Russian triangular bayonet. Russian needle tetrahedral bayonet

Every year, on the eve of our country’s Great Holiday – Victory Day, liberals and historians of all stripes become more active in search of historical “truth” and exposing the inhumanity of the Stalinist regime. Any myths and statements are used, usually created by grandfather Goebbels, the political progenitor of all our liberals. One of these myths is the following statement:

Germany was NOT obliged to comply with the convention in relation to a state that did not sign it

A typical example of this and other liberal myths associated with the fate of Soviet prisoners of war can be found, for example, in the article “On the Geneva Convention of July 27, 1929.” This is simply the quintessence of all liberal myth-making in one bottle - here about the Geneva Convention, and about the doctrine of armed actions of the USSR on enemy territory without prisoners of war, and about the execution of anyone who wants to surrender, etc. Even more interesting was written by academician Alexander Yakovlev in the article “War with your army” (most likely it is this work that inspires many liberals).

About the Geneva Convention and the fate of Soviet prisoners of war

So, defenders of historical “truth” sincerely believe that Hitler would sacredly observe everything international treaties, including the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War and would have treated Soviet soldiers with care if the USSR had signed it. Apparently historical experience teaches them that Adolf Hitler did not violate a single international treaty and was generally a crystalline honest and decent person. Well, since the USSR did not sign the convention, there is no need to feed the prisoners, why transfer food to them? Good man was the Fuhrer, apparently he had every right to exterminate Jews, in the end, he did not sign any international conventions tying his hands in this matter. It’s not clear why the champions of historical “truth” sympathize so much with the tortured Jews, and at the same time sympathize with Hitler’s position on the extermination of Soviet soldiers and officers in prisoner of war camps?! However, this is not the first time this has happened to them.

It should be noted that in this issue liberals, as always, are not original, but merely repeat the words of the fascist bastards, sensitively led by Joseph Goebbels. For example, here are the words of Field Marshal Keitel:

The Soviet Union did not join the agreement of July 27, 1929. regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. As a result, we are not obliged to provide Soviet prisoners of war with supplies that would correspond to this agreement, both in quantity and quality.

If this were really the case, that is, if the signing of the Geneva Convention by the USSR would help save Soviet prisoners of war, then in fact the liberals mean strict compliance by the fascist regime with all conventions, treaties, pacts and other things signed by Germany. Was it really like that? Has Germany violated more than one international convention? Not a single international treaty? What about the Geneva Convention for the Treatment of the Wounded and Sick, which was signed by the USSR? Was it strictly observed by Germany?

How about a non-aggression pact with the USSR? Was it strictly observed by Nazi Germany? What about other international legal norms - were they not violated by Germany? Let's take, for example, the same Jews whom our human rights activists love so much. Isn't the extermination of Jews in gas chambers a violation? international law? Maybe at least a little, but did the Germans violate something here? Or, according to international legal norms, was it permissible to burn people on racial grounds? Is this true or not? If the Germans did not violate anything by burning Jews in gas chambers, then why the hell is Germany paying compensation?! If the Germans nevertheless violated some international scribble, then why should they have been afraid to comply with this same scribble called the Geneva Convention?

By the way, the state of Israel (non-existent at that time) also did not sign any international conventions with Germany, which means its future citizens (for whom compensation is now regularly paid) could also, according to the logic of the liberals, be destroyed in German concentration camps. Those. there are two options: either these are German citizens who died in German concentration camps, and therefore Israel cannot in any way participate in the distribution of money in the German budget, or these are, as it were, citizens of a non-existent Israel that has not signed the Geneva Convention and other conventions, which means they can, in the opinion our human rights defenders, burned in gas chambers. However, in the case of future Israelis, liberals for some reason apply the principles of universal humanity, the principles of protecting human rights, etc. But this method, according to fighters for historical “truth,” is not suitable for Soviet prisoners of war, apparently for the reason that, as the fascists wrote about it, they were infected with the virus of Bolshevism?

