"The Russians had T-34, the Russians had Zhukov, the Russian soldier was a child of nature, he eats moss and sleeps standing"

40
"The Russians had T-34, the Russians had Zhukov, the Russian soldier was a child of nature, he eats moss and sleeps standing"


From the memoirs of the German generals


I would like to dwell on the figure of Zhukov. In our modern liberal literature, he appears as a man of iron will, who, regardless of losses, drives Soviet troops into murderous counterattacks. At the same time, these authors are unable to formulate a more or less sound position on what should have been done.

Let's start with the events on Khalkhin Gol. So, Zhukov arrives in Mongolia as a testing 57 Special Corps. As a result, Commander N.V. is dismissed. Fecklenko and Zhukov are appointed to his post, who immediately starts planning an operation to defeat the “Japanese villains”.
So, the Soviet troops held the bridgehead on the eastern shore of Khalkhin Gol. A plan was developed according to which it was supposed to strike tank battalions north of the bridgehead and make the environment. But the Japanese were one day ahead of us, striking between the bridgehead and the tank group in order to reach the crossings. And it was our great fortune. Their entire strike force came under the counterattack of Soviet tanks. The effect was deafening (Japanese casualties amounted to 800 people killed and wounded from the entire 8000 group of General Komatsubara). At the same time, our losses were moderate. Two weeks will pass and Zhukov will realize his original plan by adding a southern strike group, which will lead to a complete and lightning defeat of the Japanese. Further, the USSR will reap the political dividends of victory in this company, when the Japanese in 1941 did not dare to attack the Soviet Union, saving us from a war on two fronts. At the same time, one might wonder if the Finnish war had demonstrated the effectiveness of the Red Army, the Second World War might not have happened. It is known that Hitler attacked the USSR in many ways in order to persuade England to peace, the country with which Germany has fought since 1939. Consequently, the defense capability of the Soviet Union was rated much lower than the English. Today it can only cause a smile.

German strikes in the summer months of 41 cut and ground our border armies. Although we had numerical superiority over the enemy, but our troops were always inferior in the number of divisions simultaneously entering battle. In the first weeks of the war, our mechanized corps played the role of fire brigades, which delivered flank attacks on the advancing enemy. As a rule, such blows led to the cessation of the existence of this compound. This is the only thing that could counter the Red Army to the Wehrmacht. Here I would like to note the fate of the 6-th mechanized corps. As a result of the wrong choice of the direction of the strike (due to a mistake of intelligence), it ceased to exist due to the lack of fuel and the tanks had to be destroyed by the tankers themselves so that they would not get to the enemy. Very soon, our tank formations ceased to influence the advancement of the German troops and numerous boilers were launched, into which Soviet rifle formations fell, as they could not react promptly to the rapid throws of the Wehrmacht’s mechanized units.

This provision was preserved during the counteroffensive near Moscow, when rifle divisions were introduced into the breakthrough. They hopelessly lacked speed and the Germans always had time to transfer the fur. connections to a threatening site. Part of the problem was removed by the use of cavalry, but such compounds could not become a full replacement for tanks. Therefore, in the winter of the 41-42 of the USSR, it was not possible to achieve the encirclement of the German troops. Under these conditions, Zhukov decided to apply shallow strikes, which led not to the Germans' encirclement, but to their expulsion from the occupied territory. But at the same time, the threat was removed of his shock groups in the boilers. Konev, on the other hand, attempted to carry out a larger operation on the environment, bringing together the 29 and 39 armies, which further led to the severing of these compounds from the main forces.

42 Summer Company of the Year led the German armies to the Volga bank. For the Soviet side, it was important: to deprive the enemy of the initiative and impose battles on him to the north from Stalingrad. As a result, our reserves were brought into battle as they arrived, which did not allow us to create a strong strike force. But at the same time, constant pressure was maintained on the enemy, which prevented him from transferring troops to Stalingrad. The author of this reception was Zhukov. The decision that he took in this situation is rather paradoxical for the Second World War as a whole. You can blame for unjustified losses, but at the same time you should then recognize the loss of Stalingrad. And, as a result, the 6 entourage of Paulus’s army would not have happened. And where then the front would stabilize in the south is unknown and the question of losses also remains relevant.

