The agreement, which ceased to exist 76 years ago (22 June 1941), is still at the forefront of Big Politics. Each anniversary of its signing is traditionally celebrated by all “progressive humanity” as one of the most sorrowful dates of the world. stories.
In the United States and Canada, 23 August is Black Ribbon Day. In the European Union - European Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Stalinism and Nazism. The authorities of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine on this day with particular zeal are telling subordinate peoples about the innumerable misfortunes they have suffered because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. In Russia, all liberal media and public figures on the eve of 23 August are in a hurry to remind citizens of the “disgraceful” Covenant and once again call on the people to repentance.
Of the thousands and thousands of international treaties concluded over the centuries-old history of diplomacy, not a single “honor” has been given such “honor” in the modern world. The question naturally arises: what is the reason for such a special relationship to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? The most common answer is: The Covenant is exceptional in terms of content crime and catastrophic consequences. That is why “fighters for all good against all bad” consider it their duty to constantly remind people and countries of the sinister Treaty so that this can never happen again.
But there is another explanation: the Pact dealt a crushing blow to the vital interests of Russia's external and internal enemies. Hence their hatred of him, as a symbol of strategic defeat.
Of course, the propaganda machine of the West, the post-Soviet ethnocracies and domestic liberals for a decade has proved to us that the first answer is the only correct answer. But experience teaches: taking a word for a liberal is an unforgivable frivolity. Therefore, let us try to figure out and find out the reason for the hatred of the Pact among those states loyal to the ideals of freedom and democracy, as well as the Russian liberal public who joined them. The accusations against the Covenant are well known: it led to the start of the Second World War (the “pact of war”), it rudely and cynically trampled on all norms of morality and international law. Let's go point by point.
Pact of war
“23 August 1939, the Nazi Germany, led by Hitler, and the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Stalin, signed a pact that changed history and marked the beginning of the most ruthless war in human history” (European Commissioner for Justice Vivien Reding).
“The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of 23 August 1939, concluded between two totalitarian regimes - the communist Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, led to the September 1 explosion of World War II” (Joint Declaration of Memory and Solidarity of the Polish Seim and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine).
“If the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact were not there, then there are big doubts that Hitler would have decided to attack Poland” (Nikolai Svanidze).
“This war, this terrible drama would not have happened if it had not been for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ... if Stalin’s decision was different, Hitler would not have started a war at all” (Anthony Macčerevich, Minister of Defense of Poland).
Similar statements in recent years have accumulated a lot.
Reading them, you are simply amazed how almighty Comrade Stalin was. From one of his words depended - to be or not to be the Second World War. Stalin would have refused a treaty with Germany, and Hitler had to dissolve the Wehrmacht, and the "blond beasts" with other "true Aryans" peacefully drink Bavarian beer.
Japanese samurai would have stopped the war in China, and instead of hitting Pearl Harbor, they were engaged in rice cultivation. The Versailles system with the world hegemony of the British Empire would remain unshakable to this day. Well, and the Americans would sit in a proud isolation over the oceans, not even trying to do good to themselves the whole world. Here, what is the power of the words of Comrade Stalin.
Speaking seriously, every normal person is well aware that World War II, World War I, and Napoleonic wars were generated by the struggle of Western countries for the division of the world, the struggle for domination over it. First, the struggle of France against Great Britain, then the Second, and then the Third Reich against the same British Empire. Churchill in 1936, explaining the inevitability of an imminent clash with Germany, extremely frankly formulated the main law of Anglo-Saxon policy: “For 400 years England’s foreign policy was to resist the strongest, most aggressive, most influential power on the continent. ... The policy of England does not at all reckon with what kind of country aspires to domination in Europe. ... We should not be afraid that we can be accused of a pro-French or anti-German position. If circumstances had changed, we could have taken a pro-French or anti-French position in the same way. This is a law of state policy that we pursue, and not just expediency dictated by random circumstances, likes or dislikes, or some other feelings. ”
Cancel this centuries-old struggle within the civilization of the West, in which in the twentieth century. the whole world was already involved; neither Alexander I, Nicholas II, nor Stalin was able to do it.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, by the precise definition of Natalia Narochnitskaya, “changed the schedule of the Second World War” by mixing maps of British politics.