In general, the logic of our liberal humanists is simply amazing - the USSR did not sign the Geneva Convention, which means it is PERMITTED to starve people to death! What about the protection of human rights? What about humanism? Human values? Morality? In this matter, for some reason, liberal “historians” talk about all these beautiful words don't remember.

However, knowing full well that even the failure of the USSR to sign the Geneva Convention does not exempt the Germans from observing it, the fascist cunnings came up with new reasons, here is an excerpt from the order of the Wehrmacht High Command on the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war with the attached “Memo on the protection of Soviet prisoners of war” dated 09/08/1941. :

Bolshevism is the mortal enemy of National Socialist Germany. For the first time, a German soldier faces an enemy trained not only in soldierly, but also political sense in the spirit of Bolshevism. The fight against National Socialism became part of his flesh and blood. He leads it using any means: sabotage, subversive propaganda, arson, murder. Therefore, the Bolshevik soldier lost the right to be treated as a true soldier under the Geneva Agreement.

By the way, there is another “reason” for the hunger of Soviet soldiers, which is consistently defended by fascists and liberals - this is unexpected big number Soviet soldiers captured by Germans. In principle, the first reason (non-signing of the Geneva Convention) seems to make the second unnecessary. Actually, it’s not clear why the Germans’ actions should be justified by the fact that they didn’t expect so many prisoners? After all, Stalin did not sign the Geneva Convention, which means the Germans had the right not to feed prisoners of war. Is not it? According to the logic of liberals, this is true, but just in case they come up with other excuses. In general, in the matter of justifying the Nazi regime, more work, something our liberals apparently did not do to anyone, not even the defenders of the Nuremberg trials, during which they also made an attempt to justify the German executioners:

On Nuremberg trials The defense made a statement that the Geneva Convention allegedly did not apply to Soviet prisoners of war on the grounds that the USSR was not a party to this Convention. However, the International Military Tribunal rejected the defense's argument as untenable. He indicated at the same time that always and in all cases when dealing with prisoners of war, general principles international law: detention must pursue only one purpose - to prevent the prisoner of war from taking part in hostilities. Killing defenseless people or even causing them some harm out of revenge is contrary to military tradition

As you can see, from the point of view of international law, the issue of non-signing of the Geneva Convention has long been resolved, but our liberal in this case international Court not a decree: we read here, we don’t read here, we wrap the herring there.

However, there are some other differences between Soviet prisoners of war and captured allies, besides the notorious unsigned Geneva Convention:

1) According to the racial doctrine of Germany, Europeans (French, English) are an Aryan race (or close to it), unlike the Slavs;
2) Hitler never hid his desire to have the most warm relations with the British, this is clearly written in Mein Kampf;
3) The Europeans lost the war quite quickly, they resisted, and rather sluggishly, only the British, and then in Africa. While Soviet soldiers were fighting at this particular moment, i.e. killed German soldiers. Those. the inhumane treatment of Russian prisoners of war was a kind of revenge;
4) Again, according to the racial doctrine in the post-war Third Reich, the number of Slavs (as well as Jews and Gypsies) was supposed to be significantly reduced, while there were no such plans for Europeans;

Let's continue reading the article “On the Geneva Convention”, here is another interesting quote:

With the outbreak of the war, it became clear that the extermination of not only prisoners, but also civilians was taking on increasingly horrific proportions. Trying to rectify the situation, on June 27, 1941, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav Molotov telegraphed the chairman of the ICRC about readiness Soviet Union to exchange lists of prisoners of war and the possibility of revising the attitude towards the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Soviet government bracketed the issue of joining the Geneva Convention of 1929, but at the same time approved by a resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated July 1, 1941, the "Regulations on Prisoners of War", based precisely on this convention and containing documentary evidence of the statement of compliance with international legal norms of warfare . In addition to it, orders of the NKVD of the USSR “On the procedure for keeping and recording prisoners of war in NKVD camps” dated August 7, 1941 and “On the state of prisoner of war camps” dated August 15, 1941 were issued.

