Military Review

Alexey Isaev. Whether commanded A.A. Vlasov 20 Army in December 1941 g?

88
The transition of A. Vlasov, commander of the 2 shock army, to the service of the Germans, was certainly one of the most unpleasant episodes of war for our country. There were other officers of the Red Army who became traitors, but Vlasov was the most senior and most famous.


To say that the memoirs of Vlasov’s colleagues who wrote after the war were embarrassed was not to say anything. You will write about the former commander, they will say well "How could you not see such a reptile?" If you write badly, they will say: “Why didn't you hit the bells? Why did not he report and report to where? ”

In the simplest case, they simply preferred not to give the name of Vlasov. For example, one of the officers of the 32nd tank the division of the 4th mechanized corps describes his meeting with him as follows: “Having leaned out of the cockpit, he noticed that the regiment commander was talking with a tall general with glasses. I recognized him right away. This is the commander of our 4th mechanized corps. I went up to them, introduced myself to the commander ”(Egorov AV With faith in victory (Notes of the commander of a tank regiment). M.: Military Publishing, 1974, p.16). The surname "Vlasov" throughout the whole story of the fighting in Ukraine in June 1941 is not mentioned at all. In the case of the 4th mechanized corps, the taboo placed on the name of the traitor general played rather in the hand of Soviet historiography. In the 4th mechanized corps, by the beginning of the war 52 KV and 180 T-34s had been assembled, and explaining where they had gone amid the tales of their “invulnerability” was not easy.

Alexey Isaev. Whether commanded A.A. Vlasov 20 Army in December 1941 g?

The silence was widespread. M. Ye. Katukov also simply preferred not to mention that his brigade was subordinated to the army commanded by A. A. Vlasov. One would assume that the brigade commander did not encounter the army commander, but there remained photographs of the visit of A. A. Vlasov to the 1 th guards. tank brigade. The commander then congratulated Katukovtsy with another success.


However, even if Katukov wrote about this visit of Vlasov, then the mention hardly corresponded to the real impression of December 1941. If the name “Vlasov” was mentioned in the memoirs, it is rather with a minus sign. For example, cavalryman Stuchenko writes:

“Unexpectedly, in three hundred and four hundred meters from the front line, the figure of the commander of the Vlasov army grows up from behind a bush in an astrakhan gray cap with earflaps and a constant pince-nez; rear adjutant with a gun. My annoyance overflowed:

- What are you doing here? There is nothing to watch here. Here people are dying in vain. Is it so organized fight? Is it the use of cavalry?

It was thought: now he will be dismissed. But Vlasov, feeling unimportant under fire, asked in an unsure voice:

“Well, how do you think it is necessary to advance?” (A. Stuchenko. Our enviable fate. M .: Voenizdat, 1968, C.136-137).

Meretskov spoke in a similar vein, retelling the words of General Afanasyev, chief of communications of the 2 shock army,: “It is characteristic that Vlasov did not take any part in discussing the planned actions of the group of commander-2. He was completely indifferent to all changes in the movement of the group ”(Meretskov KA In the service of the people. M .: Politizdat, 1968, C.296). To believe or not to believe such an image is a personal matter of the reader. Perhaps, by the way, it was Afanasyev who witnessed the fracture of Vlasov’s personality, which led to betrayal. The commander of the 2 shock was captured literally several days after the “discussion of the planned actions”. So this description may be relatively accurate and objective.
Against this background, when Vlasov was either not mentioned at all, or was explicitly mentioned with a minus sign, something had to be done with the period when he commanded the 20 army. This army was advancing quite successfully, and in an important direction. If Katukov could have kept silent on the pages of his memoirs, in more general descriptions, it was already impossible to ignore the role of the 20 army and its commander. Therefore, a version was put forward that Vlasov, being formally the commander of the army, did not take a real part in the hostilities due to illness.


In the photo: The commander of the 20 army, Lieutenant-General Vlasov and divisional commissar Lobachev present awards to tank crews distinguished themselves in battle for tank crews of the 1 Guards Tank Brigade. Western Front, January 1942. After the betrayal of Vlasov, his face was painted over with mascara. Source: "Frontline Illustration" 2007-04. "1-I Guards Tank Brigade in the battles for Moscow."

Actually, the first version that A.A. Vlasov was ill and did not command the 20 army during the December counteroffensive of the Soviet troops near Moscow, was voiced by LM Sandalov. He himself at that time was the chief of staff of the 20 Army. In the collection of articles and memoirs, published for the anniversary of the Moscow Battle, Sandalov wrote:

“- And who is appointed commander of the army? - I asked.

“One of the commanders of the South-Western Front, recently released from the encirclement, General Vlasov,” answered Shaposhnikov. - But keep in mind that he is now sick. In the near future you will have to do without it. You do not have time to go to the front headquarters. In addition, I have a fear that the troops of your army may distribute to the new task forces. The commanders of these groups have no headquarters, no communications to control the battle, no rear. As a result, such improvised task forces after a few days stay in battles become incapable.
“It was not necessary to dismantle hull controls,” I said.

“My parting words to you are,” Shaposhnikov interrupted me, “to quickly form an army command and deploy an army.” Not a step back and prepare for an offensive ”(Battle for Moscow. Moscow: Moscow Worker, 1966).

Accordingly, the appearance of A. A. Vlasov Sandalov dates 19 in December: “At noon on December 19, an army command center began to unfold in the village of Chismen. When I and a member of the Military Council Kulikov specified the position of the troops at the communications center, the adjutant of the army commander came in and reported to us about his arrival. Through the window one could see how a tall general with dark glasses came out of a car stopped at a house. He was wearing a fur bekesha with a raised collar. It was General Vlasov ”(ibid.). One cannot get rid of the thought that this description reveals the grim future of the “man in bekesh” - dark glasses, a raised collar.

The former chief of staff of the 20 Army did not stop at this and shifted the time for the commanders to transfer to the “man in bekashe” on December 20 of 21 in 1941 of Mr .: He repeated his questions several times, referring to the fact that he had trouble hearing his ears due to a disease of his ears. Then, with a gloomy look, he grunted to us that he was feeling better and would take control of the army completely in a day or two. ”
If you call a spade a spade, then Vlasov, in the memoirs of his chief of staff, takes up his duties at the time of stabilization of the front. The greatest achievements were left behind, and the stubborn and slow gnawing of the German front began near Volokolamsk and on the Lama River.

The practice of silence has become a system. In 1967, the book “Moscow Battle in Figures” in the “Index of commanders of fronts, armies and corps participating in the Battle of Moscow” was named Major-General A.I. Lizyukov instead of Vlasov as commander of the 20 army. There is a double mistake here: by the beginning of the battle, A.I. Lizyukov was a colonel and received a major general only in January 1942 of Mr. Sandalov in this regard, as a person well acquainted with the realities of war, more consistent. Lizyukov is mentioned in his memoirs by a colonel and is the commander of the task force. A colonel as army commander is absurd even by the standards of 1941.


