I call the spirit of the Treaty of Versailles!
To the question about the "instigators" of the Second World War and "inciting"
Good day to all. To begin with, I will give a good saying: "He who has no future seeks himself in the past." Apparently, following this maxim, last week the "sworn" friends of Poland and Ukraine once again removed from the cabinet stories thoroughly dusty skeleton and loudly bristling bones. Yes, it’s about the notorious “Declaration of Memory and Solidarity of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine”, in which (not for the first time) the unfortunate Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact is discussed.
The conclusions were expected and therefore uninteresting: the USSR was the arsonist of World War II, blah blah blah. As they say, swam - we know. Honestly, I did not expect that this topic would cause such a violent reaction, and from both sides. It would seem that this is not new, this issue is being discussed from the 80s of the last century and, logically, should already lose its relevance. Known and arguments of both parties. The so-called “Munich Agreement”, which preceded the occupation of Czechoslovakia by Hitler, is usually cited as a counter argument. Now the passions have subsided a little, the opponents spattered with saliva dispersed in the corners and calmed down, each remaining his own opinion.
Allow me to throw my little pebble in a quiet swamp. And for starters, I propose not to be limited to 1938 and 1940, but to dig a little deeper, by June 1919. I invoke the spirit of the Treaty of Versailles! Yes, the very one, according to the articles of which the armed forces of Germany should have been limited to a 100-strong army; compulsory military service was canceled, the bulk of the surviving naval fleet subject to transfer to the winners, severe restrictions were also imposed on the construction of new warships. In addition, Germany was forbidden to have many modern weapons - military Aviation, armored vehicles (with the exception of a small number of obsolete vehicles - armored vehicles for the needs of the police). Aw, why on the Wehrmacht so famously traveled around Europe? Really on bicycles? “Follow the river from its beginnings. The truth today - tomorrow will be a lie” - wrote Friedrich von Paulus. We follow.
The outcome of the First World War was the collapse of four European empires. Two - Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian - finally collapsed, forever losing pre-war borders. But Russian and German were able to maintain their territorial integrity, although a few “losing weight”: Russia finally lost Eastern Poland and Finland, Germany lost its colonies. Immediately I emphasize that two DOMINATORS in Europe have survived, the main opponents on the battlefields of the First World War. And if Russia survived in spite of the efforts of the former allies in the Entente (civil war and intervention), then with Germany everything is more complicated. Yes, Germany was defeated, deprived of colonies, bound by the Versailles Treaty, which forbade the possession of armed forces and a fleet. Giant reparations were imposed on Germany. BUT (!) Why would the Allies on the Entente, who were so afraid of the revival of Pan-Germanism, not go further and turn the united Germany into a “patchwork quilt” before the Bismarck era? As they say, she died that way. And everything is simple - in the East, the main geopolitical adversary continues to exist - Russia, besides with a new, political and economic system alien to world capital. And Germany was saved. Preserved as a world capital instrument (primarily UK and USA capital) for future expansion in Europe.
Initially, the financial aces of Great Britain and the New World are in the “waiting mode”, so to speak, hoping that the USSR will not withstand the devastation and famine, aggravating the situation with a political and economic blockade, fueling anti-Soviet organizations conducting subversive activities in the USSR - in short, a full bunch of methods, who will later be christened the Cold War. The turning point can be considered 1928 - 1929 year. In the USSR, the first five-year plan for the development of the national economy is being adopted, and the West is beginning to "bash" the global financial crisis. From this moment it becomes clear that Russia cannot stop it without external efforts. From that moment on, the world begins to observe in Germany the political and economic processes that aim at the coming to power of a new figure - Hitler.
The so-called "industrial miracle" of Germany has already written volumes, let’s leave the financial part to economists and move on to two, in my opinion, main facts: first, Germany’s refusal to pay reparations and denunciation by Hitler of the Versailles Treaty, which forbade Germany to have a full-fledged army and navy. Those who are foaming at the mouth about the innocence of the West to the formation of Hitler, I want to ask: why did France, England and the United States not stop Hitler already at this stage? The “economic miracle” is fine, the growth of industry, the improvement of the standard of living — yes, as many as you like, but how does the refusal of reparations and the course towards militarization of Germany fit in? What did it cost the former allies on the Entente to punch the table with their fists? What could Germany have opposed 1935 in March to the three most powerful world powers, even if it was shaken by the global crisis? Nothing. As the saying goes, "and the king is naked." The only conclusion is that Hitler was needed for a new project of world war. It is necessary to fulfill the tasks that were not solved in the First World War: to finally subordinate the Old World to the interests of the "island" states, which at that time were the main financial powers. As a result, the "mistress of the seas" Great Britain signed the Anglo-German Maritime Agreement of 1935, complacently, pushing the interests of its European ally, France, at this stage. Hitler's Kriegsmarine received seven feet under the keel.
