Military Review

The Great Patriotic War. Option "B"

136
The philosopher-logician and dissident Alexander Alexandrovich Zinoviev in the years of the Great Patriotic War was a pilot, after the war he interpreted its course and results as a philosopher. Historians are still arguing about the causes of the tragic start of the war for our country, point to the mistakes and miscalculations of Stalin, which allowed the fascists to suddenly attack and defeat the Soviet troops in border battles in the summer of 1941. Convinced anti-Stalinist, however, from the standpoint of the "romantic communist", Zinoviev in the article "Everyday war" gives a different assessment of its beginning, naming the appropriate chapter.


The Great Patriotic War. Option "B"


"Inevitability"

- A lot has been said and said about the unexpectedness of the war. Like, missed! This is actually incorrect. It is necessary to distinguish the unexpectedness of war and the surprise of just such a specific beginning of war But the facts that I experienced myself. I joined the army in 1940, in the Far East. At the end of the year the army was disbanded. Many units, including our regiment, began to be transferred to the West. And they told us directly that we would fight the Germans. When? It will be warmer, then it will start ...

Once on the western border, we did not in the least doubt the inevitability of war, but, of course, still did not know what tragedy it would be. I remember that we even rejoiced at it: we were taught that the war would be victorious from the very beginning, and on the territory of the enemy. In the middle of June, the army general (then he was in that rank) Zhukov inspected our units 41. I was on duty at the barracks, and she was in such excellent condition that Zhukov exclaimed: “The war is at hand, and here they are settled like at a resort!”

The next day we were given “mortal medallions” - plastic capsules, into which we stuck pieces of paper with personal data, including a blood type. Soon (it seems, June 19th) we left the barracks and entered combat positions, fully armed, with tanks and armored vehicles ready for battle. They spent the night in the field, waiting for an order to advance, and in the morning they returned to the barracks, handed over shells to the warehouse, put the cars in the park, guns and machine guns were even mothballed (greased with a thick layer of grease). By evening, the command staff left the units for command exercises.

How to evaluate this situation? If you pull it out of context big storiesthen the assessment suggests itself: stupidity, wrecking. But if we take into account the well-grounded aspiration of the country's top leadership to delay the start of war by all means, it will look like one of the tragic events that can only be avoided in the imagination of those Shota Rustaveli spoke about: “Everyone thinks he is a strategist seeing the fight from the side. ”

The defeat of the outbreak of war is well known. About them there is an immense literature. And their assessment varies in rather narrow limits. I, however, allow myself to go beyond these limits. Such defeats were inevitable. Maybe a little less, but still big. It is necessary to take into account the general readiness of Germany for war, experience, the strongest desire to fight and seize the territory of our country. Whatever the Soviet Union undertakes within the framework of the possibilities of those years, it simply could not stop the pressure of the enemy of such strength without great losses. And it is still unknown how the war would have developed if the Germans could be stopped in the first few days and without great losses. In addition, the Germans simply would not have started the war precisely at such a time and in this form, if the Soviet Union had prepared exactly the way the debunkers of the Stalinist strategy think.

The defeats taught a lot to the Soviet leadership, the command and in general a large number of Soviet people. There was a profound change in the state of the country, in the organization of all aspects of life, in the army itself. The result of this change was that the Germans were still stopped. They suffered great losses. And our most important victory in this period is the failure of the German idea of ​​the Blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg was ripped off. And this sowed doubt in Germany itself about the successful outcome of the war, and for many even the certainty that the war was obviously lost. And who measured the degree of importance of this factor in the war?

We imposed a protracted war on the Germans, which was not included in their calculations, which they did not know how (in any case, they knew how worse than we) to lead. Moreover, at this time began the rapid arming of our army with the newest weapons and updating the command staff.

I myself was among the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of young people with secondary and higher education who were recalled from front-line units to aviation, tank, artillery and other schools. I ended up in an aviation school, where I began my career as a pilot with the obsolete I-15 and I-16 fighters. Soon they were removed from service. And I retrained for the IL-2 attack aircraft - the best attack aircraft of World War II.

I draw attention to the fact that characterizes the potency of the Soviet social system. The Germans and our allies with what technology started the war, with such and it ended. The progress they had during the war did not significantly affect its progress. In the most difficult conditions of the war, we made an unprecedented leap, having at the end of the war the most effective military equipment that played a role already in this war ...

"If the Germans managed to stop ..."

Those who wish can easily find this most interesting article about the Great Patriotic War on the Internet, but I’ll dwell on one phrase that once struck me with its depth: “It’s not yet known how the war would have started if the Germans could be stopped in the first days and without much loss. " Today it is fashionable to write alternative stories, what would happen if the world's biggest events ended differently, which, in general, could be. Let's see what could be, "if the Germans managed to stop in the first days ..."

For example, 22 June 1941, the Red Army met in full combat readiness, and, after fierce fighting, somewhere on the Minsk-Kiev line, our German troops stopped, the front stabilized, and the war assumed a positional character. What would be then? And what was not? We can definitely say what would have happened then: the anti-Hitler coalition would not have developed, and therefore the Great Patriotic War assumed a completely different character ...

England in the summer of 1941 of the year was already at war with Germany, so 22 of June, her Prime Minister W. Churchill, naturally declares support for the USSR in its struggle against fascist aggression: "The danger to Russia is our danger and the danger of the United States as much as everyone’s Russian, fighting for their land and home, is the work of free people and free nations in any part of the globe. " It would be surprising if he did not make such a statement.

24 June with a similar statement was made by US President F. Roosevelt. 12 July 1941, England and the USSR signed an agreement on mutual assistance and joint actions against Germany with the obligation not to enter into separate negotiations with her. This was the beginning of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition.

This “beginning” refers to help and joint actions, but it came to “joint actions” only in the 1944 year. Until the end of 1941, the United States, before Pearl Harbor, had the status of a “non-military ally” of England. Today we do not give due assessment to the long-lasting inaction of our Anglo-American allies in Europe, in the main theater of military operations, not without the help of Western historians. Somehow we forget that in their “anti-fascist” politics from the very beginning there was a “second bottom”, which, in particular, was expressed in this “inaction”.

"... let them kill each other as much as possible."

The mood of the US elites can be judged by the statement of an influential congressman, future US President Harry Truman, one day after the German attack on the Soviet Union declared: "If we see that Germany is winning, then we should help Russia, and if Russia will win, then we should help Germany and, therefore, let them kill each other as much as possible. " Similarly, the “governing circles” of England were thinking in 1941 year, where the Minister of Aviation Industry Moore Brabazon spoke in the same vein: “For England, the best outcome of the struggle on the Eastern front would be the mutual exhaustion of Germany and the USSR, with the result that it could take a dominant position in the world. "

The tragic start of the war for the USSR led to the fact that the overwhelming majority of politicians in the West, including Roosevelt and Churchill, were convinced that the USSR would last a maximum of 4-6 weeks. Then these terms were repeatedly postponed, but this strategic thinking itself was finally handed over to the archive only after the Battle of Stalingrad. The formation of the anti-Hitler coalition with the participation of the USSR, which officially ended on January 1 1942, thus took place with the confidence of the Anglo-American allies in the near defeat of the USSR.

And it didn’t bother them at all; on the contrary, their confidence in this made the theoretically “unnatural” Anglo-Saxon-Soviet coalition possible. And what would happen if the Germans managed to stop near Minsk and Kiev? Then our Atlantic allies, most likely, would have preferred to observe how Hitler and Stalin were fighting each other, like Confucian monkeys, would have admired from the hill the battle of tigers in the valley.

And what would happen next when the “potencies of the Soviet social system” affected and new military equipment came to the Soviet troops? At that time, the world community was poorly informed about the horrors of fascism. And now the Red Army begins to smash and crush the fascists to the west of Minsk and Kiev, and Hitler would have begun to shout Goebbels’s lips about the invasion of the Bolshevik hordes into Europe, as he had shouted about it in reality.

"The second bottom" of the anti-Hitler coalition

Here it is worth remembering the Munich Treaty of 1938 of the Year, which England and France betrayed Czechoslovakia for their own interests, as well as their Strange War with Germany in 1939, which turned into a betrayal of Poland, and then the defeat of France. It can be assumed that Britain would have betrayed the USSR with even greater ease, and found a reason to make peace with Hitler, for example, in view of "the threat to common European values." America, England’s “non-warring ally,” began to make Lend-Lease deliveries not to Murmansk, but to German ports. Such a turn of events was possible, there is documentary evidence for this.

In the real 13 history of September 1941, a meeting was held in Lisbon between the son of Lord Beaverbrook Aitken, an officer in the British army, later a member of the English parliament, with Hungarian Gustav von Kever, who acted on behalf of the German Foreign Ministry. This is evidenced by a letter from the German Consul General in Geneva, Krauel, about these negotiations addressed to Weizsäcker, the deputy German Foreign Minister. In these negotiations, 1941 of the year (!), Aitken directly poses the question: "Couldn't the coming winter and spring be used to discuss the possibilities of peace behind the scenes?"

In February, 1943 of the year in Switzerland, negotiations are held between the authorized representative of the US Government, Alain Dulles, and Prince M. Hohenlohe, who are close to the ruling circles of Nazi Germany, who became one of the episodes in the saga of the Soviet intelligence officer Stirlitz-Isaev. From the trophy documents of the Hitler’s security service (SD) it follows that these negotiations touched on the issue of concluding peace with Germany. Dulles quite definitely spoke about his Soviet ally: "... by expanding Poland towards the east and preserving Romania and strong Hungary should support the creation of a sanitary cordon against Bolshevism and pan-Slavism."

Speaking about the future of Europe, Dulles "more or less agreed with the state and industrial organization of Europe, on the basis of large spaces, believing that federal Great Germany (similar to the US) with the adjacent Danube Confederation would be the best guarantee of order and restoration of Central and Eastern Europe" . It seems that Dulles also possessed a prophetic gift, or insider information, for he actually predicted the emergence of the EU and NATO, including their expansion to the East.

