Why do they hate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact so much?

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.

Criminal collusion

“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.

Immoral Pact

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.

West

“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.

Post-Soviet ethnocracy

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.

Liberal public

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?

Comments

[Hoc vince]

According to Polish politicians, there was a peaceful and understandably strictly democratic Polish state, which was taken and destroyed by the insidious Stalin and Hitler

[Reptiloid]

The purpose of these speculations has long been known ---- to introduce into the minds of Russians the blame for all countries for everything !!!!!!

[ilimnoz]

maybe the time has come once again to cringe to the very Atlantic.

[jjj]

Poland also had an agreement with Germany. He was imprisoned before. And Poland wanted to attack the USSR with Germany. Well, the Soviet Union had to Hitler, before attacking the Soviet Union, first pokoversil in Europe, and especially in Britain

[Looking for]

Well, this is nonsense, but to introduce the principle-ANY action that goes to the good of Russia-LEGAL is yes.

[siberalt]

They postponed the start date of the war a year later and the USSR was the last. Germany and Poland unleashed World War II in Europe in 1938. It's time to admit it. But the Czechs shut their mouths.

[Deck]

Fascists friends, communists, enemies of the internationists! Here are the principles of the new "patriots" ?!

[Reptiloid]

That's right, right. They hung up the icon with the fascists in the museum complex, then they set up graves for the dead fascists, the guests came.

[3x3zsave]

Dmitry, wait, wait! I always thought you were a reasonable person. The Germans are the only ones from the whole pan-European scum who respect our graves. In our city and the surrounding area, the Germans are the next in terms of the number of burials, after the Russians. Do you want them to disturb the ashes of the fallen? Well, what the hell! You can not believe in it, .... but well, nafig!

[Reptiloid]

Honestly, I had in mind the burial of the Hungarians, about which there was an article. Not so put it. And the practice of reburial of the remains has always been. What am I talking about? They will come, and our conditions for them to create, accept them? And here some of ours can pull up ..
In our city, after all, there are no fixed places for their burial .... .. After all, what is happening in Poland or in a banderostan is offensive and alarming, what else could be ......

[Reptiloid]

!!!!!!! It was not possible to print as intended. Like that:

Quote: Reptiloid

.......... What am I talking about? They will come, and our liberals will create conditions for them, accept them? And here some of our rewriters of history can catch up ..
...

[3x3zsave]

I realized, I also read an article about the Hungarians. I agree, the removal of dust, in this case, would be the best option. As for the Germans, the largest German military burial place in Russia is located in the Leningrad Region. The Germans, in turn, take care of the graves of our soldiers, sometimes abandoned by us.

[Sergo]

And who are the liberals?

[Luga]

Quote: Sergo

And who are the liberals?

Ltd!!! I have something to say!

Liberals ... Where to start?
The basis of the term "liberalism" is the Latin root, translated into Russian meaning "freedom", "free." Liberals promote maximum personal freedom, non-interference by the state in the affairs of private individuals, that is, in fact, the primacy of personal interests over the interests of the state. The extreme degree of liberalism is anarchy. They talk about freedom of speech, choice of religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, entrepreneurial activity, the inviolability of private property, the rule of law, etc. And everything seems to be beautiful and correct, but in essence liberal legislation is a set of laws invented by the rich against the poor, their main purpose is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Liberals are convinced fighters against statehood, whose entire ideology is focused on ensuring their own, purely personal interests. The concepts of patriotism and collectivism are alien to the liberals in principle. The liberal and the patriot are antagonists to the marrow of bones; in fact, these are antonyms, since the basis of patriotic ideology is concern for the interests of the state, that is, of society as a whole.
In the patriotic circles of modern Russia, the word "liberal" is equated with obscene insult and is not used in a decent society (an exception is the use of this word to express contempt for the conductors of Western ideology, mainly immigrants from the European Union or the United States). In the wider population of Russia, the concept of “liberal” does not have a purely negative meaning, but it is strongly associated with “European values”, which, according to the majority, are unacceptable for Russian society.
Pronunciation options: liberalst, liberoid, liberal.
Synonyms: horseradish with "Rain", Makarevich, a traitor to the motherland, mattress feeding.
So somehow ...

[Alexey Sobolev]

Quote: Luga

Quote: Sergo

And who are the liberals?

Ltd!!! I have something to say!

Who are you?

[Luga]

Quote: Alexey Sobolev

Who are you?

Ltd!!! I have something to say!
About myself, especially in excellent tones, I can speak for a long time and with pleasure, if there was a listener ...
What exactly interests you, except that I am a handsome, smart and moderately well-fed man in the prime of life?

[Alexey Sobolev]

Cool answer! Thank!

[Deck]

Quote: Sergo

And who are the liberals?

Liberals is a term denoting universal evil in relation to local patriots. At different periods, these were the bourgeois and priests, Trotskyists, imperialists, Zionists, deviators, masses, shit and Anglo-Saxons. As for the latter, every time it becomes a shame for the Welsh and Celts. They are somehow ignored

[Amurets]

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!

And how then to interpret the "Munich agreement"? After all, he laid the foundation for the redivision of Europe in 1938.
"In 1937, the Western powers began to flirt with Hitler in order to" appease him. "So, in November, during negotiations with the Fuhrer, the British government minister Halifax agreed on behalf of his country that Austria would become part of Germany. Later, the British prime minister made a statement that Austria cannot rely on the future for the League of Nations to defend it in the event of annexation. " - Read more at SYL.ru: https://www.syl.ru/article/193673/new_anshlyus-av
strii-istoriya-germanii-i-avstrii-god
Anschluss of Austria (year 1938) began to mature already in mid-February, when Chancellor Schuschnigg would be invited to Hitler's residence in Berchtesgaden. There, under the threat of a military invasion, he signed an ultimatum of 3 points on which: the leader of the Austrian Nazis A. Zeiss-Inquart was appointed as the Minister of the Interior, as well as the head of the detective police; a political amnesty was declared for all Nazis in custody; Nazi Party of Austria joined the Patriotic Front. - Read more at SYL.ru: https://www.syl.ru/article/193673/new_anshlyus-av
strii-istoriya-germanii-i-avstrii-god
The partition of Czechoslovakia followed. The annexation of the Sudetenland was the initial stage in the occupation of Czechoslovakia. German propaganda set the stage well. It was said about the oppression of the Sudeten Germans, who suffered terrible torment from discrimination by their Czechs. On April 21, 1938, Hitler and Keitel developed the Grun Plan. It was planned to attack Czechoslovakia after a series of diplomatic negotiations. The British and French governments wanted, as she herself had formulated, "to save the world at all costs." This price was Czechoslovakia. The annexation of the Sudetenland took place as part of the Munich Agreement, which was signed on the night of September 29-30, 1938. According to it, Germany received the right to annex the Sudetenland, as well as those areas where the German population exceeded 50%. The annexation of the Sudetenland took place on October 1-10, 1938. More than three million Germans lived here. Also, Poland (in the region of Tesin) and Hungary (in the southern regions of Slovakia) presented their territorial claims. This allowed Hitler to assign the Sudeten annexation international character. Https: //subscribe.ru/group/na-zavalin
ke / 6618576 /
So the chest opened. It is not Stalin and the USSR that are to blame, Europe is to blame. And it began before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed.

[Reptiloid]

Thank you, Nikolai, for such a great comment! This is the reason for all the accusations! But why is our liberalism so impersonating? Or does each of them think that THERE would be better for him ???

[marder7]

why liberalism? Yes, because their name is "fifth column" "traitors" and "collaborators." they have long plowed to the west.

[avva2012]

Quote: Reptiloid But why is our liberalism so impersonating?

The first liberal?

[Alexander Greene]

Quote: Amurets

And how then to interpret the "Munich agreement"? After all, he laid the foundation for the redivision of Europe in 1938.
"In 1937, the Western powers began to flirt with Hitler in order to" appease him. "So, in November, during negotiations with the Fuhrer, the British government minister Halifax agreed on behalf of his country that Austria would become part of Germany. Later, the British prime minister made a statement that Austria cannot rely on the future for the League of Nations to defend it in the event of annexation. "

That's right, it was the "Munich Agreement" that laid the foundation for the redivision of Europe. Therefore, there is no resemblance between the "Munich Agreement" and the "Ribentrop-Molotov Pact".
The 1939 treaty between the USSR and Germany did not provide for any annexation of foreign territories. "Separation of the zone of state interests" is not annexation of land.

[Lieutenant Teterin]

The Molotov-Ribbentorp Pact finally untied the demoniac Fuhrer hands. Prior to his conclusion, he was afraid to start a major war in Europe, knowing that the guarantors of independence of the East European countries were the global hegemons of that time - England and France plus - an unknown factor in the person of the USSR. He could not know what the three-million-strong spacecraft would do in the east — would it look at the German occupation of Poland or would the Soviet leadership turn to the desperate Polish government and the Soviet corps would come to the aid of the Poles, and the Wehrmacht would be between two fires? After the signing of the Pact, he knew for sure that there was no military threat from the USSR and could act freely.
And, what still deserves attention is the behavior of Dzhugashvili in this situation. Back in 1933, they put on the table a translation of Hitler's "My Struggle". He knew how demoniac was about the USSR. What are your plans? Nevertheless, concludes an agreement with him. The same form of madness, a normal politician had at all costs to seek the conclusion of an alliance agreement with England and France, in order to exclude the possibility of German aggression. But we did not have a normal politician at the head of state. We had a fanatical Marxist who believed that "imperialist bourgeois predators must interlock" so that the USSR would later bring them freedom. Together with sovietization, of course. But the quasi-religious norms of Marxism do not apply in Big Politics, and the USSR paid for the dogmatic mistake of Dzhugashvili on June 22nd 1941.

