Military Review

Georgy Zhukov - Crisis Manager of the Red Army

165
Zhukov - our Suvorov
I. V. Stalin

In the time of the struggle of the Russian people with the new disasters Zhukov is raised as an icon, personifying the spirit of the Russian people, who can push the leader-savior in extreme conditions. Zhukov is the embodiment of Russian honor and valor, Russian sovereignty and the Russian spirit. No one can erase or tarnish the image of this man on a white horse, who has done so much to elevate his country to shining heights.
American Brigadier General William Spar


40 years ago, 18 June 1974, died a great commander, Marshal of the Soviet Union, four times Hero of the USSR Georgy Zhukov. Zhukov went a long and difficult way from the cavalry non-commissioned officer of the 10 Novgorod regiment to the Deputy Supreme Commander during the Great Patriotic War.

Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov was born (19 November) 1 December 1896 of the year in the village of Strelkovka of the Kaluga province. His father was the shoemaker master Konstantin Zhukov. After the 1905 events, he was expelled from Moscow for participating in demonstrations. From that time until his death in 1921, Konstantin Zhukov lived in the village, doing shoemaking and peasant work. Georgy's mother, Ustinya Artemyeva, was born and grew up in the neighboring village of Black Dirt in a poor peasant family. The family was poor. Parents worked very hard, but received little. Life was hard. George was accustomed to persistent and hard work from an early age.

In 1903, George Zhukov entered the parochial school. After completing three classes of school, George began his career as a student in a furrier workshop in Moscow. He worked in the workshop of his uncle, the brother of mother Mikhail Piliykhin. He was able, with hard work, to save money and open his own business. The twelve-year-old boy had a hard time - they got up for work at six in the morning, and went to bed at eleven in the evening (in the village they got up early in the morning, but they also went to bed early). For the slightest offense beaten (then it was the usual order). Home for leave released only in the fourth year of study.

At the same time, George tried to learn, he used small pieces of free time to read books from the library and work with his master's son. Then the young man entered the evening general education courses, which provided education at the level of the urban school. Successfully passed the exams for the full course of the urban school. In the 1911 year, after three years of training, he moved to the category of senior students and had three boys-students under his command. In 1912 for the first time I was at home, returning as an adult youth. At the end of 1912, the apprenticeship of George completed, he became a young master (apprentice).

In May 1915 of the year, due to heavy losses at the front, an early appeal was made for the youth of 1895's birth. In the summer, an early call was announced for 1896 youth born. George made the decision to go to the front, although the owner offered to otmazatsya capable and honest master. Zhukov called in the city of Maloyaroslavets Kaluga province. George was taken to the cavalry and taken to their destination - to the city of Kaluga. Here George with other recruits was trained in the reserve infantry battalion. In September, 1915, they were sent to Little Russia in the 5-th reserve cavalry regiment. It was located in the town of Balakley, Kharkov province. Service in the cavalry was more interesting than in the infantry, but more difficult. In addition to general classes, they taught equestrian business, possession of cold weapons, had to care for horses.

By spring 1916, George completed the training. He was among the best-trained soldiers selected for study as a non-commissioned officer. Zhukov did not want to continue his studies, but his platoon officer, senior non-commissioned officer of Fools, a very demanding and intelligent man, said: “You will still be a friend at the front, but now you can study military deeper better, it will be useful to you. I am convinced that you will be a good non-commissioned officer. " As a result, Zhukov remained in the training team, which was located in the city of Izum, Kharkiv province.

Having passed the exams, Zhukov became a non-commissioned officer. Evaluating the training team of the Russian imperial army, Zhukov noted that they taught it well, especially with regard to the drill. Each graduate perfectly mastered equestrian affair, weapons and methods of training soldiers. Not for nothing in the future, many non-commissioned officers of the tsarist army will become excellent commanders of the Red Army. However, the weakness of the old school was educational work, the soldiers were made obedient performers, often disciplinary practice reached cruelty. A formal church rites could not give real faith. There was no unity between the soldiers and the officers, they were from different social classes. Only individual officers were knocked out of general practice.

At the end of August 1916, a young non-commissioned officer came to the South-Western Front in the 10 th Novgorod Dragoon Regiment. In October, during the reconnaissance, the head patrol hit a mine. Zhukov received a heavy concussion and was evacuated to Kharkov. This injury caused hearing loss. At the time of the record, George had already had two crosses of St. George for capturing a German officer and a concussion during reconnaissance.

After leaving the hospital, Zhukov felt ill for a long time, so the medical commission sent him to the marching squadron in the village of Laregi. After the February Revolution, George Zhukov was elected chairman of the squadron soldier committee and one of the delegates to the regimental council. In the process of the collapse of the army, when part of the formation began to side with the Ukrainian nationalists, Zhukov’s squadron decided to disband. The soldiers returned home.

The end of 1917, the beginning of 1918, George spent at home. He wanted to join the ranks of the Red Guard, but was seriously ill with typhus. As a result, Zhukov could fulfill his desire only in August of the 1918 year, when he entered the 4 th cavalry regiment of the 1 th Moscow Cavalry Division. During the Civil War, Red Army soldier Georgy Zhukov first fought on the Eastern front against Kolchak's army. In March, 1919 of the year joined the RCP (b). In the summer of 1919, the city of Zhukov participated in battles with the Cossacks near Shipovo Station, in battles for Uralsk, then in battles near Vladimirovka Station and the city of Nikolaevsk.

In September-October 1919, the regiment of Zhukov fought on the Southern Front, participated in the battles at Tsaritsyn, near Bakhtiyrovka and Zaplavny. In a battle between Zaplavniy and Akhtuba, during a hand-to-hand combat with white-limemy units, a grenade splinter was wounded. Fragments wounded left leg and left side. In addition, already in the hospital Zhukov again suffered from typhoid. After a month’s leave, Zhukov went to the military registration and enlistment office to be sent back to the army.

But he had not yet recovered from the illness, and George was sent to Tver to a reserve battalion with subsequent assignment to the courses of the red commanders. Cavalry courses were located in Starozhilovo Ryazan Province. The combat personnel consisted mainly of old military specialists. They taught well, in good faith. Zhukov got the position of foreman cadet 1-th squadron. In the summer, the cadets were transferred to Moscow and included in the 2 of the Moscow Brigade of cadets, which they sent against Wrangel's army. The combined cadet regiment in August 1920 took part in the fight against the landing force Ulagay near Yekaterinodar, then fought against the Fostikoff gangs.

The graduation took place in Armavir and Zhukov arrived in the 14 Cavalry Brigade, he was sent to the 1 th cavalry regiment. Zhukov was appointed platoon commander, and then a squadron. At the end of 1920, the brigade was transferred to Voronezh gubernia to fight the uprising and Kolesnikov's gang. Then the unit took part in the liquidation of the Tambov Uprising (“Antonovshchina”). In the spring of 1921, near the village of Vyazovaya Mail, the brigade engaged in a hard battle with the “Antonovs”. Zhukov's squadron was at the very epicenter of the battlefield and distinguished itself, holding back superior enemy forces for several hours. According to Zhukov, the squadron was saved only by the skillful maneuvering and fire control of several machine guns and one gun, which were in service with the unit. Under Zhukov himself two horses were killed, and the political instructor rescued him twice. Overnight. The first time the horse fell, crushed Zhukov, and the gangster wanted to kill him. But the political officer managed to kill the enemy. The second time, several thugs surrounded Zhukov and tried to take him alive. Overnight with several fighters rescued the commander. The squadron suffered significant losses, but a large gang was crushed. For this feat most commanders and soldiers were awarded government awards. Zhukov was awarded the Order of the Red Banner.

After the end of the Civil War, Zhukov continued his military education and went from a regiment to a corps commander. In 1923, Zhukov headed the 39 th regiment of the 7 th Samara cavalry division. In 1924, he was sent to the Higher Cavalry School. Since 1926, for several years he has taught military conscription training at the Belarusian University. In 1929, he graduated from the courses of the high command of the Red Army. From 1930, the brigade commander in the 7 of the Samara Cavalry Division (then headed by Rokossovsky). Then Zhukov served in the Belarusian Military District, was an assistant to the inspector of the cavalry of the Red Army, commander of the 4-th cavalry division, 3-th and 6-th cavalces. In 1938, he rose to deputy commander of the Western Special Military District.

Zhukov’s finest hour came in the summer of 1939, when he headed a special rifle corps, then transformed into an army group of the Red Army in Mongolia. In August, Zhukov conducted a successful operation to encircle and defeat the Japanese army on the Khalkhin Gol River. In this case, Zhukov widely used tank parts for encircling and defeating the enemy. This victory was one of the decisive factors that forced the Japanese Empire to abandon plans to attack the Soviet Union. Zhukov was awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union. Soon Zhukov received the rank of army general.

In the summer of 1940, the general led the Kiev Special Military District. In January, 1941, George Zhukov took part in two bilateral operational-strategic games on the cards. His success was marked by the fact that Stalin appointed Zhukov head of the General Staff (held this post until July 1941).

During the Great Patriotic War, Zhukov acted as a "crisis manager" of the Red Army. He was sent to the most difficult and dangerous sectors of the front to stabilize the situation or to succeed in a decisive offensive. According to military historian Alexei Isaev ("George Zhukov: The King's Last Argument"), "Zhukov was a kind of" commander of the RGK "(Reserve of the Main Command). His arrival at a sector of the front in crisis or requiring special attention guaranteed the headquarters for the increased effectiveness of the Soviet troops in a dangerous direction. Even during the battles of Mongolia with the Japanese army, Zhukov’s decisive actions prevented the encirclement and defeat of the Soviet troops in Khalkhin Gol and led to a severe defeat of the Japanese troops. In 1941, Zhukov saw the main weak link of the German Blitzkrieg, the gap between armored armored and motorized wedges and the Wehrmacht infantry corps moving behind them, as well as the extended and weak flanks of the enemy. Zhukov understood that it was necessary to launch counter-attacks during this period and along the flanks with all the forces that could be assembled. However, the indecisiveness of the South-Western Front command, which was deprived of Zhukov’s volitional support, led to a catastrophe.

At the same time, we cannot say that Zhukov was a commander who did not suffer a single defeat, like Suvorov. He bears on his shoulders part of the responsibility, as the chief of the General Staff in the pre-war period, for the hardest first stage of the Great Patriotic War. During the war, he often had to rectify the situation to a simple defeat from an almost inevitable catastrophe or return the situation to a delicate balance. Georgy Zhukov was battered by the most powerful opponents and the most difficult sectors of the front.

It happened that Zhukov had to quit successfully started business and leave others to reap the fruits of his efforts, once again heading for other areas. Thus, in November 1942, Zhukov was forced to abandon the implementation of the counter-offensive plan at Stalingrad (Operation Uranus) and be responsible for the operation Mars prepared by Konev and Purkayev (the Second Rzhev-Sychev operation), where he was forced to take responsibility for failures in planning, which he himself would hardly have allowed. 13 July 1943, instead of reaping the benefits of the successfully launched Operation Kutuzov on the Western and Bryansk fronts (Orel strategic offensive operation), Zhukov was forced to go to the Voronezh Front, which was drained by a heavy defensive battle. However, even under these conditions, Zhukov was able to prepare the operation “Commander Rumyantsev” (the Belgorod-Kharkov operation), during which the Soviet troops liberated Belgorod and Kharkov.

Unfortunately, in the USSR it was decided to hush up failures and crises, which was a mistake. As a result, it allowed the enemies of the Russian civilization to create a black myth about the “butcher” Zhukov, who together with Stalin “corpses filled up” the Wehrmacht, and only at the cost of millions of senselessly ruined lives defeated Germany. However, the effectiveness of the political and military leadership of the USSR was proved by the flag over the Reichstag and the creation of the best armed forces in the world. Yes, and the myth about the "filling up the corpses," not withstanding any criticism. Honest researchers have repeatedly shown that the USSR lost more people in the war than Germany did not because of the lack of talent and bloodthirstiness of the Soviet military-political leadership, but because of several objective factors. Among them are the deliberate annihilation of prisoners of war by the Hitlerites, the genocide of the Soviet population in the occupied areas, etc.

Whether the enemies of the Russian people want it or not, Marshal Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov is a national hero of the USSR-Russia. He rightfully entered the ranks of the heroes and great commanders of our civilization, and is on a par with Svyatoslav, Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, Alexander Suvorov and Mikhail Kutuzov.

No wonder on the 30th anniversary of the Victory in Paris, posters hung with a portrait of George Zhukov and the caption: "The man who won the Second World War." It is clear that this is an exaggeration, but there is a reasonable beginning in this phrase. Zhukov is a commander who broke the victorious Wehrmacht machine and took Berlin. This is an iron soldier who has come a long way from the tsarist non-commissioned officer to the Marshal and Minister of Defense of the USSR. Attempts to overthrow him from the podium Victory is a war against ours historical memory, a blow to our civilization.

Zhukov drank to the bottom and a bitter cup. He experienced envy, distrust, betrayal, and oblivion. Georgy Konstantinovich made a big mistake when he got into politics and supported Khrushchev, first against Beria, and then helped Khrushchev to win the fight with other opponents. That was his mistake. Khrushchev could not stand next to a winning marshal, who could become the head of the opposition. What was a big threat because of the reforms of Khrushchev, aimed at the "optimization" of the armed forces. In addition, Zhukov was one of the few people who forever retained respect for Stalin and defended the Supreme even during the later “de-Stalinization”, urging not to go too far and pay tribute to the great organizational skills of the great leader. In October, 1957, by order of Khrushchev, Zhukov was removed from all party and state posts. And in March 1958 of the year - he was dismissed from the armed forces, to whom Zhukov gave almost his whole life. Only when Brezhnev came to power, the disgrace from Zhukov was partially removed.

