Military Review

How did the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company deprive the people of Russia of their choice or Who became the best commander in the history of Russia

135
The “Name of Victory” competition, held under the auspices of the Russian Military Historical Society and the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, ended on May 9 of the year 2014.


How did the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company deprive the people of Russia of their choice or Who became the best commander in the history of Russia


The six names of the leaders in descending order: Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov, Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov, Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov, Konstantin Konstantinovich Rokossovsky, Fedor Fedorovich Ushakov.



On the same day, the results of the alternative contest “Real Name of Victory”, organized by the Nizhny Novgorod branch of the Party of the Great Patriotic Party and the Nizhny Novgorod branch of the Essence of Time All-Russian Movement, were summed up without any support, except for the people.

The six leaders in descending order: Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov, Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov, Konstantin Konstantinovich Rokossovsky, Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov, Peter I the Great. Fedor Fedorovich Ushakov also entered the top ten great generals.



We think everything is clear without words. The match is almost 100%. With one exception - in a truly popular vote “Real Name of Victory”, our compatriots had the opportunity to vote for all nominees whose personality scale and services to the Fatherland are a priori non-negotiable.

As noted by the Air Defense, according to the Rules of the contest “Name of Victory”, published on the site www.nameofvictory.ru, the first round was attended by 100 personalities of prominent Russian military leaders, selected by a special expert commission based on the results of preliminary voting on the site of the Russian Military Historical Society http: //100.histrf.ru/.



Going to the site in the section "HELPERS" http://100.histrf.ru/commanders/, you will find a list of selected candidates, formed by leading historians. Let's count the great commanders. They are represented on the site 103. However, the text that precedes the list states that they are exactly 100. And on the VGTRK website, indeed, only 100 personnel are allowed to vote. In a miraculous way, it was I.V. who disappeared from the national list. Stalin, Peter the Great and Alexander I the Blessed.



Air Defense has repeatedly drawn public attention to the fact that the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company refused to include candidates nominated by the people in the list of applicants for the Name of Victory. But among the applicants were:

Nestor Makhno - the leader of a gang of rapists and gangsters;

Lev Trotsky (aka Bronstein) - an agent of foreign influence who organized the October coup for the Anglo-Saxons' money; bloody executioner of the Russian people;

Emelyan Pugachev - an impostor, the leader of the popular revolt.

Air Defense and the Essence of Time did not invent anything. We simply added to the list of candidates submitted by the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company those whom all liberals and organizers of the “Name of Victory” farce are so afraid of. We have tried to correct the glory of injustice to the best of our abilities. And included in the number of nominees for the Victory of those whose contribution to history countries a priori can not be challenged. Red Army Commander Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, who defeated Hitler’s army and saved the whole world from fascism. Emperor Peter I the Great, who defeated the Swedes and created the Russian Empire.

Results are known. Looking at the numbers, it is not difficult to conclude: if all the names that passed the qualifying round were included in the list of great commanders, there would be no discrepancy in the choice of participants in multimedia projects.

In principle, members and supporters of air defense do not believe that patriotism can be measured by a large number of “likes” or any other activity on the Internet. But we believe that any organizer of the competition is obliged to give participants the freedom to choose. And it was this choice that we gave to our citizens during the voting on the site “Real Name of Victory” as opposed to the organizers of the federal project “Name of Victory”.

We showed that our vote was objective. This is confirmed by the results comparable to the distribution of seats according to the results of the federal project. On the site, created by air defense and the essence of time, voted, almost, 600 000 people. And, unlike the federal project, in which the attendance counter is hidden by a password, we have opened attendance statistics. It is impossible to accuse us of winding up the voices. It was a true popular choice.

It was not just the choice of Stalin, whose name sounds so menacingly for the “fifth column”, that his portraits are forbidden to be carried in columns as part of the “Immortal Regiment” action and in every possible way try to untie his name from victorious May 1945 of the year.

It was a choice of historical justice and continuity of generations.

It was the choice of our great history, which is mercilessly misinterpreted and try to wipe out the heroic pages and the names of real heroes from the pages of textbooks.

This is the choice of those who are ready to fight in the information war for Russia.

This is the choice of those who will not share the Victory. Because she is one for all. And we will not stand for the price.
Author:
Originator:
http://nstarikov.ru/blog/40029
135 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. DanSabaka
    DanSabaka 23 May 2014 17: 31
    +36
    Stalin was wasted from the list in vain .... He, 20 years before the start of the war, began to prepare the country for it ... And he prepared .... And the beetles and Rokosovsky fought under his leadership ....
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. FREGATENKAPITAN
      FREGATENKAPITAN 23 May 2014 17: 40
      -8
      Stalin can be a winner in the Name of Victory !, But certainly not a commander! agree these are different things!
      1. Mareman Vasilich
        Mareman Vasilich 23 May 2014 17: 49
        +36
        Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
        But certainly not a commander!

        Yah? What are you saying? Read a little means. Why is Stalingrad called Stalingrad? Take a closer look at the activities of Joseph Vissarionovich during the Civil War and during World War II, and you will learn a lot of interesting things.
        1. vladimirZ
          vladimirZ 23 May 2014 19: 08
          +35
          Recently I read the answer of Marshal of the Soviet Union Vasily Danilovich Sokolovsky, the invariable chief of staff of the fronts, commanded by Marshal Zhukov G.K., about Zhukov G.K., and whose words can be trusted as a person who knew Marshal Zhukov well.
          The answer to the question of what kind of Zhukov GK was, he replied, "as a MAN Zhukov was NO". He had no friends, he built relationships with everyone according to the principle: "I am the boss, YOU are a subordinate", with all the "sympathies" that follow from this.
          Poked to everyone. The character was quick-tempered, aggressive, constantly raising his voice, often inflicting insult on his subordinates.
          Zhukov G.K. he was ambitious, demanded a special attitude, even from people who disobeyed him.
          For example, he reacted painfully to the mandatory requirements for admission to the Kremlin to I.V. Stalin, where the sentries constantly demanded from him a pass certified by all seals, and when he did not have a permanently supplemented seal on his pass, he reacted violently, demanded special treatment , because he is Zhukov. He did not calm down until he had achieved a "special" attitude towards him from Stalin's assistant, and the sentries began to "see" THAT IT IS Zhukov and formally let him into the Kremlin, after which Zhukov said with passion that "I" still got them from THEM (chiefs protection of the Kremlin), treats me as it is. The phrase is inaccurate, but the meaning is the same.
          NAME OF VICTORY FOR ALL TIMES GENERALISSIMUS Stalin Joseph Vissarionovich.
          1. mikki1701
            mikki1701 23 May 2014 23: 52
            +8
            I completely agree with Vladimir. EACH JACKAL TARGETS TO KEEP DEAD LION. A. I.V. Stalin is just the leader whom to fear after death.
          2. Igool
            Igool 24 May 2014 01: 26
            +15
            "TV and r. Maize" was famous for its cunning and resourcefulness and, making its way to power, found the best way to denigrate everything that people lived before him - demonization of the previous government.
          3. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 24 May 2014 06: 24
            0
            Quote: vladimirZ
            Zhukov G.K. he was ambitious, demanded a special attitude, even from people who disobeyed him.
            For example, he painfully reacted to the mandatory requirements for admission to the Kremlin to Stalin I.V.

