RUSSIA YESTERDAY AND TODAY
Dr. History Sciences V. P. Kuptsov
RESULTS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR
The consequences and lessons of the bloodiest wars are assessed
XX century - The Great Patriotic War and the Second World War.
Sixty years have passed since the victory of the combined forces of 55 countries of the anti-Hitler coalition over Nazi Germany and its allies. Despite the age of this event, interest in studying the history of the past war is constantly growing. Of the many aspects of this complex and multilateral problem, we should first of all highlight the results and lessons of the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War, the price of the victory won.
The world-historical victory over fascism and Japanese militarism, won with the decisive role of the Soviet Union, saved humanity from the threat of enslavement, obscurantism and social degradation. The sovereignty of the countries captured by the fascist bloc was restored, and the international authority of the USSR increased.
As the largest military conflict in the history of mankind, the Second World War is characterized by the enormous scope of military operations, the tension of the moral and political forces of peoples, and an unprecedented increase in military production. In total it lasted 2194 days (6 years). 61 states were drawn into the war. The population of the countries participating in the war was 1.7 billion people (about 80% of the planet's population). It was the most destructive of all wars that history has known. According to far from complete data, the total material damage from military destruction is estimated at 316 billion dollars. Particularly significant damage was caused to the USSR. Direct damage from destruction on its territory amounted to 679 billion rubles (41% of all material losses countries participating in the war), and together with indirect losses - reached almost 2,600 billion rubles. On the territory of the USSR, 1,710 cities and towns, 70 thousand villages and hamlets were destroyed, 32 thousand industrial enterprises and 65 thousand kilometers of railway tracks were destroyed. Enormous damage was caused agriculture. Soviet Union lost about 30% of national wealth during the war. Other countries also suffered significant losses.
In the history of mankind, World War II was not only the most destructive, but also the bloodiest. Its victims were enormous. More than 55 million people died, of which 27 million people died on the battlefield. The greatest demographic losses, as during the First World War, were again suffered by European countries (40 million people), of which more than half (about 27 million) occurred in the Soviet Union.
So, the direct losses of the population of the USSR during the war years amounted to 11.5% of its population by mid-1941. For a more complete picture of this figure, we present estimates of the irretrievable losses of the population of a number of countries participating in the Second World War: Great Britain - 375 thousand people, or 0 .9% of the total number; USA - 405 thousand people (0.3%); Japan - 2.5 million people (3.4%). In Eastern European countries, the populations most affected were Poland (6 million - 17.2%) and Yugoslavia (1.7 million - 10.9%).
An urgent issue that has not received a final solution to this day is the determination of the human losses of Nazi Germany. The latest publication estimates that the total irretrievable demographic losses (military personnel and civilians) in Germany amounted to 8.8 million people, i.e. 12.7% of the country’s population at the beginning of World War II, and together with its satellites - 11.9 million people.
According to the results of a study by the commission of the General Staff of the Revolutionary Military Forces, the German armed forces for the period from September 1, 1939 to May 9, 1945, lost 13.4 million people killed and wounded, according to incomplete data. At the same time, on the Soviet-German front (from June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945), the irretrievable losses of the Germans amounted to 7.2 million military personnel, and together with the allies - 8.7 million people.
The irretrievable losses suffered by the Soviet Armed Forces in 1941-1945 reached 11.4 million people, and together with the allies on the Eastern Front - 11.5 million people. They correlate with the corresponding enemy losses as 1:1.3.
Wars are accompanied by an increase in civilian deaths relative to total number human losses. During the First World War this figure was 5%, during the Second World War - 48, the Korean War - 84, in Vietnam - 90%.
A special and little-studied area of the military-demographic consequences of wars are indirect and remote losses. As a result of the mobilization of young men, there is a sharp drop in the number of marriages and birth rates, and this, ultimately, significantly reduces natural population growth. The number of disabled people is growing significantly.
There is a significant decline in the quality of the population associated with the deterioration of material living conditions (during the Second World War in Europe, 60 million people were left homeless) and, as a consequence, a decline in morality, intellectual potential, epidemics and other negative phenomena.
The Second World War had a great impact not only on the natural reproduction of people in all countries of the world, but also on their interstate and internal migration. The migration caused by the war, accompanied by enormous hardships and hardships, led to an increase in mortality and a decrease in birth rates, in other words, the war brought about serious changes in the structure of population throughout the world. For a number of countries, including the Soviet Union, the demographic consequences of the war became one of the most negative factors in their further development.
Indeed, the cost of the victory of the Soviet people was too great. However, it cannot be a reason to falsify the USSR’s decisive contribution to the victory.
Firstly. In literature published in Germany and other Western countries, German casualties in World War II are greatly underestimated. Some Russian publicists and even historians use such data, often without proper analysis. Citing the ratio of human losses between the Soviet Union and Germany (1:5,1:7,1:10), many authors compare incomparable values. From fascist Germany only the irretrievable losses of the Wehrmacht (during combat operations) are taken, and from the USSR - the losses of the entire population of the country, including those who died of hunger, in concentration camps and forced labor in Germany, etc. As a rule, the calculated information is not included the losses of Germany's allies in the fascist bloc, as well as various foreign formations that fought as part of the German troops.
Secondly. The goals of the opposing sides in the war are not taken into account. The Soviet Union, fighting the army of Nazi Germany, defended its freedom and independence and did not pursue the goal of destroying the German people. The aggressor - German fascism - in addition to military plans, carried out its misanthropic intentions to destroy the Slavic and other peoples of our country. It is also known that military operations within the USSR lasted for over three years, and on German territory for less than 5 months. Hence the colossal losses of the civilian population of the Soviet Union, which cannot be compared with the losses of Germany.