Georgy Zhukov - Crisis Manager of the Red Army

K. Vasiliev. Marshal Zhukov
Author:
165 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mikhado
    Mikhado 18 June 2014 08: 59
    +4
    A worthy son of his time, truly one of the best commanders. But ... Rokossovsky was no worse, but did not take part in the conspiracy against Stalin and Beria in 1953, refused to betray the Leader and later, for which he suffered.
    But Zhukov messed up his uniform ...
    1. AX
      AX 18 June 2014 10: 52
      +14
      My grandfather told me that during the war, they were divided among themselves into "Zhukovtsy" and "Rokossovtsy". And he was always proud that he fought with Rokossovsky. To my question why, he simply answered: - "He is a soldier bearer" ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Mareman Vasilich
        Mareman Vasilich 18 June 2014 13: 36
        0
        Not everyone is the same.
      3. Killingload
        Killingload 18 June 2014 14: 20
        0
        +100. Zhukov did not protect the soldiers ............ I didn’t remove non-competent officers from the position ...... he shot. This does not beg his merits as a commander. But as a person ............
      4. vardex
        vardex 19 June 2014 01: 21
        0
        my not so
      5. Russohol
        Russohol 19 June 2014 06: 44
        +1
        my grandfather told me that Zhukov took care of a soldier. In a place of honor in his library was Georgy Konstantinovich's book "Memories and Reflections" published in 1969. He was proud to have fought under his command.
      6. The comment was deleted.
    2. jktu66
      jktu66 18 June 2014 13: 28
      +1
      But Zhukov messed up his uniform ...
      What are you speaking about?
      1. pilot8878
        pilot8878 20 June 2014 19: 54
        +1
        About politics. The support of x (p) y (u) yaw coup George Konstantinovich got dirty.
    3. Mareman Vasilich
      Mareman Vasilich 18 June 2014 13: 36
      0
      Where does the information come from?
  2. Giant thought
    Giant thought 18 June 2014 09: 07
    +4
    Zhukov, the great commander, in 1941, Stalin threw him to a place where everything had already gone through, where there was no hope left, but he pulled out, stabilized, counterattacked. The talent is extraordinary. He had, like all people, his own shortcomings, which only emphasized his military genius.
    1. Sirs
      Sirs 18 June 2014 09: 19
      +13
      Do not forget - Baghramyan, Rokossovsky, Chuikov, Shaposhnikov and many others. others.
      1. pilot8878
        pilot8878 20 June 2014 20: 00
        0
        At that time (1941) Baghramyan and Rokossovsky, Chernyakhovsky, Vatutin and other legendary Marshals of Victory held relatively low posts, and Zhukov was already a representative of the Headquarters.
  3. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 18 June 2014 09: 14
    0
    If not for Zhukov, they would have plunged the country into another civil war, so he didn’t moralize anything but once again saved the fatherland!
  4. johanson
    johanson 18 June 2014 09: 23
    -24
    Zhukov, in the first year of the war, scored a passing number of points for a candidate for execution, having surrendered everything that can be allowed to let the German to Moscow itself. Personally, I cannot perceive him as a worthy person.
    1. iCuD
      iCuD 18 June 2014 10: 48
      +11
      It’s not a desire to get personal, but it’s impossible to perceive your criticism as criticism of a worthy person.
      In my understanding, criticism requires at least a superficial knowledge of the subject, but your knowledge of strategy / tactics is most likely limited by some computer strategies. And besides strategy, we must not forget about managing people! Have you personally at least ever tried to manage / lead a group of people, each member of which sees himself as an individual person? Can you imagine the very dramatic situation in the first days of the war (and in the subsequent ones too)?
      And in general, only his contemporaries can adequately criticize a person (my opinion), and from them I have not heard cries about Comrade Zhukov's "bloodthirstiness" and "stupidity". For example, my grandfather, who met the war on the border in Belarus (21 more of them were put forward according to the plan to cover the state border) and being captured on the 4th day of the war (he sat there until 44, then returned to the active army without any problems) participated in the capture of Konigsberg, upon learning of Zhukov’s death, cried from grief... I think it is not necessary to continue the thought?
    2. Sirs
      Sirs 19 June 2014 02: 42
      +1
      What can I say, after all, the USSR was still not ready to fight in a new way (at that time). The development of defensive tactics took painful months and millions of lives of our people.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 19 June 2014 06: 57
        +1
        Again "perestroika" manuals.
        If there had been defensive battles at the beginning of the war, then there would have been no country. What the defense meant at that time was perfectly shown by the Vyazemsky rout. When the defense of the three fronts (Western, Reserve and Bryansk) created for several months, the Germans surrounded and destroyed in 10-15 days. Here, in reality, only the captives lost under a million people. Also, the defensive operation of the SWF near Kiev ended badly. Because they ran into the Dnieper and tried to sit behind it and sit in the UR. And the Germans crawled out from the north to the rear and in the south in one place broke through the front and everything, the boiler and also half a lemon to the people in captivity. Whereas in the border battle such losses were not observed at the same time, because they maneuvered and counterattacked. That made it possible to get out of the boilers, which mainly covered parts of the cover. Even in the defeated ZF there was no such pogrom as near Vyazma.
        To be honest, about the Kiev boiler, it must be said that there was a forced decision and the SWF deliberately sacrificed, diverting the German tank groups from the offensive on Moscow. And there was still not a pure blunt defense, but there were attempts to counterstrike the flank of the advancing group of Germans by the forces of the Bryansk Front, which was specially created for this. By the way, a very good shrikh about "Zhukov the Butcher". After all, it was Zhukov who demanded to withdraw the SWF in order to save him. Those. to save people, while the "butcher" would have had to lose the place of the General Staff and substitute his head, contradicting the IVS for the sake of saving the "meat." These are the "butchers" in the Red Army.
    3. pilot8878
      pilot8878 20 June 2014 20: 14
      0
      It was not Zhukov personally who allowed the German to visit Moscow, but the General Staff, of which GK was a representative. So he is only partially responsible. But in comparison with Marshal Kulik, gene. Meretskov, Khozin and many others who did not learn the lessons of mobile warfare, he really pulled out many catastrophic situations. And don’t even talk about "filling up the meat." An emergency situation demanded extraordinary and tough decisions.
  5. Dbnfkmtdbx
    Dbnfkmtdbx 18 June 2014 09: 26
    +3
    It’s hard to leave a comment, but there were always enough heroes in Russia, I don’t presume to judge Zhukov, I know for sure we won the war angry
    1. Sirs
      Sirs 19 June 2014 02: 44
      -2
      Well, at least you have no doubt about it)))))
      Good luck in studying the history of Russia, there are still so many turns that my head is spinning and dosihpor unknown.
  6. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 18 June 2014 09: 26
    +2
    You don’t want to insult people. Personally, you can keep your receptivity with you! Damn did not seem rude!
  7. DMB-75
    DMB-75 18 June 2014 09: 28
    +2
    This is the great son of Russia! And the memory of G.K.Zhukov will live forever along with such generals as Suvorov, Kutuzov, Nakhimov! Glory to the Heroes !!!
  8. parusnik
    parusnik 18 June 2014 09: 34
    +1
    Bad, good .. and the Marshal of Victory .. this also says a lot ..
  9. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 18 June 2014 09: 37
    +3
    Something I don’t understand where the wiseacres have disappeared, who now simply have to start screaming about Rzhev and the Zeelovsky heights, well, where are you geniuses who have seen the libel of parfyonov and the others scratching his hands? I want to answer you.
    1. Alex_Popovson
      Alex_Popovson 18 June 2014 12: 01
      +4
      Write more correctly, then smart people will be pulled
    2. jktu66
      jktu66 18 June 2014 13: 33
      +1
      You are geniuses who have seen the libel of parfyonov’s libel and others like itchy itch; I want to answer you.
      We do not forget the "historian" Svinadze, the "writer" Rezun again wink
  10. maratenok
    maratenok 18 June 2014 09: 43
    +2
    his business is to fight, and not in politics, flattery, if Stalin would have lived for another 20 years, then we would have the USSR right now
  11. seasnake
    seasnake 18 June 2014 10: 00
    +8
    Thanks for the stuff. No matter how enemies like Rezun tried to denigrate his name, he was and remains a great commander.
  12. bistrov.
    bistrov. 18 June 2014 10: 23
    +4
    Yes, this is a commander-soldier who fully experienced both the bitterness of defeat and the joy of victory. Like all living people, he also had mistakes. But this is a man of unbreakable, all-conquering will, a military man to the core and devoid of even the slightest bit of court flattery, which is usually for the top. He could openly tell the harsh truth in the eyes even to Stalin. Khrushchev especially humiliated him, removing him from what he loved. Fighting generals telling the truth were no longer needed. Worthy of all respect both as a commander and as a person. I remember back in 59, I was 7 years old, a portrait of Zhukov hung in our rural house. The front-line soldiers respected him very much. Even in the songs he is mentioned, remember the "march of tankers": "... and Marshal Zhukov will lead us into battle ..."
    1. vardex
      vardex 19 June 2014 01: 26
      +2
      just about Stalin’s song and about the first marshal
  13. brn521
    brn521 18 June 2014 10: 41
    +4
    Whatever you write, it is still historically obvious that the military business was set abhorrently in our country. The first stage of the war merged us into the trash. And not the last role here was played by management, headquarters and generals. The usual bureaucracy in the military version. People wanted and want to get better and higher, the work itself is a secondary task. So it was and it is, and not only with us. Merit of the Germans - they made their swamp very effective. In general, I would not dirty the name of Suvorov in this puddle.
    And the words of Stalin about Zhukov in the epigraph would be better to supplement the words of Zhukov about Stalin during the period of struggle with the cult of personality.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. mazhnikof.Niko
      mazhnikof.Niko 18 June 2014 11: 57
      +2
      Quote: brn521
      Whatever you write, it’s still historically obvious that the military business was disgusting

      Quote: brn521
      Merit of the Germans - they made their swamp very effective.

      Well, if you agree with you, the Red Army was rubbish!
      Then the question is: which army was good?
      You answer: - "Wehrmacht"? So!? So.
      Then the question is: which Army emerged from WWII victorious?
      Answer: - The Soviet Army.
      Sorry, with all due respect, sir, but how to tie together your "congenial" feces ... sorry, thinking, sirrrr ?!
    3. alicante11
      alicante11 19 June 2014 07: 11
      0
      Whatever you write, it is still historically obvious that the military business was set abhorrently in our country. The first stage of the war merged us into the trash
      .

      Yeah, the Poles are disgusting and the French are disgusting and the British in Dunkirk and Singapore are all messy, and the Americans with their Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Wake - it's just bullshit.

      In a war, it is not the one who does everything right that wins, but the one who is stronger, who has concentrated more forces, has a more advantageous strategic position. So to cover the thousand-kilometer border with three million against five and not "drain the first stage" - this does not happen.
  14. kim. 230752
    kim. 230752 18 June 2014 10: 49
    +5
    The commander was good. But he did not spare people. In the early 50s, at the Totsky training ground, after his command after an air nuclear explosion, 2 hours later hundreds of soldiers were driven on foot and using equipment without any personal protective equipment through the epicenter of the explosion. And these were citizens of the USSR, called up for military service, and not for use as experimental rabbits.
    1. mazhnikof.Niko
      mazhnikof.Niko 18 June 2014 12: 12
      +1
      Quote: kim.230752
      The commander was good. But he did not spare people.


      Already a shift - a good commander, but if we disregard the knowledge of the history of the Second World War, according to the liberal magazine "Ogonyok" (edited by V. Korotich)? Try to "deaf" to study, Maybe it turns out that he also felt sorry for the Soviet people ?! However, for now, thank you at least for the recognition of your leadership talent. No, as a tadant, you have not recognized him - a good one is capable. Thanks anyway!
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. sdv68
      sdv68 18 June 2014 12: 46
      +1
      Quote: kim.230752
      In the early 50s, at the Totsky training ground under his command, after an air nuclear explosion, 2 hours later, hundreds of soldiers were driven on foot and using equipment without any personal protective equipment through the epicenter of the explosion. And these were citizens of the USSR, called up for military service, and not for use as experimental rabbits.


      Tests of the effects of nuclear weapons on humans were carried out by all nuclear powers. No matter how cruel it seemed, it was necessary to find out how the army would act in the event of a nuclear strike. Googling for US nuclear tests.

      PS: And you can still look at the following picture

    4. Ascetic
      Ascetic 18 June 2014 12: 57
      +8
      Quote: kim.230752
      But he did not spare people. In the early 50s, at the Totsky training ground under his command, after an air nuclear explosion, 2 hours later, hundreds of soldiers were driven on foot and using equipment without any personal protective equipment through the epicenter of the explosion.


