Military Review

Combine and conquer. State defense requires tough measures to centralize the military-political leadership

33
The experience of two world wars of the twentieth century showed: the most important condition for winning them was the creation of an effective system of government. Miscalculations in this particular area were among the most important reasons for Russia's failure in the First World War. In turn, the leadership of the USSR at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War also faced a similar management crisis. The regime of personal power of Stalin coped with the tasks of the prewar period, but after the German attack, the country again needed an effective management system.


In the new edition of the Basic Laws of the Russian Empire (1906), the sovereign emperor was defined as “the sovereign leader of the Russian army and fleet", Which owns the" supreme command over all the land and naval forces of the Russian state. " The real situation since the beginning of the war was different. The whole territory of Russia was divided into two parts - the theater of operations and the internal regions of the country, that is, the front zone and rear. At the front, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Grand Duke Adjutant General Nikolai Nikolaevich, who headed the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander, had unlimited rights. He was subordinated exclusively to the emperor. No government body had the right to give him any orders and orders. But the power of the Headquarters was limited only to the theater of operations.

In the interior areas, all military forces and institutions were led by the Minister of War Vladimir Aleksandrovich Sukhomlinov, who was subordinate not to the Supreme Commander, but only to the emperor. The structure of the Military Ministry included the main directorates: artillery, quartermaster, military-technical, on the satisfaction of the troops, and others. Glavkoverh could not directly manage the combat supplies of the army, contentment, and reserves. The new Regulation on the Field Administration of the 1914 of the Year, adopted after the outbreak of the war, although it contained important measures to manage the rear, but left the central army supply agencies under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of War. At the same time, the emperor was also somewhat limited in his managerial abilities - he could not freely dispose of funds without the sanction of the Budget Commission of the State Duma.

Significant shortcomings in the organization of the military-state administration revealed the Russian-Japanese war. One of the most serious problems was the fact that the army and the navy were guided by bodies independent of each other - the military and naval ministries. In March, 1905, in Tsarskoye Selo, chaired by Nicholas II, a meeting of the top leaders of the army and navy was held, at which this situation was discussed. At the suggestion of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, it was decided to immediately form a Council of State Defense. This body was supposed to combine the activities of the Military and Maritime Ministries and coordinate it with the activities of government agencies on matters relating to the security of the state. The nominal head of the council was the emperor himself, the actual grand duke Nikolai Nikolayevich. The chairman of the council, vested with enormous powers, was considered the main person responsible for the defense of the country and had the right to make inquiries to all agencies on any matter relating to national defense. The military and naval ministries were obliged to inform him of all their important enterprises and plans. Foreign Minister - to inform about everything that was related to defense.

According to Sergei Yulievich Vitte, the case was that the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich was appointed under the guise of the chairman of the Council of State Defense as the head of both the Military and the Naval Ministry. The creation of the council caused sharp discontent on the part of the highest military hierarchy. The Minister of War Viktor Sakharov, as well as the future head of the military department (at that time, the commander of the troops of the Kiev military district) Vladimir Alexandrovich Sukhomlinov, criticized this body.

Torn by contradictions

Sharp controversies in the ruling circles of the Russian empire regarding the priority directions of the development of the armed forces, that is, determining which of the two types - the army or the fleet - to give priority and accordingly send the main funding, played an extremely negative role in the fate of the State Defense Council.

Combine and conquer. State defense requires tough measures to centralize the military-political leadershipGrand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich believed that first of all it was necessary to strengthen the ground forces and only then as far as possible to restore the navy, which suffered serious losses in the war with Japan. The king was convinced of the opposite: first, the fleet, only then land forces. All of this ultimately predetermined the resignation of the chairman, and then the liquidation of the council itself in August 1909.

Following the same course of separation of powers played a detrimental role in the years of the First World War. The absence of a single body in which all military and state power would be concentrated will be one of the most important reasons for the defeat of the Russian army in 1914 – 1915. Already during the war, the principle of separation of the front zone from the rear of the state was subjected to harsh criticism. State Duma Deputy Vasily Vitalyevich Shulgin, in February 1916, drafted the “wishes” in which the first paragraph emphasized that the division of the country into two parts, managed by various authorities and difficult to reconcile, does not meet the requirements of modern warfare. This provision "cannot but be reflected in the highest degree negatively on the defense of the state, which requires above all the unity of action throughout the whole space of the empire."

Needless to say, it was the Minister of War Sukhomlinov who was considered the main culprit of military defeats. He was accused of a shortage of shells and weapons. The poor supply of troops was the main subject of the Chief Chief's complaints to the emperor during his visits. Stakes in the spring of 1915.

At the same time, Sukhomlinov’s power was not complete, since only military institutions of the rear were subordinate to him, and civilian ministries were beyond his competence. Many high-ranking military officials understood the need to restore a single firm power in the rear.

15 June 1916, Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander General of Infantry Mikhail Vasilievich Alekseev in a memo to Nikolay II suggested concentrating all power in all internal areas of the empire in the hands of one authorized person, who would be called the supreme minister of state defense. According to Alekseev, he “must be given to unite, direct and direct, by a single will, the activities of all ministers, state and public institutions outside the theater of operations”. The orders of the Supreme Minister of State Defense must be executed within the empire by all government agencies and public organizations. However, the proposal was met with hostility by the ministers headed by the chairman of the Council of Ministers Sturmer. The king did not support him either.