But he, in principle, could neither start nor stop the flywheel of the conflict between Great Britain and Germany. Just as the Treaty of Tilsit and Erfurt could not prevent the "thunderstorm of the twelfth year" and stop the clash between France and Britain. And the agreement between Nicholas II and Wilhelm II in Björk is to stop the slide of the world to the First World War.
That is the reality. As for the statements about the “Pact of War”, their authors are not engaged in historical research, but in politics and propaganda. It is now quite obvious that our former allies and former opponents, together with the homegrown "fifth column", headed for revising the history of the Second World War. Their goal is to transfer Russia from the category of winning states to the category of defeated aggressor states, with all the ensuing consequences. Hence the crazy statements about the “Covenant of War”. The laws of propaganda say - a thousand times a lie is said, after some time, the society begins to be taken for granted as a matter of course. A member of the board of Memorial (a foreign agent), Jan Raczynski, does not even hide the fact that their task is to turn the statement about the equal responsibility of the USSR and Germany for the world war "into banality". But these are “their” goals and objectives.
“It is difficult to imagine a more crude and criminal conspiracy against the peace and sovereignty of the states” (Inesis Feldmanis, the main semi-official historian of Latvia).
We must pay tribute to external and internal enemies of Russia, the interpretation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as a criminal conspiracy of two totalitarian "evil empires", unlike the interpretation of the "Pact of War", has already become firmly established in the public consciousness and is really perceived by many as a banality. But accusations of crime should not be based on emotional characteristics, but on an indication of specific norms of international law that were violated (“transgressed”) by the Soviet-German treaty. But they, for all the years of the demonization of the Pact, no one could detect it that way. None!
From the legal point of view, the Non-Aggression Pact itself is absolutely flawless. Yes, the Soviet leadership, as, incidentally, the British, was well aware of the impending German attack on Poland. However, there was not a single norm of international law obliging the USSR in this case to abandon neutrality and enter the war on the Polish side. Moreover, Poland, firstly, was an enemy of the Soviet Union, and secondly, on the eve of the conclusion of the Covenant, officially refused to accept guarantees of its security from Russia.
The secret protocols to the Treaty, which for the last thirty years, except children were not frightened, are standard practice of diplomacy from ancient times to the present day.
Let me remind you that under Barack Obama, Russia and the United States concluded an agreement on Syria, much of which, at the insistence of the American side, was classified. Progressive public did not even budge. Why should we consider that what Obama allowed is criminal for Stalin?
Without being illegal in form, the Secret Protocols were not as such in content. Organized by Alexander Yakovlev (Chief Architect of the Collapse of the Soviet Union) Resolution of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, which branded the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it was stated that the Secret Protocols, distinguishing the spheres of interests of the USSR and Germany, "were in legal terms in contradiction with the sovereignty and independence of a number of third countries. " However, all this is a blatant lie.
There did not exist, as does not exist now, no norms of international law prohibiting states to delimit the areas of their interests. Moreover, a ban on such a distinction would actually mean the obligation of countries to oppose each other on the territory of third states, with corresponding consequences for international security. Of course, to “small but proud” countries that have been accustomed to catch fish in the muddy waters of the confrontation of the great powers, such a ban would be extremely beneficial, but their interests should not be confused with international law. Therefore, the principle itself of delimiting “spheres of interests” applied in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is not illegal and, therefore, criminal.
In no way does the delineation of the “spheres of interests” contradict the principle of the sovereign equality of all states enshrined in international law. The Covenant did not contain any decisions binding on third countries. Otherwise, why make them secret for future performers? The widespread accusation that according to the Secret Protocols Hitler handed Stalin the Baltics, Eastern Poland and Bessarabia is pure demagogy. Hitler, in principle, even with all the desire, could not give up what did not belong to him.