In the Anglo-Soviet, and then in the Soviet-American communique of 1942, our allies undertake to open a second front in Europe in 1942. This was, if you will, a solemn promise in the light of heavy fighting on the Soviet-German front, but it was not fulfilled either in 1942 or in 1943. Is it any wonder in the light of such Anglo-Saxon strategic plans? Delaying the second front fully complies with them, and reminds of a Strange War (without real military actions) of England and France with Germany in 1939, which became the prologue of the fall of France.

After the Battle of Kursk, when the defeat of Germany became apparent, 20 August 1943 of the year was met in Quebec by the chiefs of staff of the USA and Great Britain, in the presence of Churchill and Roosevelt. On the agenda is the question of the possible withdrawal of the United States and Britain from the anti-Hitler coalition (!), And entering into an alliance with the Nazi generals (!) To wage a joint war against the Soviet Union. What kind of a “second front” here, when the Allies thought about the new “Munich”? Only the odious figure of Hitler interfered ...

The collapse of the Anglo-American conspiracy

Doctor of Historical Sciences Valentin Falin writes in this connection: “This is an old-aged Churchill intention. He developed this idea in conversations with General Kutepov back in 1919. Americans, British and French fail and cannot crush Soviet Russia, he said. It is necessary to entrust this task to the Japanese and Germans. In a similar vein, Churchill taught Bismarck, first secretary of the German Embassy in London, in 1930, the year. The Germans behaved in the First World War, as idiots, he argued. Instead of focusing on defeating Russia, they started a war on two fronts. If they were engaged only in Russia, then England would have neutralized France ...

By the time the Allies landed on the continent (in 1944), the plot against Hitler was timed. The generals brought to power in the Reich were to dissolve the Western Front and open the Germans and the British for the occupation of Germany and the "liberation" of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Austria ... The Red Army was to be stopped at the borders of 1939 of the year.

But, by a miracle, Hitler remained alive during the explosion of a bomb planted by the general conspirators in his residence: the entire force of the blast wave fell on a heavy oak table. He escaped with just a concussion, and, in turn, the security forces destroyed the participants in the conspiracy from the German side, and thus disrupted the brilliant Anglo-American plan of treachery of the USSR.

The end of the war was based on the Soviet scenario, while Churchill's planning for the military operation Unthinkable, with the participation of German contingents, against his Soviet allies immediately after the surrender of Germany, echoed this Anglo-American plot. However, the continuation of the war, already between the former allies, was really unthinkable in May 1945. Churchill lost again, his “intent” failed, and the role of the oak table in the history of the Second World War, which he wrote after the war, did not say a word. In general, the role of this “oak table” in history is undeservedly lowered, and needs to be rethought, in any case, from the Russian side.

Option "B"

Thus, “if the Germans were able to stop in the first few days,” the second bottom of our Anglo-American allies would immediately become the first, and the Great Patriotic War and the Second World War would very soon take a different ideological character, not the struggle of the Anglo-Soviet American allies with German fascism, and the struggle between "the world of freedom and communism", "Europe" and "Bolsivism and pan-Slavism", according to Dulles.

Churchill's Fulton speech on the need to combat communism, which had declared the Cold War of the USSR by the West, would have sounded much earlier, during the years of the hot war: "We need to stop these barbarians as far as possible in the East." The appeals of the American generals, which then took place "to stop the descendants of Genghis Khan", would have become the property of Western propaganda. With the retreat of Hitler Germany under the onslaught of the Red Army, the Anglo-American allies would have been on the front from the Hitler side.

And how could this all end? In May, 1945, this is unlikely to have ended. Probably, the war would have been delayed, and could have been reduced to the creation by the fascists already with the help of the Americans, nuclear weapons, and they had FAA missiles. Neither the fascists nor the Americans had any deterrent moral factors from the use of nuclear weapons. This means that the nuclear war of “Europe” against Russia-USSR would have become a reality in the middle of the twentieth century, instead of nuclear bombing of Japan.

As a result of such a war, perhaps America would have survived, for it is overseas, if only nuclear war did not lead to the phenomenon of “nuclear winter.” In this case, the Second World War would be the last page in the history of mankind. However, this tragic world scenario was blocked. First, which put the Red Army 22 on June 1941 on the brink of defeat by the USSR, thanks to which the “friendly” embraces of its ideological enemies opened, and then the “oak German table”.

... During the time of Catherine the Great, Russian Field Marshal Munnich, a German in the Russian service who helped Count Potemkin conquer the Crimea, said strange words: "Russia is undoubtedly ruled by God himself, otherwise it is impossible to explain its existence." Otherwise, it seems impossible to explain much in the history of Russia, including these tricks of history in the Great Patriotic War, when, as if, the hand of Providence intervened to change the already visible historical fabric. I want to believe this especially today, when US missile-bombing attacks have become a way of spreading “Western democracy” in the world. But maybe it remains only to believe ...
Author:
136 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Uzoliv
    Uzoliv 14 November 2013 09: 14
    11
    The phrase about how Minikh helped Potemkin to conquer the Crimea was very amused.
    1. Karlsonn
      Karlsonn 14 November 2013 20: 55
      -1
      Zinoviev is such a "Zinoviev"!

      ... The next day, they gave us “mortal medallions” - plastic capsules into which we stuck pieces of paper with personal data, including a blood group ...

      Let the dissident philosopher Zinoviev know that before the war there were NO "deadly medallions" made of plastic in the Red Army!

      15. 03. 1941, by order of the NCO of the USSR No.138, ebonite capsule-shaped medallions were introduced in the Red Army. Black. In the USSR, the widespread introduction of plastics began after the decision of the May (1958) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, which outlined a program for the development of the chemical industry and the introduction of its products in various sectors of the domestic economy.

      Already someone, and the dissident should know such things.
      1. mehanik27
        mehanik27 17 November 2013 00: 29
        +7
        And why didn’t you please Zinoviev ??? After a lapse of years he made a mistake and told about what was called ebony medallions plastic years ago? In general, he earned the right to make a mistake by participating in the war for our Motherland and did not run to surrender to the enemies, although before the war he had problems with the law due to political predilections. I think that the dissident philosopher Zinoviev knew a lot of things, which you did not even dream about.
        1. vlad60
          vlad60 25 November 2013 01: 37
          -1
          Over time, estimates of the initial period of the Great Patriotic War undergo additions and amendments, which, when opening archives and more accessible different sources, become deeper and more objective. This appendix presents some circumstances not previously taken into account.

          1. The lack of initiative of the Red Army commanders and fighters of all levels and the diligence of any orders and orders from above, the fear of superior commanders, and especially of repressive bodies in the Red Army, reached the highest level by 1941. The necessary tactical initiatives and actions on the demanding situation were not shown because of fear, it would stand out and act without coordination with the higher command. (Commemorative repressions of 1937-1940, short-lived triplets-tribunals, with a single sentence, -firing. On the contrary, the initiative and non-standard decisions were welcomed in the Wehrmacht).
          2. The execution in the Red Army of any orders from above was widely used by the Wehrmacht in its large-scale sabotage activities in the first months of the war. (False orders on radio stations, messengers, saboteurs, dressed as commanders of the Red Army, traffic controllers, etc.), and yielded serious tactical results. In the first weeks of the war, the Red Army did not conduct sabotage activities, even bridges were not blown up, for future use in the offensive, etc.
          3. Mass shooting of the command staff of the Red Army, dressed as saboteurs in the command form of the Red Army and creating panic in the command, creating panic among the mass of rank and file with knocked out commanders, etc. (The experience of the 1917-1919 revolution in Russia of the German General Staff was repeated mass shooting of RIA fleet and army officers, disguised as Russian revolutionary soldiers, dressed as German agents from German prisoners of war, etc.).
          4. Unavailability of the Red Army for real bloody and materially costly battles. The provision of military operations in everything immediately became extremely bad. Enough qualified forces were not allocated to the organization of the work of all rear services, which affected the end and the effectiveness of the entire Red Army. (What is the "Achilles heel" of the Russian armies to this day). At least half of the tanks in the first months of the war were lost due to the lack of fuel, spare parts and ammunition.
          1. Sugar Honeyovich
            Sugar Honeyovich 25 November 2013 06: 11
            0
            And the Germans designated such an army as the first serious enemy!