[long in stock.]

you’re a normal politician ... go and see what plans England and France had. Who planned the raids on Baku who sent troops to Finland ... at any cost ... as always, your comments differ in cosmic proportions and the same cosmic stupidity ...

[Lieutenant Teterin]

Ma-scarlet such a detail. Look when и after which The event was planned landing in Finland. After the actual defeat of the Finnish army in the war unleashed by the USSR. And after the formation of the "government" Kuusinenen.
The same with raids on Baku. After all, they were not planned from the "villainous nature", but because the USSR was selling oil to Nazi Germany, just those months when German planes, tanks and ships began to actively occupy the countries of Europe. The Wehrmacht conquered the country on Soviet and Romanian oil.

[long in stock.]

of course ... the truth is, as always, we don't go deep ... you don't know what the Ruhr region is. who and with whose approval captured Austria and Czechoslovakia ... and who guaranteed safety .. no, of course, this is only from the heart and not from villainous nature. and do not need about oil-study. In 1940 Germany received from the Soviet Union 657 thousand tons of oil products, that is, 4,6% of its total annual reserves. In 1940, the USSR produced 31,1 million tons of oil, that is, the export of oil products to Germany accounted for 2,1% of the total oil production in the country. Grain was grown in the USSR in 1940, 95,6 million tons, and exported to Germany less than 1 million tons, that is, about 1%. The bulk of these exports were barley (732 thousand tons) and oats (143 thousand tons), wheat - only 5 thousand tons. The USSR ranked fifth in Germany's imports (after Italy, Denmark, Romania and Holland

[Lieutenant Teterin]

These are modern numbers. Do you believe that they were so detailed in the intelligence of the Allies? They knew only the fact of the supply of oil, and this, in conditions of war, was enough to make a decision on planning an airstrike.

[long in stock.]

Seriously? and oil deliveries by American companies were also unknown? why didn’t they make plans for bombing? if their reconnaissance was flapping their ears, this is their problem. well, call me plans for bombing Sweden - without their iron, the Germans wouldn’t have built anything ...

[andrewkor]

A very good article was at VO about a month ago, “How Stalin Played Hitler!” Just about the trade agreement of 1939

[Amurets]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

The Wehrmacht conquered the country on Soviet and Romanian oil.

What are you? I didn’t know. Germany covered 85% of its demand for petroleum products through synthetic petroleum products and its own oil fields. Purchases from oil from the USSR and Romania were needed to provide the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine with lubricating oils, without which the equipment would not work. Synthetic oils then did not know how to produce.
“So, at the beginning of the war, the needs of the Reich (the total needs of the economy and the armed forces) for oil products were estimated at approximately 690 thousand tons per month. Of this figure, approximately 275 thousand tons were closed due to domestic production, another 180 thousand tons due to imports from Romania and the USSR, the rest is from accumulated reserves (as of 1.IX.1939 they amounted to about 2.134 thousand tons). Further, see the link .http: //grid-ua.livejournal.com/22379.html
And here is a link to the production of synthetic gasoline in Germany 1933-1945gg.
http://nnm.me/blogs/teufel65/sostoyanie_s_toplivo
m_v_nacistkoy_germanii_v_period_1933 _-_ 1945 / page4
/

[Looking for]

Well, Germany destroyed millions of the whole war with the help of technology, the raw material for which was Swedish ore. What, Sweden suffered some kind of punishment? But it had to suffer a double - as a country supplying the aggressor with raw materials and as a NEUTRAL state violating its status.

[andrewkor]

Sorry, I didn’t get to your comment, it was repeated.

[andrewkor]

And why didn’t they plan to bomb Sweden or Switzerland at the allied point, our trade with the Germans, by the way, is mutual, we give them the latest machines to them, ended on 22.07.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX? And USAE also traded through Spain.

[mat-vey]

When, after the war, Stalin invited the United States to deal with Swiss firms and identify those that were cover for the Nazis, he met such a fierce rebuff that even he could not overcome ... I wonder why?

[Amurets]

Quote: mat-vey

When, after the war, Stalin invited the United States to deal with Swiss firms and identify those that were cover for the Nazis, he met such a fierce rebuff that even he could not overcome ... I wonder why?

Yes, for the same reason that Hitler refused to occupy Switzerland. See materials on Operation Tannenbaum.
“The result of the operation would be a tremendous financial crisis in England and the USA. But Hitler’s closest associates (like Schacht, Schroeder, Keppler and others) opposed the capture of Switzerland. They lost too much:
- Channel scouts.
- Field of residency.
“A source of devices too complex even for German industry.”
- A way to break through the economic blockade: the sights of German bombers had knots made in the USA, and the sights of the USs were made in Germany.
- And most importantly, the place of storage of the loot - Hitler might not have thought about a possible defeat, but many cared about the emergency exit. "

[sergo1914]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

The Molotov-Ribbentorp Pact finally untied the demoniac Fuhrer hands.

Is it yourself you say or have you drunk alcohol?

[long in stock.]

everything is much worse. he soberly sets out this heresy ...

[Looking for]

And this is absolutely true. The pact protected Hitler from being struck in the back. And he allowed all resources to be concentrated in one European direction.

[mat-vey]

And who planned to hit?

[Pancir026]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

The Molotov-Ribbentorp Pact finally untied the demoniac Fuhrer hands.

Frank lies. Have you heard of the Munich agreement?

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Prior to his conclusion, he was afraid to start a major war in Europe, knowing that the guarantors of the independence of Eastern European countries were the global hegemons of that time - England and France

It’s not funny for you yourself to say stupidity with respect to the so-called guarantors who first handed over Czechoslovakia to Hitler and then to Poland and Hitler to the same Hitler. Thereby creating the same operational scope for operations in the EAST due to the common borders with the USSR?

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

-unknown factor in the person of the USSR. He couldn’t know what the three millionth spacecraft would do in the east - he would look at the Germans’s occupation of Poland or the Soviet leadership would turn to the desperate Polish government and the Soviet corps would come to the aid of the Poles,

hello come. But was Poland somehow a union of ours? It was the "guarantors" that the Poles promised there. The USSR only took away what Poland had torn away in 20 years. Having stepped onto the KERZONA.ZAPAD line, it never dared to challenge this fact.

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

After the signing of the Pact, he knew for sure that there was no military threat from the USSR and could act freely.

You obviously have not read the text of the Treaty and are making up a gag.

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Back in 1933, they put on the table a translation of Hitler's "My Struggle". He knew how demoniac was about the USSR. What are your plans? Nevertheless, concludes an agreement with him. The same form of madness, a normal politician had to at all costs seek the conclusion of an alliance agreement with England and France.

Another lie. You should recall how many Treaties there were in Europe, and the Moloto-Ribbentrop Treaty was the last in a series of the same. The USSR repeatedly proposed to conclude an Agreement between France, England and the USSR directed against Hitler. And what? England and France it was not necessary! They in every possible way, under various pretexts, torpedoed the process of signing such an Agreement. Even before the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact in 1939, in 1938 in Munich there was a transaction between England in the person of Chamberlain with Hitler, Mussolini and Daladier on which Germany received its original lands given after the First World War II to the newly minted state of Czechoslovakia. Soon, the whole of Czechoslovakia with a powerful military-industrial complex fell into Hitler’s hands thus arming the Wehrmacht to the teeth.
By the way, and Poland, this "innocent lamb" was not tempted to grab part of Czechoslovakia under the guise.

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Nevertheless, concludes an agreement with him.

"England has nothing against the fact that the USSR would remain outside the pact, and even more so that a conflict would arise between Germany and the USSR," French Foreign Minister Delbros November 1937.
"I and other members of the English parliament are imbued with the consciousness that the Fuhrer has achieved a lot not only in Germany itself, but that, as a result of the destruction of communism in his country, he blocked the latter’s path to Western Europe, and therefore Germany can rightfully be considered a bastion of the West against Bolshevism Lord Halifax November 1937
“It can be assumed that the German Reich will direct its aggression to the East. It would be desirable for democratic countries that there, in the East, it comes to a military clash between Germany and Russia,” November 1938, the US ambassador to France Bullitt.
"Germany and England are the two pillars of the European world and the main pillars against communism and therefore it is necessary to peacefully overcome our current difficulties ... Probably it will be possible to find a solution acceptable to all but Russia" Chamberlain 12.09.1937/XNUMX/XNUMX

And after that, the signed treaty between the USSR and Germany is declared green for World War II? ?
The signing of the Non-aggression Treaty with Germany. The brilliant victory of Stalin’s diplomacy. If you want to fight, fight, but without us. Without a treaty, it is likely that the scenario of the war would be completely different, such as "The whole world is against us!"
And so involuntarily found.
So Teterin, your State Department agitation, namely the agitation, in terms of trying to rewrite history for the WEST.
And now. What Hitler was talking about and how your talk here is, quite rhetorically coincide with the notorious talker. Goebbels. Who spoke, lied. More often, thicker.
it’s important that you will be rumored for lies. Something will remain. Http: //timemislead.com/vtoraya-mirovaya
-voyna / 22-iyunya-tri-rechi-gitlera-molotova-i-che
rchilla
Goebbels formulated fundamental professional postulates, here are the main ones:

- “guns and bayonets are nothing if you do not possess the hearts of the nation”;

- mastery of the masses is the only goal of propaganda;

- to achieve this goal any means are good, the main thing is that propaganda is effective;

- accordingly, in addition to “white”, truthful information, it is necessary to use “gray”, that is, half-truth, and “black” - an outright lie: “we are not seeking the truth, but the effect”;

- moreover, “the more monstrous the lie, the more willingly they believe in it” and the faster it spreads;
https://www.znak.com/2014-10-29/desyat_pravil_geb
belsa_kotorye_rabotayut_i_seychas

[Lieutenant Teterin]

Quote: Pancir026

who first surrendered to Czechoslovakia

It was actually about transmission one Sudetenland populated by ethnic Germans. Teach history, please.

