Military Review

Test T-34 and KV at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in the USA. 1942 year

654
Test T-34 and KV at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in the USA. 1942 yearThe UTZ at the beginning of 1942 was given the task of shipping five standard T-34 samples, two of which were to go a long way by sea - to the UK and the United States to be studied by Allied specialists of this “miracle of Soviet engineering thought”.


Tanks arrived in the USA presumably in April 1942, and in May they were tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. There, the T-34, which caused the greatest interest, underwent long-distance cross-country trials, together with the T-4 wheeled caterpillar tank, whose characteristics most closely corresponded to the performance characteristics of the domestic medium tank.

The first T-34 breakdown (truck burst) occurred approximately at 60-m kilometer, and after overcoming 343 km the tank failed and could not be repaired.

The breakdown occurred due to the poor performance of the air cleaner, why a lot of dust had accumulated in the engine and the pistons and cylinders were destroyed. The tank was removed from the test run, but was tested by firing a KB gun and a 3-inch gun of the M-10 self-propelled cannon, and then found its refuge in the collection of the test site in Aberdeen. The KB tank, despite the greatest fears from our tank builders, will withstand normal tests with a mileage of 50 km.

The hull shape of the T-34 tank was very much liked by all American experts, while KB — not.

An analysis of the armor showed that in both tanks the armor plates, homogeneous in chemical composition, had a shallow surface hardening, the bulk of the armor plate was viscous.

Tank T-34 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, rear view, 1942

American experts believed. that, by changing the technology of seaming armor plates, it was possible to reduce their thickness, leaving the same projectile resistance. However, this statement was later not confirmed by practice.

The main disadvantage of the hull was water permeability as its lower part when overcoming water obstacles, and the upper part when it rained. In heavy rain a lot of water leaked through the cracks, which could lead to failure of electrical equipment and even ammunition. The location of ammunition found successful.

The main disadvantage noted for the tower and the fighting compartment as a whole - the cramped. The Americans could not understand how our tankers were mad in a tank in winter coats. There was a bad mechanism of rotation of the tower, especially since the motor is weak, overloaded and sparking terribly, resulting in burned resistance adjusting the speed of rotation, crumbled gear teeth. A wish was made to make a hydraulic turning mechanism or to leave only a two-stage manual.

F-34 gun dismantled from the T-34 tank. Aberdeen Proving Ground, 1942

The gun F-34 liked the gunners for its simplicity, reliability in operation and ease of maintenance. The lack of a tool is recognized as an insufficiently high initial speed (around 620 m / s versus a possible 850 m / s), which is associated with the low quality of Soviet powder.

The design of the sight was recognized as beautiful, even the best in the world from the famous American designers, but the quality of the glass left much to be desired.

Steel tracks T-34 were simple in design, wide, but American (rubber-metal), according to their ideas, were better. The disadvantage of our track chain, the Americans found the low strength of the truck to break. This was aggravated by the poor quality of the track fingers.

The suspension on the T-34 tank was considered bad, because the Americans had unconditionally refused the “Christie” suspension as obsolete. At the same time, the suspension tank KB (torsion) is recognized as successful.

The diesel B-2 is lightweight and quick-turn. All the US military liked diesel tanks, they regretted that all the powerful diesel engines in the United States took the fleet for boats, which did not allow them to equip mass-produced tanks.

Disadvantages of diesel В-2 - bad air cleaner, which:

1) does not clean at all the air entering the motor;

2) the capacity of the air cleaner is small and does not provide the inflow of the required amount of air even when the motor is idling.

As a result, the motor does not develop full power and the dust falling into the cylinders leads to their quick triggering, compression drops and the motor loses power.

Tank KB-1 on tests at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. Spring 1942

In addition, the filter is made from a mechanical point of view is very primitive: in places of spot electric welding, the metal is burned, which leads to oil leakage, etc.

The KB filter on the KB tank is better made, but it also does not ensure the flow of sufficiently clean air.

Transmission unsatisfactory, obviously outdated design. During its operation on the test she had completely crumbled the teeth on all gears. On both motors, bad starters are thin and of unreliable design.

The T-34 and KB tanks were, from the American point of view, slow-moving, though due to good adhesion with the ground they overcame the slopes better than any of the American tanks. The welding of armor plates is extremely rough and careless. The radio stations during laboratory tests turned out to be quite good, however, due to poor screening and poor protective devices, after installing them in tanks, it was not possible to have a normal connection at a distance greater than 10 miles. The compactness of radio stations and their location in the machines are very successful. Mechanical processing of parts of equipment and parts with rare exceptions is very bad.
So, the Soviet T-34 and KB did not produce a furore overseas (? !!!! And then they had something to compare !!!). American designers have found in them both advantages and disadvantages, which is natural.

Information taken from the book "Tank power of the USSR."
Originator:
http://alternathistory.livejournal.com/803296.html
654 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sirocco
    Sirocco 6 July 2013 07: 33 New
    29
    Nevertheless, despite all these shortcomings, even tank building, even in aviation, it is WE, our grandfathers, who broke the backbone of fascism, which was born with the support of the same moneybags from England and the USA. Who watched the war, quietly standing on the sidelines, waiting for someone whom.
    1. duke
      duke 6 July 2013 07: 49 New
      31
      as in general under the most difficult conditions, our ancestors-grandfathers and great-grandfathers were able to evacuate the factories, set up the production of equipment in such a short time ... it was not up to quality, the plans for the number of cars were draconian, and many specialists were lost, most likely old men, women and teenagers worked there, unlike American factories, where there was no such force majeure. In addition, at that time, English production culture was one of the best.
      1. kirpich
        kirpich 6 July 2013 09: 06 New
        +2
        Dmitry (Goblin) Puchkov answered this very well.
        Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z-mziUnjLI
      2. Professor
        Professor 6 July 2013 09: 16 New
        -16
        Quote: duke
        most likely old men, women and teenagers worked there, unlike American factories, where there was no such force majeure

        And in American factories, women stood up to the machines while their husbands and brothers freed Europe, Africa and the Far East.
        1. ultra
          ultra 6 July 2013 10: 47 New
          +3
          Quote: Professor
          And in American factories, women stood up to the machines while their husbands and brothers freed

          What about children?
          1. Professor
            Professor 6 July 2013 10: 52 New
            -6
            Quote: ultra
            What about children?

            To be honest, I was not interested in becoming American teenagers to the machine. request
          2. erg
            erg 8 July 2013 19: 41 New
            0
            Child labor in the United States was practiced until the middle of the 20th century. And not only in wartime.
          3. Apologet insane
            Apologet insane 12 July 2013 20: 49 New
            -2
            Who cares. For that matter, they could not fight at all, and not put anyone at the machines, but just watch. We didn’t help the allies until Hitler attacked. But as he attacked, so immediately Stalin rushed to ask Churchill for help.
            1. erg
              erg 13 July 2013 10: 37 New
              +1
              So, after all, there were no allies among us until Hitler attacked. Neither England, nor France, nor the United States had any corresponding agreements. Except maybe with Mongolia. So we helped them defeat the Japanese. All agreements with future allies appeared during the war. And we fulfilled our obligations, for example, having entered the war with Japan despite the treaty of not attacking with this country.
              1. Apologet insane
                Apologet insane 14 July 2013 13: 09 New
                0
                That's just the point that was not. And they didn’t have an agreement with us until Germany attacked us. Moreover, they readily accepted us as an ally, although at that moment, for the entire democratic world, Stalin and Hitler were two sides of the same totalitarian coin. But they could not have concluded any agreements with us - just watch the two giants destroy each other, and then finish off both of them in one fell swoop.
            2. Cynic
              Cynic 13 July 2013 16: 52 New
              0
              Quote: Apologet Insane
              We didn’t help the allies until Hitler attacked. But as he attacked, so immediately Stalin rushed to ask Churchill for help.

              Was it really so?
              Archives have a long memory, unfortunately for people like you.
              When I read such peremptory statements, I always want to know _ Because of his stupidity, a person says so or is a dirty trick in life.
              1. Apologet insane
                Apologet insane 14 July 2013 13: 05 New
                0
                And how did we help Great Britain, which was left face to face in 1940-41 with all the power of Europe concentrated in Hitler’s hands, and Japan, which seized overseas territories? Friendly notes in the newspaper "Pravda"?
                1. Cynic
                  Cynic 14 July 2013 16: 23 New
                  0
                  Quote: Apologet Insane
                  And how we helped the UK,

                  By its existence, as it is not strange for you.
                  And why only WE?
                  May 24, 1940 the famous stop order and, as a result, the Dunker Miracle!
                  Well, of course, where without them, the great USA!
                  Have you read?
                  Stettinius Edward
                  Mysteries of Lend-Lease Formula for Victory
                  http://www.e-reading-lib.com/bookreader.php/142938/Stettinius_-_Zagadki_lend-liz
                  a.html
                  Very sobering, after all, is the 44th edition year!
                  hi
        2. duke
          duke 6 July 2013 17: 41 New
          +6
          I thank you, it seems that it was, but the conditions were still not comparable, this can be seen even in your pictures ...
          1. aviator46
            aviator46 8 July 2013 22: 02 New
            0
            http://topwar.ru/17230-mashina-vremeni-ssha-sorokovye-chast-2.html
            Who forged victory in America ..
        3. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 6 July 2013 18: 30 New
          16
          Quote: kirpich
          And in American factories, women stood up to the machines while their husbands and brothers freed Europe, Africa and the Far East.


          With all due respect, but the% of the US population who acted on the WWII fronts or served in the Navy or merchant fleet can not be compared with the% of the USSR population called up for military service or in the territory occupied by the Nazis.
          1. shpuntik
            shpuntik 6 July 2013 20: 35 New
            +4
            Blackgrifon Today, 18:30 PM ↑ New
            Quote: kirpich
            And in American factories, women stood up to the machines while their husbands and brothers freed Europe, Africa and the Far East.

            : -) Alexander, take a closer look! If the brick hits the head of the professor, then he will not become Einstein :-)
        4. Cynic
          Cynic 7 July 2013 08: 53 New
          +4
          Quote: Professor
          while their husbands and brothers liberated Europe, Africa and the Far East.

          Here is Africa, this YES !
          Especially the colony, there was something to fight for. But Europe and the Far East ... The ratio of the liberated territories is not in favor the most powerful state .
          1. Apologet insane
            Apologet insane 12 July 2013 20: 56 New
            0
            Again they had to fight for the whole Pacific Ocean. Plus, their landing operations themselves are much more risky and costly than ground battles from prepared bridgeheads. And they defeated the Japanese almost single-handedly - our defeat of the Kwantung Army is certainly good, but it should be borne in mind that we were armed with the latest technology, which even had no time to fight with Germany, and the Japanese with frail wedges and old cannons, of which there were almost no armor-piercing ones. The level of equipment of the Kwantung Army was worse than that of the Soviet troops in the first months of the war. Therefore, ours so easily dealt with it as the Germans dealt with us in 1941. Only we had reserves and rear, but the Kwantung Army did not have either. So almost the entire Far East, Pacific Ocean, Southeast Asia and half of Europe are territories liberated by the armies of the British and Americans.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 13 July 2013 17: 10 New
              0
              Quote: Apologet Insane
              their landing operations in themselves are much more risky and costly than land battles from trained bridgeheads.

              So I think either from admiration for army property to fall into rapture, or to burst into tears with pity.
              Quote: Apologet Insane
              almost the entire Far East, Pacific Ocean, Southeast Asia and half of Europe are territories liberated by the armies of the British and Americans.

              The right way, you go the way Apologet insane , the next one, I think I will not wait long, your step will be a statement about their fundamental contribution to the defeat of the Third Reich.
        5. The comment was deleted.
        6. alex86
          alex86 7 July 2013 22: 36 New
          -2
          Monument to women who took jobs of men who went to war. London, not far from Downing Street
          1. alex86
            alex86 7 July 2013 22: 56 New
            0
            does not insert ...
            1. Aleksys2
              Aleksys2 7 July 2013 23: 19 New
              +5
              And we also have such monuments:
              Memorial complex "Khatyn"
              1. Aleksys2
                Aleksys2 7 July 2013 23: 20 New
                +3
                And there are such:
                "Children of war"
                1. Aleksys2
                  Aleksys2 7 July 2013 23: 21 New
                  +6
                  And there are such
                  1. alex86
                    alex86 7 July 2013 23: 37 New
                    -2
                    Well, my comment was on the fact that not only our women stood up to the machines, but what did you want to remind about? If that before winning, we mediocrely gave half the country and millions of lives - then out of place. And if, like the local majority, “we are cooler in everything,” even in losses and grief, then we could abstain. And if it’s personal to me, then I don’t need to be taught patriotism, I had time and the opportunity to show it in practice
                    1. stalkerwalker
                      stalkerwalker 8 July 2013 00: 09 New
                      +5
                      Quote: alex86
                      If, before winning, we stupidly gave half the country and millions of lives ... then I do not need to be taught patriotism, I had time and the opportunity to show it in practice


                      Well then, they should understand what a strategic initiative is, the concentration of troops and equipment in breakthrough areas ...
                      Perhaps you studied at the Academy of the General Staff, and learned how to drive troops not only on a platoon and company scale.
                      And you are surely aware of ALL commonplace truths of intelligence of all kinds (undercover, technical, military, etc.), as well, at least, you understand the rear support, mobilization plans, the organization of arms production ...
                      And therefore, you will not refer to the precedent of the Battle of Kursk ...
                      1. alex86
                        alex86 8 July 2013 07: 04 New
                        -1
                        What are you talking about? ...
                    2. Aleksys2
                      Aleksys2 8 July 2013 01: 23 New
                      +2
                      Quote: alex86
                      that before winning, we stupidly gave half the country and millions of lives

                      Well, tell us - mediocrity, what mediocrity of the defensive battles of 1941-1942 years. Can you give examples of other countries that have gently restrained the German attack in 1939-1941?
                      1. alex86
                        alex86 8 July 2013 07: 18 New
                        -10
                        No need to juggle about
                        Quote: Aleksys2
                        mediocrity of the defensive battles of 1941-1942.
                        , I didn’t say anything about it. I’m talking about the result - once again - half the country lost, millions of lives lost - is this "free" in your terminology? And to refer to someone’s failures of that time is not constructive, you need to answer for yourself.
                        And mediocre, we came to the beginning of the war, thanks to the state system built by the “leader of all peoples, the linguist and friend of children, and the other and other” system, which ate itself from the inside, destroying (as always, as now) all and all the best that was in the country. We were preparing for a big war, it was clear to everyone that it would be not just, but "little blood, on a strange land", but we got everything exactly the opposite.
                      2. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 8 July 2013 08: 12 New
                        +3
                        Quote: alex86
                        We were preparing ... "little blood, on a strange land",

                        Facts! Who! When! That said it!
                        O GREAT YOU ARE OUR STRATEG AND PATRIOT, you already decide or
                        Quote: alex86
                        we have lost half the country and millions of lives
                        or
                        Quote: alex86
                        I didn’t say anything about it

                        for as a result of the summer and the beginning of the winter company 1941 of the year, the Germans reached Moscow, and as a result of the summer company 1942 of the year they also reached Stalingrad.
                        If you claim that we gave half the country mediocre, then tell me how it was necessary to fight for free and not give half the country and millions of lives. And if not a secret, your last military rank.
                      3. alex86
                        alex86 8 July 2013 17: 25 New
                        -2
                        I’m not a great strategist, I give you this high rank, mind you, I have never said what to do (my quote “I didn’t say anything about it” does not pretend to know what and how to do, You probably should know better); but a patriot, and as such I have the right to evaluate the result - they gave half the country and millions of lives, if from your point of view - they gave talented - even so, the formulation is strange, but I am ready to use it in the future.
                        My last rank, apparently, is a senior lieutenant, I had it when in 86 I was demobilized with the definition of “limited fit,” the military ID somehow was lost pretty quickly, but I don’t think that something had changed. Answering the question you asked below: graduated from the Kazan Civil Engineering Institute, artillery-rocket launcher (BM-21), but served in the civilian specialty - civil engineer, (and you will laugh - but even received a medal). You want to somehow humiliate me that I have no right to express my point of view? - So we have free Internet, and here we are on an equal footing, and I don’t know your qualifications, and you can say anything at the same time - well, for example, you graduated from a culinary college (no offense), but say that the General Staff Academy is and what has changed from this?
                      4. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 8 July 2013 18: 16 New
                        +3
                        Quote: alex86
                        You want to somehow humiliate me that I have no right to express my point of view?

                        To humiliate you? God forbid. It’s just that I was interested in what kind of military education you have, now it’s clear - not what (and this is just a statement of fact), you are an ordinary, competent civil engineer. Are you at home? If so, how do you feel about a person who does not have an engineering background, if he begins to judge the house you built, you have built it mediocre or not? You, without having a higher military education, undertake to judge things in which you poorly understand (tactics, strategy).
                        I have not mentioned anywhere that the 1941 - 1942 companies are brilliant and impeccable. What happened in the summer of 1941 is a tragedy, a great tragedy! But I cannot say that it happened because of the mediocrity of the command (because I also do not have a higher military education). But I know that the soldiers and commanders of the Red Army did everything possible, and sometimes beyond what was humanly possible, but they braked, wore out the Wehrmacht, this gave time for the evacuation of factories, people, etc. And as a result, they still stopped the enemy, I would like it to be as west as possible, but the Wehrmacht was stronger. Let me remind you that only the Red Army was able to withstand the Wehrmacht, the Anglo-French forces could not do this in 1940, although there were more of them than the Germans.
                      5. alex86
                        alex86 8 July 2013 18: 34 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Aleksys2
                        You, without having a higher military education, undertake to judge things in which you poorly understand (tactics, strategy).
                        In no place did I judge either tactics or strategy, but only about the result - if someone, not being a specialist, judges how I built - this is ridiculous, but if my house is half destroyed - it will be ridiculous to deny claims even if the amateur under the pretext that he is not an expert - the house has fallen, it means I’m to blame, and even where I made a mistake, what I’m to blame for - he cares the least. Therefore, I repeat - half the country lost, millions of people (their) lost. The “builder” is to blame - who built the country and its management system.

                        Quote: Aleksys2
                        . What happened in the summer of 1941 is a tragedy, a great tragedy!

                        Quote: Aleksys2
                        But I know that the soldiers and commanders of the Red Army did everything possible, and sometimes beyond what was humanly possible, but they braked, wore out the Wehrmacht, this gave time for the evacuation of factories, people, etc. And as a result, they still stopped the enemy, I would like it to be as west as possible, but the Wehrmacht was stronger. Let me remind you that only the Red Army was able to withstand the Wehrmacht, in 1940 the Anglo-French forces could not do this, although there were more of them than the Germans.

                        And here there are no objections, neither in essence, nor in the spirit of the statement ...
                2. stalkerwalker
                  stalkerwalker 8 July 2013 11: 44 New
                  +3
                  Quote: alex86
                  No need to juggle about

                  Sorry, you perfectly signed on this branch about your position - there’s no need to evade.

                  My advice.
                  Read ALL authors, all sources. But MAKE CONCLUSIONS, ANALYZE FACTS. No one is safe from mistakes (here, by the way, the battles of the Katukovites and Guderianites in October of the 1941 were perfectly dismantled), even by venerable authors.
                  And believe me, in the verses of Bunich, Rezun, Beshanov and others like them, besides frenzied hatred of a country that pulled out world civilization from mortal danger, having paid an unbelievable price for it, you will really find nothing but a beautiful selection of figures about losses dipped in saliva spray as the same "fabulists" Solzhenitsyn, Shalamov tried to do.
                3. alex86
                  alex86 8 July 2013 17: 35 New
                  -2
                  Quote: stalkerwalker
                  And believe me, in the verses of Bunich, Rezun, Beshanov and others like them
                  Sorry, but I didn’t read anything from the aforementioned, I heard about Rezun, but somehow this is not close to me. I’m not evading the stated position, it’s quite clear, but I don’t need any advice - I’ve already left the age of the listener of advice - excuse me. But I draw conclusions, analyze the facts - and it is from this that my position arises. And you signed the phrase about your position
                  Quote: stalkerwalker
                  "fabulists" Solzhenitsyn, Shalamov.

                  , and now what to put you on the wall?
                4. stalkerwalker
                  stalkerwalker 8 July 2013 17: 43 New
                  +5
                  Quote: alex86
                  , and now what, put you to the wall

                  You have an amazing feature - to “bring down” opponents, without a drop of doubt believing in your own infallibility.
                  Our exchange of views is like a dialogue between the deaf and the blind ..
                  Then I take my leave.
                  hi
                5. alex86
                  alex86 8 July 2013 17: 52 New
                  -2
                  Quote: stalkerwalker
                  You have an amazing feature - to “bring down” opponents, without a drop of doubt believing in your own infallibility.

                  This is just your position (not only yours personally, but that group that shares your point of view)
                  Quote: stalkerwalker
                  Our exchange of views is like a dialogue between the deaf and the blind ..
                  I completely agree with you
  • aviator46
    aviator46 8 July 2013 22: 09 New
    0
    Khatyn, which was destroyed by Ukrainian collaborators.
  • aviator46
    aviator46 8 July 2013 22: 12 New
    0
    http://topwar.ru/17230-mashina-vremeni-ssha-sorokovye-chast-2.html
  • Jin
    Jin 10 July 2013 14: 08 New
    0
    Quote: Professor
    And in American factories, women stood up to the machines while their husbands and brothers freed Europe, Africa and the Far East.


    It was a little ... why did they get up? out of necessity or out of patriotism? how many Americans fought on the fronts? We have the whole country fought and there was no one to stand at the machine tools, and they? What kind of nonsense dear? Also write that valiant Americans spent the night at the machines ... Posters! Make-up, mannequin, well-fed and clean ... propaganda and rubbish, pah, heresy! negative
  • Professor
    Professor 6 July 2013 09: 13 New
    -47
    Actually, the ridge of fascism was broken together with the same British and Americans. Have you been taught at school about the anti-Hitler coalition? The same Americans lost 600000 of their soldiers ...
    1. pavlo
      pavlo 6 July 2013 09: 23 New
      39
      the second front when it was really open something miracle you are in feathers! That's when they saw that the fascists were a real kopek and they would have to share the cake, then they already started to fuss !!!!
      1. Professor
        Professor 6 July 2013 09: 32 New
        -28
        Quote: pavlo
        the second front when it was really open something miracle you are in feathers! That's when they saw that the fascists were a real kopek and they would have to share the cake, then they already started to fuss !!!!

        I do not need to "poke", geese were not grazed in one meadow. angry More than half a million dead American soldiers - this is at least the same number of saved Soviet soldiers. Tales about the financing of Hitler by the Americans did not forget to mention here, and the Lend-Lease in their memory was not delayed.
        1. ramsi
          ramsi 6 July 2013 09: 41 New
          20
          from somewhere I remember the figure that 8 out of 10 dead Germans died on the eastern front
          Therefore, the remaining "2" consist of the losses of the local population under the bombing and, in fact, the "second front"
        2. sevtrash
          sevtrash 6 July 2013 10: 28 New
          23
          Churchill kind of said, "... the Soviet army gutted the Wehrmacht ..."
        3. shpuntik
          shpuntik 6 July 2013 20: 44 New
          +9

          Professor (1) Today, 09: 32 ↑
          "... and the Lend-Lease in their memory did not set aside."

          "Leningradka" pref, you are not familiar, Professor?
          There are also "Stalingrad" and "American aid" :-)
          For Lend-Lease, we paid 50 years, with interest. Thank you, of course, we earned several shekels for us :-)
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 6 July 2013 21: 01 New
            0
            Much less if you are not in the know. And without interest.

            delivered materials (cars, various military equipment, weapons, raw materials, other items) destroyed, lost and used during the war are not subject to payment (Article 5);
            property transferred under Lend-Lease property remaining after the end of the war and suitable for civilian purposes will be paid in full or in part on the basis of long-term loans provided by the United States (mainly interest-free loans);

            Since the Lend-Lease Act provided for the cancellation of used military equipment and materials, the Americans insisted on paying only for civil supplies: railway transport, power plants, ships, trucks and other equipment that were in the recipient countries as of September 2, 1945. The United States did not demand compensation for the military equipment destroyed during the fighting.

            The volume of US Lend-Lease deliveries amounted to about 11 billion US dollars. At the 1948 talks, Soviet representatives agreed to pay only a small amount and met the predicted failure of the American side. The negotiations of 1949 also led to nothing. In 1951, the Americans twice reduced the amount of payment, which began to equal $ 800 million, but the Soviet side agreed to pay only $ 300 million.

            An agreement with the USSR on the procedure for paying off debts under Lend-Lease was concluded only in 1972 [42]. Under this agreement, the USSR pledged to pay $ 2001 million, including interest, until 722. By July 1973, three payments were made for a total of $ 48 million, after which payments were discontinued. In June 1990, during negotiations between the presidents of the USA and the USSR, the parties returned to the discussion of the debt [43]. A new deadline for the final repayment of debt was set in 2030, and the amount was $ 674 million.
            After the collapse of the USSR, the debt for help was reissued to Russia (Yeltsin, Kozyrev), as of 2003, Russia owed approximately 100 million US dollars.
            Thus, of the total volume of US Lend-Lease deliveries of $ 11 billion, the USSR, and then Russia, recognized and then partially paid, $ 722 million, or about 7%. However, it is worth considering that today's dollar is "lighter" than the 1945 dollar by about 15 times.

            So what percentages are we talking about?
            1. bistrov.
              bistrov. 6 July 2013 21: 37 New
              +4
              Quote: Pimply


              So what percentages are we talking about?

