If a salesperson smiles, this does not mean that he is glad to see you. It turns out that hatred, contempt, and even a desire to kill are often hidden behind the friendliness of store employees. Remember, it can be useful for the next shopping or going to the grocery opposite.
"And then it begins: Will you have 10 rubles? .."
It would seem, what difference does it make to the cashier of a huge supermarket, under whose nose there is a whole box with bills and coins of various denominations, what kind of money does the client pay? After all, change in this situation can always be typed. No matter how ...
“And I am annoyed by buyers who dial for 4138.50 and instead of paying with a card, shove their five thousand! And then it begins: Will you have 10 rubles? Then I will hand over this to you. No, it won't, oh no, it will, I'll find it right now. Etc. Get a bank card and don't delay the queue any longer! "
“Recently I pissed one off, I saw this for the first time, a 30-year-old man with a basket asked him to first punch a pack of cigarettes for him separately, paid with a card (of course, with entering a pin code), waited for the check, looked closely, put it neatly in his wallet, then also separately asked to punch a bunch of cans of beer and only then all the other purchases! What the hell was that? Does he have an increased cashback for checks only with whitefish and booze ?! He did not know how much money was on the card and prioritized what should he buy first? "
“There is also a separate caste of stock lovers. First, they punch their five cans of canned meat, pay, pack, and return with a debriefing for a refund, since the goods are broken at the full price, and not at the one indicated on the shelf. It is probably too difficult to ask the price during the rolling of the goods ”.
"Isn't it easy to say that you have no money for this thing?"
It turns out that before going to the store, it is worthwhile to determine the purchase plans in advance.
“I hate buyers who are pretending to be god knows who. They come, they say, we definitely need genuine leather, show it, look at the price, and it starts ... That is not the case, you show another thing, taking into account what has been said and also made of genuine leather - this is not so, you show it more, in total 100,500 items and everything is not wrong for them! And just to say that you have no money for this thing, is it weak? After all, I understand everything and can show you a great thing for your pocket! But admitting that your budget is limited is probably above your pride! "
“I work in the jewelry department. Most often come without money, they are directly drawn to gold. They look at everything cheap, but they are constantly not satisfied with something, they constantly need something fildipersy. Or, for example, the question infuriates: “Do you have only these crosses? No others?". And the so-called these there are immeasurable numbers! I would like to say: damn it, we have a couple of thousand more hidden in boxes, in case of war! "
“I don’t understand, if your pocket is empty, why go to expensive stores and“ make the salespeople nervous ”? Nothing else to do? I am one hundred percent sure that after you the seller will not say anything good, what if bad thoughts are really material? "
"They go to potryndet through one"
Customers who are in high spirits sometimes try to strike up a conversation with the seller in order to defuse the situation ... From now on, forget about it!
“I work in the confectionery department. And through one they go to potryndet ... They splash out their problems, tell their diagnoses, and I have to stand like a fool and construct an understanding expression on my face !!! Buyers, are you out of your mind ?! Do you really think that a stranger is interested in your blood sugar and cholesterol ?! Who gave birth to whom, who divorced whom ?! And most importantly, how to wind up its hurdy-gurdy for half an hour! "
“And it annoys me when they lock themselves in the store and do not raise their legs at all, shuffling them on the floor! And even when they try to visit the whole store by phone, loudly solving some problems! You bastards! "
"The seller owes like land to the collective farm"
Most of us consider it quite natural to go to different stores, find out prices, study the things we like in detail and, as a result, buy the desired item where its cost is lower. Sellers, alas, do not approve of this approach.
"They're mad when they come, they get information that interests them, and they go to buy in another store, where they can't solve their problem, but the prices are fifteen kopecks lower!"
“I hate it when they don't ask, but demand, while saying that the CLIENT is ALWAYS RIGHT. I HATE THIS PHRASE! People perceive it the way they want, that is, they come and begin to humiliate the seller, as if he personally owes them like land to the collective farm! Fuh, in general I got sick of this work and people too! "
"God knows, I have never deceived the client!"
“Buyers always think that you want them, sorry, prick and give them something low-quality. God knows, for all the time of his work he has never deceived a client! That's how you start to hate people! "
"Every bastard considers it his duty to be funny"
“I work as a furniture salesman and people who enter my salon just freeze me. I hate them all, I just don't know what to do. I so want to tell everyone: go to hell from here! But together with this: Good afternoon! What kind of furniture you choose! And these bastards are silent in response! "
“But I work in a store with tires, wheels and boats (these are not my colleagues, but a product). There is a rear tire from a tractor "Belarus" at the entrance. So almost every first bastard considers it his duty to make fun of another with a phrase like “put yourself one like this.” Or else when they come up to me and say: “how are you sitting here with such a smell?” Well, buy me a freshener !! few"
"Come in, feel and go out"
And one more important point that you should definitely remember.
In the old days, shops often hung signs with the inscription "Do not touch with your hands." These ads are less common today. However, as it turns out, sellers' attitudes towards consumer touch have not changed at all.
“I am enraged by people who come in, look around, feel the first thing they come across and go out. It seems that they just came in to wipe their dirty fingers on the product. "
“Moreover, pay attention: you must grab onto the brightest thing! In my case, the object of interest is usually either white elegant dresses or light beige coats. And here comes the aunt: in years, plump, to look after something to go to work. She doesn't need an obviously white lace dress for painting !!! But you definitely need to come up and stroke and touch it for a long time. "
“I’ll say more! Two identical light-colored things of different sizes hang side by side. You must definitely touch both! Even if it can be seen that the thing is clearly not in size. And you also need to pull it out and hang it upside down! "
So: DO NOT LOOK WITH HANDS!
When I run, I pass out. The brain is busy with its thoughts and has absolutely no control over what the body does. I think running is relaxing and refreshing, so I jog in the morning three times a week. But recently it was at this time that I needed to speak on the phone with a client located on another continent. "Nothing," I thought, "I'll run in the evening." However, the postponement led to the fact that in the evening I felt uncomfortable.
When I ran out of the house at sunset, I almost ran into a woman taking out the trash. We met eyes, she smiled. I politely said, "Good morning!" - and immediately realized his mistake. “I mean, good evening! Sorry!" - I corrected myself. She raised an eyebrow and smiled nervously.
Confused, I realized that the brain for some reason does not pay attention to the time of day. Having severely condemned myself for the mistake, I literally a few minutes later - like an abnormal one - muttered to a familiar runner: "Good morning!" What is it?
Returning home, as usual, went to the shower. There I become distracted and think about extraneous things. The brain made me act automatically, and I behaved as I was used to in the morning.
Only after cutting himself, he realized that he had lathered his face and began to shave. This is a common morning ritual, but there was no need for an evening shave. And yet I acted in the usual way.
As a result of the morning run postponed to the evening, a trigger went off, launching a program that controlled my body in the usual morning mode - I did all the actions unconsciously. This is the nature of ingrained habits (actions we do with little or no thought) that, according to some estimates, account for up to half of our daily activity.
Through habits, our brains learn complex behaviors, among other things. Neuroscientists believe that habits give us the ability to focus on other things because we store automatic responses in the basal ganglia, the brain region responsible for involuntary actions.
