Military Review

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?

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Same lech
    Same lech 29 October 2016 07: 33
    but what a nuisance - the USSR resisted. And the West urgently had to rebuild under relations with such an unexpected ally.

    Now it’s about the same ... smile
    Russia has resisted the onslaught of the liberal revolution of the 90s and the WEST is feverishly trying to come up with something for the further destruction of RUSSIA as an independent state ... this can be seen with the naked eye.
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 29 October 2016 11: 46
      In my opinion, there is a mistake in your comment. Before "resisted", you should put the particle "not". Russia is ruled by liberals led by Yeltsin's henchman Putin.
  2. Altona
    Altona 29 October 2016 07: 49
    In general, this all happened, only Russia lost many more territories in 1991, from Chop to Kushka. The West will crush us to the Urals.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 29 October 2016 08: 26
      Quote: Altona
      The West will crush us to the Urals.

      Hare Krsna? No, I wanted to say " am .arya will crack "!
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 29 October 2016 08: 40
    Respect to the author hi I put everything on the shelves ...
  4. Aleksander
    Aleksander 29 October 2016 09: 10
    A strange article full of inaccuracies:
    : Russia has finally lost Eastern Poland and Finland,.

    No East Poland existed in nature, and Russia lost its West Russian lands.
    Germany lost its colonies. I immediately focus on the fact that the two DOMINATING powers in Europe survived, main opponents on the battlefields of the First World

    But what about the UK and France, they are not basic and have not survived?

    Why shouldn't the Entente allies, who feared a resurgence of Pan-Germanism, go further and turn unified Germany into a "patchwork quilt" before the Bismarck era?

    Yes, because it was not 1945 (when they could, but they didn’t do it by mistake), but 1919 when Germany was not occupied at all and retained its military and economic potential
    I want to ask: why France, England and the USA did not stop Hitler at this stage?

    So, for example, France slipped into the 1923 in the Ruhr and, in shame, two years later was forced to get out of there - and this is right after Versailles !, And then Germany became even stronger, long before Hitler according to the Dawes plan for the 4 year from 1925 to 1929 year in Germany was uploaded 21 billion marks. And before Hitler the Versailles disarmament conditions were also grossly violated.
    And returning to Versailles:
    116 Article of the Versailles Accords:

    In accordance with the decisions included in Articles 259 and 292 of parts IX (Financial Provisions) and X (Economic Provisions) of this Treaty, Germany finally recognizes the cancellation of the Brest-Litovsk treaties, as well as any other treaties, agreements or conventions concluded by it with the Maximalist Government in Of Russia.

    Allied and Associated Powers formally stipulate the rights of Russia to receive any restitution and reparations from Germanybased on the principles of this Agreement.

    The Bolsheviks REFUSED the reparations put by Russia in the name of breaking the blockade of non-recognition, having concluded the Rappals Treaty with the recent occupier, who killed millions of compatriots during WWII.

    The Versailles Treaty was signed by the winners of 30 states, including Honduras and Hijas, except Russia, because of the stupid Brest shame that betrayed the interests of allies, including the Russian ones. Therefore, Russia was not able to participate in the world’s security system and prevent the arming of Germany, as a guarantor of the Versailles agreements along with England and France.

    The Brest shame concluded by the Bolshevik traitors, thus, became one of the main causes of WWII.
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 29 October 2016 11: 51
      Alexander, you want to reveal a secret. There were no winners in the First World War. It is no coincidence that Marshal Foch said that "this is not peace, but a truce for 20 years." This was the biggest crime in the history of mankind, when in a meat grinder, for the sake of the interests of a handful of capitalists, hiding behind some kind of national ideas (otherwise how else to throw the layman into the slaughter). So Brest was a justified way out of this nightmare, a way out, which was demanded by the soldiers themselves, who were voting for peace with their feet, deserting from the battlefields. A participant in that war, Hemingway once said: "The last war, from 1915 to 1918, was the greatest, most ruthless and mediocre massacre in history. And if someone says otherwise, he is just a liar."
    2. kamradserg
      kamradserg 29 October 2016 16: 30
      Your alignment does not take into account the situation in Russia. In February 17, the king was overthrown as a result of a coup, which was overseen by the ambassadors of France and Great Britain. After that, the British Parliament declared: "One of the British goals of the war has been achieved." Isn't it a shame?
      The Bolsheviks, who took power in October, and began to collect what the February liberalism did not manage to destroy, had to fight on many fronts, including against the "allies". Therefore, the Brest-Litovsk Peace was no shame.
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander 30 October 2016 07: 57
        Quote: kamradserg
        The Bolsheviks, who took power in October, and began to collect something