Could not change the situation and the appointment of Nicholas II himself to the post of Commander in Chief in August 1915. As Vladimir Degoev wrote, this was one of the most unsuccessful personnel decisions of the tsar: “If a tough and decisive politician of a dictatorial warehouse were in his place, perhaps this step would be a success. But since Nicholas II did not belong to the category of strong personalities, his gesture was perceived as a farce, a gesture of despair, or a foolish whim. ” Indeed, after this, in the eyes of almost all walks of life, Nicholas II became the main culprit in all defeats.

Severe consequences

In the absence of strict control, the supply of the existing army with everything necessary was organized inefficiently. The four Special Meetings created — on state defense, transportation, fuel, food — were initially bulky bodies, soon overgrown with innumerable committees. In this situation, private producers could impose their conditions on the government.

Even attempts to unite the work of such an important industry as railways have failed. Subsequently, the head of the Railway Administration of the Ministry of Railways, Eduard Bronislavovich Voinovsky-Krieger, recalled: “A great inconvenience was in dividing the entire network into two parts, one subordinate to the Ministry of Railways, and the other was under the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Railways, the organ of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander, this led often to inconsistent orders and actions. ” However, his immediate superior, the Minister of Railways Alexander Fedorovich Trepov, did not think so. Speaking at a meeting of the State Duma in August 1915, he said: “The full combination of military and civilian traffic of the empire in the hands of one power seems unacceptable during the war.”

The historian Nikolai Yakovlev made a fair conclusion: “The uncompromising division into the front and rear, contrary to the logic of warfare and common sense, turned out for Russia to have the gravest consequences.”

What happened is a consequence of the very nature of Russian autocratic power. Too much depended on the identity of the one on the throne, especially in war conditions. A strong, tough monarch, such as Peter I, suppressed the destructive activities of various pressure groups. With a softer ruler, such as Alexander I, intrigue and the struggle of court factions flourished. A similar situation manifested itself back in the Patriotic War of the 1812 year, when the supply of the army and its provision with reserves were outside the control of Commander-in-Chief Kutuzov. This, of course, had negative consequences, but not as tragic as in the conditions of a total world conflict.

At the same time, even democratic countries of that time, for the sake of victory, promptly resorted to tough measures to centralize the military-political leadership. Thus, in England, with the beginning of the war, deficiencies in the supply of armed forces with ammunition and food, which began to affect the course of hostilities, appeared. In 1914 – 1915, laws were passed on the “protection of the kingdom”, which affirmed the unconditional priority of state interests over private ones. These laws were supposed to legally justify the actions of the authorities to unite all forces to achieve victory over the enemy. The laws sanctioned the establishment of state control over enterprises producing military products, railroads, fleets, strategic materials, etc. The state had the right to confiscate any enterprise for a wartime period whose products had strategic importance. By the end of the war, more than 80 percent of the British industry was under his control. David Lloyd-George, who became Prime Minister in December 1916, created a five-member military cabinet within the government, which concentrated in his hands all the functions of the military and civilian administration of the country during the war (liberals left the government in protest). Similar measures were taken in France and in other countries. They largely contributed to the turning point of the situation on the fronts.

In the interest of war

The Bolsheviks who came to power in October 1917 largely took into account the tsarist government’s miscalculations. Faced with the harsh reality of the Civil War and military intervention, they took a series of emergency measures to centralize the activities of the front and rear. “Since it came to war, everything must be subordinated to the interests of war, the whole inner life must be subordinated to war, the slightest hesitation on this score is unacceptable” - these words of Lenin become the practical program of their activities. The Soviet Republic really turned into a single military camp, and this was the most important reason for the victory of the Reds over the scattered, unalloyed leadership of the White movement and the interventionists.

Since the beginning of World War II, the situation in the leadership of the country somewhat resembled the position of Russia in 1914. Thus, the Navy was not subordinate to the USSR People's Commissar for Defense of the USSR Semyon Konstantinovich Tymoshenko, since he was supervised by the Navy Commissar Nikolai Gerasimovich Kuznetsov. Border troops and military units of the NKVD were not subordinate to him. The People's Commissar of Defense could not dispose of rail transportation, evacuation of objects, could not give orders to civilian and party institutions, did not know the issues of supply and reserves. The newly created system of effective management took into account the experience of the Civil War. The Supreme Command Headquarters (the final name) and the State Defense Committee, which had full military and state power, appeared. A number of other emergency measures were taken.

Apparently, under conditions when the top leadership of the USSR was aware of the inevitability of the German attack, such a system had to be created and functionally worked out in advance, and not after the war had become a fait accompli. In the opinion of Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov, “our lack of a supreme body of military leadership at the time of the attack by fascist Germany, naturally, could not at first not affect the command and control, the results of the first operations and the overall operational-strategic situation”.

Created after the start of the war, the system of leadership and management was constantly being improved and improved, but by the year of 1943 it had proved its effectiveness, which made it possible to achieve a radical change at the beginning, and then a final victory. History confirmed the words of Zhukov that "no military-political leadership of any other country would have stood the tests and would not have found a way out of this extremely unfavorable situation."