            Doesn’t it bother you that the people themselves called Zhukov the Marshal of Victory?
            1. alleksSalut4507
              alleksSalut4507 24 May 2014 15: 14
              -1
              and who sent him to the matter. and said how to be there? and Zhukov was cruel. only straight feather. hollowed by the people. rigidity is needed in an extreme situation, but the soldiers spoke lovingly about KK Rokossovsky, who fought not only in numbers.
          4. Very old
            Very old 24 May 2014 11: 12
            +1
            Someone will agree, someone not

            But I was very surprised at Lailand No. 1 hail - is he here from what side?
            Pushkin is our EVERYTHING ... under Austerlitz he was trembling ... etc.
          5. Mareman Vasilich
            Mareman Vasilich 26 May 2014 17: 12
            +1
            There are no identical people, Stalin, by the way, was unpleasant if one of the speakers could not formulate the purpose and meaning of the report briefly. But not everyone had this skill, despite the fact that in the Stalin Soviet Union there were fewer fools in power than at other times. Do not touch Zhukov. He has done so much for the country that he deserves good memory.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. FREGATENKAPITAN
          FREGATENKAPITAN 23 May 2014 21: 20
          +4
          Believe me, he defended his term paper at one time, and just about Tsaritsyn’s defense ...... about all the artillery in more than one direction, etc. ..... only the role of Stalin there is clearly exaggerated (I’ll make a reservation that the role of Stalin I have a positive attitude in Victory) ............... And about the names ... Do you know how many cities bore the name of Stalin? .. By the way, Donetsk was Stalin, Dushanbe-Stalinabad, Tskhinval-Staliniri .. .and many others who had no direct relation to it, I will not say anything about the engine and the IS tank .... wink
          1. O_RUS
            O_RUS 24 May 2014 00: 07
            -2
            Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
            Believe me, at one time, I defended my term paper, and it’s just about Tsaritsyn’s defense .....


            Sorry ... Do you remember the year you passed the course and last name of the teacher?
          2. alleksSalut4507
            alleksSalut4507 24 May 2014 15: 19
            0
            there is something to remember: electrification, industrialization, Victory ...
      2. Nitarius
        Nitarius 23 May 2014 18: 01
        -6
        I do not agree! Dear - LEARN HISTORY TO START!
        1. dmitrij.blyuz
          dmitrij.blyuz 24 May 2014 06: 18
          0
          Uh, guys! You don’t need to teach history. You need to know and understand it. You can teach and memorize reduction formulas, physics, techmeh, and compromising materials. But history isn’t.
      3. DanSabaka
        DanSabaka 23 May 2014 18: 03
        +20
        And did he just hold the position of the CHIEF COMMANDER? Was it not his strategic plans that laid the foundation for the development of the country before the war, and for the development of most operations during the Second World War?
        1. Interface
          Interface 23 May 2014 18: 53
          +21
          The operations were developed by the General Staff during the years of World War II, and Stalin, relying on his own military knowledge, discussed them with the highest generals and accepted, made proposals, BUT! If his proposal did not suit, in fact, the military leaders, then he agreed with them.
          Stalin is an outstanding geostrategist and administrator. But he was not a military man.

          As the military was not Dmitry Ustinov, Minister of Defense of the USSR in 1976-84gg.
          He was the Minister of Armaments of the USSR, but he was able to delve into every issue related to the army. As a result, we are still dragging on the development of his time: T72, S300, "Perimert", "Satan", "Thor", cruisers of project 1144 (Peter the Great, etc.), 1164, aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov"
          You can list for a long time.

          So you don’t need to be a military man from brain to bones in order to competently lead the army.
          1. DanSabaka
            DanSabaka 23 May 2014 18: 58
            +2
            about that and speech.
          2. Interface
            Interface 23 May 2014 19: 11
            +6
            I look here some user stubbornly does not want to see historical data.
            As soon as something is wrong with Stalin-- let's manic minus one.

            PS. I do not in any way infringe on the authority of Stalin as an outstanding leader, as a person who created a system from scratch on unique political and economic foundations.
            I just want to read carefully, delve into, and if you disagree, they dispute and lead the discussion.
            And they did not spoil the rating from anonymous accounts, simply because they read unusual information.
            1. O_RUS
              O_RUS 24 May 2014 22: 32
              0
              Quote: Interface
              I just want to read carefully, delve into, and if you disagree, they dispute and lead the discussion.


              Megalomania does not allow him to conduct a discussion. And the dialogue that did take place is reduced to the fact that the one who has more rights or "shoulder straps" is right.
          3. S_mirnov
            S_mirnov 23 May 2014 21: 37
            +8
            Quote: Interface
            Stalin is an outstanding geostrategist and administrator. But he was not a military man.

            Rather, he was not a commander in the pre-war period. He paid all attention to the economy and the development of the economy. But with the outbreak of war he had to become a commander. For the professional military, in fact, were not at all professional.
            This is described in great detail and lucidly in the book by Yu. Mukhin "Fathers of the Commanders". I advise!
            1. avia1991
              avia1991 24 May 2014 02: 47
              +1
              Quote: S_mirnov
              This is very detailed and readily written in the book by Yu. Mukhin "Fathers of the Commanders"

              And what is the author noted outstandingly so that his statements can be trusted?
              I heard enough memories of eyewitnesses even in the USSR! Fascist tanks were almost overturned with bare hands! The trunks were chopped off with a sapper blade at the antiaircraft guns! ..And once grandfather Alexei, a friend of my grandmother's second husband, during the next such "battles" called me to him, and quietly in his ear: "Don't listen to them, granddaughter! After all, they weren't even at the front. The wagon train is mostly. AT WAR, IF HONESTY, IT'S VERY SCARY. You better not know about it .. "For some reason, I immediately believed him then. He never flaunted heroic deeds, but the Order of Soldier's Glory and two Red Stars told me a lot when I was already grown up. Unfortunately, such people did not like to remember the war, and therefore we do not always know it objectively, in particular, thanks to such "researchers". WANT TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH? GO TO THE ARCHIVES AND STUDY THE DOCUMENTS! They are usually real.
          4. understudy
            understudy 24 May 2014 02: 34
            +1
            Quote: Interface
            you don’t need to be a soldier from brain to bone in order to correctly lead an army

            Judging by the latest examples, sowing maxim is far from viable. You can not have a classical military education, but be Marshal Ustinov. And you can be Serdyukov, but the minister.
        2. Jurkovs
          Jurkovs 23 May 2014 19: 19
          -7
          Why are we doing this? Either an absolutely bad person or an absolutely good person. Stalin had a lot of mistakes and do not forget them. So he demanded to take Kiev by November 7, and they took it, while losing the extra 200 thousand people. And according to the plan of the General Staff, Kiev was to be released two weeks later as a result of a tank breakthrough to the north and the Germans flee from Kiev due to the threat of encirclement. And I had to take it in the forehead.
          1. Interface
            Interface 23 May 2014 19: 26
            +21
            1. He did not demand to take Kiev to November 7, this is a rotten liberal myth. Vatutin generally sent most of the troops to the west, although he could take Kiev long before the holiday.
            2. We cannot rehabilitate Stalin today (as I would like personally), because now it is not the USSR, but the Russian Federation, Stalin was building a socialist country that has nothing to do with modern capitalist Russia. His approaches from the market point of view are considered by all sorts of curls as "irrational".

            In addition, the Russian Federation was originally created by Yeltsin as an anti-Soviet project, since the then elite professed neoliberalism. That's why anti-Stalinist hysteria in 90.
          2. Ragoz
            Ragoz 24 May 2014 02: 08
            0
            Jurkovs-This Khrushchev’s bogeyman gave the order hoping to become famous, but didn’t take any action to strengthen the assault group — TRADER and KILLER of Soviet soldiers am
          3. Ragoz
            Ragoz 24 May 2014 02: 08
            +1
            Jurkovs-This Khrushchev’s bogeyman gave the order hoping to become famous, but didn’t take any action to strengthen the assault group — TRADER and KILLER of Soviet soldiers am
          4. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 24 May 2014 06: 27
            +2
            Quote: Jurkovs
            Why are we doing this? Either an absolutely bad person or an absolutely good person.

