Yes, and the USSR suffered enormous losses and was almost defeated. But that's it, almost. Then in December there will be a turning point. And we must quickly make peace with Stalin. But the question is, how to justify yourself to your own environment? After all, it seems that victory in Russia is so close, and suddenly the world?

  How can you explain this to your own? In addition, it is not yet known whether Stalin will accept the peace proposal. Especially if territorial concessions are demanded of him. A world without annexations and indemnities sounds beautiful, but after Germany has won so much, and even given some land to its ally, it will look like a betrayal of a concession just like that.

  Here, of course, serious problems arise. It would be much easier to hit Hitler a little earlier, before the attack on the USSR. Then the Barbarossa plan could have been canceled, and instead, Operation Sea Lion could have been carried out, capturing Britain, and then Icarus, capturing Iceland. Few people know that the Fuhrer had plans for this as well. On the one hand, the Third Reich does not seem to need Iceland, but on the other hand, the main goal was to protect itself from attacks from the United States. Hitler in this case, however, risked getting bogged down in a war with America for a long time.

  Here, by the way, another question is whether Stalin was going to hit the Third Reich in 1941? Or even in forty-two better prepared.

  There is the famous Suvorov-Rezun tetralogy, where he proves and tries to logically justify Stalin's attack on the Third Reich. Well, Putin, of course, in a past life did not have time to read this work in its entirety. But it was shown to him briefly. The main arguments of Suvorov-Rezun and comments on them.

  For example, the USSR did indeed move troops closer to its western border. And he really had an advantage in the number of tanks. True, not eight times as Rezun writes, but about four times. At the expense of the quality of cars is also not so clear. Approximately two thousand Soviet tanks were stronger than the German ones: these are the KV-1, KV-2, T-34, T-28 and T-35. Especially powerful was the KV-2 with a 152mm howitzer. And German tanks could not penetrate it from all sides and angles, like the KV-1.

  But this is not so clear cut. For example, the KV-2 fired only one shot every two minutes, and try to hit a nimble German tank. And he could well damage the rollers, and the Soviet machine was immobilized. In practical terms, the T-34 is good. It cannot be pierced in the forehead by a German tank, except perhaps in the side.

  But also problems. The optics and visibility are poor, the gearbox breaks down and it is difficult to shift. The T-28 is already a morally obsolete tank, although with two guns, it is worse than the thirty-four in armor. And this shielded tank is not very good in driving performance. T-35 is a real monster - three guns, seven machine guns, five towers. But this tank cannot turn. And the armor of as many as five towers is unimportant.

  Tanks of the BT series - on the one hand, they seem to be good: the speed is almost a hundred kilometers per hour on the highway. But in a real battle, a column of tanks will still not be able to go. And the armor is weak, and even anti-tank guns can penetrate such a machine. In addition, the tank still has large tanks of gasoline, it can be taken out of action by shots of a heavy machine gun. Yes, not really this car. The most massive T-26 tank with a 45 mm cannon was inferior to the German T-3 in both armament and armor, and was close in driving performance.

  On the whole, of course, the USSR was perhaps stronger in tanks, but the production of the latest cars and aircraft was just being promoted, and they had barely begun to enter the troops. The latest aviation was not yet mastered, and tanks, too. Moreover, the technical documentation for the latest Soviet tanks was not issued to the commanders. And as a result, before the war, the KV and T-34 vehicles were not run in. And the Germans somehow didn"t notice the new thirty-fours. For the first time, the T-34 tank, according to Guderian's memoirs, was noticed only in October 1941. And where did a whole thousand of these cars go before?

  Moreover, during the war, the quality of the produced thirty-fours not only did not grow, but even decreased. Including the quality of the armor. Yes, and Soviet pilots did not have time to train how to use Soviet technology. Yes, and universal military service was introduced only in the fall of the thirty-ninth year.

  Plus, the Stalinist repressions weakened the army, knocked out experienced and educated personnel.

  Plus a set of shells, especially for the latest tanks. Well, there are many more comparisons. Indeed, the USSR has more tanks and aircraft than the Third Reich. But on the other hand, the Germans already have more than twice as many cars and motorcycles. And the Wehrmacht has more submachine guns. Plus her temporary superiority in infantry. This is true, because Germany had previously carried out a general mobilization. But still attack the Third Reich, losing in personnel? This is idiotic!

  True, Putin himself did just that with Ukraine. But maybe that's why he messed up.

  But there are two big differences here. The Ukrainian army, which could not defeat some militias in 2014, was not considered a serious fighting force by anyone - even the Americans. And the Wehrmacht captured Europe in two months - there is a big difference. Even a very big difference.

  The authority of the Ukrainian army was very low before the war, and maybe that's why the usually cautious Vladimir Putin decided on this adventure. Plus, China secretly gave the go-ahead. But already in the very first days it became clear that the blitzkrieg did not pass. And the losses, especially in the elite units, are huge.

  Indeed, there is some invisible force that destroys all empires. Since the time of King Xerxes, probably the first real, huge empire of the ancient world. The Great Power of Alexander the Great also turned out to be short-lived. Rather, it fell apart a few years after the death of this king.

  Even earlier, Egypt waged wars of conquest, but also lost possession. You can remember Assyria. It was also quite a big power. Well, Babylon of the time of Nebuchadnezzar, although not for long. The Roman Empire lasted for a long time. Even in school history textbooks, almost half of the time of antiquity is devoted to it.

  But it also fell into disrepair and collapsed. Many examples can be given here. There was an empire of Charlemagne - divided immediately after the death of the conquering king. The Arab caliphate arose - the largest empire in terms of territory, from France to India, but it also collapsed. The Ottoman Empire, too, albeit more slowly crumbled. The empire of Genghis Khan itself is the largest land power of the times of mankind. But Genghis Khan died, and her sons and grandsons began to crush her. And then, having reached Africa to Vienna, the Mongol-Tatars ran out of steam and collapsed again. Tamerlane tried to restore this empire with fire and sword, but as soon as he died, his Timurat eve fell into bliss without a trace.