Military Review

Hot summer 1941-42. Part of 1

139



“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 ...
Author:
Photos used:
www.24-info.info
139 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. PKK
    PKK 18 June 2016 06: 25
    +13
    I plus the Author for a colossal collection of surface material. I looked through the article with the hope of seeing the generals conspiracy, how many traitors and undeveloped were there. No, this does not happen. Regarding the 17th year, regarding the prisoner of the World by the Bolsheviks. Dear Author, This is not only an order for Offensive, it is also mobilization, supply, repair, hospital, page
    there is a lot of new military equipment. Most of the military elite of those years, the proteges of Nicholas the 2nd, the brother of George the 5th, the Prince of Wales there. And the topic of supplying the Troops was not in the first place. As a result, the supply was not enough to conduct the War. Morale of the Troops It was unacceptable. The mass was agitated to end the war. There was no one to fight. About 41 years. To the author: How many Red Army Command participated in the Conspiracy against Stalin? The answer is not given. The scale of the harm of this Conspiracy was estimated? For example, the encircled Army could well ride the strategic road and hold it for some time. Was it? The Red Army command, didn’t the radio communications role in the Troops represent it, but they didn’t do it, didn’t strain, there’s an obvious sabotage. In June, there was so much that it never entered my head. I’m waiting continuation of the article with an updated look at the processes of those years.
    1. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 08: 02
      +2
      The author categorically does not believe in the "conspiracy of generals" in 41. He does not. request
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 18 June 2016 09: 49
        0
        oh, are you the author?
      2. NIKNN
        NIKNN 18 June 2016 12: 41
        +3
        To consider such a global topic in such a small article is pointless. If only point by point to pay some attention to circumstances and then there is little space. I don’t see the author’s guilt he is trying to hold the only negative heredity of the Bolsheviks in his opinion ... Although this problem should not be considered so superficially.
        What I would like to find out in the period of 41st year is the period from January to 22nd June. Namely, why preparations for the war were not carried out, although there was a war in the plans (staff exercises with Zhukov's participation come across this idea). All nonsense about off-stage impact does not stand up to any criticism. The excuse for ordering not to respond to provocations rather confirms that everyone knew the state of affairs perfectly well. Considering the situation from the point of view of common sense, in another two months, at least mobilization plans had to be worked out, interaction worked out, supply and support systems for troops in the event of a conflict began, and much more that would not be created in one day. After all, it does not mean that the losses of equipment are mainly due not to combat losses, but to the lack of ammunition and fuel ... And vice versa, by strengthening the strip of the supposed DB zone by the troops, while "not responding to provocations" and even conducting demonstration exercises, it was possible to delay the start of the war if not to avoid it. Who knows, maybe with a change in the situation in our Armed Forces, the alignment of forces and means would not have allowed Germany to wage a war on two fronts, and Hitler would have made a decision to begin to figure it out to the end with what had already begun (England)? And although I understand that the subjunctive mood is not appropriate here, and there is no alternative history, I do not understand why things so obvious to the military people were not implemented. Quite all this somehow does not fit. :(
        1. geniy
          geniy 23 June 2018 13: 52
          0
          It doesn’t hurt that the loss of equipment is mainly due not to combat losses, but to the lack of ammunition and fuel ...

          And you are not aware that huge stocks of ammunition and fuel were in depots near the border, and all these depots were captured by the Germans on the very first day of the war? That is, Stalin was preparing for a war of aggression in order to advance immediately from the border to the maximum distance deep into the territory of the enemy.
  2. samarin1969
    samarin1969 18 June 2016 06: 32
    +10
    Many well-known repetitions. I hoped that the author would give his assessment: "Kharkov-Crimea-Rzhev ..." We are waiting for the "end."
    1. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 08: 32
      0
      Many well-known repetitions.


      The author tried to collect the basic myths about that war in one career ...
      And from their heavy machine gun ...
      1. tasha
        tasha 18 June 2016 08: 37
        +12
        The author tried to collect the basic myths about that war in one career ..


        "The girl has no name" ... (C) "Game of Thrones" wink

        Such an article would have looked good in some printed edition of the year that way in 1992. But not on the website "Military Review" in 2016. No offense... hi
  3. Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 18 June 2016 06: 32
    +21
    This article, how to say, is not at all about what its title indicates. I expected to see, albeit another, but detailed analysis of the reasons for the defeat of the Red Army in the battles with the Wehrmacht in 1941-42. But in fact, it is a very polemical article, the conclusions and views of the author of which will only lead to another red-and-white shit on the site. The author compares the actions of the Russian imperial army (which, of course, the Bolsheviks betrayed in 1917, but there is no one else) in 1914, calling it a severe military defeat with similar actions of the Red Army in 1941 - this is already a military disaster, the defeat and destruction of the regular army. In 1914, the Russian Empire, although it fought against Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey, but there is one very big BUT: in 1914, only one German army stood against the Russians - the 8th weakest of all, both in size and composition, yes and in the future, the Germans fielded either reserve infantry divisions or cavalry (completely unsuitable for operations in a trench war) against the Russians, tk. The Eastern Front was not a priority for Germany. And even then, when Germany in 1915 drew attention to Russia, the Gorlitsky breakthrough followed, the hasty surrender of fortresses in the Vistula region (and even with all the supplies of material and technical supplies). Austria-Hungary and Turkey were the usual opponents for the Russian army, and they were habitually beaten, as soon as the Russians paid close attention to these fronts and transferred the necessary forces there, then immediately followed by the defeat of both the troops of the "patchwork" empire and the Ottomans. By the way, the regular Russian army was practically destroyed in the battles of 1914-1915. In the First World War (which the author does not want to call Imperialist), the main and most powerful forces of the German Empire fought and were ground on the Western Front by Russia's allies in the Entente - first of all the French, then the British and then all the others, using the Russian "steam roller" , which pressed on the Quadruple Alliance from the east. Who fought against the Soviet Union in 1941, with what forces and who were the "allies" of the USSR and how these "allies" "fought" in 1941-42, and you all know so well.
    You can argue about this for a long time ... but I won’t wait for the article to continue.
    1. Petrik66
      Petrik66 18 June 2016 08: 08
      0
      Why was Austria-Hungary a habitually beaten rival? Which war is this?
      1. Aleksandr72
        Aleksandr72 18 June 2016 09: 09
        +11
        At least these:
        The Russian-Austrian war of 1762 is a formal conflict during the Seven Years War that arose at the behest of Emperor Peter III.
        The Russo-Austrian war of 1809 - and the Austrian troops preferred to withdraw, with almost no resistance.
        Russian-Austrian war of 1812 - Austria, as Napoleon's ally, participated in the Patriotic War of 1812. And she also ended up in the losers camp.
        And finally: The First World War of 1914-1918 - the largest war between Austria and Russia.
        In addition, Austria-Hungary repeatedly took a position extremely hostile to Russia. So it was during the Russian-Turkish wars of 1853-1856 and 1877-1878, when Austria was formally non-combatant of the allies of the enemies of Russia, occupied a number of Balkan territories with its troops and even threatened a direct war. The threat of war with Austria arose in the last year of the reign of Paul I, when the rapprochement of Russia and France began.
        In addition, Russia has repeatedly participated in coalition wars together with Austria-Hungary, during which Russian troops and generals had an excellent opportunity to visually familiarize themselves with the "fighting efficiency" of their ally. And the fact that Austria-Hungary was beaten in Europe by almost all of its European opponents, with the exception of Italy, is well known. This is what I meant by talking about the "habitually broken".
        1. Alex
          Alex 19 June 2016 19: 32
          +3
          Quote: Aleksandr72
          And the fact that Austria-Hungary was beaten in Europe by almost all of its European opponents, with the exception of Italy, is well known.

          In those days there was a joke:

          What is the Italian army for?
          So that the Austrians had someone to beat.

          As you can see, the estimates that some, that others were quite derogatory.
    2. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 18 June 2016 08: 20
      +9
      It was written and understood in detail many times in the comments. Apparently we need again an article and new comments so that they all forget about those.
      If the author wanted to say something a little new, he would start from that.
    3. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 08: 29
      0
      BUT: in the 1914 year, there was only one German army against the Russians - the 8 I was the weakest of all in terms of strength and composition, and later on the Germans either put up reserve infantry divisions or cavalry (completely unsuitable for operations in a trench warfare) ), because The eastern front was not a priority for Germany. And even then, when Germany in 1915 drew attention to Russia,


      Rather, in 1914, Germany tried to win in the West, concentrating the main forces there
      And in 1915, the Germans went east. But disasters and defeat were not
      Austria-Hungary is a great power if that
      In 1914-15 the balance of power for Russia was not better but worse than in 1941-42
      Especially in artillery ...
      1. BUGAGA
        BUGAGA 18 June 2016 11: 16
        +1
        absolutely agree Oleg! don’t listen to these jingoistic patriots existing in their pink reality ... no matter what the tsarist army was blamed for, it didn’t go beyond Riga-Baranovichi ... and only the red traitors and cowards signed the shameful surrender of our Empire to Hans ... !!! until the end of the war there was very little and such a shameful surrender! from the empire we became a piece of slime thanks to these traitors!
    4. Monarchist
      Monarchist 18 June 2016 12: 03
      +3
      You want to say that the German command on the Eastern Front "snored" and only sometimes: "... when Germany in 1915 drew attention to Russia ...." and so on. In Berlin, they woke up with a frown and immediately breakthroughs, and then again Undoubtedly, the main events took place at the Western Theater, but this does not mean that the Imperial Army was "playing around with pears." Without the help of Russia, Antennte was a complete trend
  4. timyr
    timyr 18 June 2016 06: 59
    +23
    Author clutching tops. The Bolsheviks were to blame for everything, the army was decomposed, the king was overthrown. And in the history textbooks written in tsar the generals and the bourgeoisie overthrew their own and the Bolsheviks did not decompose the army by order number 1. And the year 1914 ended 1917. Instead of analyzing the reasons for the defeats of 1941 and 42, the author set about lamenting the damned Bolsheviks. But it was simply impossible to indicate one of the reasons. The explosive growth of the Red Army in 38 was a million people in the army in 40, it became 5 million people. There, the Germans when in 38 brought troops into Austria, this is laughter and sin a third of the armored vehicles broke down, some of the troops were lost and this is in the second year of the mass army.
    1. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 08: 04
      +1
      1 In 1914-1915 the Russian army was not defeated, it is a fact.
      Although there was an unpreparedness for war.
      2 The growth of the Wehrmacht was even more "explosive" if that.
      1. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 18 June 2016 09: 01
        +10
        Quote: Olezhek
        1 In 1914-1915 the Russian army was not defeated, it is a fact.
        Although there was an unpreparedness for war.
        2 The growth of the Wehrmacht was even more "explosive" if that.

        You publish the ending first, and then argue. May be. negative
      2. igordok
        igordok 18 June 2016 10: 05
        +2
        Quote: Olezhek
        The growth of the Wehrmacht was even more "explosive" if that.

        When?


        http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/brutus_cynicus/26462867/1102/1102_900.gif
    2. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 08: 10
      0
      The Germans won when in 38 the year troops were sent to Austria, it’s a laugh and a sin a third of the armored vehicles broke down, some of the troops were lost and this is in the second year of the mass army.