Habits are formed when the brain stops actively thinking about what to do next. He learns rather quickly to program behavior appropriate to the various situations he encounters.
For example, there is a common habit of biting your nails. We do this, as a rule, almost or completely unconsciously. Initially, a person sometimes has a reason why he bites himself on the cuticles - for example, the desire to get rid of a burr. However, when such behavior is not associated with a real cause, but turns into an automatic reaction to some kind of stimulus, we are already talking about a habit. For many avid nail biting enthusiasts, the unconscious trigger is displeasure or stress. And the more a habit is associated with temporary relief, the more difficult it is to change the conditioned response.
Many decisions that we make during the day mean only one thing: in the past, this is how we were able to resolve some situations. The brain automatically concludes that if the decision helped yesterday, then it is safe to make it today. This is how the action becomes a habit.
As I jogged, my brain connected the exchange of glances with the other person with the standard “Good morning!” Greeting. I said it without thinking how inappropriate it was in the evening.
Why habits are good for business
If programmed behavior so firmly guards our daily actions, then it is clear that taming this power is a boon for players in any industry. By learning how to effectively create habits, we will thereby increase the company's profits.
Addictive products change consumer behavior and encourage them to use them regularly. The goal is to get people to use them over and over again on their own initiative, without relying on calls to action like advertisements. When a habit is formed, the client triggers internal triggers and he turns to the product in the most mundane situations, for example, while waiting in a boring queue.
However, the schemes and methods disclosed in our book cannot be called universal, applicable to any company and industry. Entrepreneurs need to independently assess how consumers' habits affect their goals and business model. The viability of some products does depend on their ability to form customer habits, but this is not always the case.
For example, organizations that sell seldom purchased goods (or used goods) do not need to create purchasing habits - at least not in the form of daily use of them. Let's say insurance companies use insurance agents, advertisements, and word of mouth to induce the purchase of their policies. But the consumer who bought the policy does not need to do anything else.
The book deals with those companies that need constant customer appeal to their products, and on their own initiative, and, therefore, the emergence of a habit is beneficial. I have excluded from consideration those who stimulate consumer action by other means.
Before we dive deep into how habits are formed, we need to understand why they are so important and considered a competitive advantage. Consumer habits benefit companies in several ways.
Increase customer lifetime value
MBA graduates know that the value of a business is equal to the sum of its future profits. It is this value that investors use when calculating the fair value of a company's shares.
And the leaders of the company and other top managers are assessed by their ability to increase the value of its shares, that is, they are forced to constantly monitor what kind of free cash flow the business generates. From a shareholder perspective, the job of management is to develop and implement strategies that will increase the company's future profits - whether by increasing revenue or lowering costs.
An effective way to increase company value is to create the right habits for consumers, which leads to an increase in the average customer lifetime value (CLTV). This indicator is equal to the amount that the company will receive from the client until he goes to a competitor, stops using the product or dies. As a result of habit, consumers use the product longer and more often, which leads to the growth of CLTV.
Some products have high customer lifetime value. Let's say bank customers using credit cards tend to remain loyal for a long time and are therefore expensive. Therefore, credit institutions are ready to spend significant funds on attracting new clients. This is why you get so many special offers - from gifts to bonus miles. They are designed to persuade you to get another credit card or upgrade your existing one. Your potential lifetime value justifies the banks' marketing investment.
Greater flexibility in pricing
A well-known investor and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway once said, "You can tell a company’s strength by how badly a price increase affects its business." Warren Buffett and his partner Charles Munger realized that when consumers develop habits about a product, they become dependent on it and become less sensitive to its price. It was consumer psychology that they cited as the reason for their famous investments in companies such as See's Candies and Coca-Cola. Buffett and Munger know that habit provides more flexibility and the ability to raise prices.
For example, in the segment of shareware video games, developers actively use a standard technique: they postpone the request for payment until the desire to play becomes an urgent need for users. When they feel the need to play a new game and the desire to make progress in it grows, it is much easier for them to become consumers who are willing to pay. So on the sale of virtual goods, extra lives and special weapons, quite real money is made.
By December 2013, over 500 million people had downloaded Candy Crush Saga, which is played primarily on mobile devices. The development company uses the freemium model and converts some of these users into consumers, bringing it almost a million dollars in net profit every day.
The same scheme works in other cases as well. Take Evernote, the popular note creation and management software. In fact, it is free, but for little money, the developers offer to connect additional functions, such as the ability to view notes without access to the Internet and edit them together. Many fans of this program readily pay.
Phil Libin, CEO of Evernote, once spoke frankly about how they turn free users into paid subscribers. He published his "smile graph" in 2011. On the Y-axis, the frequency of application of the program by the consumer was displayed, on the X-axis, the time elapsed since its registration. It can be seen from the graph that at first the frequency of use dropped sharply, but over time, as the person got used to the program, it began to grow rapidly again. The resulting curve made the graph look like a smile (perhaps of Libin himself, who could not help but rejoice at this fact).
In addition, over time, people not only increasingly turned to the program, but also more willingly paid for additional features. Libin noticed: a month after registration, only 0.5 percent of users paid for the service, but this figure was gradually growing. By the 33rd month, 11 percent of customers started paying, and by the 42nd - as much as 26 percent of those who previously had enough free program features.
Accelerated growth
If consumers find a product valuable to themselves for a long time, they are more likely to tell their friends about it. Frequent use creates more opportunities to encourage people to invite acquaintances, share content, and pass word of mouth about a project. Hooked customers become brand evangelists, mouthpieces for your company, and bring new customers almost (or completely) for free.
Frequently used products have great growth potential when compared to competitors. For example, Facebook overtook all competitors, including MySpace and Friendster, despite appearing rather late at the social media party. Mark Zuckerberg's rivals by the time of the launch of his website, initially intended exclusively for students at Harvard University, already boasted a rapid growth rate and millions of users. But it was his company that eventually came to dominate the industry.
In part, Facebook's success is a result of what I call "more-more": frequent use leads to rapid viral growth. As noted by David Skok, a high-tech entrepreneur-turned-venture capitalist, the most important factor in accelerating growth is "the length of the viral cycle." The duration of the virus cycle is the time it takes for a user to invite another user. It can make a big difference in the fate of a product. “For example, if the duration of the viral cycle is two days, then in twenty days you will have 20,470 users,” Skok writes. - But if you cut it in half, to one day, you will get over 20 million users! It is clear that the more cycles the better, but how much better is not so obvious anymore. "
Increasing the share of customers using your service on a daily basis is beneficial for him for two reasons. First, people who visit the service every day are more likely to initiate a new viral cycle (say, tagging a friend on a Facebook photo). Secondly, the more active users every day, the more responses and reactions to the invitation. The viral cycle not only supports this process, but also accelerates it, increasingly involving users in it.
Strengthening the competitive position
Consumer habits are a competitive advantage. Habit-changing products are less vulnerable to attacks from other companies.
Many entrepreneurs step on the same rake: they create products that are only slightly better than those on the market, and they think that this is enough to entice customers. When it comes to breaking old habits, new products don't always win. This is especially noticeable when a long-standing competitor product has become familiar to a large number of consumers.
