Hot summer 1941-42. Part of 1
“Part of the troops of the Southern Front, going for alarmists, left Rostov and Novocherkassk without serious resistance and without an order from Moscow, covering their banners with shame. The population of our country, with love and respect for the Red Army, begins to give up on it, loses faith in the Red Army, and many of them curse the Red Army because it gives our people under the yoke of the German oppressors, and it flows away to the east ” . Order number XXUMX.
Perhaps this topic is the main topic in stories THE USSR. This is a topic that in its significance dramatically exceeds most other issues. The topic, which in the Russian historiography was studied by very, very many (with varying degrees of reliability). A theme that is vividly and catastrophically displayed in hundreds of films and thousands of books. June 41. And the whole life of the USSR is clearly divided into two segments: before and after. That same June had such far-reaching and so disastrous consequences that in many ways changed our perception of the world and even to some extent national psychology.
And for many years, attempts to give a convincing explanation of what happened in that terrible 1941 June, and why this summer the Red Army suffered such terrible defeats that put the entire state on the verge of death, have not ceased. Just because from the very first months of the war itself, the peoples of the USSR began to receive questions to the leadership of the country and the army. The course and results of the summer battles of pre-war propaganda were too inconsistent. The difference between the harsh realities of the war with the Nazis and the complete confidence of the Soviet people in the absolute invincibility of the Red Army was too great.
That is usually in response to this love to answer that in the end the enemy was utterly defeated, and the war ended in Berlin. That's the way it is, only the way to the Seelow Heights was too long and bloody. As our historians do not like to analyze the whole 1941-1942 campaign, which in fact the USSR brilliantly lost. Yes, there was Stalin, there was discipline, there was industrialization (the USSR was no longer a “peasant country”), there was a mood for victory. But any other state, like even the USA, having suffered such defeats, would inevitably come out of the war. Too hard, expensive and hopeless.
It's just that the whole history of 41-42 is almost a continuous chain of catastrophes, retreats and defeats. And to object here is something very difficult. To anyone who mentions "the defeat of the Germans near Moscow," I suggest that you carefully read what happened before and what happened after this "defeat." This is a kind of "bright spot" on a very dark background. And General Vlasov (not the worst, by the way, from the Stalin generals and near Moscow showed himself) was captured and went to cooperate with the enemy, perhaps just "breaking psychologically." Since the beginning of the war only endless defeats, retreats, encirclement. By the summer of 1942, a military professional could simply lose faith in the possibility of not only a decisive victory over the enemy, but also the capabilities of the Red Army as a whole. This, of course, does not justify it, but at least explains something.
Usually they give several “running” explanations of this very catastrophe at once. And the first of them is the surprise attack and the Soviet Union’s unpreparedness for war. Well, they say, these very suddenness and unpreparedness served as the reason for the complete defeat. Here you can not just object, you can object very, very much. The entire Stalinist period of rule, beginning in 1927, was preparation for war, a great war. All Soviet society was thoroughly militarized. Industrialization was primarily military in nature. Artillery is being built at an accelerated pace, tank, aircraft factories. OSOAVIAHIM (the predecessor of DOSAAF) is also from that era, like the TRP.
We are so used to it that we take it for granted, but the “sudden”, literally over 12 years, industrialization and militarization of the USSR is a phenomenon that has few analogues in world history. All spheres of life, including film and literature, also fulfilled this “social order”. And, sorry, what is it, if not preparation for war? To the big war. I must say that in tsarist Russia no one prepared for the First World War and was not going to prepare. And did not even plan, and did not dream, which is typical. Nevertheless, catastrophes similar to those of the Second World War were not observed. Defeats were heavy defeats, like Samsonov, but not a disaster.
The Russian industry of 1914 of the year was absolutely not ready for war, but, nevertheless, it was possible to avoid disasters on the front, in contrast to the year of 1941, when everything, up to the last factory, worked for the army. Paradox? If we talk about "surprise and unavailability", then for 1914 it is much more typical. It was just the First World War that revealed the complete and categorical unpreparedness of the Russian empire for large-scale military operations of such magnitude. Lacked and rifles, and shells, and machine guns. And yet: there was no catastrophe. Here it is not customary to compare 1941 and 1914 in Russian historiography. Not accepted for obvious reasons: it is in favor of the Republic of Ingushetia and not in favor of the USSR.