Thirdly. The role of the Soviet-German front in the defeat of the aggressor is downplayed and preference is given to the Western European, African and Pacific theaters of military operations. Such narrowing
theses are far from reality. The Eastern Front was the main, most intense and longest in the Second World War. Here the highest price was paid for the overall victory. It was here that the military power of the fascist bloc was crushed, which led to the collapse of the entire political and military machine of Germany and its satellites. IN different periods On the Soviet-German front, from 190 to 270 divisions of Nazi Germany and the Allies were simultaneously operating. Anglo-American troops in North Africa in 1941-1943. opposed from 9 to 20 divisions in Italy in 1943-1945. - from 7 to 26 divisions, in Western Europe after the opening of the second front - from 56 to 75 divisions. Soviet armed forces in 1941-1945. defeated and captured 607 enemy divisions (the allies defeated 176 divisions). The Wehrmacht lost 70-75% of various types of military equipment and weapons on the Eastern Front.
There are often allegations that US Lend-Lease assistance played a significant role in achieving the victories of the Red Army on the Eastern Front. Our people remember this and thank their allies in the anti-Hitler coalition. In reality, deliveries under Lend-Lease did not exceed 4% of all military products supplied to the front during the war. Therefore, the Red Army and Navy beat the enemy not with foreign, but with domestic weapons, which were provided by the country's military industry. Victory in World War II was the common merit of the coalition of anti-fascist states and peoples, but the USSR made a decisive contribution to the victorious conclusion of the war. This is probably why the Soviet people paid the highest price for the overall victory.
As a result of the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War, fundamental changes occurred in the international situation.
Changes in the balance of political forces. Confrontation between two systems. The war changed the face of the world. First of all, there have been significant changes in the balance of power and the redistribution of spheres of influence within the capitalist world. The economies of Italy, Germany and Japan were disorganized. The positions of France and the British Empire were significantly weakened. In contrast, the military and economic potential of the United States has sharply increased. Military orders allowed them to make huge profits. The role of the United States as an international banker, supplier of weapons and food for the warring countries turned this power into the leader of the entire capitalist system.
Significant changes took place in the domestic and international position of the USSR, and its influence and authority in the world community increased. In determining the foreign policy activities of the country
stood in front of alternative choice: 1) continuing allied relations, enter the “common home” of the post-war civilized world and develop with it, with its help restore the economy; 2) follow the same path of the world communist perspective, spreading the socialist ideal to states that have freed themselves from fascism, and isolate themselves with an “iron curtain” from “class opponents.”
Stalin chose the second path. In the process of expelling German occupiers from Eastern European countries and Japanese militarists from East Asia, in the course of restoring the sovereignty of states in these regions, the Stalinist leadership took measures to create communist governments in a number of European and Asian countries. The necessary assistance was provided in the reorganization of socio-political systems with the aim of introducing the Soviet model of socialism. In the ideological sphere, this process was explained by the concept of creating a world socialist system.
The growing influence of the USSR in the post-war world caused alarm and extreme concern among the Western powers. This was most strongly reflected in the speech of former British Prime Minister W. Churchill in the American city of Fulton (March 1946) and in the message to Congress of US President Henry Truman (February 1947). These and other documents formulated two strategic tasks of the West in relation to the USSR. The first priority is to prevent further expansion of the sphere of influence of the USSR and its communist ideology (the doctrine of “containing communism”). The promising one is to push the socialist system back to the pre-war borders, and then achieve its weakening and elimination in Russia itself (the doctrine of “throwing back communism”).
Specific measures to achieve these goals were also identified:
Provide large-scale economic assistance to European countries, making their economies dependent on the United States (Marshall Plan). In 1948-1951 material assistance amounting to $12.4 billion was sent there free of charge;
Carry out, under the leadership of the United States, a so-called bloc policy directed against the USSR, countries under its influence and supported by it political movements. In 1949, the North Atlantic Military-Political Alliance of Western States - NATO - was created. Following this, military-political blocs are being put together in the Near and Middle East. They united about 30 states;
Place a network of US military and naval bases around the USSR and its allies;
Support anti-socialist forces within the Soviet bloc countries;
Use (as extreme case) armed forces of Western powers to directly intervene in the internal affairs of countries in the Soviet sphere of influence. Moreover, using the factor of the US nuclear monopoly, the possibility of nuclear war was allowed. Real plans for an atomic attack on the USSR were being developed. By 1947, 100 Soviet cities had been identified as targets for nuclear strikes.
The leadership of the USSR regarded the new foreign policy course of the former allies as a call to war, which immediately affected both the foreign and domestic policy Soviet state. Hopes for comprehensive cooperation after the war among the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition collapsed, the world entered an era of “ cold war", which, now fading, now intensifying and threatening to turn into the third world war, lasted for about half a century.
Measures taken by the USSR after the war, during foreign policy were adequate to US actions, although less effective. The forces were unequal primarily because the Soviet Union emerged from the war economically weakened, while the United States of America emerged stronger.
Thus, one of the main results of the war was a new geopolitical situation. It was characterized by growing confrontation between the leading capitalist states, led by the United States, and the Soviet Union, which was extending its influence to a number of countries in Europe and Asia. What gave this confrontation exceptional drama was the fact that it developed in nuclear age, which humanity entered in August 1945.
Development of democratic trends in many countries of the world. The rise of the labor and democratic movement, caused by the victory over fascism, made it possible to significantly expand rights and freedoms in many bourgeois countries.