Yes, the Pact deprived Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania of the opportunity to use Germany against the USSR. Therefore, they scream heart-rendingly about violating their sovereign rights. But Germany is also a sovereign and independent country. She absolutely was not obliged to serve the interests of the countries-limitrofov. There was not a single international law nor a single international treaty that would oblige Germany to oppose the restoration of the territorial integrity of our country. As there was no such rule prohibiting us to return the territories rejected from her. Otherwise, the return by France of Alsace and Lorraine, the restoration of the territorial integrity of Germany or Vietnam, will have to be declared unlawful, therefore, criminal.
Actually, the non-aggression treaty in its open part contained the USSR’s commitment to remain neutral towards Germany regardless of its collisions with third countries, while the Secret Protocols to the Treaty, in turn, issued Germany’s commitment not to interfere in the affairs of the USSR in the European part of the post-imperial space. Nothing more. Exaggerating, the contract of the bank and the seller of seeds at his entrance: the first undertakes not to trade seeds, the second does not lend money to customers of the bank.
One can only advise the “Progressive Humanity” supposedly so preoccupied with the unlawfulness of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to call for repentance the United States and Great Britain, which in 1944 were not “areas of interest” in third countries, but shared the wealth of these third countries. “Persian oil is yours. Oil of Iraq and Kuwait we will share. As for the oil of Saudi Arabia, it is ours ”(Franklin Roosevelt, British Ambassador to Lord Halifax, February 18 1944). The PACE, the OSCE, the US Congress and further down the list, which received mountains of resolutions in condemning the mythical crime of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, do not even recall this real criminal conspiracy.
The thesis of the immorality of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is hammered into the public consciousness even more firmly than the thesis of its crime. Politicians and historians almost unanimously speak of the immorality of the Covenant, again, without burdening themselves with the justification of the reasons for such an assessment. Usually, it all comes down to pathetic statements that only unscrupulous people can not be ashamed of a contract with Hitler. However, here we are dealing with conscious and cynical demagogy.
Until 22 June 1941, for the USSR, Hitler is the legitimate head of one of the great European powers. Potential adversary and even likely? Sure. But France and the UK were potential adversaries and even very likely for that moment for our country. Suffice it to recall how in 1940 they prepared a strike against the USSR in order to give the outbreak of World War I the character of an all-European "crusade against Bolshevism" in order to force the Third Reich to go to the East in this way and thereby save the scenario of war developed by British strategists.
Nazi crimes at the time of the signing of the Covenant have not yet been committed. Yes, by that time the Third Reich produced the Anschluss of Austria and captured the Czech Republic. Almost bloodless. American aggression in Iraq led to the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Hitler was going to attack Poland, but Trump threatens North Korea with war. Does it follow from this that any treaty signed with the United States is by definition amoral?
In the Third Reich, there was open, enshrined at the legislative level, discrimination against the Jewish population. But the equally open and legally enshrined total discrimination of the black population was at that time in the United States. It was not and could not be an obstacle to the interaction of Stalin with the president of the racist state Roosevelt. The death camps and everything connected with the attempt of the “final solution of the Jewish question”, all this was in the future.
The misanthropic nature of the national socialist ideology of the Third Reich also does not make the treaty with this country criminal and immoral. Liberal globalism is perfectly legitimate to consider as one of the varieties of misanthropic ideology. From which it does not at all follow that it is impossible to conclude agreements with Francois Macron or Angela Merkel. Stalin very clearly formulated his attitude to this issue in a conversation with Japanese Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka: "Whatever ideology is in Japan or even in the USSR, this cannot prevent practical rapprochement of the two states."
Therefore, it is high time to recognize that the desire to declare the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact an immoral conspiracy is nothing other than regret that Stalin refused to put other people's interests above the interests of his country, above the security interests of the Soviet Union.
And it does not matter which interests exactly - the world communist movement, the interests of the struggle against Nazism, or the interests of democracy.
As we see, all replicable accusations against the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (“The Pact of War”, criminal and amoral collusion with the Third Reich) are absolutely untenable in historical, legal and moral terms. Moreover, it is obviously untenable. But where, then, is such a completely sincere, genuine hatred of the Pact in the West, in post-Soviet ethnocracies and in the liberal community of Russia? Let's try to figure out here in order.