            History was written by our grandfathers, and now pimple youngsters are rewriting, who utterly claim what and how it was then.
        3. FREGATENKAPITAN
          FREGATENKAPITAN 23 May 2014 21: 26
          -3
          Strategic plans were developed by the General Staff .......... Guys, let's not rush to extremes
          1. tenere1200
            tenere1200 23 May 2014 21: 57
            +5
            Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
            Strategic plans were developed by the General Staff .......... Guys, let's not rush to extremes

            And the last word was always for Stalin. It was a war that did not know such a scale. And to judge this great commander is not given to anyone. Firstly, the winners are not judged, and secondly, I’m not going to see a figure, at least
            equal to this truly great man ...
            1. avia1991
              avia1991 24 May 2014 02: 59
              0
              Quote: tenere1200
              and secondly, I’m not going to see a figure, at least
              equal to this truly great man ...

              This is childishness. Rummage through history .. You can start with V.I. Lenin, without whose activity Stalin would not have appeared.
          2. Interface
            Interface 23 May 2014 22: 32
            +3
            What are the extremes?
            The General Staff for this exists.
            1. avia1991
              avia1991 24 May 2014 02: 56
              +1
              Quote: Interface
              What are the extremes?

              Reckless chanting and reckless accusation. He himself wrote more than once: for some reason no one wants to admit that Stalin is a man with all the consequences! With its advantages and disadvantages, victories and defeats, successes and mistakes (sometimes, by the way, fatal). Nobody says that his role in history is insignificant! This is an outstanding historical figure, the head of state who defeated fascism, created the atomic bomb, etc.! Do not artificially whitewash him - he just does not need it! And such attempts cause quite a natural protest among people who may have innocently suffered loved ones. By the way, there are many ..
          3. mikki1701
            mikki1701 23 May 2014 23: 56
            +2
            Exactly the General Staff, and the decision is final and irrevocably SUPREME I.V. Stalin
          4. Thompson
            Thompson 24 May 2014 01: 24
            +3
            Strategic plans were developed not by Suvorov and not Kutuzov like everyone else. Everyone had a general staff, only the name at different times was different. Therefore, I consider the disputes on the topic of the Stalin General Staff pointless. hi
            But Stalin is really still afraid!
          5. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 24 May 2014 06: 29
            +3
            Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
            Strategic plans were developed by the General Staff .......... Guys, let's not rush to extremes

            It is useless to call to the mind those who consider themselves to be more right than anyone else in the world. The Maidan of Kiev reminds me of the comments in the article. People don’t think with brains, the minuses are molded and the comments are stupid.
        4. Revolver
          Revolver 23 May 2014 22: 23
          +4
          Quote: DanSabaka
          And did he just hold the position of the CHIEF COMMANDER? Was it not his strategic plans that laid the foundation for the development of the country before the war, and for the development of most operations during the Second World War?

          It doesn’t matter whether Stalin himself planned and planned the operations, or created the conditions under which the Vasilevsky and Rokossovsky could successfully do this, but he was the Supreme Commander, and that’s it.
        5. alleksSalut4507
          alleksSalut4507 24 May 2014 15: 20
          0
          IVS still weighed out of everything ..
      4. tchack
        tchack 23 May 2014 19: 11
        +14
        Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
        Stalin can be a winner in the Name of Victory !, But certainly not a commander! agree these are different things!


        Another dol * yob. On each site, where he discusses the issue of not including Stalin in the ballot list, there are unique ones with a similar phrase.

        What is compared with what is incomprehensible!
        Suvorov and Stalin are both generalissimo.
        Suvorov commanded armies on a scale of hundreds of thousands of people. Stalin commanded the fronts on the scale of millions of people.

        Show me at least one person who commanded so many people ?!
        1. huut
          huut 23 May 2014 19: 46
          -13%
          Quote: tchack
          Suvorov commanded armies on a scale of hundreds of thousands of people. Stalin commanded the fronts on the scale of millions of people.

          Why aren’t you writing Catherine as a commander? She commanded more people than Suvorov.
          The fact that he led the actions of several fronts does not mean that he led them into battle. And this is exactly what the word commander means. Zhukov drove, Suvorov drove, Stalin - no.
          The question in the meaning of the word "commander" is a commander who is directly at war, and not developing the country's military strategy.
          Stalin strictly does not mean a commander, but if you look broader ... maybe a commander.
          It is necessary to gather a consultation of academicians-philologists in order to establish the truth. Note, not military, but philologists, this is the root)
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. huut
              huut 23 May 2014 21: 40
              +1
              Quote: tchack
              I have no words at all.

              Yes, noticeably, decent ones are already ending. They say deep breathing helps.

              We will speak objectively:

              The commander of Ephraim:
              Commander - A military leader who directs the state’s armed forces or large strategic operations associations.


              General Ozhegov:
              Commander - Military Leader, Military Leader


              Ushakov dictionary general:
              COMMANDER, commander, m. Military leader, leader of the troops. Suvorov was the best commander of his time. Voroshilov - the glorious commander of the victorious Red Army.


              In the first case, Stalin is suitable, but in this case, any defense minister is a commander.

              In the second case, it is rather general taken, without specifics. As suitable, so no.

              In the third - as in the second, but warring commanders are taken as examples.

              Total: the commander is too general a definition that can be interpreted very broadly. It all depends on the personal views of the evaluator.
              I am closer to the definition of a warring senior rank. And Zhukov was much more often present at the front than Stalin, and this is one of the main criteria in defining the term "commander". In my personal understanding of this widely interpreted word)
              1. huut
                huut 23 May 2014 22: 42
                +2
                You can also consider the meaning of the word "commander" as a set of conditions suitable for the meaning.

                Required parameters:
                Must have the highest military rank.
                Must participate in the war (at least at headquarters, at least at the forefront).
                He must lead a very large number of troops.

                Desired parameters:
                Must often be on or near the front line. Directly lead the troops.
                ---

                With this consideration, it turns out that Stalin is a commander, since everything is mandatory points. But Gorbachev is not a commander, for, when he was president and commander-in-chief of the USSR, the country did not wage war.

                For some, the desired item seems to be mandatory, hence the debate. Usually the image of a military commander is not a staff one.
                Can staff officers be considered generals? Mandatory points are met - they can. But attempts to combine the words "staff" and "commander" cause internal protest)

                In the end, Stalin - Commander. This is above the commander)
              2. alleksSalut4507
                alleksSalut4507 24 May 2014 16: 00
                0
                and who sent this there?
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. FREGATENKAPITAN
          FREGATENKAPITAN 23 May 2014 21: 28
          +1
          So ... do not be rude to a young man ... otherwise you can earn a ban ..... bother to defend your point of view without insults! AT YOUR PLACE I would apologize!
        4. FREGATENKAPITAN
          FREGATENKAPITAN 23 May 2014 21: 31
          -1
          More simply, Mao Zedong, Chiang Kai-shek ...... the first was not the Generalissimo by the way, and the second was just though the Communists thrust him ....
        5. The comment was deleted.
        6. sokrat7
          sokrat7 23 May 2014 22: 43
          +3
          Yes, he never commanded anything. He was the Supreme in his status, like today all the presidents of the post-Soviet space. He never developed operations; he never engaged in operations calculations. And it was not his responsibility. The main responsibility lay on him - to make a decision on the proposed options that the military prepared for him. Therefore, to say that he is a commander is not correct.
    3. armageddon
      armageddon 23 May 2014 17: 51
      +1
      Yes ... But still sorry !!!
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Mikros
      Mikros 23 May 2014 17: 56
      -2
      Stalin was a great administrator and politician. In military affairs, alas. But he had real warriors.
      1. pilot8878
        pilot8878 23 May 2014 19: 54
        +12
        That is, in your opinion, JV Stalin should have taken a personal example on the front end to raise an attack? That would be an example ... uh ... bad. A military leader of this rank gradually dispersed from the leadership of the army those who could not cope with the realities of maneuver warfare, creating a new generation of officers who learned to stop the Germans, beat them at the beginning of the war, in adverse conditions. He provided logisticians who managed to establish production in evacuation. He gave his new commanders a LOT of new weapons.
        No, of course, Stalin is not a commander. This is an old man who spent the entire war in Moscow, and what he did there is unclear. Rave? Rave!!!
        1. huut
          huut 23 May 2014 20: 04
          +4
          Quote: pilot8878
          No, of course, Stalin is not a commander. This is an old man who spent the entire war in Moscow, and what he did there is unclear.

