Choking with delight, snatching a bunch of St. George ribbons with his teeth; by inviting former enemies and all allies of the former mortal enemy to the parade; disfiguring the streets and transport with the head of the people's executioner; The Russians are getting ready for the great booze called May 9th. We will also add a spoonful of truth to their barrel of sour honey.
We offer readers an article-research in the form of an interview with the St. Petersburg historian Kirill Mikhailovich Aleksandrov about various issues in the history of the Second World War.
Doomed to feat
For many years it was believed that 20 million of “ours” died in the war, and approx. 11 million. Are there reliable statistics now? How many citizens of the USSR died during the Second World War (civilians and military)? How many German citizens (civilian and military) died?
There is no single point of view and generally accepted statistics. A reliable assessment of the human losses of the Soviet Union during the war with Germany and its allies is one of the most difficult problems in modern historical science. Representatives of official departments and organizations, scientists and publicists, who for the last two decades have been naming a variety of figures and offering their own calculation methods, agree with each other on only one thing - that their opponents are guided by ideological predilections, and not by the desire to get closer to historical truth.
For almost half a century, our compatriot was forced to look at the war between Germany and the Soviet Union not only exclusively on the scale of one (Eastern, let's call it that for clarity) front, but also outside the events that took place before June 22, 1941 during World War II. When, for example, did the Soviet Union enter World War II?... In September 1939, the Polish state disappeared.
We do not forget that during this unannounced Soviet-Polish war 1475 fighters and commanders of the Red Army died? That's hundreds of lives in just two and a half weeks. By the way, let me remind the reader that the first courageous defense of the Brest Fortress from the Wehrmacht troops in mid-September 1939 was led by Brigadier General Konstantin Plisovsky, the once brave Akhtyrsky hussar, staff captain and officer of the Russian Imperial Army, who was shot by the NKVD in 1940.
As a result of the defeat of Poland, a common border arose between Germany and the USSR. From the point of view of the defense capability of the USSR, was it good or bad? This fact cannot be ignored when discussing the tragedy of the summer of 1941... Next. Soviet irretrievable losses (dead, dead and missing) during the bloody Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940 are today estimated at between 131,000 and 160,000 servicemen. From the requests of relatives on the basis of the funeral notices received, it is clear that not all the names of the dead were included in the books of the names of losses in this theater of operations.
This is the equivalent of about 12-13 divisions. The irretrievable losses of the Finns are 24.5 thousand military personnel. Is the Winter War part of World War II? Is it possible to forget its causes, course and military-political consequences when we talk, for example, about the blockade of Leningrad? Obviously not.
But then why did the just past 70th anniversary of this “not famous war”, which claimed tens of thousands of lives, remain generally unnoticed in modern Russia against the backdrop of another triumphant campaign? The war in Finland does not fit into the Stalinist concept of a “local” war between the peaceful socialist Soviet Union and aggressive National Socialist Germany, which is still dominant in the mass consciousness. Therefore, neither the authorities nor the society found any words or means to mark the sad anniversary of the Winter War and honor the memory of its victims.
But the problem is not only that the drama of 1939-1940 is inextricably linked with the tragedy of subsequent years. In my opinion, it is generally impossible to talk about the war with Germany outside the context of the history of the Soviet state. June 22, 1941 is a direct consequence of the events that took place on October 25, 1917, no matter how paradoxical it may seem to someone.
Many human actions and behavior during the war years were the result of the ongoing civil war since 1917, terror and repression, collectivization, artificial famine, Yezhovism, the creation of a system of forced labor on a state scale, and the physical destruction by the Bolsheviks of the largest Local Orthodox Church in the world.
Since the late 1920s, the authorities have stubbornly and consistently forced people who lived in deprivation, fear and poverty to lie, dodge, and adapt. The Stalinist system by 1941 led to a complete devaluation of human life and personality. Slavery became a daily form of socio-economic relations, and the general hypocrisy destroyed the spirit and soul. Can we forget about this when we talk, for example, about the ratio of losses?
Last year in St. Petersburg, Nikolai Nikulin, an outstanding St. Petersburg art historian, a front-line order bearer, passed away. He was wounded many times, fought in the 311th Infantry Division, went through the entire war and ended it in Berlin as a sergeant, miraculously surviving. His courageous "Memories of the War" is one of the most piercing, honest and ruthless memoirs in terms of plausibility. Here is what, in particular, Nikolai Nikolaevich wrote about our losses, based on his own experience of fighting on the Volkhov and near the Pogostye station:
“The meanness of the Bolshevik system was especially clearly manifested in the war. Just as the most hard-working, honest, intelligent, active and intelligent people were arrested and executed in peacetime, the same thing happened at the front, but in an even more open, disgusting form. I'll give you an example. An order comes from the higher spheres: to take the height. The regiment storms it week after week, losing a thousand men a day. Replenishment is continuous, there is no shortage of people.
But among them are swollen dystrophics from Leningrad, to whom doctors have just attributed bed rest and enhanced nutrition for three weeks. Among them are babies born in 1926, that is, fourteen-year-olds who are not subject to conscription into the army ... “Vperrred !!!”, and that's it. Finally, some soldier, or lieutenant, platoon commander, or captain, company commander (which is less common), seeing this blatant disgrace, exclaims: “You can’t ruin people! There, at a height, a concrete pillbox! And we only have a 76 mm fluff! She won’t break through!”... The political instructor, SMERSH and the tribunal immediately join in.
One of the informers, who are full in every unit, testifies: "Yes, in the presence of soldiers he doubted our victory." Immediately, they fill out a ready-made form, where you just need to enter the last name and it’s ready: “Shoot before the ranks!” or “Send to the penal company!”, which is the same. So the most honest people, who felt their responsibility to society, perished.
And the rest - “Forward, attack!” “There are no fortresses that the Bolsheviks could not take!” And the Germans dug into the ground, creating a whole labyrinth of trenches and shelters. Go get them! There was a stupid, senseless killing of our soldiers. One must think that this selection of the Russian people is a time bomb: it will explode in several generations, in the 21st or 22nd century, when the mass of scum selected and nurtured by the Bolsheviks will give rise to new generations of their own kind.
Scary?... Try to object. In any case, it seems to me that there is a direct connection between the number of victims suffered by our people during the Second World War, starting from September 1939, and the irreversible changes that took place in the country and society after the October Revolution of 1917.
For example, it is enough to recall the consistent destruction of the Russian officer corps by the Bolsheviks. Of the 276 thousand Russian officers as of the autumn of 1917, by June 1941, there were hardly more than a few hundred in the army, and then, mainly - commanders from former ensigns and second lieutenants.
Therefore, to consider the war out of context national history the previous twenty years - this means once again deceiving ourselves and justifying the all-Russian self-destruction of the twentieth century, as a result of which our people are steadily declining. The irretrievable military losses of Germany today, in general, are sufficiently established and systematized in one of the last fundamental studies of Rüdiger Overmans.
The third edition of his book German Military Losses in World War II was held in Munich in 2004. In total, the German Armed Forces in all theaters of military operations in 1939-1945 lost 4.13 million people, including on the Eastern Front - from 2.8 million to 3.1 million people. The fluctuation in the estimates of losses in the East is due to the continuing uncertainty about the fate of some of the missing and prisoners of war.
There is some controversy in the estimates of German military losses. Some researchers argue about whether the total number of irretrievable losses includes another 250-300 thousand dead from among the citizens of the USSR who served on the side of the enemy. Others believe that to the figure of 4.13 million, it is necessary to add 600-700 thousand people from among the allies of Germany (Hungary, Italy, Romania, Finland, etc.), who died mainly on the Eastern Front and in Soviet captivity.
Accordingly, opponents believe that the irretrievable losses of Germany's allies are included in the mentioned 4.13 million. In general, I am inclined to agree with this thesis now, but I believe that far from all the losses of Eastern volunteers from among the citizens of the USSR were taken into account here and included in the total - just the record of these servicemen was incomplete. Research and debate on these issues continues. But in general, the picture is quite presentable.
I think that the total number of military irretrievable losses of Germany and its allies, including the Eastern volunteers, can be estimated on average within the range of 4.1-5.1 million people, including 3-3.6 million on the Eastern Front. The irretrievable losses of the civilian population of Germany are estimated in Germany at about 2 million people, including the victims of allied bombing (about 500 thousand). Thus, it seems to me that the total figure of irretrievable German losses is approximately 6-7 million, of which military losses, including the German allies, account for the most part.
The issue of irretrievable losses of the Soviet Union is much less clear. The resulting spread of figures is amazing - from 27 million to 43 million people. I’ll make a reservation right away, the upper figures, which, for example, B. V. Sokolov called back in the 1990s, do not seem convincing and reliable to me. On the contrary, the figure of 27-28 million total losses seems quite realistic.
I believe that the calculation methods used by a group of demographers headed by the well-known researcher Evgeny Mikhailovich Andreev are more perfect and fair than Sokolov's methods. Back in 1993, Andreev's group determined the total number of irretrievable losses of the population of the USSR in 1941-1945 at 27 million people - and this, which is significant, is consistent with the 1959 census data.
The problem, however, is that, in my opinion, as in the case of German losses, the main share is not the losses of the civilian population, but the losses of the Soviet Armed Forces. And from this point of view, the official figure insisted on by the Ministry of Defense - 8 million 668 thousand 400 people - does not hold water. Suffice it to mention that, in all likelihood, the figure (7 million), which Stalin had once reported in 1946, was taken as the basis for the losses, passing it off as the total figure of irretrievable losses of the entire population.
It was obtained by mechanically summing up various unreliable information from official reports and summaries. The most surprising thing is that the real figure is estimated at hundreds of people (!), Although the members of the team of authors of Colonel-General G.F. Krivosheev, who introduced it into scientific circulation, frankly admitted that from many divisions, corps and armies in 1941 alone year there were no documents left that would allow to determine the loss of personnel at least approximately.
It seems to me that a more or less close to reality idea of the irretrievable military losses of the USSR can be drawn up by two sources.
Firstly, these are card indexes of personal records of irretrievable losses of privates, sergeants and officers, which are stored in the funds of the Central Archive of the Ministry of Defense (TsAMO) in Podolsk. After selfless and painstaking work on the withdrawal of duplicate cards for privates and sergeants, which was completed by employees at the beginning of the new century, 12.6 million people were registered. Back in the 1960s, approximately 1 million people were counted among the officers, including political workers, for a total of 13.6 million dead.
The real figure was introduced into wide scientific circulation by the courageous historian, Colonel Vladimir Trofimovich Eliseev, a senior researcher at TsAMO, who boldly defended the results of his research at various scientific conferences despite the displeasure it caused.
Apparently, the group of General Krivosheev, who “counted” losses from the end of the 1980s, did not take personal records into account at all. 13.6 million dead - this is without the loss of conscripted reservists called up, but not counted until June 22, as well as without the loss of the fleet, border guards, troops and bodies of the NKVD, various paramilitary formations, partisans, and most importantly - the conscription contingent that poured into the troops The active army in the territories liberated from occupation and immediately rushed into battle.
According to various recollections and testimonies, in the liberated territories, the relevant authorities often took literally all men capable of holding weapons, and, regardless of age, both 16-17-year-olds and 50-year-olds as marching replenishment. There were cases when they were sent to the front line even in civilian clothes. For most, the first fight was also the last.
This was especially widely practiced in 1943-1944. The army was marching to the West, the political agencies were urging them on, and the "liberators" were not spared, especially since they had been in occupation for a long time and looked suspicious by definition. Accounting for the losses of fighters of various militia formations in 1941-1942 was also unsatisfactory.
Therefore, when the historian D. A. Volkogonov published in one of his works the total figure of irretrievable military losses of the USSR at 16.2 million people, referring to some secret document addressed to Stalin, it seems to me that he was very close to the truth. Secondly, back in 1995, work was almost completed on the introduction of personal records into the Central Data Bank of the dead, missing, those who died in captivity and from the wounds of soldiers, primarily on the basis of information received from relatives. There were approximately 19 million such records.
It must be said that the mentioned group of E. M. Andreev estimated the total number of men of military age who died in 1941-1945 at 17 million people.
Based on all the above data, it seems to me that the irretrievable military losses of the USSR in 1941-1945 can be estimated at no less than 16-17 million people, including the losses of women liable for military service, as well as men and youths of non-conscription age, nevertheless, de- actually consisted of military service.
The remaining irretrievable losses of the civilian population can be distributed as follows: approximately 1 million - victims of the Leningrad blockade, up to 2.2 million - victims of Nazi terror in the occupation, 300 thousand - excess mortality during the Stalinist deportations of peoples, 1.3 million - increased child mortality in the rest of the USSR, more than 5 million - increased adult mortality as a result of worsening living conditions due to wartime circumstances in the rest of the USSR (including prisoners who died in the Gulag, where the annual mortality rate in 1942-1943 was 20-25%!) .
The last two categories of civilian casualties of war are especially rarely mentioned and accounted for. The authorities concealed the fact that during the war years there were, for example, mass deaths from starvation in the Vologda region, in Yakutia and some other regions of the Soviet Union.
It is possible that approximately 450 thousand Soviet citizens who actually remained after 1945 in the West and ended up in emigration (including refugees from the Baltic states, Western Ukraine and Belarus) are also considered dead and missing during the war years. Such a sad order of numbers. The exact irretrievable losses of our people during the Second World War, I'm afraid, will never be known.
Is it possible to compare military losses during the hostilities of the German and Russian armies?
First, a fundamental disclaimer. Let's still take into account that the Russian Imperial or Russian Army, which originates from the regiments of the foreign system of the first Romanovs, and the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army, created in 1918 by L. D. Trotsky, are still completely different armies. Therefore, to identify Russian army and the Red Army is wrong.
The losses you are asking about can only be imagined approximately. From the above, we take the average figures: the Armed Forces of the USSR - 16.5 million, Germany and its allies on the Eastern Front - 3.3 million. The ratio of irretrievable losses is 1:5. This is strikingly close to the ratio of deadweight losses in the Finnish war - 1:6.
Are there other examples in world history when a victorious country loses several times more people than the defeated state?
As a result of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, the ratio of losses turned out to be in favor of Russia. The total irretrievable losses of the Russian troops and fleet amounted to 52.5 thousand ranks, the enemy - 88 thousand. But several times ... It is difficult for me to give such an example right away.
How many of our prisoners died?
In the Russian Imperial Army, captivity was not considered a crime; public opinion treated prisoners as sufferers. They retained ranks, awards, monetary allowance, captivity was counted in the length of service. With the active participation of Nicholas II and Russian diplomats, the famous Hague Convention of 1907 “On the Laws and Customs of War on Land” appeared, which determined the rights of prisoners of war. In 1914-1917, 2.4 million officials of the Russian army were captured, of which no more than 5% died.
In 1941-1945, according to the enemy, about 6.2 million Soviet servicemen were captured. Of these, until November 13, 1941, almost 320 thousand people were released and released in the occupied territories - mostly those who called themselves "Ukrainians" or "Belarusians". By the way, a very large figure, in fact, the equivalent of the size of two armies.
Of the remaining 5.8 million (excluding defectors, of whom there were 315 thousand for all the years of the war - two more armies in number) died of starvation and deprivation, and 3.3 million (60%) died from Nazi repressions. Of the surviving 2.4 million Soviet prisoners, approximately 950 thousand entered the service in various anti-Soviet armed formations (ROA and others), about 500 thousand fled or were liberated in 1943-1944 by Soviet troops and allies, the rest (about 1 million) waited until the spring of 1945. But their suffering didn't end there.
The words of I. V. Stalin are known: we have no prisoners, but there are traitors. He refused to give them any help. How much did this affect the mortality rate of our prisoners in German camps (compared to prisoners of other countries)?
