Military Review

Is Trotsky really right?

54
We propose to consider the work of LD Trotsky "Joseph Stalin. Experience characteristics ", published in the book" Trotsky L. Portraits of revolutionaries "(Moscow, 1991, p. 46 – 60), in the part concerning the Second World War. For ease of analysis, Trotsky’s text is highlighted in bold.


“The alliance of Stalin and Hitler [1], so startling, inevitably grew out of fear of [the Soviet] bureaucracy before the war. This alliance could be foreseen: diplomats should only change points in time. This union was foreseen, in particular, by the author of these lines. But gentlemen diplomats, like mere mortals, usually prefer plausible predictions to correct predictions. Meanwhile, in our crazy era, correct predictions are most often implausible. ” (pp. 58).

Is Trotsky really right?


Here, of course, we are talking about foreign diplomats, since Soviet diplomats themselves were part of the Soviet bureaucracy. The matter is not in the “glasses”, but, firstly, in the organic rejection of the Bolshevik regime by the West, and secondly, in the historically established geopolitical rivalry between Russia and Great Britain. That is, in the future, the Nazi regime presented itself to Britain, the United States and France as enemy No. 2.

When Trotsky speaks of fear of “[Soviet] bureaucracy before the war,” he thus refutes the hypothesis of the attack against Hitler being prepared by Stalin, so developed in particular by V. Rezun (V. Suvorov).

Here we also see a reproach to the Soviet nomenclature for abandoning Trotsky’s idea of ​​a permanent revolution.

"A union with France, with England, even with the United States could benefit the USSR only in the event of war." (pp. 58).

In peacetime, an effective union of the USSR with these powers was not possible due to political short-sightedness, or rather, the ideological intransigence of Great Britain, which became the cause of its political short-sightedness. Suffice it to recall the assassination in 1934 of French Foreign Minister Louis Bart, who spoke in favor of creating a collective security system with the Soviet Union.


L. Bartu

France’s new foreign minister, Pierre Laval, who replaced the murdered Bart, took the path of appeasing Germany, and later Italy, which the French government needed, acutely feeling the German threat. So, in January, 1935 in Rome, Laval and Mussolini signed the so-called "Rome Pact", also known as the "Laval Agreement - Mussolini" - a package of agreements by which France tried to disrupt the German-Italian rapprochement, and Italy - to get diplomatic support their actions in Africa.


P. Laval (left) and B. Mussolini (right)

However, the growth of public discontent and the activity of Soviet diplomacy forced Laval to take concrete steps to create a system of collective security. December 5 1934 in Geneva, the People's Commissar MM. Litvinov and Laval signed an agreement on the mutual interest of the USSR and France in concluding the Eastern Regional Pact, that is, a mutual assistance agreement, the idea of ​​which, in the whole of Eastern Europe, was put forward at the time to Bart. December 7 Czechoslovakia acceded to this agreement. Despite the fact that because of the German opposition, the Eastern Pact project was not implemented, the Geneva Protocol created conditions for concluding full-fledged agreements on mutual assistance between the USSR and France in Paris and the USSR and Czechoslovakia in Prague in May 1935. Moscow and Paris demonstrated during Laval’s visit to Moscow in May 1935. However, the French government agreed to start negotiations on concrete steps to provide mutual assistance in the event of war only in the spring of 1938, that is, after occupying ii Czechoslovakia.


P. Laval (left) and MM. Litvinov (right)

“But the Kremlin most wanted to avoid war. Stalin knows that if the USSR, in alliance with democracies, had emerged victorious from the war, then on the road to victory, he would certainly have weakened and dropped the current oligarchy. The task of the Kremlin is not to find allies for victory, but to avoid war. This can be achieved only by friendship with Berlin and Tokyo. This is the initial position of Stalin since the Nazi victory (pp. 58).

Here Trotsky, as shown история, wrong. First, Stalin, of course, understood that war was inevitable. Secondly, as is well known, “on the road to victory,” the USSR did not at all “throw off the current oligarchy,” and did not even “weaken” it. As a result of World War II, Stalin became a victorious leader, and the USSR became a superpower with ambitions for world leadership.

“It is also impossible to close our eyes to the fact that it is not Chamberlain [2], but Hitler appeals to Stalin. In the Fuhrer, the owner of the Kremlin finds not only what is in himself, but also what he lacks. Hitler, bad or good, was the initiator of a great movement. His ideas, no matter how miserable they were, managed to unite millions. This is how the party grew, which armed its leader with a power not yet seen in the world. Nowadays, Hitler - a combination of initiative, treachery and epilepsy - is going no less and no more than how to rebuild our planet in the image and likeness of his own (p. 58 – 59).