          Understood - commanded the generals.
        2. Barboskin
          Barboskin 23 May 2014 21: 07
          +5
          Shaposhnikov, too, spent the whole war at headquarters, does he only get the commander with old merit? No, his contribution to the victory is huge, therefore, you can be a commander at the headquarters work. Moreover, the wars of the 20 century, and even more so on such a scale, allow this. Conclusion - Stalin commander.
          1. Duke
            Duke 23 May 2014 22: 17
            +5
            Quote: Barboskin
            Shaposhnikov, too, spent the whole war at headquarters, does he only get the commander with old merit? No, his contribution to the victory is huge, therefore, you can be a commander at the headquarters work. Moreover, the wars of the 20 century, and even more so on such a scale, allow this. Conclusion - Stalin commander.

            One more example can be cited: the chief of the General Staff of Antonov, the only army general awarded the Order of Victory.
          2. Kapitänleutnant
            Kapitänleutnant 23 May 2014 23: 14
            +4
            At the expense of Shaposhnikov. Only Stalin called Shaposhnikov by name and patronymic. The only other comrade was such and such. Shaposhnikov twice general (RI and the USSR). Stalin respected Shaposhnikov very much. He hated Zhukov.
            1. Interface
              Interface 23 May 2014 23: 52
              +1
              After the successful operation to liberate Belarus - still Rokossovsky

              And there’s nothing to drive on Zhukov!
          3. huut
            huut 23 May 2014 23: 26
            +1
            Quote: Barboskin
            Shaposhnikov, too, spent the whole war at headquarters, does he only get the commander with old merit? No, his contribution to the victory is huge, therefore, you can be a commander at the headquarters work.

            He was a military theorist, it is completely different than a commander. He used to be a commander, and then moved on to another direction.
            The commander-in-chief does not work, no matter how talented he is. Only the development of operations and the development + implementation are two different things. And the second case just falls under the leadership, the first - no.
            No, seriously, I can't think of a "commander" without fighting.
            There is the Commander-in-Chief, there are armchair strategists, there are generals - these are all different professions. They are sometimes combined. And in the old days, it was all-in-one. And even if they are at different levels, this does not mean that any of them is worse or better.
            The time has come when the Commander-in-Chief has outgrown the commander, this is a broader leadership, and the commander is relatively local. It turns out that the word "commander" has its own ceiling, after which there is a different definition.

            Stalin is not a commander, not because he is not worthy - he is simply superior, he had a different field of activity.

            This may be the reason why it was not in the survey. And you immediately sew "crime")
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. The comment was deleted.
        5. The comment was deleted.
        6. FREGATENKAPITAN
          FREGATENKAPITAN 24 May 2014 07: 55
          +2
          Well, maybe Stalin didn’t have to raise troops on the front line, but General Chernyakhovsky raised the undeservedly forgotten one, it was his German command that he considered the best Russian commander, He died in battle in East Prussia ........... This one .... And twoNo, of course, Stalin is not a commander. This is an old man who spent the entire war in Moscow, and what he did there is unclear. Rave? .... Well, according to your logic, both Roosevelt and Churchill and the leaders of Australia, Brazil, in general, all who fought with the axis were outstanding commanders?
        7. alleksSalut4507
          alleksSalut4507 24 May 2014 16: 08
          0
          K. Voroshilov lifted. ISF front-line driver. Settles? Wander on. Open the history of 2MB, read where Stalin visited. Success!
    6. mamont5
      mamont5 23 May 2014 18: 24
      +3
      You can argue and argue whether Stalin was a commander, then how to count. But how did Alexander 1 get into the galaxy of generals? So he was not even a general commander nominally.
      1. Barboskin
        Barboskin 23 May 2014 21: 11
        +1
        Alexander 1 shook a lot on the battlefield of the war of 1812-1814. He risked his life, stood up under enemy artillery fire, even after the whole retinue had fled (evidence of foreigners). However, I agree he is not a general.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. FREGATENKAPITAN
          FREGATENKAPITAN 24 May 2014 07: 57
          0
          Well, Austerlitz lost under his mediocre leadership ... and that's a fact!
    7. Interface
      Interface 23 May 2014 18: 25
      +8
      foreign agent
      In fact, Trotsky became the creator of the Red Army. It was he who rushed along the fronts and organized the troops, not Stalin, with all due respect to him. Thanks to Trotsky, the Reds won the Civil War.
      It was just that later his positions with Stalin diverged: Trotsky stood for the robbery of Russia in favor of the world revolution, while Stalin advocated building socialism in one country and letting the country live normally. Here is Stalin and removed him from power.

      Anglo-Saxon money October revolution;


      + Lenin actually came to Russia quite legally, at least through Sweden, at least through Germany, since the Provisional Government announced an amnesty to all politically convicted, which, among others, was V.I. Lenin.
      Only when he began to organize a serious opposition to the Provisional Government, they immediately scribbled incriminating evidence about him, they say he is a "spy of the Kaiser."
    8. yushch
      yushch 23 May 2014 20: 22
      +5
      By the way, and with the preceding competition, not everything is clean either. There, Stalin was also pushed aside, although his ratings were the highest.
    9. max73
      max73 23 May 2014 20: 39
      +4
      as far as I remember, even the authors of the project emphasized that the main character is the Russian (in the broadest sense of the word) people. and what level - a vanka-company, a battalion commander, a koiandarm ... it doesn’t matter .. so I consider the choice of Alexander Vasilievich Suvorov justified.
    10. Old Cynic
      Old Cynic 23 May 2014 23: 17
      +4
      The competition was called "The Name of Victory", wasn't it?
      Not "The best commander of Russia" ...
      Not "Glamorous General" ...
      Not "Best Manager" ...

      So, gentlemen, drop all sympathies and antipathies for this or that figure of Russia from the time of these ... and admit, even through gritted teeth in powerless malice, that in the aggregate of actions, no one has done more than Grandfather Stalin for Victory.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. FREGATENKAPITAN
        FREGATENKAPITAN 24 May 2014 07: 59
        +1
        Victory Name Egorov and Kantaria, i.e. Soviet soldier ! ...................... They made the biggest contribution to the Victory! Or not?
      3. avia1991
        avia1991 24 May 2014 11: 20
        +2
        Quote: Old Cynic
        in the aggregate of acts, for Victory no one did more than Grandfather Stalin.

        If we talk about the Name of Victory, then it would be fairest to acknowledge the merits of its most important creator: the Russian Soldier! Without courage, loyalty to the Motherland and patriotism of which no commander will achieve any Victory!
    11. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 24 May 2014 06: 22
      +1
      Quote: DanSabaka
      And prepared.

      So much so that, at the cost of incredible sacrifices, Moscow and Stalingrad were defended. Such training is necessary. In the first months, the soldiers were 3 prisoners of our soldiers. What do you call-prepared?
      1. avia1991
        avia1991 24 May 2014 11: 23
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Nah such training

        The western fortified area was completely dismantled before the war and moved tens of kilometers inland. The new frontiers were in a state of "sluggish construction" - that is, they were NOT ready AT ALL ..
  2. Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 23 May 2014 17: 31
    +15
    Sad for our media.
    And then we wonder why in Ukraine Hitler is considered a liberator ...
    We are laying a mine ourselves.
    1. Tor hummer
      Tor hummer 23 May 2014 18: 49
      -2
      Quote: Ivan Tarasov
      Sad for our media.
      And then we wonder why in Ukraine Hitler is considered a liberator ...
      We are laying a mine ourselves.