1943 year most vividly demonstrated how the Soviet army learned how to defend itself at a strategic level, when a counter-attack was launched on the flank of the advancing enemy. Subsequently, the Soviet commanders did not try to guess the direction of the offensive of the Wehrmacht, and this brought success. Although in this period of time the shock capabilities of the Germans increased due to large-scale rearmament, and the Soviet mechanized units lost their dominance on the battlefield.

1944 year characterized by the fact that the opponents switched places and the Wehrmacht also faced the question of how to respond to the Soviet attacks of the tank armies. And he responded with the concept of "cities-fortresses". This led to numerous boilers, which fell into the German part. In general, the 44 year showed that the Soviet army could conduct large-scale offensive operations against a strong and trained enemy, which had no analogues in the world stories. The summer offensive of the Germans in 1941 cannot serve as an equivalent example because It is impossible to put an equal sign between the Soviet troops 1941 of the year and the forces of the Wehrmacht 1944 of the year.

1945 year. Here I would like to stop at the storming of Seelow Heights. If up to this point the “Russians” have bypassed all the fortifications, here they have struck a primitive frontal blow. Why? Well, in the first place, in the spring of 45, information appeared about the possibility of concluding a separate peace between the allies and Nazi Germany, which led to the acceleration of actions to prepare for the operation. As a result, this led to the fact that some of the forces initially aimed at Berlin were sent around it from the north in order to rule out the possibility of an Allied approach from the west. As a consequence, this led to a weakening of the main attack, and not to break through the main line of defense, which led to the commissioning of reserves not into an open breakthrough, but to the cracking of the remnants of the defense. Soviet troops lost time and suffered unjustified losses. In general, the operation was aimed at encircling the troops stationed on the Oder, and the main task was to prevent the withdrawal of these formations to Berlin, which was to simplify the task of storming the city as much as possible.

In essence, George Konstantinovich Zhukov was the man who invented the recipe from the "Blitzkrieg". On the 30 anniversary of the Victory in Paris, posters were hung with his portrait and the signature "The Man Who Won the Second World War."
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +19
    28 November 2011 09: 56
    Glory to the Russian heroes !! Eternal Glory !!!
  2. Vladimir S
    0
    28 November 2011 10: 31
    A lot of inaccuracies.
    41 years, as the German generals themselves recall, was the most turning point for them. I will not go into the details of military history, but the plan to reach the AA line was failed precisely because the tactics of the defense of the Red Army assumed a "controlled retreat." "cauldrons" - pockets of all-round defense pulled off significant forces of the regular German army, which led to the failure of the blitz-krieg. It was necessary to play for time, because by December 41 the USSR had lost about 40-50% of its military-industrial production in the occupied territories. It was only possible to restore a relatively uninterrupted production of weapons by the spring of 43. We already approached the Battle of Kursk, having a numerical advantage in all types of weapons.
    "Although in this period of time the strike capabilities of the Germans have increased due to large-scale rearmament, and Soviet mechanized formations have lost their dominance on the battlefield."
    Come on! Large-scale rearmament is where and in what? Panthers appeared, MAUS and Tigers-arr. 37 years with the Elephants? Read Guderin what such variegated production of tanks led to. By August 43, the advantage of the Red Army over the Germans averaged 2,5-3: 1, which made it possible to drive the Hans all the way to the Dnieper, implement the entire counter-offensive plan and to 44 year to come up with an absolute advantage in a strategic configuration, which in turn made it possible to carry out a brilliant operation of all times and peoples - a double blow of Rokossovsky called "Bagration".
    Seelow Heights. What a separate peace in April 45? There were attempts to surrender positions in the West to the allies, the negotiations were conducted by General Wolf and Dulles, known from Stirlitz, but after Stalin's warning to Roosevelt and Churchill, all attempts stopped. A direct strike on the Seelow Heights pursued one single goal - to cut off 4 9st Panzer and 80th Army under the leadership of Heinrici, the commander of the Vistula Main Army from the retreat to Berlin. That was done. Zhukov, having taken the Seelow Heights in three days, went behind the Germans and cut them off from retreating to Berlin. on an unpopular tactical move, so to speak in war, but saved tens of thousands of lives in Berlin itself. The irreparable losses of our army in the capture of Benrlin amounted to "only" XNUMX thousand people.
    Before writing on such serious topics, you must definitely study the topic thoroughly, and not satisfy your vanity by typing very raw and offensive opuses.