Here the kinship of the totalitarian souls of Hitler and Stalin is evident.


A.-N. Chamberlain

“Stalin’s figure and his path are different. Not Stalin created the device. The apparatus created Stalin. But the apparatus is a dead machine, which, like a pianol, is incapable of creativity. Bureaucracy is imbued with the spirit of mediocrity. Stalin is the most prominent mediocrity of the bureaucracy. His strength lies in the fact that he expresses the instinct of self-preservation of the ruling caste more firmly, more resolutely and mercilessly than all others. But this is his weakness. He is perceptive at short distances. Historically, he is short-sighted. An outstanding tactician, he is not a strategist. This is proven by his behavior in 1905, during the last 1917 war of the year. Consciousness of his mediocrity, Stalin always carries in himself. Hence his need for flattery. Hence his envy towards Hitler and secret admiration for him. ” (pp. 59).

Here Trotsky is clearly exaggerating.

“According to the story of the former head of Soviet espionage in Europe, Krivitsky [3], Stalin was greatly impressed by the purges made by Hitler in June 1934 of the year in his own party.

"This is the leader!" Said the sluggish Moscow dictator to himself. Since that time, he has clearly imitated Hitler. The bloody purges in the USSR, the farce of the "most democratic constitution in the world", and finally, the current invasion of Poland - all of this was inspired by German genius with a mustache by Charlie Chaplin to Stalin. "
(pp. 59).

It is unlikely that this was the cause of Stalinist repression.


V.G. Krivitsky

“The Kremlin’s lawyers — sometimes, incidentally, his opponents — are trying to establish an analogy between Stalin’s union of Hitler and the Brest-Litovsk peace 1918 of the year. The analogy is similar to mockery. Negotiations in Brest-Litovsk were conducted openly in the face of all mankind. The Soviet state in those days did not have a single combat-ready battalion. Germany attacked Russia, seized the Soviet regions and military reserves. The Moscow government had no choice but to sign the peace, which we ourselves openly called the capitulation of an unarmed revolution to a powerful predator. There was no question of our help to Hohenzollern [4]. As for the current pact, it was concluded in the presence of the Soviet army of several million; his immediate task is to facilitate Hitler's defeat of Poland; finally, the intervention of the Red Army under the guise of the “liberation” of 8 by millions of Ukrainians and Belarusians leads to the national enslavement of 23 by millions of Poles. Comparison reveals not a resemblance, but the exact opposite. ” (pp. 59).

Trotsky is silent that he personally refused to sign a peace treaty with the Germans in Brest-Litovsk in February 1918.

Yet his “immediate task,” that is, the Non-Aggression Pact, is not “to facilitate Hitler's defeat of Poland,” but to push the USSR’s borders west on the eve of the war with Germany, a war Stalin had no doubts about.

“With the occupation of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, the Kremlin is trying first and foremost to give the population patriotic satisfaction for a hated union with Hitler. But Stalin had his own personal motive for invading Poland, almost as always - a revenge motive. In 1920, Tukhachevsky, the future marshal, led the Red troops to Warsaw. Future Marshal Egorov was advancing on Lemberg [5]. Stalin walked with Yegorov. When it became clear that Tukhachevsky on the Vistula was threatened with a counterattack, the Moscow command gave Yegorov an order to turn from Lemberg direction to Lublin in order to support Tukhachevsky. But Stalin was afraid that Tukhachevsky, taking Warsaw, would “intercept” Lemberg from him. Hiding behind the authority of Stalin, Egorov did not fulfill the order of the bid. Only four days later, when the critical situation of Tukhachevsky was fully revealed, Yegorov’s army turned to Lublin. But it was too late: the disaster broke out. At the top of the party and the army, everyone knew that Stalin was responsible for the defeat of Tukhachevsky. The current invasion of Poland and the seizure of Lemberg have a rematch for Stalin over the grand failure of 1920 of the year. ” (p. 59 – 60).


M.N. Tukhachevsky



A.I. Yegorov

It is known that Stalin was a vindictive and vindictive man. Otherwise he would not be Stalin! Nevertheless, Stalin was, above all, a pragmatist, otherwise he would not come to the Yaroslavl station to personally accompany the Japanese delegation, led by Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka, after signing the "Neutrality Pact between the USSR and Japan" 13 on April 1941.




“However, the superiority of Hitler’s strategist over tactical man Stalin is obvious. By the Polish campaign, Hitler ties Stalin to his chariot, deprives him of his freedom to maneuver; he compromises him and in the process kills the Comintern. No one will say that Hitler became a communist. Everyone says that Stalin became an agent of fascism. But even at the price of a humiliating and treacherous union, Stalin will not buy the main thing: peace " (pp. 60).

