Military Review

Documents on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact submitted in Moscow

93
A collection of declassified archival documents on the conclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was presented in Moscow. The presentation was held at the House of the Russian Historical Society.


Documents on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact submitted in Moscow


In Moscow, documents were presented proving that the initiatives to conclude the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact came from Hitler Germany, and not from the Soviet Union, as they are trying to imagine in the West. The documents presented in the collection confirm that the Soviet Union was forced to sign this agreement in order to ensure its security.

This is a whole volume of documents entirely devoted to Soviet-German relations in the prewar years.

- said the chairman of RIO Sergey Naryshkin, adding that the new issue included documents from the archives of Stalin and the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B.), declassified from 2006 to 2015 for a year.

According to Naryshkin, the Third Reich forced the USSR to sign a non-aggression pact, wanting to secure its eastern flank and fearing a war on two fronts. At the same time, the Soviet Union was aware of the real goals of Western countries, counting on the pacification of Hitler, as well as Germany’s intentions to ultimately start a war with the USSR.

Not wanting to wage war on two fronts, Germany made unprecedented concessions to guarantee Soviet neutrality in the Polish campaign. Of course, the leadership of our country did not believe in a lasting peace with the aggressor, but in this way received a respite to prepare for war

- he said.

The non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR was signed on August 23 1939 of the year in Moscow. At the same time, a secret protocol was signed that delimited the interests of the Soviet Union and Germany. According to him, the USSR significantly advanced its borders to the west, gaining the Baltic States, western Belarus and Ukraine, as well as Bessarabia.

Military historians believe that this pact allowed the Soviet Union to gain time to prepare for war, strengthen the military industry and increase the size of the Red Army, and the borders pushed to the west allowed the industry to be evacuated after the German attack.
93 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nycomed
    Nycomed 14 August 2019 13: 41
    +4
    But this is interesting. When are you going to publish?
    1. major071
      major071 14 August 2019 13: 54
      +12
      Nycomed
      But this is interesting. When are you going to publish?


      A new issue of the "Bulletin of the Archive of the President of the Russian Federation" entitled "USSR - Germany: 1932-1941" was published by the "Historical Literature" publishing house, hi
      1. Civil
        Civil 14 August 2019 14: 37
        -4
        It has long been, there are no witnesses, all the results of the Second World War are revised, the treaties have lost force. Soviet power, as well as the country of workers and peasants. And stop the vest here, all that the grandfathers defended, the next generation lost.
    2. Pedrodepackes
      Pedrodepackes 14 August 2019 14: 15
      +6
      Quote: Nycomed
      When are you going to publish?

      Yes, I would like to read, otherwise these "explainers" interpret that way ...
      The documents presented in the collection confirm that the Soviet Union was forced to sign this agreement in order to ensure its security.
      and right there
      Not wanting to wage war on two fronts, Germany made unprecedented concessions to guarantee Soviet neutrality in the Polish campaign.
      Usually forced by threats, or I don’t understand something, who forced whom?
      1. Nycomed
        Nycomed 14 August 2019 14: 35
        +5
        "Interpreters" can explain everything from their belfry. We must read it ourselves and draw some conclusions for ourselves.
      2. igorbrsv
        igorbrsv 14 August 2019 14: 35
        +2
        England "incited" the USSR to enter the war against Germany. Germany was afraid of being stabbed in the back. As I understand it request But both the USSR and Germany understood that war was inevitable. Like "Oh, I'm sorry, I stepped on your foot. Nothing, nothing, I already spat on your back."
  2. evgic
    evgic 14 August 2019 13: 44
    +25
    In Moscow, documents were presented proving that the initiatives to conclude the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact came from Nazi Germany, and not from the Soviet Union, as the West is trying to imagine.
    In fact, normal historians in the West do not betray much importance to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, putting the Munich Pact two steps higher. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is inflated by our homegrown liberoids and other mentally alternative gifted individuals.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 14 August 2019 13: 53
      +3
      For any, everything has begun actively. It’s coming down / fulfilling after the Munich decisions.
    2. Tuzik
      Tuzik 14 August 2019 19: 49
      +1
      Do you think the Nazis would still attack Poland without this pact?
      1. evgic
        evgic 14 August 2019 20: 23
        +1
        Of course. The pact delimited zones of influence and helped to avoid confrontation unnecessary at this stage. But Poland and the USSR were not allies and we were not obliged to defend it, which means we didn’t need to fight with the Germans at all. If Hitler was not embarrassed by the Union of Poles with Britain and France, then the lack of a non-aggression pact with the USSR was a shame on him. In the then ranking of the armies of the USSR, it was very much lower than even the Poles that it was something to be afraid of.
        1. Tuzik
          Tuzik 14 August 2019 20: 40
          0
          He even with the pact twice canceled the attack, and without the pact it was too risky. Most likely, even he would not be able to answer this question for sure)
          1. evgic
            evgic 14 August 2019 22: 49
            0
            It was not the USSR that worried him, but France and Britain. It worried him yes. Obviously someone whispered in his ear that there would be no active action))). The USSR in 1939 is a third world country, according to racial theory, populated by Untermens, which is what they are afraid of.
      2. svp67
        svp67 14 August 2019 20: 34
        0
        Quote: Tuzik
        Do you think the Nazis would still attack Poland without this pact?

