text:
Battle of Moscow
This article is about the 1941 battle. For other uses, see Battle of Moscow (disambiguation).
Part of the Eastern Front of World War II
Soviet anti-aircraft gunners on the roof of the Moskva hotel.
2 October 1941 – 7 January 1942
(3 months and 5 days)
Moscow Oblast, Russian SFSR, USSR
Strategic Soviet victory
German operational and tactical failure
Eventual failure of Operation Barbarossa
Germany Soviet Union
Fedor von Bock
Albert Kesselring
Heinz Guderian Georgy Zhukov
Aleksandr Vasilevsky
Army Group Centre
2nd Panzer Army
3rd Panzer Army
4th Panzer Army
2nd Army
4th Army
Army Group South
16th Army
22nd Army
Cavalry Group "Dovator"
Reserve Front
31st Army
43rd Army
Bryansk Front
Operational Group Ermakov
3rd Army
As of 1 October 1941:
1,183,693–1,929,406 men,
[1][2][3][4]
1,000–2,470 tanks and assault guns,[5][6]
14,000 guns,
Initial aircraft: 549 serviceable[7][8][9] At time of counter offensive: 599[10] As of 1 October 1941:
3,232 tanks,
7,600 guns,
Initial aircraft: 936 (545 serviceable)[7] At time of counter offensive: 1,376[10]
174,194 KIA, WIA, MIA (see §7)[11] 1,029,234(see §7)
Białystok and Minsk
Bessarabia
1st Kiev
Tallinn disaster
Sea of Azov
1st Kharkov
Lyuban
Barvenkovo and Lozovaya
Toropets and Kholm
Demyansk
2nd Kharkov
Case Blue
Rzhev, Summer 1942
Sinyavino
Little Saturn
Ostrogozhsk–Rossosh
Polar Star
3rd Kharkov
Bombing of Gorky
1st Donbass
Tidal Wave
2nd Donbass
2nd Smolensk
Dnieper–Carpathian
Leningrad–Novgorod
1st Jassy–Kishinev
Bagration
Lvov and Sandomierz
Doppelkopf
2nd Jassy–Kishinev
Dukla Pass
Petsamo and Kirkenes
Courland
Gumbinnen
Vistula and Oder
East Pomerania
Lake Balaton
Bratislava-Brno
German capitulation
Białystok–Minsk
Petrikowka
Yelnya
Operation Beowulf
1st Crimea
1st Rostov
The Battle of Moscow (Russian: Битва за Москву, translit. Bitva za Moskvu) was a military campaign that consisted of two periods of strategically significant fighting on a 600 km (370 mi) sector of the Eastern Front during World War II. It took place between October 1941 and January 1942. The Soviet defensive effort frustrated Hitler's attack on Moscow, the capital of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the Soviet Union's largest city. Moscow was one of the primary military and political objectives for Axis forces in their invasion of the Soviet Union.
The German strategic offensive, named Operation Typhoon (German: Unternehmen Taifun), called for two pincer offensives, one to the north of Moscow against the Kalinin Front by the 3rd and 4th Panzer Armies, simultaneously severing the Moscow–Leningrad railway, and another to the south of Moscow Oblast against the Western Front south of Tula, by the 2nd Panzer Army, while the 4th Army advanced directly towards Moscow from the west. According to Andrew Roberts, Hitler's offensive towards the Soviet capital was nothing less than an 'all-out attack': "It is no exaggeration to state that the outcome of the Second World War hung in the balance during this massive attack".[12]
Initially, the Soviet forces conducted a strategic defence of the Moscow Oblast by constructing three defensive belts, deploying newly raised reserve armies, and bringing troops from the Siberian and Far Eastern Military Districts. As the German offensives were halted, a Soviet strategic counter-offensive and smaller-scale offensive operations forced the German armies back to the positions around the cities of Oryol, Vyazma and Vitebsk, and nearly surrounded three German armies.
Further information: Operation Barbarossa
Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion plan, called for the capture of Moscow within four months. On 22 June 1941, Axis forces invaded the Soviet Union, destroyed most of the Soviet Air Force on the ground, and advanced deep into Soviet territory using blitzkrieg tactics to destroy entire Soviet armies. The German Army Group North moved towards Leningrad, Army Group South took control of Ukraine, and Army Group Center advanced towards Moscow. By July 1941, Army Group Center crossed the Dnieper River, on the path to Moscow.[13]
In July 1941, German forces captured Smolensk, an important stronghold on the road to Moscow.[14] At this stage, although Moscow was vulnerable, an offensive against the city would have exposed the German flanks. In part to address these risks, in part to attempt to secure Ukraine's food and mineral resources,[15] Hitler ordered the attack to turn north and south and eliminate Soviet forces at Leningrad and Kiev.[16] This delayed the German advance on Moscow.[16] When that advance resumed on 30 September 1941, German forces had been weakened, while the Soviets had raised new forces for the defence of the city.[16]
Initial German advance (Tuesday, 30 September – Friday, 10 October)
Further information: Battle of Moscow order of battle
For Hitler, the Soviet capital was secondary, and he believed the only way to bring the Soviet Union to its knees was to defeat it economically. He felt this could be accomplished by seizing the economic resources of Ukraine east of Kiev.[17] When Walther von Brauchitsch, Commander-in-Chief of the Army, supported a direct thrust to Moscow, he was told that "only ossified brains could think of such an idea".[17] Franz Halder, head of the Army General Staff, was also convinced that a drive to seize Moscow would be victorious after the German Army inflicted enough damage on the Soviet forces.[18] This view was shared by most within the German high command.[17] But Hitler overruled his generals in favor of pocketing the Soviet forces around Kiev in the south, followed by the seizure of Ukraine. The move was successful, resulting in the loss of nearly 1,000,000 Red Army personnel killed, captured, or wounded by 26 September, and further advances by Axis forces.
With the end of summer, Hitler redirected his attention to Moscow and assigned Army Group Center to this task. The forces committed to Operation Typhoon included four infantry armies (the 2nd, 4th, 9th and 6th[19]) supported by three Panzer (tank) Groups (the 2nd, 3rd and 4th) and by the Luftwaffe's Luftflotte 2. Up to two million German troops were committed to the operation, along with 1,000–2,470 tanks and assault guns and 14,000 guns. German aerial strength, however, had been severely reduced over the summer's campaign; the Luftwaffe had lost 1,603 aircraft destroyed and 1,028 damaged. Luftflotte 2 had only 549 serviceable machines, including 158 medium and dive-bombers and 172 fighters, available for Operation Typhoon.[20] The attack relied on standard blitzkrieg tactics, using Panzer groups rushing deep into Soviet formations and executing double-pincer movements, pocketing Red Army divisions and destroying them.[21]
Facing the Wehrmacht were three Soviet fronts forming a defensive line between the cities of Vyazma and Bryansk, which barred the way to Moscow. The armies comprising these fronts had also been involved in heavy fighting. Still, it was a formidable concentration consisting of 1,250,000 men, 1,000 tanks and 7,600 guns. The Soviet Air Force (Voyenno-Vozdushnye Sily, VVS) had suffered appalling losses of some 7,500[22] to 21,200[23] aircraft. Extraordinary industrial achievements had begun to replace these, and at the outset of Typhoon the VVS could muster 936 aircraft, 578 of which were bombers.[24]
Once Soviet resistance along the Vyazma-Bryansk front was eliminated, German forces were to press east, encircling Moscow by outflanking it from the north and south. Continuous fighting had reduced their effectiveness, and logistical difficulties became more acute. Guderian wrote that some of his destroyed tanks had not been replaced, and there were fuel shortages at the start of the operation.[25]
The Battles of Vyazma and Bryansk
The German attack went according to plan, with 3rd Panzer Army pushing through the middle nearly unopposed and then splitting its mobile forces north to complete the encirclement of Vyazma with 4th Panzer Army, and other units south to close the ring around Bryansk in conjunction with 2nd Panzer Army. The Soviet defenses, still under construction, were overrun, and spearheads of the Second and Third Panzer Groups met at Vyazma on Friday, 10 October 1941.[26][27] Four Soviet armies (the 19th, 20th, 24th and 32nd) were encircled in a large pocket just west of the city.[28]
The encircled Soviet forces continued to fight, and the Wehrmacht had to employ 28 divisions to eliminate them, using troops which could have supported the offensive towards Moscow. The remnants of the Soviet Western and Reserve Fronts retreated and manned new defensive lines around Mozhaisk.[28] Although losses were high, some of the encircled units escaped in small groups, ranging in size from platoons to full rifle divisions.[27] Soviet resistance near Vyazma also provided time for the Soviet high command to reinforce the four armies defending Moscow (the 5th, 16th, 43rd and 49th Armies). Three rifle and two tank divisions were transferred from East Siberia with more to follow.[28]
In the south near Bryansk, initial Soviet performance was barely more effective than at Vyazma. The Second Panzer Group executed an enveloping movement around the city, linking with the advancing 2nd Army and capturing Orel by Friday, 3 October and Bryansk by Monday, 6 October.
The weather began to change, hampering the Germans. On Tuesday, 7 October, the first snow fell and quickly melted, turning roads and open areas into muddy quagmires, a phenomenon known as rasputitsa in Russia. German armored groups were greatly slowed, allowing Soviet forces to fall back and regroup.[29][30]
Soviet forces were able to counterattack in some cases. For example, the 4th Panzer Division fell into an ambush set by Dmitri Leliushenko's hastily formed 1st Guards Special Rifle Corps, including Mikhail Katukov's 4th Tank Brigade, near the city of Mtsensk. Newly built T-34 tanks were concealed in the woods as German armor rolled past them; as a scratch team of Soviet infantry contained their advance, Soviet armor attacked from both flanks and savaged the German Panzer IV tanks. For the Wehrmacht, the shock of this defeat was so great that a special investigation was ordered.[27] Guderian and his troops discovered, to their dismay, that the Soviet T-34s were almost impervious to German tank guns. As the general wrote, "Our Panzer IV tanks with their short 75 mm guns could only explode a T-34 by hitting the engine from behind." Guderian also noted in his memoirs that "the Russians already learned a few things."[31][32] In 2012, Niklas Zetterling disputed the notion of a major German reversal at Mtsensk, noting that only a battlegroup from the 4th Panzer Division was engaged while most of the division was fighting elsewhere, that both sides withdrew from the battlefield after the fighting and that the Germans only lost six tanks destroyed and three damaged. For German commanders like Hoepner and Bock, the action was inconsequential; their primary worry was resistance from within the pocket, not without.[33]
Other counterattacks further slowed the German offensive. The 2nd Army, which was operating to the north of Guderian's forces with the aim of encircling the Bryansk Front, had come under strong Red Army pressure assisted by air support.[34]
According to German assessments of the initial Soviet defeat, 673,000 soldiers had been captured by the Wehrmacht in both the Vyazma and Bryansk pockets,[35] although recent research suggests a lower—but still enormous—figure of 514,000 prisoners, reducing Soviet strength by 41%.[36] Personnel losses of 499,001 (permanent as well as temporary) were calculated by the Soviet command.[37] On 9 October, Otto Dietrich of the German Ministry of Propaganda, quoting Hitler himself, forecast in a press conference the imminent destruction of the armies defending Moscow. As Hitler had never had to lie about a specific and verifiable military fact, Dietrich convinced foreign correspondents that the collapse of all Soviet resistance was perhaps hours away. German civilian morale—low since the start of Barbarossa—significantly improved, with rumors of soldiers home by Christmas and great riches from the future Lebensraum in the east.[38]
However, Red Army resistance had slowed the Wehrmacht. When the Germans arrived within sight of the Mozhaisk line west of Moscow on Friday, 10 October, they encountered another defensive barrier manned by new Soviet forces. That same day, Georgy Zhukov, who had been recalled from the Leningrad Front on 6 October, took charge of Moscow's defense and the combined Western and Reserve Fronts, with Colonel General Ivan Konev as his deputy.[39][40] On 12 October, Zhukov ordered the concentration of all available forces on a strengthened Mozhaisk line, a move supported by Vasilevsky.[41] The Luftwaffe still controlled the sky wherever it appeared, and Stuka and bomber groups flew 537 sorties, destroying some 440 vehicles and 150 artillery pieces.[42][43]
On 15 October, Stalin ordered the evacuation of the Communist Party, the General Staff and various civil government offices from Moscow to Kuibyshev (now Samara), leaving only a limited number of officials behind. The evacuation caused panic among Muscovites. On Thursday and Friday, 16–17 October, much of the civilian population tried to flee, mobbing the available trains and jamming the roads from the city. Despite all this, Stalin publicly remained in the Soviet capital, somewhat calming the fear and pandemonium.[27]
Mozhaisk defense line (Monday, 13–Thursday, 30 October)
By 13 October 1941, the Wehrmacht had reached the Mozhaisk defense line, a hastily constructed set of four lines of fortifications[19] protecting Moscow's western approaches which extended from Kalinin towards Volokolamsk and Kaluga. Despite recent reinforcements, only around 90,000 Soviet soldiers manned this line—far too few to stem the German advance.[44][45] Given the limited resources available, Zhukov decided to concentrate his forces at four critical points: the 16th Army under Lieutenant General Rokossovsky guarded Volokolamsk, Mozhaisk was defended by 5th Army under Major General Govorov, the 43rd Army of Major General Golubev defended Maloyaroslavets, and the 49th Army under Lieutenant General Zakharkin protected Kaluga.[46] The entire Soviet Western Front—nearly destroyed after its encirclement near Vyazma—was being recreated almost from scratch.[47]
Moscow itself was also hastily fortified. According to Zhukov, 250,000 women and teenagers worked building trenches and anti-tank moats around Moscow, moving almost three million cubic meters of earth with no mechanical help. Moscow's factories were hastily converted to military tasks: one automobile factory was turned into a submachine gun armory, a clock factory manufactured mine detonators, the chocolate factory shifted to food production for the front, and automobile repair stations worked fixing damaged tanks and military vehicles.[48] Despite these preparations, the capital was within striking distance of German tanks, with the Luftwaffe mounting large-scale air raids on the city. The air raids caused only limited damage because of extensive anti-aircraft defenses and effective civilian fire brigades.[49]
On Monday, 13 October 1941, Sunday 12 October 1941 in some parts of the World, (Wednesday, 15 October, according to other sources), the Wehrmacht resumed its offensive. At first, the German forces attempted to bypass Soviet defenses by pushing northeast towards the weakly protected city of Kalinin and south towards Kaluga and Tula, capturing all except Tula by 14 October. Encouraged by these initial successes, the Germans launched a frontal assault against the fortified line, taking Mozhaisk and Maloyaroslavets on 18 October, Naro-Fominsk on 21 October, and Volokolamsk on 27 October after intense fighting. Because of the increasing danger of flanking attacks, Zhukov was forced to fall back,[27] withdrawing his forces east of the Nara River.[50]
In the south, the Second Panzer Army initially advanced towards Tula with relative ease because the Mozhaisk defense line did not extend that far south and no significant concentrations of Soviet troops blocked their advance. However, bad weather, fuel problems, and damaged roads and bridges eventually slowed the German army, and Guderian did not reach the outskirts of Tula until 26 October.[51] The German plan initially called for the rapid capture of Tula, followed by a pincer move around Moscow. The first attack, however, was repelled by the 50th Army and civilian volunteers on 29 October, after a fight within sight of the city.[52] On 31 October, the German Army high command ordered a halt to all offensive operations until increasingly severe logistical problems were resolved and the rasputitsa subsided.
Wehrmacht advance towards Moscow (1 November – 5 December)
Wearing down
