Military Review

Why was Viktor Suvorov so popular?

136
Why was Viktor Suvorov so popular?The struggle with revisionists on the field that has unfolded in recent years stories World War II began to give tangible results. The 70 anniversary of the Victory this year is passing relatively calmly, without “throw-ins” of various kinds of “discoveries” that are usual for past anniversaries, and the most famous authors of the revisionist trend also showed no activity. Nevertheless, the efforts of many authors who spoke out against slanderous slanders were not useless, and this is their undisputed achievement.
However, we should not forget that the books of revisionists, for example, Viktor Suvorov, were indeed very popular for a long time, reprinted many times in large editions. Viktor Suvorov also had many admirers and admirers who quite sincerely followed his ideas, found them logical and well explaining historical events. Numerous works were written in the spirit of this revisionism itself.


Why was all of this so in demand? Indeed, from the very beginning it was obvious that these ideas smell very badly and have an obvious political context. In my opinion, such significant popularity of revisionism in the 1990 and at the beginning of the 2000 in Russia, despite the fact that the revisionists, in essence, accused the Soviet Union of criminally initiating war and in cooperation with the Hitler invaders, had their own objective reasons . Otherwise, Viktor Suvorov could not count on a noisy popularity, and would most likely be known only to a narrow circle of professional historians.

The main thesis of Viktor Suvorov on the preparation by Stalin of an attack on Germany in 1941, set forth in his most famous books, Icebreaker and Day M, was most closely connected with the causes of defeat in 1941.

This defeat caused such a heavy damage to the state, society, national economy, so seriously changed the whole face of the country, that there are certain reasons to believe that war was one of the fundamental reasons for the subsequent collapse of the USSR.
In any case, the material damage and loss of life were enormous.

Actually, with such consequences of the war, even in conditions of a brilliant military victory, the flag over the Reichstag and triumph over the defeated enemy, the most powerful and dangerous than ever, the question inevitably arises: what could not defend the socialist Fatherland then, in the summer of 1941 year? Why did they retreat to Moscow and the Volga, left the Baltic States, Belarus and Ukraine to the enemy? It was a burning question that always worried and worried the Soviet people, and now the Russians are concerned about, at least, a significant part of them.

One of the first answer options proposed by Stalin was that the fault was the treacherous attack of Germany, which violated the non-aggression pact. Khrushchev in his famous report to the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU challenged this Stalinist point of view and put forward his version of the answer to the most burning question of Soviet history. First, the attack was not unexpected, because Hitler always wanted to crush communism, and there were a number of warnings from intelligence and foreign leaders. Secondly, measures were not taken to mobilize and defend: “If our industry were timely and truly mobilized to provide the army with armament and necessary equipment, then we would suffer immeasurably less casualties in this difficult war. However, such mobilization was not carried out in a timely manner. And from the very first days of the war it turned out that our army was poorly armed, that we did not have enough artillery, tanks and aircraft to repel the enemy. " Thirdly, command personnel were repressed. And Stalin was personally to blame for everything, Khrushchev summed up, saying that Stalin allegedly pulled away from the leadership, did not understand the situation, created nervousness in the leadership, and the heroic party and no less heroic Soviet people ensured the whole victory.

Sometimes it is useful to revert to such documents, since, after re-reading Khrushchev’s report to the Twentieth CPSU Congress, it becomes clear that the whole historical concept of the Great Patriotic War still, to a large extent, stands on those theses that have been proclaimed by Khrushchev. They are the subject of discussions and debates even in modern polemical literature, such as the thesis about the unavailability of the army, the absence or presence of modern tanks and aircraft in the Red Army, the thesis about repressions of command personnel. Numerous "tank scientists", arguing about millimeters of caliber guns and tank armor, do not seem to suspect that they are fulfilling the precepts of the unforgettable Nikita Sergeyevich.

Khrushchev’s version was not correct, and it was well known to many participants in the events, but it was convenient because it completely freed one from personal responsibility for this defeat.
Say, all mistakes were made by Stalin, who died and could not refute anything, but the victory was ensured by "the heroic army, its talented commanders and valiant warriors." Many generals liked it. The military leaders had a unique opportunity to put all their own mistakes and omissions made before the war on Stalin and “unavailability” or “gullibility”. As an example, the memoirs of A.I. Eremenko "At the Beginning of the War", written shortly after the report to the Twentieth Congress, where he directly accuses Stalin of all the mistakes he made.

The same commanders who did not wish to make this deal, like LM Sandalov, could pour out his soul in secret writings on military history, or simply keep silent.

However, the Khrushchev version of the reasons for the defeat in 1941 not only reassured the conscience of military leaders, as well as other participants in the war, but also during perestroika became the basis for the ideological crushing of the Soviet Union. All the theses from his report were worked out by perestroika "subversive", including those related to the war, for the purpose of destroying the Soviet ideology, the system and the state. If we compare the content of anti-Stalinist anti-Stalinist propaganda with the report of Khrushchev, we will not find significant differences, except that the "heralds of restructuring" were richer and exaggerated the "unavailability" and "credulity" on a large scale.

With perestroika agitators, everything was turned upside down, and all examples of unreadiness were interpreted in a purely one-sided way: the USSR was a worthless country, was not prepared for war, won only with the help of the allies. From this the most direct political consequences were derived: it was necessary, they say, to destroy the Soviet Union as quickly as possible, to eliminate the Soviet power and the Communist Party, to restore capitalism and heal "like all civilized people."

Falsifiers from abroad already arrived there, first of all Viktor Suvorov with his books Icebreaker and Day M, in which the concept was already formulated that Stalin himself was preparing an attack on Germany, but Hitler was ahead of him. As a theoretical concept of the thesis on the Soviet preparation of an attack on Germany, an officer of the Military Historical Research Institute in Freiburg (FRG), Joachim Goffman, expressed it back in 1982 year. He later became the leader of this group of revisionist historians. In 1985, the philosopher from Graz, Ernst Topić, wrote the book “The War of Stalin,” in which he developed the idea that the USSR had a long-term strategy for conquering Europe.

Just at the same time, Viktor Suvorov made his first publications on this topic, and immediately got into the warm company of West German revisionist historians. "Icebreaker" was first published in German in German, and, in general, was focused on the German reader.
The concept of German revisionist historians, which Victor Suvorov developed in his books, was aimed at maximally demonizing the communists for the sake of achieving a simple political goal - explaining the formation of the GDR as a consequence of “Soviet occupation” and even “Soviet aggression”, and justifying the absorption of the East German state by the FRG that took place in 1990 year. In those years there was an intense political struggle against the GDR, and in it all the means were good. Against the background of the West German historical insinuations against the GDR, these revisionists were still comparatively more objective.

The works of the German revisionists, who developed the thesis about the upcoming Stalinist attack, were practically not translated in Russia, except for the translation of one of the works of Joachim Goffman. Therefore, the product of this group of historians in Russia has become known exclusively from the books of Viktor Suvorov, primarily, of course, from the famous "Icebreaker". I must say, Viktor Suvorov is a very talented author and polemicist who has managed to make the dryish German concept vivid and visual. If in the 1992 year they simply transferred something from the works of Hoffman, then this idea would hardly have gained so much fame - so the leader of the revisionist historians writes dryly and without a spark. However, the works of Hoffman were not in vain, many Russian revisionists, for example, Mark Solonin, referred to him and retold his main arguments.

Why are these foul-smelling ideas of revisionists so widespread in Russia? I must say that in the Khrushchev version of the reasons for the defeat in 1941, there was one major drawback. All the talk about the country's unpreparedness for defense, the lack of weapons and how Stalin sculpted mistake after mistake, and in general, was too trusting, was in clear contradiction with the fact that the same propagandists talked about the advantage of the socialist system, about economic success , about the strength and power of the Soviet army, well, and about the wisest CPSU at the head of all this. And in the same spirit it was said about prewar and wartime. An insurmountable contradiction arose: how could it be in a country with the most advanced social system, with outstanding achievements in the national economy, with ingenious party leadership and heroic people in work and defense that such unpreparedness for defense could have arisen that the Germans managed to reach Stalingrad?

This sharp contradiction was not resolved either in propaganda or in the scientific study of Soviet history, and the reader’s masses made a choice between two camps: either the Soviet system was not as advanced and successful as it was said (all the most ardent anti-communists, equating communism with Nazism), or Comrade Stalin is not so much that he was mistaken before and during the war. This contradiction has ripened all decades after the Khrushchev report, and began to break through to the surface during the perestroika years, when these camps began to take shape explicitly and openly.

The paradox of the books of Viktor Suvorov, initially aimed at crushing the communist ideology (which he writes at the beginning of the Icebreaker), was that he immediately pleased both camps.
Everyone read his own books. Those who had already established themselves in the anti-Soviet worldview were supported by his arguments about starving, for the sake of weapons, children and plans to establish "communist slavery" in Europe. Those who stood on the Soviet position, in his works found a resolution of the painful contradiction between the most advanced system and the defeat at the beginning of the war.

Viktor Suvorov, in his books, not only claimed that Stalin was preparing an attack on Germany, but, unlike his German colleagues in revising the results of the Second World War, resorted to a rather extensive set of arguments filed from the most advantageous side. Their essence was that the USSR before the war was almost the most armed country in the world, had a huge number of tanks, airplanes, cannons, amassed mountains of shells and leather boots on the border, a whole sea of ​​fuel for “motorways tanks” and aggressors ”, and was about to strike, but Hitler with his“ preventive ”(the politically incorrect word could not be used, the meaning was obvious) broke everything, and it was this small historical accident that caused the defeat of the huge and well-armed" red giant. Did not have time, just; late for a couple of days.

People who were outraged by Khrushchev's statements about Stalin’s unpreparedness for war and the stupidity of Stalin found the solution of this contradiction from Viktor Suvorov. It turns out, as they thought, the USSR was well armed and was even going to crush Hitler (this fully corresponded to the general idea that capitalism would be crushed by the Red Army), and this plan was worked out by the genius of Stalin, but only a little late with its implementation. It was much easier to come to terms with chance than with responsibility for defeat or with the thesis that the country was not ready for defense and the leader’s stupidity. It is on this ground, in my opinion, that the universal conviction has grown up that “Viktor Suvorov is right,” and this is the reason for the great popularity of his books.

However, in a paradoxical way, the long-term work of Viktor Suvorov on driving the Icebreaker did not at all lead to the results he expected. From his “sowing”, the growth of something completely different from what was originally supposed to be - the “Stalinist renaissance” of the middle of the 2000s. Instead of the planned condemnation of “communist slavery”, the elimination of Soviet power and going to work in Germany, many people began to study it and soon found that it was not slavery, and indeed, Stalin’s experience is very timely, especially after “dashing 90- x ”, the apparent degradation of the country and after the economic crisis 1998 year. For example, my work on the history of Stalin’s industrialization also found a starting point in the books of Viktor Suvorov. If the USSR really produced 30 of thousands of tanks before the war, then it became interesting how this was done. This thought was the beginning of my work.

Viktor Suvorov stirred many with his books and forced him to delve into the long history of the Stalinist Soviet Union, which, it would seem, was already safely buried in archives and libraries. Every year this era has been studied better and better, much has become clearer and clearer in it. Huge changes occurred in military history, which has become, as can now be seen, incomparably more thoroughly and thoroughly investigated than in the Soviet years. The revisionists here also played a paradoxical role. On the one hand, they crushed many dogmas of the Khrushchev's version of history, began to intensively promote, including for political purposes, such previously totally ignored aspects of the history of World War II, such as collaborationism. On the other hand, the energetic revision style and the ongoing discussion forced the opponents of Viktor Suvorov to look for new arguments, which led to new research.

The high public interest in military history made the publication of literature very profitable, and dozens and hundreds of publications on the history of the war appeared on the shelves. So much and in the USSR was not published.
The rapid development of military historiography also worked to a certain extent on the "Stalinist Renaissance."

It is unlikely that this was part of Viktor Suvorov’s plans, and his subsequent books reflect desperate attempts to rectify the situation, by hook or by crook, implanting their original, anti-Soviet point of view. A lot of things went into the course: a book about Hitler and his inner circle insignificance “Suicide”, a series of books about GK. Zhukov with detailed and wordy revelations of his memories and thoughts, but all this was unsuccessful. With his new reasoning, for example, that Zhukov was not at all a brilliant commander, and his personal qualities were not up to par, he was undermining his own positions and arguments made earlier. Worse, Viktor Suvorov introduced new contradictions in his arguments and gradually ceased to be “right”. When he jumped off his usual topic and wrote a book about Khrushchev, it became clear: that’s all, I got a bit “Captain Icebreaker”.

His banner tried to pick up like-minded people. Dmitry Khmelnitsky, for example, is trying to deepen the thesis of Viktor Suvorov about “hunger for weapons” (even wrote a separate article about buying tanks for bread), and trying to prove that it was absolutely impossible to live in Stalin’s cities, and designed a social city with barracks so that workers will suffer more and longer. At the same time, he gathered a whole guard of supporters of Viktor Suvorov and published an entire collection of collections on the theme: “The Truth of Viktor Suvorov”, “The New Truth of Viktor Suvorov”, “The Supernova Truth of Viktor Suvorov”. All this journalistic activity falls on the period of the “Stalin Renaissance”, beginning with the 2005 year. In this hectic activity, one could see the desire to “throw opponents with hats”, that is, take a number, not convincing arguments, to show that now the supporters of Viktor Suvorov are “the majority”, and his theory has become almost “generally accepted”.

Only this was not achieved, and then they went through a series of defeats, when works appeared with a detailed study of the pre-war period and the beginning of the war, with the involvement of a wide range of sources, with detailed elaboration of issues that overwhelmed the revisionists' arguments.

I also made my own contribution to this matter, concentrating on the crushing of the main arguments of Viktor Suvorov and Mark Solonin in my two books: “Viktor Suvorov is lying! To sink the "Icebreaker"! "And" 1941 fiasco: cowardice or treason? ". The arguments of the first were broken by the pressure of facts, and most importantly the proof of the theory of the second turned out to be based on falsified quotations from generals memoirs.

At the same time, as far as can be judged, with criticism and the defeat of revisionism, there was no return to previous positions. The thesis of "credulity" or Stalin's panic has long been refuted, and what was considered mistakes for decades was simply the result of previously unknown circumstances.

A detailed study of the objective conditions of the prewar period and the beginning of the war showed that, unfortunately, the enemy initially had a serious advantage. It sharply outweighed everything that could come from someone's personal guilt or lack of readiness.
In the study of the history of the war, as a result of this lengthy discussion with the revisionists, there was a significant progress that was clearly visible to anyone familiar with literature. We now know, appreciate and respect the history of the Great Patriotic War incomparably more than it was even in the Soviet years.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/ww2/pochemu_viktor_suvorov_byl_tak_popularen_124.htm
136 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. venaya
    venaya 31 October 2015 07: 07 New
    18
    Why was Viktor Suvorov so popular?

    To begin with, the country suffered tremendous losses during the war, and people naturally looked for answers to questions that worried them, and unfortunately for most people, they did not wait for these answers. Using this gap in coverage, as well as the natural psychological characteristics of people, the MI-6 special unit was very successful in throwing up, using not-so-well-illuminated facts interspersed with frank desa, which actually gave its results. Silence and inadequate coverage of events allowed Suvorov to take advantage of this and, accordingly, lead many people to false conclusions. I myself have repeatedly noticed this in my practice.
    1. Basil50
      Basil50 31 October 2015 12: 44 New
      11
      It is necessary to recall one more nonsense (Solzhenitsyn), who also wrote enemies with money. The present * imperfections of statesmen * are trying to make a classic out of him. The self-preservation instinct should work, digging a hole for yourself. Your grandchildren will not forgive how they will remember such villains? And do not hide behind reasoning, you can’t hide the bare facts of your actions, everything is croaked about you.
      1. maxiban
        maxiban 31 October 2015 14: 44 New
        17
        Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun (Suvorov) - a traitor. His books are a lie. That says it all. He who pays him orders music. To pay him a little more, he is heating up a refutation of his lies.
      2. loki-reyngard
        loki-reyngard 31 October 2015 17: 42 New
        -5
        Do you and Solzhenitsyna write down as nonsense? So still the Gulag did not exist?
        1. free
          free 31 October 2015 18: 21 New
          -2
          and who was in the gulag?
          1. forwarder
            forwarder 31 October 2015 20: 09 New
            -17
            Quote: free
            and who was in the gulag?