      Now, almost every schoolboy has a little idea of ​​PFJAV, and at that time no one had a clue about real consequences the effects of radiation. However, this is another myth about the monstrous atrocity of the communist regime and personally the bloody butcher Zhukov, replicated by "unwilling" national traitors. But about the fact that three years before that, November 1, 1951. exactly the same nuclear military exercises first held in the USAcollectively called Buster Dog. In particular, during the first exercises, an air warhead of ammunition with a capacity of 25 Kt was produced
      Troops with a total number of several thousand people were at a distance of about 11 kilometers from the site of the explosion and watched the development of events. Some time after the passage of the shock wave separate units made march-throws in the direction of the epicenter of the explosion (not reaching it about one kilometer)
      In total, 8 Desert Rock exercises were held in the USA, 5 of them - to the Totsky exercises.
      We conducted two Totsky exercises in 1954. and Semipalatinsk in 1956. Unlike the Desert Rock exercises, the Totsky and Semipalatinsk exercises were carried out with much more stringent security measures. Strict dosimetric control, a long waiting time after the explosion, shelters for personnel, and protective equipment - safety was monitored at a higher level. Unlike the American ones, where ordinary people come to take a look at nuclear tests and have picnics, as evidenced by the numerous video chronicle materials.
      You can read more about links to reports and REAL DOCUMENTS and video materials, rather than myths and tales. Exercises at the Totsky and Semipalatinsk training grounds and here Sergey Markov, research engineer. TOTA TEACHINGS 1954 AND TAKEN SAFETY MEASURES.
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 18 June 2014 13: 04
        +7
        On security at corps training
        In order to ensure the security of troops during the September 14 corpus exercises I ORDER:
        1. For the period of an atomic explosion, responsibility for the safety of personnel of the troops shall be assigned:
        a) to the deputy head of the exercise on special issues - in the city of Medvezhya and in area No. 2 - Pronkino, (lawsuit) Pavlovka, high. 238,6 m, mark 140,9 m, south edge of the grove, (lawsuit) MTS, Makhovka;
        b) to the commander of 128sk in the initial position of the corps (area No. 2) within the borders: from the north and south - the lines of separation 128sk; from the east - along the Mal. Uran river; from the west along the river Makhovka;
        c) for the deputy chief of staff of the leadership on organizational issues - in the city of Petrovskaya Shishka, "Comma" and in the town of the headquarters of the leadership "Grove".
        2. On the rest of the training area, organize safety measures by order of the commander of the South Ural Military District.
        3. The direct responsibility for compliance with security measures, the personnel of the troops to assign to the commanders of units, units and formations.
        4. In order to monitor the security of troops and their compliance with security measures, the districts should be divided into sections and appoint commandants of the sections on which to assign personal responsibility for the observance by all military personnel of all security measures. The commandants of the plots must know exactly who and where will be on the day of the training on their site.
        5. The commanders of formations and individual units should take into account all personnel and equipment, which during the atomic explosion will be separated from their units and units. To bring single military personnel into teams, appoint senior officers and prepare shelters for them. The composition and locations of these teams to the commanders of formations and individual units by 18.00 11.9 in writing to inform the heads of districts. The heads of the districts should check these teams, the availability of shelters for them and organize their notification of the atomic alarm.
        6. On the day of the exercise from 5.00 to 9.00 in these areas, prohibit the movement of single persons and cars. Movement is permitted only as part of teams with responsible officers. From 9.00 to 10.00 to ban any movement.
        7. The responsibility for the organization and implementation of security measures shall be assigned: during the conduct of artillery fires - to the deputy head of the exercises for artillery, during the conduct of combat bombing - to the deputy heads of the exercises for aviation, during the simulation - to the deputy head of the exercises for engineering troops.
        8. The areas of the city of Lysaya (northern) and the city of Kalanchevaya, for which combat bombing is carried out, shall be declared restricted zones for the entire period of the exercise, and fenced with wire and red flags. At the end of the bombing, by order of the deputy head of the exercise for engineer troops, set up a cordon.
        1. Ascetic
          Ascetic 18 June 2014 13: 04
          +2
          9. The transmission of warning signals from the control point of the manual shall be carried out on radio notification networks at frequencies of 2500, 2875 and 36.500 kHz. At all KP, NP and instrumentation up to and including the battalion (division), as well as in parts of the camp camp, have on-call radios (radio stations) operating at one of these frequencies. For the commanders of formations and units, for this purpose, select the best radio operators with perfectly operational radios (radio stations) and personally check their readiness for work. To conduct training of personnel in work in radio networks according to the schedule approved by my deputy for communications troops.
          10. Between 6.00:8.00 a.m. and 12:128 a.m. on September XNUMX, by order of the commander of XNUMXsk, conduct training of troops and staffs in actions based on atomic and chemical alarms.
          11. The withdrawal of troops outside the restricted areas should be completed by the end of September 9 and reported to me in writing. All prepared shelters and shelters, as well as the readiness of communication facilities for receiving and transmitting signals, should be checked by special commissions and formalized with the results of the audit.
          12. On other issues of troop security, strictly follow the "Instruction on troop security during corps exercises in the area of ​​the Totsk camps."
          13. The order to bring to all commanders of formations and units.
          14. On the implementation of this order to report to the headquarters of the leadership by 19.00 11.09.54.

          The head of the exercise, Marshal of the Soviet Union G.K. ZHUKOV
    5. Bakht
      Bakht 18 June 2014 22: 16
      +1
      And if you delve into the documents? About Totsky training ground for a long time already all documents are disclosed.
    6. vardex
      vardex 19 June 2014 01: 27
      0
      but he was present there
  15. heruv1me
    heruv1me 18 June 2014 11: 10
    +2
    A very ambiguous personality, a crisis manager — maybe a talented commander — is not for me. A lot of mistakes cost millions of lives. The Soviet soldier is to whom unequivocally glory and eternal memory. In this regard, Rokosovsky’s memoirs (with restored chapters) are very interesting.
    And for reference, it was Zhukov who disbanded the marine corps after the war (like nafig are not needed and ordinary infantry can handle it), this is the general’s horizons.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. mazhnikof.Niko
      mazhnikof.Niko 18 June 2014 12: 22
      0
      Quote: heruv1me
      Here is such a horizons of the commander.

      Oh, yes: "everyone imagines himself a strategist, seeing the battle from the side"! Especially, not even a battle, but Wikipedia, after 7 decades!
    3. potomak8
      potomak8 18 June 2014 13: 03
      0
      I cannot agree with you. "Very ambiguous" all people, depending on the circumstances and historians who study these circumstances. "A lot of mistakes that cost millions of lives" he was not "Tsar" to make decisions himself. And in my opinion, just at the beginning of the war we were objectively weaker ...
    4. vardex
      vardex 19 June 2014 01: 30
      0
      very much agree that it is Rokosovsky
  16. bender8282
    bender8282 18 June 2014 11: 24
    -3
    and women still gave birth .....
    1. kristofer
      kristofer 18 June 2014 17: 53
      +1
      this is not his phrase
  17. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 18 June 2014 11: 29
    +2
    For the night and who are the judges? In the most demacratic country, they did it too, if you do not know what at the Totsk test site only on a larger scale. And he didn’t want to talk about people. Until now, I am chronizing a clipping from "Krasnaya Zvezda" when the first attempts to bite the national hero began. The answer of the chief archivist of the Moscow Region was pure statistics when a representative of the rate was sent to different sectors of the front.
    PS Well, I’m waiting for the clicks, where are the squeals about Rzhev and the Zeelov heights.
  18. zoknyay82
    zoknyay82 18 June 2014 11: 40
    0
    Winners are not judged. A lot of all information for and against. I would like documentary evidence.
  19. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 18 June 2014 11: 41
    +1
    I don’t know about the Marine Corps, and the truth may be a mistake, but all the dogs that hang on G.K. Zhukov about the fleet is at least insolvent for this, at least you need to know that he could influence naval affairs only indirectly if he influenced because he was a separate Navy commissar in the same rank and with the same powers as the defense commissar. And he began to create special units and not only units but also connections (only North Korea now has special connections) long before the entire so-called civilized world.
    1. creak
      creak 18 June 2014 16: 45
      +1
      Quote: kapitan281271

      I don’t know about the Marine Corps, and the truth may be a mistake, but all the dogs that hang on G.K. Zhukov about the fleet at least insolvent


      And the fact that Zhukov, as Minister of Defense in February 1956, with one stroke of the pen dismissed such a talented naval commander as Admiral Kuznetsov, without even really wanting to listen to Kuznetsov and figure it out - is this also an untenable statement? Unfortunately, this is a fairly well-known fact. It is interesting to note that in 1946 at a meeting with Stalin, KUznetsov was practically the only one who spoke in defense of Zhukov, when clouds began to gather over the marshal and serious charges were brought against him. Zhukov has such a peculiar feeling of gratitude ... And the fact that he soon shared the fate of Kuznetsov is logical, that you sow, you will reap ...
      1. Bakht
        Bakht 18 June 2014 22: 18
        0
        What was the talent of Admiral Kuznetsov? I would especially like to hear about his talents when considering the actions of the Black Sea Fleet. Yes, and the Baltic was very different.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 19 June 2014 07: 20
          0
          What was the talent of Admiral Kuznetsov?


          Let us not, defending some generals, omit others.

          And the fact that Zhukov, as Minister of Defense in February 1956, with one stroke of the pen dismissed such a talented naval commander as Admiral Kuznetsov, without even really wanting to listen to Kuznetsov and figure it out - is this also an untenable statement?


          Politics, let her mother ...
  20. sdv68
    sdv68 18 June 2014 12: 16
    +2
    Good article on the topic - http://topwar.ru/2312-zhukov-ne-beryog-soldat.html

    Zhukov quotes from her:

    "A breakthrough to produce concentrated forces, not scattering them on a broad front; to seize populated areas with specially created assault detachments; for the fastest advance of the main forces to use the unoccupied space for an interval."

    "... the exact execution of my order to seize enemy strongholds by special assault detachments, in order to avoid unnecessary losses."

    "In the armies of the Western Front, an absolutely unacceptable attitude towards the saving of personnel has recently been created. Commanders, commanders of formations and units, organizing a battle, sending people to carry out combat missions, not responsibly approaching the preservation of fighters and commanders, replenishment is more than other fronts in 2 – 3 times, but this replenishment in case of negligent, and sometimes criminal, relation of commanders of units to saving people's life and health is quickly and unacceptably lost and parts of them are new l remain in a small incomplete. "

    "A particularly bad attitude towards saving people exists in 50, 10 armies ..."

    "To burn with a hot iron an irresponsible attitude towards saving people, no matter who comes from it."

    "In vain do you think that success is achieved by human flesh, success is achieved by the art of warfare, fighting with skill, not with the lives of people."
  21. sdv68
    sdv68 18 June 2014 12: 40
    +2
    Quote: bender8282
    and women still gave birth .....


    This "fairy tale about the white bull" has nothing to do with Zhukov. About "women" said about 200 years before Zhukov Apraksin, who was very fond of horses.
  22. SukhovAM
    SukhovAM 18 June 2014 12: 47
    0
    Great person!
    1. strannik595
      strannik595 18 June 2014 12: 56
      +3
      As a result, Zhukov remained in the training team, which was located in the city of Izyum, Kharkov province.
      ........ the marshall turned upside down in the coffin, probably if he knew who is now in Izium and who is fighting ............. there would be half of Zhukov’s division and twenty tanks would dare Lyashkovsky homo-legal secs per day
  23. drop
    drop 18 June 2014 13: 08
    +9
    Dear readers of "VO", I understand that every citizen and officer can have their own point of view on various events. But you have to rise above them when you evaluate the deeds of great people. I met Ustinov several times and worked with many marshals. Both in their recollections and in the cases performed by the equal of G.K. Zhukov is not in our recent history. I will give you just one example. Zhdanov and Voroshilov were preparing Leningrad for surrender to the Nazis in September 1941. The documents and their orders have been preserved in the archives. Zhukov, however, in three weeks corrected the situation on the Leningrad front. It is difficult to manage a large number of units, it is not given to everyone. I personally had to manage enterprises where more than 120 thousand specialists worked. It is difficult, but interesting and responsible. So I published in "VO" the story "Crisis month in the defense of the city", read it, especially young people, and you will see the greatness of G.K. Zhukov and his role in protecting our country. I have the honor.
  24. volot-voin
    volot-voin 18 June 2014 13: 08
    +2
    Great person! The last time the liberals tried to stain his name in the mud. History will put everything in its place.
  25. heruv1me
    heruv1me 18 June 2014 13: 32
    +5
    From the memoirs of Rokosovsky K.K.
    "We immediately prepared an order for the troops to withdraw the main forces at night to
    boundary of the Istra reservoir. Reinforced units remained in their former positions,
    which should have departed only under enemy pressure.
    The order was sent in part to the liaison officers.
    Our mood has risen. Now, we thought, at the Istrian frontier, the Germans
    break their teeth. Their main strength - the tanks will run into an insurmountable barrier, and
    motorized joints cannot use their mobility.
    The joy, however, was short-lived. Not yet had all our troops received
    an order to leave, as followed by a short but formidable telegram from Zhukov.
    I will quote her literally:
    “I command the front troops!” Order on the withdrawal of troops for the Istra reservoir
    I cancel, I order the defense on the occupied line and not a step back.
    Army General Zhukov. "
    What can you do - the order is the order, and we, as soldiers, obeyed. As a result,
    trouble has occurred. As we foresaw, the adversary, continuing to squeeze our units
    on the left wing, threw them east, forced Istra along the way and captured it on its east
    the shore of the bridgehead. To the south of the Volga reservoir, he broke through the defense in the 30-
    army and began to quickly advance tank and motorized formations,
    expanding breakthrough. His troops went to the flank and to the rear defending on our right
    the flank of the 126th Infantry Division, and even before that, it was greatly weakened and barely held back
    pressing the enemy. At the same time, a blow was struck from the Teryaeva Sloboda area, and
    German tanks with infantry moved to Solnechnogorsk, bypassing the Istra reservoir
    from North."
    1. INVESTOR
      INVESTOR 18 June 2014 20: 45
      +1
      Quote: heruv1me
      From the memoirs of Rokosovsky K.K.
      "We immediately prepared an order for the troops to withdraw the main forces at night to
      boundary of the Istra reservoir. Reinforced units remained in their former positions,
      which should have departed only under enemy pressure.
      The order was sent in part to the liaison officers.
      Our mood has risen. Now, we thought, at the Istrian frontier, the Germans
      break their teeth. Their main strength - the tanks will run into an insurmountable barrier, and
      motorized joints cannot use their mobility.
      The joy, however, was short-lived. Not yet had all our troops received
      an order to leave, as followed by a short but formidable telegram from Zhukov.
      I will quote her literally:
      “I command the front troops!” Order on the withdrawal of troops for the Istra reservoir
      I cancel, I order the defense on the occupied line and not a step back.
      Army General Zhukov. "
      What can you do - the order is the order, and we, as soldiers, obeyed. As a result,
      trouble has occurred. As we foresaw, the adversary, continuing to squeeze our units
      on the left wing, threw them east, forced Istra along the way and captured it on its east
      the shore of the bridgehead. To the south of the Volga reservoir, he broke through the defense in the 30-
      army and began to quickly advance tank and motorized formations,
      expanding breakthrough. His troops went to the flank and to the rear defending on our right
      the flank of the 126th Infantry Division, and even before that, it was greatly weakened and barely held back
      pressing the enemy. At the same time, a blow was struck from the Teryaeva Sloboda area, and
      German tanks with infantry moved to Solnechnogorsk, bypassing the Istra reservoir
      from North."