In the classic work of John Gurwill, marketer and professor at Harvard Business School, it is said that "many innovations fail because consumers irrationally overestimate the old and companies irrationally overvalue the new."
Gourwill says new players have a chance when they are nine times better than the old ones. Why exactly so much? Because old habits are so tenacious, new products must offer radical improvements to users to change the way things are. According to the scientist, products that require significant changes in behavior are doomed to failure even when the benefits from their use are obvious and large.
For example, the technology I use to write this book is in many ways inferior to existing alternatives. This refers to the QWERTY keyboard, invented back in the 1870s for hopelessly outdated typewriters. It is characterized by a large distance between frequently used letters. The goal of this approach is to protect the levers of the first typewriters from sticking. QWERTY is still the standard, although in the digital age this physical limitation is a real anachronism. And besides, there are more convenient keyboard layouts.
So, in the layout of Professor August Dvorak, the vowels are placed in the central row, as a result of which the typing speed increases and the number of errors decreases. The "Simplified Dvorak keyboard" was patented back in 1932, but failed to break into the market.
QWERTY layout survives due to the high psychological costs associated with the need to change user behavior. When we start learning to type, we bale the keys, usually with one or two fingers. After several months of practice, we get used to using all fingers, trying to keep up with thoughts and almost (or not at all) making any conscious effort. And at the same time, the words rush to the screen. Moving to an unfamiliar layout - albeit more effective - will force us to relearn. Well, I do not!
In you will learn that shopping habits are created by the valuable information stored in products, which greatly reduces the likelihood of switching to alternative solutions. For example, all emails sent and received using the Google Gmail mail service are stored indefinitely. This provides the user with an eternal repository of their correspondence. New followers on Twitter amplify users' influence and their ability to communicate messages to their communities. And on Instagram, memorable moments and impressions recorded by a member are added to their digital album. And the more people use a given email, social network, or photo sharing application, the harder it becomes for them to switch to their (possibly more modern) counterparts. Valuable information created and stored in such products is usually not transferable, which deters the user from transitioning.
As a result, consumer habits increase a company's ROI. Increased customer lifetime value, greater pricing flexibility, accelerated growth, and a stronger competitive position provide more cash flow.
Building a monopoly on the mind
User habits are not just a boon for companies fortunate enough to shape them. Having habits reduces the likelihood of success for newcomers trying to change the status quo. There are very few examples of successful change in long-standing habits.
Changing people's behavior requires understanding a few things: How do you get them to take a specific action (say, when they first open your site)? How do you get them to repeat these actions over a long period, and ideally for a lifetime?
Companies that succeed in creating buying habits are often associated with revolutionary, hugely successful innovations. But like any other branch of knowledge, there are laws in the art of creating habits that explain why some products change our lives and others do not.
To begin with, let’s remind you that unusual behaviors have a short “half-life” because our brains tend to revert to familiar ways of thinking and acting. In the course of experiments on laboratory animals that were taught new actions, it turned out that over time they begin to behave as before. In accounting parlance, behavior is subject to the LIFO rule: “last in, first out”. In other words, newly acquired habits are more likely to be forgotten before others.
This helps explain why people try but cannot give up their habits. Two-thirds of alcoholics in rehab return to the bottle - and old habits - within the first year. According to research, almost everyone who lost weight as a result of a diet regained the pounds they lost within two years.
New habits have an enemy — old habits. And research shows it's a tough nut to crack. Even when we change our behavior, the existing neural connections in the brain remain and can work again, as soon as we relax. This is a particular challenge for developers trying to create a revolutionary product line (or business) based on habit formation.
For unaccustomed actions to take hold, they must be frequent. In a recent study from the University of London College of Medicine, researchers observed participants trying to develop a dental flossing habit. One of the conclusions made is that the more often new actions are performed, the stronger the addiction to them. Like brushing your teeth, any frequent interaction with a product - especially over a short period - increases the likelihood of a new habit emerging.
Google search is an example of a service built on frequent actions that help form a habit among users. If you're skeptical about the idea that Google is addictive (and still uses it a lot), try Bing search. In terms of effectiveness, these products are almost the same. Even if the geniuses at Google did come up with an accelerated algorithm, the amount of time saved would not be noticed by anyone other than the search engine spiders and Spock. Milliseconds are important, but they don't hold users back.
So why aren't Google users switching to Bing? It is habit that makes them loyal. If a person is familiar with the interface of one search engine, switching to another will require a noticeable cognitive effort. And while Bing is similar in many ways to Google, even a small one, a few pixels, the difference in the arrangement of elements means for a potential user to re-learn how to interact with the site. It is the task of adapting to differences in the interface, not the technology of search, that stops Google users and makes Bing feel inferior.
Internet searches are so common that Google is able to take root in the user's brain as the only viable solution. And the person no longer needs to think about whether to use Google or not, he just does it. Moreover, if a company is able to identify a user using tracking technologies, it can, based on his previous behavior, improve the quality of search results. It will make them more accurate, taking into account his personal experience, the more it will tie the user to the search engine. The more often a product is used, the better the algorithm works, and therefore it is used more often. The result is a model cycle of addictive behavior - and Google's dominance in the marketplace.
Habit as a strategy
Sometimes activities that are less frequent than flossing or surfing the internet will still lead to habit. For this to be possible, the result must be of great value to the user - and this is either enjoyment or reduction of discomfort.
Take Amazon as an example: this online store is clearly striving to become the largest in the world, yet so confident in its ability to form user habits that it sells ad space on its site to direct competitors. Amazon visitors often see an ad for a product they nearly bought and learn that it is being sold elsewhere for a lower price. Users can get there in just one click. For some, this is the path leading to disaster, but for Amazon, it is a shrewd business strategy.
Amazon not only gets paid for competing ads, but also uses their dollars to form a habit in the user's brain. The Internet giant strives to become a universal solution to an often arising problem - the desire to find the product that you need.
By making it easier for visitors to find the best value proposition, Amazon builds their loyalty and confidence without even making a sale. The soundness of this tactic is confirmed by a 2003 study, which shows that when information about the prices of competitors is available in an online store, its attractiveness in the eyes of users increases. A similar tactic is followed by the insurance company Progressive, which specializes in auto insurance. As a result, it increased its policy revenues from $ 3.4 billion to $ 15 billion.
By allowing visitors to compare their prices and the value of goods with third-party sellers, Amazon gains tremendous value in their eyes. And although purchases on this site are less frequent than Google searches, with each successful transaction, the company is increasingly entrenched in the minds of users as the "default" store. People are so comfortable comparing prices on Amazon that they often check them using the company's mobile app while in retail stores. Often, purchases are made directly from a competitor's territory.
In the habit zone
A company can start assessing the addictive potential of its product by looking at two factors: frequency (how often an action is taken) and perceived value (how useful the product appears to the consumer's mind, compared to alternative solutions).
People use Google search all the time, but each time the result is only slightly better than the result of competitors like Bing. Shopping on Amazon's site is less frequent, but consumers value it highly because they know they will find anything in this one-of-a-kind department store.