              As far as I know, all deliveries of strategic Lend-Lease materials were paid for in gold and precious stones. At the end of the war, military equipment, weapons, and vehicles that were not paid were completed for completeness. The acceptance was very serious. The equipment should be fully staffed, right up to the last key, painted. Imagine what it is like, for example, the Sherman-M-4 tank was equipped with leather coats for each crew member, the seats were covered in genuine leather, there was an electric tile, a thermos, etc. Yes, all this disappeared even at the port of discharge. At the end of acceptance, the equipment was worn out by pressing, disassembling and loaded into the holds of ships, then for processing. Paid equipment and weapons for a long time was in service with the Red Army, for example Sherman M-4 until almost 60 years.
              1. Cat
                Cat 6 July 2013 22: 21 New
                +6
                Quote: bistrov.
                As far as I know, all deliveries of strategic Lend-Lease materials were paid for in gold and precious stones. At the end of the war, military equipment, weapons, and vehicles that were not paid were completed for completeness.

                wrong you know
                Equipment destroyed in battle was not paid. Generally. But for the one that survived, there were 2 options: either return to the states, or redeem for your own use.
                Actually, it was these nuances of the land lease that differed from the usual sale of weapons.

                well, then
                Quote: bistrov.
                for example, the Sherman-M-4 tank, was equipped with leather coats for each crew member, the seats were covered in genuine leather, there was an electric tile, a thermos, etc. Yes, all this disappeared even at the port of discharge.

                does this mean that amers are scum? They are, of course, scum ... but not in this particular case. Because this particular case very well characterizes our rear rats, but it does not characterize amers at all. And if you really want to fool them - try to choose a more successful example for this.
                1. family
                  family tree 7 July 2013 12: 50 New
                  +4
                  Very carefully pushed the grease from the gun at the "emchi" laughing Often a viscar bubble was stuffed into the barrel, along with lubricant. So not all of them are dumb, normal guys, and there were enough laughing
              2. Cheloveck
                Cheloveck 8 July 2013 01: 03 New
                +3
                Quote: bistrov.
                Imagine what it is like, for example, the Sherman-M-4 tank was equipped with leather coats for each crew member, the seats were covered in genuine leather, there was an electric tile, a thermos, etc. Yes, all this disappeared even at the port of discharge.
                No need to produce myths.
                Sherman’s re-conservation was carried out directly in the troops.
                In the presence of observers - Americans and the Soviet reception, if Che.
                (D.F. Loza "Tanker in a foreign car")
                Sherman’s package did not include the gadgets you described.
                (I wonder where to connect the stove in the tank?)
                The richest complete set was possessed by Matilda delivered from England (summer and winter jumpsuit, fur helmets, fur boots).
                As for leather seats, in those simple times, sales on the ZiS-5 before the war were covered with genuine leather, it was not a luxury in those days.
            2. smile
              smile 7 July 2013 04: 46 New
              +8
              Pimply
              According to American financiers and people who were calculating Lend-Lease, the USA in this case earned quite a lot and boosted the economy ... I can find confirmation quickly enough ... do I have to submit quotes (honestly, I don’t want to, too lazy)?
              You just amaze me ... like such clever men ... and then it burst .... do you not understand that they’ll catch you by the hand? Or do you care that you were caught? Damn, well, you can’t!
              Pupyrchaty .... officially declare- a liar ... and a liar precisely because you are silent about the fact that the program has boosted the US economy, that they got the benefit of not even receiving part of the money for the Lend-Lease, which they later calculated on after the war (if it were - it would be easier, but you are far from ... and then who are you? ... the enemy?), etc. ... tomorrow, somewhere around 13 Moscow time, I will be on the site .... I would like to have an answer by then ... if possible, I understand, I myself can break for a week ... not on my own initiative .... but I hope for your answer ...
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 7 July 2013 11: 37 New
                -7
                Give a link to the opinion of these American financiers. I beg. You claim that it is - I want to see it.

                The United States naturally benefited from the war, but it was expressed not in Lend-Lease money, but in the fact that the United States suffered an order of magnitude less damage in the war than other countries, and, accordingly, had more opportunities to quickly transfer the economy to a peaceful track. I responded to a specific statement, and did not write an article about what advantages the United States gained from the war. The USSR, despite the terrible devastation, also received them - in the form of technology, the restructuring of the social structure of Europe, etc. He suffered at the same time, however, disproportionately.

                And who are you to officially declare something? And even more so, try to insult. Russian Foreign Ministry? Kremlin? Ministry of Defense? Go wash your mouth with soap, you are our hot. And learn to talk without trying to get personal.

                And also, if you’re trying to prove something, justify your words. Facts, references, documents, monographs of scientists. He spoke about American financiers - tell me what kind of financiers they are.
                1. smile
                  smile 7 July 2013 14: 43 New
                  +4
                  Pimply

                  For starters, read the book by Edward Stennius- The Riddles of the Lend-Lease-Formula of Victory http://lib.rus.ec/b/184874/read I hope you do not suspect that, the head of the Office for Compliance with the Law on Lend-Lease.
                  Harry Hopkins -
                  We Americans, however, are pragmatic people, and someone may ask: “12,9 billion is a very big price. Are such expenses justified? ”
                  I think that we return even twice as much. Lend-lease did not bring damage to our economy, but this help brought huge dividends.

                  Comrade Simson (of the Ministry of Defense) to Senator George in February 1941, when the Lend-Lease Act was being discussed, “if you take into account that it took only 18 months to 2 years to develop the production of new aircraft engines, and from 16 to 18 months for ”of the development of production of new aircraft, it is easy to understand that without the initial impetus that we received thanks to these foreign orders, we would now be in a very difficult position in the face of the vital need to solve all these production problems.”
                  “Lend-lease supplies to the Soviet Union on the profitability and high profitability of the Soviet Union were repeatedly indicated by the statesmen and politicians of the USA and England during the Great Patriotic War. During the Anglo-American conference in Casablanca in January 1943, Roosevelt noted: "Deliveries to Russia are a profitable investment." Churchill spoke of the need to increase Russia's military assistance, for “no other form of capital investment can provide the best military dividends”

                  This is for starters.
                  Further, I have to apologize - you are too lousy to you ... you can’t do this, I understand ... but you are lousy to the cause.
                  1. Pimply
                    Pimply 7 July 2013 16: 25 New
                    -3
                    So you apologize - or continue to be rude? Decide somehow. On the one hand - you admit that you are naughty. On the other, be proud of it.

                    Secondly - explain what exactly are you trying to prove to me?
                    1. Rider
                      Rider 7 July 2013 16: 35 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Pimply
                      Secondly - explain what exactly are you trying to prove to me?


                      the fact that lendlize was a profitable investment of money, and not at all disinterested help to an ally.
                    2. Starina_hank
                      Starina_hank 8 July 2013 19: 52 New
                      0
                      Between us girls speaking, the American comrades on the same approximately conditions helped their English friends.
                  2. smile
                    smile 7 July 2013 21: 59 New
                    +2
                    Pimply
                    I admit. that I named ... I admit that it was for you in this comment that I was rude disproportionately ... I admit that you can’t behave like that, it's bad ... although I really want to ... :)))
                    I also argue that my behavior was caused by reasonable indignation ... in my opinion, I expressed myself quite clearly ... Reader answered your second question below ... I don’t intend to develop this topic of apology ... and generally apologized because I became ashamed of myself ... in front of me.
                  3. Pimply
                    Pimply 7 July 2013 22: 29 New
                    0
                    For people who know how to behave, have knowledge and do not try to be rude in the first sentence, I personally never have complaints, even if we do not coincide in their views.
                    Watch your speech and you will be happy, and the forum will have a discussion, not a bazaar. The discussion is much more interesting than the exchange of slogans, agree 8). Have a nice day.
            3. T-73
              T-73 7 July 2013 18: 48 New
              0
              And who actually "officially" says something here? And by the way, I would like to see your arguments in favor of your version of the story
          2. Starina_hank
            Starina_hank 8 July 2013 19: 48 New
            0
            It’s natural that the manufacturer makes a profit by selling military equipment! However, at that difficult time, Lend-Lease deliveries were extremely necessary, we got what we didn’t have at all (radio and sonars, for example).
            For example, in the mid-80s at the Pacific Fleet there was a PM received from the Americans, served for 40 years.
        4. T-73
          T-73 7 July 2013 18: 42 New
          +3
          "The volume of American Lend-Lease deliveries amounted to about 11 billion US dollars. At the negotiations of 1948, Soviet representatives agreed to pay only a small amount and met the predicted refusal of the American side."

          For gold, only for it, with default payment. Why is it that suddenly in 1944 the states brazenly declared that their dollar is the very embodiment of gold, for the simple reason that mattresses have 75% of it (gold) 75% of the world's reserves. The Bretton Woods Agreement is the so-called. Only Stalin did not sign, by the way
          1. shpuntik
            shpuntik 7 July 2013 20: 48 New
            +1
            T-73 Today, 18:42 ↑
            The Bretton Woods Agreement is the so-called.

            With a little gold coin, it’s not so simple :-) Metal represents the Sun. Well, the sun worshipers did not go extinct: June 22 is the day of the summer solstice.
            http://shkolazhizni.ru/archive/0/n-17926/

            Here is an interesting video:
        5. shpuntik
          shpuntik 7 July 2013 19: 23 New
          +1
          Pimpled (1) Yesterday, 21:01 p.m. ↑
          Much less if you are not in the know. And without interest.
          ... So what percentages are we talking about?

          So you quote this:
          Under this agreement, the USSR pledged to pay $ 2001 million, including interest, until 722.

          Of course, I do not own a debit and a Lend-Lease loan. I also can not say about the cost of Studebaker and its price in the supply contract.
          The United States violated the agreement in time and quantity, delivered as they wanted.
          http://www.specnaz.ru/istoriya/474/
          In principle, following your logic, the peoples of the USSR should say thanks to the United States not only for Lend-Lease, but also for not attacking the USSR from the rear, the Far East.
          Truman’s words are known: “If we see that Germany wins, then we should help Russia, and if Russia will win, we should help Germany, and so let them kill as much as possible, although I would not like to see Hitler a winner under what circumstances. None of them keep their word. "
          http://egorka-datskij.livejournal.com/907.html


          The US gold reserve is known before and after World War II.


        6. partisanche
          partisanche 7 July 2013 20: 45 New
          +2
          Pimpy again Lend-Lease does not give you peace as soon as in some post it comes to who actually broke the ridge of the Nazis, you start singing about Lend-Lease, who owes much money to anyone, however you count other people's money))))
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 7 July 2013 21: 15 New
            0
            I am haunted by fools who consider the Second World War as a whole, and the Great Patriotic War in particular, some kind of painted lubok, and not the greatest tension of strength and will, a feat of tens of millions of people. The fools are yelling - but we would all be one left! For approximately this reason, the USSR lost a third of its territories in the first year of the war, and then, through the greatest efforts, returned them. Because someone believed that you can fight with screaming and hats.
    2. anip
      anip 6 July 2013 23: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: Professor
      More than half a million dead American soldiers - this is at least the same number of saved Soviet soldiers.

      And how many Soviet soldiers died?
      1. Professor
        Professor 7 July 2013 08: 19 New
        0
        Quote: anip
        And how many Soviet soldiers died?

        Incomparably more, but also half a million surviving Soviet soldiers thanks to the American allies is a huge figure.
    3. smile
      smile 7 July 2013 04: 18 New
      +3
      Professor (1)
      But what about Khayyem ... with his "Trade with the Enemy"? ... And, unfortunately, according to the memoirs of the Germans, most of which, unfortunately, were published under the control of the Americans .. nevertheless, with one voice, either explicitly or they implicitly say that worse than American soldiers, they are only Romanians .... the British have a much better opinion ... not to mention us, who are not good, though they, forgetting that by the year 42 we were equal in number with the Germans (if not counting 100 million Europeans, which was supported by their armed forces ... and only 400), even in comparison with the body of the new Germany .... all they strive to increase our numbers at times .... but this is a forgivable sin, after all, no one has yet blunted them .... but your statement .... why?
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 7 July 2013 11: 42 New
        -4
        Oh, how do you not like Americans to blame against the facts.
        1. smile
          smile 7 July 2013 15: 06 New
          +3
          Pimply
          Hmm, why should I love them? Do you like Arabs? Americans are our enemies and it would be strange if we "loved" them ...
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 7 July 2013 16: 34 New
            -1
            For starters - which Arabs exactly. They are different. I served with some, worked with some. If we talk about the Arab armies, then I would not underestimate them, and I would not minimize their merits. By the way, the same applies to the Arabs in the IDF.
            The Americans at that time were allies, then enemies. Now it is extremely difficult to consider them enemies, given the fact that China is the most likely opponent. Not best friends, but quite adequate partners, which in political goals are beneficial to put as the main evil. AND?

            Now tell me, how is it that if they, in your opinion, are enemies, affect their fighting qualities? Minus 5 to Strength, minus 10 to Agility?
          2. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
            Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 26 January 2018 01: 19 New
            0
            it was the Americans who liberated my grandfather and the concentration camp. So this is your "we" replace with "I", please
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 6 July 2013 09: 41 New
    0
    Second front? To be absolutely precise, from May 10, 1940, the British began to really fight, and from December 7, 1941, the Americans.
    1. kirpich
      kirpich 6 July 2013 10: 45 New
      +7
      Only now, strangeness, the British were sitting on their island and didn’t want to fight on the mainland. We did the same. The only “THANKS” to them was for deliveries on lend-lease (for which, it seems, we still have not paid). But, after all, Stalin asked them to open a second front for a reason.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 6 July 2013 10: 51 New
        -8
        Quote: kirpich
        The only "THANKS" to them for deliveries on lend-lease

        And for air supremacy on the Eastern Front? For the almost complete destruction of German industry? For the permanent deficit of fuel and lubricants among the Germans?
        1. Professor
          Professor 6 July 2013 10: 55 New
          -7
          Quote: Spade
          And for air supremacy on the Eastern Front? For the almost complete destruction of German industry? For the permanent deficit of fuel and lubricants among the Germans?

          For the distraction of the Japanese themselves and silence in the Soviet Far East?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 6 July 2013 10: 57 New
            10
            Then the Japanese themselves burst. However, they had no other choice. Roosevelt was still brilliant, it was he who led Japan to attack his country.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 6 July 2013 15: 08 New
              0
              It’s hard to disagree.
          2. T-73
            T-73 7 July 2013 18: 28 New
            +4
            "Professor" and "Shovels". There is antagonism, but what a unity of opinion! Freedom to maneuver. I think that the address of the computer is one. IMHO
            1. alex86
              alex86 7 July 2013 21: 02 New
              0
              Quote: T-73
              There is antagonism, but what a unity of opinion! Freedom to maneuver. I think that the address of the computer is one. IMHO

              Are you here recently?
        2. kirpich
          kirpich 6 July 2013 11: 06 New
          +3
          Please recall in what year did this happen?
          Please recall when our bombers bombed the Romanian oil fields.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 6 July 2013 12: 19 New
            -4
            Remind me? Yes, please, May 15, 1940
            1. kirpich
              kirpich 6 July 2013 12: 29 New
              +9
              Quote: Spade
              Quote: kirpich
              The only "THANKS" to them for deliveries on lend-lease

              And for air supremacy on the Eastern Front? For the almost complete destruction of German industry? For the permanent deficit of fuel and lubricants among the Germans?


              I do not understand. This is all done by the Anglo-Americans in the years 1940-1941 ???
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 6 July 2013 12: 37 New
                -5
                Started to do. The USSR also turned out to be in Berlin on June 22. May 15, 1940 began the strategic bombing of Germany.
                1. anip
                  anip 6 July 2013 23: 37 New
                  +2
                  Well, the USSR aviation in 1941 bombed Berlin. And what, industry destroyed?
                  And how did the Anglo-Americans begin to do this in 1940-41, so that the growth of German military production only increased almost until 1945?
        3. datur
          datur 6 July 2013 19: 00 New
          +5
          Lopatov- and synthetic gasoline? on which German tanks rode, their own planes flew, was apparently randomly presented by the main democrats of the world !!!! wink
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 6 July 2013 19: 44 New
            -1
            And then they themselves bombed. As far as I remember, in one of the raids almost every third plane was lost.
            1. shpuntik
              shpuntik 8 July 2013 11: 05 New
              0
              Lopatov (1) July 6, 2013 19:44 ↑
              And then they themselves bombed. As far as I remember, in one of the raids almost every third plane was lost.

              I apologize for interfering, but there are no less paradoxes. German Tiger tank: * Maybach HL210P45 and HL230P45 engines each had four Solex carburetors 52 FF J and D, and the HL230P30 had one Bosch PZ 12 carburetor.
              * Optics "Carl Zeiss".
              * Krupp gun, etc.
              Only, for some reason, ordinary Germans pay for the Holocaust and are guilty, and family-owned firms flourish more than ever. Anyone explain?
          2. Pimply
            Pimply 6 July 2013 20: 31 New
            -3
            See the agreement between the USSR and Germany.
        4. anip
          anip 6 July 2013 23: 33 New
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          And for air supremacy on the Eastern Front? For the almost complete destruction of German industry? For the permanent deficit of fuel and lubricants among the Germans?

          And where does the domination on the Eastern Front and the allies with their Lend-Lease?

          Quote: Spade
          For the almost complete destruction of German industry?

          And look at the statistics of arms production in the Third Reich for a start. I think you will be greatly surprised that the largest arms production was achieved in Germany in 1944. So when was German industry destroyed, and even then far from completely? Was it not then, when everything was already clear?
        5. 3 inches.
          3 inches. 7 July 2013 16: 09 New
          +1
          air supremacy? Well, it’s hard to say that this is the work of the Anglo-Saxons. They didn’t achieve the destruction of industry, by the end of 44 the peak of arms production in Germany. And the gasoline ended because Romania and Hungary didn’t. Remind why it stopped flowing from there?
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 6 July 2013 11: 42 New
        -19
        Does war with the Japanese mean anything to you? Do not fight the Americans with the Japanese, what do you think the USSR would have in the Far East?
        1. kirpich
          kirpich 6 July 2013 12: 34 New
          10
          It would be complete silence. The Japanese did not want to fight with us. They needed China and MANCHURIA. At that time, they did not sway at Mngolii.
        2. Fin
          Fin 6 July 2013 12: 38 New
          17
          Quote: Pimply
          Does war with the Japanese mean anything to you? Do not fight the Americans with the Japanese, what do you think the USSR would have in the Far East?

          And there wouldn’t be anything, and they would be afraid of each other.
          And the Japanese would take the hands of the Asia-Pacific region, where interests would not intersect.
          But the USA needed a war and they received it at the numerous request of the capitalists.
          1. Thunderbolt
            Thunderbolt 6 July 2013 13: 32 New
            +8
            № 372
            From the message of the Tokyo residency of the NKGB of the USSR about Japan's plans for the USSR
            5 July 1941 g
            ... The position recently determined by the Japanese government is as follows:
            1. Soon preparations for operations in the south will be completed, after which an offensive in this direction will immediately begin according to the following plan: sending troops to the southern part of Indochina, rendering military assistance to Tai - This is about Thailand - (in response to increased military pressure on England Tai) and further offensive on Singapore;
            use of everything to avoid war with the USA. If this fails, then achieve his goal, even fighting with the United States.
            2. The policy regarding the Soviet Union is so far determined by the following:
            a treaty of neutrality has recently been concluded, the rupture of which will provoke indignation of the population;
            preparations for the campaign to the north are not finished ...
            Consequently, Japan must take a position of neutrality. Having successfully completed the construction of a new order in Asia (by the method specified in paragraph one), Japan will nevertheless enter the war with the democracies and with the USSR on the side of Germany, so military preparations for the movement to the north should be accelerated so that at any time was to begin operations against the USSR ... CA FSB of Russia ---------------------------------- In accordance with the plan " "Kantokuen", developed by the imperial headquarters and headquarters of the Kwantung Army, in July 1941, a secret mobilization of 500 thousand people was carried out, of which 300 thousand were sent to Man Juria to replenish the troops of the Kwantung Army. As part of the Kwantung Army, 3 frontal directorates were formed, 5 field armies and the Kwantung Defensive Army (totaling up to 700 thousand people) were deployed. The Kwantung Army also subordinated units and formations of the armies of Manzhou-Guo and Inner Mongolia. According to the Kantokuen plan, the offensive was planned to be launched by forces of the Eastern and Northern Fronts from the Borderline to Voroshilov and from the Heihe (Sakhalyan) to Blagoveshchensk and Kuibyshevka-Vostochnaya, with the goal of capturing Voroshilov, Vladivostok, Blagoveshchensk, Iman at the first stage , Kuibyshevka-East; on the 1nd - Khabarovsk, Birobidzhan, Birokan and the Rukhlovo district, and then, with the favorable development of events, occupy Northern Sakhalin, Nikolaevsk-on-Amur, Komsomolsk, Sovetskaya Gavan, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. The plan provided for the interaction of ground forces with the Navy for landing in Kamchatka and Northern Sakhalin and the naval blockade of Vladivostok. The Western Front, in case of success of the Eastern and Northern Fronts, had the task, stepping on Chita, to capture the entire territory to Lake Baikal. The opening of hostilities was originally scheduled for August 2, 19. The presence of a large group of Japanese troops in Manchuria and the threat of Japan implementing the Kantokuen plan forced the USSR to keep significant forces in the Far East. http://www.bse.info-spravka.ru/bse/id_1941
        3. Tersky
          Tersky 6 July 2013 13: 39 New
          16
          Quote: Pimply
          Do not fight the Americans with the Japanese, what do you think the USSR would have in the Far East?

          Zhenya hi Before the defeat of the Nazis in the Far East of the USSR, he held a million-strong army near Stalingrad. The Japanese invasion of the USSR was planned after the fall of Stalingrad. So Stalin had everything seized, including the likelihood of an attack by Japan.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 6 July 2013 14: 25 New
            -9
            Hello Vit. I know perfectly well about an army of a million people. Now imagine that it’s not worthwhile, into a warring army, suffering losses, requiring weapons, ammunition, increased food standards, and medicines. Presented?
        4. Avenger711
          Avenger711 6 July 2013 20: 05 New
          +6
          There already stood an army of 1.5 million people. The problem is that the capture of the Far East did not give the Japanese anything; there is no necessary infrastructure with which to have something to fuck.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 6 July 2013 20: 32 New
            -3
            The army is standing, and the army is at war - these are somewhat different armies, do not you think?
        5. The comment was deleted.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 6 July 2013 20: 33 New
            -4
            Sorry, can I give you more details - what kind of “your governments” are you talking about? 8)
            1. rolik
              rolik 6 July 2013 21: 20 New
              +9
              Quote: Pimply
              Sorry, can I give you more details - what kind of “your governments” are you talking about? 8)

              And on behalf of whom you are trying to repeat the theme of all the latest Hollywood films, which says that America won the Second World War))))) And everyone else, especially the Soviet Union, was in the role of a projectile carrier.
        6. ImPerts
          ImPerts 6 July 2013 21: 25 New
          +1
          Quote: Pimply
          Do not fight the Americans with the Japanese, what do you think the USSR would have in the Far East?

          If the Japanese wanted, they would attack the Far East. But they did not do it. They attacked the Americans, because they did not want to attack the USSR. Therefore, your statement is not true. It will be more correct to say that the Americans had to fight with the Japanese, since they did not attack the USSR, but decided to fight with the United States.
        7. Kail_seven
          Kail_seven 7 July 2013 05: 27 New
          +2
          Quote: Pimply
          Does war with the Japanese mean anything to you? Do not fight the Americans with the Japanese, what do you think the USSR would have in the Far East?


          This is not a correct question, because it was not the Americans who started the war with Japan, but Japan attacked the United States. Those. Japan itself made its choice. And to continue speculating on “what would be” is simply stupid.
          1. stalkerwalker
            stalkerwalker 7 July 2013 10: 33 New
            +4
            Quote: Kail_Seven
            Incorrect question,

            I agree.
            If my grandmother had yay ... ah, she would be a grandfather.
            HISTORY DOESN'T HAVE A SUBJECTIVE TILT.
            Therefore, do not tilt the story and try to play solitaire on it.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 7 July 2013 11: 43 New
              -1
              Exactly
          2. 3 inches.
            3 inches. 7 July 2013 16: 14 New
            +2
            yes no. actually America forced Japan to fight. by the way, that's why the Japanese attacked them. It was systematic pressure from the age of 30. The yappa’s measures put in such conditions that war would be inevitable
      3. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 6 July 2013 18: 51 New
        +3
        Quote: kirpich
        Only now, strangeness, the British were sitting on their island and did not want to fight on the mainland. We did the same


        To be honest, we didn’t sit - the Greek campaign, the African campaign, the Italian front, but until the end of the Strange War, their actions were far from the most active.

        Quote: Spade
        And for air supremacy on the Eastern Front?


        Excuse me, but what does air supremacy in the East and the help of the Allies have to do with it? In material terms, yes, they helped us, but the forces of the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front were far from weak and small. And even during the existence of the Western Front, the number of aircraft sent from East to West is extremely small.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 6 July 2013 19: 12 New
          +1
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          And even during the existence of the Western Front, the number of aircraft sent from East to West is extremely small.

          Of course not enough. There was already nothing to remove from the front - the main efforts of German aviation were aimed at repelling the raids of the Americans and the British. The main body of anti-aircraft artillery was located there, and the 88-mm gun, as you know, was very effective against tanks.
          The same can be said about the aviation industry - the Germans did not have enough funds to replace the Yu-87 with a full-fledged attack aircraft, and therefore they supplied the troops with the Fv-190 instead. For the simple reason that the main efforts were again aimed at creating air defense aviation.
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 6 July 2013 23: 48 New
            0
            Quote: Spade
            there was not enough money to replace the Yu-87 with a full-fledged attack aircraft,


            But what about Ms. 129? Yes, and the Yu-87 was not an attack aircraft, but a diving bomber, and later it began to be replaced in units by Bf.110 and already closer to the end of the war on the Fv-190. And then if they were bombed so hard, how did they manage to put into operation a lot of jet aircraft?
            1. Vadivak
              Vadivak 7 July 2013 21: 43 New
              +2
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              But what about Ms. 129?