            Whole country.
            “Between 1945 and 1953, in the USSR, there was essentially a“ blurring of the differences between free and slave labor. ”A significant sector of the socialist economy was provided by openly slave labor — the labor of prisoners. The Ministry of Internal Affairs economy covered 20% of the total industrial labor force (approx. 3 million people) to which we must add several hundred thousand so-called “enslaved” (post-war repatriates and prematurely released). In 1949, the Gulag produced 10% of the country's GDP. But along with this there was a much larger sector " semi-free "labor - 8-9 million people recruited, as they say, compulsory-voluntarily - according to organizational recruitment and through the system of labor reserves. That is, somewhere ¾ of the industrial labor force of the USSR were people who were not free or semi-free. In agriculture "the work of collective farmers dominated, which can be quite correctly compared with the labor of serfs. A fine example of a" social state ", isn’t it?"
            http://www.apn.ru/publications/print31456.htm
            1. Glot
              Glot 31 October 2015 20: 27 New
              +7
              Whole country.


              Yeah, that's all right. Whole. Is the statement too loud?
              Do not smack nonsense, and do not refer to the unconfirmed "facts" of all kinds of "whistleblowers" of the USSR.
            2. bovig
              bovig 1 November 2015 07: 53 New
              +1
              "In the period 1945 - 1953 in the USSR, in essence, there was a" blurring of the differences between free and slave labor "

              And where did you see free labor?))))) Maybe in your own country ?? In my opinion, this is also semi-slave labor - you need to be riveted to this work, because there would be no need, so hell would drive you to this country house! Say what for the soul ??? So I won’t believe you !!!))))) Such a tale-story!)))
              1. forwarder
                forwarder 1 November 2015 09: 10 New
                -2
                Quote: bovig
                And where did you see free labor?))))) Maybe in your own country ??

                Have you tried to travel outside the "village of Pupkino"? I think no. Otherwise, such questions would not be asked.
                Quote: bovig
                In my opinion, this is also semi-slave labor - you need to be riveted to this work, because there would be no need, so hell would drive you to this country house!

                Here I agree with you. Cottage for food, this is terrible game. Stone Age.
                1. bovig
                  bovig 1 November 2015 22: 43 New
                  +1
                  Quote: forwarder
                  Quote: bovig
                  And where did you see free labor?))))) Maybe in your own country ??

                  Have you tried to travel outside the "village of Pupkino"? I think no. Otherwise, such questions would not be asked.
                  Quote: bovig
                  In my opinion, this is also semi-slave labor - you need to be riveted to this work, because there would be no need, so hell would drive you to this country house!

                  Here I agree with you. Cottage for food, this is terrible game. Stone Age.


                  I admit, I didn’t have to go to the village of Pupkino ... But what do you think I see from your comments ... But this is your personal and I will not dispute it ...)))
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Orionvit
            Orionvit 1 November 2015 05: 27 New
            +8
            I specifically made inquiries from relatives and acquaintances, who was sitting under Stalin? Maybe they heard about these from other friends. No one ever remembered a single specific person. However, everyone knows Solzhenitsyn, and the figure is twelve million. And how many there, according to his writings, sat in the Gulag. I remembered. Half sat and half guarded.
            1. forwarder
              forwarder 1 November 2015 09: 07 New
              -6
              Quote: Orionvit
              I specifically made inquiries from relatives and acquaintances, who was sitting under Stalin?

              And what, to read the documents too lazy?
              http://www.alexanderyakovlev.org/fond/issues-doc/1009312
              1. Glot
                Glot 1 November 2015 12: 36 New
                +5
                And what, to read the documents too lazy?
                http://www.alexanderyakovlev.org/fond/issues-doc/1009312


                Where did you see the documents there?
                Some kind of slurred tablet on do not understand what network resource and all.
                For half an hour I can compose a website for you in any direction, and having put any plates in the exel of any, push them there and, what will be the documents?
                Do you even understand what is - documentary evidence of the facts? I think not, if you give links to such an unverified Old.
                Well, if you provide a similar certificate with official stamps, certified by the signatures of the responsible persons, then this can be considered documentary evidence, and then after cross-checking with other sources.
                So that. Learn in order not to look like a fool and a liar in the likeness of Rezun or Solzhenitsyn and others like them ...
                1. forwarder
                  forwarder 1 November 2015 12: 42 New
                  -4
                  Quote: Glot
                  Some kind of slurred tablet on do not understand what network resource and all.

                  A serious and authoritative resource.
                  Quote: Glot
                  Learn in order not to look like a fool and a liar in the likeness of Rezun or Solzhenitsyn and others like them ...

                  I agree to look like a fool and a liar. Just not to look like a scoundrel and a bastard, denying obvious and very sad things.
                  1. bovig
                    bovig 2 November 2015 05: 19 New
                    0
                    Quote: forwarder
                    Quote: Glot
                    Some kind of slurred tablet on do not understand what network resource and all.

                    A serious and authoritative resource.
                    Quote: Glot
                    Learn in order not to look like a fool and a liar in the likeness of Rezun or Solzhenitsyn and others like them ...

                    I agree to look like a fool and a liar. Just not to look like a scoundrel and a bastard, denying obvious and very sad things.


                    I see no reason to believe that your statement "a serious and authoritative resource" is trustworthy ... A. Yakovlev has been known for a long time ... From the same cohort as Solzhenitsyn and Rezun. And what you agreed to look like is what you look like, to say the least, denying the obvious things ...
                2. bovig
                  bovig 2 November 2015 05: 05 New
                  +2
                  I read about A. Yakovlev and his activities with Mikhail Poltoranin in the book "Power in TNT Equivalent" ... This is also that figure! And he compiled his tables not according to archival documents but according to Solzhenitsyn’s writings ...))) Anatoly Wasserman spoke very softly about Solzhenitsyn’s “mistake”, who made his calculation according to the letters of the “victims of the Stalinist regime” ... As well as distorting Rezun The facts are cited by diverse figures: the number of armored vehicles concentrated by the Wehrmacht on the border with the USSR at the time of the attack and the amount of all Soviet armored vehicles released by the military industry before the war started ...))) That asks a provocative question to morons: how did it happen that so many tanks couldn’t stop the Germans coming ... Well, morons are forgivable that they were led, but to people who think? The Rezunovites, who came to the senses that they were turning their traitorous essence inside out in haste, shut up, and stupid people and paid propagandists continued to bend their line regardless of the arguments ...
              2. Orionvit
                Orionvit 1 November 2015 12: 55 New
                0
                Let historians deal with archives and documents, they have such a job. And our task, looking at these Rezuns, Solzhenitsins, and other "children of the Arbat", is to draw the right conclusions. By the way, I haven’t read any of them. Although I’m lying, I somehow read a couple of books. But in the early 90s. it was fashionable. Then I realized if the whole democratic press, television, etc. begin to praise any author, especially on issues of historical certainty. If all the people around you at the level of the layman (those who don’t read books at all) begin to praise such authors, then the inner barrier is triggered and you begin to realize that you are being fooled. I recommend it to everyone. Before reading or looking at something, please check who and what says this. Although sometimes useful and familiar, for the overall development. But as Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “If you want to understand something in this life you need to be a skeptic”
        2. Glot
          Glot 31 October 2015 18: 39 New
          +4
          Do you and Solzhenitsyna write down as nonsense? So still the Gulag did not exist?


          Yes, the Gulag was, and now - the FSIN, so what?
          Solzhenitsyn is the same nonsense as Rezun. One field of berries - traitors!
          1. loki-reyngard
            loki-reyngard 31 October 2015 18: 46 New
            -5
            Still, the "Gulag Archipelago" is this in your lies complete?
            1. Glot
              Glot 31 October 2015 20: 28 New
              +2
              Still, the "Gulag Archipelago" is this in your lies complete?


              Yes, I think so.
              For the most part, fiction, retelling of various "horror stories" and so on. What else to expect from a traitor to the motherland?
            2. Morrrow
              Morrrow 31 October 2015 21: 25 New
              +2
              Remember the lessons of literature and what is the main idea of ​​the author. So, she denies reality
            3. Stas57
              Stas57 31 October 2015 23: 15 New
              +1
              Quote: loki-reyngard
              Still, the "Gulag Archipelago" is this in your lies complete?

              this is a book in the style of scandals, intrigues of investigation and of course rumors,
              it's not even history and journalism, so camp tanks and ditties
      3. loki-reyngard
        loki-reyngard 31 October 2015 17: 44 New
        -3
        Unfortunately, the executioners survived much more than the victims ...
        1. Colonel
          Colonel 31 October 2015 22: 01 New
          -5
          Quote: loki-reyngard
          Unfortunately, the executioners survived much more than the victims ...

          Found on the Internet an Internet, could not resist, so as not to quote:
          In Soviet times, people lived in fear all the time. They could come and arrest at any moment - for the told joke, for the insincere smile or for the disrespect of Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev. Some were even arrested because deep down they did not like the decisions of the last congress of the CPSU. Because control over people's lives and their thoughts crossed all sorts of boundaries. Even the children were afraid. Many dreamed that Lavrenty Palych Beria would come for them on a black funnel and take them away to rape, from which they woke up and loudly called their mother. After that, their fear became even worse, because if the child screams, then he is not happy with life. And in the USSR everyone was forced to be happy with life. But children are children. They want to play and have fun, and not tremble at the thought of the Soviet government. And then one day in one school, children began to play in little balls. At first they just ran along the corridor, and then ran into the room. It was a pioneer room, but the children did not notice this and continued to rush after each other with a loud laugh. A few minutes later, one boy accidentally touched the banner standing there, the banner fell, and one girl stepped on it. The children stopped in horror, they understood that now they would have to knock on each other, otherwise the others would knock on each other. Pushing their comrades away from the phone, they rushed to call the KGB. They really wanted to cry, but they did not cry, because then they would think that they were not happy. A few minutes later the black KGB funnels arrived, people in plainclothes came out of them. One mistakenly left the military, but he was immediately shot. Then the children confessed everything and led them to torture - in the USSR it was supposed to torture everyone, even those who confessed everything. After torture, the children decided to be shot and taken to the schoolyard. One civilian soldier took an assault rifle and cried because he felt sorry for the children. Then he was also shot for being dissatisfied and sorry for the children. And his whole family was sent to the Belomorkanal. After that, another soldier in civilian clothes took a machine gun and shot all the children right in the schoolyard. So that everyone else can see. The others saw and smiled so that someone would not think that they were not happy. Then the children from all over the school were driven to kiss the banner. They kissed the banner right on the trail of the boot and smiled. This is because the Soviet regime was cruel and criminal.
          wassat
          1. Billikid
            Billikid 31 October 2015 23: 30 New
            +3
            Tell me where did you find this game ???
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. forwarder
            forwarder 31 October 2015 23: 54 New
            -3
            And you scoundrel. Just a banal scoundrel.
          4. Reinhard
            Reinhard 1 November 2015 16: 54 New
            0
            Ha! During the White Sea Canal, they were shot from machine guns! laughing With the AK-47!
      4. Basil50
        Basil50 31 October 2015 18: 29 New
        -1
        The most popular foreign literature at that time was porn magazines with pictures, and these * scriptures * were to justify reading pornographic publications.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. washi
      washi 31 October 2015 14: 51 New
      +4
      Quote: venaya
      Why was Viktor Suvorov so popular?

      To begin with, the country suffered tremendous losses during the war, and people naturally looked for answers to questions that worried them, and unfortunately for most people, they did not wait for these answers. Using this gap in coverage, as well as the natural psychological characteristics of people, the MI-6 special unit was very successful in throwing up, using not-so-well-illuminated facts interspersed with frank desa, which actually gave its results. Silence and inadequate coverage of events allowed Suvorov to take advantage of this and, accordingly, lead many people to false conclusions. I myself have repeatedly noticed this in my practice.

      I agree, but I remained guilty of the People's Commissar and the NHS.
      Stalin could not keep track of everyone, but these did not fulfill their duties.
      1. forwarder
        forwarder 31 October 2015 16: 11 New
        -9
        Quote: Vasya
        Stalin could not keep track of everyone, but these did not fulfill their duties

        If someone arrogates absolute power to himself, like Dzhugashvili, he is obligated to keep track of everything. If he does not have time to do this, then he SHOULD NOT appropriate absolute power to himself.
      2. loki-reyngard
        loki-reyngard 31 October 2015 17: 55 New
        -5
        And why not take as an axiom that Stalin quite meaningly intended to be Hitler's ally? Aloizovich simply deceived him, and as for the Jews, according to the circumstances ...
        1. Basil50
          Basil50 31 October 2015 18: 33 New
          +1
          lokii ... .Then take for AXIOM that your mother was mistaken with the birth of such an * individual *
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Uncle Joe
          Uncle Joe 31 October 2015 18: 56 New
          +5
          Quote: forwarder
          If someone assumes absolute power, like Dzhugashvili
          You just have to prove the fact of Stalin’s misappropriation of power, thereby proving the fact that Stalin committed a counter-revolutionary crime, falling under the scope of part 1 of article 58 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR for 22 years.

          Quote: loki-reyngard
          And why not take as an axiom that Stalin quite meaningly intended to be Hitler's ally?
          And why not take the inadequacy of the user loki-reyngard, for example, as an axiom?

          Not surprisingly, fascism has now become the most fashionable commodity among militant bourgeois politicians. I am talking not only about fascism in general, but primarily about fascism of the Germanic type, which is incorrectly called National Socialism, because with the most careful examination it is impossible to find even an atom of socialism in it.
          In this regard, the victory of fascism in Germany must be regarded not only as a sign of the weakness of the working class and the result of the betrayal of social democracy by the working class, which cleared the way for fascism. It should also be regarded as a sign of the weakness of the bourgeoisie, as a sign that the bourgeoisie is no longer able to dominate the old methods of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy, as a result of which it is forced to resort to terrorist methods of government in domestic politics, as a sign that she is no longer able to find a way out of the current situation on the basis of peaceful foreign policy, in view of which she is forced to resort to a policy of war.

          I. Stalin Report to the XVII Congress of the Party on the work of the Central Committee of the CPSU.
          26 January 1934 g. t. 13 p. 293-294
        4. forwarder
          forwarder 31 October 2015 19: 38 New
          -4
          Quote: loki-reyngard
          And why not take as an axiom that Stalin quite meaningly intended to be Hitler's ally?

          No I do not think so. He hoped that the Westerners would weaken each other in the war. And then he will strike with fresh strength. So much for "communism around the world." Universal "happiness" on earth. And above, he, beloved.
          But the French showed the cunning Britons a muzzle under their nose. For Dzhugashvili it was a strong blow. Then the Britons arrested the "crazy Hess." And Dzhugashvili realized that there will be a big war in Europe. Therefore, with a fright, he began to spam "Declarations on the Peacefulness of the USSR" to Hitler. Because he understood, Hitler needed to solve the question for himself, in the east, a friend or an enemy. With such ridiculous moves (statements), he tried to convince Hitler that he was a friend in the east.
          But Hitler justifiably decided that the enemy. Therefore, he decided to eliminate this threat during the 1941 company. Push the USSR, led by its "wise leader" beyond the line Astrakhan-Arkhangelsk along the North. Dvina and the Volga. And then, already in 1942. tackle Britain.
          Then everyone knows everything for themselves. It remains to add that Dzhugashvili did not spam his statements from the bottom of his heart. And in the hope of sitting out until the Britons with the Germans break their necks. To later swept the march from Brest to Brest.
          It’s a normal plan. A common thing in international politics. There is nothing wrong with that. But Hitler didn’t believe the spammer.
          But exactly what Dzhugashvili was not going to do was attack Hitler in 1941. In this we can and should agree with the official communist point of view, he tried to delay the beginning of this war. It didn’t work out.
          1. Uncle Joe
            Uncle Joe 1 November 2015 02: 07 New
            0
            Quote: forwarder
            Then the Britons arrested the "crazy Hess"
            And then the Martians arrived ...

            To you here http://www.dragons-lair.ru/
          2. bovig
            bovig 1 November 2015 08: 40 New
            0
            He hoped that the Westerners would weaken each other in the war. And then he will strike with fresh strength. So much for "communism around the world." Universal "happiness" on earth. And above, he, beloved.


            The idea of ​​a permanent world revolution "communism around the world" belongs to Trotsky-Bronstein! Stalin wrote about the possibility of building communism in a single country, such was his initial position and his strategy was based on it. After his death, the course was changed by the Trotskyist Khrushchev. Who does not believe in the Trotskyist views of Khrushchev - read the memoirs of Lazar Kaganovich, recorded by his great-nephew, Stuart Kagan. The book is called The Kremlin Wolf. By the way, a Jew of American origin is well aware of the undercover games in the Politburo ...
            1. forwarder
              forwarder 1 November 2015 09: 12 New
              0
              Quote: bovig
              The idea of ​​a permanent world revolution "communism around the world" belongs to Trotsky-Bronstein!