Lieutenant-General A.A. Vlasov (right) presenting the Order of Lenin to the commander of the 1 Guards Tank Brigade, Major General of the tank forces M.Ye. Katukov. Western Front, January 1942. Source: "Frontline Illustration" 2007-04. "1-I Guards Tank Brigade in the battles for Moscow."

Nowadays, an article in the Military Historical Journal (2002. No. 12 .; 2003. No. 1) devoted to LM Sandalov outlined his version regarding the time frame for the absence of A. A. Vlasov. The authors of the article, the generals V.N. Maganov V.T. Iminov, made Sandalov a man who actually performed the duties of the army commander. They wrote: “Lieutenant-General A.A. Vlasov, appointed by the army commander, was ill and was in Moscow until December 19, therefore the whole burden of work on the formation of the army, and later on managing its military operations fell on the shoulders of the chief of staff L.M. .Sandalova ".

However, if in 1960-s, when access to the documents of the Second World War was practically closed for independent researchers, it was possible to write about the sick ears and the arrival at the December 19 command post, this is not convincing nowadays. Each army commander left a mark in the form of a host of orders with his signature, which can track the periods of active command and the date of entry into office.
In the 20 Army Fund in the TsAMO RF, the author managed to find only one among the orders, signed by A. I. Lizyukov. It is dated November 1941 and Lizyukov is designated in it as the commander of the task force. After that, December orders are issued, in which Major-General A. A. Vlasov is called as commander of the army.


(TsAMO RF, f.20A, op.6631, d.1, l.6)


The most amazing thing is that one of the first combat orders of the 20 Army was not signed by Sandalov. As the chief of staff appears a certain Colonel Loshkan. The surname "Sandal" appears on orders starting from 3 December 1941. True, with the advent of Sandalov, army orders begin to be typed.


(TsAMO RF, f.20A, op.6631, d.1, l.20)

As we see, there are two signatures on the document - the army commander and his chief of staff. The signature of a member of the Military Council appears a little later. A situation similar to some orders of the 4 Army of the summer of 1941, when orders were signed by one chief of staff, is not observed. Then, despite the presence of the commander (General Korobkov), part of the orders remained only with the signature of Sandalov. Here we have a situation that is strikingly different from that described in the memoirs. “The man in bekashe” was not a guest, but a host at the headquarters of the 20 Army at the time of the arrival of L. M. Sandalov.
Maybe A.A. Vlasov was listed as the commander of the 20 th army, and the signature on the orders put a completely different person? For comparison, we take a document that was signed by Vlasov - the report of the 4 mechanized corps to the commander of the 6 army (July 1941).


(TsAMO RF, f.334, op.5307, d.11, l.358)


If you take the signature of the commander of the 4-th mechanized corps and the signature taken at random on the order of the 20-th army and use the graphic editor to put them together, we will see that they are similar:



The characteristic features of the two signatures are visible to the naked eye: the beginning of painting, similar to “H”, clearly visible “l” and “a”. It can be concluded that A. A. Vlasov signed the orders of the 20 Army starting at least with 1 December 1941. If he was sick during this period, he did not leave the headquarters for a long time. The style of orders is about the same, corresponding to the then accepted norms and rules for writing orders. First, information about the enemy is given, then the position of the neighbors, then the task of the army troops. A characteristic feature of 20 A orders, several distinguishing them from similar documents of other armies, is the entry of the start time of the attack already in the finished document.

Attempts to strike out stories A.A. Vlasov’s war activities as a com-commander and commander-in-chief are explainable, but useless. Especially in the current environment. At the end of 1941 and at the beginning of 1942, Andrei Andreevich Vlasov was in good standing. This is a historical fact. Suffice to say that following the results of the offensive near Moscow, A. A. Vlasov, G. K. Zhukov, was given the following description: “Lieutenant-General Vlasov commanded the troops of the 20 Army from November 20 1941. He supervised the operations of the 20 Army: a counterstrike on the city of Solnechnogorsk, an army offensive on the Volokolamsk direction and a breakthrough of the defensive line on the Lama River. All the tasks assigned to the army, comrade. Vlasov performed in good faith. Personally, Lieutenant-General Vlasov is operational well prepared, has organizational skills. With the control of the army troops - copes quite. The positions of the commander of the army are quite consistent. ” As we can see, Zhukov directly indicates that in the first half of December 1941, the leadership of the 20 army was carried out by Vlasov. The fighting under Solnechnogorsk and the outbreak of the fighting near Volokolamsk took place at this very time.

The history of the Soviet general A. A. Vlasov, which led him to the well-deserved scaffold, remains one of the mysteries of the Second World War. The author of the open letter “Why I took the path of struggle against Bolshevism” was for a long time quite an ordinary, not particularly distinguished person. Attempts to simply expunge his activity from the history of the war more likely prevented the clarification of the causes of the fracture that General Vlasov had broken with such a crash.
Originator:
http://actualhistory.ru/myth-vlasov-20a
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Koshak
    Koshak 13 March 2016 06: 39
    +19
    "And forever and ever, and at all times
    a coward, a traitor always despise
    the enemy is the enemy, and war is still war ... "
    V.S. Vysotsky
  2. TVM - 75
    TVM - 75 13 March 2016 07: 32
    -16%
    An incomprehensible attempt to launder a coward and a traitor.
    1. guzik007
      guzik007 13 March 2016 07: 59
      +26
      An incomprehensible attempt to launder a coward and a traitor.
      -------------------------------------------
      Have you read the article upside down? Where are you seeing this attempt.?
      An article about what you should call a spade a spade, and not how it turned out:
      -------------------------------------------------- ------------
      You’ll write about the former commander, they will say well, “How did you not see this reptile?” You’ll write badly - they will say: “Why didn’t you sound the bells?” Why didn’t he report and tell where he should be? ”
      -------------------------------------------------- -----------------
      and raced, and the commander was not and the patient was on his head ....
      History cannot be rewritten - what was, was.
      1. creak
        creak 13 March 2016 10: 22
        +17
        Quote = guzik007] History cannot be rewritten — what was, it was [/ quote]
        I support - you need to see the story as it is - in its entirety, with all the pages - albeit tragic and unpleasant - this is a kind of lesson for the future ... Whoever does not learn from the mistakes of the past - runs the risk of repeating them in the future ...
        A couple of facts about Vlasov to complete the picture - in 1938 Vlasov was sent to China as chief of staff of the Soviet military mission, where he was until 1940.
        Before the trip, he was checked in the most thorough manner as on the lines of the GUGB NKVD and GRU RKKA - no compromising materials were found ...
        In 1940, after his return and the corresponding verification, Vlasov was appointed commander of the 99th KVO KVO, which, according to the results of the audit, was recognized as one of the best ...
        It seems that this is precisely why, and taking into account other facts set forth in the article, the news of Vlasov’s betrayal was a real shock to everyone, like thunder from a clear sky (there weren’t any visible prerequisites for this) ...
        And all the subsequent "insights" of memoirists and historians are inexpensive - in hindsight, many are strong (we say, we always suspected that something was unclean with him) ...
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 13 March 2016 16: 56
          +1
          guzik007] History cannot be rewritten - what happened was

          I support - you need to see the story as it is - in its entirety, with all the pages - albeit tragic and unpleasant - this is a kind of lesson for the future ... Whoever does not learn from the mistakes of the past - runs the risk of repeating them in the future ...

