World massacre brought closer the onset of the "American Century" - US global domination

73
In the 1930-ies, the aspiration of the Japanese empire to develop an offensive in China and attack the Soviet Union was clearly revealed in order to bring the Far East under its control. In general, with a few reservations, it suited Washington. Japan assumed the role of gendarme in the Far East, got stuck in China and would have weakened in the struggle with Russia.

This eased Washington's position: Japan and Germany were supposed to crush the Soviet project and the USSR, but inevitably weakened their positions, suffered losses, were forced to disperse forces over a vast territory and to threaten their rear communications. And the United States was given the opportunity to eventually defeat or force Germany and Japan to capitulate. Especially considering the secret atomic program.



Hence the position of Washington, which encouraged Japan’s aggression in China, the consolidation of the Japanese on the southeastern frontiers of the Soviet Union, and the preparation of a strike by the Kwantung Army on the USSR. The United States took the position of "non-intervention" in Japan’s aggression against the Chinese people, carefully supplied the Japanese with strategic materials while they fought in China and organized armed provocations on the Soviet border. Obviously, the owners of Washington were waiting for Japan to strike the USSR. They pushed Japan to the north. The Anti-Comintern Pact 1936-1937, directed against the USSR, said that Japan was attacking the Soviet Far East and would do so simultaneously with the “crusade” of Germany and Italy, together with other European countries, against the USSR from the west.

But the problem for Washington was that Tokyo did not want to bind itself with military obligations - to fight in any case, that is, even if a war begins with England or France. Japanese Foreign Ministry and Command objected to this fleet. The intransigence of the sailors caused anger in the army command, the fleet was even called "the enemy of the country No. 1". To defend themselves against extremists, the naval command took special measures to strengthen its security, up to putting machine guns in the building of the ministry.

The army command, especially in the Kwantung Army, decided to make a massive provocation. In May, 1939, the Japanese troops began fighting against Mongolia, trying to seize a stretch of Mongolian territory near the river Khalkin-Gol. The Soviet Union came to the aid of the allied Mongolian People's Republic. The scale of the fighting expanded rapidly, which was the goal of the command of the Kwantung Army. The Japanese militarists believed that if the battle at Khalkin-Gol was successful, then one could proceed to capture the Soviet Far East. It was planned to invade the Ussuri and Amur regions, the Khabarovsk region and the seizure of the entire Primorsky Territory. However, the aggressors miscalculated. The Soviet army received reinforcements and showed high combat capability. The 1-I Soviet army group under the leadership of G. K. Zhukov inflicted a decisive defeat on the 6-th Japanese army. And in the ensuing fierce air battle, Soviet pilots scored upward over the Japanese. The Japanese lost tens of thousands of people, a lot of equipment, some 660 aircraft, about two times more than it took to defeat the American Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese losses in the Halkin-Golsky battle exceeded all losses of the Japanese army in manpower and equipment in the first year of the war in China. The Red Army showed its power, technical superiority over the Japanese troops.

The disaster of 6 of the Japanese army in the Mongolian steppes forced Berlin and Tokyo to change their strategic plans. In the Third Reich they understood that it was impossible to fight on two fronts, leaving France and England in the rear. Hitler offered Moscow a non-aggression pact and the Soviet government won precious time for the further development of heavy industry, the military-industrial complex and the modernization and transformation of the army. The Soviet Union was able to push the borders in the western strategic direction for hundreds of kilometers, to return the territory belonging to the Russian Empire. Moscow for some time led the country out of the immediate threat of war in Europe. Hitler led his troops first to Poland and then to France.

The Hiranuma government has declared Tokyo’s willingness to sign a treaty with Berlin and Rome that the Empire of the Rising Sun will enter the war, but only when it deems possible. But Berlin at that time went to meet Moscow. When in Tokyo they learned about the non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR, they were very annoyed there. The Hiranum government resigned. After Germany attacked Poland and World War II began, Japan took a wait. The Japanese militarists got a good lesson from Halkin-Gol and did not want to repeat. The war in China was dragging on. The northern direction of expansion no longer seemed as attractive as before. The eyes of the Japanese military-political leadership are turning towards the South Seas. Thus, the Red Army on Khalkin-Gol and Soviet diplomacy with the help of the pact with Germany brought discord to the camp of the Allies on the Anti-Comintern Pact. Moscow frustrated the simultaneous performance of Germany and Japan against the USSR.

World massacre brought closer the onset of the "American Century" - US global domination

The link of Soviet fighters I-16 in the sky during the fighting at Khalkhin Gol

Japan turn to the south

The war in Europe promised Japan more benefits than a fight with a powerful Soviet power. In the summer of 1940, France suffered a crushing defeat, Belgium and Holland were occupied, and British troops fled to their island. Britain faced the threat of a sea and air blockade, and even an enemy landing. It turned out that the extensive colonial possessions of the Western powers turned out to be "ownerless". There was no one to defend them or the defenders' forces were small and could not count on outside support. Japan could gain vast and resource-rich ownership without serious effort.

The new government of Konoe launched an offensive to the south. Under the pretext that China should be deprived of assistance from the south, emphasis was placed on solving the “southern problems”. Japan began to put pressure on the authorities of French Indochina and Dutch India, forcing them to make far-reaching concessions. The French were forced to close the road from Hanoi to China. Then came the turn of England. Tokyo insisted that the British close the Hong Kong border and the Burmese Road. London temporarily closed the road. Then Japan intervened in the conflict between Thailand and French Indochina. She assumed the role of mediator in establishing a truce and conducted an impressive demonstration of naval power in Southeast Asia. In London, they realized that Singapore, Malaya and Burma were under threat. But England at that time did not have sufficient land and naval forces in Southeast Asia and, being engaged in a war in the European theater, could not send sufficient reinforcements there. Only the United States could stop Japan.

In the meantime, Washington continued to follow the course towards Japan, which was adopted in the 1930s. The USA encouraged Japanese aggression. Japan’s war economy depended on American supplies, especially metal and oil. Many in the States themselves understood this well. In the spring of 1941, Congressman J. Kifi (from Washington State) said: “Arming Japan, the United States became its partner in aggression. For these crimes, we, like Japan, must answer before the justice of the world. History will not justify us. Retribution may overtake us soon. " Another congressman, C. Andersen (from the state of Minnesota), noted several months later: “We all know that the chances of 50 on 50, that our fleet will meet in a deadly fight with the Japanese fleet. He will probably have to fight with ships built from scrap metal imported from our country, whose vehicles will run on our oil. ”

The United States not only supplied Japan with strategic materials, but also helped pay for them. During the 1944 election campaign of the year, Senator G. Shipsted, returning to the events of the eve of World War II, noted: “The United States launched a revaluation policy in 1933 that ... entailed purchasing gold and silver at prices significantly higher than they had existed at the time of entry. -on Roosevelt in the post ... The Treasury purchased at inflated prices the gold stolen in Manchuria, and silver exported from China. We showered them with so many military and industrial equipment, for which the Japanese were not able to pay. We ourselves paid for it, financing and providing bonuses for the sale of precious metals and, of course, buying Japanese goods in large quantities, which gave Japan more currency. ”

Thus, the USA financed the beginning of the Japanese aggression, gave Japan strategic materials and equipment for waging war. American politics provided material support for Japan’s war in China. As the American publicist J. Flynn noted about the actions of Washington before Pearl Harbor: “In fact, we provided more assistance to Japan than to China. In 1939, US exports to China amounted to 56 600 000 dollars, to Japan - 232 000 000 dollars. The same picture was in 1940. We sold Japan an enormous amount of steel and scrap metal, oil and other materials with which it waged war in China and prepared for war with us. The US government sent its sympathy to China, and the metal to Japan. ” Moreover, in the 30s, Washington had every opportunity to stop Japan when it began aggression in China. However, the United States took the position of "non-intervention", encouraging the aggression of Tokyo in the Far East. The masters of the West held a similar position in Europe, step by step encouraging the Third Reich, when it destroyed the Versailles system, began to create full-fledged armed forces, captured Austria, the Sudetes, and then the whole of Czechoslovakia, etc.

At the same time, the owners of the USA understood well that a fight with Japan was inevitable. The question was whether it would happen sooner or later. Washington wanted this to happen later, when the major powers, including Allied Britain, were already draining their strength in the world massacre. In January - March, 1941 in the United States underwent secret negotiations with the British military. At the talks, the ABC-1 US-English plan was adopted, which envisaged the participation of the United States and England in the war with the Axis powers. The essence of it was that first of all it was necessary to break the Third Reich, and then take up Japan. Until victory at the European Theater, fighting was limited to strategic defense, a war of attrition. These considerations were taken as the basis for the revised action plan of the American armed forces - “Rainbow 5”. The ABC-1 plan was not approved by Roosevelt, who did not want to lose his freedom in choosing the most appropriate moment to enter the war. But the training of the American forces from that time was carried out in accordance with the tasks set in this regard.

