Military Review

Hot summer 1941-42. Part of 2

157
Hot summer 1941-42. Part of 2


Much has been written on the topic of how everything was bad in the Russian Empire in 1917. Alive, colorful and detailed. Only in the fourth year of world war, that same empire looked much more prosperous than the industrial USSR in the first summer of the war. Russia in the summer of 1917 from a military point of view did not stand on the brink of an abyss, no matter how hard you are in propaganda (and the Soviet Union was already in the summer of 41). The war with the Germans with the king was somewhere far to the west. Yes, 1917 is a year of big food problems, but they can not be compared with those that the USSR had already in 1941. About 1914 year, I generally keep quiet - everything was quite well there.

That's the more you compare these two big wars with the Germans (and their allies), the more you are amazed at the contrast. The first world in 1914-1917 was in Russia, of course, the number one event, but no more. The economy worked, people lived quite well, technology and culture developed. Literature was also quite on the level. That is, the very "imperialist war" did not constitute the whole life of society. And no one expected the German either near Moscow or near St. Petersburg. And most importantly: no one was afraid of the German (I know, now again someone will remember about the "stuff" and about the armor, fasten yourself). Reading books and memoirs of that era? sometimes it’s easy to forget that war is going on (great Russian literature!). That is, the war, as it were, but somewhere out there ... And this despite the fact that, for example, its aircraft engines for the growing aviation in the Russian Empire (a great military power!) there was no word at all.

But for some reason there were no Germans under Peter. Such a funny paradox. So what the hell is the problem? And you yourself know everything. No worse than me. What, in fact, begins the army? No, not from the roster, not from the number of weapons and the list of combat units. Any sensible army begins (suddenly!) With an officer corps. And this body is created over generations. It’s not even interesting to explain further: from 1917 to 1937 and then the intelligent Russian officer had very good chances not to make a career, but to fertilize the land (if he didn’t manage to emigrate). No, of course, someone stayed, but a little, very little. There was something similar with the engineering staff for the growing Soviet industry — superbly trained Russian engineers were forced to leave, and the USSR invited foreign specialists. Ostensibly its not, as in Papua New Guinea.

So, when in the hot summer of 1941 there was a need to plan and conduct large-scale operations (from the Baltic to the Black Sea) against a strong European army, it turned out that there was practically no one to do it. I'm not talking about Tukhachevsky here (I don't know how much he was a genius), I as a whole. In a war of this scale (as in the First World War!) a well-coordinated management mechanism of a multimillion army, consisting of very highly qualified specialists. So, he was not at the moment level. That is why the Germans have gone so far and so simple. Because almost all the major battles of 1941-1942-th Red Army brilliantly lost. From here all troubles. Attempts to look for the causes of defeat at the level of "overwhelming German technical superiority" or "surprise", I think, can be stopped forever - this is hopeless and not true.

The valiant Red Army in 1941, in contrast to the era of the king-father (1914), had an abundance of artillery barrels and a sea of ​​shells, but that did not save her. Yes, in 1945, this very army took Berlin, but what about the “set of chess pieces”? The first such set (personnel of the Red Army) was taken by the Germans practically "for fook." And this one personnel of the Red Army was no worse than the Wehrmacht on weapons, training and combat capability. That's right - no worse, something better. For some reason, it is customary to depict war as a fight - they say, there is no strategy, no tactics - there is a fight wall to wall and there’s more who have fists and weight and who has a stronger face. Unfortunately, the war resembles not so much fist fun in the winter field, as blitz chess (there is a scuffle, but it is secondary). And then the “red commanders” were not lucky.

For the most part, they were not fools, cowards and traitors (there were very few of them). They were quite ready to fight and defend their homeland. But in order to “lead a symphony orchestra,” there is little proletarian insight. Once again: in general, the professional level of leadership of the Red Army during the 1941-1942 campaign was quite low, hence the catastrophic defeat. Here, of course, it is customary to start throwing stones (or another substance) at Stalin and his faithful student and follower of Beria. Let's start with Beria: as it turned out, it was the NKVD units that turned out to be superbly prepared and showed themselves very well. In general, after all that became known about that era, it is very difficult to present Lavrenty Beria with professional claims: in the critical conditions of war, he provided security.

Regarding Stalin, first of all it should be noted that if there is a mass of photos where Hitler is leaning over the map of hostilities with the generals, then I have not seen such photos with Stalin. He did not understand this issue, but he did not try to do it. Yes, he could set common tasks, he could demand something, but he did not fit into planning specific operations. By the way, the famous Stalinist order No. XXUMX is, in fact, a disgrace for professional soldiers: 227 year, summer, Crimea (remnants) surrendered, the battle near Kharkov was lost, the front was broken, the Germans go to the Volga and the North Caucasus, the country is on the verge of death . At the same time, it is very difficult to talk about some kind of "suddenness factor". And now, in essence, a civilian person is forced to remind them that there is such a profession - “To protect the homeland ...”.

A year has passed since “that fateful June”, and the picture is one-on-one. At the same time, both German tactics and German equipment are already well known and familiar to everybody. The front near Kharkov tears all the same T-III / T-IV, in the sky all the same Me-109 and U-87 / 88, familiar to Soviet specialists before the war. No tigers in the field and no "jets" in the sky is not observed in principle. The Wehrmacht soldier is armed with the same Mauzer carbine based on the rifle of the 1898 model of the Shaggy Year. That does not like our historians 1942 year. Even more than 1941. Just because it is not at all clear what to tell ... All the “myths and legends” of 41 in “42” are no longer “playing”. Therefore, we immediately, smoothly go to the Battle of Stalingrad (from the defeat of the Germans near Moscow!). By the way, in the summer of 1943, the Germans did have “magic” Tigers and Panthers in serious quantities. but exactly then they began to hit hard on the Eastern Front. Paradox.

If you look closely "history WWII ”, then these holes in the narrative are most striking. They are trying to close them with references to the "terrible Stalinist regime", or to rusty, outdated and dismantled tanks, or something else. And the hardest thing is to “plug” the summer of 1942. Because there is nothing. And if we consider the level of competence of the officer corps, then everything suddenly falls into place: one year of war was still not enough to bring it to condition, therefore defeat again ... It is impossible, as it turns out, to fight without an intelligent officer corps. Those same “gold hunters” whom they so contemptuously called “former” helped a lot, for example, Paraguay in his war. And their absence very seriously plagued Russia in that very hot June 1941.

Civil war - it was one thing, a full-fledged war against a powerful European army is something else. And we didn’t compare our two world wars for one simple reason: the very “goldsmiths” defended the country in 1914 year. The red commanders in 1941 were unable to do this. Full zrada. Therefore, the presentation of two world wars (and in fact wars with Germany and you need to tell them together) we look like Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. There are capitalist ministers, the International, and "die, but do not miss the enemy." And the complete lack of logic.

By the way, it is very instructive to compare the orders that prevailed in the old tsarist and new Soviet armies during the battles of the two world wars. Unpleasant and still. And it's not about the atrocities of the Stalin regime, it's about the peculiarities of the situation "on the fronts". The First World War fought long and tedious, and by the end of the war the soldiers simply "tired". They are fed up with war, and they wanted to go home. Although, of course, in general, the losses were also great. In the Second World they did not have the opportunity to "get tired." “Human resource” was spent very quickly and extremely hard. As a rule, those who fought at the front today were no longer those who fought here six months ago, but completely different people. The problem was just that there was practically no time to prepare the new recruitment (the defense was broken and we had to shut it up urgently!), And there wasn’t really any need ... They had to fight for a short time.

The Soviet conscripts were certainly ready “with weapons in the hands of defending the motherland. " All their previous lives prepared them for this. But, unfortunately, in 1941-1942, as a rule, this was not required of them. Having been trained, they were ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with more experienced comrades and stop the enemy. But do not need it. Personnel and later formed parts were burned in the fire of battles without a trace. And a typical situation was when the units of yesterday's draftees were forced to hold defenses in the direction of the main attack. With a very poor set of weapons.

This is why, in our patriotic literature, it is customary to admire this situation immoderately: they say, what heroes! In fact, there is very little good here: in fact, the guys “plugged holes” and their life was very inexpensive. The most annoying thing is that this was repeated time after time, right up to Stalingrad. Units (divisions and corps) were spent just to gain time. This is not a normal / standard form of warfare. A person in uniform and under oath is obliged to risk his life, but is not obliged to commit suicide. However, in the current situation of a permanent catastrophe, the Red Army needed something more than in a normal war: he shouldn’t have to surrender in principle under any circumstances, which was considered a crime. And he could not retreat in principle. And get surrounded too.

And it was a cruel necessity: the defense of the country somehow does not add up, so we have to demand the impossible from people. An ordinary Red Army man, of course, was not to blame for the catastrophe that befell his army, but he had to respond. In 1941-42, he constantly had excellent chances of “becoming a criminal” in the eyes of the entire Soviet people. Once again: a soldier during the war is obliged to risk his life, but he is not obliged to "suicide" Surrender in a hopeless situation is quite a worthy way out. By the way, the continuation of resistance in the hopeless situation of certain groups and groups of soldiers is, of course, quite heroic, but large military does not matter. If the enemy has won a major field battle, then the "petty guerrilla" by the forces of the "surroundings" will not change anything here, this is an illusion. Waste illusion.

A great war is won in major battles, not in the heroic defense of the last trench. It's just that our attention in describing the events of 1941-42 has been persistently shifting from the big picture to concrete, certainly heroic events. And this is not entirely correct. Talking about a big war, you need to talk about big war, and not about the countless exploits of unknown heroes. The Red Army and in June 1941 was able to defend the “last trench” to the last, but it really began to fight when it mastered conducting large-scale successful operations. Not earlier. And the main myth: allegedly in the same June, the Wehrmacht was very strong. Incredibly strong.

Soviet-Russian propaganda has done a lot for this. Countless shows of Nazis marching through Europe, their tanks and dive-bombers to brave nazi music. Ostensibly it was an overwhelming force. Able to powder out any. Meanwhile, upon careful study, it becomes clear that the Wehrmacht was a broiler army, an ersatz army, hustled together "from what it was." In 1933, Germany had no army. And millions of hungry-unemployed. And the economy is in crisis. And in 1939 - the strongest army of the planet! What a fairy tale these are! And actually whom and where did Hitler win in Europe during her “capture”? The capture of Europe by the Nazis ... rather resembled a neat drain of that very Europe. Perhaps his only beautiful victory is Norway. Everything.

Poland was frankly and cynically betrayed, Czechoslovakia, too, was surrendered to Austria ... A close examination of the history and the stories about “Hitler who seized the whole of Europe” cause counter-tough questions: “How did he do it? And where is the Wehrmacht here? ”The“ great helmsman ”could have burned even during the occupation of the“ demilitarized Rhineland ”in 1936. But someone helped him ... For some reason ... But what does the "power of the Wehrmacht" mean here? Now it is well known that with the French offensive in September 1939, the Wehrmacht would have been very quickly defeated. The whole of World War II could end in September 1939 by the French occupation of the Ruhr ...

The mythical “power of the Nazi war machine” is not confirmed by absolutely nothing, except for the Nazi film propaganda, enthusiastically used by Moscow filmmakers / TV people after World War II. It was not her, this very "Nazi military power." In reality, it was not. There was a good European army, with very good leadership and with a bunch of "childhood growing pains." I understand the idea that there was a monstrous Nazi "mega monster from the abyss," and we defeated him in a bloody struggle, warms the heart. But it was not true. By the way, the Americans, under the sunset of the war, having complete air superiority, managed to overrun from this "megazuver" more than once (but they don’t have a normal land army at all), so this is not an example.

The French army, which the German generals frankly feared, neatly leaked it (I won’t say who), although the Franks themselves in 1940 were not too eager to fight. The capture of Crete / Norway is, in fact, a special operation. So the “epicity” to the battles on the Eastern Front in 1941-42 was given not by the “invincibility of the Fuhrer’s troops” and not by the “indestructible power of the Third Reich”, but by some features of the Soviet military leadership. It is clear that this option warms pride much less, but what to do. By the way, for yourself losers Germans, the war on the Eastern Front is more banal warand not the heroic epic about the unprecedented battles of "gods and titans." Not that it’s a completely ordinary event, but not something quite incredible.

It was just that the Wehrmacht was unbelievably lucky up to a certain point: he didn’t have to fight "to the fullest" against an equal opponent, hence the legends about "invincibility", hence the Nazi newsreels marching through European capitals to bravura music. I understand that it looks ominous and makes a frightening impression on people who are unprepared, but it can be recalled that in the very same 1940 year, “invincibility”, for example, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe was convincingly dispelled by the British. Yes, the British betrayed and sold “on the continent” all the allies from Prague to Paris, but when it came to a real fight for the islands, they began to actively shoot down Ace Goering, and pocket battleships to drown, and “non-pocket” Bismarck too. And very easily. And Germany began to bomb at night. And by the way, in Africa, the war was almost equal. And the battle for Britain was won not by Goering.

Nazi Germany was “invincible” until it was beaten “for real”, while European capitals handed over it one by one (why it was a separate question). And even from Norway, the allies at the decisive moment simply left, and even France at the decisive moment, the British were abandoned. From here comes the "tremendous success" in the conquest of Europe, and not the incredible possibilities of the Wehrmacht. And in the USSR, the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe were also adequately evaluated. And they were not particularly afraid of them. The capabilities of the Red Army were also evaluated quite sensibly. The problem was in the adequate leadership of the Red Army itself, but with this there were big problems. As a result, the endless "herds" of tanks and airplanes and millions of Red Army soldiers could not stop the enemy. Apparently, for the Kremlin this was a complete and absolute surprise.

