When was it better to do science in Russia?

Tentator, how do you know what it was like in Soviet times?

> ...what about "further" is not worth much torsion.

Even as it is worth kruchinitsya. The presence of great young specialists at the LSU department (and even not only at the department) is absolutely not an indicator that you do not need to twist around. If only that was the problem...

Tentator, how do you know what it was like in Soviet times?

We all come from that time. In any totalitarian system, the individual is suppressed and the gray mass takes over. Soviet science as a whole was organized on the same principle. There was an attitude that one person can't do anything in science, but only a team can do it. How do I know? The minutes of the VASHNIL sacramental session have been published, and a lot of literature has been written on this topic. For example, S. E. Shnol writes very instructively about biology.

Unfortunately, the problem you are talking about has very deep roots, and it is connected with the continuity of generations. Implicit knowledge is transmitted only through live communication. Before the revolution, provincial Russian universities had a remarkable professorship, a very high-level professorship. All its representatives were either shot (I know quite a few examples) or crushed by the principles of "Soviet" science (there are also enough examples). So it turned out that there was no one to perceive from, hence the provincialism that Gilyarov writes about. In the central research centers, it was more difficult to destroy the old professorship, and rare threads of continuity from it stretch to the present day. And if they didn't exist, then I really would have had to screw up.

Very interesting. Why, then, do almost all "old-time taxonomists", including the Zinovites, so reverently recall the glorious " totalitarian "times, and so respect the current" bright-democratic " ones? How do you explain this? It is also interesting to compare the level of science in Russia now with the "totalitarian" level that it was 20 years ago.

> There was an attitude that one person can't do anything in science, but only a team can do it.

Interesting again. I know all the currently working entomologists, as well as many of the deceased, by their own names, and not by their collective names. Can you clarify when, how, and which entomologists (we won't talk about others yet) were suppressed by the gray totalitarian mass?

In general, I don't really understand what "a gray mass that suppresses the individual" means. Who is this-the directorate? Or a party organ? Or do gray people rush in from the street and overwhelm with their mass? What is this personality that can be suppressed? How can you even suppress a strong personality?

> ...rare threads of continuity from it stretch to the present day. And if they didn't exist, then I really would have had to screw up.

I'll skip the historical side, but this is a separate global potential topic for discussion. I will only point out that the "totalitarian" period should not be viewed one-sidedly, only according to the VASHNIL session and revealing contemporary publications. Just like idealizing the pre-revolutionary one. Three revolutions in a row in blessed Russia did not happen out of nowhere. Both before and after the 17th, there was enough good and not so good. It is not so easy to say where exactly these "threads of morality" come from-from totalitarianism, or from pre-revolutionism.

Unfortunately, threads, techniques, and traditions alone are not enough for science to flourish. And even the presence of a few (or even many) young talented specialists will not help. Lack of despicable money and mediocre administrative activities (academies, min. educational institutions and other structures) - these are the real reasons to get screwed up. These two issues will be resolved, and then the issue of personnel will be resolved by itself - young and talented people will appear (or return). What's the use of young and talented people if they don't have modern equipment, funds for conferences and expeditions, and salaries are barely enough to keep them from starving to death? Yes, you can successfully beg and earn extra money in the West, and snatch grants somewhere. But in principle, this does not solve the problem. Until recently, taxonomy was considered a relatively safe area, since it did not require large funds. There is a binocular-what else is needed for happiness, by and large? Now even studying taxonomy at the modern level requires quite a lot of money, and the MBS binocular is often no longer enough. It is advisable to have access to SEM, sequencer, etc.

This post was edited by Salix - 05/16/2008 06: 32

In general, I don't really understand what "a gray mass that suppresses the individual" means. Who is this-the directorate? Or a party organ? Or do gray people rush in from the street and overwhelm with their mass?

This is Tov. Stalin, personally!!!

Very interesting. Why, then, do almost all "old-time taxonomists", including the Zinovites, so reverently recall the glorious " totalitarian "times, and so respect the current" bright-democratic " ones?

I'm afraid you're confusing the reverent memories of your former youth with the reverent memories of totalitarian times. Yes, they remember about wonderful expeditions to Central Asia, for example, but they do not exclude the opportunities that have appeared to go to Borneo and Peru.

Interesting again. I know all the currently working entomologists, as well as many of the deceased, by their own names,

You know great entomologists, as well as chemists and linguists, but even they had to write "we did" or "we established" in their papers because it was assumed that all the employees of the laboratory or department took part in the work. The personality of a talented and original person was suppressed by a large mass of incompetents who got into universities and institutes on the basis of partisanship, origin and trustworthiness, those "techies" that Juglans writes about, only much lower level than in the institutes of the Academy of Sciences. I will give a non-unique and characteristic example. A world-renowned zoologist, V. I. Martino, who worked as the director of a nature reserve in Crimea after the revolution, regularly received death threats. In the 20s. he immigrated from Russia. In the 50s. he was repatired and settled in a state farm, where he worked for some time as an agronomist. Then, with great difficulty, he managed to move to the city and even get a job at a local university, though as a laboratory assistant. The Department of Zoology at that time was headed by a man who had a very mediocre attitude to zoology. He only graduated from a vocational school, but he was very trustworthy. This head of the department harassed Martino in every possible way, mocked him as best he could and did not allow him to work. A former nobleman, of course. and now the lab assistant couldn't find a solution for him. The whole story lasted until a student put a gun to the head of the head of the department and threatened that if he did not stop bullying Martino, he would shoot him. Professor Shchelkanovtsev, the author of textbooks on zoology, worked at the same department before Martino. He was a strong person. They were shot. In general, read the story, Salix. And I recommend starting with these minutes of the All-Union Faunal Conference, where Rimsky-Korsakov dared to say that science cannot be a party science: http://www.ecoethics.ru/b38/7020.html

These two issues will be resolved, and then the issue of personnel will be resolved by itself - young and talented people will appear (or return).

The increase in funding alone will not revive Russian science. Well, give money to those who study the memory of water and torsion fields - what, they'll start studying physics? There is some knowledge that cannot be learned from textbooks. In general, I think I will withdraw from this conversation, because I feel that it is beginning to approach a conversation about describing taxa for money: everyone wants to eat, and we love science only as long as it pays well.

When the team was formed (as, for example, around Nikolskaya), it was not a directive, but an initiative of the scientist himself. Entomology didn't have the same opals as genetics. Stackelberg worked in ZINE, although he was a former von.