    For comparison, the Germans lost about 400 thousand people during the entire Berlin operation, which was lost by the DEFENSE troops.
  3. +17
    28 November 2011 11: 07
    Zhukov is the Marshal of Victory, and all sorts of shit that dirty his name in the 90s and trying now are traitors. History puts everything in its place - you, shit-democrats - traitors on whom the Russian people spit, and he is a hero and a winner
  4. +15
    28 November 2011 13: 09
    I would like to note that along with Zhukov, Rokossovsky played a significant role in the victory over fascist Germany.
    1. Serush
      +13
      28 November 2011 15: 25
      The main role in the victory over fascist Germany was played by the Soviet people ...
    2. SL.Kocegar
      +6
      29 November 2011 09: 15
      G.K. Zhukov
      K.K. Rokossovsky
      S. M. Budyonny
      L. A. Govorov
      N. G. Kuznetsov
      A. M. Vasilevsky
      I. S. Konev
      I. Kh. Baghramyan
      A. E. Golovanov
      S.K. Timoshenko
      R. Ya. Malinovsky
      B. M. Shaposhnikov
      F.I. Tolbukhin
      Toast of the Supreme Commander May 24, 1945:
      Comrades, let me raise another last toast.
      I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, above all, the Russian people.
      I drink, above all, for the health of the Russian people because it is the most prominent nation of all the nations that make up the Soviet Union.
      I am making a toast to the health of the Russian people because he deserved general recognition in this war as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country.
      I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people, not only because they are the leading people, but also because they have a clear mind, a strong character, and patience.
  5. Artemka
    +11
    28 November 2011 14: 14
    Great man of a great country.
  6. shipp53
    +15
    28 November 2011 14: 17
    And without Stalin there would have been no victory, because the last word was for the Supreme Commander.
    1. Terminator
      +10
      28 November 2011 18: 43
      Right! It was Stalin who led the country and the army in these difficult years! And the beetles in his memoirs praises Stalin.
  7. Kostyan
    -3
    28 November 2011 14: 55
    , bugs and a whiskered pi..d..r .... heard a lot of komunyak delirium and mumble ... it’s been known for a long time how he fought ... what Zeelov is worth, putting tank armies stupidly and mediocrely .... well ..
    1. +1
      28 November 2011 15: 17
      Oh German got out!
      What did everything heal?
      Liked?
      Bend down!
    2. +1
      28 November 2011 15: 49
      change nickname to "Tabaki", jackal nickname is more suitable for your angry filipik
  8. +5
    28 November 2011 15: 22
    I am glad that I belong to such a wonderful nation))
  9. Serush
    -3
    28 November 2011 15: 23
    Wars are won not by generals, but by soldiers.
    1. Guns
      0
      28 November 2011 15: 38
      yeah yeah ..... soldiers exclusively .... and most importantly, Contrary !!!!!
    2. +4
      28 November 2011 21: 09
      but under the guidance of these same generals laughing
    3. 0
      29 November 2011 22: 47
      Without brains, the body is dead, no matter how strong it may seem
  10. Guns
    0
    28 November 2011 15: 40
    Kotyanych got out :)))))) such a feeling of Kostyanich that they beat you in the balls every day ....
  11. shipp53
    +7
    28 November 2011 17: 25
    Soldiers without a commander are a crowd where everyone has their own ambitions and everyone experiences the same event from their bell tower (how beneficial it is for him personally), and only the commander can rally everyone, regardless of everyone’s ambitions. For this, the army is one-man. a strategist, seeing the battle from the side.
  12. Dad
    Dad
    +13
    28 November 2011 17: 31
    A little more than a year ago, the then acting commander of a missile brigade was stunned by the discovery (from a source of some newly minted historian) that Zhukov was paving the way to victory with corpses, and not by the talent of a commander. He sharply objected, complaining that this commander of a respectable age (a few months before his dismissal) was so susceptible to rotten cheap "sensations". And the meaning of my comment is that the current government does not want to propagandize the truth about the Great Patriotic War, to educate new generations on the examples of our heroes - the winners. After the putsch in 1993, I have never read or heard of Gastello, Matrosov, the Young Guard and other Heroes. It's sad. The thoughts of our citizens are seized by dubious "historians" and scribblers, with complete indifference of the leadership of the bear party.
    1. Anatoly
      +6
      28 November 2011 20: 07
      Note that this is done methodically and unnoticed. How cleverly, under the guise of incomprehensible values, the ideals of materialism and fake heroes are slipped into us. And against this background, so many "scribblers" and "pseudo-historians" have appeared. And they begin to reveal to us the "truth", "sensation" and so on, about great people.
      All this, suggests only one thought - it’s profitable for the government, which turns a blind eye to it. and it pursues its goals. In a word, the main traitors are sitting in the Kremlin.
  13. +3
    28 November 2011 17: 54
    We are a great nation! But now we are destroying ourselves! Only on the roads, how many people are dying !? No war is no match! Now we have chaos and house! Someone listens to one dermocrat, someone else, but all is one, until we are united, while we treat our fellow countrymen (to put it mildly) disrespectfully, we will never become the country that we were and that everyone was afraid of! The West is only at hand ........... (
  14. Snark
    +1
    29 November 2011 01: 33
    "Hitler attacked the USSR largely in order to win peace over England, a country with which Germany has been at war since 1939." - a very funny phrase. I advise you to read the book "Who forced Hitler to attack Stalin / Nikolai Starikov [2008]" In my opinion, there is a very adequate idea of ​​political stability at that time. As for Zhukov, he, as a normal person, had both strengths and weaknesses, after the war he was caught stealing and was punished, this fact does not detract from his military leadership abilities.
    1. 0
      29 November 2011 22: 50
      "... this fact does not detract from his leadership skills."