Thus, from the liberal’s article itself, one can draw an unambiguous conclusion that for some reason the Soviet government cared about its prisoners of war, and for some reason it did not give a damn about the fact that Soviet soldiers were dying in captivity from hunger. Isn't that weird? After all, according to liberal logic, Stalin did not consider prisoners of war as people, and ordered them to be shot on the spot as traitors to the Motherland? Actually, in the next paragraph of the same article, this idea is revealed in sufficient detail:

But at the same time - within the Soviet Union - the thesis was put forward that Red Army soldier who was captured - a traitor. It was officially announced that soviet warrior does not surrender. The Internal Service Charter directly stated: A warrior is obliged to fully fulfill his military duty to the Motherland in battle. Nothing, including the threat of death, should force a soldier to surrender.

In support of this thesis, somewhat cropped excerpts from General Headquarters order No. 270 are given. We will examine in detail below how exactly they were trimmed, but now I would like to try to understand the logic of liberal historians. So, Stalin, a monster and a crook, signs the monstrous order No. 270, according to which any soldier who surrenders is a traitor and must be destroyed on the spot, and his relatives must be tortured in the Gulag. And at the same time, the USSR government is doing everything possible to improve the situation of Soviet prisoners of war! Where is the logic? What is the point in the actions of a cynical monster? After all, the worse the conditions of captivity for soldiers, the less desire they have to end up in it! It is enough to simply bring to the attention of the soldiers how those who are captured die of hunger, what humiliation and torture they are subjected to, and any desire to be captured will disappear by itself (or at least greatly decrease). Instead, Stalin is trying to improve the fate of the prisoners, which requires both diplomatic efforts and Money(for example, to improve the situation of German prisoners of war). Strange logic for a monster, isn't it?

In fact, already on July 17, 1941, the USSR, in a government note transmitted to Germany through Sweden, stated that it was acceding to the Hague Convention subject to reciprocity. Further, the USSR twice, in notes of the NKID dated November 25, 1941 and April 27, 1942, declared its de facto accession to the Hague Convention and the implementation of all its norms and demanded the same from the German side (http://tr.rkrp-rpk.ru /get.php?3034). Thus, despite the fact that the USSR government settled all legal problems related to international treaties regulating the treatment of prisoners of war, the fascist government continued to abuse Soviet soldiers. Strange - isn't it? It would seem that now Hitler had no reason not to fulfill, at a minimum, the provisions of the Hague Conference, but for some reason he is not somewhat concerned about this. Thus, the story about the fact that it was the non-signing of the Geneva Convention of 1929 that was the reason for the poor treatment of prisoners of war becomes untenable based on the example gross violation Germans of the provisions of the Hague Conference. The fascist government did not care about any international treaties! What prevented the Germans from complying with the provisions of the Hague Conference? In fact, the Geneva Convention itself added little regarding the rights of prisoners of war compared to the Hague Conference. For example, the implementation of these two points would have saved hundreds of thousands of Soviet prisoners of war who died from hunger and overwork:

The state may employ prisoners of war in accordance with their rank and abilities, with the exception of officers. This work should not be too burdensome and should not have anything to do with military operations.
…
The earnings of prisoners are assigned to improve their situation, and the balance is given to them upon release, minus the costs of their maintenance.

It is obvious that if these provisions of the Hague Conference were observed by the German side, the mortality rate among Soviet prisoners of war would not be so high. Exact number those who died in German captivity are still unknown exactly; different figures are given from 1,783,000 (G.F. Krivosheev) to 2,500,000 or more from German sources, this figure consists of 1,981,000 (died in the camps) + 473,000 ( executed) + 768,000 (died in transit camps or not registered). This is how the situation of prisoners of war is described in the book by German authors “Germany’s War against the Soviet Union 1941-1945”:

During World War II, the German Wehrmacht captured approximately 5.7 million Soviet troops. Of these, more than three million died before 1945, i.e. more than a half.