Well, I was talking about it: it was easier in the central institutes. And scientists with the name, well-known in the world, were also not touched. For example, Pavlov openly scolded the regime and did nothing to it: Nobel laureate, princips phisiologirum mundi. And Stackelberg, by the way, was sitting in a Big House; it is not known what happened to him there, but he came out all gray-haired. He was a fine diplomat, so, apparently, he escaped.

This post was edited by Tentator - 05/16/2008 13: 24

The fact is that those expeditions were really beautiful-carefully planned, thought out with a large margin, fully equipped with everything necessary, including off-road vehicles, good, even better than in the shops of that time, food (sorry for the vulgarity), all the necessary equipment and equipment that the Soviet army was capable of industry, and even more money was allocated than could be spent. So, when returning from an expedition, scientists spent a long time coming up with non-existent items of expenditure, so that they would not give less money for the next expedition. But the opportunity to go to Borneo now, if you are not part of a large international expedition, how should I put it-sour, even if you take into account personal funding for the love of science.

So, when returning from an expedition, scientists spent a long time coming up with non-existent items of expenditure, so that they would not give less money for the next expedition.

Well, do not forget the numerous options for "washing" travel expenses. What exactly did they do in all institutions and business tripsexpeditions were very much loved$

I found this quote in my vo archive:

With my spiders and my theological books, Bruno thought, I should have lived as a hermit, far from the city, like an eighteenth-century priest. His own lost happiness came to him in the image of his mother, and in the memory of those summer evenings when, as a sixteen-year-old boy, he had watched the solemn egg-laying ritual performed by the large, handsome Dolomedes spider by the light of an electric lantern. O spiders, spiders! Bruno had never stopped loving these aristocrats of the creeping world, but somehow he had betrayed them from the start. He never found Eresus niger, although in his boyhood the certainty that he would find it seemed to have been inspired by God himself. He intended to write a book, The Mechanics of the Spherical Web, but only a short article came out. An even more ambitious project, The Spiders of Battersea Park, was narrowed down to two articles. A monograph on the life and work of S. A. Clark was never published. And the book "Big Hunter Spiders" froze in the planning stage. For several years, Bruno corresponded with the outstanding Soviet entomologist Vladimir Puk, and Puk's large two-volume book "Spiders of Russia" with the donation inscription "B".To Greensleeve, an English friend and true lover of spiders " is kept among the most precious relics. But Bruno did not accept Vladimir Puk's invitation to visit the Soviet Union and did not even respond to his last letter."

Iris Murdoch, "Bruno's Dream".

I'm afraid you're confusing the reverent memories of your former youth with the reverent memories of totalitarian times. Yes, they remember about wonderful expeditions to Central Asia, for example, but they do not exclude the opportunities that have appeared to go to Borneo and Peru.

There is a huge difference between the previous great expeditions to Central Asia and the current ones in Borneo and Peru. Expeditions to Central Asia were organized and provided by the Institute. Now there are no expeditions in principle. And at your own expense, indeed, now you can go anywhere. You don't even have to be an entomologist to do this.

They don't remember their youth, but their times. Not the times of youth, but the times of opportunity.

You know great entomologists, as well as chemists and linguists, but even they had to write "we did" or "we established" in their papers because it was assumed that all the employees of the laboratory or department took part in the work.

Zina once had a discussion about this "we". As a result, it suddenly turned out that they wrote quite voluntarily. Because it was customary, and because they themselves believed that this is how it should be written. Many people still write that way. Now it seems that no one is forcing, and yet. Then the argument turned to whether to write "I did" or "we did" now. Opinions were divided. But it seems that totalitarianism is in the past! And you say they force you. By the way, the main argument against "I" was that it was simply indecent to lie. For me personally, the "I" in the articles causes a purely aesthetic rejection (apparently, totalitarian upbringing makes you aware). Although "We" also seems to blur the responsibility - there is such a pathology in psychology. By the way, there is an excellent neutral way out: write "results received" instead of "I received" and "we received" At the same time it will be easier to translate into English.

The personality of a talented and original person was suppressed by a large mass of incompetents who got into universities and institutes on the basis of party affiliation, origin and trustworthiness...

It was, is, and will be everywhere and at all times. What does totalitarianism have to do with it?

A world-renowned zoologist, V. I. Martino, who worked as the director of a nature reserve in Crimea after the revolution, regularly received death threats. In the 20s. he immigrated from Russia. In the 50s. he was repatired and settled in a state farm, where he worked for some time as an agronomist. Then, with great difficulty, he managed to move to the city and even get a job at a local university, though as a laboratory assistant. The Department of Zoology at that time was headed by a man who had a very mediocre attitude to zoology. He only graduated from a vocational school, but he was very trustworthy. This head of the department harassed Martino in every possible way, mocked him as best he could and did not allow him to work. A former nobleman, of course. and now the lab assistant couldn't find a solution for him. The whole story lasted until a student put a gun to the head of the head of the department and threatened that if he did not stop bullying Martino, he would shoot him.

Well done, why didn't Martineau take up the gun himself earlier? They are still being bullied in provincial (and not only) universities. I can tell you a couple of creepy stories from Russian reality, but it's better to do without them. Again, it's just my opinion that a strong person should be able to stand up for himself and fight back against rudeness. Including fists or a gun - according to circumstances.

Professor Shchelkanovtsev, the author of textbooks on zoology, worked at the same department before Martino. He was a strong person. They were shot. In general, read the story, Salix. And I recommend starting with these minutes of the All-Union Faunal Conference, where Rimsky-Korsakov dared to say that science cannot be a party science.

I read it. My opinion on this matter is not entirely unipolar. On the one hand, yes, many have suffered unfairly, some even fatally. There is another side to the coin. If you do science, you should do science, not politics. In a huge number of cases, people had problems with the authorities at the moment when they started to engage in politics. Yes, there was a totalitarian state. A person living in a totalitarian state should be aware that he lives in a totalitarian state, and no other, and therefore you should first think with your head, and then talk about political topics. And be aware of the possible consequences. Here is a typical example. You wander into a poor criminal (=totalitarian) neighborhood, approach two stoned teenagers and start telling them how miserable they are, that drinking votka and smoking weed is bad, but working for a salary is good. Do you think your fate will be very different from many other unjustly murdered scientists? But you were absolutely right!

I have one example. An elite cottage settlement is being built on the site of a unique grove, or a new federal highway is being laid. Try to openly oppose them and create real difficulties for these people (merchants-politicians). You will also suffer innocently. I'm not talking about big politics at all, there are almost real heads flying there. The only minor difference is that they are not being shot now. In extreme cases, they can shoot you.