      That's it!
  15. Vladimir S
    +3
    29 November 2011 10: 55
    The article has a number of inaccuracies.
    The 41 years, according to the German generals themselves, was a turning point, because the organized retreat of the Kraco army, the circular defense in the cauldrons, delayed considerable forces and means of the regular units, which led to the failure of the blitz krieg. We had to delay time, because in the occupied territories we lost about 40% of the industrial enterprises of heavy and metallurgy. According to the plan of Barbarossa, by December, the Wehrmacht was to enter line AA. It didn’t work. By the spring of 43, the Red Army was already ahead of the Germans in quantitative and qualitative indicators.
    ] "Although at this time Germans' strike capabilities increased due to large-scale rearmament, and Soviet mechanized formations lost their dominance on the battlefield. "
    It is not. "Large-scale modernization" is how? Tigers arr. 37 years, Panthers, IOUs and Ferdinands? An anti-aircraft gun installed on the Stuff, which made it heavy and even more clumsy - modernization? Check out Guderian's opinion about the Panthers and such an insanely varied amount of armored vehicles.
    The Kursk Bulge proved that the Germans' potential had already been exhausted near Stalingrad. Most importantly, the Germans became morally depressed after November 42-February 43. They were filled with animal horror before the Russians, which has not passed until now. After August 43, our grandfathers ( contrary to the above quote from the article) they carried out a number of counteroffensive operations, crossed the Dnieper and approached the winter of 43-44 with an exceptionally advantageous strategic configuration, which made it possible to carry out the most outstanding offensive operation of all time (as the Americans note) - Bagration. July to December, 43 German forces suffered irreparable damage, which further influenced their defenses, because their defensive tactics were based on the action of mobile tank units.
    Well, the Zeelov heights.
    Separate peace with the Germans? Wolf and Dulles met in Switzerland, yes. But even at the Tehran Conference it was decided not to negotiate with the Germans. The conversation was a little different. Wolf tried to advance the idea of ​​a separate peace, but beyond the meeting room it did not go.
    In fact, it was vitally necessary to take the Zeelow Heights, because it was necessary to cut off the 4th tank and 9th armies from Berlin with a blow to the forehead through a chain of hills. The commander of the Wisla Heinrici group could move to Berlin at any time, then take Berlin would have been long and tedious, losing maybe more than one hundred thousand people. For the entire Berlin operation, the Soviet army lost 80 thousand people. And the Germans, according to various sources, from 300 to 400 thousand. Zhukov took these heights in three days, showing once again its genius.
    The material, or rather, the topic is serious, so you need to write carefully on such topics, shoveling a lot of material. The inaccuracies and thesis of these inaccuracies, which are indicated in the article, are uncritical, but they blur the impression of true heroism of both commanders and ordinary soldiers.
    And the personality of the genius Zhukov does not deserve such a short and cutly-objective thesis listing of superficial thoughts.
    1. mitrich
      +1
      29 November 2011 14: 29
      Vladimir S,
      everything is clear, understandable and competently. And available. As always. Write, if possible, whose leadership talent you value above: G.K. Zhukova or K.K. Rokossovsky? I will inform you of my biased opinion for the seed: according to the character and leadership of Zhukov, it’s more likely the disaster commander, not in the sense that he allowed it, but in the sense of eliminating its consequences when it has already erupted. The Moscow Battle discussed this week is the clearest example of this.
      Rokossovsky, as I see him, is the commander of VICTORY. Examples: the above-mentioned operation "Bagration" + Vistula-Oder offensive operation.
      What do you think? And in general: do we still have generals of the same high level of general leadership skill? How do you think?
      1. makrus
        +1
        3 December 2011 18: 18
        Quote: mitrich
        Write, if possible, whose leadership talent you value above: G.K. Zhukova or K.K. Rokossovsky?