Poland was somehow allied with us?

Read carefully. I spoke about the possible assistance of the USSR to Poland in the event of a German attack.

Quote: Pancir026

The USSR repeatedly proposed to conclude an Agreement between France, England and the USSR directed against Hitler.

Only England and France demanded that the USSR guarantee non-interference in the internal affairs of border states. The USSR refused this clause of the treaty under any pretext, demanding the inclusion of the definition of "indirect aggression" and the associated right of military intervention.

Quote: Pancir026

main pillars against communism

And here I want to remind you that the USSR at that time was the main ideological and financial inspirer of an international terrorist organization called the "Third International", which aimed at organizing armed coups in a number of states, which was enshrined in its charter http: / /www.agitclub.ru/front/com/congress3.htm

Quote: Pancir026

The brilliant victory of Stalin’s diplomacy

Yes. So "brilliant" that the USSR ended up alone against the Nazi monster. And, I think, the inhabitants of Kiev, Minsk, Odessa and other cities on the morning of June 22, 1941 would have told you a lot of “affectionate” words about this “brilliant victory”.

Quote: Pancir026

State Department Agitation

Mr. Shell, agitation - with you, with me - an objective historical reality. And yes, something you, unlike me, show a suspiciously detailed knowledge of the methods and statements of Mr. Goebbels ... Poorly disguised, Mr. Agitator.

[Pancir026]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Poorly disguised, Mr. Agitator.

Freudian Reservation. Mr. Russophobic Anti-Soviet?

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

There, in fact, it was a question of transferring one Sudeten region, inhabited by ethnic Germans. Teach history, please.

However, what’s the result? Don’t try to lie, the story has already taken place. And it took place in the SECTION option of Czechoslovakia between Germany, Poland, Hungary and the formation of puppet Slovakia. Takes into account History, and not arrange a tantrum on a topic that does not have a reality in history.

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

And here I want to remind you that the USSR at that time was the main ideological and financial inspirer of an international terrorist organization called the "Third International", which aimed at organizing armed coups in a number of states, which was enshrined in its charter http: / /www.agitclub.ru/fro dont / com / congress3.htm

Another nonsense. What and how was used by the West against Russia. In the form of the USSR? From banal criminal smugglers to outright terrorists from the territory of Poland, the same savinka, bulak-balakhovich and so on.
The Comintern, the Communist International, the 3rd International - in 1919-1943. an international organization that united the communist parties of various countries. It was founded by 28 organizations on the initiative of the RCP (B.) And personally by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin for the development and dissemination of ideas of revolutionary international socialism, as opposed to reformist socialism of the Second International, the final break with which was caused by the difference in positions regarding the First World War and the October Revolution in Russia. After Stalin came to power in the USSR, the organization served as a guide for the interests of the USSR, as Stalin understood them. And Stalin understood the value of this tool pragmatically strictly in the interests of the USSR. Are you so blind or .... that everything that is done by the West against Russia, in the form of the USSR, it’s good for you, but what Russia does in the form of the USSR against the West is bad for you, you are probably VLASOVETS, right? Why so, yes here is the answer why- "Here is a quote from the canonical book of the Posev publishing house (1997) published under the title “Communist regime and popular resistance in Russia”:

“The Second World War could become the second civil war in Russia, this time with a successful outcome, since the social abyss that existed in 1917 was no longer there. The transformation of the “imperialist war into a civil war” was, if not original, the plan of the Vlasov movement. This time, the plan failed due to external reasons. The main one was personally Hitler, a student of Lenin ... "

There is nothing surprising in such an exotic formula. The ideological support of Vlasovism is generally characterized by provocative behavior. “Hitler is a student of Lenin” is, as they say, an example of corporate identity. Modern adherents of the cult appear in the same demonstrative manner. Former Moscow Mayor Gavriil Popov writes in his book “Calling the Spirit of General Vlasov” (2008), pathetically referring to his idol: “I see in you the forerunner of the antisocialist popular revolution of 1989-1991. You were the founder of that version of anti-Stalinism and anti-socialism, which is based on ideas that are relevant today. And while our modern democratic movement does not recognize its kinship with you, who managed to withstand the most difficult conditions between Stalin, Hitler and the West, it will not be durable and promising ... "
So you, with your Vlasov propaganda here, as then, a priori against Russia.

[Lieutenant Teterin]

You are a funny person. Russian man and Russian patriot call Russophobe. You would have called the doctor "medicophobe". Well, yes, however, your problems with logic are your business. But the fact that you were clearly nervous when you were convicted of knowing the works of Mr. Goebbels is symptomatic.
The section of Czechoslovakia was violation of terms of the contract. Hitler violated the treaty, but England and France are guilty of this? Your logic is strange.

development and dissemination of ideas of revolutionary international socialism,

Well, you have recognized that the International was an international criminal group that spread anti-state ideas. Because it would be different to evaluate the activity, for example, of the FKP International, which called on soldiers to desert from the army. And this at a time when Germany in 1939 declared war on France. Who else were the French Communists, if not criminals and accomplices of the enemy?

[chenia]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

and. So "brilliant" that the USSR ended up alone against the Nazi monster. And, I think, the inhabitants of Kiev, Minsk, Odessa and other cities on the morning of June 22, 1941 would have told you a lot of “affectionate” words about this “brilliant victory”.

And so it would have been necessary to fight in 1940 (according to the Western scenario) with Germany and Poland simultaneously, on the old borders and without allies (on the contrary, they also supplied our opponents).
Feel the difference..

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

that the International was an international criminal gang spreading anti-state ideas.

And then they had entirely charitable organizations? Or now?
Totalitarian liberalism (and the organizations behind pushing this idea) as such (criminal) is not?
And how does the BV shake and flood with blood from the triumph of this idea?
We (countries of the former USSR) have already lost 70 million people and a ruined economy.
And Ukraine is an ideal example of the collapse of the economy and the destruction of its own people (impressive numbers).

There is no need to compare the DPRK with South Korea, the United States had a strong interest there, they raised it and financed it (just like Japan did).

But socialist Ukraine and modern capitalist are an excellent object for comparison.
Well, what do you say?

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: chenia

Well, what do you say?

Lieutenant, so-called The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is Non-aggression pact. Those. in the name itself there is no hint and / or mentions about any the union or friendship agreement and / or collaboration. In the title itself, the main meaning of the Document is made.
Neither in the 1939-m, nor even in the 1941-m the USSR did not possess the strength that he had after the 1945-th. And politically, the USSR balanced on the verge of being declared an aggressor by the country until 22.06.1941. Anti-Bolshevik, anti-Soviet The moods in England and the USA were so great that nothing prevented US corporations from investing in the German economy, trading with it right until the summer of 41, and by third-party means after the Lend-Lease Act came into force, which gave the President of the United States authority to help any countriese, whose defense was recognized as vital to his country.
The USSR, with the industry developing at that time, with an acute shortage of experienced personnel in the production of equipment of any kind, including military, with a terrible lack of trained commanders at all posts, especially the junior and middle ones, was not able to withstand Germany alone and its armed forces. Nevertheless, the USSR made efforts to create an anti-German alliance with France and England in the summer of 1939. The Soviet leadership actively probed the ground for negotiations, invited representatives of the same France and England. What was the result - it is not difficult to find out both from the Internet and academic works.
Germany in the summer of 1939 was a "loaded shotgun on stage" performance on the European stage, where the United States acted as a producer and the directors were from France and England. Only the USSR refused to be a whipping boy, because literally on the eve of the signing of the Covenant ended the military conflict (and not without difficulty!) in the Far East, where the enemy wouldl Germany tripartite pact ally!

[Lieutenant Teterin]

Quote: stalkerwalker

in the name itself there is no hint and / or mention of any union or friendship and / or cooperation agreement.

Sorry, but where did I talk about soyuz USSR and Germany?

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Excuse me, where did I talk about the union of the USSR and Germany?

They didn’t speak directly ....
But actively indicate in your comments, blaming the USSR

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Molotov-Ribbentorp Pact finally untied the possessed Führer hands. Prior to his conclusion, he was afraid to start a major war in Europe, knowing that the guarantors of independence of the East European countries were the global hegemons of that time - England and France plus - an unknown factor in the person of the USSR.

Those. you attribute to the USSR what made for Germany the winners in the First World War.

[Lieutenant Teterin]

You know, alliance and the obligation to refrain from attack is a bit different things. Hitler, knowing that the USSR would not come to the aid of either the Allies or Poland, finally decided to start a big war for the redistribution of the consequences of the Versailles Peace.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Hitler, knowing that the USSR would not come to the aid of either the Allies or Poland, finally decided to start a big war for the redistribution of the consequences of the Versailles Peace.

What is the fault of the USSR?
Or did you have to "lay your bones" on the "altar of freedom of Western shit democracy" and, at the cost of destroying your own country, give England and the USA the chance to triumph, and at the cost of losing your own sovereignty give them an excellent opportunity to then finish off Germany with minimal losses?
About Poland .... You already study the reaction of the Polish authorities to the question of the passage of the Red Army units for the implementation of the Soviet Union Franco-Soviet treaty to help Czechoslovakia against possible German aggression, and then at the negotiations in July-August 1939. It is the position of Poland, which refuses to even allow the idea of ​​demonstratively introducing parts of the Red Army into its territory for, again, from possible German aggression ...
It was the USSR that was the peacemaker who tried to put together an anti-Hitler coalition in 1939. And when it became clear that these attempts were fruitless, and a non-aggression pact was concluded with Germany.
Remind you

Quote: stalkerwalker

literally on the eve of the signing of the Pact, the USSR ended the military conflict (and not without difficulty!) in the Far East, where the enemy was the ally of Germany in the Triple Pact!

[Lieutenant Teterin]

Quote: chenia

And so it would have been necessary to fight in 1940 (according to the Western scenario) with Germany and Poland simultaneously, on the old borders and without allies (on the contrary, they also supplied our opponents).