            "The experience of the revolution of 1917-1919 in Russia of the German General Staff in the mass shooting of officers of the RIA of the fleet and the army, under the guise of Russian revolutionary soldiers, disguised as German agents from German prisoners of war ..." - German prisoners of war in Russia massively shot Russian officers ?! And the Headquarters with the commanders-in-chief turned out to be weak to them?
            1. vlad60
              vlad60 25 November 2013 17: 53
              0
              If you don’t know anything about it, it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t. Ask the question. In the 1930s, a German historian mentioned instructions for him. prisoners of war on the postcards sent to them from Germany (about the action in Russia). He was instantly "shut up", the circulation of books was destroyed. This method was considered effective for further use. The cases with the German communists Karl Liebkhnecht and others, who were shot, and right in the streets, thus quickly putting an end to the leaders. the export revolution in Germany ended as well. - the experience gained in Russia clearly affected. Much of this was hidden in the USSR due to the compromise of Bolshevism, which the Germans helped to come to power (the Latvian regiment was replenished with Germans from Courland, and we are leading them, including guarding Lenin. By the same method, different Austrians, Hungarians, Bela Kuns, shooting hundreds of captured White Guards (Crimea, etc.), etc. Times of pink one-sided propaganda pass, different sides of events open up.
              1. Sugar Honeyovich
                Sugar Honeyovich 26 November 2013 05: 21
                0
                And who is this historian? And who are those who "instantly shut him up"? As for Liebknecht and the end of the export revolution - who killed him? German Social Democrats, i.e. the same revolutionaries with whom the German General Staff for some reason did not cope, allowing the collapse of its own army and the overthrow of the monarchy.
                By the same method, various Austrians, Hungarians, Bela Kuns, staged revolutions in their countries with the extermination of their own officers and the "bourgeois" in general. The Russian White Guards were killed much more zealously by Russian people and not necessarily red, but also green - Makhno in the Ukraine, Rogov and Novoselov in Siberia, etc.
                And the last thing. The Russian white emigrants (for example, Kersnovsky), although they assure that the events of February 1917. organized by the Germans, but it never occurred to them that Russian officers were killed by captured Germans under the guise of revolutionary soldiers. On the contrary, according to their testimony, this was done exclusively by the soldiers and sailors of the tsarist army. The "pink one-sided propaganda" seems to be replaced by even more one-sided and primitive gray propaganda
    2. Gladiatir-zlo
      Gladiatir-zlo 14 November 2013 21: 30
      +1
      A vivid example of the evil anti-people squeal, and all for what, to help smash everything that wasn’t before smashed in the history of predatory raids and wars, and the Cold War, with all kinds of missile defense systems in Europe. This is just another episode. Russia has no allies other than the army and navy.
    3. vladim.gorbunow
      vladim.gorbunow 15 November 2013 09: 46
      0
      "With different plans, I close my eyes and again, waking up, turn my thoughts to them." From a letter from Minich to Catherine II. And these plans were to continue what he started 30 years ago, to defeat the Turks and Crimean Tatars.
  2. 505506
    505506 14 November 2013 09: 20
    21
    I do not agree with everything, but the look is interesting!
    1. Vadim2013
      Vadim2013 14 November 2013 14: 08
      +5
      I completely disagree with the article. In any case, the war that began on June 22 on June 1941 would lead to the rearmament of the Red Army and the renewal of its command staff. If the German army were stopped at Minsk and Kiev, then it would not have been necessary to carry out a massive evacuation of industry to the east.
      1. VARCHUN
        VARCHUN 14 November 2013 18: 52
        +2
        Well, yes, and the people that are dying do not count, yes?
      2. Vadim2013
        Vadim2013 14 November 2013 21: 30
        +1
        I want to add that when retreating from the border, the Red Army lost military depots with weapons, ammunition, fuel and uniforms.
  3. Canep
    Canep 14 November 2013 09: 28
    +9
    The author forgot about the role of Japan. It does not take into account the war in Africa, in order to make peace with Germany they would probably have to give the Suez Canal to Hitler so that he could buy Arab oil. In this case, the Japanese would probably sign some kind of union agreement with the USSR and gain access to the resources of the USSR (there are no reasons to exclude such an agreement). The Japanese in this case could be on the European fronts. And then, in general, no one knows how it would end.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. itr
      itr 14 November 2013 11: 51
      +4
      sapper could be wrong before the Arab oil of about 30 years old well at least 25
      1. maxvet
        maxvet 14 November 2013 17: 53
        +1
        But what about Mosul?
        1. samoletil18
          samoletil18 14 November 2013 19: 31
          +1
          Quote: maxvet
          But what about Mosul?

          Iraq was then controlled by the British.
      2. Canep
        Canep 14 November 2013 18: 15
        +2
        Quote: itr
        Arab oil about 30 years old well at least 25

        And why then the Soviet army in 1941 with the help of two districts - Transcaucasian and Turkestan captured northern Iran, and this despite the fact that the German troops confidently attacked Moscow. And the British, in turn, captured southern Iran. And the Allies in Tehran organized a conference in 1943.
        1. Canep
          Canep 14 November 2013 18: 57
          +2
          Quote: Canep
          And why then the Soviet army
          Mistake - Red Army (Red Army)
      3. Sterlya
        Sterlya 15 November 2013 07: 39
        0
        Quote: itr
        sapper could be wrong before the Arab oil of about 30 years old well at least 25


        it was already known about oil. and Germany was planning to move east and meet the Japanese somewhere in the Iranian region. and from there, together with the Japanese, hit the "belly" of the "Russian bear" (one of the original plans)
    3. Gladiatir-zlo
      Gladiatir-zlo 14 November 2013 21: 33
      0
      Minesweeper, as you know, sho dissidents do not look feng shui farther than Eastern Europe. They do not pay freaks for that, because they do not bother. But ideological nowhere else.
  4. Kizhich
    Kizhich 14 November 2013 09: 42
    +4
    I liked the article, but the beginning. The ending and conclusions are not. The most important thing BUT, millions of our people, both military and civilian, would not die! But the modernization of the economy, new weapons, training, etc. would be, the war would go on! But politically, I think Stalin would have come up with something anyway! But most importantly, people would be alive!
    1. Victor Kamenev
      14 November 2013 10: 50
      +6
      People are mortal, in fact, and in war the laws of war, not peacetime, operate: "we need one victory, one for all, we will not stand the price." People must always be protected, of course, in a war one must think about victory, and not about how to minimize losses. This is the logic of the defeat and death of the country in the end, and the enslavement of the survivors. Well, if slavery doesn't bother us, and dishonor doesn't bother us, then ... then it's better to immediately surrender to captivity. Many supporters of "universal human values" adhere to this logic today ...
      1. ben gun
        ben gun 14 November 2013 11: 30
        -3
        Recently I read with pleasure the book "Variant BIS" (what would have happened if Hitler's attack had not been overslept in 41), and its sequel "The Year of the Dead Snake" about the war of the USSR in Korea, by Sergei Anisimov. An extremely interesting reconstruction, but what would have happened in the event of a not so strong collapse of the USSR defense in 41.
        Briefly, if - by the 44 year were built - Battleship, a light aircraft carrier, and the implementation of the USSR Ocean Fleet program was begun. in 44, Germany was finished off and the allies of the USSR made peace with Germany to stop the Asian Bolshevik hordes farther from France, the fleet brought through the Baltic to the Atlantic to drown and terrify the coalition allies, and so on.
        1. Evgan
          Evgan 14 November 2013 11: 46
          +8
          Briefly, if - by the year 44 were built - Battleship, a light aircraft carrier, and the USSR Ocean Fleet program was launched

          The book is interesting, but the storyline about the battleship and aircraft carrier that defeated half of the Atlantic fleet of the Allies is too unlikely.
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 14 November 2013 12: 44
            +3
            Quote: EvgAn
            the storyline about the battleship and aircraft carrier that defeated half of the Atlantic fleet of the Allies is too unlikely.

            When I read, it was so light in my heart.
            Although well aware _ It was not this, but it could be!
            Quote: ben gun
            its sequel "The Year of the Dead Snake"

            This is probably a modern re-release, originally it went as "BIS-2 Variant"
            drinks
            1. Evgan
              Evgan 14 November 2013 15: 58
              +2
              Yes, I agree, it is pleasant to read :)
        2. Setrac
          Setrac 14 November 2013 23: 50
          0
          Quote: ben gun
          what would happen if in 41 you wouldn’t oversleep Hitler’s attack

          The USSR physically could not preempt the Third Reich. The USSR is slightly larger than the Third Reich and the transfer of troops takes longer, about three times. It was geography that determined the defeat of the USSR at the beginning of the war.
      2. Kizhich
        Kizhich 14 November 2013 14: 59
        +3
        You know, maybe it was not so expressed, but first of all I meant the civilian population! And this is after all two-thirds of losses, times. Secondly, after all, how many died in emigration from disease, hunger (take only Leningrad), how much grief and damage to ordinary people. And about surrendering, where about it?
      3. GREAT RUSSIA
        GREAT RUSSIA 14 November 2013 18: 10
        +3
        Quote: Victor Kamenev
        People are mortal, in fact, and in war the laws of war, not peacetime, operate: "we need one victory, one for all, we will not stand the price." People must always be protected, of course, in a war one must think about victory, and not about how to minimize losses. This is the logic of the defeat and death of the country in the end, and the enslavement of the survivors. Well, if slavery doesn't bother us, and dishonor doesn't bother us, then ... then it's better to immediately surrender to captivity. Many supporters of "universal human values" adhere to this logic today ...

        I agree, whether we want it or not, but this war cost the lives of 30 million people. The war was worth a lot. Our task is to take into account the lessons that history has given and apply them correctly to prevent such a massacre in the future.
    2. Arberes
      Arberes 14 November 2013 10: 53
      12
      Quote: Kizhich
      But most importantly, people would be alive!


      STRAWBERRY.

      In the July green meadow
      When the storm died down with lead
      Strawberry grass spread over
      Drunken red!

      How ridiculous, scary fairy tale
      Don’t torment yourself!
      Red stars on caps
      After the battle, a dashing harvest!

      Drops of blood in the strawberry grass
      Yes, try to collect now?
      Like a basket in a brotherly grave
      They will fall ripe berry.

      It is dedicated to the fallen for the MOTHERLAND soldiers and officers !!!
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. VARCHUN
      VARCHUN 14 November 2013 18: 54
      +2
      It’s good that at least someone is ripening at the root. THE MAIN THING THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE LIVED,
  5. Energet1k_
    Energet1k_ 14 November 2013 09: 57
    +3
    I liked the article, but it seems to me that even if there were no “oak table” and Hitler died, the Anglo-American coalition would not have dared to attack. The Soviet flywheel was already so untwisted that nothing could stop it in the territorial part of Europe. America would be left without allies, face to face with the strongest adversary, which is not very beneficial to her. The trump cards mentioned by the author in the form of nuclear weapons and FAU are very dubious!
    1. Victor Kamenev
      14 November 2013 10: 37
      +9
      The assassination attempt on Hitler was part of the Anglo-American plan to "end the war", this is a fact, Churchill even at the very end of the war aimed at the "Unthinkable", so the betrayal of the USSR and the separate peace of our allies with "Germany after Hitler" was more than real. And what was the USSR to do then? Continue the attack on Berlin? And the Anglo-Saxons would first help the Germans financially, and then more and more, and finally, if necessary, with troops.
      Also make peace with "Germany after Hitler"? This is even worse: it means giving Germany a respite and an opportunity to structure a new military anti-Russian alliance.
  6. explorer
    explorer 14 November 2013 10: 23
    +5
    To the double bottom of our "allies" should be added Turkey (with a well-known muddy position), Spain, Japan could easily agree with the United States, the possibility of the British to bomb - the oil fields of Baku, and so on.
    1. gsg955
      gsg955 14 November 2013 10: 40
      +5
      Here is the dictum of Nicholas II, the Englishman is a Jew.
      1. VARCHUN
        VARCHUN 14 November 2013 19: 00
        +2
        And no one expects good from this country, they always threw their allies and always waited, but their clone America, fighting with Japan, their magnates traded with Germany, everyone knows this fact and that they fried someone in a chair? No, of course. the history of the Anglo-Saxons is based on lies.
  7. tolyasik0577
    tolyasik0577 14 November 2013 10: 35
    +8
    If Soviet troops had stopped Hitler at the beginning of the war, we would have had more resources. factories would not have to be evacuated, there would not have been such a famine and mass surrender. and perhaps the war would have ended before they had time to create atomic weapons. and technology would develop at an equal rate. "War is the engine of progress"
    1. Victor Kamenev
      14 November 2013 11: 02
      +5
      And also there was no Lend-Lease, and, on the contrary, the Anglo-American-German coalition would start to form. That is, fascist Germany also greatly increased, how to compare such things? As a result, the USSR would have to fight not only with Germany, but with the entire united West.
      The outcome of such a war is impossible to predict, but the losses of all parties would be even greater.
      1. Walker1975
        Walker1975 14 November 2013 16: 47
        -4
        Well, yes ... and the Jewish lobby in America would calmly watch how their brothers in packs would be eliminated in concentration camps. England would give Italy and Egypt for the right to fight the USSR.
        1. Hudo
          Hudo 14 November 2013 17: 29
          +5
          Quote: Walker1975
          Well, yes ... and the Jewish lobby in America would calmly watch how their brothers in packs would be eliminated in concentration camps.


