And finally, something happened that did not exist for so long: Vladimir Putin meets in Germany with Angela Merkel. But supposedly no one expects a breakthrough. In general, it is correct and logical. Here, in fact, it makes sense to delve a bit into history and try to remember when Russia and Germany had a good relationship. Actually, this was the place to be, but sporadically.
If we recall in brief the recent history, namely from 1871 to 1945. (when Germany pursued an independent policy), then such episodes, of course, were the place to be. But just like the episodes. Under Bismarck, relations seemed to be quite good, but already with him the very "tariff games" began with might and main. Which is rather strange: at that time Russia bought equipment and finished products in Germany, and sold more raw materials and food. That is, the economy at first glance were quite a complementary. However, even then the Germans went to the trade war.
You understand what is funny: even then (at the end of the 19th century!) The situation was somewhat similar today. The funny thing is that for some reason the growing industrial Germany arranged economic wars for some reason not from the “workshop of the world yesterday” —Britain, and not with the historical enemy of all honest Germans France. France, by the way, had a powerful modern agriculture and a fairly powerful industry! The French and Germans fought throughout history for a very long time. But, for some reason, Germany waged a continuous economic war against Russia. Which had archaic agriculture and relatively weak industry.
And that sincerely wanted to "buy out" in Germany. We needed and the products of the German engineering, and German optics, and much more. But for some reason it was the relations on the St. Petersburg-Berlin line that were extremely tense. When all this mess started with trade agreements and tariff wars, many in Russia thought it was temporary ... there is a place to be. And this happiness was a hundred and fifty years ago. Chorus is remembered so cynical: "... it is temporary."
Then, thank God, our country was led by rather stupid people (and quite patriotic!), And Russia survived in the most difficult conditions. The price for this was a rapprochement with France / England and entry into the Entente. There is such a beautiful version (I like it too!) That if the Russians and the Germans were together ... you know, something wouldn’t grow together. Even then, at the end of the 19th century, long before Stalingrad and Tannenberg ...
And even this book got into my paws: “Russia and Germany: blow off!” Frankly, I could not finish reading. It is touching and emotionally written - the nasty Anglo-Saxons (and the world Jewish backstage, wherever without it!) They pushed their heads in the forehead of Russian and German marshards (potential). You read - and the tears come to light ... The very pre-war (up to 1914 of the year) era is described. And the machinations of the evil enemies of the gentle German-Soviet, ugh, the German-Russian friendship. Plots, plots around ...
In fact, from the very start of the united German Empire, its relations with Russia were for some reason tough enough. As in the joke about the Georgian teacher of the Russian language: remember, these are children, because it is impossible to understand. The German Empire, ruled entirely by the Germans, categorically did not want to have friendly relations with the Russian Empire. There was a hard economic pressure. The Germans squeezed Russian grain from Germany and from Europe ...
For Russia of that era, it is fatal (90% of exports!). Nothing like, by the way? The Russian leadership, in principle, did not understand the reasons for such lawlessness and constantly tried to agree. Useless. In Germany, the composition of the parliament and the government changed, but the policy towards Russia remained unchanged. Tough economic pressure. No, the British - they are not sugar either ... but somehow you don’t remember anything like that right away. Russia, at that time, depended on European technologies (now it is far from being the case!), On foreign investments ... and here is “cooperation”.
So the roll towards France was forced. The interest was mutual. Usually we like to write that ugly France used a naive Russia to fight a German rival. Stay at it. For some reason, the “German competitor” pressured Russia very actively. Even not so on France, how exactly on Russia. Here they begin to dance from that logical stove that Russia did not need war with the Germans. This is true.
From here they immediately make a bold conclusion that Germany did not want to fight with Russia either ... and this is already completely wrong. Germany’s turn of the century quite made its decisions quite on its own. If the Berlin strategists had a desire to avoid war with the Russians, then this could have been arranged, if only because the Russians did not want to fight with them categorically. It’s not even about who declared this war to whom, but the fact that even before August 1914, the official position of Berlin towards Russia was quite unambiguous.
Although there were millions of German immigrants in Russia, there were close family ties between the ruling dynasties, there was German business in Russia, but it was impossible in principle to find a basis for at least some kind of compromise. And then there is one such bad question: were the Germans, in principle, looking for her? This very soil? For some reason, all relations between Russia and Germany are reduced to the Great Patriotic War. The point of view is certainly interesting, but not entirely correct.