As shown in rice. 1, actions that are performed frequently and have a high perceived value fall into the “habit zone” and become “default actions”. If any of these indicators are low and the action falls into the lower zone under the curve, the likelihood of it becoming a habit is reduced.
Notice that the curve on the graph is declining but does not reach the perceived value axis. Some activities never become familiar, despite their value, because they don't happen often enough. These actions remain conscious, they lack the automatic reaction inherent in the habit. But the curve adjoins the other axis, that is, even if at least a minimal perceived value is associated with an action, it can become habitual, because it happens often.
This concept will be our main guideline, and the scale is not intentionally indicated on the chart. Unfortunately for business leaders, researchers have not yet been able to determine the timing of the transformation of an action into a habit. A 2010 study report found that some habits form in a few weeks, while others take more than five months. Scientists have also found that the rate of habit formation is influenced by the degree of complexity of the action and how important it is to the person.
The answer to the question "how often do you need to repeat to get enough?" depends on the specific action and the company, there are no hard and fast rules. However, the above flossing study showed that the more often the better.
Let's imagine foods that you would describe as addictive. Most of them are used daily or several times a day. Let's try to understand why we refer to them so often.
Vitamins or pain relievers?
Never before has it been so easy to create a new product, and yet most new projects fail. Why? This happens for a variety of reasons: companies run out of money, a product enters the market too early or too late, consumers don't need what the company has to offer, or founders give up at some point. Like failure, success can be caused by many factors. However, they all have one thing in common: they solve some kind of problem. This may sound obvious, but in fact, the wording of the problem that a new product solves is often the subject of fierce controversy.
"Are you making a vitamin or pain reliever?" - this question, which has already become commonplace, is being asked by investors to founders of companies seeking funding from venture capitalists for the first time. From the point of view of most investors, the correct answer is pain reliever. Likewise, innovators in companies large and small must continually prove that their idea is important and deserves the resources it takes to bring it to life. Those on whom the decision depends - investors and company leaders - are willing to invest only in solving real problems or meeting urgent needs, that is, supporting the production of pain relievers.
Pain relievers eliminate understandable problems, relieve specific pain, and usually have a market that is easy to calculate. Take Tylenol, the well-known brand of paracetamol that promises "Reliable Relief." It is for such quick decisions that people are willing to pay.
Unlike pain relievers, vitamins do not necessarily solve any obvious problem. They appeal to the emotional rather than functional needs of people. By taking multivitamins every morning, we don't know if they make us healthier. Recently, there is even evidence that taking vitamins does more harm than good.
But it doesn't bother us, does it? Vitamins are not drunk in pursuit of efficiency. Their trick is cross-off-the-list behavior, an action that we evaluate in terms of relieving not physical pain, but psychological pain. We feel satisfied that we are doing something good for our body, even without being sure that it is good.
Unlike pain relievers, which we cannot live without, skipping vitamins for several days is not a problem. So maybe executives and investors know what they are doing? Perhaps making pain relievers rather than vitamins is really the right strategy?
Do not hurry.
Let's discuss a few of the top consumer technology companies - say Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest. Are they selling vitamins or pain relievers? Most people will answer "vitamins", because users get nothing from them, except for the possibility of socialization. Think back to what you did before you started using them. After all, no one woke up in the middle of the night shouting: "I urgently need to post a new status!"
But this is the case with many innovations: we do not know we need them until they become part of our daily life. Before deciding on vitamins and pain relievers in the context of the world's most successful tech companies, consider this: A habit is when pain arises from a lack of action.
It's important to be clear here: the term pain, which is often used in business schools and marketing textbooks, is hyperbole. In fact, the sensation we are talking about is more like itching, only psychological. It causes discomfort and only goes away when the desire is satisfied. And addictive foods just give us some relief. It is much easier to "scratch" using a certain product than to endure until the "itch" goes away on its own. And when we become addicted to the instrument, nothing else remains.
My answer to the question about vitamins and pain relievers is that technologies that induce shopping habits are both. At first, they seem like pleasant optional vitamins, and when the habit is developed, they begin to soothe the pain.
All types of living beings have two main motivators - the desire to get pleasure and avoid pain. When we feel discomfort, we want to get rid of this feeling. In the next chapter, we'll talk about how emotions - often negative ones - become a trigger for consumers to turn to certain products. For now, it’s enough to remember that addictive foods form associations in users’s brains and then relieve pain.
We will discuss the ethics of these manipulations in the eighth chapter. But it's worth noting now that although some people consider the terms "habit" and "addiction" synonymous, they are not the same thing. Addiction is a persistent, obsessive addiction to any behavior or substance. She is self-destructive. It is irresponsible to create products based on the formation and maintenance of addictions in consumers, as it means deliberate harm.
A habit is a behavior that can positively affect people's lives. Habits can be good and bad. You probably have several good habits that you act on throughout the day. Did you brush your teeth today? Have you taken a shower? Thanked anyone? Or maybe, as in my case, they said "good morning" during the evening run? All these actions are performed almost (or completely) unconsciously - these are habits.
Many called 2017 a turning point for the Russian economy. Despite the preservation of the regime of mutual economic sanctions, an increase in a number of important indicators was recorded. At the same time, one of the most striking indicators of the country's economic situation - the consumption habits of its citizens eloquently testify that if there is growth, then it is rather modest and, at the same time, the crisis has brought up in our compatriots, if not a European attitude towards spending, then increased rationality consumer behavior at times
First, some statistics. In 2017, the incomes of the Russian population showed unstable dynamics: if in January Rosstat recorded an excess of the same indicators in 2016 by 8.2%, then starting from February the statistics began to record a decrease again - by the end of five months in relation to the corresponding period, this indicator decreased by 1 ,eight%.
At the same time, the statistics of retail turnover of goods and services demonstrates a gradual recovery in consumer activity. In the spring of 2017, the volume of retail turnover for the first time in the past few years, albeit slightly, but increased - by 0.7% in relation to the same period last year. If the entire period of the decline in demand - since October 2014 it amounted to 19.4%, then the signs of growth that have appeared inspire optimism, but still very restrained.
Monthly dynamics of real incomes of the population, wages and pensions in 2012-2016, as a percentage of the corresponding month of the previous year (Source: report "Population of Russia in 2017: income, expenses, social well-being" (NRU HSE))Check index
The indicative index of Russians' purchasing activity, which is actively used by the Romir research holding, is the size of the average purchase check. For example, in Moscow, "Romira", in December 2016 the average check was 775 rubles. The average check during that period throughout Russia amounted to 591 rubles, which is 8.1% less than in December 2015, when it was equal to 643 rubles. At the same time, prices for consumer goods in 2016 increased, according to Rosstat, by 5.4%. Thus, the Russians have reduced their food spending, despite the rise in food prices. Even in December, on the eve of purchases for the New Year's table, the growth of the average check in the capital compared to the previous month was only 4.3%.
The fall in the size of the average check continued until the summer. But in June 2017, instead of the traditional seasonal decline, the total expenses of Russians this year increased by almost 1% compared to the May value and reached 517 rubles. In annual terms, however, the growth was not so impressive and amounted to only 2.8%. The share of the average check in discounters and convenience stores continued to grow most actively. Over the month, the check in these stores added 3.1%, and over the year - a record 14%.