The principle of concentration of armed forces against the German Empire, the main force of the Axis powers was logical from a military point of view. In Europe, the center of gravity of the whole world war lay. The axiom of military strategy is that in a war it is necessary to beat the main link of the enemy alliance. The ABC-1 plan also responded to the special interests of the owners of the USA - to wage the war mainly with someone else’s hands and resources. The main burden of the war, especially at the initial stage, was imposed on the United States by England. London, who also preferred to fight by proxy, had nowhere to go. Washington gradually took the place of the "senior partner" in the Anglo-Saxon tandem.

Japan, to finally turn to the south, it was necessary to settle relations with the USSR. After Germany signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR, Tokyo increasingly tended to think that it was time to normalize relations with Moscow. 13 April 1941 in Moscow signed a neutrality pact between the Soviet Union and Japan for five years.

In London and Washington were amazed by the "ingratitude" of the Japanese. Japan brazenly deceived the expectations of the owners of the United States and Britain, who, expecting the Japanese to attack the Russians, have long created ideal conditions for Japanese aggression in the Far East. Instead of going to the Soviet Union, as they shouted loudly in Tokyo for many years, Japan signed a neutrality pact with the Soviet Union. In this way, Moscow won an important victory. The center of gravity of world war remained in Europe. It was clear that it was impossible to completely trust Japan, and the USSR was forced to hold significant forces in the Far East. but The Neutrality Pact provided an opportunity to focus on the western strategic direction, to focus on the threat posed by the Third Reich.

Washington still believed that the war in the Pacific could be averted by some sophisticated diplomatic maneuver. In the perspective of a thaw between Tokyo and Washington believed in the armed forces and the political elite of America. American politicians left no hope that they could ward off the threat from the United States, prompting Japan to elect the object of an attack by the USSR. Washington acted in the best traditions of the former metropolis - England, trying to extract maximum benefits for itself from the wars in Europe and Asia. It was largely based on the well-being of the United States. America was in no hurry to enter into major military conflicts, waiting for the belligerents to weaken each other in order to join the fight at a crucial moment and get as much benefit and gain as possible.

Hence the policy of the United States during the Second World War. From the very beginning of the conflict, the United States supported England, since they could not allow the victory of the Third Reich. However, the US government was in no hurry to go to war. At the same time, in Washington they understood that entry into the war was inevitable and they carried out comprehensive military and economic preparations for the war (including the atomic project). The States pursued a corresponding foreign policy. This and the promotion of Japanese aggression against China and the USSR; and the plan "ABC-1"; lend-lease; gradual deepening of the American-English Union. In the spring of 1941, of the major world powers, except for the USA, only the USSR and Japan were outside the world massacre (except for the bloody fuss of the Japanese in the Middle Kingdom). This prompted Washington to be even more cautious. The United States wanted to wait for the USSR and Japan to be involved in a world war, and only after that to enter into a global conflict, already on its own terms.

The implementation of this strategy opened up exciting prospects for America. The United States could remain the only superpower with a steadily developing economy that was not subjected to military influence, with a full-fledged army and navy, not exhausted by long-term confrontation. The forces of France, Germany, Italy, the USSR, Japan and even part of England were to destroy the conflagration of world war. The world massacre was approaching the onset of the “American Century” - the world domination of the owners of the USA, the “golden elite” parasitizing over all of humanity.


Japanese fighters A6M2 "Zero" from the composition of the second wave of air strikes on the American base Pearl Harbor take off from the deck of the aircraft carrier "Akagi"
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    5 October 2017 06: 25
    About the American nuclear program in the "30s" for more details please!
    1. 0
      7 October 2017 18: 51
      Yes, the article lies in a lie, and the American oil embargo against Japan is lost, as well as the steel embargo and arms assistance to China, and military volunteers sent to China to fight Japan
      Since December 1937, a series of events (the attack on the American gunboat Panei [24], the massacre in Nanjing, etc.) turned the public opinion of the United States, France and Great Britain against Japan and aroused certain fears regarding Japanese expansion. This prompted the governments of these countries to begin providing the Kuomintang with loans for military purposes. In addition, Australia did not allow one of the Japanese companies to acquire an iron ore mine on its territory, and in 1938 banned the export of iron ore to Japan. Japan responded by invading Indochina in 1940, cutting off the Sino-Vietnamese railway, through which China imported weapons, fuel, and about 10 tons of materials from its Western allies each month.
  2. +2
    5 October 2017 06: 27
    The turn of Japan to the south is the most important diplomatic victory of the USSR, backed up by military force
  3. +1
    5 October 2017 06: 34
    The conclusions about the “American Century” are absolutely correct and relevant until now, and RI, the USSR, and the Russian Federation have been throat-throating them all their lives. Mother Russia has greatly contributed to the formation of the USA as a state!
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. +3
    5 October 2017 06: 41
    By the way, another interesting idea is that the United States wanted to enter the war on its own terms. And for some reason this is bad. Interesting and who did not want this. Maybe Stalin.
    1. +4
      5 October 2017 11: 36
      Quote: Ken71
      an interesting idea that the United States wanted to enter the war on its own terms. And this is somehow bad. Interesting and who did not want this. Maybe Stalin.

      Most likely, Stalin worked at that time for the interests of the USSR and its people, and at your post it turns out that the interests of the United States and its people are more important to you. Maybe, just in case, you have US citizenship, or at least “green cards”, otherwise your personal position cannot be understood otherwise.
      1. +1
        5 October 2017 13: 00
        Vyacheslav. You may not be jealous. I do not have a Green Card and a second citizenship. Even Israeli. And the interests of the American people are so violet to me that you can’t even imagine. But what I sincerely envy is how the American government cares about the interests of its citizens. We would have such a government. But ours is still trying to benefit anyone but their own people .. And as for the USSR in general and Stalin in particular, it was a departure from the normal sequential path of development. This is my opinion I do not impose.
  6. +5
    5 October 2017 06: 47
    It is interesting how the United States pushed Japan into a war with the USSR in every possible way cutting off its resources and simply running into a blow. The author would have to decide for himself that the United States wanted to send Japan to war with the USSR or provoke a war with itself. And then his opinion changes with the weather.
    1. +11
      5 October 2017 06: 52
      You just find fault! Know that when a person is unprofessionally interested in something, he forgets everything written after 90 days by 90%. Only 10% remains, that is, a trend! And he is like - "they are bad!" That's all. The whole purpose of such publications. What matters is not their content, but their quantity!
      1. +7
        5 October 2017 10: 31
        I was given three warnings only for criticizing this historian.
        1. +3
          5 October 2017 10: 58
          Quote: Velizariy
          ..for criticizing this historian.

          For criticism, or for rudeness. Criticism, especially constructive, is always welcome. Rudeness such as this - "history", speaks of the bias and lack of arguments for criticism. And why rudeness on the site? And in the case, in the article, is there anything, or is there just a desire to defame the site itself?
      2. +5
        5 October 2017 12: 29
        Quote: kalibr
        You just find fault! Know that when a person is unprofessionally interested in something, he forgets everything written after 90 days by 90%. Only 10% remains, that is, a trend! And he is like - "they are bad!" That's all. The whole purpose of such publications. What matters is not their content, but their quantity!

        in your articles, you too often sin with bias, in a stranger's eye noticed a speck, but in your logs you do not notice
    2. +1
      5 October 2017 11: 18
      Quote: Ken71
      It is interesting how the United States pushed Japan into a war with the USSR in every possible way cutting off its resources and simply running into a blow. The author would have to decide for himself that the United States wanted to send Japan to war with the USSR or provoke a war with itself. And then his opinion changes with the weather.

      as long as the Japanese waged war in China, trying to create a springboard for an attack on the USSR, the Americans traded with Japan, when the Japanese turned south, sending their troops into Indochina, the United States imposed a trade embargo on oil supplies to Japan. Why's that?
      1. 0
        5 October 2017 11: 30
        In China, a springboard for an attack on the USSR. And what was bad about Hassan. In China, they fought to establish control in China. No more. In addition, America supplied certain weapons to China.
        1. +1
          5 October 2017 11: 58
          Quote: Ken71
          In China, a springboard for an attack on the USSR. And what was bad about Hassan. In China, they fought to establish control in China. No more. In addition, America supplied certain weapons to China.

          Is Manzhou-Guo not China? And about Hassan, by the way, you remembered that because the Japanese realized that they wouldn’t have free buns if they tried to attack the USSR, and decided to go south, like Tobaki, but the only difference was that he urged to go north )
          1. +1
            5 October 2017 12: 35
            Quote: San Sanych
            Is Manzhou-Guo not China? And about Hassan, by the way, you remembered that because the Japanese realized that they wouldn’t have free buns if they tried to attack the USSR, and decided to go south, like Tobaki, but the only difference was that he urged to go north )



            Are you sure? .... Hassan was worth the head to Blucher ... and Khalkhin Goal is a consequence of the "brilliant" preparation of the Red Army demonstrated by Hassan
      2. +3
        5 October 2017 13: 26
        Quote: San Sanych
        as long as the Japanese waged war in China, trying to create a springboard for an attack on the USSR, the Americans traded with Japan, when the Japanese turned south, sending their troops into Indochina, the United States imposed a trade embargo on oil supplies to Japan.