By late October, the German forces were worn out, with only a third of their motor vehicles still functioning, infantry divisions at third- to half-strength, and serious logistics issues preventing the delivery of warm clothing and other winter equipment to the front. Even Hitler seemed to surrender to the idea of a long struggle, since the prospect of sending tanks into such a large city without heavy infantry support seemed risky after the costly capture of Warsaw in 1939.[53]
To stiffen the resolve of the Red Army and boost civilian morale, Stalin ordered the traditional military parade on 7 November (Revolution Day) to be staged in Red Square. Soviet troops paraded past the Kremlin and then marched directly to the front. The parade carried a great symbolic significance by demonstrating the continued Soviet resolve, and was frequently invoked as such in the years to come. Despite this brave show, the Red Army's position remained precarious. Although 100,000 additional Soviet soldiers had reinforced Klin and Tula, where renewed German offensives were expected, Soviet defenses remained relatively thin. Nevertheless, Stalin ordered several preemptive counteroffensives against German lines. These were launched despite protests from Zhukov, who pointed out the complete lack of reserves.[54] The Wehrmacht repelled most of these counteroffensives, which squandered Soviet forces that could have been used for Moscow's defense. The only notable success of the offensive occurred west of Moscow near Aleksino, where Soviet tanks inflicted heavy losses on the 4th Army because the Germans still lacked anti-tank weapons capable of damaging the new, well-armored T-34 tanks.[53]
From Friday, 31 October to Thursday, 13/Saturday, 15 November, the Wehrmacht high command stood down while preparing to launch a second offensive towards Moscow. Although Army Group Centre still possessed considerable nominal strength, its fighting capabilities had thoroughly diminished because of combat fatigue. While the Germans were aware of the continuous influx of Soviet reinforcements from the east as well as the presence of large reserves, given the tremendous Soviet casualties, they did not expect the Soviets to be able to mount a determined defense.[55] But in comparison to the situation in October, Soviet rifle divisions occupied a much stronger defensive position: a triple defensive ring surrounding the city and some remnants of the Mozhaisk line near Klin. Most of the Soviet field armies now had a multilayered defense, with at least two rifle divisions in second echelon positions. Artillery support and sapper teams were also concentrated along major roads that German troops were expected to use in their attacks. There were also many Soviet troops still available in reserve armies behind the front. Finally, Soviet troops—and especially officers—were now more experienced and better prepared for the offensive.[53]
By 15 November 1941, the ground had finally frozen, solving the mud problem. The armored Wehrmacht spearheads, consisting of 51 divisions, could now advance, with the goal of encircling Moscow and linking up near the city of Noginsk, east of the capital. To achieve this objective, the German Third and Fourth Panzer Groups needed to concentrate their forces between the Volga Reservoir and Mozhaysk, then proceed past the Soviet 30th Army to Klin and Solnechnogorsk, encircling the capital from the north. In the south, the Second Panzer Group intended to bypass Tula, still held by the Red Army, and advance to Kashira and Kolomna, linking up with the northern pincer at Noginsk. The German 4th Field Army in the center were to "pin down the troops of the Western Front."[40]:33,42–43
Failed pincer
On 15 November 1941, German tank armies began their offensive towards Klin, where no Soviet reserves were available because of Stalin's wish to attempt a counteroffensive at Volokolamsk, which had forced the relocation of all available reserve forces further south. Initial German attacks split the front in two, separating the 16th Army from the 30th.[53] Several days of intense combat followed. Zhukov recalled in his memoirs that "The enemy, ignoring the casualties, was making frontal assaults, willing to get to Moscow by any means necessary."[56] Despite the Wehrmacht's efforts, the multi-layered defense reduced Soviet casualties as the Soviet 16th Army slowly retreated and constantly harassed the German divisions which were trying to make their way through the fortifications.
The Third Panzer Army captured Klin after heavy fighting on Saturday, 23 November, and by Sunday, 24 November, Solnechnogorsk as well. Soviet resistance was still strong, and the outcome of the battle was by no means certain. Reportedly, Stalin asked Zhukov whether Moscow could be successfully defended and ordered him to "speak honestly, like a communist." Zhukov replied that it was possible, but that reserves were urgently needed.[56] By 27 November, the German 7th Panzer Division had seized a bridgehead across the Moscow-Volga Canal—the last major obstacle before Moscow—and stood less than 35 km (22 mi) from the Kremlin;[53] but a powerful counterattack by the 1st Shock Army drove them back.[57] Just northwest of Moscow, the Wehrmacht reached Krasnaya Polyana, little more than 18 mi (29 km) from the Kremlin in central Moscow;[58] German officers were able to make out some of the major buildings of the Soviet capital through their field glasses. Both Soviet and German forces were severely depleted, sometimes having only 150–200 riflemen—a company's full strength—left in a regiment.[53]
In the south, near Tula, combat resumed on 18 November 1941, with the Second Panzer Army trying to encircle the city.[53] The German forces involved were extremely battered from previous fighting and still had no winter clothing. As a result, initial German progress was only 5–10 km (3.1–6.2 mi) per day.[59] Moreover, it exposed the German tank armies to flanking attacks from the Soviet 49th and 50th Armies, located near Tula, further slowing the advance. Guderian nevertheless was able to pursue the offensive, spreading his forces in a star-like attack, taking Stalinogorsk on 22 November 1941 and surrounding a Soviet rifle division stationed there. On 26 November, German tanks approached Kashira, a city controlling a major highway to Moscow. In response, a Soviet counterattack was launched the following day. General Belov's 2nd Cavalry Corps, supported by hastily assembled formations, which included 173rd Rifle Division, 9th Tank Brigade, two separate tank battalions, and training and militia units,[60] halted the German advance near Kashira.[40]:35–36[61] The Germans were driven back in early December, securing the southern approach to the city.[62] Tula itself held, protected by fortifications and determined defenders, both soldiers and civilians. In the south, the Wehrmacht never got close to the capital.
Because of the resistance on both the northern and southern sides of Moscow, on 1 December, the Wehrmacht attempted a direct offensive from the west along the Minsk-Moscow highway near the city of Naro-Fominsk. This offensive had limited tank support and was directed against extensive Soviet defenses. After meeting determined resistance from the Soviet 1st Guards Motorized Rifle Division and flank counterattacks staged by the 33rd Army, the German offensive stalled and was driven back four days later in the ensuing Soviet counteroffensive.[53] On the same day, 638th Infantry Regiment, the only foreign formation of the Wehrmacht that took part in the advance on Moscow, went into action near the village of Diutkovo.[63] On 2 December, a reconnaissance battalion came to the town of Khimki—some 30 km (19 mi) away from the Kremlin in central Moscow reaching its bridge over the Moscow-Volga Canal as well as its railway station. This marked the farthest advance of German forces on Moscow.[64][65]
The European Winter of 1941-1942 was the coldest of the twentieth century.[66] On 30 November, von Bock reported to Berlin that the temperature was – 45 °C (–49 °F).[67] General Erhard Raus, commander of the 6th Panzer Division, kept track of the daily mean temperature in his war diary. It shows a suddenly much colder period during 4–7 December: from –36 to –38 °C (–37 to –38 °F).[68] Other temperature reports varied widely.[69][70] Zhukov said that November's freezing weather stayed around –7 to –10 °C (+19 to +14 °F)[71] Official Soviet Meteorological Service records show the lowest December temperature reached –28.8 °C (–20 °F).[71] These numbers indicated severely cold conditions, and German troops were freezing with no winter clothing, using equipment that was not designed for such low temperatures. More than 130,000 cases of frostbite were reported among German soldiers.[44] Frozen grease had to be removed from every loaded shell[44] and vehicles had to be heated for hours before use. The same cold weather, typical for the season, hit the Soviet troops, but they were better prepared.[70]
The Axis offensive on Moscow stopped. Heinz Guderian wrote in his journal that "the offensive on Moscow failed ... We underestimated the enemy's strength, as well as his size and climate. Fortunately, I stopped my troops on 5 December, otherwise the catastrophe would be unavoidable."[72]
Artificial floods
Some historians have suggested that artificial floods played an important role in defending Moscow.[73][74] They were primarily meant to break the ice and prevent troops and heavy military equipment from crossing the Volga river and Ivankovo Reservoir.[75] This began with the blowing up of the Istra waterworks reservoir dam on 24 November 1941. On 28 November 1941, the water was drained into the Yakhroma and Sestra Rivers from six reservoirs (Khimki, Iksha, Pyalovskoye, Pestovskoye, Pirogovskoye, and Klyazma reservoirs), as well as from Ivankovo Reservoir using dams near Dubna.[73] This caused some 30-40 villages to become partially submerged even in the severe winter weather conditions of the time.[73][76] Both were results of Soviet General Headquarters' Order 0428 dated 17 November 1941. Artificial floods were also used as unconventional weapon of direct impact.[77]
Soviet counteroffensive
Although the Wehrmacht's offensive had been stopped, German intelligence estimated that Soviet forces had no more reserves left and thus would be unable to stage a counteroffensive. This estimate proved wrong, as Stalin transferred over 18 divisions, 1,700 tanks, and over 1,500 aircraft from Siberia and the Far East.[78] The Red Army had accumulated a 58-division reserve by early December,[44] when the offensive proposed by Zhukov and Vasilevsky was finally approved by Stalin.[79] Even with these new reserves, Soviet forces committed to the operation numbered only 1,100,000 men,[69] only slightly outnumbering the Wehrmacht. Nevertheless, with careful troop deployment, a ratio of two-to-one was reached at some critical points.[44]
On 5 December 1941, the counteroffensive for "removing the immediate threat to Moscow" started on the Kalinin Front. The South-Western Front and Western Fronts began their offensives the next day. After several days of little progress, Soviet armies retook Solnechnogorsk on 12 December and Klin on 15 December. Guderian's army "beat a hasty retreat towards Venev" and then Sukhinichi. "The threat overhanging Tula was removed."[40]:44–46, 48–51
On 8 December, Hitler had signed his directive No.39, ordering the Wehrmacht to assume a defensive stance on the whole front. German troops were unable to organize a solid defense at their present locations and were forced to pull back to consolidate their lines. Guderian wrote that discussions with Hans Schmidt and Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen took place the same day, and both commanders agreed that the current front line could not be held.[80] On 14 December, Franz Halder and Günther von Kluge finally gave permission for a limited withdrawal to the west of the Oka river, without Hitler's approval.[81] On 20 December, during a meeting with German senior officers, Hitler cancelled the withdrawal and ordered his soldiers to defend every patch of ground, "digging trenches with howitzer shells if needed."[82] Guderian protested, pointing out that losses from cold were actually greater than combat losses and that winter equipment was held by traffic ties in Poland.[83] Nevertheless, Hitler insisted on defending the existing lines, and Guderian was dismissed by 25 December, along with generals Hoepner and Strauss, commanders of the 4th Panzer and 9th Army, respectively. Fedor von Bock was also dismissed, officially for "medical reasons".[84] Walther von Brauchitsch, Hitler's commander-in-chief, had been removed even earlier, on 19 December.[40]:42[85]
Meanwhile, the Soviet offensive continued in the north. The offensive liberated Kalinin and the Soviets reached Klin on 7 December, overrunning the headquarters of the LVI Panzer Corps outside the city. As the Kalinin Front drove west, a bulge developed around Klin. The Soviet front commander, General Ivan Konev, attempted to envelop any German forces remaining. Zhukov diverted more forces to the southern end of the bulge, to help Konev trap the Third Panzer Army. The Germans pulled their forces out in time. Although the encirclement failed, it unhinged the German defenses. A second attempt was made against the Second Panzer Army near Tula, but met strong opposition near Rzhev and was forced to halt, forming a salient that would last until March 1943. In the south, the offensive went equally well, with Southwestern Front forces relieving Tula on 16 December 1941. A major achievement was the encirclement and destruction of the German XXXIX Corps, protecting Guderian's Second Panzer Army's southern flank.[86]
The Luftwaffe was paralysed in the second half of December. The weather, recorded as −42 °C (–44 °F), was a meteorological record.[87] Logistical difficulties and freezing temperatures created technical difficulties until January 1942. In the meantime, the Luftwaffe had virtually vanished from the skies over Moscow, while the Red Air Force, operating from better prepared bases and benefiting from interior lines, grew stronger.[87] On 4 January, the skies cleared. The Luftwaffe was quickly reinforced, as Hitler hoped it would save the situation. The Kampfgruppen (Bomber Groups) II./KG 4 and II./KG 30 arrived from refitting in Germany, whilst four Transportgruppen (Transport Groups) with a strength of 102 Junkers Ju 52 transports were deployed from Luftflotte 4 (Air Fleet 4) to evacuate surrounded army units and improve the supply line to the front-line forces. It was a last minute effort and it worked. The German air arm was to help prevent a total collapse of Army Group Centre. Despite the Soviets' best efforts, the Luftwaffe had contributed enormously to the survival of Army Group Center. Between 17 and 22 December the Luftwaffe destroyed 299 motor vehicles and 23 tanks around Tula, hampering the Red Army's pursuit of the German Army.[88][89]
In the center, Soviet progress was much slower. Soviet troops liberated Naro-Fominsk only on 26 December, Kaluga on 28 December, and Maloyaroslavets on 2 January, after 10 days of violent action. Soviet reserves ran low, and the offensive halted on 7 January 1942, after having pushed the exhausted and freezing German armies back 100–250 km (62–155 mi) from Moscow. Stalin continued to order more offensives in order to trap and destroy Army Group Center in front of Moscow, but the Red Army was exhausted and overstretched and they failed.[90]
See also: Battles of Rzhev
The Red Army's winter counter-offensive drove the Wehrmacht from Moscow, but the city was still considered to be threatened, with the front line relatively close. Because of this, the Moscow theater remained a priority for Stalin, who at first appeared to be in shock due to the initial German success.[91] In particular, the initial Soviet advance was unable to reduce the Rzhev salient, held by several divisions of Army Group Center. Immediately after the Moscow counter-offensive, a series of Soviet attacks (the Battles of Rzhev) were attempted against the salient, each time with heavy losses on both sides. By early 1943, the Wehrmacht had to disengage from the salient as the whole front was moving west. Nevertheless, the Moscow front was not finally secured until October 1943, when Army Group Center was decisively repulsed from the Smolensk landbridge and from the left shore of the upper Dnieper at the end of the Second Battle of Smolensk.
Furious that his army had been unable to take Moscow, Hitler dismissed his commander-in-chief, Walther von Brauchitsch, on 19 December 1941, and took personal charge of the Wehrmacht,[85] effectively taking control of all military decisions. Additionally, Hitler surrounded himself with staff officers with little or no recent combat experience.[92]
