Military Review

Hitler: Total War

178



In the first lines of my “letter” I want to immediately warn you that it is not written in the style of the Pravda newspaper and is not intended for readers of this newspaper. Well, having dispersed the non-target audience from the monitors, we can continue: I wanted to consider the Eastern Front of Germany in World War II, but not from a military point of view, but ... from a political one. Surprisingly. Why is it amazing? The thing is that they usually do not fight that way - at any cost and to the last enemy city. For example, World War I ended quite differently. But in the course of the Second World War on the Eastern Front literally terrible events were happening - millions died, blood flowed like a river, entire cities were erased from the ground, but no one even made an attempt to stop all this. The war was the same as the gasoline burns in the canister - brightly and without residue.

2 February 1943 of the year ended, perhaps the most famous battle of Stalingrad, which put a big and bold end to Hitler’s plans to defeat the USSR. Everyone knows that, but 18 February 1943, at the Sports Palace Goebbels made his, perhaps, the most famous speech: Sportpalastrede. And somehow these two facts are not very often mentioned together. But everything was simple: the Stalingrad defeat meant that there was no and could not have a military solution to the “Russian problem”. A purely Leninist question arose: “What is to be done?” But even in the winter of 1943 in the winter there was the same sad question. The Red Army was exhausted in the battles, suffered terrible losses and was driven far into the country. Stalingrad is good, it's great, it's beautiful. But the prospects for a quick victory over Hitler were not visible, as in general the prospects for the USSR at that moment were very vague. It is today we know how it will end, and when, and where. But in the harsh winter of 1943 this was by no means clear.

In general, it is necessary to understand why and why the USSR participated in this war: we were attacked. All the talk about "plans to seize Europe" should be left on the conscience of those who lead them. The USSR did everything to "get out" of a collision with Germany. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had precisely this basic meaning. Everything else in it for Stalin was secondary. Hitler captured the whole of Europe, but Stalin was not going to fight him. And with all his strength he sought to achieve precisely this result, and not some other. He did not need Berlin. If it were not for 22 June, no defeat for Germany would most likely have happened. How do you imagine that? The landing of the US Marine Corps and fights with the Wehrmacht head-on? But Hitler attacked, and the war began: the biggest, longest and bloody. And it ended on May 9 in Berlin ... But were there any other options? Already during the outbreak of the war?

By and large, how did the European wars usually end? For example, the First World War did not end with the defeat of the German army. Yes exactly. It took serious diplomatic efforts and outright deception in order to remove “unbeaten on the battlefields” Germany from the war (a separate large topic). The Franco-Prussian war is more characteristic - the rapid defeat of one of the opponents. No endless horror. But many European wars ended in a draw or almost a draw: without a decisive victory of one of the parties. Then the peace treaty was signed. And hundreds of such wars and war games. Shot - parted. By the way, during the First World War, Kaiser Germany repeatedly attempted to negotiate a separate peace with Russia. Amazing right? The First World War also dragged on, the Germans did not care, and the Kaiser began to look for ways out of the trap. Simple, understandable and logical. It is with Russia, and not France or, all the more, England.

And such attempts were made repeatedly in the course of the war, although without success — the tsarist government suffered from excessive “nobility” towards the allies and was too confident in its forces. But there were attempts. But February 1915 of the year (when the German “sounding” began) was far less dramatic for Germany than February 1943 of the year ... But in February 1943 no one addressed Stalin with proposals for peace and did not intend to appeal. Soviet propagandists claimed that, supposedly, until the last moment, the Germans were confident of the Fuhrer's genius and victory. I dare to disagree with them, after Stalingrad for all the Germans it became very clear - the war in the East will not work. For the German people, Stalingrad is even more significant than for the Russian. Paradox? No, for them it is a watershed. Before Stalingrad, many believed in "world domination" and millennial Reich ", after ... everything went downhill. It's like breaking a drug addict. Pink elephants are over, serious uncles in uniform came. For the Germans, Stalingrad sounds like a funeral march on their “imperial dream.” There, on the banks of the Volga, this dream was shattered. Alas, but in June-July 1941, the upcoming victory of the USSR was somehow not visible, even through a microscope. The Wehrmacht won brilliant victories one after another and confidently went to the East. In June-July 1941 the Germans believed the Fuhrer. How can you not believe it? Then the problems began to grow, then Moscow, Kharkov (hurray ?!), and here it is, Stalingrad. And it was all over.



But not everything was so bad, the Wehrmacht at that time remained the strongest army of the planet. Whether you like it or not, even in February, the Wehrmacht 1943 was perhaps stronger than the Red Army. Such are the pies with kittens. But he could not win. And here it is - the moment of choice. Here it is - the point of bifurcation. Farther история could go both way. Hitler could save Germany! I am writing this not because I like this historical character, but because of the love of truth. Chances were. I can object to anyone who says that this decision was ethically unacceptable for Stalin. Tov. Stalin was not a naive schoolgirl and did not act on the basis of the beautiful ideals found in the gutter novels. He was a politician, tough enough and pragmatic enough to act in accordance with the requirements of the moment and after the German invasion and the obvious failures of the Red Army propose through the Bulgarian ambassador a truce (there is such information). His goal was the welfare of the USSR, and not the "freedom of Europe." Once again, he was primarily a pragmatist, not an idealist.

In any case, in February 1943, Hitler offered nothing. Absolutely, except for total war. Which, by the way, was also not capable of winning, by definition. They say that, having attacked the USSR, Hitler signed his death sentence, but why? Wars happened before him and after. To lose a battle is not to lose a war, but to lose a war is not to lose a state. I don’t understand all this ideological hysteria at all: well, you decided to conquer lands in the East - act! Did not work out? - sign a peace treaty! What is this crazy war before the last German city and the last soldier? Where does this inevitability come from? Yes, the situation in the East was difficult, but Hitler, with his stupid ass, turned him into a catastrophe for the German people. In principle, a year before that - in January, 1942 - one could safely go on negotiations with Stalin (the campaign to the East had stalled near the walls of Moscow). But the Fuhrer continued to persist: well, next winter we have a catastrophe on the Volga. Has it become easier? Much?

But in January 1942, and in February 1943, Berlin was very, very far away. Insanely far, and the Wehrmacht was stronger. What an opportunity to negotiate! But Hitler decided otherwise. And he continued to kill his and others citizens by the millions. For what? War was no longer win. For Aryan vanity? How did this “pride” end for the Germans? In 1944, the Germans were horrified to learn that hordes of “Bolsheviks” were coming from the East, and it was impossible to stop them. Germany really seized the horror. But everything was late and useless. The Red Army rolled in with the implacability of the ocean surf, attempts to stop it led only to additional losses. I'm sorry, I do not believe in the "linearity", "predestination" of history. I do not believe, that's all. I do not believe that from the beginning of time it was predetermined to be born to Hitler, to come to power and unleash the Great War. History is not a movie, we can change the sequence of events. It is now precisely known that it was very easy to stop Hitler in the 30s. The same French and Czechs, for example. There was an opportunity. It was possible not to finance the revival of the German army and the military industrial complex. But I'm not talking about that now.

Even in February, 1943 for Germany was still nothing was lost: the “carpet” bombing was not really started yet, the Wehrmacht was very strong, Italy had not yet surrendered ... By the way, during the war J. Stalin every New Year declared that: “This the year will be the year of our Victory. " Now it’s customary to laugh at these “his predictions”, but was it exactly 1 of January 1942 of the year that Stalin planned to reach Berlin without fail? 1 January 1943? To Berlin? Propaganda for the Red Army masses is one thing, but real politics is another. Yes, Stalin did not want to fight endlessly and put millions of Soviet citizens in the land, what's wrong with that? And it was Hitler who should have addressed the peace offer (he started this war, as it were). But Hitler kept a proud silence. Once again, all the PRCs went backstage games for various "separate" combinations. "Nikki" fundamentally rejected all the proposals of the Kaiser, but, oddly enough, for Russia it did not end well, and the allies did not thank us ...

But Stalin was not "weak-willed and spineless" and did not suffer from excessive idealism. And was in foreign policy 100% but independent. No one could influence him. But during the war, not a single offer was received from Berlin. As the guns of June 22 started talking, they talked until May 9. Guns, but not diplomats. And for some reason everyone thinks that it could not be otherwise. The whole history of wars shows that it could. But Hitler, in my opinion, hated the Russians much more than he loved the Germans. Because he killed and tortured Russians, of course, very much, but somehow he did not bother with the subsequent fate of the Germans. And it is strange for a “German patriot,” as they like to portray him.



Life is not a movie, where the storyline and final credits are strictly defined. From June 22 did not follow at all 9 May: The Red Army could have been defeated, but it held out. You see, the military victory of the Wehrmacht had a very non-zero probability, it was possible, moreover, it was more likely than the victory of the Red Army (IMHO), we live in the “non-main” branch of events. The Red Army performed a miracle and smashed the Wehrmacht, which relied on European resources.

But Hitler chose to go with the flow ... And the snow 1943 of February, he did not become absolutely nothing to change. Through the words of the Minister of Propaganda, he announced the start of a new, now total war ...

Hitler: Total War


Why did I remember it all now? The fact is that by December 2014, it became clear that the economic blitzkrieg against Russia had failed. Russia again resisted, as in 41-42. 1 December 2014 (remember this date) German Foreign Minister Mr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that the confrontation with Russia may take years on 10. History repeats itself. But somehow Mr. Steinmeier acted without fabrication, without a spark, without enthusiasm ... But not to assemble a stadium in Munich and push the speech there: "I ask you: do you want total war?"

Author:
178 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. cniza
    cniza 9 December 2015 08: 30 New
    43
    Why did I remember it all now? The fact is that by December 2014, it became clear that the economic blitzkrieg against Russia had failed. Russia again resisted, as in 41-42. 1 December 2014 (remember this date) German Foreign Minister Mr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that the confrontation with Russia may take years on 10. History repeats itself. But somehow Mr. Steinmeier acted without fabrication, without a spark, without enthusiasm ... But not to assemble a stadium in Munich and push the speech there: "I ask you: do you want total war?"



    A very interesting article, especially the last analogy.
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 9 December 2015 08: 51 New
      29
      Are we waiting for the economic "Stalingrad"? It is not even visible on the horizon ... But it must be, otherwise why was Stalingrad 1943? We have nowhere to retreat! soldier
      IMHO
      1. oldseaman1957
        oldseaman1957 9 December 2015 09: 53 New
        +7
        Quote: engineer74
        Are we waiting for the economic "Stalingrad"?
        - What's unclear? - Washington, like Hitler at one time, inflated itself to hysteria, especially since after 1991 they discounted us, in general, as a significant force, they did not see it point-blank. And here Putin and Lavrov are trying to "suck" some international norms for them. It's a shame for the "hegemons", and the globe of America doesn't want to hide in a closet ...
      2. Vend
        Vend 9 December 2015 09: 53 New
        +4
        Quote: engineer74
        Are we waiting for the economic "Stalingrad"? It is not even visible on the horizon ... But it must be, otherwise why was Stalingrad 1943? We have nowhere to retreat! soldier
        IMHO

        Well, how is it not visible? Read western reports from the fields of economic warfare. Compare the losses of Russia, the West and the East.
        I do not believe that from the beginning of time it was predetermined to be born to Hitler, to come to power and unleash the Great War.
        If he were accepted into the art academy, then we would not have known the horrors of war, and the world would have found a wonderful artist. But what happened is what happened.
        1. Black Colonel
          Black Colonel 9 December 2015 10: 28 New
          +7
          If he were accepted into the art academy, then we would not have known the horrors of war, and the world would have found a wonderful artist.
          There would be another Hitler.
          1. Vend
            Vend 9 December 2015 10: 58 New
            0
            Quote: Black Colonel
            If he were accepted into the art academy, then we would not have known the horrors of war, and the world would have found a wonderful artist.
            There would be another Hitler.

            Is not a fact. Germany was in such a place that a second one would hardly have been found. Most likely, Germany would become a peripheral country. Judging by the state of its economy and the political crisis. And they could have pulled it to pieces.
          2. alicante11
            alicante11 9 December 2015 11: 34 New
            +7
            There would be another Hitler.


            I would have found it. The point is not Hitler, but the arrogant Saxons who created it.
            1. topical
              topical 9 December 2015 17: 07 New
              -6
              Today we know how it will end, and when, and where. But in the harsh winter of 1943, this was by no means clear.

              You are mistaken, it was already clear in the fall of 1941. Anglo-Saxons do not put on dead horses. They know how to count money. Without an understanding of this fact, there would be no Lend-Lease.
              The USSR did everything to "get out" of a clash with Germany.

              I completely agree with the author. I turned around as I could. But he did not get out. Just to clarify, Dzhugashvili did not want a war of this particular war.
              He did not need Berlin

              Quite right, he needed the whole world. To do this, it was necessary to wait for the outcome of the war between the Britons and the Germans, and then gouge the winner. From the point of view of strategy, it is a perfectly sensible and correct idea. Dzhugashvili did not expect that Hitler would not believe him even before this war in the summer and autumn of 1941. will decide to "clean up the rear".
              If not for June 22, no defeat of Germany would most likely have happened.

              Would happen. Only Europe would be a radioactive desert.
              the tsarist government suffered from excessive "nobility" in relation to the allies and was too confident in their abilities

              Do not make me funny. The tsarist government was well aware that the Entente was stronger. And calmly dragged on time in anticipation of the inevitable indemnities and reparations from the enemy. Later the situation changed dramatically, and the Bolsheviks, instead of Russia getting a profit, themselves signed up for indemnities and reparations in Germany.
              In any case, in February 1943, Hitler did not propose anything.

              He went too far. Therefore, he perfectly understood that he had nothing to offer. Moreover, his last proposal (in May 1941 transmitted through Hess, the essence of these proposals is still unknown) was rejected.
              His goal was the well-being of the USSR

              Another such gem, and the author can be safely sent to NACH. Mr. Dzhugashvili never thought about anyone but himself, his beloved. This is clearly seen from how he "thought" about the future of his children, Svetlana and Vasily, after his death.
              They say that, having attacked the USSR, Hitler signed his death sentence, but why?

              They lie, of course. Germany had very little chance of losing the war with the USSR in 1941. But she managed to do it. It seems to me that all the mistakes that the Germans could then make, they made. I won’t go into the topic further, it’s too extensive.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. topical
                topical 9 December 2015 17: 09 New
                -5
                But in January 1942, and in February 1943, Berlin was very, very far away. Insanely far, and the Wehrmacht was stronger. What an opportunity to negotiate! But Hitler decided otherwise.

                Yes, with whom to negotiate something? His suggestions in May 1941. the Britons rejected. What he proposed there is still not known. And then he still managed to beat them with bombing raids. Who would accept his suggestions after that?
                To negotiate with Dzhugashvili was stupid. And Hitler understood this perfectly. First of all, because he understood the role of Dzhugashvili and the USSR in this war. And the author does not seem to understand this. And he considers Dzhugashvili an independent figure. Including and in this he differs from Hitler.
                And he continued to kill his own and foreign citizens in millions. For what? War was no longer win. For the sake of Aryan pride? How did this “pride" end for the Germans?

                I didn’t want to kill myself. And there was no other way. In addition, he hoped for various kinds of van der wafers.
                And he was 100% independent in foreign policy.

                Now the author is simply ridiculous. He apparently believes that the multimillion-dollar Lend-Lease deliveries were simply a gift from American workers to Soviet workers. A naive young man. Dzhugashvili joined the anti-Hitler coalition on certain conditions. And he had very few rights to independent actions. Even the massive bombing of Helsinki in 1944. Dzhugashvili requested permission from the allies, according to some sources. Here is such a "independence".
                In general, the topic is not worth a damn. The author is trying to find out why it was not done what could not be done. Usually, "money writers" do this. But here they don’t seem to pay money.
                1. gladcu2
                  gladcu2 10 December 2015 00: 02 New
                  +4
                  topical

                  I.V. Stalin is a state name. And comrade Stalin addressed him.

                  Sir, this is you talking to your cat.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. topical
                    topical 10 December 2015 00: 12 New
                    -7
                    Quote: gladcu2
                    I.V. Stalin is a state name. And comrade Stalin addressed him.

                    Stalin, this is a nickname. Chased, if in another language. The name of this gentleman was Dzhugashvili.
                    Quote: gladcu2
                    Sir, this is you talking to your cat.

                    Mr., this is a polite form of treatment adopted in Russia. If you are not up to date, then these are your problems. I didn’t know that in Canada only cats are treated like this.
                    1. alecsis69
                      alecsis69 10 December 2015 17: 38 New
                      +1
                      This topic drove, and Stalin is a pseudonym.
                    2. The comment was deleted.
              3. Diana Ilyina
                Diana Ilyina 9 December 2015 20: 55 New
                10
                Quote: topic

                Quite right, he needed the whole world. To do this, it was necessary to wait for the outcome of the war between the Britons and the Germans, and then gouge the winner. From the point of view of strategy, it is a perfectly sensible and correct idea. Dzhugashvili did not expect that Hitler would not believe him even before this war in the summer and autumn of 1941. will decide to "clean up the rear".