It's not just the well-known Stalinist position. For example, even V. I. Lenin believed that the Hague Convention of 1907 "creates a selfish psychology in soldiers." As a result, approximately 15-20 thousand Red Army soldiers captured during the Soviet-Polish war of 1920 died in Polish camps, abandoned by the Council of People's Commissars to their fate. JV Stalin in 1925 called the work of the Hague Conference "an example of the unparalleled hypocrisy of bourgeois diplomacy."
It is interesting that in 1927 the plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks recognized: "The non-working elements that make up the majority of our army - the peasants, will not voluntarily fight for socialism." Therefore, the authorities were not interested in protecting the rights of their own prisoners of war. Their mass death in captivity by the enemy would reduce the likelihood of the formation of a Russian anti-Bolshevik army on the side of the enemy.
As a result, the Soviet Union, by decision of Stalin, refused to join the 1929 Geneva Convention "On the Treatment of Prisoners of War" and de jure refused to protect the rights of its citizens if they were captured by the enemy during hostilities. The recognition of the USSR in 1931 of the convention "On the improvement of the lot of the wounded and sick in active armies", as well as the well-known Soviet note of July 17, 1941 on joining the convention "On the Treatment of Prisoners of War" de facto, did not fundamentally change the situation.
Hitler considered that this state of affairs unties the hands of the National Socialists and authorizes arbitrariness in relation to Soviet prisoners of war. Their mass death would allow "to deprive Russia of its vitality." On March 30, 1941, speaking to his generals, the Fuhrer frankly stated: in the coming war, "a Red Army soldier will not be a comrade."
Taking advantage of the refusal of the USSR government to protect the rights of its citizens in captivity, the Nazis doomed them to methodical extinction from hunger and disease, to bullying and repression. Political workers and Jews taken prisoner were subject to destruction. True, at the end of 1941, the repressive policy of the Nazis in relation to political workers taken prisoner began to change.
In turn, in order No. 270 of August 16, 1941, I.V. Stalin, G.K. Zhukov and other members of the Headquarters proposed to destroy the soldiers and commanders of the Red Army captured by the enemy “by all means, both ground and air, and families of surrendered Red Army soldiers to be deprived of state benefits and assistance. On September 28, 1941, in special directive No. 4976 on the troops of the Leningrad Front, Zhukov demanded that the families of Soviet prisoners of war also be shot. Fortunately, probably, the real directive was not implemented and such terrible facts are not known to historians. But evidence of the bombing of prisoner-of-war camps by our own aircraft, especially in 1941, exists.
In 1941-1942, prisoners were kept in inhuman conditions, dying in the hundreds of thousands, primarily from starvation and typhus. In the winter of 1941-1942, about 2.2 million prisoners of war died. The tragedy of these people, betrayed by their government and fallen victim to Nazi policies, is not inferior in scale to the Holocaust.
Individual officers of the Wehrmacht (Admiral W. Canaris, Count G.D. von Moltke, Major Count K. von Stauffenberg and others) already in the autumn of 1941 protested against the nightmare that was happening, considering such a practice incompatible with the code of honor and traditions of the old German army. Some commandants, guided by personal Christian feelings, tried at their private level to somehow alleviate the suffering of the unfortunate. But such cases were still isolated.
By the way, mass mortality was also simply connected with the unpreparedness of the Wehrmacht to receive millions of prisoners of war in the first months of the war. No one expected that there would be so many of them, and there were no elementary conditions for their maintenance and reception.
It was an objective factor that influenced the fate of our prisoners. But evil will - the principled position of Stalin and the ideological attitudes of the Nazis - still played a more significant role here. Only in the autumn of 1942 did the situation begin to improve somewhat. In 1942, the Nazis became interested in the prisoners as a labor force, and in the spring of 1943, the development of the Vlasov movement began. In general, if the mortality rate among the prisoners of war of the armies of the Western Allies ranged from 0.3% to 1.6%, then among the Soviet military personnel, as I said, it was 60%.
Stalin was clearly not stupid. Why were we absolutely defenseless before Germany in the first months of the war? Catastrophe: our aviation was destroyed in one fell swoop, more than 3 million citizens were taken prisoner. Couldn't this have been foreseen? There were no anti-aircraft guns, air defense, a mobilization plan, border protection? And intelligence warned. Is the whole tragedy - from the "mad leader" who blindly trusted Hitler? The topic is worn out, and yet - how could this happen?
You have raised an issue around which there has been a fierce controversy for decades. Objectively, this is good, since the discussion contributes to the discovery of new knowledge. Unfortunately, the scope of our conversation forces me to confine myself to theses. Of course, this is just my vision of the situation as a researcher.
Firstly, we were not at all defenseless against Germany in June 1941 - rather, on the contrary, the forces and means allocated by Hitler to implement the Barbarossa plan turned out to be clearly insufficient. If the Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Red Army overestimated the possible forces of the enemy, then Abwehr, on the contrary, made a huge miscalculation in the assessment Soviet forces and funds concentrated by the beginning of the campaign in the western military districts.
So, for example, the Germans believed that in the West the forces of the Red Army by June 11 consisted of 7 tank divisions, while there were 44. In total, the forces of the Red Army were defined by the Germans as 215 divisions, while in reality there were 303. In August, during a visit to the headquarters of Army Group Center in Borisov, Hitler grimly declared: "If I had known that Stalin had so many tanks, I would never have attacked the Soviet Union."
On June 22, 1941, the balance of power between the enemy (including Germany's allies) and the troops of the Red Army in the West (five military districts) looked like this: in terms of settlement divisions - 166 and 190, in terms of personnel - 4.3 million and 3.3 million people, for guns and mortars - 42.6 thousand and 59.7 thousand units, for tanks and assault guns - 4.1 thousand and 15.6 thousand units, for aircraft - 4.8 thousand and 10 .7 thousand units. The enemy could allocate only 2.1 thousand flight crews to participate in hostilities, while the Red Army Air Force in the West had more than 7.2 thousand crews.
By quantity and quality soviet tanks outnumbered the enemy tanks. The Red Army had 51 divisions in the strategic reserve (including 16 tank and motorized), while the Wehrmacht and the allies had only 28 (including only 2 tank and motorized). How were we defenseless?
"Blind gullibility" or "madness" of Stalin is a myth of the Khrushchev era. Stalin was such a sophisticated politician, such a perfect "master of power" and political intrigue, that he did not trust anyone, including Hitler. Hitler, most likely, at the first stage of the Soviet-Nazi friendship trusted Stalin, but no later than the summer of 1940, he intuitively began to feel the danger posed by the Kremlin "partner".
And the results of Molotov's visit to Berlin in November 1940 turned this feeling into confidence. By the end of 1940, Germany was in such a position that no matter what move Hitler made, his situation worsened anyway. Therefore, "Barbarossa" is a step out of despair. I think that in fact Stalin knew on the eve of the war that the Red Army was stronger than the Wehrmacht in terms of forces and means. That's why he behaved so confidently and serenely. Perhaps Stalin even assumed that Hitler was afraid of him. Hitler was afraid.
But who could have imagined that the Fuhrer would decide to put an end to his fears about the intentions of the USSR in such a specific way? Don't forget also that Germany continued to wage a hopeless war against Great Britain. 40% of Luftwaffe forces were tied up in other theaters of operations. Put yourself in Stalin's place. Under the conditions described, could you believe that Hitler would also decide on such an adventure as an attack on the Soviet Union? Intelligence reported, right, but how much was involuntary disinformation in its reports? Hitler, having attacked the USSR, from the point of view of Stalin, made a move at that moment completely illogical and unpredictable.
The reasons for our "defencelessness" lie elsewhere - in the vices of the Stalinist social system, which was built on the site of the Russian state after the Bolsheviks physically exterminated the historical estates of traditional Russian society and unprecedented enslavement of the peasantry. In the atmosphere of general fear, lies and hypocrisy in which this system existed. Of course, the Wehrmacht had a certain superiority - in the deployment and concentration of troops in the main directions, in the initiative, in the quality of training soldiers, officer corps and generals.
Among the staff officers and generals of the Wehrmacht, many had important experience of the First World War and service in the Reichswehr, which in the 1920s was a highly professional army. And how many, for example, commanders of Soviet divisions served in the old Russian army? Did you have a Russian military academic education and upbringing, a level of outlook and culture? Let's be honest: whom did our commanders fear more - a potential enemy or party-political bodies and NKVD bodies? By June 22, 1941, the average fighter of the Red Army was a collective farmer ...
And who could be brought up by the impoverished Stalinist collective farm with its hopeless forced labor? Today we can’t even imagine the realities of a “happy collective farm life” in the pre-war USSR, when one workday was paid on average at the rate of one ruble, and with inhuman exertion of forces, a collective farmer rarely worked out about two workdays per day. Moreover, the annual tax for a hut was 20 rubles, compulsory insurance (against fire, etc.) - 10 rubles, for 0.5 hectares of household plots - 100 rubles, for a cow - 5 kg of meat or 30 rubles, as well as 100 liters of milk or 15 rubles; for a piglet - 1 kg of meat or 5 rubles, compulsory subscription to a "voluntary" loan - 25-50 rubles. etc. Then such a collective farmer went to serve in the army ...
Secondly, our aviation was by no means "destroyed in one fell swoop", this is another myth. For every pair of German fighters (mostly new Bf-109s), there were almost two new (MiG-3, Yak-1) and six old (I-16, I-153) fighters of Soviet models. Only 66 out of 470 airfields were hit. Only 800 aircraft were damaged or destroyed on the ground, another 322 were shot down by the Germans in air battles, losing 114 aircraft. But what did happen to our aviation in the first weeks of the war, or rather, to its crews? This topic is still waiting for its researchers. Regarding air defense systems, I note that the enemy also allocated only 17% of air defense forces to participate in the war against the USSR.
In the summer - autumn of 1941, the Red Army suffered a crushing defeat, losing in less than five months about 18 thousand aircraft, 25 thousand tanks, more than 100 thousand guns and mortars. 2.2 million fighters and commanders were killed and died, 1.2 million deserted, remaining in the occupied territory, 3.8 million were captured. The Wehrmacht defeated 248 Soviet divisions, including 61 tank divisions, the enemy captured Kyiv, blockaded Leningrad and went to Moscow.
I believe that the main reasons for this catastrophe lie not only in the temporary retention of the initiative by the Germans, operational superiority or higher professionalism of the Wehrmacht, but also in the unwillingness of a significant part of the fighters and commanders of the Red Army to defend collective farms and power based on fear and forced labor.
At the same time, the vast expanses, mobilization capabilities and human resources of the Soviet Union, as well as the help of the allies, played an important objective role in holding the front. After the outbreak of war in 1941, more than 500 (!) formations were reorganized or re-formed in the Red Army, and the Wehrmacht traveled a long distance from Brest to Rostov in an unchanged state, having exhausted its capabilities by December.
Bogomolov writes that 37 thousand Russians fought in the ROA of General Vlasov, Wikipedia says that about 120 thousand people, and you said that more than a million citizens of the USSR were on the side of the enemy. Why such a discrepancy?
In fact, there is no discrepancy. Unfortunately, Bogomolov is simply incompetent in this matter. He mechanically summarized the strength of some units and formations of the Vlasov army - the troops of the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia (KONR), which were formed from the autumn of 1944 to the spring of 1945. Indeed, most often they use the abbreviation ROA to designate them. However, this is wrong. The name "Russian Liberation Army" in 1943-1945, the Germans designated the Russian eastern battalions and some other formations in the Wehrmacht, staffed by Russians.
Not all of them were transferred to the KONR troops in 1944-1945. In addition, the abbreviation "ROA" was actively used in special propaganda. Adding up the number of the 1st and 2nd divisions, the reserve brigade and the officer school of the Vlasovites, Bogomolov received a figure of 37 thousand people. But this is less than a third of the total number of military personnel who were under the command of Lieutenant General A. A. Vlasov by April 21-22, 1945.
In the end, General Vlasov was subordinated to the central headquarters and service units, the 1st and 2nd infantry divisions, the 3rd division (in the recruitment stage, without weapons), a reserve brigade, an officer school, a separate Varyag regiment, separate brigade in the Salzburg area (in the recruitment stage), the white émigré Russian Corps, two Cossack corps, units and subunits of the KONR Air Force, as well as some other formations - a total of 120-125 thousand military personnel, of which about 16 thousand had no weapons.
So the Wikipedia figure you mention is generally correct. The problem is that by the end of the war, the unification and reorganization of the Vlasov army according to the plan of the former teacher of the Academy of the General Staff of the Red Army, Major General F. I. Trukhin, did not happen. There wasn't enough time. The Vlasovites were forced to surrender to the Western allies in parts.
Indeed, approximately 1.24 million citizens of the Soviet Union carried out military service on the side of the enemy in 1941-1945: 400 thousand Russians (including 80 thousand in Cossack formations), 250 thousand Ukrainians, 180 thousand representatives of the peoples Central Asia, 90 thousand Latvians, 70 thousand Estonians, 40 thousand representatives of the peoples of the Volga region, 38.5 thousand Azerbaijanis, 37 thousand Lithuanians, 28 thousand representatives of the peoples North Caucasus, 20 thousand Belarusians, 20 thousand Georgians, 20 thousand Crimean Tatars, 20 thousand Soviet Germans and Volksdeutsche, 18 thousand Armenians, 5 thousand Kalmyks, 4.5 thousand Ingrians.
The latter mainly served on the side of the Finns. I do not have exact data on the number of Moldovans. In the ranks of the Vlasov army - the troops of the KONR - in 1944-1945, not only Russians, but also representatives of all other peoples, including Jews and Karaites, served. However, the Vlasovites made up only 10% of the total number of citizens of the USSR who served on the side of Germany and its allies. There is no reason to call them all "Vlasovites", as was done in the USSR.
Was there a similar example of such massive collaborationism in the history of Russia? What motivated people to betray (and can the transition to the side of the aggressor always be called betrayal)?
There is a widespread point of view, according to which the number of Soviet citizens who served in the military on the side of the enemy is not so significant relative to the population of the USSR as a whole. This is the wrong approach.
Firstly, an incomparably smaller part of the Soviet population, especially in the RSFSR, found itself under occupation in 1941-1942. It is still unknown how many "voluntary assistants" the Wehrmacht would have if the Germans, for example, reached the Tambov region.
Secondly, the recruitment of volunteers from prisoners of war began only in the spring of 1942, when more than half of those who were captured in 1941 had already died during the first military winter. No matter how one regards this tragic phenomenon and the motives of the actions of these people, it remains a fact that the citizens of the USSR, who were in the military service of the enemy, made up for his irretrievable losses on the Eastern Front by 35-40% or more than a quarter - irretrievable losses incurred in the years war in general. Citizens of the USSR accounted for approximately 6-8% of the total human resources used by Germany in military service.
Approximately every 16th or 17th enemy soldier had Soviet citizenship by June 22, 1941. Not all of them fought. But they replaced the German servicemen, who were sent, for example, from service positions to the ranks. Therefore, it is difficult to challenge the thesis of the German military historian K. G. Pfeffer, who called the help and participation of the Soviet population important conditions, which determined for the Wehrmacht the opportunity to conduct military operations on the Eastern Front for a long time.
There was nothing like this in any war waged by the Russian Empire. There was no other. Cases of high treason by Russian officers during the First Patriotic War 1812 are rare and practically unknown during the Eastern War of 1853-1856, Russian-Turkish 1877-1878 and Russian-Japanese 1904-1905.
Of the 14 thousand officer and civilian ranks of the Russian Imperial Army captured by the enemy in 1914-1917, with the rarest exception, almost all of them remained faithful to the oath, not to mention the fact that none of them tried to create a combined arms army to participate in hostilities on side of Germany or Austria-Hungary. The enemy officers in Russian captivity behaved in the same way.