        There certainly are options. If Poland agreed with the advanced demands of Germany, then of course there would be no attack in the 1939 year. But the fact of the matter is that in this situation, Germany, and not so poorly developing, would gain even more momentum in development and would very quickly subjugate Poland, putting it at the head of its people. But what would happen next is interesting here. It is clear that sooner or later, but Germany would enter into a strong conflict with France, England and the USA, but what would happen before the war between them or at first Germany would want to eliminate the USSR from the arena.
        1. Tuzik
          Tuzik 14 August 2019 20: 40
          +4
          The pact was definitely our victory, at that time
  3. bogart047
    bogart047 14 August 2019 13: 45
    +1
    and if you think about it, then just in the 39th Germany was the easiest to fill up with a couple of paddles. Although knowing them and the Anglo-Saxons ... still, I would have to do everything ourselves
    1. NKT
      NKT 14 August 2019 13: 56
      +8
      They could have been overwhelmed even when they entered the Rhine demilitarized zone with just a few battalions and with an order at the first sign of resistance - to flee. But the West calmly watched as Germany "took off the shackles" of the Versailles Treaty and did nothing.
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 14 August 2019 13: 57
      +9
      Quote: bogart047
      and if you think about it, then just in the 39th Germany was the easiest to fill up with a couple of paddles. Although knowing them and the Anglo-Saxons ... still, I would have to do everything ourselves

      Watching than thinking. In addition to France, England there is the USA. We would have waited when we were hobbling to Berlin on the T-26, and there everyone would have piled on us together. They tried to get off during the Second World War, allies. In 39g. Japan has not entered the game yet.
      If one on one, then maybe there was a chance, but then it’s a matter to have against everyone.
    3. evgic
      evgic 14 August 2019 14: 28
      +3
      For good you can. But there was such a country, by a strange coincidence, there is now Poland. She refused to let in Soviet troops to defend Czechoslovakia, but France and Britain did not want to fight Germany, especially without an ally in the east (understandably, the Poles were not seriously considered as allies). In addition, the horrors of the Verdun and Somme fields made the war extremely unpopular, especially in France. And most importantly: the Führer wrote about the campaign for the lebensraum to the east, you see it will be possible to fight with the wrong hands, or even calm down destroying the USSR
    4. naidas
      naidas 14 August 2019 19: 51
      0
      Quote: bogart047
      about just in the 39th Germany was the easiest to fill up with a couple of paddles.

      This is when, until May 1940, the French and the British built airfields to bomb the Baku oil fields? By 1939, future allies stopped fulfilling orders from the USSR.
      1. Nycomed
        Nycomed 14 August 2019 20: 55
        -3
        And on what kind of aircraft, I hesitate to ask, until May 1940. Could the British and French fly from their territory to the Baku oil fields? Even one way. The types of these aircraft name.
        1. naidas
          naidas 14 August 2019 21: 15
          +1
          90-100 planes were supposed to be used for bombing Baku’s oil fields, it was planned to use Glen Martin American bombers and Blenheim British bombers. The strikes were to be carried out both day and night from various heights. As a result of such bombing, it was planned to destroy Baku in two weeks, Grozny in 12 days, and Batumi in one and a half days. British Air Force planes were supposed to take off from the city of Mosul (modern Iraq). Weigan even announced the exact time of the strike on the USSR, when the forces for the strike would be prepared: late June - early July 1940.
          1. Nycomed
            Nycomed 14 August 2019 21: 18
            -1
            Never tell this bullshit to anyone else. stop
  4. Avior
    Avior 14 August 2019 13: 54
    -4
    - The Third Reich forced the USSR to sign a non-aggression pact, wishing to secure its eastern flank and fearing a war on two fronts.

    What then began to wage war on two fronts?

    . the pact allowed the Soviet Union to gain time in preparation for war, strengthen the military industry and increase the strength of the Red Army, and the borders pushed to the west allowed the industry to be evacuated after the German attack.

    If Hitler really insisted on signing the pact, it turns out that he is a Soviet agent?
    He had to be in the know.
    . Germany’s intentions to ultimately start a war with the USSR.
    and he sought benefits for the USSR in the form of the opportunity to prepare for war?
    1. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 14 August 2019 14: 12
      +3
      he did not seek profit but a strategic advantage. When counting on a quick war, this could be a huge advantage. But it turned out.
      1. Avior
        Avior 14 August 2019 14: 46
        +6
        This is a question rather to the nameless author of the article, who quickly stuffed into it mutually exclusive statements from different sources, without reading about what he compiled.
    2. igorbrsv
      igorbrsv 14 August 2019 14: 43
      +3
      "The second front" (I'm talking about England) didn't really fight when the USSR was attacked. Maybe the Anglicans have a secret pact with Germany. For some reason they fought listlessly there. We waited until we gnaw each other
      1. Avior
        Avior 14 August 2019 15: 03
        +5
        Yes, as if we were just waiting for this, until Hitler attacked us, that they would gnaw at each other.
        But Hitler just did not want to fight England, the world offered them.
        . Maybe the Anglicans had their own secret pact with Germany.