In July-August, the size of the average check fluctuated: in July there was a decline, in August the growth continued. Russians continued to actively visit stores in search of the best price offers, according to Romir. As a result, each time consumers left at the checkout of the store, on average, smaller amounts, but due to the intensive frequency of trips to the stores, overall costs increased.
Dynamics of the average check, in rubles. Source: "Romir", November 2012 - August 2017
Promo at home
More and more Russians hunt for promotions organized by retailers while shopping, for sales and discounts. Searching for promotions and choosing stores with lower prices have retained their status as the main saving strategies. As Gazeta.ru notes, during sales, the increase in turnover, for example, of household appliances and electronics stores is more than 50%. Stores of the same price, such as Fix Price, "At the same time", "Ohapka", "Your price" and others, are becoming an increasingly popular channel. 80% of Russians said that they have ever made purchases in this format of stores, 67% of Russian consumers have visited them in the last three months, 40% of them do it once a month or more often.
A surge in Russian buying activity was recorded in November and the reason was just a massive promotional campaign known as "Black Friday". Retailers participating in the sale from 24 to 26 November received at least 30 billion rubles. additional turnover, writes "Kommersant" with reference to the assessment of AKIT. Offline sales accounted for RUB 24 billion. additional purchases, online - 6 billion rubles. Consumer engagement has grown, with most shoppers purchasing clothing, cosmetics, home appliances and electronics. At the same time, there was less excitement on their part than last year.
Monthly dynamics of the consumer price index, as a percentage of the previous period. (Source: report "Population of Russia in 2017: income, expenses, social well-being" (NRU HSE))
Changing habits
According to Romir's research, the structure of consumer spending in the general wallet of a buyer of goods and services in Russia differs markedly from Europe: a Russian buyer has a significant share of spending on food, tobacco and alcohol, less than in Europe on services and entertainment. At the same time, the share of the population that in 2017 assesses their financial situation as bad and very poor (income is enough only for food or only for basic products) practically did not change compared to 2016 and amounted to 20%.
In 2016, the consumption model finally transformed into a savings model, the research agency Nielsen Russia quoted most of the Russian media (for example, RBC). In the fourth quarter of 2016, the value of the consumer confidence index, according to Nielsen, was 63 points. This is the lowest quarterly indicator since 2005 (the index reached the same value only once, in the first quarter of 2016). “Saving in everything has become a part of the way of life, and even a slight improvement in the economic situation by the end of 2016 does not stimulate spending activity,” said Marina Erskova, Head of Sales Evaluation and Marketing Communications at Nielsen Russia.
Most Russians believe that they should keep their money in the bank, not spend it. This is evidenced by the results of a survey conducted by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM). 73% of respondents are in favor of saving money and reducing everyday expenses. In general, this point of view has only strengthened over the year - in January, 67% noted the need to save.
Dynamics of the consumer price index by groups of goods and services, as a percentage of the corresponding period of the last year, without a seasonal factor. (
Despite the fact that Great Britain declared war on Germany in 1939, and the United States in 1941, they were in no hurry to open the second front, which the USSR needed so much. Let's highlight the most popular versions of the reason for the delay of allies.
Unpreparedness for war
Many experts see the main reason for such a late opening of the Second Front - June 6, 1944 - that the Allies are not ready for a full-scale war. What could Great Britain, for example, oppose to Germany? As of September 1939, the British army numbered 1 million 270 thousand people, 640 tanks and 1,500 aircraft. In Germany, these figures were much more impressive: 4 million 600 thousand soldiers and officers, 3195 tanks and 4093 aircraft.
Moreover, during the retreat of the British Expeditionary Force in 1940, a significant amount of tanks, artillery and ammunition were thrown at Dunkirk. According to Churchill, "in fact in the whole country there were barely 500 field guns of all types and 200 medium and heavy tanks."
The United States Army was even more deplorable. The number of regular troops by 1939 was slightly more than 500 thousand people, with 89 combat divisions, of which only 16 were armored. For comparison: the Wehrmacht army had 170 fully equipped and combat-ready divisions.
However, in a couple of years, both the United States and Great Britain significantly strengthened their military capabilities and in 1942, according to experts, they could already provide real assistance to the USSR, pulling significant forces of the German army from East to West.
When he asked for the opening of the Second Front, Stalin counted primarily on the British government, but Churchill, under various pretexts, repeatedly refused the Soviet leader.
Fight for the Suez Canal
The Middle East remained a priority for Great Britain at the height of the war. In British military circles, it was considered futile to land an assault force on the coast of France, which would only divert the main forces from solving strategic tasks.
By the spring of 1941, the situation was such that Britain was no longer short of food. Imports of food products from the main suppliers - the Netherlands, Denmark, France and Norway for obvious reasons turned out to be impossible.
Churchill was well aware of the need to maintain communications with the Near and Middle East, as well as India, which would provide Great Britain with much-needed goods, and therefore threw all his efforts to defend the Suez Canal. The German threat to this region was large enough.
Allied disagreements
An important reason for the postponement of the opening of the Second Front was the disagreement of the allies. They were observed between Great Britain and the United States, which were solving their geopolitical tasks, but to an even greater extent, contradictions emerged between Great Britain and France.
Even before the surrender of France, Churchill visited the country's government, which had been evacuated to Tours, in an attempt to inspire the French to continue their resistance. But at the same time, the Prime Minister did not hide his fear that the French navy might fall into the hands of the German army and therefore offered to send it to British ports. A decisive refusal followed from the French government.
On June 16, 1940, Churchill proposed to the government of the Third Republic an even more daring project, which practically meant the merger of Great Britain and France into one state on enslaving terms for the latter. The French regarded this as an open desire to take possession of the country's colonies.
The final step that upset the relations between the two allies was Operation Catapult, which involved the capture of the entire available French fleet by England or its destruction in order to avoid falling into the enemy's hands.
Japanese threat and Moroccan interest
The attack by the Japanese air force at the end of 1941 on the American military base in Pearl Harbor, on the one hand, finally put the United States in the ranks of the Soviet Union's allies, but on the other hand, postponed the opening of the Second Front, as it forced the country's efforts to focus on the war with Japan. For a whole year, the Pacific theater of operations for the American army became the main arena of battles.
In November 1942, the United States began to implement the "Torch" plan to seize Morocco, which at that time was of the greatest interest to American military-political circles. It was assumed that the Vichy regime, with which the United States continued to maintain diplomatic relations, would not offer resistance.
And so it happened. In a matter of days, the Americans captured the major cities of Morocco, and later, having united with their allies - Britain and the Free France, they continued successful offensive operations in Algeria and Tunisia.
Personal goals
Soviet historiography almost unanimously expressed the opinion that the Anglo-American coalition deliberately delayed the opening of the Second Front, expecting that the USSR, exhausted by the prolonged war, would lose its status of a great power. Churchill, even promising military assistance to the Soviet Union, continued to call it "the sinister Bolshevik state."