One of the consequences of this military catastrophe: the blockade of Leningrad. The second largest city, the largest industrial, scientific and military center was cut off from the "mainland" already 8 September 1941 of the year. The blockade was lifted only in 1944 (1943 was struck in January), that is, Leningrad was under siege for almost the entire war. Up to a million citizens of Leningrad died from hunger and cold (and keep the “invincible and legendary” Mga station ...). In general, sometimes history repeats itself the other way: first as a farce, then as a tragedy. In 1917, small problems with bread in St. Petersburg (seemingly swept up the ways) led to the overthrow of the king (not the Bolsheviks!). What for some reason is considered by all historians as something logical and correct. Problems with food on 4-th year of world war and the king off. Although the frosty February 1917 nobody died of hunger in St. Petersburg, and the Germans were very far from the capital. But in the course of the “right” war, under the leadership of the remarkable Bolsheviks, who seized power in the same 1917, three months after its beginning, the city on the Neva River was on the verge of surrender, and then mass starvation and cannibalism began in Leningrad. And for some reason, some abstract "fascists" are to blame for all this ... Tsarism, of course, is also to blame.

And here we smoothly leave for one more question, about the supposedly “uselessness”, “uselessness” of the very “Russian aristocracy”. So, in 1812 and in 1914, in a no less difficult situation, they completely coped with the country's defense and did not allow defeat cadre army and as a result, the “free action” of the enemy on its territory. I wonder how they did it? After World War II and thirty million dead, this question is highly relevant. By the way, of the three major invasions into the depths of Russia over the past two centuries (Napoleon, Willy II, Hitler) from a strategic point of view, the first was the most dangerous. The whole of Europe was under Napoleon, and there could be no "second front" in principle (although Wellington is, of course, a general and a gentleman). But survived. Despite the complete and overwhelming superiority of France in people and technology (compare Russian and European industry at the beginning of the 19th century). And the militia were, but on the sidelines.

And Napoleon was not some kind of a “fairytale character,” and his defeat in Russia was by no means predetermined. It was a serious European leader who planned to destroy Russia and had ample resources for that. And it was not so much the “heroism of the Russian people”, but the professionalism of the Russian officers who did not allow the defeat and encirclement of the cadre army or even its units. And this very army already under Borodino could well have given battle to the French, because it had become stronger since the beginning of the war, and the French had weakened. And this is not an accident and not the “finger of fate” (as many people think for some reason), but the result of professionalism on the one hand and adventurism on the other. Napoleon was invincible on the battlefield, but on the whole the Russians fought the campaign much better. Hence the result. And it is not accidental..

During the “big retreat” 1915 of the year, the Russian army also avoided the encirclements and led everyone who could, with generally reasonable losses, despite the “shell hunger”. And about the militia especially no one remembered. And already in July, 1941 in Moscow and St. Petersburg began to massively form some "divisions of the national militia". In July already, at the very beginning. And decisions were made at the end of June ... That is, during the week of battles the Red Army showed itself so brilliantly that panic literally began on the ground: the initiative to create the BOT was not held by Stalin. He is at this moment in general disappeared somewhere. And local party bosses (the initiative belongs to the Leningrad party organization) rushed to gather into the “militia” everyone who could, starting with skilled workers (including defense factories!). I always thought that the militia formed in the fall, when the enemy was approaching the capitals. Nothing of the kind - at the beginning of July, when the war, in fact, only started and the Germans were very far from Moscow and Leningrad.

It was not so much patriotism, but panic. It got to the point that the militia took away not only the unique machine operators from the tank factories, but sometimes the stock commanders to be mobilized! And they went into battle privates. The military commissars were then greatly surprised: those whom they considered particularly valuable personnel, by the time of the call were already either in captivity, or where it was unclear. In fact, the Red Army itself could call, train and send millions to the front. And the help of local "party bosses" was unnecessary in this matter. In fact, during the formation of the so-called "people's militia" (in July 1941!), The call was partially broken! You cannot invoke the same person twice. And even the true Stalinist Leninist. So the enthusiasm about the “heroism of the militia” is not completely clear to me: And what, I'm sorry, is the Red Army already everything? Fly away? Or is it only for "especially gifted"?

There is a version (conspiracy) that, say, the local party bosses prepared a coup (especially in Moscow). But do not look for malicious intent where everything is explained by panic. De facto (if you forget about 1945), the formation of the people's militia at the very beginning of July 1941 meant that the possibility of a regular army to informed people was not really trusted, so they went crazy. There was very little sense in the battle of these "people's divisions", these actions seriously interfered with the call of the Red Army, but here the psychological factor played a role: the leaders of Moscow and Leningrad became frightened. And here they were engaged in such nonsense, grabbing people (and they have a lot of people - two large metropolises!) And without preparation (and often without weapons!) Throwing them into nature ... By the way, for some reason, the “invincible and legendary” singers are categorically overlooked in view of the formation of this “parallel” army. Already at the beginning of July 1941. But you must admit: this is somehow strange ...

Of course, the hindsight reality was lacquered and an illusion of a single plan and a single stream of decisions on the country's defense was created (and even Stalin supported the formation of the BOT), but if we transfer to that fateful summer, then there will be no limit to our surprise: all “cunning plans "flew into the basket and a disastrous monstrous scale spread in the western direction. The most terrible thing happened: war out of control, like a steppe fire: the front is collapsing, armies are being killed, cities are being surrendered, refugees are fleeing in horror to the east ... There was nothing like that in 1914 or 1812. So it’s not so important how many tanks and airplanes you have, it’s much more important how your army is prepared and how professional is she managed. And in the tragedy of 41-42, Hitler was not to blame (he did what the “main fascist” and “doctor evil” should have done in one bottle), not the Western allies (they were not obliged to save the USSR) and certainly not Stalin (he did everything he could for the defense of the USSR). The cause of the tragedy is the low professional level of the Soviet officer corps.

Last so we fought even before Tsar Peter with the Poles and Swedes (certainly “equipped with the most modern equipment”) ... I met an article in “Arguments and Facts” that, say, the tsarist government led the WWI somewhere far and the people simply did not understand its meaning (!) , but when in 41 the Germans approached Peter and Moscow, the people immediately realized everything and the war immediately acquired a “nationwide character”. On the one hand, of course, it’s great, on the other hand, when war acquires a “nationwide character”, this means that the personnel army is not able to cope with the tasks, and it sounds something like: building a nuclear reactor has become “nationwide” . Really nothing good. Imagine: the war in Syria has acquired a "nationwide character" and barges with untrained recruits go one after another to Latakia ...

By the way, with the Germans, the 1941-42 campaign played a very nasty joke, it triggered the “Hannibal syndrome”: why do you need reinforcements, if you are already winning? Almost every time they beat the Red Army in major battles, and in fact they didn’t carry out full mobilization in Germany until 1943 (military equipment was released in general 1944!), Even in 1942 they made a lot of civilian products for comfortable life of the Führer-loving Germans. Were too sure of victory (everything is like ours, but their army really beat the enemy with relatively little blood and completely on foreign territory). And in a whirlwind of victorious battles, they did not notice how the war from “colonial” turned for them into a war of survival. But it was already too late ... And do they conduct a full (a la Stalin) mobilization of Germany and Europe in the summer of 1941 or at least in the summer of 1942 ... We were saved by a "misanthropic ideology": who is fighting in full force with the Untermensch? That is, the problem of the Germans was not so much in the "heroism of the Soviet people" as in strategic miscalculations of the Wehrmacht’s High Command, which could not possibly have realized that the Red Army-43 would be very different from the Red Army-41, primarily command level. So if boxing is not a fight, but a sport, then a big war is not even boxing, but blitz chess. Victory is gained not so much in the “last trench” as on the big map. Or not obsessed, as lucky.
Author:
Photos used:
www.pikabu.ru
157 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. Barakuda
    Barakuda 19 June 2016 10: 51
    +6
    that same empire looked much more prosperous than the industrial USSR in the very first summer of the war.

    DO NOT AGREE! but even read the epic. Maybe wiser - I doubt it. The article rezun-Suvorov smells.
    But in principle, a plus.
    1. Finches
      Finches 19 June 2016 11: 07
      +31
      There is no desire to specifically comment on some aspects of this article - somewhere the author is clearly distorting, but I want to pay tribute to the courage and heroism of the Russian soldier of those first days of the war on the eve of the tragic date - June 22 ... The topic of the USSR's readiness or unpreparedness for war will never cease to be relevant - to be not ready - one gets the impression, this is our eternal state! We were not ready for a war with Sweden - the defeat of Peter near Narva, we were not ready for a war with Napoleon - he entered Moscow, were not, for the Russian-Japanese, that would not write the author, and were not ready for the First World War, and were catastrophically unprepared for the Great Patriotic War ... Unreadiness for war - one gets the impression that this is our natural state! And this is exactly what bribes our Western "friends" over and over again attacking Russia is bad! Now the United States and its allies are also absolutely sure that we are not ready, we, as always, believe that we are ready"... and on the enemy's land we will defeat the enemy with Little Blood, with a mighty blow!" And God forbid war - then, decades later, after we hang the Victory Banner over the Capitol, such authors will write about our unprofessionalism and unreadiness! (but it’s better for the world to come to its senses and my last sentence would be a simple, slightly self-confident joke)
      1. dauria
        dauria 19 June 2016 11: 19
        +11
        ... Unreadiness for war - one gets the impression that this is our natural state!


        An interesting conclusion. Yes, if the country is completely ready for war, then what kind of dunce will get on it? The enemy is not stupid, and reckons that he will have time to concentrate the necessary advantage faster than the enemy and completely take control of the initiative. At this point, they all pierced, underestimating the capabilities of Russia (USSR). They had simpler strategies.

        Or how do you suggest? Troops in full, dispersal, mobilization and at the same time missiles at Washington? In advance, so to speak?
        1. Barakuda
          Barakuda 19 June 2016 11: 32
          -4
          It’s not about strategy. And in the destruction of all Russian, and why? Read the works of the Roerichs, Blavatsky, Casey .. Alice Bailey .. it was predicted a long time ago. Same Wang.
          And I'm not crazy, I just read and think.
          How many times RUSSIA-MATUSHA SAVED from madness.
          1. captain
            captain 19 June 2016 12: 58
            +20
            The author, one of the few raised the problem of our defeats 41-42gg. Of course, a lot of what he writes about is unpleasant to read and I do not quite agree, but at least he was not afraid to write about the reasons for our true defeats, not invented. He did not write about another interesting phenomenon, the huge number of our citizens who fought on the side of Germany. Of our fellow citizens were formed; 14 PD (infantry division) SS Ukrainian, 15 and 19 PD SS Latvian (among them were children of former famous red Latvian shooters). 20 PD SS Estonian, 29 PD SS Russian and as it seems strange 30 PD SS Belarusian. The 15 cavalry corps of the SS was formed as part of the 2x divisions and one brigade. The ROA was formed as part of the 3x PD. As well as a large number of different national formations. About 800 thousand (there are different estimates) of our compatriots fought on the side of Germany. Neither during the invasion of Napoleon, nor in the First World War, so many traitors were in Russia. Apparently, not everything was so smooth in our country before the war, otherwise, how to explain the mass surrender in June of the 41 of servicemen called up from Western and Central Ukraine? The Germans let them (Ukrainians) go home. Ukrainian women came and took their husbands from the camps (thanks to them, they saved many Russians by calling them their husbands). There were cases of Germans meeting with bread and salt. I believe that Stalin was right when, on the occasion of Victory, he offered to drink for the great Russian people, who on their shoulders bore all the hardships of that war.
            1. basal
              basal 19 June 2016 15: 36
              +5
              But dear captain You are completely right.
              The problems were not only with the Red Army. Perhaps the defining issue was the consequences of the civil war. Hence the absence of a single society, mutual hostility and hatred, followed by repression (justified or not, it doesn’t matter). As a result, there was no single Soviet people, not yet formed. And a big war immediately pulled everything out. A lot of blood cost us the realization of the need to rally in the face of the enemy.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. Aleksander
              Aleksander 19 June 2016 23: 26
              +5
              Quote: captain
              The author, one of the few raised the problem of our defeats 41-42gg. Of course, a lot of what he writes about is unpleasant to read and I do not quite agree, but at least he was not afraid to write about the reasons for our true defeats, not invented


              I agree in many respects with the author, although, of course, the Wehrmacht from the time of the defeat of France was not a weak army, but a very, very formidable force. And exactly officer corpsfrom the Wehrmacht made her such. All German battalion commanders and above, and often the company, went through WWII battles and had tremendous experience. In the Red Army, only a few hundred WWII officers survived to WWII ....
              1. gladcu2
                gladcu2 20 June 2016 17: 07
                -1
                Aleksandr

                Indeed, the author raised a serious topic. True, and not everything was so deplorable. There were counterattacks and gaining air superiority on the southern front. Although of course panic can also be called in some places.

                In general, it is necessary to put a plus, at least for courage to catch on the patient.
            4. avt
              avt 20 June 2016 13: 59
              +3
              Quote: captain
              The author, one of the few raised the problem of our defeats 41-42gg.

              Go to Ekho Moskvy, there are such a few "assholes pushing each other away from the microphone in an impulse to" reveal the problem ", like cancer to the Moon. And then start right away with Igor Chubais, but actually you have already started
              Quote: captain
              About 800 thousand (there are different estimates) of our compatriots fought on the side of Germany

              In-in! This is a favorite cheating trick - to take prisoners arranged for rear work by the Germans, the so-called "hivi", to add to the punishers and collaborators. With the initiative you are a captain! With joining the ranks of the Chubais-priests! The next step is to recognize their teaching that Vlasov fought his way to Leningrad in order to create and lead the resistance against Stalin.
              Quote: captain
              I and how it does not seem strange 30 PD SS Belarusian.

              Which was formed already in Germany, already in ... February 1945, and in battles, according to the same Germans, did not take part.
              Quote: captain
              , 29 PD SS Russian and as it does not seem strange

              It was on the formation from August 1944, from the Kaminsky punitive brigade, but was not formed and the personnel was transferred to the 600th infantry division. And by the way, if such an expert on the SS-forces, and maybe the 29th Germans in February 1945, they already formed from the Italian brigade SS
              Quote: captain
              Was formed 15 cavalry corps of the SS consisting of 2 divisions and one brigade.

