Why Stalin shot the generals of the Soviet Army in 1950


Concluding the conversation about the post-war repressions in the Red Army, we finally come to the topic around which there is, perhaps, a huge amount of rumors, gossip, reticence and, finally, outright and shameless lies. In 1950, according to court sentences, all ranks and awards were stripped, and later - 20 generals of the Soviet Army and even one marshal were shot. For what?! Why?! After all, they won the Great Patriotic War!


This is how gentlemen liberals usually cry on this occasion. And, of course, they instantly find their own "explanations" for those distant events - within the framework of their usual concepts. Well, with disgust, we will get acquainted with their versions ... However, after that we will try to unbiasedly understand - what actually happened in the USSR 70 years ago and why did the heads of high-ranking military men fly off the shoulders then?

"Decembrists" - hoarders


The most beloved by the liberal public are hypotheses such as that the “bloody tyrant and paranoid” Stalin could not slap a glass of Georgian wine or smoke his favorite pipe until he tortured someone to death, and therefore killed and executed “just like that”, in accordance with the main properties of our terrifying nature, we will not consider. Let the doctors deal with a complete clinic ... Let us turn to the theories, the authors of which are trying to portray at least some adherence to logic and, therefore, are desperately trying to bring some kind of "basis" under their own inventions. In their opinion, the Supreme Commander after the Great Patriotic War (in which he, of course, had nothing to do with the Victory!), The Red Army was downright hated. You see, he "envied" her brilliant marshals and generals. But, most importantly, I saw in them (evaluate the breadth of the flight of thought!) Some "new Decembrists of the XNUMXth century" who, "having been in a much freer and more prosperous Europe, might want changes in their own home." How! That is why Stalin tyrannized completely innocent generals, inventing completely absurd and absurd reasons for this ...

I really don't even know where to start. Yes, perhaps because the heroes erected on a pedestal and almost canonized first by the domestic liberal public of the XNUMXth century, and later by communist ideologists, the "heroes of the Senate" were in fact, speaking in modern terms, a bunch of putschists eager to stage a coup d'etat and establish the dictatorship of a military junta. And they got some buckshot, some noose, and some just deserving hard labor. They had very dubious intentions and plans, and their deeds fell directly under the concept of "high treason" ...

But back to our ... generals. The Decembrists (even taking into account all that has been said above) from this audience were, frankly, as you yourself know, which of you you know what. They were not bringing "free-thinking ideas" to their homeland, but junk that was raided in unmeasured quantities! What they had in common with the noble upstarts who were striving for power in 1825 was perhaps their incredible conceit and a sense of their own infringement. By the way, in both cases they were not involved in anything illegal, and, therefore, the true creators of the Victory did not fall under the "distribution". The real hero of 1812 was just General Miloradovich, whom the Decembrists killed on the Senatskaya. The same thing happened after the Great Patriotic War. For some reason, Stalin did not touch either Rokossovsky, or Konev, or Malinovsky, or Timoshenko, or Rybalko - truly legendary commanders. Was he jealous ?! What? Generalissimo to Marshal Stars ?! And in general, nothing more delusional can be said about the Supreme, who fought with his hands and feet both from the Hero's Star for Victory and from the highest military rank. He was Stalin - and that said it all ... Yes, and not the heroes were punished in 1950, but mostly a completely different audience.

"Terrible repressions" in the Soviet Army did not begin, if the whole truth is to be told, not with the return of captured generals to the USSR, in exactly half of whom a hair did not fall from their heads. "Promotion" began in 1946, with the so-called "trophy case". It was during the investigation into him that the first two of the generals who were shot in 1950 - Vasily Gordov and Philip Rybalchenko, and even the integral Marshal Grigory Kulik - came to the attention of SMERSH and the NKVD. True, already the former at that time. Using this trinity as an example, we will begin to understand the events of 1950 in more detail.

Marshal of Victory and Marshal of defeat


Honestly, I absolutely do not want to recall some facts from the biography of Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov in the year of the 75th anniversary of the Victory, but from the song, as they say, you cannot erase a word. The "trophy case" of 1946-1948, which shocked the highest generals of the Soviet Army, broke out precisely after Stalin received a report on the number of cars stuck at customs (!) With marshal's junk "privatized" in Germany liberated from Nazism and transported to the USSR. I will not go into his, shall we say, very unappetizing details - this is a topic for a completely separate conversation. I will confine myself to the fact that not just isolated facts of appropriation of trophies, but downright massive looting, which was carried out regularly and, speaking in legal terms, "on an especially large scale" by Comrade Zhukov, persons from his inner circle and some other top commanders of the Soviet Armies, confirmed many times and completely reinforced concrete.

Even the most ardent defenders of the Marshal and other "sufferers" in stripes are not trying to dispute this. But, of course, they were not shot for the services, furs and headsets that these "hamsters" pearled in the USSR. The generals-hoarders got off with prison terms, but those against whom charges of treason were brought forward were shot. It would seem - where is money-grubbing and where is treason? Well, don't tell me ... The whole point is that any investigation that is conducted by real professionals (and you do not doubt that it was they in SMERSH and the NKVD that were engaged in general affairs?) Can sometimes "give out on-the-mountain" unexpected results. They begin to thoughtfully and deeply develop a person on the subject of, say, embezzlement of state property - they organize wiretapping, outdoor surveillance, conduct searches, public and private, they start to "wool" his contacts and connections ... And then it suddenly turns out that this character is not only a thief, but also a spy. Or, say, a secret maniac. And that a couple of brick cars that he steal from the construction site is the least of his sins.

Regarding Marshal Kulik, to tell the truth, only one question arises: how did he even live up to 1947, while being with his epaulettes and free ?! "Marshal-disaster", "walking defeat", the most incompetent commander of the Soviet Army "- this is only a small part of the epithets that many Russian military historians award him with. Well, from the censors, of course. Received Marshal's stars for the Finnish War, Kulik managed during the Great Patriotic War to fail literally everything that was entrusted to him! With a bang, with shame, with maximum losses ... Mediocre actions on the Western and Leningrad fronts in 1941, the surrender of Kerch and Rostov-on-Don to the Germans in the same year. And what was history worth when on the Western Front in the summer of 1941 Kulik simply "disappeared" for three weeks, either surrounded or in the occupied territory, from which he got out without documents and awards, on a peasant cart and in peasant rags. Yes, others were put to the wall for much less! Kulik, in 1942, got off with the deprivation of all awards and demotion. In the same year, the stars were returned - however, generals (at the suggestion of Zhukov, by the way).

Then Kulik continued to "serve the Motherland" with about the same success - drunkenness, the collapse of everything that was entrusted to him, "immoral" (this figure was married countless times, the last one - to a school friend of his own daughter), well, money-grubbing together with looting at the same time. Little of! Awarded after all the above-described "arts" with the Orders of the Red Banner and Lenin, Kulik bitterly complained that he was "not appreciated" and "infringed" - out of the marshals flooded, in the generals scoff ... He talked about this (especially drunk ) constantly. Well, and agreed, of course, in the end. "Swept up" for the trophies, the appropriated dacha in the Crimea, and so on, and only then remembered many other things, which we will talk about in detail.

"Sufferers" in stripes


Colonel General Vasily Gordov and his deputy, Major General Philip Rybalchenko can be considered other typical representatives of "talkers" in general's shoulder straps, who have amassed grief for themselves with an excessively long tongue. "Burned out", having fallen into the field of vision of stern comrades in cornflower-blue caps, they, again, are on the "trophy case". But, as I said before, they pulled one "thread", and something completely different came out into the light of God. The saddens from "Memorial", who consider all the generals I have mentioned to be innocent lambs who have suffered absolutely for nothing, claim that they managed to get somewhere the materials of the operational wiretapping, which was conducted in relation to these figures. Alternatively, gifted gentlemen liberals are sure that the "kitchen" conversations of the defendants published by them completely justify them. Wouldn't you like to know what the comrades generals, who were kindly treated by the Soviet power, were chatting about in their kitchens, which were richly furnished with furniture natty in Germany? Gordov, for example, was killed about the fact that in the USSR "people eat rats and dogs", because "Stalin ruined Russia and it no longer exists." This, mind you, in 1946, when before the complete abolition of cards in the same Britain it was still like walking to the moon, and the Soviet Union had less than a year left. Yes, in 1946 there were difficulties with food ... However, Gordov saw the way out in “removing collective farms and establishing a market”! But this, good gentlemen, is called calls for a change in social formation, dismantling the existing system and, in fact, the destruction of the USSR! So the leaders of SMERSH, reporting to Stalin that the aforementioned generals are "obvious enemies of the Soviet regime," did not lie a bit! And they did not even exaggerate at all.