It's a shame, yes, I understand. And yet. Anyone who loves cursing imperial Russia for backwardness and sluggishness somehow avoids recalling the absence of catastrophes in 1914-1915, similar to those that occurred after 27 years. You can find detailed and colorful descriptions of how everything was bad and unorganized in that “old” Russia, but this does not negate the fact that the front did not collapse time after time and the army did not run many times eastward, as it happened with “ideologically the right guide. Unpleasant paradox.
In WWI Germany fought on two fronts? It certainly is, but in the WWI Russia was forced to fight more with the Ottoman and the Austro-Hungarian empires. This is if someone does not remember. Already in the very 1914 year. Germans, Austrians and Turks - the Germans were all stronger, but this does not negate the other two empires, they also fought, and Austria-Hungary was quite a great power. Let's not forget it. And even at the time of the 1915 of the year and the decisive German offensive to the east, it was possible to avoid disasters. Defeats and retreats took place. But there were no military catastrophes.
And then someone (the most erudite) will say: “Well, after all, tanks!” Tanks, go ahead! And the aircraft, respectively, up! It is these (U-87 / 88 and T-III / IV) that became those “miracle devices” that broke the ridge of the personnel of the Red Army. I am compelled to object: just in terms of tanks and aircraft, the Red Army was on a level in quality, and in terms of quantity abruptly superior to the Wehrmacht. The topic is well developed at the moment, and I do not see any reason to intervene in it, I just want to note that if the Reichsheer is unequivocally technically superior to the Russian Imperial Army in most areas, then in the technical confrontation Wehrmacht vs. The Red Army was all very much the other way around.
Just so much has been written about the alleged inattention of Stalin to the machine guns (pistol-machine guns) and mortars, that it penetrated the mass consciousness and got stuck there. Now we already know the truth, but in the subconscious leftthat the "German crushed technique." But the Germans, just, were unpleasantly amazed by the technical equipment of the very Red Army in June 1941. At least the same number of mortars and submachine guns (Eike Middeldorf. Russian campaign: tactics and weapons). But, oddly enough, it did not save the Red Army from defeat.
You see, at first glance, an attempt to understand the causes of the “1941 disaster” leads us into a dead end. I do not understand anything. Some kind of anomaly. In such cases, a bad suspicion immediately arises that not everything is told to us. Just when the mosaic stubbornly does not add up - perhaps some pieces are missing? Just this topic - very nervous and political. And in the USSR it was a huge problem: on the one hand, 1941-1945 is the central element of Soviet propaganda (in the good sense of propaganda), on the other hand, this very 1941, and 1942 could not "decorate" the USSR and the Soviet army. And our society was deeply ideological. And it was the deepest “plug” for our ideologues: if the USSR is so great and promising, why did such a military apocalypse happen?
The theme of 1941-1942 got up just "throat" to our historians. Big war (the biggest), it is necessary to tell. And nothing good can be told. Here is such an ambush. If this had happened under Tsar Nicholas II! How would they trample on the topic! But under Nicholas II, by the grace of God the Emperor of All-Russia, no such shame happened. Neither the Russian-Japanese, nor the First World ... That's exactly, with him, my dear, Russia never did not get to the brink of death. And only under the Bolsheviks ... All this "happiness" happened during the reign of the party itself. That is why the stories about the beginning of the war are of a hysterical, hysterical nature: “the German fascist invaders committed a perfidious attack ...”. They talk for a long time about how a reptile Hitler was and how bad he was, fascism ...
There are a lot of emotions here, a lot of movies have been shot, many books have been written ... And every time war is portrayed as a terrible, uncontrollable disaster. This is exactly the same way. Say, "the evil enemy" comes, we fight back (wave it off) with the last strength, one rifle for three against the nazi army, "equipped with the most modern technology." The picture is truly apocalyptic. Favorite story in our books and films about the war. Fight with a much stronger enemy. One of the achievements of the USSR is the achievement of security from the mass death in the war with a stronger opponent. Allegedly reached. An example with which one is compared is Hitler’s attack on the very USSR.