During the Second World War, the facts of high treason became noticeable only among Wehrmacht officers in Soviet captivity and representatives of the commanding staff of the Red Army in German captivity. 300-400 Wehrmacht officers took part in the activities of the anti-Nazi Union of German Officers General of Artillery V. A. von Seidlitz-Kurzbach in Soviet captivity. In the Vlasov movement in 1943-1945, by name, more than 1000 representatives of the commanding and political staff of the Red Army participated.
Only at Vlasov in the spring of 1945 served 5 major generals, 1 brigade commander, 1 brigade commissar, 42 colonels and lieutenant colonels of the Red Army, 1 captain of the first rank of the Navy, more than 40 majors of the Red Army, etc. On such a scale, nothing like this was noted among prisoners of war officers, for example, Poland, Yugoslavia, Great Britain or the USA.
It seems to me that, regardless of motivation, the causes of mass treason are always associated with the characteristics of the state to which a citizen is cheating, if you like, a consequence of state ill health. Hitler doomed entire nations to destruction, plunged Germany into a hopeless war, put the German people on the brink of existence. Could the Fuhrer count on the unconditional loyalty of his officers and generals? The Bolsheviks exterminated entire estates in Russia, destroyed the Church and the old moral and religious basis of the military oath, introduced a new serfdom and forced labor throughout the country, unleashed mass repressions and, moreover, abandoned their own citizens who were captured. Could Stalin count on the unconditional loyalty of his fighters and commanders?...
So treason - both to Hitler and Stalin - was a natural and inevitable result of their practical policy. Another thing is that in modern Russia and Germany there is not, and there will hardly be a unanimous attitude towards those who committed this betrayal. It is interesting, for example, that in 1956 General Seidlitz was officially rehabilitated in Germany. The federal court overturned the Nazi death sentence against Seidlitz in 1944, reasoning that the general had committed treason "primarily out of his hostility to National Socialism."
In Berlin there is Stauffenbergstrasse - in honor of one of the leaders of the anti-Hitler conspiracy. Many, but still far from all, Germans agree with this. Probably even more, they believe that it is impossible to compare the actions of General Seidlitz and Colonel K. F. von Stauffenberg. It is clear that talking about General Vlasov and his like-minded people in Russia is even more difficult. This topic is probably the most painful.
The generally accepted point of view: General Vlasov is a traitor, not an ideological fighter against Bolshevism and Stalin's tyranny.
It is true that such an assessment objectively dominates contemporary Russian society. And, nevertheless, it seems to me that over the past twenty years the number of those who, under the influence of new knowledge about the history of their own country in the first half of the twentieth century, has changed their attitude towards Vlasov, or at least agree that this the topic is more complex than it seemed to us in the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, the study of this topic is not facilitated by the incredible number of myths about Vlasov, which have become widespread in just the last few years, thanks to the work of some ignorant publicists and lovers of cheap sensations.
There are two arguments in favor of this. First, he was in the Bolshevik Party for many years and made a brilliant career in our army. And only after being captured did he become “an ideological fighter against the Stalinist system” (unlike some white emigrants who also supported Hitler: they did not like the Nazis, but they hated the Bolsheviks even more, so they were sincerely mistaken).
Party membership and Vlasov's career is only the external, visible side of his life in the Soviet Union, however, like many other of our compatriots. What Vlasov really thought, honestly serving the authorities that dispossessed his fellow villagers, no one knows. You look how many millions of members of the CPSU, employees of state security agencies, military of all ranks and branches of service we had. And how many of them came out to defend Soviet power and the Soviet Union in 1991 and were ready to die for the words they uttered at party meetings? ... So party membership and a career are far from an indicator of personal devotion to the Soviet state.
I would like to draw your attention to another aspect of the problem. You say - only after being captured did he become "an ideological fighter against the Stalinist system." That's right: only after being captured. Obviously, the system of general denunciation, fear, suppression, which Stalin so skillfully and methodically built in the USSR in the 1930s for a reason, ruled out the possibility of not only protest actions, but often even opposition plans. The future commander of the 2nd Vlasov division, Colonel of the Red Army G. A. Zverev, had a personal adjutant on the eve of the war who was the sex officer of the NKVD. What kind of struggle is there ... they were afraid of each other.
By the way, in Nazi Germany, in the Wehrmacht, Hitler failed to create such an atmosphere. As a result, he received half a dozen assassination attempts in 1943-1944. So. We completely forget that nothing threatened Vlasov in July 1942 in German captivity. No one forced him to cooperate, no one forced him to speak out against Stalin under the threat of execution or a concentration camp. The Nazis generally did not need Vlasov, they were not interested in the appearance of such a figure.
Vlasov, as a political figure, was only interested in the opponents of Hitler and his occupation policy, and this was a very narrow circle of people. Therefore, Vlasov, having become "an ideological fighter against the Stalinist system," as you said, made his decision completely freely. Unlike some other captured Soviet generals, the NKVD did not have any compromising evidence on Vlasov. At the end of June - July 1942, Stalin was very concerned about the fate of Vlasov and demanded that he be taken out of the encirclement on the Volkhov, rescued at any cost, the corresponding radiograms were preserved.
In 1941-1944, 82 generals and commanders of the Red Army, whose ranks can be equated to those, were captured on the Eastern Front (including two generals and a corps commissar who died directly on the battlefield and were not captured). Of these, 25 people (30%) died and died, and if we exclude the three above-mentioned persons, then 22 people (27%). Interestingly, out of 167 Wehrmacht generals and persons equated to them who fell into Soviet captivity from June 22, 1941 to May 8, 1945, 60 people (36%) died.
62 Soviet generals and commanders in equivalent ranks refused any cooperation with the enemy. As a result, 10 of them (16%) died from wounds, illnesses and hardships, 12 (19%) were killed under various circumstances (including 8 generals, the Germans shot for "active patriotic activity" - attempts to escape or for pro-Soviet agitation) , and the majority (40 people, or 65%, almost two-thirds) returned to the Soviet Union.
Of the generals who returned to their homeland, who remained loyal to the Soviet state in captivity, 9 people (less than a quarter) died as a result of repressions - those on whom the leaders of the SMERSH GUKR had indisputable compromising evidence, despite their passive behavior. The rest waited for rehabilitation and pension provision.
Vlasov could well have been among them - he just had to stay in the camp and behave quite passively, without committing any drastic actions. But Vlasov, of his own free will, made a choice that dramatically increased his life risks. And this choice eventually forced him to sacrifice not only his life, but also his name. In Russian history, there were enough individuals who voluntarily sacrificed their lives in the name of a specific goal. But those who also sacrificed their own name are incomparably fewer.
By the way, very few people know that Generals Vlasov, Trukhin, Malyshkin and their other associates were convicted not by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR, but by a preliminary decision of the Stalinist Politburo, the highest party body that adopted many repressive decisions in the 1920s-1940s.
All members of the Military Collegium, chaired by the infamous Colonel-General V. V. Ulrich, were members of the CPSU (b) and on the night of August 1, 1946, they simply announced the verdict of the Politburo. Let me remind you that a number of responsible employees of the MGB who conducted the “investigation” in the “Vlasov case” were shot in the 1950s (Leonov, Komarov) or dismissed from the bodies (Kovalenko, Sokolov) for “gross violations of socialist legality” and the use torture on those under investigation.
The second argument, the main one: Vlasov's struggle set a utopian goal - free and strong Russia without Stalin and his clique.
Now, after 65 years, it is obvious that the Vlasovites had almost no chance of success. I think a lot of people understood this. One of them, co-author of the Prague Manifesto, Lieutenant A. N. Zaitsev wrote in 1943 to his future wife: “30% for Hitler hanging us, 30% for Stalin hanging us, 30% for shoot the allies. And only 10% - the possibility of success. But still, you have to take the risk." Personally, it seems to me that the very attempt to challenge Stalin, whether it succeeded or not, was of undoubted importance.
About 130 thousand of our compatriots, who can be considered participants in the Vlasov movement, connected their fate with this attempt. And their attempt, whether it was utopian or not, and their fate became a tragedy. But she showed that Stalin could not suppress the will to resist. Even if this resistance originated behind the barbed wire of German prisoner of war camps. However, I agree that this view is shared by a minority today. But it has the right to exist - especially against the backdrop of unsuccessful attempts to turn Stalin into a national hero.
At the same time, Vlasov and his army marched along with the Nazis, who did not at all plan to make Russia strong and free.
Formally, you are right, of course. But there are important nuances and shades that cannot be ignored.
The action of Vlasov in the fall of 1942 and the Vlasov movement in the winter - in the spring of 1943 were supported and tried to popularize not by the Nazis (it would be more correct to say that the Nazis were only in Italy), but by their opponents in the opposition circles of the Wehrmacht. In February - March 1943, Major General H. von Treskov organized the arrival of Vlasov in the rear area of Army Group Center, hoping that after the assassination of Hitler, which was to take place on March 13, Vlasov would become the head of the Russian government in Smolensk and character war will change immediately.
The bomb's detonator is known to have failed. Hitler survived, and Vlasov, on his orders, went under house arrest in June 1943 for his own public patriotic statements in the occupied territories. At the very end of the war, when Vlasov and his associates really had their own army (or its prototype), their goal was only to form as many units as possible in a short time, attract and arm as many as possible compatriots, subjugate all the Eastern volunteers ... and transfer these people to the side of the Western allies in order to save the opponents of Soviet power and the enemies of Stalin. And there were still enough of them in 1945. Violent renditions, of course, no one could have foreseen.
They write that the soldiers of the ROA took the oath to Hitler.
The soldiers of the eastern units in the Wehrmacht in 1942-1944 took the usual German oath, which meant loyalty to the Fuhrer. It's true. But before that, let me remind you, the vast majority of Eastern volunteers took the Soviet oath. I think that at the same time they were as loyal to Hitler as they were to Stalin before.
The servicemen of the Vlasov army, the troops of the KONR, in 1944-1945 did not take an oath of loyalty to Hitler. It was only about KONR and Vlasov. But in the text, at the request of representatives of the Main Directorate of the SS, a clause was introduced about loyalty to the alliance with those peoples of Europe who are fighting under the supreme leadership of Hitler. As soon as Hitler committed suicide, this paragraph automatically lost its meaning.
And, by the way, a few days later, the 1st division of the KONR troops under the command of Major General S.K. Bunyachenko intervened in the Prague uprising. Vlasov did not take an oath to Hitler, there are no documents about this. It is curious that in the 1950s and 1960s in Germany, A. Kh. Billenberg, with whom Vlasov married in April 1945, tried to achieve a general's pension, as the widow of a general. However, the federal authorities refused to do so. The relevant authorities explained that the Russian General Vlasov was not in the German military service and his widow had no pension rights. For the same reasons, as a rule, in the FRG, pensions were also denied to servicemen of the Vlasov army, whose status was considered as an allied one.
The Nazis used Vlasov as a tool to form a fifth column inside the enemy country ...
Sorry, I can't agree with you. The “fifth column” in the Soviet state was stubbornly and consistently created not by Vlasov and the Nazis, but by Lenin, Stalin and the Bolsheviks for twenty prewar years. Moreover, they created quite stubbornly and successfully. Without their efforts, there was neither Vlasov, at least in the form in which he went down in history, nor the Vlasov movement, nor the Prague Manifesto, nor the KONR troops. Vlasov became only a symbol, a leader for these people. And if he had died in 1942 on the Volkhov, some other general would have been found - but this movement would have taken place anyway. Only it would probably be associated with a different name.
- ... and if they had won - Russia would not have been reborn (Hitler would not have allowed this), but would have turned out to be a fragmented colony, a source of resources for the Reich. Do you disagree with these arguments?
You know, back in August 1942, Vlasov frankly stated during interrogations that Germany would not be able to defeat the Soviet Union - and this was at the moment when the Wehrmacht was approaching the Volga. Today, we can say that Hitler had no chance at all to win the Second World War, the resources of Germany and its opponents turned out to be too incomparable.
Vlasov did not at all connect his plans with Hitler's victory in the East - just in this case, Hitler would not need him. At first, he sincerely hoped that he would be able to create a sufficiently strong and independent Russian army in the rear of the Germans. Then hopes were associated with the activity of the conspirators and plans for a radical change in the occupation policy, as a result of which such a Russian army was about to appear. Since the summer of 1943, Vlasov had pinned his hopes on the Western allies. With any outcome, as it seemed to Vlasov, options were possible - the main thing was to get their own significant armed force. But, as history has shown, there were no options.
As for Vlasov's personal sentiments and his assessments of the prospects for turning Russia into a colony of the Reich, I will quote a German document that I found a few years ago in an American archive. This is a departmental report from a representative of Rosenberg's special headquarters in the rear area of Army Group Center dated March 14, 1943.
The day before, Vlasov was in Mogilev. Frankly developing his views in a narrow circle of German listeners, Vlasov emphasized that among Stalin's opponents there are many people "with a strong character, ready to give their lives for the liberation of Russia from Bolshevism, but rejecting German bondage." However, "they are ready to cooperate closely with the German people, without prejudice to their freedom and honor." “The Russian people lived, lives and will live, they will never become a colonial people,” the former captive general firmly stated. In conclusion, according to a German source, Vlasov expressed hope "for a healthy renewal of Russia and for an explosion of the national pride of the Russian people."
I have nothing to add to this confidential report on Vlasov's moods.
What is the real contribution of our allies to the defeat of Germany?
From the loss figures cited at the beginning of our conversation, it follows that more than two-thirds of the irretrievable losses in manpower were inflicted on the common enemy by the Soviet Armed Forces, defeating and capturing 607 enemy divisions. This characterizes the main contribution of the USSR to the victory over Nazi Germany.
The Western allies made a decisive contribution to the military-industrial superiority of the anti-Hitler coalition in the economy and mobilized resources, to the victory over the common enemy at sea and in the air, and in general they destroyed about a third of manpower, defeating and capturing 176 enemy divisions.
Therefore, in my private opinion, the victory of the anti-Hitler coalition became really common. The proud attempt to isolate the "Soviet" or "American" contribution from it, declaring it "decisive" or "predominant", is of a political nature and has nothing to do with history. Dividing the efforts of the allies into "major" and "secondary" is wrong.
However, it seems to me that 65 years after such a terrible war, when its extremely ruthless nature, which violated all the norms of Christian morality, is no longer in doubt, triumphalism should give way to compassion and grief for the millions of victims. Why did all this happen? ... State policy should be primarily aimed at perpetuating the memory of the dead, and providing real and tangible assistance to the very few survivors of its participants and contemporaries.
We love military parades so much, we spend multimillion-dollar funds on them, but how many soldiers' bones do we still have scattered through the forests and swamps?
We have been trumpeting our victory for 65 years, but how did the defeated live during these decades, and how did the winners live?
For our country and people, the war was a national disaster comparable only to collectivization and the artificial famine of 1932-1933. And we, as proof of our national greatness, are all talking about how many millions we have lost ... That's how wonderful we are, we did not stand up for the price. In fact, here it is not to be proud and rejoice, but to cry and pray. And if you rejoice, then only the fact that at least someone, thank God, returned home to the family alive. And, finally, it is necessary to present the historical account of the Stalinist authorities, which paid such a monstrous price not only for coming to Berlin, but also for their self-preservation.
However, these are already emotions from which the historian should refrain.
Many believe that we could have managed without them, and that they began to help us more out of fear that Stalin, having won, would not make all of Europe socialist.