A feature of the labor movement of the post-war period was the strengthening of the role and influence of communist, socialist and social democratic parties in it. Being the most consistent forces in the fight against the occupiers and internal reaction, such parties (especially the communists) acquired the well-deserved trust of the people, led democratic transformations, and entered the government of many states.
The growth of the national liberation movement in colonial and dependent countries. The defeat of fascist Germany and militaristic Japan, the weakening of England, France and other colonial powers strengthened the ideas of national liberation and equal rights
childbirth Dozens of enslaved states in Africa, Asia and Latin America rose up to fight to eliminate colonial oppression and win political independence.
In the first 15 post-war years alone, more than 40 liberated states emerged in Asia and Africa. By the beginning of the 1960s. Almost two-thirds of the world's population was freed from colonial oppression. In the 1970s The destruction of the colonial system was almost completed.
The USSR has always been sympathetic to the concerns and concerns of the liberated countries. Among the largest initiatives of the Soviet Union is the discussion at the UN of the issue of eliminating colonialism in 1960, providing assistance in choosing the path of future development.
Creating new conditions for solving the most burning problem of our time - war and peace, preventing a new world war. There was a significant regrouping of socio-political forces in favor of peace and social progress. Convincing confirmation of the changes in world development was the creation of the United Nations (UN).
Soon after the war, an organized peace movement emerged. In April 1949, the first World Peace Congress took place simultaneously in Paris and Prague. More than two thousand delegates represented the peoples of 67 countries and 18 international democratic organizations. The Manifesto for Peace, adopted at the congress, called on all peoples to actively fight against war and to strengthen security and international cooperation.
The development of the democratic peace movement was facilitated by the creation in the post-war period of such mass organizations as the World Federation of Trade Unions (1945), the International Democratic Federation of Women (1945), the World Federation of Democratic Youth (1945), the World Peace Council (1948) and other international associations ( students, journalists, doctors, lawyers, etc.).
The powerful movement of peace supporters was an important factor in strengthening the security of nations. However, the increasing confrontation between the two systems - socialism and capitalism - destroyed the unity of action of the movement of peace-loving forces and complicated the solution to the problem of ensuring lasting peace. And although preventing a new world war became possible, the number of local, that is, spatially limited, wars and armed conflicts was enormous (researchers count up to 500) and they claimed tens and hundreds of thousands of human lives.
Thus, the components of the potential of the post-war world, split and weakened by the confrontation between capitalist and social
listist systems, were deprived of the opportunity to act as a united front against the forces of aggression and war. In a number of regions, local wars have become a reality.
A look at past international crises, of which twice in the twentieth century. World wars flared up, prompts some thoughts about their political results and lessons, about the degree to which they were taken into account in the military policies of states in the post-war period of historical development.
Changes in the balance of political forces in the international arena after the end of World War II, the confrontation between two socio-political systems, and the outbreak of the Cold War predetermined the involvement of the Soviet Union in the arms race imposed on it, a grueling confrontation. One can only guess what the final astronomical figure for military spending was, the depth of the deformations in consciousness and culture that occurred in the twentieth century. for militaristic reasons. The achievement of military-strategic parity between the USSR and the USA actually devalued military force as a universal weapon of politics. And, probably, the leaders of these countries realized that a nuclear “tournament” could only lead to a historical dead end, since the ashes of the warring parties would be practically indistinguishable, and in a nuclear missile war there would be neither winners nor losers. Unfortunately, the lessons of the past war are not always and not always taken into account. Therefore, humanity is not yet faced with the need to form a “planetary” consciousness in relation to war, which may provide perhaps the only chance to prevent it.
The further expansion of the North Atlantic bloc to the East, according to many military observers, poses a serious danger to our country. In April 2004, NATO was replenished with seven new members: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia. This event was preceded by the admission of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to the alliance. It is important to pay attention to the fact that three former union republics of the USSR and six states - former members Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO). This strengthens NATO's geopolitical position in Europe and weakens Russia's position.
Today, the military-political bloc includes 26 states, bound by a single strategic concept and having united armed forces. The alliance's aviation group includes 4,700 combat aircraft. Against which country can the potential capabilities of the NATO group be used? If we mentally move back to the Cold War period, the answer is clear: against the countries participating in the Warsaw War. After the collapse of the Department of Internal Affairs, and then the collapse
The USSR in the East has only one state left as a potential enemy in a large-scale war - Russia.
Thus, the theoretical position of the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation on the expansion of military blocs and alliances to the detriment of Russian security is confirmed by reality.
References
1. Army and society. M., 1990.
2. World War II. Results and lessons. M., 1985.
3. The classification of secrecy has been removed: Losses of the Armed Forces of the USSR in wars, hostilities and military conflicts: Statistical research. M., 1993.
4. Gurkin V.V., Gurov O.G. The price of aggression // Military Historical Journal. 1989. No. 9.
5. Eliseev V.G., Mikhalev S.N. So how many people did we lose in the war? // Military historical magazine. 1992. No. 6-7.
6. History of the Second World War. 1939-1945: In 12 volumes. M., 1982.
7. History of Russia. M., 2004.
8. Munchaev Sh. M., Ustinov V. M. History of Russia: Textbook for universities. 3rd ed., rev. and additional M., 2004.
9. Pankratov N. R. Nationwide War - Great Victory. 19411945. About the scientific concept of the Great Patriotic War Soviet Union. M., 1996.
