Interesting and humorous - page 161
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
1. Yep. Stalin locked them up and stood with a whip. Give me the whole layout of the military situation at that time. Where what was and how it was. Prove it with real and false facts. But this is at least the level of a doctoral dissertation in at least three disciplines: history, military affairs, management. So what are we talking about?
2. You can accomplish at least one feat - not shitting yourself.
1. you can read the literature yourself and try to filter truth from fiction. And there's no need to give you the whole layout here, it's clearly too much for this forum.
The end result for the common people after the closing of the blockade is well known: the unemployed were put on the most brutal ration, almost guaranteeing starvation death. And there was nothing people could do about it.
2. For a feat one should possess at least clear mind and some reserve of forces. And the overwhelming majority of blockade survivors did not possess it, because they died of hunger.
However, this is a slippery subject, it is better not to touch it.
1. you can read the literature yourself and try to filter truth from fiction. And there's no need to give the whole story here, it's clearly too much for this forum.
1.a. The final disposition for the common people after the closing of the blockade is well known: the unemployed were put on extremely harsh rations which almost guaranteed death by starvation. And people could do nothing.
2. For a feat one should possess at least clear mind and some reserve of forces. And the overwhelming majority of blockade survivors did not possess it, because they died of hunger.
3. However, this is a slippery subject, it is better not to touch it.
4. Dimitri, that's not an answer, it's "about nothing". I asked about ideals in the context of the current discussion.1. The implication was that without sufficient information there is no point in discussing, drawing conclusions and having an opinion.
1.a. You make it sound as if they were put in jail on purpose. Nobody put them on starvation rations on purpose. It was the way things were. Whether they could have done it differently, see point 1. 1.
2. There are different ways of dying.
3. Tell that to the Dilettantes in the Rain.
4. Why? If it mattered to you, you'd understand it yourself. I don't see the point in turning it inside out. It won't do any good, apart from shaping the field of activity for political trolls.
Zhukov with Timoshenko - the direct culprits of the disaster in 1941, as they contrary to the defense plan in case of Hitler attacks concentrated forces in the wrong direction and dispersed the troops in a thin line through which the tank wedges of the Nazis easily broke through.
Throughout the war, Stalin had used Zhukov as a dog to work out his major mistake, the catastrophe of '41.
Still, even his last battle - the capture of Berlin - Zhukov was a botched one, putting tens of thousands of soldiers in the ground for nothing.
Zhukov's strategic genius was a myth created after Stalin's death. We had far more brilliant commanders - Rokossovsky, for example.
Have you heard anything about the conspiracy of the top generals? Neither have I, until recently.
The reason of the catastrophe of 1941 is the low level of psychological readiness for warfare in our army - it is so-called army morale. Mass cowardice, panicking, unwillingness to fight and surrendering to the Germans. So many were surrendered that Germans did not even have enough means to feed and guard them, and they even had to set some of the prisoners of non-Russian nationalities free and let them go home. As for the number of manpower and weapons, the advantage was not in favour of the Germans. The defences and natural obstacles in the way of the Germans were also sufficient. But as panic and cowardice led the actions of soldiers and their commanders, no amount of fortification and no amount of armament could remedy the situation on the fronts. (Read Mark Solonin, The Simple Cause of the Great Catastrophe.)
The heavy losses in the capture of Berlin were due to the tight timeline that was set by Stalin and it was not Zhukov who decided that.
Choosing who was better than Zhukov or Rokossovsky was like choosing who was better than father or mother.
People - recommended. I still intend to read _Pyltsyn A.V., Penalty Blow - about officers who were illegally sent to a penal unit.
I will certainly read it.
I have a friend's grandfather, at the beginning of the war they were given one rifle for three people. By the way, I had a chance to talk to real veterans (not those fake ones that are often shown), so almost all of them said that if they knew that after the war they would live like this, they would not have fought.... The only problem was that people did not ask if they wanted to fight. And to boost patriotism and morale, they used to machine-gun their own backs.
And the capture in Berlin, for such a thing you should be judged in a good way. A lot of people got screwed with their socialist competition.
People tend to attribute their defeats to poor weaponry, and by no means to their own actions. The figures show quite the opposite: on the page 367 of the statistical collection "The Confidentiality Seal is lifted" it is written that in 1941 Red army has lost 6.290.000 units of the small arms. These are the weapons abandoned by the soldiers. Apparently it was safer to surrender without weapons.
The defensive units with machine guns in their backs were a forced measure due to the scale of cowardice, betrayal and panicking. There was no other way to stop the fleeing of the battlefield then. Do not forget that it was a question to be or not to be our state.
People tend to attribute their defeats to poor weaponry, and by no means to their own actions. The figures tell a completely different story: On page 367 of the statistical collection "The Scroll of Secrecy is Dismissed" it is written that the Red Army lost 6,290,000 small arms in 1941 . These are the weapons abandoned by the soldiers. Apparently it was safer to surrender without weapons.
The defensive units with machine guns in their backs were a forced measure due to the scale of cowardice, betrayal and panicking. There was no other way to stop the escape from the battlefield then. Don't forget, the question was being decided to be or not to be our state.
And what part of these 6 290 000 small arms was lost as a result of Germans seizure of armouries or destruction of armouries by bombardment or artillery fire?
I agree, there is such a point. However, at the time of the outbreak of hostilities it is unlikely that the warehouses were full of small arms and soldiers had one rifle for three as it is represented by the solar . Surely, the arms from the depots were distributed to soldiers, maybe with some rare exceptions under unusual circumstances - bombing of the frontier zones. Butmost of the warehouses were located outside the zone of enemy aviation and artillery fire.
I agree, there is such a point. However, at the time of the outbreak of hostilities it is unlikely that the warehouses were full of small arms and soldiers had one rifle for three as it is represented by the solar . Surely, the arms from the depots were distributed to soldiers, maybe with some rare exceptions under unusual circumstances - bombing of the frontier zones. Butmost of the depots were out of range of enemy aircraft and artillery.
From Pyotr Astafyev's biography: ....Pyotr Astafyev goes to prison with the formulation "sabotage"....
Of course, this scribbler's writings are very genuine facts and very strong arguments.
An indiscreet question, were you by any chance a member of any party organisation? Of course you could attack the Nazi troops with a collection of statistics, but that's another story. I'm telling you again that I've been in touch with many veterans who fought in the war, and you're flaunting your secrecy.
Here is another story ours was retreating, as always there is nothing to eat, passed by a field of wheat have started to tear ears, but here on their trouble the car with special officers passed. They put them up against a tree, shot them all and drove on.
p.s. And there are tons of such stories, bordering on moronic.
By coincidence, he was not a member and did not work. The figure of losses of small arms has in no way worked in favour of a regime at which time this statistics has been created (in this connection it has been classified), therefore I don't see the reasons not to believe it. On the contrary, I wouldn't believe it if it was very small. And I'm not flaunting my de-classification, as I wasn't the one who de-classified it. I was the one who quoted from Mark Solonin's article - all claims to him.
You always get sidetracked when discussing any issue. On the principle "but we make rockets", "and you have blacks hanged" or "I have not washed my face for 3 days". The question under discussion is the cause of the catastrophe of 1941 and what have spikelets and Special Forces got to do with it - for a red word? Are you agitating against Stalin's regime? - I can turn anyone against it myself. I accept the reality of the case you have described, but it was not necessary to put soldiers against a tree for the sake of plausibility. There are no trees in the wheat fields, and the soldiers would have been too lazy to walk to the edge of the nearest forest.