                Another such gem, and the author can be safely sent to NACH. Mr. Dzhugashvili never thought about anyone but himself, his beloved. This is clearly seen from how he "thought" about the future of his children, Svetlana and Vasily, after his death.


                You, deeply dear not comrade, just pro-American bedding! You may not know that Comrade Stalin left his children (I mean all the inhabitants of the USSR, and not his personal children, who, by the way, fought at the fronts, and did not sit out in the rear) a few well-worn frock coats and a country with a nuclear bomb, a developed industry and the most powerful army on planet Earth!

                I will be completely satisfied when I can spit on the grave of the last Vlasovite, one of whom you are!
                1. topical
                  topical 9 December 2015 21: 14 New
                  -7
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  You deeply disreputable

                  I cry lying.
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  not comrade

                  You are right here. Obviously not a friend.
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  just pro-american bedding!

                  As for who litter I would argue.
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  comrade Stalin

                  Who is this? Dzhugashvili or what?
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  several worn frock coats

                  Read the opening protocols of his personal safes. It is completely incomprehensible why this stingy person who lived under communism (the only one from the whole country, who built for himself and his beloved) needed such sums of cash.
                  Yes, and one more thing. Take an interest in the size of his salary. You will be very surprised.
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  a country with a nuclear bomb, developed industry and the most powerful army on planet Earth!

                  1. I will not argue about a nuclear bomb. The only trouble is that you could only kill yourself on it. There were no means of delivery. They appeared only under Khrushchev. Therefore, under Stalin, there was no sense in this bomb.
                  2. The country lay in ruins. And in the literal sense of the word. Where did developed industry come from? Have you tried to think of a head?
                  3. Men of military age were almost completely destroyed in the country. Who was your mythical "most powerful army on planet Earth" made of? Have you tried to think with your head?
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  I will be completely satisfied when I can spit on the grave of the last Vlasovite

                  Usually satisfaction is experienced from another. But the perverts are also full now. Someone may be satisfied with spitting on the graves. What to do, they have such an opportunity. After all, now they are not isolated in special hospitals.
            2. The comment was deleted.
          3. sherp2015
            sherp2015 9 December 2015 11: 46 New
            +3
            Quote: Black Colonel
            If he were accepted into the art academy, then we would not have known the horrors of war, and the world would have found a wonderful artist.
            There would be another Hitler.


            You probably mean that the Anglo-Saxons would feed another?
            1. revnagan
              revnagan 9 December 2015 12: 29 New
              13
              Quote: sherp2015
              You probably mean that the Anglo-Saxons would feed another?

              100% that they would feed. The author of the article argues as a person of the 21st century. He completely forgot that the existence of the USSR was for world capital, like a sickle in a ... causal place. The only country in the world of workers and peasants! A hostile example to all oppressed in the world An example for the colonies, an example for their own population. It’s unnatural. And what if their hard workers come tomorrow and demand an eight-hour working day, leave, free education and medicine? And then they even want to rule the state!? A nightmare! Crush the Bolshevik savages at any cost! And they crushed. By any means. Remember who just did not plan aggression against the USSR. England, France, Japan, Turkey ... Everyone who is not lazy. And all under the noble pretext of fighting the Bolshevik infection. Therefore, any war against the USSR was a clash precisely ideology. Reconciliation with Nazi Germany was not possible in principle. It was Hitler who declared war on the USSR a war of annihilation. If Germany won, we would all be destroyed as a people. Only because the Bolsheviks. Russian. And savages. All in one bottle .Moreover, the Germans needed to be cleaned worn space in the East. After all that they had done on our land, reconciliation was not possible in principle. In addition, reconciliation made it possible for Germany to establish enterprises in the occupied territories of the USSR, extract minerals, squeeze out all the resources. And after the restoration of forces The Wehrmacht would strike again. Mandatory. After violating the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, who would believe Germany again. In addition, it was after the Battle of Stalingrad that Soviet industry evacuated to the Urals and Siberia began to build up weapons at an accelerated pace. The Germans were already losing this competition. First of all, the economy and industry were fighting. The forecasts for the USSR were the most favorable, but for Germany, lacking in resources, the future did not promise anything good. And all of this, Stali perfectly understood. Therefore, peace or even a truce was not possible. Therefore, Schicklgruber did not even try to find contact, make an attempt. With their attack on June 22, 1941, the Nazis themselves raised the question with an edge: either they will destroy ALL of us, or we will destroy them. Third It wasn’t given. Both sides knew it perfectly. The war against the USSR was a war of two worlds, two civilizations. In case of defeat, ours was guaranteed to be destroyed. Therefore, it was necessary to destroy the Nazi in order to secure our future. The world was not possible.
              1. Alexey M
                Alexey M 9 December 2015 13: 19 New
                +1
                100% that they would feed. The author of the article argues as a person of the 21st century. He completely forgot that the existence of the USSR was for world capital, like a sickle in ... a causal place
                I’ll correct a little. Russia has always been a sickle and a bone in the throat. And everyone attacked us. Starting with the Vikings, ending with modernity.
        2. WKS
          WKS 9 December 2015 12: 10 New
          0
          Quote: Wend
          If he were accepted into the art academy, then we would not have known the horrors of war, and the world would have found a wonderful artist. But what happened is what happened.

          History is not changeable. But once, what is now history was the future. But it happened as it happened and all the participants in the events did as they did. Hitler was stubborn so that Germany suffered a crushing defeat in the war, and Stalin persisted for the same purpose. Germany suffered just such a collapse, having all the resources of industrial Europe, from the USSR, which in the conditions of the war created industry beyond the Volga and in Central Asia. This war is a historical lesson for all those who long for military means to conquer the world. For everyone who wants to conquer the World by economic methods, such a lesson has not yet been. Maybe what is happening now is this very lesson? And everyone is doing so for this lesson for future generations to take place.
          1. Olezhek
            9 December 2015 13: 53 New
            -1
            History is not changeable. But once upon a time, that now history is the future. But it happened as it happened, and all participants in the events acted as they did.


            History is changeable, we have free will. Hitler could not attack the USSR. Hitler could offer the world. But he did not.
            History has many options.
            1. Vend
              Vend 9 December 2015 14: 24 New
              -1
              Quote: Olezhek
              History is not changeable. But once upon a time, that now history is the future. But it happened as it happened, and all participants in the events acted as they did.


              History is changeable, we have free will. Hitler could not attack the USSR. Hitler could offer the world. But he did not.
              History has many options.

              This theoretical fantasy has many options. History is what it was. How can you change the past? Share, I would change a few moments in my life.
              1. Olezhek
                9 December 2015 14: 34 New
                0
                Today we can change the history of 2015 of the year.
                In 1943, Hitler could change the fate of Germany

                War could be completely different
                And this is not a fantasy.

                An event is the implementation of one of possible options.
            2. Koshak
              Koshak 9 December 2015 21: 55 New
              +1
              Quote: Olezhek
              History has many options.

              History has no subjunctive mood. Everything has already happened and nothing can be changed. Only the future can be changed.
      3. 97110
        97110 9 December 2015 10: 04 New
        -10
        Quote: engineer74
        otherwise why was Stalingrad 1943? We have nowhere to retreat!

        Stalingrad was with the Soviet people. We are the Scattered! Russia had the July offensive of 1917 and ... the flight of the army from the front. After the Great Victory of 1945, we, with our popular approval, changed Stalingrad to Volgograd, made Nicholas the Bloody a saint and built the power of the American people along with capitalism. And we still have a lot to retreat to - catching up with Ukraine. Because we are not the Soviet People, not the Victorious people. We do not inherit the feat of the Soviet people, because here, on the Patriotic resource, it is customary to water ... Lenin and Stalin and to be moved by the ashes of the imperial family. And the example for the scattered now is not Zhukov, but Suvorov and Ushakov, not Stalin, but Catherine the Great with her Potemkin. They are all great too. And in spirit they are close to today's Rotenberg and Prokhorovs. Victories show, Olympiads win. But everything in the world is accelerating. It took the Romanovs 300 years to ruin the Fatherland. How much do the ruling need today? Look at the long range. They did not stand on their hind legs for a pretty penny. They, with all their class hatred, AGAINST the participation of the Rotenbergs in the road fund scheme. And the variant has no reverse gear. The scheme is legitimate, never corrupt (?) From the point of view of the fathers of the Fatherland, and is rejected at times by the most petty-bourgeois part of the people. Because we are SOVIET PEOPLE, slightly disguised. And in vain they returned to us pride for the Fatherland, pride for the SOVIET PEOPLE, where we are all from. Now it will be necessary to return "the world to the peoples, the land to the peasants, the factories to the workers, the Power to the Soviets."
        1. Riv
          Riv 9 December 2015 10: 09 New
          +5
          Well, of course ... How can truckers not be dragged here? A direct analogy with Hitler!
          1. 97110
            97110 9 December 2015 11: 27 New
            +3
            Quote: Riv
            How can truckers not be dragged here?

            Do you think that if you keep silent about them, crush them with the traffic police, they will quietly disappear by themselves? I remember they said that the battalion's refusal of food was reported to the top along with the loss of the nuclear submarine. Less than 100 years later, the Russian army, armed and dressed, fled from the front. And how the same people in a year, two, three stood against the WHOLE WORLD with "the last clip in the screw store" (I don't remember where from). The Rotenberg case is the worst of all NATO. Is someone in our country responsible for this topic? Well, the MILITARY REVIEW is here. Conclusions that need to be done, not only "uryayaya" to press from the keyboard.
        2. Diana Ilyina
          Diana Ilyina 9 December 2015 10: 20 New
          20
          Quote: 97110

          Stalingrad was with the Soviet people. We are Scattered! And the example for the scattered now is not Zhukov, but Suvorov and Ushakov, not Stalin, but Catherine the Great with her Potemkin. They are also great all. And in spirit close to today's Rotenbergs and Prokhorovs.


          Excuse me, but I gave you a minus for "Scattered" and for deleting our pre-Soviet history! And although I agree with many theses for the restoration of the USSR, but we should not cross out our history, do not be like ukram! Our history is more than five thousand years old, and there were kings and general secretaries! And all this is OUR STORY! And there is no need to compare Empress Catherine the Great with the Rotenbergs, they are not suitable for her! And about Nicholas the Bloody I completely agree, it should be a shame for our ROC to rank the killer of millions of Russians as saints!

          And yet, do not get dirty the name of Suvorov and Ushakov, with all due respect to Marshal Zhukov, he did not reach the generalimus Suvorov!
          1. 97110
            97110 9 December 2015 11: 01 New
            -4
            Quote: Diana Ilyina
            And yet, do not get dirty the name of Suvorov and Ushakov, with all due respect to Marshal Zhukov, he did not reach the generalimus Suvorov!

            I do not argue about the greatness of Suvorov. He took the whole Izmail by storm, won the terrible battle of Novi, took Warsaw without offending its population. And what did Zhukov do? How did they dare to compare him with the GREAT SUVOROV? Indeed, with his dirty hands he took the COUNT of Suvorov, touched HOLY Ushakov. Trampling Zhukov is a sacred cause, the Americans have allowed. I do not compare Catherine the Great with the Rotenbergs, I wrote sloppily, sorry. Their achievements are even inferior to those of Potemkin. Only they gave such a reason for anti-government actions that it would be necessary to think. Where with "uryayayaya" we go. And where the modern Rannenkampf with the punishers will restore order.
            1. your1970
              your1970 9 December 2015 12: 56 New
              0
              "Look at the long-range soldiers. They didn't stand on their hind legs for a pretty penny. They, with all their class hatred, are AGAINST the Rotenbergs' participation in the road fund scheme. And the option has no reverse gear."
              Before writing about class hatred, read V.I. Lenin (for starters)
              For it to be, it is necessary that the parties are in DIFFERENT classes in relation to the means of exploitation. In this situation, we have a conflict between the representatives of ONE class: some like Rotenberg are richer, others are more victorious (but also not from the slums, the bulk are owners of the means of production (cars))
              Mercenary carriers - do not participate, they do not care ..

              If people have class hatred, then they usually do a little different things (see the revolution of the 20-21 century), in this situation, it’s just the opposite - the amphibian strangles people for a pretty penny, which in the end they will redistribute on our shoulders ...

              Class hatred, yeah yeah .....

              Read Lenin - he wrote a lot of interesting things
              1. 97110
                97110 9 December 2015 14: 26 New
                -1
                Quote: your1970
                Read Lenin - he wrote a lot of interesting things

                You wrote it right. Because Lenin not only read - studied. Your conclusion? Will he die? Or not? Or is it necessary to silently into a rag or by means of Unter Prishibeev’s question? This is Riot on the ship! Where are the agitators, who will jump out in front of the crowd and, as you just explained, that these with the rotenbergs of the same field of berries, to the nail counter! Again stumbled out of the blue. Russia can win only by showing the world a dream. Type of Leninist slogans. Otherwise, it turns out the fight between Ellochka and Vanderbilder.
          2. Gardamir
            Gardamir 9 December 2015 12: 22 New
            +1
            to Marshal Zhukov, he didn’t reach Generalisimus Suvorov!
            Yes, you are right, unlike Suvorov, Zhukov did not fight with the people. Suvorov chased after Pugachev and crushed the Polish uprising.
            1. Diana Ilyina
              Diana Ilyina 9 December 2015 14: 02 New
              +7
              You think that Pugachev is a people ?! Oh well...! With the same success with which Suvorov suppressed the Pugachev rebellion, with the same success Zhukov suppressed the bandits and underdogs, accomplices of the fascists in Ukraine! Just don't tell me that Pugachev's "popular" revolt was different from the bandit raids of the Odessa gopota! You need to know the history of your country!
              1. Gardamir
                Gardamir 9 December 2015 15: 00 New
                +1
                from gang raids of Odessa gopota
                So Khrushchev correctly shot the demonstration in Novocherkassk? So Kiev must suppress Donetsk?
                1. Diana Ilyina
                  Diana Ilyina 9 December 2015 16: 03 New
                  +8
                  Quote: Gardamir
                  So Khrushchev correctly shot the demonstration in Novocherkassk? So Kiev must suppress Donetsk?


                  Do not confuse God's gift with fried eggs! In Novocherkassk, people did not take up arms and did not try to overthrow the Soviet regime! And in Kiev there was a fascist rebellion and it would be right if Donetsk crushes it even with great blood! Do not pretend to go * otom and do not ask stupid questions!
                  1. Gardamir
                    Gardamir 9 December 2015 16: 32 New
                    0
                    Do not confuse God's gift with fried eggs
                    Why, for the current government, truckers do not care what Pugachev is. And what happened in Kiev, we will find out through the years, for it is very similar to August 1991, adjusted for times and circumstances.
        3. Basilevs
          Basilevs 9 December 2015 10: 51 New
          +6
          "... here, on the Patriotic resource, it is customary to water ... Lenin and Stalin and be moved by the ashes of the imperial family ..." But at least kill me, I didn’t notice anything like that.
          1. 97110
            97110 9 December 2015 11: 11 New
            +1
            Quote: Basilevs
            "... here, on the Patriotic resource, it is customary to water ... Lenin and Stalin and be moved by the ashes of the imperial family ..." But at least kill me, I didn’t notice anything like that.

            There is no point in blaming the Bolsheviks. They were just a tool to contain Russia.
            A recent example from Bulvas. Searching is more lazy. Try to see the archive yourself.
        4. larand
          larand 9 December 2015 12: 11 New
          +4
          Quote: 97110
          Because we are a little dressed up SOVIET PEOPLE.


          Nikolay, on the whole you are right, but it is difficult to agree with this your thesis. Soviet less and less due to old age and even less in spirit and morality. Two decades of intensive brainwashing by the education system, the lies of lured media and the desire of the authorities to discourage people from participating in governance at all levels have done their job. 30-20 year olds will tell you who the Madonna is, but they don’t know about Ushakov, Gastello, Stakhanov, Titov, and they won’t answer about the battle of Stalingrad.
          1. antoXa
            antoXa 9 December 2015 12: 37 New
            +2
            larand
            Stop talking nonsense, now there are quite a lot of young people who will tell you about Ushakov and Gastello ...
            You need to educate your children and grandchildren, and do not scratch your tongue here!
            1. larand
              larand 9 December 2015 12: 48 New
              +1
              Quote: antoXa
              larand
              Stop talking nonsense, and do not scratch your tongue here!