Political and military leadership The "Third Reich" considered Soviet prisoners of war not only as people of an "inferior race", but also as potential enemies of National Socialist Germany in the territory it occupied. Many Soviet soldiers, including the wounded, died on their way to assembly and transit camps, and some died while being transported to stationary camps. The relevant Wehrmacht supply services did too little to give the prisoners of war the opportunity to survive. The insufficient number of premises and the terrible conditions in them, extremely poor food, and poor medical care caused the fall and winter of 1941-1942. epidemics of typhus, which led to exorbitantly high mortality rates among prisoners of war.

The high mortality rate of Soviet prisoners of war was caused not only by the irresponsible actions of the relevant German services, but also by mass executions. Seriously wounded soldiers, whom the Wehrmacht wanted to get rid of first of all, were destroyed, as well as prisoners of war whose political beliefs or race distinguished them from total mass. The Wehrmacht assigned “special treatment” to prisoners of war to the Oberkommandos of the Security Police and SD.

Until February 1942, of the approximately 3.3 million Soviet soldiers captured by Germans, about two million died from hunger, cold, epidemics, or were shot

About the “war” against one’s army

And now let’s return to our favorite article “On the Geneva Convention”, in which, as you remember, we stopped at the point that describes the monstrous essence of Stalin, who brutally classifies anyone Soviet soldier, who surrendered to the traitors to the Motherland. This is how colorfully it is described in the article:

“In addition to existing legislative documents, on August 16, 1941, Order No. 270 of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command was issued, according to which commanders and political workers who surrendered were outlawed and subject to execution on the spot. Adult family members of military personnel sentenced to capital punishment (execution) for treason were subject to arrest and exile for a period of five years. The families of Red Army soldiers who surrendered were deprived of state benefits and assistance. Thus, in the first months of the war, the attitude towards prisoners of war received its final legislative conclusion.”

But here is how this statement is “proven”; for this purpose, quotes from order No. 270 are given in a slightly truncated form:

ORDER OF THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE SUPREME MAIN COMMAND OF THE RED ARMY No. 270 / August 16, 1941
1. ... those who surrender to the enemy are considered malicious deserters, whose families are subject to arrest as families of deserters who violated the oath and betrayed their homeland.
2. if... the chief or part of the Red Army soldiers, instead of organizing resistance to the enemy, prefer to surrender - destroy them by all means, both ground and air, and deprive the families of the Red Army soldiers who surrendered of state benefits and assistance.
3. .... and if necessary, shoot them on the spot

And now let’s read in full the above paragraphs of order No. 270, here’s how it sounded in the original:

1 Commanders and political workers who, during battle, tear off their insignia and (!) desert to the rear or surrender to the enemy, are considered malicious deserters, whose families are subject to arrest as families of deserters who violated the oath and betrayed their homeland.

Oblige all higher commanders and commissars to shoot on the spot such deserters from the command staff.

So, what fell under the knife of the liberal historian? Here's the part:

Commanders and political workers, during a battle, tearing off their insignia
AND
deserting to the rear or

I specifically highlighted the union AND, and also this phrase “during battle, they tear off their insignia” so that you can clearly see what “minor” details sometimes appear in the form of ellipses. So, the original order clearly states that not all commanders and political workers are subject to punishment, but only those of them who tore off their insignia during the battle (!) and (union I, I hope everyone understands what it means) then deserted to the rear or surrendered. Those. Not all those who surrendered were considered malicious deserters, but only those of them who, even during the battle, tore off their insignia in advance, in fact, thereby stopping resistance even during the battle and surrendering. It is obvious that in relation to those soldiers who continued stubborn battles with the Nazis, THESE were malicious traitors. What is actually written in the order.

Let's move on to the next point:

2. Those units and subunits who are surrounded by the enemy, selflessly fight to the last opportunity, take care of their material as the apple of their eye, fight their way to their own behind the rear of the enemy troops, defeating the fascist dogs.

Oblige every serviceman, regardless of his official position, to demand from a superior commander, if part of him is surrounded, to fight to the last opportunity in order to break through to his own, and if such a commander or part of the Red Army soldiers, instead of organizing a rebuff to the enemy, prefer to surrender, - to destroy them by all means, both ground and air, and the families of the Red Army soldiers who surrendered are deprived of state benefits and assistance.