“The treaty changed the schedule of the inevitable war, and, therefore, the post-war configuration, making it impossible for the Anglo-Saxons to enter Eastern Europe both at the beginning of the war, since Western Europe had to be defended, and after victory, the USSR was already there. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 of the Year is the biggest failure of the English strategy for the entire twentieth century, which is why it is demonized ”(Natalia Narochnitskaya).
And the Anglo-Saxons, as is known, have been determining the position of the West as a whole on all key issues for more than half a century.
To this it should be added that with the help of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Soviet Russia regained Vyborg, the Baltic States, Western Belorussia, Western Ukraine and Bessarabia, detached from our country during the collapse of the Russian Empire.
The shock of the West from the return of Crimea alone best explains why Western politicians are still “shaking” with only one recollection of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
All limitrophe states both at the beginning of the twentieth century and at the end gained independence solely as a result of the crisis of the Russian statehood (first the Russian Empire, then the Soviet Union). The role of the outpost of Western civilization in the confrontation with Russia, they still consider the main guarantee of their existence. In August, 1939. The sky fell to Earth, the world turned upside down. No wonder, there was no united front of the West against Russia. One of the great powers - Germany - recognized the post-imperial space as a zone of interests of the USSR, and then (no trouble started) in Yalta, the Great Britain and America were forced to do that. For some time, the pillars of the West for a while proved to be vitally important, and they temporarily forgot about the “little but proud” ones. Therefore, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for all limitrofs is still a symbol of the very worst that can happen to them, a symbol of the ghostliness of their existence. Hence their hysteria about the "new Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" with any very slight sign of improving Russia's relations with the countries of the West, primarily with Germany.
The easiest way is to explain the attitude of the liberal community of Russia to the Pact by the desire to please the West, the habit of “jacking at the embassies” and love for foreign grants. However, I believe that they would have written / said it all on a voluntary basis, although, of course, for the fees of “greens,” of course, it’s more convenient to do this.
Even Dostoevsky very clearly formulated the credo of the "demons" (then the "socialists" acted under the guise now, the "liberals" now): "He who curses his past is ours."
Only in a spiritually disintegrated society of “Ivanov, not remembering kinship,” are they like fish in water. Hence their so sincere love for the 20 and 90 years of the last century — periods of political and moral disintegration of the country, periods of open mockery of the most heroic pages of Russian history. Hence, by the way, at times the seemingly inadequate reaction of the liberals to the return of the Crimea. Conflict with the West and the disappearance of imported delicacies are all secondary. The main thing in the other - "happiness was so close, so possible." The property was "grabbed", patriotism was turned into a curse, the word "Russian" was used exclusively in the combinations "Russian fascism" and "Russian mafia". And here, here you are, the return of the Crimea, and patriotism, as a national idea.
Moreover, all this is the second time in less than a hundred years. It was only in the “blessed” 20s of the “fiery revolutionaries” (“demons” of the time) that it became possible, when passing a sentence, to write: “shoot as a patriot and a counter-revolutionary”. Just yesterday, with the explosion of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, they joyfully galloped and shouted: “Let us catch the hem of Mother Russia”. In a word, the hope of a bright future had just been established in the expropriated Arbat apartments and at the summer cottages of the liquidated “counter”, when the world suddenly began to crumble. State interests and patriotism declared the highest value. And the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was for them one of the most visible and visible evidence of a catastrophe. Vasily Grossman, proclaimed by the liberals as the “great Russian writer,” had every reason to complain bitterly: “Could Lenin think that, having founded the Communist International and proclaiming the slogan of the world revolution, proclaiming“ Proletarians of all countries, unite! ”, He prepared the way for the unprecedented in the history of the growth of the principle of national sovereignty? ... Russian slavery and this time turned out to be invincible. "
Summing up, we can conclude that the West, the post-Soviet ethnocracies and Russian liberals have every reason to hate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, to consider it the embodiment of evil. For them, he really is a symbol of strategic defeat. Their position is clear, logical, fully corresponds to their interests and does not raise questions. The question raises another question: how long will we be guided by the attitude of Russia's external and internal enemies to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?