        The war ended seventy-four years ago, I want to understand what and how it was, without any "can" in such global issues. And through "can" you can explain anything you want.
        hi
  5. georggy
    georggy 14 August 2019 14: 09
    +2
    A collection of declassified archival documents on the conclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was presented in Moscow.

    How long to.
    Already tired of this transfusion from empty to empty.
  6. Nycomed
    Nycomed 14 August 2019 14: 09
    +2
    And how do you like this scenario, gentlemen: in May 1940, when practically the entire Wehrmacht and the entire Luftwaffe were on the territory of Western Europe, Stalin would have taken and delivered a "stab in the back" from our part of Poland, across Germany. What day do you think we would be in Berlin on?
    1. To be or not to be
      To be or not to be 14 August 2019 14: 39
      +3
      1. Lord on this forum is nonsense. There are more comrades here. wink
      2. No need to thresher under the cutter .... negative
      3. Read the congresses and reports of Comrade And In Stalin's pre-war congresses Everything is said there openly and in plain language
      1. Nycomed
        Nycomed 14 August 2019 14: 44
        -1
        And can you also advise "a short course on the history of the CPSU (b)"? No, thank you, humble servant. hi
      2. Avior
        Avior 14 August 2019 15: 21
        +3
        But it’s not so simple.
        It seems that we were waiting for imperialist predators to gnaw each other's throats, but here in a speech at the fifth session of the USSR Supreme Council in 1939, not the last person in the USSR, Comrade Molotov, chairman of the Council of People's Commissars and the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, accused France and England of aggression against Germany - what can be attributed to this?
        . if we talk about the great powers of Europe, Germany is in the position of a state striving for an early end to the war and peace, while England and France, who yesterday advocated against aggression, stand for the continuation of the war and against the conclusion of peace.

        How is this consistent with
        1 Hitler did not want a war on two fronts
        2 England and France did not want to make peace with Hitler
        3 England and France incited Hitler to war with the USSR?
        1. Nycomed
          Nycomed 14 August 2019 15: 37
          +3
          To be honest, I shoveled a huge mass of literature on this topic, watched a large number of films, programs, all kinds of interviews and came to the conclusion: everyone was afraid of everyone, no one knew who to "bet" on. Hence all this: Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the flight of Hess. The fact that WWII was a continuation of WWII is unambiguous. The only one who behaved "correctly" and very carefully in this whole situation was General Franco. I can’t say that he won great, but he didn’t lose it for sure.
          1. Avior
            Avior 14 August 2019 15: 45
            +3
            So I am trying to find the most complicated processes of that time primitive explanations.
            As for Franco, that is, either true story, or the truth that after talking with him about the entry of Spain into the war, Hitler said that it would be better if he went to the dentist.
            Threat actually, I wrote about
            3 read the congresses .....
            1. Nycomed
              Nycomed 14 August 2019 16: 01
              -1
              And you go there too ... Congresses ... Maybe I should start selectively re-reading Old Man Krupsky from a new one? And then I have not opened a volume with his "imperishable" for forty years. And about the congresses ... I'd rather read the materials of the XX Congress of the CPSU, wink
              1. Avior
                Avior 14 August 2019 17: 17
                0
                I didn’t address that post if I got to you - sorry, I missed the smartphone
          2. Tuzik
            Tuzik 14 August 2019 20: 01
            0
            Quote: Nycomed
            To be honest, I shoveled a huge mass of literature on this topic, watched a large number of films, programs, all kinds of interviews and came to the conclusion: everyone was afraid of everyone, no one knew who to "bet" on. Hence all this: Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the flight of Hess ...


            And Roosevelt quietly led his game
            1. Nycomed
              Nycomed 14 August 2019 20: 43
              0
              And Roosevelt had only one task: to break the Congress and public opinion, which had nothing to do with what was happening in Europe. Roosevelt was a genius politician, he could look decades ahead, so he clearly understood that it would not be possible to sit out overseas, and the policy of isolationism, in the end, would lead to a new severe crisis, from which he had just pulled the States. And the fact that he played the game "quietly" is not yet on August 14, 1941. (when the States were not yet at war with anyone) drove a nail into the lid of the coffin of the British Empire and Churchill realized that this would be the price to pay for winning the war. And Roosevelt himself never doubted the victory over Germany for a second.
              1. Tuzik
                Tuzik 14 August 2019 21: 06
                +1
                Very similar to a thoughtful combination since the mid-thirties. Obviously he was not going to sit out, he wanted to throw the British off the world throne and climb into it himself.
                1. Nycomed
                  Nycomed 14 August 2019 21: 12
                  +1
                  In the mid-thirties, Roosevelt had completely different tasks, he needed to get his country out of the crisis, at that time, he did not even think about abandoning isolationism. And Britain in the mid-thirties felt quite confident.
                  1. Tuzik
                    Tuzik 14 August 2019 21: 15
                    0
                    Good chess players, it doesn’t interfere and defend well and think through combinations in advance
          3. To be or not to be
            To be or not to be 14 August 2019 22: 12
            0
            Nycomed Today, 14: 44