      I agree, he is such an "invincible" Wehrmacht
      1. Uncle Murzik
        Uncle Murzik 19 June 2016 05: 35
        0
        and for how much did the "weak" Wehrmacht defeat Poland, France with millions of armies?
  5. midshipman
    midshipman 18 June 2016 07: 00
    +15
    It was unpleasant for me to read such an article in VO. Vlasov had no influence in the battle of Moscow in the direction of Zelenograd. During the fighting, he suffered from the flu, the chief of staff commanded his division. And it would be better if this traitor would have died then. There would be no defeat in our history of the 2nd Shock Army and the "valley of death" near Leningrad (the area of ​​the village of Zuevo).
    I have been creating combat systems all my life, which at the moment are in the arsenal of our Armed Forces. Ponder over the numbers. In 1941, the USSR had a GDP level in relation to world GDP of 22%. In 1989, this level was more than 25%. We currently have this level of 1%. Yes, there were flaws in 1941, but the Government was able not only to create a reliable rear, but also to retrain and regroup the units of the Red Army and Navy. Already in 1943, we even had air supremacy. Here's what to write about. I have the honor.
    1. semirek
      semirek 18 June 2016 07: 38
      +3
      Quote: midshipman
      It was unpleasant for me to read such an article in VO. Vlasov had no influence in the battle of Moscow in the direction of Zelenograd. During the fighting, he suffered from the flu, the chief of staff commanded his division. And it would be better if this traitor would have died then. There would be no defeat in our history of the 2nd Shock Army and the "valley of death" near Leningrad (the area of ​​the village of Zuevo).
      I have been creating combat systems all my life, which at the moment are in the arsenal of our Armed Forces. Ponder over the numbers. In 1941, the USSR had a GDP level in relation to world GDP of 22%. In 1989, this level was more than 25%. We currently have this level of 1%. Yes, there were flaws in 1941, but the Government was able not only to create a reliable rear, but also to retrain and regroup the units of the Red Army and Navy. Already in 1943, we even had air supremacy. Here's what to write about. I have the honor.

      I’m not an admirer of Vlasov, but Stalin just did not throw orders, so there was something to reward, about the second shock - not even historians know that Vlasov accepted her - at the moment when she was actually defeated and was surrounded - a little specify the moments.
      As for the gdp - where are these numbers coming from? from the ceiling?
      There were shortcomings in the year 41, shortcomings? The defeat of the Red Army in the year 41, you call the shortcomings? Normal position, oh yes, we won anyway, is it worth thinking about 30 million killed.
      1. Monarchist
        Monarchist 18 June 2016 12: 12
        +2
        In that, Vlasov led 2 shock almost broken this is true.
      2. midshipman
        midshipman 18 June 2016 20: 20
        +4
        Dear Ivan Ivanovich, in the Russian Federation there is the Institute of Economic Forecasting (this is RAS) there are statistics. You can ask.
        In general, all these data on the level of GDP are available in statistics. Type a request and get a response. For example, the enterprises subordinate to me (6GU MCI of the USSR) had an annual growth rate of production volumes of 15-25%. 1979 thousand specialists worked for them in 1889-152. I have the honor.
      3. midshipman
        midshipman 18 June 2016 20: 20
        +2
        Dear Ivan Ivanovich, in the Russian Federation there is the Institute of Economic Forecasting (this is RAS) there are statistics. You can ask.
        In general, all these data on the level of GDP are available in statistics. Type a request and get a response. For example, the enterprises subordinate to me (6GU MCI of the USSR) had an annual growth rate of production volumes of 15-25%. 1979 thousand specialists worked for them in 1889-152. I have the honor.
    2. BUGAGA
      BUGAGA 18 June 2016 11: 23
      -6
      Quote: midshipman
      Already in 1943 we even had air supremacy

      this is not true ... domination (and even with a stretch) we had only in the summer of 44 when almost all the Luftwaffe left to reflect the alliance’s advance to the west ... and think about it ... on our front, the Hans never had more than a quarter of their fighter forces and they enough ... well, except for 41 years old ... and the old guano of the 87th they used the whole war, despite the fact that in the west they stopped flying even in 40 ...
      1. viktorR
        viktorR 18 June 2016 12: 54
        +5
        on our front, the Hans never had more than a quarter of their fighter forces and were enough
        - I won’t even respond to this provocation :)

        and the old guano of the 87th they used the whole war, despite the fact that in the west they stopped flying as early as 40

        Just shine :). The pieces were no longer used in the west, not because they are such poor fighters, but because they are dive bombers, used by the Germans to support the battlefield, in 41 Europe no longer had a battlefield since all of Europe fell under Hitler.

        Such provocateurs like you do not stay here for a long time, fly away into the skull, if you don’t stop writing garbage.
        1. BUGAGA
          BUGAGA 18 June 2016 13: 07
          -1
          this is Vitya’s answer to yours ..
          1943 distribution of light anti-aircraft batteries:
          Air defense of the country - 693
          Western Front - 295
          The Northern Front - 69 (some of them dealt with the Soviet Air Force)
          Southeast Front - 39
          Eastern Front - 162
          Southern Front (Italy, Africa) - 80
          The share of the eastern front along with the northern one, theoretically maximum - 231 out of 1338 batteries, that is, no more than 17,3%
          1944 distribution of light anti-aircraft batteries:
          Air defense of the country - 623
          Western Front - 425
          Northern Front - 80 (some of them dealt with the Soviet Air Force)
          Southeast Front - 70 (here the USSR joined in the second half of the year)
          Eastern Front - 328
          Southern Front (Italy, Africa) - 86
          In total, in 1944, on the eastern front, with the addition of the northern and south-eastern fronts, there were no more than 478 light anti-aircraft batteries out of 1612, a maximum of 29,85 German anti-aircraft guns. So the high losses of the Allied aviation are quite satisfactorily explained.

          For heavy German anti-aircraft batteries, the picture is even less "patriotic":
          1943
          Air defense of the country - 1234
          Western Front - 205
          Northern Front - 92 (some of them dealt with the Soviet Air Force)
          Southeast Front - 61
          Eastern Front - 148
          Southern Front (Italy, Africa) - 278
          That is, out of 2018 heavy anti-aircraft batteries, a maximum of 370, 18,3% were related to the eastern front

          1944
          Air defense of the country - 1508
          Western Front - 412
          Northern Front - 128 (some of them dealt with the Soviet Air Force)
          Southeast Front - 122 (here the USSR joined in the second half of the year)
          Eastern Front - 311
          Southern Front (Italy, Africa) - 176.
          Out of a total of 2655 German heavy anti-aircraft batteries, a maximum of 561, or 21,1%, related to the eastern front

          and aviation:


          http://militera.lib.ru/h/ww2_german/33.html
          Table 7. Information on the number of German fighter aircraft on all fronts (except for the country's air defense)
          6. 6. 1944
          On the Eastern Front (Russia)
          The total number of aircraft - 550
          Effective Aircraft - 282

          On the Western Front (France, Holland, Belgium)
          The total number of aircraft - 288
          Effective Aircraft - 156

          On the Southern Front (Italy, Mediterranean)
          The total number of aircraft - 171
          Effective Aircraft - 103

          On the Southeast Front (Balkans, Greece)
          The total number of aircraft - 100
          Effective Aircraft - 44

          On the Northern Front (Norway)
          The total number of aircraft - 79
          Effective Aircraft - 51

          Table 8. Information on the number of German fighter aircraft operating as part of the country's air defense
          6.6. 1944
          Availability of aircraft 1179
          Combat aircraft 656.

          That is, on 06.06.1944, there were 550 fighters on the eastern front, that is, less than 25% of the total number of German fighters. Against the allies of the fighters acted more than 3 times more.
          1. viktorR
            viktorR 18 June 2016 13: 25
            +1
            What does the anti-aircraft battery have to do with it? To pour more water and others did not notice the real numbers:


            On the Eastern Front (Russia)
            The total number of aircraft - 550
            Effective Aircraft - 282

            On the Western Front (France, Holland, Belgium)
            The total number of aircraft - 288
            Effective Aircraft - 156



            The difference is two times compared with the western front, and indeed according to these data it is clear that on the eastern front there are most aircraft.
            Somehow you goofed :)

            And where is the quarter? 282 from 656 is well over a third, including half that are not combat-ready at all, you would have to learn math for the third grade :). So we did not send all planes to the front.

            Let's tell us how the Hans on the Yu-87 heroically shot down Vanek :))
            1. BUGAGA
              BUGAGA 18 June 2016 15: 10
              -3
              Vitya, why are you ??? I didn’t understand you .. lay down the aircraft in the west + air defense and in the east .. which is not clear ... and remember .. ours didn’t fly further 30-50 km from the front line ... almost the entire war ...
              1. viktorR
                viktorR 18 June 2016 15: 58
                +5
                Vitya, why are you ???

                I think I didn’t drink with the Brudershaft.
                and remember .. ours are further 30-50 km

                Yes? Have you heard about the Pe-8? And when the first bombs fell on Berlin in the course? Although I'm not entirely sure what by the word "our" you mean the Red Army Air Force.

                lay down aviation in the west + air defense and in the east
                - this is called adjusting the facts to your Wishlist, and now let's count the USSR air defense planes, all, even those that are in the Far East, and add the planes of the German allies to the German ones. It is logical that the air defense aviation was in the west, there it just has something to protect, including from the Pe-8.
                1. BUGAGA
                  BUGAGA 18 June 2016 16: 55
                  -3
                  Quote: viktorR
                  - this is called adjusting the facts to your Wishlist, and now let's count the USSR air defense planes, all, even those that are in the Far East, and add the planes of the German allies to the German ones. It is logical that the air defense aviation was in the west, there it just has something to protect, including from the Pe-8.

                  Victor even I don’t understand, are you really like that or are you kidding me ??? The chances of a total of 2400 fighters .. against us they put a total of 550 ... what's the question?
                  1. Uncle Murzik
                    Uncle Murzik 18 June 2016 17: 07
                    +4
                    As can be seen from the Flensburg archive, by November 30, 1944, more than 70% of the losses of Nazi troops fell on the eastern front. And this is only the German troops. If we take into account the losses of the German allies, almost all of whom (except Italy) fought only on the Eastern Front, this ratio will reach 75% (it is not clear where the Wehrmacht’s losses in the Polish campaign are attributed to this document, but taking them into account changes the overall balance by only a quarter percent).
                  2. Uncle Murzik
                    Uncle Murzik 18 June 2016 17: 11
                    +5
                    In the period from June 22 to July 5, the Luftwaffe lost 807 aircraft on the Eastern Front (this number includes completely destroyed and requiring major repairs). From July 6 to August 2 - another 843 aircraft. In total, from the morning of June 22 to December 31, 1941, the combat losses of German aviation amounted to 4 aircraft, of which 543, or 3%, were on the Eastern Front. In terms of flight personnel, 827 people were killed, wounded, and missing, of which 82 or 7% were on the Eastern Front.
                    The Luftwaffe command in its reports noted that with the beginning of the war in the East, the gap between the loss of aircraft, flight personnel and received replenishment was constantly increasing.
                    Here are the data from genuine German documents. The Air Force commander at Army Group South informed the Luftwaffe headquarters of the losses of reconnaissance aircraft from June 22 to October 4, 1941: “97 of our reconnaissance aircraft were destroyed by the enemy. Killed the flight personnel of 92 people. Wounded 41. These losses are mainly from enemy fighters. In addition, 27 transport and communications aircraft that were subordinate to these squadrons were destroyed. Another 38 aircraft were killed and damaged without enemy influence. Note: airplanes that were damaged in battles and recovered in units are not listed. ” Army Group Headquarters
              2. Uncle Murzik
                Uncle Murzik 18 June 2016 16: 30
                +3
                here you are again cunning! At 21:00 p.m. on August 7 a special strike group of 15 bombers [8] DB-3 of the Baltic Fleet Air Force under the command of regiment commander Colonel E. Preobrazhensky loaded with FAB bombs rose from the Cahul airfield on Ezel Island 100 and leaflets. The links were commanded by captains Grechishnikov V.A. and Efremov A.Ya., Khokhlov P.I. flew the navigator. The flight passed over the sea at an altitude of 7000 m along the route: Ezel Island (Saaremaa) - Swineemunde - Stettin - Berlin). The temperature overboard reached −35 - −40 ° C, which is why the glass of the cockpit and the headset glasses were frost-bitten. In addition, the pilots had to work all these hours in oxygen masks. To maintain secrecy throughout the flight, access to the radio was strictly prohibited.