In his message to Stalin, Churchill very vaguely writes that "the chiefs of staff do not see the possibility of doing anything on such a scale that it could bring you even the smallest benefit." This answer is most likely due to the fact that the Prime Minister shared the opinion of the military-political circles of Britain, who asserted: "the defeat of the USSR by the Wehrmacht troops is a matter of several weeks."
After the turning point in the war, when a certain status quo was observed on the fronts of the USSR, the allies were still in no hurry to open the Second Front. They were occupied with completely different thoughts: would the Soviet government agree to a separate peace with Germany? The Allied intelligence report included the following words: "A state of affairs in which neither side can count on a quick, complete victory, in all likelihood, will lead to a Russian-German agreement."
The wait-and-see position of Great Britain and the United States meant one thing: the Allies were interested in weakening both Germany and the USSR. It was only when the fall of the Third Reich became inevitable that certain shifts were outlined in the process of opening the Second Front.
War is big business
Many historians are perplexed by one circumstance: why the German army almost unhindered allowed the British landing to retreat during the so-called "Dunkirk operation" in May-June 1940. The answer most often sounds like this: "Hitler received instructions not to touch the British."
Doctor of Political Science Vladimir Pavlenko believes that the situation around the entry of the United States and Great Britain into the European arena of war was influenced by big business in the person of the Rockefeller financial clan. The tycoon's main target is the Eurasian oil market. It is Rockefeller, according to the political scientist, who created the "American-British-German octopus - Schroeder's bank in the status of an agent of the Nazi government" is responsible for the growth of the German military machine.
For the time being, Rockefeller needed Hitler's Germany. British and American intelligence services have repeatedly reported on the possibility of removing Hitler, but each time they received the go-ahead from the leadership. As soon as the end of the Third Reich became apparent, nothing stopped Britain and the United States from entering the European theater of military operations.
It is obvious that the subordination of Western Europe by Russia is becoming less and less possible every day and that such subordination is simply impossible for a long time.
(K. Marx, 1850)
So, May 1945. The war in Europe ended, and as a result, Stalin got only a smaller and worse half of Europe. The war in the Far East is still going on, but it is already obvious that the USSR can only rely on Korea (as it later turned out, and even then not on the whole) and the north of China.
World War II is lost. But Stalin has at his disposal a huge military machine: tank armadas of unprecedented quantity and quality, excellent artillery, powerful aviation, 11.4 million soldiers hardened in battle. Why not try to start and win the Third World War - in other words, not throw the armies of the Western allies into the ocean and capture all of Europe (as well as the Middle and Far East)? This is exactly what Zhukov advised Stalin ("to advance from Brest to Brest").
Many of our people - from ardent Stalinists to equally ardent anti-Stalinists - are convinced that Stalin made a fatal mistake by rejecting Zhukov's proposal.
Let's figure it out. To avoid accusations of bias, we will proceed from the most favorable scenario for Stalin: the United States did not use atomic weapons in the war, and the Red Army remained loyal to the regime and fought against the allies in the same way as before against the Germans (recall what was written in the eighth chapter) ...
First of all, the war with the United States and Britain for Stalin was by definition to turn into a protracted one. Indeed, we reached the English Channel, and then what? The navy, the allies, ruled at sea, and Stalin had no chance of defeating it: where, where, but at sea the Russians were not fighters against the Anglo-Saxons. The Japanese fleet in 1941 was much stronger than the Soviet one in 1945, and it began the war with a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines and Singapore. Nevertheless, by the end of 1944, "horns and legs" remained of the Japanese fleet (and by the summer of 1945 - neither horns nor legs: the last large ship, the battleship Yamato, was sunk by the Americans on April 7, 1945). The Soviet fleet could not think of a surprise attack on the naval forces of the Anglo-Americans: as soon as it became known that Soviet tanks had launched an offensive in Europe, the Allied fleets would be ready to repulse.
True, the Soviet amphibious tanks, judging by the tests back in 1935, could technically force the English Channel (Suvorov V ... Suicide. Pp. 189-193), but still, I think, not under the fire of the allies' heavy naval guns. This means that England is invulnerable, America even more so. Then what is a protracted war? It seems so.
Supporters of the idea that it was necessary to strike the allies in 1945, bewitched by the enormous superiority of the Soviet ground forces, forget the words of Stalin himself that “aggressive nations are better prepared for the outbreak of war than peace-loving nations”, as well as that such an advantage is a temporary factor, while economic superiority is a permanent factor (Stalin IV On the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union. pp. 166-167). And the superiority of the American economic potential over the Soviet one was enormous - tenfold (more on this at the end of the book).
They forget that the sides were, to put it mildly, in different starting conditions: until 1940-1941. America practically did not prepare for war, while the USSR in the 1920s – 1930s. almost nothing else and did not. Suffice it to say that the tank forces as an independent branch of the military were established in the USA on July 10, 1940 - after the Wehrmacht had crushed Western Europe; by June 1941, the entire US tank fleet consisted of 400 machines of hopelessly obsolete designs (British and American Tanks of World War II. N.Y., 1969. P. 11; cited in V. Suvorov, Suicide, p. 183).
Here is a clear example: in the spring of 1941, Soviet and American delegations of tank experts visited German tank factories almost simultaneously. Both were shown everything that was available in Germany at that time. And here's the reaction. “The Americans were shocked by the German achievements. But then a Soviet delegation appears (led by the People's Commissar of Heavy Engineering IT Tevosyan, by the way). Our engineers indifferently glanced at the combat vehicles and demanded to remove the antediluvian equipment, and instead show what they promised - modern tanks. The Germans insisted that they were showing the best they had. Soviet engineers refused to believe this ”(Suicide. Pp. 220-221). By the way, in Germany, a country that is fundamentally not ready for a protracted war, they managed to significantly reduce the military-technical lag behind the USSR during the war. In 1942-1943. the Germans had heavy tanks. And what about the United States, a country with inexhaustible economic opportunities, perfectly prepared for a protracted war?
By 1945, the United States was still far behind the USSR in the number and quality of tanks, but compared with 1940-1941. the lag was reduced by m> row. Already in 1943-1944. the United States had not only quite decent medium tanks M-4 and M-7 weighing 25 and 32 tons, with 85 mm frontal armor, 500 hp engines. with. and guns of 75, and on some of 105 mm, but also heavy tanks M1A and M1B, respectively, weighing 57 and 50 tons, with 100-mm and 200-mm frontal armor (our KB has 100-mm), with an engine 1000 hp, which were equipped with one 75-mm and two 37-mm cannons (TSB. 1st ed. Vol. 51, pp. 771–772).
If we extrapolate the balance of forces into the future, then, taking into account the constantly acting factor of the ratio of economic potentials, it is even possible to imagine that by 1950 the United States could, having pulled hard, surpass the USSR in this too. Moreover, all the best Soviet tanks had an American progenitor - the American tank by Walter Christie; a sample of this tank was sold to the USSR at the end of 1930 (Shmelev I.P. Tanks BT. S. 7; Mealson A. Russian BT Series. Windsor, 1971; Zaloga S. Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two. P . 67; quoted from: Icebreaker. Pp. 27–28; The last republic. Pp. 157–158). The American state, which at that moment was not going to fight with anyone, did not demand the genius of Christie and his students, but after all, life could force ... And in general, who created in the 1920s – 1930s. the enormous military power of the Soviet Union? Basically the same American engineers for American technologies (see: M. Harrison Soviet production 1941-1945. To reevaluation // Russia in the XX century. Historians of the world argue. Pp. 492-501; Sutton A National Suicide: A Military Aid to the Soviet Union and many other authors).