              Did they teach you communication in a long-term municipal service? antoXam?
              1. antoXa
                antoXa 9 December 2015 17: 48 New
                0
                larand
                They taught a lot where, but you were taught to judge all the inhabitants of a huge country aged 20-30 years))) only by your own circle of friends?))) I want to disappoint you a little that those with whom you specifically communicate are far from all)
          2. Diana Ilyina
            Diana Ilyina 9 December 2015 13: 51 New
            +9
            Quote: larand
            30-20 year olds will tell you who Madonna is, but they don’t know about Ushakov, Gastello, Stakhanov, Titov, and they won’t answer about the battle of Stalingrad.


            I am thirty-two years old, and I believe that I know no worse than you who Ushakov, Gastello, Stakhanov and Titov are! I can tell you about the course of the Battle of Stalingrad, as well as tell you about Operation Bagration, the Kursk Bulge, the Battle of Borodino, the Battle of Poltava, the Battle of Gangut, the Battle of Sinop, the Battle of Chudskoye and a bunch of different battles! I can now list you Russian generals, heroes of the Battle of Borodino! So it is not necessary about everyone, not all are the same, however, like at all times!
          3. 97110
            97110 9 December 2015 14: 42 New
            0
            Quote: larand
            but it’s hard to agree with this your thesis

            I wanted to promote the idea of ​​a greater sense of justice (well, it turns out clumsy again) of our people. The slogans of the Soviet era are still stronger than "Sale !!! Discounts up to 100% !!!". And about young people ... The oldest is 34 years old, the youngest is 14. As for the Madonna, they can be mistaken, like what? Sistine? Or this ..? You have to ask about Stakhanov - it became very interesting. All the same, the prestige of hard work has been destroyed for a long time. But here it is mine. A sneeze on the way, explaining who it was. And his wife from Donbass, the youngest asked about the color of the miner's eyes as a child. Ushakov, Gastello and many more names will be called, here I am calm. I think about young people better than you. Although surprised that they are.
        5. antoXa
          antoXa 9 December 2015 12: 34 New
          +2
          97110
          No need to say "We", speaking exclusively for yourself!
          1. 97110
            97110 9 December 2015 14: 47 New
            +1
            Quote: antoXa
            97110
            No need to say "We", speaking exclusively for yourself!

            Be so kind as to instruct, give a quote. You are not a burden, and everyone does not need to climb through the text, looking for. And the style ... Well, your "speaking by speaking" is no good.
            1. antoXa
              antoXa 9 December 2015 17: 42 New
              0
              97110
              Yes, please))) It's not my fault that you are scribbling 50 comments per topic as a machine gun)
              "Stalingrad was with the Soviet people. We are the Scattered! Russia had the July offensive of 1917 and ... the flight of the army from the front. After the Great Victory of 1945, with our popular approval, we changed Stalingrad to Volgograd, made Nicholas the Bloody a saint and built power American people together with capitalism. And we still have a lot to retreat to - catching up with Ukraine. Because we are not the Soviet People, not the people of the Winner. We do not inherit the feat of the Soviet people, because here, on the Patriotic resource, it is customary to water ... Lenin and Stalin and to be moved by the ashes of the imperial family. And an example for the scattered now is not Zhukov, but Suvorov and Ushakov, not Stalin, but Catherine the Great with her Potemkin. They are all great too. And in spirit they are close to today's Rotenberg and Prokhorovs. Victories are, The Olympics are winning. But everything in the world is accelerating. It took the Romanovs 300 years to ruin the Fatherland. How many do the ruling need today? Look at the long-range fighters. They are not for a pretty penny. stood on their hind legs. They, with all their class hatred, AGAINST the participation of the Rotenbergs in the road fund scheme. And the variant has no reverse gear. The scheme is legitimate, never corrupt (?) From the point of view of the fathers of the Fatherland, and is rejected at times by the most petty-bourgeois part of the people. Because we are SOVIET PEOPLE, slightly disguised. And in vain they returned to us pride for the Fatherland, pride for the SOVIET PEOPLE, where we are all from. Now it will be necessary to return "the world to the peoples, the land to the peasants, the factories to the workers, the Power to the Soviets."
              1. 97110
                97110 10 December 2015 11: 37 New
                0
                Quote: antoXa
                Yes, please))) It's not my fault that you are scribbling 50 comments per topic as a machine gun)

                Thank. This is the 14th comment. Up to 50 is still far.
        6. tacet
          tacet 9 December 2015 13: 04 New
          +3
          Agree everything - the great Soviet Union had Vlasov and the most shameful defeat from the Poles in 1920, Gorbachev and much more. The Russian Empire had Osovets, the Brusilov breakthrough and practically defeated Austria-Hungary, there were also "figures" led by Ulyanov who were corrupting the army and the state, as well as their own "Yanukovych" in the person of Nicholas # 2, the empire. (by your analogies).
          As a result, in the history of the Russian Empire and the history of the USSR, there were many great victories and heavy defeats, there were heroes and traitors (at different times, their names changed to the opposite and vice versa). To realize even the USSR, even the Empire (although the USSR under I.V. Stalin had all the signs of an empire) the top of fanaticism.
          1. Diana Ilyina
            Diana Ilyina 9 December 2015 14: 08 New
            +9
            tacet, bravo! Great comment! For some reason, our people always have extremes! In the early 90's, everyone spat on the USSR and everything connected with it, in the USSR they spat on the history of tsarist Russia, now they spat on both of them! But how much can you spit on your grandfathers ?!

            THIS IS OUR STORY! And you need to know her!
          2. 97110
            97110 9 December 2015 14: 51 New
            0
            Quote: tacet
            Negotiate everything

            Do you solely point me at least something? Yes, please, I am very grateful for your comments. Essentially have something to say?
      4. Enot-poloskun
        Enot-poloskun 9 December 2015 10: 30 New
        +1
        First, there will be an economic battle for Moscow.

        That will drive the liberals ....
      5. mojohed2012
        mojohed2012 9 December 2015 11: 15 New
        0
        The beginning of the Battle of Stalingrad was in 1942.
    2. bulvas
      bulvas 9 December 2015 08: 51 New
      +4
      Quote: cniza
      especially the last analogy.



      No one doubts that we will not be left alone.

      Truce is possible, but the war against us will continue.
    3. Ermak
      Ermak 9 December 2015 09: 02 New
      +5
      The author, in my opinion, is trying to lead to the idea that Europe together with Hitler wanted to completely destroy our country, and therefore there was no intrigue with the negotiations, that the Second World War is different from other previous wars, and besides, no one has already discounted these plans. Nevertheless, I wanted the author to sum up some results that were clearer at the end. On the whole, the article is interesting, it was written excitingly.
      1. Diana Ilyina
        Diana Ilyina 9 December 2015 09: 34 New
        11
        The article is really interesting, but very controversial! The author's assertion that the Wehrmacht had a chance of winning is a very controversial thesis! The Russian people cannot be defeated, they can only be destroyed! Yes, the Wehrmacht could take Moscow with a blitzkrieg, and what's next ?! Napoleon succeeded and how did it help him ?! The partisan war has not been canceled, Russia is not France or Poland, here you are not in Paris in Montmartre to walk with a bunch of flowers from a tender Frenchwoman, here first an exhausting heat, then a crossroads with rains and slime instead of roads, and then frosts at 40 degrees ! And all this fun under the constant raids of partisans, blowing up bridges and warehouses, derailing trains and other delights from the occupied population! So Hitler did not have any chances of victory, just as Napoleon, Charles XII, and other leaders who decided to play the ruler of the world did not have them! The Americans do not have them either, our 90s, this is also a kind of Stalingrad, we survived, they did not break us, although we really wanted to, and now we have the Kursk Bulge, nothing, gentlemen, Americans wait a little, you will have Operation Bagration with with all the ensuing consequences!
        1. 97110
          97110 9 December 2015 10: 10 New
          +4
          Quote: Diana Ilyina
          The Russian people cannot be defeated, they can only be destroyed!

          Look at Ukraine. I would inherit EBN Nemtsov, and Ukraine would be here since 1999. Do not forget the year 1917.
          1. Diana Ilyina
            Diana Ilyina 9 December 2015 10: 35 New
            10
            Nikolay, I understand your desire to arrange another October coup, but this will not lead to anything good! The USSR was built by Comrade Stalin, if Lenin remained in power, it is not yet known what the NEP would lead to and if we were at least somehow ready for a war with Hitler, the big question!

            I repeat to you again I am for the restoration of the USSR! But not by coup!
            1. 97110
              97110 9 December 2015 10: 48 New
              +2
              Quote: Diana Ilyina
              would we be at least somehow ready for war with Hitler, the big question!

              I repeat to you once again, I am for the restoration of the USSR! But not by coup!

              General thoughts, difference in nuances. If the Romanovs had remained in power, Kerensky would have grabbed us from Hitler. Putin is not like Kerensky, there is no talk here. But the socio-economic system is the development of the Kerensky branch. YUS will not trample on us. Foolishly, or at their command, they will introduce something else Platonov, and it will be 1905. Only the Semyonovites for Presnya are not present, for "faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland" no one will shoot long-range soldiers. Or will it be?
            2. ANTI.KORR.
              ANTI.KORR. 9 December 2015 13: 03 New
              +2
              Quote: Diana Ilyina
              another October coup

              You will learn the differences between coup and revolution first yes
              Quote: Diana Ilyina
              The USSR was built by Comrade Stalin, if Lenin remained in power, it is not yet known what the NEP would lead to and if we were at least somehow ready for a war with Hitler, the big question!

              Ie Are you trying to argue that Stalin was not a Bolshevik and did not take part in the October Revolution?
              Now on the second sewer channel I will give a rave, very consonant wink
      2. Dembel77
        Dembel77 9 December 2015 09: 41 New
        +5
        Many thanks to the author for the interesting train of thought and especially for the unexpected ending of the article. Great! The version about "not the main branch of events" also looks convincing - once having chosen its own fate of the winning country (despite the huge sacrifices) - I hope Russia will not turn off this "branch" ever!
        1. 97110
          97110 9 December 2015 10: 39 New
          +1
          Quote: Dembel 77
          I hope Russia will never leave this 'branch'!

          I hope so too. But in her current state one can only hope.
      3. ANTI.KORR.
        ANTI.KORR. 9 December 2015 13: 30 New
        +2
        I read the article and here it is the last paragraph.
        How could it have occurred to the author to draw parallels between the communist USSR and the current liberal bourgeois RF?
        I remind the author that the hitler attacked precisely the Socialist, Soviet country, and it was Bolshevism that for the hitler was a bone in the throat, as well as for the other world bourgeoisie.
        And I would also like to add that the USSR was under sanctions for all its existence, but nobody really blamed it.
        It seems that comparisons on the topic of the bloodiest war in the entire history of mankind with the current "child sanctions" regarding the Russian Federation are completely inappropriate, and by and large, blasphemous. IMHO.
        1. Vend
          Vend 9 December 2015 14: 35 New
          0
          Quote: ANTI.KORR.
          П
          I remind the author that the hitler attacked precisely the Socialist, Soviet country, and it was Bolshevism that for the hitler was a bone in the throat, as well as for the other world bourgeoisie.

          The party in which Hitler belonged to the NSDAP in Russian NSNRP (National Socialist German Workers Party), so that the socialist country attacked the socialist. And remember Hitler's words, that they would continue the work of the German knights, then the Bolsheviks did not smell.
          1. ANTI.KORR.
            ANTI.KORR. 9 December 2015 15: 13 New
            +1
            Quote: Wend
            The party in which Hitler belonged to the NSDAP in Russian NSNRP (National Socialist German Workers Party), so that a socialist country attacked a socialist one.

            That's what the Svanidzian students liberoids agreed to ... fool
            You equate the USSR and fascist Germany, from the point of view of the followers of Dr. Goebbels’s ideas it is very commendable. It would be nice for you to be a guide at the Eltsin Museum to settle down and glorify the Vlasov ideology there. negative
            1. Vend
              Vend 9 December 2015 15: 39 New
              -1
              Quote: ANTI.KORR.
              Quote: Wend
              The party in which Hitler belonged to the NSDAP in Russian NSNRP (National Socialist German Workers Party), so that a socialist country attacked a socialist one.

              That's what the Svanidzian students liberoids agreed to ... fool
              You equate the USSR and fascist Germany, from the point of view of the followers of Dr. Goebbels’s ideas it is very commendable. It would be nice for you to be a guide at the Eltsin Museum to settle down and glorify the Vlasov ideology there. negative

              Learn history amiable. You were given the facts. And the equal sign was put at the beginning of the war, when National Socialist Germany attacked the USSR. Then, in the reports, the National Socialist was replaced by the fascist. Fascism had nothing to do with Germany. Fascism was in Italy. Read how Germany lived before 1939. You will understand how they lived then. And for a change, compare how they lived in the USSR. And the underdeveloped nonsense about "followers of the ideas of Dr. Goebbels is very commendable. It would be good for you to get a job as a guide in the Eltsin Museum and glorify Vlasov's ideology" leave it to yourself.
              1. ANTI.KORR.
                ANTI.KORR. 10 December 2015 01: 32 New
                0
                Quote: Wend
                so the socialist country attacked the socialist.

                These are your words!
                What do you refuse them?
                Quote: Wend
                And the equal sign was put at the beginning of the war, when National Socialist Germany attacked the USSR.

                I told you that you are a la Chvanidze-Melechin.
                The presence of the word "socialist" in the name of the ruling party
                absolutely does not mean the socialist structure of the state itself!

                In France, the socialists are also in power now, but this does not abolish capitalism in France.
                So, your thesis is a far-fetched zilch, in the best traditions of the liberal propaganda campaign of the times of Yakovlev and foreign radio stations!
                Quote: Wend
                Learn a story amiable

                I will try very hard to personally educate you and refute your nonsense about the attack in the 41st year of the "socialist country on the socialist"! yes
                Quote: Wend
                Facts brought to you
              2. ANTI.KORR.
                ANTI.KORR. 10 December 2015 01: 32 New
                +1
                Quote: Wend
                so the socialist country attacked the socialist.

                These are your words!
                What do you refuse them?
                Quote: Wend
                And the equal sign was put at the beginning of the war, when National Socialist Germany attacked the USSR.

                I told you that you are a la Chvanidze-Melechin.
                The presence of the word "socialist" in the name of the ruling party
                absolutely does not mean the socialist structure of the state itself!

                In France, the socialists are also in power now, but this does not abolish capitalism in France.
                So, your thesis is a far-fetched zilch, in the best traditions of the liberal propaganda campaign of the times of Yakovlev and foreign radio stations!
                Quote: Wend
                Learn a story amiable

                I will try very hard to personally educate you and refute your nonsense about the attack in the 41st year of the "socialist country on the socialist"! yes
                Quote: Wend
                Facts brought to you

                you call it facts about the attack of the "socialist country on the socialist one"?
                Or do you consider the fact that fascism was in Italy, but in Germany, formally, not?
                Or do you consider it a fact that the word "socialist" was replaced by the fascist one in the reports of the Soviet Information Bureau?
                Here you are, read the summary from
                30.12.1942g.
                Morning summary (extract)
                North-west of Stalingrad, our troops conducted active hostilities. The N-part captured the height of great tactical importance, destroyed up to 400nazis and 8 guns .... "
                A detachment of Ukrainian partisans operating in the Sumy region defeated the headquarters battalion and exterminated 70 nazis.
              3. ANTI.KORR.
                ANTI.KORR. 10 December 2015 02: 04 New
                +1
                Quote: Wend
                Fascism had nothing to do with Germany.

                belay Formally, perhaps, but in fact?
                Quote: Wend
                Then in the reports the national-socialist was replaced by the fascist.

                Why are you constantly lying and distorting?
                In the reports of the Sovinformburo, the enemy was called words "Hitlerites" и Nazi troops "-This is if you formally approach, you are our formalist.
                Or do you still think that the atrocities of the Nazis is not a generally accepted concept of "fascism". Or do you, suddenly, formally, think that fascism is only Mussolini's "treatises"?
                Quote: Wend
                And underdeveloped nonsense

                This phrase you to yourself, to a certain extent, you can relate to your liberoid hangout.
                1. Vend
                  Vend 10 December 2015 09: 38 New
                  -1
                  Quote: ANTI.KORR.
                  I will try very hard to enlighten you personally and refute your nonsense about the attack in the 41st year of the "socialist country on the socialist"! yes

                  How little a person needs in order to feel his own significance and get a goal in life. It would be better to do something useful. For example, self-education, ignorance and trolling have not exalted anyone.
                  Learn the story. There are more than enough documents. A troll of my statements is not worth it. You only show your historical ignorance. I pointed out the facts to you. And I do not refuse my words.
                  1. Sling cutter
                    Sling cutter 12 December 2015 01: 50 New
                    0
                    Quote: Wend
                    I pointed you to the facts. And I do not refuse my words.