Do not be like the nation of Beavis and hamburgers. We must consider them in the complex: from beginning to end, otherwise we will not understand anything. Those “explanations” that “explain” June 22 are absolutely inappropriate for the events of the beginning of the 20 century. There was no socialism-communism in Russia at that time, there were no Nazis in Germany, the ruling dynasties of the two countries were “friends of houses”, and everything ended in a terrible massacre.
Nobody in 1914, from the birth of Christ, wanted to destroy "the first state in the world of workers and peasants", because there was not yet this state. There were no “serious ideological contradictions”: oddly enough, the regimes in Germany and Russia were ideologically much closer to each other than to “Western democracies.” Nevertheless, the Germans quite consciously prepared for war with Russia. And nevertheless, the policy towards Russia was almost continuously extremely tough.
For some reason, those historians who curse the Tsarist regime for dragging Russia into the First World War ... in some strange way ignore ... German foreign policy towards Russia. And, as it may seem, the First World War was started by Germany, and by no means Russia. At 1914, the German Kaiser was the strongest army in the world, and he was not going to live in peace with Russia. So all the curses addressed to "landlords and capitalists" sound rather strange: there was simply no particular choice for the Russian Empire.
The question for her was about survival, and not about acquiring some new territories, and the question arose that way long before the August volleys. Obviously the anti-Russian foreign policy of Willy II was obviously driving Russia into a corner: the Paris-St Petersburg alliance was needed not only by France, but also by Russia. Nicholas II, oddly enough, actively pursued the role of a fighter for peace and in every way initiated various international conferences there on this issue.
It didn’t lead to anything interesting, but the accusations against the “bloody tsarism” are even more wild and incomprehensible because of this: Tsar Nicholas did everything in his power to prevent this war between Russia and Germany. But the last word was not for him. The main opponent of Germany in the world arena at that time was not Russia or France. The main opponent is the British Empire, which continued to "rule the seas". Germany with its freshly built dreadnoughts most of all clashed with it, but not with the Russians. In fact, Germany, with its growing industry, advanced science and technology, claimed the very role of the “workshop of the world”.
It is clear that the British lords could not like it. The evening obviously "ceased to be languid" ... But what does Russia have to do with it? Cruel, intractable contradictions arose just between the British and the Germans. War between them was absolutely inevitable, as in its time the war between Holland and England. Who will be the "workshop of the world" who will control world trade? Exactly these questions inevitably led to the Anglo-German rivalry.
Absolutely uncompromising rivalry. Should have been left alone. And for some reason, Germany has done everything to ensure that in the coming war, Russia was on the side of its opponents. Kids, remember this, because understand it's impossible. From the point of view of the struggle for world leadership, it is absolutely impossible to understand the behavior of the German elite. At one time, victory in the second Punic War was achieved by the Romans. largely diplomatic methods: they kept their allies with them and did not allow the same Macedonia to help Hannibal. Britain defeated Napoleonic France only at the expense of the allies, including the Russians.
Victory in the war is achieved, including through diplomacy. The interests of Germany and Russia, of course, overlapped in something, but they were not antagonistic, as was the relationship between Germany and England. So, Germany did not want to have Russia as an ally. Simple and clear. Even then, the German elite did not consider Russia as an equal partner in any way. It's easier to fight on two fronts ...
There was a brief period of cooperation between the two defeatist powers in 20. Forced period. Hitler very quickly covered this shop. Try to assess the situation then: Germany after Versailles was plundered and humiliated by France and England, but not Russia! The Germans mocked everything in every way, even the Poles. But after the coming to power of a German patriot with Austrian roots, the attitude towards the Russians became the most hostile ... But the German colonies were not taken in favor of Russia. And by no means Russian politicians.
And the Germans paid reparations not at all in favor of Moscow. But for some reason, the maximum hatred of the new regime was directed specifically towards our country. Doesn't it seem strange to you, illogical? What claims could Hitler present to Russia in 1933? Was it Russia that robbed the Germans to the skin and starved them and hyperinflation? Goldene Zwanziger / Golden Twenties, with their economic and political chaos, is a direct result of Versailles (which Hitler cursed and in which Russia did not participate). The main point of Hitler - the fight against Versailles and its consequences.
Yeah, and, having come to power, he made the main enemy ... Russia. Somehow a bit illogical? You do not find? No, I agree, when the Jews (cyclists) are to blame for everything, but so that the Russians ... us for sho? If the Russian Imperial Army in 1918 a year would have passed by a solemn victorious march under the Brandenburg Gate (which could well have been the case), then I would understand the Russophobia of the front-line hero Adolf Schilkgruber. But in the current reality ... the Germans were very much humiliated. Maximum But ... not Russians.
