Seventy-seven years have passed since the day when the famous Order No. 270 was issued, forbidding the soldiers and commanders of the Red Army to surrender. Those were declared traitors. Around this order, many polemical copies were subsequently broken, a lot of myths were heaped up and quotations from statements that never existed in nature were heaped up. This order became one of those tools with the help of which "people with bright faces", "fighters for all good against all bad," as it seemed to them, destroyed the great Soviet deception. In practice, this meant that in order to achieve their "bright goals", these people used useless means, which, as you know, level the goal itself.
No one in their right mind …
In this particular case, the tool was an excessively free interpretation of events, and sometimes frank inventions. This is not to use the word "lies". There were many shortcomings in the Soviet state. But there are plenty of them in any other state of the world. And yet no one in a sober mind and firm memory destroys their own state in order to correct its shortcomings. At least, if there are no insurmountable obstacles to this. However, let's get back to Order No. 270 and the mythology that arose on its basis.
Who are considered deserters
The order of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command of the Red Army, in question, appeared on August 16, 1941 and was called "On the responsibility of servicemen for surrendering and leaving weapons to the enemy." And it was signed not only by Stalin. In general, no matter what some of Iosif Vissarionovich's comrades-in-arms say afterwards, trying to absolve themselves of responsibility for what after the twentieth congress began to be called excesses, a consequence of the cult of personality and crimes, no matter what the modern professional “fighters against Stalinism” may say in hindsight, the decisions of the authorities at all levels in the Soviet Union were predominantly collective. So, directly this order was signed, in addition to Stalin, Molotov, Budyonny, Voroshilov, Timoshenko, Shaposhnikov and Zhukov. And the main question that this order answered was the question of whetherwhom to consider as deserters.
Promotional video:
Shoot on the spot
So who was ordered to be considered deserters? Order No. 270 gave clear instructions on this score. First of all, these should include those who did not properly represent the command link. Namely, the political workers and, of course, the commanders themselves, who, having shown cowardice, began to tear off their insignia during the battle, tried to go to the rear, or surrendered. The order instructed higher commanders or political workers to shoot deserters on the spot. This is the most severe measure. But we must remember that this measure was taken during the most brutal war.
Fight to the last
What else was prescribed by the order? The order instructed even those encircled to fight as long as there was the slightest opportunity for this. "Until the last opportunity" - so it was said in the order. The natural requirement was the preservation of weapons. And, of course, it was ordered to break through to their own. And not just to break through, but to defeat the enemy, as the document said: "fascist dogs."
Like impostors
According to this order, all servicemen were obliged, and regardless of what position in the military hierarchy they occupy, to demand, even from higher-ranking servicemen, to fight surrounded to the end. And if someone chooses to surrender, destroy him by any means. And, for example, division commanders, as well as commissars, were ordered to immediately remove from their posts the commanders of regiments and battalions, who, instead of leading the battle, are hiding in cracks. Instead of them, appoint junior commanders from those who have shown courage, and even ordinary Red Army soldiers.
Families lost their benefits
So far, as you can see, we have before us the most severe order. But he, as noted above, corresponds to the harsh environment in which he was surrendered. However, there is also something in it that those critics of the Soviet power are especially emphasizing, who do not speak about its shortcomings and mistakes, but insist that the Soviet power itself was a mistake. So, they emphasize that the order prescribes the families of Red Army deserters and surrendered to be deprived of state aid and benefits, and the families of commanders and political workers who committed an act of betrayal and surrendered were subject to arrest. That is, we have a collective responsibility. What the same Nazis loved so much with the same fascists. Let us recall how entire villages were destroyed because of one partisan. But the order referred to the available facts of the surrender of the generals. And the very situation on the fronts at that time was depressing. Parts of the Red Army were regularly surrounded over and over again. Many soldiers and officers were taken prisoner. In fact, it was about saving the state, about saving the inhabitants of the country, since everyone knows the plans of Hitler and his entourage in this regard. Therefore, it is likely that such an extreme measure was taken. Another question is how effective it is. After all, if a person has fallen into the abyss of betrayal, it is unlikely that he will begin to think about the fate of his relatives.how effective it is. After all, if a person has fallen into the abyss of betrayal, it is unlikely that he will begin to think about the fate of his relatives.how effective it is. After all, if a person has fallen into the abyss of betrayal, it is unlikely that he will begin to think about the fate of his relatives.
We have no prisoners
Against the backdrop of speculations about the cruelty of Order No. 270, talk began about Stalin's alleged phrase "we have no prisoners, there are only traitors." However, as it turned out later, the phrase allegedly uttered by Stalin, "There are no prisoners of war in the Red Army, there are only traitors and traitors to the Motherland", which really exists in the "Reference of the Commission for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression" published by one of the historical magazines. However, here's the bad luck, this phrase is used only as the name of one of its parts. That is, not as a quote from Stalin. At the same time, no sources from which this phrase could have been taken are not given.
Versions, versions …
Then it turned out that, in general, there are not so few versions of where such a phrase came from. For example, Konstantin Simonov recalled his conversation with Zhukov, in which he allegedly said that it was Mehlis, the head of the Main Political Directorate, who had come up with a formula according to which each of our prisoners of war is a traitor. Or here is such a "source" - the once famous film epic "Liberation", where there is an episode, as in the camp "Sachsenhausen" a certain German informs the prisoners of war that Stalin said: "We have no prisoners of war, we have only traitors." By the way, the Germans widely used this thesis during the war as a provocation to persuade our prisoners of war to cooperate.
Jacob's story
Many refer to the story of the death of Stalin's son Yakov Dzhugashvili. They say that, being guided by such an attitude towards prisoners of war, Stalin did not want to exchange his son for Field Marshal Paulus. As if he answered the proposal that he does not change the soldier for field marshals. But even here not a single documentary confirmation was found. The only thing that is is the memories of Stalin's daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva, in which she says that her father told her about the exchange offered by the Germans, but he refused. However, to what extent this testimony can be believed. Moreover, Zhukov recalled a completely different conversation with Stalin, during which he said that Yakov would not get out of captivity, that the Nazis would shoot him. In general, there is evidence that Yakov fought with dignity and behaved in captivity in the most dignified manner. At the same time, rumor has it put forward its own version of this story. According to one of them, Stalin's son was not captured, but died in battle. And the story of the captivity and the exchange offers are provocations of the Germans.
Never saw
And in conclusion, I would like to cite the data that was made public a few years ago by Major General A. Kirilin - the head of that department of the Russian military department, which is engaged in perpetuating the memory of the victims. He noted that he had never seen documents in which Stalin would have ordered to consider all Soviet prisoners of war as traitors and, moreover, to repress their families. He did not deny the total check of prisoners of war and the existence of filtration camps, but denied the purposeful destruction of prisoners of war. And he cited the corresponding figures: out of one million eight hundred and thirty-two Soviet soldiers who returned from captivity, three hundred thirty-three thousand four hundred people were convicted for cooperation with the Germans.
Author: Mark Voron
