state of the US; something tells me they weren't up to it.

          The main warmonger In the USA there was Roosevelt's team, which began to create an army even before the war.
          But before the war, the Senate and Congress couldn't see why the United States, sitting across two oceans, needed a ground army. An air force and a navy, yes, but what was the point of an army? It was pure isolationism, combined with a defensive strategy based on the navy and air force. The US ground forces were needed purely to finish off the survivors. Besides, a massive army is a very expensive undertaking, and the US budget, after the Great Depression, had plenty of other things to spend it on.
          Moreover, the isolationists, in principle, were not against the US participating in the war - but without direct intervention, purely through the sale of weapons and supplies.
          But as the situation in Europe worsened, FDR began to push the isolationists. Roosevelt's million, if I remember correctly, was in 1938. Subsequently, the preparation process was undermined, on the one hand, by a shortage of trained personnel and an industry that hadn't had time to develop, and on the other, by constant upward revisions of plans and the need to divert resources to arming a couple more armies.

          Dear Sir, what are you even writing about? What army, what Senate? There was the Great Depression, the first global crisis. I gave you the direction, but you didn’t understand or maybe didn’t know about it at all. Anything can happen.
          1. 0
            26 June 2026 08: 42
            Quote from Etwas
            Dear Sir, what are you even writing about? What army, what Senate? There was the Great Depression, the first global crisis.


            The best way out of a major crisis is war!
            The Great Depression isn't the first crisis, by the way. There was a similar one at the beginning of the 20th century, simply called "the Depression." Russia was also affected by that crisis. The results were the Russo-Japanese War, the creation of the Federal Reserve System in the United States (1913), and World War I. World War II and its aftermath benefited the United States, including helping it overcome the negative side effects of Roosevelt's economic policies. By 1941, the United States had a hefty foreign (and domestic) national debt. The war and the Lend-Lease program boosted the US economy (the icing on the cake being the Bretton Woods agreements, which established the dollar as the world's reserve currency).
            So the game was clearly worth the candle, and the result was worth the effort. The US had actually wanted to subjugate the Europeans before, following the First World War, but that didn't quite work out, so a new world war was necessary.
          2. +1
            26 June 2026 16: 45
            Quote from Etwas
            Dear Sir, what are you even writing about? What army, what Senate? There was the Great Depression, the first global crisis. I gave you the direction, but you didn’t understand or maybe didn’t even know about it. Anything can happen.

            I'm afraid you're unaware of FDR's policies in the late 30s. Roosevelt pushed hard for the creation of a fully fledged ground force—even before the war in Europe. This was the same army the United States absolutely didn't need if its isolationist policies continued. Until then, it had existed in the form of three and a half divisions, with the rest divided between the Air Force and coastal defense.
            But the goal was different. The US basically didn't care about the USSR—it wasn't even factored into the pre-war plans for the war in Europe: fighting the Germans—fine, not fighting them—well, it didn't really matter. FDR was preparing for a major war in Europe—to enter it in time and make an undeniable contribution, so as not to miss out on the perks later, as happened after WWI.
        2. +2
          30 June 2026 17: 15
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The main instigator of the war in the USA was Roosevelt's team

          I agree. The Roosevelt administration's actions against Japan effectively forced it to launch military operations against the United States, England, and the Netherlands. As far as I understand, Tokyo didn't even attempt to devise plans to attack the United States until the summer of 1941.
  10. +1
    24 June 2026 17: 52
    Quote: parma
    A trivial example: at work, who do you write memos for? And if the memo is rejected, will you go to court or to the director?