              MS129 Morane-Saulnier antediluvian pterodactyl. Did you probably mean the Hs-129 flying locomotive? But here's the catch, that at the locomotive plant, not a single horseradish train will work. Compared with it, the Ju-87 is a highly maneuverable 4 ++ fighter
          2. 3 inches.
            3 inches. 7 July 2013 16: 21 New
            0
            Yes, it’s not very effective. If you deploy it in advance and hide the howitzer here, it’s good. But the main thing for artillery is stealth and mobility. Think about how the flak fits these criteria.
        2. berimor
          berimor 7 July 2013 16: 49 New
          +4
          I want to recall the fact of "help" when tanks were removed from the African corps and before they had time to repaint it they threw it near Stalingrad (this was where their soil was more important for the Germans), And here is another fact of "help" when the Germans were squeezed into Europe by the Anglo-Americans in 1944 and they asked Stalin to launch an offensive as soon as possible in order to draw back the forces of the Wehrmacht. And if you take a closer look at the objects of the bombing, then with "surprise" you notice that these objects were almost all in the zone that the Red Army was supposed to occupy. This is HELP, I understand !!!
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 7 July 2013 18: 20 New
            -5
            For a start - links
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 7 July 2013 18: 24 New
              +3
              Quote: Pimply
              For a start - links

              Already not even funny.
    2. Basileus
      Basileus 8 July 2013 11: 27 New
      0
      May 10 - is that the legendary drape of the brave Tommy to Dunkirk? Really worthy of praise.
  • Stas57
    Stas57 6 July 2013 09: 50 New
    +5
    the second front when it was really open something miracle you are in feathers! That's when they saw that the fascists were a real kopek and they would have to share the cake, then they already started to fuss !!!!

    and where does the second front, gunpowder, metals, cars and steam locomotives, and most importantly, machine tools and equipment, the same new carousel that allowed us to make the same 34-85 cheaper and faster.
    therefore, it is necessary to soberly assess the role of the allies and their help, and not tear on themselves underwear

    you can look here
    http://topwar.ru/22247-tankovyy-lend-liz-velikobritaniya.html
  • Pimply
    Pimply 6 July 2013 11: 41 New
    -17
    Not ham, child, people who are smarter and older than you. If you are not in the know, the second front was opened much earlier than 1944. Military operations in Africa and the Pacific Ocean, the capture of Sicily in 1943. The landing in 1944 was due to the most serious preparations for the assault on the deeply echeloned defense of the Germans in Europe.
    1. Masterzserg
      Masterzserg 6 July 2013 13: 36 New
      22
      Quote: Pimply
      the second front was opened much earlier than 1944. Military operations in Africa and the Pacific Ocean, the capture of Sicily in 1943. The landing in 1944 was due to the most serious preparations for the assault on the deeply echeloned defense of the Germans in Europe.
      That's about the fact that you are smarter, very doubtful! They opened a second front in Africa!)) Hhahaha! Though in Australia !!! What are they there in Africa, their colonies won back? The USSR is not warm from this, it’s not cold, but in the year 44 they stormed into Europe, already sharing it, by the way the Germans nearly threw them into the ocean, heroes of these allied, and then our "helpers" had to help, strengthening the offensive. They opened fronts there on Mars against Germany ... They were completely nuts. laughing
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 6 July 2013 14: 36 New
        -13
        To begin with - they didn’t speak with you, right?
        Secondly, under smarter it was a question of rudeness in relation to the professor, and the person who gets out there is obviously dumber than him, especially taking into account the manner of his communication.
        Thirdly, the war is called World War II. And the German troops fighting in Africa are the troops that did not fight on the Eastern Front, and Africa liberated from the Nazis is that Africa that could no longer supply Nazi Germany's resources - oil, metal, etc.
        Thirdly, the war was fought not only in Africa, but also in the Pacific Ocean, in Sicily, and the Allies bombed Berlin in 40-41, moreover, by an order of magnitude more intensively than Soviet aircraft.
        You are illiterate and rude. Go back to school and hand over the story for something better than a troika.
        1. Constantine
          Constantine 6 July 2013 16: 34 New
          +3
          Quote: Pimply
          To begin with - they didn’t speak with you, right?
          Secondly, under smarter it was a question of rudeness in relation to the professor, and the person who gets out there is obviously dumber than him, especially taking into account the manner of his communication.
          Thirdly, the war is called World War II. And the German troops fighting in Africa are the troops that did not fight on the Eastern Front, and Africa liberated from the Nazis is that Africa that could no longer supply Nazi Germany's resources - oil, metal, etc.
          Thirdly, the war was fought not only in Africa, but also in the Pacific Ocean, in Sicily, and the Allies bombed Berlin in 40-41, moreover, by an order of magnitude more intensively than Soviet aircraft.
          You are illiterate and rude. Go back to school and hand over the story for something better than a troika.


          Once again
          Quote: Pimply
          References, proofs, certificates
        2. Flooding
          Flooding 6 July 2013 16: 58 New
          +9
          Quote: Pimply
          And the German troops fighting in Africa are the troops that did not fight on the Eastern Front

          Without any intention to belittle the importance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet Union, but with the sole purpose of having a clear understanding of the issue.
          What was the Nazi group in Africa?
          Rommel's "African Corps" in the original composition of the light division and tank regiment and attached battalions. Later it “grew” to two tank divisions.
          Further, at the end of 1942. Toward the close (from December 1942 to May 1943), the SS division Hermann Goering and the 10th Panzer Division fought there.
          That's all.
          The main backbone was the Italian allies (more than 500 thousand people). if you can call them skeleton at all.
          They showed themselves not from the best side.

          By the way, the presence of the last two German divisions in the African theater did not prevent them from fighting earlier in the east.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 6 July 2013 17: 10 New
            -7
            Rommel commanded the African Corps for six months. Until August 1941. Since September, he commanded the Army "Africa".

            1st Italian Army
            African Corps (German)
            20th Motorized Corps (Italian)
            21st Army Corps (Italian)
            5-I tank army
            10-I Panzer Division
            German Goering Division
            334 I Infantry Division

            The intensity of the fighting, of course, could not be compared with what was on the Eastern Front. Nevertheless, Africa was also quite an important point due to both resources and geopolitical features.
            1. Flooding
              Flooding 6 July 2013 17: 25 New
              +6
              Quote: Pimply
              1st Italian Army
              African Corps (German)
              20th Motorized Corps (Italian)
              21st Army Corps (Italian)
              5-I tank army
              10-I Panzer Division
              German Goering Division
              334 I Infantry Division

              All other parts of the Army "Africa" ​​except those indicated by me above were Italian. Or am I wrong?
              Both the German Goering and the 10th Panzer managed to absorb African dust in a matter of months (from December 1942 until surrender in May 1943).
              To summarize. What was general the number of German regular units "distracted from the Eastern Front"?
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 6 July 2013 17: 26 New
                -9
                It was a combined unit.
              2. Aaron Zawi
                Aaron Zawi 6 July 2013 18: 25 New
                +1
                Why bother? That is not pretending to be academic.
                http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Североафриканская_кампания
                And then the resources for the war in Africa, the resources for the war at sea, the resources for creating and maintaining fortifications on the Atlantic coast. Parts in Western Europe. Air Defense Forces in Germany. And this is only before landing in Italy. And when it began and the Italian army fell, the Germans, in the midst of the Battle of Kursk, had to transfer the tank corps from the Eastern Front. It should be remembered that having a common goal to destroy Nazi Germany, all allies had their own goals in the war. Or does someone consider the politicians of the great powers altruists?
                1. Flooding
                  Flooding 6 July 2013 18: 43 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Aaron Zawi
                  It should be remembered that having a common goal to destroy Nazi Germany, all allies had their own goals in the war. Or does someone consider the politicians of the great powers altruists?

                  I do not argue with you. But the controversial issue is "the diversion of German troops from the east for operations on the African continent"
                2. ImPerts
                  ImPerts 6 July 2013 21: 39 New
                  +2
                  They would have diverted resources much more efficiently from the eastern front if they landed not on the northern coast of Africa, but on the coast of Belgium. And so ... And so they decided their interests)))
            2. Constantine
              Constantine 6 July 2013 17: 26 New
              +1
              Rommel commanded the African Corps for six months. Until August 1941. Since September, he commanded the Army "Africa".

              1st Italian Army
              African Corps (German)
              20th Motorized Corps (Italian)
              21st Army Corps (Italian)
              5-I tank army
              10-I Panzer Division
              German Goering Division
              334 I Infantry Division

              The intensity of the fighting, of course, could not be compared with what was on the Eastern Front. Nevertheless, Africa was also quite an important point due to both resources and geopolitical features.


              References, proofs, certificates
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 6 July 2013 17: 33 New
                -5
                Respected. Is it really so inept troll, you think that you will achieve something? I’m not afraid of links, proofs, evidence, I have them.
                For example
                http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gliederungen/KorpsSonstige/AfrikaKorps.htm

                And you? Doubtful That’s why you can only repeat my phrase.
                1. Constantine
                  Constantine 6 July 2013 19: 07 New
                  +4
                  But did I put forward any positions other than those where I asked you to justify your words with proofs. It is interesting to read where you draw such indisputable knowledge from. I didn’t come with you to “measure” with you, but normally asked to justify my opinion as you ask from others and with the same frequency with which you ask.
                2. Pimply
                  Pimply 6 July 2013 20: 36 New
                  -1
                  You did not ask, the format of your communication was somewhat different. You decided to get involved and put me in my place. That is - "measured by devices."
          2. Starina_hank
            Starina_hank 8 July 2013 20: 23 New
            0
            About 100000 Germans were captured by the Allies, quite normal.
      2. Flooding
        Flooding 6 July 2013 17: 18 New
        +7
        The battleworthiness of the Italian troops is eloquently shown, for example, by the fact that only as a result of the offensive in December 1940 - January 1941, the British troops advanced more than 800 km in two months. Carrying a trace. Losses: 475 people killed, 1225 wounded and 43 missing. The Italian army lost more than 130 thousand soldiers and officers only prisoners, about 400 tanks, 1290 guns.
        By the way, the Australians (6th, 7th and 9th divisions) also fought with the Italian fascist troops. The Italians also resisted the local Sudanese and Ethiopian units and partisans.

        In addition, a fairly decent part of the British colonial forces was the local population recruited in African colonies.
        So, for example, out of 77 thousand people of the total composition of the British troops in Kenya in the autumn of 1940, 42 thousand were Africans.

        But, in my opinion, this does not give any reason to talk about Soviet assistance in the fight against the fascists of half of Europe. Africa is a completely separate issue.
        The British primarily defended and strengthened their colonial interests in the region. And they could not inflict any more or less painful blow to fascism as a whole, acting within the African continent, and did not set themselves such a task.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 6 July 2013 17: 29 New
          -8
          World war for that and world war - everything was interconnected there. The containment of Africa gave the Germans the opportunity to break through to the oil reserves of Iran and Iraq, to ​​Suez, the base for a potential exit to New Zealand and Australia.
          1. Flooding
            Flooding 6 July 2013 18: 40 New
            +7
            Quote: Pimply
            World war for that and world war - everything was interconnected there. The containment of Africa gave the Germans the opportunity to break through to the oil reserves of Iran and Iraq, to ​​Suez, the base for a potential exit to New Zealand and Australia.

            And for such a task did they allot two divisions?
            In this case, I strongly doubt that she saw the fascist leadership so important.
            Let's see where Germany got its resources from:

            - Sweden
            In 1939, fascist Germany delivered 10,6 million tons of Swedish ore. From 1940 to 1944, the Swedes sold more than 45 million tons of iron ore to the fascists.

            - Portugal
            Tungsten (Portugal was the largest producer of this metal in Europe), food. In total, Portugal received 44 tons of gold bullion in payment of supplies.

            - Spain
            Tungsten, fluorspar, iron ore, zinc sulphide, pyrites, oranges, fish, wine, etc.
            In 1941 delivered to 167 million Reichsmarks
            Further on increasing.

            - Turkey
            From October 1938 to December 1940 (in fact two years) 104156 tons of chrome ore were delivered to Germany. Germany covered about 30% of its needs for ferroalloys due to Turkish chrome ore.
            Re-export of cereals received from the USA and England during the war.
            Tobacco, cotton (1942 - 1318 tons, 1943 - 1580 tons, 1944 - 3325 tons), copper, raisins, figs, fish, etc.

            - USA
            Separate song. We read "Trading with the enemy" Charles Higham ("Trading with the enemy" Charles Higham)

            Germany covered more than a third of the need for fuel and almost all the need for lubricants in the first years of World War II due to Austrian and Romanian oil.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 6 July 2013 20: 39 New
              -3
              And I repeat once again - the African theater of operations was not decisive, but this does not mean that it was not significant. And for some reason, you focus only on it.
              1. revnagan
                revnagan 6 July 2013 21: 31 New
                +6
                Quote: Pimply
                And I repeat once again - the African theater of operations was not decisive, but this does not mean that it was not significant.

                No, of course, the African Theater ... as if to put it mildly ... was not so insignificant. It was insignificant.
              2. Cat
                Cat 6 July 2013 22: 02 New
                -2
                Quote: revnagan
                No, of course, the African Theater ... as if to put it mildly ... was not so insignificant. It was insignificant.

                I’ve already said here to one wise guy, I’ll also repeat to you: only “alternatively gifted” individuals can talk about the significance of the actions of the USSR allies. Culturally speaking.
                After all, a German who died in Africa could easily end up in Ukraine - and kill or burn one of your grandparents in a barn. But - he did not kill and did not burn, since he himself was killed, albeit without the participation of the Red Army. And thanks to this - you have the opportunity to sit here on the forum and build a mega-strategy.
                And if the "extra" German on the Eastern Front would not be the only one - but a company, a battalion, a regiment? How many people could they kill - your relatives, mine, or Popyrchaty? Or do you want to say that their lives are worth nothing and no one needs?

                In general, my advice to you - shut up, please.
              3. Rider
                Rider 6 July 2013 23: 15 New
                +5
                Quote: Cat
                I’ve already said here to one wise guy, I’ll also repeat to you: they can only discuss the significance of the actions of the USSR allies “alternatively gifted” personalities. Culturally speaking.



                and indeed, despite the fact that Germany spent from 65 to 70% of its industrial potential on the war in the east.
                and ditched from us 75-80% of its infantry.
                then talk about some SUPER SERIOUS contribution of the Allies to the victory over Germany,
                can only “alternatively gifted” personalities. Culturally speaking.

                in this situation, it’s not us, they, but they, we should bow to the legs.
                but from "alternatively gifted" only heard YES WE NEED THEM, WE ARE OBLIGED TO THEM, YES NEVER PAYBACK. etc.

                if YOU owe them something, then you can start paying on Monday.
              4. Cat
                Cat 6 July 2013 23: 32 New
                -2
                Quote: Rider
                then talk about some SUPER SERIOUS contribution of the Allies to the victory over Germany,

                life of a single person, from your point of view, how is it - serious? Or super serious?
                And if this person is your mother, then how?
                It first.
                And secondly - with what fright did you suddenly decide that I consider the contribution of the Allies to the victory - super serious? Where did I say that? Unless in yours, alternatively giftedfantasies (culturally expressed).
              5. Rider
                Rider 6 July 2013 23: 44 New
                +3
                uv Cat, do you read your posts ATTENTIVELY?
                or throwing a text without looking.

                But - he did not kill and did not burn, since he himself was killed, albeit without the participation of the Red Army. And thanks to this - you have the opportunity to sit here on the forum and build a mega-strategy.


                that is, if there weren’t an African mess, then the USSR would have lost the war, and the fasting here would not have the opportunity to carry stupid things on the forum.

                I understand you correctly 7

                Quote: Cat
                And secondly - with what a fright


                Yes, from such that I only hear (including from you) that WE SHOULD BE THAT THANKS FOR THEM, WE ARE OBLIGED TO THEM, etc., etc.

                I just turned the DEBTS in the opposite direction.
                for some reason no one in the West is in a hurry to sprinkle ashes on the fact that it was the USSR that made the DECISIVE contribution to the victory over the Reich.

                Well, you can start paying YOUR debt.
              6. Cat
                Cat 7 July 2013 01: 53 New
                +5
                Quote: Rider
                that is, if there weren’t an African mess, then the USSR would have lost the war, and the fasting here would not have the opportunity to carry stupid things on the forum.

                The Union would have won the war anyway.
                But as for those who drive the blizzard on the forum - it is not so clear. Some might not have been born.
                Quote: Rider
                Yes, from such that I only hear (including from you) that WE SHOULD BE THAT THANKS FOR THEM, WE ARE OBLIGED TO THEM, etc., etc.

                What do you mean - are you obliged? What do you owe?
                And about gratitude ... Are you personally grateful to Soviet soldiers? And what is this expressed in? Do you carry flowers once a year to the monument, or just glue a ribbon on an ava in a social network? Yes, even so ... And if on May 9 you find yourself denim in Africa, next to the monument to English or American soldiers - will you put flowers there? Or you’ll spit - they say you are here, and you would have managed without it. So it turns out?

                My grandfather, he served at the Pacific Fleet, an artilleryman. He first saw a Japanese soldier only when the ships arrived in Port Arthur, before that - well, they fired mainly on the shore, and a couple of times at the ships. How many Japanese died from the shells of his guns - no one knows.
                But Japan, in the 45th, did not present any danger to the USSR, and was not going to attack. And in comparison with the Amer’s fleet, the Pacific Fleet wasn’t a fleet either, but a flotilla ... So, grandfather and his colleagues were fighting in vain? Several people from their crew left for the Marine Corps, one died during the landing on Sakhalin - in vain, right?
                Of them, from the whole crew, today there are 5 people left. Three of them will meet in September - two more, unfortunately, travel is contraindicated. I will give the address where they will gather - come, and say - that they fought in vain. Tell them in the eye. Or are you afraid? And rightly scared. They, they won’t do anything to you, 90-year-old grandfathers, they walk with difficulty. And here I am - I personally will tear your head off and say that it was so. And conscience will not torment. And even if they put me in prison for this, it’s not because I'm wrong, but because the laws are moronic.

                In short.

                Remember once and for all:
                There are decisive or decisive battles. There are main directions of impact, and secondary. There are distracting blows - the participants of which are obviously doomed to death. A lot of things happen.
                But insignificant, insignificant fights - does not happen.
                Pilots of a bomber shot down by an enemy air defense and falling in a clear field 10 km from the target ... or submariners - whose boat died in landmines before they could fire a single torpedo ... or recruits whose train was hit by bombing - they even they didn’t have time to get to the front ... did they live in vain and died in vain? No. They also gave their lives - for the Victory. And also worthy of gratitude and reverence. No matter what flag they served.

                Remember this. And teach children.
              7. Rider
                Rider 7 July 2013 02: 51 New
                0
                I understand that instead of ARGUMENTS, you decided to spend an evening of historical romance?

                very clear.

                Quote: Cat
                Remember this. And teach children.


                you do not happen by chance?
                no ?
                and don’t take into account?

                Well then, leave your moralizing to yourself.
              8. Cat
                Cat 7 July 2013 03: 00 New
                -1
                Quote: Rider
                I understand that instead of ARGUMENTS, you decided to spend an evening of historical romance?

                ARGUMENT is an “insignificant and not affecting anything” operation, that is, the military operations of the Soviet Army and the Pacific Fleet against Japan. I suggested that you express your opinion by looking into the eyes of the participants in those events.
                Do you agree to do this?
              9. Rider
                Rider 7 July 2013 11: 02 New
                0
                Quote: Cat
                I suggested that you express your opinion by looking into the eyes of the participants in those events.


                Well, it means, exactly without arguments.

                some drool snot and emotion.

                Well
                to give the character a spitting face


                are you doing these on the internet?
                you are our warlike.
              10. Cat
                Cat 7 July 2013 15: 55 New
                -2
                Quote: Rider
                Well, it means, exactly without arguments.

                if human lives are not an argument for you - then what?
                Quote: Rider
                are you doing these on the internet?

                I suggested the option - without the Internet. You can even not go to Kiev, I think there will be live participants in the fighting in the Far East and Kazakhstan. Or the children of those who died there. Do you agree to discuss with them the nullity of that operation? Or are you worried about your own face?
              11. Rider
                Rider 7 July 2013 16: 05 New
                +1
                Quote: Cat
                if human lives are not an argument for you -


                Yes, we heard this argument.
                something like a "baby tear" and so on.
                unfortunately in a war where millions are burned, your words look like profanity.

                Quote: Cat
                I suggested the option - without the Internet. You can even not go to Kiev


                and so, now go and tell the same veterans that the American carcass was more useful than the opening of a second front in the year 42?

                As you can see, you can come up with questions not only you.
              12. Cat
                Cat 7 July 2013 17: 09 New
                0
                Quote: Rider
                unfortunately in a war where millions are burned, your words look like profanity.

                losses in millions are considered by politicians, or historians, or literate men like you. But the soldiers in the trenches - they consider the losses individually.
                Whose opinion is more significant, huh?

                Quote: Rider
                and so, now go and tell the same veterans that the American carcass was more useful than the opening of a second front in the year 42?

                asking is not necessary, I already know what they will answer: the second front and the stew were important.
                Because war is not a supermarket where you can choose. Important in war Any help. Not a single soldier refused to go into battle on foot and not on Sherman, and there is oak bark instead of stew - due to the fact that the Allies did not open a second front.
              13. Rider
                Rider 7 July 2013 17: 31 New
                +2
                Quote: Cat
                losses in millions are considered by politicians, or historians, or literate men like you


                as well as nations whose help (in the most difficult time) was limited to promises.
                Well, about the piece count.
                so maybe it’s not necessary to fight?
                because in the next battle, several of these pieces will forever occupy a horizontal position.

                the commander sends an anti-tank battery to the tip of a tank breakthrough. almost to death.
                and to him like you - oh they’ll all die there, and we count them individually.
                probably the commander will scratch the pumpkin and say.
                "Yeah, I feel sorry for these soldiers - GETTING OFF TO THE URALS"

                Quote: Cat
                the second front and the stew were important


                there was a carcass, there was no second fron.

                when you learn to stop the enemy tanks canned, then we'll talk.
              14. Cat
                Cat 8 July 2013 00: 00 New
                -1
                Quote: Rider
                when you learn to stop the enemy tanks canned, then we'll talk.

                you don’t even have a carcass — you will refuse it, you will eat the birch bark and wait until they open a second front. Or starve to death before enemy tanks reach your position.
                Quote: Rider

                the commander sends an anti-tank battery to the tip of a tank breakthrough. almost to death.

                and the less Germans will sit in denim in Africa - the more batteries will have to be sent to the division commander, to certain death.
              15. Rider
                Rider 8 July 2013 00: 18 New
                +1
                according to the first remark - apparently the fantasy is over, the muddy foam and snot went.

                Quote: Cat
                and the less Germans will sit denim in Africa


                oops, but come on the opposite.

                than MORE allies would fight in Africa (and ideally Europe)
                the LESS would have had to send batteries to certain death.


                but you, for some reason, prefer the first option.

                like wipe yourself with what is, and even bow, bow, and give thanks.

                and after that you blame ME for heartlessness! 7
              16. Cat
                Cat 8 July 2013 00: 38 New
                -1
                Quote: Rider
                than MORE allies would fight in Africa (and ideally Europe)
                the LESS would have had to send batteries to certain death.

                what does it mean "would"? How many fought, so many fought. How many of ours survived because of this, so many survived. Let not a million, but only 200000, or 100000, or at least 50000 - and that’s good. One small town, or fifty villages. Is it a lot or a little?
              17. Rider
                Rider 8 July 2013 00: 44 New
                0
                Quote: Cat
                Is it a lot or a little?


                and that’s what it means WOULD
                for me - the more the better, but for you - and so it will do.
                women still give birth.

                and about the towns.

                for the population of a small town - normal.

                but for a population of 200 MILLION COUNTRIES, LOSING 27 LEMONS OF THE PEOPLE - NOTHING LITTLE!

                so who is there "caring" for the value of human life and the tear of a child?
              18. Cat
                Cat 8 July 2013 01: 13 New
                0
                Quote: Rider

                but for a population of 200 MILLION COUNTRIES, LOSING 27 LEMONS OF THE PEOPLE - IT'S SMALL!

                Do you personally agree that these grandfathers and grandmothers, their parents, brothers, sisters, will be among these additional victims? This is not even a town, it will turn out a small village, against the background of huge losses of a huge country - a trifle.
                Such a simple question.
                Give him the same simple answer.
              19. Rider
                Rider 8 July 2013 01: 27 New
                +2
                Quote: Cat
                do you personally agree


                Ale woodpecker!
                if it hasn’t reached you yet (well, you’re a fat-baked man - it happens)
                then I advocate that OUR HAS BEEN LESS!
                and if for this it is necessary that there should be MORE THEM, then I AGREE to it.

                and I want to find out WHY IT DOESN'T POSIT YOU?

                Quote: Cat
                Such a simple question.
                Give him the same simple answer.


                Both of my grandfathers are already included in this number.
              20. Cat
                Cat 8 July 2013 01: 47 New
                -2
                Quote: Rider
                if it hasn’t reached you yet (well, you’re a fat-baked man - it happens)
                then I advocate that OUR HAS BEEN LESS!
                and if for this it is necessary that there should be MORE THEM, then I AGREE to it.

                do you have a time machine? No? How so? What are you then advocating?
                Quote: Rider
                Both of my grandfathers are already included in this number.

                and this, apparently, is more than happy with you - since you agree to easily exchange another dozen or two villages. Or are you just jealous of those whose grandfathers returned from the war alive?
              21. Rider
                Rider 8 July 2013 02: 24 New
                +1
                Quote: Cat
                and this, apparently, is more than happy with you - since you agree to easily exchange another dozen or two villages.


                Are you deliberately fooling around, or are you really reading only what is beneficial to you?

                I tell you once again.
                I AM FOR WHAT WE LESS LESS!

                and I still have not received the answer to the question
                WHY ARE YOU AGAINST?
              22. Cat
                Cat 8 July 2013 03: 42 New
                0
                Quote: Rider
                I tell you once again.
                I AM FOR WHAT WE LESS LESS!

                and I still have not received the answer to the question
                WHY ARE YOU AGAINST?

                when it comes to you that those people - ALREADY Died. Long. 70 years ago. They died without asking what you want and what I want.
                Therefore, it’s stupid to say - “but, if only, if only” - no one will rise from this.
                Simply, due to the fact that somewhere in Africa some of them died - some of us were able to return home. A few more lives were saved by the Sherman’s armor, and some more were able to survive the blockade thanks to the American stew.
                It is a fact.
                Everything else is lyrics, and the fruit of your imagination.
              23. Rider
                Rider 8 July 2013 03: 52 New
                0
                Quote: Cat
                when will it reach you that


                When it comes to you that their bosses did everything so that the story would turn out just like that and not otherwise.
                and that they would love to do it again, and again.
                until. while altruists like you, and Western haters like me, WAS NOT REMAINED AT ALL.

                I’m just wondering when you see YOUR cities destroyed, you will also assure yourself that THEY HAVE DONE EVERYTHING that they could?
                and that is as it should be. and we should be grateful to them for THIS?

                Are you REALLY SO ... uh altruist?
              24. Cat
                Cat 8 July 2013 04: 04 New
                0
                the Germans, whose grandfathers attacked our country, committed all kinds of atrocities, mocked civilians - and for all this they robbed our grandfathers in full - so these same Germans still look after the graves of Soviet soldiers and carry flowers there. Although for a long time there has been no GDR or SED, and Germany is not an ally for Russia ... these Germans - are they right, or not?
              25. Rider
                Rider 8 July 2013 04: 23 New
                0
                Quote: Cat
                are they doing the right thing or not?


                as I understand it, this is again a question from the category "where are the keys to the paravoz 7"

                and where to do desecration of graves?
                and myths circulated for the "holiday" about 2limons of worn-out German women
              26. Cat
                Cat 8 July 2013 04: 32 New
                0
                Quote: Rider
                as I understand it, this is again a question from the category "where are the keys to the paravoz 7"

                why all of a sudden? But you have the courage and audacity to evaluate the actions of the allies during the war - evaluate, at the same time, the descendants of former enemies. Or do their actions not fit into your value system?
                Quote: Rider
                and where to do desecration of graves?
                and myths circulated for the "holiday" about 2limons of worn-out German women

                about 2 million Germans yell your brothers on the mind, on the other hand. They also desecrate monuments - both in the West and in Russia. Gandons are laid out there, kebabs are fried ... after all, that for them a hundred or two thousand dead - on the scale of a huge country ...
              27. Rider
                Rider 8 July 2013 04: 40 New
                0
                Quote: Cat
                You have enough courage and arrogance to evaluate


                I have enough intelligence and knowledge to evaluate their meanness, and further aggressive plans.

                but altruists do not understand this.
                Quote: Cat
                your brothers are screaming for reason

                both on. this is twisted.
                and DIDN'T YOU SO PAY GENERATIVELY WITH OUR BLOOD FOR SHERMANS AND TUSHNYAK?

                did you accidentally break away from consciousness, from an abnormal transition to the REAL WORLD?
              28. Cat
                Cat 8 July 2013 05: 03 New
                0
                Quote: Rider
                I have enough intelligence and knowledge to evaluate their meanness, and further aggressive plans.

                care for the graves of Soviet soldiers - what do you attribute to this? To meanness, or to aggressive plans?
              29. Rider
                Rider 8 July 2013 05: 12 New
                0
                Quote: Cat
                what do you attribute to this?


                and the intention to erase the USSR into powder, how does it balance?