Wasn't it worth shooting for that, you say? Well, the ever-dry locksmith locksmith from the housing office might not be worth it. But the generals, who are subordinate to tens of thousands of armed people, do not have the slightest right to conduct such conversations (and even think in this way). A kind of chatter in the performance of military ranks of a general's level just ends with coups, civil wars, the death of millions and countries devastated to the ground. Why should they, who called the Soviet power "savagery" and "inquisition", be awarded regular orders? Or, perhaps, with tickets to Sochi to reward for the correction of the nervous system? Cheat and demote? Get rid of the resignation? So with Georgy Konstantinovich, Stalin did just that - and grossly miscalculated, as subsequent events showed. He made one of his few, but fatal mistakes for the whole country. Without Zhukov, who was offended by the whole world and considered himself a godly man, most likely, there would not have been a coup d'etat of 1953, which led to the power of the bald Maid who killed the Soviet Union. And certainly without the support of the Marshal of Victory, Khrushchev would not have sat in his chair in 1957, when Stalin's last associates, horrified by his criminal acts, tried to remove the crazy Nikita.

Here are the consequences of the mercy shown by the Supreme and unwillingness to spoil the canonical face of the Victory Marshal in front of all the people. By the way, Lieutenant General Pavel Ponedelin, whom I mentioned in the first article of this cycle, returned from German captivity quite safely, but he was shot all in the same 1950, together with Gordov and Rybalchenko, such an impression was not over the years spent in the other side of the front, but just for the "surfaced" personal diary, in which this commander, for no reason, wrote the most terry anti-Sovietism.

Why 1950?


In conclusion, I will try to give a more or less logical and well-grounded answer to the main, perhaps, question regarding the events we are talking about. Why did the Supreme Commander's wrath fall on many of the top commanders of the Red Army in that very same year, 1950, and not sooner or later? Why was it then that Stalin, who had previously insisted on the abolition of the death penalty in the USSR as such, again began to act with maximum harshness, to punish with severity inherent more in wartime than in peacetime? I'll start with the simplest assumptions and versions, then move on to more complex and global ones. First of all, there is not the slightest doubt that all these years that have passed since the Victory, the secret services of the USSR, both intelligence and counterintelligence, continued to work, without at all reducing the intensity and effectiveness of their actions. This means that as a result, more and more facts of actions directed against our country, including those carried out within it, became known. There was an incessant "hunt" for seemingly vanished archives and card indexes, as well as for individuals to whom SMERSH and the NKVD had a lot of questions. And this hunt was by no means futile!

From time to time, from deep adits and other hiding places, documents “floated up” containing completely lethal dirt, and comrades and gentlemen who found themselves face to face with unsmiling investigators and operatives, who vainly believed that their past was safely “buried”, were attacked by fits of eloquence ... The same Marshal Kulik before the Great Patriotic War was none other than the head of the Main Artillery Directorate of the Soviet Army, and then the Deputy People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR - for armaments. Oh, he worked on these posts! And he was eager to transfer all the artillery exclusively to horse traction, and the mass adoption of submachine guns was slowed down, and the production of the famous "forty-five" was curtailed. For stupidity and ignorance? Or ... weren't there by 1950 absolutely irrefutable evidence regarding the connection of the marshal with the conspirators-Trotskyists and the Tukhachevsky group?

It is quite possible that the same evidence, testifying not to mistakes, miscalculations, and bungling, but to deliberate sabotage, betrayal and treason, was obtained with respect to many of the high army ranks who were shot in 1950. Here's your first explanation. The main thing, however, in my opinion, was not this. In order to understand why it was in that year that Stalin again began to "cut to pieces", carrying out a merciless "cleansing" in the ranks of the senior command personnel of the Red Army, you just need to take a closer look at what Joseph Vissarionovich was doing in 1950. What orders he gave, set tasks, what he planned. Construction of a tunnel passage to Sakhalin island ... A meeting with the "chief saboteur of the USSR" Pavel Sudoplatov, during which it was decided to create a special forces, "sharpened" for the destruction of American military facilities, first of all - foreign bases ... was done on the development of long-range bomber aviation, the Airborne Forces, the creation of new tank armada ... Yes, the Supreme Commander was preparing for war, there is no doubt about it! By the last battle to the death with the "allies" who betrayed him in 1945, with the West, which by that time was already in full swing preparing plans for nuclear bombing of the Soviet Union, its dismemberment and occupation. The terrible first months of the Great Patriotic War, the catastrophic defeat of 1941, many of which are difficult to explain by anything other than the betrayal of the generals, Stalin remembered firmly. And before an even more brutal and large-scale battle, he cleared the country and the army from everyone on whom there was a stain of treason or reasonable suspicion of such. From everyone who, in the terrible hour of testing, could take the side of the enemy, become the new Vlasov or something like that.

Is it cruel? I agree. However, let's turn back to the dispassionate and emotionless numbers. How many generals were repressed in 1950? Two dozen. And how many soldiers and officers in June-July 1941 perished in the fire of the catastrophe of the Western Military District alone, in Belarus, which, in fact, was "surrendered" to the Nazis? 300 thousand? 400? Or all half a million? Stalin simply could not allow a repetition of something like this. He never executed "everyone in a row", but he also did not show mercy indiscriminately - the responsibility lying on him was too great. It is then that each of the repressed at that time will be declared innocent and rehabilitated without any investigation. We will never know the absolute truth (if it exists at all).
Photos used: MAMM MDF
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

82 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. boriz Offline
    boriz (boriz) 29 August 2020 11: 06
    +4
    • 4
    • 0
    Why 1950?

    There is a very rich and topical topic "5 Questions of General Pokrovsky". After the war, Stalin did not forget its horrible beginning. Therefore, when I finished the most important things (launching projects: atomic, rocket, air defense systems and others), I began to clarify the circumstances of this beginning. A commission was created to generalize the experience of the Second World War, but it was precisely the beginning of the war that was involved. The commission was headed by Lieutenant General Pokrovsky. Five questions were worked out and they were asked to the generals, who by the beginning of the war had already occupied rather high positions, approximately from the division commander. The questions concerned putting the army on alert immediately before the war. The first answers date back to 5. The last - April 1949, by inertia. Then these questions were completely forgotten. It was then that Stalin's phrase "The winners are judged" sounded.
    The answers are such that they unambiguously lead to the conclusion about a large-scale betrayal in the army, starting from the very top. Basically, in two main districts: ZAPOVO and KOVO.
    Other districts fulfilled their task at the beginning of the war. However, traces of treason left above the district level. This was one of the reasons for Stalin's murder.
    The answers began to be published in a frenzy of publicity, in 1989. They partially published the answers to the first two questions and this case was hushed up. In recent years, the archives have begun to reopen and the following answers have become publicly available. The tendency for obvious betrayal is visible further, but some of the answers just make your eyes go up.
    This is not just about sabotaging the army on alert (the relevant orders were given in a timely manner), but also about direct contact with the Germans. If anyone is interested, I will find the publication and reset it.
    Kulik is an ambiguous personality. A man who is frostbitten all over his head. But it is wrong to paint it with only black paint.
    With submachine guns, he was 100% right. The Germans also had very few of them. But, unlike the Germans, the problem of automatic small arms was solved in the Red Army. 1,5 million automatic rifles. No one had that much. And the rifles were good, a significant part of the design was then hacked by the Belgians in the FN FAL. Just as a result of the catastrophic start of the war, the USSR no longer had the opportunity to produce them in large quantities and switched to the production of cheap and easy-to-manufacture PPSh, then PPS.
    As for the "famous" forty-five, he was right here too. My dad, before becoming an anti-aircraft gunner, completed his training in the summer of 1943, just in forty-five. And he got to the front in the final phase of the Battle of Kursk. Who cares, compare the performance characteristics of the forty-five model 1942 and, not even the Tiger, the Pz IV. To expose this pukalka in 1943 against tanks is pure sadism. Even in 1941, for one German tank destroyed, there were 4 destroyed magpies (as a rule, together with the crew). I well remember the lacerated shrapnel wounds on my father's arm and leg.
    1. boriz Offline
      boriz (boriz) 29 August 2020 11: 17
      +3
      • 3
      • 0
      There were still few sadists in the Red Army. Dad was lucky, he survived, after the hospital was sent to retrain on the 37 mm anti-aircraft gun. Also not sugar, if anyone understands.
      And in 1941, two clever artillerymen, Govorov and Yakovlev (future marshals and Heroes), insisted on the withdrawal from service and production of the ZiS 2. Anti-tank guns 57 mm. And they did not resume production at the end of 1942, when a completely whole Tiger fell into our hands. As a result, the Red Army met the Battle of Kursk without anti-tank guns. And you say Kulikov. Nobody shot Govorov and Yakovlev.
      And in Crimea and besides Kulik, there are extreme ones. Kozlov and Tolbukhin led the troops in the Crimea without leaving the front headquarters in Tbilisi. Look at the map.
      1. Magog Offline
        Magog (Gog Magog) 29 August 2020 21: 25
        -1
        • 0
        • 1
        By the beginning of the attack on the USSR, the Nazis did not have heavy tanks. There was no need to have a PTO more powerful than the "forty-five": all the tanks of the Wehrmacht made their way through with such powerful artillery, which is good! The fact that by the beginning of the Battle of Kursk there were still "pukalki" in the troops, this is the consequences of the war, when factories that could produce something worthwhile were urgently evacuated to the Urals. Only by the end of 42, they (factories) were able to reach an acceptable volume of production of the necessary artillery. In connection with this fact, the propagandists from history tell us: "We delayed the start of the war, concluded a non-aggression pact with Hitler, etc., ... to better prepare for the meeting of the aggressor," and the enemy attacked, and we are under fire and the enemy bombing began to urgently evacuate factories ... And before the war, why did you "win time"?
    2. Magog Offline
      Magog (Gog Magog) 29 August 2020 21: 50
      0
      • 0
      • 0
      compare the performance characteristics of the forty-five sample 1942 and, not even the Tiger, the Pz IV.