            And can you also advise "a short course on the history of the CPSU (b)"? No, thank you, humble servant. hi ""


            Then "My Struggle" by the famous author .. there are all plans .. for the future .. hi
            1. Nycomed
              Nycomed 15 August 2019 09: 44
              -1
              For me, both of these works are of the same order, albeit completely different. hi
              1. To be or not to be
                To be or not to be 15 August 2019 10: 07
                0
                don’t tell .. there are different isms ..
                1. Nycomed
                  Nycomed 15 August 2019 10: 25
                  -2
                  I agree, for example, masturbation has nothing to do with these "creations".
                  1. To be or not to be
                    To be or not to be 15 August 2019 10: 28
                    0
                    Don't tell. looking at the "civilized" power of the Western world you cannot say the same wink
                    Homo sits on a fagot and drives a fagot
    2. igorbrsv
      igorbrsv 14 August 2019 14: 45
      +1
      Well, the British may be counting on that.
      And then we would have a knife in the back
    3. Gato
      Gato 14 August 2019 15: 16
      +2
      Quote: Nycomed
      And how do you like this scenario, gentlemen: in May 1940, when practically the entire Wehrmacht and the entire Luftwaffe were on the territory of Western Europe, Stalin would have taken and delivered a "stab in the back" from our part of Poland, across Germany

      Bad script. A sudden blow would not have happened, because the main forces of the Wehrmacht are far away, and to Germany from "our Poland" it was necessary to pass "their Poland". Considering the capacity of German and European communications, a "meeting committee" would already be waiting on the German border. The transfer of aviation is generally a matter of hours.
      By the way, after a year the Red Army did not even succeed in defending itself. And the offensive is a much more complex type of warfare.
    4. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 14 August 2019 16: 08
      +1
      Quote: Nycomed
      And how do you like this scenario, gentlemen: in May 1940, when practically the entire Wehrmacht and the entire Luftwaffe were on the territory of Western Europe, Stalin would have taken and delivered a "stab in the back" from our part of Poland, across Germany. What day do you think we would be in Berlin on?
      Unknown But France would have survived.
      1. naidas
        naidas 14 August 2019 20: 09
        +1
        Quote: Krasnodar
        But France would have survived.

        hardly. There would be no stop order of Hitler.
        May 10, 1940 began. And on May 25, the General Commander of the French Armed Forces, General Weygand announced at a government meeting that the Germans should be asked for acceptance of surrender. On June 17, the French government turned to Germany for a ceasefire. On June 22, 1940, France surrendered to Germany.
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 14 August 2019 20: 22
          0
          If ours hit Poland in five days, a significant part of the troops would have to be delayed
          1. naidas
            naidas 14 August 2019 20: 25
            0
            Quote: Krasnodar
            If ours hit Poland in five days