          History needs to be studied. What happened and how is best known by those who then lived and survived in this terrible massacre. In any war there are always heroes and traitors, but the circumstances that forced the soldier and general to betray the Motherland are different.
        2. Old old
          Old old 13 March 2016 19: 56
          +2
          ... A couple more facts about Vlasov to complete the picture - in 1938 Vlasov was sent to China as chief of staff of the Soviet military mission where he was until 1940.
          Before the trip, he was checked in the most thorough manner as on the lines of the GUGB NKVD and GRU RKKA - no compromising materials were found ...
          In 1940, after his return and the corresponding verification, Vlasov was appointed commander of the 99th KVO KVO, which, according to the results of the audit, was recognized as one of the best ...
          It seems that this is precisely why, and taking into account other facts set forth in the article, the news of Vlasov’s betrayal was a real shock to everyone, like thunder from a clear sky (there weren’t any visible prerequisites for this) ...

          So rezuki-Penkovsky were also in good standing. And what, previous merits overlap betrayal?
          Vlasov was a traitor and attempts to whitewash him are outrageous!
        3. denis02135
          denis02135 25 October 2016 02: 38
          0
          Dear ranger

          Quote: ranger
          before the trip, he was checked in the most thorough manner both through the GUGB NKVD and GRU RKKA


          If I am not mistaken, the GRU of the General Staff got its name in February 42. And the Special Department which was part of the NKVD could check it.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Old old
        Old old 13 March 2016 20: 08
        +1
        Have you read the article upside down? Where are you seeing this attempt.?
        An article about what you should call a spade a spade, and not how it turned out:

        The author of this article is trying to justify the traitor, just as in the 90s they wrote acquittal opuses about prostitutes and pederasts, they are good, poor and unhappy, and only circumstances forced them to engage in an unseemly thing!
        Vlasov is a traitor and a reference to his previous activity (maybe even successful) is still crossed out by the fact of betrayal and military operations against his people!
      4. Old old
        Old old 13 March 2016 20: 08
        -1
        Have you read the article upside down? Where are you seeing this attempt.?
        An article about what you should call a spade a spade, and not how it turned out:

        The author of this article is trying to justify the traitor, just as in the 90s they wrote acquittal opuses about prostitutes and pederasts, they are good, poor and unhappy, and only circumstances forced them to engage in an unseemly thing!
        Vlasov is a traitor and a reference to his previous activity (maybe even successful) is still crossed out by the fact of betrayal and military operations against his people!
    2. 222222
      222222 13 March 2016 11: 00
      +2
      An incomprehensible attempt to launder a coward and a traitor.
      1. 222222
        222222 13 March 2016 11: 31
        +16
        Monument to General Dmitry Karbyshev in Mauthausen. Photo: RIA Novosti
        1. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt 13 March 2016 14: 13
          +16
          That's right, they remembered General Karbyshev !!! Without detracting from the merits of General Vlasov, he lost his main battle with his conscience, regretted his belly and turned out to be a traitor damned in the people's memory. And to lieutenant general Karbyshev, grateful descendants, ordinary ordinary people will bring fresh flowers to to the monument, to live on Karbyshev Street, to walk every day to work past the house where this real unbroken patriot lived for some time, what the memorial tablet on this house will say. And on harsh days, the formation of such ordinary people heading from the military Omata at the station will pass by this sign. People will read it for the thousandth time and it will open to them with a new, real meaning.
          PS And the story really WHITE is fraught. It then crawled out sideways, throughout our country. When one small lie is layered on the other. It all comes back like an avalanche.
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Severomor
            Severomor 13 March 2016 23: 15
            +3
            Quote: 222222

            Monument to General Dmitry Karbyshev in Mauthausen.


            Another photo, also a lieutenant general, was also surrounded. On the last plane, by the way sent for him, he sent the banners and documents of the army.
            1. Severomor
              Severomor 13 March 2016 23: 59
              +3
              Vlasov and Efremov. Both lieutenant generals. Both commanders. Only Efremov did not give up and even the Germans recognized his heroism, but what about Vlasov ..... what about Vlasov?

              But in Lyubertsy there is Vlasov street.
              Vlasov Nikolay Ivanovich (1916-1945)
              In the Red Army since 1934. He served in the city of Lyubertsy. He graduated from the Kachin Military Aviation School in 1936.
              The senior inspector of fighter aircraft of the Red Army Air Force Inspectorate, Lt. Col. Vlasov, carried out 1942 sorties by November 220, and shot down 27 enemy aircraft in 10 air battles. The title of Hero of the Soviet Union was awarded on 23.11.1942/XNUMX/XNUMX. He was awarded 2 Orders of Lenin, the Order of the Red Banner.
              29.06.1943/09.01.1945/5 he was shot down and in an unconscious state was captured. He was in the concentration camps of Würzburg, Dachau, Mauthausen. One of the leaders of the underground. He was executed on January 6, XNUMX. Forever enrolled in the lists of the military unit. Vlasov's parents came from the besieged Leningrad in the city of Lyubertsy. There, his name was assigned to the XNUMXth gymnasium, as well as an alley on the territory of the XNUMXth high school.