10. Polyakov L. E. The price of the Second World War. Demographic aspect. M., 1985.
11. Projector D. M. World wars and the fate of mankind (reflections). M., 1986.
12. Russia and the USSR in the wars of the twentieth century: Statistical study. M., 2001.
The defeat of fascism was achieved through the combined efforts of the states of the anti-Hitler coalition and the Resistance forces in the occupied countries. Each country contributed to the victory by playing its role in this global battle. The historical role of the state in the defeat of fascism constitutes the national pride of the people, determines the country's authority in the post-war world and political weight in resolving international issues. That is why Western historiography is trying to belittle and distort the role of the USSR in World War II.
The historical role of the USSR in World War II lies in the fact that the Soviet Union was the main military-political force that determined the victorious course of the war, its decisive results and, ultimately, the protection of the peoples of the world from enslavement by fascism.
The general assessment of the role of the USSR in the war is revealed in the following specific provisions:
1. The Soviet Union is the only force in the world that, as a result of a heroic struggle, stopped in 1941 the continuous victorious march of aggression of Nazi Germany across Europe.
This was achieved at a time when the power of Hitler's military machine was greatest, and the military capabilities of the United States were just being developed. The victory near Moscow dispelled the myth of the invincibility of the German army, contributed to the rise of the Resistance movement and strengthened the anti-Hitler coalition.
2. The USSR, in fierce battles with the main force of the fascist bloc, Hitler’s Germany, achieved a radical turning point during the Second World War in favor of the anti-Hitler coalition in 1943.
After the defeat at Stalingrad, Germany, and after it Japan, switched from an offensive war to a defensive one. In the Battle of Kursk, the ability of Hitler's army to resist the advance of Soviet troops was finally broken, and the crossing of the Dnieper opened the way to the liberation of Europe.
This conclusion is based on the following comparative indicators of the armed struggle of the Red Army and the armies of the Anglo-American allies:
Western historiography and propaganda carefully suppress these historical facts or grossly distort them, attributing the decisive contribution to the victory to the United States and England. In the last decade of the 20th century. they are echoed by some domestic historians and publicists of an anti-Soviet and Russophobic orientation.
The historical role that befell the USSR in the defeat of fascism was worth heavy losses. The Soviet people brought their most sacrificial share to the altar of victory over fascism. The Soviet Union lost 26.6 million people in the war, tens of millions were wounded and maimed, the birth rate fell sharply, and enormous damage was done to health; all Soviet people experienced physical and moral suffering; The standard of living of the population fell.
Enormous damage has been caused to the national economy. The USSR lost 30% of its national wealth. The cost of damage amounted to 675 billion rubles. 1,710 cities and towns, more than 70 thousand villages, more than 6 million buildings, 32 thousand enterprises, 65 thousand km were destroyed and burned railways. The war devastated the treasury, prevented the creation of new values in the national heritage, and led to a number of negative consequences in the economy, demography, psychology, and morality, which together amounted to the indirect costs of the war.
Direct losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, i.e. died, died from wounds, went missing, did not return from captivity and non-combat losses, during the war years, taking into account the Far Eastern campaign, amounted to 8,668,400 people, including the army and navy 8,509,300 Human. A significant part of the losses occurred in 1941 - 1942. (3,048,800 people). In the battles for the liberation of the peoples of Europe and the complete defeat of fascism, hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers laid down their lives: during the liberation of Poland - 600 thousand, Czechoslovakia - 140 thousand, Hungary - 140 thousand, Romania - about 69 thousand, Yugoslavia - 8 thousand, Austria - 26 thousand, Norway - more than a thousand, Finland - about 2 thousand, over 100 thousand Soviet soldiers died on German soil.
Anti-Soviet propaganda abroad and some Russian media, which carry out the same ideological indoctrination of the population, blasphemously juggle with the figures of losses in the Great Patriotic War. Comparing different types losses in the USSR and Germany, draw a conclusion about “vain rivers of blood” and “mountains of corpses” of Soviet soldiers, blaming them on the “Soviet system,” questioning the very victory of the USSR over fascism. Falsifiers of history do not mention that Nazi Germany treacherously attacked the Soviet Union, unleashing mass destruction on the civilian population. The Nazis used an inhumane blockade of cities (700,000 people died from hunger in Leningrad), bombing and shelling of civilians, carried out mass executions of civilians, drove the civilian population to hard labor and concentration camps, where they were subjected to mass destruction. The Soviet Union strictly complied with the agreements on the maintenance of prisoners of war and showed a humane attitude towards them. The Soviet command avoided conducting combat operations in densely populated areas, and in some cases allowed Nazi troops to leave them unhindered. There were no reprisals against the civilian population in the territories occupied by Soviet troops. This explains the difference in losses among the civilian population of the USSR and Germany.
According to the latest studies, the irretrievable losses of the directly armed forces in the Red Army together with the allies - Polish, Czechoslovak, Bulgarian, Romanian soldiers - by the end of the war amounted to 10.3 million people, of which Soviet soldiers - 8,668,400, including those killed in captivity (according to official archival data). The losses of the fascist bloc totaled 9.3 million people, of which 7.4 million were to fascist Germany, 1.2 million to its satellites in Europe and 0.7 million to Japan in the Manchurian operation. Thus, if we exclude our losses associated with the brutal treatment of prisoners of war by the Nazis, then the discrepancy with Germany’s combat losses is quite insignificant, despite the most difficult conditions at the beginning of the war.
At the end of September - beginning of October 1941, a conference of representatives of the USSR, England and the USA was held in Moscow, as a result of which an agreement was signed - a protocol on supplies. Representatives of the anti-Hitler coalition had to decide how best to help the Soviet Union in the great resistance it was putting up against the fascist attack, and also consider questions of “the distribution of common resources” and best use these resources in order to render the greatest service to their common efforts.