Do you think that it is completely different now, that politically incorrect statements against the authorities - no matter who, the directorate of your institute or the country's leadership-will get away with it? As long as these authorities don't hear you, it's possible that this will work. But as soon as they hear it... No, they won't shoot you, but you can get into trouble with your scientific career. Remember, in ZINA not so long ago, one person publicly opposed the directorate, and where is he now?

Millions of scientists at that time nodded that, they say, yes, we are not engaged in party-communist science, and continued to do their job. I believe that such a formal concession to the authorities does not do them much honor. But I don't intend to condemn them either.

You may get the impression that I am for totalitarianism, for "partisanship in science" and a supporter of mass shootings. That's not so. I sincerely feel sorry for the really outstanding scientists, Vavilov and others like him, who suffered undeservedly and died during that period. I believe that politics has no place in science. Etc. But I am opposed to the unclouded one-sidedness that Comrade Putin demonstrates. Tentator.

The increase in funding alone will not revive Russian science. There is some knowledge that cannot be learned from textbooks.

Read carefully what they write to you. Raising the price is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. And not the only one. But if this is not done,then you can not think about everything else. Precisely because not everything can be learned from textbooks (a unique case-I agree with you), one day there may come a time when the money will no longer be needed.

Well, give money to those who study the memory of water and torsion fields - what, they'll start studying physics?

So that such "research" is not carried out at the expense of the state, changes in the administration of scientific activities are just necessary. For some reason, you pulled out only the phrase about money from my text, and ignored the rest. As I understand it, you are against increasing funding for science in principle. Otherwise, where is the object of your objections?

..everyone wants to eat, and we love science only as long as it pays well.

We love our work for many,many years, despite the fact that it does not pay a damn for it. But we want them to pay. Perhaps this is criminal in your eyes.

This post was edited by Salix - 05/17/2008 09: 45

Between the previous ones

In fact, youth is, unlike old age, a time of opportunities, and often the arguments of older people on the topic "how beautiful it used to be and how bad everything is now" are connected with the fact that they used to be young, full of strength and opportunities. If you don't listen to these languid sighs, then what other opportunities can you talk about besides free expeditions around the country? What about the opportunities to get the necessary literature (for those who were not readers of the BAN), and sometimes material? What about socializing with colleagues and visiting foreign museums? What about personal freedom in general, the freedom to think and speak as you want, to do what you want, and not to be pests of sugar beet in the same Central Asia? For example, this was how the talent of Zdravatkin Sr. was ruined: what is the taxonomy of cicadas there ? They were sent to study the parasites of eggplants. Who says that free expeditions are bad? but I think there is hardly a reasonable person who would want to return all of the above for the opportunity to go on such expeditions. What is" unsightly "about an honest" I " - I don't understand; apparently, indeed, the consequence of education in a totalitarian country. As well as the fact that someone is standing on the notorious "we", as well as the fact that people still walk around with portraits of Stalin on November 7.

Your examples are incorrect: unfortunately, the creators of the totalitarian regime are not stoned teenagers who can be raised, but you can pass them by, but this is an aggressive regime that interfered in the life of every person and dictated what can be done and what can not be done and how to do what is possible. And it was impossible to be the most important thing – to be a person. And a person cannot but have a civil position, that is, be what you call to be: sit quietly and do not pay attention to how your country, your culture, science are being destroyed, people are being killed next to you. This is the position of a coward and a nonentity. Further, about the methods of struggle – about the gun and everything else: in the film "17 moments of spring" there is one wonderful scene when Stirlitz asks the pastor why they, the opponents of the regime, do not arrange terrorist attacks, do not take hostages and do not protect their freedom by force, to which the pastor asks him an answer question, a wonderful question: "Then how will we differ from them?" You are not a supporter of totalitarian regimes, and I do not advocate the modern political system, but I want to draw your attention to the fact that it inherits the Soviet past, and is largely determined by it.

Further, I must repeat once again what I said in a conversation about "corrupt taxonomy": of course, I am not against increasing funding for science, but even in favor, but I am confused by the phrase "and then of course"in your reasoning. You see, this is a pattern I constantly observe: the one who screams the loudest about the lack of money for science is the one who is least able to do anything significant in it. Such an empirical law. The fact is that the primary thing should be love for truth, for science, and then everything else, and money as a necessary condition for work. And money laundering after business trips is something from a completely different opera. Don't you think it's strange that the silverless ones that Juglans mentioned (and who, according to the same quote, were probably hermits who should live "far from the city, like an eighteenth-century priest") were outstanding scientists, and the "techies" who came after them, hungry for money, like the rest of the world. the rule of mediocrity?

I don't think that in Brezhnev's time there was no possibility to think freely. Oh my God, what jokes about Brezhnev we told at school! (and this is the late 70s and early 80s). Now they don't tell such stories about Putin (they don't tell anything about him at all...). In addition to good expeditions, our scientists also went to world congresses (with restrictions, of course), and communicated with colleagues. Graduate students from Poland, the GDR, Hungary, etc. (who now, of course, prefer other countries)" grazed " in ZINA. The salary was decent. The salary of deputy directors and chief accountants in institutes did not differ significantly from the salary of an ordinary dbn. They gave us FREE apartments! Doctors were entitled to additional space (and not on paper). Training in higher education institutions was free, and teachers from the provinces were required to complete advanced training in the capital's universities once every 10 years. The entire research fleet was created in the USSR, and what to do when all the ships are written off is unclear. Our institute had 4 biological stations (only one remained). BAN sent microfilms of books of 300 pages, and sometimes the books themselves to any city (I then put together my own library of old literature, which is very difficult to do now). In the second-hand departments of bookstores, it was possible to collect almost all the "Fauna of the USSR". Doctors received currency to buy books abroad. I'm not saying that at that time libraries were very well funded, and if you wanted, you could get any new book. A well-coordinated system of biological circles. It is a paradox, but it is a fact: although the population of the Primorsky Territory was 1.5 times larger then, and hundreds of factories were working, there were many fewer deforestation than now, the forests and lakes in the vicinity of Vladivostok were not so polluted as they are now. In general, the times were calm then, although not for everyone (I write about the Brezhnev era). I don't remember that then the director of the Institute was beaten on the head with a bottle by some thugs in the entrance of the house. Another thing is that then there was a huge army of idlers from science, mythical research institutes in which they studied who knows what. Who just wasn't registered in institutes! The system of" academic honors", which is now so outrageous, was formed just then. And then there was a system of fraud, in which real developments in the fundamental sphere practically did not reach production. All the people who caused so much trouble in the 90s did not fall off the moon – they held positions in the 80s, imitating the belief in socialism. The social upheavals of the 90s threw many talented scientists out of science (and sometimes out of life) - this is sad and irreplaceable. But all this was already laid out in the 70s. That's why the 80s were bad: after them came the troubled times. The current regime can be evaluated only in 10-15 years, when we know what it has led to.

