During the competition (and the 4 competition started last November), more than 4,5 millions of users took part in the voting. Using Internet terminology, these users can hardly be called unique, since the same user had the opportunity to vote repeatedly (no more than once a day from the same IP). The main difference from the previous variations of such contests (“Name of Russia” and “Russia of 10”) is that this time the organizers decided to abandon SMS voting and the involvement of so-called expert groups (they decided to refuse, at least officially).
The completed 6 stage of the competition determined the top ten "finalists" who would win the competition among themselves and "play out" by continuing the vote. The last prefinal stage ranked the top ten generals as follows:
10 place - Michael Skobelev;
9 place - Alexey Ermolov;
8 place - Dmitry Donskoy;
7 place - Pavel Nakhimov;
6 place - Konstantin Rokossovsky;
5 place - Fedor Ushakov;
4 place - Mikhail Kutuzov;
3 place - Alexander Nevsky;
2 place - George Zhukov;
1 place - Alexander Suvorov.
Suvorov leads by a large margin from the rest of the generals, who by the 6 stage remained "in the cage" of the competition.
Now, this top ten is also awaited by two final stages, during which the administrators of the site where the vote is going are going to hide the preliminary results without telling the place of this or that “applicant” for the title “Victory Name” in the former public access mode. In the first stage of the final round to get information about what percentage of users voted for one or another commander, you need to look in the “Personalia” section, where you can also find brief references to each of the generals represented in the final.
The winner of the project will be named 9 in May 2014 of the year, and there is every reason to believe that without any perturbations of the contest organizers or user tricks, one of those commanders who, according to the results of the 6 tour, got into the top three, will be declared the winner: Alexander Suvorov , George Zhukov and Alexander Nevsky. At the same time, there is an opinion that Alexander Nevsky is unlikely to be a winner, since he already has a “title” that the organizers of a similar project “Name of Russia” gave him several years ago (many still remember how much noise this project made). If Alexander Yaroslavich himself would know what undercover games would manifest themselves during that competition, then he would definitely arrange the “Ice Battle” to the organizers ...
The goal of the project, as its organizers say, is to identify the commander who made the greatest contribution to the military history of Russia. The goal seems to be good, because it certainly concerns the popularization of the military history of Russia, the study of the exploits of the heroes of the past and present, attracts the attention of the younger generation. But this time some oddities are manifested - they concern not so much the contest itself, but one of the organizers.
Wanting to get acquainted with other projects of the Russian Military Historical Society (and a lot of projects worthy of RVIO is a fact), you come across the RVIO Vkontakte page, where the link to the film “1941: Forbidden Truth” is a modern Ukrainian series about prewar time and the first days and months of war with an active discussion of this film.
I do not want to go into the details of the picture, in order not to make it a kind of advertising, but the film itself, and the fact that he was given a special place on the page of RVIO - the phenomenon of “outstanding”. If the Ukrainian “documentalists” stubbornly insist that the Soviet Union was still planning to seize Europe in the 30s, trying to get ahead of fascist Germany, then this is of course their “ukrodokumentumentalistov” - a matter (modern Ukraine should itself cure itself) But attempts to discuss this “documentary creation” at the venue of the esteemed RWIO (even if on the social network) are, to put it mildly, strange. Somehow they are not very well connected with the declared goals of the “Name of Victory” competition held under the auspices of the Russian Military Historical Society. The diversity of views is a wonderful thing, but there are still questions where such diversity can lead to a sad result: on the one hand, it is proposed to vote for the commander-in-arms, on the other hand, materials are presented where some of the commander-in-arms are from a light third-party " experts "suddenly become executioners and almost war criminals ...