However, the Soviet Union's bids were significantly reduced by the Anglo-American side. The Soviet Union wanted to receive from England and the USA monthly 400 aircraft, 1 thousand light and medium tanks, 300 anti-tank guns, 300 anti-aircraft guns; 4 thousand tons of aluminum; 10 thousand tons of armor plates, etc. According to a joint protocol, the USA and England pledged to supply the USSR with 400 aircraft, 500 tanks, 2 thousand tons of aluminum, 1 thousand tons of armor steel, etc., per month. In turn, the Soviet The Union confirmed, despite enormous difficulties, that it would continue to supply Great Britain and the United States with large quantities of raw materials, machine tools and other materials that they needed. Despite the agreement, England and the United States were in no hurry to fulfill their obligations. During October and November 1941, 28 ships were sent to the USSR with a cargo of slightly more than 130 thousand tons, i.e. less than 1/10 of the deliveries provided for 9 months until June 1942.
During the most difficult initial period of the war, the USSR received almost no help from its allies, although the US government extended the Lend-Lease law to the USSR. By the end of the year, deliveries to the USSR under Lend-Lease amounted to only 0.1% of the total amount of deliveries in 1941. Naturally, such supplies at the beginning of the war could not have a significant impact on the technical and defense equipment of our army.
According to historians, over the entire period of the agreement (October 1941 - June 1942), the United States fulfilled its obligations to supply the USSR with bombers by 29.7%, fighters by 30.9%, medium tanks by 32.3 %, light tanks - by 37.3%, trucks - by 19%, etc. The same picture was observed in 1942. True, in absolute terms deliveries grew, but they did not exceed half of the volume that was agreed In short, instead of the two promised tanks, they sent only one, and instead of ten Studebakers, five. When discussing the terms of the second protocol, the US government, citing the commitment to open a second front in 1942, significantly reduced the volume of expected supplies to the Soviet Union. The initially planned volume of 8 million tons was halved, and then decreased to 2.5 tons. As is known, the second front was not opened either in 1942 or 1943, but under the pretext of an operation in the Mediterranean, the British and Americans did not They also fulfilled the reduced supply plan. As a result of delays, the bulk of the planned assistance began to come from the United States only in the second half of 1943, i.e. after the battles of Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk, after the Red Army wrested the strategic initiative from the enemy, launched a decisive offensive, and finally turned the tide wars in their favor and the urgent need for allied help disappeared.
The active troops received domestic weapons in an ever-increasing amount. Already in the second half of 1942, the Soviet Union produced more tanks than Nazi Germany, although it used almost the entire industry of Western Europe.
During the last three years of the war, Soviet industry produced annually an average of about 30 thousand tanks, self-propelled guns and armored vehicles - almost 2 times more than was produced in Germany, 1.5 times more than in the USA, and 6 times more than in England. The brilliant successes of the Soviet people made it possible to form required quantity tank units and formations. In 1942 alone, Soviet industry produced about 25 thousand tanks and more than 25 thousand aircraft.
By July 1943, our active army had 9,580 tanks and self-propelled artillery units against 5,850 enemy tanks and attack aircraft. The material basis of the Soviet Armed Forces in this, as well as in subsequent periods, was domestic equipment. As for deliveries under Lend-Lease, they began to increase only from 1943. Supplies to the Soviet Union during the first year of the law (March 1941 - March 1942) accounted for 6% of the total volume of American supplies under Lend-Lease, while England accounted for 68%, and during the second year the USSR's share increased to 29%.
The share of goods received by the USSR from America during the war years, in relation to the size of products produced at our enterprises, did not exceed 4%. During the war, the USSR received 7 thousand 500 guns under Lend-Lease, and produced 489 thousand 500 guns, received 9 thousand 100 armored cars and tanks, and produced 102 thousand 500. The more than modest role of American supplies in supplying the USSR, which suffered The main burden of the war against Hitlerism is clearly visible in the example of ferrous metals. During the first three years of the war, 1 million 160 thousand tons of steel and steel products arrived from the USA to the Soviet Union, and 13.3 thousand tons of rails from Canada. During the same time, our Kuznetsk Metallurgical Plant alone provided the country with 6 million 322 thousand tons of steel. The supplies of military equipment were also small in comparison with the quantity that our domestic factories produced.
In addition, it should be emphasized that all these supplies during the most difficult period of the Patriotic War were very insignificant. During this time, our factories produced 136.8 thousand aircraft; 489.9 thousand of all guns, not counting other military equipment. Thus, in relation to the volume of our military production, allied deliveries amounted to approximately 12% of aircraft; for tanks - 10%; for artillery pieces - less than 2%. Soviet defeat, armed fascism
Speaking about Anglo-American supplies to the Soviet Union during the Second World War under Lend-Lease, we should dwell on one more issue. The fact is that the Soviet Union did not receive, in a timely manner, all the weapons and supplies that were indicated in the lists agreed upon by both parties. To a large extent, this was due to the system of transporting goods intended for shipment to the USSR.