                    I certainly apologize hi that stuck in your conversation
                    But, Wend, I did not see the facts in your statements.
                    Catch a well-deserved minus hi
          2. The comment was deleted.
  2. Mihalich17
    Mihalich17 9 December 2015 08: 31 New
    35
    There will never be peace on this earth ...
    They will never rest while WE are breathing!
    And therefore:
    - Good must be with fists!
    - To evil in the face, right away - KIND !!!
    - Then, with feet, legs, feet,
    - Until his death, this scum !!!
    1. Tanker55
      Tanker55 9 December 2015 08: 42 New
      +7
      We must fight for peace! The infection that Hitler picked up is still not exterminated, and apparently on our country, on us Russians, this mission is to destroy the disease in the form of the "EXCLUSION" of some.
      We must fight for peace! And preferably without casualties. soldier
      Mikhalych-PLUS!
    2. vgorlekost
      vgorlekost 9 December 2015 09: 03 New
      -1
      Quote: Mihalich17
      There will never be peace on this Earth. Never will "they" rest while WE breathe!

      Will be! The past, present and future of the world is revealed in Scripture:
      "And behold, the day will come that will burn like an oven; then all the haughty and wicked will be like straw, and the day to come will burn them up, says the Lord of hosts, so that he will leave them neither root nor branch." Malach. 4: 1
      - and then he will come - world peace. But not for everyone ....
    3. Private27
      Private27 9 December 2015 10: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: Mihalich17
      There will never be peace on this earth ...
      They will never rest while WE are breathing!
      And therefore:
      - Good must be with fists!
      - To evil in the face, right away - KIND !!!
      - Then, with feet, legs, feet,
      - Until his death, this scum !!!

      And kicks, and kicks many, many times!
    4. Alexey M
      Alexey M 9 December 2015 11: 01 New
      +1
      Good must be with fists!
      1. vgorlekost
        vgorlekost 9 December 2015 11: 37 New
        -7
        Quote: Alexey M
        Good must be with fists!

        And did anyone wonder how it combines what is on his neck with what is in his hands?
        The one to whom the head of Jesus does not take up arms! And the one who takes, and still teaches children this, is the very child of this world in which Satan rules. And not Jesus is the head ...
        PS I’m not myself! And the minuses you set, do not put me ...)
        1. Alexey M
          Alexey M 9 December 2015 12: 14 New
          +4
          Dear, did you wonder why all the monasteries look like fortresses?
          Do you really think that healthy men will sit and watch Russia die.
          On the photo is the May 9 holiday in Nizhny Novgorod. And what can weapons teach in the hands of a priest on SUCH a day? There is exactly one option.Love and protect your homeland.
          Next to this priest, some kind of inspiration was felt, the people smiled, the children did not shy away from him, and in the eyes of the priest there was the same sparkle like the boys and girls who were given a weapon to hold, and not a "counter" like many church ministers.
          And for reference.
          Alexander Peresvet (September 8, 1380) - the legendary warrior monk, monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. Together with Rodion Oslyabyi participated in the Battle of Kulikovo and fought in martial arts before the main battle of the hero Chelubey, while dying himself. In the Russian Orthodox Church, he is ranked among the saints with the rank of reverend, his memory is celebrated in the Cathedral of Radonezh Saints, the Cathedral of Tula Saints on September 22 according to the Julian calendar.
          1. vgorlekost
            vgorlekost 10 December 2015 04: 36 New
            0
            I talked about the teachings of Jesus Christ. What are you talking about? That which does not correspond to His teaching is NOT CHRISTIANITY! What am I wrong about?
        2. avdkrd
          avdkrd 9 December 2015 12: 47 New
          +3
          Quote: vgorlekost
          And did anyone wonder how it combines what is on his neck with what is in his hands?
          The one to whom the head of Jesus does not take up arms! And the one who takes, and still teaches children this, is the very child of this world in which Satan rules. And not Jesus is the head ...
          PS I’m not myself! And the minuses you set, do not put me ...)

          Sublime bullshit about the denial of violence and the rest blah blah blah. In what place does Jesus divide priests (which during his lifetime were not) and other believers ??? The commandment is not murder- does not apply to defenders. By killing the enemy, the Protector saves his family, his family, his country, his faith. From time immemorial in Russia, monks and priests took up arms to defend their homeland. In general, in any religion there is a clause on the protection of the Faith, when the enemy is recognized by default as a henchman of Satan. The Orthodox Church at least did not arrange Crusades for banal enrichment.
          1. vgorlekost
            vgorlekost 10 December 2015 05: 24 New
            0
            Quote: avdkrd
            Sublime bullshit about the denial of violence and the rest blah blah blah. In what place does Jesus divide priests (which during his lifetime were not) and other believers ??? The commandment is not murder- does not apply to defenders. By killing the enemy, the Protector saves his family, his family, his country, his faith. From time immemorial in Russia, monks and priests took up arms to defend their homeland. In general, in any religion there is a clause on the protection of the Faith, when the enemy is recognized by default as a henchman of Satan. The Orthodox Church at least did not arrange Crusades for banal enrichment.

            Your comment then can be called lousy nonsense? )
            You talk about all kinds of religions and the actions of the followers of these religions. I said about the discrepancy between a "Christian" with a barrel in his hands - the TEACHING OF CHRIST! And what can your "arguments" change in what He taught?
            Don’t worry so much, I’m not agitating anyone to drop weapons, because Jesus said -
            “Enter through the narrow gate, because the road that leads to destruction is wide and spacious, and many follow it, while the narrow gate and the road that leads to life, and few find it.”
            - so the soldier is always enough ...
            I’m just talking about the hypocrisy of pseudo-Christians who teach children the same thing, because Jesus said about children-
            "Whoever seduces one of these little ones who believe in Me, it would be better for him if they hung a millstone around his neck and drowned him in the depths of the sea."
    5. 97110
      97110 9 December 2015 11: 16 New
      +3
      Good must be in camouflage
      With a rifle, a muzzle in black soot,
      With a bag of grenades and an ax.
      It will come, knocking Kevlar,
      Breathing tobacco fumes -
      You do not joke with such good.
      It, the villain’s dream disturbing,
      In the asphalt put his face
      He’ll give a boot over his kidneys,
      Butt in the back of the head
      And abuse the corpse
      At the same time touching us.
      You, my young reader,
      Peaceful admirer,
      Please beware of trouble:
      Having built a terrible face,
      Don’t be afraid of goodness - be it too,
      Replenish the bright ranks!

      Not mine, remember with VO (?).
  3. MIST096
    MIST096 9 December 2015 08: 35 New
    +6
    Somehow unsaid, but in general ...............
  4. Ishinomaki lie
    Ishinomaki lie 9 December 2015 08: 37 New
    +5
    Everything is as always, it is necessary to stop stretching out hands to such "comrades", because they will substitute "as always" only a leg.
  5. Mikhail Krapivin
    Mikhail Krapivin 9 December 2015 08: 38 New
    +5
    Good article. It leaves room for reflection on the theme of a world divided between the Soviet and German empires ...
  6. Mihail55
    Mihail55 9 December 2015 08: 40 New
    +3
    Quote: Mihalich17
    Good must be with fists!

    Yes, the Hitlers leave ... and the Steinmeers and others like them remain ... Their knowledge of history is useless
  7. Max_Bauder
    Max_Bauder 9 December 2015 08: 42 New
    12
    I agree with the article. Hitler was not a state patriot of the Germans. Read Anton Blagin. There is such a blogger on lifejournal. Hitler was a Zionist Jew. He was brought to power by the same Jewish Zionist America, the Rothschilds there are Rockefellers. The goal will destroy Soviet Russia, at the hands of the Germans, simultaneously reducing part of the world's population. For what? to make the dollar a world currency. To print a bunch of bucks on machines, changing them to real gold of the warring states. So that after the war everyone owes the United States and they are fabulously rich, at the same time extending freedom of power to all of Europe. All this originates when the Zionists opened the Bank of England in 1694.
    So, of course, if Hitler were the sovereign of the era of Bismarck or Friedrich, you would certainly have made peace with more or less favorable conditions with the enemy than to lose everything at all. So did the Prussians when Napoleon came to them, all the fortresses surrendered almost without a fight, or after the first gun shots. And that one stood straight to death. Because psycho Hitler, really hypnotized people. So we will consider Hitelra as no patriot of the German people, but a real schizophrenic-sick destroyer of people who threw the whole color of the Germans into the crucible of war. Only a psychopath can do this.
    1. sherp2015
      sherp2015 9 December 2015 11: 54 New
      0
      Quote: Max_Bauder
      So we will consider Hitelra as no patriot of the German people, but a real schizophrenic-sick destroyer of people who threw the whole color of the Germans into the crucible of war. Only a psychopath can do this.


      And who "fed" him, needless to say?
      1. Max_Bauder
        Max_Bauder 12 December 2015 20: 54 New
        0
        Quote: sherp2015
        And who "fed" him, needless to say?


        In my commentary, this is clearly stated - the Americans, or rather the lively Zionists, more precisely the Morgan, Rothschilds and Rockefellers.
    2. nrex
      nrex 9 December 2015 12: 16 New
      0
      Correct reasoning, it is not clear who mininusil?
      1. Max_Bauder
        Max_Bauder 12 December 2015 20: 55 New
        0
        Quote: nrex
        Correct reasoning, it is not clear who mininusil?


        Zionis.t mishandled Cossack?
    3. revnagan
      revnagan 9 December 2015 12: 38 New
      0
      Quote: Max_Bauder
      So, of course, if Hitler were the sovereign of the era of Bismarck or Friedrich, you would certainly have made peace with more or less favorable conditions with the enemy than to lose everything at all.

      In order to make peace on such conditions, you need, at a minimum, the consent of the second side. But neither England, nor America, nor the USSR (first of all!) To such a world with Germany AFTER EVERYTHING IT HAS DONE by then would.
      1. Max_Bauder
        Max_Bauder 12 December 2015 20: 58 New
        0
        Quote: revnagan
        .But neither England, nor America, nor the USSR (first of all!) To such a world with Germany AFTER EVERYTHING IT HAS DONE by then.


        Poop on England with the United States, why would not Stalin go? Is he a murderer maniac? who thinks "let me screw up a couple or even dozens of people's souls, but I'll get to Berlin, otherwise I'm not Stalin, a matter of principle," so chtoli? that Stalin was not a nerd, he did not need extra deaths, and besides, that he won in 42m? considering how ours "grabbed" at 43m on the Kursk Bulge. I would go, even as I would go to the world.
  8. Decathlon
    Decathlon 9 December 2015 08: 42 New
    +5
    "... Herr Steinmeier ..."
    Maybe not much is off topic, but I would like to note against the background of events the merits of Soviet diplomacy during the Second World War. When the Germans on the Eastern Front were ready to use chemical weapons on a large scale, through Soviet diplomatic channels in neutral (?) Sweden, Ribbentrop's department received information that if the Germans took the risk, Soviet long-range aviation and Allied aircraft would flood occupied Europe with this filth. " -belt". The Germans did not risk it. Now, probably, there is no point in "risking" either ?!
  9. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 9 December 2015 08: 43 New
    +8
    Mr. Steinmeier acted without fiction, without a twinkle, without enthusiasm ...

    Where does the enthusiasm and sparkle come from? The Germans lose not only money but also the market on sanctions against Russia. It is very difficult to climb back from where you yourself jumped out, giving your nest to others, or rather not possible. The "grateful" Germans will remember Merkel for a long time.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. beer-youk
    beer-youk 9 December 2015 08: 47 New
    +7
    Hitler might have been ready to stop, but the Anglo-Saxons who fed him and received huge profits in the war would never have allowed him to! Their centuries-old dream is the mutual extermination of Germans and Russians!
    1. cniza
      cniza 9 December 2015 08: 56 New
      +4
      Quote: beer-youk
      Hitler might have been ready to stop, but the Anglo-Saxons who fed him and received huge profits in the war would never have allowed him to! Their centuries-old dream is the mutual extermination of Germans and Russians!


      And everything again returned to normal, well, and dreaming is not harmful.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  12. Fitter65
    Fitter65 9 December 2015 08: 48 New
    +2
    "... But somehow, Mr. Steinmeier acted without invention, without a spark, without enthusiasm ... But no, to assemble a stadium in Munich and push a speech there:" I ask you: do you want total war? "
    It is a shame on him ... In front of the owners, it seems to be necessary, but he can’t say, the owner, well, this time again we won’t pull, we’ll get lost as always in full ...
  13. Riv
    Riv 9 December 2015 08: 48 New
    +4
    The author contradicts himself. If, as he believes, in the 43 year the Wehrmacht was stronger than the Red Army, then why look for ways to reconciliation? On the contrary: you need to increase efforts. Another blow-and the USSR will collapse.

    In fact, the Wehrmacht was not the same then. The best, most experienced soldiers and officers who passed France and Poland lay down near Moscow and Stalingrad. It was impossible to make up for these quality losses. Germany had to clean up the rear, drive semi-trained young people and pensioners to the front. To remove workers from factories whose place was occupied by ostarbeiters, which is why product quality has not improved. However, Hitler hardly thought about this. By the 42nd he lived in his fantasies.

    I am not kidding. Those who wish can independently google and read the memoirs of Speer and Doenitz. They are translated. After Stalingrad, there is confusion, and by the end of the 43rd year - a dull hopelessness.
    1. Olezhek
      9 December 2015 08: 57 New
      +2
      In February, the Wehrmacht 43 (as a whole) was still stronger than the Red Army, but could not break it
      (Ie, even a big victory at the front like Kharkov was unlikely)
      But even the Red Army in February 43 could not "drive the Germans to the West."
      So it goes. A brief moment of balance.
      Then Prokhorovka and the landing of the allies in Italy ...
      1. Moore
        Moore 9 December 2015 09: 50 New
        +5
        Quote: Olezhek

        But even the Red Army in February 43 could not "drive the Germans to the West."
        So it goes. A brief moment of balance.

        I couldn’t, but the objective conditions for this have already been created - industry has moved and increased the output of military products, methods and methods of struggle have been worked out, training has been put on stream and the formation of new units and formations.
        That is why the question is: what could Hitler have offered this to Stalin except to stop killing more of his citizens?
        Leave the occupied territories, thereby cutting off to itself the impossibility of a resource base?
        Pay compensation for damage? Than?
        And no matter how pragmatic Stalin was, after a year and a half of the war of annihilation, I believe no peace was already possible.
        1. Olezhek
          9 December 2015 14: 59 New
          0
          That is why the question is: what could Hitler have offered this to Stalin except to stop killing more of his citizens?
          Leave the occupied territories, thereby cutting off to itself the impossibility of a resource base?


          Yes, go to Europe. The war on the Eastern Front devoured most of the total German resources, without it would be MUCH better.
          Compensation was possible: Hitler controlled the whole of Europe.

          But this was absolutely not the Germans interesting

          This is me here ... what
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Riv
        Riv 9 December 2015 10: 16 New
        -2
        That is, how it was "was stronger, but could not break it any more"? In 41, it worked out and how, although the Germans were seriously inferior in quality of weapons then, and in 43 - why couldn't he? The generals who planned the operation on the Kursk Bulge do not agree with you.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 9 December 2015 11: 08 New
          +4
          Quote: Riv
          That is, how it was "was stronger, but could not break it any more"? In 41, it worked out and how, although the Germans were seriously inferior in quality of weapons then, and in 43 - why couldn't he? The generals who planned the operation on the Kursk Bulge do not agree with you.

          It is the Kursk Bulge and the Citadel that are very indicative in terms of the Germans' assessment of their forces in 1943.
          Remember the depth and scale of the planning of German operations in 1941-1942. From the border - to Kiev and Smolensk. From Rostov to Stalingrad. For the entire GA "South" - one tank group, with the help of which army after army, front after front are destroyed.
          And now we look at 1943. Two tank groups, in which they collected everything that is possible, often due to other formations, should only surround 1 Soviet front near Kursk.
          The forces assigned to the Kursk Bulge in 1941 collapsed the front from Bryansk to the Black Sea.

          In 1941, the Wehrmacht could swing deep strategic offensive operations in three directions. In 1942 - on one. In 1943, deep operations could be forgotten. The reason is simple - the same "raking out the rear". The speed of advance of the Germans in 1941 was provided by the developed rear - grossstransportraums, paramilitary RAD, Todt's organization and NSKK. And after Moscow these rears began to eat up, plugging holes in the front with "porcupines". Accordingly, in 1942 there were only enough rear services for one direction. And in 1943 things got worse with the rear.
          1. Riv
            Riv 9 December 2015 13: 03 New
            0
            Well, what did I say? Total war meant a war with a full exertion of forces. But this does not mean at all that the Wehrmacht lost its combat effectiveness. The Germans could well snap back qualitatively and by the summer of the 43rd they were able to regain a strategic initiative. Near Kursk, it was they who launched the offensive and the fact that it failed was the result of the good work of our intelligence, and not of the Wehrmacht's weakness. Click our Shtirlitsa beaks - and the war could well drag on for another couple of years.