        The bridgehead for the attack on the USSR was created in the early 30s - with the formation of Manzhou-Guo. If the Americans tried to control Japan through an embargo, would it be more logical to start restricting the Japanese even then - so that they climbed into the USSR and not be distracted by China, which the US has already seen in its area of ​​interest?
        By the way, the first embargo was introduced by the USA in 1938. And it concerned aviation technology. A fun way to push Japan's aggression is by weakening its armed forces. smile

        PS The 1938 embargo was "moral." That is, formally its observance was voluntary (until 1940, the president had no right to limit "private initiative"). But in fact, in the context of a sharp buildup of the US armed forces and an associated increase in government orders, including for aircraft, the embargo became extremely desirable to implement. For not observing it could fly past army orders.
        1. 0
          5 October 2017 13: 50
          Manzhou-Guo is a springboard only for attacking the Far Eastern regions of the USSR, and if the Japanese managed to “crush” all of China and Mongolia, then they would reach the line along the line from Central Asia to Vladivostok. But when the Japanese turned south, the Americans were very annoyed, they saw that something went wrong in their view. And from that moment on, they introduced not childish, real, not "moral" sanctions, imposing an embargo on oil supplies to Japan after they occupied Indochina.
          1. 0
            5 October 2017 14: 36
            Quote: San Sanych
            Manzhou-Guo is a springboard only for attacking the Far Eastern regions of the USSR, and if the Japanese managed to “crush” all of China and Mongolia, then they would reach the line along the line from Central Asia to Vladivostok.

            Yeah ... with the same success, the Nazis could attack from North Africa to South Africa. smile
            Japan for 1941 has 51 divisions.
            Of these, 11 are in the Metropolis and Korea.
            Another 13 - in Manzhou-Guo. They can’t be touched - because the USSR has already got into Chinese affairs, and we need to hide from it at least somehow.
            Total for all of China remains 27 divisions. And this is still good - because the Expeditionary Army began with just 16 divisions.
            1. 0
              5 October 2017 15: 55
              Well, why "step from North Africa to South Africa"? wink it was enough to take control of the Suez Canal and the oil fields of Iraq, and South Africa itself would fall like a ripe fruit bully and not only she Yes
              1. +1
                5 October 2017 18: 59
                Quote: San Sanych
                Well, why "step from North Africa to South Africa"?

                But because in terms of epicity, senselessness and suicidalness, this task is approximately similar to the occupation of China, up to Xinjiang by forces of 30-35 divisions. smile
            2. 0
              5 October 2017 16: 01
              51 division think this is not enough? the Wehrmacht, as the heir to the Reichswehr, could begin to say from scratch, and nevertheless they were able to reach Stalingrad, you can not even mention Europe. And the fact that the Japanese had a gut against the USSR is rather a misfortune of the Japanese, first of all, as they say the problems of the Indians, the sheriff does not care
              1. 0
                5 October 2017 19: 07
                Quote: San Sanych
                51 division think this is not enough?

                51 divisions from Metropolis to Xinjiang? belay
                In addition, where did you get 51 divisions? 10 divisions will always be in the Metropolis and in Korea. And another 10-12 divisions will guard the USSR in Manchuria - so that 30 divisions of the Far Eastern Front and ZabVO would not give the Japanese a big surprise. Moreover, the Japanese knew the exact composition of forces and plans of the Red Army in the Far East. As, however, we are theirs.
                Quote: San Sanych
                the Wehrmacht as the successor to the Reichswehr began can be said from scratch

                Is 80 non-commissioned personnel and 000 higher-ranking officers "from scratch"? We would have such initial conditions ... smile
                The training of personnel in the Reichswehr was carried out on the basis of "a couple of ranks higher" - von Sect from the very beginning positioned the Reichswehr as a forge of non-commissioned and officer personnel for the future German mass army.
                1. 0
                  5 October 2017 19: 37
                  You don’t understand, 51 divisions do you think it’s not enough, and 10 divisions (the number of Reichswehr is 100 thousand troops) is for some reason a lot laughing You already decide
                  1. +1
                    6 October 2017 10: 14
                    Quote: San Sanych
                    51 division is it your way out a little

                    35 divisions for China is a drop in the bucket. Especially if you recall the completely unpredictable internal situation in China at a time where there was no one to conclude even a normal long-term peace treaty with.
                    Quote: San Sanych
                    and 10 divisions (the number of Reichswehr 100 thousand troops) is for some reason a lot

                    100 thousand current officers and non-commissioned officers. Plus, they were transferred to the reserve (in violation of the Versailles Accords, Germany reduced the service life in the Reichswehr for part of the salary, thus preparing a personnel reserve). On the basis of which over 5-8 years formed about 200 divisions. Plus German industry. Plus trophies and industry of the occupied territories - from Anschluss and beyond.
                    If Japan could put up at least 120-150 divisions in China, then perhaps she would be able to establish a semblance of her power in this country.
                2. 0
                  5 October 2017 19: 54
                  and for example, the 5th division of the Imperial Army of Japan had a population of 25000
                3. 0
                  5 October 2017 20: 20
                  the average number of Japanese divisions was 19770 people, when Japan joined WWII, it formed 173 divisions, so in this sense Japan had room to grow, there was potential, it’s just that the Japanese did not want to drag hot chestnuts out of the fire for Uncle Sam laughing
                  1. +1
                    6 October 2017 18: 42
                    Quote: San Sanych
                    the average number of Japanese divisions was 19770 people, when Japan joined WWII, it formed 173 divisions, so in this sense Japan had a lot to grow,

                    173 divisions - is this together with the formations of 1945? If so, you can immediately drop 40 defense divisions of the Metropolis and Korea. For they even according to the plan lacked weapons.
                    1st term (end of February) - 18 divisions for coastal defense (including 2 divisions in Korea);
                    2nd term (early April) - 8 divisions for a decisive battle and 6 separate tank brigades. In addition, the formation of the headquarters of nine armies (including one in Korea) and other bodies of higher military command should be completed during this period.
                    3rd term - 2 divisions for coastal defense (in Korea), 7 divisions for decisive battle, 16 separate mixed brigades.
                    An important problem was the provision of new compounds with weapons and military equipment; the available reserves made it possible to provide new formations with rifles by 50%, light machine guns by 23%, field artillery by 28%, anti-tank artillery by 74%, and mountain artillery by 75%.

                    One rifle for two, Yes... smile
                    1. 0
                      7 October 2017 08: 41
                      "One rifle for two" yes you, the Japanese generally went to war with bare hands, but at the same time staged a pogrom in Pearl Harbor, occupied all of Southeast Asia, and even in the Indian Ocean sank the ships of the Navy of Her Majesty’s Navy lol enlightened mariners, their teachers laughing
                      1. 0
                        9 October 2017 10: 27
                        Quote: San Sanych
                        "One rifle for two" yes you, the Japanese generally went to war with bare hands, but at the same time staged a pogrom in Pearl Harbor, occupied all of Southeast Asia, and even in the Indian Ocean sank the ships of the Navy of Her Majesty’s Navy

                        The Japanese went to war with the first economy of the world and the largest colonial empire, having at the first stage 17 (seventeen) personnel divisions. And the only thing that saved them was that everyone was busy with the great war in Europe, so the same British fought with the Japanese troops not only in the second or third grade.
                        As soon as they took the Japanese seriously, they began to "crumble".
            3. 0
              5 October 2017 16: 23
              but in general, the Japanese acted quite logically when they decided to take their owner’s former European colonies into their own hands, and this could not be tolerated by overseas strategists, and if before that they looked through their fingers at the fuss of the Japanese in China, then here they immediately entered into modern terms tough sanctions against Japan.
    3. +2
      5 October 2017 11: 25
      Quote: Ken71
      how the USA pushed Japan to the war with the USSR in every possible way cutting off its resources and simply running into a blow. The author would have to decide for himself that the United States wanted to send Japan to war with the USSR or provoke a war with itself.