              And here is Trotsky? Read the program documents of the CPSU (b). Everything is written in black and white.
              1. bovig
                bovig 1 November 2015 23: 06 New
                0
                Quote: forwarder
                Quote: bovig
                The idea of ​​a permanent world revolution "communism around the world" belongs to Trotsky-Bronstein!

                And here is Trotsky? Read the program documents of the CPSU (b). Everything is written in black and white.


                Program documents of the CPSU (b)? And for what period? I read the works of Stalin ...
            2. Peter Volkov
              Peter Volkov 15 November 2018 22: 51 New
              0
              "The idea of ​​a permanent world revolution belongs to Trotsky."
              Did you forget Lenin out of modesty? In vain. It was this "sweet couple" that muddied the process of the destruction of the empire, which was to "burn out in the fire of the world revolution" (PSS Lenin). Having fiasco in 1920, the Trotskyist revolutionaries and the Bolshevik-Leninists calmed down a little, which was the reason for adopting the Stalinist idea: building socialism in a single country. "The USSR was formed in December 1922. But they took on new challenges to damage socialist construction. And if Lenin lived to 1937, he would be shot as an enemy of the people, along with other traitors, Trotskyists.
        5. Glot
          Glot 31 October 2015 20: 36 New
          +3
          And why not take as an axiom that Stalin quite meaningly intended to be Hitler's ally? Aloizovich simply deceived him, and as for the Jews, according to the circumstances ...


          Yeah, and also wanted to be an ally of Hirohito, Roosevelt and Annunaki with the Illuminati combined. laughing
          What a "deep knowledge" of history. laughing
    5. Peter Volkov
      Peter Volkov 15 November 2018 22: 29 New
      0
      I read this nonsense. Particularly impressed with the march - the throw of 1 tank corps from the Baltic to the Finnish border on June 19, 1941. (M. Solonin. Barrels and hoops) This is despite the fact that by the beginning of the war not a single tank corps was formed. And then, who was this brave commander who, without declaring war, undertook to attack the Finnish border? Regarding the catastrophe of 1941, I have my opinion: First of all, it is a betrayal of the uninhabited Trotskyists entrenched in the upper echelons of power, and secondly, the personnel army, which is completely untrained in modern methods of warfare. It is enough to recall more than 1000 aircraft burned at airfields and hundreds of tanks wrecked without fuel and shells. But the warehouses in Bialystok with weapons, ammunition, food and uniforms, all-purpose and sealed were transferred to the Germans. Is this not a betrayal? Therefore, it is not surprising that then they retreated with one rifle for three. And the cells, instead of the trenches: the soldier is sitting alone and doesn’t see his own, there’s no one to say a word with, but the enemy is here, right in the palm of your hand And everyone feels himself - alone against the army. The lack of unity of command nullified the whole efficiency of decisions made by the commander. Even without taking into account the art of Mehlis, for some reason not yet thrown out of the Kremlin wall, it becomes clear that the institute of commissioners played its sinister role in the 1941 disaster. Who can explain to me why, having the best ZiS-2 and ZiS-3 guns at that time, the first one was generally discontinued, and the ZiS-3 was produced in scanty quantities, despite all the urges of Stalin? But German tanks were greeted with bottles with a combustible mixture and with an ax, like a cook Sereda.
  2. The lead
    The lead 31 October 2015 07: 08 New
    +3
    Verkhoturov wrote a bunch of books and articles polemicizing with these scribblers. The question is, why is there a lot of criticism in this article, but why pay attention to them, give them advertising? Where in the article is the mention of who this V. Suvorov is? V. Suvorov is a traitor, defector
    Vete in the West is an enemy of Russia and the Russian people. All this is enough to prohibit the distribution of books on the territory of the Russian Federation. It does not matter that this traitor and his followers write, because by definition it will be a lie. If Verkhoturov considers it necessary polemic with the revisionists, it must be done in a smart way, without giving names, without referring to the sources of the revisionists, it is enough to objectively disclose the history of the USSR.
    1. Barboskin
      Barboskin 31 October 2015 07: 19 New
      +7
      By the way, the historical homeland of Viti Suvorov, in principle, is Ukraine. But he did not rush to his historical homeland from Britain, although they would meet him there as a hero. Prefers to give interviews in the style of "adabrams" from behind a hill. He not only betrayed the USSR, but now he is betraying Ukraine, supporting what is happening there.
    2. Lelek
      Lelek 31 October 2015 10: 54 New
      +6
      Quote: Lead
      ? V. Suvorov, traitor, defector, living
      Vet in the west, is the enemy of Russia and the Russian people.


      But you never know. Here are the children and grandchildren of our former "great", also pouring mud on their former homeland:
    3. Altona
      Altona 31 October 2015 13: 57 New
      +5
      Quote: Lead
      .All this is enough to prohibit the distribution of books on the territory of the Russian Federation. It does not matter that this traitor and his followers write, because by definition it will be a lie.

      ------------------------
      There is no need to prohibit anything, the official cudgel ideology of the late Soviet Union failed on prohibitions ... Everyone has long had video recorders and radiotelephones around the world (mid-80s), but we still have 50s in many areas of life ... As soon as the next batch of consumer goods is worn out, and a new one is not delivered, again we try to alter the sheepskin coats for sheepskin coats ... It is in the controversy, in argumentation, in popularizing history ... And then they will drag archival documents and source codes into scientific the community, and the public, like cattle, is given some sort of popular message or anecdote to the story, and they’ll also make a movie, where instead of the T-34, the T-55 is completely on the defense of Leningrad ...
      1. forwarder
        forwarder 31 October 2015 16: 12 New
        0
        Quote: Altona
        As soon as the next portion of consumer goods is worn out, and a new one is not delivered, we again try to alter the sheepskin coats for sheepskin coats ..

        Bravo.
        1. Altona
          Altona 31 October 2015 17: 10 New
          +1
          Quote: forwarder
          Bravo.

          -------------------
          The absence of an opponent leads to a kind of doublethink, they try to convince you that "black is white and vice versa, white is black" ... What is now observed in the stupid policy of the West, when he tries to convince everyone that his point of view is correct, and the others were mistaken ... This was the case in the Soviet Union when they tried to convince us with rude rhetoric about the correctness of the policy of the CPSU, which at that time was already filled with all sorts of opportunists, hypocritically supporting the slogans, but in fact, ruining the country ... There was no criticism , no self-criticism, only universal "approval" ... Therefore, Putin acts subtler in this respect ... Even if the criticism is banal and insulting, you still need to find the strength to accept it and not pay attention ... The journalist called Putin a bandit in on the air, Putin, not embarrassed at all, replied that the bandits could not be intelligence and counterintelligence officers. I read Rezun, but I didn’t read much, immediately the stretch marks and gross fraud were visible, then I just leafed through and did not read more ...
      2. The lead
        The lead 31 October 2015 18: 27 New
        +2
        Quote: Altona
        Do not prohibit anything
        You make inappropriate generalizations about the USSR. There are prohibitions in society and this is normal, for example, on the propaganda of fascism, sadism, homosexuality, so the ban on a destructive, false ideology that is directed against Russian civilization can and should be prohibited.
        Quote: Altona
        It is in a polemic, in argumentation, in popularizing history that the truth is clarified ..
        The truth is found out where they are looking for it, in scientific knowledge. Where do these pseudo-historians have a desire for truth? They have no truth, therefore, one does not need to pay attention to them.
        1. forwarder
          forwarder 31 October 2015 19: 14 New
          0
          Quote: Lead
          therefore, a ban on destructive, false ideology, which is directed against Russian civilization, is possible and necessary

          Do you mean communist ideology? According to the characteristics you listed, it is very similar to it.
          1. The lead
            The lead 31 October 2015 20: 12 New
            0
            Quote: forwarder
            Do you mean communist ideology? According to the characteristics you listed, it is very similar to it.
            Communist ideology does not meet the above criteria by any means.
            1. forwarder
              forwarder 31 October 2015 20: 19 New
              0
              Quote: Lead
              Communist ideology does not meet the criteria listed above.

              Right two sides. It corresponds directly to all its pork snout.
              And I want the neo-Stalinists to return a regime such as Stalin. Only personally for them. No, I could regret it and wish them to get under the bulldozer. But I will not regret it. And I wish to live under Stalinism. Torment heartily. They are so eager for this.
              1. The lead
                The lead 31 October 2015 20: 42 New
                0
                Quote: forwarder
                And I want the neo-Stalinists to return a regime such as Stalin.
                You are exaggerating. Is democracy better than Stalinism? Would you like to be in Hiroshima or Nagasaka during the bombardment with democratic bombs? Or in Vietnam to try the effectiveness of napalm and poisonous substances? Seriously, there is no ideal world order, but socialism, as the ideal of a society of social justice, the most promising model of the state system.
                1. forwarder
                  forwarder 31 October 2015 22: 19 New
                  0
                  Quote: Lead
                  Is democracy better than Stalinism?

                  Have you tried it? How can you judge it without trying it?
                  Quote: Lead
                  Would you like to be in Hiroshima or Nagasaka during the bombardment with democratic bombs? Or in Vietnam to try the effectiveness of napalm and toxic substances?

                  Noticed, the Democrats applied such methods to strangers. And the Communists, to their own. Do you understand the difference?
                  Quote: Lead
                  however, socialism, as the ideal of a society of social justice, is the most promising model of the state system.

                  You are not in yourself, this is understandable. To call a feudal society based on pseudo-religious dogma (Marxism-Leninism) something out of the ordinary, and even more promising, can only be an unhealthy person.
                  Learn the story. Feudal society with the development of productive forces and society as a whole is inevitably replaced by bourgeois (capitalist). Just as the primitive communal was replaced by slaveholding. A slave, feudal. This is the law of the development of human society. And no tricks to feudalism, even in the form of the so-called socialism will not help. They will not help him in the form of "liberal capitalism." Anyway, instead of feudalism, capitalism will inevitably come. Sooner or later.
                  1. Altona
                    Altona 31 October 2015 23: 55 New
                    0
                    Quote: forwarder
                    You are not in yourself, this is understandable. To call a feudal society based on pseudo-religious dogma (Marxism-Leninism) something out of the ordinary, and even more promising, can only be an unhealthy person.
                    Learn the story.

                    -------------------
                    In principle, you are a “strong Marxist”, if you still recognize the scientific approach and the change of formations ... As for Russia and the USSR and “Marxism” ... Tsarist Russia was not an industrial country, it was (attention) AGRICULTURAL (the keyword AGRARIAN) ... That is, there were no prerequisites for the change of formations, all-individual peasants around, capital and industry were mostly foreign, but around the concessions with the Germans, French, British (joint ventures, in modern terms), that is, feudalism ( the monarchy made an attempt to become constitutional, but what for the history of 30 years? ugh) with an admixture of peripheral capitalism dependent on Europe ...
                    1. forwarder
                      forwarder 1 November 2015 00: 21 New
                      0
                      Quote: Altona
                      That is, there were no prerequisites for the change of formations, all-individual peasants, capital and industry were mostly foreign, and concessions with Germans, French, and British were all around (joint ventures, in modern terms), that is, feudalism (the monarchy made an attempt to become constitutional but what for the history of 30 years? ugh) with an admixture of peripheral capitalism dependent on Europe ...

                      Could agree with you, if not for one "BUT". It is very significant. Russia actually failed (did not lose) 1MB. And under such conditions, completely different prerequisites ripen for the change in OEF. Here in Russia this happened in February 1917. And everything would be hurt. But then what you write about intervened. The agricultural beginning. The Bolsheviks understood this quite well, therefore they exploited it with might and main, therefore they won the Civil War. Then this "agricultural principle" they inflated 100 times and robbed like sticky. But those already could not reverse, there was nowhere.
                      So in Russia there was a feudal restoration. The principles were slightly different, the monarchy was not hereditary, but pseudo-religious, led by a supreme shaman. But this does not change the essence of the matter. The system lasted until the end of the 30s, and then was replaced by slaveholding (repressions 37-38gg). First in a relatively light form. And after the “great victory”, when it took a mass of free labor force, and in full slave form.
                      Actually, this is the very “Stalinist socialism” to which apparently mentally not quite normal users of this site are calling. Slave system of managing. It is strange that there are so many who wish to plunge into this shit * o again. Sadomaso, apparently.
                      1. Altona
                        Altona 1 November 2015 00: 51 New
                        0
                        Quote: forwarder
                        Could agree with you, if not for one "BUT". It is very significant. Russia actually failed (did not lose) 1MB. And under such conditions, completely different prerequisites ripen for the change in OEF. Here in Russia this happened in February 1917. And everything would be hurt. But then what you write about intervened. The agricultural beginning.

                        ------------------------
                        The revolution of 1917 was inspired by the West, and at first it was led by liberals, then the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Anarchists, the Bolsheviks took power at the very last moment, and then, among the Bolsheviks, the Trotskyists predominated, calling for a "world revolution" ... Then 10 years the civil, rather, it was called civil, there was a civil-national war (Basmachi, Abreks) ... Because civil obedience was restored at 3 years old, and national wars went on until 1955 ...
                      2. forwarder
                        forwarder 1 November 2015 01: 56 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Altona
                        The 1917 revolution was inspired by the West

                        It could not be inspired by the West, simply because the West needed Russian cannon fodder. Revolution is always chaos. So, there will be no meat. This was useless to the West.
                        Quote: Altona
                        the Bolsheviks took power at the very last moment, and then, among the Bolsheviks, the Trotskyists predominated, calling for a "world revolution" ..

                        Do not tell. First in October 17g. the Bolsheviks prepared a backup option. In history, it is better known as the October Revolution. And then, when the main option failed, the Bolsheviks lost the election to the Constituent Assembly, it was this option, first a reserve one, that became the main one. Controlling the Petrograd, the Bolsheviks dispersed the Constituent Assembly and usurped power in the country. After that, Russia began to fall apart (everything fell off that THEN could fall off). And in those places where it did not fall apart, the Civil War began.
                        Quote: Altona
                        Because civil obedience was restored at 3 years old, and national wars continued until 1955 ...

                        Oh well. God grant that before 1955
                    2. bovig
                      bovig 1 November 2015 17: 43 New
                      0
                      Slave system of managing. It is strange that there are so many who wish to plunge into this shit * o again. Sadomaso, apparently.

                      Here it is to the very point !!! I agree with you in this context, one hundred percent, but not to any historical period of the past, but to our present - the very, so to speak, "democratic" period of human development on the planet ... If you take the word democratic without brackets, you need use it in conjunction with another term: DEMOCRATIC SLAVERY! Let me explain with an example directly related to my profession: since 2001, the cost of electrical work (as well as other construction work) has not changed to this day. However, the prices of materials, and even essential goods (food, clothing, communal services, etc.) during this period underwent a significant change, about 3-4 times! If earlier I could earn something, then now I am forced to work only on my own content, well, at best, the minimum family of three people. Moreover, NOBODY - neither the state, nor the new bourgeoisie, nor social funds (PF, MS and other parasitic structure) DOES NOT GUARANTEE literally ANYTHING! What do you call this OEF and what are its prospects? And then we are all trying to poke around in dried shit, looking for all kinds of worms in it, but we are moving away from reality and are not trying to model prospects for the future ...
                2. bovig
                  bovig 1 November 2015 09: 48 New
                  0
                  Suppose democracy and Stalinism are neither synonyms nor antonyms and it is at least incorrect to contrast these concepts ... One does not exclude the other, if you do not take into account purely individual, personal beliefs based on emotions, but not logic ...

                  “Learn history. Feudal society as the productive forces and society as a whole develop is inevitably replaced by bourgeois (capitalist). Just as the primitive community was replaced by slaveholding. And slaveholding, feudal. This is the law of the development of human society.” - Just like Karl Marx! !!))))) Then learn “Capital” and try to refute the inevitability of the change of the bourgeois (capitalist) system to the socialist one !!! Or maybe you can explain to all of us the causes of the modern crisis around the world? )))
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. forwarder
                    forwarder 1 November 2015 12: 28 New
                    0
                    Quote: bovig
                    Then learn “Capital” and try to refute inevitably the inevitability of the change of the bourgeois (capitalist) system to the socialist !!!