        The question is not addressed to me, but I will answer if you do not mind. Zhukov was, above all, stronger than Rokossovsky in terms of will. It is not enough to be an intelligent, talented military leader. To a much greater extent, you need to be able to force subordinates to comply with your orders. In this he was much stronger than Rokossovsky. Zhukov, it seems to me, was a very rude person and did not particularly stand on ceremony with his "entourage", I think that for many he was an extremely uncomfortable figure.
        Personally, I am extremely annoyed that he did not have a relationship with Katukov. And with Rokossovsky they were good friends.
    2. makrus
      +2
      29 November 2011 14: 49
      The first thought I wanted to convey was
      At the same time, one might wonder if the Finnish war had demonstrated the effectiveness of the Red Army, the Second World War might not have happened. It’s unfortunate that you missed it ..
      Quote: Vladimir S
      41 years, according to the German generals themselves, was a turning point
      Regarding 41 years, I noted the reasons for the lack of encirclement of German units, that’s all.
      Quote: Vladimir S
      It is not. "Large-scale modernization" is how?

      I wrote about facts, not opinions. The difference must be understood wink
      Quote: Vladimir S
      which made it possible to carry out the most outstanding offensive operation of all times and peoples (as the Americans note) - Bagration. In the period from July to December 43

      It was held from June 23 to August 29, 1944 angry Such things must be known.
      Quote: Vladimir S
      but it didn’t go beyond the meeting room.