      In big politics, it is not always possible to conduct business as straightforwardly as, for example, deputy N. Poklonskaya acts. The main puppeteers of world politics are often forced to act more sophisticatedly, because it never succeeds to directly manage all countries, often you have to punish unruly vassals such as Japan. Hence, many do not understand the reasons for some actions, for example, the US leadership in the case of the provocation in Pearl Harbor. True, there are people who really don’t understand something in big politics, but there are people who pretend that they don’t understand something (they just fool around). It is interesting to which category you specifically belong, especially in the light of your previous reference to the personality of Stalin, and completely unfounded criticism of the author of the article. By the way, the article was written very competently, with many previously unknown details. The article is clearly a fat plus (+).
      1. +1
        5 October 2017 11: 33
        But didn’t Stalin want to enter the war at a convenient moment for himself. You are ready to argue with this. Or he wanted to start fighting at an uncomfortable moment as it turned out in real life. IMHO you are trying to humiliate Stalin.
      2. +2
        5 October 2017 11: 40
        My criticism of the author lies in his demonization of one of the participants in the historical process, which categorically prevents him from objectively setting forth events. Not to mention the mistake with the atomic design. The author is trying almost simultaneously to prove two different theses. What I tried to point out.
        1. +2
          5 October 2017 12: 15
          Quote: Ken71
          My criticism of the author lies in his demonization of one of the participants in the historical process, which categorically prevents him from objectively setting forth events. Not to mention the mistake with the atomic design. The author is trying almost simultaneously to prove two different theses. What I tried to point out.

          then it is possible to demonize Stalin, but "demonize" the "stronghold of democracy", in any case? no way, complete taboo bully so what?
          1. 0
            5 October 2017 12: 27
            Sure. But let's not in the articles. Historical articles should be objective, even in principle. We’ll chop it in the comments.
            1. +1
              5 October 2017 14: 15
              Quote: Ken71
              Sure. But let's not in the articles. Historical articles should be objective, even in principle. We’ll chop it in the comments.

              but how then will one of the fundamental principles of Western "democracy" be respected - "freedom of speech and the press"?) you actually propose censorship)
              1. +1
                5 October 2017 15: 35
                I suggest hacking his head. So to speak. To avoid such glaring contradictions that the author admits because of his irrational hatred of the Anglo-Saxons. And so it would be a suitable historical article and not a set of unproven theses in places contradicting each other and historical errors.
      3. +3
        5 October 2017 19: 05
        Quote: venaya
        By the way, the article is written very competently, with many previously unknown details

        Yeah. for example this
        The Japanese lost tens of thousands of people, a lot of equipment, some 660 aircraft

        Indeed, discovery is such a discovery. 660 Japanese aircraft shot down according to Soviet data. Are you not aware that ALL countries of the world ALL armies of the world ALWAYS overestimated the losses of the enemy? And what losses should be considered according to the party that suffered them?
        If you think otherwise that losses can be measured according to the party that inflicted them, then take note: according to the Japanese, they shot down 1162 aircraft at Khalkhin Gol and another 98
        destroyed on the ground. laughing
        Much more realistic figures (although I cannot guarantee absolute reliability) are based on documents from the Russian State Military Archive on the one hand and articles by Eichiro Sekigawa The Undeclared Air War.
        207 combat loss aircraft from our side and 162 aircraft from the Japanese
        And here is another super discovery
        The catastrophe of the 6th Japanese army in the Mongolian steppes forced Berlin and Tokyo to change their strategic plans. In the Third Reich they realized that it was impossible to fight on two fronts, leaving France and England behind. Hitler proposed non-aggression pact to Moscow

        Everything would have been fine, but it’s bad luck - the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed on August 23, 1939, and it is obvious that its main provisions were agreed upon by the parties earlier. But Zhukov was not to be defeated, but only surrounded the Japanese only on August 26, and inflicted a crushing defeat on them in the next few days.
        Thus, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed at the very height of the fighting on Khalkhin Gol, when nothing was clear and when Zhukov just threw into the battle the last reserves in order to turn the tide (and turned it over with a completely derogatory score for the Japanese), and Agreements on its signing were reached even before Zhukov even launched an offensive.
        Here are such touching blunders allows your favorite author. This is not at all surprising to me - in order to pull an owl on a globe, knowledge of history is completely unnecessary. And you should reflect on the fact that you praise a person who is even unable to learn the main dates of the historical period, which is taken to write
  7. +3
    5 October 2017 07: 33
    American politicians left no hope that they could ward off the threat from the United States, prompting Japan to elect the object of an attack by the USSR.
    ... Here in more detail ... How Japan threatened the USA ... when it depended on supplies from the USA ...
    1. +2
      5 October 2017 10: 50
      Quote: parusnik
      ... how Japan threatened the United States ... when it depended on supplies from the United States ...

      It is very simple. American capital, which organized a couple of World Massacres, classically, like an ordinary hyena, gathered its gesheft precisely on the results of these wars. The Japanese, by no means, could organize such a large-scale war. the economy wasn’t enough for it, and then suddenly such a “laf” turned up in the form of a massacre at a European theater of operations. And here's what happened:
      It turned out that the vast colonial possessions of the Western powers turned out to be "ownerless." There was no one to defend them or the forces of the defenders were small and could not count on outside support. Japan could gain huge and resource-rich ownership without serious effort.
      The new Konoe government launched an offensive to the south. .. emphasis was placed on solving the “southern problems”. Japan began to exert pressure on the authorities of French Indochina and Dutch India, forcing them to make far-reaching concessions ..

      That is, it turned out that the "bells and whistles" from this massacre, organized not at all by the Japanese, but to a greater extent by the Americans, gradually began to collect the Japanese. Well, who could bear it? Hence the provocation of Pearl Harbor and the subsequent US war with Japan. It's as simple as two and two!
      1. 0
        5 October 2017 13: 21
        Maybe try to substantiate the thesis of provocation in Pearl Harbor.
      2. +1
        5 October 2017 13: 34
        Quote: venaya
        That is, it turned out that the "bells and whistles" from this massacre, organized not at all by the Japanese, but to a greater extent by the Americans, gradually began to collect the Japanese.

        They didn’t start. For the pressure on the authorities of Dutch India ended with the uncle Sam standing behind the Dutch. And the Japanese, who have almost signed an agreement on supplies of oil, were forced to retreat.
        Moreover, Dutch India was still lucky: the Dutch colonies in America were simply occupied by the Yankees. By mutual agreement with the authorities of the colonies (well, you know - with a kind word and a gun...)
        1. +1
          5 October 2017 14: 44
          Quote: Alexey RA
          ".." pockets ".. the Japanese began to collect."
          Did not start. ..

          Understand the concept: “started” or “did not start” is rather arbitrary. If we talk about oil, then Rockefeller just built his full monopoly just "with a kind word and a gun.. "in every possible way destroying its competitors, and oil is really the true currency, unlike cut paper. Another thing is that any owner always has to" throw a bone "to his vassal, oil apparently did not enter this" bone ", and others necessary for Japan’s resources, the Americans allowed the Japanese to rob. I just write that the Japanese have gone too far in their claims, and with the help of the American embargo on Japan for oil, they forced them to go to Pearl Harbor first, and naturally then to fight in the USA. that the Yankees just taught their vassals Oh, they say there’s nothing to dig in. I look at the causes of the Pearl Harbor events to many until now are not clear, but they just need to be clarified in more detail, which is what was done in this article.
          1. 0
            5 October 2017 15: 36
            Japan has never been a vassal of the United States. If you use your logic, Europe is our vassal as it buys our oil gas and scrap metal. Japan, in principle, could not attack the United States but put a paw on the Dutch inheritance, which also had oil. It was enough to get around the United States.
            1. +1
              5 October 2017 15: 45
              Japan is now the purest vassal of the United States. There are American military bases there, the Japanese economy has always been oriented to the United States, so far, Japanese standards comply with US standards, for example, inch threads, etc., left of the British left-hand car traffic. There are more than enough examples of vassal dependence, for example, the position on the Kuril Islands as well as their other political and military-political actions.
              1. 0
                5 October 2017 16: 06
                I especially liked yours now. Let me remind you that since then there was such a world war in which Japan lost. And grieve you. She was occupied by the USA. Although I would not say that now she is a vassal. Rather, a faithful ally united by a community of interests. Regular trade wars speak for not being a vassal. And the current state of Japan is beneficial.
              2. 0
                6 October 2017 10: 23
                Quote: venaya
                Japan is now the purest vassal of the United States. There are American military bases there, the Japanese economy has always been oriented to the United States, so far, Japanese standards comply with US standards, for example, inch threads, etc., left of the British left-hand car traffic.

                Bggg ... this vassal in the 80s nearly brought down American industry. However, why the “a little” - in terms of electronics and cars, the Japanese made the United States great.
                If you remember, then in the American popular culture of the 80s and early 90s, the Japanese competed with us for the place of the main enemy of the United States. Huge closed megacorporations - and the soulless cogs of the corporate machine that serve them, ready to do anything for the sake of profit - even walk on corpses.
          2. +1
            5 October 2017 16: 32
            Quote: venaya
            I’m just writing that the Japanese have gone too far in their claims, and with the help of the American embargo on Japan for oil, they forced them to go to Pearl Harbor at first, and naturally then to fight in the USA in general.