For the first time since June 1941, Soviet forces had stopped the Germans and driven them back. This resulted in Stalin becoming overconfident and deciding to further expand the offensive. On 5 January 1942, during a meeting in the Kremlin, Stalin announced that he was planning a general spring offensive, which would be staged simultaneously near Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov, and the Crimea. This plan was accepted over Zhukov's objections.[93] Low Red Army reserves and Wehrmacht tactical skill led to a bloody stalemate near Rzhev, known as the "Rzhev meat grinder", and to a string of Red Army defeats, such as the Second Battle of Kharkov, the failed attempt at elimination of the Demyansk pocket, and the encirclement of General Andrey Vlasov's army in a failed attempt to lift the siege of Leningrad, and the destruction of Red Army forces in Crimea. Ultimately, these failures would lead to a successful German offensive in the south and to the Battle of Stalingrad.
A documentary film, Moscow Strikes Back, (Russian: Разгром немецких войск под Москвой, "Rout of the German Troops near Moscow"), was made during the battle and rapidly released in the Soviet Union. It was taken to America and shown at the Globe in New York in August 1942. The New York Times reviewer commented that "The savagery of that retreat is a spectacle to stun the mind."[94] As well as the Moscow parade and battle scenes, the film included images of German atrocities committed during the occupation, "the naked and slaughtered children stretched out in ghastly rows, the youths dangling limply in the cold from gallows that were rickety, but strong enough."[94]
The defense of Moscow became a symbol of Soviet resistance against the invading Axis forces. To commemorate the battle, Moscow was awarded the title of "Hero City" in 1965, on the 20th anniversary of Victory Day. A Museum of the Defence of Moscow was created in 1995.[95]
Both German and Soviet casualties during the battle of Moscow have been a subject of debate, as various sources provide somewhat different estimates. Not all historians agree on what should be considered the "Battle of Moscow" in the timeline of World War II. While the start of the battle is usually regarded as the beginning of Operation Typhoon on 30 September 1941 (or sometimes on 2 October 1941), there are two different dates for the end of the offensive. In particular, some sources (such as Erickson[96] and Glantz[97]) exclude the Rzhev offensive from the scope of the battle, considering it as a distinct operation and making the Moscow offensive "stop" on 7 January 1942—thus lowering the number of casualties.
There are also significant differences in figures from various sources. John Erickson, in his Barbarossa: The Axis and the Allies, gives a figure of 653,924 Soviet casualties between October 1941 and January 1942.[96] Glantz, in his book When Titans Clashed, gives a figure of 658,279 for the defense phase alone, plus 370,955 for the winter counteroffensive until 7 January 1942.[97] The official Wehrmacht daily casualty reports show 35,757 killed in action, 128,716 wounded, and 9,721 missing in action for the entire Army Group Center between 1 October 1941 and 10 January 1942.[98] However, this official report does not match unofficial reports from individual battalion and divisional officers and commanders at the front, who record suffering far higher casualties than was officially reported.[99]
Georgy Zhukov
Ivan Panfilov
Panfilov's Twenty-Eight Guardsmen
German war crimes during the Battle of Moscow
8th Guards Motor Rifle Division
78th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)
↑ Zetterling & Frankson 2012, p. 253.
↑ Mercatante (2012). Why Germany Nearly Won: A New History of the Second World War in Europe. p. 105. ISBN 9780313395932.
↑ Stahel (2013). Operation Typhoon: Hitler's March on Moscow, October 1941. p. 45. ISBN 9781107035126.
↑ Stahel, David (2011). Kiev 1941. p. 339. ISBN 9781139503600.
↑ Glantz (1995), p. 78.
↑ Liedtke 2016, p. 148.
1 2 Bergström 2007 p.90.
↑ Williamson 1983, p.132.
↑ Both Sources use Luftwaffe records. The often quoted figures of 900–1,300 do not correspond with recorded Luftwaffe strength returns. Sources: Prien, J./Stremmer, G./Rodeike, P./ Bock, W. Die Jagdfliegerverbande der Deutschen Luftwaffe 1934 bis 1945, Teil 6/I and II; U.S National Archives, German Orders of Battle, Statistics of Quarter Years.
1 2 Bergström 2007, p. 111.
↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20121025022023/http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec41.html
↑ Roberts, Andrew (2009). The Storm of War. A New History of the Second World War. London. p. 175.
↑ Heinz Guderian, Erinnerungen eines Soldaten (Memoirs of a soldier), Smolensk, Rusich, 1999, p. 229.
↑ Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Moscow, 1973–1978, entry "Battle of Smolensk"
↑ Guderian, pp. 267–272.
1 2 3 Alan F. Wilt. Hitler's Late Summer Pause in 1941. Military Affairs, Vol. 45, No. 4 (December 1981), pp. 187–191
1 2 3 Flitton 1994.
↑ Niepold, Gerd (1993). "Plan Barbarossa". In David M. Glantz. The Initial Period of War on the Eastern Front, 22 June – August 1941: Proceedings of the Fourth Art of War Symposium, Garmisch, FRG, October 1987. Cass series on Soviet military theory and practice. 2. Psychology Press. p. 67. ISBN 9780714633756.
1 2 Stahel, David (2014). Operacja "Tajfun". Warsaw: "Książka i Wiedza". p. 89. ISBN 978-83-05-136402.
↑ Bergstöm 2007, p. 90.
↑ Guderian, pp. 307–9.
↑ Hardesty, 1991, p. 61.
↑ Bergström 2007, p. 118.
↑ Bergström 2007, pp. 90–91.
↑ Guderian, p. 307
↑ Clark Chapter 8,"The Start of the Moscow Offensive", p.156 (diagram)
1 2 3 4 5 Glantz, chapter 6, sub-ch. "Viaz'ma and Briansk", pp. 74 ff.
1 2 3 Vasilevsky, p. 139.
↑ Guderian, p. 316.
↑ Clark, pp. 165–166.
↑ David M. Glantz. When Titans Clashed. pp. 80, 81.
↑ Bergström 2007, p. 91.
↑ Geoffrey Jukes, The Second World War – The Eastern Front 1941–1945, Osprey, 2002, ISBN 1-84176-391-8, p. 29.
↑ Jukes, p. 31.
↑ Glantz, When Titans Clashed p. 336 n15.
↑ Smith, Howard K. (1942). Last Train from Berlin. Knopf. pp. 83–91.
↑ The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970–1979). 2010 The Gale Group, Inc.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Zhukov, Georgy (1974). Marshal of Victory, Volume II. Pen and Sword Books Ltd. p. 7, 19. ISBN 9781781592915.
↑ Zhukov, tome 2, p. 10.
↑ Plocher 1968, p. 231.
↑ Bergström 2007, p. 93
1 2 3 4 5 Jukes, p. 32.
↑ Marshal Zhukov's Greatest Battles p.50.
↑ Braithwaite, pp. 184–210.
↑ Guderian, pp. 329–30.
↑ Zhukov, tome 2, pp. 23–5.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Glantz, chapter 6, sub-ch. "To the Gates", pp. 80ff.
↑ Klink, pp. 574; 590–592
1 2 Zhukov, tome 2, p. 28.
↑ Erickson, 'The Road to Stalingrad,' p. 260
↑ A.P. Belov, Moscow is behind us, Moscow, Voenizdat, 1963, p. 97.
↑ Belov, p. 106.
↑ Beyda, Oleg (7 August 2016). "'La Grande Armeé in Field Gray': The Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism, 1941". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. 29 (3). doi:10.1080/13518046.2016.1200393.
↑ Henry Steele Commager, The Story of the Second World War, p. 144
↑ Christopher Argyle, Chronology of World War II Day by Day, p. 78
↑ Lejenäs, Harald (1989). "The Severe Winter in Europe 1941-42: The large scale circulation, cut-off lows, and blocking". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 70. pp. 271–281. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1989)070<0271:TSWIET>2.0.CO;2.
↑ Chew (1981), p. 34.
↑ Raus (2009), p. 89.
1 2 Glantz, ch.6, subchapter "December counteroffensive", pp. 86ff.
1 2 Moss (2005), p. 298.
1 2 Chew (1981), p. 33.
1 2 3 Iskander Kuzeev, "Moscow flood in autumn of 1941", Echo of Moscow, 30 June 2008
↑ Iskander Kuzeev, "Moscow flood in autumn of 1941", Sovershenno Sekrento, №7/230, July 2008
↑ Mikhail Arkhipov, "Flooding north of Moscow Oblast in 1941", Private blog, 2 October 2007
↑ Igor Kuvyrkov, "Moscow flood in 1941: new data", Moscow Volga channel, 23 February 2015
↑ Operational overview of military activities on Western Front in year 1941, Central Archive of the Soviet Ministry of Defence, Stock 208 inventory 2511 case 1039, p. 112
↑ Goldman p. 177
↑ Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Moscow, 1973–78, entry "Battle of Moscow 1941–42"
1 2 Guderian, p. 359.
↑ Glantz and House 1995, pp. 88–90.
1 2 Bergstrom 2003, p. 297.
↑ Bergström 2007, pp. 112–113.
↑ Roberts, Cynthia A. (December 1995). "Planning for war: the Red Army and the catastrophe of 1941". Europe-Asia Studies. Taylor & Francis. 47 (8): 1293–1326. doi:10.1080/09668139508412322. JSTOR 153299. Marshal Georgii K. Zhukov, who had pressed Stalin on several occasions to alert and reinforce the army, nonetheless recalled the shock of the German attack when he noted that 'neither the defence commissariat, myself, my predecessors B.M. Shaposhnikov and K.A. Meretskov, nor the General Staff thought that the enemy could concentrate such a mass of ... forces and commit them on the first day ...
1 2 T.S. (17 August 1942). "Movie Review: Moscow Strikes Back (1942) 'Moscow Strikes Back,' Front-Line Camera Men's Story of Russian Attack, Is Seen at the Globe". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 March 2015.
↑ Rodric Braithwaite, "Moscow 1941: A City and Its People at War", p. 345.
1 2 John Erickson, Barbarossa: The Axis and the Allies, table 12.4
1 2 Glantz, Table B
↑ "Heeresarzt 10-Day Casualty Reports per Army/Army Group, 1941". Archived from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 28 March 2012.
↑ Jones, Michael (2009). The Retreat. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. pp. 107, 126–7, 292. ISBN 9780719569265.
Braithwaite, Rodric. Moscow 1941: A City and Its People at War. London: Profile Books Ltd., 2006 (hardcover, ISBN 1-86197-759-X).
Collection of legislative acts related to State Awards of the USSR (1984), Moscow, ed. Izvestia.
Belov, Pavel Alekseevich (1963). Za nami Moskva. Moscow: Voenizdat.
Bergström, Christer (2007). Barbarossa – The Air Battle: July–December 1941. London: Chervron/Ian Allen. ISBN 978-1-85780-270-2.
Boog, Horst; Förster, Jürgen; Hoffmann, Joachim; Klink, Ernst; Müller, Rolf-Dieter; Ueberschär, Gerd R. (1998). Attack on the Soviet Union. Germany and the Second World War. IV. Translated by Dean S. McMurry; Ewald Osers; Louise Willmot. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-822886-4.
Chew, Allen F. (December 1981). "Fighting the Russians in Winter: Three Case Studies" (PDF). Leavenworth Papers. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: US Army Command and General Staff College (5). ISSN 0195-3451.
Erickson, John; Dilks, David (1994). Barbarossa: The Axis and the Allies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0-7486-0504-5.
Glantz, David M.; House, Jonathan M. (1995). When Titans clashed: how the Red Army stopped Hitler. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-0717-X.
Goldman, Stuart D. (2012). Nomonhan, 1939; The Red Army's Victory That Shaped World War II. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-61251-098-9.
Guderian, Heinz (1951). Erinnerungen eines Soldaten. Heidelberg: Vowinckel.
Hill, Alexander (2009). "British Lend-Lease Tanks and the Battle of Moscow, November–December 1941--Revisited." Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 22: 574-587. DOI: 10.1080/13518040903355794.
Hill, Alexander (2017), The Red Army and the Second World War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-1070-2079-5 .
Hardesty, Von. Red Phoenix. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991. ISBN 1-56098-071-0
Jukes, Geoffrey (2002). The Second World War: The Eastern Front 1941–1945. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN 1-84176-391-8.
Liedtke, Gregory (2016). Enduring the Whirlwind: The German Army and the Russo-German War 1941-1943. Helion and Company. ISBN 978-1910777756.
Lopukhovsky, Lev (2013). Britton Stuart, ed. The Viaz'ma Catastrophe, 1941 The Red Army's Disastrous Stand Against Operation Typhoon. Translated by Britton Stuart. West Midlands: Helion & Company Ltd. ISBN 978-1-908916-50-1.
Moss, Walter (2005). A History of Russia: Since 1855, Volume 2. Anthem Russian and Slavonic studies (2nd ed.). Anthem Press. ISBN 1-84331-034-1.
Nagorski, Andrew (2007). The Greatest Battle: Stalin, Hitler, and the Desperate Struggle for Moscow That Changed the Course of World War II. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-8110-1.
Flitton, Dave (director, producer, writer) (1994). The Battle of Russia (television documentary). USA: PBS.
Plocher, Hermann (1968). Luftwaffe versus Russia, 1941. New York: USAF: Historical Division, Arno Press.
Prokhorov, A. M., ed. (1973–1978). Great Soviet Encyclopedia. New York: Macmillan.
Raus, Erhard; Newton, Steven H. (2009). Panzer Operations: The Eastern Front Memoir of General Raus, 1941–1945. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-7867-3970-3.
Reinhardt, Klaus. Moscow: The Turning Point? The Failure of Hitler's Strategy in the Winter of 1941–42. Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1992 (hardback, ISBN 0-85496-695-1).
Sokolovskii, Vasilii Danilovich (1964). Razgrom Nemetsko-Fashistskikh Voisk pod Moskvoi (with map album). Moscow: VoenIzdat. LCCN 65-54443.
Stahel, David (2015). The Battle for Moscow. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1107087606.
Tooze, Adam (2006). The Wages of Destruction: The making and breaking of the Nazi economy. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-100348-1.
Vasilevsky, A. M. (1981). Lifelong cause. Moscow: Progress. ISBN 0-7147-1830-0.
Williamson, Murray (1983). Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1933–1945. Maxwell AFB: Air University Press. ISBN 978-1-58566-010-0.
Zetterling, Niklas; Frankson, Anders (2012). The Drive on Moscow, 1941: Operation Taifun and Germany's First Great Crisis of World War II. Havertown: Casemate Publishers. ISBN 978-1-61200-120-3.
Zhukov, G. K. (1971). The memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. London: Cape. ISBN 0-224-61924-1.
"Operation Typhoon": Video on YouTube, lecture by David Stahel, author of Operation Typhoon. Hitler's March on Moscow (2013) and The Battle for Moscow (2015); via the official channel of USS Silversides Museum
Map: Deployment of troops before the battle of Moscow
Map (detailed): Battle of Moscow 1941. German offensive
WW2DB: Battle of Moscow
North and Central Pacific
South-West Pacific
Mediterranean and Middle East
Military engagements
Free France (from June 1940)
Italy (from September 1943)
Philippines (Commonwealth)
Axis and
Axis-aligned
Reorganized National Government of the Republic of China
Independent State of Croatia
Free India
Italy (until September 1943)
Manchukuo
Philippines (Second Republic)
Armed neutrality
Czech lands
Northeast China
Anti-communist
Western Ukraine
Monarchists
Phoney War
Winter War
Weserübung
Armistice of 22 June 1940
British Somaliland
Soviet Union (Barbarossa)
Syria and Lebanon
The outbreak of the Pacific War
Borneo (1941–42)
Java Sea
Gazala
Attu (occupation)
Kiska
Zhejiang-Jiangxi
Attu
Lower Dnieper
Armistice of Cassibile
Gilbert and Marshall Islands
Northern Burma and Western Yunnan
Monte Cassino / Shingle
Korsun–Cherkassy
Ichi-Go
Mariana and Palau
Tannenberg Line
Eastern Romania
Gothic Line
Market Garden
Philippines (1944–1945)
Burma (1944–45)
Vistula–Oder
Western invasion of Germany
Italy (Spring 1945)
Syrmian Front
West Hunan
Surrender of Germany
Project Hula
Atomic bombings
Kuril Islands
Shumshu
Surrender of Japan
End of World War II in Asia
Bengal famine of 1943
Chinese famine of 1942–43
Greek Famine of 1941-1944
Dutch famine of 1944–45
Vietnamese Famine of 1945
Air warfare of World War II
Comparative military ranks
Lend-Lease
Military awards
Military production
Nazi plunder
Allied cooperation
Strategic bombing
Puppet states
Art and World War II
Expulsion of Germans
Operation Osoaviakhim
Occupation of Germany
Territorial changes of Germany
Soviet occupations
Occupation of Japan
Indonesian National Revolution
Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany
Allied war crimes
British war crimes
United States war crimes
German (Forced labour) / Wehrmacht war crimes
Italian war crimes
Croatian war crimes
against the Serbs
against the Jews
Romanian war crimes
German military brothels
Camp brothels
Rape during the occupation of Japan
Sook Ching
Rape of Nanking
Rape of Manila
Rape during the occupation of Germany
Rape during the liberation of France
Rape during the Soviet occupation of Poland
Finnish prisoners of war in the Soviet Union
German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union
German prisoners of war in the United States
Italian prisoners of war in the Soviet Union
Japanese prisoners of war in the Soviet Union
Japanese prisoners of war in World War II
German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war
Polish prisoners of war in the Soviet Union
Romanian prisoners of war in the Soviet Union
Soviet prisoners of war in Finland
Coordinates: 55°45′N 37°38′E / 55.750°N 37.633°E / 55.750; 37.633