So, at this point of the order we're talking about about individual renegades who, instead of organizing resistance to the enemy or trying to break out of encirclement, call for surrender, all the more so using their powers of power. For example, this is what the now well-known traitor Vlasov did; we know how it ended for him and for his subordinates. In addition, given how fate awaited Soviet prisoners of war in German captivity, in which at least half of them died total number those who surrendered - their only chance of salvation was to resist the enemy and try to escape from the encirclement. In this case, the chances of survival would be even greater than in a fascist concentration camp. Naturally, we must also take into account the factor of the combat ability of our army: if all commanders surrendered at any danger, then the war would end very quickly. What would happen next to all these soldiers and their families is well known from the Ost plan. At a minimum, those who would have survived after the war would have been third (or tenth) class people, without the right to receive even a secondary education (they would not even dream of higher education), without the right to occupy any serious positions, and also, most likely, all document flow would be conducted in human (i.e. German) language, and not in the dog languages ​​of Slavic subhumans. Not to mention the fact that the number of Slavs and other non-humans would be stylishly reduced so as not to interfere with the living space of people (i.e. Germans).

And the third paragraph of the order, cut off at the very least, in the original it looks like this:

3. To oblige the commanders and commissars of divisions to immediately remove from their posts the commanders of battalions and regiments who are hiding in cracks during the battle and are afraid to lead the course of the battle on the battlefield, demote them as impostors, transfer them to privates, and, if necessary, shoot them on the spot, promoting in their place brave and courageous people from junior command staff or from the ranks of distinguished Red Army soldiers.

I think there is nothing to comment on here, if from a paragraph of almost 60 words there are only 8 (!) left, then it is simply ridiculous to say that this edition of the text at least somehow corresponds to the original in meaning and content. However, the reader is not always lazy and reads the original text of one or another original document, and similar methods of grandfather Goebbels can work.

Conclusion

So, to summarize: the liberals’ claim that Nazi Germany treated Soviet prisoners of war inhumanely only because the USSR did not sign the Geneva Convention is true only if the following statements are true:

1) Hitler always, and especially during the Second World War, religiously observed all international legal norms, apparently fearing international sanctions(for example, cancellation of the Olympics);
2) A country that has signed the convention has the right not to comply with it under a far-fetched pretext (not specified in the convention itself);
3) Fascist Germany made no distinctions between the nations of the world, there was no racial theory, the Slavs and Aryans were blood brothers according to Hitler's ideas, all races on Earth were equally loved by the Fuhrer.

I hope there is no need to separately prove that at least one of these statements is false? In principle, in the article I wrote in detail about the first point, and the rest were discussed a little less. However, it seems to me that any sane person, even briefly familiar with history, will agree with me that all these statements are absurd and, in principle, do not need proof. However, this does not concern liberals - any, even absurd, statement of their teacher Joseph Goebbels is sacred to them and is not subject to discussion. They just believe it. They have this belief: the USSR is an evil empire, and England and the USA are good empires. Therefore, even the fiend of Hell named Adolf Hitler, in their proof of the global eternal guilt of the USSR, sometimes turns out to be a holy man, strictly observing all international legal agreements, equally loving all nations of the world (well, except for the Jews, of course) and advocating world peace!

Who is really to blame for treating captured Russians as “cattle”?

The treatment of Soviet prisoners of war during the Great Patriotic War was terrible. The Third Reich treated Russian prisoners like cattle. This is a proven fact:

Of course, when the Third Reich “smelled of frying,” the attitude changed; photos starting from 1943 already carry a different meaning:

But why is that? Why did the Germans treat prisoners “like animals” on the eastern front?

The leadership of the USSR and Stalin personally are widely blamed for this; supposedly the Soviets did not sign the Geneva Convention of 1929, and that is why the Germans, not burdened with legal responsibility, did not give the prisoners proper treatment.

The logic itself is flawed. How is it that the German war criminals who set up a huge number of concentration camps with terrible living conditions, and created them - to kill people. And these gentlemen were worried about the legal component. Funny.