Yes, Stalin did not buy peace. But he continued to maneuver freely, as can be seen from the example of the “Neutrality Pact between the USSR and Japan” mentioned above, and the example of the Soviet-Finnish war 1939 – 1940. The Comintern, on the other hand, was abolished on 15 in May of 1943 by the need to open the 2 front by its allies in the anti-Hitler coalition.

“None of the civilized nations will be able to hide from the world cyclone, no matter how strict the laws on neutrality may be. Least of all, the Soviet Union will succeed. At each new stage, Hitler will place ever higher demands on Moscow. Today, he gives his Moscow friend a temporary storage "Great Ukraine". Tomorrow he will raise the question of who should be the master of this Ukraine. Both Stalin and Hitler violated a number of treaties. How long will the contract last? ” (pp. 60).

Here, as history has shown, Trotsky was right.

“The sanctity of allied commitments will seem like an insignificant prejudice when peoples will writhe in clouds of suffocating gases. "Save yourself, who can!" - will be the slogan of governments, nations, classes. The Moscow oligarchy, in any case, will not survive the war, which it so thoroughly feared. The fall of Stalin will not save, however, Hitler, who with the infallibility of a somnambulist is attracted to the abyss " (pp. 60).

Only valid in relation to Hitler.

“Hitler cannot rebuild the planet even with the help of Stalin. It will be rebuilt by others. ” (pp. 60).

Right!

“22 September 1939 of the year.
Coyoacan [6] »
(pp. 60).


Author's notes:
[1] This is the 23 August non-aggression treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It is noteworthy that Trotsky’s work in question was dated less than a month after the conclusion of the “Pact”.
[2] Chamberlain, Arthur Neville - British Prime Minister in 1937 – 1940 He is sometimes confused with his brother, Joseph Austen Chamberlain, the British Foreign Secretary in 1924 – 1929, who was addressed in 1927 by “our response to Chamberlain”.
[3] Krivitsky, Walter Germanovich (his real name is Samuil Gershevich Ginsberg) - Soviet intelligence officer, defector, author of the book “I Was an Agent of Stalin: Notes of the Soviet Intelligence Officer” (M., 1996).
[4] This is the German Emperor Wilhelm II, who originated from the Hohenzollern dynasty.
[5] Lemberg - the Austrian name of the city.
[6] Coyoacan is a town in Mexico, currently part of the capital city of Mexico City.
Author:
54 comments
Ad

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: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. inkass_98
    inkass_98 22 June 2017 07: 11
    +23
    I would like to note two points:
    - Stalin did not conclude any “alliance” with Hitler. There was a non-aggression pact, which is obviously a completely different matter.
    - I can assure you with all responsibility that Trotsky, having come to power instead of Stalin, would have created such a “revolutionary order” in the country and the world that Hitler would have been envious of the scale of repression and purges.
    1. Kenxnumx
      Kenxnumx 22 June 2017 08: 52
      +4
      Do you really think that a non-attack pact was the only one? Trotsky is no worse than Stalin. And in terms of political struggle, he would hardly use the methods of Stalin. Another thing is that for the USSR Trotsky’s ideas would be completely destructive.
      1. inkass_98
        inkass_98 22 June 2017 09: 27
        +8
        The agreement with Germany was not the only one. Otherwise, they would not have received raw materials from the USSR, and we would not have had information about German weapons (at least). Allied commitments arise after the signing of the relevant Entente-type treaty, NATO, the Warsaw Pact or the CSTO.
        So do not confuse warm with soft.
        1. zenion
          zenion 22 June 2017 18: 33
          +8
          All the time Hitler got what he needed from America, although America was at war with Germany. In 2000, archives were to open about which banks and industrialists continued to supply Hitler. Banks with money for purchasing abroad, industrialists with ready-made motors and steel for the Fuhrer. But such an addition to the law was adopted to postpone the disclosure of facts until 2050. When the US chief archivist was asked for what reason, he jokingly said that there are still people and their children who remember the stories of their relatives about the war, in addition, in order to prevent pogroms.
      2. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk 22 January 2018 13: 28
        0
        Quote: Ken71
        Do you really think that a non-attack pact was the only one? Trotsky is no worse than Stalin. And in terms of political struggle, he would hardly use the methods of Stalin. Another thing is that for the USSR Trotsky’s ideas would be completely destructive.