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text: 1585 (Municipal By-laws - confirmed by Governor in Council) Meml. 5138/89, dated 22nd May, stating that the amended By-laws framed by the Municipal Commissioners have been confirmed by the Governor in Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Ordinance & will be duly published in the Government Gazette. (Supplemental Budget - approved by H.E. the Governor) Read letter from the Hon'ble the Acting Colonial Secretary, Meml. 4540/89, dated 22nd May, stating that the Supplemental Budget, passed by the Commissioners at their Special Meeting on the 24th April, has been approved by His Excellency in Council. (Valuation of Lands within Municipal Limits - A Ranger to be appointed) The President submits a paper on the subject of the proposed revaluation of lands situated within Municipal Limits, and informs the Board that, in the administration report of the late President, it was recommended that a Forest Ranger should be temporarily appointed, for the purpose of ascertaining the location, boundaries & area of all such lands, which could then be dealt with by the Municipal Assessor. It was obvious that there would be considerable difficulties in successfully carrying out the work & that without some such assistance, it would be impossible for the Assessor to take it up. After a lengthy discussion, it is agreed that an officer be appointed on probation for three months, on a salary of $50 per mensem. (Mr McCrackett resigns) Read letter from Mr James S McCrackett, tendering his resignation of his appointment as Municipal Overseer of Roads. Resignation accepted on the understanding that the usual month's notice is given & the advance made to him by the Commissioners refunded. (Amended fees for licenses for offensive and dangerous trades) The President laid on the table the papers relative to the scale of fees levied on offensive & dangerous trade licenses & pointed out that as the existing scale had been fixed many years ago, he thought the time had arrived when it might, with advantage, be revised. The Board being unanimously of the same opinion, the following tariff, after some discussion, was approved & passed. Slaughter Houses ........................................ $ 18 per year Offal & Blood boiling .................................... " 9 " Oil boiling ..................................................... " 9 " Soap do. .................................................... " 9 " 1586 Melting Tallons ............................................. $ 9 per year Tanneries ..................................................... 24 Dye Houses ................................................. " 6 " Fire works, crackers depots ......................... " 24 " Matches depots ........................................... " 24 " Sago Manufactory ........................................ " 18 " Blachan depots ............................................. " 12 " Fish Curing do. ........................................... " 12 " Wood do. ............................................. " 6 " Charcoal do. ............................................ " 6 " Hay do. ............................................ " 3 " Straw do. ............................................. " 3 " Attaps do. ............................................. " 3 " Coal do. ............................................. " 12 " Brick Kilns ...................................................... " 12 " Lime Kilns ....................................................... " 6 " Potteries ......................................................... " 2 " Sugar Refineries ............................................ " 6 " Salt do. ..................................................... " 6 " Gas Works .................................................... " 24 " (Engineer to report upon street lamps) Major McCallum called attention to the illuminating power of the street lamps and it was resolved that the Engineer furnish a report for next meeting, after making the necessary tests. (Miss Cooke's application for Upper Room granted) An application, on behalf of Miss Cooke, for the use of the Upper Room of the Town Hall, for the purpose of holding the usual half yearly sale in aid of the Chinese Girls School on the 4th, 5th & 6th July, was sanctioned. There being no further business, the meeting then terminated. signed / S Dunlop President