              This is VLASOV, and that commander ... so ... dermets
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. The comment was deleted.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 13 March 2016 07: 43
    +6
    And what? .. Well, even if he commanded .. He chose the path of betrayal ..
  4. bober1982
    bober1982 13 March 2016 08: 25
    -5
    Syphilis, Gen. Vlasov was ill during the December offensive of the 20th Army near Moscow, and the author of the article is torn in search of the reasons for the absence of this scum.
  5. Roman 11
    Roman 11 13 March 2016 08: 33
    +11
    One of the best commanders in a counterattack near Moscow! Out of the environment, too, merit. About the 4th MK, everyone knows in what conditions the war began. Everyone, starting from Stalin, strove to force, or more correctly, make up for preparations for the war. But the unpreparedness led to the fact that new equipment was mastered in units shortly before the start of the fighting, many T-34s and KVs were poorly studied by the crews due to an elementary lack of time, the same was true for their maintenance and provision. There are many photographs of our newest tanks abandoned near Rodzekhov and Lviv for various reasons (the same drawback of the latest spare materiel, lack of skills in handling new equipment - do not forget that it was diesel, while the rest of the equipment, including the enemy was gasoline), i.e. on the battlefield 4MK. It is only on marches such difficulties. And to fight in those conditions was even more difficult!
    In addition, it is well known that the tank division of the corps made a breathtaking transition in the early days, and this was under air attacks, without preparation and lack of interaction.
    Vlasov showed himself very well in the battle on the outskirts, one of the best, despite the losses. It is necessary to make a discount that the corps was on the very border, undergoing continuous strikes ...... and then partly took part in the great tank battle of Dubno-Brody.
    No, Vlasov is one of the best trench generals of 1941! One must face the truth, one cannot argue with that. But when the 2nd shock was surrounded, the psyche apparently flinched on the basis of the retreats and encirclements of 1941. What was, was, the bastard crossed out his entire legendary career, but he could become the most successful war commander, there were some skills !!
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 13 March 2016 08: 51
      -19%
      You have an illiterate comment: Vlasov is one of the best trench generals of 1941-wow !! ..... all his legendary career ....
      Why so stupid?
      The article is disgusting, out of wretch trying to blind the liberator and fighter for the freedom of the Russian people.
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 13 March 2016 17: 08
        +11
        The article is not ugly. You do not need to blame the author. None of the traitor to the hero and the fighter, then either. They are not sculpting now. No need to invent something that is not in the text.
    2. Pig
      Pig 13 March 2016 14: 41
      +7
      "No, Vlasov is one of the best trench generals of 1941 !!"
      nonsense ... as if there was no Lukin, Efremov and other heroes who preferred death to captivity

      shoot himself - there wasn’t enough courage! cowards and traitors always justify their cowardice and betrayal by the most convincing circumstances, but this does not cease to be cowards and traitors
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 13 March 2016 17: 36
        0
        Hanging labels is a thankless task. This coward, and this traitor. According to doctors, only mentally abnormal people and crazy fanatics easily part with life. Why, for example, generals Karbyshev, Ponedelin and many others did not commit suicide in captivity. Are they cowards too? Remember: Kommunisten, Komissaren und Juden! Zwei Schritt vorn!
        1. Pig
          Pig 13 March 2016 19: 54
          +2
          Karbyshev was taken seriously wounded, unconscious ... I don’t know about others (
          and military people should be fanatics especially in war! you read the memoirs of the German military leaders where they complain that they have to fight against fanatics ...
          they themselves fought like fanatics in 1945 ...
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 13 March 2016 21: 56
            +1
            Son! Do you know that the communist did not have the right to surrender. In Bolshevik Russia, not one military specialist could be a general without being a member of the CPSU (b). According to our Charter, a soldier was personally responsible for defending his homeland. In Soviet times, a non-partisan and idle officer was not put on the company.
            No one else has it. The Germans treated only those wounded who were of interest to them, the rest they finished off. After the war, Stalin dealt with each of the generals who were captured and found out what they did in captivity and why they survived. The fact is that under the Geneva Convention, officers were not involved in physical work. The Germans respected this provision of the convention. due to this, some of our captive generals and senior officers saved their lives if they did not rise uprising, did not make escapes. On the Internet you can find articles about the results of the Stalinist test. Not all were rehabilitated.
  6. Colonel
    Colonel 13 March 2016 08: 34
    -2
    Why this opus from December 2008 year? And in 2008, why was this necessary?
    At the end of 1941 and the beginning of 1942, Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov was in good standing

    It means that life did not take for khibo, but as it did, it betrayed. I did not expect this from Isaev, also damn it, "anti-suvorov". By the way, some authors, who also had serious access to the archives (V. Karpov), trust Sandalov more.
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 13 March 2016 09: 38
      +15
      Why this opus from December 2008 year? And in 2008, why was this necessary?

      to anything, just a normal historian writes as is, but it is such that before the betrayal Vlasov was a good general and fought well.
      and that means a few features of a good, good military leader, careerist, and very afraid for his life, merged in a man.
      He would have gone far if the captivity had not stopped ...
      her life is always more complicated and he did not replace his order of the Red Banner for a scythes.
      From that his betrayal is even worse

      1. Colonel
        Colonel 13 March 2016 17: 06
        +2
        Quote: Stas57
        I would have gone far if the captivity had not stopped

        Well said, just in case, I remind you that he was not taken prisoner, he surrendered. "Good General", bl ....
  7. V.ic
    V.ic 13 March 2016 08: 51
    +4
    Article plus. Another confirmation of the thesis about "unpredictable" Russian history.
  8. user3970
    user3970 13 March 2016 09: 43
    +3
    Yes, not everything is so simple and simple in the fate of Vlasov. Let's not forget that its units liberated Prague from the Nazis. Remember Serdyukov. Knowing Shoigu too well, I will never believe that such a quick spurt in the construction of the current army is his merit.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 13 March 2016 09: 57
      +4
      Yes, the fact of the matter is that everything is simple: a traitor, betrayed even all his many women.
      The Germans treated him with contempt, like a pig. And the Germans must be given their due, well versed in people.
      So it remained for the former General of the Red Army to drink the bitter, and scribble silly appeals.
      1. Mr. Pipster
        Mr. Pipster 13 March 2016 11: 17
        +3
        Quote: bober1982
        .And the Germans must be given their due, well versed in people.

        They would understand really well, there would be no war fellow
    2. V.ic
      V.ic 13 March 2016 12: 32
      +3
      Quote: user3970
      in the fate of Vlasov. Let's not forget that its units liberated Prague from the Nazis.

      In the Red Army, the Vlasovites tried not to take prisoners. The Americans as of April-May 1945 were considered our allies, so Bunyachenko co-comrades needed to depict, before surrendering to the Americans, the fight against the Germans.
  9. Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 13 March 2016 09: 54
    +9
    No merit can justify betrayal.
    1. Seal
      Seal 13 March 2016 11: 12
      +6
      No merit can justify betrayal.

      History does not change retroactively !!
      Yes no following merit cannot justify betrayal.
      But no betrayal can no longer erase from history previousmerit.
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 13 March 2016 17: 43
        0
        Treason to the Motherland, the transition to the enemy’s side crosses out all the merits, and the family of the traitor to the Motherland is deprived of all the established benefits and benefits.
  10. DesToeR
    DesToeR 13 March 2016 10: 00
    +14
    Quote: colonel
    I did not expect this from Isaev, also damn it, "anti-suvorov".

    And what exactly did you not expect from the historian Isaev? Maybe it was that he, without emotion and useless comments, set out the facts and proved that General Vlasov commanded the 20th Army during the indicated period? In addition to facts, the article contains nothing "personal" from the author, only quotes, photographs and documents.
  11. bober1982
    bober1982 13 March 2016 10: 17
    -11%
    .....stated and proved that General Vlasov commanded the 20th Army
    And what was there to prove to the historian? the article is correctly concocted, around the Vlasov head (legendary and ingenious) only a halo is missing.
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 13 March 2016 10: 32
      +11
      Quote: bober1982
      And what was there to prove to the historian? the article is correctly concocted, around the Vlasov head (legendary and ingenious) only a halo is missing.