Well, okay, let's try to understand this story from the very beginning.

The Geneva Convention of 1929, commonly known as the “convention concerning the treatment of prisoners of war,” is a sequential continuation of the Hague Convention of 1907, and indeed the USSR did not sign the Geneva Convention in full. It consisted of two parts:

1. Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.


2. Prisoners of War Convention.

So the USSR signed the first one, but not the second one.

Reason: On March 19, 1931, the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted a provision on prisoners of war, generally repeating the Geneva convention, but also having a number of differences, but the Geneva one was not signed due to the fact that Russian empire, signed the convention in The Hague in 1907, where, by the way, Russia presided, and the USSR, in turn, recognized this signature. The Soviet leadership did not consider it necessary to do this again. Moreover, in the opinion of the USSR, the Geneva Convention was worse; for example, there was a clause on the mandatory involvement of prisoners of war in work, which categorically did not suit the councils.

Already on July 17, 1941, i.e. less than a month after the start of the war, the NKID of the USSR sent a note to Sweden with a request to bring to the attention of Germany that:

But Germany did not give an answer, and neither did all subsequent statements, but the Nazis went to the meeting on this issue, only in 1943, a rhetorical question: “Why do you think?”

The thesis that the USSR and its leadership did not care about their compatriots who were captured is a lie. The People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs of the USSR constantly tried to resolve this issue.

So, the statements that Soviet prisoners of war were in the position of, excuse me, “animals” in captivity of the Germans, and this is entirely the fault of the USSR and Joseph Stalin personally, is a gross falsification and a complete lack of knowledge of history, yes, whatever history there is, even laziness “applicants” should take a look at Wikipedia.

And here is a specific answer to the question: Who is to blame for the way the Germans treated our grandfathers? And Adolf Hitler answered it:

“We are talking about a fight of destruction. If we do not look this way, then, although we defeat the enemy, in 30 years the communist danger will arise again... This war will be sharply different from the war in the West. In the East, cruelty itself is a blessing for the future. Commanders must sacrifice a lot to overcome their hesitation."

This is the beginning, and here is the continuation, after the start of the war:

Gulkevich's bayonet
My casual interest in the bayonet of the Mosin rifle led to an unexpected result - I discovered that this type of simple edged weapon has quite an interesting and difficult fate. Needle tetrahedral bayonet was adopted by the Russian Imperial Army simultaneously with the Mosin rifle back in the 19th century.

This bayonet was always supposed to be worn fixed, and therefore the rifle was sighted with the bayonet fixed. The advantage of using a bayonet this way was that the rifle was always ready for hand-to-hand combat.
Military experts calculated During the time when the fighter is holding his bayonet, he could fire 6-7 shots. Therefore, in defense, the always fixed bayonet of the Mosin rifle was especially valuable - the fighter, without stopping fire, switched to bayonet combat.
In addition, they believed that the bayonet was a factor reducing the chance of retreat and escape. The fact is that already in the wars of the late 19th century, the number of people killed and wounded with knives was negligible. However, it was the bayonet attack that, in most cases, put the enemy to flight.

Thus, main role It was not the actual use of the bayonet that mattered, but the threat of its use. Therefore, a fighter who does not have an effective bladed weapon begins to experience uncertainty.
However, no matter how good the long needle bayonet of the Mosinka was, the massive use of shrapnel and machine guns radically changed the nature of the battle.
Already at the beginning of the 20th century, this bayonet did not meet modern requirements. Its main drawback was that the bayonet always had to be worn attached.

An original solution to this problem was found shortly before the start of the First World War by Colonel ON THE. Gulkevich. He proposed a bayonet of an original design. Its bayonet was attached to the rifle and, due to the hinge, folded with its tip towards the butt.
The bayonet passed the test - it was used for a long time to hit the boards, the bayonet passed the test and was accepted into service. It is often written that Gulkevich’s bayonet is experimental, but this cannot be, if the model is adopted for service, it ceases to be experimental.
Gulkevich was equipped with a bayonet mainly by Cossack units. Reviews from combat units were enthusiastic. Later, weapons designer Fedorov would write that Gulkevich’s bayonet was discontinued due to deficiencies identified in it.