        Dear, you are contradicting yourself. Either Trotsky’s “no worse than Stalin”, then “Trotsky’s ideas would be completely destructive.” You really understand yourself.
    2. ava09
      ava09 22 June 2017 10: 00
      +17
      (c) “The alliance of Stalin with Hitler so astonishing everyone (c) After this, through a deceitful phrase, the whole essence of Judas, who threw it, becomes clear. The non-aggression pact was concluded by Stalin only under the influence of countries that had already concluded alliances with Hitler. Moreover, the Non-aggression pact between the USSR and Germany (NOT the UNION) was concluded after the West had already licked Hitler’s boots.
      1. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk 22 January 2018 14: 04
        +1
        Quote: ava09
        (c) “The alliance of Stalin with Hitler so astonishing everyone (c) After this, through a deceitful phrase, the whole essence of Judas, who threw it, becomes clear. The non-aggression pact was concluded by Stalin only under the influence of countries that had already concluded alliances with Hitler. Moreover, the Non-aggression pact between the USSR and Germany (NOT the UNION) was concluded after the West had already licked Hitler’s boots.

        A bit wrong. Stalin was forced to conclude an agreement not because European states had already concluded such agreements with Hitler (see the years when they were concluded), but because it failed, due to opposition from Poland and not only, an attempt to create , on the initiative of the USSR, the anti-Hitler coalition represented by England, France and the USSR. According to which Poland was obliged to let Soviet troops through its territory. And this agreement just speaks of the strategic farsightedness and wisdom of Stalin. By the way, the initiative to conclude a treaty belongs to Germany and Stalin managed to get a profit out of it - he said something like this - An ECONOMIC agreement should become a precondition for such a treaty. "According to which, later, the USSR supplied Germany: - a feather, wood, unenriched manganese ore and so on. And Germany is equipment for factories: the chemical, metalworking, aviation industries, etc. I believe that it is not difficult for a thinking person to understand what this means.
        1. ava09
          ava09 24 January 2018 07: 20
          0
          good That's right, I just didn’t want to write a lot of bukoff. On "VO" the public responds better to slogans ...) And you need to directly, at least to Comte, there will be "more fun".)
    3. Roman 11
      Roman 11 22 June 2017 12: 40
      +1
      Quote: inkass_98
      - Stalin did not conclude any “alliance” with Hitler. There was a non-aggression pact, which is obviously a completely different matter.

      Volkogonov printed a secret map of the partition of Poland with signatures; he, as a historian and colonel-general, had access to the archives.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 22 June 2017 12: 49
        +3
        Volkogonov was never a historian, he was a general-political officer of the highest rank, and he always hesitated with the party line.
        1. Roman 11
          Roman 11 22 June 2017 13: 12
          +2
          Quote: bober1982
          Volkogonov was never a historian, he was a general-political officer of the highest rank, and he always hesitated with the party line.

          You know better laughing
          And what could the deputy politician order a fake in the archives ..... Slightly what is wrong with the Stalinists, immediately historians are not historians and documents are fake.

          And who is the truth, Rezun? He also has more than one pack of documents from "other" archives. laughing
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 22 June 2017 13: 21
            +2
            Quote: Novel 11
            You know better

            I agree, I know him as the former Head of the Political Administration of the SA and the Navy, I found those blessed times.
            Quote: Novel 11
            A little bit wrong with the Stalinists

            Curiously, no one has yet called, and did not rank among the Stalinists.
            Quote: Novel 11
            And who is the truth, Rezun?

            This is what, there is no question of him, and the Stalinists do not respect him.
        2. Krasnoyarsk
          Krasnoyarsk 22 January 2018 14: 09
          0
          Quote: bober1982
          Volkogonov was never a historian, he was a general-political officer of the highest rank, and he always hesitated with the party line.

          We know who Volkogonov is and what goals he pursued while doing "historical" research. So, don’t ...
      2. Dart2027
        Dart2027 24 June 2017 11: 50
        +1
        Quote: Novel 11
        printed secret section map of Poland with signatures

        To begin with, for some reason no one saw the originals. Only some incomprehensible copies of what is unknown.
        1. Krasnoyarsk
          Krasnoyarsk 22 January 2018 14: 12
          +1
          Quote: Dart2027
          Quote: Novel 11
          printed secret section map of Poland with signatures

          To begin with, for some reason no one saw the originals. Only some incomprehensible copies of what is unknown.