New compact torch specifically for spearfishing. 3-watt LED, 265 lumens of intensity, 5800-lux focused spot. Magnetic switch with continuous-on or off position. Powered by 4 1.5V AA batteries. 480 minutes of continuous burn time and over 900 minutes with intermittent 60 seconds on/60 seconds off.
Waterproof down to 100 m/328 ft. Dimensions: length 160 mm; minimum width 25 mm; maximum width 40 mm.
Dimensions: Dimensions: length 160 mm; minimum width 25 mm; maximum width 40 mm.


Love2Laundry in Blackheath is the best solution for your dry cleaning and laundry needs. One of our critical considerations as a company is your time. As a result, we concentrate on the efficiency of our operations. So long as you have a smartphone or computer, you don't have to worry about dirty clothes. By using our site or app, we take the hassle out of your hands. Tell us where you want us to be, and tell us what time works best for you. A member of the friendly Love2Laundry team will come to your front door. We will keep you informed when your items are on the way. This way you are never left out of the loop.
We thrive on making customers happy. Give us a chance to make your life easier with our dry cleaning and laundry services in Blackheath.
Love2Laundry is a service that prides itself on ease and reliability. We remove the hassle of getting your laundry cleaned. We iron, steam, separate and fold your clothes, so they are restored to the best possible conditions.
We come over to your specified destination to collect your garments in Blackheath.
As a laundry service, our mission is simple. We work hard to make sure you get the highest quality service, at an affordable price. We save you time and money while guaranteeing your beddings, clothing and dry cleaning needs are in excellent hands.
Love2Laundry is the dependable laundry service in Blackheath that is delighted to surpass your expectations. Make your life easier by hiring our team dedicated experts. Your satisfaction is why we are here.