                    You somehow do not understand everything. I wrote to you very clearly, the original Bolshevik society of the USSR in its form was a pseudo-religious feudal society. As pseudo-religion, Marxism-Leninism was used. At the head sat the supreme shaman, absolute power NOT possessed. In 1937 this shaman (then it was Dzhugashvili) made a coup, securing himself absolute power. From that moment on, Soviet society began to drift steadily towards slave relations. Which were finally installed in the USSR during the war, under the pretext of "war is on." They lasted until the shaman’s death and were gradually canceled by Khrushchev and early Brezhnev.
                    But in the feudal form, “socialism” could not exist. Due to the lack of motivation, as well as for a number of important reasons, he could not feed himself. But since the supreme shaman (at the cost of incredible sacrifices) was laid some margin of safety, he did not immediately collapse. And only then, after eating up this stock.
                    Therefore, the question arose for Gorbachev, but what to do next with this "socialism"? You can’t do anything, everything will collapse. Return to slavery (neo-Stalinism), do not want to. Therefore, Gorbachevites, like real communists, pulled Lenin out of naphthalene with his crazy ideas about self-financing, etc. And they called it all "Perestroika."
                    Lenin was a cool dude. But nowhere did not work anywhere, except for the USSR. Yes, and education did not bother. The university graduated externally, which means in absentia. What is the "correspondence-behind-the-ear education" residents of the USSR remember well. There is nothing more than a piece of paper. The Gorbachevites decided to rely on the precepts of this "lamp". Having completely forgotten what the USSR’s affairs of this “cool dude” had led to during his lifetime. As expected, in this scenario, "socialism" collapsed the fastest.
                    Well, then you know. Here is a short course of "socialism" for acquaintance. Try there to find something that does not correspond to reality.
                    1. bovig
                      bovig 1 November 2015 23: 26 New
                      0
                      I got acquainted with your short course of "socialism" ... Perhaps everything in it corresponds to your REALITY, but I did not find anything there that corresponds to REALITY ... Are you able to see the difference between the concepts of REALITY and REALITY?
                  3. The comment was deleted.
                  4. forwarder
                    forwarder 1 November 2015 12: 40 New
                    0
                    Quote: bovig
                    Or maybe you can explain to all of us the causes of the modern crisis around the world?

                    Will explain. The crisis is not cyclical, the crisis is systemic. Advanced humanity has outlived the modern system of world order (not all capitalism, but only its current stage). Therefore, the system will change, move to a different quality level. Whether the states that are in the pre-capitalist stage of development want this or do not want, no one will ask them.
                    Unfortunately, there is a chance that this will happen through a big war (the war will write everything off). It’s just the last time she changed that way. Then a dude by the name of Schicklgruber, along with Germany and like-minded friends all over the world, turned up under the rink. Actually, it was a war of the "old capitalist" (old bourgeois states) with the "young capitalist wolves" (young capitalist states in their first phase) for a sweet spot under the bright capitalist sun. At the same time, the "old" people, wise as they were by experience, quirky and with money, actively used various native troops and the formation of backward states that were in the pre-capitalist phase of their development. Well, in the end, if you build a closet at your dacha, and you have money, you also hire someone.
                    This time we can expect something similar. And who will substitute, I do not know.
                    In the end, it can be expected that the system will change in a peaceful way. At least I would really like to believe in it. But then, now, it’s not then. Now, as a result of the great war, it is easy to find yourself not in the next level, but in caves, near bonfires. In the skins of natural origin. And then, it is not clear where it will be where to get these skins, or not.
                    Therefore, I believe that a big war, if there is one, will not be in a "hot" form, but in a "cold" one.
                    1. bovig
                      bovig 1 November 2015 23: 39 New
                      0
                      “The crisis is not cyclical, the crisis is systemic” - it’s original and modern !!!))))) And it looks like it’s smart! At first glance ... But no specifics - so, blurry muddy spots ... Are you, by chance, not a doctor about all kinds of sciences? There is, of course, some algorithms in the forecasts, but you still have not disclosed the cause of the crisis, my friend!)))
                  5. The comment was deleted.
              2. Altona
                Altona 1 November 2015 00: 00 New
                0
                Quote: Lead
                Is democracy better than Stalinism? Would you like to be in Hiroshima or Nagasaka during the bombardment with democratic bombs? Or in Vietnam to try the effectiveness of napalm and toxic substances?

                --------------------------
                You didn’t remember these things at all for some reason ... We also tested nuclear weapons in public (we dug a 20kt bomb near Ivanovo pit to build something in Snezhinsk, too), and shot people in Novocherkassk in 1962 ... In general, if we polemicize, then we and the West did exactly the same thing ... We live in the same world ...
            2. Altona
              Altona 31 October 2015 23: 38 New
              +1
              Quote: forwarder
              And I want the neo-Stalinists to return a regime such as Stalin.

              -------------------------
              "Democracy" and "Stalinism" are just shortcuts, in principle, these systems are equivalent, having their pros and cons, both have a strong ideology ... I read American magazines in the original (Life, Time, Wall-St Journal), Pravda, only capitalist ... And there and there is a strong financial and industrial group that nominates a candidate for "popular elections", the rest is done by advertising or PR (call it what you like) ... Another question, in the name of what is being built control system? For the good of the citizens of the country or for a group of business bankers? And why is it projected into the outer space?
              PS It’s hard to get your point across in a short post, for this you have to write an article, but by and large, there is no “democracy” and “Stalinism” ...
              1. forwarder
                forwarder 31 October 2015 23: 52 New
                0
                Quote: Altona
                "Democracy" and "Stalinism" are just shortcuts, in principle, these systems are equivalent, having their pros and cons, both have a strong ideology ..

                How can a system based on the capitalist mode of production be equivalent to a system based first on the feudal and, after the "great victory", on the slave-owning mode of production?
                Quote: Altona
                the same "Truth", only capitalist

                I also read it. Not the same. But there is propaganda. She was and will be. The difference in the degree of arrogance.
                Quote: Altona
                Another question, in the name of what is the control system built? For the good of the citizens of the country or for a group of business bankers?

                For the good of the national elite. But this elite is national. Therefore, it is shared with fellow citizens. Fellow citizens appreciate this and the elite, in the main, endures it.
                The international elite of citizens considers simply cattle. And the attitude is the same. NEVER in the future no NON-NATIONAL state will succeed. All of them will end in failure. And the USA. And China. And some more closer. The time intervals may be different. But collapse is inevitable. Empires, even neo-empires, have become obsolete. And they cannot exist even simply economically.
                True, in the end they can unleash a nuclear conflict and drag everyone along. But that's another topic.
                1. Altona
                  Altona 1 November 2015 00: 45 New
                  0
                  Quote: forwarder
                  How can a system based on the capitalist mode of production be equivalent to a system based first on the feudal and, after the "great victory", on the slave-owning mode of production?

                  --------------------------
                  It is not true, both systems are based on the capitalist mode of production ... That is, there is a clear division of labor, bank financing, industrial commodity production ... Feudal production is mainly occupied by subsistence farming and small commodity production ... If you mean the distribution system, then you either simply know it badly or incorrectly describe it ... As regards the economy in general, after the war it had a mobilization character for a long time and carried it by inertia until the collapse of the USSR, when we became involved in an arms race, instead of developing a commodity economic sector for the good of man ...
                  1. forwarder
                    forwarder 1 November 2015 01: 45 New
                    0
                    Quote: Altona
                    Not true, both systems are based on the capitalist mode of production ..

                    Yes? And can you find private ownership of the means of production under socialism?
                    Quote: Altona
                    That is, there is a clear division of labor, bank financing, industrial commodity production ...

                    This is actually a division of labor. Quality inherent even to the primitive communal system.
                    Quote: Altona
                    Feudal production is mainly occupied by subsistence farming and small-scale production ..

                    Well no. Not this way. You have a misunderstanding of the OEF.
                    Quote: Altona
                    If you mean a distribution system, then you either simply know it poorly or incorrectly describe it ..

                    Well, why? I know pretty well. Especially times after the "great victory". The system resembles livestock feeders. Highly.
                    1. Altona
                      Altona 1 November 2015 10: 10 New
                      0
                      Quote: forwarder
                      Yes? And can you find private ownership of the means of production under socialism?

                      --------------------
                      Of course, an individual peasant, for example ...

                      Quote: forwarder
                      Well no. Not this way. You have a misunderstanding of the OEF.

                      ---------------------
                      It may be wrong, but I describe the OEF a little differently for myself, believing that the social system and management methods are not quite the same ...


                      Quote: forwarder
                      Well, why? I know pretty well. Especially times after the "great victory". The system resembles livestock feeders. Highly.

                      --------------------
                      The victory was really great, and the distribution system was originally correctly conceived, but greatly distorted in implementation ... Because in addition to the household device, one should not forget the wide social sphere, it also requires expenses ...
                    2. forwarder
                      forwarder 1 November 2015 11: 17 New
                      0
                      Quote: Altona
                      Of course, an individual peasant, for example ...

                      I was surprised to learn about individual peasants in the USSR only at the "right lectures" at the institute. I think you heard about them from about the same sources. But this is not even about that. The thing is that these mythical peasants had no means of production. Even according to the descriptions of the lecturers (I never saw him live), these peasants did not pull at all to the small capitalists.
                      Quote: Altona
                      Considering that the social system and management methods are not quite the same thing ...

                      And how can this be not interconnected? One generates the other. And one follows from the other.
                      Quote: Altona
                      and the distribution system was originally correctly conceived, but greatly distorted in implementation ...

                      You do not understand, there should not be any distribution system. Generally. Distribution of feed near the feeders is a sign of the pigsty, and not of human society.
                      Quote: Altona
                      Because in addition to the household device, one should not forget the wide social sphere, it also requires expenses ...

                      And what, under the USSR, there was a "wide social sphere"? It would be interesting to hear about her. Now, probably, you will start talking about free chic hospitals, chic education? If so, then not worth it. Just count how many hours ideological lectures took. How much military training. And then make sure that nothing sensible could be prepared for the remaining time. Yes, and no one. Teached by the same precocious "specialists."
                      As for hospitals, I have something to compare. More vomit (even in terms of nutrition and smell in the dining room) than the Soviet regional hospital I have never met. It was impossible to enter the ward (for 12 people), ducks were not taken out for a couple of days. And treated at about the same level. Meals in today's hospitals (scolded by everyone) can be compared with the level of a good Soviet cafe. The wards are clearly cleaner. Well, about the treatment, let’s omit it. Doctor, this is not a cleaning lady. Here you need to teach a person. Long.
                    3. forwarder
                      forwarder 1 November 2015 11: 39 New
                      0
                      Quote: Altona
                      The victory was really great

                      In fact, the phrase in quotation marks means incl. someone else's quote. The term is quite established, but not mine. Alien. That's the way I designated someone else's term. In my opinion, spelling is true. I thought it was clear.
                2. The comment was deleted.
              2. Altona
                Altona 1 November 2015 00: 54 New
                0
                Quote: forwarder
                I also read it. Not the same. But there is propaganda. She was and will be. The difference in the degree of arrogance.

                ------------------------
                I don’t know, I didn’t like American newspapers and magazines ... Everything is peremptorily presented ... Glossy pictures ... In general, socialism won with advertising and gloss, and their socialism too ...
                PS In principle, we wrote an entire article here in the comments ... If you are interested, you can put the comments into theses and develop the topic ... The theme is really eternal and extensive ... I think so, you are someone else in general ...
                1. forwarder
                  forwarder 1 November 2015 01: 48 New
                  0
                  Quote: Altona
                  I don’t know, I didn’t like American newspapers and magazines ... Too peremptorily presented ...

                  What should I do? The methods are the same. Only the topics are different. But the capitalists will have more arguments. Therefore, you can obviously lie less. Therefore, catching a lie is more difficult. Just because it is smaller.
              3. bovig
                bovig 1 November 2015 18: 07 New
                0
                How can a system based on the capitalist mode of production be equivalent to a system based first on the feudal and, after the "great victory", on the slave-owning mode of production?
                Lenin has this definition: The state is an apparatus of violence designed to support the exploitation of the oppressed classes by the ruling class.
                Any system based on any method of production is equivalent to the previous and subsequent in essence - the exploitation of the oppressed classes by the ruling class! And in any system, you can add the signs of any previous regime, or OEF ... It all depends on what you are looking for!))))

                [quote = Altona] Another question, in the name of what is the control system built? For the good of the citizens of the country or for a group of business bankers? [/ Quote]
                For the good of the national elite. But this elite is national. Therefore, it is shared with fellow citizens. Fellow citizens appreciate this and the elite, in the main, endures it.
                The international elite of citizens considers simply cattle. And the attitude is the same. NEVER in the future no NON-NATIONAL state will succeed. All of them will end in failure. And the USA. And China. And some more closer. The time intervals may be different. But collapse is inevitable. Empires, even neo-empires, have become obsolete. And they cannot exist even simply economically.
                True, in the end they can unleash a nuclear conflict and drag everyone along. But this is another topic. [/ Quote]

                In this context, I completely agree with you, even without amendments ...)))))
          2. bovig
            bovig 1 November 2015 09: 27 New
            0
            Quote: forwarder
            Quote: Lead
            Communist ideology does not meet the criteria listed above.

            Right two sides. It corresponds directly to all its pork snout.
            And I want the neo-Stalinists to return a regime such as Stalin. Only personally for them. No, I could regret it and wish them to get under the bulldozer. But I will not regret it. And I wish to live under Stalinism. Torment heartily. They are so eager for this.



            But it is possible in more detail and more precisely - what exactly is the lies of the communist ideology? In which theses? That is, the ESSENCE of deceit itself ... What?
            1. forwarder
              forwarder 1 November 2015 11: 36 New
              -1
              Quote: bovig
              What exactly is the lies of communist ideology? In which theses?

              Have you still not understood this yourself? Those. Having lived 25 years in a different, non-socialist formation, do you still not understand the whole falsehood of communist dogma? Until now, they have not realized that "real 100% socialism of the Stalin type" can exist only on slave labor and in its form is just a variation on the theme of the slave system Until now, they have not understood that the "sweet Brezhnev time" that the scoops on this site so dream of is possible only after the many millions of victims of "Stalinist socialism", and also after the many millions of victims in the war on the right side. After creating a margin of safety in this way, you can relax for a while and sit back for a relatively short time, as it was at the end of the USSR. But the price for this is not proportionally high.
              Then you will not understand them. And I can’t help you with this.
              1. bovig
                bovig 1 November 2015 23: 53 New
                0
                Having lived 25 years in a different formation and having heard both of them on my own life experience, I finally decided to analyze the experience and theory of both formations in comparison ... I have my own conclusions, but the content of your comment and the fact that I did not get an answer to my question I see the point in sharing with you ... Although there is no content in your comment, as such ... So, some contours of an incomprehensible form ...)))
        2. Altona
          Altona 1 November 2015 01: 09 New
          0
          Quote: Lead
          Communist ideology does not meet the above criteria by any means.

          -----------------------
          The Russian idea is justice for everyone and without ideology ... "Developed socialism" had an ideology that was supposedly "communist", but in fact was adapted to serve the authorities’ blunders, and the more blunders the authorities made, the stronger the ideological deadlocks became and all kinds of inconsistencies, that in the end it became "conditionally communist" ... Moreover, there were "kickbacks", then into "liberalism", then into "tightening the screws", this was called the "party line" ...
    4. Altona
      Altona 31 October 2015 19: 44 New
      0
      Quote: Lead
      You make inappropriate generalizations about the USSR. There are prohibitions in society and this is normal, for example, on the propaganda of fascism, sadism, homosexuality, so the ban on a destructive, false ideology that is directed against Russian civilization can and should be prohibited.

      -------------------------
      I do not generalize, but compare with what I saw and know, and what I personally experienced ... And I am worried at the moment .. You can distort any bright idea if you feed the company with promises and don’t forget about yourself ... There was certainly no propaganda of fascism, sadism, homosexuality and prostitution, but there were these phenomena, and they were as a result of the hypocritical and prohibitive inflexible policy, politics that saw crime in the whole book that was read, too big a flare, or vice versa, narrowed pipes , and other trifles that you could just give a damn about and not get stuck in, rather than stir up interest with stupid prohibitions ... And also explain the lack of sausages in the province by the poor climate and encourage patience ... And I talked about historical and pseudo-historical literature, theatrical scenarios and productions, studies and all that ... Otherwise, it turns out that you can shove the whole story into the “brick” of the “History of the CPSU” or write in the name of propaganda that the Spartak rebellion would But "the first uprising of the proletariat", it is possible to come to an agreement in the name of ideology ...
      PS And how could you make "scientific knowledge" if you have banned the Internet, a typewriter or a photocopier registered with the police, access to the archive on a special permit? It was in the USSR, or do not remember, or do not want to remember? (There was no Internet at that time, and copying and printing devices were registered) ...
      1. The lead
        The lead 31 October 2015 20: 05 New
        -1
        Quote: Altona
        There was certainly no propaganda of fascism, sadism, homosexuality and prostitution, but there were these phenomena, and they were as a result of the hypocritical and prohibitive inflexible policy
        How it brings you. Fascism, sadism as a result of prohibitions is complete nonsense. You are confused in simple things: the ban on fascism and flares are equal, although it is clear that these are different, incomparable phenomena. You answer directly to the question: are you for promoting fascism, children’s pedophilia and deliberate, malicious lies about Russia or not?
        1. Altona
          Altona 31 October 2015 23: 27 New
          -1
          Quote: Lead
          How it brings you. Fascism, sadism as a result of prohibitions is complete nonsense. You are confused in simple things: the ban on fascism and flares are equal, although it is clear that these are different, incomparable phenomena. You answer directly to the question: are you for promoting fascism, children’s pedophilia and deliberate, malicious lies about Russia or not?