Therefore, talk about the fact that the Germans cannot forgive us for 1945 year can be refuted by the fact that in 1933-m they could not forgive us for 1918-th ... It was us, not the French and not the British. Even then ... "Putin was to blame for everything." Speaking of fun: in Germany, a network of Soviet-German gas stations was created in 20-e / 30-e. What created real competition for everyone there Anglo-Saxon plutocrats and saved a lot of money to the German motorist. So, the Nazis stopped all this ... That is, Hitler (!) Struggled with energy dependence on Russia ... Holy business, one might say. So all these “sanctions-shmanktions” and “struggle against the Kremlin’s energy blackmail” ... this has all already happened. Repeatedly.
Just need to carefully study the story. And take a wider time frame. And there will be no limit to your surprise, it's just that our “superfluous questions” have always been hindered by a specific presentation of the story. Hitler is a fiend, the USSR is something sacred, and Hitler’s attack on the USSR in our history textbooks had, in fact, a powerful religious subtext: the struggle of the forces of light against the forces of darkness ... which, in turn, did any normal analysis completely impossible. Still: Hitler is the child of Satan, sent to destroy the almost holy USSR ... What kind of analysis is possible here? Historical?
But if all this mysticism and mythology is pushed aside, then there will be no limit to our surprise: Hitler decided to settle accounts with those who robbed and humiliated Germany in the 20s. This, as we have already found out, is Paris and London. It was possible to seize Paris, but Britain continues to resist, and behind the backs of Britain the USA looms, which is overseas and which possess enormous financial and industrial power. The war promised to be long ... but not hopeless!
The mythical “Stalinist stab in the back” looks like an absolute nonsense: Stalin does not have very good relations with both the Anglo-Saxons and the Germans. The Germans and the Anglo-Saxons lead a heavy war ... a long war, apparently. Why wag her in? Meaning? What did it give to the USSR? What consequences could this have? On the one hand, this blow seems to be of interest to Britain ... on the other hand, with the serious successes of the Red Army in Europe, the Anglo-Saxons may categorically dislike it. Such here they are, these same Anglo-Saxons. On the third hand, the Soviet invasion of Europe could suffer a crushing fiasco.
What, paradoxically, on a par with the resounding success can lead to the unification of the forces of the West against Russia ... That is, for Stalin, the “invasion of Europe” is a risk as a military man (it is not known how the battles will go) and a huge political (and defeat in Europe can have absolutely fatal consequences for the USSR). The Red Army is fighting bad? It means that the USSR is a light sacrifice, and it should be cracked. Is the Red Army fighting well? It means that the USSR is a dangerous rival, and “Russians must be stopped”. We should not consider our Anglo-Saxon partners to be complete idiots: no one would give Stalin Europe. To argue this is the height of naivety.
In the current story we have become very good to help after Stalingrad, but the appearance of the Red Army in Europe did not cause positive emotions either in Washington or London ... It was naive to hope that a sudden stab in Hitler’s back in the summer of 1941 would definitely be positively perceived in those two capitals. That is, Stalin just everything is so good. Without war with Hitler. Such a situation is as favorable for him as possible: he sells raw materials and food to Germany in exchange for high-tech goods. Which is not bad. Why fight?
What could Stalin get in the event of an invasion of Europe besides growing problems and complete political uncertainty? Do not confuse the USSR-1945 and the USSR-1938 and forget that before the WWII the USSR was actually an outcast country. What is an attack on Germany? What are you talking about? That is, the "Bolshevik invasion of Europe" should not even be considered in terms of the presence / absence of "motorways tanks", But purely from a political point of view ... and here everything is very sad. In Munich-1938 Hitler was "presented" with Czechoslovakia, and even Stalin not invited. The invasion of Germany and the liberation of Europe, yeah.
We recognize one simple fact: the successful offensive actions of the Red Army in Europe against Germany were categorically impossible for purely political reasons. And Stalin understood that perfectly. And Hitler understood this no worse. And our Hitler “Hit from the East” could not be practically afraid of our Hitler. It's a shame, I understand, but Czechoslovakia was presented to Hitler, but not to Stalin.
So the decision to launch Operation Barbarossa was initiative German decision. Do not accept such a decision by Hitler - the war between Germany and the USSR simply would not have happened.