During this period, there were only two possible routes for transporting goods from England and the USA to the USSR: the northern one - to Murmansk and Arkhangelsk and the southern one - through Iran. Of the two routes, the shorter and more convenient route was across the North Atlantic. Sailing along it took half as much time as through the Persian Gulf, and from Iceland, where the allied caravans were formed, the ships traveled only 10-12 days. But sailing the northern route was more dangerous; approximately 20% of ships with cargo died
Assessing the overall significance of Lend-Lease on the main front, where the fate of the war was being decided, i.e., on the Soviet-German front, it should be emphasized that it played a relatively small, auxiliary role. It should be borne in mind that the Soviet Union produced military products worth about $150 billion, while supplies under Lend-Lease amounted to $9.8 billion). Lend-Lease deliveries had a certain significance as an expression of military cooperation between the USSR and the USA during the war, but Soviet troops won victory in Europe and the Far East thanks to domestic weapons. President F. Roosevelt was forced to admit this. Speaking to the US Congress on May 20, 1944, he said: “The Soviet Union uses weapons mainly from its own factories.” In the secret brochure “Lend-Lease. Facts and Fiction,” published back in 1945 by the American Foreign Economic Assistance Administration, the role of Lend-Lease is defined as follows: “The military materials that we supplied under Lend-Lease, although they played an important role in achieving success by the armed forces of Great Britain and the USSR, but nevertheless constituted a very small part of their total production of weapons and equipment, our allies covered their main needs through their own production. As for the British armed forces, Lend-Lease assistance. , received from the United States, covered approximately one-fifth of all needs... If we take the Russian army, then our assistance satisfied its needs to a much lesser extent." US Secretary of State E. Stettinius, who headed all activities within the framework of Lend-Lease, rightly wrote: “For all this help, the Russians have already paid a price that cannot be measured in dollars and tanks... The Russians have paid dearly for the victories they won defending the soil of their homeland from Germany. They caused irreparable damage to the Nazi war machine.”
Speaking about losses, we must remember the main thing - the result of the war. The Soviet people defended their independence, the USSR made a decisive contribution to the victory over fascism, saving humanity from enslavement by the very reactionary system of imperialism. Nazi Germany was defeated, Hitlerism was eradicated, and there were no military clashes in Europe for almost half a century. The Soviet Union received guaranteed security for its European borders.
The Soviet Union withstood the most difficult invasion and won the greatest victory in the entire thousand-year history of Russia. What are the sources of strength of the Soviet people in this gigantic battle? The main source of victory is the socialist social system.
It became the basis for the following specific sources of victory in armed struggle.
1. The spiritual power of the Soviet people, which caused mass heroism at the front and in the rear. The just liberation goals of the war made it truly Great, Patriotic, People's.
Soviet patriotism, which absorbed the military traditions and national pride of Russia, also included socialist ideals. The spiritual power of the people was manifested in the high morale of the troops and labor tension in the rear, in perseverance and dedication in fulfilling their duty to the Motherland, in the heroic struggle behind enemy lines and in the mass partisan movement.
2. The cohesion of Soviet society in the fight against the enemy.
The social homogeneity of society and the absence of exploiting classes in it were the basis for the moral and political unity of all Soviet people during the years of difficult trials. With their minds and hearts, they realized that in unity they had strength and hope for salvation from the foreign yoke. The friendship of the peoples of the USSR, based on social homogeneity, socialist ideology and common goals of struggle, also stood the test. In the pre-war period, the “fifth column” suffered significant damage and could no longer actively participate in subversive activities. The lot of traitors is the anger and contempt of the people.
3. Soviet state system.
The popular character of Soviet power determined the people's complete trust in the state leadership in the difficult trials of the war. High centralization of public administration, organized work of the system government agencies And public organizations ensured the rapid mobilization of all the forces of society to solve the most important problems, the transformation of the country into a single military camp, and the close unity of the front and rear.
4. Socialist economy, its planning and distribution economic mechanism and mobilization abilities.
The socialist national economy triumphed over the German war economy, which exploited the superior potential of all of Europe. The powerful industry and collective farm system created in the pre-war years provided the material and technical capabilities for a victorious war. The quantity of weapons and military equipment significantly exceeded that of Germany, and in terms of quality it was the best in the world. The Soviet rear provided the army with the human resources necessary for victory and ensured that the front was supplied without interruption. The effectiveness of centralized control ensured a gigantic maneuver of productive forces in the difficult conditions of the army's retreat from west to east and the restructuring of production for military needs in the shortest possible time.
5. Activities of the Communist Party.
The party was the core of society, the spiritual basis and organizing force, the real vanguard of the people. The communists carried out the most difficult and dangerous tasks voluntarily, and were an example in the performance of military duty and selfless work in the rear. The party, as a leading political force, provided effective ideological and educational work, organized mobilization and production activities, and successfully completed the most important task of selecting leadership personnel for waging war and organizing production. Of the total number of deaths at the front, 3 million were communists.
6. Soviet military art, the art of conducting military operations on various scales - in battle, operation (operational art), campaign and warfare in general (strategy).
The art of war ultimately realized all the sources of victory in the course of armed struggle.
In the strategy, the superiority of Soviet military art was expressed in the fact that none of the final goals of the offensive campaigns of Hitler’s armed forces, despite the heavy defeats of the Soviet troops during the defense, were achieved: in 1941 - defeat near Moscow and the failure of the “lightning war” plan , in 1942 - defeat at Stalingrad and the collapse of Hitler’s plan to achieve a radical turning point in the war with the USSR. The goals of the Wehrmacht’s strategic defense were not achieved either. During the transition to maneuverable strategic defense, the Nazi command failed to disrupt the offensive of the Red Army in 1943 and achieve stabilization of the front. Positional maneuver defense 1944 - 1945 could not bleed and stop the steadily developing advance of the Red Army. During the war, a new, most effective form of strategic action in World War II was brought to perfection - the operation of a group of fronts under the leadership of the Supreme Command Headquarters. Soviet troops successfully carried out hundreds of front-line and army operations, which, as a rule, were distinguished by their creative nature and novelty of methods of action that were unexpected for the enemy.