      That is, if the competition "the name of victory" was won by Suvorov, and not by Stalin, then everything was lost? So everyone went to the "Banderaites"? No, stop these things of yours ... the best commander of Russia and one of the best generals in the world, in its entire history, is Suvorov.
      And from the Soviet Union already sick.
      1. Ulus5
        Ulus5 23 May 2014 19: 53
        +13
        Quote: Tor Hummer
        That is, if the competition "the name of victory" was won by Suvorov, and not by Stalin, then everything was lost?

        The question is not who won the "Name of Victory" competition, the question is that many were deprived of the right to objectively choose during the voting, simply by excluding the name of Stalin I.V. from the list of applicants. Agree, but without Stalin's name, voting in the "Name Victory "turned out, to put it mildly, poorly objective.
        Quote: Tor Hummer
        And from the Soviet Union already sick.

        But I’m not sick. Think about it, (Advice From the word to consult. Or as Wikipedia says: Councils, elected by the population for a certain period of time, by collegial representative bodies of public authority) Is this not real people's power?
        And if at a certain time period some individuals in power (the executive) distorted the very idea of ​​democracy, this does not mean that this idea is bad.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 23 May 2014 22: 01
          +1
          Quote: Ulus5
          The question is not who won the competition, the question is that many people were deprived of the right to objectively choose by simply excluding the name of Stalin I. V from the list of applicants

          This does not remind you of the results of the German survey in relation to VV Putin. But there the media are corrupt. And we have???
          Maybe it's time to admit that the official media serves the government. Someone is better, someone is so-so.
          1. does it
            does it 23 May 2014 22: 50
            +1
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            This does not remind you of the results of the German survey in relation to VV Putin. But there the media are corrupt. And we have???
            Maybe it's time to admit that the official media serves the government. Someone is better, someone is so-so.

            Our Chekist principle knows best! smile
      2. kotvov
        kotvov 23 May 2014 20: 28
        +9
        I didn’t take part in this vote. Each commander was good at the time, and the tasks were different. But from the councilor, as you write, you can vomit Hitler, Bander, Merikosov. You don’t understand if it weren’t council, it wouldn’t be not Russia, but you too.
      3. Old Cynic
        Old Cynic 23 May 2014 22: 39
        -3
        Excuse me, are you talking about that Suvorov who, as a result of his "miracle marches", led 30-40% of the soldiers to the battlefield? And 60-70% died on the marches ...
        It is about him?
  3. Morgan
    Morgan 23 May 2014 17: 33
    +26
    It is possible to love or not to love Stalin or any other historical character, but after distortions (perversions) of history to please the political moment, a perversion of the people begins and how will we differ from those who believe that they won THAT WAR? Yes, even hate Stalin, at least deify - do not dare to forget !!! Neither Stalin nor Bandera !!! Both that and that to us in a lesson!
  4. storm wind
    storm wind 23 May 2014 17: 35
    +15
    Unfortunately, our media are far from all of ours. Something that should be weeded !!! Any echoes for example. I don’t understand why this muck hasn’t been closed yet .. No, I understand! But they are all the same .... ri !!!
    1. jktu66
      jktu66 23 May 2014 19: 08
      +4
      Something that should be weeded !!! Any echoes for example
      It is necessary to declare a boycott in Russia of this me.r.p.o.s.t.s. and not place visitors to the site or advertise with them
    2. Dmitry Toderes
      Dmitry Toderes 23 May 2014 19: 16
      +6
      Echo Matzah is apparently held as an opposition. There is no opposition from them - they are supported by a maximum of several thousand people throughout the country - very few. Here, apparently, the strategy of the Kremlin - he keeps them on purpose so that they (liberal) show themselves in all their "glory". The Kremlin can close the "matzo" with "rain of shit" at any moment, but it does not, knowing that it controls everything perfectly. IMHO.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 23 May 2014 22: 15
        +1
        Quote: Dmitry Toderese
        The Kremlin can close the "matzo" with "rain of shit" at any moment, but it does not, knowing that it controls everything perfectly.

        Maybe you're right. But here is a little more Jesuit approach of smart people from the office. "Echo of matzo" works for the authorities, as its stench only averts the people from the belolentochniki. Here, as in mathematics - proof by contradiction.
        PS. In my opinion, this caricature accurately reflects your main idea.
  5. Riperbahn
    Riperbahn 23 May 2014 17: 36
    +7
    I did not know about this project. So would also vote for Joseph Vissarionovich. At the VGTRKovsky project he was the first to put Konstantin Konstantinovich Rokossovsky!
    1. Ptaha
      Ptaha 23 May 2014 17: 56
      +10
      I did not know the same. I went to see - there was no Stalin, did not vote at all.
      1. jktu66
        jktu66 23 May 2014 19: 14
        +7
        I did not know the same. I went to see - there was no Stalin, did not vote at all.
        It was difficult to vote and add generals, it wasn’t for people who created this site.
  6. Barakuda
    Barakuda 23 May 2014 17: 36
    +5
    "Nestor Makhno is the leader of a gang of rapists and bandits;

    Leon Trotsky (aka Bronstein) - an agent of foreign influence who organized the October coup with the money of the Anglo-Saxons; the bloody executioner of the Russian people; "

    I agree with Leiba Bronstein, but not very much with Makhno ... In vain did they ask for a conversation with Lenin and give out orders ...?
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 23 May 2014 18: 20
      -7
      Quote: Barracuda
      I agree with Leiba Bronstein, but not very much with Makhno ...

      I agree with you. Orders are not given to anyone. Although in modern ErEfii there is such a fi .. ch as Taburetkin paired with Makarov.
      1. kayman4
        kayman4 23 May 2014 18: 41
        +3
        Makhno’s troops took Crimea and Mariupol for the Red Army. But many I look at the list were for extras - they would still Brezhnev would go there. Some acts of some of the individuals on the list are perplexing. But personally, I would add Kondratenko Roman Isidorovich.
      2. Ulus5
        Ulus5 23 May 2014 19: 59
        +4
        Quote: 11111mail.ru
        Although in modern ErEfii

        Mil man, let me ask a question?
        Why do you hate Roossia, if you call her that?
        1. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru 23 May 2014 21: 18
          +5
          Quote: Ulus5
          Why do you hate Roossia, if you call her that?

          I will answer, dear man and not you first. You can ask the guys about hatred under the flag with two stripes and a hexagon. Born in the USSR in the year the satellite was launched. Honestly earned two diplomas, worked in the 1977 construction brigade in the central section of the BAM (camp 129 km), took the oath in 1979, served in the USSR Armed Forces until 1991, which I am proud of. Since 1989, very much respected IV Stalin, in 1991 he voted against EBN, in 1995 the devil beguiled to vote for "the best friend of the Vainakhs." I do not consider the ErEf "tricolor" my flag. The red banner is closer to me. I do not believe in a country where oligarchs "rule", although the classic said that "times are not chosen, but they live and die." If you like the lackeys of the oligarchs - this is your choice. I do not like. During perestroika, was the USSR called the Council of Deputies? They called it. So I call the Russian Federation -ErEfia. If it were called the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, then it would be a different matter (and you cannot find the appropriate abbreviated phrase). Explained clearly?
          1. samuil60
            samuil60 23 May 2014 23: 28
            0
            An honest (by description) life does not give a person the right to disrespect his country, no matter how it is called. Otherwise, such a person begins to look like a Vlasovite - they also allegedly defended their convictions - "for Russia without the Bolsheviks." You may not respect the head of state, symbols, political course - but this is still YOUR country, here are the graves of YOUR ancestors. I imagine that you can leave the future generation - anger. Like, either in my opinion, or not at all. And it is precisely those like you now (willingly or unwillingly) who are acting against the coming revival of Russia as a great power. And into the hands of those liberals whom you supposedly hate.
            1. 11111mail.ru
              11111mail.ru 24 May 2014 01: 27
              +1
              Quote: samuil60
              such a person begins to look like a Vlasovite - they also allegedly defended their convictions - "for Russia without the Bolsheviks."