      During the war, the Nazis increased the armor protection of their T-4 (Pz IV) tanks, and also replaced the tank gun with a more powerful one. Therefore, by the beginning of the Battle of Kursk, these modernized tanks could successfully fight our "magpies" and compete on equal terms with the T-34 in fire resistance.
      1. boriz Offline
        boriz (boriz) 29 August 2020 23: 13
        0
        • 0
        • 0
        I wrote about the Tiger, captured near Leningrad in the fall of 1942. It was time to restore production. This is not a new gun to develop. And the Pz IV's armor was not reinforced in 1943.
        1. Magog Offline
          Magog (Gog Magog) 29 August 2020 23: 45
          0
          • 0
          • 0
          "boriz", you yourself pointed earlier to the Battle of Kursk, so I did not consider the facts of the earlier events of the war. Everything that was produced by industry in 42 was sent to the troops. And there we got lost in battles ... As an example, the Crimean front in the autumn of 42, where, with an overwhelming advantage in manpower and equipment, our troops fell under complete defeat ... Themselves and just mentioned the mediocre leadership ("Kozlov and Tolbukhin" ) this front. Our future brilliant marshals (not all!) Learned from BIG soldier blood and huge losses of equipment ...
          1. boriz Offline
            boriz (boriz) 29 August 2020 23: 47
            0
            • 0
            • 0
            So we are talking about the time for preparation was, but was not used.
    3. Magog Offline
      Magog (Gog Magog) 29 August 2020 22: 20
      0
      • 0
      • 0
      unambiguously lead to the conclusion about large-scale treason in the army

      Close to the text of the Order for the Western Special Districts: "Do not open the fire, do not succumb to provocations, do not engage in battle, ... negotiate with the enemy!" Signatures: Stalin, Zhukov, Vasilevsky. I saw the original in the WWII Museum on Poklonnaya Hill (the beginning of the exposition). Those commanders who did not carry out this order and gave their subordinate troops the opportunity to act "in combat", the corresponding directive of Zhukov in the first hours of the attack could not receive because of the broken communication - they risked their heads! The Chief of the General Staff taught everyone: for the slightest doubts and attempts to obey the order in a wrong way, a tyrant and a sadist would shoot officers personally without trial ...
      1. boriz Offline
        boriz (boriz) 29 August 2020 22: 59
        0
        • 0
        • 0
        I also read Khrushchev's textbooks as a child. But after that a lot of time passed.
        1. Magog Offline
          Magog (Gog Magog) 29 August 2020 23: 15
          0
          • 0
          • 0
          My father also chilled out in this war not in the rear - from the first day of the attack, on his own skin, he felt the humiliating fear of opening fire on the insolent enemy. So he said that he was more afraid of some "special" than the Germans ... The fathers-commanders also did not stand on ceremony for a long time with the soldiers who did not carry out the order. And here is the "Khrushchev textbook"? In despair, my father shot down an enemy plane - and with horror awaited execution, when everyone around shouted joyfully: "Shot down, shot down!"
          1. boriz Offline
            boriz (boriz) 29 August 2020 23: 50
            +1
            • 1
            • 0
            This is a soldier. And the orders to bring the troops into combat readiness were issued in a timely manner, but there was obvious sabotage in the districts. For some reason, the General Staff did not control the execution.
            1. Magog Offline
              Magog (Gog Magog) 30 August 2020 00: 04
              0
              • 0
              • 0
              When my father was alive, we walked together around the museum on Poklonnaya Street. The order form behind the glass was also examined together. Dad just shook his head in silence ... Until the last day of his life he repeated: "Betrayal - we were betrayed!" And such an order had logic. Do not frighten the enemy ahead of time, let him concentrate at the very borders - and then success will be with the one who hits first! So Vasilevsky pointed out in "Considerations ..." (our war plan) that it is necessary "to preempt the enemy in deployment."
              1. boriz Offline
                boriz (boriz) 30 August 2020 00: 09
                +1
                • 1
                • 0
                Preempting deployment does not mean attacking first. Our troops simply did not take the positions that were envisaged by the plans, the artillery (including anti-aircraft) was sent to the training grounds, the sights were removed from the rest for verification. It is even in the memories. For example, Rokossovsky, as he fought back, did not allow the artillery to be taken to the range. And the orders to bring the troops to combat readiness were sent to the districts long ago.
                1. Magog Offline
                  Magog (Gog Magog) 30 August 2020 00: 20
                  0
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  The order, which I am reporting, was sent to the troops on the evening of 21 June. And the county got it. And you write about the details of the leadership style of the then Chief of the General Staff. Even during the war, he did not change this "signature" style of bringing subordinate troops to psychosis and madness ... For the entire last month before June 22, the troops were exhausted by endless "alarms", stupid maneuvers, and conflicting orders.
                2. Magog Offline
                  Magog (Gog Magog) 30 August 2020 00: 56
                  0
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  Preempting deployment does not mean attacking first.