Let's remember this first. Between the autumn of 1939 and the spring of 1941, Germany successfully fought in Europe. In 1940, 59% of all German imports and 49% of exports passed through the territory of the USSR, and before June 22, 1941, 72% and 64%, respectively. Thus, at the first stage of the war in Europe, the Reich successfully overcame the economic blockade with the help of the Soviet Union. Did such a position of the USSR contribute to Nazi aggression in Europe or hinder it? In 1940, Germany accounted for 52% of all Soviet exports, including 50% of exports of phosphates, 77% of asbestos, 62% of chromium, 40% of manganese, 75% of oil, 77% of grains. After the defeat of France, Great Britain courageously resisted the Nazis almost single-handedly for a whole year.
In this difficult year, when the Luftwaffe bombed British cities, who was objectively helped by the Soviet Union?
And who did the Allies help after June 22, 1941?
During the years of the war with Germany, under the famous lend-lease, the USSR received supplies from the allies for a total of 11 billion dollars (at their cost in 1945). The Allies supplied the USSR with 22,150 aircraft, 12.7 thousand tanks, 8 thousand anti-aircraft guns, 132 thousand machine guns, 427 thousand vehicles, 8 thousand tractors, 472 million shells, 11 thousand wagons, 1.9 thousand vehicles. steam locomotives and 66 diesel-electric locomotives, 540 thousand tons of rails, 4.5 million tons of food, etc. It is impossible to name the entire range of supplies here.
The main deliveries of tanks and aircraft from the allies fall on the period from the end of 1941 to 1943 - that is, during the most difficult period of the war. Western deliveries of strategic materials amounted to Soviet production for the entire war period: for gunpowder and explosives - 53%, for aviation gasoline - more than 55%, for copper and aluminum - more than 70%, for armor plates - 46%. During the war years, the USSR produced 115.4 thousand metal-cutting machine tools. The Allies delivered another 44.6 thousand - and more high-quality and expensive. The Allies diverted almost the entire fleet of the enemy, almost two-thirds of the Luftwaffe, and after landing in Europe, about 40% of the enemy's ground forces.
So would we have managed without the help and participation of the allies?
I don't think so.
Was it military necessity that the Americans dropped atomic bombs on Japan? Many of us believe that there was not so much concern for victory over the enemy as a demonstration of strength and an attempt to put pressure on the USSR. How do you assess that bombing - a crime or an expedient military action?
Let me remind you that the United States turned out to be the side attacked by Japan. Formally, they had the right to defend themselves in any way they could. Of course, from a humanitarian and Christian point of view, the use of atomic weapons, the victims of which were primarily the civilian population, makes a terrible impression. As well as the unmotivated famous Allied bombing of Dresden.
But, I confess, it is no more terrible than, for example, medical experiments on civilians, which were carried out in the Japanese special detachment No. 731 in Manchuria. The purpose of these experiments was to develop means by which it would be possible to carry out a bacteriological attack on the American coast, for example, in California. He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind.
Undoubtedly, the atomic bombings in the first place were to force Emperor Hirohito to lay down his arms. It is likely that the Allied invasion of Japanese islands would take even more human lives. In Europe, in the summer of 1945, the Allies had sufficient forces to show Stalin their advantage and capabilities by demonstrating their numerous bomber aircraft. It is most difficult to answer your last question, since it is necessary to proceed not from the experience and knowledge we have acquired throughout the post-war period, but from the realities of August 1945.
And it's hard to get away.
And what would happen if in the summer of 1945 such a bomb would not have been in the hands of the Americans, but only at the disposal of the leadership of the USSR? What is the most likely scenario for the behavior of Stalin and his entourage?
This is not a question for a historian. Still, I think that Stalin in any of his political steps throughout his career in the Bolshevik Party could only be stopped by questions of expediency or the threat of, let's say, an asymmetric response.
Marshal Zhukov - a brilliant commander or a man who "did not count people", that is, he won battles not by skill, but by numbers?
The ideas that I have about Marshal G.K. Zhukov and his operations allow me to agree with the last judgment. Of course, I am familiar with both the opposite point of view and the arguments of opponents, A. V. Isaev, for example.
But to be honest, they don't convince me.
We know from Russian history that sovereigns often interfered with generals. Did Stalin interfere with the military? Or was he smart enough to agree with the professionals at the right time?
Not so often. In the Moscow period, it seems to me, Ivan IV intervened most of all, but the tsars Mikhail Fedorovich and Alexei Mikhailovich behaved quite restrained in this regard. In the Petersburg period, Peter I himself considered himself a commander. Catherine II and Paul I completely trusted the professionals in the theaters of operations, although the monarchs had difficult relations with some of them.
Alexander I did not interfere so much himself as he was sometimes inclined to fall under the influence of others and defend someone else's point of view as his own. Nicholas I and Alexander II trusted professionals. Nicholas II, contrary to popular belief, having become in 1915 at the head of the Army in the field, entrusted the control of the troops to General Alekseev, who was then the best representative of the Russian Military Academy. The sovereign carefully delved into all issues, but appreciated the experience and knowledge of Alekseev, agreeing with his point of view.
Stalin was a talented self-taught. It is undeniable that he was very teachable and constantly updated his military knowledge, striving to understand complex issues. But, having brought Lenin's political plan to its logical end, Stalin created a mobilization system that existed only through violence and constant human sacrifice. There was no place for professionalism and free creativity, by definition.
Unlike Nazi Germany, in the USSR the military became part of the party nomenklatura, the collective will of which was expressed by Stalin. And relations within the nomenklatura were built on the basis of fear and personal devotion to the leader. It seems to me that Stalin did not interfere with the military, as they served him and the system he created. The executions of certain generals, practiced from time to time, were only a good educational measure: no one could feel safe, even if he seemed to enjoy the trust of the Master.
How can one assess the role of Stalin in the Second World War in general? I would like to get away from extremes, from politicized judgments. It is clear that for many people the Soviet period of history is sacred, their life, memory, ideals, and to overturn, stigmatize all this means to cross out, devalue the meaning of their life ...
From the moment he was elected General Secretary of the Central Committee in 1922, Stalin was preparing for a big war, the victory in which was supposed to elevate the nomenklatura of the Bolshevik Party to unprecedented heights. For the sake of maintaining the power of the nomenclature of the CPSU (b), he sacrificed millions of peasants during the years of collectivization and then turned the country into one large workshop for the production of military products.
For the sake of consolidating the regime and concealing the consequences of collectivization, he unleashed the Yezhovshchina. In order to enter the war at the most advantageous moment for the Soviet Union, Stalin, to the amazement of the whole world, approached Hitler and gave him freedom of action in Europe in 1939-1940.
In the end, the system that Stalin created allowed him to again make incredible sacrifices during the war years, to preserve the Leninist state and the power of that “new class”, the party bureaucracy, whose collective will he personified. The war allowed Stalin to spread similar one-party regimes far beyond the borders of the USSR - otherwise the socialist experiment would have ended ingloriously decades earlier. It was Stalin who made lies and self-deception at all levels the most important basis for the existence of Soviet society.
The Soviet Union collapsed precisely because of the lie, which was no longer believed by those who uttered it, nor those for whom it was intended. As a result, holy ideals Soviet period, which you spoke about, turned out to be similar to those pagan idols, which the people of Kiev easily threw into the Dnieper, having adopted Christianity in 988. Nobody defended them.
But are we able to return to Christ again? Or are we increasingly drawn to Stalin?
I don't have an answer to this question.
Why is the Russian Defense Ministry still hiding so many documents on the history of the Second World War? Embarrassed to open? Will some things come up that can become a stain on the descendants of many famous people then?
No, I believe that in fact the problem is more serious and is not related to concern for the state and possible experiences of the descendants of individual famous generals and marshals. I believe that if unhindered access to all TsAMO documents is opened, including those that are stored outside the actual archive in Podolsk, the version of the war that Stalin created for us will turn out to be completely untenable. This applies to many sore topics and issues - for example, operational planning in the first half of 1941, the circumstances of Finland's entry into the war, losses in individual operations, the battle for Rzhev, the partisan movement, military operations in Eastern Europe etc.
But the main question will be - why did we pay such a terrible price for the victory and who is responsible for this? Although, of course, I think that many documents of the army political departments, for example, concerning the moral side of the war, will make a heavy impression. The truth will not contribute to the preservation of triumphalism in society.
There is a lot of talk in the West about the atrocities of our army in Germany.
Unfortunately, not without reason.
Individual atrocities, rapes and looting are probably inevitable in such a situation, but usually they are restrained by the most severe bans and executions.
I got the impression that it was a flow that could not be stopped by any repression. And lately I've been wondering - did they try to stop him?
We also had executions of rapists and marauders, but, they say, in East Prussia a “relaxation” was given, which became a temptation for many “morally unstable” fighters. Is it so? Can it be said that in our treatment of the civilian population in Europe (and especially in Germany) we differed unfavorably from the Allies?
“Petrov, as the postman was called, who seemed so nice to me at the beginning, at the end of the war revealed himself as a criminal, marauder and rapist. In Germany, as an old friend, he told me how many gold watches and bracelets he managed to rob, how many German women he ruined. It was from him that I heard the first of an endless series of stories on the topic “ours abroad”. This story at first seemed to me a monstrous fiction, outraged me and therefore forever stuck in my memory: “I come to the battery, and there the old firemen are preparing a feast. They cannot move away from the gun, they are not supposed to.
Right on the bed, they spin dumplings from trophy flour, and at the other bed, they take turns playing with a German woman who was dragged from somewhere. The foreman disperses them with a stick: “Stop, you old fools! Do you want to bring the infection to your grandchildren!?” He takes the German woman away, leaves, and in twenty minutes everything starts again. Another story of Petrov about himself: “I am walking past a crowd of Germans, looking after a prettier woman and suddenly I look, there is a Frau with a daughter of fourteen years old. Pretty, and on her chest, like a sign, it says: “Syphilis”, which means for us not to be touched. Oh, you bastards, I think, I take the girl by the hand, my mother with a machine gun in the snout, and into the bushes. Let's check what kind of syphilis you have! The girl turned out to be appetizing...”
Troops meanwhile crossed the German border. Now the war turned to me with another of its unexpected faces. Everything seemed to be tested: death, hunger, shelling, overwork, cold. So no! There was something else very terrible, almost crushing me. On the eve of the transition to the territory of the Reich, agitators arrived in the troops. Some are in high ranks. "Death for death!!! Blood for blood!!! Let's not forget!!! We won't forgive!!! Let's take revenge!!!” and so on... Prior to this, Ehrenburg had thoroughly tried, whose crackling, biting articles everyone read: "Daddy, kill the German!" And it turned out Nazism on the contrary.
True, they behaved outrageously according to plan: a network of ghettos, a network of camps. Accounting and compilation of lists of loot. A register of punishments, planned executions, etc. With us, everything went spontaneously, in the Slavic way. Bay, guys, burn, wilderness! Spoil their women! Moreover, before the offensive, the troops were abundantly supplied with vodka. And it's gone, and it's gone! As always, the innocent suffered. The bosses, as always, fled ... Indiscriminately burned houses, killed some random old women, aimlessly shot herds of cows. A joke invented by someone was very popular: “Ivan is sitting near a burning house. "What are you doing?" they ask him. - “Yes, the footcloths had to be dried, the fire was lit” ...
Corpses, corpses, corpses. The Germans, of course, are scum, but why be like them? The army has humiliated itself. The nation has humiliated itself. It was the worst thing in the war. Corpses, corpses... Several echelons with German refugees arrived at the railway station in the city of Allenstein, which the valiant cavalry of General Oslikovsky captured unexpectedly for the enemy. They thought they were going to their rear, but they got there ... I saw the results of the reception that they received. The station platforms were covered with heaps of gutted suitcases, bundles, trunks. Everywhere clothes, children's things, ripped pillows. All this in pools of blood...
“Everyone has the right to send a parcel home once a month weighing twelve kilograms,” the authorities officially announced. And it's gone, and it's gone! Drunk Ivan burst into the bomb shelter, fucked the machine on the table and terribly popped his eyes, yelled: “URRRRRRA! You bastards!”
Trembling German women carried watches from all sides, which they raked into the “sidor” and carried away. One soldier became famous for forcing a German woman to hold a candle (there was no electricity), while he was rummaging through her chests. Rob! Grab it! Like an epidemic, this scourge swept over everyone ... Then they came to their senses, but it was too late: the devil flew out of the bottle. Kind, affectionate Russian men have turned into monsters. They were terrible alone, but in the herd they became such that it is impossible to describe!
I think comments are unnecessary.
Two mythological views of Stalin remain in the mass consciousness: either he is the source of all victories (cult), or " Serial killer» (demonization). Is an objective, impartial view possible today?
It all depends on the criteria you use and the value system. For example, some consider the state to be the highest value, whose greatness and interests of the state apparatus prevail over the interests of society and individuals. A citizen is a necessary consumable. And if Stalin littered his own people, it was solely for the sake of his good and the ultimate victorious goal.
Others consider each person to be God's Creation, inimitable and unique. From this point of view, the essence of elementary politics is to create such conditions in which the well-being of citizens would increase, their lives, security and property would be protected. The main criterion for waging war is the desire to minimize casualties among our own population and servicemen. Healthy selfishness.
It is clear that with such differences in values, it is impossible to agree on Stalin's diametrically opposed assessments.
How do you feel about the fact that many in today's Russia consider him an "effective manager"? At the same time, starting from some facts: industrialization, great construction projects, the military industry, victory in the Second World War, rapid recovery after the war, the atomic bomb, etc. And yes, the prices have come down...
I am negative. Lenin, and even more Stalin, so devastated the country that, as a result, by the end of the Soviet period, we could not make up for the demographic losses incurred, which amounted to approximately 52-53 million people in 1917-1953 (together with the military, of course). All Stalin's achievements are ephemeral - in a civilized Russian state, much more could have been achieved, and with an increase, not a decrease in the population.
So, for example, industrialization was successfully carried out from the last third of the 19th century, and by 1913 Russia occupied a stable 5-6th place in the world in terms of industrial production, and in terms of economic growth- one of the first and was part of a group of such developing countries at that time as the USA, Japan and Sweden. At the same time, 100 years ago, successful industrialization and the formation of private peasant ownership of land were not accompanied by mass repressions, the creation of a system of forced labor and the death of millions of peasants.
As of January 1, 1911, 174,733 people were held in places of detention in Russia (including only 1,331 political ones) - this was 0.1% of the country's population. As of January 1, 1939, 3 million people (including 1.6 million political people) were in camps and special settlements in the USSR - this was 1.6% of the country's population. The total difference is 16 times (and according to the political ones - the difference is more than 1200 times!).
Without the Bolsheviks, Lenin and Stalin, Russia would have become one of the most densely populated and highly developed countries, and its level of well-being would hardly be inferior to at least modern Finland, which 100 years ago was part of the Russian Empire. The highly skilled engineering elite and the industrial class that the country lost after the October Revolution of 1917 would successfully complete industrialization.
I believe that there would have been no union of the historical Russian state with Hitler, and, accordingly, the conditions that allowed him to successfully wage war in Europe against the Western allies in 1939-1940. But the main thing is that the Church and Russian culture would have been preserved, such a spiritual devastation of the nation would not have taken place as a result of decades of constant lies, cynicism, self-deception and poverty.
"Prices were reduced", but at the same time the collective farm village was degraded. And as a result of Stalin's depeasantization of Russia, we have long been dependent on food imports.
Are there generally accepted objective criteria by which one can judge the effectiveness of a particular state leader?
Take a look at neighboring Finland, which does not have such natural resources, such fertile land as Russia. In 1917 Finland became independent. In 1918 in the local civil war white won. During the Second World War, Finland twice fought off Stalin's claims. Accurately paid all reparations to the USSR. Does it make sense today to compare the standard of living of an average Finn and a resident Russian Federation? Or at least the cleanliness of the streets of Helsinki and St. Petersburg?