      I repeat once again, history as a science, unlike propaganda, operates with facts, the facts are such that before captivity he was not the worst Soviet general, he was awarded, was published on the editorials of Pravda ..
      Propaganda operates with simple concepts - coward and tyrant.
      As practice shows, life is much more complicated, as is the historical figure itself.
      The fact that Vlasov skillfully fought is not concocted propaganda, it is a real fact, it would very well have ended the war with a marshal, but how he turned, and ended up on a rope. His heroism before captivity does not justify his behavior in the rear, but simply shows what kind of person he was in real life.
      Personally, I am interested in the unconventional and two-dimensional perception of the source person
      If you do not understand this and live in a black and white world, then forgive me for making me read this text.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 13 March 2016 10: 58
        +1
        I read your comment with great interest.
        ...... was not the worst Soviet general ...
        I completely agree with you, no one has ever denied this.
        ........ was awarded, printed on the editorials ....
        Also what's unusual here
        ........... Vlasov skillfully fought ....
        Where did he skillfully fight? just a good moment in the counterattack near Moscow, and in this episode they are trying to make a commander out of it.
        ........... Propaganda uses simple concepts like a coward and tyrant
        Well, who is he, if not a coward, he was not a tyrant, you made it up.
        .............. shows what kind of person he was in real life ...
        But in real life it was: he was a member of the "troikas", he signed execution sentences to his own comrades (before the war), was a careerist to the bone, drunkenness + an immoral lifestyle, cowardly and shameful surrender.
        And you talk about some two-dimensional perception.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 13 March 2016 11: 16
          +4
          ...... was not the worst Soviet general...
          I completely agree with you, no one has ever denied this.

          и
          ........... Vlasov skillfully fought ....
          Where did he skillfully fight? just a good moment in the counterattack near Moscow, and in this episode they are trying to make a commander out of it.

          for a start you will decide whether "a skilled general" or "where he skillfully fought."
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 13 March 2016 11: 21
            0
            On the Babsky front, he skillfully fought, here he was a commander, a noble was a walker.
            1. rubin6286
              rubin6286 13 March 2016 23: 23
              0
              Remember Simonov:
              "Remembering the names for an hour,
              there is no long memory.
              Men say "War!"
              And hastily embrace women .... "
        2. Seal
          Seal 13 March 2016 12: 04
          +5
          Where did he skillfully fight? just a good moment in the counterattack near Moscow, and in this episode they are trying to make a commander out of it.

          Initially, he had the defense of Kiev.
          http://maxpark.com/community/14/content/1922979
          Unfortunately, the command of the Southwestern Front was not up to par. It should be borne in mind that the Chief of Staff of the South-Western Front, the most experienced General Vasily Ivanovich Tupikov, at the time of the outbreak of the war, was our military attaché in Berlin. This is the one, on whose report shortly before the start of the war, JV Stalin allegedly imposed a resolution: "You can send this stupid general ...". So, V.I. Tupikov, who managed to fly to the USSR late in the evening on June 21, 1941 by an Aeroflot aircraft, and one of the squadrons of the Luftwaffe, based in Poland, was tasked to intercept and shoot down a Soviet airliner, but could not do it in cloudy conditions and in the absence of guidance from the ground, he was appointed chief of staff of the Southwestern Front only on July 29, 1941. Unfortunately, he personally did not know the theater of military operations of the Southwestern Front, since before that he had served in the more eastern Kharkov military district. And his right hand, the head of the operations department of the Headquarters of the Southwestern Front, who knew the whole theater of the Southwestern Front Bagramyan well, apparently offended that he was not appointed chief of staff, was doing something incomprehensible at all.
          Vlasov, in fact, was the main defender of Kiev.
          And the only survivor of the leadership of the Headquarters of the Southwestern Front, Bagramyan, in his post-war memoirs, managed to write the chapter "Heroic Kiev" in such a way that he never mentioned the name "Vlasov".
        3. veteran66
          veteran66 13 March 2016 18: 13
          0
          Quote: bober1982
          And in real life it was: he was a member of the "troikas", he signed execution sentences to his own comrades (before the war), was a careerist to the bone, drunkenness + an immoral lifestyle,

          it can be stuck to almost any of our commanders of that time, well, with rare exceptions. The only difference is that all of them (our commanders) have passed this cup; it is still unknown how they would have acted in such a case. In no case do I whitewash Vlasov and the likes of Nedelin, etc.
          1. Antropos
            Antropos 13 March 2016 22: 19
            0
            Please do not confuse the names.
            1. veteran66
              veteran66 14 March 2016 18: 23
              0
              Quote: Anthropos
              Please do not confuse the names.

              Yes, I apologize: Ponedelinyh. Nedelin is a hero!
      2. rubin6286
        rubin6286 13 March 2016 18: 02
        +2
        Stas 57. "The fact that Vlasov skillfully fought is not concocted propaganda, it is a real fact."

        We Zhukov, Vasilevsky, Konev, Chuykov, Tolbukhin and other Marshals of Victory also skillfully fought and this is also a fact. It’s just that a lot of people have hurt so much. We still don’t know exactly how many and every year we find the fallen and put them to the ground.
  12. midshipman
    midshipman 13 March 2016 10: 48
    +3
    Interestingly, I had with my colleagues (directors of enterprises from Tatarstan, and in this republic there were 8 defense enterprises subordinate to me) to visit the sites of Myasniy Bor in 1982. This was due to the fact that the directors wanted to honor the memory of their outstanding Tatar poet, who fought in the Shock Army here in 1942. We then knew that this extremely unpleasant man (in appearance) did not command the 20th army in the Solnechnogorsk region near Moscow in December 1941. It was not clear to us how Comrade Stalin could advance this traitor through the ranks. Indeed, by his face it is clear that this ok was good for nothing. I couldn’t even shoot a bullet at my temple. The same opinion was about Marshal Kulik, who fought in 1941 near Leningrad. I learned about this much later from an unsent letter from my father, who died on the Leningrad Front on December 27, 1941 and created long-range railway artillery. I have the honor.
    1. creak
      creak 13 March 2016 15: 34
      -5
      Quote: midshipman
      and. It was not clear to us how Comrade Stalin could advance this traitor through the ranks. Indeed, by his face it is clear that this ok was good for nothing.