                DO YOU AGREE TO GIVE THE LIFE OF YOUR FAMILY FOR CLEAR PROTECTIONS?

                you are in your own mind 7
                we are discussing the DESTRUCTION of the WHOLE USSR, and you covered yourself with the care of the graves.
                you again traded LIVING PEOPLE for some material values.

                is everything okay with your head?
              30. Cat
                Cat 8 July 2013 05: 44 New
                0
                Quote: Rider
                Quote: Cat
                what do you attribute to this?


                and the intention to erase the USSR into powder, how does it balance?

                DO YOU AGREE TO GIVE THE LIFE OF YOUR FAMILY FOR CLEAR PROTECTIONS?

                you are in your own mind 7
                we are discussing the DESTRUCTION of the WHOLE USSR, and you covered yourself with the care of the graves.
                you again traded LIVING PEOPLE for some material values.

                is everything okay with your head?

                is it called - the answer to the question? No, this is an attempt to move the arrows from wet to green.


                As for the plans for the destruction of the USSR, which really took place ... so the main reason that the Angloamers did not attack the USSR is quite simple: they realized that they could not explain to their citizens the need for war with yesterday’s ally. And instead of attacking the Union, they can easily fly their heads in Washington and London.
                All this was not invented by me, a long-known fact, confirmed by the British and Amers. There was no hatred towards the USSR at that time, just as it was with our allies. This was later, propaganda tried - but by then the Union already had its own Bomb, so the attack plans had to be pulled away and started writing new ones. The USSR, however, did exactly the same thing.

                About the "material values" ... it’s your bias, not mine. Because it’s for you that you must “change something for something”: blood for iron, stew for life, etc. I admit only one exchange: life for life. And no other way.

                And caring for the graves of soldiers is not an exchange of one thing for something else. They don’t pay for it. And they do - just like that. Without any conditions. This is - that same respect, that same gratitude. Which you won’t understand, because your calculator simply doesn’t have the necessary functions.
              31. Starina_hank
                Starina_hank 8 July 2013 20: 50 New
                0
                Maybe it's just a culture?
  • Starina_hank
    Starina_hank 8 July 2013 20: 39 New
    0
    And without the stew, not ginger, probably stop the Nanks handier?
  • stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 7 July 2013 17: 39 New
    +3
    Quote: Cat
    losses in millions are considered by politicians, or historians, or literate men like you.


    Yeah ...
    Poland’s “kidalovo” near the Wehrmacht, England and France (let’s go forward, we will support you ... maybe) fit perfectly into this “ideology”.
  • Aleksys2
    Aleksys2 8 July 2013 01: 50 New
    +1
    Quote: Cat
    the second front and the stew were important.

    The second front ..., the help of the Allies ..., together they broke the ridge ... It's all good, it's all right, but what about the story? Namely:
    3 September 1939 in response to the German attack on Poland, which launched the Second World War, Great Britain and France declared war on Germany. In France, at the fortified Maginot Line, the Franco-British Army was located, and the German Army was concentrated at the Siegfried Line. But military operations were limited only to private operations at sea. A strange silence reigned on the border of France and Germany: huge armies stood facing each other, but there were no battles, only occasional skirmishes ensued. This period of the war (September 1939 - April 1940) went down in history as the Strange War.
    On 7 of September 1939, units of the 3 and 4 French armies crossed the German border in Saarland and wedged into the foreground of the Siegfried Line. There was no resistance to them, and the German population of Saar was evacuated. On 12 September, a meeting of the French-British Higher Military Council was held in Abbeville with the participation of Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier and the Commander-in-Chief of the French Army Maurice Gamelin. During the meeting, it was decided to end the offensive due to the fact that "the events in Poland do not justify further military operations in the Saarland."
    In practice, this decision meant the rejection of the allied obligations towards Poland adopted on 19 on May 1939, according to which France was to use all available means to launch a ground attack on the 15 day from the beginning of the mobilization, and military operations from the very first Day of the German invasion of Poland. The Polish ambassadors in France (Edward Raczynski) and in England (Juliusz Lukasevic) tried unsuccessfully to influence the position of the allies and persuade them to fulfill their obligations. Meanwhile, the entire Z defense plan of the Polish General Staff relied precisely on the Allied offensive. The latter had a unique opportunity to develop an offensive in that single short-term period of their military superiority over the Wehrmacht and influence the further fate of all the peoples of Europe, including their own. Until the end of hostilities in Poland, the German command was not able to deploy a single unit to the Western Front (except for the aforementioned mountain rifle division). However, the Allies did not use their chance, which had disastrous consequences for them in the 1940 year.
    With the outbreak of the Soviet-Finnish war of November 30, 1939 in the governments of Great Britain and France, plans began to develop assistance to Finland and military operations against the USSR. They planned to land an expeditionary force in Norway and airstrikes on Baku oil fields. But the end of the Soviet-Finnish war 12 March 1940 put an end to these plans.
  • Starina_hank
    Starina_hank 8 July 2013 20: 56 New
    0
    A small nuance, at the end of August, the USSR and Germany signed a pact and a secret application, according to which Poland left
    dila
    to Germany, and Finland to the USSR.
  • Cat
    Cat 7 July 2013 03: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Rider
    you do not happen by chance?
    no ?
    and don’t take into account?

    Well then, leave your moralizing to yourself.

    in order to give the character a face spitting on a monument to dead soldiers, or at least express an opinion that this should not be done in the face, one does not need to be a teacher or an employee of law enforcement agencies. It’s enough to be simple - person.
  • Drummer
    Drummer 7 July 2013 09: 05 New
    +2
    Quote: Rider
    I just turned the DEBTS in the opposite direction. why no one in the West is in a hurry to sprinkle ashes on the fact that it was the USSR that made the DECISIVE contribution to the victory over the Reich.

    There is no reason to sprinkle. This is only with us WWII - it is still an urgent topic, in the rest of the world it has become history and passions there have long since calmed down.
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 11: 44 New
    0
    Quote: Drummer
    This is only with us WWII - is still a hot topic,


    Actually, that's exactly what I said.

    They have already written their story.
    and in it the contribution of the USSR to the war is at the level of the Chumachangs and the upper trapezundia.

    And ONLY WE still shed tears and are looking for some kind of homespun truth in the actions of the “allies”.

    AND THERE WAS NO TRUTH.
    had their own selfish interests, which they successfully decided at our expense.

    it is from this position that one should relate to them.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 7 July 2013 12: 37 New
    -1
    What did you read about their story?
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 12: 48 New
    0
    Quote: Pimply
    What did you read about their story?


    believe me, more than enough.
  • Cat
    Cat 7 July 2013 15: 58 New
    -1
    Quote: Rider
    AND THERE WAS NO TRUTH.
    had their own selfish interests, which they successfully decided at our expense.

    What was the selfish interest of those soldiers who died in Africa, in Western Europe, in the Pacific Theater?
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 16: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Cat

    what was the selfish interest of those soldiers


    Are you really so naive, or pretending to be?

    because they are so disinterested. then could they die in the same Normandy but two years earlier?

    Yes, you don’t even need to die (you see how generous I am) let them just start fighting.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 7 July 2013 16: 47 New
    -1
    Respected. Nonsense not tired of carrying? You just finished kindergarten to make such a reasoning?

    EVERY country has interests. The USSR as a result of the Munich agreement with Nazi Germany received quite good pieces of land, for example. Interest? Interest. And he got at the time when that Great Britain, that the States had already fought with the Germans. So who, in theory, was supposed to open a second front? The war began two years before it came to the USSR.

    Have you ever read anything about the war in the Pacific, or about operations in Greece, Sicily and Corsica, in Africa, about the air war, which is aviation and air defense from the Eastern Front? No, apparently. You see bloody cursed Anglo-Saxons in front of your eyes, and reality does not matter to you.
  • djon77
    djon77 7 July 2013 17: 08 New
    -1
    I want to add the destruction of oil terminals in Romania in 44 years old, and American pilots did all this by depriving Hitler of Romanian oil
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 17: 21 New
    +3
    Quote: djon77
    I want to add the destruction of oil terminals in Romania in 44 years old, and American pilots did all this by depriving Hitler of Romanian oil


    Nuuu Bliiin.
    that’s where the clinical case is.

    do you even understand. that they were bombed JUST FOR WHICH THEY WOULD NOT REACH THE USSR.
    after all, in 44g, the RPKA began to get close to them.
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 7 July 2013 17: 33 New
    +4
    Quote: Rider
    they were bombed JUST FOR WHICH THEY WOULD NOT REACH THE USSR.
    If only because, by and large, NOTHING prevented them from bombing before, while they supplied the advancing German army ...
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 17: 55 New
    +1
    Quote: Misantrop
    Nothing prevented them from bombing before, while they supplied the advancing German army ...


    EXACTLY THIS JUST MIXED!
  • djon77
    djon77 7 July 2013 19: 31 New
    -2
    and where did the bombers have to take off in your opinion?
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 19: 35 New
    +1
    from the same place as in 44g

    start finally thinking before you post.
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 17: 12 New
    +3
    Quote: Pimply
    The USSR as a result of the Munich agreement with Nazi Germany received quite good pieces of land, for example.


    MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT!?
    The head of the kindergarten, didn’t you mix anything up by chance?

    to Munich, where the western countries cut the new borders of Europe, the USSR did not even attend.

    for the rest, you are completely nonsense.
    the Allies, having a great opportunity to defeat Germany in the fall of 39, quietly sat in the trenches.
    and here in May 40, when they merged in less than a month, the USSR was to open a second front EVEN NOT HAVING AN ALLIANCE AGREEMENT WITH ENGLAND AND FRANCE

    so WHAT ALLY WE SHOULD BE SAVED IN 40g?

    Well, about the Pacific

    I still can’t understand how HOW did the USSR help to expand the sphere of influence of the USA in the Pacific region?
  • Pimply
    Pimply 7 July 2013 18: 35 New
    -1
    There is such a thing - a typo. I had in mind the Deutsch-sowjetischer Nichtangriffspakt, aka the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and you know that very well.

    Quote: Rider
    the Allies, having a great opportunity to defeat Germany in the fall of 39, quietly sat in the trenches.


    Tell me about how. I would like to listen.


    Quote: Rider
    and here in May 40, when they merged in less than a month, the USSR was supposed to open a second front, even without a alliance agreement with England and France


    That is, you fundamentally justify ANY actions of the USSR, interpreting them only in a positive way, and condemn ANY actions of the allies, interpreting them only in a negative way. So? You have only infantile black / white reality.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 7 July 2013 18: 45 New
    +1
    Quote: Pimply
    You have only infantile black / white reality.

    Obviously that is

    not our flag.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 7 July 2013 20: 07 New
    -2
    And this usually comes down to when there are no arguments.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 7 July 2013 20: 29 New
    +1
    Quote: Pimply
    this is usually reduced when there are no arguments.

    Yes Yes .
    It’s easier for me than at first
    Quote: Pimply
    You have only infantile black / white reality.

    then
    Quote: Pimply
    History is not black and white. It is only a story.

    She, history, is black and white!
    Striped ! And now Russia has far from a white streak!
  • Pimply
    Pimply 7 July 2013 21: 16 New
    -3
    Anything else besides inept trolling?
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 18: 54 New
    +1
    Quote: Pimply
    There is such a thing - a typo.


    Yes, I immediately realized this, I just could not resist dipping you into yours.

    but about the pact. so the Soviet Union did not grab anything that would not have been at the Empire.

    Quote: Pimply
    Tell me about how. I would like to listen.


    you probably don’t know. that during the dribbling of Poland, Germany had no tanks in the west?
    that the Siegfried line was not completed, and more than 80% of the German army frolic in Poland.
    that at the beginning of the advance of the French divisions into the German territory (there was such a thing) they were opposed only by part of the cover. who WITHOUT FIGHT retreated.
    that's just on this topic
    http://militera.lib.ru/research/pyhalov_i/05.html

    Quote: Pimply
    That is, you basically justify ANY actions of the USSR,


    if you do not understand, then I expressed bewilderment about your proposal to open a second front of the USSR against Germany (with which we had a peace treaty) in the salvation of England and France WITH WHICH WE HAVE THIS AGREEMENT.

    Moreover, England and France, DID ALL THAT THIS AGREEMENT DO NOT CONCLUDE!

    and in the winter of 40g (already at war with the Germans) they seriously considered the possibility of bombing the Baku oil fields.

    SO WHAT HOW DO YOU HELP US HELP?


    Quote: Pimply
    You have only infantile black / white reality.


    and what about the Arab / Israeli threes?
    or do you still recognize that Israel is an aggressor and systematically wet Palestinian children.

    as you see, not only do you consider history from the point of view of YOUR COUNTRY, and not "a spherical horse in a vacuum"
  • Pimply
    Pimply 7 July 2013 20: 11 New
    -1
    Quote: Rider
    Yes, I immediately realized this, I just could not resist dipping you into yours.


    And you think it was possible? 8) Do not tell.

    Quote: Rider
    or do you still recognize that Israel is an aggressor and systematically wet Palestinian children.

    Israel periodically wet Palestinian children. This, you know, happens in any military operations. The question is whether something is being done so that the children do not die.

    The USSR is my country. I was born in it and lived long enough.
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 20: 28 New
    +3
    Quote: Pimply
    And you think it was possible?


    I think quite
    wink

    I hope for the rest, I have dispelled your perplexity.
    (read the document?)

    Well
    Quote: Pimply

    The USSR is my country.

    I’ll honestly say that it’s not noticeable in your posts.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 7 July 2013 20: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Rider
    I’ll honestly say that it’s not noticeable in your posts.

    And where are the posts?
    The current state of the Russian state is explained by this.
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 20: 44 New
    0
    Quote: Cynic
    And where are the posts?


    despite the fact that Eugene is a Jew, and Toli is a group of Israel, or lived there for some time.

    General in all topics about the promised land, he stands in the position of the chosen people.

    hence my doubts.


    By the way, I do not think that upholding the interests of my nation is something bad.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 7 July 2013 20: 54 New
    0
    Quote: Rider
    despite the fact that Eugene is a Jew, and Toli is a group of Israel, or lived there for some time.

    Yes, as it were not the first day married I know .
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 21: 00 New
    0
    Then I did not understand how the state of present-day Russia relates to the content of the posts in the subject of our discussion?
  • Cynic
    Cynic 7 July 2013 21: 20 New
    +1
    Quote: Rider
    Then I did not understand how the state of present-day Russia relates to the content of the posts in the subject of our discussion?

    No
    But it correlates well with the presence of just such and similar people in the USSR.
    Unfortunately, the best enemy of the good, but to understand this ...
    request
  • Pimply
    Pimply 7 July 2013 21: 19 New
    -1
    Sorry, this was not about bewilderment. It was about the fact that communication with you is pointless. You drew a picture for yourself. And that’s all. You don’t want to see anything beyond.
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 21: 31 New
    +1
    Quote: Pimply
    Sorry, this was not about bewilderment.


    next time you put a quote in the headline, otherwise it’s hard to understand who / what the answer relates to.

    Well
    Quote: Pimply
    that communication with you is pointless. You drew a picture for yourself. And that’s all.

    if you do not take into account the documents cited by me, then yes, it makes no sense.

    BECAUSE IN THE BUILT-IN YOU PICTURE OF THE WORLD THEY ARE NOT INTEGRATED.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 7 July 2013 22: 37 New
    0
    My picture of the world is not monochrome - that's all. The USSR, especially during the time of Stalin, was not an ideal state, moreover, it was rather unpleasant, but there was no global concentration of evil either, and in some ways it forced itself to be immensely respected. With the States - the same story. Both the USSR and the USA had their own interests — this is a common story; each country has it.

    I do not urge you to love the United States. I urge to objectively and with respect to history, and to people who helped our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers forge the Victory. Respect, not bylyadlyachit.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 8 July 2013 10: 13 New
    0
    Quote: Pimply
    I urge to objectively and with respect to history, and to people who helped our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers forge the Victory.

    Is there anyone here, something, somehow said disrespectfully about those four hundred thousand or more dead Americans and the dead hundreds of thousands of soldiers from other countries?
    There is no need to try, a priori, to assert that the policies of the states of anti-Hitler coalition and the feat of ordinary soldiers are identical.
    Do not .
    And then you want to remember about the plans of the attack on the USSR in the summer of 1945, which were not abandoned because of that. that the soldiers will not go to war against the former allies, and since Japan has not yet been defeated!
    So that is not necessary.
  • Cat
    Cat 7 July 2013 17: 17 New
    -2
    Quote: Rider
    because they are so disinterested. then could they die in the same Normandy but two years earlier?

    Who made the decision to open a second front - soldiers, or politicians? That's it.

    The whole difference between us is that for me the memory of the war is the memory of the soldiers. And for you, war is the names of commanders and marshals, colorful arrows on the map, and six-digit numbers in loss statistics.
    Quote: Rider
    Yes, you don’t even need to die (you see how generous I am) let them just start fighting.

    lying about generosity. You don’t have a soul - so, something small, black, rotten. As befits a politician under whom you mow.
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 7 July 2013 17: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: Cat
    Who made the decision to open a second front - soldiers, or politicians?
    And who is now trying to get the gesheft out of this, the soldiers who died there, or again the politicians who did not smell gunpowder in their lives? If they merge their own soldiers without problems, then what about soldiers of a foreign country?
  • Cat
    Cat 7 July 2013 23: 45 New
    -1
    Quote: Misantrop
    And who is now trying to get the gesheft out of this, the soldiers who died there, or again the politicians who did not smell gunpowder in their lives? If they merge their own soldiers without problems, then what about soldiers of a foreign country?

    here I am about the same. Those who make the allies victorious, as well as those who prove that the actions of the allies did not affect anything at all - one field of the berry. The main thing for them is their own show off, and human lives, of their soldiers, or allies, are like that, seeds ...
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 17: 49 New
    0
    Quote: Cat
    Who made the decision to open a second front - soldiers, or politicians?

    and so what should I conclude from this?
    that water is wet 7
    Quote: Cat
    lying about generosity.


    here you are right, I really belong without our special respect to our "allies"
    how many of them fell in Africa and Europe 300?
    Yes, at least 30 lemons, it makes no difference to me.
    I'm more interested in their contribution to helping us when we were most interested in it.
    and what they did there in Africa and Oceania didn’t bother me much.

    Quote: Cat
    You don’t have a soul - so, something small, black, rotten.

    Well, thanks for a good word.
    but to see I had a great honor, disinterested generous, all-forgiving altruist.
    whom I (unworthy) dared to teach.

    for this I take my leave because you just trampled the exchanges with the grandeur of your intellect.

    -
  • Cat
    Cat 7 July 2013 23: 49 New
    0
    Quote: Rider

    here you are right, I really belong without our special respect to our "allies"
    how many of them fell in Africa and Europe 300?
    Yes, at least 30 lemons, it makes no difference to me.
    I'm more interested in their contribution to helping us when we were most interested in it.
    and what they did there in Africa and Oceania didn’t bother me much.

    here are exactly the same woodpeckers like you, sitting in London and in Washington. Which was deeply nonsense - what Stalin and Hitler were sharing there, and how many Soviet soldiers would die because of this.
  • Rider
    Rider 8 July 2013 00: 31 New
    0
    Quote: Cat
    here are exactly the same woodpeckers like you, sitting in London and in Washington. Which was deeply do not care


    so I’m trying to REDUCE you! (by analogy with a woodpecker)
    and you whine about help, allies, and the fact that we owe them something there and owe something there.

    (by the way, banks will open soon, you can start paying your part of the debt)

    Well, and more about woodpeckers.

    you, apparently, of those who prefer to lay down more of their own than to shift this honorable duty to others.

    in this case, do not pretend to be a humanist.
  • Cat
    Cat 8 July 2013 00: 50 New
    -1
    Quote: Rider
    Quote: Cat
    here are exactly the same woodpeckers like you, sitting in London and in Washington. Which was deeply do not care


    so I’m trying to REDUCE you! (by analogy with a woodpecker)
    and you whine about help, allies, and the fact that we owe them something there and owe something there.

    (by the way, banks will open soon, you can start paying your part of the debt


    why should I grind something? I myself have long understood that you are no better than the state and arrogant politicians. And you just confirmed it.
    As for the payment of debts ... the dead soldiers do not need money. And you, and people like you, will manage; I owe nothing to them. And no one should.


    Quote: Rider
    you, apparently, of those who prefer to lay down more of their own than to shift this honorable duty to others.

    no, it's just you - you will drive the soldiers to slaughter, drive them hungry and unarmed - because you do not need the Lend-Lease stew and Shermans with Hurricanes, you need a second front in Europe. Or maybe the Germans will stand at the border and wait while you talk to Churchill and Roosevelt for an airborne operation?
  • Rider
    Rider 8 July 2013 01: 12 New
    0
    Quote: Cat
    why should I grind something?


    and really why 7
    you are from the altruists
    In your opinion, we all owe this to ourselves, but we’ll manage to do it all ourselves.
    Well, about the money, it's not me. Give it to the Westerners.
    you kind of owed them something.

    Quote: Cat
    no, it’s just you - you’ll drive the soldiers to slaughter,


    is that really ?!
    But didn’t you say that no matter how much the Allies helped, so much is normal?
    in my opinion it was just the opposite.
    Quote: Cat
    Or maybe the Germans will stand at the border


    PERFECT OPTION !
    but after all give you the same, and moreover from our side.

    next time think about what you’re talking about.
  • Cat
    Cat 8 July 2013 01: 21 New
    -1
    did you fuck or pretend
    Where and when did I say that someone owed something to someone? Poke a finger.
    Quote: Rider
    But didn’t you say that no matter how much the Allies helped, so much is normal?

    Yes, that is exactly what I have stated, and I will continue to say. Because in war - any help is needed. Any.
    To find the one who fought, no matter where - in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, in the same Great Patriotic War. And they will confirm to you that in battle sometimes even an extra horn, or a grenade, or a pack of dry ones - That's not a lot. THIS IS VERY MUCH.
  • Rider
    Rider 8 July 2013 01: 43 New
    -1
    Quote: Cat
    you deb


    Well, if you deny at the beginning of the post what you confirm at the end.

    then, in fact, I communicate with a non-traditional-minded person.

    so first
    Quote: Cat
    Where and when did I say that someone owed something to someone

    and in the end
    Quote: Cat
    And they will confirm to you that in battle sometimes even an extra horn, or a grenade, or a pack of dry ones is not a lot.

    that is, shouldn't these guys BE THANKS FOR this horn?

    SO WE SHOULD TO OR SOMETHING?

    Quote: Cat
    Because in war - any help is needed. Any.


    say this to those who have not lived to see the landing in Normandy.

    but it’s normal for you, Russian men must pay with blood, for ANY help.

    which side are you on?
  • Cat
    Cat 8 July 2013 01: 57 New
    +1
    Quote: Rider
    Quote: Cat
    you deb


    Well, if you deny at the beginning of the post what you confirm at the end.

    then, in fact, I communicate with a non-traditional-minded person.

    so first
    Quote: Cat
    Where and when did I say that someone owed something to someone

    and in the end
    Quote: Cat
    And they will confirm to you that in battle sometimes even an extra horn, or a grenade, or a pack of dry ones is not a lot.

    that is, shouldn't these guys BE THANKS FOR this horn?

    SO WE SHOULD TO OR SOMETHING?

    Quote: Cat
    Because in war - any help is needed. Any.


    say this to those who have not lived to see the landing in Normandy.

    but it’s normal for you, Russian men must pay with blood, for ANY help.

    which side are you on?

    we have a different approach to the issue.
    Do you think those who died - because of someone.
    I consider those who survived - thanks to someone.

    For you, gratitude is a certain amount in the corresponding currency.
    For me, these are flowers at the monument to the dead soldiers, and reluctance to spit in the back of the survivors. No matter what flag they fought under, the enemy was something in common.
  • Rider
    Rider 8 July 2013 02: 09 New
    +1
    Quote: Cat
    we have a different approach to the issue.


    and there is.
    You AGREE to pay with our blood, FOR THEIR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

    but I am NOT.

    You gave an example above with soldiers and B / K
    Like any help will do.
    and I will say so.
    these guys suffered a loss of interest so 50.
    and then they found out that the neighboring battalion didn’t do anything to attack, but threw off the excess B / C to them.
    and then you appear with your statement that they say ANY help will do.

    tell you how long you will live after that?
  • Cat
    Cat 8 July 2013 03: 13 New
    0
    Quote: Rider
    You AGREE to pay with our blood, FOR THEIR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

    without technical assistance - much more blood would have been shed. It is better to eat stews and go on the attack on Sherman - than hungry and with PPS at the ready. Any veteran will confirm this. Or does his opinion mean nothing to a smart guy like you?
    Quote: Rider
    suffered a loss of interest so 50
    and then they found out that the neighboring battalion didn’t do anything to attack, but threw off the excess B / C to them.
    and then you appear with your statement that they say ANY help will do.

    the neighboring battalion went on the attack. Let not the whole but only two companies, even two hours later than mine, even if they lost only 50 people - and my battalion lost 200. But: they could not go on the attack at all, and not share. And mine would have died not 200, but 400.
    Yes, I will have complaints - to the one who gave the neighbors the order to attack at precisely such a time and only to two companies. But to the neighboring battalion commander I will have no complaints, and to his fighters, too. There will only be a "thank you" - for the cartridges.
  • Rider
    Rider 8 July 2013 03: 35 New
    0
    Quote: Cat
    any veteran will confirm this

    any veteran will tell you. that it’s better to sit in a warm dugout and crack thickening, and let the allies go on the attack.

    and in the second paragraph

    I have already told you how many times. WHAT I AM FOR A U-TURN OF THE SITUATION

    but with persistence worthy of a better application, repeat about some gratitude.

    WHY DO YOU AGREE TO SPILL MORE OUR BLOOD THAN ALLIANCE?
    Is it called “care” about our soldier?

    you owe them something 7
    something should?

    so go get paid.
  • Cat
    Cat 8 July 2013 03: 50 New
    0

    Quote: Rider
    Quote: Cat
    any veteran will confirm this

    any veteran will tell you. that it’s better to sit in a warm dugout and crack thickening, and let the allies go on the attack.

    and in the second paragraph

    I have already told you how many times. WHAT I AM FOR A U-TURN OF THE SITUATION

    but with persistence worthy of a better application, repeat about some gratitude.

    WHY DO YOU AGREE TO SPILL MORE OUR BLOOD THAN ALLIANCE?
    Is it called “care” about our soldier?


    where are the keys to the time machine? Why hid it? Why haven’t they still been driven in the 41st and have not forced Churchill to immediately open a second front?
    Quote: Rider
    you owe them something 7
    something should?

    so go get paid.

    about some debts, and the need to pay them - only you say.
    So pay if hunting.
  • Rider
    Rider 8 July 2013 03: 56 New
    0
    Quote: Cat
    where are the keys to the time machine?


    in our company they said "where are the keys to the steam train, and buy an elephant"

    your questions from the same category?