                After three hours of flight, they reached the northern border of Germany. When flying over its territory, aircraft were repeatedly detected from German observation posts, but, taking them for their own, the German air defense did not open fire. Over the Stettin, the Germans, believing that it was the Luftwaffe planes that were lost, were returning from the mission, with the help of searchlights, they invited the crews of Soviet aircraft to land at the nearest airfield.

                At 1:30 a.m. on August 8, five aircraft dropped bombs on well-lit Berlin, the rest were bombed in the Berlin suburbs and Stettin [source not specified 356 days]. The Germans did not expect the air raid so much that they turned on the blackout only 40 seconds after the first bombs fell on the city [source not specified 356 days]. The German air defense did not allow the pilots to control the results of the raid, the activity of which became so great that it forced the radio operator Vasily Krotenko to interrupt the radio silence mode and report on the completion of the task on the air: “My place is Berlin! The task was completed. We are returning to the base! ” At 4 am on August 8, after a 7-hour flight, the crews returned without loss to the airfield.

    3. PKK
      PKK 18 June 2016 14: 35
      -3
      Quote: midshipman
      . During the period of fighting, he suffered from the flu, and the chief of staff commanded his division. And it would be better if this traitor would die then. There would be no rout in

      The most striking thing is that the flu exists as much as the greenback exists and nobody still knows how the flu is treated in just two nights.
    4. sashppppp
      sashppppp 18 June 2016 20: 16
      0
      With the current * steering * the situation may turn out to be worse than 41m. First of all, due to the moral decay of our society. Soon, 1% of GDP may not stay at that rate.
    5. sashppppp
      sashppppp 18 June 2016 20: 16
      -3
      With the current * steering * the situation may turn out to be worse than 41m. First of all, due to the moral decay of our society. Soon, 1% of GDP may not stay at that rate.
  6. semirek
    semirek 18 June 2016 07: 22
    -3
    Written simply and understandably. The author correctly asks the question why? Why did it happen on June 22 and why did the German come to the Volga?. I think it is enough to read "the living and the dead", "white birch" - and a lot will fall into place.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Igor39
    Igor39 18 June 2016 07: 35
    +2
    All failures in the 41-42 year are borne by the commander in chief and the General Staff, and not by the insidious Hitler and the treacherous Wehrmacht.
  9. tasha
    tasha 18 June 2016 07: 41
    +5
    The author urgently needs to temporarily move into the category of readers. And read, read, read .. Literature accessible wagon and small cart, views - from all sides. It is not necessary to agree with all, but it is necessary to read.
    From recent I recommend paying attention to the books of N. Starikov.

    Then do some monotonous physical labor (the best option is to dig the earth with a shovel) and in the process of work think over what you read, form your point of view and try to present it in the form of an article.
    1. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 08: 55
      -1
      They were silent for several minutes.

      The August disaster of the fourteenth year in the academies studied, laughed at Samsonov, and they themselves ... - roughly the same cold, gall voice, which answered the sapper. “In general, we’ll throw our hats on foreign territory with little blood ... Hurray and so on,” he continued.

      - We’ll still be in a foreign territory - cut it on your nose, you, there, in the dark, I don’t see how you are called! - Colonel angrily answered. - But what’s true, it’s true: the jumble is big, big-big ... And most importantly - they themselves have to disentangle it!

      This caused a chorus of response comments. Someone noticed that we Russians harness for a long time, but then we drive fast. But his words did not meet sympathy.

      “Not eight hundred and twelfth, now you have to turn and harness!” And then we get ready to Smolensk.

      The colonel said that the Germans invented this saying ...
      ...
      “Hey you, August disaster!” - as if suddenly remembering something, the colonel called a man with a cold voice that he did not like. - Are you with us to Mogilev too? Are you looking for your part? But no one answered this question. The one who was asked, either did not want to answer, or left ...


      Konstantin Simonov "The Living and the Dead"
      1. tasha
        tasha 18 June 2016 09: 26
        +10
        Read, Oleg, read. And not only the magnificent trilogy of K. Simonov.

        Here is another topic for research. But the topic is very, very difficult, the topic is heavy and ungrateful. According to G.F.Krivosheev, in the 1941 year, 2,335,482 Soviet soldiers and officers were captured. In 1942 - 1,515,221. In 1943 - 367,806. In 1944 - 167,563. In 1945 - 68,637.

        I often wonder about why in 1941-1942. so many prisoners? What made it, for what reason did the oath-serviceman stop the resistance, lay down his arms and go to surrender? There can be different things in the war: wounded, shell-shocked, unarmed .. But the numbers are very, very shocking.
        It is possible that the reasons stretch back to the First World War? After all, the imperialist soldiers are still alive, who remember that the German is not evil, the main thing is to observe the order. So the bayonet in the ground-went prisoner ..
        Those. you had to see, get the testimonies of survivors from the 1941-42 camps in order to understand: the Nazis are not Germans of the 1914 type. And no one will feed and support as in the First World War, and after the armistice he will not let go of his homes. And better - a grenade under your legs than hands up ...
  10. Petrik66
    Petrik66 18 June 2016 08: 12
    +7
    The question was posed by the author of pathos, one might say global, but carried him away in such a distance that it would be difficult to return. along the way, the author set several traps for critics, they say everything ...... they can’t explain in any way, and they lie all .... involuntarily, any critic automatically hysterics too. It was not necessary for the author to write, it was not necessary.
  11. Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik 18 June 2016 08: 34
    +1
    "In WWI, Germany fought on two fronts? It is certainly true, but in WWI Russia was forced to fight both the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires. If someone does not remember. Already in the same year 1914. Germans, Austrians and Turks - the Germans were the strongest of all, but this does not negate the other two empires, they also fought, and Austria-Hungary was quite a great power for itself. "This is where the author's complete nonsense! Even children know that in the Second World War the USSR fought with all of Europe, for a small exception! and we must not forget that the main burden of the war was on the USSR, in fact, the "allies" began to fight in 1944!
    1. BUGAGA
      BUGAGA 18 June 2016 11: 25
      -4
      complete nonsense ... the alliance fought without even fighting ... just if you think about it .. there were 5 million soldiers in the Wehrmacht and why did only 3 lyamas go to the USSR? Yes, because the alliance would immediately land in France .. and a Lend-Lease .. Yes, he saved us!
      1. Uncle Murzik
        Uncle Murzik 18 June 2016 14: 04
        +3
        you are talking nonsense, a gentleman from Bulgaria! can remind you who liberated Bulgaria! and the supplies of the West are their selfish interest, also selfish! The supplies were paid for with gold and the blood of our soldiers! In addition, the USSR paid for gold with allied supplies. So, only on one British cruiser "Edinburgh", which was sunk by German submarines in May 1942, there were 5,5 tons of precious metal.

        A significant part of the weapons and military equipment, as expected under the Lend-Lease agreement, the Soviet Union returned after the war. Having received in exchange an invoice for a round sum of $ 1300 million. Against the backdrop of the cancellation of Lend-Lease debts to other powers, this looked like an outright robbery, therefore JV Stalin demanded that the “allied debt” be recounted.


        Subsequently, the Americans were forced to admit that they were mistaken, but added interest to the total amount, and the final amount, taking into account these percentages, recognized by the USSR and the USA under the Washington agreement in 1972, amounted to 722 million greens. Of these, 48 million were paid by the United States under Leonid Brezhnev, in three equal installments in 1973, after which the payments were discontinued due to the introduction of discriminatory measures by the American side in trade with the USSR (in particular, the notorious “Jackson-Vanik Amendment” - author).

        Only in June 1990, during new negotiations between Presidents George W. Bush and M.S. Gorbachev, did the parties return to a discussion of Lend-Lease debt, during which a new deadline for final repayment of debt was established - 2030, and the remaining amount of debt - 674 million dollars.
        1. BUGAGA
          BUGAGA 18 June 2016 15: 15
          -2
          I am from Belarus (I write this as a specialist for I do not recognize our current bastard). Bulgarians are not our brothers by the way, but scum and cattle .. both world wars fought against us ...

          at the expense of Lend-Lease .. tired of explaining that it was completely free ... TOTALLY! But for review, a wonderful article ...
          [media = https: //topwar.ru/95477-znachenie-lend-liza-dlya-sssr.html]
          1. Uncle Murzik
            Uncle Murzik 18 June 2016 16: 14
            +1
            "I congratulate you, mister samvravshi" broken link! but I don't care where you are from! laughing
          2. Stas57
            Stas57 18 June 2016 17: 36
            0
            Quote: BUGAGA
            I am from Belarus (I write this as a specialist for I do not recognize our current bastard). Bulgarians are not our brothers, by the way, but scum and cattle ..

            phew how ugly
    2. Alex
      Alex 19 June 2016 21: 34
      +2
      Quote: Uncle Murzik
      even children know that in World War II the USSR fought with all of Europe, with a few exceptions!

      And by and large, and generally without exceptions: Switzerland cranked German money, and then simply hid it, Sweden supplied intelligence with ore, formally neutral Spain sent the "Blue Division". Even the Vatican began to save the SS at the end of the war. And this is in the middle of the twentieth century, of course, well, completely nonsense compared to the "irresistible" power of the Ottoman Empire - this sick man of Europe - and no less decrepit Austro-Hungarian. The author is somehow carried away by his theory, somehow it is even less attractive for him than that of the same Rezun, not be remembered by nightfall.
  12. kot28.ru
    kot28.ru 18 June 2016 08: 42
    +8
    He sat, read, everything is somehow superficial, but the general idea is constantly repeated only one - the Bolsheviks are to blame for everything, right from the 17th year to the 90s, so he could have written in a nutshell at once what he had transported! Now what, rewrite history again? Some kind of sediment, rotten in the text, in general, minus the article!
  13. parusnik
    parusnik 18 June 2016 08: 43
    +7
    One of the goals of the WWII ... to destroy Russia ... and no one wanted to see her in the world leaders ... Yes, and the USSR .. was really in the ring of enemies .. whether we want it or not .. The French and the British did not go to us factories and factories to build, were in no hurry to share technologies .. Thank you USA .. we helped, but due to Soviet orders we got out of the crisis .. And analogies are not appropriate .. You can still draw an analogy .. the war of 1812-1814. there wasn’t .. and starting the war in June, from the same borders as the Germans, the French occupied Moscow in October .. and in March 1814 the Russians were in Paris .. and Paris, farther from Berlin will be ..
  14. igordok
    igordok 18 June 2016 08: 45
    +14
    Everything is relative. (taken from http://brutus-cynicus.livejournal.com/3219.html?thread=18323)
    The ratio of losses for the killed, captured and missing:
    Germany-Poland: 0,02: 1
    Germany-France: 0,03: 1
    Germany - USSR 1941: 0,75: 1
    Germany-USSR 1942: 0,96: 1
    Germany-USSR 1943: 1,98: 1
    Germany-USSR 1944: 3,18: 1
    Germany-USSR 1945: 5,6: 1
    Germany-Anglo-American Army: 1,24: 1 (22.06.41 - 9.05.45)

    If in 1941 we had a disaster, then what should we call the Polish, French company. Big losses, but in 1941, the teeth of the Wehrmacht were broken.
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 18 June 2016 08: 52
      +1
      Quote: igordok
      but in 1941 the teeth of the Wehrmacht were broken

      not in 45 wink

      This is a question, if that yes
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 18 June 2016 09: 12
        +7
        Quote: Cat Man Null
        not in 45

        already in 41.
        the failure of the blitzkrieg was actually the beginning of the end; Germany could not enter the war for resources.
        1. Olezhek
          18 June 2016 09: 20
          0
          already in 41.
          the failure of the blitzkrieg was actually the beginning of the end; Germany could not enter the war for resources.