It was meant that as a result of prolonged wear and shaking, the hinge screw loosened itself. However, as it seems to me, the screw is an excuse, the real problem was the lack of production capacity. The Russian industry could not produce even a simple standard bayonet in sufficient quantity, so in the first place world war there were many different ersatz bayonets.
During the most difficult periods of the war, everything was used: captured Mannlichers, Berdans, Winchesters with a Henry brace, etc.

It is interesting that in the armies of Austria, Germany and France, which used a large number of Mosin rifles took a different route - they shot the three-ruler without a bayonet, and he the bayonet was worn on the belt in a special case. After the First World War the leadership Soviet Russia long time there was no modernization of weapons. We only got around to a rifle in the late 20s. The changes also affected the bayonet. In particular, a latch was made and now the bayonet no longer came loose, held tightly and did not interfere with shooting.
Why the production of Gulkevich bayonets was not resumed in the USSR at this time is a mystery to me. It can be assumed that this was done again for economic reasons.

Why start producing a new bayonet if automatic and self-loading rifles with blade bayonets are being prepared for serial production?

At the end of the 30s, the Soviet designer Tokarev F.V. developed and tested the SVT rifle. It was adopted into service and gradually began to replace old repeating rifles with it. IN fiction a lot has been written and is being written to this day that the rifle was unreliable, “lousy”, so it was gradually taken out of production.
However, it seems to me that the main The reason for the discontinuation of SVT was its high cost. History knows a lot of cases where there are wonderful examples of weapons that were withdrawn from service or not accepted for service due to their high cost.
The SVT suffered the fate of Gulkevich's bayonet - it was declared unreliable because it was not cheap enough.

Digressing a little, I want to dwell in more detail on the cost of weapons. Often on the Internet you can read a long list of complaints about the Mosin rifle: it is heavy, long, does not have at least a half-pistol bend, not the most convenient bolt, trigger, etc.
However, not many people know that even before the First World War, the chief of artillery of the Odessa Military District Lieutenant General N. I. Kholodovsky significantly modernized the Mosin rifle. The experimental specimen was called the “Mosin-Kholodovsky rifle.”
The weapon had remarkable characteristics: it was much shorter, lighter, and shooting from it was much more accurate. By the way, the bayonet of this rifle was also quite original: made of an alloy with aluminum.

Subsequently, many dreamers from the “French bakers” sighed: if only Kholodovsky’s rifle, and Gulkevich’s bayonet, made using Kholodovsky’s technology, then Russia would have the best rifle in the world!
But dreamers are dreamers. During the First World War, Russian industry could not even cope with orders for “wartime” three-line rifles with ersatz bayonets.

However, let us return to the period of the Great Patriotic War. The terrible burden on Soviet industry quickly forced the abandonment of SVT production and the resumption of mass release three-line arr. 1930. It was produced with the same constantly worn bayonet, which was already considered obsolete at the beginning of the century.
As it turned out, magazines supplemented with pistols and machine guns could well satisfy the needs of the front. But the rifle should be shorter, and the bayonet should be removable or foldable.
As a result, a competition was announced and out of 8 bayonets, the most suitable bayonet of the design was chosen N.S. Semina. This bayonet was equipped with a carbine mod. 1938, after which the carbine was called “carbine arr. 1944."

I came across information that supposedly Gulkevich’s bayonet was presented at the mentioned competition. It is possible that several decades after it was discontinued, it had a chance to return. However, the 1930 model rifle was excessively long even with a folding bayonet. That's why the carbine went into production.
Now we can only express regret that the Gulkevich bayonet was taken out of production during the First World War and its production was not resumed in 1930, during the modernization of the three-line.

Just in case, I’ll make a reservation: I am a “manufacturer” historian, not a “hardware worker”, and this post is not in my specialization. And everything I wrote above I read on the Internet. Therefore, anyone who provides more precise material- I will be grateful.