Business needs change from day to day, from hour to hour. And the networks that support those businesses need to be equally dynamic. VPN and access technologies are tailored to specific needs.
T-Systems is a strategic division of Deutsche Telekom, one of the leaders in the field of information and telecommunications services in the B2B segment. The greatest expertise T-Systems is in industries such as automotive, energy, transportation, oil and gas. T-Systems has offices in 25 countries and approximately 47,600 professionals worldwide.
T-Systems CIS operating on the Russian market since 1995 and provides comprehensive telecom solutions and offers services for the development and support of software. The company has accumulated considerable experience in the Russian market. T-Systems solutions combines German reliability and relevance of the Russian customers' needs.


Around 20 per cent of the British expat community in the Spanish city of Valencia have already returned to the UK rather than wait to hear the results of the Brexit negotiations.
The exodus has mostly taken place over the year following the Brexit referendum, headed up by a number of British expats who'd already decided to return home should the Leave vote triumph rather than endure several years of uncertainty. January 2015 figures from Britain's National Institute of Statistics showed some 96,115 UK expats living in the Spanish city, with the January 2016 figures at 82,028 and this January's total at 73,304 – a fall of 23,000, the majority of whom had opted to return to the UK.
One retired British couple, admittedly divided in their support for Remain versus Leave, had already decided to relocate to their home county of Lancashire should the vote confirm Brexit. Their main reason was the cost of Spanish healthcare once the reciprocal agreement with the UK ended, and both are concerned about those left behind who are unable to afford private health insurance. The couple had enjoyed their life in Spain, spending sunny days on Valencia's Arenal de Xabia beach, a favourite with the city's British community.
Many Britons living in the popular retirement destination of Alicante have made similar decisions, with around 22,000 pensioners heading back to the UK during the past two years. The fall in the value of sterling since the Brexit result was announced is another major issue for UK retirees living on their state pensions, with many adding up the cost of private health insurance and reluctantly taking the decision to leave their ideal lifestyle and take their chances back in the UK.
Those who've decided to remain no matter what happens are simply wishing for a satisfactory result in the Brexit negotiations, with local councillor Carole Elizabeth Sanders reporting continuing concern laced with hope amongst the community she represents. She believes many are relying on the Spanish government's striking of a deal allowing them to stay in the sunshine. In the real world, the loss of hundreds of thousands of UK expats to Spain's coastal economies plus the possibility of far fewer tourists due to reductions in cheap flights might allow common sense to prevail.