            What hit? with BT-7, T-26 without experience tank attacks?
            1. Krasnodar
              Krasnodar 14 August 2019 20: 35
              0
              What Hitler had in the East would be demolished by the masses, and then they would be stopped by the German counterattacks of forces deployed from France
              1. naidas
                naidas 14 August 2019 21: 04
                +1
                Read the Guderian tanks ahead. He needs 8 days from Brest to Minsk. Ours could not show this level of war at 41 or 42, but in 1945 the Japanese were gone for a couple of weeks.
                the production of tanks in 1939 is almost the same. What will you throw into battle and how will you deliver supplies and fuel?
                By 1941, corrected in brackets. (Taking into account the attack in May 1939, minus 6 thousand tanks, as those built in 1939 after May, 1940,1941 two blocks)
                T-35 (76 mm gun, 2 guns 45 mm) - 59 pcs. (42 pcs.)
                T-28 (76 mm gun) - 442 pcs. (292 pcs.)
                BT-7M (45 mm gun) - 704 pcs. (688 pcs.)
                BT-7 (45 mm gun) - 4563 pcs. (3791 pcs.)
                BT-5 (45 mm gun) - 1688 pcs. (1261 pcs.)
                BT-2 (37mm gun) - 594 pcs. (492 pcs.)
                T-26 (45 mm gun) - 9998 pcs. (8423 pcs.)
                T-40 (2 machine guns 12,7 mm and 7,62 mm) - 160 pcs. (159 pcs.)
                T-38 (1 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 1129 pcs. (733 pcs.)
                T-37 (1 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 2331 pcs. (1483 pcs.)
                T-27 (1 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 2376 pcs. (1060 pcs.)
                Not a single fortress should be taken; German garrisons will have to be left behind.
                All fight not only with guns, but also anti-aircraft guns. (Well, except for the T-35).
                1. Krasnodar
                  Krasnodar 14 August 2019 21: 06
                  0
                  Read. )))
                  Once again - this would have served as a failure for the French company. Nothing good for ours in the 1940s would have promised.
                  1. naidas
                    naidas 14 August 2019 21: 35
                    0
                    Here you have a heap of the Field Charter of the Red Army (PU-39):
                    241. Offensive is the main type of battle, ensuring the destruction of the enemy and the achievement of complete victory.
                    An offensive battle consists in a decisive movement of the entire battle formation forward and is conducted by suppressing the enemy with all the power of fire, attacking the battle order of the enemy with all the force of the blow, overcoming his location to the full depth and destroying him on the battlefield.
                    244. A breakthrough of the front should have as its goal not extrusion, and the environment and destruction of enemy forces on the battlefield and the seizure of his material assets.
                    246. An offensive battle against a defending enemy must lead to a complete breakthrough of his battle formation to the entire tactical depth and end with environment and destruction.
                    264. Tanks are attached to divisions advancing in the direction of the main strike, and operate mainly as part of units of the strike group.
                    Tanks must directly support the infantry, make their way forward and accompany the entire depth of the offensive.Targeting infantry is especially important. Depending on it, the tanks will have to move forward, then go back or move to the side.
                    With such a charter, the Germans put an end to France and managed to war with the USSR.
                    Of particular interest is article 264 on the movement of tanks with infantry speed and sometimes backwards in case of detection of the enemy.
                    1. Krasnodar
                      Krasnodar 14 August 2019 21: 38
                      +1
                      I do not argue with you that nothing good would come of this for the Red Army, however, the Germans would have to transfer troops from France to stop the Soviet offensive and the Gauls would not surrender))
                2. To be or not to be
                  To be or not to be 15 August 2019 10: 12
                  0
                  "T-35 (76 mm gun, 2 guns 45 mm) - 59 pcs. (42 pcs.)"
                  Excuse me, comrades strategists. As the colonel said at the department of tactics - “They think condoms are things! hi
    5. naidas
      naidas 14 August 2019 20: 03
      +1
      Quote: Nycomed
      What do you think, on which day would we be in Berlin?

      with BT-7, T-26 without experience tank attacks?
      1. Nycomed
        Nycomed 14 August 2019 20: 49
        0
        And Guderian and Manstein gained this experience precisely in the French company, Poland does not count here. As for the tanks themselves, the Germans had the vast majority of tanks, at that time, not better, or even worse than the BT and T-26.
        1. naidas
          naidas 14 August 2019 21: 20
          0
          Quote: Nycomed
          And Guderian and Manstein gained this experience precisely in the French company,
          One of the first attempts to conduct a blitzkrieg was made by German troops during the First World War on the Western Front. The first blitzkrieg in practice was successfully carried out by German military strategists (Manstein, Kleist, Guderian, Rundstedt and others) at the beginning of World War II during the capture of Poland.
          I think you will have no difficulty indicating the date when ours began to use blitzkrieg tactics.
  7. To be or not to be
    To be or not to be 14 August 2019 14: 11
    +6
    There were earlier Birdies and they were Polish as always

    January 26, 1934. “Declaration on the non-use of force between Germany and Poland” (Polish Deklaracja między Polską a Niemcami o niestosowaniu przemocy) (also called the Non-aggression Treaty between Germany and Poland, Pilsudski-Hitler Pact)
    June 15, 1934, 5 months after the signing of the Non-aggression Treaty between Germany and Poland, German Ambassador Hans-Adolf von Moltke, Polish Minister of War Jozef Pilsudski, German Minister of Propaganda Josef Goebbels and Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck at a meeting in Warsaw

    . "" According to the agent of Soviet intelligence, the German-Polish alliance is based on the following basic provisions:
    1) the liquidation by Germany of the Rapallo Treaty of the USSR;
    2) Germany’s commitment not to raise the issue of revising its eastern borders at the expense of Poland, “vol. e. at the expense of the Corridor, Danzig and Upper Silesia, otherwise only by peaceful means - through a voluntary bilateral agreement ”;
    3) Poland "according to the meaning of this addition, a year ago ago broke the Franco-Polish Union, since this clause in the Polish-German protocol is not only a gentleman’s agreement of Hitler - Pilsudski, it is already an obligation between states."
    https://history.wikireading.ru/193276
    And all this in the presence of a non-aggression agreement of 1932 between Poland and the USSR
    1. Pedrodepackes
      Pedrodepackes 14 August 2019 14: 25
      +1
      Quote: To be or not to be
      And all this in the presence of a non-aggression agreement of 1932 between Poland and the USSR

      and what is surprising if this "hyena of Europe" threw her closest ally
      Quote: To be or not to be
      Poland “according to the meaning of this addition, a year ago ago broke the Franco-Polish Union
      Previously, everyone sensed that Germany was ready to break Europe, so Pilsudski hoped for scraps from the master's table (parts of territories from European states). But it did not happen ...
  8. Shuttle
    Shuttle 14 August 2019 14: 56
    +6
    having received the Baltic states, western Belarus and Ukraine, as well as Bessarabia.