    People usually write them for themselves. So they don't end up on the receiving end...
  11. -1
    24 June 2026 19: 06
    What’s most interesting is that there were options, we read the Internet.
    So, during the Finnish War, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations, then the UN, and effectively declared an aggressor state. Read the Wikipedia article.
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Исключение_СССР_из_Лиги_Наций
    Unfortunately, this is a historical fact.
    Next, the bombing of Ploiesti on July 13, 1941. Yes, it was necessary from a military point of view, but it was an offensive operation.
    The raid on Constanta on June 25-26 (on the third day of the war!!). Like many of our naval operations, it ended badly; there was no effect and there were losses :(
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Рейд_на_Констанцу
    And the icing on the cake was the repeated bombing of Berlin, starting on August 7-8.
    So Goebbels' boys and girls could concoct a myth that the attack on the USSR was forced.
    And finally, the Danube landing.
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дунайский_десант
    1. 0
      25 June 2026 00: 25
      Why did you write that? Is it true that Finland became a fascist state even before the word "fascism" was coined? And Romania entered the war against us on June 22, 1941?
      And Berlin was bombed during the most difficult days of the war.
      They always cook up something about enemies, and Goebbels' propaganda was one of the most brazen in history.
    2. +2
      25 June 2026 02: 51
      Quote: Not the fighter
      During the Finnish War, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations, then the UN, and was effectively declared an aggressor state.
      And when Finland invaded Soviet Russia in 1920-22 and grabbed part of Karelia, for some reason it was not called an aggressor. what

      Quote: Not the fighter
      Next, the bombing of Ploiesti on July 13, 1941. Yes, it was necessary from a military point of view, but it was an offensive operation.
      Hello, Uncle, Romania declared war on the USSR back on June 22nd. What claims can there be?!

      And the icing on the cake was the repeated bombing of Berlin, starting on August 7-8.
      What, that wasn't allowed either? We're not like that, are we?

      So Goebbels' boys and girls could concoct a myth that the attack on the USSR was forced.
      They concocted this even before the events you mentioned. There are no complaints against them; that's why they were Goebbels' men. The complaints are against those who now pretend to believe these myths, which even Goebbels himself didn't believe.
      1. -1
        25 June 2026 13: 08
        when Finland invaded Soviet Russia in 1920-22
        Finland became a fascist state even before Mussolini coined the word "fascism." And it began using the swastika long before Hitler.
    3. +1
      25 June 2026 08: 13
      Verbal diarrhea and nothing more.
      The points.
      1. In 1940, the League of Nations was a pure fiction, as some great powers had already abandoned it. It was empty talk, incapable of truly influencing the international situation, as it lacked practical leverage (the equivalent of the UN Security Council simply did not exist). Tellingly, the League of Nations had not even considered accusing the USSR of seizing Poland's eastern regions, tacitly accepting the USSR's neutral position in September 1939.
      2. Only an alternatively gifted expert can reproach "offensive operations" (?) after the actual start of the war. lol
      3. Are you, by any chance, one of Goebbels' boys and girls? You clearly sympathize with them, which is quite a hint... laughing
      1. +1
        25 June 2026 14: 48
        Any myth is based on facts.
        From my own memories:
        In the late 90s, I read a newspaper article, I don't remember which one. One of the reasons given for the deportation of Chechens was rampant banditry. The author argues that there was no rampant banditry there. If there was anything, it was only a few here and there. The reason: one motorized rifle battalion (truck-mounted fighters at the time) was allocated to fight banditry in Chechnya in 1942. This wasn't enough for all of Chechnya.
        So, two facts are used as a basis: 1. That troops were deployed (which is most likely what happened). 2. That there were only a few of them. Which is also a fact. If we take this into account alone, it turns out that there was no banditry in Chechnya; it's all a lie. That's how myths are born, and they're documented.
        Regarding the League of Nations, there were no enforcement mechanisms there from the start. Apparently, the League condemned Italy's aggression in Ethiopia, but nothing more was said.
        The rest are facts that exist. They can be interpreted in different ways.
        Are you, by any chance, one of Goebbels' boys and girls? You clearly sympathize with them, which is quite a hint...

        When you have no evidence to support your point of view, do you resort to personal attacks? A handy tactic in an argument.
        1. -1
          26 June 2026 08: 02
          The story about Chechnya in 1942 is simply a lie, by the way. Far greater forces were deployed. And back then, it wasn't just banditry, but a full-blown Chechen guerrilla war behind Soviet lines, while the latter were fighting in the Caucasus. Beria was simply obliged to take emergency measures, and he did. Ultimately (later), it came down to deportation. Resettlement of the local population is the most effective counterinsurgency method. Without popular support, the guerrillas simply can't continue their activities. You've clearly filled your head with all sorts of perestroika and liberal nonsense.