          Just as no one saw the secret application to the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact. A squeal, a squeal ...
      3. Strategia
        Strategia 18 October 2017 20: 54
        0
        Not partition of Poland, but differentiation of powers. Stalin did not betray Poland, betrayed her - as an ALLIANCE (!) In the dismemberment of the Czech Republic - Hitler.
    4. Alikos
      Alikos 22 June 2017 22: 06
      +4
      Quote: inkass_98
      I would like to note two points:
      - Stalin did not conclude any “alliance” with Hitler. There was a non-aggression pact, which is obviously a completely different matter.
      - I can assure you with all responsibility that Trotsky, having come to power instead of Stalin, would have created such a “revolutionary order” in the country and the world that Hitler would have been envious of the scale of repression and purges.



      Mason Trotsky would flood Russia with rivers of blood, and the Russian people would use it as fuel to kindle the fire of the world revolution ...
      In general, he is still a scoundrel, and Tukhachevsky is his pupil.
      Both faces are vile
    5. MrK
      MrK 23 June 2017 18: 59
      +4
      Quote: inkass_98
      Trotsky, having come to power instead of Stalin, would have created such a “revolutionary order” in the country and in the world that Hitler would have been envious of the scale of repression and purges.

      I agree.
      It seems that Aron Simanovich (personal secretary of Grigory Rasputin), correctly wrote down the words of Trotsky in the book “Rasputin and the Jews”: “We must turn Russia into a desert inhabited by white negroes, whom we will give such tyranny that we never dreamed about the most terrible despots of the East . The only difference is that tyranny will not be on the right, but on the left, and not white, but red, for we will shed such streams of blood that all human losses of capitalist wars shudder and pale.
      If we win the revolution, then on the debris of it, we will strengthen the power of Zionism and become such a force that the whole world falls to its knees. We will show what real power is.
      Through terror, bloody baths, we will bring the Russian intelligentsia to a complete dullness, to idiocy, to an animal state ... In the meantime, our young men in leather jackets are the sons of watchmakers from Odessa and Orsha, Gomel and Vinnitsa - oh, how wonderful, how delightfully they know how hate everything russian! With what pleasure they will physically destroy the Russian intelligentsia - officers, engineers, teachers, priests, generals, academics, writers ... ”
  2. Bootlegger
    Bootlegger 22 June 2017 07: 59
    +5
    this Leva Bronstein and the entire camarilla of the Zionists and their henchmen even then waged an information war against Russia. From today's point of view, the purges of Stalin are clear. if they had not carried out a coup d'etat followed and June 22 would have meant the complete collapse of the Slavic world. what a pity that Israel as a state was not created before the 1st World War. the likelihood of that red terror led by .... matte and .... ovich 1918-1928 was reduced to an unlikely amount. and the bourgeois revolution of 1917 itself did not occur.
  3. tanit
    tanit 22 June 2017 08: 19
    +17
    Speaking of "non-aggression" and Germany.
    1934 - Poland, Hitler-Pilsudski Pact.
    1938 - Great Britain (September), France (December), non-aggression declaration
    1939 - Denmark, non-aggression pact.
    That is, I.V. Stalin concluded an "alliance" with Hitler, huh, but all the rest, no? request
    1. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik 22 June 2017 08: 33
      +7
      tanit one-sided article is understandable! but why such articles on this mournful day! belay
    2. Aitvaras
      Aitvaras 22 June 2017 10: 41
      0
      Those treaties differed significantly from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. They did not divide, in secret protocols of foreign lands, did not define spheres of influence, etc.
      1. Vladimir73
        Vladimir73 22 June 2017 11: 22
        +12
        What are you saying ?!
        Closed protocols go to almost every contract:
        Poland, in accordance with these punctures, received part of the territory of Czechoslovakia when Germany and its allies "derailed" it. In return, Pilsudski recognized the Baltic countries (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) as the sphere of interests of Germany. In an agreement with the Finns, Germany recognized the Karelian Peninsula as the territory of the Finns. Etc. etc. So the USSR in the person of Comrade Stalin and Comrade Molotov did not conclude anything extraordinary that goes beyond the agreements already concluded by Germany with other European countries ... hi
        1. Uncle Murzik
          Uncle Murzik 22 June 2017 12: 24
          +9
          dear Vladimir73 you make a break in the patterns in Aitvaras’s head, you kill his faith in the infallibility of the West! wassat
          1. Vladimir73
            Vladimir73 22 June 2017 13: 18
            +4
            This is useful. You look - sober look at the world around him. wink
      2. Weyland
        Weyland 22 June 2017 21: 06
        +1
        Quote: Aitvaras
        They did not divide, in secret protocols of foreign lands, did not define spheres of influence, etc.