      Watch the film by Yuri Ozerov "The Great Commander Georgy Zhukov" there this moment is analyzed in detail. To retreat is to retreat. and there was nowhere to retreat.
  26. heruv1me
    heruv1me 18 June 2014 13: 34
    +2
    More
    "We have been friends with G.K. Zhukov for many years. Fate has brought us together more than once and again for a long time
    parted. We first met back in 1924 at the Higher Cavalry School in
    Leningrad. We arrived there as commanders of cavalry regiments: I am from Transbaikalia, he is from
    Ukraine. Studied with all the passion. Naturally, a friendly team
    Communist commanders full of energy and youth. There were Baghramyan, Sinyakov,
    Eremenko and other comrades. Zhukov, like no one, devoted himself to the study of military science.
    Let's look into his room - everything creeps on the map laid out on the floor. Already then, duty
    for him were above all.
    At the very beginning of the thirties, our paths converged in Minsk, where I happened to
    command the cavalry division in the corps of S.K. Timoshenko, and G.K. Zhukov was in the same
    division commander of the regiment. On the eve of the war, we met in a different capacity: Army General
    Zhukov commanded the district, and I, with the rank of major general, was cavalry, and then
    mechanized body. Georgy Konstantinovich grew rapidly. He had everything through
    land - and talent, and energy, and self-confidence.
    And on the Western Front during heavy fighting on the approaches to Moscow, we again
    working together. But now our official relations sometimes do not add up very well
    OK. Why? In my opinion, Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov remains
    a man of strong will and determination, richly gifted with all qualities,
    necessary to a major military leader. The main thing, apparently, was that we
    differently understood the role and form of manifestation of the will in the leadership. In the war, from
    a lot depends on this.
    I remember the conversation that took place in my presence between G.K. Zhukov and
    I.V. Stalin. It was a little later, already in winter. Stalin instructed Zhukov to hold
    a small operation, it seems in the area of ​​the Mga station, in order to somehow ease the situation
    Leningraders. Zhukov argued that a major operation was needed, only then would the goal be
    achieved. Stalin replied:
    - All this is good, comrade Zhukov, but we do not have the means, we must reckon with this.
    Zhukov stood his ground:
    “Otherwise, nothing will come of it.” One desire is not enough. Stalin did not hide his
    irritation, but Zhukov did not give up. Finally, Stalin said:
    - Go, comrade Zhukov, think that you are still free.
    I liked the directness of Georgy Konstantinovich. But when we left, I said
    that, in my opinion, one should not talk so sharply with the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
    Zhukov replied:
    “This is not the case with us yet.”
    He was right then: one desire is not enough for military success. But during the battles under
    In Moscow, Georgy Konstantinovich often forgot about it himself. "
    1. Anatole Klim
      Anatole Klim 18 June 2014 14: 13
      +3
      Quote: heruv1me
      Finally, Stalin said: “Go, Comrade Zhukov, think, while you are free.”

      This joke was first told to me by my father, who began to serve under Stalin, and when I was a teenager I asked - is it true what happened? then he laughed and said that there is no smoke without fire.
      Comrade Stalin calls Zhukov and asks:
      “Well, where will you strike the main blow, Comrade Zhukov?”
      - In Belarus, Comrade Stalin;
      - Go and think again, Comrade Zhukov!
      Once again, Stalin calls Zhukova and once again Zhukov reports that the main blow will be in Belarus.
      Once again, Zhukov leaves Stalin’s office and, unable to stand it, swears: Mustachioed hell !!!
      The secretary of Stalin, hearing rushes to his office and whispers:
      - Comrade Stalin! Comrade Stalin! And Zhukov, leaving your office, said:
      - Mustachioed hell !!!
      “Call him,” Stalin orders. Zhukov comes in and Stalin asks him:
      - Comrade Zhukov! When you left my office, you said a mustachioed devil! Who do you mean?
      - Hitler, of course, Comrade Stalin!
      - Are you a fellow secretary?
  27. heruv1me
    heruv1me 18 June 2014 13: 36
    +1
    More
    "At this hour, he called me to Zvenigorod, who arrived there
    a confrontation and proposed to lead the cavalry army, which I was offered
    form from the four cavalries and corps of L.M. arriving from Central Asia
    Dovatorov. This army, according to T.K. Zhukov, was to break through the enemy front
    south of the Volga reservoir and strike the flank and rear of the enemy,
    concentrating in the area of ​​Volokolamsk. With great difficulty I managed to prove
    the inappropriateness of an undertaking, which could lead only to the useless death of many
    people and the loss of horses. Put together, cavalry units would be easy
    exterminated by aircraft and tanks. I don’t know whether I convinced Zhukov or complicated
    the situation at the front influenced, but, obliging me to consider his proposal, he did this
    question never came back. "
  28. heruv1me
    heruv1me 18 June 2014 13: 38
    +1
    And more
    "Just before the start of the enemy offensive, an order came unexpectedly
    Comrade G.K. Zhukov strike from the area north of Volokolamsk on the enemy
    grouping. What guided those who knew the situation of the confrontation, giving such an order,
    I still do not understand. After all, we had extremely limited strength, and the term
    preparation was determined one night. My reasons for canceling this offensive or
    the extension of at least the period of preparation for it was ignored.
    At first, our units, which used surprise, managed to advance to
    three kilometers deep into the enemy’s location, but then barely managed to free themselves from
    this wedge. Equestrian group L.M. Dovatora reflected
    blows inflicted by the enemy from all sides. Using mobility and ingenuity, she still
    managed to break free and avoid complete surroundings. Almost simultaneously with this our
    called the offensive, the enemy moved on the entire sector occupied by the army. "
  29. heruv1me
    heruv1me 18 June 2014 13: 40
    0
    Lastly
    "The commander did not take into account the entire expediency of my request and ordered
    not to step back a step ... Such an expression, by the way, became fashionable at that time. Moreover
    most often it was pronounced by those persons who, while away from events, did not see
    and did not know how they are developing, where and in what conditions this or that battle takes place.
    You need to stand to death and die wisely, only when this achieves an important goal,
    only if it, the death of a few, prevents the death of the majority,
    provides overall success. But in this case, such a need did not exist, and
    Army Commander G.K. Zhukov was wrong (VIZh 1989 No. 6).
    I quote literally the contents of Zhukov’s short but formidable encryption: “Troops
    I command the front! I canceled the order to withdraw troops for the Istra reservoir.
    I order the defense on the occupied line and not a step backward. ”
    It was like Zhukov. In this disposition he felt: I - Zhukov. His
    the personal "I" very often took precedence over the general interests. (VIZH 1989 No. 6) "
    1. dmb
      dmb 18 June 2014 14: 11
      +1
      I can only say one thing. Two great generals. Bow to them to the ground. Were they not ambitious? Lies. Without ambition, you don't become marshals. And therefore, the words of Rokosovsky should be assessed also taking into account this factor. In addition, do not forget that both marshals at the time of publication of these "notes" could not say anything about their veracity. In 1989, with the filing of Mr. Volkogonov in VIZh, it was possible to read something like that. Nobody will check that, well, not the then member of the Central Committee Yakovlev will do this. For the sake of objectivity, it would be worth citing Zhukov's negative statements about Rokosovsky. For example, they are not known to me.
    2. Colonel
      Colonel 18 June 2014 15: 26
      +3
      From the recollections of the methodologist of physical therapy Valentina Andreevna Sobko, who nursed Zhukov after a stroke
      Once in the corridor I drove him in a carriage, he heard a voice and found out: “This is Kostya! Call him. ” I ran, called Rokossovsky. He came up. They hugged. Rokossovsky looked very bad, already turned green, he was eaten up by cancer. The marshals talked seemingly at ease, smiled. Wished each other all the best. Rokossovsky kissed Zhukov. He stared at him and said softly: "Goodbye George." And he left, a few weeks later he died.
  30. tolancop
    tolancop 18 June 2014 14: 28
    +6
    The article put a minus. She is too laudatory ... a kind of hero who beat the adversary almost alone ...
    Zhukov’s figure is very ambiguous (they’ve ruined this word, but it’s difficult to find another one).
    Maybe a great commander, but just what to do with Rokossovsky’s review of his subordinate G.K. Zhukov, who did not like staff work and hated it.
    Beat the Japanese at Khalkhin Gol ... Beat ... Alone or did someone plan the headquarters operation? As chief of the General Staff before the war, he did not show himself, to put it mildly.
    Credit for correcting the situation in critical sectors of the front. Could be so. But if you start to figure out at what cost (life, technology, etc.), then it is very likely that the appearance of the "hero" will fade. Something in the article about Zhukov's failures is not enough written, or were they not?
    And with personal modesty, Mr. Zhukov was not all right.
    From my point of view, the usual image of a hero, a sort of Kutuzov-2, is the result of intense propaganda that put him to the forefront as a savior of the Fatherland and left a large number of other talented commanders in the shadow who made a huge contribution to the Victory .. The real merits of G. Zhukov . in the defeat of the Nazis is obviously noticeably more modest than
    it is now accepted to be considered. Although real merits undoubtedly exist. And he made a considerable contribution to our victory.
    I am not a historian, I have not worked in archives with original documents, and my view of Zhukov's personality and his contribution to the Victory is largely based on publications of 2000 (Yu. Mukhin et al.). But the first doubts about the role attributed to Zhukov were planted in my soul back in the mid-70s, i.e. at the time of the release of the epic "Liberation", when doubting Georgy Konstantinovich was akin to sacrilege. And at that time I got into my hands a book for schoolchildren with an unpretentious title "The Book of Future Commanders" (in the tyrnet it is). It describes many battles from antiquity to the Second World War with maps and diagrams. There is also a description of the Battle of Kursk. And now I read a description of the preparation for it: the Soviet troops are strengthening, and the Germans are conducting psychological processing, an information war according to the present. They swear on the radio. All sorts of leaflets are discarded. And the text of one leaflet is given (I write as I remember, but I vouch for the meaning): "The Stalingrad bandits Rokossovsky !!! Why did you come to Kursk? Here WE will arrange Stalingrad for you !!! ... "... Opachki! ... Not a word about Zhukov; neither near Kursk nor near Stalingrad! And the Germans probably knew WHO they had thrown on the Volga, in a crucial battle !!! Rokossovsky !!! And who opposes near Kursk (in another crucial battle of the Second World War) KNEW.
    Since then, somehow I liked Rokossovsky more.

    One can talk a lot about the “slanderousness” of the hero's image by the liberals. Can. You can praise him to heaven and make an icon. Can. But!!! The truth is probably somewhere in between. Difficult times are difficult people. Heroes and criminals rolled into one. The objective characteristic of Zhukov, IMHO, is still waiting for its writer.
    1. Colonel
      Colonel 18 June 2014 15: 16
      +2
      Don't you think that for judgments like
      Quote: tolancop
      From my point of view, the usual image of a hero like Kutuzov-2 is the result of intense propaganda,

      The theoretical base is too small.
    2. auditor
      auditor 18 June 2014 15: 26
      0
      I recommend reading Karpov's book "Marshal Zhukov, his comrades-in-arms and opponents in the years of war and peace." It describes successes and failures, and about crisis management, and about the loss of troops under his leadership. In my opinion, this is a fairly objective book with archival documents, etc.

      Regarding the "Stalingrad bandits of Rokossovsky" - the article says that having prepared the operation, Zhukov often left others to reap the benefits, being sent to other sectors of the front to organize diversionary strikes.
    3. brn521
      brn521 18 June 2014 17: 27
      0
      He put a plus for illustrating how the good old Soviet propaganda cracked in the most unexpected places.
      The article did not put anything, military mythology, it is mythology. Immunity to it has already developed. Two years of military service do not pass without a trace. Although maybe someone two years was not enough. It was an amazing country where people were taught to say one thing, think another, and do a third. And how she lasted so much time, I can not imagine.
  31. Mother Theresa
    Mother Theresa 18 June 2014 15: 22
    -1
    Oh dead or good or nothing.
  32. brn521
    brn521 18 June 2014 16: 50
    -5
    Quote: mazhnikof.Niko
    Well, if you agree with you, the Red Army was rubbish!

    This was proved to us by the Finns. Then the Germans. The defeat in the first half of the war is a complete UG. A school history course is enough to make out.
    Quote: mazhnikof.Niko
    Then the question is: which Army was good? You answer: - "Wehrmacht"? So!? So.

    Wehrmacht. His victory over the European armies speaks for itself. It is especially amazing how quickly the French sank. He defeated us too. One thing saved us, a large territory gave us time to pump out additional resources from the country and people. And they fought to the last, not like other Europeans. It was a very strong opponent, they took him to starve, we no longer need this.
    Quote: mazhnikof.Niko
    Then the question is: which Army emerged from WWII victorious? Answer: - The Soviet Army.

    The US WWII came out victorious. That we disentangle so far. I thought it was no secret to anyone.
    For a very long time, we were not up to fat, we strained all our strength so as not to lose the Second World War.
    Quote: mazhnikof.Niko
    Sorry, with all due respect, sir, but how to tie together your "congenial" feces ... sorry, thinking, sirrrr ?!

    I think, in your case, in any way, you have a clearly different task, which has nothing to do with either history or constructive thinking.
  33. tolancop
    tolancop 18 June 2014 17: 07
    +2
    Quote: Auditor
    I recommend reading Karpov's book "Marshal Zhukov, his comrades-in-arms and opponents in the years of war and peace." It describes successes and failures, and about crisis management, and about the loss of troops under his leadership. In my opinion, this is a fairly objective book with archival documents, etc.

    Thanks for the recommendation, I may use it.
    Quote: Auditor
    ...
    Regarding the "Stalingrad bandits of Rokossovsky" - the article says that having prepared the operation, Zhukov often left others to reap the benefits, being sent to other sectors of the front to organize diversionary strikes.

    But let me not believe in this, since it completely contradicts logic and common sense. Imagine the following situation ... You are a commander. Before you is an experienced and powerful enemy and the question is about your life or death. You are developing a plan, the implementation of which will allow you to get life. Even if the plan is developed in sufficient detail, then still there is no guarantee that it will be possible to fully implement it, in the form in which it was conceived. And common sense tells you that life (the enemy) will make its own adjustments to this plan and it is necessary to make operational changes to it as this plan is implemented. And what is best responded to by the changed situation is the one who suffered the plan in his head, knows it in detail, what is written and what is not included in the documents (it remains at the level of intuition). And at the moment when it was time for the developed plan to turn into reality and extremely much depends on the success of its implementation, you leave its implementation to your deputy, and you yourself leave somewhere to engage in secondary affairs (organize distracting attacks). Do you believe it? ME NOT!
    When it comes to life and death, the MAIN issues are dealt with by the MAJOR people (leaders), and the secondary ones are those without whom it is quite possible to get along with solving the MAJOR questions.

    By the way, after the war, Zhukov was not poorly "rode", among other things, blaming him for attributing other people's merits to himself. Probably not without reason. After the war, many got it, and obviously, there were very good reasons for this: what was forgiven during the war was raised AFTER.