          Well, why, and in the summer of 1942 the Red Army was on the verge of defeat ...
          Literally on the edge of the abyss ...
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 18 June 2016 09: 36
            +2
            Quote: Olezhek
            Well, why, and in the summer of 1942 the Red Army was on the verge of defeat ...
            Literally on the edge of the abyss ..

            I think this is a loud statement, yes there were problems in the South, but this is not the collapse of the whole war.
          2. overb
            overb 18 June 2016 10: 11
            +4
            Quote: Olezhek
            Well, why, and in the summer of 1942 the Red Army was on the verge of defeat ...
            Literally on the edge of the abyss ...

            Do not exaggerate. Even if in 1942. the Germans went not only to Stalingrad, but also to Ulyanovsk, this would not change anything for them. Yes, in the end the USSR would have had several million more casualties. But that makes all the difference. "We will not stand behind the price" is not a figure of speech.
            Quote: Olezhek
            In the spring-summer, the 42 Wehrmacht still could win.

            No chances. In 1942 not only the USSR and Germany fought, but also Britain with the USA (not only by small bloods and on foreign territory, but also by the wrong hands). Therefore, the Wehrmacht had chances only in 1941. But no further.
            Quote: igordok
            then there would be no Stalingrad and Kursk.

            And what was near Kursk? At the cost of enormous losses, they were not allowed to crush their troops there and kept the front? How can this be compared with Stalingrad?
            1. Monarchist
              Monarchist 18 June 2016 12: 22
              +1
              In my opinion, the Wehrmacht in the spring of 1942 had great chances for victory, but we stood and ...
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 18 June 2016 12: 33
                +3
                Quote: Monarchist
                In my opinion, the Wehrmacht in the spring of 1942 had great chances for victory, but we stood and

                and what is the victory of the Wehrmacht "? blitzkrieg-clear-" we quickly ran, everyone is in captivity, we have factories, we have inf-tour, egge! "
                and in 42?
                Peace? Truce?
                It would not have been possible to achieve the complete defeat of the Red Army, the industry was evacuated for the most part, and it is not a fact that they won the second battle for Moscow. The Wehrmacht is no longer a cake, old cards are knocked out.
                and Lendlis had already begun, and already the war on a quiet edge and japam was not up to us.
                and from the west the Germans will be hard to cross the Volga
                What a victory? Where is the victory? What is the victory?
            2. Olezhek
              18 June 2016 20: 20
              -7
              Do not exaggerate. Even if in 1942. the Germans went not only to Stalingrad, but also to Ulyanovsk, this would not have changed anything for them.


              I'll kiss you. Then. If you want. crying
      2. igordok
        igordok 18 June 2016 09: 19
        +1
        Quote: Cat Man Null
        not in 45

        This is a question, if that

        A corpse was buried in 1945. soldier In 1942-1943 the Wehrmacht was still strong, but toothless.
        1. Olezhek
          18 June 2016 09: 23
          +1
          . In 1942-1943 the Wehrmacht was still strong, but toothless.


          Colleague, study be so affectionate the spring-summer campaign of 1942 of the year ...
          1. igordok
            igordok 18 June 2016 09: 29
            +1
            Quote: Olezhek
            Colleague, study be so affectionate the spring-summer campaign of 1942 of the year ...

            I pointed out that the Wehrmacht was still strong. But if he were invincible, then Stalingrad and Kursk would not exist.
            1. Olezhek
              18 June 2016 09: 35
              -3
              I pointed out that I was still strong. But if he were invincible, then Stalingrad and Kursk would not exist.


              “Is the German army invincible?” - Stalin asked a question and answered it himself. - Not. There are no invincible armies in the world


              In the spring-summer, the 42 Wehrmacht still could win.
    2. overb
      overb 18 June 2016 09: 35
      -2
      Quote: igordok
      If in 1941 we had a disaster

      It was not a disaster, it was a loss in the war. In a lightning war (with little blood and on foreign territory). Then the massacre began, i.e. a completely different war. Total. With a known result.
      Quote: igordok
      Germany - USSR 1941: 0,75: 1
      Germany-USSR 1942: 0,96: 1
      Germany-USSR 1943: 1,98: 1
      Germany-USSR 1944: 3,18: 1

      Given the overall level of losses of the warring parties, the figures given are nonsense.
      Quote: igordok
      but in 1941 the teeth of the Wehrmacht were broken.

      Wehrmacht in 1941 I didn’t break any teeth. And in the period 1942-45 he bit all of these teeth very hard. But he really lost the war back in 1941. Lost in that he allowed her to be transferred to the phase of total massacre. And for this he was not categorically ready.
  15. Stas57
    Stas57 18 June 2016 08: 57
    +9
    It's just that the whole history of the 41-42 years is an almost continuous chain of catastrophes, retreats and defeats. And to object here is something very difficult. To those who mention 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” against a very dark background.

    these are very different situations of the 41 summer with retreat and attempts to stop the enemy
    and 42 attempts to attack, and seizing the initiative

    on the other hand, this very 1941, and 1942, could not "decorate" the USSR and the Soviet army.

    ololo what

    to withstand the first blow, not die like European countries for months, exhaust the enemy, disrupting his initiative, this is all nonsense and shame


    The thing is that by the 1917 we had already practically won the First World War, and the Bolsheviks actually stole this victory from us, having concluded the Brest Peace. Exactly so, by 1917, Russia had already made great sacrifices on the altar of victory, and by this stage the central powers were already standing on the edge of the abyss.

    and then everything falls into place
    damned Bolsheviks, etit them ..
    they did the same in February and actually destroyed the army in the 17 year, bastards.

    And in the 30-ies 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”.

    some kind of infantry, suddenness, not because no one knew, but because they hadn’t mobilized the army, prevented the deployment,

    Beautiful of course, but it’s not true. And when in November 1918 the Bolsheviks denounced the Brest Peace (concluded in March 1918!), Then this did not meet any understanding among the winners in the First World War: “Who are you? Let's goodbye!"

    RI lost, precisely because it was not capable of waging a normal war, and the Germans did not reach Moscow in 14 or 17, but the collapse of the country was tantamount to losing, and who did the second thing.
    The Bolsheviks simply put an end to war unnecessary to anyone

    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, prosperous 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, having won the First World War (which we have actually done in 1917), it was possible to arrange everything so that a war with Germany through 30 years became impossible.

    once again, my monarchical non-friend.
    The Tsar lost power, Temporary the same, in fact, the country rolled into the abyss, this is its defeat. including in the war. The purpose of the war is the destruction of the enemy, and Germany has achieved it.
    Stalin retained power, kept the country. He won the war.
    there is something to compare

    article a set of dope young neophyte RCMP, probably in the next chapter we will read about the beautiful Gustav Emil of Finland
    1. poma
      poma 18 June 2016 09: 56
      0
      Maybe a bunch of dope, but the question remains ... how did it happen that by the 42 year the enemy had reached the Volga?
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 18 June 2016 10: 02
        +4
        Quote: poma
        there may be a set of dope, but the question remains ... how did it happen that by the 42 year the enemy had reached the Volga?

        uh, I don’t see the analysis of this question, nor the answer why it didn’t reach the summer of 41, why the Stalinist empire didn’t fall apart, and so on.
        1. poma
          poma 18 June 2016 10: 05
          0
          Yes, the physical could not be organized, as the German likes, to get there. And near Moscow, of course, someone argued.
    2. Aleksander
      Aleksander 18 June 2016 11: 19
      -2
      Quote: Stas57
      RI lost


      Just FACTS: RI and the Russian Republic of the Provisional Government of the War Did not lose, won and didn’t even think about surrender — in November 1917 —th everything was already clear with the vanquished and the victors.
      The armistice with the invaders in December 1917 and surrender in March signed managed usurpers at the elections gersha diamonds-apfelbaum
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 18 June 2016 11: 28
        +4
        Quote: Aleksander
        Just FACTS: RI

        RI died, died, fell apart, fell apart, ended, choose any convenient word, but the fact is the fact RI ceased to exist.
        all kaput
        The country lost the war.
        and the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Cadets, monarchists, Jews, Masons and Tsarhorokh are already a second question.
        result RI lost the war, RI did not enter Berlin and did not sign Versailles.
        RI, in your language, has done it.
        1. Aleksander
          Aleksander 18 June 2016 12: 47
          .
          Quote: Stas57
          RI died, died, fell apart, fell apart, ended, choose any convenient word, but the fact is the fact RI ceased to exist.


          she died, died, fell apart, fell apart, ended, rotted and threw off her hooves even without bubbles — power — and only after 70 years. EVERYTHING, KAPUT.
          And the thousand-year-old Russia fought with the Soviets for as many as 4 years after 1917 and defeated it in 70 years.
          Quote: Stas57
          The country lost the war.

          Only in inflamed brains and communal affairs. Russia -won WWI. I, again, return to the FACTS: neither RI nor the VP signed a surrender, it was signed by Gersh, a diamonds from the Soviets, i.e. screwed up by the Bolsheviks with their stupid decrees.
          Quote: Stas57
          result RI lost the war, RI did not enter Berlin and did not sign Versailles. RI,.

          Facts, Facts-RI NOT LOSED and the Russian Republic the war, this document is not registered, the assessment of the same (lost, etc.) managed by the Communists is the last thing that interests everyone. Alas, their monopoly has ended.
          1. super.ufu
            super.ufu 18 June 2016 12: 57
            +3
            Facts, facts — RI did not lose the war and the Russian Republic didn’t register it with any document, but the assessments (lost, etc.) of the communists who managed it were the last thing that interests everyone. Alas, their monopoly has ended.

            Personally, we are calm
            Yes, I agree with the opinion that modern neomanarchism is evil and a brain tumor, even with an icon on a regiment, even a marshal’s board, even though here is an example before us:
            the country could not stand the war, the king denied, the democrats failed everything.
            The empire ended in the WWI, the three-hundred-year-old did not bear it, and I’m not alone in noticing it, but at least urinate in their eyes — their faith is invincible.
          2. Stas57
            Stas57 18 June 2016 13: 04
            0
            she died, died, fell apart, fell apart, ended, rotted and threw off her hooves even without bubbles — power — and only after 70 years. EVERYTHING, CAPUT

            Well, it ended like an imperial empire, unlike you, it doesn’t cause a break in me
            for the history of empires that 300, that 70 years are oddly little.
            I am not happy with the collapse of empires, but I do not come up with RI victories in WWI, and the USSR in the cold.
            although yes, for sure, the USSR won the Cold War!