About freedom of speech. The Research Institute is undergoing an extraordinary recertification. Did anyone (trade unions or other persons) feel outraged by the fact that this is an illegal action? Were you outraged by the fact that the new job responsibilities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the National Assembly, etc – are fictitious documents that have not been approved by anyone? Did any of the scientists refuse to apply for a part-time transfer (or a contract), even though it is also illegal? The Shirshov Institute of Oceanology does not have payments for PRND – and NO ONE openly discusses it! Everyone is silent, fearing a reduction. I'm not talking about the huge surcharges that deputy directors and economists receive due to the 10% overhead deducted from all grants… So should such a situation be considered free for a scientist who is "squeezed" by the administration and does not find protection from trade unions? If it is only for 3-4 years, then it is tolerable, but if it is for 10-15 years? The authorities are now calling for stability...

Dear Juglans, all the joys you describe of being Brezhnev-era scientists are temporary consequences of the inevitable decline of a once-powerful empire. These are not natural and stable properties of it. All of the above and even more happened in pre-revolutionary Russia, either in the form of a real state of affairs or in the form of far-sighted plans, but (!) against the background of a much higher general culture and education. In a well-known St. Petersburg university in the "blessed" Brezhnev times, collections, medicines, manuscripts of old professors were thrown out of the windows into the courtyard with a simple excuse: we don't do this now, we have a narrow profile... Modern Russian provincialism has very definite roots: unfortunately, most of the provincial scientists are students, students of such proletarian heads of departments, who scoffed at V. E. Martino, but alas, not the Schelkanovtsevs who were shot or sent abroad. And the fear of objecting to the authorities, refusing to sign a legal document - this is also a legacy of totalitarian times: the position of a slaughtered herd; and if there is at least one person who can object, he will still not find support from the majority, he will still be trampled. Keep a low profile is an effective rule of survival. To fight a phenomenon, you need to understand its nature, and not just give everyone a lot of money and see what happens.

Tentator, then explain such a thing, since everything was so bad, since the "personality was crushed", why did science achieve such colossal success in the USSR? Yes, and in everyday and organizational terms (Juglans gave examples), did the scientists somehow live better?

Tentator, then explain such a thing

What is a backward agrarian state? Did you read this in Soviet school history textbooks? I think there is no need to talk about the dubious quality of these students. For example, the Trans-Siberian railway was built by a "backward agrarian country", and it was built in some 26 years, and the "nuclear power" BAM, which is 2 times shorter, was built for 70 years. And how was it possible not to achieve these colossal successes in the largest, one of the richest countries in the world? You'll do better than that: at what cost it was achieved... Edmond Terry, a French economist, wrote in 1914:: "By the middle of this century, Russia will dominate Europe both politically, economically and financially." History, of course, does not like this, but if you imagine Russia without revolution and Bolshevism, I am sure that science and culture would have achieved even greater success in it.

No matter how you look at it, not many people can turn an agrarian backward state into a nuclear power in 30 years.

But that's not true! According to the Tentator, pre-revolutionary Russia was not backward! Moreover, all Soviet achievements are actually echoes of the potential of the pre-revolutionary period. And the Soviet government did nothing but stifle the remnants of the free and bright that it got in the 17th year. The atomic bomb and industry were laid personally by Nicholas II, before he was eliminated. If not for the Bolsheviks, the atomic bomb would have been created in the 20s... And so they dragged on for an extra thirty years. Of course, all good things come to an end, so in the late 80s the pre-revolutionary resources accumulated before the 17th year ended, and we immediately fell into the ruin of the 90s

I once looked at what history textbooks today's students study in. Honestly, it would be better to continue studying in the Soviet language!

And how was it possible not to achieve these colossal successes in the largest, one of the richest countries in the world?

Look at Russia today. And here it is!

But that's not true!

You were given this bomb. Perhaps, as such, it would not have existed until now (and it would have been better if it hadn't). Progress is unstoppable, and until the year 17, Russia confidently followed the path of economic growth, technological, scientific and cultural progress. The Soviet state followed the same path, but it was too one-sided and sometimes illiterate. And in terms of the humanities and arts-yes, the Soviet government strangled them, there is no other word for it. And biology was strangled; physics could not-saved the notorious bomb.

Juglans, I don't know how it was about Brezhnev, but there is also enough about Putin. Just, Shhh....

Putin answers questions from Internet users:
- I just received a good question via the Internet:
"Isn't it a trap for you, Vova, to answer anonymous questions on the Internet?"
- I answer the owner of the IP (so-and-so), host (so-and-so), provider (so-and-so)who asked this question Sergey Vasilyevich Ivanov, born in 1972, lives at 13/2 Ivanovskaya Street, Kaluga. NOT ZAPADLO!

This post was edited by Salix - 05/18/2008 02: 21

Tentator
History does not know the subjunctive mood: what would have happened if the Bolsheviks hadn't come to power? Maybe the fate of the state was better, and maybe not. Similarly, I am not inclined to trust the forecasts of French economists (Edmond Terry). Because in any case, in hindsight, you can find prophets who "knew" and "foresaw" what would happen. At the end of the eighties, economists (both Russian and foreign) almost in unison predicted perestroika's non-totalitarian Russia to take off quickly and all that. And after all, there really were certain prerequisites for this! So what came out of these confident predictions? At the same time, China, which had far fewer such prerequisites, has successfully rebuilt itself and by the middle of this century will indeed "dominate Europe (and not only) both politically, economically and financially."

Here is an excerpt about the state of affairs in the countryside in pre-revolutionary Russia. To this should be added total illiteracy and much more. Not from the history books, so to speak.

"...the share of pregnant women in the most difficult time for them falls and the hardest work, and in the greatest number, for the care of many men on the side. And if we imagine a pregnant woman working from early morning until late at night in the field, where she must sometimes walk 2-3 versts or more, work such as gardening, mowing, reaping or, for example, shelving, digging and digging beetroot, and doing all this, or bending under the hot rays of the sun, or in the rain, with no other food than bread, onions, and water, it will become clear to everyone that not all women go through all this without some consequences for the child. "Never in the course of a year, "says Archpriest Gilyarovsky in his remarkable work,"are there so many fetal failures, miscarriages, stillbirths, and unhappy births, and never so many children are born who are unreliable to life, and who are happy at the very birth, as in July and August."