            By the way: have you read Churchill's memoirs? I highly recommend it. There, in the middle of the war, between every pair of lines you can see it "Right now the Russians will wear down the Germans, the Germans - the Russians, but it's so good for us!"
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 9 December 2015 13: 33 New
              +1
              Quote: Riv
              Total war meant a war with a full exertion of forces. But this does not mean at all that the Wehrmacht lost its combat effectiveness.

              So after all, it was not a question of the loss of combat capability of the Wehrmacht in 1943, but of the impossibility in 1943 of the Wehrmacht's accomplishment of the strategic task of defeating the Red Army: "was stronger, but could no longer break it".
              Quote: Riv
              The Germans could well snap back qualitatively and by the summer of the 43rd they were able to regain a strategic initiative. Near Kursk, it was they who launched the offensive and the fact that it failed was the result of the good work of our intelligence, and not of the Wehrmacht's weakness.

              Wehrmacht Strategic Initiative in 1943 it was expressed in an attack on a prepared defense with the subsequent rollback as far as the Dnieper.
              In this case, it does not smell like a strategic initiative: the Wehrmacht near Kursk no longer had the opportunity to impose its will on a strategic scale to the enemy on a strategic scale. On the contrary, the Wehrmacht strategically got into the trap of the Red Army, advancing exactly where they thoroughly prepared for its arrival.
              Until July 1943, the Red Army still could not carry out major offensive operations - it was necessary to accumulate a supply of shells.
              Quote: Riv
              Click our Shtirlitsa beaks - and the war could well drag on for another couple of years.

              The Kursk Bulge was such an obvious site for the future German offensive that it was very difficult to click through there. Too many "Stirlitz" have worked on this topic.
              1. Riv
                Riv 9 December 2015 15: 18 New
                0
                Well, yes ... Today, this is obvious to couch strategists. And the grandfather-gunner told how they were preparing and praying on the Doug (he said so: Doug), so that the main blow would not fall on their site. The battery commander was given an introduction that tanks could reach them both from the east and from the west. And the battery was facing south. After such an introductory, no one really hoped to stay alive with them. However, lucky. Not a single shell fell on them. On the fourth day they were transferred to Prokhorovka, but here they were lucky: everything had already ended there while we were getting there.

                That is, no one really knew anything. Neither enemy forces, nor the direction of the main attacks. I now speak so calmly about this, and my grandfather, taking on his chest, scolded the commanders, shouted that he had survived by a miracle, he was lucky the whole war and who saw the German tank attack, there are very few left.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 9 December 2015 16: 30 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Riv
                  Well, yes ... Today, this is obvious to couch strategists. And the grandfather-gunner told how they were preparing and praying on the Doug (he said so: Doug), so that the main blow would not fall on their site. The battery commander was given an introduction that tanks could reach them both from the east and from the west. And the battery was facing south. After such an introductory, no one really hoped to stay alive with them. However, lucky. Not a single shell fell on them. On the fourth day they were transferred to Prokhorovka, but here they were lucky: everything had already ended there while we were getting there.

                  That is, no one really knew anything. Neither enemy forces, nor the direction of the main attacks.

                  Excuse me, since when battery commander and his subordinates should report on the direction of the main blow? Every soldier should know his maneuver. Mine!
                  Judging by your words, the battery commander was only ordered to fulfill the requirements of the Charter - to equip positions for firing on tanks (statutory requirement for artillery of all calibers) with the possibility of firing on the flank (war experience - the enemy after breaking through the front loved to go left and right , winding artillery over the tracks - to protect the throat of the breakthrough from its fire).
                  The forces of the enemy and the direction of attacks in our headquarters were known long before the start of the operation. Uncertainty was at the tactical level - since on it the subsequent actions of the Germans were determined by the level of training of individual units and the results of previous battles, which could only be predicted approximately. Well, who, for example, could have predicted in advance the epic megafail "Panthers", when a regiment of almost 200 tanks in the very first battle lost control at the battalion level and poked into our defenses for a day, practically repeating the actions of our MK at the beginning of the war - with about the same result.

                  In particular, the Germans also calculated our actions - the reflection of the counterattack near Prokhorovka was spelled out in their plans for the operation. That's just the forces for this have been planned more. In the realm of Rotmistrov, Katukov rescued, having connected part of the forces allocated according to the plan for the defeat of the counterattacking Russian mechanized formations in battle.

                  If no one knew anything, the Germans in the north would not have to bury themselves in a multi-layered anti-tank missile defense (the poor "fedis" generally drove out exactly to the field of mine bombs). And ours could not repel the blow in the south.
                2. Shadowcat
                  Shadowcat 9 December 2015 16: 31 New
                  0
                  Quote: Riv
                  . Today it’s obvious to couch strategists

                  Given that the data is available, yes. But considering that they were in the headquarters and throughout the whole front it was really the most convenient place for the boiler, and the steppe also allowed us to calmly move all the tank power without any obstacles ... No, it’s a sin to refuse in such situations. This current Russian fools can fight non-conviction and drag tanks through swamps.

                  Quote: Riv
                  And the battery was facing south.

                  If to the south it is the southern facet of the Kursk Bulge, and Prokhorovka was on the northern facet. Either something, or somewhere, something does not add up. What good is it to get a part out of the submission of one front and transfer to another front, thereby creating confusion.

                  Quote: Riv
                  That is, no one really knew anything.

                  You consider access levels of information. Why should the ordinary know the whole strategic / tactical / operational scheme? He has a task and his own sector of work.

                  Quote: Riv
                  who saw the German tank attack, there are very few left.

                  With all due respect to the veteran, but he has some views on the war at the school level of noble maidens. This, so her once a war, and not a walk in the park. Here either you die for your homeland or help the enemy die.
                  And so ... take the most irregular units - the people's militia. Yes, they died due to lack of training, but they knocked out trained and experienced, well-equipped units and even became guards. The rank and file received awards (up to the Hero of the USSR), went up the service as much as skill and education allowed.
                  1. Riv
                    Riv 9 December 2015 17: 53 New
                    0
                    I am moved by the hamsters who studied military history using the WTO cards and are ready to give their lives for their homeland. No seriously. "Prokhorovka" almost without obstacles. You can go everywhere. And in the real steppe there are ravines, and streams (in which the "Tiger" is guaranteed to get stuck), and copses, and mounds (some of them and the infantry will not at once climb). And in addition, that area is not a steppe, but a forest-steppe. There is a difference. And there is also a watershed, that is, rivers and streams flow in different directions. The directions suitable for tank strikes are not that few ... not very many.

                    And here's what the WOT is good for: tankers don't die. Neither for the Homeland, nor for gold, nor for silver. Never. Therefore, these tankers are gaining experience and will soon become smarter than the owner of the game account, who does not know that the platoon commander is obliged to know and understand the company’s task, and the unit commander - the connection task.

                    About the confusion: she is always at war. Even in class, it is inevitable. Even such a simple thing as shooting practice. If the front commander has a choice: increase confusion, or stop the enemy, then it is clear that he will choose. However, the Battle of Kursk is not considered an example of military art from either our or the German side.
                    1. Shadowcat
                      Shadowcat 10 December 2015 04: 12 New
                      0
                      Bombing? Why go straight to the person? And now let's analyze the nuance, because you correctly imagine that the battle of Kursk was reduced to the battle of Prokhorovka.

                      There were two hits - Oryol-Kursk, Belgorod-Oboyansk. (By the way, I beg your pardon, I confused the position of Prokhorovka, took it to the northern chamfer of the arc). So, Oryol-Kursk (Central Front, the defending side of K.K. Rokossovsky) were in a more advantageous position because there it was difficult because of the terrain (Belarusian swamps) to create a wide front. Belgorod-Oboyan (Voronezh front, defended by N.F. Vatutin), on the contrary, was in the steppe and it was quite easy for the Germans to choose the direction. conditionally "Wave your hand there and let's go."

                      Continuing the theme of your grandfather, a veteran (I once again apologize for the mistake. I confused Prokhorovka’s position and attributed it to the northern chamfer, that is, changed the front) it was quite logical that it was necessary to defend the south and look west and east. Firstly, the operational situation required it, and secondly, the tactics of vocational schools. It all ended with linear defense. They built and dug strongholds with several positions for firing so that you could not stand and watch the tanks go along the flank, but rearrange the gun to the prepared position and load it on its side.
                      Perhaps it was unpleasant that I had to dig the fortifications ... (according to the memoirs, to create a fortification for 45mm, you need to pull out ~ 30 cubic meters of land, 76mm - 50 cubic meters. And this is for several positions. But what can you do if you live hunting?

                      So, another problem was that our departing to the 2-3rd line did not manage to mine the space between them because Manstein’s forces actually rode on the shoulders of the retreating. As a result, they didn’t reduce their numbers and allowed them to go to Prokhorovka, where the Germans secured themselves because they simply exhausted themselves at the blow and squandered their ammunition and fuel (or maybe, as you indicated, got stuck). About the losses you can keep silent.
                      It wasn’t the best idea to wait until they were supplied with the necessary and the logical order for a counterattack was carried out. But due to rough terrain, a wide tank attack could not be used by Soviet tankmen striking in a narrow section.

                      Quote: Riv
                      If the front commander has a choice

                      Here I will once again indicate that I was mistaken. He believed that the unit was transmitted between the fronts (and there simply would be the wildest confusion), but not inside the front. Inside it is quite logical that they threw.
                      1. Riv
                        Riv 10 December 2015 10: 42 New
                        0
                        You contradict yourself again. For the Germans, "wherever you wave your hand, we will go there." Ours have "rough terrain". If there is a steppe wherever you look, then what was difficult, using the high maneuverability of the T-34, to bypass the Germans in any place and cut off the parts that had broken through? Apparently everything was not so simple?

                        There were not two directions for German strikes. Not even three. There were five in total. Two in the north, three in the south. This is the most common tactical technique: to highlight the main and spare directions. I am not too lazy to find an illustration of the fighting on the southern front.

                        A "wide tank strike" - this is probably some kind of the latest novelty in tactics? :)))
                      2. Shadowcat
                        Shadowcat 11 December 2015 09: 29 New
                        0
                        And you are trying to ascribe to me what you understood, but I did not say.

                        Quote: Riv
                        For the Germans, "wherever you wave your hand, we will go there."

                        It was understood that at the tactical level, the Wehrmacht command had room for attack. The advantage of the attacker.
                        Or do you think that Manstein dropped a text message to Vatutin - "Wait. Attacking your positions in the deployment of such and such divisions" or "My units will go in such and such direction"?
                        I want to reassure you that there isn’t, the defending side waited and concentrated forces in the direction of the most probable strike (here as in the preference - like a card you know who has what, but who has which ones and how it will go. You have to assume.) Which fell on the 6th and 7th Guards Army according to the scheme.

                        Quote: Riv
                        There were not two directions of German strikes

                        I was not talking about secondary (spare) directions, but about the main ones, of which, as you indicated, there were two.

                        Quote: Riv
                        the steppe, then what was difficult, taking advantage of the high maneuverability of the T-34, anywhere around the Germans and cut off the erupted parts

                        I will assume that there are two problems.
                        1) Prokhorovka was a railway junction and the most likely location of depots with fuel and ammunition for the first two lines of defense.
                        2) Psel River
                        And the main problem - after Prokhorovka, the defense lines ended.

                        We agree that the Germans are not fools.
                        Considering that the tank doesn’t drive in a holy spirit, it eats fuel so that it doesn’t jump over obstacles in the form of rivers, and no one will just let you cross in a combat situation. It was possible to get around only from the side of the 40th army, from the west rel. Prokhorovki, because in the east rel. fights were going on just as well and it was possible to get counterattack on the flank.
                        At the same time, it was not possible to cross the river (the fords were probably mined, the bridges were destroyed either by them (so as not to put our flank under attack) or by us (to prevent the enemy from moving west, creating the possibility of a boiler for the 38th and 40th army)) . Without bridges / fords, engineering means are needed for the crossing, and one way or another, the time for erection / clearance and crossing.
                        There is only a blow to the forehead in order to prevent the development of the attack.

                        Quote: Riv
                        A "wide tank strike" - this is probably some kind of the latest novelty in tactics?

                        Sori was drunk. Will the term "Wide Front" suit you better?
                        What did he mean ... (conditionally) that the tanks did not go in a convoy, but in a line, thereby creating more pressure on the enemy’s defense. In the case of a column of anti-tank equipment and tanks of the enemy simply shot going as in a dash.

                        P.S. In my opinion, we are talking about the same thing in general, without converging in small nuances. We would have a beer on a keg, kilometers of terrain and we would have solved them vividly;)
                      3. Riv
                        Riv 11 December 2015 10: 34 New
                        0
                        Damn ... Once again: the Germans in the summer of the 43rd year had a strategic initiative. Are you up to date with the difference? Tactics include the theory and practice of conducting combat formations, units, units and individual fighters. A strategic initiative implies the possibility for some time to impose one’s will on the adversary in a war as a whole.

                        It was not Konev and Zhukov who forced the Germans to start Operation Citadel. The Germans themselves planned and started it, but ours had to build a defense and wait for the strike. And already in the course of the battle, the Germans lost their strategic initiative. Operational-tactical - they kept it on, but tactics indirectly affects the outcome of the war. This is the meaning of the Battle of Kursk, and not the fact that someone was "broken" there.

                        Now a nuance: tanks and infantry can be quickly transferred to another sector of the front and the operation there. Or change the direction of the strike, which the Germans did. Therefore, during the operation, the "main" change direction and the "most important" are rare. But the strategic defense to another place is not so easy to drag, which is illustrated by the diagram. From prepared lines, troops have to be moved into the field. What ours did. The Germans eventually broke through the defense on the southern face. This is called "going out into the open space". Now it was possible to "give up and the tanks drove off." Ahead is a small barrier, behind it is the Russian rear, break in anywhere. Russian tank reserves will not be able to respond to the rapidly changing situation. Kursk will be taken, the Russian troops on the ledge will be left without supplies, the goal of the operation has been achieved. Alles gut.

                        That is, the Germans were not going to gain a foothold at the turn of Prokhorovka. For them, this meant losing. Refuel tanks, load ammunition - and go until the Russian reserves come up. But they did come ...

                        But why am I explaining all this? .. :(
                      4. Shadowcat
                        Shadowcat 14 December 2015 14: 51 New
                        0
                        Quote: Riv
                        Once again: in the summer of the year 43, the Germans had a strategic initiative.

                        Here I do not agree with fifty percent. Near Kursk there was a moment of truth where the scales to swing and in this battle it was just decided who would have a strategic initiative.
                        I hope you will not deny that in 2 years (from the summer of the 41st to the summer of the 43rd) she passed from the Wehrmacht to the USSR and vice versa?
                        By the time of the Battle of Kursk, both sides came very battered - the USSR after the heavy defense of Leningrad, Stalingrad and the Caucasus; The Wehrmacht after the loss of the 6th Army (and this is not counting the allies), which, olya-la-la, before that had bent the most powerful army in Europe and marched around Paris.
                        In any case, both fighters needed a lull. Tighten reserves, etc. And here the question arises: can we ... after all, before that the summer German beat us ...
                        By the way, many generals, Kluge, Guderian, and the Model generally wanted to go on the defensive.
                        But the Fuehrer said jump and they jumped to see the Citadel.
                        By the way, why then were the operations "Kutuzov" and "Rumyantsev" developed? And the main task is to wear down the enemy in defense and then carry out an offensive


                        Quote: Riv
                        But strategic defense to another place is so easy not to drag

                        It is strange that neither Leningrad, nor Stalingrad, nor Moscow was then taken. No, I'm serious.
                        Quote: Riv
                        tanks and infantry can be quickly relocated to another sector of the front and transfer the operation there.

                        The main thing is to do this so that reconnaissance is not detected, otherwise you can prepare a dangerous section for defense. Concentrate artillery and direct aircraft for salvos.
                        Quote: Riv
                        Or change the direction of the strike, which the Germans did.

                        And I do not deny it anywhere. Never counted Germans (Dostevesky).
                        Quote: Riv
                        From prepared lines troops have to be moved to the field

                        So for the protocol. There were three lines of defense and the withdrawal from the broken line is quite reasonable for leveling the front. Also, the Russian General Staff is also not (Dostaevsky) and took into account the errors of 41st-42nd.
                        If possible, tell me what is the use of the units on the broken line except the possibility of the formation of a boiler around them and delaying troops? It is wiser to move to pre-prepared positions.
                        With regard to collisions in the field, it was also possible (I don’t know. I didn’t see any material on this), but because of a sharp change in the situation at the front and in contact with the enemy during the movement. Here they either shoot back or surrender. Otherwise, just as partridges they will shoot and they will not ask the name.
                        On the other hand, to go after these parts was more profitable because they knew where there were no mines.