            And the thousand-year-old Russia fought with the Soviets for as many as 4 years after 1917 and defeated it in 70 years.

            sha for crap such a millennium-old Russia?
            third reich?

            Russia won the WWII.

            hahaha
            Something I point blank in the signatures of Versailles I do not see Nicholas, oops, but he was shot a year before.
            I’ve lost Poland, I lost Finland, I lost Ukraine, I lost MYSELF, they tapped the king, the elite fled, half of the army went over to the side of the rebels, a civil war began,
            in how cool RI won the PMV!
            1. Olezhek
              18 June 2016 20: 19
              -6
              Something I point blank in the signatures of Versailles I do not see Nicholas, oops, but he was shot a year before.
              I’ve lost Poland, I lost Finland, I lost Ukraine, I lost MYSELF, they tapped the king, the elite fled, half of the army went over to the side of the rebels, a civil war began,
              in how cool RI won the PMV!


              Was the army of RI defeated? (like the Red Army in 1941)? Not?
              Has the famine begun in the country? How was it in the USSR before the war? NOT?

              The problem was in the rear - in the traitors and "revolutionaries" ...

              I don’t see Versailles, oops, but they shot him a year before.


              And then the Bolsheviks shot and starved millions .. which of course is ridiculous.

              And then the Bolshevik army (suddenly!) Was defeated by the Wehrmacht ...

              Which is funny even more ...

              And millions of Soviet citizens ended up in German concentration camps.

              Comrad tell me about the achievements of the Party and the Government ...

              have a good laugh together.

              From the 17 year, continuously until the 50's: famine, executions, typhoid, shelling, camps, bombing, evacuation ...

              What kind of misfortune is this? Such a wise party ... and such garbage ... Illogical?
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 18 June 2016 20: 50
                -1
                Quote: Olezhek
                Was the army of RI defeated? (like the Red Army in 1941)? Not?
                Has the famine begun in the country? How was it in the USSR before the war? NOT?

                the empire was defeated, it died. and the army is the same


                Quote: Olezhek
                The problem was in the rear - in the traitors and "revolutionaries" ...

                all the wars of the 20 century are based on the rear, the rear of the Republic of Ingushetia failed the war, the generals betrayed, the court betrayed, the Republic of Ingushetia fell apart. The king lost on all fronts both in the rear and at the front.


                Quote: Olezhek
                And then the Bolsheviks shot and starved millions .. which of course is ridiculous.

                But there was no king in Versailles and there was no parade in Berlin
                happens, and then there was Berlin, Nuremberg and Potsdam.
                The country did not fall apart from the war, and ended it in Berlin
                But in the signers of Versailles I do not see Nicholas, the Parade in Berlin is the same. shot.
                Quote: Olezhek
                And millions of Soviet citizens ended up in German concentration camps.

                Comrad tell me about the achievements of the Party and the Government ...

                The country did not fall apart from the war, and ended it in Berlin; there were Nuremberg and Potsdam.
                But in the signers of Versailles I do not see Nicholas, the Parade in Berlin is the same. shot.



                Quote: Olezhek
                From the 17 year, continuously until the 50's: famine, executions, typhoid, shelling, camps, bombing, evacuation ...

                What kind of misfortune is this? Such a wise party ... and such garbage ... Illogical?

                The country did not fall apart from the war, and ended it in Berlin; there were Nuremberg and Potsdam.
                But in the signers of Versailles I do not see Nicholas, the Parade in Berlin is the same. shot.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  16. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 18 June 2016 09: 12
    +7
    What kind of cry for Yaroslavna did I read now?
    1. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 09: 56
      .
      I'm talking about this ...
      Why didn't the Red Army defend them ??

      You can ironize further ..
      1. igordok
        igordok 18 June 2016 10: 14
        +6
        Illustrating their tales with a photograph of children from a Finnish concentration camp is disgusting.
        1. Olezhek
          18 June 2016 10: 19
          -6
          This is not the worst result of the defeat of the Red Army ...
          So I ask: why the Red Army was defeated and these children were behind the thorn?
          1. igordok
            igordok 18 June 2016 10: 40
            +8
            Quote: Olezhek
            So I ask: why the Red Army was defeated and these children were behind the thorn?

            I do not understand the question.
            Firstly, the Red Army was not defeated, but suffered heavy (grave) losses. If the Red Army was defeated, then you, as well as me, would not exist.
            1. Olezhek
              18 June 2016 10: 53
              -9
              First, the Red Army was not crushed, but suffered heavy (heavy) losses. If the Red Army was crushed,


              In the summer of 41, most of the personnel of the Red Army was destroyed / surrounded / surrendered

              And the enemy entered Moscow Leningrad and Sevastopol ...

              Let's call a spade a spade:

              THIS IS A SIZE
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. tasha
            tasha 18 June 2016 10: 55
            +4
            This is not the worst result of the defeat of the Red Army ...
            So I ask: why the Red Army was defeated and these children were behind the thorn?


            It seemed to me after reading your article that you already have an answer. And now you have suffered ...
          3. viktorR
            viktorR 18 June 2016 13: 50
            +2
            Oleg, I may not have understood something, are you making a claim to the Red Army for the fact that it fought badly and took Berlin at 45, not at 41? Well, you would have done everything differently as a "military genius in hindsight," you are smarter than Stalin, Zhukov, Rokossovsky, etc.
            1. Olezhek
              18 June 2016 20: 07
              -3
              Oleg, I may not have understood something, are you making a claim to the Red Army for the fact that it fought badly and took Berlin at 45, not at 41? Well, you would have done everything differently as a "military genius in hindsight," you are smarter than Stalin, Zhukov, Rokossovsky, etc.


              1 Well, as if the tsar’s generals were in a much more difficult situation (there was little artillery, and there weren’t any shells) in 1914-15 they didn’t run to Moscow and St. Petersburg.
              It was? It was!

              2 And ​​the command of the Red Army having much more equipment and shells than the Wehrmacht at the beginning of the war in 1941-42 crashed.

              Just the facts. Or am I spelling out something wrong?
          4. Basil50
            Basil50 18 June 2016 20: 25
            +2
            olezhiku.
            This happened only because not all the villains were identified and destroyed, so they helped * the democrats *.
      2. Olezhek
        18 June 2016 10: 26
        -5
        Illustrating their tales with a photograph of children from a Finnish concentration camp is disgusting.


        Have you heard about the Mannerheim monument in St. Petersburg?
  17. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 18 June 2016 09: 21
    +4
    It’s not enough to have a good tool, you still need to be able to use it. I’m talking about the Red Army before the war. The lack of trained and experienced commanders, the fear of mistakes, the lack of initiative, contributed to the result that we had. Only when the psychology of the soldier, commander changed, did we win.
  18. timyr
    timyr 18 June 2016 09: 47
    +3
    Quote: Olezhek
    1 In 1914-1915 the Russian army was not defeated, it is a fact.
    Although there was an unpreparedness for war.
    2 The growth of the Wehrmacht was even more "explosive" if that.

    And nothing that the Wehrmacht had shots
    1. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 09: 53
      -7
      From 1918 to 1933, the German armed forces are about 100 000
      And before the "attack" on France, German generals cried over the lack of trained reservists
      1. timyr
        timyr 18 June 2016 10: 54
        +9
        Well, you do not need to tell tales about the lack of reserves. Read why the Reichswehr was created and how it worked. No ears to ride. The Reichswehr was created to train personnel for a future war and did an excellent job of this. The next article will probably be about the savior of Leningrad Mannerheim or an Austrian artist whose bloody ghoul Stalin forced to commit suicide.
        1. Olezhek
          18 June 2016 20: 01
          -2
          Read why the Reichswehr was created and how it worked. No ears to ride.


          The Germans in 20 got out as best they could. But through the army they were able to let very few pass.
          And they had problems with the trained reserve of soldiers ...
  19. okroshka79
    okroshka79 18 June 2016 09: 55
    +3
    The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany 1941-1945 - this is not only hostilities between the Armed Forces of the USSR and Germany. This is a war between two socio-economic formations or systems at this stage of human development. Any system always has both its advantages and disadvantages. Obviously, at the initial stage of the war inside our country, the preponderance was of disadvantages over advantages, in the second, advantages brought victory. Everything else (patriotism of the population and heroism of warriors or vice versa, betrayal of some, technical equipment, tactical skill and operational art, economic and scientific potential, features of the country's territory and its infrastructure, climate, help from allies, ideology, etc., etc. .) are already particulars. You can talk and write about them endlessly because of your awareness and your passions. However, what this discussion is important on the eve of the tragic date of the start of the war is to draw objective and competent conclusions for the further development of our Armed Forces and preparing the state for new challenges. This is the main thing. And the author wrote about the initial stage of the war as he understands it. Therefore, the "pros" and "cons" of the article do not play any role here. IMHO.
  20. timyr
    timyr 18 June 2016 10: 01
    +6
    Quote: Olezhek
    The Germans won when in 38 the year troops were sent to Austria, it’s a laugh and a sin a third of the armored vehicles broke down, some of the troops were lost and this is in the second year of the mass army.


    I agree, he is such an "invincible" Wehrmacht

    You know how to make conclusions or how. In the second year, the Wehrmacht had problems with management, although there were enough personnel. The Germans concluded that they increased the number of repair services and the management was tweaked, and in 39 they broke the Poles. The Red Army learned to fight at the end of 42 years. Reform began at 39 learned at 42. The Germans began at the end of 35 learned at 39.
    1. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 10: 21
      -4
      b and the management was corrected and in the 39 year they smashed the Poles.


      Poles yes Poles they broke .. and the Great Polish Empire was defeated in the dust ...
      This absolutely unexpected event literally shook contemporaries ...
      1. Olezhek
        18 June 2016 20: 00
        -2
        -3

        Skoko Poles on the site ... And I did not know request
  21. semirek
    semirek 18 June 2016 10: 03
    0
    We forget one moment a bit: after all, Stalin did not expect a war with Germany at 41m, the main danger came from Japan, which was firmly entrenched in Manchuria, therefore all the best parts of the Red Army were in the east, namely, about 200000 combatants. My father drafted by the Isilkul military registration and enlistment office in 39, one of the thousands of Siberians who came to serve in the Far East, said, being in Primorye, St Barabash, that they were being intensively prepared for war with the Japanese, but fate decreed that in the summer of the 42nd they would throw their division on the middle Don it was a really hot summer, the German feathered like an obsessive one, the meat grinder was terrible. The turning point in the war came when the Far Eastern Siberians began to pull themselves up.
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 18 June 2016 10: 19
      +2
      We forget one moment a little: after all, Stalin did not expect war with Germany in 41,

      of course it was, that is why in 41 in the west there were 2 / 3 of all divisions.
      The turning point in the war came when the Far Eastern Siberians began to pull themselves up.

      turning point in the war is 43
      I believe that in the next 50 years a new ethnos will be born, only he defeated Hitler, and the rest will.
      1. semirek
        semirek 18 June 2016 13: 45
        0
        Quote: Stas57
        We forget one moment a little: after all, Stalin did not expect war with Germany in 41,

        of course it was, that is why in 41 in the west there were 2 / 3 of all divisions.
        The turning point in the war came when the Far Eastern Siberians began to pull themselves up.

        turning point in the war is 43
        I believe that in the next 50 years a new ethnos will be born, only he defeated Hitler, and the rest will.