As for the act of giving birth itself, since the woman works until the last moments, this act often takes place outside the house, in the field, in the garden, in the forest, in the stable, or the woman in labor is deliberately placed in a bathhouse and there subjected to various violence, allegedly with the aim of speeding up labor, such as hanging and, finally, after giving birth, the woman often gets up on the 3rd or 4th day and starts working around the house again or even goes to the field. Is it any wonder that under all these conditions, a woman's health quickly deteriorates, affecting the next generation even more?

To all this, it is necessary to add the harmful influence of extremely unhygienic dwellings, in which people are often placed in terrible cramped conditions, without any ventilation, and in addition in the community of certain domestic animals…

Since the entire population of the village, capable of work, goes to the field during the hard time, i.e. in July and August, all children remain in the care of children, teenagers of 8-10 years old, who perform the duties of nannies. Therefore, you can imagine what is done to young children with such supervision of children. "The supervision of children is never so inadequate as in July and August," says Archpriest Gilyarovsky, based on his long-term observations, and gives examples of how one nurse tied the baby's legs with a rope, hung it upside down out of the window and disappeared; another, for example, bored with the fact that a one-year-old baby ran everywhere I followed her with tears, tied him by the legs and left him in the stable, and when I looked in the stable in the evening, the baby's whole backside was eaten by a pig.

We will talk about the results of the lack of supervision of adolescents below, but now we will consider the living conditions of an infant in the village during the summer working hours. The mother, leaving early in the morning for work, swaddles the child, perhaps even wrapping it in a clean diaper. It is clear that soon after the mother's care and an 8-10-year-old girl assigned to look after the child, who, due to her age and an understandable complete lack of understanding of the importance of her task, wants to run and play in the fresh air, such a nanny leaves the child and the child sometimes lies all day in soaked and soiled diapers and Even if the mother leaves a sufficient number of changes of linen to the nurse, it is not in the latter's best interest to change the soiled linen as needed, since she will have to do the washing herself. And so, you can imagine the terrible situation of swaddled children, wrapped in diapers soaked in urine and feces, and this is also in the hot summer season. The statement of the same observer prot. Gilyarovsky says that from such a urolithiasis compress and from the heat, "the skin under the neck, under the arms and in the groin warms, ulcers are obtained, often filled with worms," etc. It is also not difficult to add to this whole picture the mass of mosquitoes and flies, which are especially readily attracted by the stinking atmosphere around the child from the putrefaction of urine and feces. "Flies and mosquitoes hovering around the child in swarms," says Gilyarovsky, " keep him in an incessant fever of stinging." In addition, worms are bred in the baby's cradle and, as we will see below, even in its horn, which, according to Gilyarovsky, are "one of the most dangerous creatures"for the child…

We have already mentioned above that during the summer season of suffering, mothers go to work, leaving the child food for the whole day, and breastfeed the child only at night and in the evening, returning from work, in some cases only after 3-4 days. The child is left with the so-called teat and chew. The first, usually, is a cow's horn, to the free open end of which is tied a cow's nipple, bought either in Moscow in meat rows, or from local butchers in the villages. Of course, everyone understands that such a teat must necessarily rot, and this piece of rot, whether it is washed or not, is almost all day in the baby's mouth. "Milk, passing through this smelly, dead lump, is naturally saturated with all the rot contained in it, and then this poison goes into the child's stomach," says Dr. Peskov (Pokrovsky)."

This post was edited by Salix - 05/18/2008 02: 39

This lengthy and shocking quote doesn't really make sense. For example, in the 17th century, the death rate was even higher, and what was happening before our era is generally scary to think about. Improving the quality of life is a gradual, natural process of development of society, and not the merit of "the most humane person". On the contrary, the situation with the standard of living and mortality in the 20s was much sadder than at the end of the 19th century. At least the tsarist government did not starve its people, drive them to concentration camps, or shoot them. The figures are known: according to the calculation of Professor I. A. Kurganov (Kurganov I. A. Three figures. Seeding. Frankfurt am Main, 1977, No. 12.) from 1917 to 1959, the country lost 110 million, including 66 million during the non-military period of the "socialist revolution". Data of the statistician O. A. Platonov: "According to our calculation, the total number of persons who died not by their own death from mass repressions, famine, epidemics, wars, amounted to more than 87 million people in 1918-1953... "(Platonov O. A. Memoirs of the national economy, Moscow, 1990, pp. 97-98). When the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation was preparing the law on the rehabilitation of the repressed in 1991, the Ministry of Internal Affairs gave a certificate on the number of people repressed for class and political reasons - 50,114,267 people (shot, sent to camps, dekulakized, exiled, etc.) (Nazarov M. V. To the Leader of the Third Rome, Moscow, 2005, p.276). And here are other figures: with a high mortality rate, the population in pre-revolutionary Russia grew from 37 million in 1800 to 133 million in 1900 and from 133 million in 1900 to 175 million people in 1914 (Statistical Yearbook for 1914. Edited by V. I. Sharago, St. Petersburg, 1914).

And now the favorite topic of Soviet historians is the level of education in tsarist Russia. Again, specific figures.

At the beginning of the 20th century, only 25% of the population was literate - but this is again the average for the empire; in large cities of European Russia, the number of literates reached 50%; and among young people even more; and then literacy for women was considered optional - and this worsened the average figures; the male population had a much higher percentage. In 1908, universal free primary education was introduced and 10,000 primary schools were opened annually (already in 1911 there were more than 100,000 of them, 38,000 of them parochial), as a result of which by 1922 the illiteracy of young generations should have disappeared. (In 1920, according to Soviet data, 86% of young people aged 12 to 16 could read and write, and they learned this before the revolution, not during the civil war.) (http://www.nashsovr.aihs.net/p.php?y=2004&n=2&id=3)

In the 1913-1914 academic year, 8.7 million boys and girls were enrolled in various types of primary and secondary schools. The number of students was 71.4 thousand. 35.7 thousand of them were students of 10 Russian universities. The rest, apparently, studied at military academies In technical universities, the percentage of immigrants from raznochintsy was 72%. (Belousov R. 1999. Economic history of Russia. XX century. Book 1. M. IzdAT)

Gymnasiums were available in all county towns, which many European countries could not boast of. As for women's secondary and higher education (which was not yet taken for granted at that time) Russia was ahead of Western Europe: in 1914, there were 965 women's gymnasiums and Higher Women's Courses (in fact, universities) in all major cities. The Government continued to open universities. In October 1909, the University of Saratov was opened.