              And once again we congratulate Mr. sovramshi! Yes . The corps of Panvits and other red-skinned from the bulk of its White emigrants was formed, punished. BUT, despite taking the SS oath, the SS was NOT admitted. So the punishers assigned to the innational units under the command of the SS Panzer Corps headquarters were hanging out. So no matter how the Cossacks and other riffraff turned around, they did not get into the "Aryans".
              1. Adaraskan
                Adaraskan 2 December 2018 02: 03
                0
                I read it and I can agree in many respects, but at the same time, it is impossible to compare fascist Europe and the USSR, both in terms of ECONOMIC indicators, human resources, and literacy of officers, junior commanders and ordinary soldiers. At the same time, we look at the prisoners who came to the USSR as a war - This is all this fascist Europe, which has its hands to the elbow in the blood of the Soviet people -
                The number and national composition of prisoners of war in the USSR from the beginning of World War II (22 of June 1941 of the year) until the end of World War II (2 of September of 1945 year)
                The Germans - 2.389.560, the Japanese - 639.635, the Hungarians - 513.767, the Romanians - 187.370
                Austrians - 156.682, Czechs and Slovaks - 69.977, Poles - 60.280,
                Italians - 48.957, French - 22.120,
                Yugoslavs (mostly Croats) - 21.822, Moldavans - 14.129
                The Chinese - 12.928, the Jews - 10.173, the Koreans - 7.785, the Dutch - .729,
                Mongols 3.608, Finns -2.377, Belgians -2.010,
                Luxembourgers - 1.652, Danes - 457, Spaniards - 452, Gypsies - 83,
                Norwegians - 101, Swedes - 72
      2. Olezhek
        19 June 2016 12: 52
        0
        I don’t want to particularly comment on some aspects of this article - somewhere the author clearly distorts, but I want to pay tribute to the Russian soldier of those first days of the war on the eve of June 22


        And do not fellow generals to hide behind the backs of dead soldiers .... it's ugly ...
        Soldier Duty - Fight on the Battlefield
        The duty of the general - to manage troops correctly ...
        1. figwam
          figwam 19 June 2016 13: 23
          +15
          But for some reason the Germans were not near Peter. Such a funny paradox. So what the hell is the catch?

          And the catch is that, from the beginning of World War I, we fought against Germany and Austria-Hungary together with Britain, France, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, Japan, etc. And from June 22, 1941 to June 6, 1944, the USSR fought against all European countries, one, then the article could not be written. Rezun article.
          1. Igor39
            Igor39 19 June 2016 13: 53
            -6
            And I agree with the author, the complete failure of the Red Army commanders in 41-42, and order 227, reads: Citizens of the USSR! We, your government and commanders, have blown away everything that we could and cannot be pulled more, if we continue to pulverize, then we will be completely defeated! Therefore, we order you to sacrifice yourself because of our news and at least somehow delay our defeat.
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 19 June 2016 14: 07
              +2
              Quote: Igor39
              And I agree with the author, the complete failure of the Red Army commanders in the 41-42 years, and the 227 order, reads: Citizens of the USSR! We, your government and commanders, have blown away everything that we could and can’t be brushed away anymore, if we continue to brisk, then awaits us complete defeat!

              This is so.
              Quote: Igor39
              ! Therefore, we order you to sacrifice yourself because of our events and at least somehow delay our defeat.

              But I do not agree with this. Or do you want to say that the war was not popular, and right now would Bavarian beer be drunk?
              1. Igor39
                Igor39 19 June 2016 15: 09
                +1
                Have you read the article? The author wrote that the war became popular, after a complete defeat, the regular army, and the militia threw into the battle unprepared and without the necessary weapons and supplies, which added to us a significant number of dead and wounded, I read enough various literature on the Second World War, many of authors write about the mediocrity of our commanders, it’s enough to remember how the surviving soldiers were thrown into the Crimea for certain death and captivity, while evacuating the command staff, but then Stalin himself said that we had no prisoners, we only have traitors to our homeland, fine.
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 19 June 2016 15: 30
                  +10
                  Quote: Igor39
                  Have you read the article?

                  I read the article. Both parts.
                  Quote: Igor39
                  The author wrote that the war became popular, after the complete defeat of the regular army

                  And I do not agree with him. There was no complete defeat.
                  Quote: Igor39
                  Stalin said that we have no prisoners, we only have traitors to our homeland, normally Che.

                  My grandfather was in captivity, then in the penal battalion, for some reason he was not offended by Stalin, and what?
                  1. Igor39
                    Igor39 19 June 2016 15: 54
                    +1
                    Do you think it is normal to first abandon the remnants of your army, and then declare them traitors? First betray them, and then say that they are traitors to the motherland.
                    1. Mordvin 3
                      Mordvin 3 19 June 2016 16: 23
                      +9
                      Quote: Igor39
                      Do you think it is normal to first abandon the remnants of your army, and then declare them traitors? First betray them, and then say that they are traitors to the motherland.

                      I do not think this is normal. But the remnants of the armies could not even be rescued. And do not confuse the traitors with the encirclement.
                  2. Serg koma
                    Serg koma 20 June 2016 13: 00
                    +3
                    Quote: Mordvin 3
                    My grandfather was in captivity, then in the penal battalion, for some reason he was not offended by Stalin,

                    100% similar situation with my wife's grandfather, only before the war he was also dispossessed and "the son of a kulak". He went through a camp (before the war), a penal battalion (volunteered as a "special settler") ", the war and was a" Stalinist ". Until his death in Brezhnev times ...
                    "Nails would be made of these people: There would be no stronger nails in the world" ...
                    1. overb
                      overb 20 June 2016 15: 15
                      0
                      Masochism is not considered the norm. But this deviation has the right to life if it does not harm others.
          2. Aleksander
            Aleksander 19 June 2016 23: 11
            -1
            Quote: figvam
            And the catch is that, from the beginning of World War I, we fought against Germany and Austria-Hungary together with Britain, France, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, Japan, etc. And from the 22 of June 1941 to the 6 of June of the 1944, the USSR fought against all the countries of Europe, one, then the article could not be written.


            The catch is that the foreign policy of the Imperial Government on the eve of 1914 was much smarter, more forward-looking and more successfulthan the comm of the leadership in 1940-1941, and thanks in particular to it on the Russian-German front, 1914-1917 was only from 30 to 45% German divisions, and not 90%as in 1941
            Whether England or France were bad or good allies, but it was precisely on them that the main blow of Germany fell, and not on Russia. And honor and glory to the Russian leadership, who managed to achieve this and did not allow a blow only against Russia. Comm management failed.
            The losses of Russia in WWII were about 9% of the global (fewer than French and British), the losses of the USSR in WWII -52% of the global (without China) - the honor and glory of the Republic of Ingushetia for saving millions of Russian lives.
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 19 June 2016 23: 32
              +4
              Quote: Aleksander
              Whether England or France were bad or good allies, but it was precisely on them that the main blow of Germany fell, and not on Russia. And honor and glory to the Russian leadership, who managed to achieve this and did not allow a blow only against Russia.

              So you wrote nonsense. So Germany would have fought with France, no, it was necessary for the Republic of Ingushetia to fall into East Prussia without enough ammunition. She surrendered to us, the honor of Storage.
              1. Aleksander
                Aleksander 20 June 2016 00: 29
                -1
                Quote: Mordvin 3
                So you wrote nonsense. So Germany would have fought with France, no, it was necessary for the Republic of Ingushetia to fall into East Prussia without enough ammunition. She surrendered to us, the honor of Storage.


                You just rave (if you like to communicate in this vein): the largest country in Europe could NOT escape the war in any way: read Schlieffen’s plan, after all, everything has long been open! Saving France, Russia saved MYSELF! And she acted exceptionally wisely: she escaped 41 in 14 and the savage losses of the USSR in WWII.
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 20 June 2016 00: 43
                  +3
                  The complete defeat of Samsonov’s army is not a loss? We could not have avoided the war, but we could have prepared better. And with such an attitude towards the soldiers (when there is nothing to eat and nothing to shoot in someone else's territory), it is not surprising that in the end they began to massively scoop up from this war, it is not clear for whose interests, with a cut in his bosom.
                  1. Aleksander
                    Aleksander 20 June 2016 09: 24
                    -2
                    Quote: Mordvin 3
                    it is not clear whose interests

                    According OWN interests, their own. The goals of Germany and the methods of Germany in the occupied territories (Ludendorf) were practically the same as in WWII
                    It is worth reading the modern Germans, because everything is open for a long time, is it really not interesting to yourself? For example: http://inosmi.ru/world/20150920/230333228.html
                    1. Aleksander
                      Aleksander 20 June 2016 10: 00
                      0
                      Lithuania and Courland as “Territory of the Commander-in-Chief in the East” (abbreviated Ober Ost"(reminds nothing?), were under direct German military control. Here Ludendorff formed the occupied territories in the long term in accordance with Nazi ideas with his own ideas: “Here we will create breeding nurseries necessary for further struggle in the east. And they will certainly appear here ” (reminds nothing?)
                      The population should be retrained in the spirit of the German “ideology of the masters”: the German language became compulsory from first grade at school, the local intelligentsia, according to the occupiers, was no longer needed.

                      This is 1915, not 1941. However, the goals and methods are the SAME.
            2. plebs
              plebs 20 June 2016 02: 30
              +5
              The catch is that the foreign policy of the Imperial Government on the eve of 1914 was much smarter, more visionary and more successful than the comm of the leadership in 1940-1941, and thanks to it, only 1914 to 1917% of German people were on the Russian-German front 30-45 divisions, not 90%, as in 1941
              Losses in the imperialist could not have happened at all if Nicholas had obeyed William and not got into European disassembly. Therefore, the Russian soldiers fled from the front, the people did not need this war. Russia climbed into the imperialist slaughter due to the stupidity of the tsar’s court, and the people fought in World War II so that they would not be destroyed. Article minus.
            3. avt
              avt 20 June 2016 17: 48
              +1
              Quote: Aleksander
              The catch is that the foreign policy of the Imperial Government on the eve of 1914 was much smarter, more visionary and more successful than the comm of the leadership in 1940-1941, and thanks to it, only 1914 to 1917% of German people were on the Russian-German front 30-45 divisions, not 90%, as in 1941
              fool Do you even know at least the memories HOW the inner circle pushed Niki number 2 in the war ???
              The "snag" is that, unlike the First World War, which in fact was INSIDE the EUROPEAN showdown of the ruling regimes connected, for a minute, by monarchical kinship. The Patriotic War of 41-45 was a war against the USSR, which attacked ALL of Europe, minus shaven and really partisan Yugoslavs.
              Quote: Aleksander
              Whether England or France were bad or good allies, but it was precisely on them that the main blow of Germany fell, and not on Russia.

              wassat laughing You generally type as the author decided to write an alternative story ???? WHEN France became an ally of the USSR, and Britain too? Based on WHAT specifically documents? This especially looks fun against the backdrop of negotiations with the USSR, to which France and Britain sent third-rate negotiators, who did not even have sanctions to sign any agreements! When the same shaved officially invited them to send, the answer was - send ..... the nearest merchant steamer!
            4. Alf
              Alf 20 June 2016 22: 17
              0
              Quote: Aleksander
              the foreign policy of the Imperial Government on the eve of 1914 was much smarter, more visionary and more successful,

              If the RI policy were
              Quote: Aleksander
              much smarter, more forward-looking and more successful
              , then RI would not have entered WW1 at all, in which there was actually nothing to fight for it.
          3. overb
            overb 20 June 2016 00: 29
            -7
            Quote: figvam
            And from June 22, 1941 to June 6, 1944, the USSR fought against all countries of Europe, alone,

            Where do such ignoramuses come from?
            About Britain, really fighting with Germany since 1939. they are not in the know.
            And I don’t know that Britain is also Europe.
            The fact that France, Ireland, Sweden, Portugal and Spain (from more or less large European countries) did not fight against the USSR, they also do not know.
            About Americans fighting against the Axis forces in North Africa since 1942. they are not in the know.
            About the second front in Europe, open 10.07.43g. they don’t know at all. And stubbornly, as taught in the USSR, they call the second front in Europe what is more correctly called the third front.
            Moreover, at the time of writing the comment of such ignoramuses, except the main one, there are already 16. PPC.
            1. Serg koma
              Serg koma 20 June 2016 13: 50
              +4
              Of course, of course you are right. The main part of the Wehrmacht fought in Africa not sparing her belly with mattress mats and helping mattress mats Angles. And the French and Polish armies also fought, and do not forget also such a formidable force fighting against fascism as the "army" of Bandera. It was in the North African theater of operations that the back of the fascist dishonor was broken, the Italian company finally put Adolf on his shoulder blades and predetermined the victory of the United States + England in the Second World War ...

              PS An acquaintance living in Canada said that on May 8 in the country of maple leaf the great Victory Day over fascism, and the local (Canadian) mentality claims - Canadians defeated fascismThe Americans only helped them cross the ocean. Something like that...
              1. overb
                overb 20 June 2016 15: 25
                0
                Quote: Serg Koma
                Of course, of course you are right

                Sure. Because it needs to be able to, and win the war and win it. Those. benefit from what she was.
                Few countries have succeeded. Not everyone succeeds. And we must learn from those who have succeeded in this. Mattresses, not mattresses, but the whole world after WW2 became them. This is a fact with which you can not argue. It can only be maliciously barked.
                And "contribution to victory" is a factor that few people in the world are interested in. I am interested in what is written in the "important final documents".
            2. avt
              avt 20 June 2016 18: 00
              +3
              Quote: overb
              And I don’t know that Britain is also Europe.

              Well this is a fact. Europe minus the islands and partisan Yugoslavia. But the industrial and military potential was, minus shaved, ALL European
              Quote: overb
              The fact that France, Ireland, Sweden, Portugal and Spain (from more or less large European countries) did not fight against the USSR, they also do not know.

              Speaking of Spain and the Blue Division, do you feel reluctant to say? Especially in the light of a really difficult, practically lean year after the Civil War? I don’t say anything for other Nazi-volunteers - teach materiel in terms of the Wehrmacht ground forces and their number.
              Quote: overb
              About Americans fighting against the Axis forces in North Africa since 1942. they are not in the know.