    I do not blaspheme against Zhukov. I call for objectivity. There were some reasons for exaggerating the merits (real merits) of Zhukov in the 60-70s. Does the country need a hero? - get it! Need a mega hero? - will be a mega hero! It has always been that way. During the Second World War, to raise spirits and patriotism, many "fake" heroes were molded (he himself knew one such, but it was not HIS fault) and this was JUSTIFIED and PERFECTLY. Someone had the conscience not to beat themselves in the chest, they say, "I am a hero!"

    In the mid-70s, another "hero" suddenly appeared. Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev (I pay tribute to him, as a great statesman and no fools!). All ears crackled with the book "Small Land" ... If you believe her, then the commander himself came to Colonel Brezhnev (political department) for advice. And laughter and sin ... But who really screwed the Germans in the Caucasus and Crimea, somehow ... was not advertised.
  34. Vend
    Vend 18 June 2014 18: 14
    -3
    Zhukov Marshal, commanded the front. And the front is people. Upcoming casualties always have more. And we had to advance from Moscow itself. And drive the Germans, and knock out of the fortified areas. As lossless. At the beginning of the war, Stalin led, then transferred the command of the troops to Zhukov. Then the Germans were thrown back from Moscow, and then Stalingrad was and drove away. But in Germany everything was exactly the opposite. At the beginning of the war, competent generals led, and as they stumbled over the defense of the Red Army, Hitler took command. And Hitler could not compete with Zhukov.
    1. vardex
      vardex 19 June 2014 01: 35
      0
      Well, just like in sports, if the victory is well-done players, well, if the defeat, the coach is to blame ......
      1. Vend
        Vend 19 June 2014 13: 33
        0
        Remember 41 year, incompetent command. Remember how the commanders were shot. Perpetrators have always been found. and no matter what position he was in.
  35. tolancop
    tolancop 18 June 2014 18: 50
    +5
    Quote: Wend
    Zhukov Marshal, commanded the front. And the front is people. Upcoming casualties always have more. And we had to advance from Moscow itself. And drive the Germans, and knock out of the fortified areas. As lossless. ....

    The losses of the advancing Wehrmacht in 41 I believe were significantly lower than the losses of the defending Red Army. And there are different losses. There are justified ones, but there are some who are not.
    For me personally, a kind of encyclopedia is K. Simonov's trilogy "The Living and the Dead". A work of fiction, but upon careful reading, you can learn a lot: about the role of command and about military psychology and much more.
    Quote: Wend
    ... At the beginning of the war, Stalin led, then transferred the command of the troops to Zhukov. Then the Germans were thrown back from Moscow .....
    Well, away we go .... Surname Shaposhnikov does not say anything? If they forgot, then I remind you that there was such a desk in the USSR called the General Staff. And, as a rule, VERY prepared people headed this office (Zhukov just, IMHO, an exception). And there was the Supreme High Command Headquarters, which was led by who? Well, you yourself will find ...
    Quote: Wend
    ... But in Germany everything was exactly the opposite. At the beginning of the war, competent generals led, and as they stumbled over the defense of the Red Army, Hitler took command. And Hitler could not compete with Zhukov.
    The old song of the German generals who lost the war: if it weren’t for Hitler, we would already .... in short, Hitler did not let us win.
    1. Vend
      Vend 19 June 2014 13: 52
      0
      There are no justifiable or unjustifiable losses. Losses are losses. These are not pawns in chess, they are people. but any general understands that he sends people to death.
      Well, if you think that the losses of the Germans were less, please cite the figures with reference to the materials.
      And the name Vasilevsky does not tell you anything, also from the General Staff. And remember who commanded the bid, whose decisive word was? Who forbade to hand over Kiev? And how did it end for the Red Army?
      If not for Hitler, well, well. Remember who forbade to retreat from Stalingrad? As a result, a boiler for the Germans and surrender.
      Love to read fiction, great, probably the film "The battalions are asking for fire watched" and "Hot Snow".
  36. bya965
    bya965 18 June 2014 18: 50
    +1
    I read a lot, analyzed. Zhukov is an outstanding commander in chief. The merits in the Great War are enormous. The propaganda of the little man Khrushchev still lives in people.

    Read the book cited in the article. She is on the Internet.
    According to the military historian Alexei Isaev (“George Zhukov: The King’s Last Argument”), “Zhukov was a kind of“ commander of the RGK ”(Reserve of the High Command).

    Isaev writes mainly on information obtained directly from memos at the front while working in the archives. Their huge number of them is almost impossible to fake, they are all interconnected. He does not read memoirs and a statement many years later written by participants in those distant events and often to please current politics.

    Read Alexei Isaev “George Zhukov: The King’s Last Argument” and don’t pour slop on a great man.
  37. anti-beetles
    anti-beetles 18 June 2014 19: 01
    -1
    Quote: bya965
    Read Alexei Isaev “George Zhukov: The King’s Last Argument” and don’t pour slop on a great man.

    Yeah, still advise Karpov to read others from the propaganda department. Honor Suvorov himself. In his several books he wrote about the beetle. Zhukov a polygamist, a marauder and a mediocre careerist who under Stalin wanted to judge. I deliberately registered I can’t see how this hero is being extolled, the myth of which was fanned during the time of Khrushchev. It’s a shame for the comrades to repeat Soviet propaganda without knowing anything at all objectively.
  38. anti-beetles
    anti-beetles 18 June 2014 19: 13
    -1
    Quote: bya965
    I read a lot, analyzed. Zhukov is an outstanding commander in chief. The merits in the Great War are enormous.

    It can be seen as you read, the merits of Zhukov are really huge only in minus. He did not win a single battle, but only attributed to himself the merits of others, read the memoirs of Marshal Konev and Rokossovsky as they speak of him, finally read the memoirs and thoughts of Zhukov himself, all 18 publications that are strikingly different from each other depending on who is in power at the moment, beetles are the bloody shame of the Soviet army, a product of purely Soviet-Stalinist time, the commander-holding officer who were the most prominent at that time.
  39. anti-beetles
    anti-beetles 18 June 2014 19: 18
    +3
    From the order of the Minister of Armed Forces of the USSR No. 009 of June 9, 1946 (Top Secret).


    The circumstances of the case are as follows.

    The former commander of the Air Force Novikov recently sent a statement to the government against Marshal Zhukov, in which he reported on the facts of unworthy and harmful behavior on the part of Marshal Zhukov in relation to the government and the Supreme High Command.

    The Supreme Military Council at its June 1 meeting. considered the statement Novikov and found that Marshal Zhukov, despite the high position created by him by the government and the Supreme Command, considered himself offended, expressed dissatisfaction with the decisions of the government and spoke hostilely about him among his subordinates.

    Marshal Zhukov, having lost all modesty, and being fascinated by a sense of personal ambition, believed that his merits were not sufficiently appreciated, attributing to himself, in conversations with subordinates, the development and conduct of all major operations of the Great Patriotic War, including those operations to which he had nothing to do.

    Moreover, Marshal Zhukov, being himself angry, tried to group around himself the disgruntled, failed and suspended from the work of the chiefs and took them under his protection, thus opposing himself to the government and the Supreme Command.

    Being appointed commander-in-chief of the ground forces, Marshal Zhukov continued to express his disagreement with the decisions of the government in the circle of people close to him, and some of the government’s measures aimed at strengthening the combat effectiveness of the ground forces were not regarded from the point of view of the defense of the homeland, but as measures aimed at infringing on him , Zhukov, personalities ...

    Towards the end, Marshal Zhukov said at a meeting of the Supreme Military Council that he had really made serious mistakes, that he had the arrogance, that he certainly could not remain as commander in chief of the land forces and that he would try to eliminate his mistakes at another place of work.

    The Supreme Military Council, having examined the issue of Marshal Zhukov’s behavior, unanimously recognized this behavior as harmful and incompatible with its position and, on this basis, decided to ask the Council of Ministers of the USSR to dismiss Marshal Zhukov from the post of commander-in-chief of the ground forces.

    The Council of Ministers of the USSR, on the basis of the above, adopted the above decision on the release of Marshal Zhukov from his posts and appointed him commander of the troops of the Odessa Military District.

    This order shall be declared commander in chief, members of military councils and chiefs of staff of groups of forces, commanders, members of military councils, chiefs of staff of military districts and fleets.




    Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR

    Generalissimo of the Soviet Union I. STALIN
  40. anti-beetles
    anti-beetles 18 June 2014 20: 10
    -2
    Quote: Auditor
    I recommend reading Karpov's book "Marshal Zhukov, his comrades-in-arms and opponents in the years of war and peace."

    They found who Karpov was referring to was the first secretary of the Union of Writers of the USSR on the truth and objectivity, by definition, does not have to hope that they will say so and write from above, it was ideology and propaganda at that time that Suslov did not like to joke. In addition, the writer Vladimir Karpov is accused by some professional historians of putting into circulation false documents on Soviet history. For example, one of such documents, the so-called “first version of the General Agreement between the NKVD and the Gestapo,” used by Karpov, is often regarded as false.
    The famous historian Alexander Dyukov, among other things, points to the following, in his opinion, fakes: “Racial selection instructions in the NKVD,” “Note by Beria with statistics on repressions,” “documents” on the preparation of a truce with the Germans in February 1942
    1. Colonel
      Colonel 18 June 2014 21: 17
      +2
      Quote: anti-beetles
      Found who is referenced

      You get to Karpov, as if you walk to the moon, and there, critic, damn it. I will not talk about the personal merits of Vladimir Vasilyevich. The Hero's Star speaks for itself. He didn't need to lie, including in books. But what are you drawing for? Today we registered and started with dirt on the grave, and even on Memorial Day. Reeks of animalism. Besides the verbiage about "some professional historians", is there anything to say?
  41. asuran
    asuran 18 June 2014 21: 15
    +5
    George Konstantinovich Zhukov is without a doubt one of the greatest commanders of the USSR and Russia.
  42. anti-beetles
    anti-beetles 18 June 2014 21: 50
    -2
    Quote: colonel
    I will not talk about the personal merits of Vladimir Vasilievich. The Hero Star speaks for itself.

    I won’t say anything about the star of the hero, I don’t know, Brezhnev had five stars of the hero, and what of this? And about Zhukov, he’s lying for sure, do you have any idea what the USSR Writers Union is? This is an organization controlled by the Central Committee of the CPSU, an ideological front, or do you think that the information war is an invention of our days, any opinion different from the party’s line was nipped in the bud, an order came from above and writers tried for rations and cottages. To say there is a lot of site is not enough.
    Quote: Asuran
    George Konstantinovich Zhukov is without a doubt one of the greatest commanders of the USSR and Russia.

    When I thought the same thing, BUT I once read the books of Viktor Suvorov (real name - Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun) about the “great commander of all time” and thought everything was lying, he sold himself to Western capital, he had a bright memory and wanted to catch a lie, he began to check, read , it so interested me and could not refute it converges by 98%. My advice to you is if you want to make your own opinion and not repeat other people's words about exaggerated greatness, read V. Suvorov “Shadow of Victory”. But there is no faith in the Communists; they lied to the people from the very first day of the illegal seizure of power; I see poorly imagine what the Soviet Union is and the more time passes, the more idealized that time.
    1. Colonel
      Colonel 18 June 2014 22: 24
      +3
      Quote: anti-beetles
      once read the books of Viktor Suvorov (real name - Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun)

      This is our difference with you. You look at history through the eyes of Rezun, and I through the eyes of Karpov. Rezun traitor. This is not an ideological cliché, this is a medical fact - I swore allegiance to my Motherland and betrayed it. And I am reporting about the Star of Hero Karpov - more than 50 languages ​​taken personally. After that, the Academy of the General Staff, service in the GRU, command of the regiment. If you served, then you must imagine what it is, if not, then take my word for it - such a person will not be afraid of being "banned" by party officials. And he was the last secretary of the Writers' Union in the history of this Union, i.e. in the most perestroika years, just when Rezun and company appeared, and to find fault with Soviet history became a sign of good form. Again, I look at the history of the war, at Zhukov, through the eyes of Karpov, through the eyes of Simonov. And in a dispute with them, refer to Rezun ... well, it's cool, only a link to Wikipedia can be cooler.
    2. vardex
      vardex 19 June 2014 01: 42
      0
      Well, you’re just a detective, aren’t you mentally working as a case.
  43. anti-beetles
    anti-beetles 18 June 2014 21: 56
    -1
    You were hammered into the head that the beetles are a great commander of all times and peoples, and you repeat like parrots. The cult of Zhukov was inflated when it was necessary for political reasons, and now the same thing begins, the country needs heroes and this brand has already been promoted since Soviet times. I am for the truth and objectivity, and on this figure is the blood of soldiers. Either a show about him is shown a gram of truth, then I haven’t endured praise here already I collected 44 minuses, but before minusculation I would have wondered if I would have read something other than Karpov, even if Zhukov’s own memoirs where he contradicts himself, but it’s much easier for mother to repeat what they say on the box and that the millionaire piman in his series shows well and cons, of course, to hand out.
    1. Bakht
      Bakht 18 June 2014 22: 25
      +4
      Quote: anti-beetles
      I am for truth and objectivity

      There is no truth or objectivity in your writings. And there is no knowledge of the subject.
  44. The fat man
    The fat man 18 June 2014 22: 18
    0
    How many abominations were written about him, how much they tried to pour mud on him — a lot of articles about him that he crushed enemies with corpses ---- and where are the sorrows of historians why they don’t go out and answer for their articles. especially for those that were released in the mid 90s

    and how to know whether they are right or not
    hid
  45. anti-beetles
    anti-beetles 18 June 2014 22: 29
    +1
    Quote: Fat Man
    and how to know whether they are right or not

    And you take and honor the contemporaries of those who lived under the beetle and fought with it, and not those sloppies who were under his leadership and whom he promoted but those who were on an equal footing with him, for example, Marshal Konev Ivan Stepanovich who gave the beetle at some reception in the eye, they could hardly make out, it must be remembered that there would not be different Serdyukovs who plundered and ruined the army for years.
    1. Colonel
      Colonel 18 June 2014 22: 33
      +2
      Quote: anti-beetles
      gave Zhukov in the eye

      Well, why go to lies ??? Or is it your task to just troll?
      1. anti-beetles
        anti-beetles 18 June 2014 22: 43
        -1
        This historical fact was a fight, a bunch of witnesses separated, study history is instructive to my friend. If you have not heard about something, this does not mean that it was not.
        1. Bakht
          Bakht 18 June 2014 23: 11
          +3
          Quote: anti-beetles
          This historical fact was a fight, a bunch of witnesses separated, study history is instructive to my friend. If you have not heard about something, this does not mean that it was not.