On the eve of the war, Russia had more than a hundred universities with 150,000 students (in France at the same time - about 40,000 students). Many universities in Russia were created by relevant ministries or departments (military, industrial and commercial, spiritual, etc.). Training was inexpensive: for example, at prestigious law schools in Russia it cost 20 times less than in the United States or England, and poor students were exempt from fees and received scholarships.

A program was adopted to introduce universal primary education throughout Russia. On May 3, 1908, the law on compulsory primary education was introduced. In June 1908, in connection with the introduction of universal primary education in Russia, the Third State Duma allocated an additional 6.9 million rubles. Part of these funds was allocated for the construction and equipment of schools, and part - for the issuance of allowances to schools, which were intended exclusively for the maintenance of teachers. According to the plans of the Ministry of Public Education, all preschool-age children should eventually receive a free minimum education. Corresponding plans were also developed by the zemstvos. The Ministry of Public Education provided loans to zemstvos and cities for the introduction of universal education. By the summer of 1911, the amount of such loans reached 16.5 million rubles.

Total expenditures for the Ministry of Public Education alone more than doubled from 1907 to 1911, from 45.9 to 97.6 million rubles. In addition, in 1911, the cost of science and education according to the estimates of the Holy Synod exceeded 18 million rubles, and according to the estimates of other departments - another 27 million. During the same period (1907-1911), expenditures on higher education increased from 6.9 to 7.5 million rubles. Allocations for secondary education grew: for gymnasiums, real and technical schools, teachers ' institutes, seminaries and schools (from 13.8 to 17.1 million rubles for the period 1907-1911). The maximum funds were allocated for primary education. If in 1907 9.7 million rubles were spent on it, then in 1911 it was already 39.7 million rubles. [Nazarov M. 2004. Russia on the eve of the revolution and February 1917. Our contemporary" N2].

If you come across the autobiography of the outstanding Russian-American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, who was born and studied in the remote villages of the local Komi Republic, read about the standard of living and primary education in the outback of tsarist Russia-first-hand descriptions.

This post was edited by Tentator - 05/18/2008 03: 42

Tentator-you can remember that at the end of the 19th century - in the 20th century, anti-Semitism flourished in Russia, you can read Chekhov, who described the state of the province, etc. I don't trust statistics, both Soviet and Russian. At least this fact: note that all data "breaks off" in 1914. And it is clear why: Russia's entry (not forced at all!) In the First World War, all funding for science and education returned to the level of 1901... Or here, you quote: "In the 1913-1914 academic year, 8.7 million boys and girls studied in various types of primary and secondary schools. The number of students was 71.4 thousand", and below you can quote "On the eve of the war in Russia there were more than a hundred universities with 150,000 students" - if the figures differ so much, then how reliable are they at all? "35.7 thousand of them were students of 10 Russian universities. The rest, apparently, studied in military academies" - don't you think that 35 thousand for a country with 175 million people is negligible, especially considering how many doctors are needed to treat such a population... "In 1911...." - too late tsarist Russia began its reforms - they were too late for a minimum of 20 years.

I firmly believe that any empire is totalitarian: the Russian Empire could not hold on only to " love for the fatherland." It seems to me that 1917 was also predetermined by the pogroms, the dispersal of the Duma, the entry into the First World War, etc.

I fully agree with you that before the revolution, our zoologists were extremely well-known, because they worked in Europe and published in German and French. Then all this was lost, but zoologists themselves became teachers of a new generation, and its level was determined by the level of the pre-revolutionary professorship.

I think that the 90s have become a "measure of dedication" for both scientists and amateurs. Someone left, someone went to commerce. I know amateurs who started successfully trading butterflies, and all their activities were directed to this area. I hope that everyone remembers the times when the institutes did not pay salaries for 3-5 months, they turned off electricity and heating. It broke a lot of people. It can be compared to what happened from 1917 to 1920, when many scientists continued to work despite hunger and cold. After World War II, Germany was never able to regain the title of leader of zoological science, which it earned in the 19th century. I suspect that after the current changes, our zoology will be satisfied with the wreckage of its former glory, since the prestige of science (especially botany and zoology)is also lost.

The creation of the survey was prompted by a discussion in this topic:
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=228815&st=200

I deliberately did not include the "Other"item. Please choose the option that is closer, even if it does not fully reflect your point of view. You can find out more in the comments.

The survey, of course, is not purely entomological... Because it seems to imply science in general. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see how entomologists ' opinions will change, since other areas will already have their own specifics (whether you want it or not, but the specialty leaves its mark).

This post was edited by Salix - 05/18/2008 06: 41

I created a survey, since the topic has already moved to the story. Velkam:

http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=236446

You can also move the discussion here if it continues. And this topic... let's leave it to faunistics anyway

This post was edited by Salix - 05/18/2008 05: 43

Well, thank God!
Tentator - I would be very grateful if you would take the time to list those entomologists who were repressed and did not return. Specific names are always better than numbers.

This lengthy and shocking quote doesn't really make sense.

No more than your contradictory statistical calculations (see the post by Juglans-a).

the best time was when there were no borders for travel. when there was no ban on trapping and export. when the fields were not plowed and destroyed.. Apparently it was a very long time ago, in my memory there is nothing like it

the best time was when there were no borders for travel. when there was no ban on trapping and export. when the fields were not plowed and destroyed.. It must have been a long time ago, and I don't remember anything like it

These times were exactly before the 1st World War, after which the visa system and foreign passports were introduced everywhere.

The survey was created incorrectly, as usual, if you don't want to search for the truth. I am surprised that there is a person who believes that " all the best remained in pre-revolutionary Russia." It is unlikely that anyone seriously thinks that there was nothing good in Soviet science. In the first paragraph, it was necessary to write, for example, like this:"Before the revolution, with a high general level of culture, education, freedom of creativity and funding."

The further away in time a certain period is from us, the more difficult it is for us to judge it. In order to avoid reproaches for false idealization, I will quote the statement of a contemporary, a remarkable scientist Veniamin Petrovich Semenov-Tyan-Shansky, who worked actively both before 17 and after: "Fate willed that my earthly life coincided with two epochs in the history of the development of mankind and my homeland. The first one lasted from my birth to the year of my great father's death for 44 years. It was a bright, relatively calm historical era that filled the entire second half of his life and the first half of my life with its warm, radiant radiance. If there were wars between individual states at that time, they were of a short-term local nature and claimed no more than hundreds of thousands of victims. During this era, European and North American culture reached the heights of its development, accompanied by such huge technical successes as never before had been seen. At the same time, it was an era of the highest levels in the spiritual life of mankind, and in its time lived individuals who surprisingly harmoniously combined the highest levels of reason, will, and morality. My generation greedily accepted them, and they gave us a strong temper, which provided us with the opportunity to survive with a pure heart in the next most difficult historical era, accompanied by an undoubted moral decline and coarsening of humanity and the corresponding inevitable general decline in human giftedness..."