If this is your joke, then it is unsuccessful. I want to remind you that in 1940, Germany fought at full swing with England and France, and Poland did not exist. In the case of the conclusion of the Anglo-Franco-Soviet pact, the Allies would have to help the USSR no matter what. As it happened in 1941.

Quote: chenia

We (countries of the former USSR) have already lost 70 million people and a ruined economy.

This is not the work of liberals. In the 90s, former party and Komsomol activists who were semi-educated came to power. I call them such by virtue of the fact that they hollowed out (excuse me for expressing) “scientific communism” and “political economy” instead of sociology and economics and, as a result, had no idea what democracy is (in their understanding-- this is autocracy without the slightest responsibility), a market economy (in their understanding, this is the "invisible hand of the market", which will establish everything by itself), and freedom (in their understanding, this is permissiveness and semi-anarchy). Here, according to such a nightmare recipe, the devastation and chaos of the 90s turned out.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

You that in 1940 Germany fought with might and main England and France, and Poland did not exist. In the case of the conclusion of the Anglo-Franco-Soviet pact, the Allies would have to help the USSR no matter what. As it happened in the year 1941

Lend-Lease Act (full name is "United States Protection Act") was accepted US Congress 11 March 1941 years
Anglo-Franco-Soviet pact could not be concluded on the grounds that the so-called alleged "allies" did not want to take over any specific obligations. The USSR was offered the "Polish version" - "You fight, but we will see ..."

[chenia]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

I want to remind you that in 1940, Germany fought at full swing with England and France, and Poland did not exist.

It is you who have lost the sequence.
Hitler was sharpened for war with the USSR along with Poland. Under the strict guidance of Britain (those of the French too were persuaded, they had doubts and no straits).

But the Germans realized that when the Russians were fighting in front of the front, the Poles were on the flanks and the French and the English were not comfortable behind the rear. Yes, and the Poles with their ambitions, ogor and claims "from sea to sea." Well, they didn’t fit into the plans of Germany.

But without an agreement with the USSR, they would have to agree to this.
And this is the western scenario.

The war against the USSR by the wrong hands and under full control.

And their hatred is precisely that Stalin outplayed them.
And in the beginning they had to eat a dish that they themselves had prepared.

And ultimately (after the war), both France and Britain went to second roles in world politics.

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

This is not the work of liberals. In the 90s, former party and Komsomol activists who were semi-educated came to power

They were semi-educated. (And terribly vile) because they were LIBERALS.

But the light of democracy and liberalism (because the West praises it) - SKIDNESS how?
What are you not comparing?

[Pancir026]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Russian man and Russian patriot call Russophobe.

You are ridiculous in your obedience to the eternal enemy of Russia and the West and your behavior as a Vlasovite, for whom everything is good in justification of your Russian community in the form of anti-Soviet hysteria. This is said about you- "Gabriel Popov writes in the book" I Call the Spirit of General Vlasov "(2008) , pathetically referring to his idol: "I see in you the forerunner of the anti-socialist popular revolution of 1989-1991. You were the ancestor of that version of anti-Stalinism and anti-socialism, which is based on ideas that are still relevant today. And while our modern democratic movement does not recognize its kinship with you, who managed to withstand the most difficult conditions between Stalin, Hitler and the West - it will not be durable and promising ... "

The historian Igor Chubais argues (2016): “Much of the actions of the leaders of the Vlasov movement, or rather, the protest against Stalinism, are compelling. It is not surprising that the new Russian leaders after 1991 recognized that we would have had KONR’s documents (the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia, established by Vlasov with the support of the Third Reich authorities), we would have taken them as the basis for a new political project. Anthem of the ROA, beginning with the words: “We walk in broad fields at sunrise of the morning rays. We are going to battle with the Bolsheviks. For the freedom of his homeland ... "- I want to listen to more and more."
But didn’t it’s your creed to call you like -Russian people .. with a great stretch, for as History has shown, every Vlasovite or similar person is inevitably an enemy of Russia, regardless of his surname.

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

The partition of Czechoslovakia was a violation of the terms of the treaty. Hitler violated the treaty, but England and France are guilty of this?

Once again, you deigned to lie, now justifying Hitler? But what about the Union Treaty, according to which England and France were OBLIGED to render MILITARY assistance to Poland, which suffered aggression from the Third Reich, but did not strike a finger on the western, so-called front, where the state of the so-called "Strange War".

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Well, you have recognized that the International was an international criminal group that spread anti-state ideas.

Where and by whom, besides the Nazi Reich, fascist Italy, Franco-Spain and a number of similar nationalist regimes, was the International a criminal organization? After the war and the arson of the Reichstag, as a provocation of the Nazis, it took many years, and Hitler’s apologists in the form of you, are all fighting with the International ...

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

And this at a time when Germany in 1939 declared war on France. Who else were the French Communists, if not criminals and accomplices of the enemy?

In 1939, the PCF was banned, Torez himself was interned and deprived of citizenship, and then sent to the army. During World War II, he fled to the USSR, was sentenced in absentia to death for desertion, after the liberation of France in 1944 he was pardoned by de Gaulle, returned to France and resumed political activity.
Deputy Prime Minister of the Fourth Republic (1946-1947).
Your lies only show the fact that France with Daladier at the head was essentially just as aggressively anti-communist and only the genius of De Gaulle allowed France to be ranked as winners, not Hitler's accomplices. We look at the situation in France between the two world wars
http://www.nnre.ru/istorija/politicheskaja_istori
ja_francii_xx_veka / p2.php
“The famous monarchist S. Morras, the head of the Axion Frances, becomes a peculiar ideologist of Vichism. Another admirer of fascism, Marcel Dea, headed the People’s National Association, and his newspaper Ovres appeared in Paris after the first editions officially authorized by the regime, such as “Victoire” (“Victory” (!)), “Maten”, “Paris-soire” and “Petit Parisienne”, which now acted as an unofficial organ of the “French People’s Party” (PPF), which claimed to be the mass support of French fascism .

Open support for the regime was provided by the Nuvo Tan newspaper, this "serious" representative of the collaborationist press, the official of the German embassy in occupied France. Its director, Jean Luscher, the organizer of the fascist National Corporation of the French Press, was one of the few odious journalists who were shot for treason after the liberation of France, as was Robert Brazilliak, who again released the same Sui Partou - perhaps the most supporter of collaboration. "- YOU take these under your protection?
Now let's see what the Resistance Movement is and who played the first violin there
http://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/020/237
. Htm
You and your kind were not in the Resistance, you and your like were always on the side of the enemies.

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: Pancir026

Lieutenant Teterin

Panopticon, God forgive me ...

That one, that the second.

[Pancir026]

Quote: Golovan Jack

Panopticon, God forgive me ...

You are the same as Teterin.

[Reptiloid]

Quote: Pancir026

Quote: Golovan Jack

Panopticon, God forgive me ...

You are the same as Teterin.

Well of course ---- talking about a 2MB type of panopticon for some. And this is now the most important. For those plans that were assigned by the West to 1MB did not materialize. Although the autocracy was overthrown, however, the formation of the USSR crossed out their plans, for which they wanted 2MV. However, again they didn’t have the result they needed. Therefore, the next war took place, which is usually called cold. Do they say we wrote in quotation marks? But the West took that invisible war very seriously, there were costs, there was a weak link ..... They thought ---- the collapse of the USSR would end with the complete insignificance of Russia ..... However, no. So again, the problem of destroying Russia will be solved one way or another

[Lieutenant Teterin]

Mr. Pantsir, I absolutely cannot understand why you call the Soviet Union’s rejection of Russophobia. Was the policy of "indigenousization", "Leningrad affair", the demolition of monuments to Russian generals, scientists, governors, the extermination of educated Russian people were acts of Russophilia on the part of the Bolshevik government? If we call anyone Russophobes, it’s the Bolsheviks and their henchmen, who diligently abused Russian history and culture.

Quote: Pancir026

before the eternal enemy of Russia West

Eternal in your manuals, Mr. Agitator. Here is a quote from the book of historian Sergei Volkov:

Already in 1496–1497. Ivan III fought with Sweden in alliance with Denmark; and the Livonian War of Ivan the Terrible, and the struggle for Smolensk in 1632–1634. were direct participation in pan-European politics, and in the latter case, direct participation in the Thirty Years War, where Russia was on the side of the anti-Habsburg coalition. In 1656-1658 Russia took part in the so-called The “1st Northern War” on the side of Poland, Denmark and Austria against Sweden and Brandenburg, in the Northern War of 1700-1721. Russia fought against Sweden in an alliance with Denmark, Saxony and Poland, in 1733–1735 Russia participated in the war of France and Austria for the Polish inheritance along with Sardinia and Spain, in 1756–1763 - in the Seven Years War between Prussia and Austria (along with England, France, Sweden, Spain and Saxony), in 1788-1790. fighting with Sweden in alliance with Denmark; partitions of Poland at the end of the 1798th century. occurred in alliance with Austria and Prussia. From 1815 to 1807, Russia participated in almost all coalitions against France (and in 1812–1849 it was at war with England, on the contrary, an ally of France), and in XNUMX helped Austria crush the Hungarian rebellion.