              The numerical strength of Rommel's corps and Italian troops went to the studio for consideration, well, to determine this "third front", which even the allies themselves, well, with the exception of propagandists, did not name after the landing in Italy.
              Quote: Serg Koma
              ... The main part of the Wehrmacht fought in Africa, not sparing their belly with mattress mats and helping mattress mats Angles. And the French and Polish armies also fought, and do not forget also such a formidable force fighting against fascism as the "army" of Bandera.

              Yeah! : SS Panzer Army defeated the allied Anglo-American units, took rich trophies under the ancient African city, well, near the ruins of Carthage - the Ardennes. And if it had not been for the winter offensive of the UNA USO, united in the UPA, at the request of the allies, here Churchill and Roosevelt would direct a telegram to Shukheyich and Bandera. wassat wassat
              1. overb
                overb 21 June 2016 01: 03
                0
                Quote: avt
                and partisan Yugoslavia

                Croatia fought on the side of the Germans. And also part of Bosnia.
                Quote: avt
                But the industrial and military potential was, minus shaved, ALL European

                All of the European continental potential was just like British. Britain before WW2 was the first economy in the world.
                Quote: avt
                Speaking of Spain and the Blue Division, are you reluctant to say?

                Hunting. These are the Spanish "Komsomol volunteers". Alaverdi, what is hello, so is the answer.
                Quote: avt
                Teach the materiel in terms of the ground forces of the Wehrmacht and their number.

                Start with yourself.
                Quote: avt
                which even the allies themselves, well, with the exception of the propagandons, after landing in Italy did not call

                We are at the party meeting. You can already speak as it is. And not to come up with "sayings of the allies." Doesn't it matter that Italy surrendered as a result of the "minor front"?
            3. mister-red
              mister-red 14 August 2018 10: 27
              0
              Second Front 10.07.43/XNUMX/XNUMX - strongly said. Why did the Americans and the British not think so?
          4. leytenant
            leytenant 20 June 2016 07: 27
            +2
            Have you read Rezun at all? And the author does not talk about the identity of the situation on TVD PMV and WWII. Argument before writing such conclusions.
        2. Finches
          Finches 19 June 2016 15: 02
          +13
          For reference - over the years of the Second World War, died from wounds and diseases, died on the fronts:

          Marshal of the Soviet Union-1
          Army Generals 4
          Colonel General 4
          Lieutenant General 56
          Major General 343
          Vice Admirals-2
          Rear Admirals.-6
          Total: 416 people

          To this I add about the then golden youth - children of the highest party and state leadership:

          The sons of Stalin Yakov, Vasily and the adopted son Artyom fought. Jacob died.
          He fought and died, raised in the Voroshilov family, Timur Frunze.
          The son of Khrushchev Leonid fought and died.
          Three sons of Mikoyan, Stepan, Vladimir and Alexei, fought. Vladimir died 18 years old. The fourth son of Mikoyan, Ivan, who could not fight in his infancy, became a mechanic-minder in the regiment, where his brother-pilots served and fought ...

          So all social classes and strata participated in the war with Germany - why they won! hi
      3. NIKNN
        NIKNN 19 June 2016 19: 05
        +10
        Yeah. I think the disadvantages of the article were forced all the same deservedly. With difficulty I counted to the end. And if, as in the first part, the beating of the communists continues here (well, the author has such a hobby), then in addition, there is an attempt to categorically evaluate everything and everything solely according to the type "I said, then this is the truth about which you did not know." I really liked the "theory of conducting the RIGHT howl", like the battle is lost and there is nothing more to resist in small groups ... EVERYTHING IS IN CAPTURE! (As it is written in the correct war. This is how Europe fought. And we decided not to give away either Moscow or Leningrad (after which the author's theory, we had to end the resistance, so by the way, and Hitler thought).
        No one is arguing about a bunch of shortcomings and miscalculations, and not only from 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX, but much earlier, and everyone knows that, I am proud of the feat of the people, and not shot on the basis of personal beliefs (that they were dumb and decided to fight to the end to protect the future of their children (including the author) in small groups) You can argue at least for each paragraph and it’s also possible to praise, only the author has so famously tied it up that it is difficult to distinguish grain from the chaff. Well, God be his judge. I did not put a minus ...
      4. polkovnik manuch
        polkovnik manuch 19 June 2016 21: 30
        +2
        The article is interesting, we just don't want to admit the whole truth. Yes, from the very first minutes (not even hours!) The Soviet soldier showed miracles of heroism, but a soldier is a soldier, he needs a competent commander, and if with junior commanders and middle-level commanders things in the army and navy were not bad, then with the senior and higher command personnel it was much worse (just nowhere worse!), and then there are the old party members (the same Mekhlis, authorized by the NKVD, poked their noses everywhere!) Most of the survivors ( in the ranks and in camps) senior and senior commanders were greatly intimidated and sometimes simply "broken". What tactical plans could we talk about, if in border battles parts of the cadre Red Army were destroyed or captured in fact by 60-70%, according to some data, more than two million were taken prisoner. Preparing the strategic plan of any operation (defensive, offensive) is necessary was to know and calculate everything to the smallest detail, "every soldier must know his maneuver" -AV Suvorov), i.e. the main attention should be devoted to combat and tactical training, and not to outline the classics of Marxism. Technically, the Red Army was not badly equipped, only now all the equipment, due to the inability to maintain, and sometimes just from ignorance (the wrong soldier was taught!), We left the enemy (it’s good if we somehow damaged or destroyed), which is unlikely since before In the middle of 1943, the Wehrmacht killed and crushed my grandfathers from our cannons, with our shells and on our tanks, there is a lot of evidence for this. I am in favor of the need for a nationwide ideology that rallies the masses, but it should not interfere with the army's education and training.
        1. plebs
          plebs 20 June 2016 02: 47
          +2
          The article is interesting, we just don’t want to admit the whole truth
          Recognize? Yes, many here do not want to read anything but statues, those who want to know the truth have memoirs of both German and Soviet generals. There are memoirs of people of lesser rank. But we are not interested in shoveling such a mountain of literature. We read articles in AIF and Basta. But comparing the imperialist and the Great Patriotic War is generally incorrect.
          1. gladcu2
            gladcu2 20 June 2016 17: 25
            +1
            plebs

            Unfortunately, one must shovel a mountain of literature a lot and professionally. Not everyone has the opportunity. Therefore, they are always looking for conclusions with reasonable arguments. And the logic of these arguments is often based on a possible development, and not on a real event. Therefore, we judge by the fact. The victory was in Berlin.
    2. Buffet
      Buffet 19 June 2016 22: 49
      -3
      At first I thought so too. But in general, the author is right after all.
    3. avt
      avt 20 June 2016 14: 13
      +4
      Quote: Barracuda
      The article rezun-Suvorov smells.
      But in principle, a plus.

      Smit. And for what plus then? For this Khrushchev’s tale from Chaplin’s movie about how Stalin fought on the globe?
      Regarding Stalin, first of all, it should be noted that if there are a lot of photos where Hitler is leaning over the combat map with the generals, then I did not see such photos with Stalin. He did not understand this issue, but he did not try to do it.
      author -> author -> author will not say - how many times did Stalin speak to the people during ALL years of the war? For comparison with Aloizovich and I do not say bully Like his voice was gone? But he didn’t go to the front — his legs refused? And even that right - well, what can different Zhukovs and other Vasilevsky give to the author? He has his own anal to the crown. Another retelling of the Ekhomoskov version, or Borenka Chubais, well, judging by the aspiration of the beginning of the First World War. Probably familiar with the works of Chubais and about Vlasov in particular.
  2. Pereira
    Pereira 19 June 2016 10: 54
    +1
    Overall a good article. Some questions were raised correctly, although there is an unjustified demonization of some and the exaltation of others. Unjustified because in civilian times the reds beat the whites, and not vice versa.

    But there are purely military moments that the author missed.
    In 17, the positional deadlock has not yet been overcome. This happened only in 18. Therefore, the Germans could not reach Peter, as they could not reach Paris in 14.
    And the year 43 was a turning point, because the Germans abandoned the old tactics of "clean breakthrough" and adopted the Soviet one - "tank breakthrough". On this near Kursk and burned. And they got burned at Balaton.
    But this is not even necessary to write an article about, but a whole study.
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 12: 36
      -4
      Unjustified because in civilian times the reds beat the whites, and not vice versa.


      Civil war is a very specific war ...
      The Bolsheviks promised everything and everyone ...
      1. Olezhek
        19 June 2016 12: 55
        -1
        In 17, the positional deadlock has not yet been overcome. This happened only in 18. Therefore, the Germans could not reach Peter, as they could not reach Paris in 14.


        And in 18, the Germans were the first to find a way out of the positional impasse - "assault units"
        BUT even after that, fighting on one front of Paris, they could not take ...
        In the 17 year, the Central Powers were on the edge of the abyss ...
      2. Serg koma
        Serg koma 19 June 2016 15: 07
        +11
        Quote: Olezhek
        The Bolsheviks promised everything and everyone ...

        And the "stupid" "illiterate" "lumpen", that is, the citizens of the Russian Empire, taking up arms, went brother to brother ... Then you convince that under the tsarism everything was great (including in the army), then half of the country it turns out it was a naive "cattle" and the crowd moved after the Bolshevik slogans - WHERE IS THE LOGIC?
        1. gladcu2
          gladcu2 20 June 2016 17: 28
          0
          Sergkoma

          And why not remember the wonderful Russian-Japanese.
    2. polkovnik manuch
      polkovnik manuch 19 June 2016 21: 37
      +4
      Colleague Pereira! The Germans just started the war with strikes of tank wedges, something you get inconsistency.
  3. dmi.pris
    dmi.pris 19 June 2016 10: 57
    +8
    War is a fight. And as in any fight, the winner is the one who struck the first strong blow to the desired point, well, then finish or run until the enemy comes to his senses. Compare both World War II is not correct, different commanders, different goals. The opponent is only one-smart and strong .. And do not here about the Wehrmacht broiler ..
  4. engineering
    engineering 19 June 2016 11: 00
    +20
    Oleg, no offense, who told you that you can be a historical expert?
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 13: 24
      0
      I understand the topic of the article you have nothing to say?
      1. Serg koma
        Serg koma 19 June 2016 15: 00
        +8
        Quote: Olezhek
        I understand the topic of the article you have nothing to say?

        You just need to say, or rather even stipulate!
        The correlation of forces in certain areas on June 22, 1941.
        В the offensive zone of Army Group South, there were 44 German, 13 Romanian divisions, as well as 9 Romanian and 4 Hungarian brigades. Against them, there were 45 Soviet rifle divisions, 20 tank, 10 mechanized and 6 cavalry divisions.
        В Army Group offensive zone - 50 German divisions and 2 German brigades. These forces attacked 45 divisions of our Western Front (Western Special Military District).
        В Army Group North - 29 German divisions versus 19 divisions of our Northwest Front.

        Do you know the number / staffing of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht + Allies for June 1941, or do you need an "educational program"?
        1. polkovnik manuch
          polkovnik manuch 19 June 2016 21: 41
          +4
          Colleague Olezhek! I do not argue with your calculations, even I (the old colonel) know that the advancing side always suffers losses many times greater than the defenders, unless of course the defense is properly organized.
      2. Igor39
        Igor39 19 June 2016 15: 14
        +3
        He had a pattern break smile
    2. gladcu2
      gladcu2 20 June 2016 17: 31
      -2
      engineering

      This is not an expert forum. Ranks and certificates cannot protect your mistakes.
  5. 73bor
    73bor 19 June 2016 11: 01
    +5
    author, why are you reading? It smacks of Solzhenitsyn, complete nonsense and a one-sided approach!
    1. Pereira
      Pereira 19 June 2016 11: 09
      -1
      Many of his conclusions are really controversial.
      But there are indisputable statements.
      The Russian economy in the WWI proved to be more stable, although they disposed of it stupidly.
      Hitler deliberately led. The surrender of France was a surprise, which confused all the alignments of the General Staff of the Red Army.
      1. 19001900
        19001900 19 June 2016 15: 51
        +6
        The war was a little different, there were no big losses of territories with productive capacities, and even so in WWI in the Russian army they managed to get "shell hunger". if we compare this with the growth of arms production in the Soviet Union in 43, it is still possible to argue whose economy turned out to be more stable.
        1. Alf
          Alf 19 June 2016 19: 58
          +6
          Quote: 19001900
          it’s also possible to argue whose economy turned out to be more stable.