      Quote: midshipman
      . We then knew that this extremely unpleasant person (in appearance)


      But the country's leaders and military leaders Stalin probably did not know that one of the criteria for trustworthiness was a pleasant weight ...
      And people who do not have such "dignity" cannot be promoted ...
      It remains only to regret that in the environment of the Supreme there was not such a penetrating physiognomist as MICHMAN to open the eyes of the leadership in time and point to a potential traitor ... am
      But already in 1982, he and his colleagues calculated (according to external data) that Vlasov was a traitor ...
      1. midshipman
        midshipman 13 March 2016 18: 31
        +2
        Dear Victor, in vain you are ironic that the physiognomy of a person says a lot, including his volitional qualities. Currently, under my leadership and involving 3 leading universities of St. Petersburg (Inst. Film and television, U-t GA, University of St. Petersburg), work is underway to evaluate the results of kinesics and physiognomy on the performance of operators and officers ...) to perform their functional duties. From 1979 to 1990, I had to lead the GU of one of the Defense Ministries. Besides the fact that at the age of 39 I was already a doctor of technical sciences, professor, Ch. designer of a number of systems adopted for service, Deputy. When interviewing the Defense Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the head of the country's largest research institute paid special attention to appearance. Look how illegal intelligence officers are selected, etc. All the marshals with whom I had to work (E.Ya. Savitsky, P.S. Kutakhov, A.N. Efimov and others were strong-willed officers with an attractive appearance). I have the honor.
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 13 March 2016 22: 22
          0
          Perhaps you are right in something, but the Italian Cesare Lombroso back in the 18th century created a theory according to which, to this day, the external signs of a person speak of his propensity to commit certain crimes. today it is being studied in law schools in the section of criminology. As for evaluating the performance of operators and officers in kinesics and physiognomy, attempts of this kind were made in Soviet times. They were abandoned because graduates came to the troops and the unit commander was clear - "take what they give", in a word, as in the song "They can't everything in the world to be beautiful. and for some reason everyone needs happiness! " Once I came across a book about the Chekists and I, comparing a number of photographs with the theory of Lambroso, was surprised and puzzled. During the period of "perestroika" I managed to read some of them additionally about the "heroism". I do not think that you were a career soldier and without a protégé you became a doctor of technical sciences. at 39 years old. Those who served in the army for at least two years were admitted to the adjunct, I don't know a single lieutenant. who had no "blat" who, after two years of service, would have been released from the troops. You are very lucky. maybe not lucky. Who knows? Remember, as in Lermontov's "A Hero of Our Time": "Nature is a fool, fate is a turkey, and life is a penny!"
  13. xomaNN
    xomaNN 13 March 2016 10: 55
    +6
    Judas, after all, was also at first for "our-correct".
    ...........
    Dozens of owls were captured by the Germans. generals. But it was Vlasov who acted "ideologically" against the Motherland - the USSR (the colonels were there too)
  14. Mr. Pipster
    Mr. Pipster 13 March 2016 11: 22
    -2
    There is no forgiveness to traitors - for the sake of those who did not surrender alive.
    But Vlasov is not only a "personal tragedy", it is generally a "tragedy of an entire era" - this is the same symbol of that era as Stalin, and that is why modern researchers are so interested in him.
    And I'm not going to justify the traitors, but why were there so many "traitorous generals" in the Stalinist USSR that some were even whole marshals ?! Why was there no such thing in the USA, but we did? request
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 13 March 2016 12: 36
      +1
      Quote: Mr. Peipster
      Why wasn’t this in the USA,

      ...will be!
  15. Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 13 March 2016 11: 33
    +5
    The article is simply a statement of facts and an attempt, namely, an attempt at analysis .. yes, the erysipelas are career, so now ... there was such a general, this is history ... and whatever it may be, it is ours, with all its problems, questions, white and black spots, traitors, heroes, cowards and brave men. It’s probably hard to talk about the best trench generals at the beginning of the war, everyone understands and knows what the situation was then ... well, what made him take this step-betrayal ... difficult to say for sure. ..but..on chose his own path .... and it is impossible to whitewash it in any case.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 13 March 2016 11: 47
      -1
      .... well, what prompted him to take this step .......

      VODKA, WOMEN, MONEY
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 13 March 2016 12: 38
        +1
        Quote: bober1982
        VODKA, WOMEN, MONEY

        Sorry, correcting: money, vodka and young / so in the Russian proverb that destroys a young man.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 13 March 2016 12: 48
          +1
          Sorry, and I will correct: Schnapps, WOMEN, MONEY - as Himmler said, in relation to all this public (to fighters for the liberation of the Russian people from the yoke of Bolshevism)
      2. veteran66
        veteran66 13 March 2016 18: 18
        +1
        Quote: bober1982
        VODKA, WOMEN, MONEY

        the rest of our generals were entirely teetotalers and ulcers with signs of impotence
  16. Ivan Tartugai
    Ivan Tartugai 13 March 2016 11: 53
    +9
    Attempts to simply erase his activities from the history of the war rather prevented the elucidation of the causes of the breakdown, with such a crash that broke the personality of General Vlasov.


    The spring of 1942 was extremely tragic for the Soviet Union. And the betrayal of General Vlasov should not be seen as a general’s spontaneous decision, but as part of an extensive, well-developed plan for the destruction of the Red Army and the whole country.
    If you look at the chronology of events and operations, you can see that they are well coordinated.
    In the spring of 1942, the Rzhev-Vyazemsky operation was carried out, the goals were not achieved, the operation failed. Almost 250 thousand only irretrievable losses. The 33rd Army is surrounded, captured and defeated.
    In the spring of 1942, the Luban operation was carried out, goals not achieved, failed. Lost almost 100 thousand only killed. Lost the 2nd shock army led by Vlasov.
    In late spring 1942, the Kharkov operation was carried out and also a complete failure. Lost almost 200 thousand just killed. Several armies were defeated, about 1200 tanks were lost.
    Also, in the spring of 1942, the Kerch-Feodosia operation was carried out and also a complete failure. Three armies were defeated, the losses only killed about 100 thousand soldiers and commanders of the Red Army.
    In late spring 1942, the surrender of Sevastopol was predetermined.
    Therefore, I agree with the author that a more complete coverage of the activities of General Vlasov will shed light not only on the tragedy with the 2nd shock army, but also on the causes of the tragic failures of the Red Army in 1942, which killed about a million soldiers and commanders of the Red Army, more than a million captured, as well as multimillion-dollar sanitary losses.
    Moreover, all these failures were with a numerical advantage in the people and equipment of the Red Army, and were accompanied by surprisingly small losses of the Wehrmacht. So in the Kerch-Feodosia operation, according to Manshein’s memoirs, the Wehrmacht’s losses amounted to only 10 thousand people. Well, let’s say that Manstein, as is characteristic of all generals, had the habit of inflating the losses of the enemy and underestimating the losses of his troops, and according to this general’s habit, he underestimated the losses of his troops by half, even if by three times, i.e. suppose that the Wehrmacht’s losses were not 10 thousand according to Manstein, but 30 thousand. Anyway, compared with the losses of the Red Army, namely 330 thousand people and only 170 thousand of them prisoners, even with these assumptions, the Wehrmacht’s losses are very small, one in ten.
    Similarly for the 2nd strike army, for example, the 215th infantry division, which was at the forefront of the breakthrough of the 2nd strike army, from November 23, 1941 (took part in battles against the 52nd army during the defense in the area Malaya Vishera) until July 18, 1942 (that is, it took part in the battles to destroy the remnants of the 2nd shock army) lost only 961 people killed (among them 20 officers), i.e. less than a thousand soldiers. True, this is only one division of the Wehrmacht, but it is precisely the one that took the main blow of the 2nd shock army. Losses of the 2nd shock army: about 15 thousand killed, more than 30 thousand prisoners and about 30 thousand missing.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 13 March 2016 12: 41
      +2
      Very confusing, it's hard to understand what your comment is about.The spring of 1942 was extremely tragic for the Soviet Union.
      I agree.
    2. rubin6286
      rubin6286 13 March 2016 18: 06
      0
      Vania! If the Internet was already right after the war and this your comment would appear before 1956, I just do not envy your family.
      1. Ivan Tartugai
        Ivan Tartugai 13 March 2016 19: 12
        +2
        Quote: rubin6286