So for centuries, Russia has participated in European politics as an equal participant.
And here are the statistics of European countries losses:

Accordingly, human losses (those killed and died from wounds and illnesses) suffered by European countries in the wars with Russia (85% of them fell to the participation of Russia in European coalitions) accounted for an extremely insignificant part - about 10% of their total losses during this time (approximately 140 thousand in the XVIII and 760 thousand in the XIX centuries of 7,8 million of all losses over these centuries). While in wars among themselves, European states lost in the 2,6th century. over 3,8 million people., in the XVIII century. - about 3,1 million and in the XIX century. over XNUMX million people

And Russia:

The losses incurred (by those killed and dead from illness), which are for the 130th – 50th centuries. quite well known, they also give an idea of ​​"priorities". Swedish wars of the 120th – 460th centuries Russia cost about 760 thousand people, Polish - less than 740 thousand, participation in the Seven Years War - 150 thousand, in Napoleonic Wars - about 30 thousand (total about 145 thousand). At the same time, at least 10 thousand people died in Turkish wars alone, in expeditions in the Caucasus, Central Asia and Iranian wars in the 60th century. 51 thousand, in the Iranian wars of the XIX century. not less than 1140 thousand, in the Caucasian wars of the XIX century. - XNUMX, in Central Asia - about XNUMX thousand, in Siberia and the Far East - about XNUMX thousand (including XNUMX thousand in the Russo-Japanese War), i.e. total on the southern and eastern borders of approximately XNUMX thousand people.

So there is no "eternal enemy of Russia", but a conglomerate of states with their own national interests.

Quote: Pancir026

But what about the Union Treaty, according to which England and France. MUCH were obliged to provide military assistance to Poland

I recognize the style of the so-called “red agitators” - to jump from one subject of the argument to another and try to “convict” the opponent with a naively triumphant appearance. Mr. good, we talked about Czechoslovakiawhich no one gave any guarantees. On the contrary, under the Munich Treaty, Czechoslovakia undertook to cede only the Sudetenland. The partition of the country was not provided for by this treaty. But Hitler did not give a damn about everything, violated this contract. You (very ineptly) tried to present the partition of Czechoslovakia as the result of the actions of England and France, which is an attempt to juggle historical facts.

Quote: Pancir026

The International was a criminal organization

And what else can be called an organization that aims at the violent overthrow of power in a number of states?

Quote: Pancir026

In 1939, the PCF was banned, Torez himself was interned and deprived of citizenship

And it was still mercifully done to him, because calls for desertion from the army under conditions of aggression by a foreign state are an unconditional crime, against the laws, the Fatherland and the people. However, as I have already noticed, Marxists only call their supporters the people. Other fellow citizens immediately become "bourgeois", "fascists", "imperialists", and God knows who else.

[Pancir026]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

I definitely can’t understand why

And you try, otherwise the stigma of a Vlasovtsy or some other collaborator will invisibly shine forever.

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Here is a quote from the book of historian Sergei Volkov:
Already in 1496–1497. Ivan III fought with

To refer to Volkov, who is an accomplice of the same Vlasovites, is not comme il faut. The price of his writing is much lower than zero and the level of urban sewage in the scientific world, this talker has no weight.
“So you immediately agreed to Katyn. You, the historian, convinced Pan Weida to do your best work, and yet you should know the real unresolved nature of this problem, especially since your views are on one side and your people are on the other ... But there, “the ghost of communism.” And you believe.
It is this approach that allows you to shoot Russophobian "historical" (I'm not talking about Wade) films, create facts from myths and lie, lie ... Pouring this story into our history to a much greater depth than lies in the sphere of your interests. "
http://rosworld.ru/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=123
And this is the sickening look of this tantrum from history to modern Russia.
http://salery.livejournal.com/14574.html
In total, this paper of the Marrakech, as a historian, is ZERO, but as an adversary of both today's Russia and the history of Russia over the period of its existence in the form of the USSR, it is essentially an adversary, if not a direct ideological enemy of every citizen of Russia, with the exception of outright Vlasovites.
The original is taken from historian30h in What Russia did the historian Volkov find
What is the historian Sergey Volkov famous for? He fanatically writes cards for Russian pre-revolutionary officers all his life. Well, he writes and writes, another "tanker", lovingly sorting out tracks and guns. But the trouble is when such narrow fanatics “from under the tank” begin to talk about general historical processes.

Sergey Volkov is a French baker for the whole head, so I was not surprised at his appearance on the openly fascist resource “Sputnik and Pogrom” .http: //rimmir.livejournal.com/153472.html

[Lieutenant Teterin]

Quote: Pancir026

And you try

Try? For what? For the sake of "justification" in the eyes of various kinds and caliber of "comrades" -rusophobes, who are afraid to even answer a simple question:

Was the policy of "indigenousization", "Leningrad affair", the demolition of monuments to Russian generals, scientists, governors, the extermination of educated Russian people were acts of Russophilia on the part of the Bolshevik government?

It is a great honor to try to understand the enemies of my people and my Fatherland.

Quote: Pancir026

given paper

Forgive me my harshness - but now you have froze an extremely ignorant stupidity. Sergei Vladimirovich Volkov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, devoted 30 years of his life to the study of the fate of the officer corps of RIA and the elite of the Russian Empire. He restored the fate of 900 thousand people. This is a historian, with a capital letter, because he devoted more than half of his life to working with sources. For decades, people in the archives have been searching for biographical details of the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. And in the realities of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, much more is understood by many living.
http://salery.livejournal.com/14574.html--вот по этой ссылке приведены реальные факты. Российская Федерация--государство правопреемник РСФСР. Это--юридический факт. РСФСР никогда не объявляла о своем юридическом правопреемстве от Российской империи, напротив, РСФСР отменила all RI laws in its territory. This is also a historical and legal fact.
Service in law enforcement bodies of the Republic of Ingushetia was considered by Soviet law as a crime - a fact. Art. 58.11. Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1926.
So what turns out, you are sick of the facts? And your enemy is historical and legal reality?
PS But a link to the Stalinist Rimmir could not be given. Objectivity in his words about Volkov is nothing more than in the words of a feminist about men.

[Pancir026]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

For the sake of "justification" in the eyes of various kinds and caliber of "comrades" -rusophobes, who are afraid to even answer a simple question:

Stupid question. Where a lot of things that are not related to the question are mixed.

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

You now froze an extremely ignorant stupidity. Sergey Vladimirovich Volkov - Doctor of Historical Sciences,

This paper maraca, in the scientific community is not respected, learned to lie, no use.

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

. And in the realities of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, much more is understood by many living.

Even though Vott delves into the realities of the end of 19, the beginning of 20, he does not try to judge what became of the country after 17, not according to his intelligence and abilities.

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Service in law enforcement bodies of the Republic of Ingushetia was considered by Soviet law as a crime - a fact. Art. 58.11. Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1926.

Again lying - Article 58-11. Any kind of organizational activity aimed at preparing or committing crimes provided for in this chapter, as well as participating in an organization formed to prepare or commit one of the crimes provided for in this chapter, entail the social protection measures specified in Art. 58-2.
SO article sounds, and not in your, as always false interpretation.

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

feminist words about men.

Are you a feminist? Well, if not, then accept the opinion of a talker by the name of Volkov, as there is a liar and an adversary of Russia stuck in the 19th and early 20th centuries. There will be no return to the Romanov monarchy, nor will your dreams be with him for a couple about the return of land and other things, including a little on serfdom, dreamers ..

[long in stock.]

Leningrad affair ... as they said in the people in Leningrad all buggers disappeared ... coincidence? I don’t think ...

[Alexander Greene]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Was the policy of "indigenousization", "Leningrad affair", the demolition of monuments to Russian generals, scientists, governors, the extermination of educated Russian people were acts of Russophilia on the part of the Bolshevik authorities? If anyone is called Russophobia, it’s the Bolsheviks and their minions, who diligently abused Russian history and culture.

You mixed everyone together. No one demolished the monuments to scientists, not to all generals and governors, and even more so did not destroy educated Russian people.
Monuments were demolished only to the most hated courtiers, for example, in the Odessa region, monuments to Generalissimo Suvorov, Count Vorontsov, Duke Richelieu and others were preserved.
About the Leningrad affair. Just those who were taken in this matter, and wanted to destroy the Soviet Union, wanted to isolate the Russian Federation. What this isolation led to in 1990, we all saw. So there is no Russophobia here, but only a class approach to resolving the issue.

[Pancir026]

Quote: Alexander Green

You mixed everyone together. No one demolished the monuments to scientists, not to all generals and governors, and even more so did not destroy educated Russian people.
Monuments were demolished only to the most hated courtiers, for example, in the Odessa region, monuments to Generalissimo Suvorov, Count Vorontsov, Duke Richelieu and others were preserved.
About the Leningrad affair. Just those who were taken in this matter, and wanted to destroy the Soviet Union, wanted to isolate the Russian Federation. What this isolation led to in 1990, we all saw. So there is no Russophobia here, but only a class approach to resolving the issue.

Teterin always does this. It seems to him that he once again discovered America, and in fact behind verbal tinsel he hid his complete misunderstanding of those realities.

[brn521]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

For centuries, Russia has participated in European politics as an equal participant.

In the role of Vanka the Fool, who fit in thanks for the affairs with which he did not receive any benefit. As soon as it was about getting our territory, or at least expanding the sphere of influence in Europe, or at least in the Middle East, recent enemies and allies immediately united against us. Here in the First World War we again did the same thing - played the role of a fool who did not fit into his showdown. Overcame in the end.

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

And what else can be called an organization that aims at the violent overthrow of power in a number of states?

By the way, we are now in short supply. Only so that the USSR does not do this, but someone else, that's enough for us already. One way to push capitalist states to pursue social policy. Since the revolutionaries assumed reliance on a developed layer of socially deprived citizens of a country.

[Lieutenant Teterin]

Quote: brn521

By the way, we are now in short supply.

I want to remind you that at the hands of the "fighters for national happiness," to the extent that died, uninjured people. Imagine that a terrorist attack of such a fanatical “fighter against capitalism” kills your close relative. Presented? Now honestly tell yourself: Do you really need terrorist organizations that kill people for the sake of "social policy"?

[Han Tengri]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

I want to remind you that at the hands of the "fighters for national happiness," to the extent that died, uninjured people.

France. July 14, 1789 - November 9, 1799. How many people are being hired? And, most importantly, who !? And were all (from the horned ones) involved? Do you happen to know, Lieutenant? (If you, in general, understand what it is about!)