          It should also be added that the entire industry of the European part of the USSR in the summer of the 41st was derailed at a pace, transported through half of the country, deployed in a new place, often bare, and after 6 months gave production. It is unlikely that the RI industry would be able to repeat this.
    2. lwxx
      lwxx 19 June 2016 11: 15
      +10
      More freak rezunom. Until I read it to the end, I was sure that Vo had an article by Suvorov.
  6. NordUral
    NordUral 19 June 2016 11: 03
    +4
    Interesting article. And you agree and mind. But there are moments that I cannot accept in any way.
    1. Pereira
      Pereira 19 June 2016 11: 14
      .
      The author tried to fight the moronic Soviet propaganda, but did not take into account that it is impossible to take pluses and minuses just like that. This will not become anti-debilizm, but will become moron with a different sign. Here he had to work thinner.
      1. Olezhek
        19 June 2016 12: 57
        +1
        The author tried to fight the moronic Soviet propaganda


        Not really - the author tried to show that with the history of 1941-42 we have certain problems ...
        She is not ... there is a set of myths.
        1. Serg koma
          Serg koma 19 June 2016 15: 30
          +7
          1941, the opinion of the enemy of the Red Army
          Halder, General Headquarters of the German Ground Forces, June 26, 1941: “Army Group South is slowly moving forward, unfortunately incurring significant losses. The enemy acting against Army Group South Strong and energetic leadership is noted. The enemy is constantly pulling new fresh forces from the depths against our tank wedge. ”

          2016 opinion of a sofa expert.
          Quote: Olezhek

          The duty of the general - to manage troops correctly ...
  7. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 19 June 2016 11: 06
    +24
    By the way, the famous Stalinist order No. 227 is, in fact, shame for the professional military: 1942, summer, Crimea surrendered (remnants), the battle near Kharkov lost, the front is broken, the Germans go to the Volga and the North Caucasus, the country is on the verge of destruction. At the same time, it’s very difficult to talk about some kind of “suddenness factor”. And now, in fact, a civilian person is forced to remind them that there is such a profession - "Defend the homeland ...".
    It’s a shame when Paris surrenders without a fight. And No. 227 is a reminder and a measure against alarmists and cowards. In one form or another, such orders exist in all wars (if the fight is real, not imitation). thinking commanders, but in this situation it was necessary ALL efforts to stop the enemy.
    In general, the author compares incomparable things ... Here he says:
    That's the more you compare these two big wars with the Germans (and their allies), the more you marvel at the contrast. The First World War in 1914-1917 was, of course, the number one event in Russia, but no more. The economy worked, people lived quite well, technology and culture developed. Literature was also very good. That is, the very “imperialist war" did not make up the whole life of society. And no one was waiting for the German, either near Moscow or near St. Petersburg. And most importantly: no one was afraid of the German

    Maybe for the author it will be a discovery that in the PMV there were no SS probe commands, plans for the extermination of the population, etc.
    The author, compare the total destruction war with a truly imperialist war. I advise you to read the documents and plans for the development of the occupied territories of the USSR and the testimonies of citizens who survived the occupation. Then the language will not turn to compare and draw any analogies !!!
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 13: 27
      -9
      Maybe for the author it will be a discovery that in the PMV there were no SS probe commands, plans for the extermination of the population, etc.
      Author, compare the total war of annihilation with a truly imperialist war.


      the author impudently compares these two wars ... it is!
      Two world wars, why not compare them?

      But the Germans were not afraid because the Russian imperial army reliably defended the country ...

      Suddenly, yes?
      1. 19001900
        19001900 19 June 2016 15: 44
        +7
        As I understand it, the loss of a part of Poland, Belarus and the Baltic states is "" reliably defended the country "one devil, after all, after the revolution, everything will fall off yes ??? By the way, how about the revolution is it probably the consequences of competent management of the country?
        1. Olezhek
          19 June 2016 20: 23
          -6
          As I understand it, the loss of part of Poland, Belarus and the Baltic states


          What does "loss" mean - Germany + Austria are losing the war and the temporarily occupied Warsaw returns to Russia.

          So it goes!
  8. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 19 June 2016 11: 08
    +4
    The officer corps is of course the pillar of any army (no questions asked here). But not taking into account other facets of the situation of those years (including geopolitical ones) is one-sided.
  9. 1536
    1536 19 June 2016 11: 20
    +3
    I put the article "+". Why? Because the diagnosis of a disease with which Russian historical science and historiography is sick must be identified by the symptoms accompanying this disease. And the name of this disease is a lie and manipulation of facts. She is being treated. But in the early stages. When the case is neglected, it is necessary, alas, to wait and prepare for the worst.
    To begin with, during the First World War, hostilities were not fought on Russian territory, not in the central regions of Russia, not near Moscow and St. Petersburg, but in Europe. There the Russian army fought. And the war was not Patriotic, not for death, not for survival. Nobody set a goal to destroy Russia then.
    In fact, a few days before the June 22, one must recall Stalin’s order to impose a state of siege in Moscow. According to him, provocateurs, accomplices of German fascism and spies were shot at the scene of their crime without trial. It was impossible to do without it. That's why they survived! Well, and sick on the head, blessed, who had medical certificates about the presence of a psychiatric illness, unlike the same German fascists, they did not destroy us. They listened to their crazy chatter, shook on a mustache. Such is our Russian tradition.
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 12: 38
      -4
      No one then set a goal to destroy Russia.


      The Germans wanted and dreamed ... but their hands were short ...
  10. Kirill
    Kirill 19 June 2016 11: 35
    +18
    I do not agree with the author in the assessment of the Wehrmacht after the companies of 1939-1941. until 22.06.41. This period allowed the Wehrmacht command to test the troops in real conditions and test the "blitzkrieg" theory in real combat operations. Moreover, they had "greenhouse conditions". From simple to complex in different climatic and landscape conditions. The Wehrmacht made mistakes, studied them, corrected and tried again in real conditions. They approached the attack on the USSR mobilized as much as possible with the necessary experience in conducting hostilities. It's like in boxing: one fighter went from weak opponents to stronger ones, and the other was fielded immediately without any experience in fighting.
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 12: 39
      -3
      This period allowed the Wehrmacht command to test the troops in real conditions and test the "blitzkrieg" theory in real combat operations.


      The Germans themselves called the war in France "maneuvers with live ammunition."
      1. Serg koma
        Serg koma 19 June 2016 14: 44
        +8
        Quote: Olezhek
        "maneuvers with live ammunition".

        It was they only later, the field of occupation of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, etc. they began to flaunt and flaunt, after they could compare the "walk" with an attack on the USSR.
  11. parusnik
    parusnik 19 June 2016 11: 40
    +13
    Strongly Rezun and other "historians" do not let Egorov go ... They grabbed him by the cerebellum ..
  12. Moore
    Moore 19 June 2016 11: 49
    +16
    Another "historian" decided to crunch a French bun. It's not enough for us Mediskiy and Ivanov this week.
    And here we are smoothly moving out to another question, about the supposedly “uselessness”, “worthlessness” of that very “Russian aristocracy”. So, in 1812 and in 1914, in no less difficult situation, they completely coped with the country's defense and did not allow the routing of the cadre army and, as a result, the “free actions” of the enemy on their territory.

    Dear author, are you serious, or just decided to patronize the local community? What "cadre army" was saved there by the aristocrats of that time? Maybe Samsonova? Author, you do not know who was in the trenches in the 17th of the "frames"?
    In general - juggling and pulling an owl on the globe. To make no distinction between the conditions of the 19th century, the beginning of the 20th, and the period of the Second World War is either to disrespect your readers or to maliciously provoke them.
    We are waiting for explanations how advanced, democratic France, without any dictatorial villains out there, but with a century-old aristocracy and a brave officer corps, shamefully capitulated to those whom it had relatively successfully opposed a couple of decades ago.
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 13: 32
      -3
      What "cadre army" was saved there by the aristocrats of that time? Maybe Samsonova? Author, you do not know who was in the trenches in the 17th of the "frames"?


      The cadre army was gradually and gradually "spent" during the war years.
      There was no simultaneous surrender of almost the entire personnel army and the collapse of the entire front.
      A question of professionalism.
      1. Alf
        Alf 19 June 2016 15: 02
        +13
        Quote: Olezhek
        There was no simultaneous surrender of almost the entire personnel army and the collapse of the entire front.

        Napoleon. June 24, 1812 crossed the border.
        Hitler June 22, 1941 crossed the border.
        Napoleon. September 14 Joined Moscow.
        Hitler By December 6, it was STOPPED near Moscow.
        Hitler December 7 was COUGHT from Moscow.
        According to your opinion, in 1812 Russia was saved by its elite.
        The question is, who in 1941 stopped Hitler and drove from the capital? Laponniki commanders?
        Author, have you heard anything about the concept of "logic"?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Moore
        Moore 20 June 2016 05: 03
        +3
        Quote: Olezhek
        The cadre army was gradually and gradually "spent" during the war years. There was no immediate surrender of almost the entire cadre army and the collapse of the entire front. A question of professionalism.

        Samsonov's army was "used up" at once. Since the beginning of 17, the collapse of the front is a typical phenomenon that was restrained only by the low mobility of the opposing sides.
        What is "Frontier Battle of 41", I hope you have heard? Which army as a result opposed the Nazis after him? The reserves only carried out training and coordination activities.
        In short, the crunch of French buns is detective.
  13. Onotollah
    Onotollah 19 June 2016 11: 58
    +17
    Low professional level, he is, yes.
    Oh, these lapotniki red commanders recruited from yesterday's peasants and workers.
    Whether the author of the article did the job, he put everything on the shelves. And Hitler had so-so, and mysterious personalities merged Europe, and the Wehrmacht is not an army, but a bunch of sausage-savers, and the reason for the victories of the German army and the loss of the Soviet is the low preparation of the red commanders.
    I just forgot the luminosity of historical science to tell us poor and wretched that by the year 41 the Germans had been at war for almost 2 years and combat coordination and tactics were quite high. Yes, German industry, strengthened by the economic power of the enslaved countries, exceeded the domestic one, as well as a mobilization resource .
    After Stalingrad and the Kursk Bulge, the Germans resisted for almost 2 more years, not at all like fat burghers, bringing a lot of grief and suffering.
    Although for the sake of justice it should be noted that the chance to give the Germans a second Verdun on the borders of our country was missed then.
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 12: 41
      .
      I just forgot the luminosity of historical science to tell us poor and wretched that by the 41 year the Germans had already fought for almost 2 and the combat coordination and tactics were quite high.


      Let's say the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine (to a lesser extent) had some kind of experience
      Who REALLY fought the Wehrmacht?

      WHERE were the serious, fierce battles?

      No need to repeat the "backs of Soviet propaganda" 2 years of fighting 2 years of fighting ...

      You do not mean Strange War (Sedentary)?
  14. Tanya
    Tanya 19 June 2016 12: 01
    +4
    And what would the author of the article about the "mythical military power of Nazi Germany" write if June 22, 1941. was he, for example, in Bialystok? what
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 12: 43
      .
      Aftorr did not make a revolution in 17 and did not shoot officers in Crimea ...

      The wise Bolsheviks must answer for June 22 (There is such a party!)
      1. Tanya
        Tanya 19 June 2016 13: 28
        +19
        By June 22, my grandfather was the deputy commander in chief (with the rank of captain) of the 78th (Siberian) rifle division, the same one that was transferred from the Far East to Istra at the end of October - beginning of November 41 and entered the battle straight from the wheels. ... 40 km from the Kremlin. By December 5, the Germans were driven back from Moscow, the division became known as the 9th Guards. Later, the grandfather repeatedly upset the Nazis, which is recorded in his award lists. He died in May 1945 in Konigsberg in the position of the beginning of the 16th Guards. rifle corps. He is the same "poorly trained red commander", moreover, he was a member of the Bolshevik party. The hero of the USSR.
        His responsibility gave us May 9th. And on June 22, members of a completely different party, the NSDAP, are responsible for unleashing the bloodiest and most brutal war in history.
      2. Serg koma
        Serg koma 19 June 2016 15: 19
        +9
        Quote: Olezhek
        Wise Bolsheviks must answer for June 22

        And for 1917 the wise kings must answer laughing
        Is circular responsibility a vicious circle?
  15. 34 region
    34 region 19 June 2016 12: 03
    +15
    Well! An information air raid has begun. The bombing went with information bombs of various calibers. Of course, we won the war purely by accident, according to the author. Russia is just lucky for chance. Accidentally attacked us, Accidentally we defeated. As I understand it, the author claims that the best system is the monarchy. He claims, of course, not in a straightforward, casual way. The best soldiers are illiterate and believers !? War tactics have evolved over the years. Today they no longer fight the phalanges and in the trenches. We surrendered to Hitler half the country !? And 1991-93, we surrendered 15 union republics. Is it our merit or defeat? We sell our enterprises to foreign investors. Is this our defeat or success? In my opinion, the author calls (considers) us to wage war on the patterns of the tsarist period. Although the world has long gone from this.
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 13: 22
      -8
      Of course, we won the war purely by chance, according to the author.


      On the contrary, in a big war (as opposed to one battle), accidents are leveled.
      Napoleon we won NOT by chance. And in 41 the Red Army was defeated NOT by accident.

      The pattern here.
      1. Serg koma
        Serg koma 19 June 2016 13: 54
        +4
        Quote: Olezhek
        And in 41 the Red Army was defeated NOT by accident.
        The pattern here.

        ???????? Something "NEWEST" in the history of the Great Patriotic War.
        In December 1941, the army “defeated” in 1941 WHAT DID IT DO?
        1. geniy
          geniy 24 June 2018 21: 33
          0
          In December 1941, the army “defeated” in 1941 WHAT DID IT DO?

          in December 1941 it was actually a completely new army - with new fighters and commanders. And the "old" army virtually all died or surrendered.
  16. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 19 June 2016 12: 09
    +11
    An army in a war is first of all a willingness to kill the enemy and die, if necessary. This readiness did not appear. Fight to the last, in every place, in every trench. And in such a war, of course, the officer corps plays a decisive role. At the beginning of the war, his inability to cope with the tasks revealed. By the end of the 42nd, it was good or bad, but the command and control was adjusted. Well, then we all know.
    Managing troops, logistics, material resources is a SCIENCE! And this must be studied seriously, or the enemy will teach you cruelly and bloodyly.
    In general, all these showdowns - and even after a historical period - reminds of party political work on the contrary. But in essence - the same thing. That all the time they compared the economy of the Union with 1913, as if Russia (had it not been for the Civil War) would have remained "frozen" in its development this year. But if you take the temp of growth this year, then oh-oh.
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 12: 44
      -7
      At the beginning of the war, his inability to cope with the tasks revealed. By the end of 42, good or bad, but the command and control of the troops was established. Well, then we all know.
      Managing troops, logistics, material resources is a SCIENCE! And this must be studied seriously, or the enemy will teach you cruelly and bloodyly.


      Well, like yes, about this article ...