Pictures:

vps.jpg — (57.2к)

Tentator – you can remember that at the end of the 19th century - in the 20th century in Russia

Juglans, I have given all these data primarily to illustrate the level of primary public education: the quality of higher education was not denied even by Soviet historians. It should not be forgotten that quite a large number of students studied at European universities, due to which the number of teachers of Russian universities grew. A lot of scientists and cultural figures – the glory and pride of Soviet science-are entirely due to the tsarist education system: Severtsov, Joffe, Pasternak and many others listened to lectures at leading Russian and European universities. For example, in the 1907-1908 academic year, 6 thousand students studied at European universities, and by 1914 their number increased by 30%, reaching 8,5 thousand people. Further, the figures of 71.4 thousand Russian students in 1913-14 are clearly underestimated. Another source (Ivanov A. E. Higher School of Russia in the late XIX - early XX centuries Moscow, 1991) indicates 92697 students in the 1907-1908 academic year and 123532 in the 1913-1914 academic year. The spread of numbers is large, but it gives a certain idea. But it is not the specific figures that are important, but the general trends that they show, and these trends are huge. The decline in education funding during the World War is natural and characteristic not only for Russia. And the fact that it was not forced to enter the war – well, let's remember how Stalinist Russia entered the world War: with trains of food and weapons being sent to Hitler's Germany, with the complete absence of armed forces on the borders and huge losses in the first weeks of the war, despite intelligence warnings of an attack. And how incompetently it waged this war: 30-40 million dead, when soldiers were treated like garbage ... Involuntarily I remember the words of Alexander III, who said that he would not exchange the life of one Russian soldier for all the Balkans. Anti-Semitism? It was not in the USSR? Yes, it was cultivated at the level of the Politburo: the Soviet leader was considered shameful not to be an anti-Semite. Chekhov? Compare his characters, for example, with those of Venedikt Yerofeyev. Why did the revolution happen? There is no clear answer to this question, because almost everyone who tried to answer it proceeded from socio-economic patterns, but almost no one took into account the psychology of the masses... This is a huge and complex topic, let it be. But look who made the revolution: a gang of robbers who had previously robbed tsarist banks, lumpen houses, and victims of nationalist pogroms. Was the October Revolution necessary for the peasantry, the intelligentsia, and the skilled workers? The hell they needed her. Everyone was waiting for the Constituent Assembly, but "the power lay on the pavement": what robber would not take advantage of the situation?
Now back to science. Russian scientists before the revolution were known all over the world not only because they were published in French and German: they had a very high level. I won't belittle the achievements of Soviet biology, but when were the only two "Russian" Nobel prizes awarded? In 1904 and 1908. And it cannot be said that the remainder of these outstanding scientists after 17 fully became teachers of the new generation. Because they remained only in large scientific centers, only the most famous ones remained. The lesser-known ones in the province were destroyed. Further, were the "new cellular" theories of Lepeshinskaya, the wife of Lenin's comrade-in-arms, possible in tsarist Russia? Or such statements of the "People's Academician": "No cipher or code. there are also no records of information, etc. in the DNA" or " What matrix for copying the hereditary substance (for copying DNA) can we talk about if we know in detail our experimental data on the production of winter crops from spring crops?". Do you want the names of repressed entomologists? Of course, the names B. P. immediately come to mind. Uvaroff, who never returned to Russia, and Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich Romanov, author of the remarkable volumes Mémoires sur les Lépidoptères, who was shot in the Peter and Paul Fortress without trial. He was also a wonderful, liberal historian. What is an entomologist for the revolution? but as a historian, it seems that Gorky stood up for him, to which he received the answer:"The revolution does not need historians." Historians are also not needed... Then a request in Yandex immediately gave a list; I give only entomologists from it: Znamensky Alexander Vasilyevich (1891-1937?), All-Russian Institute of Plant Protection; Troitsky Nikolai Nikolaevich (1887-1937?), All-Russian Institute of Plant Protection; Filipyev Ivan Nikolaevich (1889-1937?) LSU (http://www.ihst.ru/projects/sohist/books/os/454-460.pdf Barovsky Vladimir Vladimirovich (1880-1934), ZIN (http://www.zin.ru/animalia/Coleoptera/rus/barovsk.htm). Note that these are employees of headquarters. How many were there in the province…

Once again, I want to note one thing. By themselves, arguments on the topic: which mode is better, which is worse-this is all the level of kitchen conversations. It is necessary to look for the causes of today in the past, it is necessary to understand the genealogy of modern problems in science and in the life of society in general, without this, it is useless to fight them.

What is a backward agrarian state? Did you read this in Soviet school history textbooks?

That's right, in school, totalitarian!!!
Russia was an agrarian country.
And this, nothing, that the" advanced power " once in 6-7 years was covered by famine? How did it happen that there were no regular famines under the bloody Soviet regime?

Irretrievable losses in the Great Patriotic War:
USSR - 11,440,100 people
Germany-8,645,500 people
Ratio 1: 1.3 in favor of Germany.
Mediocrity? Well, well...

As a lover of military history, I can not remain silent, because the delusional nature of this figure (allegedly irretrievable losses of the Second World War) OBVIOUS. I just ask you to pay attention to the accuracy of the figure. Near St. Petersburg, the forests are still full of bones.

As for the survey , I agree that the wording is incorrect. I would hesitate between pre-revolutionary Russia and the era of stability in the USSR (the so-called "stagnation").

And this, nothing, that the" advanced power " once in 6-7 years was covered by famine? How did it happen that there were no regular famines under the bloody Soviet regime?

Famine was not confined to Russia alone. For example, in 1909-1914, the United States starved due to drought. In Soviet Russia, however, there were worse things than the famine years (by the way, 1921-1923; 1932-1933; 1946-1947) - this is the genocide of one's own people with the help of famine.