        Yeah ... About the gift (for a while laughing ) Hitler Poles Czech Zaolzie recall?
      3. Rey_ka
        Rey_ka 23 June 2017 14: 13
        +3
        Secret protocols are so secret that no one has ever seen them, even those who supposedly composed them
    3. Hantengri
      Hantengri 22 June 2017 19: 28
      +3
      Quote: tanit
      That is, I.V. Stalin concluded an "alliance" with Hitler, huh, but all the rest, no?

      Apparently, the author ... uh ... got used to "say a lot of lies"like Trotsky! laughing
  4. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 22 June 2017 08: 23
    +4
    Good article. When they bring the source, it immediately becomes
    it is clear who is who.
    Trotsky has a very realistic analysis of the situation.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 22 June 2017 08: 47
      +7
      There were many such “good” articles during the perestroika period.
      Quote: voyaka uh
      When they bring the source, it immediately becomes
      it is clear who is who.

      And here you can agree with you, with the author of the article, in any case, everything becomes clear.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 22 June 2017 10: 27
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Trotsky has a very realistic analysis of the situation.

        What is realistic, if in everything, as later events show, he was mistaken?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 22 June 2017 11: 59
          +2
          I am not at all a fan of Trotsky. (Like Lenin, like Stalin).
          He is not such a prophet.
          But sometimes he guessed:
          "A union with France, with England, even with the United States could benefit the USSR only in the event of war."
          The alliance with England and the United States occurred during the war - the anti-Hitler coalition. And he brought
          benefit of the USSR - Lend-Lease. Everything, as Trotsky predicted.
      2. Vladimir73
        Vladimir73 22 June 2017 11: 26
        +5
        Quote: bober1982
        And here you can agree with you - with the author of the article, in any case, everything becomes clear


        Well, why ... not only with the author of the article, but also with those who furiously make Trotsky a “martyr of ideas” laughing From the above quotes, the article clearly shows how this demagogue came out with poison abroad ...
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 22 June 2017 11: 33
          +3
          Quote: Vladimir73
          but also with those who furiously make Trotsky a “martyr of ideas”

          The current liberals = neo-Trotskyists, such an interesting connection.
          Quote: Vladimir73
          how this demagogue proceeded with poison abroad ...

          This demagogue was very well attached to this very foreign country, whose money is just not clear.
          1. Vladimir73
            Vladimir73 22 June 2017 11: 48
            +3
            Totally agree with you. Whose money I lived on is understandable - many feel sick to look at a strong Russia. The guards and police guarded his "nest". Under whose protectorate Mexico was then and it is not worth talking.
  5. Curious
    Curious 22 June 2017 09: 22
    +3
    June 22, 1941 - one of the saddest dates in history - the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.
    The total human losses of the USSR during the war amounted to the latest estimates of 26,6 million people. Fully or partially destroyed 1710 cities and towns, over 70 thousand villages and villages.
    5,27 million people were hijacked to hard labor in Germany and neighboring countries, which were also under German occupation. Of these, slightly more than half returned to their homeland - 2,65 million people, 450 thousand immigrated, 2,16 million people died and died in captivity.
    Somehow on a day about Trotsky - at the wrong time.
    1. Vladimir73
      Vladimir73 22 June 2017 11: 34
      +5
      You are wrong here. Although history does not like subjunctive moods, but if it were not for Lev and his followers, then the losses among the civilian population and the army would be much lower ... The ideology of defeat in the war that he professed in the name of the dismissal of the current leadership of the USSR - you must admit - is a real betrayal.
  6. Dunduk
    Dunduk 22 June 2017 09: 57
    +3
    The author .100% agrees with Trotsky.
  7. Olgovich
    Olgovich 22 June 2017 10: 35
    +2
    “None of the civilized nations will be able to hide from the world cyclone, no matter how strict the laws on neutrality are. Least of all this will succeed the Soviet Union. At each new stage, Hitler will impose ever-higher demands on Moscow. Today he gives the Moscow friend for temporary storage "Great Ukraine". Tomorrow he will raise the question of who should be the master of this Ukraine. Both Stalin and Hitler violated a number of treaties. How long will the agreement between them last? ” (p. 60).
    .
    Here, as history has shown, Trotsky was right.

    WHAT is right?

    What requirements of Hitler did the USSR satisfy, and even higher ones? None!
    HOW could Hitler give Ukraine to the USSR when he did NOT own it?
    WHO believed in long-term non-aggression treaties (and not neutrality)?

    Wrong author.
    1. Vladimir73
      Vladimir73 22 June 2017 11: 41
      +4
      Quote: Olgovich
      Wrong author.