      And in principle, there was a willingness to die in 41 ... but this is not enough
      Kamikaze is not the way to win ... request
      1. Serg koma
        Serg koma 19 June 2016 13: 48
        +5
        Quote: Olezhek
        And in principle, there was a willingness to die in 41 ... but this is not enough
        Kamikaze is not the way to win ...
        And what is it interrupted at a glance? Go on, feel free.
        "this is not the way to victory"- you have to raise your hands / run full /
        Sayings based on Mr. AA Vlasov (probably from a fan of HIS "talent" and "military genius")
        PS
        “The war in the East will be won if the 1st Division manages to push the Soviet army at least 5 kilometers” laughing
  17. Straight
    Straight 19 June 2016 12: 15
    +9
    No one ever attacked Russia without decisive advantage from the side of the attacker. In World War I, Germany fought on two fronts at once, and in World War II almost all of its forces and the strengths of its satellites were on the Eastern Front. All of our veterans of the Second World War, including my warring relatives testify to the overwhelming superiority in armament and technology of the Germans at the beginning of the war and even in small arms already during our offensive. The strength of weapons is measured not by numbers, but by quality and combat readiness. But the strength of the people’s spirit is measured by their willingness to lay down their lives for the Fatherland, and if the Germans possessed the same strength of spirit, we would not have taken Berlin, but then the Germans would have to lay tens of millions of their citizens. However, the gut was thin. Glory to the heroes who gave their lives for our country!
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 12: 48
      -6
      No one has ever attacked Russia without a decisive advantage on the part of the attacker. Germany fought on two fronts in World War I


      Sorry - how did you study the history of WWI?
      Austria-Hungary was a great power, the timing of the mobilization of their army is much shorter than the Russian (more railway and less distance) the Ottoman Empire was also the Caucasian front ..

      Imagine that the 42 also Turks beat the north towards the Germans ... What is it?
      1. Serg koma
        Serg koma 19 June 2016 13: 35
        +6
        Quote: Olezhek
        Imagine being 42

        Imagine yourself at this time in the trench, on whose side and for what (to fight) - the choice is yours.
  18. quolta
    quolta 19 June 2016 12: 17
    +10
    (Yes, in 1945 this very army took Berlin, but what in a row "set of chess pieces"?) Not chess pieces, but people. My grandfather would have died in the war. I would have punched the author in the eye for such "formulations"
    1. Alf
      Alf 19 June 2016 15: 08
      +7
      Quote: Quantu
      (Yes, in 1945 this same army took Berlin, but what was the “set of chess pieces”?)

      The author simply forgets, or maybe does not want to remember, with what "kit" Germany fought in 45.
      1. Serg koma
        Serg koma 19 June 2016 15: 13
        +3
        Quote: Alf
        maybe he doesn’t want to remember with what "kit" Germany fought in 45.

        So this is "defeated at 41" (according to Olezheky) the Red Army has arranged such a "kit" in Germany.
        1. Olezhek
          19 June 2016 20: 26
          0
          The RKKA arranged such a "kit" in Germany.


          Germany has had big problems since the 43 of the year ... which has been growing and growing ...
          After the defeat of the 44, everything was used ...
          1. Alf
            Alf 19 June 2016 21: 41
            +6
            Quote: Olezhek
            Germany has had big problems since the 43 of the year ... which has been growing and growing ...
            After the defeat of the 44, everything was used ...

            So explain to us how Germany, having an old Prussian military school, all officers with an academic education, old military traditions, a country where Kaiser, krieg, canon, from birth in blood, was defeated by red stupid commanders? Only about filling up with corpses is not necessary, not that audience.
            1. Olezhek
              23 June 2016 09: 22
              +1
              where is kaiser, krieg, canon


              Kaiser as it was no longer.

              Causes of defeat:
              1 Limited resources. German army and navy stupidly the whole war did not have enough petroleum products.
              If the red commanders in the summer of 41 launched fierce, protracted maneuvering battles with the Wehrmacht, it would have "burned out" even then - at a certain moment the tanks of German tanks, trucks, planes would be empty ...
              The Germans were saved by the fact that they fought as much as they wanted.

              2 The human resources of Germany were not limitless, and there were not so many trained soldiers / airmen ... The achievements of the Wehrmacht are mainly the achievements of the cadre army, which they gradually knocked out on the Eastern Front
              After heavy losses, 43 began to break altogether ... And the quality of personnel in the Wehrmacht / Luftwaffe plummeted.
              With a competent war on the part of the Red Army, this situation could arise as early as the winter of 41.

              3 In general, as stated in the article: The Wehrmacht was not invincible superarmy. It was quite possible to beat him, acting intelligently already in 41. He had nothing particularly outstanding in the technique or in tactics. All the achievements of the 3rd Reich - this is when Germany how should not beat. Began to beat - problems began.

              That is, summing up, if the Red Army, with competent leadership, put a series of powerful successful counterstrikes in the summer of 41, the resource crisis would have arisen in Germany much like before (by the way, Hitler did not have huge reserves of shells) In winter, 41 fought the Germans it would be very difficult: the tanks and the people were knocked out, the oil and the shells were almost at zero ...

              The subject of the article is 41-42.
              If the Red commanders were then "umekha" then what is the reason for our defeats?
  19. evil partisan
    evil partisan 19 June 2016 12: 17
    +9
    "Creations" of O. Yegorov - into the furnace. And he himself was sent to the university to study history, specializing in WW2 History. For his own money, ess-nno.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 19 June 2016 13: 04
      +11
      Quote: wicked partisan
      "Creations" of O. Yegorov - into the furnace. And he himself was sent to the university to study history, specializing in WW2 History. For his own money, ess-nno.

      This is the second part of the article. The first one was yesterday.
      This is how our grandfathers fought with the "ersatz-army made from what was," and the reason for the defeat was the lack of qualified officers. Uh-huh. But in the First World War, there were not enough shells, and therefore sometimes they lost. Yeah. And who allowed this shell hunger? And, in general, the author, but how did RI allow a loss in the Russian-Japanese? Was there something missing? And as for the weak Hitler, there is no need to tell a fairy tale. And as for who, in your opinion, is to blame for the "mass famine and cannibalism in besieged Leningrad," I did not understand at all.
      1. Olezhek
        19 June 2016 13: 20
        -7
        This is how our grandfathers fought with the "ersatz-army made from what was," and the reason for the defeat was the lack of qualified officers. Uh-huh


        Can you voice your version of the defeats of the Red Army in 1941-42 ??
        Carefully ask.
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 19 June 2016 13: 41
          +3
          My grandfathers hoarse argued about the reasons for the defeats in the 41, but they still didn’t find any versions, where I really need it. And according to 42, it is well known that the headquarters did not expect a strike in the southerly direction, and could not deploy troops there in time. In addition, each military leader imagined himself to be Napoleon, if I want to - I’ll go away for that ravine, and what’s next to the neighbors is not my mind. That is why the order number 227 was born, which I consider the best in the entire history of the Second World War.
          1. Julio Jurenito
            Julio Jurenito 19 June 2016 19: 55
            +1
            Quote: Mordvin 3
            the headquarters did not expect a strike in the southerly direction, and could not timely deploy troops there.

            Near Kharkov, too, "did not have time"? And "did not have time" to the Kerch Peninsula ?!

            Respect to the author, otherwise they directly blundered.
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 19 June 2016 23: 14
              +2
              Quote: Julio Jurenito
              Near Kharkov, too, "did not have time"?

              They stabbed without a knife. There, my grandfather was captured. Our forces and determination were not enough, and the Germans were also on the verge of defeat.
          2. The comment was deleted.
  20. gavrosh.ru
    gavrosh.ru 19 June 2016 12: 27
    -3
    A strange article - the generals seemed to be the same ... as in 41 and in 45.
    if only it would not happen again. the situation is very similar today - the Molotov-Ribentropp pact is not yet enough for greater clarity
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 13: 17
      -5
      A strange article - the generals seemed to be the same ... as in 41 and in 45.


      The Spartans had such a good custom not to fight too often with the same enemy ...
      "The Battle of Leuctra ended with a crushing defeat for the Spartans. One of the reasons for the defeat, according to Plutarch, was the violation of the law of the semi-legendary founder of the Sparta device Lycurgus"Never fight the same enemy often, so how do you teach him to fight". A legend has survived that after the defeat, Antalkides approached the wounded Agesilaus and said, "Yes, the Thebans paid you well for the fact that, despite their ignorance and unwillingness to learn, you still taught them to fight."

      By the end of 42, there was a natural selection of red commanders. Those who survived and retained their position already knew how to fight ...

      If Hitler had mobilized Germany completely two years earlier, the war could have ended in a completely different way.
  21. Basil50
    Basil50 19 June 2016 12: 37
    +6
    The author provokes only from the awareness of impunity, and in the eye does not receive and rake a fee. For * such * * this * is normal.
  22. Vadim2013
    Vadim2013 19 June 2016 13: 06
    .
    I agree with the author of the article that the defeat of the officer corps of Russia after 1917 was the main reason for the tragedy of 1941 - 1942.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 20 June 2016 09: 08
      +5
      Quote: Vadim2013
      I agree with the author of the article that the defeat of the officer corps of Russia after 1917 was the main reason for the tragedy of 1941 - 1942.

      1. Civil war is a victory.
      2. Polish war - defeat
      3. Hassan Lake Conflict - Victory
      4. Conflict in Halkin Gol - victory
      5. Finnish war is hard but victory

      It is as if from this row it is already evident that the laponny workers 'and peasants' command of the Red Army demonstrated both successes and defeats. Moreover, there are still more successes than defeats. This should suggest that at least not everything is so simple, and the officer corps of Russia (which had in the same twentieth century one complete defeat from the Japanese and a feeble draw from the Germans in the WWII at the time of the fall of the Republic of Ingushetia) has nothing to do with it.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 20 June 2016 12: 40
        +4
        By the way, there are few statistics.
        The Western Front
        Commander Pavlov D.G., non-commissioned officer of the tsarist army, suspended on the 8-th day of the war and replaced by A.I. Eremenko (also a non-commissioned officer of CA), then replaced by Tymoshenko (generally an ordinary CA), and then by Konev (again a non-commissioned officer of CA).
        By the way, Pavlov’s NS was Klimovskikh V.E., captain of the tsarist army, and the former artillery commander, the former lieutenant of Central Asia, Klich N.A.

        Southwestern front
        Commander Mikhail Kirponos, who has no experience of service in Central Asia, died on the 88 day of the war. He is replaced by Tymoshenko (ordinary CA), then - Kostenko (Non-commissioned officer)

        South Front
        Commander I. Tyulenev, the ensign of Central Asia, was wounded and dismissed, but Stalin was dissatisfied with him even before being wounded. Replaced by Ryabyshev, who fought in the WWI as a simple Cossack. Then Chervichenko - a non-commissioned officer, and then - Malinovsky, an ordinary CA

        Northern front
        F. Kuznetsov from the tsarist ensigns was removed on the 14 day of the war and was replaced by the nobleman P. Sobennikov, the cornet of Central Asia. However, he manifests himself poorly and is removed from his post, later convicted, deprived of awards, but atoned for guilt and reached victory.
        Sobennikova was replaced by P. Kurochkin, who would command until the end of the 42 year, and in the tsarist army had the rank of private.

        That's it. Korents and Unthers do not fight well, they are exchanged for other non-commissioners and even ordinary soldiers who are already fighting better. No pattern.
      2. overb
        overb 20 June 2016 16: 52
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        1. Civil war is a victory.

        Is that what you can talk about with such? It is strange how the list does not include a victory over the "internal enemies" in 1937-38.
  23. Serg koma
    Serg koma 19 June 2016 13: 08
    +6
    There was something similar with the engineering staff for the growing Soviet industry - the superbly trained Russian engineers were forced to leave, and the USSR invited foreign specialists. Allegedly not his own, as in P
    Apua New Guinea.
    So, when in the hot summer of 1941 there was a need to plan and conduct large-scale operations (from the Baltic to the Black Sea) against a strong European army, it turned out that there was practically no one to do this. I’m not crucifying about Tukhachevsky here (I don’t know how genius he was), I’m generally.

    To help the sofa "TO HISTORIAN" monograph -
    "Graduates of the Nikolaev Academy of the General Staff in the service of the Red Army", St. Petersburg: Aleteya, 2011
    The imperfection of the imperial army in 1912 can be judged from the following inserts, WHERE are the experts?
    About "Allegedly not like in Papua New Guinea. ":
    This is probably Peter 1 Russia considered "Papua" a country inviting foreigners (and not only he, and long before him too tongue ), and in your hands a material called "HISTORY OF INDUSTRIALIZATION OF THE USSR"
    At least take a look at your favorite Wiki, the topic "Education in the USSR" https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obrazovanie_v_SSSR maybe then something "will grow together" for you.

    For "historical research" based only on personal emotions and inferences I put MINUS
  24. guzik007
    guzik007 19 June 2016 13: 09
    +6
    Oh how! In one fell swoop seven beats. Kutsa with an article tried to dot the "i" s. In the end, it turned out that brevity is not always the sister of talent.
    And from the most "pearls", it is that to fight surrounded by nonsense, it was necessary to surrender. All are brave now, for the veterans will no longer be able to fill their faces.
    And the Pskov paratroopers, who did not know this and did not surrender, are not present either. Although ... who knows, maybe the author will still rake the full fee.
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 13: 35
      .
      And from the most "pearls", it is that to fight surrounded by nonsense, it was necessary to surrender. All are brave now, for the veterans will no longer be able to fill their faces.


      And there was no "freedom of choice" - in the Red Army during the war, anyone who surrendered automatically became a criminal. Is it somehow strange?

      A soldier in a hopeless situation has the full moral right to surrender. Or are you for kamikaze?
      1. Alf
        Alf 19 June 2016 15: 13
        +8
        Quote: Olezhek
        And there was no "freedom of choice" - in the Red Army during the war, anyone who surrendered automatically became a criminal. Is it somehow strange?

        For reference to the author: All those captured in the Red Army after their release were sent to filters, as a result of which 91% of rank and file and 88% of officers were sent to the army or military industry or commanded, but were not considered traitors.
        1. Olezhek
          19 June 2016 16: 40
          -6
          the passage of which 91% of privates and 88% of officers were sent to the army


          Good statistics.
          Those who returned from captivity have a lot of memories ...
          And I'm back and everything is OK! so nobody recalls ...
          Many precisely because of this stupidly went into exile ...
          Was in captivity - it was a stigma for life ...
          1. Alf
            Alf 19 June 2016 21: 57
            +2
            Quote: Olezhek
            Many precisely because of this stupidly went into exile ...