            PMSM, it was not only the Japanese and Japan. The United States needed to join the World War in any way. Moreover, as a party subjected to an unprovoked attack (in order to overcome the resistance of the isolationists).
            All the provocations in the Atlantic did not give any results - the Germans even swallowed the escort of British goods by American ships, the expansion of the Neutral Patrol’s area of ​​responsibility (in which it was allowed to attack all discovered submarines) almost to the British Isles, and the construction of ships of all classes, including escort aircraft carriers, at US yards, for Royal Navy. And the deadlines were tight - according to the plan, the United States was to enter the war by the beginning of 1942. In the spring of 1941, American officers inspected British bases on the Islands for the deployment of the American army, and American companies reconstructed British ports and naval forces.
            And then attention was switched to another member of the Axis. Fortunately, he was sitting on the shortest leash: the main suppliers and carriers of oil to Japan were the United States, Britain and Holland. Moreover, he waged an aggressive war in China - one Nanking massacre was worth what.
            And they began to provoke Japan from two sides: the embargo + provocative actions of the Asian fleet. It was believed that the first goal of the Japanese would be the Philippines. And Britain will take the brunt. Which was also very good, bearing in mind the need for the United States to destroy the British colonial empire.
            By the way, for some reason everyone is talking exclusively about the oil embargo. But at the same time, a much stronger blow was dealt to Japan - the United States was frozen all its foreign financial assets. And before that, in 1940, gasoline and raw materials for ferrous metallurgy fell under the embargo.
            Isn’t it a funny preparation for a “fighting hamster” to attack the USSR? If the USA really wanted to set Japan against the USSR, on the contrary they would have to pump up the Empire with military materials and raw materials so that the Japanese did not even think about looking south.
            1. +1
              5 October 2017 18: 20
              Quote: Alexey RA
              .. funny preparation of a “fighting hamster” for an attack on the USSR? If the United States really wanted to set Japan against the USSR, then they would need to pump up the Empire with military materials and raw materials ..

              Your arguments look quite logical. I just want to remember the times of “our” Civil War, at that time absolutely all the countries that could have rushed to us like jackals to a country torn by contradictions. Japan did not lag behind in this then either, it was closer to them to occupy our Far East, and it was more convenient to export wealth. Imagine, the United States invested in WWI in full, and their fin. contributions to the revolution were in the first place, and then some tiny Japan was brazenly trying to rob them of what they thought was their "good." After all, that war and revolution is primarily the merit of the United States, and not someone else. That is the question: how to organize a war, while trying not to share very much with your younger accomplices. So the question arises, with all the logic of your reasoning, how to get income from the war. My strong opinion is that there are no and cannot be simple solutions. So it’s not always possible to build simple logical chains, besides, there is such a thing as “hutspa” in Yiddish - and often such decisions can give maximum financial income. In military art, for disorientation of the enemy, they also often use non-logical solutions to achieve their objectives and obtain maximum results, I hope that you also know similar examples. So it’s not always possible to use clear logical chains, exceptions exist, for example, the USA is the largest economic and military power. How they achieved this - I think that this issue is worthy of close study, simplifications are not permissible here, even logical ones.
      3. +3
        5 October 2017 23: 35
        Hence the provocation of Pearl Harbor and the subsequent US war with Japan. It's as simple as two and two "///

        Just as “just as twice as two” it can be proved that the USSR “intentionally” provoked an attack on Hitler, “in order to triumphantly take Berlin after 4 years” and “gain control over all of Eastern Europe”. The same nonsense as the "Pearl Harbor provocation ...
  8. 0
    5 October 2017 12: 16
    I’m wondering who the owners of the West are, how they differ from the owners of the USA, and how does the author know what exactly and at what point they wanted?
  9. +2
    5 October 2017 12: 52
    It is impossible to agree with any provision of the article. The USA created the industry of the USSR and, above all, the military-industrial complex. It all started in 1928, slowed down in the Great Depression and rapidly grew from 36g — from the American big military program — super-battleships, attack aircraft carriers, strategic bombers (B-17). Amtorg’s clerks reported on hundreds and thousands of Soviet citizens who studied at American aircraft, automobiles, radios, and engine factories. And this is on a daily basis. The only foreign diplomat - the holder of the Order of Lenin is Joseph Davis, US Ambassador to Moscow in 37 - 38. But here are photos from the personal archive of his daughter. Stalin, Molotov, Davis in the Kremlin office of Stalin. Stalin in the pre-war jacket, on the chest the Golden Star of the GTS, received by him on his 60th birthday in December 1939. Davis is the ambassador in Luxembourg, relations between the USSR and the USA are frozen due to the Finnish war. And yet the photo shoot took place, Davis's daughter snapped a kodak in the leader’s office.. I must say right away - glory to Comrade Stalin, who managed to lead our country along the edge of the abyss. Is it possible to evaluate the size of cooperation? Easy, V.I. Chuikov talks about helping China in 38-40 in the amount of $ 265 million. The article shows the volume of foreign trade of America with China and Japan, they are much smaller. The corrupt Kuomintang did not have that kind of money, and if it did, it would be stolen. The United States paid Soviet military assistance to China and military conflicts on Hassan Lake and Khalkhin Gol.
    1. +1
      5 October 2017 17: 10
      Quote: vladim.gorbunow
      It is impossible to agree with any provision of the article. The USA created the industry of the USSR and, above all, the military-industrial complex.

      You see, if you follow your little logic, then it’s not possible to imagine Hitler’s attacks on the USSR. Indeed, in August 1937, an agreement was signed, as a result of which extensive economic ties were established between our countries, as a result of which the USSR gained access to modern technologies, machine tools, industrial equipment, and even obviously military-purpose technologies, such as modern at that time aircraft. By the way, until June 22nd, 1941, the USSR did not pay for these deliveries. I recall that at the Pskov station, a train was stuck with butter, which subsequently did not know where to put it. Indeed, in exchange for the German supplies of the USSR that were urgently required for the country and its military-industrial complex, the USSR was paid for with natural resources (oil, ores), food, everything, everything it could. So, following your logic, Hitler shouldn’t have to attack, by the way it seems that he really didn’t want this, he was simply forced, because his sponsors always had sufficient opportunities for this. So think about all this, maybe sometimes you will be able to change your mind about this.
      1. 0
        5 October 2017 19: 45
        Apparently you are talking about a trade agreement on August 19, 39, and not 37. That's right. We cynically offered raw materials up to unenriched ore, the Germans - products with highly qualified labor costs and high energy intensity. And this is in the context of a shortage of labor and energy resources for its production of weapons. A brilliant analysis with the nomenclature of supplies was given by A.P. Parshev in the famous book "Why Russia is not America." Nevertheless, it does not at all follow from my logic that Hitler could not attack the USSR. The goal of the United States was not the ruins of Westminster Abbey. They fought with Britain, not with England. The British had to get into a difficult situation, then the Americans would help the country - the foremother. The price would be the position of am. capital in Canada, Australia, Singapore, etc. Hitler first spoke of the war with Russia in June 40, during the French campaign, long before the frustrations of the Battle of Britain. Apparently his creditors explained to him that this will be the price for peace in Europe.
      2. 0
        6 October 2017 18: 59
        Quote: venaya
        So, following your logic, Hitler shouldn’t have to attack, by the way it seems that he really didn’t want this, he was simply forced, because his sponsors always had sufficient opportunities for this.

        Just Adolf after Dunkirk and the failure of the Adlertag fell into a hopeless situation. The war needs to end - but the damned limes never give up. It is impossible to land on the Islands - RN and RAF are too strong, and every day they become stronger, because Uncle Sam tears off the last from himself - if only “Runway No. 1” would not give up.
        Simply put, you won’t be able to directly defeat limes: to do this, you need a fleet that the Reich does not have. But the Reich has an army that Britain cannot get. And then Adolf decided to hit in indirect actions: for some reason, he decided that Britain hopes once again to use Russia / USSR so that it fits into it. And if you defeat Russia, then it will hit the fighting spirit of lime - and they will go to the world. What seemed especially good in this version was that the victory over the USSR could be won by forces already available - by the army, not the fleet. smile