[brn521]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

I want to remind you that at the hands of the "fighters for national happiness," to the extent that died, uninjured people.

If the state allows too strong social stratification, then people will die in any case, so this is not an indicator. And if he doesn’t allow it, and the majority of citizens will be loyal to the current regime, then the “fighters for national happiness” will remain at the level of organized crime groups, and as a result they will not withstand the confrontation with the local law enforcement.

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Do you really need terrorist organizations killing people for "social policy"?

No, I need a socialist state at hand, ready to come to the aid of the rebellious beggars, if there are enough of them.

[long in stock.]

You are a funny person. You call a Russian person and a patriot of Russia a Russophobe ... thank God in Russia they beat us not according to the passport, but in the face .. here you are reckoned according to yours ....

[Alex]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

I spoke about the possible assistance of the USSR to Poland in the event of a German attack.

Or about even more possible HELP. Anyway, when and where did that Poland ask for help from the USSR? Did you yourself try to help someone by force? It seems to me that this is called somewhat differently.

[Mu Dialer]

At first there was a Western policy of appeasing Hitler and Munich, and only then, as a consequence of all this, the Soviet-German treaty.

[27091965]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Nevertheless, concludes an agreement with him. The same form of madness, a normal politician had at all costs to seek the conclusion of an alliance agreement with England and France, in order to exclude the possibility of German aggression.

With France already concluded, in the century before last, the result of the Russo-Japanese War does not mean anything? I will give just one example. After the battle of Mukden, France, an ally of Russia, refused to her (Russia) to issue the promised loan for military needs. Essentially pushing Russia to surrender. The situation was corrected at the expense of the German banks that issued the loan, they refused, and it is not known which peace treaty would be signed. Well, I think it’s not worth writing about England’s "friendly" policy towards Russia. Unfortunately, this did not teach Russian politicians anything.
So, it is not worth writing that at that time the USSR did not have good diplomats and all the actions taken by them were wrong. I think the history of relations between Russia, England and France, they knew well.

[long in stock.]

and this is your assessment of the situation about the Munich conspiracy and allies from an eyewitness, especially appreciate the last lines .... Telegram of the Plenipotentiary of the USSR in France Ya.Z. Suritsa to the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs of the USSR
      The fact that France survived its second Sedan and that in Munich it suffered a terrible defeat, now any Frenchman realizes.
      Even those who had recently torn their throats at the meeting of Daladier and Bourget and showered with flowers his triumphal march to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, have now learned a number of immutable and sufficiently unpleasant truths, namely, that:
      1) Germany, with the help of France, without firing a shot, increased its population by more than 3 million and has now brought it to sizes more than twice the population of France;
      2) Germany increased its territory by more than 27 thousand square meters. km;
      3) received as a gift a number of highly equipped factories and plants and the most important branches of mineral wealth;
      4) has now taken control of the line of fortifications, which has always been regarded as the most serious barrier against German aggression in Central Europe;
      and that at the same time France:
      a) lost her most faithful ally in Central Europe,
      b) lost the army, which in wartime could be brought up to 1 million - 1,5 million people and, relying on the withdrawn fortifications, was able to detain a German army no less in number,
      c) that France has now lost all its allies, has severed ties with the USSR and significantly, even in the eyes of England, has devalued its specific weight and its role as an ally. <...>
Plenipotentiary of the USSR in France
Surits

[andrewkor]

Dear, that you missed the August talks in Moscow of the British and French missions on the subject of an agreement on cooperation against aggression in Europe (count against Germany), but immediately they crossed the Pact, however!

[brn521]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

And, what still deserves attention is the behavior of Dzhugashvili in this situation. Back in 1933, they put on the table a translation of Hitler's "My Struggle". He knew how demoniac was about the USSR.

Quite adequate behavior. Germany offered us some kind of guarantee. Britain and France did not offer anything, or rather a “treaty” in which there was nothing concrete, it was only assumed that in the event of Hitler’s aggression against the USSR, they would sympathize with us and root for us. They tried to develop the truth and the specifics regarding mutual military assistance, but there Poland already raised a screech that would not allow the Soviet troops even to the borders, not to mention transit through the territory. Those. the transfer of our troops to the aid of France itself, if it happened, was sharply complicated. Hitler suggested specifics - the delimitation of spheres of influence. As a result, we got time and territory. Without this pact, there would have been virtually the same war, but within the framework of the old Soviet borders. If we take into account how well we knew how and could fight, then we would definitely be knocked out of the Urals.

[gsev]

And in my opinion, a non-aggression pact or agreement between Germany and Russia prevented the joint aggression of France, England, Germany, Japan, Poland, Turkey on the USSR. After all, just 3 allies - Poland, Germany and Hungary tore their neighbor Czechoslovakia. Earlier, Japan seized Manchuria and forced Russia to cede its rights to the CER for a pittance. Just as diplomatically, Japan demanded that the other Far Eastern territories, primarily North Sakhalin, be ceded. Before the conclusion of the pact, a conflict began on Khalkhin Gol, which seems to be more bloody war for Japan than occupation of Poland, Norway or France separately for Germany (it may be proportionate in France). A cease-fire with Japan without a non-aggression pact with Germany could have been the Minsk agreements as Donbas is now. And German politicians and military men were smarter than Polish ones and did not dare to be cannon fodder for Polish and French politicians. Therefore, when the Poles tried to tear Lithuania apart, the Germans did not support them. Then the Poles began the blockade of Danzig and their customs officers began to mock the Germans at checkpoints around Danzig. So it is now. It did not work out cheaply in turn to tear Russia, China and the DPRK, the Western world began to squabble among themselves. Perhaps in 50 years some historians will also blame Russian politicians of 2010-20 for something for preventing a new catastrophe. World War III may also occur as a bandwagon of Islamic extremists. This was calculated back in the 20-30 years of the 20th century.

[parusnik]

If the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact were not there, there are big doubts that Hitler would decide to attack Poland

... Here I agree with Svanidze ... Hitler, did not attack Poland, but the USSR, together with Poland ...

[Pancir026]

Quote: parusnik

. Here I agree with Svanidze ... Hitler, did not attack Poland, but the USSR, together with Poland ...

The ability to lie with our liberals is simply amazing. Here is a new discovery by the most prolific digger Mlechin: "The Second World War, which broke out on September 1, 1939, should not have begun: no one wanted to fight, except for one man - Adolf Hitler." "Peace of the Beast" (Novaya Gazeta, No. 97 of September 1, 2014). (http://www.novayagazeta.ru/society/65051.html).

So, Hitler is to blame for everything. What a monster! And the rest simply followed orders. Http://zavtra.ru/blogs/mlechin_ne_hotel_v
oevat_

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: Pancir026

So Hitler is to blame

There would be no Hitler (who stood behind him - it doesn’t matter, it’s a figure on the board) - there would be no WW2

Can you challenge? Snot drooling in arguments ... do not go ... And?

[Pancir026]

Quote: Golovan Jack

There would be no Hitler (who stood behind him - it doesn’t matter, it’s a figure on the board) - there would be no WW2

You do not splatter the screen from that side, but the Second World War, there would be no Hitler, some kind of Dukler, Shmukler, it doesn’t matter. But it would have taken place anyway. Go and learn history.
However, for someone who is trying to look terribly smart here, asking "smart" questions, there is an answer-study .http: //o-vtoroy-mirovoy.ru/prichiny-vtoroy-mirov
oy-voyny-kratko-po-punktam-osnovnoe /
Not mastered? Well, Google to help you.

[gsev]

History does not tolerate subjunctive moods. Although modern physics admits that there are infinitely many universes in the world, in one of which the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact was not concluded, and Hitler won the second world war in the other.

[Reptiloid]

Of course, Vlad !! absolutely NO one wanted to fight. All European countries and states wanted Hitler to fight the USSR. And they would wait patiently when it would be possible to quickly tear the weakened USSR to pieces!

[jjj]

They prepared Germany for this. They directly pushed to attack. By the way, at the same time, the West helped the USSR. So that the battle between Germany and the USSR is guaranteed to end by mutually multiplying the warring parties. But Stalin outplayed the Anglo-Saxons. And he managed to delay the German attack on the USSR

[Pancir026]

Quote: Reptiloid

absolutely no one wanted to fight

"Fought" ....
Of the two dozen European countries that existed by June 1941, nine — Spain, Italy, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and Croatia — entered the war against the USSR together with Germany and Austria.
The rest also did not resist the enemy for long:

Monaco - 1 day, Luxembourg - 1 day, Netherlands - 6 days, Belgium - 8 days, Yugoslavia - 12 days, Greece - 24 days, Poland - 36 days, France - 43 days, and then actually joined the aggressor and worked on it industry.

Even supposedly neutral countries - Switzerland and Sweden did not stand aside. They provided fascist Germany with the right of free transit through its territory of military cargo, and also received huge profits from trade. The trade between the “neutral” Portugal and the Nazis was so successful that in May 1945, she declared a three-day mourning in connection with the death of Hitler.

[Reptiloid]

These little mongrels knew well that the giants would throw them away later. Type Bandeovo marauders that stole home. And the real big players put off until after. Forces cherished. All were waiting, who whom

[Pancir026]

Quote: Reptiloid

And the real big players put off until after. Forces cherished. All were waiting, who whom

Notice that the entire anti-Russian, anti-Soviet audience is literally choked when they try to convince that the USSR would not have survived without the notorious Lend-Lease. But when we look at the supply diagrams and remember the words of one American who is supported, everything becomes clear. gezesh.livejournal.com/9526.html
https://topwar.ru/119266-ruzvelt-i-gopkins-druzhb
as-sssr-i-protivostoyanie-gitleru.html
But there were such people - ““ Let Germany and the USSR exhaust each other, at the end of the “war England will become the master of the situation in Europe” - the words of British Minister of Aviation Industry D. Moore-Brabazon. “According to the report of the Ambassador of the USSR K. Umansky June 22 took a “silent, expectant position”, more frankly expressed by Truman as:
“If we see that Germany wins, then we should help Russia, and if Russia will win, we should help Germany, and thus let them kill each other as much as possible.” But under no circumstances do I want Germany to win ”- Senator Harry Truman, from a speech by the Chairman of the Commission for the Study of the Arms Program of the Federal Government on June 23, 1941.