      Why so? Belgium failed to defer the status of neutrality, the treaties were respected by Germany only until it was profitable for it. In this, the author is right (I hope that this is precisely what he had in mind). And about Ukraine and phrases about the violation of treaties by the USSR, and so it is clear that this is complete nonsense. The entire policy of the USSR was conducted in the vein of strictly observing treaties and obligations undertaken. Therefore, Hitler went to this agreement knowing that the USSR suddenly, in violation of international standards, would not hit in the back ....
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 22 June 2017 14: 19
        +1
        Quote: Vladimir73
        why?


        In that:
        What requirements of Hitler did the USSR satisfy, and even higher ones? None!
        HOW could Hitler give Ukraine to the USSR when he did NOT own it?
        WHO believed in long-term non-aggression treaties (and not neutrality)?


        not right
        1. Vladimir73
          Vladimir73 22 June 2017 15: 10
          +2
          Quote: Olgovich
          “None of the civilized nations will be able to hide from the world cyclone, no matter how strict the laws on neutrality are. Least of all this will succeed the Soviet Union. At each new stage, Hitler will impose ever-higher demands on Moscow. Today he gives the Moscow friend for temporary storage "Great Ukraine". Tomorrow he will raise the question of who should be the master of this Ukraine. Both Stalin and Hitler violated a number of treaties. How long will the agreement between them last? ” (p. 60).


          1. "None of the civilized nations will be able to hide from the world cyclone, no matter how strict the laws on neutrality are" - Trotsky is right, Germany did only that it is beneficial to her little consideration of the opinions of others. The occupation of Belgium is an example.

          2. "Both Stalin and Hitler violated a number of agreements. How long will the agreement between them last?" - about Hitler is right. According to the contract of rights. Really did not last long just a couple of years.

          3. The rest of the nonsense about the requirements and violation of treaties by the USSR is agitation in favor of the poor in clean water, because (I quote myself) "All the policies of the USSR were conducted in the key of strictly observing the treaties and the obligations undertaken." This was known and used in Western countries (defeating Japan, speeding up the operation of the Bagration operation, etc.)

          So he was partially right. hi
          I repeat. Based on how the article was written, we can conclude that the author had in mind Trotsky’s innocence precisely in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2.
    2. Hantengri
      Hantengri 22 June 2017 20: 06
      +2
      Quote: Olgovich
      WHAT is right?
      What requirements of Hitler did the USSR satisfy, and even higher ones? None!
      HOW could Hitler give Ukraine to the USSR when he did NOT own it?
      WHO believed in long-term non-aggression treaties (and not neutrality)?
      Wrong author.

      Olgovich, I do not recognize you, in makeup! Do you defend the USSR ?! Ooohhhhhhh !!! wassat But what about the million thousand victims of the bloody Stalin civil war
      collectivization of the famine and industrialization of the gulagar
      press ??? Their ashes have already stopped beating in your heart ?! Can you see a doctor ... laughing
  8. Roman 11
    Roman 11 22 June 2017 13: 31
    0
    Matsuoka, by the way, in Moscow, met with Zhukov, before the meeting, Stalin asked him to accept the Japanese as kindly as possible. The Minister was very interested in the winner of Khalkhin-Gol .... however, he was not remembered by Georgy Konstantinovich from the best side - a suspicious and generally person who listens more.

    Given such a reverent attitude towards the Japanese delegation, we were too respectful of the samurai, as if showing that we were trying to avoid a war on 2 fronts ..... and yet, having the Khalkhin Gol asset, we could hold on more confidently.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 June 2017 15: 11
      +6
      Quote: Novel 11
      Given such a reverent attitude towards the Japanese delegation, we were too respectful of the samurai, as if showing that we were trying to avoid a war on 2 fronts ..... and yet, having the Khalkhin Gol asset, we could hold on more confidently.

      That's just having the Khalkhin Gol asset, it was better not to mess with the samurai. Because the results of this operation for NGOs were very mixed.
      On the one hand - yes, the attacking Japanese were knocked to their side of the border.
      On the other hand ... after the victorious reports of Zhukov, an NGO commission arrived. According to the results of which Voroshilov reported to Stalin:
      Comrade Stalin ... As expected, there were no divisions in the encirclement, the enemy either managed to withdraw the main forces, or rather, there were no large forces in this area for a long time, and a specially trained garrison was sitting, which is now completely destroyed. ..