And so let's not talk about "what a disgusting reptile this very Adolf Hitler." A completely democratically elected German politician, no worse than our Angels Merkel. But he did not consider “peaceful coexistence” with the Stalinist USSR in any way. A. Hitler, for all his crimes - a cynical and prudent German politician, and he attacked Russia in no way a fit of insanity. Stalin offered him other options (quite interesting), but Hitler chose what he chose.
Summarizing all the above, it can be stated with confidence that the Eastern Front (and as a result - a loss in two world wars) was an absolutely conscious choice of the German elite, and in situations that didn’t require this Eastern Front. Oddly and wildly, this is for the policy of a nominally great power (which, in fact, did not allow Nikki to negotiate with a relative Willy, and which led to the “sudden” June 1941 of the year), it was the principally emotional choice of the German people - not a union with Russia, and an uncompromising war with her. Until the last soldier, tank and square meter of the territory of the Reich ... Even at the cost of defeat in two world wars. Even at the cost of complete defeat, absolute humiliation and national catastrophe. At any price.
And even in the "thunderous" 1944, the Germans considered (at different levels) only separate peace with Western powers. Even on the brink of extinction, the German leaders essentially did not want to use diplomatic channels to talk with Stalin. So, about the potential "friendship," for some reason, I immediately recall the reluctance to "cope with natural needs on one hectare." Such was the love between them ...
It seems that if for many Anglo-Saxons a war with Russia is just a business, although very serious business (for generations!), then for the Germans, this is something fundamentally different - deeply personal. It was precisely this that Stalin could not “calculate”, because “to calculate” such things are impossible.
In principle, today the situation is somewhat the same: the main opponent of the European Union in the economy is not Russia, but the United States. At this stage, this very confrontation has entered an open phase of a serious trade war. But, having introduced the very sanctions, the European Union completely closed its way to cooperation with Russia, while not having any super-hard contradictions with Russia. Mass and poorly organized speeches at different levels of the European Union against anti-Russian sanctions are explained precisely by this: people do not understand the meaning of the restrictions on trade.
That is, they are not our “friends” at all, they just do not understand: why is this all? On the whole, such tough, “sudden” and illogical decisions by Germany in the Russian direction are not out of the ordinary. There is in it some kind of internal logic. For the Germans, Russia is a continental center of power, very close to them. You see, what's the matter: any German politician will try to “pull Russia off the map”, because we historically encounter in the open spaces of Eastern Europe. This is as for the Spaniards and the French the Western Mediterranean (and especially Italy) was the same “zone of intersection of interests”, later Northern Italy became a zone of long conflict between France and Austria. Geography is a sentence, signori.
Approximately the same for Iranian politicians of the second half of the 20 century, the main task was to “defeat Interfluve” - this work was “nobly” done by the Americans for them. That is, the Russian state geopolitically prevents the Germans very, very much. If for residents of the United States all of Latin America is just their backyard, then about the same psychological Germans would like to take Eastern Europe. And then, damn it, Russia is underfoot. That is, the conflict between Russia and Germany is fundamentally existential in nature, regardless of the figures of specific politicians in Moscow and Berlin.
That is, like in the era of Reconquista, Christian knights moved to the south of the Iberian Peninsula, and then to northern Africa and further to Latin America, about the same direction as the main direction of German expansion for centuries. And to change something here is absolutely impossible. The events in Ukraine are by no means accidental, but rather the mainstream of traditional German politics.
There are two fundamental mistakes of Russia in the event of a conflict around Ukraine: a) confidence that it is possible to agree with the Germans: practice has shown that we cannot agree with them in any way, never, and about anything; b) the stake on “serious relations” with official Kiev: this rate turned out to be completely beat, “official Kiev” was completely corrupt and more and more pro-Western, and no one there was going to be / was not able to comply with Moscow.
That is, the problem was not in any specific short-term solutions, but in the most principled view of the situation: the certainty that there are certain “healthy” forces with which both Kiev and Berlin can be reached. That is, the calculation was made on the fact that this very “extremist wave” would subside, and it would be possible to sit down and discuss everything in a calm atmosphere as serious business people.
The wave did not subside, because it was not the “wave”, but the Gulf Stream of German Eastern policy, and in Kiev there were only compradors in general. That is, this very myth about the axis “Moscow - Berlin”, which the Anglo-Saxons are so afraid of, unfortunately, is not confirmed by practice. The Germans almost never showed serious interest in the formation of such a magical "axis", and therefore we can speak about it only in the subjunctive mood.