          -------------------
          Of course it’s against, a strange question ... I’m generally against any propaganda ... But by simple prohibitions and tabooing on topics, you will not dismiss reality ... Do you not observe Ukraine? They forbid everything that they think is hostile and suspicious ... But you can’t forbid things like fascism and other negative phenomena, they need to be explained first of all ... If you can remove fascism and pedophilia from shop windows and screens, then it’s a lie you definitely can’t forbid ... Moreover, how do you prove that you are not lying, and the other friend is lying? In the USSR there was a monopoly on the truth, how did we all know ... The doubt worm fell swoop down the whole superstructure ... But I can’t generalize about jeans, the Marlboro cowboy was a strong ideological trump card, because you can’t make a man, especially a woman, walk alone the same every day ... And Raisa Gorbacheva with her dresses excited the female mind no less than the Pravda editorials ... But the Chinese did not bother with things ... Do you want jeans? yes please ... Down Jackets? Yes, we’ll send cars ...
          1. The comment was deleted.
  • bovig
    bovig 1 November 2015 09: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: Lead
    Verkhoturov wrote a bunch of books and articles polemicizing with these scribblers. The question is, why is there a lot of criticism in this article, but why pay attention to them, give them advertising? Where in the article is the mention of who this V. Suvorov is? V. Suvorov is a traitor, defector
    Vete in the West is an enemy of Russia and the Russian people. All this is enough to prohibit the distribution of books on the territory of the Russian Federation. It does not matter that this traitor and his followers write, because by definition it will be a lie. If Verkhoturov considers it necessary polemic with the revisionists, it must be done in a smart way, without giving names, without referring to the sources of the revisionists, it is enough to objectively disclose the history of the USSR.



    A friend of mine once said that an ideal lie is 80% true, I don’t think it’s reasonable to forbid the works of traitors ... It’s enough to know that they are written by traitors and learn to separate grains from the chaff from their works. Who else, besides them, will be able to show us how a lie can look.
  • apro
    apro 31 October 2015 07: 16 New
    10
    Rezun, of course, is not an independent figure; it is the mouthpiece of the Naglosaxon propaganda aimed at reviewing the results of WWII in his favor, justifying the illegitimacy of Soviet acquisitions based on the victory. .My personalities of the rezun were initially carried away by me, but eventually they forced me to rethink and study the history of the war and all the undercover games against its background, and the conclusions made by our country of the USSR did everything right, though not always successfully.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 31 October 2015 09: 29 New
      +7
      It’s interesting, but Kutuzov wasn’t watered at the time, he completely handed over Moscow, the Second World War and World War II were very similar, there was a battle where the enemy ran out and began to retreat under the blows of our troops, the war was ended in the capital of the enemy.
      Kutuzov is a hero, Alexander is a hero ... Zhukov without a gift and a womanizer, Stalin is a bloodsucker and a devourer of babies. Double standards and doublethinking? In my opinion, on the face. If Alexander is a hero, then Stalin is a hero, it should be so!
      1. apro
        apro 31 October 2015 09: 49 New
        +3
        Alexander 2 and Kutuzov defended the interests of the Naglo-Saxons, and all the Napoleonic wars were the confrontation of the arrogant and Napoleon and the Russians played the role of a strike nucleus, IVStalin defended the interests of Russia, and this is not the order of the arrogant.
        1. erg
          erg 31 October 2015 18: 32 New
          +3
          Kutuzov to a lesser extent. He, oddly enough, was a francophone. When Napoleon invaded Russia, he, like a Russian, clearly could not accept this and did everything he could to break it. But Kutuzov was categorically against the overseas campaign, believing, and not without reason, that this would bring dividends only to Prussia and England. But he didn’t decide such things.
      2. venaya
        venaya 31 October 2015 11: 15 New
        +1
        Quote: cth; fyn
        It’s interesting, but then Kutuzov’s mud wasn’t watered, he passed Moscow in general ...

        Until the 17th year they watered, and how. Not just passed, but also allowed her to burn up to the Kremlin. It was not without reason that Muscovites did not allow the installation of a monument to Kutuzov in Moscow itself, they remembered who took responsibility for themselves, and did not forgive.
        1. Antropos
          Antropos 31 October 2015 15: 56 New
          0
          My minus. For Alexander.
  • Sanyht
    Sanyht 31 October 2015 07: 17 New
    -31
    Rezun had more truth in the books when compared with the stories of SIMPLE WARRIORS ... than the entire cohort of memoirs of generals and the like. And as an alternative version of the Second World War, it should be.
    1. apro
      apro 31 October 2015 07: 28 New
      17
      The version should be true and not alternative.
    2. Klibanophoros
      Klibanophoros 31 October 2015 09: 48 New
      +2
      Before searching for the TRUTH, please learn to write without errors.
      1. provincial
        provincial 31 October 2015 10: 08 New
        +2
        I think this saying was written by an "intellectual" in the tenth generation?
      2. evge-malyshev
        evge-malyshev 31 October 2015 23: 37 New
        0
        Quote: Klibanophoros
        please learn to write without errors


        You would also need to repeat the grammar. Suggest? Or guess yourself?
      3. evge-malyshev
        evge-malyshev 31 October 2015 23: 37 New
        0
        Quote: Klibanophoros
        please learn to write without errors


        You would also need to repeat the grammar. Suggest? Or guess yourself?
    3. sichevik
      sichevik 31 October 2015 10: 29 New
      +5
      As such, I did not find the truth in the opus of the rezun. Distorting facts, distorting facts, a lot of outright lies. It is evident that this scraper before writing his crazy creations thoroughly studied the manuals of Dr. Goebbels ...
      1. Aleksandr72
        Aleksandr72 31 October 2015 11: 32 New
        +8
        What sichevik-minus? For a bad nickname? He briefly outlined the essence of the “revelations” of the traitor Rezun, who brazenly appropriated for himself as a pseudonym the holy name for us of one of the greatest Russian commanders. The opus of Rezun and his followers, which for some reason I have quite a lot among writers in the post-Soviet space, is a clever manipulation of the reader’s interest in little-known or poorly lit, distorted tragic pages of history, this is a clever mixture of truth (very partially and torn out of context), half-truth, lies presented under the sauce of sincere patriotism and pain (?) for his people. At the same time, Rezun does not disdain such a trick - at first in books he overshadows the Soviet period of history (especially this concerns the topic of the Great Patriotic War, which is painful for all of us) and its figures. And in subsequent books, she begins to publicly apologize for this, thereby maintaining interest in herself as a writer and in her books. For me, this traitor Rezun is just a fool of a human being. And you should not advertise it again.
        I have the honor.
    4. wei
      wei 31 October 2015 11: 53 New
      +3
      An alternative version of WWII - should be.

      What is the purpose?There is a war, there is its outcome, a fait accompli without an alternative. I want someone to "reconsider" their role in this war, that’s all.
      Rezun had more truth in the books

      In my opinion, Rezun had more truth in the books.and not Rezun had more truth in the books

      you can fantasize about anything
      There is for example the Titanic collided with the iceberg sank. Perhaps it was a Russian submarine from the future, overgrown with ice, which "drowned" drowned American Hitler as a child ...
    5. Stas57
      Stas57 31 October 2015 12: 38 New
      0
      gladly slapped
    6. bovig
      bovig 1 November 2015 18: 25 New
      +1
      Quote: Sanyht
      Rezun had more truth in the books when compared with the stories of SIMPLE WARRIORS ... than the entire cohort of memoirs of generals and the like. And as an alternative version of the Second World War, it should be.


      As I already quoted my friend, the ideal lie is 80% true. So if Rezun’s lie did not fail for an ideal, then even as an alternative version it cannot be considered. This is how a traitor’s lie - it is possible, with the proviso that in particular there is a lot of truthful information that is fundamentally distorted ...
  • igordok
    igordok 31 October 2015 07: 35 New
    +5
    The first book (it seems to be Icebreaker), which I tried to read, interested in some "secret" data on military equipment. But after reading this ACCEPTANCE, I could not "overpower" the book to the end.
  • iv-nord
    iv-nord 31 October 2015 07: 49 New
    0
    Suvorov or Rezun? Is it a Russian or Soviet writer? Can he be trusted?
    1. venaya
      venaya 31 October 2015 09: 31 New
      +5
      Quote: iv-nord
      Suvorov or Rezun? Is it a Russian or Soviet writer? Can he be trusted?

      "Russian or Soviet writer? "- First of all, it’s false, it’s not a nationality, it’s different. Of course you can say that it’s British, but there were decent authors, so this definition is also not accurate.
      1. iv-nord
        iv-nord 31 October 2015 10: 23 New
        +2
        You understood me correctly.
    2. Kilo-11
      Kilo-11 31 October 2015 10: 36 New
      +4
      At one time, Rezun betrayed the USSR, and has nothing to do with modern Russia. The word "writer", and even more so the concept of "Russian writer", to use with respect to this character is at least not appropriate and not correct. The USSR no longer exists, and the character continues to "pour" streams of dirt on the history of our country, on contemporary reality in Russia, the question is, what does this subject have to do with contemporary Russia ?! So personally for me, Rezun is rather a Ukrainian nationalist and propagandist in the service of Anglo-American imperialism.
    3. bovig
      bovig 1 November 2015 18: 44 New
      0
      Quote: iv-nord
      Suvorov or Rezun? Is it a Russian or Soviet writer? Can he be trusted?


      Rezun is not Suvorov at all, although he is trying to be called such ... More precisely, an impostor ... As a writer, he is not Russian and not Soviet, but English ... Regarding to believe, to disbelieve, I will say: everyone believes in what he wants to believe!
  • TVM - 75
    TVM - 75 31 October 2015 08: 02 New
    +3
    A man could be mistaken, he could simply express his opinion. That is how the memoirs of our military leaders were read, but Rezun had an outright lie. Initially, it was clear that his revelations were not at all for the enlightenment of the reader, but for his fooling. And like any lie, his works prompted the clarification of the truth.
  • F.Vastag
    F.Vastag 31 October 2015 08: 09 New
    13
    Firstly, One should always call the Renegade, the Traitor and the Slanderer REZUN his Real name REZUN, REZUN - REZUN (and not Suvorov). In order not to defile with this Nitsa (Rezun) the memory of the Great Russian Commander. Secondly, you need to Understand that the Alias ​​was invented by him in the CIA, with the corresponding Goals and Tasks (since the name REZUN is repulsive and smacks of Treason and something Vile (Rodent, RAT - creatures spreading around the World (into the Heads of Other People) Infected and To the Plague.) Do you really think that in such an OFFICE as the CIA (where this Rezun project was created - like "The Historian, Pravdorub and the Whistleblower of the USSR during the war") - the goal was to bring the Light of Pure Truth and Enlightenment to all people in the vast of the former Union ??????????? When the West (represented by the CIA, Pentagon, Mi-2 or even earlier in the face of British prime ministers - such as Disraeli) - wished us Good, Truth and Light (Knowledge). ANSWER - Never. And in 6 - for Those who were fond of the History of the Great Patriotic War (pre-war and immediately post-war) as a child - all these "Revelations and Opus", or more simply, the Vile WATCHING REZUN (like "Stalin was the first to attack Germany and Europe - but Hitler is far-sighted ahead of him ") - nothing but Disgust and Freezing Challenge they can’t (like ALL that is connected (it came out of the pen) with TRIETS AND CHANGE of their Homeland). For me personally, the Question with Rezun is Closed (Long and Immediately) - in the Trash Bin, otherwise the next Step can be Dr. Goebbels Speech- Quote, Accepted on Faith and Considered the “Last resort” (I Remind KEY Quote of Dr. Goebbels (Minister of Propaganda 3 Reich) that characterizes everything What similar RESULTS do: “WHAT A MONSTERY FELLING FALSE (such as RESUN), THERE WHO ARE READY TO BELIEVE IN IT” (all Fans and Admirers of this Vile subject Rdents-REDICER) Include their REDUCED). (Brain) - then when the Linden "Pravdorubi" (like RESUN) toss their "Sensational" Opuses into the Masses (Go ... but on the Fan) and everything will be all right.
    1. venaya
      venaya 31 October 2015 14: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: F. Vastag
      ... An alias was invented for him by the CIA - with the corresponding Goals and Tasks ...

      Rezun (“Suvorov” - nickname) worked for MI-6 and was its employee, and this private organization is higher in rank than the CIA, and more likely the CIA is secretly subordinate to it than vice versa.
  • Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 31 October 2015 08: 46 New
    0
    The author is silent about one question. Why Soviet troops 22.06. 41g be concentrated in this way, and not otherwise. After all, such a configuration is not suitable for defense.
    What is really bad is that Stalin wanted to wage an offensive war. It’s also not clear. The article did not like.
    1. forwarder
      forwarder 31 October 2015 12: 18 New
      -8
      Quote: Cap.Morgan
      What is really bad is that Stalin wanted to wage an offensive war.

      The bad thing is that war is always not good for the population. Even offensive. Especially for the population of the USSR, where it was not accepted to share the "fruits of victory" with the "victorious people". One tip, the other ... 2nd series of collective farm yoke. This is at best. But if you still chat about how well people live abroad. Then, only in the Gulag. For "anti-Soviet propaganda." And from there to the "camp dust" is not far.
    2. Colonel
      Colonel 31 October 2015 14: 32 New
      +2
      Quote: Cap.Morgan
      After all, such a configuration is not suitable for defense.

      I think that I will not reveal a big secret if I say that the troops first prepare (form, replenish, put together) and only then concentrate for the offensive. What kind of attack can we talk about if there was a shortage of equipment and ammunition in the buildings up to 70%?
      1. forwarder
        forwarder 31 October 2015 16: 08 New
        +1
        Quote: colonel
        What kind of attack can we talk about if there was a shortage of equipment and ammunition in the buildings up to 70%?

        Who told you this? Grandmother on the bench? And in the manned divisions did not try to count? Give it a try.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • silver169
    silver169 31 October 2015 08: 53 New
    11
    I do not know where the author got that Rezun was “so” popular. It seems to me that he was popular mainly among people poorly acquainted with the history of the Second World War. My attitude to Rezun’s “works” was once and for all determined when I saw one of his books in one of the local libraries about ten to fifteen years ago. Honestly, I don’t remember its name, there was a lot written about Soviet and German tanks. Having glanced over the contents of several pages, I came to the conclusion that the author not only does not understand the armored vehicles of the pre-war period, but has the impression that he does not understand what he is writing about. More desire to read his opuses, never arose.
    1. tasha
      tasha 31 October 2015 10: 02 New
      +3
      Rezun’s books were popular not 10-15 years ago, but in the early 90's. And against the background of the official history, they were very, very impressive, I will not hide.
      1. silver169
        silver169 31 October 2015 13: 38 New
        +2
        What's the difference. That was a long time ago. Maybe I got his book much earlier. I’m saying that I don’t even remember the name. The fact is that I was always interested in the history of the Second World War and the history of armored vehicles, and Rezun’s complete incompetence in these matters completely turned me away from his “revelations” once and for all.
  • Eugene
    Eugene 31 October 2015 09: 51 New
    +1
    I haven’t read it. But I know several people who, after reading the books of this aftar, changed their point of view. Like, Stalin wanted to attack Germany, and other crap .. And now it's useless to argue with them. Horror!
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 31 October 2015 21: 39 New
      0
      Let me see B. Yulin with Puchkov.
  • provincial
    provincial 31 October 2015 09: 56 New
    +2
    “After all, from the very beginning it was obvious that these ideas smell very bad and have an obvious political context.” Author Dmitry Verkhoturov. Why again raise this topic to the top? FSB and BP officers have long answered all the author’s questions.
  • Kotleopold
    Kotleopold 31 October 2015 09: 56 New
    +6
    Rezun still has one indisputable advantage - the absolute obstinacy of fans of his "creativity". bully ABOUT! How many wonderful moments were spent in hot network battles with these sectarians! .. wassat Moreover, Svidomo turned out to be the most stubborn, which on the basis of Rezunov's writings proved "the crime of the bloody Stalinist regime" and the "snow-white fluffiness" of Hitler.
  • zav
    zav 31 October 2015 10: 02 New
    +8
    I don’t understand why there are so many tantrums. Was Stalin planning or not planning to seize Europe — does this play any significant role? In my opinion, no. Rather, for some understanding of the course of the war, he plays, but there is no right to be indignant at the fact that Stalin wanted to seize Europe - especially in the light of today's events. Did Stalin want a crushing defeat of the Red Army in the 41st year? Of course not. But is he to blame for this defeat? Only partly to blame. The blame for the defeat must be divided not only into Stalin and military leaders, but into the whole people. As well as in all the failures of Russia, there is no one's personal fault. Another question is that I don’t want to do this, because how can we - each of us personally - be bad? However, if we all were always good, smart, hard-working, far-sighted and prudent ... to say what would happen, or would you guess?
    And the defeat came from the fact that at that time in Russia everything from small to large was not so smart, prudent and hardworking as it should be. Only when the Russians were almost kicked out of the native Russian lands did something turn on in their minds, and they had to take up work for real.
    1. forwarder
      forwarder 31 October 2015 12: 25 New
      -9
      Quote: zav
      The blame for the defeat must be divided not only into Stalin and military leaders, but into the whole people.