Thus, the Soviet leadership, faced with the crisis of the military-state administration when it entered the world war, managed, in contrast to the Nikolaev government, to quickly recognize it, overcome it and achieve victory.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. demotivator
    demotivator 14 December 2013 08: 19
    12
    First, a quote from an article by Sagomonyan:
    “Apparently, in conditions when the top leadership of the USSR realized the inevitability of an attack by Germany, such a system had to be created and functionally worked out in advance, and not after the war became a fait accompli. According to Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov,“ we have no supreme body of the military leadership at the time of the attack of Nazi Germany, naturally, could not at first but affect the command and control of the troops, the results of the first operations and the general operational-strategic situation. "
    What is it, the GKO and the Headquarters had to be created even before Germany attacked the USSR? Meanwhile, in that period, before the war, Stalin, as the head of the state (not the army and the navy, mind you, but the entire state), did everything in order, firstly, to delay the start of the war in every possible way, and secondly, to make so that no one in the world could present our country as an aggressor who unleashed a world slaughter. Today there are enough of all sorts of "smart people" who pass any measures of our then leadership to strengthen the country's defense as aggressive plans to unleash a war.
    And one more thought of the author of the article:
    "... the Soviet leadership, faced with a crisis of military-state control when entering the world war, managed, unlike the Nikolaev government, to quickly realize it, overcome it and achieve victory."
    This is where Saghomonyan saw the crisis of military-public administration in the USSR? Nicholas 2 did, yes. And what did Stalin find in this crisis? Everyone knows that even before the war, the industry of the USSR worked in anticipation that it could not be avoided. And as soon as it began, pre-developed plans for transferring the country's economy to military tracks were put into effect. The mere transfer of huge production capacities from the West of the country to the East, accomplished in the USSR, has no equal in the world! Such strength was only for those who know how to lead. And here they write about the crisis of public administration. But as regards the army’s unpreparedness for war, this is not a question of Stalin, but of the military leadership, the Minister of War and the Chief of the General Staff. It is they who are responsible for the comprehensive preparation of the country's armed forces for war.
    1. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ 15 December 2013 08: 35
      +5
      According to Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov, “the absence of the highest organ of military leadership at the time of the attack of fascist Germany, of course, could not ...
      (from article)


      And what do we have Zhukov G.K. was the Supreme Commander-in-Chief to bring his opinion.
      It may remind you that Marshal Zhukov said of Generalissimo Stalin:
      “The headquarters of the Supreme High Command was created with a delay and was not prepared to practically take over and carry out qualified control of the Armed Forces.
      The General Staff, the People’s Commissariat of Defense from the very beginning were disorganized by Stalin and deprived of his trust ...
      Stalin, not knowing the details of the situation on the fronts and being insufficiently competent in operational matters, gave unqualified instructions, not to mention the incompetent planning of major countermeasures, which in the current situation had to be carried out ... "


      Although during the life of Stalin, Zhukov’s opinion was different:
      Zhukov about Stalin in the Victory Parade.

      "We won because our great leader and brilliant commander, Marshal of the Soviet Union, Stalin, led us to victory!"

      Without exaggeration, it can be argued that during the Great Patriotic War, Stalin was the main leading figure of the country, in his hands were concentrated all the main levers of party and government. All major issues of war, domestic and foreign policy were decided under his leadership. The results of his activities were of crucial importance for a socialist state, people, army.

      Already in the very first difficult days of the war, Stalin without hesitation assumed immeasurable responsibility for the fate of the army, the country, for the fate of millions of Soviet people. "

      What can I say? Political weather vane Zhukov G.K.

      And in fact, IT IS STALIN AS THE SUPREME CHIEF COMMANDER MADE THE POSSIBLE VICTORY IN MAY 1945 OVER HITLER FASCISM.

      From the first hours of World War II, JV Stalin held control of the country, the front and the rear.
      Since June 30, 1941, Stalin I.V. Chairman of the State Defense Committee; from June 23, joined the Headquarters of the High Command, from July 10, headed the Headquarters of the High Command
      He took upon himself the heaviest burden of personal responsibility for the course and outcome of the war, the fate of the country, people and army. He gave all his strength, all his will and all his talent to the great cause of saving the Fatherland, protecting his honor, freedom and independence, winning the victory over fascism. His activities during the war every day were huge in scope and encompassed a wide range of complex problems - military, economic, political, social, ideological, diplomatic, foreign policy and many other important directions.
      Victory Marshal is not Zhukov G.K.
      Victory Marshal is Generalissimo Stalin Joseph Vissarionovich!
  2. novobranets
    novobranets 14 December 2013 08: 29
    17
    Thus, the Soviet leadership, faced with the crisis of the military-state administration when it entered the world war, managed, in contrast to the Nikolaev government, to quickly recognize it, overcome it and achieve victory.
    Lack of democracy, corruption and verbiage. The orders of the People’s Commissariat were carried out precisely and on time. The Serdyukovs and Chubais were deducted for five minutes at the nearest wall. No one in a nightmare could dream of taking at least a penny of folk money. Central subordination excluded the situation when the right hand did not know what the left was doing. And the main thing was the national IDEA, for which everything was done. Here, in my opinion, the main differences from today. Maybe I missed something, sorry. hi
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 14 December 2013 10: 23
      +2
      Quote: novobranets
      . And the main thing was the national IDEA, for which everything was done