        If the Internet was already right after the war


        Oh, if it were so.
        After all, then the direct participants in those operations that themselves personally participated in the breakthroughs, and in the offensives, and in the retreats that came out of the cauldrons, from the surroundings were alive and in force. How much valuable information we would get from them, as they say firsthand, which, unfortunately, they took with them or, if shared, about a very small number of people.
        No matter how many myths and other lies about the Great Patriotic War would not even be born.
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 13 March 2016 22: 44
          -1
          It was no coincidence that I wrote to you about 1956. You know what happened to those who "themselves personally participated in breakthroughs, and in offensives, and in retreats that came out of the cauldrons, from the encirclement" and shared "the most valuable information as they say firsthand." In the dungeons of the NKVD, soldiers for courage were piled up in heaps, and the front-line soldiers who were awarded by them walked through the stage. The Great Victory will always be surrounded by myths and lies, but today there is access to the archives and this helps in knowing the truth.
  17. engineer
    engineer 13 March 2016 13: 16
    +5
    No past merit can justify betrayal. So the dog, dog death
    1. Ivan Tartugai
      Ivan Tartugai 13 March 2016 13: 41
      0
      I agree, the betrayal of the crime is not forgiven and not forgotten. People may remain silent, but they will not forget and will not forgive.
      But I don’t agree about the dog. A dog is a good animal. A traitor is not a dog, not a pig. A pig is also a necessary and useful animal, no comparison with a traitor.
      A traitor is something like the feces of a society or something and again can not be compared with the dung of a horse or a cow.
  18. Vadim42
    Vadim42 13 March 2016 13: 19
    0
    I want to say a miracle to the author, one successful operation in the war is not an indicator of the talent and merit of a military leader. There is a factor of luck, which is excluded by subsequent victories. What can not be said about the coward and priest Vlasov.
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 13 March 2016 13: 28
      +2
      Quote: Vadim42
      I want to say a miracle to the author, one successful operation in the war is not an indicator of the talent and merit of a military leader.

      “One luck, two luck, but, God have mercy, put at least something on the skill!”
      Suvorov
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 13 March 2016 18: 20
        +1
        Vadim and Stas!

        As a military man, I will explain that the operation of the operation is carried out by the headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief and the General Staff, and their conduct, respectively, by army groups (fronts). The army commander does not carry out the operation. He is the executor of the will of the higher command, who is personally responsible for the actions of the troops entrusted to him in a particular area.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 13 March 2016 19: 46
          +1
          As a military man I will explain
          .He is the executor of the will of the higher command, who is personally responsible for the actions of the troops entrusted to him in a particular area.


          As a person who knows the realities of 41-42, I’ll explain that any developed plan, even the smartest one, must be provided with something, and somehow implemented, and somehow implemented and implemented.

          sometimes not on paper it happens like this:
          -TBR commander went to the specified area with a delay and the infantry went on the attack without tanks, the infantry lay down with losses.
          -TBR left for the place on time, but due to the long transition, half of the KV tanks didn’t reach - clutches flew, so only the 2 of the 6 tank went into battle
          - the tanks went on the attack, but the infantry lay down and did not go, the company commander 4 got out of the tank times and asked the infantry to go on the attack.
          - the artillery did not know that the bunkers were behind the 2 line of trenches, the infantry lay dead, there was no connection, the messengers reported too late.
          -artillery had no connection with the advanced regiment, and therefore at the appointed time opened fire on the square that this regiment had already taken.
          -the commander of a motorized rifle brigade told the messenger that he did not belong to them, and wanted to spit on the orders of their regiment headquarters, so there was nothing to support the regiment.
          - the regiment commander withdrew from the battle and went to drink in the village, but the infantry did not go any further, began to engage in looting in German dugouts.
          - the division did not have a clearly defined task, did not know the time to reach the borders, there was no communication with neighbors