      Of course, the extreme always remains the people. But the "fruits of victory" were divided without his participation.
      Quote: zav
      Only when the Russians were almost kicked out of the native Russian lands,

      Not Russians, but Communists. This is not the same thing. Rather, even mutually exclusive concepts. The communists, they are not Russian, they are "internationalists." Ivanes who do not remember kinship. So they have written in the Charter.
      1. tasha
        tasha 31 October 2015 12: 31 New
        +4
        Actually, the Constitution of the CPSU says differently.

        Socialist Internationalism is a new type of interethnic relations, taking shape and developing on the basis of friendship, equality, mutual respect, comprehensive fraternal cooperation, political, economic, military and cultural mutual assistance of nations and nationalities that have embarked on the path of socialism.
        1. forwarder
          forwarder 31 October 2015 12: 49 New
          -4
          Quote: tasha
          this is a new type of interethnic relationship

          It’s you who refuses to give back billions of debts of the USSR today. About a new type of relationship. And to those communists who, to the detriment of the Russian people, for deliveries "to build socialism", carried out such supplies. Or, do you think, all these goods from the beard of old Hottabych were taken?
          1. tasha
            tasha 31 October 2015 12: 53 New
            +1
            This is not me, this is me to you. Regarding your comment on what is written in the Charter.
            1. forwarder
              forwarder 31 October 2015 13: 15 New
              -4
              Quote: tasha
              Regarding your comment on what is written in the Charter

              And I tell you what this inscription meant in practice.
              1. tasha
                tasha 31 October 2015 13: 39 New
                +1
                Read.
  • X
    X Y Z 31 October 2015 11: 05 New
    +3
    Popularity is clear. He gave out his "product" not just like that, but quite at a certain time when society needed clear answers. Moreover, the product was served in a catchy, cynical form, with tearing off the covers and declassifying "secrets", which always captivates an inexperienced person. This question is not the main one. And the main question is what we did so that this product does not appear or that harm from it is minimized. The answer is very little. Did we have any kind of solidarity of historians, truthful and clear, outlined in simple language for a person from the street? Was it brought to everyone through the media? (For some reason, the dubious games with Katyn were brought to everyone via TV). Who, apart from historians and a rather narrow circle of people interested in history, has read the polemic of our experts with Rezun? How much material goes on TV to expose Rezun?
  • forwarder
    forwarder 31 October 2015 11: 31 New
    -8
    because Hitler always wanted to crush communism

    Hitler wanted to sneeze on communism. And on Dzhugashvili. And in the USSR, including But he needed a strong rear in the war with Britain. Therefore, "communism", together with its leader Dzhugashvili, Hitler planned to push over the Volga and the North. Dvinu. And let them build their “communism" on there. In terms of "Barbarossa" it is quite clearly written. Line AA. Astrakhan-Arkhangelsk. East of this line, the Germans had no plans for capture.
    The USSR was no good country for anything, did not prepare for war, won only with the help of allies.

    Not certainly in that way. In 1941 The USSR survived only thanks to swagger, valantarism and arrogance of the Germans. Here, the participation of the Allies was minimal. And further, up to Berlin, only thanks to the allies. Actually, the division of Germany directly speaks of this. The USSR received 1/4 ("worked for a small share"), allies (USA, Britain and France) 3/4.
    Quote: zav
    Their essence was that the USSR before the war was almost the most armed country in the world, had a huge number of tanks, planes, guns, accumulated mountains of shells and leather boots on the border, a whole sea of ​​fuel for “freeway tanks” and “aircraft aggressors ", and was about to hit

    I don’t know if he was ready or not. But he accumulated everything in unimaginable quantities. Just some even homeric. There were 14900 pieces of anti-tank magpies alone, E-76 2-mm mountain guns (suitable for VET tasks), 964 pieces, and 76 8513-mm different types of guns. And in 1941 most of this was stupid.
    Quote: zav
    If the USSR indeed produced 30 thousand tanks before the war, it became interesting how this was done. This thought was the beginning of my work.

    We open a summary of the Red Army from 01.06.41/1/2. and consider the Caterpillar armored vehicles of categories 2612 and 17366 (new and not new, but serviceable, in need of ongoing maintenance). 19978 and 2775, these are 3179 combat-ready units of armored vehicles. There were also 25932 units in need of repair in the district workshops. And XNUMX units in need of factory repair. Total XNUMX units.
    The same is true for WHEEL armored vehicles (armored vehicles, and most of them were armed with a 45 mm cannon).
    1290 + 3387 = 4677 combat-ready units of wheeled armored vehicles and another 340 units in need of repair in district workshops. And 243 units in need of factory repair. Total 5260 units.
    By simple addition in total, we get 25932 + 5260 = 31192 units of armored vehicles in the entire army. Including battle-worthy was 19978 + 4677 = 24655 units. Let me remind you that a total of 3811 tanks of various types (including training Pz1), about 250 assault guns, as well as some relatively small number of other armored vehicles (armored personnel carriers and BA) took part in the German operation of Barbarossa.
    This is the army. There is no need to think. You open the summary, and everything is visible without any unnecessary thoughts.
    1. Colonel
      Colonel 31 October 2015 14: 39 New
      +3
      Another follower of Rezun, damn mathematician, but when will you get away? Does it mean that they lost the war? Well, you had to think about it until 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX.
      Quote: forwarder
      Hitler wanted to sneeze on communism. And on Dzhugashvili. And in the USSR, including

      And "My struggle" was written by sneezing.
      1. forwarder
        forwarder 31 October 2015 16: 05 New
        -4
        Quote: colonel
        damn mathematician, but when will you quit?

        Why are you so upset, boy? Do not you like reports on the Red Army? Then all your claims and address the Red Army.
        I, too, found the Turkish Sultan. Hysterical type. Pancake.
        1. Colonel
          Colonel 31 October 2015 17: 04 New
          +1
          Quote: forwarder
          Why are you so upset, boy?

          I don’t like talkers like you. One could argue with others, but the reincarnation of trolls on the site is something beyond. Moreover, the impression that tryndit is the same, but under different nicknames. Tired of refuting the chatter. Okay, Nordic type girl? Pancake.
          1. forwarder
            forwarder 31 October 2015 19: 18 New
            -4
            Quote: colonel
            Okay, Nordic type girl?

            I got it. I do not blame. Everyone has their own preferences. Someone sees girls in female cattle. Someone else in someone. And you are in men of retirement age. What should I do. It happens.
            Quote: colonel
            You could argue with others

            What am I going to argue with, dove? With Red Army reports? I think they will argue with you.
            1. Colonel
              Colonel 31 October 2015 19: 28 New
              +1
              Quote: forwarder
              Someone sees girls in livestock females

              Someone that hurts ... Well, well. Specialist in reports of the Red Army.
    2. Morrrow
      Morrrow 31 October 2015 21: 43 New
      0
      Actually, the USSR was supposed to reduce its population by 30 million according to the plans of the German Minister of Commerce.
      1. forwarder
        forwarder 31 October 2015 22: 26 New
        0
        Quote: Morrrow
        Actually, the USSR was supposed to reduce its population by 30 million according to the plans of the German Minister of Commerce.

        Really? And who was this important gentleman who was allowed to build such Napoleonic plans?
        1. Morrrow
          Morrrow 31 October 2015 22: 39 New
          0
          I don’t remember my last name. Look at the goblin's intelligence question - there he has about the plans of Germany
    3. bovig
      bovig 1 November 2015 19: 40 New
      0
      Well, without thoughts in the summaries, you can see only that which is predetermined by a value judgment ... And if you add thoughts to the summaries, then a different picture emerges. Rezun cited figures just for those who did not think, and then shoved his judgment into the mind of the reader! Well, you can understand his logic - he was well-motivated ... And the naive, non-thinking reader, unexpectedly even imagined for himself that all the tanks and armored vehicles of the USSR released by Soviet industry before the war were ALL on the western borders, and were not dispersed throughout constituencies, including in the Far East against the Kwantung Army ... And, horror !!! Such a force could not withstand some unfortunate several thousand tanks of Wehrmacht troops! Someone must be to blame for this !!! Ah, yes, more ... Rezun still has a statement there that almost all Wehrmacht artillery was horse drawn. Even a photo is available!))
  • vladimir_krm
    vladimir_krm 31 October 2015 11: 57 New
    +4
    However, in a paradoxical way, Viktor Suvorov's many years of driving the Icebreaker did not lead to the results he was counting on.


    Precisely noticed! You can say thanks to Rezun, whose books gave the opposite effect - people who have never been interested in history, doubted his lies and began to search for the truth :)

    In those years, I came across his interesting espionage novel "Aquarium". Talentedly written, I do not argue. I began to read his other books, even if experts say that they were written by at least six authors - it does not matter. Interesting too, but ...

    First I noticed a few mistakes in his words about aviation. He wrote off the fact that he is a tanker and does not understand aviation. Then he noticed that somehow he wasn’t in the tanks too ... :) I began to notice another lie - for example, "mountains of tarpaulin boots" on the border before the war. Afftir did not know that they began to produce kirsu already after the beginning of the war ... And so everywhere: the principle - write the truth, but at key points insert a lie, maybe the reader will believe.

    And so he became interested in the Stalinist period of history, thanks to the deceit of Rezunov’s books :)
  • Basil50
    Basil50 31 October 2015 12: 26 New
    +1
    The author remembered the brawler who wanted to become famous in any way, turned out to be puffy and wrote, all the troubles are from universal literacy. The war began at a time when the Germans received confirmation of a guaranteed victory. And Pavlov and others, not uprooted in 1937, prepared the victory march of the Germans. Let * librasts * and Germans tweet anything, lie to them not to get used to, documents reveal a very ugly picture of betrayal. Destruction and dismemberment of the Soviet Union. The official policy of all countries of the NATO regime is that now what then. The fearlessness of such aspirations lies in the belief that the SOVIET UNION, and earlier RUSSIA did not set the task of destroying countries and peoples, so that * loss * threatened only with reparations and that was all. Nobody will cut it out and will agree with them.
    If, however, a clause on the mandatory destruction of not only war criminals, but also members of their families, as well as all * cultural figures * is included in the military doctrine of modern RUSSIA, then I am sure that those who want to fight and rob will be greatly reduced. The number of those who * scientifically and artistically * supports or justifies the right to robbery will be especially reduced.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 31 October 2015 21: 45 New
      +2
      In fact, the Germans did this to all countries. Prussian Germans are the scourge of Europe and the world.
  • sledge
    sledge 31 October 2015 12: 39 New
    +3
    Why was Viktor Suvorov so popular?
    Yes, because it was fashionable to “expose”, to groan that era, everyone considered it his duty to write about the “bloody gebnya”. It's disgusting chesslovo. Although the rewriting of history was at all times and under all rulers .....
  • Stas57
    Stas57 31 October 2015 13: 07 New
    0
    Why was all of this so in demand? Indeed, from the very beginning it was obvious that these ideas smell very badly and have an obvious political context.


    reasons for the popularity of many
    Fashion, fashion for new and fresh, adjustment, fire and alternative. everyone probably remembers how these revelations fell.

    - zadiologizirovannost Soviet history, the absence of any step from the main line.

    -low level of knowledge, how funny it sounds, just like that, low level of system knowledge of war, although everyone and everyone seemed to know about the war, it turned out that almost no one had a clear systemic knowledge of the causes of 41 defeat.


    this book was clearly and prudently planted on all this, which now will not even become a hit of sales, not to mention numerous reprints
  • Evgeniy30
    Evgeniy30 31 October 2015 13: 42 New
    +5
    Quote: Sanyht
    Rezun had more truth in the books when compared with the stories of SIMPLE WARRIORS ... than the entire cohort of memoirs of generals and the like. And as an alternative version of the Second World War, it should be.

    This is not an alternate version. This is a blatant propaganda lie paid by a hostile state.
    1. loki-reyngard
      loki-reyngard 31 October 2015 19: 03 New
      0
      What a lie? If Eisenhower said about Zhukov, that “if we treated the soldiers, as in the Red Army, we would have been in Berlin in March,” is that a lie?
      1. shaman2001
        shaman2001 31 October 2015 22: 36 New
        +1
        If the grandmother had eggs ... continue on your own. Very much you like to operate with subjunctive moods. If the Germans turned to Moscow ... if not for the debauchery and harsh winter, if they treated their soldiers differently .... Here recently there was an article on the assault on the Mannerheim line. Memoirs of an engineering special forces soldier. So, she reasonably disputes the version that we won the winter of 39-40, filling the Finns with corpses.
        1. forwarder
          forwarder 31 October 2015 22: 51 New
          0
          Quote: shaman2001
          Here recently was an article on the assault on the Mannerheim line. Memoirs of an engineering special forces soldier. So, she reasonably disputes the version that we won the winter of 39-40, filling the Finns with corpses.

          Do you seriously want to discuss all the nonsense? Who is an engineering special forces soldier? What could he know in principle? Chesslovo, they write, just to write something.
      2. bovig
        bovig 1 November 2015 20: 00 New
        0
        Quote: loki-reyngard
        What a lie? If Eisenhower said about Zhukov, that “if we treated the soldiers, as in the Red Army, we would have been in Berlin in March,” is that a lie?


        If, yes, if it’s not a lie, but an assumption that is not a fact and will never become one!)) Fershtein?))) Do you know in what case grandmother could become a grandfather?))))
  • Boris55
    Boris55 31 October 2015 15: 10 New
    +3
    No matter how much all kinds of slogans there are cast out over our victory, the fact that we were in Berlin, and not about Moscow, cannot be refuted by anyone.
    1. forwarder
      forwarder 31 October 2015 22: 54 New
      0
      Quote: Boris55
      but the fact that we were in Berlin

      I’m embarrassed to ask, but what, were you in Berlin? And when, if not a secret? What did they do there? Did you wash the dishes in the restaurant? Or floors? Or something else was busy with the housework, for a little money?
  • iury.vorgul
    iury.vorgul 31 October 2015 15: 32 New
    +3
    I completely agree with the author of the article, that in MI-6, releasing Rezun’s writings, they miscalculated very much. I myself began to be interested in the history of the Second World War precisely after reading the “Icebreaker”. And gradually, reading both the "Resunoids" and their opponents, then other historians, he made up his mind about the history of the Soviet Union. And the opinion is not in favor of the owners of Rezun.
  • ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 31 October 2015 15: 49 New
    +4
    When the enemy exposes your shortcomings, he is frank, and speaking of your shortcomings, friends flatter and flatter you.

    Rezun became popular because the first raised issues that were not previously discussed.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 31 October 2015 15: 51 New
    +4
    What Suvorov ??? Last name of the traitor Rezun.
  • Artem
    Artem 31 October 2015 16: 15 New
    +1
    Quote: vladimir_krm
    However, in a paradoxical way, Viktor Suvorov's many years of driving the Icebreaker did not lead to the results he was counting on.