    Both Belarus and Ukraine, the USSR did not receive for itself, but returned his taken away he has territory as a result of the Soviet-Polish war.
    On 17 of September 1939 of the year, with the outbreak of World War II, the Soviet Union sent troops into the territory of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus. The state border of the USSR, established in the 1939 year, as a whole passed along the “Curzon line”, deviating significantly west only in the region of Bialystok.
  9. Doctorleg
    Doctorleg 14 August 2019 15: 14
    0
    Honestly, it is not clear how the Pact could push the war back. According to him, Hitler did not attach any importance to him and broke it when it became profitable for him. In 1939 - it was not profitable. But the pact helped Hitler himself - he was not afraid of a blow from the USSR, when he began to fight with France, England and other Holland. Rather, the war was pushed back by the stubborn resistance of England and its unwillingness to conclude peace with Germany.
    1. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 14 August 2019 16: 06
      0
      Hitler was not sure of a quick victory over France
    2. naidas
      naidas 14 August 2019 20: 12
      +1
      Quote: DoctorOleg
      Rather, the stubborn resistance of England pushed back the war.

      I wonder how much she pushed back ?: May 10, 1940 the Germans started a war with France, and in June 1941 with the USSR. Given the transfer, preparation and selection of the warm season for the war with the USSR.
      1. Gato
        Gato 14 August 2019 22: 51
        0
        I wonder how much pushed back?

        No matter how much. What resistance? British exp the corps fled to the islands with virtually no pants. The air battle for Britain ended at the end of October 1940. Hitler had time, and if someone detained him, it was the Yugoslavs and, to a lesser extent, Greeks (or rather Italians, who traditionally robbed the Lyuli and asked for help).
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 14 August 2019 23: 05
          0
          Quote: Gato
          I wonder how much pushed back?

          No matter how much. What resistance? British exp the corps fled to the islands with virtually no pants. The air battle for Britain ended at the end of October 1940. Hitler had time, and if someone detained him, it was the Yugoslavs and, to a lesser extent, Greeks (or rather Italians, who traditionally robbed the Lyuli and asked for help).

          Yugoslavs detained? Yugoslavia surrendered in a week as a bele. The war began on April 7th ...

          in accordance with the plans of the German command, Belgrade was supposed to occupy the advancing units of the Great Germany motorized regiment on April 13, 1941, but they were ahead of the motorcycle company from the reconnaissance battalion of the 2nd motorized SS division Reich (whose commander Fritz Klingenberg, SS Hauptsturmfuhrer decided to move to Belgrade not by road, but by a railway, which turned out to be unguarded). On the evening of April 12, 1941, a reconnaissance patrol under his command (consisting of 10 servicemen) arrived at the German embassy in Belgrade. From the embassy staff, Klingenberg learned that the city was not prepared for defense, and the Yugoslav troops had not yet entered the capital, and their arrival was expected in a few hours. After that, he went to the central square of the city, declared himself a parliamentarian and, on behalf of the command of the German troops surrounding Belgrade, demanded that the city authorities surrender the city. If he failed to comply with his requirements within 20 minutes, he threatened to call bombers on the radio to completely wipe the city off the face of the earth. Having no information about what was happening, the mayor announced that Belgrade was surrendering and officially, in the presence of an employee of the German embassy, ​​handed over the keys to the city to the German soldiers who had occupied the town hall, although the German troops were still at a distance of 10 kilometers from the city. On April 13, 1941, the main forces of German troops entered Belgrade and occupied the city without a fight.
          1. Gato
            Gato 14 August 2019 23: 19
            +1
            And it doesn’t matter anymore. Because in Yugoslavia, it all ended only at the end of April; Hitler no longer had time to attack the USSR in May. And one and a half to two months of autumn would be very useful to Hitler near Moscow. In addition, in Yugoslavia, the Germans left parts of the XII army and some other appendicitis. I don’t know if they played any piano on the Eastern Front, but they didn’t get bored even in Yugoslavia.
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 14 August 2019 23: 24
              0
              During the campaign, German troops lost 151 troops killed, 14 missing, 392 wounded [

              During the hostilities, German troops captured 225,5 thousand Yugoslav troops, after surrender, the total number of surrendered, captured and surrendered to the Germans Yugoslav troops increased to 345 thousand. Another 30 thousand Yugoslav troops were captured by Italian troops, As a result, the total number of Yugoslav troops captured was 375 thousand.