    Quote: Cat
    So pay if hunting.


    Well, after all, are you repeating about some kind of gratitude there.
    you can pay a couple of Shermans, as I understand it, Russia has not yet fully settled down for lendlis.

    can start.
  • Cat
    Cat 8 July 2013 04: 24 New
    0
    Quote: Rider
    Well, after all, are you repeating about some kind of gratitude there.
    you can pay a couple of Shermans, as I understand it, Russia has not yet fully settled down for lendlis.

    I repeat, the third time, for especially stupid: gratitude money is not measured. It has no price - just as human life has no price. Gratitude cannot be paid either through the bank, or in cash, or in gold by weight. It can not be touched, put in a cabinet on a shelf, or hung in a frame on the wall.
    But this does not mean at all that it does not exist at all. Exist. But it will never be understood and appreciated by people who, instead of the brain, have a calculator to convert the exchange rate from that one to this and vice versa.
  • Aleksys2
    Aleksys2 8 July 2013 02: 05 New
    +1
    Quote: Cat
    Because in war - any help is needed. Any.

    I agree, I agree to all two hundred.
    No one belittles the help of the allies, but it is also not necessary to exalt it. Eternal memory to the soldiers and officers of the allied forces who died in WWII, and Victory was our common ..., until recently. Now a different scenario is already being heard, the USSR and Germany unleashed WWII, and the allies (for some reason in the West they include France, Great Britain and the USA) saved Europe and the world from the red-brown plague.
    Now, regarding help, it’s one thing when they help a little, but are not capable of more, for example, I still have two more stores and two grenades, I give you one store and one grenade, and another thing when, for example, it burns you have a house, you rush around, try to fill the bucket with a bucket, then I drive up in a fire truck, you say to me, "They say help me brother!", I say no question, and I give you another bucket (empty) and pour a glass of water from full tank.
    Something like that in general.
  • Cat
    Cat 8 July 2013 02: 47 New
    +1
    Quote: Aleksys2
    No one belittles the help of the allies, but it is also not necessary to exalt it. Eternal memory to the soldiers and officers of the allied forces who died in WWII, and Victory was our common ..., until recently.

    yes, unfortunately - Victory has ceased to be general ... and it began precisely with calculations: who tried harder and who less. As I already said, the soldiers on the Elbe were not measured by the number of kilometers of war — politicians and historians took up this.
    Quote: Aleksys2
    Now, regarding help, it’s one thing when they help a little, but are not capable of more, for example, I still have two more stores and two grenades, I give you one store and one grenade, and another thing when, for example, it burns you have a house, you rush around, try to fill the bucket with a bucket, then I drive up in a fire truck, you say to me, "They say help me brother!", I say no question, and I give you another bucket (empty) and pour a glass of water from full tank.

    it is so ... but on the other hand, politicians make the decision on the quantity and type of assistance. But soldiers are fighting and dying. And the assertion that the help was unnecessary and insignificant is not only a “fi” to the politician, it is also a spit on the soldier’s graves. Therefore, personally, in such cases, I’d better keep silent about the meanness of politicians (no matter how badly I treat them) - in order not to insult those who died in battle. Fortunately, the mentioned politicians have done a lot of other nasty things - for which they can be poured by slander without touching the soldier’s memory.
  • Aleksys2
    Aleksys2 8 July 2013 03: 00 New
    +1
    Quote: Cat
    and it began precisely with calculations: who worked harder and who less.

    No, it didn’t begin with this, but with a review of our history, with the demand of a court (similar to Nuremberg) over the Communist Party, with the recognition of “secret protocols”, with the condemnation of the agreement on non-attack, with two million raped Germans, from the films “Bastards” , "Shtrafbat", etc.
  • Rider
    Rider 8 July 2013 03: 22 New
    0
    Quote: Cat
    and it began precisely with calculations: who worked harder and who less.


    if you really taught history, you would know that THIS began with the creation of an IMPOSSIBLE plan with Fulton speech, and the formation of a NATO bloc.
    Quote: Cat
    As I said, the soldiers on the Elbe were not measured by the number of combat kilometers


    only their generals and presidents. gathered to reel a few more thousand, but to the east, and to the Urals.

    but ordinary soldiers are not to blame. that they will kill those Russians whom Hitler did not reach.

    it is so ?
  • Cat
    Cat 8 July 2013 03: 55 New
    0
    You obviously confused the link. You had to go to an alternative history forum - your reasoning is the place there.
  • Rider
    Rider 8 July 2013 03: 59 New
    0
    Quote: Cat
    You had to go to an alternative history forum


    here it is!

    as I understand it, no plan "unthinkable"
    Neither a Fultan speech, nor the creation of a NATO bloc FOR YOURSELF?

    Ale is a guest from an alternative reality, but how did you end up with 2MB?
  • Cat
    Cat 8 July 2013 04: 10 New
    0
    Quote: Rider
    as I understand it, no plan "unthinkable"
    Neither a Fultan speech, nor the creation of a NATO bloc FOR YOURSELF?

    Those who fought with Rommel, and whose bones lie in the African sands, have nothing to do with this.
    And you spit on their graves.
    Politician figs.
  • Rider
    Rider 8 July 2013 04: 34 New
    0
    Quote: Cat
    And you spit on their graves.


    just like you are on OURS, so generously paying with OUR blood for Shermans and carcasses.

    and by the way, and you don’t think that they were SO LITTLE in the West, because their chief officers did not plan to continue in the EAST?

    so how did YOU run out of 2MB?

    probably peace, dryuchba and complete well-being of the mas?
  • Cat
    Cat 8 July 2013 04: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Rider
    just like you are on OURS, so generously paying with OUR blood for Shermans and carcasses.

    the second time I ask: without shermans and stewed meat - would there be less blood? Or more?
    And by the way, those that were riveted in the rear of the T-34, or worked in the fields in the villages - what did they get their salaries from, too, with blood?
  • Rider
    Rider 8 July 2013 04: 47 New
    0
    Quote: Cat
    the second time I ask


    for the eleventh time I ask
    if the Americans and the British ACTIVE fought, would ours die less?
    and if so, why do you JUSTIFY their slowness.
    Quote: Cat
    And by the way, those in the rear


    are you naive or are your questions over?

    THEY PAYED BLOOD THEIR CLOSE.

    and the salary (and not weak) was received by WESTERN CONCERNS.
    but in your opinion, this is an equal deal.

    what is going on in your head?
  • Cat
    Cat 8 July 2013 04: 59 New
    0
    Quote: Rider
    if the Americans and the British ACTIVE fought, would ours die less?

    in 1943, Shermans - were. Stew - was. "if" - there wasn’t. And the Angles fought with the amers exactly as they fought.
    Therefore, the third time I ask: without Sherman and stew - would there be less or more blood?
    Quote: Rider
    are you naive or are your questions over?
    you haven’t answered the given ones yet, you have to ask again three times. Where can I ask new ones ..
  • Rider
    Rider 8 July 2013 05: 05 New
    0
    Quote: Cat
    Therefore, the third time I ask:


    therefore, I can again try my question.
    but you don’t care about the answer.
    you are just looking for an opportunity to justify your willingness to change our lives, to their materials.
    Quote: Cat
    you haven’t answered the given ones yet,

    yes answered, you just ignore them.
    as are my questions.
  • Cat
    Cat 8 July 2013 05: 22 New
    0
    Quote: Rider
    therefore, I can again try my question.
    but you don’t care about the answer.

    What is your question? why do I like to pay with my blood for someone else's iron? So I did not say that I like it, this is your fantasy. Actually - the allies supplied weapons and materials at the request of the USSR, payment - according to the conditions of Lend-Lease (for some reason they forgot to ask my opinion when concluding the contract). And if Stalin agreed to such conditions, it means that he had reasons for it. Or do you think that he, too, played with the Amers for the English? Or maybe you think that you, from your bell tower, are more visible than Stalin - what exactly should be taken from the allies and what not?
    Quote: Rider
    yes answered, you just ignore them.
    as are my questions.

    so far I've only seen one clear answer. Everything else is either an attempt to leave the topic, or an answer to a question with a question. You, by chance, have nothing to do with a known nationality?
  • stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 7 July 2013 12: 12 New
    +5
    Quote: Drummer
    This is only with us WWII - it is still an urgent topic, in the rest of the world it has become history and passions there have long since calmed down


    Yes.
    The topic is therefore relevant because today, almost 70 years after the VICTORY, our people have to make up for the losses of both the gene pool (the best die first) and prove the obvious.
  • Day 11
    Day 11 8 July 2013 00: 40 New
    0
    That's right!
  • djon77
    djon77 7 July 2013 08: 10 New
    +2
    - Germany's share amounted to 40% of all USSR exports in 1939-41.
    - until 1941 there was a joint German-Soviet airline, led by Soviet pilot V. Grizodubova (Note 6 *)
    - uninterrupted supplies from the USSR of bread, meat, butter and eggs allowed Germany, where the card system operated, to create the necessary food supplies in case of war
  • Aleksys2
    Aleksys2 7 July 2013 12: 11 New
    +2
    Quote: djon77
    before 1941 there was a German-Soviet airline jointly led by Soviet pilot V. Grizodubova (Note 6 *)

    Valentina Grizodubova - November 4 1928 of the year, being a student of KhTI, is enrolled in the first set of the Kharkov Central Aero Club. She graduated from the flying club in three months. There were no opportunities to continue training in flying skills in Kharkov, and Grizodubova, leaving the institute, entered the 1 Tula Osoaviahim School of Flight Sports. In 1929, she entered the Penza school of flight instructors.
    She was engaged in gliding. From 1930 to 1933, she worked as a flight instructor at the Dobrolet flying club in Tula, then as a flight school instructor near the village of Tushino near Moscow.
    In 1934-35 she was a pilot of the agitation squadron named after M. Gorky, based at the Central Airfield in Moscow. Working in a squadron, she flew almost the whole country on various types of aircraft of that time. It flew over the Pamir, Kabardino-Balkaria, and the Ferghana Valley. In 1939, she was appointed head of the USSR International Airways Directorate. Studied at the Leningrad Institute of Civil Air Fleet Engineers. In 1941, she joined the CPSU (b). She headed the Anti-Fascist Committee of Soviet Women. Member of the commission to investigate the crimes of the Nazi invaders (1942 year).
    Quote: djon77
    Germany's share amounted to 40% of total USSR exports to 1939-41.

    In exchange, the USSR received the unfinished heavy cruiser Luttsov and the equipment necessary to complete its construction; samples of naval artillery, mines, torpedoes, periscopes; samples of the latest aircraft models; samples of artillery, tanks, communications; samples of more than 300 types of machine tools and machines: excavators, drilling rigs, electric motors, compressors, pumps, steam turbines, oil equipment, etc.
    The USSR had to use its right to “temporarily suspend its supplies” due to the low “enthusiasm” in deliveries from the German side - the supply of acutely needed oil and grain was stopped.
    In the first six months (until August 1940), the agreement of the USSR carried out only 28% of supplies foreseen for the year - equipment from Germany sent 84,2 million Reichsmarks, and the USSR sent raw materials to 119,1 million Reichsmarks. Shipments from the USSR accounted for only 6,9% of Germany's total imports over these months.
    During 1940, Germany received from the Soviet Union 657 thousand tons of oil products, that is, 4,6% of its total annual reserves. In the USSR, in 1940, 31,1 million tons of oil was produced, that is, the export of oil products to Germany amounted to 2,1% of the total oil production in the country. Grain was grown in the USSR in the 1940 year 95,6 million tons, and exported to Germany less than 1 million tons, that is, about 1%. The main part of this export was barley (732 thousand tons) and oats (143 thousand tons), wheat - only 5 thousand tons. In German imports, the USSR ranked fifth (after Italy, Denmark, Romania and the Netherlands).
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 7 July 2013 17: 41 New
    +1
    Quote: djon77
    Germany's share amounted to 40% of total USSR exports to 1939-41.
    Tell me, with whom else on the planet at that time the USSR could trade, receiving in exchange for strategic materials not cheap garbage, but Vital materials and technologies that the country LIVES for? Announce the list of possible trading partners, together we will estimate wink
  • Starina_hank
    Starina_hank 8 July 2013 21: 46 New
    0
    Offhand, with the Ami, they built Gas, and Christy’s tank, with the Italians, they gave us leaders, the best ships of their class.
  • djon77
    djon77 7 July 2013 08: 09 New
    -1
    Stalin also allowed the Germans to use the Northern Sea Route and refuel and repair ships in the Soviet Arctic. The Germans have been using these services since September 1939 (Note 3 *)
    - in August 1940, the icebreakers "Lenin", "Stadin" and "Kaganovich" conducted the German raider "Comets" through the Arctic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, which subsequently sunk 6 allied (Note 1 *)
    - The USSR gave Germany 2000 bombs weighing from 500 to 1000 kg for the bombing of England (Note 1 *)
    - in the port of Polyarny was the naval division of the German submarine division (Note 1 *)
    - The Germans used 2 naval bases on the territory of the USSR until the complete capture of Norway (Note 1 *)
    - at the Air Force Research Institute, Soviet pilots surpassed the "Junkers" Yu-87 and Yu-88, the Messerschmitts Me-109 and Me-110, the Dornier Do-217, Heinkel-111, the Henschel attack aircraft, connected from Germany Fieseler-Storch and Focke-Wulf-frames presented to us. (Note 2 *)
    - in 1939 the Germans handed over to the USSR the blueprints of the Bismarck battleship, Narvik type destroyers, technical maps of artillery mounts, samples of the Messerschmites Me-109 and Me-110, Yu-87, Heinkel-111 (Note 1 *)

    - at the request of General Guderian, the heavy artillery brigade of General Semyon Krivoshein beat the Polish garrison of the Brest Fortress for 2 days during the defeat of Poland in 1939 (Note 1 *)
    - In 1939-40, 36 of the largest German transports hid from the British in the Kola Bay (Murmansk), among which there were such world-famous passenger liners as Bremen (50 thousand tons displacement), New York, Schwaben ”,“ Stuttgart ”,“ Cordillera ”,“ San-Louis ”, a lot of timber trucks, tankers, high-speed refrigerators and a division of German submarines (Note 1 *)
    - in 1939–40, the USSR permitted the transit through its territory of deliveries to Germany of strategic raw materials from Japan and China: rubber, oils, precious woods, etc. (Note 1 *)
    - before the attack on Norway in the Kola Bay of the USSR, there were two German military vehicles with landing on board and the largest German tanker Jan Wellem (Note 1 *)
    - More than 20 thousand future German officers were trained for the Wehrmacht in the military schools of the USSR
    - Until the summer of 1941, the NKVD was transported to Germany about 4 thousand people, among them families of those arrested in the USSR and shot German Communists (in total 242 German communists were shot before the war in the USSR), as well as German workers who during the years of the economic crisis in the West moved to the USSR. Most of them were immediately sent to concentration camps by the Gestapo. In turn, the Nazis deported to the USSR the people who were wanted by the NKVD (Note 3 *)

    - after the Germans captured Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium, Stalin, in order to please Hitler, broke off diplomatic relations with these countries and expelled the diplomatic missions of these countries from the USSR (Note 3 *)
    - since December 1939 until the end of May 1941 Germany imported from the USSR petroleum products 1 million tons to 95 million German marks, grain (mainly fodder) -1,6 million tons. for 250 million marks, cotton - 111 thousand tons per 100 million marks, oilcake - 36 thousand tons for 6,4 million marks, flax - 10 thousand tons for 14,7 million marks, timber - 41,3 1,8 million marks, nickel - 8,1 thousand tons for 185 million marks, manganese ore - 7,6 thousand tons for 23 million marks, chrome ore - 2 thousand tons for 214 million marks, phosphates - 6 thousand tons per 14 million marks, 9 thousand tons copper, platinum, and other products. (Note 500 *): in addition to the above, over this period, it is necessary to add 2,782 tons of tungsten, tin and molybdenum, 11300 tons of platinum, iron scrap and furs, XNUMX tons of flax tow, cotton waste, rags
  • Aleksys2
    Aleksys2 7 July 2013 12: 21 New
    0
    Quote: djon77
    in August 1940 the icebreakers Lenin, Stadin, and Kaganovich conducted through the Arctic comet German raider Komet, which subsequently sank the 6 allies (Note1 *)

    "Comet" ("Comet", German Komet) - German auxiliary cruiser during the Second World War. HSK-7, the former merchant ship Ems (German: Ems), was designated as “Ship No. 45” in the German Navy and “B“ Raider ”in the British Navy.
    Disguised as a Soviet icebreaker "Dezhnev", the ship circled Cape Nordkap and reached the area north of Kolguyev Island. There, being engaged in combat training of the crew and hydrographic surveys, for some time he awaited the approach of the Soviet ships, which were to accompany him on the next leg of the journey (the neutral at that time the Soviet Union agreed to secretly help the “Comet” (the German side indicated it as the merchant ship “Fyrol” and not like a warship) pass along the northern coast of Russia along the Northern Sea Route). This was the only passage of the Kriegsmarine ship by the Northern Sea Route. The data obtained by the raider was later used by German cruisers and submarines during the fighting in the Arctic.
  • djon77
    djon77 7 July 2013 08: 04 New
    0
    HELP OF THE USSR FASCIST GERMANY
    ATTENTION! From now on, the SITE NEWS rubric is updated DAILY
    Last update of this topic - 12.05.2013/XNUMX/XNUMX

    "The Russians (the USSR) supply us even more than we want to have. Stalin does not spare work to please us. He apparently has enough reasons for this."
    (from Goebbels diary)
    "If Germany finds itself in a difficult situation, she can be sure that the Soviet people will come to Germany's aid and will not allow Germany to be strangled. The Soviet Union is interested in strong Germany and will not allow Germany to be thrown to the ground" Stalin 28.09.1939/8/XNUMX ( Note XNUMX *)
    "... Germany ranks first in Soviet exports ..." - Litvinov (Note 9 *)


    - in 1940 Germany received 657 thousand tons of oil products from 31,1 million tons of oil produced by the USSR and almost 1 million tons of grain from 95,6 million tons of harvested crops in the USSR (Note 9 *)
    - the German artillery costructural bureau worked in the USSR (KB-2) (Note 10 *)

    - The secret agreements of the Rappal Treaty, signed on 11.08.1922/1919/XNUMX, according to which Soviet Russia guaranteed the supply of strategic materials to Germany and, moreover, provided its own territory for testing new types of military equipment prohibited for the development of the XNUMX Treaty of Versailles, were also invaluable for Germany. .
    - in 1924 Junkers manufactured several hundred metal aircraft per year

    in the suburbs near Moscow Fili. Very soon, for the needs of Germany, production began of more than 300 thousand shells per year at the reconstructed arsenals in Leningrad, Tula and Zlatoust. Poison gas was produced by the Berzol company in Trotsk (now Gatchina), and submarines and armored ships were built and launched on the docks of Leningrad and Nikolaev (Note 4 *)
    - from the USSR, the last train with oil, manganese, and grain crossed the German border an hour before the fascist invasion (Note 3 *)
    - On February 11.02.1940, 1, under an agreement resulting from Soviet-German negotiations on the development of economic cooperation, the USSR undertook to supply Germany with almost 500 million tons of oil, 300 thousand tons of iron ore, 2,4 thousand tons of pig iron and scrap metal, 100, 7 tons of platinum, XNUMX thousand tons of chromium ore, as well as a large amount of wood and manganese ore. In addition, the USSR promised to purchase various types of raw materials for Germany in third countries. Germany also received the right of railway transit from Iran, Romania and the countries of the Far East (Note XNUMX *)
    - a little over the year of the trade agreement - from spring 1940 to June 1941, Germany received 1 million tons of wheat, 900 thousand tons of oil products, 100 thousand tons of cotton, 500 thousand tons of phosphates, a significant amount of strategic materials. The USSR also provided the Germans with transit traffic through Soviet territory of 1 million tons of soybeans from Manchuria, a significant amount of rubber, tin and other materials from Southeast Asia. In addition, the USSR agreed to purchase metals and raw materials for Germany in third countries (Note 3 *)
    - especially important for Germany was the possibility of the transit of rubber and soybeans from India through the USSR to the USSR (Note 5 *)
  • djon77
    djon77 7 July 2013 08: 06 New
    0
    - Stalin also allowed the Germans to use the Northern Sea Route and refuel and repair ships in the Soviet Arctic. The Germans have been using these services since September 1939 (Note 3 *)
    - in August 1940, the icebreakers "Lenin", "Stadin" and "Kaganovich" conducted the German raider "Comets" through the Arctic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, which subsequently sunk 6 allied (Note 1 *)
    - The USSR gave Germany 2000 bombs weighing from 500 to 1000 kg for the bombing of England (Note 1 *)
    - in the port of Polyarny was the naval division of the German submarine division (Note 1 *)
    - The Germans used 2 naval bases on the territory of the USSR until the complete capture of Norway (Note 1 *)
    - at the Air Force Research Institute, Soviet pilots surpassed the "Junkers" Yu-87 and Yu-88, the Messerschmitts Me-109 and Me-110, the Dornier Do-217, Heinkel-111, the Henschel attack aircraft, connected from Germany Fieseler-Storch and Focke-Wulf-frames presented to us. (Note 2 *)
    - in 1939 the Germans handed over to the USSR the blueprints of the Bismarck battleship, Narvik type destroyers, technical maps of artillery mounts, samples of the Messerschmites Me-109 and Me-110, Yu-87, Heinkel-111 (Note 1 *)

    - at the request of General Guderian, the heavy artillery brigade of General Semyon Krivoshein beat the Polish garrison of the Brest Fortress for 2 days during the defeat of Poland in 1939 (Note 1 *)
    - In 1939-40, 36 of the largest German transports hid from the British in the Kola Bay (Murmansk), among which there were such world-famous passenger liners as Bremen (50 thousand tons displacement), New York, Schwaben ”,“ Stuttgart ”,“ Cordillera ”,“ San-Louis ”, a lot of timber trucks, tankers, high-speed refrigerators and a division of German submarines (Note 1 *)
    - in 1939–40, the USSR permitted the transit through its territory of deliveries to Germany of strategic raw materials from Japan and China: rubber, oils, precious woods, etc. (Note 1 *)
    - before the attack on Norway in the Kola Bay of the USSR, there were two German military vehicles with landing on board and the largest German tanker Jan Wellem (Note 1 *)
    - More than 20 thousand future German officers were trained for the Wehrmacht in the military schools of the USSR
    - Until the summer of 1941, the NKVD was transported to Germany about 4 thousand people, among them families of those arrested in the USSR and shot German Communists (in total 242 German communists were shot before the war in the USSR), as well as German workers who during the years of the economic crisis in the West moved to the USSR. Most of them were immediately sent to concentration camps by the Gestapo. In turn, the Nazis deported to the USSR the people who were wanted by the NKVD (Note 3 *)

    - after the Germans captured Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium, Stalin, in order to please Hitler, broke off diplomatic relations with these countries and expelled the diplomatic missions of these countries from the USSR (Note 3 *)
    - since December 1939 until the end of May 1941 Germany imported from the USSR petroleum products 1 million tons to 95 million German marks, grain (mainly fodder) -1,6 million tons. for 250 million marks, cotton - 111 thousand tons per 100 million marks, oilcake - 36 thousand tons for 6,4 million marks, flax - 10 thousand tons for 14,7 million marks, timber - 41,3 1,8 million marks, nickel - 8,1 thousand tons for 185 million marks, manganese ore - 7,6 thousand tons for 23 million marks, chrome ore - 2 thousand tons for 214 million marks, phosphates - 6 thousand tons per 14 million marks, 9 thousand tons copper, platinum, and other products. (Note 500 *): in addition to the above, over this period, it is necessary to add 2,782 tons of tungsten, tin and molybdenum, 11300 tons of platinum, iron scrap and furs, XNUMX tons of flax tow, cotton waste, rags
  • djon77
    djon77 7 July 2013 08: 08 New
    -1
    HELP OF THE USSR FASCIST GERMANY
    ATTENTION! From now on, the SITE NEWS rubric is updated DAILY
    Last update of this topic - 12.05.2013/XNUMX/XNUMX

    "The Russians (the USSR) supply us even more than we want to have. Stalin does not spare work to please us. He apparently has enough reasons for this."
    (from Goebbels diary)
    "If Germany finds itself in a difficult situation, she can be sure that the Soviet people will come to Germany's aid and will not allow Germany to be strangled. The Soviet Union is interested in strong Germany and will not allow Germany to be thrown to the ground" Stalin 28.09.1939/8/XNUMX ( Note XNUMX *)
    "... Germany ranks first in Soviet exports ..." - Litvinov (Note 9 *)


    - in 1940 Germany received 657 thousand tons of oil products from 31,1 million tons of oil produced by the USSR and almost 1 million tons of grain from 95,6 million tons of harvested crops in the USSR (Note 9 *)
    - the German artillery costructural bureau worked in the USSR (KB-2) (Note 10 *)

    - The secret agreements of the Rappal Treaty, signed on 11.08.1922/1919/XNUMX, according to which Soviet Russia guaranteed the supply of strategic materials to Germany and, moreover, provided its own territory for testing new types of military equipment prohibited for the development of the XNUMX Treaty of Versailles, were also invaluable for Germany. .
    - in 1924 Junkers manufactured several hundred metal aircraft per year

    in the suburbs near Moscow Fili. Very soon, for the needs of Germany, production began of more than 300 thousand shells per year at the reconstructed arsenals in Leningrad, Tula and Zlatoust. Poison gas was produced by the Berzol company in Trotsk (now Gatchina), and submarines and armored ships were built and launched on the docks of Leningrad and Nikolaev (Note 4 *)
    - from the USSR, the last train with oil, manganese, and grain crossed the German border an hour before the fascist invasion (Note 3 *)
    - On February 11.02.1940, 1, under an agreement resulting from Soviet-German negotiations on the development of economic cooperation, the USSR undertook to supply Germany with almost 500 million tons of oil, 300 thousand tons of iron ore, 2,4 thousand tons of pig iron and scrap metal, 100, 7 tons of platinum, XNUMX thousand tons of chromium ore, as well as a large amount of wood and manganese ore. In addition, the USSR promised to purchase various types of raw materials for Germany in third countries. Germany also received the right of railway transit from Iran, Romania and the countries of the Far East (Note XNUMX *)
    - a little over the year of the trade agreement - from spring 1940 to June 1941, Germany received 1 million tons of wheat, 900 thousand tons of oil products, 100 thousand tons of cotton, 500 thousand tons of phosphates, a significant amount of strategic materials. The USSR also provided the Germans with transit traffic through Soviet territory of 1 million tons of soybeans from Manchuria, a significant amount of rubber, tin and other materials from Southeast Asia. In addition, the USSR agreed to purchase metals and raw materials for Germany in third countries (Note 3 *)
    - especially important for Germany was the possibility of the transit of rubber and soybeans from India through the USSR to the USSR (Note 5 *)
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 7 July 2013 11: 25 New
      +5
      Quote: djon77
      HELP OF THE USSR FASCIST GERMANY


      And what actions from the USSR in those days did you want to expect?
      At the beginning of the 1940, England and France planned bombing attacks on the Baku fields. Not all English and French volunteers have returned from Finland. This England supplied dates modern, at that time, “Brewsters” and “De Havilandy”. It was England and France that sabotaged negotiations in Moscow in early-mid-August 1939 on the issue of the anti-Hitler coalition, thereby throwing the USSR into the "friendly embrace" of Nazi Germany.
      And there is no fault of the Soviet leadership in that they complied with all the clauses of the trade agreement, as well as the clauses of the agreement on military-technical cooperation.
      Your ERROR is an understanding of the situation of 1940 in the context of 1942-1945's.
      Have you tried to project US relations to the USSR during World War II on today's relations, not to mention the times of the Cold War?
    2. djon77
      djon77 7 July 2013 14: 55 New
      -3
      so why complain about the Americans trading with Germany? that is, they cannot, and the USSR could be traded and armed bypassing the Versailles treaty. as I understand it, the Americans should have fought for the USSR judging by your logic. as far as I know, the states fought for themselves and after that the USSR also helped. and about food and supplies, they helped the whole war.
    3. Rider
      Rider 7 July 2013 16: 45 New
      +3
      Quote: djon77
      so why complain about the Americans trading with Germany?


      at the time of trading. The USSR and Germany WAS NOT a state of war.

      but the United States traded with the United States ALREADY Fighting with it.

      if you still haven’t found this MAA LITTLE difference, then how can you bask “without comments”

      and by the way, could you give the SOURCE of your awareness.
  • Starina_hank
    Starina_hank 8 July 2013 21: 50 New
    0
    At the same time, Germany assisted the USSR in the war against Finland, its strategic ally!
  • Cynic
    Cynic 7 July 2013 11: 30 New
    0
    So what ?
    How much was the share of goods from the USSR in total German imports?
    10%, 15%?
    Did they steal the rest?
    By the way, in the prewar years, exports from Germany exceeded imports into it.
    Not everything was so simple then, not everything.
  • stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 7 July 2013 12: 06 New
    +4
    Quote: Cynic
    Not everything was so simple then, not everything.