        I understand your sarcasm, but I feel that you are weakly savvy in our military history. Stalin, speaking to graduates of military schools in May 41, suggested that the war with Germany would begin no earlier than 42 years, the non-aggression pact should have delayed time, he was naturally stunned Hitler’s insidiousness. Do you think that a million Moldovans and Western Ukrainians and Belorussians, who were called up due to a decrease in the military age, were the real combat-ready force, which was 2/3 of the Red Army divisions? By the way, the Germans immediately let them go home, because. they immediately surrendered. In the Far East by the year 41, there were actually 40 combat divisions.
        The turning point in the war in the minds of soldiers came in after Stalingrad, when they realized that the Germans could be beaten.
        As for the Siberians ... Of course, we all know that the Germans defeated the Germans near Moscow and drove the enemy further. The Siberians, not the first time to beat the Germans, the Siberian arrows successfully beat Germans in the Great War, they beat them in the Patriotic War, not in vain, in every city where they covered their fame there is either a street or avenue of Siberian guards - Siberia is not a city in your understanding, it is a huge territory with a harsh climate, and people living there are much better adapted to the realities of nature than the same Muscovites.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 18 June 2016 14: 16
          +1
          Quote: semirek
          I understand your sarcasm, but I feel that you are poorly savvy in our military history. Stalin, speaking to graduates of military schools in May 41, suggested that the war with Germany would begin no earlier than 42, the non-aggression pact should have delayed time, naturally he was stunned Hitler's cunning

          Well, everything is ok with knowledge, thanks, especially pleased 2 moment-
          I would ask Stalin’s speech on 5 on May, although it has not been preserved, it is known from fragments and paraphrases. Well, you give an exact transcript where there about 42))
          this phrase sounded, according to Hoffman, a war with Germany would inevitably begin before 1942, as soon as the conditions were more favorable. Stalin will begin it. According to other sources, it was said that the war will be here until the end of 42.


          yeah, S talin was so stunned that he climbed under the table, there is a photo.

          . Do you think that a million Moldovans and Western Ukrainians and Belorussians called up in connection with the decrease in the military age are the real combat-capable force that constituted the 2 / 3 divisions of the Red Army?


          and in the Red Army they called from new territories, oh well !, the first call was scheduled for the fall of 41, but alas.
          and so yes, my grandfather is Zap-Ukrainian, 2 KZ, "OV, a lot of medals, marine, 2 performance at the SCS.

          It’s not the first time for Siberians to beat Germans — Siberian arrows successfully beat Germans in the Great War, they beat them in the Patriotic War, not without reason, in every city where they covered themselves with glory there is either a street or avenue of Siberians Gvar

          Well, I say, the creation of the heroism of a new ethnos, and the fact that Ukrainians, Belarusians, and so on didn’t live in Siberia there?

          Siberia is not a city in your understanding, it is a huge territory with a harsh climate, and the people living there are much better adapted to the realities of nature than the same Muscovites.
          oops, but he is a rural resident of central Russia, of course he felt boots, a maskquat! There are no others in the country, only Siberians and Muscovites, but Ukrainians and Belarusians who are not able to fight, and the Moldavians
    2. overb
      overb 18 June 2016 10: 37
      +3
      Quote: semirek
      After all, Stalin did not expect a war with Germany at 41m

      Who told you this?
      Quote: semirek
      therefore, all the best parts of the red army were in the east, namely, about 200000

      You at least a summary of the Red Army on 01.06.41/34/35. would have looked, or something. Before writing frank nonsense. For example, there were no tanks of the KV, T-28, T-XNUMX, and T-XNUMX type in the Far East. And the remaining types of tanks in the west were much more than in the east.
      Quote: semirek
      The turning point in the war came when the Far Eastern Siberians began to pull themselves up.

      Yeah of course. The turning point came when the Germans abandoned Barbarossa and switched to directive planning. After that, it was no longer the army, but the big gang of Old Man Makhno. This period did not last very long, only 2 months. But for the failure of Barbarossa and, as a result, the defeat in WW2, this was enough for them.
  22. poma
    poma 18 June 2016 10: 08
    +2
    The article is not so much about the past as about the present. We again have the strongest armats, and Putin's falcons fly on the most modern aircraft.
    The initial stage of the database is in full swing against us.
    I read this question in an article.
  23. igordok
    igordok 18 June 2016 10: 29
    +2
    I want to find fault with the headline.
    Those. in the summer of 1941 and 1942. Germans attacked because they are Europeans, smart, advanced. They know how to attack only in the summer. And in the winter, 1941 and 1942. - bummer. Really, General Frost began to fight against the Germans and defeated them. And the Red Army - this is so, in between, neither this nor that fool No. .
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 18 June 2016 10: 32
      +2
      Quote: igordok
      their. And the Red Army - this is so, in between, neither this nor that

      Olezhek already told us, because therefore not RCMP!

      Those. in the summer of 1941 and 1942. Germans attacked because they are Europeans, smart, advanced

      Well, how did they advance ..
      on the Bryansk front in the summer, 42 weekly attacks of the Red Army, "battles for the forester's village", an attempt to straighten the ledge, the commander of the 29th infantry complains that a third of the composition remained in the companies. 4 TD remains without tanks at all, similar to 17 TD
      1. igordok
        igordok 18 June 2016 10: 44
        +1
        Quote: Stas57
        Well, how did they advance ..
        on the Bryansk front in the summer, 42 weekly attacks of the Red Army, "battles for the forester's village", an attempt to straighten the ledge, the commander of the 29th infantry complains that a third of the composition remained in the companies. 4 TD remains without tanks at all, similar to 17 TD

        I hope we learn about this from the second part Marlezon Ballet opus.
  24. RPG_
    RPG_ 18 June 2016 10: 34
    +7
    The author did not understand the topic at all. A lot of water, boltology, propaganda and other things, but there is not a single answer or a hint of it, but a lot of questions have been raised.
    You can’t compare 1 MV and 2 MV, you would have compared the beginning of the Great Patriotic War with the Crusades, it’s just an excellent analogy to the defeat of the Arabs with the catastrophe of 1941-1942.
    Well, briefly so why not compare:
    - neither Russia nor Germany was ready for the start of the 1st MV (mobilization began in about the same way in the two countries)
    - The cavalry was the most mobile connections of 1 MV, and the cavalry in the Russian Empire was larger than in all of Europe, so a quick breakthrough was impossible in principle.
    - the established system of warfare and the lack of powerful mobile formations (Horse armies appeared much later) gave the command more time to react and withdraw troops from the planned boiler.
    1. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 19: 58
      -4
      You cannot compare 1 MB and 2 MB
      Many do not like to do it.

      to the beginning of 1 MB neither Russia nor Germany were ready (mobilization began in two countries approximately equally)


      The level of the German army in 1914 was unfortunately significantly higher than the Russian ...
      The German army was, in principle, the best on the planet.
      Mobilization in Germany with its small territory and dense railway network went much faster.

      The most mobile connections 1 MW were cavalry, and the cavalry in the Russian Empire was more than in all of Europe, so a quick breakthrough was impossible in principle.


      Cavalry in 1914 in the regular war in the era of machine guns and artillery of great importance was not.
      Civilian is something completely different.

      the well-established system of warfare and the lack of powerful mobile units (Horse armies appeared much later) gave the command more time to react and withdraw troops from the planned boiler.


      Sorry in 1941 the USSR had many times more tanks ... And artillery And aviation ...
      horse armies horse armies ... belay
  25. Aleksander
    Aleksander 18 June 2016 10: 44
    -9
    Good article!

    Russia in the WWII fought with the invaders for its freedom and much more successfully than in WWII. Russia PMV won lost it and signed the shameful world of the Soviets of blanks and apfelbaums.

    Blanca with his "Decree on Peace" (an appeal to all peoples), of course, was harshly lowered and poked into reality EVERYTHING: the allies remained silent in bewilderment and twisted at their temples, the losers rejoiced at the idiot idealist and raped as they wanted and did not even dream earlier (Brest shame). But if only he and his black, sealed carriage would suffer, but it’s nothing to them, but the whole country suffered, plunged into terrible famine and reparations to the invaders-interventionists. Thus, he betrayed all the victims of the country, hundreds of thousands of dead Russian soldiers who fought against the German, Austrian and Turkish invaders.
    Brest shame, having excluded Russia from the leadership of the international security system, thereby led the security system to weakness and inability to stop the aggressors (without Russia there is no security). Thus Brest shame led to WWII. When Russia is the winner, the system works and there is no war for 70 years after WWII. So it would be after WWII, if not for the Bolsheviks, who were ready to give everything in order to preserve their criminal power.
    1. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik 18 June 2016 11: 10
      +1
      sho again Jewish trace? belay laughing
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander 18 June 2016 11: 26
        -6
        Quote: Uncle Murzik
        sho again Jewish trace?


        Where?! belay
    2. King, just king
      King, just king 18 June 2016 15: 06
      +4
      N-yes, citizen Aleksander! Given the fact that the Academy of Sciences in the Moldavian SSR was created in the USSR - the last (from 15), then your post allows you to see the educational level of Moldovans.

      Oh, by the way, who is Blank?
      And who and how was raped, judging by the text of some Form and it is extremely interesting - where?
      Why was the car black?

      For your information, citizen, not so much we lost materially in the Brest Peace in connection with the revolution in Germany (by and large). It’s a pity the Black Sea Fleet, but if it hadn’t been flooded, it would have gone to the whole and unharmed British-French-Turks. And the Germans, without brest, went straight to St. Petersburg, in full dress, there was no one to defend, Dybenko with a matrozhnoy-brotherhood thumped.


      According to the article. The author pushed out of himself thoughtfulness, crushed, crushed - not squeezed. He would have written simply and clearly, our army was draping, draping, draping, until near Smolensk a little command came to its senses and began to think something.
      Well, one cannot exclude the fact that Pavlov said during interrogations.
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander 18 June 2016 15: 41
        -5
        Quote: King, just king
        N-yes, citizen Aleksander! Given the fact that the Academy of Sciences in the Moldavian SSR was created in the USSR - the last (from 15), then your post allows you to see the educational level of Moldovans.


        And what makes you, citizen tsar, an educational level? belay Such remarks presuppose at least some level of the claimant, but, judging by such "remarks", something is not traced.
        Quote: King, just king
        who and how was raped, judging by the text of some Form and it’s extremely interesting - where?


        For a long time (from 12.17 to 03.18), with enjoyment, retraction, and in all conceivable and unimaginable poses, including German boots on the table, which touched and touched the brackets and diamonds touchingly and rescuing their full-time usurped power.
        What to do, for their naively stupid searchlights, decrees on the election of commanders in the army fool , fraternization, truce, "peace" fool I had to pay. It is bad that these animals did not pay their own.
        Quote: King, just king
        Why was the car black?

        Allegory in Russian is an allegory, the transmission of an abstract idea, thought through an image.
        1. King, just king
          King, just king 18 June 2016 16: 23
          +1
          And, so, s-m-u-sh-a-k-a-e-t, that the use of emoticons implies the inability to coherently express your thoughts, which you demonstrate. In principle, nothing new. Chatter, and only.