      And this is not surprising - at a depth of operation of 20-25 km, it took 4 days to close the environment ring. No wonder that the Japanese left behind in hiding. In which the Red Army consistently and hollowed.
      In general, the Japanese in their own skin realized that the Red Army is stronger than they thought. And ours - that the Red Army is weaker than reported from the Far East to the center. And instead of hat-making, it is necessary to dryuchit and dryuchat the Far Eastern parts - until the actual preparation coincides with the report.
      In addition, Khalkhin-Gol is a limited conflict of the corps level in a bear corner outside the USSR. And in the great war with Japan, not only the Kwantung army, but also expeditionary forces with combat experience in China may fall on our army and on our territory, and IJN can also catch up with its Air Force. Which ours have already managed to appreciate in the same China.
      1. Roman 11
        Roman 11 23 June 2017 11: 31
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        That's just having the Khalkhin Gol asset, it was better not to mess with the samurai.

        And yet, thanks to Zhukov, our ancestors coolly screwed their tail ..... and for Hassan, for the intervention, partly Russian-Japanese, so much so that their historians still shrug off us with poorly concealed irritation, it’s better not to mess . This is indirectly confirmed by the lack of self-interest at the time of the most critical situation near Moscow on their part .... but they could attack not the Americans, but us, treacherously, they would not get used to. So leaving the encirclement with small losses and other mischief of the Voroshilov commission there did not prevent Zhukov from climbing the career ladder, and not just like that, but to play a key role in the Second World War, the key is a subjective look. There were a lot of people who showed themselves well, they are well-known, nevertheless, the winner of Khalkhin-Gol stood out, by the way for the first time he massively deployed tanks there apart from infantry, they also played as a striking force when surrounded.
  9. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 22 June 2017 22: 30
    0
    The alliance between Stalin and Hitler [1], which so amazed everyone, inevitably grew out of the fear of the [Soviet] bureaucracy before the war.
    1. "Non-aggression pact"! Amazed everyone? So we won.
    2. The Soviet bureaucracy was not afraid of war. Why is Trotsky lying? He then knew our system.
    Author That is, in the future, the Nazi regime appeared to Britain, the United States and France as enemy No. 2. We were appointed the enemy No. 1, the Germans No. 2 ..... and the enemies suddenly enter into an agreement .... "Well, how to live in this world" (Marriage of Balzaminov).
    Only the author mixed everything up. It happens.
    2MV was inflated by England and the USA, but the goals were different. The goal of the United States was to destroy the English Empire, which was done. And England lost again, as did 1MB.
    Both Stalin and Hitler violated a number of treaties. How long will the agreement between them last? ” (p. 60).
    Here, as history has shown, Trotsky was right.

    Rave. Trotsky probably made Hitler attack Stalin. After WWI, Germany and Russia lay in ruins. We have a Civil War, Germany has reparations (a couple of years ago, how we finished paying!). But without war, England will not fall down, how to suck money? So the USA has pumped the military-industrial complex to us and the Germans. Especially after the WW1 crisis was global, and then the MARKET. Otherwise everyone would be bent.
  10. wax
    wax 22 June 2017 22: 55
    +1
    Stalin is both a great tactician and strategist. The non-aggression pact is a brilliant way out of the impasse into which Britain and France drove the USSR, as a result, the strategic allies of Nazi Germany were forced to fight on one side of it with the Soviet Union.
  11. Altona
    Altona 23 June 2017 08: 06
    0
    Everything that Trotsky wrote about Stalin is riddled with envy that Trotsky was not the first person in the state. The book is very mediocre, and in some places even propaganda. Trotsky wrote as an ordinary bourgeois writer on someone's order. I read an abridged magazine version of his book about Stalin.
    1. tanit
      tanit 24 June 2017 01: 48
      0
      Quote: Altona
      Trotsky wrote as an ordinary bourgeois writer on someone's order.

      Well, no. Trotsky wrote at his own "command of the heart." And he was quite sincere. Well, he had such a heart, what can you do hi
  12. Strategia
    Strategia 18 October 2017 20: 59
    0
    But what particularly touched me was Stalin’s accusation of defeating Tukhachevsky in the Warsaw campaign. Citizen-Comrade-Barin Marshal has nothing to do with it.
  13. Looking for
    Looking for 24 November 2017 17: 41
    -1
    Quote: Vladimir73
    . “None of the civilized nations will be able to hide from the world cyclone, no matter how strict the laws of neutrality are” - Trotsky is right,

    Sweden and Switzerland succeeded.
    1. Shahno
      Shahno 24 November 2017 18: 01
      0
      So he meant the Cyclone. Destruction of the fin system too. So these examples are not entirely suitable.
  14. Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk 22 January 2018 13: 23
    0
    The author has a fat minus. He selects only those historical moments that are beneficial to him to humiliate Stalin. The author "plays" on the side of Trotsky, and not on the side of historical truth. Another primitive chernukha.