            The author, explain why the person who was captured and justified after the filters, but the direction to the army and the delivery of weapons in another way can not be understood, emigrate from the country?
            And provide statistics on how many soldiers and officers of the SA left the country.
          2. Serg koma
            Serg koma 20 June 2016 06: 48
            0
            Quote: Olezhek
            Good statistics.

            Yes, it's better than the one that is sucked out of the finger (?).
      2. Serg koma
        Serg koma 19 June 2016 16: 55
        +6
        Quote: Olezhek
        And there was no "freedom of choice" - in the Red Army during the war, anyone who surrendered automatically became a criminal. Is it somehow strange?

        Read the right books and learn the HISTORY, not use rumors!
        Sentenced under Art. 58, past the penalty company -
        Hero of the Soviet Union (1944)
        Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" IV degree;
        2 orders of Lenin;
        Order of the October Revolution;
        Order of the Red Banner;
        Order of the Patriotic War I degree [5];
        Order of the Red Banner of Labor;
        2 orders of the Red Star;
        Medal of Honor";
        medal "For Military Merit".
        Laureate of the USSR State Prize (1986). Member of the CPSU (b) since 1943, Karpov Vladimir Vasilievich. Read the autobiographical story, Take It Alive! And then Suvorov V. and others like him probably brain was demolished.
        1. polkovnik manuch
          polkovnik manuch 19 June 2016 21: 55
          0
          Dear Olezhek! You studied VV Karpov poorly. He was just lucky that he went to the front from the camps and showed himself to be a real Russian soldier, officer, and how many of them, like him before him, could not escape from the camps or simply died in the penal companies (senior and senior commanders) and never having time to show their abilities in practice. By the way V. Karpov talked a lot about this.
  25. Altona
    Altona 19 June 2016 13: 11
    +13
    Part one. God save the King! Strong sovereign, reign in glory ...

    It is commendable that the author touched on such burning topics, but for some reason the article smells of bias and the attraction of facts by the ears to a comparison of the incomparable - the First and Second World Wars. I am neither a historian nor a military expert. Therefore, stupidly ask rhetorical questions:

    Why did "wise and holy" our tsar-father get involved in the Russian-Japanese war? And why was this war lost? After all, Rozhestvensky's squadron possessed good ships and competent young officers, the Russian sailor was resourceful and trained. Yes, and near Mukden the Russian Cossack did not fall face down in the mud. But someone "merged" the war and through the efforts of diplomats, with the loss of half of Sakhalin and the Kuril ridge, it was nevertheless finished. Really the General Staff and the Sovereign Admiralty did not make the efforts due to Victoria of Russian weapons? And when Russian infantry units and artillery were deployed to the Far East with such labors, the war for some reason was sharply curtailed. Coincidence? I don’t think so. So what is your attitude to the 1905 war with Japan?
    The war of 1914 nevertheless immediately became a war on two fronts for Kaiser Germany. Since members of the Entente entered it properly, and not like the USSR, which was attacked by several European countries about the head of Germany, and he was waiting for help from the USA and Great Britain in the form of a Second Front for three (!!) years. In addition, a huge internal crisis has ripened in Austria-Hungary - the Slavs who inhabited it did not share the internal policy of the Archduke and deserted en masse. It is enough to read the immortal Hasek with his Schweik. So the Russian troops had some support from the deserting Czechoslovak units. But the main thing is not even that. This war brought machine guns, war gases and powerful non-self-propelled artillery, mines and barbed wire onto the battlefield. The war became positional and the soldier pressed into the ground in his trenches during powerful shelling. the transport was mostly horse-drawn and the horses also died from the bombing becoming an additional ration. There were no bomb monsters in the sky, but on the field of high-speed tanks with powerful guns. Officers could leave for the rear for weeks and chew there with young ladies. knowing that the front is standing, not daring to go through several rows of thorns, gouges and minefields. Just tons of shell iron are lowered onto the soldiers' heads.
    1. Altona
      Altona 19 June 2016 13: 44
      +9
      Part two. Get up the huge country, get up to the mortal battle. With fascist power dark. Lviv was not a Russian city, but Warsaw was.

      Now about the war of 1941-1945. I described a couple of theses in the title. The fact that tsarist Russia fought along with the allies and on the distant approaches, and the USSR fought without allies and on the approaches of the closer ones, which were inhabited by a by no means friendly population - the Baltic states and part of the right-bank Ukraine. Therefore, having hacked the border defenses, the Wehrmacht easily overcame a number of border areas, meeting loaves and wreaths. In addition, the Wehrmacht had excellent combat coordination, communications, front-line aviation. The same Messerschmitt-109 was no less American, since it had the stuffing of a licensed Boeing and was going to the Boeing with the same equipment. In addition, the concept of "tank wedges" had already been worked out and tested by Guderian, while Soviet military science still relied on stationary defense systems and the interaction of tanks with less mobile units of infantry and cavalry. The tanks did not have a general communication like the German ones. Moreover, the Red Army carried out all kinds of rearmament and rotation measures during this period and did not manage to complete them. In 1942, a situation arose when the consequences of the loss of territories and population were made known. The industry in the evacuation was just getting better, workers were recalled from the front. The equipment came only from the Lend-Lease brook, especially at the beginning of the year, part of the front line was simply kept by people without equipment, like near Rzhev. Well, here are a few points. And the commanders were also not all right. Not because of their inability or stupidity, it was just that the front commanders mowed down middle-level commanders in a week with enemy sniper groups. Well, there were other reasons, of course. But this is not because we were stupider than the Wehrmacht. About Stalin with a map. Stalin could not waste away over the map for days, because he conducted analytical and diplomatic work, received reports on the state of industry and the supply of weapons. And he understood the maps, because the generals gave him the operational situation with the configuration on the map and asked for reserves, which he disposed of personally, and in 1942 he gave tanks by the piece. Something like this.
  26. zulusuluz
    zulusuluz 19 June 2016 13: 31
    -5
    The article raises a question about the hostilities of the 42nd, which are practically not described. At first I even thought about it, but rather quickly came to the conclusion that the Germans could simply "get tired" - they need to replenish their military equipment and property. Yes, not just replenish, but also deliver it to the eastern front. Meanwhile, the USSR, having made a conclusion about the strength of the Wehrmacht as a result of the stop of the Red Army in 200 kilometers near Moscow, also decided to wait a little. The reserves are also not infinite.
    And what battles of 1942 can you write about? About how children and women forged weapons? Or about the launch at full capacity of evacuated factories and enterprises?
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 13: 32
      -1
      And what battles can 1942 write about?


      You are joking?
    2. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 19 June 2016 14: 02
      +2
      Why aren’t they described? The Kharkov operation (extremely unsuccessful for the Red Army), the Sinyavinsky operation, the Rzhevsk-Vyazemsky operation (the most bloody operation 2MV). The list can be continued. In the battles of 1942, it was the Red Army that began to storm Berlin in May 1945 .

  27. mem1963
    mem1963 19 June 2016 14: 10
    +5
    The author not only does not play chess, but also cards. He gathered everything together and comments in emotions - this is how the splashes flying into the faces of the audience are seen.
    How can we compare the 2 wars that began for various reasons, in different conditions and methods of warfare. Russia entered the PVM itself consciously, accordingly with the preparation. WWII was conducted between 2 groups of allies in different theater of operations, i.e. with different opponents sometimes at the same time. The task of defeating one country was not, in principle, the goal was to squeeze the territories.
    WWII - was transferred to the confrontation of 2 states in order to destroy one of them. Hence completely different methods and tasks, hence the indispensable condition for a suddenly strong accented blow with the task of depriving the state of not only the army, but also industry and people. Sport, a fight - this is one thing, and when they kill - this is another, It’s hard to be prepared for this in peacetime. On your own check - you live and bam came home with knives, are you all ready?
  28. Igor V
    Igor V 19 June 2016 14: 34
    +6
    The author would like to study the history of the primary sources. For example, to read Brusilov, how he treated the court generals, commander of the armies. Correspondence of Nicholas II with his wife, who led the strategic actions of the troops. Statistics that show that over 60% of Red Army commanders in the Civil War were officers. And in the Second World War, the main constellation of military leaders was tsarist officers and non-commissioners (not all, but many). The memoirs of these military leaders, which describe in detail the GKO meeting on 21.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX, the directive on the full combat readiness of the troops of special districts and the ways of its delivery to the troops. By the same memoirs, one can trace in detail the actions of our troops and formations at any moment of the war. To read, for example, at Meretskov, when he returned from the headquarters, where all the questions of the operation had been resolved, he suddenly received a call from Stalin: what about the dam, if the Germans blow it up, it will flood the whole territory. Of course, after this we can conclude that Stalin did not delve into the situation.
    I foresee the accusations that the memoirs are propaganda, then read Vasilevsky, where on each page there are 2-3 links to GS directives, and this is a document by Shtemenko about how books were checked for authenticity.
    Then write and we will discuss. And there is nothing to discuss emotions, each of them has their own.
  29. Zomanus
    Zomanus 19 June 2016 14: 45
    +1
    Article plus. For the future, the author, add links to the remaining parts, if there are several.
    Well, in general, the article is normal, you need to write about such things.
    And about the red commissars who had the right to cancel the order of the commanders.
    And about the delivery of positions without much need for that.
    And the fact that the war was fought by methods that our command did not know.
    A lot has been written about our technology and logistics,
    that at the beginning of the war they were none.
    So there are actually several reasons
    from the belief that we will definitely fight in a foreign land
    and to the lack of provision of troops necessary.
  30. Nix1986
    Nix1986 19 June 2016 15: 14
    +1
    A lot of copies were broken about the causes of the defeats in 41 and 42, one cannot but agree that there was no material and technical backlog, just read the Germans' memories of the first meetings with sq and t34, and yes, there was a gap in the officers, therefore the enemy was lucky with the moment of application strike, it is possible to go a few more years and gain new blood for the officers and where the initiative is put in the first place, and not the stupid execution of orders, then in a year we would have been in Berlin. But history does not have a subjunctive mood, and it is not entirely correct to compare with the 1th year, the reasons are known without comparison.
  31. hilt
    hilt 19 June 2016 16: 15
    -8
    good article
  32. Koshak
    Koshak 19 June 2016 16: 39
    +3
    Conduct Hitler complete mobilization of Germany two years earlier, the war could end in a completely different way. [/ Quote]

    And would the author drink Bavarian beer?
    1. Serg koma
      Serg koma 20 June 2016 06: 52
      +1
      Quote: Koshak
      And would the author drink Bavarian beer?

      good
      And Hitler would have attacked the USSR three or four years later, now he would sing Stalin’s hymns and not twitch laughing
  33. samarin1969
    samarin1969 19 June 2016 16: 47
    -9
    Connoisseurs of the history of the war and patriots will hammer the author. In vain ... I do not agree in the assessment of the German army. Against the backdrop of the degradation of the military traditions of European countries, Germany looked extremely mobilized and terrible in its strength.

    The rest is true: the problems of the commanding staff and the officer corps, war is "not a fight", an unjustified attitude towards people (the surrender of Sevastopol, etc.), Stalin's adequate efforts to prepare for war).
    The author is "+".

    After two wars and revolutions, little was left of the Russians. The gene pool is knocked out and achieves drunkenness, tolerance, crap.
  34. Veteran
    Veteran 19 June 2016 17: 49
    +6
    Apparently, the author did not study the history of military art, especially the sections of operational art and tactics, otherwise he would not have compared the First and Second World Wars on equal terms, but would have drawn attention to what new German military thought brought to the practice of conducting combat operations in the implementation, in particular, of the Barbarossa plan.
    Unfortunately, the format of the commentary does not allow us to state a sufficient amount of material on this issue, so I will try to cite the opinion of one author (Sergey Ivanov) in the format of the article, who popularly outlined the reasons for the first major successes of the Hitler army, and what was the novelty of the new technology for waging war used by the German command in the 2-th World War, not taken into account and not initially understood by the command of the Red Army.
    1. Olezhek
      19 June 2016 20: 19
      -4
      and what was the novelty of the new technology of warfare, applied by the German command in the 2-th World War, not taken into account and not initially understood


      Of course it’s interesting, but Napoleon changed the military art MUCH more than the Wehrmacht and its generals ..
      But despite this they beat him in Russia ..

      Germans and Austrians in WWI stupidly had artillery (+ heavy!) And shells for it ... and Russia didn’t have one or the other in sufficient quantities (there was no heavy artillery in 1914 at all!). And yet...

      Oh yes, I know - these are different things and they can not be compared ....
      1. Veteran
        Veteran 19 June 2016 21: 00
        +7
        You again violate the temporary concepts of military art, warfare technologies. In this case, the ancient Romans made a much greater contribution of innovative changes to military art than Napoleon himself. By the way, in Russia Napoleonic troops were exterminated to a greater extent by semi-guerrilla methods, but the general battle of Borodino of the Russian army could not be won.
        An article "Blitzkrieg as a technology of war" will be published - read it, maybe you will understand about a specific time frame of warfare in 1941 - 42.
        1. Alf
          Alf 19 June 2016 21: 53
          +5
          Quote: Veteran
          but the general battle near Borodino of the Russian army could not be won.

          You are not quite right. The general battle near Borodino of the Russian army could not be won, this is so. But they did not lose. Winning or losing is not determined by the ratio of losses, but by the achieved or not achieved goals of the battle. Kutuzov fulfilled his tasks - he gave the battle, as the elite and the people demanded, and did not allow the Russian army to be defeated, but Napoleon could not, accordingly, defeat the Russian army.
          Yes, Napoleon entered Moscow, but many forget the fact, speaking of the capture of Moscow, that the capital of the Republic of Ingushetia was NOT in Moscow. Moscow at that time was simply a large city, but the loss of Moscow did not carry strategic meaning. But Napoleon, having captured Moscow, received, not only the decaying army, but Kutuzov’s army along the supply routes, which received replenishment all the time.
          Kutuzov’s magnificent STRATEGIC victory — without winning the battle of Borodino, surrendering Moscow, he forced Napoleon to begin a STRATEGIC retreat from Russia.
          1. Veteran
            Veteran 19 June 2016 23: 03
            +5
            You pull out of context and take aside. The keynote of my opposition is that it is impossible to directly compare the conduct of wars of different temporary stages of military art, the successes and failures in them, and on this basis to belittle or exceed someone or something. This is a violation of the laws of military science, stemming from ignorance of the history of military art and its gradation.
            1. Olezhek
              21 June 2016 11: 19
              -1
              The keynote of my opposition is that it is impossible to directly compare the waging of different time stages of military art, successes and failures in them, and on this basis, someone or something to diminish or exceed. This is a violation of the laws of military science.