Say, then they could not, but now (after that big war and in the era of nuclear weapons) we can. We so successfully "won back with Hitler" that our favorite saying until the 90-s of the 20-th century in our country was: "If only there was no war ...". Such we were "peace-loving". In the Russian Empire, there was no such “saying” (apparently, everything, including the black and white clergy, were notorious militarists). It was the shock of the German invasion and the complete inability of the Red Army to meet it with dignity, possibly leading to the creation of 50 thousands of tanks in peacetime by the 80 years. That, in turn, created a bunch of economic problems of the USSR. They recall that when the conflict broke out on the Damanskoye and reported "upstairs", the problem was that Brezhnev was terribly afraid of war.
No, on the one hand, I like the peacefulness of domestic political leaders, on the other hand, where does this "water fear" come from? No, I’m not in favor of acting on American templates and hardly attacking anyone, but such a frank “fear of war” leads to bad thoughts. The thing is that Brezhnev participated in that very distant war (unlike most of those who told funny stories about him). AND he was not a coward, but he did not like what he saw at the front. He didn’t like it so much that much later, heading the superpower with the strongest land army of the planet, he afraid to fight.
The thing is that the USSR-1941 was also a military superpower. Judging by the list of equipment in the army and aviation - then it is. The level and quality of this equipment, taking into account how recently factories were created for its production, were quite worthy. Soviet machine guns, mortars, guns, tanks and aircraft in general were at the level of the requirements of the moment. You can speculate and write hundreds of interesting articles on this subject for a long time (infinitely long), but the fact remains: in this section we were no worse than the Germans. Yes, the culture of production in German factories was higher. Naturally. But on the material side of the Red Army, the Wehrmacht was in no way inferior, even superior. Especially in the amount of this very materiel.
Red Army training was also quite decent. Memories of the sea, they all write about one thing. About confusion, vacillation and rusty tanks, no one writes. They write about extreme loads, incredibly strict discipline and the arrival of new technology. And about what everyone understood: this is no accident. Big events are coming. The war will be. Therefore, preparing, seriously preparing. At all levels. In general, read the literature of that era: the armed forces and the fleet enjoyed attention, love and respect, to be an officer was very, very honorable. Just read the books, written in 30's. Interesting, by the way, was the era. Unusual, with a special, specific character. After the war, everything was a little wrong. War through the country.
And in the 30-s of the USSR was on the rise: and people looked forward with optimism, and no one was afraid of the enemy. This whole pre-war literature does not correspond to the official explanation about the "suddenness of the German attack." Too much was written then, starting with “Timur and his team” or “Commandant of the snow fortress”. There are interesting, by the way, there are passages about the army, although the books seem not at all about that. I read as a child and was surprised. Children's (and not only, just in the nursery is more frank!) 30's literature is a completely different world, which (if you get a grasp of it) looks like rather strange for the post-war Soviet man. Nobody was afraid of war then, moreover, everyone was confident of our inevitable victory. And oddly enough, those same residents of the USSR 30-s do not look like naive fools.
Here there is a certain gap, an irregularity in an attempt to “dock” before and post-war literature. And it seems like the USSR is there, and the USSR is there ... And Stalin is there, and Stalin is there. And even Lawrence is present on both photos! But, alas, these are two very different countries. All the legends that Stalin "was terribly afraid of Hitler," are shattered just by reading what was written before the war. Then, when no one knew how exactly this war would unfold and what it would lead to. And they wrote a lot and wrote frankly. The USSR actively pursued foreign policy, actively built industry, and re-armed the army at an accelerated pace. The USSR participated in many local conflicts from Spain to Khalkhin Gol. And this was all reflected in literature and journalism. And it is impossible to get out of history. But reading this after Kharkov and Stalingrad is quite strange.