    Quote: stalkerwalker
    ERROR - understanding the situation of 1940 in the context of 1942-1945's


    I’m talking about this, that each period of time in world history has its own specific context, due to those current events then.
  • djon77
    djon77 7 July 2013 14: 56 New
    -2
    bombs for the bombing of england what context did they have?
  • stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 7 July 2013 17: 20 New
    +3
    Quote: djon77
    bombs for the bombing of england what context did they have?

    They are the same as SKF bearings for Messers, Junkers and Fokers, delivered to warring Germany from the USA and Sweden.
    As the lion's share of the Wallenberg family in the shares of these SKF companies, so is Raul Wallenberg, the advocate of all Jews who worked for both the Gestapo and Amer’s military intelligence.
  • Flooding
    Flooding 7 July 2013 14: 33 New
    +1
    Quote: djon77
    HELP OF THE USSR FASCIST GERMANY

    Johnny, my boy. Look for help from Romania ... no, not help.
    After all, they themselves volunteered to help because of their capabilities. And the Nazis stood in power.
    In short, let's talk about the contribution of Romania to the failed victory of Nazi Germany. Something about this is not customary to say recently. But we are a serious and objective people, we despise conventions.

    Quote: Cat
    No. They also gave their lives - for the Victory. And also worthy of gratitude and reverence. No matter what flag they served.

    The cat carefully read your arguments. I caught the point and somewhere I even share, but there are weaknesses. What can you say about the contribution of the Romanians to the fight against the fascists? After all, they also laid more than one hundred fascists. However, after already how ...
    But according to your logic, they saved more than one Soviet life. Do they bow to my legs or what?
  • djon77
    djon77 7 July 2013 14: 59 New
    0
    and if only he understood something and knew that most of the sodates were far from politics and the soldiers themselves didn’t give orders, but they did the task. And the peoples cannot be fascists. But you still need to read many books along the way
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 18: 35 New
    +2
    Quote: djon77
    most of the sodats were far from politics and the soldiers themselves do not give orders, but fulfill the assigned task.


    which did not stop them from burning whole villages, filling shooting ditches and decorating the streets of cities and villages with gallows.

    Quote: djon77
    peoples cannot be fascists


    exactly, neither the Baltic states, nor the Hungarians, nor the Germans with your older brothers were by any means fascists.
    they simply KILLED PEOPLE.
    Quote: djon77
    but you still have a lot of books to read along the way


    that's for sure.
    I advise you to familiarize yourself with:What Soviet people fought for
    http://militera.lib.ru/research/dukov_ar/index.html
  • T-73
    T-73 7 July 2013 19: 54 New
    0
    Romanians pulled themselves up? Coat of arms in the center of whose? (Question encyclopedic) Flight and not identify.
  • Flooding
    Flooding 7 July 2013 21: 12 New
    +2
    Quote: djon77
    and if only he understood something and knew that most of the sodates were far from politics and the soldiers themselves didn’t give orders, but they did the task. And the peoples cannot be fascists. But you still need to read many books along the way

    The lucky lover, it’s you who touched on such a slippery topic, not me.
    Poke your finger if you can prove the opposite.
    You are talking about helping the USSR of Germany, I’m talking about participating in the sharing of the skin of an unkilled bear, on a piece of which Romania licked so much.
    Who stuttered that nations might be fascists?
    Yes, nobody but you! See and see a lot for yourself.
    Tell me where the Jewish ghetto was located in Chisinau, and who organized it. How many Jews, Gypsies, representatives of other nationalities fell victim to Romanian fascism in the territory of Moldova? And in Odessa, on whose hands is the blood of the slain?
    The soldiers themselves do not give orders?
    Do you put the blame on the Romanian leadership? To whom personally?
    And what right do you have to denounce the USSR in trade with Nazi Germany, with which all Europe and the United States traded, if you do not see Romania’s guilt in tens and hundreds of thousands of its victims?
    What do you have to say to this other than pathetic bleating?
  • grafrozow
    grafrozow 8 July 2013 03: 24 New
    -2
    YOU are right. Why have you forgotten the text of the international, which, according to the order of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, was sung by the whole country, we will destroy the whole world of violence to the ground, and then ... And how should the Americans and the British perceive this nonsense? because no one calls the Russian villains.
  • Cat
    Cat 7 July 2013 16: 39 New
    +1
    Quote: Flood
    The cat carefully read your arguments. I caught the point and somewhere I even share, but there are weaknesses. What can you say about the contribution of the Romanians to the fight against the fascists? After all, they also laid more than one hundred fascists. However, after already how ...
    But according to your logic, they saved more than one Soviet life. Do they bow to my legs or what?

    None of those veterans with whom I had to communicate did not demand any nods, or any other expressions of gratitude. They saw death near, and they know the value of human life, and against this background, all the present "veneration and worship" looks somehow pale ... And they do not divide the Victory - into "ours" and "theirs". Remember the meeting on the Elbe - was it then that the soldiers considered who and how many kilometers passed with the battles, who killed how many fascists? No. This was dealt with later - politicians, historians, forum sitters are different ...
    But after all, they fought, not they, not lords with presidents - soldiers fought. And respect for the participants in the war is respect for the soldiers, and not for those who made decisions in high offices, counted the percentage of profit from Lend-Lease, etc.
    And it is precisely out of respect for the soldiers - I urge you to stop dividing the Victory into “that” and “this”, into “important” and “not really”.
  • Flooding
    Flooding 7 July 2013 21: 32 New
    +2
    Quote: Cat
    And it is precisely out of respect for the soldiers - I urge you to stop dividing the Victory into “that” and “this”, into “important” and “not really”.

    You still did not answer my question.
    To paraphrase: how do you personally feel about such "winners".

    You understand, Victory for participating veterans and for us - it is still different. For them, this is part of life that cannot be crossed out or erased by anyone and by no means.
    For us, this is primarily a tribute to memory.
    So, I will always share the Victory in OUR and THEM, Victory as MEMORY of those great and terrible times.
    Because Victory will become common for all of us, including Americans, British, French, Poles, Ethiopians, Somalis, Australians, Romanians, etc., only when we accept THEIR historical interpretations of events.
    Each is first of all proud of his grandfather, great-grandfather, then his people, and only then in the third place are all these tolerant equivocations.
    Forgive me for being straightforward, time does not stand still.
    And I am sure that in Europe or the USA they know about that great war much less than ours according to the averaged statistics. And soon they will not remember anything.
    Ask the Romanian what is World War II for him. I am sure that the overwhelming majority will answer about the triumph of justice, the accession of Bessarabia, and the reunification of Great Romania.
    No wonder I asked about the Romanians before. But they also "participated" after they were pressed to the nail.
    Everyone has their own truth, everyone has their own victory.
  • Fin
    Fin 6 July 2013 22: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: Pimply
    World war for that and world war - everything was interconnected there. The containment of Africa gave the Germans the opportunity to break through to the oil reserves of Iran and Iraq, to ​​Suez, the base for a potential exit to New Zealand and Australia.

    The USSR was in Iran.
    Hitler especially did not count on the resources of Africa; he got involved only because of the defeats of pasta with a sense of allied duty.
    1. Rider
      Rider 6 July 2013 23: 19 New
      0
      Quote: Fin
      The USSR was in Iran.


      please do not forget that there were both British and Poles (those who squandered from the war with the Germans to the English rear)
      and (I don’t remember exactly) seem French.

      so the oil of iraq. the Germans did not shine at any time.
      1. Starina_hank
        Starina_hank 8 July 2013 21: 59 New
        -2
        The Poles did not budge, they left us to fight with the amers against the Germans, and the French, like a defeated nation, were ruled by the Germans!
  • Starina_hank
    Starina_hank 8 July 2013 20: 27 New
    0
    From Africa to Australia, further than walking to China!
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 6 July 2013 22: 02 New
    +1
    Quote: Pimply
    in sicily

    Yeah especially in sicily laughing A masterpiece military operation, without a single shot good
  • Constantine
    Constantine 6 July 2013 16: 34 New
    -1
    Not ham, child, people who are smarter and older than you. If you are not in the know, the second front was opened much earlier than 1944. Military operations in Africa and the Pacific Ocean, the capture of Sicily in 1943. The landing in 1944 was due to the most serious preparations for the assault on the deeply echeloned defense of the Germans in Europe.


    Quote: Pimply
    References, proofs, certificates
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 6 July 2013 20: 06 New
    0
    Actions other than the Pacific Ocean did not require special efforts, and therefore were not considered a second front.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 6 July 2013 20: 40 New
      0
      Are you laughing? Well then, probably, the Second World War did not begin on September 1, 1939, but on June 22, 1941.
      1. Rider
        Rider 6 July 2013 23: 24 New
        +1
        actually it is, since before that, they had practically not fought.

        and only after the USSR and Japan entered the war,
        the war really became WORLD.
        1. Starina_hank
          Starina_hank 8 July 2013 22: 06 New
          -1
          In my opinion, a friend decided to rewrite the story completely!
    2. Starina_hank
      Starina_hank 8 July 2013 22: 05 New
      0
      In my opinion, on the Karelian front, the whole army did not conduct any military operations against the Finns for two whole years! Maybe we will not consider them as front-line soldiers either?
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 8 July 2013 00: 34 New
    0
    Quote: Pimply
    the second front was opened much earlier


    If I am not mistaken, but even the Americans did not consider Africa and Italy a Second Front. And the landing in Italy, in general, many consider, like the Greek campaign, more a political operation. Recall where W. Churchill first suggested opening the Second Front.
  • Starina_hank
    Starina_hank 8 July 2013 20: 19 New
    0
    The hostilities, of course, were just the scale is not at all the same!
  • Starina_hank
    Starina_hank 8 July 2013 19: 30 New
    0
    Maybe someone thinks that it would be better if we put our 6ooooo?
  • Fin
    Fin 6 July 2013 10: 27 New
    18
    Quote: Professor
    Actually, the ridge of fascism was broken together with the same British and Americans. Have you been taught at school about the anti-Hitler coalition? The same Americans lost 600000 of their soldiers ...

    The ridge was then broken in 42-43 years, and a second front was opened in 44. Therefore, loudly saying "the ridge is broken" is still not worth it. And probably they broke it in Africa?
    And here are the Lend-Lease supplies from Wiki:

    Allied supplies were very unevenly distributed over the years of the war. In 1941 — 1942 contingent liabilities were not constantly fulfilled; the situation normalized only from the second half of the 1943 year. Of the promised by England 800 aircraft and 1000 tanks, which the USSR was supposed to receive in October-December 1941, 669 aircraft and 487 tanks were received. From October 1941 to 30 on June 1942, the United States sent 545 planes, 783 tanks to the USSR, 3 more than once less than promised, and 16502 trucks, that is, 5 more than once less than planned.

    When we bleed the allies were not in a hurry. Yes, they helped, there are no questions, but there is no need to exaggerate.
    I can’t find anything about 600 thousand losses anywhere, everywhere they write 400 thousand FOR 2 MV.
    I always read your posts with interest, but here somehow I haven’t woken up.
    1. Roll
      Roll 6 July 2013 11: 57 New
      +5
      wassat And what is the price for the front in October-December of 660 aircraft and 480 tanks. Maybe that's why Moscow resisted? The spoon is good for dinner. Take these same planes from the Red Army in December 41 and the picture of the battles would be different. And then England, when it was not our friend, was that the fact that Stalin made England help the USSR was worth a lot. And that the Allies were not in a hurry, so they were our potential enemies, that then history confirmed and hanging their claims on them was stupid.
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 6 July 2013 11: 57 New
      -11
      Look at the supply of gunpowder, metal, products, etc.

      Broke including in Africa, Sicily, the Pacific Ocean.
      1. Raven1972
        Raven1972 6 July 2013 14: 40 New
        10
        Greetings Eugene !!!! Long time no intersect)))) hi
        And now to the question - how much time they could not deal with one single Rommel corps in the SA? And how did it help us? In the end, almost all the tanks on the Eastern Front were taken from Rommel and then they were able to do something with him ... So who is it who helped?
        Further, Sicily 1943 - landed, beat the Italians a little, then A.A. Hitler sent Edelweiss and a mustache to help, the offensive in Sicily failed miserably and they sat there until 44g, until we entered Germany and Hitler had to take Edelweiss back for his own needs ... How did sitting in Sicily help us specifically? The answer is nothing ... hi
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 6 July 2013 14: 57 New
          -6
          Quote: Raven1972
          In the end, almost all tanks on the Eastern Front were taken from Rommel

          These are fairy tales. On the contrary, Rommel was constantly trying to strengthen. It is enough to look at the composition of the troops subordinate to him. However, the British and the Americans were able to very efficiently block the supply of the group, which ultimately led to the loss of almost all of the equipment and, ultimately, surrender.
          1. Raven1972
            Raven1972 6 July 2013 15: 08 New
            +4
            Not a fairy tale, where did the tanks in African (desert) camouflage come from in the Crimea in the summer of 42? And another question - what prevented Rommel from strengthening? Could it be the Eastern Front and our summer offensive? So do not exaggerate the merits of the Allies ...
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 6 July 2013 16: 28 New
              -2
              Once again, these are not “desert camouflage tanks”, this is standard color. By the end of 1943, absolutely all armored vehicles were painted dark yellow as the base layer.
              1. svp67
                svp67 6 July 2013 16: 31 New
                +3
                Quote: Spade
                Once again, these are not “desert camouflage tanks”, this is standard color. By the end of 1943, absolutely all armored vehicles were painted dark yellow as the base layer.

                In fact, in this
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 6 July 2013 16: 35 New
                  +2
                  I have already written. Directive dated February 18, 1943 - all equipment must be repainted in dark yellow Dunkel Gelb. Gasoline-borne paints for camouflage over this yellow one went to the troops.
              2. Raven1972
                Raven1972 6 July 2013 18: 54 New
                +1
                I didn’t mean the basic color))) Camouflage in the Reich is generally an interesting story)))) Until the moment you indicated, the crews themselves applied the camouflage using improvised means ... And sandy camouflage was applied with yellow spots and stripes over the base gray .. .. I mean this color
            2. Drummer
              Drummer 6 July 2013 19: 24 New
              +1
              Significantly strengthen Rommel prevented the Mediterranean Sea. And so, despite the Soviet offensive, since the 43rd year, the Eastern Front has acted mainly as a donor for groups operating in Italy and France. Take an interest in where the SS tank divisions went from 43–44 from the East, and also many army formations (aviation began to be pulled out earlier to cover the Reich and operations in the Mediterranean region).
              1. djon77
                djon77 7 July 2013 15: 08 New
                0
                so judging by your logic, the eastern front was constantly weakening. then I don’t understand exactly where and then fought, on the eastern front if the equipment was constantly taken away or in the Mediterranean? is this really a masterpiece of what you wrote))) in 43, Hitler really stopped the attack in the Kursk region just to come to the aid of musolini. here is the price of landing in Sicily
          2. revnagan
            revnagan 6 July 2013 21: 36 New
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            These are fairy tales. On the contrary, Rommel was constantly trying to strengthen.

            Quote: Spade
            However, the British and the Americans were able to very high quality block the supply of the group

            So tanks destined for Rommel ended up in Russia?
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 6 July 2013 15: 16 New
          -10
          They said a little lower. You missed the battle for the Atlantic, the bombing of Germany by the Allies - and they were massive, the Pacific Ocean, etc.
          Arfika is resources. And the units connected there and recaptured lands are resources, primarily, which the Germans did not get.
          The Allies had a big plus - they could, taking advantage of the situation, systematically squeeze out the Germans. They had such an opportunity. And they took advantage of it
          1. Raven1972
            Raven1972 6 July 2013 15: 34 New
            +9
            Eugene, what resources were in the CA at that time? Oil - development in its infancy, mineral ores - the same .... Ie it was necessary to conduct research to invest in the development of these fields (which still had to be found) for this at that time Germany had neither the strength nor the means .... The main resources of Germany came from the Scandinavian countries, the same Sweden, Norway ... Oil - Romanian oil fields, so Germany didn’t get anything from the SA ...
            Atlantic? Well, excuse me, how did all these battles for all kinds of islands help us? Did Germany (our main adversary in the Great Patriotic War) have any military forces there? Or did Germany help Japan? supplies of equipment for example? When Stalin forced Germany to declare himself an aggressor, he ensured that Japan did not intervene, with which a peace treaty was signed, and under the Steel Pact, Japan could intervene only if the aggressor were the USSR, so that we would be neither hot nor cold .... The Kwantung army didn’t go anywhere from Manchuria, and it stood there all the war .... request
            And what did the allies bomb in Germany until the end of the 43rd year if the release of military equipment and weapons did not stop by the Germans until they surrendered at 45m? Nothing absolutely .... And at 44m-45m what did they bomb there? Is that Dresden ....
            1. Raven1972
              Raven1972 6 July 2013 15: 51 New
              +3
              And we recall the Polish army of Anders, fully dressed, shod and armed with the USSR, which the brazen people claimed for themselves in the SA, and then put in Italy ... Perhaps these resources were not unnecessary for the USSR?
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 6 July 2013 16: 21 New
                -6
                Read a little more about Anders army.
                1. Raven1972
                  Raven1972 6 July 2013 17: 49 New
                  +1
                  I was interested in this question, and I know him well enough ... hi
            2. Pimply
              Pimply 6 July 2013 16: 20 New
              -6
              "In connection with the defeat at El Alamein in 1942, the plans of the German command to block the Suez Canal and gain control of Middle Eastern oil were destroyed."
              I recommend that you once again walk through the history of the region during this period.

              Quote: Raven1972
              When Stalin forced Germany to declare himself an aggressor, he ensured that Japan did not intervene, with which a peace treaty was signed, and under the Steel Pact, Japan could intervene only if the aggressor were the USSR, so that we would be neither hot nor cold ....

              You are joking? Japan, if it had not fought with the States, would have entered the war with the USSR. Just because it opened up incredible prospects for the Japanese.
              1. Constantine
                Constantine 6 July 2013 16: 35 New
                +1
                "In connection with the defeat at El Alamein in 1942, the plans of the German command to block the Suez Canal and gain control of Middle Eastern oil were destroyed."
                I recommend that you once again walk through the history of the region during this period.

                Quote: Raven1972
                When Stalin forced Germany to declare himself an aggressor, he ensured that Japan did not intervene, with which a peace treaty was signed, and under the Steel Pact, Japan could intervene only if the aggressor were the USSR, so that we would be neither hot nor cold ....
                You are joking? Japan, if it had not fought with the States, would have entered the war with the USSR. Just because it opened up incredible prospects for the Japanese.


                It's time to start reinforcing the words wink
                Quote: Pimply
                References, proofs, certificates
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 6 July 2013 17: 18 New
                  -1
                  And I reinforce.

                  S. A. Lozovsky (Molotov’s deputy, who was responsible for relations with Japan in the USSR People’s NKID) wrote in a secret note to Stalin on January 15, 1945: “... in the first period of the Soviet-German war, we were more interested than the Japanese in maintaining the pact, and starting in Stalingrad, the Japanese are more interested than us in maintaining a neutrality pact. ”

                  According to clause 3 of the Neutrality Pact between the USSR and Japan of 1941, “This pact comes into force from the day it is ratified by both contracting parties and remains valid for five years. If none of the contracting parties denounces the pact one year before the deadline, it will be considered automatically extended for the next five years. ”

                  That is, at any moment, either side could denounce the pact. Which, at some point, the USSR did.

                  http://www.webcitation.org/61BgrOlQF

                  Here is a fairly detailed analysis of forces.
                  1. Constantine
                    Constantine 6 July 2013 19: 11 New
                    0
                    Here is a fairly detailed analysis of forces.


                    This is another matter)
              2. Raven1972
                Raven1972 6 July 2013 17: 43 New
                +1
                I wouldn’t enter)))) Do not forget that there was no formal reason, in addition to the Far East, our divisions did not disappear, and the Japanese also received a good lesson in Hassan and Khalkhin-Gol, therefore they were not going to climb to nm + there was a peace treaty, which they didn’t intend to violate ... There are curious materials on this subject from the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, do not be lazy, read ...
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 6 July 2013 17: 49 New
                  -5
                  Hassan, and Khalkhin Gol - this, of course, is good. But they were not going to climb, therefore, but because the war on several fronts was problematic. And Japan at that time fought with the States, with China, with Britain. Do you think she had enough? Were it not for that war, a peace treaty would not have lasted. And the documents of those years clearly speak of this.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 6 July 2013 17: 56 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Pimply
                    Were it not for that war, a peace treaty would not hold out

                    Without a doubt, “defeated” the Army Fleet, in the matter of further prospects of the war there would have been no Per Harbor, and we would have had a “second front” in the Far East. So, we are simply obliged to establish a golden monument to Richard Sorge, in gratitude about his role in the "solution" of this issue ...
                  2. Pimply
                    Pimply 6 July 2013 18: 05 New
                    -2
                    Absolutely.
                2. Raven1972
                  Raven1972 6 July 2013 18: 17 New
                  -1
                  I repeat again:
                  There are interesting materials on this subject from the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, do not be lazy, read ...
              3. svp67
                svp67 6 July 2013 19: 00 New
                +1
                Quote: Raven1972
                I wouldn’t enter)))) Do not forget, there was no formal reason

                What a stupid thing. And do not remind me why there was a clash on the Halkin Goal? What a formal occasion was found by both Japan and the USSR. Don't you think that the Japanese could play this “card” in the future?
                1. Starina_hank
                  Starina_hank 8 July 2013 22: 17 New
                  0
                  The borders between China and Mongolia in the Khalkhin Gol area had vague outlines, and the Japanese believed that they were in China, and we were in Mongolia. Here we had a fight!
              4. svp67
                svp67 6 July 2013 19: 05 New
                +4
                Quote: Raven1972
                I wouldn’t enter))))

                Some certainty regarding this policy came on July 2 1941 after the decisions of the "Imperial Conference" ("gozen kaigi"). The top-secret Japanese military-political leadership adopted by the meeting in the presence of Emperor Hirohito, the top secret document "The Empire’s National Policy Program According to a Changing Situation", in particular, stated: "If the German-Soviet war develops in a direction favorable to our empire, by resorting to armed force, we will solve the northern problem and ensure the security of the northern borders. "
                On July 3, the day after the "imperial meeting," he informed Moscow that Japan would enter the war no later than 6 weeks later. "The Japanese offensive will begin in Vladivostok, Khabarovsk and Sakhalin with a landing on the Soviet coast of Primorye," Sorge informed. This corresponded to the plan of war against the USSR, "Kantokuen," developed by the Japanese general staff of the army. Sorge almost exactly indicated the duration of the Japanese treacherous attack. As it became known after the war, the decision to start the war was planned for 10 on August, and the beginning of the Japanese offensive - on 29 on August 1941.
                At the regular "imperial meeting" held on September 6 in September, the document "The Program for Implementing State Policy of the Empire" recorded a decision to refrain from attacking the USSR in 1941, postponing it until the spring of 1942. Participants in the meeting of the government and imperial coordination council preceding the "imperial meeting" rates (3 September) concluded that, "since Japan will not be able to deploy large-scale operations in the North until February, it is necessary to quickly carry out operations in the South during this time "
            3. Raven1972
              Raven1972 6 July 2013 17: 48 New
              0
              Eugene, I studied that period quite well))) The Germans did not have the opportunity to develop, and most importantly deliver BV oil, in addition to everything, look at the geography and oil production in that region at that time ... hi
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 6 July 2013 18: 18 New
                -5
                Access to Iran, Iraq, the Suez Canal - the Germans had why it seeks to Africa. And Africa gave not only oil, and not so much oil, but a geopolitical advantage, metal. But, again - this was not a primary front. Although underestimating it is pointless.
                1. Raven1972
                  Raven1972 6 July 2013 18: 40 New
                  0
                  Eugene, in fact, the Germans sent Rommel after persistent requests for help from the Italians, with whom they were allies in the Steel Pact)))) They were even generous with the whole building)))) So they wanted to go there))))
          2. djon77
            djon77 7 July 2013 15: 11 New
            -3
            there wouldn’t be a battle for the Atlantic and there wouldn’t be any Lendlis and no second front in 44. Also, Rommel would have won in Africa. I’m sorry if I sent you your battalion. You don’t see your nose and ambitions
            1. Rider
              Rider 7 July 2013 15: 23 New
              +1
              Quote: djon77
              there wouldn’t be a battle for the Atlantic and there wouldn’t be any lendlis


              Are you REALLY SO ... uh, unfamiliar with reality?

              do you even know that 60% of deliveries were through Alaska Far East and Siberia?
              about 20% through Iran, and only the remaining part through Murmansk.
              and by the way, on these routes the deliveries were WITHOUT LOSS.