                  Why flaunt it? I don't even know how to react!
  2. Lysik001 Offline
    Lysik001 (boy Seryozha) 29 August 2020 13: 45
    -4
    • 2
    • 6
    How long after the war did the West shoot its generals? This is a question for the author! Why do I need such a country and such a Stalin, if everyone is shot! God forbid getting such a leader again! Better as it is!
    1. Magog Offline
      Magog (Gog Magog) 29 August 2020 21: 05
      +1
      • 1
      • 0
      Soldiers were killed in action following orders. If the deaths were useless, then someone was to blame for this ... The responsibility of top management for gross miscalculations and slovenliness should be no less. When the commander carried out a successful operation, completed the tasks - he was awarded the highest standard BATTLE orders! Although the general did not go on the attack, he did not substitute his only head for bullets and shrapnel, he did not try lice in the trenches, he did not swim a river in the icy water - and he is recorded in the Hero of War ...! And if betrayal and looting has been proven, then all the more there can be no concessions to either generals or marshals! Isn't that fair?
      1. savage1976 Offline
        savage1976 30 August 2020 10: 05
        0
        • 1
        • 1
        Then we must start with Stalin. He was the highest person at that time, he appointed generals, commanders, and therefore is responsible for them. Now it is fashionable to shout "Putin is the main in the country and he is responsible for all the failures. That was Stalin and there was order." Well, apply the same approaches to Stalin as to others, and it turns out that he was the first to be shot back in December 41. Under the tsars, for talking about revolution to hard labor is oppression of the people, under Stalin, talking about reforming the USSR is a betrayal, under Putin, talking about revolution is a fight against a tyrant. You would have somehow decided in your assessments, otherwise when assessing the same actions by different leaders, we approve of one and discuss the other. And it turns out, as in a comedy, the greatest achievements of the USSR - astronautics, free housing, medicine, and the development of the atom, rocketry and all these are achievements of the times of Khrushchev, but it turns out that the USSR ruined the USSR. Will pile up delirium.
        1. Magog Offline
          Magog (Gog Magog) 30 August 2020 10: 26
          0
          • 0
          • 0
          So, as far as I remember from publications, on June 29, 41, Stalin raised the question of his solvency in the highest office of the state at the Politburo. Nobody supported his proposal to find another leader ... How to explain this? Cowardly environment or was Stalin irreplaceable? So, it seems, and today with GDP ...
          1. savage1976 Offline
            savage1976 30 August 2020 13: 57
            0
            • 0
            • 0
            Well, yes, who wants to go to the wall. And in fact, Stalin has a huge number of mistakes, and a huge number of achievements, like any process of activity, there are pluses and minuses, and the whole question is what is more.
  3. Shadow041 Offline
    Shadow041 29 August 2020 13: 58
    -2
    • 2
    • 4
    Well, about Zhukov, I would not agree with the author. Firstly, after what the Hitlerites did in the USSR, they could and should have been undressed to the skin and 40 skins were removed from them, and I in no way consider this to be marauding. This is the retribution that had to be borne by those who shot and burned alive in the USSR the population of entire villages, and without exception, together with children. As for the coup in 1953, but was it, this coup and who actually staged it ?! If someone poisoned Stalin, then Beria and his people, not Zhukov. If Beria had come to power, he would have destroyed the USSR even faster, with his orientation towards national forces in every republic of the former USSR. In the end, it was the local nationalists who wanted to sit as independent kings in the capitals of the republics of the former USSR and destroyed it. As for Khrushchev, he, along with Mekhlis and Kulik, had something to shoot for back in 1941 and the fact that they did not do it, including Stalin's fault.
    1. Magog Offline
      Magog (Gog Magog) 29 August 2020 20: 17
      -1
      • 0
      • 1
      Dear, take the time and read the book "The Assassins of Stalin" by Mukhin - it should be on the Internet. I have never seen the best investigation in publications. I even got tired of the abundance of evidence reading this book.
    2. boriz Offline
      boriz (boriz) 29 August 2020 23: 54
      -1
      • 1
      • 2
      Hitlerites, they could and should have been undressed to the skin and 40 skins removed from them, and I in no way consider this to be marauding.

      I completely agree. Here Zhukov, as the commander of the GSVG, and had to organize the transfer of mat. values ​​to the people who have become impoverished during the war, and not to shove carriages into one "person" (rather, a mug).
      1. Shadow041 Offline
        Shadow041 30 August 2020 01: 53
        +3
        • 3
        • 0
        Well, who owes what to whom, the question is not unambiguous. Trophies from the beginning of the century belonged to those who captured them, and not to those who sat in the rear, as, for example, a musical talent. From Germany to the Union, and so by train, everything was taken out and often sat in the rear of the chiefs, to apartments that had nothing to do with those trophies at all. By the way, the same Mekhlis had something to shoot for in 1941, but Stalin sweetly fed this scoundrel and gave a lot of sleep, and where is justice, eh ?! Khrushchev is no better than Mekhlis, it was not enough to hang both of them for Kiev and Crimea ...
  4. Oleg Rambover Offline
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 29 August 2020 22: 13
    +1
    • 3
    • 2
    Quote: Alexander Neukropny
    Yes, perhaps because the heroes erected on a pedestal and almost canonized first by the domestic liberal public of the XNUMXth century, and later by communist ideologists, the "heroes of the Senate" were in fact, speaking in modern terms, a bunch of putschists eager to stage a coup d'etat and establish the dictatorship of a military junta.

    And who were the Bolsheviks in general and Stalin in particular. In modern terms, he was an extremist and a terrorist. The whole difference between the "heroes of the Senate" and the Bolsheviks with Stalin is that the former lost and the latter won.

    Quote: Alexander Neukropny
    The point is that any investigation conducted by real professionals (and you do not doubt that they were the generals in SMERSH and the NKVD?) Can sometimes "give out" completely unexpected results.

    There is no doubt about the professionalism of the investigators, not without reason the witnesses claimed that they heard Kulik's cry "Tell Stalin that we are being beaten here!"

    Quote: Alexander Neukropny
    Gordov, for example, was killed about the fact that in the USSR "people eat rats and dogs", because "Stalin ruined Russia and it no longer exists." This, mind you, in 1946, when before the complete abolition of cards in the same Britain it was still like walking to the moon, and the Soviet Union had less than a year left. Yes, in 1946 there were difficulties with food ...

    What a bad Gordov, for this he definitely had to be shot. Yes, in 1946 there were some small difficulties with food ... Up to 1,5 million representatives of the winner's people died of hunger. People not only ate rats and dogs, but also engaged in cannibalism and corpse eating.

    Quote: Alexander Neukropny
    However, Gordov saw the way out in “removing the collective farms and establishing a market”! But this, good gentlemen, is called calls for a change in social formation, dismantling the existing system and, in fact, the destruction of the USSR!

    Well, Lenin did not live up to these times with his NEP, otherwise they would also have been recorded as enemies of the USSR.

    Quote: Alexander Neukropny
    But the generals, who are subordinate to tens of thousands of armed people, do not have the slightest right to conduct such conversations (and even think in this way).

    For thoughts, of course, it is necessary to shoot. I hope the author does not think anything bad about the current government, much less says it.

    Quote: Alexander Neukropny
    It is quite possible that the same evidence, testifying not to mistakes, miscalculations, bungling, but to deliberate sabotage, betrayal and treason, was obtained in relation to many of the high army ranks who were shot in 1950. Here's your first explanation.

    Unreasonable fantasies of the author.

    Quote: Alexander Neukropny
    The main thing, however, in my opinion, was not this. In order to understand why it was in that year that Stalin again began to "cut to pieces", carrying out a merciless "purge" in the ranks of the highest command personnel of the Red Army, you just need to take a closer look at what else Iosif Vissarionovich was doing in 1950 ... Yes the Supreme Commander was preparing for war, there is no doubt about it!

    That is, in the 37th he was preparing for war and destroyed half of the top commanders of the Red Army, ended up 41 years old and decided to repeat this successful experience? Ay, well done.

    Quote: Alexander Neukropny
    By the last battle to the death with the "allies" who betrayed him in 1945, with the West, which by that time was already in full swing preparing plans for nuclear bombing of the Soviet Union, its dismemberment and occupation.

    And how did the allies betray him at 45? There was already Kennan's "long telegram" that the United States was not going to fight the USSR.

    PS Reading the articles of the respected Alexander Necropny, one gets the impression that Stalin did not understand people at all. He constantly surrounded himself with traitors, appointed them to high positions, rewarded and promoted them.
    1. Magog Offline
      Magog (Gog Magog) 29 August 2020 22: 59
      0
      • 0
      • 0
      That is, in the 37th he was preparing for war and destroyed half of the top commanders of the Red Army, ended up 41 years old and decided to repeat this successful experience?

      Hitler did not shoot anyone before the war, but lost the war, although the marauders in the Wehrmacht did not spare either. Stalin carried out a purge in the army on the eve of the upcoming war, but did not complete the matter: in particular, the "upstart" Zhukov was able to "throw dust in the eyes of the leader", which led in many respects to the tragedy of 41-42 years.
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 29 August 2020 23: 05
        -1
        • 0
        • 1
        Quote: Magog
        Stalin carried out a purge in the army on the eve of the upcoming war, but did not complete the matter: in particular, the "upstart" Zhukov was able to "throw dust in the eyes of the leader", which led in many respects to the tragedy of 41-42 years.