The well-being of society and citizens, their safety and security - these are the simplest criteria. Probably, the Finnish politicians followed them, therefore they managed to preserve the independence of the country, albeit at the cost of expensive territorial losses, and the national identity of their small people.
If we take the growth of political and military power, world influence, victories in wars and expansion of territory as criteria, then Stalin was a genius.
The price just turned out to be outrageous. And what is left of this for us 50 years after Stalin's death? No power, no influence, no territory...
As for Stalin's victories, their obvious result in recent decades is the population decline. And demographic forecasts for the next quarter of a century are not very optimistic. And where is Stalin and his politics abroad now popular? Only, perhaps.
This is who we have left from the Stalinist legacy.
If we take the growth of the birth rate, the decline in mortality, social policy, the development of culture, science, education, then under Stalin, everything was far from smooth.
Let's put it mildly.
If political and economic rights and freedoms, then Stalin is a villain. It turns out: there are no universal criteria, and everyone judges from their own bell tower? (And in general, not so long history - it seems to be not so much science as politics).
You see, history is still a descriptive science. Even if its subject is not so old events. The task of the historian is the reconstruction of events, the collection, systematization, study of facts, the restoration of the mosaic of the past from small, disparate fragments. And he must collect as many of them as possible. Naturally, the folded picture can be perceived and evaluated in different ways. And it really depends on the criteria.
But understanding the cause-and-effect relationships of interrelated events is an even more difficult and responsible task. And in order to resolve it, competition, competitiveness, and free discussion are needed. Therefore, I am very grateful to you for the opportunity to express my not very popular points of view on various issues of such importance. As I hope - not only for the past, but also for the future.
"Those who lie about the past war bring the future war closer."
"We won this war only because we filled the Germans with corpses." Viktor Astafiev.
It is no secret that in the USSR, and now in Russia, it is customary to glorify the Second World War and distort the facts about it. Few people know that 2,000,000 people died near Stalingrad. These are soldiers of the Soviet army, civilians and fascists with allies. At school, we were taught to think that it was such and such a turning point, a convenient location of troops, and so on. But in fact, they simply threw a lot of people to their deaths, just because behind them was a city called Stalingrad. They surrendered Kyiv, but they did not surrender another city so valuable for the Soviet ideology with the name of the leader - Leningrad, they simply allowed people to starve to death. Communist idols were above everything.
There are several videos in this post. They shed light on the true events of the war and pre-war times. In the first video, the Russian writer talks about how the Soviets treated their soldiers, in fact, they kept them like cattle.
You bastards are proud of such a "Victory"
Here the veteran tells in brutal detail about the rapes and murders of German women. Not so long ago, a film shot on this topic was not even close to the truth.
Veteran of the 2nd World War about how our soldiers raped German women. Bitter truth
A Russian war veteran tells how he was driving through Western Ukraine and how his documents were checked by "Bandera". We drove up, checked the documents of the Soviet soldier and left. It turns out there was.
Russian veteran about Bandera
Here, a resident of Lvov tells how she was tortured by the NKVD officers. They destroyed so many people in the USSR that their number can probably be compared with the population of a small country, several million. For all the years of repression, according to various historians, from 23 to 40 million people were destroyed. It is probably not surprising that the Galicians, who survived the famine and repression, did not fall in love with the Soviet regime.
Lvov 1939 The interrogations NKVD torture women
I liked the comment under one of the videos, "some Russians will soon agree that they won in the Second World War only thanks to Putin."
cited
Liked: 6 users
To complete the picture, we need to add more interviews of German veterans, how many Ukrainian, Belarusian, Russian, Polish women were raped by the Germans during the Second World War. How many villages, along with the inhabitants, were burned. How many died in concentration camps.
Unfortunately, history has no subjunctive mood and wars do not go according to the rules of chess games.
By and large, mere mortals do not have much choice,
one burns prisoners in an oven at Dachau to survive, the other with a rifle goes to the tank.
But if 22 million died during the Second World War, 40 million, according to
the author, the NKVD froze, this is already 62 million. How many people were there in the USSR if, having lost more than 60 million able-bodied population in the main population, if the factories worked, cities and villages were restored?
Also, the quote
08/14/42: An unsent letter to his sister Sabina was found with a German soldier Josef.
The letter says: “Today we organized 20 chickens and 10 cows. We are removing the entire population from the villages - adults and children. No amount of prayer helps. We can be ruthless. If someone does not want to go, they finish him off. Recently, in a village, a group of residents became stubborn and did not want to leave for anything. We went berserk and immediately shot them down. And then something terrible happened. Several Russian women stabbed two German soldiers with pitchforks... They hate us here. No one in the homeland can imagine what fury the Russians have against us.”
Corporal Felix Kandels writes to a friend: “Having rummaged through the chests and organized a good dinner, we began to have fun. The girl got angry, but we also organized her. It doesn't matter that the whole squad... Don't worry. I remember the advice of the lieutenant, and the girl is dead as a grave ... ".
07/24/42: Mathias Zimlich writes to his brother Corporal Heinrich Zimlich: “There is a camp for Russians in Leiden, you can see them there. They are not afraid of weapons, but we talk to them with a good whip ... "
"From 23 to 40 million" is for all the years of repression from 1917 to 1953, this is almost 2 generations, people were born and died, and not at once in one fell swoop.
I do not approve the figures, but explain what is written. 40 million - counting the unborn.
In only two Holodomors, about 10 million people were killed.
Compare how Germany was restored and you will be horrified at the insignificance of the Soviet "restoration" that has not yet been completed.
Let's calculate: since 1914 there was the first world, mass epidemics - typhus, Spanish flu, since 1917 a civil war, which included the Entente countries, mass emigration. That is, the initial correct number of the population simply does not exist. Further, speaking of the unborn in the period from 1917 to 1953, you inevitably (you just can’t count it differently) include the unborn due to the unborn due to the civil war and the Second World War, epidemics, etc. What reliability of figures can we talk about in this case at all? Regarding the restoration of Germany, I can only say that having visited Austria, Switzerland and Germany, I clearly realized that the Eastern Slavs are not Germans and Austrians. Unfortunately, from the global questions of mankind "Who is to blame?" and "What to do?", we cycle and look for the guilty everywhere, but not in ourselves. our roads were built not by Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev, but by people like you and me. You are old enough not to expect some sort of mythical truth. War always highlights the true character of a person, and it is foolish to expect from a person who shoots another, the "pink snot" of the supposedly racial intelligentsia. Sorry. We were not there, so we are not supposed to judge. You can also talk about the indigenous population of America, I wonder where most of them have gone, do you know? About the Great Depression, when almost 1,000 people died of starvation per day in the United States, and much more. Life is pretty cruel, actually. The main misfortune of socialism is a generation of people who can only whine that he was not provided with communism and look for someone to blame. A mother is loved by both the rich and the poor. Motherland in general, too
QUOTE]and]Original message story_angelo_rosso /i]
"Those who lie about the past war bring the future war closer."
"We won this war only because we filled the Germans with corpses." Viktor Astafiev.
It is no secret that in the USSR, and now in Russia, it is customary to glorify the Second World War and distort the facts about it. Few people know that 2,000,000 people died near Stalingrad. These are soldiers of the Soviet army, civilians and fascists with allies. At school, we were taught to think that it was such and such a turning point, a convenient location of troops, and so on. But in fact, they simply threw a lot of people to their deaths, just because behind them was a city called Stalingrad. They surrendered Kyiv, but they did not surrender another city so valuable for the Soviet ideology with the name of the leader - Leningrad, they simply allowed people to starve to death. Communist idols were above everything.
There are several videos in this post. They shed light on the true events of the war and pre-war times. In the first video, the Russian writer talks about how the Soviets treated their soldiers, in fact, they kept them like cattle.
You bastards are proud of such a "Victory"
Iflash=560,315,https://www.youtube.com/embed/u5twLGb9HE4]
Here the veteran tells in brutal detail about the rapes and murders of German women. Not so long ago, a film shot on this topic was not even close to the truth.
Veteran of the 2nd World War about how our soldiers raped German women. Bitter truth
iflash=560,315,https://www.youtube.com/embed/aav3dvegRtw]
A Russian war veteran tells how he was driving through Western Ukraine and how his documents were checked by "Bandera". We drove up, checked the documents of the Soviet soldier and left. It turns out there was.
Russian veteran about Bandera
iflash=560,315,https://www.youtube.com/embed/n6dOwU7ewx8]
Here, a resident of Lvov tells how she was tortured by the NKVD officers. They destroyed so many people in the USSR that their number can probably be compared with the population of a small country, several million. For all the years of repression, according to various historians, from 23 to 40 million people were destroyed. It is probably not surprising that the Galicians, who survived the famine and repression, did not fall in love with the Soviet regime.
Lvov 1939 The interrogations NKVD torture women
Iflash=560,315,https://www.youtube.com/embed/1i4cUPVN1RY]
I liked the comment under one of the videos, "some Russians will soon agree that they won in the Second World War only thanks to Putin."
/ QUOTE] We did not surrender the city to the Nazis. 
Vladimir Beshanov
Cadres decide everything:
the harsh truth about the war of 1941-1945.
Atrocities large and serious are often referred to as brilliant and, as such, are recorded on the tablets of History.
M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin
Introduction
First came the ghost - the ghost of Communism. The first to record this phenomenon in 1848 were the outstanding scientist-mediums Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, armed with the most advanced and unmistakable theory of their own composition. The ghost roamed Europe, shaking the chains borrowed from the proletariat, assured that the workers had no fatherland, suggested that they “unite”, enroll in the ranks of the gravediggers of the bourgeoisie and “destroy everything that hitherto guarded and ensured private property.” The prophecies of the communist Spirit were set forth by two friends, who are the classics of a new type of ideology, in the famous Manifesto.
The manifesto, "with brilliant clarity and brightness" outlined a new, communist "world outlook", called on all the oppressed to forcibly overthrow the existing social and political system, establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, and destroy classes and private property. Following this, according to the authors, sooner or later, Communism inevitably had to come - the highest and final stage in the development of human society, heaven on earth: factories - for workers, land - for peasants, women - in common use.
The international proletarian anthem - "The Internationale" - defined a clear program of action and the ultimate goal of the communist movement:
We will destroy the whole world of violence
To the bottom and then
We are ours, we will build a new world,
Who was nothing will become everything.
True, along with passages about the "conquest of democracy", terms like "expropriation", "despotic intervention", "confiscation of property" slipped through the Manifesto - of course, exclusively in relation to "exploiters", but also "industrial armies", into which for the convenience of building a new world, it was proposed to mobilize the liberated proletarians.
It is preferable to make a revolution in advanced industrial countries where the proletariat is most concentrated and organized. Therefore, for a long time communists of all stripes, including Russian Social Democrats, tried to rouse the workers to a just cause in some Germany or Switzerland. But the weakest link "in the imperialist chain" was the Russian Empire.
They immediately dubbed the coup d'état, carried out with German money by the bayonets of the "internationalists" and sailors stupefied with idleness, "proletarian dictatorship", their own power - "the power of the workers and peasants" and on behalf of the latter began to exterminate both, as well as all those who disagree.
Seven decades of the history of the world's first socialist state show that its domestic policy exactly corresponded to the three points of the "International": destruction, construction, appointment to office.
What relation to the proletariat did the writer V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin), Caucasian abrek I.V. Dzhugashvili (Stalin), Polish militant F.E. Dzerzhinsky, cosmopolitan journalist L.D. Bronstein (Trotsky) or Yekaterinburg "mafia" Ya.M. Sverdlov - it's hard to say.
Why did they do all this?
Is it really just to eat to satiety of chum salmon caviar, which Trotsky, driven by Stalinist wolfhounds into the Mexican outback, recalled with nostalgia even 20 years later: “... the first years of the revolution are painted not only in my memory with this unchanged caviar”?
Rob all the citizens? Restore feudalism in a single country? On the mountain to all the bourgeoisie to inflate the world fire? What difference does it make, the main thing is the Power itself. This is what Lenin wrote to the members of the Central Committee a day before the coup: “The seizure of power is a matter of insurrection; its political purpose will become clear after the capture.
As early as the end of the 18th century, Georges Danton, a figure in the great French revolution, gave a clear and intelligible definition: "A revolution is simply a redistribution of property." Simply put, the basis of the worldview of any revolutionary is Sharikov's "select and divide."
Indeed, in the first place in Lenin's program of action was the item on the "expropriation of the expropriators." It means total robbery. In the future, the population was promised a bright future, toilets made of gold and cooks who would run the state. In the meantime - "rob the loot", destroy the "world of violence."
The simplest thing is to destroy. True-believing Marxists, defenders of the oppressed and disadvantaged, saviors of the Fatherland, confidently determined what exactly needed to be destroyed.
The “world of violence” included: all members of the ruling dynasty, the government and the state apparatus, the army and navy, the gendarmerie and the police, the border and customs guards, the church, all owners of capital, all owners of large, medium and small enterprises, estates of nobles, merchants, Cossacks and clergy in full force, including babies, most of the peasantry (the rich, that is, "kulaks", as well as the middle peasants and the notorious "podkulakniks"), "bourgeois" writers, poets, philosophers, scientists, journalists and the intelligentsia in general, works of art created "for the needs of the exploiters", etc. etc. In a word, everything that makes up the content of such concepts as the state, history, culture, traditions, national pride.
As a result, a lot had to be destroyed and destroyed, because those “who were nothing, but became everything” had rather specific views, in the complete absence of such “bourgeois” concepts as conscience and morality:
“We do not believe in eternal morality and expose the deception of all fairy tales about morality ... For us, morality is subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.”
Under the noise of general robbery with the help of the Cheka and the “overflowing energy of the masses”, the Bolsheviks quickly established the “highest form of statehood” in the country - the power of the Soviets.
But what could Lenin and his company offer the country instead of a monarchy or a bourgeois republic?
In April 1918, in the article "Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Power", Vladimir Ilyich briefly outlined his model of an ideal society:
“The first step in the emancipation of the working people ... is the confiscation of the landed estates, the introduction of workers' control, the nationalization of the banks. The next steps will be the nationalization of factories and plants, forced organization of the entire population into consumer societies, which are at the same time societies for the sale of products, the state monopoly of trade in bread and other necessary products ...
Previously, it was customarily written that "the struggle against the fascist aggressor was not a struggle of nations, but precisely a class struggle, a struggle between two social systems, a struggle of opposing ideologies." In fact, fascism and socialism clashed then in a deadly battle, not only armies fought, but also antagonistic social systems, incompatible economic and political ideologies. After a meeting with Hitler on 03/30/1941, Halder wrote: “Our tasks in Russia are: to defeat the armed forces, to destroy the state ... The struggle of two ideologies ... The huge danger of communism for the future ... The communist has never been and never will be our comrade It is a question of fighting on destruction” (T.2, p.81). The war against fascism was a political struggle. S. Kara-Murza was amazed at the insincerity of the “white ideologists” who “pretend not to understand simple, well-known things. Here B. Bondarenko sets out the thesis common to all of them: “I consider that great Victory not a red victory, but a Patriotic Victory ... It was not Red Russia, but Russian Russia that won there, on the battlefields.” If this is said sincerely, then we have a severe case of group failure of the thinking apparatus - and in a considerable group ... If we are talking about war, when hard bullets are fired, then the Fatherland is embodied in concrete historical forms, and it is simply stupid to oppose the spirit to these forms. Whites continuously curse Soviet industrialization - and they love the Patriotic Victory. But after all, it’s a no brainer that without industrialization and collectivization this victory could not have happened” (Sound 2000, No. 30).
