Let's be clear, there was no private property at the time in the Soviet Union. Moreover, what was called "personal" property, was very limited. For instance, the ownership of pretty much any gun was prohibited (maybe with the exception of hunting rifles). Therefore, the word "bought" is highly misleading. Even if she could buy a tank, let's do the numbers. Based on the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34 the tank cost would be at least 135,000 1943 rubbles. Making a comparison to M4 Sherman, which was about $45,000 1941 dollars, we will come to about 3 rubles to 1 dollar hypothetical exchange rate. Therefore the donation to mother-Russia of 50,000 1943-rubles is an equivalent of about $17,000 1945-dollars, or about $214,000 in 2017-dollars.

Now we finally can understand what piece of KGB-knitted propaganda this article is. I lived during the soviet times, and the median salary was barely covering food and clothing. Even today, the median income in Russia is less than $1000 per month. Did she work all her adult life without spending anything? Please keep in mind that productivity today is much higher.

> Let's be clear, there was no private property at the time in the Soviet Union

You don't know what you are talking about.

The same about the rest of your post.

Do a 5 minutes research to verify the Oktyabrskaya's story.

> You don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, he does. There was no way to buy a tank for a Soviet citizen. There was a way for a citizen to "buy" (massive quotes) a tank for a government, but that would be a pure propaganda feat.

> Do a 5 minutes research to verify the Oktyabrskaya's story.

And let me guess: I need to use Soviet sources which are absolutely biased in describing WW2?

> And let me guess: I need to use Soviet sources which are absolutely biased in describing WW2?

Talk about propaganda to me, please. Do you recommend me to watch some Hollywood movies to get the "real" picture?

Yes, please. They will hold more truth than Soviet sources.

Obviously, State Defense Committee subsidized the tank for her, "realizing the publicity opportunities", as Wikipedia says. So yes, that was propaganda, and the story is true at the same time.

How do we know this isn't just propaganda?

Ideally from historical sources, such as battlefield reports, diaries of her contemporaries, etc.

I think the question is, do the potential proof you speak of exist in this specific case

> She was then put through a five-month tank training program – unlike male recruits who were given far less time before being sent to the war front (often still unprepared)

I was recently reading an interview with an old Russian tanker who fought on the eastern front in WW2 and indeed, the training was almost symbolic. One thing he said they didn't have proper cannon rounds for training (early 1942) and had to practice using regular rifles inserted into a tank's gun barrel.

I do wonder how many of the (massive) number of plane crashes the Allied nations experienced were not due to manufacturing without much concern to safety, but instead the relative lack of training.

Basically symptoms of the same problem; everything was being done in a huge rush. You’d expect both, really.

Great story, but she wouldn't have been born a serf in 1905: it was abolished 44 years before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russia

Interesting I suppose, but I didn't see that she purchased the tank. It was assigned to her.

> For this purpose, I’ve deposited all my personal savings – 50,000 rubles – to the National Bank in order to build a tank. I kindly ask to name the tank ‘Fighting Girlfriend’ and to send me to the frontline as a driver of said tank.

Not that I have any idea how close 50,000 rubles would get you to a tank back then, but it seems she at least contributed to the cost of building it.

New cost for a T-34 mid war would be 150,000 to 200,000 rubles.

A US Sherman tank from the same time would be around $46,000 then, or about a half million in today’s dollars.

The less exciting but correct headline would be "Nazis killed her husband, she joined the army and became a tank driver".

True, but I suspect the deposit of her life savings was more symbolic from the point of view of the Soviet leadership. They saw an opportunity to both facilitate the ambitions of a true believer while promoting the idea that "if she can do it, why can't you?" to rally the troops.

Ultimately she achieved the retribution she desired and she should be remembered for her convictions and ability to follow through.

that would make an awesome movie.