        That is, the shooting of more than half of the highest command personnel of the Red Army was not enough? It was necessary to all and then at 41 everything would be fine?
        1. Magog Offline
          Magog (Gog Magog) 29 August 2020 23: 27
          -1
          • 0
          • 1
          Oleg, why are you "stupid"? There are many reasons for the defeats of the beginning of the war, the main one - no one in the leadership of the army and the country allowed the idea that Hitler would decide on such an adventure ... There were no plans for a defensive war in the USSR, so the war began so hard for us. During the war, talents showed up (and therefore won), but mediocrity and crooks could not seriously affect the OUTCOME of the war, because they remained in the minority. Here is the conclusion!
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 30 August 2020 01: 06
            -1
            • 1
            • 2
            Magog, why are you writing obvious stupidity? The repressions in the Red Army, if it did affect the fighting efficiency, it was only for the worse, and if not 412 out of 767 generals were shot, but let's say 500, then this absolutely did not change anything in 41. The leadership of the army and the country is for that and the leadership in order to foresee even such adventures.
            1. Magog Offline
              Magog (Gog Magog) 30 August 2020 05: 57
              -2
              • 0
              • 2
              Even Konev and Tolbukhin showed by the end of the war that they had learned something after all ... But they took Berlin in the old fashioned way ... and the losses were corresponding! Marshal of Victory, as always, "had no time to invent something." "Absolutely nothing," you say?
              1. Oleg Rambover Offline
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 30 August 2020 15: 50
                0
                • 0
                • 0
                Absolutely nothing, the rest were + - the same. In addition, if a person is incompetent, why shoot, just fire him. All these people were appointed to their posts with the knowledge and consent of Stalin, do you think that he was so bad at understanding people?
                1. Magog Offline
                  Magog (Gog Magog) 30 August 2020 21: 17
                  0
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  Absolutely nothing, the rest were + - the same.

                  At the end of the war, some carried out brilliant operations and received the highest ranks, while others remained, at best, what they were before the war. The swift and brilliant end of WWII in the Far East: it is no longer important which of the tested and educated commanders on the fields of the Patriotic War was appointed (except Zhukov!) - here, indeed, "+ -" is the same thing ... I like this case, always give the example of I.E. Petrov - the organizer of the defense of Odessa, Sevastopol, Maikop and Grozny, the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus, as well as brilliant operations to storm the Blue Line (Kuban), the landing of troops in the Crimea at the end of 1943, the offensive along The Carpathian Range in 1944. All of the above was included in textbooks on the strategy and tactics of defensive and offensive operations as examples of competent planning, leadership and safety of the forces and assets involved. Prominent examples were evident at the very beginning of the war. Including, not all were "+ -"!
                  1. Oleg Rambover Offline
                    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 31 August 2020 01: 54
                    0
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    There would be another Zhukov. Why was Petrov removed from the front command? Stalin appointed Zhukov as the chief of the General Staff, not Petrov.
                    But that is not the point.
                    That is, you think that because Stalin made mistakes in personnel policy, it was necessary to correct these mistakes with a bullet in the back of the head? Why not just appoint competent, talented commanders?
                    1. Magog Offline
                      Magog (Gog Magog) 31 August 2020 09: 05
                      0
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      During the period of the so-called. "Civil war" in Russia, the enemies of Soviet Power should have been scolded, helped to settle in a new life and take "my word of honor" not to fight against the Bolsheviks? So can you imagine? Stalin emerged from the Civil War, prepared the "world revolution" in his own original way. Many senior military personnel (and not only) perfectly understood the essence of Stalin's military preparations, which was, of course, a state secret. And how could such identified "enemies of the people" be left alive? I am trying to reason from the standpoint of Stalin - get it right. As for General Petrov, I would like to know the real reasons for the removal from command of the front (Crimean?), Because there is still no clarity. Are there any envious people? After all, the success in the Kuban was deafening.
                      1. Oleg Rambover Offline
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 31 August 2020 12: 59
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        Quote: Magog
                        During the period of the so-called. "Civil war" in Russia, the enemies of Soviet Power should have been scolded, helped to settle in a new life and take "my word of honor" not to fight against the Bolsheviks?

                        What are you talking about? What does the generals and repression have to do with it? These generals were precisely the victors in the Civil War and the communists. What does the Civil War have to do with it, and honestly?

                        Quote: Magog
                        Many senior military personnel (and not only) perfectly understood the essence of Stalin's military preparations, which was, of course, a state secret. And how could such identified "enemies of the people" be left alive? I am trying to reason from the position of Stalin - get it right.

                        Well, that's obvious stupidity. If most of the generals were involved in the conspiracy, they could not be stopped. I do not quite understand, you are saying that the highest command staff of the Red Army are mostly "enemies of the people" and for this they are subject to execution or for their incompetence? Stalin had read a lot about the French Revolution and was afraid that a new Bonaparte would emerge among the generals. But he did not notice how he himself became a red Bonaparte.
                        No, I don’t understand. It is difficult to understand Stalin's motives for repressions, I think they lie in the medical plane.
                      2. Magog Offline
                        Magog (Gog Magog) 31 August 2020 14: 03
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        How tight it gets to you. I'm not talking about military conspiracy or espionage - this is an excuse to get rid of unreliable, talkative and simply incompetent military leaders. Just remove and assign others? These others need to be found, to be convinced of the correctness of the choice, and this is not done in one day. Those who have been replaced, because they will be offended, will begin to make statements, and, therefore, blabber. And how can we keep the secret of preparing a big war? I'll continue later.
                      3. Magog Offline
                        Magog (Gog Magog) 31 August 2020 14: 56
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        What does the Civil War have to do with it? The logic of such a war: whoever disagrees with us, the revolutionaries, is destroyed. And: "every revolution ... devours its children." Do not know why Leon Trotsky ended so tragicomic? ... Because I did not just understand Stalin's plan, but began to tell everyone about it and be indignant! But he was also a Leninist and for the world revolution ...
                      4. Magog Offline
                        Magog (Gog Magog) 31 August 2020 15: 25
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        Having set the task of getting rid of a dangerous high-ranking military man, one must understand that, as a rule, he surrounds himself with his own people in his service, and "drags" them everywhere with him. This practice is not uncommon today. Therefore, there is nothing to be surprised that, for example, behind the talkative Tukhachevsky, more than one hundred worthy officers were leaned against the wall. This is the logic of the "purge" ...
                      5. Oleg Rambover Offline
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 1 September 2020 01: 26
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        Quote: Magog
                        Therefore, there is nothing to be surprised that, for example, behind the talkative Tukhachevsky, more than one hundred worthy officers were leaned against the wall. This is the logic of the "purge" ...

                        Do you think this is normal?
                      6. Magog Offline
                        Magog (Gog Magog) 1 September 2020 14: 00
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        What did I do? I repeat, I am explaining Stalin's logic. Mentally put yourself in his place with the same tasks and convictions of your Bolshevik righteousness. The "purge" of the army before the big war, which was to break out according to our scenario, is an absolutely necessary measure. This is, in fact, the whole article under discussion. The beginning of the 50s was supposed to be a duplicate of 37 ...
                      7. Oleg Rambover Offline
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 1 September 2020 15: 26
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        Quote: Magog
                        I repeat, I am explaining Stalin's logic.

                        There is no logic here. Do you see something logical here? What is the logic behind the execution of "worthy" officers?

                        Quote: Magog
                        The "purge" of the army before the big war, which was to break out according to our scenario, is an absolutely necessary measure.

                        What is the need? What for? Other armies before the war did without purges and nothing. What, some Russian officers are not like that?

                        Quote: Magog
                        The beginning of the 50s was supposed to be a duplicate of 37 ...

                        What for? !!!
                      8. Magog Offline
                        Magog (Gog Magog) 1 September 2020 15: 33
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        What for? !!!

                        Oleg, got it, to be honest! Read the article again ...
                      9. Oleg Rambover Offline
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 1 September 2020 15: 43
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        The article is crazy. If you share the views of the respected Necropny, then everything is clear with you, I have no more questions.
                      10. Magog Offline
                        Magog (Gog Magog) 1 September 2020 16: 01
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        That's understandable. Your only conclusion: Stalin needed treatment - "medical problems", and with him the whole army: they were preparing for something incomprehensible, moreover, without plans and logic of preparations; the enemy was defeated by a miracle - in a word, "Russia cannot be understood with the mind" ... But you have logic, at least chew it!
                      11. Oleg Rambover Offline
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 3 September 2020 09: 17
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        Quote: Magog
                        Your only conclusion: Stalin needed treatment - "medical problems"

                        Well, you yourself are trying to convince me of this. A normal person will not arrange executions for the sake of prevention. You cannot give any reasonable motives. The respected Neukropny has a better motive, like, they were all enemies, but this is not confirmed by the facts, and it's hard to believe that most of the top commanding officers were enemies and traitors.
                2. Magog Offline
                  Magog (Gog Magog) 1 September 2020 15: 40
                  0
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  "Worthy officers" were under the influence of Tukhachevsky, raised an unnecessary excitement of fear among the military. Quietly clean and no problem. And many of them in other circumstances could be useful in the real events of the war ...
                3. Oleg Rambover Offline
                  Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 2 September 2020 12: 24
                  0
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  Quote: Magog
                  "Worthy officers" were under the influence of Tukhachevsky, raised an unnecessary excitement of fear among the military.