              It’s not a very heroic picture ... but about the attacks in May, leave this to Agitprop
      2. Doctorleg
        Doctorleg 15 August 2019 11: 26
        0
        Well, for a year and delayed - on May 10 he could attack the USSR, but had to attack France
  10. Doctorleg
    Doctorleg 14 August 2019 15: 19
    +3
    Quote: To be or not to be
    1. Lord on this forum is nonsense. There are more comrades here. wink
    2. No need to thresher under the cutter .... negative
    3. Read the congresses and reports of Comrade And In Stalin's pre-war congresses Everything is said there openly and in plain language

    And why did they take up arms against Rezun in this particular issue? Germany was an aggressor, on its territory there were already concentration camps where Jews were exterminated. What is the crime? Those. until we were attacked - the Hitler regime can be tolerated, but how it attacked, it became "bestial" ?.
  11. Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 14 August 2019 16: 05
    +1
    Documents were presented in Moscow proving that the initiatives to conclude the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact came from Hitler Germany, and not from the Soviet Union, as the West is trying to imagine
    Moreover, in 1940 Ribbentrop suggested Molotov enter the Axis countries, along with Italy, Japan and others. Soon we will defeat the exhausted WB, the Reich Minister in Berlin said, and suggested continuing the conversation in the bomb shelter because of a British air raid. “Then why then are we talking about it here?” - asked him Molotov after the descent into the shelter)).
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar 14 August 2019 17: 43
        0
        Yes, it’s clear that it wasn’t a raid)).
  12. Rwmos
    Rwmos 14 August 2019 16: 18
    0
    USSR victory - because The pact was concluded at the moment when Japan was raking in the Far East from the USSR and was expecting help from Germany - they regarded it as a betrayal, which destroyed the axis. and why in December Japan attacked not the Far East of the USSR, but the USA wink
    In fact, the pact ensured victory - had Japan attacked the Far East and without Siberian divisions near Moscow, it would have been sour
  13. gregor6549
    gregor6549 14 August 2019 16: 27
    0
    From the article.

    According to Naryshkin, the Third Reich forced the USSR to sign a non-aggression pact, wanting to secure its eastern flank and fearing a war on two fronts. At the same time, the Soviet Union was aware of the real goals of Western countries, counting on the pacification of Hitler, as well as Germany’s intentions to ultimately start a war with the USSR.

    "Not wanting to wage a war on two fronts, Germany made unprecedented concessions to guarantee Soviet neutrality in the Polish campaign. Of course, the leadership of our country did not believe in a lasting peace with the aggressor, but in this way it got a respite to prepare for war."

    In reality, it was not the Third Reich that forced the USSR to sign the pact, but the USSR created the conditions under which Hitler had no choice but to sign such a pact. At the same time, Hitler was in such a hurry that the draft Pact was drafted by Ribbentrop right on the plane on the way to Moscow.

    Again from the article

    "The non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR was signed on August 23, 1939 in Moscow. At the same time, a secret protocol was signed delimiting the spheres of interests of the Soviet Union and Germany. According to it, the USSR significantly pushed its borders westward, having received the Baltic states, western Belarus and Ukraine. , as well as Bessarabia "

    Why is Finland not mentioned? She, in accordance with the Covenant, after all, also departed to the sphere of influence of the USSR. (True, Stalin’s idea did not succeed in Finland in the volume that was planned and subsequently led to the fact that Finland acted on the side of Hitler in the Great Patriotic War, although it didn’t really want to. Moreover, it came out after the sudden bombing of Finland’s cities with Soviet aircraft in the very first days of the war )
    Moreover, with this Pact, Stalin pledged to support Hitler in his war against Poland, but when Germany attacked Poland, he delayed the Kr Army's offensive on Poland (i.e. Western Ukraine and Western Belarus) for about a week, thereby protecting itself from possible world accusations public in aggression against Poland.
    The same Pact, in fact, led to the establishment of common borders and the destruction of the buffer zone between the USSR and Germany, which subsequently played a more than fatal role in the terrifying defeat of the personnel of the KR Army in the very first days and weeks of the Great Patriotic War.
    Moreover, the non-compliance of the USSR with the terms of the Covenant, and, in particular, the seizure of territories that were not within the scope of the Covenant and from which it was easy to reach Romanian oil sources, prompted Hitler to begin developing Barbaross’s plan for a war with the USSR before the war with Britain ended, although Hitler , repeatedly stated that he would never allow wanted a war on two fronts.

    So the Pact, contrary to the opinion of many historians, did not bring any benefit to the USSR, but created problems for the USSR. Moreover, such that they had to be dismantled at the cost of millions of lives of citizens of the USSR.
    1. Rwmos
      Rwmos 14 August 2019 17: 40
      +2
      And when did the German divisions deploy 4 in Finland? Before the war and the mythical unprovoked bombing?