          And it (the Jewish lobby in America) sat quietly and looked, it was at that very time occupied with an important business - through neutrals it was in full swing with Hitler. Nothing personal - just business. Wealthy Jews, they began to trade with Germany only at the end of the war, but at the same time, the shoemaker Shlema from Berdichev, and the Odessa hairdresser Fime, and the aunt from Simon Baranavichy didn’t shine except for the crematorium - they had no money.
      2. Motors1991
        Motors1991 14 November 2013 21: 16
        +1
        It seems to me that everything is more cynical and easier to unite against the most powerful adversary, this was the case in the era of the Napoleonic Wars, then in the Crimean War, to a certain extent in the Russo-Japanese War, the First World War, the Second, then the Cold War. Now we are observing how the end is coming American hegemony, even the NATO allies are beginning to keep pace, and even ten years ago it was simply unthinkable. Now the star of China rises, we can safely say that sooner or later the United States, Russia, Europe will join forces against the PRC, simply from feelings of self-preservation, because soon alone alone no one will cope with China. When we are offended by the machinations of the Anglo-Saxons, who is to blame that Russia was, is and I hope will be a state of the first magnitude and in order to maintain it, the efforts of the whole world are needed.
      3. max702
        max702 14 November 2013 21: 35
        0
        Lend-lease is good .. (by the way, large deliveries went at the end of 42 years) But are you aware that in the western part of the country was 80% of industry? And all of it had to be evacuated and put in a clean field .., how much they lost equipment, resources and the most important PEOPLE! It’s precisely those who came under the total call, and these are qualified turner, milling workers, other specialties that you can’t master in a couple of months. You understand that most of these people died, and other officers also died and personnel officers had to pay for the experience of both 30 million more than a high fee.
  8. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 14 November 2013 10: 42
    +2
    And I believed that the "Unthinkable" is a plan of British airstrikes from the airfields of Syria and Iraq on our Caucasian oil fields, if the German offensive is stopped at the border. Depriving the Red Army of fuel could put it in an extremely difficult position. Such a threat disappeared only after the entry of our troops into Iran to protect the leaders of the coalition. I believe that the choice of Tehran for the meeting place was Stalin's political victory, which indirectly helped to solve the problem of the security of oil fields.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 14 November 2013 10: 51
      +2
      Quote: Jurkovs
      Such a threat disappeared only after the entry of our troops into Iran, to protect the leaders of the coalition. I believe that the choice of Tehran for the venue was a political victory for Stalin, which indirectly helped solve the problem of the safety of oil fields.

      You are confusing something. Soviet and British troops entered Iran at the end of the summer and beginning of the fall of 1941. Our 3 army entered there, the British about 4 divisions.

      Google "occupation of Iran" or "Operation Sympathy"
      1. Evgan
        Evgan 14 November 2013 11: 33
        +1
        And I believed that the "Unthinkable" is a plan of British airstrikes from the airfields of Syria and Iraq on our Caucasian oil fields, if the German offensive is stopped at the border.


        Wrong. Initially, the plan of airstrikes in the Caucasus was planned to prevent the transfer of this oil to Germany (let me remind you that the British and Franks then considered the USSR almost as an "ally" of Germany). In 1942, this plan could also be implemented in the event of a real threat of the seizure of the Caucasian oil fields by Germany.

        And the "Unthinkable" is the embryo of the Cold War.
      2. bya965
        bya965 14 November 2013 13: 55
        0
        Quote: Spade
        You are confusing something. Soviet and British troops entered Iran at the end of the summer and beginning of the fall of 1941. Our 3 army entered there, the British about 4 divisions.

        Google "occupation of Iran" or "Operation Sympathy"

        Jurkovs wrote about the reason for you, and you about the consequences (Operation Empathy).
    2. dzvero
      dzvero 14 November 2013 15: 38
      0
      I met in my memoirs that a joint Anglo-French attack on the Caucasian oil fields was planned for May 15, 1940. for well-known reasons, on the 15th of the same month, both partners were no longer up to the Caucasus :)
    3. Doctorleg
      Doctorleg 14 November 2013 18: 12
      +2
      Quote: Jurkovs
      And I believed that the "Unthinkable" is a plan of British airstrikes from the airfields of Syria and Iraq on our Caucasian oil fields, if the German offensive is stopped at the border. Depriving the Red Army of fuel could put it in an extremely difficult position. Such a threat disappeared only after the entry of our troops into Iran to protect the leaders of the coalition. I believe that the choice of Tehran for the meeting place was Stalin's political victory, which indirectly helped to solve the problem of the security of oil fields.

      The British were considering the possibility of bombing the fields in Baku earlier - I think in 1940, when the USSR supplied Germany with petroleum products, and German planes fought the air war against England and the situation was extremely difficult. Thus, the British wanted to deprive the German planes of fuel
  9. Terrible ensign
    Terrible ensign 14 November 2013 11: 00
    +3
    Thanks to the author for the article. But, with all due respect, I cannot but say that another attempt to consider possible scenarios for the development of events is somewhat odious and, in the light of the now popular "altistory", is already causing dejected bewilderment. Dear comrades, we already have the history we have. There will be no other.
    The factology given in the middle of the article ("second bottom ...") undoubtedly expands the picture of the reality we see - for which thanks.
    Everything else - the vast majority of colleagues present here - is already known - only a new interpretation.
    As for the essence of "Veltpolitik" carried out (what then, what now) by the political leaders of Great Britain and the United States, it has never been really fair and took into account the interests of all parties involved in international processes. "Only your interests, only your own benefit! .."
    "Russia has only two allies - its army and navy!"
    1. Victor Kamenev
      14 November 2013 11: 15
      +2
      And thank you, however "alternative" thinking, I think, is just a necessary tribute to the fashion of the day. In fact, we are talking about rethinking the course and motives of the Second World War, in reality they are completely different from those that "politically correct history" gives us. The official explanation for World War II is truly strange, and so far from our side. The facts speak of a completely different logic of this war, its motives. We are talking about a philosophical understanding of the Second World War, and not about an alternative history ...
      1. IRBIS
        IRBIS 14 November 2013 13: 48
        +2
        Quote: Victor Kamenev
        It is a philosophical understanding of the Second World War, and not an alternative history ...

        Thank you for the article! I myself have been studying the history of the Second World War for twenty years. But I don’t undertake to express my thoughts, conclusions and my vision of its course precisely because the reality is very different from what is considered to be the "truth" about the war. Immediately they will brand someone as a hirer, at least.
        1. dzvero
          dzvero 14 November 2013 16: 31
          +2
          I think that not only me, but other forum users will be grateful to you and Viktor Kamenev for your opinions on WWII. Due to white spots, black pages and gray fog of officialdom, any independent opinion can and should be welcomed.
  10. Cynic
    Cynic 14 November 2013 11: 10
    +3
    The history of the subjunctive mood does not have, but it is always interesting to consider options _ And if ...
    Just wondering why not, maybe for now, those who would have clearly stated _ Lend-Lease III Reich? Would Western democracies never do that?
    hi
  11. Evgan
    Evgan 14 November 2013 11: 30
    +1
    The Germans and our allies with what equipment started the war, with this it ended


    Well, this is at least a wrong statement. Arms during the war actively developed both in our country and in the West
  12. Damask
    Damask 14 November 2013 11: 31
    +1
    Thanks to the author.
  13. Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 14 November 2013 11: 36
    -1
    I agree with the author that you cannot trust naglosaks. As for the catastrophe at the beginning of the war, it was inevitable. 3 million divisions opposed 77 million German army in the border zone. Given the lack of peace, this is about 0,5 million of ours. Our one against 6 Germans. There are no chances to fight back. There were only chances to die heroically.
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 14 November 2013 16: 49
      0
      Where did you get the half million figure? Yes, only near Kiev 600 thousand were captured.
    2. Bigriver
      Bigriver 14 November 2013 17: 22
      +2
      Quote: Sergey Medvedev
      ... 3 million German troops in the border zone were opposed by 77 of our divisions. Given the lack of peace, this is about 0,5 million of ours. Our one against 6 Germans.