        Everything would be fine, but Adolf’s reasoning completely ignored Britain’s main real ally, the United States. And the ever-increasing desire of Americans to get into a war in Europe.
  10. +2
    5 October 2017 12: 53
    What is the point of American policy towards Japan? Cheap loans, supplies of raw materials and technologies convinced the Japanese to abandon the old alliance with Great Britain, encouraged them to attack China with big credit in June 37. And when Japan got bogged down in China and got a rebuff from the USSR, it was declared an energy blockade in the summer of 40 (defeat of France on the European theater). In Japan, a coup d'etat occurred in 39–40. The army lost power, it was replaced by sailors led by Prince Konoe, and French Indochina was occupied. Armed forces of Japan were deployed to attack the Dutch and British Southeast Asia. Hooked Pearl Harbor and the Philippines - costs. The main enemy of America was a giant superpower - the British Empire. In 1932, she managed to organize a refusal to pay debts to America, 17 of the largest economically joined countries joined him. In March 33, the US banking system collapsed, 20 billion gold dollars (2 trillion today) is a lot. Britain, in contrast to the European Union project, created an alliance of the old colonial powers. In addition to Britain, it would include French, Dutch, Belgian, Portuguese, Spanish colonial empires, Scandinavian countries. Hitler tore Italy out of this alliance. In the event of his victory, the USSR, China, Latin America and many other countries would wait for sections and external management. For Britain to subdue France with its largest army in Europe and ambitions was still difficult. Here Hitler helped, who seemed controlled. and its resources are limited. The British provoked the European War to control France (project "Anjou Empire"). The USA managed to finance Hitler, give him the missing strategic materials, and they supplied him up to 44 years. In fact, he was hired to attack Britain, promising him mediation in the peace negotiations and Germany’s leadership in the European Union. What Hitler spoke about later with indignation. The USSR and China were considered large, but secondary countries, whose damage in the war would not be compensated. When Hitler defeated the British allies, the Japanese attacked their colonies in Asia. The United States was ready to help Britain, the dollar was recognized as a means of payment in the countries of the British Commonwealth, the Middle East, Latin America. American troops occupied Britain in early 1944 and remain there to this day.
  11. +2
    5 October 2017 13: 01
    In the 1930s, the desire of the Japanese Empire to develop an offensive in China and attack the Soviet Union was clearly revealed in order to bring the Far East under its control.

    Yes, yes, yes ... the Japanese Empire wanted to attack the USSR so much that the Kwantung Army in all its border conflicts received almost no support from the Metropolis. Not from a good life, the Japanese at Khalkhin Gol threw even the Ki-10 into battle.
    All cross-border conflicts with the USSR are a private initiative of the Kwantungs. Well, in Japan there was no single army bound by strict discipline. smile Guadalcanal and Imphal are an example (on the Guadalcanal, a liaison officer who arrived with the order of the IJA General Staff to leave the island was sure that the order would not be executed, and was afraid for his fate).
  12. 0
    6 October 2017 08: 18
    Hitler offered Moscow a non-aggression pact and the Soviet government won precious time for the further development of heavy industry, the military-industrial complex and the modernization and transformation of the army. The Soviet Union was able to push the borders in the western strategic direction for hundreds of kilometers, to return the territory belonging to the Russian Empire. Moscow for some time led the country out of the immediate threat of war in Europe. Hitler led his troops first to Poland and then to France.
    Who won more here is probably a moot point. Had the war between the USSR and Hitler Germany in 1939, it would have been a disaster for Hitler. Rather, it was the Germans who had better prepared themselves, first covering their rear, to defeat France, then, crushing Europe and including its potential to strengthen the Third Reich. Our "pushed-off borders" gave us borders with a hostile population and more problematic territories for defense, besides, the fortified areas along the old border, known as the Stalin Line, were dismantled or mothballed, but did not have time to create new frontiers. The creation of mechanized corps instead of divisions also resembled the situation when an old house was broken without building a new one, remaining with a bare backside in the frost. Start the USSR a war against Hitler in 1939, Germany would have been defeated, then Hitler did not have sufficient forces against the total superiority of the Soviet armed forces. According to the article, one can only agree that the United States made a good profit of the war, respectively, and achieved its leadership in the world capitalist system, in which to this day they remain the leaders and masters of this system, the capitalist pole of power. Following the Second World War, the Soviet Union became the leader and center of the socialist system, which made the world multi-polar before 1991.
    1. +1
      6 October 2017 10: 42
      Quote: Per se.
      If the war of the USSR with Hitler Germany in 1939 had happened, for Hitler this would have been a disaster.

      Why's that? The Allies would have sat until the last of the Maginot Line. But the Red Army ... The Red Army at that time was once again in the process of reorganization, moving from the "triplets" to single-cropped divisions. That is, in the autumn of 1939, only personnel units remained in the Red Army - the entire reserve was in the process of formation again.
      And once again, this reorganization turned out to be unsecured weapons and equipment - even in accordance with the norms of peacetime.
      On August 22, the People's Commissar of Defense reported to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR on the availability of weapons of the proposed organizational measures; Given the availability of weapons in the untouchable reserve, the measures taken were generally provided for rifles, machine guns, 82-mm mortars and 76-mm guns. For self-loading rifles, 45-mm anti-tank guns, 122-mm howitzers and 76-mm anti-aircraft guns, incomplete coverage was expected during 1939 on the basis of their receipt from the industry, and the need for anti-tank rifles, 12,7 mm machine guns, 50 mm, 107 mm and 120 mm mortars, 152 mm howitzers, 37 mm and 45 mm anti-aircraft guns and automobiles were satisfied with the receipt from industry in 1939-1940. The People's Commissar of Defense asked for permission to use the untouchable reserve, to oblige industry to fulfill the plan of military orders for 1939 and to make an additional order for cars.

      And most importantly - according to the experience of the Polish campaign and the SPF, it turned out that the preparation of the Red Army does not withstand any criticism. In the same Poland, the main striking force of the Red Army - the mechanized corps (the old model) - instead of a rapid jerk, beat all the rear roads with their equipment and stood up without fuel. And this is in the complete absence of any opposition. The liberation of roads and the delivery of fuel had to deal with the whole marshal - Budyonny. About special cases - such as a tank battalion thrown into battle without ammunition or an “offensive” (the rear overtook the tanks) I don’t say ...
      Quote: Per se.
      The creation of mechanized buildings instead of divisions was also reminiscent of a situation where an old house is broken without building a new one, remaining barefoot in the cold.

      What do you mean instead of divisions? The mechanized corps consisted of divisions. smile
      Maybe "instead of brigades"? So there was no particular choice - the tank brigades of the old model, which for the most part did not have infantry, artillery and a normal rear, were suitable only for the NPP. They were unsuitable for independent actions in war conditions with an opponent of comparable strength.
      And for the formation of the TBR and MBR of the Second World War, the experience of the Second World War was needed. Without it, before the war, we were forced to rely on someone else's experience and try to copy the most effective tank formations of the known to us - German panzerdivisia - and in the form in which our intelligence informed them.
      1. 0
        6 October 2017 12: 48
        Did the June 1941 pogrom for us be a more positive option when the Germans had trophies and resources from almost all of Europe, and the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe gained combat experience, increased qualitatively and quantitatively? I, of course, is not the ultimate truth, however, in the fall of 1939 of the year, it is unlikely that the Red Army would have been in a worse situation than in June of 1941 of the year, especially since it was already deployed in case of war, causing a preventive strike on the Germans. Yes, it happened, what happened, did not make Stalin a series of fatal mistakes, a pause before the 1941 of the year could be a plus for us. It would be better to consider new territories as a buffer, to keep the main forces on the frontiers of the old frontier, not to disassemble, but to strengthen the "Stalin line", to collect all new equipment in one fist, while forming new connections, as a reserve. However, all this is from the category of fantasy and "alternative history", again, it happened, what happened. The main thing, dreaming of a better, more sensible, to draw conclusions from history, so that again we do not have the 1941 pogrom from NATO or our yellow "brothers" in the Far East, with a new confusion, confusion, and bungling.
        1. 0
          6 October 2017 18: 35
          Quote: Per se.
          Is for us a pogrom of June 1941 a more positive option

          Alas, but yes. The Germans in 1939 already had a fully combat-ready army, although this army was far from the Wehrmacht arr 1941. But after Voroshilov’s taxiing, we had a complete military and political failure, from which Tymoshenko the Red Army with great difficulty pulled out. Do you want to contrast the army of the sample of the Soviet-Finnish Wehrmacht of 1939? Bury after all.
          Quote: Per se.
          Yes, it happened, what happened, if Stalin didn’t make a number of fatal mistakes, a pause until 1941 could be a plus for us

          She went. I don’t know at all how magically we would have pulled out a war in 1939
        2. +1
          6 October 2017 19: 27
          Quote: Per se.
          Is the pogrom of June 1941 a more positive option for us, when the Germans had trophies and resources of practically all of Europe, and the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe gained combat experience, grew qualitatively and quantitatively?

          The pogrom of 1939 would be even more terrible. Because it would have been necessary to fight on foreign territory - and in the best case, everything would have ended upon reaching the defensive line along the German-Polish border. For how the pre-war Red Army knows how to break through UR even with 100% machine-gun DOS - we are well aware.
          Quote: Per se.
          Of course, I am not the ultimate truth, however, it is unlikely that in the fall of 1939 the Red Army would be in a worse position than it was in June 1941, especially since it was already deployed in case of war, delivering a preventive strike to the Germans.