      Reservation happened to you dear! There could not be a "national IDEA" in the USSR, by definition, for the bearded classics stated: THE PROLETARIAT OF THE FATHERLAND DOES NOT HAVE. Then the burry grandfather was forced to say "The socialist fatherland is in danger." The idea of ​​the USSR in 1941 was to defend the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from the German fascist invaders, not a national idea, mind you. Until 1943, the USSR supported the Comintern - no one in the USSR openly anathematized the future world government and the idea of ​​a world revolution. Only JV Stalin gave a hint on July 3, 1941 of a partial change of course in the national policy of the CPSU (b) - this is his famous BROTHERS AND SISTERS!
      1. novobranets
        novobranets 14 December 2013 11: 08
        +4
        I accept your amendment. I just had to write an IDEA. hi Today's trends brought down. lol
  3. sigizmund472
    sigizmund472 14 December 2013 09: 03
    +8
    Quote: novobranets
    Maybe I missed something, sorry.


    Everything is correct. Strict control over economic and financial activities, over the accurate and timely execution of assigned tasks. And no verbiage. The inevitability of severe punishment for negligence, lack of performance, red tape, waste, etc. And, of course, do not pay attention to the consequences of the "stress" of various gentlemen Vasilyevs.
  4. os9165
    os9165 14 December 2013 09: 15
    11
    In the opinion of Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov, “the absence of the highest organ of military leadership at the time of the attack of fascist Germany, of course, at first could not but affect the command and control of the troops, the results of the first operations and the general operational and strategic situation.” - My opinion should be more modest.
    And here are the facts:
    On the second day of the war, June 23, 1941, the Soviet government - the Supreme Council - established the highest organ of strategic command - the General Headquarters Headquarters. Initially, it included Marshals Voroshilov and Budyonny from the People’s Commissariat of Defense, Army General Zhukov from the General Staff, Admiral Kuznetsov from the Navy, Stalin and Molotov (People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs) from the USSR government. The Head of the Stavka was Commissar of Defense Marshal Tymoshenko. [211 - “Proceedings of the Central Committee of the CPSU” 1990, No. 6, p. 196.] He was the first Commander-in-Chief of the Red Army in the Great Patriotic War, but was short-lived. In less than a week, it turned out that our marshals and generals were not only incapable of commanding the Red Army, but had no idea what was happening on the fronts.
    On June 29, 1941, the Soviet government suddenly learned that the troops of the Soviet Western Front had surrendered Minsk to the Germans, the capital of Belarus. I did not learn from her Supreme Commander-in-Chief Tymoshenko and not from the chief of the General Staff Zhukov, but from the broadcasts of European radio stations. A.I. Mikoyan recalled that those gathered at Stalin - he, Molotov, Malenkov and Beria, who reported that the Germans had Minsk - were worried. Mikoyan further writes:
    “Stalin called the People’s Commissariat of Defense Marshal Tymoshenko. However, he could not say anything concrete about the situation in the western direction.
    Alarmed by this course of affairs, Stalin suggested we all go to the People's Commissariat and deal with the situation on the spot. In the office of the People's Commissar were Tymoshenko, Zhukov and Vatutin. Stalin kept calm, asked where the front command was, what kind of connection it had with him. Zhukov reported that the connection was lost and that it was not possible to restore it all day. ”
    I will explain that in the army the chiefs of staff are responsible for communications, the chiefs of communications troops directly subordinate to them, the chief of the General Staff Zhukov was responsible for communications in the Red Army, and responsibility went from top to bottom, i.e. higher headquarters were required to maintain contact with lower ones. Zhukov was unable to cope with this elementary task, even a week after the start of the war. Mikoyan continues:
    And yet, for about half an hour they talked rather calmly. Then Stalin exploded: what kind of General Staff, what chief of the General Staff, who is so confused that he has no connection with the troops, does not represent anyone and does not command anyone. Since there is no connection, the General Staff is powerless to lead. Zhukov, of course, was no less than Stalin worried about the state of affairs, and such a shout from Stalin was offensive to him. This courageous man could not stand it, burst into tears, like a woman, and quickly went into another room. Molotov went after him. We were all in a dejected state ”Mukhin Yuri - The assassination of Stalin and Beria.
    There were miscalculations, but the Victory had a Name - Stalin and the Soviet people. GDP is an example to follow.
    1. Pushkar
      Pushkar 14 December 2013 19: 16
      -2
      Quote: os9165
      In the opinion of Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov, “the absence of the highest organ of military leadership at the time of the attack of fascist Germany, of course, at first could not but affect the command and control of the troops, the results of the first operations and the general operational and strategic situation.” - My opinion should be more modest.
      And my opinion is that you should be more modest. Just not Zhukov. For him, his deeds and victories speak, and to you and Mr. Mukhin, the great storyteller and noble fighter against Zionism.
      1. Jipo
        Jipo 15 December 2013 12: 13
        +3
        I don’t know who wrote the memoirs to Marshal Zhukov, in any case, he did not strongly disown them, but under Stalin he said one thing, under Khrushchev poured mud flows on the Supreme, after Khrushchev the truth showed at least some kind of respect. For some reason, Rokosovsky, Golovanov, and the same Tymoshenko didn’t allow themselves that. Until 2000, I thought, judging by my memoirs, that the battle of Stalingrad was won by Zhukov, about the fact that at that time the marshal commanded the troops near Rzhev there wasn’t a word there.
        1. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru 15 December 2013 14: 00
          0
          And he laid there: comrades of the Red Army, comrade officers and many other comrades over a million! And what is the method of overcoming mine explosive barriers near Berlin?
      2. 11111mail.ru
        11111mail.ru 15 December 2013 13: 51
        0
        Quote: Pushkar
        And my opinion is that you should be more modest.