B. Vasilyev declared: “fascists are one thing, Germans are quite another” (LgL1–17.09.2002). And other authors condemn people who “still do not separate the German people (soldiers) and the fascist leaders who forced this people to fight against the USSR. But it is impossible to mix them into one whole, I. Stalin warned about this even in the days of the war ”(Tzh.22.02.01). He actually separated the German people from the rulers. On July 3, 1941, Stalin said: "In this great war we will have true allies ... including in the person of the German people" enslaved by the Nazi rulers. On February 23, 1942, he stressed: "It would be ridiculous to identify the Hitler clique with the German people, with the German state." Some people believe that "very many, if not the majority, in the German army, feeling the injustice of the war, were our enemies under duress" (Tzh.22.02.01). Not all Germans approved of Hitler's decision to attack the USSR. On June 22, 1941, Goebbels recorded in his diary: “We have a somewhat depressed mood among our people” (Vzh.1997. No. 4. G37), but in 1941-1943 vols. the vast majority of Germans longed for victory over the USSR. Even when surrounded, the German soldiers fought to the last opportunity. And is it just coercion? You often read: “We did not fight against the German people, we fought against the Nazis and their henchmen” (SR.20.02.01). How many were there then? Many millions? Were they or were they not part of the German people? At the beginning of the war, some of the Soviet people had the illusion that the German workers and peasants, "enslaved by the Hitlerite bosses", would not support the fascist elite and go over to the side of the USSR. In E. Nosov's story "Usvyatsky helmet-bearers" (1977), the lecturer inspired our peasants that "German soldiers, just like you and me, simple workers," "are not interested in fighting against us, their own brothers," they " turn their bayonets against their masters. The war quickly dispelled these naive hopes.
In August 1943, during the attack on Yelnya, we captured a German corporal. He, a former worker, agreed that the war was over for him, but to the question: “Hitler Kaput?” (it was repeated three times) did not utter a single word. the words. In B. Vasiliev's story “He Was Not on the Lists,” the young officer Pluzhnikov, regretting, released the captured German soldier, worker, father of three children, and he then killed the lame-legged pregnant Mirra. In E. Kazakevich's story "Star", scouts under the command of Lieutenant Travkin, acting in the German rear, captured a German soldier, they learned important information about the Viking Panzer Division from him. The German was a worker before the war. "Travkin from infancy was brought up in love and respect for working people, but this compositor from Leipzig should have been killed." Such is the cruel nature of the war, if you leave him alive, you expose the entire detachment to a blow. The war was unnatural for our man, the tragedy lay in the fact that, contrary to his humanistic essence, he was forced to kill.
The war became, in its sinister meaning, a huge tragedy, brought incredible suffering to people, destroyed and disfigured them physically, opposed their personal happiness, destroyed their home, deprived them of their relatives and friends. The national tragedy was composed of many thousands of personal tragedies. A person had no right to step aside, to pretend that the war does not concern you. Then it was very difficult everywhere - both at the front and in the rear. At the time of military upheavals, a soldier stood on the very brink of life and death, renounced everything ordinary, weighed his actions on the highest moral scales; with all his being he felt the indissoluble fusion of his fate with the fate of the Motherland. A deep understanding of the rightness of our sacred struggle against the enemy gave him the strength to overcome difficulties unthinkable in peaceful conditions, inspired him to exploits. At the front, he was placed in such circumstances that he had only two solutions: either, fighting heroically, defeat the enemy, or, cowardly, betray his people, and there was no third way.
Considering the Great Patriotic War as a political one, one cannot but take into account the fact that the national-state, geopolitical factor played a huge role in it. The writer B. Kondratiev said: “... we fought for the Fatherland, for Russia. In general, I think that ideology did not play a special role in the war. What is twenty-four years in the thousand-year history of the people ... The eternal love of the people for their homeland, transmitted in the genes - these are the sources of our victory ”(Km.1990. No. 7. P. 124). The nationwide resistance of our people to the enemy was evidenced by the fact that in 1942 the German command used about 10% of its ground forces to fight partisans, and in 1943 it pulled over 25 divisions for these purposes. G. Popov wrote: “It became clear that we are talking about the fate of the Russian people, the fate of Russia as such. The battle is not for or against Soviet power in Russia, but for Russia itself, for its independence, for the right to have its own state, its own culture, its own language” (Mark 20.11.2001). In fact, the war was fought both for Russia and for the Soviet government; it was domestic and at the same time political. In the article "The Miracle of Stalingrad", published on 7.10. In 1942, the social democratic journal Novy Put, which was published abroad under the editorship of F. Dan, one of the leaders of the Russian Mensheviks, said: “You can’t understand anything in this miracle if you close your eyes to the fact that for all your , breakdowns, mistakes and even crimes, the revolution that began a quarter of a century ago entered the flesh and blood of the masses; that with all the hardships, deprivations, sufferings ... she gave them some achievements, and, perhaps even more - some hopes, for which the masses hold on with all the fibers of the soul, which in their eyes outweigh all the dark and heavy sides of her, for which they want to go to inhuman torment, fight and die. The revolution gave the patriotism of the peoples of the Soviet Union a new great idea - the idea of social liberation. B. Toman remarked: “Surprisingly, the emigrant far from his homeland managed to correctly understand and express the moral spirit of the Soviet people” (Pr. 10/13/1989). Popov biasedly concluded that "the first step towards Russia's exit from the USSR was taken sixty years ago, when during the days of the battle for Moscow, instead of the ideas and slogans of international socialism, the ideology of saving the Russian people, the Russian nation was raised." It wasn't. It is enough to look at the press of that time to be convinced: our propaganda then talked about the salvation of all the peoples of the USSR, and not just the Russian people. Stalin wrote: "In Soviet patriotism, the national traditions of the peoples and the common vital interests of all the working people of the Soviet Union are harmoniously combined."
The ideological servants of the "democrats" distort the meaning of the war. On May 13, 2000, S. Dorenko inspired the viewers that in Belarus it was not a partisan, but a civil war that Stalin did not trust the partisans, fearing that something dangerous for the Soviet government would grow out of their movement, and therefore did not supply them with a sufficient amount of weapons and ammunition. As noted, Ivashchenko slandered “millions of fighters and commanders” who allegedly “passed over to the Germans with weapons in their hands ... The events of the summer of 1941 can be called, without any exaggeration, a spontaneous uprising of the army against Stalin’s despotism.” Even earlier, N. Berberova had come to such absurdity “... in the first months of the Soviet-German war, hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers went over to the Germans without a fight” (Vl.1988. No. 10. P. 280). She assured that "Sevastopol and Kronstadt were surrendered on the same day." Even Kronstadt surrendered to the enemy this ignoramus, which under the Germans "finally freely" breathed in France. When in April 1941 Germany attacked Yugoslavia, she was indignant: “Think about what bastards the Serbs are! Dare to resist!” (Nlo.1999.No. 39).
Liberals say that in the Patriotic War we fought not for a just cause. B. Okudzhava, whose name “patriotism is a simple feeling ... biological, a cat also has it,” repented from the TV screen: “And when I realized that at the front I, in essence, defended Stalinism, totalitarianism, I became scared. It turns out, and I'm guilty! B. Nekrasov said about his work at Radio Liberty: “I’m slandering little by little ... To my historical homeland ... You have to live!” (Lg.31.08.1988). Isn't this the reason for his statement in Russkaya Mysl in 1981: “...our cause turned out to be wrong. This is the tragedy of my generation.” The grain of such reasoning was contained in The Gulag Archipelago, where Solzhenitsyn wrote: “The Poltava victory was a misfortune for Russia: it dragged along two centuries of great tension, devastation, lack of freedom - both new and new wars.” I don’t think that now he would carry out such a revision of our history: “We are so used to being proud of our victory over Napoleon that we miss: it was thanks to her that the liberation of the peasantry did not happen half a century earlier (the French occupation was not a reality for Russia) .... The Crimean War - the happiest of all wars for Russia - brought not only the liberation of the peasants and the Alexander reforms, but at the same time powerful public opinion was born in Russia.
Considering our victory "Pyrrhic", N. Kalinin concluded: "The masses have made their choice - to defend the Motherland. So it was in 1812. But, as then, the people defended unfreedom” (Iz. 7.07.1998). It turns out that the Nazis brought us freedom? According to Cardin, “the war was not waged for such a “just cause”, “right” and “wrong” were painfully intertwined in it, “the thought we were inspired about unshakable moral and political unity was a fiction”, when the Germans approached Moscow there were people who "lists of communists, Jews, commanding families were compiled for the new owners." There were few such traitors. It is difficult to believe what Nagibin wrote in “The Light at the End of the Tunnel”: “Soon the rise experienced by the population remaining in Moscow in connection with the imminent arrival of the Germans and the end of the war - no one doubted that the surrender of Moscow would be followed by capitulation - changed into languor and uncertainty. They quietly scolded Hitler, who spilled all the offensive fervor at the walls of Moscow ... Many who remained in the city were waiting for the Germans. Looking at the ceiling, Khmelnitsky composed that “up to a quarter of the composition of the German divisions that fought on the Eastern Front were Russians” (Rm.2000. No. 4323). The owners of the newspaper pay him dollars for lying. But the words of A. Gurov on the Mayak radio station on February 22, 2000 that three million citizens of the USSR fought on the side of Germany sounded strange. He forgot that one must first ascertain the truth of the fact and only then make it public. According to B. Sokolov (Ng.29.10.1991), the Commission of the American General Wood, who seized the documents of the German Prisoner of War Administration, came to the conclusion that 4 million Soviet soldiers and officers were captured and there were 100 thousand people in the Nazi formations M Semiryaga in the book "Collaborationism-Nature, Typology and Manifestations during the Second World War" (2000) wrote that, according to some information, up to 1.5 million traitors worked for the German fascists (782).
Rezun is proud that he destroys "the idea of war as a great war of liberation." On September 17, 1999, at a meeting of the Polish Senate, he said that "the so-called Great Patriotic War" was "artificially, for political and ideological purposes, a selected segment of the Second World War." Yu. Afanasiev assured: the name “Patriotic War” is just a Stalinist version, in fact it “was a battle between two tyrants”, “Stalin was preparing for an offensive, aggressive war ... And it turns out that we were not waging our own war” (Ag.15.09 .1993). Believing this lie, some believe: “The ambitions of the leaders, their aggressive plans to conquer world domination threw millions of soldiers and peaceful countries of the USSR and Europe into the fire of the most cruel war of the 20th century” (Tzh.22.02.2001). Without any reason, they put on the same scales not only the "ambitions of the leaders", but also the Soviet soldiers who defended their homeland, and the German conquerors who brought innumerable disasters to our country.
Kopeikin, not counting the war with Patriotic Germany, asked "Which fatherland did the Red Army defend in 1945, when it crossed the borders of the USSR?" (Rm. 1999, No. 4262) Then we defended our Motherland, Russia, it is alien to Russophobes, and therefore they refer to the Patriotic War as “so-called” and write it with a small letter. According to their logic, the Soviet troops had to approach their border and wait for Germany to recover from the devastating blows, gain strength and rush at us again Bondarev wrote about Bonner's indignation at the sexual orgy of "Soviet soldiers on German territory at the end of the war": there would be no reason to refute Mrs. Bonner's absurd sensation, if she did not immediately speak out that the Soviet Army had to stop the offensive in 1943, not to cross the state border. But we crossed the border and instantly became ... "scoundrel patriots", "invaders", "rapists". He explained to the “very humane Mrs. Bonner”: if our troops stopped at the border, “then German fascism, recovering from defeats in Russia, perhaps; would not have lost the war so crushingly. And then, God forbid, liberal-eloquent humanists of various trends would have to measure life not by the number of tribunes shaken by the chatter, but by suffering and torture behind barbed wire in global concentration camps and civilized, convenient crematoriums for death ”(С R.11.03. 1999).
Zh. Medvedev found that “in 1941, the Red Army really heroically ... defended only cities that had some kind of symbolic historical Russian military glory: Brest, Odessa, Sevastopol, Leningrad and Moscow. Kyiv, Minsk, Smolensk, Vilnius, Riga and many others surrendered without a fight ”(Pd. 10/18/1997). He strangely divided the cities. During the Patriotic War, our troops staunchly defended Odessa for more than two months, but it is a mistake to think that in the past, on the scales of historical significance, it became more famous than Kyiv, for which in 1941 there was also a fierce battle. It is impossible to understand why Smolensk is classified as a city that does not have "historical Russian military glory", why it is said that it was handed over to the enemy without a fight. For the possession of this city, a battle went on for two months, during which “the troops of the Red Army, the inhabitants of the city and its environs, showed the greatest stamina. A fierce struggle went on for every house and street, for every settlement ”(G Zhukov). As shown. Stadnyuk in the novel "War", Stalin, having learned that the Germans had entered Smolensk, said indignantly: "This is not a city" but a monument! Glory to the Russian army! More than three hundred years ago, the Poles could not take Smolensk for two years! Napoleon broke his teeth on him! And the Red Marshal Timoshenko allowed the enemy to take Smolensk ... "
Digressions from the truth were necessary for Medvedev in order to "declare: then Stalin and his associates" realized that neither "Soviet patriotism" nor the Red Army could ensure victory over the German army, imbued with the spirit of German "racial nationalism." 06/22/2000 in the program "Events" on TVC Vikt. Erofeev said that "communist ideology turned out to be untenable." The liberals believe that "for a war against a powerful external enemy, the communist idea is powerless, a national, Russian idea is needed ...". The leader of the peoples" cunningly decided that the Soviet should be presented as Russian" (О.г.2000.№ 10). K. Azadovsky and B. Yegorov condemned Stalin for the fact that during the war he “openly flirted with the Russian people, demonstrating his patriotism, rather Russian than class-Soviet”, that after 1945 he “began with his clique ... stick out the “Russian people”, put it on a pedestal and elevate it above other nations in the USSR ”(Hlo.1999. No. 36, C86). A. N. Yakovlev argued another nonsense: “Stalin despised the Russian people, sought to destroy them” (Lg. No. 41.2001).
The communist idea was not powerless, but insufficient for the most successful conduct of the Patriotic War. Stalin's great merit lies in the fact that he united the strength of socialist ideology and state patriotism. Back in 1938, a patriotic film was released on the screens about the victory of Alexander Nevsky over the German knights in 1242 on Lake Peipsi, in 1937-1939. the historical film "Peter the Great" was created, in 1939 - "Minin and Pozharsky". A prominent figure in the Kadet Party IX Milyukov emphasized in 1939: "Stalin is a brilliant politician, because he felt one of the most important things for any politician: Stalin returned Russia to the mainstream of a traditional society" (SR.4.03.2000). On April 20, 1941, Dimitrov recorded Stalin's statement: "Now the national tasks for each country come to the fore." Medvedev stated that “already in August or early September 1942, Stalin abruptly changed the course of all domestic policy, starting the restoration of Russian historical traditions, primarily in the army”: “Traditional Russian military ranks were restored: sergeant, lieutenant, captain, major and colonel. But these titles of the Central Executive Committee and the SNK of the USSR were introduced on September 22, 1935. Medvedev considered the return to the traditions of the old Russian army as nationalist reforms and gave them a negative assessment. He drew a strange conclusion about the untenable rise of the Russian nation, which Stalin declared "the most prominent nation of all the nations that make up the Soviet Union."