          Finishing. Before accusing the Bolsheviks of seizing power, you, a citizen, would have thought, why are they so guilty, in comparison, for example, with the "Cadets" who overthrew the tsar? And why they, the Bolsheviks, were not supposed to overthrow the Provisional Government. The Tsar is possible, but the Temporary is not allowed?
          And what, in fact, was to defend, on October 17th? What parts faithful to the Fatherland? Probably the Wild Division, and she was propagandized, well, it’s necessary, to sign the spirits for the revolution ...
          1. Aleksander
            Aleksander 18 June 2016 22: 32
            -4
            Quote: King, just king
            , due to the fact that the use of emoticons implies the impossibility of coherently expressing your thoughts, which is what you are demonstrating. In principle, nothing new. Chatter, and only.


            Your assessments are ridiculous and miserable. You have NOTHING to object, except for the transition to the "level" fool The use of emoticons facilitates the perception of others' thoughts by unknowing and poorly understanding kings.
            Quote: King, just king
            Finishing. Before accusing the Bolsheviks of seizing power, you, a citizen, would have thought, why are they so guilty, in comparison, for example, with the "Cadets" who overthrew the tsar? And why they, the Bolsheviks, were not supposed to overthrow the Provisional Government. The Tsar is possible, but the Temporary is not allowed?

            I note that the country Boards has died as 25 years ago and it’s time for the comrelicts to get rid of the idiotic habit of giving them.
            As for the rest: I am NOT involved in educational program: read THEmselves, finally, decrees their own at the saucer power owls (and not just owls textbooks) and you will finally find out that the ow government TEMPORARY and all his orders TEMPORARY to US. At the same time, read that Prince Lvov was appointed both Emperor and VK of the State Duma.
            Quote: King, just king
            And what, in fact, was to defend for October 17? What parts faithful to the Fatherland?

            In October 1917, despite the collapse that began, the Russian army was still two times superior to the enemy at the front and, in the context of the ongoing defeat of Germany, the United States, France, England and Italy simply had to stand and wait for the victory that ALREADY was. D. an ambitious decree on peace, on the election of commanders, on fraternization and armistice, the assassination of Dukhonin and the desire of power by the Bolsheviks at any cost — they finally killed the army and brought disgrace to Br.
            Good luck in learning hi
            1. King, just king
              King, just king 18 June 2016 23: 24
              +3
              Well, about the funny and the wretched - I have already read, from different types of AK64, etc. They, unfortunately, are not ready for a normal conversation (like you) and begin, in principle, to "carry a blizzard", and then hide behind a "black list ".

              ON THE FUNNY AND POOR. THIS IS YOUR PHRASE:
              I note to you that the country of the Soviets has died out already as 25 years old and it’s time for the comrelicts to get rid of the idiotic habit of giving them.
              THIS IS A GENERALLY RUSSIAN-FORUM, NOT RUMANESTI-MOLDOVAN, HOW DO YOU COME TO EXPLAIN THIS PHRASE?

              Regarding the educational program, etc. ... Here on the forum there is already such a passenger, "Hecate" by the nickname. So he also declares that they say, I write as I want, dooks to my scribbles - look for yourself.

              Yes, about the ulyudochny Soviet power. You, a citizen, of the Soviet regime should kiss your legs (figuratively). For you, mamalamizhnikov-basmachi-spirits, the Soviet government taught you to count, you can even give a higher education, and besides mamalyga under the Romanian whip, there’s nothing more to eat, you would walk in barefoot casings.
              Yes, in principle, yours, together with the Romanians, is generally like this now, without the Soviet regime and go with a bare booty.
              1. King, just king
                King, just king 18 June 2016 23: 49
                +2
                Now by Order No. 1. So, after all, the Order was issued on March 2, century, and the revolution on October 25, century Well, before March, the army fought, it was obvious that Berlin was visible through binoculars, and after that, in 7 months, it rolled back to where it is unknown? This does not happen.
  26. BUGAGA
    BUGAGA 18 June 2016 11: 02
    -5
    Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! great article!
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 18 June 2016 11: 41
      +9
      oh, you are already three of you, Olezhek and Alexander, admirers of RCMP
      two more crunch buns wink

      objectively, the article is fig, but RI fans cannot objectivity.
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander 18 June 2016 13: 00
        -3
        Quote: Stas57
        objectively, the article is fig, but RI fans cannot objectivity.


        Think about the fact that you are not a measure and a standard of objectivity: no one has recognized such a right for you.
        You have the same EQUAL as the SUBJECTIVE point of view, like everyone else, no more.
        The article is good.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 18 June 2016 13: 10
          +5
          Think about the fact that you are not a measure and a standard of objectivity: no one has recognized such a right for you.

          objective measure says the article’s rating is in the red zone.
          alas, vox populi
  27. timyr
    timyr 18 June 2016 11: 04
    +9
    I thought the author will describe the real problems of the Red Army that led to the defeat of 41-42 years. And the author is to blame for the Bolsheviks. And the Crimean War, too, because of the Bolsheviks lost.
    1. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik 18 June 2016 11: 19
      +7
      and the Russian-Japanese too, the Bolsheviks are to blame! laughing
  28. avia12005
    avia12005 18 June 2016 11: 25
    +17
    There are several points that even many professional historians either do not pay attention to, or simply are silent.

    1. Glaring non-execution and lack of executive discipline of commanders and staffs of the Red Army at all levels. For example, the failure to comply with the directive on camouflaging troops and, in particular, airfields to 1 July 1941. Its implementation, like many others, was to be controlled by the General Staff, headed by G. Zhukov. And what is the cost of passing the famous directive on the night of 21 on 22 June. Any operator will confirm that this is not what the gate will not climb. Yes, and the version of the betrayal is quite right to be.

    Conclusion: in this part we can partially agree with the author - there is an 41 puzzle, but it lies in the negligence of the performers. Which Stalin regretted, because there simply were no others.

    2. Even at the end of the war there were very few witnesses of the 41-42 battles. It was already then that there was no one to tell about the exploits like the feat of Sergeant Sirotin.

    Conclusion: our pseudo-historians, instead of looking for heroes and talking about them, once again begin a song about the "collapse" that the Bolsheviks committed in 1918. And "honestly" they are silent about the "merits" of the Romanovs and the liberals in the collapse of the army and the country by February 1917, when almost no one heard of the Bolsheviks.

    3. Talking about 41-42 without their connection with 43 -45 is the same as talking about a child born without parents or even from a test tube, but still without outside intervention. Here, even the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary will seem like a historical truth.

    Conclusion: such "historians" should read the memoirs of the beaten Nazi generals and field marshals, who noted on June 22 the growing active courageous resistance of the Soviet troops.

    4. And finally: it is clear that the main reason for the defeats of 41-42 is the low training of commanders, staffs and administrations. Any commander will say that in a difficult situation, not only in war, a unit or unit, not to mention connections or unions, without skillful and precise leadership, without organization, they simply fall apart.

    Conclusion: Stalin in 1941, if he wanted to punish for this, would have shot a lot of commanders and generals of the Red Army. He didn't do it because there were no others. Later, during the war, many died, and those who reached the end, he forgave. For which many "thanked" him in the days of Khrushchev.

    5. Last thing. the history of their homeland must be treated with respect. Our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers were human beings, and made mistakes, and some of them, yes, bordered on crimes. Conclusion: so, now their feat in the war and victory must be denied? There is no one to blame, they hold the answer in a different world ... And 45-th would not be without 41-th.
  29. timyr
    timyr 18 June 2016 11: 36
    +11
    Quote: Uncle Murzik
    and the Russian-Japanese too, the Bolsheviks are to blame! laughing

    I understood that any lost war must be declared a consequence of the criminal policy of the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks blamed on Kalka. It was God's grace to defeat the Swedes. The Germans defeated the Germans; the Bolsheviks lost it.
    1. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 11: 44
      -8
      I advise you to study the "achievements" and "gains" 1917-1942 ...

      With the king this did not have request
  30. timyr
    timyr 18 June 2016 11: 48
    +7
    Quote: Olezhek
    I advise you to study the "achievements" and "gains" 1917-1942 ...

    With the king this did not have request

    You are by no means a Ukrainian, well, tell us about the achievements of the tsarist regime. How many starved to death, how many wars lost. Under the Bolsheviks, this was not
    1. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 19: 48
      -4
      us about the achievements of the royal regime. How many died of starvation


      Comrad, I see you know Russian history well, tell you about the famine in 21-22 in the Volga region, about the famine in 30, about the famine in 46-47 ???
  31. Alexander Greene
    Alexander Greene 18 June 2016 12: 18
    +2
    On the true causes of the failures of the Red Army in the summer of 1941 and 1942, read the book:
    Martirosyan A.B. June 22 tragedy: Blitzkrieg or treason? True Stalin.- M .: Yauza, Eksmo, 2006.- 784 p. - (War and we)
  32. Vadimsh
    Vadimsh 18 June 2016 12: 19
    +3
    “I must say that in tsarist Russia no one was preparing for the First World War and was not going to prepare. And did not even plan, and did not dream, which is typical. And nevertheless, there were no catastrophes similar to the catastrophes of the Second World War. The defeats were severe. defeats, like Samsonov's, but not catastrophes "- the respected author somehow one-sidedly interprets the story like Rezun seems to be on the whole correct, but adding a little falsehood and the picture changes to the opposite, in the film" Chinese box "(of course complete nonsense) but the episode of the Stalingrad front, one will run and ten will run was quite typical for that time, fear of tank wedges, ignorance of the situation, a sense of loss, all this caused panic
    1. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 19: 44
      -2
      but the episode of the Stalingrad front, one will run and ten will run was typical enough for that time


      That is, you want to say that all the troubles of 41-42 from the cowardice of individual Red Army men?
      Did I understand you correctly?
  33. Alexander Greene
    Alexander Greene 18 June 2016 12: 56
    +3
    Link where you can download Martirosyan's book on the causes of the defeats of the Red Army in 1941-1942.
    http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/M/MARTIROSYAN_Arsen_Benikovich/
  34. Monarchist
    Monarchist 18 June 2016 13: 03
    -3
    The author is right in saying that by 1917 Germany was already working (almost) .What were the causes of the 2 catastrophes? 1. The Bolsheviks were corrupting the army, and the generals: Alekseev, Ruzsky betrayed their emperor. Unfortunately, Nikolai 2 turned out to be weak and gave a lot of freedom to his Alex , but she was putting it mildly ... If on the throne Alexander3 figs this would have happened. On 2 1941, traitors nestled in the General Staff and NPO and Pavlovsky was only a switchman, and his patrons and friends remained in place
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 18 June 2016 13: 13
      +4
      Quote: Monarchist
      .Be on the throne Alexander3

      but yes, I agree, he could, and for Nikolai Pavlovich would agree, but alas, the Bolsheviks did not lose the empire and the war, the empire, the war and the country were ruled out by the court, the tsar and the rotten elite.

      although everything, yes, they won the WWI and paraded in Berlin, which is in vain to argue with believers))
      1. Olezhek
        18 June 2016 19: 43
        -3
        the courtyard, the tsar and the rotten elite erupted the war and the country.