At the same time, we must not forget: the Second World War for the United States was not so much land war as sea and air, therefore, tank building was given secondary attention. As for the fleet and aviation, no one could compare with America. The American fleet, which until 1941 shared the first place with the British, had no equal in 1945 (and the British grew significantly over the years).
Germany, for which all of Europe worked, built in 1941-1944. 98,000 aircraft at full strength; During the period from July 1, 1941 to June 30, 1945, the USSR, receiving enormous assistance from the United States, built 140,000 aircraft - also with full effort (World History. M., 1965. T. 10. S. 427); The United States, receiving no help from anyone and helping everyone under Lend-Lease, built 182,300 aircraft in 1943-1944 alone, and without much stress (Ibid. P. 433) (according to other sources, even more - 60,000 aircraft in 1942, 125,000 aircraft in one year 1943 (Utkin LI. Franklin Roosevelt's Diplomacy. S. 224).
And the quality of the aircraft was adequate. Already in 1943-1944. aircraft were built with a ceiling of 10.5-11.5 km (bombers "flying fortress", B-17 C and "Martin B-26", fighter "Airacobra"), and even 14 km ("Thunderbolt"), with a range flight of 4820 km ("Flying Fortress"), 5100 km (heavy bombers "Mariner"), finally, 6400 km (heavy bombers "Coronado") (TSB. 1st ed. Vol. 51, p. 777– 778). Such a ceiling made American bombers practically inaccessible to the enemy - for fighters (10 km), and for "Thunderbolt" - and for anti-aircraft guns (12 km) (Day-M. P. 26). As for the range, figure it out for yourself on the map. And remember that this is only 19,431,944 years, far from the limit of American possibilities (we will talk about the possibilities in more detail below). By the way, the USSR in 1944-1945 was engaged in collecting damaged B-29s in territories previously controlled by Germany and Japan and, accordingly, subjected to American air strikes, and occupied by Soviet troops during the war; these aircraft were used to build their own strategic bombers (Sokolov B. Pobeda, which was more terrible than many defeats).
The Germans, except Coventry, could not properly destroy a single city in a year of bombing England; this is not surprising considering that in two years (1940-1941) they dropped only 58,000 tons of bombs on England; the Americans, however, in three years (since the spring of 1942) dropped 2,650,000 tons of bombs on Germany (Brekhill P. The Dam Busters. L, 1951. P. 47, 117, 166, 249; Goralski P. World War II Almanac . P. 438; cited in: The Last Republic. P. 153; Suicide. P. 250; my calculations. -D.V.). The difference is 45 times, almost two orders of magnitude! Since 1942, the Americans have destroyed German and Japanese cities in a matter of days (Cologne, 1942, Hamburg, 1943) or even hours (Dresden, February 1945, a number of Japanese cities, March 1945; Tokyo suffered more from the raid on March 10, 1945, than from the earthquake of 1923).
As for the superiority of Soviet military art (and it really was!), It is always transient. All the conquerors at first surpassed their opponents with their ability to fight - Alexander the Great, Attila, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and many others of a lower rank. Only such superiority was never lasting - the victims quickly learned to fight, and soon the war was on an equal footing. There is no reason to think it would have been different this time.
However, in some ways the Americans had superiority even then.
In the air defense system, equipped with the latest electronic means, radars, and so on, the Americans and the British already in 1940 dramatically surpassed both Germany and the USSR, as well as in the command, control, command and communication system. The reason for this was that Stalin declared cybernetics to be "a bourgeois pseudoscience alien to Marxism"; incidentally, Hitler almost at the same time called cybernetics "a Jewish pseudoscience alien to National Socialism." The result was the defeat of the Luftwaffe at the Battle of England in 1940-1941. (Bunin K Groza. P. 144) and the lifelong lag of the USSR from the United States and its allies in the most important area of modern warfare. By the way, during the Great Patriotic War, the USSR received 1803 radar stations from Britain - we did not have our own (Zalessky S. Lend-Lease is worth a lot).
However, Stalin's dislike for communication was largely forced by the very nature of totalitarianism. Radio is a device, in theory, anti-Soviet. You can listen to "voices of the enemy", you can talk to each other uncontrollably, you can transmit spy information to your enemies. Wired communication with field telephones is somehow more reliable. Roughly the same thing was done in the rear - radio points instead of radio receivers. Hitler, by the way, envied Stalin in this respect and was going to carry out a general radio broadcasting of Germany after the war.
Only in the course of the war did the need compel Stalin to put the radio first on airplanes, then on tanks. This, by the way, was possible only with the powerful help of the United States. And the USSR began to produce civil radios only after the death of the Leader of the Nations.
This is another reason for the failures of 1941 and the associated loss of the entire struggle for world domination. What is the use of the excellent T-34 and KB tanks if, due to lack of communication, they did not get fuel and shells? V. Lebedev compares such an army with a prehistoric lizard: a mountain of muscles, half-meter claws, monstrous fangs ... and half a kilogram of a small, poorly organized brain (Lebedev V. Marsh of Suvorov and Bunich to the book market // Bulletin. 1998. № 5-6). But such a state was forced - by the very nature of totalitarianism.
The organization of communications was in the same enclosure under Stalin; the military transport service (albeit for other reasons) and at the end of 1940 almost 80% of its work at the expense of horse-drawn transport. The rear services were organized even worse. The medical service also left much to be desired (Ibid. Pp. 334–336). During the Great Patriotic War, all this was more or less managed to be adjusted only thanks to the supply of the allies, among which, in addition to the already mentioned almost half a million cars and, among other things, 423,107 field telephones, hundreds of thousands of radio stations and much more (cited from: The Last Republic . Pp. 147–148). According to some reports, the allies provided the USSR with communications almost 100% (Sokolov B. Pobeda ...).
An analogy between Stalin and Napoleon is appropriate here. He also rejected the idea of a steam fleet, rejected the use of hot-melt rockets, etc. So the point here is not that Roosevelt was smarter than Stalin - it is not at all a fact that this was the case. But the very principle of concentration of all power and all decisions in one hand seems to be flawed in the industrial, and even more so in the post-industrial era. One person, even if he is such a person as Stalin, cannot know everything and understand everything! And it is also impossible to keep smart advisors around you on certain issues. A democratic leader can afford to keep his advisers smarter than he is, because he will be elected president anyway, since a public politician who knows how to please the voters is one thing, but a “helluva lot” advisor is something completely different, voters will not like him. But the autocrat, in principle, cannot afford to have advisers smarter than himself: this is a blow to the “sacred” nature of his power.