To justify their aggression against the USSR, the Nazis shouted that they were fighting communism, and not the Russian people. The failure of this trick is also evidenced by the fact that they attacked a number of states in which there was no communist power. The question arises: how did the German people feel about this aggressive policy, was it their fault in the monstrous ruin of many thousands of our cities and villages, in the destruction of 27,000,000 Soviet people? In 1971, the German historian S. Haffner wrote about the mood of the Germans in the 1920s-1930s: “They had nothing against the creation of the Great German Empire ... However ... they did not see a path promising success in achieving their cherished goal. But Hitler saw him. And when later this path seemed to become real, there was almost no one in Germany who would not be ready to follow it” (Suicide of the German Empire. 1972, pp. 27–28). Many Germans considered Russia their enemy, and Russians alien, inferior people. In Germany, the habit of thinking has taken root: “Their spirit is not independent ... Almost everything that Russia has created in external and internal affairs, they are obliged to the Germans ...” Hitler in the book “Mein Kampf” promulgated his credo: “If we want to create our great German empire, we must first of all oust and exterminate the Slavic peoples - Russians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Belarusians. His associate Borman wrote: “The Slavs should work for us to the extent that we do not need them, they can die out ... Reproduction of the Slavs is undesirable ... Education is dangerous. It is enough for them to be able to count to one hundred.
Not in the summer of 1942, as Medvedev wrote, but already in the first months of the war, it became clear that the war was not only between different social systems, between “fascism and communism”, but also “between Germans and Russians, between Germany and Russia” ( Pd.18,10–1997). That is why in 1941 the Volga Germans were sent to Siberia and Kazakhstan. One can understand those who condemn our rulers for this eviction, perhaps one should better understand the mood of the Soviet Germans, not to consider all of them as potential supporters of the enemy. But at the same time, one must take into account the hectic situation of that time. Who could then guarantee that the Germans - in their majority - would not help the German troops? Chuev wrote: “And D. Petrov, who was friends with Molotov’s son-in-law, told me how, during the war, ours threw out troops dressed in fascist uniforms into the Autonomous Republic of Volga Germans. They met “their own” as their own - they expected ... ”(Ns. 1997. No. 5). In the documentary book "People with a Clear Conscience" P. Vershigora wrote about the German colonists in Ukraine: "...probably a good half of them served German intelligence. Our column passed through the farm, and from almost every window they shot ... Twenty-thirty percent Ukrainian and the Russian population, who remained there, were turned by the German colonists ... into slaves. These slaves worked from morning till night in the farms of the Germans. The entire male population of the Volksdeutsch was armed with rifles, reduced to platoons, companies, battalions. It served as a reliable barrier to the central communications going through Ukraine from Polissya". Should it be discounted? V. Bykov stated that the atrocities of the Germans, who burned Belarusian villages, were provoked by partisans. But even before the start of the war, in March 1941, leaflets were printed: “The military field commandant announces that an act of sabotage against the German army has been committed in the area of the village of N: the telephone cable has been cut. As a sign of punishment for the saboteurs, the villagers were shot, and the village was burned down” (Pr. 07/12/2001). An indicative fact was noted in the materials of the Nuremberg Trials: “... the first punitive expedition of the Germans was carried out in the Starobinsky district in July 1941 - about 10 thousand civilians were killed. There was not a single partisan detachment there yet.” Those atrocities that the occupiers did in our country could not but arouse in the Soviet people a feeling of enmity towards them. In 1942, Ehrenburg wrote: "The Germans cannot be tolerated." Hatred of fascism merged with hatred of the Germans. On April 11, 1945, he wrote in Krasnaya Zvezda: “Everyone is running, everyone is rushing about, everyone is trampling each other ... Germany is not a colossal gang.” Three days later, in an article published in Pravda, Comrade Ehrenburg Simplifies, G. Alexandrov criticized him for not taking into account the stratification of the Germans, believing that they were all responsible for the criminal war.
Kozhinov emphasized that this war was an event of “the deepest and largest geopolitical significance”: “the Germans went in order to crush us as a geopolitical force and turn us into a source of raw materials and products for Europe. For Germany and, what is most interesting, for the whole of Europe” (СР.30.12.2000). Zinoviev supported the idea that in 1941-1945. “The West tried to strangle us with the hands of Germany” (Sound of April 24, 2001). This is confirmed by the facts. Goebbels wrote in 1941: “Something like a single front is being created in Europe, ideas of a “crusade against Russia” are flaring up. This is very necessary for us ”(Vzh. 1997 No. 4. P. 38). The German historian R. Ruhrup noted that in a secret document drawn up in May 1941, the attack on the USSR was characterized as “protection of European culture from the Moscow-Asian stream ... Such views were characteristic even of those officers and soldiers who were not convinced or enthusiastic Nazis. They also shared ideas about the "eternal struggle" of the Germans ... about the protection of European culture from the "Asiatic hordes", about the cultural vocation and the right to rule the Germans in the East. Images of an enemy of this type were widespread in Germany, they belonged to the number of "spiritual values" (Another war. 1939–1945.1996, p. 363). In such ideas about Russia there were many points of contact with the concept of Churchill, who in October 1942, when the USSR was in a difficult situation, argued that Russia, and not Germany, was the true enemy of Europe, and wrote: “... a terrible catastrophe would have occurred, if Russian barbarism had destroyed the culture and independence of the ancient European states. Although it is difficult to talk about it now, I believe that the European family of nations will be able to act as a united front, as a whole. He turned his eyes to the creation of a united Europe. “This geopolitical formulation of the issue by Churchill was entirely in line with Hitler’s: the European states and nations are a single “family” that opposes “barbarian Russia”. Only the leaders for this “family” were proposed by others, which was realized after the war” (СР.30.12.2000). It is impossible not to see that Hitler's and Churchill's ideas of a united Europe are now being implemented by force, US and NATO troops are getting closer and closer to our truncated borders, and are stationed in Georgia and Central Asia. The experience of Serbia, recently torn to pieces by NATO, suggests what could happen to us.
According to the official version, the war for the USSR began on June 22, 1941. In a speech on the radio on June 3, 1941, and then in a report on the occasion of the 24th anniversary of the October Revolution (October 6, 1941), Stalin named two factors that , in his opinion, led to our failures in the early stages of the war:
1) The Soviet Union lived a peaceful life, maintaining neutrality, and the mobilized and heavily armed German army treacherously attacked a peace-loving country on June 22;
2) our tanks, guns and planes are better than the German ones, but we had very few of them, much less than the enemy.
These theses are cynical and impudent lies, which does not prevent them from moving from one political and "historical" work to another. In one of the last Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionaries published in the USSR in 1986, we read: “The Second World War (1939-1945) was prepared by the forces of international imperialist reaction and began as a war between two coalitions of imperialist powers. In the future, it began to accept from all states that fought against the countries of the fascist bloc, the nature of a just, anti-fascist war, which was finally determined after the entry into the war of the USSR(see Great Patriotic War 1941-1945)”. The thesis about the peaceful Soviet people, the gullible and naive Comrade Stalin, who was first “thrown” by the British and French imperialists, and then vilely and treacherously deceived by the villain Hitler, remained almost unchanged in the minds of many inhabitants and the writings of post-Soviet “ scientists" of Russia.
Throughout its, fortunately, relatively short history, the Soviet Union has never been a peace-loving country in which "children slept peacefully." Having failed in their attempt to fan the fire of the world revolution, the Bolsheviks made a conscious bet on the war as the main instrument for solving their political and social tasks both within the country and abroad. They intervened in most major international conflicts (in China, Spain, Vietnam, Korea, Angola, Afghanistan...), helping the organizers of the national liberation struggle and the communist movement with money, weapons and so-called volunteers. The main goal of the industrialization carried out in the country since the 1930s was the creation of a powerful military-industrial complex and a well-armed Red Army. And it must be admitted that this goal is perhaps the only one that the Bolshevik government managed to achieve. It is no coincidence that, speaking at the May Day parade, which, according to the "peace-loving" tradition, opened with a military parade, People's Commissar of Defense K. Voroshilov said: "The Soviet people not only know how, but also love to fight!"
By June 22, 1941, the “peace-loving and neutral” USSR had been participating in World War II for almost two years, and participated as aggressor country.
Having signed the Molotov-va-Ribbentrop pact on August 23, which divided most of Europe between Hitler and Stalin, the Soviet Union launched an invasion of Poland on September 17, 1939. At the end of September 1939, 51% of the Polish territory was “reunited” with the USSR. At the same time, a lot of crimes were committed against the servicemen of the Polish army, which was debilitated by the German invasion and practically did not resist parts of the Red Army - Katyn alone cost the Poles almost 30 thousand officers' lives. Even more crimes were committed by the Soviet invaders against civilians, especially Polish and Ukrainian nationalities. Before the start of the war, the Soviet authorities in the reunified territories tried to drive almost the entire peasant population (and this is the vast majority of the inhabitants of Western Ukraine and Belarus) into collective farms and state farms, offering a “voluntary” alternative: “ collective farm or Siberia". Already in 1940, numerous echelons with deported Poles, Ukrainians and somewhat later Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians moved to Siberia. The Ukrainian population of Western Ukraine and Bukovina, which at first (in 1939-40) massively greeted Soviet soldiers with flowers, hoping for liberation from national oppression (by the Poles and Romanians, respectively), experienced all the delights of the Soviet authorities. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that in 1941 the Germans were already met with flowers here.
On November 30, 1939, the Soviet Union started a war with Finland, for which it was recognized as an aggressor and expelled from the League of Nations. This "unknown war", hushed up in every possible way by Soviet propaganda, lays down an indelible shame on the reputation of the Land of Soviets. Under the far-fetched pretext of a mythical military danger, Soviet troops invaded Finnish territory. “Sweep the Finnish adventurers off the face of the earth! The time has come to destroy the vile booger that dares to threaten the Soviet Union!”- this is how journalists wrote on the eve of this invasion in the main party newspaper Pravda. It is interesting what kind of military threat to the USSR could this "boat" with a population of 3.65 million people and a poorly armed army of 130 thousand people.
When the Red Army crossed the Finnish border, the ratio of forces of the warring parties, according to official data, was as follows: 6.5:1 in personnel, 14:1 in artillery, 20:1 in aviation and 13:1 in tanks in favor of the USSR. And then the “Finnish miracle” happened - instead of a quick victorious war, the Soviet troops in this “winter war” suffered one defeat after another. According to the calculations of Russian military historians (“The stamp is classified and removed. Losses of the Armed Forces of the USSR in wars, hostilities and conflicts”, ed. by G. Krivosheev, M .: Voen-izdat, 1993), minimum losses The Red Army during the Finnish campaign amounted to 200 thousand people. Everything in the world is known in comparison. The land forces of the Soviet allies (England, the USA and Canada) in the battles for the liberation of Western Europe - from the landing in Normandy to the exit to El-bu - lost 156 thousand people. The occupation of Norway in 1940 cost Germany 3.7 thousand dead and missing soldiers, and the defeat of the army of France, Belgium and Holland cost 49 thousand people. Against this background, the horrendous losses of the Red Army in the Finnish war look eloquent.
Consideration of the "peace-loving and neutral" policy of the USSR in 1939-1940. raises another serious question. Who studied from whom in those days the methods of agitation and propaganda - Stalin and Molotov from Hitler and Goebbels, or vice versa? The political and ideological closeness of these methods is striking. Hitler's Germany carried out the Ansch-Lus of Austria and the occupation, first of the Sudetenland, and then of the entire Czech Republic, reuniting the lands with the German population into a single Reich, and the USSR occupied half of the territory of Poland under the pretext of reuniting into a single state "fraternal Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples. Germany seized Norway and Denmark in order to protect itself from the attack of the "English aggressors" and ensure an uninterrupted supply of Swedish iron ore, and the Soviet Union, under a similar pretext of border security, occupied the Baltic countries and tried to capture Finland. This is how the peace-loving policy of the USSR looked in general terms in 1939-1940, when Nazi Germany was preparing to attack the "neutral" Soviet Union.
Now about one more thesis of Stalin: "History did not give us enough time, and we did not have time to mobilize and prepare technically for a treacherous attack." It's a lie.
Documents declassified in the 1990s after the collapse of the USSR convincingly show the true picture of the country's "unpreparedness" for war. At the beginning of October 1939, according to official Soviet data, the fleet of the Soviet Air Force was 12677 aircraft and exceeded the total number of military aviation of all participants in the outbreak of the world war. By the number of tanks ( 14544 ) The Red Army at that moment was almost twice the size of the armies of Germany (3419), France (3286) and England (547) combined. The Soviet Union significantly outnumbered the warring countries not only in quantity, but also in quality of weapons. In the USSR, by the beginning of 1941, the world's best fighter-interceptor MIG-3, the best guns and tanks (T-34 and KV), and already from June 21, the world's first multiple launch rocket launchers (the famous " Katyusha").
Nor is it true that by June 1941 Germany had secretly sent troops and military equipment to the borders of the USSR, providing a significant advantage in military equipment, preparing a treacherous surprise attack on a peaceful country. According to German data, confirmed by European military historians ( see World War II, ed. R. Holmes, 2010, London), June 22, 1941, a three million army of German, Hungarian and Romanian soldiers prepared for an attack on the Soviet Union, which had four tank groups with 3266 tanks and 22 fighter air groups (66 squadrons), which included 1036 aircraft.
According to declassified Soviet data, on June 22, 1941, on the western borders, the aggressor was opposed by the three and a half millionth Red Army with seven tank corps, which included 11029 tanks(more than 2000 tanks in the first two weeks were additionally brought into battle near Shepetovka, Lepel and Daugavpils) and with 64 fighter regiments (320 squadrons) armed with 4200 aircraft, to which on the fourth day of the war they transferred 400 aircraft, and by July 9 - more 452 aircraft. Outnumbering the enemy by 17%, the Red Army on the border had overwhelming superiority in military equipment - almost four times in tanks and five times in combat aircraft! The opinion that the Soviet mechanized units were equipped with obsolete equipment, and the Germans with new and effective ones, does not correspond to reality. Yes, in the Soviet tank units at the beginning of the war there were really a lot of tanks of outdated designs BT-2 and BT-5, as well as light tankettes T-37 and T-38, but almost 15% (1600 tanks) accounted for on the most modern medium and heavy tanks - T-34 and KV, which the Germans had no equal at that time. Out of 3266 tanks, the Nazis had 895 tankettes and 1039 light tanks. Only 1146 tanks could be categorized as medium. Both tankettes and light German tanks (PZ-II of Czech production and PZ-III E) were significantly inferior in their technical and tactical characteristics to even obsolete Soviet tanks, and the best German medium tank PZ-III J at that time did not go into what a comparison with the T-34 (it’s pointless to talk about comparison with the heavy KV tank).
The version about the surprise attack of the Wehrmacht does not look convincing. Even if we agree with the stupidity and naivety of the Soviet party and military leadership and Stalin personally, who categorically ignored intelligence data and Western intelligence services and overlooked the deployment of a three-million enemy army on the borders, even then, with the military equipment available to the opponents, the surprise of the first strike could ensure success in within 1-2 days and a breakthrough to a distance of no more than 40-50 km. Further, according to all the laws of hostilities, the temporarily retreating Soviet troops, using their overwhelming advantage in military equipment, they had to literally crush the aggressor. But events on the Eastern Front developed according to a completely different, tragic scenario ...
Catastrophe
Soviet historical science divided the history of the war into three periods. Least of all attention was paid to the first period of the war, especially the summer campaign of 1941. It was sparingly explained that the successes of the Germans were due to the suddenness of the attack and the unpreparedness of the USSR for war. In addition, as Comrade Stalin put it in his report (October 1941): “The Wehrmacht paid for every step deep into Soviet territory with gigantic irreplaceable losses” (the figure was 4.5 million killed and wounded, two weeks later editorial of the Pravda newspaper, this figure of German losses increased to 6 million people). What actually happened at the beginning of the war?