      Not so much.
      The invading army (with allies) - about 4,5 million people.
      Red Army of the western districts - about 3,0 million people.
      In the direction of the main attacks in the Border Battle of 2-3 Wehrmacht divisions against our 1st.
      The average (actual) number of our diabetes is about 9-10 thousand people.
      PD Wehrmacht - 14 - 16 thousand people.
    3. VARCHUN
      VARCHUN 14 November 2013 19: 03
      0
      Look at how many armies fell into the boilers because of the tightening of the withdrawal order and you will understand about our forces, nothing to write about if you do not know.
  14. falcon
    falcon 14 November 2013 11: 38
    +3
    "Field Marshal Minich, who helped Count Potemkin to conquer the Crimea ..."
    Dear Author, you need to know and love the history of your country. Field Marshal Minich led
    the Russian army that stormed the Crimea during the reign of Empress Anna Ioannovna in 1739
    Future Count Potemkin could take part in the campaign, except in diapers. :))
    Essentially stated in the article. History does not know the subjunctive mood (c). German army
    in 1941. was imprisoned for "blitzkrieg", and it was simply impossible to stop her first blow
    (example - France, winner in WWI). Next, the author does not consider the role at all.
    Japan (allies of Germany), meanwhile troops were eager for India (the pearl of the British crown),
    could land in Australia. And, lastly. Still the ancients said it was impossible to force a river to flow uphill. History followed the path that was most logical and correct.
    1. AK-47
      AK-47 14 November 2013 12: 25
      0
      Quote: falcon
      you need to know and love the history of your country ... The future Count Potemkin could take part in the campaign, perhaps in diapers.

      They did one thing, Minih stormed the Crimea in 1739, created a reserve that made it easier for Potemkin to join Crimea to Russia.
      Quote: falcon
      The German army in 1941 was sharpened under the "blitzkrieg", and it was simply impossible to stop its first strike

      Blitzkrieg is a tactical device that any army should learn and be prepared to repel.
      1. falcon
        falcon 14 November 2013 14: 34
        +3
        Quote: AK-47

        Quote: falcon
        The German army in 1941 was sharpened under the "blitzkrieg", and it was simply impossible to stop its first strike

        Blitzkrieg is a tactical device that any army should learn and be prepared to repel.

        "Blitzkrieg" is not a "tactical technique", it is a military theory of conduct
        fleeting war. Do you really think that in the Soviet General Staff
        studied and not summarized the experience of the French and Polish campaigns of the German army?
        It’s just that the enemy was really experienced and strong.
        1. AK-47
          AK-47 14 November 2013 17: 19
          0
          Quote: falcon
          ... is a military theory in ...

          Theory is a system of ideas or principles. Practice in military affairs - strategy and tactics.
          Quote: falcon
          ... in the Soviet General Staff was not studied and generalized experience ...

          In theory - yes, but in practice - no, remember who led the Red Army - Budenny and Voroshilov, for whom the main weapon was a horse and a saber. And the situation with their submission was hat-making, we’ll break the enemy on its territory, what a blitzkrieg, they could not utter such words.
          1. Hudo
            Hudo 14 November 2013 17: 40
            +6
            Quote: AK-47
            remember who led the Red Army - Budenny and Voroshilov,


            I remembered. In 1937 - 1938, future Marshals of the Soviet Union Zhukov, Vasilevsky, Govorov, Konev, Malinovsky, Meretskov, Rokossovsky, Tolbukhin, future army generals Antonov, Bagramyan, Vatutin, Zakharov, Chernyakhovsky, generals Batov, Bogdanov, Volsky were promoted to higher positions. Katukov, Lelyushenko, Rotmistrov, Rybalko and other military leaders who broke the ridge of the German army in 1942–1944. and the Soviet troops that brought in 1945 to Berlin, Koenigsberg, Vienna and Prague.

            P.S. Enough to repeat the nonsense of hired de-stabilizers of volkogonov, Yakovlev and Korotich, cutters and other trash.
            1. Hudo
              Hudo 15 November 2013 00: 04
              +1
              Quote: Hudo
              P.S. Enough to repeat the nonsense of hired de-stabilizers of volkogonov, Yakovlev and Korotich, cutters and other trash.


              Which Svanidze put a minus? Who can spit in Gozman's face?
            2. Drummer
              Drummer 15 November 2013 08: 45
              +1
              In 1937-38, all of them held secondary posts (Meretskov, deputy chief of the General Staff, rose above all), and most of them were generally unknown captains and colonels. Rokossovsky, by the way, did not advance anywhere, but was arrested just in 1937 and spent the next three years in prison.
              1. Hudo
                Hudo 15 November 2013 09: 45
                +1
                Quote: Drummer
                Rokossovsky, by the way, did not advance anywhere, but was arrested just in 1937 and spent the next three years in prison.


                So you speak at once for what. And for the fact that having picked up the parts on alarm, I went to the district of exercises without tents and warm clothes for l / s, and without fodder for horses. As a result, the compound lost its combat effectiveness, l / s there were cases of death from diseases associated with hypothermia, a significant part of the horses fell ... This sad fact was regarded as wrecking - and not?
          2. falcon
            falcon 14 November 2013 18: 26
            +3
            Quote: AK-47

            Theory is a system of ideas or principles. Military Practice - Strategy and Tact

            So you think that there are no theorists in military affairs? Only
            strategists and tactics? :)) But what about Clausewitz, or Triandafill? Not
            simplify the issue. And in order not to break spears, type in
            any search engine "Blitzkrieg Theory".
            Quote: AK-47
            remember who led the Red Army - Budenny and Voroshilov, for whom the main weapon was a horse and a saber. And the situation with their submission was hat-making, we’ll break the enemy on its territory, what a blitzkrieg, they could not utter such words.

            It seems that your knowledge about this period is gleaned from
            cinema of the perestroika period, excuse me. I talked about the General Staff,
            from 1938 to 1941 it was headed by B.M. Shaposhnikov, Meretskov (name, rep. not
            I recall offhand), G.K.Zhukov. These are the most competent professionals. And the situation
            the novelty was by no means a "hat-hating" one, especially after the Finnish
            campaigns. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the plans of the General Staff for the initial period
            war. I repeat, the German army was extremely strong, had for
            shoulders 2 years of experience in the database. (For example, compare the combat effectiveness of the Red Army at 41 and at 43!) Respectfully.
            1941
            1. AK-47
              AK-47 15 November 2013 00: 09
              -1
              Quote: falcon
              I talked about the General Staff, from 1938 to 1941. it was headed by B.M. Shaposhnikov, Meretskov (name, rep. I do not remember offhand), G.K. Zhukov

              Voroshilov in 1934-1940, the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR. He spent almost 15 years at the head of the military department, longer than anyone else. In 1940, after the Soviet-Finnish war, Voroshilov lost this post but got higher posts - deputy chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and chairman of the Defense Committee at the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR.
              Budyonny in the years 1924-37 inspector of the cavalry of the Red Army. From 1937 to 1939, he was the commander of the troops of the Moscow Military District, from 1939 - a member of the Main Military Council of the NPO of the USSR, deputy people's commissar, and from August 1940 - first deputy commissar of defense of the USSR.
              1940-1941 Tymoshenko - People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR (succeeded K.E. Voroshilov at this post), showed nothing especially.
              Obviously, holding high posts and being close to Stalin, Budyonny and Voroshilov, due to lack of education, involuntarily slowed down technological progress in military affairs. But they were sung in songs, their names were called cities, streets, equipment. Their authority was very high.
              1. falcon
                falcon 15 November 2013 02: 06
                0
                It’s good that you google it. :)) I’ll even give you another surname
                a slender row of two "antiheroes" of the Red Army - Kulik (look at your leisure, it's interesting).

                Quote: AK-47

                Obviously, holding high posts and being close to Stalin, Budyonny and Voroshilov, due to lack of education, involuntarily slowed down technological progress in military affairs.

                ??? Technological progress is an objective concept that does not depend on
                the will of specific people.
                Perhaps you mean the saturation of troops with technology? In the Western theater
                by the beginning of the war, the Red Army, at least, was not inferior, and in some forms
                armaments significantly superior in quantity to the Wehrmacht.
                Quote: AK-47
                But they were sung in songs, their names were called cities, streets, equipment. Their authority was very high.

                And this is called military-patriotic education. In my opinion, the thing
                good one.
                P.S. About the cavalry. I recommend reading the results
                combat use of cavalry corps of Dovator and Belov during the Battle of
                Moscow
                Sincerely.
          3. VARCHUN
            VARCHUN 14 November 2013 19: 05
            +1
            These are generally two FIRST ENEMIES OF RUSSIAN TROOPS.
          4. Proud.
            Proud. 14 November 2013 21: 08
            +3
            Quote: AK-47
            Budenny and Voroshilov, for whom the main weapon was a horse and a saber.

            "... War in the current conditions requires a huge number of machines, and machines of various purposes, different names and enormous technical complexity. War is mechanized, industrialized ..." - this is Voroshilov's statement, in January 1931. "Budyonny -" ... In a modern war, in the presence of an engine in the air, and on the ground - armored forces, cavalry, relying on this engine, acquires an unprecedented penetrating power ... "But what was written in the Field Regulations of 1939 (Voroshilov was, at that time, the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR) - "... The most expedient use of cavalry formations in conjunction with tank formations, motorized infantry and aviation is in front of the front (in the absence of contact with the enemy), on the approaching flank, in the development of a breakthrough behind enemy lines, in raids and in pursuits. Cavalry units are able to consolidate their success and hold the terrain. However, at the first opportunity they must be relieved of this task. You can save them for maneuver. The actions of the cavalry unit must in all cases be reliably covered from the air ... ".
            1. AK-47
              AK-47 14 November 2013 23: 39
              -3
              Quote: Be proud.
              in the Field Charter of 1939 (Voroshilov was, at that time, the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR) -

              The chairman of the commission under the charter was Tukhachevsky.
              Nevertheless, an excerpt from the Field Charter of the Red Army of 1939 in a more accurate version:
              28. Cavalry has high mobility, powerful fire and great shock force. She is capable of independently conducting all types of combat. It should not, however, be used against enemy fortified positions.
              Cavalry, together with tanks and aircraft, is used in cooperation with other branches of the armed forces and for solving independent tasks in operational communication with them.
              Quick maneuver, powerful ...

              Read on, cavalry is at the forefront. But Tukhachevsky did not live up to this.
              1. Hudo
                Hudo 15 November 2013 00: 02
                +2
                Quote: AK-47
                Read on, cavalry is at the forefront.