        Have your opinion, and rightly "you have to be more modest"!
        You, the great truth-seeker and truth-seeker, probably know that the winners write the story?
        What victories did this "editor" glorify Russian weapons? (See the command line!). Here with him you are probably on the way! Fisherman-fisherman ... and mu "ak-mu" daka too. Explore the immortal legacy of Mr. Taburetkin!
  5. varov14
    varov14 14 December 2013 09: 44
    +2
    "At the same time, the emperor was somewhat limited in his managerial capabilities - he could not freely dispose of funds without the sanction of the Budget Commission of the State Duma." ---- Moved to today's rails - one Bank of Russia can cover any war with a copper basin, being nobody an accountable body, and how many such "get-togethers".
  6. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 14 December 2013 09: 48
    10
    The system of leadership and management created after the outbreak of war was constantly refined and improved, but by 1943 it had already shown its effectiveness, which made it possible to achieve a radical change at the beginning,
    You can't argue here ... In general, this is now somehow hushed up But in order to evacuate a large plant from the European part of the USSR beyond the Urals and in a short time (2-3 months) produce military products practically under the open sky (I can't just imagine this ..) But this is a fact ..! And then the country is almost destroyed to restore in some 5 years (and helping the European countries ..) Stalin was right when he said "STAFF IS DECIDING EVERYTHING!" This is not enough for Russia now ...
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 14 December 2013 10: 36
      +2
      Quote: MIKHAN
      Stalin said "STAFF DECIDES EVERYTHING!" This is not enough for Russia now ...

      You can't argue with JV Stalin, he said how he chopped off. I am not afraid to finish your unsaid thought. The "cadres" who are now managing erephy in terms of the goals and objectives of those who put them to the levers of control should be a priori incapable of making responsible decisions! Even if they are all "soft" and "fluffy" personally, and even "effective managers" (for their own pocket, of course), BUT what heights has the Russian Federation reached in 14 years of Vladimir Putin's "rule"?
    2. novobranets
      novobranets 14 December 2013 11: 15
      +3
      Quote: MIKHAN
      "STAFF IS DECIDING EVERYTHING!" This is not enough for Russia now ...

      That's right, no need to go far. Take a look at what lies on the surface. The State Duma is the clearest example of incompetence and outright stupidity.
    3. carver
      carver 14 December 2013 17: 48
      +3
      Quote: MIKHAN
      [b] Stalin was right when he said "STAFF DECIDES EVERYTHING!" This is not enough for Russia now ...


      I would say there is no correct personnel policy. Licking and those who will do any muck for the sake of a superior go to the top of the ranks. The same thing led to the decline and the CPSU.
  7. La-5
    La-5 14 December 2013 10: 37
    +6
    Even Peter 1 said that Russia’s allies are fleet and army, without a strong and effective army, the Western militarists will simply devour the country.
    1. kair_kz
      kair_kz 14 December 2013 11: 05
      0
      certainly +
    2. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 14 December 2013 14: 12
      0
      Quote: La-5
      Peter 1 also said that Russia has allies with a fleet and an army

      You probably wanted to say: in the Maritime Charter of 1720, approved by Peter I it was: "... Every potent who has a single ground army has one hand, and which the fleet has, both hands."
    3. surveyor
      surveyor 14 December 2013 18: 34
      +2
      The words of the Russian emperor Alexander 3 Peacemaker (1845-1894), in which he expressed his foreign policy credo ....

      Russia has only two allies: its army and navy

      learn the story. your mother
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Guterjunge
      Guterjunge 15 December 2013 13: 10
      0
      a thousand times right, there are no more allies ...
  8. kair_kz
    kair_kz 14 December 2013 11: 04
    +5
    Quote: La-5
    Peter 1 also said that Russia has allies with a fleet and an army
    sorry it was Alexander III
  9. novobranets
    novobranets 14 December 2013 11: 28
    0
    The legislative act that determined the development of the national economy of our country for the period 1946-1950 was the Law on the five-year plan for the restoration and development of the national economy of the USSR 1946-1950 .. adopted by the Supreme Council of the USSR on March 18, 1946. For the first 10 years after the Great Patriotic War War, life expectancy has increased in both men and women by 12 years. By the mid-50s. the average life expectancy of men was 63 g, women - 69 g, then this growth slowed down.
  10. EvilLion
    EvilLion 14 December 2013 11: 50
    +3
    The regime of personal power of Stalin coped with the tasks of the pre-war time.