                  What nonsense, what excitement? Around what? In what he expressed himself. Tell me, do you make it up yourself?

                  Quote: Magog
                  Quietly clean and no problem.

                  Do you really believe that the execution of more than half of the highest command personnel will be more invisible than the dismissal?
                  PS Such methods may be normal in the Middle Ages, but in the XX century it is not normal.
      2. Oleg Rambover Offline
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 1 September 2020 01: 19
        0
        • 0
        • 0
        Quote: Magog
        What does the Civil War have to do with it? The logic of such a war: whoever does not agree with us, the revolutionaries, is destroyed.

        So they destroyed fellow revolutionaries.

        Quote: Magog
        And: "every revolution ... devours its children."

        The Jacobins even fought with political enemies, with whom Stalin fought - it is not clear.

        Quote: Magog
        Do not know why Leon Trotsky ended so tragicomic? ... Because I did not just understand Stalin's plan, but began to tell everyone about it and be indignant! But he was also a Leninist and for the world revolution ...

        And what's so comical about an ice ax in your head? And what is Stalin's secret plan?
      3. Magog Offline
        Magog (Gog Magog) 1 September 2020 14: 10
        0
        • 0
        • 0
        Stalin had a special style of humor that awe his closest associates. Apparently, when Trotsky was in close contact with Koba (this is how Lenin's comrades-in-arms continued to call each other by nicknames), in the polemic about the paths of the world revolution, Stalin could in his "playful manner" promise his opponent such an ice-picking punishment. For your sake, I will look for details. If I find it, I'll tell you.
      4. Magog Offline
        Magog (Gog Magog) 1 September 2020 21: 49
        0
        • 0
        • 0
        promise your opponent a similar ice-picking punishment

        Here is the version of Sudoplatov: this method of murder was ordered to be carried out by Stalin, who remembered how the Trotskyist Yakov Iosifovich Okhotnikov (shot by Yezhov in 1937) tried to kill him on the platform of the Mausoleum during a military parade in 1927.
      5. Oleg Rambover Offline
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 3 September 2020 09: 10
        0
        • 0
        • 0
        Quote: Magog
        Here is the version of Sudoplatov: this method of murder was ordered to be carried out by Stalin, who remembered how the Trotskyist Yakov Iosifovich Okhotnikov (shot by Yezhov in 1937) tried to kill him on the platform of the Mausoleum during a military parade in 1927.

        Judging by the fact that no sanctions were applied to Okhotnikov immediately after the incident, then it was not considered an attempt.
  5. Oleg Rambover Offline
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 1 September 2020 01: 25
    0
    • 0
    • 0
    Quote: Magog
    I'm not talking about military conspiracy or espionage - this is an excuse to get rid of unreliable, talkative and just incompetent military leaders. Just remove and assign others? These others need to be found, to be convinced of the correctness of the choice, and this is not done in one day.

    What nonsense? It is impossible to remove and appoint, there is no one to replace, but you can shoot, you do not need to replace?

    Quote: Magog
    Those who have been replaced, because they will be offended, will begin to make statements, and, therefore, blabber. And how can we keep the secret of preparing a big war? I'll continue later.

    Well, this is wildness and delirium. The bulk of the executed were brigade commanders and division commanders, who obviously did not know anything particularly secret.
  6. Magog Offline
    Magog (Gog Magog) 1 September 2020 14: 25
    0
    • 0
    • 0
    That's right: "brigades and division commanders." My father told me that shortly before the start of the war, soldiers often repeated the saying among themselves: "Two animals in one den will not get along!" The troops received new weapons, conducted exercises, set tasks for such exercises and maneuvers, etc. Did the "brigade commanders and division commanders", not to mention the smart soldiers, really understand what kind of hostilities await them in the near future? Yes, any company or even platoon commander is a godsend for enemy reconnaissance! Weapons are made for specific tasks, tasks are practiced at training ranges and exercises ... Having learned the details of such military measures, is it difficult to understand the tasks? We are discussing some children's questions!
  7. Oleg Rambover Offline
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 2 September 2020 09: 40
    0
    • 0
    • 0
    Quote: Magog
    Did the "brigade commanders and division commanders", not to mention the smart soldiers, really understand what kind of hostilities await them in the near future?

    Then why weren't the privates shot? If they knew too? Or junior officers? A lot of them were also fired.

    Quote: Magog
    Yes, any company or even platoon commander is a godsend for enemy reconnaissance! Weapons are made for specific tasks, tasks are practiced at training ranges and exercises ... Having learned the details of such military measures, is it difficult to understand the tasks? We are discussing some children's questions!

    That is, they were shot for prevention?
    Did you come up with this yourself? This is all nonsense. No plans have been found to attack Germany. There is no evidence of contemporaries that such plans were brought to the attention of the commanders, especially before the age of 37.
  8. Magog Offline
    Magog (Gog Magog) 2 September 2020 21: 43
    0
    • 0
    • 0
    Like, there is nothing to talk about with me?

    No plans have been found to attack Germany.

    Found and published in VIZh in 1992. Recently (in 2015) it was remembered and published again. This is a memorandum "note" by Vasilevsky (Head of the Operations Department of the General Staff) to the highest leadership of the USSR (including his then direct Chief - Zhukov). I mentioned it here as "Considerations ..." - this is our plan for the war against Germany in 41. Dated in this edition in the middle of May 1941. The polemic on this topic seems to have ended, and this document has long been in "scientific circulation". It is known that the details of this plan began immediately after the German attack on Poland, but this did not mean that there was no plan before. Simply, by this time the situation with the war in Europe took on a concrete form. And in the course of France's swift defeat, Tymoshenko demanded that the General Staff accelerate work on the preparation of such a plan. The Nazis, by the way, began to invent the "Barbarossa" plan only in June 1940, and from that moment, unexpectedly for everyone, they completed military operations, without bringing the matter to the complete defeat of the French.
  9. Oleg Rambover Offline
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 5 September 2020 18: 54
    -2
    • 0
    • 2
    Quote: Magog
    I mentioned it here as "Considerations ..." - this is our plan for the war against Germany in 41.

    It is too bold a statement that this is a plan for war. Typically, top management signs and sends subtle documents to subordinates, and not back.

    Quote: Magog
    The Nazis, by the way, began to invent the "Barbarossa" plan only in June 1940, and from that moment, unexpectedly for everyone, they completed military operations, without bringing the matter to the complete defeat of the French.

    It seemed to me that the French had surrendered.
    In any case, these considerations were 41 years old and at 37 they were definitely not there. Once again, did you come up with this idea that the top leadership of the Red Army was executed for prevention?
  10. Magog Offline
    Magog (Gog Magog) 6 September 2020 09: 49
    0
    • 0
    • 0
    This is too bold a statement

    That's all "your" I can't even quote. A very comfortable position: dig your nose, look for evidence, and I will call the top-secret document that appeared in public discussion oversight in the early 90s as frivolous and dismiss it. In your opinion, should it be printed in the amount of 5.5 million copies and sent to the troops, so that every soldier gets it? "Considerations for the deployment ..." of the forces and means of the Red Army have such a feature that it lists in detail the deployment and tasks of the Red Army formations up to a separate division. Compare to check the real state of affairs at the western borders for any army, corps, division, etc. and then judge: a bold or cowardly statement about the plan of war. The top leadership of the Red Army is: Timoshenko, Zhukov, Vasilevsky. Please clarify the relevant positions for yourself ... One more person was dedicated to the details of this plan in such a MANUSCRIPT note (in a single copy!). Guess who? At the level of the army, corps, division, etc. such a plan "descends" in the form of an order specifically for the tasks of this unit. This is the alphabet of the organization of the army, which, apparently, is unknown to you.

    it seemed that the French had surrendered.

    They capitulated at the suggestion of the Germans. And what confuses? Will we discuss the terms of surrender here?

    Did the leadership of the Red Army for the prevention of execution come up with?