                To read whose labors? In the works of Rezun?
                With what intentions, you are silent about the fact that the cavalry divisions and brigades of the Red Army were composed of STANDING artillery (including PT), air defense, engineer-combat engineer, etc. units? Why do you intentionally omit the fact that parts and formations were used as mobile units and dismounted for combat?
                Who are you, Valery Vasilyevich - why are you telling a half-truth that is worse than a lie?
                1. Hudo
                  Hudo 15 November 2013 00: 21
                  0
                  The structure of the Red Army CD.
                  4th cavalry regiment
                  tank regiment
                  horse artillery. division
                  anti-aircraft division
                  sapper squadron
                  communications squadron
                  Personnel, people 8 968
                  Tanks, pcs 64 BT-5
                  Armored vehicles, pcs 18
                  Machine guns, pcs 64
                  Anti-aircraft machine guns, 18 pcs. Four 7.62 mm
                  Mortars, pcs 64 (50 mm and 82 mm)
                  Guns, pcs 12 - 37 mm anti-aircraft
                  16 - 45 mm
                  24 - 76,2 mm
                  8 - 76,2 mm anti-aircraft
                  8 - 122 mm howitzers
                  Cars, pcs 635
                  Tractors (tractors), pcs 21
                2. AK-47
                  AK-47 15 November 2013 00: 39
                  0
                  Quote: Hudo
                  To read whose labors? In the works of Rezun?

                  Memoirs of G.K. Zhukov, Field Charter of the Red Army of 1939.
                  In 1941, in the Red Army, there were over 100 cav. For the most part, they were defeated in 1941-1942 and were not formed again. But the tank divisions were much smaller.
                  1. Hudo
                    Hudo 15 November 2013 00: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: AK-47
                    In 1941, in the Red Army, there were over 100 cav. divisions for the most part they were defeated in 1941 - 1942 and did not form again.


                    In fact, the number of cavalry in the Red Army throughout the prewar years has been steadily declining. In 1938 there were 32 cavalry divisions and 7 corps administrations; the Red Army entered the Great Patriotic War with only 4 corps and 13 cavalry divisions
                    № Subdivision Location
                    1 3 cav. division Ukraine, Lviv region, Zholkev (Nesterov)
                    2 5 cav. division of the Moldavian SSR, p. Paris
                    3 6 cav. Division Belarus, Bialystok Region, Lomza
                    4 8 cav. Division Primorsky Territory, Ussuri Region, Khankaisk District, v. Kamen-Rybolov
                    5 9 cav. Division of Moldova, Comrat
                    6 14 cav. Division Ukraine, Kamenetz-Podolsk Region, Slavuta
                    7 17 mountain cav. Division Armenia, Leninakan
                    8 18 Mountain Cav. Division Turkmenistan, Kushka
                    9 20 mountain cav. Division Tajikistan, Stalinabad
                    10 21 mountain cav. Division Uzbekistan, Ferghana
                    11 24 Cav. Division Azerbaijan, Kirovabad
                    12 32 Cav. Division Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Simferopol
                    13 36 Cav. Division Belarus, Bialystok region, Volkovysk


                    And you, Valery Vasilievich, a persistent liar.
                  2. Hudo
                    Hudo 15 November 2013 00: 50
                    0
                    Quote: AK-47
                    But the tank divisions were much smaller.


                    And how many Mr. storyteller? bully
                  3. Hudo
                    Hudo 15 November 2013 01: 01
                    +1
                    Quote: AK-47
                    Memoirs of G.K. Zhukov, Field Charter of the Red Army of 1939.
                    In 1941, in the Red Army, there were over 100 cav. divisions for the most part they were divided into 1941 - 1942 and did not form again.


                    Chief of Staff of the 17th Army Corps of the Wehrmacht, Major General Hans Doerr. In his book "Campaign to Stalingrad" he gives the following data for August 1942:
                    According to the Eastern Armies Division of the OKH Intelligence Directorate, by mid-August 1942. Russia had the following forces:
                    407 rifle divisions
                    178 rifle brigades
                    39 cavalry divisions
                    165 tank brigades

                    Ku-ku, Mr. Reason. Hu ar yu? I mean, is it time for you to loop?
                    1. AK-47
                      AK-47 15 November 2013 14: 06
                      0
                      Quote: Hudo
                      The chief of staff of the 17th Army Corps of the Wehrmacht, Major General Hans Dörr. In his ...

                      July 15, 1941 Chief of the General Staff G.K. Zhukov outlined the following: “Our army is somewhat underestimated the importance of cavalry. In the current situation on the fronts, when the enemy’s rear lines stretched for several hundred kilometers in forested areas and were completely unsuccessful from major sabotage actions on our part, the red cavalry raids on the enemy’s stretched rear lines could play a decisive role in the disorganization of the control and supply of German troops and ... "
                      By the end of 1941, the Red Army already had 82 light cavalry divisions of 3447 personnel.
                      In February 1942, the Red Army had 87 cavalry divisions, this is the maximum, then the number of cavalry began to decline. On May 1, 1943, there were 26 cavalry divisions in the Red Army, numbering 238 people and 968 horses.
                      Ku-ku, Mr. rude. Do not read at night the history of the CPSU and the memoirs of the enemy.
                    2. AK-47
                      AK-47 15 November 2013 14: 35
                      0
                      Quote: Hudo
                      39 cavalry divisions

                      Well, do not take my word for it, the link to the document: "Directive of the General Staff No. 168780 of 18.06.1956/XNUMX/XNUMX (List No. 6 of the cavalry, tank, airborne divisions and directorates of artillery, anti-aircraft artillery, mortar, aviation and fighter divisions that were part of the army during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.)"
                      http://tashv.nm.ru/Perechni_voisk/Perechen_06_01.html
          5. Snoop
            Snoop 14 November 2013 21: 21
            0
            Who was in charge? People's Commissar - Tymoshenko, chief of the General Staff of the spacecraft - Zhukov.
    2. Victor Kamenev
      14 November 2013 13: 07
      0
      As they say, who is not mistaken ... I repeated this idea from somewhere, this is not my era, but, fortunately, we also have other history buffs. But this does not change the essence of the matter: there was such a field marshal, he fought in the Crimea and said this maxim.
      As for the blitzkrieg: we were nevertheless stopped by him, and could, in principle, be stopped much further from Moscow, so your thought is incomprehensible here, if only from a desire to contradict.
      France could be considered, and much more, but the size of the article does not allow. Generally, pro-fascist sentiments were strong in France, this is one of the most important reasons for her defeat, she had no desire to fight for life and death.
      Japan played a relatively small role in the war, the hat was not according to Senka, so it was defeated so quickly. It was not in India that the fate of the world was decided, and not in the Pacific, but on the Soviet-German front.
      History is made by people, and Providence, and one should not confuse it with a river: the river flows not according to logic, but to the terrain.
      1. falcon
        falcon 14 November 2013 14: 52
        0
        Quote: Victor Kamenev

        History is made by people and providence

        I completely agree with this. Providence, or Providence of God.
  15. Evgan
    Evgan 14 November 2013 11: 40
    +1
    the Anglo-Soviet, and then in the Soviet-American communiqué of 1942, our allies commit themselves to open a second front in Europe in 1942. It was, if you like, a solemn promise in the light of heavy fighting on the Soviet-German front, but it was not fulfilled either in 1942 or in 1943.


    There was a tricky story. After the signing, Churchill kind of handed over a note to Molotov that he did not consider this communiqué to be an obligation to open a 2nd front in Europe, and that it would be cltkfyj only if there were appropriate conditions. The sly fox has secured itself ...
    1. Victor Kamenev
      14 November 2013 13: 16
      +1
      This is interesting, there are many nuances in such things, but it is important to highlight the main content. Most importantly, it seems to me that our allies kept plan "B" in their heads throughout the war, waited for the moment to put it into action, pushed it, prepared the ground, but it was impossible to foresee the "oak table" ...
      1. Evgan
        Evgan 14 November 2013 17: 03
        0
        Well, at least they did not rule out this possibility.

        On the other hand, the same plan "Unthinkable", if you read it, is very interesting. This is not a plan for a war against the USSR as such, this is a document in which the possible consequences were worked out IF the allies decide to fight with us. And in it, the committee of the chiefs of staff of Great Britain comes to the conclusion that such a war is futile.
        One can also argue about the Second Front for a very long time - they could or could not have landed in 1942-43. At 42, they couldn't, they got too stuck in Africa. In 1943? It is very likely that they could, but Italy was too tasty morsel, and besides, it formally fell under the concept of a "front in Europe". In this regard, personally indicative for me is the fact that even in 1944 Eisenhower was not sure of the success of the landing, having written a note in case of its failure. And in 1944 the Allies were much stronger than in 1943.
        1. Victor Kamenev
          14 November 2013 21: 09
          0
          I don’t think we know everything about the Unthinkable plan and other plans of Churchill, the English archives are still more closed than ours. And what we know may very well have been edited. Facts are more important here, they themselves speak of intentions.
  16. Evgan
    Evgan 14 November 2013 11: 41
    0
    On the agenda is the question of the possible withdrawal of the United States and Britain from the anti-Hitler coalition (!), And entry into an alliance with Nazi generals (!)


    Where is this from? Is there any confirmation?
    1. Victor Kamenev
      14 November 2013 13: 19
      +1
      This is a well-known fact, so I did not document it. Information about this, very stingy, many historians cite. The Internet will confirm.
      1. Evgan
        Evgan 14 November 2013 18: 11
        +2
        On the Internet, apart from the statements of Falin, literally quoted in the article, I did not find. Maybe share other sources?
        Honestly, I’m doubtful that Churchill, who has repeatedly announced that Britain will stand against Hitler to the end, would go for it, no matter how we treat him.
        1. Doctorleg
          Doctorleg 14 November 2013 18: 18
          0
          Quote: EvgAn
          On the Internet, apart from the statements of Falin, literally quoted in the article, I did not find. Maybe share other sources?
          Honestly, I’m doubtful that Churchill, who has repeatedly announced that Britain will stand against Hitler to the end, would go for it, no matter how we treat him.