              Your pathos in denouncing a stranger in Vlasovism and Bolshevik enthusiasm (rather a bully) inspired suspicions about your belonging to the SS, not to those who "in the struggle you will gain your right," but to those who in the State Duma are scratching the current heel of the EP, to .n. "Mironovites".
              Quote: samuil60
              I imagine that you can leave the future generation - malice.

              I will repeat myself especially for you: "If you like lackeys among the oligarchs, this is your choice." For what they did then, in the 90s, by destroying a great country, I naturally hate them with simple and clearly expressed hatred. Let him "lagged behind" you and your kind by 20 years, but as professor Preobrazhensky M.A. Bulgakova answered the chairman of the house committee:
              - You do not sympathize with the children of Germany?
              - Sorry.
              - Are you sorry for fifty dollars?
              - Нет.
              “So why?”
              - I do not want.
        2. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru 23 May 2014 21: 38
          0
          Quote: Ulus5
          РToothpasteRussia, if you call it that?

          For reference, I did not call her that. This is you.
    2. alleksSalut4507
      alleksSalut4507 24 May 2014 16: 43
      0
      it was at first because they asked that the reorientation in their anarchy later came. It seemed easier for the ankhists to simply kill and rob than to fight (Nestor has one for the Order No. 4 of the Order of the Battle of the Banner) and at the recess LB put them under machine guns.
      1. 11111mail.ru
        11111mail.ru 24 May 2014 17: 34
        0
        Quote: alleksSalut4507
        at the dig LB put them under machine guns.

        On the way back from Crimea, the Makhnovists were destroyed by their former "allies."
  7. Alexis
    Alexis 23 May 2014 17: 41
    +14
    Do you know why I did not vote? Yes, all because they fought each in their own time, in their own conditions, and with different enemies !!! They are all geniuses !!!
    1. sabakina
      sabakina 23 May 2014 18: 15
      +7
      Totally agree with you. Different eras, different types of weapons, different tactics and strategy.
      And Stalin was a great leader who removed or put military commanders in one place or another. After all, it was not Stalin who was saving this or that critical situation at the front, but the same Zhukov ... And the plans were developed by Shaposhnikov, Zhukov, and other generals, who later became marshals.
      1. Old Cynic
        Old Cynic 23 May 2014 22: 45
        +1
        Oh ... Zhukov and Ruslanova personally saved everything !!!

        If you want to seem clever, do not use smelly cliches like "Great Beetles" in your posts ... Have you ever heard what other military leaders said about him?
    2. Akvadra
      Akvadra 23 May 2014 18: 44
      +5
      How can you choose here ?! Some kind of children's question - who do you love more, mom or dad? The greatest personalities, heroes, some even saints! What could be a vote. They are isometric! Like fingers on one hand. Everyone appreciate the same. And together a formidable and invincible fist. I think ...
  8. saag
    saag 23 May 2014 17: 41
    -1
    Stalin is never a commander, a politician, yes
    1. vovan1949
      vovan1949 23 May 2014 21: 42
      +3
      Generalissimo, supreme commander of the Red Army - a politician? And has nothing to do with Victory? What nonsense. In general, the project "The Name of Victory", apparently, was created by the liberals in connection with the fact that recently more and more people are beginning to understand the outstanding role of Stalin in the history of Russia, and not only. The myths about Stalin created during Khrushchev's time are crumbling. And this is very stressful for the fifth column.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 23 May 2014 22: 37
      +4
      Quote: saag
      Stalin is never a commander, a politician, yes

      Generalisimo. He was twice awarded the Order of Victory, a geopolitician who beat both Roosevelt and Lord Malborough, the eternal enemy of Russia. What else can you add?
      It might be better to look at the STATUTES of the highest military order of our Motherland and the highest military rank. Maybe then "there will be a clarification in the mind" (c).
      I would like to focus on "fight after victory". It was Stalin who forged the country's nuclear missile shield and sword. He won the world for you and me. HE IS A STRATEGIC! And this is the highest level of leadership talent!
  9. soyuz-nik
    soyuz-nik 23 May 2014 17: 42
    +4
    Good health, I wish! hi

    Indeed, the media use methods of zombies and fooling, however, IMHO, Suvorov is a really great name. He was not the head of state (did not have power) and did not purge the command. Too many contradictions are connected with Stalin.

    Therefore, I consider the choice of Suvorov to be fair.

    Earlier, the Name of Russia was given to Alexander Nevsky, but for me the Name of Russia is M. Lomonosov, because at all times, science, engineering and technology will be of paramount importance. If the adversaries know that the Russian Federation has advanced technologies (for example, weapons) in its "storehouse" that could be tested on someone, then I do not think that anyone would want to be the first "guinea pig" ...

    Knowledge is power!

    May the Force be with us!
    1. dimdimich71
      dimdimich71 23 May 2014 17: 48
      +1
      And power is in truth ...
  10. parus2nik
    parus2nik 23 May 2014 17: 42
    +4
    It is not clear why to include those who participated in exclusively civil wars as commanders of troops .. ..Pugacheva, Makhno, Trotsky ..
  11. Barakuda
    Barakuda 23 May 2014 17: 44
    +12
    They forgot about the great ORGANIZER - Potemkin .. From his hands - Suvorov, Kutuzov, Ushakov left ...
  12. Arh
    Arh 23 May 2014 17: 44
    +6
    Invariable Name Alexander Suvorov, For All Time !!!
  13. fzr1000
    fzr1000 23 May 2014 17: 46
    -5
    Stalin is still more a politician than a commander. Peter 1, too, and Alexander 1 is generally unclear how sideways it is.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. FREGATENKAPITAN
      FREGATENKAPITAN 23 May 2014 21: 36
      +3
      Where did such historical knowledge come from? Peter always personally led the troops, took part in all campaigns!
  14. surovts.valery
    surovts.valery 23 May 2014 17: 46
    +8
    So it seems that Stalin was not in the last vote. Comrades went to bed with this poll. What did they want? To raise patriotism among the population? So do not ask stupid questions. The head of state, who took upon himself the fullness of military and state power, at the most critical time for the country, mobilized the entire population to fight the enemy, personally led the fighting of the subordinate army. It is he who deserves the title of the greatest commander. Do not be cunning.
  15. Blondy
    Blondy 23 May 2014 17: 47
    +7
    Well, about the media, okay. But, how and who can legally ban Stalin's portrait in the Immortal Regiment action? You can't even sew extremism here, otherwise law enforcement will end up in such a shit.
  16. X Y Z
    X Y Z 23 May 2014 17: 52
    +4
    Looked at the site and was not impressed. The generals were selected according to some strange system, according to the degree of promotion or something. Most of them are known to us from school textbooks. And where are the unknown heroes who, for one reason or another, have forgotten the "grateful descendants". For example, Pugachev is present and General Delferden is absent, the right hand of Suvorov (and not Kutuzov, as everyone for some reason thinks!) And Knight of the Order of St. George.
  17. I_VOIN_I
    I_VOIN_I 23 May 2014 17: 52
    +3
    I see no reason for the noise around this issue. Suvorov deservedly won, the question was posed a specific "Who is the coolest commander", the answer is unambiguous. The political or ideological background with the names of Stalin, Alexander or Peter is understandable.
    1. jktu66
      jktu66 23 May 2014 19: 19
      +4
      I see no reason for the noise around this issue. Suvorov deservedly won, the question was posed a specific "Who is the coolest commander", the answer is unambiguous. The political or ideological background with the names of Stalin, Alexander or Peter is understandable.
      It's not about that! About some other worthy commanders there was not even a mention, the descendants who devoted themselves to Russia undeservedly forgotten
    2. vovan1949
      vovan1949 23 May 2014 21: 51
      +3
      "Who is the coolest commander",