    What nafig personal power, Stalin is formally just a gene. secretary. And in general, he already managed to pull him up to the War, that he had to take everything on himself, well, hellish leaders from professional revolutionaries, what to do. Just for the concentration of power, the GKO was created.
    1. Gato
      Gato 14 December 2013 13: 25
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      crap out of professional revolutionaries leaders

      and commentators too.
      Read the story at your leisure. About all sorts of different Washington, Stalin, Napoleon, Ataturk
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 14 December 2013 14: 53
        0
        I didn’t read about Washington, but it’s bad to say about Ataayurk, you’ll go to jail, because you don’t, he kept the Turkish state. Napoleon, as a commander, also can not be belittled, he still admired Suvorov during his lifetime.
  11. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 14 December 2013 12: 00
    +1
    Quote: "No military-political leadership of any other country could stand such tests and find a way out of this extremely unfavorable situation."
    And the people ...?
    The logic of mobilizing all resources (material, military) required the creation of a single governing body to organize a rebuff to the Nazi invaders of the GKO and the Supreme Command. Everything is clear here. But, unfortunately, nothing is said about the great feat of the common people, on their own "hump", who revived the defense industry in the Urals and beyond, and provided everything necessary for the front.
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 14 December 2013 14: 41
      +6
      Quote: Ivanovich47
      on its own "hump" that revived the defense industry in the Urals

      It is impossible to create anything with a "hump", an example is GORBachev.
      Creation of a new industry in the Urals and Siberia from the production facilities saved from the occupation in 1941. predetermined the Victory in the Second World War. Without this, by 1943 the Red Army would have been left without tanks, artillery aircraft and ammunition. Everything in Zossen was calculated during the preparation of "Barbarossa" but such pedantic German brains could not think of such a thing as transferring only 700 enterprises to the Urals! Imagine, the Germans occupied Kharkov (KhTZ), but the "Soviets" did not run out of tanks, they occupied Stalingrad (STZ), the Russians did not have a shortage of tanks, and the Wehrmacht to Chelyabinsk was like cancer to Beijing! Although military materials from the PQ-17 caravan were needed at that moment! V.S. Pikul compared the defeat of the caravan with a major battle won by the Germans, which postponed the end of the war for several months.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 14 December 2013 14: 54
        +2
        Listen more to Pikul ... That fruit.
        1. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru 14 December 2013 21: 51
          0
          Quote: EvilLion
          That fruit.

          Unlike you and me, Valentin Savvich left to defend the Motherland as a teenager. He took a course at the Jung Solovetsky School, which, by the way, was at that time not far from the front (the Germans were bombing). In 1943 he was a signalman on the destroyer "Grozny". When the war ended, he turned 17. A patriotic writer (although for you the word patriot is abusive), his books awaken love for the Motherland in a Russian person (although for you love is s''ex).
          By the way, the real books are READ, and they are mainly listened to by children, fairy tales, housewives, to the program "Let's get married."
          1. Moore
            Moore 15 December 2013 10: 05
            +2
            Alas, dear 11111mail.ru, the military merits of VS Pikul, which I do not in any way dispute, cease to be perceived by me as a reason to respect this person after reading his "Square of Fallen Fighters". Here's a small excerpt:
            Now, after the signing of the treaty, Hitler could not be afraid that the USSR would open a second front, standing up for the Poles along with England and France; Now Hitler could not count the pork carcasses in state refrigerators, the German drivers no longer need to dilute gasoline with pure alcohol, - Stalin, according to the agreement, immediately began to supply Germany with raw materials, fuel, precious metals, meat and bread. Any anti-fascist propaganda in the USSR was banned ...
            Of course, such a “success” should be noted as a good drink! In his country house, in Kuntsevo, Stalin threw a party. Having drunk, the “leader of the peoples” looked expressively at Kalinin, and the “popular elder,” shaking his goatee’s beard, squatted before him; Stalin then blinked to Mikoyan - and he, having risen from the table with snacks, eagerly danced a lezgin for him.
            Ah, if I made it up! Alas ... eyewitnesses survived who witnessed this disgusting picture, the image of which recalls Ivan the Terrible and his guardsmen ...

            Well, or like this:
            After the war, Stalin was in a depressed state.
            -! He said honestly and fairly to Voroshilov.
            Kliment Efremovich did not dare to object and soared with Budenny in the bathhouse at his dacha, and while they were steaming, General Oka Gorodovikov (also a cavalryman) played the most popular tunes on the button accordion, the commissars were not bored:

            Ah, tachanka? Rostov
            Our pride and beauty,
            Machine gun cart -
            All four wheels ...

            Having finished playing, Oka Gorodovikov asked Budyonny:
            - Semyon, everyone is being taken. Can they really put us in prison?
            Budyonny comforted a friend:
            - We will not touch. They’re taking it, only smart people ...