In assessing the superiority of Soviet military art, it is important to emphasize that armed struggle is not only a battle of troops, but also a clash of minds and wills of opposing military leaders. In the battles of the Great Patriotic War, an intellectual victory over the enemy was achieved.
The superiority of the intellect of the leadership, and not the “mountain of corpses,” determined the brilliant victories of the Soviet troops on the battlefields and the victorious end of the war in defeated Berlin, the complete surrender of the fascist army.
During the war years, a galaxy of talented military leaders, commanders and naval commanders emerged in the Soviet armed forces - commanders of fronts, fleets, armies and flotillas, who showed brilliant examples of military art: A. I. Antonov, I. Kh. Bagramyan, A. M. Vasilevsky, N. F. Vatutin, N. N. Voronov, L. A. Govorov, A. G. Golovko, A. I. Eremenko, M. V. Zakharov, I. S. Konev, N. G. Kuznetsov, R. Ya Malinovsky, F. S. Oktyabrsky, K. K. Rokossovsky, F. I. Tolbukhin, V. F. Tributs, A. V. Khrulev, I. D. Chernyakhovsky, V. I. Chuikov, B. M. Shaposhnikov and many others.
Russian civilization has passed the most difficult test. The socialist system gave it enormous vitality in a centuries-old confrontation with the West. He opened up space for the creative forces of the people, united them in a single will, created the economic basis of the armed struggle and promoted people's talents to leadership. Millions of Soviet people gave their lives in the name of victory and the future of their Motherland. The Soviet people and Russian socialism, barely formed in 20 years, won a historic victory over fascism. In the brutal struggle against reactionary Western European imperialism, they proved their superiority.
The eyes are definitely the window to the soul, and if you know anything about eyes or windows, you know they come in different shades and colors!
Most often, you see brown, blue or brown eyes when you look at people around you, but some people have very rare eye color. What are the rarest eye colors and how are they obtained?
Only 2% of the world's population has green eyes! Talk about rare! The next time you see someone with this color, let them know this fact.
This list of rare eye colors is in no particular order, and if your eye color is one of the ones listed, consider yourself very rare.
Have you ever seen someone with eyes that appear black as night? Even though they appear black, they are actually just very, very dark brown. This is caused by an abundance of melanin. You can only tell the difference between a pupil and an iris when looking at a person in bright light!
Two main conditions cause the eye color to appear red or pinkish: albinism and blood leaking into the iris. Although albinos typically have very light blue eyes due to a lack of pigment, some forms of albinism can cause the eye color to appear red or pink.
This beautiful golden eye color is often confused with brown. The difference is that brown eyes have brown and green undertones, while amber eyes have a uniform color. With a little melanin and a lot of carotenoid, the eyes of this shade almost glow! Several different animals have this eye color, but it is truly rare in humans.
Very little melanin, but too much carotenoid. Only two percent of the world's population have green eyes. This is definitely a very rare color!
Oh, what purple-blue! This color is most often found in people with albinism. They say it's impossible to have purple eyes without albinism. Combine the lack of pigment with the light reflecting off the blood vessels in the eyes and you get that beautiful purple color!
This is not a set of colors, but quite rare disease eye:
This is a rather unusual type of eye. And some people wear contact lenses to make their eye color more uniform. And I think that this eye color is beautiful, and such a rarity should be appreciated by others!
Many people argue that these are purely genetic factors. For the most part this is true. However, there are also genes that determine a person's eye color.
We now know what determines eye color:
When you see someone with slightly blue eyes, it means there is a lack of melanin or brown pigmentation.
It is believed that the human race previously only had brown eyes and due to genetic mutations, other options have appeared. Perhaps this is why brown is the most common (but no less beautiful)!
So many people who have perfect vision choose to wear contacts just to have a rare eye color, so if you have a rare color, consider yourself lucky!
According to scientific research and statistical data, the most rare color the eye is green. Its owners make up only 2% of the total population of the planet.
The green tint of the iris is determined by a very small amount of melanin. Its outer layer contains a yellow or very light brown pigment called lipofuscin. In the stroma, a blue or light blue tint is present and dissipated. The combination of a diffuse shade and lipofucin pigment gives green eye color.
As a rule, the distribution of this color is uneven. Basically, there are a lot of shades of it. IN pure form it is extremely rare. There is an unproven theory that green eyes are linked to the red hair gene.
In an attempt to find out why green eye color is rare today, one should turn for possible reasons to the Middle Ages, namely to the time when the Holy Inquisition was a very influential institution of power. According to her doctrines, those with green eyes were accused of witchcraft, considered accomplices of dark forces and burned at the stake. This situation, which lasted for several centuries, almost completely displaced the inhabitants of Central Europe from the phenotype of the already recessive gene green iris. And since pigmentation is an inherited trait, the chance of its occurrence has decreased significantly. So green eyes became an infrequent occurrence.
Over time, the situation has leveled out somewhat, and now green-eyed ones can be found in Northern and Central Europe, and sometimes even in the southern part. Most often they can be seen in Germany, Scotland, Iceland and Holland. It is in these countries that the green eye gene predominates and, interestingly, is observed more often in women than in men.
In its pure form, namely the shade of spring grass, green is still a rarity. Mostly there are a variety of variations: gray-green and marsh.
On the territory of Asian countries, South America and Middle East predominate dark eyes, mostly .