Now let's take a break from Europe for a minute and return to our homeland. At one time (and now, probably) in certain circles the book of defector Vladimir Rezun "Icebreaker" was extremely popular, in which the author (in great detail, with appropriate calculations) tried to prove that Hitler was Stalin's product. Say, Stalin carefully nurtured and fed the Nazi regime, so that under the guise of a liberator he would bring the ideals of communism to Europe on bayonets. I have only one question: so it was Stalin who managed to put pressure on the UK, so that Hitler could break the Versailles Treaty with impunity, as a result of which Germany became the “third Reich” with all the ensuing consequences? Is our Joseph Vissarionovich too powerful for 1935? Nastykovochka turns.
So, having received the blessing from the strong of the financial world, Hitler sets about to fulfill the tasks entrusted to him. Everything that happens further, up to May 1940, is perfectly coordinated with the plans of the "island" capital: Austria's ashlus, the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the defeat of Poland (with the full acquiescence of the western guarantors), Germany's "sluggish" sluggish war with France and Great Britain. The picture is broken 17 May 1940, when Hitler instead of striking the USSR across the lands of the conquered Poland, suddenly hacks the Maginot Line and drives the “sponsors” to the tail and mane to the English Channel. It drives, however, quite correctly, for example, practically without interfering with the evacuation of the British to the metropolis. What happened to cute Adi?
In the West, often "offended" statements, say, possessed the Fuhrer was stupid and bit the hand that fed him. No, Hitler was not stupid at all, and he was well aware that the West had prepared for him the role of a kamikaze, who by his own death opened the way for the main forces. Therefore, to the last to attack the USSR.
Let's take a look at the map of Europe at the time of June 1941. Isn't it something familiar? Isn't that the “United Europe” that we have today? True, much more monolithic and strong than today. Having behind such a base, Hitler could well try to bargain with yesterday's "partners." And to be more compliant, for example, pobombit England. Going to the East, having an open front in the West, was insane. Does Hitler look like a madman? I would venture to suggest that Hess’s flight to England in May, 1941 was the last attempt to agree to curtail military operations in the West to unleash the hands in the East. Hitler demanded LEGAL guarantees of immunity, which could only be obtained by the conclusion of peace. The result is known. I think the maximum that Hitler was able to achieve was some verbal assurances that the war in the West would not enter the active phase. The situation that is called "shah" - from the West "sponsors" put pressure on, in the East, the Soviet Union is gaining strength. Only one way out - to strike immediately, until the rearmament and training of the Red Army forces is completed.
They may object to me - which prevented Hitler from spitting on agreements with the West and, united with the USSR, to set up a united front in Europe, especially since he had the notorious Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in his hands. I will try to answer. If a political leader is not self-sufficient initially, if he is done, his “creators” will always have leverage, even physical elimination. Hitler did not come to power, he was led like a bull to the slaughterhouse. In the current situation, Hitler had the only hope - to overthrow the USSR with a blitzkrieg and, relying on the captured resources of Russia, to try to withstand the pressure of "partners." Maybe it all turned out well - BUT (!) Yesterday's sponsors announce economic support for the USSR (which means there will be no more bloodshed), this is followed by Pearl Harbor and the United States entering the war. EVERYTHING! From this point on, the Third Reich was doomed. Even with the victory over the USSR, Hitler could not beat the two most powerful financial powers in the world.
The story has no subjunctive mood, but let's imagine that the blitzkrieg was a success. The main forces of the Wehrmacht, battered and frazzled, are stretched across the expanses of Russia. What's next? And then again Operation Overlord, the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Europe. Why? Because the United States and Great Britain are still in a state of war with Germany. And in Europe it is full of pro-Hitler regimes that are in alliance with Germany and, as a result, are also subject to defeat and occupation by the liberators. Everything is more than logical. Verbal guarantees that Hitler allegedly received? Do not tell, the price of the word capitalist is known to all. In terms of areal language - Adolf "was bred like a sucker." Did he know about it, sitting down in a chair of the Reich Chancellor? Maybe. Could you resist this? Having a bunch of unpaid bills from the Anglo-American capital - no.
I will say a seditious thing now, but in my personal opinion - Hitler is a figure in the pre-war politics RANDOM. If he had not been so charismatic, so odious, so obsessed with power, there would have been a bunch of other candidates for his place. Wasn’t it enough in pre-war Germany there were parties and political leaders? But Hitler, with his crazy ideas of racial superiority, with his odiousness, his policy of mass terror, was the most attractive. Why? Yes, because a mad dog is not a pity to shoot to the applause of the audience. Here, as they say, the worse - the better. So everything was planned perfectly, but what a nuisance — the USSR survived. And the West urgently had to adapt to relations with such an unexpected ally. The result, in fact, was the Tehran Conference of 1943, when it finally became clear that the turning point in the war had come, the Soviet troops would not stop at the border of the USSR and the western "allies" urgently need to prepare a landing in Europe to grab at least part of the winning pie.
After the war, many were naively surprised by the sharp cooling of relations between former allies. If we take for axiom all of the above, there is nothing strange in this. To put it in modern language — if not Plan A, then Plan B. By and large, the “island” capital, though partially, has reached its goals, having established itself as a hegemon in the Old World. Now this process continues. Look closely, is it not visible on the horizon of the new Hitler?
- Andrey Minkin