      June 41 th ...
      Was Finland mentioned in Barbarossa's plan? Yes, it may not be, she only wanted to fight after the "bombing"! And even registration points in the SS in Finland? And Nordost and Viking are a myth, as well as
      15 June 1941 all Finnish troops north of the line Oulu - Oulujärvi - Miinoa were subordinated to the German command
      1. Doctorleg
        Doctorleg 14 August 2019 20: 17
        -1
        Honestly, I don’t know where the German divisions stood there. But in 1939, the Finns had good relations with England, and not with Germany, since England tried to intercede for it. But in 1941, everything changed. And you can understand them - they wanted to return, what the USSR selected according to the results of 1939-40. You justify the fact that in 1939 the USSR took its own in Poland?
        1. Rwmos
          Rwmos 14 August 2019 20: 25
          0
          In the 39th, and Poland was on good terms with England, which did not prevent her from being in great - with Germany and sawing Czechoslovakia. Moreover, one of the reasons for the "strange war" is called the desire to turn Hitler against the USSR, so that Finland very much fits into this outline ...
          Anyway:
          Since the 1936 of the year, the head of German military intelligence V. Canaris, his assistants - the head of the Abwehr-I department, Hans Pickenbrock and the head of the Abwehr-III department Franz Eckart von Bentiveni, met repeatedly in Finland and Germany with the head of Finnish intelligence, Colonel Svenson and his successor, Colonel Melander, during which the parties exchanged military information about the USSR (in particular, the Leningrad Military District, the Baltic Fleet) [1]. Even before the start of World War II, the exchange of information about the USSR and the armed forces of the USSR between Finland and the Third Reich was regular

          This is before the Finnish war.
          1. Doctorleg
            Doctorleg 14 August 2019 20: 38
            0
            The fact that Poland and Germany drank the Czech Republic did not go against the policy of England - it also gave the green light to this in Munich. By the way, under what pretext? Also the return of native Polish lands ?.
            Well, about the visits - so to us and we went to them. And the military too.
            But the fact is the fact - it was England, and not Germany, who was ready to support Finland in 39-40. And why then Finland entered into an alliance with Germany ...
            1. Rwmos
              Rwmos 14 August 2019 20: 42
              +1
              Because she did not want an occupation, like Poland — so that England would throw them. It is clear that since you have Germans in Norway and in Karelia. having attacked the USSR - the Germans ... they will come to visit you without any options - purely to improve logistics, Finland has no options there, even if you do not take into account what the dates of the Nazis were. Anyway, the Germans still helped the white finns in the Civilian military force - it was the Germans who occupied Helsinki, knocking out the Red Finns ...
              The question is, why did they stick to the naglia. Type affectionate body of two queens sucks?
      2. Tuzik
        Tuzik 14 August 2019 20: 23
        0
        Thank you for the map and interesting comment, and I have a couple of questions for you: From which document is this quote? And is there in it or in some other date about the offensive of the Finnish troops?
        1. Rwmos
          Rwmos 14 August 2019 20: 28
          0
          And I didn’t even bother - pedivikia))) The Finns never hid cooperation with the Germans ever ...
          1. Tuzik
            Tuzik 14 August 2019 20: 48
            +1
            It would be interesting to read a document (dated before June 23) with a date on the offensive of the Finnish troops. And so it can be assumed about Manerheim graters with OKH, which in the latter was often.
            1. Rwmos
              Rwmos 14 August 2019 21: 01
              0
              It seems like that ... After all, it was logical at once, to give 22 to Leningrad - they could have captured with that mess. And so - three days is a lot, officially something like from the 25-th Finland in the war?
              But there’s one thing that’s not going on - that the 15 of all Finns was subordinated to the German command ... (Finland // Soviet Historical Encyclopedia / redkoll., Ch. Ed. E. M. Zhukov. - M.: State Scientific Publishing House "Soviet Encyclopedia ", 1974. - T. 15. - S. 157 – 185)
  14. Kolbi
    Kolbi 14 August 2019 16: 35
    +1
    As if his pseudo liberals did not find fault, but it was an attempt to stop the war or at least postpone it ..
    And how the Anglo-Saxons "negotiated" with the Nazis, here was the clever incitement of the World War ..
    Entire countries surrendered to the Nazis, just to set them against the USSR.!
    1. Doctorleg
      Doctorleg 14 August 2019 20: 20
      0
      Namely, to incite September 3, 1939, they declared war on Germany. This is very encouraging to go to the East when you have declared war in the West. It was she on earth that was strange, and on the sea she was quite hot. And still take off divisions from the borders of France when the war?
  15. APASUS
    APASUS 14 August 2019 16: 38
    0
    This event will take place quietly, as well as hundreds of significant events. Such political documents should always be used as an argument in future politics. It is necessary to cover the mouth of such partners with some partners, from the same Poland or the Baltic states, but alas ........ .............
  16. yehat
    yehat 14 August 2019 16: 39
    0
    The documents presented in the collection confirm that the Soviet Union was forced to sign this agreement in order to ensure its security.

    but here I don’t understand
    before the attack on Poland, the Wehrmacht did not have the forces sufficient to attack and defeat the USSR
    Poland also did not have
    Other countries that wished for aggression, such as England, did not have such forces.
    The USSR was threatened only by a united Europe. And the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact just contributed to this.
    So did this pact provide real security?
  17. Doctor
    Doctor 14 August 2019 17: 20
    +1
    They threw firewood into a dying bonfire. Right now it starts ...
  18. syndicalist
    syndicalist 14 August 2019 18: 34
    -2
    So was there a secret protocol or not?
  19. gregor6549
    gregor6549 15 August 2019 15: 53
    0
    And the question is not in Finland. She, in the Covenant, although hurt, did not play a decisive role.