If we talk about the distribution and predominance of individual shades of the iris on the territory of Russia, the situation is as follows: the share of owners of dark eye color accounts for 6.37%, with eyes transitional type For example, 50.17% of the population have brown-green eyes, and 43.46% have light eyes. These include all shades of green.
Guys, we put our soul into the site. Thank you for that
that you are discovering this beauty. Thanks for the inspiration and goosebumps.
Join us on Facebook And VKontakte
Whether you are a brown-eyed blonde or a blue-eyed brunette, you probably sometimes wanted to know what you would look like, for example, with green eyes. But not everyone knows that there are many factors, including nutrition and emotions, that can change the iris even without surgery. We will tell you the most interesting things, and also show, using the example of stars, how a radical change in eye color changes your appearance.
website collected for you interesting facts about how and why a person’s eye color can change.
Vivid emotions are always a shock to the body. With intense joy or intense anger, not only does our heart rate change, our breathing quickens, or, conversely, our breath takes away, but also there is a noticeable accentuation of the color of the iris. It may become more saturated, sometimes darker, sometimes lighter.
Perhaps the most pure color can be observed in people experiencing happy moments.
If the baby was born with blue-gray eyes, then you may well be in for a surprise. The secret of blue eyes, also called "sky effect", lies in the low content of melanin in the iris, so light is scattered, and the low density of stromal fibers it appears even brighter - like blue. And most kids at 3–18 months of life, eye color may darken if there is an accumulation of melanocytes in the iris. In particular, among residents of mountainous regions it often happens that blue transforms into walnut. This largely depends on the color of the parents' eyes. Sometimes the full color appears by 10–12 years.
But In babies born with brown eyes, everything is stable, this is their bright shade for life. Due to the high melanin content, the outer layer of the iris absorbs and reflects light, resulting in brown. By the way, brown-eyed people have a special bonus - more low percentage eye diseases , but be sure to wear sunglasses. And also, according to research, in the Czech Republic, brown-eyed people are usually perceived as more reliable, but light-eyed women have fewer problems with negativity and depression.
By the way, recent studies have shown that eye color is affected by about 16 genes, which makes it much more difficult forecasting.
IN there is a theory in alternative medicine about the relationship between the color of the iris and the condition internal organs. This direction is called iridology, but due to the lack of a solid evidence base, it is still classified as pseudoscientific. But Dr. Robert Morse, a detoxification specialist whose patients were about 1/4 million people, who has long been interested in iridology, notes: according to his observations, The upper quadrant of the eye is linked to brain health, and the inner circle - with digestive system. However, he says that an abundance of fresh fruits and vegetables in the diet can significantly change eye color, and has created a series video about your research.
Women have a magical tool with which they can significantly change the shade of their eyes or make them more saturated. And “magic wands” are makeup in various shades, clothing, hair color and jewelry. For example, girls with brown eyes can significantly “lighten” their iris using outfits in golden, pink and light green colors.
And those with blue or green eyes will effectively enhance the richness of their eye color using jewelry made from turquoise, emeralds and stones of blue shades. At the same time neutral white, gray and black colors will allow you to show your true eye color. By the way, if you wear glasses, ask your specialist to choose them with AR lenses, which will be more comfortable for you and also neutralize glare, which will allow others to see the color of your eyes without distortion.
Brown eyes- the most common on earth: they can be found 70% of the world's population on all continents - from Australia to North and South America. And in some regions, almost all residents - 95% of the Japanese, indigenous people of China, the Middle East, South America, Southern Europe and Oceania. In the USA, almost half of the people are brown-eyed.
There are more people with blue eyes in Northern Europe: in Estonia, Denmark and Finland - 89% of the population, in Germany - 75%, in Great Britain - 50%. Sometimes this shade is found in Syria, among Ashkenazi Jews, Tajiks and among the mountain Pamiris. By the way, in 2008, geneticists at the University of Copenhagen discovered that the blue iris is a mutation in the gene that arose 6–10 thousand years ago. Dr. Eyberg noted that " everyone originally had brown eyes, and the mutation reduced melanin production.” According to scientists, this first happened in the north-west of the Black Sea region.
But green eye color - only for 2 % inhabitants of the planet. The shade was formed due to the moderate content of melanin and a mixture of yellow-brown pigments. Most often found in residents of Spain, Ireland, Russia, Brazil, Iceland, and Pakistan. A The rarest eye color is yellow, it is formed in the presence of lipochrome pigment.
Previously, operations to implant an implant were carried out, which implied a high risk, sometimes it was a question of loss of vision, as happened with one Argentine Instagram star. But since 2011, they began to develop laser correction, which was invented by Dr. Greg Homer from the USA. Using a laser, melanin cells are destroyed, due to which the iris can be “lightened”. That is people with brown and black eyes can become blue-eyed, blue-eyed or gray-eyed.
By the way, The procedure lasts only about 20 seconds, and the final result is visible in 2–4 weeks. Homer was given this idea by a dermatologist friend who burns out moles and pigment with a laser. The first studies showed that the operation does not affect vision, but To study all the consequences, you need time with eyes of green-blue or nut-green shades, which are also called Hazel." Doctors do not find vision problems in such individuals, and there is also no confirmation that this “gift” is transmitted genetically.
According to biologists, a uniform change in the shade of the iris is associated with processes in the nervous and endocrine systems, but often the reason lies in Rayleigh scattering and the amount of melanin. Chameleon eyes always react to stress, love experiences, fatigue, and the environment and climate change can also cause color changes. A psychologists observe unpredictability in such people and a certain tendency towards mischief, in fact, we are talking about a mixture of temperaments.