In general, combining pre-war and post-war patriotic literature is virtually impossible. Such an impression is that there (in 30) completely different people write about completely different things, with the subsequent development of the USSR unrelated. There was a monstrous "bummer" that changed the flow of time itself. The paradox is precisely this - in contrast to the period before the First World War, everyone waited in the USSR for the war, but no one turned out to be ready for it. And the army in the first place, oddly enough.
So this was by no means a country that, horrified as it huddled in a corner / under a sofa, was waiting for an inevitable invasion. It was a strong, growing, self-confident power. And then there was a catastrophe, like the extinction of dinosaurs. Moreover, this very catastrophe did not follow from the previous development of the USSR. By the way, Comrade. Rezun skillfully used this paradox, releasing a whole series of unusually exciting books (following in the footsteps of Erich von Deniken and, as it were, anticipating Ernest Muldashev). These books cover a fantastic version of events from a parallel reality. The funny thing is his a very long time exposed. No, it’s definitely necessary to print Rezun: great fighting fantasy! (And who could not immediately put everything on the shelves, being a professional historian- that “fool himself” and can only be offended at himself).
But after the exposure of the unfortunate emigrant, the paradox remained. Well, I did not raise this question, this question is raised by almost every historian and publicist who writes about this bloody era. And everyone wonders: "Why?". No answer. Here is such a historical paradox, here is such a “Bermuda Triangle” of national history. There are questions, no answers. Such “places” in theory and practice always serve as a source of numerous legends and myths. For many years we were told that the ideologically blinkered leaders of the USSR saw in machine guns (in fact, submachine guns) only gangster-police weapon, and then the bloodthirsty German submachine gunners came and shot down all the brave but defenseless Red Army soldiers armed with obsolete Mosin rifles. In the mass consciousness, many still have a rifle (rusty and uncomfortable) against the shining automatonFor some reason they call him "Schmeisser".
We were also told a long time about stupid Soviet cavalry commanders who hated tanks. No, no one directly claimed that there were no tanks in the USSR, but it seemed to hint that on the one hand there was a “brilliant Guderian” (smartest Heinz!), And on the other, stupid choppers in budenovkis fixed on cavalry attacks. At the same time, they often try to drag the legend of cavalrymen into the home soil, in the equestrian ranks of the attacking Panzer ... And the mournful songs about how much E-16 was worse than Me-109 and how much the Soviet pilot was inferior to German? After which it was decided to shake his head meaningfully and clatter his tongue. This whole of our "hysterical literature" very much resembles some kind of "covering operation." Only, of course, not the "invasion of Europe 6 July 1941 on highway tanks." But something is hidden from us - this is undoubtedly. At this point Rezun is certainly right.
In general, it is amusing to look at Soviet and post-Soviet propagandists: they have to solve two mutually exclusive tasks at the same time: on the one hand, Hitler and Nazism are very bad and worthy of any condemnation (complete sucks!), On the other hand, they must somehow explain the incredible failures Red Army in opposition to the very ugly Wehrmacht. They are poor, and suffer, and spinning like in a frying pan. The thing is that they need to "combine the incompatible" and "cram in the unbearable." And Hitler can not be sung, and the Red Army cannot be drenched in mud, and somehow it is necessary to logically explain the defeat of 1941-42, and write something about the war, and somehow educate those same patriots from the younger generation.
The task frankly, not a child. Therefore, in our country there was a "mosaic-emotional" system of presentation of the material about the Great Patriotic War. Here they will tell you about the battle of Moscow, and about the Battle of Stalingrad ... and about the storming of Berlin and the blockade of the city of Lenin. They will tell about the bright exploits of the Soviet soldiers during the war. On the crimes of the Nazis will tell. And while this is all given at the level of children, housewives and peasants: "The terrible war was ...", heavy sigh - all is well and great. As soon as we begin to delve into the details and ask questions - the picture falls into separate elements and it is no longer possible to assemble it.
Why am I writing about this: the topic of World War II in our mind is really the number one topic (if we talk about military affairs), and we have an infinite number of books, films, journal articles, TV shows. But in the whole picture they refuse to take shape, categorically. That's when they tell 9 on TV about this war, they certainly mention that this conflict allegedly has no analogues in terms of severity and duration. It is the same as breathing. Forced to upset domestic speakers: has. Alas and ah. This conflict is analogous in severity and duration.