          Do you quote all Suvorov? So at least carefully read the original.

          Rezun’s books are a big lie concocted by the British secret services for a very definite purpose. There lies and rubbish above a critical mass. About the fight between Zhukov and Konev, it is also written with someone’s words. But not at the reception. So re-read it again. I do not read this garbage.

          If you are such an expert on Zhukov’s activities and the initial period of the war, then tell me, what were the Red Army’s chances to repulse the first strike of the Wehrmacht? And were there such opportunities? Maybe something will become clear.
          1. anti-beetles
            anti-beetles 18 June 2014 23: 29
            0
            No, this is not from Suvorov, this is the testimony of Grigory Chukhrai, although no one has denied his “lie,” he can’t hide it with facts and logic, but all the refutations come down as you
            Quote: Bakht
            a big lie concocted by British intelligence for a very definite purpose

            You can still hear about him saying that you are listening to him, he’s a traitor, but be at least three times a traitor in essence, he has nothing to object to. And about the chances, you first tell me in your opinion what doctrines adhered to the Red Army offensive or defensive? Maybe then something will become clear to me about your knowledge.
            1. Bakht
              Bakht 18 June 2014 23: 44
              0
              Quote: anti-beetles

              This is from Suvorov. This episode seemed to be described by Chukhrai during the filming of the film. Report from the Red Star. The problem is that I did not find the repo itself. But you can easily find quotes about Zhukov from Chukhrai in his memoirs. It is so clearly stated, "We have never linked losses with the name of Marshal Zhukov." So your Suvorov is lying like a gray gelding.

              I asked you a specific question, but you didn’t answer me, but a question. For your information, not a single Army of the world adheres to a defensive doctrine. There is simply no such Army. For your information, the Russian Army also adheres to the offensive doctrine now. Defense wars are not won. The offensive doctrine is spelled out in the armies of NATO, America, Russia and all normal armies. I asked you about the density of troops. The fact that Rezun himself did not write books became clear to me after his interview many years ago. A person gets confused in dates and names. He is so tongue-tied that he simply could not write his books. But the Lord is with him. Now, quote you and tell us in the Charter of which Army it is written:

              ... the army, returning to its tradition, does not recognize any other law than the law of the offensive. " This was followed by the eight commandments composed of such loud phrases as “decisive battle”, “offensive without hesitation”, “fury and perseverance”, “breaking the will of the enemy”, “ruthless and relentless persecution” with all the ardor of a believer destroying heresy. The charter supplanted and discredited the defensive concept.
              “Only an offensive,” he announced, “leads to positive results.”
              1. anti-beetles
                anti-beetles 19 June 2014 00: 28
                0
                1913 the new field charter of France., If not mistaken. And about Suvorov, I’m wondering if all his works were invented by British intelligence, then what goals did the British pursue? I wouldn’t say anything about tongue-tied tongue, though I saw one thing only, either the interview or the teleconference I can’t remember now, he quickly fought off the accusations and, in general, writing and not speaking, it struck me then that he didn’t look like a brave tanker hero like himself he described more on a thick staff rat, so I completely admit that somewhere I lied for beauty, but I would give a bug to the eye all the same. Although stupid and tongue-tied in intelligence would not have taken. And about your question, he is quite vague, what are the chances? The chances were certainly good, but your beloved chief of the General Staff of the beetles didn’t show his genius.
                1. Bakht
                  Bakht 19 June 2014 00: 36
                  0
                  Quote: anti-beetles

                  What are the interests of British intelligence? They are on the surface. Tell me, which country does not open its archives of that time? United Kingdom. They are classified until 2040. Suvorov's books appeared just before the English archives were to be opened. In 1989. But then they decided to classify them for another 50 years.

                  There was no chance of repelling the first blow. I already wrote why. And besides me, other users also wrote. Suvorov probably lied about his gallant tanking affairs. He was recalled to Moscow not because of betrayal, but because of his "complete incapacity for intelligence work." As I said, He is uninterested.

                  About my "beloved" Zhukov. When there are no troops, no genius will help. Your knowledge of the first stage of the war (apparently the whole war) does not leave an opportunity to conduct a discussion. The German advantage was complete. Fans of counting the number of tanks and aircraft, you just need to understand that tanks and aircraft themselves do not fight. There was a catastrophic shortage of people. Plus such a scary beast (really scary) as a lead in deployment.
            2. Ascetic
              Ascetic 19 June 2014 00: 06
              +2
              Quote: anti-beetles
              what doctrines adhered to in the Red Army


              In the Field Charter of 1939 the essence of the military doctrine of the Red Army was expressed as
              If the enemy enforces war on usThe Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army will be the most attacking of all the attacking armies ever. We will wage war offensively, transferring it to enemy territory. The Red Army will conduct hostilities to destruction, with the goal of completely defeating the enemy.


              And what on the basis of this do you believe the rubbish of Rezun that Stalin was preparing the invasion of Europe and that Hitler was ahead of him?
              The military doctrine of the Russian Federation is even more offensive than during the Soviet era, in particular, the possibility of applying preventive nuclear weapons and carrying out operations in remote territories is provided. And what follows from this?
              Another thing is how the position of this doctrine was put into practice. Firstly, there was not enough troops to REFLECT the first blow of the enemy, which was manifested in the well-known military game of 1940. where Zhukov played for the enemy and inflicted a crushing defeat on the troops of the Western Military District. An episode is less known when, during the Western front-line exercises, Lieutenant General Vatutin was given an introduction that was strikingly similar to the later real actions of the 4th Wehrmacht tank group to break through our positions in Baltic States in the area of ​​Lida. And what turned out? It turned out that there were no opportunities to parry this breakthrough at the disposal of the army. However, this episode, although it was reported to JV Stalin, had no consequences, while he should have seriously alerted the top military leadership.
              Secondly, cover troops were not deployed in a defensive group, did not occupy fortified areas and defensive structures, did not have ammunition on hand. All the more, there was no question of the deployment of offensive concentration in an offensive order to launch a preemptive strike.
              Thirdly, even the insufficient density of troops that we had before the start of the war began to be created only in mid-May 1941, while the opposing German group was strengthened by regular troop transfers from February. The arriving troops, again, did not deploy to defensive groups. They were located in temporary camps.
              Fourthly, by June 22, in the first echelon of the covering armies there were 56 rifle and cavalry divisions and even 2 brigades (7 less divisions than envisaged by the cover plan!). And in the first echelon of the offensive group of the Wehrmacht there were 157 divisions, despite the fact that the number of German divisions was greater.
              , all these absurdities served as an argument for some zealous writers in order to substantiate the version that the USSR seemed to not be ready for the defense group because it was not going to defend itself, but to attack Germany first. Then the deployment could only alert the enemy. But even if you believe in this version (and it is based on numerous overexposures and frauds), then even the unwillingness to keep deployed defensive groups on the border is stupidity and underestimation of the enemy. But what if the enemy nevertheless reveals the plan of the attack and strikes at still undeployed formations, how did this happen in a military game with the first echelon of cover troops and in the course of the first days of the war? So on any side - this is a gross mistake.
              1. Bakht
                Bakht 19 June 2014 00: 26
                +1
                Quote: Ascetic

                Stanislav.

                With all due respect, there are some inaccuracies in your message. Suvorov personally helped me in that I had to re-carefully review the data. Moreover, a lot of good literature has now appeared. The Red Army had no chance of repelling the first blow. First, as Zhukov said, after the war, the writer Rzhevskaya "must not forget that we fought against the best army in the world." Secondly, Suvorov is so stupid that he does not notice that the Red Army used precisely his recipe for defense. Divisions of the first echelon were 57 divisions along the entire front of 2 thousand km. And to a depth of up to several tens of kilometers. Troop densities were not only low. They were none. For example, in the Suwalki sector, 9 German divisions attacked three battalions (one from each regiment of the division). What does doctrine have to do with it? What does bringing troops to combat readiness have to do with it? The defeat was predetermined precisely by the density of troops on the border.

                When did Stalin realize that war was inevitable? June 14. When was the order given to bring the troops to combat readiness? On my assumptions, June 16. When did Stalin realize that the Battle of the Border was lost? According to documents, June 23. There is a lot to write about here. The topic is huge. But it has already been written here that it is best to read Isaev. His "Unknown 1941" describes everything very well.
              2. anti-beetles
                anti-beetles 19 June 2014 01: 01
                -1
                Quote: Ascetic
                And what on the basis of this do you believe the rubbish of Rezun that Stalin was preparing the invasion of Europe and that Hitler was ahead of him?

                No, not on the basis of this crap, but the other about 57 divisions spread over a 2000-kilometer front, and the fact that the military archives were closed to data half a century ago, and in your opinion Stalin was so stupid that he did not understand what could happen? Simonov and Karp are communist writers and personal courage doesn’t stop lying at all, the NKVD cellars I think will be worse than the front lines and I don’t remember their books about squads, penal battalions, the Gulag archipelago and so on, AFRAID because Stalin’s empire was holding on and tried and tried would only hint, now you can argue for a long time about 57 divisions or 157 divisions or 300 divisions, all the data that the researchers cite is either exhausted from the finger or what bit of division was restored, where I stood, I want to say why we are the only country and where there is no official history of the great Patriotic war? Why are the data on the army 70 years ago secret? Why is there not a single normal map in the memoirs of the great strategist Zhukov with a clear indication of the location of our troops? and there are a lot of such questions and there is no answer to them, I try to make my own opinion and not believing the word to the cutters, much less Simon and Carp, for the Bolsheviks are false by nature, for them there is no concept of truth, but there is the good of the world revolution.
                1. Bakht
                  Bakht 19 June 2014 01: 14
                  +1
                  Quote: anti-beetles

                  What data do you use? The archives have long been disclosed. Historians are actively using them. 57 divisions stood on the border just as a COVER. To reveal the direction of the main blows of the Germans. Just according to Suvorov's method. But Suvorov is so out of the question that he does not know the recommendations of the officers of the General Staff, which were given in 1942, according to preliminary data from the initial stage of the Battle of Stalingrad. "The allocation of a part of the troops to the forward detachments is unjustified." The main line of defense was along the Dnieper. It was there that the Second Strategic Echelon was located. The third Strategic Echelon was formed as a reserve of the Headquarters. It was not possible to contain the Germans on the border in the Western and North-Western directions. On the South-West (where Zhukov operated), they managed to keep the Germans with a more or less continuous front. At the junction of the Western and Northwestern Fronts, two TGRs (3rd and 4th) operated.It was the 3rd TGR that hit the rear of the Western Front troops, passing through the defense zone of the Northwestern Front. Plus the slow start of Guderian's 2nd TGr did not allow Pavlov to discern the threat from Brest in time. Pavlov was all concentrated on repelling the blow of the Gotha Group. The command had no fear of Stalin. Pavlov gave the order to withdraw as soon as he saw the threat of encirclement. Golubev made exactly the same decision to retreat. Pavlov and Korobkov were shot not for retreating, but for not following the orders of the General Staff to deploy troops. The protocols of the interrogations of Pavlov and Korobkov were published 20 years ago.

                  You can discuss for a long time. But there are maps for a long time, archival data is also disclosed for a long time. Who is interested - he knows. Who wants to read Rezun does not know. Everything is simple.
                  1. anti-beetles
                    anti-beetles 19 June 2014 02: 17
                    0
                    The version about the defeat of our troops on the very first day of the war is nothing more than a legend. In fact, only 22 divisions of the first echelon of cover armies from the Baltic to the Carpathians from 30 divisions of the reserve border districts and the second strategic echelon were hit by the aggressor on June 237. The tragedy of the defeat of the main forces of the three special military districts (118 divisions) occurred not on June 22, but later, during the oncoming battles of June 24-30, 1941 between the new and old borders.
                    To prove the superiority of the Wehrmacht in the number of troops and weapons, as the reasons for our failures, the number of Soviet troops, the quantity and quality of their military equipment, and, conversely, all this is exaggerated by the Wehrmacht, have been greatly minimized for many years.
                    So, in fact, Germany against the USSR did not expose 4,6 million people, as is commonly believed, but 3,3 million, because in the air force, air defense and navy should be considered (like ours) only military equipment, not personnel. In total, the aggressor, therefore, had not 5,5 million people, but 4,2 million against more than 3 million people. in the western border districts and troops of the second strategic echelon.
                    The correlation in artillery is distorted - we take into account guns and mortars of 76 mm caliber and above (without anti-tank guns), and the Germans counted 14 thousand anti-tank guns (37 and 50 mm) and 5 thousand artillery barrels of 28 divisions of the OKH reserve. In fact, the troops of only the western border districts had 37 thousand guns and mortars, and the troops of all aggressors - no more than 31 thousand barrels.
                    It is not true that almost all Wehrmacht artillery was motorized. The states of the German infantry division of the first waves had 6300 horses, of which almost half were in the artillery regiment. This means that all the artillery of the infantry divisions was horse drawn. Only artillery of anti-tank missile systems, RGKs, and tank and motorized infantry divisions was motorized.
                    A total of 3300 tanks and 250 self-propelled guns, and not 4-5 thousand, were thrown by the Wehrmacht against the USSR, of which 1600 were light (T-1, T-2 and T-38) and 1610 medium (T-4 and T-1610). So, against 160 German medium tanks in the western districts of the USSR, there were 34 heavy and medium tanks KB and T-1600, which far exceeded the German ones in combat qualities. And against 9 German light tanks, there were about 2 thousand Soviet light tanks, not inferior to German ones. The result is an overwhelming superiority over the Wehrmacht in the quantity and quality of tanks. This does not include XNUMX thousand tanks of mechanized corps of the second strategic echelon.
                    Against 3046 all German combat aircraft (1067 fighters, 1417 bombers and 562 reconnaissance aircraft), the Air Forces of the western districts, fleets and long-range bomber aircraft had 9917 combat aircraft, including 7133 in the districts, 1339 in the DBA and 1445 in the fleets.
                    The Soviet Air Force did not accept aircraft of new types from factories, not 2739, as they say, but 3719, because Among the new ones, aircraft of the 1939-40 model must also be taken into account. DB-ZF, Ar-2, Su-2, Tu-2, Yak-4, Pe-8, BB-2, of which there were more than a thousand. This means that our Air Force could and should have had against the Germans in June 1941 not 1540 new types of planes, as they now think, but more than 3 thousand. Of all 3046 combat aircraft, the Wehrmacht had less than 2 thousand new ones, if we exclude outdated Yu planes -87, Xe-111, Do-217, etc.
                    As of 22.6.41, our rifle divisions of the western border districts had not an average of 8-9 thousand, how long they believed, and 12 360 (with a staff of 14 483) - 20 divisions each had 14 thousand people, 70 - 12 thousand each and 6 to 11 thousand. The data cited sometimes as of June 1, 1941 do not take into account the income of 1941 thousand people from these additional divisions in these divisions in June 500.