From the dawn of June 22, Wehrmacht troops poured across the border along almost its entire length - 3000 km from the Baltic to the Black Seas. Armed to the teeth, the Red Army was defeated in a few weeks and thrown back hundreds of kilometers from the western borders. By mid-July, the Germans occupied the whole of Belarus, capturing 330 thousand Soviet troops, capturing 3332 tanks and 1809 guns and numerous other war trophies. In almost two weeks, the entire Baltic was captured. In August-September 1941, most of Ukraine was in the hands of the Germans - in the Kiev pocket, the Germans surrounded and captured 665 thousand people, captured 884 tanks and 3718 guns. By the beginning of October, the German Army Group Center had almost reached the outskirts of Moscow. In the cauldron near Vyazma, the Germans captured another 663,000 prisoners.
According to German data, scrupulously filtered and refined after the war, for 1941 (the first 6 months of the war), the Germans captured 3806865 Soviet soldiers, captured or destroyed 21 thousand tanks, 17 thousand aircraft, 33 thousand guns and 6.5 million small arms.
The military archives declassified in the post-Soviet period generally confirm the volumes of military equipment abandoned and captured by the enemy. As for human losses, it is very difficult to calculate them in wartime, moreover, for obvious reasons, in modern Russia this topic is almost taboo. And yet, a comparison of data from military archives and other documents of that era allowed some Russian historians striving for the truth (G. Krivo-sheev, M. Solonin, etc.) to determine with a sufficient degree of accuracy what for 1941 except for surrender 3.8 million people, the Red Army suffered direct combat losses (killed and died from wounds in hospitals) - 567 thousand people, the wounded and sick - 1314 thousand people, deserters (who evaded captivity and the front) - from 1 to 1.5 million people and missing or wounded, abandoned in a stampede - about 1 million people The last two figures are determined from a comparison of the personnel of Soviet military units on June 22 and December 31, 1941, taking into account accurate data on the personnel replenishment of units for this period.
On January 1, 1942, according to Soviet data, 9147 German soldiers and officers were captured ( 415 times less than Soviet prisoners of war!). German, Romanian and Hungarian losses in manpower (killed, missing, wounded, sick) for 1941 amounted to 918 thousand people. - most of them were at the end of 1941 ( five times less than Comrade Stalin announced in his report).
Thus, the first months of the war on the Eastern Front led to the defeat of the Red Army and the almost complete collapse of the political and economic system created by the Bolsheviks. As the numbers of casualties, abandoned military equipment and vast territories captured by the enemy show, the dimensions of this catastrophe are unprecedented and completely dispel the myths about the wisdom of the Soviet party leadership, the high professionalism of the officer corps of the Red Army, the courage and stamina of Soviet soldiers and, most importantly, the -givenness and love for the Motherland of ordinary Soviet people. The army practically crumbled after the very first powerful blows of the German units, the top party and military leadership became confused and showed their complete incompetence, the officer corps was not ready for serious battles and the vast majority, having abandoned their units and military equipment, fled from the battlefield or surrendered to the Germans ; abandoned by officers, demoralized Soviet soldiers surrendered to the Nazis or hid from the enemy.
Direct confirmation of the painted gloomy picture are the decrees of Stalin, issued by him in the first weeks of the war, immediately after he managed to cope with the shock of a terrible catastrophe. Already on June 27, 1941, a decree was signed on the creation in the army units of the notorious barrage detachments (ZO). In addition to existing special detachments of the NKVD, ZO existed in the Red Army until the autumn of 1944. The barrage detachments that were in each rifle division were located behind regular units and detained or shot on the spot the soldiers who had fled from the front line. In October 1941, the 1st Deputy Head of the Department of Special Departments of the NKVD, Solomon Milshtein, reported to the Minister of the NKVD, Lavrenty Beria: “... from the beginning of the war to October 10, 1941, 657,364 servicemen who had fallen behind and fled from the front were detained by the special departments of the NKVD and the ZO” . In total, during the war years, according to Soviet official data, military tribunals condemned 994 thousand military personnel, of them 157593 - shot(7810 soldiers were shot in the Wehrmacht - 20 times less than in the Red Army). For voluntary surrender and cooperation with the invaders, they were shot or hanged 23 former Soviet generals(not counting dozens of generals who received camp terms).
Somewhat later, decrees were signed on the creation penal divisions, through which, according to official data, 427910 military personnel(penal units existed until June 6, 1945).
Based real figures and facts preserved in Soviet and German documents(decrees, secret reports, notes, etc.), one can draw a bitter conclusion: in no country that became a victim of Hitler's aggression, there was such moral decay, mass desertion and cooperation with the invaders, as in the USSR. For example, by the middle of 1944, the number of personnel of the military formations of “voluntary assistants” (the so-called Khivs), police and military units from Soviet military personnel and civilians exceeded 800 thousand people(only in the SS served more than 150 thousand former Soviet citizens).
The scale of the catastrophe that befell the Soviet Union in the first months of the war came as a surprise not only to the Soviet elite, but also to the leadership of Western countries and, to some extent, even to the Nazis. In particular, the Germans were not ready to "digest" such a number of Soviet prisoners of war - by mid-July 1941, the flow of prisoners of war exceeded the Wehrmacht's ability to protect and maintain them. On July 25, 1941, the command of the German army issues an order for the mass release of prisoners of a number of nationalities. Until November 13, by this order, 318770 Soviet prisoners of war (mainly Ukrainians, Belarusians and Balts).
The catastrophic extent of the defeats of the Soviet troops, accompanied by mass surrender, desertion and cooperation with the enemy in the occupied territories, raises the question of the causes of these shameful phenomena. Liberal-democratic historians and political scientists often note the abundance of similarities in the two totalitarian regimes - Soviet and Nazi. But at the same time, one should not forget about their fundamental differences in attitude towards one's own people. Hitler, who came to power democratically, led Germany out of devastation and post-war humiliation, eliminated unemployment, built excellent roads, and conquered a new living space. Yes, in Germany they began to exterminate Jews and Gypsies, persecute dissidents, introduce the most severe control over the public and even private lives of citizens, but no one expropriated private property, did not massively shoot and imprison aristocrats, the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, did not drive them into collective farms and did not dispossess the peasants - the standard of living of the overwhelming majority of Germans was rising. And, most importantly, with their military, political and economic successes, the Nazis managed to inspire the majority of Germans with faith in the greatness and invincibility of their country and their people.
The Bolsheviks who seized power in Tsarist Russia destroyed the best part of society and, having deceived almost all sectors of society, brought their peoples famines and deportations, and for ordinary citizens - forced collectivization and industrialization, which grossly broke the habitual way of life and lowered the standard of living of most ordinary people.
In 1937-1938. arrested by the NKVD 1345 thousand people, of which 681 thousand - shot. On the eve of the war, in January 1941, according to official Soviet statistics, 1930 thousand convicts were kept in the camps of the Gulag, another 462 thousand people. were in prisons, and 1200 thousand - in "special settlements" (total 3 million 600 thousand people). Therefore, the rhetorical question: “Could the Soviet people living in such conditions, with such orders and such power, massively show courage and heroism in battles with the Germans, defending with their breasts“ the socialist fatherland, their own communist party and the wise comrade Stalin? - hangs in the air, and a significant difference in the number of those who surrendered, deserters and military equipment abandoned on the battlefield between the Soviet and German armies in the first months of the war is convincingly explained by the different attitudes towards their citizens, soldiers and officers in the USSR and Nazi Germany.
Fracture.
We do not stand up for the price
In October 1941, Hitler, anticipating the final defeat of the Soviet Union, was preparing to receive the parade of German troops in the citadel of Bolshevism - on Red Square. However, events at the front and in the rear already at the end of 1941 began to develop not according to his scenario.
German losses in battles began to grow, logistical and food assistance from the allies (mainly the United States) to the Soviet army increased every month, military factories evacuated to the East began mass production of weapons. First, the autumn thaw, and then the severe frosts of the winter of 1941-1942, helped to slow down the offensive impulse of the fascist units. But most importantly, a radical change was gradually taking place in the attitude towards the enemy on the part of the people - soldiers, home front workers and ordinary citizens who found themselves in the occupied territories.
In November 1941, Stalin, in his report on the occasion of the next anniversary of the October Revolution, said a significant and this time absolutely truthful phrase: “ Hitler's stupid policy turned the peoples of the USSR into sworn enemies of today's Germany". These words formulate one of the most important reasons for the transformation of the Second World War, in which the Soviet Union participated from September 1939, in the Great Patriotic War, in which the leading role passed to the people. Obsessed with delusional racial ideas, narcissistic paranoid Hitler, not listening to the numerous warnings of his generals, declared the Slavs "subhuman", who should free up living space for the "Aryan race", and at first serve the representatives of the "master race". Millions of captured Soviet prisoners of war were driven like cattle to huge open areas, entangled with barbed wire, and starved and cold there. By the beginning of the winter of 1941, out of 3.8 million people. more than 2 million from such conditions and treatment were destroyed. The previously mentioned release of prisoners of a number of nationalities, initiated by the army command on November 13, 1941, was personally forbidden by Hitler. All attempts by anti-Soviet national or civil structures that collaborated with the Germans at the beginning of the war (Ukrainian nationalists, Cossacks, Balts, white émigrés) to create at least semi-independent state, military, public or regional structures were nipped in the bud. S. Bandera with part of the leadership of the OUN was sent to a concentration camp. The collective farm system was practically preserved; the civilian population was forcibly driven to work in Germany, massively taken hostage and shot on any suspicion. The terrible scenes of the genocide of Jews, the mass death of prisoners of war, the execution of hostages, public executions - all this in front of the eyes of the population - shocked the inhabitants of the occupied territories. During the first six months of the war, according to the most conservative estimates, 5-6 million Soviet civilians perished at the hands of the invaders (including about 2.5 million Soviet Jews). Not so much Soviet propaganda as news from the front, the stories of those who escaped from the occupied territories and other methods of “wireless telephone” of people's rumors convinced the people that the new enemy was waging an inhuman war of complete annihilation. An increasing number of ordinary Soviet people - soldiers, partisans, residents of the occupied territories and home front workers began to realize that in this war the question was posed unequivocally - to die or win. It was this that transformed the Second World War into the Great Patriotic (People's) War in the USSR.
The enemy was strong. The German army was distinguished by the stamina and courage of the soldiers, good weapons and a highly qualified general and officer corps. For another long three and a half years, stubborn battles continued, in which at first the Germans won local victories. But an increasing number of Germans began to understand that they would not be able to contain this impulse of almost universal popular fury. The rout at Stalingrad, the bloody battle on the Kursk Bulge, the growth of the partisan movement in the occupied territories, which, from a thin stream organized by the NKVD, turned into mass popular resistance. All this produced a radical change in the war on the Eastern Front.
Victories were given to the Red Army at a high price. This was facilitated not only by the bitterness of the resistance offered by the Nazis, but also by the "military skills" of the Soviet commanders. Brought up in the spirit of the glorious Bolshevik traditions, according to which the life of an individual, and even more so of a simple soldier, was worth nothing, many marshals and generals in their careerist rage (get ahead of a neighbor and be the first to report on the quick capture of another fortress, height or city) did not spare their lives soldier. Until now, it has not been calculated how many hundreds of thousands of lives of Soviet soldiers were worth the "rivalry" of Marshals Zhukov and Konev for the right to be the first to report to Stalin about the capture of Berlin.
From the end of 1941, the nature of the war began to change. The terrible ratio of human and military-technical losses of the Soviet and German armies have sunk into oblivion. For example, if in the first months of the war there were 415 Soviet prisoners of war per captured German, then since 1942 this ratio has approached one (out of 6.3 million captured Soviet soldiers, 2.5 million surrendered in the period from 1942 . to May 1945; during the same time, 2.2 million German soldiers surrendered). The people paid a terrible price for this Great Victory - the total human losses of the Soviet Union (10.7 million combat losses and 12.4 million civilians) in World War II amount to almost 40% of the losses of other participating countries this war (including China, which lost only 20 million people). Germany lost only 7 million 260 thousand people (of which 1.76 million were civilians).
The Soviet government did not calculate military losses - it was unprofitable for it, because the true dimensions, primarily of human losses, convincingly illustrated the "wisdom and professionalism" of Comrade Stalin personally and his party and military nomenklatura.
The last, rather gloomy and poorly clarified chord of the Second World War (still hushed up not only by post-Soviet, but also by Western historians) was the issue of repatriates. By the end of the war, about 5 million Soviet citizens remained alive outside the homeland (3 million people in the zone of action of the allies and 2 million people in the zone of the Red Army). Of these, about 3.3 million are Ostarbeiters. out of 4.3 million driven by the Germans for forced labor. However, about 1.7 million people survived. prisoners of war, including those who entered the military or police service with the enemy and voluntary refugees.
The return of repatriates to their homeland was not easy, and often tragic. About 500 thousand people remained in the West. (every tenth), many were returned by force. The allies, who did not want to spoil relations with the USSR and were bound by the need to take care of their subjects who found themselves in the zone of action of the Red Army, were often forced to yield to the Soviets in this matter, realizing that many of the forcibly returned repatriates would be shot or end their lives in the Gulag. On the whole, the Western allies tried to adhere to the principle of returning to the Soviet authorities repatriates who had Soviet citizenship or who had committed war crimes against the Soviet state or its citizens.
The topic of the “Ukrainian account” of the Second World War deserves special discussion. Neither in Soviet nor post-Soviet times was this topic seriously analyzed, with the exception of ideological swearing between supporters of the pro-Soviet "unrecorded history" and adherents of the national-democratic trend. Western European historians (at least, English ones in the previously mentioned book “The Second World War”) determine the loss of the civilian population of Ukraine at 7 million people. If we add here about 2 million more combat losses (in proportion to the part of the population of the Ukrainian SSR in the total population of the USSR), then we get a terrible figure of military losses of 9 million people. - this is about 20% of the total population of Ukraine at that time. None of the countries participating in the Second World War suffered such terrible losses.
In Ukraine, disputes between politicians and historians about the attitude towards the soldiers of the UPA do not stop. Numerous "admirers of the red flag" proclaim them traitors to the Motherland and accomplices of the Nazis, regardless of facts, documents, or the opinion of European jurisprudence. These fighters for "historical justice" stubbornly do not want to know that the vast majority of the inhabitants of Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and the Baltic states, who found themselves outside the zone of the Red Army in 1945, were not handed over to the Soviets by the Western allies because, according to international laws, they were not citizens of the USSR and did not commit crimes against a foreign homeland. So out of 10 thousand SS Galicia fighters taken prisoner by the Allies in 1945, the Soviets were given only 112 people, despite the unprecedented, almost ultimatum, pressure from representatives of the USSR Council of People's Commissars for repatriation. As for the ordinary soldiers of the UPA, they courageously fought against the German and Soviet invaders for their lands and independent Ukraine.
In conclusion, I would like to return once again to the problem of historical truth. Is it worth disturbing the memory of the fallen heroes and searching for the ambiguous truth in the tragic events of World War II? The point is not only and not so much in historical truth, but in the system of “Soviet values” that has been preserved in the post-Soviet space, including Ukraine. Lies, like rust, corrode not only history, but all aspects of life. "Unrewritten history", inflated heroes, "red flags", pompous military parades, renewed Leninist subbotniks, envious aggressive hostility towards the West lead directly to the preservation of wretched unreformed "Soviet" industry, unproductive "kolkhoz" agriculture, "the most just", legal proceedings that are no different from Soviet times, the essentially Soviet ("thieves") system for the selection of leadership personnel, the valiant "people's" police and the "soviet" education and healthcare systems. The preserved system of perverted values is largely to blame for the unique post-Soviet syndrome, which is characterized by the complete failure of political, economic and social reforms in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