                        Quote: Riv
                        That is, the Germans were not going to gain a foothold at the turn of Prokhorovka.

                        You are again trying to ascribe to me what I did not say. And I didn’t say that at all. The Germans were forced to stop and move on to temporary defense (before the approach of their reserves and supplies), and after that the selflessness of the defenders and counterattacks of the tankers of Rotmistrov retreat.
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 9 December 2015 08: 57 New
    +2
    Quote: Riv
    The author contradicts himself. If, as he believes, in the 43 year the Wehrmacht was stronger than the Red Army, then why look for ways to reconciliation? On the contrary: you need to increase efforts. Another blow-and the USSR will collapse.

    I think the author’s thought is that the Wehrmacht, while still stronger, was still not strong enough for a quick successful victory. The United States, for example, is today stronger than Russia - this is an obvious fact. But it is also an obvious fact - in the event of a major war, the United States will not be able to defeat us quickly and with small losses, or maybe they won’t be able to. Examples of the sea - Vietnam, by the way, where the United States was stronger at times, but lost the war.
    1. Riv
      Riv 9 December 2015 10: 22 New
      0
      The USA today is not stronger than Russia. Afghanistan, in which the United States has not been able to cope with spirits for years, guarantees this. The huge fleet and aviation do not guarantee victory on land, and taking into account the WMD, the confrontation resembles a duel in which the chance to get 100% and the chance that the enemy manages to fire in response is also 100%. The only draw strategy here is not to shoot.
      The Wehrmacht in the 41st was inferior to the Red Army both numerically and as an weapon. However, the Germans reached Moscow. Conclusion: power is a relative concept.
      1. Gorinich
        Gorinich 9 December 2015 13: 45 New
        0
        Thinking overseas has not changed. They build missile defense precisely in order to exclude the factor of nuclear weapons.
      2. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 9 December 2015 16: 48 New
        +1
        Quote: Riv
        The Wehrmacht in the 41st was inferior to the Red Army both numerically and as an weapon.

        Scolded himself. Where did he concede? Is that current on paper. And only when comparing one Wehrmacht with the Red Army. But in reality ... Do you know what the state of wartime and peace is? What is the state of the staff? So, for example, the largest formations of the Red Army at the beginning of the war were formations near Leningrad (about 10k people per division), in the center and in the south there was a staff of 4-6k people. With the military about 14.5k. Against the 16k division of the Wehrmacht.
        The quality of the weapons ... except that the SVT rifle was cooler than the infantry, but difficult to maintain / manufacture (therefore it was not popular in the army). Otherwise, the same machine gun + rifle. Tanks? Current is not necessary about a million t-34s and HF in garages at Stalin's dacha. There were a few of them, the main backbone is the tanks of previous generations.
        1. Olezhek
          9 December 2015 17: 30 New
          0
          except that the SVT rifle was cooler from the infantry, but difficult to maintain / manufacture (therefore, it was not popular among the troops). The rest of the same machine gun + rifle. Tanks?


          A colleague, I strongly advise you to seriously study the issue, for example, on tanks, their designs and production volumes ...
          1. Shadowcat
            Shadowcat 10 December 2015 04: 22 New
            0
            Comrade, I agree so.
            But drawing an analogy with modern realities - We have an Armata tank platform preparing for launch and several vehicles that are being tested. With the realities at the beginning of the war, this episode was a little later, state acceptance and checks were completed, tanks began to enter the troops. Yes, modern, having no analogues in the world at that time. But without a crew, fuel and shells, it's just a box.
            We will also take into account the size of the land border and I think that you understand that, if I remember correctly, at the beginning of the war there were about 10k tanks in the troops (By the way, it is not a fact that they were distributed in units, since I recently read that "in the troops" was considered when the army men signed at the factory acceptance certificate. In fact, they could still be not even loaded on the train) and this is a drop in the bucket.
            In addition, it is now clear that Germany was ready to fight, but those realities still had good neighbors besides the Reich in the form of Turkey, British India, and Japan.
            The rest of the tanks that were T-26, BT of various modifications, T-28
            1. Riv
              Riv 11 December 2015 10: 42 New
              0
              ... any of which any German tank could penetrate, as they say, "into any projection" ... By the way, how many of the same T-34s and KVs were produced before June 22, 1941, do you recall?
        2. Riv
          Riv 11 December 2015 10: 39 New
          0
          Yes, even brighten up, and Suvorov / Rezun in this part of his books is useless to refute. Where pure statistics are, he did a tremendous job. The Red Army was stronger than the Wehrmacht. So much so that even having suffered the hardest damage in the 41st and in the 42nd years still ended the war in Berlin.
  • Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 9 December 2015 08: 49 New
    +1
    "Everything has its own time, and the time of every thing under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; time to plant, and time to tear out the planted;"

    Now, apparently, it is time to pull out the planted. In any case, planted by amers - fascists in Kiev, Wahhabis in Syria and Iraq - for sure.

    The next invasion of Euro-Neanderthals on Russia failed.
  • Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 9 December 2015 08: 50 New
    +1
    I have a suspicion that the current drawdown in oil prices is a gambit. But I just can’t express it, I don’t get the information, but there is a suspicion ... How I am warming - I smell it, but I can’t explain.
    As the wise Chinese used to say - "There is nothing worse and exciting than living in an era of change."
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 9 December 2015 08: 50 New
    +8
    By the way, in the light of the considerations of this article, it becomes clear why we climb into Syria and do not climb to Ukraine. If our confrontation is for a long time, then the reference point in the Mediterranean Sea in the form of the saved Assad can cost much more than Ukraine, which is within reach. You can go to Ukraine at any time. You will never enter Syria unless you enter now.
    The war is now more sophisticated - economic-military with a focal character.
  • klaus16
    klaus16 9 December 2015 08: 51 New
    +4
    For the West, waiting means giving Russia time to mature. Therefore, the sooner they start, the higher the probability that we will fall. They started. And it’s really hard for us. I think the time of the backstage war is over. Because the bed from them is no longer covered, arrogant. They will not back down, it is visible. They are going to the bank. But we need to stay, and not step back a single step. Otherwise they’ll tear it apart. GOD help us.
  • kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 9 December 2015 08: 53 New
    +3
    We didn’t come up with the slogan: "If you want peace, prepare for war", but we should not forget about it, history does not forgive such frivolity! And in the modern world, only the strong is respected, capable of giving an adequate answer without much hesitation! And that is why our Western "not quite partners" were so dumbfounded and perplexed by the events in Syria, who rushed to bury Russia so early! Only mediocre students of the "possessed Fuhrer" do not learn from the lessons of the past!
  • Igor39
    Igor39 9 December 2015 08: 55 New
    +3
    “The fact is that by December 2014 it became clear that the economic blitzkrieg against Russia had failed. Russia again stood firm ...”

    The situation is no easier from hour to hour, oil and gas prices have fallen, debts are not being repaid, Ukraine, Turkey are fueling the situation, I hope for competent management decisions.
  • stayer
    stayer 9 December 2015 08: 56 New
    +8
    Once, Kutuzov answered Napoleon’s offer of surrender: Yes, I will retreat to Kamchatka, but I will not give up.
    Why did the author decide that the Wehrmacht could win this war? Have you ever looked at a map? Hitler and 20% of the territory could not take, much less hold. Without going into political subtleties, the outcome of the war could be calculated after the attack in June 41st. Rollback of industry to the east, resumption of production, deterrence and counterattacks, then offensive and destruction.
    Hitler's global mistake was that he thought that the Russians, like the Europeans, would give up, that they hated Stalin and the regime. But the Russians were not fighting for the ruler, and were not going to surrender for their homeland.
    The author reflects just like Hitler at the beginning of the war. Like there is no point in fighting until the last soldier and an early victory will be. The Russians will surrender, etc. And after that he already realized that he had awakened a force that he was not able to calm. Suicide is a natural outcome.
    1. glotich
      glotich 9 December 2015 09: 38 New
      +2
      I will support your every word, Hitler did not take into account the peculiarity of our People, neither the size of our Country, nor the climate. It was possible to read German memories of the Eastern Front, and many of them realized that having attacked the USSR, they had already lost this war.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Olezhek
        9 December 2015 14: 12 New
        0
        Something like this ...
        (my opinion)
    2. Olezhek
      9 December 2015 14: 04 New
      +2
      Why did the author decide that the Wehrmacht could have won this war? Never looked at the map? Hitler and 20% of the territory could not take, much less hold.


      Yeah - look at a map of population densities. 20% territory ...
      The Wehrmacht had good chances, but .. no luck ..
      The front could fall apart in the summer of 41 of the year ..
      No fate C.
      The Great Patriotic War is not really a fabulous epic of heroes and gods ...
      1. stayer
        stayer 9 December 2015 20: 36 New
        0
        Oleg, you have an interesting article, but some European train of thought. Not in the sense of being bad or something like that. And the fact that everything is pragmatic and logical. Like, well, it didn’t succeed on the move, it’s necessary to make peace, they say it always has been. And it was not patriotic Hitler who rested himself and humiliated his people. Did he have a choice? Would Stalin agree to peace? Of course no.
        PS. By the way, in your article you are cunning that there have been no attempts to conclude peace. German Ambassador Schelenberg in 43-44 years repeatedly tried on behalf of Ribbentrop (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) to make peace through Sweden and Switzerland. However, one must understand here that in politics (as in chess) they often sacrifice some pieces for the sake of Victory. Stalin did not make sense to make peace, despite the impending casualties. The USSR greatly increased its influence in Europe and the world as a whole. Having made peace, Stalin would have lost far more. Therefore, all attempts by parliamentarians failed.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. topical
          topical 9 December 2015 20: 55 New
          0
          Quote: stayer
          Oleg, you have an interesting article, but some European train of thought

          Quote: stayer
          Stalin did not make sense to make peace, despite the impending casualties. The USSR greatly increased its influence in Europe and the world as a whole. Having made peace, Stalin would have lost far more.

          What's your train of thought? If there is some ephemeral "influence in Europe and the world in general" you put above the human lives of compatriots.
          Where is your "influence in Europe and the world in general"? And there are no children and grandchildren of the killed compatriots, and they certainly will not be.
          Or is this not your point of view and you just decided to focus on the logic of actions of Dzhugashvili?
          1. stayer
            stayer 9 December 2015 21: 09 New
            0
            Politics is a cruel and dirty business. Human emotions have no meaning here. The loss of the N-th number of human resources is secondary. It's like a chess game, only harder and bloodier. A real politician in history is guided by other principles that are different from the everyday man in the street. Such were Stalin and Hitler, Churchill and De Gaulle. Our President Putin is the same. Therefore, whatever it was, he has already gone down in history.
            PS. Do you doubt that the USSR had influence in Europe and the world?
            1. topical
              topical 9 December 2015 21: 17 New
              0
              Quote: stayer
              The loss of the N-th number of human resources is secondary.

              You know, after the "human resource", which is secondary, I do not want to communicate with you. We will not find a common language.
              PS. I wish you and your loved ones not to become a "secondary human resource".
              1. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Olezhek
          10 December 2015 08: 31 New
          0
          German ambassador Shelenberg in 43-44 repeatedly tried on the instructions of Ribbentrop (MFA) to make peace through Sweden and Switzerland.


          With the US / Britain, yes, I tried.
    3. Riv
      Riv 11 December 2015 12: 51 New
      0
      20% of the territory, you say? But also the 17% that they managed to really capture - also, as it were, not bad? The point is not in her, but in what to capture. What are the goals of the blitzkrieg? Destroy the cadre army, seize industrial areas, take Moscow (we have it, as it turned out, the main transport hub of the country). Broke off. During the winter, the Wehrmacht made up for the losses, the Russians arranged Kharkov and tried to overcome the Caucasus. What for? Oil. The USSR did not have other sources. To guarantee - take Stalingrad and control the Volga. It didn’t work out again.

      Total: of the five strategic goals, only one was achieved - the capture of an industrially developed territory, but even then the Russians managed to export the plants to the Urals. This failure was the beginning of the end of the war, and not that Hitler made a mistake with the goals. The goals were correct, but the strengths were not the same ...
  • starchina pv
    starchina pv 9 December 2015 08: 57 New
    +3
    History repeats itself !!! no matter how many rotters we are, we will survive !!!
  • guzik007
    guzik007 9 December 2015 08: 59 New
    +2
    Stalin was not going to fight with him
    ------------------------------------
    I read it exactly to this point and realized, further on, complete nonsense What kind of world, what kind of truce Stalin would not even consider this proposal. The people would simply not understand him.
    1. Olezhek
      9 December 2015 09: 22 New
      +6
      Stalin would not even consider this proposal.


      You know Stalin very badly.
      It is interesting to release the entire USSR by negotiations.
      Yes, and in post-war Europe questions would be raised ...
  • Moore
    Moore 9 December 2015 09: 00 New
    +2
    I liked the article.
    Still, the ideological background of the campaign to the East, I believe, was very, very significant - after all, before that, the states and their armies still had some idea of ​​the rules of warfare, but here ...
    That is the question for the author: what, in his opinion, should the conditions of peace on the Eastern Front be?
    This is after what Ubernschians created there in the occupied territories?
    1. Olezhek
      9 December 2015 09: 10 New
      +4
      in January 42 Hitler could offer peace
      in February 43 ask for peace ... But not unsuccessfully .. (in my opinion)
      Conditions - well, I'm not really a remover - a very difficult question. But solvable.
      For Stalin, it would be more interesting than to destroy the country and then encounter fresh and well-fed Yankes and Tommy (not so fresh) in 2 of the year.
  • afrikanez
    afrikanez 9 December 2015 09: 07 New
    +1
    Thank God. that Germany no longer has politicians like Hitler. None of which Stanmeier stood nearby, not to mention Merkel. this is not politics but dolls!
    1. ALEA IACTA EST
      ALEA IACTA EST 9 December 2015 09: 32 New
      0
      Traded a psycho for boobies. It didn’t even make soap ...
  • Stepan stepanovich
    Stepan stepanovich 9 December 2015 09: 09 New
    0
    The author must write novels!
  • Vorchun
    Vorchun 9 December 2015 09: 17 New
    +1
    "... And it was Hitler who should have made the proposal for peace (he started this war). ..." What is it like - like, type is not clear?
  • Svarog5570
    Svarog5570 9 December 2015 09: 17 New
    +3
    Do you want Russian war, you ask the silence.
    you ask those soldiers that are under the birches.
    All the wars that Russia waged and which will be defensive, we never attacked first, although sometimes it is necessary to preempt
    1. S_last
      S_last 9 December 2015 19: 34 New
      0
      You reminded me of an old joke. It was just said there as Russians over 500 years, they increased the size of the state from the Moscow region to 1/6 of the land and all thanks to the liberation wars.
  • ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 9 December 2015 09: 20 New
    +1
    Would the war end if the July 20 conspiracy succeeded? Would the Wehrmacht cease fire? Would cease fire on the Wehrmacht?
  • corn
    corn 9 December 2015 09: 21 New
    +1
    The complete lack of logic in the article. Let me give you an example from the field of boxing: the opponent in the corner, most of the ring is behind me, before that I delivered the opponent much more effective punches than he did to me. With what fright should I initiate negotiations (Hitler's position). Now
    Stalin's position: negotiations with Hitler are a very high probability of losing personal power, which is unacceptable to Stalin.
    Well, and why is my logic worse than logic (or lack thereof) than the author.
    If grandmother had ... laughing
    And the fight for geopolitical interests has not been canceled. And we are ready to destroy the United States to the same extent as they do us, but unfortunately they are stronger economically (for those who want to challenge the economic issue, I indicate the future path to ... or to ...).
    1. Olezhek
      9 December 2015 09: 26 New
      +3
      I will give an example from the field of boxing: the opponent in the corner, most of the ring is after me


      laughing Yes, in boxing - the main thing is to capture the ring !!

      Continuing the analogy - in February 43, Hitler could no longer knock out Stalin unequivocally.

      Stalin's position: negotiations with Hitler - a very high probability of losing personal power


      Then Stalin strengthened the "vertical of power" so that no one in 41-42 meters (when the country was on the verge of defeat) would not even think ...
      But the negotiations would definitely be profitable for the USSR.
      1. corn
        corn 9 December 2015 09: 38 New
        0
        Quote: Olezhek
        But the negotiations would definitely be profitable for the USSR.

        In the absence of Ukraine, Belarus, part of the Krasnodar Territory and the underdevelopment of everything beyond the Urals?