    Precisely noticed! You can say thanks to Rezun, whose books gave the opposite effect - people who have never been interested in history, doubted his lies and began to search for the truth :)

    In those years, I came across his interesting espionage novel "Aquarium". Talentedly written, I do not argue. I began to read his other books, even if experts say that they were written by at least six authors - it does not matter. Interesting too, but ...

    First I noticed a few mistakes in his words about aviation. He wrote off the fact that he is a tanker and does not understand aviation. Then he noticed that somehow he wasn’t in the tanks too ... :) I began to notice another lie - for example, "mountains of tarpaulin boots" on the border before the war. Afftir did not know that they began to produce kirsu already after the beginning of the war ... And so everywhere: the principle - write the truth, but at key points insert a lie, maybe the reader will believe.

    And so he became interested in the Stalinist period of history, thanks to the deceit of Rezunov’s books :)

    I completely agree - I even registered on the forum to express solidarity.
    I read the Aquarium, Icebreaker, Day-M more than 10 years ago, I was 17 then, an impressionable age, but somehow I did not like Russia less. But remember how they brought up those who were born in the 90s, in general there was no interest in the Motherland in education. Therefore, Rezun took this emptiness. Books, by the way, are very interesting for amateurs. You just need to adequately relate to information, understand that there is no true, there are only points of view and selfish interests. It seems to me that some of the people who write here that in his books only sheer lies and nonsense - they themselves did not read them, at most - reviews, articles of critics. For general education, reading is definitely worth it. To agree or not is a completely different matter. I think that most people did not agree with Rezun, but they did not regret reading.
  • Support
    Support 31 October 2015 16: 48 New
    -8
    You can blame me - but about Rezun’s books. I have not come across any serious work on exposing everything that is in the books of Rezun. Some verbal insults, calls for his capture and slogan phrases about punishing criminals. (Only he does not hide). Essentially nothing. But his books do insult the history of the USSR? On the contrary, he was in the dashing 90s (and where were you all and what did you all do at that time? Why didn’t you perceive Rezun’s books at the rallies and didn’t demand a ban on his books? They read and sat in the kitchens? But here forum eagles, damn it, plucked ....) through books in people gave hope that we and this gangster-oligarchic period will survive. (By the way, at that time I participated in the work of the RNU. Until now.) And yet. About the losses. There are works by both foreign specialists and Russian on the subject of war losses in the Second World War. And the conclusion is that the losses are almost (a bit more) the same as in the Wehrmacht. (Excluding civilians). It is enough to rummage in the Internet. Just do not shout - I understand that they perceive the information that suits you. And about Rezun - he is right. Not 100%, but 90% right. (Or maybe he was a specialist sent there .......)
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 31 October 2015 18: 49 New
      +1
      You can blame me - but about Rezun’s books. I have not come across any serious work on exposing everything that is in the books of Rezun. Some verbal insults, calls for his capture and slogan phrases about punishing criminals

      one out of two
      -or direct lie
      -or phenomenal ignorance.

      Isaev in "Antisuvorov" offers any of the above?

      And there are a lot of works like Isaa
  • Evgeniy30
    Evgeniy30 31 October 2015 17: 08 New
    +2
    Quote: Prop
    You can blame me - but about Rezun’s books. I have not come across any serious work on exposing everything that is in the books of Rezun. Some verbal insults, calls for his capture and slogan phrases about punishing criminals. (Only he does not hide). Essentially nothing. But his books do insult the history of the USSR? On the contrary, he was in the dashing 90s (and where were you all and what did you all do at that time? Why didn’t you perceive Rezun’s books at the rallies and didn’t demand a ban on his books? They read and sat in the kitchens? But here forum eagles, damn it, plucked ....) through books in people gave hope that we and this gangster-oligarchic period will survive. (By the way, at that time I participated in the work of the RNU. Until now.) And yet. About the losses. There are works by both foreign specialists and Russian on the subject of war losses in the Second World War. And the conclusion is that the losses are almost (a bit more) the same as in the Wehrmacht. (Excluding civilians). It is enough to rummage in the Internet. Just do not shout - I understand that they perceive the information that suits you. And about Rezun - he is right. Not 100%, but 90% right. (Or maybe he was a specialist sent there .......)

    There are a lot of such works. But his lie is exposed by a banal knowledge of facts and without such works.
  • Support
    Support 31 October 2015 17: 28 New
    0
    QUOTE -There are a lot of such works. But his lie is exposed by a banal knowledge of facts and without such works. - Yes, there are no normal thoughtful work. To get to the point that the comma is not there is yes, that's enough. Here you give at least one fact distorted by Rezun. And further. There is a mass of inaccuracies and errors in forehead scientific work. And to make such demands straight ..... just the author is a traitor. That programmed for perception. By the way, from his words - he went against the Communists, and not against Russia. (Another version is the version of the KGB). How many anti-communists do we have? And who brought more harm -Resun or Yeltsin? chubais? Gaidar? etc. Maybe enough already - maybe it's time to look for others. Me and the red plague Solzhenitsker minus. And he brought such direct benefits ..... But after all, the "hero" ....
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 31 October 2015 21: 48 New
      0
      Isaev, Yulin. Type in Yulin about Rezun in YouTube.
  • Artem
    Artem 31 October 2015 17: 37 New
    -1
    Quote: Eugene30
    Quote: Prop
    You can blame me - but about Rezun’s books. I have not come across any serious work on exposing everything that is in the books of Rezun. Some verbal insults, calls for his capture and slogan phrases about punishing criminals. (Only he does not hide). Essentially nothing. But his books do insult the history of the USSR? On the contrary, he was in the dashing 90s (and where were you all and what did you all do at that time? Why didn’t you perceive Rezun’s books at the rallies and didn’t demand a ban on his books? They read and sat in the kitchens? But here forum eagles, damn it, plucked ....) through books in people gave hope that we and this gangster-oligarchic period will survive. (By the way, at that time I participated in the work of the RNU. Until now.) And yet. About the losses. There are works by both foreign specialists and Russian on the subject of war losses in the Second World War. And the conclusion is that the losses are almost (a bit more) the same as in the Wehrmacht. (Excluding civilians). It is enough to rummage in the Internet. Just do not shout - I understand that they perceive the information that suits you. And about Rezun - he is right. Not 100%, but 90% right. (Or maybe he was a specialist sent there .......)

    There are a lot of such works. But his lie is exposed by a banal knowledge of facts and without such works.

    Can you give a link, since you personally are familiar with these works, which are many?
    There was no normal criticism of the CONCEPT of the Rezun series of books, and not just the number of tanks, etc.
    I would like to read for general education.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 31 October 2015 21: 49 New
      0
      Enough verbal criticism? Dial B. Yulin.
  • sohosha
    sohosha 31 October 2015 17: 56 New
    +2
    Question to the “Resistance”: Where was Stalin going to end the war when he was about to attack Hitler, in Berlin, in Paris, in London, in Washington, in Tokyo ???
    1. loki-reyngard
      loki-reyngard 31 October 2015 18: 52 New
      +1
      Of course, a moot point. But not in the USA, too cool even for a dictator of 6 parts of the earth
    2. forwarder
      forwarder 31 October 2015 19: 56 New
      -2
      Quote: sohosha
      Question to the “Resistance”: Where was Stalin going to end the war when he was about to attack Hitler, in Berlin, in Paris, in London, in Washington, in Tokyo

      I think in Brest. With great luck in London. Further, they will lie. But this is definitely not in 1941. Towards the end of the great war between the Britons and the Germans. However, everything happened differently.
  • serg2108
    serg2108 31 October 2015 18: 11 New
    -2
    Well, there is no friend to taste and color ... there is such a saying .. in general Rezun-Suvorov ... as the author of the article wrote, he really aroused interest in military history. I know a lot of people who became interested in military history, especially the beginning of the Second World War (INITIAL STAGE) only thanks to the books of Suvorov!
    only the only thing I don’t understand is why all his opponents wouldn’t see him like that. About his homeland he wrote what he thought, he wrote the truth about the Soviet army in an accessible language both for the western inhabitants and for the Soviet citizen, but what did he come to those conclusions about which he writes, he doesn’t impose them on anyone. he only gives facts and everyone should think for himself (and don’t say that he is a traitor or defector - evaluate his books and conclusions yourself)
    and it always surprised me that his files never and anywhere were published by our special services ... if anyone has his personal file as an agent of the GRU, publish it, I haven’t met his former bosses openly saying that he ( bastard .. spy .. steward .. sent our agents with whom he worked in Europe), if this is not available in the public domain, he probably didn’t give up - my point of view and I do not impose on anyone, maybe it was interesting for a person to do history. .that he collected books on military history .. by the way, it would be interesting to know how many books were really taken from him, when they searched ... in short, some speculation ...
    well, he wrote interesting books well .... and yet his point of view will probably live long ...
    p / s there’s nothing wrong with Stalin getting ready to chop off Hitler’s head, I personally don’t see maybe more of our wars would have survived!
    1. vladimir_krm
      vladimir_krm 31 October 2015 21: 40 New
      +1
      Just read carefully. For example, about his huge collection of books and memoirs. The books have a bunch of quotes from rare regional small-run publications, which can hardly be found in London libraries. Do you think that the GRU sent him his library to London? She remained in the USSR :)

      I already wrote about aviation. I am glad that there are many inches in size and "does not know" the well-known fact that Stalin ordered that the flying fortress be completely copied, which Tupolev could not argue against, although he didn’t spit.

      About kersey boots also said above. And so literally on every page: somewhere - let it lie.

      "he does not impose them on anyone. he merely cites facts"

      If he didn’t juggle these facts so brazenly, no one would swear ...
    2. Morrrow
      Morrrow 31 October 2015 21: 50 New
      +1
      Rezun is not loved for his open lie.
    3. bovig
      bovig 1 November 2015 20: 32 New
      0
      Do you want to familiarize yourself with the GRU agent’s personal file?)))) So ask the GRU command personally to publish Agent Rezun’s personal file!)))) It’s in their competence, maybe ... Suppose my personal file is stored in the military enlistment office in a safe. I got to know him for the first time after the first year of long-term service and this was the last case ... I did not serve in the GRU, but even as a military commissar, when I asked him to show my personal file, he referred to the fact that he had forgotten the keys to the safe in which it was at home it is stored ... I don’t know why, but I know that I have the right to get acquainted with it annually and leave my signature on it ... Understand that in this situation, asking someone else’s personal file for review is at least tactless ...
  • kvs207
    kvs207 31 October 2015 18: 33 New
    +1
    Quote: artem
    You can give a link

    The question is not for me, but here is the link
    http://army.armor.kiev.ua/hist/shuler.shtml
  • kvs207
    kvs207 31 October 2015 18: 41 New
    +3
    Quote: serg2108
    .in general Rezun-Suvorov ... as the author of the article wrote, he really aroused interest in military history. I know a lot of people who became interested in military history, especially the beginning of the Second World War (INITIAL STAGE) only thanks to the books of Suvorov!

    I am interested in military history from school, and this is the 70s and no Rezun, I did not need for this. you would write about the generation of the 90s, it’s with them, everything is “running”.
    That's what I think. History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. And if so, then
    - Hitler attacked the USSR, and not vice versa. And it doesn’t matter what Stalin thought, although who can say that he knew what he was thinking.
    - The USSR, won the Great Patriotic War and ended it in Berlin, and not vice versa.
    And, on what such sources did Rezun “rely”, which allowed him to make such statements if he had been a traitor since the 78th year?
  • sohosha
    sohosha 31 October 2015 18: 49 New
    +2
    Whatever labels would be hung on Stalin IV, one of the most erudite people of his time cannot be an idiot.
    Stalin (unlike Hitler, who was ready to take risks, as was the case with the capture of the Rhine region, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland) was never inclined to adventurous actions without thorough preparation. Stalin realistic, soberly assessed the capabilities of the Red Army. Even at a meeting of the commanding staff on April 17, 1940, dedicated to summarizing the experience of military operations against Finland, he noted: “We don’t have a cultural, qualified and educated command staff or there are units ... Well-knit and skillfully working headquarters are required. We do not have them yet ... Then, for a modern war, well-trained, disciplined fighters, initiative ones are required. Our fighter lacks initiative. He is individually underdeveloped. He is poorly trained ... ". Since it was impossible to eliminate all of these shortcomings by July 1941, it would be madness to attack Germany with such an army. Stalin was not insane, and therefore by all possible means sought to avoid war;

    - On April 17, 1941, the US Congress decided that if the USSR attacks Germany, the United States will be on its side. “If we see Germany winning, we must help Russia. And if Russia prevails, we must help Germany. And let them kill each other as much as possible in this way. All this for the good of America. " This statement was made on June 24, 1941 by the future US President Harry Truman, the American New York Times. This meant that almost the rest of the world could be on the side of Germany. There was a danger that the Hess who had landed in England would agree with England on pacification. It should be borne in mind that in England there were groups of influential people (including the royal family) prone to conclude a truce with Germany. All this was known to the Soviet leadership from intelligence reports. That is why, on June 13, 1941, a TASS statement was published on the peacefulness of the USSR, which was addressed not so much to Germany as to the rest of the world, and primarily Roosevelt;
    Source: http://parnasse.ru/prose/essay/history/katastrofa-leta-1941-goda-i-eyo-prichiny-
    51506.html
    1. forwarder
      forwarder 31 October 2015 19: 10 New
      -5
      Quote: sohosha
      Stalin I.V., one of the most erudite people of his time

      Yes? What is it clear from? This Tiflis seminary gave such an education? After all, Dzhugashvili has never studied anywhere else.
      Quote: sohosha
      Stalin realistic, soberly assessed the capabilities of the Red Army.

      This was especially true of the war with Finland.
      Quote: sohosha
      On June 13, 1941, a TASS statement on the peacefulness of the USSR was published, which was addressed not so much to Germany as to the rest of the world, and primarily Roosevelt

      And Roosevelt was like a nerd and believed a statement? And this is after Manchuria, Mongolia, Finland, the Baltic states, Romania, Poland? We noticed that in Europe the countries with which it borders, but which the USSR did not attack, ended. Those. The USSR attacked all its neighbors in Europe. Do you think Roosevelt did not notice this?
      1. sohosha
        sohosha 31 October 2015 19: 49 New
        +4
        A true rezunist, congratulations. Or just a troll. I’m wondering who stands in the hierarchy above the troll or the “real resident”
        1. forwarder
          forwarder 31 October 2015 19: 52 New
          -2
          Quote: sohosha
          A true rezunist, congratulations.

          In fact, I recommend reading my comments on the branch.
          I’m just writing that Dzhugashvili was in 1941. not going to attack Hitler. Is this in the spirit of Rezun’s statements? Therefore, Troll.
          Quote: sohosha
          I’m wondering who stands in the hierarchy above the troll or the “real resident”

          Throw on the cards.
          1. sohosha
            sohosha 31 October 2015 20: 02 New
            +1
            Quote: forwarder
            And Roosevelt was like a nerd and believed a statement? And this is after Manchuria, Mongolia, Finland, the Baltic states, Romania, Poland? We noticed that in Europe the countries with which it borders, but which the USSR did not attack, ended. Those. The USSR attacked all its neighbors in Europe. Do you think Roosevelt did not notice this?

            You are trying to troll me, by June 22, 1941 these named countries and territories have nothing to do with anyone.
            1. forwarder
              forwarder 31 October 2015 20: 15 New
              -1
              Quote: sohosha
              by June 22, 1941, these named countries and territories have no relation to anyone.

              Have you already forgotten? It was a statement from TASS.
              1. sohosha
                sohosha 31 October 2015 20: 58 New
                +2
                The point of no return is June 22, 1941. The USSR has agreements with Germany and Japan. Germany is at war with Britain.
                The question is, in an attack in 1941 which side will the United States take?
                After all, if Finland had accepted the conditions of the USSR and not been led by Britain’s promises of help, the result would have been more profitable. The United States clearly hinted that they did not care who attacked anyone, but Stalin could understand the hint, there was no Hitler. so he got out of the barbarossa schedule. Well, the Britons explained to the inhabitants of their empire why they fought against Hitler yesterday. and today, together with Hitler against Stalin.
                1. forwarder
                  forwarder 31 October 2015 22: 02 New
                  0
                  Quote: sohosha
                  After all, if Finland had accepted the conditions of the USSR and not been led by Britain’s promises of help, the result would have been more profitable.