          What a preemptive strike? In order to strike a preemptive strike, one must somehow come into contact with the Reich.
          Poland before the war refuses to let in our troops 100%. Moreover, by clicking on it, she can generally return to the plans of the beginning of 1939 for an alliance with the Reich. So before the start of German aggression in Poland, our forces cannot attack the Germans.
          And after the German strike on the Poles, there can be no talk of any preventive war — there will be a head-on battle between two deployed and mobilized armies. Moreover, our army will be partially mobilized - for full mobilization is not provided with equipment and weapons.
          And the side whose organization (and communication) will be better will win in such a battle. Guess who it will be.
          Quote: Per se.
          For starters, it would be better to consider new territories as a buffer, to keep the main forces at the borders of the old border

          That will give us a head start in 3-4 days, the Germans needed to overcome the pre-field. You can forget about the "advanced units" - from the experience of their actual use in the Second World War it turned out that such units are quickly broken up by a numerically superior enemy, and their separation weakens the formations that hold the defense on the main line of defense.
          Quote: Per se.
          do not disassemble, but strengthen the "Stalin line"

          It was not necessary to strengthen it, but to completely rebuild it. For UR drugs were calculated against the armies of the Limitrophs - a lot of infantry, cavalry, few tanks, some OM and BM guns. And they were built "as far as possible" (the NKVD documents well reveal the chilling reality of the construction and operation of SD). By 1938, drugs were for the most part obsolete (and did not comply with the UR 1938 Program) - too many DOS of frontal fire, too weak resistance of DOS, too small depth of the UD, BRO and UR were not suitable for all-round defense.
          Quote: Per se.
          collect all new equipment in one fist

          And that will not help either. For in this case, we get 4-5 MK for the entire border. Moreover, the technical and constructive problems of technology will not go anywhere. But the range of marches will increase many times.
    2. +1
      6 October 2017 16: 30
      Fear God, in the 1939th army the USSR practically did not have one. What a total superiority ?! !!
      1. 0
        6 October 2017 22: 39
        Dear Alexey and Andrey! Let's start to separate the "flies from cutlets." I will say right away that I find myself in a pre-defective position, so as I suppose that which was not, you operate with the known. Andrew, however, the “alternative history” is not alien, could help as an ally in the subject, but, “Fight God, the USSR practically did not have an 1939 army” ... This is despite the fact that on February 24 1939, the number of the Red Army was about two million (1.931.962 people), and with partial mobilization (BEAD) to events in Poland, more than two million people were called in (2.610.136 people). In the Red Army were light (BT-5, BT-7, T-26), medium (T-28) and heavy tanks (T-35), more than 10 thousand, plus cannon armored vehicles (Syria BA). The Red Army Air Force in 1939 year totaled 8139 combat aircraft, of which 2225 were fighters. The Germans had about 2518 combat aircraft, of which Bf-109 is estimated to be 449 units, and Bf-110 to 156 units. German armored units numbered about 2518 tanks, mainly light, T-I and T-II. The total number of armed forces of Nazi Germany on 1 September 1939 year was more than three million (3.180.000 people). To say that the USSR did not have an army directly, somehow did not look very convincing, even though the forces of Poland, France and England were against the Germans, and the Germans needed to leave something to the cover of the western direction, in manpower and equipment . This is about our "orphan and misery." Yes, the West gave birth to Hitler, gave him an anti-USSR from Germany and sent him to the east, but an alliance with the Nazis was a very dubious acquisition, and if we had not signed the pact, it would hardly have caused Hitler to attack the USSR instead of Poland, or together with vile pshekami. If you want reality, it was such that Hitler outplayed Stalin, that the entire European territory of the USSR was in ruins, in the very first months of the war the Red Army lost about 4,5 a million people, thousands of tanks and airplanes. No one says that in the 1939 year, the Red Army would easily have fallen on the Germans, but there would have been no such terrible losses, even if we had to study in the same battle and gain experience. Try to move away from the templates, and look for something new if we discuss the story. As it all happened, many already know how it could be, no one knows, anyone here can be put out as a kitten and poking his nose. At least I tried to express my opinion, I do not pretend for more.
        1. 0
          7 October 2017 01: 25
          Quote: Per se.
          To say that the USSR did not directly have an army, somehow it doesn’t look very convincing

          This is because you consider people and equipment, and you should pay attention to combat training.
          Order of the NPO of the USSR N 113 of December 11, 1938
          "... 1) A completely unacceptable position with fire preparation was created. In the past year, the troops not only failed to fulfill the requirements of order N 110 to increase the individual rifle training of fighters and commanders from all models of small arms by at least 15-20% against 1937 g ., but reduced the results on the fire, and especially in the shooting of light and heavy machine guns.
          This most important matter, just like the possession of “pocket artillery” - grenade launcher, was not given proper and daily attention from the military councils of districts, armies, groups and command of corps, divisions, brigades and regiments.
          At the same time, the highest, senior and middle commanders, commissars and staffs themselves are not yet an example for the troops in the ability to wield weapons. Younger commanders are also not taught this case and therefore cannot properly train the fighters.
          The troops still have, however, individual fighters who have served for a year, but have never fired a live cartridge.
          It is necessary to firmly grasp that, not having learned to really shoot, you cannot expect success in close combat with the enemy.
          Therefore, all those who oppose or try to “ignore” this gaping breakthrough in the combat readiness of the troops cannot claim the title of real commanders of the Red Army, capable of training and raising troops. Breakthroughs in fire training should be considered as the main drawback in the work of all command links.
          The ability of the commander, commissar of a unit and subunit to manage fire training and to teach a unit (unit) to accurately shoot and be good at owning personal weapons should be noted when inspecting units, as well as especially noted in certifications ..."

          Those. we had to separately note the commanders who knew how to shoot!
          In 1938, the territorial principle of manning still flourished in violent colors. Zhukov described him like this
          In the divisions, about 16-20 percent of the states were personnel commanders, political workers, and Red Army soldiers, and the rest was temporary, called up annually (for five years) for training at first for three months, and then for one month. The rest of the time, the fighters worked in industry and agriculture.

          So, the junior commanders, like the Red Army of the territorial units, were called up until 1939 all along the same territorial principle. They were taught for three months, then they were released for a year for a citizen, then they were again called up for a month (once a year). In other words, such junior commanders with great difficulty could be called a trained reserve fighter. And he was not a fighter, he commanded! The scale of the disaster is as follows - even in 1938, out of 98 peacetime infantry, 34 were purely territorial, plus a significant (but unknown to me) number of divisions had a mixed system.
          That is, in 1939 we have equipment, but there is no one to operate it. We have no commanders for the two-million-strong army; there is no trained reserve either. There are a lot of civilians dressed in uniform, untrained and seeing a rifle for the first time.
          1. +1
            7 October 2017 02: 09
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            That is, in 1939 we have equipment, but there is no one to operate it. We have no commanders for the two-million-strong army; there is no trained reserve either. There are a lot of civilians dressed in uniform, untrained and seeing a rifle for the first time.




            I love analytics of freelance correspondents of Pioneer Truth ... and in 1941 the picture was different ..... go read similar reports by Tymoshenko, Kulik and others about the appalling state with the combat training of the Invincible period of winter / spring 1941 .... which was confirmed the Germans in the summer / fall of unprecedented defeats in history .... demolished the 5-million-strong Red Army in a couple of months ...
            1. 0
              7 October 2017 12: 08
              Quote: Gransasso
              I love the analytics of freelance correspondents of Pioneer Truth ... and

              I know, and still do not understand what you are doing here.
              Quote: Gransasso
              .a in 1941 the picture was different ....

              Yes, another, and much better.
              Quote: Gransasso
              go read similar reports by Tymoshenko, Kulik and others about the appalling state with the combat training of the Invincible period of winter / spring 1941

              Read. We agreed on one of them, let's talk.
              Quote: Gransasso
              as the Germans confirmed in the summer / fall of unprecedented defeats in history

              That is, the destruction of the millionth army of Poland in three weeks with one and a half times superiority is a defeat experienced in history :) The destruction of approximately 2,5 millionth Franco-Anglo-Belgian groups by equal forces in a month is a defeat experienced in history :)))) A here is the defeat of 1,8 million of the Red Army; 2,4 million of the Wehrmacht in a border battle (counting by active bayonets) - this is an unprecedented defeat in history :)))
          2. 0
            7 October 2017 13: 28
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            This is because you consider people and equipment, and you should pay attention to combat training.
            If we talk about combat training, then there was an experience of fighting in Spain, on Lake Hassan, by the autumn of 1939, the fighting on the Khalkin-Gol River had actually ended. You can, of course, say that the signing of the pact with Germany contributed to the further "pacification" of Japan, but if the Japanese did not get tins on Halkin Gol, no pact with Germany would force the Japanese to back up. The same can be said about an alliance with Hitler, the Germans needed to secure their rear in order to conquer Europe, without our neutrality, even aid (trade, a blow to Poland), Hitler wouldn’t have done that in parts with Europe. its industrial and human potential in the power of the Third Reich, to replenish the Wehrmacht with rich trophies. Our acquisitions on an alliance with the Nazis were a faint shadow of what the Germans got. Do not sign the USSR pact, intervene in the aggression of Germany against Poland, really act as its ally and liberator, having, albeit a formal, intercession for Poland and France and England, everything could be different. The question is whether Hitler would have decided to attack Poland and get a direct access to the USSR border, or Germany would remain a likeness to fascist Spain, and Hitler is a likeness of Franco, cooking in his own juice, did not Stalin beat him later, for example, in 1942-1943 year when the USSR would have won time without a pact and would be ready for a big war with the anti-communist Nazi regime. Germany 1939 of the year and Germany 1941 of the year, with Europe already conquered, it is like a disease in its initial or neglected form. Stalin, in the role of a “doctor,” started treatment too late, for which the Soviet people paid too dearly. The Second World War was inevitable, the bourgeois needed it not only for extra income, but also to consolidate world leadership in the capitalist system, to determine the only master in this world system, to destroy the new independent pole of power, socialism, the USSR. Hitler and Nazi Germany, were conceived against the USSR as an anti-USSR, and Stalin’s global mistake that with his antipode he hoped to get an alliance against the bourgeois, who both created and paid for Hitler.
            1. 0
              9 October 2017 11: 15
              Quote: Per se.
              If we talk about combat training, then there was the experience of fighting in Spain,