        "so that no one in 41-42 meters (when the country was on the verge of defeat) would not even think ..."
        After the peace treaty, they would have thought as well.
        Everyone thinks he is a strategist seeing the fight from the side.
        1. corn
          corn 9 December 2015 13: 08 New
          0
          I understand the author’s perception of my comment; I’m not very pleased when I spent significant efforts, but they (efforts) do not bring the dividends I was counting on.
  • sa-zz
    sa-zz 9 December 2015 09: 22 New
    +3
    And why is it not said about who "raised" Hitler?
    The article should be intended for Europeans.
    Maybe something will come before it's too late.
  • anip
    anip 9 December 2015 09: 23 New
    0
    In fact, there was somehow information that when the Wehrmacht stood near Moscow (both before the Moscow battle and after the onset of the spacecraft), the Germans, through some channels, turned to Stalin with proposals to conclude a peace treaty. Stalin "sent" them.
    1. RPG_
      RPG_ 9 December 2015 09: 46 New
      +2
      There is no documentary evidence of this, so most likely this was not. Unlike trying to make peace with England.
  • DMB78
    DMB78 9 December 2015 09: 23 New
    +2
    Russia was, is and will be great! And what about making competent decisions ... First of all, in such a difficult situation, it is necessary to remove the "fifth columns" in Tatarstan, the Crimean Tatars, etc. When Richard Sorge sent a message to the center that Japan could side with Germany, an unspoken order was issued by the NKVD - Remove all foreigners from the Far East. Within a week, all this was quickly done, even if there was an agent network, it was gone, but I am sure that our management will make competent decisions. soldier
  • Tolstoevsky
    Tolstoevsky 9 December 2015 09: 26 New
    0
    it was written by Makarevich
  • Oprichnik
    Oprichnik 9 December 2015 09: 28 New
    +1
    The purpose of the second M.V. was the destruction and reduction of the numbers of Russians, Slavs, Germans.
    As a result, the weakening of the states inhabited by these peoples, the acquisition of control by financial corporations and cartels over the territory and resources of these countries. The leaders and instigators are the Jewish-Masonic "elite". And this is happening now. I do not confuse Jews with Jews. Well, we, Russians, interfere with these Jews to establish world domination. Everything is always carried out by them according to the principle: "recalcitrant peoples" play off and wage wars with their own hands to the point of complete exhaustion of themselves. War doesn't help? They establish their own laws: legalization of same-sex marriage, non-resistance to evil by violence, tolerance, destruction of health care and a decrease in educational level, distortion of history. It turns out that there is no conspiracy here. It's time to take off your rose-colored glasses !!!
  • Old jew
    Old jew 9 December 2015 09: 33 New
    +3
    It seems to me that almost all (with rare exceptions), both professional and "amateurs", historians of Russia make a big mistake when they consider the confrontation between Germany and Russia in World War II, so to speak "tete in tete", in isolation from the role and influence that rendered on them by the so-called "allies". Well, for example, the author says that Stalin did not seek to conclude a separate peace with Hitler. But there is evidence that this is far from the case. It is clear that all this is hidden under a very thick "cloth", and it is almost impossible to find documentary evidence of this, but something that still leaks out. For example, there is evidence that Stalin conducted separate negotiations with Hitler in 1941, when the situation near Moscow was catastrophic and the USSR did not receive help from the allies, except for verbal support. But the German side then put forward unrealizable demands in advance, as it was dragging out time waiting for Japan to enter the war against the USSR. However, Japan did not enter the war against the USSR. Why? The question is interesting, and not at all because I "got it on the hat" at Khalkhin Gol, although this also played a role, now is not about that, this is another interesting topic. Negotiations on a separate peace with Germany were resumed once again, after the Crimean catastrophe, but they were already known to the "allies" of the USSR, who fought this war "to the last German and Soviet soldier" and who under no circumstances wanted it, then, the end (not for that they unleashed it) and therefore Stalin was offered the broadest economic and military assistance in the war, so long as he did not conclude a separate peace with Germany. It was then that Lend Lease began to flow like a wide river in the USSR. And in 1943, Stalin no longer needed to enter into separate negotiations with Germany, then the situation had already changed and Germany began to look for opportunities for such negotiations with the United States and England (so to speak, go to "plan" B "which was" agreed "in advance after the flight Hess) .However, Hitler was "thrown" by his secret well-wishers and patrons from the USA and England. The war "until the last German and Soviet soldier" was to continue and the USA and England did not consider the time suitable for such contacts and resumed them only in 1944, when it became clear that delaying such negotiations would lead to the complete occupation of all of Europe by the Soviet army.
    1. Olezhek
      9 December 2015 10: 03 New
      +2
      Well, for example, the author says that Stalin did not seek to conclude a separate peace with Hitler. But there is evidence that this is far from the case. It is clear that all this is hidden under a very thick "cloth",


      At the very beginning of the war - yes - it was Adyn times.
      Having received a "shock" Stalin did not return to this topic (there was no point)
      But he was not a cratin to ask every six months "can we make up?"

      "Thick Cloth" is a conspiracy theory ...
  • Gardamir
    Gardamir 9 December 2015 09: 34 New
    +6
    The introduction is beautiful, and if it were not for the last paragraph, we could have put a plus. But why did the author decide that we, somewhere, have defeated someone? For some reason it seems to me that now is not 43, but only the beginning of 41, that is, the war has not yet begun. There are numerous provocations. We are losing in foreign policy, remember the anti-doping campaign, now the IMF is revising the rules for the sake of Krajina. But the authorities are happy to rob the people, allegedly because of the war. Not only "Platon", all of Moscow is becoming paid parking. although a year ago the reindeer herder swore and swore that only the center would be paid. And if Plato is being introduced, then why else are they making toll roads (http://izvestia.ru/news/598691)?
  • Per se.
    Per se. 9 December 2015 09: 40 New
    +3
    I wanted to consider the Eastern Front of Germany in World War II, but not from a military point of view, but ... from a political point of view.
    To consider the topic in this way, the author first of all needs to remember what forces brought Hitler to power, that is, who "ordered the tune." The same Erdogan had more from Russia than from his allies, but ordered to shoot down our bomber. Putin said that “Allah took away his mind,” but not Allah, but his masters, the Anglo-Saxons, and not reason, but independence. Returning to Hitler, he also had a lot from the USSR, trains to Germany with grain and strategic raw materials went regularly until the very moment of the German attack. What did they lack? India, Egypt, the African colonies in general, which the Germans dreamed of before the First World War, were much more attractive and wiser than a trip to snow-covered Russia, which could already supply Germany with practically everything. We have cooperated with the Germans in the military sphere since the 20s, after that, in the navy, and with Italy. Why attack? Why in 1940, having overturned France, Hitler stopped Guderian's tanks for three days, allowing the British to dump from near Dunkirk? Finish off the Germans near the straits, and England was left without an army, and with someone else's hands, there was no one to attach to work for the benefit of the British crown. In order to understand what is happening, one must first understand that the center of world capitalism has already taken shape, the Anglo-Saxons and their world transnational corporations have become the leader. By and large, the war was ruled not by the Fuhrer, but by the same Rothschilds and Rockefellers, who did not need an independent Russia with its uncontrolled socialism. Hitler could not but attack, just as he could not stop in the middle of the war, for this he was created, for this Germany was allowed to violate the restrictions of Versailles, create a powerful army and navy, expand the borders of the Reich. Neither can modern Europe stop, the EU is not ruled by the rag Hollande and not the playful Merkel. Even our Russia is not completely free now, it is not immediately possible to get rid of the rot that, like gangrene, struck our power under Yeltsin. Having done away with internal parasites, it will be possible to talk about a transition from dependent "liberal capitalism" to a more independent social capitalism, an independent renewed socialism, with a genuine multipolar world. As for Europe, Russia will either have to free it again from the pole of power of the Satanists-Anglo-Saxons, or by some miracle, socialism will come to Germany, the beautiful and clever Sarah Wagenknecht will become chancellor.
  • ARES623
    ARES623 9 December 2015 09: 44 New
    0
    "I wanted to consider the Eastern Front of Germany in World War II, but not from a military point of view, but ... from a political one."
    In order to consider the Eastern Front (the author, judging by his surname, is Russian, but considers the events in German terminology, it is already interesting), especially trying to separate the war from politics, one must have something behind the soul, in the sense of convictions, and behind the back , in the sense of life experience. And it would not be bad to get acquainted with the actual side, in advance. Phrases like “I don’t understand all this ideological hysteria at all: well, you decided to conquer the lands in the East - go ahead! Didn't it work? - sign a peace treaty!”, They say that the author has a couple of chess games in three moves from experience and sagging sofa. Characteristics of the leading leaders of those events are generally far-fetched based on the school history textbook. "But Stalin was not" weak-willed and spineless "and did not suffer excessive idealism", "But Hitler, in my opinion, hated the Russians much more than he loved the Germans. Because he killed and tortured Russians, of course, a lot, but with the subsequent fate Somehow he didn't bother with the Germans. And it’s strange for a “German patriot” as they like to portray him “- what is all this? Psychological analysis of personalities, characteristics? The entire article on a serious, in general, topic is an immature creation of a person who has read a paragraph in a textbook, so to speak - first impressions of an unknown event. We, of course, all have the right to express our own views, but THIS (article) is not serious ...
    1. Olezhek
      9 December 2015 11: 08 New
      +1
      I have long tried to understand how the "best German patriot" Hitler brought Germany to the Zugunder ...
      So far unsuccessfully.
  • bear
    bear 9 December 2015 09: 50 New
    +2
    I respect Stalin !!! Powerful politician and leader. Right now, this.
  • Old jew
    Old jew 9 December 2015 09: 51 New
    +1
    Per se, sorry I can’t give you a plus (there are not enough comments for this).
    1. Olezhek
      9 December 2015 10: 31 New
      0
      Not the essence - your comment is big and interesting (above).
  • Maksim
    Maksim 9 December 2015 09: 57 New
    +1
    I am reading an article, an interesting, special view and here is a quote:
    "You see, the military victory of the Wehrmacht had a completely non-zero probability, it was possible, moreover, it was more likely than the victory of the Red Army (IMHO)"
    This "IMHO" only made me so angry?
  • Taoist
    Taoist 9 December 2015 10: 03 New
    +1
    The article is certainly interesting, but it has a very incomplete feeling. In any case, no intelligible version was heard. But in fact ... In principle, there is no mystery here. Yes, history is not a rigidly defined vector. There are always so-called points of "bifurcation", the change in which often occurs on the basis of a mere trifle (a kind of "butterfly effect") - let us recall at least the same RJW - which RI could not lose by definition, nevertheless lost, which certainly predetermined, among other things and the collapse of the empire itself ...

    In the situation considered in this article, one should rather talk about "the role of the individual in history" - yes, the IVS was a pragmatist and a completely rational person. But "Aloyzevich" was a mystic, and a very hysterical person making decisions mainly under the influence of emotions and with faith in his own divine providence. As a result, we have quite a classical result. It was not for nothing that the Fuhrer, with almost Eastern fatalism, stubbornly declared that a people unable to achieve victory did not deserve to exist ... And the Germans were let down by their almost genetic obedience to their superiors. Even Schaufenberg's attempt was undertaken even when it would have had little impact on events ... hesitated for too long.

    So there is no mystery in all this ... Just one more illustration about "the role of personality in History".
  • solovey
    solovey 9 December 2015 10: 06 New
    +2
    The main conclusion of the article is not to panic at a difficult moment !!!
  • crazy_fencer
    crazy_fencer 9 December 2015 10: 10 New
    +2
    Stalin would never have agreed to a truce with Hitler for simple pragmatic reasons. It's like having a serious illness. If you do not heal, you will get a relapse, which will be even more difficult to cure. And then in general you will be bent. And since, as the author quite rightly points out, he did not suffer from idiocy at all, he perfectly understood from which countries and from which banking structures the legs of this war were growing. And in the same way he clearly understood - go to a truce with Hitler, and in a few years the war would repeat itself. Moreover, those countries that were formally part of the anti-Hitler coalition and were considered as "allies" can easily take part in the "crusade against Bolshevism" together with Hitler (or his successor). If anyone does not remember, the German invasion of the USSR went exactly under this slogan. That is, most likely, it would have happened. As for Hitler, it's even easier. Where could he go after such loot was thrown into him? Only to resist to the end, whatever that end may be. And if you die, so taking with you as many people as possible. Including German. He said at the end of the war that Germany must die along with the Germans. Well, that's ...
    And the understanding that the "Russian question" could not be resolved by military measures was ripe for many German generals by the end of 1941, when it became clear that the Barbarossa plan, to put it mildly, was slipping, and the planned launch of the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line by the beginning of winter is not expected ... It ended with the famous explosion in the bunker. Also unsuccessful.
    1. Olezhek
      9 December 2015 15: 03 New
      0
      Stalin would never go on a truce with Hitler from a simple pragmatic consideration. It's like a serious illness. Gone short - you get a relapse,


      According to the results of WWII, we reached the final for the USA, which no one bombed and the British Empire, which was bombed much less.
      How to treat them ??
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 9 December 2015 10: 48 New
    0
    But in February 1943 no one turned to Stalin with proposals for peace and, apparently, was not going to appeal.

    A little later turned. Japanese.
    Another crazy plan has ripened in their Foreign Ministry: they offer themselves as a mediator in the negotiations between the Reich and the USSR, and for this the USSR becomes an intermediary in the negotiations between Japan and the USA.
    The Japanese were politely sent, but they did not calm down and continued to appeal. However, by 1945, the first paragraph of the program somehow fell away and only the second remained: the mediation of the neutral USSR in the peace negotiations of the Japs and Yankees. The Japanese made proposals about this almost before the start of the Manchu operation ...
    The whole joke is that the Japanese so wanted the USSR to become a mediator that they assured themselves that in the end he would definitely become one, but for now he was waiting for a profitable offer. The session of self-hypnosis lasted until August 1945 - and after that there was a severe break in the template (see Hattori or Horikoshi).
  • Jack-b
    Jack-b 9 December 2015 10: 49 New
    0
    But in February 1943 no one turned to Stalin with proposals for peace and, apparently, was not going to appeal.

    Hitler and Stalin were both not fools. And both understood that after the violation of one peace treaty (non-aggression), hoping that the second will be respected can only be * censored * (stupid person). So the article is a priori wrong message. Accordingly, the conclusions to hell.
    1. Olezhek
      9 December 2015 10: 58 New
      0
      Hitler and Stalin were both not fools. And both understood that after the violation of one peace treaty (non-aggression)


      Both were cynical politicians ...

      And in politics pink snot is not allowed ... request
  • Heimdall48
    Heimdall48 9 December 2015 10: 50 New
    0
    But Hitler preferred to go with the flow ...

    Adolf did not swim with the flow, but fought to the limit with evil in the form in which he imagined it - Bolshevism. He had no reverse gear and no compromise was possible. Plus, he relied on mystical considerations.
    You like it or not, but even in February 1943 the Wehrmacht was perhaps stronger than the Red Army

    He was stronger and 44 too. But as a state, the Third Reich was weaker than the USSR from the very beginning. And this is more important.
    1. ARES623
      ARES623 9 December 2015 11: 20 New
      0
      Quote: Heimdall48
      He was stronger and 44 too. But as a state, the Third Reich was weaker than the USSR from the very beginning.

      What about the rationale?
      1. Heimdall48
        Heimdall48 9 December 2015 11: 43 New
        0
        If we compare by the size of the army and the number of equipment, then the Red Army always superior to the Wehrmacht. But these indicators cannot be an objective criterion. Such, in my opinion, is superiority in the tactics and use of existing weapons.
        In these indicators, the Wehrmacht has always surpassed the Red Army.
        Another thing is that by the end of the war the spacecraft had made great progress and approached the Wehrmacht. But did not surpass them.
        In short -
        If at the beginning of the war the German army could act effectively as a result of a large separation from the enemy in terms of tactical and technical indicators in the conditions of its enormous lag in the number of troops, then at the end of the war such a feint did not roll, because the gap in the technical characteristics was greatly reduced with the same proportion .
        Still - we can never say that the Red Army surpassed the Wehrmacht, since the spacecraft never fought with the balance of power of the parties at which the Wehrmacht fought.
        As for the fact that the USSR as a state was superior to the Third Reich, everything seems to be obvious. The Russian people surpassed the German people in sacrifice and dedication, the communists were able to harness women and children to their machines and achieve exceptional labor productivity. Germany was not capable of this. Their "total war" was much worse than ours.
        1. ARES623
          ARES623 9 December 2015 14: 34 New
          0
          To try to analyze the balance of power in war, you need to learn a little about it. There is nothing under your "superiority in tactics and the use of weapons." Wars are not won by tacticians. This is understandable even in kindergarten.
          Quote: Heimdall48
          we can never say that the Red Army surpassed the Wehrmacht

          Of course, you still won’t be able to say much, because you have no idea how victory is achieved, what qualities the armies compare.
          Quote: Heimdall48
          If at the beginning of the war the German army could act effectively as a result of a large separation from the enemy in terms of tactical and technical indicators in the conditions of its enormous lag in the number of troops, then at the end of the war such a feint did not roll, because the gap in the technical characteristics was greatly reduced with the same proportion .