text:
Q: Django 1.10.3 Application labels aren't unique, duplicates: sites? Django 1.10.3 is giving me this error, but django 1.6.11 giving me following error ?
==>sh my.sh init index run
    *** Initializing server on www.my_app.me:8080 with my.settings.base
    *** Running all tests
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "manage.py", line 9, in <module>
        execute_from_command_line(sys.argv)
      File "//anaconda/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line 367, in execute_from_command_line
        utility.execute()
      File "//anaconda/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line 341, in execute
        django.setup()
      File "//anaconda/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/__init__.py", line 27, in setup
        apps.populate(settings.INSTALLED_APPS)
      File "//anaconda/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/apps/registry.py", line 89, in populate
        "duplicates: %s" % app_config.label)
    django.core.exceptions.ImproperlyConfigured: Application labels aren't unique, duplicates: sites

Duplicate question
Please suggest me how I can resolve the issue ? Thanks in advance !!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


During your 13 hour shift starting at 6:00 am, you are responsible for over 400 train services and takes you through the morning and evening commuter rush hours. Your control area covers the East Coast Main Line from London Kings Cross to just before Peterborough, the loop through Hertford North and the line towards Cambridge - that's approximately 80 route miles. To make life a little easier, automatic routes and junctions can be created giving you the chance to concentrate on arrivals and departures.
Although the working timetables are supplied in HTML format, you are also able to view a real time timetable for each station and arrival line in your control area. This will show you the current arrivals, departures and the last known location of each service giving you an idea of when to expect the train. A comprehensive printed manual is supplied.
Suitable for any PC (or Apple Macintosh with a suitable emulator) running Microsoft Windows versions 95, 98, ME, XP, 2000 or NT4 with a minimum screen resolution of 640x480 (although for the ideal display 800x600 is recommended).


text:
Q: How to get hostname of another PC on network using IP address? (Batchfile) Looking to get hostname of a another pc on my network and assign it to a variable all within a batchfile.
I am looking to use something similar to below solutions:
FOR /F "usebackq" %%i IN (`hostname`) DO SET MYVAR=%%i

*

*This solution gets back the PC name but also .home at the end "PCNAME.home"

for /f "tokens=2 delims=: " %%i in ('nslookup 192.168.178.1^|find "Name:"') do set name=%%i

A: SET "MYVAR="
for /f "tokens=2" %%i in ('ping -n 1 -a 192.168.178.1') do if not defined MYVAR SET "MYVAR=%%i"

Above solution should work for IP addresses from the following IP address blocks (private IP address range):