          Agree
          1. Victor Kamenev
            14 November 2013 21: 20
            +1
            That's exactly what Hitler is against, the Anglo-Saxons are still using this clever trick: they are fighting against Saddam, Gaddafi, even our GDP is a dictator who has deprived Russia of freedom of choice, as it were, to the West.
            Therefore, the attempt on Hitler was absolutely necessary for Churchill to say: the situation has changed dramatically, Europe must be appeased, there is no Hitler, and we are free from previous commitments. Falin adheres to the concept of the Anglo-Saxon plot, so you already have one historian.
  17. Alexey
    Alexey 14 November 2013 11: 53
    +3
    This article echoes the article by A. Wasserman "Logistics beats strategy". In general, I agree with the train of thought, but the topic is too voluminous for a short article.
    1. Victor Kamenev
      14 November 2013 13: 23
      +1
      Stglasen, it is rather the sum of theses that need to be deployed and deployed.
  18. Alexey
    Alexey 14 November 2013 11: 53
    0
    This article echoes the article by A. Wasserman "Logistics beats strategy". In general, I agree with the train of thought, but the topic is too voluminous for a short article.
  19. Bandera
    Bandera 14 November 2013 11: 54
    +2
    Good analytics and the point of view of the author has the right to life.
  20. Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 14 November 2013 12: 45
    0
    Questions to the author: who, for what and why raised Hitler and restored Germany? Answers have already been published on VO. hi
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 14 November 2013 12: 52
      +1
      Quote: Gomunkul
      Answers have already been published on VO.

      What will suit you?
      Indeed, diametrically opposed points of view exist.
      By the way, Adolf Hitler came to power in an absolutely democratic way.
      wink
      1. samoletil18
        samoletil18 14 November 2013 19: 52
        +1
        By the way, Adolf Hitler came to power in an absolutely democratic way

        The color revolution, however.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 14 November 2013 19: 57
          0
          Quote: samoletil18
          The color revolution, however.

          Though color, at least black and white, but revolution!
          At one time he was surprised at this. But the words from the song ...
    2. Victor Kamenev
      14 November 2013 13: 29
      +1
      The article speaks about this quote V.Falin, I agree with Falin, in general, this topic was heard in Soviet historiography, and today, I think, it is politically correct.
  21. Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 14 November 2013 14: 31
    +1
    ... During the time of Catherine the Great, Russian Field Marshal Munnich, a German in the Russian service who helped Count Potemkin conquer the Crimea, said strange words: "Russia is undoubtedly ruled by God himself, otherwise it is impossible to explain its existence." Otherwise, it seems impossible to explain much in the history of Russia, including these tricks of history in the Great Patriotic War, when, as if, the hand of Providence intervened to change the already visible historical fabric. I want to believe this especially today, when US missile-bombing attacks have become a way of spreading “Western democracy” in the world. But maybe it remains only to believe ...

    The wonderful quintessence of a no less remarkable article, only, to the last sentence, I want to add a quote from the New Testament: "FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD".
  22. dmb
    dmb 14 November 2013 14: 35
    +1
    In general, one can agree with the arguments. I only wish the author to separate his thoughts from the thoughts of Zinoviev.
  23. lexe
    lexe 14 November 2013 15: 15
    +1
    An interesting point of view.
    A possible scenario for the repetition of a positional war in 1941 on the Soviet-German front with the participation of all Western countries on the side of Germany. But was it possible in practice? Well then, Germany automatically became the leader of the Western world with the demolition of political elites in all Western countries, a kind of tectonic change ... the unification of the Western world under the swastika with the guiding role of the German people. Brad. The Anglo-Saxons would not go for it, but they could quite play a role in this direction and benefit for themselves on June 22 ...
    And let's not forget that without Russia (USSR) the "value" of most states is purely nominal ... China, Japan. So ... the Chinese and Japanese could well forget their old grievances and become allies of the USSR! And South America? Did they have to wait calmly when the West wins? -And wait for new colonists?
    So Russia is a kind of guarantor of the stability of the world — and the West itself, as well as the East, is primarily interested in this guarantor ...
    Unite the whole world against the guarantor (Russia)? And the point? -Then to look for a new guarantor? Yes, and plunge the world into chaos? -No this is fantastic laughing
    and unconvincing.
  24. Alex66
    Alex66 14 November 2013 15: 16
    +2
    “Russia is undoubtedly governed by God himself, otherwise it is impossible to explain its existence”
    Here is the answer to all the questions, while we are with God, who is against us?
  25. Apologet insane
    Apologet insane 14 November 2013 16: 44
    -5
    Pleased delirium about the meeting in Quebec. By the way, I heard that in Nuremberg, in 1942, Stalin arrived at a meeting with Hitler and Churchill by secret train to speak out against the United States and Japan. This is very classified information, documents and witnesses of that meeting were not preserved.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 14 November 2013 17: 16
      +4
      Quote: Apologet Insane
      documents and witnesses of that meeting were not preserved.

      So, as always, in the most interesting place!
      Stop it!
      Sorry, but how did you find out about this ?! So something is preserved? And you do not want to share knowledge ?!
      Ay-ya-yay, it’s not politically correct!
      And in vain about the advice of the Fuhrer, you are silent
      1. Apologet insane
        Apologet insane 14 November 2013 19: 04
        -4
        So, in 1937, Stalin dealt with the reduction of command staff, very productively, by the way.
      2. Apologet insane
        Apologet insane 14 November 2013 19: 08
        0
        Quote: Cynic

        So, as always, in the most interesting place!
        Stop it!
        Sorry, but how did you find out about this ?! So something is preserved? And you do not want to share knowledge ?!


        Moreover, all evidence of the existence of the Nazi secret base on the far side of the moon was completely destroyed, although not so long ago the Finns released a documentary on this topic. About Goebbels’s conspiracy and world Zionism, which together organized a Holocaust so that the UN would give Palestine after the war to Zionists and shouldn’t mention it - they also destroyed all the evidence, the damned Anglo-Saxons.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 14 November 2013 19: 45
          +2
          Quote: Apologet Insane
          all evidence destroyed

          Well, not all, unfortunately.
          There is a source / hotbed of forbidden knowledge, judging by the content of your comments.
        2. samoletil18
          samoletil18 14 November 2013 19: 57
          +1
          Nazi secret base on the far side of the moon, although not so long ago the Finns released a documentary on this subject.

          Also "Iron Sky" is a feature film.
      3. VARCHUN
        VARCHUN 14 November 2013 19: 10
        -5
        Yes, but only then there was a repressive reduction in command due to the schizophrenic Stalin, and now due to the corrupt government, do you catch the difference?
        1. Snoop
          Snoop 14 November 2013 21: 26
          +1
          So you think a priori that the military conspiracy is all fiction? I would not say so. Basically, the proteges of Trotsky suffered from the military.
  26. Bigriver
    Bigriver 14 November 2013 17: 40
    +3
    Suppose, on June 22, 1941, the Red Army met in full combat readiness, and, after fierce battles, somewhere on the Minsk-Kiev line, our German troops stopped, the front stabilized, and the war took on a positional character.

    I read up to this point and quit.
    The author is creative on the topic of war, but he himself does not want to understand it. For example, what was the know-how of the Wehrmacht, and what were the problems of the Red Army.
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 14 November 2013 19: 29
      0
      I read up to this point and quit.
      The author is creative on the topic of war, but he himself does not want to understand it. For example, what was the know-how of the Wehrmacht, and what were the problems of the Red Army.

      The article is not about the USSR - Germany, but about the USSR - allies.
  27. samoletil18
    samoletil18 14 November 2013 19: 18
    +2
    Not that the article is unambiguously correct, but its essence is correct. The more you know history, the more you become convinced of the unnaturalness of any alliances with Britain for Russia. So in the Great Patriotic War, Stalin was again drawn into an alliance, which gave a quarter of Germany to Britain, a quarter of France (!), A quarter of the United States. Those. our grandfathers dragged "chestnuts from the fire" for this pack of greedy jackals. But, unlike all previous wars, we had one loyal ally - Mongolia, which did what it could for us and covered a solid piece of the border from Japan, which understood that, if it worked out, we would have to fight it too.
    Now who will become a faithful ally of Russia, if what? Democracy is walking the planet, the color revolution - and there is no ally.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 14 November 2013 20: 41
      0
      Quote: samoletil18
      which gave a quarter of Germany to Britain, a quarter of France (!), a quarter of the USA

      Look at the map of pre-war Germany - the USSR after the war received half of its former territory in its sphere of influence !!!
  28. studentmati
    studentmati 14 November 2013 20: 04
    0
    In twenty years, no more, I would like to know that the Soviet archives of the 30s and 40s were declassified, all were declassified. I do not think that in 2030 it will harm people and states. And today, I believe it is necessary to accumulate material from those small eyewitnesses and participants of the Great Patriotic War with the utmost scrupulousness for the future.
  29. Stas1973
    Stas1973 14 November 2013 20: 31
    0
    It has long been on the site, but after this article I found it necessary to register and write a comment.
    After such words of the author, who positions himself as a participant of the Second World War, as a "rank" in relation to the title of Zhukov and "plastic", which was not there in 1941, it is worth writing confidently - a lie.
    1. Proud.
      Proud. 14 November 2013 21: 17
      +1
      Quote: Stas1973
      "plastic", which was not there in 1941,

      Well, why ... It was.
    2. Stinger
      Stinger 14 November 2013 21: 22
      +1
      For reference. in 1940, they conducted a complete re-certification of the entire command staff of the Red Army. The old ranks were forgotten, and the new ones were awarded according to the results of the audit. For example, commander of the 2nd rank I. Konev became a lieutenant general. Commander F. Remezov received the same rank. G. Zhukov was a commander, and became an army general.
    3. Victor Kamenev
      14 November 2013 21: 50
      +1
      You "did not see" the quotation of A. Zinoviev, he was a participant in the war, and it is not for you to judge him, you do not hold out a little in terms of authority.
  30. Selevc
    Selevc 14 November 2013 20: 51
    +1
    As for the second front, by the way, the author clearly made the wrong conclusions ... In 1940, the British were only thrown out of Europe and naturally they needed time to recover ... In 1942, unsuccessful attempts were made to land a limited landing force on the French coast, but this ended in disaster for the Allies ... To open a Second Front there was a massive landing - and it took a lot of time to prepare such an event. And keep in mind that German submarines dominated the sea in 1941 and 42 — the blow of German submarines on landing ships could completely disrupt everything !!!
    Even when acting together with the USA, it took Britain 3 years to: firstly prevent the naval blockade of her country, secondly concentrate the invasion army on its coast and fully provide it with everything necessary, thirdly gain air supremacy to cover airborne forces and fourthly - while not stopping military assistance to the USSR ...