              Which could not be fully used even by 1941. In fact, the Spanish experience boiled down to running a few volunteers in a real war. Yes, to the final recognition of the T-26 and BT obsolete. Neither the principles of building a technical vocational defense, nor the tactical developments on the use of aviation were implemented. I'm not talking about the cry of the soul of the tankmen of the Spanish period "infantry does not follow tanks"- the same situation was repeated one to one in the first years of the Second World War.
              All that the Spanish Air Force of the Red Army gave is a hundred trained crews.
              Quote: Per se.
              on Lake Hassan, by the fall of 1939, the hostilities on the Halkin-Gol River actually ended

              Perhaps the only experience of Hassan is that Moscow drew attention to the Far East and immediately sent the “sovereign's eye” to the next conflict. And the Khalkhin-Golsky experience remained in the Far East - for all the parts involved in the conflict (except for one VDB) were from the Far East or from Siberia. Moreover, as the commission of the NPO, who arrived to study the real state of affairs at Khalkhin-Gol, found out, Zhukov’s triumphant reports did not correspond to reality. Simply put, while Zhukov closed the ticks, stopping to eliminate every discovered Japanese stronghold, the bulk of the Japanese forces left the emerging ring.
              Quote: Per se.
              Do not sign the USSR pact, intervene in Germany’s aggression against Poland, really act as its ally and liberator, having, albeit formal, intercession for Poland also France and England, everything could be different.

              Yeah ... "stand up as a single wall against the Bolshevik hordes from the East","Germany and Poland - the shield of European civilization","Pole, remember - a German soldier protects you from commissars".
              Let me remind you that this is all the same Poland, which a year earlier, together with the Reich, divided Czechoslovakia. And she planned a joint campaign to the East.
              Quote: Per se.
              The question is whether Hitler would decide to attack Poland and get direct access to the border of the USSR, or Germany would remain like Nazi Spain, and Hitler like Franco, boiling in his own juice, did not slander him later, for example, in 1942-1943 when the USSR without any pact would win time and be ready for a big war with the anti-communist Nazi regime.

              The mobilization process in the Reich was launched even before the signing of the Covenant. As, however, in Poland. So the war would be all the same.
              Quote: Per se.
              Germany in 1939 and Germany in 1941, with Europe already conquered, is like a disease in its initial or neglected form. Stalin, in the role of "doctor", began treatment too late, for which the Soviet people paid too much.

              Hehehehe ... using your analogy, in 1939 Stalin could well have been presented not as a doctor, but as a maniac-dissector, who suddenly flew with his bloodied knife into the usual family quarrel of the Reich and Poland. smile
        2. +1
          9 October 2017 10: 46
          Quote: Per se.
          To say that the USSR did not directly have an army, somehow it doesn’t look very convincing, despite the fact that there were forces of Poland, France and England against the Germans, and the Germans had to leave something to cover the western direction, in manpower and technology .

          The USSR had armed people and equipment. But with the army it was all very bad.
          The army has up to 1080 titles of existing charters, manuals and manuals. The main charters - the Field Service, the Internal Service, the Disciplinary and some combat manuals of the combat arms are outdated and require radical processing. None: instruction for driving large military formations (armies), instruction for attacking and defending fortified areas, and instruction for troop actions in the mountains.
          Most military units exist in temporary states not approved by the People's Commissar. Established and service personnel launched. About 1400 states and timesheets, according to which the troops live and are supplied, are not approved by anyone and published for the leadership as temporary.

          By the time of the acceptance and surrender of the People’s Commissariat of Defense, there was no operational war plan, operational plans, both general and private, were not developed and lacked.
          The General Staff has no data on the state of covering the borders. The decisions of the military councils of the districts, armies and the front on this issue are unknown to the General Staff.

          The People’s Commissariat does not have an accurately established actual strength of the Red Army at the time of admission. Accounting personnel due to the fault of the Main Directorate of the Red Army is in an extremely neglected state.
          The provision on the service of ordinary and junior command personnel, published in 1931, is outdated, unsuitable for management, and no one uses it. A new provision defining the order of service has not been drawn up.

          The People’s Commissariat of Defense has not yet eliminated the following drawbacks of the mobilization plan, an autopsy during a partial mobilization in September 1939:
          a) the extreme neglect of accounting for military stockpiles, since re-registration has not been carried out since 1927;
          b) the lack of a single record of those liable for military service and the existence of a separate special record of railway workers, water transport and the NKVD;
          c) the weakness and lack of work of the military commissariats;
          d) lack of priority in the mobilization of units, which led to an overload of the first days of mobilization;
          e) the unreality of plans for the deployment of troops during mobilization;
          e) the unreality of the plan for the supply of uniforms during mobilization;
          g) the unevenness of the rise in the mobilization of persons liable for military service, horse-drawn personnel and motor vehicles;
          h) the absence of a firmly established order in the reservation of labor for wartime;
          i) the unreality and unsatisfactory state of registration of horses, carts, harnesses and vehicles.
          Among the military-obliged stock is 3 untrained people. The People’s Commissariat of Defense has no training plan for them.
          By the time the People’s Commissariat of Defense was received, the army had a significant lack of staff, especially in the infantry, reaching 21% of the nominal strength as of May 1, 1940.
          It was established that annual graduations from military schools did not provide the necessary reserves for the growth of the army and the formation of reserves.
          The quality of the training of command personnel is low, especially in the platoon-company unit, in which up to 68% have only short-term 6-month training for the course of junior lieutenant.

          And so on and so forth. That's what Tymoshenko accepted as an NGO in 1940.
          1. 0
            10 October 2017 06: 36
            Alexey, you attract your arguments to justify what happened, and then the terrible happened, the Germans reached Moscow and the Volga. If you recall the statement about the choice between "war and shame", then Joseph Vissarionovich got hold of both shame and war after "friendship" with Adik. The tanks, say BT and T-26 are outdated ... What basically the Germans had in 1939, TI and T-II, one with pure machine-gun armament, the second with 20 mm gun. The BT and T-26 tanks with their 45 mm guns up to the 1941 year were generally superior to the German technology qualitatively and quantitatively. In the 1939 year, T-34 and KV had already been created, if the war began in the 1939 year, they would start doing the same for the troops. New technology was on the way, nothing 1939 year for us was not worse than the situation 1941 year. The Germans had no superiority over us in 1939, neither qualitatively nor quantitatively. Say, the “Stalin Line” is outdated, which was created on the analysis of the defense of the Osovets Fortress in the First World War, and in general ANYTHING in 1941 was better? It was necessary to assume that the enemy is deaf, blind and evil, will allow us to rearm, will wait? And so you can object on all points. Nakosyachil our leader, nakosyachil because he decided to see in the German national Socialists, more congenial people than the bourgeois in "hat" Europe. Flirting with Hitler reached the point that the Germans were allowed to brazenly violate our airspace, the Luftwaffe led active reconnaissance of not only the border areas in the 1941 year, but also of the deep rear. Our army was lowered, forbidding “to succumb to provocations”, it came to the fact that after the invasion the Germans fixed numerous requests from our units whether they could shoot at Reich soldiers, Stalin himself asked the bombing reports of our cities whether this was a provocation ... And here 1939 or 1941, but hit the Germans in 1945, with such management, nothing would have changed in principle. Stalin, of course, made conclusions, but it would be better if he made them in the 1939 year, it would have been cheaper for us. Now we are flirting with the Chinese "national communists", than this "friendship" with a potential aggressor will end, so is the big question.
  13. +1
    9 October 2017 12: 22
    Alexey RA,
    Well, if the newest battleship “Prince of Wales” is “third-class troops”, which the Japanese drowned in Kuantan’s battle like a kitten, along with Ripals, then yes Yes

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"