"The Bolshevik government created an artificial famine in the country. For example, when in many provinces of Russia in 1921 there was a crop failure, and in the central regions there were good potato harvests, the government did not send it to the starving provinces to save people's lives. It ordered to transfer the potato crop to Glavspirt.Lenin's Bolshevik government deliberately destroyed the population of Russia during the period under review. In fact, it was a genocide. In 1918-1920 alone, more than 10 million people died, and the victims of the terrible famine of 1921-1922 amounted to another five million people. In total, more than 15 million people died during the civil war alone. In 1921-1922, the country was gripped by a terrible famine and an epidemic of cholera. In the information summary of the GPU for the Samara province of January 3, 1922, we read:"...Starvation is observed, corpses are dragged from the cemetery for food. It is observed that children are not carried to the cemetery, leaving them for food... " About artificial hunger, in particular in Petrograd, writes in her diary the maid of honor of the Empress A. Vyrubova: "The Bolsheviks forbade the import of provisions to Petrograd, soldiers were on guard at all railway stations and took away everything they brought. Markets were vandalized and searched, and buyers and sellers were arrested." A terrible famine raged in the country, millions of people died, while the Soviet government exported bread abroad. On December 7, 1922, the Politburo issued a criminal decree: "To recognize the state necessity of exporting grain in the amount of up to 50 million poods." By regularly sending tens of millions of pounds of grain to Germany and providing them with a multi-million-strong army of hired "internationalists", the Soviet government barbarously robbed the peasants, thereby deliberately passing the death sentence on many millions of Russian citizens. Here are some facts from the collections of the former Central Party Archive of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism under the Central Committee of the CPSU. In 1921, the Soviet government allocated only 125,000 "wooden" rubles for the transportation of Red Cross supplies to help starving provinces. Meanwhile, in September of the same year, the Central Committee of the RCP(b), at the request of the Presidium of the Cheka, allocated 1 800,000 rubles in gold currency for the purchase of 60 thousand sets of leather uniforms for chekists abroad. During these famine years, the Bolshevik leaders lived on a grand scale. Here is the testimony of Trotsky's wife, N. N. Trotsky. Sedovoy:"...Red ket caviar was plentiful... It is not only in my memory that the first years of the revolution are painted with this constant caviar... " and so on and so forth.: http://www.rmc.org.ua/actions/tyqios/. So, if in tsarist Russia several thousand people died during the famine years, then in 1932-33 7-8 million people died throughout the Soviet Union and from 3.5 to 4 million people in Ukraine; about 3 million in 1921-1923 and about 1 million in 1946-1947.

Main section of BAM

Yes, "some sections", "main section", "missing sections". How familiar this is. Meanwhile, all the geological exploration work on the BAM was done again in tsarist Russia.

According to the research of V. Zemskov

Large-scale manipulations were made in this census with data on prisoners. Most of the GULAG inmates were "dispersed" over the territory where they were held: the census forms filled out on them were distributed to its administrative divisions and mixed with those sheets that were actually collected there during the census. However, in order to hide the huge concentration of prisoners in the North and East of the Russian Federation (in Buryat-Mongolia, Karelia, the Komi Republic, the Far East, and the Arkhangelsk, Novosibirsk, and Sverdlovsk regions), an official order was issued to "redistribute" 759,550 census forms to other territories of the Soviet Union. We have evidence that for many of them this order was carried out. At the same time, it is known from secret correspondence of those years that, apparently, in order to hide the appalling loss of population from forced collectivization and hunger, 383,563 census forms were sent from other regions to Ukraine and 375,180 sheets to Kazakhstan. In total, this is data for 758,743 people who were included in the rural population in both republics.

During World War II, the Soviet Union suffered enormous human losses. In 1946, Stalin once again turned to demographic problems and again grossly distorted reality. He announced that 7 million Soviet citizens had died in the war. Naturally, after his statement, this figure for many years turned into an unshakable dogma in the Soviet Union, despite the fact that only the demographic losses of the Red Army (more than 8.6 million soldiers and officers) exceeded the figure mentioned by Stalin. According to recent estimates, the total human losses of the USSR (excluding emigration) in World War II were much greater - about 25.2 million people.
Both quotes from here: Mark Toltz "Secrets of Soviet Demography" (http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2004/0171/analit06.php#44).

This post was edited by Tentator - 05/18/2008 23: 59

Oh, holy simplicity!

This is very interesting - what kind of weapons did we send by train to Germany?

Treaty of Friendship and Border between the USSR and Germany of 28.09.1939. Steel was precisely supplied from which weapons were made. And grain was supplied. It is by echelons.

From a letter from Ribbentrop Mussolini (March 1940): "The Soviet government generously supplies Germany with the raw materials it needs and is even ready to donate "part of its gold fund for the purchase (in other countries) of raw materials necessary for Germany" (The letter is quoted in A. Rossi, Deux ans d'alliance Germano-sovie'tique, pp. 105, 122). This report is also confirmed by a note from Schnurre, a German specialist in economic affairs, dated February 26, 1940. He estimates the Soviet supply of Germany (various goods that were necessary for her to conduct the war for one year) at 800, approximately, million marks. At the same time, Schnurre adds that the Soviet Union has expressed its readiness "to act for us as a buyer of metals and raw materials in other countries ... Since Stalin repeatedly promised great assistance in this direction, it is to be expected that every effort will be made on the Soviet side" (Das nationalsozialistische Deutschland..., pp. 148-149). The Soviet Government, by its friendly attitude towards Hitlerite Germany, greatly contributed to the successful offensive of its armies on the western front in the spring of 1940. German Marshal Jodl reported at the Nuremberg trials in 1945 that the German command, relying on the loyalty of the Soviet government to the German-Soviet treaty, was able in the spring of 1940 to throw all its forces against France, Belgium and Holland, leaving only 5 or 6 divisions in the east (Process du Nuremberg, t. XV, p 405; see also G. L. Weinberg, Germany and the Soviet Union 1939 -- 41, Leyden 1954). (http://lib.tiera.ru/DIALEKTIKA/historykpss.txt).

At least even the monarchists have heard about the Brest Fortress

http://aleho.narod.ru/book2/ch14.htm. And what does the monarchists have to do with it?

At least in memory of those people who gave their lives, including

How did I offend someone's memory? I am afraid that it is an insult to lie about the real victims of the war and defend the true perpetrators of these colossal victims.

As a lover of military history, I can not remain silent, because the delusional nature of this figure (allegedly irretrievable losses of the Second World War) OBVIOUS. I just ask you to pay attention to the accuracy of the figure. Near St. Petersburg, the forests are still full of bones.

This is documented
and the accuracy is quite approximate - up to hundreds.
Missing persons are also included here.

This post was edited by Bad Den - 05/19/2008 00: 40