          Here are not typical, but not rare cases that are found in our railways.
          I’ll say right away that this is an approximate retelling, but for the most part I can give documentary evidence.
          the implementation of such a complicated thing as an army operation, and its failure cannot lie solely on luck. You must have at least organizational abilities, at least understand what you are doing.
          in 41 it was especially difficult. It is strange to consider that our successes are from success, and failures from failure.
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 13 March 2016 23: 20
            0
            What you write about, I call the "particulars" of military life, which fit into the famous phrase of the brave soldier Schweik "What I love the army for is its confusion!" I can give you a lot of examples similar to what you are writing about. The rationale for your comment is in the words: "Any developed plan, even the smartest one, should be provided with something, and somehow carried out, and somehow executed and implemented." With regard to Vlasov, I recommend that you study the preparation of the operation by the General Staff, the calculation of forces and means, the task of the 2nd Shock Army, the progress of its implementation, the operational exchange of information and reports to the Headquarters. Let me remind you that when Sevastopol fell, General Petrov was taken out of there by Stalin's order, because he NEEDED it! And Vlasov? What awaited him? I invite you to reflect on this.
  19. rubin6286
    rubin6286 13 March 2016 13: 24
    0
    The life of any person is not at all a combination of black and white stripes alone. It is beautiful and amazing, diverse and multicolored so much that in it, as they say today, there is only one gray “50 shades”. “Considering through the magnifying glass of history” these very shades, you can not only compose a holistic picture of the person of interest, but also other people who made decisions together with them, their motivation in certain conditions. That's just, so as not to “smear gray”, those who until today are considered exclusively white in life. Is it necessary to do this regarding Vlasov? Is it worth it? A traitor, he is a traitor and his fate is known. The war was terrible and cruel, and no one can vouch for what will happen, choosing between life and death. From different sides, it contained its Pavlovs, Karbyshevs, Efremovs, Shtemmermans and Models, as well as Vlasovs, Pauluses, millions of ruined and crippled human lives.
  20. ZIS
    ZIS 13 March 2016 14: 38
    0
    the reasons for the break, with such a crash that broke the personality of General Vlasov.
    I didn’t even notice the elephant. So what are the reasons?
  21. ZIS
    ZIS 13 March 2016 14: 45
    0
    The campaign does not recognize Crimea as Russian, since it continues to spoil us with Ukrainian flowers, and I can’t do anything ... or there isn’t enough tyma.
  22. unknown
    unknown 13 March 2016 14: 45
    +4
    The tragedy of 1941 is inextricably linked with the military conspiracy in 1937. Opposition to Stalin really existed. There was a conspiracy against Stalin. There were other assassination attempts and incidents that can be interpreted as unsuccessful assassination attempts, for example, the collision of "Maxim Gorky" with an escort fighter. And it was assumed that Stalin was supposed to be on the Gorky.
    The events of 1941 also largely resemble a conspiracy and treason.
    They write a lot about land battles, but what about the Tallinn crossing?
    Ships and ships navigated through minefields. Tsushima is resting.
    In total, dozens of high-ranking Soviet officers joined the Nazis.
    Not for nothing, Stalin in 1946 returned to the theme of 1941. Not all traitors were identified and punished in 1937.
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 13 March 2016 18: 24
      +2
      Just do not interfere all in one pile.
  23. avva2012
    avva2012 13 March 2016 16: 59
    +1
    A. Isaev is a historian and seems to be a historical article. But the facts set forth in it do not reveal the main reason for the betrayal of the general. Therefore, in my opinion, the historian wasted his time digging into the archives. Therefore, I agree with some of the members of the forum who did not see anything in the article except the feeling that they want to whitewash the general, at least in some way. Most likely, A. Isaev wanted to apply the scientific research method, as he applied it to tanks, for example. To tanks, I agree, it is possible, but to a traitor, no. Emotion is not going anywhere. Because of this, and the sediment from the article.
  24. Mwg
    Mwg 13 March 2016 17: 09
    -1
    I read as that article of the former chief editor of the military-historical journal of the Soviet era about Vlasov. So in that article it was said that Vlasov was a participant in the big game of the Soviet counterintelligence. And quite successfully. And he began to play with meetings with fascist officers in China. And he married in Germany the sister of a high officer held by the USSR. And mainly the Vlasovites fought with the Americans on the approaches to Berlin, who, after being captured, were taken out by almost all the staff in the USA. And the 2nd army of Vlasov took already broken, hungry and surrounded. So it’s not so simple with this story.
  25. guzik007
    guzik007 13 March 2016 17: 12
    +4
    Therefore, I agree with some of the members of the forum who did not see anything in the article except the feeling that they want to whitewash the general, at least in some way.
    --------------------------------------
    There is nothing in the article but an attempt to establish a historical fact, namely, he commanded the army, or, as some claimed, did not command. And do not hang other people's dogs on Isaev.
    1. avva2012
      avva2012 13 March 2016 17: 25
      0
      I don’t hang anything on Isaev. Researcher dear to me. Therefore, I am writing about tanks. In this article, you will not be impartial, and why? Why, should I know that the general was a professional? It should be by definition. I repeat, why did he become a traitor ?! And, here, the work is already professional in another area.
  26. Wanderer 2008
    Wanderer 2008 13 March 2016 17: 47
    +4
    Quote: Mr. Peipster
    Why didn't this happen in the USA, but did we have it?

    Because they did not have to experience such severe trials and tribulations as our soldiers, it is not yet known how the American military would have shown themselves if such difficult conditions had fallen on them!
    1. veteran66
      veteran66 13 March 2016 18: 48
      -1
      Quote: Wanderer 2008
      if they fell to their lot

      if grandmother had a beard, then she would be a grandfather. They fought so as not to fall into such conditions, but ours, unfortunately, could not. Here are the conditions ...
  27. catch22
    catch22 13 March 2016 19: 14
    +4
    The article is interesting, but you can't trample on the outcome! A traitor he is a traitor and no previous feats and merits count, especially when your Motherland is waging a war against the invaders there can be no excuses. All these "liberal" attempts to justify the betrayal of Vlasov and there are no other figures and cannot be! That's it! That's all! There is nothing to talk about here!
  28. Veteran
    Veteran 13 March 2016 19: 54
    +5
    The former allies in the 2-th World also have unpleasant defeats associated with the capture of a large number of troops. In the Philippine operation, by June 1942, the Japanese had defeated the group of US-Philippine forces that outnumbered the enemy in numbers (150 thousand vs. 130 thousand among the Japanese), up to 100 thousand were captured, 7,5 thousand killed and wounded. The greatest shame is the surrender of the Singapore naval base by the British 15 on February 1942. The superior Japanese group was able to defend the fortress for only a week, after which it surrendered, having surrendered over 80 thousand of soldiers and officers of the British Commonwealth. This was the largest surrender of British troops in history, and before the enemy, who was completely exhausted and was also smaller in number. And compare this defense with the defense of Sevastopol in 1941-42.
  29. not main
    not main 13 March 2016 21: 04
    +1
    All this is true and Vlasov commanded no worse than others! But when it took personal courage (and not send to the death of others), here he was blown away!
  30. skeptic31
    skeptic31 13 March 2016 22: 12
    -1
    The article is tedious. About nothing. A special case is examined in great detail, but it is not clear why? To show that Vlasov is a good commander? No. Just prove that he was a commander. Proved. What's next?
  31. not main
    not main 13 March 2016 23: 10
    0
    Quote: non-primary
    All this is true and Vlasov commanded no worse than others! But when it took personal courage (and not send to the death of others), here he was blown away!

    And apparently the one to whom PERSONAL courage is useless was apparently minus! He will again hide behind the courage of the soldiers and receive another order!
  32. Inq
    Inq 14 March 2016 09: 25
    0
    Does he know what amazes me? Vlasov, who sided with the Germans - a scoundrel and a traitor. And Lenin, who arranged a colossal sabotage for the collapse of the army during the war with the same Germans, was a hero and a fine fellow.
  33. rexby63
    rexby63 14 March 2016 15: 09
    0
    And in the background are photographs where the traitor kisses in the present the defender of Moscow, and in the future the hero of the Battle of Kursk, on the left - not Alexander Fedorovich Burda, for an hour?
    And the historian Isaev for scrupulousness, as always, five plus. The point is this, the story, although a walking girl, but not to the extent that every twenty years it is tilted in different directions. And if the 20th Army under the command of Vlasov achieved success in the defense of Moscow, then it is necessary to write that it was REACHED, and it was precisely UNDER THE COMMAND OF General Vlasov. If you don’t write like that, then your opponent will then say to you: Buddy, but you’re filling in, regarding the betrayal of this general ...
    Like this. "Having lied once, who will believe you"
  34. Faust
    Faust 14 March 2016 16: 18
    0
    The article is crafty, and taken from a crafty site. If the author is so meticulous, it would be better to check if Vlasov was the commander of the 2nd army and what he commanded there.
    1. rexby63
      rexby63 14 March 2016 19: 21
      0
      was Vlasov commander of the 2nd army


      Is the article really called - "Did AA Vlasov Command the 2nd Shock Army?