              Well, as for the second front, I think that by the summer of 45 the Red Star tanks would be in the English Channel.
              so don’t worry, there would be someone to free Europe.
              1. djon77
                djon77 7 July 2013 15: 51 New
                -1
                and what god did they get into Iran
                1. Rider
                  Rider 7 July 2013 16: 14 New
                  0
                  Quote: djon77
                  and what god did they get into Iran


                  how can you talk about lendlis if you don’t know ELEMENTARY things.

                  drive into the search for "landlize" and enjoy.
                2. djon77
                  djon77 7 July 2013 16: 59 New
                  -2
                  how from the usa or from england could materials get into iran. as i understand the shortest way is the atlantic and suez. in geography what was the grade?
                3. Rider
                  Rider 7 July 2013 17: 18 New
                  +3
                  Quote: djon77
                  how materials from the usa or england could get into iran.



                  you don’t even know how to read, and Google apparently banned you.

                  drive into the search for "Transiran Route"
                  read. and do not get into the conversation of large uncles.
          3. Cat
            Cat 7 July 2013 16: 47 New
            0
            Quote: Rider
            Well, as for the second front, I think that by the summer of 45 the Red Star tanks would be in the English Channel.
            so don’t worry, there would be someone to free Europe.

            find at least one veteran who would agree to fight another month or two, lose another ten or a hundred friends in battle. Find the kid whose father returned from the war and tell him: I'm sorry, but your dad will leave again, will leave forever - so that after 70 years some woodpecker at some forum could proudly say: "we made Hitler alone ! "
            you there, in the 45th - and look at your desire to "get to the English Channel." Hero, damn it ...
            1. Rider
              Rider 7 July 2013 19: 14 New
              +3
              Quote: Cat
              Find the kid whose father returned from the war and tell him: I'm sorry, but your dad will leave again, will leave forever - so that after 70 years some woodpecker at some forum could proudly say: "we made Hitler alone ! "


              exactly for sure.
              that's exactly what I must say.
              and even more.
              I must say so
              kid!
              your dad will not go to war (after all, kill her)
              and his brother will not go, and the neighbor, and the neighbor of the neighbor will not go.
              THERE ARE NO ONE WILL GO.
              current your country will now be called protectorate Ost (or whatever)
              now you don’t need to study, to go to the army too-LEPOTAA.
              but no one will treat you, and you won’t find a good job
              and I'm sorry, but you won’t have any grandchildren.
              because your children will die in a concentration camp.

              and all because ONE DECADE AFTER 70 years old TOLD THAT WAR IS FIIII, AND WHAT ELSE THERE IS ABOUT THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE AND THE TIN OF THE CHILD.


              Quote: Cat
              Hero, damn it ...


              gee gee.
          4. Pimply
            Pimply 7 July 2013 16: 52 New
            0
            Here you have more accurate data

            Pacific 8244 47,1
            Transiranian 4160 23,8
            Arctic 3964 22,6
            Black Sea 681 3,9
            Soviet Arctic 452 2,6
          5. djon77
            djon77 7 July 2013 17: 03 New
            -1
            until the age of 45, red star tanks could go down in history. I simply knew that you were talking about something and knew that out of a hundred shells, some 5 could decide the outcome of the battle. Let's say it’s a land lease of 5%. But imagine these 5 shells weren’t would be at the right time and in the right place, but the enemy has them)))))))))) continue to simulate the situation?))))))))
            1. Rider
              Rider 7 July 2013 18: 15 New
              +1
              Quote: djon77
              .but imagine these 5 shells wouldn’t be there, at the right time and in the right place, but the enemy has them)))))))))) continue to simulate the situation?))))))))


              lets do it !

              June 41, Operation Sea Lion begins, and the Britons merge into the toilet bowl of history.
              then the Germans crush them in Egypt and BV.
              receive Iraqi and Libyan oil
              Britons are thrown out of India.

              And FSE!
              war with the USSR need not !
              Germany now has oil, living space - at least heaps.
              Well, then, they can help Japan tear the United States, or postpone it for 10 years.

              so my fantasy is much richer than yours.
            2. djon77
              djon77 7 July 2013 19: 50 New
              0
              well yes. so it was
  • Constantine
    Constantine 6 July 2013 16: 34 New
    0
    They said a little lower. You missed the battle for the Atlantic, the bombing of Germany by the Allies - and they were massive, the Pacific Ocean, etc.
    Arfika is resources. And the units connected there and recaptured lands are resources, primarily, which the Germans did not get.
    The Allies had a big plus - they could, taking advantage of the situation, systematically squeeze out the Germans. They had such an opportunity. And they took advantage of it


    Yet
    Quote: Pimply
    References, proofs, certificates
  • djon77
    djon77 7 July 2013 08: 17 New
    -4
    bumpy yes to argue. for anyone they won the Second World War even despite the fact that since 1939 they didn’t fight at all with Germany. That is, for two years the war went on and did not take part at all. By the way, for the last two years the war went on, I brought the numbers of Soviet Union exports to Germany higher from 1939-41. by the way let them be minuscule. show their moral qualities, as well as the inability to accept the truth no matter how bitter it was
  • revnagan
    revnagan 6 July 2013 21: 35 New
    0
    Quote: Raven1972
    In the end, almost all tanks on the Eastern Front were taken from Rommel

    And what about aviation? How did the Lufwaffe prove to be in Africa?
  • djon77
    djon77 7 July 2013 15: 04 New
    -2
    but I didn’t think that if Romel didn’t get bogged down, then Moscow would have been taken right on time, and this, as you know, the main railway node of the country was. What do you think would be the scattered resistance of the Soviet troops? As in the first 3 months or worse?
    1. Rider
      Rider 7 July 2013 15: 13 New
      +4
      Quote: djon77
      but I didn’t think that Romel wouldn’t get bogged down, then Moscow would have been taken


      but didn’t think that the Germans wouldn’t get bogged down in Russia, London would be taken.
      and how would the British then fight and lose their island?
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 7 July 2013 16: 53 New
        0
        And this situation is no less likely. The Second World War is not in vain called the Second World War. This is a fairly large ball of events and connections.
  • Constantine
    Constantine 6 July 2013 16: 34 New
    +1
    Look at the supply of gunpowder, metal, products, etc.

    Broke including in Africa, Sicily, the Pacific Ocean.


    Once again, the
    Quote: Pimply
    References, proofs, certificates
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 6 July 2013 17: 19 New
      -5
      To begin with, I would like to see the answers to my questions, right?
      1. Constantine
        Constantine 6 July 2013 17: 30 New
        +4
        To begin with, I would like to see the answers to my questions, right?


        They answer you. I'm not talking about this post, your mania to demand proofs from everyone in a row, but not to provide your own, has a systemic character. Just demanding them from you is somehow not particularly puzzled. Time has come.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 6 July 2013 17: 46 New
          -5
          Don't be puzzled because I provide them. In several languages, if necessary. And the opponents have difficulty in knowing Russian, and are not interested in proving their words.
  • rolik
    rolik 7 July 2013 00: 32 New
    +2
    Quote: Fin
    Allied supplies were very unevenly distributed over the years of the war. In 1941 — 1942 contingent liabilities were not constantly fulfilled; the situation normalized only from the second half of the 1943 year. Of the promised by England 800 aircraft and 1000 tanks, which the USSR was supposed to receive in October-December 1941, 669 aircraft and 487 tanks were received. From October 1941 to 30 on June 1942, the United States sent 545 planes, 783 tanks to the USSR, 3 more than once less than promised, and 16502 trucks, that is, 5 more than once less than planned.

    I repeat once again. For these deliveries, we have fully paid off - with full gold bars. So, we can say that this was not selfless help, but another making money. Which, in principle, is not surprising. It would be different if all deliveries were free (so to speak, an unselfish contribution to victory).
    And the Allies opened a second front only in order not to let our army go further into Europe. That's all.
  • semenar
    semenar 6 July 2013 15: 09 New
    +9
    And how many divisions were grind by the Soviet Army, and how many armies of Great Britain and the USA?
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 6 July 2013 16: 24 New
      -4
      The losses of the Nazi forces in the USSR / Allies ratios are somewhere around 70% / 30%. And this is natural. The hottest battles were fought on the Eastern Front. But if you take the Japanese?
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 6 July 2013 18: 25 New
        +2
        Pimpled (1) 

        The losses of the Nazi forces in the USSR / Allies ratios are somewhere around 70% / 30%. And this is natural. The hottest battles were fought on the Eastern Front. But if you take the Japanese?

        According to Amer’s data, 1219000 dead and wounded + 41000 prisoners
        According to ours, during the operation to destroy the Kwantung army, the Japanese lost about 670000, of which 600000 were captured
    2. svp67
      svp67 6 July 2013 16: 39 New
      +8
      Quote: semenar
      And how many divisions were grind by the Soviet Army, and how many armies of Great Britain and the USA?
      In this respect, not even a quantitative factor is important, but a qualitative one. Since if we compare the quality of a German soldier of the 40, 41, 42 and 43 years with the German soldiers of the 44 and especially 45 years, the latter will obviously lose ...
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 6 July 2013 17: 20 New
        -1
        Definitely, and here you are right.
  • Artyom
    Artyom 6 July 2013 17: 36 New
    +5
    The USA lost 418 people in World War II [000]. The largest losses for the American army were in the Ardennes operation - 1 people were killed. After it, the Norman operation, the Battle of Monte Cassino, the Battle of Iwo Jima and the Battle of Okinawa follow the number of losses. As of 19, 000 American troops are still missing during World War II [2010]. The US National Archives compiled and published lists of all the dead and missing US military [74].
    And this is against ours:
    The human losses of the USSR - 6,3 million soldiers killed and died from wounds, 555 thousand died from diseases, who died as a result of incidents condemned to be shot (according to reports of troops, medical institutions, military tribunals) and 4,5 million who fell into captured and missing [2]. Total demographic losses (including the dead civilian population in the occupied territory and increased mortality in the rest of the USSR from the adversities of the war) - 26,6 million people;
    source "Wikipedia"
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 6 July 2013 17: 52 New
      -6
      And nobody argues with this data. For the USSR, the war was much more difficult and bloody than for the USA, England, France, etc. But we are not talking about that.
  • chertjaga
    chertjaga 6 July 2013 17: 43 New
    +5
    The same Americans lost 600000 of their soldiers ...


    А википедия гласит несколько иное(http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%B2%D0
    %BE_%D0%92%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0
    % B9_% D0% B2% D0% BE% D0% B9% D0% BD% D0% B5): US losses - ~ 405 soldiers; USSR losses - ~ 399 soldiers

    Have you been taught at school about the anti-Hitler coalition?


    During the war, the anti-Hitler coalition actively supplied the Nazis with various resources, since Germany and its allies were poor in various resources, which were abundant in the colonies of the anti-Hitler coalition

    Actually, the ridge of fascism was broken together with the same British and Americans.


    The ridge of fascism was broken in three battles: the battle of Stalingrad, the battle of Kursk and the battle of the Dnieper. And these 3 battles were for "huge strategic" resources, and not rocks in the ocean (the battle at Midway Atoll)
    The second front was opened when the USSR had already conquered all its western territories and began to conquer the rest of Europe, and Great Britain and the USA decided to intervene here.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 6 July 2013 17: 53 New
      -4
      Quote: chertjaga

      During the war, the anti-Hitler coalition actively supplied the Nazis with various resources, since Germany and its allies were poor in various resources, which were abundant in the colonies of the anti-Hitler coalition


      Please provide your sources.

      Quote: chertjaga
      The second front was opened when the USSR had already conquered all its western territories and began to conquer the rest of Europe, and Great Britain and the USA decided to intervene here.


      When did the Second World War begin?
      1. chertjaga
        chertjaga 6 July 2013 19: 50 New
        +3
        Please provide your sources.


        I do not have such sources
        But my question is: where did Germany take resources during the war that it did not have, nor in the occupation territories?
        By resources we mean, for example. non-ferrous metals
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 6 July 2013 20: 43 New
          -2
          Then why do you engage in fictionalism instead of history?
        2. djon77
          djon77 7 July 2013 08: 57 New
          -3
          I wrote above where Germany took these sources
          1. Cheloveck
            Cheloveck 7 July 2013 10: 43 New
            +2
            Quote: djon77
            I wrote above where Germany took these sources

            John, I am always touched by people like you. smile
            What the Soviet Union delivered to Germany is comparable to a drop in the ocean in comparison with the needs of industry.
            Look at the structure and sources of German imports for 39 - 41gg.
            So as not to mess up.
            1. djon77
              djon77 7 July 2013 11: 18 New
              -2
              Well, a drop in the ocean)))))))))) besides your words, I did not see your words confirmation. if I gave the exact data, then you did not provide anything except for the next air shock.
              1. 3 inches.
                3 inches. 7 July 2013 17: 00 New
                +1
                Yes, no proof is necessary to him. This is from the breed of rebels against the bloody gebni and communism. They don’t have any facts. There is a Russian proverb, ssy in the eye and he is all God's dew.
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 6 July 2013 18: 45 New
    +3
    Quote: Professor
    Actually, the ridge of fascism was broken together with the same British and Americans. Have you been taught at school about the anti-Hitler coalition? The same Americans lost 600000 of their soldiers ...


    Professor, I'm afraid you exaggerate the role of the Allies in the victory over Germany. During WWII, the British fought before landing in Normandy, mainly in Africa. But the number of troops engaged by them in the struggle against a relatively small German-Italian contingent was small - not much more than the expeditionary forces of England deployed in France in 1940. On the Italian front, the allied forces were again far from the most numerous.
    The Western Front is another story altogether. The quality of the German troops fighting there was assessed by the Germans as extremely low. The bulk of the units was only formed, and their L / C mainly consisted of young youths, persons previously not recruited for health reasons, and adults (over 40). In this respect, the Italian Front, which was held by the more experienced units of the Wehrmacht and the SS, is indicative - the Allies were not able to break through it.
    Even the losses of the victorious countries say that it was the USSR that made the highest contribution to the victory - out of about 30 million of our citizens who died, more than 8 million accounted for by military personnel. Again, in terms of the number of troops involved in the hostilities of the USSR, it significantly exceeded the forces of the allies.
    I acknowledge the merits of the Americans and the British in the supply of material resources - it really was a help, especially at the initial stage, when many plants were destroyed. In addition, it was the Yankees who defeated the Japanese Navy, and the British significantly thinned the German Navy, and patted the Luftwaffe, BUT the main merit in the victory over fascism belongs to the USSR.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 6 July 2013 20: 45 New
      -2
      Rather, you underestimate the impact of the Pacific War or the allied air strikes on Germany. What, again, does not sweep away the tremendous efforts that the USSR made for the victory, the sacrifices that he made, and the role he played.
    2. Drummer
      Drummer 6 July 2013 21: 51 New
      +2
      Not everything is so simple on the Western Front: stationary infantry divisions were really weak, but the tank group in France was the strongest (up to 2200 vehicles - 30% of the fleet), including the elite 1 and 2 SS CCs.
    3. Professor
      Professor 7 July 2013 08: 23 New
      -3
      Quote: Blackgrifon
      BUT the main merit in the victory over fascism belongs to the USSR.

      Is there a debate about this? The Soviet Union did not defeat the Nazis alone, and that’s it.
  • bistrov.
    bistrov. 6 July 2013 21: 13 New
    0
    Mostly in fights with the Japs. Does the figure of 28 million tell you anything?
  • dustycat
    dustycat 6 July 2013 23: 23 New
    0
    And they don’t tell you at schools on what front your first president fired a machine gun? And where was it?
  • Russ69
    Russ69 7 July 2013 02: 00 New
    0
    The main losses of amers were on the Pacific front, but neither as nor on the West.
  • smile
    smile 7 July 2013 04: 02 New
    +1
    Professor
    Damn ... well, you're smart ... well, will you also begin to say that the American contribution is decisive? Or at least equal? And what did Americans lose 600 on the European Theater? And the main thing is not how much they lost, but in what exactly and how they achieved, who exactly broke the Nazi ridge ..... at least kill, I think that you blurted it out of harm or just like that ... to look at our reaction ..... Professor, no one doubts that you are a very intelligent and knowledgeable person .... but, damn it, we are all very curious that she made you make such statements ... ..and?
    1. Professor
      Professor 7 July 2013 08: 25 New
      0
      Quote: smile
      Well, will you also begin to say that the American contribution is decisive? Or at least equal?

      I will not start. The USSR made a decisive contribution to the victory over fascism as part of the anti-Hitler coalition.
  • Kail_seven
    Kail_seven 7 July 2013 05: 21 New
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Actually, the ridge of fascism was broken together with the same British and Americans. Have you been taught at school about the anti-Hitler coalition? The same Americans lost 600000 of their soldiers ...


    Just for clarity, not 600, but 000 405 people (and this is 399% less than you indicated, which is significant)
    Poland’s losses, for example, 425. But for some reason you didn’t remember about them.
  • rexby63
    rexby63 7 July 2013 07: 46 New
    +1
    And not 400000? 16 million were mobilized with a population of 131 million.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 7 July 2013 09: 02 New
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Americans lost 600000 of their soldiers ...

    Please correct the figure, about a third, in minus!
    I didn’t notice this before for you, interpretation of events is your own business, but you don’t need to play with numbers.
    And try to terrify the loss, too, is not necessary, a bad tone in my opinion.
    1. Professor
      Professor 7 July 2013 09: 27 New
      +2
      Quote: Cynic
      Please correct the figure, about a third, in minus!

      Already done this and admitted his non-attentiveness.

      Quote: Professor
      You are right, I recalled from memory the number of wounded 600000 instead of those who died, while 405,399 American soldiers (416,800 including 9500 transport fleet sailors) and 5600 American citizens died (450,670 according to other sources).
  • family
    family tree 7 July 2013 12: 43 New
    +1
    You see, professor, Americans, and in the First World War, managed to lose a lot of soldiers, despite the short duration of the action.
  • Airman
    Airman 7 July 2013 19: 54 New
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Actually, the ridge of fascism was broken together with the same British and Americans. Have you been taught at school about the anti-Hitler coalition? The same Americans lost 600000 of their soldiers ...

    And we are 35 times more, including civilians. There was no war in the United States.
    1. alex86
      alex86 7 July 2013 21: 26 New
      -1
      For objectivity - they could just wait for the result and agree with the winner ... And our losses are not a matter of pride (rather, sorrow and inability to organize military operations)
  • beech
    beech 7 July 2013 22: 45 New
    0
    too many zeros, do not you think?
    and I’ll say this about their contribution to the defeat of the Fritz: there is such a saying: whoever gets into the fray last boasts the most!
    One can argue on this subject for a long time, but I consider the real contribution of the Yankees and scammers to be minimal ... what are several broken divisions in Africa and several dozen in Europe against hundreds destroyed in the Stalingrad environment, on the fields of the Kursk arc, in the Caucasus ... !! !
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Yegorchik
    Yegorchik 6 July 2013 09: 39 New
    +9
    To begin with, neither the report itself, nor the report of Kholopov on the basis of this report, allegedly drawn up by anyone, could not be found, so believing or not believing in this article is a personal matter.
    But the memo on close anti-tank warfare of 1944 for German soldiers, “elegant with slanting surfaces, is the 34th most dangerous. We must recognize Churchill from many small ice rinks on vertical surfaces. He is pathetic ...
    This is the question of the English industrial culture.
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 6 July 2013 10: 38 New
      0
      Yegorchik Yuri Pasholok laid out American reports
      1. Yegorchik
        Yegorchik 6 July 2013 17: 12 New
        +1
        About how no one can find the original American report, and Pasholok laid out? Maybe you can take a closer look and these are all the words written from someone’s words, and not the American report, the amers themselves could not open in their archives.
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 6 July 2013 20: 09 New
      +3
      The culture was at a high level, there was no school of tank building. That is, understanding which tank is needed, in the end there are all sorts of “Churchilli” that are good for service in peacetime.
    3. family
      family tree 7 July 2013 13: 23 New
      +1
      There was one more. Nevertheless managed and on it
  • aviator46
    aviator46 8 July 2013 21: 53 New
    -3
    Gather your brains in a bunch of "patriot" and do not drive the blizzard ...
    The British fought with the Germans, when two "mustached" with might and main twisted love and divided Europe.
    And the Americans fought with the Japanese from Australia to India, throughout the Pacific ... and with the Germans in Africa and Europe ...
    Moreover, they supplied the USSR, without which the Red Army would have rolled back to the Urals - do not go to a fortuneteller.
    70% of gunpowder, 50% of shells .. thousands of tons of food .. etc., this is LendLiz.
  • Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 6 July 2013 07: 53 New
    +8
    There are suspicions that strongly believing in the allies and not wanting to deploy the production lines of their equipment by the foreign countries, the T34 tank was ordered to show, but not in a very good way. those. break so that the mosquito does not undermine the nose.
    On the other hand, any technique is a compromise between everything. And do not forget who made these tanks? schoolchildren from 14 years old, working more than 10 hours a day. Quality will naturally be lame in this case, because the tanks were also sent at the most difficult (!) Moment of the war for the country.
    1. Drummer
      Drummer 6 July 2013 09: 30 New
      -3
      Seeing the Germans, the T-34 was also afraid to show in all its glory.
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 6 July 2013 09: 55 New
      -1
      There are suspicions that strongly believing in the allies and not wanting to deploy the production lines of their equipment by the foreign countries, the T34 tank was ordered to show, but not in a very good way. those. break so that the mosquito does not undermine the nose.

      what stupidity
    3. Roll
      Roll 6 July 2013 12: 49 New
      +4
      angry Here's an interesting nuance, tank crews getting 5 days from the factory spent on tightening all the nuts, since the boys and women could only put them in and turn them a couple of turns, and the quality of welding, as a welder, as well as a turner, a profession requires qualifications, year at least.
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 7 July 2013 09: 08 New
        0
        Quote: Rolm
        tank crews getting the same from the factory for 5 days spent on tightening all the nuts,

        Source ?
        1. family
          family tree 7 July 2013 13: 03 New
          +1
          Quote: Cynic
          Quote: Rolm
          tank crews getting the same from the factory for 5 days spent on tightening all the nuts,

          Source ?
          In the internet in bulk. Horseless were sent for tanks to the factory. The task is to help assemble your tank. Feeding, of course, at rear standards, so faster back. Since then. True, one plus sign was drawn, factory mechvody, front-line taught the high-pressure fuel pump to wind up (nafig nafig, speed drives!), And they themselves molted to the front with them, by all rights and falsehoods. wink
    4. 0255
      0255 6 July 2013 18: 38 New
      +6
      and nevertheless, the Germans and Americans respected the T-34. He showed himself well in battles.
      And the Shermans could not even fight with light tanks. It is only in American computer games that Shermans destroy tigers and Panthers with one shot
      Stop throwing yourself mud! Americans are even proud of dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, while we ourselves denigrate our grandfathers and great-grandfathers. It turns out that the T-34 is bad, without the USA the USSR would have done nothing at all, and such nonsense.
      It was the USSR that took Berlin, although the British and Americans were closer to it from Normandy. Yes, and on Normandy they almost suffered a defeat.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 6 July 2013 20: 48 New
        0
        No one says the T-34 is bad. Just idiocy about the bad Sherman who successfully fought including in the USSR - this is illiteracy.
        1. rolik
          rolik 7 July 2013 01: 35 New
          +2
          Quote: Pimply
          Just idiocy about the bad Shermans,

          But let me answer in the style of opponents who had all the best only from America ....
          Tank Sherman was a real go ... but. And that's it, that's all the evidence))))))
          1. Drummer
            Drummer 7 July 2013 08: 34 New
            0
            Did you conclude this from personal experience? Specialists from Kubinka have a different opinion on this matter, and Emcha veteran tankers liked it.
          2. Pimply
            Pimply 7 July 2013 11: 49 New
            0
            Nice person. Yes you are stubborn. Here I’m something of people who say that everything from America is all the best, I don’t see. Here your opponents say that you need to carefully evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of technology. Well, for you, everything from America is all but. Great air shaker, you know.
        2. Shadowcat
          Shadowcat 7 July 2013 06: 06 New
          0
          Quote: Pimply
          Just idiocy about the bad Sherman who successfully fought including in the USSR - this is illiteracy.

          Here, in my opinion, it was already necessary to arm Sherman so that he would hold at least a shot.
          1. Cat
            Cat 7 July 2013 07: 04 New
            +1
            Quote: ShadowCat
            Here, in my opinion, it was already necessary to arm Sherman so that he would hold at least a shot.


            It is clear that Sherman had its drawbacks - however, like the T-34, and any other tank. As for the armor, the T-34 has a 45/60 ° forehead, the Sherman’s 51/56 °, almost one to one. The first Shermans went to the USSR from 1942, massively from 1943. The main German anti-tank gun at that time was Pak 40 - which in most cases without problems was sewn into the forehead of the T-34 and Sherman. So, talking about the “cardboard” booking of Shermans is not serious.
            1. Shadowcat
              Shadowcat 7 July 2013 08: 41 New
              0
              Quote: Cat
              The main German anti-tank gun at that time was Pak 40 - which in most cases without problems was sewn into the forehead of the T-34 and Sherman.

              You correctly noticed, from the 43rd. That's just developed 34ka in 39-40m to withstand the massively accepted all over the world, and even more so in the most likely adversary 37mm Pak 36, which 34ka successfully resisted.
              Of course, the armor won this round in the battle between the shell and the armor, and even the subsequent release of 50mm Pak38 did not bring tangible advantages to the Germans, and only with the release of Pak40 the shell again prevailed with its slaughter power.
              But again, work began on the new IS-2 tank, as well as increased production of new 34oks - the T-34-85 which were also better armored due to new types of armor (the fact that the T34 is still modified is no secret )
              At the same time, the Shermans allies had to cover with sandbags or fill the forehead with concrete to improve armor protection. (http://topwar.ru/30382-dopolnitelnaya-zaschita-amerikanskoy-bronetehniki-rerayt
              .html) already from the 41st year the industry also had something in a hurry to be fixed.
              I'm not saying that 34ka was an epic. No, that is not true. Yes, she had problems with the gearbox, with amenities. But at the same time, the designers did what the tank was needed at the time of its creation - the frontal projection should withstand the shells of the enemy.
              1. stalkerwalker
                stalkerwalker 7 July 2013 10: 46 New
                +4
                Quote: ShadowCat
                only with the release of the pack40 shell again prevailed with its destructive power

                Pak-40 was heavy, had poorly calculated angles of extension of the bipod of the beds, as a result of which, after 2-3 shots, these beds could only be pulled out with a tractor.
                It turned out like with a “menagerie”: powerful and high-tech (and expensive to manufacture) products designed and manufactured by qualified specialists, were not moderately agile and maneuverable.
                1. kirpich
                  kirpich 7 July 2013 13: 06 New
                  0
                  Have you seen her in your eyes? In Moscow, in the park of the 30th anniversary of Victory near the Yuzhnaya metro station, PAK-38/40 has been preserved. Compare it with our ZIS-3
                  1. stalkerwalker
                    stalkerwalker 7 July 2013 13: 21 New
                    +3
                    Quote: kirpich
                    Ah, you saw her in the eye

                    Saw.
                    Compare.