          I have never met more delirium, even among Suvorov.
          Quote: Heimdall48
          communists were able to harbor women and children

          Whose voice are you singing from? Svanijay smacks of something. You probably live from under the stick, and the labor impulse and dedication are unknown to you. I feel sorry for you, flawed ...
          1. Heimdall48
            Heimdall48 9 December 2015 15: 10 New
            0
            But from you superiority strongly rushing.
            Wars are not won by tactics.

            No - they are not won only by tactics. And armies just do not win. They are won by the state, that is, the totality of all parameters.
            I have never met more delirium, even among Suvorov

            And to justify?
            It’s you who probably live from under the stick, and the labor impulse

            Those. Are you sure that small children purely from a heroic impulse plowed from morning to night? A good state turned a blind eye to this - after all, child labor was prohibited by law.
            Whose voice are you singing from? Svanijay smacks of something.

            You throw these party tricks. If you want to convey something, please speak constructively.
            1. ARES623
              ARES623 10 December 2015 06: 45 New
              0
              Quote: Heimdall48
              If you want to convey something, please speak constructively.

              I went over your comments, and here are the thoughts that came to me: no offense, you are from history as a subject of knowledge, as far as I am from space. Those. theoretically all is not lost, but in practice it is easier to give up. You initially approach your assessment of the Soviet period negatively. Maybe you were oppressed in childhood? I sympathize. You shouldn't be so dismissive about the communists of the wartime, these people were really imprisoned for a just cause, and they themselves went to painful events in the forefront. This is not United Russia for you, although not everything is so mournful there. "Glory to Stalin ....." no one is shouting, but to objectively assess - compare which country he accepted and which he passed - he will give odds to many current leaders (real). I generally keep quiet about the opposition, this is the burial ground of impotent people. Read the story, and not just as narrated by English writers.
              1. Heimdall48
                Heimdall48 10 December 2015 08: 26 New
                0
                You initially approach the assessment of the Soviet period with a negative. Maybe you were oppressed as a child?

                In his childhood, he was pleased with everything, the Soviet government treated me very well smile And healed and taught as required.
                But this does not prevent me from trying to be objective.
                I already wrote once - if a person comes up to you on the street and gives candy, this is not a reason to declare him a saint and follow him into the dark entrance. We have to think - who and why does this.
                Plus, an Orthodox person cannot have any illusions about the Soviet regime. Unless of course he goes to church only for his baptism and burial service. The power that destroyed tens of thousands of clergymen cannot be good, even if it later fed them all with one black caviar.
                Did you explain it clearly? And everything else - about "far from history", United Russia, oppositionists - it's just chatter. You have no idea about my relationship to these subjects.
                1. ARES623
                  ARES623 10 December 2015 10: 11 New
                  0
                  Anger and revenge are a sin!
                  1. Heimdall48
                    Heimdall48 10 December 2015 13: 29 New
                    0
                    Right. So I do not get angry and do not retaliate. Just stating a fact - the Soviet government is criminal in all directions. There were good moments there, of course, it’s a sin to forget about them, but its results as a whole are the corruption and extermination of the Russian people.
              2. topical
                topical 10 December 2015 10: 25 New
                0
                Quote: ARES623
                "Glory to Stalin ....." no one shouts, but objectively assess - compare which country he accepted and which he passed

                Yes, indeed, the people became smaller and he began to live poorer. In addition, the quality of life has become terrible. Than to live with fear, it’s better not to live at all. Because this is not life, this is existence.
                1. ARES623
                  ARES623 10 December 2015 12: 38 New
                  0
                  What are you talking about? Who began to live less? Who has become less? You think it’s better not to live - go and choke. Why put a shadow on the fence?
                  1. topical
                    topical 10 December 2015 12: 45 New
                    0
                    Quote: ARES623
                    You think it’s better not to live - go and choke.

                    Do you have problems understanding what is written in Russian? Apparently, yes. Judging by your comment.
                    1. ARES623
                      ARES623 11 December 2015 22: 26 New
                      0
                      As you wrote, so I understood you:
                      1. You - the people became smaller - 1926 - 148 656 000; 1951 - 182 321 000;
                      2. the people began to live poorer - it is impossible to evaluate, although the assumption (!) That the war in everyone’s pocket rummaged is allowed. I only note that the average life expectancy (as an indicator of the quality of life) rose from 32 in 1917 to 42 in 1941 and 53 in 1950-53.
                      3. Life in fear - depends on the categories. Thieves, parasites, traitors really lived in fear, they did not stand on ceremony especially. With those methods, I think, many who earn their living by their labor (not by renting apartments, not by playing the stock exchange) would agree today. So this is not my problem, but yours. Your bile and arrogance to your interlocutors will not increase your self-esteem.
                      1. topical
                        topical 11 December 2015 23: 53 New
                        0
                        Quote: ARES623
                        1. You - the people became smaller - 1926 - 148 656 000; 1951 - 182 321 000;

                        Why distort so? You would have 1826. have taken. Somehow 15 years before the war, the people still increased. In addition, the Baltic states, Bessarabia, Zap. Ukraine and Belarus are still the population.
                        Then. 1951, this is already 6 years after the war. Kaliningrad region, Transcarpathian, this is still the population. In addition, we do not forget about the natural growth that could have happened in 4 years of the war. So, we don’t need la-la.
                        Quote: ARES623
                        I only note that the average life expectancy (as an indicator of the quality of life) rose from 32 in 1917 to 42 in 1941 and 53 in 1950-53.

                        So she rose all over the world. What kind of medicine appeared. And the USSR is here in the tail of the whole world.
                        Quote: ARES623
                        With those methods, I think, many who earn their living by their labor (not by renting apartments, not by playing the stock exchange) would agree today.

                        Thieves and parasites did not work at the construction sites of socialism. Religion did not allow. And it was necessary to build. Therefore, they took those who would agree today. To have someone to work with.
                        Quote: ARES623
                        and you. Your bile and arrogance to your interlocutors will not increase your self-esteem.

                        Those. if you advised me to strangle myself, but I did not strangle myself, then I am bile and arrogant. You have an interesting interpretation of other people's actions.
                      2. ARES623
                        ARES623 12 December 2015 15: 07 New
                        0
                        About la-la. What do you have against the annexation, or rather the return of our former territories? I would like to note that Russia just bought the Baltics together with the population. Maybe today it sounds crazy, but you need to make a discount on the time, then it was in the order of things. As for the western regions of Ukraine and Belarus, at the time of their reunification, even our "best friend" WC had no objections. So for this situation, the IVS gets +. Maybe you want to blame the IVS for WWII? The war would have happened, even if the country were ruled by Kasyanov and Khodorkovsky, these of course lifted their hands up the hill by 6-00 on June 22, 1941. It is interesting to your remark that "life expectancy has risen for the whole world, and we are there at the end." I would like to note that the whole world is not only a dozen countries of Western Europe. By the way, the historical leadership of WE in technology is very tightly seated on the resources of the colonized countries and was achieved by outright plunder. To some, this way of gaining high prosperity may seem quite acceptable, I think it is not fair. "Thieves and parasites did not work on the construction sites of socialism" - I will try to disappoint you, since 1929 all prisoners have worked. And the "thieves in law" also worked to a greater extent, although in the large body of the Gulag they found themselves warm places without a jigsaw and a pick. Those who did not work died out, the systems of parasites were ground into flour. Therefore, everyone worked. And a lot, a lot of things were built, which we use today. The state is generally an organ of suppression, by definition. And only such a tough system could withstand the German military machine. And today we speak Russian only thanks to the nuclear shield transferred to us by Stalin and Beria. To hate them for this ... well, by the way, the Ukrainians give us shit at the door for free gas and other "goodies". Such, you see, education. Feeling grateful is not a reflex; it is the parent's job. If you do not want to be considered arrogant, write "you" with a capital letter. Or tighten your "Russian" language.
      2. 97110
        97110 9 December 2015 15: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Heimdall48
        communists were able to harbor women and children

        The site is not allowed such as you, worthy to name. Sorry. Minus of course set.
        1. Heimdall48
          Heimdall48 9 December 2015 15: 32 New
          +1
          I do not at all consider that the work of women and children in industry during the war was something bad. Any way to victory is good.
          I just called a spade a spade. Shouting all the time without stopping "Glory to Stalin and the Soviet people" is silly and boring.
          The people were ready for sacrifices and the Communists had the opportunity to make them. The German state could not afford it. That's why it lost - the pain threshold was low.
          The minus is indifferent - put more.
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 9 December 2015 16: 42 New
        0
        Quote: Heimdall48
        If we compare in terms of the size of the army and the quantity of equipment, then the Red Army has always surpassed the Wehrmacht.

        Since when is 7,3 million of the Wehrmacht less than 5,5 million of the Red Army?
        If you take directly the western border. then on it the ratio as of 22.06.41 was 4,33 million Germans versus 3,26 million ours.

        USSR excellence in technology? How many Germans had trucks and special artillery trucks - the very ones without which it is impossible to attack or defend? And if you take not only army men and backlashes, but also NSKK, RAD and Todt (who often worked almost at the forefront)?
        And this is if you still do not take subtle points, such as replacing in the Red Army 3-ton ZIS-5/6 with a 1,5-ton GAZ-AA at the rate of 1: 1. As a result of such a replacement, for example, one of the mechanized corps was not able to raise the regular amount of reserves for the march and was forced to send out intelligence to search for warehouses.
        1. Heimdall48
          Heimdall48 9 December 2015 17: 05 New
          0
          Since when is 7,3 million of the Wehrmacht less than 5,5 million of the Red Army?

          It will correctly consider directly warring factions.

          According to Müller-Gilebrandt, out of the 3,8 million army in the field, 3,3 million people were concentrated for operations in the East.
          If we look at Halder’s Military Diary, we find that he defines the total size of the army as 2,5 million.

          USSR excellence in technology?

          I had in mind the main components - tanks and aviation, in the number of which the USSR was many times superior to Germany.
          The fact that in our tanks and planes there was no radio communications, command towers, air gunners in the advanced units, there was an unsatisfactory number of anti-aircraft artillery in the staff list of units, etc. - this is not a question of technology and industry. The source of these shortcomings was gaps in military art, resulting from a lack of combat experience.
          Could they rivet not 20 tanks, but 000, but provide them with good radio communications? They could have, but they chose a different path - the wrong one. But the Germans chose the right path at that time. And then we had to catch them in these components.
          1. tokens2
            tokens2 9 December 2015 17: 43 New
            0
            Heimdall48
            Could they rivet not 20 tanks, but 000, but provide them with good radio communications? They could have, but they chose a different path - the wrong one. But the Germans chose the right path at that time. And then we had to catch them in these components.

            Yes, the fact of the matter is that they did not catch up and did not catch up. Time was stupidly not.
            Just like they put it on tanks from the time of Tukhachevsky, they pulled this strap until 1945. But motor transport, walkie-talkies ... it's all not to the socialist model of economy laughing
            The tank became the main laughing MBT. So they riveted something that was touched ... and right by the way.
            The war was won by a smaller range of weapons of our own production ... with emphasis on quantity.
            And you can compare, for example, the machine guns of the parties. Caught? No. And armored personnel carriers?
            Yes, a lot of things are not caught up.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 9 December 2015 17: 53 New
            0
            Quote: Heimdall48
            Could they rivet not 20 tanks, but 000, but provide them with good radio communications?

            And 10 could not. 9 women per month can not bear a child.
            Everything rests on the frames. Mass trained personnel with an education not lower than average. And in industry, and in design bureaus, and in the army. Because a good radio station must first be properly developed, then correctly manufactured components, assembled and correctly installed, and then properly serviced.
            But in our country, the universal primary was introduced only in 1930. A massive shot for industry was promised in 1942. We did not have time. In tank units, the level of education is 80% l / s - 7 classes or less.

            Here is what we had in a real story:
            A positive quality of the German tank’s receiving and transmitting station is also that it provides reliable communication in movement, while during the movement of the BT tank the reception quality is significantly impaired until the connection is completely lost ...

            Arriving average commanders for the posts of radio units - wireworms and radio facilities in the majority do not know.

            A large percentage of those who are not provided with training aids / manuals, textbooks on radio business, communication services, telephone and telegraph services

            The regiments of the divisions were not fully equipped with signaling and radio operators, there are no commanders of radio platoons and radio technicians at all (duties are temporarily performed by non-signalmen or wire commanders).

            Cit. by Ulanov A.A .; Shein, D.V. Order in the tank troops.
      4. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 9 December 2015 16: 43 New
        +1
        Quote: Heimdall48
        The Russian people surpassed the German in sacrifice and dedication, the Communists were able to harbor women and children in machines and achieve exceptional labor productivity.



        Can it be that the Communists reached out before?
        1. Heimdall48
          Heimdall48 9 December 2015 17: 11 New
          0
          Can it be that the Communists reached out before?

          I have no idea who reached where and what these pictures are for.
          Already answered above
          I do not at all consider that the work of women and children in industry during the war was something bad. Any way to victory is good.

          And to compare the West European and American working conditions of that time with the Soviet ones is stupid.
          In addition, I did not notice here the posters of English and American working children in military production.
  • topical
    topical 9 December 2015 16: 05 New
    0
    Quote: Heimdall48
    Adolf did not swim with the flow, but fought to the limit with evil in the form in which he imagined it - Bolshevism.

    And why would he so contemplate on Bolshevism? What did the Bolsheviks do to him before the Second World War? And Poland helped to divide. And they supplied him with raw materials (Germany, as an aggressor country, was under sanctions, so supplying her with raw materials was difficult). And all the way, it was kind of good. And then suddenly, and bad. Why would it all be? Maybe there were other reasons for 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX? Think about it. Moreover, they were. These are other reasons.
    I give a hint, this is not Stalin’s desire in the late summer of 1941. having fallen upon Germany, as Rezun and others wrote.
    Hint number 2 - Bolshevism Hitler was up to the stars. According to the plan of Barbaross, the Bolsheviks were not destroyed, but moved away east of the Astrakhan-Arkhangelsk line along the Volga and the North. Dvina. There they (or no longer they) could build whatever they wanted, it didn’t matter to Hitler. Moreover, after the victory over the Anglo-Saxons, he planned to collect and send all the inhabitants of the RSFSR to the same line.
    1. Heimdall48
      Heimdall48 9 December 2015 16: 11 New
      0
      And why would he so contemplate on Bolshevism? What did the Bolsheviks do to him before the Second World War?

      Take a look at Mein Kampf and questions will disappear. I give a hint - it describes how the NSDAP came to power through constant battles on the German streets between stormtroopers and RotFront militants, funded and fully supported from the USSR.
      They beat the dog with a whip, and then they ask - why does she not love him?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. topical
        topical 9 December 2015 17: 28 New
        0
        Quote: Heimdall48
        They beat the dog with a whip, and then they ask - why does she not love him?

        Was that beaten? Here are the Franks and Britons, they really beat. And to realize this, it is not at all necessary to mow with a purple eye at Mein Kampf. Full of other, more reliable sources. Besides, what about the fact that Hitler did not aim at overthrowing the Bolsheviks east of the AA line? What is it, offended at them that he decided to ignore?
  • R-22
    R-22 9 December 2015 11: 23 New
    -1
    an interesting look, but the topic is not disclosed, what are the reasons for Hitler’s stubbornness? why try to make peace with England, but not with the USSR?
  • antiexpert
    antiexpert 9 December 2015 11: 24 New
    -3
    The most accurate and best definition of Hitler’s riddle was given by Salvador Dali:

    Hitler embodied for me the perfect image of the great masochist who unleashed a world war solely for the pleasure of losing it and being buried under the ruins of an empire
    © Salvador Dali
  • Aleksander
    Aleksander 9 December 2015 11: 26 New
    0
    Two quotes from the author:
    a quick victory over Hitler was not visible, as in general the prospects for the USSR at that time were very vague

    after Stalingrad, it became extremely clear to all Germans - the war in the East could not be won


    That is, what was foggy for the USSR, for the Germans, it turns out, was already very clear? belay Where is the logic?
    1. Olezhek
      9 December 2015 14: 51 New
      0
      The USSR suffered terrible losses during the war, so its prospects in 1943 were very vague.
      The British Empire remained on the planet and the "friendly USA" ...

      For the Germans 2 February 1943 it became absolutely clear that victory in the East is IMPOSSIBLE.

      Both are very bad in essence ...