    I will find examples of such "prevention" as you think. And in response: "these are isolated examples" that do not prove anything ... A wide campaign of repression was launched, plans and "sticks" in such a case are inevitable. The most ardent and brave defenders of the repressed risked themselves being among those. What is there to "invent"?
    Do not dismiss the "delirium" and "paranoia" of the top leadership of the USSR. So you will not understand anything, if at all you have such a task ...
  11. Magog Offline
    Magog (Gog Magog) 1 September 2020 15: 05
    0
    • 0
    • 0
    When Hitler attacked, hostilities began (though not on our initiative!), Then in such circumstances there was no need to isolate the repressed military commanders. Those who did not stain themselves with drunkenness, debauchery and slovenliness in their previous service, who showed themselves to be a competent commander in the past, were freed and sent to the front, and there they tried to prove to everyone and to themselves that they were "sitting" by slander, denunciation of scoundrels, etc. .P. Such facts are known, and they are not isolated (I will not list). And in the NKVD, apparently, there were lists of those who should not have been shot when there was objective information about the decency of a person, but there were doubts, finally, plans and directives for repression! This is the main defect of "cleansing". And the last thing: if the leadership of the USSR was preparing the country for a defensive war, then such total secrecy of the preparatory measures and the purging of army personnel would not be required:

    We are a peaceful country, we are surrounded by capitalist imperialism, we understand this and are preparing to defend our people's power and country by all means and means if we are attacked.

    What is there to hide especially?
  • boriz Offline
    boriz (boriz) 29 August 2020 23: 28
    +1
    • 1
    • 0
    And how did the allies betray him at 45?

    Have you heard about Churchill's "Unthinkable" plan? Even Wiki has it. The attack was planned in the summer of 1945.

    What a bad Gordov, for this he definitely had to be shot.

    Gordov should have been shot during the war. About him, Mukhin described in detail in "If not for the generals" and not only. About 1,5 million people who died of hunger in 1946 - I don’t believe. My parents are from the villages of the Yaroslavl and Tambov regions, from peasants. No one died of hunger and no horrors were told. Only the Pope's brother died in April 1945 near Konigsberg, not from hunger, of course. Someone lived in the village, someone in the city already. No horror. Yes, they did not eat their fill. Everyone grew up, learned and lived on.
    As for 1937, life has shown that the army was not cleaned much.
    1. Oleg Rambover Offline
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 1 September 2020 11: 42
      0
      • 0
      • 0
      Quote: boriz
      Have you heard about Churchill's "Unthinkable" plan? Even Wiki has it. The attack was planned in the summer of 1945.

      I heard, did you? First, then not allies, but an ally.
      Secondly, Churchill suspected that the USSR was not going to fulfill its allied obligations in Poland (and rightly suspected) and asked his military if they could force Stalin to fulfill them by military means. By and large, the military responded that they could not. The final plan - the Unthinkable - is to dump on an island and pray to God that the USSR does not have missile weapons.

      Quote: boriz
      Gordov should have been shot during the war.

      For what? What else did he say so?

      Quote: boriz
      I don’t believe about 1,5 million people who died of starvation in 1946.

      The number of victims is a controversial issue, but the famine with many thousands of victims is a historical fact that does not depend on your faith.
      1. boriz Offline
        boriz (boriz) 1 September 2020 12: 18
        +1
        • 1
        • 0
        Churchill "suspected"? And Stalin did not need to suspect, he saw the real movement of troops.
        Have you heard what Churchill really did in Greece? The country was thoroughly communist right after the war, but found itself outside the zone of influence of the USSR. When the mass protests against "decommunization" began, Churchill ordered artillery and aviation to work in the cities. Something I did not hear that Stalin in Bulgaria pulled troops to the border with Greece. And he would (unlike Churchill in Germany) throw the British into the sea at the expense of once. But he didn't. He respected the agreements on the division of spheres of influence.

        For what? What else did he say so?

        Nobody cares what he said. I pointed out the author, Y. Mukhin, who abundantly quotes the memoirs of Tolkonyuk, who for a long time had the misfortune to serve under the command of Gordov. Gordov is a classic example of a stupid performer who clamored tens of thousands of soldiers uselessly, just to report on the fulfillment of instructions from above. Like, they did what they could, how many people did it ...
        Tolkonyuk I.A. Lieutenant General (later), and if not for Gordov, he added one or two more stars on his shoulder straps.
        He left memoirs that are easy to find on the net. It's just that Mukhin chose what concerns Gordov. Mukhin considered Gordova as an example of how not to command troops.

        ... a famine with many thousands of victims is a historical fact ...

        One rifle for three has also long been considered a historical fact. Therefore, I am more inclined to believe the opinions of ten eyewitnesses.
        Again, 1,5 million and "victims of many thousands" are slightly different categories.
        1. Oleg Rambover Offline
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 3 September 2020 01: 13
          0
          • 0
          • 0
          Quote: boriz
          And Stalin did not need to suspect, he saw the real movement of troops.

          Stalin had a peculiar reality; in his reality there were conspiracies all around. And in the real world there were no conspiracies or troop movements. It was clear to everyone that the Red Army had an overwhelming advantage and that the Allies could not have stopped it if Stalin had decided to reach the Channel.

          Quote: boriz
          The country was thoroughly communist right after the war, but found itself outside the zone of influence of the USSR.

          Judging by the fact that there was a civil war, not through and through.

          Quote: boriz
          He respected the agreements on the division of spheres of influence.

          Churchill and Truman did not think so. Judging by the Iranian and Turkish crises, I did not particularly comply.

          Quote: boriz
          Mukhin considered Gordova as an example of how not to command troops.

          And who appointed him to this position? Why not just remove from office? Why shoot?

          Quote: boriz
          One rifle for three has also long been considered a historical fact.

          I was not interested in this issue, but I came across works where it was said about a rifle for 30 people in the families of the people's militia.

          Quote: boriz
          Again, 1,5 million and "victims of many thousands" are slightly different categories.

          Who counted them, as well as the number of victims of the war. These are all estimates. The estimates range from 200 thousand to 1.5 million.
  • savage1976 Offline
    savage1976 30 August 2020 10: 09
    0
    • 0
    • 0
    I completely agree with you and I am ready to subscribe to each phrase.
  • BUSEYN Offline
    BUSEYN (Sergei) 29 August 2020 23: 04
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    The author is paranoid. Reading is unpleasant. Just think, 20 generals. When 41 killed 200 - 400 thousand. And because of the generals. Stalin has something to do with it. He did not rule the country. Was just a "pawn". So from your words "Alexander" turns out. Okay, I won't. It's useless to talk to you.
  • Monster_Fat Offline
    Monster_Fat (What's the difference) 30 August 2020 08: 41
    -3
    • 0
    • 3
    Yes ... The author just spit out, telling about the "terrible" "betrayal" of the executed generals, who, having seen how the people lived in "occupied Europe", lost their "tightness", realizing that in a Stalinist country, ordinary people live worse than cattle near the same "decaying" "capitalist" farmer ... Indeed - a "terrible crime" that deserves death ... fool
    1. General Black Offline
      General Black (Gennady) 30 August 2020 20: 54
      -1
      • 0
      • 1
      Did you grow your fender on farm corn?
  • steelmaker Offline
    steelmaker 30 August 2020 09: 46
    +1
    • 1
    • 0
    The author would be more convincing if he published a list of confiscated goods, at least from the same Zhukov. I don't remember whether there was a program on the Zvezda channel or on REN.tv specially dedicated to this topic. And I was shocked by what I heard. At that moment, I would have Zhukov ... my hand would not have trembled. Zhukov is a commander - a genius, Zhukov is a man - not a good person. The whole country for victory gave the last to build a tank or an aircraft, and these generals thought about their own skin. The film "Stalingrad" in 1979, the role of Khrushchev, is well shown in one episode, and Zhukov defended this ghoul. Therefore, I am 200% sure that in June 1941 there was a betrayal. Zhukov at that time was the chief of the general staff and he could not help but know and understand what was happening on the border and in the troops!
    PS To the author. It is necessary to write a separate article confiscated from the generals. Then, maybe, some brains will stand in a row!
    1. Magog Offline
      Magog (Gog Magog) 30 August 2020 10: 11
      0
      • 0
      • 0
      I don't remember anymore, either there was a program on the Zvezda channel or on REN.tv

      Certainly not on "Zvezda" - they adore Zhukov there!

      Zhukov is a commander - a genius, Zhukov is a man - not a good person.

      Try to figure out your first thesis yourself. And give at least one example here.
  • Sergey Latyshev Offline
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 30 August 2020 10: 30
    -1
    • 0
    • 1
    You would think that Zhukov personally grabbed all these bicycles for himself.

    Just probably colleagues asked: take it, take mine too. Orderlies, assistants, subcontractors ... How can you refuse ...