          And don’t sing so readily from other people’s voices, then you won’t be bullied. laughing
  12. 0
    25 June 2026 02: 36
    Quote: futurohunter
    The USSR's "conspiracy" with the Nazis allowed the war to be delayed for two years. Moreover, the USSR took back its historical lands, which the Nazis could have occupied.
    Collusion with the Nazis in 1939 avoided at a minimum a full-scale war with Japan, and at a maximum a war against the entire Anti-Commintern Bloc (Japan-Germany-Italy). Moreover, in the event of such a war, the USSR would have had no ally: England, France, and the United States would have supported Germany and Japan both morally and materially.
    1. -1
      25 June 2026 13: 14
      Not quite so. Japan suffered a serious morale blow at Khalkhin Gol. Moreover, it decided to replenish its resource base by acquiring Asian colonies. Another issue is that the Japanese were willing to listen to Hitler, but in the darkest days of 1941, they struck Pearl Harbor, not Siberia.
      Italy, Hungary, and Romania entered the war against the USSR on June 22, 1941. Italy probably withdrew only after its defeat at Stalingrad.
      England, France and the United States would support Germany and Japan both morally and materially.
      The United States didn't. Roosevelt was playing his own game. But France and Britain were ready to attack the USSR in 1940-41. They even had to maintain additional air power in the Transcaucasus.
      In fact, after the defeat, France supported Germany morally and materially
      1. -1
        25 June 2026 16: 27
        Quote: futurohunter
        Not quite so. Japan suffered a serious morale blow at Khalkhin Gol. Moreover, it decided to expand its resource base by acquiring Asian colonies.
        What's wrong? It was the USSR's treaty with Germany that kept Japan from starting a full-scale war: the Japanese realized that their ally in the Anti-Comminternet Pact wouldn't help them, at least not in the near future, and they were afraid to fight alone. So they swallowed the destruction of their entire army (no one could believe they would suffer such humiliation from Russia, defeated in 1905). And Prime Minister Hiranuma, who dreamed of a joint war against the USSR, was ousted, replaced by a proponent of conquering the southern seas. According to Japanese historian H. Teratani, "Never before or since in history has there been a case where a Japanese government resigned because of a treaty concluded between two other states.".
        Few people understand what kind of mousetrap the Soviet Union jumped out of in 1939.

        USA - no.
        US policy, even after the German attack on the USSR, was expressed by Senator and future President Harry Truman: "If we see that Germany is winning the war, we should help Russia, if Russia is winning, we should help Germany, and let them kill each other as much as possible." If they thought so in June 1941, when they were already helping England fight Germany, then you don’t have to be a genius of deduction to understand who they would have supported in 1939.
  13. -1
    25 June 2026 02: 57
    Quote: Des
    I specifically tried to read his debunkers. Not a single one of them (even if they're less readable) thoroughly refuted all the facts and conclusions of the traitor Rezun.
    Have you read this one?
    https://scepsis.net/library/id_2398.html
    1. -1
      25 June 2026 13: 16
      Why refute them if it is clear from the start that:
      1. The libels were written by British intelligence
      2. The purpose of the libel is to discredit the USSR, its history and leadership.
      And our narrow-minded hamsters and obvious traitors ate the shit with pleasure
      1. +1
        25 June 2026 16: 35
        It is always necessary to refute. To narrow-minded hamsters, which I once counted among my number, didn't believe these libels. If we do nothing and limit ourselves to mantras like "their intelligence cooked it all up" and "only traitors swallow it," then most people will believe these libels. He who controls people's minds wins.
  14. +2
    25 June 2026 03: 16
    What's the argument about, guys?
    What Suvorov writes is of course true, but it is only PART of the truth.
    The complete truth is that Hitler did not attack anyone at all, and was not at all to blame for World War II!

    Let's look at the FACTS:

    On the night of September 1, 1939, terrorists attacked the German city of Danzig from Polish territory. Poland brazenly denied its involvement and refused to punish the terrorists. Isn't that sufficient reason to temporarily occupy the country and destroy the terrorist organizations within it? Didn't the US do the same in Afghanistan after September 11? Isn't Israel constantly doing the same in Lebanon, Syria, not to mention the devastated Gaza Strip?
    After the war, the victors sided with the terrorists and claimed that Germany had attacked its own city. But only complete fools or cynical liars could repeat such nonsense.