      I am not aware of this moment, but probably the MOST FACT OF CARRYING OUT was enough that the high command decided to accelerate events.
      Quote: Vladimir S
      The material, or rather, the topic is serious, so you need to write carefully on such topics, shoveling a lot of material. The inaccuracies and thesis of these inaccuracies, which are indicated in the article, are uncritical, but they blur the impression of true heroism of both commanders and ordinary soldiers.
      And the personality of the genius Zhukov does not deserve such a short and cutly-objective thesis listing of superficial thoughts.

      And you comrade do not take much on yourself? You yourself try in this format to cover a similar layer of history. Who will read the article written on 3, 4 sheets. am
      1. mitrich
        0
        29 November 2011 15: 02
        makrus,
        I am not a lawyer for Vladimir S, colleague Makrus, but let me note, in the part of the paragraph on Operation Bagration, that he did not indicate that it was carried out "from July to December 43". Voluntarily or not, you were deceiving by connecting the end of one sentence and the beginning of the next. Not good.
    3. J_silver
      +2
      29 November 2011 15: 29
      Something you are too free to handle the facts, although in general I agree ...
      Near Kursk, the Germans almost broke through, it was there that they lost their offensive potential, there they broke a ridge - did they forget about Kharkov for 43 years?
      Guderian is Guderian, but one can only speculate what he would write. if the Germans would have won ...
    4. makrus
      +1
      3 December 2011 18: 29
      Quote: Vladimir S
      Read Guderian’s opinion of the Panthers and such an insanely varied amount of armored vehicles.

      Guderian is undoubtedly an intelligent "comrade", he read, it was interesting, he also read the opinions of Soviet tankmen. You know exactly the opposite.
  16. makrus
    +2
    29 November 2011 15: 11
    Yes, litter, it’s just something like 43 years old, both here and there, MISTAKED. recourse
    1. mitrich
      +1
      29 November 2011 15: 18
      makrus,
      + You for acknowledging the error. I respect you. After all, our ambitions, supported by unrecognizable and often unknown, often interfere with their recognition! This is not about you.
  17. makrus
    0
    29 November 2011 15: 29
    But in any case, the Germans were encircled because of the flawed concept of "fortress cities", and not as a result
    Quote: Vladimir S
    because their defensive tactics were based on the action of mobile tank units.

    Here you are talking about "fire brigades", this is tactics, I was talking about strategy.
  18. zimin
    +1
    29 November 2011 16: 58
    The Japanese did not attack the USSR, not because the 8 group under Khalkhin Gol was defeated, but because on the day of the Japanese encirclement, the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact was signed. After that, the entire government of Japan resigned, and to Hitler this betrayal came back to death.
    1. makrus
      0
      29 November 2011 23: 32
      The Japanese were offended and in revenge attacked the Americans! Well done. Tough guys.
  19. patriot464
    +1
    29 November 2011 18: 36
    Such necessary articles are a seed, so to speak. That the person became interested and began to read books.
    If in a book about Zhukov, for example, there are less than a hundred links to sources, do not read.
  20. 0
    30 November 2011 07: 40
    "It was important for the Soviet side: to deprive the enemy of initiative and to impose battles on him in the northern direction from Stalingrad. As a result, our reserves were brought into battle as they arrived, which did not allow us to create a strong strike group."

    Reserves were introduced as they were formed, not arriving. This practice dates back to the Civil War of 1918-1921. Otherwise, there may be a false impression that the Red Army had countless hordes under arms, and the "genius" Zhukov gradually introduced them into battle.

    "In essence, Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov was the person who came up with the recipe for the" blitzkrieg "