World War II has an obvious analogue in the form of the First World War. That likes it or not. It has. Just about the First World War, due to obvious political and ideological reasons, it is not customary to remember. They don’t like to remember the World War I in Russia, they don’t like it at all. And if they remember, it is in the category of historical incidents, such as the Italian-Ethiopian conflict. Say, what is there to remember? And they even called this war Imperialistic. Here is how! It turns out that on the margins of the First World War, Russian soldiers died not for their homeland, but for some “imperialists” unknown to anyone ... By the way, yes, the Germans conducted similar propaganda on the territory of France occupied by them during World War II. In our country, for decades, the task was to glorify WWII and erase WWI from the mass consciousness. Just like in the book "1984". One to one. The story is what we tell you.
The thing is, we already won the First World War by 1917, and the Bolsheviks actually stole this victory from us by concluding the Peace of Brest. Exactly, by 1917, Russia had already suffered great sacrifices on the altar of victory, and by this stage the central powers were already on the edge of the abyss. The point is that the very Bolsheviks were in power in the 70 of the following years, and it was totally unprofitable for them to admit this fact. They did not recognize. Hence the remarkable slogan in our idiocy: “Let's turn an imperialist war into a civil war!” Supposedly the people are tired of war, and here the infinitely good Bolsheviks come and end the war.
"Decree of the world," say? No, if Ulyanov was the emperor of the galaxy, he could issue such decrees, but in the current reality was capitulation to the Germans. This very, categorically unpleasant fact and created a bunch of problems to domestic historians and continues, by the way, to create. How many do not invent "heroic legends", those who led Russia at that time and signed documents look like traitors, and their actions look like surrender to the enemy during the war. That is why those who defended Russia in that war, it was decided to sling mud or just hush up their exploits. And a rather muddy legend was invented that there was some kind of imperialistic slaughter, and Ulyanov-Lenin stopped it and opened a new era in the history of mankind (such as the second Buddha-Siddhartha-Gautama).
Beautiful of course, but this is not true. And when in November 1918 the Bolsheviks denounced the Brest Peace (concluded in March 1918!), Then the winners in the First World War didn’t see any understanding: “Who are you? Come on, goodbye! ”The Bolsheviks, of course, fulfilled their promise and turned the“ imperialist war ”into a civil war (in which millions were killed, and the destruction was an order of magnitude more than in WWI), but also they turned Russia from a winning country into WWI to a losing country to a losing country and an international outcast. Just compare the status of Russia in the summer of 1917 and the status of the USSR at the end of the civil war (as well as the economic situation and population). And for what all?
In such a dirty situation, the Bolsheviks were literally to blame for everything (except for them, of course): the tsarist government, allies, capitalist ministers, landowners and bourgeois, wealthy peasantry and bankers. And they are all in white, they heroically save the country from various villains (like Poroshenko and Turchinov). The funny thing is that by winning the First World War (which we actually did in 1917), everything could be arranged so that the war with Germany in 30 years became impossible. Just diplomatic methods. The post-war world is arranged by the winners. You know: the Vienna Congress 1815 of the year (which is dancing), the Yalta peace (1945-1991) ... So, the Russian delegation could sit at 1918 in Versailles and, along with the Anglo-French, determine the future of the post-war world. And make German revenge impossible (at least years on 50 ahead).
But the Bolsheviks did not need a victory in the "imperialist war." She is with us and gone. So all the arguments on the topic that thanks to the Bolsheviks we won in the Second World War, we can counter the fact that thanks to them we lost in the First World War, which made possible the German invasion of 1941 in June. So "bayonet to the ground" in 1917 meant not "the epoch of eternal peace" (as a result of Lenin's "Decree on Peace"), but a massive death under the tanks in 1941. Yes, yes, the very people who called to flee from the front in 1917 were ready to put everyone in 1941 under the tank tracks. I know that I will be objected: "These are different things, they cannot be compared." Funny such a paradox, selective such humanism. This is not counting civil war, red terror and collectivization with industrialization, which also cost us dearly.
The ending should ...
Information