                    As you can see, a little different figures, I didn’t say at all that a connoisseur of the initial stage of the war, but said that the beetles were a polygamist, a marauder (on such a scale that they even considered the Politburo).
                    1. Bakht
                      Bakht 19 June 2014 09: 20
                      0
                      Quote: anti-beetles

                      Many figures were given. But you don't take into account a lot. Counting forces makes sense if your troops are deployed in normal densities. In all other cases, this is just a wonderful exercise in arithmetic. The Red Army troops were split into three echelons. And they beat them in parts. As Rommel wrote, "what's the point if you have five tank brigades against two of mine. You exposed them one after the other."

                      Which document was published on June 24, 1941? No one hid him. It has always been registered in the history books of the Soviet period. That's just the conceptualists are not able to comprehend this document. And if you make sense, it will become completely clear when Stalin realized that the start of the war was lost.

                      You at least feel the literature and the atmosphere of that time. You know that not a single person believed that the USSR would stand. Ambassador Cripps even stated that he saw no reason to return to Moscow because in a month the Germans would be there. Churchill also believed that the USSR would be defeated. He simply hoped to get a respite before the spring of the 42nd.
            3. Bakht
              Bakht 19 June 2014 00: 11
              +1
              Quote: anti-beetles
              And about the chances, you first tell me in your opinion what doctrines adhered to the Red Army offensive or defensive? Maybe then something will become clear to me about your knowledge.

              The US Field Command FM-3-0 emphasizes that ground forces defend themselves until they acquire the necessary combat power to go on the offensive. Defensive operations are designed to repel enemy attacks, gain time, save manpower and money and create favorable conditions for the transition to the offensive. However, only with the help of defensive operations it is impossible to achieve the set goals. Their main goal is to create the conditions for a counter-offensive, which will allow the ground forces to seize the initiative.
          2. tolancop
            tolancop 19 June 2014 01: 32
            +2
            [quote = Bakht] [quote = antizhukov] .... Do you quote everything from Suvorov? So at least carefully read the original.

            Rezun’s books are a big lie concocted by the British secret services for a very definite purpose. There lies and garbage above a critical mass ... [/ quote]
            Of course. Only the most fierce liar is forced to hide the lie in a large amount of reliable information for credibility. And nobody canceled the use of the head when reading the same Rezun.
            [quote = Bakht] [quote = anti-bugs] ....
            If you are such an expert on Zhukov’s activities and the initial period of the war, then tell me, what were the Red Army’s chances to repulse the first strike of the Wehrmacht? And were there such opportunities? Maybe something will become clear. [/ Quote]
            The chances were quite good under certain conditions. In terms of the number of troops, armaments, and equipment, the Red Army was hardly significantly inferior to the Wehrmacht (in some ways it was superior, in some way it was inferior). Given the competent use of all of the above, the consequences of the German attack were certainly not so catastrophic. And who should have created these conditions? Is not the chief of the General Staff of the Red Army? And who held this position just before the start of the war? He himself is Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov! He alone is not guilty of the disaster of the summer of 1941, but the dumb part of the fault is on HIM.
            1. Bakht
              Bakht 19 June 2014 01: 59
              +1
              Quote: tolancop

              The use of the head when reading any books has not been canceled. I agree with that. And what reliable information did he bring? Dismantling it again is reluctant. But in his books a lot of torn phrases have long been found. And outright lies. And his speculations about strategic defense were recognized as false. Most historians. There was even a big discussion ... in the States. The general opinion of HISTORIANS is nonsense.

              Zhukov and created the conditions for the defense of the country. The consequences of the first blow were catastrophic due to objective reasons. The British and Americans say that while amateurs draw the directions of blows on the map, professionals consider supply lines. How could Zhukov increase the resistance of the troops if the transport network was weak? How could motorization be increased if the number of vehicles in the entire USSR was less than the number of cars in the Wehrmacht?

              The simple question of why the Meh Corps were created and whether it was correct causes controversy among specialists until now. But the withdrawal of infantry escort tanks BT and T-26 from rifle divisions was dictated not so much by the military as by technical reasons. And what about Zhukov's efforts to change the structure of the troops? Who knows about the triad divisions? And Zhukov saw out of weakness on Khalkhin Gol. Only because, on the initiative of Zhukov and Voroshilov (!) In 1941, there were no "troichats" in the Red Army, a monument could be erected to him.

              A lot of questions that the chief of the General Staff was dealing with. But amateurs still require cards and rave about strategic defense.
              1. anti-beetles
                anti-beetles 19 June 2014 02: 37
                -1
                Quote: Bakht
                Zhukov and created the conditions for the defense of the country.

                It means he didn’t create well if it happened, the chief of the General Staff is responsible for everything, he had to not get out of Stalin’s office with foam at the mouth proving what needs to be done.
                Quote: Bakht
                But Zhukov saw out of weakness on Khalkhin Gol

                Thanks to his staff, he saw that he didn’t even mention in his memoirs, he remembers some sergeants by name and Bogdanov doesn’t remember the chief of staff at Khalkhin-Gol, isn't it strange?
                Quote: Bakht
                How could Zhukov increase the resistance of the troops if the transport network was weak?

                It’s his direct duty that the network was strong, these are excuses from the category and what can I do if recruits are not able to shoot.
                1. Bakht
                  Bakht 19 June 2014 09: 09
                  0
                  Quote: anti-beetles

                  Explicit rezunist wrote. Sitting in Stalin’s office you won’t do anything. It turns out that Stalin did not prepare the country for defense, and Zhukov ate vodka in his office and felt for the girls.

                  Rezun also read about the chief of staff. Once and for all, remember for a lifetime. The commander answers. The decision is made by the commander. How Zhukov began to command Khalkhin Gol at Rezun is not written. After all, he went there checking. And he began to withdraw troops. And he got scolded from Moscow. He simply studied faster and better than others.

                  What are the possibilities of the country do not know? An example in Ukraine. Four or five yellow road lines led to the old border. And from the old border to the new only 4. By the way, the same Rezun writes that there was an active construction of railway lines to the border and concludes that an attack was being prepared. Unbreakable logic. Does not build communications - a dumbass, builds - is preparing to attack.

                  Teach materiel.
                  1. tolancop
                    tolancop 19 June 2014 10: 35
                    0
                    Quote: Bakht
                    Quote: anti-beetles

                    ... Rezun also read about the chief of staff. Once and for all, remember for a lifetime. The commander answers. The decision is made by the commander. ...

                    Absolutely right. We write about this as a commander (the chief is responsible for everything). The fact that the main person in the General Staff is a commander do not dispute? What is the planning of the country's defense (deployment of troops, supplies, weapons, repulsion of the attack, etc.) carried out by the General Staff do not dispute? Well, and what questions?

                    Quote: Bakht
                    Quote: anti-beetles
                    ... How Zhukov began to command at Khalkhin Gol at Rezun is not written. After all, he went there checking. And he began to withdraw troops. And got scolded from Moscow ....

                    If so, I got it right. I went checking - check and report upstairs. And do not replace the command that came to check. If there is power and the right to withdraw from the command of the unjustified, the matter is different.
                    1. Bakht
                      Bakht 19 June 2014 10: 45
                      0
                      You are not up to date. Zhukov went to check and was appointed to command. The former commandment did not justify itself. By the way, Mehlis was also nearby. The withdrawal of troops began as a commander.

                      The chief of the General Staff and the people's commissar of defense acted together. Both signatures are under all orders. And near Halhingolsky too. But whoever answers is only the commander. By the way, the German army had slightly different rules. There the chief of staff could give the order himself. There is a known case when Mellentin gave orders to Field Marshall Kesselring. He laughed, but the order of the Major General complied.
                  2. anti-beetles
                    anti-beetles 19 June 2014 10: 36
                    -1
                    Yes, you leave the unfortunate rezun, just on the basis of common sense and logic, according to your opinion, Stalin concentrated his troops so that defeat was inevitable and at the same time sat quietly and waited for Hitler to attack and smash our troops, looks like bullshit.
                    1. Bakht
                      Bakht 19 June 2014 10: 55
                      +1
                      Quote: anti-beetles
                      Yes, you leave the unfortunate slayer,

                      I leave Rezun alone. Stalin did not sit and wait calmly. Stalin was preparing for war. You just don't understand how the preparation takes place. What Stalin had to do. Intelligence reports did not mention the concentration of German troops on the border until early June. The Germans transferred troops in 9 echelons (not trains). Armored units moved forward by mid-June. But in early June, Stalin became seriously worried. By mid-June, the situation became alarming. And the TASS message appeared. He promised not to touch Rezun, so I'll just ask you - have you read this message? It has never been secret. Personally, I was convinced that the Message clearly said "Germany and the USSR are colliding, but we have no reason for confrontation. Having received no answer, an order was given to bring the troops into combat readiness on June 16. The advance began. But not to the border. For example, Chernyakhovsky's division concentrated in a given area already on June 20. And the 22nd TD, which ended up in Brest, had to go to ... East, 30 km FROM the border. This is because it did not leave Brest and was shot Pavlov and Korobkov.

                      Nobody in the USSR waited calmly. It was just too late. With the breakdown of the transport network, the USSR did not have time to deploy troops. As the classic Clausewitz wrote, "the incorrect disposition of troops before the battle can no longer be corrected in the course of hostilities."

                      The whole country's defense plan was defensive. For several years, defense plans have been published for the border of the Northwest and Western Districts. There are a lot of small letters and pages. But everything is painted almost to the regiments and squadrons. By the way, another lie that Stalin did nothing. These plans clearly state who has the right to raise troops. No order from Moscow was required. The commanders had the right to make decisions independently.

                      I can not describe all the details on the site. These are a few books to write. just read more. And on both sides. After all, I read the waste paper of the yellow press. You need to know what the ignoramus writes.
  46. Krasstar
    Krasstar 18 June 2014 23: 18
    +3
    This article is nonsense of the mid-70s. And it’s like the Zhukovsky approach to the description of events. It was Purkayev who overwhelmed the Rzhev-Sychev operation, and not the Commander of the Western Front ZHUKOV ... This is someone else, not the chief Gen. The staff Zhukov ruined for 2 months from the beginning of the Second World War, the entire personnel army of the USSR ... In the second decade of the 21st century, writing such nonsense is simply IMPOSSIBLE!
  47. Kubanets
    Kubanets 18 June 2014 23: 18
    +3
    Admittedly, Zhukov had both victory and defeat. But is the crisis manager ?? Zhukov, as a representative of the Stavka, at the height of the battle on the northern front of the Kursk ledge, went to the Western Front (to facilitate the Rokossovsky comfront). In autumn 43 after the Germans counterattacked Kiev after leaving Zhitomir, the representative of the Stavka Zhukov was recalled to Moscow. And Stalin directs Rokossovsky to help Vatutin. And finally, I apologize for ignorance when Stalin compared Zhukov with Suvorov
    1. vardex
      vardex 19 June 2014 01: 52
      +1
      well, finally at least one person wrote something intelligible
  48. vardex
    vardex 19 June 2014 02: 04
    0
    Zhukov, of course, the hero is a daredevil fellow, but he wasn’t the only one who tore the German robbers to shreds, the war is a complicated thing, there is a struggle of systems, just our control system turned out to be more efficient, more mobile, more flexible, the notorious German one, but still ... .......
  49. anti-beetles
    anti-beetles 19 June 2014 02: 56
    -1
    Let’s vote, I say that Zhukov is a polygamist, a looter, a mediocre careerist who has left on soldier’s blood and ascribing to himself other people's merits. who is for plus, and who thinks that the beetles is the greatest strategist of all time, the savior of the fatherland is accordingly minus.
    1. Colonel
      Colonel 19 June 2014 09: 20
      -1
      Quote: anti-beetles
      Let's vote

      Since Zhukov will not answer you, I take the liberty to do it for him. You are a troll, and the troll is vile. Why sneaky? Guess for yourself. And since you muddied this dirt on Marshall's memorial day, you are also a pig hi
      1. anti-beetles
        anti-beetles 19 June 2014 10: 17
        0
        Your right to think what you want, if you like to chew this chewing gum about Zhukov from Soviet times, then please repeat the dogma about the Zhukov hero and believe everything that the Communists fanned, maybe communism is also true by the year 2000? In Soviet traditions, a dead bug can answer at least he does it in his memoirs, contradicting himself and quoting books published after his death, even by simply reading several editions of these memoirs, an already intelligent person will think about it, or simply re-read where Karpov describes his meetings with this “hero”, how he pokes him and talks like a gentleman to a serf (he poked everyone who is lower in rank and who did not depend on him), just look at his face, a non-commissioner, but you have nothing you’ll understand how you are used to believing that the authorities say so and believe, I understand this easier and my head does not hurt. I agree that heroes are needed and that youth should be educated in the spirit of patriotism but not with such examples; there were many worthy people, for example, Boris Mikhailovich Shaposhnikov, who enjoys my great respect.
        1. Colonel
          Colonel 19 June 2014 12: 47
          -1
          Quote: anti-beetles
          you will not get anything