That is why Stalin and the brilliant manager who managed to push their foreheads against those who thought with their hands the hands of Germany to destroy the USSR-Russia.

[Ursus]

What a wonderful and long article with reasoning and other people's opinions. So much water that pours through the ears. Isn’t it easier to publish the original text of this document, and people, tea are not fools: they will read it themselves and draw conclusions.

[Boris55]

Quote: Ursus

Isn't it easier to publish the original text of this document

Here are those text. It is interesting to read, what conclusions do you make?

Government of the USSR and the Government of Germany
Guided by the desire to strengthen the cause of peace between the USSR and Germany, and proceeding from the main provisions of the treaty of neutrality concluded between the USSR and Germany in April 1926, the following agreement was reached:
Article I
Both Contracting Parties undertake to refrain from any violence, from any aggressive action and any attack against each other, both separately and jointly with other powers.
Article II
In the event that one of the Contracting Parties becomes the object of military action by a third power, the other Contracting Party will not support this power in any form.
Article III
The governments of both Contracting Parties will remain in contact with each other in the future for consultation in order to inform each other about issues affecting their common interests.
Article IV
None of the Contracting Parties will participate in any grouping of powers that directly or indirectly directed against the other party.
Article V
In the event of any disputes or conflicts arising between the Contracting Parties of one kind or another, both parties will resolve these disputes or conflicts exclusively by peaceful means in a friendly exchange of views or, if necessary, by setting up commissions to resolve the conflict.
Article VI
This contract is concluded for a period of ten years so that since one of the Contracting Parties does not denounce it a year before the expiration of the term, the contract is automatically renewed for the next five years.
Article VII.
This treaty is subject to ratification as soon as possible. The exchange of instruments of ratification must take place in Berlin. The contract enters into force immediately after its signing.

Compiled in two originals, in German and Russian, in Moscow, August 23 1939.
By authority of the USSR Government V. Molotov
For the Government of Germany I. Ribbentrop

SECRET ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL
TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN GERMANY AND THE SOVIET UNION

When signing the non-aggression treaty between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the undersigned ombudsmen of both sides discussed in a strictly confidential manner the question of delimiting areas of mutual interests in Eastern Europe. This discussion led to the following result:
1. In the event of a territorial-political reorganization of the regions belonging to the Baltic states (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern border of Lithuania is at the same time the border of the spheres of interests of Germany and the USSR. At the same time, the interests of Lithuania in relation to the Vilnius region are recognized by both parties.
2. In the event of a territorial-political reorganization of the regions belonging to the Polish State, the border of the spheres of interest of Germany and the USSR will be approximately along the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula and Sana. The question of whether it is desirable in the mutual interests to preserve the independent Polish State and what the borders of this state will be can only be finally clarified in the course of further political development. In any case, both Governments will resolve this issue by way of friendly mutual agreement.
3. Concerning the southeast of Europe from the Soviet side, the USSR’s interest in Bessarabia is underlined. On the German side, it declares its complete political disinterest in these areas.
4. This protocol will be kept by both parties in strict confidence.

Moscow, 23 August 1939 of the year
By authority of the USSR Government V. Molotov
For the Government of Germany I. Ribbentrop

[Ursus]

Quote: Boris55

Here are those text. It is interesting to read, what conclusions do you make?

Thank you for the text! I’ll draw conclusions, you can have no doubt.

But don’t you remind me when you and I drank to the Brudershaft? I forgot something ..

[Boris55]

Quote: Ursus

But don’t you remind me when you and I drank to the Brudershaft?

Charter of the Armed Forces: "... Military personnel on business matters must contact each other for YOU ... "
Us with you bind any service relationship and we solve service issues?

[Ursus]

In addition to the Charter, there is still a banal respect for each other! It is not shameful to turn to a stranger or unfamiliar person to you, rather, on the contrary, it speaks of your good breeding, and not of the unworthiness of your interlocutor. I’m not your friend, not comrade, not brother or acquaintance. Please respect decency, dear!

[Boris55]

Quote: Ursus

It’s not shameful to turn to a stranger or a stranger to you

Turning to YOU ​​as an equal is definitely not shameful. Svyatoslav’s famous words: “I’m going to YOU” - was this an appeal to friends?
I do not like to go into the discussion on the subject of personality. Therefore, in our further communication I do not see the point.

[Ursus]

Svyatoslav’s famous words: “I’m going to YOU” - was this an appeal to friends? laughing

since there is a question in your phrase, I will answer: in those ancient times it was customary to turn to the enemy on you, precisely because the enemy was respected. Not a trash, go, a sub-fence, but a head of any state / principality. Do you understand? Respect for the people around you is a sign of your upbringing and inspires respect for you personally!

And the rest - yes, I agree: our dialogue is absolutely hopeless

[Svarog51]

Boris, I welcome you Sorry for the invasion, but in this case the Armed Forces charter is not valid. Military Review is not a branch of Moscow Region. The laws of civil ethics apply here. In this matter, I will support your opponent. No offense?

[Boris55]

Quote: Svarog51

No offense?

VO is not a branch of Moscow Oblast, however it assigns titles
The opponent defending his right to appeal to YOU ​​argues that this is supposedly respectful attitude towards his enemies. Interestingly, and he to his children on YOU or YOU? If you are, then he considers them his enemies, and if you are, then he does not respect them?
In general, I think this: I don’t like it - don’t communicate what other things our communication has ended. We understood each other.

[Svarog51]

I understood your position - intelligibly conveyed.

VO is not a branch of Moscow Oblast, however it assigns titles

Do you really take it seriously? There is no mark in the military ID.

We understood each other.

Yes, colleague.

[vladimirvn]

Why do they hate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact so much?
Because they followed the same path, but they did not succeed, and we were able, though by a miracle, the situation was almost out of control. Because we are strong and, by and large, not conquered, unlike them.

[johnik11]

In Russian, the appeal “to you” has gradually come into use since the XNUMXth century due to the strong influence of the French language and culture, primarily in the circles of the aristocracy. There are theories that the original “you” was an appeal to the enemy. Prior to this, traditional Russian speech etiquette was used with its own system of familiar and formal addresses. Thus, the pronoun “you” could be addressed even to the tsar: “you, tsar-father ...”. The “Petition” (Petition of workers and residents of St. Petersburg to submit to Nicholas II) also uses “you” addressed to Tsar Nicholas II.

[mat-vey]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Molotov-Ribbentorp Pact finally untied the possessed Fuhrer

This is what the generals in the Wehrmacht were - in a week they planned a military company ....

[Monarchist]

Comrades, allow me to express my opinion on this issue. What the "progressive public" Geyropa is now writing in boiling water, what kind of kidneys are needed, does not bother me.
What preceded the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in August 1939, the Entente held military talks in Moscow2 and the Soviet side said that we did not have a joint border with the Reich, which means that Poland’s consent for the passage of our troops through Poland is necessary. Warsaw refused, and Stalin did not become empty and empty, and negotiations were over. Hitler fussed with his pact.
Believe me, if Stalin had been the leader of any other country, and not the former RI, the librarians had forgiven him for a long time. If the revival of the Union began within the borders of Moldova or Georgia, and even better, the Moscow province, the Liberals would not even sneeze.
The West is violet and socialism and all, and the revival of the Russian Empire, as it were called UNACCEPTABLE. Alexander 3 rightly said: “they fear our vastness”

[Mu Dialer]

The main thing is that Stalin was not sure that France and England would fight at all, and a little later the “strange war” confirmed that Stalin had reason to doubt. And Poland’s position is really nonsense.

[San Sanych]

they hate it because it didn’t work out as they dreamed, they hoped that Hitler, fed by them, would crush the USSR, it turned out differently, the USSR came out of this war the winner, and besides, he became the second superpower, and most importantly, Russia The USSR still exists, and toad strangles them. They prefer to bypass the Munich agreement in silence.

[Curious]

When discussing the article, I propose using several principles that will straighten the curve of discussion and shorten the path to consensus.
The first. To all the miserable halleloys from a history such as lieutenants olgovichi and other blessed ones, recommend hiking and hiking along the popular route and assume that they have already followed the recommendations.
Second. Recall the characterization of Churchill, who gently and lovingly called Poland the "Hyena of Europe."
Third. As applied to Poland, the term “state” is used, but “an ethnic formation periodically arising in Europe with exorbitant ambitions used by European states for their political purposes”.
Fourth. No need to make excuses. The USSR acted in its own interests. This is the fundamental principle of the foreign policy of any normal state. If they wish to object, let them cite examples from their own history when they sacrificed their interests for the sake of others. The most "patriotic" movements of international politics always have a "second bottom". If there were any obstacles in the way of these interests in the form of limitrophies, Poland and other bumps in big politics, no one has proposed other principles, despite the declarations. All real players in international politics have been following these principles for hundreds of years.
Everything else is in favor of the poor. There was the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. One of the many interstate agreements in the history of mankind that states have adopted in their interests. Next - see principle one.

[marder7]

Bravo! laid out on shelves. and directed on the true path.
I’ll add a quote from myself: - “Russia has only two allies - this is its army and navy” Alexander the third.

[3x3zsave]

Bravo, Victor Nikolaevich !!! And with regard to Poland, I would have quoted the term “ethnic” twice in quotes, because the main ethnos is “honorable nobility”, and the national idea is “Poland was used in Poland.” A world phenomenon - a country of 500 years existing in a referendum mode.