    This is a direct quote from the historian A. Isaev. Accepted copyright icon set, Mr. makrus.
    1. makrus
      0
      3 December 2011 18: 20
      Well, I'm sorry, what kind of books we read and thoughts tongue
  21. -1
    3 December 2011 13: 33
    Not understood "In the future, the Soviet commanders did not try to guess the direction of the attack of the Wehrmacht, and this brought success." If you can explain.
    1. makrus
      0
      3 December 2011 17: 56
      In the summer of 41, in the event of a breakthrough by the Germans, our commanders tried to guess the direction of the strike, pull reserves into the area and strike directly at the parts that had broken through. In this case, the error had fatal consequences. It is much easier to hit not on the "edge", but on the flank, depriving the enemy of the initiative. This is a simple technique, but it was difficult to master.
  22. Vladimir S
    +1
    5 December 2011 10: 00
    macrus
    You don’t have to take a simple wish with hostility. If you deign to touch on this topic, please be so kind as to prepare more seriously. The topic is too much for us all, at least I am very dear to you. And if there is no time, then there’s no need to start.
    About the phrase you pulled out. Read carefully, dear.
    As for "trying to guess", you are cringing again. Read Zhukov's report to Stalin in April 1943, where the direction of the main attack of the Germans was clearly indicated - "Kursk salient". A DETAILED analysis of their possible actions was carried out, which coincided by 100% with 5- July 9st. And Rokossovsky correctly, already "in the field" "guessed" the direction of the strike, so much so that he transferred part of the reserves to Vatutin in the southern direction. The southern group-40 army was more powerful. But it also advanced only 10 km, since the northern , from Orel, only 15-XNUMX km. The task on this arc was "to wear down the Germans in defensive battles and to launch a counter-offensive along the entire sector of the front."By the way, please, describe what "fatal consequences" this battle had for us, and what reserves were brought up directly to the battle line?I don't know what thoughts prompted you to call the Battle of Kursk fatal for us, but all serious Western analysts consider the Battle of Kursk more devastating for the Germans in its consequences than the Battle of Stalingrad. After the Battle of Kursk, the Germans never went over to the offensive, not counting an attempt to strike in the area Lake Balaton in the 45th. And about the "fatality", you probably mean losses. Then read Krivosheev, Rokossovsky, Konev, John Fuller, Manstein and Keitel with the diaries of Goebbels. I just advise.
    1. makrus
      0
      5 December 2011 15: 10
      Quote: Vladimir S
      . And if there is no time, then there is no need to start.

      Forgot to ask you, sorry belay
      Quote: Vladimir S
      About "trying to guess", you are juggling again

      Here I mean 41, not 43 years. There is a contrast. You misunderstood. Fatal consequences relate to our losses in the initial period of the war. In the year 43, our reserves launched a counterattack in the rear of the northern group of Germans. I did not touch the defensive phase writing obvious things is not very interesting, why retell, what's the point? I pointed to the progress in command and control.
      Quote: Vladimir S
      If you deign to touch on this topic, then please, be prepared more seriously. The topic is too much for all of us, at least, I really care

      Not for you alone, I have some thoughts on this subject and I shared them.
  23. Vladimir S
    +1
    5 December 2011 12: 01
    Mitrich, Zhukov is the commander of Victory, not a catastrophe. Very tough and cruel. But then without such an approach we would not have won. In Stalingrad, after the Order "Not a step back", before his eyes, a link of our fighters, seeing the German bombers, deployed Bombers bombed the crossing without hindrance, our positions, causing serious damage. Zhukov ordered to call these cowards and gave the command to shoot them on the spot. They were taken to the destroyed building and shot. What would you do? About what he allegedly did not appreciate people and drove them to machine guns, filling them with corpses - a brazen lie, stretching from the time when he fell out of favor with Khrushchev. In 41, Zhukov's will saved both Moscow and Leningrad, where soft Govorov chewed snot, and the country as a whole. Rokossovsky it is not known how he would have behaved near Yelnya, Smolensk or Moscow. And in 44, it was the favorable situation on the fronts that helped him to carry out Bagration, which also developed as a result. Read the tough actions of Zhukov. 44 years can not be considered in isolation from the 41st.
    Are there any such commanders now? Undoubtedly, there is only such rigidity now that should not be shown. With the current level of technology, this is not necessary. And in battle, when in direct contact with the enemy, everyone will be brutalized, there is no need to adjust pendels.
  24. kov
    kov
    0
    15 July 2012 23: 24
    T-34 Victory Arms http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dNl1ZWJmbo