By the way, about the “sacred” nature of power. Alexander Dugin laments that in Germany (Nazi) and Russia (Soviet) geopolitics did not find recognition, unlike the United States and England, and rightly sees this as not the last reason for the historical defeat of Germany and Russia (Osnovy geopolitiki. M., 2001). But why did this happen? Yes, precisely because in non-democratic states the power is so dear to the heart of Mr. Dugin's "sacred" character. It is not a person who paints a place, but exactly the opposite. Hence the point of view: once you have been appointed to the post, it means that the mind should automatically increase. And if so, then there is nothing to listen to any geopoliticians from the outside. It is quite possible to answer them: "We ourselves know everything" or "We have someone to do this." And even more rude: "It's not your mind's business" or "Know your place!" And then there is nothing to be surprised at the results.
There is no reason to be surprised at the results of the “autocratic-“ sacral ”power in other areas as well. Yes, the task of a leader is not to lead everything himself, but to select leaders of the highest standard for all posts. But can it in principle be possible for one person, even for such a person as Stalin? Stalin succeeded in this in terms of the selection of military leaders, more or less in the selection of leaders of the military industry. Although there were punctures here too. So, for example, the head of the Main Artillery Directorate, Marshal of the Soviet Union G.I. Kulik in 1940 ordered the People's Commissar for Armaments B.L. Vannikov to put a 107-mm cannon on the tanks instead of the 7b-mm. Kulik supported A.A. Zhdanov. It was basically impossible to put a cannon of almost one and a half times the caliber on the same tank, but Stalin supported Zhdanov and Kulik. As a result, Vannikov was arrested and miraculously not repressed (Nekrich A.M. p. 112 113).
But in terms of the selection of leaders of the economy as a whole, he did not always succeed. In the field of science management he did not succeed at all - the most promising branches were destroyed by him.
And the creation of an atmosphere of a cult of personality around the sole dictator cannot pass without a trace. To Stalin's credit, I must say that he was much less than Hitler, succumbed to the incense that was smoked in his honor (about this see: V. Suicide. Pp. 75–78, 82–89, 101–103), but all -so could not resist at all.
But back to the question of the balance of power. Stalin, however, had a numerical superiority over the Allied armies in Europe - 6 million versus 4.6 million, but only in Europe. The ground forces of the United States, Britain and the colonies and dominions of the latter by 1945 numbered 22.65 million people. (my calculations are based on: World History. V. 10. S. 433–444, 524, 566 - D.V.) - significantly more than in the USSR (11.4 million), and the degree of exhaustion of human resources among the allies was, undoubtedly much lower than that of the USSR.
Here is an excerpt from the diary of Goebbels of March 3, 1945. The entry is not for propaganda or for publication, and in general Goebbels very, very highly appreciates the military power of the USSR (we have already spoken about this, see: Suvorov V ... Purification. P. 3 -twenty). But here is the record of the Soviets' manpower resources dated March 3, 1945: “Their troops are extremely well armed, but they are increasingly suffering from a shortage of people. Their attacking infantry consists mostly of eastern workers and Poles detained in our eastern regions. " And there is nothing to argue here. We did not know how to take care of our people and did not want to. The war ruined the peasants (The Last Republic, p. 331).
General of the Army ML Moiseev admitted (Pravda, July 19, 1991) that during the Great Patriotic War, 29.4 million soldiers were mobilized into the Red Army, not counting those who were already there (quoted from: Day-M P. 153) - that is, not less than 35 million in total. Of these, 1112 million remained by 1945. I think it would not be a great exaggeration to say that in a new war, if it had begun, Stalin could only count on regular draft contingents reaching 19 years of age. And taking into account the fact that opponents were also to appear in Asia (this will be discussed in the next chapter), the USSR should soon begin to yield to its opponents in numbers.
As for the ratio of economic potentials, in general, if we take the military production of Britain in 1941-1944. per unit, German military production will be equal to 0.9, Soviet - 1.4, and American - 4.3 (Harrison M. Soviet military production 1941-1945, p. 493). According to other sources, American military production accounted for two-thirds of the total military production of the allies, Soviet - one-fifth, and British - one-seventh (Pozdeeva L.V. Lend-Lease for the USSR: the discussion continues // World War II. Actual problems. S. 329). At the same time, we must not forget that the degree of mobilization of the American economy was significantly lower than that of the British, not to mention the German and Soviet: the United States did not at all rebuild its entire economy on a war footing: the production of consumer goods during the war years increased by 83%, while in 1944, at the time of the highest growth of military production, 700,000 unemployed remained in the country (World History. Vol. 10. P. 434). Here is Heinrich Mann's conclusion: America fought the war in jest. If she strained her strength, the world would shudder.
Further, the USSR would hardly have been able to mobilize practically the entire working-age population either into the army or into the military industry if it did not receive from the allies huge supplies of food that could feed the entire army and half of the country, raw materials, various equipment (and the rear and medical services, communications, managed to organize in a modern way only thanks to American deliveries; more details about the size of the allies' deliveries have already been mentioned, about 7-8 million additionally mobilized thanks to them - too).
Almost all known facts allow us to conclude that the Soviet economy, like the German one, was designed for a blitzkrieg, and not for a protracted war. Few people ask the question: why, possessing such a powerful military machine, Stalin started such a complex combination with an "icebreaker" instead of simply conquering all of Europe? Yes, precisely because he was afraid of a protracted war with the whole world!
But that's not all. The occupation of Western Europe by Soviet troops and the beginning of "socialist transformations" would inevitably provoke resistance in Europe. Recall that the Bandera and "forest brothers" in the annexed in 1939-1940. territories cut off from the whole world resisted for a decade and a half! The same would have happened - on an immeasurably large scale - throughout Europe, only the Allies would, of course, provide assistance to the European resistance in war conditions.
For some reason, many of my opponents are sure that in Europe the Red Army would be greeted with flowers as a liberator, now not from Hitler, but from the "Anglo-American imperialists." With those who adhere to such views, there seems to be nothing to discuss at all, but we have to. Again, the floor is given to the personal chauffeur, Marshal Zhukov A.N. Bunin. The action takes place in Poland at the end of January 1945, during the Vistula-Oder operation: “Having taken at face value the talk of almost the love of the local population for us, at first we were in a hurry to smile, hold out our hands, and so on. The reception was usually chilly. Once, with a friend, we were driving through Gniezno in a Willis and heard loud music coming from a large house. They stopped and entered. Polish youth danced in the hall. But we failed to dance, the young ladies huddled, looked at us like animals ”(170,000 kilometers with G.K. Zhukov, p. 126).
Well, let's say that the Poles did not have any special reason to love the USSR after 1920 and especially 1939 (and the earlier history also did not differ with special warmth of relations). But after all, we came to Poland as liberators from Hitler, and we had to come to Western Europe as invaders.
And finally, the allies, dominating the seas and oceans, could threaten with an amphibious assault at any point on the coast of the USSR and the territories it occupied. How many millions of soldiers would have to be kept to guard them? Let me remind you that during the Crimean War, when the fleet's mobility and its ability to land army assault forces were incomparably lower than in the 1940s-1950s, Russia was forced to keep 270,000 soldiers on the Baltic Sea coast to defend against the British squadron from 12 -the thousandth landing on board.
| |
Loading ...