[Looking for]

Quote: Pancir026

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
After the signing of the Pact, he knew for sure that there was no military threat from the USSR and could act freely.
You obviously have not read the text of the Treaty and are making up a gag.

It’s you who don’t know the essence of the agreement and are engaged in balabol. "The parties to the agreement pledged to refrain from attacking each other and to maintain neutrality if one of them became the object of hostilities of a third party. The parties to the agreement also refused allied relations with other powers," directly or indirectly directed against the other side. ”Provided for the mutual exchange of information on issues affecting the interests of the parties." By the way, do you even know that there is the concept of a “third party” in legal documents?

[Looking for]

Planned raids on Baku-WHAT SHOULD BE AN IDIOM. To take this for the truth. !!!!

[marder7]

how to be an idiot in order not to take a banal interest in history? England until 1942 supplied the Basmachi with weapons and money, kept troops in Persia (Iran). the question is why? The answer is to invade the Caucasus and capture the Baku fields.

[andrewkor]

How tired of this liberostnya squeals at the USSR, "... and they eat Russian fat!" Sergey Mikhalkov, fables!

[Alexander Greene]

Good article, but with a fly in the ointment.

Quote: “Only in a spiritually decayed society of“ Ivanes who do not remember kinship ”are they like a fish in water. Hence their so sincere love for the 20s and 90s of the last century - periods of political and moral collapse of the country, periods of open mockery of the most heroic pages of Russian history ”

Here the author confused the 90s, when Russian bourgeois liberals surrendered the country to the West, with the 20s, when the Bolsheviks defended the country, despite the excesses of the leftists of the Trotskyist type.

Quote: “Only in the“ blessed ”20s did the“ fiery revolutionaries ”(“ demons ”of that time) have the opportunity when sentencing to write: “Shoot like a patriot and the counter-revolutionary. "

Where did the author read this? IN AND. Lenin, for example, in his speech in May 1918 said that after the establishment of Soviet power, there were no more patriots in Russia than the Bolsheviks. “We have been defenders since October 25, 1917. We are for the“ defense of the fatherland, ”but the domestic war we are heading for is a war for the socialist fatherland, for socialism as a fatherland, for the Soviet Republic, as a detachment of the world army of socialism” (Lenin V.I. Works, fourth edition. Vol. 27, p. 136-137).


And further from the author: “Just yesterday, during the explosion of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, they joyfully jumped and shouted: "Let's pick up the hem of Mother Russia".

This phrase is attributed either to Kaganovich or Trotsky, but this is an ordinary bike replicated by anti-Soviet activists, and in general the explosion of the temple does not apply to the fight against Russian patriotism. Here are other reasons.

[avva2012]

These spoons are enough for a full barrel. I'm not talking about this article. Unfortunately, even quite sane authors have similar pearls. For example, such an idea, they say, until Stalin destroyed the Leninist cadres, all kinds of revolutionaries there, the country developed at a slow pace. Here, 20 years. Equally. As M. V. Popov said, "Lenin was first beaten against Stalin, and now Stalin was beaten against Lenin." The main goal, after all, is to discredit the Marxist, communist idea. All methods are suitable for these purposes. Stalin is so Stalin. Let's make Joseph the first of him, and this will come down. We will write off the fact that he was a faithful Leninist to the insidious Asian nature of the Secretary General. Look how disguised! Tricky approach, nothing to say. So it’s walking like a sleeping virus in healthy outwardly looking cells this anti-rot, and at the right moment, it will work as they want. Before diarrhea, after all, bloodsuckers are afraid of communist ideas. I hope they wait for him.

[Alexander Greene]

Quote: avva2012

As M. V. Popov said, "Lenin was first beaten against Stalin, and now Stalin was beaten against Lenin." The main goal, after all, is to discredit the Marxist, communist idea

That's right, the bourgeoisie, seeing interest in the name of Stalin and his time, decided to privatize Stalin, sings to him praises that Stalin is a great statesman, and at the same time they are silent that he was primarily a Marxist, Bolshevik, internationalist ..

[avva2012]

I.V. Stalin, a great statesman, but this statement does not fit into their paradigm, "the Bolsheviks, having come to power, destroyed a prosperous state," so they try to get out, attributing to it almost mystical abilities. The logic of the anti-Soviet is lame, but, as it seems to them, iron. Look, they say, as soon as it was gone and stagnation began to build up in the USSR, which means that the socialist system itself is worthless, and it rested on one person. What happened after his death, the “palace coup”, actually happened, the counter-revolution with the advent of Khrushchev, this is thrown out of the task. At the same time, the economic margin of safety of the socialist system was enough for space, for the military-industrial complex, and for decent life for people in the 70-80 years. It took another, more global conspiracy to destroy the system from the inside. But here is the paradox, democratic Russia, continues to use all the same developments of the "command and administrative system", though gradually losing and squandering the inheritance. And the simple question is not raised, "where are the achievements of the most advanced economy in the history of civilization, capitalist?" For 25 years of Soviet power after the Civil War and for 25 years of democratic power in peacetime, are achievements comparable? And the sanctions were introduced in the 2014 year, and the USSR did not recognize the state at all and had no relations with it until the beginning of the 30's, that is, when the next systemic crisis began, and there was nowhere to go. As they say, compare the difference.

[Lieutenant Teterin]

stalkerwalker,
The USSR is not guilty, the Soviet leadership is guilty of the people for being aware of Hitler’s cannibalistic plans for the USSR, he continued to flirt with him instead of concluding an alliance with England and France in order to destroy Nazism.

[Mu Dialer]

An alliance can be concluded only with those who want it, and England and France in the summer of 1939 did not want this (the conclusion of an alliance) (and did not want it before, and later - until May 1940).

[mat-vey]

Monsieur simply has a selective perception of the history of planet Earth ... On some issues, failures the size of "Australia" .... Reason and logic are powerless.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

No fault of the USSR, the Soviet leadership is guilty of the people for being aware of Hitler’s cannibalistic plans for the USSR, he continued to flirt with him instead of concluding an alliance with England and France in order to destroy Nazism.

No offense ... But you can’t stand a normal discussion, because all the time you are looking for the guilty person in the person of the military-political leadership of the USSR, while citing your own conclusions, forgetting about the circumstances that accompanied the conclusion of the Non-aggression Treaty.
The position of the USSR in the summer of 1939 was based, at least, on the principle "A thin world is better than a good war." Mark Tullius Cicero
The leadership of the USSR was well aware that the Great War could not be avoided, but since it was not possible to create an anti-Hitler coalition (see reasons above), it was forced to conclude a memorable treaty with Germany in order to prepare for war on the most favorable conditions, using the "2-year-old respite. "
On this I close the discussion.

[Vl1602ad]

Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

Well, you have recognized that the International was an international criminal group that spread anti-state ideas. Because it would be different to evaluate the activity, for example, of the FKP International, which called on soldiers to desert from the army. And this at a time when Germany in 1939 declared war on France. Who else were the French Communists, if not criminals and accomplices of the enemy?

On September 3, 1939, the English Foreign Minister Halifax received the German Chargé d'Affaires in London and handed him a note stating:
“... Today at 9 o’clock in the morning, His Majesty’s Ambassador to Berlin, on my instructions, notified the German government that if today, September 3, before 11:3 pm English summer time, His Majesty’s government would not receive a satisfactory answer from the German government in London, then starting from the indicated hour, both states are at war. Since no such assurances have been received, I have the honor to inform that both states, starting from September XNUMX, are at war. ”
On September 3, speaking in the House of Commons, Chamberlain said: Great Britain entered the war with Germany. “Today,” the prime minister lamented, “is a sad day for all of us, and especially for me. "Everything that I worked for, everything that I so hoped for, everything that I believed in throughout my political life turned into ruins."
Indeed, Cheberlen’s plans to provoke a German attack on the Soviet Union crashed in those days. Germany began with a war against the ally of England and France - Poland. (historian professor F.D. Volkov).
And who declared war to whom? And who prepared the crusade against the USSR? The government of the USSR was forced to conclude a pact with Germany, so as not to fight with all of Europe, led by the British.

[Mu Dialer]

Even if Hitler had not signed the pact with Stalin, he would have all but attacked Poland; therefore, Adolf was an adventurer and ended badly in the end. He still began to prepare the attack in April, but he did not know that he would be able to agree in August. or he would attack anyone else, but he wouldn’t refuse 100% of his crazy plans.

[mat-vey]

It was not for nothing that I was snickering at the expense of the Wehrmacht generals .... When the Germans were going to negotiate with the USSR at the end of August 1939, the plans for the capture of Poland had long been ready. But you are not so "naive" as a lieutenant and do not think that plans to capture Poland can be was to develop and prepare troops for their implementation in a week?

[aKtoR]

Interesting article.
A detailed description of the sequence of events is given in the article:
https://topwar.ru/119947-kak-evropa-shla-k-dogovo
ru-molotova-ribbentropa.html

[Alexey Sobolev]

Good article. All on the shelves ... It is immediately clear that it was not Staver who wrote ..

[DimerVladimer]

So-so - lengthy superficial judgments about the pact, not claiming to have an in-depth knowledge of the issue.

If we talk about the moral point of view - the pact is immoral.

If we talk about the fact that he gave 2 years to rearm the Red Army and prepare for war - this is a brilliant - saving agreement for the USSR and it had to be signed despite its immorality.

It’s good to talk about immorality sitting on an island with a powerful fleet and beyond the Maginot line.
“The Strange War” is really immoral.
And the opinions of all Baltic historians and Polish politicians are garbage that interests no one.

[Koshak]

Article +. Just do not follow the example of the "light elves" to call the Soviet-German non-aggression pact / Moscow Treaty of 1939 - "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact." Or all the agreements of that time should be called by the names of the politicians who signed them. Then a lot of interesting things will be voiced ...