*

*10.0.0.0 to 10.255.255.255

*172.16.0.0 to 172.31.255.255

*192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255
Edit. This returns PCNAME.home .. is there a way for the results to be just the PCNAME without the ".home" at the end?
The following code snippet treats even the case that ping /a does not resolve IP address to a hostname for some reasons.
SET "MYIP=192.168.178.1"
SET "MYVAR="
for /f "tokens=2" %%i in ('ping -n 1 -a %MYIP%') do if not defined MYVAR SET "MYVAR=%%i"
if NOT "%MYIP%"=="%MYVAR%" for /f "delims=." %%i in ("%MYVAR%") do SET "MYVAR=%%i"


text:
This $500,000 Armored Bentley Protects Against Hand Grenade Attacks
By Mike Richard	 September 12, 2019
For some one-percenters — dot com moguls, athletes, supervillains — just leaving the house means taking their life in their hands. The world is a terrifying place full of terrorism, potential kidnappings, and RompHims. Even a full-time security detail can only do so much. The solution? A custom, bulletproof luxury SUV, of course.
According to Toronto's INKAS, this custom Bentley is the world's first commercially available armored Bentayga SUV. At $500,000, it's certainly in the running for the most expensive. It, of course, includes a long list of stock luxury features. A heated wood and leather steering wheel, signature surround sound system, customizable ambient lighting, 24-way climate and massage seats, and a heads-up display are standard. It's all powered by a 6-liter twin-turbo W12 powertrain pushing 600 horsepower and 664 lb-ft of torque. That's enough to propel the 5,300-pound SUV from 0-60 in an impressive 4.4 seconds.
It's clear, however, that "impressive" isn't enough. For its standard armoring package, INKAS surrounds the passenger compartment with perimeter protection, including layered, high-quality, bullet-resistant glass, reinforced door hinges, and other forms of structural hardening. The engine compartment is also strengthened to protect the battery and electronic control module. The entire affair rides on a reinforced suspension and run-flat tires. If that's not enough to keep you and your loved ones safe, the list of available options is virtually limitless. Heavy-duty wheels, a siren/PA/intercom system, rugged brakes, and a fire suppression system are all on the table. Fully loaded, the INKAS Bentley Bentayga will stop standard assault rifle fire and even hand grenade attacks.
INKAS is part of a rapidly growing niche that customizes luxury vehicles as mobile fortresses for the world's elite. It's an arms race, of sorts, and only the fastest, most luxurious, and most expensive can win. AddArmor is currently leading the charge. The Wyoming-based shop can upgrade almost any vehicle — from family sedans to work vans to luxury SUVs — with state-of-the-art armored protection and military-grade attack countermeasures. Its $350,000 bulletproof Cadillac Escalade recently made news for its almost absurd level of tech, including electrified door handles, pepper spray dispensers, and a smokescreen system. For around $200,000, the company can deliver a customized Audi RS7 that's touted as the world's fastest armored car topping out at more than 200 mph.
If the Bentayga's half-million-dollar price tag is too rich for your wallet, INKAS' catalog includes more "affordable" alternatives. Armored Land Rover Range Rovers, Toyota Land Cruiser GXRs, Nissan Armadas, and even Toyota Sienna minivans are all available. If you can dream it — and, more importantly, pay for it — INKAS can deliver.
The 14 Best Road Trip Cars of All Time
The Best Tire Chains for Your Car, Truck, or SUV
2021 Jeep Gladiator Overland Diesel Review: Simply One of a Kind
Rack It Up with the Best Ski and Snowboard Racks of 2021
10 Best Off-Road Vehicles Currently Available
The Best Cheap Electric Bike Deals for January 2021
The Best Camping Chairs for Relaxing in the Great Outdoors
Journey Farther with the Mobi X Compact, Off-Road-Ready Teardrop Trailer
A Newbie's Guide to Safely Towing an RV (or Just About Anything)
The Lincoln Aviator Black Label is a Serene Setting to Witness California's Ashen Tears
You're Either Going to Love or Hate the 2021 Lexus LX 570
The Best Motorcycle Tents for Camping on Two Wheels
10 of the Best Automotive-Related Video Games
The 13 Best 12-Cylinder Cars on Sale Today
Mazda3 Hatchback Review: Going Upstream Was a Brilliant Idea for Mazda
10 of the Coolest LEGO Car Sets for Enthusiasts


text:
Q: C++ How to specialize a template using vector? Basicly ,I want to make a function behave differently for a vector(type) parameter and a non-vector type parameter .
#include <vector>
using namespace std;

template <typename type>
struct is_vector {
    static const bool value = false;
};

template <typename type>
struct is_vector<vector<type>>
{
    static const bool value = true;
};
template <typename type>
type read()
{
    if (is_vector<type>::value)
    {
        type vec(10);
        vec.front()=1;//left of '.front' must have class/struct/union
        return vec;
    }
    else
    {
        return{};
    }
}
int main()
{
    auto i= read<int>();
}

I want to return a vector while using vector as the typename ,return an int while using int as the typename .
But since is_vector(int)::value returns false ,why would my compiler reports "left of '.front' must have class/struct/union" ?How can I make it work ?
What I want to achieve is to correctly deserialize a string to a vector(type) or a vector(vector(type)) .
I need to recursively call the read function ,while passing a multidemonsional vector as a template parameter ,but the compiler forbids me to do it .
template <typename type>
struct is_vector {
    static const bool value = false;
};

template <typename type>
struct is_vector<vector<type>>
{
    static const bool value = true;
};

template <typename type>
type read(char*& str)
{
    if (is_vector<type>::value)
    {
        type vec(read<uint8_t>(str));
        for (auto& e : vec)
            e = read<type::value_type>(str);
        return vec;
    }
    return *reinterpret_cast<type*>((str += sizeof(type)) - sizeof(type));
}

So I tried specialization .
template<>
vector<int> read<vector<int>>(char*& str)
{
    vector<int> vec(read<uint8_t>(str));
    for (auto& e : vec)
        e = read<int>(str);
    return vec;
}//works

template <typename type>
template <>
vector<type> read<vector<type>>(char*& str)
{
    vector<type> vec(read<uint8_t>(str));
    for (auto& e : vec)
        e = read<type>(str);
    return vec;
}//don't work

Do I really need to manually rewrite my read function for every kind of types I use ?
(like vector(vector(vector(int)))?)

A: You want a function template foo<R> that is parameterized at least
by return type R, and you want a specialized implementation
when R = std::vector<U>, for arbitrary type U.
It doesn't matter what the arguments of foo<R> may be, so for illustration
we'll assume there aren't any. Here's how you do that:
Define a trait template as follows:
template<typename T>
struct is_vector
{
    static constexpr bool value = false;
};

template<template<typename...> class C, typename U>
struct is_vector<C<U>>
{
    static constexpr bool value =
        std::is_same<C<U>,std::vector<U>>::value;
};

With this,
is_vector<T>::value

will be true at compiletime if and only if T = std::vector<U>, for some U.
Then define two overloads of foo<R>() on the following lines:
template <typename R>
std::enable_if_t<!is_vector<R>::value,R> foo()
{
    // Your non-vector implementation instead of...
    std::cout <<
        "In non-vector specialization of `foo<R>()`\n";
    return R();
}

template <typename R>
std::enable_if_t<is_vector<R>::value,R> foo()
{
    // Your vector implementation instead of...
    std::cout <<
        "In vector specialization of `foo<R>()`\n";
    return R();
}

These two overloads are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. The
first overload pans out to be legal code if and only if is_vector<R>::value is false. The
second overload pans out to be legal code if and only if is_vector<R>::value is true.
That's thanks to the behaviour of std::enable_if,
which you should study and understand.
When the compiler needs to pick one these template overloads to implement some
call foo<type>() that it finds in your code, it discovers that exactly one of the overloads
won't even compile when type is plugged in for the template parameter R. The first one won't compile if
type is some std::vector<U> and the second one won't compile if type is not some
std::vector<U>. Helpfully, the compiler picks the one that it can compile.
That's called SFINAE ("Substitution Failure Is Not An Error"),
and it's the solution of your problem.
Here's an illustrative program:
#include <vector>
#include <type_traits>
#include <iostream>

template<typename T>
struct is_vector
{
    static constexpr bool value = false;
};

template<template<typename...> class C, typename U>
struct is_vector<C<U>>
{
    static constexpr bool value =
        std::is_same<C<U>,std::vector<U>>::value;
};

template <typename R>
std::enable_if_t<!is_vector<R>::value,R> foo()
{
    // Your non-vector implementation instead of...
    std::cout <<
        "In non-vector specialization of `foo<R>()`\n";
    return R();
}

template <typename R>
std::enable_if_t<is_vector<R>::value,R> foo()
{
    // Your vector implementation instead of...
    std::cout <<
        "In vector specialization of `foo<R>()`\n";
    return R();
}

int main()
{
    auto i = foo<int>();
    (void)i;
    auto vc = foo<std::vector<char>>();
    (void)vc;
    return 0;
}

which will output:
In non-vector specialization of `foo<R>()`
In vector specialization of `foo<R>()`

(gcc 6.1/clang 3.8, -std=c++14 see live)