                  If Finland did not rely on Britain in the early 40s, it would cease to exist.
                  Quote: sohosha
                  Hitler is not. so he got out of the barbarossa schedule

                  Is Hitler’s stupid stupid than Dzhugashvili? In vain.
                  Quote: sohosha
                  Well, the Britons explained to the inhabitants of their empire why they fought against Hitler yesterday. and today, together with Hitler against Stalin.

                  When you write this, it feels like you are raving.
                  The war was between the Britons and the Germans. I hope this is clear? Dzhugashvili is here, a random screw in the mechanism. But for the Britons very well turned up. the Yankees took the same position that Dzhugashvili planned to take. The Yankees did, Dzhugashvili did not. Everything is elementary. No, they’re making some crap, like “Britons with Hitler against Dzhugashvili”. Two elephants against one pug.
      2. shaman2001
        shaman2001 31 October 2015 22: 41 New
        0
        From descriptions of his contemporaries, including foreign "partners". Read it!
        1. forwarder
          forwarder 31 October 2015 22: 48 New
          -1
          Quote: shaman2001
          From descriptions of his contemporaries, including foreign "partners"

          Do not make me funny. A person without basic education cannot be literate or erudite. He may be smart yes. May be able to impress. But it cannot be erudite. There is no basis, base. There is nothing to rely on.
      3. bovig
        bovig 1 November 2015 21: 48 New
        0
        In theological seminaries to this day they give a good education, unlike secular educational institutions. However, a person’s erudition is determined not only, but rather not so much, by the number of completed educational institutions, but by the ability to self-educate ... Stalin read a lot and read up to five hundred pages every day ... Again, the number of pages read is not an indicator of erudition. But the quality of the information read and the ability to analyze, analyze it in conjunction with information received earlier and from various sources, the ability to "read between the lines" determines erudition. Churchill, who did not like Russia and did not like Stalin, described him in his memoirs: He accepted Russia with a plow, and left it with an atomic bomb ... The result speaks for itself! The tree is red with fruits, but man with deeds! If we take into account the then international situation and the historical fact that the Americans first created the atomic bomb and tested it on the civilian population, then Stalin, as the creator of the Soviet atomic bomb, cannot be caught in aggressive politics ... Unless, of course, you have the ability to think analytically and not to increase your erudition only on Rezun’s books unconditionally accepting his beliefs on faith ... To increase your erudition you need to more often read the laws adopted, statements of officials, analyze the information received together, taking into account the chronological sequence of its origin, recognize the development of events in correlation with this information and then there will be a chance to see not your own imaginary erudition, but the true erudition of those who were able to anticipate the development of events and be able to anticipate their appearance ... I’ll add from myself that Stalin made one mistake and it turned out to be fatal for him .. By the way, for a country too, only countries die more slowly, than people ...
  • Leader
    Leader 31 October 2015 18: 57 New
    -7
    Rezun’s books became popular amid repeated and miserable attempts to write “true and final stories of the Great Patriotic War” - for which “thanks” to the official “historians” of the USSR.
    Another attempt is under Putin. We are waiting for the next official and truthful opus! Which one is already there?
    70 years the task is not solved! Tens of tons of documents have already been destroyed (in archival fires, for example), but there isn’t any "History of the Second World War" ...
    It seems to me that Rezun respectfully writes about the Soviet Army and the USSR. And the level of his knowledge should not be assessed by “true Rusichs,” who are not even able to formulate their thoughts correctly - due to a superficial knowledge of his native language, not to mention the technical level ...
    Although his ideas and thoughts are totally unacceptable to me, I respect his books with more respect than his critics like "Gareev and K" - the main falsifiers of the military history of the USSR / Russia.
    1. ivanovbg
      ivanovbg 31 October 2015 21: 31 New
      0
      Quote: Leader
      Rezun’s books became popular amid repeated and miserable attempts to write “true and final stories of the Great Patriotic War” - for which “thanks” to the official “historians” of the USSR.


      I don’t know why you blamed Vozhik, but for this quote I put him a plus. With each change of power within the USSR, new leaders imposed on the people a new and certainly the “most truthful” history of the Second World War. Maybe from the inside of the country it was not particularly noticeable, but think about how it looked from the outside, from abroad. The rule in the fraternal states almost never changed with the Moscow leadership, there was always some difference at least in a couple or three years, and sometimes much more.

      If a lazy man has launched a garden and weeds have grown in it, the weeds are not to blame, but a man.
      1. bovig
        bovig 2 November 2015 00: 22 New
        0
        Quote: ivanovbg
        Quote: Leader
        Rezun’s books became popular amid repeated and miserable attempts to write “true and final stories of the Great Patriotic War” - for which “thanks” to the official “historians” of the USSR.


        I don’t know why you blamed Vozhik, but for this quote I put him a plus. With each change of power within the USSR, new leaders imposed on the people a new and certainly the “most truthful” history of the Second World War. Maybe from the inside of the country it was not particularly noticeable, but think about how it looked from the outside, from abroad. The rule in the fraternal states almost never changed with the Moscow leadership, there was always some difference at least in a couple or three years, and sometimes much more.

        If a lazy man has launched a garden and weeds have grown in it, the weeds are not to blame, but a man.



        You know, I personally “on the drum” how it looked “abroad”, but inside the country the change of the “most truthful” story is very noticeable ... Moreover, it pushes inquisitive people to do independent searches - you see the result of these searches on this forum. I’m not afraid to say that this mess was of great benefit to me in terms of understanding the history of not only our country, but also the history of all mankind ... But this is another topic ...
    2. bovig
      bovig 1 November 2015 22: 24 New
      0
      I am sure that a well-educated person with EDUCATION DOES NOT SPECIFY, if he does not have an appropriate status, who and what SHOULD to do or not to do ... Unless it seems to him that way!)))))) But this, obviously, already in the competence of a psychotherapist or narcologist - he will write a prescription for medicines that relieve symptoms ... It seems, he seems to be wondering - how will it be in Russian?))) Not white? Not hot?)))))
  • sohosha
    sohosha 31 October 2015 19: 18 New
    +2
    Fans of an alternative story, would you like Stalin to put Hitler in an honest duel, distribute vouchers to everyone and shoot himself?
  • Valkh
    Valkh 31 October 2015 20: 02 New
    +2
    Thanks to Stalin, we remained a country and a power in general!
  • Alexy
    Alexy 31 October 2015 20: 25 New
    +3
    How much can you call this villain by the name of the great commander. He is a reason, and it should be called just like that and nothing else. Then, maybe, attention to his worthless figure will be less.
  • sohosha
    sohosha 31 October 2015 20: 35 New
    +1
    How did it happen. that instead of the territory that was supposed to be after the implementation of the Barbarossa plan, the super-powerful USSR grew up, which cannot be penetrated into the forehead. Unite, as now, there would be more gesheft. This was not the first time. And they created an atomic bomb on their own, or rather on their Japanese head. The only explanation for all this is with me: “interest” obscures the planning horizon of complex processes.
  • Kotleopold
    Kotleopold 31 October 2015 22: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: forwarder
    accumulated all in unimaginable quantities. Just some even homeric.


    And didn’t strangle Hitler right on the border? Oh ... math ... laughing

    I thought it was a sinful thing that the true Resunoids had already become extinct, but no! The smoking rooms are alive, which means that I have a place to turn around! fellow

    Quote: forwarder
    Hitler planned to push "communism" together with its leader Dzhugashvili beyond the Volga and the North. Dvinu. And let them build their “communism" on there. In terms of "Barbarossa" it is quite clearly written. Line AA. Astrakhan-Arkhangelsk. East of this line, the Germans had no plans for capture.


    Excuse me, but are you familiar with the "Rosenberg plan" or at least with the "Mein Kampf" of Pan Adolf? They have VERY much about plans to capture far east of the line you described, and about the fate of the population of the occupied territories. And what do you think the traitor of the Motherland Rezun says about this? wink
  • SlavaP
    SlavaP 31 October 2015 22: 33 New
    +1
    There was a case, I read almost all the books of Rezun. I don’t even want to argue about his moral and political qualities: if you betrayed, betrayed and suddenly-ordered ... However, the books are written interestingly and there are a lot of facts. Here's how to interpret them - another question. The fact that the Soviet "official" history of the war was, to put it mildly, not entirely accurate, I suspected a very long time ago. My grandfather, who unfortunately left too early, was a participant in the War and then remained in the army and rose to a very decent position. I am sure that he was "admitted" to serious documents. And on the other hand, he was a communist, incredibly respected Stalin, was an absolutely honest man. So - he categorically refused to tell or discuss something about the war, to participate in various celebrations, etc., although May 9 was probably the main day in our family. Now I understand how he was tormented between what he knew and what was said around him and how he, a completely honest man, was forced to remain silent.
    1. bovig
      bovig 1 November 2015 22: 34 New
      0
      However, your presentation style is reminiscent of Rezun's style. Do you know him personally?)
      1. SlavaP
        SlavaP 1 November 2015 23: 10 New
        0
        I do not know and am not eager to become acquainted with it, although I suspect that it is acquired somewhere within 30-50 miles from me.
        1. bovig
          bovig 3 November 2015 06: 53 New
          0
          Quote: SlavaP
          I do not know and am not eager to become acquainted with it, although I suspect that it is acquired somewhere within 30-50 miles from me.


          Not very far ... I guess you got his aura hooked ...))))
  • The legacy of ancestors
    The legacy of ancestors 1 November 2015 02: 54 New
    -1
    I do not exalt Rezun, but with this article the author clearly tries to pour mud on Rezun and embellish the "Stalinist Renaissance from the mid-2000s." He greatly exaggerates this "renaissance"
    1. bovig
      bovig 1 November 2015 22: 37 New
      0
      Well, we’ll live to see the mid-2000s and see what it is like, this “renaissance” ...)))))
  • Awaz
    Awaz 1 November 2015 16: 49 New
    0
    He gained popularity because of the first book, where everything was described less interestingly and patriotically, although not without stuffing, but the general theme was clearly positive for the Soviet reader. Then the curve started ... with each new book, more and more falsity and lies, and completely unproven. As a person I was a little familiar with some of the historical moments of the beginning of the last century and until the middle of it, I was simply blown away by the nasty things that slipped through his letters.
    It was probably a well-thought-out provocation of the special services.
  • Evgeniy30
    Evgeniy30 1 November 2015 23: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Prop
    QUOTE -There are a lot of such works. But his lie is exposed by a banal knowledge of facts and without such works. - Yes, there are no normal thoughtful work. To get to the point that the comma is not there is yes, that's enough. Here you give at least one fact distorted by Rezun. And further. There is a mass of inaccuracies and errors in forehead scientific work. And to make such demands straight ..... just the author is a traitor. That programmed for perception. By the way, from his words - he went against the Communists, and not against Russia. (Another version is the version of the KGB). How many anti-communists do we have? And who brought more harm -Resun or Yeltsin? chubais? Gaidar? etc. Maybe enough already - maybe it's time to look for others. Me and the red plague Solzhenitsker minus. And he brought such direct benefits ..... But after all, the "hero" ....

    Yes there is a banal lie, a distortion of facts and a substitution of concepts. The most commonplace is the so-called "autostrand" tanks. And the fact that the USA (specifically Roosevelt) stated: "if Germany attacks the USSR, we will help the USSR, and if the USSR attacks Germany, we will help Germany."
    Can you imagine what would happen if we attacked Germany? We would have fought not just with Germany and its satellites, but with all of Europe + the USA. But the fact that Hitler was financed, brought to power, including through the efforts of Anglo-American circles, and impulsively pushed him east? Against the communists, not against Russia. Yes, of course, but the Communists are not Russian? Victory of the USSR, is it not Russian victory? Antisiovetchik this is Russophobe. And for Rezun, it's just an excuse for the naive. The fact is that he was recruited by MI-6. She helped him to escape.
  • Evgeniy30
    Evgeniy30 2 November 2015 00: 03 New
    0
    Quote: forwarder
    And this is after Manchuria, Mongolia, Finland, the Baltic states, Romania, Poland? We noticed that in Europe the countries with which it borders, but which the USSR did not attack, ended. Those. The USSR attacked all its neighbors in Europe. Do you think Roosevelt did not notice this?

    And what have we done wrong in Manchuria and other countries you named? I am always touched by these rantings about the aggressive USSR and the good innocent neighbors whom the USSR aggressively attacked. It is not necessary to separate the actions of the USSR from the context of world events. The fact that Finland, after gaining independence (where did Finland come from statehood in general, I hope there is no need to explain?) THREE attacked us THREE. After she was an ally of Hitler and dreamed in alliance with him to profit from Soviet Karelia and not only to her, does not count? Mannerheim openly wrote that “he will not put his sword in the scabbard until all Karelia is“ liberated. ”Do you think Finland is not aggressive? I hope you also know how Romania acquired Bessarabia? That Romania was also an ally of Hitler and dreamed about annexation of other territories, and the Romanian troops atrocities in the same occupied Odessa were worse than the Germans, does this not count for you? And Poland, which openly dreamed of sharing the USSR with Germany, would revive the Commonwealth, which Pilsudski and others openly declared. turned out to be western Belarus and Ukraine? And the Baltic states? Such small countries can not be independent a priori. And nature, as you know, does not tolerate emptiness. Or we will be there, or a potential adversary. Moreover, a huge part of the people of these countries was pro-Soviet.
  • Leader
    Leader 2 November 2015 11: 15 New
    0
    Quote: AwaZ
    As a person I was a little familiar with some of the historical moments of the beginning of the last century and until the middle of it, I was simply blown away by the nasty things that slipped through his letters.

    Did you skip? That is, in some places and in something - was wrong? Well, and in the main conclusions - right?
    Maybe share it? Suddenly I will see clearly ...
    Official historians such as Gareev are nothing but “fools who have lost their minds”, along with the mountains written by their “scientific” nonsense.

    Can you, minus me, talk on business? With links, with evidence, reasonably ...
    And then the whole monitor was sprayed with drool, and the arguments were zero.
    PS By the way, here I didn’t put a “minus” to anyone - although I don’t agree with many statements.
    And you, as small children, only call each other much. Or is it your level?
  • Evgeniy30
    Evgeniy30 2 November 2015 19: 13 New
    0
    Quote: Leader
    Quote: AwaZ
    As a person I was a little familiar with some of the historical moments of the beginning of the last century and until the middle of it, I was simply blown away by the nasty things that slipped through his letters.

    Did you skip? That is, in some places and in something - was wrong? Well, and in the main conclusions - right?
    Maybe share it? Suddenly I will see clearly ...
    Official historians such as Gareev are nothing but “fools who have lost their minds”, along with the mountains written by their “scientific” nonsense.

    Can you, minus me, talk on business? With links, with evidence, reasonably ...
    And then the whole monitor was sprayed with drool, and the arguments were zero.
    PS By the way, here I didn’t put a “minus” to anyone - although I don’t agree with many statements.
    And you, as small children, only call each other much. Or is it your level?

    Yes, nowhere is he wrong in either the main or the indirect. You do not like the "official" version? To health. Me, too, not always. But there are trivial facts completely refuting this wild lie of Rezun. Some of them are already given above. But is it normal to believe a corrupt creature working on MI-6? Wherever you dig one lie and a substitution of concepts.

    P.S. I’m not denying anyone if this is important for you ....
  • alleksSalut4507
    alleksSalut4507 2 November 2015 21: 55 New
    0
    Quote: forwarder
    Those. somewhere ¾ of the industrial labor force of the USSR were people who were not free or semi-free. In agriculture, the labor of collective farmers dominated, which can quite correctly be compared with the labor of serfs. A great example of a "social state", isn't it? "
    http://www.apn.ru/publications/print31456.htm

    otherwise they would not have survived. it was not very good for everyone both under princes and kings. one old grandfather, a nobleman, told me: for us, in the Soviet state, when it was both bad and cruel, and injustice was, but it would not be better for people than this power.
  • magician
    magician 3 November 2015 05: 55 New
    +1
    The history of the state is written under the order of those who are in power or those who seek power in this state. Any era has its plus and minus. The period of formation of the Soviet state came to a very difficult political and economic period. Yes, Stalin was a dictator, but put yourself in his place. What would you do? You are a patriot of your homeland, you want its prosperity, power, what needs to be done for this, your proposals?
    It is not for us to judge that era, we did not even find it. True, if anyone knows, then nothing will change.
    According to my grandfather 1907g.r
    The family had 7 brothers, he was the youngest. Two brothers perished in the Civil, the reasons did not apply. One in Finnish, was a military man. My grandfather met the war in August 41, was surrounded, broke out of it, the hospital, a fine baht 1,5 months, shell shock, restored to the rank. I met victory in Germany, I don’t remember the city. I think the works of Suvorov. He definitely wouldn’t like him.