        And you do not read Soviet newspapers before dinner - you will be more whole ...
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 18 June 2016 20: 55
          +1
          Quote: Olezhek
          And you do not read Soviet newspapers before dinner - you will be more whole ...

          you don’t know about the betrayal of the court, the generals and the industrial stratum.
          you don’t know about the unwillingness of the peasants to fight for the German queen, ohhh ..
  35. viacheslav77
    viacheslav77 18 June 2016 14: 01
    +3
    Also "plus". A set of stamps and slogans. Russia in the 14th was at war on 3 fronts, Austria-Hungary, it turns out, still participated. And at 41, that you did not participate? Where was Austria? And what did Hungary do? The field of such a blooper is even reluctant to talk about tanks and aircraft. Speaking of three fronts, the author will not tell you what England and France were doing in the years 14-18?
  36. Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 18 June 2016 14: 06
    +7
    I’ll be brief .. the article is big, there’s a lot of water ... facts and arguments and documents at least, in general blah blah blah blah ... for such an answer in the history exam 2 points no more, much and nothing .. sorry if what's wrong
  37. tiaman.76
    tiaman.76 18 June 2016 16: 24
    +5
    for me this article is not an objective analysis .. but ideological excuse me "vyser" again they say the commies pissed away everything and even under the tsar it was better the Bolsheviks brought the country in 17 to defeat and at 41 to the brink of defeat again brought .. etc. etc., everything is very far from the real historical realities, it is written. The questions of course remain until the year 41 and the summer of 42. But the author in his article did not try to sort out those tragic events in any way sensibly ... or maybe he did not want to yes I think I could not.
    1. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 19: 42
      -5
      . Questions of course remain on the 41 year and even the summer of 42. but the author in his article did not try to sort out how sensibly those tragic events.


      The counter question is: if the Bolsheviks are so well done, then why are the events so tragic?
  38. asbaev
    asbaev 18 June 2016 17: 10
    +6
    Not an article, but some kind of chatter without a beginning and an end.
    1. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 20: 26
      -4
      The meaning of the article is the history of WWII with us - a set of myths ...
      Really where? belay
  39. Basil50
    Basil50 18 June 2016 19: 56
    +2
    The author is a typical * democrat *, heir to the case of Khrushchev and his followers.
    In tsarist RUSSIA, both officers and soldiers fought valiantly, which was always emphasized in the SOVIET UNION, the fact that WWII goals did not support this is true, but I never heard or read any negative articles about soldiers and officers. Many commanders of the RED ARMY were officers of the IMPERIAL ARMY and had awards.
    What happened in 1941-42 fits too well with the conspiracy of the generals. It is a pity that AND IN STALIN did not publish the results of the investigation into the tragedy of 41 years. The post-war coup with the participation of generals showed that the CONSPIRACY WAS.
    Hitler rescheduled the start of the war several times, waiting for some kind of signal, we can assume anything, but the Germans expected something that was supposed to happen in the SOVIET UNION. Most likely this was due to the fact that the troops were NOT READY for war. I somehow read that by June 10, what was done in the troops of the Calling Forces was already irreversible, i.e. it was only possible to fix it within six months. This is the situation with aviation and with artillery and with tanks and personnel. The actions of Pavlov’s headquarters at the outbreak of the war look even stranger, this is both the withdrawal of troops and the fact that border guards leading fights were abandoned and lack of fuel for equipment and sealed warehouses. A lot of strange things that do not fit into the logic of war. About the inability to fight this is not to the RED ARMY. They fought very worthy. Not everyone knows, but the strength of the RED Army with the Germans was equaled only at the end of 1942 and the beginning of 1943, and this was without the German * accomplices *.
    1. Olezhek
      18 June 2016 20: 32
      -4
      Not everyone knows, but the strength of the RED ARMY with the Germans was equaled only at the end of the 1942-th beginning of the 1943-th year,


      taking into account the AT what speed the Red Army was losing personnel ... it would not be surprising ...
      And only after Stalingrad did this conveyor slow down ...

      But the ratio of numbers must be checked all the same ... Somehow I can’t believe in German numerical superiority ...
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 18 June 2016 20: 57
        0
        Quote: Olezhek
        taking into account the AT what speed the Red Army was losing personnel ... it would not be surprising ...
        And only after Stalingrad did this conveyor slow down ...

        oops, and who lost the most people in WWI?
        well, name this country, with its conveyor of death?
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 18 June 2016 21: 23
          -4
          We had a death pipeline since the summer of 1941 to 1945 - killed, wounded, missing, missing - about 26 million.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 18 June 2016 21: 43
            0
            Quote: Vadim237
            We had a death pipeline since the summer of 1941 to 1945 - killed, wounded, missing, missing - about 26 million.

            they told you about the losses, and then a question. for whom did RI put the most in WWI?
            the enemy attacked her and rushed to Peter?
          2. LeonidL
            LeonidL 4 July 2018 20: 16
            0
            You should not lament liberalistically - 26 million - this, together with the civilian population, annihilated and unborn. Military losses of the order of 8 million. It is also much, but quite comparable with the losses of Germany, its allies and henchmen from all over Europe and the territory of the USSR.
      2. LeonidL
        LeonidL 4 July 2018 20: 21
        0
        For some reason, everyone unanimously forgets the speed with which they lost the personnel of the European army. Yes, not killed or wounded, but simply taken prisoner or dispersed. The Greek officer told me that, due to the uselessness and absence of POW camps, the entire Greek surrendered army was simply dispersed to their homes. But before that, the Greeks very quickly and efficiently filled the face of the Italians in Albania. Look at how fast the army of Poland, France, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Greece, Yugoslavia and the British Expeditionary Force lost. This is a complete defeat with complete surrender and the loss of all the equipment of those armies that quite successfully fought in WWII against Germany and won !!!! The author of the article does not know military history well and, apparently, has no military training at all, even at the level of a normal military school. The article is a miserable babble of a “jacket”.
    2. Basil50
      Basil50 18 June 2016 21: 40
      +1
      * Democratic for ... hopping * never from knowledge, only from order and inferiority complex, and for some reason they try to transfer their own inferiority to others.
  40. Calter
    Calter 18 June 2016 23: 30
    0
    Quote: Olezhek
    Rather, in 1914, Germany tried to win in the West, concentrating the main forces there
    And in 1915, the Germans went east. But disasters and defeat were not
    Austria-Hungary is a great power if that
    In 1914-15 the balance of power for Russia was not better but worse than in 1941-42
    Especially in artillery ...

    Time passes, the nature of war changes. At 41. the Wehrmacht had almost complete motorization of infantry formations, aviation and tanks from an "attachment" to infantry-artillery became quite independent branches of the armed forces, and their combat coordination was perfected on the battlefields throughout Europe. The Red Army, on the other hand, differed little from itself in the Russian-Finnish war: they did not know how to use tanks, bringing them into mechanized corps instead of distributing them to infantry units, like machine guns, anti-tank weapons or grenades, was already a progressive solution (only the repressed Tukhachevsky moved thoughts in the right direction). I generally keep quiet about communication: phones in the best case, as well as flags, missiles and a commanding voice. The army was commanded by such generals as Budyonny, Voroshilov, Shaposhnikov and others. "Heroes" of the Civil and Imperialist. So it is wrong to compare WWII and WWII, because when the front was broken through, the defending side lost much more. In WWI, only cavalry could develop an offensive after a breakthrough, which, for example, having buried itself in the next line, could only dismount and turn into the same infantry, only without artillery support. In WWII, tanks, armored vehicles with motorized infantry, and, essno, aviation immediately burst into a breakthrough. Before the next frontier, this could all turn into a full-fledged army. If the Wehrmacht had used helicopters in 41g, they would have to be stopped somewhere in the Omsk region. And the difference in the speed of the means of supply (horse-drawn and road-railway transport) should not be forgotten. In modern warfare, by the way, the outcome of the ENTIRE WAR is decided in the battle for air. Those. if the Second World War unfolded in modern realities, then after the loss of all air defense and aviation in the first weeks of the war, no order number 227 would have stopped the Germans either near Moscow, or in Stalingrad, or in Vladivostok. With the development of technology, space "shrinks": what in 1812 and 1915 was considered "endless expanses", in 1941. - already "a suitable living space (for the Aryan race)". And in the 22nd century we will fly between neighboring continents, as now - between neighboring cities. If we don't kill each other.
    Another example: the notorious deportation of Crimean Tatars from Crimea to Central Asia by railway occupied a MONTH WITH A SMALL. Now the fast train from Moscow to Vladivostok travels four times faster. And not much more time has passed than between the two world wars.
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 13: 07
      -3
      In 41 the Wehrmacht had almost complete motorization of infantry formations,


      I am very sorry, the memoirs of the same Germans from the infantry right now are widely (too widely) available
      They stomped their feet. Almost everything ...
      By foot

      and their combat coordination is perfected to perfection on the battlefields throughout Ev
      rope


      This is on what - such battlefields ??? belay
  41. veps75
    veps75 19 June 2016 16: 16
    -3
    And General Vlasov (not the worst, by the way, of the Stalinist generals and showed himself near Moscow) was taken prisoner and went to cooperate with the enemy, perhaps simply "having broken psychologically."

    General Vlasov is a talented commander. When he was surrounded with his army - read what Comrade did. Zhukov (the main criminal of all times and peoples). Read the real story. At that time, Zhukov was with him.
  42. Loki_2
    Loki_2 21 June 2016 08: 07
    +2
    The author will go far. I advise him not to stop at the achieved level, but to increase the intensity. You can come up with such revelations ...
  43. LeonidL
    LeonidL 4 July 2018 20: 06
    0
    Apparently, the author is from a cohort of “jackets” and therefore considers anything but real military issues with the same enthusiastic hysteria and as emotional as a cutter ... but on the other side of the barricade. The author should take a contrast shower and understand a few simple things. 1. The Red Army rapidly grew quantitatively from territorial to regular, but the quality of command personnel did not correspond to quantitative growth. And here you should not discount repression. 2. Military science is the science of jackets that is not understandable. Armies, fronts, corps, divisions, brigades, regiments and even battalions need to be able to be controlled and for this very carefully and for a long time to study in classes, at training grounds, at exercises .... In the same way it is necessary to be able to manage high-tech military branches. The operations are prepared by the General Staff and General Staff of the Red Army in quality at the beginning of the war at a lower level than German. 3. The military-economic and mobilization potential of Europe united by Hitler exceeded that of the USSR, and Stalin perfectly understood this. Therefore, he desperately needed allies and did everything possible and impossible, so as not to be accused of aggression. The intelligence of the General Staff and the NKVD very accurately determined the position of the governments of the United States and Britain - if the first shot had been sounded by the Red Army, then the allied alliance would most likely never have formed. 4. The Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe very successfully defeated the strongest armies in Europe, which are simply ridiculous to talk about as technically poorly armed or unprofessional. The Red Army in terms of the level of training of the command staff was lower than the corresponding categories of the French and British armies, the Poles were also not made a finger ... That is, the military thought, strategy and tactics of the Germans, in addition to training an individual soldier, even compensated for some technical failure of, for example, T tanks -1 t T-2. 5. German tanks - the result of technical thought mid-late 30s. Most of the Red Army tanks are copies of the old English Vickers of the 20s and American Christies of the early 30s. Plus - German technology + the best instruments + radio communications + quality crew training + general education and technical literacy. These are not tank tractor drivers with primary education. He should not just shoot a tank - he must shoot accurately. If in many T-26s the aiming was carried out by a shotgun-type shoulder sight, then the Zeiss optics were in German. A quick-firing small-caliber gun or heavy machine gun easily flashed the armor of all Soviet tanks of that time except the T-34 and KV. Therefore, even equivalent German light tanks were replayed at the beginning of the Soviet ... You can continue to list, talking about artillery, aviation, and quite separately about the fleet, communications, radar. But the main thing - in 1941, this is the priority of German military thought, the priority of the experience of victorious operations throughout and over all of Europe, Stalin’s inconsistency with the role of commander-in-chief and commander, in full accordance with the role of the military-political Leader.