        Read anything other than red textbooks, for example, the Bolshevik Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia, which clearly indicates the right peoples of Russia for free self-determination up to the secession and formation of an independent state;
        Which they did.
        If you spend three minutes reading the history of Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, etc., you will find that they declared independence precisely after the arrival of the Bolsheviks, whom, naturally, no one recognized and whose coming and untied the hands of the nationalists and they declared independence precisely in 19188-1919 years
        1. kamradserg
          kamradserg 1 November 2016 11: 28
          Yeah, the Bolsheviks came to power and, bang, Ukrainian nationalists hit a piss in the head.))
          Or maybe someone prepared them for this, including involved in the legitimization of their separatist authorities: "On June 28 (July 11), a delegation of the Provisional Government consisting of A. Kerensky, I. Tsereteli, M. Tereshchenko arrived in Kiev to improve relations with the Central Rada. The delegation said that the government would not object to the autonomy of Ukraine, but asks to refrain from unilateral declaration of this principle and leave the final decision to the All-Russian Constituent Assembly [29]. The negotiations ended with an agreement based on mutual concessions. " - this is not a "red textbook" - this is a completely liberal Wikipedia. There is, in general, a good section, briefly showing how the provisional government prepared Ukraine for independence - "Provisional Government and Ukraine"
          "to improve relations with the Central Council" !!!
  5. Energetik81
    Energetik81 29 October 2016 10: 06
    Take a closer look, can you see the new Hitler on the horizon? Seen - Party Alternative for Germany
  6. Bask
    Bask 29 October 2016 11: 47
    And again, an article from the series-Great Russia against the whole world. Germany and Russia, the two main opponents of the WWII, are of course strong. Only trouble, the main forces of Germany fought in the West, and in the East, mainly troops of Austria-Hungary opposed Russia. Nicholas II no one he didn’t drag him into the war by force, he himself slipped in, despite the fact that the country was not ready for war. In 1915, Russia was stupidly nothing to fight, and if the West did not supply ammunition, everything ended much earlier for Russia. About the Rappala Treaty and the Brest Peace in the comments have already said, I will not repeat.
    Well, as to the fact that England did not crush Germany in 1935, everything was simple, having suffered huge losses in the WWII, the West simply did not want a repetition of such a massacre, and by hook or by crook tried to avoid a war. So the conspiracy of the West against Russia as if nothing to do with.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 1 November 2016 23: 57
      Quote: Bask
      Nobody forcibly dragged Nicholas II into the war; he himself poked his head in spite of the fact that the country was not ready for war.

      Of course, you can get involved in a war right away, when "the country is not ready for war" and we get a war like under Nicholas II, but you can prepare to the stop and wait for the enemy to attack you himself - like under Stalin, which scenario do you like best?
  7. Caretaker
    Caretaker 29 October 2016 11: 53
    Quote: Aleksander
    The Versailles Treaty was signed by the winners of 30 states, including Honduras and Hijas, except Russia, because of the stupid Brest shame that betrayed the interests of allies, including the Russian ones. Therefore, Russia was not able to participate in the world’s security system and prevent the arming of Germany, as a guarantor of the Versailles agreements along with England and France.

    The Brest shame concluded by the Bolshevik traitors, thus, became one of the main causes of WWII.

    The government of Soviet Russia could not participate in the signing of the Versailles Treaty, because not recognized by signatories. Moreover, the quote directly indicates that
    ... Germany finally recognizes the cancellation of the Brest-Litovsk treaties, as well as any other treaties, agreements or conventions concluded by it with the Maximalist Government in Russia.
  8. Vz.58
    Vz.58 29 October 2016 14: 51
    Questions to the author
    "I evoke the spirit of the Versailles Treaty!"
    Why not performed? Why is the state of Kurdistan not created?
    "Now let's take a break from Europe for a moment and return to our homeland."
    Where is your homeland? On Mars or in Africa, or in Asia?
    "But Hitler, with his crazy ideas of racial superiority, with his odiousness, his policies of mass terror, was the most attractive."
    How many attractive people in Russia now? Starting Kadyrov and Surgeon? These terrorists will force you to walk in line and do anything that doesn’t bark and sprinkle with saliva. Although Zaldostanov is not sure, this one will lick any hand, if only this hand would serve from its table and scratch behind the ear
  9. samarin1969
    samarin1969 29 October 2016 17: 42
    "And everything is simple - in the East, the main geopolitical enemy continues to exist - Russia, and besides, with a new political and economic system alien to world capital. And Germany was saved." ...
    During the discussion of the Treaty of Versailles (first half of 1919), Russia appeared to be a defeated country that declared democratic values. The reason for the preservation of a united Germany was different. The German people, and so was deprived of the army, humiliated by reparations and was declared the sole culprit of the war. If there was still an attempt to dismember Germany, then the explosion of German national identity could be dangerous for the victorious powers. The Germans considered articles of the Treaty of Versailles too harsh. (At the time of the armistice, the German armies were on foreign territory and were not defeated).