      The project is called "The Name of Victory" and is timed to coincide with May 9, the day of Victory over Nazi Germany. And then the Suvorovs and Alexandra.
  18. GRAY
    GRAY 23 May 2014 17: 53
    +7
    In my opinion, this competition is utter heresy. What does the best commander mean?
    To single out one is unrealistic. Everyone is good in due time.
  19. rereture
    rereture 23 May 2014 17: 58
    +7
    It is foolish to conduct such contests and is pointless. I would fine for such initiatives, since it is incorrect to compare outstanding personalities of different times.
  20. kot28.ru
    kot28.ru 23 May 2014 18: 00
    0
    Stalin is not on you, necrosmi, you continue to talk about all kinds of geysvobud there and so on! BUT! As soon as you start doing something extra-Stalin will seem to you an angel, liberalists e baths! am
  21. Leader
    Leader 23 May 2014 18: 02
    +2
    Such things - "popular polls", "all-Russian competitions", "telephone voting" - there is even no point in discussing.
    You have to be a moron in general to take into account the "results" of such shows.
  22. Iceman79
    Iceman79 23 May 2014 18: 10
    +1
    I agree, Stalin is not a commander, but he is an ORGANIZER and LEADER, he created an industry capable of creating any types of weapons, he created a supply system, he did not lead the battles, but he did almost everything to make them successful.
  23. Michael_59
    Michael_59 23 May 2014 18: 10
    -1
    Quote: soyuz-nik
    and did not purge the command


    Katz offers to give up!

    Why not think that cleansing is good?
  24. mrDimkaP
    mrDimkaP 23 May 2014 18: 11
    -2
    Crossed out the heads of state. Everything is fine.
  25. Giant thought
    Giant thought 23 May 2014 18: 12
    +1
    Stalin is a strategist. It is a pity that he did not win the television contest.
  26. Oprychnik
    Oprychnik 23 May 2014 18: 16
    +1
    Yes. The right of choice was limited. The scale of the deleted figures is incommensurable with those left. Where are the great victories of the villain Emelka Pugachev? Orenburg was under siege by his army for six months and was never taken! Orenburg can be considered a hero city, like Odessa and Sevastopol! NESTOR ... FIELD COMMANDER IN THE AREA OF GULAY-FIELD! G. BRONSTEIN FIGURE Slightly larger. BUT FINISHED LIFE AS A TRADER OF THE HOMELAND. NOT A RESPECT TO THE VOTING ORGANIZERS AT VGTRK!
  27. vsoltan
    vsoltan 23 May 2014 18: 16
    +1
    In any case, in the light of the above, the sanctimonious appeals of the HIGHEST leadership - "we will not revise history, we will not allow revisions" become doubly disgusting ... many historical events and even layers are hidden from us ... everyone is trying to fool and slip a sweet decoration - apparently, they are afraid that people will start thinking and comparing ... all Zhukov and Suvorov ... the official history does not know other names ...
  28. VD chauvinist
    VD chauvinist 23 May 2014 18: 19
    +5
    Is Stalin a commander? Do not make me laugh. A man in large uniform is not always a commander. Stalin led the commanders. And not always successfully.
    Sasha was the first at Austerlitz!
    Peter the Great is an innovator, a reformer, etc., a patriot No. 1, but, analyzing the course of the battles he conducted, you won’t pick anything out for the textbook.
    From the point of view of military science (tactics and strategy), here is a list of regiments and naval commanders whose won battles are still being studied.

    A. Suvorov (not a single defeat)
    F. Ushakov (not a single defeat)
    M. Kutuzov (battle of Ruschuk, Tarutin maneuver)
    G. Zhukov (Operation Uranus, northern face of the Kursk Bulge)
    K. Rokossovsky (operation "Bagration" - the most successful operation of the troops of the anti-Hitler coalition).

    And it should be noted that all (!!!) considered themselves either students or followers of A.V. Suvorov.
    All right
    1. Oprychnik
      Oprychnik 23 May 2014 18: 30
      +4
      AND THIS NOBODY DOESN'T DENY! JOSEPH VISSARIONOVICH, PETER THE GREAT DID NOT TAKE TACTICS. THIS IS A STRATEGY. ABOUT ALEXANDER THE FIRST MAY DOUBT.
      1. Oprychnik
        Oprychnik 23 May 2014 18: 32
        0
        BUT NESTOR MAKNO NEAR HIM WITH ANYONE ...
      2. kayman4
        kayman4 23 May 2014 18: 45
        +4
        Peter took upon himself all aspects of the army from the footcloth to the charter — he himself served from the rank and file to the colonel — and the battle did not shy away on an equal footing with everyone.
      3. tomket
        tomket 23 May 2014 19: 29
        +1
        Why can one doubt Alexander’s account? Losing in Austerlitz? Well, Kutuzov was there too. Alexander won the general military company, in which he was able to grind Napoleon's huge army.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 May 2014 18: 42
      +2
      It’s not that I really agree with you, but if you’re not right for 100%, then for sure it’s right for 99%.
      1. Oprychnik
        Oprychnik 23 May 2014 18: 52
        0
        kayman4 But he trusted mostly specialists. Although the last word was his.
    3. Old Cynic
      Old Cynic 23 May 2014 22: 48
      -3
      considered themselves either students or followers of A.V. Suvorov


      That is, the soldier does not regret?
  29. vitvit123
    vitvit123 23 May 2014 18: 23
    +3
    Damn this provocative polls !!!!!!! Each commander is priceless at one point or another in history !!!!!!! How to conduct such polls !!! these polls strongly divide our people !!
  30. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 23 May 2014 18: 24
    +3
    included in the list of nominees for the Victory those whose contribution to the history of the country cannot be a priori challenged.

    For me it’s such a stupid contest, and that's it. Each contribution was important and fundamental at the time of the story. And a priori they are equivalent in my opinion. Without any of them, there would probably not have been a subsequent one (most likely). In the end, maybe Russia.
  31. Palych9999
    Palych9999 23 May 2014 18: 28
    +1
    No need to juggle!
    There is some kind of Nizhny Novgorod poll ... still in the village of Gadyukino for the basics ...
    And the IVS is not a commander, there is no need for songs, as they say right now - an effective manager, but with unsuitable methods ...
    I voted for Suvorov, he won the competition.
    My motives: Suvorov did not lose the battles, the only one who led offensive companies abroad, and the fact that Emelianka brought to Moscow in a cage is the kind of work he did with brilliance.
    Suvorov is the name of VICTORY!
    1. Old Cynic
      Old Cynic 23 May 2014 22: 55
      0
      But Stalin, having come to absolute power in 1938, somehow managed to prepare the country for war. He also had such a job! Someone put soldiers in stacks (like, for example, Zhukov, and the same Suvorov), and someone pulled the Power out of shit (like Stalin).

      Don't watch TV, it affects you badly! Read the "necessary books" as Vysotsky advised '
  32. Strashila
    Strashila 23 May 2014 18: 42
    +3
    Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
    Stalin can be a winner in the Name of Victory !, But certainly not a commander! agree these are different things!

    I do not agree ... THE SUPREME CHIEF COMMANDER ... this cannot be taken away.
  33. Strashila
    Strashila 23 May 2014 18: 46
    +2
    The name of victory ... RUSSIAN SOLDIER (in the many national sense of the word)... without him, these great men could not have achieved anything.
    1. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ 23 May 2014 19: 27
      +1
      Strashila (1)
      RUSSIAN SOLDIER (in a much national sense of the word) ... without him, these great men could not have achieved anything.