            He wrote this book already at the time of perestroika flourishing with a violent color, which somewhat distinguishes its ideological orientation from the same "Moonsund", for example. In the case of "Square ..", in Pikulevski, the war was fought according to the favorite Svanidze recipe - against the will of the country's leadership.
            What is this talking about? I believe that V. Pikul is a primitive conjuncturist. Not without talent, of course. IMHO.
            1. 11111mail.ru
              11111mail.ru 15 December 2013 14: 55
              0
              Quote: Moore
              a reason to respect this person after reading his "Square of the Fallen Fighters"

              I have such a book. I open the last pages and read: signed for print on April 16.04.1992, 1991. Wikipedia announced the publication date in 16. Another step back: Oh! Horror! Valentin Savvich Pikul died on July 1990, XNUMX from a heart attack. No, yes, yes, I also have no limit to indignation! A sort of zombie wanders around the editorial offices and concludes contracts for publication ... A joke, but very sad, but the story is probably DIRTY! Give the professional to the graphomaniac the manuscript of the immaculate girl (OWN HAND!) And he for the appropriate bribe, in half with the vanity of touching someone else's glory, doubles the best-seller at the level of Monica Lewinsky, and even the inconsolable widow will unfasten a small portion of the fee for the creation of a museum for the patriot writer.
              Quote: Moore
              In the case of "Square ..", in Pikulev style, the war was fought according to the favorite Svanidze recipe

              Here you are for sure! Cover! The target is astounded!
              Quote: Moore
              What is this talking about? I believe that V. Pikul is a primitive conjuncturist.

              What did Fedor Ivanovich Tyutchev quote us about this?
              How does the heart express itself?
              How else can another understand you?
              Will he understand how you live?
              A spoken thought is a lie.
              Exploding, indignant keys, -
              Eat them - and be silent.
              You have spoken freely or by induction directed at you, it is not for me to judge you! Understand, think over, compare the facts, the Internet in this regard opens up a lot of opportunities.
              The copyright holder of Valentin Savvich's materials is his third wife Antonina. But, "Caesar's wife is above suspicion." This is where the incongruities that you paid attention to are lurking.
              Here is the answer to my question not asked to anyone: what about the unfinished works of V. S. Pikul - Dogs of God; Greasy, dirty and corrupt; Janissaries? You read the surviving and sigh ...
              Like Timur Sultanovich Shaov, my favorite in the song "39,1":
              Heap of garbage smells, a bully tormenting a dog ...
              What does life teach us? Yes, she does not teach anything!
              1. Moore
                Moore 16 December 2013 09: 01
                0
                I remember that in perestroika I wandered around an abridged magazine version of the book. Now I do not remember what it was called.
                The old man, the kingdom of heaven to him, tried to be in time ...
                Alas, the courage and honesty of a soldier on the battlefield is not always compatible with the further decency of the individual ...
        2. Jipo
          Jipo 15 December 2013 12: 18
          +1
          Well, why, here he is in many rights, he himself served in the Navy at that time, although he was a kid. After the defeat of this caravan, the next one seemed to be a few months later.
          1. Jipo
            Jipo 15 December 2013 12: 26
            0
            The following convoys were in September and December.
        3. Jipo
          Jipo 15 December 2013 12: 23
          +1
          The convoy cargo included 297 aircraft, 594 tanks, 4246 trucks, as well as aviation gasoline and other materials weighing 156 tons. The cost of the cargo was about $ 492 million in 700 prices. This cargo could be enough to provide an army of 1942 people. This is on Wikipedia. So that you yourself can estimate a lot or a little.
    2. wax
      wax 15 December 2013 20: 33
      0
      It is impossible to say about everything, but with the appropriate leadership, the same common people, it turns out, managed in a short time to ruin their own great power with a bang. You talk just like a "great" LADY.
  12. twviewer
    twviewer 14 December 2013 14: 19
    +3
    "Thundering fire, sparkling with the brilliance of steel, The cars will go on a furious campaign, When Comrade Stalin sends us into battle, And the first marshal will lead us into battle."
  13. kosmos84
    kosmos84 14 December 2013 18: 05
    +4
    My country is widespread,

    it would have a miracle of miracles,

    If under the shout of a guard

    Serdyuki felled coniferous forest.
  14. poquello
    poquello 14 December 2013 20: 16
    +1
    WWII under the king began, and ended under the revolutionaries.
    The problem of Russia in the WWII was in an economy that depended on imports in the production of armaments and the actual import of these armaments, and allies were still there.
    And so yes, now we can talk about the leadership, and did not guess that the war would be long, and did not prepare for war. Horseradish did not bring everything in a heap, lost the same.
    1. Pushkar
      Pushkar 14 December 2013 21: 38
      +2
      The fact is that citizen Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov (the former emperor of the Republic of Ingushetia, renounced at the most difficult moment for the country) lost all the war that started, acting as king. Soyuznichki - the tenth matter. The main reason is the unsuitability of the above.
      1. poquello
        poquello 15 December 2013 01: 44
        +1
        Quote: Pushkar
        The fact is that citizen Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov (the former emperor of the Republic of Ingushetia, renounced at the most difficult moment for the country) lost all the war that started, acting as king. Soyuznichki - the tenth matter. The main reason is the unsuitability of the above.