    And about the executed. So the IVS itself caused confusion. I would shoot for drunkenness, debauchery, incompetence - everyone would understand.
    And then for espionage and an anti-Soviet group ... immediately canceled after death ...
    And then all 5 pre-war People's Commissars of the Air Force, 7 of the 12 Navy to Kuznetsov (in fact, all who did not have time to die and were not temporary appointees) - everything, everyone suddenly turned out to be spies, anti-Sovietists, conspirators and so on, so on, so on ...
    There was no longer any confidence in such an accusation ...
    1. Magog Offline
      Magog (Gog Magog) 30 August 2020 14: 45
      0
      • 0
      • 0
      It is easier to set up and blackmail a drunken libertine and even a thief in an especially large one for the sake of adversary intelligence, isn't it? So, the composition of the accusation is correct: spies and traitors are made of such material! I agree, Stalin started the machine of repression, but he could not manage it correctly. But, as usual, the idea was bright within the framework of the "victory of the world revolution."
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Nikolay Malyugin (Nikolai Malyugin) 31 August 2020 09: 27
    +1
    • 1
    • 0
    Why is there an attack on Stalin. Most likely, he personified Soviet power. When something goes wrong in a capitalist society, then the whole thunderstorm falls on the leader and the elite. If this happens in the socialist, then both the leader and the entire system. This is how it should be done in a democracy. One thing that the advocates of democracy do not understand is that this democracy will sweep them away.
  • high Offline
    high (Anatoly) 1 September 2020 07: 25
    -1
    • 0
    • 1
    Stalin committed a crime by destroying the senior officers of the Red Army, which led to the Second World War and the defeat of the Army by December 1941.
    The shameful "research" of couch historians who justified repressions against their people evokes indignation.
    They had to familiarize themselves with the opinions of Generals and Marshals, direct participants in the Second World War, about Stalin's destruction of the highest composition of the Red Army:

    - Marshal of the USSR A.M. Vasilevsky:

    “Without the thirty-seventh year, perhaps there would have been no war at all in the forty-first year. In the fact that Hitler decided to start a war in XNUMX, an assessment of the degree of defeat of military personnel that took place in our country played an important role. "

    [The magazine "Communist", 1988, No. 9];

    - Marshal of the USSR A. I. Eremenko:

    "Comrade Stalin was significantly guilty of the extermination of military personnel before the war, which affected the combat capability of the army."

    [A. Pronin "Trench Truth" Marshal Eremenko. "Independent Military Review", 28.04.2000/XNUMX/XNUMX.]

    - Army General A.V. Gorbatov:

    “... how are we going to fight, having lost so many experienced commanders even before the war?
    This, undoubtedly, was at least one of the main reasons for our failures, although they did not talk about it or presented it as if the years 1937-938, having cleared the army of "traitors", increased its power. "

    [Gorbatov A.V. Years and wars. - M .: Military publishing house Min. defense of the USSR, 1965].

    The paradox is that the repressed generals, who did not have time to shoot: Rokossovsky, Gorbatov, Yushkevich, Petrovsky, Lizyukov, Bukshtynovich, Meretskov ... ....
    The executed generals and marshals were not inferior in professionalism to the Generals, whom they did not manage to shoot and who took part in the Second World War.
    Stalin's crimes, which destroyed the generals of the Red Army and led to Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, according to Marshals Vasilevsky and Eremenko, Army General Gorbatov ....., awaits further analysis.
    1. high Offline
      high (Anatoly) 1 September 2020 08: 08
      -1
      • 0
      • 1
      (continued). The military professionalism of the commander of a proletarian rifle division, Colonel Kreiser, who was not accidentally subjected to reprisals, can be cited as an example of the capabilities destroyed by the senior officers of the Red Army. There was a reason: his sister married a Pole, who was shot as an enemy of the people ...
      This division was previously commanded by General Petrovsky, who was repressed, but did not have time to shoot, and he took part in the Second World War.
      Colonel Kreiser's division proved to be the only military force that opposed the German army, which was trying to capture Moscow. The division delayed the advance of the Germans towards Moscow, which made it possible to transfer troops from Siberia to defend Moscow.
      This was the first success of the Red Army, the colonel was awarded the Hero's Star and promoted in rank.
      Subsequently, Kreiser commanded the Army that liberated the Crimea, he became an Army General, streets in Simferopol and Sevastopol, in Voronezh, where he was born, are named after him.
      On May 21, 1945, Stalin gave a banquet in honor of the Victory, where the commanders of the fronts and armies were invited.
      In honor of each front commander, Stalin proclaimed a toast; the only army commander to whom Stalin made a toast was Kreiser.
      Kreiser did not differ in professionalism from the hundreds of the Red Army generals who were shot by Stalin. By the way, the name of General of the Army Kreiser is forgotten, there is not even a plaque on the house in Moscow where he lived ...
      1. Magog Offline
        Magog (Gog Magog) 5 September 2020 20: 37
        0
        • 0
        • 0
        Many who were not shot showed their best side during the war. Maybe that's why they didn't shoot, they knew in the NKVD who should be shot and who shouldn't ... And it was with the beginning of hostilities that they began to release the arrested military. If "enemies of the people" and "incompetent", then why release and send to the front to command? Miracles, "leader's paranoia"? And some, not even repressed, were shot already during the war.
  • steelmaker Offline
    steelmaker 1 September 2020 10: 37
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    Marshal of the USSR A. M. Vasilevsky: “Without thirty-seventh year ..

    Marshal of the USSR A. I. Eremenko: “Comrade Stalin is significantly guilty of ...

    Army General A.V. Gorbatov: “... how are we going to fight, having lost so many experienced commanders even before the war?

    You read the wrong generals and cite them as examples! The best assessment is the enemy's assessment of your deeds.
    Otto Skorzeny, memoir: "Why Didn't We Take Moscow?"
    As an example to Hitler, the author of the memoirs puts Stalin and 1937 year:

    A huge purge among the military, carried out after the same mass shootings among politicians, misled not only Heydrich and Schellenberg. Our political intelligence was convinced that we had achieved decisive success, and Hitler was of the same opinion. However, the Red Army, contrary to popular belief, was not weakened, but strengthened ... The posts of the repressed commanders of armies, corps, divisions, brigades, regiments and battalions were occupied by young officers - ideological communists. And the conclusion: “After the total, terrible purge of 1937, a new, political Russian army appeared, capable of enduring the most brutal battles. Russian generals carried out orders, and did not engage in conspiracies and betrayal, as often happened in our highest positions.

    And I will repeat myself. In 1941 there would not have been such terrible losses if not for the betrayal of the generals!
    1. Oleg Rambover Offline
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 1 September 2020 15: 14
      0
      • 1
      • 1
      Quote: steel maker
      And I will repeat myself. In 1941 there would not have been such terrible losses if not for the betrayal of the generals!

      These are unsupported fantasies.
    2. Magog Offline
      Magog (Gog Magog) 1 September 2020 16: 24
      0
      • 0
      • 0
      The enemy understood the logic of Stalin's actions ... too late.
    3. Magog Offline
      Magog (Gog Magog) 5 September 2020 21: 11
      0
      • 0
      • 0
      I cannot understand what kind of "betrayal of the generals" we are talking about - you need to get acquainted with this version. But there are many reasons for the defeat of 41. Main: we did not prepare to repel aggression... Hence the lack of: prepared and occupied by the troops of strategic defensive lines to a depth of tens and hundreds of kilometers; corresponding to the tasks of the country's defense of armament and training of troops and command with plans of military action, strategic reserves in the depths of organized fortified areas; finally, topographic maps of the country's territory, where it was supposed to stop the aggressor, military depots, prepared airfields, naval bases, etc., etc. Everything extremely necessary for the fight against the enemy was created "on the move", heroically, under the influence of the pressing enemy ...
  • Semyon Mikhailov (Semyon) 18 September 2020 09: 03
    +1
    • 1
    • 0
    Most likely, the shootings of high-ranking military personnel after the war are just a link in the chain of events (measures) aimed at distracting the people from understanding the scale of losses in the war and analyzing the reasons for this. If my memory serves me, then at the end of the war I. Dzhugashvili announced the loss of civilians and servicemen in the amount of 9, and the highest command staff is just the category that knew and understood the real scale of the tragedy. At first, it was forbidden to celebrate Victory Day, then they began to deal with those who made statements that before the war and at its initial stage, it was the leadership that made a number of mistakes and miscalculations (purge in the Red Army, for example), as a result of which the beginning of the war went according to this scenario and as a result 000 million dead, half of the country in ruins, and the "trophy direction" was used, very conveniently. Then, in fact, they destroyed the museum of the blockade of Leningrad.