          But this is not required. I dare to think of myself as an accomplished person with my own point of view on many issues, especially in modern life. But in matters of the history of the Great Patriotic War, yes, I created idols for myself and look through their eyes, I consider their point of view the most correct, if only because they (unlike Rezun) felt everything in their own skin. And in your point of view, a chain is traced — we deny Zhukov’s merits — we deny Stalin’s opinion — we deny Soviet military history — we bow to Western military history and then on to growing. I do not consider Zhukov a sinless, ideal commander. I know (read in many memoirs) about his rudeness. BUT Zhukov was a man of his time. There were many in the Red Army, let’s say, cultural front commanders? Rokossovsky, Chernyakhovsky and .... all perhaps, but Zhukov dragged on the situation where others drained water (here Voroshilov, here Budyonny, here Yeremenko, etc. etc.) and it is unlikely that Stalin appointed him take Victory Parade from the floundering bay. If you posted an article on this topic here, with serious justifications for your point of view, this would be worthy of respect, even if you reject this very point. And you just went down to insults, and even on the day of remembrance ... I can’t take a single word spoken to you back. hi
          1. anti-beetles
            anti-beetles 19 June 2014 14: 14
            -1
            Quote: colonel
            Yes, I made idols for myself and look through their eyes

            Even the Bible says do not make yourself an idol, it was not you who created it, but you created it for you many years ago and until now only puppeteers have pulled the strings.
            Quote: colonel
            a chain is traced - we deny Zhukov's merits - we deny Stalin's opinion - we deny Soviet military history, we bow to Western military history

            We do not deny the opinion of Stalin because he steered everything.
            We regard Soviet history with great doubt, because it corresponded more than once and always consisted of the service of the Communist Party and could not have been otherwise. We don’t admire the West and we also really look at it, they already serve the capital, who pays the music and orders the music, I try to keep to the golden mean-objectivity, about the unfortunate cutter that you poke me all the time so I would not say that this is the point of view of the West there are not many share it and he was published at first with a creak for a long time upholstering the editors' thresholds where many shied away from a strange Russian with a dubious reputation and crazy ideas. Maybe someday I’ll try myself in writing, I don’t have a staff of writers like Zhukov, even though he didn’t write his memoirs, admit it.
            1. Colonel
              Colonel 19 June 2014 16: 32
              +1
              Okay, since we got such a booze, let's point by point:
              1. I know what is said about the idol in the Bible, therefore I quoted the phrase, I’m sinful, but I don’t repent.
              2. About strings and puppeteers. Why do you consider me blinkered, and yourself a kind of "golden mean, objectivity"? Only because, for all his shortcomings, it was Zhukov who signed the surrender of Germany, and this is in your throat, or are there other reasons? (just for God's sake, about "Icebreaker" and so on. Don't)
              3. Exactly, Stalin steered everything. And he taxied fairly, I hope there is no need to recall the results of the war. This including and rewriting history. All rulers rewrote history, always for themselves, but the trick is that no one dares to challenge the results of the Second World War (in contrast to the results of the Battle of Kulikovo, for example). And therefore, let us recall the attitude of Stalin to Zhukov during the war.
              4. Rezun began to refer to themselves, in addition to the emotional component, information from his books is the basis of your comments.
              5. About Zhukov's memoirs. And here I will not be original, because in Karpov's novel "The Opal of Marshal Zhukov" this nuance of his biography is taken apart to pieces.
              6. Extreme, so as not to respond to the bottom comment. Maybe you didn’t understand, or you pretended you didn’t understand. I defend Marshal Zhukov, what kind of person he was (good - not good) - this is question number four. And the article is written about Marshal Zhukov.
              PS My idol is Karpov, not Zhukov.
              1. anti-beetles
                anti-beetles 19 June 2014 17: 48
                -1
                1.
                Quote: colonel
                sinful, but I do not repent

                This is bad because there is no remorse, no forgiveness.
                2.
                Quote: colonel
                Zhukov signed the surrender of Germany, and it’s up to you

                I couldn’t sign it at all, and the other one doesn’t mean anything about anything. It’s a little surprising to me that how many years have passed since the collapse of the USSR, and we all stubbornly repeat that we were hammered before.
                Quote: colonel
                remember the attitude of Stalin to Zhukov during the war

                And what is the attitude? The attitude is simple bugs commander-holdimord sure until the end of his days that there is no better means of shooting to raise discipline, he threw it from place to place to make a rustle and fear to catch up, he and another mehlis kept him for the same, as it should it was to think with his head so he cleaned them for this they were no good.
                4. Regarding the cutter at the end of his books, there is always a list that where he got from I checked, it converges by 80-95%.
                5. About ,, memoirs, “without any researchers, you just need to take and read several publications, the conclusions suggest themselves if the person is not stupid at all, these works and memoirs can’t be called all the more so for such a level as the former defense ministry it’s ridiculously simple.
                6. And as a person and as a military leader all the same non-commissioned pribisheev, you read his interviews and meetings with the same cyprinum, even just in everyday communication as he pokes everyone with lordly rudeness and in the golden star of the Karpov hero, too, they gave the words for which he slavishly climbed like a tongue supposedly, and this is when he no longer had power, and what happened when the beetles at high posts could be imagined. And many hated it, if not to say that everything, with Khrushchev when filmed, no one interceded.

                PS And why do you think that personal courage guarantees decency and everything else? After retiring from military service (1966) he worked as deputy chief editor of the State Printing Committee of the Uzbek SSR. Since 1973, he was deputy editor-in-chief of the October magazine. In 1981-1986, Vladimir Karpov headed the magazine "New World" - was its chief editor. In 1986-1991 he was the first secretary of the board of the USSR Joint Venture. Member of the Council of Nationalities of the USSR Supreme Council of the 11th convocation (1984-1989) from the RSFSR. In 1989, he was elected People's Deputy of the USSR.
                Member of the Central Committee of the CPSU since 1986. With such posts, what truth can be !!! ??? If at that time they could have planted a book with poems of a parsnip. Writers and other cultural figures in the USSR are an ideological front and they were not allowed to write what they wanted; remember Stalin's words about engineers of human souls. And what is your opinion about a certain writer and playwright Radzinsky who writes thick books?
                1. Colonel
                  Colonel 19 June 2014 22: 17
                  0
                  Damn burned, again for the fish money.
                  1. At the expense of forgiveness, I will deal with the Lord God myself, without intermediaries.
                  2. The "other" could not sign the surrender, I think you yourself understand this, but you are dissembling.
                  3. To compare Zhukov and Mehlis is generally prohibitive, I do not even want to comment.
                  4. Rezun he is in Africa Rezun, I expressed my attitude, I am sure that "converges by 80-90%" exactly the opposite.
                  5. About memoirs. I read two editions. What was published "during the period of stagnation" ie with a curtsey aside "and personally to Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev", and what has been published in a two-volume edition in the Russian Federation. Difficult in terms of perception, but the conversation is not about that. Karpov told who and how wrote "Memories and Reflections". Feel the difference.
                  6. "and that servile so ..." it's just mean.
                  7. about PS Everything that you have indicated covers the period from 1973 to 1991, Stalin died in 1953. Although now I do not think that the "engineer of human souls" was wrong. Take a look at Ukraine. I haven’t read Radzinsky. I didn't like the look and mournful voice from TV. Sorry, soldier.
                  1. anti-beetles
                    anti-beetles 20 June 2014 00: 51
                    +1
                    1. Okay, we won’t interfere with God; everyone’s private affair couldn’t just hold on.
                    2. I signed it, I signed it, I don’t see anything to argue about.
                    3. Character traits are largely similar in the rest, the functions are a bit the same; both urged for kicks are not always in the right direction only, the mechlis militarily is generally zero, I didn’t even compare them.
                    4. The notorious rezun, if you take the BIG score, well, what are his main thoughts? Stalin was intensely preparing for war and wanted to forestall Hitler and all in the same vein and what is so seditious here? To say lies, the British wrote and dismissed as easy as it’s, but it’s much harder to think it over. With careful analysis, I would not say that it pours water on Western mills. Often whitewashes Stalin and his allies do not look the same, he often meets with him there Stalin cheated them here, he deceived here he replayed. And judging by the principle I didn’t read, but I’m lying or didn’t check, but I am SURE that I’m lying, or lying only because Karpov said so also simply.
                    5. Okay, we agree who and how wrote, BUT again, if the beetles are so principled, always for the truth and their opinion as he liked in his stories to tell that even Stalin was not afraid to pronounce. I wouldn’t bend, or write, to the table, as I wanted, and many did so without the hope of officially publishing someday or didn’t write at all, sure we would have lost a little from this. He would have shown integrity and would not have subscribed to this scribble, would not have dishonored his name.
                    6. I have the impression that I just see one person (beetles) doesn’t respect and doesn’t put another (karpov) penniless and the other agrees with this and tolerates or simply does not see and does not feel, beetles, the front-line soldier and the hero of the Soviet Union at least Karpov at the very least, he could not poke even more so on the hump of such cyprinids, the war was won in many respects, and the carp could remember his dignity just as a person would turn around and leave. To Karpov, I also have some questions about the documents he found, like "Racial Selection Instructions in the NKVD," to a person who is at least a little bit more familiar with the ideology of communism-Bolshevism, this document seems very strange.
                    7.And do you think that after the death of Stalin something radically changed? Well, yes, the repressions became much milder, they ceased to shoot massively, they began to expel them from work, a psychiatric hospital and a prison in the end, and even then they did not always immediately give people the opportunity to change their minds. The ideology remained SAME the same communism, the roads changed slightly to him and the steering. Talking about Ukraine is a separate issue. A very complex multi-way game is being played between the United States and Russia. The fact that the soldafon feels a little straightforward in judgments is a bit judged mainly by feelings and not by the head, according to the principle the appearance is wrong and the voice is mournful, it probably lies, another traitor lives in the UK, it’s lying a hundred pounds and there’s nothing to think, the third brave look and the hero’s star, well, you can believe that you wouldn’t say he could lie. There is such a movie, “HAT”, called 1990. In my opinion, you can easily find our domestic film on the Internet, our domestic film, a lot of good actors, just about writers and not just see it please.
                    1. Colonel
                      Colonel 20 June 2014 10: 33
                      0
                      Okay, great talk. In something even respect. But my opinions neither about Zhukov, nor about Karpov have been touched, and I can’t forgive the insults to the dead. I have the honor. soldier
                    2. Bakht
                      Bakht 20 June 2014 11: 38
                      +1
                      Quote: anti-beetles
                      Stalin was intensely preparing for war and wanted to forestall Hitler and all in the same vein and what is so seditious here? To say lies, the British wrote and dismissed as easy as it’s, but it’s much harder to think it over. With careful analysis, I would not say that it pours water on Western mills.

                      The main mistake was that Stalin did not want to forestall anyone. He was preparing for war. Everyone was getting ready. But there were no offensive plans. This is the main lie of Rezun. Not a mistake. A conscious lie. Not on one point is Stalin’s readiness for war. It was so obvious that Rezun had to heavily correct himself in subsequent books. You have in each quote continuous Rezun repetitions. Therefore, we have to return to this traitor. Sometimes it seems to me that I’m not reading you, but reading it. Moreover, he is so stupid that his own fabrications do not fit with the facts that he himself cites.

                      One of Rezun’s theses is that Stalin was preparing to hit Hitler in the back. But according to RazvedUpra (overpriced), on June 1, 1941, 10 German tanks and up to 000% of the Wehrmacht stood on the border with the USSR. What hit Rezun is talking about in the back?
                      A lot of blockhead tanker was crucifying about freeway tanks. Only trouble, before the war, Stalin abandoned the BT and ordered the production of the T-34 to begin. Just for a war not in Europe. How to tie this Rezun does not know. And therefore, in recent books this topic is passed over in silence.

                      You can disassemble all his such fabrications. None are supported by facts. In addition to Rezun and Karpov, it would be nice to read other sources. At least German. And put on the map the location of the main factions of the Red Army.

                      Why did the British write. Just I suggested you think. Hitler was not pushed by the British to war with the USSR. But they greatly fueled his suspicion. The war between the USSR and Germany was beneficial only to England. If they reveal documents about Hess and negotiations with the Germans, then maybe we will find out something.

                      On the topic itself I can repeat. There are no sinless people. Everyone makes mistakes. But Zhukov fought better than many others. The commander, director, or other commanding staff has completely different selection criteria. I somehow had to write specifications. Responsible and courageous people correspond to posts. Maybe they are not the smartest. But the smart ones strongly doubt, but the decisive ones act. As the military classics wrote, it is better to consistently pursue even the wrong plan than to rush about and change decisions. Zhukov did not rush. He firmly commanded the troops and resolutely carried out his plans.

                      So the monument on Red Square is worth it.
              2. anti-beetles
                anti-beetles 19 June 2014 18: 00
                0
                Read at Karpov V. Karpov, D. Yazov Outstanding Commander - Comrade Kim Jong Il // Kim Jong Il. - M .: Paleya, 1996
                The same work is still.
          2. anti-beetles
            anti-beetles 19 June 2014 14: 38
            -3
            Quote: colonel
            Yes, I made idols for myself

            If you really need idols, take Shaposhnikov, Tymoshenko and others for example, but of course it’s customary for us to focus not on those who are more worthy but on those who are more hyped and our non-prishibeevs, that is, beetles always praised themselves without measure even the daughter named ERA ZHUKOVA who went to her father constantly finds the missing parts of the manuscript, either finds it loses in the spirit of the conjuncture of time.
            1. I think so
              I think so 21 June 2014 22: 30
              +1
              One word UNDERWEAR ... and there his (?) Pre-crazy insults write here ... Ugh on you ...
  50. yana532912
    yana532912 19 June 2014 07: 04
    0
    Quote: anti-beetles
    Let’s vote, I say that Zhukov is a polygamist, a looter, a mediocre careerist who has left on soldier’s blood and ascribing to himself other people's merits. who is for plus, and who thinks that the beetles is the greatest strategist of all time, the savior of the fatherland is accordingly minus.

    Even during the war they said that Zhukov did not spare the soldiers. Maybe that's why Stalin held him. Put you a plus.
    1. Bakht
      Bakht 19 June 2014 11: 00
      0
      Quote: yana532912
      Even during the war they said that Zhukov did not spare the soldiers. Maybe that's why Stalin held him. Put you a plus.

      Here is the opinion of the war veteran. From call to call. The same Chukhrai

      Yes, we had big losses, but we did not attribute them to Zhukov’s account. We knew: where Zhukov - there is a victory. And we were ready to pay a dear price for victory.