        Well, and who is the more unsuitable Nikolay or Muammar Gaddafi? The tsar denied the urgent demand of the revolutionaries and left them far from the weak country in whose remnants we live now.
        1. wax
          wax 15 December 2013 20: 43
          +1
          The tsar seemed to have renounced not at the urgent demand of the revolutionaries, but at the request of the highest military and deputies of the Duma.
          1. poquello
            poquello 15 December 2013 21: 14
            +1
            Quote: Wax
            The tsar seemed to have renounced not at the urgent demand of the revolutionaries, but at the request of the highest military and deputies of the Duma.

            perhaps, although strange, but the revolutionaries did not demand?
  15. Guterjunge
    Guterjunge 15 December 2013 13: 25
    0
    M. Gaddafi is to blame only for the fact that he raised the economy of Libya and while sitting on oil was not pleasing to the West (I will not share them one gang), his idea of ​​abandoning the doller could not be overlooked ... But Nicholas 2 ... Well, no, not an option ... weak in every sense ... although it seems to me that he did not lose the war. and the then "average" leadership of the country, the average staff, corrupt and stupid ... Nikolka only became a whipping boy, this person is not in his place ... Further - J.V. Stalin is a strong figure, swept away the Trotskyists and so on trash, strengthened the power vertical, but without it in 1941, IMHO it would be shitty ...
    1. poquello
      poquello 15 December 2013 15: 34
      +1
      I do not measure Stalin and Nikolai, it is clear that Stalin in the history of our country is a significant figure. BUT pouring the last tsar with shit I consider it an unscrupulous affair, ideologically developed by the Bolsheviks to justify the blood and troubles of subsequent revolutions and upheavals. You can talk a lot about unsuitability, weakness, etc., and in the end, the next power went to the empire. Do you like the option with a brilliant hero and lack of country?
      1. Selynin
        Selynin 19 December 2013 13: 06
        +1
        [quote = poquello] I do not measure Stalin and Nikolai, it is clear that Stalin in the history of our country is a significant figure. BUT pouring the last tsar with shit I consider it an unscrupulous affair, ideologically developed by the Bolsheviks to justify the blood and troubles of subsequent revolutions and upheavals. You can talk a lot about unsuitability, weakness, etc., and in the end, the next power went to the empire.
        5 I agree completely!
        Bolshevik propaganda tried very hard from the Great Ruler of Russia to form the image of a limp, narrow-minded person.
        The indicators that the Russian Empire achieved by 1913, which the great Soviet leaders with their "steel" will were guided by and could not achieve, could a country ruled by such an "extraordinary" person have achieved this?
        Not in Nikolai Alexandrovich the reasons for the defeat of Russia in WWI!
  16. wax
    wax 15 December 2013 20: 55
    +1
    It is enough to read the diaries of the tsar during WWI and compare it with Stalin's daily routine from the very first days of the Second World War to understand the diversity of the first persons of the Russian State and their role in the fate of the empire. The Bolsheviks did not get "quite an empire", but a collapsed empire, but the reformers of the late 20th century got just an empire that had military parity with the United States.
    1. poquello
      poquello 15 December 2013 21: 20
      +1
      Quote: poquello
      I do not measure Stalin and Nikolai, it is clear that Stalin in the history of our country is a significant figure.

      read carefully

      Quote: Wax
      The Bolsheviks did not get "quite an empire for themselves," but a collapsed empire, ..

      what collapse expressed?
  17. Atash
    Atash 16 December 2013 12: 34
    0
    wax .:. "... but the revolutionaries did not demand" How do you imagine it. The Bolsheviks in the palace stand in front of the tsar and say: "Please, father, tsar, get out of the palace. We won't leave here without your renunciation." The revolutionaries after the fifth year were defeated, they were in the ass, sorry. Lenin, Trotsky in exile, Stalin vegetated in exile. The coup was carried out by the generals who placed their stake on the Mensheviks, Kerensky. Then these gentlemen, in general, screwed up, and ceased to suit the military. By that time, the Bolsheviks had already gathered and were a legal political force. General Kornilov raised a mutiny, the suppression of which was mainly the merit of the Bolsheviks. It became clear who was capable of what. In the course of the underground struggle, the Bolsheviks learned two main things necessary for running the state: collect and properly spend money and severely punish those responsible. The second they soon perfected during the period of the Red Terror, which, by the way, was a response to the White Terror.
    1. Atash
      Atash 16 December 2013 12: 52
      0
      Sorry, the post is addressed to poquello, not to Wax.
    2. poquello
      poquello 16 December 2013 15: 23
      +2
      Quote: Atash
      wax .:. "... but the revolutionaries did not demand" How do you imagine it ...

      I just imagine
      "From the leaflet
      Petersburg Committee of the RSDLP
      Later February 14th
      TO ALL WORKERS,
      WORKERS
      PETROGRAD
      .....
      The first condition for a real peace must be the overthrow of the tsarist government and the establishment of the Provisional Revolutionary Government for the device:

      1. The Russian Democratic Republic!
      ..."
      http://www.agitclub.ru/hist/1917fevr/fevral02.htm
  18. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 14 February 2014 14: 19
    0
    Guys, great comments - Thanks for them !! smile