    England and France declared war on Germany themselves. There can be no claims against Hitler on this matter.

    Hitler attacked the USSR because the Red Army was concentrated on the border with Germany... pardon me, with German-occupied Poland. Well, that's a perfectly valid reason.

    - On August 21, 1939, at a regular Zionist congress, Chaim Weinzmann (future President of Israel) DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE JEWISH PEOPLE! How about that?
    After this, keeping Jews in prisoner-of-war camps was no longer a crime, but a legitimate measure of self-defense. The US did the same with the Japanese (1/16th of Japanese blood was enough).
    The myth that Jews were deliberately exterminated in German concentration camps, even using "gas chambers," has long been debunked. In Europe, this myth is only maintained by imprisoning those who don't believe it. Why would a Europe that boasts of its freedoms suddenly start jailing people for not believing propaganda? Europe hasn't seen anything like this since the Middle Ages.

    Hitler temporarily occupied Norway to ensure his own security from a shortage of raw materials (iron ore). Who would dare blame him for that?! After all, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was also carried out to ensure energy security, as the "coalition" politicians later admitted. And now Trump openly boasts about kidnapping Maduro and appropriating Venezuelan oil.

    In March 1941, a military coup took place in Yugoslavia, and the communists came to power. So Hitler did the right thing by occupying Yugoslavia and overthrowing the communists. For the same reason, the United States repeatedly invaded Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, and many other places.

    Greece stationed British troops on its territory—troops of a country at war with Germany! And what did they expect after that?

    - With the US, everything is generally clear - the American fleet has been tracking German submarines and guiding British cruisers to them since July 1941; and there were cases when it itself attacked German submarines (this fact has long been known and the US does not deny it).
    Not to mention that the US was preparing a surprise attack on Japan, which the Japanese thwarted at the last moment (for those interested, the details are here: https://royallib.com/read/grizun_vladimir/kak_viktor_suvorov_sochinyal_istoriyu.html#779059
    Japan, by the way, is Germany's ally. Hitler acted honorably by standing up for an ally who was the victim of treacherous aggression.
    _______________________________________________________________________
    For those who didn't understand, it was a joke, but using Rezun's methods I can prove even more.
    1. +1
      30 June 2026 17: 09
      Quote: The Meaning of Life
      Hitler temporarily occupied Norway to ensure his safety from a shortage of raw materials (iron ore).

      Forgot about herring! Norwegians are terrible herring eaters. And what would a Reich be without herring?
  15. -1
    25 June 2026 06: 19
    This myth comes from the liberal concept that that war was a war of “democracies” against “dictatorships,” and it was necessary to instill in the Russians a guilt complex: that the USSR (a dictatorship) was on the wrong side, and only forcedly joined the "warriors of light and freedom" (i.e. the anti-Hitler coalition) after his "weapon" (the Nazis) got out of control and turned against its creator.

    And so, if the USSR had been the first to attack the 3rd Reich, then neither morally nor legally From this perspective, accusing the USSR of aggression would have been impossible. The Nazi regime was subject to dismantling anyway, the anti-Hitler coalition had been formed and was at war with Germany (joining this coalition would have been easy), and no one would have sided with the Nazis (everyone who could had already done so). And the legal basis was ironclad: the allied obligations to Yugoslavia.

    From a moral standpoint, there is nothing wrong with attacking an enemy. Rather, one might criticize Stalin for NOT struck first...
  16. +1
    25 June 2026 13: 08
    Quote: Pushkowed
    This myth comes from the liberal concept that that war was a war of “democracies” against “dictatorships,” and it was necessary to instill in the Russians a guilt complex: that the USSR (a dictatorship) was on the wrong side, and only forcedly joined the "warriors of light and freedom" (i.e. the anti-Hitler coalition) after his "weapon" (the Nazis) got out of control and turned against its creator.

    And so, if the USSR had been the first to attack the 3rd Reich, then neither morally nor legally From this perspective, accusing the USSR of aggression would have been impossible. The Nazi regime was subject to dismantling anyway, the anti-Hitler coalition had been formed and was at war with Germany (joining this coalition would have been easy), and no one would have sided with the Nazis (everyone who could had already done so). And the legal basis was ironclad: the allied obligations to Yugoslavia.