                    Mellentin (it seems) said that the entire history of the Wehrmacht’s anti-tank artillery is the saddest page of World War II.

                    Did you make any conclusions?
              2. Pimply
                Pimply 7 July 2013 11: 58 New
                0
                All this is the modernization of existing models to the conditions of the current battle. Nobody replaced the tanks, and modernization was possible only in new models, and had to fight in conditions of distribution, for example, of Faust cartridges. You looked, why sandbags hung on Shermans?
                1. Shadowcat
                  Shadowcat 7 July 2013 13: 26 New
                  +1
                  Against the Faustpatrons, which by the way were not held by any tank of that time, a new tactic was used. Given that he had no aiming range (at a 30m training ground), therefore he could only be used in the city. In the city, tanks were used as support. those. they went “behind the infantry” supporting it with fire and destroying the enemy’s fortified positions.

                  Quote: Pimply
                  You looked, why sandbags hung on Shermans?

                  To have at least some protection from the fire of the German menagerie, as well as the Faustpatrons. The last reason for the imperfection of the tactics of the Yankees left their tanks without infantry cover.
                  1. Pimply
                    Pimply 7 July 2013 16: 54 New
                    0
                    Quote: ShadowCat

                    To have at least some protection from the fire of the German menagerie, as well as the Faustpatrons. The last reason for the imperfection of the tactics of the Yankees left their tanks without infantry cover.

                    You can read more, preferably with links. 8)
                    1. Shadowcat
                      Shadowcat 7 July 2013 17: 17 New
                      0
                      brought, read.
                      Also very often, the American marines let the Shermans go far ahead without the support of the infantry, which also played into the hands of the Japanese
                      1. Pimply
                        Pimply 7 July 2013 18: 39 New
                        0
                        Too generalized information. The Marines worked mainly on the islands, with a minimum of development. In such conditions, Soviet tanks often operated without infantry support. You summarized all American tactics here, starting from one statement.
          2. Pimply
            Pimply 7 July 2013 11: 50 New
            0
            Please link.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 7 July 2013 12: 02 New
              -1
              Quote: Pimply
              Please link.

              Or maybe you dear, give a link in which the magpie is characterized as mobile and maneuverable?
              Quote: stalkerwalker
              these beds could only be pulled out by a tractor.

              I met the same thing somewhere, but I can’t vouch for a conversation about this particular gun.
              hi
              1. stalkerwalker
                stalkerwalker 7 July 2013 12: 31 New
                +4
                Quote: Cynic
                I met the same thing somewhere, but I can’t vouch for a conversation about this particular gun.


                A. Isaev. "Ten myths about the Second World War" - there it is spelled out
              2. Pimply
                Pimply 7 July 2013 12: 39 New
                0
                Take the answers aside?
              3. family
                family tree 7 July 2013 13: 58 New
                +1
                Quote: Cynic
                I met the same thing somewhere, but I can’t vouch for a conversation about this particular gun.

                This is about ZIS-2, "Death to the Enemy, P-and-p-e-ts calculation"
            2. Shadowcat
              Shadowcat 7 July 2013 13: 18 New
              0
              http://topwar.ru/30382-dopolnitelnaya-zaschita-amerikanskoy-bronetehniki-rerayt
              .html
        3. family
          family tree 7 July 2013 13: 29 New
          +1
          Quote: Pimply
          No one says the T-34 is bad. Just idiocy about the bad Sherman who successfully fought including in the USSR - this is illiteracy.
          Funny photo! This is when the "fireflies" on Lend-Lease in the Soviet Union delivered? laughing
          1. family
            family tree 7 July 2013 13: 48 New
            +1
            By the way, I advise opponents of "emchi": Loza "Tanker on a foreign car" A cool tank was, second place in release, after thirty-four. Bad car, so do not replicate.
          2. Pimply
            Pimply 7 July 2013 17: 01 New
            0
            According to American data, 4063 M4A2 tanks (with a power plant of two General Motors 6046 diesels) of different variants (M4A2 - 1990 units, M4A2 (76) W with a 76 mm long-barreled gun M1 - 2073 units) and two tanks were delivered to the Soviet Union M4A4.
  • Hudo
    Hudo 6 July 2013 09: 07 New
    12
    Build quality, it is of course quality. I just would like to ask a number of questions to the testers at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. Was the American worker well fed? Was there a roof over his loom and were bombs falling on top? What can he say about the possible quality of American tanks, if half-starved teenagers working 12 hours a day are assigned to the machines?
    1. Drummer
      Drummer 6 July 2013 09: 27 New
      +1
      The main problems of the T-34 are related to the engine (the ugly Pomon air filter, which consumed the resource and horsepower) and the transmission (a primitive four-speed gearbox of a motorcycle type, without constant clutch engagement + poorly selected gear ratios), and here the hungry workers have nothing to do with it.
      1. Yegorchik
        Yegorchik 6 July 2013 09: 55 New
        +4
        Well, let’s say our filter was later replaced by the Cyclone, and the Americans, if so smart, could wash it more often during testing and all the trouble.
        1. Drummer
          Drummer 6 July 2013 11: 13 New
          +1
          Really. Flush the filters (especially on the march conveniently) or remove them altogether, in the fuel tanks instead of diesel fuel carry oil and drive all the time in second gear - that’s all. Only then do not be surprised at losses of 30-40% for technical reasons after each transition.
    2. 0255
      0255 6 July 2013 18: 42 New
      0
      all the same, the Shermans lost the characteristics of German tanks, took only in numbers. Americans won more due to aviation, erasing entire cities from the face of the Earth
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 6 July 2013 20: 48 New
        0
        Examples. Against which tanks they lost, in which cases they were taken only in numbers.
  • omsbon
    omsbon 6 July 2013 09: 15 New
    +5
    Evacuation of industry inland, lack of skilled labor, and at the same time an increase in the number of produced tanks, good tanks! It can be called a miracle, but we must always remember that the Soviet people did this miracle!
    Everything for the front, everything for the Victory! Here is the main grain of this miracle!
  • Revolver
    Revolver 6 July 2013 09: 35 New
    15
    That's right - and in some places shitty welding, rough machining, and trucks were torn, and transmissions were strewed. But most importantly, they reached Berlin.
    Again, in 1942, production was only being debugged. Model 1944 tanks broke down much less frequently, while carrying more armor and a heavier turret.
    Yes, by the way, the Panthers, with their vaunted German quality, when they first began to produce them in 1943, were more out of order due to breakdowns than as a result of hostilities - at times.
    1. Yegorchik
      Yegorchik 6 July 2013 10: 04 New
      +3
      The quality of the weld was very different on different machines of even one batch, so just amers didn’t get a good option. Here's the order: summer 41.
      1. svp67
        svp67 6 July 2013 12: 47 New
        -1
        Quote: Egorchik
        The quality of the weld was very different on different machines, even of one batch, so just amers didn’t get a good option
        It is worth remembering that the tanks for sending to the Americans were SPECIALLY selected and assembled as part of a small batch, from which the units for sending were then specifically selected ... So, we can draw a not very comforting conclusion that the quality of the bulk of our tanks was even lower ...
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 7 July 2013 09: 17 New
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          tanks for shipment to the Americans were SPECIALLY selected and assembled as part of a small batch, from which units for shipment were then specifically selected ...

          Hmm, you can interpret in different ways.
          The whole question is what selection criterion was applied!
          And yet, at that time the USSR was interested in the supply of any equipment and it was not easy to demonstrate its perfection.
      2. shpuntik
        shpuntik 6 July 2013 21: 26 New
        +2
        Yegorchik Today, 10:04 ↑
        The quality of the weld was very different on different machines of even one batch, so just amers didn’t get a good option.

        Igor, here’s photo rating, is not unique ...
        The quality of the seam, at the core, is "breach", the absence of voids, etc. It is determined by fluoroscopy, ultrasound usually. On the outside of the seam you can see the experience of the welder, as he evenly, according to the "science" puts the seam.
        What I see in the picture: it's just not a cleaned seam, multi-layered, reinforced; poor quality cannot be judged.
        Example: according to our standards, the seams on the ships were not cleaned, the scale got off and that was it. Well, if of course the “snot” hangs, which you can get hurt, hooks, then of course it was removed with a grinder. The Entente has its own standards, they demanded that our shipbuilders clean all seams with a milling cutter. Well, and this is an additional laboriousness
    2. Yegorchik
      Yegorchik 6 July 2013 10: 08 New
      +4
      And this is the summer of 45 years.
    3. Yegorchik
      Yegorchik 6 July 2013 10: 10 New
      +2
      Summer 43 years.
  • cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 6 July 2013 09: 49 New
    +4
    The T-34 was constantly being improved, by the end of the war it was different as the T-72 was different from the T-90, it became more reliable and more powerful, heavier and faster, the dry transmission was replaced with a liquid one, which increased its engine life, the engine was boosted, the engine was delivered a new turret and a cannon, observation instruments were improved, and much more, but this was already in the year 44, and at 42 the tank was really not very good.
    1. Tersky
      Tersky 6 July 2013 13: 42 New
      +6
      Quote: cth; fyn
      The T-34 was constantly improving, by the end of the war it was different just like the T-72 was different from the T-90,

      Colleague, hi ! I’ll add that it’s still not complete on the topic of the article: General Ilyichev made conclusions from the report of his assistant: in the 1943, the T-34 model was improved and equipped with a new 85 mm caliber gun. This was not the only improvement: the air filters, gearbox, armor and tower, which became much more spacious, were modernized.
      After that, the T-34 became one of the best tanks of the Second World War. Only the German Panther model was, according to foreign experts, (well, they’re Western wink ), even better. The T-34 was more powerful than the German Tiger, more armor-piercing than the American Sherman and faster than the British Churchill. Many tanks of the T-34-85 type took part in hostilities in the Balkans half a century after the end of World War II. It is said that several dozen cars still remain in good condition - in North Korea.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 6 July 2013 14: 41 New
        -1
        85 appeared in the 44th year already. At 43 was the T-34-76.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 6 July 2013 15: 08 New
          0
          In 43, in my opinion, a nut-shaped tower was started to be installed.
          1. svp67
            svp67 6 July 2013 15: 34 New
            +3
            Quote: cth; fyn
            In 43, in my opinion, a nut-shaped tower was started to be installed.
            Already in the 42, the "nut" was installed on the tanks, which could immediately determine where the tanks came from the Urals (with the "nut") or from the Volga (with the "pie")
      2. Revolver
        Revolver 6 July 2013 21: 04 New
        +3
        Quote: Tersky
        Only the German model of Panther was, according to foreign experts, (well, that’s why they are Western), even better.

        One on one, on a flat hard terrain - yes. On a plowed field, wet with rains, you still need to see the mobility and patency of the T-34 were better, and tanks rarely fought on asphalt.
        But the main thing is that while the Germans collected 1 Panther, the Urals produced 6 T-34s (if I’m not mistaken, I could forget it, or maybe the comparison went over the Tigers). Comparison by man-hours. And the six of T-34s and Panther, and the Tiger will be buried with a guarantee, even if they lose half of them.
      3. rolik
        rolik 7 July 2013 02: 07 New
        +3
        Quote: Tersky
        . It is said that several dozen cars still remain in good condition - in North Korea.

        And here, by the way, comments, the Americans on the war of North Korea against the South.
        The first shocking news of the invasion of South Korea reported the terrible defeat inflicted by such Reds. To the Americans, who remember the glory of Patton’s triumphant tank attacks through France and Germany, this seems incredible. Then came reports that the missiles of our obsolete bazookas bounced off the attacking tanks, like ordinary bullets. It soon became clear that the North Koreans were equipped with fast, durable Russian T-34s, weapons that should force the United States to look for new ways to counter enemy armored vehicles.
        The truth is that we were taken by surprise. Five years of reasoning in a peacetime economy led to the fact that in the United States new improved tanks exist only on paper and in trials. And in the Far East there is not a single worthy tank to throw it in a sudden and decisive battle. Will the American military adviser, who said that the tanks are not suitable there, be able to explain his mistake or not, and the United States now has to fight more powerful enemy tanks.
        What can we answer? At the Aberdeen training ground, Maryland, last week, a photographer and a LIFE reporter saw the T-34 (see photo), surpassing the American tanks Pershing and Sherman, which are now sending to our retreating and enemy-pursued divisions in Korea. The Russian army, learned the lessons of the Second World War and has a huge army armed with a T-34 and a heavy tank Joseph Stalin III. And we console ourselves with the fact that we were able to send only a few improved M-46 Pattons to the west, while other experimental models of tanks did not even reach the production stage.

        Last week, an American T-34 driver in Aberdeen wiped his face and said: "This little Russian model will not wait for anyone." Our fighters in Korea, who also know this, are looking forward to the arrival of the Pattons, or some of the projects we have.
        1. dustycat
          dustycat 7 July 2013 13: 28 New
          +1
          Good picture.
          Without it, it is not clear why the "little Russian model".
          What a plain T34ka it is.
          And what is spectacular on pedestals.
  • MAG
    MAG 6 July 2013 10: 09 New
    +3
    This article was already on military review about 2 years ago and then it was deployed.
  • Dr.Serg
    Dr.Serg 6 July 2013 10: 10 New
    10
    One thing is interesting to me ... but with what did they compare the T34? With the "high speed" Matilda? The perfect Churchill? Or the “miracle” of technology M3 Grant aka Lee who was age and class peer t34 ?? M4 production has just been unfolding ... but about the comparison of KV, the question is ... what they had there heavy ??
  • GEO
    GEO 6 July 2013 10: 25 New
    11
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: duke
    most likely old men, women and teenagers worked there, unlike American factories, where there was no such force majeure

    And in American factories, women stood up to the machines while their husbands and brothers freed Europe, Africa and the Far East.

    and how many of those husbands and brothers fought?
    Goleted advertising.
    1. Professor
      Professor 6 July 2013 10: 49 New
      -10
      Quote: GEO
      and how many of those husbands and brothers fought ?.

      Approximately 16 million men and women served in the US Military during WW 2.
      11 million. Out of them, 7 million were sent to the army. 671,485 US Soldiers were wounded and 450,670 US soldiers died.
      TOTAL NUMBER IN UNITED STATES FORCES DURING WW2
      ARMY: 8,300,000
      NAVY: 4,204,662
      MARINES: 599,693
      GRAND TOTAL: 13,104,355
      TOTAL US CASUALTIES:
      ARMY:
      KILLED IN ACTION: 223,215
      WOUNDED: 571,679
      MISSING: 12,752
      TOTAL ARMY CASULITES: 807,646
      NAVY:
      KILLED IN ACTION: 34,702
      DIED OF WOUNDS: 1,783
      OTHER DEATHS: 26,793
      TOTAL NAVY DEATHS: 63,278
      WOUNDED: 33,670
      MISSING: 28
      TOTAL NAVY CASUALTIES: 96,976
      MARINES
      KILLED IN ACTION: 15,460
      DIED OF WOUNDS: 3,163
      OTHER DEATHS: 5,863
      TOTAL MARINE DEATHS: 24,486
      WOUNDED: 67,134
      TOTAL MARINE CAUALTIES: 91,620
      GRAND TOTAL KILLED IN ACTION IN ARMY, NAVY, MARINES 273,377
      DIED OF WOUNDS LATER: 4,946
      OTHER DEATHS: 32,656
      TOTAL DEATHS: 310,979
      MISSING: 12,780
      WOUNDED: 672,483
      GRAND TOTAL CASUALTIES IN ARMY, NAVY, MARINES: 996,242
      (AIR FORCES ARE INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE BRANCHES. US COAST Guard HAD 172,952 MEN ENGAGED, 1,917 DEATHS OF WHICH 572 WERE KILLED IN ACTION.)
      THIS DATA IS FROM MY ALL TIME FAVORITE BOOK "THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF WWII" ARMED SERVICES MEMORIAL EDITION, CO. 1945 1948

      Quote: Fin
      When we bleed the allies were not in a hurry. Yes, they helped, there are no questions, but there is no need to exaggerate.
      I can’t find anything about 600 thousand losses anywhere, everywhere they write 400 thousand FOR 2 MV.
      I always read your posts with interest, but here somehow I haven’t woken up.

      You are right, I recalled the number of wounded 600000 instead of those who died, but 405,399 American soldiers (416,800 including 9500 sailors of the transport fleet) and 5600 American citizens (according to other 450,670 data) died. Are the Americans in a hurry? They fought since December of the 1941 year.

      Yes, the ridge was also broken in Africa where the Nazis held not small forces that could otherwise send to the Eastern Front.
      1. ed65b
        ed65b 6 July 2013 11: 22 New
        13
        Professor don’t mock us. We know who won the war. We know who liberated Europe, who took Berlin. Just a toad strangling you.
        1. Professor
          Professor 6 July 2013 11: 25 New
          -19
          Quote: ed65b
          Professor don’t mock us. We know who won the war. We know who liberated Europe, who took Berlin. Just a toad strangling you.

          The anti-Hitler coalition won the war, it also liberated Europe from fascism, Soviet troops took Berlin.
          1. feanor
            feanor 6 July 2013 11: 46 New
            16
            Quote: Professor
            The anti-Hitler coalition won the war, it also liberated Europe from fascism, Soviet troops took Berlin.

            It's really painful for me to read how the anti-Hitler coalition liberated Europe ... The contribution of the USSR to the victory was much greater than all the allies put together and for me it was like we were sitting on a bull, we plowed.
            1. Professor
              Professor 6 July 2013 12: 07 New
              -16
              Quote: feanor
              It's really painful for me to read how the anti-Hitler coalition liberated Europe ... The contribution of the USSR to the victory was much greater than all the allies put together and for me it was like we were sitting on a bull, we plowed.

              That is why the bull in Tehran met with their flies, tearfully asking them to harness actively ...
              1. Fin
                Fin 6 July 2013 12: 25 New
                11
                Quote: Professor
                That is why the bull in Tehran met with their flies, tearfully asking them to harness actively ...

                Did you see his tears?
                Or should he say do not worry, will I manage myself? But what about the coalition, of the great significance of which you are telling everyone?

                Quote: Professor
                At the end of 1939, a repair base for German ships was founded near Murmansk, in the spring of 1940, its ships participated in the aggression against Norway. The base actually operated before the start of the war between Germany and the USSR.

                Is this possible in more detail? I want to get acquainted.
                1. andsavichev2012
                  andsavichev2012 6 July 2013 12: 35 New
                  0
                  Because of the "AST" series "Unknown Wars", "," war in the Arctic ", 2010 or 11. There is about it.
                  The base was emergency, then converted into a weather station. In the summer of 42nd ours found her and reset her. And the Germans built it quietly, during mapping, commissioned by owls. pr-va, north coast
                  1. Cynic
                    Cynic 7 July 2013 09: 26 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Professor
                    The history of cooperation between the USSR and the Third Reich in 1939-1940, or what the authors of the "certificate" of the Russian Foreign Ministry did not mention

                    About the phrase
                    I brought you peace
                    recall and how it all ended for Europe too?
                  2. dustycat
                    dustycat 7 July 2013 14: 15 New
                    +2
                    You would better talk about the cooperation of American corporations with German companies from 1930 to 1845.
                    And guess why there were no shuttle raids on some factories of fascist Germany. And better talk about it.
                    Who, for example, supplied gunpowder to Germany.
                    Chrome, nickel from South Africa and South America.

                    It was a very strange war.
                    There were very strange 10 years before her., 1418 days of war, and another strange 140 days.
                    1. Rider
                      Rider 7 July 2013 15: 35 New
                      +1
                      Quote: dustycat
                      And guess why there were no shuttle raids on some factories of fascist Germany.


                      I recently came across

                      On September 5, a prominent leader of the Conservative Party Leopold Emery, the former first lord of the Admiralty, made a similar proposal (to bomb the German FORESTS). Struck by the legal illiteracy of his party member, Sir Kingsley indignantly declared: “What you are, this is impossible, THIS IS THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. You still ask me to bomb the Ruhr »294 {}

                      Well, and here it is:Attempts to push the Allied aircraft to real hostilities were vigilantly suppressed. Chamberlain’s government minister of aviation was Sir Kingsley Wood, a lawyer by training, formulating the following three principles for using the British Air Force:

                      1. Intentional bombing of civilians is excluded.

                      2. Aviation attacks only military targets.

                      3. At the same time, pilots must be careful to avoid bombing any cluster of civilians {291}.


                      taken - I. Pykhalov Great slandered war
                      (in parentheses are references to the source of documents)

                      Let me remind you that this happens during the German invasion of Poland.
                      when both England and France ALREADY DECLARED THE WAR OF GERMANY.

                      delivers their applications for the use of bomber aircraft.
                      especially when compared with their tactics in 44-45gg.
                    2. Pimply
                      Pimply 7 July 2013 17: 03 New
                      0
                      Let us recall the cooperation of the USSR with the Third Reich. American corporations collaborated on a private level (and from a certain point they were persecuted for such cooperation), while the USSR collaborated on a state basis.
                      1. Raven1972
                        Raven1972 7 July 2013 18: 06 New
                        +1
                        Eugene, this is what touches me the most:
                        Quote: Pimply
                        Let us recall the cooperation of the USSR with the Third Reich

                        And let's remember that such agreements were with the 3rd Reich and the Nagulia and France and the United States? And a reasonable question arises - why can they, and we can not? Can you explain to me? In addition, we did not fight with Germany until 41 g, so what is the reason for us to violate the agreement, i.e. if the Germans did not violate them?
                        Further, all of your impudent Saxons and Gauls first leaked quietly to Adolf Aloizievich ALL Europe, thereby pushing me to the war with the USSR, and I have to value and respect them for something? All of their Lend-Lease is just a way to cash in on the war - such as help in a war that they themselves unleashed ... For me, so LITTLE they got from Hitler on the head for their tricks am
                      2. Pimply
                        Pimply 7 July 2013 18: 41 New
                        -4
                        There were. And I remember them very well. Dear, I don’t need to arrange a kindergarten here and justify cooperation with the Nazis. All who collaborated with them - one way or another then they paid their price a hundredfold. I mean, in politics, there are no clean hands, and trying to dirty others, you must first look at yourself.
                      3. Cynic
                        Cynic 7 July 2013 19: 01 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Pimply
                        you must first look at yourself.

                        Should we be afraid of our past, has it been sold and sold with great success and will be sold for a long time?
                        We strive for tolerance!
                        And no bloody boys in the eyes!
                        How long ?
                      4. Pimply
                        Pimply 7 July 2013 20: 12 New
                        -1
                        You? To tolerance? Do not make me laugh.
                    3. Raven1972
                      Raven1972 7 July 2013 19: 02 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Pimply
                      I mean, in politics, there are no clean hands, and trying to dirty others, you must first look at yourself.

                      So let them look at YOURSELF before nodding in our direction ...
                    4. Pimply
                      Pimply 7 July 2013 20: 32 New
                      -4
                      Tell me, who is there nodding? The article deals with a simple analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the T-34 tank at a certain point in history in the United States? Pros, cons - the usual technical assessment. Instead, we get a wave of cries of cheers, hysteria about the fact that the USSR itself would have overwhelmed everyone, some kind of nonsense about the fact that the Allies generally traded with the Germans and almost fought on their side in the war. You will not say what kind of nonsense?
                    5. Cynic
                      Cynic 7 July 2013 20: 49 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Pimply
                      what nonsense?

                      At least about I.G. FARBENINDUSTRI (Interressengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG) read, very useful.
                      Everyone knows about the Cyclone-B developer, less mustard about the authors, and nobody wants to know that it was a multinational corporation!
                    6. Pimply
                      Pimply 7 July 2013 21: 21 New
                      -1
                      I know. And how many international corporations participated in this. And how many companies in the West earned from this. And I also remember about collaborators in different countries. I just don’t understand what it has to do with it. I’m just trying to convey the idea that the story already exists, it has taken place, and that it is necessary to evaluate it without shouting "ah! We would have taken everyone here!" The first couple of years of the Second World War show that no.
                    7. Cynic
                      Cynic 7 July 2013 21: 31 New
                      0
                      Quote: Pimply
                      I know

                      Excuse me, but are you several or what?
                      Before that it is said by you (?)
                      Quote: Pimply
                      some nonsense about the fact that the Allies generally traded with the Germans and almost fought on their side in the war. You will not say what kind of nonsense?

                      request
                    8. Pimply
                      Pimply 7 July 2013 22: 39 New
                      0
                      Galimatia. Because it was not the allies, who were trading at the official level, they had been in the war with Germany since the 39th year. Traded individual concerns. There was no state cooperation. Is the difference clear?
                      You can’t say that the whole Soviet people were a traitor because there was an army of Vlasov and bastards who went to the police
                    9. Cynic
                      Cynic 9 July 2013 18: 21 New
                      0
                      Quote: Pimply
                      Traded individual concerns. There was no state cooperation. Is the difference clear?

                      You forgot to mention _ among themselves, III Reich did not nationalize the means of production.
                      Yes, and traded rather through third countries.
                      Only here to argue that the state has nothing to do with, at least myopic.
                      Traded not seeds, traded strategic materials and the state did not know this?
                      At one time, there was information about the Wehrmacht using the English license for the manufacture of fuses, with a deduction for every one made!
                      Yusovtsy on their flying fortresses set Zeiss sights! They did not suit theirs.
                      This is just a business, nothing personal!
  • Rider
    Rider 7 July 2013 15: 07 New
    +2

    The history of cooperation between the USSR and the Third Reich in 1939-1940


    Well, vaabcheto, the source you provided is very biased, and biased.

    he interprets known events from only one side.

    and I recall in 39-40gg, the USSR and Germany were on friendly terms, and it’s stupid to blame the USSR for having EXTENDED half of Europe.
    since having concluded an alliance with Germany, the USSR returned to itself only that which had belonged to the Russian empire.
    excluding bukovina (seems)

    and the squeal of the Baltic states, which were last independent during the time of the king of peas, is not the best evidence of the "aggressiveness" of the USSR
    1. alex86
      alex86 7 July 2013 21: 53 New
      -4
      Quote: Rider
      Having entered into an alliance with Germany, the USSR returned to itself only that which belonged to the Russian empire before.

      Having entered into an alliance with Germany, the USSR demonstrated the socio-political affinity of the regimes and, unfortunately, formally was among the countries that began the Second World War, which, as you know, turned into the Great Patriotic War a little later ...
      1. Rider
        Rider 7 July 2013 22: 05 New
        +2
        Quote: alex86
        having entered into an alliance with Germany, the USSR


        Well, in principle, I agree.

        Quote: alex86
        and unfortunately FORMALLY turned out to be among the countries that started the Second World War,


        That's exactly FORMAL.
        because a calm and unbiased analysis clearly says that we simply returned our.
        but every ... throat is pulling, about an AGGRESSIVE USSR.
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 7 July 2013 22: 42 New
        -1
        What does it mean - returned yours? First recognition of independence, then armed return? Do not try to replace concepts. The USSR was an aggressive country. Like the Russian Empire. And this is normal for a state, especially a large one. The ideology of the state may like or dislike, b