              Military science - it arises only when we begin to analyze and compare a specific data array by different wars. If every war and every battle is unique, then there can be no military science.

              Yes, each person and each crime is "unique": but the science of jurisprudence nevertheless exists.
              1. Veteran
                Veteran 21 June 2016 16: 19
                +6
                What time! But nothing that military science has been at least 2,5 for thousands of years since Sun Tzu? That is, either you did not notice her, or she you. The first can still be fixed if you wish, but the second is hardly feasible.
        2. Olezhek
          20 June 2016 19: 11
          -1
          In this case, the ancient Romans made a much greater contribution of innovative changes to military art than Napoleon himself.


          And it is true! am

          Assyrians laid the foundations of a sensible regular army ...

          Against their historical background - the Fuhrer - is almost a loshara ... lol
          1. Veteran
            Veteran 21 June 2016 17: 54
            +5
            Quote: Olezhek
            Assyrians laid the foundations of a sensible regular army ...

            In fact, the organizational forms of the army were the first to create the ancient Egyptian pharaohs of the times of the New Kingdom (XVI - XI century BC), isolating the warrior caste from the population and creating an organized army from it, in which a system of equally armed infantry appeared. The army was divided into separate units, the infantry was organizationally divided into archers, slingers, spearmen, warriors with swords. The second important part of the army was the war chariots. The battle order of infantry and chariots, their interaction. Military intelligence became mandatory. The special agency was in charge of supplying troops, issuing rationed rations from warehouses. A marching order has been developed; camps were created from shields. The caste army was reinforced by mercenaries.
            Pharaoh Thutmose III (XV century BC) - the first known military leader in history, who carried out a planned strategic offensive, it is not for nothing that he is called "Napoleon of the Ancient World".
            In Assyria, however, only in the VIII century. BC. the army was reorganized and a "tsarist detachment" - a standing army - was created.
            Comparison with the Fuhrer is generally inappropriate here in terms of, as I have already indicated, time criteria and industrial-economic, material foundations. There is an axiom of military science; "Past combat experience cannot be mechanically transferred into modern military art."
            1. Olezhek
              23 June 2016 16: 55
              -1
              In fact, the organizational forms of the army were first created by the ancient Egyptian pharaohs of the New Kingdom (XVI - XI in


              one can argue for a long time, especially Ancient Egypt, it is so ancient that little is known for sure ...
              And there were some conquests ... Alas, the Egyptians excuse me by what military successes did not stand out very much against the background of their potential in economics and demography

              But Assyria is a kind of Prussia of antiquity: they created a really sensible fighting machine and smashed ALL its neighbors ....

              Assyria was not that famous for its army - it was openly feared and hated, and why it was ground into powder, united ...
  35. earloop
    earloop 19 June 2016 20: 16
    +1
    On June 22, 1941, Germany's treacherous attack on the USSR took place, while the state was not ready for war. Therefore, we had to go on the attack on a tank with a three-line and a bottle with a combustible mixture. There were no effective air defense systems, which is why many military echelons with recruits were destroyed on the way to Moscow in the first months of the war. Therefore, the Russian soldiers defended themselves as best they could, holding back the enemy to their last breath. For this bright memory of them. It is difficult to organize command and control of troops under such conditions, and even without technical means. Therefore, dear author, you wrongfully accuse the military leadership of the Red Army in the first two most difficult years of the war of 1941-1942, relying only on one of the factors: the factor of the "gold diggers".
  36. bastard
    bastard 19 June 2016 20: 34
    0
    The author of this opus imagines himself a strategist seeing a battle from the side.
    1. Olezhek
      20 June 2016 10: 24
      -2
      The author of this opus is trying to analyze (rather than emotionally experience) the events of 1941-42

      Is there a better analysis option? - offer it!
      1. tasha
        tasha 20 June 2016 19: 04
        0
        Affttara poke his nose into books? Sincere bewilderment ...
        Sorry, broke ...
  37. mlad
    mlad 19 June 2016 21: 12
    +1
    You can’t play comparisons and therefore didn’t even read further, although there may still be something to read worthwhile, but the general meaning is clear immediately, minus
  38. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 19 June 2016 22: 07
    -2
    The article is uniquely "+". God forbid that the lessons of the Great Patriotic War were not forgotten by our military theorists. Errors, and these are the pre-war "cleansing" and shortcomings in the strategic thinking of persons holding senior and senior command personnel and the actions of the NKVD in relation to the "military experts", as well as insufficient tactical and technical readiness (poor knowledge of materiel), - did their "dirty" job. The army must constantly prepare, hone its combat skills and listen less to political information.
    1. Alf
      Alf 19 June 2016 23: 08
      +4
      Quote: polkovnik manuch
      and this is the pre-war "cleansing"

      Could you tell me more about cleaning?
      How many Civil War nominee officers with 2-3 grades of education were repressed and how many officers with academic degrees were promoted?
  39. overb
    overb 19 June 2016 23: 26
    -3
    Quote: Oleg Egorov
    By the way, in the summer of 1943 the Germans did appear “magic” Tigers and Panthers in serious quantities. However, it was then that they began to be severely beaten on the Eastern Front.

    Yes? And where in 1943 were they badly beaten on the Eastern Front? In addition to Stalingrad, of course. But there were no Panthers.
    Quote: Oleg Egorov
    One of the consequences of this military disaster: the blockade of Leningrad

    Land blockade. There was not a single day of a complete blockade of Leningrad.
    Quote: Oleg Egorov
    in Germany, they didn’t completely mobilize until 1943 (the peak was the release of military equipment in general 1944!), back in 1942 they made a lot of civilian products for a comfortable life

    May be. But already in 1942. they began the rearmament of the army. And the USSR safely overslept it.
    Quote: Oleg Egorov
    That is, the Germans' problem was not so much in the "heroism of the Soviet people" as in the strategic miscalculations of the Wehrmacht supreme command

    That is yes. Barbarossa they are back in July 1941. canceled. And would not have been canceled, the likelihood that the war would end in the fall of 1941. the implementation of this plan is very large.
    1. Veteran
      Veteran 21 June 2016 18: 35
      +5
      According to the "Barbarossa Option" plan, the Germans, no later than the end of November 1941, were supposed to capture Leningrad, Moscow and reach the Volga line. By this time they had failed to do any of this, and the defeat near Moscow in December finally buried this plan. That is, the Red Army buried him, not the orders of the Hitlerite command. In July 1941, this plan was in full swing.
      1. overb
        overb 22 June 2016 10: 21
        -1
        Quote: Veteran
        and the defeat near Moscow in December completely buried the plan.

        Learn the meaning of the word defeat.
        Quote: Veteran
        That is, the Red Army buried him, and not the orders of the Nazi command. In July 1941, this plan was in full swing.

        Already on July 12, the Wehrmacht began to act contrary to the plan of Barbarossa, switching to directive planning (i.e., the principles of not a army, but a large gang). Wehrmacht returned on September 11 to a kind of Barbarossa. But these 2 months of Germany were enough to lose 2MB. Because she could win in the USSR either in 1941 or never.
        However, even in the event of victory over the USSR in 1941, by implementing the Barbaross plan, Germany had no chance of defeating the Anglo-Saxons. In the second half of the 40s, it would simply be rolled out with atomic bombing. Therefore, in this sense, the Germans were very lucky.
        1. Olezhek
          23 June 2016 08: 58
          -1
          Germany had no chance of victory over the Anglo-Saxons. In the second half of 40's, it would simply be rolled into a pancake by atomic bombardment. Therefore, in this sense, the Germans were very lucky.


          You are still surprised, but Germany had its own nuclear program. And to 1945, they seem to have come close to the creation of TNW ...

          Nobody canceled hundreds of ballistic missiles with chemistry either ...
          And they would have been created ...

          So: not so simple, but Americans created nuclear weapons of course under Hitler ...
  40. fsb_buzuk
    fsb_buzuk 19 June 2016 23: 58
    0
    One of the factors is exorbitantly inflated, definitely pulling an owl.
  41. VOEVODA
    VOEVODA 20 June 2016 00: 42
    +5
    A very one-sided assessment of the events of 41. Starting with the fact that the German divisions at the beginning of the war were manned according to our military time, in the world. The Germans in the first echelon at the beginning of the military base had 86% of military and military equipment, we have about 44%, very a lot of troops were held in the Far East. The equipment was in storage, the military unit wasn’t mobilized, and the Germans were already in Minsk on the 5th day of the war. The Baltic divisions were formed, you know from whom their moral and combat qualities were none. Aviation 60% didn’t take off, Ura In the West and South-West, they are unfinished. Officers and generals are brave but they aren’t able to make independent decisions, and they’re afraid. Well, of course, captive is at the end of 41 almost 3,5 million with a regular army in the West of 4.5 million. Many BUT in the article.
  42. Alex_59
    Alex_59 20 June 2016 08: 54
    +3
    The most severe delirium. If the author does not understand the difference between the goals of the Germans in the 14th and 41st years ... Either they want to beat you up and take away a trifle, or they want to slaughter you like a ram and slaughter your whole family. Is it necessary after that to be surprised that in the 14th the war is somewhere far away, and in the 41st "get up, a huge country!"
    The first such set (personnel Red Army) was taken by the Germans almost "for a bitch".
    Sew and butter for you, author, together with the Germans! My grandfather, started the war as a captain, graduated as a major, a 32nd year graduate of the Yeisk Military Higher Military School - the most cadre of personnel! Taken for a fook you say? On May 9, my grandfather showed them who took whom and how.
    1. Olezhek
      20 June 2016 10: 27
      -1
      Either they want to beat you and take a trifle, or they want to kill you like a ram and cut your whole family.


      Are you sure that in WWI Germany set only limited goals in the East?

      Is it necessary after that to be surprised that in the 14th the war is somewhere far away, and in the 41st "get up, a huge country!"


      I am surprised at this whole article request
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 20 June 2016 12: 28
        +2
        Quote: Olezhek
        Are you sure that in WWI Germany set only limited goals in the East?

        Not sure. But according to their actions and the official statements of that period, the bloodthirsty desire to exterminate entire nations is not visible. But with Hitler ... everything in his famous book is stated.
  43. Kerzhak
    Kerzhak 20 June 2016 09: 06
    +3
    The Russian Empire did not stand on the edge of the abyss at the beginning of 1917, but fell there. And the USSR in the summer of the 1941 was standing, but did not fall. This is a paradox.
    Explain it if you can.
    1. Olezhek
      20 June 2016 19: 17
      -2
      The Russian Empire did not stand on the edge of the abyss at the beginning of 1917, but fell there. And the USSR in the summer of the 1941 was standing, but did not fall. This is a paradox.


      I would really not like to explain, but if you insist ... Under the tsar, the people were trusted and thought only of the struggle against the external enemy ... On which they got burned ...

      But with the Bolsheviks, the main thing was - the fight against the internal enemy ... And even when the whole army was defeated ... this did not threaten the stability of power ...

      Two worlds - two De Niro ...

      Sad ... but fact

      they could have guessed ... request
    2. overb
      overb 21 June 2016 00: 49
      -2
      Quote: Kerzhak
      But the USSR in the summer of 1941 stood, but did not fall

      He did not fall, but collapsed. Direct officially recognized direct losses of 27 million. If this is not the bottom of the abyss, then what is called the bottom?
  44. Loki_2
    Loki_2 21 June 2016 08: 01
    0
    To the masterpiece author:
    Comrade Rezun sign in!
  45. geniy
    geniy 23 June 2018 14: 31
    0
    Like many other authors of books and articles, deceived by propaganda
    This author sees the reason for the defeats of 41-42 years in the incompetence of the officers.
    And if we consider the level of competence of the officer corps, then everything suddenly falls into place: one year of the war was still not enough to bring it to condition, therefore again defeat ...

    But this is a general misconception, due to the fact that the Soviet government hid the truth from the people. The fact is that before the outbreak of war, most of the ammunition and fuel depots, as well as tanks, artillery, and unarmed aircraft, were concentrated along the border itself to start an aggressive war. but the Germans were ahead of its start and on the first day of the war seized all fuel depots and a lot of artillery. And due to the fact that the Soviet troops had almost no ammunition, the Germans captured most of European Russia. Moreover, Soviet troops often surrendered in the millions - there was simply nothing to shoot. Thus, pre-war stocks of ammunition were lost. And in 1942 it turned out that most of the chemical, ammunition, and shell factories were in the territory occupied by the enemy, and therefore could not produce military products, and chemical plants just beyond the Urals were still under construction. And in 1942 there was a catastrophic lack of ammunition: for soldiers of the second army trying to unlock Leningrad, only five rounds of ammunition were given to a soldier - what was it like to fight? And the heroic pilot Popkov told his wife that the pilots were given only half of the ammunition on the plane. And for this reason Sevastopol was abandoned: cartridges and shells ran out. And only by the beginning of 1943 the production of ammunition increased. Moreover, as stated, 90% of the powder was American, obtained by Lend-Lease. That is why, from the age of forty-three, victories began.
  46. The comment was deleted.
  47. Valery Petrakov
    Valery Petrakov April 21 2021 00: 39
    0
    Oleg, please accept my gratitude for your article! All my life I have been studying the history of the Great Patriotic War, especially the reasons for the defeats of the Red Army in 1941-42. You are close to identifying the main causes of this disaster. Few now understand these reasons. Thanks again! The author of books about this war is Valery Petrakov.