    From a moral standpoint, there is nothing wrong with attacking an enemy. Rather, one might criticize Stalin for NOT struck first...

    So the USSR was a dictatorship, and it's still a dictatorship now, and in China and even the US—in all these and other countries, there are many taboo topics, let's say, that contradict the ruling Elites. Speaking from a political perspective.
  17. 0
    27 June 2026 13: 31
    Quote: Alexey RA
    The US basically didn't care about the USSR—it wasn't even factored into the pre-war plans for the war in Europe: fighting the Germans—fine, not fighting them—well, it didn't really matter. FDR was preparing for a major war in Europe—to enter it in time and make an undeniable contribution, so as not to miss out on the perks later, as happened after WWI.


    That's a huge stretch. It's just not true. The USSR factor was very significant for the American elite, even before the war. It wasn't without reason that the Yankees, despite their anti-communism, assisted the USSR in developing industry, including military production. And not just for the sake of cash during the crisis. They also transferred military technology to "class enemies." And after the start of WWII, what's there to talk about? The USSR was one of the most important allies, hosting several summits and discussing the post-war world order.
    FDR, unlike you, understood perfectly well that without the participation of the USSR in WWII, this “opportune moment to enter the war” might not have come at all.

    The US didn't miss out on perks after WWI either. They significantly improved their economy and finances, profiting handsomely from military supplies. As for the idea of ​​creating a European Union (to be controlled from the outside, a project then known as the United States of Europe) back then (after WWI), well, that's just how it turned out. The Soviet Bolsheviks partly spoiled the game. Communist ideology, steeped in "proletarian internationalism," was quite popular then. They had to rely on nationalism as a highly effective antidote to the "Bolshevik plague." But nationalism and globalism simply don't mix, and that's why it didn't work out. Nationalism in Europe quickly morphed into Nazism and fascism, and we all know what happened next. It was the defeat of Nazism (primarily through the efforts of the USSR) that paved the way for the post-war project of globalism. However, now that the global project has begun to degrade, Nazism in Europe (and elsewhere) has begun to raise its head again.
  18. 0
    29 June 2026 09: 36
    You read the staffing reports for border troops and districts. Even in mechanized corps, the shortage of motor vehicles is 25-30%, and in rifle divisions, up to 50%. Horse strength averages 1600-1800 instead of the authorized 3000.
    Overall, the Red Army was supposed to have 726000 vehicles of all types and purposes, but it had 272000—less than 40 percent of the wartime complement. The situation with tractors and prime movers was slightly better, but still fell short of the standard complement by about 40%.
    Even in the border districts, the personnel shortage amounted to 4-5 men per rifle division. The overall personnel shortage for rifle divisions alone reached approximately 1000000 men.
    And Stalin, together with the leadership of the People's Commissariat of Defense, were such idiots as to throw unmobilized troops into the offensive?
    However, when information about the troop shortages and unpreparedness began pouring in, Rezun-Suvorov, realizing his lie was crumbling, immediately came up with a new gem: Stalin wanted to attack, then quickly mobilize and bring the troops up to full strength in two or three days. And that, he claimed, was how he planned to begin the aggression.
    Well, the junior researchers, who were approaching retirement age, nodded their heads in unison, as if to say, "There it is, the plain truth." Those in the know shook their heads. Gather millions of untrained recruits in two or three days, outfit them, arm them, assemble hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment in two or three days, and deliver it all to the front lines? This isn't science fiction, or even fantasy, but the pure ravings of a stoned individual. Only someone who subscribed to Hitler's tenets—that the more monstrous the lie, the more readily people believe it—could spout such nonsense.
  19. -1
    29 June 2026 22: 48
    Quote: Author
    ...And patriotism was considered "the last refuge of scoundrels."

    Yes
    As an indicator of the inner Soviet bohemia (Gypsyism) - "Patriotism is a base feeling: even a cat has it" (Bulat Okudzhava).
  20. +1
    30 June 2026 17: 03
    I liked the books "Icebreaker" and "Den-M." They're nonsense, of course, but they sometimes offered some very interesting conclusions. In any case, it was there that I first remembered the question: what kind of frost prevented the Wehrmacht from capturing Moscow in September 1941?