    I do not have much sympathy for the Anglo-Saxons, but I think that for a correct assessment of the events of World War II, all factors must be taken into account ...
    1. Victor Kamenev
      14 November 2013 21: 44
      0
      In fact, there was a war, and you are laying out Churchill's arguments, which, in fact, relate to peacetime teachings. Here we will mobilize everything, we will ensure a tangible advantage, without especially straining, and then ... With such a logic, Russia-USSR would lose the war, war is an extraordinary business, not an ordinary one. We did everything possible and the impossible, too, the allies - on schedule, that is the meanness with the opening of the second front. This haste, however, is the result of the "double bottom" strategy, "let them kill each other a little longer on the first front", about which there is reliable information.
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 14 November 2013 22: 54
        -1
        Quote: Victor Kamenev
        This haste, however, is the result of the "double bottom" strategy, "let them kill each other a little longer on the first front", about which there is reliable information.

        Suppose these are Churchill’s arguments, who cares, but they have common sense ... England helped the USSR even in the most difficult period of the Great Patriotic War - when the Germans broke through our defenses in 1942 and reached almost the Volga and occupied the entire North Caucasus ... And they tried to open a second front, as promised, and did it in a hurry in the 42nd year - for which they paid ... It turned out to be a very difficult matter because the Germans were not the enemy who would simply spoil the landing ...
        For Britain, the opening of the Second Front was a very important task, but it was not a matter of life and death - at that time breaking the sea blockade and providing their country with food was much more important for them ...
  31. Vadim2013
    Vadim2013 14 November 2013 21: 42
    0
    Quote: Varchun
    Well, yes, and the people that are dying do not count, yes?

    This was written earlier by me. Many soldiers, officers and military men who went to the military registration and enlistment offices died in vain, and died falling under the fire of the erupted German units.
    1. lexe
      lexe 15 November 2013 09: 00
      -1
      There is still no chance of stopping the Germans in 1941. far west of the Red Army were.
      Hitler had been waging a war for almost 2 years, mobilizing the male population of technology with technology, but the quantity was also crucial.
      Yes, the strike could have been earlier, in May. But what about the winter period? Stalin could well have included the military regime for the country, namely in the winter period, declaring universal, to pull troops from the western border (from the first strike). Why did Finland enter the war again ? -when being defeated? I remember Alexander 1 as a preventive strike to protect Petersburg from the Swedes.
      That is, troops from the North, the Far East, the Caucasus could very well (yes, have to!) Be deployed in the European part of Russia.
      And WWII did not go beyond the territory at all, but for the quantitative composition of the population — it was necessary first of all to protect Belarus, Ukraine, Central Russia where the bulk of our people lived.
      And building strategies without taking into account the main factor of the goal of the war-people ... is ... then pick up the words yourself, if you can.
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 15 November 2013 16: 51
        0
        Quote: Lexi
        declaring universal-pull troops away from the western border (from the first strike)

        And you about Stalin's line do you know anything? And about Molotov Line ?
        1. lexe
          lexe 17 November 2013 01: 25
          0
          Do you know anything about the Stalin Line? And about the Molotov Line?

          Well, tell us what "steadfast" attention was paid by the Soviet leadership of the UR-m on the eve of the war.
          But in addition to Ur-in and natural water barriers should be saturated with troops, which is not possible without general mobilization, German sabotage operations in 1941. against the cover units were quite successful, the blitzkrieg tactics however ... and the USSR Air Force also could not prevent this, for a simple reason, defeat due to the relative proximity to the enemy at the beginning of the war.
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 17 November 2013 11: 05
            +1
            Quote: Lexi
            Well, tell us what "steadfast" attention was paid by the Soviet leadership of the UR-m on the eve of the war.

            You do not understand what it was said.
            This article is a purely speculative construction and, unfortunately, in my opinion, without taking into account some factors.
            After all, for example, if we introduce into the picture the "close" attention of the Soviet leadership to the URs on the eve of the war, then an eerie picture really turns out, more than.
            I met in my memoirs that the officer who offered to place caches with weapons and explosives for sabotage groups in the UR foothills was accused of disbelief and denial of the same doctrine _ We will fight in foreign territory!
            hi
  32. Stinger
    Stinger 14 November 2013 21: 51
    0
    I liked the article. The author's analysis and reasoning are very interesting. Don't you think that the beginning of the conspiracy was laid by the flight of Hess, after which the Germans curtailed the Sea Lion, tightened the second front, opened it only after the failed attempt on Hitler's life, kept Hess locked up until his natural death? The British are our old "friends"
  33. navodchik
    navodchik 14 November 2013 22: 28
    +1
    Suppose, on June 22, 1941, the Red Army met in full combat readiness, and, after fierce battles, somewhere on the Minsk-Kiev line, our German troops stopped, the front stabilized, and the war assumed a positional character. What would happen then? And what was missing? One can definitely say what would not be then: the anti-Hitler coalition would not have formed, and therefore the Great Patriotic War took a completely different character

    Let's say all this. Definitely it would be in the hands of the USSR. The regular parts of the Red Army would survive. In the Urals, in Belarus, in Ukraine, not to mention Moscow and St. Petersburg (without air raids), the production of weapons and ammunition would expand. We look further. The Nazis would have met winter in an open field, and not where they deigned to retreat under the blows of the Red Army. In winter, the Fritz did not show themselves as warriors. Then came 1942, which in the government’s plans was a turning point in the production of weapons and reorganization. This would be the point of actual breaking according to our rules.
  34. valerei
    valerei 14 November 2013 23: 58
    0
    An interesting article on the topic: "if only or if only." However, the train of thought itself provides a topic for purely discussion, of which an example is a lot of comments. Well, the most important conclusion that can be drawn from this article is that Russia has only two allies, on whom one can only hope.
  35. Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 15 November 2013 05: 26
    0
    Quote: AK-47
    Budenny and Voroshilov, for whom the main weapon was a horse and a saber.
    -
    For Budyonny even in 1919. the main weapon was not a horse and a saber, but a cart with a machine gun - in general, his tactics was a quick maneuver by mobile firing points, which was the forerunner of the tanks as an independent kind of troops. The Germans developed the blitzkrieg strategy by learning from him, Budyonny.
    1. SIT
      SIT 15 November 2013 23: 25
      0
      Quote: Sahar Medovich
      The Germans developed the blitzkrieg strategy by learning from him, Budyonny.

      The blitzkrieg strategy was developed in 1911. The general features of the plan of war with the USSR, the development of which was the Barbaross plan, were developed in 1922 by the former chief of the general staff of the German Eastern Front, General M. Hoffmann, the father founder of independent Ukraine. They didn’t study under Budeny, but on the contrary the Germans retrained our cavalrymen as tankmen at the KAMA school (Kazan and Colonel MALBRANT) from 1929 to 1933.
      On the topic of the article: The Soviet Army reached the borders of the USSR on March 26.03.1944, XNUMX. The war ended a year later. Moreover, the entire industry of the European part of the Union lay in ruins. If all this had remained intact and the Germans had not gone further than Minsk, then in a month the oil of the Romanian Ploiesti would have been no longer available to Hitler, because The southwestern front surpassed the Wehrmacht in this direction in tanks at times, but besides our Black Sea Fleet there was no other military fleet in the Black Sea. All German iron would be left without fuel. Well, and what would the British have managed to help Hitler, even if they wanted to? The states needed Japan first of all, they were not up to Hitler.
  36. nnz226
    nnz226 16 November 2013 01: 47
    +1
    Stupid question in the article: "What would happen if the Germans were stopped near the border?" Yes, 27000000 lives would not have been lost !!! This is a sufficient price against all other considerations. And if the USSR survived the defeat of 1941, losses in 1942, then, without having such human losses, as well as losses in industrial and agricultural production (there was no need to evacuate thousands of factories and lose crops in the most fertile places), then the Wehrmacht , and even more so the Anglo-Saxons would have turned their heads !!!
  37. Selevc
    Selevc 16 November 2013 10: 51
    0
    Quote: nnz226
    Yes, 27000000 lives would not be lost !!!

    Already 27 lyam? And recently I read like 26 was a figure? And in the 90s they spoke like 23 million dead ... And in the 80s they said like 20 million ... Maybe it’s time to finally decide?
    Just like in a casino - rates are rising !!!
    The author should have called the article something like this "The British are to blame for everything !!!" - this conclusion is like a red thread through all the written delirium !!!
  38. Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 17 November 2013 08: 02
    0
    [quote = SIT] [quote = Sakhar Medovich] The Germans developed their blitzkrieg strategy by learning from him, Budyonny. [/ quote]
    The blitzkrieg strategy was developed in 1911. The general features of the plan of war with the USSR, the development of which was the Barbaross plan, were developed in 1922 by the former chief of the general staff of the German Eastern Front, General M. Hoffmann, the father founder of independent Ukraine. They didn’t study under Budeny, but on the contrary the Germans retrained our cavalrymen as tankmen at the KAMA school (Kazan and Colonel MALBRANT) from 1929 to 1933.
    The Germans themselves (Halder) argue that it was Budyonny who founded the tactics that the Germans then introduced at home. That is, Budyonny was not at all hoping for a saber, but for a quick maneuver with a mass of fire, which means technology.
  39. yacht
    yacht 17 November 2013 15: 07
    0
    Zinoviev - respect.
  40. Zomanus
    Zomanus 18 November 2013 00: 28
    0
    In any case, an interesting article. Especially considering that Hitler was originally a project of England against the Union. It goes without saying that the Anglo-Saxons tried to use it to the fullest. By the way, I have not watched comments for a long time and noticed that a lot of screamers appeared on the site who are trying to frantically spit on any historical article. That is, not a step-by-step analysis, but a dull hysteria and a bunch of Mr. towards the author.