      It's like that. But the competition was among the generals. Although somehow strange, what kind of competition can there be among the commanders? They were each outstanding and great in their time, excluding some included in the list by mistake.
      But the answer to your remark is the following. Without a good commander and commander, soldiers are an uncontrollable mass, not a military unit, not an Army, not soldiers, the crowd is incapable of anything.
      And therefore, when they say that Stalin I.V. It has nothing to do with Victory, but the people won the war, the soldiers contrary to Stalin, I do not agree. Without a General there can be no Victory.
      Marshal of Victory in the Great Patriotic War was Stalin Joseph Vissarionovich.
  34. Ivan 63
    Ivan 63 23 May 2014 18: 47
    +3
    Suvorov is unconditionally the father of the soldiers, but Stalin is the father of the state and of course 1!
  35. zol1
    zol1 23 May 2014 18: 50
    +1
    VGTRK is the Zhid-Masonic channel, therefore it loses the chosen people!
  36. Alexey N
    Alexey N 23 May 2014 18: 51
    +3
    Dumb project! How can you choose the best commander ?!
    At VGTRK someone thinks backseat. Or is it an ideological diversion.

    Here, too, unnecessary disputes began ... And Stalin was a commander!
  37. Zymran
    Zymran 23 May 2014 18: 57
    +1
    Really the best commander Suvorov. What is the argument?
  38. Fedor Bolts
    Fedor Bolts 23 May 2014 19: 15
    -12%
    Suvorov is a genius recognized by time and peoples.
    Nevsky was talking about nothing, especially in the horde constantly hanging around.
    Stalin is the sacred cow of the local pseudo-patriots and communists who are not finished off. Because of his general genius, the Second World War began. For free hell, for all time.
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 23 May 2014 21: 26
      +2
      Quote: Fedor Boltov
      and the communists are not finished off.

      Well, how many have you personally "not finished off"? Go to "Nezalezhnaya" there you have ideological brothers running around the Maidan with bats.
    2. Old Cynic
      Old Cynic 23 May 2014 22: 59
      +1
      All!!! I understood where the scriptwriters and directors of the animated series about heroes came up with the brilliant phrase of Gai Yulia "OH, DUPAK" ... They read your posts in advance !!!
  39. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 23 May 2014 19: 26
    +1
    Suvorov was a brilliant tactician. Honor and glory to him. But when in the Napoleonic era armies grew to such a size that a single battle didn’t solve anything, then a strategy was required. All Western military science considers Kutuzov to be the forerunner of strategy, but there are no prophets in his own country.
  40. _Igorek_
    _Igorek_ 23 May 2014 19: 31
    +6
    Why bother swearing. All of them lived in due time and solved the tasks assigned to them.
    Comparing people from different eras is wrong. Nevsky - waved his sword. Suvorov already knew and used gunpowder. But Zhukov commanded the armies of tanks and aircraft.
    The main thing here is that everyone found a way out of the situation, timely found a weak spot at the enemy and dealt a crushing blow at the right time.
    You can even say that each of them should be grateful to its predecessor - if not the first, the second might not have appeared in this world.
    And we must remember everyone and be proud of everyone!
    We owe them all !!!
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 23 May 2014 19: 51
      +3
      Quote: _Igorek_
      And we must remember everyone and be proud of everyone!
      We owe them all !!!

      Igor -
      good

      The idea of ​​the competition is good at first glance ...
      But the principle of the competition is shitty, that's all and gnawing, but otherwise it could not be.
    2. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 23 May 2014 21: 30
      +2
      Quote: _Igorek_
      Suvorov already knew and used gunpowder.

      Awesome! Then how, 400 years before Alexander Vasilyevich, Muscovites used "mattresses" (firearms) against the besieging troops of Tokhtamysh?
    3. Old Cynic
      Old Cynic 23 May 2014 23: 03
      +1
      Suvorov already knew ... gunpowder


      Did he know him personally? But do not tell me, were they friends of families, or houses?
  41. ksv1973
    ksv1973 23 May 2014 19: 37
    +4
    I am writing after reading all the reviews. Remember everything, once and for all - Zhukov is a commander who took his big name from the commander on the blood and bones of ordinary soldiers. Where Zhukov is, there is victory. But any of his victories is based on throwing the enemy with the corpses of Soviet soldiers and officers.
    Or will someone say that I'm wrong?
    1. Old Cynic
      Old Cynic 23 May 2014 23: 05
      +1
      You're right!
      It is enough to read Pykhalov or Prudnikova from historians. And for inquisitive minds - archives and the first editions of Soviet commanders in places dedicated to Zhukov.
  42. Tulip
    Tulip 23 May 2014 19: 40
    -4
    Peter I and Joseph Stalin were never commanders. They were political figures and did not conduct and did not directly direct military operations. Do not confuse the concept, this is not literate. So you can agree that both Catherine were both generals and Nicholas II from the colonel in the marshals to produce.
    1. ksv1973
      ksv1973 23 May 2014 21: 32
      +1
      Quote: Tulip
      Peter I and Joseph Stalin were never commanders. They were political figures and did not conduct and did not directly direct military operations.

      Both Peter I and Stalin were directly involved in the development of strategic operations. This is a historical fact. Shame on your head for not knowing this.
    2. Old Cynic
      Old Cynic 23 May 2014 23: 08
      +1
      You probably closer Emelka Pugachev? That's where stratig and the greatest statesman was! Oh, how much he has done for Russia - he simply does not understand with his mind, nor hear in a joke ...

      My friend, are you friends at least on Fridays?
  43. Indifferent
    Indifferent 23 May 2014 19: 47
    +3
    They mixed everything that is possible and impossible! And politicians and military leaders and just brave people. Hence the conclusion: illiterate, antihistorical, and ultimately not patriotic! This also indicates a deteriorating level of education and culture, both in the country as a whole and on television in particular!
    By the way, Pugachev’s personality is not meaningful in history! Even his real name remained unknown! There is evidence that he was the real king of Tartaria - a huge state from the Volga to Alaska, which our historians do not want to recognize, although a lot has been written about him in the 17th century English encyclopedia.
  44. does it
    does it 23 May 2014 20: 03
    +7
    It was I.V. that miraculously disappeared from the public list. Stalin, Peter I the Great and Alexander I the Blessed.
    Here are those on !!!!!
  45. waisson
    waisson 23 May 2014 20: 16
    +2
    humpback grave fix
  46. waisson
    waisson 23 May 2014 20: 17
    +1
    and as they were both members and members, they remained --------
  47. prishelec
    prishelec 23 May 2014 20: 20
    0
    About Makhno, I agree with the author, he really was the leader of hordes of gangs who raped and robbed the population during the civil war! But Stalin for me and those whom I know was and remains the great leader of a great country, but not as a general!
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 23 May 2014 21: 33
      -2
      Quote: prishelec
      About Makhno, I agree with the author, he really was the leader of hordes of gangs who raped and robbed the population during the civil war!

      Read at your leisure about the FIRST capture by the Reds of Kiev. Learn a lot of interesting things.
  48. homosum20
    homosum20 23 May 2014 20: 27
    0
    If you evaluate the commander - then it is necessary to evaluate the commander.
    Not a ruler, not an economist, not a politician, not a camel trainer - commander.
    In what war the largest number of people took part. In which war was not set the map most (change of citizenship, change in living standards, change in lifestyle, change in mentality, existence of a nation ...). Next is the impact on the modern world order.
    Anyone who does not have money in the West and America will answer this question in the same way.
    How?
    And here you are and answer. (It is necessary to provide a declaration of property).
  49. sazhka4
    sazhka4 23 May 2014 20: 33
    +1
    Who fought for what .. Apparently there is a reason .. Territory, influence, ambition. Protect the Country ..
  50. LEVIAFAN
    LEVIAFAN 23 May 2014 20: 42
    +4
    Stalin definitely. Jews 2 times in their history worked. under Egyptian captivity and under Stalin
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. ksv1973
      ksv1973 28 May 2014 19: 04
      0
      Quote: LEVIAFAN
      Stalin definitely. Jews 2 times in their history worked. under Egyptian captivity and under Stalin

      Why are you so bored with the Jews? Or the Holocaust to you in joy?